12 reasons why hell is not eternal couscious torment - Part One

[Drew]

Another frequent objection to the eternality of hell by annihilationists is that it would be unjust for God to punish unbelievers in hell for eternity for a finite amount of sin. How could it be fair for God to take a person who lived a sinful, 70-year life, and punish him/her for all of eternity? The answer is that our sin bears an eternal consequence because it is committed against an eternal God.

I don't see why the fact that God is eternal means that our sin requires eternal punishment. What is the underlying argument here - as it stands this writer is simply making an undefended assertion. Even so, the annihilist position does entail an "eternal" consequence - the lost are indeed lost forever.

 

[Drew]

Here is a quote from R.F. Weymouth who produced one of the earliest modern language translations of the New Testament:

My mind fails to conceive a grosser misrepresentation of language than when five or six of the strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying to destroy or destruction, are explained to mean `maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence.' To translate black as white is nothing to this.

 

[FreeGrace]

Are you prepared to make the case to support this statement?

Of course. But, please tell me what Jesus is SAVING from, if NOT the LoF.

I would point out that just because there are statements to the effect that Jesus does us save us from something, this does make it the central emphasis. I suggest that I will be able to show that Jesus spoke much more about other things - not least the fact that the Kingdom of God has arrived - than He did about eternal destinies.

Why haven't you laid out these "other things" that you hint at?

While we may very understandably be concerned with eternal destinies, I suggest that both the gospel writers and Paul were not centrally concerned with this issue.

I reject your suggestion. Please explain what the slave girl meant in Acts 16 when she followed Paul and shouted that he was a servant of the Most High God telling the way to be saved? And just what do you "suggest" that the jailer wanted to be saved from?

 

[FreeGrace]

Ok, what does Romans 6:23 say? Does it not say that the wages of sin is death? On what grounds do you justify taking the concept of death and transforming it into a concept of conscious existence in eternal torment? In what other context do people use the concept of death to denote a state of full conscious (living) existence?

I am all for "sticking with what Scripture says".

One must be able to discern the different kinds of "death" as noted in Scripture. For example, Heb 11:12 says that Moses was "as good as dead". What was the context? Impotence. Scripture also uses the word "dead" to refer to loss of fellowship of a believer due to sinful lifestyle. 1 Tim 5:6.

It was Adam who earned death, which is spiritual death. Remember what God said to him: in the DAY that you eat of it you will die. Did Adam fall physically dead? No. What died that day was his human spirit, which Jesus told the Samaritan woman is needed in order to worship God (Jn 4:24).

What does it mean to be REgenerated, or born AGAIN, if not referring to the dead human spirit (spiritual death) being REborn.

 

[FreeGrace]

My point is that if Jesus paid the price for sin (all the stuff you just said) then he'd have to experience that, including the LoF.

I disagree with your point. Jesus suffered separation from the Father, as clearly noted by His question: My God, My God, why have you FORSAKEN Me? That's when He paid for man's sins. Not after He physically died and went to Hades.

Jesus paid the price for sin so that men may have eternal life -- an exchange. You say that men don't go to hell for their sins. Then what are they there for?

I told you. For not receiving the free gift of eternal life. It's available to everyone. Without which, no one can live with God eternally. In fact it QUALIFIES one to live with God. Col 1:12 - giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light. NASB

After all, eternal life is contingent on being forgiven of sin. Or to put it another way, spiritual death, as you say, being separation from God is because of sin. If Christ's death atoned for all sins, then all men are forgiven.

Acts 10:43 says differently. We are forgiven on the basis of faith in Christ. Not His death. His death propitiated the Father. That's the basis for grace towards mankind, and the reconciliation that Paul spoke of in 2 Cor 5:14-20.

Only those who reject life are dead. And why are they dead? Because of sin.

Your'e still misunderstanding what "dead" means here. Not physically, but spiritually. They are separated from God.

Therefore it's superfluous to add another reason to go to the LoF (i.e. "only other place to go") when the sin was the originating culprit.

Sin isn't the issue. The Lamb of God took away the sin of the world. Jn 1:29

The issue I see here is your redefining what "death" means to fit a certain theology IMO.

Discernment is required to understand the various uses of "death" in Scripture. You seem to be stuck on just one meaning.

 

[FreeGrace]

While the unbeliever will indeed be judged -as will we all (Romans 2) - they will ultimately be annihilated. Even though I think the Bible indeed teaches this more or less explicitly (e.g. the wages of sin is death, the soul that sins will dies, etc.), I think it is otherwise self-contradictory to affirm belief in a loving merciful God who also sentences people to an eternity of torment.

Your view removes any fear of physical death. There would be no consequences or accountability if one simply ceases to exist. Scripture NEVER teaches that.

 

[FreeGrace]

I already have - Romans 6:23. I take "death" to mean death. The very sense this word generally carries is that of "end of existence".

That is merely your opinion. Even unbelievers understand the concept of the soul separating from the body. James noted it in James 2:26. People refer to those who have died as having "passed away". Their body is present, but THEY have passed away. Or "dearly departed". Your view is (incorrect), imho. (Edited, ToS 2.4, personal insult. Obadiah)

Heb 11 speaks of Moses being "as good as dead" in reference to his inability to father children, widows who "are dead while they live" in 1 Tim 5. That's just 2 examples of the use of "dead" in different meanings. There is also physical death and spiritual death.

It is you, apparently, who think that Paul is essentially reworking the concept "death" here to include eternal conscious existence. Please (I believe I have you to do this several times) explain your justification for such a seemingly radical redefinition of the concept of death.

Paul did no such thing. Jesus spoke of "everlasting fire" in Matt 25, and John spoke of 'torment for ever and ever" for those in the LoF. Passages which you must reject to (support) your view. (Edited, Obadiah)

 

[FreeGrace]

Drew has given what he thinks is Scripture that confirms annihilation.Can anyone debate what he has said in opposition to annihilation?Can you give Scripture to support that the Bible does not say a person is annihilated when they die?

Post 187

 

[FreeGrace]

No, I believe there will be some sort of chastisement, but the fear-driven idea of twenty thousand, billion years of burning torture just never did match up with the God who died for me.

So Scripture doesn't exactly "match up" with God who directed it???

Matt 25:41, Rev 20:10 are very clear verses about the eternality of LoF.

 

[FreeGrace]

I would expect you, however, to answer my question to you about your post. Did Jesus command us to fear a metaphorical eternal misery of the soul or did He make an idle threat of destroying the soul or did He command fear of an idle threat of metaphorical eternal misery of the soul? I need to know.

Neither. There is no 'metaphorical eternal misery'. There will be a real and eternal misery for unbelievers. And while certainly is able to destroy souls, there is NO evidence in Scripture that He ever has or will. I'm still waiting for evidence for your position.

Matthew 10:28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul, but instead be afraid of the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

This isn't evidence of God actually doing it.

if you will not answer the above question then how about this one: Once a person is given Eternal Life, can that person lose their Eternal Life?

No. If that were possible, then the word "eternal" means nothing.

Also, Scripture would have been clear about that, if one could lose eternal life.

 

[FreeGrace]

I don't see why the fact that God is eternal means that our sin requires eternal punishment.

It doesn't. Christ paid for all sin. Sin is NOT the issue regarding one's eternal destiny. The only issue is whether one HAS or doesn't have eternal life.

 

[chessman]

Neither. There is no 'metaphorical eternal misery'.

Then you don't agree with Thayer's 'definition' 1e for destroy in Matt 10:28. Those are his words.
Me either. That was my main point and question to you. I appreciate your answer. With a metaphorical eternal misery off the table we can work thru the "idle threat" take on the verse.

I asked: "Once a person is given Eternal Life, can that person lose their Eternal Life?"

No. If that were possible, then the word "eternal" means nothing.

Also, Scripture would have been clear about that, if one could lose eternal life.

I agree and greatly appreciated your Eternal Life thread. I think you are spot on correct and made an excellent case there. However, if Eternal Life has a literal meaning, then so does "destroy" or for that matter "Second Death".

Here's why I originally asked you the Eternal Life question at the risk of it seeming off-topic to this thread:

Another one (the next one) of Thayer's 'definitions' and referenced verses thereof for apollumi is:

Romans 14:15 ... Do not destroy by your food that person for whom Christ died.
​

His 'definition' for "destroy" here reads:
Do not cause another to lose eternal salvation by your food....

How do you like his Greek scholarship now? That definition appears just below his 'metaphorical eternal misery' definition for apollomi in Matt 10:28 and just above this one:

John 6:39 Now this is the will of the one who sent me: that everyone whom he has given me, I would not lose any of them, but raise them up on the last day.
​

Here's his 'definition' for appolumi in this verse:
I would
lose metaphorically, anyone of (whom the Father has drawn to discipleship) if such a one becomes wicked and fails of salvation
any of them, but raise them up on the last day.

Huh???? He literally removes the not in the verse and brings in his metaphorical 'definition' and inserts a lot of other words too.

No wonder it took him 20 years to write his 'lexicon'. He had to think up a lot of novel 'definitions' for a lot of words. Those are NOT definitions, they are his personal interpretations is my point.

And while certainly is able to destroy souls, there is NO evidence in Scripture that He ever has or will.

(This does not address the issue.) (Edited, Obadiah) I used to think the same thing about this verse. (Edited, disingenuous. "Wondering out loud" about another's theology does not result in you typing it in this forum. Obadiah) The verse says much more than God is able to destroy the body/soul:

1. It says fear that He is able to do that. Which is why I feel justified in calling it a threat. And used to think, like you, it was just an attribute of God that He never demonstrates.

2. Also I notice that He says man is able to kill the body (and men did kill these disciples) later. The verse comes in the middle (read the context) of a literal prophecy about what these disciples would be facing in the future. Literally, not metaphorically. "Killing" by men that hated their message about Christ. So why then command them to fear something that is not literally possible in the future?

3. Jesus then uses the stronger word "destroy" to describe God's greater and more fearful abilities.

4. Why add "in Hell" to His statement if Jesus was simply stating an attribute of God?

5. (There's more but I'll stop with those 4 points, since it's Classic Rider 's 12 point thread)

I'm still waiting for evidence for your position.

Which of the 12 points do you disagree with?

As for me, I am aware we are talking about future (last things) events. And God has not yet actualized His ability to destroy the body/soul of the lost in Hell just yet. And I'm personally not dogmatic about what He will do with the lost in the future, either. I've spent the vast majority of my life believing and being taught ECT. But I'm also not ignorant of the fact that there is only one verse in the entire Bible that talks of Eternal Torture in Hell and it's not even talking about humans but rather The Devil and his angels. The rest; "death", "destruction", "destroying", "consuming", etc.

But speaking of being dogmatic about the future fates of the lost (as compared to that of the saved), please look again at James 4:12:

James 4:12 There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. ​

Hmm? Concerning the ability of God not being actually evidenced yet (just that He's able to do something) toward the lost you said:

"And while certainly [God] is able to destroy souls, there is NO evidence in Scripture that He ever has or will. "

James 4:12 says the same thing as Matt 10:28 does (minus the fear and Hell part),

God's able to ______

So how about applying your view toward God's abilities to the saved's fate in the same way you have to the lost's?

[God] "who is able to save"

And while certainly [God] is able to save souls, there is NO evidence in Scripture that He ever has or will.

Doesn't sound right does it? Because it's not right.
But it's the same principle you are applying to avoid the obvious implications of Matt 10:28 for the lost's fate. The; 'it doesn't say He will' take. Which is technically accurate, same as it is for the saved's fate.

Anyway. Thanks for answering my questions.

 

[chessman]

One must be able to discern the different kinds of "death" as noted in Scripture. For example, Heb 11:12 says that Moses was "as good as dead".

It's not difficult nor really "discernment" when the Scripture says "as good AS dead". Dead means dead. "As good as" means like or compared to metaphorically. That was my point about Thayer's defining the word "destroy" as if the Scripture in Matt 10:28 said 'God is able to make souls as good as destroyed'. If it said that, there would be justification for a metaphorical view. But it doesn't.

 

[JLB]

Here is a quote from R.F. Weymouth who produced one of the earliest modern language translations of the New Testament:

My mind fails to conceive a grosser misrepresentation of language than when five or six of the strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying to destroy or destruction, are explained to mean `maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence.' To translate black as white is nothing to this.

To claim that forever and ever is somehow a temporary condition, that somehow ceases rather than continuing without end, is (in my opinion a) (Edited, Obadiah) misrepresentation of God's word (Edited, ToS 2.4, "Respect where people are in their spiritual walk..." Obadiah)


(Removed. Let's not use scripture to make personal threats. ToS 2.4, questioning a member's salvation. Obadiah)


The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Revelation 20:10


JLB

 

[JLB]

Chessman said -

Then you don't agree with Thayer's 'definition' 1e for destroy in Matt 10:28. Those are his words.

The destruction continues forever.

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Matthew 25:41,46

These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed. 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10


everlasting destruction = destruction that continues without end.

Chessman said -

I asked: "Once a person is given Eternal Life, can that person lose their Eternal Life?"

Believe for a while = saved for a while. Luke 8:13

When a person ceases to continue to believe in Christ for salvation, then the "substance of the thing hoped for' [eternal life] ceases as well.

Faith is the substance... of the thing you are hoping for.

No faith, no substance.

No substance, no salvation.




JLB




JLB

 

[tim-from-pa]

(Removed, response to deleted portion of a post. Obadiah)

 

[Drew]

Of course. But, please tell me what Jesus is SAVING from, if NOT the LoF.

Jesus is saving us from the lake of fire, but those cast into the lake are annihilated, not preserved in a state of torment forever]

Why haven't you laid out these "other things" that you hint at?

Simply a matter of time - I plan to lay out my whole case if time permits. For example, Jesus devoted many more words to preaching about the kingdom of God breaking in here on earth than He did talking about eternal destinies.

I reject your suggestion. Please explain what the slave girl meant in Acts 16 when she followed Paul and shouted that he was a servant of the Most High God telling the way to be saved? And just what do you "suggest" that the jailer wanted to be saved from?

Not the point. I have never claimed that Jesus or Paul were not interested in issues of "salvation", it was simply not the primary focus of either of them. For example, Paul dedicates much more ink to the issue of the unity of the church than he does to the matter of final destiny.

 

[chessman]

The destruction continues forever.

JLB

I know. That's my point. Then why do people say The conscious torment continues forever. It's a re-definition of the word "destruction" or "destroy" into the word torture or misery. Done so without Biblical justification. Which is exactly what Thayer did by his 'definition' 1e of appolumi = metaphorical misery.

everlasting destruction = destruction that continues without end.

JLB

i know. It's destruction that lasting forever without end, not their conscious torture/misery.
It's not my view that they ever become un-destroyed. Nor can they be purged from their destruction. But I know people that developed the idea that some can be purged of everlasting misery precisely because they re-defined everlasting destruction into purgatory.

 

[Drew]

(Removed. Response to deleted portion of a post. Obadiah.)

 

[JLB]

I know. That's my point. Then why do people say The conscious torment continues forever. It's a re-definition of the word "destruction" or "destroy" into the word torture or misery. Done so without Biblical justification. Which is exactly what Thayer did by his 'definition' 1e of appolumi = metaphorical misery.

i know. It's destruction that lasting forever without end, not their conscious torture/misery.
It's not my view that they ever become un-destroyed. Nor can they be purged from their destruction. But I know people that developed the idea that some can be purged of everlasting misery precisely because they re-defined everlasting destruction into purgatory.

These who have been cast into the lake of fire, continue to be destroyed forever and ever.

The destroying process continues without end, and those who are being destroyed are tormented by this day and night without rest.


JLB