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

[Just a servant]

This is all most interesting.
I have a question.
Matthew 26:24;
"But woe to the man that betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born".

What is the difference between never being born than dying and being totally separated from God for all eternity?

This doesn't seem like fun to me:

Acts 1:18

I am not claiming either way with regards to the topic, but I do think that is what that passage is talking about.

 

[FreeGrace]

Do you have Scripture for that?I would like to see it.There are to Judgments were these words of Jesus meant for the Bema Seat believers judgment or the Great White Throne non believers Judgment?

Yes, I do. Matt 10:15, 11:22, 24, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12,14. In those contexts, it seems clear that Jesus was speaking of the GWT judgment, not the Bema.

 

[FreeGrace]

So the lost will be able to pay for their sins in hell by being punished a certain amount? In John 3:16 it says "for the wages of sin is death". That verse does not seem to say that one can pay for their sins by a certain amount of punishment followed by annihilation.

Let's recall the words of John the baptist: "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world". No one will pay for their own sin. That's what Christ did on the cross.

So, why does anyone end up in the LoF? They didn't receive eternal life. Rev 20:15

 

[jeff77]

Let's recall the words of John the baptist: "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world". No one will pay for their own sin. That's what Christ did on the cross.

So, why does anyone end up in the LoF? They didn't receive eternal life. Rev 20:15

That's the way I see it, that no one can pay for their sins, even the lost in the LoF.

 

[Classic Rider]

Here is the verse: And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

the verse does NOT say that God will or does destroy the soul.

Second, consider the Greek word for "destroy"
apollumi

1) to destroy
1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
1b) render useless
1c) to kill
1d) to declare that one must be put to death
1e) metaphorically to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell ****************
1f) to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2) to destroy
2a) to lose

How would one demonstrate that "1e" isn't what Matt meant?

So Free Grace says that the dictionary says that one possible meaning of destroy is to suffer in hell...
Well actually this in an example of circular reasoning. First Jesus said to fear God who can destroy the body and soul in hell. Then during the next two thousand years many Christians took that to mean that even though it is in a literal passage of scripture we should take it metaphorically to mean " give over to eternal misery in hell." Then when the dictionaries were written the writers of the dictionaries saw that some Christians were using the word destroy to mean a metaphorical destruction and so they included that as one possible definition even though it is way way down the list. Then "Free Grace" quotes that position of 1e to prove that destroy should be taken metaphorically. This is circular reasoning... It goes like this 1. Jesus says destroy. 2. Those in later generations say destroy is metaphorical. 3. Writers of Dictionaries notice that and so they include it as a meaning. 4. Free Grace quotes it to prove that Jesus meant Metaphorical. Back when Jesus told the people that God can destroy our souls the people did not have modern dictionaries which were influenced by later Christian tradition to look at to come to the conclusion that Jesus was speaking metaphorical. They had no reason to think that Jesus didn't actually mean what He said.

 

[Willie T]

So Free Grace says that the dictionary says that one possible meaning of destroy is to suffer in hell...
Well actually this in an example of circular reasoning. First Jesus said to fear God who can destroy the body and soul in hell. Then during the next two thousand years many Christians took that to mean that even though it is in a literal passage of scripture we should take it metaphorically to mean " give over to eternal misery in hell." Then when the dictionaries were written the writers of the dictionaries saw that some Christians were using the word destroy to mean a metaphorical destruction and so they included that as one possible definition even though it is way way down the list. Then "Free Grace" quotes that position of 1e to prove that destroy should be taken metaphorically. This is circular reasoning... It goes like this 1. Jesus says destroy. 2. Those in later generations say destroy is metaphorical. 3. Writers of Dictionaries notice that and so they include it as a meaning. 4. Free Grace quotes it to prove that Jesus meant Metaphorical. Back when Jesus told the people that God can destroy our souls the people did not have modern dictionaries which were influenced by later Christian tradition to look at to come to the conclusion that Jesus was speaking metaphorical. They had no reason to think that Jesus didn't actually mean what He said.

It IS remarkable how often we conclude that Jesus didn't really mean what He said when He spoke something clearly and plainly............. yet, at other times, we decide that obviously metaphorical remarks just have to be literal.

 

[Classic Rider]

Over the last 2000 years the church has developed a tradition that death means separation. They had to in order to support their doctrine of eternal torment in hell. So now whenever we read that the wages of sin is death, we are taught to ignore the word death and mentally insert the word separation in it's place. However, the Christians at Rome lived before that 2000 years of Church tradition. Paul told the Romans in his letter to them that the wages of sin is death. Now since they lived before the 2000 years of church tradition they would not have known to interpret the word death as separation. Paul used the Greek word Thanatos and in Paul's day that simply meant to die and become dead.

Another argument I noticed in this thread is that Jesus said God is ABLE to destroy both body and soul in hell. And they said He just said He is able He didn't say He would. So you are accusing Jesus of making empty threats? (I know you would never do that on purpose) He said "I will tell you whom to fear... fear Him who is able to destroy body and soul in hell"... If Jesus knew and if we know God would never do it then why should we fear? That is like a father saying to his child 'You better fear me and do what I say because I am able to put you on a plane and send you to Mongolia." The child just laughs because he knows his father is just making an empty threat. I don't think Jesus ever does that... Besides since in other places Jesus uses similar words like saying if we don't believe in Him we will perish are we just saying that is an empty threat too since it means the same thing for the soul to perish as it does for the soul to be destroyed? Jesus made no empty threats.

 

[Classic Rider]

It IS remarkable how often we conclude that Jesus didn't really mean what He said when He spoke something clearly and plainly............. yet, at other times, we decide that obviously metaphorical remarks just have to be literal.

You are correct and I'm sure we all do that to some extent without meaning to. I really think that 95 percent of the issues with that could be resolved by noticing what type of passage we are looking at. If we are in a poetic section of scripture like the psalms and it says that God will cover and protect us in the shadow of his wings we don't take that to mean that God is a big winged creature.... it is the psalms and so is poetic. In the same way the book of Romans is just straightforward christian doctrine for most of the book. So it should be taken literally. The book of Revelation is Apocalyptic literature which is symbolic and figurative... so almost everything it says is like a parable or a metaphor. Not very much is literal. If people could try to be consistent in this it would help.

 

[chessman]

When one realizes that "death" in Rom 6:23 refers to spiritual death, or separation from God. And that will be eternal. It is clear from Matt 25:46 and Rev 20:10 that the LoF will be eternal. No end.

"death" in Rom 6:23 refers to spiritual death, or separation from God.

Romans 6:23 (LEB) For the compensation due sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

Hmm? I’m not sure how you are getting a definition of ‘spiritual death’ via Rom 6:23 that clarifies Matt 25:46 in any way. (not that Matt 25:46 needs clarification). But I would be interested in hearing how you arrive at your definition of 'spiritual death'.

I’m sure you are aware that nowhere in the Bible does the phrase “spiritual death” appear outright. So defining it is a little, shall we just say, ‘tricky’. You say Rom 6:23 is a reference to it (spiritual death, I.e. separation from God) not so much to physical death but rather a ‘spiritual death’ in other words. I’d invite you to explain, how so. But, I disagree and here’s why:

1. The first mention of “death” in Rom 6 (of eight throughout this chapter) is in verse 3; Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Jesus experienced a very literal physical death, not spiritual death! i.e. ‘spiritual death’ doesn’t seem to be in immediate context here, just yet anyway, but read on.
2. The third mention (3/8) is in verses 5-7; 5 For if we have become identified with him in the likeness of his death, certainly also we will be identified with him in the likeness of his resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified together with him, in order that the body of sin may be done away with, that we may no longer be enslaved to sin (think “wages of sin”). 7 For the one who has died has been freed from sin.
   Okay, again “his death” as referenced here is still His (Jesus') physical death but I can begin to see how ‘spiritual death’ might be in view (even though it’s not specifically mentioned) from Paul’s use of the phrase “in the likeness of his death”. But is Paul using it in the way you are?

For the Christian, Paul then compares our “old man”, our “body of sin”, to being in the likeness of being “crucified together with him”. Obviously Paul doesn’t mean physically crucified with him but rather begins to describe spiritual aspects of a Christian’s life (new life, Eternal Life as per the OP topic, in my opinion). Paul is basically talking about what he says he’s talking about; “the one who has died (spiritually speaking of curse, putting the old man, the body of sin to death) has been freed from sin. i.e. freed from the wages of sin (death).

In other words, a Christian becomes Eternally alive, through death (His death). But the point is, we have become ‘spiritually alive’ through Christ not so much physically alive. We are already physically alive as are un-believers. Like the unbeliever, the Christian doesn’t escape physical death either but rather has a new spiritual birth that is Eternal Life (as you’ve established per this thread).

So if anything, Paul’s precise definition of ‘spiritual death’ per Rom 6 (so far) is basically that of putting to death our existing sin nature. Thusly becoming closer to God which is NOT a separation from God, ironically. It’s 180 degrees off from a separation from God as Paul is using “death” in Rom 6. Thus, my disagreement with your point. The only nature we had up until the point/time we became spiritually alive was a sin nature (i.e. a separation from God). Becoming ‘spiritually dead’ in Rom 6 is about putting to death a sinful spirit. That old man must be put to death to become closer to God and a new creature in Him, in His death (physically death). i.e. through Christ the old man becomes ‘spiritually dead’ “if we have become identified with him”. All that said to disagree with your point that ‘spiritual death” means separation from God (per Rom 6). ‘spiritual death’ means putting the old sinful spirit (sinful natured) man to death per Rom 6.

The point being; if the Second Death = being ‘spiritually dead’ per Rom 6’s usage, then the LoF looks more like a city full of sinners doing what they do best, sinning, than a “Second Death”.

3. ( usage 6-8 of 8) 16 Do you not know that to whomever you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves to whomever you obey, whether sin, leading to death, or obedience, leading to righteousness? … For the end of those things (sins) is death…23 For the compensation due sin is death.​

Which doesn’t change any of the ways Paul is referencing “death” either.

4. Paul (in Romans) talks about 'death' more than any other book of the Bible. Never does he mention 'spiritual death'. Here's one of the many examples from the preceding chapter.
Romans 5:14 (LEB)
But death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who is to come.​

My point being this time-frame includes people like Noah who was NOT 'spiritually dead'. To me, Paul means precisely physical death in Rom 6:23 unless there's some evidence otherwise that I'm missing.

So, I don’t see the point that you are stating that Rom 6:23 is somehow a definition or a picture of ‘spiritual death’ that somehow explains the existence of spiritually dead people in Hell eternally. Nor did I see JLB’s point about Adam being a picture/definition of someone being ‘spiritually dead’ and thusly being separated from God.

So what am I to do? Go around telling un-saved people that their punishment in Hell (their wages for sin) will be to become ‘spiritually dead’ in Hell? They are already ‘spiritually dead’ and kind of like it that way, is the point.

JLB stared down this same type of path/argument by implying that Adam is somehow an example of suffering a ‘spiritual death’ the day he sinned, but then JLB stopped communication (interacting) on his point. He wouldn’t answer the relevant questions I had for him about Adam’s post-sinful life (after his sin) being an example of ‘spiritual death’ and/or therefore an example of the “second death” or “separation from God” and therefore somehow being an example of the “Second Death” in the LoF. Why? Because it’s illogical to think Adam’s fallen/sinful state is just such an example of ‘spiritual death’. What with him being clothed by God and even talking with God after his sin. It’s obviously NOT a picture of “separation from God” or the Second Death or the LoF.

 

[Classic Rider]

Yes I think that the first death means the death of the body... but it is just temporary and not eternal because we will be resurrected. The second death is the very painful complete destruction of the whole person both body and soul and since there will be no resurrection from this it is an eternal punishment. Since the wages of sin is death, for Jesus to pay for our sins He had to die a painful death on the cross. The wages of sin is not eternal conscious suffering in fire otherwise Jesus would have had to burn in fire forever to pay the penalty of sin.

 

[JLB]

Chessman said -

Nor did I see JLB’s point about Adam being a picture/definition of someone being ‘spiritually dead’ and thusly being separated from God

The point is simple.

God said to Adam in the day you eat of it you shall surely die.

You agreed!

I thought you could see the point.

The Point: Adam died that DAY!

Did Adam cease to exist?


JLB

 

[turnorburn]

What are you going to do with this verse from

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Are you saying Satan and his angels will get off the hook as well?

tob

 

[tim-from-pa]

I agree with the OP and think this is very well done. Very good points. I didn't read all the replies, but a thread like this would bring a lot of reaction.the only thing I'm not seeing any of is the possibility of being saved after death.I believe that this is possible for those who never heard the gospel or people who antedated the gospel.the church, those to be saved now, are the first fruits in the line of Jehovah's feasts.more will be saved later in the millennium. Also, more will be saved at the Great White Throne Judgment.Lest I be misunderstood, I'm not teaching second chance doctrine. That begs the question, are those all born between Christ first coming and second coming those who would be chosen to rule and reign with him as the church? I don't know. But I do know, that those that God did not call, or those who have not heard the gospel, will be given that chance later. There's 3 resurrections. The first resurrection, which those who are raised or Blessid, and the second death has no power over them, will be those who will rule and reign with Christ. Those living during the time of the millennium, will then have a chance at salvation as we as kings and priests will teach the people. Lastly at the Great White Throne judgement, all those who never heard the gospel, or who would never called, will be given a chance at salvation. that's the second resurrection, and it is a physical resurrection. a mini Millenium of sorts. Don't confuse judgment with sentencing. Judgment is ongoing and several of them are taught in the Bible.Lastly there is the resurrection of the wicked. Those people were called but refused. This is what the evangelists often called " rejecting Christ". The same applies to the Great White Throne Judgment. Those who ultimately will not submit to the rule of God, will also be cast into the lake of fire to be burned up and destroyed forever.

 

[Classic Rider]

What are you going to do with this verse from

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Are you saying Satan and his angels will get off the hook as well?

tob

Are you saying that beings who were with God face to face and saw Him in all His glory and then rejected Him should get the same punishment as men who were born sinners because Adam sinned in their place in the Garden? Did Jesus die for the angels? Did God ever tell the Angels that for them the wages of sin is death or that they would perish if they didn't believe in Him or that he is able to destroy their bodies and souls in hell? No. Angels and men are different. I don't know what all will happen to the Angels in the everlasting fire ... all I have to work on is scripture and not much is said about angels in that regard except in the symbolic book of Revelation. That really doesn't matter to us people anyway. What matters is what scripture says about us. If we are not saved we will be cast into the everlasting fire and will suffer and be destroyed and perish... and it will be an eternal punishment because we will never be resurrected. Obviously I am human and can be wrong but so can others. The important thing is to trust in Christ for salvation so that we won't have to face either one of these possibilities because both are terrible.

 

[chessman]

The point is simple.

JLB

Which point? The point that Adam died that day? Yes, that's simple. God said it was so, so I believe Him and that's what I agreed to.

But the point you were trying to show (that he died 'spiritually' and thusly is an example of 'spiritual death') is actually, not so simple. At least it's not to me. And it's a point of reasoning that I disagree with. I'd asked you the following questions that you never answered from the other related thread.

Now you mentioning Adam obviously assumes Adam is somehow an example of The Second Death. How so?

I'm confused. Can you show that the Devil has been given Eternal Life? No! (Or Adam had the Second Death?)

I thought you could see the point.

JLB

That's a little hard to believe because I responded with another request for you to answer this question but you never did.

Remember, I'm still waiting on your response to the above question. I've answered your questions. Some three times or more.

Here's why 'spiritual death' as you call it, is not as simple as you make it out to be:

1. God didn't say; Adam, in the day you eat of the fruit you will 'spiritually die'. That was my first clue that 'spiritual death' is NOT what God meant. I think He meant physical death. In fact, I know that's what He meant.
2. God didn't say; Adam, within 24 hours you will die, either. He said in that 'yom' ... you will surely day. Which in Hebrew (and English for that matter) doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours. In fact, God specifically says His days are NOT the same duration as our days are.
3. I noticed Adam died physically at age 970 man-years (just thirty man-years shy of 1,000 man-years or 1 day as unto the Lord). Which is why I agree Adam died that "day" not because you've made any sort of case for 'spiritual death' via Genesis or that's been made via Romans.
4. (and most importantly to evaluate and negate your point of 'spiritual death' being what occurred to Adam = The Second Death), I noticed Adam walked and talked with God while still in the Garden and was even covered by God's clothing AFTER Adam sinned (according to you 'spiritually died') and was blessed by God outside the Garden with children some man-years later and replacement children and called upon the name of the Lord, well after he'd sinned. Thusly, in no way shape or form do I see a picture of Adam's life after his sin being a picture of 'spiritual death' or certainly not The Second Death.

I thought you could see the point.
The Point: Adam died that DAY!

JLB

Adam physically died that YOM, yes. But he didn't 'spiritually die' that 24 hours nor does his life outside the Garden during that day represent Hell or The Second Death. Least you think God's walking, talking and go around blessing people in The Second Death. It's ridiculous if you actually think it through.

Did Adam cease to exist?
JLB

No. Not then or now.

But Adam certainly died that day.

Does the Bible say Adam 'spiritually died'? No.
Does the Bible say Adam was "separated from God" that day? No! He talked with Him afterwards and was even blessed by God afterwards.

What's simple is Jesus' point:

Matthew 10:28 (LEB)
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.
​

kill the body but are not able to kill the soul (1st death, IMO)
destroy both soul and body in hell. (2nd death, IMO)

What's also simple is Jesus' point about the LoF and The Second Death:

Rev 2:11 and Rev 21:8 (LEB) The one who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will never be harmed by the second death.’ ... But as for the cowards and unbelievers and detestable persons and murderers and sexually immoral people and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their share is in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death. (I.e. the destruction of the BOTH the wicked's soul and body in Hell)​

 

[FreeGrace]

So Free Grace says that the dictionary says that one possible meaning of destroy is to suffer in hell…

I'll be clear. The dictionary was written by scholars who actually understand the language of the Bible. And words do have various meanings. ie, how many kinds of "trunk" can you think of?

Well actually this in an example of circular reasoning. First Jesus said to fear God who can destroy the body and soul in hell.

Let's be clear hear. The verse didn't say that God has or will "destroy the soul". Are you aware of any verse that does say or clearly indicate that He has or will destroy souls?

Then when the dictionaries were written the writers of the dictionaries saw that some Christians were using the word destroy to mean a metaphorical destruction and so they included that as one possible definition even though it is way way down the list.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with how scholars determine the meaning of Greek words. It sure wasn't by polling believers through the ages to "see how they used the word". No. They scoured ancient writings to determine the meanings of words. Like anyone could do with the word "trunk" by scouring lots of Enlish documents to see how the word was used.

Then "Free Grace" quotes that position of 1e to prove that destroy should be taken metaphorically. This is circular reasoning... It goes like this 1. Jesus says destroy. 2. Those in later generations say destroy is metaphorical. 3. Writers of Dictionaries notice that and so they include it as a meaning.

Your claim is fallacious. The scholars didn't do what you think they did. They actually determined how the Greeks used the word. That's what lexicons are for. They show how various words were used by the Greeks.

4. Free Grace quotes it to prove that Jesus meant Metaphorical. Back when Jesus told the people that God can destroy our souls the people did not have modern dictionaries which were influenced by later Christian tradition to look at to come to the conclusion that Jesus was speaking metaphorical. They had no reason to think that Jesus didn't actually mean what He said.

What Jesus said was that God was able to destroy the soul. So please show me any verse that says that He has or will. You haven't proven your point yet.

 

[FreeGrace]

Over the last 2000 years the church has developed a tradition that death means separation.

Seriously?! What is physical death, except the soul being separated from the body. What is spiritual death, which is separation from God. The church developed nothing of the sort.

They had to in order to support their doctrine of eternal torment in hell.

Oh, so now, when it is convenient for you to say such a thing, what do you do with these words: Rev 14:11 - And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

So now whenever we read that the wages of sin is death, we are taught to ignore the word death and mentally insert the word separation in it's place.

I suppose you think it means physical death? It's speaking of eternal death.

Another argument I noticed in this thread is that Jesus said God is ABLE to destroy both body and soul in hell. And they said He just said He is able He didn't say He would.

Without supposition and assuming, please provide verses that say that He has or will.

So you are accusing Jesus of making empty threats? (I know you would never do that on purpose) He said "I will tell you whom to fear... fear Him who is able to destroy body and soul in hell"…

Not an empty threat. The point is to have great respect and fear of God, who is ABLE to do those things.

If Jesus knew and if we know God would never do it then why should we fear?

He was making a point about God's authority and power. iow, be very respectful.

That is like a father saying to his child 'You better fear me and do what I say because I am able to put you on a plane and send you to Mongolia." The child just laughs because he knows his father is just making an empty threat.

Silly analogy.

I don't think Jesus ever does that... Besides since in other places Jesus uses similar words like saying if we don't believe in Him we will perish are we just saying that is an empty threat too since it means the same thing for the soul to perish as it does for the soul to be destroyed? Jesus made no empty threats.

No, He didn't. But please show me any verse that actually says that God HAS or WILL destroy any soul.

 

[Kathi]

This has become one of those "who is right" threads that has huge posts and goes on forever.I am out of here.I have said what I need to say.....goodbye.

 

[tim-from-pa]

As a reminder, eternal conscious torment is contingent on an immortal soul doctrine. But those of us who do not believe in eternal conscious torment do not believe that the soul is inherently immortal, either. Rather, eternal life is granted upon having faith. Otherwise, the soul that sins shall die. Conscious eternal torment, the idea of going to heaven after death, and an immortal soul, and other such beliefs are basically based in pagan ideas. The Bible teaches that a person is asleep until the resurrection at the second coming of Christ and heaven ie the kingdom of God is basically coming to Earth. In the end a new heaven and new earth is created which we will inhabit. The moral of the story is that this whole thread is more than just about eternal conscious torment, but a lot of other doctrines that are assumed for that to be true.

 

[Classic Rider]

Yes you are correct. I tried to say that in point 5 5. Hell is not eternal conscious torment because only believers in Jesus are given immortality. If you aren’t a Christian your soul is mortal and, thus, when you are cast into hell your soul will die. I bet you have been taught that the soul is immortal and, therefore, must live forever either in heaven or hell. The greek philosophers taught that the the soul is immortal but the Bible never teaches such a thing. Only God is naturally immortal. 1st Timothy 6:16 says God “alone has immortality.” God naturally has immortality. We humans are mortal beings but we can get immortality as a gift from God if we become believers in Christ. If we naturally have immortal souls then why does Paul say that we are seeking for immortality? Romans 2:7 says that God will grant eternal life to those who seek for immortality. Now why does a person seek for immortality if that person already has an immortal soul? It is only through Christ and the Gospel that immortality is possible. 2nd Timothy 1:10 plainly states that very thing. It says that Jesus Christ, “has abolished death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel..” So only God is immortal but life and immortality come through the Gospel to those who believe. If you don’t get saved you don’t get immortality. Without immortality when you get thrown into hell your soul will be destroyed. (this originally came from my blog faithaloneministry.wordpress.com)