Hellfire texts explained as annihilation

[guibox]

If those that have done evil are being resurrected, what makes you think that they are not resurrected immortal to their everlasting punishment and everlasting fire in the lake of fire with satan and his angels just as Jesus teaches?

For a number of reasons...

1) Absolutely no biblical evidence that immortality is bestowed upon the wicked, and yet we see verse after verse after verse saying that the righteous are given it.

2) The bible says that the wages of sin is death, not life.

3) Within this context, the words 'death', 'destroy' 'consume' 'destruction' all are used to denote finality in the case of the fate of the wicked

And as Drew aptly pointed out, fire in symbol or reality is not conducive to eternal duration but complete destruction. This is what the Valley of Hinnom of which the term 'gehenna-hell' was derived from, meant to the Jews:

Complete, absolute, eternal destruction and death.

The only fire that continually burns in the Bible is the one in Exodus 3:2 and you know what?

It is the exact opposite of what is going to happen to the wicked!

Read the language in Exodus 3:2 and compare it to Revelation 20:9, Psalms 37:20,28 and Malachi 4:1,3

 

[Solo]

If those that have done evil are being resurrected, what makes you think that they are not resurrected immortal to their everlasting punishment and everlasting fire in the lake of fire with satan and his angels just as Jesus teaches?

For a number of reasons...

1) Absolutely no biblical evidence that immortality is bestowed upon the wicked, and yet we see verse after verse after verse saying that the righteous are given it.

2) The bible says that the wages of sin is death, not life.

3) Within this context, the words 'death', 'destroy' 'consume' 'destruction' all are used to denote finality in the case of the fate of the wicked

And as Drew aptly pointed out, fire in symbol or reality is not conducive to eternal duration but complete destruction. This is what the Valley of Hinnom of which the term 'gehenna-hell' was derived from, meant to the Jews:

Complete, absolute, eternal destruction and death.

The only fire that continually burns in the Bible is the one in Exodus 3:2 and you know what?

It is the exact opposite of what is going to happen to the wicked!

Read the language in Exodus 3:2 and compare it to Revelation 20:9, Psalms 37:20,28 and Malachi 4:1,3

Are the unrighteous resurrected?

 

[mutzrein]

If those that have done evil are being resurrected, what makes you think that they are not resurrected immortal to their everlasting punishment and everlasting fire in the lake of fire with satan and his angels just as Jesus teaches?

For a number of reasons...

1) Absolutely no biblical evidence that immortality is bestowed upon the wicked, and yet we see verse after verse after verse saying that the righteous are given it.

2) The bible says that the wages of sin is death, not life.

3) Within this context, the words 'death', 'destroy' 'consume' 'destruction' all are used to denote finality in the case of the fate of the wicked

And as Drew aptly pointed out, fire in symbol or reality is not conducive to eternal duration but complete destruction. This is what the Valley of Hinnom of which the term 'gehenna-hell' was derived from, meant to the Jews:

Complete, absolute, eternal destruction and death.

The only fire that continually burns in the Bible is the one in Exodus 3:2 and you know what?

It is the exact opposite of what is going to happen to the wicked!

Read the language in Exodus 3:2 and compare it to Revelation 20:9, Psalms 37:20,28 and Malachi 4:1,3

Are the unrighteous resurrected?

Sorry if I have cut across someone elses conversation but I had to give an answer to this.

Those who have not received eternal life - no. Not resurrected. Not judged. No heaven. No Hell. Just Perish. The sheep and the goats have nothing to do with these.

Those who have received eternal life and have gone back to their own righteousness (which is no righteousness at all) - yes. They are resurrected. They are judged. These are the goats.

I have posted on the sheep & the goats earlier in this thread for the interest of any that have not read it.

Regards

 

[SputnikBoy]

Is it hard to accept that those, who by virtue of the fact that they are not born again and therefore have not recieved eternal life, just perish?

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
John 3:16

 

[Solo]

If those that have done evil are being resurrected, what makes you think that they are not resurrected immortal to their everlasting punishment and everlasting fire in the lake of fire with satan and his angels just as Jesus teaches?

For a number of reasons...

1) Absolutely no biblical evidence that immortality is bestowed upon the wicked, and yet we see verse after verse after verse saying that the righteous are given it.

2) The bible says that the wages of sin is death, not life.

3) Within this context, the words 'death', 'destroy' 'consume' 'destruction' all are used to denote finality in the case of the fate of the wicked

And as Drew aptly pointed out, fire in symbol or reality is not conducive to eternal duration but complete destruction. This is what the Valley of Hinnom of which the term 'gehenna-hell' was derived from, meant to the Jews:

Complete, absolute, eternal destruction and death.

The only fire that continually burns in the Bible is the one in Exodus 3:2 and you know what?

It is the exact opposite of what is going to happen to the wicked!

Read the language in Exodus 3:2 and compare it to Revelation 20:9, Psalms 37:20,28 and Malachi 4:1,3

Are the unrighteous resurrected?

Sorry if I have cut across someone elses conversation but I had to give an answer to this.

Those who have not received eternal life - no. Not resurrected. Not judged. No heaven. No Hell. Just Perish. The sheep and the goats have nothing to do with these.

Those who have received eternal life and have gone back to their own righteousness (which is no righteousness at all) - yes. They are resurrected. They are judged. These are the goats.

I have posted on the sheep & the goats earlier in this thread for the interest of any that have not read it.

Regards

It looks like Jesus disagrees with you, in that there is a resurrection of those that are evil, as well as a resurrection of those that are good. Those that are evil will be judged to be damned for eternity, and according to Jesus in
Matthew 25 they will be in everlasting punishment and everlasting fire.


Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. John 5:25-30

When Jesus comes in his glory, all believers will unite with him in the air and the wrath of God will be poured out on the unbelieving. That is Jesus' teaching in Matthew 25.

Jesus said, "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 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: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Matthew 25:31-46

 

[Vic C.]

I agree Solo. I too believe there are at least three judgements and two resurrections. Would a just and loving God send anyone to their fate without first passing along judgement on them personally? That appears to be what the final resurrection and judgement is about. See Revelation 20:11-13.

Solo: You must resist and desist discussing subjects that are not allowed on 123 Forums. We are not discussing banned subjects, we are discussing the dogma of total destruction.

You made a statement regarding Dr. Marvin Vincent that cannot be substantiated. You believe "ole Marvin" strains his word studies! Could you give us an example?

FL, at this point I should remind you that it was you that first brought up Vincent, which can only lead to mentioning UR beliefs. While I cannot speak for Free and Scott, if a new thread was to be started discussing the merits or discredits of
Dr. Vincent and done so in a proper, mature fashion, you have my blessings. If not... :smt075

:smt066 .......... 8-)

 

[FineLinen]

Solo: You must resist and desist discussing subjects that are not allowed on 123 Forums. We are not discussing banned subjects, we are discussing the dogma of total destruction.

You made a statement regarding Dr. Marvin Vincent that cannot be substantiated. You believe "ole Marvin" strains his word studies! Could you give us an example?

FL, at this point I should remind you that it was you that first brought up Vincent, which can only lead to mentioning UR beliefs. While I cannot speak for Free and Scott, if a new thread was to be started discussing the merits or discredits of Dr. Vincent and done so in a proper, mature fashion, you have my blessings. If not... :smt075

:smt066 .......... 8-)

Vic: And why, pray tell, would the work of Marvin Vincent lead Solo and you to assume such foolishness? Dr. Marvin Vincent has absolutely nothing to do with the nasty banned subject of the 123 Forums! Nothing! If you, or Solo can show me a single shred of evidence that Dr. Vincent adhered to, or published anything along those lines, I would greatly appreciate the evidence.

You can start here and go withersoever you will....

Dr. Marvin Vincent N. T. Word Studies

HERE

Who Is Dr. Marvin Vincent?

link

 

[Vic C.]

Oh it's starting all over again! :o I reneg on my offer to allow another thread discussing Dr. Vincent.

You know darn well UR proponents use his resources to support their claims and call other sources "inferior" and other colorful words as well. It would be too easy to find his studies being used by the likes of L.Ray Smith, etc and in conjunction with the Concordant or Rotherham Bibles.

I was trying to be nice by opening up a line of communication and allowing a thread where this subject could have been discussed. But no... So, cased closed and end of discussion.

 

[Drew]

Consider Matthew 25:46:

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Many will claim that this text definitively endorses an "eternal torment" position. However, there are different ways to see this text. Those who believe that it supports only an "eternal torment" position, need to explain why we cannot interpret this text as specifically referring to the permanence of the result of an annihilation process (that has indeed included some punishment), rather than as a reference to a continual, never-ending process of punishment. On the former view, this text is simply saying that the end state (non-existence) of the unredeemed is permanent - it will not be reversed.

Now I freely admit that I was an "eternal torment" believer who has changed camps - I now think the unredeemed will be ultimately annihilated.

First, I fully understand how the "plain reading" of this seems to point to "eternal torment". But I also think I have an understanding of the way the mind resolves ambiguous material in accordance with a model of the world that is brought to the act of interpretation. And in this case, one simply needs to wrench oneself free from the deeply ingrained assumption that this material describes an ongoing conscious state, or at least be prepared to justify that assumption.

I am inclined to believe that in this particular text, eternal really means eternal, since a constrast is drawn with eternal life, which I presume we all believe really is eternal, not just "for an age".

It seems pretty clear to me that the word "eternal" obviously refers to the permanence of a state - eternal "x" means that state x lasts forever. But, I suggest that a hidden assumption is made that this state necessarily entails conscious experience. And I think this assumption is ultimately unjustified. Even atheists use expressions like "he has gone to his eternal home", expressing the notion that the end state of the individual is permanent, but there is no intent to suggest conscious existence.

You may reply that the specific phrase "eternal punishment" must connote conscious suffering, arguing that the term "punishment" unavoidably entails conscious awareness. This, though, is really not necessarily true. I would appeal here to the conceptual distinction between "punishment" and "punishing". If the phrase were "eternal punishing", the eternal toment position would be much better supported. As it is, the phrase really can be legitimately interpreted as describing a completed act of punishing, with the consequences of that punishment (non-existence) lasting forever.

There is a kind of asymettry here: If the state "life" is to be eternal, there is no disputing continued conscious existence. This because the state life, by the very meaning of word, necessitates conscious existence. On the other hand, what does it mean for "punishment" to be eternal? Well if we allow for the possibility that the punishment can include ultimate annihilation, the expression can still be rendered sensibly as "the punishment is annihilation and that state of non-existence lasts forever". The overall point being that the expression "eternal punishment" has a sensible interpretation even if one assumes that the punishment entails annihilation of conscious experience.

Understandably, you may object that it is a real reach to suggest that the word "eternal" is being used to describe a completed state that is permanent. After all, you may argue, atheists don't say "Fred is eternally dead", they simply say "Fred is dead". My counterargument to this is that the very contrast (in Matthew 25) with the "surprising" good news about the permanence of the life granted to believers requires that the qualifier "eternal" be applied to the word "punishment".

Why do I say this? Since, on my understanding, the Old Testament repeatedly teaches that the wages of sin is death, not eternal life of any kind (torment-filled or otherwise), Jesus' audience would have naturally asked themselves the following question: "If Jesus can rescue us from death and give us everlasting life, what about the fate of the unredeemed (which Jesus' audience would have understood to be death), is their fate permanent just like the life a believer receives is permanent?"

To underscore that the "state of being dead" is indeed permanent, Jesus uses the phrase "eternal punishment".

At the very least, there is ambiguity about what exactly is qualified by the word "eternal" in the phrase "eternal punishment" in Matthew 25:46. It could be a conscious state, but it could also be an "end state" that is empty of conscious experience. Given all the other texts that suggest that the unredeemed perish, I suggest that the ambiguity probably needs to be resolved against an "eternal torment" position.

 

[guibox]

Drew, you truly are a wise and thinking man... 8-)

The other issue here is that Matthew 25:46 is not a stand alone text. Even if it were, what Drew is saying is correct.

However, the Bible fully and clearly explains this fate elsewhere throughout the OT and the NT. Again, ultimately, your belief in the torment of the wicked will be determined by your belief in the 'immortal soul' of man. However, even if I believed that immortal souls are given to those that accept Christ, the Bible makes it CLEAR that this 'immortality' is not given to the wicked in any way.

Hence, one must take this clear truth into consideration when interpreting texts like Matthew 25:46; Revelation 14:10 and Mark 9:46

THEN we add in the fact that the terms of Revelation and Mark are used elsewhere to denote annihilation and temporary existence (Isaiah 34:10, Exodus 3:2; Jeremiah 17:29; Isaiah 66:24)....

THEN add in all the clear texts that speak of the death and destruction of the wicked....

We are left with no other conclusion that the wicked CANNOT be tormented eternally from a scriptural perspective.

THEN you add in the philosophical, moral, judicial, cosmological and logical arguments against hell, and we see that the concept of eternal torment is wrong on all levels and is merely a continuation of a midieval Catholic theology that deserves to be trashed along with the other Catholic heresies the Reformation rejected.

It is long overdue...

 

[Drew]

As a follow-on to my previous post: I can certainly empathize with the following objection to my interpretation of Matt 25:46: "If the punishment for the unredeemed really is annihilation, why would Jesus use the qualifier "eternal" in Matthew 25:46, why not simply say the unredeemed 'go away to death'. After all, the concept of death already entails notions of permanence - such notions are "built-in" to the concept of death. The use of the adjective "eternal" must surely mean that Jesus is talking about a punishment that is other than 'extinction' because extinction is necessarily permanent"

My proposal is that Jesus needed to underscore the permance of the state of death precisely because his announcement of the good news of eternal life for the redeemed would naturally cause his audience to question the very notion that death is permanent. As some of you may know, I ascribe to the idea that we all (unsaved and save alike) "sleep" in the grave until a future resurrection event. That whole issue has been debated in other threads. If, for the sake of argument at least, one grants the viability of that "non-immortal soul" postion, one can see why Jesus might need to underscore the permanence of the "state of being dead" for the unredeemed.

Why? Precisely because his audience has just heard him teach that the state of death is indeed not permanent for those who trust in Him - they will rise from the sleep of death and enjoy everlasting life. The end state of the redeemed is life, despite a period of "sleep" (no conscious existence). For the unredeemed however, the end state is indeed everlasting non-existence. So Jesus needs to underscore this, so he adds the qualifier "eternal" to punishment, understanding that His audience would correctly believe that the wages of sin is death, not eternal conscious existence.

 

[Solo]

Drew, you truly are a wise and thinking man... 8-)

The other issue here is that Matthew 25:46 is not a stand alone text. Even if it were, what Drew is saying is correct.

However, the Bible fully and clearly explains this fate elsewhere throughout the OT and the NT. Again, ultimately, your belief in the torment of the wicked will be determined by your belief in the 'immortal soul' of man. However, even if I believed that immortal souls are given to those that accept Christ, the Bible makes it CLEAR that this 'immortality' is not given to the wicked in any way.

Hence, one must take this clear truth when interpreting texts like Matthew 25:46 and Revelation 14:10-11.

THEN we add in the fact that the terms of Revelation are used elsewhere to denote annihilation and temporary existence (Isaiah 34:10, Exodus 3:2; Jeremiah 17:29; Isaiah 66:24)....

THEN add in all the clear texts that speak of the death and destruction of the wicked....

We are left with no other conclusion that the wicked CANNOT be tormented eternally from a scriptural perspective.

THEN you add in the philosophical, moral, judicial, cosmological and logical arguments against hell, and we see that the concept of eteranl torment is wrong on all levels and is merely a continuation of a midieval Catholic theology that deserves to be trashed along with the other Catholic heresies the Reformation rejected.

It is long overdue...

Again, do the wicked get resurrected? Yes they do. Why? When they are resurrected, are they then immortal?

 

[Drew]

Again, do the wicked get resurrected? Yes they do. Why? When they are resurrected, are they then immortal?

I'll take a crack at this, although I believe this question may have been intended for guibox. And I will do so, freely admitting that I have not really thought about reconciling my belief that the unredeemed are ultimately annihilated with specific texts about the resurrection.

I should underscore, however, that my position has always been that the unredeemed are ultimately annihilated at a time in the future. I have not maintained that, at physical death, they simply pass into non-existence.

So my answer is: Yes, the wicked are resurrected, judged, possibly subjected to some form of time-limited torment and then annihilated. Perhaps the process of annihilation is the punishment. Either way, the resurrected wicked are not immortal.

However, this "sequence of events" is just speculation on my part.

 

[guibox]

I did not answer Solo's post because I thought it basically had been answered in all our conversations that he has been privy to.

Anyway, Drew answered it correctly, Solo.

 

[Solo]

Again, do the wicked get resurrected? Yes they do. Why? When they are resurrected, are they then immortal?

I'll take a crack at this, although I believe this question may have been intended for guibox. And I will do so, freely admitting that I have not really thought about reconciling my belief that the unredeemed are ultimately annihilated with specific texts about the resurrection.

I should underscore, however, that my position has always been that the unredeemed are ultimately annihilated at a time in the future. I have not maintained that, at physical death, they simply pass into non-existence.

So my answer is: Yes, the wicked are resurrected, judged, possibly subjected to some form of time-limited torment and then annihilated. Perhaps the process of annihilation is the punishment. Either way, the resurrected wicked are not immortal.

However, this "sequence of events" is just speculation on my part.

Thank you for admitting that your views on this matter is just speculation, otherwise I would have asked you where the Word of God shows that the wicked that are resurrected are still mortal. I believe that the doctrine of annihilation is a unbiblical doctrine based more on human emotions and wishes as opposed to God's word. The cults such as Millerites, Jehovah Witness, Universalism, Mormons, etc. all adhere to the same views concerning hell and annihilation. I don't believe that I would choose to be in alliance with these over the Word of God.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Thank you for admitting that your views on this matter is just speculation, otherwise I would have asked you where the Word of God shows that the wicked that are resurrected are still mortal. I believe that the doctrine of annihilation is a unbiblical doctrine based more on human emotions and wishes as opposed to God's word. The cults such as Millerites, Jehovah Witness, Universalism, Mormons, etc. all adhere to the same views concerning hell and annihilation. I don't believe that I would choose to be in alliance with these over the Word of God.

Solo,

Do you think a man living in the Himalayas 1,000 B.C. with no knowledge of the Jews and Christ will burn in hell for all time due to his lack of Faith in Christ?

What happens to this man?

 

[Solo]

Jesus did not teach of the place of torment in Luke 16 by utilizing a lie to show the truth! The rich man was not perishing in the fire. He was concerned about his condition of torment. Are angels mortal? Is satan mortal? Will they be tormented in the lake of fire? When a lie is told, more lies have to be made in order to cover for the first lie told. The lie of the cults that there is no eternal damnation causes many other lies to be told about the other truths of God's Word.

 

[Solo]

Thank you for admitting that your views on this matter is just speculation, otherwise I would have asked you where the Word of God shows that the wicked that are resurrected are still mortal. I believe that the doctrine of annihilation is a unbiblical doctrine based more on human emotions and wishes as opposed to God's word. The cults such as Millerites, Jehovah Witness, Universalism, Mormons, etc. all adhere to the same views concerning hell and annihilation. I don't believe that I would choose to be in alliance with these over the Word of God.

Solo,

Do you think a man living in the Himalayas 1,000 B.C. with no knowledge of the Jews and Christ will burn in hell for all time due to his lack of Faith in Christ?

What happens to this man?

They will burn in hell if they do not believe God almighty, creator of heaven and earth. If they prefer darkness to light, they will burn in hell. My God is able to show himself to every person of the world, whether they reject him or not is their choice.

 

[Drew]

However, this "sequence of events" is just speculation on my part.

Thank you for admitting that your views on this matter is just speculation, otherwise I would have asked you where the Word of God shows that the wicked that are resurrected are still mortal. I believe that the doctrine of annihilation is a unbiblical doctrine based more on human emotions and wishes as opposed to God's word. The cults such as Millerites, Jehovah Witness, Universalism, Mormons, etc. all adhere to the same views concerning hell and annihilation. I don't believe that I would choose to be in alliance with these over the Word of God.

Two points. First, I never said that my view about immortality of the unredeemed was speculation. I said that my view about the "sequence of events" was speculation. I think that powerful arguments have been made in this and other threads for the position that the unredeemed are not immortal.

Second, the rest of your post begs the question at issue and seems to try to score points by playing the "cult" card and using the clearly question-begging implication that the word of God supports the "eternal torment" position. What is your actual case? You supplied the Matthew 25:46 text, I and others have responded. What is wrong with our reasoning? If you can provide us with text that unambigiously (or even strongly) suggests immortality of the wicked, I am all ears.

 

[Vic C.]

should underscore, however, that my position has always been that the unredeemed are ultimately annihilated at a time in the future. I have not maintained that, at physical death, they simply pass into non-existence.

So no one misinterprets my beliefs, I too believe and agree with this statement. Simply dying and passing on into oblivion (non-existance) provides no means of justice for the unrighteous whatsoever. I used to think this is what soul sleep was and rejected it solely on that errant 'fact' alone.

So my answer is: Yes, the wicked are resurrected, judged, possibly subjected to some form of time-limited torment and then annihilated. Perhaps the process of annihilation is the punishment. Either way, the resurrected wicked are not immortal.

I agree, only the righteous acheive immortality.[/quote]