Should Christians rethink Hell?

[chessman]

I understand Christ's death as separation from God, as noted by His statement on the cross: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" That is evidence that He was, while on the cross, separated from His Father. While God was judging the sins of the whole world on Christ.

First, I don’t even disagree with you that the Father, for a period of time, was remote or absent or turned away from Christ as he bore our sins on the cross.
What He said there, however, points too much, much more than a “forsaking” of Jesus. In fact, it points to the whole Psalm 22. Power packed with a lot of Theology that I will not get into. But in summary, it is a picture of a trustful God that will bring about deliverance and delight upon those He loves, even through death (the 1st one).

Ps 22:19 But you, O Yahweh, do not remain distant. [And He didn’t REMAIN distant foever.]
O my help, hasten to help me. [And He did help Him just a few days later.]​

But don’t confuse The Father’s need to turn away from Christ while on the cross bearing our sins into thinking Christ had no need to die physically as well. He most certainly did have need to die physically. It’s all part of being the actual God-Man and our High Priest and Umm, our Savior. But again, off-topic.
You do realize that Muslims make the claim that Christ only appeared to die on the cross, right?

I understand Christ's death as separation from God

Then you’ve only got a partial picture of what was necessary for our salvation and of the Gospel message itself (astonishingly).

If all that was necessary for our salvation was for The Father to 'spiritually separate Himself from Christ' to use your wording (which by the way occurred prior to His physical death as you point out), then there would be no need for His actual physical death. But there was that need. Guess what happened soon after The Father did turn away from Christ? _____? His death happened! His body died but not His soul/spirit did not. But that's what I think happens at our 1st death. Believers never experience a 2nd Death. what I believe to be God's destruction of both the body and the soul.

And He would have been speaking way prematurely IF His physical death was involved, because of what He said: "it is finished". Perfect tense.

Yes brother, what is the “it” that was finished?
And yes, there’s something to the fact that Jesus spoke pretty much all His words while He was still alive to speak them, prior to His death, sure. Hum, let me think about what that means WRT soteriology. What's your point? That Jesus' dead body didn't speak words?

But again, Paul told us we MUST believe in the Gospel in order to be saved; that Jesus died, was buried and was raised. He got that from Christ, ya know.

He never, not once, said that we must believe that Jesus was ‘spiritually separated from the Father’ in order for us to be saved from the Second Death.

It’s a Muslim claim that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross. And here you are seemingly excluding the need for His physical death. Do you know how that appears?

 

[Rick W]

To all:
Please accept the fact you may not be able to change someone's mind no matter what you say. That goes for both sides.
What I see here is frustration sneaking in, taking hold and tempers are apt to flare in that environment.
Accept the fact someone cannot or will not be convinced of a view other than their own.

Once that fact has been acknowledged (and learned) then maybe behavior will lean more toward civil discussion rather than emotionally-charged verbal altercation that serves only to induce a motivation to build stronger walls of defense.

 

[LovethroughDove]

It doesn't prove that the ungodly are not destroyed, it doesn't refute the Bible which specifically says that the ungodly ARE destroyed and worst of all, it isn't even true. Being destroyed presents a HUGE problem for the person who has been destroyed. They have been destroyed! THAT'S a problem!

In "23 minutes in hell", he describes being destroyed over and over. So when it says destroyed in the bible, you don't know if it means "over and over"? Do you know for sure that the Lake of Fire doesn't destroy you over and over?

 

[TimothyW]

In "23 minutes in hell", he describes being destroyed over and over. So when it says destroyed in the bible, you don't know if it means "over and over"? Do you know for sure that the Lake of Fire doesn't destroy you over and over?

I don't accept Bill Wiese's account.

The Bible does not say that the Lake of Fire destroys a person over and over, so yes. I am sure that the lake of fire doesn't destroy over and over. There is no reason to even think that it does except to resolve a difficulty with the doctrine of eternal conscious torment.

But like Rick said, I accept the fact that I can't change someone's mind. I am just urging people to reconsider what they believe about hell, and to base their belief on what the Bible really says. If we disagree at the end of the day, we are still brothers and sisters in Christ. We don't all have get our arithmetic correct to inherit eternal life.

 

[turnorburn]

I don't accept Bill Wiese's account.

The Bible does not say that the Lake of Fire destroys a person over and over, so yes. I am sure that the lake of fire doesn't destroy over and over. There is no reason to even think that it does except to resolve a difficulty with the doctrine of eternal conscious torment.

But like Rick said, I accept the fact that I can't change someone's mind. I am just urging people to reconsider what they believe about hell, and to base their belief on what the Bible really says. If we disagree at the end of the day, we are still brothers and sisters in Christ. We don't all have get our arithmetic correct to inherit eternal life.

Tim said:The Bible does not say that the Lake of Fire destroys a person over and over

II Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

yes it does Tim: " Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction"

here you said: I accept the fact that I can't change someone's mind.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, rudeness with no proof of the accusation. Obadiah)

tob

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"f one simply ceases to exist. That's what hasn't been addressed. iow, what's the punishment in ceasing to exist? There is none."

That’s NOT our view! Stop, stop, stop already trying to convince us (or others) that it IS our view the lost simply cease to exist. How many times do you have to be told that it’s not our view for you to stop implying that it is?

Well, that really confuses things. If one under judgment doesn't cease to exist, just what is the punishment? TW keeps saying being destroyed. So, what does that mean? Your view has not been clearly communicated.

When one dies, their soul (consciousness) either continues, or it doesn't. I'm not aware of any other scenario.

You couldn’t, not in a minute, or a million years or an eternity, convince me that there’s no weeping in Hell, just for one example. It’s just that simple.

Well, that's my view. In order to weep, one must exist. How is that not ET??

The Destruction of the lost is NOT a lack of punishment. Agreed?

One must exist (ECT) in order to be punished.

Guess what is in store for the lost? Here’s a list:
1. Weeping and Gnashing of unbeliever’s teeth (Matt 8:12, 13:42, 13:50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30)
2. God’s wrath (Matt 3:7, Rev 14:10)
3. God’s fury (Heb 10:27)
4. God’s Anger (Rev 14:10)
5. God’s consuming fire (Matt 3:10-12, 7:19, 13:40, 17:15, 18:8, 25:41, Heb 10:27)
7. Eternal Punishment (Matt 25:46)
None of which even remotely sounds like “simply ceasing to exist”. To you guys or to us!
Oh, I almost forgot, #’s 8-10:
8. Destruction (2 Thess 1:9)
9. Perishing (John 3:16)
10. A Second Death (Rev 21:8, also see Matt 10:28)

All of this requires being conscious of it. Yet you argue against ECT.

So, if it isn't eternal, just how long is it?

 

[FreeGrace]

What is the problem with being destroyed, is that your question? I would think that would be self evident. The problem with being destroyed is that after you are destroyed, you have been destroyed.

Please what you mean by "destroyed". Is that ceasing to exist, or continuing consciousness?

The great about NOT being destroyed is that you are not destroyed. I find it odd that a Christian who should be saying how good it is to have eternal life in Christ is instead saying that NOT having eternal life and being destroyed instead of receiving eternal life is not a problem at all.

Because from all you've posted, it would seem that if one is destroyed, they no longer exist. That's what's so confusing.

Think about it, if you are destroyed do you get to have eternal life with Christ? No. That's a big problem.
Do you get to stop and smell the roses? No. That's a problem.
Do you get to do anything at all? No. That's a big problem.

Until you define exactly what it mean to be destroyed, as in the consciousness of the one destroyed, you view doesn't make sense.

(regarding John 3:36, re-read it. It specifically says that whoever has the Son has eternal life and whoever rejects the Son does not have eternal life.)

What else does it say. The wrath of God REMAINS on him. So apparently you do believe that the unsaved will continue to exist after physical death. So, to they exist forever, or just for a time period? You've not clarified that.

 

[FreeGrace]

But don’t confuse The Father’s need to turn away from Christ while on the cross bearing our sins into thinking Christ had no need to die physically as well.

Again, my understanding is that Christ died spiritually, being separated from the Father as He bore our sins.

He most certainly did have need to die physically.

Since He said "it is finished" before He died, the only reason He "dismissed His spirit" is because His mission was accomplished. He left earth AFTER paying the penalty for our sins.

If all that was necessary for our salvation was for The Father to 'spiritually separate Himself from Christ' to use your wording (which by the way occurred prior to His physical death as you point out), then there would be no need for His actual physical death. But there was that need. Guess what happened soon after The Father did turn away from Christ? _____? His death happened! His body died but not His soul/spirit did not. But that's what I think happens at our 1st death.

That our (believer's) soul/spirit does die?? I'm not following your comment.

Believers never experience a 2nd Death. what I believe to be God's destruction of both the body and the soul.

Is this second death immediate, or does it occur over a period of time? And we know that the unsaved will stand before the GWT judgment. So are they in torment until that time?

It’s a Muslim claim that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross. And here you are seemingly excluding the need for His physical death. Do you know how that appears?

Please don't bring in what Muslims believe. Jesus died twice on the cross: spiritually while paying for our sins, and physically, to leave this earth.

Are you aware of the original Hebrew in Genesis in which God said "in the day that you eat of it, dying, you will die?"

Death is mentioned twice. I believe Adam was immediately separated from God the moment he ate the forbidden fruit, and began to die physically over a period of time.

Most people, it seems, aren't aware of the literal Hebrew.

 

[TimothyW]

Please what you mean by "destroyed". Is that ceasing to exist, or continuing consciousness?

(Edited, ToS 2.4, rudeness. It is perfectly acceptable and is common practice in a debate to ask for words to be defined. Even words that seem to be commonly understood. Obadiah)
Here is the definition of destroyed, and the definition of destroyed is what I mean by destroyed:
"put an end to the existence of something". That is ceasing to exist, That also means not continuing to exist. That also means not being alive forever. That also means not having continuing consciousness.

What else does it say. The wrath of God REMAINS on him. So apparently you do believe that the unsaved will continue to exist after physical death.

No, I do not believe that the unsaved will continue to exist after death. God's wrath remains on them, preventing them from inheriting eternal life from Him. They remain destroyed forever. The verse SPECIFICALLY SAYS that those who have the Son have eternal life and those who do not have the Son do not have eternal life. I would have to disregard John 3:36 completely in order to come the conclusion that those who do not have the Son are also Alive and Conscious in hell. John 3:36 SPECIFICALLY SAYS that those who do not have the Son do not have life. And why is this? Why do they not have eternal life? Because God's wrath remains on them.

So, to they exist forever, or just for a time period? You've not clarified that.

[Inflammatory. WIP] No, they do not exist forever. They will be destroyed. They will not exist forever, since they will be destroyed. After they are destroyed they do not exist anymore, since they have been destroyed.
[Sarcastic] Being dead they will not be alive. Not having eternal life, they will not have eternal life. Being destroyed, they will not remain undestroyed. Since they will perish, they will not remain alive forever.

(Why am I surprised at this? I just read this passage this morning in my regular Bible reading time)

Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’

But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.​

 

[WIP]

There have been plenty of warnings. Let's check our emotions and keep the conversations with a "Christian" atmosphere.

 

[LovethroughDove]

If we disagree at the end of the day, we are still brothers and sisters in Christ. We don't all have get our arithmetic correct to inherit eternal life.

I agree and I still love you!

I only post eternal torment, because that is what I believe from people's personal accounts of it from NDEs and other people who have seen it, and when Jesus speaks of the "worm does not die" and "gnashing of teeth". I personally feel he wouldn't have mentioned that, if people just cease to exist.

 

[chessman]

I will play the devil's advocate for Chessman.

Okay, Mr. Advocate (or do you mind if I call you by your first name) here goes:

Dr. Mohler in appealing to tradition, was not saying, "this is what the Church has always believed and is therefore right," he clarified and stated that this raises the level of evidence necessary to change the overall position on the matter. That to claim that the majority if Christians and indeed theologians that have thought deeply on this subject is wrong, should require a vaster degree of proof.

First, I see your point, in that he didn’t say “therefore ECT is right”. But he did say that ECT is “what the church has always believed”. Which is just flat out wrong (more on ECF quotes later) to begin with (As Chris pointed out to him). Chris is right on that point.
I’ve read enough of the ECFs myself to believe that there were some that, if you had a chance to ask them directly about ECT, some would have said no to ECT. Especially Irenaeus! But, hay, we cannot ask them.
Regardless, Chris agrees that the prevalent and historical ECT teaching ‘raises the bar’ I believe. I agree too.
ECT was Chris’ and my view not that long ago too. But to imply, as Dr. Mohler did, that the ECT view was original among the earliest of ECF is just wrong.
In fact, that seemed to be one of his two primary arguments. (2 being that we are made in the image of God and therefore immortal at conception).
Plus, he implied his school prohibits its teachers from teaching it. He should have known that there’s nothing within the Baptist Faith and Message (our denomination’s statement of faith and I assume part of our seminary’s SoF) that goes against the destruction of the lost in Hell (or antiECT, so-to-speak), yet he implied that there was something in our SoF requiring ECT beleifs from our professors. All it says is; “The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment.” A statement I agree with.
Plus, he should know (and likely does) that a couple (not many granted) very well known and respected Southern Baptist Theologians have taught conditional immortality in our seminaries over the years. He implied that the Southern Baptist Seminary would not allow professors that taught against ECT. I think he’s wrong, unless new rules have been installed against it recently that I’m unaware of.

Dr. Mohler's insistence on the word "eternal," is based upon what he and others view as the straight-forward perspective on this word when used in reference to the final punishment. That when a person hears the word "eternal punishment," the automatic reaction would be to think of a person being perpetually punished forever in a conscious state.

Actually his catch phrase was “natural reading of the text” which left me scratching my head wondering how in the world “eternal punishment” or “eternal destruction” naturally equates to “eternal conscious torment” every time he said it. I bet at least 10 or more times he said “natural reading” of these verses.
I have no idea how the permanent destruction of the body and the soul could be more naturally written than to say “eternal destruction”. Especially in passages that oppose it with the phrase with Eternal Life.

Dr. Mohler I think made his best argument in regards to Early Church Father's who believed in Conditionalism, that those quoted by Chris can merely be made to appear to support Conditionalism.

It might have been his best point. But disagree with him on it.
The following Early Church Fathers (1st/2nd Century), I believe, believed in conditional immortality. That is; immortality is only given to the saved, not the lost.
First Clement
Ignatius of Antioch
Author of Epistle of Barnabas
Irenaeus of Lyons

Dr. Mohler … a robust and consistent presentation of Conditionalism cannot truly be found among the ECF's.

I guess it depends on what you mean by “robust” or “conditionalism” for that matter. I’ve heard him speak at other times against ‘conditionalism’ implying it's universalism (which of course it's not). He frankly, doesn’t really understand it as well as he should.

However, I can somewhat agree and see his point about clarity within the ECFs about this topic. From what I’ve read, and I’ve read a lot of them, a robust and consistent presentation of conditionalism cannot truly be found among the ECF’s. They didn’t really write on this topic of conditional immortality, though they mention it now and again. Guess what else cannot be found? A robust and consistent presentation of ECT. They didn’t really write on that either.

Basically, they really just quoted the Scriptures directly (a lot) when they were using it in their discussion/apologetics against others. They just didn’t add a lot of personal opinion or commentary on what they had to say about the Scriptures itself. Believe it or not. Especially those that wrote in and understood Greek. Which, by the way is interesting. It’s almost as though they felt the Greek Scriptures they were quoting spoke for themselves. I wish I could read/understand Greek.

Plus, they talked more about Christ than they did what happens to the lost. Surprise, surprise! Frankly, it seems like it just wasn’t a hot topic until a few hundred years later and then more among the Latin speakers than the Greeks.

"[God will] send the spiritual forces of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, and the impious, unjust, lawless, and blasphemous among men into everlasting fire" (Against Heresies 1:10:1).
"The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming ... t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, 'Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,' they will be damned forever" (Against Heresies, 4:28:2)

I agree with both of Irenaeus’ statement above. I bet Chis does as well.
However, I doubt Dr. Mohler would have agreed with the one (of Irenaeus) Chris quoted. He didn’t say. Which was odd. You’d think he would have.

He thus speaks respecting the salvation of man: "He asked life of Thee, and Thou gavest him length of days for ever and ever; " indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved.For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature; but it is bestowed according to the grace of God. And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognised Him who bestowed [the gift upon him], deprives himself of [the privilege of] continuance for ever and ever. And, for this reason, the Lord declared to those who showed themselves ungrateful towards Him: "If ye have not been faithful in that which is little, who will give you that which is great? " indicating that those who, in this brief temporal life, have shown themselves ungrateful to Him who bestowed it, shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever.​

Dr. Mohler in his "image of God" argument, was basically simply saying that Irenaeus (and others like the one’s I’ve listed above) were wrong. Our being made “in the image of God” proves ECT, in his mind.

In my opinion, that’s what his argument all boils down to, and if you got right down to it, the biggest hangup people have with CI. He actually thinks souls are indestructible once they are created. Period!

A lot of people think that. I’ve heard it my whole life from the pulpit.

 

[chessman]

Since He said "it is finished" before He died, the only reason He "dismissed His spirit" is because His mission was accomplished.

You need to upgrade your view of Christ’s mission.

1 Cor 15:14-18 (LEB) But if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain. … But if Christ has not been raised, your faith is empty; you are still in your sins. ​

Lest you think or imply that Paul is talking here about what you call ‘spiritual death’ and not his actual physical death, read the context within verses 3 and following. Where is there’s such a thing called ‘spiritually buried’ and/or ‘spiritually raised’? And do you honestly think that the Corinthians didn’t know exactly what it was that Paul was talking about here (physical death, burial and resurrection, physical appearance after, etc.) and would have rather understood Paul to mean ‘spiritual death’ instead? If so, prove it.

3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures,​

Plus, post a Scripture/prophecy from the OT that says Christ's on a spiritual mission to die spiritually for our sins. Christ could have 'died spiritually' without a trip to Earth. (or as I said, becoming the God-Man and High Priest).

The rest of your questions from that post have been answered repeatedly.

Plus, if there's no need for Christ to have died physically and been resurrected physically, then all that's in the grave stay there (in their sins).

8 And as a further result, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.​

(Edited, ToS 2.4 rudeness. Obadiah)

 

[FreeGrace]

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

Here is the definition of destroyed, and the definition of destroyed is what I mean by destroyed:
"put an end to the existence of something". That is ceasing to exist, That also means not continuing to exist. That also means not being alive forever. That also means not having continuing consciousness.

OK, thanks. So, when does this "ceasing to exist" occur for unbelievers?

No, I do not believe that the unsaved will continue to exist after death.

Need more clarification. Do you mean after physical death or the second death? If you mean the second death, what is the conscious condition of the unsaved?

God's wrath remains on them, preventing them from inheriting eternal life from Him. They remain destroyed forever.

OK. And according to your definition, they "cease to exist". That means there is no conscious anything. So how's that any punishment. Who can feel punishment or wrath if they don't exist?

The verse SPECIFICALLY SAYS that those who have the Son have eternal life and those who do not have the Son do not have eternal life. I would have to disregard John 3:36 completely in order to come the conclusion that those who do not have the Son are also Alive and Conscious in hell. John 3:36 SPECIFICALLY SAYS that those who do not have the Son do not have life. And why is this? Why do they not have eternal life? Because God's wrath remains on them.

So, do you believe that their consciousness is in hell only, and then they cease to exist after the GWT?

No, they do not exist forever. They will be destroyed. They will not exist forever, since they will be destroyed. After they are destroyed they do not exist anymore, since they have been destroyed.

Yet, this goes against Scripture that says that the unsaved will have eternal punishment.

[Sarcastic] Being dead they will not be alive. Not having eternal life, they will not have eternal life. Being destroyed, they will not remain undestroyed. Since they will perish, they will not remain alive forever.

See above.

​

 

[FreeGrace]

I agree and I still love you!

I only post eternal torment, because that is what I believe from people's personal accounts of it from NDEs and other people who have seen it, and when Jesus speaks of the "worm does not die" and "gnashing of teeth". I personally feel he wouldn't have mentioned that, if people just cease to exist.

 

[Butch5]

You'd have to be a Greek scholar in order to be able to say anyone "contradicts" Scriptures.

So, I guess that means you'd have to be an English scholar to tell us what the English says.

Matt 25:41 indicates that it has already been created. What evidence that it is someplace on earth? None.

In fact, we know that the present earth will "melt with fervent heat" (2 Pet 3:10,13), and be replaced by a new earth (Rev 21). So it CAN'T exist on this earth.

It's interesting how a person who is destroyed doesn't cease to exist but an earth that melts away does.

The word translated "melt" is "loo-o" it means, to loose. The elements will be loosed with fervent heat.

Please re-ask. I'm not about to wade through pages of posts trying to find it.

The question was, Jesus said the wicked will be thrown into Gehenna, John said they'd be thrown into the Lake of Fire, if they are not the same place please explain this discrepancy.

Because they will be.

That doesn't explain the discrepancy.

I believe I did. If I earlier posted that they are different, I recant. They are the same place. So, where's the problem?

(Edited, A&T Guidelines: Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding.)

 

[Butch5]

This topic seems to bring out the hellish side Christians.. I do not understand why it does. . . I find that very sad... I get the instant ghrrrr when folks don't agree .. I am looking beyond that ... What is the Biblical reason to fight 'tooth and nail" about it... Hoping for sure it is more then egos..

The main reason I argue against it is because I seen and heard of people who reject Christianity based on ECT.

 

[FreeGrace]

You need to upgrade your view of Christ’s mission.

1 Cor 15:14-18 (LEB) But if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain. … But if Christ has not been raised, your faith is empty; you are still in your sins. ​

(Edited, A&T Guidelines: Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding.)

Lest you think or imply that Paul is talking here about what you call ‘spiritual death’ and not his actual physical death, read the context within verses 3 and following.

I'm glad you mentioned Paul. He is the one who brought up being born spiritually dead. Eph 2.

Where is there’s such a thing called ‘spiritually buried’ and/or ‘spiritually raised’?

Of course there isn't, and all of this is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no idea why you think it is.

And do you honestly think that the Corinthians didn’t know exactly what it was that Paul was talking about here (physical death, burial and resurrection, physical appearance after, etc.) and would have rather understood Paul to mean ‘spiritual death’ instead? If so, prove it.

3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures,​

The Bible doesn't say His "physical death". (Edited, A&T Guidelines: Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding.)

Those who reject ECT do so without any verse that speaks of ceasing to exist. In fact, that goes directly against what the Bible says. Unbelievers are thrown into the exact same lake of fire where the antichrist, false prophet and the devil (and his angels) will be tormented night and day forever and ever. Matt 25:46 says the same thing.

Plus, post a Scripture/prophecy from the OT that says Christ's on a spiritual mission to die spiritually for our sins. Christ could have 'died spiritually' without a trip to Earth. (or as I said, becoming the God-Man and High Priest).

I'm surprised that the concept of spiritual death is unfamiliar with believers,
(Edited, A&T Guidelines: Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding.)

Plus, if there's no need for Christ to have died physically and been resurrected physically, then all that's in the grave stay there (in their sins).

(Edited, A&T Guidelines: Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding.)

Why do you think Jesus endured all the physical torture leading up to and including hanging on the cross, "as a Lamb who opened not his mouth", yet He screamed when His Father forsook Him. Think about it.

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

 

[FreeGrace]

So, I guess that means you'd have to be an English scholar to tell us what the English says.

If you're speaking about grammar, yes indeed. And that is how we understand a language. Do you understand there are 6 Greek tenses (English has only 3) and what each one means?

It's interesting how a person who is destroyed doesn't cease to exist but an earth that melts away does.
The word translated "melt" is "loo-o" it means, to loose. The elements will be loosed with fervent heat.

I think Rev 21 is real clear.
"1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea." NASB

The question was, Jesus said the wicked will be thrown into Gehenna, John said they'd be thrown into the Lake of Fire, if they are not the same place please explain this discrepancy.

I have already clarified. They are the same place. Just as Rev 20:10 and 20:15 are about the same place. And 20:10 tells us that they will be tormented night and day forever and ever.

Matt 25:46 says there will be eternal punishment.
2 Thess 1:9 says everlasting destruction.

If one simply ceases to exist, that eliminates any concept of everlasting or eternal. Once one no longer exists, there is nothing left to punish or destroy. The addition of the words "eternal/everlasting" are meaningful. And align with Rev 20:10 and Matt 25:46.

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

 

[Butch5]

TimothyW, Butch5, and any other anti-ECTers,

Just a simple question, which, for everyone, is not intended for debate here. This is just to get clarification because there are other issues that tie in with any idea of the final destination of the unrighteous.

What currently happens to unbelievers (may apply to believers as well, depending on your view) right now when they die--bodiless/soul type of existence somewhere; soul sleep; cessation of existence?

Again, this is not for debate in this thread as it is off-topic and shouldn't require a long explanation.

Hi Free,

Several months back I started a thread that answers this question. You can read my post here.