Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Should Christians rethink Hell?

I've simply asked for your understanding, so we're on the same page.
You have it.


OK, thanks. So, when does this "ceasing to exist" occur for unbelievers?
When they are destroyed on the day of judgment. 2 Peter 3:7
But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
So, after reading 2 Peter 3:7 do you still believe that the ungodly are not destroyed on the day of judgment and destruction?

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?
(Edited, A&T Guidelines: Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding.) What do you mean by physical death? Is this a kind of death where the dying person remains alive?


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?
You asking this again. You assume that being destroyed is no punishment. I don't agree with that. Destruction is the punishment, whether or not the destroyed person can feel it. Your question makes no sense. Having eternal life is the reward, losing out on having eternal life is the punishment. I don't know why you don't understand this. (Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness. Obadiah) I think that you really do understand that LIFE is better than DEATH. (Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness. Obadiah)


So, do you believe that their consciousness is in hell only, and then they cease to exist after the GWT?
No, this statement doesn't make any sense and it is not anything like what I said. We were talking about John 3:36 which specifically says that those who believe in the Son have eternal life and those who reject the Son do not have eternal life. The ungodly do not have consciousness in hell, when they die they are dead. They are not conscious while they are dead. They do not have eternal life so they are not conscious after they die. The unsaved live while they are alive, reject the Son of God, die, are dead (meaning - Not Alive), are resurrected for judgment on judgment day, and then they are destroyed completely, they perish. They are not alive after they perish, they are not alive after they have been destroyed. (Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness. Obadiah)

Yet, this goes against Scripture that says that the unsaved will have eternal punishment.
No, it does not. You ASSUME that the eternal punishment is eternal consciousness. Eternal Destruction is the eternal punishment.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness. Obadiah) I carefully explain what I am saying to you, and then you go back and repeat the same exact objection all over again. (Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness. Obadiah)
(Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness. Obadiah)
LIFE is better than DESTRUCTION. Being destroyed is a punishment because the offender is given something WORSE than they would have had otherwise. Destruction is eternal, since the person who is destroyed remains destroyed forever. So destruction is a punishment, and it is eternal. Therefore the doctrine that the unsaved are destroyed does not go against Scripture that says the unsaved will go to eternal punishment.

Your belief that the unsaved will have eternal life being tormented alive forever goes against Matthew 25:46 because it is only the other group that goes off to eternal life, not both groups. You doctrine contradicts this scripture.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My view of Christ's mission is correct. He came to pay for the sins of mankind, and to save them from eternal punishment. When He accomplished on the cross, there was nothing left for Him to do on earth.
(Edited, A&T Guidelines: Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding.)

Christ says “It is finished”, not His mission on Earth was finished or that His ‘spiritual death’ is finished. Yet that’s your claim, obviously. Paul disagrees with you via the 1 Cor 15 passage. Saying Christ paid the price for our sins on the cross, or as Paul does, that our sin debt was "nailed to the cross" is one thing. Saying that "His mission" to Earth was completed there is quite another.

(Edited, Tos 2.2, rudeness. Obadiah)

You didn’t provide any OT Scriptural passages that indicate Jesus was going to die spiritually in accordance with the OT Scriptures like I asked for. I know of (edited) none. Or explain how Paul could have possibly been talking about 'spiritual death', burial and ressurection in 1 Cor 15.
I'm glad you mentioned Paul. He is the one who brought up being born spiritually dead. Eph 2.
If Paul’s the one that brought up spiritual death in His Ephesians letter, then there can’t very well be any OT prophecies about Jesus dying a 'spiritual death' prior to His physical one,(Edit, sarcasm. Obadiah)

Plus, I didn’t just "mention Paul", I asked you to address/answer when he told the Corinthians what was of “first importance” for them to believe, why he failed to include anything about Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ being in accordance with OT Scriptures if that was His only mission to Earth. He included His very, very physical death, burial and resurrection, yet somehow forgot to mention his 'spiritual death' evidently. (Edited, ToS 2.4, rudeness. Obadiah)

(Removed, response to deleted portion of a post. Obadiah)
(Edited, A&T Guidelines: Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding.)


And again, please tell me if you think Paul’s words to the Corinthians about what’s of first importance included their belief in Jesus’ spiritual death or not? And if yes, please justify why you think that’s what he was telling them in that passage (not the Eph passage).
(Removed, response to deleted portion of a post. Obadiah)
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.
(Edited, A&T Guidelines: Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding.)


I do have one last question for you though since all this discussion about 'spiritual death'. Kind to summarize your view for me:

Essentially then, is it your view that the lost’s Eternal Punishment (i.e. their second death) is a second ‘spiritual death’?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Thanks. I believe the Scriptural evidence is much more for eternal destruction than it is for eternal life in hell being tormented alive forever.
(Edited, A&T Guidelines: Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe the Scriptural evidence is much more for eternal destruction than it is for eternal life in hell being tormented alive forever.
[Inappropriate comment.] If something or someone is destroyed, it must be within a finite time frame. It cannot go on forever. While the word "apollumi" or "destroy" or "perish" is used in relation to Hell, it must be interpreted as "utter ruin" in the light of all the other things said about Hell. [Scriptural support for this statement, please]

And there is no "eternal life" is Hell. It is eternal, conscious, intense suffering and torment. As to your denial of eternal torment in Hell, you have absolutely no basis in Scripture (Rev 20:10). That is simply wishful thinking. Multitudes simply deny the existence of Hell altogether. That does not change anything. Truth is truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[Response to deleted comments]

If something or someone is destroyed, it must be within a finite time frame. It cannot go on forever.
Jude 1:7 says that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of the of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in one night, yet it is an eternal destruction. The way I understand this is eternal destruction is destruction that remains forever, the one destroyed does not become undestroyed.

While the word "apollumi" or "destroy" or "perish" is used in relation to Hell, it must be interpreted as "utter ruin" in the light of all the other things said about Hell.
In Greek, it is not just the word apollumi which tells of the destruction of the ungodly. In the example I gave before, 2 Thess 1:9, the word for destruction is olethron. "οἵτινες δίκην τίσουσιν ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον..."
Also we should consider what Jesus said in Matthew 10:28, "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Here Jesus uses a form of the word apollumi, and he says just as men can't kill the soul, we should fear the one who can destroy the soul. This usage directly relates apollumi to kill, not "utter ruin". Another example of where a form of the word apollumi is used is in Matthew 2:13, where Herod attempts to have Jesus killed. "μέλλει γὰρ Ἡρῴδης ζητεῖν τὸ παιδίον τοῦ ἀπολέσαι αὐτό." Here is the verse translated (ESV, I will put the portion I quoted in Greek into italics): Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.”

And there is no "eternal life" is Hell. It is eternal, conscious, intense suffering and torment.
According to Jesus Christ in Matthew 10:28, both the body and soul are destroyed in hell. I agree that there is no eternal life in hell. I disagree that there is eternal consciousness in hell, since Jesus Christ said in Matthew 10:28 that we should fear the one who is able to destroy both body and soul in Gehenna. Peter also says in 2 Peter 3 that the ungodly will be destroyed on the day of judgment and destruction. Here is 2 Peter 3:7, "But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."

As to your denial of eternal torment in Hell, you have absolutely no basis in Scripture (Rev 20:10).
I respectfully disagree with you that there is no basis in Scripture:
2 Thess 1:9 says that the punishment is eternal destruction, not eternal conscious torment.
Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death, not eternal conscious torment.
2 Peter 3:7 says that the ungodly will be destroyed, not eternally tormented in hell.
John 3:16 says that those who reject the Son will perish, it doesn't say that they will be eternally tormented in hell.
John 3:36 says that those who believe in the Son will have eternal life and those who do not have the Son will not see life

That is simply wishful thinking.
I believe that the ungodly will be destroyed because of 2 Thess 1:9 which says the penalty is eternal destruction, 2 Peter 3:7 which says the "destruction of the ungodly" and other Scripture passages. I respectfully disagree that believing that the ungodly will be destroyed should be called "wishful thinking". I don't wish destruction on anyone.

Multitudes simply deny the existence of Hell altogether. That does not change anything.
I agree, and whether multitudes deny the existence of hell or whether multitudes affirm the existence of hell, what really matters is what the Bible says. The opinions of people do not change what the Bible says.

Truth is truth.
That is undeniable, and I believe that the Bible is true. Here is what John 3:16 says:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
That is what I believe the truth is. Whoever believes in Jesus Christ will not perish but will have eternal life, and whoever rejects Jesus Christ will perish and will not have eternal life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rev 20:11-15

11Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake offire. NASB

Question for Tim W:
1. How can the "dead" of v.12 and v.13 "stand before the throne" if they don't exist, as you believe?
2. Do you see from this passage that there are 2 deaths? The "dead" of v.12 and 13 are those who have died physically, yet remain in "Hades", awaiting the GWT judgment.

If the "dead" don't exist, how can they be IN Hades, and "stand before the throne". And how can the dead experience a second death?

Your view cannot answer these very easy questions.

If death only means ceasing to exist, this passage contradicts that.

In fact, your view is refuted by this passage.
I missed this post before. I really want to give you a proper answer.
I believe that the dead will be resurrected for judgment. I believe that this is common Christian Doctrine, but here is some of the Scriptural support for my belief: "Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." John 5:28-29 (ESV).
This says that the dead will be resurrected, both those who have done good and those who have done evil.
You asked, "How can the "dead" of v.12 and v.13 "stand before the throne" if they don't exist, as you believe?"
The dead can stand before the throne of judgment because they are no longer dead, they have been resurrected. John 5:28-29
You asked "If the "dead" don't exist, how can they be IN Hades, and "stand before the throne".
I do not believe that they are in Hades when they stand before the throne. They have been resurrected per John 5:28-29
You asked "And how can the dead experience a second death?"
My view explains this very well. They have been resurrected from their first death, so their second death is when they die a second time. See again John 5:28-29.
 
[Inappropriate comment]
Here, in your opening sentence, you are making a truth claim for what you think is true about the phrase "Eternal Destruction". [Response to deleted comment]

Properly phrased in the form of a logical, debatable question it should read; Is Eternal Destruction (of the lost, in this context) true, Yes or No? Then you should define what you mean by “Eternal” and “Destruction” and then debate whether “Eternal Destruction” is true (of the lost) or not.

Since we have 2 Thess 1:9 (and other’s similar to it) where Paul uses this exact phrase, I take the position that in truth, "Eternal destruction" is NOT an absurdity. I do so simply using the plain/everyday meaning of both words “Eternal” and “Destruction”.

Dr. Mohler and Chris Date participated in a discussion/debate about this issue. (It’s probably best if you give it a listen if you’ve not already done so. It’s just a simple audio file and doesn’t contain any viruses or things that might hurt anyone.)

But anyway, in their opening remarks, stipulations (by both parties and moderation) were made that the plain, everyday and seemingly intended meaning of the word "Eternal" that Paul and Jesus and John used within their truth claims should be used within their debate. In this thread, we should probably stay on topic within that stipulation as well and just go with their stipulation to the word “eternal”. It means what any layperson (such as those reading Paul’s letters and Jesus’ words recorded in the Gospels) would understand it to mean and that most translations of the Greek text translate it as meaning. That is, the thing we (and Dr. Mohler and Chris) are talking about/discussing/debating in this Thread is what does “destruction” mean, not so much what does “eternal” mean.

The reason Dr. Mohler and Chris thought this appropriate is the same reason that I do. “Eternal” is an adjective that modifies the noun Destruction and/or Life. So if you are going to modify it’s commonly understood meaning when it describes “Destruction” then do the same when it modifies “life” unless you’ve got good reason not to.

Your post seems to redefine the meaning of “eternal” as stipulated in their debate into meaning; “within a finite time frame”, “cannot go on forever” which frankly seems totally opposite from it’s plain/everyday meaning (as the Thessalonians, for one example, would have understood it to mean). And, just for illustration purposes of why your definition doesn’t make sense; Does the life of the saved in the New Heavens and New Earth “not go on forever” and occur “within a finite time frame”? I say no and assume you do as well.

My point is that If we’re going to justifiably redefine the adjective “eternal” (which should be done in another thread, if at all) when used in relationship to the noun destruction, then we simply and reasonably must do the same when it’s used to describe “life”.

Therefore, addressing what you say about “destruction” in your post; you present the premise that “destruction” should be understood as “utter ruin” (although no specific Scriptural support for this claim is presented other than to say in light of “all the other things said about Hell). Okay; the lost are judged by Eternal “utter ruin” in Hell versus the lost are judged by Eternal “destruction” in Hell. I’m not sure how that clarifies anything really. When I think of “destruction”, I do think of “utter ruin” also.

But let’s look at the “other things” the Bible has to say about Hell since you mention it.
Technically there are 13 occurrences of “Hell” in the New Testament (depending on which translation you search, I suppose). I will not comment on them all as they’re pretty consistent in Hell’s description (though none say “utter ruin” by the way). Maybe you could post the one or more that lead you to the conclusion that destruction means “utter ruin”.

I listed an occurrence of “utter ruin” at the end of my post, which again seems to coincide with the plain/everyday meaning of “destruction” so I don’t see your point in how that clarifies the phrase “Eternal destruction” for us.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=LEB&quicksearch=Hell&begin=47&end=47

1. Matthew 5:22But I say to you that everyone who is angry at his brother will be subject to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Stupid fool!’ will be subject to the council, and whoever says, ‘Obstinate fool!’ will be subject to fiery hell.
Hell (biblically used) is about God’s Judgment and indeed it is “fiery”. Which is perfectly consistent with a plain/everyday meaning of “destruction” as well. Especially given the case/example of Sodom’s destruction. Both Peter and Jude say Sodom’s destruction is the example of God’s judgment and God’s fire that we should use for our Biblical example of what happens to the lost in Hell.
2. Matthew 5:30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it from you! For it is better for you that one of your limbs be destroyed than your whole body go into hell.
Here, Hell is specifically tied to the very word we’re discussing "destruction". That is destruction of the whole body (not just part of it) occurs in Hell. Again, nothing here warranting some redefinition of the word “destruction” from its plain/everyday meaning based on what the Bible says about Hell.
3. Matthew 10:28And 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.
Again, nothing here about Hell that I see warranting some other meaning to “destruction” then it’s plain meaning.

I could go on and on. My point of clarification that I’m requesting from you is; what exactly do you mean by the "destruction" which occurs in Hell upon the lost being different “in light of all the other things said about Hell”? How is that providing some other meaning for the word “destruction” than it’s plain meaning? I don't get what your saying.

What other things are said about Hell in the Bible that are not associated with the total/permanent destruction of the lost that would give “destruction” some other type of meaning than the one that seems straightforward and Biblically based to me from just these three passages? And how, if there are any that provide some other meaning, do they not conflict with the destruction of the whole body (soul and body)?

Are you sure your not just thinking of some other hell than the one presented in these three verses?

Also, WRT “utter ruin”, I found this occurrence which is consistent with the everyday/plain meaning of destruction as well. So I’m not even sure how your unsupported claim's definition (“utter ruin”) changes “destruction” any from how I understand the word. Aren’t they the same thing, really?:
Isaiah 60:12 (NASB) “For the nation and the kingdom which will not serve you will perish, And the nations will be utterly ruined.
How do you understand “utter ruin” to be anything substantially different than "destruction" of “perish” or the destruction of the “whole body”, the “body and soull”?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a recent Christian Radio Program about two of the three major views of Hell.

http://www.premierchristianradio.co...te-debate-the-traditional-conditionalist-view

What do you think?
At the end of the discussion Dr. Mohler and Chris Date both said something I completely agree with.
Whether a person believes that God sends the lost to hell to be tormented forever or whether the lost are destroyed, we all have to recognize and accept that what God will do is completely just. (Mohler said this, and Date agreed)

Dr. Mohler also said (and I agree completely) that we should not take our ideas of hell from Dante or any other influence, but we should go to the Bible.
 
At the end of the discussion Dr. Mohler and Chris Date both said something I completely agree with.
Whether a person believes that God sends the lost to hell to be tormented forever or whether the lost are destroyed, we all have to recognize and accept that what God will do is completely just. (Mohler said this, and Date agreed)

Dr. Mohler also said (and I agree completely) that we should not take our ideas of hell from Dante or any other influence, but we should go to the Bible.
I'm personally not sure I agree with that, I don't embrace Divine Command Theory, that something is right merely because God commands it to be so. I think something is right if it flows from God's character, which of course his commandments do. I do not think that God would be just for eternally torturing people, nor would he be good from how I understand goodness and justice.

1) How does actively tormenting someone for an eternity yield justice? How does it make things right?
2) How can a God who sacrificed his own Son for these people he loved, then be content to torture them forever in hell?

The picture of God from the ECT is that of an infinitely angry God, whose insatiable desire to express his wrath results in the majority of humanity created in his own image, to be tormented in agony for eternity. It doesn't seem to be the fault of the person who committed the crime, but rather to do the immense anger kindled up in God, which seems to defy all reason. To punish a person whose crimes are limited in time and scope to be confined to be an infinitely long and cruel punishment? It doesn't make sense with the Jesus revealed in Scripture, the God who is said to have his anger last but for a moment, but his mercy to endure forever. (Psalm 30:5)

Why do you think God would be entirely just by eternally tormenting beings created in his image?
 
I 100% agree with Tim, Chris and Dr. Mohler here:
At the end of the discussion Dr. Mohler and Chris Date both said something I completely agree with.
Whether a person believes that God sends the lost to hell to be tormented forever or whether the lost are destroyed, we all have to recognize and accept that what God will do is completely just. (Mohler said this, and Date agreed)
However, I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you’ve said DI, either. There does seem to be something just not right about ECT from my perspective of justice. Why is there a need to eternally torture people? I don’t get it. It seems to just be un-natural to torment someone forever.
Job 19:2 (LEB)
“How long will you torment me and crush me with words?
But it’s not my job to get it. It’s above my pay-grade.
Elihu Asserts God’s Justice:
Job 34:4 (LEB) Let us choose justice for ourselves;
let us determine among ourselves what is good—

Job 42:7 (LEB) And then after Yahweh spoke these words to Job, Yahweh said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath has been kindled against you and against the two of your friends, for you have not spoken to me what is right as my servant Job has.
Yahweh Interrogates Job Again
Job 40:8 (LEB) Indeed, would you annul my justice?
Would you condemn me, so that you might be righteous?

Basically, I’m pragmatic about what occupies my thoughts on this. I don’t see an imperative need to rationalize something that’s not true of the lost’s destiny to begin with. I just don’t spend a lot of time rationalizing ECT in my brain when I don’t even think it’s true to begin with. (When I did think ECT was true, I’d never really thought that much about how it’s Justice either, to be honest).

It seems to me our job is to determine if ECT (Biblically speaking) is what the punishment of the lost is. If ECT is not their punishment, then why spend time rationalizing it (see footnote 1 below, however)???

If God said that He’s going to blast Justin Bieber music at the lost forever or for ten minutes, in Hell, I suppose I’d wonder why that's justice. And I know I'd want to find it recorded in the Bible somewhere. How’s that perfect Justice, so-to-speak? But that’s not what He said He’s going to do to them. He’s repeatedly said He’s going to destroy them in Hell. They are headed for Eternal Destruction, not Eternal Conscious Torment or Eternal Justin Bieber music. And yes, I’m aware of Rev 20:10 (which, BTW, if people haven’t figured out already, is the only place in the whole Bible that directly talks about Eternal Torment).

But there’s that Footnote 1: There is a traditional church view of ECT of the lost being actively taught within the church today (my church included). Therefore it is important to discuss it (though frowned upon by many for some odd reason).

I’ve made this comment before but I think it’s relevant here so I’ll make it again. My former interim pastor (whom I have great respect for) some time back said from the pulpit one day:
“For the wages of sin is Eternal Conscious Torment in Hell” as if he was quoting a Scripture or something. And he even got some Amen(s), as I recall. Therefore, ECT is not just something that should be ignored, IMO. I never discussed it with him, for fear of conflict I suppose. [I bet ya'll find that hard to believe:)]

We can quibble over how long the ECT tradition has been around, how prevalent it was/is, which ‘denominations’ teach it and which don’t, etc. etc. [As Dr. Mohler did as his primary 'argument'] But to me, we should first and foremost be looking into how ECT is a Biblically based doctrine. And never, never quote some quasi-Scripture that says “For the wages of sin is ECT”.

Plus, I’m not even sure that God’s desire is for us (now) to try an rationalize His Justice to begin with.

Job 40:8 (LEB) Indeed, would you annul my justice?
Would you condemn me, so that you might be righteous?

We should probably leave that until later (if at all), once we see His final justice occur upon the lost. Maybe He’ll reveal His Justice toward the lost to me one day, IDK. My prediction is that it will seem spot on perfect to us, at that time. But not until then:

Why do you think God would be entirely just by eternally tormenting beings created in his image?
You ask a reasonable question above. I just don’t personally have an answer to it. Not only that, but I just don’t think it is necessary (or even the best use of my time) for me to try and rationalize ECT until we see if it’s true or not (after God makes all things right, that is).
 
I'm with you Tim, when the few verse quoted for ETC are looked at correctly the doctrine falls apart.
Thanks Butch, I appreciate that.
I've looked at the major verses that the ECT group uses. I don't know of any that they use that I haven't seen.
Matthew 25:46 says that there is eternal punishment, which I agree with and this verse also says that only the righteous get to have eternal life and this is obviously a problem for the ECT view.
Luke 16 contains a parable about the intermediate state, I think that the ECT view also acknowledges this. Since it is about the intermediate state and not the final state, I'm not sure how it can be used as solid evidence for the final state being ECT. Also, Chris Date has pointed out that "eternal" is not even part of this parable.
2 Thessalonians 1:9 is often referenced to support ECT, but it specifically says the penalty is eternal destruction which is the Conditionalist View.
Revelation 14:10 is probably the best evidence for ECT, as it says the smoke of their torment rises forever, however this does not say that the torment lasts forever, merely the smoke. And Chris Date pointed out that this same language is used in the OT to denote total destruction.
The last verse that people use to support ECT is Revelation 20:10.
This verse doesn't say anything about the fate of the lost, it says that only three entities will be tormented, these are the devil, the beast, and the false prophet.

For the Conditional Immortality group, the evidence that the wicked will be destroyed or perish is much stronger. The Bible specifically speaks of this in Psalm 37:10, 20 and 38; Ezekiel 18:4; Malachi 4, Matthew 10:28, John 3:16 and 36; Romans 6:23, 2 Peter 3, and Jude 1:7 among other passages of scripture. In the podcast Chris Date listed many more verses which I believe the ECT side should address.

I'm personally not sure I agree with that, I don't embrace Divine Command Theory, that something is right merely because God commands it to be so. I think something is right if it flows from God's character, which of course his commandments do. I do not think that God would be just for eternally torturing people, nor would he be good from how I understand goodness and justice.

1) How does actively tormenting someone for an eternity yield justice? How does it make things right?
2) How can a God who sacrificed his own Son for these people he loved, then be content to torture them forever in hell?

The picture of God from the ECT is that of an infinitely angry God, whose insatiable desire to express his wrath results in the majority of humanity created in his own image, to be tormented in agony for eternity. It doesn't seem to be the fault of the person who committed the crime, but rather to do the immense anger kindled up in God, which seems to defy all reason. To punish a person whose crimes are limited in time and scope to be confined to be an infinitely long and cruel punishment? It doesn't make sense with the Jesus revealed in Scripture, the God who is said to have his anger last but for a moment, but his mercy to endure forever. (Psalm 30:5)

Why do you think God would be entirely just by eternally tormenting beings created in his image?
I don't believe that God does this, but if it turns out that the ECTists are correct, I still trust that God is just and I don't understand it. I agree with all that you have said. Perhaps the justice of God is an argument against ECT.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible that what we understand "punishment" to be may not be quite correct? I personally believe that to not be in the presence of God for eternity (heaven) would be punishment with weaping and gnashing of teeth so long as one realizes what is happening. I see this being reinforced in the story of the rich man and Lazarus and how the rich man was in torment because he realized he could not be where he truly wanted to be. Does that make sense?

When Jesus cried out to the Father from the cross, "Why have you forsaken me?" I also suspect part of the reason for Christ's torment was that he was separated for a time.
 
Basically, I’m pragmatic about what occupies my thoughts on this. I don’t see an imperative need to rationalize something that’s not true of the lost’s destiny to begin with. I just don’t spend a lot of time rationalizing ECT in my brain when I don’t even think it’s true to begin with. (When I did think ECT was true, I’d never really thought that much about how it’s Justice either, to be honest).
I think this is the portion that is most relevant to Apologetics, as Hell is a popular subject in discussing with those who object to Christianity. They will often cite how the Traditional view of Hell does not make sense, and makes God out to look evil from their perspective. I've given this a bit of thought, and this is another reason for rejecting ECT.

It seems to me our job is to determine if ECT (Biblically speaking) is what the punishment of the lost is. If ECT is not their punishment, then why spend time rationalizing it (see footnote 1 below, however)???
I see what you mean, and I don't think it's possible to rationalize it personally. One has to appeal to the mystery of God to assert such a doctrine.

Like how one could have happiness and joy in heaven, while people they loved dearly suffer immense torment in hell at the same time. How a Holy God could permit the existence of evil for such a long time, when he said that all his enemies would be destroyed?

But there’s that Footnote 1: There is a traditional church view of ECT of the lost being actively taught within the church today (my church included). Therefore it is important to discuss it (though frowned upon by many for some odd reason).

I’ve made this comment before but I think it’s relevant here so I’ll make it again. My former interim pastor (whom I have great respect for) some time back said from the pulpit one day:
“For the wages of sin is Eternal Conscious Torment in Hell” as if he was quoting a Scripture or something. And he even got some Amen(s), as I recall. Therefore, ECT is not just something that should be ignored, IMO. I never discussed it with him, for fear of conflict I suppose. [I bet ya'll find that hard to believe:)]
I discussed it with my Pastor, and he didn't really rebuke me or anything, he knows not to major on the minors and that fellowship can be maintained when it's regarding non-essential issues.

We can quibble over how long the ECT tradition has been around, how prevalent it was/is, which ‘denominations’ teach it and which don’t, etc. etc. [As Dr. Mohler did as his primary 'argument'] But to me, we should first and foremost be looking into how ECT is a Biblically based doctrine. And never, never quote some quasi-Scripture that says “For the wages of sin is ECT”.
That always bugged me too.
 
I don't believe that God does this, but if it turns out that the ECTists are correct, I still trust that God is just and I don't understand it. I agree with all that you have said. Perhaps the justice of God is an argument against ECT.
I laid out an argument for this before.

http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/eternal-conscious-torment-and-justice.51830/
Introduction

An often overlooked issue (though I try to bring it up in discussions) is the Justice involved with the Eternal Conscious Torment perspective regarding God's final punishment of the wicked.

A frequent objection to my own position is an appeal to how the wicked somehow get off "easy" by being utterly destroyed. Which is a rather odd objection and would only be found by those who have conceptualized God as being an eternal tormentor. However, the objection remains nonetheless, but I think it misses the point. The point isn't what is the worst punishment imaginable, instead it is what is the Just punishment for the crime committed.

What is Just about Eternal Conscious Torment?

It is first important to understand that people don't send themselves to Hell. It is not the wicked who choose to go into hell, they are punished and cast in. For example, if I said, "I cast a rock into the lake," who would believe that the rock cast itself into the lake? The language is clear that those being cast into the lake of fire are being acted upon, they themselves could not possibly be acting on themselves and casting themselves in based upon the grammar.

Next, we must understand that people are sent in because they are being punished. The key component to this punishment according to those who hold to the ECT view, is their torment.

This is in line with the definition of torture as seen here: "the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment."[1] (Please note that mental suffering and anguish also falls under the definition of this word)

It fits the description because they are..

1. Experiencing severe physical and/or mental anguish.
2. As a punishment for what they have done.

Now what is made right by this type of punishment? Is the sinner's way reformed? No. It is said to be for God to satisfy his wrath.

Think on this for a moment... our Lord Jesus Christ, our compassionate, gentle and loving savior has a deep need to see his wrath poured out on billions of people for all eternity.

Beloved, there is nothing Just about this concept. Tyrants and dictators are just by this standard, who torture those who oppose them and satisfy their own anger and fury. No wrong is made right by the anguish of billions of people suffering torment for quadrillions of years.

Conclusion

We would not afford any earthly dominion to exact justice via torture and torment, and this is because this merciless and barbaric form of punishment goes against every concept of justice we hold dear. God is righteous and therefore will do what is right, and there is nothing righteous about billions of human beings created in the image of God suffering torment for an infinite duration.

My challenge for those who hold to the Eternal Conscious Torment view is this, how is the torment of billions of people for an infinite duration a Just punishment?

Regards,
DI

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture
 
Southern Baptists aren't a heretical organization, nor as Dr. Mohler a heretic, despite the fact that I disagree with him on certain things.

It's not a good idea to get our opinions about others by referring to a random list online.
 
Have you heard of a logical fallacy called "guilt by association"?

Communists believe that labor unions are the back bone of any economy.
Smith is an organizer for a union
Therefore Smith is a communist

That is what the website is saying when they link the leaders of Christianity and their (incomplete) statements to the beliefs of certain groups. I am not saying that you are intentionally distorting facts through incomplete facts, but instead I am point to a logical fallacy to help you see how tricky rhetoric works.
 
Is it possible that what we understand "punishment" to be may not be quite correct? I personally believe that to not be in the presence of God for eternity (heaven) would be punishment with weaping and gnashing of teeth so long as one realizes what is happening. I see this being reinforced in the story of the rich man and Lazarus and how the rich man was in torment because he realized he could not be where he truly wanted to be. Does that make sense?

When Jesus cried out to the Father from the cross, "Why have you forsaken me?" I also suspect part of the reason for Christ's torment was that he was separated for a time.
Hi WIP, Separation from God would be a bad thing, but then what do you make of all of the destruction passages in the Bible?
(Matt 10:38, Matt 18:14, Matt 21:41, Luke 20:16, John 3:16, John 3:36, John 10:10, John 17:12, Romans 2:12, Romans 14:15, 2 Cor 2:15, 2 Thess 1:9, 2 Peter 3:6, 2 Peter 3:9, Jude 1:7...)
 
Back
Top