The lake of fire - Punishment ie torture or destruction

[Butch5]

I can see how Annihilationism can be attractive to those who have friends or relatives that have killed themselves or have died in their sins. Feelings. Not always the best guide.

Whether it's attractive or not is irrelevant. What the Scriptures teach is what is relevant. The Scriptures tell us the wick will be no more.

 

[Jim Parker]

That observation concerns the human dimension. The Bible speaks all truth and says exactly what it means to communicate from God in Matthew 10:28. This then answers your prior question in post #123, "Any proof that souls will be destroyed?"
The proof is in Matthew 10:28.
Do you not believe God when he says this? Is your observation here , being able to do something is not the same as doing it, hoping to communicate that God's observations in Matthew 10:28 are of no import?

"If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” (Rev 14:9-11)
One cannot be tormented "forever and ever" and "destroyed" at the same time.

And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 15:20)

Mat 10:28 (NKJV) "ANd do not fear those who kill (APOKTENNONTON) the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy (APOKTENAI) both soul and body in hell."
The word rendered "destroy" is from the Greek "ἀποκτείνω" (apokteinō).
That word more accurately means: to kill (slay), not to destroy.

Other examples of the use of "ἀποκτείνω" are:
Mat 17:23 “and they will kill ("ἀποκτείνω") Him, and the third day He will be raised up.”
Mat 21:38 “But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill ("ἀποκτείνω") him and seize his inheritance.'
Mark 6:19 "Therefore Herodias held it against him and wanted to kill ("ἀποκτείνω") him, but she could not;"
John 7:19 “Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill ("ἀποκτείνω") Me?”

And many, many more....

So your conclusion about the destruction of the body is based on a rendering of the Greek into Late Middle English (KJV) which no one speaks any more.

iakov the fool

 

[godsquadgeek]

I said:
"1. Paradise, also referred to as Abraham's bosom
2. torments
3. tartarus, a prison for some fallen angels"

I'm sorry that plain Scripture doesn't seem to satisfy some, and they require human verification. But I'm quite satisfied with what the Bible says, and says plainly.

But since my list, straight out of Scripture, doesn't seem to persuade, please address each of the 3 listed and show me from Scripture that they are NOT places where departed souls exist. If you can, that would help me orient to truth.

it's also important to note that Jesus descended into hell for 3 days. It was there that he released those in paradise, but I wanted to note that paradise was also described as hell. So you would have to add that to your list too.

 

[Randy]

Nope. Just posted the Scripture that shows The False Prophet to be a demon from the Abyss who acts on this Earth for a short time in behalf of The Dragon (Satan who is the king of the Abyss and destroyer) performing signs to deceive men through seven kings (men, the seven heads of The Beast and The False Prophet).

You don't believe in a antichrist or man of lawlessness or you just don't see that beast as the beast that comes out of the earth or false prophet?

 

[Randy]

it's also important to note that Jesus descended into hell for 3 days. It was there that he released those in paradise, but I wanted to note that paradise was also described as hell. So you would have to add that to your list too.

The spirits in "prison" is not the same as today you shall be with ME in paradise.
Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." That would be in heaven not Abrahams bosom or a prison.

 

[Randy]

And Satan is the king of the Abyss:

They have a king over them: the angel of the abyss. The name for him in Hebrew is Abaddon. And in Greek he has the name Apollyon.​

Revelation 9:11 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Revelation 9:11&version=DLNT

And the Abyss is Satan’s prison from where he comes up for a short time, then returns to his prison forever:

And he seized the dragon— the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan — and bound him for a thousand years. And he threw him into the abyss, and shut and sealed it over him in order that he might not deceive the nations anymore until the thousand years are finished. After these things he must be released for a short time.​

Revelation 20:2-3 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Revelation 20:2-3&version=DLNT

Satan is released “for a short time” from his prison (the Abyss) then returns there forever in torment.

And when the thousand years are finished, Satan will be released from his prison.​

Revelation 20:7 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Revelation 20:7&version=DLNT

And the devil, the one deceiving them, was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur— where both the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented by day and by night forever and ever.​

Revelation 20:10 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Revelation 20:10&version=DLNT

Satan (and his demons) come from the Abyss for a little while and return to The Lake of Fire forever (simply two different names for the same place) because it’s their prison of which Satan is king. (Who’s name is destroyer/destruction).

Satan or the dragon give his authority to the beast or angel of the abyss.
The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.

 

[godsquadgeek]

The spirits in "prison" is not the same as today you shall be with ME in paradise.
Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." That would be in heaven not Abrahams bosom or a prison.

some believe it was abrahams bosom, as He did have to stop there prior to going to heaven, and obviously the thief on the cross didn't hang out for Jesus to come back to heaven for three days.

 

[Politico]

Thankyou for this response. My observation is that you clearly believe all lost sinners are provided with information to decide for or against God.

I affirm the Wesleyan concpet of prevenient grace. So there is knowledge that reflects God that is available to a person, even a indian in a jungle somewhere. I consider this to be general revelation that can lead to additional (special) revelation. If general revelation is responded to positively, it can lead to additional revelation of truth necessary for actual regeneration. I remember the story of the witch doctor who responded positively to general revelation which lead to additional revelation that lead to actual salvation. Keep in mind all the many stories of Jesus appearing to people in different parts of the world. Must God provide additional special revelation if minimal/general revelation is not responded to positively? I understand that prevenient grace acts to draw the person to his/her maker (John 6:44; John 12:32).

Now imagine you are an unborn child in the womb. Or an indian
in the jungle cut off from any outside community. There are innumerable situations.
Or even those who cannot read or write and have no access to believers.

So you are here introducing the issues of the so called Problem of the Heathen and age-related accountability. These are separate issues from the issue of Annihilationism, but would be especially relevant if 1) the Heathen are truly a problem, and 2) it is true that unborn children are not under the benefits of the Atonement without conscience consent or some baptismal ritual. I do not affirm 1 or 2, so both are not a concern for me in regards to the probability of Annihilationism being a reality. In other words, I believe that 1 and 2 must be independently determined to be probably true before they should be a factor in the issue of Annihilationism.

It strikes me you do not believe people are born completely lost, without a hope to choose God or good
things.

I affirm the doctrine of total depravity outside of the acting influence of prevenient grace. I believe prevenient grace works to enable a person to respond positively to God's revelations. Such grace working with available knowledge provides hope. So I believe the indian in the jungle is not without hope.

And somehow this is no longer choosing God but Jesus.

I don't understand

And you are suggesting children who die before the age of consent know enough to be
judged for not choosing God.

No, I have not affirmed or stated such. John the baptist was filled with the Sprit in the womb outside of a conscience choice; sampson was separated unto God before birth (no, I am not affirming Calvinian predestination). Knowledge, intent, and capacity (KIC), these are factors in God's judgment of us, I believe. A child has none of these, and so, I believe, cannot possibly be held accountable to some standard.

....A true encounter with Christ brings life,
and without this, there is only judgement.

What do you mean by "encounter"?

Now to justify eternal torture you need to wilful rebellion, but my experience is most just drift through life
never quite knowing what or how they should live.

And yet if one of these people murdered one of your loved ones, you would claim he/she is fully culpable, responsible, and should be held accountable and punished, correct? Dose such an act of murder constitute "wilful rebellion"?

Eternal torment? I believe that God Almighty gives plenty of warnings to rebels before they perish in their sins. Can it be proved otherwise? Do you remember the demon possessed child in Mark 9:14-26? Unless one is willing to argue that demons can just enter children at will, does not this child's demon possessed state indicate that the age of accountability can be very young? Presumably, this child engaged in some kind of sin that opened the door to demonic possession. I know a person who God used mightily as a small child. We should be very careful in assuming who is and is not considered morally/spiritually accountable by God. Full accountability seems to vary widely in terms of age.

These people could be rejecting general revelation. Has there been a poll to suggest otherwise? How many would actually admit to rejecting general revelation? How could we know for sure what their awareness comprehends? Contrary to your experience, I witness the godless all the time reveal that they are aware of general revelation and even special revelation and then turn around and glorify sin in their words and bodies. Often when cornered by an experienced Christian apologist, they can be cornered to admit that they are aware of standards of truth and their violations of them. Look at some of Ray Comfort's vids. The people he talks to often admit that they are aware of their own wrongdoing.

Many basic moral standards transcend cultural. In no place in the world is murder lauded or accepted. People have a moral compass in operation. They understand the basic concept of creation. Romans makes that clear. It is not God's fault that some people do not respond positively to such general revelation despite conviction of the prevenient grace of God in operation.

 

[chessman]

You don't believe in a antichrist or man of lawlessness

Of course I believe there are anti-christs (both spirit beings and human beings who are now against Christ. And I believe there will be in the future both spirit beings and human beings against Christ.

And of course I believe the one antichrist exhaulting himself in Jerusalem and opposing Christ at Christ’s return will be revealed as the man of lawlessness. And yes, he will be a man. A man, not a beast or a demon.

you just don't see that beast as the beast that comes out of the earth or false prophet?

Some things are difficult to understand and/or interpret within Revelation. My point about The Dragon, The Beast and The False Prophet is not one of those difficult things. Just believe what is revealed about them and it’s clear. They are “demons”, plain and simple.

And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false-prophet. For they are spirits of demons doing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world to gather them together for the battle of the great day of God Almighty.​

Revelation 16:13-14 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Revelation 16:13-14&version=DLNT

 

[Randy]

some believe it was abrahams bosom, as He did have to stop there prior to going to heaven, and obviously the thief on the cross didn't hang out for Jesus to come back to heaven for three days.

Would God imprison the righteous? Didn't they die by Gods judgment? The flood.

I find it unreasonable to describe a place of imprisonment as a paradise like heaven. I do believe Jesus purchased them as well by His blood because they died apart from law and long before the light of the gospel message was sent into all the world. As with light comes accountability. Justice to the nations.

 

[Randy]

Of course I believe there are anti-christs (both spirit beings and human beings who are now against Christ. And I believe there will be in the future both spirit beings and human beings against Christ.

And of course I believe the one antichrist exhaulting himself in Jerusalem and opposing Christ at Christ’s return will be revealed as the man of lawlessness. And yes, he will be a man. A man, not a beast or a demon.


Some things are difficult to understand and/or interpret within Revelation. My point about The Dragon, The Beast and The False Prophet is not one of those difficult things. Just believe what is revealed about them and it’s clear. They are “demons”, plain and simple.

And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false-prophet. For they are spirits of demons doing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world to gather them together for the battle of the great day of God Almighty.​

Revelation 16:13-14 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Revelation 16:13-14&version=DLNT

I dont agree. The false prophet will be the man of lawlessness. Regardless the punishment for those who worship the image of the beast who the false prophet sets up will be tormented in the lake of fire. And thats not meaning others who earn the 2nd death for other reasons shall not receive the same punishment. The punishment is the same for anyone man or angel who is thrown into the lake of fire.

"If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.

 

[FreeGrace]

If one rejects annihilation of the soul one believes in universal life, whether in torture or not, life is eternal. That would seemingly contradict Jesus's words, those who believe will receive eternal life.

No contradiction. The Bible calls the lof the second DEATH.

There is eternal existence. If one prefers to all that life, so be it. But the Bible describes existence in the lof as the second DEATH, so there is no contradiction whatsoever. Only with your word preference.

I think sinners want so badly to gain eternal existance, even existance in torture is better than destruction.

If by destruction' one means ceasing to exist, how can one prefer conscious torture to not existing, which means not conscious?

And I disagree with your premise, as all atheists think that at physical death, they will simply cease to exist. And it does not bother them at all. They eschew the idea of any kind of life after death.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"I'm just sorry that quoting from the Bible doesn't count as a qualified source."

If a Mormon does that, what does it make you if you do the same?

Apparently the idea of exegeting a verse hasn't occurred to you. There is no way ANY verse of the Bible supports what Mormons claim. Aren't you aware of that?

Sure, many quote from the Bible? So what? Even satan did that when he was trying to tempt Jesus in the desert. How far did he get? Zippo. Why? Because Jesus REFUTED him FROM THE BIBLE.

The fact that Mormons misunderstand Scripture doesn't discount me from quoting the Bible.

What counts is what the verses are used to support. The quoter is either right or wrong. Period.

You want to be orthodox.

That's why I quote the Bible, not flawed human beings.

If there is a problem with the verses I use to support my claims/views, then address the verses that you believe DON'T support my views. And show how/why the verses don't support my views/claims.

Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace]

Oh sorry. Just figured since your fighting with me you must be the opposite party.

That's the problem with making assumptions without any evidence. I know that Calvinists and Arminians do that all the time when I try to have a discussion with either. They assume if I'm not with them, I'm with the other.

People need to pay attention to what each poster actually says, and stop making assumptions beyond what they post.

 

[FreeGrace]

Five parts not in Rev 20, but throughout the bible

Then my question remains: where in the Bible. Please cite references with the names of each.

 

[FreeGrace]

Whether it's attractive or not is irrelevant. What the Scriptures teach is what is relevant. The Scriptures tell us the wick will be no more.

How does that not contradict what the Bible teaches about existence in the lof from Rev 20?

For smoke to rise forever, there must be fire forever. And the smoke is from their torment. So the torment must occur forever.

If a soul is annihilated, it no longer exists. Therefore, the torment cannot continue, and neither will the smoke.

I would appreciate an explanation.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said:
"1. Paradise, also referred to as Abraham's bosom
2. torments
3. tartarus, a prison for some fallen angels"

it's also important to note that Jesus descended into hell for 3 days. It was there that he released those in paradise, but I wanted to note that paradise was also described as hell. So you would have to add that to your list too.

What the Bible calls "hell" is actually "hades", where both Lazarus and the rich man went after death. But they were in different areas or compartments there. Lazarus was in Paradise, also called Abraham's bosom, while the rich man was in torments (Luke 16:23). Both were conscious.

So the 3 on my list above are ALL in hades, and are different compartments in hades.

Hades is not the lof.

 

[godsquadgeek]

Would God imprison the righteous? Didn't they die by Gods judgment? The flood.

I find it unreasonable to describe a place of imprisonment as a paradise like heaven. I do believe Jesus purchased them as well by His blood because they died apart from law and long before the light of the gospel message was sent into all the world. As with light comes accountability. Justice to the nations.

What do you say of the scripture that describes Abrahams bosom?

 

[godsquadgeek]

I said this:
"I'm just sorry that quoting from the Bible doesn't count as a qualified source."

Apparently the idea of exegeting a verse hasn't occurred to you. There is no way ANY verse of the Bible supports what Mormons claim. Aren't you aware of that?

Sure, many quote from the Bible? So what? Even satan did that when he was trying to tempt Jesus in the desert. How far did he get? Zippo. Why? Because Jesus REFUTED him FROM THE BIBLE.

The fact that Mormons misunderstand Scripture doesn't discount me from quoting the Bible.

What counts is what the verses are used to support. The quoter is either right or wrong. Period.


That's why I quote the Bible, not flawed human beings.

If there is a problem with the verses I use to support my claims/views, then address the verses that you believe DON'T support my views. And show how/why the verses don't support my views/claims.

Thanks.

You just said that Mormons twist the bible, what does it make you if you do the same? I quote orthodox scholars because the spirit of truth has kept Christianity safe through the centuries. If you come.up with new concepts then they probably are.wrong. as the saying goes, if its new its not true, if it's true it's not new. Since you can't quote orthodox scholars I must assume your view is new and not true.

 

[godsquadgeek]

That's the problem with making assumptions without any evidence. I know that Calvinists and Arminians do that all the time when I try to have a discussion with either. They assume if I'm not with them, I'm with the other.

People need to pay attention to what each poster actually says, and stop making assumptions beyond what they post.

I don't even remember.why we are.fighting