Annihilationism or Eternal Torment

First, it doesn't matter if you believe in annihilationism. God knows what He will do with rebels and I am fine with whatever God wills.
My point is that annihilationism is the belief of atheists so you simply affirm them and provide encouragement to be a hedonist.
Second, your biblical references are unimpressive and your interpretation of these passages is incorrect, therefore I expect God does not agree with your opinion.
If Christians abandon God's Sovereignty, that is a slippery slope to atheism. However, the elect will not abandon God's Sovereignty.

 

What happens when chaff is thrown into a fire?

Take two seconds and think about it....
It demonstrates Annihilationism.

No, the "worms" don't die...
The "worms" are maggots.
Maggots only feed on dead flesh. God could not have been more clear about the vultures, maggots, etc.. feasting upon the slain bodies of the dead wicked.

This is so easy, that it bores me.

 

Truth is truth, it doesn't matter what any of us believe. Why don't you say something that isn't utterly elementary?

Yes, and he has told us what he plans to do with them:
After they are resurrected to face judgment, he sentences them to a fiery and terrifying hell where he throws them into an unquenchable fire which will painfully and horridly destroy them.
That's the Bible teaching anyway.

No, you aren't.
You believe that God rewards the wicked with Eternal Life.
My Bible teaches that the wicked do not inherit eternal life.
My Bible teaches that after judgment they are thrown into an all-consuming and unquenchable fire.

You do not believe that the wicked are thrown into a Lake of Fire.
You believe that they are thrown into a sort of everlasting torture-chamber which is metaphorically described as a "Lake of Fire".

You do not believe that the wages of sin is death.
You redefine the word of death in order to fit into your Theology.
You do not believe that Christ died on the cross for our sins as a substitute.

You are only fine if God does whatever you are already comfortable with believing
You couldn't care less what the Bible teaches.

No Atheist on the planet believes that everyone who dies is resurrected by the power of an Almighty God to face a final judgement wherein they will account for their sins, be judged, sentenced, and denied the option of Eternal Life, but, instead consigned to death in a fiery pit..... the smoke of which will rise forever.
That's what I believe.
No atheist believes that.
You only convert people to my side by such obiously weak comparisons.
Please, by all means.......keep talking. Continue with obvious lies and misdirections which are unfounded and watch seeking believers reexamine the text and flock to my side of the issue.
Please, Please........go on.
Say more.
Say much more

No, but, please, keep talking.....people are being converted to Biblical teaching on Annihilationism the more you post.

blah, blah.

blah, blah...........

This conversation has nothing to do with God's Sovereignty. It is about what God says in his Holy Word is the final state of the wicked.........

I'll Post what a thrice-Holy and perfectly Sovereign God has said he plans to do with the wicked yet again:

(Just for you)
Chris Date and Phil Fernandes Debate Hell - YouTube

 

....

 

Indeed, truth is truth and your belief is not truth. Your view is the same as an atheist, not the same as God.
You are free to foolishly imagine in annihilationism. Atheists and Jehovah's Witnesses stand arm in arm with you.

 

Psalms 22:6, "But I am a worm, . . ." Not maggots.
Mark 9:47-48, ". . . into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." "their" plural, "worm" is singular, not plural. So do they each get one magget that does not burn, to eat their soot?

 

And Muslims and Mormons agree with you..
See how these lines of arguments don't do any good?

 

Muslims and Mormons understand hell better than you do. Got it.

 

By your same logic then, it is irrelevant what supposed cults believe any given thing.
That's the point.
Your "arguments" are childish and elementary.
Your "arguments" are standard fare for your side.
Your "arguments" are precisely why thinking bible-believing evangelicals are abandoning your view in droves.

Please, you have less than six hrs. You cannot imagine how helpful you are being. Keep talking.

 

The "worm" in Psalms 22 (which is utterly irrelevant to the conversation may indeed not be a maggot. Don't know. The Psalm has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The "worm" in Mark 9 (which is not original to Jesus or Mark) comes from Isaiah 66 and other O.T. books. Jesus didn't invent that metaphor. Most (even ECT scholars) agree that the "worm" being spoken of is maggots. This is almost Universally understood. You need the O.T. context for the passage Jesus is quoting. It is a scene of death and utter destruction involving corpses being devoured by maggots. The entire chapter is a scene of dead rotting corpses.
Here it is in all it's obvious Annihilationist glory:

Isa. 66: 24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Did you even know that Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament??? If you are like me, when I thought as you do, probably not. I was never told, and I didn't look it up myself. His audience, however, would have known that reference immediately and understood the point he was making.

 

I recognize you are bound by your poor interpretation of scripture to think annihilationism is taught in the Bible. It is not. However, your version surely emboldens atheists and all sinners to enjoy hedonism to its fullest since they simply are annihilated when they die. "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die."

 

Do you want to put paid to it with a Public, moderated, formal debate?
As long as it's posted on Youtube and for everyone on Baptist Board to observe, I think you could demonstrate your point magnificently.
This should be easy for you.
No way, that since the Scriptures are so overwhelmingly in your favour, you should crush my foolish Theologies once and for all.
P.M. me.

Moderated, rules in advance. "Does the Bible teach Annihilationism or Eternal Conscious Torment?".

I'll travel to your personal hometown on my own dime so you can embarrass me publicly in front of your friends and family. Or we can simply use skype or another online format.
You can't possibly lose.
Interested?

 

Nope, your view isn't worth debating. It's the view of atheists and not the position of God.

 

So, you are scared.
Got it.

 

No, I am wise. Why debate an atheistic view? You are free to follow an atheist teaching. I won't stop you.

 

Rom 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

1. What Does ‘Everlasting’ Mean?

The first argument is of necessity an attempt to explain “eternal punishment” in Matthew 25:46—where it’s parallel to the phrase “eternal life”—as not necessarily carrying the implication of endlessness. Granted that, as is rightly urged, “eternal” (aionios) in the New Testament (NT) means “belonging to the age to come” rather than expressing any directly chronological notion, the NT writers are unanimous in expecting the age to come to be unending, so the annihilationist’s problem remains where it was. The assertion that in the age to come life is the sort of thing that goes on while punishment is the sort of thing that ends begs the question. Basil Atkinson, “an eccentric bachelor academic” according to Gordon Wenham but a professional philologist and mentor of Wenham and John Stott in this matter, wrote:

When the adjective aionios meaning “everlasting” is used in Greek with nouns of action, it has reference to the result of that action, but not the process. Thus the phrase “everlasting punishment” is comparable to “everlasting redemption” and “everlasting salvation,” both scriptural phrases. . . . The lost will not be passing through a process of punishment forever but will be punished once and for all with eternal results.

Though this assertion is constantly made by annihilationists, who otherwise could not get their position off the ground, it lacks support from grammarians and begs the question by assuming punishment is a momentary rather than a sustained event. While not perhaps absolutely impossible, the reasoning seems unnatural, evasive, and, in the final assessment, forlorn.

 

2. The Instrinsic Eternality of the Soul

The second common argument is that once the idea of the intrinsic immortality of the soul (i.e., the conscious person) is set aside as a Platonic intrusion into second-century exegesis, it will appear that the only natural meaning of the NT imagery of death, destruction, fire, and darkness as indicators of the destiny of unbelievers is that such persons cease to be. On inspection, however, this proves not to be the case. For evangelicals, the analogy of Scripture—the axiom of its inner coherence and consistency and power to elucidate its own teaching from within itself—is a controlling principle in all interpretation, and though there are texts which, taken in isolation, might carry annihilationist implications, others can’t naturally be fitted into any form of this scheme. But no proposed theory of the Bible’s meaning that doesn’t cover all the Bible’s relevant statements can be true.

Texts like Jude 6, Matthew 8:12, Matthew 22:13, and Matthew 25:30 show that darkness signifies a state of deprivation and distress, not of destruction in the sense of ceasing to exist. After all, only those who exist can weep and gnash their teeth, as those banished into the darkness are said to do.

Nowhere in Scripture does death signify extinction; physical death is departure into another mode of being, called sheol or hades, and metaphorical death is existence that is God-less and graceless; nothing in biblical usage warrants the idea that the “second death” of Revelation 2:11; 20:14; and 21:8 means or involves cessation of being.

Moreover, Luke 16:22–24 shows that, as in a good deal of extrabiblical apocalyptic, fire signifies continued existence in pain. The chilling words of Revelation 14:10 with 19:20 and 20:10, and of Matthew 13:42, 50, confirm this.

In 2 Thessalonians 1:9 Paul explains, or extends, the meaning of “punished with everlasting [eternal, aionios] destruction” by adding “and shut out from the presence of the Lord”—which, by affirming exclusion, rules out the idea that “destruction” meant extinction. Only those who exist can be excluded. It’s often been pointed out that in Greek the natural meaning of the destruction vocabulary (noun, olethros; verb, apollumi) is “wrecking,” so that what’s destroyed is henceforth nonfunctional rather than annihilated altogether.

Annihilationists respond with special pleading. Sometimes they urge that such references to continued distress refer only to the temporary experience of the lost before they’re extinguished, but this is to beg the question by speculative eisegesis and to give up the original claim that the NT imagery of eternal loss naturally implies extinction. Robert Peterson quotes from Stott, which he calls “the best case for annihilationism,” the following on the words “And the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever” (Rev. 14:11):

The fire itself is termed “eternal” and “unquenchable,” but it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible. Our expectation would be the opposite: it would be consumed forever, not tormented forever. Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) which “rises for ever and ever.”

“On the contrary,” Peterson replies, “our expectation would be that the smoke would die out once the fire had finished its work. . . . The rest of the verse confirms our interpretation: ‘There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image.’” There seems no answer to this.

So at every point, the linguistic argument simply fails. To say that some texts, taken in isolation, might mean annihilation proves nothing when other texts evidently do not.

 

3. Divine Justice

The third annihilationist argument is that for God to visit punitive retribution endlessly on the lost would be disproportionate and unjust. Stott writes: “I question whether ‘eternal conscious torment’ is compatible with the biblical revelation of divine justice, unless perhaps (as has been argued) the impenitence of the lost also continues throughout eternity.” The uncertainty expressed in Stott’s “perhaps” is strange, for there is no reason to think the resurrection of the lost for judgment will change their character, and every reason therefore to suppose their rebellion and impenitence will continue as long as they themselves do, making continued banishment from God’s fellowship fully appropriate; but, leaving that aside, it is apparent that the argument, if valid, would prove too much, and end up undermining the annihilationist’s own case.

For if, as the argument implies, it is needlessly cruel for God to keep the lost endlessly in being to suffer pain, because his justice does not require this, how can the annihilationists justify in terms of God’s justice the fact that he makes them suffer any postmortem pain at all? Why would not justice, which on this view requires their annihilation in any case, not be satisfied by annihilation at death? Biblical annihilationists, who cannot evade the expectation of the final resurrection to judgment of unbelievers alongside believers, admit that God doesn’t do this, and some, as we have seen, admit too there will be some pain inflicted after judgment and prior to extinction. But if God’s justice requires no more than extinction, and therefore doesn’t require this, the pain becomes needless cruelty, and God is in effect accused of the very fault of which annihilationists are anxious to prove him innocent and condemn the Christian mainstream for implying. If, however, God’s justice really does require some penal pain in addition to annihilation, and continued hostility, rebellion, and impenitence Godward on the part of unbelievers remains a postmortem fact, there will be no moment at which it will be possible for either God or man to say that enough punishment has been inflicted, no more is deserved, and any more would be unjust. The argument thus boomerangs on its proponents, impaling them inescapably on the horns of this dilemma. Wiser was Basil Atkinson, who declares: “I have avoided . . . any argument about the final state of the lost based upon the character of God, which I should consider it to be irreverent to attempt to estimate.” No doubt he foresaw the toils into which such argument leads.