finite SINNING punished with INFINITE torture?

[DHK]

. On the whole, I think that Scripture rather clearly teaches that the lost are indeed ultimately annihilated. I think that the eternal tormet view gains some of its appeal through view that man is "dualistic" - a view that I think is not supported by the Scriptures, but is rather informed by the Greek influence on Western culture.

Your view goes contrary to the rest of Scripture which teaches the eternal punishmenet of the wicked. There is no other way to explain such texts as:

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Revelation 14:11 (KJV) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

That blows away the annihilation theory along with the verses DHK posted above.

 

[Andre]

Your view goes contrary to the rest of Scripture which teaches the eternal punishmenet of the wicked. There is no other way to explain such texts as:

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

I assume that we have both been down this road enough times so that my response will not surprise you. I won't repeat the Jude 7 and Isaiah 34 and 1 Samuel arguments that I am sure you have heard. The general point, though is this: there is Scriptural precedent of the use of words like "forever" and "eternal" in a poetical and exaggerated form. So I freely admit that I think such a usage applies to the texts in question, at least to the Rev 20 text.

I think that this slight departure from the literal sense of forever is justified by such Biblical precedents. And it pales in comparison to the way the "eternal torment" supporter has to rework "death" to connote "everlasting life in torment", "sleep" to mean "full conscious existence without a mantle of flesh", and "destroy / consume" to mean "preserve forever".

I submit that the following dynamic is at play. The "twisting" that we annihilationists do to the meaning of the word "eternal" as per Rev 20:10 is recognized as such because the interpretation we ascribe to is at least somewhere in the vicinity of the literal reading. But when an "eternal torment" supporter redefines terms like "death", "sleep" and "destroy" as they do, they distort the nominal meanings of these terms so much that the departure from the orginal is not even noticed.

 

[Andre]

Revelation 14:11 (KJV) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

That blows away the annihilation theory along with the verses DHK posted above.

The problem with this kind of argument is that I can reply in kind with Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death, but but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Just like "they have no rest day or night" plainly implies prolonged and arguably eternal suffering, so does "death" plainly imply precisely that - death - cessation of life (including consciousness).

Arguments on both sides need to be more sophisticated. A global Biblical perspective is required.

 

[DHK]

I assume that we have both been down this road enough times so that my response will not surprise you. I won't repeat the Jude 7 and Isaiah 34 and 1 Samuel arguments that I am sure you have heard. The general point, though is this: there is Scriptural precedent of the use of words like "forever" and "eternal" in a poetical and exaggerated form. So I freely admit that I think such a usage applies to the texts in question, at least to the Rev 20 text.

I have not heard one good argument from any of these texts yet. If anything Jude 7 supports eternal punishment, not takes away from it. There are not too many ways that you can define "and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever." How else can you take that? It is very explicit. To deny it would be to deny Scripture.

I think that this slight departure from the literal sense of forever is justified by such Biblical precedents.

What Biblical precedent to you have to depart from the Word of God--the book of Mormon perhaps? The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and pracitice. I have no such precedent or mandate.

And it pales in comparison to the way the "eternal torment" supporter has to rework "death" to connote "everlasting life in torment", "sleep" to mean "full conscious existence without a mantle of flesh", and "destroy / consume" to mean "preserve forever".

It is not my problem if you do not know the meaning of these words in the context that they are given in. Look up the word "church" in an English dictionary. How many defintions can you find? So it is with Greek words. There is more than one definition for some, if not most, words. If you learn to study the words, the context that they are used in, you will come to a proper understanding of Scripture. If you have a problem with the words used in any particular passage of Scripture you need to study that passage until you get the proper meaning.

I submit that the following dynamic is at play. The "twisting" that we annihilationists do to the meaning of the word "eternal" as per Rev 20:10 is recognized as such

Twisting of Scripture is never recognized no matter what. Peter says they that do such do so unto their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

because the interpretation we ascribe to is at least somewhere in the vicinity of the literal reading. But when an "eternal torment" supporter redefines terms like "death", "sleep" and "destroy" as they do, they distort the nominal meanings of these terms so much that the departure from the orginal is not even noticed.

As I said, one word has more than one meaning. Study a dictionary sometime. Words are not redefined, but proper meanings are assigned to words according to the context in which they are used.

Let me give you an example. Look again (as I mentioned) in the English dictionary at the word "church" and see the various meanings.

1. In English, it is perfectly acceptable to say, "I am going to the church."
In most peoples minnds' they would take that to mean that they are going to a particular church building. But the Greek word for church means assembly and referst to the people not a building.
Thus I never use such a statement, but use church as an adjective. I tell my people:

2. "I am going to the "church building."
It is more accurate and more biblical. The church is the people not the building. I try to be theologically correct just in order to teach my people.
If I say, I am going to the church, it means I am going to meet with the people of my church, and they know what I mean.

But church may have the meaning of denomination, or organization, etc., all of which I believe are unbiblical. They are used in English, but not in the Bible.
However there are Greek words in the Bible, like the English word "church" that do have multiple meanings. The sooner you accept that, the better off you will be.

 

[DHK]

The problem with this kind of argument is that I can reply in kind with Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death, but but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Just like "they have no rest day or night" plainly implies prolonged and arguably eternal suffering, so does "death" plainly imply precisely that - death - cessation of life (including consciousness).

Arguments on both sides need to be more sophisticated. A global Biblical perspective is required.

In Romans 6:23 (eternal) death is contrasted to "eternal life." Paul is making a contrast. It referst to eternal separation from God in a place called hell or the LOF. It does refer to eternal punishment.

 

[Andre]

I have not heard one good argument from any of these texts yet. If anything Jude 7 supports eternal punishment, not takes away from it. There are not too many ways that you can define "and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever." How else can you take that? It is very explicit. To deny it would be to deny Scripture.

Re Romans 6:23: There are not too many ways that you can define "death" How else can you take that? It is very explicit. To deny it would be to deny Scripture.

 

[DHK]

Re Romans 6:23: There are not too many ways that you can define "death" How else can you take that? It is very explicit. To deny it would be to deny Scripture.

Get out your dictionary again, and see how many defintions you can come up with. Therein lies your problem. Do you have a patent on the definition of death? First you say there are not too many ways that you can define it. Second you don't define death for us. Then, third you say to deny IT (meaning your definition--which you haven't told us) is to deny Scripture!
What kind of logic is that?? Do you want to try that again?

 

[Andre]

I have not heard one good argument from any of these texts yet. If anything Jude 7 supports eternal punishment, not takes away from it..

Jude 7

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Jude is expressing the view that S&G serve as an example of something - those who are punished by eternal fire. Well, what do other texts have to say about this?

2 Peter 2:6
if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly

Luke 17:26-30
Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. "It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.

I see a clear harmony of theme here. The fate of the ungodly in a yet-to-come time of judgement is likened unto what happened to S&G. And both the 2 Peter text and the Luke text are unequivocal - S&G are destroyed. 2 Peter even drives home the point that this is not this odd "destruction = a state where the thing in the fire is maintained forever" kind of destruction. It is a kind of destruction where the thing is reduced to ashes.

If this were not enough of a challenge for those who believe that the fate of the lost is "eternal preservation in torment" and not destruction, we have to conclude a cause and effect relationship between "eternal fire" from Jude 7 and the destruction to ashes that we see in 2 Peter and in Luke. All these texts are clearly all talking about the same thing - what happened to S&G.

This is clear example of how Scripture interprets Scripture. The harmony of these texts strongly suggests that "eternal fire" destroys, it reduces to ashes. So it is entirely justifiable to interpret other references to eternality in reference to the fate of the lost in precisely this way.

 

[Andre]

Get out your dictionary again, and see how many defintions you can come up with. Therein lies your problem. Do you have a patent on the definition of death? First you say there are not too many ways that you can define it. Second you don't define death for us. Then, third you say to deny IT (meaning your definition--which you haven't told us) is to deny Scripture!
What kind of logic is that?? Do you want to try that again?

I will leave it to the reader to decide if the above is a fair characterization of my position.

Here is one dictionary's take on death I have bolded some stuff:

a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life -- compare [SIZE=-1]BRAIN DEATH[/SIZE] b : an instance of dying <a disease causing many deaths>
2 a : the cause or occasion of loss of life <drinking was the death of him> b : a cause of ruin <the slander that was death to my character -- Wilkie Collins>
3 capitalized : the destroyer of life represented usually as a skeleton with a scythe
4 : the state of being dead
5 a : the passing or destruction of something inanimate <the death of vaudeville> b : [SIZE=-1]EXTINCTION[/SIZE]
6 : [SIZE=-1]CIVIL DEATH[/SIZE]
7 : [SIZE=-1]SLAUGHTER[/SIZE]
8 Christian Science : the lie of life in matter : that which is unreal and untrue
- at death's door : close to death : critically ill
- to death : beyond endurance : [SIZE=-1]EXCESSIVELY[/SIZE] <bored to death>

The authors must have missed the definition wherein death means a state of full conscious existence? I submit that it is only in service of an otherwise non-Scriptural belief in eternal torment that "death", a condition of cessation of vital functions or extinction, has come to mean a state of full conscious existence.

 

[DHK]

I will leave it to the reader to decide if the above is a fair characterization of my position.

Here is one dictionary's take on death I have bolded some stuff:

a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life --

A fair characterization? No. Why? Because the medical community denies the supernatural. There is nothing in any of these definitions that includes anything about the spirit, about God, about eternity, and neither would we expect there to be. But let's take the first definiton and work with what we have.

There are three kinds of death in the Bible, and they all have the same basic meaning--separation.
The first is physical death--the only kind that you have defined, the one defined above. The Bible also defines physical death, but as separation.

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
--The body without the spirit is dead. When the spirit exits or separates from the body, we call that death. It is physical death. Call it the end of life, as is noted in your definition, but it is only the end of one's physical life on earth. The spirit goes on living forever. God created us as spirit-beings. We will all live forever--whether in heaven in the presence of God, or in Hell, separated from God in a state of eternal death. i.e., eternal separation from God.

2. There is spiritual death, spiritual separation from God.

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Ephesians 2:1 You were made alive when you were dead in transgressions and sins, (WEB)
Paul, writing to the Ephesian believers, says that they were dead. What does he mean? They were spiritually dead, separated from God by their sin. Now, he says, you were made alive. They were made alive by the Holy Spirit when they were born again, when they were saved. Sin separates us from God. Before one is saved he is separated from God. That is, he is dead. This is the teaching of Paul. This death is a spiritual death. You were dead, Paul says--separated from God by sin. Death is separation.

3. There is eternal death, eternal separation from God.
This is what Romans 6:23 is speaking of.
The wages of sin is death
The gift of God is eternal life.
Eternal death is contrasted to eternal life. God is just. The outcome of the unbeliever is the opposite of the believer. One has eternal life; the other eternal death--eternal separation from God in the lake of fire. Thus we read that death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire. Annhiliation can't be cast into annihilation. That doesn't make sense. But those spirits that are in hell will one day receive their resurrection bodies and stand before the great White Throne Judgement, only to receive their final sentence, and then to be cast into the Lake of Fire and there to be tormented forever and ever. If you want to do something about it, make sure of your salvation, and go and give the gospel to as many as possible in your lifetime before that great and dreadful day comes.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre: The authors must have missed the definition wherein death means a state of full conscious existence?

HP: Dead and death both are words that indeed often do incorporate a full conscious state. We are to be dead to sin. To be dead is not to be annihilated from, but to be totally unwilling to sin. Death to the flesh is to be totally unwilling to allow the impulses and influences of the flesh to direct our wills intents.

To be dead physically in the flesh as believers is to be alive with the Lord.
Are you denying that man has an eternal soul as well as a temporal physical body?

 

[Andre]

I suspect that all who are familiar with this debate will understand that the content of DHK's last post is an overview of a position and not really an argument. That's fair game of course, but it should not be seen as an argument. And I will explain why.

The content of the post rests on an undemonstrated assertion that man is is a "multi-component" being - that a physical body houses an immortal soul that survives death. With that assumption at hand, one can naturally read a "spiritual death" vs "physical death" interpretation into various texts. Again, that's fair as one interpretation. But, there are other views that work perfectly well with these same texts. If one can wrench free of the stranglehold of Greek dualism and approach these texts with an open mind, one can see how they harmonize perfectly with view that man is monistic in nature. With that view in hand, the case for annihilation jumps out at you.

There is an element of circularity with the "eternal death" argument. If one brings a belief that "death" = "a conscious state" to Romans 6:23, one will naturally conclude that the unredeemed exist eternally. But, if one can step back and be open to the possibility that "death" = "cessation of all existence", the text also makes perfect sense. Why? Because it can be understood as stating that the end state of the lost - non-existence -is indeed a state that will never end.

 

[Andre]

Are you denying that man has an eternal soul as well as a temporal physical body?

Yes I am. And if certain quotes from Luther and Calvin are accurate, these 2 gentlemen were also highly suspicious of the view the soul was inherently immortal. I hope to find these quotes and post them.

 

[DHK]

Yes I am. And if certain quotes from Luther and Calvin are accurate, these 2 gentlemen were also highly suspicious of the view the soul was inherently immortal. I hope to find these quotes and post them.

Soul and spirit are sometimes used interchangeably. Scholars have debated throughout centuries about the dichotomoy or trichotomy of man, and which one is the proper position. Does man have a body, spirit and soul; or simply a body and a spirit? Neither Luther or Calvin would deny the resurrection in which the spirit of man unites with the glorified body. Neither one of them would deny the eternality of the spirit, neither in heaven or in hell. Both Calvin and Luther were former Catholics. What do you think would be so drastic during the reformation as to change their minds on the doctrine of the eternal damnation of the wicked?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre, are you denying that man has an eternal spirit that will live eternally after the death of this physical body? I personally use soul and spirit basically interchangeably as DHK pointed out some do.

 

[Christlifter]

Sin itself and the ROOT OF GOD

Sins are actions, or fruit.

They (sins) descend from the Root (sin, flesh, body of death), which is our sinful Nature itself.

That's why one must be not born only once with a sinful nature (and then is Hell-bound by constitution and determination), but born again.

Side Note: It takes the conviction of the Holy Ghost for one to see their lost estate as a wilful and constiutional sinner, repent and trust Christ as their Lord and Saviour, based on His Atoing Blood, Death, burial, Ressurection. this brings in the New Birth.

The new birth brings in the Holy Spirit into the heart of the believer, AND ALSO, removes that person POSITIONALLY out of the First Man, the first Adam, progenitor of all sinners, and replaces that person into the Last Adam, The Second Man.

This is what imputed righteousness does. The Father sees us in Christ, and not Adam. Imputed Righteouness = Justification (if truly had) follows with the New Birth, which inevitably leads to Sanctification.

CONDITIONALLY, we are given along with the Holy Spirit, a NEW nature. Hence a saved persons new desires, after they trust Christ as Saviour = "New Creature IN CHRIST JESUS"

That does not mean the old nature is gone (dead to sin), but that the relationship between the new "I" (in Christ)and the old "I" (in Adam), has been severed. I'm not in Adam, but in Christ!

It may not "feel" like it, but thats why we need to walk by faith (like Abraham), yielding to God, and obeying Him, and not our "feelings" aka sin nature, in humility seeking God, by his Cross to keep it in check.

The old "I" or root of sin will be removed when the Christian dies and goes to Heaven, since it resides in the mortal body of us all.

But now there is a new root or "I" in the body and soul of the saved, which stems from Christ-God himself, and the two natures war against each other.

In a saved person, longitudinally, the new nature wins, but not without a fight from the old nature.

The key to victory is understanding Romans 6-8, John 14-17, and The Pauline Epistles, so we can be intimate with our Lord and Saviour, so He can actually use our lives, His way!

I know that is hard to swallow, but it's true!

As Christians, our Apostle, High Priest, Lord, Saviour, and Sin-Sinner Sacrifice for US = Christ Jesus (who holds all realities atoms togehter, is the one who actually made the 4 dimensional universe, and is the Inheritor of it, and all things in it) wants to live His Life through us, so that our soul-winning, personal walk, and family life is not in our own power, but His, so that it is truly fruitful, and not in vain.

All because He wants us to know Him, becuase He loves us! WOW!

If you do not desire that, then Hell is what you desire. God is a perfect gentleman, He gives you what you want. But what He has is OH SO MUCH BETTER THAN WE COULD EVER IMAGINE!

I said all that to say this:

Since one has not the opportunity presented to them by God after death, to have their "root-system" changed,

(Either due to God foreknowing their choice or refusal, or God's Election is two seperate arguments)

The root system of sin can never be exchanged, once physical death happens, and that is just the way a Holy, Loving, All-Knowing, Soverign God set it up. = Eternal Seperation/Death in Hell-Lake of Fire.

"Choose you this day whom you will serve, but as for me and my house, we shall serve the LORD" :jesus::thumbs:

 

[Andre]

Neither one of them would deny the eternality of the spirit, neither in heaven or in hell. Both Calvin and Luther were former Catholics. What do you think would be so drastic during the reformation as to change their minds on the doctrine of the eternal damnation of the wicked?

I am not saying that Luther and Calvin deny that the unredeemed suffered eternal torment. What I am suggesting is that Luther and Calvin will deny the inherent immortality of the soul - that the soul by nature is eternal:

"According to Basil F. C. Atkinson, Martin Luther listed as the last of five cardinal errors of the papal Church the immortality of the soul, and was followed in this view by William Tyndale. (Ref. 6) Luther, in his Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull of 29 November, 1520, rejected this Roman Catholic doctrine, calling such an idea a "monstrous opinion" out of the "Roman dunghill of decretals"!"

"In 1548 John Calvin published his commentary on Paul's first letter to Timothy. He observed (at 1 Tim. 6:16) that the soul's coming into existence and its continuance depend entirely on God, so that "properly speaking, it does not have an immortal nature"; and in support of this he cited Acts 17:28."

"Thomas B. Strong in his Manual of Theology wrote in 1903: "The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is precarious and obscure in a very high degree." (Ref. 9)."

 

[Andre]

Andre, are you denying that man has an eternal spirit that will live eternally after the death of this physical body? I personally use soul and spirit basically interchangeably as DHK pointed out some do.

Yes I am. I believe that the Scriptures teach that man is monistic - he is of one "substance" and there is no immortal consciousness bearing soul / spirit that can exist in the absence of a body. This does not mean that I do not believe in eternal life for those under God's grace - I believe that, at some time in the future, they are resurrected from a state of "sleep" into an imperishable body (as per 1 Cor 15) and that the unredeemed are also resurrected from "sleep" into a perishable body which is then cast into the lake of fire where it is destroyed. That is what fire does - it destroys.

 

[DHK]

"In 1548 John Calvin published his commentary on Paul's first letter to Timothy. He observed (at 1 Tim. 6:16) that the soul's coming into existence and its continuance depend entirely on God, so that "properly speaking, it does not have an immortal nature"; and in support of this he cited Acts 17:28."

As I suspected you are taking these quotes out of context, not discerning the theological vocabularly that is being used. What did Calvin mean when the soul does not have an immortal nature (in the context of 1 Tim.6:16), which says:

1 Timothy 6:16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and eternal power. Amen.

The Bible says that only God has immortality. Of course man does not have immortality in the context of this passage. It means immortality from one end of eternity to the other end of eternity--without beginning and without ending. Only God has that attribute; not man. Man has a beginning but no ending. In that way he is eternal; but not in the same way as God is.

Don't take his words out of context.