finite SINNING punished with INFINITE torture?

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Heavenly Pilgrim, I said I agree with you where you stated: "HP: I believe that such a view is in direct contradiction to the Word of God. The atonement has been made and completed. It is finished, once for all. What the atonement does not do in and of itself, is to satisfy the debt contracted by specific sins. Specific sins are only forgiven as we complete the conditions for forgiveness God has mandated for us to do in order for the blood to be applied to our specific sins, i.e., repentance and faith. The atonement Christ completed on the cross was a satisfaction of the sin debt of the entire world, building a bridge, or making a way that God could indeed forgive all sins (other than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) under certain conditions, while still maintaining the law and upholding its just penalty."

But my agreement was premature; I actually agreed to the first sentence, no farther!. For you confess here but the same as does BobRyan. Go have a look again. You believe no different, and I reject the view of both of you.

If Jesus' atonement was "made", that is, "finished", it was "once for all", and, with and through and in and by it, all forgiveness of sins; for forgiveness is what is atonement. By it the saved are justified, and justified, the saved are 'fit for heaven', eternally! That's what I, believe: pure 'Calvinism'.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GE: That's what I, believe: pure 'Calvinism'.

HP: No beating around the bush with you, or trying to avoid the consequences of your own positions. No ‘blessed inconsistencies’ here.

 

[BobRyan]

Back to the Christmas tree! "They are destroyed" What is destroyed? Don't you ever read or comprehend what you read?
First, a spirit cannot be destroyed. Demonstrate through Scripture where a spirit can be annihliated. Demonstrate through Scripture where "destroy" means "annihilation" when referring to the "spirit."

God "destroys BOTH body AND SOUL in fiery hell" Matt 10:28

Jude 7 points out that EVERLASTING FIRE is what destroyed the cites of Sodom and Gomorrah AND the cities around them.

2Peter 2 points out that this was done as a perfect example of the destruction of eternal fire - as the example to ALL who would choose to live ungodly lives. Because it SHOWS that "destruction" was to the point of "reducing them to ashes.

2 Pete 2
6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them anexample to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men

Here we have a CLEAR example of destruction where BOTH the people AND the buildings they live in are ALL destroyed in that ALL are subjected to "everlasting fire" according to Jude 7 and 2Peter 2.

But DHK inserts "a story" for the reader about one building burned while NNE is in it which unwittingly shows the objective reader that his man-made traditions would have preferred an entirely DIFFERENT example for destruction than the one God gives us.

DHK said

Within the last couple of days, a college building burned down. It was destroyed to ashes. It happened at night time, so no lives were lost. "

So leaving DHK's story telling - I can't help but notice that each time I point out the obvious from what the text of scripture DOES say - DHK complains.

You gotta wonder about that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

But DHK inserts "a story" for the reader about one building burned while NNE is in it which unwittingly shows the objective reader that his man-made traditions would have preferred an entirely DIFFERENT example for destruction than the one God gives us.

So leaving DHK's story telling - I can't help but notice that each time I point out the obvious from what the text of scripture DOES say - DHK complains.

What Bob is really saying is this:
When I exegete Scripture, expound it, and even illustrate it for him, he still can't understand it, and must redefine words in order to make it fit his own theology. He can't accept the fact that cities refer to people.
People will spend an eternity in hell for their rejection of Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

What Bob is really saying is - read the points and respond with substance


God "destroys BOTH body AND SOUL in fiery hell" Matt 10:28

Jude 7 points out that EVERLASTING FIRE is what destroyed the cites of Sodom and Gomorrah AND the cities around them.

2Peter 2 points out that this was done as a perfect example of the destruction of eternal fire - as the example to ALL who would choose to live ungodly lives. Because it SHOWS that "destruction" was to the point of "reducing them to ashes.

2 Pete 2
6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them anexample to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men

Here we have a CLEAR example of destruction where BOTH the people AND the buildings they live in are ALL destroyed in that ALL are subjected to "everlasting fire" according to Jude 7 and 2Peter 2.

But another way to deal with these texts is simply to complain that I kep posting them as you duck them time after time.

I am sure that tactic appeals to some on the board. I am just not one of them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

What Bob is really saying is - read the points and respond with substance


God "destroys BOTH body AND SOUL in fiery hell" Matt 10:28

"Destroy does not mean annihilation. You do not believe me. Will you believe others:

Destroy both soul and body in hell (kai psuchēn kai sōma apolesai en geennēi). Note "soul" here of the eternal spirit, not just life in the body. "Destroy" here is not annihilation, but eternal punishment in Gehenna (the real hell) A.T. Robertson.

Note, the Greek scholar immediately denies that destroy means annihilation. It cannot mean annihilation. It does not contradict the rest of the Bible. It means "eternal punishment, which the word can mean and is perfect accordance with the rest of the teaching of the Bible.

but rather fear him, which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell

. This is a description of God, and of his power, who is able to do that which men are not: all that they can do, by divine permission, is to kill the body; but he is able to "destroy", that is, to torment and punish both body and soul "in hell", in everlasting burnings; for neither soul nor body will be annihilated; though this he is able to do. As the former clause expresses the immortality of the soul, this supposes the resurrection of the body; for how otherwise should it be destroyed, or punished with the soul in hell? Now this awful being which is able to hurl, and will hurl all wicked and slothful, unfaithful and unprofitable, cowardly and temporising servants and ministers, soul and body, into the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, is to be feared and dreaded; yea, indeed, he only is to be feared, and to be obeyed: cruel and persecuting men are not to be feared at all; God alone should be our fear and dread; though the argument seems to be formed from the lesser to the greater; yet this, is the sense of the word "rather", that God is to be feared, not chiefly and principally only, but solely; (Gill)

Context Bob, context! Gill shows how you take this verse out of its immediate context and try and make "destroy" mean something that it doesn't make. You ignore the direct meaning of Hell--something that God created to last forever and ever. (cf. Mat.25:41). Of course we know that hell will be eventually cast into the LOF, but that won't make any difference. Just as a spoon of water is cast into a cup of water, the water is still there. It doesn't disappear; it is merely assimilated--the smaller by the greater. And so it is with Hell. It will still exist, only assimilated into the LOF.
Would you like more references. There are plenty of them. Great Greek scholars all point to the same thing. I would rather believe them than the great "Dr Bob Ryan."

Jude 7 points out that EVERLASTING FIRE is what destroyed the cites of Sodom and Gomorrah AND the cities around them.

You refuse to accept a traditional definition of a city. Cities are defined according to their population. I live in a city defined as a geographical place in northern Canada having a population of one million people. (Of course I could be more precise as to the location. But that is how the city is defined. A city is not defined as to the one that has a Sears Tower, or the one that has the CN tower (there is more than one), etc. Cities are not defined according to their structures, but rather according to their population and geographical location. People make up a city. Without the people there is no city. Cities have been destroyed--completely by devastating Tsunamis. Some structures may stand, but those geographical places have been completely vacated, and the towns are no more.

So what did everlasting fire destroy? As we learn from Mat. 10:28, it condemned those living in Sodom and Gomorroh to everlasting punishment, eternal torment in a place called hell. Scripture does not contradict Scripture. It does not take everlasting fire to burn down a few buildings. You don't make much sense in asserting that foolishness, and when I give you an example of such you dismiss it as a foolish story. You are foolish to do such.

2Peter 2 points out that this was done as a perfect example of the destruction of eternal fire - as the example to ALL who would choose to live ungodly lives. Because it SHOWS that "destruction" was to the point of "reducing them to ashes.

That doesnt' even make sense. The only reason a fire would be eternal is if there would be eternal punishment and for no other reason. You above statement does not make any logical sense whatsoever. Why would there be a need for an eternal fire for annihilation, if annihilation only takes a few minutes--what a contradiction!!

2 Pete 2

6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them anexample to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men

Aah the Christmas tree verses again. If you knew how to rightly divide the word of truth, how to properly exegete the Sciptures, you would have no problem with these Scriptures.
It is plain that you do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.
It is also plain in the above passage, that the cities (the structures thereof) are reduced to fire), as they were when fire and brmstone rained upon them. That is historical fact which we do not deny. Lot was rescued from those ungodly cities. Learn to take Scrriptures in their context.
The entire context of the passage is the consequences of what happens to false teachers. It describes that in detail. And then it mentions Lot as a just man, and what happened to him. In summary of Lot, it goes on to say:

2 Peter 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

How you neglect the obvious conclusion; the lesson to be learned from the chapter--that God delivers the godly out of tempation. He reserves the unjust to the day of judgement where they will be punished--with everlasting punishment--eternal punsihment in the Lake of Fire. Why do you neglect the context?

Here we have a CLEAR example of destruction where BOTH the people AND the buildings they live in are ALL destroyed in that ALL are subjected to "everlasting fire" according to Jude 7 and 2Peter 2.

Nowhere does it suggest in any of these passages that any of these buildings are subject to eternal fire. That is your imagination; you are reading into Scripture things that are not there.

But another way to deal with these texts is simply to complain that I kep posting them as you duck them time after time.

I have answered every single statement on this post you have made. So don't try to make that accusation here.

 

[BobRyan]

I appreciate your actually addressing the points raised in that previous post.

#1. You claim that destroy in Matt 10:28 is NOT the same as destroy in Jude 7 and 2Peter 2 it is some "lesser kind" of non-destructive destroy. But as it turns out - it is the same word.

This inconvenient fact is usually glossed over by the fans of "eternal torture" just as you have done above. So I keep pointing it out.

#2. Jude 7 ANd 2Peter 2 BOTH point to the cities being destroyed AND that this is a lesson -- NOT to "buildings that might be wicked" but to PEOPLE who might ALSO choose to follow the same course as the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Neither Jude 7 nor 2Peter 2 tries the bogus trick of "separatating" the fate of the people IN the cities FROM the fate OF cities. Rather as 2Peter 2 points out that LOT (that would be the PERSON) was vexed over the "unprincipled MEN" (that would be the PEOPLE of the city) that are "destroyed by reducing them (the cities and the people) to ashes".

Another inconvenient fact getting glossed over.

In fact at the destruction of the cities - THE PERSON - Lot's wife is turneed not to ashes - but right down to salt.

3. The wild notion that the destruction of both people and CITIES by eternal (everlasting) fire - is not being mentioned in jude 7 and 2peter 2 -- has no chance of surviving the review of those who do not simply ignore and gloss over inconvenient details as we see here

6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them anexample to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire

Time after time when confronted with these "scriptures" you respond with "stories" and misdirection - not exegesis. Surely even you would have to have noticed that by now sir.

By quoting vs 9 of 2Peter 2 you have unwittingly asked that we look at the chapter some more - as it totaly debunks the man made tradition of eternal torture.

9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,
10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,
11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.
12 But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed

The DESTRUCITON of the wicked is the focus of the chapter EVEN though the DESTRUCTION of the cities (and their wicked inhabitants mentioned specifically) is given as the PERFECT examaple of such destruction "reducing them to ashes"


In Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

That doesnt' even make sense. The only reason a fire would be eternal is if there would be eternal punishment and for no other reason. You above statement does not make any logical sense whatsoever. Why would there be a need for an eternal fire for annihilation, if annihilation only takes a few minutes--what a contradiction!!

I think that a person who claims that destroy does not mean annihilation abdicates the right to use this argument. If Biblical context demands that we see "destroy" as meaning something other than its "plain reading" interpretation of "annihilation", then your assertion is subject to exactly the same kind of response - namely that Biblical context indeed justifies reading "eternal fire" as as kind of fire that destroys and not one that preserves its fuel eternally (which arguably might indeed be seen as the "plain reading").

You cannot say that "eternal fire" cannot "logically" mean anything other eternal punishment on the one hand and expect to be let off the hook re the "logical" implication of the word "destroy".

Plus, I think that the annihilationist is able to legitimately claim that his take that "eternal sometimes does not really mean eternal" has Biblical precedent. In this respect, I would cite texts like Isaiah 34 and the text from Samuel where it is stated that someone (Samuel, if I recall) goes to a place on the Earth and lives there "forever". Both these texts (not to mention Jude 7 which is being debated) establish - in a non-circular way - that "forever does not alway mean literally foverever". On the other hand, I would assert that the "eternal torment" supporter's argument that "destroy does not mean annihilation" always works out to be circular.

The annihilation take on "forever" is not circular - it is justified by Biblical precedent such as the fact that Edom no longer smokes and that S&G no longer burn and that Samuel is not today living in whatever town he was going to stay in "forever". Plain facts about the real world basically prove that sometimes "forever does not mean forever".

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Abraham did not say the rich man was being destroyed, nor did the rich man say he was being destroyed.

Luke 16:24 (KJV) And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Luke 16:25 (KJV) But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

The Greek word for 'tormented is the word 'oduano'. It means grieving; which can be rendered as sorrowing or tormented.

There is no destruction in hell in the sense of annihilation. Only grieving and torture as seen in Revelation 14:11

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.

Torment here is the Greek word 'basanismos' translated 'torture' and rendered 'torment'.

Annihilation is clearly a false doctrine. The torment is clearly grief from being separated from God and in a place of outer darkness.

 

[DHK]

Bob, Andre:
When it comes down to basic facts and arguments, you really don't have any when the totality of Scripture is used. I give you but one example.

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.

There is no annihilatinon in this verse: only torment--day and night, forever and ever. There is no figurative expression in this verse. It is very literal. It is literal because two expressions put adjacent to each other, are so ordered to emphasize the eternality of the torment to come. It emphasizes the torment to come. It emphasizes that it will be day and night, an on-going day and night. It emphasizes that it will be forever. The forever will be day and night forever. This is not figurative, but literal. It is impossible to take it in a figurative way. It is impossible to get annihilation out of this. Torment day and night forever and ever can only mean one thing--eternal torment.

If you do not believe this you deny Scripture. You deny a very cardinal truth of the Bible. Unbelief has its consequences. I fear to think of the consequence that may befall you some day because of your unbelief.

The unbelief in the eternal punishment of the unbeliever results in the typical philosophy of the unbeliever: "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." So go ahead, smoke your pot, snort your drugs, get drunk, spend all your money os self, and do away with religion or Christ completely. Why? There is no afterlife for the unbeliever (according to you) Tommorrow you die. There is no judgement to face--just annihilation. So have your fun; live it up! Do what you want. There is no consequence for your sin.
The belief in your doctrine is the most ungodly doctrine, unbiblical doctrine, and even anti-Christ doctrine, ever concocted by unbelievers. Be aware of what you believe.

 

[Andre]

Bob, Andre:
When it comes down to basic facts and arguments, you really don't have any when the totality of Scripture is used. I give you but one example.

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.

There is no annihilatinon in this verse: only torment--day and night, forever and ever. There is no figurative expression in this verse. It is very literal. It is literal because two expressions put adjacent to each other, are so ordered to emphasize the eternality of the torment to come. It emphasizes the torment to come. It emphasizes that it will be day and night, an on-going day and night. It emphasizes that it will be forever. The forever will be day and night forever. This is not figurative, but literal. It is impossible to take it in a figurative way. It is impossible to get annihilation out of this. Torment day and night forever and ever can only mean one thing--eternal torment.

I would think that a very similar argument to the above could be made in respect to Romans 6:23:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Using precisely the same kind of "local to the verse" reasoning that you use, we conclude that the wages of sin is "end of existence" (since this is the nominal sense of death just as "never-ending" is indeed the nominal sense of "eternal"). If you try to argue that the whole of Scripture teaches that death means eternal torment, then by all means do so. But to use your own expression slightly reworked "There is no eternal torment in this verse: only death".

But what you have written above amounts to nothing more than a "ya gotta intepret 'em as they is plainly written" argument. And we all know things cannot possibly be that simple if, for no other reason, Romans 6:23 would directly contradict Rev 20:10 under such an approach.

The unbelief in the eternal punishment of the unbeliever results in the typical philosophy of the unbeliever: "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." So go ahead, smoke your pot, snort your drugs, get drunk, spend all your money os self, and do away with religion or Christ completely. Why? There is no afterlife for the unbeliever (according to you) Tommorrow you die. There is no judgement to face--just annihilation. So have your fun; live it up! Do what you want. There is no consequence for your sin.

The belief in your doctrine is the most ungodly doctrine, unbiblical doctrine, and even anti-Christ doctrine, ever concocted by unbelievers. Be aware of what you believe.

Perhaps I should not speak for others, but I for one believe that the process of annihilation will indeed a be a consciously experienced punishment - so there are indeed consequences for the unbeliever even if they are indeed burned away to nothingness in the lake of fire.

This argument has absolutely no force whatsoever, unless someone believes that the unbeliever dies physically and ceases to exist from that point forward. I do not believe this. All of the annihilationists that I know (admittedly I only know a handful) do not believe it - they all believe that annihilation is accomplished via being cast as a conscious being into the lake of fire and reduced to ashes. I have just "met" Bob Ryan and do not know what he believes about this.

Annihilation in this form is hardly a walk in the park.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

The Greek meaning of the word 'torment' means grief and torture. If one is annihilated, how can it be said that one is being tortured for ever and ever as the Word of God proclaims one who dies without Christ will be?

 

[DHK]

Annihilation in this form is hardly a walk in the park.

Why not? If I were an unbeliever it is doubtful that you could give me any compelling reason to trust Christ, if the consequence for my sin is to suffer a few seconds in hell. I would gladly exchange that for a sin of fun and folly. In reality that amounts to no consequence for sin.
As for Romans 3:23 you stick to your misinterpretation of the verse where eternal life is contrasted to eternal death. Physical death is not even in the picture in that verse. Eternal death (separation from God for all eternity) is contrasted to eternal life (which comes through Jesus Christ.) Learn to understand Scripture. I realize, however, that you are in an awkward position as the United Church of Canada (if that is what you attend) does not teach the Bible, is apostate, and denies most of the fundamentals of the Bible.

 

[Andre]

I realize, however, that you are in an awkward position as the United Church of Canada (if that is what you attend) does not teach the Bible, is apostate, and denies most of the fundamentals of the Bible.

I suggest that this form of "argument" will not serve your position well. The fact that the UCC is apostate, a point I would fully agree with, of course has nothing to do with the issue of whether the unredeemed suffer eternal torment. I am involved with the UCC precisely because I think it is apostate and needs voices to guide it back onto the correct path.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

And you think lying to them by telling them there is no eternal torture for the unbeliever is going to guide them back to the right path?

One needs to make sure one is on the right path oneself before giving directions to another.

 

[DHK]

I suggest that this form of "argument" will not serve your position well. The fact that the UCC is apostate, a point I would fully agree with, of course has nothing to do with the issue of whether the unredeemed suffer eternal torment. I am involved with the UCC precisely because I think it is apostate and needs voices to guide it back onto the correct path.

You are correct, it has nothing to do with my argument, but serves to point out that you are not getting any Bible teaching and may be the reason why you may be holding to some apostate doctrine yourself.
Having said that, however, you still did not answer the objection:

Why not? If I were an unbeliever it is doubtful that you could give me any compelling reason to trust Christ, if the consequence for my sin is to suffer a few seconds in hell. I would gladly exchange that for a sin of fun and folly. In reality that amounts to no consequence for sin.
As for Romans 3:23 you stick to your misinterpretation of the verse where eternal life is contrasted to eternal death. Physical death is not even in the picture in that verse. Eternal death (separation from God for all eternity) is contrasted to eternal life (which comes through Jesus Christ.) Learn to understand Scripture.

 

[Andre]

As for Romans 3:23 you stick to your misinterpretation of the verse where eternal life is contrasted to eternal death. Physical death is not even in the picture in that verse. Eternal death (separation from God for all eternity) is contrasted to eternal life (which comes through Jesus Christ.)

All I am doing is arguing in kind. The plain reading of "eternal" means "without end". Fair enough. That was your argument in relation to Rev 20:10. The plain reading of Romans 6:23 is that the wages of sin is death, not eternal torment. Your argument about contrasts cannot work. The reason is as follows.

1. It is, of course, a possible state of affairs that the wages of sin really are death in the "cessation of existence" sense.

2. It is, of course, possible that the gift of God really is eternal life in the neverending sense. In fact, I think we all agree that this is not only a possibility, but the real state of affairs.

3. If (1) and (2) are both factually correct, and they obviously can be, the natural way to express this is in a single sentence would be:

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

The mere fact of there being a contrast through the use of the "but" does not justify the conclusion that you draw. If you were right, it would be linguistically impossible to compare two fates, one eternal and the other not, in a single sentence. And this is clearly not a sensible position to take.

Learn to understand Scripture

Thanks for the advice. And here I was not trying to understand it.

 

[DHK]

All I am doing is arguing in kind. The plain reading of "eternal" means "without end". Fair enough. That was your argument in relation to Rev 20:10. The plain reading of Romans 6:23 is that the wages of sin is death, not eternal torment. Your argument about contrasts cannot work. The reason is as follows.

1. It is, of course, a possible state of affairs that the wages of sin really are death in the "cessation of existence" sense.

The flaw in your argument is two-fold:
1. Your refusal to believe the plain sense of the teaching of Rev.20:10, which can only have one meaning. "tormented day and night forever and ever. It's meaning cannot be explained away. How do you account for it?

2. Your misunderstanding of the definitions of Biblical words.
Death, in the Bible never means cessation of existence. That is your definition which you are forcing into the Bible. It is not a Biblical definition.
Death is always separation.
1. It is separation of the body from the soul--not cessation of life or existence.
2. It is separation from God, spiritually.
3. It is separation from God, eternally.

You have those three choices to choose from when defining death in the Bible. We define Biblical words with Biblical definitions. For example "church" in the Bible never means "building." They never had church buildings until about 300 A.D. Church always refers to an "assembly" of believers, as the word "ekklesia" means assembly, not building. Biblical words have biblical definitions which are defined by their context as well as their connotative and denotative meanings.
Death in the Bible always means separation. What kind of separation death refers to, is up to the context that the word is found in.

 

[Andre]

2. Your misunderstanding of the definitions of Biblical words.
Death, in the Bible never means cessation of existence. That is your definition which you are forcing into the Bible. It is not a Biblical definition.
Death is always separation.
1. It is separation of the body from the soul--not cessation of life or existence.
2. It is separation from God, spiritually.
3. It is separation from God, eternally.

I think that this argument has been shown to work out to be circular and / or rests on unproven assertions to the effect that man has an immortal soul / spirit. Can you point me to any material that actually establishes that death has the meaning that you claim? In other words, if someone came here from Mars and you wanted to explain how it is that you have concluded that "death" in Bible means what you claim, what would your argument be? And please respect the difference between an argument that shows that your view is simply plausible from an argument that establishes that your position is in fact correct.

A plausibility argument does nothing in situations where there are plausibility arguments for the "opposite" position.

 

[Andre]

You are correct, it has nothing to do with my argument, but serves to point out that you are not getting any Bible teaching and may be the reason why you may be holding to some apostate doctrine yourself.
Having said that, however, you still did not answer the objection:

Why not? If I were an unbeliever it is doubtful that you could give me any compelling reason to trust Christ, if the consequence for my sin is to suffer a few seconds in hell. I would gladly exchange that for a sin of fun and folly. In reality that amounts to no consequence for sin.
As for Romans 3:23 you stick to your misinterpretation of the verse where eternal life is contrasted to eternal death. Physical death is not even in the picture in that verse. Eternal death (separation from God for all eternity) is contrasted to eternal life (which comes through Jesus Christ.) Learn to understand Scripture.

I will leave to the reader to determine whether being tossed bodily into a lake of fire and being burned away to ashes would act as a deterrent to anyone who seriously believes this will happen.