Hell: Traditional or Conditional?

[The Biblicist]

But Biblicist is spot on when he says the issue with whether the soul exists forever or can be destroyed in Gehenna. Again, God can destroy the body and soul in Gehenna. No verse says any soul is destroyed in Hades.

But then "destroy" is said not to mean kill, terminate, end existence.

Matthew 10:28 is found in context where the same word is employed by the same speaker three more times. You just can't ignore that. But you do.

I believe there is no justification AT ALL for the idea that apolummi means "annihilate" anywhere in Scripture. Certainly Matthew 10:28 denies that mere death is annihilation or casting into hades is annihilation. Certainly, the only examples we have in scripture of anyone being cast in Gehenna denies annihilation is the consequence and that is the false prophet and beast. The language used in Matthew 25:46 certainly denies anyone is annihilated in Gehenna. The Analogies used in Mark 9:43-49 deny annihilation occurs in Gehenna. So what evidence do you have where Gehenna is mentioned that annihilation occurs?????

 

[Van]

When you kill a person, you end the conscious awareness of that person. Matthew 10:28 uses "destroy" interchangeably with kill. A rule of hermeneutics is that if the plain reading makes sense, seek no other sense.
Thus the idea is that God can, being all powerful, end the conscious awareness of the soul. Anyone who denies this truth is simply rewriting scripture to conform to man-made doctrine.

Did anyone say or suggest casting into Hades means annihilation? Nope. So yet another strawman argument is offered.

Does eternal punishment equate with eternal torment, or eternal separation from God? Answer, either view is possible. Again to be dogmatic that only eternal torment is a possible understanding is simply asserting assumption as fact.

Does going into Gehenna's eternal fire suggest eternal existence in that fire? Nope. The fire is eternal, and Satan and his cohorts will suffer in it forever. But sinners might be destroyed (once God's justice has been satisfied).

As far as the range of meanings of G622, certainly "to put an end to" is included. In Mark 5:29, an eyeball is plucked out and cast away. Now scripture says the eyeball is "destroyed." Certainly it sees no more, has no awareness, feels nothing.

 

[The Biblicist]

When you kill a person, you end the conscious awareness of that person.

Matthew 10:28 says no such thing. In fact, it says the direct opposite. Physical death does not "kill" the soul which is self-awareness but man can kill the body proving the soul continues in existence beyond the grave, beyond hades at least to the point that God casts into Gehenna. Thus the soul is not "killed" and thus it is still functioning as killing the body causes it functions to cease. The very point of killing is to stop the soul from expressing itself.

Matthew 10:28 uses "destroy" interchangeably with kill.

No it does not! Man is capable of killing the body which in and by the act of killing the body, renders the body inoperational/non-functional, however, the soul is not rendered inoperational/non-functional when the body dies.

Since "death" is yet to be cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:15) death cannot mean "destroy" either and "killing" equals "death." Neither does God render the soul or body non-operational/non-functional in Gehenna as is made manifestly clear by the false prophet and beast (Rev. 20:10).

The context is about "FEAR" and the threat of killing by men is to cause the SOULS of his disciples to FEAR serving Christ THROUGH THEIR BODIES. Men kill them in order make the soul expression through their bodies cease, thinking they destroy the operational function of the soul. All they do is make the body cease to be an expression of the soul but the soul does not cease to express itself.

However, the wicked will be cast into Gehenna both body and soul and the soul expression through their bodies will not cease to function as is demonstrated by the continuing presence of the false prophet and beast in Gehenna, but they are placed in a place where their soul expression through their bodies cannot harm anyone but themselves. It renders their sodul expression through the body USELESS.

This is the meaning of apollummi. A ripped wine bottle is not anihilated or ceases to exist, but it no longer provides the function it was designed for. It is rendered useless.

Did anyone say or suggest casting into Hades means annihilation? Nope. So yet another strawman argument is offered.

This is absurd! You have to admit they continue to exist or else they would be annihilated. So where are the continuing to exist? In a tropical paradise? No! In a place described in the most UNCOMFORTABLE words possible designed to be a place of JUDGEMENT. The Greek term used in Matthew 25:46 is ALWAYS used and ALWAYS means conscious suffering of some kind. If they are not annihilated as you admit they CONTINUE in body and soul consciously experiencing the ATMOSPHERE in which they are placed - the Lake OF FIRE. You cannot possibly spiritualie "fire" to mean a sunny vacation in Hawaii.

 

[DHK]

Here is Jack Kelly's response to Conditional Hell:

A. One of the main lessons the Old testament teaches us is that the shedding of innocent blood is required for the remission of sin. The animals sacrificed as sin offerings were innocent but even their blood wasn’t sufficient for us. It has to be like for like, a man for mankind. Those innocent animals only allowed man’s sin to be set aside until the world’s only innocent man could die for them. Just like the innocent animals didn’t have to suffer eternally, neither did the innocent man. His suffering and death were sufficient because He didn’t have any sins of His own to pay for.
So His punishment can’t be used as a model for ours. No amount of suffering on our part can redeem us, because we’re not innocent. That’s why Jesus had to die in our place. Please understand that people don’t go to hell because of their sins. They go to hell because they rejected God’s sole remedy for their sins. That means they have only themselves to offer as payment and not even eternal punishment can redeem them.
The so-called conditional view of hell is actually the mirror image of works based salvation in that it supposes the absence of bad works merits lighter punishment. But the only work God requires of us is to believe in the one He sent. (John 6:28-29) If that’s all He requires, then that’s all He can judge us on. And there are no degrees of belief. Either we do or we don’t. So the choices are eternal bliss or eternal punishment and both are based on belief.

http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/more-on-conditional-hell/

 

[Yeshua1]

When you kill a person, you end the conscious awareness of that person. Matthew 10:28 uses "destroy" interchangeably with kill. A rule of hermeneutics is that if the plain reading makes sense, seek no other sense.
Thus the idea is that God can, being all powerful, end the conscious awareness of the soul. Anyone who denies this truth is simply rewriting scripture to conform to man-made doctrine.

Did anyone say or suggest casting into Hades means annihilation? Nope. So yet another strawman argument is offered.

Does eternal punishment equate with eternal torment, or eternal separation from God? Answer, either view is possible. Again to be dogmatic that only eternal torment is a possible understanding is simply asserting assumption as fact.

Does going into Gehenna's eternal fire suggest eternal existence in that fire? Nope. The fire is eternal, and Satan and his cohorts will suffer in it forever. But sinners might be destroyed (once God's justice has been satisfied).

As far as the range of meanings of G622, certainly "to put an end to" is included. In Mark 5:29, an eyeball is plucked out and cast away. Now scripture says the eyeball is "destroyed." Certainly it sees no more, has no awareness, feels nothing.

Does the spirit/soul of man have intrisic immortality, or is it that ONLY those whom have been saved by garce of God now possess that?

And destruction/ruined in the NT does NOT refer to being totally consumed, to be burnt away, but to be in a state that is abase and never to be right with God!

 

[Van]

As you can see folks, it is rather difficult to present alternate views of scripture.

1) First we get misrepresentation. Did anyone advocate a "conditional view of hell?" Nope. Is the view as presented in post #44 bogus? Yep.

2) Next we get misrepresentation. Did anyone say "physical death does kill the soul?" Nope Physical death ends, puts an end to, destroys physical life. Thus the babies killed by Herod had their physical lives ended, destroyed, put to an end.

3) Now Matthew 10:28 says God can put an end to, destroy the soul as well as the physical life as represented by killing the body.

4) God is all powerful, and anyone who claims God cannot kill, put an end to, destroy the soul has gone off the rails.

5) Pay no attention to those rewriting the meaning of G622 to fit their agenda, just read what the lexicons say.

 

[DHK]

As you can see folks, it is rather difficult to present alternate views of scripture.

1) First we get misrepresentation. Did anyone advocate a "conditional view of hell?" Nope. Is the view as presented in post #44 bogus? Yep.

Are you saying that in all these posts not even one of them have addressed the OP??

Hell: Traditional or Conditional? Whats your view on Hell and why? As for me I interpret the Bible literally and take Hell the way it is. I do not believe in a conditional Hell because the Bible does not teach this. But needless many have written big books defending their view. What say you?

If that is true then stop posting and start your own thread. The topic is Conditional Hell. If you have not made a post on it then what subject are you posting on, and why? Almost all of us believe in the traditional view of Hell.

2) Next we get misrepresentation. Did anyone say "physical death does kill the soul?" Nope Physical death ends, puts an end to, destroys physical life. Thus the babies killed by Herod had their physical lives ended, destroyed, put to an end.

And how do you define physical death?
The Bible itself says:
[FONT=&quot]James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.[/FONT]

3) Now Matthew 10:28 says God can put an end to, destroy the soul as well as the physical life as represented by killing the body.

4) God is all powerful, and anyone who claims God cannot kill, put an end to, destroy the soul has gone off the rails.

5) Pay no attention to those rewriting the meaning of G622 to fit their agenda, just read what the lexicons say.

No one, and I mean no one, has to define words in the way that you tell them that they must be defined. This is where you are wrong. If post #44 is wrong show us where.
Better still instead of saying everyone is wrong and you are the only one in the world that is right, simply state succinctly what your beliefs are, properly defining them as you go.

 

[Van]

I see DHK says that I say I am the only one who is right. No ;quote will be forthcoming. Rather than discuss the topic, we get false charges leveled against me. Pure twaddle.

1) Did anyone advocate the conditional view of hell? Nope. Not one person.

2) Did I say the conditional view of hell as defined in post 44 was bogus? Yes.

3) Is the view presented in post 44 the only view of hell other than eternal torment? Nope.

4) I presented the Conditionalist view of Gehenna. I said the view was just as well supported by scripture as the eternal torment view.

 

[DHK]

I see DHK says that I say I am the only one who is right. No ;quote will be forthcoming. Rather than discuss the topic, we get false charges leveled against me. Pure twaddle.

You have thin skin and are offended easily. Shall I cry now because of your ad hominen above. You called my remarks "twaddle." Not very Christian of you is it? You feelings are so hurt you state you are not going to respond anymore.

1) Did anyone advocate the conditional view of hell? Nope. Not one person.

Read the OP.

2) Did I say the conditional view of hell as defined in post 44 was bogus? Yes.

That is your opinion. You haven't given any reason why it should be bogus. It was a well thought out answer. In the light of what was said in post #44, your opinion is meaningless.

3) Is the view presented in post 44 the only view of hell other than eternal torment? Nope.

If a valid view is going to be presented then present one through a thought out scriptural backed exposition, not just hanging everything on a misinterpretation of one verse--Mat.10:28

4) I presented the Conditionalist view of Gehenna. I said the view was just as well supported by scripture as the eternal torment view.

Pure semantics. Conditional hell; conditional gehenna? There is no difference.
Death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire.
The smoke of the torment will arise forever and ever. For what purpose?
Where the worm dieth not? What meaning? Why?
And they shall be tormented day and night forever and ever? meaning.....

 

[Van]

Folks, as you can see, there is no effort at actually discussing the Conditionalist view of Gehenna.

1) DHK, rather than admit he put words in my mouth, doubles down and puts additional words in my mouth.

2) Did DHK say someone had advocated the conditional view of hell position as defined in post #44? Nope, he equivocated.

3) I presented the Conditionalist view of Gehenna based on multiple scriptures, including:

a) Our all-powerful God can put an end to both the body and the soul in Gehenna, Matthew 10:28.
b) The fact that the lost will undergo eternal punishment in eternal darkness might mean eternal torment, but also might mean eternal separation from God, Matthew 25:46
c) The fact that the smoke from the torment of the lost will rise forever and ever might mean ongoing torment forever and ever, or simply that the consequence of being tormented in the Lake of Fire is forever, i.e. separation from God, Revelation 14:11.
d) The claim that since Satan and his co-horts will undergo eternal torment requires that humans put in the same place (lake of fire) will undergo the same punishment (eternal torment) is based on assumption. God does treat people differently, i.e. the punishment of some will be more tolerable than for others, Matthew 10:15.​

 

[Yeshua1]

Folks, as you can see, there is no effort at actually discussing the Conditionalist view of Gehenna.

1) DHK, rather than admit he put words in my mouth, doubles down and puts additional words in my mouth.

2) Did DHK say someone had advocated the conditional view of hell position as defined in post #44? Nope, he equivocated.

3) I presented the Conditionalist view of Gehenna based on multiple scriptures, including:

a) Our all-powerful God can put an end to both the body and the soul in Gehenna, Matthew 10:28.
b) The fact that the lost will undergo eternal punishment in eternal darkness might mean eternal torment, but also might mean eternal separation from God, Matthew 25:46
c) The fact that the smoke from the torment of the lost will rise forever and ever might mean ongoing torment forever and ever, or simply that the consequence of being tormented in the Lake of Fire is forever, i.e. separation from God, Revelation 14:11.
d) The claim that since Satan and his co-horts will undergo eternal torment requires that humans put in the same place (lake of fire) will undergo the same punishment (eternal torment) is based on assumption. God does treat people differently, i.e. the punishment of some will be more tolerable than for others, Matthew 10:15.​

yes or no, will there be an eternal period of time in hell for the lost, or is that limited in its scope and duration?

 

[Van]

Hi Yeshua1, it seems you cannot accept that the Bible is equivocal, and you want folks to speculate on two of the various possible views concerning the afterlife.

I presented what the Bible actually says on the issue, but others seem unwilling to defend their unsupported speculative assumptions?

 

[DHK]

Folks, as you can see, there is no effort at actually discussing the Conditionalist view of Gehenna.

This is a debate forum. It is not here for me to agree with your views but debate them. You sound like the New Evangelical who would rather have "dialogue" with the lost rather than evangelize them.
This is debate not fellowship. Learn the difference. The fellowship forum for discussion of the weather, and other topics is elsewhere.

1) DHK, rather than admit he put words in my mouth, doubles down and puts additional words in my mouth.

A false accusation. I have tried to get you to succinctly state your position. Instead you want to beat around the bush, and hang everything you believe on this subject by a thread of scripture--a misinterpretation of Mat.10:28. Pitiful.

2) Did DHK say someone had advocated the conditional view of hell position as defined in post #44? Nope, he equivocated.

Again, the OP asks about the definition of Conditional Hell. Is it biblical. Or are you still unaware of the OP?
Post #44 gives a direct answer to the OP as to why one cannot accept Conditional Hell whether you like it or not. The answer is a scriptural answer, and the reason you complain about it is that you have no refutation for it.

3) I presented the Conditionalist view of Gehenna based on multiple scriptures, including:

a) Our all-powerful God can put an end to both the body and the soul in Gehenna, Matthew 10:28.​

You have a misinterpretation of this verse. The verse speaks about fear. You hang your interpretation on one word "destroy" which you improperly define.

b) The fact that the lost will undergo eternal punishment in eternal darkness might mean eternal torment, but also might mean eternal separation from God, Matthew 25:46

Eternal separation from God in a place called hell or the lake of fire is eternal torment. Ask the rich man who called out to Lazarus, saying, "I am tormented in this flame."

c) The fact that the smoke from the torment of the lost will rise forever and ever might mean ongoing torment forever and ever, or simply that the consequence of being tormented in the Lake of Fire is forever, i.e. separation from God, Revelation 14:11.

So people aren't tormented forever but smoke of their torment will arise forever What sense does that make?
They will be separated from God for all eternity in the Lake of Fire with eternal torment (Rev.20:10,15)

d) The claim that since Satan and his co-horts will undergo eternal torment requires that humans put in the same place (lake of fire) will undergo the same punishment (eternal torment) is based on assumption. God does treat people differently, i.e. the punishment of some will be more tolerable than for others, Matthew 10:15.

Different degrees of punishment doesn't negate eternal. God can very well give different degrees of punishment within the realm of eternity. He gives different rewards to believers that will last for all eternity, does he not?​

 

[Rippon]

Hi Yeshua1, it seems you cannot accept that the Bible is equivocal, and you want folks to speculate on two of the various possible views concerning the afterlife.

You apparently are unaware of the meaning of equivocal. I am unequivocal about the fact that the Bible is clear and without any doubt especially regarding the subject of this thread.

Or do you insist on maintaining that the Bible is equivocal?

 

[Van]

I see we get more shuck and jive, and little effort to speak truth?

1) DHK said I said "I am always right?" I said no quote will be forthcoming, that DHK put words in my mouth. He denied it, then put more words in my mouth, saying: "You have thin skin and are offended easily. Shall I cry now because of your ad hominen above. You called my remarks "twaddle." Not very Christian of you is it? You feelings are so hurt "you state you are not going to respond anymore."

Again, no quote will be forthcoming.

2) Then, to make a non-germane point, DHK says this is a debate forum, which no one questioned. But in a debate, the differing views are discussed.

3) Next, we get another non-germane point, DHK's post 44 directly answered the OP. No one said it did not. The issue was that I said no one had advocated the "conditional view" of hell. I had said that the view, as defined in post 44 was bogus.

4) Next, DHK says "put an end to" improperly defines the meaning of the Greek word translated "destroy" in Matthew 10:28. However, my view is supported by many lexicons, including Strong's and Thayer's.

5) Eternal separation is not at issue, the issue is whether or not scripture teaches the lost will be put to an end. Certainly, scripture teaches the lost can be put to an end, Matthew 10:28.

6) Next, we get an argument from personal incredulity, DHK says the idea that smoke rising forever meaning the consequence (smoke) of being tormented in the lake of fire is forever, makes no sense [to him.]
Fine, it makes sense to some others.

7) Next, Revelation 20:10 is referenced, which is non-germane because it addresses the eternal torment of Satan and his co-horts. No one disagrees.

8) Next, Revelation 20:15 is referenced, which is non-germane because it addresses that all those whose name is not found in the Lamb's book of life are thrown into the lake of fire. No one disagrees.

9) Next we get that differing degrees of punishment does not negate that the punishment is eternal. Yet another non-germane point. Eternal separation from God is a form of eternal punishment, therefore whether the person was put an end to or not, does not negate the eternal punishment of eternal separation.

See a pattern folks, I have provided an alternate understanding of all the germane NT verses that suggest eternal torment, and have shown to my satisfaction, that the alternate understanding is a possibility.

 

[Van]

I see I missed at least one NT verse used by some to support eternal torment, Jude 13. Here, rather than reading it as the gloom of the outer darkness is eternal, they read it as those sent to the outer darkness will experience the gloom forever. Of course, I read it the other way. Ditto for 2 Peter 2:17

 

[Yeshua1]

I see I missed at least one NT verse used by some to support eternal torment, Jude 13. Here, rather than reading it as the gloom of the outer darkness is eternal, they read it as those sent to the outer darkness will experience the gloom forever. Of course, I read it the other way. Ditto for 2 Peter 2:17

the lake of Fire is eternal state, as the Bible CLEARLY states in the revelation, so we haveto conclude that you are mistaken in how you understand this doctrine!

 

[DHK]

I see we get more shuck and jive, and little effort to speak truth?

Well said. It is hard to get the straight truth out of some people, isn't it?
I won't respond to some of your statements.

3) Next, we get another non-germane point, DHK's post 44 directly answered the OP. No one said it did not. The issue was that I said no one had advocated the "conditional view" of hell. I had said that the view, as defined in post 44 was bogus.

First, you admit that post #44 answers the OP.
Then you turn around and say it is bogus without saying why. It appears you can't refute this so-called bogus post, which is a refutation of your position. After all both can't be right.

4) Next, DHK says "put an end to" improperly defines the meaning of the Greek word translated "destroy" in Matthew 10:28. However, my view is supported by many lexicons, including Strong's and Thayer's.

There are many definitions supported by this word. You have chosen the meaning that best fits your theology and the SDA theology. Others have told you that it is wrong. Biblicist has well explained to you the proper definition of the word. It means "to render inoperable."
If I spill coffee on my computer it is "destroyed" according to many. However according to others "it can be brought to life again," i.e. repaired. It was rendered inoperable.

5) Eternal separation is not at issue, the issue is whether or not scripture teaches the lost will be put to an end. Certainly, scripture teaches the lost can be put to an end, Matthew 10:28.

You are hanging on to a wrong definition. All your theology you base on this one word, and it is a wrong interpretation of one word of one verse. That is just bad hermeneutics.

6) Next, we get an argument from personal incredulity, DHK says the idea that smoke rising forever meaning the consequence (smoke) of being tormented in the lake of fire is forever, makes no sense [to him.]
Fine, it makes sense to some others.

Whether you like it or not the logical conclusion of your position is akin to the SDA position--annihilation. If they are annihilated the smoke arising forever is redundant. It is needless. It has no purpose. It must arise for a reason. There is a cause and effect. God is a God of order, not of chaos. He proceeds logically.

7) Next, Revelation 20:10 is referenced, which is non-germane because it addresses the eternal torment of Satan and his co-horts. No one disagrees.

8) Next, Revelation 20:15 is referenced, which is non-germane because it addresses that all those whose name is not found in the Lamb's book of life are thrown into the lake of fire. No one disagrees.

Must I quote them for you:
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.[/FONT]
--There is no one standing there but the unsaved, the dead--spiritually dead. They don't have their names in the book of Life. They are all cast in the Lake of Fire, and the direct inference is that they suffer the same fate that is given in verse 10--shall be tormented day and night forever and ever. There is no dispute about this.

9) Next we get that differing degrees of punishment does not negate that the punishment is eternal. Yet another non-germane point. Eternal separation from God is a form of eternal punishment, therefore whether the person was put an end to or not, does not negate the eternal punishment of eternal separation.

Eternal punishment rules out conditional Hell immediately.

See a pattern folks, I have provided an alternate understanding of all the germane NT verses that suggest eternal torment, and have shown to my satisfaction, that the alternate understanding is a possibility.

To your satisfaction. Not to the satisfaction of others or more importantly to the Scriptures.

 

[Van]

Good Golly Miss Molly.

The conditional view of hell as defined in post 44 is bogus. That bogus view does not even address the Conditionalist view of Gehenna. DHK seems to put forth a bogus view could be right.

I do not hold to the SDA view of hell, yet DHK says I do. So yet another misrepresentation of my position for someone who is supposed to lead by example.

Liberals like to tell others that words do not have an inherent meaning or meanings, but conservative scholars teach that they do. I hold to the inherent meaning (put to an end) based on Matthew 10:28 where the ability of men to put an end to physical life but not the life of the soul, is contrasted with God's ability to put an end to both physical life and the life of the soul.

Every orthodox believer believes God can put an end to the life of the soul, for God Almighty is all powerful.

DHK repeats the his effort of guilt by association, claiming my view is "akin" to the SDA view. More misrepresentation and misdirection.

Then DHK addresses conditional hell, rather than the Conditionalist view of Gehenna as if the same thing. No kidding.

If we step back and return to the actual topic, the "eternal torment" view has been shown to be based on assumptions and the Conditionalist view of Gehenna has been shown to be a possibility based on differing assumption. As I said, anyone who argues dogmatically for one view or the other has gone off the rails.

 

[Yeshua1]

Good Golly Miss Molly.

The conditional view of hell as defined in post 44 is bogus. That bogus view does not even address the Conditionalist view of Gehenna. DHK seems to put forth a bogus view could be right.

I do not hold to the SDA view of hell, yet DHK says I do. So yet another misrepresentation of my position for someone who is supposed to lead by example.

Liberals like to tell others that words do not have an inherent meaning or meanings, but conservative scholars teach that they do. I hold to the inherent meaning (put to an end) based on Matthew 10:28 where the ability of men to put an end to physical life but not the life of the soul, is contrasted with God's ability to put an end to both physical life and the life of the soul.

Every orthodox believer believes God can put an end to the life of the soul, for God Almighty is all powerful.

DHK repeats the his effort of guilt by association, claiming my view is "akin" to the SDA view. More misrepresentation and misdirection.

Then DHK addresses conditional hell, rather than the Conditionalist view of Gehenna as if the same thing. No kidding.

If we step back and return to the actual topic, the "eternal torment" view has been shown to be based on assumptions and the Conditionalist view of Gehenna has been shown to be a possibility based on differing assumption. As I said, anyone who argues dogmatically for one view or the other has gone off the rails.

Can God though really totally destroy the Human being fully, for hasn't the Cross bought to all immortality, either in heaven or hell?