Matt 10:28 does God really "destroy BOTH" Body AND soul in fiery hell??

[Andre]

Is it at least possible that God created man with no immortal consciousness bearing component (soul and / or spirit) that can live outside the body?

Of course it is.

And is it possible that the wages of sin is really annihilation through hell-fire?

Of course it is.

And is it possible that the Hebrew people used to the words "soul" and "spirit" to connote the "vital life energy" or the "cognitive functions" or the "essence of life" without intending these terms to denote an immortal consciousness bearing entity?

Again, this is of course possible.

So just for the sake of argument, let's assume that God has indeed created a world with just these characteristics.

He then inspires the writers of Scripture to make all sorts of statements about the wages of sin being death and how the wicked will be burned to ashes and that the wicked will be no more and how the soul and the spirit will be destroyed in hell and how God will preserve the body and soul and spirit of believers unto everlasting life, and on and on......

God could do the "best He could" to convince the reader of Scripture of the reality of this "no immortal soul / the wicked are annihilated" system.

But if people bring to their reading the assumption that man has an immortal soul (and / or spirit) to go along with his body and the assumption that "death" means to "death of the body only" and / or "a state of conscious separation from God", all these efforts of God will not achieve the intended goal.

Does the above prove that the "immortal soul / eternal torment" position is wrong?

Of course not.

But it does show how it is possible that incorrect assumptions about the nature of the human person and / or the meaning of certain words can cause people to entirely misconstrue the intended meaning of Scriptural texts.

 

[BobRyan]

Hope of Glory
Let's look at Matthew 25:31-46 in some general terms. This is one passage that some have used with me in the past to show that you could become unsaved.

First of all, he's separating the sheep from the goats. Most people see this as saved vs unsaved. I was taught this most of my life. However, we're told in Numbers 18:17, "But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet savour unto the LORD. "

We are given types and pictures in the OT, and goats are a clean animal. I don't think the Lord is going to use a clean animal to represent someone who's headed for the lake of fire any more than he uses a virgin to picture an unsaved person.

You are mixing two different things. You mixed the symbols for Christ in his act as our substitutionary atoning sacrifice in Numbers 18 regarding animal sacrifices - with the Matt 25 context of separating sheep from goats - wheat from tares etc.

Rev 14 describes that same act of separation with the wicked being gathered out and cast into the winepress of the wrath of God.

The entire passage is talking about works, works, and more works.

Just as we see in Romans 2. The distinction is made between the "hearers" and the "doers".

Then, we get down to verse 41, and he tells those who didn't have the good works some stuff. He callse them "cursed" and tells them to depart into this fire. This fire is aionian fire. It's limited duration. (This looks good to the theology that you hold to, but to those who believe in unlimited punishment and/or OSAS, it presents a dilemma.)

In my view those who are consumed "both body and soul" in that fire have "nothing left over" to take to heaven. They are "reduced to ashes".

The suffer the supernatural torment "day and night" mentioned in Rev 14:10 but they are still ultimately reduced to ashes as was the city and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Andre

But if people bring to their reading the assumption that man has an immortal soul (and / or spirit) to go along with his body and the assumption that "death" means to "death of the body only" and / or "a state of conscious separation from God", all these efforts of God will not achieve the intended goal.

Does the above prove that the "immortal soul / eternal torment" position is wrong?

Of course not.

But it does show how it is possible that incorrect assumptions about the nature of the human person and / or the meaning of certain words can cause people to entirely misconstrue the intended meaning of Scriptural texts.

This actually brings in another key point. Man-made tradition.

#1. Where did the man-made tradition of infinite torture come from? When was that introduced to the Christian Church? Hint - how did the RCC first come to the point of mixing paganism with Christianity according to THEIR OWN historians?

#2. How can we learn to read scripture without the pre-bias of man-made traditions?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Hope of Glory]

As I have shown - the lake of fire and brimstone is simply the terms that John uses where Matthew uses terms like fiery Gehenna. It is all the same. And in that case the saved only "worry" about it as a Biblical warning against falling away.

John 15 states that being removed from the vine of Christ ALSO involves being burned in that fire.


In Christ,

Bob

You have shown your opinion that they are synonymous, and you've given your reasons.

I have shown my opinion on why they are not synonymous, and I've given my reasons.

You have not shown a clear Scriptural connection.

But, traditions of men tell us that they are synonymous, and those lifelong traditions are the most difficult to look past.

BTW, John 15 is another great passage that is written to saved people and they they need to fear removal and fire. Most who hold to OSAS, instead of looking at what it's saying, simply say something along the lines of, "they weren't really and truly branches in the first place".

 

[Andre]

2 Corinthians 5:1-3 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

Our earthly body is temporal. We wait to be clothed with our heavenly body which will be permanent and eternal. Read the rest of the chapter for further understanding.

2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord.

Once again these texts harmonize perfectly well with the view of a "single substance" - they do not imply the existence of an immortal spirit. If there were an immortal spirit, these texts would be consistent with such a state of affairs, but things don't work the other way around. The mere consistency of these texts with that view establishes nothing.

Now here is how the texts work with the "no immortal consciousness bearing" soul / spirit view: when a believer dies, he "sleeps" - there is no conscious existence. The essence of that person, the "information about who he is" is safe in the mind of God. The person's earthly tabernacle has been dissolved and, at the appointed time, God will use this "information about him" to resurrect him into a "body from heaven". Without such a body, he is "unclothed" or "naked".

Now I realize that people will say that verses 1 to 3 clearly show the separate existence of an immortal soul - it is obviously the "thing" that gets clothed. Well, if your mind cannot entertain other possibilities, this is the conclusion you will draw. But a transition from a state of existing only in the mind of God as "information" to a state where God has used that information to reconstitute "you" in a new body can easily be likened to the transition from nakedness to a state of being clothed.

As for verse 6, "being home in the body" does not imply that an immortal soul / spirit is literally a separate component from the body. The drawing of the distinction between the "body" and the "real me" is done all the time without any necessary implication of this dualistic or "tri-alistic" conceptualization.

If Fred says "my body is tired", do we assume that there is an incorporeal "Fred" that "lives inside" the body? Of course we don't. The drawing of a distinction between "me" and my body does not warrant the conclusion that there is an immortal consciousness bearing entity "inside" my body.

 

[Hope of Glory]

And in that case the saved only "worry" about it as a Biblical warning against falling away.

As an aside from our discussion, I had someone recently try to convince me that the warnings weren't to saved people, because saved people couldn't fall away. Only those who couldn't fall away (unsaved) could fall away, he explained.

I used to skydive. So, I asked him, "Who can fall away from the airplane: Me, others on the plane, or those who had never been in the plane."

Well, "that's different". Of course it is.

Only saved people can fall away.

 

[Hope of Glory]

You are mixing two different things. You mixed the symbols for Christ in his act as our substitutionary atoning sacrifice in Numbers 18 regarding animal sacrifices - with the Matt 25 context of separating sheep from goats - wheat from tares etc.

Rev 14 describes that same act of separation with the wicked being gathered out and cast into the winepress of the wrath of God.

And all the parables of Matthew 13 are comparing saved to saved; those who are obedient and those who are not and how much, just as sheep and goats are both given as pictures of clean animals.

The parables are Kingdom messages and not salvation messages.

Do you think the Lord would have been "the lamb of God" if a lamb could be used to represent something unclean?

An aside: I have had people use this to show that people could become unsaved for this very reason. They assume that since goats are clean animals that they are saved, but because of their works, they become unsaved.

Just as we see in Romans 2. The distinction is made between the "hearers" and the "doers".

Well, it's talking about works. Works are not required to simply be saved spiritually. What must I do to be saved? Believe. Simple mental assent. You can do that by hearing only.

But, doing... doing has to do with justification, not salvation.

In my view those who are consumed "both body and soul" in that fire have "nothing left over" to take to heaven. They are "reduced to ashes".

The suffer the supernatural torment "day and night" mentioned in Rev 14:10 but they are still ultimately reduced to ashes as was the city and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah

Hence my statement that it "looks good" to the doctrine that you hold to, because the fire is being referred to in a sense of limited duration.

 

[DHK]

Now you have seen what you say are many "possibilities," which I would say are the facts in case. You happen to take some of those verses and put a different spin on them which is unbiblical. For example your interpretation of Rom.6:23 does not harmonize with the rest of Scripture, and not even with the two clauses of the one verse itself. It is a contradiction within the verse. All Scripture harmonizes with each other. There is no contradiction in the Bible. You must take into consideration all the Bible, the totality of Scripture. Then and only then will you come to a proper understanding of Scripture. 2Tim.2:15 calls thiis "rightly dividing the word of truth."

Is it at least possible that God created man with no immortal consciousness bearing component (soul and / or spirit) that can live outside the body?

Of course it is.

God created man with an immortal spirit. It will indeed live outside of the body. and then at the resurrection it will be joined to the body and live thereafter in the body. Thus it is both. If you study the creation of man, and 1Cor.15:53,54 these facts are obviously in evidence. 1Cor.15 teaches clearly that man is immortal. One cannot get away from that very obivious fact.

And is it possible that the wages of sin is really annihilation through hell-fire?

Of course it is.

No it isn't. All Scripture contradicts this view. There is where you have to compare Scripture with Scripture. At the very least the two clauses are a comparison: eternal life to eternal life. There is no annihllation taught here. The basic meaning however is that that there is a consequence to sin. Annihilation is not there. What is the consequence of sin. Ultimately death.
What is a wage? It is something you work for; something you deserve. The Bible says you deserved death--separation from God for all eternity. The Bible always describes death in terms of separation, never annihilation. Eternal death is separation from God for all eternity. The wages or consequences of sin is death, ultimately--both physical and eternal. There is a consequence to driving drunk. It usually results in someone's death--both physical and eternal (if the person is unsaved).

And is it possible that the Hebrew people used to the words "soul" and "spirit" to connote the "vital life energy" or the "cognitive functions" or the "essence of life" without intending these terms to denote an immortal consciousness bearing entity?

Again, this is of course possible.

No it is not possible. Go to other Scripture. Find out how the Jews viewed what the soul is. There is no Jew in the OT age that ever viewed the soul as "vital life energy." That concept is foreign to the Jewish mind. It is foreign to the Bible. It cannot be proven through the Bible. We do not insert our opinions into the Bible; we demonstrate through the Bible that what we believe is true by harmonizing other Scriptures. The bible interprets itself, and is of no private interpretation. (2Pet.1:21,22)

So just for the sake of argument, let's assume that God has indeed created a world with just these characteristics.

He then inspires the writers of Scripture to make all sorts of statements about the wages of sin being death and how the wicked will be burned to ashes and that the wicked will be no more and how the soul and the spirit will be destroyed in hell and how God will preserve the body and soul and spirit of believers unto everlasting life, and on and on......

Give me one statement where he says that the spirits of man will be burnt to ashes. There is no such verse. There are historical events such as the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gommorroh where the physical bodies are destroyed along with the cities and/or world. But that has nothing to do with the eternal spirits of man. This is where some posters here are taking Scripture out of context.

God could do the "best He could" to convince the reader of Scripture of the reality of this "no immortal soul / the wicked are annihilated" system.

God doesn't lie. He has declared in 1Cor. 15:53,54 that man has immortality. Why are you making God a liar? How can you say that man will be annihilated when it so plainly says that he is immortal?

But if people bring to their reading the assumption that man has an immortal soul (and / or spirit) to go along with his body and the assumption that "death" means to "death of the body only" and / or "a state of conscious separation from God", all these efforts of God will not achieve the intended goal.

There are no assumptions here. The Bible declares that man is immortal. This is a straight denial of the Scriptures on your part. It is also a denial of both the soul and the spirit of man. It is your assumption that death is a "state of consciousness." This is an atheistic view of man. It is not the Biblical view of man that God created. It does not come from the Bible. It is pure humanism, that puts man above God.

Does the above prove that the "immortal soul / eternal torment" position is wrong?

Of course not.

Because it isn't wrong. Man has an immortal soul/spirit. Period. That is the plain teaching of the Bible, whether you want to believe it or not.

But it does show how it is possible that incorrect assumptions about the nature of the human person and / or the meaning of certain words can cause people to entirely misconstrue the intended meaning of Scriptural texts.

Incorrect assumptions?? You have obviously made many of them. My premises are straight from the Bible. I start with the Bible and end with the bible. The Bible interprets itself. I do not bring assumptions into this whatsoever. I know, through a few decades of teaching the Word of God, that my position is not wrong.

 

[Hope of Glory]

"vital life energy."

Although I disagree strongly with what Andre is saying over all, in all fairness, Scriptures do tell us that the soul is the life. Animals even have souls.

 

[Andre]

Hello DHK (and others):

Our interactions tend to follow a similar pattern. You basically state a position X. I then show by actual argument that either X is unjustified or that there is a competing position Y that works equally well with the texts in question. You seem to think that your position is shown to be the correct one merely by declaring it to be so. I do not understand this at all. I have made arguments, in addition to stating my position. Please respond to the content of my arguments or do more than merely state a position.

Now in respect to your last post, please explain how it is that one cannot take Romans 6:23 and conclude that the wages of sin is extinction of the entire human person? You say that my take on this verse is incorrect. We need to be told how it is incorrect, not merely told that it is incorrect.

There is no Jew in the OT age that ever viewed the soul as "vital life energy." That concept is foreign to the Jewish mind

From Leviticus 17

For the life (nephesh) of a creature is in the blood,.....

Now even though this text talks specifically about animals, the use of "nephesh" is telling here - the nephesh is intimately and inextricably bound up with the "physical".

As a footnote: I have inquired of an historian at a local university. He expressed the view that the Hebrew people had no concept of an immaterial soul.

 

[BobRyan]

And all the parables of Matthew 13 are comparing saved to saved; those who are obedient and those who are not and how much, just as sheep and goats are both given as pictures of clean animals.

Sheep and goats are Matt 25 not 13. The text shows that they are cast into the same fire (everlasting fire) prepared for the devil.

Surely you are not arguing that the wicked and the devil are all saved.

The parables are Kingdom messages and not salvation messages.

Do you think the Lord would have been "the lamb of God" if a lamb could be used to represent something unclean?

The context of the chapter shows that they enter the same torment - the same punishment as demons.

The OTHER application of clean animals used for sacrifices representing Christ - can not be mixed in here.

Regarding Romans 2

Well, it's talking about works. Works are not required to simply be saved spiritually. What must I do to be saved? Believe. Simple mental assent. You can do that by hearing only.

But, doing... doing has to do with justification, not salvation.

If you look at the details in the text of Romans 2 - one group gets eternal life the other gets punishment and destruction.

Too much to post on this thread but we can start another on Romans 2 if you like.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK
Because it isn't wrong. Man has an immortal soul/spirit. Period. That is the plain teaching of the Bible, whether you want to believe it or not.

That is very interesting given that you have not given one text that actually say it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: That is very interesting given that you have not given one text that actually say it.

HP: It is not a matter of failure to produce texts, for DHK and others have brought forth many that clearly imply the position of the immortality of the soul/spirit of man. The problem lies in your failure to have ears to hear.

 

[Andre]

HP: It is not a matter of failure to produce texts, for DHK and others have brought forth many that clearly imply the position of the immortality of the soul/spirit of man. The problem lies in your failure to have ears to hear.

I think that the reality is that DHK and others have produced texts that are, at best, consistent with the position of the immortality of the soul / spirit of man. I cannot emphasize enough that this is not enough - one needs to show how competing interpetations are not also allowed by the texts in question.

Its like a situation where a manager of a nuclear reactor goes on vacation and leaves the following instruction for his replacement:

"You cannot put too much water on the nuclear core".

This is a statement that is consistent with two entirely contradictory interpretations:

1. It is a bad and dangerous practice to put an excessive amount of water on the nuclear core.

2. The more water you put on the core, the better.

I hope the analogy is clear. Just because the text of the warning is consistent with one reading does not make that reading the correct one.

I am entirely convinced that the "eternal torment" supporters are either unaware of this issue or ignore it. Of course, the annihilationist can fall into the same trap.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Sheep and goats are Matt 25 not 13. The text shows that they are cast into the same fire (everlasting fire) prepared for the devil.

Someone brought up wheat and tares, that's why I mentioned Matthew 13.

They are cast into the fire prepared for the devil, but are they thrown in at the same time and for the same length of time?

That's why the water picture works well. This is aionian fire. The lake of fire when the devil and all are thrown in is forever and ever. (Which is ages unto ages, which some take to be literally just a bunch of ages, but it is an idiom in Greek that means forever, the same with the Hebrew.)

Surely you are not arguing that the wicked and the devil are all saved.

Since I didn't say that, then it would be safe to say that I'm not saying the devil is saved, but "wicked" describes behavior, and there are many, many saved people who are very wicked and ungodly.

The OTHER application of clean animals used for sacrifices representing Christ - can not be mixed in here.

Then show me a single type in the OT in which a goat is an unclean animal.

If you look at the details in the text of Romans 2 - one group gets eternal life the other gets punishment and destruction.

One group gets aionian life; they get the life in the age to come. What is the life in the age to come?

This is based upon works. We're not saved spiritually by our works, just as we are not sentenced to the lake of fire forever by our works. Our works determine our rewards; our recompense.

Gotta run teach a class now, I'll be back later.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre: I hope the analogy is clear. Just because the text of the warning is consistent with one reading does not make that reading the correct one.

HP: Point well taken. One has to take into account that Scripture is first and foremost a spiritual book, and as such must be spiritual discerned.

Oh God, give me ears to discern the truth of your Word, and above all, motivate my will to act in accordance to it.

 

[BobRyan]

DHK said
Man has an immortal soul/spirit. Period. That is the plain teaching of the Bible, whether you want to believe it or not.

Bob said

That is very interesting given that you have not given one text that actually says it.

HP: It is not a matter of failure to produce texts, for DHK and others have brought forth many that clearly imply the position of the immortality of the soul/spirit of man. The problem lies in your failure to have ears to hear.

Your switch from my "text that actually SAY it" to "texts that clearly imply" is cleaver but does not work in this case.

DHK said "Man has an immortal soul/spirit. Period. That is the plain teaching of the Bible, "

So what you really needed was a bible text that actually SAID Man has an immortal soul/spirit. As I pointed out.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK said "Man has an immortal soul/spirit. Period. That is the plain teaching of the Bible, "

HP: Well stated DHK. With this I heartily concur. That is the plain teaching of Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Sheep and goats are Matt 25 not 13. The text shows that they are cast into the same fire (everlasting fire) prepared for the devil.

Hope of Glory
Someone brought up wheat and tares, that's why I mentioned Matthew 13.

They are cast into the fire prepared for the devil, but are they thrown in at the same time and for the same length of time?

In Rev 20 we see that they both go in at the same time and in the same place. But we do not see that they all are tortured for the same length of time.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Surely you are not arguing that the wicked and the devil are all saved.

Hope of Glory
Since I didn't say that, then it would be safe to say that I'm not saying the devil is saved, but "wicked" describes behavior, and there are many, many saved people who are very wicked and ungodly.

NT writers address the issue of wicked Christians in Matt 7 and Romans 2.