The Doctrine of Eternal Torture in Hell

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Der Alte]

The consequence for sin is death.

Well, it contradicts ECT.

Not when you read the scripture in context. Romans 6:23 does say "the wages of sin is death."
But that is not the final verse on the topic.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:​

These verses say that all, 100%, of mankind have sinned and all, 100%, of mankind is appointed to die. That satisfies Rom 6:23. What scripture does not say is the wages of sin is death, resurrection then a second death.

​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ready to discuss it when you post it.
You still need to show how a carcase can be ashes.
At the end of Isaiah 66 it is the carcases of the men that
transgressed that get seen by the ones in the flesh.
It is not ashes. /the body=carcase/corpse

The carcases will turn into ash when the fire continues to burn it.
Scripture says the wicked will be like stubble (Malachi 4:1).

As for the chronology: It is going to take a little more time to compile it.
It is rather detailed and long and has commentaries.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not when you read the scripture in context. Romans 6:23 does say "the wages of sin is death."
But that is not the final verse on the topic.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:​

These verses say that all, 100%, of mankind have sinned and all, 100%, of mankind is appointed to die. That satisfies Rom 6:23. What scripture does not say is the wages of sin is death, resurrection then a second death.

​

Yes, "death" means death. When something dies it is not alive anymore.


...

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, "death" means death. When something dies it is not alive anymore.
...

Matthew 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.​

Were the "all nations,""dead great and small,""whosoever was not found written in the book of life" dead?

 

[aiki]

But if you feel your belief on ECT is moral and good as you say, then explain it to me. But I know you can't. Hence, why talking about this further is going to go nowhere.

Well, explaining why ECT is appropriate as a punishment for sin is quite easy. Your accepting it might be difficult, though. That's not an issue of explanation, however, but of your prejudice.

As has been pointed out a number of times now in this thread, God's eternal punishment of human wickedness makes sense as one leaves off seeing God's holiness, His perfect moral purity, through the lens of sin-corrupted human morality. Your rejection of the idea of endless torment of the wicked points, not to some a monstrous defect in God's character, or a misreading of Scripture, but of your own ease and comfort with sin. You are, like every other human being, quite saturated with sin. Even when you are conscious of some of your moral failings, there is sin in your life with which you are so easy and familiar you cannot recognize it for what it is. Again, this isn't true just of you, but of all of humanity. In spite of this, you presume to wonder at God's perfect, holy judgment of sin as though, somehow, you see it more clearly than He does and can assess its punishment better than He. But you are making this assessment from the position of a sin-corrupted, finite, and comparatively ignorant creature who can't possibly, therefore, rightly judge the appropriateness of his Maker's justice.

That you think the punishment of sin ought to be finite also speaks to your small, low view of God. It is against Him all sin is ultimately committed. It is against the Almighty Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, the Alpha and Omega, the Infinite Ground of All Reality that you and I sin. Our sin, then, is impossibly dire; it is terrible in the extreme for it offends and defies a Being whose greatness is immeasurably beyond what we can imagine! In this respect, our sin is NOT finite and thus is worthy of the endless torment God renders upon it.

Our sin also abuses the common grace God extends to all. Every time you sin, you are able to do so because of the sustaining power of the God against whom you sin. He gives you life and sustains it moment-by-moment and you use that life to disobey and offend Him! What obscene disregard and ungratefulness! But when a person does not properly value the common grace God gives to all, they cannot understand why it is such an appallingly evil thing to abuse it - so appalling, in fact, it deserves the punishment of eternal Hell.

Your sin also "tramples under foot the Son of God" and "counts the blood of the covenant an unholy thing" (Heb. 10:29). Every sin that you commit is paid for. For every foul imagination, every wicked attitude, every selfish act, Christ suffered and died on the cross of Calvary. Is his sacrifice so small, so cheap, that you think those who reject it, who trample it underfoot, ought not suffer eternally for it? This seems to me a testament to the low view you have of the incredible sacrifice of Christ in atonement for sin. If you saw his sacrifice it for the unspeakably precious thing that it is, eternal torment in Hell for those who despise it would not seem inappropriate in the least.

And so the case for ECT goes. I could go on writing vast reams of explanation for why our sin deserves ECT but you have too hard a heart, too low a view of God, to ever be persuaded of what I'm saying. So, I'll leave you with the few observations above and let God impress them upon your mind and heart as He will.

So you never talked with someone whereby you felt you had to stop because nothing you said really mattered?

This is a very obvious deflection of my point. Why contend at length with others but not with me? My intractability is not unique among those with whom you've discussed ECT. Something else, I think, is motivating your refusal to engage.

ECT has been well defended? How so? I have been asking ECT Proponents for the past few years about how their belief is just, fair, and good and they really cannot explain it to me.

Accepting a good explanation is not inevitable. All sorts of things that have nothing to do with reason and good argument can interfere with your ability, your willingness, to concede to the views of ECT proponents.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well, explaining why ECT is appropriate as a punishment for sin is quite easy. Your accepting it might be difficult, though. That's not an issue of explanation, however, but of your prejudice.

Well, the thing is that I did once accept Eternal Concious Torment. In fact, I had even argued in defense for it as you are doing now. But it was what someone said to me in regards to God's goodness that made me stop and think; And let's just say it was not an overnight process or switch (even after that moment), too. I was still on the fence on ECT versus Conditionalism for a long while, too. But the more I digged into Scripture on the matter, the more I discovered that Conditional Immortality had a significant amount of weight to it. Then one day I was reading an article on a particular verse in defense on Conditional Immortality and it was like a veil being lifted from my eyes. It was like I was blind before, and now I could see.

As has been pointed out a number of times now in this thread, God's eternal punishment of human wickedness makes sense as one leaves off seeing God's holiness, His perfect moral purity, through the lens of sin-corrupted human morality. Your rejection of the idea of endless torment of the wicked points, not to some a monstrous defect in God's character, or a misreading of Scripture, but of your own ease and comfort with sin. You are, like every other human being, quite saturated with sin. Even when you are conscious of some of your moral failings, there is sin in your life with which you are so easy and familiar you cannot recognize it for what it is. Again, this isn't true just of you, but of all of humanity. In spite of this, you presume to wonder at God's perfect, holy judgment of sin as though, somehow, you see it more clearly than He does and can assess its punishment better than He. But you are making this assessment from the position of a sin-corrupted, finite, and comparatively ignorant creature who can't possibly, therefore, rightly judge the appropriateness of his Maker's justice.

That you think the punishment of sin ought to be finite also speaks to your small, low view of God. It is against Him all sin is ultimately committed. It is against the Almighty Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, the Alpha and Omega, the Infinite Ground of All Reality that you and I sin. Our sin, then, is impossibly dire; it is terrible in the extreme for it offends and defies a Being whose greatness is immeasurably beyond what we can imagine! In this respect, our sin is NOT finite and thus is worthy of the endless torment God renders upon it.

This is all just speculation off of taking a few verses out of context, though. First, there are more verses in support of Conditional Immortality then there are for Eternal Concious Torment. Second, it not only does not make any sense logically for an eternal and holy God to torture His creation for disobeying Him finitely, it is down right sadistic and wrong on many levels. For no way would you approve of the endless torture of your children if they were to disobey and reject you. God's holy and just character would never allow for torturing His creation for all eternity. His creation would have to possess the ability to sin against God for all eternity and why would God allow evil to be glorified next to His holiness for all eternity? Is evil to reign next to God? Surely not. Evil is destroyed. Only God and His goodness will reign.

Our sin also abuses the common grace God extends to all. Every time you sin, you are able to do so because of the sustaining power of the God against whom you sin. He gives you life and sustains it moment-by-moment and you use that life to disobey and offend Him! What obscene disregard and ungratefulness! But when a person does not properly value the common grace God gives to all, they cannot understand why it is such an appallingly evil thing to abuse it - so appalling, in fact, it deserves the punishment of eternal Hell.

Your sin also "tramples under foot the Son of God" and "counts the blood of the covenant an unholy thing" (Heb. 10:29). Every sin that you commit is paid for. For every foul imagination, every wicked attitude, every selfish act, Christ suffered and died on the cross of Calvary. Is his sacrifice so small, so cheap, that you think those who reject it, who trample it underfoot, ought not suffer eternally for it? This seems to me a testament to the low view you have of the incredible sacrifice of Christ in atonement for sin. If you saw his sacrifice it for the unspeakably precious thing that it is, eternal torment in Hell for those who despise it would not seem inappropriate in the least.

Believe it or not, Christians can actually stop sinning in this life. My guess is that you are against such a teaching as taught in the Bible.
Do you believe in Once Saved Always Saved or Eternal Security?

And so the case for ECT goes. I could go on writing vast reams of explanation for why our sin deserves ECT but you have too hard a heart, too low a view of God, to ever be persuaded of what I'm saying. So, I'll leave you with the few observations above and let God impress them upon your mind and heart as He will.

I have a low view of your interpretation of God and not the God of the Bible. There is a difference.
God is love. God is not hate.
God is merciful and just.
God is not unmerciful and unjust.
The God of ECT is not merciful because He is going to torture people alive for all eternity.
For what? His holy character? Really?
Is not God also humble?
Is not God good and just whereby we can explain it using a real world example?
Did not Jesus use real world examples to illustrate spiritual truth?
For even the Canaanite woman expounded upon one of Jesus's parable with a real world example (parable) of her own.

...

 

[Radrook]

Not when you read the scripture in context. Romans 6:23 does say "the wages of sin is death."
But that is not the final verse on the topic.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:​

These verses say that all, 100%, of mankind have sinned and all, 100%, of mankind is appointed to die. That satisfies Rom 6:23. What scripture does not say is the wages of sin is death, resurrection then a second death.

​

Yes, I agree. The death without any hope of a resurrection. But ultimately it comes down to death and not ECT.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Chriliman]

It seems we don't fully understand the first and second death yet. It's true that we were all once dead because of sin, so why isn't that considered the first death?

Colossians 2:13
"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,"

Romans 6:4
"We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

Revelation 20:6
"Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."

I can't help but think I was once dead because of my sins, but now I'm alive in Christ and death whether it be the first or second or whatever, has no power over me.

 

[razzelflabben]

You want me to reconcile eternal hell with what?? We've gone over each of those eternal hell passages and have gone over the wording, that eternal doesn't always mean eternal, forever doesn't always mean forever-

and the rebuttal you were offered dealt with the emphasis of the word used as per the lang. it was written in and you offered nothing in return. In addition, we talked about Rev. 20:10 where it says that beast and false prophets will be in torment forever and ever and I pointed out that false prophets are human beings, again, no response to my rebuttal....we also looked at the difference between the words used....
αἰών aiṓn, ahee-ohn'; from the same as G104; properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):—age, course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.
and...
χρόνος chrónos, khron'-os; of uncertain derivation; a space of time (in general, and thus properly distinguished from G2540, which designates a fixed or special occasion; and from G165, which denotes a particular period) or interval; by extension, an individual opportunity; by implication, delay:—+ years old, season, space, (X often-)time(-s), (a) while.

and no rebuttal...see, you and some others here are not discussing or debating, some of you all are simply stating what you believe and then accusing the rest of us of unkind and false things. A debate or discussion means that you address the rebuttals issued against your position, you know, like all the questions I have asked but got no answer for.

--they've been explained over and over---Is Sodom still burning in her everlasting fire?

I put nothing in the Sodom argument because I found it that lame, but let's look at the word used....I found Jude 1:7 feel free to present others, where we are told they were an example...notice nothing about the period of time being an example or anything else about it being an example, only the wrath of God or justice of God being the example.when we look at verse 6 the word eternal means....
ἀΐδιος aḯdios, ah-id'-ee-os; from G104; everduring (forward and backward, or forward only):—eternal, everlasting.

which would remove a shorter period of time than eternal from the possible meaning....

Now, since you want to talk about Sodom and Gomorrah, let's look at Matthew 10:15 where the passage suggests that Sodom and Gomorrah are not annihilated as in none existence completely, but that they will still face judgment that is yet to come after they were destroyed. This then would bring further doubt to the annihilation argument. If you want to go on, you need to present a rebuttal of more than just a repeat of your position?

--No--no fire still going. Is that forest fire that burn millions of acres that was described as unquenchable now out?

as you have been shown in scripture, God has created unquenchable fire that does NOT consume completely. My position is and always has been that we cannot be certain from scripture exactly the nature of the fire in hell other than it is unquenchable by God's definition not ours.

Yes---as have buildings that have gone up in flames that were described as unquenchable, just means it cant be put by any means, until it dies of its own. How many times do we have to go through this stuff just to have you ask about reconciling eternal hell passages???

see, you haven't reconciled anything, all you have done is repeat your position. to reconcile the passages you have to show more than just your opinion of what it should say. Like for example the unquenchable fire. where from a standpoint of man that may be a valid argument (weak but valid) from the standpoint of God and scripture you have been shown that arguement is invalid. In order to reconcile the passages you need to offer something valid from scripture that challenges the definition God has shown us when He says unquenchable and since man is no God, man's definition isn't gonna cut it.

Don't know what you want. it is pretty plain.

I want a rebuttal backed by scripture that challenges the rebuttals you have been given. It's called discussion or debate and should be widely understood from people who come to this forum to discuss or debate.

You want to believe in eternal hell---go right ahead. We will both find out pretty soon. I don't want to have God ask me why I would believe the lies of Satan about His character instead of what He himself said. And if I am wrong and you sre right??---So what. He will do what He will do. If He should choose to punish me forever---He's God and that is that--if I am right (which I firmly believe)--He would be very sad that I would believe He is a barbaric despot who torments people forever over a finite crime. It would mean I do not know Him, and therefore He will not know me.

WEll...two things 1. it should matter because this is a discussion/debate about the topic of eternal hell, iow's if you don't care about discussing the topic and are just dismissing disagreement because you have no argument to present why are you here? As I understand internet terms, that would make you a troll wouldn't it? I mean it's cool to acknowledge that it is okay to disagree but if you don't want to discuss/debate but go to a thread about discussing/debating the topic that seems problematic to me. 2. In the hell version I have shown in scripture and no one has challenged yet, still waiting and hoping, hell is eternal torment but God is not "barbaric despot who torments people forever over a finite matter" which might mean that you don't know Him like you think you do....just saying, that would be what your comments there suggest.

 

[razzelflabben]

You still on that? I've said over and over and so have the scriptures-----ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS---and since God alone knows the works of anyone--it is determined by God. God alone determines time, intensity of pain, anhything else. What's so hard to comprehend about that?

well, first that is the first time you even attempted to answer one of the several questions answered, so getting snippy isn't going to help your case.
Second, what are our "works" according to scripture anyway? We will do as scripture says and build on this precept as we go. According to scripture, what are our "works"...what are the "good works" God has created for you?

Oh and since you answered one of the questions, let's build on that as well...if God determines how long and intense suffering is, how does He decide and how do you know that you could agree with His decision? For example, what if He says X deserves 1000 years and Y deserves 10 years but you think that is backwards, would that mean that God's judgments are immoral because you disagree with how long a specific thing is punished? What about criminals, is time served in jail on this earth time served in hell? Oh so many questions and so few answers offered.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, my ultimate goal is to attack the belief and not the person. So my apologies if it appeared that I was attacking you. That was not my intention. But if you feel your belief on ECT is moral and good as you say, then explain it to me. But I know you can't. Hence, why talking about this further is going to go nowhere.



So you never talked with someone whereby you felt you had to stop because nothing you said really mattered?



ECT has been well defended? How so? I have been asking ECT Proponents for the past few years about how their belief is just, fair, and good and they really cannot explain it to me. Some will say it is a mystery. Others in ECT will even tell me they don't like the idea of hell. Neither do I. Others have tried to come up with how God needs to punish people based on his holy and eternal character. That sinning against an eternal God is eternal punishment. But they really cannot explain it anymore in detail and or show how that is fair, just, and good.

Anyways, I think it is best we move on; And that we should simply agree to disagree.


...

but you still refuse to show how an eternal torment hell that is the consequence of the nature law of sin and a Holy God is somehow immoral or removes God's character from the equation...See, it is God's character that causes the law of sin and death to be true in the first place.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Major1]

Not when you read the scripture in context. Romans 6:23 does say "the wages of sin is death."
But that is not the final verse on the topic.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:​

These verses say that all, 100%, of mankind have sinned and all, 100%, of mankind is appointed to die. That satisfies Rom 6:23. What scripture does not say is the wages of sin is death, resurrection then a second death.

​

The Scriptures you posted apply to the wicked lost. To them the penalty of their sin IS death. Their bodies will be resurrected and then they will be sent to the second death which is the lake of fire forever and ever.

As for 100% of mankind to die. What about Enoch. Didn't he ascend to God without dieing? What about Elijah. Didn't he also go home to God with death? Then what about the people who will be Raptured. They will not die but instead receive a glorified body when they meet the Lord in the air.

 

[Butch5]

Once again it is proven; "A man convinced against his will, is always of the same opinion still." Enjoy your opinion. For those who think a bit beyond where you are at, it just doesn't wash. Scripture says man is a "spirit/soul/body" in one verse and you keep sticking your head in the sand refusing to answer that verse. Your senseless rabbit trail concerning the word "YOUR" simply proves how desperate you are to believe an indefensible position. So I'll stop here and you can jump through your hoops all you want to defend a position that fits neither the 'whole' of scripture, or the discipline of acceptable scientific and medical fact. Scripture continues to be PLAINLY understood.

1TH 5:23 and the God of the peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved unblameably in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ;

That's just another fallacy. I've addressed the passage several times. The soul consists of the body and the spirit. They are not three different parts of something. The two, body and spirit, together form the third. It's not just an opinion is stated plainly in Gen 2:7.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.1 (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

Note the word "BECAME." The word became means came into being. It's funny that you speak of science and yet deny the logic found in this verse. You have hydrogen and oxygen your don't have water until you mix the two together. Does water consist of three parts? Is it hydrogen, oxygen, and water? Or, it is that hydrogen when combined with oxygen, "BECOMES" water?

I asked you to show me where Scripture says that man is a spirit, which you claimed. You provided nothing at all. I asked you to provide Scripture that says man consists of three parts. You provided nothing. Yet, somehow you claim that I'm the one that is wrong. Since you've provided nothing from Scripture to support your claim the most that can be said is that it is your opinion.

In one post you said man is a spirit. If that is the case how is the spirit part of itself? How can he be a spirit if the spirit only a part of him? My use of the word "YOUR" shows that your argument is illogical. When you have parts that form a whole, the whole is not a part, it's the whole.

 

[Major1]

That's just another fallacy. I've addressed the passage several times. The soul consists of the body and the spirit. They are not three different parts of something. The two, body and spirit, together form the third. It's not just an opinion is stated plainly in Gen 2:7.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.1 (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

Note the word "BECAME." The word became means came into being. It's funny that you speak of science and yet deny the logic found in this verse. You have hydrogen and oxygen your don't have water until you mix the two together. Does water consist of three parts? Is it hydrogen, oxygen, and water? Or, it is that hydrogen when combined with oxygen, "BECOMES" water?

I asked you to show me where Scripture says that man is a spirit, which you claimed. You provided nothing at all. I asked you to provide Scripture that says man consists of three parts. You provided nothing. Yet, somehow you claim that I'm the one that is wrong. Since you've provided nothing from Scripture to support your claim the most that can be said is that it is your opinion.

In one post you said man is a spirit. If that is the case how is the spirit part of itself? How can he be a spirit if the spirit only a part of him? My use of the word "YOUR" shows that your argument is illogical. When you have parts that form a whole, the whole is not a part, it's the whole.

I am not saying that you are, but I am saying that one of the main teachings of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” is that “no man has a soul”. I just thought you would like to know about that teaching. They do that because they totally reject the Trinity of God therefore they must reject the trinity of man.

Now as for the Bible teaching and Scripture confirmation I will give you 2 verses. There are more but these 2 say all that needs to be said.

1 Thess. 5:23...........
"I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Hebrews 4:12..........
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow (body), and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart".

 

[razzelflabben]

That's just another fallacy. I've addressed the passage several times. The soul consists of the body and the spirit. They are not three different parts of something. The two, body and spirit, together form the third. It's not just an opinion is stated plainly in Gen 2:7.

this was refuted with scriptures and you didn't address the rebuttal...have a go at it so that our discussions can continue on in a profitable manner rather than just "cause I say so" arguments.