The Doctrine of Eternal Torture in Hell

[razzelflabben]

I believe most people are unwilling to change their mind because it is either a matter of pride, or they cannot believe their church is wrong on a doctrine in the Bible. For me, it is very important to honor God's Word in what it is really saying (Regardless if others disagree or if I have to admit I am wrong sometimes).


...

Some of us don't change our minds because the other side is not making their case in light of the totality of scripture...but hey, pride keeps many who do not accept scripture from admitting they were wrong as we see repeatedly in this thread.

IOW's put your money where your mouth is and actually address the problems in scripture with your opinions. only if you do that will you know who is willing to conform to scripture and who is too prideful to change their minds.

 

[razzelflabben]

I am just trying to remember when I made the turn and my eyes opened one day to the truth. When I look back, I couldn't believe I even considered the sickening concept of Eternal Torment. For it makes God into being this non-stop angry kind of God that runs contrary to how He is long suffering and loving and not willing that any should PERISH but that all should come to repentance.


...

Yet repeatedly I point out that scripture says that hell/death is the consequence of the natural law...and then ask you how the Just and holy nature of God is contrary to that eternal torment hell/death that is the consequence of sin and you refuse to answer the question then expect me to change my mind...where is your scripture that defends the notion that God's Love is not part of His HOLY AND JUST nature?

 

[Major1]

I am just trying to remember when I made the turn and my eyes opened one day to the truth. When I look back, I couldn't believe I even considered the sickening concept of Eternal Torment. For it makes God into being this non-stop angry kind of God that runs contrary to how He is long suffering and loving and not willing that any should PERISH but that all should come to repentance.


...

I appreciate your testimony. I also respect your thinking and opinion on eternal torment of the lost. However you must realize that it is in fact only your thoughts. IF that makes you comfortable then so be it.

But that is not the truth of God's Word my brother. To deny the eternal torment of hell, you will have to remove the following verses from YOUR Bible.........

Matthew 13:50 .........
“furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”

Mark 9:48...........
“where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”

Rev. 14:10..........
“he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”

Romans 2:11...................
"For there is no partiality with God."

John 3:16,17 ..................
"For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him".

Timothy 2:6; 4:10 ..............
"who gave himself as a ransom for all, revealing God’s purpose at his appointed time.
4:10 ..............
"In fact this is why we work hard and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers."

Rom. 1:18, 21 & 25............
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness"
21 ..........
"For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened."
25 ..........
"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."

 

[razzelflabben]

Oh, I disagree. 'Everything' is the problem with his argument. And as for his; 'the word became'???? Well, "And the Word BECAME flesh and dwelt among us." I guess that verse just proved that Jesus never had a human spirit or soul, according to the logic of 'Butch'. But unfortunately scripture just puts a big hole in that picture.

MAT 26:38 Then he/JESUS said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me."

Gee, wonder why Jesus didn't say 'I'm sorrowful' since he was "a living soul" if ever anyone was? Probably because his soul, like ours, is (mind, will, emotion) and "sorrowful" is an emotion. IOW, scripture again makes sense to me and our understanding of triune man.

LUK 23:46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

Gee wonder why Jesus would "commit his spirit" back to God and not his sinless body too? Probably because it was Jesus' spirit which was conceived by the Holy Spirit. And it is the 'spirit of man' which is the only 'triune part' made in the image of God to begin with. That, and the fact that Jesus' spirit had to go preach to the spirits of men who disobeyed in the days of Noah. Oh wait, Butch says there's no verse saying men are spirits. Like I always say; "Oh consistency thou art a jewel to be sought for." And Butch is very consistent....sadly though, he's consistently wrong, as scripture proves AGAIN.

Whoa, just checked the thread before posting. And now all the ECT believers think that all we've been talking about is ECT, not even realizing this is spirit, soul, body which is absolutely and totally another doctrine which they are all apparently all as clueless as Butch since they agree with him. Like I said earlier bro, good luck 'reasoning' with them. I'm tired.

I personally would simply be thrilled beyond belief for one of the non soul/spirit/body people to address an alternate meaning to the two passages presented about a dozen times. But alas they refuse and I too am growing weary of being ignored and mocked for not agreeing without evidence to support their position.

 

[Major1]

I believe most people are unwilling to change their mind because it is either a matter of pride, or they cannot believe their church is wrong on a doctrine in the Bible. For me, it is very important to honor God's Word in what it is really saying (Regardless if others disagree or if I have to admit I am wrong sometimes).


...

My dear brother. It has nothing to do with "changing ones mind" but in reality it has everything to do with accepting the Word of God as truth with will open our minds and set us free.

Changing my mind means I was going to Burger King but now I want to go to Macdonalds.

Accepting the truth of God's Word is the only way we can grow in the knowledge of God.

 

[Major1]

I have too. What I was getting at is that when one argues vehemently it's hard to turn around and admit one is wrong

It is not about admitting one is wrong. It is about believing the Word of God which is sharp as a two edeged sword.

Listen friend, there are things in the Scriptures I do not like. But that is beside the point. We must not seek to change what God said but instead work and study and pray about how to simply believe what He actually did say.

Example: Mark 9:47-48..........
"if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

 

[razzelflabben]

My dear brother. It has nothing to do with "changing ones mind" but in reality it has everything to do with accepting the Word of God as truth with will open our minds and set us free.

Changing my mind means I was going to Burger King but now I want to go to Macdonalds.

Accepting the truth of God's Word is the only way we can grow in the knowledge of God.

nicely stated

 

[Major1]

I personally would simply be thrilled beyond belief for one of the non soul/spirit/body people to address an alternate meaning to the two passages presented about a dozen times. But alas they refuse and I too am growing weary of being ignored and mocked for not agreeing without evidence to support their position.

You are not being ignored or mocked. They simply do not have a Bible answer to give you because there are none to give.

I have had this conversation hundreds of times. The fact is that there is NO Bible verses that support "Annialination" or the thought of No Eternal Torment in a lake of fire that burns eternally. There are NO, NONE, ZERO Scriptures to support their thinking therefore there will be no Bible verse coming forth.

Know that you are standing firm on the truth of God's Word and do not despair or grow weary in well doing work.
Christ has died to set us free and we can honor Him by getting out the Word of God.

 

[razzelflabben]

Maybe the "man is not three parts" crowd can explain this passage to me...Ezekiel 36:25-27

 

[rjs330]

So you believe that unless you believe in ECT--you will end up in ECT?
Have you found the verse that says eternal life is given to the lost?

I'm not sure how you got that idea but that's not what I said. I said the wicked not the believer. If you are a believer you don't have to worry about it right?

Matt 25:46 covers it pretty well. In order to have eternal punishment you must exist that long.

Revelation 21:8 also covers it especially when you look at it in context.

One misunderstanding is the bible talks about life and death in different ways. There's life of the hear and now and there is death here and now. In 1st John he says he who has the son has life and he who does not has death. Does that mean everyone in earth has the son who is alive? No if course not. Eternal life is not just a matter of living eternally. It refers to the great reward We find at the end of this life. It cannot be be said that eternal punishment is any kind of life. If you were kept in some dingy prison and tortured everyday for the rest of your life, could you really say you have life? You are alive, but you don't really have life.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

My dear brother. It has nothing to do with "changing ones mind" but in reality it has everything to do with accepting the Word of God as truth with will open our minds and set us free.

Changing my mind means I was going to Burger King but now I want to go to Macdonalds.

Accepting the truth of God's Word is the only way we can grow in the knowledge of God.

I am talking about changing one's mind in regards to what is said plainly in God's Word.
For I believe I have accepted the truth of God's Word (even more) and have grown in knowledge since that day I broke off the chains of Eternal Torment. For I used to believe in ECT. In fact, my transition to Conditional Immortality was not an overnight process. I was on the fence for a while (Believing both positions could be possibly true). It was Scripture that finally convinced me one day that ECT was not true. Whereby later my eyes had then opened as to the horror of how dark ECT truly is (when you examine it from outside perspective and not with a biased thinking of "It's God's Word, turn off your brain and just accept the words as we say them.").


...

 

[razzelflabben]

I am talking about changing one's mind in regards to what is said plainly in God's Word.
For I believe I have accepted the truth of God's Word (even more) and have grown in knowledge since that day I broke off the chains of Eternal Torment. For I used to believe in ECT. In fact, my transition to Conditional Immortality was not an overnight process. I was on the fence for a while (Believing both positions could be possibly true). It was Scripture that finally convinced me one day that ECT was not true. Whereby later my eyes had then opened as to the horror of how dark ECT truly is (when you examine it from outside perspective and not with a biased thinking of "It's God's Word, turn off your brain and just accept the words as we say them.").


...

the problem is, you "believe you have accepted the truth of God's Word and have grown in knowledge" but you fail to show that in scripture. Some of us require scripture before assuming to know God's intent.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Matthew 13:50.........
“furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”

But an analogy is made with this (that you have to ignore), though. For it says,

"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world" (Matthew 13:40).​

Obviously the tares are not super tares whereby they cannot be burned by the fire like Superman. Jesus compares the fire at the end of the world with the tares being burned up by a real fire within our real world. This is important to understand because the Canaanite woman was able to make a parable or real world example of her own to iillustrate spiritual truth and Jesus accepted her parable and commended her for her faith. So if we ignore reality of the parable of comparison, then we are destroying the pattern of how Jesus illustrated his parables (along with the Canaanite woman's parable).

Mark 9:48.........
“where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”

During what period of time? it does not really specify. Would it be during the time they are being punished (or perishing) before they are erased from existence? Or would it be during the time after their soul perishes whereby their body still needs to be desroyed? Or would it be for all eternity? Please take note that Jesus does say, to fear Him (i.e. Jesus) who can destroy the soul (Matthew 10:28). In other words, the soul cannot live on forever if we are to fear Him (i.e. Jesus) who can destroy the soul. The analogy or comparison here is that Jesus said do not fear him who can destroy the body. Again, this is the reality that you have to ignore in order to make your interpretation work. You have to ignore the reality of Jesus saying do not fear him who can destroy the body - which is by way of comparison of Jesus destroying the soul.

Rev. 14:10..........
“he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”

Yes, those who worship the beast will be tormented with fire and brimstone. But it does not say they will be tormented with fire and brimstone for all eternity. Verse 11 is the transition verse. Verse 11 is talking about the destruction. Verse 11 tells us the SMOKE (i.e. the result of destruction) of their torment ascended up for ever and ever.

Now, if you were to look at Isaiah 34:10, you would realize that this is a metaphorical phrase that stands for complete and utter destruction. For is the city of Edom still burning today? No. Most certainly not.

Furthermore, Jeremiah 7:7 uses the words "for ever and ever", too. But these words are used in a temporal sense. Unless you believe certain OT saints will dwell in the Promised Land here upon this Earth for all eternity while the rest of the saints are on the Final New Earth (at the end of the Millennium).

Romans 2:11...................
"For there is no partiality with God."

But you have to look at the context, though.

It says, "Who will render to every man according to his deeds: " (Romans 2:6).
Notice, it does not say that God is going to render to every man according to His eternal nature and that sinning against Him is like sinning against Him for all time whereby He needs to punish you eternally. It says, "Who will render to every man according to his deeds." (Romans 2:6). But this is not true in ECT. God is not rendering man according to his actual deeds. With your version of God, He is going BEYOND the punishment of his deeds and rendering (punishing) man for sinning against His eternal nature (as if we had a time machine and actually sinned against Him eternally).

God is into fair justice. It says in Luke 12,

"But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more" (Luke 12:48).

But in your version of justice on verse 48 in Luke 12, God will just keep beatening the wicked for all time (way beyond the crimes that they have done).

John 3:16,17 ..................
"For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him".

Please just believe the very words of Scripture you post, my friend.

"whosoever believeth in him should not perish, "

Perish.

When fruit perishes it is rotten and decays and will be no more.

"but have everlasting life."

Everlasting life.

This does not make sense if the wicked also will have everlasting life (i.e. meaning they will live for eternity, too).

Timothy 2:6; 4:10 ..............
"who gave himself as a ransom for all, revealing God’s purpose at his appointed time.
4:10 ..............
"In fact this is why we work hard and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers."

Not sure how you think this proves ECT. I need a little commentary here.

Rom. 1:18, 21 & 25............
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness"
21 ..........
"For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened."
25 ..........
"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."

Again, not sure why you think this is helps to prove ECT. God can still have wrath against the wicked by destroying them (i.e. annihiating them in the Lake of Fire).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm not sure how you got that idea but that's not what I said. I said the wicked not the believer. If you are a believer you don't have to worry about it right?

Matt 25:46 covers it pretty well. In order to have eternal punishment you must exist that long.

What is the type of "everlasting punishment" being described in Matthew 25:46?

It is "everlasting destruction."

"Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (2 Thessalonians 1:9).

This is the punishment that has eternal consequences.

It says, "destruction."
It does not say, "eternal life while one is being tortured in flames.

Revelation 21:8 also covers it

The second death is called the second death because it is related to the first death. The first death is whereby everyone's physical body dies. If the second death was not like the first death, you cannot call it that. It would have to have a completely new name.


...

 

[razzelflabben]

repeating your opinions without addressing the rebuttals is not helping your case

 

[Der Alte]

What is the type of "everlasting punishment" being described in Matthew 25:46?
It is "everlasting destruction."
"Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (2 Thessalonians 1:9).
This is the punishment that has eternal consequences.

Someone who is "destroyed" is not, cannot be "from the presence of God" or anything else.

It says, "destruction."
It does not say, "eternal life while one is being tortured in flames.

Except when the word translated "destruction" doesn't mean destruction. ἀπόλλυμι/Apollumi occurs 86 times in the NT, of this 71 times, 83%, it cannot mean the destruction/annihilation which some argue supposedly occurs at the final judgment. Here is a list of those meanings.

(1) ruin, (2) do not bring about his ruin, (3) put to death, the wicked tenants, (4) he will put the evildoers to a miserable death, (5) destroy the wisdom of the wise, (6) destroy the understanding, (7) lose, (8) lose the reward, (9) lose what we have worked for, (10) lose one’s life, (11) lose oneself, (12) The man who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; the one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’), (13) ruined, (14) die, the man dies, (15) As a cry of anguish, we are perishing!, (16) of disaster that the stormy sea brings to the seafarer, (17) die by the sword, (18) die of hunger, (19) be corrupted, (20) killed by the snakes, (21) those who are lost, (22) of things be lost, (23) pass away, (24) be ruined, (26) of bursting wineskins, (25) fading beauty, (26) transitory beauty of gold, (27) passing splendor, (28) Of earthly food, (29) spoiled honey, (30) Of falling hair, (31) a member or organ of the body, (32) remnants of food, (33) of wine that has lost its flavor, (34) of sheep gone astray, (35) Of a lost son [that returned]. ​

The second death is called the second death because it is related to the first death. The first death is whereby everyone's physical body dies. If the second death was not like the first death, you cannot call it that. It would have to have a completely new name....

"The second death" does not necessarily mean death, i.e. the end of life. Many words are used figuratively in the Bible. For example, Herod was not literally a fox but Jesus called him one. Simon was not literally a rock but Jesus called him "Petros/rock." James and John were not literally "sons of thunder" but Jesus called them that.
.....The lake of fire [LoF] is called “the second death” twice in Rev. vss. 20:14 and 21:8. While this is true, Rev. never says that anyone is thrown into the LoF then they die. The terms the “lake of fire” and “ the second death” are interchangeable, “the lake of fire” is “the second death” and the “second death” is “the lake of fire,” thus we can see that it is not synonymous with death or destruction.
.....We also know that being thrown into the LoF is not synonymous with death from Rev 19:20, where the beast and the false prophet, who is a person, are thrown into the LoF and 1000 years later in 20:10 the devil, is thrown into the LoF. Three living beings, are thrown into the LoF but they do not die, they are tormented day and night for ever and ever. There is not one verse in Revelation which says anyone or anything is thrown into the LoF then they/it dies.

 

[Major1]

But an analogy is made with this (that you have to ignore), though. For it says,

"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world" (Matthew 13:40).​

Obviously the tares are not super tares whereby they cannot be burned by the fire like Superman. Jesus compares the fire at the end of the world with the tares being burned up by a real fire within our real world. This is important to understand because the Canaanite woman was able to make a parable or real world example of her own to iillustrate spiritual truth and Jesus accepted her parable and commended her for her faith. So if we ignore reality of the parable of comparison, then we are destroying the pattern of how Jesus illustrated his parables (along with the Canaanite woman's parable).



During what period of time? it does not really specify. Would it be during the time they are being punished (or perishing) before they are erased from existence? Or would it be during the time after their soul perishes whereby their body still needs to be desroyed? Or would it be for all eternity? Please take note that Jesus does say, to fear Him (i.e. Jesus) who can destroy the soul (Matthew 10:28). In other words, the soul cannot live on forever if we are to fear Him (i.e. Jesus) who can destroy the soul. The analogy or comparison here is that Jesus said do not fear him who can destroy the body. Again, this is the reality that you have to ignore in order to make your interpretation work. You have to ignore the reality of Jesus saying do not fear him who can destroy the body - which is by way of comparison of Jesus destroying the soul.



Yes, those who worship the beast will be tormented with fire and brimstone. But it does not say they will be tormented with fire and brimstone for all eternity. Verse 11 is the transition verse. Verse 11 is talking about the destruction. Verse 11 tells us the SMOKE (i.e. the result of destruction) of their torment ascended up for ever and ever.

Now, if you were to look at Isaiah 34:10, you would realize that this is a metaphorical phrase that stands for complete and utter destruction. For is the city of Edom still burning today? No. Most certainly not.

Furthermore, Jeremiah 7:7 uses the words "for ever and ever", too. But these words are used in a temporal sense. Unless you believe certain OT saints will dwell in the Promised Land here upon this Earth for all eternity while the rest of the saints are on the Final New Earth (at the end of the Millennium).



But you have to look at the context, though.

It says, "Who will render to every man according to his deeds: " (Romans 2:6).
Notice, it does not say that God is going to render to every man according to His eternal nature and that sinning against Him is like sinning against Him for all time whereby He needs to punish you eternally. It says, "Who will render to every man according to his deeds." (Romans 2:6). But this is not true in ECT. God is not rendering man according to his actual deeds. With your version of God, He is going BEYOND the punishment of his deeds and rendering (punishing) man for sinning against His eternal nature (as if we had a time machine and actually sinned against Him eternally).

God is into fair justice. It says in Luke 12,

"But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more" (Luke 12:48).

But in your version of justice on verse 48 in Luke 12, God will just keep beatening the wicked for all time (way beyond the crimes that they have done).



Please just believe the very words of Scripture you post, my friend.

"whosoever believeth in him should not perish, "

Perish.

When fruit perishes it is rotten and decays and will be no more.

"but have everlasting life."

Everlasting life.

This does not make sense if the wicked also will have everlasting life (i.e. meaning they will live for eternity, too).



Not sure how you think this proves ECT. I need a little commentary here.



Again, not sure why you think this is helps to prove ECT. God can still have wrath against the wicked by destroying them (i.e. annihiating them in the Lake of Fire).


...

Your response is exactly what I expected my brother. You gave your opinions my brother of what YOU think and want to believe. People who reject eternal torments always fall back to trying to parse and define certain words such as "Forever: and "Eternal" and so on.

I am not being critical of your response, just stating a fact. Why is this?

You see, the Bible makes it clear that hell is a literal place. Christ spoke more about hell than He did of heaven. Not only Satan and his minions will be punished there, everyone who rejects Jesus Christ will spend eternity right along with them. A desire to reject or revise the doctrine of hell will not mitigate its flames or make the place go away. Still, the idea of eternal damnation is rejected my a lot of people and you are just one of them it seems. Again, the question must be asked, WHY?

Allow me to give you some reasons. Now these are in general and are not directed at you personally.

1). A loved one has died as a lost person.
A wife, or husband, or parent or child dies lost and our brain can not accept the Bible truth that they will be tormented eternally. So we work to come up with answers and excuses which would allow us to accept their death as a lost person.

2). The influence of contemporary thought.
In this modern time, many go to great lengths to assure no one is offended, and the biblical doctrine of hell is considered offensive. It is too harsh, too old-fashioned, too insensitive. The wisdom of this world is focused on this life, with no thought of the life to come.

3). Fear.
Never-ending, conscious punishment devoid of any hope is indeed a frightening prospect. Many people would rather ignore the source of fear than face it and deal with it biblically. The fact is, hell should be frightening, considering it is the place of judgment originally created for the devil and his angels.

4). A flawed view of God’s love.
Many who reject the idea of eternal damnation do so because they find it difficult to believe that a loving God could banish people to a place as horrific as hell for all eternity.
5). A downplaying of sin.
Some find it shockingly unfair that the recompense for a mere lifetime of sinning should be an eternal punishment. Others reject the idea of hell because, in their minds, sin isn’t all that bad.

6). Aberrant theories.
Another reason people reject the concept of eternal damnation is that they have been taught alternative theories. One such theory is universalism, which says that everyone will eventually make it to heaven. Another theory is annihilationism, in which the existence of hell is acknowledged, but its eternal nature is denied. Both of these are not found anywhere in the Scriptures so they become wishes and not truth.

7). Incomplete teaching.
Many contemporary pastors who do believe in the doctrine of hell consider it simply too delicate a subject to preach on. This further contributes to the modern denial of hell. http://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-damnation.html

No one has to agree with any of that. IMHO, to contradict the Bible’s teaching on hell is to say, essentially, “If I were God, I would not make hell like that.” The problem with such a mindset is its inherent pride—it smugly suggests that we can improve on God’s plan. However, we are not wiser than God; we are not more loving or more just.

 

[Major1]

Someone who is "destroyed" is not, cannot be "from the presence of God" or anything else.

Except when the word translated "destruction" doesn't mean destruction. ἀπόλλυμι/Apollumi occurs 86 times in the NT, of this 71 times, 83%, it cannot mean the destruction/annihilation which some argue supposedly occurs at the final judgment. Here is a list of those meanings.

(1) ruin, (2) do not bring about his ruin, (3) put to death, the wicked tenants, (4) he will put the evildoers to a miserable death, (5) destroy the wisdom of the wise, (6) destroy the understanding, (7) lose, (8) lose the reward, (9) lose what we have worked for, (10) lose one’s life, (11) lose oneself, (12) The man who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; the one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’), (13) ruined, (14) die, the man dies, (15) As a cry of anguish, we are perishing!, (16) of disaster that the stormy sea brings to the seafarer, (17) die by the sword, (18) die of hunger, (19) be corrupted, (20) killed by the snakes, (21) those who are lost, (22) of things be lost, (23) pass away, (24) be ruined, (26) of bursting wineskins, (25) fading beauty, (26) transitory beauty of gold, (27) passing splendor, (28) Of earthly food, (29) spoiled honey, (30) Of falling hair, (31) a member or organ of the body, (32) remnants of food, (33) of wine that has lost its flavor, (34) of sheep gone astray, (35) Of a lost son [that returned]. ​

"The second death" does not necessarily mean death, i.e. the end of life. Many words are used figuratively in the Bible. For example, Herod was not literally a fox but Jesus called him one. Simon was not literally a rock but Jesus called him "Petros/rock." James and John were not literally "sons of thunder" but Jesus called them that.
.....The lake of fire [LoF] is called “the second death” twice in Rev. vss. 20:14 and 21:8. While this is true, Rev. never says that anyone is thrown into the LoF then they die. The terms the “lake of fire” and “ the second death” are interchangeable, “the lake of fire” is “the second death” and the “second death” is “the lake of fire,” thus we can see that it is not synonymous with death or destruction.
.....We also know that being thrown into the LoF is not synonymous with death from Rev 19:20, where the beast and the false prophet, who is a person, are thrown into the LoF and 1000 years later in 20:10 the devil, is thrown into the LoF. Three living beings, are thrown into the LoF but they do not die, they are tormented day and night for ever and ever. There is not one verse in Revelation which says anyone or anything is thrown into the LoF then they/it dies.

Well said brother. You are 100% Biblically correct.

Keep up the good work of getting out the Word of God. I am new hear but it is pretty clear that there is a real need for good old down to earth Bible teaching.

 

[Major1]

I am talking about changing one's mind in regards to what is said plainly in God's Word.
For I believe I have accepted the truth of God's Word (even more) and have grown in knowledge since that day I broke off the chains of Eternal Torment. For I used to believe in ECT. In fact, my transition to Conditional Immortality was not an overnight process. I was on the fence for a while (Believing both positions could be possibly true). It was Scripture that finally convinced me one day that ECT was not true. Whereby later my eyes had then opened as to the horror of how dark ECT truly is (when you examine it from outside perspective and not with a biased thinking of "It's God's Word, turn off your brain and just accept the words as we say them.").


...

Then in as much Christian love that I can come up with and with all due respect to you, you my dear brother have come across some very wrong teachings from man or men. You did not come up with your thinking from the Word of God as what you are saying is not found in the Scriptures.

Now I just like you have the ability to make any verse in the Bible say what I am convinced it says to me. However, that is not correct Bible exegesis. It is the "Cafeteria" style of learning. In other words, I will pick and choose what I like and leave the things I do not like alone.

Believe me brother, I do not like the Bible fact that the lost person is tormented eternally. In fact I hate it!
Listen, I was destroyed that FSU lost 63 to 20 last Sat. But you know what??? The score still stands!!!
I have several family members who died lost. I have many right now that if they die today, they will go to hell as well.
BUT.........That does not change the fact that the Bible and especially the Lord Jesus Christ taught us that there is in fact a hell that torments the lost eternally.

The truth is that I am just not smart enough to argue with God.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

While Scripture is our final Word of authority and is extremely important, Scripture can also mean different things to different people. But it can become a problem when somebody takes a text out of the Bible by reading it the wrong way. For example: A parent can wrongfully abuse their child by reading "Spare the rod and spoil the child." Usually, when I debate with other Christians on heated topics, they usually think with their head and not with their heart (When they read God's Word).

The real test is the fruit. The morality or goodness behind your belief.
I want you to demonstrate for me in how ECT is moral and good? How is burning people for all eternity who commit a finite amount of sin as being a type of thing that is fair, just, loving, and good? Please use a real world example to help illustrate this. Also, please do not allegorize your real world example, too. For I am appealing to your moral compass. The question is: Is it still working at it's full capacity?



...