Kirk Cameron Takes Heat for His Annihilationist View on Hell

[timothyu]

How does one feel proper love and reverence for a God whom he is simultaneously afraid stands ready to burn him alive for eternity, after all?

I think we might see who was behind this when we look at who actually burnt people at the stake and called it good in order to maintain their control.

 

[timothyu]

. Scripture itself shows that apollumi is often used for ruin or loss without cessation of existence:

Of course. The source of the spirit still exists and it merely returns to it.

 

[1Tonne]

If hell is eternal, it should shake us awake, not leave us smug, passive, or comfortable.
The reality of eternal judgment is not meant to produce Christians who sit safely inside church walls, do a few good deeds, and assume everything will somehow work out for the unbeliever. It is meant to drive us outward to speak, to warn, and to plead. The gospel is not a lifestyle accessory; it is, as Scripture says, “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16). If we do not speak it, people do not hear it, and faith comes by hearing (Romans 10:14–17).
If people face eternal loss apart from Christ, then silence is not love. Silence is indifference.

This is where annihilationism weakens evangelism. If the worst outcome for the unbeliever is eventual non-existence, the urgency is reduced. The stakes feel lower. The need to warn feels less pressing. It becomes easier to remain within the four walls of the church and substitute good deeds for clear gospel proclamation.
But Scripture never presents evangelism that way. Paul says he persuaded people because he knew the fear of the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:11). Jesus wept over Jerusalem. The apostles risked their lives to proclaim Christ because they believed eternity was at stake.

Only a small fraction of professing believers ever shares the gospel, and that should grieve us. A diminished view of judgment inevitably produces diminished urgency. When eternal consequences are blurred, the mission becomes optional and apathy sets in.
It is like you see a house on fire with someone still inside yet, you choose to mow their lawn instead of warning them. Then you comfort yourself by saying, “I shared the gospel through kindness.”

Belief in eternal judgment does not make Christians cruel; it makes them serious. It does not lead to gloating; it leads to tears, prayer, sacrifice, and bold speech. If Christ is truly the only refuge from eternal loss, then love demands that we speak, clearly, urgently, and faithfully outside the four walls of the church.

The question is not whether talking about hell makes people uncomfortable.
The question is whether we see the urgency of the mission and weather we love people enough to warn them. And annihilationism sadly diminishes this.

 

[timothyu]

The question is whether we see the urgency of the mission and weather we love people enough to warn them.

Jesus came to proclaim the GOOD NEWS of the Kingdom.

 

[JulieB67]

Yes, apollumi can mean ‘destroy fully.’

And I've asked you for examples in the Bible where the primary meaning fits. Surely you believe there are some since it is the primary meaning.

because men already accomplish extinction in the first death.

It's the opposite. They don't accomplish extinction in the first death at all. The "second" death is final.

I’m pointing out that biblical meaning is determined by usage and context, not by an English gloss or a dictionary ranking.

I only am going by the Greek primary and it absolutely believe it fits with Matthew 10:28 and verses like John 3:16.

• Luke 15:24 — the prodigal son was ‘lost’ (apolōlos) and then ‘found’; he did not cease to exist.
• Matthew 8:25 — ‘we are perishing’ (apollymetha) clearly does not mean annihilation.
• John 6:27 — food that ‘perishes’ does not stop existing; it spoils.
• 1 Corinthians 1:18 — ‘those who are perishing’ are conscious people in rebellion, not nonexistent.

Judgment Day is when the second death comes into play. That's when annihilation happens. Why are you posting about people that are still alive? And food? That has nothing to with the second death.
Anyone that is lost before then can still find their way back before that happens. But they are still in a state of "perishing" and are lost if they don't come back.

This is where annihilationism weakens evangelism. If the worst outcome for the unbeliever is eventual non-existence, the urgency is reduced. The stakes feel lower. The need to warn feels less pressing.

So, it would seem you spreading the gospel is not about the good news but rather to instill fear? Christ defeated death and the gift is eternal life through him that believe. You are making it more about fear than that. And why is the urgency reduced? Is this gift of eternal life through Christ not urgent enough for you? You have to add ECT to the mix to draw them in through fear? Eternal death is not enough for you?

 

[1Tonne]

So, it would seem you spreading the gospel is not about the good news but rather to instill fear? Christ defeated death and the gift is eternal life through him that believe. You are making it more about fear than that. And why is the urgency reduced? Is this gift of eternal life through Christ not urgent enough for you? You have to add ECT to the mix to draw them in through fear? Eternal death is not enough for you?

Scripture never sets good news and warning against each other. The gospel contains both, the glory of salvation and the reality of what we are saved from.
Christ Himself preached this way. He proclaimed the kingdom of God and warned of hell more than anyone else. Paul called the gospel “good news,” yet also said, “Knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11). Warning people of real danger is not manipulation; it is love.
Urgency is reduced when the consequences are minimized. If the final outcome for rejecting Christ is eventual non-existence, then the stakes are undeniably lower than eternal loss. That doesn’t deny the goodness of eternal life, it recognizes that Scripture motivates us by both promise and warning.
The gospel is urgent not because we add fear, but because reality is fearful apart from Christ. Firefighters don’t stop talking about flames because they want to focus on rescue. Doctors don’t avoid talking about cancer because they want to focus on healing. They tell the truth because lives are at stake.
Eternal life in Christ is infinitely good, but Scripture also says it is rescue from wrath, judgment, and destruction. Remove that, and you remove the weight of what Christ actually saved us from.

So no, this is not about “drawing people in through fear.” It is about refusing to soften reality. And if this does create the fear of God in someone, then that it fine. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The good news shines brightest when the danger is real. Christ defeated death, but that victory only matters because death is something we genuinely needed to be saved from.

 

[SarahsKnight]

Removing judgment to make God seem safer does not make Him more loving, it makes the cross less necessary.

What conditionalists like myself, Julie, and Jipsah believe about the nature of humans and the fate of both believers and unbelievers does not remove God's judgment from the equation at all, though. It apparently takes a different form than what ECT proponents believe it does, though. However, to us, the Cross is no less necessary; I certainly would not want to bear on the day of judgment anything like what Jesus Christ endured before and during His death on the cross, even though as a conditionalist what i believe He endured is torment, grave injury and shame, a terrible feeling that God was not with Him (and believe me, the likely MUCH lesser feeling of having been abandoned by God that those like myself suffered in our time struggling with religious-oriented OCD was unbearable enough as it is, so imagine how bad it was for Christ!), and then, plainly, death.

ECT'ists seem to believe that what Jesus endured in our place was an infinite amount of punishment somehow absorbed in a finite amount of time because Jesus was God as well as man, and that's not a bad argument logically, but the fact that He eventually did breathe His last at the Cross still makes me think that it matches the punishment for unbelievers as the conditionalists see it - grave conscious punishment for a time (as evidenced by a few verses such as Luke 12:48) and then utter death/destruction, missing out on eternal life once and for all - much more closely.

I hope, @1Tonne , you can at least see where we conditionalists are coming from Biblically with our stance even if you disagree with how we're interpreting it, and that you do not make the insulting accusation that we are trying to diminish Christ's sacrifice in any way.

 

[Jipsah]

It is insults like this, bad spelling, multiple quotes within the one post, and your rhetoric that show you are frustrated. If need be, take a step back.

Is this you declaring a victory, or just asking me to go away? Abd FWIW, you can tell when I'm posting on a telephone because my spelling worsens by orders of magnitude. <Laugh>

NOTE: You have quoted me 17 times in the last 2 posts you have made, and I have not had a chance to respond. What is that about????

The quotes provide context for my replies, to avoid the standard "you took me out of context!" dodge. If I misquote you then you have a valid beef.

How we speak about God matters. Calling Him a ‘pitiless monster’ reveals far more about our assumptions than about His character.

To be clear, I don't consider, or call, God a pitiless monster. But that's how your religion paints Him, inflicting ghastly punishments to be inflicted eternally for finite offenses. It's your lot who say God is a monster, by insisting that He inflicts torture 0n those who offend Him so horrific that no human psychopath could inflict them even if he was so inclined, and which no living human victim could possibly survive for more than a brief period of time if it . The "gift of God, ", eternal life, simply provides a mechanism to torture the recipient of God's hatred for an limitless period of time, because, at least in your religion, God's malice endures forever and ever.

My view does not diminish God; it exalts Him. God is infinitely holy, infinitely just, and infinitely worthy.

Not to mention infinitely unforgiving, infinitely vindictive, infinitely spiteful, etc. And to what end? As I've asked before, who benefits from the Infinite horrific and inconvievably brutal punishments that benefit no one.? In your religion is that necessitated by God's infinite ability to hold a grudge?

Because of who He is, sin against Him is not trivial.

Even, apparently, to the point of sins unknowingly committed, or because the condemned was never persuaded to believe in Christ, or so I'm told. No more of that "forgive them because they don't know any better" stuff either, right? Once again, it's "burn, baby burn!"

Eternal punishment does not make God cruel; it magnifies His holiness and justice

Working from your own in-house lexicon again I see. And no, infinite Punishment for finite offenses would simply be simply cruelty for its own sake. Holiness? Debatable, especially not knowing how it's defined in your in-house dictionary. Just? Infinite punish for finite offenses? Not in any of the languages I know. No more "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth", it's "burn forever for being too boneheaded to listen to the right preachers". Ain't no justice there, matey.

At the same time, this view magnifies God’s mercy.

That has to be a "See, He doesn't condemn everybody to eternal torture!" thing. After all, He's God, and He could roast everybody ever if He wanted to! Yeah, that kind of mercy.-sigh-

If eternal judgment is truly deserved, then the cross becomes infinitely glorious.

Which in your ecomony it apparently pretty much always is...

Christ did not save us from something small or temporary, but from real and dreadful wrath

So it could be worse, it cou'd be two infinite stays in hell to run consecutively.

Reducing judgment reduces grace.

Into negative numbers?

I would never dare to accuse God of cruelty

No, you simply ascribe it to Him.

for doing what He Himself says is just.

Chapter and verse?

Scripture commands us to tremble before Him, not to put Him in the dock of human moral preferences

Funny, I'd have thought that God might be hoped to behave as our Lord Jesus did. Silly notion, huh?

God is not answerable to us. We are answerable to Him.

So it's OK if He behaves in a manner that we'd find utterly abhorrent in a human being. Right.

Eternal punishment does not make God a monster.

It would if it was anything other than a noxious doctrine made up from whole cloth.

It reveals that He is holy, just, and merciful beyond measure

No, it reveals how ghastly human imaginings of God's behavior can be.

, and that sin is far more serious than we like to admit.

And that Damnationist doctrines are far more apalling than most of us care to imagine.

 

[Jipsah]

Scripture never sets good news and warning against each other. The gospel contains both, the glory of salvation and the reality of what we are saved from.
Christ Himself preached this way. He proclaimed the kingdom of God and warned of hell more than anyone else. Paul called the gospel “good news,” yet also said, “Knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11). Warning people of real danger is not manipulation; it is love.

Assuring us that God is just lying in wait for an opportunity to send us to eternal torture. Right.

Urgency is reduced when the consequences are minimized. If the final outcome for rejecting Christ is eventual non-existence, then the stakes are undeniably lower than eternal loss.

The wages of sin is death. But apparently that isn't nasty enough to suit some folks.

That doesn’t deny the goodness of eternal life

Which eternal life? The on in Heaven or the one in hell?

The gospel is urgent not because we add fear, but because reality is fearful apart from Christ.

Yep, it's very clear. The Wages of Sin is Death. Not eternal life in hell. Y'all don't seem to understand the contrast.

Eternal life in Christ is infinitely good,

And it's the only eternal life there is.

but Scripture also says it is rescue from wrath, judgment, and destruction.

Destruction meaning, in English, destruction. Not Bad Erernal Life.

Remove that, and you remove the weight of what Christ actually saved us from.

He came so that we might have life, and have if more abundantly. You lot claim we've got "life" in any case, it's just torture we're to be saved from.

So no, this is not about “drawing people in through fear.”

Well yeah, that's precisely the thing, You'd have us believe that God grants everyone eternal life, but unless we're saved from God's wrath and hatred, eternal life is a sentence to perpetual torture.

It is about refusing to soften reality.

"Reality" being that God's hatred of humanity is such that He finds everyone guilty of crimes worth of eternal torment unless we're saved from His implacable hatred.

And if this does create the fear of God in someone, then that it fine.

Hurray, they've been saved from God!

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The good news shines brightest when the danger is real.

And God's just itching for an excuse, right?

Christ defeated death, but that victory only matters because death is something we genuinely needed to be saved from.

And in your religion, the need is to be saved from God.

 

[JulieB67]

he question is whether we see the urgency of the mission and weather we love people enough to warn them.

his is where annihilationism weakens evangelism. If the worst outcome for the unbeliever is eventual non-existence, the urgency is reduced. The stakes feel lower. The need to warn feels less pressing

I don't believe so. And how are you hoping to inspire true repentance which we know is a true change of heart and mind, a new way of thinking while spreading ECT? You are turning many people off of God, instead of showing his true nature. Which is not to burn someone for an eternity. I think this type of teaching has real consequences. He wants our love plain and simple. He wants our trust and belief that we can put our lives in his hands. He's long suffering wishing all would come to repentance and not perish. That's our Father, not the one you've made him out to be.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Yes, you're quoting from Proverbs. But there are a few different words for fear in the OT, one being this one which I hope that's not what you're suggesting-

Hebrews 6343-
dreadful, fear, thing great fear terror
From pachad; a (sudden) alarm (properly, the object feared, by implication, the feeling) -- dread(-ful), fear, (thing) great (fear, -ly feared), terror.

The one your quoting is Hebrews 3374 yirah which is more about reverence, that type of fear and yes, this fear is good. And sure, it's a healthy fear to not want any part of God's wrath at the end as well as the second death. We should fear that from him and want no part of that. But that has nothing to do with instilling the belief that God is going to burn someone for an eternity If that's the type of fear you are spreading than I don't think you're going to inspire real change.

 

[JulieB67]

He eventually did breathe His last at the Cross still makes me think that it matches the punishment for unbelievers as the conditionalists see it

Exactly! He paid the price which was death so that upon belief and repentance we would be given the gift of eternal life. Otherwise death is the penalty, not ECT.

 

[1Tonne]

I hope, @1Tonne , you can at least see where we conditionalists are coming from Biblically with our stance even if you disagree with how we're interpreting it, and that you do not make the insulting accusation that we are trying to diminish Christ's sacrifice in any way.

I do understand where you are coming from and I do not think it is you personally who is diminishing the sacrifice of Christ but your belief.
I also do not think that annihilationist's are heretics as some people think. I believe that they are misguided in their understanding but not heretics.

Is this you declaring a victory, or just asking me to go away? Abd FWIW, you can tell when I'm posting on a telephone because my spelling worsens by orders of magnitude. <Laugh>

The quotes provide context for my replies, to avoid the standard "you took me out of context!" dodge. If I misquote you then you have a valid beef.

To be clear, I don't consider, or call, God a pitiless monster. But that's how your religion paints Him, inflicting ghastly punishments to be inflicted eternally for finite offenses. It's your lot who say God is a monster, by insisting that He inflicts torture 0n those who offend Him so horrific that no human psychopath could inflict them even if he was so inclined, and which no living human victim could possibly survive for more than a brief period of time if it . The "gift of God, ", eternal life, simply provides a mechanism to torture the recipient of God's hatred for an limitless period of time, because, at least in your religion, God's malice endures forever and ever.

Not to mention infinitely unforgiving, infinitely vindictive, infinitely spiteful, etc. And to what end? As I've asked before, who benefits from the Infinite horrific and inconvievably brutal punishments that benefit no one.? In your religion is that necessitated by God's infinite ability to hold a grudge?

Even, apparently, to the point of sins unknowingly committed, or because the condemned was never persuaded to believe in Christ, or so I'm told. No more of that "forgive them because they don't know any better" stuff either, right? Once again, it's "burn, baby burn!"

Working from your own in-house lexicon again I see. And no, infinite Punishment for finite offenses would simply be simply cruelty for its own sake. Holiness? Debatable, especially not knowing how it's defined in your in-house dictionary. Just? Infinite punish for finite offenses? Not in any of the languages I know. No more "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth", it's "burn forever for being too boneheaded to listen to the right preachers". Ain't no justice there, matey.

That has to be a "See, He doesn't condemn everybody to eternal torture!" thing. After all, He's God, and He could roast everybody ever if He wanted to! Yeah, that kind of mercy.-sigh-

Which in your ecomony it apparently pretty much always is...

So it could be worse, it cou'd be two infinite stays in hell to run consecutively.


Into negative numbers?

No, you simply ascribe it to Him.

Chapter and verse?


Funny, I'd have thought that God might be hoped to behave as our Lord Jesus did. Silly notion, huh?

So it's OK if He behaves in a manner that we'd find utterly abhorrent in a human being. Right.


It would if it was anything other than a noxious doctrine made up from whole cloth.

No, it reveals how ghastly human imaginings of God's behavior can be.

And that Damnationist doctrines are far more apalling than most of us care to imagine.

Assuring us that God is just lying in wait for an opportunity to send us to eternal torture. Right.

The wages of sin is death. But apparently that isn't nasty enough to suit some folks.

Which eternal life? The on in Heaven or the one in hell?

Yep, it's very clear. The Wages of Sin is Death. Not eternal life in hell. Y'all don't seem to understand the contrast.

And it's the only eternal life there is.


Destruction meaning, in English, destruction. Not Bad Erernal Life.

He came so that we might have life, and have if more abundantly. You lot claim we've got "life" in any case, it's just torture we're to be saved from.

Well yeah, that's precisely the thing, You'd have us believe that God grants everyone eternal life, but unless we're saved from God's wrath and hatred, eternal life is a sentence to perpetual torture.

"Reality" being that God's hatred of humanity is such that He finds everyone guilty of crimes worth of eternal torment unless we're saved from His implacable hatred.

Hurray, they've been saved from God!


And God's just itching for an excuse, right?

And in your religion, the need is to be saved from God.

Oh. You did it again. This time I think it is 29 more erratic little posts. LOL

I don't believe so. And how are you hoping to inspire true repentance which we know is a true change of heart and mind, a new way of thinking while spreading ECT? You are turning many people off of God, instead of showing his true nature. Which is not to burn someone for an eternity. He wants our love plain and simple. He wants our trust and belief that we can put our lives in his hands. He's long suffering wishing all would come to repentance and not perish. That's our Father, not the one you've made him out to be.

I’m not speaking theoretically here. I actively share the gospel, and I see real fruit. I regularly see people seriously reconsider their sin, their lives, and their standing before God. Some make clear decisions to honour God and leave their old way of life. Others say they will genuinely think about what we discussed. That isn’t manipulation; that’s conviction at work. And I see this very often.

Repentance in Scripture is produced by truth, about God’s holiness, our sin, judgment, and mercy. Jesus warned about hell more than anyone, yet perfectly revealed the Father’s heart. If warning people turns them away from God, then Christ Himself would be guilty of that charge.

This may help you understand how fear can be very good:
There are two kinds of fear. Bad fear paralyzes and keeps people from acting. Good fear, the fear of the Lord, leads to wisdom, repentance, and life (Prov 1:7). The gospel spoken in it's fullness with the truth of Judgement often produces this good fear, and it moves people to act. This good fear will make people want to honour God and put Him first in their lives.- I have seen this many, many times.

God is patient and desires repentance, but His long-suffering does not remove the reality of judgment; it explains why it is delayed. Speaking honestly about that reality is not unloving, it is necessary.
The fear of the Lord is not the enemy of repentance. It is the beginning of wisdom.

Yes, your quoting from Proverbs. But there are a few different words for fear in the OT, one is this one which is not the one you're quoting.

Hebrews 6343-
dreadful, fear, thing great fear terror
From pachad; a (sudden) alarm (properly, the object feared, by implication, the feeling) -- dread(-ful), fear, (thing) great (fear, -ly feared), terror.

The one your quoting is Hebrews 3374 yirah which is more about reverence, that type of fear and yes, this fear is good. We know we should fear God's wrath, not want to take part in the second death, etc. But that has nothing to do with instilling the belief that God is going to burn someone for an eternity. It's as if you all are reading an entirely different Bible.

The OT uses more than one Hebrew word for fear, but the conclusion you’re drawing from that distinction doesn’t follow.
Yirah (Prov 1:7) certainly includes reverence, but it does not exclude terror or dread of judgment. (H3374 - yir'â - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (nkjv))
In Scripture, reverence and fear of consequences are not opposites; they belong together. Yirah is used repeatedly in contexts where God’s holiness, justice, and wrath are very much in view (e.g., Deut 10:12–13; Prov 16:6). It is reverent fear because God is holy and judges sin, not because He is harmless.
The New Testament reinforces this fuller sense of fear. Hebrews 12:28 uses eulabeia, a word that carries reverence, godly fear, piety, and even caution, avoidance, dread or anxiety before God’s holiness; and aidos, meaning respect or shame. This shows that biblical fear is not mere politeness or admiration; it includes caution, awe, and a recognition of God’s authority and judgment. Godly fear compels us to take Him seriously, to live in a way that honours Him, and to avoid treating sin casually.

This is why Jesus explicitly connects fear of God with His authority over hell: “Fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell”. That is not abstract reverence; it is fear grounded in real consequences.

“Godly fear” isn’t merely respect; it’s a holy fear. The kind that keeps you from treating God casually. It says, “I dare not play games in His presence.” That is precisely the fear Scripture commends.
C. S. Lewis captured this well in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe when Mr. Beaver says of Aslan:
“Safe? Who said anything about safe? ’Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good.”
We’ve lost this balance in many churches. People want God to be safe. But He is holy, and holiness is not tame.

The Bible does not present two gospels: one of love and one of warning. God’s love, patience, and desire that none perish coexist with sober warnings about eternal judgment. Saying that eternal punishment has “nothing to do” with the fear of the Lord is not a biblical distinction; it’s a theological assumption brought to the text.

So no, this isn’t about “reading a different Bible.” It’s about allowing all of Scripture to define the fear of the Lord, not just the parts that feel more comfortable.

-Reverence without judgment becomes sentimentality.
-Fear without reverence becomes terror.
-Biblical fear holds both together.

You are turning many people off of God

But again, can you inspire true repentance or are they just accepting out of fear? This doctrine is going major damage.

So, since you have said that I am scaring people away from God, or that the only reason they accept is because of fear, I’ll ask you plainly: how do you personally speak the gospel to people outside the church, and how often? Do you see many people change? ....-Or does your annihilationism drive you to apathy?

 

[SarahsKnight]

Exactly! He paid the price which was death so that upon belief and repentance we would be given the gift of eternal life. Otherwise death is the penalty, not ECT.

And I tell you, while it may not be eternal conscious torment, I would never find it worth it to try to pay that price myself just to "live my own way". I would much rather have the forgiveness of my many sins by Someone much greater than myself, and eternal life with Him.

If I were to somehow find out for certain in this life that God really didn't exist and that Jesus Christ was never actually resurrected according to eye witnesses, and thus just some normal guy with merely good teachings who was never really Son of God, then I would be devastated! Even if it meant just death forever as in never living again in any way, form, or fashion, as I assume that flat atheists see it, I would still be greatly dismayed, knowing that there would never be another chance at life after the sleep of death via a resurrection, and never any forgiveness for all of my faults and wrongs except possibly by other fallible human beings (precious as that can certainly be; it has been endorsed often in the New Testament to make peach with and forgive one's brother, after all), and no God much greater than any mere mortal to grant me that forgiveness.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I’m not acting as though a ‘secondary meaning’ replaces a ‘primary’ one. I’m pointing out that biblical meaning is determined by usage and context, not by an English gloss or a dictionary ranking.

I guess that is why you took "worm" out of context then?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Why are you posting about people that are still alive? And food? That has nothing to with the second death.

Because he loves to cherry pick and take things out of context to appear to prove his point and doctrine.

 

[1Tonne]

I guess that is why you took "worm" out of context then?

Mark 9:48 is speaking of Gehenna, the fiery place of judgment. Gehenna was literally a valley outside Jerusalem (Valley of Hinnom) where trash and bodies were burned, and in Jesus’ time, it was used as a vivid image of judgment.

If taken literally, worms cannot survive fire. That’s why Jesus’ language is clearly figurative: the “worm that does not die” symbolizes ongoing conscious suffering and contempt, not actual insects feeding in flames. Literal worms wouldn’t persist in a burning rubbish dump; the imagery is meant to convey the unending consequence for the wicked, not real worms. And we see in Psalm 22:6 and Isaiah. 66:24 how the word "worm" was used back in the this time. It was used as a way of showing disgust upon a person.

So yes: the “worms” are symbolic of the person under judgment, enduring shame and torment, and the “fire” represents God’s unquenchable judgment. It’s a figurative description of eternal punishment, not a literal ecology of fire-resistant worms.

The imagery shows the reality of eternal judgment, God’s wrath and holiness are so serious that sin brings perpetual conscious consequences, not mere annihilation.

 

[timothyu]

convey the unending consequence for the wicked

The spirits are no more but the place of their vapourization goes on (unending).

 

[1Tonne]

Matthew 25:46: “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
This verse contrasts plainly those who receive eternal life with those who receive everlasting punishment. Everlasting life is easy to understand, we are with Jesus forever. The issue annihilationist's have is that their form of punishment is over and done with; it is not everlasting. Only the result of the punishment remains.
It’s like being accidentally cut on the hand, and the wound heals, leaving only a scar. Saying you are being eternally cut because the scar remains confuses the ongoing suffering with the permanent consequence.

Similarly, annihilationist's believe that the wicked are burnt up to nothing and that this nothingness is “eternal punishment.” But it is not, the burning is temporary, and only the end result (nonexistence) is permanent. True everlasting punishment, by contrast, is ongoing, conscious, and unending.

 

[JulieB67]

Jesus warned about hell more than anyone, yet perfectly revealed the Father’s heart. If warning people turns them away from God, then Christ Himself would be guilty of that charge.

Christ talked about the gulf and Gehenna, yes but I don't believe he taught ECT. I firmly believe in Matthew 10:28. And that the one we should fear is the one who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. You talk about fear and that's what were supposed to fear from our Father. Again, we should not want any part of his wrath or take part in the second death. But that's not enough for you, the fear of the second death. You want to instill fear that our Father would burn someone for an eternity. I don't believe Christ taught that. He set the example Gehenna because that's a sign of pure destruction. That's what his warnings are about. Quite different than telling someone they are going to burn for an eternity.

And you still haven't provided any verses that dictate apollumi is the primary meaning of being destroyed "fully" instead of the second meaning vs verses like Matthew 10:28 and John 3:16. You don't believe destroyed "fully" applies to them. So what verses apply?

If we even look at the verse at the first part of of verse 28 -fear them that are able to kill the body and not the soul. Meaning the first death is physical and not final because the soul still lives. But fear the one that can destroy "both" body and soul in hell. We completely lose the meaning if what you're believing is true. Because the body then isn't really destroyed either right? That's basically what your stating. Two different Greek words are used in this verse too -apokteino, to kill outright, to destroy, put to death. So in using appollumi, (destroy fully) for body and soul, the primary fits perfectly.

I’ll ask you plainly: how do you personally speak the gospel to people

I think it's more important to lead people into his Word through the gospel. I wouldn't go around warning them they if they don't accept they'll have to burn for an eternity. We need to encourage more people to seek truths for themselves instead of forcing ours on them.

Many churches today are more about "man's word than God's. You sit on a pew, hear one or two verses surrounded by a personal sermon by man that has nothing to do with the Word of God. And then you walk away, week after week, only being fed milk. And having set again and again the same foundations and being fed the same doctrines that some will never check out for themselves to see if they're true or not. They simply believe because that's what they're taught.

 

[JulieB67]

. The issue annihilationist's have is that their form of punishment is over and done with; it is not everlasting.

And the issue for those who teach ECT is the fact that they don't believe the second death is everlasting punishment and it is. Death has always been punishment. And the second one is yes, everlasting. Meaning there's no coming back from that. How is that not everlasting punishment?