Hey, Valetico. Sorry, I can think of a lot to say, but it'd take forever, so I'd like to just try to keep it brief.
Here's the thing; I don't deny that there are a few passages in the Bible that can fit with the traditional view of hell, as eternal torment (and the above about going into eternal fire and eternal punishment are two of them). But they do not distinctly say it, that what happens tot he people who go into the eternal fire are tortured forever. They do not directly describe the fate of the lost, but only the place to which they depart, and the condition of the punishment as eternal.
If these were the only two passages in Scripture that referred to the fate or consequence for unbelief (or being among "the wicked"), then, yeah, I would have to say eternal torment is just about the only realistic explanation. But they aren't. Far from it.
Here are just a small fraction - maybe a fifth at most - of verses that clearly describe the fate of the lost in words that directly refer to what will happen to the lost and the unbelieving, and there is really no reason for me to think they mean anything other than exactly what they say:
1. Psalms 37:20 -
But the wicked will perish: Though the LORD's enemies are like the flowers of the field, they will be consumed, they will go up in smoke.
Without clear explanation somewhere in the immediate context telling me what these bolded terms "really mean", there's just no honest reason for me to think that this fate refers
only to the wicked while they are alive on planet Earth or happens to "just their bodies - but the soul goes on forever" (two counterpoints I hear from traditionalists to verses like these all of the time when conditionalists point them out, based on pure presumption about the immortality or eternality of souls), or that they can still be consciously punished without end while being consumed or burning up in fire. In fact, all of Psalms 37 seems to be a tribute to the ultimate fate of the wicked (or lost), almost like the Bible is actively trying to make it unambiguously clear what will happen to them.
2. Psalms 58:8 -
May they be like a slug that melts away as it moves along, like a stillborn child that never sees the sun.
I really have to ask why the Bible would ever use a term like "melt away" in
any context if in hell you can never actually melt away from the consuming nature of the fire, but instead just live forever in the pain of burning.
3. Psalms 68:2 -
May you blow them away like smoke -- as wax melts before the fire, may the wicked perish before God.
Pretty much nothing new I can say there that I haven't said before. It's also clearly God that the writer of this Psalm is asking for Him to bring upon the wicked.
4. Isaiah 26:14 -
They are now dead, they live no more; their spirits do not rise. You punished them and brought them to ruin; you wiped out all memory of them.
Now my guess is that, even though Isaiah is a book of prophecy, this is still referring to the
first death or destruction upon Earth for a certain group counted among the wicked. But the second death for any human is not worded in any different terms to describe the nature of one's fate in the lake of fire (and no, I don't see how Revelation 20:10 counts, as of all books in the Bible this is the one that finally chooses to bring out any words that clearly say eternal torment? This is the last book you want to be able to take literally in its entirety, and even then Rev 20:10 refers only to Satan, the beast, and the false prophet, not humans. When it gets to humans later on as they are being thrown into the same lake of fire, it is called the second
death. Not as any kind of conscious, endless punishment or torment).
5. Malachi 4:3 -
Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act," says the LORD Almighty.
How much more clear could it be? God does not even use the terms "ashes" in any kind of figurative way. He doesn't say "be
like ash" or anything. He pretty much calls the wicked ashes at this point. Or in some translation, just "be ash". If in reality this is supposed to be a metaphor in which the wicked are only like ashes in that the righteous are stepping on them but the wicked in reality are still living the entire time in hell? Then this verse would mean that we believers are in Heaven the entire time gloating and mocking over the wicked's endless torment at minimum, if not actually being the ones who are "trampling" them by doing the torturing. And I really hope that it is not in the consciences of any traditionalist here that that is actually how it will happen, ... because if so, then they seriously need some professional help. Because that is
not of the Spirit to actively want or perpetuate others' physical or emotional suffering regardless of who they are. It is messed up to say the least.
6. Matthew 28:10 - speaks of destroying both soul
and body in hell (Gehenna). I really do not see how anyone can still say that only bodies die or are destroyed but souls endure forever whether in Heaven or Hell, after this unambiguous verse. Why would Jesus threaten
only that God can or will destroy souls, if in fact He plans to do infinitely worse by torturing or having them tortured them endlessly in fire?
7. Romans 6:23 - says the wages of sin is death. Straight up. ... Not "spiritual death", not "torment", not even ruination (which could fit either the conditionalist or traditionalist view). The traditionalist objection here is often that 6:23 refers only to the first death. But if so? Why bother? Why bother mentioning this at all if the second death is going to be so much different from the first that it is actually an eternal state of living death in which you are tortured endlessly, much less not take this opportunity to mention the second death? Notice also that in this verse it says "
but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord". Is eternal life not the final state of the righteous, those whose sins are forgiven and covered by the blood of the Lamb? Then why contrast it with the
first state (and not the final state) of the wicked, if the traditionalist interpretation of this verse is that it refers to only the first death?
8. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 -
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power (this one is the KJV, by the way, which most Bible readers seem to really prefer).
I just call it as it is there. Everlasting destruction. Not everlasting destroy
ing (a process in which one is apparently being destroyed forever but it never reaches a conclusion), but just a destruction that is final and you are not coming back from it.
9. 2 Peter 2:6 -
if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly.
An example of what will happen to the ungodly, and the phrase used to describe what will happen is "burning them to ash". If the people of Sodom and Gomorrah or the cities themselves are currently or will still be burning in hell without actually being turned to ash, well, I would say Peter is being misleading at best here. And they certainly cannot serve as an example if we can't see them for ourselves in hell being tortured.
__________
(Also, please note that if I sounded exasperated when I addressed traditionalist objections to my "proof verses" above, I was not directing this at you, specifically, Valetic. I am not even sure of what position you take, so I know you weren't trying to attack me or be condescending to me or anything with your challenge; you were simply asking
.)
Now, I got off the original point you obviously were expecting me to respond to, how to explain Matthew 25:41 and 46. My only point in listing all of the verses above is that those actually say directly what will happen to the wicked or what state they will be in.
Matthew 25:41 does not do that. It only says the fire is eternal. Whether the word eternal there describes the endurance of the fire or the fact that it came from the one and only eternal God? I do not know. But either way, it does say the humans who go into that fire will be eternal. That may sound like a stretch or a leap on my part, but only if it were the only verse in the Bible that says anything about the fate of the lost. If it's not definitive proof, and yet there are so many verses that describe the wicked's fate directly as death, destruction, or being devoured or consumed by fire, then conditional immortality - the stance that annihilationists take - has a good case.
Matthew 25:46 can swing either way. I have no trouble admitting that. After all, Christ Himself says it. Who are we to deny the words of the Savior Himself? I do, however, wonder why He contrasts eternal life with eternal punishment here, if in the traditionalist case it requires that humans are living forever in either state. It seems to me like being consciously tortured forever in hell is just another form of eternal life, albeit a miserable one. But I do know the view of life and death that most if not all traditionalists seem to hold, and that's all well and good. But if eternal torment were true I just think it would have gotten the point across better if Jesus had said "eternal bliss" and "eternal misery".
(And no, I am not trying to tell Jesus what He should say or how to say it - heard that smear a million times in some form or another from debaters on all theological sides, just in case anyone's thinking of saying it here; I'm just saying you can't expect conditionalists to immediately interpret these verses as eternal torment without question regardless of what so much other Scripture says. I just can't do it personally in good conscience. I believe in "letting Scripture interpret Scripture", just like anyone else, so I cannot hold the two verses from Matthew 25 above, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, and two passages in Revelation, and not much else, as definitive proof against so many others that say the exact opposite of eternal torment.)
.... And of course, I failed to keep this brief like I always say I would. Sorry.