- Nov 29, 2024
- 455
- 130
- 27
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
There is no eternal torture mentioned in the bible. Annihilation or (preferably) UV are the two real options
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Eternal fire does not mean eternal torment
- Thread starter Paulwat
- Start date
There is no eternal torture mentioned in the bible. Annihilation or (preferably) UV are the two real options
While the overall point may be right, I have questions about some of the exegesis:
On eternal fire: It may well be that "eternal destruction" is destruction that is permanent, rather than that it is going on forever, but some of the references he cited don't fit his exegesis, even if their overall picture is consistent with his opinion. I believe the passage he cited about Sodom, as well as Jer 66:24, show that the fire continues forever even though the people or bodies have been destroyed, as an eternal sign of their destruction. This is, of course hyperbole, since in both cases the fires aren't still there. Thoses passages don't use the term "eternal destruction," and eternal refers (hyperbolicaly) to an actual thing, not to the finality of the destruction.
Eternal destruction itself occurs only in 2 Thes 1:9, as far as I can tell. Given 2 Thes 2:8 and 5:3 it is quite plausible that it refers to annihilation. That's how FF Bruce's commentary understands it. It may be how Calvin understands it as well: "the influence of that death will never cease," though the context makes it a bit less clear.
But that explanation isn't as obvious for Matthew's eternal punishment. Given the background of 1st Cent Judaism, which actually did think some people would be punished forever, that's at least a possible understanding of Matthew. Note however Matthew's references elsewhere to people being in the outer darkness, with weeping and gnashing of teeth (probably meaning frustration). That suggests exclusion from the Kingdom, but not being tortured by God. Is that the same thing as eternal punishment, or are some people damned and others frustrated that they didn't get a greater reward than they did because of their lack of faithfulness? I don't think we know for sure.
Oddly, Calvin doesn't really comment on the nature of the punishment in Mat 25:46. The closest he comes is "To destroy this self-complacency, our Lord gives them warning, that they will one day feel—but when it will be too late—what they do not now deign to consider, that those who are now so greatly despised are not less esteemed by Christ than his own members." On Mat 8:12 he makes a comment that I believe is consistent with his overall theology: hell isn't literal fire. It is "dreadful anguish, which can neither be expressed nor conceived in this life," because of being excluded from the Kingdom.
On eternal fire: It may well be that "eternal destruction" is destruction that is permanent, rather than that it is going on forever, but some of the references he cited don't fit his exegesis, even if their overall picture is consistent with his opinion. I believe the passage he cited about Sodom, as well as Jer 66:24, show that the fire continues forever even though the people or bodies have been destroyed, as an eternal sign of their destruction. This is, of course hyperbole, since in both cases the fires aren't still there. Thoses passages don't use the term "eternal destruction," and eternal refers (hyperbolicaly) to an actual thing, not to the finality of the destruction.
Eternal destruction itself occurs only in 2 Thes 1:9, as far as I can tell. Given 2 Thes 2:8 and 5:3 it is quite plausible that it refers to annihilation. That's how FF Bruce's commentary understands it. It may be how Calvin understands it as well: "the influence of that death will never cease," though the context makes it a bit less clear.
But that explanation isn't as obvious for Matthew's eternal punishment. Given the background of 1st Cent Judaism, which actually did think some people would be punished forever, that's at least a possible understanding of Matthew. Note however Matthew's references elsewhere to people being in the outer darkness, with weeping and gnashing of teeth (probably meaning frustration). That suggests exclusion from the Kingdom, but not being tortured by God. Is that the same thing as eternal punishment, or are some people damned and others frustrated that they didn't get a greater reward than they did because of their lack of faithfulness? I don't think we know for sure.
Oddly, Calvin doesn't really comment on the nature of the punishment in Mat 25:46. The closest he comes is "To destroy this self-complacency, our Lord gives them warning, that they will one day feel—but when it will be too late—what they do not now deign to consider, that those who are now so greatly despised are not less esteemed by Christ than his own members." On Mat 8:12 he makes a comment that I believe is consistent with his overall theology: hell isn't literal fire. It is "dreadful anguish, which can neither be expressed nor conceived in this life," because of being excluded from the Kingdom.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 7, 2018
- 11,581
- 9,622
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Revelation uses very strong language to describe unending punishment in fire. Revelation 14:11, for instance, speaks of those who worship the beast, stating, "And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night." Similarly, Revelation 20:10 says the devil, the beast, and the false prophet "will be tormented day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire.
Thoughts?
Upvote
0
There are plausible interpretations that the lake of fire is fatal to normal people, even though Satan ends up tormented forever. Not everyone agrees. One argument for it:
The term "second death" is used several times for normal people and once for Death and Hades. Not for Satan or his minions. That might be a sign of a difference. (Death and Hades are abstracts, which can't meaningfully be tormented.)
Other interpreters think that this means evil people effectively get no punishment, and this is not consistent with the general tone of the Revelation. I suspect this is the case. Rev 14:11 adds some weight to this, though in principle the people here are different than those judged in Rev 20. Needless to say, I place the Revelation fairly low on my list of authorities.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think there are multiple visions here:
However I think it's safest to stick with Mark, Luke, and maybe John, and leave the nature of judgement a bit ambiguous.
- Matthew likely sees some kind of eternal punishment for the wicked. I think Calvin is right, that it is unimaginable remorse from being excluded from the Kingdom.
- The other Gospels are less clear. I agree with the video above that destruction is a possibility. But so is finite punishment.
- Paul seems to be universalist. Commentaries universally try to avoid this. I find their arguments odd. I take 1 Cor 15:20ff to be his vision of the future, but it needs to be coupled with 1 Cor 3:12, which talks about passing through fire, with everything not built on Christ destroyed.
However I think it's safest to stick with Mark, Luke, and maybe John, and leave the nature of judgement a bit ambiguous.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yeshua HaDerekh
Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
- May 9, 2013
- 13,411
- 4,723
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Similar threads
