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.
Really no soul destroyed?
Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
I have not followed this thread and don't know your opinion.
Eternal destruction is not evaporation into nothingness in the lake of fire. Once there they never get out, so a changeless state they are in eternal torment.
Where does scripture say they cease to exist?
And if the soul and body are killed in hell, what about the spirit. Are people spirit, soul and body? or are they just body and soul. Of course those who are spiritually dead, are spiritually dead before they get into that lake of fire...
If someone is spiritually dead, do they have spirits or not? I have always thought the unsaved had spirits but they were dead spirits, gets rather complex to ponder..Some claim they don't have a spirit at all the unsaved spiritually dead who go to hell.
FYI, some or all of these passages were presented to the "no spirit in man" crowd and they refused to respond.
I think you read that in a manner other than how it was intended. You see, I love to actually be challenged and I actually was enjoying talking with you. But to be brutally honest, I was intentional about keeping my posts as short as possible, I was intentional about expressing my challenge to anyone that is contrary to scripture including the church, and this is how you took all of that honesty. That hurts my friend. Everything in that post was relevant to the point I was making, everything and all you could do was talk about the first paragraph and accuse me of just listening to the church, both of which are offensive from someone who is careful to 1. stay on topic and 2. challenge anyone who is in opposition to scripture.
Let me tell you one more thing before I leave this discussion. Last night as I was praying and even this AM as I woke and prayed one of the people I prayed for was you and one of the things I prayed about was a dialogue and discussion where we would both walk away with a new growth in maturity and understanding of God. As I prayed these prayers I thought about what specifically I wanted from you on this topic....so here is the answer of my heart.
I expect you to be able to understand (not agree with) what I am saying. I expect you to respect me and my position enough to read what I say for comprehension and to disagree without resorting to false accusations such as you did in the previous post. That is it...that is all I expect from a discussion with you. Now, maybe I shouldn't have been hurt by the post that removed these two things, but I was because I had high hopes that you would be something I could converse with in a meaningful way. I would dearly love to address every single point you presented, but that is impossible based on the criteria you yourself gave. This to me, is the saddest thing of all, for you to say, yes I can discuss this with you but only if you don't discuss it back with me. And that, is what offended me, that is what saddened me, the very fact that you wanted to do all the talking and not allow me to respond.
This is precisely the verse I was responding to when I said "It goes without saying that what God created He can destroy but not one verses says God has or will destroy one soul in hell." And Matt 10:28 does not say God has or will destroy even one soul only that He is able to do so.Really no soul destroyed?
Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
I believe when Jesus said "These go away into eternal punishment" that is exactly what He meant. In all the gospels Jesus is recorded using the word death 17 times so if He meant "eternal death" that is what He would have said.I have not followed this thread and don't know your opinion.
Eternal destruction is not evaporation into nothingness in the lake of fire. Once there they never get out, so a changeless state they are in eternal torment.
Where does scripture say they cease to exist?
Not my area of interest.And if the soul and body are killed in hell, what about the spirit. Are people spirit, soul and body? or are they just body and soul. Of course those who are spiritually dead, are spiritually dead before they get into that lake of fire...
If someone is spiritually dead, do they have spirits or not? I have always thought the unsaved had spirits but they were dead spirits, gets rather complex to ponder..Some claim they don't have a spirit at all the unsaved spiritually dead who go to hell.
First, the majority of God's Word does not specifically say that the wicked will burn alive in flames for all time.
Inferences or assumptions are made on the words used within a select few small verses (without looking at how those words are used elsewhere in Scripture).
Second, the fire is "everlasting" and or "unquenchable" for the amount of time that the Lake of Fire exists.
. But the Lake of Fire will not exist for all eternity. How so? Well, in the future, "...God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."
The Lake of Fire is a part of the old heavens and old Earth and not the New Heavens and New Earth.
In other words, Onesimus did not return to his master for all eternity here upon this Earth. Onesimus is not still alive. He is not an immortal or anything of that nature. He was mortal and he died. So to assume that the word "forever" and it's related words always means forever does not work. Meaning, one has to re-examine what they believe the word "forever" means.
But what about words like "for ever and ever"? Surely this must be talking about an endless eternity, right? Again, this would not be true according to the Bible. For Jeremiah 7 says,
"Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever." (Jeremiah 7:7).
Are we to assume that certain faithful Old Testament saints will dwell in the land here upon this Earth forever and ever while the rest of the saints dwell upon the New Earth? Surely not. "For ever and ever" is used in context to how long that promise will be fulfilled and will last (Which would be with the Millennium or the 1,000 year reign of Christ).
Are you still not convinced?
There are other examples where the word "forever" does not always mean "forever" in the Bible.
Take Revelation 14:11 as an example.
It tells us that the phrase "smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever" is a metaphorical phrase from Isaiah 34:10 which says that the smoke of Edom went up forever and ever.
But what about those who worship the beast as not having rest day and night in Revelation 14:11? Well, this is saying that those who worship the beast will have no rest day and night WHILE or DURING the TIME they worship the beast. For Revelation 16:2 says they had painful boils.
This is precisely the verse I was responding to when I said "It goes without saying that what God created He can destroy but not one verses says God has or will destroy one soul in hell." And Matt 10:28 does not say God has or will destroy even one soul only that He is able to do so.
I believe when Jesus said "These go away into eternal punishment" that is exactly what He meant. In all the gospels Jesus is recorded using the word death 17 times so if He meant "eternal death" that is what He would have said.
Not my area of interest.
I admire your patience in dealing with this person and his erroneous understanding.As I have explained in other posts on this thread, there are many things the Bible does not specifically state as true but which we know, nonetheless, to be so. The Trinity is a good example. Just as in the case of the doctrine of the Trinity, there is an abundance of verses that clearly imply ECT. It is perfectly appropriate to draw strong conclusions from these verses, as has been done with those verses that teach the trinitarian nature of God.
In fact, the exact opposite is true of the doctrine of ECT. What you have erected here is a Strawman. The many posts by Der Alter and razzelflabben (and a few of my own) make this quite clear.
This is something you're reading into, or imposing, on Scripture; it is not even implied.
On what basis do you include the Lake of Fire among those "former things" that are passed away? Clearly, the passage is describing the experience of the born-again child of God and thus is not speaking universally. The passage is not clear about what the "former things" are, either. Is it speaking of the hardships and bitter experiences of the past or of the material constituents of the universe, or both? The passage and its immediate context don't offer much clarification. In verse 5 God says, "I make all things new," but we know "all" cannot mean "absolutely everything" because then He would be included and we know that's silly because He is perfect and thus beyond renewal. If there is one exception to God's proclamation, however, why can't there be another? Given what Scripture says about the everlasting nature of the Lake of Fire, it, too, appears to be exempt (as are those being punished in its sulphurous confines).
Where do you get this from? Where is this written in Scripture? Why would Hell (aka the LoF) have any direct relationship to either the heavens or the Earth? You must assume that it does in order to draw the conclusion you do above. You haven't offered any good reason to think such an assumption is warranted.
Well, hold on here a minute. Paul did not use the term "for ever" carelessly. He was employing a contrast: "separated for a while" is contrasted with "have him back forever." Was Paul merely exaggerating, using creative hyperbole, when he wrote "have him back forever"? Or was he, perhaps, alluding to the eternal destiny of Onesimus and the Christian brothers to whom he was returning? They would have Onesimus back, but as a brother in Christ, with whom, therefore, they would have an eternal relationship. Paul's use of the term "forever," then, seems both accurate and literal. Your example here, consequently, does not serve your argument very well; for it communicates the opposite of what you've tried to contend for from it.
Convinced of what? That terms, verses and passages in Scripture must be understood in their context? I have understood this for many years. Have you?
Uh huh. One can make the very same observations about words like "die," "dead," "perish," "destroy, and "destruction."
Oh? On what basis do you make these two passages directly parallel? The similarity of phrasing? How are you certain the apostle John had Isaiah 34:10 in mind when he wrote verse 11 of Revelation 14? How do you know he intended you should extrapolate from it as you are doing? If John was making some sort of parallel, it seems to me it would be concerning the permanency of the judgment of God upon Edom and upon those who receive the Mark of the Beast and worship him, which strengthens the doctrine of ECT rather than diminishes it as you are suggesting. Just as the literal destruction of Edom is permanent, so, too, the eternal destruction (that is, punishment) of the wicked in Hell is permanent (and literal).
You have completely ignored the structure of language in your remarks here. Revelation 14:11 is very plainly speaking of those in the Lake of Fire. Revelation 16:2 is describing the experience of those on the Earth. It is utterly false, then, to use Revelation 16:2 as an explanation of Revelation 14:11 for they are obviously describing two separate situations! It is this sort of careless and unjustified manipulation of Scripture that is bringing you under the false notions that have possessed you. Be warned: The end of this sort of poor handling of God's Word is going to be destructive.
Selah.
I came to that conclusion more than a decade ago after I had been at this forum for a while. It is almost impossible to reach the hardcore heterodox. My purpose now is to keep presenting the truth and I might be able to reach those on the fence thinking about joining or quitting one of the false teaching groups.
As I have explained in other posts on this thread, there are many things the Bible does not specifically state as true but which we know, nonetheless, to be so. The Trinity is a good example. Just as in the case of the doctrine of the Trinity, there is an abundance of verses that clearly imply ECT. It is perfectly appropriate to draw strong conclusions from these verses, as has been done with those verses that teach the trinitarian nature of God.
In fact, the exact opposite is true of the doctrine of ECT. What you have erected here is a Strawman. The many posts by Der Alter and razzelflabben (and a few of my own) make this quite clear.
This is something you're reading into, or imposing, on Scripture; it is not even implied.
On what basis do you include the Lake of Fire among those "former things" that are passed away? Clearly, the passage is describing the experience of the born-again child of God and thus is not speaking universally. The passage is not clear about what the "former things" are, either. Is it speaking of the hardships and bitter experiences of the past or of the material constituents of the universe, or both? The passage and its immediate context don't offer much clarification. In verse 5 God says, "I make all things new," but we know "all" cannot mean "absolutely everything" because then He would be included and we know that's silly because He is perfect and thus beyond renewal. If there is one exception to God's proclamation, however, why can't there be another? Given what Scripture says about the everlasting nature of the Lake of Fire, it, too, appears to be exempt (as are those being punished in its sulphurous confines).
Where do you get this from? Where is this written in Scripture? Why would Hell (aka the LoF) have any direct relationship to either the heavens or the Earth? You must assume that it does in order to draw the conclusion you do above. You haven't offered any good reason to think such an assumption is warranted.
Well, hold on here a minute. Paul did not use the term "for ever" carelessly. He was employing a contrast: "separated for a while" is contrasted with "have him back forever." Was Paul merely exaggerating, using creative hyperbole, when he wrote "have him back forever"? Or was he, perhaps, alluding to the eternal destiny of Onesimus and the Christian brothers to whom he was returning? They would have Onesimus back, but as a brother in Christ, with whom, therefore, they would have an eternal relationship. Paul's use of the term "forever," then, seems both accurate and literal. Your example here, consequently, does not serve your argument very well; for it communicates the opposite of what you've tried to contend for from it.
Convinced of what? That terms, verses and passages in Scripture must be understood in their context? I have understood this for many years. Have you?
Uh huh. One can make the very same observations about words like "die," "dead," "perish," "destroy, and "destruction."
Oh? On what basis do you make these two passages directly parallel? The similarity of phrasing? How are you certain the apostle John had Isaiah 34:10 in mind when he wrote verse 11 of Revelation 14? How do you know he intended you should extrapolate from it as you are doing? If John was making some sort of parallel, it seems to me it would be concerning the permanency of the judgment of God upon Edom and upon those who receive the Mark of the Beast and worship him, which strengthens the doctrine of ECT rather than diminishes it as you are suggesting. Just as the literal destruction of Edom is permanent, so, too, the eternal destruction (that is, punishment) of the wicked in Hell is permanent (and literal).
You have completely ignored the structure of language in your remarks here. Revelation 14:11 is very plainly speaking of those in the Lake of Fire. Revelation 16:2 is describing the experience of those on the Earth. It is utterly false, then, to use Revelation 16:2 as an explanation of Revelation 14:11 for they are obviously describing two separate situations! It is this sort of careless and unjustified manipulation of Scripture that is bringing you under the false notions that have possessed you. Be warned: The end of this sort of poor handling of God's Word is going to be destructive.
Selah.
The very same thing can be said about you and others who believe as you do. I have shown you clear evidence from Greek languages sources that aion does in fact mean eternity and aionios does mean eternal, endless etc.And this is why I did not want to have a discussion with you on this. I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot force it to drink of that water. I have shown you clear evidence that the word "forever" does not always mean forever in many cases. The context determines it's use. If you want there to be an Eternal Torment, then that is all you are going to see in the Scriptures no matter what else someone else says with God's Word. In any event, may God bless you and please be well. I am moving on in regards to this conversation.
...
The very same thing can be said about you and others who believe as you do. I have shown you clear evidence from Greek languages sources that aion does in fact mean eternity and aionios does mean eternal, endless etc.
.....Hyperbole is a common figure of speech in the Bible and there are many instances of hyperbole in the Bible. Here is an example, when Jesus said "take the beam out of your own eye so you can see more clearly the mote in your brother's eye." There was no actual beam in anyone's eye that was hyperbole. Since God is eternal why would John write that God lives and reigns εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων/eis tous aionas ton aionion if it did not mean forever and ever? And FYI the repetition of aion is an example of another figure of speech known as Epizeuksis, reduplication of a word for emphasis.
And what exactly about the"context" invalidates all of the passages which have been cited in support of "eternal punishment" as Jesus said, instead of the made up term ECT? You have offered nothing but your opinion which as I alluded to in my previous post usually takes the form, "'Aion' can't mean eternity and 'aionios' can't mean eternal, everlasting etc, because they are used to refer to things which are not eternal."I am aware of figures of speech in the Bible. Bullinger's work comes to mind. But words are interpreted to be literal or figurative based on the context and what we know about real life.
I don't believe the majority of CI (Conditional Immortality) verses (and the context of them) sounds like it is in any way supporting ECT. Only 1 verse in the Bible (Revelation 14:11) sounds like ECT at first glance.
See my question re: context above. Once again the same can be said about your camp "those who are not biased to a certain way of thinking" would see the scriptures for what they say about "eternal punishment." And I note you have included a personal insult to everyone who does not agree with you. You imply that only you and your group are following a moral compass, that only your ideas are valid.But those who are not biased to a certain way of thinking and are willing to let their moral compass talk to them know better. For I was in your shoes. I used to believe in ECT. But my moral compass had spoke to me and I listened.
I have found that many who claim that they once believed in "eternal punishment" but now believe in either UR or annihilationism the major life event which influenced them to change their view was was not some "moral compass" kicking in but the death of one or more loved ones who were not saved. And suddenly UR or annihilationism was more attractive to them and they started reinterpreting scriptures to fit their new view.Furthermore, I strongly believe that before I was blind, and now I can see. So there is no way I can unlearn what God has taught me in regards to CI and ECT.
...
So, I haven't read this entire thread, but as any annihilationist proponent addressed the three major passages I noted earlier - Matthew 25, Revelation 14, and Revelation 20? If so, please direct me to the post. Thanks.
Already addressed and refuted. Anybody can make up an example in English to explain away virtually any scripture. But referring to your context comments above what about the context of Luke 16:24 gives the slightest clue that the rich man was not saying he was literally in the flame, not behind it or near it? The phrase "in this" occurs in the 50 times in the NT. I can't find one instance where it means "near."Only my interpretation on Luke 16:19-31 which is not a case for ECT but a case for for the ECT Proponent's belief that the rich-man is being punished in fire is different than most other believer's thinking today. So I am open to the rich-man being burned in flames, but still do not believe he would be burned in flames for thousands of years. For one, this literal narrative does not say he will burn for thousands of years. Two, God is into fair justice (See Romans 2). Three, Bob can say, "I am tormented in this soldier" and yet we realize he is not inside the body of the soldier, but he could be referring to the soldier in front of him and the flatulence he is causing.
All we have to do is disengage our own logic and accept your view of reality. And ignore the fact that every native Greek speaking early church father who refers to the rich man and Lazarus considers it to be factual. I wonder how they all got it wrong but someone 2000 years +/- later somehow got it right.So you could say I am on the fence in regards to Luke 16:19-31. So I am going to continue to pray to God for the answer (whether it is an answer I like or not). For I strive to not look at men's way of thinking but yet I do not ignore that Jesus illustrated spiritual truth by real world examples. But the ECT Proponent has to ignore the real world or the reality of Christ's "parable making'" in order to make ECT work.
....
Revelation 20:10 is talking about how the devil, and his two demonic minions will be tormented day and night (a set time) for the purpose of the ages of ages (i.e. they are tormented day and night because they tormented mankind for ages and ages). But even if you
Note how you have added the word "purpose" in Rev 20:10 to make it support your assumptions/presuppositions. One of those being tormented day and night forever, the false prophet, was a human being not a demon.wanted to make Revelation 20:10 defend eternal torment, it still does not work because these are demons being tormented here and not humans.
I already addressed and refuted your proof text 2 Thess 1:9. Someone who is destroyed, i.e. no longer exists in any form or sense, cannot be "from the presence of God" or anything else. So apolummi in that verse does not mean destroy, annihilate etc. Much in the same way it does not mean destroy/annihilate when it refers to "apolummi/tarnished gold,""appolumi/broken wineskins,""apolummi/spoiled wine and meat,""apolummi/faded beauty,""apolummi/lost sheep and coins,""apolummi/prodigal son" etc.As for Matthew 25:46:
Well, Matthew 25:46 appears at first glance to teach eternal torment, but if we were to read the TYPE of punishment that is eternal here, by lookng at 2 Thessalonians 1:9, things become a little clearer.
...
the lake of fire is said to also hold the false prophet, who is human...again this was pointed out and you refused to comment.Well, I believe hell or hades is real, but the Lake of Fire is where God will destroy the wicked, the devil, and his demonic minions.
they had no rest day or night...forget about the smoke for a moment, what does it mean to have no rest day or night....As for Revelation 14:11:
yet you were shown that the word used to describe the lake of fire is also used to talk about heaven and God and their eternal nature...to which there was no response.Check out my post here.
As for Revelation 20:20:
Well, the word "forever" does not always mean "forever" in the Bible. For we see the word "forever" clearly used in a temporal sense in Philemon 1:15. The word "forever" is also translated from the word "age", too. Revelation 20:10 is talking about how the devil, and his two demonic minions will be tormented day and night (a set time) for the purpose of the ages of ages (i.e. they are tormented day and night because they tormented mankind for ages and ages). But even if you wanted to make Revelation 20:10 defend eternal torment, it still does not work because these are demons being tormented here and not humans.
again, addressed without response.As for Matthew 25:46:
Well, Matthew 25:46 appears at first glance to teach eternal torment, but if we were to read the TYPE of punishment that is eternal here, by lookng at 2 Thessalonians 1:9, things become a little clearer.
...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?