Why an eternal hell?

[dies-l]

Doesn't sound logical to me.

I have never said the wages of sin is not death. The wages of sin is indeed spiritual and physical death. Neither meaning we cease to exist.

Saying that over and over doesn't make it true.

I see no logic in any of that.

If you cannot understand that "sunstitutionary atonement" means atoning by serving as a substitute in taking the punishment due another, then I don't know how to explain it to you. It's pretty basic stuff.

And changing the meaning of the word death to fit your theology doesn't make your theology any more reasonable.

 

[dollarsbill]

Torment? Yes. Eternal? No.

He died but is alive in torment in the fire. Clear enough.

Eternal torment? Yes. Unredeemed man? No.

It is clearly referring to humans.

Eternal torment? Yes. Unredeemed man? No.

The false prophet isn't a human? Please.

 

[dollarsbill]

If you cannot understand that "sunstitutionary atonement" means atoning by serving as a substitute in taking the punishment due another, then I don't know how to explain it to you. It's pretty basic stuff.

And changing the meaning of the word death to fit your theology doesn't make your theology any more reasonable.

I'm waiting for you to provide Scripture to explain your argument. It is Jesus' Blood that washes away sins. He didn't sin. He didn't have to go to hell. We are sinners. Not the same thing at all. The eternal fire and eternal punishment is self explanatory as is eternal life, using the exact same Greek word. Do you believe that eternal life ends?

 

[dies-l]

He died but is alive in torment in the fire. Clear enough.

Where in that passage does it say that he will be there forever?

It is clearly referring to humans.

It might be; it might not be. But, it is clearly only referring to those who worship the beast. I would be inclined to read this as demons, but perhaps this is an exception. Far from clearly and unequivocally supporting eternal tormentalism.

The false prophet isn't a human? Please.

Once again, maybe human, maybe not, but clearly not referring to unredeemed man as a whole.

 

[dies-l]

I'm waiting for you to provide Scripture to explain your argument. It is Jesus' Blood that washes away sins. He didn't sin. He didn't have to go to hell. We are sinners. Not the same thing at all.

So you don't believe in substitutionary atonement?

The eternal fire and eternal punishment is self explanatory as is eternal life, using the exact same Greek word. Do you believe that eternal life ends?

No. I believe that eternal life is eternal. I believe that the eternal fire eternally destroys. And, as the parable or Lazarus and the rich men illustrates, being destroyed by an eternal fire is probably a pretty miserable experience.

 

[dollarsbill]

Where in that passage does it say that he will be there forever?

Where does it say it isn't? He is clearly alive in the fire after death which proves eternity in the fire is very possible.

It might be;

it might not be. But, it is clearly only referring to those who worship the beast. I would be inclined to read this as demons, but perhaps this is an exception. Far from clearly and unequivocally supporting eternal tormentalism.

Please provide Scripture that says prophets are demons.

Once again, maybe human,

maybe not, but clearly not referring to unredeemed man as a whole.

Again proving that eternity in fire is quite possible.

 

[dollarsbill]

So you don't believe in substitutionary atonement?

I do indeed. But it was His Blood and physical death that saves, not going to Hell.

No. I believe that eternal life is eternal.

Exact same Greek word. Why do you believe one but not the other?

I believe that the eternal fire eternally destroys.

It does indeed. But that would demand someone being destroyed eternally.

And, as the parable or Lazarus and the rich men illustrates, being destroyed by an eternal fire is probably a pretty miserable experience.

It does not say nor imply it is a parable. It is literal Biblical people. It would indeed be the WORST kind of misery.

 

[holo]

That would be fine with me if the Bible didn't mention punishment in the eternal fire several times. But it does.

It would be fine with you...

I'm picturing the hypothetical scene, dollarsbill bent over his bible, studying it, coming to the conclusion that hey, it turns out the majority of people ever to exist aren't being tortured forever after all, and he goes "oh, ok." You know, not that big a deal...

 

[dollarsbill]

It would be fine with you...

I'm picturing the hypothetical scene, dollarsbill bent over his bible, studying it, coming to the conclusion that hey, it turns out the majority of people ever to exist aren't being tortured forever after all, and he goes "oh, ok." You know, not that big a deal...

I don't appreciate your implication of not caring. I think you have it backwards. Warning others of the eternal fire is caring. Like Jesus did.

 

[dies-l]

I do indeed. But it was His Blood and physical death that saves, not going to Hell.

It appears that you don't. You don't see Jesus as substituting himself for us; you see him receiving a much less severe punishment in our place. This is not substitution.

Exact same Greek word. Why do you believe one but not the other?

Huh? They are both eternal. The torment is not. Show me the phrase "eternal torment" and you might have a valid point.

It does indeed. But that would demand someone being destroyed eternally.

Eternal destruction means to be destroyed forever, as in destroyed and not coming back. It doesn't mean our even imply being in some state of being destroyed but never really completely destroyed.

It does not say nor imply it is a parable. It is literal Biblical people. It would indeed be the WORST kind of misery.

Whether it is a parable or not (although I disagree with your exegesis on this point as well) is not relevant to our discussion. The point is that being destroyed is unpleasant. Nothing in the parable even hints that the torment is eternal.

 

[GrizzlyMonKeH]

It doesn't mean our even imply being in some state of being destroyed but never really completely destroyed.

The Greek word translated destruction is "olethros", and it occurs in only 3 other places in the New Testament (1 Cor 5:5, 1 Thes 5:3 and 1 Tim 6:9). This is not enough to establish its meaning without further evidence from elsewhere. "Olethros"comes from a verb root "ollumi". This root is not used in the NT, but its compound form "apollumi" has 2 basic meanings. 1: to destroy (kill or perish), 2: to be lost. In Luke 15 apollumi is used to describe both the lost sheep and the lost (prodigal) son. In John 3: 16 it is normally translated perish.

If "ollumi" can mean to be lost then it’s highly probable that "olethros" can mean lostness. What happens if we translate it this way in 2 Thes 1: 9? We have “everlasting (or aeonian) lostness from the presence of the Lord”. Immediately our difficulties disappear. Firstly, unlike being destroyed, you can be lost for any length of time, short, long or infinite. Secondly, unlike “destruction from the presence of the Lord”, “lostness from the presence of the Lord” makes perfect sense.

This also harmonises with the words of Jesus, “the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost”. Even the much loved words of John 3: 16 might be better translated: “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not be lost but have aeonian life.”

 

[dollarsbill]

It appears that you don't. You don't see Jesus as substituting himself for us; you see him receiving a much less severe punishment in our place. This is not substitution.

Since you're only giving your opinion I will also. You're totally wrong.

Huh? They are both eternal. The torment is not. Show me the phrase "eternal torment" and you might have a valid point.

I've already given several that you couldn't refute.

Eternal destruction means to be destroyed forever, as in destroyed and not coming back. It doesn't mean our even imply being in some state of being destroyed but never really completely destroyed.

Destruction can be a continuing process forever:

Destruction | Define Destruction at Dictionary.com

de·struc·tion
   [dih-struhk-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of destroying: wanton destruction of a town.
2.
the condition of being destroyed; demolition; annihilation.
3.
a cause or means of destroying.

Whether it is a parable or not (although I disagree with your exegesis on this point as well) is not relevant to our discussion. The point is that being destroyed is unpleasant. Nothing in the parable even hints that the torment is eternal.

He died but was still alive in the fire. Eternal punishment is indeed possible.

 

[dies-l]

Since you're only giving your opinion I will also. You're totally wrong.

Okay. I didn't realize that the definition of "substitution" was a matter of person opinion. I thought it was a pretty well established concept. But, alas, I guess dictionaries are just subjective books of the publishers' opinions as to what words mean.

I've already given several that you couldn't refute.

You have given none, and there are none. Those that you have provided have come close, I have shown to be irrelevant to this discussion. That is what we call refuting and what you claim I have been unable to do. But, you ignoring it doesn't make it any less true.

Destruction can be a continuing process forever:

Destruction | Define Destruction at Dictionary.com

de·struc·tion
   [dih-struhk-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of destroying: wanton destruction of a town.
2.
the condition of being destroyed; demolition; annihilation.
3.
a cause or means of destroying.

That is like saying killing doesn't necessarily end in death. All three of your definitions point to an end: the thing is destroyed. If the end of the process is not the extinguishing of the thing being destroyed, then the process cannot rightly be called destruction.

He died but was still alive in the fire. Eternal punishment is indeed possible.

And, the Bible says that he will ultimately be destroyed permanently in the "second death". Eternal punishment is indeed possible: it is death with no possibility of resurrection. Eternal torment assumes that everyone will be resurrected unto eternal life. This contradicts the core of Jesus' teachings about eternal life.

 

[dies-l]

The Greek word translated destruction is "olethros", and it occurs in only 3 other places in the New Testament (1 Cor 5:5, 1 Thes 5:3 and 1 Tim 6:9). This is not enough to establish its meaning without further evidence from elsewhere. "Olethros"comes from a verb root "ollumi". This root is not used in the NT, but its compound form "apollumi" has 2 basic meanings. 1: to destroy (kill or perish), 2: to be lost. In Luke 15 apollumi is used to describe both the lost sheep and the lost (prodigal) son. In John 3: 16 it is normally translated perish.

If "ollumi" can mean to be lost then it’s highly probable that "olethros" can mean lostness. What happens if we translate it this way in 2 Thes 1: 9? We have “everlasting (or aeonian) lostness from the presence of the Lord”. Immediately our difficulties disappear. Firstly, unlike being destroyed, you can be lost for any length of time, short, long or infinite. Secondly, unlike “destruction from the presence of the Lord”, “lostness from the presence of the Lord” makes perfect sense.

This also harmonises with the words of Jesus, “the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost”. Even the much loved words of John 3: 16 might be better translated: “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not be lost but have aeonian life.”

As several of us have pointed out in this thread, the word "destruction" is only one part of the key to understanding the fate of the damned. The fact is that core Christian doctrines, such as substitutionary atonement, can only be reconciled if the fate of the damned is annihilation. And, if eternal tormentalism is true, then many of the words of Jesus and the apostles cannot be.

 

[dollarsbill]

You have given none, and there are none. Those that you have provided have come close, I have shown to be irrelevant to this discussion. That is what we call refuting and what you claim I have been unable to do. But, you ignoring it doesn't make it any less true.

Post #346
You twice admitted that it could be humans in torment in the fire. See who's ignoring.

That is like saying killing doesn't necessarily end in death. All three of your definitions point to an end: the thing is destroyed. If the end of the process is not the extinguishing of the thing being destroyed, then the process cannot rightly be called destruction.

If true there would be ZERO need for the word ETERNAL destruction. Simply 'destruction' would be perfectly accurate. Eternal, NEVER ending.

And, the Bible says that he will ultimately be destroyed permanently in the "second death". Eternal punishment is indeed possible: it is death with no possibility of resurrection. Eternal torment assumes that everyone will be resurrected unto eternal life. This contradicts the core of Jesus' teachings about eternal life.

You sound strangely familiar to someone else here. The fact is that they are still alive AFTER 'the second death'. I.E.

Revelation 20:10 (NASB)
10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Which has been totally ignored by annihilationists here.

 

[dies-l]

Post #346
You twice admitted that it could be humans in torment in the fire. See who's ignoring.

I admitted that the verses provided do not foreclose on that possibility. Other verses, I believe do, but I am not going to make a verse say more than it actually does.

I

f true there would be ZERO need for the word ETERNAL destruction. Simply 'destruction' would be perfectly accurate. Eternal, NEVER ending.

The fact that an adjective sounds superfluous is a very poor exegetical basis for assuming that it is not. Seemingly superfluous adjectives are commonly used for emphasis.

You sound strangely familiar to someone else here. The fact is that they are still alive AFTER 'the second death'. I.E.

Revelation 20:10 (NASB)
10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Which has been totally ignored by annihilationists here.

It has been dealt with, but apparently not to your satisfaction. If we were talking about "the devil . . . the beast and the false prophet" (two specific beings), then you'd have a point. That's not who we're talking about.

At this point, it's clear that we're not going to see eye to eye. I used to accept that the Bible taught eternal torment of the damned, but then as I read Scripture, I realized that not only is it not there, it actually contradicts what is in Scripture. Keep looking to Scripture, but without trying to fit your own beliefs into it, but rather with the intent of gleaning your beliefs out of it. Perhaps, one day we'll see eye to eye on this; perhaps not. Nonetheless, I don't think this discussion is bringing us any closer to that end.

 

[dollarsbill]

Eternal torment in fire is taught throughout the NT. Take it or leave it. If I'm wrong I won't spend eternity in the fire clearly taught in the NT. God has shown us over and over how He feels about wickedness. He has clearly warned us. He will indeed burn humans forever. Who can stop Him? He is VERY merciful upon the repentant, and VERY harsh on those who refuse Him.

Hebrews 10:31 (NASB)
31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[Armistead14]

If Hell is real and the greatest part of mankind eventually goes there, wouldn't Jesus be considered a great failure considering the fact He was sent to save the whole world? Why is death and hell thrown into the Lake of Fire to be destroyed? And why is Hell never called the Lake of Fire nor the Lake of Fire ever called Hell if in fact they are the same thing?

We're taught the fate of all mankind doomed to hell because of Adam's transgression, but if all are not saved through the last Adam, Jesus Christ, does that not make the transgression of the first Adam greater than the redeeming act of Jesus? If we "all die in Adam are we all made alive in Christ"? I guess the bible should read only some are made alive through Christ. The bible says where sin did abound, grace did much more abound, but how if sin condemns all and grace only saved a few? Clearly grace cannot abound more than sin if the masses are lost to sin.

Aionion should not have been translated “everlasting” because aion and its adjective are clearly time words that have beginnings and endings. And latin and english using “punishment” for the Greek word “kolasin” is too strong a word. Kolasin means “to prune a tree to make it more fruitful.” There is nothing fruitful about eternal damnation in burning flames. If Jesus wanted to imply vindictive punishment, the author of Matthew could have chosen the Greek word “timoria,” but he didn’t – he used a much softer word. It's the same misuse of other words, in biblical times a "torment" was the use of stones to beat something into perfection, not causing pain just because you can, fire, sulfer, brimstone were all cleansing agents, not defined to cause pain for no reason.

The Bible in its Greek form actually speaks of at least 5 "ages," NOT two worlds, the world destroyed by water and the world to be destroyed by fire. There are ages (plural) past (Col. 1:26 and Eph. 3:9), the present age in which the writers of the New Testament were living (Luke 20:34,35, Rom. 12:2, Eph. 1:21, Titus 2:12, etc.) and at least two future ages to come (Eph. 2:7). Matthew 24:3 in the King James version does NOT refer to the end of the physical world, it refers to the end of the Jewish "age" which ended at the destruction of the Temple and its priesthood in 70AD. The generation of Jews to which Jesus came was the last generation of Jews born under the Old Covenant which was about to pass away.

Eventually the aion ages shall end and every knee will bow and confess Christ as Lord.
.

 

[1Sam24:12]

If it requires eternal punishment in hell fire to appease the wrath of God for your sins, that would mean that Jesus would have to have burned forever in order for any of us to be saved.
I'm not saying that hell isn't a real place. I just believe that we have inherited a Greek mindset as to the definition of hell. The OT calls this place Sheol. It's a place where the righteous are at rest until the resurrection and the wicked are no more.

 

[tankerG]

But, to be a substitution, he would have to suffer the same consequence that we were supposed to suffer. According to you, the wages of sin is not death or even a horrible death, it is eternal torment. So, for Jesus to be our substitutionary atonement, he would need to suffer eternal torment. He didn't, so either the doctrine of substitutionary atonement is wrong or the doctrine of eternal torment is wrong. They cannot logically both be right.

Not exactly. The wages of sin is death as in separation from God - which is eternal torment. You either spend eternity with God or eternity separated from God. Those are the two choices.
Jesus' death was an infinite sacrifice, because He is the infinite God. The punishment He endured was of infinite value. So, His substitutionary death satisfies infinite justice and provides for our eternal glory. He tasted death for every man. That doesn't mean He experienced 30 billion individual deaths over and over. His one death provided the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.