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.
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.
He died but is alive in torment in the fire. Clear enough.Torment? Yes. Eternal? No.
It is clearly referring to humans.Eternal torment? Yes. Unredeemed man? No.
The false prophet isn't a human? Please.Eternal torment? Yes. Unredeemed man? No.
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?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.
He died but is alive in torment in the fire. Clear enough.
It is clearly referring to humans.
The false prophet isn't a human? Please.
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?
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.Where in that passage does it say that he will be there forever?
It might be;
Please provide Scripture that says prophets are demons.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.
Once again, maybe human,
Again proving that eternity in fire is quite possible.maybe not, but clearly not referring to unredeemed man as a whole.
I do indeed. But it was His Blood and physical death that saves, not going to Hell.So you don't believe in substitutionary atonement?
Exact same Greek word. Why do you believe one but not the other?No. I believe that eternal life is eternal.
It does indeed. But that would demand someone being destroyed eternally.I believe that the eternal fire eternally destroys.
It does not say nor imply it is a parable. It is literal Biblical people. It would indeed be the WORST kind of misery.And, as the parable or Lazarus and the rich men illustrates, being destroyed by an eternal fire is probably a pretty miserable experience.
It would be fine with you...That would be fine with me if the Bible didn't mention punishment in the eternal fire several times. But it does.
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.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 said:I do indeed. But it was His Blood and physical death that saves, not going to Hell.
Exact same Greek word. Why do you believe one but not the other?
It does indeed. But that would demand someone being destroyed eternally.
It does not say nor imply it is a parable. It is literal Biblical people. It would indeed be the WORST kind of misery.
It doesn't mean our even imply being in some state of being destroyed but never really completely destroyed.
Since you're only giving your opinion I will also. You're totally wrong.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.
I've already given several that you couldn't refute.Huh? They are both eternal. The torment is not. Show me the phrase "eternal torment" and you might have a valid point.
Destruction can be a continuing process forever: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.
He died but was still alive in the fire. Eternal punishment is indeed possible.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.
Since you're only giving your opinion I will also. You're totally wrong.
I've already given several that you couldn't refute.
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.
He died but was still alive in the fire. Eternal punishment is indeed possible.
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 its 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.
Post #346You 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.
If true there would be ZERO need for the word ETERNAL destruction. Simply 'destruction' would be perfectly accurate. Eternal, NEVER ending.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.
You sound strangely familiar to someone else here. The fact is that they are still alive AFTER 'the second death'. I.E.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.
Post #346
You twice admitted that it could be humans in torment in the fire. See who's ignoring.
f true there would be ZERO need for the word ETERNAL destruction. Simply 'destruction' would be perfectly accurate. Eternal, NEVER ending.
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.
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.
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?