# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Annihilationism vs. Eternal Torment Debate/ Chris Date vs. Phil Fernandes

## Brett85

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaPz33dVPvc

Chris Date is the annihilationist, and he's also a Calvinist.  So he can't be accused of being "soft," which seems to be the accusation leveled against annihilationists.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I just started listening.  I'll probably listen to the opening statements tonight and take a few days to go through it.  Just out of curiosity, is Phil a Calvinist as well?

----------


## Brett85

> I just started listening.  I'll probably listen to the opening statements tonight and take a few days to go through it.  Just out of curiosity, is Phil a Calvinist as well?


I'm not sure.  He didn't say in the debate.  I just know that Chris Date is a Calvinist because he says so in the debate, and I also read an article that says that he is.

----------


## Christian Liberty

OK thanks.  So far I've definitely enjoyed listening.  I don't know enough about this subject.

----------


## Brett85

No, this says that Phil Fernandes is a 4 point Arminian.  

http://evangelicalarminians.org/dr-p...-of-calvinism/

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, this says that Phil Fernandes is a 4 point Arminian.  
> 
> http://evangelicalarminians.org/dr-p...-of-calvinism/


OK so I may have to balance this debate out by listening to the James White debate Sola posted awhile back

----------


## Brett85

> OK so I may have to balance this debate out by listening to the James White debate Sola posted awhile back


Yeah, the annihilationists in that debate weren't very good.  Chris Date is far better.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Stay away from Phil Johnson.   Also, stay away from annihilationism.

----------


## Nang

> Stay away from Phil Johnson.   Also, stay away from annihilationism.



ABSOLUTELY!!!

----------


## Brett85

> Stay away from Phil Johnson.   Also, stay away from annihilationism.


Did you watch the debate?  Or are you open minded enough to do that?

----------


## Brett85

And who is Phil Johnson?

----------


## Nang

> And who is Phil Johnson?



He is a webmaster for John MacArthur, a snob, and a pretend theologian, who my husband and I had to threaten to sue a few years ago for slander.

He and the MacArthur foundation quickly backed down . . .

----------


## Brett85

> ABSOLUTELY!!!


Actually watch the debate and study the issue, please.

----------


## Brett85

> He is a webmaster for John MacArthur, a snob, and a pretend theologian, who my husband and I had to threaten to sue a few years ago for slander.
> 
> He and the MacArthur foundation quickly backed down . . .


I don't see what a guy named Phil Johnson has to do with my thread and the debate above.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Did you watch the debate?  Or are you open minded enough to do that?


No Christian is open to annihilationism.

----------


## Brett85

> No Christian is open to annihilationism.


So you would say that Chris Date is unsaved even though he's a Calvinist like you?

----------


## Brett85

> No Christian is open to annihilationism.


And I just asked you if you were open minded enough to watch the debate, not if you were open minded to accept annihilationism.  But you're obviously not even open minded or objective enough to even hear an opposing point of view on the issue.

----------


## Nang

> Actually watch the debate and study the issue, please.



I would not, if you paid me.

I have been around the block TC, and have had years of experience with a lot of these internet people.  I would never say to stay away from a person, (as I do here) unless I already had first-hand experience with them and truly felt them to be a danger to the flock of Christ.

You show very little respect for S-F and myself, treating us as if we do not know of what we speak.

Too bad, but maybe others will be warned.

And annihilation is a lie straight from the devil's mouth . . . you should repent of such a belief.

----------


## Brett85

> I would not, if you paid me.
> 
> I have been around the block TC, and have had years of experience with a lot of these internet people.  I would never say to stay away from a person, (as I do here) unless I already had first-hand experience with them and truly felt them to be a danger to the flock of Christ.
> 
> You show very little respect for S-F and myself, treating us as if we do not know of what we speak.
> 
> Too bad, but maybe others will be warned.
> 
> And annihilation is a lie straight from the devil's mouth . . . you should repent of such a belief.


Wow, I don't think there's any point of even responding to any of your posts from now on.  I said nothing to make you react like that.  There's a lot of Biblical evidence for annihilationism, but you're too stuck on tradition to even keep an open mind.  It's kind of amazing that you actually admit that you're so closed minded that you won't even watch the video.  Very sad.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Annihilationism is from Hell.  It is actually a variation of Arminianism...that God loves people so much that He wouldn't torment them for eternity.  Everything is connected theologically.

----------


## Nang

> Wow, I don't think there's any point of even responding to any of your posts from now on.


No loss to me . . . you have proven to be unteachable anyway.

It is your loss for having itching ears that only want to listen to _false_ teachers.

----------


## Brett85

> Annihilationism is from Hell.  It is actually a variation of Arminianism...that God loves people so much that He wouldn't torment them for eternity.  Everything is connected theologically.


Actually watch the video.  Chris Date doesn't make any type of emotional argument, and he's a Calvinist.  His argument is straight from the Bible.  Once again, you're simply too closed minded and arrogant to even watch the video.

----------


## Brett85

> No loss to me . . . you have proven to be unteachable anyway.
> 
> It is your loss for having itching ears that only want to listen to _false_ teachers.


So I'm suppose to be _taught_ by you?  Do you not understand why you and the other Calvinists come across to every non Calvinist as being extremely arrogant?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No loss to me . . . you have proven to be unteachable anyway.
> 
> It is your loss for having itching ears that only want to listen to _false_ teachers.


Absolutely.   It is the itching ears that attach to every new wind and wave of doctrine.

----------


## Nang

> Annihilationism is from Hell.  It is actually a variation of Arminianism...that God loves people so much that He wouldn't torment them for eternity.  Everything is connected theologically.


Yes indeed.  It is the logical END result of Arminianism (Pelagianism) that teaches men are corrupted by sin, and their (supposed) righteous decisions exempt them from deserved and eternal punishment.

Bah . . .

----------


## Brett85

> Absolutely.   It is the itching ears that attach to every new wind and wave of doctrine.


It was the majority doctrine in Christianity in the first three centuries.  It's an old doctrine.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes indeed.  It is the logical END result of Arminianism (Pelagianism) that teaches men are corrupted by sin, and their (supposed) righteous decisions exempt them from deserved and eternal punishment.
> 
> Bah . . .


Uh, maybe I need to write this bigger so that you actually pay attention to what I'm saying.

CHRIS DATE IS THE ANNIHILATIONIST IN THE VIDEO AND HE'S A CALVINIST!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Uh, maybe I need to write this bigger so that you actually pay attention to what I'm saying.
> 
> CHRIS DATE IS THE ANNIHILATIONIST IN THE VIDEO AND HE'S A CALVINIST!


Yeah...and you're a Calvinist too.

----------


## Brett85

> Yeah...and you're a Calvinist too.


I don't see your point.  I was just responding to your comment that annihilationism is an Arminian doctrine, that only Arminians are annihilationists.  This is false.  There are both Calvinists and Arminians who believe in annihilationism.

----------


## Nang

> So I'm suppose to be _taught_ by you?  Do you not understand why you and the other Calvinists come across to every non Calvinist as being extremely arrogant?



I am not a Calvinist, and I am not arrogant.  I simply have no tolerance for lying and deception.  You do not have to listen to me, but I beg you to stop listening to every fool that shows up on the internet, and go into your closet, and read only the Word of God, and no other.

----------


## Nang

> It was the majority doctrine in Christianity in the first three centuries.  It's an old doctrine.



This is not so.  Unless, one thinks Gnostics are Christians.

----------


## Brett85

> I am not a Calvinist, and I am not arrogant.  I simply have no tolerance for lying and deception.  You do not have to listen to me, but I beg you to stop listening to every fool that shows up on the internet, and go into your closet, and read only the Word of God, and no other.


I came to my conclusions on these issues because I am open minded and study the Bible with an open mind.  I don't believe that I have to study the Bible according to the traditions of the church.

You, however, aren't even open minded enough to click on a youtube video and watch an open and honest debate on this issue.

----------


## Brett85

> This is not so.  Unless, one thinks Gnostics are Christians.


It is so, or at the very least it was just as popular as the eternal torment doctrine.  Either way, the five points of Calvinism weren't taught for the first 1600 years of Christianity, so why do you care about what the church tradition has been?

----------


## Nang

> You, however, aren't even open minded enough to click on a youtube video and watch an open and honest debate on this issue.


So what's it to you, if I don't? (been there, done that, anyway.)

Why the hard sell TC?

Just believe what you want; ignore the brethren who give you biblical guidance, and go your own way.

No one is stopping you . . .

Just stop criticizing us and finding fault with us, for our faith and perseverance in truth.  We get tired of it.

----------


## Nang

> It is so, or at the very least it was just as popular as the eternal torment doctrine.  Either way, the five points of Calvinism weren't taught for the first 1600 years of Christianity, so why do you care about what the church tradition has been?



[mod delete]

The five points are the five Doctrines of Grace . . . not the five points of "Calvinism."

And the Doctrines of Grace have been taught to the children of promise, since Genesis 3:15.

----------


## Brett85

> So what's it to you, if I don't? (been there, done that, anyway.)
> 
> Why the hard sell TC?
> 
> Just believe what you want; ignore the brethren who give you biblical guidance, and go your own way.
> 
> No one is stopping you . . .
> 
> Just stop criticizing us and finding fault with us, for our faith and perseverance in truth.  We get tired of it.


You haven't provided any "Biblical guidance" on this issue.  You haven't presented a single verse.  You just decided to attack me and the people in the video that I posted.  You aren't willing to have an actual debate on this issue by going through different verses, because there's very little if any Biblical evidence for the eternal torment doctrine.

----------


## Brett85

> You show great ignorance.  
> 
> The five points are the five Doctrines of Grace . . . not the five points of "Calvinism."
> 
> And the Doctrines of Grace have been taught to the children of promise, since Genesis 3:15.


The five points of Calvinism weren't taught in the church until the Reformation.  Calvinism or "the doctrines of grace" were foreign to the early church.

----------


## Nang

> The five points of Calvinism weren't taught in the church until the Reformation.  Calvinism or "the doctrines of grace" were foreign to the early church.



The five points only codified the Doctrines of Grace that have been taught to the saints of God since the beginning of time.

You are now dismissed . . .I have no more to discuss with you.

----------


## Brett85

> You are now dismissed . . .I have no more to discuss with you.


Of course not.  You're not willing to have an honest debate over any issue.  As I said, you haven't presented a single verse to try to provide evidence for your view on this.  You just decided to come in here and insult me and condemn me for not going along with church tradition.

----------


## Brett85

Is everyone else reading this thread to see how ridiculous these responses are?  Whether you agree with my position on this issue or not, there's no reason why we can't have an honest and civil debate over this issue.  It just amazes me to reread that and see all the extreme hate coming from people who call themselves Christians.

----------


## Nang

> Is everyone else reading this thread to see how ridiculous these responses are?  Whether you agree with my position on this issue or not, there's no reason why we can't have an honest and civil debate over this issue.  It just amazes me to reread that and see all the extreme hate coming from people who call themselves Christians.



True hatred, is opposing the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

----------


## Brett85

> True hatred, is opposing the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.


There's more than one interpretation of the Bible, which is why there are so many denominations.  But like I said, you aren't even willing to quote Bible verses and debate this issue.  All you do and all you ever do is just throw around insults.

----------


## Brett85

I'm just going to ignore the insults and simply start posting all of the overwhelming Biblical evidence for conditional immortality.

James 5:5

"You have spent your years on earth in luxury, satisfying your every desire. You have fattened yourselves for *the day of slaughter."*

How much more explicit can you get than calling judgment day "the day of slaughter?"  This verse alone disproves eternal torment, but there are hundreds and hundreds of other verses that do as well.

----------


## Brett85

2nd Peter 2:6

"If by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly."

Again, does it get any more explicit than saying that the unsaved will become *extinct* like Sodom and Gomorrah?

----------


## Kevin007

Mark 9: 43-44- 
43 And  if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter  into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire  that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

the worm dieth not, the soul dieth not. 

Eternal pain spiritually and physically.

Heaven is eternal, so is Hell.

----------


## Kevin007

Mark 9: 43-44- 
43 And  if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter  into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire  that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

the worm dieth not, the soul dieth not. 

Eternal pain spiritually and physically.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Revelations 14:11
> 
> And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name,"


....

----------


## Kevin007

> ....


Sola- which book is that? RevelationS?

----------


## Brett85

I'll respond to both of those verses sometime tomorrow, but I'll just note that you just completely ignored and didn't even address James 5:5 and 2nd Peter 2:6.  That's not how it's supposed to work.  If you want to prove your theology, you have to reconcile it with the rest of the Bible, not just cherry pick a few verses.  And I will find time to address the two verses that you mentioned, but to Kevin, I already addressed the issue of "unquenchable fire" in a previous annihilationism thread.

----------


## Brett85

> Mark 9: 43-44- 
> 43 And  if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter  into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire  that never shall be quenched:
> 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
> 
> the worm dieth not, the soul dieth not. 
> 
> Eternal pain spiritually and physically.


I suppose you think that this verse teaches eternal conscious torment simply because it uses the term "unquenchable fire" and "worm dieth not."  I've proven before that the term "unquenchable fire" doesn't refer to a fire that never goes out, but simply a fire that can't be quenched by human beings before it accomplishes its intended purpose, which is to consume and destroy everything in its path.  This is clear when you look at how the term "unquenchable fire" is used elsewhere in the Bible.  

Jeremiah 17:27

 "But if you do not listen to Me to keep the sabbath day holy by not carrying a load and coming in through the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates and it will devour the palaces of Jerusalem and *not be quenched.*"

 Ezekiel 20:47

 "And say to the forest of the Negev, 'Hear the word of the LORD: thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am about to kindle a fire in you, and it will consume every green tree in you, as well as every dry tree; the blazing flame *will not be quenched* and the whole surface from south to north will be burned by it."

Does anyone think that the "unquenchable fires" that are mentioned in the two verses above are still going?  Of course not.  Those fires went out a long time ago.  But they're described as being "unquenchable fires" because they couldn't be put out by human beings before they accomplished their intended purpose, which was to consume everything they were intended to consume.

 As far as "the worm dieth not" language that Jesus uses, he was quoting from Isaiah 66, which refers to the corpses of people who will be slain by God. It's a picture of death and complete destruction, not torment.

Isaiah 66:24

"Then they will go forth and look on the *corpses* of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die And their fire will not be quenched; And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.

We also see the same kind of language of being "eaten by worms" to describe the death of King Herod.  Whenever the Bible uses the terminology of worms in regards to punishment, it's always referring to death and destruction.

Acts 12:23

"And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was *eaten by worms and died."*

----------


## Terry1

> I would not, if you paid me.
> 
> I have been around the block TC, and have had years of experience with a lot of these internet people.  I would never say to stay away from a person, (as I do here) unless I already had first-hand experience with them and truly felt them to be a danger to the flock of Christ.
> 
> You show very little respect for S-F and myself, treating us as if we do not know of what we speak.
> 
> Too bad, but maybe others will be warned.
> 
> And annihilation is a lie straight from the devil's mouth . . . you should repent of such a belief.


Do realize that you insulted TC three times in four sentences there?    You're 73 years old---do you not know how to be respectful to people?

----------


## Terry1

> No loss to me . . . you have proven to be unteachable anyway.
> 
> It is your loss for having itching ears that only want to listen to _false_ teachers.


Thank God that people don't listen to you---who would except those who are as blind as you are.

----------


## Brett85

> Revelations 14:11
> 
> “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name,"


This verse is describing something that happens to those who worship the beast and his image during the tribulation.  It has absolutely nothing to do with final punishment in the lake of fire.  This verse is in Revelation 14, and the lake of fire isn't even mentioned until Revelation 19.  What this verse is describing is simply the seven bowls of God's wrath that are described in Revelation 16.  The first bowl of God's wrath was poured out on those who received the mark of the beast and worshipped his image, and sores broke out all over them.  Then the fourth bowl also describes those who received the mark of the beast as experiencing scorching heat from the sun, which caused them even more pain and torment.  It goes on to say that that these people cursed God because of the pains and the sores they have.  (John writes all this in the past tense, even though it's a future event)  All of this makes it clear that the meaning of "no rest day in night" in Revelation 14:11 is referring to those who worshipped the beast and his image as not being able to rest day and night during the tribulation because of the extreme torment they were experiencing during the tribulation.  It's clear that Revelation 14:11 is describing the plagues that those who worship the beast will experience here on earth during the tribulation.  This isn't even a verse that those who believe in eternal torment should bring up to prove their doctrine, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the final punishment in the lake of fire.

Revelation 16:2

"The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly, festering sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image."

Revelation 16: 8-11

"The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire.  They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him."

"The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in agony and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done."


As far as the language of "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever," that's just symbolic language that's used to describe the pain and suffering experienced by those who worship the beast during the tribulation.  There are also many other passages in the Bible that uses the image of "smoke rising forever" that doesn't literally mean that smoke is going to rise for all eternity.  In those other cases the symbolism of smoke rising is meant to symbolize the complete destruction of something.  In this particular case it's most likely just describing the intense pain and torment that the worshippers of the beast will experience during the tribulation.  The verse below uses the exact same language to describe the destruction of Babylon.  Is the smoke from Babylon literally going to rise forever and ever?  Of course not.

Revelation 19:2-3

For true and just are his judgments. He has condemned the great prostitute who corrupted the earth by her adulteries. He has avenged on her the blood of his servants."  And again they shouted: "Hallelujah! The smoke from her *goes up for ever and ever."*

The verse below refers to the destruction of Edom, and again uses the language of smoke rising forever and ever.  Does anyone believe that Edom is literally still on fire and has smoke rising for ever and ever?  Of course not!

Isaiah 34:10

It will not be quenched night or day; *Its smoke will go up forever.* From generation to generation it will be desolate; None will pass through it forever and ever.

----------


## Terry1

Yeah, but TC, then we have to wrestle with this scripture here, which we know that Gods word does not contradict itself.  So what would this scripture lead you to believe then with regard to the smoke rising forever and ever?

*Revelation 20:10 
The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever*

----------


## Brett85

> Yeah, but TC, then we have to wrestle with this scripture here, which we know that Gods word does not contradict itself.  So what would this scripture lead you to believe then with regard to the smoke rising forever and ever?
> 
> *Revelation 20:10 
> The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever*


Like you said, we have to reconcile this verse with the rest of scripture, since the Bible doesn't contradict itself.  So how do you explain the fact that the Bible portrays the complete destruction of Satan and the Beast in the Old Testament?

Ezekiel 28:18-19

By your many sins and dishonest trade
    you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
    and it consumed you,
*and I reduced you to ashes on the ground*
    in the sight of all who were watching.

19 
All the nations who knew you
    are appalled at you;
you have come to a horrible end
    and will be no more.’

Daniel 7:11

Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and *its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire.*

----------


## Terry1

> Like you said, we have to reconcile this verse with the rest of scripture, since the Bible doesn't contradict itself.  So how do you explain the fact that the Bible portrays the complete destruction of Satan and the Beast in the Old Testament?
> 
> Ezekiel 28:18-19
> 
> By your many sins and dishonest trade
>     you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
> So I made a fire come out from you,
>     and it consumed you,
> *and I reduced you to ashes on the ground*
> ...


You have done an excellent study here TC and really does give one pause for thought.  I can only see that because the word does say that they'll be tormented forever day and night, to mean the bodies that they currently reside in have the capability of being burned to ashes and their spirits are left to be tormented day and night forever and ever.  What say you?  Is there any other good explanation?  I can't think of one.

You know--I was just thinking too about the Holy Fire of God--are we thinking in too carnal terms with the kind of fire that God is going to use to perform this task?

----------


## Brett85

> You have done an excellent study here TC and really does give one pause for thought.  I can only see that because the word does say that they'll be tormented forever day and night, to mean the bodies that they currently reside in have the capability of being burned to ashes and their spirits are left to be tormented day and night forever and ever.  What say you?  Is there any other good explanation?  I can't think of one.


First of all, do you interpret every single verse of Revelation 100% literally?  For example, do you think that there's literally going to be an actual person named "Death" and an actual person named "Hades" that are going to ride a horse and be given authority over a fourth of the earth?

Revelation 6:8

"I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth."

----------


## Terry1

> First of all, do you interpret every single verse of Revelation 100% literally?  For example, do you think that there's literally going to be an actual person named "Death" and an actual person named "Hades" that are going to ride a horse and be given authority over a fourth of the earth?
> 
> Revelation 6:8
> 
> "I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth."


Yes, I believe you're right.  Obviously God is giving authority for this to be accomplished by allowing evil to serve His purpose against evil here.

Still, do you believe that "tormented day and night" is speaking in symbolic terms or literal there?  Not all of Revelation is symbolic IMO.

Then there's this too--I was just thinking too about the Holy Fire of God--are we thinking in too carnal terms with the kind of fire that God is going to use to perform this task?

----------


## Brett85

> Yes, I believe you're right.  Obviously God is giving authority for this to be accomplished by allowing evil to serve His purpose against evil here.
> 
> Still, do you believe that "tormented day and night" is speaking in symbolic terms or literal there?  Not all of Revelation is symbolic IMO.


I believe that it's symbolic language, partly because the language it uses is "tormented day and *night,"* and Revelation 22:5 states that there will be no more night after the new heavens and new earth are created.  So how can we interpret Revelation 20:10 literally given that night will be done away with?  How can Satan, the beast, and the false prophet be tormented "day and *night"* when there will be no more night?

Revelation 22:5

"And there will no longer be any night."

----------


## Terry1

Let's try to infuse a little manmade science with regard to scripture here regarding "fire and brimstone".

Revelation 14:10 
he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

Brimstone we know is simply "sulfur".  So why does God use sulfer and fire together to accomplish this task?   I had to look up "sulfer" and see what science then claims it actually consists of here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur

*Sulfur is an essential element for all life,* and is widely used in biochemical processes. In metabolic reactions, sulfur compounds serve as both fuels (electron donors) and respiratory (oxygen-alternative) materials (electron acceptors). Sulfur in organic form is present in the vitamins biotin and thiamine, the latter being named for the Greek word for sulfur. Sulfur is an important part of many enzymes and in antioxidant molecules like glutathione and thioredoxin. Organically bonded sulfur is a component of all proteins, as the amino acids cysteine and methionine. Disulfide bonds are largely responsible for the mechanical strength and insolubility of the protein keratin, found in outer skin, hair, and feathers, and the element contributes to their pungent odor when burned.

My question is then---can sulfur/brimstone be burned away to ashes, or does sulfur/brimstone continue to burn forever?

----------


## Brett85

I don't know, but the way that I interpret the Bible is that the lake of fire is going to be here on the earth, and it's going to destroy the entire earth and all of the resurrected unsaved.  Thus, it's not possible for the fire to last forever, since the earth is going to be made new after it's destroyed, and it's going to be the paradise that believers will live in for all eternity.

2 Peter 3:5-7, 10

For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, *kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.*

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't know, but the way that I interpret the Bible is that the lake of fire is going to be here on the earth, and it's going to destroy the entire earth and all of the resurrected unsaved.  Thus, it's not possible for the fire to last forever, since the earth is going to be made new after it's destroyed, and it's going to be the paradise that believers will live in for all eternity.
> 
> 2 Peter 3:5-7, 10
> 
> For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, *kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.*
> 
> But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.


You may be right TC.  It does seem consistent that God would use this very rock called earth as the means by which He'll use to destroy those who loved this world and things of it more than Him.  This is satan's play ground for evil.  You've done a really good study here and shown me things that I haven't studied yet.

----------


## Brett85

I see that Sola Fide has abandoned this thread, as he always does when this issue comes up.  All he does is throw around a bunch of personal attacks and insults, cites one or two verses that he thinks proves his point of view, and then runs away and hides without defending his verses and addressing the verses that I bring up.  It should be obvious to any objective person who is actually presenting what the Bible really says about this subject.

----------


## Brett85

> You've done a really good study here and shown me things that I haven't studied yet.


Thanks.  There's much more to the issue and much more in the Bible about the issue than most people realize.

----------


## Terry1

> I see that Sola Fide has abandoned this thread, as he always does when this issue comes up.  All he does is throw around a bunch of personal attacks and insults, cite one or two verses that he thinks proves his point of view, and then runs away and hides without defending his verses and addressing the verses that I bring up.  It should be obvious to any objective person who is actually presenting what the Bible really says about this subject.


Everyone with eyes to see knows who the ones are without a clue.

----------


## Terry1

> Thanks.  There's much more to the issue and much more in the Bible about the issue than most people realize.


Well, you've made me look at these scriptures in a different light than I used to.  I'm always concerned foremost about making sure that each scripture reconciles with the other and if they don't---that's when I go hunting looking for that missing link that brings them together in meaning and purpose.

----------


## RJB

TC and Terry you are too loving.  You guys better start insulting each other if you plan on debating or someone will start questioning if this is the religion forum.

----------


## Terry1

> TC and Terry you are too loving.  You guys better start insulting each other if you plan on debating or someone will start questioning if this is the religion forum.


Shhhhhhh---if *you know who* finds out that we're having a loving, tolerant discussion between the brethren--they'll be over here slapping us around with their wet diapers again.

----------


## RJB

> Shhhhhhh---if *you know who* finds out that we're having a loving, tolerant discussion between the brethren--they'll be over here slapping us around with their wet diapers again.


Gross.

----------


## Terry1

> Gross.


Yeah---that's what I'm sayin here. ROFL

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I see that Sola Fide has abandoned this thread, as he always does when this issue comes up.


Abandon?  TC, I have about as much interest in debating this issue as I have in debating about politics right now.  You're right...I am not engaged at all in this.  No Christian believes annihilationism, no Christian ever has believed annihilationism...this is a belief of cults....it is an extension of Arminianism...it's not Biblical, etc.

_The true error of annihilationism is that it is a form of works righteousness_. It says a person who has suffered an appropriate amount of time would then be delivered from that suffering because of his punishment. In other words, after the person has suffered enough, he has EARNED deliverance from the punishment from God. Annihilation is being delivered from the suffering.

----------


## Brett85

> Abandon?  TC, I have about as much interest in debating this issue as I have in debating about politics right now.  You're right...I am not engaged at all in this.  No Christian believes annihilationism, no Christian ever has believed annihilationism...this is a belief of cults....it is an extension of Arminianism...it's not Biblical, etc.
> 
> _The true error of annihilationism is that it is a form of works righteousness_. It says a person who has suffered an appropriate amount of time would then be delivered from that suffering because of his punishment. In other words, after the person has suffered enough, he has EARNED deliverance from the punishment from God. Annihilation is being delivered from the suffering.


So in other words, you're not at all interested in actually exegeting these various Bible passages and having a debate about the interpretation of these verses.  And your assertion that this is a belief of Arminianism is *flat our wrong.*  I demonstrated to you earlier that Calvinists have this view as well.  Chris Date is a Calvinist.  Quit lying.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So in other words, you're not at all interested in actually exegeting these various Bible passages and having a debate about the interpretation of these verses.  And your assertion that this is a belief of Arminianism is *flat our wrong.*  I demonstrated to you earlier that Calvinists have this view as well.  Chris Date is a Calvinist.  Quit lying.


I don't care what a person calls themselves.  There are plenty of "Calvinists" out there who are not Biblical at all, this person being one of them.    Annihilationism is a form of works righteousness.  It says that a person's punishment for a time can satisfy the wrath of God...and that is a lie.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't care what a person calls themselves.  There are plenty of "Calvinists" out there who are not Biblical at all, this person being one of them.    Annihilationism is a form of works righteousness.  It says that a person's punishment for a time can satisfy the wrath of God...and that is a lie.


So you consider Chris Date to be a non Christian even though he believes in all five points of Calvinism?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So you consider Chris Date to be a non Christian even though he believes in all five points of Calvinism?


I have no idea who it is and I don't know what he believes, other than this form of works righteousness, which is a false gospel that does not save.

----------


## TER

Sola, can you explain why you believe annhiliationism is an extension of Armenianism?  I don't see the connection.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, can you explain why you believe annhiliationism is an extension of Armenianism?  I don't see the connection.


A couple of ways: 

1. Arminianism teaches universal love. This naturally leads to annihilationism.  Since God loves the reprobate, He would not have them suffer an eternity in Hell but just puts them into nonexistence after they die.

2. Arminians affirm works righteousness, which naturally cooperates with annihilationism. In other words, after the person has suffered enough, he has EARNED deliverance from the punishment from God. Annihilation is being delivered from the suffering.

----------


## Brett85

> I have no idea who it is and I don't know what he believes, other than this form of works righteousness, which is a false gospel that does not save.


It's absurd that you believe that this doctrine in some way preaches works righteousness.  This man, Chris Date, is a Calvinist and believes in the five points of Calvinism.  He believes in limited atonement, universal election, monergism, etc.  He doesn't believe in "works righteousness" in any sense of the word.  It's just extremely odd that you keep claiming that a Calvinist believes in works righteousness.

----------


## Brett85

> A couple of ways: 
> 
> 1. Arminianism teaches universal love. This naturally leads to annihilationism.  Since God loves the reprobate, He would not have them suffer an eternity in Hell but just puts them into nonexistence after they die.


And yet you just keep ignoring and denying that a lot of Calvinists believe in annihilationism, including Chris Date.  Do you not remember Freedom Fanatic telling you about all of the Calvinists that he's run into who believe in annihilationism?

By the way, I'm not making any kind of emotional or philosophical arguments in favor of annihilationism.  My arguments come straight from the Bible.  But of course you won't actually read through the thread and see that.

----------


## TER

> _The true error of annihilationism is that it is a form of works righteousness_. It says a person who has suffered an appropriate amount of time would then be delivered from that suffering because of his punishment. In other words, after the person has suffered enough, he has EARNED deliverance from the punishment from God. Annihilation is being delivered from the suffering.


I see you wrote this.  I don't buy that annihilationism is a form of 'works righteousness', since the belief is that the punishment is destruction itself, which is eternal.  We must understand that eternal does not mean infinite, it means outside of time.  What it means to be outside of time is something we can only guess at with our logical minds.  It is beyond our logical minds to understand what it means to be eternal.  So that if eternal annihilation is the claim of the punishment afforded to the sinner, it has nothing to do with earning a reward, it has to do with the eternal state of the sinner which is claimed to be non-existence.  This has nothing to do with Arminianism, which is why there are Calvinists who ascribe to this doctrine.

That being said, I agree with you that annihilism is not the orthodox Christian faith with regards to the fate of the damned, and the biblical and patristic witness overwhelmingly is that those damned to hell with suffer eternal and everlasting torment and suffering.  I just don't see how you are making the connection with Arminianism.

----------


## Brett85

> That being said, I agree with you that annihilism is not the orthodox Christian faith with regards to the fate of the damned, and the biblical and patristic witness overwhelmingly is that those damned to hell with suffer eternal and everlasting torment and suffering.  I just don't see how you are making the connection with Arminianism.


There you go.  That proves that Sola Fide is a member of the Orthodox Church.

----------


## TER

> A couple of ways: 
> 
> 1. Arminianism teaches universal love. This naturally leads to annihilationism.  Since God loves the reprobate, He would not have them suffer an eternity in Hell but just puts them into nonexistence after they die.


Arminianism does not teach universal love, though from what I understand it believes that God is love.  I think you are confusing Universalism with Arminianism here. 




> 2. Arminians affirm works righteousness, which naturally cooperates with annihilationism. In other words, after the person has suffered enough, he has EARNED deliverance from the punishment from God. Annihilation is being delivered from the suffering.


I still don't see it.  Eternal destruction has nothing to do with earning anything by works as a reward according to the doctrine of Annhilationism, it rather is the just sentence afforded by God.  I think it does attempt to apply an overabundance of mercy on God, which is noble, but it is not what Christ taught.  We know that God is merciful and good, so it seems difficult to ascribe such at eternal state of suffering to the people.  It is an attempt to make God kinder and gentler.  But we cannot just apply our own sentiments unto the wisdom of God which He has revealed with regards to the state of sinners and the realization that an eternal state of suffering exists to those who refuse God.  This is not God's fault that these sinners eventually enter hell, for He will in the last day be 'all in all', and His love will be sent out to all, either as illumination and joy to the saved or as an everlasting fire to those who will hate to be in His eternal presence.

----------


## TER

> There you go.  That proves that Sola Fide is a member of the Orthodox Church.

----------


## Brett85

> 2. Arminians affirm works righteousness, which naturally cooperates with annihilationism. In other words, after the person has suffered enough, he has EARNED deliverance from the punishment from God. Annihilation is being delivered from the suffering.


No, I believe in eternal punishment, that the punishment that the unsaved receive will never end.  They will be unconscious for all eternity, missing out on everything that eternal life with God has to offer.  Their punishment will never end, as they will never be brought back from the dead.  According to you the term "capital punishment" should be called something else, since the cessation of one's life forever isn't a punishment.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's absurd that you believe that this doctrine in some way preaches works righteousness.  This man, Chris Date, is a Calvinist and believes in the five points of Calvinism.  He believes in limited atonement, universal election, monergism, etc.  He doesn't believe in "works righteousness" in any sense of the word.  It's just extremely odd that you keep claiming that a Calvinist believes in works righteousness.


There are many "Calvinists" who believe in universal love and works righteousness, which leads to many things, including annihilationism.  There are all kinds of inconsistent people calling them Calvinists today.  This is the problem with this Van Tillian "neo-Calvinism" that is so popular today...it leads to all kinds of heresies because it doesn't rest on Scripturalism.

----------


## TER

> No, I believe in eternal punishment, that the punishment that the unsaved receive will never end.  They will be unconscious for all eternity, missing out on everything that eternal life with God has to offer.  Their punishment will never end, as they will never be brought back from the dead.  According to you the term "capital punishment" should be called something else, since the cessation of one's life forever isn't a punishment.


But TC, the biblical and patristic witness is that they will consciously suffer eternal torment.  They will certainly be brought back from the dead- this has been accomplished by Christ's work on the cross.  Christ has granted everyone a bodily resurrection.  After the bodily resurrection, we will then be judged.  Those who have done good to eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven, and those who have done evil to everlasting judgement (the judgement being their own conscious being revealed as evil before the Light of God).  There eternal state of torment will be the memories of the words and deeds they had done which separated them from God.  The unending worm will be their self-accusations and humiliation and conscience eating them up inside when the truths of their works are finally realized to them and before all of creation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, I believe in eternal punishment, that the punishment that the unsaved receive will never end.  They will be unconscious for all eternity, missing out on everything that eternal life with God has to offer.  Their punishment will never end, as they will never be brought back from the dead.  According to you the term "capital punishment" should be called something else, since the cessation of one's life forever isn't a punishment.


How do you punish someone who does not exist? You can't. You can't eternally punish someone who has no existence. Eternal punishment only works when the person is in existence.

----------


## Brett85

> There are many "Calvinists" who believe in universal love and works righteousness, which leads to many things, including annihilationism.  There are all kinds of inconsistent people calling them Calvinists today.  This is the problem with this Van Tillian "neo-Calvinism" that is so popular today...it leads to all kinds of heresies because it doesn't rest on Scripturalism.


Whatever.  This guy is a true five point Calvinist.  He doesn't even believe in Common Grace.

----------


## Brett85

> How do you punish someone who does not exist? You can't. You can't eternally punish someone who has no existence. Eternal punishment only works when the person is in existence.


So when someone commits murder and receives the death penalty, that isn't "punishment?"  Should the term "capital punishment" be renamed something else?

----------


## TER

> There are many "Calvinists" who believe in universal love and works righteousness, which leads to many things, including annihilationism.  There are all kinds of inconsistent people calling them Calvinists today.  This is the problem with this Van Tillian "neo-Calvinism" that is so popular today...it leads to all kinds of heresies because it doesn't rest on Scripturalism.


Sola, the most persistent and recycled heretical beliefs are indeed Scriptural, in that their supporters can point to a verse here or there in the Scriptures themselves in order to justify their beliefs.  This is the problem when one uses Scripture alone, because 10 different groups of people will interpret things 100 different ways.

----------


## Brett85

> But TC, the biblical and patristic witness is that they will consciously suffer eternal torment.


And I've presented quite a few verses which show the exact opposite.

----------


## Brett85

> Sola, the most persistent and recycled heretical beliefs are indeed Scriptural, in that their supporters can point to a verse here or there in the Scriptures themselves in order to justify their beliefs.


Well, that's also how the eternal torment doctrine is justified, by taking four or five verses completely out of context.

----------


## TER

> Well, that's also how the eternal torment doctrine is justified, by taking four or five verses completely out of context.


This is your opinion TC, but not only yours, but also it is the opinion of certain modern sects of Christians.  This belief is growing in certain quarters, but that does not mean it is the correct understanding of the Scriptures.  The Church is the pillar and guide for the correct understanding of the Scriptures, and we should look back to the apostolic deposit of faith for the truth and not what we think is in context or not with a verse here or there.  I have read some of the Church Fathers who you suggest make the claim of annihilationism, but these are rare, obscure, and I assure you those Church Fathers you refer to believed in the same orthodox teaching of eternal judgment and everlasting torment of the sinners (though the wording here or there may seem to support annihilationism).  They simply would not have been a Church Father in sacramental communion with the Church if they espoused a belief of annihilationism when the clear and overwhelming consensus and ancient belief of the Church Fathers back to the beginning is the orthodox understanding of everlasting torment.

I don't mean to discourage you, and I certainly would not judge your faith and love for Christ or the love God has for you on account of this belief (after all, I see how it can be a hope for the means of mercy towards the sinner), but I think you are devoting a great deal to justify a belief that is simply not very important in our daily lives here and now.  Of course, there is no problem debating it, but it becomes a problem when it consumes us and distances us from one another and importantly from our brethren the saints who have come before us, that is, when it separates us from the Church and the communion of the saints.  It is better to accept that some eschatological principles remain a mystery, and while we may hope for certain things on account of piety and love and mercy, we should also not allow it to become a major point of contention, especially when such beliefs have no ancient support or witness.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Whatever.  This guy is a true five point Calvinist.  He doesn't even believe in Common Grace.


Here's Chris Date getting shredded:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2013...s-retreat.html

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So when someone commits murder and receives the death penalty, that isn't "punishment?"  Should the term "capital punishment" be renamed something else?


It's not analogous.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't mean to discourage you, and I certainly would not judge your faith and love for Christ or the love God has for you on account of this belief (after all, I see how it can be a hope for the means of mercy towards the sinner), but I think you are devoting a great deal to justify a belief that is simply not very important in our daily lives here and now.  Of course, there is no problem debating it, but it becomes a problem when it consumes us and distances us from one another and importantly from our brethren the saints who have come before us, that is, when it separates us from the Church and the communion of the saints.  It is better to accept that some eschatological principles remain a mystery, and while we may hope for certain things on account of piety and love and mercy, we should also not allow it to become a major point of contention, especially when such beliefs have no ancient support or witness.


Well, I just get tired of constantly debating Calvinism vs. Arminianism.    I was ready for a break from that.  I really don't bring this issue up very often.

----------


## Brett85

> Here's Chris Date getting shredded:
> 
> http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2013...s-retreat.html


Why not actually watch the debate I posted?

----------


## TER

> Well, I just get tired of constantly debating Calvinism vs. Arminianism.    I was ready for a break from that.  I really don't bring this issue up very often.


LOL!  I know what you mean!  But the tide is turning here at RPFs!  We have recently learned that John Calvin believes in free will and that God is _not_ the author of sin!  Amazing things are happening here at RPF!  The history of the world may never be the same!!!!!!!!!!1!!

----------


## Terry1

> LOL!  I know what you mean!  But the tide is turning here at RPFs!  We have recently learned that John Calvin believes in free will and that God is _not_ the author of sin!  Amazing things are happening here at RPF!  The history of the world may never be the same!!!!!!!!!!1!!


Does this mean we won't be getting neg repped for breaking any more of Gods commandments?

----------


## Brett85

I probably won't post about this issue very often, because it's usually like 1 vs. 10 when we debate this.  Lol.  I'm pretty much the only one who believes in this doctrine.  Jmdrake and Gunny Freedom believe in this doctrine as well, but Jmdrake hasn't posted for quite a while, and Gunny Freedom doesn't post in the Religion Forum all that often.

----------


## Brett85

> They simply would not have been a Church Father in sacramental communion with the Church if they espoused a belief of annihilationism *when the clear and overwhelming consensus and ancient belief of the Church Fathers back to the beginning is the orthodox understanding of everlasting torment.*


Where's your evidence for this statement?

----------


## TER

> Where's your evidence for this statement?




This is a great set to have. It is called 'Ancient Commentary on Scripture' and goes line by line of the entire Bible giving the oldest patristic commentary on it.  You will find pearls of wisdom there.

----------


## Brett85

> This is a great set to have. It is called 'Ancient Commentary on Scripture' and goes line by line of the entire Bible giving the oldest patristic commentary on it.  You will find pearls of wisdom there.


Ok, thanks, but do you actually have links to articles on the internet that prove that most or all of the early church fathers believed in eternal torment?

----------


## TER

here is a short list.  The link is here.

Ignatius of Antioch [A.D. 110]

Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil teaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him (Letter to the Ephesians 16:12.

Clement [A.D. 150]

If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment (Second Clement 5:5 ).

But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God saying, There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart! (ibid., 17:7).

Justin Martyr [A.D. 151]

No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments (First Apology 12).

We have been taught that only they may aim at immortality who have lived a holy and virtuous life near to God. We believe that they who live wickedly and do not repent will be punished in everlasting fire (ibid., 21).

[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons (ibid., 52).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp [A.D. 155]

Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire (Martyrdom of Polycarp 2:3).

Mathetes [A.D. 160]

When you know what is the true life, that of heaven; when you despise the merely apparent death, which is temporal; when you fear the death which is real, and which is reserved for those who will be condemned to the everlasting fire, the fire which will punish even to the end those who are delivered to it, then you will condemn the deceit and error of the world (Letter to Diognetus 10:7).

Athenagoras [A.D. 177]

We [Christians] are persuaded that when we are removed from this present life we shall live another life, better than the present one. . . . Then we shall abide near God and with God, changeless and free from suffering in the soul . . . or if we fall with the rest [of mankind], a worse one and in fire; for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere incidental work, that we should perish and be annihilated (Plea for the Christians 31).

Theophilus of Antioch [A.D. 181]

Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. . . . [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . . For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire (To Autolycus 1:14).

Irenaeus [A.D. 189]

God will send the spiritual forces of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, and the impious, unjust, lawless, and blasphemous among men into everlasting fire (Against Heresies 1:10:1).

The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . It is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire, they will be damned forever (ibid., 4:28:2).

Tertullian [A.D. 197]

After the present age is ended he will judge his worshipers for a reward of eternal life and the godless for a fire equally perpetual and unending (Apology 18:3).

Then will the entire race of men be restored to receive its just deserts according to what it has merited in this period of good and evil, and thereafter to have these paid out in an immeasurable and unending eternity. Then there will be neither death again nor resurrection again, but we shall be always the same as we are now, without changing. The worshipers of God shall always be with God, clothed in the proper substance of eternity. But the godless and those who have not turned wholly to God will be punished in fire equally unending, and they shall have from the very nature of this fire, divine as it were, a supply of incorruptibility (ibid., 44:1213).

Hippolytus [A.D. 212]

Standing before [Christs] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons, crying out in one voice, shall say: Just is your judgment! And the righteousness of that cry will be apparent in the recompense made to each. To those who have done well, everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to the lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment. The unquenchable and unending fire awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which does not die and which does not waste the body but continually bursts forth from the body with unceasing pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no appeal of interceding friends will profit them (Against the Greeks 3).

Minucius Felix [A.D. 226]

I am not ignorant of the fact that many, in the consciousness of what they deserve, would rather hope than actually believe that there is nothing for them after death. They would prefer to be annihilated rather than be restored for punishment. . . . Nor is there either measure nor end to these torments. That clever fire burns the limbs and restores them, wears them away and yet sustains them, just as fiery thunderbolts strike bodies but do not consume them (Octavius 34:125:3).

Cyprian of Carthage [A.D. 252]

An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life (To Demetrian 24).

Lactantius [A.D. 307]

The sacred writings inform us in what manner the wicked are to undergo punishment. For because they have committed sins in their bodies, they will again be clothed with flesh, that they may make atonement in their bodies; and yet it will not be that flesh with which God clothed man, like this our earthly body, but indestructible, and abiding forever, that it may be able to hold out against tortures and everlasting fire, the nature of which is different from this fire of ours, which we use for the necessary purposes of life, and which is extinguished unless it be sustained by the fuel of some material. But that divine fire always lives by itself, and flourishes without any nourishment. . . . The same divine fire, therefore, with one and the same force and power, will both burn the wicked and will form them again, and will replace as much as it shall consume of their bodies, and will supply itself with eternal nourishment. . . . Thus, without any wasting of bodies, which regain their substance, it will only burn and affect them with a sense of pain. (Divine Institutes 7:21).

----------


## TER

Here is one of the greatest saints of the Church, St. John Chrysostom expressing the orthodox faith as handed down to him:

“(Hell) It is a sea of fire—not a sea of the kind or dimensions we know here, but much larger and fiercer, with waves made of fire, fire of a strange and fearsome kind. There is a great abyss there, in fact, of terrible flames, and one can see fire rushing about on all sides like some wild animal. … There will be no one who can resist, no one who can escape: Christ’s gentle, peaceful face will be nowhere to be seen. But as those sentenced to work the mines are give over to rough men and see no more of their families, but only their taskmasters, so it will be there—or not simply so, but much worse. For here on can appeal to the Emperor for clemency, and have the prisoner released—but there, never. They will not be released, but will remain roasting and in such agony as cannot be expressed.” (Homilies on Matthew 43[44].4)

And:

“For when you hear of fire, do not suppose the fire in that world to be like this: for fire in this world burns up and makes away with anything which it takes hold of; but that fire is continually burning those who have once been seized by it, and never ceases: therefore also is it called unquenchable. For those also who have sinned must put on immortality, not for honor, but to have a constant supply of material for that punishment to work upon; and how terrible this is, speech could never depict, but from the experience of little things it is possible to form some slight notion of these great ones. For if you should ever be in a bath which has been heated more than it ought to be, think then, I pray you, on the fire of hell: or again if you are ever inflamed by some severe fever transfer your thoughts to that flame, and then you will be able clearly to discern the difference. 

For if a bath and a fever so afflict and distress us, what will our condition be when we have fallen into that river of fire which winds in front of the terrible judgment-seat. Then we shall gnash our teeth under the suffering of our labors and intolerable pains: but there will be no one to succor us: yea we shall groan mightily, as the flame is applied more severely to us, but we shall see no one save those who are being punished with us, and great desolation. And how should any one describe the terrors arising to our souls from the darkness? For just as that fire has no consuming power so neither has it any power of giving light: for otherwise there would not be darkness. The dismay produced in us then by this, and the trembling and the great astonishment can be sufficiently realized in that day only. For in that world many and various kinds of torment and torrents of punishment are poured in upon the soul from every side. 

And if any one should ask, and how can the soul bear up against such a multitude of punishments and continue being chastised through interminable ages, let him consider what happens in this world, how many have often borne up against a long and severe disease. And if they have died, this has happened not because the soul was consumed but because the body was exhausted, so that had the latter not broken down, the soul would not have ceased being tormented. When then we have received an incorruptible and inconsumable body there is nothing to prevent the punishment being indefinitely extended. For here indeed it is impossible that the two things should coexist. I mean severity of punishment and permanence of being, but the one contends with the other, because the nature of the body is perishable and cannot bear the concurrence of both: but when the imperishable state has supervened, there would be an end of this strife, and both these terrible things will keep their hold upon us for infinite time with much force. 

Let us not then so dispose ourselves now as if the excessive power of the tortures were destructive of the soul: for even the body will not be able to experience this at that time, but will abide together with the soul, in a state of eternal punishment, and there will not be any end to look to beyond this. How much luxury then, and how much time will you weigh in the balance against this punishment and vengeance? Do you propose a period of a hundred years or twice as long? And what is this compared with the endless ages? For what the dream of a single day is in the midst of a whole lifetime, that the enjoyment of things here is as contrasted with the state of things to come. Is there then any one who, for the sake of seeing a good dream, would elect to be perpetually punished? Who is so senseless as to have recourse to this kind of retribution?” (Ad Theod. 1.10)

----------


## Brett85

Ok, some of these people seemed to believe in conscious eternal torment, but many of them actually seem to teach the doctrine of conditional immortality from their statements above, which is what I believe.  You seem to just be assuming that just because many of these people used the term "unquenchable fire" and "everlasting fire" that they understand those terms the same way that you do, but that just isn't the case. They were simply quoting the scriptures regarding what the Bible teaches about the coming judgment.  Most of these people didn't even explain what the terms "unquenchable fire" and "everlasting fire" mean to them.  Most of these statements are pretty vague concerning the duration of the conscious punishment that the unsaved will receive, and some of them contain language that goes along with my point of view.  For example, I would submit that the following quotes go along with my view of conditional immortality.

“[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. *Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality*; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons” (ibid., 52).

“Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. . . . [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. *To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works*, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . . For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire."

And Ignatius of Antioch was known as an annihilationist.  He believed in conditional immortality.  Just because he used the term "unquenchable fire" doesn't mean that he understood that word the same way that most Christians today do.  I already proved earlier in this thread that "unquenchable fire" doesn't refer to a fire that never goes out.

----------


## TER

> Most of these people didn't even explain what the terms "unquenchable fire" and "everlasting fire" mean to them.


They didn't need to, as it was understood for what it says.  

But anyway, I don't want to debate this anymore tonight.  It really plays such a small role in our lives here on earth that it really just serves as a distraction in my opinion.  I leave the state of the damned in the wisdom and judgment of God, and pray continuously that He might have mercy on me, the sinner.

----------


## Brett85

> They didn't need to, as it was understood for what it says.  
> 
> But anyway, I don't want to debate this anymore tonight.  It really plays such a small role in our lives here on earth that it really just serves as a distraction in my opinion.  I leave the state of the damned in the wisdom and judgment of God, and pray continuously that He might have mercy on me, the sinner.


Ok, but please see post #50.

----------


## TER

> Ok, but please see post #50.


I read the post earlier today, and it is an attempt at proof texting and making associations which look reasonable, but involve distorting the older patristic understanding of the words and verses.  While it is indeed a great attempt at justifying the belief, it most certainly would not constitute as definitive proof that annihilationism is correct and the orthodox understanding is false.

----------


## Brett85

> I read the post earlier today, and it is an attempt at proof texting and making associations which look reasonable, but involve distorting the older patristic understanding of the words and verses.


Well, my authority is the word of God and not the words of men.  But to each his own.




> While it is indeed a great attempt at justifying the belief, it most certainly would not constitute as definitive proof that annihilationism is correct and the orthodox understanding is false.


It's not definite proof that annihilationism is correct, but it's at least definite proof that the doctrine of eternal torment isn't proven by the use of terms like "unquenchable fire."

----------


## TER

> Well, my authority is the word of God and not the words of men.  But to each his own.
> 
> It's not definite proof that annihilationism is correct, but it's at least definite proof that the doctrine of eternal torment isn't proven by the use of terms like "unquenchable fire."


Thank you for the discussion.  We will agree to disagree!

----------


## Kevin007

> You haven't provided any "Biblical guidance" on this issue.  You haven't presented a single verse.  You just decided to attack me and the people in the video that I posted.  You aren't willing to have an actual debate on this issue by going through different verses, because there's very little if any Biblical evidence for the *eternal torment doctrine*.


When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats .... And these shall go away into *everlasting punishment*; but the righteous into life eternal (Matthew 25:31-46).

----------


## Kevin007

> Well, my authority is the word of God and not the words of men.  But to each his own.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not definite proof that annihilationism is correct, but it's at least definite proof that the doctrine of eternal torment isn't proven by the use of terms like "unquenchable fire."


 If we are not to believe that the punishment in hell will be everlasting, why should we believe that the joy of heaven will be everlasting?

----------


## Brett85

> If we are not to believe that the punishment in hell will be everlasting, why should we believe that the joy of heaven will be everlasting?


First, you have to understand that the word that Christ always referred to to describe the final punishment of unbelievers is Gehenna, not hell.  "Hell" is simply a word created by English translators to describe Gehenna.  God didn't create hell.  English translators did.  Gehenna was a place located outside of Jerusalem in the Old Testament times where dead bodies were dumped and burned.  It was known as a place of complete destruction.  Thus, when Christ consistently referred to Gehenna as the final punishment faced by unbelievers, he was painting a picture in the minds of those he was speaking to of death and complete destruction.

I don't deny the concept of eternal punishment.  I believe that the unsaved will experience eternal punishment.  But, I just describe it as being eternal capital punishment.  When someone gets convicted of murder and receives the death penalty, we don't measure the punishment that that person receives by the one or two minutes that it takes for him to die through a lethal injection.  We measure the punishment that he receives by the fact that that person is deprived of life on earth forever.  The punishment is final and lasts forever; that person will never again live on this earth.  Our society also considers the death penalty to be the worst penalty possible.  So basically, I do believe in eternal punishment, but just not eternal conscious punishment.  The Bible never uses the term eternal conscious punishment, or eternal conscious torment.  Those terms simply don't appear anywhere in the Bible.

----------


## Brett85

> When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats .... And these shall go away into *everlasting punishment*; but the righteous into life eternal (Matthew 25:31-46).


I do believe that Matthew 25:46 is probably the best verse that those who believe in eternal torment have for their doctrine.  Still, I don't believe that it proves eternal torment.  I don't believe that it has to be interpreted in the way that most Christians have traditionally interpreted it.  See my response in the post above this one for my answer on this.  I can go more in depth on this verse some other time if you would like.

----------


## Kevin007

> First, you have to understand that the word that Christ always referred to to describe the final punishment of unbelievers is Gehenna, not hell.  "Hell" is simply a word created by English translators to describe Gehenna.  God didn't create hell.  English translators did.  Gehenna was a place located outside of Jerusalem in the Old Testament times where dead bodies were dumped and burned.  It was known as a place of complete destruction.  Thus, when Christ consistently referred to Gehenna as the final punishment faced by unbelievers, he was painting a picture in the minds of those he was speaking to of death and complete destruction.
> 
> I don't deny the concept of eternal punishment.  I believe that the unsaved will experience eternal punishment.  But, I just describe it as being eternal capital punishment.  When someone gets convicted of murder and receives the death penalty, we don't measure the punishment that that person receives by the one or two minutes that it takes for him to die through a lethal injection.  We measure the punishment that he receives by the fact that that person is deprived of life on earth forever.  The punishment is final and lasts forever; that person will never again live on this earth.  Our society also considers the death penalty to be the worst penalty possible.  So basically, I do believe in eternal punishment, but just not eternal conscious punishment.  The Bible never uses the term eternal conscious punishment, or eternal conscious torment.  Those terms simply don't appear anywhere in the Bible.


terms like the trinity and catholic church don't either, non-sequitor. Where does the conscience go at death for unbeliever's?

----------


## Brett85

For a more detailed response.

http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2014/0...orment-part-1/




> Matthew 25:46 is one of the most commonly used texts to prove that hell is a place of eternal torment. The text reads, “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”1 It is this reference to “eternal punishment” that is seen as a slam dunk, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that hell is a place of eternal conscious suffering.
> 
> Of course, it proves no such thing, and this passage has come up numerous times in the Rethinking Hell universe. It came up in a response to Tom Ascol’s “4 Truths About Hell.” It is addressed by Chris Date in Episode 7 of the Rethinking Hell podcast. Chris Date also addressed some specific grammatical elements of the passage in response to the blogger Turretinfan and a follow-up response.
> 
> However, there has yet to be a single, (relatively) succinct post (or series of posts) specifically about this text that can be referred to when the question comes up about how evangelical conditionalists might address the fact that the unsaved are condemned to “eternal punishment.” My goal here is to give such a response.
> 
> 
> 
> I want to be clear; my ultimate goal is not to make an affirmative case that Matthew 25:46 is evidence for annihilationism (though I will draw attention to an oft-overlooked aspect of the passage that does weigh in our favor some). All that I am ultimately arguing is that this verse does not prove the traditional doctrine, and that annihilation is at least logically consistent with its warning of “eternal punishment.”
> ...

----------


## Kevin007

> I do believe that Matthew 25:46 is probably the best verse that those who believe in eternal torment have for their doctrine.  Still, I don't believe that it proves eternal torment.  I don't believe that it has to be interpreted in the way that most Christians have traditionally interpreted it.  See my response in the post above this one for my answer on this.  I can go more in depth on this verse some other time if you would like.


TC I respect your opinion and take on it, I really do; I just think it is incorrect, when looking at the whole of Scripture.

----------


## Brett85

> terms like the trinity and catholic church don't either, non-sequitor. Where does the conscience go at death for unbeliever's?


I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "conscience."  I do know that Jesus taught that God can destroy both body and soul in hell.  (Gehenna)

Matthew 10:28

Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

----------


## Kevin007

if Believer's are conscience in eternity, unbeliever's will be also.

----------


## Kevin007

> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "conscience."  I do know that Jesus taught that God can destroy both *body and soul in hell.*  (Gehenna)
> 
> Matthew 10:28
> 
> Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


but that verse does not say He destroys the SPIRIT.

----------


## Brett85

> TC I respect your opinion and take on it, I really do; I just think it is incorrect, when looking at the whole of Scripture.


Thanks.  You can see what you think of the explanation of Matthew 25:46 above.  Here is part 2 as well.

http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2014/0...orment-part-2/




> To recap, in Part 1, I gave an explanation for how Matthew 25:46 and “eternal punishment” is consistent with annihilationism. Here in Part 2, I will show why some of the rebuttals to what I put forth in Part 1 are insufficient to show that Matthew 25:46 proves eternal torment. I will also address an alternative conditionalist interpretation, one that I don’t hold but that is stronger than traditionalists usually give it credit for.
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE: One might see the traditionalist rebuttals below and find them lacking. I am not trying to knock down strawman arguments or anything like that. Simply put, despite having read far more about hell than your typical Bible student, I haven’t really come across anything better. That may sound harsh, but it is what it is. In a lot of traditionalist works, there isn’t anything put forth that my arguments in Part 1 do not already address (e.g. the traditionalist argument that “eternal” means eternal, which I already grant). A few have gone more in-depth, and that is what I am addressing below.1
> 
> Playing it By the Numbers
> 
> In Part 1, I gave several examples where nouns of action are qualified as eternal (just like “eternal punishment”), examples where what is eternal is the result of the act, not the perpetuation of the act itself. But one may ask, how common of a phenomenon is this? Are my examples a small handful out of hundreds? Or, are most or all of such instances like those in Part 1?
> ...

----------


## Brett85

> if Believer's are conscience in eternity, unbeliever's will be also.


Oh, I see what you mean.  "Conscious" is the word you're looking for.  Well, the Bible makes it clear that believers will be conscious in heaven for all eternity.  Jesus used the language that those who trust in him will "never die."  Another passage says that those who accept Christ will "gain immortality."  However, there are countless verses which make it clear that the unsaved won't be conscious throughout all eternity.  I can't go through all of them, but this is one of the most explicit.

Malachi 4:1-3

Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer *will be stubble*, and the day that is coming *will burn them up*,” says the Lord Almighty. “*Not a root or a branch* will be left to them.  But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves.  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.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I must say with a heavy heart that I'm very disappointed in most of the responses from Sola and Nang today, which makes me sad because I completely agree with both of them on the eternal torment issue, and I can at least see the argument that those who believe in it are not Christians (Per Romans 10:3-4, I could make a case that the annihilationist is "ignorant of God's righteousness" and I am not certain that this is not so) but I cannot comprehend the shortness of responses and insults in this thread.  Its one thing to insult someone who continually  falls back on the same tired argument after clearly being refuted (which is how I feel in some of my arguments with Catholics and Arminians here, which may be a sign that I should stop) but so far TC has not really been exhaustively refuted on this.  So, we should either debate him scripturally, or we should ignore him.  But to post these short responses that are basically insulting just doesn't seem right to me.  And again, I don't agree with TC on this issue.

I'm definitely sad.  Nang, I'll be PMing you later because I want to discuss this with you.  I know Sola's PM box has been full since I've joined this forum 




> Stay away from Phil Johnson.   Also, stay away from annihilationism.


Unfortunately, I think Phil *Fernandes* does a poor job in this debate, and Chris Date does far better.  I think think Chris Date is wrong.  I just don't think he had a solid opponent.  I wish James White would take him on on this, as I'm confident that it would be a good debate (Disclaimer: I've only watched the first 57 or so minutes as of right now, so maybe Phil gets better.

As for Phil Johnson, he is not an annihilationist OR an Arminian.  Although the OTCers would call him a "hypo-Calvinist."  Anyways, I actually like most of his stuff that I've read.  James White is friends with him as well, so I'm surprised Sola dislikes him as much as he does, but then, I guess I shouldn't be that surprised.




> And who is Phil Johnson?


Type "Pyromanics Blog" in your google search engine, or "Spurgeon.org" and you should be able to find him.  If not I can give you a link.




> He is a webmaster for John MacArthur, a snob, and a pretend theologian, who my husband and I had to threaten to sue a few years ago for slander.
> 
> He and the MacArthur foundation quickly backed down . . .


I am VERY opposed to suing ANYONE for "slander" for any reason, even if your accusation is true.  I'm kind of surprised Sola didn't say something about that (I guess he's really tired of debating politics) Here's a good article on the topic (not a blanket endorsement of Block): http://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/12/w...sue-for-libel/

All that said, I don't know what Johnson did, but I actually like most of what he says.  I think he paints the "hyper-calvinist" category too broad (I don't think A.W. Pink, Gordon Clark, or John Robbins belong there from what I've seen, or anyone else who does not deny either the general gospel call or the duty of all sinners to repent... MAYBE also those who believe God is the "author of sin") but otherwise I like most of what he says.




> No Christian is open to annihilationism.


OK, you now have the burden of proof to A: Prove annihilationism false (which should be easy, but for some reason you seem uninterested in actually doing it, at least up to this point) and B: Prove annihilationism is a damnable heresy (Which you may be able to do, but I doubt it.)  Also, keep in mind that TC's version of annihilationism is different than the JW version (which I don't think any Christian could ever believe) in that TC's version does not deny that the unsaved will be resurrected and then tormented in the lake of fire.




> And I just asked you if you were open minded enough to watch the debate, not if you were open minded to accept annihilationism.  But you're obviously not even open minded or objective enough to even hear an opposing point of view on the issue.


Yeah, I'm disappointed.  I was hoping Sola would watch it and critique it.  But I guess not.  Admittedly, Date's opponent is kind of weak so far (hence why I said I'll be watching James White's debate for balance) but watching this debate at least helped me see where you guys get it from, even if I still don't REALLY see it if you know what I mean




> I would not, if you paid me.
> 
> I have been around the block TC, and have had years of experience with a lot of these internet people.  I would never say to stay away from a person, (as I do here) unless I already had first-hand experience with them and truly felt them to be a danger to the flock of Christ.
> 
> You show very little respect for S-F and myself, treating us as if we do not know of what we speak.
> 
> Too bad, but maybe others will be warned.
> 
> And annihilation is a lie straight from the devil's mouth . . . you should repent of such a belief.


Well, you and Sola wrongly thought this thread was about Phil *Johnson.*  As for annihilationism, I think you guys should debate this with TC, for the sake of those who don't know enough about the issue (Such as myself) if for no other reason.



> Annihilationism is from Hell.  It is actually a variation of Arminianism...that God loves people so much that He wouldn't torment them for eternity.  Everything is connected theologically.


I do see the connection you're getting at, but Chris Date doesn't really do that, and I haven't seen TC do that.  I've seen some awful (no offense intended TC) arguments based on emotion for Arminianism from TC, but his annihilation arguments really haven't been.  So, you're kind of slandering Chris Date here (Who I do not agree with) without actually hearing how he defends his view.  In fact, Chris Date explicitly defends the idea that God has the right to torment sinners for all eternity in the debate.




> No loss to me . . . you have proven to be unteachable anyway.
> 
> It is your loss for having itching ears that only want to listen to _false_ teachers.


I agree that both Chris Date (annihilationist) and Phil Fernandes (Arminian) are false teachers in at least some sense.  I wouldn't sit under either one as a pastor.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to them and provide logical refutations to their ideas.




> Absolutely.   It is the itching ears that attach to every new wind and wave of doctrine.


To be clear, I want to know more about this issue but I completely reject annihilationism.  You have to interpret the less clear scriptures (Such as vague references to "death" or "perish") in the light of more clear scriptures that discuss eternal torment.  But I'm not sure I can say that someone couldn't come across Romans 6:23 and come to the conclusion that the punishment for sin is physical death, not immediately search deeper, and still be regenerate.  If you do not believe this is the case, you're going to need to come up with something better than what you're doing.



> I am not a Calvinist, and I am not arrogant.  I simply have no tolerance for lying and deception.  You do not have to listen to me, but I beg you to stop listening to every fool that shows up on the internet, and go into your closet, and read only the Word of God, and no other.


As your brother in Christ, I felt like what you said came across as arrogant.  But I know everyone thinks that about me too.  The primary reason I think that in this case is that every proof text for Arminianism and Romanism has been addressed multiple times on this forum, while this issue has not really been addressed.  That said I'm far younger than you and probably have no real right to criticize you, so I would simply ask you to ask God whether I'm right about this or not.




> Is everyone else reading this thread to see how ridiculous these responses are?  Whether you agree with my position on this issue or not, there's no reason why we can't have an honest and civil debate over this issue.  It just amazes me to reread that and see all the extreme hate coming from people who call themselves Christians.


I feel fairly confident that both SF and Nang are Christians, but yes, I was disappointed.



> ....


Yes, I agree.



> I suppose you think that this verse teaches eternal conscious torment simply because it uses the term "unquenchable fire" and "worm dieth not."  I've proven before that the term "unquenchable fire" doesn't refer to a fire that never goes out, but simply a fire that can't be quenched by human beings before it accomplishes its intended purpose, which is to consume and destroy everything in its path.  This is clear when you look at how the term "unquenchable fire" is used elsewhere in the Bible.  
> 
> Jeremiah 17:27
> 
>  "But if you do not listen to Me to keep the sabbath day holy by not carrying a load and coming in through the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates and it will devour the palaces of Jerusalem and *not be quenched.*"
> 
>  Ezekiel 20:47
> 
>  "And say to the forest of the Negev, 'Hear the word of the LORD: thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am about to kindle a fire in you, and it will consume every green tree in you, as well as every dry tree; the blazing flame *will not be quenched* and the whole surface from south to north will be burned by it."
> ...


I'd hold that Isaiah 66 is saying that though they have physically died, their souls do not die, they continue to be tormented forever and ever.  So I think the verse in question is teaching that Hell lasts forever.  




> This verse is describing something that happens to those who worship the beast and his image during the tribulation.  It has absolutely nothing to do with final punishment in the lake of fire.  This verse is in Revelation 14, and the lake of fire isn't even mentioned until Revelation 19.  What this verse is describing is simply the seven bowls of God's wrath that are described in Revelation 16.  The first bowl of God's wrath was poured out on those who received the mark of the beast and worshipped his image, and sores broke out all over them.  Then the fourth bowl also describes those who received the mark of the beast as experiencing scorching heat from the sun, which caused them even more pain and torment.  It goes on to say that that these people cursed God because of the pains and the sores they have.  (John writes all this in the past tense, even though it's a future event)  All of this makes it clear that the meaning of "no rest day in night" in Revelation 14:11 is referring to those who worshipped the beast and his image as not being able to rest day and night during the tribulation because of the extreme torment they were experiencing during the tribulation.  It's clear that Revelation 14:11 is describing the plagues that those who worship the beast will experience here on earth during the tribulation.  This isn't even a verse that those who believe in eternal torment should bring up to prove their doctrine, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the final punishment in the lake of fire.
> 
> Revelation 16:2
> 
> "The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly, festering sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image."
> 
> Revelation 16: 8-11
> 
> "The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire.  They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him."
> ...


Its one thing to say that just the smoke goes up forever and ever.  Its at another level to say that the smoke of their TORMENT goes up forever and ever, which is what Revelation says.  This clearly implies to me that the suffering lasts forever unless you view it as purely poetic, which doesn't seem plausible to me.




> I see that Sola Fide has abandoned this thread, as he always does when this issue comes up.  All he does is throw around a bunch of personal attacks and insults, cites one or two verses that he thinks proves his point of view, and then runs away and hides without defending his verses and addressing the verses that I bring up.  It should be obvious to any objective person *who is actually presenting what the Bible really says about this subje*ct.



I still say Sola, but I wish he'd put a little more effort into it.  



> Abandon?  TC, I have about as much interest in debating this issue as I have in debating about politics right now.  You're right...I am not engaged at all in this.  No Christian believes annihilationism, no Christian ever has believed annihilationism...this is a belief of cults....it is an extension of Arminianism...it's not Biblical, etc.
> 
> _The true error of annihilationism is that it is a form of works righteousness_. *It says a person who has suffered an appropriate amount of time would then be delivered from that suffering because of his punishment. In other words, after the person has suffered enough, he has EARNED deliverance from the punishment from God. Annihilation is being delivered from the suffering.*


Not really.  I actually watched the first 57 minutes of the debate, and Chris Date SPECIFICALLY rejects the idea that God would be UNJUST to send anyone to Hell to suffer for all eternity.  So, while I'd agree that most annihilationists fall into the camp you describe, and are thus not saved, I don't think Chris Date and TC fall into the camp you describe (At least not on this issue, I'm not necessarily saying TC is saved or that Arminians can be saved, and don't want to debate that now.)  This is kind of a strawman.  





> I don't care what a person calls themselves.  There are plenty of "Calvinists" out there who are not Biblical at all, this person being one of them.    Annihilationism is a form of works righteousness.*  It says that a person's punishment for a time can satisfy the wrath of God..*.and that is a lie.


Chris Date does not say this.  Please watch some of the debate before making comments where you quite frankly (I know I'm going to tick you and Nang off here, but I watched the first 57 minutes and so I know I'm right about this) have no clue what you're talking about.  Chris Date does not make the claim that you are putt




> A couple of ways: 
> 
> 1. Arminianism teaches universal love.


Depending on how you define "eternal love" ;so does James White.  Yet affirms eternal torment.  Mark Mcculley and David Bishop, on the other hand, teach that God only hates the non-elect and that annihilationism is nonetheless true.  So, while I do see a possible connection here, there's not a direct correlation.




> This naturally leads to annihilationism.  Since God loves the reprobate, He would not have them suffer an eternity in Hell but just puts them into nonexistence after they die.


Or God could nonetheless cause the non-elect, who he loves in a different way than he loves the elect, to suffer in Hell for all eternity because Christ did not represent them, because God is a just God.  Admittedly, I only think this view would be consistent with an infralapsarian view of the decrees, not a supralapsarian view.



> 2. Arminians affirm works righteousness, which naturally cooperates with annihilationism. In other words, after the person has suffered enough, he has EARNED deliverance from the punishment from God. Annihilation is being delivered from the suffering.


Again, many annihilationists believe this, but Chris Date specifically says he doesn't.




> There are many "Calvinists" who believe in universal love and works righteousness, which leads to many things, including annihilationism.  There are all kinds of inconsistent people calling them Calvinists today.  This is the problem with this Van Tillian "neo-Calvinism" that is so popular today...it leads to all kinds of heresies because it doesn't rest on Scripturalism.


I don't know much about Van Til and I don't know of any Calvinists who believe in works righteousness (note that I am not denying such people exist) but most Calvinists believe in SOME FORM of universal love.  They do not believe, however, that God loves the reprobate the same way Helove the elect.




> Whatever.  This guy is a true five point Calvinist.  *He doesn't even believe in Common Grace.*


Did you check this at all?  Or are you just assuming based on the 5-point Calvinism.  Most 5-pointers still believe in common grace.  Some don't, but most do.





> I probably won't post about this issue very often, because it's usually like 1 vs. 10 when we debate this.  Lol.  I'm pretty much the only one who believes in this doctrine.  Jmdrake and Gunny Freedom believe in this doctrine as well, but Jmdrake hasn't posted for quite a while, and Gunny Freedom doesn't post in the Religion Forum all that often.


Are you sure Gunny accepts it?  Has he ever really addressed this?

----------


## Kevin007

I think it is hard for us to understand that a Holy, yet merciful God would continually punish a person for eternity. I still try and wrap my mind around it, but I believe that unbelievers will be punished in varying degrees. I do not believe that punishment just all of a sudden stops after a certain amount of time though.

----------


## Kevin007

> Oh, I see what you mean. * "Conscious"* is the word you're looking for.  Well, the Bible makes it clear that believers will be conscious in heaven for all eternity.  Jesus used the language that those who trust in him will "never die."  Another passage says that those who accept Christ will "gain immortality."  However, there are countless verses which make it clear that the unsaved won't be conscious throughout all eternity.  I can't go through all of them, but this is one of the most explicit.
> 
> Malachi 4:1-3
> 
> Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer *will be stubble*, and the day that is coming *will burn them up*,” says the Lord Almighty. “*Not a root or a branch* will be left to them.  But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves.  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.



lol, just saw that.

----------


## Brett85

> I think it is hard for us to understand that a Holy, yet merciful God would continually punish a person for eternity. I still try and wrap my mind around it, but I believe that unbelievers will be punished in varying degrees. I do not believe that punishment just all of a sudden stops after a certain amount of time though.


Could you explain how you interpret the verse that I just cited in Malachi 4:1-3?

----------


## Brett85

> I do not believe that punishment just all of a sudden stops after a certain amount of time though.


Neither do I.  I just don't believe that the word "punishment" has to be limited in the way that you're limiting it.  You don't have to be conscious to experience a punishment.  Just look at someone who died due to lethal injection.  The punishment that person received is still ongoing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I still think if you argue that "eternal punishment" can be done in a finite period of time, "eternal life" can too.  That's my biggest issue with TC's view on this.  The fact that I feel it undermines the seriousness of sin in the sight of a Holy God is the second biggest problem.  I do think Sola's TurretnFan link kind of shreds Chris' argument as well.

Admittedly, I'm flabbergasted that Sola will flat out tell people to "stay away" from Phil Johnson but he won't do the same thing to Marc Carpenter.  I'm generally more on the "doctrine over civility" side of things, but Phil is mostly doctrinally accurate anyway, and I see Carpenter as probably being the best way to encourage an atheist to stay away from Christianity entirely.  Inconsistency, oh well, I guess we all fall to it sometimes

----------


## TER

> I think it is hard for us to understand that a Holy, yet merciful God would continually punish a person for eternity. I still try and wrap my mind around it, but I believe that unbelievers will be punished in varying degrees. I do not believe that punishment just all of a sudden stops after a certain amount of time though.


Their unending torment will be the eternal presence of God before them.  It will be the response the person has before God in all His glory.  To those who love Him and have conformed themselves to Him (to the best of their abilities), He will be light, illuminating the soul.  To those who do not love Him and have spent a life rejecting Him and avoiding Him, this _same_ light will be as a blinding and scorching fire, burning them.  Thus, our spiritual state will determine how we accept God's _love_ at that moment, and will play a role in the judgement we will receive.

----------


## Brett85

@Freedom Fanatic-Yes, Gunny agrees with me on this but just don't comment on these threads very often.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...f-annihilation

"This has always been my scripturally-derived view which I picked up from reading the Bible alone, and not from any 3rd party source. I think the confusion comes from the differences between a temporal paradigm and an eternal paradigm. Something can happen once in a single moment in temporality, and yet be a fixed and enduring point in the realm of eternity. A soul that knows only temporality is destroyed, and yet the shame of the destruction hangs around forever. In fact, I think the same basic principle applies to the refinement of the saved as they are transfigured. In a moment the horrible parts are burned away leaving only the glory created in us by God as we are transfigured, only there is no shame to hang out forever because we go on to glory, it becomes a point of joy.

 So while I am not quite in perfect accord with what you have described here, it's certainly a lot closer to what I believe than the bulk of mainstream Christianity who derives their understanding of hell from Dante, an author of fiction. I really didn't have doctrines to unlearn, nor was I evangelized with the doctrine of annihilation, this is just the conclusion I reached by myself reading the scriptures.

 I suppose it doesn't hurt that I am Hebrew Roots, and my understanding of 'hell' is nearly a perfect match for the Jewish concept of 'hell,' which like they I derived from studying the Tanakh."

----------


## Brett85

> I still think if you argue that "eternal punishment" can be done in a finite period of time, "eternal life" can too.  That's my biggest issue with TC's view on this.  The fact that I feel it undermines the seriousness of sin in the sight of a Holy God is the second biggest problem.  I do think Sola's TurretnFan link kind of shreds Chris' argument as well.


I don't claim that the punishment ever ends.  I believe in eternal punishment.  I just don't believe that punishment has to be defined as torment.

----------


## Kevin007

> Could you explain how you interpret the verse that I just cited in Malachi 4:1-3?


sure.... this is talking about the Day of the Lord.

----------


## Kevin007

> Neither do I.  I just don't believe that the word "punishment" has to be limited in the way that you're limiting it.  You don't have to be conscious to experience a punishment.  Just look at someone who died due to lethal injection.  The punishment that person received is still ongoing.


you just proved my point otherwise if I take your position, that person feels and knows nothing. That person, might RIGHT NOW be "asleep", but after the 1,000 years and that unbeliever is judged at the Great White Throne and thrown into the L.O.F., he will FEEL the eternal pain and punishment in the flames.

----------


## Brett85

> The fact that I feel it undermines the seriousness of sin in the sight of a Holy God is the second biggest problem.


I just understand that the Bible always describes the penalty for sin as being death, not torment.

Genesis 2:17

"But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it *you will surely die.*"

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is *death*, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Revelation 21:8

But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is *the second death.*"

----------


## Anti Federalist

Hmmmm...

I'll step back outside now.

----------


## Anti Federalist

////

----------


## Brett85

> you just proved my point otherwise if I take your position, that person feels and knows nothing. That person, might RIGHT NOW be "asleep", but after the 1,000 years and that unbeliever is judged at the Great White Throne and thrown into the L.O.F., he will FEEL the eternal pain and punishment in the flames.


Well, let me clarify what I believe.  I believe that the unsaved will be resurrected, judged by God, condemned, thrown into the lake of fire, and be destroyed and done away with for all eternity.  I think the Bible teaches that the worst sinners will also be tormented for a longer period of time and more severely before they're ultimately destroyed and done away with for all eternity.  The Bible describes the lake of fire as being a consuming fire, not a tormenting one.

Hebrews 10:26-27

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will *consume* the enemies of God.

----------


## Brett85

> sure.... this is talking about the Day of the Lord.


The day of the Lord is judgment day.

----------


## Kevin007

> The day of the Lord is judgment day.


yes-  the day of the Lord will come at the end  of history when God, with wondrous power, will punish evil and fulfill  all His promises
Read more:  http://www.gotquestions.org/day-of-t...#ixzz2xVs7nHCk

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't claim that the punishment ever ends.  I believe in eternal punishment.  I just don't believe that punishment has to be defined as torment.



So why can't "eternal life" also be defined as not being physically alive forever?

I'm not sure what form the torment is going to take.  While it could certainly be physical flame, that could also be a metaphor for the pain of eternal separation from God.  I do want to be careful not to soften it because the Bible obviously takes it seriously, but I don't know that the unsaved are going to be physically burned for all eternity, especially since they won't have bodies (God could burn a soul without it having a body, of course.)  All I know for sure is that they will spend eternity separated from God.  Whether that means physical suffering or just spiritual and emotional I don't know for sure.

But, if they will not suffer consciously, the elect need not consciously enjoy eternal life.  A one time moment of "eternal reward" would be good enough.

I also do not believe "death" in the passages in question is referring to literal death.  Its a metaphor, a contrast to "eternal life" but it doesn't mean eternal unconsciousness.

----------


## Brett85

> So why can't "eternal life" also be defined as not being physically alive forever?


Refer back to the article I posted earlier.




> However, for some, it is still not enough that “eternal” mean the same thing in “eternal life and “eternal punishment.” Some will argue that, since eternal life is an ongoing process (insofar as the saved live forever), eternal punishment must likewise be an ongoing process of punishment being inflicted. Robert Peterson at least alludes to this argument (though it is in the context of another argument)4. After all, “eternal punishment” and “eternal life” show up together, and both are eternal, so it is reasoned that they must not only both be everlasting, but they must share other similarities, such as being an act that continues for eternity.
> 
>  What of this argument? Does the fact that those with “eternal life” live forever mean that we should assume “eternal punishment” means eternal punishing?
> 
>  More than anything else, this argument fails simply because it makes too much of the seeming parallelism. What they have in common is the qualification of “eternal,” and I am already granting that both times it means the same thing. To say that these phrases have to also be the same in every other way is just a bald assumption, the kind that good theologians don’t typically make, except, so it seems, when dealing with the issue of hell.
> 
>  Between “eternal punishment” and “eternal life,” there are also noteworthy differences. For example, the two phrases are not grammatically the same. All of the examples of eternal nouns of action that I point to above are based on transitive verbs (acts that a subject does to an object). The verb “punish” is no exception (one person punishes another). In no instance in the Bible does a noun of action from a transitive verb, when qualified as “eternal,” necessarily refer to the ongoing act. The verb “live,” however, is an intransitive verb (you live; you can’t live somebody). If “life” and “punishment” are not grammatically the same, so why would we assume that they must work out exactly the same? There is also a sense in which “life” is not actually the act of living, but rather a thing (“life” is a noun) that is both the cause and the result of living,5 although that is probably going into more detail than is necessary here.
> 
>  The point is, the only things that “eternal life” and “eternal punishment” share is their duration, since they are both “eternal,”6 and that duration does nothing to refute annihilationism. Beyond the duration (which I grant is the same in both cases), there isn’t really much to go on. At least insofar as I have read, the argument just simply is assumption, assumption that since they are mentioned together, they form a parallelism that means both must not only be everlasting but also everlasting in the same way. So, all I can really say is that mere assumptions cannot disprove annihilationism. There’s no reason why they must be parallel in such a way that proves that “punishment” is meant as an eternally ongoing process.

----------


## Brett85

> I do want to be careful not to soften it because the Bible obviously takes it seriously, but I don't know that the unsaved are going to be physically burned for all eternity, especially since they won't have bodies (God could burn a soul without it having a body, of course.)


So you don't believe in the resurrection?  The Bible teaches that the bodies of every single person who ever lived will be resurrected, and everyone will face judgment by God in their resurrected physical body.

----------


## Kevin007

> So you don't believe in the resurrection?  The Bible teaches that the bodies of every single person who ever lived will be resurrected, and everyone will face judgment by God in their resurrected physical body.



Believers will already be in their GLORIFIED (perfect) body.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you don't believe in the resurrection?  The Bible teaches that the bodies of every single person who ever lived will be resurrected, and everyone will face judgment by God in their resurrected physical body.


You're right, but to my understanding, the damned aren't given a new body, whereas the saved are.  That said, I think you're right about this.  I'll look it up but I think you're right.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm not sure what form the torment is going to take.  While it could certainly be physical flame, that could also be a metaphor for the pain of eternal separation from God.


How can the unsaved be "separated from God" for all eternity when the Bible teaches that they'll be tormented in the presence of the lamb and the angels?  

Revelation 14:10

He also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone *in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't claim that the punishment ever ends.  I believe in eternal punishment.  I just don't believe that punishment has to be defined as torment.


We've already been through this. 
How do you punish someone who does not exist? You can't. You can't eternally punish someone who has no existence. Eternal punishment only works when the person is in existence.

----------


## Brett85

> You're right, but to my understanding, the damned aren't given a new body, whereas the saved are.  That said, I think you're right about this.  I'll look it up but I think you're right.


No, every single person is given a new body.  My contention is that the saved are resurrected with an immortal body that's fit for eternity, while the unsaved are resurrected with a mortal body that will perish in the lake of fire.

----------


## Brett85

> We've already been through this. 
> How do you punish someone who does not exist? You can't. You can't eternally punish someone who has no existence. Eternal punishment only works when the person is in existence.


Yes, we've been through this.  The death penalty is the worst penalty anyone in our country can face, and it's definitely called a "punishment."  The main punishment that the person getting put to death receives isn't the minute or two that it takes to end his life, but the fact that he'll be deprived of life here on earth forever.

----------


## Brett85

> Believers will already be in their GLORIFIED (perfect) body.


Yes, but only those who are saved.  The Bible never teaches that the unsaved are given an immortal "GLORIFIED" body.  Obviously, it would make no sense for the unsaved to receive such a body.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> We've already been through this. 
> How do you punish someone who does not exist? You can't. You can't eternally punish someone who has no existence. Eternal punishment only works when the person is in existence.


Doubly so when, if immorality is a "gift" for those who are in Christ, the unsaved would naturally be mortal anyway, so to destroy them would not be "eternal" punishment, because they never warranted eternal life to begin with.  Taking away that which was never deserved is not "eternal" punishment.

----------


## Brett85

> yes-  the day of the Lord will come at the end  of history when God, with wondrous power, will punish evil and fulfill  all His promises
> Read more:  http://www.gotquestions.org/day-of-t...#ixzz2xVs7nHCk


Yes, and it says that this day, judgment day, is the day that the wicked will be burned to ashes and will be no more.

----------


## Brett85

> Doubly so when, if immorality is a "gift" for those who are in Christ, the unsaved would naturally be mortal anyway, so to destroy them would not be "eternal" punishment, because they never warranted eternal life to begin with.  Taking away that which was never deserved is not "eternal" punishment.


Even if you think that, what makes you think that you can basically just ignore all of the verses I present just because of your interpretation of Matthew 25:46?  I definitely don't dodge and avoid the verses that are tough for annihilationism.  I address them all.

----------


## Brett85

For instance, address Malachi 4:1-3, or Hebrews 10:26-27.

----------


## Kevin007

> Yes, but only those who are saved.  The Bible never teaches that the unsaved are given an immortal "GLORIFIED" body.  Obviously, it would make no sense for the unsaved to receive such a body.


Obviously my point is that unbelievers will not have a glorified body, believers will.

----------


## Brett85

> Obviously my point is that unbelievers will not have a glorified body, believers will.


Then how can unbelievers survive in the lake of fire for all eternity if they won't have a glorified, immortal body?

----------


## Brett85

As to whether the Greek word "aion" always means "eternal" or "forever," was Jonah in the belly of the whale "forever?"

Jonah 2:6

To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in *forever.* But you, LORD my God, brought my life up from the pit.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Even if you think that, what makes you think that you can basically just ignore all of the verses I present just because of your interpretation of Matthew 25:46?  I definitely don't dodge and avoid the verses that are tough for annihilationism.  I address them all.


I'm going to be honest, I really don't know how to.  I haven't studied this much.  Eternal torment was kind of always a "given", whereas I started out Arminian hence why I know more about the Arminian/Calvinist debate.  Which is why I was hoping Sola or Nang would actually respond rather than just attacking you, because I do not know the answers.

Maybe erowe1 will pop in...

----------


## Paladjinn

> Let's try to infuse a little manmade science with regard to scripture here regarding "fire and brimstone".
> [...]
> Revelation 14:10 
> [...]
> Brimstone we know is simply "sulfur". So why does God use sulfer and fire together to accomplish this task? I had to look up "sulfer" and see what science then claims it actually consists of here:
> [...]
> My question is then---can sulfur/brimstone be burned away to ashes, or does sulfur/brimstone continue to burn forever?


Sulfur burns to a horrifically stinky (stinging) gas, sulfur dioxide -- less than ashes. When it touches water (including the water in the body) it turns into sulfuric acid, in the process producing heat and pulling more water from anywhere nearby. It very quickly becomes painful and then deadly (it's not as toxic as hydrogen sulfide, but it's bad enough). It ignites at about Fahrenheit 450, so not particularly hot.

You'll get a little closer if you look to sulfur's use in ancient cultures. Sulfur was always seen as a divine element, one untouchable by man. No surprise, since it's associated with vulcanism.

None of this matters at all, though. For a better explanation of why the Bible uses it, you might try instead looking it up in a Strong's Greek/Hebrew concordance -- some translations call it "brimstone", the old English name (because it appears naturally around the brims of volcanos, I guess). You'll find that in all of the clear passages involving sulfur, the result is always utter destruction. If you follow up on the most commonly repeated example of sulfur, you'll find Sodom and Gomorrah; an example of total destruction, and one which Jude 7 says is the example of undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. So what the eternal fire does is what the Bible says happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. Look it up -- total destruction.

You'll find the same thing for each element mentioned in Rev 14:9-11.

The cup of God's wrath poured on a nation causes most of its people to die helplessly (in some cases, it causes all to die); the cup given to an individual unmixed is unprecedented elsewhere, but should mean the same.

Being tormented with fire and sulfur is a way of dying that makes Sodom's look tame -- there's no record of the people of Sodom hurting (Lot's wife simply turned to a pile of powder/ash), but the Bible is clear that the suffering of the second death will be appropriate to the wickedness of the person.

Every vengeance in the Bible that involves smoke rising up is a vengeance of death and utter destruction. Again, do a word study -- or look up Genesis 19:28 (Sodom and Gomorrah), Exodus 19:18 (the threat of Sinai), Joshua 8:20 (Ai), Judges 20:38 (slaughter of the Benjaminites), 2Sam 22:9/Ps 18 (song of David), Isa 9:18 (Samaria's people), Isaiah 34:10 (doom of Edom), Rev 14:11 (this), Rev 19:3 (the great whore).

The three passages above that have smoke rising up forever and ever are even more clear, and are certainly related to one another: the doom of Edom, the fate of beast worshipers, and the great whore. In all three cases there is a torment (although the torment of Edom is appropriate to a land, and the torment of the great whore is credited to the beast), and the smoke rises forever and ever. Edom is marked as depopulated forever and destroyed, but then its land is resettled and its new inhabitants blessed by God. The great whore is finally destroyed and the rising smoke announces that the wedding feast of the Lamb can finally take place (note that the saints shout in joy not to see the whore in torment, but to see the smoke that announces her destruction so that they can be given to Christ). And this passage... Well, if it's not about destruction I haven't seen a single element that hints at anything else. But you know, there's more.

Here's a surprise for anyone thinking the smoke was from their torment. Look at Rev 14:9-11 in a good literal translation -- ESV or KJV will do. Notice that it's a conditional threat. If anyone does something _now_, something bad will happen in the future. But look at the smoke -- the smoke is happening _now_, in the present tense. The smoke of their torment *rises*, not will rise. This is in the Greek, too. The smoke is the wrath of God against their sin as they perform it, not merely the effects of their torment.

The same is true of the next phrase. Most Bibles translate this as "and they have no rest day or night, these worshipers of the beast..." You then read the verse assuming eternal torment has already started at that time, but you don't notice that the lack of rest is happening while they worship and while the smoke is rising, not while the torment will be applied. They are not being restless in torment; they are restless in their _worship_. They are the exact opposites of the four living creatures (day and night they do not rest from saying "Holy Holy Holy...") and their actions are described in the same Greek words ("they do not rest" and "they do not cease" are the same Greek).

There's more to be said about this passage -- it's been almost completely neglected in serious exegesis, because if you poke it the idea of eternal torment vanishes. There is no passage in the Bible that ever mentions or implies that humans will be tormented forever.

----------


## Terry1

> Sulfur burns to a horrifically stinky (stinging) gas, sulfur dioxide -- less than ashes. When it touches water (including the water in the body) it turns into sulfuric acid, in the process producing heat and pulling more water from anywhere nearby. It very quickly becomes painful and then deadly (it's not as toxic as hydrogen sulfide, but it's bad enough). It ignites at about Fahrenheit 450, so not particularly hot.
> 
> You'll get a little closer if you look to sulfur's use in ancient cultures. Sulfur was always seen as a divine element, one untouchable by man. No surprise, since it's associated with vulcanism.
> 
> None of this matters at all, though. For a better explanation of why the Bible uses it, you might try instead looking it up in a Strong's Greek/Hebrew concordance -- some translations call it "brimstone", the old English name (because it appears naturally around the brims of volcanos, I guess). You'll find that in all of the clear passages involving sulfur, the result is always utter destruction. If you follow up on the most commonly repeated example of sulfur, you'll find Sodom and Gomorrah; an example of total destruction, and one which Jude 7 says is the example of undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. So what the eternal fire does is what the Bible says happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. Look it up -- total destruction.
> 
> You'll find the same thing for each element mentioned in Rev 14:9-11.
> 
> The cup of God's wrath poured on a nation causes most of its people to die helplessly (in some cases, it causes all to die); the cup given to an individual unmixed is unprecedented elsewhere, but should mean the same.
> ...


I can certainly appreciate the time and thought you put into your post and some of it seems very worthy of consideration, although, how does one go about reconciling this scripture with what you just stated in your very last sentence here?

Revelation 20:10 
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and *shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.*

While this scripture above does seem to indicate that it is the devil, the beast and the false prophet that will be tormented day and night, it really isn't clear about the rest of hells inhabitants as in this next scripture here:

*12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
*

So if all who aren't written in the Book of Life are going to be cast into the same Lake of Fire with the devil, one could safely assume that their torment will be the same.  The Lake of Fire is one place as it's indicated and serves only one purpose.  I believe that to assume anything else would be stretching the truth a bit.

I can understand how the thought of eternal torment bothers many people.  We are not capable in these bodies that haven't been perfected yet--to perfectly understand how and why things will be the way that we see them here and now.  I'm confident that all will be made clear after our perfection, when we will fully be able to understand why God has said what He said and will do what He said He will do to those who chose not to follow Him.

----------


## Brett85

@Terry1-I'll let Paladjinn answer your statement regarding Revelation 20:10 as well, but I just have to ask, do you believe that death and hades will be tormented "day and night" forever and ever?

Revelation 20:14

Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

----------


## Terry1

> @Terry1-I'll let Paladjinn answer your statement regarding Revelation 20:10 as well, but I just have to ask, do you believe that death and hades will be tormented "day and night" forever and ever?
> 
> Revelation 20:14
> 
> Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.


I'm not sure.  I would interpret death and hell as that which is inhabited by the damned being tossed into the Lake of Fire.  How else would you see that?  Well---that's what is says--"day and night forever and ever".  If there's another way to interpret that so it reconciles with the rest of scripture, I have never seen it.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm not sure.  I would interpret death and hell as that which is inhabited by the damned being tossed into the Lake of Fire.  How else would you see that?


It's actually death and hades, not death and hell.  After all, it wouldn't make any sense for hell to get thrown into hell.  I view hades as simply being "the grave," and I view this verse as simply saying that death and the grave will be forever done away with.  Obviously an abstract concept like death and the grave can't literally be thrown into a like of fire.  So the language is simply symbolic for the idea that death and the grave will be forever done away with.  But I'm just pointing out that this verse makes it clear that not everything that's thrown into the lake of fire, either symbolically or literally, is actually going to be "tormented day and night forever and ever."  It's not possible to torment an abstract entity like death and hades.  Revelation 21:4 also makes it clear that this is the correct interpretation of this verse, that death and hades being thrown into the lake of fire is symbolic for death and hades being done away with.

Revelation 21:4

He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

----------


## Terry1

> It's actually death and hades, not death and hell.  After all, it wouldn't make any sense for hell to get thrown into hell.  I view hades as simply being "the grave," and I view this verse as simply saying that death and the grave will be forever done away with.  Obviously an abstract concept like death and the grave can't literally be thrown into a like of fire.  So the language is simply symbolic for the idea that death and the grave will be forever done away with.  But I'm just pointing out that this verse makes it clear that not everything that's thrown into the lake of fire, either symbolically or literally, is actually going to be "tormented day and night forever and ever."  It's not possible to torment an abstract entity like death and hades.  Revelation 21:4 also makes it clear that this is the correct interpretation of this verse, that death and hades being thrown into the lake of fire is symbolic for death and hades being done away with.
> 
> Revelation 21:4
> 
> He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.


Hell/Hades and the Lake of Fire are two different places though--are they not?  I take it that death, hell, the devil, beast and false prophet will all get tossed in the Lake of Fire.  This includes all those who weren't found written in the Book of Life.  I'm not 100 percent sure, but that's how it reads to me.

----------


## Brett85

> Hell/Hades and the Lake of Fire are two different places though--are they not?  I take it that death, hell, the devil, beast and false prophet will all get tossed in the Lake of Fire.  This includes all those who weren't found written in the Book of Life.  I'm not 100 percent sure, but that's how it reads to me.


No, the lake of fire is the final punishment for the unsaved, what Jesus referred to as "Gehenna."  English translators later created the word "hell" to describe "Gehenna."  (So God didn't create hell, we did)  That's why Jesus always referred to it as being "a fiery furnace."  The fact that the unsaved are thrown into the lake of fire after the resurrection and receive "the 2nd death" shows that this is the final punishment in "Gehenna" that Jesus so commonly spoke about.

----------


## Brett85

Luke 17:26-30

"And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28"It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building.  29but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30"It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Luke 17:26-30
> 
> "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28"It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building.  29but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30"It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.


This is talking about the suddenness of the judgment coming upon the earth, not its duration.

That said, to your credit, you didn't interpret this as a rapture passage.  That's a start  I can't tell you how many people completely take that verse out of context for their own pet doctrine of pretrib rapture.  Macarthur, interestingly enough, is pretrib but nonetheless interprets this verse correctly.

----------


## Brett85

> This is talking about the suddenness of the judgment coming upon the earth, not its duration.
> 
> That said, to your credit, you didn't interpret this as a rapture passage.  That's a start  I can't tell you how many people completely take that verse out of context for their own pet doctrine of pretrib rapture.  Macarthur, interestingly enough, is pretrib but nonetheless interprets this verse correctly.


Well, it's also possible that it could be referring to the rapture, but if it's not referring to the rapture then it's an even stronger verse for annihilationism.  Because if it's referring to judgment day, it's saying that it will be just the same for the ungodly on judgment day as it was when God rained down fire and brimstone on Sodom and *destroyed them all.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't think "destroyed" has to mean "absolutely annihilated."

----------


## Brett85

> I don't think "destroyed" has to mean "absolutely annihilated."


What do you think happened to the people who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah?

This verse is saying that the ungodly will be destroyed in exactly the same way that Sodom was destroyed, turned to ashes.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What do you think happened to the people who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah?
> 
> This verse is saying that the ungodly will be destroyed in exactly the same way that Sodom was destroyed, turned to ashes.


No, that's not what it says.  Re-read verse 30.

----------


## Brett85

> No, that's not what it says.  Re-read verse 30.


It says that it will be just the same on the day that the son of man is revealed as the day when the town of Sodom was destroyed.  Regardless, 2 Peter 2:6 uses the exact language of "turned to ashes," depending on what translation you look at.  Other translations are even more explicit and say "condemned to extinction."

2 Peter 2:6

NIV- "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."

English Standard Version- "If by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly."

----------


## Christian Liberty

What happens to the ungodly in a temporal sense, not an eternal sense.

----------


## Brett85

> What happens to the ungodly in a temporal sense, not an eternal sense.


No, it's talking about their eternal destiny.  You even said that Luke 17:26-30 isn't referring to the rapture but is referring to judgment day.  On judgment day the unsaved will be destroyed and turned to ashes, just like Luke 17:26-30 and 2 Peter 2:6 says.  This is also made very clear in 2 Peter 3:5-7, 10, which refers explicitly to "the day of judgment."  (Not to mention the fact that everyone is destroyed in this life, not just the ungodly)

2 Peter 3:5-7, 10

But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for *the day of judgment* and destruction of the ungodly.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

----------


## Paladjinn

> I can certainly appreciate the time and thought you put into your post and some of it seems very worthy of consideration, although, how does one go about reconciling this scripture with what you just stated in your very last sentence here?


Thank you for the thoughtful and challenging reply. I'm impressed with this forum.

Before I answer, though, let me ask -- what are the consequences if I fail? If this verse proves that the three entities live forever, will you take that to mean that all wicked humans will live forever, even though no passage in the Bible actually says that -- and on the contrary, every passage that mentions the fate of the wicked, Old and New Testament, says that they ultimately go into nothingness?

Meanwhile, what's your answer to Rev 14:9-11? Yet another passage in the Bible foretells not the eternal conscious torment of humans, but the destruction of the wicked.

OK, now on to the next passage.

Revelation 20:10, unlike Rev 14:9-11, is a vision, rather than an angelic explanation. This doesn't mean it's not real; but it does mean that it must be seen completely before interpreting; and it means that any interpretation given to it must be permitted to explain what it means, even when it might look odd. So you're exactly right when you keep reading.

"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and *shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.*"

This is the only passage in the entire canon that speaks of torment without end. It attaches that torment explicitly to the devil, the beast, and the false prophet.

The first clue to interpreting this is seen in Revelation 17:7-11. There an angel explaining John's visions to him tells John first that the beast is "going to destruction", and that a particular king who is part of the picture but isn't part of the beast is also "going to destruction". Whatever you think the beast may symbolize, whether it's a human or a kingdom or some specific group of humans, the angel says his ultimate fate is destruction. Although John sees him being tormented forever and ever, we must take the angelic interpretation as a priority over John's vision -- not to ERASE John's vision, but to warn us that his vision doesn't mean the beast isn't going to be destroyed.

What does his vision mean? Here I have to admit that I couldn't say. I have some ideas, but I don't know for sure. But then, that's actually common in Revelation -- we don't all agree precisely what it means, only generally. Let's keep foraging, because as you guessed, there's some more data ahead.




> While this scripture above does seem to indicate that it is the devil, the beast and the false prophet that will be tormented day and night, it really isn't clear about the rest of hells inhabitants as in this next scripture here:
> (reference: Rev 20:12-15)
> So if all who aren't written in the Book of Life are going to be cast into the same Lake of Fire with the devil, one could safely assume that their torment will be the same. The Lake of Fire is one place as it's indicated and serves only one purpose. I believe that to assume anything else would be stretching the truth a bit.


We've got to keep exploring the data -- you're right that if all we knew were the fates of the unholy 3 that's the most likely conclusion. As I've pointed out, though, the beast's fate isn't what you'd think it would be; rather, it's destruction. There's more, though. The first data point is to undo some of your claims above. You say the lake is "one place"; but the lake itself is mentioned only in this one book. It seems much more appropriate to say that the lake is a symbol in a vision -- and suspend judgment as to what it means, just as we suspend judgment as to what the beast's 7 heads mean.

Certainly we want to start by investigating whether the literal reading is correct, because even though that's sometimes misleading in Revelation it's also sometimes perfectly right (the Resurrection is literal, after all). The problem with the reading you introduce is that the dead are raised from death, hades, and the sea; and then death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire. What happened there? Some traditionalists claim that throwing hades into the lake is actually emptying its contents into the lake; but hades is already emptied, and anyhow, if that were the case, what about the judgment? And why isn't the sea being thrown in? It appears, therefore, that John is actually trying to describe a vision in which figures representing death and hades are thrown into the lake. And those figures _cannot_ be tormented in any literal sense.

In fact, I'd claim that the same is true of the beast (as a visionary element whose seven heads are seven mountains and seven kings) and the false prophet as well. As visionary elements representing a non-person, they cannot be literally tormented either.

Now, I have to admit that the devil *can* be tormented. Some conditionalists actually believe this is what will happen. Most conditionalists, though (including myself), use the same argument you just used: because we _know_ that some of the entities seen thrown into the lake and tormented forever and ever are actually destroyed, that ALL of the entities seen that way must also meet the same fate.

Furthermore, although we have no additional data about the ultimate fate of the false prophet, some people believe that the Bible contains mention of the ultimate fate of Satan. If Satan is the intended image or the ultimate fulfillment of the "king of Tyre" in Ezekiel 28:12-19, then it's foretelling that Satan will "be turned to ashes" by fire "from [his] midst" and "cease to exist forever." There's some disagreement there, of course, but many people think that is about Satan -- and most of them are not conditionalists.

But there's more data. You quoted the "second death" line of Rev 20:14, but it's grammatically ambiguous what the author is saying. Revelation 21:8 is unambiguous: the lake that burns with fire and sulfur IS the second death. Traditionalists reflexively have taken that to mean "we can use the words 'second death' when we actually means 'thrown into the lake of fire'", but that sentence is an interpretation, not a renaming. The lake of fire IS the second death -- it's a death that comes secondly. It's like the first death in some ways, enough so that it can be simply referred to as "death", but distinct enough that we have to remember that it's actually not identical to the first. This means that when we see someone thrown into the lake of fire in this vision, we should think "this means that they're dead in the second way." The traditionalist interpretation of this is precisely backward! Now, in order for this to be an _interpretation_, the meaning of the interpretation should be clearer and simpler than the symbol. The symbol is being "thrown into a lake burning with fire and sulfur"; the interpretation is "the second death".

And finally, I'd like to _briefly_ point out the consistent meaning of fire mixed with sulfur -- elsewhere in the Scripture it always results in destruction, so it seems unlikely to change in meaning in such a highly symbolic book that draws so heavily on other books.

OK, now we've gone through the "big two" verses that traditionalist MUST think define eternal torment. NO other passages in the Bible hint at anything like this; the only other passage that reliably gets cited by traditionalists is Matthew 25's sheep and goats judgment, and a quick reading will show you that it doesn't say a word about torment or consciousness. Anything else you'd like to point out?

Or shall I begin making a positive case?




> I can understand how the thought of eternal torment bothers many people.


Doesn't bother me, and hasn't ever. But that's a red herring. The problem I have with the doctrine isn't that it's bothersome; it's that (I claim) it's unbiblical.

----------


## Paladjinn

> I don't think "destroyed" has to mean "absolutely annihilated."


Of course it doesn't. It just has to mean "destroyed", "reduced to ashes", "killed", "become as though they had not been", "be forgotten as a dream when one awakes", and many other expressions the Bible uses of the wicked.

-Wm

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Of course it doesn't. It just has to mean "destroyed", "reduced to ashes", "killed", "become as though they had not been", "be forgotten as a dream when one awakes", and many other expressions the Bible uses of the wicked.
> 
> -Wm


Or "killed" in the metaphorical sense of "being tormented day and night forever and ever and ever."

----------


## Brett85

> Or "killed" in the metaphorical sense of "being tormented day and night forever and ever and ever."


But the book of Revelation is a metaphorical book, a book that uses signs and symbols rather than a completely literal interpretation.  So why do you claim that a word like "kill" has to be interpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what the word is known to mean? Why does it have to be interpreted that way when the book of Revelation itself is the most symbolic, metaphorical book in the entire Bible?  

We've already pointed out why it's obvious that Revelation 20:10 can't be interpreted literally; because the beast and the false prophet are symbolic of groups such as a world government and aren't individuals and thus can't be tormented eternally; they can't be tormented "day and night" since Revelation 21:4 says night will be done away with; and Ezekiel 28 contains the passage which states that Satan will be turned to ashes, and Daniel 7 contains the passage which states that the beast will be thrown into the fire and destroyed.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Its not just Revelation.  There's also Isaiah 66 and the Matthew verse (I think it was 25:46.)  I'm aware you guys have interpretations to those verses but its not like its just that one verse.

I don't think its a stretch to say "day and night" is an expression, but as for the beast and false prophet, I'm not necessarily *convinced* that these aren't specific individuals.  They might not be, but I'm not sure.

----------


## Brett85

> Its not just Revelation.  There's also Isaiah 66 and the Matthew verse (I think it was 25:46.)  I'm aware you guys have interpretations to those verses but its not like its just that one verse.


Isaiah 66 is one of the strongest verses for annihilationism in the Bible.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Isaiah 66 is one of the strongest verses for annihilationism in the Bible.


Really?  Their worm does not die = annihilationism?

----------


## Brett85

> Really?  Their worm does not die = annihilationism?


It's a picture of complete destruction.  God is looking over the corpses of those he's slain.  So the language of "their worm does not die" is a picture of complete destruction.  Isaiah 66 refers to a picture of looking upon dead bodies and those dead bodies being an abhorrence to everyone.  It's absolutely not a picture of torment.

"And they shall go forth and look
*Upon the corpses* of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an *abhorrence to all flesh*.


The picture of worms in association with punishment is always used as a symbolism of death in the Bible.  This is another example where the symbolism of being eaten by worms is used to describe King Herod's death.

Acts 12:23

"And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died."

----------


## Nang

> It's a picture of complete destruction.  God is looking over the corpses of those he's slain.  So the language of "their worm does not die" is a picture of complete destruction.


No it is not . . . it is a description of a (resurrected) body condemned by God to everlastingly feed corruption (worms).  John 5:29





> The picture of worms in association with punishment is always used as a symbolism of death in the Bible.  This is another example where the symbolism of being eaten by worms is used to describe King Herod's death.


"Worms" feed upon "corruption."  Corruption describes death and rot.    If the worms do not cease, it means the corruption does not cease.  The death and rot is never-ending.  

If the body raised by God to be thrown into hell, ceased to exist, the worms would cease to exist . . . but they do not.  

Your quote:

*"And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
*

----------


## Brett85

> No it is not . . . it is a description of a (resurrected) body condemned by God to everlastingly feed corruption (worms).  John 5:29


Uh, it's a description of dead bodies.  A dead body can't consciously exist for all eternity.  Do you know what the definition of a *corpse* is?

----------


## Nang

> Uh, it's a description of dead bodies.  A dead body can't consciously exist for all eternity.  Do you know what the definition of a *corpse* is?



Yeah.  A corpse is what a worm disposes of . . . but the bodies of condemned men are subject to a never-ending feed by worms.

This is the "second death."

----------


## Brett85

> Yeah.  A corpse is what a worm disposes of . . . but the bodies of condemned men are subject to a never-ending feed by worms.
> 
> This is the "second death."


Yes, the passage shows that *dead* bodies will be eaten by worms.  It's not talking about worms eating the flesh of living resurrected human beings.  It specifically says *corpses,* or *dead bodies,* depending on what version you look at.  And I don't think the verse is literally saying that worms are going to eat people.  It's just symbolic for the complete and total destruction of the unsaved.  This is the second death, ceasing to be alive for all eternity.

----------


## Nang

> Yes, the passage shows that *dead* bodies will be eaten by worms.  It's not talking about worms eating the flesh of living resurrected human beings.  It specifically says *corpses,* or *dead bodies,* depending on what version you look at.  And I don't think the verse is literally saying that worms are going to eat people.  It's just symbolic for the complete and total destruction of the unsaved.  This is the second death, ceasing to be alive for all eternity.


The second death is remaining consciously corrupted and condemned for all eternity.

----------


## Brett85

> The second death is remaining consciously corrupted and condemned for all eternity.


And how exactly can a corpse/dead body be conscious for all eternity?  In order to be conscious for all eternity, you have to be alive.  This verse presents a picture of dead people/corpses, not people who are alive and suffering.

----------


## Nang

> And how exactly can a corpse/dead body be conscious for all eternity?  In order to be conscious for all eternity, you have to be alive.  This verse presents a picture of dead people/corpses, not people who are alive and suffering.


Well, that is what you are really denying . . .

You deny that the dead who are raised in the final resurrection to condemnation are raised to never-ending existence of a conscious second death.  You think their final resurrection of their bodies is to an ended existence of nothingness with no further consciousness of their sins and offenses against the Everlasting and Eternal God.

That is a cop-out and a delusion . . . for if souls deny God temporally, they will deny Him eternally.

There is no relief for their denial of Eternal God.

IOW's, the sentence must fit the crime in order for justice to be met.

----------


## Brett85

> Well, that is what you are really denying . . .
> 
> You deny that the dead who are raised in the final resurrection to condemnation are raised to never-ending existence of a conscious second death.  You think their final resurrection of their bodies is to an ended existence of nothingness with no further consciousness of their sins and offenses against the Everlasting and Eternal God.


No, that's what the verse itself denies.  I'm just quoting the verse itself which states that the resurrected bodies of the unsaved will die and become a corpse.  Nowhere in Isaiah 66 does it ever refer to the unsaved consciously existing.  It's a picture of corpses/dead bodies and the abhorrence that everyone will witness when they look at the dead bodies.

"And they shall go forth and look
Upon the *corpses* of the men
 Who have transgressed against Me"

----------


## Nang

A corpse is a dead body . . . not a dead soul.

The soul remains conscious, even in death and hades.

You are trying to sell the idea that the souls of men are like brute beasts, which do not continue to exist forever.

----------


## Brett85

> A corpse is a dead body . . . not a dead soul.
> 
> The soul remains conscious, even in death and hades.


The soul is the resurrected body.  The picture this verse paints is of the resurrected unsaved being judged by God and slain by God.  They then become a corpse; a corpse cannot consciously exist.  These people are dead, then resurrected and made alive, and then slain again by God, which is the second death, and they're done away with for all eternity.

----------


## Brett85

> You are trying to sell the idea that the souls of men are like brute beasts, which do not continue to exist forever.


Nowhere in the Bible does it ever teach that the soul is naturally immortal.  The Bible teaches the doctrine of conditional immortality, which is that the only way to gain immortality is through faith in Christ.

2 Timothy 1:10

But now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and *brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.*

----------


## Kevin007

> But the book of Revelation is a metaphorical book, a book that uses signs and symbols rather than a completely literal interpretation.  So why do you claim that a word like "kill" has to be interpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what the word is known to mean? Why does it have to be interpreted that way when the book of Revelation itself is the most symbolic, metaphorical book in the entire Bible?  
> 
> We've already pointed out why it's obvious that Revelation 20:10 can't be interpreted literally; because *the beast and the false prophet are symbolic of groups* such as a world government and aren't individuals and thus can't be tormented eternally; they can't be tormented "day and night" since Revelation 21:4 says night will be done away with; and Ezekiel 28 contains the passage which states that Satan will be turned to ashes, and Daniel 7 contains the passage which states that the beast will be thrown into the fire and destroyed.


The beast and fp are not groups. They are individuals. Satan has his "trinity" of evil, 3 persons as he tries to copy the GodHead.

----------


## Brett85

> The beast and fp are not groups. They are individuals. Satan has his "trinity" of evil, 3 persons as he tries to copy the GodHead.


So you think that the beast is a literal individual with seven heads and ten horns?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you think that the beast is a literal individual with seven heads and ten horns?


I think he believes the beast is symbolic for one particular person (the antichrist) rather than the entire world system.  I don't know if that's true or not, though.

----------


## Kevin007

> I think he believes the beast is symbolic for one particular person (the antichrist) rather than the entire world system.  I don't know if that's true or not, though.


see- we just agreed

----------


## Christian Liberty

> see- we just agreed


Well, sort of.  I don't know much about eschatology, and I'm not really sure if I agree with you or TC on that particular issue.  I just wanted to clarify that you weren't saying that the beast is a literal beast with ten heads and seven horns or anything like that.

----------


## Brett85

> I think he believes the beast is symbolic for one particular person (the antichrist) rather than the entire world system.  I don't know if that's true or not, though.





> The Two “Beasts” of Revelation 13
> 
> By Wayne Jackson 
> 
> What do the two “beasts” depicted in Revelation 13 represent? The first comes up out of the sea (v. 1). The second rises from the earth (v. 11). And what is the meaning of not being able to “buy or sell” without the “mark” of the beast (vv. 16-17)?
> 
> In his commentary, The Book of Revelation, Robert Mounce contends that these “beasts” are “two agents through whom Satan carries out his war against believers” (1998, 243). That is beyond dispute. It is the identity of those beasts that is open to some controversy.
> 
> The First Beast
> ...


https://www.christiancourier.com/art...elation-13-the

----------


## Brett85

I'm not sure if the view presented above is exactly my view, but I tend to think that the beast and false prophet are symbolic for some type of group rather than being individuals.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Hmm... that was an interesting perspective.  You're going to anger a lot of Catholics with that post

I lean toward premillennialism, though not Macarthur's version.  I am by no means certain though.

----------


## Brett85

> Hmm... that was an interesting perspective.  You're going to anger a lot of Catholics with that post
> 
> I lean toward premillennialism, though not Macarthur's version.  I am by no means certain though.


Yeah, I said that I don't necessarily hold to that view, but I at least tend to think that the beast and false prophet or symbolic for some group of people and aren't individuals.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I think there might be something to it, though partial preterism is not necessarily an exclusively Catholic doctrine, and full preterism is considered heretical virtually everywhere, and I assume by the RCC as well.

----------


## Christian Liberty

But... let's go with this... the beast is referring to the Romans who persecuted Christians, and the false prophet is referring to false, institutionalized churches that persecute Christians.  Why can't the people who did those things be tormented in Hell forever and ever?

----------


## Brett85

> But... let's go with this... the beast is referring to the Romans who persecuted Christians, and the false prophet is referring to false, institutionalized churches that persecute Christians.  Why can't the people who did those things be tormented in Hell forever and ever?


Because it's not referring to any individual people, but is basically just referring more to an abstract group.  Then to go along with that, the prophesy in Daniel is that the beast will be destroyed and done away with.  Since I don't think the beast is a literal person, I think the prophesy in Daniel is symbolic for the group that symbolizes the beast to be done away with and be no more.  Beyond that, I mentioned that they can't be tormented "day and night" forever and ever, since night will be done away with.  The Bible also describes death and hades as being thrown into the lake of fire, and obviously a concept like death and hades can't be tormented day and night forever and ever.  Beyond that, 2nd Peter 3:5-7, 10 describes the lake of fire as being on the earth, and there being a new earth after that, so it wouldn't be possible for the lake of fire to last for all eternity.

2nd Peter 3:5-7, 10

5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.  10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.

----------


## Paladjinn

> A corpse is a dead body . . . not a dead soul.
> The soul remains conscious, even in death and hades.
> You are trying to sell the idea that the souls of men are like brute beasts, which do not continue to exist forever.


No, what we're claiming is that Isaiah 66 says that corpses will lie in open sight, rotting and burning, and nobody will lift a finger to fix the problem by putting out the fire or composing the bodies respectfully. You're attempting to argue that Isa 66:24 supports your view, but you're now having to drag red herrings out to distract from the fact that Isa 66:24 doesn't say a word in favor of your view; you're trying to claim that even though those ARE corpses there's nonetheless some other way to think about things that Isa 66 _fails to mention_.

Unfortunately, in order to claim that you have to abandon this verse, and so far you don't have any verses to support your claim.

So shall we seal up this verse and move on to the next one? If so, you've just lost Isa 66:24, and ALL of Jesus' quotations of it. Just think about that -- in a couple of days you've lost Rev 14, Rev 20, and Isa 66, and all you're doing is retreating.

You sure you want to give up that easily?

If so, I'm going to ignore your philosophical move, and instead open up my first offensive. I'm going to be very predictable: I'm going to go to God's institution of life and death in Genesis 2-3, since I believe Jesus was teaching us to go to institution passages first when thinking about complex issues.

-Wm

----------


## Paladjinn

> But... let's go with this... the beast is referring to the Romans who persecuted Christians, and the false prophet is referring to false, institutionalized churches that persecute Christians.  Why can't the people who did those things be tormented in Hell forever and ever?


The beast's heads are mountains, remember? Rev 17? Are those tormented too? And the worshipers of the beasts include people who torment Christians as well, since they are described as being everyone living on Earth whose name isn't written since the foundation of the world in the book of the Lamb. How could that exclude the people who compose the institution of the beast?

The people who compose an institution need not share the same fate as the institution. When two banks merge, their individual employees don't also merge. When a foundation is dissolved the individuals don't also dissolve. When the beast representing the Roman empire in Daniel was killed and its corpse thrown into the river of fire, the angel interpreting it said it meant that the dominion of the beast was taken away -- it didn't mean that anyone, not even the emperor himself, was thrown into a river of fire.

----------

