Is hell eternal?

I have seen that approach before.

Is this the part where you quote me?

I am not aware that I ever spoke of fire as "destroyed". Even the fire in my fire place does not get "destroyed".

Well number one I congratulate you for the correct and consistent use of the word "Destroyed".

The good news is that Matt 10 uses it the same way you are using it above --

In Matt 10 Christ goes from the idea of “Kill” to the even MORE complete idea of “Kill and destroy” in the sequence above. This progression is seen clearly as Luke relates the same teaching below.

Rev 20:9 “Fire DEVOURED the wicked”
Rev 11:18 “Destroy those who Destroy the earth”
2Thess 1:9 The wicked pay the “penalty of eternal Destruction”

Ps 21:8-10 “devoured” – “Destroyed”

</font>[/QUOTE][/quote]

Well we agree on "something" at least when it comes to this topic.

That is number 2.

I have no problem with your insisting that the "destruction" of Matt 10 of BOTH Body and soul leaves some kind of nonfunctional residue plus gas.

The point is Christ claims that BOTH body AND soul are DESTROYED.

And yes - that would be 'destroyed'.

Indeed - gas and a solid that no longer function as a human being - as a human body.

Malachi 4 talks about the saint walking on the ashes of the wicked.

The destruction of BOTH the body AND soul (in the Lake of Fire - the second death - fiery hell) is as devastating and permanent to one as it is to the other.

Ahh finally you provide an actual example of "Scripture twisting"! My congratulations after saying that you were using the term without ever giving an example. The one you give above is perfect!

here is what the text "really says"

Here is your twist of it -

The rework you are proposing fails every test of exegesis. It is a pure form of the scripture twisting idea you have been talking so much about.

In Matt 10 Christ goes from the idea of “Kill” to the even MORE complete idea of “Kill and destroy” in the sequence above. This progression is seen clearly as Luke relates the same teaching below.

The same concept of Kill and “Destroy” applied in the real world to real saints really being killed by real wicked people is applied to BOTH the body and the soul in hell fire in Christ’s warning .

 

As for the "torment forever and ever" this gets back to the "Smoke ascends up forever and ever" that we saw in Isaiah 34.

Who lives in the land where none will pass through "forever and ever" where the smoke ascends up "forever"?

 

The wicked are “consumed”

Rev 20:9

Heb 10:27

Ezek 28:18

Ps 104:35

 

Who lives in the land where none will pass through "forever and ever" where the smoke ascends up "forever"? </font>[/QUOTE]I have wondered about this too. How would those who believe in eternal torment argue against a claim that this material at least sets a precedent for the use of "forever and ever" in a metaphorical sense? From the point of view of consistent argument, I do not believe that they can claim the "forever means forever" argument unless they think people still do not "pass through" Edom.

The important point being that while this material does not scuttle the eternal torment position, it would seem to deal a fatal blow to the argument that that the eternal torment position can gain its force from the "forever means forever" reasoning.

 

I reiterate...

Those who deny the existance of an eternal hell and eternal torment therein, deny the very words of Jesus Christ Himself.

An old proverb says 'He who plays with fire is going to get burnt.

 

Christ himself says

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an interesting but much needed twist of Matt 10 that might be considered by those who can not let the text speak as it does about "destroying" both body and soul in hell.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"DHK10:28 ""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 would never do such a thing. Just think about the fact that HE COULD if He really really wanted to."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hello DHK: As per a previous post, I now respond to your third point about "death means separation"

You assert that the word adjective "eternal" should qualify the word "death", but the rest of your post does not support that assertion. I re-ead all of Romans 6 and could see no particular reason to believe that Paul's references to "death" required or even suggested a "death = separation" interpretation. They seem to read sensibly with a "death = extinction" interpretation as well. To avoid hypocrisy, I will say that to claim my previous sentence as an argument, I would need to provide some non-question-begging support for it. But I have never claimed this, whereas you have claimed that "death=separation".

My point about what you are saying has more to do with "technical" matters concerning what constitutes a fair and sound argument, than with the particular subject matter.

You say "Paul speaks of eternal separation from God. That is death. Eternal death is being separated from God for all eternity in Hell (ultimately the Lake of Fire) forever and ever". However, this is merely a re-assertion of your thesis, not an argument for it. You might be right in your view, but you need to argue for it, not simply state it.

You also state "Eternal death is contrasted to eternal life." However, this claim rests critically on your inference about the "implied" qualification to death. Maybe there is such a implication, but it needs to be argued for. Even if such an argument were forthcoming, you would still need to argue for the proposition that "eternal death" is to taken to mean "eternal conscious existence" and not "good old-fashioned non-existence which lasts forever".

By the way, if one tries to argue that the contrast in the verse is more "structurally balanced" in respect to the quantity "time" if we add in "eternal" to qualify the word "death", I would agree. But this is not relevant. Many legitimate contrasts can be made that do not require such "balance". I can say "the penalty for failing my university entrance exams is 0 years of university education, while the result of passing is 4 years of education".

 

It should be stated that eastern religions that hold to re-incarnation often believe that the ultimate goal is Nirvana. If you teach such people that a refusal to accept Christ means annihilation then you simply confirm them in their error because eternal "nothingness" is what they are aiming for.

Kind regards to all.

Bob

 

Fair enough, but this is by no means an argument against the annihilationist position. To claim that it is would be like claiming that Christians should not promote the doctrine of eternal torment since followers of some religion "X" (which is not Christianity, but also has the doctrine of eternal torment) will take it as a confirmation of the correctness of religion X.

 

http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/10_3_bacchiocchi_e.htm --- Hell: Eternal torment or annihilation?

by Samuele Bacchiocchi


--------------------------------


http://www.abcog.org/nh/hellfire.htm


Muslims, Jews, Christians and others predict a burning eternal hell for the wicked. Is this what the Bible teaches?

 

And some Budhist monks light themselves on fire. That is not an argument for denying that the Lake of Fire really does burn!

The concept of "destroy" that Christ promotes in Matt 10 may indeed fit someone's broken view of "what would be good to have happen to them in hell fire once the torment ends" - but it is clear in scripture that God's "destroying both body and soul in hell fire" was not meant as a "positive".

I know of very few that would call that "a good end".

In Christ,

Bob

 

There is a lot in scripture about "being absent" and in fact "separated" that is not dead.

"The Lord be between me and thee while we are absent one from another"

Paul says "though absent in body yet present in spirit" speaking of judging in church discipline.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. I is preposterous to even think that a spirit can be annihilated. The spirit lives on forever. This is what the Bible teaches.
#2. If the spirit of man did not live on forever Christ's death would be all in vain. Why would Christ come into the world suffer the ridicule he did while alive, suffer the torment on the cross, shed his blood when he didn't have to, pay that horrible price that he did to make an atonement for our sins. Why? To keep us from the torment of everlasting punishment of Hell. The spirit would otherwise be eternally damned to Hell. He died that we might go to Heaven to live with him eternally, and contrariwise not be separated from him eternally in hell.
#3. God is a just God. By logic if there is an eternal life, there must indeed be an eternal death, that is eternal separation from God, eternal torment, eternal punishment. God is just.
#4. The whole concept of "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die," is more appealing to the natural man than Christianity, so I ask you again, Why did Christ die. It is more appealing to me to take the former philosophy in this world rather than have to face Christ at the judgement seat of Christ even as a Christian.
Paul wrote: "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men."
DHK

 

Clear question-begging - mere assertion (delivered dismissively)

This material presumes the absence of an annihilationist position for which Jesus' torment accomplishes something. Belief in time-limited punishment followed by annihilation is still something that a loving God would wish us to avoid. Under such an annihilation scenario, Jesus' death would accomplish something. This material presumes that the only human fate for which Jesus' death would accomplish anything is a fate of eternal torment

What formal system of logic demands this? Logic deals with general principles that can be abstracted from all real world circumstances (e.g. if A causes B, and B causes C, then A causes C). There is no more of a grounding of the eternal torment position in a system of logic than is there logical grounding for the position that "since there exist white marbles, there must exist black marbles".

Again, this material omits the possibility of a time-limited period of punishment followed by annihilation. Such a fate would also serve as a deterrent against the "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die" philosophy.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DHK:
#1. I is preposterous to even think that a spirit can be annihilated. The spirit lives on forever. This is what the Bible teaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Bible text that actually "said that" would have been good just then.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DHK:

#2. If the spirit of man did not live on forever Christ's death would be all in vain. Why would Christ come into the world suffer the ridicule he did while alive, suffer the torment on the cross, shed his blood when he didn't have to, pay that horrible price that he did to make an atonement for our sins. Why? To keep us from the torment of everlasting punishment of Hell. The spirit would otherwise be eternally damned to Hell. He died that we might go to Heaven to live with him eternally, and contrariwise not be separated from him eternally in hell..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argument based on the void of what scripture does not say!

In fact - based on pure speculation "alone".

In 1Cor 15 we are told that we are mortal (as if we did not know that already) and that it is only at the "First resurrection" the resurrection of the righteous taken to be in heaven with Christ - that "this mortal puts on immortality".

The idea that Christ would ONLY need to die if we were already immortal and already had no possibility of dying - is a self-conflicted statement impossible to present in a cogent argument!

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DHK:

#3. God is a just God. By logic if there is an eternal life, there must indeed be an eternal death, --------------------------------

Finally something that makes sense and we can agree with.

What does NOT make sense is the fact that by "eternal death" you REALLY mean "Eternal LIFE NEVER DYING because you CAN NOT die - staying alive and highly inconvenienced".

And "that" is why your argument is failing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DHK:

#4. The whole concept of "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die," is more appealing to the natural man than Christianity, so I ask you again, Why did Christ die. It is more appealing to me to take the former philosophy in this world rather than have to face Christ at the judgement seat of Christ even as a Christian.
Paul wrote: "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing in the quote you give - supports the argument you are trying to make.

Your argument is that NO torment is "bad" or "undesirable" if it does not continue for all of eternity applied to an IMMORTAL being.

By contrast EVEN TODAY we fully recognize gross monsterous acts of torture lasting for mere days and weeks that every human on the planet shudders to discover practiced by one human against another. NEVER are those gross crimes against humanity called "no big deal as long as it does not last for zillions of years".

Imagine a Teen in hell suffering for hundreds of years because they "Failed to accept Christ".

In Rev 14:10 we are told that you do not get to go "party" while your loved one writhes in the torment of the flames. RATHER they are tormented in the full "PRESENCE of the LAMB AND of His Holy ones"!!

Even Johnathan Edwards admits that this takes place IN the presence of the saints!!

Since you are trying to make an argument from common sense - then fine - I will join in -- How many years DID you expect to stand their while your precious child screems in agony of flames??

On BOTH the issue of common sense AND Bible support the words of Christ in MAtt 10 "DESTROY both body AND soul In hell fire" make perfect sense!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I did respond to the Eccl 12 point -

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3603/14.html#000197

Here it is again --

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Job 32:8 But [there is] a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

There is one verse that shows man does indeed have an immaterial spirit.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ec 12:7 says the spirit returns to God at death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The N.T. says there are three parts to man: spirit, soul, and body (1Th 5:23). Jesus dismissed His spirit from His body when He died on the cross (Lu 23:46). The Christian is to be holy in body and in spirit (1Co 7:34; 2Co 7:1). Death is separation of the spirit from the body (Jas 2:26).
Way of Life Encyclopedia [/QB]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed.

But notice that in Eccl 12:7 the spirit of both the wicked and the righteous "goes back to God who gave it" -- it is without qualification.

This works because of the 1Thess 4 (and 1Cor 11 and 1Cor 15 and John 11 and ...) fact that the dead are those who are "asleep" as the text in those cases points out.