Eternal torment VS Annihilation

Hello Toast and Tea We are born into a state of spiritual death, and are quickened to life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God. Those who are dead are not given life to be tortured forever after. Even at the resurrection and judgment of all, they are called the dead. They are judged under the law according to their works and then cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death, and then death itself is the last enemy to be destroyed when it too is cast into the lake of fire.

Why do people want to ascribe characteristics to God that God Himself finds abhorrent?

A good, loving, just, and merciful God is the One I know.

Wenham claims that just a single verse (Revelation 14:11) sounds like eternal torment. This is out of a total of 264 references."

What does "Wenham" say is so different between this verse ^ and Revelation 20:10, which says, "and they shall be tormented day and night unto the ages of the ages"? (speaking of all three ['they' plural]: Satan, the beast, and the false prophet). Is it because he views the beast and the false prophet to be something like "spiritual entities," rather than "individual-persons-with-[or, who-had]-physical-bodies" or something like that (like he may consider regarding "Satan")? I've heard some suggest this (not including what they then do with the following section, particularly v.15).

I'm just wondering what it is he sees as different between these two particular verses (why Rev14:11 might sound like it, but not 20:10 [and v.15, if you consider whole context together]).

That’s a great point. I’m not sure, but I could see angels being treated differently since they are different Beings and creations.
I would 100% agree Satan should be tortured for all eternity. Should humans get the same level of punishment as Satan I guess is a question?
Will definitely see if I can find more, or if he says anything about Rev 20:10.

He is also the God of judgment as well.......and to deny this or devalue this aspect of God is to present him in an unbalanced way........under the LAW the guilty died WITHOUT MERCY by the mouth of two or three witnesses!!!

I hear what you're saying but why would God need to turn off the fire if they burn up? Why can't he leave it burning?

• 10 texts (4%) "Gehenna"
• 26 (10%) to "burning up"
• 59 (22%) to "destruction, perdition, utter loss or ruin"
• 20 (8%) to "separation from God"
• 25 (10%) to "death in its finality" or "the second death"
• 108 (41%) to "unforgiven sin", where the precise consequence is not stated
• 15 (6%) to "anguish"

They must devalue that account in Luke 16 to a parable in order to support more false dogma......it reads nothing like a parable and is a literal account and testimony of Jesus that is denied and swept under the table in a fraudulent manner as a parable!!

Luke 16 is clearly a parable as a part of a ongoing series of them .. It must be you struggle with reading them .Did you try applying the interpretation prescription given in 2 Corinthians 4:18?

The God I know is Just, Loving and Merciful as well. In fact, He was so loving He sent His only son to die on the cross as a sacrifice for our sin so that we would not have to face an eternity of separation from Him. This is what people don't get. Hell is to be apart from God, forever and ever, for eternity. It's not a 5 second burnout in a physical fire. You are separated from your creator, who loves you and desires a relationship with you, for ETERNITY. If we were to be burned up, never to exist again, what would be the point of Christ's sacrifice? He died so we could be saved, from what exactly? If I knew that I could live whatever way I wanted to and at the end of existence I would cease to exist, I wouldn't care two hoots about having a relationship with Christ.

He is also the God of judgment as well.......and to deny this or devalue this aspect of God is to present him in an unbalanced way........under the LAW the guilty died WITHOUT MERCY by the mouth of two or three witnesses!!!

I'd like to address the issue of whether or not Luke 16 is a parable or not, as I feel that this is a key issue in the argument that many Annihilationists attempt to hold whenever they address the issue of soul sleep.

Assuming Luke 16 is a parable:

If Jesus believed in the doctrine of soul-sleep, why tell a story which would so clearly contradict what people believe regarding the issue of soul sleep (according to their reasoning)? If he believed in this so strongly, why invent a story with a hidden truth that states very clearly that people are in conscious, living torment after death? Was Christ confused?

Whether you believe it was a parable or not, you have to try to explain what Christ was trying to say here. I look forward to seeing some of the linguistic gymnasts try to explain it away by passing off its meaning as metaphorical or symbolic (which is ridiculous by the way as when Christ used parables at other points in scripture, he used a simple, literal form that was easily understood by the hearers although its meaning wasn't readily evident to them).

The issue of what a parable is interesting. When Christ spoke using parables, he never once named a person. You may search in each and every other parable, but you will not find one other person named. Jesus uses people as "plot devices" rather than describing real-world events.

If Jesus had believed in the doctrine of soul-sleep, HE WOULD NOT HAVE TOLD AN ACCOUNT WHICH CONTRADICTS IT. Parables are meant to support spiritual truth, not contradict it. So, either the account is an example of an event which occurred or Jesus was totally out of sync with what he was trying to say here

I thanks for the reply

The parable is loaded with metaphors. The bosom of Abraham is the invisable presence of God to begin with .One of the prescriptions we are to follow... compare the unseen to the unseen eternal. . . faith to faith

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.1 Corthians2:12-14

I don't think it was so much he was trying to prove something he already approves as comparing the spiritual meaning of one parables to another. . or confuse the issue. Remember bottom line is. . . They have no faith by which they could beleive . They would be the ones that crucified Christ in opposition to that which was informed .

In conclusion to the matter of the impossibility of having mercy verse 26. The request is that to send the Spirit of God, as father sent directly to the 5 brothers of the fathers house.

Jesus replied if the don't trust sola scriptura they would not trust if one rose from the dead like the Son of man .they have no ears to hear the gospel

And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:26-31



linguistic gymnasts or rightly dividing the parables? Easy to understand when the meaning is revealed.



Plot devices what's that??

Many names are used in parables .Abraham one. Every name in the bible has a meaning attached to it for a certain purpose

Lazarus = "whom God helps"



Again the gospel supports it. . . he was in sync in what he was saying. Have your searched out the spiritual understanding of that portion of scripture ?

And when I say should/do/will humans be punished the same as Satan I mean in God’s eyes - I don’t know? does anyone?

Wish I could edit posts after 5 minutes

Great discussion too everyone lots to ponder on

I'd like to address the issue of whether or not Luke 16 is a parable or not, as I feel that this is a key issue in the argument that many Annihilationists attempt to hold whenever they address the issue of soul sleep.

Assuming Luke 16 is a parable:

If Jesus believed in the doctrine of soul-sleep, why tell a story which would so clearly contradict what people believe regarding the issue of soul sleep (according to their reasoning)? If he believed in this so strongly, why invent a story with a hidden truth that states very clearly that people are in conscious, living torment after death? Was Christ confused?

Whether you believe it was a parable or not, you have to try to explain what Christ was trying to say here. I look forward to seeing some of the linguistic gymnasts try to explain it away by passing off its meaning as metaphorical or symbolic (which is ridiculous by the way as when Christ used parables at other points in scripture, he used a simple, literal form that was easily understood by the hearers although its meaning wasn't readily evident to them).

The issue of what a parable is is interesting. When Christ spoke using parables, he never once named a person. You may search in each and every other parable, but you will not find one other person named. Jesus uses people as "plot devices" rather than describing real-world events.

Every parable has an earthly meaning which the crowd could understand, but never a spiritual setting (like Heaven or Hell). Abram's bosom is not an earthly setting. Neither is heaven or hell. Jesus knew that in order to be understood, he would need to have used language the crowd could have related to. Hence the lack of these settings in parables.

Jesus never directly refers to spiritual beings in parables, but only uses comparative elements, such as workers in a field (angels). In the Luke account, Christ clearly refers to these beings.

If Jesus had believed in the doctrine of soul-sleep, HE WOULD NOT HAVE TOLD AN ACCOUNT WHICH CONTRADICTS IT. Parables are meant to support spiritual truth, not contradict it. So, either the account is an example of an event which occurred or Jesus was totally out of sync with what he was trying to say here.

Jesus referred to death as sleep multiple times. Did you not see all the verses I posted? And those that affirm over and over and over again that the wicked will perish, be utterly destroyed? How anyone can call unending ongoing torment and torture mercy is beyond me. There is no rule that says people cannot be named in a parable. That is something people made up. It logically follows that saying it cannot be a parable simply because it was never done before means you must reject anything happening for a first time. More than two witnesses attest to the fact that Jesus spoke everything in parables. The parables seem ordered to me. Have you ever noticed that? Is not the next life said to be more important than this one? Jesus came that we might have life more abundantly and attain to life ever after. Stressing the weight of this point in such a parable seems appropriate to me. My beliefs are solidly based on what the Bible teaches.

The death of the physical body is referred to as sleep.



The verses you posted all refer to different things, in their proper context.



Yes God is a God of unending mercy and unending love. God is also a God of wrath and justice. Do you deny it? Can you claim to know the extent of God's love and forgiveness? Is it unending? Is His justice and judgement also unending? What is the physical manifestation of that? Real love is this: That God sent His only son into the world to be badly mutilated and destroyed for our sins so that we could be set free. Set free from what? The penalty of sin, of course. So what is the penalty of sin? Please answer me this question, if you think you know. Because all of your answers thus far paint God as a loving father who does not punish sin to its fullest extent. I take issue with your characterization of God in this way as much as I would someone that paints God only as a wrathful and vengeful God. Both extremes are wrong and need to be corrected by scripture.



We know what a Biblical parable is because Jesus told us what they are. We therefore see this pattern reflected in each and every parable that Jesus taught. If it's not consistent with the structure of a parable, it's not a parable. That's not something made up by humans, that's the basic structure of the language Jesus used. And no, Jesus did not "only speak in parables". That's a misuse of the phrase. The verse in Matthew 13 speaks of this. Jesus chose to use parables when teaching the crowd because he wanted to portray a spiritual truth. Some people would understand, others not. However the Luke 16 account is not one of those times.

It's interesting to note that Jesus spoke to his disciples plainly. He did not need to use parables with them because they'd understood the spiritual truth of what he was saying. The Luke account was an explanation to his disciples. If we start misrepresenting what Jesus's words were to fit a theory, then we run aground on spiritual untruths. Our approach to scripture should be scripture first - then interpretation, not - interpretation, how can I make scripture support what I think and feel.

I also wish to add that I do not take issue with you as a person, your beliefs are your own. I am merely here to put forward the analysis of these verses as I believe God has revealed truth to me. Obviously you're welcome to whatever kind of interpretation you feel you'd like to have, however please be careful of taking scripture out of context. Always read the verses as they appear in the context for what they were written.

Yours in Christ,

Tea and Toast.