Eternal torment VS Annihilation

[CS1]

the same thing could be said about eternal torment too.

Not when Jesus said it. To disagree with what Jesus said by using other verses is not how one properly interprets the word of God.

Jesus was very clear.

 

[LW97]

Not when Jesus said it. To disagree with what Jesus said by using other verses is not how one properly interprets the word of God.

Jesus was very clear.

As I said Jesus quoted Isaiah 66 in Mark 9.

 

[LW97]

both are of the same side coin but one there is no eternal hell torment the other everyone is saved. Both are unbiblical

As I said, we are using the same arguments.

 

[LW97]

And you are correct, we should be merciful and compassionate towards others. However, this idea that God can only express His love, mercy and grace and not His righteous judgment, is just another false teaching straight from Satan.

Correct, and how does conditional immortality not express his righteous judgement? Hell is real and it is a place with fire that devours God's advesaries (Hebrews 10:27).

 

[LW97]

For the believer, Christ was held accountable for all of our sins.

If we stop doing them, then yes.

 

[LW97]

For the believer, Christ was held accountable for all of our sins. Paid in full for those who trust in Him as the One who paid the penalty for their sins.

We may be switching the subject, but I find no scriptural support for the penal substituion view of the atonement.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

If people will not cease to exist in the everlasting fire, then there could be a way that they will escape. Man has free will.

Free will doesn't [or shouldn't!] mean you and I can do whatever we want. For example, we can't flap our arms and expect to take off flying like birds do. We can only operate within laws God created to exist.

 

[Ahwatukee]

You confuse Annihilationism with Universalism. BTW, Eternal Torment agrees with Universalism that everyone had eternal life no matter what, the only disagreement is where they have it.
I by the way decided not to use the term Annihilationism, but rather Conditionalism.

Hello, I believe that Paul was speaking about the difference between his body on earth and in eternity. Luke 16:19-31 could be a parable, I always wonder why Abraham would be in charge of Hades. Also this sounds interesting:
"For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth." Isaiah 38:18

The scripture is very clean in saying "to be absent from the body, is to be in the presence of the Lord is referring to the spirit. It is not speaking about the resurrection and that because to be absent from the body would be referring to the departing of the spirit at the time of death, where the resurrection has to do with standing up again in the same body that you died in.

Now regarding the rich man and Lazarus, this does not in any way read like a parable, as they always use symbolism to represent the literal. Here in the rich man and Lazarus, the literal names of Lazarus and Abraham are used, as well as the literal location of Hades. As I said, the only reason for interpreting this as a parable would be to distort the information contained in the context.

"For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth." Isaiah 38:18

You see that word "grave" up there? That is a false translation. The word used is actually Sheol, which is referring to the realm of departed spirits. Sheol should never be translated as referring to the grave. Wherever the word geber is used in the OT it is referring to grave, tomb, selpulchre. Likewise, whenever the word "Sheol" is used, it is referring to the place of departed spirits. I know, I did a study on everywhere Sheol, Hades and Gehenna are used in scripture and their characteristics:

Sheol/Hades

Characteristics of:

Is down under the earth - Gen.37:35, 42:38, 44:29, 44::31, Num.16:30, 16:33, Deut.32:22, 1 Sam.2:6, 2 kings 2:6, Job 11:7-8, 17:16, Ps.30:3, 86:13, Prov.9:18, 15:24, Isa.5:14, 14:9, 14:11, 14:15, Isa.38:18, Ezk.31:15-17, Ezk.32:21, Ezk.32:27, Mt.11:23, Lk.10:15,

* Has multiple levels - Deut.32:22, Job 11:7-8,

* Referred to as the pit - Job 17:13, Ps.30:3, Prov.1:12, Isa.14:15, Isa.38:18, Ezk.31:15-17

* Has Chambers - Prov.7:27

* Has Gates/Bars - Job 17:16, Isa.38:10, Mt.16:18

* A place of torment in fire – Lk.16:23-24

* Is a literal entity representing the same location – Rev.6:8, 20:14


Sheol (sheh-ole') The underworld (place to which the spirits of people descend at death)


Hades (hah'-dace) The unseen world:

hádēs (from 1 /A "not" and idein/eidō, "see") – properly, the "unseen place," referring to the (invisible) realm in which the unrighteous dead reside, i.e. the present dwelling place of all the departed (deceased); Hades.

 

[garee]

The smoke of their torment forever and ever is clear enough!!

Yes, having completely died not given a new born again incorruptible spirit and new heart . We understand they will not rise to new spirit life in a hope of their new incorruptible bodies. Clear enough no spirit that could rise. Smoke as the eternal shadow of it.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as "it was": and the spirit shall return unto God "who gave it".

 

[LW97]

The scripture is very clean in saying "to be absent from the body, is to be in the presence of the Lord is referring to the spirit. It is not speaking about the resurrection and that because to be absent from the body would be referring to the departing of the spirit at the time of death, where the resurrection has to do with standing up again in the same body that you died in.

Now regarding the rich man and Lazarus, this does not in any way read like a parable, as they always use symbolism to represent the literal. Here in the rich man and Lazarus, the literal names of Lazarus and Abraham are used, as well as the literal location of Hades. As I said, the only reason for interpreting this as a parable would be to distort the information contained in the context.



You see that word "grave" up there? That is a false translation. The word used is actually Sheol, which is referring to the realm of departed spirits. Sheol should never be translated as referring to the grave. Wherever the word geber is used in the OT it is referring to grave, tomb, selpulchre. Likewise, whenever the word "Sheol" is used, it is referring to the place of departed spirits. I know, I did a study on everywhere Sheol, Hades and Gehenna are used in scripture and their characteristics:

Sheol/Hades

Characteristics of:

Is down under the earth - Gen.37:35, 42:38, 44:29, 44::31, Num.16:30, 16:33, Deut.32:22, 1 Sam.2:6, 2 kings 2:6, Job 11:7-8, 17:16, Ps.30:3, 86:13, Prov.9:18, 15:24, Isa.5:14, 14:9, 14:11, 14:15, Isa.38:18, Ezk.31:15-17, Ezk.32:21, Ezk.32:27, Mt.11:23, Lk.10:15,

* Has multiple levels - Deut.32:22, Job 11:7-8,

* Referred to as the pit - Job 17:13, Ps.30:3, Prov.1:12, Isa.14:15, Isa.38:18, Ezk.31:15-17

* Has Chambers - Prov.7:27

* Has Gates/Bars - Job 17:16, Isa.38:10, Mt.16:18

* A place of torment in fire – Lk.16:23-24

* Is a literal entity representing the same location – Rev.6:8, 20:14


Sheol (sheh-ole') The underworld (place to which the spirits of people descend at death)


Hades (hah'-dace) The unseen world:

hádēs (from 1 /A "not" and idein/eidō, "see") – properly, the "unseen place," referring to the (invisible) realm in which the unrighteous dead reside, i.e. the present dwelling place of all the departed (deceased); Hades.

You are right in most points and confirmed if with scripture, except for one which marks the crucial point - Luke 16. It seems to be more of a parable than a historical event, just like the prodigal son.

 

[LW97]

Yes, having completely died not given a new born again incorruptible spirit and new heart . We understand they will not rise to new spirit life in a hope of their new incorruptible bodies. Clear enough no spirit that could rise. Smoke as the eternal shadow of it.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as "it was": and the spirit shall return unto God "who gave it".

Thank you. I wish I had not overseen that verse.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Correct, and how does conditional immortality not express his righteous judgement? Hell is real and it is a place with fire that devours God's advesaries (Hebrews 10:27).

Metaphorically, to devour, consume: Properly, to be eaten.

Based on all the other scriptures and the definition of the words olethros, apollumi, apoleia, which do not imply annihilation or extinction, then for fire to metaphorically devour cannot not infer annihilation. We can't throw away the other scriptures and their definitions in favor of the metaphorical meaning of another scripture.

Hell is real and it is a place with fire that devours God's adversaries forever and ever.

 

[Ahwatukee]

We may be switching the subject, but I find no scriptural support for the penal substituion view of the atonement.

Atonement is dependent upon having faith in Christ. Therefore, those who continue to not trust in Christ as the One who provided salvation for them, are not atoned for. As I previously posted, "whoever has the Son has life, but whoever does not have the Son does no have life and the wrath of God rests upon him.

 

[Ahwatukee]

You are right in most points and confirmed if with scripture, except for one which marks the crucial point - Luke 16. It seems to be more of a parable than a historical event, just like the prodigal son.

As I said, like with the prodigal son and all the other parables, it is symbolism representing the literal. The rich man and Lazarus uses actual names and locations. Most parables can be figured out by the use of the symbols and in many examples we are given the meanings to the symbolic meanings in those parables. The rich man and Lazarus does not read like a parable.

Jesus was giving us insight to an event which most likely took place prior to His coming in the flesh. An insight to what happens with the spirit at the time of death. If one reads it at face value, the information means what it says. Once it is turned it into a parable, you get rid of that information.

On that note, I have errands to run. I will pray that God will reveal the truth behind all that we have discussed. To be continued …..

 

[LW97]

As I said, like with the prodigal son and all the other parables, it is symbolism representing the literal. The rich man and Lazarus uses actual names and locations. Most parables can be figured out by the use of the symbols and in many examples we are given the meanings to the symbolic meanings in those parables. The rich man and Lazarus does not read like a parable.

Jesus was giving us insight to an event which most likely took place prior to His coming in the flesh. An insight to what happens with the spirit at the time of death. If one reads it at face value, the information means what it says. Once it is turned it into a parable, you get rid of that information.

On that note, I have errands to run. I will pray that God will reveal the truth behind all that we have discussed. To be continued …..

Only because it uses names does not disqualify it from being a parable. As I already asked, why would Abraham (and not God) be in charge of Hades? To me it is clear that this parable represents the blessing of being poor, which Jesus mentioned in Matthew 5 & 6. I mean, please read the first 18 Verses of Luke 16. Jesus warns us that we cannot serve two masters. Taken in context, the situation with Lazarus and the Rich Man makes sense. The rich man served money and thought he could have everything, but eventually had nothing.

Metaphorically, to devour, consume: Properly, to be eaten.

I do not tend to be unkind, but it looks like both sides start to decide what is metaphorical and what not. I believe the Bible is, at least in most parts literal. But you are right, we are running in circles.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I used to be on the Eternal Torment side, but then I decided to rethink my interpretations...
http://www.christianissues.biz/pdf-bin/blogarticles/conditionalimmortality.pdf

Thats too bad..

 

[LW97]

Will we all have eternal life, some in the kingdom of God, some in everlasting fire? Who said "ye shall not surely die"? God or Satan?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Will we all have eternal life, some in the kingdom of God, some in everlasting fire? Who said "ye shall not surely die"? God or Satan?

A non believer has eternal death. They never passed from life to death, They never saw life. But yes, they will be conscious forever

 

[dcontroversal]

You are right in most points and confirmed if with scripture, except for one which marks the crucial point - Luke 16. It seems to be more of a parable than a historical event, just like the prodigal son.

False......it is nothing like a parable

 

[CS1]

Will we all have eternal life, some in the kingdom of God, some in everlasting fire? Who said, "ye shall not surely die"? God or Satan?

context