Justification of Eternal Punishment

[Cross Reference]

how could anything be based on what is found on this forum?

But for Pentecost? . . .that's my point. . . . :up:

Jesus made us who love Him (Matt 5:6), a promise. We need to start appropriating it.

 

[chrysostom]

I am not going by someones's opinion.

is that your opinion?

Based upon what I have experienced on this forum to be a confirmation, no.

how could anything be based on what is found on this forum?

But for Pentecost? . . .that's my point. . . . :up:

read this carefully
and
then tell us what your point is

 

[Word based mystic]

I have no argument with your character but your spiritual intellect. You use scripture in an illegal way to support your opinion. Calvinist' do that. Do it once with approval the crowd and the approach to understanding scripture is left wide open to repeat the error.

Why you insist on keeping this argument going is beyond me in LIGHT of what has been submitted to you that comes against your unscriptural notions and ideas about God's irreconcilable character and attributes regardless of how you "feel" about how loving God is. They are absolutes that need be understood in His economy of what words mean and not ours. My disappointment with you in this is that you and your crowd refuse to accept any idea that God's economy and mans thinking about his can be different __ and for reasons you DEMAND to be accepted.. Why not consider what I, and others, have found to be true, i.e., Jesus was correct when He said the Holy Spirit would guide us into ALL truth, whether we like the outcome or not?

ok.

first we will discuss your saying that you are not criticizing my character,
1. first you said I intentionally ((obfuscate)) in earlier posts.

I have no need nor desire to muddy the waters or make unclear, nor do i cover up or confuse.

I Don't need to.

2. Then in a more recent post You said i (condemned) you and others for taking the stance that the soul is indestructible.

I have never (condemned), judged you or others in their sincerity or their salvation.

3. Yet you earlier stated if I continue with believing the soul is destructible and does not have eternal life " I will not have a place in the fathers house"
this statement puts forth gnostic or perfection of doctrinal understanding as the means of maintaining salvation. NOT Good.

4. you just stated I was dishonest and I knew it.
calling me a liar and not even referring what i am lying about is not what I have seen your character in the past. But i am changing my mind.

you have much to apologize about.

I would never throw out the accusations you have done just because you disagree with certain points of doctrine on the wicked soul having eternal life or being imperishable.

next i will discuss the main themes and the numerous scriptures that are ignored by Ect.

but first i wanted to address your (obvious) character attack.

 

[Cross Reference]

read this carefully
and
then tell us what your point is

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cross Reference View Post
Based upon what I have experienced on this forum to be a confirmation, no.

I thought that might be a problem when trying to fathom it out.

With exception, most everything I have read on this forum has been an opinion, opinion worded to death by a spiritually sophomoric intellect and not of the Holy Spirit.

I know from 'whence cometh my understanding' and it will always be antagonistic to the wilfully "unlearned" intelligentsia, irrespective of their prowess of the Greek language. However, I am thankful I have persevered in remaining to experience the pressing against my knowledge to make certain of it veracity. As the Scripture would have it to say : "Line upon line". "Here little, there a little" that the pieces come together for the connecting of the "dots".

 

[chrysostom]

I thought that might be a problem when trying to fathom it out.

With exception, most everything I have read on this forum has been an opinion, opinion worded to death by a spiritually sophomoric intellect and not of the Holy Spirit.

I know from 'whence cometh my understanding' and it will always be antagonistic to the wilfully "unlearned" intelligentsia, irrespective of their prowess of the Greek language. However, I am thankful I have persevered in remaining to experience the pressing against my knowledge to make certain of it veracity. As the Scripture would have it to say : "Line upon line". "Here little, there a little" that the pieces come together for the connecting of the "dots".

there are no exceptions
it is all opinion
and
you are just one of the dots
that
is not connected

in my opinion

 

[Cross Reference]

there are no exceptions
it is all opinion
and
you are just one of the dots
that
is not connected

in my opinion

That also, is your opinion. Thank you.

 

[Word based mystic]

That also, is your opinion. Thank you.

no comment or apology??? on my above post.

 

[chrysostom]

That also, is your opinion. Thank you.

is it yours?

 

[Timotheos]

Work it out in your heart and mind what I wrote to Wbm as in"better felt than telt". Perhaps in doing so you just might experience a rectification in your heart and mind as to how you use hand picked unrelated verses and without understanding to support you religious bent,..

I just believe that what the Bible says is true. Have you ever considered that it is you who is "without understanding"? Probably not.

Also, your answer doesn't explain what you mean by "Using scripture in an illegal way". I believe that is just some baloney that you mixed up on the spot to try to justify your denominational doctrine.

Why don't you just accept that the Bible doesn't support your doctrine of eternal conscious torment, and accept that the Bible actually does say that the wicked will perish and will be no more? Why do you even want to fight against what the Bible actually says?

 

[MaxGrit]

I just believe that what the Bible says is true. Have you ever considered that it is you who is "without understanding"? Probably not.

Also, your answer doesn't explain what you mean by "Using scripture in an illegal way". I believe that is just some baloney that you mixed up on the spot to try to justify your denominational doctrine.

Why don't you just accept that the Bible doesn't support your doctrine of eternal conscious torment, and accept that the Bible actually does say that the wicked will perish and will be no more? Why do you even want to fight against what the Bible actually says?

It's because you're wrong about what the Bible teaches.

Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl7zqJ38dmU

 

[Word based mystic]

It's because you're wrong about what the Bible teaches.

Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl7zqJ38dmU

you must have NOT been keeping up with the thread??

What is the (eternal Punishment) ??

define the punishment.

is the wicked soul imperishable or indestructible?

if so show me.

does the wicked soul have eternal life?
if so show me.

does death mean death or life?

showing a youtube video to explain your argument does not prove anything except you may not know how to present your own argument.

 

[Timotheos]

It's because you're wrong about what the Bible teaches.

Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Man you are confused. How does posting a Bible verse that agrees with what I am saying prove that I am wrong about what the Bible teaches?

I believe that the wicked will be punished with destruction just as the Bible teaches, and they will remain destroyed forever.
"They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction."

Do you think that torture is the only punishment that exists?

 

[Cross Reference]

I just believe that what the Bible says is true. Have you ever considered that it is you who is "without understanding"? Probably not.

How can you when you are without the understanding of it? And yes, what I think must meet a certain criteria for me to move with it.

Also, your answer doesn't explain what you mean by "Using scripture in an illegal way".

It does to me in a way that allows me insight into the thinking of others who miss the mark in theirs and, because of pride, are left with the necessity of propping it up by their twisting of/or selective understanding of the scriptures. That is why they are dead to all except Christians.

I believe that is just some baloney that you mixed up on the spot to try to justify your denominational doctrine.

What you "believe" cannot be supported except by flawed common sense reasoning. The scriptures are not of common sense origins.

Why don't you just accept that the Bible doesn't support your doctrine of eternal conscious torment, and accept that the Bible actually does say that the wicked will perish and will be no more?

Why? Because it absolutely does support it as opposed to what you have taken to yourself as 'sound, common sense reasoning', absent understanding.

Why do you even want to fight against what the Bible actually says?

Why? Because I believe what you think is of the devil who would have everyone without hope, commit suicide. Your opinion in this matter goes in that direction.

 

[Timotheos]

How can you when you are without the understanding of it?

I do understand it. I don't agree with your twist of the scriptures.

And yes, what I think must meet a certain criteria for me to move with it.

So do you agree that the Bible says that the wicked will perish and they will be no more?

It does to me in a way that allows me insight into the thinking of others who miss the mark in theirs and, because of pride, are left with the necessity of propping it up by their twisting of/or selective understanding of the scriptures. That is why they are dead to all except Christians.

It doesn't seem prideful to me to believe what the Bible says.

What you "believe" cannot be supported except by flawed common sense reasoning.

What I believe is written in the Bible, the wicked will perish and will be no more.

The scriptures are not of common sense origins.

Are you trying to convince me that the Bible can't be trusted to say what it means?

Why? Because it absolutely does support it as opposed to what you have taken to yourself as 'sound, common sense reasoning', absent understanding.

You assert that I have no understanding. You are mistaken about that. You assume that you are correct and that anyone who disagrees with you has no understanding. That is just an empty insult, which proves nothing. Since the Bible specifically states that the wicked will perish and will be no more, that is what I believe. You haven't proven that this is wrong.

Why? Because I believe what you think is of the devil who would have everyone without hope, commit suicide. Your opinion in this matter goes in that direction.

What I believe comes straight from God's Word. You are saying that God's Word is of the devil. You are confused.

 

[Cross Reference]

I do understand it. I don't agree with your twist of the scriptures.


So do you agree that the Bible says that the wicked will perish and they will be no more?


It doesn't seem prideful to me to believe what the Bible says.


What I believe is written in the Bible, the wicked will perish and will be no more.


Are you trying to convince me that the Bible can't be trusted to say what it means?


You assert that I have no understanding. You are mistaken about that. You assume that you are correct and that anyone who disagrees with you has no understanding. That is just an empty insult, which proves nothing. Since the Bible specifically states that the wicked will perish and will be no more, that is what I believe. You haven't proven that this is wrong.


What I believe comes straight from God's Word. You are saying that God's Word is of the devil. You are confused.

We'll see. OOPs! I forgot you have selective understanding about certain words. So maybe the word "see" might not be the correct word to use. I'll let you work that out.

 

[Timotheos]

We'll see. OOPs! I forgot you have selective understanding about certain words. So maybe the word "see" might not be the correct word to use. I'll let you work that out.

Okay, which words?
Do you have a dictionary? Can you tell me the definitions of the words that you think that I have "selective understanding" about? Because really, I disagree with you that I do not use the regular accepted definitions of words. But if you have examples and dictionary definitions, I would be happy to be corrected.

Do you have misunderstanding about the word "see"?
Do you need me to look it up in a dictionary for you? Are you able to read a dictionary? Do you reject dictionaries as tools of the devil?

 

[Cross Reference]

Okay, which words?
Do you have a dictionary? Can you tell me the definitions of the words that you think that I have "selective understanding" about? Because really, I disagree with you that I do not use the regular accepted definitions of words. But if you have examples and dictionary definitions, I would be happy to be corrected.

Do you have misunderstanding about the word "see"?
Do you need me to look it up in a dictionary for you? Are you able to read a dictionary? Do you reject dictionaries as tools of the devil?

Stop being infantile in your remarks unless you can't help it.

The word is "SEE". Use it that word as the scriptures might use it as it does the word "destroy". In this will you reveal your understanding or lack of it with your obstinacy factored in.

 

[Timotheos]

Stop being infantile in your remarks unless you can't help it.

The word is "SEE". Use it that word as the scriptures might use it as it does the word "destroy". In this will you reveal your understanding or lack of it with your obstinacy factored in.

You are certainly a jerk.

 

[Cross Reference]

You are certainly a jerk.

Whatever. If it makes you happy to say that, great!

 

[MaxGrit]

you must have NOT been keeping up with the thread??

What is the (eternal Punishment) ??

define the punishment.

is the wicked soul imperishable or indestructible?

if so show me.

does the wicked soul have eternal life?
if so show me.

does death mean death or life?

showing a youtube video to explain your argument does not prove anything except you may not know how to present your own argument.

The Bible is the proof. J.M. summarizes:

>"You see, only believers live forever (John 6:51, 8:51). Only believers get immortality (Romans 2:7). Immortality is part and parcel with the gospel (2 Tim 1:10). Unbelievers die the second death (Rev. 20:15)."

I can't stress enough here that what matters is the biblical definition of death which is separation. The verses that speak of death only favor annihilation if biblical death = cessation of existence, but it doesn't.

Many Annihilationists (Conditional Immortalists to be specific) claim that only believers get eternal life which is true. But again, we must understand the *biblical* definition of words and phrases, not simply what the dictionary says. The best way to define eternal life is let Jesus Himself define it for us:

John 17 v 3: "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

So according to the *biblical definition* of eternal life, it means for us to know God. Unbelievers don't "know" God! Therefore, those who go to Hell and "live" forever do not have eternal life, they have eternal death.

>"Jesus said they are "destroyed" (His words) in hell, not live forever (Matthew 10:28). Even if Matthew 10:28 were the only verse that proves the soul of the unsaved will be destroyed (and there are more), we would have to accept it based upon the authority of the Son of God."

Once again, understanding the proper definition of words are so important. But even in English the word "destroy" does not necessarily mean cessation of existence (see this is the problem with Annihilationists, they attempt to use one definition of a word and apply to all places regardless of context). For instance, what if I said, "The dry summer weather destroyed my wood fence" what would come to mind: that my fence stopped existing or that my fence was ruined? Obviously the rational option would be that my fence got ruined, not that it stopped existing! I also encourage anyone to get a Greek lexicon and look up the word translated "destroy" here: appollymi. You'll be amazed at how many different ways appollymi is used in the Bible and how many have nothing to do with annihilation but instead has to do with ruin, separation, etc

Annihilation or Conditional Immortality sounds really good on the surface and when you don't take a look at how the Bible defines words such as death. But once you do that, then most of these arguments fall apart.

>"The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23) (not eternal torment.)"

This is a typical response Annihilationists use against Traditionlists, and at first glance it may appear that the Annihilationist has a good point. However, this is all dependent upon what the word "death" means. Biblical death is separation, not non-existence. There are three types of death in the Bible physical, spiritual and eternal, and none of them have to do with non-existence. I encourage everyone to study the three deaths in the Bible and then ask yourself: what makes more sense, separation or non-existence? Yes, the wages of sin IS death, but biblical death, not the modern definition that connotes something along the lines of non-existence.

>"The eternal fire was made for the devil (Matt 25:41) so unbelievers die there, not live forever."

Notice how he just stops at Matt 25:41 and leaves out the context entirely. What is the *context* of what Jesus is talking about here? He is talking about the fate of the unbelievers and how they will be sent to the same place as Satan and the angels and then Jesus continues on in v. 46 and says, "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." -Here it DOES state that the unbelievers will be eternally punished. Notice how in the same sentence Jesus parallels the fate of the believers with the fate of the unbelievers by claiming they would both be in their final destinations *eternally*. If one wants to claim the unbelievers do not suffer eternally then the grammar necessitates that the believers do not enjoy eternal bliss. If one wants to say that the believers enjoy eternal conscious bliss then the unbelievers must suffer eternal conscious punishment. The grammar simply doesn't allow for one and not the other!

>"The fire is eternal, not what is thrown into it. The punishment is death."

Again, all one has to do is do a study on the three types of death mentioned in the Bible. Basically the Bible defines death as separation of some sort. So yes, "death" is the punishment-eternal separation from God, not cessation of existence.

>"If you do not think death is a punishment, it is only because God has a very high view of life and we do not."

Again, all of these types of arguments depend on how you define death. We should care about the biblical definition of death not the dictionary definition. Death according to the Bible's definition fits perfectly with the Traditionalist view and makes no sense in the Annihilationist's view. Also, even if we accept the Annihilationist view that death is cessation of existence, no one would argue that it isn't a punishment. But is it an *eternal* punishment? Hardly, and that is what this is about, not whether or not it is a punishment to be put to death.

>"Life is God's gift. Removal of life is punishment. It lasts forever (no more chance at life - no more resurrection) so it is called "eternal punishment".

How is it punishment if the person ceased to exist? Did you feel like you were being punished before you were born? If what you're saying is true, then this so-called, "eternal punishment" is about as much punishment as Daffy Duck is being punished since Daffy Duck doesn't exist.

>"Eternal punishment is death forever."

Again, this depends on what "death" means-does it mean cessation of existence or does it mean separation? (Again, I would encourage people to do a study on the three types of death in the Bible; once you understand them, then 80% of the Annihilationist's arguments fall apart pretty easily). If we go by the biblical definition of what death means, then I whole-heartedly agree: eternal punishment is death forever, i.e. eternal separation, not non-existence.

>"Don't we view the death penalty as the greatest of all societies punishments?"

So now we determine the greatest level of punishment based on what society implements? It's not like society has an option for "eternal torment"-so this isn't even a proper comparison. If society perhaps had the option of making someone live and get tortured forever, suddenly, I doubt anyone would agree that death in the annihilation sense would be the greatest punishment. And many people who are disabled actually would rather die than have to live in agony.

>If all are born with immortality, then why do people have to seek it (Romans 2:7 says clearly we are to "seek" it)?

People "seek" eternal life based on what Jesus said: eternal life is to know God and unbelievers do not "know" God.

>"Only believers put on immortality at the resurrection (1 Cor 15:53-54). Immortality is only gotten through the gospel (2 Tim 1:10 clearly states this.) Jesus offer to live forever (John 6:51) would be meaningless if innate immortality were true. Only God is immortal (1 Tim 6:16) and immortality is his gift to those seek it, who seek His Son. (Rom 2:7)"

Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we must allow the Bible to define its terms and it defines eternal life as knowing God, not simply existing forever.

>"The traditional doctrine of hell besmirches the character of God."

This is question begging. This assumes that God 1. cannot properly judge sin 2. God only finds sin as offensive as we do (and fallen humans are not the standard for what is good only God does) and 3. God is the ultimate source of what is good and just; you do not get to decide what the penalty for sin should be.

>"Jesus said the wicked will be destroyed (Matt 10:28) , so did Paul (Philippians 3:19) and James (James 4:12)."

Destroyed, but what does destroyed mean? Again, if I said, "My the dry summer heat destroyed my fence" would you think I was saying my fence literally doesn't exist anymore? Or would it be saying my fence has been ruined?

I have yet to see an Annihilationist put forth a solid case against the eternality of Hell. Their arguments (and Fudge is no different and neither is, "His Truth and His Grace") always seem to come down to three things:

1. A single definition of a word, often not even the biblical definition. Death = non-existence (not what the Bible teaches). Destroy = cessation of existence (this doesn't take into account the semantic allowance of the word depending on context). Eternal life = immortality regardless of whether it is in Heaven or Hell (not what Jesus taught about eternal life [John 17:3]).

2. The use of earthly parallels or taking analogies too far. A great example is with Sodom and Gomorrah. Annihilationists like to use this example as an example for what "really" happens in Hell, pointing out that Sodom and Gomorrah were burnt to ashes. However, this earthly analogy while it can convey some idea of Hell will be like, is ultimately flawed in that earthly examples are examples that use physical matter while Hell/Lake of Fire is dealing with the spiritual. Physical matter will eventually burn up, but that doesn't mean spiritual things will.

3. Most of all, the Annihilationist will appeal to emotions. While a lot of people (including Traditionalists) readily admit that Hell is an uncomfortable subject, it still doesn't negate the fact that it is what the Bible teaches. We must submit to God and trust that He is able to judge sin perfectly and justly.