That is not what the verse says. But I think you already know that is not what the verse says. Re-read Psalm 37:10
Ps 37:6-11 is simply saying the wicked will be no more IN THE LAND. Read the context and see its limited to situations on the earth:
"Refrain from anger and turn from wrath;
do not fret—it leads only to evil.
For those who are evil will be destroyed,
but those who hope in the Lord will
inherit the land.
A little while, and the wicked will be no more [where? in the land];
though you look for them [where will we look for them? in heaven? hell? no, the context tells us, in the land], they will not be found [where?].
But the meek will inherit
the land
and enjoy peace and prosperity."
The fact that the wicked will no longer exist ON EARTH, or IN THE LAND, does not show they will not exit in hell, which is the place for lost departed souls.
Actually, Psalm 37:10 which says "The wicked will be destroyed" completely AGREES with Matthew 10:28 which goes on to say "But rather fear the one who is able to destroy both body and soul in Gehenna".
Jesus said that the Body and Soul of the wicked would be destroyed.
Wrong, Psalm 37:19 does not say the wicked will be destroyed. The word "destroyed" is not in Psalm 37:10. It was talking about THE LAND and saying that the wicked with be NO MORE, that is, NO MORE IN THE LAND. We will look for them there (in the land) but will not find them. Obviously, if I look for my cat in the house but don't find him, it doesn't mean he no longer exists, it only means he may be somewhere else.
Matt 10:28 does NOT say that God WOULD destroy the body and soul of the wicked in hell. It only says that he CAN, not that he does. Matt 3:9 says "out of these stones God CAN raise up children for Abraham," that doesn't mean that God DID raise up children for Abraham from those stones, does it? So CAN does not mean DOES or WOULD. Matt 19:26 teaches that God CAN do all things, but that doesn't mean that he does.
This parable is not talking about the final state of the wicked. Notice that the rich man's brothers are still alive at the time of parable. This can't be talking about what happens at the final judgment. The verse also fails as proof of eternal torment because it doesn't say that the torment is eternal.
Luke 16:19-31
Why The Rich Man and Lazarus must be a Real Life Account.
(1) Names are NEVER mentioned in the parables of Jesus. Jesus mentions two very real persons, Abraham and Lazarus.
(2) Even if it were a parable, parables of Jesus were ALWAYS true-to-life. He did not go around telling fantasy stories like Alice in Wonderland or Santa Clause. His illustrations were ALWAYS based on real life events that could, and did, use to happen. (He ALWAYS illustrated his teachings with things his disciples were familiar with). Why shock then with such an outlandish fairy tale? Just take the Good Samaritan: there really was a road from Jerusalem to Jericho, it really was frequented by robbers, in fact, historians say the Romans built a garrison along that road to protect travelers, even the denarius was a real currency. Samaritans were real and so were Jews and Levites. All the components of the account are based on things that are real. In the rich man and Lazarus account, we know Abraham was a real person, and Lazarus was a common name at that time (we even have another Lazarus in John 11). Angels are real, there really were rich men who actually did feast sumptuously, and beggars were indeed real, and so are dogs. So I have to conclude that there really was a place of torment after death, just as there is a place of comfort where Abraham and Lazarus were.
(3) Jesus said “I am the truth.” He was the embodiment of truth itself. One could not immagine Jesus borrowing from pagan false religious beliefs to coin his parables. Jesus Christ would never illustrated the truth using a lie. For example, could you imagine Jesus using the Egyptian legend of Set killing his brother Osiris, and the god Isis reviving him with her magic spell, to illustrate his resurrection? Of course not! Jesus NEVER BORROWED PAGAN DOCTRINE as a basis for illustrating his truth. If hellfire is a pagan false doctrine (it was taught by Egyptians and Babylonians), why would Jesus use it, unless it were actually true?
(4) Jesus never explained what the rich man and Lazarus account meant, which he surely would have done for this outlandish, difficult narrative, that was unlike anything the Jews knew of (if they didn’t believe in hell or a soul that can leave the body). The fact that Jesus didn’t explain its meaning as he did other parables, indicates that it was somehting his disciples were familiar with and would understand. It therefore must have coincided with reality; otherwise, they would want an explanation of what the heck he was talking about.
(5) Over and over the Bible is specific to say when Jesus was giving an illustration (Matt 13). It does not do so in Luke 16. The rich man and Lazarus account IS NEVER CALLED A PARABLE OR ILLUSTRATION in the Bible. So when you call it a parable, that's just your opinion, but the Bible NEVER calls this a parable.
(6) In the illustration, Abraham talks about the state of conscious joy and torment after death. Jesus would never coin an illustration which depicts Abraham as teaching false doctrine.
(7) At Hebrews 9:9 the earthly tabernacle and its service was called a figure or illustration. Yet, it was a real account. At Gal 4:24 the story of Abraham, his two wives and two sons is called an allegory (KJV); yet it did happen. In fact, the Greek word for allegory here is paraboli, the Greek word for parable. This illustrates that Biblical illustrations or parables were based on fact, on truth. They were not fables, which attribute to things in nature characteristics they do not have. In fact, the Bible repudiates the idea of fables in the Gospel story. 2 Pet 1:16
So yes, there is a hell where people are tormented consciously, just as there is a heaven.
“Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” 2 Cor 5:6-8
(1) absence from the physical body means to be present with the Lord. Now if you cease to exist when your body dies, you will not be present with him when your body dies, will you?
(2) If you have to wait until the resurrection of your phisical body to be present with him, this contradicts the statement that you must be “absent from the body” to enjoy such presence. Certainly, this was not discussing the resurrection.
(3) Paul says that he RATHER (PREFERS) to be absent from the body so he can be with the Lord; would a sane person prefer non-existence over conscious communion with the Lord and with his brothers on earth? This preference only makes sense if there is consciousness after death.
Having established this soul-body dualism, where do the souls of the wicked go at death?
I believe that the beast represents false government and the false prophet represents false religion. But it doesn't really matter WHO they are, since they are not "every person who ever lived", and so their fate is not necessarily the same as everyone else's.
It does matter who they represent because I don't need to show that every wicked person goes to burn in the lake of fire forever to prove that it exists. If I only show that one single person goes there to suffer for eternity, that proves there is such a place. Now, as for false religion, there are close to 2 billion Muslims on earth, and millions of Hindus, let alone other cults like the New Ages Movement, Jehovah's Witnesses, Satanists, etc. False religion alone will place lots of people in that lake of fire where THEY will be tormented day and night forever and ever. That answers your objection without even including false government.
That's not the "rest of the wicked", that is just those who worship the beast or receive the mark. The passage also does not say even that they will be tormented forever. It says that the smoke will rise forever.
Actually, the smoke can't ascend forever unless the fire is burning forever, and there is no need for the fire to burn forever if there is nothing left to burn. Further, it also says THEY HAVE NO REST DAY OR NIGHT, immediately following the part about the smoke ascending forever. That shows eternal torment easily:
"They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever.
There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” (Rev 14:10-11)
Why is it that you think that going into fire will not destroy those who are sent into the fire?
That question shows you are trying to make assumptions about what the fire would do with your limited, imperfect rationality, but the God we serve is supernatural an beyond the confines of human reasoning. I could ask you why didn't the fire destroy the bush that Moses say in Exodus 3:1-3? Since you claim fire must always destroy the object on fire, why didn't it destroy that bush? God is able to do all things, and if he says the wicked will burn forever, they will, and if Scripture says they will be in conscious torment forever, they will, just as God could make that bush burn forever and not be consumed if he wanted to.
Particularly knowing that Jesus specifically said in Matthew 10:28 that they WOULD be destroyed?
Show me where you see the word WOULD in Matthew 10:28.
Just because eternal life is eternal, that does not mean that those who are destroyed will ALSO receive eternal life. They will be destroyed. Their destruction will last forever. They do not need to be alive forever in order to be dead forever.
A person who DOES NOT EXIST cannot be punished. So to experience eternal punishment they have to be in existence, ok. How can you punish someone who doesn't exist?
NO. It doesn't. I asked you to provide a verse from the Bible that said "the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will experience torment forever". You failed to do that. Instead you threw up the same prooftexts that are always used, which simply do not say that the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever. You also failed to address any of the multitude of scripture passages that specifically state that the wicked will perish, they will be destroyed, and they will be no more.
I have addressed them, and will do so again.
Do you really want clear Bible truth? Read John 3:16 and tell me what it says. This is clear Bible truth, but if you aren't up for it I understand. Read Roamsn 6:23 and tell me what it says. This is clear Bible truth, but if you aren't up for it I understand. Read Isaiah 33:1, Psalm 37:10, 37:20, and 37:38 and tell me what they say. This is clear Bible truth, but if you aren't up for it I understand.
John 3:16
This verse translates the Greek word "apollumi" as "perish." Apollumi does not mean to cease to exist. The meaning of this word and those related to it does not refer to "destruction" in the modern sense that that word is used for the annihilation of something. Rather, it is closer in meaning to the way we use "destroyed" to mean ruined or lost, as in, "He destroyed his family with his drug habit." For example, look at its use in the following verses and see that the object being apollumi was not put out of existence:
Mt. 10:6 Go rather to the
lost [apollumi] sheep of Israel.
Mt. 26:8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this
waste [apollumi]?" they asked.
Luke 15:24, "For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was
lost [apollumi] and is found."
Luke 19:10 "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was
lost [apollumi]."
In all of these cases, the objects that perished, or were destroyed (apollumi) still existed. "apollumi...to perish...
The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of wellbeing. This is clear from its use, e.g., of the marring of wine skins, Luke 5:37; of lost sheep, i.e., lost to the shepherd, metaphorical of spiritual destruction, Luke 15:4, 6, etc.; the lost son, 15:24; of the perishing of food, John 6:27; of gold, 1 Pet 1:7." (W.E. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p. 164)
So there is nothing in John 3:16 which shows the wicked will cease to exist.
Isa 33:1
This pagan king is accused in this same verse of destroying others. Now, surely he was only destroying their bodies, right? But not their souls, for Jesus promised he could not destroy that in Matt 10:28. So the word destroy here is only referring to putting the physical body to death. That would not show the soul does not continue to live in hell, or some other place in the spirit world.
Psalm 37:10, 37:20, and 37:38
As I have already mentioned on Psalm 37, the contrast in this chapter is not between those who will exist and those who will not, but those who will get to live IN THE LAND and those who will not:
"The wicked borrow and do not repay,
but the righteous give generously;
those the Lord blesses will
inherit the land,
but those he curses will be destroyed." (vss 21-22)
Y
ou ignore what the Bible clearly says, just so you can hang onto your doctrine of eternal torture. I really don't expect that you will ever address John 3:16, Romans 6:23, Matthew 10:28 or any other verse which contradicts your false doctrine, none of your ECTist friends ever has, and I am sure you will avoid the scripture just the same as them. I keep hoping ONE of you will surprise me, and address the Scriptures, but none of you ever does.
