Soul Sleep, ECT, Annihilation: Are the dead conscious or not?

[37818]

My false view??? You should believe what the Bible says or reject what the Bible says and hold on to the false view of eternal conscious torture in hell.

The Bible[the word of God] teaches the eternal suffering for the lost. That is why it is believed.

Throughout the Bible, the penalty for sin is said to be death, destruction, perishing, . . .

True

. . . being burnt up, being turned to ash and blown away, and being no more.

No where in the Bible as such [the final penalty for sin].

. . . That is what I believe.

I get that.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. True or False?

True.

2 Thessalonians 1:9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might. True or False?

True. [The destruction is continuous without end.]

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. True or False?

True.

Matthew 3:12 "His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." True or False?

True. [The fire never ever goes out.]

Malachi 4:1 For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. True or False?

True. [v.4 . . . they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet . . . . see Revelation 20:9, . . . and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.]

Psalm 37:10 In just a little while, the wicked will be no more; though you look carefully at his place, he will not be there. True or False?

True. [v.9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.]
None of the holy scriptures are at issue. Our differing understanding of them is at issue. Do you not think I'm in error?

Believe whatever you want to believe, I don't care. I can only tell you what the Bible says. I can't make you accept it. I've proven that the Bible says each thing that I have said. You are just unwilling to accept it. So believe whatever you want to believe. Reject the Bible if you want to, and you can face Jesus Christ on Judgment Day, having rejected the truth of the Bible. Good Luck with that. But I will not change back from believing the truth of the Bible to your false view, a view that I once held but rejected because of what the Bible says. But you can do whatever you want. Reject the truth, if it makes you feel good. I wish you well.

You have made claims as you think the Bible means. But you have not proven anything as you suppose.

Do we not agree that the word of God does not teach the immortality of the soul? [Ezekiel 18:4. James 5:20.]

We do disagree as to what the eternal destruction of the soul entails. Do we not?

I'm asking of you is for you to carefully make your case that it is not eternal suffering. And that you merely understand why I do believe it is continuous without end.

[Timothy]

The Bible[the word of God] teaches the eternal suffering for the lost. That is why it is believed.

TrueNo where in the Bible as such [the final penalty for sin].
I get that.
True.
True. [The destruction is continuous without end.]
True.
True. [The fire never ever goes out.]
True. [v.4 . . . they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet . . . . see Revelation 20:9, . . . and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.]
True. [v.9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.]
None of the holy scriptures are at issue. Our differing understanding of them is at issue. Do you not think I'm in error?



You have made claims as you think the Bible means. But you have not proven anything as you suppose.

Do we not agree that the word of God does not teach the immortality of the soul? [Ezekiel 18:4. James 5:20.]

We do disagree as to what the eternal destruction of the soul entails. Do we not?

I'm asking of you is for you to carefully make your case that it is not eternal suffering. And that you merely understand why I do believe it is continuous without end.

I gave you the scriptures that state exactly what I believe. The wages of sin is death. I don't care if you believe that or not, although I can't understand why you don't believe it when you are admitting that it is true. See your response to my question "True or False?" after Romans 6:23.

The wages of sin is NOT eternal suffering. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death.
Don't we agree that God does not teach the immortality of the souls of unbelievers? We agree that they are not immortal, therefore we agree that they ARE mortal. So we agree that they will die. We agree that they will not live forever. So we agree that they will not experience eternal suffering. So we agree that the wages of is NOT eternal suffering.

[37818]

I gave you the scriptures that state exactly what I believe. The wages of sin is death. I don't care if you believe that or not, although I can't understand why you don't believe it when you are admitting that it is true. See your response to my question "True or False?" after Romans 6:23.

The wages of sin is NOT eternal suffering. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death.
Don't we agree that God does not teach the immortality of the souls of unbelievers? We agree that they are not immortal, therefore we agree that they ARE mortal. So we agree that they will die. We agree that they will not live forever. So we agree that they will not experience eternal suffering. So we agree that the wages of is NOT eternal suffering.

We do not agree, "that they will not experience eternal suffering." We do not "agree that the wages" does "NOT" include "eternal suffering."

We disagree on what the death of the soul entails. Your definition of eternal death and my understanding of eternal death are not the same. Do you know why? Not merely to argue your are right and I am wrong. That does not resolve the disagreement.

[Timothy]

Throughout the Bible, the penalty for sin is said to be death, destruction, perishing, and the like. The Bible never once says that the wicked go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever. That is enough for me to believe that the penalty for sin is death and not eternal conscious torment.

[37818]

Throughout the Bible, the penalty for sin is said to be death, destruction, perishing, and the like. The Bible never once says that the wicked go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever. That is enough for me to believe that the penalty for sin is death and not eternal conscious torment.

Then how do you explain two things. How are those verses misinterpreted which give rise to the belief of eternal torment? (Please, explain them one at a time for clarity.) Second, explain Christ's death using the meaning, "the penalty for sin is said to be death, destruction, perishing, and the like." And how it was finished prior to His physical death (John 19:28, 30).

[Timothy]

Then how do you explain two things. How are those verses misinterpreted which give rise to the belief of eternal torment? (Please, explain them one at a time for clarity.) Second, explain Christ's death using the meaning, "the penalty for sin is said to be death, destruction, perishing, and the like." And how it was finished prior to His physical death (John 19:28, 30).

Okay

How are those verses misinterpreted which give rise to the belief of eternal torment?

Remember when the emperor declared that Christianity was to be the official religion of Rome? Do you think it is a coincidence that Pre-Christian Roman religion was that good people go to "heaven" and bad people go to Hades, and both groups remain conscious forever? PreChristian Romans didn't change their beliefs, they just put a "Christian" covering on it. Then Rome conquered the known world, bringing their brand of "christianity" with them.

Now whenever people read the Bible, they read it with Roman Lenses on. Everything is read from THAT worldview.

Please, explain them one at a time for clarity

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I don't know how anyone can misinterpret this verse to give rise to the belief in eternal conscious torment. They already HAD the belief in eternal conscious torment, and then misinterpreted "Death" so that they could hang onto their false belief, rather than just accepting that the wages of sin really is death and not eternal conscious torment. How can you read this verse and not come away believing that the wages of sin is death and not eternal conscious torment or torture?

2 Thessalonians 1:9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.
The only way to read eternal conscious torment INTO this verse is by denying the meaning of destruction, to make it mean non-destruction. I believe that it is better to just believe what it says.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
I have no idea how someone can say that they believe this verse and also believe that those who do not believe in him will not perish but will have eternal life in hell being tortured alive forever. The only way I can explain this doublemindedness is that they WANT to believe in eternal conscious torment in hell. Do you have a different explanation for how someone can believe that the lost will perish and at the same time believe that the lost will never perish but remain conscious forever in hell being tormented?

Matthew 3:12 "His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
Again, the only way to hold onto ECT after reading this verse is to deny what the verse says. Chaff that is burnt up is destroyed, it is not kept alive forever in hell being tortured.

Malachi 4:1 For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.
I don't know how those who hold the mistaken belief in hell can misinterpret this verse to give rise to their belief in eternal conscious torment. They must not be paying attention when they read the Bible. I've found that most people just don't want to think about hell, or what they believe about it.

Psalm 37:10 In just a little while, the wicked will be no more; though you look carefully at his place, he will not be there.
This perfectly describes the destruction of the wicked. I don't know how anyone could read this and not come to the conclusion that the wicked will be no more instead of being preserved forever in hell for the purpose of torment. Again, the only reason I can think of is that they want it to be that way. Wishful thinking causes delusions.

Second, explain Christ's death using the meaning, "the penalty for sin is said to be death, destruction, perishing, and the like".

No problem! Christ took our sins upon Himself, and He paid the penalty for our sins (which is death) with His Death. It makes perfect sense. However if the penalty for sin is eternal conscious torment in hell as you say, please explain Christ's DEATH on the cross as payment for our sins using the meaning that the penalty for sin is eternal torment. The penalty would remain unpaid, since Christ was not tortured for all eternity in three hours.

And how it was finished prior to His physical death (John 19:28, 30).

While on the cross Jesus said "It is finished, then He died". This doesn't present a problem for my Biblical view, but it does present problems for the eternal torment view. Christ took our sins upon Himself, and then said "It is finished". It could be that the removal of sins was finished then. It could also be that He said "It is finished" with His dying breath and His death accomplished the payment of sin. Either way explains the Biblical Record. But your view has severe problems. If people go to hell to be tortured forever to pay for their sins, then "It is NOT finished". If the payment required is eternal conscious torment in hell, then it is also NOT finished.

Why don't you just drop your unbiblical view of eternal conscious torment in hell, and accept the biblical view that the wages of sin is death?

[37818]

Okay


Remember when the emperor declared that Christianity was to be the official religion of Rome? Do you think it is a coincidence that Pre-Christian Roman religion was that good people go to "heaven" and bad people go to Hades, and both groups remain conscious forever? PreChristian Romans didn't change their beliefs, they just put a "Christian" covering on it. Then Rome conquered the known world, bringing their brand of "christianity" with them.

Now whenever people read the Bible, they read it with Roman Lenses on. Everything is read from THAT worldview.

<snip>

While on the cross Jesus said "It is finished, then He died". . . .

No. He physically died after it was "finished." The fact is in verse 28, "were now accomplished" the word "accomplished" meaning paid in full was already done.

Why don't you just drop your unbiblical view of eternal conscious torment in hell, and accept the biblical view that the wages of sin is death?

My view is the correct Biblical view. Or I would not knowingly hold it. Merely arguing that it is not does not make it not biblical.

[Anthropos]

Have any of you read the book, Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment?

[Timothy]

Have any of you read the book, Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment?

No, but I am aware of Peterson's view. Have you read The Fire That Consumes?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fire-That-...d_bxgy_b_img_y

[Timothy]

No. He physically died after it was "finished." The fact is in verse 28, "were now accomplished" the word "accomplished" meaning paid in full was already done.


My view is the correct Biblical view. Or I would not knowingly hold it. Merely arguing that it is not does not make it not biblical.

How do you reconcile your view with Romans 6:23 and John 3:16? Please be specific.

[37818]

How do you reconcile your view with Romans 6:23 and John 3:16? Please be specific.

"For the wages of sin [is] death; . . ." -- Romans 6:23.
". . . God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." -- Romans 5:8.

Death is the opposite of life. Death's meaning being the separation from life.

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . _ . . . his soul an offering for sin, . . . _ . . . poured out his soul unto death: . . . ." -- Isaiah 53:6, 10, 12.

I have explained this before. Jesus' soul died on the cross for our sins. Furthermore: Paying for our sins with His shed blood. ". . . For the life{soul} of the flesh [is] in the blood: . . ." -- Leviticus 17:11. ". . . And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." -- Hebrews 9:22. ". . . How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" -- Hebrews 9:14. ". . . And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, . . . " -- Revelation 1:5.

So Jesus' soul died on the cross having shed His blood for our sins. bearing our sins on the cross. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? . . . I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. . . . they pierced my hands and my feet." -- Psalm 22:1, 6, 16. And finishing this on the cross before He would physically die. ". . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . . " -- John 19:28. The redemption price now being paid in full. His fellowship with is Father now restored, He could say, ". . . Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: . . . ." -- Luke 23:46.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." -- John 3:16. The [by interpretation, infinite] only-begotten Son as a [finite mortal] man bearing the death of sinners [in a moment of time] while on the cross. ". . . . . . I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. . . ." ". . . hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." -- Mark 9: . . . 48.

What part or parts of this are you not able to understand? Please be very specific.

[37818]

Have any of you read the book, Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment?

I will put it on my list of books yet to read.

[Anthropos]

No, but I am aware of Peterson's view. Have you read The Fire That Consumes?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fire-That-...d_bxgy_b_img_y

No, I haven't read this book. I intended to do so about three years ago when I was devoting time to this study from different theological perspectives. Hopefully I will have time to begin reading it in March. And I am open to Evangelical Conditionalism, since the primary difference between this view and the traditional view is over the duration of conscious punishment in hell, not over whether the condemned will suffer conscious punishment in hell (See, Common Misconceptions). But I'm presently not persuaded that the predominant evangelical conditionalist view represents the apostolic teaching within NT Scripture. The same is true with the Lord's church throughout history to our present day. For the traditional view is not a conditional view.

Although I haven't read Fudge's book, I am familiar with Mr. Edward Fudge's view on this, having read his debate with Robert Peterson - Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue - and have studied much of what he's said online about this, which includes his lecture, The Fire That Consumes. I have also studied from others who embrace Conditional Immortality; from those who represent the core essentials of the Christian faith (like Fudge), as well as from those who do not (like JWs).

Nevertheless, since this work by Fudge is endorsed by a few evangelical theologians whom I highly respect, I believe The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment deserves a fair hearing, just as much as I believe Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment and Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment deserves a fair hearing. Another important book that should be considered is, Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism.

I do find it interesting that Fudge has reasons to not contend for immediate annihilation for all the condemned in final judgment, accepting the belief of degrees of punishment of the wicked (Matt. 10:14-15; 11:21-24; Lk. 12:46-48; 20:47; Heb. 10:29; Rev. 20:12-13). Thus thinking degree of punishment has to do with how long they are to suffer punishment in hell after judgment before annihilation. For example-- retributive punishment in hell for a billion years with some is not in conflict with his view. This is plainly seen without having to read anything he's written, by hearing what he says on this to Dr. Michael Brown in this YouTube video: The Question of Hell and Eternal Punishment.

The reason I find this interesting is because allowing for the belief of degrees of punishment makes suffering in hell the punishment, which is what we who represent the traditional view would agree with about the nature of the punishment after final judgment being suffering in hell, not annihilation. Of course, Fudge contends for both suffering in hell and annihilation as punishment, but I see arguing for both as punishment being contradictory. And there are conditionalist (annihilationist) who also see this as being contradictory. But there are a growing number of evangelical conditionalist who agree with Fudge (See, RethinkingHell.com).

Punishment in hell after final judgment for a period of time (like a billion years) in my opinion is a weak position of Conditionalism. At the same time, this view of Conditionalism is closer to the traditional view than the view that denies that the condemned will suffer conscious punishment in hell. And it is difficult for a Christian who believes the view of Conditionalism that denies this to account for what we read in Scripture of degrees of punishment. If it wasn't, we would not be seeing leading advocates of Evangelical Conditionalism like Edward Fudge allowing for this traditional belief within their view of conditionalism, because it prevents them from denying that there is a period of penal suffering for the wicked in hell prior to annihilation. And that significantly weakens the strength of their arguments for annihilation; not only to some of us who represent the traditional view, but is viewed as weakening the strength of their arguments to some conditionalist who believe the only punishment for the ungodly at the final judgment is annihilation.

Btw, some of the contributors to Hell Under Fire amicably interact with some things Fudge said in his book, The Fire That Consumes.

PS: For those who have only studied one view on Hell, I recommend that you begin your study with how different views are debated among theologians and philosophers.

• Four Views on Hell (Debate between William Crockett, John Walvoord, Zachary Hayes and Clark Pinnock. This is a must-read for anybody who desires to understand different views.)
• Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment and Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Different views of hell are addressed in this book.)
• Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue (Debate between Robert Peterson and Edward Fudge.)
• Universal Salvation?: The Current Debate (Good book for examining Christian Universalism from different theological and philosophical perspectives.)
• Debate on the Doctrine of Hell (Debate between James White and Roger and Faith Forster.)
• The Question of Hell and Eternal Punishment (Michael Brown speaks with Edward Fudge.)
• Jeremy Evans of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary discusses differing views concerning the nature of hell held by Christians (Mike Licona interviews Jeremy Evans.)
• Can a Loving God Send People to Hell? William Lane Craig vs. Raymond Bradley (Transcript of debate, click here.)

It is not possible to evaluate another viewpoint fairly without first understanding it, and the above sources are a good place to begin for those who are only familiar with their view on hell.
_______________________________

"Differences concerning the nature of hell are about matters of biblical interpretation, and evangelicals should seek to explore and discuss them irenically and respectfully without accusing one another of heresy or rejecting members of the evangelical family who are questioning whether traditional interpretations of Scripture are really true to Scripture."
--Howard Marshall, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, University of Aberdeen, Scotland [Source]

[Timothy]

"For the wages of sin [is] death; . . ." -- Romans 6:23.
". . . God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." -- Romans 5:8.

Death is the opposite of life. Death's meaning being the separation from life.

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . _ . . . his soul an offering for sin, . . . _ . . . poured out his soul unto death: . . . ." -- Isaiah 53:6, 10, 12.

I have explained this before. Jesus' soul died on the cross for our sins. Furthermore: Paying for our sins with His shed blood. ". . . For the life{soul} of the flesh [is] in the blood: . . ." -- Leviticus 17:11. ". . . And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." -- Hebrews 9:22. ". . . How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" -- Hebrews 9:14. ". . . And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, . . . " -- Revelation 1:5.

So Jesus' soul died on the cross having shed His blood for our sins. bearing our sins on the cross. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? . . . I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. . . . they pierced my hands and my feet." -- Psalm 22:1, 6, 16. And finishing this on the cross before He would physically die. ". . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . . " -- John 19:28. The redemption price now being paid in full. His fellowship with is Father now restored, He could say, ". . . Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: . . . ." -- Luke 23:46.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." -- John 3:16. The [by interpretation, infinite] only-begotten Son as a [finite mortal] man bearing the death of sinners [in a moment of time] while on the cross. ". . . . . . I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. . . ." ". . . hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." -- Mark 9: . . . 48.

What part or parts of this are you not able to understand? Please be very specific.

The part where you actually explain why perish in John 3:16 doesn't really mean perish. You seem to have skipped over that. Also, you haven't explained why death in Romans 6:23 doesn't really mean death. You haven't adequately shown the proof for your statement that "Jesus' soul died on the cross". You underlined the word soul, but the passages you used do not support your idea.

I am able to understand any number of things. I should not be expected to accept everything anybody writes when you do not adequately provide reasons for me to do so.
I am a little bit offended by this statement, "What part or parts of this are you not able to understand?"

Throughout the Bible, the terms used for the fate of the unrepentant are strikingly similar: Death, Perishing, Being Destroyed, Destruction, Being consumed by fire, etc. The Bible never says that the unrepentant will live forever being tortured. Taken as a whole, the Bible support the doctrine of Annihilationism MUCH better than it supports the doctrine of Eternal Tormentism.

[37818]

The part where you actually explain why perish in John 3:16 doesn't really mean perish. You seem to have skipped over that.

No. Not so. Only according to your wrong understanding of the word.

". . . What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose{Greek for perish used here} one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost{Greek for perish used here}, until he find it? . . . " -- Luke 15:4.

απολεσας, "he lose," verb, tense aorist, voice active, mood participle, case nominative (subject; predicate nominative), in the singular, masculine for ἀπόλλυμι, apollumi.

απολωλος, "that which is lost," verb, tense second perfect, voice active, mood participle, case accusative (direct object; motion toward; time: "how long"), singular, neuter for ἀπόλλυμι, apollumi.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." -- John 3:16.

αποληται. "perish," verb, tense second aorist, middle voice, subjunctive mood, third person, singular, for ἀπόλλυμι, apollumi.

In other words, your argument does not hold.

. . . Also, you haven't explained why death in Romans 6:23 doesn't really mean death.

I did not deny death means death. Death means separation from life.

Death is the opposite of life. Death's meaning being the separation from life.

You haven't adequately shown the proof for your statement that "Jesus' soul died on the cross".

Did Jesus soul die for sin (Isaiah 53:10. 12)? True or false? Did Jesus complete this before He physically died (John 19:28)? True or false?

You underlined the word soul, but the passages you used do not support your idea.

כי נפשׁ הבשׂר בדם הוא

הבשׂר, nephesh, soul, life.

I am able to understand any number of things. I should not be expected to accept everything anybody writes when you do not adequately provide reasons for me to do so.
I am a little bit offended by this statement, "What part or parts of this are you not able to understand?"

Understanding does not necessitate your agreement. My comment was in kind to your comments to me.

Throughout the Bible, the terms used for the fate of the unrepentant are strikingly similar: Death, Perishing, Being Destroyed, Destruction, Being consumed by fire, etc. The Bible never says that the unrepentant will live forever being tortured. Taken as a whole, the Bible support the doctrine of Annihilationism MUCH better than it supports the doctrine of Eternal Tormentism.

You have not proven this. Merely saying it does, does not make it so. Show me that meaning from the word of God. Please step me through, how you came to your conclusion.