LuftWaffle

Senior Member
  • Content count

    646
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

LuftWaffle last won the day on March 26

LuftWaffle had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

780 Excellent

1 Follower

About LuftWaffle

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,963 profile views
  1. It seems you're assuming hell is a place of eternal torment and thus you're wondering why have such a place if nobody will be tormented eternally. Conditionalists argue that hell isn't a place of eternal torment but a place of slaughter. I the thread "conditionalism vs traditionalism" I have argued that every proof text for eternal conscious torment, when understood in it's proper biblical context actually serves as evidence for the conditionalist view. Being judged by the living God, losing out on eternal life in glory with Him, and being destroyed and put to death isn't "simply" ceasing to exist. Indeed, the traditionalist view must interpret all the texts where it speaks of eternal life vs perish, destroy or death as figurative, because it believes that everybody lives forever, both the saved and the unsaved, and it believes that the unsaved never really die and are never really destroyed. The proof-texts for eternal conscious torment are mostly based on hyper-literal reading of the images in Revelation or literal readings of figures of speech such as "eternal fire", "smoke rising forever" etc, which whenever they're used elsewhere in Scripture do not support eternal conscious torment, but always describe corpses. The traditional view reads literal texts figuratively and figurative texts literally. The Conditionalist view take literal texts literally and figurative texts figuratively.
  2. Yes, conditionalists believe that the unsaved will lost their lives and that this state of affairs is eternal. It's an eternal punishment. Not all conditionalists believe this. Some conditionalists believe that the soul is meant to be embodied and exists in a lesser form in the intermediate state. By intermediate state I mean the state after death, but before the general resurrection and judgement. Other conditionalists believe that the soul is seperate from the body and needn't be embodied and that the intermediate state is conscious, just like traditionalists believe. No, as mentioned previously some conditionalists are substance dualists, who believe that the soul and the body are seperate, others are physicalists who believe that the soul and the body are one entity. Those who are substance dualists fall into two categories too, namely those who believe that the soul is meant to be embodied and isn't conscious when not embodied and those who believe that souls can remain in a disembodied state just fine. Yes, this is the key belief of conditionalists Actually both traditionalists and conditionalists reject that we go to heaven/hell immediately when we die. Both groups believe there's an intermediate state where the dead will await judgement. Yes, except for the last point. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (Joh 10:25-28) Looking at the immediate context Jesus is taking a protective stance over his disciples and he says that He will not allow them to be led astray by the challenges they are going to face as Jesus' disciples especially during the crucifixion. Think about Peter's fear that drove him to deny Jesus 3 times. Then the severe persecution that would follow after that. But Jesus says He will not allow them to lose their faith and in the end, they will partake in eternal life. If they were to lose their faith their lot would have been with the unsaved who, after judgement will be destroyed and perish. I don't think Jesus is using eternal life, and perish in reference to the first death, but He is talking about the final outcome of the saved. As such it seems to me that whatever category of conditionalist one falls into, the verse doesn't really challenge the view, in fact the idea that the saved will get everlasting life and the unsaved will perish is precisely what conditionalism states.
  3. So, only extra-biblical sources? Do you really need a dictionary to tell you what death means? By the way, why is it that traditionalists aren't consistent with how they use the word "death". After all if they truly believed that death must be seen as "separation" then why, in the lists I've offered on page 15 where traditionalists say that the unsaved cannot die, they're clearly not using the *special* definition? In fact the only time I ever see death defined in that way is when traditionalists are defending eternal conscious torment against, well, the plain meaning of the word "death". The rest of the time, when they let their guards down, they seem to use the word the same way us conditionalists use it. Here is that list again: What the bible has to say about the death of the damned: Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:13: For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. John 6:50: This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. John 11:25–26: Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” What traditionalists say: Saint Anselm: O worms, O worms, why do you gnaw me so cruelly? Pity me, pity me; pity poor me, that suffer so many and such awful other torments! Ah, poor me, poor me! And I want to die; but, dying and dying, still I cannot die. Robert Murray M'Cheyne: Wicked men shall be cast away by themselves.—It is said, they shall wish to die, and shall not be able. They shall seek death, and death shall flee from them. Proceedings of the Church Missionary Society for Africa and the East: Some say, “Suppose me go to Hell, me soon die there—big fire soon kill me; then me no feel.” But God says you no die in Hell. Suppose you put stone in the fire, he can't be burnt ! No—fire can't burn him—he always live there! God says the wicked have hearts of stone, and fire will no melt them. John Wesley: Neither the righteous nor the wicked were to die any more: their souls and bodies were no more to be separated. Hyman Appelman: You can take poison; you can blow your brains out; you can hang yourself and believe you have left your difficulties behind. But there is no poison in Hell. There are no guns in Hell. There is no death in Hell. John MacDuff: [If we could] look into the lake of fire, and have a sight of the wretched beings who are there writhing in deathless agonies--we would then thank God for the most miserable condition on earth, if it were only sweetened with the hope of escaping that place of torment! John Willison: Pray earnestly, that all your sins may die before you die; for if they die not before you, but outlive the dying body, they will live eternally to sting and torment the never-dying soul. John Gill: …the soul in torment shall never die, or lose any of its powers and faculties; and particularly, not its gnawing, torturing conscience. Jerry Vines: To go to into hell knowing you will never return is the tragedy of all tragedies. “Let some air in.” No air is in hell. “I need a drink of water.” No water is in hell. “Turn on some light.” No light is in hell. “Let me die.” No So, Yowm and Jeff2 When all the above theologians claim that the damned in hell cannot die, do they mean their souls cannot be separated from God? I thought according to the traditionalist view hell was exactly that? Or do they mean their life (and thus suffering) cannot end? Do these theologians not read their Greek lexicons?
  4. I am happy to if asked. You must understand that I've been spending a lot of time responding to everybody here. If I take shortcuts then it's not some sinister agenda, I promise. Would a video help? Now, before you cherry pick the less direct lines of evidence from the above video, I want to restate why we're talking about this in the first place: Your assertion was that Conditionalism is relatively new and it was to that assertion that I responded with the list of church fathers. Even traditionalists grant that Arnobius was a Conditionalist so even if only that one goes through, your statement that Conditionalism is relatively new, is misinformed. Unless you're prepared to consider the 3rd Century as relatively new. In terms of your attempt at poisoning the well against Irenaeus by claiming that he has lots of unorthodox views: only the issue of conditionalism is relevant, because the matter on the table is whether your claim that Conditionalism is relatively new is true or not.
  5. I have not seen any scriptural reason for changing the word death in scripture to "separation". Lexical definitions are theologians' opinions on the range of meanings that a word can have and since most theologians are traditionalists, who need to explain why dead people can live forever, they use the Platonist definition of death which means separation. Show me the verse(s) in the Bible that say we need to redefine death as "separation". Where you will find it is in the writings of ancient Greek philosophers, and the church fathers who were versed in Greek philosophy. This is also where the idea that the soul is immortal comes from. "And they are right, Simmias, in saying this, with the exception of the words “They have found them out”; for they have not found out what is the nature of this death which the true philosopher desires, or how he deserves or desires death. But let us leave them and have a word with ourselves: Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? To be sure, replied Simmias. And is this anything but the separation of soul and body? And being dead is the attainment of this separation when the soul exists in herself, and is parted from the body and the body is parted from the soul—that is death?" - Plato's Phaeo 61-64 (http://www.bartleby.com/2/1/31.html) So, while I'm being accused of ignoring scripture and peddling philosophical arguments, the Bible does not once define death as "separation" and clearly contradicts the traditionalist belief that all souls are immortal in passages such as For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? (1Co 15:53-55) So, instead of the sarcasm and vague accusations, perhaps we can get down to brass tacks: 1. What scriptural justification do you offer for seeing death as separation, in opposition to how scripture defines death using descriptions like perish, destroy, ashes to ashes, corpses being devoured, the grave and so on? 2. What scriptural justification do you offer to extend the Greek philosophy of separation of body and soul to the second death and defining it as separation of man and God? Now I'm happy to confirm that death would entail separation from God, but your claim isn't merely that death entails separation but that it must be interpreted as living forever separate from God. 3. What scriptural justification do you offer for the immortality of all souls, especially given clear texts such as the one cited above?
  6. Your response was that they would have understood the images, not according to how they're used in the Old Testament meaning but according to your assumed progressive revelation that hell is eternal conscious torment. My response is that you're begging the question if the proof-texts must be interpreted according to some assumed progressive revelation that supports your view. What is your justification for the "progressive revelation" that hell is eternal conscious torment? The proof-texts! What's your justification that the original meaning of the images as used elsewhere in scripture must be overridden? Progressive revelation! This is text-book circular reasoning.
  7. My contention has been that the idea that death means separation (as well as the immortality of the soul) isn't found in Scripture, but has made it's way into church doctrine through the importing of Greek philosophy, and your counter to this is offering a Greek lexicon? Notwithstanding the irony, you're committing a Hermeneutic fallacy called: "Unwarranted expansion of an expanded semantic range". Basically the fallacy states, that you can't redefine the meaning of words by hunting for a dictionary definition that supports what you want the word to mean. The reason for this is that lexicons can't tell you what a word should mean in its current context (that's the job of the translator). Lexicons tell you what range of meaning theologians assign to a word. Obviously separation will feature since theologians have described death in that way. If some theologians mistakenly defined death as meaning "icecream", then some lexicons will have "icecream" included in the semantic range of that word. All you're proven is that some theologians define death as a separation, which goes without saying. The bible over and over describes the fate of the wicked in terms of death, destruction and to perish, and it illustrates this with words like ashes to ashes, dust to dust, corpses decaying and being devoured and burned up. Chaff being burned up. The traditionalist point of view is the opposite, the dead live forever, they do not perish and they aren't ever destroyed.
  8. I'd say that the exact opposite is true if you actually follow the discussions so far. Firstly the notion that all human beings are immortal is not found in scripture, scripture states that everlasting life is granted only to the saved. The notion however is found in the writings of Plato and church fathers like Tertullian quote plato when speaking of the immortality of all souls: "Some things are known even by nature: the immortality of the soul, for instance, is held by many; the knowledge of God is possessed by all. I will use, therefore, the opinion of a Plato when asserting Every soul is immortal." - Tertullian in his treatise "On the resurrection of the flesh" Secondly the idea that death is a separation isn't found in scripture but is also found in the writings of Plato. Thirdly when looking at the way the proof texts for eternal conscious torment are offered, they generally follow the following style. 1. Where there is smoke there is fire 2. Where there is fire there is fuel 3. Rev 14 talks about smoke rising forever 4. Therefore there must be fuel forever 5. the fuel of the fire are the wicked people 6. Therefore the wicked burns forever The same can be said for "the worms that don't die", "eternal fire" and most of the other proof texts. In the absence of a single verse stating that the wicked will live forever in torment, the traditional view relies on philosophical syllogisms that are meant to show that the worms have eternal food, that smoke has eternal fuel and so on. My approach at rebutting these was purely exegetical. By simply showing how these terms are used elsewhere in scripture and where they are used elsewhere they describe death and destruction instead of the conclusions of the traditional views attempted philosophical syllogisms. Now of I have been using reason, it's impossible to have a discourse without it, and reason isn't a bad thing, usually. I don't believe I have "explained away" any passages. I have addressed the poor reasoning behind many proof-texts for the traditional view and have shown how, when they are properly exegeted, offer better support for my view. In addition I have pointed out how the traditional view ignores the literary genre of Revelation when sourcing most of it's proof-texts from apocalyptic imagery, while ignoring clear teachings of Jesus and Paul. In fact I have demonstrated on page 15 using 3 extensive list just how the traditional view contradicts the clear teaching of scripture when they let their guards down while teaching on hell: Those lists cover 3 categories, namely: 1. that the bible teaches the death of the damned, while traditionalists teach that the damned never die. 2. that the bible teaches that only saved live forever, while traditionalists teach that the damned live forever. 3. that the bible teaches that the damned are destroyed, whereas traditionalists teach that the damned are never destroyed. I agree, which is why I think the lists on page 15 should offer some cause for concern. Sophistry is a strong word, and I should expect such a claim to be backed up with some examples of I or any other supporter of conditionalism have relied on sophistry. Empty accusations do not serve anything but to stir up strife. I find it interesting that truth doesn't feature at all in your above reflection. If conditionalism is true, then the gain is that one is closer to ultimate truth which is God's reality. Isn't it better to know true things than false things? I want to know what is true, don't you? How do we determine what is true if we don't discuss scripture and we don't have reasonable discourse? But ever since I became a conditionalist the gospel story took on a much more profound significance. The curse in the garden of Eden was seperation from the tree of life, and death entered the world. The problem with the world isn't paradise lost but that mankind has been cut off from Christ which is the source of life. The traditionalist view focuses on where you go, heaven or hell, and completely misses that the bible is about life. Christ is the way, the truth and the life. His resurrection unto life is the ultimate and direct proof that Christ meant what He said and that He had paid the wages of sin with his life, that death has been conquered. Instead of asking "Teacher how do we get to heaven", we should ask the way those who listened to Jesus' teachings asked, "Teacher how do I obtain everlasting life". The conditionalist view makes the conquest of sin and death so much more profound because evil isn't merely quarantined in some dark section of the universe where sinner keep of sinning, but sin and death are utterly vanquished. You are welcome to wonder all you like, thus far I've had my motives questioned by more than just you, so you're certainly not unique in resorting a ad hominems. This is false. Throughout Christian history there have been conditionalists: First Clement (late 1st century) Ignatius of Antioch (late 1st century) Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st or early 2nd century) Irenaeus (2nd century) Arnobius (early 4th century) Athanasius (4th century) Isaac Barrow (17the century) Joseph Nichol Scot (16th century) Henry Constable (19th century) So the idea that Conditionalism is relatively late is misinformed. Ah, one cannot have this debate without the old guilt-by-association trope.
  9. Yes, about the Messiah, and Christs literal acts and words revealed this progression and when we look back at scripture post His revelation we see the clear typology. What you're doing is simply throwing out the word "progressive revelation" in the hopes that it'll do the heavy lifting for your view, without actually exegeting scripture. You might as well say "Exegesis says I'm right and you're wrong, or Good Hermeneutics says I'm right" But worse, if anything you've shot the entire traditionalist case in the foot, because now the proof texts for eternal conscious torment are only proof texts if correct exegesis is overruled by the assumption that progressive revelation reveals that the fate of the lost is eternal conscious torment. But you haven't shown that eternal conscious torment has been progressively revealed, so this is all just question begging.
  10. Your believe is that the unsaved are immortal and cannot die, is it not? When the bible uses the terms perish and destroy is it not used in reference to dead bodies rotting and decaying, chaff burning up and so on? How are any of those compatible with your view that people will live immortally, fully conscious and aware and intact forever. Somehow you're calling this death and destruction and perish, even though the words mean the exact opposite and the scriptural examples show the exact opposite. Your view is more like how the burning bush that Moses saw is described: And the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. (Exo 3:2) Your view is that people will burn forever without ever burning up or being consumed, but the words destroy mean the exact opposite.
  11. Nowhere does the Bible teach that death = separation. This notion comes from Plato which is ironic given the fact that you've accused me of using philosphy instead of scripture to argue my case. "We believe, do we not, that death is the separation of the soul from the body, and that the state of being dead is the state in which the body is separated from the soul and exists alone by itself and the soul is separated from the body and exists alone by itself? Is death anything other than this?" - Plato’s Phaedo, section 64c It is also through Plato that the notion that all souls including the unsaved are immortal comes from. When the Bible refers to the fate of the unsaved it never defines death as separation, but it regularly uses it in conjunction with words like perish and destroy.
  12. Actually the traditional view appears around the time of Augustine. If we look at earlier writings of the church fathers then many of them appear to have been conditionalists, for instance: First Clement (late 1st century) Ignatius of Antioch (late 1st century) Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st or early 2nd century) Irenaeus (2nd century) Arnobius (early 4th century) Athanasius (4th century) It's also pretty clear that the notion that all human beings are immortal, which is the basis of the traditional view crept into Christian belief from Plato's writings. Tertullian for instance cites Plato and not scripture when speaking of the immortality of all souls. Firstly I have been very clear that the punishment, namely death is forever. The unsaved do not die for a while. So I'm in agreement about the eternal nature of the punishment. My belief is that taking figures of speech and interpreting them at face value to support a doctrine is an example of what you're talking about. I have pointed out that terms like smoke rising forever and worms dying not, when taken in their proper context, offers better support for my view. The cherry picking charge is actually pretty absurd considering that I have argued for my view from passages picked by traditionalists. My contention from the beginning was that I believe the proof texts for eternal conscious torment are actually better confirmation of my view. None of the evangelical conditionalists I have encountered came to their conclusions because "a loving God can't be that cruel". I came to the conclusion that conditionalism is true by researching what the bible teaches about the fate of the unsaved instead of merely looking at proof texts for hell and ignoring their literary context and how they are used elsewhere in scripture. The bible doesn't teach that the maggots are forever eating flesh. There is no such thing as an immortal maggot. See, this is precisely my point. The bible says the worms die not, which is just a way of saying that the worms won't be stopped from eating up the bodies of the dead Likewise the bible says the fire isn't quenched, it does not say the fire never goes out, and therefore the unsaved must live forever so that the fire will have something to burn, those are your words not the Bible, and they bad logical deductions based on misunderstand scripture. What the unquenchable fire means is simply that the fire is unstoppable, that it won't be put out until it has burnt up what it must must up. To quench a fire is to put it out. Another example of this language is here: Jer 7:33 And the dead bodies of this people will be food for the birds of the air, and for the beasts of the earth, and none will frighten them away. Notice the pattern? God is using images of unstoppable fire, unstoppable maggots and unstoppable scavengers to illustrate the utter destruction of the wicked. Nowhere do any of these, when understood in their proper context, support your interpretation. Notice also that in every case these images apply to the dead bodies, not to people living forever in torment. I agree, but the problem is that the traditional view ignores all the verses that describe the fate of the wicked from the old testament all the way to the new as death, because traditionalists don't believe that the fate of the wicked is death. When traditionalists source proof texts for hell they limit their search to the handful of verses which they think support eternal conscious torment while skipping over the deluge of text that doesn't fit with the doctrine. My desire is indeed for us to look at how God promised he will punish the wicked and what the destiny for the saved is, without seeing it through the coloured lenses of tradition. The problem is that it also says that death and hades are emptied before it is thrown into the lake of fire. So even assuming a wooden literal understanding of these apocalyptic images, doesn't help your case. My contention is that death and hades are abstract concepts, not containers full of screaming people. The traditional view forces a literal understanding of clearly apocalyptic imagery and then basis an entire doctrine on deductions from these, IMHO. bad readings of Revelation. And moreover they're not even consistent about it, because they do not view the many horned-many headed beasts, the whore and so many others things in Revelation in that same wooden literal way. I agree. Why then is it that traditionalist often teach precisely the opposite of what the bible says?
  13. Admittedly the above lists are a little cheeky, but I think it illustrates two points, which is why I wanted to post them. Firstly, the charge that conditionalists are theological liberals who twist scripture to suit their view is simply false. Secondly, I think it illustrates how the traditionalist doctrine has become so ingrained in Christian discourse that people auto-replace what they read in the Bible with the doctrine and even sound scholars such as the great teachers listed don't recognise that they're actually contradicting scripture. This was the biggest eye opener for me, in my study on this topic, was how the bible doesn't actually say what is so commonly believed.
  14. What the bible says about the destruction of the damned: Matthew 7:13: Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. Matthew 10:28: And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 2 Peter 2:12: But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction. 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. What traditionalists say: John Walvoord: Those being resurrected from Hades and the grave will receive a body that can never be destroyed, but unlike the body of the righteous, it is a body that is still wicked, still in rebellion against God, and still deserving God's judgment. J. Warner Wallace: They will not be destroyed, but instead, will be left in a conscious state to experience the torment and anguish of their punishment forever. Greg Koukl: Men are not destroyed, they are in torment. Robert Peterson: Hell is where “the fire is not quenched.” This is a picture of everlasting suffering, not of destruction. J.I. Packer: The fire of hell in the Bible is a picture not of destruction but of ongoing pain. J.P. Moreland: If God is the source and preserver of values, and if persons have the high degree of intrinsic value Christianity claims they have, then God is the preserver of persons. He would be wrong to destroy something of such value just because it has chosen a life it was not intended to live. Frank Turek and Norman Geisler: Hell is real. In fact, Jesus spoke more of hell then he did of heaven. God will not annihilate unbelievers because he will not destroy creatures made in his own image. That would be an attack on himself. Robert Thomas: Jesus described the fire as unquenchable as did John the Baptist. Jesus said it will be a fire that acts like salt, preserving rather than destroying. Lactantius: Because [the wicked] have committed sins in their bodies, they will again be clothed with flesh, that they may make atonement in their bodies; and yet it will not be that flesh with which God clothed man, like this our earthly body, but indestructible, and abiding forever, that it may be able to hold out against tortures and everlasting fire. Erwin Lutzer: Hell, then, is the raw soul joined to an indestructible body. Christopher Morgan: Annihilationism is the belief that those who die apart from saving faith in Jesus Christ will be ultimately destroyed. Albert Mohler: The Socinians . . . questioned the eternality of punishment in hell, teaching instead that the wicked would be destroyed in hell—a view that has come to be known as annihilationism. … Wenham leaned toward the annihilationist view that unbelievers might be destroyed rather than endlessly tortured in hell. J.I. Packer: Furthermore, the theory of annihilationism, in which unbelievers are not tortured but destroyed in hell, must be read into the Bible. Vernon McGee: [Hell is] not annihilation. Some of our cults like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism, they teach that the righteous will live forever but the wicked are just going to be destroyed and that ends it as far as they’re concerned. Randy Alcorn: Another view [of annihilationism] states that unbelievers are destroyed not at death, but sometime later.
  15. Who lives forever according to the bible? 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. 1 John 2:17: The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever. (NASB) John 3:36: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. What traditionalists say: John Rice: But the Bible carefully teaches that sinners must live on in torment forever beyond the judgment. J.I. Packer: In the New Testament, however, hell is a destiny: it is humanity’s future life as all who oppose God will experience it. John McKinley: Evildoers will continue to have purpose and value as God’s image bearers who acknowledge Jesus as Lord. They continue to live with created dignity by the way God holds them accountable for their evil actions. Pope John Paul II: The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. John Piper: You are not mere matter and energy. You are an embodied soul who will live forever in heaven or in hell, created in the image of God… --- Jesus had a lively, daily awareness of heaven and hell. These awesome realities were always relevant for the way he lived and taught. He was radically reasonable about these things. If we will live forever in bliss or torment, then securing the one and escaping the other is more important than most of what we think about. John MacArthur: The message of the Bible is that death does not end the existence of anyone, that every human being who has ever lived will live forever...either in hell or in heaven, either in eternal death or eternal life . . . Not merely as a disembodied spirit, but every person will live forever in bodily form. C.S. Lewis: Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live forever, and this must be either true or false. Robert Peterson: Believers will enjoy the new heavens and the new earth, whereas the final destination of the unrepentant will be “the lake that burns with fire and brimstone” Evidently God does not view unbelievers' being eternally alive in the lake of fire as incompatible with His being “all in all.” --- Moreover the picture of the righteous and unrighteous living forever in bliss and misery, respectively, does not fit either universalism or annihilationism. George Whitefield: I have in effect denied the Lord that bought me, and therefore justly am I now denied by him. But must I live for ever tormented in these flames? Charles Spurgeon: Man was condemned to live forever in Hell. --- Thou art a fallen creature, having only capacities to live here in sin, to live forever in torment. Menno Simmons: Therefore, consider seriously the heartrending misery and wretchedness of their poor souls which must live forever, either in heaven or in hell. Mark Driscoll: God is an eternal God; a sin against him is an eternal act that requires an eternal consequence. And we are going to live eternally into the future—the question is where. … You are going to live forever, and it will be unceasing joy or unceasing anguish. John Walvoord: It also seems very clear, according to Revelation 20:10 as well as other passages, that those thrown into the lake of fire are not annihilated. The beast and the false prophet are still alive and still tormented a thousand years after they are cast. Billy Graham: [The soul] will never die, but will live forever in either Heaven or Hell.