LuftWaffle

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Lets put your theory to the test. A fellow conditionalist named Ronnie Demler has compiled a list of scriptural teachings and what esteemed traditionalist, some to whom you might look up have taught. Let's see if you're correct in that conditionalists are the one who twist scripture or if it may in fact be those on your side. 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 death occurs in hell. What do you say YOWM? Do you believe that the unsaved will die, or do you believe that they'll live forever in torment?

Again I have made it clear that I believe the punishment is eternal because the unsaved will lose their lives forever. Moreover I've made it abundantly clear that my position is that the unsaved will die. Whether or not bits remain or nothing remains is irrelevant to me. The verses you've cited have been addressed before.

You have made a number of points above which I think merits some consideration. I think the Holy Spirit has often used people's missteps for good. God used Joseph's brothers' wickedness for good to find a way to save Israel for instance. As such I don't think that just because good has come from the doctrine of eternal conscious torment, this automatically means that is true and that it is from the Holy Spirit. I don't think it's fair to take what secularists believe and apply it to this discussion. Firstly I believe that all people will be held accountable and be judged and those who lose their lives will ultimately lose the greatest thing that mankind could ever be given, which is the opportunity to everlasting life in the new heaven and the new earth in the glory and kingdom of our God. And I think the thought that the price for that gift was freely given, because Jesus already died so they didn't have to, will indeed be tragic. This is significantly far removed from what atheists believe that this life is it, the best there is.

You are pretending that I am arguing for cessation of existence, but I have been very clear from the start that my position that the unsaved will die/perish/be destroyed. Pretending that I have made a different argument than that and going after that instead of what I actually argued is a strawman fallacy. Jesus' audience and Paul's audience didn't have the luxury of theological notions such as "progressive revelation", but instead knew the old testament very well. There is no reason to think that they wouldn't have taken a wooden literal view of terms such as smoke rising and eternal fire. Terms they were very familiar with. Likewise there is also no reason to think that they would have understand death/desctruction juxtaposed against eternal life as meaning any other than what they were familiar with. I'm happy to access if I have been guilty of bad exegesis, but merely asserting "you're wrong, because bad exegesis because progressive revelation" isn't an argument.

As I have pointed out a number of times, Conditional Immortality or Evangelical Conditionalism holds that eternal life is only given to the saved. The unsaved will perish/die/be destroyed. What scriptures support this notion? Here are some that you have chosen to ignore earlier: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (Joh 3:16) Do you believe what it says in the above verse, that those who believe will live forever and those who don't will perish? Or do you instead believe that everybody lives forever, some in bliss and some in misery, and that those in misery won't in fact perish at all? "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. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Mat 7:13-14) For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:23)

Our reading of scripture should be informed by the genre and figures of speech should not be taken at face value. Apocalyptic symbolism should not be taken at face value, and pointing that out is not an instance of allegorising/spiritualising. How does one show that a figure of speech is at play? By showing where the same images and phrasing is being used elsewhere and where the bible itself attaches a different meaning. This I have done, so I believe I have satisfied the requirements of being true to scripture and sound exegesis.

I'm glad my posts could be of help. I would urge you to always be careful when going against tradition, but ultimately being honest and true to scripture should overrule tradition.

I don't think trying to come to a deeper understanding about what scripture teaches on a certain topic is silly. Now you may not agree with me and that's fine, but dismissiveness isn't a good argument. I agree, which is why I believe the punishment for the wicked is an eternal punishment. My position isn't that the punishment is temporary but you're arguing as if that is what I believe. I think the second death will be permanent, so the duration of the punishment is eternal whether you believe in eternal conscious torment or you believe that the unsaved will be killed/destroyed. I've addressed this verse in the post just before this one. This verse, when properly read in context is actually better support for my view than yours. Ok, so it looks like your entire post is actually based on assuming what I'm not arguing, and responding to what you imagine I've argued. I believe the punishment for sin is death and I believe the punishment is eternal. So we're in agreement about the duration of the punishment. The verses cited describes Hades and is a parable about charity, not a description of the ultimate fate of the unsaved. The clear give away that this verse isn't talking about the ultimate punishment of the wicked is the fact that the man in Hades wanted to warn his brothers who were still living in their house. This is a consistent issue with the traditionalist view, which is the tendency take verses that seem to contain fire and suffering and employing them as proof texts for eternal conscious torment instead of taking the time to see what the verses mean in their own context. It preassumes the medieval concept of hell and then reads it into the Bible where ever it may fit.

: The bible simply does not teach that the unsaved will be conscious pain forever and ever and that they will be aware of their surroundings. As a summary of the traditionalist view this is all good and well, but my contention is that the bible does not teach this view. For a person to be aware of their surroundings and able to experience pain means that they would have to be alive. The bible describes eternal life as a gift for the saved. The idea that the unsaved will also live forever has no basis in scripture. The bible describes the fate of the unsaved as death/destruction. The idea that people will be alive and tormented is the exact opposite of being killed and destroyed. In terms of the proof texts that were offered, I made a rather bold statement earlier in the thread that virtually every prooftext for the eternal conscious torment view, when taken in context is actually better support for my view. Lets see if this claim still holds: Matthew 25:41 You've offered "eternal fire" as a proof for an eternal hell and the assumption that is made is that if the fire is eternal then it must mean that the fuel would be eternal as well. So this proof text actually requires some philosophical gymnastics to work, but the problem is that eternal fire when used elsewhere in scripture doesn't imply eternal fuel, i.e. damned souls. Eternal fire simply refers to heavenly fire, or divine fire. As such we read in Jude: just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jud 1:7) Here eternal fire clearly does not mean everlasting conscious torment. Sodom and Gomorrah aren't still burning. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 The above verse describes eternal destruction, but this is perfectly consistent with my view because if the unsaved are killed, forever losing out on life, then their punishment is indeed eternal destruction. What traditionalists assume is that this verse is describing the destructive process, but it's actually referring to the outcome. So again the "prooftext" carries certain assumptions that just aren't warranted. If the verse had said "eternal destroying" then it would have worked for the traditional view, but "destruction" refers to the outcome of the punishment. Likewise when the bible refers to our eternal salvation it does not mean that God is eternally saving us. It means the outcome is eternal. Now according to the traditional view the unsaved are never actually destroyed, they're always aware and always alive as you stated, so the verse doesn't really work for the traditional view, but it's perfectly consistent with a conditional immortality view. Revelation 4:8 This verse doesn't really speak to the issue, perhaps you had a different verse in mind? Revelation 14:9-11 Again before addressing the verse in question I'd like to emphasise how a great deal of the traditionalist case is built by taking the symbolism in Revelation to built a doctrine of a literal eternal conscious torment. This verse is about the "smoke of their torment rising forever". If we look at how the same figure of speech is used elsewhere in scripture it again seems to lend better support for my view: And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into sulfur; her land shall become burning pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever. (Isa 34:9-10) Contrary to it referring to a place where people are consciously tormented forever, the same figure of speech describes an empty wasteland. Smoke rising forever does not imply eternal conscious torment but describes utter destruction. Revelation 20:10-15 The problem the above it is not a literal description of what will happen to the unsaved but a visionary depiction. Other images included in this vision are a prostitute, beasts with characteristics of bears and leopards, with meany heads and many horns. Morever abstract concepts such as death and Hades are also included in the lake of fire. So what the traditionalist view tends to do here, is to take the beast and the prostitute and death and hades being thrown into the lake of fire as symbolic references, but then take the "tormented forever part" in a literal sense and reinpret all the other scriptures describing the fate of the lost according to this one scripture. Whenever the Bible does interpret the symbols in Revelation it's nowhere near the literal meaning. The prostitute refers to the city of Mystery Babilon. Her fate is also described as smoke rising forever, but in Revelation 18:21 describes the city as being found no more. Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "So will Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence, and will be found no more; (Rev 18:21) Likewise the beast symbolises a kingdom which will be overthrown: "I looked then because of the sound of the great words that the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was killed, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. (Dan 7:11) So if we look at the way scripture interprets the symbols in Revelation it seems to better demonstrate the end of the dominions of this world, whether those be wicked governments or the dominion of death itself, and that these do not describe unsaved individuals being living in eternal torment. Every time the Bible interprets the event for us it describes the end of something not a place where things are eternally preserved and living forever in torment.

Good night folks. I'm off to bed. I'll try and respond tomorrow.

Are there any scriptures that led you that conclusion?

I'm happy assuming death as non-existence for the sake of argument and I agree physical bodies eventually disintegrate, but I don't wanna get bogged down with the cessation of existence business. For me the key issue is the language of death and destruction. I suppose you can see it as a cumulative case. On one hand you have the conditionalist argument that states that only the saved will have eternal life. The unsaved therefore will die. This makes no claim about what's left when they die. Only that they die. Then a futher case can be make that nothing will be left over, but that is a seperate argument which I have no interest in. Does it really matter if whether I believe there'll be corpses left over after the second death or nothing? Or how long the corpses will remain? Well, hang on, your language here is a little loaded because, when you're saying "existence with respect to human life" you're talking about human life and it's existence, which is obviously not true for inanimate objects. Existence proper, however is just being. Things that are in the world exist, but not all things that are in the world are alive. So existence cannot possibly be identical to alive. I mean, suppose you asked a doctor to check whether a person lying in a hospital bed is alive, will he point at the human body resting on the bed and say, "well he is there, so he must be alive", or is being alive different from merely being here, i.e. existing? Would consciousness for instance be a sufficient condition for the doctor to say the person is alive?

This is a theological apherism which assumes the traditionalist view. There are about 10 prooftexts for the traditional view and virtually all of them support the conditionalist view better when interpreted in light of scripture. The verses however describing the ultimate fate of the wicked using words like death, destruction and perish are in the hundreds. Likewise whenever the bible refers to everlasting life this is only ever in reference to the saved. The traditional view however claims that both the saved and the unsaved are immortal. Now, you're attributing motive to me, which is unfortunate. You're pretending that I'm allegorising things because I'm somehow uncomfortable with verses. All I'm asking is that we try and be good exegetes. If I argue that Jesus has a sword for a tongue you'll point out to me that it's a symbol from Revelation and isn't meant to be taken literally. Why does this rule not apply when the shoe is on the other foot. Why are we reinterpreting the gospels' words like death and destruction according to a literal interpretation of images seen by John in Revelation? Appealing to tradition will not work. I am well aware that my view isn't traditional, which is why I've done my homework. This is not an argument. Namecalling and guilt by association! Not cool brother. Why is it that I am the one being accused of doubting scripture while I'm trying my best to offer scriptural backing for my beliefs? If we can together agree that scripture should be the authority when why am I holding that end of the deal and you're resorting to appeals to tradition, namecalling and attributing motive to me? I'm going to ask you a third time and then I'll give up: Suppose the ultimate fate of the wicked was death/perishing and the ultimate fate of the saved is everlasting life, would you grant that the many verses I've cited support that proposition? This is really an uncontroversial question but the fact that it's so difficult to answer demonstrates that there's not even a willingness to give the proposition a fair look.

Hi Yowm, Firstly let me ask, doesn't it surprise you that most of the proof texts for the literal eternal torment of the wicked is pulled from the book of the bible that has the most symbolism in it, whereas the verses I've offered for my view barring psalms are not? Now in terms of the smoke rising up for ever and ever, this is a figure of speech which is also found here: And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into sulfur; her land shall become burning pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever. (Isa 34:9-10) Smoke rising forever seems to mean utter destruction, not a place where people are kept alive and tormented eternally. Likewise unquenching fire refers simply to a fire that cannot be put out until it has burned up everything in its way. Ezekiel 20:47 Say to the forest of the Negeb, Hear the word of the LORD: Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree in you and every dry tree. The blazing flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from south to north shall be scorched by it. These images of worms not dying, of smoke rising forever and unquenchable fire are figures of speech which is being taken from the book of Revelation which is full of symbolism to make a case for a literal eternal torment, while one can draw scripture upon scripture from the historical narrative in the gospels, to the letters of the apostles to make a case that the wages of sin isn't living forever in torment but death. That the those who do not believe will perish and die. Would you at least be willing to grant that if the proposition that the wicked will die is true, that the verses I quoted would support such a view? I'll add some more verses, because this is really the essence of the issue. Is the bible a book about God giving life to those who deserve death, or is the entire biblical story about spending eternity in a place of bliss rather than a place of misery? And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1Jn 5:11-12) How easily have we become accustomed to apply a filter to the bible and to autoreplace life with heaven and death with hell. All I'm saying is that perhaps the filter should be abandoned. Perhaps life should just mean life, and death should just mean death.

And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into sulfur; her land shall become burning pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever. (Isa 34:9-10) The language of smoke rising forever is a figure of speech indicating utter destruction. Do you believe that Edom is still burning to this day? Weeping and gnashing teeth does not prove what you need it to prove. Mary Magdaleen wept and the pharisees gnashed their teeth at Jesus. Weeping and gnashing of teeth when used elsewhere in the bible doesn't refer to torture but to anger and regret. I'm certain the unsaved will be angry and have regret when they lose out on life. But tell me, why did you say that the soul cannot die, when Jesus said that men can only kill the body, but God can destroy both in hell? Are you selecting 2b as the meaning of death because it suits your view? Why not 1 or 1a or 2 or 2a? What exegetical principle led you to 2b?