DarrenJClark

"Folks, I have hope that those who stand on annihilationism, or conditionalism/annihilationism may change their thinking. If by some chance they do not, that you yourselves who know the Truth of this matter will stand fast, and not fall into the net of this wrongful thinking of removing, changing, choosing, smorgasbord handling of God's Word." If you truly believe this then you will need to spend more time engaging with my argument rather than just dismissing them. "A lot of mistaken, or outright false teaching these days pretends to allow for our thinking, with the agenda of replacing the Truth with something new. In this case, "conditionalist/annihilationism."" That is just a bald assertion and in my case a completely incorrect assessment of my disposition towards the matter. "One thing I know for certain, the annihilationists thinking in part cheapens and discounts the Gospel of Christ, who with His Words told us of "into the fire that never shall be quenched" and "Where their worm dieth not." I've noted them discounting that as well in their writings." Prove it. Please avoid conflating JW , SDA, or other forms of annihilationism with Evangelical Conditionalism (EC). I personally know many conditionalists who take the Gospel seriously, believing in the same soteriology as fond in Evangelicalism, and preach it regularly. Your comments are just not accurate for EC. Oh, can you please provide detail on which EC proponent is discounting the force of "into the fire that never shall be quenched" and "Where their worm dieth not."? I am willing to discuss this imagery as it appears in Is 66:24 and Mark 9:48 if you like. "A Hell fire so awful that Jesus Christ told us it would be better to cut off a hand, foot, or pluck out an eye in this life and get into heaven, rather than wind up in Hell with two good hands, feet, and eyes." Yes, Matthew 18:8-9 contrasts the loss of a the part of the body with the whole of the body in Gehenna, the place where God destroys the body and the soul (Matt 10:28) with fire (Matt 3:12; 13:40-42). I agree that is awful. "As a side note, on a number of occasions when evangelizing for Christ, I've met lost people that also believe this lie of annihilationism, that was erroneously taught to them by someone, or some "leader." And they will go towards great wranglings of the Bible to "prove" their cause, even though their not Saved! Some of the lost enjoy this false teaching, as they fasten onto it as an escape clause, "just in case" there is a Lake of Fire, with their "faith" in annihilationism! Therefore, it will not be all that bad if what I am telling them about the Gospel is correct and they "deny it."" So what? I know several people who reject Christianity precisely because they think the idea of eternal conscious torment in hell is barbaric. I also know people who only accepted the Gospel because they were scared by hell and then they later faltered because they did not have an understanding of the Gospel. That is no reason to change one's mind about hell. It is all about what is taught in the Bible, not how others interact wit that truth. "Matthew 10:32-34 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. (33) But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. (34) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. I'll insure them the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that can forgive them of their sins is absolutely correct, and a Christ-less eternity in the Lake of Fire for those who ignore His precious Gift of Salvation is also correct." I preach the good news too as salvation in found in Christ alone and that will save them from hell. I am not sure how you think you and I are different on this.

How about instead of insulting me you address the points I made. Do you deny John is drawing his imagery of ever ascending smoke from Isaiah 34:10 where complete destruction of Edom is pictured, and is using that same imagery in Rev 19:3 to depict the complete destruction of Babylon? Do you deny that the present tense participles are being used in Rev 14:11? Did you even check out my claims or are you just assuming I fabricated this somehow? I am pointing to detail within the text itself so the only way for you to credibly refute my argument is to show why this detail does not support my reading.

Exactly. The complete destruction of S&G by fire, the burning of them to ash, is an example of the destruction wrought by the eternal fire. Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6 are telling you that if you want to know what being in the eternal fire looks like then you only need to look at S&G. The point from these biblical authors is the temporal destruction informs you on what the ultimate destruction looks like.

Well, if you refuse to explain how and why my exegesis is incorrect then you have no basis for claiming that I am reading the Bible incorrectly. Comments like the word of God is clear on the matter just amount to bald assertions. That is your choice but it is not how you are going to convince me to change my mind (which I would if superior exegesis was presented to me).

I hope you realize that Evangelical conditionalism is not equivalent to the annihilationism of the JWs and other groups. There are some significant differences.

It is your choice how you interpret those verses. My initial post was more of an invite for you to share your belief on hell and you have done that. I do not read the verses you cite the same way, though, and my response here is more of an explanation of why I read them as I do than any attempt to start an argument. "The "Eternal Death" I mentioned there, was a figure of speech, based not only on the "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" as mentioned in Jude 1:7." I notice that you omit commenting on 2 Peter 2:6 which runs in the opposite direction to your interpretation. In the first place, I am not convinced that Jude is teaching that those being punished (I am using the ESV instead of a translation like the KJV which has "vengeance" but the point will be the same either way) will survive the eternal fire. The adjective eternal (aiwnios) is applied to the fire not the subject that are thrown into that fire. Jude 1:7 7 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. To be sure they will suffer, but that verse say nothing about that suffering lasting into eternity. I think you have simply assumed that because the fire is eternal then the suffering must also be eternal. This I where you should let 2 Peter 2:6 guide you on the meaning of that kind of imagery. 2 Peter 2:6 "if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;" Peter is clear that the eternal fire ends the ungodly. "-Revelation 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. -Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. -Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." This is a case where you seem to assume a meaning of the second death, then quoting verses to prove what the second death is. That is called question begging or circular reasoning and why I try to avoid this kind of method of proof text quotation. There is a lot more discussion to be had on Rev. I will get to that. "We know this second eternal death to be eternal in all aspects based on other supporting verses in the Bible. These supporting verses could not be any clearer on the matter, "everlasting fire," "everlasting punishment," everlasting destruction,"the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever" and "they have no rest day nor night."" The problem here is that you are again assuming that the word eternal applies to the wicked even though the adjective is not used that way. Eternal fire (Matthew 18:8-9; Jude 7) is just a description of the fire not the wicked thrown into it. I have already shown why I think Jude 7 does not imply the wicked are eternal. Matthew 18:8-9 revolves around a contrast between losing a part of the body and losing the whole body. This is has support in the fact that Matthew has already told his readers that the judgement fire will kill or destroy the wicked (c.f. Matt 3:12; 10:28; 13:40-42, I can explain my exegesis of these verses if you wish). This relates to Matthew 25:46 as the same verses tell us that the eternal punishment is capital punishment. Without the death penalty being reversed the is no reason to think that this punishment should not be described as eternal. Eternal punishment does not necessarily imply an ongoing act of punishing any more than eternal judgement (Heb 6:2) implies an everlasting act of judgement or eternal sin (Mark 3:29) implies a never-ending act of sinning. I know plenty of scholars point to the parallelism in Matthew 25:46 to say eternal must mean the same with eternal life as it does with eternal punishment and I agree with them. My disagreement with them is they assume the eternal punishment implies eternal life. This is an odd reading of the parallelism since both eternal life and eternal punishment would mean eternal life. If we let Matthew tell us what he means (c.f. Matt 3:12; 10:28; 13:40-42), and that he did intend the punishment to end the wicked, then we have a perfect intelligible reading of Matthew 25:46 as teaching the opposite fates for the sheep and the goats. The sheep receive eternal life but the goats irreversible capital punishment that Matthew labels as eternal punishment. I am open to you asking me explain my exegesis of these verses further. "The same fate of those who worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark on their forehead, or in their hand, awaits those without Christ in the next life, in the torment of the Lake of Fire for ever and ever: Revelation 14:10-11 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: (11) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." Ok, there is a conflation of two texts here. Rev 20:10 only speaks of three characters and you have to assume that in the highly symbolic work they just refer to individual entities. Plenty of scholars and lay people think the beast and the false prophet represent corporate institutions without implying individual people are in view. I am saying you have to show how and why individuals are in view before making you case rather than alluding to that verse as if that just proves your case. Then even if Rev 20:10 does refer to two human characters you still have to infer their fate is the same as the three in 20:10. At best all you can say is directly taught by this verse is that the three are tormented forever but I can appeal to Matthew 13:40-42 where all the wicked are burned up completely. I know you are thinking that Revelation 14:11 proves your point but you really need to pay attention to how John used the OT in his work in general, and how he does so in particular in this verse. I will quote the British scholar Ian Paul, who completed his PhD in the nature of the symbolism in Rev, and has recently published the newest edition of he Tyndale commentary on Rev. "Though the phrase smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever (AT) has been interpreted as indicating a continual experience of torment (which raises some particular theological problems), this is difficult to sustain in the light of the parallel at 19:3, where in an identical phrase the ‘smoke from [the city Babylon] rises for ever and ever’ (AT). It is impossible to imagine the city being perpetually destroyed; the image must signify the eternal effect of its destruction, rather than an eternal process of destruction (cf. the destruction of Edom in Isa. 34:10)." Paul, Ian. Revelation: An Introduction And Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentary) . IVP. Kindle Edition. So John used the image of never-ending rising smoke from Isaiah 34:10, where it symbolizes the complete destruction of Edom, and applies it to Babylon with the same intent of communicating complete destruction not an ongoing act of destruction. So, by his own usage of the imagery John does not intend it to communicate a never-ending act. He uses the never-ending rising smoke to indicate completed and permanent destruction. I realise you will be thinking that the mention of no rest day or night proves other wise but you should note the participles used there are in the present tense making the no rest relate to the time they are worshipping the Beast and its image. So, if you investigate how John uses the OT and how he uses the tenses in that verse then you should see that you cannot just assume that he was teaching the wicked would be tormented in hell forever. That verse does no such thing. I am interested in your thoughts as I enjoy discussing these verses. I often learn from these exchanges.

Most conditionalists I know do not deny the basic meaning of eternal so the eternal punishment of the sinner, seen as their death, lasts forever just as the eternal life of the believer will.

Interesting. You literally changed the words of the verse without explaining why. So eternal fire becomes eternal death. We do have the parallel verse in 2 Peter which gives us a touch more idea of what the eternal fire did to Sodom and Gomorrah. Burning to ash seems to be the point of this judgement. 2 Peter 2:6 "if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;"

Ok. I accept that is your journey. I do not find it troubling at all. Eternal punishment is Matthew's way of summarizing his previous teaching on the fate of the wicked. I have no doubt about his ability to communicate consistently and have no trouble expunging contemporary ideas of "eternal" so can avoid anachronistically reading ideas into the text. So, no, that verse is, in my view, good evidence for conditionalism. I do not demand that you agree with me.

This is exactly what I think. The traditionalist argument from progressive revelation gets them in all sorts of problems because they assume so much without demonstrating their argument from good exegesis of the text. I have recently written a web article on this that is soon to be published at Rethinking Hell.

Again, why? I showed you verses where Matthew explicitly tells us that the last judgment of the wicked is their destruction and death. I do not have to jump through hoops to get there. All I have to do is let Matthew tell me what he means. I do not deny eternal punishment. I think this is the eternal punishment, being dead forever.

Why?

First, let me reiterate that my reservation to using the exact terminology eternal death stems more from how those holding to the traditional view would misunderstand it than anything else. I am from Rethinking Hell if you care to look us up and check out how we interpret thee verses you cite. My thoughts on Matthew 25:41, 46 are that Matthew ha unambiguously told us throughout his narrative that the final fate of the wicked will be their death (Matt 3:12; 10:28; 13:40-42; 18:8-9) so when he gets to talking about eternal life and eternal punishment in an eternal fire he means to say that this is their death. I do not need to have a different understanding of eternal to admit this. In Matthew 25:46, eternal life is juxtaposed with eternal punishment but I interpret that as saying that the sheep will have eternal life but the goats will have he opposite fate of capital punishment (due to what Matthew has already informed us is the punishment). It is properly considered as eternal because it is the punishment of the next age and it is forever (a in the wicked will be dead forever). It is a permanent death. I would speak of this as an eternal death, except all the traditionalists I interact with assume it means eternal dying. Nevertheless, if we let Matthew tell us what he thought the punishment was there is no doubt he mean the true death that would last forever. As for Daniel 12:2 (not 12:1) most people fall into the trap of dittography, thinking when Daniel wrote "others to shame and everlasting contempt" he meant to say "eternal shame and eternal contempt. No! This is literally what is not in the verse. Once this is accepted (and it really should be since it is literally what this verse says) then the only element of this verse we have to explain as being eternal is contempt. Most people assume contempt must imply the wicked are alive and conscious but this is not so. The Hebrew word for contempt in Dan 12:2 is very rare in the OT and is only used elsewhere in Isaiah 66:24 where the living look on the dead enemies of God with contempt. Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." The word abhorrence here is that same word use for contempt in Dan 12:2. Contempt/abhorrence describes the disposition of the living towards the dead and does not imply the wicked will be alive and conscious at all. Again, I might call this eternal death but people have a habit of seeing eternal and thinking it means the wicked are alive and kicking. So, while I can see that eternal death is something we might make of these verses is still would not use it because it is not actually in the text and people do tend to misunderstand what it means. If it I not in the Bible then I can avoid it to avoid miscommunication. That is my approach, anyway.

Nice.

I am a conditionalist so I am not saying that the wicked will not be dead permanently once judged by God and thrown into Gehenna (Matt 10:28). I personally would not use the term eternal death because people have a habit of reading the word eternal and assuming an ongoing state of dying is in view. If the Bible mentioned it explicitly then I would have to address it and use it. If not then I am not going to use that exact term even though I am sure you and I agree on what it means - people will be dead forever.

This whole post I created is about hell. I do not have to quote everything you wrote when my response was to assume you are correct but that would mean the plain meaning of Psalms 51; Matt 3:12; 10:28; 13:40-42; 18:8-9; 25:46; John 3:16; and, 2 Thess 1:9-10 all teach that the wicked are killed or destroyed by God. If no interpretation is needed (assuming you are correct so I am not arguing with you about what you say on interpreting the Bible) then option two in my post above has the most Scriptural evidence for it. I am not going to argue here about hermeneutics when my post is about hell.

That hyperbolic language argument is not how I would argue as a conditionalist.

Where does the Bible call death eternal?

You will be happy to know then, taken plainly Psalms 51; Matt 3:12; 10:28; 13:40-42; 18:8-9; 25:46; John 3:16; and, 2 Thess 1:9-10 all teach that the wicked are killed or destroyed by God. That is, if you want to take the words for what they most plainly mean then you will find option two has more support than option one. Your choice.

Well, I do believe the Bible, thoroughly. Do you think everyone who interprets a verse differently to you is disbelieving the Bible?

I agree.

I hold to conditionalism, the second option. I am happy to explain how we exegete the verses you cite, if you like.

I find the idea of infinite, a mathematical term denoting a never ending sequences of events or items in a line (etc.), a weird term to apply to God. There is no such thing as a true infinite scenario because you there is always the reality that further events can happen or more things can be added. Think of an infinite line of candles. That is impossible simply because you can always add another candle to the line. So that is why Christian philosophers generally do not use infinite to describe God since it implies he is incomplete. They prefer to use words like maximally loving, or maximally great, and so forth

None of the options I listed necessarily deny hell's existence, though it is interesting to read that many people simultaneously deny there is a hell while embracing there is a heaven.

For what it is worth there are very good reasons why Rev 14:11 does not support the idea of eternal conscious punishment in hell. It has to do with how John used the OT in his work. Ian Paul is am Anglican scholar from England and a specialist in the usage of imagery in Rev, having completed his PhD in that field of study and written the new ed. of the Tyndale commentary. He comments as follows, "Though the phrase smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever (AT) has been interpreted as indicating a continual experience of torment (which raises some particular theological problems), this is difficult to sustain in the light of the parallel at 19:3, where in an identical phrase the ‘smoke from [the city Babylon] rises for ever and ever’ (AT). It is impossible to imagine the city being perpetually destroyed; the image must signify the eternal effect of its destruction, rather than an eternal process of destruction (cf. the destruction of Edom in Isa. 34:10)." Paul, Ian. Revelation: An Introduction And Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentary) . IVP. Kindle Edition. Additionally, the "no rest day or night" is in the present tense in a way that shows the lack of rest relates only to while the worship is happening. In other words, it is not referring to a lack of rest occurring into eternity. It is something to think about.