Deserving Eternal Torture/Torment

[Copper Scroll]

there is no such bible teaching of eternal torture in hell...

Matthew 25:46

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment...

Mark 9:43-44

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Luke 16:28

...send him (Lazarus) to my father's house: For I (the rich man) have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Revelation 20:10, 15

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

And whomsoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Thank you for bringing these scriptures.

...hell is the common grave of mankind...

Sometimes. And yet other times it is depicted as being a place with unquenchable fire. Let the context dictate the usage.

Have we come to a contradiction in how hell is characterized by the Bible? Coleen did also refer to scripture in her (?) argument.

...our creator is a loving creator and is not abusive.

True, but we do not define what is "Just" and what is abusive. We learn from God that our ways are not His ways. The scriptures teach of a place of torment. We would be wise to accept God's word over our understanding.

I think there is some merit to this argument, but in general I don't like it. If our understanding of concepts like love, truth, justice, etc. are so different from God's, why do we even bother using the same words in referring to them. If God's justice (eternal punishment for the moral failings of mortal ignorance and materiality--the very reason why what is flesh is bound to sin) is so different from our concept of justice (which would deem eternal punishment in this case excessive and cruel) why do we use the word "justice" in referring to both?

[Copper Scroll]

Good points, book_wirm. We often hear the claim that "a loving God would not..." from may directions, but who are we to say what God must do or not do? The Bible tells us that God, for example, ordered Israel to exterminate men, women, and children, even animals, when they destroyed certain cities. Would a "loving God" do this? Yet He certainly did! As we've been trying to say, God is not ONLY loving, but also holy and eternal, and we are not His judges.

I'd like to get your take on the end of post 15.

If God's holiness did not prevent him from revealing himself to Abraham and the prophets, why did no revelation come to those people Israel were ordered to slaughter? (Perhaps, I'm falsely assuming no revelation came to them.) God did love those people too--right?

[EricH]

For those who hold that punishment of those who do not know God is basically being "turned off", they must wrestle with this passage that seems to adress agroup of such people that will not be turned off:

And another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."

Revelation 14:9-11 NASB

[EricH]

In terms of eternal punishment of unbelievers I think I am seeing 3 basic objections:

1. There are passages in scripture that speak of the destruction of the wicked (Phil 3:9, 1 Thess 5:3, 2 Thess 1:9, 2 Peter 3:7) - In response to this objection, the word "destruction" does not necessarily imply a ceasing of existence. We use the word "destroy" all the time in a manner that does not imply cessation of existence, but describes the extreme nature of harmful effects. For example, I may say that the fact that someone was sent to prison will destoy their life. By that I do not mean that their life is over. I mean that their life has been so changed in a negative way, that one might as well say it is over. In addition, there are numerous passages that that have been stated in posts above that indicate a conscious eternal punishment for at least certain groups of unbelievers.

2. That the idea of conscious eternal punishment somehow is inconsistent with God's attribute of love. The idea here is that for God to punish people without end would mean that He could not love them. But this idea of not being able to reconcile God's love with eternal punshment would also find difficulty with God's punishing anyone at all. There is no place in scripture where punishment of unbelievers is described as "redemptive" in nature. So If God punishes people for a time, then annihilates them, the same objections could be raised as to how this could be lined up with God's love. In order to avoid this many now posit that people will not experience punishment at all. They will simply cease to exist. The difficulty with this approach is that certain sections of scripture must be ignoreed or stated to be only "figurative" in nature. The argument from love in essence attempts to define God's love in a certain way, then force God to act in that way to measure up to the definition of love that has been given. The implication of this argument is that God's attribute of love should somehow supercede His attributes of holiness and justice. That for God to truly love, He cannot exercise His attributes of judgement and holiness.

3. That it is not fair that God punish sin eternally if that sin was committed in a temporal environment. This argument fails to take into accout that the punishment for sin is based on the fact that all sin is an affront to an eternal God. It also ignores the fact that the ability to sin will not necessarily end at death, that just as believers will receive completely renewed bodies and natures at the final judgement, unbelievers will also receive eternal bodies and continue in the natures they lived in during their lives. Revelation 22:11 hints at this:

Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and let the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and let the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.

Revelation 22:11 NASB

[Copper Scroll]

I don't see support for soul sleep in the scriptures. There's no point in punishing those that sleep, who aren't aware of it.

Couldn't the sleep (permanent death/unconsciousness/nonexistence) itself be seen as punishment?

This is not required by God's love. Love does not mean never confronting sin or punishing it. Sin is a terrible crime against God. The Bible says "The Lord is a zealous and avenging God; the Lord is avenging and very angry. The Lord takes vengeance against his foes; he sustains his rage aginst his enemies" (Nahum 1:2).

But God created the material world, and what is material and transitory is bound to sin--as far as I can tell. Why did God create the world? If we are bound to offend God so severely as to court eternal torture, why did God create us?

Along with the other verses posted already about the eternal fire of God's enemies and their eternal torment, there is no other conclusion to come to than that the wicked are in conscious torment forever. God does not wish this on anyone but he will not override our free will.

A good point was once raised to me by an atheist: No one would choose eternal torture freely. The only thing that tells sinners what they are getting themselves into is the Bible, and so many people around the world are conflicted about that. Just look at this thread. What about little babies that die without any knowledge of the gospel they're supposed to have faith in? These little babies will be tortured for all eternity?

[Copper Scroll]

That the idea of conscious eternal punishment somehow is inconsistent with God's attribute of love. The idea here is that for God to punish people without end would mean that He could not love them. But this idea of not being able to reconcile God's love with eternal punshment would also find difficulty with God's punishing anyone at all. There is no place in scripture where punishment of unbelievers is described as "redemptive" in nature.

I think the difficulty some people have with God exacting non-redemptive, long-term punishment is that when people exact non-redemptive, long-term punishment on others we call them cruel--and people don't want to call God cruel. Your points on this post are well-presented, but the question arises What makes God in this case not cruel?

So If God punishes people for a time, then annihilates them, the same objections could be raised as to how this could be lined up with God's love. In order to avoid this many now posit that people will not experience punishment at all. They will simply cease to exist. The difficulty with this approach is that certain sections of scripture must be ignoreed or stated to be only "figurative" in nature.

There are certain sections in the Bible that have to be taken figuratively--often when the matters like "heaven", "Kingdom of God", "hell", "judgement", etc. are raised. When this subject comes up in the Gospels, Jesus tends to present a new parable. The prophet who wrote Revelations talks completely in symbolic language. Perhaps the literal, factual reality of these issues are so hard to explain in "earthly" terms that parables and figurative/symbolic language becomes necessary.

The argument from love in essence attempts to define God's love in a certain way, then force God to act in that way to measure up to the definition of love that has been given. The implication of this argument is that God's attribute of love should somehow supercede His attributes of holiness and justice. That for God to truly love, He cannot exercise His attributes of judgement and holiness.

Three issues with this:

1. "Love" the word is a normal part of our everyday vocabulary. Yes, it does have more than one meaning, but all of those meanings tend to line up in some way and have some things in common. If God's love is so different from the love we know of, then perhaps we need a different word for God's love.

2. There are scriptures that give us some idea on what "love" means biblically: like when Jesus says that we should love our others and characterizes that love by acts of charity and kindness, refraining from acts that would harm or offend, regarding others as oneself, etc. Loving God is characterized as obedience and faith. So the Bible presents its own standards for "love", and many here would find that God exacting eternal, tortuous punishment contradicts the notion that God loves everyone. This is a very difficult issue.

3. If a father is displeased with his child because the child does not live up to his standards and the father, in wrath and anger, tortures this child for a long period of time, then we call him an abuser. We say he doesn't love his child. If God does this with us, it is difficult for many to see the love in it--"love" according to any of its meanings. Now, that abusive father could say "I do love my child, but I also have standards--and my love for my child can't override those standards." This sounds like the holiness/justice argument.

That it is not fair that God punish sin eternally if that sin was committed in a temporal environment. This argument fails to take into accout that the punishment for sin is based on the fact that all sin is an affront to an eternal God. It also ignores the fact that the ability to sin will not necessarily end at death, that just as believers will receive completely renewed bodies and natures at the final judgement, unbelievers will also receive eternal bodies and continue in the natures they lived in during their lives. Revelation 22:11 hints at this:

Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and let the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and let the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.

Revelation 22:11 NASB

Thanks for the scripture. I would like your take on my previous post about the baby-sinners... which raises a new point: People do a lot of bad things, especially when they are young. With hope, youth who commit terrible sins will learn and change. In life, people develop. Your argument and interpretation of the scripture you quote implies that people stop developing at death but they don't just stay the way they are--they somehow relive concurrently all of the wrongs they have done in life and concurrently receive punishment for it... for eternity. It's difficult to imagine. Is this how you view it?

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Copper Scroll,

What makes God in this case not cruel?

Php

Edited February 11, 2006 by Dr. Luke

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

P.S.

Using our rational to come to the mind of Christ is simply not going to do;

Isa

[SDAinFLA]

I don't see support for soul sleep in the scriptures.

Of course there is..."His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." Psalms 146:4

Also regarding Revelation 14:11 this is figurative language.

I don't see how. For example, I've had some operations that would have been quite painful if I hadn't been put out. I don't remember a thing. So if punishment has any meaning, it has to be consciously experienced. No one knows they're being punished once they go to sleep, so what's the point?

When this nation electrocutes people...they are being punished for a crime. Are you saying because they die during the shock that it's not really punishment?

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

An admonishment for a minute, if you will.

The OP was interested in the Doctrine of Eternal Torture and Damnation in hell.

Let's stick to that notion at hand and Treat it Biblically.

The various Denominational creeds can lay and wait and even be developed in other threads concerning those matters.

There is actually a Soapbox debate dealing with Soul Sleep.

Please carry on.

Peace,

Dave

Worthy Servant