Dozier/Johnson Debate on Eternal Punishment

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The scriptures teach that the punishment of lost man is a final, 
irrevocable punishment that culminates in annihilation, rather 
than never ending conscious torment.

Robert wrote: 
The proposition I am affirming is...The scriptures teach that the 
punishment of lost man is a final, irrevocable punishment that 
culminates in annihilation, rather than never ending conscious 
torment.

James replies:
The proposition requires that Robert demonstrate that God's 
punishment of wicked men at the Judgment is annihilation, a 
cessation of existence, rather than consignment to a place where 
"their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mk 9:44).  
He must show that the scriptures do not teach, "And these shall 
go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life 
eternal" (Mt 25:46).  He must prove that the scriptures do not 
mean, "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" 
(Revelation 14:11).  

Robert plainly tells us his motivation for the position he has 
taken in this debate, and it is a worthy one.  Robert sees the 
injustice that is inherent in the modern concept of the Judgment 
of God.  He rightly seeks to harmonize what the Bible plainly 
teaches regarding the grace, love and goodness of God with the 
notion of eternal punishment.  As he points out in the closing 
section of his first affirmative...

 Robert wrote: 
But this traditional view does not reflect favorably on God.  
This doctrine is called, "the scandal of the cross" by some and 
is a major stumbling block for many unbelievers. It portrays 
God's justice as immeasurably more horrible than Saddam & Sons 
cruel torture could ever be. Such is cause for reflection and 
examination of this doctrine. Many have said that this doctrine 
is blasphemy, speaking evil of God.

It makes the "Good News" the absolute worst new ever revealed.  
How tragic, that the "good news" includes the most terrifying 
revelation ever given to man.

Nothing compares or could compare to the "bad" nature of this 
news, purportedly revealed in the "gospel". 

James replies:
I agree with Robert that the modern view held especially by 
conservative, evangelical Christians is not particularly good 
news to men and reflects poorly upon the nature of God.  Consider 
the following reasoning.  We were sent into this world by an act 
of God apart from our volition (Rom 9:20). We come into a world 
where we cannot avoid sin (Rom 3:23, I Ki 8:46) and face a 
Judgment of being condemned to eternal fire if we happen to never 
hear about God's will (Mt 25:41).  It is no wonder that Robert 
seeks a solution to the obvious conflict between this modern view 
and the view of a loving, merciful God presented in the 
scriptures.  It is hardly just to condemn a man to hell forever 
who never even heard about Jehovah (see, for example, Acts 17:30, 
I Pet 1:14).  God, in fact, indicates that He does not 
arbitrarily do so (Lk 12:48).  The solution to the conundrum 
observed by Robert is to not redefine the meaning of words such 
as "eternal", "forever" and "everlasting" as he attempts to do, 
but rather to recognize God's merciful provision for ignorance 
and weakness of the flesh.  He did, after all, intend for this 
current situation to occur, and He put us into it (I Pet 1:19-20, 
Eph 1:4).  To put us here to await almost certain eternal 
punishment is no better than some sadistic child sticking pins in 
little animals to watch them squirm.  That is certainly not the 
nature of God. 

Since I am in the negative at the moment, I will reserve my 
comments regarding God's provision of mercy and the justification 
of God for sending men to eternal torment until my affirmative 
arguments.  Suffice it to say that a better solution exists to 
the problem Robert has articulated rather than redefining the 
words of God in an attempt to harmonize what He said regarding 
eternal punishment (Rev 14:11, Mt 25:46) with what He says regarding His nature (I Jn 4:8, Ps 86:15). 

It seems to me, that your solution has only slightly ameliorated 
the problem of God's injustice.  Your theory still has people who 
could not avoid sin and who through no fault of their own were 
ignorant of what God wanted them to do to be forgiven of sin who 
then consequently suffer the awful fate of annihilation.  The 
only difference is that your solution has it over faster. 
However, even Saddam & Sons could not destroy a man's soul.  You 
have God destroying an ignorant man's soul for eternity mainly 
because God did not bless him with knowledge of the truth.  I do 
not believe you have solved the problem of injustice and have 
therefore taken an indefensible position for no profit. 

I suggest that a major difficulty Robert faces in establishing 
his proposition is the difficulty inherent in trying to prove 
that it is even possible for a spirit to be annihilated.  Robert 
claims that the fire of Gehenna annihilates the soul in an 
instant and man completely ceases to exist for ever.  I challenge 
him to show ANYWHERE in the scriptures that such is even 
possible.  Certainly Lk 16:24 proves that a disembodied soul 
continues to exist even in burning fire.  How is it that Robert 
can be confident that the soul is annihilated in Gehenna when 
there is zero evidence in the scriptures that fire can annihilate 
the spirit of man? 

Ecc 12:7 states that God gave the spirit.  Rom 11:29 says, "For 
the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Romans 
11:29).  If God gave man a spirit, as we see that He did in Gen 
2:7, what makes anyone think that he will take back His gift and 
destroy it, when He says His gifts are without repentance?  
Furthermore, the spirit is made in the image of the immortal God 
(Gen 1:27, I Tim 1:17).  If God is immortal, why is the spirit 
made in His image less?  How is man like God, if not even man's 
spirit is immortal? Where do the scriptures teach, Robert, as 
your proposition requires, that the souls of men are annihilated 
at death? 

Let us now examine some arguments Robert makes regarding eternal 
destruction. 

 Robert wrote: 
A punishment from God, who can destroy both body and soul in 
Hell, not a punishment from men, who can only destroy the body 
(Mt. 10:28) 

Jesus spoke of the wicked and lost as being cast into Gehenna 
AFTER God killed them (Luke 12:5) Gehenna is the place where God 
destroys both body and soul (Mt. 10:28) 

James replies:
Robert avers based on Lk 12:5 that at the Judgment God kills the 
damned and then burns their bodies.  Death, however, is a 
separation of body and soul (Jas 2:26), not an annihilation of 
the soul (II Cor 5:6-8).  The fact that God kills a man does not 
mean his soul ceases to exist.  There are, in fact, two major 
problems with Robert's exegesis of Lk 12:5.  In the first place 
his interpretation makes it to disagree with the other scripture 
he uses (Mt 10:28) that explicitly states that God destroys both 
body and soul IN HELL. God does NOT destroy the soul and then 
cast the body into hell, but Robert holds that He does.  His view 
does not harmonize between the scriptures (Mt 10:28, Lk 12:5) he 
uses to argue his case.  The second major problem is that Robert 
fails to recognize the two deaths implied by Lk 12:5.  Rev 20:14 
and 21:8 explicitly inform us that the lake of fire is the second 
death.  Hence, when Lk 12:5 says, "Fear him, which after he hath 
killed hath power to cast into hell", it refers to God first 
killing men in this life because of sin (Rom 8:10), and then 
secondly killing unrepentant men eternally with the second death 
(Rev 20:14). 

Robert wrote: 
The first thing we need to know about the word "eternal" is that 
it is not primarily a word about time.  It is a word denoting 
things that have a nature that is above or beyond time. That 
which is "eternal" is that which transcends time.  It frequently 
has to do with the divine realm, where God, who alone is eternal, 
dwells.    As humans, we are really unable to relate to things 
without time.  God, on the other hand, may not really relate to 
time at all, thus we read, "one day is with the Lord as a 
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8).  I 
enter this discussion with the understanding that one of my 
biggest challenges in this discussion will be to try to address 
this subject, when we all, from a human perspective, have some 
built in difficulty with it as we are so time oriented. 

James replies:
I agree that God transcends time and is not limited by it.  The 
fact that God is greater than His creation and is not limited by 
"the Beginning"  (Gen 1:1) is what we mean when we speak of the 
transcendent God.  He transcends creation, and time is part of 
the creation.  It is beyond the scope this discussion to dwell 
much on the nature of time, but we notice that modern 
mathematical theories of the universe recognize the relativistic 
nature of time.  Time is relative to where you are.  There is, 
however, an absolute time, sometimes called Schwartzchild Time, 
or God time, that is as an absolute reference for time for which 
the nature of God must doubtless serve as the ultimate reference. 

Man is part of the creation and is therefore subject to time.  As 
long as man exists in a dynamic universe, time is an inescapable 
dimension of his existence.  If time stopped, all motion would 
stop, for motion is a direct function of time.  A dynamic 
(moving) universe requires time and life requires movement and 
therefore requires time.  The fact that the smoke of men's 
torment ascends up for ever and ever indicates that men continue 
to exist in time.  Their continuing punishment is shown by virtue 
of the fact that fire exists in the creation, is a specific place 
(Rev 20:15), the smoke continues to ascend, and therefore 
continues in time.   The wicked are described as being in the 
lake of fire (Rev 20:10, 14:10-11).  Gehenna is a physical place, 
as is the Valley of Hinnom, which contains real, physical 
substances like fire and brimstone.  Fire and brimstone exist in 
this physical universe and therefore exist in time.  Since fire 
and brimstone are time dependant substance and they exist in 
Gehenna, the dead who are placed there also exist in time.  Those 
in torment have no rest day or night (Rev 14:11).  There is no 
cessation of their torment.  Their torment is in the presence of 
the Father and the Lamb (Rev 14:10).  However long the Father and 
Son continue to exist, it is so long that the smoke of the 
torment of the damned ascends up before Them. 

Robert wrote: 
That the word "eternal" does not relate primarily to time and  
therefore when something is said to be "eternal", the primary 
meaning is not that it is a thing or process that continues 
without end, is seen in these examples of "eternal" as used in 
the scriptures.  Remember, the scriptures, not other sources, are 
the best and most definitive way to define the biblical meaning 
of words, phrases, etc.

Consider the passages listed below illustrating the same word 
rendered "eternal" elsewhere seen in the texts below as 
"forever".

James responds:
In support of his argument that "eternal" means "age lasting" 
Robert introduces several scriptures that use same Hebrew word 
for "forever" (except for Josh 14:9 that uses a different word) 
and shows that this word sometimes means "age lasting".  It can 
be argued that all of them except for I Ki 8:13 and Dt 15:17 can 
easily mean "eternal" in the commonly accepted sense of having no 
end.  I believe that you are correct that a servant indentured as 
prescribed by Dt 15:17 does not become the eternal servant of his 
master, nor did the temple of Solomon continue perpetually, 
though the site upon which Solomon built his temple will probably 
be the site of the earthly temple of the Lord without end.  The 
fact that the word "owlam" (H5769) can be used in the sense of 
"age lasting" should be no surprise since the word is translated 
in the following ways in the KJV  

alway(-s) Gen 6:3, 
ancient (time) Pro 22:28, 
continuance Isa 64:5, 
eternal Isa 60:15, 
of old Gen 6:4, 
everlasting Gen 9:16, 
lasting Dt 33:15, 
long Ps 143:3, 
old Dt 32:7, 
perpetual Gen 9:12, 
at any time [ever] Lev 25:32,
world [of this age] Ps 73:12 

From the rather broad spectrum of meanings of the word "owlam", 
we can see where the meaning is flexible enough to accommodate 
different ideas regarding duration.  Some of the durations are 
not infinite, but they all indicate long periods of time.  The 
indentured servant in Dt 15:17, for example, was obligated to his 
master "forever" as long as he lived.  The word is not only used 
in a sense of finite time, but it is also used in reference to 
characteristics of God.  I Chr 16:36 prays that God will be 
blessed forever (owlam) and ever (owlam).  David's throne is to 
be established forever (owlam) I Chr 28:4.  God blessed Christ 
forever (owlam) Ps 45:2.  The throne of God is forever (owlam) Ps 
45:6, etc. 

Since the proposition states that "the punishment of lost man is 
a final, irrevocable punishment that culminates in annihilation", 
it is not enough to merely show that somewhere the Bible uses the 
word in the sense of finite duration, Robert must clearly show 
that when the Bible uses it in relation to final punishment that 
the word means "finite duration". Since the word often means 
"without end", Robert must show that the word means "age lasting" 
or some other similar limited concept inheres when used in 
relation to punishment.  The word never means, as Robert would 
like to show, an instantaneous annihilation of being.  In every 
case where the word "owlam" is used, it is in reference to a long 
period of time.  A long period of punishment is not annihilation. 

If Robert were to be successful in showing that "owlam" means 
"annihilation", he still has major problems with his theory.  
There is not just a single word that is variously translated 
"forever", "everlasting", "eternal", etc.  There are several 
different Hebrew words that are translated "forever", "eternal", 
"everlasting", etc.  These words are: 

forever H0753'orek -- pronounced: o'rek' from 748; length: KJV – 
+ forever, length, long. 

forever H3605 H3117 always, continually, as long as 3605 
properly, the whole; hence, all, any or every 3117 day 

forever H4481 H5957 forever 4481 from; out of; by; by reason of; 
at; more than.

5957 remote time, i.e. the future or past indefinitely; often 
adverb,

forever: forever H5331 eminence; perpetuity; strength; victory; 
enduring; everlastingness; enduring of life; endurance in time; 
perpetual; continual; unto the end;

everlastingness; ever. forever H5703
perpetuity; forever; continuing future; ancient (used of past 
time);

forever (used of future time); used of continuous existence; 
forever (used of God's existence). 

forever H5704
as far as; even to; until; up to; while; as far as; used of 
space: as far as; up to; even to; in combination: from... as far 
as; both... and (with `min'; from); used of time: even to; until; 
unto; till; during; end; used of degree: to the degree of; even 
like; to the point that; so that even. 

forever H5707
witness; Witness; testimony; evidence (used of things); witness 
(used of people). 

forever H5769
forever, always, of old, everlasting, perpetual long duration; 
antiquity; futurity; forever; ever; everlasting; evermore; 
perpetual; old; ancient; world; ancient time; long time (used of 
the past); (used of the future); forever; always; continuous 
existence; perpetual; everlasting; indefinite or unending future; 
eternity. 

forever H5704 H5769 forever KJV
H5769 as far as; even to; until; up to; while; as far as; used of 
space: as far as; up to; even to; in combination: from... as far 
as; both... and (with `min'; from); used of time: even to; until; 
unto; till; during; end; used of degree: to the degree of; even 
like; to the point that; so that even. 

forever H5865 forever KJV
forever; ever; everlasting; evermore; perpetual; old; ancient; 
world. 

forever H5957
old, forever, never. everlasting, forever and ever remote time; 
i.e. the future or past indefinitely; often used adverbially: 
forever; everlasting; old. 

forever H6783
completion; finality; in perpetuity (Lev. 25:23,30). 

forever G0165 
from the same as 104; properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity 
(also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a 
Messianic period(present or future): KJV -- age, course, eternal, 
(for) ever(-more),(n-)ever, (beginning of the, while the) world 
(began, without end).
Compare 5550. 

forever G0166
from 165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future 
as well):KJV -- eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).

everlasting H5769
from 5956; properly, concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; 
generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) 
eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with 
prepositional prefix) 

always:
KJV -- alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, 
(for, (n-))ever(- lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), 
(of) old(time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world 
(+ without end).

Compare 5331, 5703. 

everlasting H5703
from 5710; properly, a (peremptory) terminus, i.e. (by 
implication)duration, in the sense of advance or perpetuity 
(substantially as a noun, either with or without a preposition): 
KJV -- eternity, ever(-lasting, -more), old, perpetually, + world 
without end. 

everlasting H5957
(Aramaic) corresponding to 5769; remote time, i.e. the future or 
past indefinitely; often adverb, forever: KJV -- for ((n-))ever 
(lasting), old. 

everlasting H6924
from 6923; the front, of place (absolutely, the fore part, 
relatively the East) or time (antiquity); often used adverbially 
(before, anciently, eastward): KJV -- aforetime, ancient (time), 
before, east (end, part, side, -ward), eternal, X ever(-lasting), 
forward, old, past.  Compare 6926. 

everlasting G0166
from 165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future 
as well):KJV -- eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).

eternal H5769
from 5956; properly, concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; 
generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) 
eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with 
prepositional prefix) always: KJV -- alway(-s), ancient (time), 
any more, continuance, eternal, (for,(n-))ever(- lasting, -more, 
of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any 
time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end).Compare 5331, 
5703. 

eternal H6924
from 6923; the front, of place (absolutely, the fore part, 
relatively the East) or time (antiquity); often used adverbially 
(before, anciently, eastward): KJV -- aforetime, ancient (time), 
before, east (end, part, side, -ward), eternal, X ever(-lasting), 
forward, old, past.  Compare 6926. 

eternal G0165
from the same as 104; properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity 
(also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a 
Messianic period (present or future): KJV -- age, course, 
eternal, (for) ever(-more),(n-)ever, (beginning of the, while 
the) world (began, without end).Compare 5550. 

eternal G0166
from 165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future 
as well): KJV -- eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began). 

eternal G0126
from 104; everduring (forward and backward, or forward only): KJV 
--eternal, everlasting. 

As those of you who had the patience to wade through the list of 
definitions above have no doubt observed, there is no way the 
English language can convey the concept of "without end" any more 
clearly than is done by the above words.  The English vocabulary 
used to express limitless duration is exhausted by the 
translations of the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words. If 
these Hebrew and Greek words do not express the concept of 
endless existence, then it is not possible to express that 
concept in English, for that is certainly what the translators 
endeavored to accomplish. 

There are 336 instances in the KJV where a word is translated 
"forever".  I have gone through the very long list of instances 
and have made as objective a determination of how "forever" is 
used in its context in every verse as I am capable of doing.  In 
approximately two-thirds of the instances, the word means 
"without end" even when you give the benefit of the doubt on 
doubtful verses to the "age lasting" meaning.  Though it is true 
that "forever" does not always mean "without end", it is also 
true that the majority of the time it does mean "without end".  
Robert must therefore clearly establish that the Hebrew and Greek 
words in the context of punishment refer not to their most common 
meaning of "without end", but refer to a period of limited 
suffering.  His position, however, prefers to say that men are 
annihilated before they go to Gehenna and their bodies are 
instantly consumed in the flame like a leaf tossed on a fire.  
Unfortunately for Robert's position, the words are never seen to 
express brief or instantaneous actions.  Even when their time 
reference is not infinite, they always refer to a long period of 
time. 

 Robert wrote: 
These things were "forever" or "eternal", but not in that which 
relates to time, but in the sense that they were characterized by 
a nature that transcended time...they were unchangeable, 
irrevocable, irreversible things that were as certain as God 
himself. They were divinely appointed. Men could not stop, 
change, or thwart these things.

James replies:
Because these things are unchangeable, irrevocable and 
irreversible they therefore they have eternal duration.  Whether 
the meaning has to do with duration or pertains mainly to 
durability, the consequence is that such things are without end.  
Your task is to prove that wicked man's existence has an end. 

 Robert wrote: 
The texts noted do not speak of things that never began or ended 
from a standpoint of time (they all began and ended) but the same 
word rendered "eternal" is used to describe them.   

James replies: 
While it is true that some of the texts that you selected do not 
describe things of infinite duration, there are texts that use 
the same word that speak of the qualities of God as enduring for 
ever.  Christ's throne, for example, is spoken of as enduring 
forever (Heb 1:8, Lk 1:33).  Your task is to show that man is 
annihilated at the Second Death.  Merely demonstrating that a 
word translated "forever" can sometimes mean "for the duration" 
or "age lasting" does not establish the proposition that man is 
annihilated at death. 

 Robert wrote: 
"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever: nothing 
can be put to it, nor anything taken from it: and God doeth it, 
that men should fear before Him"."  (Eccl. 3:14)  The use of the 
word here shows that it is often related to the  divine nature or 
the spiritual realm, where time never has and never will exist.   

James replies: 
It is an error to say that time does not exist in heaven.  God 
has appointed a day in the which He will judge the world (Acts 
17:31).  The angels are created beings (Ex 20:11), and hence 
exist in time and space.  God transcends time, but His creation 
does not.  Eccl 3:14 shows the immutable power of God rather than 
the absence of time. 

 Robert wrote: 
It is apparent that this qualitative aspect is preeminent many 
times in the use of "eternal".  In fact, a careful look at its 
usage reveals that things "eternal" (esp. when describing a 
process) are not always ongoing events or never ending actions, 
but actions that have permanent, irrevocable results.

Consider these examples of usage and illustrations of the meaning 
of "eternal". When describing the Pharisees rejection of Jesus' 
miracles, Jesus called it an "eternal sin" (Mk. 3:30).  

James replies: 
It is correct to say that some events occur at a time but their 
effects are lasting.  This distinction is noticed in the original 
language where the tense of the verb determines the type and 
duration of the action.  The mere fact that an event can occur at 
a time and its effects continue long after does not establish the 
proposition that evil man is annihilated at death. At best it 
merely opens up the possibility that "forever" may refer to an 
event that occurs at a time and the effects continue thereafter.  
It is also very possible that an event occurs at a time and 
continues to occur.  If a verb expresses a continuing action in a 
verse, it is not sufficient to point to other verses that express 
punctiliar action and claim that men are annihilated at the 
Judgment.  Your affirmation requires you to establish beyond a 
reasonable doubt that man is punished in time and the effects are 
eternal annihilation.  You have not done so. 

 Robert wrote: 
"Eternal" when describing "eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:2) is not 
describing a process that has no beginning and no end. The 'day' 
of Judgment will come and go. But its judgments will be divine, 
thus irrevocable, irreversible, unchangeable and permanent. There 
is only one Judgment.  No second chances.  It is an "eternal 
judgment" not "eternal judging". 

James replies:
Yes, the effects of the Judgment are eternal and irrevocable and 
it occurs at a singular time.  However, the proposition is not 
that the Judgment of God is eternal.  The proposition states that 
wicked men are annihilated and cease to exist.  A final Judgment 
does not demonstrate that proposition. 

 Robert wrote: 
"Eternal", when describing "eternal life" is likewise not just 
ongoing existence, but a permanent life of glorious quality.   It 
is the nature of "life" that makes this never end from a time 
perspective, not the use of the word "eternal".  The word 
"eternal" is used to describe the nature and quality of this 
life. It is 'abundant" life (John 10:10) The word 'eternal" tells 
us that this life is something from God, something above and 
beyond the life we have from our earthly parents.  This "life" 
will not end because "life" is as "life" does, it continues. 

James replies:
Robert, the word use changes here.  You go from punctiliar 
actions that you described in the above cases regarding the 
Judgment to durative actions that follow the Judgment.  They are 
not the same.  God's throne abiding forever is not the same as 
the Judgment and its eternal effects.  God's throne has continued 
existence in time, past the Judgment.  God's Judgment is a one-
time event that has unending consequences. However, the Bible 
contends that the righteous enter into unending life in the same 
sense that God continues with unending existence (I Thes 4:17, Mt 
25:46).  It likewise says that the wicked go into unending 
punishment (Mt 25:46).  The extent of the punishment of the 
damned is the same as the extent of the life of the righteous. 

Whether the second death is eternal separation from God or 
forever dying in the flames of Gehenna, the duration of the death 
of the wicked is exactly the same as the life of the righteous.  
If the duration of the reward of the righteous is eternal, then 
the duration of the punishment of the damned is eternal.  There 
is no getting around it.  Furthermore, if the punishment of the 
damned is death where the soul is annihilated and the body is 
then cast into Gehenna and burned, then their punishment is not 
as long as the reward of the righteous.  They are killed, cease 
to exist and thereafter are free from punishment.  You cannot 
punish something that does not exist.  In your theory the 
punishment of the damned actually occurs once, very briefly, and 
its effects endure, but you cannot say that their punishment is 
eternal, because they don't exist.  You wish it to say that the 
effects of their punishment are eternal, but the text says the 
punishment itself is eternal. Punishment is inflicted on sentient 
rational beings.  You can't punish the body of a dead man (Lk 
12:4).  Neither can you punish a man who does not exist.  
Therefore a man who is punished by annihilation cannot be spoken 
of as going away into everlasting punishment.  You want to make 
the case of the damned just like the Judgment that occurs once in 
time but has permanent effects.  You believe the damned man is 
punished once, very briefly, and after that, nothing.  Instead of 
eternal punishment you believe he goes into everlasting 
nothingness.  In your view the punishment is punctiliar, and the 
effects are everlasting, but the text says the punishment is 
everlasting, not the effects. 

 Robert wrote: 
"Eternal", when describing "eternal destruction" (2 Thess. 1:8) 
is not describing the duration of the destructive process  but 
the permanence of it.  Again, "eternal destruction" not "eternal 
destroying". 

James replies: 
Robert, I wish to call your attention here to Mt 25:46 where men 
are spoken of as going into everlasting/eternal punishment and 
everlasting/eternal life.  This is obviously a durative process, 
just as God's throne is durative.  Life isn't just awarded at the 
Judgment and the effects of the Judgment continue thereafter.  
The redeemed enjoy a continuous, unending life.  Likewise the 
damned do not receive a judgment and the effects last forever.  
The damned are punished with eternal punishment.  The punishment 
does not stop. 

Now let's contrast the construction of the language in Mt 25:46 
with the language in II Thes 1:9.  We find these men in Mt 25:46 
being punished with everlasting punishment.  Their punishment is 
continuous and unending. However, in II Thes 1:9 these men are 
not said to be punished with "eternally destroying" in that they 
are banished once, and the effects are eternal, because they 
can't ever come back.  They are said to suffer everlasting 
destruction from the presence of the Lord.  It is not that they 
are eternally destroyed in their person.  They are eternally 
banished, and their access to God's throne is destroyed.  Eternal 
banishment is not the same as annihilation.  They are not said to 
be eternally punished, but they are eternally destroyed from the 
presence of the Lord.  The judgment of II Thes 1:9 is punctiliar 
and the effects are durative, but the destruction of II Thes 1:9 
is not describing an ongoing eternal punishment such as we have 
in Mt 25:46.  You cannot therefore use II Thes 1:9 as evidence to 
show that damnation at the Judgment is equivalent to 
annihilation.  It is not the men who are annihilated, but it is 
their place before God that is destroyed. 

Robert wrote: 
And last, but not least by any means, is Jude 7.  The "eternal 
fire" that destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah is set forth by God as an 
"example" of those who have and will experience divine judgment. 
Sodom & Gomorrah show us what it will mean to experience "the 
punishment of eternal fire".   

James replies: 
I believe that you and Sam Dawson miss the boat here on Jude 7.  
I do not believe that Jude is trying to express the duration of 
the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah.  I believe Jude is merely 
describing the type of fire that was used.  It was the same fire 
that burns forever in Gehenna. Though in the case of Sodom, it 
did not burn there forever, it does burn forever in Gehenna, and 
is thus "eternal fire".  By introducing the case of Sodom you are 
trying to establish the use of the word "eternal" to describe a 
punctiliar event.  However, because Sodom's fire is a fire that 
burns eternally in Gehenna, it does not serve as an example of 
where the word "eternal" is used in a punctiliar sense.  Your 
example fails on the simple fact that God did not say that Sodom 
experienced everlasting punishment in eternal fire.  God said 
that Sodom suffered the vengeance of eternal fire, not eternal 
vengeance.  The fire God used on Sodom did not burn eternally at 
Sodom, but it does in Gehenna. 

Robert wrote: 
It is rather obvious that the fire that destroyed Sodom & 
Gomorrah has burned itself out, but not before consuming Sodom & 
Gomorrah. Compare 2 Peter 2:6. 

James replies:
But it still burns in Gehenna, so what is your point? 

Robert wrote: 
This "eternal fire" is a fire from above, from God, who is 
described as a "consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29). This "eternal fire" 
cannot be quenched by man.  It will finish its destructive work 
until its object is consumed. 

James replies:
God is indeed a consuming fire.  You have to pick the right 
application, though, Robert.  You are assuming that God is a 
consuming fire at the Judgment.  Have you considered the 
possibility that Hebrews speaks of the Second Coming where God is 
a consuming fire?  I Thes 4:14 shows that God comes when Christ 
comes.  II Sam 22:8-16 tells us that when He comes, He is going 
to be really angry (v8) and burning things (v9) and breaking 
things (v16) when He delivers His anointed from the hands of His 
enemies (v18). Isa 52:10 says that God rolls up His sleeves and 
works the salvation of His people in the sight of the nations 
when He comes with Christ.  The salvation of God's people when He 
comes requires that wicked men be utterly destroyed (Rev 20:9, 
Rev 19:19-21).  II Thes 1:7-9 also mentions the destruction of 
the earth by fire at that time, as does II Pet 3:7.  It is much 
more likely that Heb 12:29 is referring to the all consuming fire 
of God that burns the earth when Christ comes again rather than 
the fire of Gehenna that God uses at the Judgment.  Heb 12:29 is 
thus an example of the immutable wrath of God on the Day of the 
Lord that will destroy the enemies of God rather than an example 
of consuming fire at the Judgment. 

Robert wrote: 
The divine judgment upon Sodom & Gomorrah is the basis for so 
much of the language God uses to describe the judgment of nations 
and men.  It is the prototype for divine judgments. Cf. Gen. 
19:24-27; Isa. 34:9-10; 66:24; Ker. 17:27; Ezek. 20:45-49; Rev. 
14:10-11; 18:9,18-19;19:3; 20:10,14 

James replies:
When you are reading the prophets you must ask yourself, "Is it 
possible that what the prophets are saying could actually 
literally happen?  If the prophecy is a figure, is there anything 
anywhere in the scripture that can decipher the figure for me?"  
If you allow the possibility of the new earth as Peter says God 
still promises to bring about (II Pet 3:13) and you accept John's 
prophecy in Rev 21:1 that God will bring the new earth to pass, 
then you open a whole new vista of possibilities that do not 
require resorting to imaginative fiction in order to explain the 
scriptures.  If there is no key to unlock a supposed figure in 
the scriptures, then any interpretation offered is purely 
imaginary, and we have thrown away revelation. 

You and I and most conservative Christians accept the destruction 
of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire raining down from heaven as an 
actual historical event. Most Christians believe the Second 
Coming of Christ will be an actual historical event.  Why not 
accept Peter and John and Jesus at their word and understand the 
new earth to be a literal event scheduled for the end of the 
world?  If you allow that possibility, you do not have to resort 
to the speculative fiction of calling scriptures such as Isa 
34:9-10 "figurative". Isa 34 describes one of the four cities 
against which God has pronounced an eternal doom.  In Jer 50:13 
and Isa 13:19-20 God promises that Babylon will become an eternal 
desolation.  In Rev 18:21-23 God promises that Rome will be 
destroyed and never again be inhabited.  In Ezek 26:14 God 
promises that Tyre will never be rebuilt.  Why do these 
descriptions have to be fulfilled in our present day where their 
fulfillments must be taken to be figurative descriptions of 
temporal judgments?  Tyre, Edom, Babylon, and Rome all have 
populations in the perimeters of the old habitations in the 
present day. Obviously the prophecies that these places will 
never be rebuilt are not true of our own time. 

If we allow for a new earth as God promised (Isa 66:22), we can 
take all of these prophecies literally and there is no need for 
imaginative speculation to fulfill these prophecies.  Isa 34:9-10 
becomes a literal condition where Edom's land is turned into a 
burning waste.  Isa 66:24 and Ezek 20:45-49 are literal 
descriptions of the place of torment to the south of Jerusalem 
that will serve as an eternal visible reminder of the cost of 
disobedience to God.  Rev 14:10-11 is a literal description of a 
place of torment.  Since New Jerusalem will be parked over the 
earthly Jerusalem (Isa 2:2, Micah 4:1-2) and Edom is to the south 
of Jerusalem, then Edom would be a convenient place for God to 
place Gehenna in order that men of the new earth could go out and 
look at people burning in torment as a solemn reminder against 
rebellion (Isa 66:24, Rev 14:10, Lk 19:27).  Babylon, Tyre and 
Rome were all exceedingly wicked places of luxurious decadence 
that God apparently chooses to dishonor for ever by maintaining 
their locations as desolations. 

Jer 17:27 is a warning of temporal destruction of Jerusalem in 
the days of the Babylonian kings.  It literally came to pass in 
586 BC.  The fire in Jerusalem was not extinguished until the 
city was consumed.  Unquenchable is obviously in the context of 
accomplishing what God intended, i.e. the destruction of 
Jerusalem. 

Rev 14:10-11 is a clear prophecy of the future literal doom of 
the wicked. There is no reason to take those scriptures as 
anything other than a prophecy of a literal future event.  Since 
you are in the affirmative, it is up to you to provide an 
exegesis that establishes your view.  On the face of it, the text 
says the same thing as Isa 66:23-24 and Lk 19:24:  the wicked are 
slain the presence of God.  Isa 66, Rev 14, Mk 9, and Mt 25 say 
their punishment is unending. 

Rev 18:9, 18-19 describe a literal future event where the city of 
Rome is destroyed.  Since the city is to never be inhabited again 
(Rev 18:22, 23), the eternal smoke of her destruction (Rev 19:3) 
may be the reason why. 

Rev 20:10 describes the eternal torment of the Devil, the beast, 
and the false prophet.  There is no reason why that prophecy 
cannot be taken exactly literally. 

Rev 20:14 says that death and Hades were cast into the lake of 
fire.  How is it that places can literally be cast into the lake 
of fire?  I believe that Rev 20:14 is a metonymy such as we find 
in I Cor 11:26 where the apostles were instructed to drink the 
cup where the cup stood for the contents.  I believe death and 
Hades being cast into the lake of fire describes the emptying of 
the contents of death and Hades into the lake of fire and the 
place of death being placed into the lake of fire.  Since the 
lake of fire is then the place of death, souls have no where to 
go and the body can never die. They are in a condition to die and 
wish to die, but there is nowhere for the soul to go, so it stays 
in the body in the wretched state of constant dying for 
eternity.  I wish to avoid personally experiencing this scenario 
at all costs. 

 Robert wrote: 
"Eternal" when describing "eternal punishment" is not describing 
a punishing process that never ends but a punishment that is 
final, irrevocable, irreversible. 

James replies:
How have you established this conclusion, Robert?  You have shown 
the possibility that the word translated "for ever" can be 
limited in time. You have shown that a fire that cannot be put 
out was used in God's judgment against Jerusalem.  How do these 
facts equate to the establishment of a universal principle 
showing that all "eternal" punishment is merely a final, 
irrevocable and irreversible judgment of God?  Even if you 
establish that as a fact, you still have not demonstrated the 
annihilation of the soul at the Judgment.  Rev 14:10-11 clearly 
shows that punishment is an on-going process as does Mt 25:46. 

Do you believe that the Devil, the Antichrist and the false 
prophet will be annihilated when they are thrown into the lake of 
fire?  If so, do you believe it is fair that the Devil who killed 
40 billion people, caused untold suffering and the destruction of 
two worlds should get away with just a microsecond of suffering 
for his crimes? 

 Robert wrote: 
A punishment from God, who can destroy both body and soul in 
Hell, not a punishment from men, whom can only destroy the body 
(Mt. 10:28)

James replies:
You are apparently equating "destroy" with "annihilation".  You 
need to establish that point rather than assume it. 

 Robert wrote: 
Eternal destruction, punishment, fire all point to the same 
thing; the lake of fire, the second death. From this divine 
judgment there is no recovery. 

James replies:
I agree that from the final sentence of God there is no 
recovery.  However, this is not a debate about the finality of 
Judgment.  It is a debate about the annihilation of souls in 
Gehenna.  You need to show that souls are annihilated in Gehenna 
after the Judgment. 

 Robert wrote: 
This suffices to show that the word "eternal" in and of itself 
does not teach that the processes so described as "eternal" in 
the scriptures, whether sin, redemption, salvation, judgment, 
destruction, or punishment, are never ending processes, but 
rather permanent ones. 

James replies:
While there are places like II Thes 1:9 that describe punctiliar 
actions with eternal effects, passages like Isa 66:24, Mt 25:46, 
Mk 9:44, Rev 14:10-11, and Rev 20:10 show that occupancy in 
Gehenna is a process that continues through time.  These 
descriptions are not punctiliar acts but are continuous 
processes.  You have not dealt with the continuous nature of the 
language in the verses.  Your position recognizes punctiliar 
action and ignores continuous ones. 

Robert wrote: 
Then, what is this "eternal punishment" or divine punishment that 
is coming?  It will be the wrath of God against impenitent 
sinners (Rom. 1:18).  It will be a divine judgment characterized 
by "indignation and wrath" and "tribulation and anguish" (Rom. 
2:7).  God will 'destroy" both body and soul in this punishment. 

James replies:
You have nowhere shown "eternal punishment" to be equivalent to 
generic divine punishment.  It is true that eternal punishment is 
meted out by God. It is not true that "eternal punishment" is the 
same as saying God punishes people at some point in time and the 
effects are permanent.  Banishment is an example.  The damned are 
banished from the presence of God (II Thes 1:9). Their banishment 
is a punctiliar action that happens in time and the effects are 
eternal.  However, banishment of the damned is not all that 
happens. The place to which they are banished is a place of 
torment "where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched" 
(Mk 9:44).  The place of their banishment is a place where the 
smoke of their torment rises up for ever and ever (Rev 14:11).  
Their torment is eternal punishment (Mt 25:46), not eternal 
destruction.  Eternal destruction is what happens to their access 
to God (II Thes 1:9). 

 Robert wrote: 
It will result in the lost being a people that "perish" (John 
3:16)...  

James replies:
You need to show that "perish" is equivalent to "annihilation".  
Perish (G0622) is used in the NT meaning "to destroy" [kill] (Mt 
2:13), [members] should perish (Mt 5:29), [torn wine bottles] 
perish (Mt 9:17), lost [sheep] (Mt 10:6), [body and soul] destroy 
(Mt 10:28), shall lose [life] (Mt 10:39), etc.  The general idea 
is death or severe loss.  In none of the instances in the NT do 
we find that "destroy" means "annihilation".  The demons asked 
Jesus if He came to destroy them (Lk 4:34), and they cannot die.  
In Lk 15:8 the word is used of a woman who simply lost a coin and 
in Lk 15:24 of the prodigal son who went into a far country.  In 
none of these uses is the annihilation of the "perished" object 
implied. 

 Robert wrote: 
It is described in the scriptures in non figurative contexts over 
and over as "death", "destruction", etc.   

James replies:
You need to show where "death" and "destruction" mean 
"annihilation".  Death is separation of spirit and body (Jas 
2:26) or separation from God (Eph 2:1, Col 2:13).  Neither of 
these two meanings of death includes "annihilation". 
"Destruction" can mean death (Gen 6:17), the loss of inhabitants 
and property (Gen 9:11), and the destruction of things (Gen 
19:14, Ex 34:13). In none of the uses of "destruction" does it 
mean annihilation of people. Though cities may be said to be 
destroyed by burning them up (Gen 19:28-29), with people the 
destruction of their soul is simply death (e.g. Acts 3:23, Ps 
63:9, Job 33:22) or condemning one's soul to Gehenna (Pvb 6:32, 
Mt 10:28).  In no place do we find "destruction" of people equal 
to annihilation.  The Bible uses "destruction" of people to 
describe their death (Heb 11:28) or punishment in the second 
death (II Thes 2:8, Mt 10:28). 

Robert wrote: 
The simple, literal texts should guide us in our effort to 
understand the figurative language, not the opposite (the words 
or phrases in figurative contexts being interpreted literally and 
thus forcing a figurative interpretation on the words and phrases 
in the obviously more simple and literal contexts). 

James replies:
I agree that simple, plain texts should guide us in our effort to 
interpret the more difficult portions of the scriptures.  I do 
not agree that much of what is labeled "figurative" is actually 
figurative.  Before a text is labeled "figurative" it first needs 
to pass the tests of whether or not the context demands that it 
be taken figuratively and whether the Bible supplies a key to its 
interpretation.  It is very easy to declare a text "figurative" 
and then supply a meaning that spins the meaning in a way that 
fits our bias.  That is not good Bible exegesis.   

If it is true, as you charge, that some are finding a figurative 
text to be literal and forcing a figurative meaning on a plain 
text, you need to supply a specific example of that.  
"Destruction" of people never means annihilation of them, if that 
is what you have in mind.   

Robert wrote: 
Third, regarding the term "Hell" or Gehenna.  This was a highly 
dreadful word and idea to the Jewish mind. Gehenna or the Valley 
of Hinnom, was a garbage dump in the time of Christ. Trash, dead 
animals, the bodies of killed enemy warriors, unclaimed bodies of 
executed criminals, etc., were "dumped" there.  There was nothing 
worse to the Jews than the idea of having no burial (Eccl. 6:3). 
Not having any honor shown to you at death was pretty much an 
indicator that your life was a disaster. But Gehenna as a trash 
dump was a filthy place.  There was a fire kept burning at all 
times to consume the trash and attempt to destroy the filth and 
stench it produced.  Sulfur might have been added to increase the 
heat. No doubt this was a maggot’s paradise.  But Gehenna was all 
about destroying that which was dumped there.  There were not 
cries of never ending conscious pain coming out of the bodies 
cast there.   

James replies:
In contrast to the lifeless Valley of Hinnom, the scene appears 
to be somewhat different in Hades where the continuously existing 
souls of those in torment cry out in pain (Lk 16:24), though 
their bodies are rotting in silence on the earth above (Lk 
16:22).  Even the body, though totally ruined by death, is not 
annihilated.  It returns to dust (Gen 3:19), but the same dusty 
body is resurrected on the last day (Rom 8:11).  Destruction of 
the body is not the annihilation of the body.  The body is 
destroyed or ruined by death, but it continues to exist even if 
it is burned and the dust of it is scattered over the earth.  You 
need to show that destruction of an individual means the complete 
cessation of the individual.  The Bible teaches that God is able 
to preserve both body and soul entire at the coming of the Lord 
(I Thes 5:23), and the destruction of an individual at death is 
therefore not an annihilation.   

 Robert wrote: 
No conscious torment, just destruction of trash, carcasses of 
animals, and some dead human bodies. It was all about death and 
destruction.  That is what the those who heard Jesus speak of 
Gehenna would think of.  Jesus spoke of the wicked and lost as 
being cast into Gehenna AFTER God killed them (Luke 12:5) Gehenna 
is the place where God destroys both body and soul (Mt. 10:28)

James replies:
If God kills them (Lk 12:5) and then casts both body and soul 
into Gehenna (Mt 10:28), then why is Gehenna not full of dead 
bodies at the present day? God kills everybody (Job 13:15).  If 
you will go to the following link 
http://what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellPhotos/
you will find that the present Gehenna is a nice park land with 
no bodies to be found.  It is therefore plain that Mt 10:28 and 
Lk 12:5 do not refer to actions by God in the present day.  If 
God is not talking of the present day Valley of Hinnom, then at 
the Judgment is God going to slay all of the damned He just 
raised and incinerate their bodies and souls in the Valley of 
Hinnom?  If God kills them first and then destroys both body and 
soul in the Valley of Hinnom, how does He destroy their souls in 
Hinnom, since death is the separation of the body and soul (Jas 
2:26)?  Where is there any evidence that fire is capable of 
annihilating the soul?  The rich man's soul persisted just fine 
in flames (Lk 16:24).  If God is just going to annihilate the 
damned, body and soul, why is there a Judgment at all?  Why does 
God not just annihilate the damned at death?  There is no need 
for a Judgment at all if all God is going to do is annihilate the 
damned.   

The Bible says the Lake of Fire is a place prepared for the Devil 
and his angels (Mt 25:41).  Are the Devil and his angels literal 
or figurative?  Are they punished eternally or are they also 
annihilated in the Valley of Hinnom?  Is the Valley of Hinnom 
actually a lake of fire?  The photos show that it is not.  The 
Lake of Fire (Rev 19:20) is a place of fire and sulfur (Rev 
20:10).  It is not the same as the Valley of Hinnom.  I do not 
doubt that the Valley of Hinnom was typical of the Lake of Fire, 
but it is ludicrous to imagine they are the same place. 

Are you not arguing that when the Bible speaks of casting into 
Gehenna (Mt 10:28, Lk 12:5), that the Bible is actually speaking 
figuratively?  The wicked dead are, in your view, figuratively 
cast into the "Valley of Hinnom" and literally annihilated.  Who 
then, Robert, is taking the plain text and making it figurative, 
providing an imaginary explanation, and then making the other 
texts agree with the imaginary solution?  The Gehenna of the 
Judgment is a literal lake of fire (Rev 19:20, 20:10, 14, 15).  
James says the tongue is actually set on fire in Gehenna (Jas 
3:6), but it is not the valley south of Jerusalem.  It is a place 
already prepared for the Devil and his angels that burns 
continuously with fire and sulfur (Mt 25:41, Rev 14:11).  It may 
literally be moved to a place south of Jerusalem, but it is a 
literal lake of fire.  

Robert wrote: 
It makes God more of a "Godfather" than one whom we can approach 
with "Abba, Father".  Obey God or burn forever.  Sounds like He 
has "made us an offer we cannot refuse".  Free will? The terror 
this teaching instills hardly allows one to truly have free will. 
Under such a threat, can it be said that man is obeying God 
because he loves God and wants to glorify God or only because he 
really has no choice.

James replies:
I agree with your concerns about the justice of God and the free 
will of man.  I believe that man's free will is the underlying 
reality that required God to implement this temporary creation.  
Man's free will was so important that it required a whole 
temporary creation just to handle the problem posed by creating 
creatures of free will.  In response to your criticism of "serve 
God or die", all earthly governments have similar laws.  You 
either obey the laws or suffer the consequences.  God's problem 
with the Creation was how to ameliorate the draconian aspects of 
justice that law required.  Christ, of course, is the answer.  In 
Christ God provided the answer to His justice that His love and 
mercy desired.  In the sacrifice of Christ He satisfied the legal 
requirements of His justice, and opened the door to grace.  To 
His eternal glory He was able to use wickedness to provide the 
ultimate means of providing grace.  The serpent was destroyed by 
his own poison.  In the process, however, he "broke some eggs", 
so to speak, by creating a class of people whom He will consign 
to eternal torment.  These have spurned His overtures of His 
mercy.  Those who go to Gehenna demonstrate that man really does 
have a choice.  They go to Gehenna in spite of God's grace.  I 
trust that I will have more to say on this subject when I am in 
the affirmative. 

Robert wrote: 
Conclusion
Thus, my affirmative for the proposition consists of (1) the 
definition of "eternal"   

James replies:
You ignore the continuous and unending aspect of eternal and look 
only at punctiliar actions with eternal consequences. 

Robert wrote: 
(2) What "punishment" is and how "eternal punishment" should be 
understood. 

James replies:
You define eternal punishment as a point action with eternal 
consequences.  Your definition actually punishes men for a 
microsecond whereas the Bible requires it to be an ongoing 
process. 

Robert wrote: 
(3) What "Hell" (Gehenna) signifies.  

James replies:
You make Gehenna hell a figure of the annihilation of the wicked 
whereas the Bible portrays it as a literal place where the Devil 
and his angels burn for ever and ever (Rev 20:10).  Your theory 
makes the Valley of Hinnom from the ancient past somehow figure 
in the final Judgment where the ancient valley that is no longer 
an incinerator resumes its former operations and manages by some 
yet to be demonstrated process to annihilate both bodies and 
souls of the damned that were already annihilated (Lk 12:5) 
before they were placed in the valley where they are annihilated 
again.  This is not logical. 

Robert wrote: 
(4)Other considerations; Justice, The Nature of The Gospel (Good 
News), Man's free will. 

James replies:
These are good reasons to rethink orthodox theology, but your 
solution does not work.  Your theory does not handle the eternal 
nature of the soul, the continuous aspects of punishment, or the 
need for the Judgment.   

Brotherly, 
James Johnson