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.

Affirm:  Robert Dozier
Deny:  James Johnson
What are the arguments made so far in support of the proposition 
that God annihilates both body and soul in Gehenna? 

Robert makes the following arguments:

1) Death is destruction.  Destruction is supposed to mean 
cessation of being.  God destroys men in the Lake of Fire.  
Therefore men cease to exist in Gehenna.

2) Gehenna was a place where men burned up trash.  Since Gehenna 
is called the second death, the trashy men who are thrown there 
are burned up in a flash and annihilated, both body and spirit.

3) Many of the Bible's references to eternal punishment are 
figurative and one should not therefore try to force a literal 
meaning upon them.

4) It is possible to have point actions with eternal 
consequences. Therefore "eternal destruction" means God throws 
men into hell where they are burned up in a moment and eternally 
destroyed.

5) The Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) was a figure of the future 
destruction of the wicked.  Therefore it is a mistake to attempt 
to attach the literal meaning of conscious suffering to a figure.

6) Gehenna was not ever a place where people were burned alive, 
but it was a place where dead bodies were consumed and 
annihilated. 

Robert's major argument hinges upon a meaning of "destruction" 
that it never has--"cessation of being".  He has invented a 
meaning for the word that satisfies his theory, but it is not a 
valid meaning of "destruction". "Destruction" never means 
"cessation of being", and that is what his proposition requires. 

Robert, you have made much of the figure of trash being burned in 
the Valley of Hinnom and have pointed out that it was burned up 
and no criminals were burned alive there.  In this second 
negative we will investigate what the Bible has to say regarding 
Hinnom.  It does not support your theory. 

 Robert wrote: 
Now let's look at James examination of my affirmative arguments 
against the idea that "eternal punishment" is never ending 
conscious torment that it culminates in annihilation.

Regarding Mt. 10:28 & Lk. 12:5.  The scriptures say exactly what 
I say they taught.  God CAN destroy both body and soul in Hell 
(Mt. 10:28). 

James replies:
You need to show that "destroy" means "cessation of being".  The 
two terms are not synonymous.  You may destroy someone by ruining 
their reputation or finances or by killing them, but that is not 
equivalent to annihilation.  God ruins people by casting them 
into the Lake of Fire where they burn for ever.  They are 
destroyed, but they do not cease to exist.  Simply saying that 
God destroys them does not prove your proposition because 
"destroy" does not mean annihilation ("cessation of being"). 

 Robert wrote: 
That God uses Hell to destroy that which he has killed does not 
conflict with the idea of it (the destruction of body and soul) 
being a second death in Rev. 20. 

James replies:
You ignore the fact that there are two deaths (Rev 2:11, 20:6).  
God kills men at the first death, raises the dead, and then 
destroys (ruins) both body and soul of the damned in the second 
death.  Killing the body is the first death, the one we all 
experience.  The ruining of body and soul is the second death.  
The problem that you have is that "destruction" is not 
annihilation.  You must prove that men are annihilated by the 
second death.  The second death is a burning forever.  It is not 
annihilation. Men are destroyed by being cast into Gehenna, but 
they are not annihilated.  Their destruction is a continuing 
process that goes on for ever. 

To determine that the second death is not an annihilation one 
merely has to look at the first death.  The first death is not an 
annihilation of body and soul.  Why should the second one be?  
The first death is often described as "destruction" (Mt 27:20, Mt 
2:13, Mt 21:41, etc.), but it most certainly is not 
annihilation.  At death the body returns to the dust as it was 
(Ecc 12:7), and the spirit of the righteous departs to be with 
Christ (Php 1:23).  There is no cessation of being.  The spirit 
merely goes from the abode of the body to the abode of Hades or 
heaven.  The spirit does not cease to exist. 

 Robert wrote: 
Whether or not the lost are killed and then destroyed or it is 
all one process makes little difference.  Luke 12:5 makes it 
sound like the lost are killed then destroyed, but that may just 
be fitting in with the imagery of Gehenna.  Gehenna was a place 
to destroy trash, not execute criminals.  Unclaimed dead bodies 
or the bodies of dead animals and enemy combatants might be cast 
there as well, but no live bodies were cast into the flames of 
Gehenna as a method of punishment. 

James replies:
If you can't even tell if the lost are "destroyed" before or 
after they are cast into the Lake of Fire, how in the world are 
you going to prove a proposition that people are annihilated in 
the Lake of Fire?  You don't even know when they die! 

If "destruction" means "annihilation" and men are destroyed prior 
to being cast into the Lake of Fire, then they are annihilated 
before they are burned!  What sense does that make?  If men are 
destroyed before they are cast into the Lake of Fire and their 
bodies still exist to be cast into the Lake of Fire, then 
obviously "destruction" means something other than "annihilation" 
even in the context of the verse that you use to try to prove 
eternal annihilation! 

You also need to prove that it is even possible for the spirit to 
be destroyed.  God gave us our spirits (Ecc 12:7), and God's 
gifts are without repentance (Rom 11:29).  You make the Bible 
untrue by having God taking away both body and spirit in 
Gehenna.  How is that possible, Robert?  God is made to be a liar 
by your proposition. 

There is not one shred of evidence that fire can destroy 
spirits.  God's angels who are spirits can become flames of fire 
(Heb 1:7).  Burning celestial stars are even the bodies for some 
spirits (I Cor 15:40).  As we speak, spirits of some men are 
continuously burning in Hades (Lk 16:24). Where is any evidence 
whatever, Robert, that a spirit made in the image of the eternal 
God (Gen 1:27) can be made to cease to exist?  Your proposition 
requires that you prove that body and spirit cease to exist in 
the Lake of Fire.  Where is your evidence that such is even 
possible?  All you have set forth is the grammatical possibility 
that "eternal destruction" COULD mean a point action that was 
permanent in its effects. You have not shown that the grammatical 
possibility is in fact the case with people cast into the Lake of 
Fire. 

 Robert wrote: 
2 Cor. 5:6-8 say nothing regarding the wicked. 

James replies:
Yes, II Cor 5:6-8 deals only with the righteous.  I do not see 
how II Cor 5:6-8 deals with the proposition that men are 
annihilated at the second death other than to establish the 
continued existence of men apart from the body.  Men are not 
annihilated at the first death, why would the second death be so 
much different?  Men are said to be destroyed by both deaths, but 
the first death, we are sure, does not result in annihilation. If 
"destruction" did not mean ceasing to exist when applied to the 
first death, why would it mean ceasing to exist when applied to 
the second one? 

 Robert wrote: 
I do not deny that physical death is a separation of body and 
spirit, but it is not a separation of body and soul.  The spirit 
in the body is a living soul.  The body apart from the spirit is 
dead. I am sure there is much about the spirit, soul, etc., that 
we do not understand, but whatever the spirit is, it does not 
give man immortal status as "only God hath immortality" (1 Tim. 
6:16) and whatever it is, and however it relates to body and 
soul, God can destroy it all.

James replies:
In order for "immortality" to be significant in this discussion, 
you need to establish that at death in the present age that man 
ceases to exist. If you could establish that men cease to exist 
at death and God simply recreates them at the Resurrection, a 
discussion of death versus immortality would be significant.  
However, the fact is, all of the dead live unto God (Lk 20:38).  
The soul of man both exists and is conscious after death (Php 
1:23, Lk 16:24, I Sam 28:14).  Since man dies, he obviously is 
not immortal, but neither does he then cease to exist. Because 
men are mortal and yet continue to exist at death, your 
immortality argument does not accomplish anything toward 
establishing a parallel that you could use to prove that men are 
annihilated at the second death.  Furthermore, the apostle may 
have had in view existence in eternity past when he said, "Only 
God hath immortality".  None but God is eternally existent in the 
ultimate sense of past, present and future, but the man's 
mortality does not establish the possibility of man's soul 
ceasing to exist. 

 Robert wrote: 
Rom 8:10 has nothing to do with physical death, but the death to 
sin that the Christian has experienced (Rom. 6:2-11). 

James replies:
What does this have to do with your proposition? 

 Robert wrote: 
I don't really think that "age lasting" is a universal definition 
of "eternal" although some things described as "eternal" are only 
"age lasting" (see references to OT usage in first affirmative or 
Ex 12:24; 40:15 to illustrate) and sometimes they have a shorter 
or longer duration.

In my attempt to show that "eternal" is not a word that is 
primarily concerned with time, but the divine nature and realm, I 
was not trying to say that "eternal" in reference to "punishment" 
is necessarily of finite duration.  In order for "eternal 
punishment" to convey the idea of never ending conscious torment, 
then one must have BOTH "eternal" being a time oriented word 
inhering never ending duration and "punishment" being an ongoing 
process - a "punishING"...If "eternal punishment" means "never 
ending punishing", my proposition is in a world of hurt, but if 
"eternal punishment" is never ending punishment, my proposition 
is fine. 

James replies:
You believe that God burns up body and soul in the Lake of Fire 
and that men cease to exist.  You believe that eternal means that 
there is a point in time that God administers the punishment of 
annihilation and the effects are everlasting.  Merely showing 
that it is possible to construct a grammatical assembly that 
conveys the meaning of a punctiliar action that is followed by 
everlasting effects is not adequate to prove the proposition that 
men cease to exist when cast into the Lake of Fire.  You need to 
prove your point, Robert.  You have only shown that it might 
possibly be the case.  I could introduce positive evidence 
showing that it is not the case that men are annihilated upon 
being cast into the Lake of Fire, but I am in the negative at 
this point. 

 Robert wrote: 
Corporal punishing is not the same as corporal punishment. 
Capital punishment is not the same as Capital punishing, nor is 
"eternal punishment" equal to eternal punishing. Spank a child 
for 30 seconds and it will be needed again soon. Corporal 
punishment is neither never ending punishing or short duration 
punishing, it is a class of punishment that may vary is length of 
administration and time before it is needed again.  Capital 
punishment is likewise a class of punishment. Hanging takes 
longing than lethal injection to kill, and both are temporary as 
all will be resurrected. Eternal punishment is a class of 
punishment that God imposes.  It is a divine punishment that may 
vary from individual to individual as to the duration of the 
administration of the punishment (Lk. 12:47-48) but all eternal 
punishment will be permanent, never recovered from. There is no 
resurrection to recover one from the "second death".

I am fine with saying that "eternal punishment" is never ending 
punishment, but not never ending punishING.  The word "eternal" 
describes the class of punishment, not the duration of the 
administration of it. 

James replies:
I don't have objection to the above argument in theory.  In order 
for me to effectively deal with it, however, it would be 
necessary for me to introduce material showing that the Bible 
speaks of unending punishment and that requires that I introduce 
positive material on the duration of punishment.  I would like to 
note in passing the possibility that an eternal punishment may 
logically and grammatically be a punishment that never ends.  You 
need to prove that eternal punishment is a punctiliar action 
followed by an unchangeable result.  You have not done so.  You 
have only suggested the possibility. 

 Robert wrote: 
The fact is that this punishment is from God (eternal) and that 
it is a punishment as opposed to a reward. That is all the phrase 
"eternal punishment" inheres. If "eternal punishment" must mean 
never ending conscious punishing or never ending putting to 
death, then "eternal life" must mean never ending resurrecting of 
bodies and meeting the Lord in the air, etc.  Both "eternal life" 
and "eternal punishment" are the end of the road for their 
respective participants, but neither get stuck in the process of 
getting there. In considering "eternal life", it is "life" that 
infers ongoing conscious existence. This "life" is eternal or 
from God, thus permanent. But, again the never ending aspect of 
"eternal life", from a duration standpoint is found in the word 
"life" not the word "eternal".

James replies:
If "life" means "unending living", then "death" means "unending 
dying". If you apply your definition of punctiliar action 
followed by unchangeable results to the righteous, then you have 
God granting them life at the Judgment (a punctiliar action) 
followed by eternal consequences.  What are those eternal 
consequences, Robert?  Those eternal consequences are eternal 
living.  They do not just receive the gift of life and then 
nothing else ever happens.  They receive eternal life as a 
judgment of God and continue livING as a result of it.  Your 
theory, however, does not maintain the parallel between the two 
sentences at Judgment.  The righteous receive everlasting life 
and enter into eternal livING but you change the meaning of death 
to keep it from meaning eternal dyING.  You make death into 
eternal destruction of being; something that it NEVER means in 
the Bible, and something that you cannot even show to be 
possible. 

 Robert wrote: 
James admits that it is possible for "eternal punishment" to be a 
reference to a limited duration punishment from an administration 
standpoint with unlimited duration as relates to the permanence 
of the punishment.  That is what I affirm.  I affirm that the 
description of just what "eternal punishment" consists of is 
found in the many, many passages found in simple non figurative 
or non apocalyptic contexts where the fate of the wicked is 
described.  The punishment is 'eternal", thus a divinely imposed 
punishment from which there is no recovery, thus it never ends. 
That still doesn't tell us just what the punishment is.  Other 
texts define the punishment. 

James replies:
In none of the cases that you have set forth, Robert, have you 
shown that God unequivocally means that men cease to exist at 
death.  Death does not mean cessation of being (Lk 16:23) and 
neither does "destruction".  Your proposition requires you to 
prove that men cease to exist upon being thrown into the Lake of 
Fire.  You manufacture a meaning for "destruction" ("cessation of 
being") that it never has and claim that because men are 
"destroyed" at death, therefore they cease to exist at death.  
This is not a proof.  It is sophistry. 

 Robert wrote: 
What is the "punishment" the scriptures describe as "eternal". 
Many scriptures tell us what the "life" that is described as 
"eternal" is. It is life in a mansion, or if you take the party 
pooper view of Jn. 14:1-3, a life in "dwelling places".  It is a 
life in a new heavens and a new earth (2 Pet. 3:13).  It is life 
without sin, sickness, etc. (Rev. 21-22).  So the "punishment" is 
described as being comparable to chaff that Christ will "burn up" 
(Mt. 3) 

James replies:
Robert, you make an assumption on Mt 3 that cannot be sustained.  
You are assuming that Mt 3 is a reference to eternal judgment.  
Mt 3 is a reference to the end of the world.  Do not forget that 
God burns the EARTH at the end of this age! (II Pet 3:7, II Thes 
1:7-9)  The righteous are taken out of this earth when Jesus 
comes (Mt 13:30), but the wicked are slain, eaten by birds, and 
their works are burned (Rev 19:21, II Thes 1:7-9, I Cor 3:15).  
It is correct to see Mt 3 as a point action such as burning up 
chaff in a fire, because the end of the world is a point action.  
However, the end of the world is not the Lake of Fire.  You are 
mixing features of two different events here.  It is not parallel 
to draw language describing the end of the world and apply it to 
eternal punishing. 

 Robert wrote: 
[punishment] is said to be the destruction of body and soul in 
Gehenna, where both the words and imagery point to annihilation , 
not never ending conscious torment. 

James replies: Where have you ever proved the 
assertion that destruction is cessation of existence?  Saying it 
over and over does not make it so.  Destruction often means 
physical death (I Sam 5:11, Esther 9:5) and physical death is NOT 
cessation of being (Lk 20:38). 

 Robert wrote: 
Acts 3:23 says the soul will be "utterly destroyed".  If eternal 
punishment is never ending conscious torment, then either the 
Holy Spirit is a poor communicator or the translators of our 
versions are incompetent. 

James replies:
If it is true that "destruction" is cessation of being, then your 
above statement is valid.  However, you have not and cannot 
establish that "destruction" means ceasing to exist.  Utter 
destruction is not cessation of being.  It means that you have 
nothing good left to you.  You are utterly ruined by being 
condemned to burn in the fire forever.  That truly is an eternal 
ruin, but it is not eternal cessation of being. 

olethros -- pronounced: ol'-eth-ros (Strongs: G3639) 
from a primary ollumi (to destroy; a prolonged form); RUIN, i.e. 
death, punishment: KJV - destruction [JRJ--e.g. II Thes 1:9]. 

 Robert wrote: 
The lost "perish" (John 3:16).  The wages of sin are "death" 
(Rom. 6:23). It is "everlasting destruction from the face of the 
Lord" (2 Thess. 1:9) and it is the Lord that we are dependent 
upon for life, as Paul said, "in him we live and move and have 
our being" (Acts 17:28).

Who sustains the consciousness of the lost in never ending 
torment?  The devil?  He has no such power attributed to him.  2 
Thess 2:8 says the Lord will "slay" (ASV footnote, "consume") and 
"bring to naught" the lost. 
Heb. 10:27 says that God will "devour" the adversaries.
Rev. 20:14 says the result of being cast into the lake of fire as 
pertains to lost humanity is "the second death". 
Rev. 21:8 speaks of "the second death".  After the first death, 
there is a resurrection of all men
(John 5:28-29; Heb. 9:27).  The second death is final. The 
penalty of sin is eternal punishment, not eternal punishing.

James replies:
Robert, these same arguments are used by the nihilists to prove 
that man ceases to exist at the first death.  The problem with 
the above arguments is that they assume what they seek to prove.  
They start out with the assumption that "everlasting 
destruction", "death", "consume", "slay" "bring to naught", 
"devour", etc. all mean cessation of being.  While they truly 
connote a major event in the history of a person, in not one of 
the definitions of any of these words do you find the idea of 
cessation of being.  Furthermore, if these arguments do prove 
that men cease to exist upon being cast into the Lake of Fire, 
they also mean that men cease to exist at the first death.  Since 
men do not cease to exist at death (Lk 20:38), your argument is 
not valid. 

 Robert wrote: 
Do words mean anything?  Is God trying to communicate never 
ending conscious torment in these passages? How would God 
communicate to us the idea of annihilation if this is not it? 

James replies:
How about, "And they shall cease to exist for evermore"?  Since 
you and I do not seem to have any difficulty describing the 
concept of cessation of being, do you think that God would have a 
problem?  I could introduce some texts showing the eternal nature 
of the torment, but I am in the negative at the moment. 

 Robert wrote: 
While I do not disparage the use of lexicons or the study of 
language to help understand the scriptures, it should be evident 
to us, that if we base our view of eternal punishment on the 
literal interpretation of figurative language and then have to 
explain that the language in simple and more literal contexts 
i.e. "burn up", "utterly destroy", "perish", "death", "slay" (or 
consume), "bring to naught", etc., doesn't mean what the many 
translators translated them as meaning, and we have to define, 
parse, etc., the words to make them fit into our literalizing of 
figurative language based views, that we need to rethink our 
approach.

James replies:
If you are going to take a passage to be figurative, you need to 
specify the passage, show why the meaning must be taken 
figuratively, and then supply a Bible key that tells us what the 
word means in a figurative sense.  You have not done any of these 
things.  In Bible study a word is assumed to be literal unless 
the context demands that it must be taken figuratively.  The 
presumption is that a text is literal unless the context demands 
otherwise.  In making the claim that we have literalized a 
figurative text, unless you specify the case you have in mind, 
you are merely making a vague and unsubstantiated allegation. 

"Burn up" is found only in the context of burning the earth at 
the end of the world.  "Burn up" is appropriate in that context.  
"Burn up" is NEVER used in the context of the Lake of Fire.  
"Utterly destroy", "perish", "death", "slay" (or consume), "bring 
to naught", etc. never mean cessation of being.  I defy you to 
produce one scholar who defines any of the original words that 
are translated by the above English words to mean "cessation of 
being" or "ceasing to exist".  That is what you need, Robert.  
You need a word(s) to say that people cease to exist upon being 
cast into the Lake of Fire.  You cannot find it.  NONE of the 
above words ever mean that. 

 Robert wrote: 
Should we interpret the obvious illustration of Jesus is alluding 
to Gehenna literally (and then add things to it that were not 
even in the literal Gehenna, such as conscious suffering) and 
then force all the words of Jesus and The Holy Spirit in much 
more simple and literal contexts to fit our viewpoint? 

James replies:
Since you referred to them above, I am going to make an 
assumption that you are referring to Mt 3:12, 13:40 and such like 
that speak of the wicked being burned up.  These verses are in 
the context of the Second Coming and the end of the world and do 
not prove your point that men are burned up and cease to exist in 
the Lake of Fire. 

Robert, you need to read your Bible on the Valley of Hinnom.  The 
Bible clearly teaches that humans were burned alive in the Valley 
of Hinnom (II Ki 23:10, II Chr 28:3, II Chr 33:6).  This practice 
went on for HUNDREDS of years!  The Valley of Hinnom is literally 
parallel to men being burned alive in the Lake of Fire and your 
argument totally fails. 

 Robert wrote: 
What is "eternal punishment"?  If we approach the scriptures and 
go from the simple to the complex, use the literal to understand 
the figurative, the evidence points to annihilation. 

James replies:
You have not shown a single case where annihilation (ceasing to 
exist) is indicated in the scriptures.  You have read into the 
definition of "destruction" a meaning which no lexicographer 
attributes to it, but you have not proved in any way that 
"destruction" is "annihilation" or ceasing to exist.  Where is 
the simple case, Robert?  All II Thes 1:9 says is that wicked men 
are punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of 
the Lord.  You say that the verse proves that men are 
annihilated, but the verse only says that men's access to the 
Lord is wiped out.  It does not say that the men themselves cease 
to exist.  It says they suffer eternal banishment, but not 
eternal annihilation. 

 Robert wrote: 
If we decide the obviously figurative ideas (For example, 
Gehenna) are to be understood literally, then we are forced to 
parse the simple and apparently literal contexts into definitions 
that can be fit into our initial impressions. 

James replies:
You are in the positive in this discussion, Robert, but here you 
take the negative and are attacking arguments I have not even 
made.  If you have a specific positive argument in mind regarding 
Gehenna, bring it out, and let's deal with it.  What you have 
above is an unsupported generality attacking an argument I have 
not even made.  You are the one who introduced the Valley of 
Hinnom, not me.  Are you arguing with yourself? 

You and I both admit that it was first a real valley south of 
Jerusalem. We both admit that it is used as a type of the Lake of 
Fire.  We both admit that there are some parallels between the 
Valley of Hinnom and the Lake of Fire.  You claim that I take the 
type of the Valley of Hinnom, attribute the burning of humans 
alive in it, and apply that to the antitype of the Lake of Fire.  
I have never made that argument. 

You claim that Hinnom was never used as a place to burn humans 
alive and therefore is a type of annihilation of the wicked.  
However, the Valley of Hinnom was used as a place of human 
sacrifice where babies were burned alive for centuries.  Who is 
it that is parsing the text and forcing contexts? 

 Robert wrote: 
The religious culture has been indoctrinated by the Roman 
Catholic view of eternal punishment and with that view as a 
starting point has been forced to make the many, many simple and 
literal descriptions of "eternal punishment" fit this view.  It's 
time for an entire reexamination of the thought process that has 
gone into this.

James replies:
I agree, Robert, that the Catholic Church's view of punishment 
needs revision, but what you have provided does not harmonize 
with truth.  While I agree that there are many references to 
"eternal punishment" (Mt 25:46, II Thes 1:9), the mere fact that 
the Bible speaks of "eternal destruction" does not prove your 
proposition that men cease to exist in the Lake of Fire. 

 Robert wrote: 
And words convey thoughts, not just compile definitions. 

James replies:
Definitions convey meaning.  You apparently are troubled by the 
fact that many words in the Bible that are translated "for ever" 
cannot mean "age lasting" but mean without end", and the words 
that can mean "age lasting" most often mean "without end", and 
well you should be, for you tried to prove that "eternal fire" 
meant a one time event that had permanent consequences.  The 
preponderance of the evidence is that it means "without end".  If 
you don't know what a word means, you cannot decipher the meaning 
that it is intended to convey. 

 Robert wrote: 
Physical death does involve a separation of body and spirit, but 
the word "death" in the scriptures depicts a state that man is 
helpless to deliver himself from. There is finality in death to 
the human mind that is conveyed in the scriptures. Thus death, 
when used to describe one's spiritual condition is not just 
defining it as a separation between man and God, but pointing out 
the hopeless estate of the sinner (Eph. 2:1-3). Only God is our 
hope (Eph. 2:4 - "But God...") 

James replies:
Where are you going with this thought, Robert?  If you can refine 
this argument in your next affirmative, I will try to deal with 
it.  Show how this argument is meaningful to your proposition. 

 Robert wrote: 
Just because something is described as "eternal" doesn't mean 
that it is of endless duration.  As noted in the first 
affirmative, "eternal sin" is not eternal sinning, but sin that 
"hath never forgiveness" (Mk. 3:30).  "Eternal salvation" and 
"Eternal redemption" are "once for all" provisions. likewise 
"eternal judgment" is a day in which a judgment will be rendered  
that we cannot appeal or overturn or escape. The "eternal fire" 
that destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah was brief in duration from a time 
standpoint of administration but a fire that could not be 
quenched or put out until it had consumed all there. It was a 
divine fire (Heb. 12:28)

James replies:
I do not know of any case in the English Bible where a word is 
translated "eternal" or "everlasting" that it means "age 
lasting".  These uses of the word mean "without end".  In a 
minority of the cases "for ever" can mean "age lasting".  The 
reader must look at the context to determine what "forever" means 
in the context in which it is used. 

Eternal fire was the kind of fire that was used (i.e. fire and 
brimstone, the kind of stuff that burns eternally in the Lake of 
Fire), rather than the duration of the fire at Sodom and 
Gomorrah. 

 Robert wrote: 
The fires of Gehenna are the fires of Gehenna. Jesus was not 
using Gehenna as a base idea to build on other aspects, but as an 
figure of the horrible nature and shame of divine punishment.  
Gehenna always had a fire as there was always trash, carcasses, 
dead bodies, etc., to consume.  There wasn't any conscious 
torment taking place in Gehenna, just destruction of trash and 
dead carcasses, whether animal or human. 

James replies:
There is an aspect of the Valley of Hinnom that you overlook, 
Robert.  The Valley of Hinnom was a valley of idolatrous 
sacrifices (II Ki 23:10).  For hundreds of years there were 
regular human sacrifices made there in the Valley of Hinnom.  In 
these sacrifices men would build a fire in a bronze idol until it 
was glowing hot.  They would then lay the babe on the burning 
altar and slowly cook it alive.  In this way from the days of 
Solomon (I Ki 11:5-7) unto the days of Josiah (II Ki 23:13) there 
WERE CONTINUOUS sacrifices made of people burning in the flames 
of Gehenna. Your argument should be that because there were 
children who agonized over time in those flames while their 
screams were drowned out by a din of chanting, beating drums and 
shouting of the priests of Baal (cp I Ki 18:28) that it is 
obvious from the parallel that the Lake of Fire is a place of 
continuous torment.  The Valley of Hinnom was afterwards made 
into a garbage dump in order to defile it because it had been a 
hideous and demonic place of human perversion (II Ki 23:13). 

 Robert wrote: 
Gehenna cannot be embellished to prove never ending fire as the 
fires of Gehenna did consume the objects of their flames, but 
more and more objects were being added all the time, thus the 
fire was kept burning. 

James replies:
Nobody but you is making this argument, Robert.  No one relies on 
the figure of the Valley of Hinnom to prove eternal punishing.  
The Bible speaks of a lake of fire prepared for the Devil and his 
angels (Rev 19:20, 20:10, Mt 25:41).  That certainly IS NOT the 
literal Valley of Hinnom as we showed in the first negative.  The 
Lake of Fire is a literal place different from the Valley of 
Hinnom that bears a resemblance to features of it, but the Lake 
of Fire is a place that has been prepared from the beginning. 

 Robert wrote: 
In the traditional view of Gehenna, you have fire burning, but 
never consuming.  Sounds more like Daniel 3 than the Gehenna the 
Jews of Jerusalem knew about. The "eternal fire" that comes from 
a God, who is a "consuming fire" (Heb. 12:28) is also illustrated 
in Sodom (Jude 7) and perhaps also in the devouring of Nadab & 
Abihu (Lev. 10:2) and the prophets of Baal can also attest to its 
unquenchable nature and divine power (1 Kings 18:38) 

James replies:
The history of the Valley of Hinnom is quite similar in one 
respect to Daniel 3.  In Daniel 3 Nebuchadnezzar prepared a fiery 
furnace and burned three humans alive in its flames.  That is 
what you claim is missing from the Valley of Hinnom.  However, 
the Valley of Hinnom FOR CENTURIES was a place where humans were 
burned alive in the fire, just as Nebuchadnezzar tried to do to 
the three Hebrew children. 

 Robert wrote: 
The punishing process that characterizes or produces this eternal 
punishment will not be pleasant...Jesus said, "there shall be 
weeping and gnashing of teeth"( Mt. 8:12).  There shall be "wrath 
and indignation" from God and "tribulation and anguish" in the 
human heart (Rom. 2:8)  There is a "fierceness of fire" that the 
willful sinner has a certain expectation of (Heb. 10:28).  It 
will be a "sorer" punishment than that which was experienced by 
those who transgressed the law and died "without compassion" 
(Heb. 10:28-29). The fire will not be quenched, but it will 
completely consume its object and complete the divine purpose for 
which "eternal fire" is reserved.

James replies:
Mt 8:12 says the wicked will be cast INTO outer darkness.  In 
that place into which they were cast THERE will be weeping and 
gnashing of teeth. That does not sound like instant annihilation, 
Robert.  These people suffer in the fire, just like those babes 
agonized on the glowing altar of Baal.  You say their cessation 
of existence is instantaneous, but the Bible says that they weep 
and gnash their teeth in the place where they are thrown. 

 Robert wrote: 
I agree with James about 2 Pet 3 being for all practical purposes 
literal...we are very close on that side of eschatology.  2 Peter 
3 helps us understand Rev. 21 as well, which may be figurative. 

James replies:
Rev 21 is the topic for another discussion, but remember the 
basic rule of Bible study.  If a text can be taken in its literal 
sense, take it literally.  If it is figurative, you need a Bible 
key to unlock it. 

 Robert wrote: 
So also, The literal things characteristic of "Gehenna" can help 
us understand the figurative aspects of Hell. But Gehenna never 
inhered or contained the idea of conscious torment of living 
souls. Never.  To interpret it that way now is to greatly err in 
the understanding of both the literal and figurative aspects that 
could be there. 

James replies:
You need to bone up on some Bible history, Robert.  Hinnom most 
certainly did contain the idea of conscious torment of living 
souls FOR CENTURIES (II Chr 28:3, II Chr 33:6)! 

 Robert wrote: 
To go from the simple to the complex or from the literal to the 
figurative is sensible exegesis in both sides of eschatology. 

James replies:
I agree with your approach in theory.  In practice I find that 
you do not follow it.  You redefine numerous Bible words to mean 
cessation of existence, when they mean ruin or physical death or 
banishment.  You want to redefine "eternal" to be "age lasting", 
but then you say it doesn't matter because "destruction" is a 
point action followed by eternal consequences.  You assume that 
it is possible to cause a soul to cease to exist when God says 
His gifts are without repentance and there is no evidence that 
fire has any ability whatever to destroy a spirit.  Some spirits 
can transform into fire.  You introduce Gehenna, say it is place 
where people were never tortured in the fire and try to use the 
imagery of a trash fire to justify annihilation when in fact 
Hinnom was used as a place to burn people alive for hundreds of 
years before it became a trash heap. 

None of your arguments work, Robert.  The best that you have 
accomplished is that you showed that it is possible to take 
"eternal" in the sense of a punctiliar action followed by 
permanent effects.  Even in that case, however, the effects are 
eternal and not just age lasting.  You ignore, however, the fact 
that many Hebrew and Greek words express the concept of "without 
end" and are never used in the sense of "age lasting".  You 
premise is totally flawed, has essentially no support, and falls 
in the light of Bible revelation. 

Brotherly, 
James Johnson