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

James wrote:
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.

Robert here - 
You almost put that in a syllogistic form. I haven't made THAT 
argument although it is ultimately true.  The arguments I have 
made are that -   The phrase "eternal punishment" is a phrase 
that describes the punishment that will be given to the lost.  
The description of this punishment as "eternal" points to it as a 
punishment that is permanent, immutable, irrevocable. The phrase 
does not tell us of the duration of the administration of the 
punishment, but rather that there is no way for those to whom it 
is pronounced upon to thwart it or recover from it.  It may vary 
is time as far as the administration of it (Luke 12:47-48) but it 
will not be ever recovered from.  As other things described as 
"eternal" (sin, redemption, salvation, judgment, the fire that 
consumed Sodom, the destruction from the presence of the Lord), 
are things that happen at a point in time with permanent results, 
thus the punishment is described as eternal. Eternal punishment 
is not the undergoing of something that never ends as far as the 
punishing process, but is being described as a permanent and 
immutable thing.  It is never ending in the sense that it is 
never recovered from.  This punishment is depicted in other terms 
that tell us both of the nature of process and the result.  It 
will be executed with wrath from God, there will be tribulation 
and anguish, weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc., and the result 
will be that the lost "Persis", have "both body and soul 
destroyed", experience "death", are those that God does "slay" or 
"consumes".  Language that naturally to our minds convey the 
thought of the total loss of life are what are used. 

James wrote:
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.

Robert replies:
Gehenna was a place of destruction.  No life could survive being 
in Gehenna.  Most objects discarded there were dead already.  The 
"lake of fire" of Revelation is a different figure of speech.  
Gehenna is not called the second death.  You are mixing or 
combining some ideas there.

James wrote:
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.

Robert replies:
Many of them are literal.  The words that run throughout the OT & 
NT describe it as death, destruction, perish, etc., are simple, 
in contexts that hint of no figurative language, and thus can be 
taken literally and should guide us in our understanding of the 
other pictures that we find in obviously figurative contexts such 
as in Jesus' use of Gehenna and Revelation's use of Lake of fire, 
etc.

James wrote:
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.

Robert replies:
That is the nature of "eternal punishment".  It is point action 
with permanent effect.  How long it takes may vary (Luke 12:47-
48) but the ultimate result is the same for all lost men.

James wrote:
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.

Robert replies:
That is true to a certain extent.  The conscious suffering of the 
lost is real, but no scripture says that it is never ending 
punishing process.  Any punishment (corporal, capital, eternal) 
can vary in time of administration, but only one is never 
recovered from, and that is eternal punishment. 

James wrote:
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 replies:
This is not true, as Gehenna does have that in its history, as 
you pointed out, but Gehenna does not ever convey the idea that a 
person could experience never ending conscious torment there.  
Such would have been impossible.  To make that the meaning of 
Jesus' use of it is without any basis whatsoever.

James wrote:
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 replies:
That is not my major argument.  My major argument consisted of 
four things.  (1) The meaning of eternal as being a word that is 
not primarily about time, but about permanence and 
irrevocability. You admit that it can refer to as point action 
with permanent results.  (2) The term "punishment" is not the 
same thing as "punishing". The word punishment says nothing about 
what the punishment is or how long it will last.  That has to be 
determined from other texts.  Thus, "eternal punishment" means no 
more than a punishment that is permanent, irrevocable, and never 
recovered from. (3) Gehenna, as used by Jesus, was in reference 
to place where the lost would end up.  Gehenna, in the days of 
Jesus, and  to the Jewish mind, was not a place to execute 
criminals (Roman law did not allow that), not a place to worship 
idols (and though that is part of the history of the Valley of 
Hinnom, Jesus was not alluding to idol worship but the end of the 
lost), not a place where any human could survive for any period 
of time, much less never ending conscious torment. Gehenna  
conveyed to their minds the epitome of death, and shame. Thus, 
neither the phrase "eternal punishment" or the word translated 
"Hell" (Gehenna) suggest the idea behind the traditional view of 
the end of the wicked.  (4) Other considerations such as the 
nature and character of God and justice (and the conflict with 
never ending torture of man for no purpose and with no end), The 
gospel being a message of "good news" (not the worst possible 
news), and how that such a threat as this, if even comprehended 
by man, conflicts with the exercise of free will.  

James wrote:
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 replied:
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").

As the word "annihilation" is not in the scriptures, I'd be hard 
pressed to find a specific instance of it being used in reference 
to this matter.  God did use words that convey a permanent end to 
us, thus the idea is there.

Robert replies:
Let me approach this another way.  I mentioned this another one 
of my affirmatives (the second I believe), but don't believe you 
replied to it. But I will set it forth again more fully and want 
you to consider it a very strong argument.  In fact, I think it 
forces the mind to the idea of annihilation for all practical 
purposes. 

Acts 17:25,27-28 says, as Paul describes God, "...seeing he 
himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things...that 
they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find 
him, though he is not far from each one of us: for in him we 
live, and move, and have our being..."

If what Paul said is true, and it is, then "in him we live and 
move and have our being", and that statement explains the 
previous one "for He is not far from each one of us", which 
explains the one before that, "we should feel after him", as it 
is evident that God "giveth to all life, and breath, and all 
things"  If the sustenance that comes from God is evidence of His 
closeness and that closeness is reason for us to seek Him and 
feel after Him as  he giveth all life, then sustenance, life, 
existence without God is impossible. If "eternal punishment" is 
"everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" (2 Thess. 
1:9), then who sustains the lost in Hell?  How can the wicked 
continue to exist if there is no presence of the Lord as it has 
been eternally destroyed as concerns them?  Acts 17 necessarily 
infers that the description of eternal punishment per 2 Thess. 
1:8 is the permanent and irrevocable loss of life.  Good ol 
necessary inference.  Other scriptures describe this as "the 
second death" and "perish" and "both body and soul destroyed", 
thus confirming the idea that life for the lost must end.  How 
can people be sustained apart from God?  Who sustains them?  Or 
does "eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord" have to 
be redefined and explained as being somehow a separation from the 
one who gives life and sustains it but not so far away as not be 
kept conscious forever in torment? 

James wrote:
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 replied:
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. 

Robert replies:
The translators did not render it "ruining".  Now, certainly 
death ruins life, but a ruined life is not equal to death.  Terri 
Schiavo had a ruined life, but was not dead until that which 
sustains life was removed.  Michael Jackson has a ruined 
reputation, but is not dead (I don't think even though he does 
look like death warmed over).  Many people who worked for Enron 
were ruined financially, but are very much alive.  Some have 
gotten new jobs and are doing well.  

James wrote:
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.

Robert replies:
All the evidence points to "eternal punishment" as being much 
more than ruin or harm.  It is the end. Men perish, die, are 
destroyed, etc.. It is permanent and never recovered from, but 
not never ending in its administration.

I think the argument from Acts 17 and 2 Thess 1:8 necessarily 
infers a permanent loss of life. The Bible doesn't use the word 
annihilation, but the idea is there.  Being permanently apart 
from God, i.e. "eternal destruction from the presence of the 
Lord", renders life impossible.  

James wrote:
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 
(Eccl 12:7), and the spirit of the righteous departs to be with 
Christ (Php 1:23).  There is no cessation of being.  

Robert replies:
Even in the first death, there is cessation of being in this 
world. Life as one who had life knew will is forever gone. There 
will be a resurrection.  In the second death, there is complete 
destruction.  God is a consuming fire, not a fire that never gets 
the job done.  There is no resurrection from the second death.

James wrote:
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 replies:
Different issue altogether.  If Hades is the abode of spirits in 
an intermediate state, that tells us nothing of the fate of the 
lost after the resurrection.

James wrote:
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 replied:
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!

Robert replies:
The scriptures aren't trying to detail how it will work for 
everyone.  Maybe some will be killed and then cast into the fire 
while others are cast into the fire alive.  Lk. 12:5 speaks of 
people being killed and then cast into the fire.  Mt. 13:50 
sounds like the other scenario.  Perhaps, this is just different 
strokes for different folks, per Lk. 12:47-48.

James wrote:
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.

Robert replies:
Jesus said it was not only possible, but that it would happen 
(Mt. 10:28)  That pretty well proves it.  I don't have to explain 
it to know the bible teaches it.

James wrote:
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).

Robert replies:
Again, that has nothing to do with the end of the lost. 

James wrote:
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? 

Robert replies:
Mt. 10:28 states it; Acts 17 with 2 Thess. 1 necessarily infers 
it.

James wrote:
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 replies:
You admit that "eternal punishment" could refer to such a 
process.  I affirm that the language used to describe the fate of 
the lost all through the Bible points to an agonizing end, but an 
end nonetheless.    Your position demands that all the simple 
statements of scripture be redefined, reinterpreted, and would 
have to be in need of re translation.  Your view infers that our 
translators failed miserably in conveying the idea behind the 
words that Jesus and The Holy Spirit gave us.  Your position also 
demands  that we take the figurative ideas (Gehenna, Lake Of 
fire, etc.,), make them literal, and then make the literal and 
simple contexts and the words there (death, destruction, perish, 
slay, etc.) all through the scripture be interpreted to mean 
something the words don't convey to our minds to fit the 
position. 

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

James replied:
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 replies:
Because the second death is worse.  Because that is the most 
natural way to understand what God has revealed.  There is simply 
no hard evidence for the other view once you understand what the 
phrase "eternal punishment" inheres and not just accept ideas 
that have been added to it to terrify people.  The second death 
is also "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" 
(2 Thess. 1:8).  Life cannot exist apart from God (Acts 17:28)  
Dead forever pretty much equals annihilation for all practical 
purposes. 

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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.

Robert replies:
Why?  The scripture plainly says that only God has immortality 
now (1 Tim. 6:16). There is no reason to establish a line of 
reasoning to prove a point when the point is plainly stated!  
Thus the spirit of man is not immortal. If man has an immortal 
spirit, then God is not alone in the possession of immortality.  
Being made in the image of God must mean something other than 
that man is immortal now. It could mean that man has intellect, 
will, conscience, emotion, or other characteristics like God, but 
it cannot mean that he has an immortal spirit, per 1 Tim. 6:16. 
The scriptures tell us Immortality will be given to the righteous 
at the resurrection (1 Cor. 15) 

James wrote:
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)

Robert replies:
Luke 20:38 and the parallel Mt. 22:31-32 are probably the best 
know necessary inference in scripture.  Jesus said that Ex 3:5 
("I am the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob") necessarily infers 
the resurrection.  Why?  Because God is not the God of the dead.  
Think about that.  IF A-I-J were 'alive' in Hades when God spake 
to Moses, then God was and IS the God of the living without a 
resurrection.  Only if they are dead now, is a resurrection 
necessarily inferred.  I am not sure that this is that relevant 
to the issue of eternal punishment but you brought it up.

James wrote:
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.  

Robert replies:
If my only argument was "the second death", you MIGHT have a 
point.  What happens in the intermediate state is completely 
irrelevant to our discussion.  

James wrote:
Furthermore, the apostle may have had in view existence in  
eternity past when he said, "Only God hath immortality".

Robert replies:
This is necessary for your view.  You need to prove that this is 
indeed the only way to understand this text. Good luck. Again, an 
unnatural take of the words and context to fit into a viewpoint.   

James wrote:
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 replies:
If only God hath immortality is a present truth (and I believe it 
is) then man being created in the image of God does not grant him 
immortality.  Immortality is granted at the resurrection (1 Cor. 
15).

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

Robert replies:
You used Rom 8:10 in one of your negatives.  Evidently the first. 

James wrote:
 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 
Ex12:24; 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 replied:
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 replies:
I am basing my view as to WHAT eternal punishment is on the 
language of Jesus and the apostles.  They speak of it as "death" 
"perish", "destruction", etc.,  Also, the truths stated in Acts 
17 and life being sustained by God and the fact that the lost, as 
far as the presence of the Lord, are permanently and irrevocably 
separated from God, per 2 Thess. 1:8 is the clincher.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
It is possible.  The other language conveys the details that 
point to annihilation most naturally.  You have to reject our 
translations and redefine meanings to not believe it.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
The difference between life and death infers the difference.  The 
Bible does not say the lost will receive eternal punishing, 
dying, consuming or destroying, but punishment, death, be 
consumed, experience destruction. Eternal destruction from the 
presence of the Lord makes life impossible.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
Acts 17 & 2 Thess. 1:8 prove it.  The other words use to describe 
it (death, perish, consume, destroy) suggest it most naturally, 
and the phrase "eternal punishment" also points to it.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
We have different takes on Mt. 3, but my proposition is not 
dependent upon that passage, so we will let that one go.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
It is cessation of being in regards to the life that was being 
lived.  Humanity dies once to this life (Heb. 9:27)  The "eternal 
destruction from the presence of the Lord" will not be a state 
where life is sustained.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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.

Robert replies:
If "utterly destroyed" doesn't do it, "eternal destruction from 
the presence of the Lord" will. We cannot live apart from God.

James wrote:
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 replies:
The translators chose destroy and destruction, not ruin.  All 
destruction is ruin, but not all ruin is destruction.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
Men will cease to exist if they are not granted immortality at 
the resurrection.  They cannot survive the punishment that God 
will mete out. They cannot live apart from God. I am pressing the 
argument from Acts 17 with 2 Thess 1 as you did not address it 
and it proves the proposition.  The end of the lost is much more 
than "a major event in the history of a person".  It is the end 
of that person.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
I look forward to your affirmative. 

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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.

Robert replies:
I do take many statement by Jesus and Paul as literal. Others I 
take as figurative.   Context is the determinant.  This is not a 
discussion of hermeneutics, though we may get into that a little. 
I am not sure I understand your rules or approach to this so I 
will let the reader decide how to take the various passages and 
whether you or I are forcing things to fit an idea at cost of 
context or harmony.

James wrote:
"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 replies:
That is the natural meaning of such.  Death is end of life as we 
know it.  Thus we die "once" as relates to this world.  If people 
are alive in the intermediate state, they are still dead to this 
world (Eccl. 9:5-6)

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
You evidently have a different "time line" than I do re the end 
of time. to discuss  that would probably complicate our 
discussion or perhaps sidetrack it, so I hope we can avoid this 
discussion becoming a discussion of hermeneutics or 
eschatological time lines.  But you may do as you please in the affirmative and be assured that I will try to answer.

James wrote:
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 replies
The valley of Hinnom NEVER portrays ongoing conscious torment for 
an indefinite period.  No want would think of that when Jesus 
used the word Gehenna.  

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
Again, who will sustain them?  

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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?

Robert replies:
If I am off track here, I apologize.  I believe Gehenna conveyed 
the thought of shame, death, destruction, not never ending 
conscious torment.  No one went into Gehenna and suffered 
forever. It was a place for the dead, but not for never ending 
dying.

James wrote:
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.  

Robert replies:
I have never made that argument.

James wrote:
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 replies:
No one ever experienced never ending conscious torment in The 
valley of Hinnom.  Therefore, when Jesus referred to it as a 
description of the end of the wicked, it cannot mean that.  It 
doesn't mean it whether you take the reference to Gehenna 
literally or as a figure.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
You haven't dealt with the argument from Acts 17 and 2 Thess 1 
yet.  It confirms that the language of "death", "perish", "slay" 
(consume), "destruction" ultimately mean annihilation.

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

James replied:
Definitions convey meaning.  You apparently are troubled by the 
fact that many words in the Bible that are translated "forever" 
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 replies:
Jude 7 is the Bible's own illustration of what "eternal fire" 
is.  It is the "punishment" that consumed Sodom & Gomorrah.  That 
fire is not burning today.  No reader of Jude's epistle would 
understand this any other way.  2 Pet. 2:6 also confirms this 
view.  The word "eternal" has different meanings in different 
contexts as far as how long of a time is to be understood.  That 
fact shows that a certain period of time is not the root idea of 
the word.  The idea of permanence, immutability, irrevocability 
is always there as far as the thing under consideration. However 
long it was to last, it would last.  Nothing could stop it.  The 
"eternal" fire is also called an "unquenchable" fire as man 
cannot stop it.  Divine fire consumes completely.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
Don't sweat it.  The point is that when the readers read "death" 
they did not think "separation" but the end of life.  Both 
spiritually and physically, when "death" occurs, only God can 
undo the "death" that has occurred.  To emphasize the 
"separation" definition is to miss the meaning and force of the 
text. The translators rendered it "death" not "separation".

James wrote:
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 replied:
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 replies:
Jude says the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah was an "example" of 
the "punishment" of "eternal fire".  That is pretty clear.  
Everyone knew what happened at Sodom & Gomorrah. Eternal fire is 
a kind of fire. A fire that comes from God. A fire that is 
unquenchable. A fire that consumes entirely.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
What happened to those babies?  They died.  Rather quickly, 
wouldn't you say?  Life on earth ceased for them ceased at that 
point.  Fortunately, for them, as babies die innocent, as far as 
we know, they will raised and given immortality.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
Nobody but you is making this argument, Robert.  No one relies on 
the figure of the Valley of Hinnom to prove eternal punishing.

Robert replies:
Jesus used it a description of what is elsewhere called eternal 
punishment.  I believe this was figurative as the destruction of 
the wicked will not take place in the literal place where Gehenna 
was, in my understanding, although it wouldn't make any 
difference to my view if it did.   

James wrote:
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 replies:
I believe this is a figurative idea, but again, if literal, it 
still gives no support to the never ending conscious torment of 
men.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
The history of the Valley of Hinnom is quite similar in one 
respect to Daniel 3.

Robert replies:
Quite the opposite I would say.  In Daniel 3, God miraculously 
saved them from the fiery furnace.  In the Valley of Hinnom, all 
who were cast there died. In Daniel 3, those in the furnace felt 
no pain. God was close by.  Very close. 

James wrote:
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 replies:
See above.  Recurring burning of babies to death quickly over 
several centuries is not anything near several centuries of 
suffering for one person.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
I never said that annihilation was instantaneous.  In fact, I 
have repeatedly said that there will be different degrees of 
punishment and different durations of punishing. The proposition 
affirms an ultimate annihilation, not an instant one.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
I suspect we will be discussing this when you take the 
affirmative.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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 replies:
And not one of them lived in those fires for more than a few 
minutes.  To argue that is no more reasonable than  to argue that 
because capital punishment has been practiced for hundreds of 
years, that therefore capital punishment lasts hundreds of years.

James wrote:
 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 replied:
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.

Robert replies:
Mt 10:28; Luke 12:5 address that. 

James wrote:
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.

Robert replies:
See above on this as well.  No one ever sacrificed in the Valley 
of Hinnom lived for hundreds of years in torment.  They all died 
quickly.  God would have to miraculously preserve the lost from 
burning up as in Daniel 3 for your scenario to play out.  But 
"eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord" (2 Thess. 
1:8) makes that impossible as the fact that God, who is not far 
from each one of us, and thus is sustaining all life (Acts 17) 
will not be sustaining them.  Thus they are consumed by the 
"eternal fire" that showed its power in Sodom & Gomorrah and 
perhaps on the other occasions previously mentioned (Lev. 10:2; 1 
Kings 18:38).  That is the type of "punishment" of that the 
ungodly are warned concerning in Jude 7.  That is what the 
'eternal" or "unquenchable" fire does.  It consumes.

James wrote:
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".  Your 
premise is totally flawed, has essentially no support, and falls 
in the light of Bible revelation.

Robert replies:
Oh contraire.  The punishment is never ending as it is never 
recovered from.  There is no resurrection from the second death.  
There is no life after one suffers "eternal destruction from the 
presence of the Lord" as it the Lord alone who both gives and 
sustains all life. 

Robert Dozier