Dozier/Johnson Debate on Eternal Punishment

 
 
 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
The proposition Robert is affirming is...The scriptures teach 
that the punishment of lost man is a final, irrevocable 
punishment that culminates in annihilation, rather than never 
ending conscious torment.  He must show that men cease to exist 
upon being cast into the Lake of Fire. 

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.

James replies:
The premise that falsifies the above argument is that destruction 
is not cessation of being.

Robert has never offered anything more than his subjective 
opinion to establish that "destruction" means "cessation of 
being" or "annihilation". If Robert's word is sufficient, then 
him simply writing the proposition would have settled the matter 
and we would not need a debate.  God's word is the authority, 
however.  Where is it, Robert, in God's word, either by direct 
statement or by example or by necessary inference that 
"destruction" is "annihilation" or "cessation of existence"?   I 
can take a sledge hammer and destroy a chair, but it does not 
cease to exist.  It takes another form.  To destroy something 
does not mean that it ceases to exist. 

 Robert wrote: 
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. 

James replies:
Robert, you give us your take on "eternal punishment", but if you 
look at what you have written, it is merely a statement of what 
you believe.  There is really no substantiation of what you say 
other than that is what you believe it means.  Why should I 
accept a bare statement of opinion?  You need to show from the 
scriptures that what you believe is what the scriptures teach.

Robert wrote: 
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.

James replies:
I do not deny that some things are punctiliar actions with 
eternal results, such as the Judgment.  Your proposition 
requires, however, that you do more than merely introduce the 
possibility that eternal means a point action with permanent 
results.  You must show that eternal is never used in the sense 
of an action of constant duration.  Only if "eternal" is ALWAYS 
used in the sense of punctialiar action with permanent results 
will your premise be proven.  That the word "eternal" is used of 
endless duration is seen in the following scriptures:

The eternal God is thy refuge Dt 33:27 And these shall go away 
into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. 
Mt 25:46 Romans 1:20  For the invisible things of him from the 
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the 
things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead

These uses of the word "eternal" are obviously not point actions 
followed by permanent results.  Therefore, "eternal punishment" 
could mean, just based on the use of the word "eternal", a 
punishment of endless duration.

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
Robert, though you claim that you are not, you here implicitly 
depend upon a use of "destruction" that means "annihilation".  
"Destruction" NEVER means annihilation or ceasing to exist.  It 
means "death" and it means "ruin", but never annihilation.

"Anguish", "tribulation", "weeping" and "gnashing of teeth" are 
processes that occur in time.  If the sinner burns up as a leaf 
in the flame, there is no time for any of them.  They are gone in 
a flash.  The Bible's use of these terms indicates the unending 
nature of the tribulation of the damned as they anguish in the 
flame (e.g. Dives in Hades--Lk 16:24).  Hell consumes in that it 
swallows up the damned, and from it they never emerge.  It does 
not connote annihilation or cessation of being as your 
proposition requires.

James wrote in 2nd Negative:
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 wrote: 
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 replies:
Robert, I do not understand your arguments.  You claim that 
"destroy both body and soul in hell" (Mt 10:28) is annihilation 
at the eternal Judgment. However, the word from which "hell" is 
translated in Mt 10:28 is "gehenna".  If "gehenna" is not that 
Lake of Fire, the place of eternal punishment, what is it?  If 
you are going to say that "gehenna" is a literal place south of 
Jerusalem where dead criminals were burned in Jesus' day and that 
is what Jesus warned people to avoid, then you cannot use it to 
prove annihilation in the Lake of Fire.  If you are going to say 
that it was a literal place that criminals were burned that is 
NOT the second death, then why on earth do you introduce it?  Of 
what relation is it to your proposition that the damned suffer 
annihilation in the Lake of Fire?  Your arguments make no sense, 
because you are contradicting yourself.  In one place you use 
"gehenna" to try to prove annihilation in Hell and in this place 
you say it has no relation to the Lake of Fire. You can't have it 
both ways.

James wrote in 2nd negative:
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 wrote: 
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 replies:
Robert, you use the words "death, destruction, perish" to mean 
annihilation. In which of these literal words, Robert, do you 
find the meaning "annihilation" or "cessation of being"?  Your 
proposition requires that you find "annihilation", "ceasing to 
exist", in what happens to the damned.  Physical "death" is 
separation of body and soul (Jas 2:26).  It is not annihilation 
of body or soul.  Why, then, should the second death be 
annihilation?  It is not used that way of the first death.  We 
find dead people very much aware both in Hades (Lk 16:24) and 
heaven (Rev 6:9-10).  Where is death ever an annihilation, 
Robert?  Where do you read that it is even possible to annihilate 
a spirit?

Destruction means "ruin" or "death".  It never means 
annihilation.

Perish means "to cut (off, down or asunder); by implication, to 
destroy or consume".  Where is annihilate in that definition?

 Robert wrote: 
This is not true, as Gehenna does have [people being burned 
alive] 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 replies:
How could anything on earth ever convey the notion of never 
ending conscious torment when it is appointed unto men once to 
die?   It looks like hundreds of years of humans being slowly 
roasted to death on a glowing altar would come about as close as 
one could get in this life.  Because all men must die and cannot 
live for ever, nothing on earth could ever literally be an 
unending torment.  Also, where did you ever get the idea that 
only characteristics of the literal Valley of Hinnom could be 
displayed by Gehenna?  What scripture teaches you that, Robert?  
Can you cite one?

When I use the word "gehenna" I do not rely on ANY physical 
characteristic of the Valley of Hinnom to attach meaning to that 
word.  I attach meaning to the word "gehenna" based on its 
lexical uses as given by the lexicographers and translators.  
Strong says gehenna is the "valley of (the son of) Hinnom; ge-
henna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively) 
as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment: -- 
hell".  It is either the valley or the lake of fire.  God does 
not throw the damned into the valley south of Jerusalem unless He 
moves the Lake of Fire there, but He does throw the damned into 
hell.  The Bible says that the place where the damned are thrown 
is a lake that burns with fire and brimstone (Rev 21:8).  It is a 
place where the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever 
(Rev 14:11).  They have no rest day or night for ever.  I don't 
have to guess at what it means.  God tells me.

James wrote in his second negative:
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 wrote: 
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. 

James replies:
You made an assertion that "eternal" is not primarily about time, 
but you never introduced evidence to prove that "eternal" 
primarily meant "permanence and irrocability" other than to show 
that "for ever" is sometimes limited in duration.  You then 
applied that limited meaning to all other similar words such as 
"eternal" and "everlasting" without ever justifying your action 
and in spite of the fact that there are Hebrew words that always 
mean unending.  

 Robert wrote: 
You admit that it can refer to as point action with permanent 
results. 

James replies:
I admit that "eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord" 
is a point action (the Judgment) at which time lost men are 
eternally banished from God's presence into "everlasting 
punishment".  I don't admit that "eternal" ONLY means "punctiliar 
action followed by permanent results" and that is what your 
proposition requires if your proposition is to be proved.  You 
need to show somewhere, Robert, that "eternal" can ONLY mean 
punctialiar action and NEVER means "unending duration".  It 
obviously has that meaning at times.  Therefore, it COULD mean 
that in the case of "eternal punishment".  You need to prove that 
it not only COULD mean that, but that it MUST mean that.  You 
have not and cannot do so, because the word most often means 
"unending duration" (I Pet 5:10. I Jn 1:2, Heb 5:9, 9:4, 12, 15, 
.I Tim 1:17, Eph 3:11, II Cor 4:8, 17, 5:1, Rom 1:20, Mk 3:29, 
Isa 60:50).

 Robert wrote: 
(2) The term "punishment" is not the same thing as "punishing". 

James replies:
You are correct.  "Punishing" is either a gerund, a verb used as 
a noun, or it is a participle, a verb form of "punish".  Some 
examples of "punishing" used as a gerund and participle are:

Punishing is a reward for doing evil. [gerund] God will be punishing the wicked at the Judgment. [participle]

"Punishment" is a noun.  You can substitute the noun "punishment" 
for "punishing" in the gerund form and you will still have 
basically the same meaning.  For example:

Punishment is a reward for doing evil. [noun]

Used in the noun form, the gerund "punishing" means the same 
thing as "punishment", a noun.  About the only difference is that 
the "ing" denotes continuing action, and "ment" does not 
necessarily denote continuing action, though it might.  If God 
used the word "punishing" it would leave little room for doubt 
that the punishment was eternal.  "Punishment" gives room for 
some ambiguity, but it does not prove annihilation or even 
suggest it.

"Eternal punishment" emphatically denies temporal effects when it is taken in conjunction with other statements in the Bible.

 Robert wrote: 
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. 

James replies:
How did you prove what "eternal punishment meant", Robert?  You 
introduced three words, "death, destruction, perish", tell us 
they sound like annihilation and, voila!, the proposition is 
proven!  You claim "eternal" primarily means "permanence and 
irrevocability", but you never even prove that.  You rely on my 
concession that "eternal" CAN mean a punctiliar action followed 
by a permanent result, but you have made no effort to PROVE that 
"eternal" actually means that in the context of "eternal 
destruction".   Don't you think that your proposition requires 
you to PROVE it, Robert?  Where is your proof?

 Robert wrote: 
(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), 

James replies:
I am glad to find that you believe that Gehenna is a type of the 
final destiny of the lost.  Now, if you believe that Gehenna is a 
type of the final destiny of the lost, you would admit that 
Gehenna, the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, was not the actual 
place of eternal torment.  It called to mind sinners, lingering 
death, torture, filth, decay, and fire.  All of these were 
characteristic of its sordid history, but the valley itself was 
not the place where sinners are to be punished.  Jesus uses the 
name "Lake of Fire" as a synonym for the Gehenna (Rev 20:15), but 
He often refers to it as Gehenna in the Gospels (Mt 5:22, 29, 30, 
10:28, 18:9, 23:15, 33, Mk 9:43, 45, 47, Lk 12:5).  God says 
Gehenna was a place where He can cast sinners after they are 
already dead, and we should fear that.  Why should we fear that, 
Robert?  If you are already dead, what do you care what God does 
with your body?  Why is it a fearful thing after one is already 
dead for God to be able to cast that person into Gehenna?  We 
should fear that because it is a place of unending punishment.

You wrote, "Jesus was not alluding to idol worship but the end of 
the lost". How is it, Robert, that 2000 years removed from the 
event that you are sure what was in the mind of Christ when He 
did not say it?  How can you know that when Jesus spoke of 
Gehenna that He was "not alluding to idol worship but the end of 
the lost"?  Jesus was certainly aware of what went on there, and 
He certainly was aware of why Gehenna had been defiled by making 
it an unclean place.  It was a place of burning exactly because 
it had been a place of human sacrifice and idolatrous worship.  
Why would that not be on His mind when He spoke of Gehenna?  You 
presume to speak for God and claim that the Lake of Fire is a 
place of temporary torture because that is what went on the 
Valley of Hinnom during this age when no man can live for ever.  
Instead of imagining what Christ might have thought, why not let 
Christ speak for Himself?  He says, "The smoke of their torment 
goes up for ever and ever" (Rev 14:11).

 Robert wrote: 
not a place where any human could survive for any period of time, 
much less never ending conscious torment. 

James replies:
You must prove that death is annihilation.  The fact that people 
die does not prove annihilation.  Dead people in torment are 
conscious of their torment (Lk 16:26). 

 Robert wrote: 
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. 

James replies:
The only difference between what has been taught for millennia 
and what you now teach is that you say that when sinners are cast 
into Gehenna they cease to exist.  If I understand your position 
correctly, you believe that sinners at the Judgment are cast into 
hell, both body and soul are burned to nothing, and they then 
cease to exist.  The words "eternal punishment" and "hell" 
certainly do not suggest in and of themselves that the damned 
cease to exist, and that is what you need to prove.  The words 
"eternal punishment" certainly do convey the notion of punishment 
lasting for ever.

Instead of resting your case on what we can read in the Bible, 
you are resting your case on what you conjecture that people 
thought about "Gehenna" in the days of Christ.  You haven't even 
cited any original sources that state what you claim was the 
attitude of the people of the first century toward Gehenna.  All 
we have is your say so. 

 Robert wrote: 
(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 replies:
God is not unjust.  I will demonstrate that in my affirmative. 

 Robert wrote: 
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. 

James replies:
I do not require that you find the word "annihilation".  I 
require that you prove that men cease to exist upon being thrown 
into Gehenna/the Lake of Fire.  That is your proposition.  You 
cannot even prove that "destruction" is a "permanent end" in the 
sense of ceasing to exist.  You are trying to do a play on words 
and make an eternal result a "permanent end" and then shift the 
meaning to "ceasing to exist".  It doesn't mean that, Robert.  
God's judgment has a permanent result, but you need to prove that 
the permanent result is annihilation, ceasing to exist, and not 
"ruin" in the sense of being banished from God's presence and 
blessings for ever and in the sense that their access to God is 
destroyed.

 Robert wrote: 
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? 

James replies:
Robert, was not Paul speaking in Acts 17 of the fact that God 
sustains the life of each of us while we sojourn here on earth?  
We understand that God sustains physical life, but then 
eventually men die.  Do you affirm that when men die, they cease 
to exist?  The Bible teaches that when men die, their souls go to 
Hades (Lk 16:26, Acts 2:31) or to heaven (Php 1:23, II Cor 5:8-
9).  They do not cease to exist.  When men go to Hades, they are 
not in the presence of the Lord (Ps 115:17, Ps 88:12) for God is 
in heaven (Job 22:12), but these men in Hades do not cease to 
exist.  If there are men now who are not in the presence of the 
Lord, but yet continue to exist, then how is going to Gehenna 
going to change that?  If the Lake of Fire exists for eternity, 
and it does (Rev 20:10), and it certainly is not in God's 
presence, then what is the problem with the continued existence 
of those who are thrown in it?  You even admit that men are not 
instantly consumed when they are thrown into it.  If they are not 
instantly consumed, then your argument has no merit, for men can 
obviously survive for a time in hell apart from God.  If they can 
survive for varying periods of time as you believe they do, then 
it is possible for God to make the last for ever.  There is 
nothing inherent in being separated from God that requires that 
men cease to exist because by your own admission men continue to 
exist in hell after they are thrown there.  In order for your 
argument to have any merit, it requires that it is impossible for 
men to continue to exist apart from God's presence.  You admit 
that such is not the case.  Therefore the Acts 17 argument has no 
merit.

 Robert wrote: 
Acts 17 necessarily infers that the description of eternal 
punishment per 2 Thess. 1:8 is the permanent and irrevocable loss 
of life. 

James replies:
Acts 17 teaches that God sustains physical life.  It does not 
teach that when men die physically that they cease to exist.  
Neither does it teach that men cease to exist in the second 
death.  When men die physically and go to Hades, they are not in 
the presence of God (Lk 16:26).  However, they continue to have 
existence.  Residence in Hades is not permanent and irrevocable 
loss of life even though men there are remote from God.  These 
men in Hades who are not in the presence of God, rather than 
suffering from permanent and irrevocable loss of life actually 
rise again from the dead on the last day.  Obviously being 
separated from God does not result in permanent and irrevocable 
loss of life.  If men are separated from God in Hades and do not 
eternally disappear, why would men who are thrown into Gehenna be 
annihilated?

You claim that men are annihilated in Gehenna because it is worse 
than Hades.  Can you substantiate that it is worse, Robert?  Men 
are in fire in both cases (Lk 16:24, Rev 14:10-11).  How do you 
know that Gehenna is worse in its effects?  Because men are 
"annihilated" in it?  I thought that was what you were trying to 
prove.  You assume men are annihilated in Gehenna and then say, 
"See hell is worse because men are annihilated there!"  That 
reasoning sure looks circular to me!

 Robert wrote: 
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? 

James replies:
Your proposition affirms that men cease to exist upon being cast 
into hell.  You are not dealing with your proposition.  We are 
not denying that men die the second death.  We deny that men 
cease to exist in hell.  You are supposed to be proving that.  
You are assuming that "second death" and "body and soul 
destroyed" mean that they cease to exist.  You are assuming 
that.  You have not demonstrated it. 

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
Well, you have never actually defined "eternal destruction" other 
than to offer your opinion of what it means.  I certainly do not 
accept your opinion of what it means, because it has no basis.  
To take the actual definition of "eternal destruction" is simply 
to actually determine what it means rather than to guess at it.

The Devil, the beast, and the false prophet are cast into the 
Lake of Fire and shall be tormented day and night for ever (Rev 
20:10).  The Devil is a created being with substance (Ex 20:11, I 
Pet 5:8, II Cor 11:4).  God upholds the substance of the Devil by 
the word of His power (Heb 1:3, Col 1:17).  If the Devil is 
banished into the Lake of Fire for ever, yet he continues to 
exist for ever, then being banished from God's presence does not 
result in annihilation.

If God wished to punish someone for eternity, then He would have 
to sustain them.  Who maintains the eternal fires of hell, the 
smoke of which ascends for ever (Rev 14:11) and the fire of which 
is not quenched (Mk 9:48)?  If God's presence is not in hell, 
then it too should cease to exist, but it does not.

James wrote in his second negative:
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 wrote: 
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 replies:
The word "destroy" in Mt 10:28 is "apollumi".  It means "to 
destroy, i.e. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end 
to, ruin".  It never means "annihilate" or "cease to exist".

God kills the body at the first death, but He does not annihilate 
it. Therefore why should the second death be annihilation?  The 
Bible frequently speaks of the first death as "destroy" (Gen 6:7, 
Gen 9:15, Gen 18:23, and many others).  However, men who suffer 
the first death are not annihilated even though they are 
destroyed (Lk 16:24).  There is no reason to suppose that men who 
are destroyed by the second death are annihilated any more than 
the ones destroyed by the first death were.

Mt 2:13-16 shows that to "destroy" a living person is equivalent 
to "kill" him Lk 12:4 says that God can kill the body and then 
cast it into Gehenna. In Mt 10:28 says that God can kill the body 
and afterwards can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna.

Now if God kills/destroys the body but then the body and soul 
still exist to be cast into Gehenna, obviously destruction of the 
body does not mean that it ceases to exist.  If destruction of 
the body the first time is not ceasing to exist, then why should 
the second time be ceasing to exist?

James wrote in his second negative:
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 wrote: 
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. 

James replies:
Men "perish, die, are destroyed, etc." at the first death, but 
they are not annihilated.

Men "perish" but are not annihilated (Num 17:12, Dt 8:20, 30:18) 
Men "die" but not annihilated (Ezek 28:8, Gen 50:5) Men are 
"destroyed" but not annihilated (Gen 6:17, I Pet 3:19-20) 

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
Your proposition reads that the punishment of lost man is a 
final, irrevocable punishment that culminates in annihilation, 
rather than never ending conscious torment.   A permanent loss of 
life is not annihilation; it means you are separated from life 
(Christ--Acts 3:15) for ever.  Being permanently apart from God 
only renders existence impossible if He makes it so.  If God 
chooses to permanently banish a man from His presence and punish 
Him eternally, He is certainly capable of doing so (Mt 19:26, Mk 
10:27).  With God all things are possible.

Your argument is only meaningful if you could show that it is 
impossible for GOD to sustain existence apart from His presence.  
Since all things are possible with God, it is possible for God to 
sustain men apart from His presence if He chooses to do so, and 
your argument fails since it requires that it is IMPOSSIBLE for 
men to exist apart from God.

God gave man man's spirit and body (Ecc 12:7), and God's gifts 
are without repentance (Rom 11:29).  Man may eternally suffer in 
torment, but God does not take back the gifts He made of the body 
and the soul. 

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
In the first death the body returns to the dust and the spirit 
goes to Hades.  Neither of them cease to exist in the sense that 
you want man to cease to exist in the Lake of Fire.  Wicked man 
goes to the fire at the first death, but he does not burn up.  
God consumes the earth with fire, but He does not annihilate it.  
Likewise hell consumes with wicked, but it does not annihilate 
them.  It is true that there is no resurrection from the second 
death, but that second death does not mean annihilation.  It 
means eternal separation from God (II Thes 1:9).

If men were annihilated at the first death, then it would be the 
re-creation, not the resurrection.  The fact that men can be 
resurrected demonstrates that they are not annihilated at the 
first death.

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
The fact that men's souls continue to exist at death tells us 
that death does not annihilate men.  You claim that death 
annihilates men.  The first death conclusively demonstrates that 
it does not.

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
First you don't know when men are killed, now you don't know who 
is killed.  If you know so little about the Second Death, how is 
it that you are so confident that men are annihilated there?  All 
we have to go on is your personal assurance that such is the 
case, and you don't even know who dies and when they die.

James wrote in his second negative:
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 wrote: 
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 replies:
My mistake, Robert.  I used the wrong word.  I used "destruction" 
when I meant "cease to exist".  The Bible does teach that men are 
destroyed in Mt 10:28, but the Bible does not teach that they 
cease to exist.  You need to prove that it is even possible for 
spirits to cease to exist.  You can prove that spirits are 
destroyed in Mt 10:28, but you can't prove that they cease to 
exist, and that is what your proposition requires.  There is no 
scripture that teaches that a spirit can ever cease to exist, yet 
your proposition requires that all of the spirits of the damned 
cease to exist upon being cast into the lake of fire.  God gives 
man both body and spirit (Ecc 12:7), and His gifts are without 
repentance (Rom 11:29).  How is it that God takes away what He 
gives men and reneges on both His gift and His statement of 
fact?  The fact that the spirits of men burn in Hades shows that 
fire does not destroy spirits.  You have no evidence that spirits 
can even burn in fire, yet you claim to know that men cease to 
exist in the flames.

James said in his second negative:
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: 
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. 

James replies:
I admitted that "everlasting destruction" could be a point action 
followed by permanent results.  I do not admit that "eternal 
punishment" means the same thing.  I believe that II Thes 1:9 is 
a point action, the Judgment of God, that results in eternal 
banishment of the damned from His presence.  That is what the 
Second Death is:  banishment from God's presence into a Devil's 
hell.  The result is everlasting destruction from the presence of 
God (there is no place in God's presence for them any more) into 
eternal punishment.  

I do not doubt that you affirm that the Bible teaches that the 
lost cease to exist.  I have abundant evidence of that.   What 
I don't have is any Bible evidence to back it up.  ALL I have is 
your assurance that it is so.  You have not ONCE demonstrated 
that "destruction" is annihilation/ceasing to exist.  You assume 
it to be so.  Everlasting destruction from the presence of God IS 
NOT equivalent to annihilation.  The angels that sinned were 
forever banished from God's presence (Jude 1:6, Enoch 14:5-6), 
but they were not annihilated.  Being booted out of heaven and 
from God's presence was not equivalent to the Devil's 
annihilation (Rev 12:12).  Neither is the banishment of the lost 
from the presence of God their annihilation.  

 Robert wrote: 
Your position demands that all the simple statements of scripture 
be redefined, reinterpreted, and would have to be in need of re 
translation.  

James replies:
Coming from someone who has not once bothered to define what the 
words mean, this statement is near meaningless.  I am not the one 
who is redefining "destruction", "death", and "die" to mean 
annihilation.  You are the one who is in the affirmative here.  
YOU must prove that "death", "destruction" and "die" mean 
"annihilation".  You have not and cannot.

 Robert wrote: 
Your view infers that our translators failed miserably in 
conveying the idea behind the words that Jesus and The Holy 
Spirit gave us.  

James replies:
Where is your proof?  I have provided what the meanings of the 
words are based on the definitions in the lexicons.  You have not 
defined the terms.  

 Robert wrote: 
Your position also demands that we take the figurative ideas 
(Gehenna, Lake Of fire, etc.,), 

James replies:
You believe that men literally cease to exist in a fire.  The 
only difference between what you believe and what I believe is 
that you affirm that men cease to exist upon being cast into a 
literal lake of fire.  Why do you talk about taking the 
figurative literally when you do the same thing?

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
Where have you ever cited any proof that these words mean ceasing 
to exist?  You rely upon what someone might think they mean in 
English rather than an objective assessment of what the 
lexicographers say that they actually mean.

 Robert wrote: 
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.

James replies:
A worse second death does not prove annihilation.  It could be 
worse simply because it is longer, could it not?  

Your proposition affirms that men are annihilated at death in 
hell.  Now you argue that men must be annihilated because there 
is no hard evidence to prove that men are NOT annihilated!  This 
is truly an amazing affirmative argument.  There is no hard 
evidence that men are NOT annihilated, therefore they must be 
annihilated!

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
Here's what the Bible says in regard to the damned about the 
activities of those who are saved as they assemble from one new 
moon to another throughout eternity:

"From one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to 
another...they [everybody living] shall go forth, and look upon 
the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for 
their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; 
and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh" (Isa 66:23-24).

Death does not equal annihilation for all practical purposes.

James wrote in his second negative:
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 wrote: 
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!  

James replies:
For your argument on "immortality" to be significant, Robert, you 
must show that the spirit ceases to exist at physical death.  Are 
you now beginning to affirm that the spirits of men cease to 
exist at the first death?  Strong says that "immortality" is 
deathlessness.  Obviously men do not have deathlessness since it 
is appointed unto men once to die (Heb 9:27).  Death, however, 
does not mean cessation of existence for the soul (Rev 6:9, I Sam 
28:14, Ps 90:10, Gen 35:18, Lk 16:26, Php 1:23, II Cor 5:8-9).

 Robert wrote: 
Thus the spirit of man is not immortal. If man has an immortal 
spirit, then God is not alone in the possession of immortality.

James replies:
How do you go from God alone having immortality to men ceasing to 
exist at death?  Mortality means being subject to death; that is, 
the separation of the spirit from the body.  God is immortal and 
cannot die.  Men are doomed to die and are therefore not 
immortal.  Immortality has nothing to do with the spirit ceasing 
to exist.

 Robert wrote: 
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. 

James replies:
Robert, you have now fallen into the ridiculous position that 
souls of men cease to exist at physical death.  This is absurd in 
light of plain Bible passages.  How can you deny that the spirits 
of the righteous go to be with God when they leave the body (II 
Cor 5:8-9), or that Paul's spirit is now with Christ as the 
inspired apostle said would happen (Php 1:23), or that the 
spirits of the righteous now exist in heaven (Rev 6:9, 20:4)?  On 
what basis do you conclude that immortality references the body 
and not the spirit?  Men are mortal because their spirits and 
bodies can part company (Jas 2:26), not because their spirits 
cease to exist at death.  

 Robert wrote: 
The scriptures tell us Immortality will be given to the righteous 
at the resurrection (1 Cor. 15)

James replies:
It is true that the righteous receive immortality at the 
resurrection (I Cor 15:53).  Does that mean their spirits are 
recreated from nothing?  It does, if your view regarding the 
definition of immortality (which you also did not authoritatively 
define) is correct.  If your view that the dead do not exist at 
all is correct, then how is it that men are resurrected and not 
re-created?  Men cannot be resurrected ("a standing up again"—
Strong) if they do not exist.  

James wrote in his second negative:
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 wrote: 
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 replies:
The intermediate state of the dead is not irrelevant when you are 
arguing that spirits cease to exist at physical death.  I 
introduced the intermediate state of the dead to show that 
"death" does not equal "ceasing to exist".

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
I merely pointed out the possibility that Paul had reference to 
eternal existence in eternity past and might not have reference 
to physical death at all, for angels are immortal in the sense of 
never dying and they therefore have immortality in that sense the 
same as God does.  They can, however, be eternally banished from 
His presence.  However, Paul's use of the word in that sense is 
NOT vital to my argument.  What is vital is the definition of 
"immortality" which you choose to ignore.  "Immortality" means 
"deathlessness".  Only God is deathless. 

I really wish you would define your terms.  I have defined my 
understanding of them based on the lexicographers.  You claim 
that I am forcing an unnatural take on them when the lexicons say 
they mean them in the way that I am using them.  YOU are the one 
who is forcing an unnatural take of the words, because your 
position depends upon "destruction" having a meaning no where 
found in scripture or the lexicons. 

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
In this sense I agree with you.  Man's spirit can now separate 
from his body and man consequently is not immortal.  When the 
Bible speaks of man obtaining immortality, what is it that man 
receives?  Does he receive a new existence patterned after the 
old man that no longer exists?  Or does man receive the promise 
that body and spirit will never be separated again.  The 
immortality God grants man at the Judgment is a promise that 
man's body and soul will never be separated again (Jas 2:26, Rev 
21:4).  What is at issue is whether death results in cessation of 
existence for man's spirit as you claim or whether death is 
separation of body and spirit (Jas 2:26) where the spirit 
continues to exist elsewhere as the Bible states (Lk 16:26).

You apparently have given up the idea of a resurrection of the 
body that rises from the dead by means of the reintroduction of 
the spirit that left it at death.  You now believe in a re-
creation of a spirit from God's memory of it that inhabits a body 
that it never had.  It is actually a newly created spirit that 
does not have continuity with the spirit that departed the body 
at death, for that spirit ceased to exist.  How is it fair that 
God creates a spirit that never existed, punishes it for 
something that a spirit like it did, and then annihilates it for 
sins committed by a previous spirit?  Does that make any sense, 
Robert?  If the spirit is annihilated at physical death, that is 
exactly what you have.  If the spirit is annihilated, there is 
nothing left of the spirit to resurrect.

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
If man must be in the presence of God in order to exist, then the 
Devil, his angels, the angels that sinned, and those in Hades 
should all have ceased to exist because all of them have gone 
forth from the presence of God.  Since they do exist even though 
they are not in the presence of God, your logic does not work.  
God sustains them even though they are not in His presence.  
Therefore it is NOT true that being cast out of God's presence is 
tantamount to annihilation.

Man does not cease to exist when he is destroyed at the first 
death.  Why should he cease to exist when he is destroyed at the 
second death?  You have presented no evidence except that you 
believe it to be so.

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
Why is it that the meaning of "Gehenna" depends upon the thinking 
of a hypothetical Jew and not the lexicographers?  Why cannot we 
take the lexical definition ("a place or state of everlasting 
punishment"--Strong) of the word?  Why do we have to accept the 
supposed view of Jews that has not even been established to have 
even been held by any of them, as definitive of the meaning of 
the word?  The Valley of Hinnom was a type of eternal punishment 
and people suffered long and agonizing deaths in the flames of 
that valley for hundreds of years.  When they died, their souls 
did not cease to exist.  The souls went to Hades (Isa 14:9-11).  
They did not cease to exist.    

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
No one ever experienced never-ending conscious torment anywhere 
at any time, but that does not preclude the possibility.  Robert, 
you do not believe that men are literally cast into the Valley of 
Hinnom but they are cast into some other place.  Since you 
realize that Hinnom is a type of eternal fire, why do you insist 
that Hinnom must have people still alive and burning in it in 
order for Hell to have everlasting conscious torment?  They 
obviously and by your own admission are NOT the same place.  If 
Hinnom and hell are not the same place and if men cannot live for 
ever in this present life why must I show men burning in Hinnom 
for ever in order for it to be so?  A type does not have to exist 
for ever in order for it to serve as a type.  In the type that 
was the Valley of Hinnom, people suffered long and agonizing 
deaths in the fires of hell, and when they died, they did not 
cease to exist.  That should serve as nearly for a type of 
eternal torment as it possible to do in the present age.

Since you are in the affirmative, it is your obligation to prove 
that men cease to exist upon being thrown into the fires of 
hell.  You have not done so.  You have merely asserted that it 
was the case based upon an assumed definition for "destruction".

 Robert wrote: 
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.  

James replies:
I admit that Sodom and Gomorrah are not burning today and that 
God punished them with eternal fire.  I do not admit that the 
eternal fire is not burning today.  The same eternal fire burns 
as hotly today in the Lake of Fire as it did in Lot's day (Mt 
25:41).  God just used some of it on Sodom and Gomorrah.  The 
same fire still burns eternally in the lake of fire and 
brimstone.  

How does the fact that God used some fire on Sodom and Gomorrah 
from the Lake of Fire help your proposition?  You should use it 
to try to prove that the Lake of Fire will go out rather than the 
lost are eternally annihilated.  Showing that the "eternal fire" 
used on Sodom and Gomorrah went  out could more nearly be made to 
prove that "eternal punishment" stops rather than that men cease 
to exist.  You should also note that while Sodom and Gomorrah 
suffered the effects of eternal fire, they are NOT said to have 
suffered "eternal destruction".  The text says that they suffered 
punishment.  It was not eternal punishment for they will rise 
from the dead and some toleration apparently will be shown to 
them in the Judgment (Mt 11:24, Lk 10:12).  

 Robert wrote: 
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.  

James replies:
II Pet 2:6 merely mentions that God turned Sodom and Gomorrah 
into ashes.  It does not say anything about eternal punishment.  
Obviously the fire in Sodom and Gomorrah went out, but that does 
not prove that the same fire is not still burning elsewhere.

I challenge you to find one instance of "eternal" that cannot 
mean "without end".  "Aionios" means "perpetual, eternal, for 
ever, everlasting" (Strong).   "Aionios" does NOT have ambiguous 
meaning with respect to time.  It is always without end.  

 Robert wrote: 
That fact shows that a certain period of time is not the root 
idea of the word.  

James replies:
Again, you have made no attempt to establish fact.  You have 
merely asserted.

 Robert wrote: 
The idea of permanence, immutability, irrevocability is always 
there as far as the thing under consideration.

James replies:
Which lexicographer establishes this meaning?

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
Total assertion.  You have offered no proof that "eternal" does 
not primarily mean time.  Your argument is completely based on an 
assumed definition.

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
Thanks for the clarification.  Death is the end of life, but it 
is not the end of existence of the spirit of man.  That is what 
you need to prove.  Death is separation of spirit and body (Jas 
2:26) and the end of physical life.

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
Eternal fire is a kind of fire that does not go out.  The same 
fire is still burning in the Lake of Fire (Mt 25:41, Rev 20:10).  
In a forest fire, for example, the fire may burn out in one 
location and still be raging in another.  It is the same way with 
the fire of Sodom and Gomorrah.  It burned out in Sodom, but the 
same fire still rages in the Lake of Fire.  It has not been 
quenched because it literally still burns and always will.  The 
example that Sodom and Gomorrah furnish is the example that God 
will burn the earth and He will burn it with the same eternal 
fire (Ezek 38:22, Ps 11:6, Rev 20:9).  Sodom and Gomorrah do not 
serve as examples of everlasting punishment, but as examples that 
God will come at the end of the world and destroy the wicked with 
fire.  It is the same eternal fire that will afflict their bodies 
and souls in everlasting, ceaseless, unending, surfeitless 
torment.

 Robert wrote: 
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 replies:
The babies died since all men must die.  They, however, suffered 
a long and agonizing death in the fires of Gehenna.  The 
suffering of these babies in the fire was continued over hundreds 
of years.  In that way they serve as a type of the long and 
unending torment of the lost souls in hell.

 Robert wrote: 
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 is the Lord alone who both gives and 
sustains all life. 

James replies:
How do any of your statements prove that men burn up in a flame 
of glory and then cease to exist?  "No life" does not prove 
ceasing to exist.  The dead exist in Hades and they are dead 
because they are separated from God, not because they have ceased 
to exist.

Robert has used 4 main affirmative arguments.

Robert's argument 1:
- What does "eternal" mean?
He finds cases where "for ever" does not mean "unending" and 
concludes that "eternal" is not primarily about time.

Jas response:
He doesn't even notice that there are different words translated 
"for ever", "everlasting", and "eternal".  Some of these words 
always mean "unending".   Because "for ever" sometimes has a 
finite duration, he concludes that the primary meaning of "for 
ever" is an unchangeable nature.  Then he applies the idea of 
permanence to all other similar words such as "eternal" and 
"everlasting".  This does not even begin to show that men are 
annihilated in hell. 

Robert's argument 2:
- What is the idea of "punishment"?
"Eternal punishment" is a point action with a permanent result.


Jas response:
Robert never showed that "eternal punishment" can only mean a 
point action followed by a permanent result.  He assumes because 
a point action CAN have a permanent result that it MUST have such 
a result.  He has never proven that it must have.  He has tried 
to argue that Acts 17 taken with II Thes 1:9 means that men 
cannot exist apart from God's presence.  He ignores the fact that 
the Devil, the Devil's angels, the angels that sinned, and 
sinners all still exist apart from God's presence.  Why would 
being cast into the Lake of Fire cause men to cease to exist when 
it never has before?  God gave men bodies and souls, and God's 
gifts are without repentance.  If God annihilates them, He takes 
them back, and contradicts the statement that His gifts are 
without repentance.  

Robert claims that men suffer for various periods of time before 
they burn up, body and soul.  If the argument that men cannot 
exist apart from God's presence has any force, why would men 
continue to exist for any time at all once they are placed in the 
Lake of Fire?  If men can exist in hell for a single day apart 
from God, why can't they exist for ever?  If men are not 
instantly destroyed when they are separated from God, then there 
is no inherent reason that men cannot exist there for ever, and 
the argument fails.

Robert's argument 3:
- What is "Hell" or Gehenna?
Gehenna was a valley where trash was burned and people did not suffer 
endlessly in the flames.  Therefore the antitype of Gehenna, hell, cannot 
have people suffering endlessly either.

Jas answers:
The temple was a figure of heaven (Heb 9:24), but the Romans tore 
it down.  Does that mean that heaven must be torn down too?  
Every detail of a type does not have to hold true of the 
antitype.  Moses was a type of Christ (Jn 1:45, Dt 18:15), but 
Moses sinned (Num 20:10-12).  Saul destroying the Amelekites was 
a type of Jesus destroying all life on earth, but Saul saved Agag 
alive (I Sam 15:8).  Jericho was a type of the destruction of the 
earth where no plunder is to be taken, but Achan took booty that 
was under the ban (Josh 7:1).  
It was impossible for Hinnom to have people in it that burned for 
ever because:
1) Hinnom has an end when the earth is burned
2) People cannot live for ever

Robert's argument 4:
- Other Considerations 
(Justice, "Good News"?, God or Godfather?)
God is just.  Therefore He cannot consign people to endless 
conscious punishment in the flames because it is unjust.

Jas answers:
There is merit in trying to find the justice in God's actions, 
but redefining "everlasting punishment" to mean annihilation is 
not the means to do it.  As we plan to shown in our first 
affirmative, God gives man amazing grace.  After man has rebuffed 
every overture of God's mercy, God is left little choice but to 
consign the incorrigible to unending punishment.

Robert's main arguments rest upon a supposed meaning for 
"eternal" that he never established and upon a supposed view of 
Jews at the time of Christ that prohibited them from 
understanding Gehenna as a place of eternal torment.  He finds 
lost men's place before God destroyed and concludes that the 
spirits of the men must therefore be annihilated.  He reasons 
that because eternal hell would be unjust for some men, therefore 
men cast there must be eternally destroyed.  By which of these 
arguments did he prove that men are annihilated/cease to exist 
upon being cast into hell?  I leave the question for the good 
reader to decide.

Brotherly,
James Johnson