Dozier/Johnson Debate on Eternal Punishment
Robert Dozier's Second Rebuttal
Proposition:
The scriptures teach that the eternal punishment of lost man is a
final, irrevocable punishment in a lake that burns with fire and
brimstone.
Affirm: James Johnson
Deny: Robert Dozier
My response will be scattered throughout the affirmation.
James wrote:
I first want to apologize to Sam Dawson for misrepresenting his
position. I claimed that he takes a figurative view of hell, but
that is true only so far as the Lake of Fire is concerned. Sam
does not believe that the Lake of Fire and Gehenna are the same.
He believes that Gehenna is the literal Valley of Hinnom, but the
Lake of Fire is figurative of God's judgment against the
nations. The web link that I gave does not demonstrate his views
of Gehenna hell as figurative, but the link rather demonstrates
his view that Gehenna is the literal Valley of Hinnom. I express
my sincere apology to Sam for my carelessness. A better link for
reading regarding his views of prophecy as figures of speech is
http://dawson.fountaingateway.com/documents/matt2425.htm
The original link does show his regard for the Lake of Fire as
symbolic of judgment against the nations.
I want to deal in the beginning of my second affirmative with the
issue of whether Gehenna is the Lake of Fire. In the section
that follows we demonstrate that the Bible teaches that they are.
Gehenna, the Lake of Fire, and eternal torment are all the same
thing in the Bible. We first notice that the Lake of Fire is the
same as the place of eternal torment of Mt 25:41. We learn that
the place of eternal torment and the Lake of Fire are the same
because both the Lake of Fire and eternal torment are the final
abode of the Devil. Here are the scriptures:
The everlasting fire is prepared for the Devil:
"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for
the devil and his angels" (Mt 25:41)
The Devil is to be thrown into the Lake of fire and brimstone:
"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire
and brimstone" (Rev 20:10)
The Lake of Fire is the same as the torment of fire and brimstone
in Rev 14:10 because both of these are the eternal abode of the
damned. Here are the scriptures:
The damned are tormented with fire and brimstone:
He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of
the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb 11 And the smoke
of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no
rest day nor night (Rev 14:10-11)
Fire and brimstone are in the Lake of Fire:
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire
and brimstone (Rev 20:10)
The damned are cast into the Lake of Fire:
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was
cast into the lake of fire.
The Lake of Fire is the same as Gehenna hell because the damned
are cast into Gehenna (Mt 5:29-30, Lk 12:5), but the damned are
cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:15). Here are the scriptures:
The damned are cast into Gehenna:
And if thy right eye offends thee, pluck it out, and cast it from
thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members
should perish and not that thy whole body should be cast into
[Gehenna] (Mt 5:29).
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after
he hath killed hath power to cast into [Gehenna]; yea, I say unto
you, Fear him (Luke 12:5).
The damned are cast into the Lake of Fire And whosoever was not
found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire
(Revelation 20:15).
Robert here...
Those are a lot of similarities for sure, but that doesn't mean
that it is the same thing and certainly not that everything true
of one is true of the other.
First, I think this is figurative, so I am not looking for a
literal fulfillment of detail or a BASIS for eschatology
theology.
Second, whether or not they are the same thing doesn't seem to
have any bearing. I think that they are both figures of the end
of the lost, so I don't have a fundamental opposition to the
idea, unless you want to take one application from one idea and
transfer it to the other, so as to switch applications.
To illustrate, note that the devil, beast, and false prophet are
cast into the lake of fire and are tormented forever. The devil
is the only person mentioned there as the beast and false prophet
are most usually considered to be a reference to false religion
and political power. No human being is ever said to be tormented
forever anywhere. But if then one wants to transfer the tormented
forever part of that passage to Gehenna where people are said to
be, then one has used the similarities of Gehenna & the Lake of
Fire to produce an application for humans that the scriptures
itself doesn't make.
In "How To Read The Bible For All it's Worth", the writers speak
of "false combinations" as a common hermeneutical error, and
describe them as thus, "This approach combines elements from
here and there in a passage and then makes a point out of their
combination, even though the elements themselves are not directly
connected in the passage itself. An extreme example of this all
too common interpretational error would be the conclusion that
one's real enemies are in the church rather than outside the
church because in Psalm 23 David says that he will dwell in the
house of the Lord forever, and that God has prepared him a table
in the presence of his enemies (The enemies must therefore be in
God's house along with David, or else he could not be in their
presence.) I think you make this mistake some here James and
will refer back to this some as "false combination" when I see
it.
James wrote:
If Gehenna is the same as the Lake of Fire, it is then clear that
in the gospels when Jesus referred to Gehenna, He was speaking of
the Lake of Fire. He referred to the literal Lake of Fire by the
name of Gehenna because:
1. The prophets place the future location of the Lake of Fire,
like Gehenna, nearby Jerusalem and to its south (Rev 14:10, Isa
34:5,9-10, Isa 66:23-24).
2. Gehenna, like the Lake of Fire, is a deep valley in the earth
(Mt 10:28, Rev 19:20)
3. Gehenna was a place where the city's garbage was burned
4. It was a nasty place that nobody would want to go to
5. It was a place where humans were burned in the fire
6. It was a place where demons were once worshiped and hence
fittingly should be punished there
7. The actual Valley of Hinnom may be the northern boundary of the Lake of Fire on the new earth. Enoch says
And when all this took place, from that fiery molten metal and
from the convulsion thereof in that place, there was produced a
smell of sulphur, and it was connected with those waters, and
that valley of the angels who had led astray (mankind) burned 7
beneath that land [in the valleys of the earth En 10:12]. And
through its valleys proceed [underground] streams of fire, where
these angels are punished who had led astray those who dwell upon
the earth. 8 But those waters shall in those days serve for the
kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who dwell on the
earth [Herod had a palace near the hot springs at Ezion Geber
(Eilot) on the Red Sea. The area along the Dead Sea also even
now has hot springs resorts in the Great Rift Valley. See
http://www.goisrael.com/discoverisrael/spaswellbeing/index.asp
for the healing of the body, but for the punishment of the
spirit; now their spirit is full of lust, that they may be
punished in their body, for they have denied the Lord of Spirits
9 and see their punishment daily [i.e. the heat from the fire
that drives the hot springs], and yet believe not in His name.
And in proportion as the burning of their bodies becomes severe,
a corresponding change shall take place in their spirit for ever
and ever; 10 for before the Lord of Spirits none shall utter an
idle word. For the judgment shall come upon them, 11 because
they believe in the lust of their body and deny the Spirit of the
Lord. And those same waters will undergo a change in those days;
for when those angels are punished in these waters, these water-
springs shall change their temperature, and when the angels
ascend [from their prison in the valleys at the end of the world-
Rev 9:14-15], this water of the 12 springs shall change and
become cold. And I heard Michael answering and saying: This
judgment wherewith the angels are judged is a testimony for the
kings and the mighty who possess the 13 earth. Because these
waters of judgment minister to the healing of the body of the
kings and the lust of their body; therefore they will not see and
will not believe that those waters will change and become a fire
which burns for ever. (En 67:6-13)
When you take the above considerations regarding Gehenna and the
Lake of Fire and eternal punishment, it is easy to see how they
are the same and a literal place south of Jerusalem where "they
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 66:24). On the other hand, from the
annihilationist's point of view, it makes no sense to understand
Jesus to be referring to the literal Valley of Hinnom. Were the
people of Jesus day literally to worry about being cast into the
city's garbage fire? Would they even care if they were already
dead? Is it actually worse to be cast into the city garbage fire
after you are dead than to cut off your hand or put out your
eye?
Robert replies:
I believe you are dissecting a figure far too much. The imagery
of Gehenna is that of one being destroyed in it (Mt. 10:28) or
killed, then destroyed in it (Lk.12:5). The end is the same. No
eternal life.
James wrote:
Unless Jesus is talking about eternal punishment at the end of
the world, the literal Valley of Hinnom notion makes no sense
whatever, and from the viewpoint of annihilationist one cannot
understand how people are going to be punished in the literal
Valley of Hinnom at the end of the world, because they don't
believe in a literal new earth.
Robert replies:
I don't know if I believe in a literal new earth or not. I tend
toward the idea that there will be a new paradise, literally.
But the issue is what the meaning of eternal punishment is.
Whether lost souls are punished in a literal Gehenna and Lake of
Fire or if that just refers to divine destruction, is not really
that important. The lost will perish.
James wrote:
Why they insist for a literal Valley of Hinnom and then turn
around and require that the eternal nature of the fire there is
figurative is baffling to this author. Do they expect God to
light a figurative eternal fire in the literal Valley of Hinnom
at the end of the world into which He places all of the wicked to
be annihilated? If the eternal fire is a figure of speech, why
is not the Valley of Hinnom a figure of speech? Why is there
such insistence that it is literal place? They are not
consistent. Jesus warned that it was worse to fall into the
hands of God who could kill you and then raise you from the dead
and then throw you into Gehenna (Lk 12:5). Can we honestly
believe that men of Jesus day were literally in danger of God
killing them, raising them from the dead and then casting them
into the figurative "eternal fire" that would actually go out but
it was in the literal Valley of Hinnom? Does the annihilationist
really believe that it will be God's judgment that the wicked
will be burned to ashes in the literal Valley of Hinnom? Surely
they do not believe that, but that is what the Bible says if we
apply their definitions to the use of "eternal fire" and
"Gehenna" in the NT. If we understand Jesus' use of Gehenna to
be a reference to the literal Lake of Fire that will be revealed
south of Jerusalem starting at the Valley of Hinnom and extending
down into Edom (Isa 34:5, 9) and that it is a place where their
worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched and burns there
forever, the text is perfectly understandable in a literal
sense.
Robert replies:
Sure it is understandable, but that does not mean it is the
correct interpretation. Figurative language is understandable
when considered literally, but that doesn't mean that is the
meaning of the text.
James wrote:
Jesus said that it was better to cut off your hand or foot or put
out your eye and to enter into life maimed rather than to be
whole and be cast into the everlasting fire, that is, Gehenna.
Is not Jesus' idea that we remove that member that is causing us
to sin such as the kleptomaniac's hand, the feet swift to shed
blood, and the vessels used to sexual dishonor (I Thes 4:4)? Why
would one remove the offending member? Because the sin that comes
by the offending member places the whole body in jeopardy of
eternal torment. Jesus is not worried that men are going to have
a dishonorable burial. He is worried that they are going to burn
for ever in hell. To avoid hell, it is worth even cutting off
offending members so we cannot sin. We might go to our grave
maimed, but having overcome sin (Rev 2:10) we then enter into
life. In the resurrection, our bodies will be restored (Acts
3:21). Is it worth cutting off your hand or being castrated so
that your body would not be burned after you are dead?
Robert replies:
That's not all there is to it. Would you lose a body member for
eternal life? Of course we would. It's not just about the
imposition of death, but the loss of life. Most criminals would
much rather have a life sentence than the death penalty. At
least they are alive. I saw a story a while back about a rock
climber who fell and was stuck in some crevices. He had a choice
between staying there and starving to death and freeing himself
by cutting off his arm. He cut off his arm! As long as there is
life, there is hope. Some who believe that the lost will be
forever punished consciously demonstrate also a belief in
redemption being possible, even from hell. No specific support
in scripture for that. Human nature has hope as long as it has
life.
James wrote:
Obviously not. Jesus said that what He was talking about was
worth maiming yourself to avoid.
Robert replies:
It is worth dying to gain eternal life. Rev. 2:10
James wrote:
Jesus said that being killed was less than what He was talking
about. He said that God was able to do worse than just kill
you.
Robert replies:
Jesus said God could do more than kill you, which is all men can
do. If men kill us, God will raise us and raise us to life
eternal. If God destroys us, then you have lost, forever lost,
any hope of eternal life.
James wrote:
Jesus said that God was able to do something subsequent to
death. After we are dead, God is able to cast both body and soul
into Gehenna.
Robert replies:
Not only "cast" but "destroy".
James wrote:
Does the soul go to the literal Valley of Hinnom? Nobody
believes that the soul was burned in the fires of Gehenna along
with the criminals body, but the text says that the soul goes to
Gehenna (Mt 10:28), and that is the literal Valley of Hinnom in
the view of many of the annihilationists. If the
annihilationists are going to take Gehenna as the literal place
instead of a type of hell, then the passage must make sense when
taken literally. It does not, because the annihilationist does
not believe in a literal new earth or a literal Lake of Fire. It
is difficult to understand exactly what they believe regarding
fire and the punishment of the wicked. The wicked are
annihilated, but it is not a literal Lake of Fire. The wicked
are thrown into the literal Valley of Hinnom and annihilated, but
it is not the Lake of Fire. The whole thing makes no sense.
Robert replies:
I don't know that all the details of a figure are significant,
but the idea is clear. God will destroy the sinner.
James wrote:
The annihilationists like Maxey
http://www.zianet.com/maxey/amtt2.htm
and Fudge
http://ivpress.gospelcom.net/title/exc/2255-1.pdf
do not even believe that man has an intermediate state.
Robert replies:
Many annihilationist vary on this. It is irrelevant to the
subject at hand, as we are talking about post resurrection
punishment, not intermediate state. If I believed in an
intermediate state where men are conscious, that wouldn't have
any bearing on my views are the post resurrection fate of men.
Two different issues.
James wrote:
They believe that when a man dies, he entirely ceases to exist.
Robert replies:
I can't speak for them, but only for myself. I believe the body
is dead, the spirit is asleep. At the resurrection, God will
bring folks back to life.
James wrote:
However, the Bible says that God will cast both body and soul (Mt
10:28, Lk 12:5) of some men into Gehenna subsequent to their
death. If the soul of man ceases to exist at his death, how can
the soul be cast into the Valley of Hinnom?
Robert replies:
In a word, resurrection. But man doesn't cease to exist. I'm not
sure that I can definitively describe the state of a man between
death and the judgment, but I do know that the judgment follows
the death of man, per Heb. 9:27.
James wrote:
If God is talking about the literal Valley of Hinnom, why does
the soul go there instead of Hades? Is the Valley of Hinnom
haunted? The NT consistently uses Gehenna as a type of the Lake
of Fire. Jesus never meant that men should fear being cast into
the literal Valley of Hinnom.
Robert replies
And they should. God will destroy souls when He executes
judgment against them. That is the picture of Gehenna and the
lake of Fire. Details in figurative language don't necessarily
signify anything.
James wrote:
The annihilationists do not believe there is anything worse than
death. Fudge, Maxey, the Seventh Day Adventists and others do not
believe in the intermediate state of the dead, because if the
soul can survive Hades, it can survive Gehenna. If the fires of
Gehenna can consume the soul, then it obviously cannot endure the
fires of Hades either. These annihilationists therefore do not
believe that the soul continues past death. In their view man is
entirely annihilated at the moment of death.
Robert replies:
That may be in your mind a logical thing, but it not the position
of the annihilationist. None that I have ever heard or read
anyway.
James wrote:
One consequence of that view is that there is nothing for God to
raise at the Resurrection. God creates a clone from His memory
of the person. The clone is then judged for something it didn't
do, found guilty, sentenced to Gehenna, and annihilated for
crimes it never committed. This is totally senseless, because
there is actually nothing left to judge. Men are annihilated at
death and cloned from God's memory of them at the resurrection
only to be immediately slain for sins they didn't commit.
Robert replies
The same argument can be made about the body of man. The body of
dead men may be eaten and digested by an animal. Does that
prevent a resurrection. If you can believe in the bodily
resurrection of all men, then you can believe in either theory as
far as what happens to them
James wrote:
One of the most grotesque consequences of the annihilationists'
view of Hades, is the requirement that Christ was annihilated
when He died.
Robert replies:
It is not a requirement.
James wrote:
This fact alone should send men screaming in the other
direction. If man's soul cannot endure past death, then Jesus'
soul did not either. If Jesus' soul endured past death, ours
does too. If Jesus' soul went to Hades (Acts 2:21),
Robert replies:
Actually, the text says that his soul would not be left "unto"
Hades. Christ was not forsaken to lay in the grave, but
resurrected.
James wrote:
obviously there is a place called Hades.
Robert replies:
Of course there is. It is the grave.
James wrote:
Why is there a place called Hades if nobody's soul but Jesus'
went there? It is obviously a useless place.
Robert replies:
The soul is the life of man. There is body (physical) and spirit
(spiritual), and when these two are together, you have "a living
soul".
James wrote:
However, the Bible says that Christ preached to the spirits in
prison, that is, Hades (I Pet 3:18), so obviously death does not
annihilate> men.
Robert replies:
If it your take on this was correct, and I don't think it is, it
has no bearing on what happens after all men are resurrected.
James wrote:
If man is annihilated at death, why has man not then paid the
price for sin?
Robert replies:
If he WAS, he would have. He isn't.
James wrote:
Of what further use is it to torment someone who does not exist?
Robert replies:
You cannot torment someone who doesn't exist.
James wrote:
Why does man even need a Savior if nothing survives death?
Robert replies:
He needs one so that he will not die the second death.
James wrote:
The whole concept of salvation, resurrection, eternal life, etc.
becomes meaningless if Christ and man cease to exist at death.
Robert replies:
Not if there is a resurrection. No one says they cease to exist
anymore than they say that the body ceases to exist.
James wrote:
If nothing real is accomplished by the present creation, God
could just as well have created man the way He wanted him in the
first place and skip the charade of death and resurrection.
Robert replies:
Say what?
James wrote:
Though the above is typical of the majority of annihilationists,
Robert apparently does not agree with the above scenario. He
believes that men go to Hades at death to await the Resurrection.
Robert replies:
True, but Hades is the grave. I don't know if there is any
consciousness of the departed spirit or not. Paul says the dead
are asleep.
James wrote:
When they rise from the dead, God sentences them to terms of
various lengths in Gehenna. The worse get longer terms and the
better get shorter terms in accordance with Lk 12:47-48.
Eventually, though, both body and soul succumb to the flames and
are entirely annihilated. He says the reason that they are
annihilated is that they are cut off from God who sustains
existence and being cut off from God causes annihilation. His
solution has a flaw, however. If God's presence is required to
sustain life, and God's presence is cut off when men are cast
into Gehenna, they should immediately cease to exist. The fact
that Robert admits that they do not immediately cease to exist is
evidence that God can sustain the damned apart from His
presence. If they can exist for a year or ten years or a
thousand years apart from God's presence, then why not eternity?
Obviously if they can exist for a time apart from God's presence,
there is nothing inherent in the fact that men are apart from God
that causes them to be annihilated.
Robert replies:
I think you are getting a little too precise here. God will be
present as they are destroyed, but is hardly sustaining them.
They won't last long in the flames unless the resurrected body is
made of asbestos.
James wrote:
If God casts into the flames, the punishment is eternal. The
meaning of "eternal" is either in reference to the type of
punishment or the length of it.
Robert replies:
Exactly.
James wrote:
If eternal has reference to the type of punishment and means the
damned are cast into the Lake of Fire, then if it is the effects
that are eternal, that should be the last word. In Robert's
view, it is not. Men are cast into the Lake of Fire for a time,
but eventually they burn up. The effect of their punishment is
not eternal, because the effect eventually changes from burning
in the fire to non-existence.
Robert replies:
The second death has no second resurrection to rescue those who
undergo it. The effects are permanent.
James wrote:
On the other hand, if "eternal" is in reference to the duration
of the punishment, the fact that the damned eventually burn up is
not of eternal duration either. Neither definition of "eternal"
will fit Robert's proposed temporal solution to hell.
Robert replies:
I beg to differ.
James wrote:
When men face a puzzling passage, one of the easiest solutions is
to follow the lead of Augustine (AD 354-430) and declare the
spiritual to be much preferred over the literal. By declaring a
passage "spiritual" or "figurative" the force of it can be
negated or even made to mean the opposite of what it says. By
labeling a passage "figurative" the expositor can attach any
meaning to it that imagination can devise (D. R. Dungan,
Hermeneutics, p183). A "figurative" passage without a Bible key
has ceased to be of any practical value. Hence Robert can
eliminate the entire book of Revelation by declaring it to be
figurative, and thus of uncertain or unknown meaning. Robert
claims that because Christ "signified it by his angel" (Jn 1:1)
that therefore the whole book of Revelation is symbolic, and he
thereby renders the whole book unusable. He needs to do that
because Rev 14:10-11 and Rev 20:10 both clearly teach that hell
and its torment are unending.
Robert replies:
Rev. 1:1 sets the tone. It sure isn't telling us to treat this
book like Acts. Rev. 14 says the smoke of their torment goes up
forever...imagery taken from Gen. 19:27-28. Rev. 20:10-11, even
if taken literally, refer to no human. if you want to take this
literally, then you also have to acknowledge that some worms will
be given immortality along with an insatiable appetite.
James wrote:
In dealing with language, whether it is the Bible or any other
writing, the presumption is that the text is to be understood
literally unless the context demands that it be taken
figuratively.
Robert replies:
Like Rev. 1:1
James wrote:
Any other rule leads to chaos. Consider the following table:
How should we read Rev? Consequences
The entire book is symbolic The book is basically
unusable and God
made a mistake
giving it to us
None of the book is symbolic Several passages are
specifically identified
as symbols and their meaning
is provided (Rev 1:20, 4:5,
17:9-10)
We can arbitrarily take any part The expositor sets him-
of the book as symbolic self up as God
The context determines if it's It is the sensible rule
symbolic whereby any document is
interpreted
Robert says that because Rev 1:1 contains the word "signified"
that we must understand the whole book of Revelation to be
figurative.
Robert replies:
Rev. 1:1 is telling us about the general nature of the book. Not
every detail is. John mentions himself and he was real. The
churches is Asia are real. But obviously, there is much
figurative language and many visions in the book. We are also
told that the things there "must shortly come to pass", thus none
of it may refer to the end of time. Certainly, in my estimation,
no where to hang your hat for eschatological theology.
James wrote:
He says that we should not slavishly attend to any rule, but he
wants to slavishly attend to his rule that all of Revelation is
figurative merely because the KJV uses "signified" in Rev 1:1.
Some rule will be used to interpret Revelation. Should not the
rule used be sensible and consistent?
Robert replies:
Rules are rules and many interpretive rules are good, but Dungan
and others are merely setting forth guidelines learned from
experience and observation. Specific divine instruction by
inspiration supersedes it.
James wrote:
The rule that we use to interpret scripture will fundamentally
affect what we get out of it. Since God expected man to be able
to understand it, there obviously is some rule of interpretation
that God expects to be use. Since Robert's rule apparently is
something to the effect that we may, at the expositor's whim,
Robert replies:
Rev. 1 :1 is not an expositor's whim.
James wrote:
declare an entire book to be figurative without any regard for
the context,
Robert replies:
Rev. 1:1 IS the contextual instruction!
James wrote:
then we could just as easily declare Rev 1:1 to be figurative
since it is in Revelation. Then we can say, "Well, when Jesus
signified by His angel, He meant that the angel made gestures to
John that John should accompany him. It had nothing to do with
the content of the book." If not, why not? Using the same rule
that Robert uses of willy-nilly declaring texts to be figurative
and having no Bible key to explain the supposed figure, we render
HIS argument irrelevant and show his rule to be the inconsistent
and arbitrary silliness that it is. Only by following the rules
of good Bible hermeneutics can we hope to make any sense out of
any Bible text. The word "signified" does not require that every
text in Revelation is symbolic. Even in Revelation the context
must determine if the text is literal or figurative.
Robert replies:
To some extent, but Rev. 1:1 is telling us the general approach
to be taken by those wanting to understand it. It is primarily
figurative and primarily short term prophecy.
James wrote:
Most of the recent translations, however, do not use the word
"signified" at all. They use "made it known" (NIV),
"communicated it" (NASU), "made it clear" (BBE), or some similar
terminology. These terms do not at all imply that the entire
book of Revelation is symbolic.
Robert replies:
If that is the meaning of the word, then you'd have a point. I
believe "signified" is the correct translation.
James wrote:
Even if Revelation contains symbols (and it does), then the local
context of the passage would be what would determine if a
specific text was symbolic or not.
Robert replies:
James, you are not giving Rev. 1:1 the weight it is due.
James wrote:
If a determination was made that a specific text is symbolic,
then a Bible key must be supplied to unlock the meaning. We
cannot just make up any meaning that we choose. Neither can we
dismiss an entire book based upon the fact that it contains some
symbols.
Robert replies:
Correct, but we cannot ignore Rev. 1;1 and then treat it like
Acts. It IS figurative and short term for the most part. No
place to build a foundation for eschatological theology.
James wrote:
In considering eternal hell and symbology, there is a sensible
way to approach determining whether a passage is literal or
figurative. We need to first ask ourselves if the passages under
consideration can possibly make sense if taken literally.
Robert replies:
True, unless the book itself tells you to expect that most
everything in it is figurative and short term.
James wrote:
After all, the presumption is that a passage speaks plain truth
unless the context demands that we take it otherwise. Is it
possible that God could actually be planning to cast the Devil,
his angels, and incorrigible humans into a Lake of Fire for all
eternity? Based upon what we considered of God's justice in the
first installment of this series, we concluded that it is
entirely fair to take men who refuse to repent even after
suffering the fires of Hades, or who refused to repent during
their lifetime when they were knowingly opposing God, and to send
these incorrigible men to eternal torment, because they will not
yield to God. If we understand the trichotomous outcome of the
Judgment (the elect, the nations, the damned), God's fairness is
no longer a question. Since these men refuse to obey God, to
permit them entrance into New Jerusalem or the new earth would be
to permit hardened men who are impervious to goodness to pollute
God's new creation (Isa 65:17, 66:22). These hardened criminals
would ruin it. What choice then does God have but to cast off
these ruined sinners into torment?
Robert replies
That God will punish them is not the issue at hand. Whether it
is permanent or durative is the issue.
James wrote:
We then wonder at the fairness of burning even incorrigibly evil
men for ever. The parable of the man who owed the king 10,000
talents (Mt 18:24) gives us some help here. The penalty for that
man was that he was to be cast into prison until he should pay
the debt that they owed. As we have seen, man has absolutely
nothing with which to pay a debt to God. Even every man's
physical life is forfeit to Adam's sin. We can't even die for
our sin, because our life is not ours to give. If these men will
not accept God's payment for their sin by yielding to Christ,
then they can try to pay the debt themselves. They did, after
all, of their own free will, incur enormous debt to God by their
transgression and added to it by spurning the offer of His Son.
Since they are unfit to be with decent people, they must be
separated from them. Since they are transgressors, they must be
punished for their iniquities.
Robert replies:
But must they be punished for infinity? You believe that souls
can be saved after the intermediate state, right? Why not after
in hell a while? But the debate is not about that, though I
don't mind you bring it up for consideration. You are affirming
never ending punishing.
James wrote:
What is a fit punishment for their sins? To answer the question
of a fit punishment, we need to obtain some idea of the enormity
of the debt of sin. We may do that by considering the debtor in
Mt 18:24. His debt of 10,000 talents equates to many millions,
even hundreds of millions, of dollars. The parable teaches us
that sin incurs a great debt to God. In the parable the king
delivers the debtor to the tormenters to force him to pay his
great debt. The torment is not payment of the debt. It is
motivation to the sinner to pay his debt. The sinners cast into
hell have no means of expiating their sin, but the punishment
encourages them to pay it. Since they can never pay for their
sin, they can never come forth from there, and the punishment
never ceases. Since they owe God, to annihilate them would leave
them owing a debt to God and would work an injustice to God. The
injustice of an unpaid debt to God is a serious factor that is
almost always overlooked in considering the justice of eternal
hell. Because they owe Him and can't pay, God therefore is just
in maintaining them as a spectacle to the world of what happens
to God's enemies (Isa 66:22-24). These incorrigible men will not
willingly serve Him, but they will serve Him, willingly or not.
As Paul says, "In a great house there are not only vessels of
gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to
honour, and some to dishonour" (II Tim 2:20). These dishonorable
vessels in hell will serve God as an eternal warning to those on
the new earth and all those in the ages to come.
Robert replies:
Then you need to retract your idea of some sinners being saved at
some point after death, do you not?
James wrote:
In view of the foregoing, it is entirely reasonable and fair for
God to punish men for ever who cannot pay and who rejected His
offer to pay their debt. There is, then, no reason based upon
the justice of God to reject the literal statements regarding
eternal torment. Is there any other grounds upon which "eternal"
should be taken in a figurative sense?
Robert replies:
My view of "eternal" is not figurative. The word is not a time
word, but a divine one. It refers to quality, not quantity.
James wrote:
God is certainly capable of maintaining men eternally in eternal
life (Mt 25:46). There is then no logical reason that He could
not maintain them literally and eternally in torment. Is there
any other reason that "eternal" should be taken figuratively in
the passages on hell?
Robert replies:
See my first affirmative.
James wrote:
The words "eternal" or "everlasting" are often used to describe
the unending nature of God (Dt 33:27, Gen 21:33, Isa 40:28, Rom
16:26). As we have noticed above, by Robert's admission the fact
that men are cast into Gehenna does not automatically result in
their annihilation. They persist for a time in torment before
succumbing to the flame. There is therefore nothing inherent in
the fact that men are cast into hell that makes us suspect
"eternal" is used in the sense of the effect of God's Judgment.
We have also noticed that it is entirely just for God to punish
wicked men eternally. There is therefore no reason to take
"eternal" in any but its ordinary and obvious sense of unending
duration.
Robert replies
Again, my first affirmative sets forth those reasons. I do not
deny that your view is possible, but I do not believe it is
correct.
James wrote:
We have considered whether the texts in Revelation should be
rejected based upon the fact that they reside in a book that
contains some symbols.
Robert replies:
Not "some symbols" James. A book "signified".
James wrote:
We have found that an outright declaration of all of Revelation
to be figurative is unreasonable and does not harmonize with the
rules of hermeneutics.
Robert replies:
Rev. 1: tells us to reverse the normal hermeneutical approach.
Take it figurative unless a literal interp is forced.
James wrote:
The reason for wanting to eliminate Revelation becomes obvious
when one considers two texts in Revelation that very strongly
show that hell is a state of everlasting suffering for the
damned.
Robert replies:
I don't eliminate the book. I just remember to follow the
instructions given by John in Rev. 1:1.
James wrote:
In an effort to avoid the very clear teaching of Rev 14:10-11 and
Rev 20:10, those of the hell-is-not-for-ever persuasion declare
that Gehenna is not the same as the Lake of Fire. In response to
the view that they are not the same, we present the following
table to show that Gehenna is simply another name for the Lake of
Fire. The table gathers the various characteristics of Gehenna
and a Lake of Fire and presents them in a side by side comparison
such that the reader can see that both of them have the same
characteristics. If Gehenna and the Lake of Fire are equal to
the same thing, they are equal to each other.
| Characteristics of Gehenna Hell
| Reference
| Characteristics of Lake of Fire (Hell)
| Reference
|
| Evil speech causes danger of Gehenna fire
| Mt 5:22
|
| Sinner’s whole body can be cast into Gehenna
| Mt 5:29, 30
| The sinful Man of Sin and the False Prophet are cast alive into the LOF
| Rev 19:20
|
| God can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna
| Mt 10:28
| the living beast and false prophet are thrown there
| Rev 19:20
|
| Your literal eyes can be cast into Gehenna
| Mt 18:9
| whoever’s name was not written in the book of life is cast there
| Rev 20:15
|
| Proselytes of Pharisees were 2-fold more child of Gehenna
| Mt 23:15
|
| How will hypocrites escape the damnation of Gehenna
| Mt 23:33
| Those damned at the Judgment go there
| Mt 25:41
|
| It is better to live maimed than to go to G whole
| Mk 9:43
| torments in the presence of holy angels and Lamb forever & ever
| Rev 14:10
|
| Its fires will never be quenched
| Mk 9:43
| smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever
| Rev 14:11
|
|
|
| everlasting fire is prepared for the Devil and his angels
| Mt 25:41
|
|
|
| the Devil and his angels are tormented there day and night forever
| Rev 20:10
|
|
|
| death and Hades are cast there
| Rev 20:14
|
|
|
| there is no rest day or night forever
| Rev 14:11
|
| The two eyes of a man can be cast into Gehenna
| Mk 9:47
|
| God can cast into G. after He has killed you, man can’t
| Lk 12:5
| it is the second death where God casts the lost men at the Judgment
| Rev 20:14
|
| God sets the uncontrolled tongue on fire in Gehenna
| Jas 3:6
| those there are tormented with fire and brimstone
| Rev 14:10
|
The following table lists all of the characteristics of Gehenna
and the Lake of Fire in the various passages where they are
found. For each of the characteristics we note the location and
ask whether the listed characteristic supports the idea of
annihilation or eternal torment. Most of them are probably self-
evident. An exception is Mt 10:28. Robert has argued that
"destroy" in Mt 10:28 means that the body and soul are
annihilated. I list that passage as a "No" in supporting
annihilation because he has not demonstrated a single place that
shows that it is possible for fire to annihilate a soul.
Robert replies
That's like saying that Rev. 1:1 is insufficient data to warrant
a figurative approach and short term approach to Revelation as it
is only one passage. There are more passages on faith than
baptism, but that proves nothing.
James writes
Since there is zero evidence that a soul can be annihilated by
fire, "destroy" does not equate to annihilation.
Robert replies:
Mt 10:28 is not zero evidence.
James writes
| Characteristic of Hell
| Reference
| Supports Annihilation?
| Supports Eternal Torment?
|
| Evil speech causes danger of Gehenna fire
| Mt 5:22
| N
| N
|
| Sinner's whole body can be cast into Gehenna
| Mt 5:29, 30
| N
| N
|
| God can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna
| Mt 10:28
| N
| N
|
| Your literal eyes can be cast into Gehenna
| Mt 18:9
| N
| N
|
| Proselytes of Pharisees were 2-fold more child of G.
| Mt 23:15
| N
| N
|
| How will hypocrites escape the damnation of G?
| Mt 23:33
| N
| N
|
| Those damned at the Judgment go there
| Mt 25:41
| N
| N
|
| It is the place prepared for the Devil and his angels
| Mt 25:41
| N
| N
|
| It is better to live maimed than to go to G whole
| Mk 9:43
| N
| N
|
| Its fires will never be quenched
| Mk 9:43
| N
| Y> Characteristic of Hell
|
Robert replies:
The fires will not be quenched just means that they will not be
put our before they consume their objects. This is the nature of
"eternal fire" (Jude 7).
James writes
| The worm of those cast there does not die
| Mk 9:43
| N
| Y
|
Robert replies:
Again, the worms die not until they consume the corpses. This is
imagery. If all this is literal, then the resurrected bodies of
the lost must keep reproducing fresh tissue to replace that which
is burnt away or eaten so that the punishing continues.
James wrote:
| The two eyes of a man can be cast into G
| Mk 9:47
| N
| N
|
| God can cast into G. after He has killed you, man can't
| Lk 12:5
| N
| N
|
| Everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord
| II Thes 1:9
| N
| N
|
| God sets the uncontrolled tongue on fire in G
| Jas 3:6
| N
| N
|
| Living beings can be cast there
| Rev 19:20
| N
| N
|
| The living beast and false prophet are thrown there
| Rev 19:20
| N
| N
|
| Torments in the presence of holy angels and Lamb
forever & ever
| Rev 14:10
| N
| Y
|
Robert replies:
The smoke rises up forever...reminiscent of Gen. 19:27-28. Cf.
World Trade Center. Divine judgment makes an impression never to
be forgotten. No reason to take this literally, per Rev. 1:1.
James wrote:
| Smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever
| Rev 14:11
| N
| Y
|
| Those there are tormented with fire and brimstone
| Rev 14:10
| N
| Y
|
| There is no rest day or night forever
| Rev 14:11
| N
| Y
|
Robert replies:
The word "forever" is used in reference to the smoke, not the
non-restful state. But still not a place to base literal
eschatology, per Rev. 1:1
| The Devil and his angels are tormented there day and
night forever
|
Rev 20:10
N
Y
Robert replies:
Rev. 1:1 plus not a reference to man kinds fate.
James wrote:
| Death and Hades are cast there
| Rev 20:14
| N
| Y
|
| It is the second death
| Rev 20:14
| N
| N
|
| Whoever's name was not written in the book of life
is cast there
| Rev 20:15
| N
| N
|
The worm dieth not (Mk 9:44, Isa 66:24)
Robert replies:
Just let me say here that the imagery in Isa. 66:24, upon which
this is all based, is not of worms that have been granted
immortality and insatiable appetites, but of dead carcasses being
consumed.
James writes
Jesus says that in the Gehenna hell that He is talking about, the
fires do not go out and the worm does not die. What is the worm
that does not die? Is it the soul that is in man? That is one
possibility. Job 25:6 says that man is a worm. In that case,
the verse flatly states that the essence of the man never dies,
and the annihilationist theory is therefore wrong.
Robert replies:
False combination.
James wrote:
Another, and perhaps more to be preferred possibility suggests
itself. The worm is a maggot, that is, the kind of worm that
eats rotting things. In that case, the text says that the
rotting flesh of the damned is continually infested with feeding
worms. Of course such a thing requires an unknown mechanism to
sustain it, but our ignorance does not permit us to even explain
how our own spirits dwell in our own bodies, nor do we know how
God can sustain an everlasting fire. We do know that the Bible
says that God will do so (Mt 18:8, 25:41). With God nothing is
impossible (Mk 14:36). Such an eternal infestation of maggots
also requires an asbestos worm that does not perish in the
flame. Since God can make His ministers flames of fire (Heb 1:7,
II Thes 1:7-8), it is certainly possible that God can make a worm
impervious to the flames of hell.
Robert replies:
Isa. 66 is the basis for the figurative language. The imagery is
that of dead bodies being consumed, both live ones that
continually regenerate new flesh for immortal worms with
insatiable appetite. These worms are in worm heaven, if literal.
James wrote:
A maggot worm is the more likely meaning of Mk 9:44, 46, and 48
because it says "their worm". It is a plural group of the damned
that has a single worm. All of the damned are infested with a
common plague. They are all eternally being eaten by a single
kind of worm. They do not have a common soul, but they have a
common worm, a common plague. When the Bible texts have
reference to man as a worm, they say that he IS a worm, not that
he has a worm, but the rotting corpses of Mk 9 and Isa 66 possess
a worm that does not die.
Robert replies:
Again, one man's hell is another worm’s heaven.
James writes
Robert says the fires of hell will eventually consume the wicked
and will eventually go out, because, figuratively speaking,
everlasting fire does not mean without end, but rather denotes,
in his view, an unalterable judgment. Mk 9, however, removes the
possibility of this explanation. The text says, "Their worm
dieth not". If "death" in the annihilationists' view is "non-
existence", then certainly in their view not-dead IS existence.
If the worm does not die, then the worm continues in existence
for ever. If the maggot continues in existence for ever, then
the bodies of the people that it infests continue for ever, or
the souls of the damned continue for ever. Either way, the idea of annihilation is totally wrong
Robert replies:
Literally taken Mk. 9 presents as many problems for you as it
does me. Immortal worms with an insatiable appetite and human
bodies that continually produce flesh fresh for them to consume.
Thus, it is more reasonable to take this figuratively.
James wrote:
Robert says the fires of hell will go out. However, Jesus says
the fire is not quenched. It is not "eternal fire" or
"everlasting fire" such as Robert noted that went out at in Sodom
(but still burns in the Lake of Fire), but Jesus' statement is a
simple statement of fact, "The fire is not quenched."
Robert replies:
To say that the fire is not quenched can simply mean that it
cannot be put out by men. It does not necessitate a fire that is
unending.
James wrote:
It is not a special kind of fire, but a simple statement
regarding a fire that does not go out. The fires of hell do not
go out, Robert. When we say they do not go out, we are not
assuming anything. We are interpreting the text in accordance
with sound hermeneutics. We are taking the statement as a plain
declaration of fact. If Robert wants to take the passage
figuratively, he must explain to us why the passage cannot be
taken literally.
Robert replies:
Do you believe that worms have immortality and that the bodies of
the lost will continually regenerate new flesh? Literal is as
literal does.
James wrote:
God is able to make the redeemed to exist unendingly. Why is it
impossible for God to make the damned to exist unendingly?
Robert replies:
It's not impossible, but I don't believe the Scriptures teach it.
James wrote:
Jesus says that their worm does not die and the fire is not
quenched. Robert says their worm does die and the fire is
certainly quenched. Which one do you suppose is correct: Jesus
or Robert?
Robert replies:
Jesus is correct. Just depends on whether my interpretation or
yours of the language is correct.
James wrote:
Robert first scoffs at the idea of a fire-hardy, eternal worm,
and then says the worm lasts as long as the burning man does. If
God can prolong the worm for the many years the damned linger in
the fires of torment, He is surely able to make it last for
ever. Jesus, plain as day, says, "Their worm does not die".
Robert does not believe that.
Robert replies:
I do not believe in the immortality of worms. This is figurative
language.
James wrote:
No night there
Robert argues that Rev 14:11 cannot be literal because it
describes the Lake of Fire as having day and night whereas Rev
21:25 and Rev 22:5 both state that there is no night in heaven,
New Jerusalem. Now, Robert, you choose to take both Rev 21:25
and Rev 22:5 as literal statements of fact. These are the only
places in the Bible that say there is no night in heaven. Why is
it that these two statements are literal and Rev 14:11 is
figurative?
Robert replies:
I don't know that rev 21 and 22 are literal. I tend to think now
that they are not, but visions of glory and victory. That is a
recent change, but not connected to this discussion or a result
of it in any way.
James wrote:
By what rule do you arrive at your conclusion? Is it not the
"expositor is God" rule? You are certainly not consistent with
your thesis that the entirety of Revelation is figurative.
Robert replies:
That explains my recent change. I decided to apply rev. 1:1
consistently.
James wrote:
Your argument here depends completely upon a literal
understanding of these two verses in Revelation. The consistent
rule is that you must take statements literally unless the
context forces you to understand them figuratively and even then
you must have a Bible key to unlock the meaning.
The fact is that Rev 14:11 and Rev 21:25 and Rev 22:5 can all be
taken literally and all of them be in harmony. Rev 21:25 and Rev
22:5 are both talking about New Jerusalem. It is a literal city
that has existed since the beginning of creation (Ex 20:11, Heb
11:10) that God moves to the new earth (Rev 21:2). The City of
God is what we think of as heaven, but it is not the earth. It
comes down to sit on earth. The City of God is also enclosed.
It is either a cube or a pyramid with a square base 1500 miles on
a side and a height equal to its base (Rev 21:16). Inside of the
City of God is the throne of God and the Lamb (Rev 22:1). It is
inside the city of God that there is no night (Rev 21:25, 22:5).
God and the Lamb give light to the city (Rev 21:23). Outside the
city is the new earth (Rev 21:1-2). On the new earth there is day
and night (Isa 66:22-24). As Isaiah says,
Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I
will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your
seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another,
and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship
before me, saith the LORD.
There will be new moons and Sabbaths on the new earth. The new
moons indicate that the moon can be seen and the new moon is only
visible at sunset. "From one Sabbath to another" indicates that
men will keep track of the days of the week and there must
therefore be some means of determining when a day has gone by.
The place of the damned, the Lake of Fire, is outside of New
Jerusalem (Rev 22:15). There is, as we have seen, day and night
outside of New Jerusalem. God also promised that the earth will
abide for ever (Ecc 1:4), and while the earth remains, day and
night shall not cease (Gen 8:22). All of the statements in Rev
14:11, 21:25 and 22:5 are literally true. They are simply
referring to different locations. Inside the City of God is
eternal day. Outside, on the new earth, there is still day and
night.
Robert replies:
Again, I take this as figurative and prophetic.
James wrote:
Lk 12:47-48
Robert assumes that Lk 12:47-48 applies exclusively to
Gehenna/the Lake of Fire. However, Lk 16:22-25 reveals to us
that some men are punished in fire in Hades before the
Resurrection. Since both Gehenna and Hades have fire, the
context must determine which of these places has temporal fire
and which of these is eternal. Since the punishment of Gehenna
is eternal, it cannot be the place where few stripes are
administered.
Robert replies:
You are assuming a time element is the main thing about eternal
here. The few stripes vs. many stripes could refer to duration or
intensity of punishment other than annihilation before
annihilation is given as well.
James wrote:
Those who suffer the punishment of Hades are the ones who are
candidates for "few stripes", because the suffering of Hades has
an end (Rom 14:10). Since the men thrown into the Lake of Fire
suffer eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord, their
punishment is not temporal. They suffer day and night for ever
(Rev 14:11), and suffering day and night for ever is not a
description of "few stripes" However, the men in hell cannot
stop burning and satisfy the requirement of eternal destruction.
If men received few stripe in Gehenna, and then vanished, their
punishment is not eternal. It goes on for a while, and then
stops. It is not eternally the same, for it changes from burning
in the fire unto non-existence. Those two punishments are not
identical. Therefore, men cannot receive few stripes in Gehenna
and satisfy the constraint of everlasting destruction, because
then their punishment would change after they went to hell, and
neither the effects nor the duration is eternal. The few stripes
must occur prior to the Judgment. The "few stripes" inflicted on
the guilty but ignorant in Hades is actually the solution to the
fairness of God at the Judgment. The ignorant but penitent
suffer the "few stripes" for their sins in Hades. The penitent
are then graciously granted life at the Judgment (Mt 25:37, En
50:2-3). The Sibylline Oracles even say that God will grant the
petition of the righteous to bring some out of the restless flame
[of Hades] in order that they may escape the raging fire and
endless gnawing anguish [of Gehenna] (Sib Orc II:404-413).
Robert replies:
I appreciate the work, but Purgatorial concepts are not what we
are discussing. Nor are non-biblical sources relevant to prove
divine teaching.
James wrote:
The eternal fire of Jude 1:7
Robert, if the "eternal fire" of Jude 1:7 is still burning, would
you receive the truth about eternal hell? In the summer it is a
frequent occurrence that fires break out in the forests of the
West. These great fires burn thousands of acres. Often a fire
will rage for days or weeks.
Robert replies:
Right, these are unquenchable fires that have to burn themselves
out.
James wrote:
Firefighters give these fires names and the names are constants
even though the fire may move far away from the place for which
it was named. The fires may travel great distances. It will
burn through a place and the fire at a specific location will go
out, but men recognize that the same fire still rages on
elsewhere. Sodom is the same way. God poured some of the
eternal fire of hell on Sodom and it burned for a while there in
Sodom and went out, just like the forest fire goes out at a
specific location, but rages on elsewhere. Instead of concluding
that "eternal fire" is a figure of speech for a temporal fire
that God sent and that later went entirely out, why not instead
take the statement at its face value-God used some of the fire
that ceaselessly rages in hell to demonstrate His wrath on
Sodom. There is no compelling reason to take the "eternal fire"
of Jude 1:7 as an example of eternal fire that goes out, because
the eternal fire from which that fire was taken still ceaselessly
burns (En 21:7), just like the forest fires of the great West
still burn after they pass through a region.
Robert replies
The "eternal fire" is divine fire. It consumed Sodom, It consumed
Nadab & Abihu, It consumed the prophets of Baal. God has plenty
of it, I suppose, but I don't think it is literally stored
somewhere.
James wrote:
In order for annihilation in Gehenna to be what the Bible teaches
on eternal punishment, it requires that:
1. We must adopt a hermeneutic that is so flexible that it allows one to make the Bible say anything he wants.
Robert replies:
Not at all. Actually, it is the result of taking the great
thrust of teaching at face value. The bible over and over tells
us that the price of sin is death, perishing, destruction. Some
language figuratively portrays that for us, but no where is never
ending punishing stated.
James wrote:
2. We dismiss the entire book of Revelation as basically
meaningless.
Robert replies:
No, just mostly figurative and short term Rev. 1:1. It still
provides us a message of victory.
James wrote:
3. Because the adopted hermeneutic makes the entire book
symbolic, the authority of all statements in Revelation is
dismissed and one therefore places himself under the curse of one
who takes away words from the book of Revelation (Rev 22:19).
Robert replies:
You cannot take away rev. 1:1 without getting that curse either.
James wrote:
4. One understands Revelation in the same way as people who make
Genesis symbolic and therefore meaningless.
Robert replies:
Gen. 1:1 doesn't begin with "Once upon a time" but "In the
beginning".. Rev. 1:1 is directive.
James wrote:
5. We must understand "destruction" to be annihilation, even
though countries and cities "destroyed" have inhabitants
Robert replies:
That which is destroyed is destroyed.
James wrote:
"eternal" is finite
Robert replies:
Eternal is divine and permanent.
James wrote:
"everlasting" ends
Robert replies:
Not really. NO second resurrection. Dead forever.
James wrote:
"unquenchable" goes out
Robert replies:
Not before it consumes all.
James writes
"for ever and ever" is for a little while
Robert replies:
Figurative for permanence.
James writes
"death" is annihilation and never separation, though this
definition will not allow for an intermediate existence of the
soul
Robert replies:
Death is separation, but can result in annihilation. Intermediate
state consciousness is possible.
James wrote:
Jesus was annihilated because He died.
Robert replies
Not so.
James wrote:
Our soul, made in the image of the eternal God, is entirely
mortal
Robert replies:
"God, alone, hath immortality" (1 Tim. 6:16). And you have
immortal worms to boot.
James wrote:
The soul is consumed in the fires of hell even though the fires
of Hades do not consume it.
Robert replies:
Luke 16 is a figure in my estimation as well.
James wrote:
Nothing of man survives beyond death.
Robert replies:
Destruction is nasty business.
James wrote:
The Resurrection is a recreation of a clone from God's memory of
the person.
Robert replies:
You view the resurrection of the body the same way as I do.
James wrote:
God Judges a clone for something it did not do.
Robert replies
That's not as logical to me as it is to you. I certainly don't
believe that.
James wrote:
God annihilates a clone for sins it did not commit when it was
already non-existing before its sentencing.
Robert replies
See above
James wrote:
If death is annihilation, then what's the point of Jesus' death?
If death is annihilation, why were the wages of sin not paid at
our own death?
Robert replies:
Our sins can be paid for at our death. I'd rather take Jesus'
payment as mine and live.
James writes
This view of death makes the whole scheme of redemption
meaninglessness. Man has no existence beyond the grave, and
there is nothing to redeem.
Robert replies:
The man of faith does. There is everything to redeem.
James wrote:
The last resort of a failed teaching is appeal to figures of
speech, because the author cannot find a literal text to support
his theory.
Robert replies:
Talk to John. He wrote Rev. 1:1, not me.
James writes
Rev 20:10 speaks of the Devil being cast into the Lake of Fire
where he will be tormented day and night for ever. Robert does
not believe this passage is relevant to the discussion because
this debate is regarding man's fate and not the Devil's. It is
true that the proposition is regarding man's eternal fate,
however, there are at least two points relative to the Devil's
fate that have a significant impact upon our understanding of the
eternal fate of man. The first germane item that we notice is
that men are cast into exactly the same place that the Devil is
cast (Mt 25:41, Rev 20:10, 15). We learn from what happens to
the Devil that the Lake of Fire does not end. The torment goes
on day and night for ever. The second germane fact is that
though he is in Gehenna and thus separated from the presence of
the Lord for ever, the spirit of the Devil is not annihilated.
The fact that the Devil's spirit is not annihilated for ever,
destroys the notion (though it does not annihilate it) that men
whose access to God is destroyed (II Thes 1:9) must necessarily
be annihilated, because God's presence is necessary to maintain
our existence.
Robert replies:
False combinations.
I appreciate the work here James, but do disagree.
Robert Dozier