The Fires of Hell Have Gone Out: No Eternal Torment

In Revelation 19:20 the beast (Antichrist) and his false prophet are "cast alive" into the lake of fire:"And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet, who in his presence had done the signs by which he deceived thoe who received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire, which burns with brimstone" (Rev. 19:20)After this chapter 20 speaks of the thousand year millennial kingdom in which Christ reigns on the earth with His co-kings. But Satan is bound for 1,000 years (Rev. 20:2). After the thousand years Satan joins the Antichrist and the false prophet in the lake of fire:"And the devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where also the beast and the false prophet were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev. 20:10)While I don't claim to understand the science or physics of this, the INTENT of the teaching is very clear. Satan will go where the Antichrist and the false prophet were cast 1,000 years previous. And they were not annhilated. They are still there in torment after a thousand years! And the three of them - Satan, the beast and the false prophet will together be tormented "forever and ever".Let Ringo explain why 1,000 years did not annhilate the Antichrist and the false prophet. How is it that "THEY... will be tormented day and night forever and ever?". Why does it not tell us that the Antichrist (the beast) and the false prophet were no more? Why did they not burn up out of existence? How could they still be there after 1,000 years of fire and brimestone? How is it that "THEY" will continue to be tormented, and that "forever and ever?"The intention of the teaching is clear. This signifies eternal punishment. It does not mean that the bodies of two dead men merely suffered the indignity of being in a disgraceful trash heap of fire. It plainly means that their "torment" is perpetual and neverending - not after a year, ten years, fifty years, one hundred years, "a THOUSAND years," or forever.Again: I don't think there is any room for misunderstanding here.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 10:49 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 10:50 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 10:50 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 10:52 PM

Purpledawn It has nothing to do with what I like, what I prefer, what I am fond of, or what I find repulsive or distasteful.It is not a matter of my personal preference or what I wish the Bible did or did not say.It has to do with what is written there and what is the intended meaning. I don't like everything that is written in the Bible! I don't pretend that it is not written just because I don't like it.Do you get that Purpledawn?This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 11:02 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 11:03 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 11:08 PM

The Revelation is a vision. It is stuffed to the rafters with symbolism that should not be taken too literally. It would take a very long thread to "explain" what it all means.Suffice it to say that the Revelation's dream sequences are not intended to undo the rest of the Bible.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This rebuttal is totally not convicing to me.Revelation is the climax and grand finale of the whole Bible. All the "seeds" of truth which are planted elsewhere in the Scripture are finally "reaped" in this climax.Therefore it is understandable that the verses that I refered to are as crystal clear as they are. It is hard to misunderstand what is being conveyed.I object to any dismissal of the book of Revelation as not important to the teaching of the Bible. The structure of the book is very purposefully designed and doesn't indicate the scattered "mad man's dream" which some accuse it of being.The verses are so terribly clear because it is the final word of the Bible on the subject. These final clear words you reject. You simply don't want to take what it says.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 11:36 PM

Not really. Don't be confused by the coincidence that it is placed at the end. It's not a case of "the answers are in the back of the book". I'm not dismissing the Revelation. I'm just saying that its symbolic language doesn't trump the plain language elsewhere.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No indeed. Without the book of Revelation the Bible has no conclusion on a number of vital matters.The place of each book in Scripture is another topic for discussion. If this is your only rebuttal than I think I have done my job. A blanket generalization as an excuse. This last book has the strongest words concerning changing, omitting, or adding ANYTHING to the book."I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this scroll;

​

And if anyone takes away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and out of the holy city, which are written in this scroll" (Rev. 22:18,19)These are the strongest words that the book of Revelation is to be taken seriously. Your attititude towards it is diametrically opposed to recommendation of how seriously we are to regard the prophecy of Revelation.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 11:54 PM

Those words refer to "this scroll" - i.e. the Revelation, not the whole Bible. It is to be taken seriously and symbolically, not literally. Nonsense. As I said, it is coincidence that the Revelation is the last book in the Bible. It is not some kind of super-secret answer key. I haven't made a detailed rebuttal because you haven't made any case that needs rebutting.Your own quotes from the rest of the Bible show that the condemned are destroyed, not tortured. There is nothing in the symbolic language of the Revelation that can change that.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's what I said. That's what I meant. And your dismissive attitude towards Revelation is the opposite response.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-07-2006 12:20 AM

As I have said, I do not dismiss the Revelation. Stop making that false accusation.I have also said that the Revelation's symbolic language can not alter the plain language of the gospels. If all you have is the Revelation, you have no case.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

The word "eternal" has been bandied about alot and I was wondering whether you, as thread originator, had some working-definition of same?

​

You seem to (in your OP and subsequent argument) assume a before/after, time-elapsing version of eternity without supplying any reason why one should suppose it to be so.

---

Using the definitions provided in Strong's, I'm looking at the word eternal in relation to life and punishment as meaning without end.I haven't really looked any deeper than that.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

It has to do with what is written there and what is the intended meaning. I don't like everything that is written in the Bible! I don't pretend that it is not written just because I don't like it.

---

Neither do I and that is why we are having this discussion.You didn't address any of the topical content of Message 87.Second DeathThe fact that the second death is called "second death" negates the idea of torment. Death is final.Punishment vs TormentHas God shown us that he is capable of torment? I don’t see support for it.God didn’t torture the world of Noah, but destroyed it with water.
God didn’t torture Sodom and Gomorrah, but destroyed them quickly with fire.
God ordered the Canaanites to be killed swiftly, not tortured.
I haven’t found anything in the Law of Moses providing for imprisonment and torture.
The sacrificial animals weren’t even allowed to suffer. Death was to be as quick and as painless as possible.So God has not shown torment to be a part of his nature.There is a difference between eternal punishment and eternal torment or torture. An eternal punishment is a judgment whose consequences are without end. Whereas eternal torment, means a person is experiencing pain and agony without end.Show me where the Bible speaks of eternal torment (not punishment).

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Purpledawn, Then we agree that our personal preferences are not the issue.Matthew 25:41 says the cursed "go away" into "eternal fire". Matthew 25:46 says they "go away" into "eternal punishment".To go away to the eternal fire is to go away to the eternal punishment. To come out of the eternal fire is to come out of the eternal punishment. This would be true whether the fire is eternal or is not. Even if there could be punishment outside of the fire that would be a new punishment, annulling the previous one pronounced by the Judge.Annhilation takes out of the fire and therefore takes out of the punishment, and so would END the curse and the punishement sentenced by the Judge. The punishment continues as long as the fire continues and the cursed are in it. The Judge's sentence indicates that both are eternal. The theory of annhilations ends the fire and therefore ends the sentence passed by the Judge.In the case of Nebuchadnezzar's sentence on the three Hebrew boys, coming out of the fire was coming out of the king's sentence. Even if the king of Babylon could keep his furnace burning for 20 years, for the Hebrew boys to come out would be a cessation of the sentence against the three Hebrew boys. Annhilation theory ends the continuance of the punished from the fire while maintaining the fire is eternal. That would be absurd. Why would God kindle an eternal fire to produce a temporary woe?If the punishment is an eternal abiding in an "eternal fire," then the case for "eternal punishment" is proved. In the case of "the second death" what is final is eternal suffering. The horrific words " ... the smoke of their tormenting goes up forever and ever" (Rev.14:11a) indicates the infliction of suffering without end. The horrendous discription "and they have no rest day and night" (Rev. 14:11b) nullifies any hope of cessation of inflicted suffering through annhilation.The thought that God would keep a fire burning forever and ever for no reason because all who suffered in it cease to exist seems absurd.Beside this Matthew 25 speaks of eternal life and eternal punishment. If you hold to a doctrine of temporary punishment you must hold to a corresponding doctrine of temporary life in Matthew 25.If we read that a judge awarded a plaintiff sixty silver pieces and the defendent sixty lashes for sixty days, their respective rewards have an equality to them. It would be dishonest to interpret sixty in the case of the defendent actually means twenty and sixty on the other hand means sixty. You could not honestly negate one "sixty" and uphold the other "sixty.""And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matt.25:46)Shall we argue that there is a cessation of punishment while there is no cessation of life? The sentence is reflective of the reward. They are opposites of one another. Length wise the two destinies are equal as commanded by the Judge.If you want me to respond to Message 87, I can't do it here while I making this response. I don't see why you cannot see the support for it. Niether do I understand why you would think God could not be able to torment. And I question why you would not see support for eternal torment but perhaps could see support for eternal life. That is unless you make an equivalent argument that God could NEVER grant to anyone eternal life. I have not yet seen that argument from you. Do you have such an argument?If you can as strongly argue for the absurdity that God would grant eternal life to any of His creatures, then I would really be convinced that you hold no preference in this matter. As it stands I have just a little doubt.Prove then that God would not be capable of granting eternal life just as He would not be able to sentence to eternal punishment. I think to be sure you would have to ask the people of that judgment about that. This is not a good reason to disbelieve that the cursed depart into eternal punishment as a torment. No one is saying that each and every time God disciplines or punishes it is torment or it is eternal.I reject any logic of "Here, and there, and again here - God punished someone in the Bible without inflicting everlasting torment." This is not an effective argument to me. This is like saying a judge is not capable of handing down a death sentence because
here and there we can prove that that judge only sentenced someone to a number of years in prison. Again. I think you would have to ask the inhabitants of Sodom and Gamorrah about that. I don't assume that they did not suffer. Neither do I assume that to undergo a 40 day flood was not a suffering on the people in Noah's day.That in either case it may not have been eternal, I have no argument. That there was no suffering or torment, I doubt. These examples I reject as proof that God would not sentence this: "And the smoke of their tormenting goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night ..." (Rev. 14:11) or that God would not sentence this: "... and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev. 20:10) Some of the Canaanites might not agree with you. And for the third time instances of God punishing swiftly without torment do not negate clear utterances that some are sentenced to that horrible result. I reject your line of argument here that if God torments forever it should be seen each and every place God punishes.Actually, this may be a tactic employed by the Universalist or magnamous minded person. That is to force the evangelical Christian to fight for the concept of a torturing God. This then is used to demonstrate that the Christian is blood thirsty and worships a torture happy God.I put before you the simple statements. You can receive them or reject them. I simply give you and have given you my reason why I receive them and believe that they are delivered to us TO be received. That fact does not negate the clear divine sentences that I have reviewed for you. I might like to believe that at times. However, the Bible will not allow me to believe that God would not torment in punishment. Saying that He would not in every instance is not saying He would never. In Matthew 25:41,46 there is no difference. In Revelation 14:11 and 20:10 there is no difference.In the parable of Matthew 18:34 the punished servant is handed over to the tormentors:"And his master became angry and delivered him to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed" (Matt.18:34)Before you misunderstand and launch a strawman argument, the point I am making here on Matthew 18:34 is NOT about duration of time. It is simply pointed out that the master, who represents Christ, hands someone over to the "torturers". That is the point. He had "torturers".Please do not come back at me saying that that was not eternal punishement. I know that already. But the master DID have "torturers" thus negating that it is not in God's nature to be able to torture or torment. I agree with these two sentences except the "Whereas" should be changed to "And" reading this way: You have been shown and you have closed your eyes that you might not see. There is nothing else I can do about that. Aside from pray for you. I can do no more. I can demonstrate to the readers why I believe and why I am justified to believe what the Bible teaches.I cannot believe FOR you.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-07-2006 07:48 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-07-2006 07:49 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-07-2006 07:52 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-07-2006 07:56 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-07-2006 08:05 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-07-2006 08:08 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-07-2006 08:53 AM

Purpledawn,You asked me to respond to Message 87. Time may not permit me to respond to every post: Yes, the vision was made known to John by "signs" (Rev. 1:1) Even, so the serious Bible student has to learn to discriminate what things are to be taken as symbolic and what are to be taken as literal. Even with the things which are symbolic there is the question of WHAT are they symbolic of and how should the effect of the real be understood?Christ is of course not a little lamb with hoofs and tail and wool. But does this mean Christ does not exist? Of course it doesn't. The sign is about Christ.If you argue that the second death is only a sign of something, the question remains is it a sign of something that will cause man pleasure or cause man distress?Hiding behind "Oh, Revelation is SYMBOLIC" is not an effective excuse to believe that some things to which the symbolisms point are not experiencially pleasing or experiencially hurtful. If this is your argument it would be more persuasive if you likewise proved that the righteous are buried in a nice grave. Then you would have an equal situation. The cursed have their punishment of having their corpses thrown into the city dump and the blessed have their corpses nicely buried in an attractive graveyard.Then you would have equality. As it stands you show a preference: Eternal life is life eternal and eternal punishment is not eternal punishment. That is not what Matthew 25 says. The cursed do not simply not go into eternal life. They go away into the eternal fire which is the eternal punishment.

Purpledawn,A question to you: If you say that it is not possible that God should torment why do the demons ask Jesus if He has come to torment them before the time?"And behold they [the demons] cried out, saying, What do we have to do with You, Son of God? Have You come here before the time to torment us?" (Matthew 8:29)The demons realize that eventually the time of their torment will come. They don't deny that. They are only concerned that Christ will send them to that fate before the appointed time.How then do you argue that God would not torment?What verse do you use to prove that the demons will cease to exist?

The title of this thread says "The Fires of Hell have Gone Out"If "the eternal fire" in Matthew 25:41 goes out so that the fires are NOT eternal, then why does Purpledawn not conversely argue that "eternal life" in Matthew 25:46 likewise is to expire?Anyone?This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-07-2006 09:11 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-07-2006 09:11 AM