The Fires of Hell Have Gone Out: No Eternal Torment

Ringo, I don't think this matters.We see in Revelation that the capacity for man to not repent is without measure. Though God is willing and longsuffering, why did these not repent even at the end of the outpouring of God's wrath?We read - "And men were burned with great heat, and they blasphemed the name of God, who has the authority over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory." (Rev. 16:9)It is extremely dangerous to put off and put off humbling one's self in repentance to God. These rebellious ones are now LOCKED in the hardness of their hearts."And the fifth poured out his bowl upon the throne of the beast; and his kingdom became darkened; and they gnawed their tongues for pain. And blasphemed the God of heaven for their pains and for their sores; and they did not repent of their works." (Rev. 16:20,22)Like Satan thier leader, they have been intoxicated with a sense of infinite stubburness. Perhaps they enjoy refusing the Almighty His place more than they suffer the agony of their torments.So the Bible tells us to seek the Lord while He can be found and call upon Him while He is near. It is dangerous to make sport of hardening your heart to God.When he seventh bowl of God's wrath is poured out they still do not repent - "And great hail, every stone about the weight of a telent, came down out of heaven upon men, and men blasphemed God for the plague of the hail ..."(Rev. 16:21)When the Spirit of God is close to your heart prompting you to believe in Christ and receive Him, that is the time to do so. One may lock himself into the hardness from which there is no return.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-10-2006 06:50 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-11-2006 04:45 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-11-2006 05:44 AM

Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter into the kingdom of the heavens. But those who do the will of the Father. This is quite true. But this verse has to do with entering into the reward of the millennial kingdom. It does not refer to eternal redemption and forgiveness. I am familiar with that and many many other verses that the Universalist points to to prove that even Satan himself will finally repent.And perhaps you are right that I shouldn't hold out a prospect of hope when I see none. Point taken.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-11-2006 05:35 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-11-2006 05:58 AM

Buzsaw, Below "forever" and "eternal" are clearly in direct opposition to temporary:"For perhaps for this reason he was seperated from you for but an hour, that you might fully have him forever ..." (Philemon 15)Clearly, a limited amount of time is set in contrast to an unlimited amount of time."... for the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor. 4:18)And again here:"For our momentary lightness of affliction works out for us, more and more surpassingly, an eternal weight of glory" (v.17)The Apostle's thought is that "the Christian's affliction of time are but light and momentary, whereas the glory that is to compensate is weighty and eternal" - G.H. Lang.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-11-2006 05:22 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-11-2006 05:38 AM

No. I would argue that the plain text does agree with this view. But it will take us somewhat from the topic.And elsewhere I think we have had this argument before. It is not difficult to see. What I wrote is not effected by whether it applies to all the nations or not. That has little to do with it. Now, what I said was the Lord's word that many would say "Lord, Lord" would not enter into the kingdom of the heavens. But those who do the will of the Father. I said that that verse refers to the reward of the millennial kingdom.In short, some people who are saved eternally will not participate in the millennial kingdom because of their immaturity and failure to allow Christ to fulfill His will in them in the church age. They will join those rewarded with the millennial kingdom afterwards.Some of the servants were cast into the "outer darkness" for their slothfulness. They are nevertheless eternally saved.But there is something else that I wanted to tell you. And that is that concerning what I would call "Unexpected Hope" I DID find some excellent expositions by G.H. Lang. These teachings do not negate the belief in eternal perdition. But they do persuasively present explanations why certain surprises of God's grace should be expected.I appreciate this kind of careful scholarship. It is balanced. G.H. Lang is very good on a balanced disussion of the whole subject of judgment. Right. It is not exactly what you said. That's not what I said. I don't think you can "cure" my devotion to the word of God by the history of long and tortured twistings of the message of Jesus that you have displayed on this forum.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-12-2006 06:05 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-12-2006 06:05 AM

That seems an easy enough question. YesDo you have any evidence of me being incorrect that is not based on1.) Favoring the synoptics over John
2.) Dismissiing Revelation as too symbolic and should be discarded
3.) Assuming that 19 centries of Bible exposition is biased.
4.) Denying the Deity of Christ
5.) Holding Old and New Testaments have nothing to do with each other.
7.) Denying Christ as the Messiah
8.) Assuming Paul corrupted the gospel of Christ and knew nothing.
etc. etc. etc ?This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-13-2006 08:09 AM

This really is a dreadful subject for me to continue to speak of.But I can't image why you would want to discourage people from calling on Lord for any reason.That Christ said some who say Lord Lord would not be in the kingdom of the heavens is His business. He will be the Judge. He didn't ask you to teach people not to call Him Lord.And what is wrong with a loud profession of "Lord Jesus" anyway?
Are you appropriating that verse to teach that Jesus is not the Lord?This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-13-2006 08:26 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-13-2006 08:27 AM This message has been edited by AdminPD, 05-13-2006 08:30 AM

How come this doesn't get the big "OFF TOPIC?"

All well and good.But you have to do more than that. You have to explain WHY we should think the same result does not happen to others.I'm all ears, seriously. Is there any reason why the result should be different for anyone whose name was not written in the book of life?Give me a reason why there is a "Kinder Gentlier Damnation" in Revelation 20:15.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-13-2006 08:46 AM

Anyone who wants to go over my reasons again can re-read through my posts.And there is no reason why I should HAVE to provide evidence excluding the book of Revelation. Whether I can or not is beside the point. I don't have to meet that arbitrary criteria of yours.

Speaking of childish ... I think it is so, of a poster, who having been corrected, continues to pretend as if he has not.Perhaps such a tactic is good for newcomers to the board who may wonder why the other party won't answer their "dare yas." Such replies would only amount in restating and rewriting points which I have already gone over. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If any Newcomer wants to ask me a question about what I wrote, I'll respect that. Then I'll either answer again or go through the labor of finding the links. There's no need for me to do that with you Ringo.By the way you said that I was way off to charge you with denying the Diety of Jesus Christ. Does that mean you can say that your God is the man Jesus? Don't go hide behind the "Off Topic" flag now. Do you mean that God to you is the man Jesus? I think a yes or no should do it.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Ringo, You're funny. To call quotations "pet interpretations." Not much interpretation is needed. Proving the matter of eternal punishment in eternal fire without refering to Revelation is your artificial and desperate criteria to reject the most obvious.As stated before, whether I can with or without Revelation show eternal punishment not an issue. If I refer ONLY to the clear statements of Revelation to establish this it is perfectly legitimate.And the fact of the matter is that I established the teaching with other verses like those in Matthew chapter 25.I do not have to submit to your moving the goal post around. And I don't agree that if I really cared to be more persuasive I would avoid quoting Revelation or interpreting the clear quotes in Revelation.IMO You blew it. You have no case. And you're beating a dead horse to appear that a shred of legitimacy in your Annhilationist theory still remains in this debate. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

purpledawn, I agree with you. They don't speak of the same event.But they both describe an event of the lost being sent to the eternal punishment of eternal fire.I never said Rev. 20 and Matt. 25 describe the same event. The two passages not speaking of the same event will not establish a Universalist or Annhilationist denial of eternal damnation of torment. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Purpledawn, Correct. Two judgments are being discribed. One in Matthew 25 and another in Revelation 20.Matthew 25 refers to "all nations" alive at the time of His coming to the earth before the millennial kingdom. Revelation 20 speaks of all the dead being raised at the second resurrection after the millennium to stand before the great white throne.Christ is the judge of the living and the dead. But He doesn't judge them all at one time. Matthew is the judgment of the living before the millennium (Acts 10:42; 2 Tim. 4:1). Christ's judgment of the dead after the millennium is recorded in Revelation 20:11-15.Your concept of "ultimate judgment", i.e. all at one time last judgment - is probably attributing to your misunderstanding of the matter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This is now repetition of a point and a new point.First, the repetition of what was already written. But this time with concise and briefer words.Jesus taught that God had additional authority to cast into Gehenna after the killing of a person took place. If He was talking about the city's repository of burning trash it should require no additional divine authority to cast a dead person's corpse into that Gehenna. The Gehenna that Jesus refers to therefore MUST refer to a realm in which God has additional authority to place a person which man does not have.It is really not that necessary to know the physics, or science, or the temperature of the fire, or how in the world God has a fire acting on an immaterial part of man's being. What is important is to receive the communication that that place is a place of punishment and is not pleasant. Knit picking at minute details is of little use. Most people get the message - 'The Gehenna that Christ refers to is not where one should want to end up."Now, why may we interpret that the Gehenna of Christ's reference is a place of neverending punsishment? Before I answer this with a new point not introduced by me at least yet, I say this: The point here is not that there can be no temporary punishment with that which is designed to punish forever.I want to repeat that. The point in this is not that there can be no temporary punishment with that which is designed to punish forever. The point is that some will be punished forever in the Gehenna of Christ's warning.Now, Mark 9:48 says of Gehenna, a place of unquencahble fire (v.43) - "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."The Annhilationist would believe that though the sinner has ceased to exist the fire and the sinner's worm still continue forever. If this is what Christ meant it certainly is not what He said. He could have easily set forth that concept if that is what He meant.A non-existent person owns nothing, not even a worm. How then could an annhilated person be signified by the phrase "their worm"?. The fire was prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). So it does not speak of the sinner's fire. But it does speak of the sinner's worm. And it does not die but remains to be "their worm" implying that the sinners also do not cease to exist.It may be objected that the eternal fire of Matthew 25 is not the Gehenna of Mark 9. I ask, how much difference does it really make?Now the communication of Christ's teaching need not call for a scientific explanation of how a worm could live forever or how a fire could burn for eternity. This is what I gather from the "their worm" not dying:The worm feeding on the corrupted body signifies an endless corruption. In nature corruption mercifully ends in complete disintegration. Final dissolution of that substance which is being corrupted ends the process. In the earthly Gehenna this would certainly be true as that disentegration and accompanying fires are long dissapeared. But Christ contrastingly speaks of a Gehenna where the fire does not go out and the corrupting never ends, for the worms feeds perpetually forever."Their worm dieth not" speaks of the endless corrupting of a man in endless existence. Memory and remorse are probably the worm of which Christ is speaking. In eternal punishment the gnawing worm, ruining the sinner's inward peace and purity are probably the never ending remorse and memory over one's sins and unbelief.If there is some kind of endless supernatural fire it apparently does not relieve the sinner from the curse of the remorse over his past. If the sinner is annhilated then the "worm" has run its course. But if the sinner experiences eternal punishment "their worm" gnaws away on them forever. The worm never dies and it continues forever to be "their worm".Mark 9:48 establishes that Gehenna means eternal torment in corruption which knows no end. And it also means that extinguishing or non-existence brings no relief to those condemned to that place by God's greater authoruty. I think it is fairly pointless to argue this. The question is whether Christ has or has not communicated to us that eternal punishment in an eternal fire awaits the lost. I think that He has. How much difference does it make if the unquenchable fire of Gehenna is another fire beside the eternal fire of another place? And as we see that men can go to one as well as the other, what difference does it make what you want to call the respective places if they are two and not one.I believe that Christ's Gehenna and the lake of fire of John's revelation and the eternal fire of Matthew 25 are virtually if not absolutely God's punishment beyond mere physical death. The final term used in the Scripture is the lake of fire as "the second death".Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.