On a recent episode of his podcast, Kirk and his son discuss Hell, and I was genuinely surprised by where the discussion concluded.
After walking through the biblical language around Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, "destruction," and the "second death," as well as passages like Matthew 10:28 and Matthew 25:46, Cameron says he now leans toward conditional immortality/annihilationism rather than eternal conscious torment.
Given his background in fairly staunch evangelical circles, I didn't expect Kirk to shift in this direction.
It was a pretty good discussion. They both still acknowledge a few challenging verses that lean ECT texts but Cameron suggests that the overall biblical pattern (death, perish, destroy) aligns more consistently with annihilationism.
(Links are prohibited here now, but it's easy to track down the episode to listen to their discussion.)
Same verse. Same sentence. Same word for eternal describing both destinies.
Same adjective - aiōnion - for both life and punishment
So if someone can show me - from this very verse - why eternal life is truly endless but eternal punishment somehow runs out, then maybe I’d take annihilationism seriously.
In the meantime, Jesus deliberately uses the same language for both. There’s no grammatical, contextual, or logical reason to make one eternal and the other temporary. If the life never ends because the word means eternal, then the punishment never ends for the exact same reason.
Annihilation though would be eternal. The person is permanently and irrevocably destroyed in both body and soul. One could also argue that it fits better with the wording of the verse since it is being paired against eternal life. If one is eternally in Hell and conscious thereof, is that not also being alive, albeit a terrible form of it? (Note: I'm not 100% convinced on this either way, though I can say I lean to annihilationist. Whatever God has decreed for it is right.)
I think your objection works better against universalism, which would hold that the punishment is in fact temporary and eventually one is let out from it into Heaven.
Calling annihilation “eternal” because the result is permanent still dodges what Jesus actually says. The text doesn’t compare eternal outcomes vs eternal life, it compares eternal punishment vs eternal life (Matt 25:46). One is a state of living bliss, the other is a state of punished suffering.
κόλασις (kolasis) = punishment, penal suffering, corrective penalty... It does not mean “execution,” “extinction,” or “annihilation.”
Standard Greek lexicons define it as:
Punishment requires a continuing subject to be punished. You cannot have an eternal punishment of a non-existent person.
And I disagree, this isn’t mainly a problem for universalism, it hits annihilation just as hard. Universalism denies the duration but annihilation denies the subject. Both still have to explain why the same adjective (aiōnios) means “endless” on one side and “momentary leading to non-existence” on the other.
That asymmetry isn’t coming from the verse, it’s coming from a different system being imposed on it.
I am probably batting somewhat out of my league here, but:
For eternal punishment to be anything but annihilation, it would necessarily involve eternal "life" which is to say an continuation of being.
So both would offer the continuation of being, but one would just involve torture on top of that?
Why is life contrasted with punishment when both necessitate life? Wouldn't reward be the opposite of punishment?
Is the consciousness you are proposing takes place in eternal punishment somehow different from the consciousness in a living body?
Good questions and thank you for the charitable tone. “Life” in Matthew 25:46 is not mere existence. In Scripture, aiōnios zōē (“eternal life”) doesn’t just mean continuing to exist but it means blessed, reconciled, communion-with-God life.
By contrast, aiōnios kolasis (“eternal punishment”) means the ongoing judicial experience of judgment. So yes, both involve continued personal existence, but of radically different kinds- one is life with God, the other is punishment under God’s judgment. Punishment doesn’t require resurrection “life” in the redemptive sense.
You’re right that punishment presupposes a subject, but that doesn’t mean it grants eternal life as a gift. Scripture clearly differentiates between resurrection to life and resurrection to judgment (John 5:29). Same continued existence, different moral and covenantal status however.
Saying - reward vs punishment is the true contrast, not “existence vs non-existence.” Exactly, that’s actually my point. Jesus contrasts two destinies experienced by ongoing persons - eternal reward vs eternal punishment. Annihilation shifts the contrast into a different category (existence vs non-existence), which the text itself does not do.
The consciousness question isn’t speculative, it’s built into “punishment.” Punishment, by definition, is something experienced. Reflexes, extinction, or non-being cannot receive penalties. Whatever the mode of post-resurrection existence is, Jesus explicitly frames the wicked outcome as experienced judgment, not as a momentary execution event.
So the asymmetry of the annihilationist comes back to this... If aiōnios means ongoing for “life,” there’s no textual reason it suddenly means “brief but permanent result” for “punishment.” That shift isn’t driven by the Greek, it’s driven by a prior theological commitment.
Also Mark 9:47-48 seem to support this as well.
“And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.’
Their worm is possessive, it seems to be belonging to them and the worm never dying points to never running out of something to consume and the same seems to apply to the fire.
mark 9:48 is referencing this
Isaiah 66
24 And they shall go out and look
on the dead bodies of the people
who have rebelled against me.
For their worm shall not die,
their fire shall not be quenched,
and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
I don't know about you but "dead bodies" sounds like they're dead and not being tortured
But based on that rationale, a worm never dying would mean the living person is continually being eaten alive by worms. I mean even if they were alive at the start, eventually a worm would run out of their body to eat, so this interpretation not only necessitates eternal life but also eternal regeneration of the physical body, at at least the same pace as these worms would be eating it.
You are assuming that the resurrected bodies of the wicked or lost will be exactly the same as the bodies they had on earth and the second death is exactly the same as the first. With those descriptions it seems they will not, just as the saved’s resurrected bodies will be different. (Obviously the bodies of the saved and unsaved won’t be the same as each other in every way but who’s to say the resurrected bodies of the wicked won’t be different from their bodies when they lived on earth?)
Why not just accept what it says - that the people died, and the worms won't?
After all, by interpreting the worms, you've shown you DO know what "doesn't die" means. The opposite of that applies to the people.
This kind of argument is why I'm an annihilationist. You're demonstrating clearly motivated reasoning, bending and flexing "life" all over while holding "punishment" absolutely rigid. But in normal language you have to accept that sometimes short phrases are too short to establish a single meaning. I disagree with the one you established, but to settle it I can't tell you to stare harder at the short phrase. Let's look through the book it's in, where God's ability to destroy body and soul in Gehenna is what we fear, where the weeping and gnashing in the furnace is when the wicked are like tares being burnt up "at the end of the age", when they are chaff consumed in unquenchable fire. EVERY other passage in the book, without exception, sets the fate of the wicked in parallel to things consumed and destroyed and dead.
To be punished, one has to hear their sentence and see its execution. This means a prisoner who dies on the way to the electric chair will normally be revived if possible - and then put in the electric chair. We see this Biblically in Job 21 and Psalm 73, both of which depict a rich man who fooled everyone and then died. Job thinks it would be just if he'd "seen his destruction with his own eyes" (notice the phrase "own eyes," a callout to the resurrection same as in Job 19), and in Psalm 73 the teaching of the gathering reminds Asaph that the wicked will be swept away with terrors when God rises up, like a dream when one awakens.
The punishment for a crime is whatever the judge specifies. If it's torment, then the prisoner dying first evades the torment; but if it's death (and the Bible says it IS), being tormented is only postponing death. Nothing says it can't be both, but nothing says it has to be either.
Calling my reading “motivated” while you redefine punishment into non-existence is textbook projection. The verse doesn’t contrast life vs outcome, it contrasts eternal life vs eternal punishment - again, two parallel ongoing states using the same adjective (aiōnios). If “life” there means conscious, ongoing existence (and it does - union with Christ, John 17:3), then by simple grammar punishment must also be conscious and ongoing. Your position only works if the sentence is asymmetrical, yet Jesus made it symmetrical.
So here you have your doctrinal personal preference adulturing your view of scripture AND now erroneously calling someones reasoning fallacious.
Your “everything else is destruction imagery” argument commits the word–concept fallacy... burning, chaff, and destruction describe mode, not duration or ontology. “Destroyed” in Scripture routinely means ruined, not erased (same verb used for “lost sheep,” wineskins, and perishing people who are still conscious). You’re importing a metaphysical conclusion the words do not require. Essentially, just assuming your view into the text.
Your consciousness argument also collapses on itself. You say punishment requires awareness, yet your system ends consciousness immediately. That means no punishment at all, only a result after punishment. But Jesus doesn’t say “eternal result of punishment.” He says eternal punishment. That alone refutes annihilation. And we have had nobody able to fit annihilationism into scripture here.
Finally, you assert “the punishment is death” with zero lexical support from Matthew 25:46. You actually do so AGAINST the evidence you have been given from the source language. This is, of course, ironic because you are not commiting the very critique you accused me of but can't substantiate - motivated reasoning.
Jesus didn’t use a word for execution, extinction, or ceasing-to-exist. He used kolasis - penal punishment. You replaced His word with your conclusion. So no, this isn’t me bending language. This is you redefining punishment, flattening life, ignoring parallelism, and smuggling annihilation into a verse that explicitly denies it. Why would one do this unless their reasoning was motivated externally?
-----
Edit to quickly add: "life" doesn't mean "mere existence", it denotes an active, qualitative life.
This probably isn't a popular perspective on this subreddit, but FYI you could both be partially correct.
The mainstream scholarly approach typically recognizes multiple eschatological views in the New Testament: some texts that indicate annihilation, and others that may suggest eternal torment.
Your replies are very helpful to me understanding this better. Thank you!
Not correct. Punishment does not mainly refer to the act of punishing, it mainly refers to what is experienced. The death penalty is called such in reference to what is experienced; we don't come up with a different word for different forms of execution because we are chiefly concerned with the outcome of the punishing.
Punishing centers on the subject, not the punisher. Who cares who performs the execution? Not me, not you, certainly not the person being executed.
Yeah, “Punishment” still collapses without a subject. If, as you say, punishment is “what is experienced,” then by definition it requires someone conscious to experience it. Once the person is gone, there is no more experience and therefore no more punishment. You’re just calling the aftermath “punishment” after the punishment has ceased.
Your death penalty example actually proves the point - the punishment is the process and experience of being condemned and executed, not the ongoing state of non-existence afterward. We don’t speak of someone suffering the “death penalty” 50 years after their execution. In this way, your proposal breaks away from what Christ actually said.
So to call non-existence “eternal punishment” is a category error. At best it’s an eternal result of a finite punishment, which is not what Jesus says in Matthew 25:46.
Not at all. Again, throughout this thread you are constantly reframing your argument and not understanding that your framing is not correct. The death penalty erases your life. The state of death is eternal (in this case). You're confusing the instantiation of death as the punishment. Whereas what's experienced is the deprivation of life, the same way that we would describe the deprivation of other rights.
This is what would be called negative punishment (deprivation). You're attempting to argue that only positive punishment is punishment, which is nonsense. Even if you feel that is the case, it is not factual. God inflicts both positive and negative punishments throughout the Bible. Job experiences both positive (sickness, among other things) and negative (deprived of his family).
Another example is the parable of the talents; the punishment is deprivation:
You may interpret the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" however you so choose. But Jesus explicitly refers to the punishment here as a negative punishment. "Even what he does have shall be taken away."
You seem to be still dodging the core issue, all punishment (positive or negative) requires a subject who exists. “Deprivation” only makes sense if there’s someone alive to feel the loss. Once you erase the person, there is no longer any experience of punishment, just a state of affairs after punishment has ended.
Your own examples prove this. Job suffers deprivation precisely because he’s alive to feel it. In the talents parable, the loss of the talent is immediately followed by “weeping and gnashing of teeth”, ongoing conscious misery, not non-existence.
If the wicked cease to exist, they cannot “experience” deprivation eternally. And that’s why your view doesn’t fit Matthew 25:46. Jesus doesn’t say “eternal result of punishment,” but “eternal punishment”, set in direct parallel with eternal life. If life is ongoing and conscious, so is punishment. Otherwise, you’ve just rewritten the verse.
I'm surprised to hear this from a Reformed individual. Ultimately, justice serves to demonstrate God's glory, does it not? You are defining the purpose of punishment to be suffering, which couldn't possibly be true. For example, a punishment in Deuteronomy is that your name will be erased from genealogies:
In case you are wondering whether there might be a non-literal interpretatio of "blotting," it is supported as literal by Psalm 109 as well as Jewish tradition:
This is explicitly a punishment, yet does not involve a person who is living or suffering.
Anyhow, your argument is self-refuting, as you insisted (the same way that Augustine does in City of God Book 21!) that a person must be alive in order to suffer. Your words. Therefore, your argument is wrong even just on semantic grounds, as the unsaved will suffer death and thus be dead. Not alive.
I don't know greek enough to contest except based on what you've put here. I don't have any issue seeing destruction as punishment or penal suffering. Execution is the punishment and hte penal suffering, for some crimes. It's not corrective penalty, but then again, neither is eternal torment.
I'd like to add, I am not really an annihilationist.
I've answered this a number of times now re: a punishment needing an object - the object ceasing to exist wouldn't follow for "eternal" punishment.
Why not? The punishment is that you cease to exist. Therefore, while the eternal punishment is ongoing you don`t exist. So you never exist.
the punishment is not eternal if there is no punishment and not object being punished. Punishment is not some continual background process that runs regardless of an agent being there - the punishment is the result of sinning against an inifinte God.
There is no "ongoing" punishment if the object that is being punished doesn't exist.
There is indeed ongoing punishment if the persons punishment is to be completely separated from God for all eternity and than God fulfils that and destroys them for all of eternity. That person is never coming back.
That argument contradicts itself. You can’t have “ongoing punishment” if the person no longer exists. Separation is a relational state - it logically requires two existing parties. Once the person is annihilated, there is no subject left to be separated, punished, or anything at all.
“Never coming back” describes a permanent result, not ongoing punishment. By your logic, God punishes someone forever by… not punishing anyone anymore. That’s not justice, it's just relabeling non-existence as if it were a penalty.
Punishment without a subject isn’t punishment, it just becomes a word game.
Edit to add more of a logical form as to not make this a coversation of opinions. Perhaps, if you disagree, you can tell me where it fails?
Conclusion - Therefore, annihilation cannot be ongoing punishment, because it eliminates both the punished subject and the very relation (separation) that is supposed to constitute the punishment.
I honestly don't think a first time reader of this passage would read 'life' here as existing.
Trying to give an example: Someone, when excited exclaims 'Now I'm living!' (they have this sense of life that doesn't only mean existence). Or when a depressed person talks to their counselor 'I'm alive but I'm not living.'
It just seems that life would mean the abundant life Jesus came to give believers.
Cant have that with the gnashing of teeth and etc, and anti christ literally burning for eternity and etc etc. We need to accept that eternal suffering is eternal. I mean for example I had prayed to God if He had plans to save those in Hell and I heard a clear ," No." I was asking if He had plans when the second judgement comes, if those people get saved or a second chance. But even scripture says itself clearly they get raised for the Second Death, Judgement to lead to their deaths.
Jesus would not warn so hard if the punishment was not so real. We need to sit with God on why things are the way they are if we struggle with this or anything.
Punishment and suffering aren't automatically equatable. If the punishment is separation from God, that punishment could stand eternally while you cease to exist.
That fails at the word Jesus actually uses. Kolasis doesn’t mean “a punishment that ends by extinction”, it means active punitive suffering or restraint inflicted on a living subject. Separation alone is not kolasis - it’s a state, not a punitive action.
You also can’t have an eternal punishment with no enduring subject. Once the person ceases to exist, the punishment necessarily ceases to exist with them. At that point you only have an eternal result, not an eternal punishment, which is not what the text says.
If you can interact with what I asked, I would be very interested in having my mind changed. I am a bit of a stickler for the text however, I feel compelled to submit myself to the teaching of Christ and scripture, not philosophical overlays that the text cannot support.
I don't think we can rely on just one verse. It's been thousands of years and we can't be sure that the English translations align with our societal understanding of words today.
For instance Luke 14:26 says "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."
This verse confuses people and is often used as an attempted "gotcha" by atheists because of how we understand the word "hate" today - but we know that the Greek word that translates to "hate" actually meant simply to consider one thing below another (consider family below Jesus). It didn't mean to "hate" the way that we understand that word today.
How can you demonstrate that the English translations align with our understanding of those translations? How can you show that the English words "punishment" or "torment" have the same meaning to us today that they had in the Greek text? You'd have to do that to lean just on this one verse.
I'm not claiming that you rely only on one verse - however, your theology must be consistent with ALL verses. If your theology cannot fit into how Christ talked about hell, then you must abandon the faulty theological view and restart with a position that CAN be supported by the entire text.
We can be sure that english translatons align with the words. Either way though, I was using the greek, not english. So my argument comes from the language of the earliest manuscripts and shows that this idea of annihilationism is incompatible with Gods revealed Word. If you take a moment to review my other comments to replies here, I fully exhausted the meaning of the words here - specifically the one translated "punishment". An annihilationist view is not supportable.
The position you are left with is... will you bend your position to fit scripture OR bend scripture to fit your position? Only one of these honors God properly.
Would you be willing to discuss some other verses that I throw out?
The phrase "everlasting punishment" is a place more than a description.
“Then He will also say to those on His left, Go away from Me, cursed ones, into the everlasting fire having been prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Matthew 25:41, LITV)
Humans are mortal with a natural lifespan of no more than 1 thousand years (Methusaleh didn't even see a millennial birthday) which is a stark contrast to angelic beings.
Now what will you do with all of these?
“But the wicked shall perish; yea, the enemies of Jehovah shall be like the beauty of pastures; they are consumed; like smoke, they vanish.” (Psalms 37:20, LITV)
“When the wicked flourish like grass, and all the evildoers blossom, it is for them to be destroyed forever.” (Psalms 92:7, LITV)
“I indeed baptize you in water to repentance; but He who is coming after me is stronger than me, of whom I am not able to lift The sandals. He will baptize you in the holy spirit and fire, whose fan is in His hand, and He will cleanse His floor and will gather His wheat into the storehouse. But He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” (Matthew 3:11-12, LITV)
“John answered all, saying, I indeed baptize you with water; but He stronger than I comes, of whom I am not fit to loosen the thong of His sandals. He will baptize you in the holy spirit and fire, whose sifting fan is in His hand; and He will fully purge His threshing-floor, and will gather the wheat into His storehouse, but the chaff He will burn up with fire that cannot be put out.” (Luke 3:16-17, LITV)
“And no one has gone up into heaven, except He having come down out of heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And even as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:13-16, LITV)
“For many walk as hostile to the cross of Christ, of whom I often told you, and now even weeping I say it, whose end is destruction, whose god is the belly, and who glory in their shame, the ones thinking earthly things.” (Philippians 3:18-19, LITV)
Calling “everlasting punishment” a place instead of a duration doesn’t fix anything... the Greek still says the punishment itself is aiōnios, not just the fire (Matt 25:46). You can’t evacuate time from an adjective that directly modifies the punishment. - Also, (even tho is not related to what I asked) - citing verses about the wicked “perishing,” being “destroyed,” or “burned like chaff” doesn’t prove annihilation, those are judgment-result metaphors, not metaphysics of non-existence. The same Bible also says the lost experience “unquenchable fire,” “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” and “torment forever and ever” (Mark 9:48, Matt 25:30, Rev 14:11; 20:10).
“Destroy” in Scripture routinely means ruin, not extinction. Jesus says God can “destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28), yet that same hell is a place of ongoing punishment. If destruction means non-existence, then eternal punishment collapses into a contradiction, and Revelation becomes meaningless. The annihilation reading works only by selectively literalizing fading metaphors while spiritualizing explicit duration texts. That’s not solid biblical exegesis.
You didn't answer any of the scriptures that conflict with your position.
G166 (Strong) αἰώνιος aiōnios from G165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well)
G165 (Strong) αἰών aiōn from the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past)
G104 (Strong) ἀεί aei from an obsolete primary noun (apparently meaning continued duration); “ever”.
The term doesn't mean eternal, it means perpetual. The devil and his angels will be tormented perpetually, but unrepentant humans will be destroyed, burned up like straw, permanently dead without hope of another resurrection.
You tried to make an over-arching case for annihilationism. I responded showing your error of assuming judgement-result metaphors are talking about metaphysics. It's clearly not the case. I have a single verse that uses the same commitment ot the nature of the punishment as to the nature of life of the believer. I asked for a reason to import some differential into that text and none was given.
Even using your own definitions, the problem doesn’t go away. You cite aiōnios as “perpetual” and aei as “ever.” That already means ongoing, unending duration, not “temporary until extinguished.” You’re just swapping the English word “eternal” for “perpetual” and pretending the meaning changed. It didn’t.
You don’t get to say “perpetual” means endless for life and demons, but temporary leading to non-existence for humans. That split is nowhere in the Greek, nowhere in the verse, and nowhere in the grammar. It’s simply being imported to save annihilationism.
You can believe what you want.. But you still haven't answered any of the verses that limit your position.
Those aren't my definitions, I quoted the lexicon.
I don't have to.. the context of the verse you quoted includes the purpose as "prepared for the devil and his angels". Everywhere else (as the number of scriptures you haven't answered) shows a final destruction for unrepentant humans.
It's clear we don't agree and aren't likely to, so if you feel like having the last word feel free.. God bless!
The whole comment you are responding to is asking you to show, from the text I offered, how these are different. You never met that, you just tried to carpet bomb other verses that you think make a case for your theology and then tried to demand I respond to them. I did respond to them by the way.
It seems evident at this point that you have a theology first and then are trying to get scripture to fit into it rathan than informing your doctrines based on the teachings of scripture. I don't believe that is healthy but ultimately this is not a salvific issue so you can continue on in your theological bubble.
You just essentially said that you can't refute or show your theology with this verse... but you get it from other verses. Well, if your theology can't fit into how Jesus described it - then you have a faulty theology that you should change. God bless you also.
Annihilation is also an eternal punishment. Once you are annihilated, that condition is eternal.
Can you show me that? I've consulted the BDAG, Thayers, Liddell-Scott, Friberg, Strongs, & TDNT lexicons / dictionarys of New Testament words. Here is the semantic range:
Punishment: κόλασις means:
Lexically, it doesn't mean annihilation, extinction, erasure, non-existence.
For what it's worth, there ARE words that mean destruction, loss, wasting away, kill, destroy, perish, etc. They are used in the NT and by Jesus. Those words are apōleia (destruction, ruin), apollymi (destroy, kill), and olethros (ruin, desturction).
Jesus, for example, constantly uses apollymi when talking about Herod seeking to destroy the child, God being able to destroy the body, etc. Jesus uses apōleia when talking about the path leading to destruction or the son of destruction.
These words exist and are used by Jesus - just not here. You are proposing an asyymetry but not grounding it. If you can demonstrate it, I may be convinced - if not, I will stick to the teachings of Christ.
"annihilation, extinction, erasure, non-existence" are punishments, penal sufferings, and judicial penalties. I don't see why you draw the distinction the way you do.
Execution for a crime is all of those things in this life.
yet, execution is not an eternal punishment, it's a finite and temporal one - as such, it does not cohere with scripture in Jesus teaching.
Execution seems like an eternal punishment to me. It lasts forever.
All I am saying is that annihilation is a type of punishment and given its nature is permanent/eternal. Both interpretations fit the language here.
Nah. God doesn't just hit the delete key. Something can't be punished if it doesn't exist. And none existence isn't punishment otherwise all fictional characters would be in hell. See that doesn't make sense.
But the person does exist when the punishment is doled out. That's like saying drawing and quartering isn't a punishment because once the person dies from it, they're not experiencing the punishment anymore.
I lean towards ECT but believe Annihaltionalism is biblically in bkunds, not unorthodox and honestly my convince me someday but regardless, this word by itself does not prove the case in either direction. Eternal penalty could mean, a penalty that stands forevwr, irrevocably, or a penalty that as applied or doled out to a conscious participant forever. That word does not clarify ECT on its own and honestly, the fact that punishment is contrasted with life pushes against it. You are insisting that punishment must meet your (fairly narrow) definition but that requires we tale life ti be quite metaphorical in the same verse.
That is not supportable by the text. I’ve explained in about 13 other comments now why, please feel free to peruse and the get back to me if you want to discuss further.
If annihilationism is true then an evil person can go all their life hurting others and they will face no repercussions other than ceasing to exist. That's a get out of jail free card not a punishment.
just being without God is punishment in itself. Having your soul snuffed out of existence entirely when eternal life is on the table seems like a pretty terrible punishment.
If you are unaware of being separated from God then how is that a punishment? Punishments are experiential and require conscious experience.
We have executions as punishment still. The person doesn’t learn anything but they are removed from being able to enjoy life, even a life in prison. This is much the same but compounded. Punishment is not inherently about teaching a lesson, it’s about justice.
I agree. Sin is a stain on God's perfect creation. It just makes sense to me that God would remove the stain entirely when the time comes. Also, eternal torment in hell is still a form of eternal life. It's not a good one for sure, but it is a form of it. Also, the Bible refers to the dead as sleeping more than once. This would imply that the dead are not currently conscious and aware of their state of being.
With this said, it strongly implies that we dont have "souls" like many people believe today. Our "souls," who we are, are given to us by God. From dust were we made and to dust shall we return. It is the breath of life God breathed into us that makes us who we are, not an immortal soul. Having an immortal soul would imply that we inherently possess a form of immortality, and that just seems unbiblical to me.
I also choose to believe that God isn't without mercy even for the condemned. Yes, it sucks to be completely removed from existence, to be annihilated, but I don't think God would condemn us to eternal conscious torment. I can't say 100% for sure that this is the truth, but it is the answer I felt guided to when reading the Bible and praying over this exact issue when I was have a crisis of faith.
I thought to myself if God knows the choices we will make, and he still chose to create living, feeling, beings like us with the full knowledge that in doing so, we would be walking into eternal torment, how is that good or kind? I prayed and wept and read my Bible, and after months of going through this crisis of faith, I was led to the answer I believe is correct. This is the reason I believe in annihilationism. Death was already appointed to us for being born in sin. We were already doomed to cease being before we chose to follow after Christ. The only difference in what atheists believe and the truth for those who die in sin is that judgment day will come, and those who died without repentance and faith in Jesus will be made aware that they chose wrong before being judged and delivered unto their final death. This, again, is just my belief. No one will know for sure until that day comes. I desperately hope that it is indeed annihilation because I genuinely wouldn't wish eternal conscious torment upon even the worst people.
Annihilationism does not preculde the possibility of temporal punishment that precedes the ultimate annihilation.
So then giving evil people the death penalty isn't a punishment? Cos once they're dead there's no repercussions anymore?
if eternal life is a possibility, eternal death is a pretty terrifying punishment
This is not the annihilationist stance. In Annihilationism, they will still suffer from the worm and the fire of hell. But they will die from it.
Are you saying Kirk Cameron is wrong!? Blasphemy! /s - maybe
Beautifully said. Thank you.
You're right that Matthew 25:46 uses the same word "eternal" for both life and punishment. The key question, though, is what "eternal" is describing in each phrase.
The word "eternal" doesn't always refer to an ongoing experience. Scripture regularly uses "eternal" language to refer to the lasting result of an act, not the duration of the act itself. For example, "eternal redemption" in Hebrews doesn't mean the act of redeeming goes on forever - it means the outcome is permanent.
So in Matthew 25:46:
That's the annihilationist reading: the punishment is "eternal" not because the experience never ends, but because the result (death/destruction/exclusion) never gets undone.
Nothing in the verse itself requires "eternal punishment" to mean "endless conscious suffering," only that the punishment's final state endures forever (just as "eternal life" is the final state of the righteous).
I think people don’t understand that after this life ends so does time. There is only eternity, no more night and day sequence is just is what it is forever. So a person could never “do their time” because there is no time .
[removed]
while obviously this verse is clear as I stated - its a basic category mistake to teach rich people not entering heaven in the same sense. Re: wealth, Jesus qualifies and says that it's humanly impossible, but possible with God. We are also given clear counterexamples of rich people that are saved.
Re: judgement, there is no such qualification or reversal. This just becomes a false equivalence as the spiritual obstacle is one that can be overcome by grace, the other is a final judicial sentance.
[removed]
What verse?
Is God continuing to save/redeem the saved? Forever? Even from the perspective of the eternal state in glorified bodies? Or have they been saved/redeemed with the effects of that lasting forever? Look:
"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" Hebrews 5:9 KJB
"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Hebrews 9:12
And the argument of assymmetry may be convincing to you but to myself and many others that is not enough to be a deciding factor, I think you have to concede that from this passage it can mean either ECT or conditional immortality, and to know what the Bible actually teaches concerning the second death and this passage specifically one must look at the whole counsel of scripture instead.
Also if the punishment is considered to be eternal death/ceasing to exist, and that lasts forever, then it would be eternal punishment (the actual punishment lasting forever) anyway (not just the effects of a one time punishment).
Execution, permanent death, or cessation of existence are still forms of penal punishment.
And no, punishment does not require the one being punished to be conscious or currently existing. Punishment can consist of a state imposed that lasts forever, like eternal death.
(Response to various points you've made in your comments)
You seem to be confusing three different grammatical categories and then trying to use them interchangably.
Only #3 is an accomplishment noun (aoristic result). #1 and #2 are state nouns - describing what someone is IN. Note, this isn't an assumption I'm making, its the greek grammar and relatively basic semantics.
Your Hebrews examples don’t parallel Matthew 25:46. “Eternal redemption/salvation” name a completed act with lasting effect. But Jesus in Matt 25:46 contrasts two ongoing states using identical grammar: kolasin aiōnion (eternal punishment) & zōēn aiōnion (eternal life). Same adjective, same sentence, same structure. Proposing an assymetry would need to be justified because it would be wildly unnatural from what is actually in the text. You don’t get to turn one into a lived condition and the other into a one-time act without special pleading.
Also, redefining “punishment” so it doesn’t require a conscious subject empties the word of meaning, at that point even rocks and clouds could be “punished.” Jesus wasn’t contrasting endless life with a momentary execution, but two parallel, eternal destinies.
What I asked for and am still looking for, is an explaination for those that propose an assymetry in the verse I mentioned. If that can't be explained by the text, why would I believe in it?
Ok here's a different angle that you may consider. Sure, both 'eternal life' and 'eternal punishment' could be interpreted in ways to mean either actively bestowing each one for an eternity, or bestowing it once and its effects last an eternity.
How do we identify which one applies? Simple, God's love. I mean think of it, if you believe in eternal torment, you are subscribing to the idea that God gives these humans eternal life, and yet they are in eternal torment. Now this isn't another argument similar to "if God is so loving then why does evil happen" or anything, this is a scenario that could never have any justification. I mean simply put, there is no need for eternal torment, so why would we take that particular interpretation as gospel?
Now then you may ask, "ok so punishment is once and for all eternity, but how do we know life is continuous?" This is extremely simple. God is the source of life, and if you are given His spirit and renewed into whatever perfect form He makes us in at the end times, then it stands to reason you'd literally have eternal life. If you think of God as a campfire in the middle of a blizzard, the further away you get, the colder you are. Well if you get too far (those who have completely separated from Him), you literally have cut off the source of life, and your punishment is eternal (death). However, if you stay close you will always be warm.
Does this sound reasonable or am I missing another aspect of your argument?
This passage specifically deals with the age to come in both cases. Those who have actual eternal life will also have it in the age to come, of course. Those sentenced to Hades for the next age will be raised and judged afterward according to Revelation.
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2022/06/05/sometimes-eternity-aint-forever-aionios-and-the-universalist-hope-2/
That move doesn’t solve the problem, it just shifts it. Even if you say aiōnios means “of the age to come,” that still applies equally to both sides of the verse: eternal punishment = kolasin aiōnion and eternal life = zōēn aiōnion (Matt 25:46)
So now you still have the same dilemma: why does “life of the age to come” last forever, but “punishment of the age to come” mysteriously expires? You didn't answer my question.
The text gives zero signal that one ends and the other doesn’t. That limitation is being imported from theology, not drawn from the Greek. Same verse. Same adjective. Same construction. You don’t get to make one endless and the other temporary without special pleading.
You can’t see it for whatever reason. Jesus wasn’t addressing eternity in any way. He was addressing the age to come. You are adding to the passage.
That’s an assertion, not an argument. Show me from the text where Jesus limits this to a temporary age? The verse doesn’t say “punishment for an age” - it says κόλασιν αἰώνιον, again - the same aiōnios that defines the duration of zōē aiōnios (eternal life) in the very same sentence. If you’re saying one lasts forever and the other doesn’t, the burden of proof is on you to show where the text makes that distinction - frankly, it plainly doesn’t so I'm not going to just believe an assertion that seems to defy the text.
Different commenter than the one you've been talking to; but I’m unaware of a single text from all of antiquity in which aionios is used to mean “of the age to come.” Not even in patristic interpretation.
The absolute most people have been to point to here is Mark 10:30, where aionios is used in the same sentence as the phrase “aion to come.” Ironically though, this seems to weaken the argument rather than support it. It'd be redundant and almost meaningless if it meant “life of the age to come (attained) in the age to come,” but entirely sensible if it meant “everlasting life (attained) in the age to come.”
This is because you think the translation “eternal“ is correct. So, “eternal” is a better modern word than “age-long” to describe an adjective derived from a root word that means “age”?
Also, here is a quote from Justin Martyr you might find interesting:
Saint Justin Martyr, in the *Apol. (p. 57),*used the word aionios repeadedly: aionion kolasin...all ouchi chiliontaete periodon, "eonian chastening but a period, not a thousand years," or as some translate this clause "but a period of a thousand years only."
These are also helpful:
Saint Gregory of Nyssa speaks of anionios diastema, "an eonian interval."
Saint Chrysostum, in his homily on Eph. 2:1-3, says that, "Satan's kingdom is aeonian; that is, it will cease with the present world."
I was very careful in the wording I used. Again, my first words were "I’m unaware of a single text from all of antiquity in which aionios is used to mean 'of the age to come.'" If you're aware of such a text in which it does, I'd be very interested in it.
Unfortunately this is a misunderstanding. The root word doesn't just mean "age." It means, well, a few different things throughout Greek literature. It can mean "life," "generation" (in a very literal sense of the term), "spinal marrow," and "permanence/perpetuity," and only in late literature does it mean "age." The meaning the adjective derives from is clearly "permanence."
The full passage makes it clear what he's referring to: "they will be punished everlastingly, not just for a period of a thousand years" (Minns and Parvis's translation), or "they will endure the pangs of torment eternally, and not only for a period of one thousand years" (Falls). There's absolutely no ground for understanding it as "but a period of a thousand years only."
Greek literature is teeming with similar phraseology using all sorts of other terms for perpetuity: "eternal length," "everlasting time," and so on.
Funny enough, I'm actually writing a scholarly article on precisely this passage. I have all but definitive evidence for a very different understanding of it. Everywhere else, Chrysostom affirms the meaning of aionios in relation to perpetuity.
“There's absolutely no ground for understanding it as ’but a period of a thousand years only.’”
This is what disappoints me. Modern scholars like yourself think you know more than the native speakers of the time period. If some of them understood the clause as “but a period of a thousand years only,” it is obviously a possible meaning according to the language.
I once corresponded with a retired professor of classical Greek at Washington University concerning the meaning of some Greek words in the New Testament. He understood that the more we learn, the more we realize how much we don’t know. He told me to be wary of individuals who say things like, “There is absolutely no ground for understanding it as… “
You've misunderstood the speaker in the quotation you posted. The line "or as some translate this clause 'but a period of a thousand years only'" is not a part of Justin Martyr's own words. Your quotation is of a modern opinion — from someone who's clearly struggling to read Justin's Greek.
Thank you for pointing that out. I ask you to read this, especially the words of David Konstan:
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2022/06/05/sometimes-eternity-aint-forever-aionios-and-the-universalist-hope-2/
I'm quite familiar with this piece already.
I'm very surprised that a scholar as competent as David Konstan actually said these words ascribed to him — e.g. that aion "never suggests an infinite stretch of time." Surely he would be familiar with Plato's famous use of the term to describe how time is the moving image of motionless aion, which is universally translated as "eternity" here. There are many other texts where it indicates perpetuity, too, e.g. when it's said that even the longest amount of time is merely a drop in the ocean in comparison to aion. This even includes Jewish Greek texts, like Sirach, as well as many later Christian texts, too.
As for his proposal re: Christian use of aionios: I know Konstan has since passed; but if anyone is able to convincingly demonstrate that aionios is ever used in a text in the sense of "of the age/world to come" — that is, in relation to late Judaism and Christianity's notion of the future eschatological era/world — I can't overstate how interested in this I would be. However, as I already said, appealing to texts like Mark 10:30 seems counterproductive for such an argument.
In my last comment I mentioned that it's quite unusual that Konstan said that aion "never suggests an infinite stretch of time."
To further emphasize just how bizarre this is — and if there's any doubt that those like Plato could use aion in precisely such a sense — I offer you this translation and analysis of Plato's passage done by... none other than David Konstan himself.
Are you an amillennialist? Jesus talked about the end of this age, those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit having neither forgiveness in this age or the one to come, etc. It seems to me that translators are reading their theology into their translations. If one believes we go into the eternal state when Christ returns instead of a 1,000-year age, then the translation “eternal” is naturally preferred.
From everything I’ve read, including the linked blog post, the Greek words need not mean eternal with many native Koiné speakers of antiquity teaching they do not. Are we really just investigating a majority opinion, here?
Your essentially comparing two things. Eternal life and eternal punishment. And there are a few elements to consider.
1: If, by eternal punishment, you mean eternal torment, then that is also gaining eternal life. That does make the comparison redundant, as both groups gain eternal life.
2: kolasis is connected to the outcome of a judgement made against someone. As such, this verse could be indicating that the 'outcome of the judgement' will last for eternity. As such, if the outcome of the judgement is, the punishment, is death, then that death shall be eternal, and there will be no further resurrection. This does connect to Rev 20, where it called the second death, not the second life.
Note: This itself does not - prove - annihilation by itself. Eternal torment would still fit the idea of 'outcome of the judgement' which lasts for eternity. But as it would allow both interpretations, it cant be used as a proof text.
That objection collapses on contact with the grammar. The comparison in Matt 25:46 is not between “two kinds of outcomes,” it’s between two parallel destinies explicitly defined by the same adjective (zōēn aiōnion and kolasin aiōnion).
If “eternal punishment” just means a momentary act with a lasting effect, then by the same logic “eternal life” could mean a momentary act with a lasting effect too, which no one seems to propose or believe. Kolasis does not mean “verdict” or “resurrection clause,” it means experienced punishment, and “second death” in Revelation describes the content of that punishment, not its duration.
You keep saying the verse “allows both,” but you’ve yet to show a single grammatical signal in the verse itself that justifies making one destiny endless and the other temporary. The asymmetry you are proposing isn’t coming from Jesus, you are just asserting it and I see no reason why you would except to bring in some other theology that doesn't cohere with the text.
Eternal death is an eternal punishment. It’s a punishment you can never come back from. See, when Jesus comes back all the dead will be raised, all who have died have not died the eternal death. The Bible says “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23 and Romans 2:7 says “to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:” If sinners are suffering an eternal torture, are they not too receiving eternal life? Not a pleasant life but life none the least. Then, one of the most well known verses, John 3:16 says “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, so wouldn’t it make sense that whosoever does not believe in him will perish? The eternal punishment for sin is an eternal death, a death you cannot come back from. It is the only way to destroy sin and all sinners. As long as they continue to suffer, they have not been destroyed and therefore neither has sin. This would be contradictory to Psalm 37:38 that says that all the transgressors will be destroyed together “But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: The end of the wicked shall be cut off.” Malachi 4:3 even goes further to say “And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.” They will be ashes. Yes, the unrighteous will go away into eternal punishment, a punishment that lasts for eternity, a punishment of a final death that no one can come back from.
Like many others here that are seeking to substantiate a doctrine that this verse cannot support - you are redefining Jesus words to import meaning instead of reading and understanding whats actually in the text.
the punishment is not called “eternal death.” It is called 'κόλασιν αἰώνιον' - eternal punishment. As I've told many other, κόλασις does not mean death, destruction, perishing, or non-existence. In Greek it means: penalty, punitive suffering, judicial punishment.
If Jesus meant “eternal death”, He had multiple Greek words for death and destruction available (that he used in other areas of the same gospel). He deliberately did not use them here.
On a side note, you also commit a category error. You argue from verses about death, perishing, destruction, ashes and then import those meanings back into a verse that never uses those words. That’s not exegesis.
I didn’t redefine Jesus’ words. I used the word “punishment.” You are the one who does not consider death as a punishment and therefore are defining the word punishment as torture. Again, the Word of God states several times that eternal life is the gift of God to the righteous and I posted 3 verses to support that. One of those verses even says that the wages of sin is “death.” The word “death” here was translated from the word “thanatos” which is defined as “all the miseries arising from sin including physical death.” Now you can continue to push your definition of punishment as torture but in order to do that you will have to completely dismiss this scripture as well as the others I posted bc they just simply would completely contradict your definition. One other verse I’d like to mention is “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” Revelation 21:4 Please explain to me how there will be no more sorrow, crying or pain after the return of Jesus if sinners are in hell being tortured for eternity. The only way for their sorrow, crying and pain to end is for them to eventually die. Will it be a painful, agonizing death? I can’t even imagine. The death will be by a fire started by God Himself that no one can put out. The idea that the punishment for sin is eternal torture is a contradiction to the Word of God. Now, instead of accusing me of redefining the words of Jesus, do a little bit of self observation and ask yourself why you are redefining the words of Jesus. Jesus said that sinners would go away into everlasting punishment. Death is an everlasting punishment and the only punishment that does not completely contradict the Word of God.
Here - instead of just telling you (again), please look this up directly and lexically and tell me what you find....
Different commenter here, but my area of academic specialization is on precisely such a topic. Death can be described as punishment, and the phrase "to punish by death" is amply attested; but yeah, I'd say that it's quite a stretch describing it as death itself.
right.... this is my point. it becomes a red herring.
The word means penalty, punishment, or corrective suffering. Death can be a means of punishment, but it is not the definition of κόλασις. If it were, phrases like “punished by death” would be meaningless and redundant. Therefore, Matthew 25:46 cannot be read as “eternal annihilation.” because it is not an act that can be eternally done. Annihilation removes the subject and collapses the category of punishment altogether.
The modified portion here - life and punishment (again, not death), are equally modified.
I can think of a sort of orthogonal counter-argument that I don't think has been brought up so far. Some people actually bring up this idea that if these are contrasting pairs, it's sort of interesting that the reward for the righteous is "life" as continuing existence, as those undergoing eternal torment will necessarily also be immortalized. Thus they only see the contrasting pair as meaningful if it's life vs. death.
I don't see it that way; but at the same time I acknowledge that there may be some minor "imbalance" in the pair either way.
What tips the scale away from annihilation for me is comparative Greco-Roman and Jewish tradition that has similar language to Matthew 25:46 in the context of afterlife punishment, and there clearly used to indicate everlasting torment.
Why would we think that continued existence is only granted to believers vs. being something that is granted by nature to the soul? It is clear that the soul is not anchored to the body as, once the body ceases to function, the soul continues on. Post death, the soul experiences moral accountability, reward and punishment, memory, consiousness, etc.
Eternal life is not simpy a continuing of existence of a soul since it is granted that souls continue to exist beyond physical body death. Eternal life is a relational quality, not a duration. Life is participation in Christ, not just consciousness.
If in in the first death, the soul perseveres, why would it not be the case in the second death?
Death in scripture does not point to non-existence. The prodigal son, the church in Sardis, etc. Death is treated as a separation from God but not ceasing to exist.
So as we get back to Mat 25:46 - and we see the parrallel of Life and Punishment, both modified equally - what reason do we have to see this as an imbalance or contrasting pair? There appears to be not textual reason to do so, there appears to be a lexical reason NOT to believe that. We also have clarity for scripture that, seemingly, it is proper to the nature of a soul to continue forward existence.
So, in short - I answer that we would need to have a compelling reason to believe such. The thing being augmented here - life vs, punishment are modified the same. Even a contrasting pair wouldn't denote a contrast in the duration, rather a contrast in the consequence of the judgement (again, life vs. punishment)
Well this is what I found in the Lexicon for the word punishment used in this specific text: STRONGS G2851: κόλασις, κολάσεως, ἡ (κολάζω), correction, punishment, penalty: Matthew 25:46; κόλασιν ἔχει,brings with it or has connected with it the thought of punishment, 1 John 4:18. (Ezekiel 14:3f, etc.; 2 Macc. 4:38; 4 Macc. 8:8; Wis. 11:14 Wis. 16:24, etc.; Plato, Aristotle, Diodorus 1, 77 (9); 4, 44 (3); Aelian v. h. 7, 15; others.) Compared to many other scriptures about the punishment sinners will receive after the return of Christ, it doesn’t seem like a stretch to me at all.
The eternal torment view of Matthew 25:46 has to be read into the verse. The “punishment” in question doesn’t have to mean conscious torment. You could easily interpret what Jesus is saying as “these go away into a punishment that lasts for eternity, but the righteous into a life that lasts for eternity”. The burden of proof here is on the believers in eternal torment to show that this punishment in question isn’t death or destruction, but instead conscious torment. But here’s more context that I want you to consider for connecting all the dots:
In Matthew 25:41, Jesus tells the goats to depart from him into the “eternal fire”. I’m sure you can agree this is connected to the punishment in verse 46, now with that, there’s one other verse in Matthew that talks about eternal fire:
“And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.” Matthew 18:8-9
We know here that eternal fire is connected to “hell”, which in Greek is Gehenna. This is a valley near Jerusalem also called “the valley of the son of hinnom”. This valley is mentioned repeatedly in the Old Testament, mostly in Jeremiah. I wouldn’t go into the details here just to not make this too long, but Gehenna is always associated with death by fire, dead bodies being consumed, and is declared by the Lord to become “the valley of slaughter”. Quite a fatal picture to the doctrine of eternal torment considering how Jesus use of the term is somehow thought to be completely foreign to this, but I’m sure you can also agree with me that Jesus couldn’t have used this in a different way from one of his inspired prophets.
That said, if we care to dig into the parallel passage from Mark 9 to Matthew 18, we read:
“And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’” Mark 9:47-48
Jesus quotes the language of an unquenchable fire from Isaiah:
““And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”” Isaiah 66:24
The unquenchable fire is clearly shown to be one that burns corpses, likely what killed them before becoming a corpse. Jesus uses the same language of avoiding sin to describe the “unquenchable fire” and the “eternal fire”, thus leading that these two phrases both indicate a fire that completely consumes and destroys what’s thrown into it.
So when we come back to Matthew chapter 25 knowing all of this, why then would an eternal fire there mean something completely foreign to what its heavily implication carries just 7 chapters before this? To put it plainly, it just can’t be established from any scripture that the punishment in question is conscious torment, considering every related symbol connected directly and indirectly to Matthew 25:46 consists of destruction.
Hopefully this can at the very least give you something else to consider when reading this verse
Different commenter than who you were talking to, but I don't think this argument works. For one, it's just assuming that the meaning of the "worm"/Gehenna sayings must be identical to that in Isaiah. But Isaiah 66:24 was a quite popular verse and had already been reinterpreted in Jewish tradition prior to Jesus — something we can see in Judith 16:17, for example.
And a lot of people don't realize this, but Judith 16:17 is actually where the very language of "conscious" torment comes from (later popularized for Christian tradition by Justin Martyr).
Look im no expert on scripture. I just vibe with the stories told and the metaphors i see in front of me. If my opinion means anything to you, then great! If not, noooo worries. Ive found it hard to beleive that if the gates of the kingdom of heaven are closed. Its probsbly not because of something u did. Its probsbly the lies our grandmothers differed, towards our moms and then on. So its not you who is to blame. Its sin itself. And the villages surrounding the walls of the heavenly kingdom, maybe they arent “perfect highest safety and security” they might be just what we need to learn a thing or two about the dangers of sin swarming down or village square, and how important rath actually is when it comes to letting the gates open for the horsemen. Just food for us thinkers out there. God bless
This verse actually supports annihilation. Notice how it says the righteous go into “eternal life.” Notice that “eternal punishment” is not contrasted with “eternal bliss” but with “eternal life.” This implies the righteous live forever, and the the others do not. And if the unsaved don’t live forever, they cannot be tortured forever.
Once you see this, and put it together with the overwhelming amount of verses that clearly describe annihilation, you will see that eternal punishment refers to the consequence of the punishment itself. Death is eternal. You will be killed. Your punishment is eternal and irrevocable.
Also, when you study this, I believe it becomes clear that this is how a 1st century Jew would have read the text.
This doesn’t follow. Ongoing existence of the soul is native to the nature of the soul. The soul doesn’t cease to exist when the body dies as per countless scriptural examples. Eternal Life is not the duration or continuation of existence,rather scripture uses this to talk about the qualia of experience of felicity with God. While death is a separation, life is communion with God.
As such, the things being contrasted are not existence and non-existence. It is communion with God and punishment. The words used are punishment, not ceasing to exist. Both are modified the same way - eternal.
I think there are good persuasive arguments in favor of annihilationism that can be made. And so I do hold it out as a possibility, while also saying I don't really know for sure and that whatever God has decreed for it is just.
But I also think there's utility in operating as though the traditional understanding of Hell as a place of unending torment and suffering were literally true. We probably can't really grasp our heads around the nature of the Afterlife (including for those in Heaven) in this life, and so such imagery is useful to help keep us on the straight and narrow, and to emphasize on the gravity and consequences of sin.
It does help a lot of people after they come to the faith. It's also a huge stumbling block preventing so many people from joining.
I agree. In my opinion, the traditional view of heaven and hell was hard for me to come around as a young and questioning Christian, and I know it's hard for nonbelievers too. Do the right thing or I end up in a fiery pit forever? If Christians say that Christianity is about a relationship with God, that doesn't exactly inspire a genuine, loving relationship in my opinion.
I agree that great eschatological arguments can be made on both sides. I think Christians honestly focus way too much on the afterlife (even though oddly enough, I never hear Christians talk about the New Earth, only heaven and hell) and focus too little on our relationship with God and people right now.
I agree. I think fairminded Christians should consider annihilationism and orthodox, secondary or even tertiary view.
I tend to agree with you. I hadn't thought much about it until by wife brought this whole thing up and immediately I had enough scripture and thoughts to go either way. I don't think I'd argue either except for God is just and correct in His judgements. Also, it's not my problem as I won't have to face it.
I believe in fearing God in the sense of reverential awe. But I do not believe in loving God out of fear. The Bible says it is the goodness of God that turns men to righteousness. It says that he tempers Justice with Mercy. And it says that God is love. And the gospel means good news.
If the doctrine of hellfire is actually unbiblical, then I think it's fair to question if it actually has negative implications on God's character as a doctrinal teaching. There are actually many, many people who have been sworn off of God because they think the teaching of hell makes God a monster and unjust. And to be quite blunt, I think they have a fair argument.
If Jesus said that no one can come to him unless the father draw him but then we say their destiny is eternal torment in torture, it's perfectly fair to ask is that actually just? How is that any different than the pagan gods of ancient Israel that accepted child sacrifice by burning them on a heated stone statue (Molech)?
To which actually God called it an abomination and said that it had never crossed his mind to do such a thing. How is that true if hellfire is the destiny for the majority of the people he made in his image?
God taught us to love our enemies. But he will burn his own? But we are supposed to be like Christ who is the perfect image of God and God incarnate himself.
For me…I’m far more concerned with “Am I going to Heaven?” than I am with “what will happen if I go to Hell…eternal death or punishment?”
It’s eternal separation from God either way in Hell/ eventual Lake of Fire
Doesn’t matter. All I NEED TO KNOW is that it is a place that people should avoid at all costs.
John Stott himself held to annihilationism. I do think there should be more dialogue when it comes to the topic of hell.
The problem I have with eternal punishment is:
The wages of sin is death. Death = non-existence
Eternal life is what we gain through salvation.
So in order for eternal punishment to exist, death is just a temporary state for everyone. Everyone avoids death/non existence. Christians are reconciled to God upon resurrection and non Christians are not, but continue to live eternally nevertheless.
So how do we reconcile references to death being the punishment for sin and the "second death" in Revelation being the fate of those not written in the book of life?
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them, and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
The logical meaning would be that we are all resurrected from the "first death" and those not written in the book of life must experience the second death. It definitely sounds like annihilation unless you redefine the second death as something other than death/non existence.
The second death is the one area I think annihilationism makes sense.
This is unfortunately not a consistent reading in the context of the full book and even chapter.
Revelation 20:10 ESV [10] and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
If the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire and tormented for all eternity, why not the others who are thrown there? The beast is just a human being. So is the false prophet. If their punishment is eternal, in the lake of fire, annihilation is impossible to read into this text.
The very fact that we have life and then eternal life corresponds perfectly to death, and second death. Where death is the opposite of life, second death is spiritual, not physical, the counterpart of eternal life.
But we don't actually have to conjecture here. John tells us quite clearly.
Revelation 21:8 ESV [8] But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
So what is the second death? Being thrown into a lake of fire and sulfur. But if you recall, John has already detailed this experience:
Revelation 14:9-11 ESV [9] And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, [10] he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. [11] And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”
Second death is to be thrown into fire and sulfur and to be tormented for ever and ever, without rest, day or night. Annihilation cannot be a faithful reading from Revelation.
There's enough ambiguity, alas, and biblical statements to make an argument about annihilism. The best plan is to avoid hell no matter what it's like. You aren't going to enjoy it eternal or not eternal. And it's absolutely God's business. See the book of Job for people who raised pretty much the same questions about punishment for evil and why the innocent suffer and so forth; God's only reply-when you can come up here and do what I do, THEN you can question me and talk to me about it. We have to take what we're given and learn to accept it; the bible is complete and clear enough. Hell---BAD
I think this is a great view to hold. Nobody knows exactly what the hell experience will be like, but we are warned about it and it's always presented as BAD. As you said: whether its eternal or not eternal, it's still weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I want to give a counter to this and show how much Jesus loves us and that we can come to him with any question. So once I got saved for real I was still deeply troubled with the question of hell. I was troubled by it so much it would often interfere with being able to listen to sermons or truly put all my trust in God. One day in church the pastor was talking about something that brought the question to mind and immediately I started tuning him out and wrestling with the problems of hell. Then I got this vision in my mind of this huge, beautifully, intricately hand-woven rug then my vision zoomed in on a tiny corner of it and I heard Jesus say 'this is what you currently understand of reality and heaven and hell.' Implying there is a whole lot more going on then what we currently understand and what the Bible tells us. Then he said 'When you get up here and you see and understand the whole plan, if you still have a problem with it, we can sit down and talk about it.' This brought me so much peace.
I love this. Thank you for sharing.
I admit, I wasn't pleased with God's response but He does bless Job.
Honestly, why would people care what Kirk Cameron thinks re: doctrine and theology?
People should care about Truth, regardless of the source. I assume by your screen name that you are proponent of ECT. That's OK, it's not a salvation issue. It's a God's character issue. But I don't want to debate with you. If you are really interested in what the entirety of scripture says regarding the issue, read Edward Fudge's exhaustive study on the subject, "The Fire That Consumes." Even those who disagree with him admit it is probably the most thorough and compelling book ever written on the subject. It's not a casual read tho, it's scholarly and full of OT, NT, intertestimal works and ancient Greek/Hebrew writings/schools of thought. Worst case is you will have a better understanding of the subject.
Shalom!
I'm not sure, but a lot of people do!
As stupid as it sounds, some people elevate his opinion because he’s Mike Seaver
Excuse me, I think you mean Buck Williams
I don't think most verses used for Annihilationism or ECT are decisive, except for Rev 20:10-15
10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. 11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Four facts we can glean from this:
1) The devil was thrown into the lake of fire along with the beast and the false prophet, [vs 10]
2) where they will be tormented day and night forever and ever [vs 10]
3) The lake of fire is the second death. [vs 14]
4) Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was also thrown into the lake of fire. [vs 15]
What can we infer:
First, John calls "suffering day and night forever" in the lake of fire, "second death". That’s where those in verse 14 go; implying they suffer the same fate.
Secondly, after differentiating between 1st and 2nd death, John makes no distinction between 2nd death and this any other "alternate death" for the wicked in the lake of fire. Since he does not, then this is good evidence that the all wicked suffer the second death, ECT
Other 2nd death passages:
Revelation 21:8: “The cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars – their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
This seems to indicate that all unbelievers with suffer the 2nd death
For more, see here
One thing to consider is that the lake of fire has to be metaphorical. Because how can death be thrown into a literal lake of fire? And even hell is said to be thrown in the lake of fire.
If death, and hell are thrown into the lake of fire, which is the second death, does that mean they cease to exist? Cuz when something dies it ceases to exist.
Also, "forever" isn't a proper translation. Here's a quote from a website. It said it better than I could repeat: "...they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” The words ‘forever’ and ‘ever’ seem to be repetitive, but the text in Greek says ‘to the ages of ages’. The word aionion and aionas are interconnected with ton, which means ‘of’ and ‘the’ (also “of the”). It doesn’t mean ‘and’ which fails to translate the text to its actual form. The “ages of ages” could imply eons after eons, or that the age itself takes place as supreme like King of kings. - https://share.google/Mb91xytIGoYI1Q21m
There should be a lot more dialogue on the topic of Hell. The early church fathers were surprisingly split between annihilationism, universal redemption, and eternal conscious torment. IMO lot of modern Christians are overly confident (dare I say smug?) about their beliefs on Hell as eternal conscious torment because that’s what they learned in Sunday School.
Wow that’s a name I haven’t heard in awhile and even when I have in the past 20 years it was the evangelical homeschooling community idolizing him or the evangelical homeschooling community embarrassed by him. I think he’s shifted beliefs a lot since he first became a Christian, which IMO can be good because it means he’s still seeking and learning and studying.
What I struggle with particularly is the combination of ECT and predestination together. If both are true at the same time, then God created people He didn't intend to save, for the express purpose of eternal torment? That's hard for me to put together
For sins of an average lifespan, God will not burn people eternally. Where is the justice in that? Is truly Biblical? People who hold and perpetuate this belief need to think about the repercussions of what light they are making God to appear.
For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. (Psalm 37:10)
For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 4:1,3)
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for ever. We don't see them burning any more, do we?
I've only given out a fraction of verses, please consider this resource that has a lot more info https://www.helltruth.com/
I actually come to the same conclusion from reading through the Bible several times. It has no effect on my belief and faith, but that is definitely the impression I get. In the end, God knows everything for all time and I absolutely trust Him.
I believe eternal life is the reward promised to those who believe and endure in faith until their time is up on earth. God’s will is that none should perish. We are told His people perish for lack of knowledge. We are told to fear the one who can destroy the body and soul, and that is God only.
I grew up in a non denominational charismatic church in Florida and many of the notorious false teachers either were guest speakers or their churches surround me. I live in the Tampa / Lakeland area of Florida. So I know that I was taught many false teachings and so I’ve been studying and praying to figure out what is true and what is not. I do know that the huge majority of the people that I went to church with for decades are incredibly shallow, materialistic and vain and that is some big red flags. Stupid Prosperity / Word of Faith nonsense.
I question everything I was taught and exposed to except I’m sure of the existence of Father God and that His only Son Jesus the Messiah lived in the flesh and died and rose again and is seated at the right hand of the Father and that He is our King and Lord and High Priest and Redeemer forever and ever. He is the Way the Truth and the LIFE. I know I will live on and I pray all of my loved ones will be saved too. I pray God’s Spirit will work through me to show them Jesus.
Kirk is wrong. No matter how much intellectualisation you use. Hell will be eternal. Jesus taught this. I follow jesus, not kirk.
Have you well and truly studied it? Like read the Bible from cover to cover and compared all of the stories and all of the aspects of God? Have you read other believers insight into the matter, especially early years, the ones popes claim to be heretical because they question the authority and legitimacy of them? Have you questioned the truth of the many books, movies (Hollywood pushing the narrative really makes me question) and teachings in mainstream churches that push the view of eternal conscious torment by demons and do you really think God would do that when considering His attributes and nature? Have you studied historical beliefs and traditions? What did the Pharisees teach? Remember Jesus warned us not to be deceived and that many false prophets and false teachers went out into the world, way back then. They have had lots of time to deceive and twist things, invent things, and set man made traditions up above God’s. I have zero trust in the Christian leaders of this world that are popular and appeal to the masses. Narrow is the gate that leads to life, wide is the path that leads to destruction. Jesus was hated in His time because He spoke Truth and it undermined the religious leader’s authority. Breaking things down into simple terms and painting illustrations for them with His parables was giving spiritual freedom to those who weren’t accepted, didn’t conform to the synagogue teachings and restrictive rules that enslaved people and gave them no hope. Same for the pagan beliefs and practices.
I am not telling you what to believe. I know full well that I may be very wrong, but it doesn’t affect my salvation at all. It does make sharing the Gospel, the Good News of Jesus easier when you are sharing hope instead of terrifying them into thinking they will be trapped in hell for all of eternity being tormented by demons day and night. What kind of a monster would to that, that’s so petty and vindictive, that does not sound like a Heavenly Father who loved the world so much that HE gave HIS SON to redeem us from our fate of death and that by believing in HIS SON we will NOT PERISH, but receive ETERNAL LIFE. That seems pretty clear to me that repentant believers in Jesus live eternally while unbelievers, unrepentant sinners, perish when they get burned up by God’s Wrath because they do not have the Lord’s protection.
But don’t worry, I’m still questioning and searching the Scriptures like the Bereans. And I’m still a firm believer in GOD, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I believe the Bible teaches us Truth and God grants us Wisdom to understand. My understandings are constantly challenged, but I always go back to see what the Bible teaches and make sure I’m not basing my understandings on just one verse here or there. I don’t know if you know, the Bible was written by many authors over many years. There were no chapter or verse markings. They are many books, scrolls and what not written down after being told orally for generations. They were me at to be read and understand as a whole. They are included all together in one book for convenience, and the chapters, and verses numbers were also added in for convenience.
There Bible says God doesn’t want anyone to perish. He says his people perish for lack of knowledge.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve been spoon fed select verses and stories for a very long time without ever being taught the Bible from cover to cover. As a jigsaw puzzler, I know that looking at each piece individually (verses), you have no idea what’s going on or where things go, but if you look at the box (read the Bible) it will help give you clarity, show you where things fall into place, but you still have to actually assemble it for yourself so that you can finally see the whole picture (God) and admire all of the little details you missed along the way. Growing in faith and knowledge takes a lot of time, and effort to start assembling the pieces, but once you get going they do start to all fall into place, and an eternity with our Creator, in the perfect world it’s supposed to be with no death, disease, hate, sin, will be amazing!! How can we look forward to that when people we love, who have been hurt and lied to their entire lives, are literally being tormented forever? I trust God, but that’s the main reason I don’t see that being the Truth. I can see Him being that angry with Satan, but humans, who do not know everything and have been deceived? That’s a stretch from His Nature for me personally. Why would we be told by Jesus, if we love Him to keep His commandments instead you better keep My commandments or you will be tortured forever.
I think "weeping & Gnashing of teeth" is pretty clear indication of being eternally conscuious. And Jesus' account about Lazarus is pretty much conclusive. Or are you calling Christ himself a liar?
Absolutely not. Jesus never lied.
The only point anyone really needs to consider is this:
How would a just, fair, and loving God ever justify the eternal continuous torment / torture of mortal beings?
Eternal torment suggests these things at the very minimum:
It's an insane idea to even suggest this in my opinion. If you believe in the Bible, and you believe that God truly loves us, then there is no way 'in hell' that ECT could ever exist. Not specifically you OP, just anyone who tries to defend the idea of ECT.
I hold the opposite view for exactly the same reason. How can an eternal, loving, God possibly not condemn sinners to eternal punishment?
You're just looking at it from a human centered view. But the universe is not human centered. It's God centered. If you look at the universe with God at the center, it's actually impossible to come up with any other conclusion.
We silly humans understand punishment enough to give life sentences in prison to murderers. Why? A life demands a life of punishment. And when a murderer comes up for parole, who do they hear from? The victim's LOVED ones. Love is the primary deciding factor in why the imprisonment is a life sentence. Not love for an evil murderer, love for an innocent victim.
Sinners murdered the eternal son of God. The punishment is eternal imprisonment. The beautiful, perfect body of the glorious Christ will forever have holes in the side, hands, and feet. Scars that will be eternal. Eternal wounds, eternal debt.
And we sinners, created in the image of the Immortal God, and thus unable to be annihilated ourselves, we did this atrocity. If God is really love, then there is no greater love than the love of the Father for the Son. That is the love the entire universe was built on and centered around. To be disinterested in eternal justice for his own son would be the height of unloving behaviour. The very fabric of the universe would be undone. God would cease to be love and thus cease to be God. Impossible.
Love demands that hell is eternal.
Jesus says we're the worm dies not. Eternal damnation is real and Jesus speaks about it plenty. If the soul perishes forever, I like to see it in the bible.
Isaiah 66:24
"And they shall go out and look
on the dead bodies of the people
who have rebelled against me.
For their worm shall not die,
their fire shall not be quenched,
and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
This is what's being referenced in Mark 9:48
To me personally it does not sound like eternal torture
I believe in annihilation.
I'm glad people are waking up to this truth. Eternal burning doesn't make any sense as we only reap what we sow.
A sinner has not sinned for eternity. Reaping eternal burning isn't just as only God is eternal. Humans are not.
A girl who has unforgiveness in her heart because her father hurt her wouldn't reap the same consequences as a mass murderer.
We are all rewarded for our works, good or bad.
You are assuming God is measuring judgement by the duration of sin. God judges people according to the how severe the sin is. Should we only send a murderer to 10 minutes in prison if his act of murder took only 10 minutes? Sin violates God’s perfect standard, separating us from a relationship with Him. Without faith alone in Christ, you too will suffer eternal torment in the lake of fire
I believe in neither annihilationism nor universalism. But whatever God does is fine with me. If God deems me worthy of hell, then glory to God! If God saves everyone buy me, then glory to God! Trust God.
I think one of the biggest things against eternal conscious torment as a teaching is that it doesn't glorify God in my opinion. But God is clear that he does everything to glorify his name.
I'm so glad we have Reddit to solve this theological debate once and for all. Upvotes are the definitive theological yardstick of truth.
If anihilism is true, then what was the point of Jesus dying on a cross for those that believe in Him? There would be no need for a savior or redemption. Why did God's wrath need to be satisfied? Why is there a heaven and a hell? Why does the bible talk about final judgment? And why were Jesus last words "It is finished? Without God life would have no eternal life, hope, meaning or purpose.
could care less what Kirk Cameron does. Jesus taught ECT.
Rightly so!!!
Every Christian should read Edward Fudge's exhaustive work on this subject, "The Fire That Consumes." It is a very important subject because Traditionalism (Eternal Conscious Torment, or ECT) paints God as a capricious monster that not only keeps the impenitent alive, but just so that He can punish them without end! I mean, He COULD do that but He doesn't. There's not ONE scripture that clearly and definitively says that sinners will be tortured forever without end. In fact, most scriptures said they'd be destroyed, annihilated, be no more, perish, disappear like a vapor, like chaff burning up, etc, all implicating that the fire is eternal and the worm never dies but has nothing to say about what happens to that which is thrown into the fire? IF God was into the minutia of building the Temple, don't you think He would be VERY specific regarding what happens to those who reject Christ? And He is! He is specific about them being destroyed forever, as if they never existed. I could go on and on but Fudge's Book (and there's a lot more out there now because many scholars have either gone over to Conditionalism or are heavily leaning toward it, away from Traditionalism.
Bear in mind, most of what we think about "Hell" is based on Dante's Inferno.
I also suggest preemptively researching whether the soul is inherently eternal or if the soul is only eternal if it is in Christ. That's the basis of what Cameron calls "Conditional Immortality." Jesus said many times that he came to "bring/give immortality/eternal life." Well if we already had it, why would Jesus say that He would give it to believers??? I am 100% convinced by my research that the concept of an inherently immortal soul was not taught in the OT but was posited by Plato and Aristotle and later adopted by the RC Church. It continued through the Protestant Reformation and is taught in many protestants churches and believed by millions of Christians.
Revelation 14:9-11 [9]And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, [10]The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and 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, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Its been understood by both the disciples and the followers that hell is very real.
Mark 9:42-48 is clear that hell is real. Saying its better to cut your hand off, eye out and feet than it is to sin and be cast into hell. He says 3 times in those verses "Where Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched"
So i have no idea what they were talking about
Those who hold to it point to revelation where people are put into hell, where there is torment and suffering to wait until the time of the judgment, and after the judgment "death and hell are thrown into the lake of fire, this is the second death" Revelation 20:14.
The annihilationist believes this is here they are forever destroyed, no more.
I'm not saying I believe one way or the other. I'm just trying to help you understand what the belief means.
Check out the movie, "Hell and Mr. Fudge." It's the story of how Edward Fudge came to reject Traditionalism for Conditionalism and write his tome "The Fire That Consumes." . Kind of a B movie but worth the watch, if nothing else to see how scripture changed his mind.
That's pretty cringe. Given this I would recommend people ignore this Kirk fella.
When you go against scripture then you can only be a false teacher.
The wages of sin is dead. I dont believe God will torture people eternally so I agree with whoever this guy is
That idea of God torturing people forever is ridiculous and out of character
It is not god torturing. People choose it for themselves when they reject God and his ways. Many have a strong hatred for God; a hatred which can’t abide in heaven.
«It is not god torturing.»
I don't get this as a reply. It's God who says what consequence for sin is. God SAYS He is the righteous judge and gives to people the wrath they're owed. Saying "it's not God tormenting them" seems to just miss the point.
«People choose it for themselves when they reject God and his ways. Many have a strong hatred for God; a hatred which can’t abide in heaven.»
This is definitely more like "look what you made me do to you" vibes than "God will do this because it's just."
I believe God will Himself repay wickedness, and everyone will agree it's just. Romans 2 says this will happen on the Day of Wrath, which means it will take a finite time. Then it says they'll perish.
God is just, the Angels rebeled and were sent to hell. Where should human go when they rebel?
Angels and Humans are both Gods children. Would it be just to punish the Angels and not humans? To punish one son but let the other go for the same crime?
What kind of Justice is that? Is it just to the 2/3 of Angels who remained loyal to Gods will, if humans get a free pass?
Absolutely not. But God gave humans a way back into Heaven. If you refuse his FREE gift what would you ask him to do? Force you? Bind your hands and put a collar on you and force you into Heaven?
If i come across you in the desert, skin blistered and raw from the sun, eyes too dry to open, on the brink of death and say, "follow me, i will take you to an oasis. There i will apply balms to your skin, let you cool in the shade, feed you. Give you water and I ask for nothing in return" and you say to me, "get away, i dont want your help" whose fault is it that you die and suffer?
You're making this a storage problem. Of course we agree that "God knows how to keep the wicked under punishment for the day of judgment." But both are only being kept for that day - see 2 Pet 2:9, Jude 1:6.
Who's talking about not punishing? I'm saying that the death penalty is the punishment for humans, which is written all over the Bible. If you think the penalty for angels is different fine, although I think they too will die, since 1 Cor 15 says that every power will either be subjected to God as all-in-all, or will be destroyed.
That's literally my point. Man can't live without God.
True, it is written in the old testament that Death is the wage of sin, but the old testament is fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus established a new covenant further explaining that the Death is not just physical Death, but permanent separation from God in both Spirit and body. Its not a storage problem, its a new covenant between God and man.
Rev 1:18 i am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.
That verse about it being all under God is in reference that Jesus holds the Keys to Hades and Death, He has complete authority to all.
But it says, Hates AND Death. Not just Death.
I dont see the part of them being destroyed, which verse?
That's... disappointing. Maybe a cope on his part re a deceased love one
Eternal conscious torment means God keeps people alive so he can torture them. Not having eternal life inside you means you won’t live forever. That’s it. It’s not even God taking his life away from you, you just don’t have it to start with. Those that believe in torment hell really need to rethink who they think God is.
I think this is one of the key arguments for conditional immortality that ECT needs to wrestle with. The idea that people/souls are inherently immortal is Plato, not the Bible. The Bible tells us the gift of God is eternal life. ECT needs to hold that God bestows this gift and sustains people in order for them to experience eternal torment.
I honestly don’t think people really consider this when it comes to ETC.
Actually you do. You don’t know the theological difference between everlasting life and eternal life, do you?
Show me the scripture where they are different please. Other than translation. I’m talking the Greek
I don’t see inconsistencies. The term “eternal” in our translations should have been translated “age” according to many in the early Church. Conscious torment in Hades exists for the rest of this age and the next one (the Millennium). Then there will be a Great White Throne judgment. Apparently, some in Hades will have their names written in the Book of Life and be released, while others will join the spirits in charge (Death and Hades), the Dragon and the Beast in the Lake of Fire. After ages pass, it is conceivable that God may annihilate that place.
“Our Savior has appointed two kinds of resurrection in the Apocalypse. 'Blessed is he that hath part in the first resurrection,' for such come to grace without the judgment. As for those who do not come to the first, but are reserved unto the second resurrection, these shall be disciplined until their appointed times, between the first and the second resurrection.” - Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (340-397 A.D.)
I'm in agreement with the belief of annihilationism. Linguistically it seems to make more sense.
The initial basis for me is in 1 Corinthians 15:53 which states that coming to belief is mortality putting on immortality, implying a state of non-eternal being without faith.
Mark 9:48 in conjunction with Romans 6:23 also compels me. If the worm is in the Lake of Fire, but it doesn't die, then existence in the Lake of Fire cannot be equatable to death - but the wages of sin is death.
I also hold this view. Hyperbole is not meant to be taken literally. Besides, I believe ECT goes against God's Character.
Evangelize like ECT is true, and hope that Christian Universalism is.
Ray Comfort talked on this situation - kirk Cameron previously worked with him at living waters for many years, worth a watch.
https://youtu.be/z1BAU7cdh8Y?si=ZN4kyf3FTkSqehHN
The only scriptures that describe eternal torment is in Revelation. We might as well believe that Satan literally has seven heads and ten horns. In Revelation, John is describing his vision. Did he literally see people get eternally tormented? No, because his vision in and of itself was finite.
Revelation also says this: Revelation 20:14, "Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death—the lake of fire". [](javascript:void(0))
Here's a mind trip: saving one soul from hell is saving that person from more torment than has ever existed in all of human history.
Imagine all the pain and suffering and sin in this world. Hitler. Stalin. Slavery. It's all an unfathomable amount of pain, but to God the cosmic algebra of calculating the sum total of human suffering is like adding 2 + 2. And it's a finite number. An unbelievably massive number. But a number, nonetheless.
And one day in eternity future, some poor tortured soul in Hell will eclipse that number. And yet they will remain to be tormented further.
Fortunately, this equation works in the opposite direction too. All the joy, pleasure, and wholesomeness ever experienced by humanity will eventually be eclipsed by one soul experiencing even more satisfaction in Heaven.
I'd be very careful with this, if I recall correctly it's only within the last 50ish years where arguments for annihilationism resurfaced. If we're honest with the state of Christianity now, how many 'new' teachings or actually the Bible doesn't say _______ are coming up now in our time period?
If one wants something bad enough, they can find reasons and use Scripture to argue for it(look at the recent arguments to justify homosexuality). But would a first time reader of the Bible really get annihilationism from the text?
It makes sense to me when I think of God as consuming fire. People go to hell and get punished according to their deeds. The most evil people will suffer more/for a longer time. They burn and then they... get consumed. The punishment has been completed and they cease to exist. Jesus died for our sins and he didn't have to suffer eternally for them, this tells me there's a moment when the debt has been paid.
I don't think this is an "easy way out" at all. People will pay exactly for what they have done and then they'll die.
Imagine telling someone "you can commit all the crimes you want for X amount of time, but then you'll have to spend the rest of your life suffering in prison. But don't worry, you'll die in the end, so it's no big deal".
Hell not being eternal conscious suffering shouldn't make it an appealing option.
By the way, I'm not saying this is definitely how it works. The Bible doesn't go in depth about Hell, so it seems like God didn't think it was important for us to understand the details yet.
this is my stance. temporary torment, then annihilation. people will be punished according to their deeds, some lighter than others.
If we hypothetically lived in a materialist universe so people literally stop existing when they die, punishment couldn't be imposed after death because people would no longer exist upon death. Society never talks about punishing people who already died for this very reason. Show me a court case where a dead man is on trial and then "punished" afterward, other than some crazy king doing it.
Another thing to mention is that in Revelation, it mentions Satan joining the beast and the false prophet. It strongly indicates that they didn't cease to exist upon entering the lake of fire.
Yayyyyy
There is also the left behind theory. If you love the sins that separate you from God then you are stuck with the rest of the people and demons and left behind to fend off with your vices along with everyone else's. Those with God go to live their lives in His Kingdom.
If Hell is the punishment for sin, what is the purpose of punishment? When you punish your children, what is the goal?
Malachi 3:2-3: "But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like refiner's fire and like fullers' soap: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the the Lord an offering in righteousness.
Does ECT imply that God's forgiveness is finite? Does Hell represent the end of God's mercy? In Matthew, Jesus tells us to love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us. Jesus tells Peter that he should forgive those who sin against him seventy times seven. It is taught that the meaning of this is that our forgiveness for those who sin against us should be without end. But ECT seems to mean that God's forgiveness comes to an end the moment we die.
Before I became Buddhist, I was a Christian for many years. I studied both the Old and New Testaments, asked a million questions, and dedicated myself to teaching others about Christ. But over time, the thought that a supposedly loving and merciful God could condemn somebody to eternal hell for committing even petty sins always gnawed at my mind. And this idea that if you accepted Christ as your savior, you would be saved, but everybody else who "backed the wrong horse" was automatically condemned to eternal suffering simply because they chose the wrong God to worship did not square with a loving and merciful God. Over time, I became unable to reconcile the view of God as merciful and loving and was forced to conclude in the end that either he was 1) not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, 2) immensely malicious, or 3) nonexistent.
This is because if one is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then one knows what chain of events one will set into motion if one engages in the act of creation. This would include knowledge of every person who would reject him either maliciously or because they were deceived or confused. It would also include full knowledge of those who would suffer from mental illnesses that left them vulnerable to being deceived or left them unable to trust anybody. Free will would be an illusion as to God, even if not as to us, because he would know exactly what was going to occur from even before the very instant of creation. He would know exactly, down to the very person, who was going to be condemned to an everlasting hell and an eternity of conscious torment. It mattered not whether the person was a serial killer, or someone who stole to survive. Everybody who sinned and who did not accept Christ as their savior was condemned to ECT, and God would have known this before he even set creation in motion.
That to me is evidence that one of those three conditions above must be true. It would be pure evil to condemn a person to an eternity of suffering for something done over the course of 20-80 years. Even if you were serial killer, there should still be an end to that suffering at some point, even if it's 200 or 2000 years from the day you die. Even if it's 20,000 years or 200,000 years, there would still be an end. But ECT does not permit such a construction. Under it, everybody, down to the most otherwise virtuous people who reject Christ must suffer not 200,000 or even 200,000,000 years of torment. They must suffer without end, until eternity itself stops, which will never occur. There is, in no sense, anything resembling justice in that kind of system, and I resolved that Christianity under that belief system was incompatible with my moral code. I would have to continue teaching people that if they did not accept Christ, that they would be forever tormented in hell, and I refused to do that any longer. I concluded that if the God being described to me in church was the real God, then I would rather suffer an eternity of torment than support such a malicious being.
At the time, and even up until today, I was not even aware that there was a belief in something called conditional immortality, and while it does not resolve all of the issues I have, it at least seems more plausible and more internally consistent with the portrayal of the God of the New Testament as a loving, merciful, forgiving, but just God. If the penalty for turning from God was to be that your soul would be destroyed, and you would be annihilated and condemned to a state of nonexistence for all of eternity, that would at least be somewhat fair, because then, at least, there would be an end to your suffering. After reading several articles on the subject today and hearing several people from both sides argue it, I am left with the impression that the theory of ECT was concocted so that the Church could assert control and authority over its members by using the threat of eternal punishment if its rules were disobeyed. The best way to secure compliance with one's rules is to either grant them huge rewards or smack them down with a huge punishment. And what punishment could possibly be worse than an eternity of suffering in hellfire? It's the ultimate punishment, and it is therefore the ultimate means of asserting control over a group of people. Threaten to kill them if they do something you don't like, and some may think it's worth the risk. But what crazy person would dare risk an eternity of conscious suffering?
All this being said, I'm not trying to change anybody's mind or convert anybody. Evangelizing and proselytizing isn't really something we do. I do note, however, that had such a doctrine been taught back in the day, I might have looked at things differently. I realize I probably won't be welcomed here, but I thought I'd chime in just the same.
Thanks for sharing this so openly. A lot of what you describe resonates with people who've struggled under the framework of an ECT-centered Christianity. I'm really glad you felt free to say it here.
A few things jumped out to me from what you've written:
Christians believe God judges justly, not mechanically.
Jesus actually warns (Matt 7, Matt 25) that some who assume they're "in" won't be, and some are surprised to be welcomed. That alone should make us cautious about treating salvation as a simple formula. Whatever else is true, Scripture insists God is good and his judgment is righteous.
A lot of the tension you felt comes from a "hell-based gospel."
Jesus absolutely warned about judgment, but the center of his message was the Kingdom of God: restored relationship, healing, life with God. Modern evangelicalism often flips this into "where will you go when you die?" That's a very different emphasis, and it can create the exact moral and emotional crisis you described.
I don't think ECT was invented purely for control.
It's definitely been used manipulatively, and I understand why it feels that way. But, people can and do come to ECT sincerely because they think that's where certain texts lead. Others were simply taught to read Scripture through that lens, so any alternative looks like "disagreeing with the Bible" rather than questioning an interpretation.
If you're interested in exploring all this further, a solid resource is Rethinking Hell. It's run by conservative, Bible-believing evangelical who argues from Scripture that the Bible teaches the second death, not eternal conscious torment.
Burning in Hell forever, like the rapture, has been and always ways clevar marketing to fear people into control.
I firmly believe hell leads to destruction and a 2nd death. You dont live after death. Those destined for hell will be denied eternity with God and simply cease to exist.
Never too late to get a clue
The Biblical definition of hell is conscious enternal torture. The full wrath of God separated from God's mercy.
The idea of death being a state of non existence is a secular idea not biblical truth.
Spiritual death is separation between Man and God.
Genesis 2:17 (KJV) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
They didn't drop dead day. They lived much longer and children. But their soul died because they knew they where gulity sinners in need of a savior.
If hell was just annihilation why would it be better for Judas Iscariot to never be born?
Matthew 26:24 (KJV) The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
I get where you're coming from, but none of the verses you cite actually define hell as conscious eternal torture. Scripture uses a wide range of language (death, perish, destroy, consume, second death) not just "eternal torment."
And "death = separation only" isn't something the Bible ever states as a rule. It's just one way the word is used. Physical death is literal, and Revelation calls the final fate "the second death," not "eternal separation."
As for Judas, "better not to have been born" fits any irreversible judgment, including the second death. Permanent loss of life can easily make existence not worth having. It's in no way a proof of ECT.
These passages don't settle the question either way, you're simply showing then interpreted through an ECT lens.
Who would want to live a difficult life for Christ instead of experiencing all the pleasures of the flesh of their only punishment is annihilation.
If the only motivation to follow Christ is "avoid the worst possible pain," then the gospel's been reduced to a fear-based transaction.
Biblically, the real tragedy isn't that the punishment isn't bad enough, it's being cut off from God, the life He offers, and being in relationship with Him.
The second death is still a devastating outcome with the call to follow Jesus being about far more than choosing between two destinations.
A lot of people start their faith journey because of the fear of going to hell. This doesn’t mean it remains their motivation to follow Jesus. If hell wasn’t a good reason to follow Jesus, Jesus wouldn’t have been the person to mention it the most in the New Testament.
I'll need to go watch that. There is an often overlooked distinction between Sheol and Hell that trips people up.
I've been leaning towards annihilationism ever since I was in my late teens and did a personal Bible study on the topic. I came from a non-denominational background where we mostly attended Baptist and Alliance churches, but I had logical issues with the ideas around hell, so I went searching and came to that conclusion.
honestly the arguments for annihilationism and refuting ECT seem more convincing and biblical to me, but the main thing is I don't see how this a salvation issue (I know a lot of people call it a heresy but I don't see how the fate of the wicked affects my salvation)
And I know that whatever judgement God passes, it will be perfectly just, and that nobody is going to enjoy Hell either way
The bible never shows God torturing people as judgement. They're always destroyed. The only times people are judged by suffering is when God is giving them an opportunity to repent. You can't repent in hell. The Bible always uses language like "wages of sin is DEATH" and perish or destruction. To say "it's a symbolic death" is just headcanon. Additionally, it talks of this judgement as the "second death" meaning if it were a symbolic death, then when was the first "symbolic death"? In the context of second death everyone agrees the first death is the body dying
Hell is a temporary place until it is thrown into the Lake of Fire which is eternal torment. Kirk is off.
It says the lake of fire is the second death.
That it is.
You're making a vision be the primary interpreter of direct teaching - when God Himself says that the vision of the lake means death of the things thrown in.
You’re misunderstanding what “death” means in Scripture. Death never means “cease to exist.” Death always means separation. Adam died the day he sinned but still existed physically. The prodigal son was called “dead” while still alive because he was separated from his father. And Revelation itself defines the lake of fire as the second death in Revelation 20:14, yet the very next verse shows all the lost cast into it and remaining there. Revelation 20:10 is the key. The beast and false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire a thousand years earlier, and they are still there when Satan is thrown in, and Scripture says they are tormented day and night for ever and ever. That is the Bible interpreting its own imagery. If the lake of fire meant nonexistence, they would not still be there a thousand years later being tormented. So the second death is not extinction. It is eternal separation from God and conscious punishment. Jesus uses the same language in Matthew 25:46 calling it everlasting punishment. Same Greek word for everlasting that is used for everlasting life. So Scripture itself makes the meaning unavoidable. The lake of fire means eternal existence apart from God, not annihilation.
I don't believe death means to cease to exist; it means to cease to LIVE.
No, separation from God means death, unlike separation from other things. When the soul separates from the body, the body dies; the soul doesn't. That's because God is the only one who can kill the soul (Matt 10:28), and He knows how to keep the wicked for the day of judgment (2 Pet 2:9).
No, that doesn't work; he died 400 years later. What happened "on the day you eat of it, you will be sure to die" is that he indeed became sure to die; a penalty God enforced by God blocking access to the tree of life. Notice how being near/unseparated-from the tree of life would have kept him alive forever, but God forbid it.
This is parallel to what Solomon did to Shimei in 1 Kings 2; he gave the same warning "on the day you X you will be sure to die", Shimei violated it, several days passed, and then Solomon brought him in, repeated the warning as being fulfilled, and had him killed. It's clear that the warning isn't violated by taking a couple of days; so the point is not when the person dies, but when the person becomes SURE to die.
I'm sorry, I had to split this reply in half. I just cannot edit it any smaller.
Revelation INTERPRETS the lake of fire, a vision, to mean the second death. It doesn't define death to mean the lake of fire. The second death is that event at which all of the wicked, having been raised from tombs, are judged by God, to whom He repays the wrath they are due on the day of wrath (Rom 2), and then they pay the penalty of eternal destruction on that day (2 Thess 1:9-10).
No, that is imagery. The interpretation for the beast happens when the angel explains the beast, including the phrase that it "goes to destruction." Notice that this is an angel speaking, and saying that he IS interpreting, it's not just continuous with a vision. Likewise, God interprets the fate of death as "death will be no more," not just leaving us guessing whether death might be floating in sulfur.
Daniel's beast meant the power of the kingdom being handed over to the saints, but Daniel saw the beast killed and its body thrown into the river of fire. The vision DOES tell us something, but it's not always simply 1-to-1.
We're never told to reinterpret the second death. It seems to me that of the two situations in which it's used, it's the death of death (the end of its vital functions) and then the typically second time wicked people die. It it's plausible to take it to mean what it says.
No passage ever speaks of people existing separated from God. Acts 17 has Paul say that those who "live, and move, and have our being" should conclude that "He is not far from each one of us", and therefore (BECAUSE we live and move etc) He is waiting for us to turn to Him. By the logic of this passage, if we WERE the opposite of "not far from Him", we wouldn't know it - we wouldn't live, move, or have being.
And even Revelation seems to say the same; while the wicked are being tormented in Rev 14:10, Jesus is right there supervising. That seems to the the point in Jesus coming in vengeance with flames of fire and mighty angels in 2 Thess 1:5-10, when He causes them to pay the penalty of eternal destruction when He comes, on That Day. The Day of Wrath is not a day of separation from God! But the day of wrath is only a day, a finite time.