I Have a Question About Hell and Eternity

#1. Matt 25 is a reference to a future event - read the chapter - it is impossible to dance around that fact.

#2. At that future time the Lake of Fire wILL have been prepared but there is NEVER a valid argument that anything that WILL have happened by some far future point in time MUST have also ALREADY happened at this point in time. And that is the totally absurd argument you are trying to make as if it has a chance of holding water. I think you already know - it does not. Obviously you are grasping wildly at straws.

#3. THERE IS NO reference AT ALL to the lake of fire IN ALL OF SCRIPTURE until after the 1000 years. No way to dance argound that on either.

in Christ,

Bob

 

First I give these examples of "Destroy" used in scripture

Obviously we see no "eternal destroying" going on here..

Matt 2:13
13Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him."

Matt 12
14But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.

Obviously we see no "eternal destroying" going on here in Matthew's use of the term in the cases above..

Mark 3:6
The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.

John 10:10
"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.

Clear examples where it is IMPOSSIBLE to argue for "a theif that continually and eternally destroys without actually wrecking something to the point of garbage"

It is at this point that HP jumps in to say that we can not take these as valid examples of actually destroying something!!!

Why propose such an illogical argument RIGHT at the moment that it would appear most absurd??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Now here is the main point --

Surely some of you must be or have been a Bible teacher or perhaps a pastor at one time.

Surely some of you must be or have been teaching that the word for Destroy in Matt 10:28 by definition of the greek CAN NOT mean the ACTUAL destroy that we SEE in Jude 7 and 2Peter 2 --

Only to have your glaring error pointed out here not only in Jude 7 and 2Peter 2 showing that "destroy" is to "reduce to ashes" in the case of everlasting fire. -- BUT ALSO showing a number of cases in the SAME book of Matthew where the THEIF comes in o "destroy" can not POSSIBLY be bent to the wild interpretation you gave it in Matt 25:41 as you claimed that the word in Greek ITSELF demanded such a wild interpretation.

3. Surely SOME of you have argued FOR Luk 16 as though it were NOT a parable only to have the glaring error pointed about prayers to the dead, all dead saints literally in Abraham's lap, Abraham in sovereign control of all dead saints AND even your OWN bible scholars noticing these glaring facts and admitting that it IS a parable as it CAN NOT be anything else!

So the question is -- "did you ever come clean with those you were teaching in error"??

It is one thing to put on your game face here and pretend that no Bible evidence can disuade you from allegiance to your man-made traditions - but what about for those souls whom you have lead down that wrong road - when confronted with all these glaring gaps in your teaching. Do you then go to them and confess?? Or is it simply "game...game...game time" right down to the last play even when it comes to your own flock?

In Christ,

Bob

 

after reading the Word of God in context, I have come to the conclusion that

1. Destroy in Matthew 10 does not mean the same as
it does in Jude

2. The account of the rich man and Lazarus is an
actual event and not a parable.

3. Jesus spoke of the torments of hell as being eternal
so there can be no relief from its torments once
one is assigned to live therein.

4. I cannot make any progress in this debate when
one refuses to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

 

HP: The truth is that BR has not once set forth any biblical evidence that the word ‘destroy’ means to ‘annihilate.’ I will agree that some things will be annihilated, such as the means by which ones evil desires could be gratified. Just the same, that is a far cry from the unscriptural dogma of God annihilating the wicked that BR has bought into.

Eternal torment is just what Scripture says it is, eternal, lasting throughout eternity. Mr 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

 

In fact BR never brings that up!

BR continues to just use the term IN the text of MAtt 10:28 "DESTROY". Funny but people who are gaming the subject like to pretend this is not also in THEIR bibles!!

Those who object to the clear meaning of DESTROY keep ADDING in "annihilate" -- they seem to know they have a problem with the Word DESTROY so they bring up annihilate - but I never bring up that word!!

The problem for those opposing Matt 10:28 "Destroy both body and soul" is that this term is used repeatedly by MATTHEW in a way that SHOWS this to be complete and total "where moth and rust DESTROY" --

The other problem as already noted is that GOD connects "DESTROY by reducing to ASHES" with "EVERLASTING FIRE" as already pointed out in 2Peter 2 and Jude 7.

So my case is made simply by sticking to the text of scripture - ALONE!

When I want to show the Bible using a term like "DESTROY" and then "By reducing them to ASHES" I show actual texts that do that.

In your example above you would have been well served to show the text of SCRIPTURE that uses the term "eternal torment".

How instructive that you did not.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Jude 7 and 2Peter 2 use the term for "DESTROY" with "EVERLASTING FIRE".

Matt 10 does not use the term "EVERLASTING FIRE" it only uses the term "DESTROY".

it is instructive that your view does not tolerate the clear text that DOES link "DESTROY" with "EVERLASTING FIRE" when it wants to find a difinition for DESTROY in the context of EVERLASTING FIRE.

It is also instructive that in your statement above you give no exegesis SHOWING that what you NEED to have found in the text was actually THERE!

Exegesis certainly does not appear to favor your "name it and claim it" form of eisegesis.

You may want to believe that Abraham is literally the sovereign of heaven - that the dead are prayed to on behalf of the living and that all dead saints are literally in Abraham's lap -- but there are a number of very good scholars who DO agree with YOU on the eternal torment doctrine - and yet will not bring themselvs to wrench scripture to that extent in Luke 16 and so they admit freely that it is HAS to be a parable.

Men like Matthew Henry are to be commended for having that integrity in their acceptance of the inconvenient details of the text. They simply refuse to "game" the text by clinging blindly to failed tactics when it comes to Luke 16.

"I cannot make any progress in this debate when
one refuses to rightly divide the Word of Truth."

But I can praise God for men like Matthew Henry and Adam Clarke and Jamieson etc who do admit to the truth of God's Word on occassions where others faulter even though they do not agree with my view of the 2nd death.

In Christ,

Bob

 

HP: You confuse two differing realms, and try to treat them in the same manner when they cannot be. The body lies in the physical realm which is temporal. The soul lies in the spiritual realm which is eternal. The destruction of the physical in the realm of the temporal and the destruction of the soul, which is and will always remain in the eternal realm, are not one in the same destruction.

 

HP: Here is a question for the list. Why would God have to remove the access to the tree of life if in fact the annihilation of the wicked was to take place in the future for wicked men? Was God just unaware of the fate (annihilation of the soul according to BR) He had planned for them?

 

Eccl 12 - the souls of ALL men go back to God at death - in that dorment state.

But in the "second death" Rev 20 -- they do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: The truth is that BR has not once set forth any biblical evidence that the word ‘destroy’ means to ‘annihilate.’




In fact BR never brings that up!

BR continues to just use the term IN the text of MAtt 10:28 "DESTROY". Funny but people who are gaming the subject like to pretend this is not also in THEIR bibles!!

Those who object to the clear meaning of DESTROY keep ADDING in "annihilate" -- they seem to know they have a problem with the Word DESTROY so they bring up annihilate - but I never bring up that word!!

The problem for those opposing Matt 10:28 "Destroy both body and soul" is that this term is used repeatedly by MATTHEW in a way that SHOWS this to be complete and total "where moth and rust DESTROY" --

The other problem as already noted is that GOD connects "DESTROY by reducing to ASHES" with "EVERLASTING FIRE" as already pointed out in 2Peter 2 and Jude 7.

So my case is made simply by sticking to the text of scripture - ALONE!

 

Since when do you have a monopoly on the definitions of words. You claim that the word means "reduced to ashes," which BTW, is the same as "annihilation," isn't it? It has already been shown to you through reputable lexicons that the word for "destroy" in Mat.10:28 has the sense of eternal destruction. But you refuse to believe many parts of the Bible. You refuse to believe the plain meaning of eternal when it is so obvious. Is it any wonder then, that you should not believe that destroy in Mat. 10 would not refer to an eternal destruction. No wonder you have been deceived.

Did you not use the term "reduce to ashes"? Is that not "annihilation?" If it isn't then what is it? Eternal "destruction" is separation from God for all eternity is a place called the Lake of Fire, where the body of the unsaved will never be consumed by the flame and yet suffer torment, just as Jesus described in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. The fact that you believe it is a parable is totlally irrelevant. He was teaching truth. And that was the truth that he was teaching.

If it is repeatedly used by Matthew, show where it is repeatedly used by Matthew. The fact is that you repeatedly come back to the same verse--Mat.10:28. That is the repetition.
Now you are defining destroy. You say it is "complete and final." But you don't show how. Now you are beginning to define annihilate. You don't have to say the word to define it, do you? It is complete and final, but how? It is complete and final in that it is a complete and final eternal separation from God almighty, forever being tormented in the Lake of Fire, forever being in a process of eternal destruction, and yet never being consumed (just as the burning bush was in Moses day).

This is a problem for you. Why? Everlasting fire means eternal fire. You don't believe that in Mat.25:41. Why should we expect you to believe the plain sense of the word "eternal" here?

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

You have so twisted this verse throughout your postings that it is deplorable. Go to the context and see what Jude is speaking about.
He speaks of: "Certain men crept in unawares" in verse 4
"angels which kept not their first estate" in verse 6
"filthy dreamers (that) defile the flesh" in verse 8
He concludes that passage or paragraph by saying: These speak evil of those things...

Now go back to verse 7 and see what it is speaking of:
"Even as (the people) of Sodom and Gomorroh..."
He never was referring to the cities. The cities are not the people. He wasn't referring to buildings and structures. He refers to people as he has in every other example. And what about the people?
They will suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.

I am glad you brought Jude 7 up. It's teaching is as clear as day. The people of the time of Sodom and Gomorroh will suffer for all eternity. That teaching is so plain that it cannot be contradicted. Eternal means eternal. How do you keep denying the Word of God.

So your case is made by taking Scripture out of context and twisting it to suit your own perverted doctrine.

 

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear [b]those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/b]

Christ explains this concept of fiery hell destroying both body and soul using "everlasting fire"

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire (everlasting fire kjv).

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

It is more than a little "instructive" that when DHK's views ME as the author showing "destruction by reducing them to ashes" just when his views claiming that the word for destroy CAN NOT mean "destruction by reducing them to ashes" have been utterly foiled as the bible shows that not only CAN scripture say "destroy BY REDUCING them to ashes" - but in fact IT DOES say exactly that!

So then DHK pretends "I" am the one that wrote that -- not God...

When all else fails make "Bob the author of scripture" DHK??

Seems like an odd tactic to me -- but you never know what they will try when they are bent on gaming the point instead of simply accepting what the Bible says on this topic.

And of course when DHK is caught red handed in his attempt to spin the term for DESTROY so that it CAN NOT say what scripture DOES say about it -- he simply turns his invectives against the one that exposed his flaw saying...

And of course that tactic works just fine here - but would he also do that with the members of his own Bible class or would he share the extent to which his methods have been debunked sola scriptura here? The answer to that is left as an exercise for the reader.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear [b]those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/b]

Christ explains this concept of fiery hell destroying both body and soul using "everlasting fire"

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire (everlasting fire kjv).

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

I as the "author of Jude 7 and 2Peter 2" you mean?

When do you ever leave your fantasy world?

In your little world -- apparently I AM the one that came up with Jude 7 an 2Pet 2... but in my world GOD is the one that did that -- specifically Christ.


In Christ,


Bob

 

Matthew Henry exposes DHK's flaw

#1. NO Bible text says "the wicked will never be consumed"
#2. NO Bible text says "the wicked will never be DESTROYED both body AND soul".
#3. Not only DO I see the obvious point about Luke 16 and prayers to the dead on behalf of the living as a PARABLE but SO ALSO do well accepted Bible scholars who ALSO agree with YOU on eternal torment but who CAN NOT go to your wild extreme in Luke 16.
#4. As Matthew Henry stated you CAN NOT stretch a parable as you have done to get it to say anything OTHER than the point it was given which is "IF THEY WILL NOT LISTEN to MOSES then NEITHER will they listen to one risen from the dead". Stretching the parable to "some other meaning" is going beyond the text according to Matthew Henry. He is right on that point - and you are wrong.

In Christ

Bob

 

As of post 154 -

Thus in the texts above Bob notes that REPEATED use of the term by MATTHEW that DHK insists can never be used to mean anything but infininte non-consuming eternal torment.

Innexplicably DHK comes back with this noncoherent response.

Try reading the posts and responding to the points raise DHK - in this case the fact that I have REPEATEDLY given Matt 2 AND Matt 12 as OTHER examples in Matt that ALSO flatly contradict your wild assertions about Apollumi.

Honestly verifying this takes all of about 5 minutes I am surprised you could have gone so long on a propped up excuse to use in Matt 10 for destroy. I already exposed you on this point in post 154 of this thread.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And so we see in the quote above - how DHK would define the process...

Now let's see how GOD defines it...



Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire (everlasting fire kjv).

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

So using GOD's definition NOT DHK's when we come to Matt 10 - what do we get? (Left as an exercise for the reader)

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear [b]those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/b]

Christ's WORD has fully explained this concept of fiery hell destroying both body and soul using "everlasting fire"

 

#1. It does not say "THEY WILL SUFFER" it says they ARE AN example of that which DID suffer the vengence of eternal fire!

#2. All can clearly see that the cities THEMSELVES were in fact DESTROYED.

#3. Peter CONFIRMS this SAME point.

#4. Each time you want to spin the text to say "THEY WILL SUFFER" we note the text saying that they DID suffer the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire- and they are "exhibited" a visible example as such - as visible proof of what happens.


Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire (everlasting fire kjv).

In Christ,

Bob

 

The rich man cried out from hell that he was being tormented in these flames. He did not cry that he was being destroyed in these flames.

Torment, Bob... not destroyed. That rich man is still being tormented to this day and will be for all eternity. God's Word has declared that such will be tormented both day and night forever.

Listen closely, Bob... Forever has no ending!!

How can you end your posts with 'In Christ' when you so blatantly twist His Holy Word to your own liking?

 

I agree that if you press the PARABLE beyond the PRIMARY POINT that Christ makes of it (If they do not listen to Moses NEITHER will they listen to one raised from the dead) then you DO get the details of

1. PRAYERS TO THE DEAD on behalf of the living
2 ABraham in SOVEREIGN control of all dead saints
3. ALL dead saints literally in Abraham's lap
4. The Rich man in TORMENT in the flames

These all come up as details in the PARABLE. The first 3 of which are why many well known scholars (including Matthew Henry) INSIST that this is a parable - you simply turn a blind eye to those details each time they are mentioned. The last one of which you wish to CLING to even though this is NOT the primary point of the parable.

Thankfully - it is always left up to me to point out the obvious on the Baptist Board.

Thankfully - the points are SO blatantly obvous that even Bible scholars that agree with you on the false doctrine of eternal torment DO NOT go along with you on your wild leap off of the cliff in Luke 16. As is the case with Albert Barnes, John Lightfoot, Matt Henry, John Wesley, ...

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan:

Why do you keep saying prayers to the dead? This was an actual conversation between the rich man and Abraham.

Abraham's lap? The scripture says Abraham's bosom. The word bosom refers to a state of intamacy, not sitting in someone's lap.

How is Abraham in sovereign control?

You do have #4 right.