Matt 10:28 does God really "destroy BOTH" Body AND soul in fiery hell??

Is it at least possible that God created man with no immortal consciousness bearing component (soul and / or spirit) that can live outside the body?

Of course it is.

And is it possible that the wages of sin is really annihilation through hell-fire?

Of course it is.

And is it possible that the Hebrew people used to the words "soul" and "spirit" to connote the "vital life energy" or the "cognitive functions" or the "essence of life" without intending these terms to denote an immortal consciousness bearing entity?

Again, this is of course possible.

So just for the sake of argument, let's assume that God has indeed created a world with just these characteristics.

He then inspires the writers of Scripture to make all sorts of statements about the wages of sin being death and how the wicked will be burned to ashes and that the wicked will be no more and how the soul and the spirit will be destroyed in hell and how God will preserve the body and soul and spirit of believers unto everlasting life, and on and on......

God could do the "best He could" to convince the reader of Scripture of the reality of this "no immortal soul / the wicked are annihilated" system.

But if people bring to their reading the assumption that man has an immortal soul (and / or spirit) to go along with his body and the assumption that "death" means to "death of the body only" and / or "a state of conscious separation from God", all these efforts of God will not achieve the intended goal.

Does the above prove that the "immortal soul / eternal torment" position is wrong?

Of course not.

But it does show how it is possible that incorrect assumptions about the nature of the human person and / or the meaning of certain words can cause people to entirely misconstrue the intended meaning of Scriptural texts.

 

You have shown your opinion that they are synonymous, and you've given your reasons.

I have shown my opinion on why they are not synonymous, and I've given my reasons.

You have not shown a clear Scriptural connection.

But, traditions of men tell us that they are synonymous, and those lifelong traditions are the most difficult to look past.

BTW, John 15 is another great passage that is written to saved people and they they need to fear removal and fire. Most who hold to OSAS, instead of looking at what it's saying, simply say something along the lines of, "they weren't really and truly branches in the first place".

 

Once again these texts harmonize perfectly well with the view of a "single substance" - they do not imply the existence of an immortal spirit. If there were an immortal spirit, these texts would be consistent with such a state of affairs, but things don't work the other way around. The mere consistency of these texts with that view establishes nothing.

Now here is how the texts work with the "no immortal consciousness bearing" soul / spirit view: when a believer dies, he "sleeps" - there is no conscious existence. The essence of that person, the "information about who he is" is safe in the mind of God. The person's earthly tabernacle has been dissolved and, at the appointed time, God will use this "information about him" to resurrect him into a "body from heaven". Without such a body, he is "unclothed" or "naked".

Now I realize that people will say that verses 1 to 3 clearly show the separate existence of an immortal soul - it is obviously the "thing" that gets clothed. Well, if your mind cannot entertain other possibilities, this is the conclusion you will draw. But a transition from a state of existing only in the mind of God as "information" to a state where God has used that information to reconstitute "you" in a new body can easily be likened to the transition from nakedness to a state of being clothed.

As for verse 6, "being home in the body" does not imply that an immortal soul / spirit is literally a separate component from the body. The drawing of the distinction between the "body" and the "real me" is done all the time without any necessary implication of this dualistic or "tri-alistic" conceptualization.

If Fred says "my body is tired", do we assume that there is an incorporeal "Fred" that "lives inside" the body? Of course we don't. The drawing of a distinction between "me" and my body does not warrant the conclusion that there is an immortal consciousness bearing entity "inside" my body.

 

As an aside from our discussion, I had someone recently try to convince me that the warnings weren't to saved people, because saved people couldn't fall away. Only those who couldn't fall away (unsaved) could fall away, he explained.

I used to skydive. So, I asked him, "Who can fall away from the airplane: Me, others on the plane, or those who had never been in the plane."

Well, "that's different". Of course it is.

Only saved people can fall away.

 

And all the parables of Matthew 13 are comparing saved to saved; those who are obedient and those who are not and how much, just as sheep and goats are both given as pictures of clean animals.

The parables are Kingdom messages and not salvation messages.

Do you think the Lord would have been "the lamb of God" if a lamb could be used to represent something unclean?

An aside: I have had people use this to show that people could become unsaved for this very reason. They assume that since goats are clean animals that they are saved, but because of their works, they become unsaved.

Well, it's talking about works. Works are not required to simply be saved spiritually. What must I do to be saved? Believe. Simple mental assent. You can do that by hearing only.

But, doing... doing has to do with justification, not salvation.

Hence my statement that it "looks good" to the doctrine that you hold to, because the fire is being referred to in a sense of limited duration.

 

Although I disagree strongly with what Andre is saying over all, in all fairness, Scriptures do tell us that the soul is the life. Animals even have souls.

 

Hello DHK (and others):

Our interactions tend to follow a similar pattern. You basically state a position X. I then show by actual argument that either X is unjustified or that there is a competing position Y that works equally well with the texts in question. You seem to think that your position is shown to be the correct one merely by declaring it to be so. I do not understand this at all. I have made arguments, in addition to stating my position. Please respond to the content of my arguments or do more than merely state a position.

Now in respect to your last post, please explain how it is that one cannot take Romans 6:23 and conclude that the wages of sin is extinction of the entire human person? You say that my take on this verse is incorrect. We need to be told how it is incorrect, not merely told that it is incorrect.

From Leviticus 17

For the life (nephesh) of a creature is in the blood,.....

Now even though this text talks specifically about animals, the use of "nephesh" is telling here - the nephesh is intimately and inextricably bound up with the "physical".

As a footnote: I have inquired of an historian at a local university. He expressed the view that the Hebrew people had no concept of an immaterial soul.

 

HP: It is not a matter of failure to produce texts, for DHK and others have brought forth many that clearly imply the position of the immortality of the soul/spirit of man. The problem lies in your failure to have ears to hear.

 

I think that the reality is that DHK and others have produced texts that are, at best, consistent with the position of the immortality of the soul / spirit of man. I cannot emphasize enough that this is not enough - one needs to show how competing interpetations are not also allowed by the texts in question.

Its like a situation where a manager of a nuclear reactor goes on vacation and leaves the following instruction for his replacement:

"You cannot put too much water on the nuclear core".

This is a statement that is consistent with two entirely contradictory interpretations:

1. It is a bad and dangerous practice to put an excessive amount of water on the nuclear core.

2. The more water you put on the core, the better.

I hope the analogy is clear. Just because the text of the warning is consistent with one reading does not make that reading the correct one.

I am entirely convinced that the "eternal torment" supporters are either unaware of this issue or ignore it. Of course, the annihilationist can fall into the same trap.

 

Someone brought up wheat and tares, that's why I mentioned Matthew 13.

They are cast into the fire prepared for the devil, but are they thrown in at the same time and for the same length of time?

That's why the water picture works well. This is aionian fire. The lake of fire when the devil and all are thrown in is forever and ever. (Which is ages unto ages, which some take to be literally just a bunch of ages, but it is an idiom in Greek that means forever, the same with the Hebrew.)

Since I didn't say that, then it would be safe to say that I'm not saying the devil is saved, but "wicked" describes behavior, and there are many, many saved people who are very wicked and ungodly.

Then show me a single type in the OT in which a goat is an unclean animal.

One group gets aionian life; they get the life in the age to come. What is the life in the age to come?

This is based upon works. We're not saved spiritually by our works, just as we are not sentenced to the lake of fire forever by our works. Our works determine our rewards; our recompense.

Gotta run teach a class now, I'll be back later.

 

HP: Point well taken. One has to take into account that Scripture is first and foremost a spiritual book, and as such must be spiritual discerned.

Oh God, give me ears to discern the truth of your Word, and above all, motivate my will to act in accordance to it.

 

HP: Well stated DHK. With this I heartily concur. That is the plain teaching of Scripture.