He used both. The eternal punishment is eternal destruction.
2 Thessalonians 1:9
English Standard Version (ESV)
9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
Annihilationism
- Thread starter Huntingteckel
- Start date
- Status
He used both. The eternal punishment is eternal destruction.
2 Thessalonians 1:9
English Standard Version (ESV)
9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
Some people come to Christ because they think He will make them prosperous and wealthy. That doesn't make it right.
You don't have to... I can't force you (nor should I)... guess the discussion will just have to continue without you...
ECT is Eternal Conscious Torment.
I would appreciate if you would stick to expressing your own views and stop rewording and restating mine. My posts speak for themselves. Thank you.
Good.. but be sure that as you guys are trying to twist the truth that those who would read your errors on this thread will be reminded of the truth. See Gods Word is truth and those who try to deceive others must first silence the truth. The reason you guys cant stand those scriptures is because they destroy you false teaching...its that simple!
As a Conditionalist, I would agree that this is not an essential doctrine, but it is an important one. However, if you consider some of MichaelH's verbiage, you'd think it was necessary for salvation to choose one or the other. This is a huge mistake, one which very few Conditionalists make - in part, because we are the minority party and are conscious that we are defying orthodoxy (for biblical reasons!), and in large part, out of principle - in the non-essentials, liberty.
This response sounds as if you have not seriously considered our ideas (you may have). Association with the wishful thinking, typically associated with Universalism, is little part of Conditionalism. What is the major part is a desire to (a) rightly divide the word of God, (b) be aware of and have a concern for the huge negative impact of ECT on its hearers (esp. if wrong!), and (c) justify God against the perceived, if not real injustice attributed to God in ECT.
As I remarked earlier, when you submit the passages in Revelation to any serious apocalyptic-appropriate exegesis (esp. comparing to OT usage), ECT has some severe interpretive issues, ones which can't be solved by merging disparate passages with no explanation, as Mitspa has done. "It's clear to me" (on surface inspection) is not scholarly, reasonable, serious, or careful.
And I for one want a serious, respectful dialogue.
If you want to stop debating the meaning of words, then stop debating the meaning of destruction.
Who are you speaking to? I don't need to debate words when an issue is made so clear a child could understand it.
Like I said, we've dealt with those scriptures. I don't know where you get the idea we can't stand them. And the only person on this forum to have misquoted them is.... (go on, have a guess!!
...or have a look at #400 )Ps 36:1 ¶ << A Psalm of David the servant of the LORD.>> The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.
I can hear all the sinners rejoice "that hell really is not that bad" you just kind of disappear into a puff of smoke...go ahead and live in sin, its not really eternal punishment... as the devil smiles
I can hear all the sinners rejoice "that hell really is not that bad" you just kind of disappear into a puff of smoke...go ahead and live in sin, its not really eternal punishment... as the devil smiles
MichaelH
Inactive
Calm yourself Francis. Look in just about any Bible and you will see Luke 16:19-31 (rich man and Lazarus) with the heading of 'The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.' Most evangelical scholars (not liberal) agree on this, and yes, if that is true, Jesus put words into Abraham's mouth. You are right, if this is a parable, it is unique, and its status as a parable is hotly debated.
/QUOTE]
I am game, what do you want to talk about?
I am not interested in Scholars for the same say that Jude refers to the same fire reserved for eternal judgement as the Scholars say that the fire mentioned in Jude was when God (satan) burned the place to the ground. Two views, and what do I have to do with scholars or someone Else's view?
Jesus did not misquote Abraham......... Misquoting folks is wrong. It is not a parable but an account of a real event.....................It's like no other parable where Jesus never gave a name or place.
I do agree that Jesus was in fact refering to the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom. Jesus started off saying Fear not man who can kill the body, but Fear God how is able to kill the body and soul in the Valley of Hinnom.
There is no other reference to the the Valley of the sons of Hinnom but buy Jesus and James. Gehanna is just the Greek Word for Valley of Hinnom. It was a known practice to throw people (Alive) into a fire they kept burning and it was known they sacrificed children alive into that fire for the God Molach. (However you spell that gods name)
There is no reference to the Valley of Hinnom that connects it to the Lake of fire, or even Hades (Sheol-Hebrew)
I am not trying to be a @## Hole............ but lets lay aside what other (Scholars) said and lets be led by the Holy spirit. I could care less what everyone else says.
I also ask you to understand there are some here that accept the torment of Hades (Sheol-Hebrew) but do not accept the concept of eternal punishent. In other words, by not accepting Jesus, a persons spirit goes straight to Sheol (Greek Hades) and the are in fire and torment until the 2nd death.
Duringing the 2nd death some believe that death and hell are cast into the Lake of Fire and somehow burnt up. This ends the torment of those in Hades....... (Sheol).
So, we have doctrines of punishment, but we also have ZERO hell doctrines present in this thread. If your able to compensate for these different beliefs and understand what is presented then I will take the time to respond to you. It is to many belief's and doctrines given, unlike a website belief, which is only one, and solid (Being in a forum setting) to accommodate just your belief.
If you can come to terms with that, then I will continue to acknowledge you.
Mind you, I take the position of Jesus stating there is Eternal punishment............... don't bring up what others say, for there are still others that say different........................ What has God revealed to you is what I am interested in.
also, please ignore all the scripture in the OT about being destoryed, it is just as easy to prove they mean "ON LAND" as God judges an removes the wicked from harming his anointed and chosen.
Stick to the relevant scripture about the Body, soul , spirit being destroyed if that is even the case.
I don't intend to come off strong, but Jesus did not misquote Abraham, so if you believe that and Jesus holds his integrity, then lets continue.......
Blessings.........
Sigh. I agree with Mitspa. People will see it as hell is temporary and you go poof. It's so sad that the church is so divided. I think God wants us to know if people suffer in hell permanently or just cease to exist. Sighs... but with all these bible translations.
The only people I've ever known see it that way are Christians holding to the eternal conscious torment view (who assume non-Christians will see it the same). But let's be clear, we're talking about people being ressurected, appearing before the throne of God himself, being acutely aware of all they're missing and of all their guilt, and after judgement being destroyed. Iwouldn't like to find myself in that situation. Would you?
Also, it's not how people see it that matters- it's God's truth that matters, and I believe if we're preaching the truth on this issue it will always be more effective than just using a doctrine which scares people to salvation.
*Edit*
If the church is divided, it is because of people who can't accept legitimate differences of opinion. Where sincere Christians differ in opinion on scripture there needs to be room for civil open discussion.
MichaelH
Inactive
Your old stuff Ken............... Your wrong and have not even answered my questions............. I asked you and your video gives an answer that you just don't like it, but it's not good enough for my standards. Be thanking To God that I am not the one listening to you and making you look foolish in your hearers.
There is other belief's that have come that are different from yours. You have been given the chance to make things right, but refused.
Now answer my questions, which you "dodged" in the video and be right and sure. Otherwise, go back to where you came from being confused.
your here to learn and be corrected for there are many here for more knowledgeable than you.
Now the simple........... Prove to me, (In Scripture) That Jesus was not referring to Gehenna, the Greek Word for Valley of the Sons of Hinnom. (A physical place)
An easy task Ken for the man that knows everything.
Otherwise be silent and learn that you may also gain knowledge and wisdom for those you teach.
Last edited:
Your right sis...if I had believed this doctrine when I was in sin...I don't think I would have called upon the Lords mercy? I would have thought ok I might die and go to hell...but big deal! its only long enough to go poof...
Huntingteckel
Inactive
I was typing something similar and yours sounds better.
- Status