Eternal Conscious Torment

[The Tanager]

As of right now I would consider myself an Annihilationist in regards to my view of Hell. I'm not looking to try to push Annihilationism or get into a debate between the various views. I want to look more deeply into the issues around what Hell is with other minds and I would love to hear from those who believe in the eternal conscious torment view, to the various reasons you believe it makes sense within Christianity. I'm looking to challenge my view and I was hoping you all could help me out.

[The Tanager]

Then it's happy days for them. Annihilation is awesome to the evil.

You are saying it's happy and awesome for them in the sense of being more likable to them than eternal torment. And what's so wrong with a God being merciful in this way, even to His enemies?

No accountability.

They are being held accountable for their actions. Not being held accountable would be getting Heaven even though they always did their own thing.

No, it's not in the same boat because annihilation is what they want. That's better than eternity with God. Eternal torment in hell is not what they want but eternal life with God is something that is not even possible for them. No one with sin can ever be near God.

They don't want to go to hell because there is no suffering to feed off. That is Satan's biggest fear.

In your view of Hell there is only suffering, isn't there?

How did Jesus take away the sin of the world? Couldn't He have done that without dying for us? If God could not have forgiven sin, then Jesus would never have resurrected as He would have been dead to sin forever. He could not have been forgiven as Jesus took on the sin of the world.

You think He could have done that without dying? I'm a bit confused here, because I do think Jesus took our sins away, by dying for us and forgiving us of our sin.

When one dies for someone else, they experience death in place of another so that this other person can be spared the same fate. Likewise, Jesus took on our sin and took on the punishment of hell so that we wouldn't have to if we repented for our sins.

But you think the punishment of hell is eternal torment, so Jesus would have to be eternally punished. If you are saying the punishment of hell Jesus actually took on was a temporary punishment, then you shouldn't believe in eternal torment, but a temporary punishment and then salvation or annihilation.

So you are saying Jesus was being deceptive? That He didn't actually mean it when He asked why the Father had forsaken Him; rather just saying it to fulfill prophecy?Do you really think He was in the state of mind to think of Psalm 22?

No, He wasn't being deceptive at all, if the interpretation I shared is correct. That's how rabbis asked their students to turn to and recite passages, as I understand it. The psalms (and other books) didn't have names and all of that, so they would quote the first line and their disciples would quote the rest back or turn to it or reflect upon it. Nothing deceptive about that.

This wouldn't be to fulfill prophecy, but to turn the disciples attention to God has everything under control and to trust God in spite of how it looks.

I do think it possible that Jesus was in the state of mind to think of how good God is and to try to bring encouragement to those He deeply loved with the Scriptures He deeply knew.

Yes, but the disease was being associated with sin in this instance.

I looked back at the verse which you said was Matthew 5:14-15, but I think you meant John 5:14-15. Regardless, the passage that quotes Isaiah 53 is Matthew 8:17, which is what I've been talking about. In Matthew 8:17, the disease is not a metaphor of sin. Jesus actually helps people of physical diseases and this is what the author of Matthew says fulfills Isaiah 53 "He himself bore our sickness...".

Jesus did not actually get sick to take those sicknesses away. So, even if this is all metaphor, your point about Jesus having to be full of sin to bear our sins, doesn't seem to follow.

You said hell is annihilation so where do you think Jesus was during those days we was dead, taking on the sin of the world?

When Jesus' body died, I think Jesus went to Sheol.

But you can't be annihilated and gnash your teeth at the same time. It says in the blazing furnace there will be gnashing of teeth implying eternity.

It fits with hell being eternal, but I don't think it necessarily implies it. The final judgment that may be followed by annihilation would be the 'moment' where gnashing occurs before final annihilation.

[William]

[Replying to post 121 by The Tanager]

They are being held accountable for their actions. Not being held accountable would be getting Heaven even though they always did their own thing.

Are you saying that being annihilated is being held accountable for ones actions?

What kind of actions do you regard through your beliefs to being ones which require the individual is annihilated?

[myth-one.com]

How did Jesus take away the sin of the world? Couldn't He have done that without dying for us? If God could not have forgiven sin, then Jesus would never have resurrected as He would have been dead to sin forever. He could not have been forgiven as Jesus took on the sin of the world.

When one dies for someone else, they experience death in place of another so that this other person can be spared the same fate. Likewise, Jesus took on our sin and took on the punishment of hell so that we wouldn't have to if we repented for our sins.

Here is what will actually save Christians:

The two testaments of the Bible contain covenants between God and man. The inheritance received by heirs under either testament is everlasting life.

The path to eternal life under the first covenant was to never sin, as the wages of sin was death. However, there was a fault in that first testament in that all mankind sinned!

Since the first covenant contained a fault, God created a second or New Testament Covenant.

The Word was made flesh as the man Jesus, and Jesus lived a sinless human life under the Old Testament Covenant. Thus, He became the only human to ever qualify for everlasting life under that covenant. The name Jesus Christ is written into the Book of Life as an inheritor of everlasting spiritual life.

However, He will not accept His just reward and inheritance, but will offer it as a gift to those who believe in Him as their Savior under terms of the New Testament Covenant.

By believing in Jesus under the New Testament Covenant, we become joint heirs with Jesus Christ and our names are written into the Book of Life along with His.

Thus everlasting life (salvation from the wages of our sins) becomes a gift of God through Jesus Christ.

[brianbbs67]

Their was no fault in the earlier Covenants. God married Himself to Isreal. How can marriage end legally? Adultery or Death. God did not cheat. Isreal did. So , the only way to reconcile that, is God Dying for them. To release the old covenant and begin a new.

[myth-one.com]

Their was no fault in the earlier Covenants. God married Himself to Isreal. How can marriage end legally? Adultery or Death. God did not cheat. Isreal did. So , the only way to reconcile that, is God Dying for them. To release the old covenant and begin a new.

Being immortal, God cannot die for anyone.

Yes, the first Covenant was with God's chosen people.

The New Covenant is open to whosoever.

There was a fault in the first covenant according to the scriptures:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (Hebrews 8:6-7)

So there was at least one fault in the Old Testament.

That fault was not with God's part of the covenant, but with man's.

It wasn't God's fault that no man ever had the character to live a sinless life.

By remaining sinless, Jesus became an heir under the first covenant -- thus confirming that it was possible to do so.

He then offered His inheritance of everlasting life to whosoever believes in Him as their Savior from the wages of their sins under the New Testament Covenant:

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.

The Old Testament was replaced with a "better covenant":

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (Hebrews 8:6-7)

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)

The New Testament became effective when the testator, Jesus Christ, died on the cross:

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth (Hebrews 9:15-17)

Today, the only path to salvation is through Jesus:

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

Depressed Christian parents who murder their children in their innocent years to sent them to heaven with God for eternity have simply been deceived!

[brianbbs67]

I don't find a fault of God's. Just ours. Luckily, God threw us a life line. Thanks to Him.

[myth-one.com]

I don't find a fault of God's. Just ours. Luckily, God threw us a life line. Thanks to Him.

I don't think it involved luck.

[Claire Evans]

So you are saying Jesus was being deceptive? That He didn't actually mean it when He asked why the Father had forsaken Him; rather just saying it to fulfill prophecy?Do you really think He was in the state of mind to think of Psalm 22? .

Of course! It was why He was there!!

He was not asking why because He knew the truth that He was not forsaken....He was applying the triumphant last verses to himself by quoting the first line of the psalm, a method used to refer to the whole psalm.

So He wasn't forsaken but just claimed He was? That's being deceptive. A dying man on the cross about to descend into hell is not going to think of prophecies.

[Claire Evans]

Then it's happy days for them. Annihilation is awesome to the evil.

You are saying it's happy and awesome for them in the sense of being more likable to them than eternal torment.

Wouldn't you think just not being aware is better than facing eternal torture if you were evil? That's escaping punishment.

And what's so wrong with a God being merciful in this way, even to His enemies?

Let's look at some scriptures:

29 You Pharisees and teachers are nothing but show-offs, and you’re in for trouble! You build monuments for the prophets and decorate the tombs of good people. 30 And you claim that you would not have taken part with your ancestors in killing the prophets. 31 But you prove that you really are the relatives of the ones who killed the prophets. 32 So keep on doing everything they did. 33 You are nothing but snakes and the children of snakes! How can you escape going to hell?

“I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever.� — Mark 3:28-29 (CEV)

We are talking about evil people who hate God. We are talking about people/entities who love their sin and have no good in them. God only forgives those who truly repent.

Do not make God out to be a doormat. He does not tolerate sin and there will be no mercy for the evil.

No accountability.

They are being held accountable for their actions. Not being held accountable would be getting Heaven even though they always did their own thing.

This is the last time I am going to say this. They cannot possibly be in heaven, or want to, because sin cannot be near God. Do you think Satan wants to live with God forever in God's Kingdom? Absolutely not! I also think you are not realizing the sheer evil of these people/entities commit. I think you underestimate evil.

No, it's not in the same boat because annihilation is what they want. That's better than eternity with God. Eternal torment in hell is not what they want but eternal life with God is something that is not even possible for them. No one with sin can ever be near God.

They don't want to go to hell because there is no suffering to feed off. That is Satan's biggest fear.

In your view of Hell there is only suffering, isn't there?

That's what Jesus said about gnashing of teeth. For the evil to have no suffering of the good to feed off is unthinkable.

Demons don't want to be in hell; that is why they seek people to possess. They look for ways to enter our world.

How did Jesus take away the sin of the world? Couldn't He have done that without dying for us? If God could not have forgiven sin, then Jesus would never have resurrected as He would have been dead to sin forever. He could not have been forgiven as Jesus took on the sin of the world.

You think He could have done that without dying? I'm a bit confused here, because I do think Jesus took our sins away, by dying for us and forgiving us of our sin.

But why did He have to die? I'm playing devil's advocate here.

When one dies for someone else, they experience death in place of another so that this other person can be spared the same fate. Likewise, Jesus took on our sin and took on the punishment of hell so that we wouldn't have to if we repented for our sins.

But you think the punishment of hell is eternal torment, so Jesus would have to be eternally punished. If you are saying the punishment of hell Jesus actually took on was a temporary punishment, then you shouldn't believe in eternal torment, but a temporary punishment and then salvation or annihilation.

Hell is eternal torment for those who are unrepentant and those who God could never forgive. If God could not forgive the sin of the world, which Jesus was full of because of our sin, Jesus could not have been forgiven and thus could not have risen from the dead.

Hell is the complete separation from God. Jesus was separated temporarily. Then there is hell which is eternal because of eternal separation.

So you are saying Jesus was being deceptive? That He didn't actually mean it when He asked why the Father had forsaken Him; rather just saying it to fulfill prophecy?Do you really think He was in the state of mind to think of Psalm 22?

No, He wasn't being deceptive at all, if the interpretation I shared is correct. That's how rabbis asked their students to turn to and recite passages, as I understand it. The psalms (and other books) didn't have names and all of that, so they would quote the first line and their disciples would quote the rest back or turn to it or reflect upon it. Nothing deceptive about that.

This wouldn't be to fulfill prophecy, but to turn the disciples attention to God has everything under control and to trust God in spite of how it looks.

I do think it possible that Jesus was in the state of mind to think of how good God is and to try to bring encouragement to those He deeply loved with the Scriptures He deeply knew.

So if you were coming in and out of consciousness from blood loss, struggling to breathe and in extreme pain, you'd think you would remember Psalms? And only the educated would have got what Jesus meant if He was "quoting".

The disciples, with the exception of Matthew, were not at the cross when Jesus died. They were in hiding.

God doesn't have everything under control. Look at the state of the world. We only has control over the lives of those who love Him.

Yes, but the disease was being associated with sin in this instance.

I looked back at the verse which you said was Matthew 5:14-15, but I think you meant John 5:14-15. Regardless, the passage that quotes Isaiah 53 is Matthew 8:17, which is what I've been talking about. In Matthew 8:17, the disease is not a metaphor of sin. Jesus actually helps people of physical diseases and this is what the author of Matthew says fulfills Isaiah 53 "He himself bore our sickness...".

Yes, I meant John.

Jesus did not actually get sick to take those sicknesses away. So, even if this is all metaphor, your point about Jesus having to be full of sin to bear our sins, doesn't seem to follow.

One of the definitions of bear is:

9.
to suffer; endure; undergo:
to bear the blame.

So if disease was not equated with sin in this instance, then it is suggesting that Jesus suffered disease.

As I mentioned, Deuteronomy says that disease is a punishment from God because of sin.

You said hell is annihilation so where do you think Jesus was during those days we was dead, taking on the sin of the world?

When Jesus' body died, I think Jesus went to Sheol.

Here is the definition of Sheol.

Sheol. ... When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in ancient Alexandria around 200 BC, the word "Hades" (the Greek underworld) was substituted for Sheol. This is reflected in the New Testament where Hades is both the underworld of the dead and the personification of the evil it represents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol


That would make sense if one believes that Jesus was full of sin.

But you can't be annihilated and gnash your teeth at the same time. It says in the blazing furnace there will be gnashing of teeth implying eternity.

It fits with hell being eternal, but I don't think it necessarily implies it. The final judgment that may be followed by annihilation would be the 'moment' where gnashing occurs before final annihilation.

You said it was simultaneous. Therefore there is no "before".

[The Tanager]

Wouldn't you think just not being aware is better than facing eternal torture if you were evil? That's escaping punishment.

Annihilation would be escaping a worse punishment when compared to the possibility of eternal torment. But that doesn't mean annihilation itself is not a punishment.

Let's look at some scriptures:

29 You Pharisees and teachers are nothing but show-offs, and you’re in for trouble! You build monuments for the prophets and decorate the tombs of good people. 30 And you claim that you would not have taken part with your ancestors in killing the prophets. 31 But you prove that you really are the relatives of the ones who killed the prophets. 32 So keep on doing everything they did. 33 You are nothing but snakes and the children of snakes! How can you escape going to hell?

Why does this not fit with annihilationism?

“I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever.� — Mark 3:28-29 (CEV)

Why does this not fit with annihilationism?

We are talking about evil people who hate God. We are talking about people/entities who love their sin and have no good in them. God only forgives those who truly repent.

Do not make God out to be a doormat. He does not tolerate sin and there will be no mercy for the evil.

I didn't say God forgives them. And it doesn't make God out to be a doormat. Annihilationism is a punishment. It is mercy compared to eternal torment, yes. You seem to think God has to treat the unrepentant like they treated God. But my reading of the Tanakh as well as of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament talks of God's love and mercy without negating human free will.

Why would it be wrong for God to show the wicked and unrepentant the mercy of annihilation when compared with eternal torment? They aren't being rewarded for their unrepentance. They just aren't receiving the worst punishment possible.

This is the last time I am going to say this. They cannot possibly be in heaven, or want to, because sin cannot be near God. Do you think Satan wants to live with God forever in God's Kingdom? Absolutely not!

I didn't say they would be in heaven. You said annihilationism doesn't hold them accountable for their sins. I said not holding one accountable would mean they get into Heaven and that they don't get Heaven in annihilationism. Therefore, they are being held accountable. Just not in the worst way possible.

I also think you are not realizing the sheer evil of these people/entities commit. I think you underestimate evil.

And I think you underestimate the mercy of God, which outweighs even this sheer evil. The mercy of God doesn't play evil's game of torture, nor does it give into evil and let it remain forever.

That's what Jesus said about gnashing of teeth. For the evil to have no suffering of the good to feed off is unthinkable.

Demons don't want to be in hell; that is why they seek people to possess. They look for ways to enter our world.

I think you are saying that the gnashing of teeth is anger over having no good people to torment anymore. Is that right? That the "torture" of hell is having no one else to torture?

But why did He have to die? I'm playing devil's advocate here.

I think Jesus had to live a complete human life, including the death of the body, in order to perfectly surrender to God every bit of human nature. We have our human nature redeemed by being made in the likeness of Jesus' perfect human nature. If Jesus didn't die, then our new human nature would not have conquered death.

Hell is eternal torment for those who are unrepentant and those who God could never forgive. If God could not forgive the sin of the world, which Jesus was full of because of our sin, Jesus could not have been forgiven and thus could not have risen from the dead.

I don't think Jesus was forgiven. I think we are forgiven because of what Jesus did. Jesus redeems our old nature, by sharing or forming in us the new nature, the perfect human nature He lived even through death and into the resurrection body we will one day have. Jesus' perfect nature covers over our sins, forgiving us of our sins, destroying those sins and causing us to die to sin once and for all.

Hell is the complete separation from God. Jesus was separated temporarily. Then there is hell which is eternal because of eternal separation.

I agree Hell is complete separation from God. I'm not sure I believe Jesus experienced Hell, though. But even if Jesus did experience Hell, I don't see why this is a point against annihilationism. In your view there are 2 different experiences of Hell: one temporary and one irreversible and final. In annihilationism (if Jesus experienced separation from God on the cross and/or while His body was in the tomb before resurrection) there are still 2 different experiences of Hell: one temporary and one irreversible and final.

So if you were coming in and out of consciousness from blood loss, struggling to breathe and in extreme pain, you'd think you would remember Psalms? And only the educated would have got what Jesus meant if He was "quoting".

It's irrelevant what I would do. We are talking about Jesus, the incarnate Son of God here. Jesus was in touch with the Father His whole life. I see no problem in thinking that even in pain Jesus was aware of the Father and aware of those He came to save.

But even humans can be aware of God when under intense pain. When Stephen was being stoned to death (Acts 7:54-60) he remembered God. Read the accounts of early Christian martyrs. God even uses those tough moments to bring encouragment and compassion and judgment on those listening and abusing the believer.

The disciples, with the exception of Matthew, were not at the cross when Jesus died. They were in hiding.

John's gospel places John there with the three Marys, at least. We don't know who all was there. There were people who knew that Psalm, even those who weren't disciples of Jesus, but enemies. Maybe some who casually followed him. Probably Joseph of Arimathea, since he buried Jesus' body.

God doesn't have everything under control. Look at the state of the world. We only has control over the lives of those who love Him.

Depends on what you mean by "everything under control". I was referring to Jesus using Psalm 22 to tell those who were there that this was a part of God's plan. And that plan, to redeem humans, no one could thwart.

One of the definitions of bear is:

9.
to suffer; endure; undergo:
to bear the blame.

So if disease was not equated with sin in this instance, then it is suggesting that Jesus suffered disease.

As I mentioned, Deuteronomy says that disease is a punishment from God because of sin.

We can't just pick and choose which modern definition of the word we want to plug in this ancient text. Matthew 8:17 is not suggesting that Jesus suffered disease. Nothing in the context points us in that direction.

Here is the definition of Sheol.

Sheol. ... When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in ancient Alexandria around 200 BC, the word "Hades" (the Greek underworld) was substituted for Sheol. This is reflected in the New Testament where Hades is both the underworld of the dead and the personification of the evil it represents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol


That would make sense if one believes that Jesus was full of sin.

This is one scholar's comment (Richard N. Longenecker) that would need to be further unpacked and looked at. Do you have fuller thoughts on Sheol than this that you think shows my view to be incorrect?

You said it was simultaneous. Therefore there is no "before"

Yes, the whole stage (hell) is simulatenous with the gnashing. You are saying the chronology of the text is hell and then gnashing. I am saying the chronology of the text is hell is simultaneous with the gnashing and then the righteous shine like the sun.

The further question, what hell is actually like, can only be taken up by going beyond what the text itself says. In your analysis of my view of annihilationism you are saying hell above is simply replaced with annihilationism. So, I clarify that my view of annihilationism is that there is a 'moment' (I don't know how long or what all is included in this) that precedes annihilation. And this moment is where the gnashing occurs.