Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

Derf said:

My proposition (read back a couple posts) is that most humans, by the time they are thrown into the lake of fire, are also immortal, like Satan.

Click to expand...

That would defeat the promise of eternal life to those that believe in Jesus, wouldn't it?

John 10:28 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.​

Derf said:

I'm not dead set on the idea (pun not intended that time), so I'm offering it up for discussion. I'll repeat the idea: that if Jesus defeated death and resurrected those that died, then how could they die again? Was Jesus powerless to really defeat death? And thus the need for something called "second death", or the lake of fire, wherein go Satan and his angels.

Click to expand...

There are two deaths.
The first death is the death of the body, this is the death that is defeated by Jesus and is cast into the lake of fire.
The second death is the destruction of both soul and body in the lake of fire.

Matthew 10:28 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.​

Derf said:

I'm attempting to use Timotheos's definition of "death" here (read a few of his posts, if you haven't already), which is annihilation (T. didn't differentiate between a first death state and a second death state, but said death means no more life, no more consciousness, no more anything having to do with life). So if annihilation happens before judgment (1st death), then resurrection indicates a defeat of death (and annihilation), so a second death can't have the same properties, else it wasn't defeated.

Click to expand...

If only the body is killed in the first death, then the soul can be resurrected.
If both the body and the soul are destroyed, then there can be no more resurrection for that soul.

Job talked about standing in his flesh before God in the resurrection after his body was destroyed in the grave.

Job 19:25-27 25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: 27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.​

Paul said the punishment of the wicked is everlasting destruction.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;​

I like the boxes! I'll have to use that some.

genuineoriginal said:

That would defeat the promise of eternal life to those that believe in Jesus, wouldn't it?

John 10:28 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.​

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't affect that promise at all. Believers still have eternal life and they still never perish. In addition, no one ever plucks them out of His hand. Why would you think that promise is somehow affected, much less defeated?

genuineoriginal said:

There are two deaths.
The first death is the death of the body, this is the death that is defeated by Jesus and is cast into the lake of fire.
The second death is the destruction of both soul and body in the lake of fire.

Matthew 10:28 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.​

Click to expand...

So, if one ends up in Hades as a disembodied soul, being tormented (as in the Rich Man) until the judgment, but is later annihilated (both body and soul destroyed), why is that latter state more to be feared than the former state?

genuineoriginal said:

If only the body is killed in the first death, then the soul can be resurrected.
If both the body and the soul are destroyed, then there can be no more resurrection for that soul.

Click to expand...

If only the body is killed in the first death, then there's no need to resurrect the soul--it isn't dead. The resurrection appears to be only the body, as your Job quote points out below.

But if death happens prior to a resurrection (hard to have much of a "resurrection" without it), then the penalty of death has been satisfied, hasn't it? Then does God punish non-believers more than He said He would, with double-death? (Heb 9:27) That seems to make God out to be a liar.

Or, perhaps you would say that the first death is not the penalty for sin, but the second death is. If that's the case, did Jesus then not pay the penalty for our sins by the destruction of His soul? His soul wasn't destroyed, was it?

genuineoriginal said:

Job talked about standing in his flesh before God in the resurrection after his body was destroyed in the grave.

Job 19:25-27 25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: 27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.​

Paul said the punishment of the wicked is everlasting destruction.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;​

Click to expand...

Interesting that the vengeance is not for sin, but for not obeying "the gospel". How does one "obey" the gospel? I'd say that one "believes" on Jesus Christ. There is likely a reasonable correlation between the sin of Adam and the sin of non-believers in Jesus, but it seems unlikely that the sin Satan was tempting Jesus to do was to not believe in himself. Rather His temptations were to disobey God and please Himself, and to elevate Himself to god-status via some shortcut, just like the temptation of Adam.

So by those verses in 2Thess, Paul seems to enforce my proposition that the second death is not the penalty for Adam's sin, which can be reasonably presumed to have been paid for by Jesus' death, but instead is for the "new" sin of rejecting Jesus Christ, God's only begotten son. Such appears to be the unforgivable sin Jesus mentioned to the Pharisees.

I found this at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/unpardonablesin.html

Author Dr. Henry Morris insightfully clarifies the true nature of Pharisees’ sin: “The unforgivable sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit has been interpreted in various ways, but the true meaning cannot contradict other Scripture. It is unequivocally clear that the one unforgivable sin is permanently rejecting Christ (John 3:18; 3:36). Thus, speaking against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to rejecting Christ with such finality that no future repentance is possible.

CherubRam said:

Hell is the Serpent's doctrine. God says "you will surly die," and the Serpent says to Eve, "you will not surly die." This doctrine helps us identify the Serpent in scriptures.

Click to expand...

When the Serpent contradicted the Lord by saying to Eve, "you will not surely die, she was preaching the doctrine of immortality. Therefore, to live forever is the Devil's doctrine.

Ben Masada said:

When the Serpent contradicted the Lord by saying to Eve, "you will not surely die, she was preaching the doctrine of immortality. Therefore, to live forever is the Devil's doctrine.

Click to expand...

Ok everybody ready to pig-pile on Ben Masada? 1...2...3...Go!

(Oh, should I not have said "pig"?)

Ben Masada said:

When the Serpent contradicted the Lord by saying to Eve, "you will not surely die, he was preaching the doctrine of immortality. Therefore, to live forever is the Devil's doctrine.

Click to expand...

Correct! The doctrine of immortality without God. Immortality is the gift of God, no one can obtain immortality without God.

Derf said:

I'm attempting to use Timotheos's definition of "death" here (read a few of his posts, if you haven't already), which is annihilation (T. didn't differentiate between a first death state and a second death state, but said death means no more life, no more consciousness, no more anything having to do with life). So if annihilation happens before judgment (1st death), then resurrection indicates a defeat of death (and annihilation), so a second death can't have the same properties, else it wasn't defeated.

Click to expand...

I don't "HAVE" a definition of death. I use the STANDARD definition of death, which is "No longer alive".
IF people have to redefine "Death" to somehow mean "Alive Forever, but suffering in eternal torture while they live in pain forever", then they are selling smelly socks. Even if those people selling smelly socks are really really religious. I believe that there is ONLY eternal life in Christ and NOWHERE ELSE. Those who do not receive eternal life from Christ do not receive eternal life in order to spend it in hell being tortured alive by God. The Bible does NOT say that they will receive eternal life at all, much less an eternal life of torture. They will perish just as the Bible says. Death (meaning the state of being NOT ALIVE) HAS been defeated by Christ for those who put their faith in Him.

Due to the obscene behavior of some people on this forum, I have been avoiding the place. But if you refer to me, I have to set the record straight if I can. I do not use some bizarre definition of "dead" and "death". I use regular normal English.

Timotheos said:

...I have been avoiding the place.

Click to expand...

thanks! :thumb:

Timotheos said:

I don't "HAVE" a definition of death. I use the STANDARD definition of death, which is "No longer alive".
IF people have to redefine "Death" to somehow mean "Alive Forever, but suffering in eternal torture while they live in pain forever", then they are selling smelly socks. Even if those people selling smelly socks are really really religious. I believe that there is ONLY eternal life in Christ and NOWHERE ELSE. Those who do not receive eternal life from Christ do not receive eternal life in order to spend it in hell being tortured alive by God. The Bible does NOT say that they will receive eternal life at all, much less an eternal life of torture. They will perish just as the Bible says. Death (meaning the state of being NOT ALIVE) HAS been defeated by Christ for those who put their faith in Him.

Due to the obscene behavior of some people on this forum, I have been avoiding the place. But if you refer to me, I have to set the record straight if I can. I do not use some bizarre definition of "dead" and "death". I use regular normal English.

Click to expand...

Hey, welcome back from forum death, Timotheos!

I wasn't saying your definition was "bizarre", I just referred to it as "yours", to make sure it was differentiated from others. If you prefer to think of yours as "bizarre" that's up to you, I suppose.

There appears to be something that is different between death #1 and death #2. If you only have 1 definition for "death", then you appear to be missing something important in scripture. That's what this thread is really all about--trying to understand what the scripture means by death definition #1, which is either total annihilation or some kind of conscious existence and death definition #2, which is either total annihilation or some kind of conscious existence. If they were the same, there's really no time/place for anything similar to the suffering related in the Rich Man/Lazarus story, the weeping and gnashing of teeth in other places, and the outer darkness in others (it's hard to tell that it's dark if you're annihilated).

I'm not completely opposed to the idea that one of the death definitions is annihilation, but it's hard to see that BOTH are annihilation. And if either is NOT annihilation, then your definition is inadequate for both uses in scripture.

Derf said:

Hey, welcome back from forum death, Timotheos!

I wasn't saying your definition was "bizarre", I just referred to it as "yours", to make sure it was differentiated from others. If you prefer to think of yours as "bizarre" that's up to you, I suppose.

There appears to be something that is different between death #1 and death #2. If you only have 1 definition for "death", then you appear to be missing something important in scripture. That's what this thread is really all about--trying to understand what the scripture means by death definition #1, which is either total annihilation or some kind of conscious existence and death definition #2, which is either total annihilation or some kind of conscious existence. If they were the same, there's really no time/place for anything similar to the suffering related in the Rich Man/Lazarus story, the weeping and gnashing of teeth in other places, and the outer darkness in others (it's hard to tell that it's dark if you're annihilated).

I'm not completely opposed to the idea that one of the death definitions is annihilation, but it's hard to see that BOTH are annihilation. And if either is NOT annihilation, then your definition is inadequate for both uses in scripture.

Click to expand...

Dead means "Not Alive". Do you understand and agree with this?

Dead people can be resurrected by God. Do you understand and agree with this?

If a dead person is not resurrected they remain dead. Do you understand and agree with this?

If a dead person is resurrected, they are no longer dead and they are alive. Do you understand and agree with this?

If a dead person who has been resurrected to life dies a second time they are dead once more. Do you understand and agree with this? If this person is dead, then they are not alive. Do you understand and agree with this?

I went into great detail, because you seem to be trying very hard to not understand the difference between life and death, but it is really very simple. Dead people are not alive, only living people are alive. The Bible says that God is not the God of the dead but of the living. God resurrects the dead so that they are no longer dead. If He doesn't resurrect them, they stay dead.

Timotheos said:

Dead means "Not Alive". Do you understand and agree with this?

Dead people can be resurrected by God. Do you understand and agree with this?

If a dead person is not resurrected they remain dead. Do you understand and agree with this?

If a dead person is resurrected, they are no longer dead and they are alive. Do you understand and agree with this?

If a dead person who has been resurrected to life dies a second time they are dead once more. Do you understand and agree with this? If this person is dead, then they are not alive. Do you understand and agree with this?

I went into great detail, because you seem to be trying very hard to not understand the difference between life and death, but it is really very simple. Dead people are not alive, only living people are alive. The Bible says that God is not the God of the dead but of the living. God resurrects the dead so that they are no longer dead. If He doesn't resurrect them, they stay dead.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the lesson, but I question the voracity. You say the the living are not dead. That makes sense. So if God is not the god of the dead, when Jesus answered the Sadducees so artfully, were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob already resurrected by then or not? If yes, then have we already missed the first Resurrection spoken of in Revelation? Or is there A different resurrection? Jesus seemed to think that although they were technically dead, they were really alive. So perhaps dead sometimes means alive???

Derf said:

I appreciate the lesson, but I question the voracity. You say the the living are not dead. That makes sense. So if God is not the god of the dead, when Jesus answered the Sadducees so artfully, were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob already resurrected by then or not? If yes, then have we already missed the first Resurrection spoken of in Revelation? Or is there A different resurrection? Jesus seemed to think that although they were technically dead, they were really alive. So perhaps dead sometimes means alive???

Click to expand...

Dead does not mean alive. Do you seriously think that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will miss out on the resurrection? They are not currently alive, but they will be resurrected and will have eternal life, it is a certainty. That was the point of Jesus' answer to the Saducees who deny that the dead will be resurrected. If the dead are actually not dead but alive instead of dead, then Jesus' answer to the Saducees would not have sufficed. No resurrection would be necessary if the dead are sometimes alive, and the Saducees would have beaten Jesus in that debate. (IF you are correct)

Timotheos said:

Dead does not mean alive. Do you seriously think that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will miss out on the resurrection? They are not currently alive, but they will be resurrected and will have eternal life, it is a certainty. That was the point of Jesus' answer to the Saducees who deny that the dead will be resurrected. If the dead are actually not dead but alive instead of dead, then Jesus' answer to the Saducees would not have sufficed. No resurrection would be necessary if the dead are sometimes alive, and the Saducees would have beaten Jesus in that debate. (IF you are correct)

Click to expand...

I'll accept that. Just like I think it's appropriate to say that non-believers are "dead" in their trespasses and sins, even though they are still alive--it's looking forward to their eventual state (I think, others likely disagree).

But what of the "asleep" believers? Are they really dead, or are they in some other state? Jesus said Lazarus was "asleep", but then He told His disciples he was dead. Why the distinction? Was Jesus merely looking forward to his resurrection? Could be.

Nevertheless, there appears to be some kind of extended suffering period for some, which is either during their first death period or during their second death period (the eternal one). How does that work?

dodge said:

Mar 9:44
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Click to expand...

That's a picture of decomposition.

Krsto said:

That's a picture of decomposition.

Click to expand...

NOPE, if you re-read it it says their worm DIES NOT= they live forever in torment.

Mar 9:44
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

dodge said:

NOPE, if you re-read it it says their worm DIES NOT= they live forever in torment.

Mar 9:44
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Click to expand...

Yep.

their / they = the ones that received the mark of the beast.


It can be substantiated by other verses throughout scripture that their torment will continue.


There was a place prepared for blessing and rest of the righteous.There was also a place prepared for the torment and unrest of unfaithful spirit beings (angel, devil, demon).
Unfaithful humans will join them.Demons/devils were not anxious to go to that place.But they, along with unfaithful humans will share the same fate in time.


The beast and false prophet are sent to that place.
This happen before the 1000 years Satan is bound.And after the 1000 years, Satan is sent to that place.(And as Steko has already pointed out in a previous post, the beast and false prophet are still there --- ie. have not been annihilated.)



And we have this:This is the word Gehenna.

It is actually two words combined (valley/gorge & Hinnom) --- Valley of Hinnom.

The valley of Hinnom was the Hebrew name of a valley near Jerusalem in the OT where a wicked king practiced child sacrifice and erected idols of pagan gods (2 CH 28:3).
For this reason, it was considered an unclean place of the accursed.

For such a place, it was used as a dump to discard trash.

Jesus uses this same word several times to provide a stunning visual of the place of "trash" (ie. unfaithful) being continually burned.
A fitting visual description that they people could associate with, for Gehenna was known as a place that continually burned because it was never without trash there.

• Matthew 5 KJV
  (22) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

• Matthew 5 KJV
  (29) And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
  (30) And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

• Matthew 18 KJV
  (8) Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
  (9) And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

• Matthew 23 KJV
  (15) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

• Matthew 23 KJV
  (33) Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

• Mark 9 KJV
  (43) And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
  (44) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
  (45) And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
  (46) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
  (47) And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
  (48) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Which also takes us to the story of Lazarus and the rich man.
There will never come a time in this place when the wicked are not being tormented by the flame, the flame that will not be quenched.
Nowhere in scripture is it ever said that this flame will be quenched and that there will come a time when there will no longer be anything existing there to burn.
The flame that torments will exist forever.

dodge said:

NOPE, if you re-read it it says their worm DIES NOT= they live forever in torment.

Mar 9:44
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Click to expand...

There is no mention of eternal torment in the passage. Worms consume flesh, dirt, soil...and fires that consume are not quenched until what is burning is destroyed (disintegrated). Such is a picture of decomposition, disintegration, destruction. The terms are figurative.

More on ECT here.

freelight said:

There is no mention of eternal torment in the passage. Worms consume flesh, dirt, soil...and fires that consume are not quenched until what is burning is destroyed (disintegrated). Such is a picture of decomposition, disintegration, destruction. The terms are figurative.

More on ECT here.

Click to expand...

Nowhere does it say the fire will be quenched, but says the fire is NOT quenched.

Tambora said:

Nowhere does it say the fire will be quenched, but says the fire is NOT quenched.

Click to expand...

Sure, as long as there is a supply of fuel (dead bodies) for the fire the fire is not quenched. Duh.

dodge said:

NOPE, if you re-read it it says their worm DIES NOT= they live forever in torment.

Mar 9:44
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Click to expand...

Sorry for your man-made, pagan religion. Worm dies not and fire not quenched does not equal living forever in torment, no matter how you want to slice it or dice it.