Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Rosenritter]

I understand it's hard to keep up with the volume. Rough from this angle too.

To clarify, I believe God would be perfectly justified in wiping out all life that he has created. It doesn't matter if someone "could be" redeemed, or "possibly could be redeemed" or "if they only knew" ... he has the right over his creation, and life is his possession, not ours. When someone is finally destroyed it is as if they never were, the same as if they had never been raised at all.

That said, I don't think that's what God wants. He has said a few times that this isn't his character, that on his part he is willing that everyone repent, and come to a knowledge of the truth. Thus I have every reason to think that if it is possible, it will happen. I do believe that there is one thing that can keep us from the love of Christ, and that is what Paul didn't have to name: we ourselves can separate us from God. That's what this whole story of creation has been about since Genesis.

So, are you saying that the burning bodies of the transgressors have survived the renewing of the heavens and the earth, yet they burn up quickly when thrown into the lake of fire?? One way or another there seems to be some inconsistencies here.

I think we have a misunderstanding. God has already established a kingdom for the thousand years before this resurrection, but judgment is not something that's over before lunch. People are entering that judgment and it certainly looks like some enter into the gates of that kingdom in the process. It seems that the judgment continues during this entire time. As such it is possible to witness this.

I am not sure exactly how the "new heavens and the new earth" is made, whether it is of physical or spiritual aspect, or some sort of combination. But I know that the bodies don't exist to be burnt until the judgment, and that they will eventually be burnt up to ash. Whether new heavens and new earth is accomplished with the speed of a finger snap or with more change in the process, I can't say, but I don't see contradiction required here.

By the way, "weeping" is one thing, "gnashing of teeth" is is expression of anger, not a figure of pain. When Stephen preached, his audience "gnashed him with their teeth" and we have another passage that specifically relates "gnashing of teeth" to judgment.... and those melt away.

Psalms 112:10 KJV
(10) The wicked shall see it, and be grieved; he shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away: the desire of the wicked shall perish.

I'm not keeping up very well with the rapid pace of this thread, but I appreciate your attention.

This is certainly a good question. I think my answer is that if a person won't repent in the first life, why would God expect repentance in the second. There could be exceptions, like those that never heard the gospel, I suppose. The richman/Lazarus story certainly speaks of the things done while living, even if we grant that the apparent location is fictional. Otherwise we would be saying that there's very little wisdom to gain from the story at all. The judgments in Matt 25 all seem to be final, and based only on the past actions rather than current remorse. I don't like the idea of putting God in a box of not allowing for repentance at any time, but there does seem to be a time in this life that God "gives up" on those that persist in wrongdoing.

[Rom 1:32 KJV] 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Maybe that doesn't include all those resurrected in the 2nd resurrection. I'm open to it, since maybe they DIDN'T know the judgment of God. More like "forever dying people tormented in hell", maybe? It is called the "second death", after all.

So, are you saying that the burning bodies of the transgressors have survived the renewing of the heavens and the earth, yet they burn up quickly when thrown into the lake of fire?? One way or another there seems to be some inconsistencies here.

I'm not unappreciative of the Is 66 passage. The language seems to indicate a great victory over an enemy, one that ends with the bodies being burned in heaps. And there's something about it that seems to remain, perhaps to give pause to those that might consider rebelling against God??

But Jesus doesn't seem to shy away from people that are wailing--"weeping and gnashing of teeth" is the phrase I'm familiar with. I don't claim that all of them are about the final judgment. In fact, I could see that these are folks that are left out of the kingdom here on earth, and maybe the outer darkness is what everybody that isn't in the kingdom is experiencing. Maybe there's a gulf that separates those in the kingdom from those outside the kingdom, and those outside can't get in. Is this a permanent condition? Seems like it. But then we are back to a state that is very reminiscent of the richman/Lazarus story. Or maybe they live crummy lives outside the kingdom, with no repentance possible, but that seems to fly in the face of the passage you quoted at the beginning of your post.

I think it makes more sense if the time when there's no repentance possible is after the first death, or maybe in the second death?

 

[Rosenritter]

"The memory of them is forgotten" very well could be other's memory of them upon the earth, but "the dead know nothing" compared to at least that "the living know that they are alive" is quite another. "I think, therefore I am" is the context. The dead don't think, they don't know that they are... because, quite frankly, they aren't.

Seriously, yellow face emoticons aren't persuading me that I've made some sort of grievous error.

:doh:

Do you NOT see that you are reading 'into' the texts? Are you NOT honest enough to know when your OWN arguments are also not cut/dry??? So, you want me to capitulate in honesty, but you don't want to do so? How badly MUST YOU WIN this argument and why? Do you 'think' you have some stake in it whereby you must??

Solomon said 'the memory of them is forgotten.' For sure, he was talking about their physical presence. I may acquiesce it can as easily be talking about their non-existent lives, given your understanding of scriptures. Sadly, you never return the mile of walking in the other guy's shoes. You simply demand we 'go further' after the mile is up. Walking back a block or two isn't helpful. It would always be a one-sided conversation with you. Do you WANT to know why 600 million+ the past two centuries have believed ECT???

Because the Catholic church would burn them as a heretic if they didn't agree? That tends to motivate a lot of people, I've heard.

By the way, the "nullify whole books of the bible" is done like this:
1) Ecclesiastes isn't inspired
2) That was written for the JEWS
3) "Hebrews" is for the HEBREWS
4) They didn't understand spiritual things before the New Testament
5) and so on and so forth....

 

[Rosenritter]

You are exactly like God's UNtruth.

I have never said I support sacrificing babies to devils, and call it a blessing. What kind of a fruit cake are you? Devils, and seances, and sacrificing babies.....are you an Adventist Witch in disguise, or only a regular old flea-bitten wolf in sheep's clothing?

Would you care to state again, for the record, what you think of abortion? Do you believe mass abortions to be a blessing? What about if they would be born to parents of infidels? And didn't you yourself say that if they live past a certain age they may be in danger of eternal torment, but if they were killed young they are guaranteed to be in heaven?

If you've changed your mind (or were misunderstood) and truly believe abortion to be a terrible evil that should never be supported or condoned, then please come out and speak clearly. If all you want is abusive trolling, to back to the Trinity board.

 

[glorydaz]

Except that we have two different translations, with two different meanings. Something changed.

Get a new translation.

Where does it say that unjust thrown into the lake of fire are not consumed? I know the devil isn't immediately consumed, but Ezekiel says he eventually will. Last I checked, men weren't more fireproof than Satan.

Where does it say they are? Last I checked, you haven't yet met the devil to know whether he's fireproof or not.

If a fire does not consume, neither does it harm. Do you have a passage saying the burning bush suffered harm? Here's what the scripture tells us about fire when it does not consume.

Daniel 3:25-27 KJV

I know what Daniel says.

You sound more like a natural man with every passing day.
You say a fire cannot harm if it doesn't consume?

And men can't walk on water or raise the dead, right?

Do you know what the word "consume" means?

Do you know what the word pompous means?

When a fire "consumes" something it burns it up. When something or someone is "burnt up" what they were is destroyed, it no longer remains what it was, they are gone. No more. That's the language scripture uses. The nature of a fire is that it consumes fuel. When something is consumed, it is used up. If it wasn't used up, it wouldn't be consumed, would it?

It is a very strange thing when a word like "consume" is turned inside out to where it must mean "preserved."

P.S. By the way, I've never commented about refiner's fire, let alone "scoffed" at refiner's fire.

So, you're claiming when the scripture says God is a consuming fire that means he destroys people?

You're correct, you never commented about refiner's fire.....proving you have no clue about what I've been saying. It isn't the word "consume" that is "turned inside out", it's your insistance that God is incapable of having a fire that does not consume....like the burning bush. If he wants it to burn the unjust without their dying, He can do just that. So, you're simply arguing as a man of the flesh without any spiritual insight at all.

 

[glorydaz]

Would you care to state again, for the record, what you think of abortion? Do you believe mass abortions to be a blessing? What about if they would be born to parents of infidels? And didn't you yourself say that if they live past a certain age they may be in danger of eternal torment, but if they were killed young they are guaranteed to be in heaven?

If you've changed your mind (or were misunderstood) and truly believe abortion to be a terrible evil that should never be supported or condoned, then please come out and speak clearly. If all you want is abusive trolling, to back to the Trinity board.

Zoom...right over your head. I'm not surprised. Paul, himself, would have preferred death so he could be with the Lord, and, no doubt, would have considered it a blessing could he have avoided all the suffering and pain he went through. Of course, for people without that faith, it might be a dilemma. It is not one for me, no matter haw hard you work to make it one.

Mass abortions are a terrible evil that should never be supported or condoned, and I do consider them to be a blessing from God in these end days. It makes no difference whether they are born to "infidels" or not. Yes, I did say infants and children are total innocents until the age they are accountable for their decisions, and No, I would never suggest they should be killed in order to guarantee them a spot in heaven. It takes a real idiot to suggest such a thing.

I guess you haven't read of the "innocent blood" shed during the OT times. Well, God is not without mercy .....to destroy the innocent who had not chosen evil over good. Most all believers know this, because they know their God.
Romans 5:13KJV John 9:41KJV Isaiah 7:16KJV

 

[Rosenritter]

Get a new translation.

Where does it say they are? Last I checked, you haven't yet met the devil to know whether he's fireproof or not.

We do have a nice long prophesy in Ezekiel telling us that the devil isn't fireproof in the day of judgment. I don't have to meet the devil, I can trust God's prophecy and believe that he knew what he was saying.

You sound more like a natural man with every passing day.
You say a fire cannot harm if it doesn't consume?

Technically a fire could hurt you through heat if you were close, but the fire itself consumes fuel, and if you got too close to it it would consume you as well. Thus, as we are saying, it is a consuming fire. That's what fires do. If God wanted imagery of a fire that does not consume its fuel, why would he only choose to illustrate fire against things that are known to be combustible, like the fat of lambs, briars, tares, and chaff?

For example, if you really meant to say that you were put things in fire and those things would not burn up, shouldn't you pick a more appropriate substance like Rocks, Diamonds, or even a mythical Salamander? Is God really that inept at language that he doesn't know which things burn up and which don't?

Do you know what the word pompous means?

I think the label is applied to those who attempt to rationally dialogue with someone that is raging and being extremely rude and impolite and insulting.

So, you're claiming when the scripture says God is a consuming fire that means he destroys people?

Nice try Daz, but I cannot remember saying that. Jealousy is compared to consuming fire. The passage does, however, provide evidence that fire does consume. Else, how could there be a consuming fire to even use in analogy?

You're correct, you never commented about refiner's fire.....proving you have no clue about what I've been saying. It isn't the word "consume" that is "turned inside out", it's your insistance that God is incapable of having a fire that does not consume....like the burning bush. If he wants it to burn the unjust without their dying, He can do just that. So, you're simply arguing as a man of the flesh without any spiritual insight at all.

The scripture doesn't say that God will punish the wicked by dangling them over a burning bush, or by giving them a sparkling halo of fire that neither harms nor consumes. But what God actually SAYS is that he will "burn up" the wicked, leaving them neither root nor branch, reducing them to ashes. There's a big difference between what you suppose God "could do" and what he has said he will do. That's why God gave us the scripture, so we could look it up instead of supposing or arguing.

 

[Rosenritter]

Zoom...right over your head. I'm not surprised. Paul, himself, would have preferred death so he could be with the Lord, and, no doubt, would have considered it a blessing could he have avoided all the suffering and pain he went through. Of course, for people without that faith, it might be a dilemma. It is not one for me, no matter haw hard you work to make it one.

Mass abortions are a terrible evil that should never be supported or condoned, and I do consider them to be a blessing from God in these end days. It makes no difference whether they are born to "infidels" or not. Yes, I did say infants and children are total innocents until the age they are accountable for their decisions, and No, I would never suggest they should be killed in order to guarantee them a spot in heaven. It takes a real idiot to suggest such a thing.

I guess you haven't read of the "innocent blood" shed during the OT times. Well, God is not without mercy .....to destroy the innocent who had not chosen evil over good. Most all believers know this, because they know their God.
Romans 5:13KJV John 9:41KJV Isaiah 7:16KJV

Speak clearly please, a little more now. You said you "would never suggest that they should be killed in order to guarantee..." but you stopped short of being transparent. So please be precise.

As per your doctrine, where an early death is another way to heaven other than Jesus Christ, does killing a child in infancy guarantee them a spot in heaven, whether you would actually advocate it or not?

 

[Lon]

1) Ecclesiastes isn't inspired
2) That was written for the JEWS
3) "Hebrews" is for the HEBREWS
4) They didn't understand spiritual things before the New Testament
5) and so on and so forth....

Thank you for recalling these. This board is Open View Theism and Mid Acts Dispensationalism.
I too have heard OV say Ecclesiastes isn't inspired. I disagree with them.
I have also heard MAD say that books are written to Jews. They are correct in their assessment.
I am Covenant which is a way of looking at all the Bible, for cohesion and instruction, yet I agree with MAD that
direct application of the OT isn't a consistent bible study or observance. I do not and will never sacrifice in a Jewish temple.
I will not stone anybody to death. Etc. Etc. We must study and know what we apply and what we do not. I start with the two great commands to Love God and love others and start hanging all upon them. It is different than your chronological reading. I uses lenses that I believe God has given.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The posturing seems to be pretty strong now. From cover to cover, this is now one behemoth of a thread. [MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] ... I don't want to discount your questions from earlier... so I'm thinking about starting a new thread on the details we are looking in to... including your excellent provision of the Greek difference between the 3 words that clearly effect matters.

I'll quote the two places that I'm thinking about starting a new thread on.

- EE

We'll call this "Derf's Salvo ONE"

It holds our back and forth and questions that remain...

Spoiler

As am I. I don't think Revelation is consistently chronological,
but certain events have to be to make sense. For instance, if Satan is let loose from the abyss at the end of the 1000 years, and he is put in the abyss at the beginning of the 1000 years, it makes no sense to switch the order of those things. If Satan is cast into the lake of fire "where the beast and false prophet", it doesn't make sense to say that the beast and false prophet HAVE NOT YET been cast into the lake of fire.

I understand what you are saying and I can't deny that it must be considered. It is refreshing to receive the perspective of an individual that is willing to search and acknowledge that they don't have all the answers, and study with perpetual willingness to learn! You make excellent points.

That's why I gave referential timing as best I could find. My reference to Armageddon was weaker, being in Rev 16, but the others are all in the same chapter (Rev 20). Surely you can't negotiate a different sequence in that one chapter, especially as it gives relative time-hacks. And Ch 20 follows necessarily from Ch 19, which follows necessarily from Ch 16.

Sounds good to me.

Let's work backward from Rev 20:
20:10 Satan cast into lake of fire, where beast and false prophet are (or were cast)
20:7 1000 years end and Satan is loosed
20:3 1000 years begins as Satan is bound
19:20 The beast and false prophet are defeated and cast into the lake of fire ("Supper of God occurs")
19:19 The beast and the kings of the earth are already gathered with their armies
19:17-18 The fowls of the air are invited to feast on flesh ("Supper of God")
19:11-16 Jesus readies Himself and His army
19:7-9 Jesus marries His Bride and "blessed" are those invited to the "marriage Supper of the Lamb"
[indent=.2]19:2 Rejoicing over the judgment of "Babylon"
18 Lamentation over "Babylon"
17 Judgment of the great whore: "Babylon"
16:19 God remembers "Babylon" and begins the judgment[/indent]
16:16 Beast/False Prophet/Dragon gather armies to the place called "Armageddon"

Each of the events is necessarily preceded by other events, such that you can't re-order them. The interesting difference seems to be the judgment of the great whore/Babylon. But looking through it as chronologous, it appears that the kings gathered first to attack Babylon, and then they were already gathered to make war against Christ.

I agree with your observation but note a perplexing matter... if Jesus equates the "Lake of Fire" with "Destruction of the Soul" (Mt. 10:28)... and then the Beast and False prophet are cast in... something seems to be off.

Also... about the locusts... the person unlocking the pit of death has to have the "keys" of death (metaphorically speaking...) ... and on that note... would the INDIVIDUAL who truly has them to give... give them back to Satan? (Rev. 1:18) ...

Also... Joel 1 and 2 perfectly correlates with Revelation 9 ... Did you see these verses in Joel 2?

The earth quakes before them,
The heavens tremble;
The sun and moon grow dark,
And the stars diminish their brightness.
11 The Lord gives voice before His army,
For His camp is very great;
For strong is the One who executes His word.
For the day of the Lord is great and very terrible;
Who can endure it?​

Also... note that Romans 11:25-36 specifically insinuates that there will be dead Jews that are under God's promise. The pit isn't full of just evil people. Consider the story where Tamar presents Judah with his items and thus is "spared" from the fire. I'm saying that not everyone in the pit is evil and I'm further saying that Jesus is the one that has the Keys to death and thus... why would He give that power back to Satan, when Heb. 2:14 shows that He took it away and Revelation verifies this?

Revelation 9:7 The shape of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle. On their heads were crowns of something like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men. 8 They had hair like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. 9 And they had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the sound of chariots with many horses running into battle. 10 They had tails like scorpions, and there were stings in their tails. Their power was to hurt men five months. 11 And they had as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon.

12 One woe is past. Behold, still two more woes are coming after these things.​

Note that God is in charge of the events and in this even the locusts are spoken of as people and these people have crowns on their heads. Something is off. This is like the plagues of Egypt and trying to get Pharaoh to let the Israelite's go.

Perhaps the king of the crowd is (Jude 1:9) ... but he is the false king and the people he thought he had in the pit aren't all his? Betrayal of Satan's power... Lets say that Abadon is Satan... to make this discussion flow more easily...

Note that the army can't harm God's people? On this note... Thesalonians is clear that God's people are removed from this equation... so we can only surmise that God's people are the Jews that are resurrected and the Jews that remain. "Rev. 9:4 ...but only those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads." Does this not correlate with the passage of the sealing that correlates to the Jews? To number them (12 X 12) and identify that number as THEE number is rather speculative.

This seems like Egypt all over again... are you following me. I admit that the angel of the pit is possibly likely satan... but are those people all "his"?

Could God be planning this?...

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved,[g] as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”[h]
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35 “Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”[j]
36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.​

Could the King be finalizing matters and drawing his BRIDE (Israel) from all time, away from the clutches of evil?

There are folks that think the 7s are referring to the same events in revelation, but it's certain that not all of them do. Even so, I don't think the pit/abyss references can in any way be applied to Christ and His bride.

We are both in flux...and seemingly so out of sincerity that we won't know until we see it all unfold. This makes discussing this with you a joy! Gratitude for the back and forth. I haven't made my mind up about the 7's completely. I leave room for study in this matter that does not go away.

I spoiler'd the next section of your quote to cut down post size:

Spoiler

Let's pause here for a bit. You seem to be going mystical on me and assigning meanings that the scriptures don't immediately seem to support. Not all roots and branches are God. In this passage it seems to be talking about an annihilation, but not necessarily of a soul. "Root" and "branch" are often signifiers of ancestors and descendants, or a person and his offspring. I would suggest that's the case here--that God will destroy them physically and leave them no legacy/progeny. I don't think it really deals with the destruction of the soul.There are a few things I could say here. One is that death is considered a form of life--We were dead in our tresspasses and sins (Eph 2:1, Col 2:13, Rom 5:6). Is it possible that life could be considered a form of death?

I meant Judas and Haman from Esther... I admit the days matter is speculation, but you don't see Satan and his fate typified in scripture? Could you check those passages one more time? I do see Satan typified in them. Jesus has a literal "Adversary" and He says this... (John 5:39) ... you don't think He buried information about the very one that is running a perpetual smear campaign in them?

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection. [Rev 20:5 KJV] (If there's a first, there needs to be a second to make the text make sense.)

This is interesting... Because this first Resurrection is being discussed, but we know He led captives captive. Is this first Resurrection... is the Body of Christ receiving bodies? Are we not with Him after death? Do we not come back with Him as Thessalonians states? Did not a Resurrection occur upon Christ's death? The division of the first as the first, when Christ is a picture of the "first fruits" (Israel) is very imperative. Where does the Body of Christ fit in with this matter?

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. [Rev 20:12 KJV] (Can the dead stand? These people were resurrected, seemingly bodily, as part of the second resurrection. Why, if the soul and body will just be destroyed a little later?)
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [Rev 20:14 KJV] (Can a dead person die? If it is appointed unto man once to die (Heb 9:27), and the wages of sin is death, why do these die again? haven't they already fulfilled God's punishment for them in the first death? Does God take pleasure in the death of the wicked? Why then would He take pleasure in a second death? Why resurrect someone just to kill them better?)Satan, the Adversary, was an enemy of God. He was also a creation of God. If God loves His enemies, as you stated, what could Satan do to deserve so terrible a fate. If you allow for his eternal torment, there's a crack in your dam. If you then allow the beast eternal punishment, the water is flowing rather quickly. If now you add the false prophet, why not Hitler and Stalin? Chairman Mao? Leopold II of Belgium? Pol Pot? Should I keep going? Aren't there many enemies of God? James 4:4. Does God love His enemies? Please help me with some scripture.

An interesting point here... this is where the issues really come up for me. How is Death and Death's kingdom thrown in the lake of fire, when we know that DEATH is a reference to Satan per Heb. 2:14 and 1 Co. 15:53f; 54f; 56 ?

There is much here to be thought about. I only leave room for understanding to show that I do not have a concrete understanding of this matter that I would assert as the facts.

Maybe you can also help me with the "stoning of the soul" reference. It isn't familiar to me.I did the search. Here are the exact matches in the KJV (there may be other, not-so-exact matches). Every one of them seem to be referring to a day of judgment. Only some talk of good things in addition to the judgment, but certainly not all.
And not all seem to refer to the same event--maybe that's what you mean by dual prophecy--but it might be a case of too broad an application. Maybe "the Day of the Lord" can refer to severe judgment on a nation or nations, but not always the same day of the Lord. Look especially at the Ezekiel references that seem to talk of Egyptians dying in Egypt, not up in Israel.

Spoiler

[Isa 2:12 KJV] 12 For the day of the LORD of hosts [shall be] upon every [one that is] proud and lofty, and upon every [one that is] lifted up; and he shall be brought low:
[Isa 13:6, 9 KJV] 6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD [is] at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty. ... 9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
[Jer 46:10 KJV] 10 For this [is] the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood: for the Lord GOD of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates.
[Eze 13:5 KJV] 5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD.
[Eze 30:3 KJV] 3 For the day [is] near, even the day of the LORD [is] near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.
[Joe 1:15 KJV] 15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD [is] at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.
[Joe 2:1, 11, 31 KJV] 1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for [it is] nigh at hand; ... 11 And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp [is] very great: for [he is] strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD [is] great and very terrible; and who can abide it? ... 31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
[Joe 3:14 KJV] 14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD [is] near in the valley of decision.
[Amos 5:18, 20 KJV] 18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end [is] it for you? the day of the LORD [is] darkness, and not light. ... 20 [Shall] not the day of the LORD [be] darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?
[Obad 1:15 KJV] 15 For the day of the LORD [is] near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.
[Zep 1:7, 14 KJV] 7 Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD: for the day of the LORD [is] at hand: for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests. ... 14 The great day of the LORD [is] near, [it is] near, and hasteth greatly, [even] the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.
[Zec 14:1 KJV] 1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
[Mal 4:5 KJV] 5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
[Act 2:20 KJV] 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
[1Co 5:5 KJV] 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
[2Co 1:14 KJV] 14 As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also [are] ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.
[1Th 5:2 KJV] 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
[2Pe 3:10 KJV] 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

I haven't considered this topic before just recently (previously in this thread). If the ETC view is wrong, I would much rather let it go. But the implications if it is right are rather staggering, don't you think?
Did you provide links to some cheat sheets? I missed them if you did.

It's a pleasure to discuss this stuff with you, EE. I don't want to downplay your points. Perhaps I haven't really appreciated the logic leading up to your conclusions, but it seemed like there was a lot of stuff in your post that didn't really have much to do with the specific topic. Interesting stuff, but not germaine.

My sentiment is mutual. This is indeed a joy!
[MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION]... I'm adding this in... I will reply by Wednesday of next week... I don't want to rush answering the excellent questions you have drawn attention to! I'm happy to say that you've got me back in the Good Book on this matter with deep thought!

Boiling it all down, I think you are saying the same thing others have said here:

1. Death/destruction is final, so no "life" after destruction in the fire.
2. Eternal existence in fire is still "life", and unbelievers/sinners are promised "death"
3. God is good, so torment can't last forever.

I would like to believe these arguments against eternal hell-fire--I don't really like the idea of an eternal existence in a lake of fire for anybody. But it seems like the "death is final" argument doesn't work because of the 2nd resurrection. I think the 2nd argument is the strongest. The best I have to offer right now is that "life" may be ambiguous in meaning, since "death" is ambiguous. And God's goodness is defined by what He decides to do--we can't apply our sense of morality to Him; rather we apply His sense of morality to us--that's really the message of the whole bible, imo.

My latest theory about why it works out that people spend eternity in torment is this: Christ died for the ungodly, which includes everybody. If His sacrifice really applies to everyone, there is a case to be made that everybody will experience the benefit from His death. So if everyone is resurrected, but some still won't acknowledge God/Jesus as Lord (which seems necessary to be in His presence forever), and they've already been resurrected from the dead (and death has no more power over them), then what is to be done with them? If God can no longer kill them, the only thing left is banishment. And banishment from the source of all good can't mean anything except bad.

To be continued... I'll reply in the near future to the rest.

And... this is "Derf's Salvo 2" ... because it is very detailed and I believe it may require an entirely new thread...

Spoiler

[MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION], [MENTION=18375]Evil.Eye.<(I)>[/MENTION]
I was trying to figure out these verses:
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. [Rev 20:13 KJV]
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [Rev 20:14 KJV]

What is the purpose of the differentiation of the different "things" that are giving up their dead? The three are (with the english spelling of the greek words following):

the sea--->thalassa
death--->thanatos
hell--->hades

Having all three together makes for an interesting conundrum, in that hell/hades CAN'T mean a repository of souls, unless there are THREE repositories that are still unemptied until Rev 20:13 (Abraham's Bosom and Paradise don't seem to be included). In addition, only TWO of the three (death/thanatos and hell/hades) are thrown into the lake of fire. Why not "thalassa"? And what does it mean that death and hell are thrown into the lake of fire?

My thought on the three "things" are that they are representative of where the bodies of people ended up--thus they are "repositories of bodies".
"the sea" I can understand--bodies of those drowned, or that died and were buried at sea.
"hell" I can understand, possibly, as those that were buried
"death" is somewhat ambiguous, but I can imagine that it means those that were not buried, maybe burned

Another option:
"the sea" --same as above
"hell" --bodies that were burned
"death" --bodies that were buried

Repositories of bodies don't make much sense to us, since bodies, especially those that are burned or thrown into the sea, are likely scattered and moved around (like ashes that are washed into the sea, or bodies that are eaten by crabs and then caught and eaten by humans---ew!!!).

Let's go back to the repository of souls idea. What if all three were repositories? Then it seems to mean that the sea is a place where souls are kept, sans bodies, "Death" is another repository, and Hell/Hades a third, based on how/where they died. I say "how/where" because it doesn't seem to matter whether their occupants were good/evil or saved/not saved if there are 3 repositories. Remember that two of them were then thrown into the lake of fire, which could mean they are no longer possible means of death (though leaving out the sea seems to be a mistake if "means" is the deciding factor), or it could mean that those two were oppressive and were being punished in some way, which is a personification and doesn't really make sense. Or it could mean that while the sea is a feature of geography, it is also a place where people die and their souls remain in some way, but in the new heavens and new earth it will only have the former connotation, not the latter, while the other two are not needed at all.

This sounds odd, but let's go a step further with the personification idea. The words Thalassa, Hades, and Thanatos all seem to have 2 meanings, one of which in each case is the name of a god in Greek mythology! Thalassa was a primordial goddess of the sea, Hades the ruler of the underworld (brother of Zeus and Poseidon), and Thanatos was the god of death (one reference said "peaceful death") [whose twin brother, ironically, was Hypnos (god of sleep)].

What if, then, those personifications are real, and that Thanatos and Hades are actual beings thrown into the lake of fire for the oppression that they visited on the souls in their possession, but Thalassa was not oppressive to "her" souls? Maybe those two were fallen angels, or "the devil's angels", as in whom the lake of fire was prepared for (Matt 25:24), and Thalassa was not. And maybe all three still maintained their assignments from prior to the Devil's fall, though it has some consequences that aren't very clear in a pre-fall/no-death world. It wouldn't be without precedent that some of the Devil's angels were named--Abaddon/Apollyon was named in Rev 9:11.

Yes, this is an odd line of thought. No, I don't think it has a lot of merit. But the verses quoted at the beginning are certainly odd already. I don't believe I've read too many commentaries dealing with them in any detailed manner that explains why the three aren't treated the same.

I'm still thinking of how to isolate a basic topic to allow all of this discussion to carry on and recognize everything that we have discussed... thus far.

[MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION] , [MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] , [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] , [MENTION=3698]Tambora[/MENTION] , [MENTION=2801]way 2 go[/MENTION] , [MENTION=12870]steko[/MENTION] , [MENTION=13987]Angel4Truth[/MENTION] ... The discussion on this thread is now so thorough... this could... very well be the most extensive repository of it's kind... in existence!

Awesome Discussion!!!

 

[Tambora]

Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) biblical or not?

Biblical.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) biblical or not?

Which verses in the Bible support ECT and which verses in the bible support the doctrine that the wicked perish instead?

I would say that it is an uphill battle for Annihilation and Eternal Torment alike.

The Eternal Torment crew has to take the nature of Christ and prove that He values suffering for His enemies.

The Annihilation crew have Rev. 20:10 to contend with. All other verses actually lean in favor of a "post judgment" Annihilation... IMHO ... the Pre-Judgment "First Death" state of the unbelieving and the wicked are the gigantic mystery...

I know one thing.. I firmly believe we go straight to Jesus upon the first death. The wicked and unbelieving... seem to be stuck in some sort of super long "Disney ride Line"... waiting for some serious Apocalypse stuff to go down upon Christ's command...

 

[glorydaz]

We do have a nice long prophesy in Ezekiel telling us that the devil isn't fireproof in the day of judgment. I don't have to meet the devil, I can trust God's prophecy and believe that he knew what he was saying.

Sure, pick and choose. Don't believe Jesus when He tells us about the afterlife, and don't believe it was really Samuel speaking to Saul, but believe a verse that you assume is speaking of satan.

I think the label is applied to those who attempt to rationally dialogue with someone that is raging and being extremely rude and impolite and insulting.

Wrong, I saw it in you way before the rudeness began.

Nice try Daz, but I cannot remember saying that.

No problem, Rosey. That's a common excuse around here.

I choose to ignore the rest of the nonsense you posted. Try to tighten it up a bit, would you?

 

[glorydaz]

Speak clearly please, a little more now. You said you "would never suggest that they should be killed in order to guarantee..." but you stopped short of being transparent. So please be precise.

As per your doctrine, where an early death is another way to heaven other than Jesus Christ, does killing a child in infancy guarantee them a spot in heaven, whether you would actually advocate it or not?

I don't owe you an explanation of my "doctrine' on anything, but since you seem bent on finding something you can slander me with, I'll give it to you. It isn't like my beliefs are a secret on this site. I do not believe in the doctrine of original sin, and it is sin that separates us from God. Children and the unborn have not earned the "wages of sin", so they are still alive and written in the book of life (from conception).

All innocents are the Lord's, and nothing has separated them from His LOVE. Now, if you can get past your little snit, Rosie, go back to the topic at hand. You're getting to be a thread pest.

 

[Rosenritter]

I don't owe you an explanation of my "doctrine' on anything, but since you seem bent on finding something you can slander me with, I'll give it to you. It isn't like my beliefs are a secret on this site. I do not believe in the doctrine of original sin, and it is sin that separates us from God. Children and the unborn have not earned the "wages of sin", so they are still alive and written in the book of life (from conception).

All innocents are the Lord's, and nothing has separated them from His LOVE. Now, if you can get past your little snit, Rosie, go back to the topic at hand. You're getting to be a thread pest.

Since you won't answer the question, and you refuse to speak, I'll now conclude this topic.

Spoiler

Originally Posted by Rosenritter Speak clearly please, a little more now. You said you "would never suggest that they should be killed in order to guarantee..." but you stopped short of being transparent. So please be precise.

As per your doctrine, where an early death is another way to heaven other than Jesus Christ, does killing a child in infancy guarantee them a spot in heaven, whether you would actually advocate it or not?

One way of demonstrating that a belief or doctrine is flawed is to allow it full reign, grant all of its assumptions, and then examine where it goes if carried to its logical conclusion. Rather than resisting it at its every error, you help it to go where it naturally leads. I didn't realize I was hitting one of your pet doctrines that I was using for an example for the other.

And mind you that this method of evaluation is also biblical, for it is written,

Matthew 7:16-20 KJV
(16) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
(17) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
(18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
(19) Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
(20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

The flaw with "dead babies go to heaven" is that it is specifically against scripture in multiple points, one of which being that Jesus is the only route to salvation and eternal life. But rather than fight against it, I helped you go there. If this is really true, and if as you affirm that non-children have a chance of experiencing a merciless "eternal conscious torment" if only they were allowed to live, the logical application of "love thy neighbor" and "babies go to heaven" is that you should slay your neighbor, quickly, before they grow up.

Yes, Daz, you can cry and rage and whine, but that is the logical conclusion. You were asked multiple times to explain, and you have declined. It should be obvious to everyone here that "slay your neighbors children" is utterly wrong. Therefore, the premises that led there must be flawed. I doubt that "love thy neighbor" is incorrect, therefore it likely lies in "babies go to heaven, others go to eternal conscious torment."

A flawed doctrine will not bring forth good fruits.

Rather than discuss this reasonably, you've resorted to bitterness and biting insults. Again, as it is written, judge them by their fruits. If what you believe makes you this way, then that itself is a testimony of sorts. But why wouldn't you be like this, if you truly believe that God takes joy in tormenting his enemies without end, not for any purpose of redemption, but merely for the hell of it? If we are to become perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, and your idea of our Father in heaven resembles Baal and Moloch in deed and character, why should we be surprised when followers of that creed act in such a way?

Regardless, I'm tired of your abuse. The demonstration has done it's work, and since you haven't had anything that you wish to add and I have no more wish to endure further slander, I'm blocking you for a while. It's better for both of us.

 

[glorydaz]

Since you won't answer the question, and you refuse to speak, I'll now conclude this topic.

I did answer your question, and I did speak. I just didn't go into the gory details you were hoping I would. I won't entertain your evil imaginings.

You'll now "conclude the topic"? Are you the great director here? How dare anyone question your directions. :chuckle:

One way of demonstrating that a belief or doctrine is flawed is to allow it full reign, grant all of its assumptions, and then examine where it goes if carried to its logical conclusion. Rather than resisting it at its every error, you help it to go where it naturally leads. I didn't realize I was hitting one of your pet doctrines that I was using for an example for the other.

Who has the pet doctrine? That would be you with your denial of ECT. I have said I cannot say which is right. Why else are we even having the discussion? It's because opinions are split on this issue. What is not split is that there is such a thing as "soul sleep". That is a cult belief, and you have it. You don't believe in the Trinity, you do believe in soul sleep, and you believe in annihilation, and you dare to call me out about innocents being saved by the God of Mercy? Sorry if I am not impressed.

The flaw with "dead babies go to heaven" is that it is specifically against scripture in multiple points, one of which being that Jesus is the only route to salvation and eternal life.

Right, like scripture is specifically against ECT, even though the majority of believers say it's true. No, the doctrine of original sin...especially innocent babies being damned in their very innocence is rejected by the majority of Christians. Even those who believe in original sin take exception to children being damned. So, it's a joke for you to claim the moral high ground when you preach annihilation and deny the Trinity at the same time.

YES, the "demonstration has certainly done it's work". It's exposed you as a cult member tearing the Bible to shreds with every post you make. You work hard, just as Kingdom Rose does, with putting forth your false beliefs, while attacking any saint who speaks against you. My beliefs on the unborn have nothing to do with this thread, but you latched onto it as a way you could pay me back for calling you out. You would have murderers being quickly put out of their misery and innocents put down before they even draw a breath. I say YOU will you be in for a big surprise on Judgement Day.

 

[glorydaz]

Regardless, I'm tired of your abuse. The demonstration has done it's work, and since you haven't had anything that you wish to add and I have no more wish to endure further slander, I'm blocking you for a while. It's better for both of us.

You're tired of MY ABUSE? You have "no more wish to endure further slander,"?

Isn't that the way of all losers? I'm too mistreated, I must move on. :chuckle:




Yeah, go ahead and block me. It won't slow me down one bit. :surf:

 

[Derf]

My understanding, (not speaking for an orthodox position because I don't know specifically): People who died on the earth, in the sea and the rest of those who had already died in Hades. -Lon

So, the ones on the earth, or "death", were those that had died recently (in the battle with Satan)? And the ones in the sea were those that had died during...the naval part of the battle with Satan?? (double question mark because I don't know a reference for it). Since this is at the end of the 1000 years of Christ ruling with a rod of iron, it seems like "Hades" would have been allowed to fill up with everyone that died before the beginning of the millennium, or during the millennium (not many, perhaps?)

You see why the third category creates a conundrum? It's easy to divide the world into two types of people (hence the endless jokes), but into three types?

 

[Derf]

I understand it's hard to keep up with the volume. Rough from this angle too.

No doubt. You're responding on several fronts.

To clarify, I believe God would be perfectly justified in wiping out all life that he has created. It doesn't matter if someone "could be" redeemed, or "possibly could be redeemed" or "if they only knew" ... he has the right over his creation, and life is his possession, not ours. When someone is finally destroyed it is as if they never were, the same as if they had never been raised at all.

If He has the right over all His creation, why can't He dump all His creation into a lake of fire, if He so wanted to? You are saying He can't without a change in character (I think that's what you are saying).

That said, I don't think that's what God wants. He has said a few times that this isn't his character, that on his part he is willing that everyone repent, and come to a knowledge of the truth. Thus I have every reason to think that if it is possible, it will happen. I do believe that there is one thing that can keep us from the love of Christ, and that is what Paul didn't have to name: we ourselves can separate us from God. That's what this whole story of creation has been about since Genesis.

At some point, as noted before, God "gives up" on people that continue to reject Him. I assume He does so with intimate knowledge of where they are and where they are likely to head in their rejection. I suppose it's possible that our character is locked at some point, so that those who love Him can never rebel, and those that are rebellious can never repent. That line appears to be drawn at the first death, since the judgment in Rev 20:13 appears to be about their works while alive (before). I'll allow for a final plea to repent at this point, and that the "book of life" is still a work in progress. It probably helps the ECT case, at any rate, if there's a divine moral issue to be settled.

I think we have a misunderstanding. God has already established a kingdom for the thousand years before this resurrection, but judgment is not something that's over before lunch. People are entering that judgment and it certainly looks like some enter into the gates of that kingdom in the process. It seems that the judgment continues during this entire time. As such it is possible to witness this.

This is certainly an interesting thought. I worked through a timeline of sorts with @Evil.Eye.<(|)> (which he quoted recently), that seems to indicate that leading up to the dispatch of Satan into the lake of fire were other events that could not have taken place in a different order. Maybe that's not the case with the second resurrection, but I think it is. In fact, Rev 20:5 says that the second resurrection was not until the END of the 1000 years. Thus, though there may/will be judgments during the whole 1000 years, they don't seem to include "the dead" from vs 5.

Maybe I've misunderstood what you meant by "during this entire time". If you're saying that the judgments continue for some time after the 2nd resurrection, then certainly that makes sense. A fair judge would be unlikely to hurry things. And I suppose that since these people are raised in their old, corruptible bodies (should I be supposing such?), they would need food, right? A fair judge would allow them to eat, and possibly provide for them. I'm still thinking through this...

I am not sure exactly how the "new heavens and the new earth" is made, whether it is of physical or spiritual aspect, or some sort of combination. But I know that the bodies don't exist to be burnt until the judgment, and that they will eventually be burnt up to ash. Whether new heavens and new earth is accomplished with the speed of a finger snap or with more change in the process, I can't say, but I don't see contradiction required here.

Neither am I sure about this. But Peter seems to think all of earth and heaven will be melting and dissolving away, even to the elemental level (2 Pet 3:10-12), followed by the new heaven and earth. What saves us? Our new bodies that are not corruptible? Or are we hid away somewhere while it happens? Maybe the "fervent heat" is figurative, but the whole passage from Peter is hard to read in such a way. And in fact, it uses an annihilationist premise that fire actually completely destroys things.

So, if the new heavens and new earth come about after the old ones are completely burnt up, but there are carcasses still left over from the old, how did the carcasses survive the more intense heat that completely melts/dissolves the earth, just to be reduced to ashes in a fire that is less intense (just a lake of it?)?

By the way, "weeping" is one thing, "gnashing of teeth" is is expression of anger, not a figure of pain. When Stephen preached, his audience "gnashed him with their teeth" and we have another passage that specifically relates "gnashing of teeth" to judgment.... and those melt away.

Psalms 112:10 KJV
(10) The wicked shall see it, and be grieved; he shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away: the desire of the wicked shall perish.

How long does it take to "melt away"? Are the beast and false prophet "melting away" for 1000 years and beyond? I don't think these things are talking about the same event. My point in bringing up the weeping and gnashing of teeth is that God will bring about justice, despite the response of the wicked.


...I'm still curious about what form these resurrected folks will have. Let's say they are raised corruptible. Then I suppose the ones that repent at this judgment, as you suppose is possible, will have their bodies changed to be incorruptible in a different action than the resurrection, while the others retain their old bodies into destruction. But what if they are raised with incorruptible bodies--something from the new heavens and new earth, perhaps, if the old has been dissolved away already? Are they then judged and destroyed? Can they be destroyed in the same way as the old bodies? Maybe the stuff of fire doesn't do the same thing to the new stuff of the new earth. Maybe it has an effect, but not what we are used to. Satan, not being of material substance, is a lousy comparison. But the beast and false prophet present an interesting contrast, since they were thrown "alive" into the lake of fire, not having been resurrected.

If they both survived the fire long enough to last 1000 years in their old bodies, at which time Satan joined them for some ongoing torment, then I don't suppose there's a need to postulate a new thing with those others that are resurrected.

 

[Rosenritter]

I think the Titanic had some people who died in the sea. A few U-boats got sunk in WW2. There might be others. They get to get raised too.

So, the ones on the earth, or "death", were those that had died recently (in the battle with Satan)? And the ones in the sea were those that had died during...the naval part of the battle with Satan?? (double question mark because I don't know a reference for it). Since this is at the end of the 1000 years of Christ ruling with a rod of iron, it seems like "Hades" would have been allowed to fill up with everyone that died before the beginning of the millennium, or during the millennium (not many, perhaps?)

You see why the third category creates a conundrum? It's easy to divide the world into two types of people (hence the endless jokes), but into three types?

 

[Rosenritter]

If He has the right over all His creation, why can't He dump all His creation into a lake of fire, if He so wanted to? You are saying He can't without a change in character (I think that's what you are saying).

Yes. Job 34:14-15, God could withdraw life from everything all at once if he wanted to. That's not what he wants 2 Peter 3:9.

I'll allow for a final plea to repent at this point, and that the "book of life" is still a work in progress. It probably helps the ECT case, at any rate, if there's a divine moral issue to be settled.

It must be a work in progress, because the book of life can also have names "blotted out" of it as well. Exodus 32:32-33, Revelation 3:5. If names can be blotted out, surely they can be written in.

Thus, though there may/will be judgments during the whole 1000 years, they don't seem to include "the dead" from vs 5.

Agreed, The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years were finished. Revelation 20:5

Maybe I've misunderstood what you meant by "during this entire time". If you're saying that the judgments continue for some time after the 2nd resurrection, then certainly that makes sense. A fair judge would be unlikely to hurry things.

Yes, that's what I meant. I have no scripture describing the length of time other than "for ever and ever" which cross references other scripture that tells us that this "for ever and ever" eventually has an end. That "for ever and ever" is also defined as continuing "day and night" but day and night themselves will cease. See Reveation 21:23, Revelation 25:5. Day and night continue for as long as the earth endures, but the heavens and the earth are replaced with a new heavens and a new earth. Genesis 8;22, Revelation 21:1.

Neither am I sure about this. But Peter seems to think all of earth and heaven will be melting and dissolving away, even to the elemental level (2 Pet 3:10-12), followed by the new heaven and earth. What saves us? Our new bodies that are not corruptible? Or are we hid away somewhere while it happens? Maybe the "fervent heat" is figurative, but the whole passage from Peter is hard to read in such a way. And in fact, it uses an annihilationist premise that fire actually completely destroys things.

I am inclined to think that this would be describing the destruction of the old world when Jesus returns. Not merely figurative, as the beast and false prophet and their armies are thrown into fire and devoured. The bodies of the dead are burnt, and the bodies of the wicked are also burned in the judgment. Elements can still melt without it melting every scrap of matter. It doesn't have to mean that the whole planet is literally reduced to liquid plasma.

So, if the new heavens and new earth come about after the old ones are completely burnt up, but there are carcasses still left over from the old, how did the carcasses survive the more intense heat that completely melts/dissolves the earth, just to be reduced to ashes in a fire that is less intense (just a lake of it?)?

Revelation sometimes speaks forwards and backwards a bit, or of things that are happening concurrently. We have to allow for a little bit of back and forth when we are reading because it's not a strict chronological. Even Genesis 1-3 summarizes, then skips back for more detail.

How long does it take to "melt away"? Are the beast and false prophet "melting away" for 1000 years and beyond? I don't think these things are talking about the same event. My point in bringing up the weeping and gnashing of teeth is that God will bring about justice, despite the response of the wicked.

I'm inclined to think the beast and false prophet are symbols of nations or powers. We already have world powers which fit those descriptions we are given of them almost perfectly, and beasts elsewhere in scripture (and in Revelation) are used as symbols of national kingdom powers. As such, destroying the beast and the false prophet might include all of their anti-Christ patriots, the whole system.

...I'm still curious about what form these resurrected folks will have. Let's say they are raised corruptible. Then I suppose the ones that repent at this judgment, as you suppose is possible, will have their bodies changed to be incorruptible in a different action than the resurrection, while the others retain their old bodies into destruction.

That's what I would assume as well.

But what if they are raised with incorruptible bodies--something from the new heavens and new earth, perhaps, if the old has been dissolved away already? Are they then judged and destroyed? Can they be destroyed in the same way as the old bodies? Maybe the stuff of fire doesn't do the same thing to the new stuff of the new earth. Maybe it has an effect, but not what we are used to. Satan, not being of material substance, is a lousy comparison. But the beast and false prophet present an interesting contrast, since they were thrown "alive" into the lake of fire, not having been resurrected.

Being raised incorruptible is spoken of as the promised reward for for Christ's saints. I don't think that would happen for those who were not in Christ and were reserved to judgment. The earth would likely be here for the duration of judgment. Day and night shall not cease while the earth remains in existence, the devil is tormented day and night for ever and ever, the new heaven and the new earth and God's kingdom would remain even if the old earth were obliterated when the judgment was done.

If they both survived the fire long enough to last 1000 years in their old bodies, at which time Satan joined them for some ongoing torment, then I don't suppose there's a need to postulate a new thing with those others that are resurrected.

That's not something that I suppose. Who can abide in fire? The beast and false prophet (and all whom this includes) that perished in their stand against Jesus would die, their bodies destroyed like everyone else who has ever died, but be raised with the rest of the dead in the judgment. Hopefully they will be a little more humble this time. It might be quite a culture shock to see what the world is like after 1000 years of leadership and rule by Jesus and his saints.