Christian Goodreaders discussion

On a couple of our other threads, the question of how Christians understand the Bible's teaching about the final punishment of the unrepenting wicked has come up. I thought that topic deserves a thread of its own, where we can feel free to ask questions or discuss our own beliefs and how we arrive at them. We'll almost certainly never resolve the question to everyone's satisfaction, but a safe clearinghouse for sharing ideas is always a constructive thing!

Over the centuries, Christians have developed various views about this topic. The most common and "traditional" one is that the souls of the wicked, immediately after death, go directly to a place usually designated in English-language Bibles as "hell" (the word is Old English, but is usually used to translate the Biblical words "Sheol," "Gehenna," or "Tartarus"), where their bodies will join them after the resurrection, and there eternally suffer indescribably agonizing physical pain, usually thought of as being immersed in fire, with their flesh constantly supernaturally renewed as it burns, to ensure that the agony is unending. This is basically the conception depicted in Dante's classic medieval Italian poem The Inferno (though he also depicts some of the damned suffering other kinds of tortures).

A modern refinement or variant of this view sees the tortures as strictly mental or spiritual, not physical; the damned eternally suffer from their guilt and their estrangement from God, or from the misery inherent in their own meanness, selfishness and pettiness. C. S. Lewis in The Great Divorce (which we read as our group's common read in 2013) pictures a hell like this, from which the inmates are free to go to heaven if they want to --though Lewis also said that he didn't mean that book to be taken as a literal speculation as to what hell is actually like.

A different view is called "conditional immortality." Adherents of this view believe that unlike God, humans are NOT naturally immortal. When they die, their souls are unconscious, or "asleep." In this understanding, at the end of the present age of the created world, God will bodily resurrect all of the dead and awaken their souls. The saved will be raised with glorified bodies like Christ's, and given eternal life with God. The damned will be raised to be sentenced for their sin, and the sentence will literally be "death" --the eternal end of existence, with no second resurrection. (This view is often wrongly associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, but: a.) JW founder C. T..Russell didn't originate the idea, and b.) JWs actually deny that all of the wicked will be resurrected for the last judgment.) A very comprehensive argument for this view is found in Edward Fudge's book The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment. (My review is here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... .)

Finally, some Christians, called Universalists, (beginning with the ancient writers Origen and Gregory of Nyassa) have maintained that there is no such thing as final punishment, because there's no such thing as unrepenting wicked --every single human being, in this view, will eventually repent and be saved, if not before death, then after it. (Origen believed that Satan and his demons would also eventually repent.) Whatever postmortem suffering the unsaved may or may not undergo, in this view, it will be ultimately just purgative and educational. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox --and other Eastern-- churches have long taught the idea that the souls of some of the saved go first to purgatory, there to pay the temporal (not eternal) penalty for their sins and be further spiritually purified by suffering before going on to heaven. Essentially, the Universalist view admits all of the unsaved to purgatory as well. I haven't read any books presenting this viewpoint, but a popular recent one that some people in this group have read is Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived by Rob Bell.

This is just a thumbnail sketch of the basic ideas that have been put forward in the roughly 2,000 years that the discussion has been going on. This is the place to join that discussion, of any of these ideas, or any thoughts of your own on the subject!

Thank you, Werner!

I'll add a few resources from the universalist side:

1. Gregory of Nyssa was probably the most overt universalist from the classical period of the church. His The Great Catechism and On the Soul and the Resurrection develop the argument that God's affirmation of the goodness of creation cannot be defeated, even by the devil himself, thus all of creation, including the devil and the demons, is infected, so to speak, with at least a germ of God's goodness, and in the end all of the evil and sin will be painfully scraped off (he uses the metaphor of mud being scraped off a rope pulled through a narrow hole), allowing everyone to enter into God's presence.

I actually published a paper on this concept, for anyone interested: http://ojs.acu.edu/ojs/index.php/conv...

2. Rob Bell is definitely the one who brought universalism into the mainstream, and deserves some credit for that, but Love Wins is not a particularly thorough treatment of universalism, nor does it actually advocate a pure universalist perspective. Rather, for all of the controversy the book stirred up (mainly because of the video preview he released for it), he basically comes down close to where C.S. Lewis comes down, with hell's doors being locked from the inside, or what I and some others call a "soft universalism."

3. Rather, for a fairly dense look at the scripture, theology, philosophy and logic undergirding universalism, I recommend The Evangelical Universalist, which takes what I would call a fundamentally conservative approach to the topic. In other words, he treats scripture as an evangelical would, rather than as a theological liberal would.

4. For a more popular-level set of arguments, I recommend the series of blog posts on the subject by Richard Beck, summarized here: http://experimentaltheology.blogspot....

To get this conversation going, I'll ask a question for those who do not believe in universal reconciliation:

How do you resolve the question of the joy of the redeemed?

That is, we are promised that heaven is a place with no tears, unending joy, etc. How can this be possible when many, if not most (depending on where you draw the in-out line), people there will have a close loved one condemned to hell? As a parent, I'm particularly thinking of those parents whose children reject or abandon Christian faith before their deaths. Can a parent truly be free of sorrow in heaven with the knowledge of their child suffering eternal conscious torment in hell?

The "soul sleep" view (that upon death, people's souls go into a state of sleep rather than immediately to either heaven or hell) is also held by Christadelphians, who stridently insist upon this doctrine (among several) before they will admit another professing believer into fellowship.

Paul wrote: "To get this conversation going, I'll ask a question for those who do not believe in universal reconciliation:

How do you resolve the question of the joy of the redeemed?"

That's a fair question, but it needs to be set into the broader one: how do you harmonize the idea of the supposed absolutely unqualified happiness, every minute and in every respect, with no admixture of regret whatsoever, of the redeemed with the reality of an earthly life history that surely will offer everyone some grounds for regret --over our own behavior, if not that of others? (And indeed, perhaps mostly over our own behavior.)

It's quite a common idea in the popular folk Christianity of the U.S., including among average evangelicals in the pews (though I've never encountered any theologically trained person who believes it) that in heaven our brains will be completely wiped of every memory that could possibly cause regret. In this view, we'll have eternal partial amnesia, in which we can recognize our saved loved ones but not remember the unsaved ones, and won't remember our own sins and sufferings, or those of anybody else that would distress us. (If you'd carry this idea to its logical conclusion, our brains should be wiped of any awareness of Christ's suffering on the cross, because if his suffering isn't a distressing image, I don't know what is.) I find absolutely no warrant in Scripture for that view, and I don't think it has anything to commend it, not least because, in the providence of God, our sins and suffering have been learning experiences that He's allowed, in order to sculpt the person that we're becoming. But learning experiences that you can't remember tend to lose something rather crucial, by definition! I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally don't wish to spend eternity as an amnesiac.

The way I would answer that question is this: God promises us "joy" already in this life (Galatians 5:22), and He delivers on that promise. This joy doesn't depend on removal of every negative from our lives and memories; rather, it's an abiding joy (deeper and less superficial than mere "happiness") that comes from knowing that we're abidingly loved, forgiven, and promised a good future by God Himself, and from that perspective any negative shrinks into relative insignificance. IMO, our joy in heaven will be qualitatively similar, though quantitatively much greater, because so many present negatives will be removed. But it won't obliterate the memory of past negatives or the awareness of the damage that sin wrought. I believe that continued awareness will deepen our appreciation of the eternal state that God has provided us with, rather than making it less in any way. (On a human scale, that would make our eternal joy something qualitatively like God's own, because His certainly isn't secured by any resort to amnesia.) I don't know if that helps you at all, but it's how I make sense of this for myself. There's much that we're not told about heaven, of course.

Yes, Nathan, the Christadelphians are one of a large number of denominations and congregations that elevate their particular doctrinal distinctives into tests of Christian fellowship. Without going through a long survey of Scripture, I'll simply say that I find absolutely no warrant whatsoever in the New Testament for basing Christian fellowship on anything other than having our sins washed away by Christ's blood through acceptance of Him as Lord and Savior (not acceptance of denominational creeds).

Werner wrote: "It's quite a common idea in the popular folk Christianity of the U.S., including among average evangelicals in the pews (though I've never encountered any theologically trained person who believes it) that in heaven our brains will be completely wiped of every memory that could possibly cause regret"

I'd be curious to see a study of popular eschatological views on questions such as this. I've never considered that we would have forgotten anything of our earthly lives, but that rather the joy of being with Christ would make our earthly mistakes pale in comparison, which I think is along the same lines as what you were saying.

But I think the past being put into perspective is different from the knowledge of present reality (to the extent one maintains a conception of time in an eternal state). We presume that relationships will still mean something in heaven; it's certainly a great source of comfort to those left behind that they'll be reunited with their loved one in heaven. But if the loved one isn't there – not only that, if their loved one is actually being tormented in hell forever – joy in the face of such knowledge sounds more akin to a lobotomy than a mere shift in perspective.

Paul wrote: "But I think the past being put into perspective is different from the knowledge of present reality (to the extent one maintains a conception of time in an eternal state). We presume that relationships will still mean something in heaven; it's certainly a great source of comfort to those left behind that they'll be reunited with their loved one in heaven. But if the loved one isn't there – not only that, if their loved one is actually being tormented in hell forever – joy in the face of such knowledge sounds more akin to a lobotomy than a mere shift in perspective. "

That's a legitimate point, but I think it counts much more heavily against the conscious eternal torment theory than against conditional immortality. It's much easier to reconcile yourself to the fact that some loved ones no longer exist, because of their own choice to reject God and everything He stands for, than to picture them continuing to exist in an unremitting eternal state of hellish (literally) torture.

Of course, the really decisive question for determining our stance on this subject, IMO, isn't "What kind of outcome for the wicked would make me personally the happiest in the afterlife?" If it were, every Christian (and, I believe, God, though Calvinists would obviously dispute that) would opt for the final repentance and salvation of everybody. Rather, the decisive question is, "What does the Bible teach is actually going to happen to the wicked?" And I simply don't believe that it paints the kind of ultimately optimistic picture that Universalism posits.

I think that the joy of suddenly being in the presence of the Lord in both spirit and glorified body will be something we can't conceive of yet. We do know that there will be no giving and taking in human marriage, or reproduction in heaven, and in our current state not many of us choose to become eunuchs. Perhaps human - human relationships in general will pale compared to the human - God relationship.
It is with caution I wade into John's Revelation, knowing that it is one of the most difficult sections in scripture, and many hermeneutic approaches are taken. Nevertheless, this book contains a lot of content relevant to any discussion on the end of all things.

[Revelation 6:9-11 ESV: 9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.]
Those martyred believers who are / will be in heaven in spirit form only are longing for the end of this age and for vengeance. Before this final event, perhaps complete joy is not yet in heaven.

Over in the Hermeneutics thread, I've been exploring the relationship between Israel and the New Covenant believers, as applies to Old Testament prophetic writings being applied to Jesus and to the New Covenant believer community. I referred to a passage in Revelation 21 discussing the New Jerusalem. Here, I want to focus on verse 27 of that passage.

[Revelation 21:1-2, 9-10, 27 ESV: 1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. ... 9 Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, "Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb." 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, ... 27 But NOTHING UNCLEAN WILL EVER ENTER IT, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but ONLY those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.]

Those words translated "nothing unclean ever" are οὐ μή ou mḗ, oo may; i.e. Strong's references G3756 and G3361; a double negative strengthening the denial; not at all:—any more, at all, by any (no) means, neither, never, no (at all), in no case (wise), nor ever, not (at all, in any wise).

So, in this prophetic and apocalyptic passage, God through his prophet/apostle John explains that, while those wed to Jesus will spend eternity on a new earth with God and Jesus as our temple and our light, those unclean will NEVER enter it. This is not an example of where the Greek word Aeon has been translated as "forever", but an explicit "never". And this passage of course returns us to the well established concept of the Lamb's Book of Life, which not everyone is listed in.

This passage does not deal directly with what happens to those excluded from the final New Jerusalem, but it does uphold the established teaching of scripture that there are two groups of people, with two very different destinies.

But universalists don't argue the unclean can enter the New Jerusalem. The question is do they have the opportunity to become clean?

I guess it comes down to answering these two questions:

1) If God is not bound by time, why do we assume there is a finite limit to the opportunity for salvation?
2) If Jesus has defeated death, why do we assume that death is the point at which a person's eternal fate is sealed?

With a God who is outside of time and for whom death has no power, it's not clear why we should presume that salvation is limited to a finite, time-bound opportunity whose window is essentially controlled by death.

Speaking of questions, Werner writes that the decisive one we need to be asking is: What does the Bible teach about the ultimate fate of "the wicked?"

My answer would be that the Bible teaches that they will burn in eternal conscious torment, that they will be punished before fully expiring, and that they will be reconciled to God with the rest of creation.

In other words, what the Bible teaches depends very much on your hermeneutical lens and which set of verses you use as the control group through which you interpret the other two sets of verses.

Paul, Jesus and the Apostles make many statements to the effect that the end will be sudden and decisive. Peter confirms that God did in fact flood the earth, destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and that He will burn this earth. I don't know your personal view on the parables Jesus used, but this one is very specific that there is a finite time in which to prepare, and nobody knows when that time will be up, but it will be possible to miss out:

[Matthew 25:1, 5-6, 10-13 ESV: 1 "Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. ... 5 As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a cry, 'Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.' ... 10 And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those WHO WERE READY went in with him to the marriage feast, and the DOOR WAS SHUT. 11 Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.' 12 But he answered, 'Truly, I say to you, I DO NOT KNOW YOU' 13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.]

[1Thessalonians 5:2-4 ESV: 2 For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will COME LIKE A THIEF IN THE NIGHT. 3 While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then SUDDEN destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they WILL NOT ESCAPE. 4 But YOU are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise YOU like a thief.]

[1Peter 1:1-4 ESV: 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, TO THOSE WHO ARE ELECT exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has CAUSED US to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for YOU]
[2Peter 1:1 ESV: Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED A FAITH of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:]

That was Peter establishing the definition of "US and YOU" in his epistles. He is writing to the elect of God unto salvation. That's who he means when he says YOU and US.

[2Peter 2:4-7, 9, 12, 17 ESV: 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if HE did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when HE brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes HE condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what IS GOING TO HAPPEN to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked ... 9 then the Lord knows how to RESCUE the godly from trials, and to KEEP the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, ... 12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, ... 17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved.]
[2Peter 3:4-7, 9-13 ESV: 4 THEY will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." 5 For THEY deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the WORD OF GOD, 6 and that by means of these (the WORD OF GOD) the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the SAME WORD the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. ... 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward YOU (the elect, Peter's audience), not wishing that any (of YOU) should perish, but that all (of YOU) should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will COME LIKE A THIEF, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought YOU to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.]
If vengeance is the LORDs, and we are constantly commanded and advised and shown how to repent and live a godly life to avoid a future without God, what would be the point of all that if the eternal consequences were never to materialise?

Paul wrote: "To get this conversation going, I'll ask a question for those who do not believe in universal reconciliation:

How do you resolve the question of the joy of the redeemed?

That is, we are promised ..."

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope” (Rom 15:13).
If God fills you with joy and peace in believing and you abound in hope through the Holy Spirit here on earth, how much more so will you be filled in Heaven? You won't forget your loved ones but when God fills you with all joy and peace & you experience hope through the power of the Holy Spirit in Heaven, the pain and sorrow will be diminished by that overwhelming Joy, Hope and Peace.

Paul wrote: "Speaking of questions, Werner writes that the decisive one we need to be asking is: What does the Bible teach about the ultimate fate of "the wicked?"

My answer would be that the Bible teaches that they will burn in eternal conscious torment, that they will be punished before fully expiring, and that they will be reconciled to God with the rest of creation."

The most comprehensive and detailed picture the Bible gives us of the "last things" (albeit in a highly symbolic format) is in the latter part of the book of Revelation, where we see the second coming of Christ, the last judgment, and the eternal future. If there were to be any place in Scripture where an unambiguous statement of the future posthumous reconciliation of all the wicked to God (if that is indeed what the future holds) would seem to be called for, that would be the place. Instead, what we have is the statement: "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name.was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:14-15). Matthew. 10:28, Hebrews 10:27, and Malachi 4:1 come to mind inevitably as natural cross references. In none of these texts do we have anything like a statement to the effect that "and after the fire, they saw the error of their ways, and they all lived happily ever after." That whole concept is glaringly conspicuous by its total absence; and the same thing could be said for every other text that actually directly addresses the idea of final judgment (the references to the future reconciliation of the creation to God are never made in that context). This has to be recognized as a problem for the Universalist theory, and to my mind it's an insuperable one.

In a temporal setting, inflicting pain and suffering on a person who's radically evil doesn't induce moral reflection and conversion to benevolence, even if it's intended to. All it induces is rage, self-pity, resentment and vengefulness directed against the author of the pain. There's no reason to think that this method works any better if it can be extended over vast eons of time. One can, of course, deny that there's any such thing as a created being who willingly embraces radical evil. But, IMO, the Scriptural and empirical evidence that there are indeed such beings (both demonic and human) puts the burden of proof on those who would deny it.

Werner recently posted an updated review of the book https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8...
Which prompted me to ask if he could summarise the view of the book (in more detail than his review does) which I understand to be a treatise on annihilation of the unrepentant (as opposed to eternal suffering). This thread has focused mostly on whether or not ANYONE will suffer any final punishment, and hasn't really gotten around to any detailed discussion of what that punishment consists of or how long it might last. So, back by singular request, Werner take it away!

Nathan wrote: "Werner recently posted an updated review of the book https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8...
Which promp..."

Actually, I didn't update my review (which was posted back in 2008); but I reread it around the same time as I officially "liked" another reader's review, so the Goodreads program might have posted that as an update. (That program does odd things at times!) Edward Fudge's book (which I mentioned in message 1 above) is hard to summarize, because he literally goes through the books of the Bible from beginning to end, analyzing every text that bears on the subject of final punishment. The difficulty isn't helped by the fact that I read it back in 1990, and don't have a copy in front of me. (I was sure the BC library had a copy, but it turns out we don't!) Also, I read the first edition; the current one is the third, which refines the arguments and adds a treatment of the subject as it's been understood through church history. So my comments below draw as much on my own understandings as on Fudge's arguments, and may not do the latter justice.

All of that said, I think the case for the conditionalist view, to summarize it very tersely (and I'll try to comment on it in more detail in subsequent posts, as time allows), rests mostly on the interpretive assumption that the words for death/die/dead, as used in the Bible in the final punishment context, should be understood in their normal lexical meaning. They may in some instances be understood as proleptic; but they should not be taken as really having a coded meaning totally opposed to their lexical sense, in such a way that a normal speaker of the language, reading the text or hearing it read in the time when it was written, would be materially deceived as to the intended meaning.

As an interpretive principle, the above is a pretty valid general guideline for biblical uses of language in all contexts, IMO. To be sure, the biblical writers do make use of figurative language in places. But a claim of figurative use in any given place needs to be substantiated by some kind of objective indicator that the language is figurative, not simply the subjective preference of the interpreter, or an appeal to post-biblical church tradition. If God wanted to convey the message, through the Bible, that the damned are to be eternally tortured, it seems reasonable to suppose that there would be an objective statement to that effect somewhere in the 66-book canon. Indeed, given the sheer number of biblical references to final punishment, it seems likely, in that case, that there would be a number of such objective statements. But we simply don't have them. The figurative view of 'death" as really meaning "eternal life under torture" has no objective clues in the actual text pointing to such a meaning.

Nathan, you asked, in a comment on my review, how the view of damnation as eternal death (literally) could be squared with the eternal state of fallen angels, "who are already immortal." The answer is that angels (fallen or otherwise) are not naturally immortal. I Timothy 6:15-16 tells us that "God...alone is immortal." Angels exist only because God created them at a point in time. They continue to exist only because He allows them to continue to exist. If He withdraws that allowance and wills them to cease to exist, they have no power or property of immortality in themselves to defy His will. His absolute power to end their existence is an aspect of His omnipotence. It is not subject to any philosophical or theological qualification. (He wields His power in accordance with His nature, which is wise and loving, but a judicial sentence of death upon those that deserve it is neither unwise nor unloving.) What can be said of angels in that respect, of course, can be said of humans as well.

This may or may not answer your question(s) very well, and is very far from the last word that can be said on the subject! :-)

I did not mean to say Angels are immortal apart from God. Of course they are created beings. Humans are also created beings and any ongoing existence is completely at God's discretion. But angels are spirit beings that do not suffer any form of physical death akin to the fallen human condition. Of all the creatures God created that are physical, humans are unique in being created in the image of God. At least one aspect of this is that we have a soul where other physical, or nautral, creatures do not. There is plenty of Biblical evidence that at least the souls of repentant believers live on after the death of our bodies. Jesus said to the repentant criminal on the next cross "Today you will be with me in Paradise." Paul said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
Before Adam's first sin, he was not in any way prohibited from eating freely from the tree of life and the penalty of the original sin included death. God had created a world that was very good rather than perfect, but it was sin that brought any kind of death to humans.

In the above comment, I have tried to put forward a position that says humanity was created to live in communion with God ongoing, with death not in the picture. That doesn't address what happens to those who reject communion with God. But it at least provides some context for understanding Jesus words when describing final situations of humans divided into two groups, and his use of the same word (aiōnios translated as eternal) to denote the duration of both fates:
[Matt 25:46 ESV] 46 And these will go away into ETERNAL punishment, but the righteous into ETERNAL life."

So whatever Jesus meant by that word, he meant it to apply to both groups of people, and based on this I cannot see how we believers might hope for eternal life, if others will be punished for a finite period.

Nathan, good points! I agree that it was sin that brought death to humans (Romans 5: 12-14). Likewise, I agree that humans have souls, which survive the physical death of the body; and that we were "created to live in communion with God ongoing, with death not in the picture."

A soul can survive and be present with God, and under His care and protection, whether the person is conscious or not. Humans who are asleep are not fully conscious, and humans put under anesthetic for surgical procedures are REALLY out of it. I've had that experience, and was literally conscious of absolutely nothing until I woke up. (My soul, of course, continued to exist through the whole thing.) I've always thought that death will be much like that. Though I don't dogmatize about the state of all of the departed before the resurrection, death is generally spoken of in the New Testament as "sleep."

In Jesus' words to the penitent thief in Luke 23:43, "I tell you the truth... you will be with me in paradise," the word "today" modifies either "be" or "tell." In modern English, the intended meaning would be indicated by the sentence's punctuation; koine Greek didn't have that device, so the intent is inferred from the context. The traditional view assumes the former construction, making the verse a proof text for the idea that the thief 'went to heaven" at the moment of death and was immediately with Jesus there. But Luke makes it clear that Jesus didn't rise from the dead until the "third day" after the crucifixion (Luke 24:7), and didn't return to the Father until "forty days" after that (Acts 1:3). IMO, it makes more sense to read the sentence as "I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise." In that case, the addition of the word "today" to the first phrase is "a Semitic idiom intended to intensify the significance and solemnity of the statement that either will follow or has just been made," a usage not uncommon in Scripture (https://www.ministrymagazine.org/arch... ).

On the conditionalist understanding, the life of the redeemed righteous, with God in His kingdom, is indeed promised in Matthew 25:46 to be eternal, and so is the (capital) punishment of the wicked. When the former receive their glorified bodies, they will keep them forever. When the latter suffer death for their sin, they will stay dead forever; the "second death" (Revelation 20:14-15), unlike the first death which we can all expect, is never going to be followed by a resurrection. But the righteous receive their glorified bodies "in the twinkling of an eye" (I Corinthians 15:51-52). The effect for them of God's decree is eternal, but that adjective doesn't mean the process of effecting it is dragged out eternally. Similarly, the language does not seem to me to necessarily demand that the wicked "take forever to die" (literally!), but just that they stay dead once they are executed.

Thank you Werner for this further explanation of your views on conditional immortality and destruction unto utter death of the unrepentant.

I do not agree that Jesus' spirit was dormant in the tomb along with his body for 3 days. The following passage in 1st Peter is not an easy passage, but it does clearly state that while Jesus' body was put to death, his spirit was alive, conscious and active in the supernatural realm:

[1Peter 3:18-20 ESV] 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the FLESH but made alive in the SPIRIT, 19 IN WHICH he went and proclaimed to the SPIRITS in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

The clearest meaning of this passage is that it describes Jesus' spirit being alive, conscious and active while his body lay dead in the tomb, and that he was proclaiming the gospel to human spirits in supernatural prison, who were clearly also conscious at that same time. People who had rejected Noah's offer of salvation (less revelation than Jesus' offer carried, i.e. reinforcing the Biblical chonology of increased revelation and matching increased culpability) and perished in the flood.

I have studied the discussions of Jesus' use of the modifier "today" and reject the view that it applies to the act of telling. Jesus was seeking to confirm and comfort a man who, completely undeserving and by his own admission not having a single good work to his name, nevertheless put his faith in Jesus as being an innocent sacrifice who would be raised from the dead and put above all things. He was telling him right there and then, face to face. The natural sense of this language in this context of comfort is today you will be with me in paradise. He doesn't say "In the Father's presence", yet we acknowledge that Jesus is God the Son and his Spirit is fully God. Also we do not know the structure of supernatural places, and when human spirits of those believers who have died the first death (of the flesh) may be in the presence of the Father.

Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 5 makes a comparison between our present state AT HOME in the body (where we are conscious but mortal) and AWAY from the Lord (Jesus) and our future state AT HOME with the Lord (Jesus) and AWAY from the body (where we are conscious and this state is called life in contrast with mortal of the present state:

[2Cor 5:1-9 ESV] 1 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, 3 if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. 4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened--not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be FURTHER CLOTHED, so that what is MORTAL may be swallowed up by LIFE. 5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. 6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him."

The contrast made here would fall apart if somehow our soul after physical death were not conscious. It could hardly be described as life, compared to mortality of our present physical life. If we are conscious now in our body, we will be conscious then in our spirit.

Further, as I quoted in Message 8 above:
[Revelation 6:9-11 ESV: 9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.]
Those martyred believers who are / will be in heaven in spirit form only are longing for the end of this age and for vengeance. They're clearly conscious and interacting with God after death, but before the last day resurrection when they will be granted their glorified bodies.

I know that Revelation is apocalyptic and many parts are highly symbolic, but (building on your structure here Werner) if there were to be any place in Scripture where an unambiguous statement of the future posthumous PUNISHMENT of all the wicked would seem to be called for, that would be the place. Revelation makes the claim that the Devil, the beast and the false prophet will be TORMENTED day and night (continually) forever AND ever in the lake of fire. The false prophet is presumably human, and the beast, well it's more difficult to say. What we can say is, the prophecy in Revelation 17 states that the beast goes to destruction, which turns out 3 chapters later to be fulfilled by the beast being thrown living into the lake of fire, where the beast is tormented day and night forever and ever:
[Rev 17:8, 11 ESV] 8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to DESTRUCTION. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come. ... 11 As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to DESTRUCTION.

[Rev 19:20 ESV] 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown ALIVE into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur."
[Rev 20:10, 13-15 ESV] 10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and THEY will be TORMENTED day and night FOREVER AND EVER. ... 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.]

So as the last revealed word on the fate of both groups of people, all unbelievers are removed from supernatural places like Death and Hades and thrown into the exact same lake of fire as the devil, the beast and the false prophet are suffering ETERNAL TORMENT, also referred to in the scripture as DESTRUCTION, not brief torment followed by eternal nothingness. If there is one example of a time when the word destruction is later revealed to be eternal torment, that must at least be considered a valid understanding whenever the concept of eternal destruction is in view.

Fallen angels, also known as demons, are right now chained in hell consciously until the judgment. How do we know they are conscious? Because demonic activity is recorded after Jesus death and resurrection. This thought could stray into too detailed a view on eschatological structure, because as an Amillennialist I believe Satan and the demons are bound since Jesus descent into Hades/prison, right now we are living the 1000 year millennium, and it will end when Jesus returns on the last day. So I will not pursue this at this time, beyond the scripture reference:
[2Peter 2:4-7, 9, 12, 17 ESV: 4 For if God did not spare angels WHEN they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to CHAINS of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;]
You do not need to chain an unconscious or "asleep" spirit.

[2Peter 2:9-10 ESV] 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to KEEP the unrighteous UNDER PUNISHMENT until the day of judgment, 10 and ESPECIALLY those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones,"

Returning to human fate, I believe the above passage shows that unrepentant who die are KEPT (refer Jesus prayer for believers that they would be KEPT in this world as Noah was KEPT during the flood) under punishment. The punishment is a conscious period. If you killed someone and were sentenced to 20 years imprisonment as punishment for this crime, would it be as much of a deterrent or as formidible a punishment if you were put into a medical coma for the 20 years? Cain is under punishment in hell right now, and has been for approx 5781 years minus Cain's lifespan. (going by the Jewish age of the world this year). There may be another 1219 years before the Last Day if you think as a Jew or a Seventh Day Adventist might, or there may be another 3 million years.

I would now like to focus on the biblical concept of degrees of reward/punishment in the final state. It's clear from several scriptures, some of which I've quoted above with words like ESPECIALLY highlighted, that some unrepentant people will suffer a worse punishment than others. Think here of all Jesus' statements such as "it will be better for the people of Ninevah / Sodom & Gomorrah in the day of judgement than for you", pertaining to the degree of revelation the people had available to them when they rejected Jesus. Just as it is clear that some believers will be rewarded more than other believers in eternity. We do not know who will sit at Jesus' right and left hand at the wedding feast. But the distinction exists. Some of us, once our earthly works are tested by fire, scrape into heaven by fire, practically naked. Some will receive amazing crowns since they have done well and stored up their treasure in heaven. We will all throw those crowns at Jesus' feet, but rewards and punishments are not equal. So IF the ultimate punishment is annihilation, what is a lesser punishment than this? Less annihilation? A less painful annihilation? A faster annihilation? How long might the ultimate punishment take? The burden is on those who believe in annihilation to answer these questions. We do know that for at least Satan, the beast and the false prophet (who is human), the torment (not just the punishment) is described as eternal. And that all unbelievers go into the same eternal lake of fire.

To put the final punishment of unbelievers into context as a doctrine that Christians concern ourselves with, it is not because we fear that fate any more. If we believe in Jesus as our saviour, we have been made a new creation, we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us as a seal/guarantee of future redemption on the Last Day. It is a powerful motivator as we are being drawn by God and as we come to our faith in Jesus. And it is a powerful motivator for us to share the gospel with our loved ones, and with people who ask us for the reason we have a hope they do not. But for believers the most powerful urging to remain in the faith, to live a practical Christian life that bears fruit of our conversion is the positive blessing, that blessed hope, of eternal life. This becomes the case more and more as we mature in the Lord. To quote Rupertus Meldenius: "In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; above all, charity". We have liberty to differ over this doctrine without calling each other heretics. Even though I disagree with you Werner, I do not believe your view diminishes the motivations I've mentioned above. I am not keen for my friends to suffer any fire event when the alternative is there for those who can call Jesus Lord!

That was a rather long post (in fact, I maxed out the Goodreads character count), so I'll sum it up here:
1) Scripture describes people existing as spirit/soul after physical death being conscious and communicating and feeling emotions.
2) Rather than guessing or lending our preferred meaning to words, by employing the hermeneutic of allowing scripture to interpret scripture, we see that Revelation interprets destruction to mean eternal conscious torment. And scripture uses the same word for the timeframe definition of eternal reward as for eternal punishment, so we agree the duration is forever.
3) The degree of torment will vary according to revelation available to and corresponding culpability of the sufferer.
4) True Christians can disagree on this topic and it remains a powerful "stick" motivator to repentance, but is replaced over time by the superior "carrot" motivator to ongoing sanctification in a practical Christian life.
Thanks for reading!

Nathan, thanks for your able exposition of the case for the conscious eternal torment of the wicked. There's a lot of material there, and it would take considerable time to give it as full a response as it deserves. (It also deserves reflection, which takes time as well.) Of course, all three of the views outlined in message 1 above, and many of the arguments and interpretive possibilities discussed above in support of the various positions, are not new. These debates have been going on literally since the very early Christian centuries, and have never been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. It's not expected that we'll resolve them here; nevertheless, I think it's worthwhile for Christian believers to discuss the teachings of Scripture together, whether we agree or not. All Scripture is given for our edification, and helps us to know God and His will more fully; any time we're in serious conversations where we seek to probe the meaning of Scripture, we're going to learn something from our probing, and grow in our spiritual understanding as a result.

I'm in complete agreement with everything you wrote in your final paragraph (in message 19)! What unites us as Christians is more fundamental than the secondary theological questions that believers too often allow to divide us. We have a common mandate to work together to spread the gospel of forgiveness from sin through Christ, which not only delivers humans from terrible punishment, but offers the unimaginably glorious future of eternal fellowship with the God who created us and loves us.

Werner, you don't say if you plan to continue our discussion, and I am content whatever you choose. You are participating under the condition that you do not spend too much time doing so, and this is wise advice for us all. First read our bibles, first pray!

There is an additional facet of the various positions on final punishment, and that is our understanding of what it says about God's wrath and the nature of the atonement. I'm not delving in there now, but I mention it to reinforce Werner's comment about the benefits to Christians of participating in these debates, and the need to seek edification. This is an open discussion and anyone reading along is absolutely welcome to contribute.

Nathan wrote: "Werner, you don't say if you plan to continue our discussion, and I am content whatever you choose."

Sorry my comment came across as ambiguous on that point! Yes, I definitely do plan to post again on this thread as time permits --just not today, at least not in a theologically substantive way. (And this coming week is apt to be one that affords less online time than most; and I do have moderator duties in a dozen Goodreads groups.... Sigh!)

Nathan wrote: "This is an open discussion and anyone reading along is absolutely welcome to contribute."

Yes, this is most certainly not intended to be a two-person conversation! Contributions from anyone else who wants to weigh in are valued and appreciated.

Paul wrote: "But universalists don't argue the unclean can enter the New Jerusalem. The question is do they have the opportunity to become clean?

I guess it comes down to answering these two questions:

1) If ..."Greetings to all. My apologies for this late response, however, I am new to Goodreads. Thank you for sharing. The question about the 'unclean' getting an opportunity to become 'clean'. Thank you to the person who quoted scripture earlier where it is written that "no unclean will enter." Whilst growing up I observed firsthand, the belief that if the 'wicked' or believers that were sinning die, they go to a place of waiting. 'Believers' can pray for them to be redeemed and made 'clean'. At a special service or ceremony, they have an opportunity to come to the altar, to receive grace, forgiveness, and release. Since my salvation, I have discovered that this belief is not scriptural. To summarise, this meant that one could never attend church; go sporadically or attend faithfully while actively engaging in sin. The promise of receiving grace after death sometimes became a licence because of this 'second chance'.

Helena, welcome! You're not late, this discussion was spontaneously resurrected (tee hee) by a quirk of Goodreads review behaviour and is very much consciously alive right now.

Did you grow up in a Roman Catholic culture and are you referring to their doctrine of purgatory and purchase of indulgences by living relatives of the departed?

Nathan, this is only a partial response (as time permits) to one or two of the points you make in message 19. The discussion of I Peter 3:18-20 is a good example of how our understanding of a Bible passage is significantly affected by how it's translated.

In the New International Version (Zondervan, 1983), v. 18b-19 reads, "He was put to death in the body [sarki in Greek] but made alive by the Spirit [that is, the Holy Spirit --de pneumati in Greek], through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison...." (The NIV is a conservative evangelical translation by world-class Hebrew and Greek scholars, which is very highly respected for accuracy in Christian academic circles, and which I've used as my personal reading/study Bible for decades.) That translation takes de pneumati in the exact same sense in which it's repeatedly used by New Testament writers, including in cases where it's directly contrasted with sarki. The ESV translation is more ambiguous, while not requiring the interpretation you give it; and your interpretation is not a linguistically impossible construction of the Greek. But the NIV translation is the one far more natural and consistent with New Testament usage. IMO, the burden of proof is on anyone who would assert that it's a mistranslation here. That burden has not been met to my satisfaction. "Made alive" is then a reference to his resurrection, "alive" contrasting with being dead, not with being unconscious. (If it were a reference to his own spirit supposedly remaining "conscious", his spirit wouldn't have to have been "made" alive; on that view, since it already was conscious before death, it didn't cease to be after it. Your interpretation also assumes that the word-element [from the Greek zoe] used here for "alive" is interchangeably synonymous with "conscious," which I don't believe it is.)

Although I Peter 3:19-20 has been used for centuries as the proof text for the medieval church's idea of the "harrowing of Hell," nothing in the language of these verses states that Jesus' action of "preaching" (or, literally, "making proclamation") to the "spirits in prison" took place while his body was entombed. Indeed, the fact that it's mentioned after the reference to the resurrection would suggest (though not conclusively prove) that it took place after the resurrection.

Dead humans are not typically (if ever) referred to in either Testament as "spirits." The word generally refers to angelic or demonic beings. The only other biblical references to imprisoned spirits that I'm aware of are II Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, both of which, like I Peter 3:20, relate their earthly activity to the antediluvian days of Noah. In both II Peter and Jude, these spirits are said to be fallen angels (whom all Bible interpreters agree are conscious), not dead humans. Our most natural inference would seem to be that all three passages refer to the same spirits, and that their disobedience was that described in Genesis 6:1-4. In that case, the proclamation made by Christ would be a declaration of God's triumph in the face of God's enemies, not a second-chance offer of salvation to impenitent humans who died in the Flood. (If God extended second-chance offers of salvation to dead humans --which I do not believe He does-- it seems strange that the offer would be made only to those particular dead humans and not to all of them.)

Hi Werner, thanks for your thoughts on what is, as I mentioned in my long post above, recognised as a difficult passage.
This is the NIV translation of the entire passage for context:

[1Peter 3:8-22 NIV] 8 Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For, "Whoever would love life and see good days must keep their tongue from evil and their lips from deceitful speech. 11 They must turn from evil and do good; they must seek peace and pursue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil." 13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened." 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 For it is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits-- 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

The context is, suffer for doing good rather than evil, be ready to preach the gospel to other people, people who ask you about your reason for hope, people who may slander and do evil to you. Then it compares this suffering to Christ's suffering. The NIV contrasts dead in body with alive in spirit.
All but 8 people perished in the flood waters, after God waited patiently for all to be obedient to the message of salvation Noah preached while he built the ark for 100 years. Fallen angels would not be classified as who were disobedient while God waited for the ark to be built. And while God waited to do what? Kill the demons with the flood? They didn't die spiritually in the flood. The passage discusses human fate for Peter's readers in that time, giving Jesus as an example, and Noah as an example, finishing with a clear parallel between the flood and our church ordinance of baptism. None of that is treating with demons. Baptism or redemption of any sort is not available to fallen angels. Even angels that did not fall are fascinated by God's plan of redemption for humans.

Genesis 6:1-4 (the infamous Nephilim passage) is also controversial. It may be adventurous and exciting at an entertainment level to imagine some fantasy world of demons breeding with human women to produce some hybrid spirit-human giant offspring, but after some in depth study over the years, I respectfully totally reject that interpretation. The sons of God in view are the seed of the woman, the righteous line from Abel, then Seth and his descendants that would be winnowed to Noah's 8 and then on down the years to the son of the woman's seed who would crush the serpent's head as his heel was bruised. They were prohibited by God from intermingling with the seed of the serpent (Cain and his progeny) but some of them did not heed this requirement to be holy separated unto God. Despite what Hollywood may tell us, the flood was never a judgement on fallen angels but on humanity that rejected Noah's 100 year long call to repent and be saved in the ark. The earth is Satan's until the Last Day.

I don't claim Jesus was trying to give these imprisoned spirits a second chance. I'm sorry if you interpreted my exposition to be saying that. My point was purely that Jesus, while dead in body BUT alive in Spirit, proclaimed God's truth to others alive in spirit.
***Speculation alert *** Perhaps it was part of confirming their culpability and underscoring their iniquity, as Jesus provided them with clarity for what back then had only been foreshadowed in Noah and others before him of the seed of the woman. The negative version of Jesus' road to Emmaus exposition to His disciples in preparation for them becoming apostles. We see a parallel in why the fledgling tribes of Israel were held in captivity in Egypt for 400 years - because the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. Before God unleashed Israel to commit Holy war on the inhabitants of Canaan, they were to be given 400 years to reject God and confirm His righteous judgment in destroying every man, woman and child:

[Gen 15:12-16 NIV] 12 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. 13 Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."

Not to saturate this discussion beyond your available time to participate, I will abide, while you consider any response to some of the other points I've raised. Selah.

Nathan wrote: "I don't claim Jesus was trying to give these imprisoned spirits a second chance. I'm sorry if you interpreted my exposition to be saying that."

Nathan, thanks for the clarification. That still leaves us with the question as to why, if the "spirits in prison" are dead humans, Jesus' truth-proclaiming mission was confined to those of Noah's generation. (I don't find your speculation on that point convincing.) Gen 4-5 does not suggest anywhere that all of Seth's descendants were "righteous" or that all of Cain's were "the seed of the serpent," and states no prohibition on their intermarriage. The text of Genesis 2:20-24, however, definitely does make it clear that humans are only to marry other humans. Also, Genesis 6:4 suggests that the children of the prohibited unions had special characteristics which other humans did not. If the "sons of God" were humans with no particular genetic distinction from another human line from the same parents, those characteristics are hard to convincingly explain.

Nathan wrote: "It may be adventurous and exciting at an entertainment level to imagine some fantasy world of demons breeding with human women to produce some hybrid spirit-human giant offspring, but after some in depth study over the years, I respectfully totally reject that interpretation."

When I began seriously studying the Bible, back in the early 70s, I came to this subject with exactly the same dismissive attitude towards the view of the 'sons of God" as fallen angels. (That view, be it noted, did not originate in recent times in pop-culture "entertainment," but is attested in intertestamental Jewish writings such as The Book of Enoch, and writings of some of the Ante-Nicene Fathers of the second and third centuries A.D.) Even modern Christians who are theologically conservative have a deeply-ingrained cultural predisposition towards "rational" and naturalistic explanations whenever the explanation of something is in doubt; and speaking for myself personally, that mindset played a big part in my dismissiveness. The weight of what I personally have to regard as a convincing preponderance of evidence, however, finally forced me to change my view on this point.

As the foregoing discussion suggests, wherever Scripture does not state teachings explicitly, there is a subjective element that enters into assessment of "weight" and "preponderance" of evidence, and how we interpret "evidence," when we construct inferences that go beyond the explicit. And we're all influenced by our culture and experiences, both in conscious ways that we recognize and unconscious ways that we don't. All of us also fit Scripture into a mental interpretive paradigm that systemitizes its teachings into a coherent whole --but we don't all use exactly the same paradigms; and barring a "paradigm shift" that doesn't happen very casually, major changes in viewpoint don't easily come about. That doesn't mean that truth isn't absolute and objective, and that the objective text of Scripture doesn't furnish concrete data that we have to take into account as a yardstick, in the light of which we can critique our own and each other's interpretations. But it does suggest that our conclusions about the non-explicit have to have a certain tentative quality, and that others don't necessarily (or even usually!) reach different conclusions because they're dense or deliberately perverse. (Nathan, you always approach theological discussion in the same spirit, which makes me appreciate our conversations!)

Nathan wrote: "Fallen angels would not be classified as who were disobedient while God waited for the ark to be built. And while God waited to do what? Kill the demons with the flood? They didn't die spiritually in the flood. The passage discusses human fate for Peter's readers in that time, giving Jesus as an example, and Noah as an example, finishing with a clear parallel between the flood and our church ordinance of baptism. None of that is treating with demons. Baptism or redemption of any sort is not available to fallen angels.... the flood was never a judgement on fallen angels but on humanity that rejected Noah's 100 year long call to repent and be saved in the ark."

To clarify, no Blble interpreters (to my knowledge), argue that any demons died in the Flood, or that the Flood was not a judgement on humans. The interpretation I outlined in message 26, though, does argue that the demons now "in prison" most definitely ARE "classified as... disobedient" (to the clearly expressed will of God in Genesis 2:20-24), that their disobedience took place at the same time as the human disobedience to that and other commands of God, and that God dealt with both groups justly, but differently in accordance with their different natures. In the I Peter context, the reference to these "spirits" serves as a bridge to segue to the time of Noah, and to introduce the idea of the Ark as type of Christian baptism.

For a very full, fair and objective discussion of all of the evidence and arguments dealing with the conflicting interpretations of Genesis 6: 1-4, see Chapter 16 of The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis by Hugh Ross. (Ross doesn't state an endorsement of either position.)

Thanks Werner for further clarification. While my language in stating "I totally reject that view" does come across as dismissive, it's an unintended consequence of my attempt at brevity for treating what I was considering a tangential discussion arising from my potentially unwise decision to include such a controversial text in the first place! (1 Peter 3 in my original exposition of the eternal conscious torment position).
The process I have followed in coming to my current position has been anything but dismissive, and I'm happy to admit that you argue well and coherently and I have hope I will remain open to influence. In the years to come my position may change due to such arguments as you and others may make. I was reading Henry Morris' books on Genesis and the Flood through 2013-2014 when I changed my view from the same as yours (fallen angels are in view in Gen 6) to sons of the godly line (seed of the Woman). Morris puts forward a reasonable treatment of the main views, and I was convinced that the context of Genesis 4 establishes the ungodly line of Cain (seed of the Serpent) and Genesis 5 establishes the godly line of Seth (seed of the Woman) that would continue through the flood bottleneck event distilling both lines to just Noah and his family, then Shem into the 12 tribes of Israel and culminate in Jesus, seed singular, incorporating us the church into His body before combining those two lines in conflict in Genesis 6. Viewed in this longer term plan of redemption perspective, God does indeed prohibit intermarriage between his Holy people and the Rest-of-World. The key takeaway from the first part of Genesis 6 is that humanity was totally depraved and God's patience has limits, resulting in the flood event. The fallen angel view does rely heavily on importing context from Jude, 2 Peter and such extra canonical writings as Jude under inspiration incorporated, while the seed of Woman/Serpent view is self-contained in the writings preceding it, commencing of course from Genesis 3
[Gen 3:15 NIV] 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."
Genesis 6 doesn't explicitly state the offspring of the Sons of God ARE the giants, though that is a natural inference.
In any case, I introduced the 1 Peter 3 text as an example of contrasting dead in body with alive in spirit, but I provided Revelation as a less controversial (though arguably symbolic) example, and I haven't resorted to parables since doing so always produces more tangents than practically any other writing style!

I'm keen to hear any thoughts on implications to our main discussion of final punishment from the degrees of reward, degrees of punishment perspective.

Nathan wrote: "While my language in stating "I totally reject that view" does come across as dismissive, it's an unintended consequence of my attempt at brevity for treating what I was considering a tangential discussion.... I'm keen to hear any thoughts on implications to our main discussion of final punishment from the degrees of reward, degrees of punishment perspective."

Fair enough; and I admit that this discussion has been following a bit of a "rabbit trail." :-) I'm hoping to try, by early next week, to seriously address some of the other points you made on the central question of this thread. Stay tuned!

To address one more of the points made in message 19, Nathan wrote: "Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 5 makes a comparison between our present state AT HOME in the body (where we are conscious but mortal) and AWAY from the Lord (Jesus) and our future state AT HOME with the Lord (Jesus) and AWAY from the body (where we are conscious and this state is called life in contrast with mortal of the present state.... The contrast made here would fall apart if somehow our soul after physical death were not conscious. It could hardly be described as life, compared to mortality of our present physical life. If we are conscious now in our body, we will be conscious then in our spirit."

In the last verses of II Corinthians 4, Paul contrasts the present state in the world we see, where we have to deal with troubles, with the yet unseen eternal state. In II Cor. 5:1, he continues in the same vein, contrasting our present "earthly tent" (that is, our body) with the "building from God, an eternal house in heaven" that will one day replace it (that is, our resurrected or glorified body). V. 2 speaks of our longing for the latter, and v. 3-4 explains this by saying that once "clothed" with it (which happens at the resurrection) we will not be "naked" or "unclothed," and "what is mortal may be swallowed up by life." (V. 5 adds the thought that God made us for this "very purpose," and has guaranteed it by the gift of the Spirit "as a deposit.")

Paul then goes on to say (v.6), that "Therefore" --that is, because of what he wrote above, that we expect to live eternally in our glorified state-- 'we are always confident," and that we know that while we live in "the body" (that is, THIS earthly body, that we're in now) we are "away from" the physical presence of Christ "the Lord." We have this confidence he just spoke of because "we live by faith, not by sight" (v.7); and in this confidence would prefer to be away from "the body" (v. 8 --and those words mean in v. 8-10 exactly what they mean in v. 6, if we respect the context; so, we prefer to be "away from" this mortal body, not the eternal one) and "at home" with the Lord in our eternal state. "So" (that is, because of what was just said, our desire to be with the Lord eternally and our confidence that we will), "we make it our goal to please him," whether we're in this mortal body or not --that is, whether we're alive or dead. Our actions, "good or bad," (pleasing or displeasing to him) done "in the body' will be the object of posthumous judgment at "the judgment seat of Christ;" and the Old and New Testaments associate posthumous judgment with the resurrection and the end of this age.

To my mind, everything in this passage appears to contrast the present temporal order with the eternal order to come, and our present experience of trouble with the eternal glory to come, which we will enter into at the resurrection. Nothing in the text points to the idea of a long, conscious hiatus between the two, during which we operate as a "naked' or "unclothed' spirit (which is precisely what Paul says in v. 3-4 that we don't want). That has to be read into it, on the assumption that since we know independently that there is such a hiatus, then of course Paul must be assuming it here. But I don't share that assumption, and I think the general tenor of the passage militates against reading it into the text here.

I'll keep the discussion of the passages in Revelation for a later post; but to address another point, Nathan wrote: "[2Peter 2:4-7, 9, 12, 17 ESV: 4 For if God did not spare angels WHEN they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to CHAINS of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;]
You do not need to chain an unconscious or "asleep" spirit.

[2Peter 2:9-10 ESV] 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to KEEP the unrighteous UNDER PUNISHMENT until the day of judgment, 10 and ESPECIALLY those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones,"

Returning to human fate, I believe the above passage shows that unrepentant who die are KEPT (refer Jesus prayer for believers that they would be KEPT in this world as Noah was KEPT during the flood) under punishment. The punishment is a conscious period. If you killed someone and were sentenced to 20 years imprisonment as punishment for this crime, would it be as much of a deterrent or as formidible a punishment if you were put into a medical coma for the 20 years?" (A similar argument was made to me several decades ago by a Church of Christ preacher, citing this same II Peter passage as his proof text.)

In II Peter 1, the apostle discusses some basic truths of the Christian gospel, and notes that the message of the apostles and prophets originated not with them, but with God. In Chapter 2, he introduces the subject of false teachers who promote a message they "made up" themselves, and have brought on themselves "condemnation" to "swift destruction" which "has not been sleeping" (v. 1-3).

V. 4-9, which follows. is a single long sentence. It adduces three historical examples to demonstrate and prove the point that God "knows how," a.) "to rescue' the godly "from trials" and b.) "to hold the unrighteous for the day of [eternal] judgment, while continuing their [temporal] punishment." The examples are the imprisonment of certain "angels" who sinned, confining them to "Tartarus" (that Greek word is never used anywhere else in the New Testament) to await final judgement; the Great Flood, in which the "ungodly people" of that day were drowned, but through which Noah and his companions were saved on the Ark; and the destruction of the wicked people of Sodom and Gomorrah by "burning them to ashes" as an "example of what is going to happen to the ungodly" --an interesting choice of words, in the context of this discussion!-- a destruction from which God "rescued" Lot.

The idea behind the application of this passage to the conscious eternal torment theory seems to be that, since the angels imprisoned in a realm that obviously isn't here on earth are cited as one example of Peter's meaning, then that meaning must be that the rescue of the godly and the holding of the ungodly of which he's speaking must necessarily also take place away from the earth: the former are rescued by taking them to heaven, and the latter must also be held in Tartarus. That reasoning, though, ignores the other two examples (and the only two that refer to humans), both of which are rescues and punishments that take place here on earth.

My understanding of Peter's meaning here is that it's both an encouragement and a warning, having primary reference to our life now in this world, though he certainly wants us to live this life in awareness of the reality of the coming last judgment. He shows that God can rescue His people, even from very dire trials, in this life; that God can punish the wicked even in this life, while slating them in His foreknowledge for eternal punishment as well; and that His actions in this life are an "example" of what He will do in the future. The passage doesn't in itself present any image of wicked humans going to Tartarus, or righteous humans being taken up to heaven, to wait for centuries for a final judgement (which, according to that theory, would simply be more of the same). Again, those are ideas that have to be brought to the text and read into it.

Thanks for your continuing responses, Werner. We do know that plenty of ungodly people never receive any punishment in this temporal life, living a very privileged and materialistically fulfilling existence. God reminds the holy that vengeance is His, since we so often have to watch as the wicked thrive, for this season at least. The "if" in 2 Peter 2:4 references the "then" in 2 Peter 2:9, if God didn't spare angels, then he certainly won't spare unrighteous humans. Kept under punishment until the day of judgement. Every single unrighteous person who has ever lived and is now dead is being kept under this punishment until the day of judgement. When that punishment will be finalised as the judgement plays out. That's not reading anything into the text, and the alternative is to argue that no unrighteous people die until the day of judgement (clearly false).

Nathan wrote: "Every single unrighteous person who has ever lived and is now dead is being kept under this punishment until the day of judgement. When that punishment will be finalised as the judgement plays out. That's not reading anything into the text, and the alternative is to argue that no unrighteous people die until the day of judgement (clearly false).".

II Peter 2:9 is one small piece of the mosaic of truth that makes up the entire Bible. You and I both interpret it, in part, by fitting it into the whole mosaic as we understand it, because that's really the only way humans can read Scripture. We all view any given passage of the Bible in terms of how we understand the whole thing. On reflection, it was unfair on my part (and I apologize!) to suggest by the "read(ing) into the text" reference that you're doing anything that's methodologically illegitimate, or that I don't do myself.

Of course, the specific language of each verse brings its own contribution to the mosaic, and it's appropriate to read that language closely. The problem is that the language here does not as obviously convey the idea of "keep on punishing each one of the wicked continuously until the day of judgement" as you think it does. In the Greek, "kolazomenous tarein" most naturally conveys the idea of "reserve [the wicked] to be punished" at some point. (The King James translators took it that way.) That meaning makes perfect sense here, and does not require us to think that the unrighteous must necessarily live in the flesh until the day of judgment. Every human being, righteous or unrighteous, who ever lived is constantly under God's awareness and control, whether he/she is alive or dead. Just as the names of the righteous, alive or dead, are written in the Lamb's book of life, each of the unrighteous, alive or dead, are known to God and under sentence every minute.

Referring briefly to my summary post in message 20:
1) Scripture describes people existing as spirit/soul after physical death being conscious and communicating and feeling emotions.
2) Rather than guessing or lending our preferred meaning to words, by employing the hermeneutic of allowing scripture to interpret scripture, we see that Revelation interprets destruction to mean eternal conscious torment. And scripture uses the same word for the timeframe definition of eternal reward as for eternal punishment, so we agree the duration is forever.
3) The degree of torment will vary according to revelation available to and corresponding culpability of the sufferer.

The discussion since then has focused exclusively on item 1, which is not in itself directly pertinent to answering the question of what happens to the unrepentent in FINAL punishment, though I have argued that it sets important precedent and context. Before the commencement of any detailed discussion of the Revelation passages, which will include items 2 and 3, I thought I'd mention a few more things that I think come under item 1. Pertaining to that intermediate state after people die but before the Last Day.
Enoch and Elijah. These two people are examples of humans who did not die, yet were taken to heaven to be with God.
Genesis 5 establishes the genealogy of Adam's line. It describes the line through Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah. All of whom are described as living a very long and fruitful life, "and then he died". With the sole exception of Enoch:
[Genesis 5:22-24 NIV] 22 After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. 24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
This is all the more contrasting because Enoch's father Jared lived to 962 and Enoch's son Methuselah lived to 969, the second oldest and oldest human lifespans recorded in Scripture. Enoch didn't get "and then he died", but he was no more, because God took him away. Where to? Alive? Still alive with God in his original human body? He didn't die and reside asleep in a grave, awaiting the Last Day.

[2Kings 2:1-12 NIV] 1 When the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind, Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal. 2 Elijah said to Elisha, "Stay here; the LORD has sent me to Bethel." But Elisha said, "As surely as the LORD lives and as you live, I will not leave you." So they went down to Bethel. 3 The company of the prophets at Bethel came out to Elisha and asked, "Do you know that the LORD is going to take your master from you today?" "Yes, I know," Elisha replied, "so be quiet." 4 Then Elijah said to him, "Stay here, Elisha; the LORD has sent me to Jericho." And he replied, "As surely as the LORD lives and as you live, I will not leave you." So they went to Jericho. 5 The company of the prophets at Jericho went up to Elisha and asked him, "Do you know that the LORD is going to take your master from you today?" "Yes, I know," he replied, "so be quiet." 6 Then Elijah said to him, "Stay here; the LORD has sent me to the Jordan." And he replied, "As surely as the LORD lives and as you live, I will not leave you." So the two of them walked on. 7 Fifty men from the company of the prophets went and stood at a distance, facing the place where Elijah and Elisha had stopped at the Jordan. 8 Elijah took his cloak, rolled it up and struck the water with it. The water divided to the right and to the left, and the two of them crossed over on dry ground. 9 When they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, "Tell me, what can I do for you before I am taken from you?" "Let me inherit a double portion of your spirit," Elisha replied. 10 "You have asked a difficult thing," Elijah said, "yet if you see me when I am taken from you, it will be yours--otherwise, it will not." 11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. 12 Elisha saw this and cried out, "My father! My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel!" And Elisha saw him no more. Then he took hold of his garment and tore it in two.

Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. He wasn't killed, he and all the prophets in the area knew it was going to happen ahead of time, and it happened that he was taken to heaven where God is. He didn't reside asleep in a grave, awaiting the Last Day.

The case study of Elijah is even more fascinating because, as we read in three gospel accounts of Jesus' transfiguration, both Elijah and Moses appeared IN GLORY and walked and talked with Jesus on the mountain, talking of Jesus' upcoming death and resurrection. This was witnessed by Peter, James and John, and Peter (ever the disciple apt to speak first and think later) blurted out that he'd build three tabernacles so Elijah and Moses could abide with Jesus there.

This informs context when Jesus replied to the Sadducees:
[Luke 20:34-38 NIV] 34 Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."

Nathan wrote: "The discussion since then has focused exclusively on item 1, which is not in itself directly pertinent to answering the question of what happens to the unrepentent in FINAL punishment...."

Actually, there has been some discussion since then, in various posts, of the final punishment of the unrepentant. But it's true that none of the posts since then have addressed the passages you cited from Revelation, which are obviously of key importance to the question (since the latter part of Revelation gives us the most comprehensive treatment of the "last things" that we have in Scripture). As you noted in message 14, Nathan, this thread got revived last month because you had asked me for a more detailed summary of the arguments in the book The Fire That Consumes by the late Edward Fudge (message 1 has a link to my review of that book); and as I noted in the following post, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in summarizing a book I read over 30 years ago, and have no copy of at present. The obvious solution to that problem (though it sometimes takes me a while to trip over the obvious --hey, I never said I was smart! :-) ) is to get a copy by interlibrary loan, and I've finally put in my request. In the meantime, to avoid misrepresenting or otherwise doing less than justice to Fudge's presentation, I'm going to hold off on getting into the Revelation passages for now. (Though that promises to be an interesting and complex discussion!)

Nathan wrote: "Rather than guessing or lending our preferred meaning to words, by employing the hermeneutic of allowing scripture to interpret scripture, we see that Revelation interprets destruction to mean eternal conscious torment."

Allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, of course, is a sound principle. It's most practically applied by setting each individual passage of Scripture in the context of the totality of scriptural teaching. Individual passages may also cross-reference others, and shed light on meaning. But in general, the most basic interpretive principle is that, rather than "guessing or lending our preferred meaning to words," we take the words in their normal lexical meaning, as established by objective philological study of the original languages, as the writer and original readers would have understood them. Taking a disputed interpretation of the meaning of a word in a single passage of the last-written book of the New Testament, and positing that it establishes a coded meaning of the term opposite to the normal meaning, which is then normative for all the previous uses of the word (even though none of the previous writers and readers would have been privy to that key to the code) is, IMO, to skate on fairly thin ice. While it attempts to "allow Scripture to interpret Scripture," it's not necessarily a sound method of accomplishing that goal.

Werner wrote: "Though I don't dogmatize about the state of all of the departed before the resurrection, death is generally spoken of in the New Testament as 'sleep.'" The example of Enoch and Elijah, and the account of the Transfiguration, are among the reasons why I don't dogmatize. (Indeed, I think it would be universally agreed, by all believers in the state of the dead as sleep, that Enoch and Elijah did not die, and were taken consciously into the presence of God.) However, the very fact that they did NOT die (although, of course, Moses did) makes their experience less relevant to that of the great majority of humans who actually do die.

Just to comment briefly on the Transfiguration, this was clearly a very significant event, recorded in all three of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 17:1-13, Mark 9:2-13, Luke 9:28-36). It's also a deeply mysterious one, described in terms that convey a strong sense of numinous strangeness and perceptual disorientation. To those who want to look at It from the prosaic standpoint of normal earthly events, it raises obvious questions, one being, how did the three disciples recognize Elijah and Moses? The fact that none of the Gospel writers show any interest in answering that question suggests that they don't view it from a prosaic standpoint, as being qualitatively like any other sight humans might see any time, just more unusual.

This isn't to try to use theological "weasel words" to evade the meaning of the text; rather, it's to respect the mysterious element of the text itself. The disciples' experience seems to have much in common with the visionary experiences of both Old and New Testament prophets, who perceived things not tangible in our ordinary reality. John the Revelator certainly saw events of the far future as if they were present. IMO, it's entirely possible that the three disciples saw into the future of the consummated Kingdom of God, as if it were there on the mountain. In any case, I don't see a clear Divine intent here to use the vision to impart propositional lessons about the future or intermediate state of the dead. Rather, God's message here seems to be simply the one that He spoke: "Listen to him!" [Jesus].

Anyway, that's my take on these three Gospel passages. (I don't recall if it's the same as Edward Fudge's, or whether he ever actually addressed those passages.)

Werner said: "Taking a disputed interpretation of the meaning of a word in a single passage of the last-written book of the New Testament, and positing that it establishes a coded meaning of the term opposite to the normal meaning, which is then normative for all the previous uses of the word (even though none of the previous writers and readers would have been privy to that key to the code) is, IMO, to skate on fairly thin ice."

In message 19, I wrote: "So as the last revealed word on the fate of both groups of people, all unbelievers are removed from supernatural places like Death and Hades and thrown into the exact same lake of fire as the devil, the beast and the false prophet are suffering ETERNAL TORMENT, also referred to in the scripture as DESTRUCTION, not brief torment followed by eternal nothingness. If there is one example of a time when the word destruction is later revealed to be eternal torment, that must at least be considered a valid understanding whenever the concept of eternal destruction is in view."

I don't think that eternal torment is the opposite of destruction. I think the act of being tormented is entirely congruent with the act of being destroyed, it is the duration which is under contention. The flames are eternal, the destruction is eternal, the torment of those being destroyed is eternal, this is eternal punishment. I didn't argue that this means every previous use of the word destruction in scripture actually means eternal torment. The context and topic of each use would inform that.

In message 19, I was careful to approach Revelation using your own framework and even many of your own words as you approached Revelation in your own message 13 response to Paul (an early contributor to this thread, arguing for Universalism). The final word, not a chance to retcon all previous scripture.

I agree that the primary theme of the Transfiguration for the 3 disciples (and for our education) is "This is My Son, whom I have chosen, listen to Him!". This seems to me a direct response to Peter's silly comment about giving equal weight (3 booth dwellings for all 3 to abide in) to the Law (Moses) the Prophets (Elijah) and the New Covenant in Jesus. Jesus is all in all.

The transfiguration occured shortly after (Luke says about 6 days, Matthew about 8) Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, and was a powerful confirmation of this to the man who was (slowly) becoming the rock on which Jesus built His church.

Another theme that arose from the disciples having seen Elijah was the question as they descended the mountain, "Why then do the teachers of the Law say that Elijah must come first?" Having just seen Elijah, they were confused as to why Jesus would not immediately claim His kingdom in power, but rather had warned them to silence. Jesus re-established the scriptural analogy principle He had used before, that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of that prophecy, coming in the spirit of Elijah, not the actual Elijah. I'm well aware this is tangential to our core discussion, and you'd be right to suggest a separate thread for any in-depth discussion of the Transfiguration or indeed the Nephilim passage that diverted us earlier.

Werner, I look forward to you obtaining Fudge's book to further inform this discussion. I admit I was most curious not about the book itself, but that it appeared to have had such an impact on you all those years ago. So I'm happy with you presenting YOUR views, and also those of the book that triggered this thread. (Or featured in your laying out of the three major views on the theme, then triggered the resurrection of the thread after years dormant.)

Further reading:
Robert Peterson's response to the invitation put forward by Fudge in his book, to check the hermeneutic method he had applied:
https://www.issuesetcarchive.org/arti...

Christopher Date's response to the above Robert Peterson paper, in defence of Fudge's method:
https://www.academia.edu/36022773/The...

I hadn't read either of these papers before attempting my own amateur defence of the traditional Christian view on final punishment in this discussion, but I've read them now. Surprisingly, Fudge himself passed away on Nov 25, 2017, just a few months into the 4 and a half year hiatus on this very discussion thread!

Peterson raised an interesting point regarding Fudge's use of OT scripture, that of the two judgments of God, the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. These were fleshly, or earthly destructions. But Peterson didn't push this point by quoting Jesus who said the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah will rise up at the judgment and condemn this generation. I've picked up that point in my discussion on degrees of reward and punishment, without knowing Fudge based so much of his position on these OT examples as evidence for annihilation.

Maybe I am slow on the uptake. After reading the articles I linked in my last post, I have discovered that Fudge and Peterson collaborated on a book together: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...
Also, Werner it would be good if you can find the 3rd edition of Fudge's book, because apparently it contains 30 more years worth of debate with contemporary upholders of the traditional view on eternal punishment, which we could reasonably expect would include responses to the points Peterson's article raised, though I expect this Two Views of Hell book will do exactly that.

Nathan, I thought I had posted a reply here several days ago, and just discovered that after typing it, I apparently failed to hit "Post." :-( Sorry about that!

Nathan wrote: "If there is one example of a time when the word destruction is later revealed to be eternal torment, that must at least be considered a valid understanding whenever the concept of eternal destruction is in view.... I didn't argue that this means every previous use of the word destruction in scripture actually means eternal torment. The context and topic of each use would inform that."

You're right, and I stand corrected! My apologies for unintentionally misconstruing your argument.

Nathan wrote: "...you'd be right to suggest a separate thread for any in-depth discussion of the Transfiguration or indeed the Nephilim passage that diverted us earlier."

That's not a bad suggestion; but before following up on it, I'll wait to see whether there's enough interest among the group in general in pursuing those discussions.

Thanks for the links to the Internet articles; I'll try to follow up on those as time permits. I've also added Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue to my "maybe-to-read" shelf.

Nathan wrote: "Also, Werner it would be good if you can find the 3rd edition of Fudge's book, because apparently it contains 30 more years worth of debate with contemporary upholders of the traditional view on eternal punishment...."

Yes, I specified that edition for the same reason, and I'm glad to say it arrived in today's mail! Later this week (before I go on vacation for most of next week), I hope to post something on the passages from Revelation that you cited above; but I want first to read or reread the relevant part of Fudge's book. (To correct a possible misimpression, I have views of my own on the subject which I can express without parroting Fudge; but I'm also aware that I'm no expert in this area, whereas he definitely is. If we want a serious discussion of texts that are admittedly complex, it's probably best to have the benefit of the best and latest thinking on all sides of the subject.)

Nathan wrote: "I admit I was most curious not about the book itself, but that it appeared to have had such an impact on you all those years ago."

I can see now how my review may have given the impression that the Fudge book was THE decisive influence in making me a conditionalist, but that actually isn't quite the case. In the review, I did state, "...as a young adult (I'd become a Christian while in high school), beginning to seriously study the Bible for myself for the first time, I was amazed at how flimsy the actual scriptural case for this position [that is, the traditional one] is." (That was back in the early 70s.) At that stage of my Christian journey, I already became convinced early on that the Bible appeared to teach conditionalism. But I hesitated to adopt that position myself, being willing to provisionally assume, in deference to the supposed authority of the overwhelming historical consensus of virtually all intelligent and respectable Christian believers, that the appearance must be deceptive and that I was ignorantly misunderstanding the text.

Over the next 20 years, although there were no sudden or dramatic turning points, my confidence in the authority of the consensus of church tradition, as a corrective to the supposed "intellectual arrogance" of personal Bible interpretation, gradually eroded, and the idea that the objective teaching of the Bible supplies a corrective for off-beam traditions gradually began to make more sense. But I was slowly coming to realize that it only supplies such a corrective if we're willing to trust our own ability to read it.

That was the mental background with which I read Fudge's book, ca. 1990. At the time, I was impressed with it, as both a very comprehensive treatment of the subject --not picking and choosing narrow "proof texts," but looking at the Bible's teaching on the subject in its totality-- and also as an intellectually respectable treatment, by someone who was obviously not an ignorant kook. But the clincher for me personally came a bit later, in my own reading of I Corinthians 15, and especially 15:20-23. It suddenly hit me very forcefully that in that passage, Paul does NOT ground the hope of an eternal afterlife (as most modern preachers certainly would!) on the supposed natural immortality of the human soul; he grounds it on the believer's union with Christ --which is, in other words, the condition for it. (And he views it completely in terms of the resurrection, not of "going to heaven" at death.)

Since that time, I've been a conditionalist. I recognize the fact that my interpretations of the Bible are fallible and subject to correction; I believe in the importance of historical tradition and common consensus and dialogue in Bible interpretation, and I've changed my understandings of the Bible at times in response to discussions with other believers. But I insist that those discussions have to be grounded in inductive reading of the Bible text itself. I deny that traditional consensus has an independent authority in itself that can ever be legitimately used to trump or short-circuit whatever we establish, to the best of our ability, to be the apparent objective meaning of the Bible text. We either believe in the absolute final authority of Scripture, or we don't. And if we do, it has to have implications for how we do theology.

That's a rather long post, which might not be particularly illuminating or convincing to anybody but myself. :-) But it does (hopefully!) provide some kind of understanding of where I'm coming from, and how I got there.

Thanks for that personal and interesting slice of background Werner! I hope you didn't have to type that message out again from memory, but that Goodreads had somehow retained your draft when you returned to this discussion!

I don't believe I was labouring under a misapprehension; I know you have personal views that may align or not with parts of Fudge's reasoning. That's why I also said: "So I'm happy with you presenting YOUR views, and also those of the book."

I agree with your comments in Message 41 on 1 Corinthians 15. Going back to our earliest comments (messages 15 and 16) last month that revived this thread, I was happy to agree that nobody but God has inherent immortality, and all of creation draws sustenance only from God's continued upholding of it. Call me a conditionalist if you like, but a supposed inherent immortality of human souls has never been my reason for believing the unrepentant will suffer consciously for eternity after the judgment. (As if God doesn't otherwise know how to deal with these immortal souls who just won't perish quietly) I did compare human final punishment to that of fallen Angels whom I believe have been granted immortality from the time of their creation and whom I believe are not described as dying but as being cast into the eternal lake of fire, to be eternally punished through conscious torment. The label conditionalist is new to me via this discussion, though it's not a very descriptive term really. I'm more familiar with the term referring to various positions on the extent or nature of God's love (as pertains to soteriology) than pertaining to the nature of immortality of created beings.

As you do, I try to form doctrines and take positions based on my understanding of scripture. Creeds may be very useful "human brain sized" summaries of scriptural teaching, but they are only useful insofar as they reflect scriptural truths, and I would argue that NO creed can exactly summarise all of the teaching of scripture into a statement humans can entirely comprehend. I think you are right to use the Bible itself as the absolute reference. There is nonetheless a degree of caution which anyone should feel, while engaged in purposely rejecting a specific creed or traditional doctrine. As a Baptist otherwise in the Reformed Protestant tradition, I know this only too well. Jesuits killed Protestants in their thousands, and no doubt Protestants killed plenty of Papists too, but they joined forces in their persecution of those pesky Anabaptists. So, my beloved "1689" is still way too long for me to memorise, let alone comprehend in my tiny brain in one go.

Nathan wrote: "I hope you didn't have to type that message out again from memory, but that Goodreads had somehow retained your draft when you returned to this discussion!"

No, alas, it didn't, and I did --but only the first four paragraphs, and a bit of the fifth. (The really long part was all new.) But that'll be a good lesson to me to make sure to hit "Post" the next time I'm commenting! :-)

Thanks for your additional thoughts! I have one question: what does "1689" refer to in your post? My first thought was to connect it to the Glorious Revolution (since you were talking about historical religious persecutions); but that was in 1688. So I have to confess I'm drawing a blank there!

A creed. The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. As republished and cherished by CH Spurgeon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1689_Ba....

Not to introduce too much of a tangential diversion (again!) I provided this example of persecution; namely that church tradition dictated infant baptism to be a true and correct form of baptism, wheras Baptists hold to "believer's baptism" in that it is a sacrament or ordinance of the church intended to be administered only to those people who have made a credible confession of their faith, believing this to be a correct reading of the scriptures. Baptists believe Paedobaptism precludes this requirement, and has the obvious disadvantage of the person being baptised retaining no living memory of this beautiful ordinance and act of obedience. Baptists believe Paedobaptists place too much emphasis on tradition, too literally equating circumcision under the Old Covenant with Baptism in the New.

Thanks, Nathan; I'd never heard of the 1689 London Baptist Confession (though of course I'd heard of Spurgeon!). Always glad to learn more facts about church history!

Yes, Anabaptists and Baptists were historically persecuted quite a bit for over two centuries (including here in Virginia). Like you, I'll try to avoid veering off-topic. But it is relevant to comment that from the 4th century onwards, the use by church leaders of persecution, or the threat of it, against any fellow believers who questioned official church doctrines (such as infant baptism) makes the "unanimous consensus" argument in support of church tradition a lot less credible than it might initially appear to be!

Fudge devotes a chapter (which I've now had a chance to look over) of his third edition to the book of Revelation. For the present discussion, the key verses there are Revelation 17:5-11; 19:20-21; and 20:10-14. These chapters give the longest and most explicit treatment of the Last Things in the entire Bible. This treatment, though, is couched in highly symbolic language, drawn partly from the tradition of Jewish apocalyptic literature, but mainly from the Old Testament. It presents serious challenges to interpretation; and to be absolutely candid, IMO it poses difficulties for all schools of interpretation, traditional, conditionalist or universalist.

To summarize the pertinent statements of the three passages, we have the "beast" (introduced in Chapter 13), who is twice said to be "go(ing) to his destruction." Along with the "false prophet" (also introduced in Chapter 13), he ends up in "the fiery lake of burning sulfur," which we can fairly see as "destruction." (In contrast, the "kings of the earth and their armies" are "killed with the sword" coming from Christ's mouth, and devoured by carrion-eating birds.) Subsequently, the devil is thrown into the same lake, and we're told that "they" (the Greek verb form is plural) will be "tormented day and night for ever and ever." Following this, "death and Hades" (that is the exact wording of the text, NOT "the people formerly in death and Hades," and the distinction is a significant one) are thrown into the lake of fire, and we're told that "The lake of fire is the second death." (The way that statement is worded, rather than the hypothetical "The second death is the lake of fire," also has interpretative significance.) Finally, those humans whose names are "not found written in the book of life" are thrown into the lake of fire. The "tormented for ever" language is not repeated in their case; but the traditionalist view maintains that if ANY entities in the lake are fire are tormented forever, then that fate must obviously be predicated, by definition, for ALL entities that go there.

That inference, though, can fairly be challenged. "Death and Hades" are not living, conscious beings; they are abstract realities like life and heaven. They do not, and by definition cannot, feel pain or "torment." In their case, as Fudge points out, the only possible meaning of the lake of fire is that they cease to exist; death no longer is part of reality in the new heavens and new earth, and there is no longer any need of a state of being to which dead people go. Fudge maintains, and I agree, that the beast and the false prophet are similar abstract realities --not two flesh-and-blood individual humans who will exist only in the very last days of this age, but "persecuting civil government and its cohort, corrupt false religion," which are as old as human civilization. Again, in his words, "Neither institution can suffer conscious, sensible pain."

Another line of thought, which Fudge actually does not go into, but which I've read in other places and think may have merit, is that Satan, as a fallen angel, is a spirit being; his existence, as we agree, is still dependent on God's will for its continuance, but he does not have a physical body which would naturally be burned by fire. Resurrected humans, however, certainly do. It's not only not far-fetched, but in fact a highly probable and common-sense conclusion, that being dropped into a literal "lake of burning sulfur" might have very different effects in the two different cases.

There are, however, exegetical problems to a solution along these lines. I'll hope to touch on those in another post tomorrow night.

As I noted in my previous post, there are exegetical problems to the understanding of these passages that I briefly sketched there. There may be others, but I'm aware of two. First, as noted, the verb form for tormented in 20:10 is plural, which would most naturally suggest that the beast and the false prophet are also objects of the verb. Second, universalists argue that verses like Colossians 1:19-20 (which speaks of God using Christ's death to "reconcile to Himself all things [including living things] whether things on earth or things in heaven") constitute proof of their view. On a conditionalist understanding, that argument can be easily refuted: God will, in the eternal future, reconcile to himself "all things" that then exist, not necessarily all past things which no longer exist. But if Satan survives eternally in a tormented and damned state, that would appear to contradict Paul's statement. (The eternal survival of all of the wicked, of course, would only compound that problem.)

To my knowledge, Fudge doesn't address the second point, at least not in his chapter on Revelation (I haven't read the whole 3rd edition, and didn't originally intend to, though I've now decided that I will later this fall, before I have to return it), and doesn't have a definite answer for the first one, in the sense of a specific convincing alternate explanation for the language. And I have to confess that I don't have any magic specific answers to these difficulties either (and this was not a new discovery for me-- I've been well aware for decades that I don't have pat answers here). Nathan, you will probably feel that this vindicates your argument (and our fellow group member Paul, if he's still following this discussion, may feel similarly vindicated). However, I still do not come to that conclusion myself.

The situation, as I see it, is not one in which all we have to do is just adopt a traditionalist understanding of Revelation 20:10, and then all the rest of Scripture suddenly drops into clear coherence with the new enlightened understanding. On the contrary, that procedure quickly runs one into exegetical problems just as real and serious as those posed for the conditionalist by Rev. 20:10, but a lot more numerous. I personally believe that the symbolic nature of the beast and the false prophet is convincingly established in the preceding chapters of Revelation, and that the permanent damnation of the lost is taught as a consistent thread throughout the rest of the Bible. And I also disagree that "death" and "destruction" can legitimately be understood as being eternally in the process of being killed/destroyed but never actually getting to that state. To interpret the many references to eternal punishment with that language in light of the traditional understanding of Rev. 20:10, we have to assume that the writers and readers of those earlier texts shared the same theology of final punishment as modern traditionalists, and automatically interpreted "death" and "destruction" language in that light, but just never expressed that theology explicitly until the 90s A.D. I still think that's a massive, and unsound, assumption.

Three points provide, IMO, some light on the situation. First, as Fudge points out, the language of Revelation, and of apocalyptic literature in general, is highly symbolic. Most Bible interpreters agree that basic theological truths are laid out in normal language in the didactic parts of Scripture, and that the symbolic portions are to be interpreted in the light of the former, not the other way around. Second, a point also made by Fudge, Rev. 20:14 says "the lake of fire is the second death." "X is Y" is a common explanatory formula in apocalyptic visions (and used elsewhere in Revelation) where symbolic feature X is interpreted as plain-language referent Y. Here, "The lake of fire" is said to mean "the second [eternal] death," a plain-language referent that readers would understand. John does not say "The second death is the lake of fire," or "You're supposed to take the second death as eternal existence in the lake of fire." Finally (though this is my own argument, not Fudge's), I agree that, if Scripture sets forth the eternal conscious punishment of the wicked, Rev. 20 is the place where we would expect to find it. But I submit that in that case, the place to put the "tormented forever" language would be in verse 15. Traditionalists will assert that it appears in 20:10, talking about something else, and we're intended to extrapolate it from there to v. 15. But if that's the intended meaning, why are we made to extrapolate it? John had no problem stating it explicitly in v. 10; why the unnecessary coyness in v. 15, where the subject of the fate of wicked humans is actually under clear discussion?

So, in summary, to my mind the weight of evidence in the Bible as a whole points to the everlasting annihilation of the wicked. (I don't believe there are any contradictions in the Bible, and I trust that all apparent contradictions will be explained in eternity.) The weighting of Biblical evidence, and the adoption of an interpretive approach for understanding it, has a subjective element, affected by our own personalities and experiences, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit (which I think is conditioned, in God's wisdom, on our ability to understand, and may not impart every truth to every person at every stage of his/her walk). So dialogue by itself will not bring all of us into agreement. What it may do is help us to clarify and test our own views, better understand those of others, and sometimes arrive at insights we wouldn't gain without dialogue. It should also convince us that we don't know enough to imagine that we couldn't possibly be wrong, nor to make our own interpretations into tests of Christian fellowship.

Since returning home from vacation, I've had a chance to read both of the articles Nathan linked to in message 39. Both are worth reading; but since they both take Edward Fudge's book as their point of reference, one probably gets more out of each article if you've read that book in the most recent edition (as both article writers seem to assume their readers have!). I'm expecting to start my read of the third edition later this week; so that may prompt some posts here as well, if I run across any new insights on the subject. :-)

Thanks for these last few detailed and well framed posts, Werner. I agree with your observations regarding hermeneutic difficulties for Revelation. I also agree that the Analogy of Scripture method should be used as you have said, namely to try and use clear narrative sections to shed light on symbolic sections of scripture. And to try and refrain from reading symbolism into plain literal narrative! We reach the conclusion that some topics in scripture are intentionally difficult to understand, particularly things to do with the end of this age and all that will be ushered in afterwards. Faith is the natural missing piece, rather than our intellectual capability to make logical choices (which would be works based salvation). You've represented Fudge's position extremely ably to date and I've enjoyed learning about Conditionalism along the way!

Nathan wrote: "We reach the conclusion that some topics in scripture are intentionally difficult to understand, particularly things to do with the end of this age and all that will be ushered in afterwards. Faith is the natural missing piece, rather than our intellectual capability to make logical choices (which would be works based salvation)."

Well put, Nathan! (And thanks for your kind words!) I've also enjoyed your able and cogent representation of the traditional view, and have learned and expanded my thinking from it, as well as from your clear and well-argued exposition of Calvinism on one of our other threads. (I hope to revive that discussion before long, too!)