What is the purpose of the lake of fire

[seanD]

How does Psalm 23 establish that death is literally personified?

"Shadow of death." But, yeah, I was pretty much grasping at straws.

[Just Some Dude]

Of course I could engage in the back and forth regarding how I believe Luke 16 is often seriously misconstrued and the folly of using symbolic imagery from the visions in the Apocalypse in order to substantiate the doctrine of endless conscious torment, but after one and a half years of this I am burned out (unfortunate pun unintended). The T-Web exchanges are ultimately inadequate and largely fruitless. It seems as though only the random lurker will be deriving some benefit from these threads. Time and again I am seeing the same individuals arguing for the respective positions here. No one is likely to budge. It's time to throw in the hat (for me, at least). Both sides of the debate/dialogue will need to attend to the relevant literature from the other side of the fence (ECT or final annihilation). I'm getting the sense that many ECT proponents have not extensively engaged the annihilationist literature. This is unfortunate, but everyone will need to do their homework or ultimately remain ignorant of the broader issues at play.

Note to everyone: Send a private message my way if you'd like to request resource recommendations for annihilationism. (Serious inquiries only.)

I'll admit that, when I lurked, I derived benefit from said threads.

[The Remonstrant]

I'll admit that, when I lurked, I derived benefit from said threads.

I'm glad. Yes, in my judgement you are a part of that one group (i.e., "lurkers") which makes these exchanges profitable. Those in the midst of the dialogue/debate will likely only come out the other side more reinforced in their beliefs (sometimes legitimately, sometimes ironically). This mostly comes down to the dreaded "confirmation bias". We each individually need to take this into account about ourselves or we may fail to grow. The honesty must begin with ourselves and our presuppositions. We need to have an openness and willingness to learn. (E.g., I don't believe the same things I did nine or so years ago.)

[Obsidian]

I am the epitome of objectivity. If I weren't interested in figuring out what the lake of fire truly means, I would not have made this thread. Or I would have made the thread, but argued a point of my own in the opening post. And I already acknowledged that nothing in the Bible explicitly and clearly seems to teach that unbelieving humans experience eternal torment. (Revelation, however, does explicitly say that Satan will be tormented forever, which has to be either accepted or explained via credible symbolic reading.)

The idea that Luke 16 is a fantasy does not make sense to me. While the torment is not necessarily eternal, it certainly lasts longer than an instant. All Jesus's other parables were based on reality, not fantasy. Further, I don't see how God could realistically punish sin, and allow for "greater damnation," if everyone were instantly annihilated.

[KingsGambit]

The idea that Luke 16 is a fantasy does not make sense to me. While the torment is not necessarily eternal, it certainly lasts longer than an instant. All Jesus's other parables were based on reality, not fantasy. Further, I don't see how God could realistically punish sin, and allow for "greater damnation," if everyone were instantly annihilated.

Even if one didn't want to take Luke 16 as figurative, it would seem to refer to the intermediate state between death and the parousia rather than the final state. However, there are some details in there that seem to be difficult to take literally. There is nowhere else in Scripture that indicates that people can communicate between heaven and hell. In any event, there seems to be some evidence that there were similar folk tales told around that time, so I don't see it as a problem to think that Jesus was taking a then commonly known story and giving it a twist. This at least seems easier than reconciling Luke 16 with the rest of Scripture, because I don't think it's very compatible if taken literally. (I can expand on that later if anybody wants.)

[Obsidian]

I think at least parts of the story have to be metaphorical, because if it refers to the intermediate state (which it does) then it doesn't make sense why the rich man would have physical body parts. But the body parts could simply be interpreted as metaphors, or else parts of the man's soul. The talking may be invented simply for dramatic and theological purposes (i.e., to help explain the rich man's thought processes in hell). However, I don't see why there is anything problematic with just taking the talking literally, either.

Elsewhere, the setting on fire of body parts is figurative.

James 3:6
And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

Although it is debatable (and unclear), I am starting to view the following passage as being metaphorical for the same type of sinfulness from hell that James 3 describes:

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

This passage is possibly a reference to the wicked use of one's eyes leading the person's whole life into wickedness (and judgment).

[KingsGambit]

Quick question, what would be problematic about having literal body parts in the intermediate state?

[Obsidian]

It says the man is "buried," meaning his body is six feet under, not in hell. Honestly, I don't think any part of the Bible very clearly teaches that the wicked are resurrected with a physical body. The closest would be Matthew 5, which I just cited above but which virtually everyone interprets as metaphorical to at least some extent. The receipt of an immortal body in 1 Corinthians 15 is supposed to be a good thing, not a curse.

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

This passage arguably teaches that the wicked have bodies in hell. But the main point of the verse is the destruction of the soul in hell. In this same verse, even the righteous have their bodies destroyed. So it may just be saying that God kills the body and then burns the soul in hell. Or once again, the whole thing may be mildly (or entirely) symbolic.

[The Remonstrant]

I am the epitome of objectivity.

Eh. Tongue-in-cheek, I should hope. You're learning from me.

[The Remonstrant]

It says the man is "buried," meaning his body is six feet under, not in hell. Honestly, I don't think any part of the Bible very clearly teaches that the wicked are resurrected with a physical body. [Emphasis added.]

You may be standing outside the gates of "orthodoxy" with this statement, Obsidian. But I don't pretend to be the gatekeeper. In any event, Daniel 12:2 and John 5:29 seem to provide a good counter. The unrighteous will be raised to judgement/condemnation. Presumably they will be embodied. (We see nothing of disembodied existence countenanced in the Gospel of John.)

[KingsGambit]

You may be standing outside the gates of "orthodoxy" with this statement, Obsidian. But I don't pretend to be the gatekeeper. In any event, Daniel 12:2 and John 5:29 seem to provide a good counter. The unrighteous will be raised to judgement/condemnation. Presumably they will be embodied. (We see nothing of disembodied existence countenanced in the Gospel of John.)

I may also add Matthew 25 where there is no hint that the sheep and the goats are differentiated by whether they have bodies.

[The Remonstrant]

I may also add Matthew 25 where there is no hint that the sheep and the goats are differentiated by whether they have bodies.

Yes, that passage and Matthew 13:36-43 in Jesus' interpretation of the parable of the wheat and the tares as well. At Christ's reappearance his angels are to separate the lawless from the righteous: "The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness" (13:41 NKJV¹). Similarly, in the Olivet Discourse Jesus declares: "[The Son of Man] will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (24:31). What are we to make of angels gathering out disembodied spirits at Christ's second advent?²


Notes

¹ All Scripture quotations are taken from the New King James Version (NKJV) of the Bible.

² Interestingly, in Matthew 25:32 Jesus speaks of himself as personally separating persons from all the nations into one of two groups at the judgement: "All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats." However, Jesus does picture himself as being accompanied by all the angels at his return in this passage (25:31).

[Obsidian]

Matthew 25 is referring to the gospel proclamation to the gentiles throughout the church age, with those who reject Christ's apostles ultimately being sent to hell. It does not say anything about bodies.

My current understanding of Daniel 12 is that it is figurative. However, I am open to persuasion, on not just this passage but some other sections of Daniel as well.

John 5 just mentions a resurrection, and a coming forth from the grave. It does sort of sound like a physical resurrection for the wicked, especially given that the same language is used for the righteous. I would not say it is definitive, however. The word resurrection just means "to raise up." It is possible that only the souls of the wicked are raised up.

Nonetheless, upon further reflection, I do think Revelation 20 also seems to imply a physical resurrection (however that works) for the wicked.

Revelation 20:5
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Based on my current understanding of the symbolism, this verse implies that even the spiritually dead are somehow "living again," which if they are spiritually dead would seem to imply that it is their bodies which live.

[The Remonstrant]

Matthew 25 is referring to the gospel proclamation to the gentiles throughout the church age, with those who reject Christ's apostles ultimately being sent to hell. It does not say anything about bodies.

My current understanding of Daniel 12 is that it is figurative. However, I am open to persuasion, on not just this passage but some other sections of Daniel as well.

John 5 just mentions a resurrection, and a coming forth from the grave. It does sort of sound like a physical resurrection for the wicked, especially given that the same language is used for the righteous. I would not say it is definitive, however. The word resurrection just means "to raise up." It is possible that only the souls of the wicked are raised up.

Nonetheless, upon further reflection, I do think Revelation 20 also seems to imply a physical resurrection (however that works) for the wicked.

Revelation 20:5
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Based on my current understanding of the symbolism, this verse implies that even the spiritually dead are somehow "living again," which if they are spiritually dead would seem to imply that it is their bodies which live.

Do you believe the angels are transplanting immaterial spirits/"souls" in Matthew 13:41 or 24:31 (see message #27 above)?

[Obsidian]

Matthew 13:41 is referring to people who are still alive, so the context necessitates that these are bodies. I think that Matthew 24:31 probably refers to the spreading of the gospel, not to a rapture or resurrection.