My Case for eternal Hell

[Ambassador791]

Sorry if some of this has been well answered, but I don’t have time to read all the past posts.

Does the second death mean non-existence? In scripture, does “death” always mean dead, not living, not existing???

In scripture, “Dead” describes the state of the sinner apart from God.

Eph/2,3:” As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins in which you used to LIVE…” Eph 2/5:”…made ALIVE in Christ even when you were DEAD…” Col 2/13: “When you were DEAD in your sins and uncircumcised in your sinful nature, God made you ALIVE with Christ. He forgave us all our sins”

Notice that being with Christ is life, and without him is called "death". Let me assure you that in these scriptures, Paul is using the word “dead” but talking about people with living bodies and souls.

Death is used to describe sinners separated from God. In the context of the sinner’s relationship with God, “death” does not mean nonexistence.

What does the scripture call the second death? Is it unconsciousness, the end of existence? Rev 20/14 says: “the lake of fire is the second death”. About those tormented there by burning sulfur, Rev 14/11 says that there is “no rest day or night”. In contrast, verse 13 says (just two verses later) that the dead in the Lord will “rest from their labor because their deeds will follow them.” Just as the souls in heaven will be alive to experience rest, the souls being burnt by sulfur are alive to be able to experience no rest. This is a contrast that is not made by mistake. If we believe that the "rest" (consciousness) for the saint is real, why wouldn't we believe that the (consciousness) lack of "rest" for the sinner is just as real? Rev 20/10 confirms that the lake of fire is a place where time passes for the sinner: “day and night” pass by. The Second Death is not the end of time or consciousness for the sinner.

All we need to know to disprove that the second death is nonexistence is that: 1 the sinner is experiencing the passing of time there “day and night” and 2 that he is continuing to experience…something (“no rest”).Yes Revelation has symbolic language. But if we say that “day and night” really means some kind of nonexistence without time…we have gone too far. We would be saying that “day and night” actually means NOTHING. This symbol has to mean some time…not no time. If you do that with symbolic language, you could explain away ALL the symbols of revelation. This also applies if you see revelation as a symbolic drama, you can’t deny the fact that it talks about specific punishments that will be given out to the just and unjust. Even if it is symbolism, we don’t have to resort to relativism.

2 Thess 1/9 says that : the sinner “…will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presents of the lord…” The word destruction here means “complete ruin” . This “ruining” of a man talks about the deconstruction of his purpose, which is eternal communion with his creator. This fits the context of the verse, and what we know about how the sinner is called “dead” while apart from God.

As we know, it is common for the first part of a verse to be repeated only in a different way in the later part of the verse. Ex: Isaiah 53 “We all like sheep have gone astray” (now follows the same idea but repeated in another way)…” each of us has turned to his own way.”

Let’s read 2 Thess 1/9 with this in mind. The sinner “…will pay the penalty of eternal ruin” (now watch for the translation of the first part) ”…away from the presents of the Lord”

If you translate destruction as annihilation, the two parts seem to have nothing to do with each other. The sinner …”will no longer exist….away from the presents of the lord”. ??? If the sinner does not exist , he is not anywhere. Clearly, ruin fits the whole context perfectly and it lines up with the way “dead” is used in regards to the sinner being estranged from God. Death and destruction refer to the sinner’s separation from God.

Someone may say that it is impossible to escape the presence of the Lord and the only way to do so is annihilation. Tell that to the saints of the Old Testament! Would God’s presence dwell in just any temple or tabernacle? No! Even so, God was everywhere…but not accessible to all. In our age, all humans are enjoying the ability to find God and be in his presence anywhere. This is revolutionary if one considers what had to be done to be in Gods presents in the Old Testament. Remember, thoses that are called "dead" on earth, still have the ability to pray and enter God's throne room if they wanted.The door is still open to them, yet they are called "dead" by Paul even though they have the same ability to talk to God as we do. If they are called "dead" now, will they not pass on to another level of "death", a second death, when thay are deprived of this right in hell? In hell, this death would be worse than the first because the sinner will not enjoy the overflow of blessing poured out on the just and will suffer the separation of all things good. This will truly be complete ruin for the sinner.

Seeing how the living sinner with a living soul is called "dead" in regard to his relationship with God, it only follows that passing on to further seperation from God would a "Second Death".


This next verse, in my opinion, does away with universalism

Math 25/46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

How long is the punishment of the wicked?. The punishment of the wicked is contrasted directly with the length of the reward of the just. I know that there is some discussion of the meaning of “eternal”. The discussion about the meaning of eternal in regards to the lost ends here. In this context, eternal means forever, unless you think that we will only be with God for a season and then we will be separated from him. No. This could not be clearer. Jesus does not change the meaning of eternal inside of the same verse.

Some also say that mans soul is not eternal by nature, so it will die. If it is eternal or if it isn’t , that does not present a problem to God. The bible is clear that there is a resurrection of the just and unjust, and after that the judgment. If God resurrects us, this will solve any problem of man not having an eternal soul. I don't see any problem here.

What about repentance after death? Someone said “I would only have to burn for a second and then say…O.K, I repent now.”Wont every knee bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord?

Luke 13/25, 28 “Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside the house pleading, sir open the door for us”….”there will be weeping there and gnashing of teeth.”

Theses people sound repentant and I'm sure that everyone locked out will "bow the knee and say Lord" to try to get the owner to let them in.…but the owner will NOT open the door for them! Remember, Jesus said that many will say "Lord, Lord" but he will say that he does not know them.

Why is this sort of “repentance” not acceptable? In short, this is regret, not repentance.

Would suffering in hell produce true repentance in the sinner? Is God only concerned with the paying for of sins (without regeneration of the spirit) to allow the sinner into heaven? If God is only concerned with the forgiving of sins, every lukewarm Christian in America can expect to enter into eternal life…even if they haven’t been truly born again.
In other words…there are “repented Christians” that go to church because: God will give them riches, it makes them look better politically, there are lots of cute girls in the church, but, I bet there isn’t one Christian on this form that would say that they are saved if their “repentance” is just a means to an end. What makes the man that will ONLY choose God under the WORST conditions any different than the cold Christians we know of that are just using Jesus to make themselves more comfortable.

Why are they not interested in God until he becomes useful to them?.... THEY ARE NOT BORN AGAIN! Jesus said John 3/5: “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the spirit.” Only rebirth guided by the spirit of God will produce what God requires in a man. Jesus said that the spirit would convince the world of sin (so that they could repent). Would we suggest that that a good substitute for the Spirit could have been a flame thrower!?!? Should we start converting by the sword?

When man was tempted by the serpent to sin it wasn’t because he was hungry.No! There was plenty of food in the garden. He believed that he could be like God if he could eat of the fruit (this is key). Romans 1/23 tells us that Man exchanged God for man like idols. Man, driven by sin (without the Spirt) is on a mission to replace God with himself!

The same way that rust is to metal, sin is to God (at least it try’s to be).The unregenerated man is guided by his sin nature to blot God out in every way he can! If man wants to be like God and put himself in God’s place…where would that leave God if man had the power to do this?

I believe that man would kill God if he had the power to do so, and I think there might be an example of this in the bible ( ; . Man hates God, even if he regrets his punishment. The Universalist says that the punishment should only match the amount of sins the sinner has committed. But I am here to say that even if we wiped away all the sins of every sinner…he would still be Gods enemy… precisely because he hasn’t been born again. I used to wonder how it was that God could allow a sinner like me into heaven even though I am no where near perfect. I think the answer is that God can handle our temporal offenses and sins, but if we are not on his side, if we are set against him, and want him done away with…THAT is a whole other problem. A problem that can only be reversed by a changed nature.


All we see in society today is the effort man is making to shut God out from every corner of his mind. The more I think about this…the more it is becoming clear. The mob mentality of man would kill God if he had the power to do it (something about the wickedness of man comes out when he is in a mob) but one human would never kill God if he was in His visible presents …because he does not have the power.

I believe that this is the test of life. God steps back for a season and makes it appear that each person has the power to do with God as he wants. So, man blots God out of his own personal universe to declare himself god. Jesus said that hating your brother is as good as murder, and adultery in the mind as good as doing it outwardly. What about the mental assassination of the God of the universe? If this is our spiritual condition how could you ever try to reduce the eternal implications of it?!? What if God wants to entrust us with power over parts of his kingdom in the next life. Can you see how the sinner’s spiritual state would present a problem at this point if he hasn’t been born again? The recognition of God as King is born from within. Can you see how simply twisting the sinners’ arm to recognize God over himself is oversimplifying the problem?

If a murderer wanted to kill you and take your place…how long should he be locked up for? I would say for as long as he would continue wanting you gone. That would be just, wouldn’t it? Let me ask you something…after Satan has burned the equivalent time in hell that his own sin warrants…should he be let into heaven? I would say no…because he wants God’s place and subtracting the payment of sins will not solve that.

In the courtroom of life, each sinner testifies WITH HIS LIFE that he would de-thrown God if he could and set himself up in Gods place. The man that will only choose God under the worst conditions has proven (testified against himself) that he is as hardened towards God as you can get. If you are waiting for this type of person to TRULY repent (not just regret) don’t hold your breath because you will be waiting an eternity. Remember, that without being born again…sinners are only more hardened, not the other way around. If by nature we want God out, and his grace and beckoning Spirit that we experienced on earth could not convince us to want him, why would you think that anything else (including punishment) could ever be more persuasive than that?

Why wouldn’t God give the sinner the chance to repent on the other side of death? During this life, God creates the illusion that we are in control and that we have options, as if we could reject him and it still go well for us. On the other side of death, there is no other option other than repentance. What’s so impressive if we choose God WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE!!! The conditions we repent under say a lot about our love for God. Sure, the gospel gives the threat of hell, but I think that we can all testify that the spirit convinced us of our sins and taught us to love God. The threat of hell didn’t teach us that. Repenting while it still appears you have power over your destiny is a far cry from “repenting” when God has finally backed you against a wall and your only escape is to “repent”. In life the sinner wouldn’t give God the time of day, in death he recognizes God by force…and this supposedly a good thing?

We always use the thief on the cross as our biblical example of a death bed conversion. Some ask why wouldn’t God accept this type of repentance just on the other side of death? After all, this thief just had to ask to go to heaven even though he had never really lived for God. This is deeper than you may know. From what we know, the person nailed to a cross would have been suffocating from the way he was hanging. He had to lift himself to be in the right position to be able to breath. He sacrificed himself and his precious breath to defend Jesus verbally and would have had to fight to be able to do this. What this man did in defense of Christ may well be more than what the average Christian gives of themselves towards the advancement of the kingdom of God in their whole lives. For all we know, this man was a back sliden Jew and followed Jehovah in his youth. What ever was happening in this mans heart was profound and beyond just trying to look out for himself in a selfish way. I do not believe that he was only trying to get a “get out of hell free card”. His self sacrifice testifies against that. Jesus recognized it and told him that he was saved.

Look, I know that we believe that many people have death bed conversions…but based on what we have seen above, we may find that most of those conversions were not genuine. Some say that if someone did not get the chance to convert on their death bed, they should get the chance after this life. If we understand the bible correctly, Pauls says (Acts 17) that God is not far from any of us. God knows our heart and has been trying to draw us with the light of creation and or his Spirit. If someone dies with out the chance to convert on his death bed we would be mistaken to think that God messed up and…”oops, God accidentally let him die, he never really got a true chance to repent.” To think this would be to ignore the fact that God is God and he is working behind the scenes our entire lives. It would be bad to form our theology around the idea that man lives his life with out access to God and what he really needs is a death bed or hell fire experience to be able to repent. God is not far from any man. Man has his whole life to repent. God owes no man a death bed experience after a life of grace and plenty of opportunities. That is good theology in light of the biblical data.

It is said that if the punishment of sin is never finished…God’s will is never done. Maybe his WILL is to match the sinner with punishment, second for second for his rebellion. God’s will would be done in this case and the punishment of such sinners would be justified and even. It is not the case that someone other than God moves in and sends people to hell against Gods will. No! This is God making judgments ACCORDING to his will in response to people who want take Gods place.

[steve7150]

It is said that if the punishment of sin is never finished…God’s will is never done. Maybe his WILL is to match the sinner with punishment, second for second for his rebellion. God’s will would be done in this case and the punishment of such sinners would be justified and even. It is not the case that someone other than God moves in and sends people to hell against Gods will. No! This is God making judgments ACCORDING to his will in response to people who want take Gods place.







Why would the punishment for sin never be finished? God judges everyone by their works and the word judgment means tailoring the punishment to fit the crime. Is Hitler going to be punished the same as a harmless buddist because eternal punishment is eternal , there is no judgment if one cookie cutter punishment fits all sinners.
Yes hell exists and time does pass but eternality does'nt contain time , by definition time is a finite period with an end. Also the bible says evil will be destroyed which would'nt happen if hell were eternal , it would just linger forever like a cancer.
Matt 25.46 the sheep already are immortal so by default whatever "aionios" means is not what qualifies them for immortality because they already received it at the resurrection.

[steve]

2 Thess 1/9 says that : the sinner “…will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presents of the lord…” The word destruction here means “complete ruin” . This “ruining” of a man talks about the deconstruction of his purpose, which is eternal communion with his creator. This fits the context of the verse, and what we know about how the sinner is called “dead” while apart from God.

As we know, it is common for the first part of a verse to be repeated only in a different way in the later part of the verse. Ex: Isaiah 53 “We all like sheep have gone astray” (now follows the same idea but repeated in another way)…” each of us has turned to his own way.”

Let’s read 2 Thess 1/9 with this in mind. The sinner “…will pay the penalty of eternal ruin” (now watch for the translation of the first part) ”…away from the presents of the Lord”

There is a mistake being made here, but it is not entirely your fault. It is partially due to the translation you are using. Paul did not write:

"eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord."

He wrote:

"eternal destruction, from the presence of the Lord" (there is no "away" in the phrase).

This expression "from the presence of the Lord is also used in Acts 3:19—"so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." Your translators are interpreting, not translating. There are certain benefits and punishments that proceed "from the presence of the Lord." One of them is "eternal destruction."

The appeal to poetic parallelism as a means of understanding 2 Thessalonians 1:9 does not seem appropriate, because it is not evident that Paul is writing poetically, as did the prophets. Nor is it obvious that Paul would communicate through a Hebrew convention of poetry to a Gentile audience like the Thessalonians (who had only been converted for a very short time, and would have had limited exposure to Jewish writings).

Seeing how the living sinner with a living soul is called "dead" in regard to his relationship with God, it only follows that passing on to further seperation from God would a "Second Death".

It seems that you are treating "second death" as an expression synonymous with a second "kind" or "degree" of death. This is a possibility, but it does not strike me as the most natural interpretation of the phrase. "Second" is obviously contrasting this death with another death, which is the "first." The most likely referent is to physical death as the "first" death. "Death" has been used previously in the chapter (in fact, in the Book of Revelation) only as a reference to physical death. To suggest a Pauline referent (i.e., that John is referring to Ephesians 2 and a spiritual state of death) as the first "death" seems less likely than that he is following his consistent use of the term throughout the book.

[Ambassador791]

Why would the punishment for sin never be finished? God judges everyone by their works and the word judgment means tailoring the punishment to fit the crime. Is Hitler going to be punished the same as a harmless buddist because eternal punishment is eternal , there is no judgment if one cookie cutter punishment fits all sinners.

As I wrote in my post, even if every sin of every sinner was paid for tomorrow, that would not solve the probem of them being Gods enemies and wanting to take his place. Without the sinner being born again, he not only has a problem because he is guilty, but IS a problem because of WHO he is.Justice alone will not fix this. He will continue being aN enemy of God until he is born again.I do believe that there will be different degrees of punishment, I just don´t know what that will look like.

Oh, one more thing. I´m not sure just how harmless the buddist is. Anyone who does not teach the next generation to obey the Living God becomes a leader of a Godless generation. The damage of this may be endless. When Israel did not do this, following generations sacrificed their own children to idols. I believe that if a parent or grandparent does not teach their children to follow the true God, they might just be guilty of the blood of an entire generation and the ferther degeneration of mankind itself. This is not as harmless as some people think. At least Hitler did the world a favor by outright showing the true evil face of his ideals. Your harmless buddist today has a larger following than Hitler yet the bible tells us that God is against any teaching or action that sets itself up against himself. Don´t let an angle of light fool you.

Yes hell exists and time does pass but eternality does'nt contain time , by definition time is a finite period with an end.

I would agree that time in our natual world works this way, I do not know how this all works in the supernatual. I do think that "days and nights" in Revalation is talking about an on going existance. For me, this is all I need to know that the sinner is not finished in the second death.

Also the bible says evil will be destroyed which would'nt happen if hell were eternal , it would just linger forever like a cancer.

Maybe eternal hell IS the distruction of evil.The question is what is the nature of this hell and how long does it last. In my first post I am arguing that hell is the distruction of the wicked, it´s just that the language seems to indicate that it is not the END of the wicked. Evil is lingering right now as a cancer and that is by Gods choice. How long will it linger in punishment? I think that the language of Revalation is symbolic, but even so, it indicates the passage of time and consciousness, not...nothing.

Matt 25.46 the sheep already are immortal so by default whatever "aionios" means is not what qualifies them for immortality because they already received it at the resurrection.

Yes, that alone does not qualifie them for immortality...but. God will raise us all from our graves to judge us. This will solve our problem of not being immortal.Once God qualifies us having delivered us into the supernatual relm, I´m not sure if we will wear away like a natual thing. In this debate, people seem to think that the second law of thermodynamics still wears away on the supernatual being, making him mortal. I think that this is a category error. Death is a result of our bodies breaking down. This is true in the natual world where the second law of thermodynamics exists...but we are no longer talking about the natural word once God reserects us.

[Ambassador791]

There is a mistake being made here, but it is not entirely your fault. It is partially due to the translation you are using. Paul did not write:

"eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord."

He wrote:

"eternal destruction, from the presence of the Lord" (there is no "away" in the phrase).

This expression "from the presence of the Lord is also used in Acts 3:19—"so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." Your translators are interpreting, not translating. There are certain benefits and punishments that proceed "from the presence of the Lord." One of them is "eternal destruction."

"From" can be a preposition that speaks of location "from" something or the origin of somthing. I agree, that 2 Thess 1/9 could be translated to say this distruction is the a "distruction FROM the presence of the Lord, TO the sinner", or It could be that this distruction is the result of the sinner being "FROM the presence of the Lord, and IN another place". I think that this is what most translators see it as. I think that I would see it this way as well. As I understand, the second death is the lake of fire, it is not the Lord himself. If the Lords presence destroys, wouldn´t we all be in trouble as soon as we entre his presence? If the presence of the Lord is the second death, we will be worshiping the second death?I hope not. According to Mat 25, second death is a place prepared for satan. I don´t think that the Lords presence is that place prepared for Satan that scripture talks about.

It seems that you are treating second death" as an expression synonymous with a second "kind" or "degree" of death. This is a possibility, but it does not strike me as the most natural interpretation of the phrase. "Second" is obviously contrasting this death with another death, which is the "first." The most likely referent is to physical death as the "first" death. "Death" has been used previously in the chapter (in fact, in the Book of Revelation) only as a reference to physical death. To suggest a Pauline referent (i.e., that John is referring to Ephesians 2 and a spiritual state of death) as the first "death" seems less likely than that he is following his consistent use of the term throughout the book.

I am going to agree here about "death" possibly meaning phisical or spiritual and I would say the same thing about "distruction" and "from" in 2 Thess 1/9 , But...

This is what I think it all hinges on. If it can be shown that the second death is a place where consciousness is, and time is passing for the sinner, I would say that "death" and "distruction" would have to be separation from God, not the end of existance. The language of Revalation is symbolic, but even so, it indicates the passage of time and consciousness, not...nothing. The rest of the just is contrasted by the lack of rest EXPERIENCED by the unjust in Rev 14. I think that John would have understood the concept of "spiritual death" of thoses living on earth apart from God, even if we don´t have any writing by him on that. It would not be unthinkable that he would also use this type of language of someone living, but being ferther separated from God, away from his goodness.After all, we know that "death" IS used of life away from God.

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote:
Why would the punishment for sin never be finished? God judges everyone by their works and the word judgment means tailoring the punishment to fit the crime. Is Hitler going to be punished the same as a harmless buddist because eternal punishment is eternal , there is no judgment if one cookie cutter punishment fits all sinners.

As I wrote in my post, even if every sin of every sinner was paid for tomorrow, that would not solve the probem of them being Gods enemies and wanting to take his place. Without the sinner being born again, he not only has a problem because he is guilty, but IS a problem because of WHO he is.Justice alone will not fix this. He will continue being aN enemy of God until he is born again.I do believe that there will be different degrees of punishment, I just don´t know what that will look like.

Oh, one more thing. I´m not sure just how harmless the buddist is. Anyone who does not teach the next generation to obey the Living God becomes a leader of a Godless generation. The damage of this may be endless.






Many sinners are pagans who worship things instead of God therefore these folks are at least not worshipping themselves and possibly when they know the true diety they might change but in any case the solution always can be annhilation. Justice is satisfied and God's enemies are destroyed and evil is destroyed. Leaving evil quarantined eternally IMO is not justice and is contrary to God's charactor. God tells us we are blessed if we are merciful yet He is eternally vengeful?

[Todd]

Ambassador,

I believe that the "second death" is spiritual death. As Steve pointed out in his post, it is contrasted with physical death (the first death). When one is dead in sin, he is spiritually dead (but physically alive). You have also said the same thing. When one is in this state, he is alienated from God.

Sin has both spirtual and natural consequences. One who is overcome in sin is deluged with these consequences - this is the Lake of Fire. The spiritual consequences are initiated through the conviction of the Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin (John 16:8). The natural consequences are self-evident as they complicate and even destroy the life of the sinner. Even the governing authorities are God's minister in this regard (Rom 13:1-6).

Notice in Rev 20:11-13 that it is the "dead" who are cast into the lake of fire. These are those who are spiritually dead, yet physically alive. Each one is judged according to his works and suffers the consequences, both spiritual and natural. This is not a picture of what happens in the resurrection; rather, it is a picture of what happens everyday in the life of anyone overcome in sin. Christ came to deliver us from this kind of existence; for this to happen we must repent, have faith in Him and yield to the leading of His Holy Spirit sent to us as a guide and Comforter.

In the resurrection, death is destroyed and both the just and the unjust are raised - as in Adam all die, in Christ all are made alive. Both groups - the Sons of God (disciples), and creation (the rest of mankind), are delivered from the bondage to decay unto a glorious liberty in Christ.

Rom 8:18-23
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

Todd

[steve]

"From" can be a preposition that speaks of location "from" something or the origin of somthing. I agree, that 2 Thess 1/9 could be translated to say this distruction is the a "distruction FROM the presence of the Lord, TO the sinner", or It could be that this distruction is the result of the sinner being "FROM the presence of the Lord, and IN another place". I think that this is what most translators see it as.

I think they probably do. However, who can say to what degree they are influenced (when it comes to the toss of a coin in the selection of one translational choice over another) by the traditional theology and their assumptions about Paul's agreement with that tradition? Even when I taught the traditional view, and read this verse as you are reading it, I never thought the sentence was worded well. "These shall be punished with everlasting destruction..." Okay. That has a clear enough meaning all by itself. But then comes the phrase, "from the presence of the Lord." Is this saying that the destruction takes the form of eternal separation from the presence of the Lord? It would have made more sense, if Paul wished to convey that idea, to say something similar to that, like, "These shall be punished with everlasting destruction—namely, exclusion from the presence of the Lord."

Most translators apparently agree with me that Paul (if he wished to convey that idea, as they think he did) ought to have included at least one additional word, like "exclusion" or some synonymous phrase. They have decided to make up for Paul's clumsiness by supplying the missing word themselves! Thus, the NIV adds the words "shut out [from]." Both the NASB and the ESV add the word "away [from]." The NLT adds "forever separated [from]." It is clear that these translators agree that Paul meant what you are taking him to mean. They just disagree with Paul's choice of words (or his omission of words). It is wonderful to have the translators on hand to correct Paul's errors! (By the way, the KJV, the NKJV and Young's Literal Translation do not add such words, but allow Paul to speak for himself).

It can hardly be thought that the ultimate judgment would be described as being separated from the presence of the Lord, when the Book of Revelation says the sinner "shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb" (14:10). There is no absence from the presence of the Lord here. In fact, it is explicitly stated that the punishment takes place in the presence of the Lamb (that is, the Lord).

The idea that the wicked will experience a destruction that proceeds from the presence of the Lord is unmistakably Paul's (and Revelation's) doctrine. In the same book (2 Thessalonians 2:8), Paul says of the man of sin, that "the Lord will consume [him] with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming." That has a very destructive sound to it, as does Revelation 20:11—"Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them." If the heavens and the earth are put out of existence by the presence of the one sitting on the throne, this might justify Paul's saying, in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, that there will be a destruction that comes from the presence of the Lord.

I think that I would see it this way as well. As I understand, the second death is the lake of fire, it is not the Lord himself. If the Lords presence destroys, wouldn´t we all be in trouble as soon as we entre his presence? If the presence of the Lord is the second death, we will be worshiping the second death?I hope not. According to Mat 25, second death is a place prepared for satan. I don´t think that the Lords presence is that place prepared for Satan that scripture talks about.

If this kind of rhetoric is the best defense that can be brought forward to salvage a point, the point is better left to drown.

That we worship God (not the Lake of Fire), and that His presence can destroy the wicked without destroying those whom He has made immortal, should be evident upon a mere moment's rational reflection. When Peter speaks of "times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord," this does not mean that everyone who ever stands in the presence of God, including the lost, will experience this "refreshing." I appreciate your answering my post, but you will get further with this crowd if you restrict your argumentation to the presentation of evidence, rather than perplexing (and inapt) rhetorical questions.

[Ambassador791]

It can hardly be thought that the ultimate judgment would be described as being separated from the presence of the Lord, when the Book of Revelation says the sinner "shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels

I think that God's presence will be in the "second death".People being away from the presence of the Lord even while he and his angles were around them was true in the Old Testament. God was everywhere but his pesence would not just dwell in any building. People were deprived of communion with God. There are living people today that are separted from God. Even with this being true they LIVE in his presence and are called "dead" by Paul because they are devided from God spiritually.This is not a foreign idea in scripture, it is foundational. I think that this "distruction" or the "second death" of the sinner is really talking about the end of the possiblity of communion with God.

you will get further with this crowd if you restrict your argumentation to the presentation of evidence, rather than perplexing (and inapt) rhetorical questions.

I don't think that my comment about not confusing God with the Lake of fire was pure rhetoric. Jesus said that hell is a place prepared for Satan, he could have just said that God will distroy him. Maybe I was too sarcastic.

I am using scripture as evidence, let me quote myself:

The language of Revalation is symbolic, but even so, it indicates the passage of time and consciousness, not...nothing. The rest of the just is contrasted by the lack of rest EXPERIENCED by the unjust in Rev 14.

Let's look at a passages you gave as evidence:

Revelation 20:11—"Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them."

This means the end of the world as we know it. This does not say that the Lords presence distroys them, it says that they run away. None of us will say that heaven and earth will actually get up and run from the Lord. This symbolic language could be translated in different ways and it might not mean that it is the arriving of God that just automaticly burns the whole world up.But, notice that I refuse to say that this does NOT mean anything other than the end of the world as we know it.

"the Lord will consume [him] with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming." That has a very destructive sound to it

This may not be a case for the distruction of the soul, but the lawless one on earth.

We can agree that these verses you gave talk about the destruction of the earth as we know it, people and maybe souls.But I don't think that it is clear how. It is too symbolic to say exactly. Thess 2/8 gives the indication that not only is the lawless one (possibly living on earth) distroyed by God's presence, but by his breath also(I'm not trying to be sarcastic in what I say next). So his presence alone does not distroy? He will need to use his breath too? What is breath symbolic for? Notice that the symbolic language in these passages leave different possibilities open and the weight of your argument may be lost here because his presence alone may not be the thing that distroys.

I will admit, that the flames of the lake of fire could be symbolic for some other type of punishment, and that "day and night" could be symbolic for more or less time.I think that the verses that I used and the ones you used (along with the "second death") are likly symbolic for other things.

But, I think that my evidence is quite strong because I am only using passeges that, no matter how symbolic, must equal to time and existance in the second death. If these ARE symbols, I don't know what they really mean, but if we say that they do not mean time or existance in the second death these verses mean...nothing at all.

[Ambassador791]

Let me quote myself to get started here:

steve wrote:
"the Lord will consume [him] with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming." That has a very destructive sound to it


This may not be a case for the distruction of the soul, but the lawless one on earth.

I was looking at a parallel to 2 Thessalonians 2:8, in Rev 19/20. Here it talks about the False profit being thrown into the lake of fire. This is makes me think that you were right, Steve in saying that 2 Thessalonians 2:8 is talking about punishement of the lawless one's soul, not just the destruction of his body. I still think that 2 Thessalonians 2:8 is not clear enough to say that it will be the presence of the Lord that "distroys" him.

But, I noticed something about the beast and the false profit that does "miraculos signs" Rev 19/20,21 says:

"...the two of them were thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfer. The rest of them were killed by the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse..."

2 thess 2/8 says that Jesus will use the "breath of his mouth". Rev 19/21 says that he will ued the "sword from his mouth". I think that these are symbolic for the same thing, same event.

You were saying that the breath that distroys from Jesus' mouth is the destuctive presence of Jesus and that his presence is the lake of fire (second death) that will burn up this lawless one.

But notice what Rev, 19/20,21 says: "...the two of them were thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfer."(AND THEN) ..."The rest of them were killed by the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse..."

Jesus' prence cannot be the second death because here we see it contrasted with the lake of fire. The sword coming out of his mouth (his presence) is not the thing that distroys the false profit, the Lake of fire is. The lake of fire is mentiond right along side the Lord's presents in this passage. It says that the "distruction" that proceeds from the Lord kills the others, and being thrown into the lake of fire kills the false profit.

I think that this is a pretty good case that the distructive force that proceeds from the Lord does distroy, but it is not the second death.The second death...is another distinct thing.