Dr. James White - Two Different Views on Hell Debated (Unbelievable Radio Program)

[R1K2G3]

Mt.18:8; 25:41 both speak of "eternal fire".

Jude 1:7 speaks of Sodom & Gomorrah serving "as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire".

Therefore, the "eternal fire" will not last throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity; it will only last until it has accomplished its work: punishment, and the ultimate death of the wicked.

Seems pretty clear ;)

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3

Definitely, I will now respond to your private message reply. Good discussing this topic with you, brother. If anything wasn't accomplished, you at least sparked a stronger interest in me to study eschatology . :-)

[R1K2G3]

Eternal Fire: "...just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of ETERNAL FIRE" (Jd. 1:7, ESV).

Q. Is Sodom & Gomorrah burning today?

A. No.

Q. Did Sodom & Gomorrah suffer from "eternal fire"?

A. Yes.

Q. Will the wicked in the eschaton suffer in "eternal fire"?

A. Yes.

Q. Will they burn throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity?

A. No, apparently not.

[2row777]

@R1K2G3 One last thing. You have not dealt with the passages I've cited. You continue in contradiction. You say the fire is eternal, yet think that it will "simply burn out, completely." Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument.

[R1K2G3]

@2row777 What passage did you want me to deal with specifically?

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 Sorry for the confusion. On my phone, I'm logged on as 2row777, which is my personal Youtube account. I, SaintsEdified, directed this to you:

One last thing. You have not dealt with the passages I've cited. You continue in contradiction. You say the fire is eternal, yet think that it will "simply burn out, completely." Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified

Here is what "eternal fire" means: a fire that has eternal consequences. The consequences of the fire are eternal because it leads to the "second death". It's that simple. For some reason you don't understand that.

You can simply say, "I don't agree"; but at least acknowledge that you understand.

Otherwise, it is pointless arguing.

[R1K2G3]

Mal.4: "the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble...The day that is coming shall set them ablaze...so that it will leave them neither root nor branch...And you (God's people) shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet.." (vs. 1,3, ESV). Seems this is talking about the finality of the judgment against the reprobate. Doesn't look like they will be doing any sinning throughout eternity.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 "Mal 4"

Now you're using a passage to describe "the lake of fire," "hell," or some form of eternal punishment that the author was not intending to describe whatsoever. This only reveals that the righteous will tread over the wicked on the Day of the Lord -- You're guilty of eisegesis. Now, if you want me to show you passages that explain what eternal punishment will be like then just ask. Obviously, you don't know where the Bible teaches this topic, so I'll help ya out if you will.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified Oh, I know full-well the passages you will attempt to use to substantiate the false doctrine of the wicked burning, consciously, in a never-ending, torturous lake of fire.

It is certainly clear that Malachi was talking about the final fate of the wicked (Mal.4:1-3). You can deny it all you want, God's Word still stands, and the truth is known by His people.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (1)

I've demonstrated how you're guilty of eisegesis twice already. You failed to demonstrate that Ps. 37 is referring to the wicked's eternity and could not respond efficiently to what I said about Mal. 4's context - You instead result to imply that I am not part of God's people because I don't agree with you ("and the truth is known by His people."). "And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet." (3) Surely this is not referring to eternity.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified said, "I've demonstrated how you're guilty of eisegesis twice already." You most certainly have not. You gave me your 'opinion' about what you 'think' Ps.37, and Mal.4 are talking about.

You said, "Surely this (Mal.4:3) is not referring to eternity". I didn't say it was referring to "eternity". The glorified saints surely won't tread upon the ashes of the wicked for all eternity, for there will be a New Earth (where there will be no more "ashes").

Simple ;)

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (2)

You brought up the "the beast" and the "false prophet" and it's completely irrelevant for me to explain that to you. Stick with the main topic -- I was only demonstrating once again how inconsistent you are in interpreting the Bible, concerning eternal punishment. Do you have any more proof-texts you want me to examine before I demonstrate to you how eternal punishment is biblical?

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified So you don't think that when you use Rev.20:10 as your proof text for eternal, conscious punishing of the wicked, that it isn't incumbent upon you to explain the symbolic language that is used in the very text you quote? I would say that that is being inconsistent. Either tell me what "the beast", and the "false prophet" symbolize, or don't use this as a proof text. Go on to another.

Symbolic language, and passages, are not meant to be taken in a literalistic fashion.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (1)

"don't use this as a proof text"

YOU were the one who mentioned Rev. 20:9-10. I didn't even mention Revelations. The biblical doctrine of hell can be proven without Rev. 20:10. This has been the summary of our discussion so far: You attempted to use Ps. 37 and Mal. 4 but could not prove that the contexts were referring to the wicked's eternity. They only refer to their physical/earthly death. You then randomly used Rev. 20 and suddenly claimed that I used it as a proof text...?

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified @SaintsEdified

Ps.37:11, "the meek shall inherit the land, is quoted in Mt.5:5. The eschatological significance comes when one understands that it will only be the righteous who inherit the New Earth (Is.65:17; 2 Pet.3:13...etc.). Of course, there will be no place for sin to endure forever on the new earth.

If you believe that the wicked will burn, consciously, for eternity...then please tell me the PLACE of their burning.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (2)

"I didn't say it was referring to "eternity."

Exactly! The question you must ask yourself now is if the Bible teaches an existence of the wicked after physical/earthly death. If it does then the wicked's "final fate" is not just a physical death. I asked you repeatedly to prove your assertions but your responses haven't proved anything, so I'm just going to prove biblically the doctrine of hell now, if you don't mind.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (3)

Matthew 25

"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels." (v41)

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (v46)

I'll stick with this for now. So explain to me how you can read a passage like this (of the many that are in the Bible) and still say that there is no such thing as eternal punishment? (Try to avoid ad hominems please.)

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified I have never claimed that the "punishment" is not eternal. The punishment IS eternal; that is, it has eternal consequences; it is a punishment from which there will be no hope for further resurrection unto eternal life with Christ. In other words, as I stated, Mt.25:46 says nothing about the NATURE of the punishment..only that it's a punishment with eternal consequences. It's the same with Mt.25:46...nothing about the NATURE the fire with regard to what happens in it.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (1)

So you agree that that there is an eternal punishment, but the only problem we have is understanding the nature of that "eternal" punishment. Does the Bible anywhere explain the nature of that punishment, besides physical/earthly death (since even the righteous experience that)? Looking at Mt. 25:41, Jesus explains where they will be going. '‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Does the Bible explain the nature of that place?

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (2)

Clearly this can be a reference to Rev. 20:15 "And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Does the Bible explain this punishment?

"and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Mt. 13:42,50)

"will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever..." (Rev.14:10-11)

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified You quote Rev.14:10-11 only partially (which I understand since we are limited by character count), but if you read the passages completely you will see that they mention, "the worshipers of the beast, and those who receive its mark" (vs.9,11).

Again, symbolic language is used in Rev.14:9-11.

Unless you can identify "the beast", and its "mark", I would urge against using this as one of your proof texts (again, symbolic language precludes a literalistic interpretation).

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (3)

Becoming non-existent (annihilation) does not fit with the description that the Bible gives for the nature of the punishment. There will be torment by eternal fire causing weeping and gnashing of teeth for all eternity -- that's the nature of the punishment the Bible describes to us. Physical death is one aspect of the punishment, but eternal punishment is another aspect as well. How do you go around this? Give me a biblical, reasonable, and consistent response to this, please.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified Annihilationists do not deny that there will be a "lake of fire", in which the wicked will experience torment (before the fire completes its work of death); nor do we deny that in the lake of fire there will be "weeping (sorrow) and gnashing of teeth (anger)".

But your assertion that physical death is only "one aspect of the punishment" is what I argue against. In fact physical death IS the very outcome of the punishment..it is the "second death" (Rev.2:11; 20:6,14; 21:8).

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (1)

"before the fire completes its work of death"

I disagree with the presupposition you may have. The fact that the the Bible says that the "smoke of THEIR torment goes up forever and ever" gives us a clear description of the nature of their "eternal" punishment -- It's going to last forever, never ending.

As for what I said earlier, that physical death is only one aspect of the punishment. Even the righteous experience physical death. Because of Adam's sin, we all experience...

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified And, once again, one simply cannot read a symbolic text (eg. Rev.14:9-11) with a literalistic hermeneutic. It is the "SMOKE of their torment" that "GOES UP forever and ever". Your presupposition forces you to put emphasis on the word "their".

And, yes, even the righteous experience physical death; however, it is only the wicked who will die twice (ie. "second death").

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (2)

(cont) both physical and spiritual death. If we become regenerate, we STILL experience physical death. Don't you agree that the righteous are no longer liable for punishment since the blood of the Lamb covers them? If you say that physical death is the very outcome of punishment then you are saying that the righteous will still be punished. This is why I say that physical death is only an aspect of punishment, but not the punishment in itself. You seem to disagree?

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (3)

"symbolic language precludes a literalistic interpretation"

I agree, but the fact still remains. This lake of fire and its torment is forever, never ending, which is why I say it's irrelevant to explain the beast and its mark. As of now (my eschat. view is still being formed) I say this beast is the one mentioned in Rev. 13:11. And its worshipers are those who are in accordance with Satan's will/power. Anyway the fact still remains-- this lake of fire and its torment is never ending.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified I will not answer anymore to your assertions concerning a literal interpretation of a passage that clearly uses highly symbolic language (Rev.14:9-11; 20:10).

The "beast" (Rev.20:10) is, in fact, the "sea beast" (Rev.13:1-10), "little horn" (Dan.7), "man of sin, son of perdition" (2Thes.2:3), and "scarlet harlot" (Rev.17).

The "false prophet" is the "earth beast" (Rev.13:11-17).

*Just a little extra information to help you in your study of eschatology ;)

God speed.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (1)

It was pretty obvious that you avoid what's being said by focusing on another topic. The symbolism still has meaning. You can't just avoid the great details and nature of a setting by just saying, "Well, everything is symbolic anyway so it must not be so!" Will there be literal "smoke" and a literal place of fire that looks like a lake? I doubt it, but the fact still remains that it's a place of eternal torment for the wicked. How clear does the Bible have to be for you to accept it?

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified I'm not avoiding anything. I have dealt with the passages you've cited, you just don't accept the reasoning I've given. That's fine, I cannot persuade you of the truth, only the Holy Spirit can do that. And, you have certainly not persuaded me of your position, because traditionalists always seem to abandon the principle of 'tota Scriptura' regarding this issue (as I have pointed out).

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (2)

I appreciate the extra info on eschatology; I really do. I'm more of an Amil guy than anything else, btw. But you see, that's beside the point and you know that. The content of eternal punishment is overwhelming in Scripture. Jesus explained it to have the conscious wicked. This place of hell is supposed to last forever, yet within time (although there is no time in eternity) everything/everyone in it will be non-existent? There is just so many logical and biblical errors in that.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified Of course, one's views on the Antichrist has nothing to do with the proper interpretation of the millennium found in Rev.20. "Eternal punishment" is, as I've shown, a "punishment (notice: not a punishING) that has eternal consequences", namely, that there will be no more resurrection of the wicked after the "second death".

There are no "logical and biblical errors in that"; rather, this view is in line with Scripture.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (3)

One more thing, the interpretation of the lake of fire goes very well with how Jesus explained it as well. Scripture interprets Scripture. He explained the fire to be eternal, unquenchable, forever, and in it will be the wicked gnashing their teeth and weeping. (Mt. 8:12; 13:41-42, 50; Mt. 5:22-30; Mt. 18:8-9; Mt. 25) Do souls have teeth? Probably not, but we see CLEARLY what Jesus is trying to say about this place of eternal punishment. I don't see how you can avoid all that...

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified

The fire as: "Eternal"-- I agree, the fire has eternal consequences. "Unquenchable" -- I agree, no one will be able to put out the fire; it will simply burn out after it has done its work, completely. "Weeping and gnashing of teeth" -- this explains that the wicked will be utterly saddened (most likely because of their sins being imputed back to them), and they will be angry (gnashing of teeth) before they are utterly consumed (destroyed) by the fire itself.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (1)

"punishment (notice: not a punishING"

The punishment IS eternal, meaning never ending. You continue to go around this fact. This also applies to temporal earthly law and justice. A punishment may require a continual consequence (many times more than one life sentenced is the punishment). In other words, a "punishing" does not make sense to say. The punishment for the wicked is an eternal consequence. An eternal punishment is a continual punishment. You're only playing word games now.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified

1) I agree that the punishment is eternal; the Bible asserts that the punishment is death by the lake of fire.

2) No! A punishment is that which occurs at a point in time, and has a definite end. The fact that the word "eternal" occurs, means that there will be no hope for eternal life beyond the punishment.

*It's not playing "word games"; in fact, it is the traditionalist who plays word games when they deny that destruction means destruction...etc.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (2)

" it will simply burn out after it has done its work, completely."

No where in the Bible does it say that this UNQUENCHABLE fire will burn out. You must think that in order for your belief to stand. This is another example of how your presupposition fails to keep you aligned with Scripture. And unquenchable means it will never go out. What you believe on hell is clearly not scriptural -- It's man-made. Tradition is more reliable than what you desire to believe, sir.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified That's what the word "unquenchable" means. It's that simple. You're reading into the word your own traditions. What about my questions?

1) Where will the wicked burn throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity?

Some other planet, star, solar system, or galaxy? Under the earth?

Is God just going to section off Australia, and make that the lake of fire (no offense to my Australian brethren)?

Please explain.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (3)

1. It burns in eternity.

2. I'm not convinced that the wicked will continue to sin against God in hell. Your next question now becomes invalid. I've heard James White make the claim that people will sin in hell against God, but I'm not convinced. They will be eternally punished for sinning against an eternal God, according to Scripture.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified So, if the wicked will exist, consciously, in the lake of fire (which is in fact eternal life/immortality...a gift the Bible says only the saints receive...and that only at the 2nd Advent of Christ), then you're asserting that they won't be sinning? Will the wicked also be in the same state as the saints, then; that is, the inability to fall short of doing God's prescriptive will perfectly? Please explain.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (1)

"A punishment is that which occurs at a point in time, and? has a definite end. "

And that right there is where you have it all wrong. Eternal punishment has NO ENDING. Although I continue to remind you of this simple and basic fact, you continue to argue the same thing.

"You're reading into the word your own traditions."

Unquenchable means just that, that it will NEVER be quenched, satisfied. Yet, you still think it will "simply burn out."

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified I cannot help it if you do not understand the meaning of words.

"Unquenchable" means: unable to be quenched. Meaning, no one will be able to put it out; there won't be enough "firemen" to put the thing out until it has accomplished its work.

YES, "eternal punishment has not ending". I AGREE, 100%! Since the punishment is DEATH, there will be no more hope of resurrection from it.

Your traditions are just too thick; and you're abandoning 'tota Scriptura' because of them.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (2)

"What about my questions?"

I already answered your questions. The Bible does not give us a specific and direct location for hell, but that it will be in eternity.

"a gift...only the? saints receive..."

You're misunderstanding what "eternal life" is. "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Mt25:46) Eternal punishment is in hell while eternal life is in Heaven. Locations are being spoken of, not the essence of eternal existence.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified So, eternal life for the saints will only be in heaven? What about the "new heavens, and new earth"? Seems the saints will be dwelling on the new earth, no? Again, your problem is not having a proper eschatology from which to even begin a discussion on conditional/unconditional immortality of human beings, much less, one on the nature of the lake of fire.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified The Bible most certainly gives us the "direct location for hell" (*see Rev.20:9, "they marched up over the broad plain of the EARTH and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them.." (ESV). The fire that consumes the wicked will burn on the surface of the earth; not under it; not on some other planet, moon, star...etc...but on its surface. It cannot burn forever, since the saints will inhabit the new earth.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (1)

"I cannot help it if you do not understand the meaning of words."

Actually you're the one who redefines eternal and unquenchable.

"eternal life... in heaven? ..."new heavens, and new earth"?"

First of all, I said Kingdom of God-- However, the new heaven and new earth is still considered God's kingdom. Once again, eschatology has NOTHING to do with what we're discussion. Stay on topic.

So far, you've demonstrated your inconsistency and ability to create straw man arguments.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3(2)

And about people "sinning" in hell. I hold the position that the torment, agony, pain, and punishment overall will be too overwhelming for those in hell-- there won't be room to raise up your fist at God and blaspheme Him. However, I asked a pastor about this recently and he explained his position(which White holds to) pretty well. It's still an area that I'm studying; nonetheless, your arguments aren't convincing at all. Your redefining of words and eisegesis is the reason for that.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (3)

Rev. 20:9-- that passage does not prove that hell is on earth. You're reading into the text AGAIN to mean that being "consumed" by fire is the place of Hell. What happens after they're "consumed?" "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."(v10) So they were consumed by fire AND thrown into the life of fire where they will be tormented FOREVER.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (4)

Jude 1:7-- Okay, does it say ANYWHERE in this passage that they will NOT burn for all eternity? No, apparently not. It only reveals that they were an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. No where does it say that fire "simply burnt out" like you said before, nor does it say that they are no longer being punished. This is a clear example of you, again, reading into the text just to support your false belief of annihilationism. By this point, you have no more prooftexts.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (Lastly)

Your argumentation is getting you no where, brother. I'm afraid we've reached our climax of debate. I notice more and more ad-hominems and repeated arguments being used. I'll leave our comments up since I believe they can be used for edifying the body and I've already referred people who questioned this topic to this comment section. ;) I'll send you a message because I actually have another topic I would like to discuss with you about the Sabbath. Talk to you soon-- Take care!

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (3)

(Cont.) It is NOT a gift to the saints to live in eternity only, but to be in the Kingdom of God for eternity. You need to get the correct before you make such assertions.

Will the wicked be in the same sinless state as the saints?

No, they will be in a state of torment, agony, and pain. There will be no room to roll up your fist at God. The Bible does not say that they will blaspheme God's name or "be as depraved as they can be" in hell, so why should anyone believe that?

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified The Scriptures say there will be "wailing and gnashing of teeth".

The phrase "gnashing of teeth" is one that speaks of anger. Seems to me the wicked will be very angry ;)

I think you need to do some more homework.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (4)

So, I've answered your questions and your attempts to prove your position, yet you continue to use the same already-refuted arguments. Is the fire unquenchable and eternal, meaning never ending or satisfied, or will it "simply burn out" in time? (Which doesn't make sense since there is no time in eternity.)

There are so many illogical and non-biblical reasoning in your arguments. The Bible CLEARLY teaches an eternal punishment and your word-play won't get around that truth.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified Ah, yes, so you believe in the immortality even of the wicked. Glad we can now see why your position is so devoid of biblical truth.

Thanks for the discussion.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified Questions the traditionalist must answer:

1) Where will the lake of fire burn, if it indeed burns throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity?

2) If the wicked will consciously burn throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity, will they be sinning (blaspheming God, for eg.)?

3) Does this not mean, then, that sin will never be eradicated? Therefore, sin is just as eternal as righteousness?

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified So, the "second death" is the ultimate end of the wicked. And it is accomplished by the means of the lake of fire (a fire that has eternal consequences, namely, that there will be no more hope of resurrection for those who partake of it).

And so the issue is: "conditional", or, "unconditional" immortality.

The Bible teaches that ONLY the elect will receive eternal life (1Cor.15:51-53, for example); while the reprobate receive the wages of sin, which is death (Rom.6:23).

[R1K2G3]

@44:14, Dr. White quotes 2 Pet.2:9: "the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment" (ESV). Then, he states that this is talking about the wicked DEAD, whom God is "keeping under punishment".

This is pure EISEGESIS! 2 Pet.2:4-10 is talking about those who are ALIVE!

Q. Do the dead saints need to be "rescued from trials"?

A. NO, of course not.

 The unrighteous [living] are under God's wrath NOW (Rom.1:18).

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (1)

"can you begin to respond to the error I pointed out in Dr. White's thinking"

I'm no one to defend what White says. My only issue with your last comment was that you accused him of following tradition rather than Scripture. Just because someone disagrees with your view that's not orthodox does not mean they are following tradition. People who CLEARLY follow tradition are those like Roman Catholics. They will implicitly admit that tradition holds that same authority as Scripture.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified So, you can't defend Dr. White's position? Then why are you tying up the comments section of your own video with useless, irrelevant commentary on my assertions (and proofs) that Dr. White is WRONG on this issue.

Seems to me, if you cannot defend his (or your own) position, you would let others see what I've had to say, and make their own defenses.

Please don't reply unless you have something substantive to write: Biblical exegesis, for example.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 "Please don't reply unless you..."

First off, this is my video, right? I can post what ever I'd like. I ask that you be a little bit more respectful, sir. You may think it's useless and irrelevant what I said, but it could help you in your sanctification in the long run. Thinking that someone like White bases his belief on tradition and not Scripture is pretty arrogant. Humble yourself...

Anyway, go ahead and start this friendly debate. Make your assertion if you will.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified

Then please respect what I've stated, and the assertions I've already made.

Arrogance has nothing to do with it.

Either attempt a substantive refutation of what I've said, or don't reply to me.

What about Dr. White's misuse of 2Pet.2:9, and his assertion that this is speaking about the wicked DEAD? Do you agree with his exegesis (what I have asserted is actually eisegesis), or not?

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3

As of right now, I disagree with that interpretation (I'll look more into that interpretation of his at a later, though). Either way, I've never used that passage to prove an eternal punishment either. Remember, I'm not trying to defend Dr. White. We're debating if hell is a place of eternal punishment, not whether or not I agree with how Dr. White explained his position or he was correct in some area and wrong in others. To answer your question-- I'm not convinced of his interpretation.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified So let's examine whether the lake of fire (or, "gehenna") is a place of "the conscious tormentING, or, punishING of the wicked throughout all eternity".

Ps.37 gives a clear exposition on the inevitable fate of the wicked:

"they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb" (v.2);

"the wicked will perish..they vanish—like smoke they vanish away" (v.20);

"transgressors shall be altogether destroyed" (v.38)--ESV.

Final state of the wicked: no life, but death.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (1)

Ps. 37 is clearly not referring to eternity. "In just a little while, the wicked will be no more." (37:10) In other words, this passage is only referring to physical/earthly death. Read Psalm 103:2 "For my days pass away like smoke, and my bones burn like a furnace." Figurative language is common in the Psalms, so it's not difficult to see what David was saying in Ps. 37. To say that everything else is figurative/poetic, except for the verses you mentioned is very inconsistent.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified It is truly a shame that you cannot read Ps.37 for what it says.

Obviously, I couldn't quote the entirety of it.

It is clearly speaking of the Perseverance of the Saints (both in this life, and eternally); as opposed to the fate of the wicked (both in this life, and eternally).

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 " It is truly a shame that you"

There is no need to result in ad hominem if you cannot prove your position. Either respond to what I said or move on to another passage. I read the whole chapter before responding to you. Show me what passage/verse in Ps. 37 that led you to think that it refers to the fate of the wicked eternally. Most likely you will fall into implication/assumption rather than taking it for what it is, but let's see what you have under your sleeve. I'm waiting.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (2)

Furthermore, the context refutes your interpretation. You only quoted half a verse 38; the other half says "the future of the wicked shall be cut off." There is no such thing as a "future" in eternity, so even this demonstrates he's referring to physical death that the wicked people are going to experience on earth. Lastly, you're only implying that this is the final state of the wicked --argument from silence fallacy, since this passage does not refer to their existence in eternity

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified Now, take a look at Rev.20:9-- "And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them.." (ESV).

People like to quote v.10 (without ever actually identifying "the beast", and "the false prophet"), but hardly ever quote v.9, which clearly states that the fire will "consume" (lit. "eat down", leaving nothing). Ps.37 talks about the same thing.

Got exegesis?

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 "Now, take a look at Rev.20:9"

So, verse 9 is talking about consuming, in the sense of whatever was consumed never existing anymore, but verse 10 says that the dragon and false prophet will be tormented forever -- Are you sure you want to use that interpretation?

And no, it's not the same as Ps. 37. I'm still waiting for you to prove that Ps. 37 is referring to the eternity of the wicked. If you can't do so then let me know; we'll move on from there.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified Of course, Rev.20:9 uses literal language; in other words, there is no symbolic language used in v.9. However, v.10 uses symbolic language, namely, "the beast", and the "false prophet".

If one cannot demonstrate the identity of these two, then one should NOT use this as a proof text for eternal, conscious burning. The passage uses symbolic language, and should be exegeted accordingly.

Can you identify "the beast", and the "false prophet"?

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (2)

Also, did I say that he's correct on everything issue. I disagree with him a many things, too. One being that I'm paedo and he's credo, which brings along covenantal disagreements as well, but that's beside the point. If you want to debate about hell then we can debate about hell, but please don't confuse my last comment that I"m trying to defend what White said. My issue is that you quickly accused White of be non-Scriptural, but traditional only, which is not true at all.

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified Well, let's debate the subject of hell, then...rather than making irrelevant comments about "calling in to Dr. White's radio program (the D.L.).

Of course, Dr. White usually hangs up on people who wish to discuss this issue with him; and Rich Pierce often won't even allow the calls to go through (if he knows what the caller wants to discuss).

Again, this issue is NOT his area of expertise.

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3 (3)

Lastly, I basically called out your confidence in saying such a thing and I'll say it again in case you missed it. If you are so confident that he holds ONLY to tradition, in regards to this topic of hell, then go ahead and call the Dividing Line and tell him so. Apparently, you think you got it right to the point where you can easily accuse people of following tradition only and not following Scripture. If that's the case, call the Dividing Line and let me know when you do.

[R1K2G3]

@43:57, Dr. White: "I am of the 'opinion' that 'hell' ("lake of fire") is currently uninhabited..." He's certainly correct! The lake of fire is not burning right now.

However, the parable of the "rich man and Lazarus" (Lk.16L19-31) is NOT designed to teach about the state of the dead. It is a parable designed to teach ONE truth, which comes at the end of the parable (vs. 29-31). Dr. White should know better than to read into a parable something it was never intended to teach.

[R1K2G3]

James White's argument that "a sin against the infinite God requires and infinite punishing", sounds good, but is thoroughly unbiblical.

Since, "the wages of sin is death" (Rom.6:23), then that is exactly what the reprobate will get...death ("second death", as well).

I appreciate Dr. White's ministry (as a Sabbatarian Reformed Baptist, myself), but on this issue, he is following his traditions, rather than Scripture.

Soli Deo Gloria!

[SaintsEdified]

@R1K2G3

I wouldn't be so quick to accuse someone like White to follow tradition and not Scripture, especially in this area. He's proven to defend what he believes with Scripture (not tradition) MANY times, ESPECIALLY in this area.. He demonstrated that clearly in this radio debate. I suggest you call the Dividing Line if you're that confident that he's following tradition rather than Scripture. ;)

[R1K2G3]

@SaintsEdified I can assure you that I am well-aware of Dr. White's ministry.

I agree with him on many issues.

This doesn't mean he is correct on every issue about which he speaks.

This is NOT an area of his expertise.

Now, can you begin to respond to the error I pointed out in Dr. White's thinking, concerning his statements about "a sin against an infinite God requiring an infinite punishING"? Where is that taught in Scripture? Can you provide a reference? Dr. White didn't.

[NephilimFree]

Rev.21

[8] But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

[NephilimFree]

Rev.20

[6] Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

[14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

[NephilimFree]

Thew Bible teaches with countless passages that when someone dies they sleep in the earth until they are ressurected on the last day. It teaches with hundreds of passages that the place of torment for the wicked is the lake of fire and the end of those who pay for thier own sins in the extinguishment of thier spirit.

[mjt532]

Let's see...an unimaginably important doctrine, whether the majority of humans will spend their eternity being tortured. And God doesn't think it's important to communicate the facts in a clear fashion. Guess that makes sense!

[SaintsEdified]

@mjt532

You don't think the doctrine of hell is clear in Scripture?

[mjt532]

@SaintsEdified It seems to me like it's literally fire, and lasts forever. The multiple references to fire though make me think it's literally a fire. But then there are mentions of 'outer darkness', which seems incompatible with a literal fire. I think there's enough ambiguity though, which I find bothersome.

[SaintsEdified]

@mjt532

I see what you're saying. Tell me your thoughts about this:

"...but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt. 8:12)

"...and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt. 13:42)

Seems like both outer darkness and furnace of fire are explaining hell; which will cause weeping and gnashing of teeth. Don't these passage make it compatible?

[Erap1muzik]

God is eternaly holy so hell is eternal punishment. but i could understand won't accept it;