Just in my reading today your take was clearly refuted by Paul:
“...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day...”—2 Thessalonians 1
Annihilation has never been a sound doctrine. Jude also concurs that the warning Sodom and Gomorrah represents is one of eternal punishment. God created us in His image and we are not just to be discarded matter. The casting into the lake of fire is of PERSONS who were RESURRECTED unto judgment. Stop lying about the righteous judgment of God!
Just in my reading today your take was clearly refuted by Paul:
“...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day...”—2 Thessalonians 1
I listen to the bible every day during virtually my entire 3 hour commute. I have for several years. This is one of the things that solidified my CI viewpoint (annihilationism, also called conditional immortality).
Eternal destruction is annihilation. You are destroyed, and you are not coming back. Your fate is, in fact, eternal.
To be fair, I’ve been arguing this for many years on various web sites, including here. There is a very finite list of verses that “seem to” support ECT (eternal conscious torment). Every single one is actually pretty easily refuted, either with the english words used in various translations, or using the original greek or hebrew.
I highly recommend the book, The Fire that consumes by Edward Fudge Also, he has a 1 hour speech on the subject.
At rethinkinghell.com, all of the verses are discussed here:http://rethinkinghell.com/explore/
Just go to the scriptures tab and then to the traditionalism or conditionalism tabs. It’s very inclusive regarding scripture support for both positions.
And yes, 2 Thes 1:9 is in there. Here is what it says about that particular one:
According to the traditional view, this eternal destruction Paul speaks of militates against conditionalism. At best there would be no point, it is argued, in calling annihilation eternal; the word destruction would be sufficient, making the qualifier superfluous. At worst the presence of the qualifier means the destruction must last forever, an eternal destroying. The wicked are also said to experience this “away from” (ESV) or while “shut out from” (NIV) the presence of the Lord.
As a matter of fact, it makes perfect sense for Paul to call the destruction awaiting the resurrected wicked eternal. Although in this life they die only to face resurrection to judgment, thereafter they are destroyed forever, sentenced to the second death which is eternal. And the phrase “shut out from” (NIV) does not appear in the original Greek; even the translation “away from” (ESV) is dubious. But if we were to accept that meaning, all it would mean is that the destruction takes place away from the presence of God. The unsaved will be sent away from God’s presence, thrown into a furnace of fire where they will be burned up (Matthew 13:40-42).
Paul said in the preceding verses that Jesus will be revealed “in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance”—a combination of terms found elsewhere only in Isaiah 66:15. This chapter of Isaiah, and the book as a whole, ends with the wicked having been reduced to lifeless, smoldering, maggot-ridden corpses. This is then the eternal destruction of which Paul speaks, being destroyed, rendered lifeless, never to live again.
The casting into the lake of fire is of PERSONS who were RESURRECTED unto judgment. Stop lying about the righteous judgment of God!
Second. Saying I’m lying is not very productive. We are having a genuine discussion about a topic where we are obviously both sincere in our beliefs but disagree. I don’t think either of us is “lying”.