• Introduction
• Chapter One - Eternal Damnation: What does the Bible Really Teach?
• Chapter Two - Biblical Examples of Everlasting Destruction
• Chapter Three - Further Biblical Support for Everlasting Destruction
• Chapter Four - The Great Lie: What about the Immortal soul?
• Chapter Five - Biblical Analysis of Claimed Support Texts for Eternal Torture
• Chapter Six - Refuting Extra-Biblical Arguments for Eternal Torture and Against Literal Destruction
• Chapter Seven - Extra-Biblical Arguments II: Exploring Judeo-Christian History
• Chapter Eight - Morality & Justice and Other Issues Related to Damnation
• Chapter Nine - The True Literal View on Eternal Damnation
• Chapter Ten - CONCLUSION: Will God Torture People Forever?
• Appendix A: Additional Hebraic Texts on Everlasting Destruction
• Appendix B: The Nature of Human Beings: Spirit, Mind & Body
• Bibliography

Biblically Dispelling the Myth of Eternal Torture

Grk/Heb Fonts

PDF

by Dirk Waren

Book web site www.hellhadesafterlife.com/hell
Visit author's web site at www.hellhadesafterlife.com.

Chapter Nine

The True Literal View on Eternal Damnation

There’s an excellent book on the subject of this study titled “Two Views of Hell” by Edward Fudge and Robert Peterson. The view of everlasting destruction is presented by Fudge and He does a great job as his case rests totally on scripture, which, of course, is the proper way a defense of any Christian doctrine should be conducted. Peterson, on the other hand, defends the view of eternal conscious torture by beginning “with eleven theologians who support his view and ending with rationalistic arguments involving human creeds. Sandwiched between is his appeal to ten passages of scripture, most of which He interprets by quoting uninspired theologians,” as Mr. Fudge points out (202). Peterson naturally resorts to such an approach because his position lacks any real biblical basis.

Methodology: Sola Scriptura, Literalizing
and Letting Scripture Interpret Scripture

Like Mr. Fudge, I’ve focused our attention in this study almost exclusively on what the bible itself literally teaches on the subject. Even when addressing various religious theories in Chapter Six, I had us turn to the God-breathed scriptures for verification. Isn’t this what really matters, what the bible itself plainly teaches? This is in faithful adherence to the aforementioned principle of sola scriptura, which is Latin for “by scripture alone.” Scripture itself must be our final authority when judging any Christian doctrine or practice. This does not mean that sources outside the bible cannot be considered, only that the Holy Scriptures must be our first and final authority. “Scripture above all” or “scripture first” (prima scriptura) would perhaps be a more accurate name for this theological principle (Olson 54).

A commitment to sola scriptura would be useless if we did not have concrete guidelines by which to properly interpret the scriptures. Therefore those committed to sola scriptura must adhere to two interpretational laws, as I do in this study: 1.) Literalizing rather than spiritualizing, that is, taking the bible literally wherein it is at all possible, if symbolic or typical language is used then looking for the literal truth it intends to convey. This is an important law because if we were to take everything literally in the bible there would be contradictions. Yet since the scriptures are God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) the bible cannot contradict itself; therefore some texts must be symbolic. This is no problem because it should never be difficult to determine if a passage or phrase is symbolic, that is, as long as one has a thorough and unbiased knowledge of the scriptures. And 2.) Allowing scripture to interpret scripture. In other words, the best interpreter of the bible is the bible itself. This rule is based on the belief that the One who inspired Holy Scripture is of one mind; thus the meaning of a passage cannot be out of sync with what the rest of scripture teaches. Let’s consider, for example, Paul’s declaration that those who reject the truth will suffer “everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9). What exactly does “everlasting destruction” mean? The entire rest of the bible makes it clear that this is to be taken as a literal destruction so complete and final that it lasts forever with no hope of resurrection or restoration.

Bypassing the Quagmire of Religion

Although we briefly considered uninspired writings in Judeo-Christian history in Chapter Seven, we found that they are inconclusive. As pointed out in that chapter, it’s okay to examine uninspired writings but we must not rely on them. It was also pointed out that there were over seventy schools of Hebrew thought at the time of Jesus—seventy plus sects of Judaism. In the scriptures Jesus plainly declared that two of the sects, the Pharisees and Sadducees, adhered to false doctrine (see Matthew 16:11-12).

My point is, why get entangled in the opinions of various past and present Judeo-Christian leaders, however godly and sincere, when we can just go straight to the God-breathed scriptures for answers? Why needlessly get bogged down in the quagmire of human-made religion when we can go directly to the original source of all Judeo-Christian religion? Let us accept the simple fact that no man or woman of God, no organization or denomination has a patent on truth—no matter how greatly used of God (or not used of God if such is the case). Remember, every Christian ministry specializes in various areas and is therefore ignorant in some areas. That’s why God raises up a multitude of ministries—so that the worldwide body of Christ may be well-nourished by a balanced spiritual diet from a variety of callings and anointings (not that every ministry is legitimate, of course). The same principle is common with doctors and musicians: A foot doctor likely knows very little about brain surgery and a guitarist may have little penchant for singing or playing drums. Let us never forget the fact that those who transfer knowledge are also capable of transferring error. Only Jesus Christ, the living Word of God, is truth (John 1:1; 14:6). The living Word is no longer with us, He’s at the right hand of the Father, but we have the written Word of God. Let us therefore be faithful to go to God’s written Word in our search for truth. Let us seek the help of the Holy Spirit who will “guide [us] into all truth” (John 16:13). Let us make sure that our study is thorough, honest and unbiased, and let us be sure to always interpret scripture with scripture. When we are faithful to do this the truth will be plain to see as this very study exemplifies.

Sure, in researching for this book I was careful to expose myself to virtually every branch of Judeo-Christian religion, past and present, to find out what they believe regarding eternal damnation and why. Chapters Five, Six and Seven are devoted to presenting the very best scriptural and non-scriptural arguments of those who support eternal torture; and, as we have clearly seen, none of their contentions stand up to an unbiased study based upon the principles of sola scriptura, literalizing and interpreting scripture with scripture. Aside from the material in these chapters I see no reason to bog readers down in endless religious theorizing from time immemorial. Holy Scripture is the basis of all Judeo-Christian teachings and practices.

This is the very reason why the Protestant reformers of the 16th century decided to base their reforms on the principle of sola scriptura. The Roman church had religiously degenerated over the centuries; as a result many truths were lost sight of or perverted. Consequently, much ritual, tradition and human religion were added to the original scriptural base. It came to the point where there was little, if any, life or truth in the Roman church. By the early 16th century the time was ripe for a colossal reformation to break out. Something had to happen to provoke people to get back to the proper scriptural foundation, and that something was the Reformation. But, as mentioned in Chapter Seven, the church worldwide came out of this great Reformation with a lot of false doctrinal baggage. The Holy Spirit has been doing quite a bit of housecleaning in the last 500 years, to say the least, but He’s by no means finished. The worldwide invisible church⁵³ still needs a lot of work.

The bottom line is that scripture speaks for itself and it certainly has in this study.

There’s nothing more purifying or liberating than to simply read the God-breathed scriptures. I believe at least 50% of our scriptural intake should be from just reading the bible itself—the straight Word of God—with no commentary. And I think it helps to switch translations from time to time. As we do this, the truth will start to dawn in our hearts as the Holy Spirit “guides [us] into all truth.” The truth will indeed set us free as Jesus said (John 8:31-32).

When we only expose ourselves to various preferred teachers, sects and mindsets—never reading the pure scriptures themselves—we will naturally become somewhat tainted, biased and sectarian, even brainwashed. Needless to say, this is a very closed-minded and narrow-minded condition, not to mention life-stifling and growth-stultifying. Some unfortunately come to the point where the plain truth of scripture can no longer even penetrate their indoctrination. I am reminded of a Christian friend who diligently exposes himself to the various teachings of a specific Christian movement. This is all well and fine but one day He admitted to me that He never reads the bible itself, the straight scriptures. My heart sank. He’s a serious candidate for an impenetrable brainwashing.

All I can say is thank God for the purifying and liberating power of his Word ⁵⁴ and his wondrous Holy Spirit who faithfully guides us into all truth!

The Five Theological Method Traits of the Noble Bereans

One might inquire if there’s any biblical support for the methodology adhered to in this study as just described. Certainly, just turn to the book of Acts and the historical account of Paul introducing the gospel message to the people of Berea:

ACTS 17:10-12

As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. (11) Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (12) Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

We observe in verse 11 that the Holy Spirit commends the Bereans for being “of more noble character.” The word “noble” means “having excellence and characterized by superior qualities.” What was so noble about the Bereans? This passage reveals five traits that marked them as having superior character in God’s eyes:

The first trait is that their allegiance was to God’s Word first and foremost; hence, when Paul came to them with the “good news” of the gospel they used the scriptures as a gauge for determining whether or not his teaching was true. Paul’s gospel message was not orthodox at all; in fact, it was completely new and unorthodox to the Bereans. If the Bereans had consulted the Judaic orthodoxy of that time or took a popular vote they would have no doubt rejected Paul’s teaching before even looking into it.

The second trait is that they were already familiar with the scriptures. We know this because people can only use the scriptures as a gauge for determining truth if they are already adequately familiar with them. The only way to get familiar with the scriptures is to set apart time regularly for systematic bible reading, study and prayer.

The third trait is that they were open. The Bereans already knew the scriptures and were no doubt comfortable with a set theology, but that didn’t hinder them from being open to what Paul had to say even though what He taught was different and unorthodox. In fact, it states that “they received the message with great eagerness”—and this was before they even determined whether or not Paul’s teaching was true. You see, as godly people dedicated to finding the truth, the Bereans were eager to hear any scriptural teaching that could possibly increase their knowledge & understanding and bring them closer to God. It takes true humility to be open like this because, by being open, we’re acknowledging that we may not be entirely accurate in our present understanding (Proverbs 30:2-3). Someone might argue that being open-minded will make us vulnerable to false teaching (this is perhaps why so many Christians tend to be closed-minded); but if we adhere to the above first two traits we can be open-minded without fear, just like the Bereans, because the scriptural truth will always filter out what isn’t true, that is, as long as we adhere to the next trait…

Notice that the Bereans “examined the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” This reveals the fourth trait: They were sure to do a thorough, unbiased examination of the scriptures, not a superficial or biased one. They wanted to make sure that they properly interpreted the bible (2 Timothy 2:15) for they understood that a person can “prove” just about anything through a superficial “study.” It took them days of careful examination to draw a confident conclusion concerning Paul’s teaching. Likewise, we need to realize and be prepared that it may take us days, weeks or even months or years of careful study to draw a well-informed conclusion on a specific scriptural issue. ⁵⁵

Lastly, as verified in verse 12, the Bereans were willing to change their view in light of the biblical truth. This is commendable for it is one thing to be open and realize what the bible truly teaches, it’s quite another to actually be willing to publicly change one’s view or practice in light of that realization. But, one might ask, doesn’t God bless everyone who boldly follows his Word? Certainly, but often there are negative consequences for doing such. For instance, someone who follows God’s Word may lose his or her job, lose relationships, be excommunicated from his/her church/denomination, be branded a heretic, and, in severe cases, be harassed, imprisoned or killed. The aforementioned Martin Luther is a good example. Or how about people today in Islamic countries who convert to Christianity? Or, closer to home, how about people in America today who get “disfellowshipped” from churches/denominations for openly disagreeing with their pastor or their church’s official doctrines (I’m not talking about quarrelsome troublemakers here, but rather fruit-bearing people that honestly have legitimate scriptural disagreements); this happens more often then one might think.

The Bereans were noble because they were not dead-set in their present understanding. They had a high respect for God’s Word. They weren’t in bondage to a certain theology like so many “fundamentalist” Christians today. They were open to new insights, to spiritual growth and understanding. They were humble enough to admit that their present understanding of truth could be further honed and sharpened. They had such a high respect for God’s Word that, if someone legitimately corrected them and showed them the way more accurately, they were eagerly willing to embrace it. This is the antithesis of the religious spirit.

Apollos Was Humble and Open Enough to Learn “More Accurately”

Let’s briefly look at another biblical example of Christians who nobly adhered to this “by scripture alone” principle:

ACTS 18:24-26

Meanwhile, a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the scriptures. (25) He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and He spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though He knew only the baptism of John. (26) He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Pricilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately (or “more accurately” according to the NASB).

Here we have a man, Apollos, who had a thorough understanding of God’s Word and taught about Jesus as accurately as He could in relation to the knowledge and understanding He had; He was faithful to what He presently knew and understood. After Pricilla and Aquila met him they explained to him the scriptures “more accurately.”

Because Apollos had the same noble spirit as that of the Bereans He was receptive to being taught the way of God more adequately. Verse 28 shows how He went on to vigorously refute “the Jews in public debate, proving from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.”

Apollos truly adhered to the principle of sola scriptura: Not only were his teachings based upon “proving from the scriptures,” but He himself was willing to be taught by the very same principle. In other words, not only could He dish it out, He could take it too.

Sadly, you’ll find too few Christians today who truly possess the same noble spirit as that of Apollos, Pricilla, Aquila and the Bereans. Many Christians are too proud, stubborn and closed-minded to be taught “more accurately;” they seem to only be interested in touting the doctrines of their pastor/church/denomination or what they view as unquestionable “orthodoxy.”

The Problems with Orthodoxy and Traditionalism

Which brings us to the notion of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy literally means “correct opinion” and refers to historically established beliefs judged to be essential to Christian truth. A couple examples of orthodox Christian beliefs would be the inerrancy of the God-breathed scriptures and the necessity of spiritual rebirth for salvation.

There’s nothing wrong with this idea of orthodoxy as long as the beliefs said to be orthodox are legitimately biblical, as is the case with the above two examples, the problem arises when what we claim to be orthodox is not actually scriptural. A good example of this would be the doctrines of the immortal soul and eternal torture, which are supported by Augustinian tradition but not the bible. If we teach Christian disciples that these doctrines are unquestionable orthodoxy they will naturally study the scriptures with this in mind. Their study will then be tainted and biased by blind adherence to these supposed orthodox beliefs; in other words, they’ll read the scriptures pre-supposing these notions to be true, not freely or at face value, as they should.

When one studies the bible free of such presuppositions, taking it at face value, as we have in this study, it doesn’t take long to see that everlasting destruction is the true biblical view.

My point is that what we determine to be orthodox Christian beliefs must be clearly and consistently taught in scripture. In other words, if a doctrine is truly orthodox—that is, a “correct opinion” essential to Christian truth—it should not be necessary to engage in bizarre theological mumbo jumbo to prove its scriptural authenticity, as is the case with the eternal torture doctrine. As we’ve seen in this study, the only way religionists can support eternal torment is by trying to convince us that the bible doesn’t really mean what it so clearly says: e.g. death doesn’t mean death, destruction doesn’t mean destruction, perish doesn’t mean perish, destroy doesn’t mean destroy, consume doesn’t mean consume, etc. The only way adherents of eternal torture can prove their belief is by convincing us that each of these words mean the exact opposite of its literal definition.

By contrast, to prove everlasting destruction one doesn’t have to resort to such nonsensical twisting of the scriptures. Literal destruction can be proven simply by freely reading the bible unhindered by foreign presuppositions.

How did false doctrines like the immortal soul and eternal torture come to be considered Christian orthodoxy when they are so clearly unscriptural? The reason is because there is another basis besides Holy Scripture used to determine the content of orthodoxy, and that is tradition. When people speak of Christian tradition they’re usually referring to religious literature, creeds and councils from the Patristic Age, or “late antiquity,” which extended from the fourth to the eighth centuries. As mentioned in Chapter Seven, the most prominent and influential “church father” of this era is Augustine of Hippo (354-430). Christian tradition is derived from other eras as well, including the later medieval, Reformation and post-Reformation eras. The very fact that Christian tradition is historically cumulative testifies that the worldwide invisible church is in an ongoing state of reform; in other words, Christendom is not in bondage to historical tradition.

What’s the difference between tradition and traditionalism? I’ve heard it said that tradition is the living faith of the dead, whereas traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. That’s a good way of putting it because there’s nothing living about traditionalism; it’s dead religiosity. What exactly is traditionalism? It is the tendency to place tradition on the same authoritative plane as scripture; actually it places tradition over scripture since how a traditionalist simply reads God’s Word is determined by tradition. Hence, traditionalism is the perverse bent to hold Holy Scripture in bondage to tradition.

Protestants have historically regarded traditional doctrines and practices not directly supported by the bible to be optional at best, and often erroneous. The reason for this is threefold: 1.) Jesus contradicted tradition but never scripture, 2.) the Reformation experience is based on the principle of sola scriptura, the idea that Holy Scripture must be our first and final authority, not tradition, and 3.) since the church must be “reformed and always reforming,” treating extra-biblical expressions of truth as equal with scripture naturally inhibits continuing (and necessary) reform. Yet to hear some ministers teach today you would think that tradition is the irrefutable authoritative interpretation of God’s Word. Hank Hanegraff, for instance, makes constant references to “orthodoxy” rather than scripture itself—so much so it’s sickening. The problem with this tendency is that 1.) it stifles biblical truth by exalting human beliefs to the same authoritative level as Holy Scripture, and 2.) it perpetuates religious myths by preventing healthy reform in the church through simple appeal to God’s Word.

Religious tradition is certainly a legitimate extra-biblical source to consider when determining the authenticity of Christian doctrines and practices; in this sense it gets a vote but it does not hold the power of veto as does scripture itself. Let’s be humble enough to admit that Christendom still needs a lot of work; the Holy Spirit is still at work amongst God’s people, guiding them to biblical truths that may possibly correct Augustinian, medieval, Reformation and post-Reformation beliefs and practices. Staunch traditionalists will argue that such an open-minded and adventurous attitude will open up a Pandora’s box of heretical new teachings and insights but Christendom has nothing to fear if, as pointed out earlier in this chapter, its allegiance is to the Holy Scriptures as the first and final authority. God’s perfect Word is perfectly able to determine what is true and filter out what is false.

There are some other problems with orthodoxy and traditionalism that we need to consider:

First of all, just because a belief is considered orthodox today does not necessarily mean that it was orthodox in biblical times (the era in which both testaments were written). As shown in Chapter Seven, literal everlasting destruction was not only the scriptural view in biblical times but also the orthodox view. Only when pagan Greek ideas, specifically the teaching of the immortal soul, infiltrated Palestine and Judeo-Christian culture did the doctrine of eternal torment emerge and gain increasing acceptance.

Another problem is that Christianity is split into many sects and none of these groups unanimously agree on which beliefs actually constitute the content of orthodoxy, and no consensus is likely to come soon because different groups stress different beliefs as vital based on which traditions they deem legitimate. For example, the Protestant belief of “salvation by faith alone” is indeed a part of Reformation orthodoxy but it is absent from Augustinian and medieval tradition. Likewise, John Wesley’s post-Reformation doctrine of entire sanctification in a moment is absent from the “Great Tradition.” A more modern example would be speaking in tongues or “praying in the spirit” as a form of prayer to supplement ordinary prayer in one’s own language; this belief is fundamental to pentecostal/charismatic Christians (even though it is not a part of the Great Tradition), but many evangelicals claim that such spiritual gifts passed away when the biblical canon was completed; this belief is, in fact, orthodox to them. ⁵⁶

Another problem with the idea of orthodoxy is the impression that the older a teaching is the more reliable it is. Yet, since when does the mere passage of time give greater credence to a doctrine? A lie sixteen centuries ago is still a lie today. For example, just because Saint Augustine advocated eternal torture in 400 AD does not make it anymore true today. If we’re going to base the validity of doctrines on their age, then literal everlasting destruction is the true view of damnation because it is taught throughout the Hebraic scriptures as this study has clearly shown; and was, in fact, the orthodox view at the time of Christ (see Appendix A for additional support for literal destruction from the Hebrew bible [i.e. the Old Testament]).

Adherents of eternal torture apparently want to go back to that “old time religion” of the 19th and early 20th centuries, no doubt because they believe eternal torment was a fundamental part of Christianity of that era, and strict traditionalists would have us go back to that “old time religion” of the creeds and councils. Yet, if we really want that “old time religion,” let’s go all the way back to the teachings of Jesus Christ, the biblical apostles and the Old Testament saints. Let’s have that real old time religion, amen? This entire study is based on this.

Of course, the biggest problem with orthodoxy and traditionalism is that nowhere in the bible are we encouraged to determine the veracity of doctrines by whether or not they are considered orthodox or traditional. What scripture itself clearly and consistently teaches is to be our gauge in determining what is true and what is not true; in other words, scripture is to be our final authority when judging the validity of Christian doctrines and practices, not orthodoxy or tradition. We should certainly value and take into consideration traditional expressions of truth from all eras of church history, but traditional beliefs—no matter how imbedded in our collective psyche—must remain open to correction and revision in light of the plain teaching of Holy Scripture. Doctrinal debates should be engaged over scripture and prayer not dismissed with a pharisaical appeal to religious tradition. As Martin Luther is believed to have said, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God… Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.”

Needless to say, when a new teaching or idea appears, Christians should first and finally ask, “What saith the scriptures?” not “What saith orthodoxy?” or “Is it consistent with tradition?”

Everlasting Destruction: the True Literal View

By faithfully adhering to this “by scripture alone” principle in our study on damnation, as well as adherence to a literal interpretation of the bible in which scripture is interpreted by scripture, we have discovered that the bible clearly, literally and thoroughly supports the view of everlasting destruction. God will justly-but-mercifully utterly destroy rebellious people who reject Him and choose sin, not subject them to never-ending existence in conscious agony.

What’s strange is that adherents of eternal torture have long touted their position as “the literal view.” Yet, as we have seen, everlasting destruction is the true literal view regarding the second death because it takes literally all the many Greek and Hebrew words that describe the eternal fate of sinful people with such unmistakable words as “die,” “death,” “destruction,” “destroy” and “perish.” It also takes literally the imagery of Gehenna (“hell”) as a lake of fire or “fiery furnace” which consumes all the people thrown into it (e.g. Hebrews 10:27). Fire, of course, is one of the most destructive forces known to humankind. Linking all these facts together points to no other conclusion but complete and final destruction.

So adherents of eternal conscious misery can tout their view as “the literal view” all they want, but the truth is that it is not, and never was, the literal view. Anyone who rightly honors the bible’s plain and literal teaching, will concede that the doctrine of everlasting destruction is the true literal view.

‘Traditionalist’ or ‘Eternal Torturist’?

If you read other literature on the subject of eternal damnation you’ll notice that adherents of eternal torture have dubbed themselves “traditionalists,” evidently because their position is the religious traditional view. Those who adhere to everlasting destruction are usually referred to as “conditionalists” because of their belief that immortality is conditional based upon one’s acceptance of God’s gift of eternal life. The latter label I can understand because “conditionalist” informs others of what such a person believes (although I’d personally prefer something more plainly descriptive like “literal destructionist,” “extinctionist” or something similar); but the name “traditionalist” for a person that adheres to eternal torture is completely unfitting. Allow me to explain:

I myself am a “traditionalist” in regards to many Christian doctrines; in other words, I believe many traditional teachings are quite biblically sound. However, because I reject the idea that ungodly people will be condemned to eternal conscious torture, based upon what the scriptures literally and consistently teach, I apparently cannot be a “traditionalist.” Yet, if an adherent of eternal torture rejects every traditional belief, yet accepts the view that God will condemn ungodly people to ceaseless conscious agony, it’s okay for them to be called a “traditionalist.” Do you see the problem here?

Furthermore, “traditionalist” is just plain too generic of a label. The question is automatically raised: “Traditionalist” in what way? “Traditionalist” doesn’t tell anybody that the person embraces the view of eternal torture.

I suspect the reason adherents of eternal torture like to be called “traditionalists” is because it sounds so noble. It gives the impression that they are righteously faithful to age-old Christian truth (actually the opposite is true, they are perpetuators of age-old pagan-religious lies). Regardless of the opposing subject or the legitimacy of the opposing argument, the “traditionalist” will subconsciously be perceived as a stately defender of the faith.

I suspect also that adherents of eternal torture like the name “traditionalist” because it successfully diverts people from focusing on the perverse doctrine they support. What’s the problem? Are they ashamed of their belief? If not, then why don’t they accept a fitting name that describes exactly what they believe?

As mentioned before, I have no problem being referred to as a “literal destructionist.” I don’t even mind the name “annihilationist” if that’s what people want to call me. I have no problem with these tags because they describe exactly what I believe regarding eternal damnation, they fittingly describe what I am because I believe conscious life will ultimately be annihilated when people suffer the second death. So why don’t adherents of eternal torture label themselves accordingly? Since they believe God will condemn a vast number of people to never-ending conscious torment, they should have no problem being referred to as “eternal torturists” or “eternal tormentists.” What’s wrong with this? Isn’t this what they really believe when you back them up against a wall?

You’ll notice that I haven’t once referred to adherents of eternal torture as “traditionalists” in this study. The reason is because I simply refuse to give such a noble name to a supporter of such a perverse and unbiblical teaching.

The bottom line is this: If it’s a spade then call it a spade. If people staunchly adhere to the doctrine of eternal torture then they should accept the fitting name of “eternal torturist” or something equally descriptive. These people need to quit hiding behind noble tags that disguise what they really believe.

My Background—I Used to Believe in Eternal Torture

I grew up in a family that was virtually non-religious. Although my mother was a church-going Episcopalian I only went to church with her a handful of times and the basics of Christianity were never explained to me. Needless to say my knowledge of the bible and Christianity was next to nothing. My only understanding of hell came from comics, books, television and movies where it was portrayed as a devil-ruled subterranean torture chamber for sinful people. I naturally assumed this was what the bible taught on the subject as well. I got saved in March of 1984 and the Christians and churches I’ve since been involved with were mostly of the charismatic-evangelical perspective. ⁵⁷ In fact, I belonged to a large charismatic-evangelical church for ten years from 1986-1996. Most charismatic and evangelical Christians, if you’re not aware, adhere to the doctrine of eternal torture (although this has been thankfully changing in recent years as the word continues to get out). My point is that all through my Christian formative years I was pastored and taught by supporters of eternal torture. I bought, read and listened to countless books and teaching tapes from this perspective. Because of what I was taught and because of religious tradition I naturally assumed the bible taught that unrepentant sinners would be condemned to never-ending conscious torture after they die. I assumed that eternal torture was a biblical teaching and therefore believed it and spread the word. In fact, I wrote and recorded a song called “Hell Is For Real, Hell Is Forever” on my multi-track home recorder in 1985. You can’t beat that for support of eternal torture!

It’s important that I bring up my background so that no one accuses me of being an ex-Jehovah’s Witness or that I was somehow poisoned by Adventist theology (or otherwise).

So how did I come to reject the view of eternal torture? Well, even though I engulfed countless books, tapes and sermons from the charismatic-evangelical perspective, at any given time at least 60% of my scriptural intake was from simply reading the bible. I always jotted down notes on various subjects from my readings, including hell, and I started to notice a consistency from Genesis to Revelation regarding the subject of eternal damnation. I was intrigued and dug deeper. I sought the Lord diligently for knowledge and understanding on the subject. I noticed that the wages of sin was simply death, that the ungodly would die, that both their soul and body would be destroyed, that they would burn up like weeds, trees, branches and chaff, that they would be condemned to the second death and suffer everlasting destruction, etc, etc. This was all in contrast to the “life” that was to be given to those who accept and obey the gospel.

Needless to say the truth slowly started to dawn on me. The pure water of the Word of God gradually cleansed and liberated me from the misguided teachings on eternal damnation I kept hearing and reading about in my “camp.” Sure, like any studied Christian I had at some point become aware that the Adventists, Armstrongites and Jehovah’s Witnesses⁵⁸ adhered to everlasting destruction in some form, but as any other Christian from my perspective I didn’t give much time or credence to their teachings (they were, after all, considered false cults or borderline cults). It was the Word of God itself and the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit that set me free.

By the early 1990’s I had become absolutely convinced of what the scriptures really taught regarding eternal damnation. I knew that I couldn’t be the only one that saw this so-obvious truth in scripture. I knew there had to be others. So I prayed that the Lord would bring me into contact with such people. It wasn’t until 1993 that I actually read a book from the evangelical perspective that supported everlasting destruction. I’ve since acquired many more. And today, with the internet, I’ve come to realize that there are a vast number of Christians—Charismatic, Evangelical, Catholic, Mainline, Messianic Jewish, etc.—all over the world that adhere to literal everlasting destruction. There are people worldwide that see the very same truths that the Holy Spirit showed me. It’s just comforting to know you’re not alone.

I encourage readers to watch A&E’s Mysteries of the Bible segment on “Heaven and Hell” (1996). As noted in Chapter Seven, a Catholic priest admits in this program that everlasting destruction is the most sensible view on eternal damnation (!!) and a theology professor shares the truth about Gehenna (“hell”) as disclosed in Chapter Two. (You can also see the staunch fundamentalist Norman Geisler, whose best arguments for eternal torment are analyzed in Chapter Six).

So, to sum this up, even though my background involves years of indoctrination by supporters of eternal torture, the scriptural truth was still able to set me free because I had “the Berean spirit”—I was open to the truth, willing to diligently dig for the truth in reliance upon the Holy Spirit’s faithful guidance, and willing to change my beliefs in light of the truths I discovered.