PDA

View Full Version : Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Timotheos
February 7th, 2013, 01:49 PM
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) biblical or not?

Which verses in the Bible support ECT and which verses in the bible support the doctrine that the wicked perish instead?

tomlapalm
February 7th, 2013, 02:25 PM
Many verses

It is not that torment is for all time, it is just that time doesn't exist. (the clock doesn't move)

Spiritual death is torment

Timotheos
February 7th, 2013, 03:26 PM
Thanks Tomlapalm,

You say many verses in the bible support ECT, will you post a few of them?
Also, I'm not sure that I agree that Spiritual death is torment. Can you tell me more about this? How can someone who is dead, be in torment at all?

Krsto
February 7th, 2013, 06:35 PM
The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God through Jesus Christ is eternal life.

M_Wm_Ferguson_MTh
February 7th, 2013, 06:39 PM
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) biblical or not?What do Habakkuk 2:11; Matthew 3:8-9, and Luke 19:39-40 mean to you?

tomlapalm
February 7th, 2013, 08:16 PM
Thanks Tomlapalm,

You say many verses in the bible support ECT, will you post a few of them?
Also, I'm not sure that I agree that Spiritual death is torment. Can you tell me more about this? How can someone who is dead, be in torment at all?

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Mat 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Mat 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Physical death is not spiritual death. Spiritual death is separation from God the give and sustainer of life.

Doormat
February 7th, 2013, 08:27 PM
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) biblical or not?

It is a doctrine of demons, in my opinion.

The wicked will perish.

Krsto
February 7th, 2013, 10:45 PM
Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Mat 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Mat 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Physical death is not spiritual death. Spiritual death is separation from God the give and sustainer of life.

We have today the Olympic Torch which is known as an "eternal flame." We call it that because the flame just keeps burning and burning. If you were to throw a wad of paper into the flame would the paper keep on burning and burning or would it burn up in a few seconds? Yet the flame is still called an eternal fire.

Think about it.

Bradley D
February 7th, 2013, 11:34 PM
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Matthew 25:46).

Krsto
February 7th, 2013, 11:51 PM
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Matthew 25:46).

If I judge you as guilty and sentence you to death and that death is never revoked you will be sent away into everlasting punishment. It's a punishment with an everlasting effect, that's why it's called everlasting punishment.

You people just can't fathom how God in his love, mercy, and judgement will end a person's existence unless he receives by faith the gift of God through Jesus Christ which is eternal life.

Ezekel
February 8th, 2013, 12:49 AM
Revelations 14:9-11

From this verse it is clear, at least to my mind, that hell is eternal torment, with no rest.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 02:00 AM
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Matthew 25:46).

If punishment is not everlasting, then grammatically, neither is life.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 02:02 AM
If I judge you as guilty and sentence you to death and that death is never revoked you will be sent away into everlasting punishment. It's a punishment with an everlasting effect, that's why it's called everlasting punishment.

You people just can't fathom how God in his love, mercy, and judgement will end a person's existence unless he receives by faith the gift of God through Jesus Christ which is eternal life.

You exalt God's love above His holiness/justice/wrath.

Not all sinners repent and receive His free gift.

Your interpretation of everlasting punishment is a rationalization not demanded by the text.

ECT is the biblical, historical, orthodox view. Tim should be able to google endless biblical support for it or read any number of books.

The popular annihilation or post-mortem conversion or inclusivism or universalistic views are false teachings usually found in the kingdom of the cults.

Nick M
February 8th, 2013, 02:06 AM
Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Mat 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Mat 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.




It is a doctrine of demons, in my opinion.

The wicked will perish.

Neg rep for calling scripture a doctrine of demons. Repent you demon possessed perverted of the truth.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 02:09 AM
Neg rep for calling scripture a doctrine of demons. Repent you demon possessed perverted of the truth.

He was wrong to make a stupid statement, but that does not prove he is a godless unbeliever.

The Deity of Christ is an acid test, not the state of the dead.

John Stott had a traditional view on this subject (correct) and later changed his view. He remained a lover of God, godly man, disciple of Jesus Christ despite being wrong on an important, peripheral matter.

We would have to probe doormat's other beliefs to see if he is in the faith or not (believers do not agree on every peripheral doctrinal issue).

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 07:15 AM
If punishment is not everlasting, then grammatically, neither is life.

Don't you think that never ever having life again would be an everlasting punishment? Doesn't Matthew 25:46 say that one group goes to eternal life? And the other group? Do they also go to eternal life being tormented in Hell? No they go to eternal punishment, not eternal torment. The punishment is that they perish, they go to their second death, which is eternal.

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 07:17 AM
The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God through Jesus Christ is eternal life.

Thanks for quoting the Bible in support of your position, I see that not everyone does this. That's Romans 6:23 right? So are you saying that Jesus wasn't kidding when he said "Whosover believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life"?

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 07:29 AM
What do Habakkuk 2:11; Matthew 3:8-9, and Luke 19:39-40 mean to you?


Habakkuk 2:11 is not saying anything about eternal torment. Does it say something different to you?
"The stones of the wall will cry out,
and the beams of the woodwork will echo it."

Matthew 3:8-9 says And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Do you think that says that there is eternal torment in hell?

Luke 19:39-40 says:
Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!”
“I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”

Is this the verse you meant to post? It doesn't really say "The wicked will go to hell when they die where they are to be tormented alive forever while they are dead.

What does John 3:16 say to you?

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 07:35 AM
You exalt God's love above His holiness/justice/wrath.

Not all sinners repent and receive His free gift.

Your interpretation of everlasting punishment is a rationalization not demanded by the text.

ECT is the biblical, historical, orthodox view. Tim should be able to google endless biblical support for it or read any number of books.

The popular annihilation or post-mortem conversion or inclusivism or universalistic views are false teachings usually found in the kingdom of the cults.

ECT is taught in more cults than Annihilationism. Are you really sure you want to go in that direction? I am asking what does the Bible teach, I am not asking what do the cults teach. Mormons and Muslims teach ECT. Does that make ECT wrong or right?

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 07:40 AM
Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Mat 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Mat 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Nice verses, brother!
Isn't there any verse that actually says that the wicked will live forever in torment in hell? Because I don't see that in any of these verses. Do you know what happens to a toad that is thrown into a lake of fire? The same thing that happens to everything else, it is burned up. Some of the verses you posted even come straight out and say "The lake of fire is the second death". That's what I believe the lake of fire is, death. The second death. The lake of fire is definitely not eternal life swimming in fire.

tomlapalm
February 8th, 2013, 08:43 AM
aiōnios translated both eternal and everlasting

1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

False Prophet
February 8th, 2013, 09:11 AM
Matt 5 [22] "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court ; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court ; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
Matt 5 [2]9 "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
Matt 25 [41]"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 ;
Matt 25 [46] "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
James 3[6] And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity ; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell.
2 Peter 2[4] For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment ;
Isaiah 66[24] "Then they will go forth and look On the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die And their fire will not be quenched ; And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind."

False Prophet
February 8th, 2013, 09:14 AM
Mark 9 [43] "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off ; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, 44 [where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.] 45 "If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off ; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, 46 [where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.] 47 "If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, 48 where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. 49 "For everyone will be salted with fire.

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 09:23 AM
Matt 5 [22] "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court ; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court ; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
Matt 5 [2]9 "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
Matt 25 [41]"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 ;
Matt 25 [46] "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
James 3[6] And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity ; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell.
2 Peter 2[4] For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment ;
Isaiah 66[24] "Then they will go forth and look On the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die And their fire will not be quenched ; And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind."

Mark 9 [43] "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off ; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, 44 [where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.] 45 "If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off ; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, 46 [where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.] 47 "If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, 48 where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. 49 "For everyone will be salted with fire.
Today 09:11 AM

Thanks for responding in my thread. May God bless you richly.

The verses you posted talk about going into hell and going into fire. How do reconcile them with what Jesus said in Matthew 10:28?
Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

This says that we are to fear the one who is able to destroy both body and soul, it doesn't say we are to fear the one who cannot destroy both body and soul but eternal torments body and soul forever.

Also your references to fire, have you considered what fire does to the things it burns up? Why would the Bible use a metaphor to explain the exact opposite of what really happens?

ETA, by the way, are you really a false prophet? I've never met one who comes right out and admits it up front. I wish more false prophets would do this. I'm just kidding though, I don't think you are a false prophet. Nice user-name.

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 09:28 AM
aiōnios translated both eternal and everlasting

1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

I totally agree with you on this definition. However that doesn't mean that eternal and everlasting punishment is the same thing as eternal and everlasting torment. If someone's punishment is death, the death is also eternal and everlasting. So Matthew 25:46 is inconclusive as to whether the eternal punishment is eternal torment or eternal death. If you look at many other passages, it is clear that the punishment is death. (ie Romans 6:23, 2 Thess 1:9, John 3:16, etc,)

Another definition of aionios is "pertaining to the age", pertaining to the "aion". But I don't believe this makes any significant difference, since I believe that the coming "aion" or "age" will last forever.

God Bless!

Krsto
February 8th, 2013, 10:28 AM
If punishment is not everlasting, then grammatically, neither is life.

GR, you can do better than this. aionios means "an undefined period of time" - so it can be eternal, in the English sense of the word, or it can be just a long undefined period of time - like when God said no person shall inhabit a land forever that he destroyed in the OT yet people live there today.

If you fail to accept aionios for what it means that means you have no real interest in the truth, only defending your Catholic doctrines (yes, Catholic, they invented the idea of eternal conscious torment).

Krsto
February 8th, 2013, 10:29 AM
Thanks for quoting the Bible in support of your position, I see that not everyone does this. That's Romans 6:23 right? So are you saying that Jesus wasn't kidding when he said "Whosover believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life"?

Yup, serious as can be.

tomlapalm
February 8th, 2013, 11:02 AM
I totally agree with you on this definition. However that doesn't mean that eternal and everlasting punishment is the same thing as eternal and everlasting torment. If someone's punishment is death, the death is also eternal and everlasting. So Matthew 25:46 is inconclusive as to whether the eternal punishment is eternal torment or eternal death. If you look at many other passages, it is clear that the punishment is death. (ie Romans 6:23, 2 Thess 1:9, John 3:16, etc,)

Another definition of aionios is "pertaining to the age", pertaining to the "aion". But I don't believe this makes any significant difference, since I believe that the coming "aion" or "age" will last forever.

God Bless!

I was asked to show torment. Then you changed it to show eternal.

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

read the verses know the meanings

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 11:11 AM
Yup, serious as can be.

Well, I guess we should believe Jesus then, and reject Eternal Conscious Torment. :chuckle:

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 11:16 AM
I was asked to show torment. Then you changed it to show eternal.

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

read the verses know the meanings

Yes, I agree with this verse, don't you? It says they go into the everlasting fire. And we all know what happens to something that goes into the everlasting fire, it gets consumed by the fire. The fire is also called a consuming fire. It consumes whatever it burns up.

The thread was about eternal conscious torment or not from the beginning. Do you have any support at all for the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment?

BTW, Thanks for discussing this with me, I appreciate your input.

tomlapalm
February 8th, 2013, 12:07 PM
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Rev 20:10 and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages.

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 12:38 PM
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Rev 20:10 and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages.

Well, I suppose if we were to take the highly symbolic Book of Revelation completely literally that would be three. The Devil, The Beast, and The False Prophet.

Can you find any verses that say "The wicked will go to Hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever while they are dead"? That's really what I'm looking for.

Here's something to think about when you read the Book of Revelation. The BOR was written in the "Apocalyptic Style" which is characterized by an abundant use of symbolism. It might not be the best idea to grab a doctrine from the BOR and then use it to interpret all of the rest of scripture. A sound hermeneutical principle is to interpret less clear passages in the light of more clear passages. Don't start in Revelation and work backwards from there.

Actually, that's just a friendly suggestion. You can do whatever you want. Bless you brother!

False Prophet
February 8th, 2013, 12:59 PM
Jude 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

There is still a place called hell, and people are going to burn there forever and ever.
Rev 14 [11] "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever ; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 01:12 PM
Jude 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

There is still a place called hell, and people are going to burn there forever and ever.
Rev 14 [11] "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever ; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."


Well, Sodom and Gemorrah were destroyed by fire, and they are the example of those who undergo the punishment of eternal fire, so Jude 7 actually shows the opposite of eternal conscious torment.

And you bring up a good point. We should look at the language of Revelation in the light of the rest of the scripture that it's language is taken from. The smoke rising in the BOR comes from a passage in Isaiah were the smoke of Edom's destruciton is said to rise forever. Edom was completely destroyed, so the language in the BOR refers to complete destruction, not eternal conscious torment.

Doormat
February 8th, 2013, 01:19 PM
Neg rep for calling scripture a doctrine of demons. Repent you demon possessed perverted of the truth.

I didn't call scripture a doctrine of demons, just the interpretation that leads to ECT. The Bible teaches annihilation of the wicked.

Malachi 4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2 Peter 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

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

Gehenna is figurative for the destruction of the wicked on the Day of Lord.

1Corinthians 3:10-19

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Luke 17:26,27 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 01:29 PM
Don't you think that never ever having life again would be an everlasting punishment? Doesn't Matthew 25:46 say that one group goes to eternal life? And the other group? Do they also go to eternal life being tormented in Hell? No they go to eternal punishment, not eternal torment. The punishment is that they perish, they go to their second death, which is eternal.

In Revelation, strong Greek words are used. They are tormented day and night forever and ever. Your group tries to redefine torment and forever and ever, but it is a rationalization that does not stand up to scrutiny.

We also see the Beast/False Prophet still being tormented after 1000 years when Satan joins them. The lake of fire has Satan, demons, unregenerate men being tormented day and night forever and ever. There is no hint this is just the effects of a final punishment.

Lk. 16 is not a parable, but even if it is, it conveys spiritual truth/reality (or Jesus is a false teacher, liar, misinformed). It portrays conscious torment after death, not cessation.

Death is separation, not cessation. We have a spirit that will live forever by God's irrevocable design. This necessitates two destinies.

Doormat
February 8th, 2013, 01:29 PM
He was wrong to make a stupid statement, but that does not prove he is a godless unbeliever.

ECT is a doctrine of demons.

If you believe it, then what you believe amounts to Eternal "Christian" Torture.

Is that how you would like to punish your enemies if given the chance? Why or why not.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 01:30 PM
Thanks for quoting the Bible in support of your position, I see that not everyone does this. That's Romans 6:23 right? So are you saying that Jesus wasn't kidding when he said "Whosover believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life"?

Perish does not mean atomize. A core of existence still can happen without cessation. Food perishes without disappearing.

Doormat
February 8th, 2013, 01:46 PM
In Revelation, strong Greek words are used. They are tormented day and night forever and ever. Your group tries to redefine torment and forever and ever, but it is a rationalization that does not stand up to scrutiny.

We also see the Beast/False Prophet still being tormented after 1000 years when Satan joins them. The lake of fire has Satan, demons, unregenerate men being tormented day and night forever and ever. There is no hint this is just the effects of a final punishment.

Your misunderstanding about Revelation is in part because you are mixing the literal with the figurative. Here is a literal description of the consequences of "eternal fire."

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Note that Sodom and Gomorrha are not still burning today. They perished.



Lk. 16 is not a parable, but even if it is, it conveys spiritual truth/reality (or Jesus is a false teacher, liar, misinformed). It portrays conscious torment after death, not cessation.

It is a parable. The rich man had a physical body, he wasn't in "Hell" but hades, yet he was suffering punishment in fire. It can't possibly be literal, but it's certainly a good figurative description of the hypocritical, unbelieving Israelites that Jesus had been dealing with.



Death is separation, not cessation.

The wages of sin is the second death. The second death is cessation of life. If one is separated from the life of God, it is cessation of life because their is no other source of life.

tomlapalm
February 8th, 2013, 01:52 PM
outside of time is outside of time, everything is eternal. The only death of a spiritual being is eternal existence apart from God.. Jesus said about physically alive people "let the dead bury their dead".

Doormat
February 8th, 2013, 02:02 PM
outside of time is outside of time, everything is eternal. The only death of a spiritual being is eternal existence apart from God..

What is the source of their life if they are existing apart from God? Does God no longer sustain them in their alleged state of eternal torture? How does that work?



Jesus said about physically alive people "let the dead bury their dead".

He was speaking of the first death. You could call the first death ignorance or darkness.

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Whoever is not raised to life from the first death (the first resurrection) will experience the second death at the last resurrection.

Revelation 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.

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 02:09 PM
In Revelation, strong Greek words are used. They are tormented day and night forever and ever. Your group tries to redefine torment and forever and ever, but it is a rationalization that does not stand up to scrutiny.
I am aware of the greek, I read the NT in greek everyday.
The greek doesn't support eternal conscious torment any better than the english translations do.

Death is separation, not cessation. We have a spirit that will live forever by God's irrevocable design. This necessitates two destinies.
No, death is not separation. Death is the end of life. We are not inherently immortal. We only receive immortality as a gift from God. He doesn't give the gift of immortality to those who reject Him.


Perish does not mean atomize. A core of existence still can happen without cessation. Food perishes without disappearing.
I never said perish meant atomize. Perish means to die. Perish doesn't mean "to never perish but instead live forever in hell being tormented."

A rationalization? No, Conditional Immortality is a doctrine that I arrived at after years of careful bible study. If Conditionalism is a rationalization, what is eternal tormentism? Tormentalism is a rationalization that doesn't stand up to careful scrutiny. But I understand that there aren't a lot of people who have scrutinized the doctrine of torment. So I am very careful to not say anything bad about people who believe in eternal conscious torment. It seems to be the "default setting". It takes bible study to stop believing in eternal conscious torment.

SeraphimsCherub
February 8th, 2013, 02:11 PM
Well i'm Bi-polar. So i'm well aware that there is a mental hell in the here,and now sometimes.lol...Now were those times a constant eternal perpetual state,without the hope of CHRIST it would be hell. Even a descent feeling for all eternity without the hope of CHRIST would be a hell. People most often commit suicide when they feel there is absolutely no HOPE.

SeraphimsCherub
February 8th, 2013, 02:20 PM
And since GOD is eternal, it would seem HE became a Sacrifice far more for eternal reasons than just temporal.

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 02:31 PM
And since GOD is eternal, it would seem HE became a Sacrifice far more for eternal reasons than just temporal.

I agree, His death gives us eternal life so we don't have to pay the wages of sin ourselves, which is death. The second death is eternal, so...yeah, I'm with you on this.

tomlapalm
February 8th, 2013, 02:37 PM
What is the source of their life if they are existing apart from God? Does God no longer sustain them in their alleged state of eternal torture? How does that work?



He was speaking of the first death. You could call the first death ignorance or darkness.

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Whoever is not raised to life from the first death (the first resurrection) will experience the second death at the last resurrection.

Revelation 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.

How can a physically dead person bury the dead?

It was the spiritual dead.

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 02:40 PM
How can a physically dead person bury the dead?

It was the spiritual dead.

I believe Jesus was saying something like "Let the dead bury the dead, metaphorically speaking".

It was the metaphorically dead. :box:

Edit to add: I like your slogan, I agree. Baptists are not Protestants.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 03:24 PM
ECT is taught in more cults than Annihilationism. Are you really sure you want to go in that direction? I am asking what does the Bible teach, I am not asking what do the cults teach. Mormons and Muslims teach ECT. Does that make ECT wrong or right?

Mormons teach post-mortem salvation. The biblical, historical, orthodox view is ECT. JWs teach annihilation because C.T. Russell put reason above revelation. The issue is what does the Bible say, not what any given group or person believes (a bad group can have some truth and vice versa).

Doormat
February 8th, 2013, 03:38 PM
How can a physically dead person bury the dead?


The first death is not physical death. Were you dead in your sins? That is the first death.

The second death is annihilation.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 05:04 PM
Nice verses, brother!
Isn't there any verse that actually says that the wicked will live forever in torment in hell? Because I don't see that in any of these verses. Do you know what happens to a toad that is thrown into a lake of fire? The same thing that happens to everything else, it is burned up. Some of the verses you posted even come straight out and say "The lake of fire is the second death". That's what I beleive the lake of fire is, death. The second death. The lake of fire is definitely not eternal life swimming in fire.

Death is separation, not cessation, in Scripture.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 05:06 PM
GR, you can do better than this. aionios means "an undefined period of time" - so it can be eternal, in the English sense of the word, or it can be just a long undefined period of time - like when God said no person shall inhabit a land forever that he destroyed in the OT yet people live there today.

If you fail to accept aionios for what it means that means you have no real interest in the truth, only defending your Catholic doctrines (yes, Catholic, they invented the idea of eternal conscious torment).

Tormented day and night forever and ever is not a limited period of time. You ignore the primary meanings of everlasting/eternal and introduce a minor one to suit your purposes.

Trinity, hell, etc. are biblical, not unbiblical Catholic or pagan teachings.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 05:08 PM
Well, I suppose if we were to take the highly symbolic Book of Revelation completely literally that would be three. The Devil, The Beast, and The False Prophet.

Can you find any verses that say "The wicked will go to Hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever while they are dead"? That's really what I'm looking for.

Here's something to think about when you read the Book of Revelation. The BOR was written in the "Apocalyptic Style" which is characterized by an abundant use of symbolism. It might not be the best idea to grab a doctrine from the BOR and then use it to interpret all of the rest of scripture. A sound hermeneutical principle is to interpret less clear passages in the light of more clear passages. Don't start in Revelation and work backwards from there.

Actually, that's just a friendly suggestion. You can do whatever you want. Bless you brother!

Revelation should be interpreted with a normative literal approach which also recognizes figures of speech, symbols, etc., but only when the context demands it. The cumulative evidence in and outside of Revelation does not support your view.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 05:10 PM
ECT is a doctrine of demons.

If you believe it, then what you believe amounts to Eternal "Christian" Torture.

Is that how you would like to punish your enemies if given the chance? Why or why not.

Your argument is emotional/sentimental, not evidence based.

Do you affirm or reject the Trinity? Which group do you identify with?

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 05:10 PM
outside of time is outside of time, everything is eternal. The only death of a spiritual being is eternal existence apart from God.. Jesus said about physically alive people "let the dead bury their dead".

Jesus was talking about physical death (maybe spiritual death), but not eternal death.

Tinark
February 8th, 2013, 05:16 PM
Neg rep for calling scripture a doctrine of demons. Repent you demon possessed perverted of the truth.

:chuckle:

Without any evidence to determine one way or another, I guess these religious arguments on who is right is whoever shouts the loudest and can make the best insults and can create the most fear in their opponent?

Totton Linnet
February 8th, 2013, 05:20 PM
Nobody would like to believe in annihilation more than me...but I would have to deny the bible.

If you throw out bible truth about a matter God will not teach you about it until you repent, you will have to seek out men teachers and learn from them.

The fact is only God sees the inner man of the unrepentant sinner, only He sees the enormity of sin and what judgement it is worthy of.

Tinark
February 8th, 2013, 05:22 PM
Nobody would like to believe in annihilation more than me...but I would have to deny the bible.
If you throw out bible truth about a matter God will not teach you about it until you repent, you will have to seek out men teachers and learn from them.


Take a look at the verses Doormat posted previously here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3351734&postcount=35). They are consistent with the annihilation intrepretation.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 05:28 PM
Well i'm Bi-polar. So i'm well aware that there is a mental hell in the here,and now sometimes.lol...Now were those times a constant eternal perpetual state,without the hope of CHRIST it would be hell. Even a descent feeling for all eternity without the hope of CHRIST would be a hell. People most often commit suicide when they feel there is absolutely no HOPE.

Hell is not a medieval torture chamber, but it is reality. Those who deny this are heretical on this point.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 05:29 PM
How can a physically dead person bury the dead?

It was the spiritual dead.

But it was not the eternally dead (destiny is not fixed until death).

Doormat
February 8th, 2013, 05:30 PM
Your argument is emotional/sentimental, not evidence based.

Do you affirm or reject the Trinity? Which group do you identify with?

Answer my questions and I will answer your questions:

1. Do you still sin from time-to-time? Yes or no.
2. Is sin a bad fruit? Yes or no.
3. Can a good tree bear bad fruit? Yes or no.
4. Did Jesus have the capacity to sin, i.e. was not impeccable? Yes or no.
5. Is the body of Christ literally the body of God? Yes or no.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 05:30 PM
I believe Jesus was saying something like "Let the dead bury the dead, metaphorically speaking".

It was the metaphorically dead. :box:

Edit to add: I like your slogan, I agree. Baptists are not Protestants.

Baptists are Protestants. What else are you wrong about?

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 05:31 PM
The first death is not physical death. Were you dead in your sins? That is the first death.

The second death is annihilation.

We are still conscious despite spiritual death. We are still conscious in eternal/second death because it refers to separation, not cessation.

http://www.gotquestions.org/hell-real-eternal.html

Doormat
February 8th, 2013, 05:31 PM
Take a look at the verses Doormat posted previously here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3351734&postcount=35). They are consistent with the annihilation intrepretation.

And I just scratched the surface with those verses.

Totton Linnet
February 8th, 2013, 05:33 PM
Take a look at the verses Doormat posted previously here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3351734&postcount=35). They are consistent with the annihilation intrepretation.

Take a look at Matt. 25. they are not.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 05:37 PM
Answer my questions and I will answer your questions:

1. Do you still sin from time-to-time? Yes or no.
2. Is sin a bad fruit? Yes or no.
3. Can a good tree bear bad fruit? Yes or no.
4. Did Jesus have the capacity to sin, i.e. was not impeccable? Yes or no.
5. Is the body of Christ literally the body of God? Yes or no.

1. Yes. Sinless perfectionism is not biblical in the temporal state.

2. Sin is a wrong moral choice. It is not called a fruit, good or bad. It is volitional, lawlessness, rebellion, selfishness, disobedience. The fruit story relates to false prophets, etc., not sanctification/hamartiology.

3. We are not trees, but free moral agents. Trees operate under the law of cause-effect. We operate under the law of love/choices/freedom.

4. I take a minority view on the impeccability of Christ. Jesus was tempted, yet without sin. We are tempted, yet we sin. To deny that Jesus could have theoretically sinned is to deny His genuine humanity. Jesus is sinless because He did not sin, never will sin. There is no chance that He would or will sin. Jesus is not a tree, so consider Him a moral agent, not a plant.

5. Jesus is the God-Man, one person with two natures. God is spirit. Jesus added humanity to His Deity without ceasing to be Deity. God became flesh (Word/Christ, not Father/Spirit), but His body is not God, but He as one person is God.

Your turn:

Is Jesus God Almighty or a created being?

If you say He is God and worship Him as such, we are brothers quibbling over a doctrinal debate.

If you deny He is God, you are a cultist, not a Christian. You are wasting your time talking about hell when your Christology is defective (salvific issue, unlike views on after life).

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 05:38 PM
And I just scratched the surface with those verses.

The atheist is a poor exegete also. Those verses do not support annihilationism.

Doormat
February 8th, 2013, 05:40 PM
We are still conscious despite spiritual death.

What do you mean by "spiritual death?"



We are still conscious in eternal/second death because it refers to separation, not cessation.

Explain how one can exist separate from God when He sustains life. What other source of life do you imagine that would allow a person to have life while being separate from God? I have no idea what you mean by separate from God; the idea appears illogical.



http://www.gotquestions.org/ hell-real-eternal.html

No thanks. I've studied the Bible and can clearly see what it states about the Day of the Lord.

Tinark
February 8th, 2013, 05:43 PM
The atheist is a poor exegete also. Those verses do not support annihilationism.

Who is to decide whether they support that intrepretation or not? Taking them at their literal face value suggests annihilationism. If you start with the assumption that your view must be correct and the annihilationist view is heretical, you can reinterpret and rationalize anything to be consistent with that view if you try hard enough.

Doormat
February 8th, 2013, 05:44 PM
The atheist is a poor exegete also. Those verses do not support annihilationism.

Your argument is dazzling.

Doormat
February 8th, 2013, 05:54 PM
Your turn:

Is Jesus God Almighty or a created being?

Jesus is God. You might have discerned that from my slogan/motto.



If you say He is God and worship Him as such, we are brothers quibbling over a doctrinal debate.

You failed the test. While you are my brother in a literal sense (Acts 17:28), you are not in a figurative sense (1Jn 3:8). Furthermore, you deny the deity of Christ by denying he was/is impeccable.

Tinark
February 8th, 2013, 06:00 PM
4. I take a minority view on the impeccability of Christ. Jesus was tempted, yet without sin. We are tempted, yet we sin. To deny that Jesus could have theoretically sinned is to deny His genuine humanity. Jesus is sinless because He did not sin, never will sin. There is no chance that He would or will sin. Jesus is not a tree, so consider Him a moral agent, not a plant.


Just curious. Since you believe God is the source of moral standards and determines what is and is not sinful, and since Jesus is God, wouldn't it have been logically impossible for Jesus to sin, since any action He could have taken or any thought He could of had would be, by definition, not sinful?

Doormat
February 8th, 2013, 06:02 PM
Just curious. Since you believe God is the source of moral standards and determines what is and is not sinful, and since Jesus is God, wouldn't it have been logically impossible for Jesus to sin, since any action he could have taken or any thought he could of had would be, by definition, not sinful?

:first:

Ktoyou
February 8th, 2013, 06:25 PM
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) biblical or not?

Which verses in the Bible support ECT and which verses in the bible support the doctrine that the wicked perish instead?

Why do you focus on the darkness, rather than the Light of the world?

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 07:35 PM
Jesus is God. You might have discerned that from my slogan/motto.



You failed the test. While you are my brother in a literal sense (Acts 17:28), you are not in a figurative sense (1Jn 3:8). Furthermore, you deny the deity of Christ by denying he was/is impeccable.

I do not deny the Deity of Christ since I affirm that He is YHWH. He is uncreated Creator. He is God Almighty. He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. This is NOT a denial of the Deity of Christ.

The impeccability of Christ is another matter relating to anthropology, morals vs metaphysics, etc. You deny that He has a will, so you deny His humanity, another serious error in church history (if you do not deny His humanity...and I doubt you do, then I don't doubt His Deity...your argument is specious and shows your lack of theological background).

We agree that Jesus is sinless. If I said He sinned, then you could whine.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 07:41 PM
Just curious. Since you believe God is the source of moral standards and determines what is and is not sinful, and since Jesus is God, wouldn't it have been logically impossible for Jesus to sin, since any action He could have taken or any thought He could of had would be, by definition, not sinful?

God's character is the basis for moral absolutes (leaving atheists with no basis for morality except co-opting Judeo-Christian principles).

If Jesus murdered someone, lusted, committed adultery, worshipped idols or Satan, etc., then He would have sinned. He did none of these and was sinless.

Will not is not cannot. The bottom line is that He is the God-Man, one person with two natures. He is the sinless Lamb of God and would never choose unintelligently.

The Christian tradition/theology issues relate to original sin, Platonic influences (body/humanity is inherently sinful/evil), etc. I reject Augustinian original sin because sin is a volitional/mental choice, not a genetic substance. Body is not evil, but what we do with the body determines vice or virtue. The virgin birth allowed Deity to become humanity. It was not to keep Jesus sinless. Aquinas, etc. confused philosophical issues of being/metaphysics with moral/volitional issues.

Atheists rightly stumble on bad theology (like hyper-Calvinism that makes God arbitrary and responsible for evil, etc.). Not all tradition is truth.

My brother does not understand the history of dogma and is jumping to wrong conclusions (non sequitur...a denial of traditional impeccability is not a denial of His Deity).

Doormat
February 8th, 2013, 07:56 PM
You deny that He has a will ...

No I don't.

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 08:07 PM
Mormons teach post-mortem salvation. The biblical, historical, orthodox view is ECT. JWs teach annihilation because C.T. Russell put reason above revelation. The issue is what does the Bible say, not what any given group or person believes (a bad group can have some truth and vice versa).

Correct. The issue is what the Bible says. So why did attempt to discredit me by linking me with cults? The Bible does not support eternal conscious torment. You haven't given even one verse that says the wicked will go to hell when they die to be tormented alive there forever while they are dead. The issue is what the Bible says. The Bible specifically says that the wages of sin is death, not eternal conscious torment. The fallacy you committed is called "poisoning the well," attempting to link your opponents view to that of a disliked group in an illogical attempt to discredit the view. It did not work. The fact that you attempted this shows that you have no biblical support for ECT. Just stick to what the Bible says, the Bible will guide you.

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 08:11 PM
Nobody would like to believe in annihilation more than me...but I would have to deny the bible.

If you throw out bible truth about a matter God will not teach you about it until you repent, you will have to seek out men teachers and learn from them.

The fact is only God sees the inner man of the unrepentant sinner, only He sees the enormity of sin and what judgement it is worthy of.

I would have to throw out the bible to believe in eternal conscious torment. The Bible does not supprt ECT. I have not thrown out the Bible. The Bible supports Conditional Immortality, only those who receive eternal life from Jesus Christ will receive eternal life. Those who do not have eternal life will perish.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 08:16 PM
No I don't.

Then His will is not free and the line about temptation is false. A robot cannot sin. A moral being will not sin.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 08:17 PM
Correct. The issue is what the Bible says. So why did attempt to discredit me by linking me with cults? The Bible does not support eternal conscious torment. You haven't given even one verse that says the wicked will go to hell when they die to be tormented alive there forever while they are dead. The issue is what the Bible says. The Bible specifically says that the wages of sin is death, not eternal conscious torment. The fallacy you committed is called "poisoning the well," attempting to link your opponents view to that of a disliked group in an illogical attempt to discredit the view. It did not work. The fact that you attempted this shows that you have no biblical support for ECT. Just stick to what the Bible says, the Bible will guide you.

You have been given verses, but you twist them away.

keypurr
February 8th, 2013, 08:46 PM
I would have to throw out the bible to believe in eternal conscious torment. The Bible does not supprt ECT. I have not thrown out the Bible. The Bible supports Conditional Immortality, only those who receive eternal life from Jesus Christ will receive eternal life. Those who do not have eternal life will perish.

AMEN, I agree

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 09:08 PM
You have been given verses, but you twist them away.

What twist? I haven't twisted anything. None of the verses that were used to show that there is eternal conscious torment in hell actually said that there was eternal conscious torment in hell. That isn't my fault. Perhaps you need better verses. Or a different Bible.

Now, there is no reason for each of us to claim the other is "scripture twisting." Why don't you look up John 3:16 and tell me what it says? "All who believe in Him will not perish, but will have eternal life." What does that verse say to you?

You seem to be getting angry, there is no need for that. If you don't like this discussion, you don't have to participate. But I value your input and I wish we could discuss this in friendly terms. Which verse do you feel most strongly supports ECT, and why do you believe that I have twisted it?

Timotheos
February 8th, 2013, 09:13 PM
Hell is not a medieval torture chamber, but it is reality. Those who deny this are heretical on this point.

No, we are biblical. There is no verse in the Bible that says unbelievers will go to hell when they die where they are to be tortured alive forever while they are dead.

Let's not call each other heretics. Let's post in mutual christian love and respect for one another.


Baptists are Protestants. What else are you wrong about?
nothing :chuckle:

freelight
February 8th, 2013, 09:26 PM
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) biblical or not?

Which verses in the Bible support ECT and which verses in the bible support the doctrine that the wicked perish instead?

Hi Timotheos and all,

Some older threads where we've covered this already. I share most of my views on this below, yet some links to older posts are no longer extant.

Evidence against annihilationism? (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77040)

What about the 'Hell' Thing? (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77826)

On the Supposed Annihilation of the Soul (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83299)

Eternal torment or annihilation? What happens to the wicked? (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83810)

~*~*~

The question of if ECT is 'biblical' will be compounded, since everyone has their own 'terms' of what qualifies something to be 'biblical'. I've shared elsewhere that the term 'biblical' in this respect becomes an 'artifice'...a mere 'prop' to support one's view.

On another level the answer comes down to..."depends on who you ask".

As you know, any particular school or persuasion may have its own arsenal of 'proof texts' to support its own 'interpretation', so it becomes a theological grab-bag.

To summarize my current view...the ECT doctrine is problematic on various levels for starters, since off the bat, any 'God' who detains or enforces an eternal punishment of unending torment upon souls is sadistic, to say nothing of 'unjust'. Its apparent that a soul that continues to 'sin' will obviously suffer the consequences of such choices and only as it reaps the karma of such actions does it continue to owe a debt, until that soul reforms and repents on a deep soul level which affects true transformation, a change of mind and heart.

Infinite LOVE would always afford all the space and time necessary for a soul to return to 'God', if at any moment a soul truly has the capacity and ability to repent. - this is important to consider. Only if a soul has totally degenerated to a 'point' of no return,....or has made a final and eternal CHOICE of utter rejection of 'God' can we assume that a soul may indeed suffer 'annihilation' or 'extinction' of existence....where that soul is 'dis-integrated', 'dissolved', 'destroyed'. This soul would no longer 'be' or 'function' as a 'living soul'. In this case, under the heavenly tribunals supreme judgment and wisdom....would the soul be as if 'erased', embracing the 'second death'....from which there is no return. Only 'God' and the heavenly tribunals could finally adjudicate such judgments on souls, after their case has been thoroughly reviewed. More is shared on this in the Urantia Papers (http://urantiabook.designtechstudio.com/home-new).

There is alot to consider here, as one observation affects the conclusion or possibility of other considerations. Most of us are familiar with the various passages existing that touch on these issues. I jump to the principles of reason, philosophical inquiry, metaphysical issues, ontology and the most intelligent considerations concerning soul-destiny and the after-life. I also recognize that some of our observations and even beliefs are really just 'speculations' or 'preferential views' over others. Points of view are subject to change with new revelation.

In any case,...again....the traditional doctrine of ECT is abominable and unbecoming of a 'God' who is Infinitely Just and Merciful, for no finite period of sin ever merits an eternity of endless torment to which souls have no chance to repent or reform themselves, but are utterly damned forever (unless it is possible for a soul to truly choose an eternal death having totally and eternally rejected Life all-together....if that is possible.) In this case as we've shared...that soul under the governmental decree of God...is 'wiped' out, so to speak. Such is the full and final 'consequence' of the total embrace of iniquity to where a soul has reached a point of no return. This of course is coming from an 'annihilationist' POV...with further insights from other revelatory sources. (some who believe that spirit-souls are eternal in nature, reject this view).

I have generally favored a more universalist spiritualist perspective (which maintains souls are more or less eternal in nature and ultimately do progress Godward and return to Source), but certainly favor a kind of 'soul-extinction' over the awful and ungodly doctrine of ECT. Its truly appalling to assume 'God' would enforce an eternity of conscious torment upon his own offspring to no end. On that note, I'm not surprised at some of the worst human behavior that reflects such a 'psychology' as being truly insane.



pj

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 09:27 PM
What twist? I haven't twisted anything. None of the verses that were used to show that there is eternal conscious torment in hell actually said that there was eternal conscious torment in hell. That isn't my fault. Perhaps you need better verses. Or a different Bible.

Now, there is no reason for each of us to claim the other is "scripture twisting." Why don't you look up John 3:16 and tell me what it says? "All who believe in Him will not perish, but will have eternal life." What does that verse say to you?

You seem to be getting angry, there is no need for that. If you don't like this discussion, you don't have to participate. But I value your input and I wish we could discuss this in friendly terms. Which verse do you feel most strongly supports ECT, and why do you believe that I have twisted it?

Perish is jail is not cessation. Perish does not mean cessation in light of other relevant verses. You simply beg the question and use circular reasoning.

surrender
February 8th, 2013, 10:18 PM
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) biblical or not?

Which verses in the Bible support ECT and which verses in the bible support the doctrine that the wicked perish instead?I believe in hell and the lake of fire that hell will be thrown into (Rev. 20:14). But I do question the traditional view of hell that asserts the damned will suffer eternally in this lake of fire. The two strongest passages used to support eternal suffering are the following:

“If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone 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; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name” (Revelation 14:9-11).

“And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10).

I don’t automatically assume that “day and night forever and ever” must be taken literally. Isaiah uses the same kind of imagery to describe the fate of Edom.

“Its streams will be turned into pitch, and its loose earth into brimstone, and its land will become a burning pitch. It will not be quenched night or day; its smoke will go up forever. From generation to generation it will be desolate; none will pass through it forever and ever” (Isaiah 34:9-10).

The fire of Edom’s judgment did not literally burn “night and day” without end, and the smoke of Edom’s judgment did not literally “go up forever.” If we know the phrase in Isaiah isn’t literal, why should we be inclined to interpret a nearly identical expression in Revelation literally?

When Scripture speaks of eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46), eternal judgment (Heb. 6:2), and eternal destruction (2 Thess. 1:9), I think of it in the same way I think of eternal redemption. Our redemption is “eternal” in the sense that once we are redeemed, it is forever. We don’t go through an eternal process of redemption. Punishment, judgment, destruction of the wicked is eternal. They are destroyed forever (Psalm 92:7), but not forever being destroyed. It is says eternal punishment; not eternal punishing. “Like smoke, the wicked will vanish away” (Psalm 37:20). I don’t want to make this too long, so I’ll just say that the wicked are threatened with annihilation and total destruction throughout the Old Testament (Deut. 29:20, 23; Isa 1:28, 30-31; 5:24; Ps. 1:4-6; 34:16; 37:2, 9-10, 38; 58:7-8; 69:28; Prov. 10:25; 12:7; 24:20; Dan. 2:35; Nahum 1:10; Mal. 4:1). The New Testament, too, threatens the wicked with annihilation and total destruction (Matt. 3:10-12; 7:19; 10:28; 13:40; John 15:6; Phil. 3:18-19; Heb. 6:8; James 4:12; 2 Peter 2:3; 3:7; Jude 7).

Besides the biblical support for the view that the wicked will be totally destroyed and perish from the earth forever, could you imagine the glorious new creation utterly filled with holiness and goodness and “in which righteousness alone dwells” and in some far off dark corner of the kingdom sits a compartment of billions of sinners roasting in the lake of fire? And if these guys are aware and conscious as the traditional view teaches, won’t they be in there sinning by cursing God? Or will their eternal suffering and torment lead them to praise and worship God? Certainly not. I view God’s redemption as total. That’s what I see in Matthew 13:41, “they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend.” And what? Stick them in a closet? God’s utterly perfect and flawless kingdom will have one little nasty room in it? This addresses God’s righteousness, but what about God’s love? Does God do anything that is not constructive? Does even a parent, who is less than ideal as God certainly is, punish or inflict pain for any other purpose than that of correcting and for the child’s long-term favor? What’s remedial about the lake of fire?

Yet some will still look at those two passages that seem to support eternal suffering and remain firm in their belief that God will do what He says He will do—cast the wicked into the lake of fire where they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Period.

But there’s not just the biblical support for annihilation and complete destruction in Old and New Testaments, and there’s not just the idea that a compartment full of billions of roasting sinners does not harmonize with an utterly righteous kingdom or a God who is perfectly constructive in his punishing. There’s also the question of God’s mercy.

What does Scripture teach about God’s mercy? Is there evidence that God’s mercy triumphs over His wrath? Looking at the prophets we see that God continually tells Israel in no uncertain terms He’s going to punish them severely. But time and time again, He relents. Time and time again he delays the punishment or scales back its severity or both. Was God lying when He said He’d do those terrible things? No. He meant every word. But His mercy compelled Him to stop short. So, even if the symbolic language John used to describe the fate of the wicked is actually literal (which I question), God’s mercy has been shown to be more powerful and compelling than His wrath. And annihilation would be a merciful act. This idea of annihilation harmonizes with the teaching that God’s anger endures for a moment but His love endures forever and His mercy is everlasting (Ps. 30:5, 100:5; 103:9; 106:1; 107:1; 118:29; 136:10-26; Micah 7:18; Ps. 100:5; 138:8; Isa. 54:8).

“LORD, I have heard the report about You and I fear. O LORD, revive Your work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make it known; in wrath remember mercy” (Hab. 3:2).

zippy2006
February 8th, 2013, 10:33 PM
Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Mat 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Mat 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Physical death is not spiritual death. Spiritual death is separation from God the give and sustainer of life.

Nice verses, brother!
Isn't there any verse that actually says that the wicked will live forever in torment in hell? Because I don't see that in any of these verses. Do you know what happens to a toad that is thrown into a lake of fire? The same thing that happens to everything else, it is burned up. Some of the verses you posted even come straight out and say "The lake of fire is the second death". That's what I beleive the lake of fire is, death. The second death. The lake of fire is definitely not eternal life swimming in fire.

Any number of the verses show your opinion to be wrong (Rev 20:10 most blatantly). Scripture read literally is quite clear on this point, how you address that fact is the only question. :idunno:

keypurr
February 8th, 2013, 10:35 PM
Perish is jail is not cessation. Perish does not mean cessation in light of other relevant verses. You simply beg the question and use circular reasoning.

I disagree GR, perish means end of life. Your understanding is flawed. When you perish your die, plain and simple.

godrulz
February 8th, 2013, 11:01 PM
The Gk. phrase for tormented day and night forever and ever is strong and supports the traditional view. One cannot play the symbolic card because it contradicts your view. What else does it mean apart from what it says?

freelight
February 9th, 2013, 01:42 AM
The Gk. phrase for tormented day and night forever and ever is strong and supports the traditional view. One cannot play the symbolic card because it contradicts your view. What else does it mean apart from what it says?

The book of Revelation barely made it into the canon,..its apocalyptic imagery is subject to various interpretations, its hardly a book to build fundamental doctrines from. No matter what the greek phrase says about whoever being tormented day and night forever and ever...still does not matter if it defies common sense or reason, for a balanced interpretation of any writing demands all our faculties and all rules and principles in translation.

The Battle Royal 12 - 'Will Unbelievers Spend eternity in the lake of Fire? (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33973)' is good, between logos_x and Pastor Kevin.

The 'Battle Talk' discussion thread on this debate is here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34131) I chime in and take on Pastor Kevin on page 247 here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34131&page=247) :)

Some were really angry that I would dare to stand up for the principle of 'The victory of Love and the triumph of divine Will', and believe that God's Infinite LOVE would call all souls home (from a universalist perspective). OR that some souls would suffer the second death which would be a 'soul-death' in a final and eternal sense (extinction, cessation of conscious existence)....and NOT be tormented forever as a living/feeling entity...in a lake of fire apparently to God's delight. ECT is a fairy-tale metaphor and symbology drawn from the lower astral realms, an exagerration of prophetic imagery, at best 'figurative'.



pj

godrulz
February 9th, 2013, 01:52 AM
:hammer:

Tambora
February 9th, 2013, 01:56 AM
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) biblical or not?
It is biblical.

There will be no rest or peace for the wicked.

Tambora
February 9th, 2013, 02:15 AM
Revelations 14:9-11

From this verse it is clear, at least to my mind, that hell is eternal torment, with no rest.
Yep.


Revelation 14 KJV
(9) And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
(10) The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
(11) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Totton Linnet
February 9th, 2013, 04:56 AM
I would have to throw out the bible to believe in eternal conscious torment. The Bible does not supprt ECT. I have not thrown out the Bible. The Bible supports Conditional Immortality, only those who receive eternal life from Jesus Christ will receive eternal life. Those who do not have eternal life will perish.

Matt.25.46
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment but the righteous into life eternal.

If you say that the punishment is not everlasting then you must also say the life is not eternal.

Totton Linnet
February 9th, 2013, 04:59 AM
Why should the devil not be punished eternally? why should not the servants of the devil? are you able to discern the depths of the wickedness of murder? should you not rather trust in the judgement of the only One who can?

God's righteousness will be vindicated.

Timotheos
February 9th, 2013, 05:23 AM
Matt.25.46
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment but the righteous into life eternal.

If you say that the punishment is not everlasting then you must also say the life is not eternal.

Hi, I believe the punishment is everlasting, but the punishment doesn't consist of torture. The wages of sin is death. According to the Bible, Death is the punishment for sin. Death is everlasting for those who do not accept Jesus Christ and receive eternal life from Him. The life is eternal, for those who receive eternal life. For those who do not receive eternal life, their life is not eternal. They perish, just as the Bible says. I've heard your argument before, Augustine wrote something similar to it, so you are in good company. But I have to reject this argument from you and Augustine because not all punishment is torment, and death is also an eternal punishment. And througout the Bible the punishment for sin is always death.
Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death,
John 3:16 whoever believes will not perish,
2 Thess 1:9, they pay the penalty of eternal destruction,
Ezekiel 18:4, the soul who sins will die,
Psalm 37:20, the wicked will perish,
Psalm 37:10, the wicked will be no more,
Revelation 20:14, the lake of fire is the second death,
Matthew 7:13, the way is wide that leads to destruction,

There are many more passages like this, do I need to go on?

May God richly bless you forever and ever.

Lighthouse
February 9th, 2013, 05:32 AM
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) biblical or not?
The issue is that most people don't understand what the torment is; they think it means torture.


It is not that torment is for all time, it is just that time doesn't exist. (the clock doesn't move)
But the people do?:kookoo:

Timotheos
February 9th, 2013, 05:44 AM
Perish is jail is not cessation. Perish does not mean cessation in light of other relevant verses. You simply beg the question and use circular reasoning.

Why do you say "Perish is jail, not cessation"? In your experience does everyone who goes to jail perish there? I would have the county look into that. You may have larger problems down at the jail house than you and I have on TOL. If a person perishes, they die. That's what perish means. Tell me the verses you are thinking of that prove that perish actually means "will not perish".

I don't understand why you think that I am begging the question and using circular reasoning. Can you give me an example? I believe your side is begging the question. Here's my example for you to think about. We are asking the question, what is the punishment for sin, death or eternal conscious torment?" Your side uses Matthew 25:46 as proof that the punishment is eternal conscious torment and not death. They say, "See the Bible shows that there is eternal punishment." This is begging the question because it assumes that the eternal punishment is eternal conscious torment. It's circular reasoning to say "Eternal punishment means eternal conscious torment because the bible says that there is eternal punishment." The real question is, "What does that eternal punishment consist of, Death or ECT?"

Speaking of logical fallacies, you've committed two of them, not including the begging the question, I don't know if that was you or someone else. You committed the fallacy of "poisoning the well" when you tried to associate my view with a certain cult. And you committed the Ad Hominem fallacy when you said that anyone who believes what I believe is a heretic.

Thank you for posting here, I enjoy discussing this with you. It really shows the inconsistency of the ECT position.

May the good Lord keep you in good health and prosperity this year.

Timotheos
February 9th, 2013, 06:10 AM
Why do you focus on the darkness, rather than the Light of the world?
Ummm, because some people claim that God sends his enemies to a torture pit and keeps them alive there being tortured (I call it like I see it) forever and ever. Why does a lamp focus light in the dark places? To expose the error that lies hidden in the dark. Yes, let's forget this false doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell and focus on the Light of the world who came to rescue us from death and give us eternal life. Bless you Ktoyou, God willing we will move on from this present darkness into the light of God's truth. But as long as people are trapped in this dark pit of error, people like you and I need to shine a light in and show them the way out.
:comeout:

Timotheos
February 9th, 2013, 07:40 AM
:hammer:

This is the best argument for ECT that I've seen. Now I'm convinced, however have you considered -:DK:

chrysostom
February 9th, 2013, 07:51 AM
If punishment is not everlasting, then grammatically, neither is life.

huh?

the opposite of eternal life is death

like in the second death

Timotheos
February 9th, 2013, 08:16 AM
huh?

the opposite of eternal life is death

like in the second death

You mean death is actually (gasp!) DEATH?
How Godawful is that??? I don't want to die (Waaaaahhhhh!)
How can I keep from dying? What must I do to inherit eternal life?

Timotheos
February 9th, 2013, 08:20 AM
Neg rep for calling scripture a doctrine of demons. Repent you demon possessed perverted of the truth.

Neg rep for calling someone a demon possessed perverted of the truth.

Nick M
February 9th, 2013, 08:52 AM
How can I keep from dying? What must I do to inherit eternal life?

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, and your entire house.

Timotheos
February 9th, 2013, 09:32 AM
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, and your entire house.

Okay, I've done that. So now I'm saved from the second death, which is death?

So what is this garbage I keep hearing about eternal life in hell being tormented alive forever after death? How can people be tortured alive forever when they are dead if they don't also have eternal life? Who invented this fresh nonsense?

BigBoof1959
February 9th, 2013, 09:39 AM
The doctrine of eternal punishment in "hell" is a christianized form of an ancient pagan belief system that was used to keep people afraid and under control. There are many historical accounts where the leaders of ancient pagan societies openly write to their friends and admit that they themselves do not believe that there is a place of eternal punishment, but that they are glad that they have been able to convince the people they are ruling over of it's reality, since it makes them afraid to get too far out of line. Many of the early church fathers did not believe this doctrine, but believed that all people would eventually be redeemed and saved. But even among those who believed in the salvation of all men, there were some who decided it was better not to teach this truth to all of their flock, since they feared that many would take it as a license to sin, but instead to "hold it in reserve" to themselves and those they deemed mature enough to be trusted with it.

Several of the more prominent early church fathers openly taught the salvation of all men, and played important roles at the major church councils. One, Gregory of Nyssa, was called on to draft the part of the Nicene creed that dealt with the matter of the Trinity. One of the later church councils bestowed on him the title "Father of Fathers" and the "Flower of Orthodoxy". If universal salvation is a heresy, why were these prominent church fathers allowed to attend and contribute at important church councils with no record of them being rebuked for a heretical belief? I've had people tell me that belief in universal salvation had not yet become a major problem in the church at the time, so that is why these church leaders were not dealt with on the matter. If that is really the case, then those at the councils who did not believe in universal salvation were derelict in their duty to protect the believers attending the churches which Gregory and the other universalist church fathers had under their charge.

Confession of a belief in a place of eternal punishment was not required of Christians until the Roman empire was splintering and a unifying force was required. Justinian got the ball rolling and by building on Augustine's faulty theology on the subject due to his poor understanding of the Greek texts. He (Justinian) and those following him wanted to use confession of belief in eternal punishment (under threat of force) as a rallying point for unity and conformance. Since the church had accepted so many supposedly "converted" pagans into its midst, and brought some of their erroneous beliefs with them, the same mindset crept into church leadership. Eventually the leaders decided that instead of cleansing the church of pagan undertones and risking revolt and loss of control, they would rather employ the method of control that the pagans were very familiar with.

If anyone is interested in reading up on how the early church viewed the topic of salvation, the "scholar's corner" at www.tentmaker.org is a great place to start. Scroll down the home page to the bottom and you will find a long list of sections that are on this site. The scholar's corner link is found in the middle of the next to the bottom line. Dr. John Wesley Hanson's book titled "Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During its First Five Hundred Years" is a good place to start. (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html ) Another good read is Andrew Juke's "The Second Death and the Restitution of All Things". In it he addresses a lot of misconceptions about how the Lord goes about saving us. One common misconception he points out is the belief that the Lord saves us from death, as opposed to the belief which he says is taught in the scriptures, namely that the Lord saves us through death. The following is a short excerpt from part 2 of this book -



How then did man depart from God, and die to Him, and fall from His kingdom? By believing a lie. By the serpent's double lie,--a lie about God, that God grudges and is not true, and a lie about man, that in disobedience he shall be as God,--the divine life in man's soul was poisoned and destroyed, and man was separated from God, and died to God's world. (Gen. iii. 1-5.)

And because to a being like man, made in God's image, death cannot be the end of existence, but is only a passing out of one world into another, by this death to God, man who is a spirit, lost the place which God had given him, the Paradise, called by Paul "the third heaven," (2 Cor. xii. 2, 4. Paradise is the word used by the LXX. in Gen. ii. 8, 9. Compare Rev. ii. 7.) and was driven out, and fell into the kingdom of darkness, his inward life of ceaseless aching restlessness; to escape which he turns to outward things, hating to come to himself even for a moment, unconsciously driven by his own inward dissatisfaction to seek diversion from himself in any outward care, pleasure, or vanity; while his body became like that of the beasts, subject to the elements of this world, and to all the change and toil which make up "the course of this world." Such was the fall of man, and it explains why death is needful for our return to God. Death is the only way out of any world in which we are. It was by death to God we fell out of God's world. And it is by death with Christ to sin and to this world that we are delivered in spirit from sin, that is the dark world, and in body from the toil and changes of this outward world. For we are, as Scripture and our own hearts tell us, not only in body in this outward world, but in our spirits are living in a spiritual world, which surely is not heaven, for no soul of man till regenerate is at rest or satisfied; and being thus fallen, the only way out of these worlds is death: so long as we live their life, we must be in them. To get out of them, therefore, we must die: die to this elemental nature, to get out of the seen world, and die to sin, to get out of the dark world, called in Scripture "the power of darkness." (Col. i. 13.) And since the life of the one is toil and change, and the life of the other is dissatisfaction and inward restlessness, we must die to both if we would be free from the changes of this world, and from the restlessness and dissatisfaction in which by nature our spirits are. Christ died this double death for us, not only "to sin," (Rom. vi. 10.) but also "to the elements of this world." (Col. ii. 20.) And to be free, we also must die with Him to both. Only by such a death are we delivered.

In pressing this point however, that death is needful for the sinner's deliverance, I need scarcely add, that death, alone, and without another life, is not and cannot of itself be enough to bring us back to God's world. We need death to get out of this world and out of the power of darkness; but we also need and must have the life of God, which is only perfected in resurrection, to live in God's world.

I recommend anyone to check out the many excellent books found at this website.

Timotheos
February 9th, 2013, 09:52 AM
I want to make it clear to those who believe in eternal conscious torment that there are two separate groups who don't believe in the false doctrine of ECT. One group believes that everyone will eventually be saved, they are called the Christian Universalists. Rob Bell seems to be one of those. The other group believes that the penalty for sin is actually death. Real death where the sinner actually dies and is not alive and conscious. We call this view "Conditional Immortality" since immortality is only granted under the conditon that the sinner receive Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. This view is also known as "Annihilationism" since we believe the soul perishes in hell. I don't like this term though, because of all of the confusion over the word "annihilate."

Each of the three doctrines has something in common and one thing against the other two.

Conditionalists and Eternal Tormentists agree that there is an eternal punishment for sin and disagree with the Universalists that all will be saved.

Conditionalists and Universalists agree that there is no eternal conscious torment in hell and disagree with the Tormentists about the nature of hell.

Universalists and Tormentists agree that everyone lives forever and disagree with the Conditionalists that some people actually will perish.

tomlapalm
February 9th, 2013, 10:00 AM
Well, I suppose if we were to take the highly symbolic Book of Revelation completely literally that would be three. The Devil, The Beast, and The False Prophet.

Can you find any verses that say "The wicked will go to Hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever while they are dead"? That's really what I'm looking for.

Here's something to think about when you read the Book of Revelation. The BOR was written in the "Apocalyptic Style" which is characterized by an abundant use of symbolism. It might not be the best idea to grab a doctrine from the BOR and then use it to interpret all of the rest of scripture. A sound hermeneutical principle is to interpret less clear passages in the light of more clear passages. Don't start in Revelation and work backwards from there.

Actually, that's just a friendly suggestion. You can do whatever you want. Bless you brother!

Symbolic of literal things. You can't dismiss Revelation because you don't understand or accept it.

If you understand who we are and where we are, you wouldn't have to ask about eternity and everlasting. Their translated meanings have been tangled and misapplied from the original meanings. The Bible is consistent with meanings. As spiritual beings, we exist outside of time whether in torment or not. Torment you reject is fleshly torment and is not what is applicable to outside of time.

Your arrogance is overshadowing your ignorance

Timotheos
February 9th, 2013, 10:17 AM
Symbolic of literal things. You can't dismiss Revelation because you don't understand or accept it.

If you understand who we are and where we are, you wouldn't have to ask about eternity and everlasting. Their translated meanings have been tangled and misapplied from the original meanings. The Bible is consistent with meanings. As spiritual beings, we exist outside of time whether in torment or not. Torment you reject is fleshly torment and is not what is applicable to outside of time.

Your arrogance is overshadowing your ignorance

My arrogance? Is it arrogant to ask questions? You seem to be a tiny bit arrogant when you say "You can't dismiss Revelation because you don't understand or accept it." Actually, I do accept Revelation. I just don't believe that it is completely literal, as you do.

But feel free to insult me whenever you are unable to biblicallly defend your view. Or correct my ignorance. Show me why I should accept all of Revelation as literally true. show me why the Book of Revelation is the very best book to get your doctrine from, and patiently explain to me why a Book like say, Romans is not to be believed as scripture. Explain to me why Jesus didn't mean what he said in John 3:16 and Matthew 7:13. I am willing to sit at your feet and learn the truth from your wisdom. I am an arrogantly ignorant vessel waiting to be filled from your font. Go ahead.

Timotheos
February 9th, 2013, 10:24 AM
Your arrogance is overshadowing your ignorance

Tomlapalm, rather than just insult me, why don't you post the verse that says "Bad people will go to hell when they die where they will be tormented or tortured alive forever after they are dead."?

Let me know when you find that verse.

Let's see ummm, your arrogance is overshadowing your ignorance, or something like that.

tomlapalm
February 9th, 2013, 10:49 AM
Tomlapalm, rather than just insult me, why don't you post the verse that says "Bad people will go to hell when they die where they will be tormented or tortured alive forever after they are dead."?

Let me know when you find that verse.

Let's see ummm, your arrogance is overshadowing your ignorance, or something like that.

I posted them. you dismissed them because you didn't like them. You looked for excuses as to the actual meaning of tormented, eternal and everlasting.

The truth you haven't been told is, we are eternal beings already going to eternal punishment outside of time unless we accept the pardon. Time is only a delay in that judgement. Time for repentance will end and judgement will continue. Torment is not a verb but a noun relating to the condition of our/their separation from God. It is torment.

What we accept or believe does not change what is. Truth is truth. We can accept or deny any concept, it doesn't change reality. Our belief, if we act upon a truth changes us our actions. If we deny truth, it is usually detrimental.

What is your point about John 3 16 and Matt 7 13?

Timotheos
February 9th, 2013, 11:00 AM
I posted them. you dismissed them because you didn't like them. You looked for excuses as to the actual meaning of tormented, eternal and everlasting.
No sir. I dismissed them because they didn't say what you said they said. I asked you to post a verse or verses that proved there was eternal conscious torment, and you posted half a dozen verses that didn't say there is eternal conscious torment for the lost. Now, you are claiming victory, but you still haven't posted any verses that say "the lost go to hell when they die where they are tormented alive forever."


The truth you haven't been told is, we are eternal beings already going to eternal punishment outside of time unless we accept the pardon.
We are eternal beings? Chapter and verse please, Can you show any verse that says the lost are immortal?


Time is only a delay in that judgement. Time for repentance will end and judgement will continue. Torment is not a verb but a noun relating to the condition of our/their separation from God. It is torment.
I agree that there will be a judgement. I just disagree with you that the result of the judgement is eternal conscious torment, because the Bible does not say that. However, the Bible does say that the wages of sin is death.


What we accept or believe does not change what is. Truth is truth. We can accept or deny any concept, it doesn't change reality. Our belief, if we act upon a truth changes us our actions. If we deny truth, it is usually detrimental.
Yes, truth is truth, and I have proven that the bible says that the wages of sin is death. You have not proven that the truth is that the wages of sin is eternal conscious torment in hell.

You can accept the truth or you can deny it. I believe the Bible, if you think the Bible says that the lost go to hell when they die to be tormented alive there forever, just post the verse. In the meantime read John 3:16.

I like you, I used to hold the same view as you do. Until I investigated for myself what the Bible says. May God continue to bless you as you investigate this for yourself.

Timotheos
February 9th, 2013, 11:06 AM
Our belief, if we act upon a truth changes us our actions. If we deny truth, it is usually detrimental.
Is that why ECTists keep on insulting me?


What is your point about John 3 16 and Matt 7 13?

John 3:16 says that those who believe in Jesus will not perish. This means that the rest will perish.
Matthew 7:13 says that the way is wide that leads to destruction. Destruction is not "eternal non destruction but conscious torment in hell instead of destruction."

By believing in ECT you are denying what Jesus Christ said in John 3:16 and Matt 7:13.

Tambora
February 9th, 2013, 01:07 PM
I want to make it clear to those who believe in eternal conscious torment that there are two separate groups who don't believe in the false doctrine of ECT. One group believes that everyone will eventually be saved, they are called the Christian Universalists. Rob Bell seems to be one of those. The other group believes that the penalty for sin is actually death. Real death where the sinner actually dies and is not alive and conscious. We call this view "Conditional Immortality" since immortality is only granted under the conditon that the sinner receive Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. This view is also known as "Annihilationism" since we believe the soul perishes in hell. I don't like this term though, because of all of the confusion over the word "annihilate."

Each of the three doctrines has something in common and one thing against the other two.

Conditionalists and Eternal Tormentists agree that there is an eternal punishment for sin and disagree with the Universalists that all will be saved.

Conditionalists and Universalists agree that there is no eternal conscious torment in hell and disagree with the Tormentists about the nature of hell.

Universalists and Tormentists agree that everyone lives forever and disagree with the Conditionalists that some people actually will perish.
The atheist already believes that when they physically die, that it will be the same as it were before they were ever conceived in the womb --- ie. just don’t have any existence/consciousness at all.


But Christ tells us that it would be better for the enemy of Christ if he had never been born at all.
Now, how can it be better than death, if both are the same thing --- ie. just don’t have any existence/consciousness at all????????






All have consciousness while in this life, even though some are said to be dead while they still physically live.

All have consciousness in the grave, even though they are physically dead.
(They be unaware/unconscious of things going on back in the natural world where they once lived, but they, themselves, are still conscious.)

So, scripture does not teach that “dead” means unconsciousness.
But when it comes to the “dead’ of the second death (lake of fire), all of a sudden some want to change the definition of “dead” to mean unconsciousness/nonexistence.



So, thanks to false teachers as the Universalist and the Annihilationist, being an enemy of Christ has no negative connotation at all. You will receive rest whether you accept Christ or not.
Way to go, heretics! The blind leading the blind with no fear of falling right into the pit.

vanityofvanitys
February 9th, 2013, 01:29 PM
The atheist already believes that when they physically die, that it will be the same as it were before they were ever conceived in the womb --- ie. just don’t have any existence/consciousness at all.


But Christ tells us that it would be better for the enemy of Christ if he had never been born at all.
Now, how can it be better than death, if both are the same thing --- ie. just don’t have any existence/consciousness at all????????






All have consciousness while in this life, even though some are said to be dead while they still physically live.

All have consciousness in the grave, even though they are physically dead.
(They be unaware/unconscious of things going on back in the natural world where they once lived, but they, themselves, are still conscious.)

So, scripture does not teach that “dead” means unconsciousness.
But when it comes to the “dead’ of the second death (lake of fire), all of a sudden some want to change the definition of “dead” to mean unconsciousness/nonexistence.



So, thanks to false teachers as the Universalist and the Annihilationist, being an enemy of Christ has no negative connotation at all. You will receive rest whether you accept Christ or not.
Way to go, heretics! The blind leading the blind with no fear of falling right into the pit.

It's an interesting idea you raise in your final paragraph. Still, I find it hard to believe any of those who reject God would do so based on that flimsy reasoning alone? Most people who reject God and go their own way do so for more selfish reasons than that. They don't get too philosophical about it, more like just lazy or selfish.

On the other hand, no true Christian should ever let such an unknown mystery cause them to change in any way.

godrulz
February 9th, 2013, 03:49 PM
huh?

the opposite of eternal life is death

like in the second death

Death is separation, not cessation, in Scripture.

To deny ECT requires redefining things, finding loop holes in logic (everlasting life, adjective/noun means conscious existence/life forever, but everlasting punishment with same grammar and referring to people only means the consequences are forever=redundant, not the existence?). The anti-ECT strains credulity and sound exegesis/word studies. It is a false teaching that compromises God's love and holiness.

The nature of human existence is also an issue. Was man created to live forever or does God destroy moral creation into oblivion...saying the spirit lives forever is not identical to Platonic ideas of soul immortality).

godrulz
February 9th, 2013, 03:53 PM
Okay, I've done that. So now I'm saved from the second death, which is death?

So what is this garbage I keep hearing about eternal life in hell being tormented alive forever after death? How can people be tortured alive forever when they are dead if they don't also have eternal life? Who invented this fresh nonsense?

Physical death only makes us separate from this planet. It does not negate the person. I assume you must believe in soul-sleep? Are you SDA?

Physical death is separation of spirit-soul from body.

Spiritual death is relational separation from God. Dead in sin (Eph. 2) does not mean non-existent, non-conscious (I Tim. 5:6 alive while dead?!).

Eternal death/second death is separation of sinner from holy God forever. It is not cessation of existence/consciousness. A computer can be destroyed as to function without being atomized or non-existent.

Too many verses support a view of consciousness in after life. There are two destinies with a heaven to gain and a hell to shun. Liberal, modern compromises of this to make God/gospel more palatable are lies.

godrulz
February 9th, 2013, 03:59 PM
I want to make it clear to those who believe in eternal conscious torment that there are two separate groups who don't believe in the false doctrine of ECT. One group believes that everyone will eventually be saved, they are called the Christian Universalists. Rob Bell seems to be one of those. The other group believes that the penalty for sin is actually death. Real death where the sinner actually dies and is not alive and conscious. We call this view "Conditional Immortality" since immortality is only granted under the conditon that the sinner receive Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. This view is also known as "Annihilationism" since we believe the soul perishes in hell. I don't like this term though, because of all of the confusion over the word "annihilate."

Each of the three doctrines has something in common and one thing against the other two.

Conditionalists and Eternal Tormentists agree that there is an eternal punishment for sin and disagree with the Universalists that all will be saved.

Conditionalists and Universalists agree that there is no eternal conscious torment in hell and disagree with the Tormentists about the nature of hell.

Universalists and Tormentists agree that everyone lives forever and disagree with the Conditionalists that some people actually will perish.

It is unreasonable to identify the biblical adherents as tormentists (loaded language). This makes Jesus an evil tormenter, not a righteous Judge.

Hell is not a medieval torture chamber. Get over that idea. God is not cruel and does not delight in putting kittens in a microwave (I expect this from JWs, not Christians). Satan is not in hell as king poking people with pitchforks.

God created man to live forever. The giving of a spirit-soul is irrevocable and God will not destroy moral creation (unlike animate creation who are not in the image of God). A person living forever is not identical to pagan, Platonic immortality of soul apart from God teaching.

If this is the creation mandate, then two destinies become necessary, as Scripture clearly shows. The exact nature of heaven and hell is not revealed, but we do know that God is loving and hell flows from his love and holiness. He is not a petty tormenter.

Those who have wrestled with a life apart from God (mental illness, addiction, homeless, emptiness, etc.) know that someone can be in paradise or in a slum and feel despair and anguish. The issue with hell is separation, not torture.

godrulz
February 9th, 2013, 04:03 PM
Is that why ECTists keep on insulting me?



John 3:16 says that those who believe in Jesus will not perish. This means that the rest will perish.
Matthew 7:13 says that the way is wide that leads to destruction. Destruction is not "eternal non destruction but conscious torment in hell instead of destruction."

By believing in ECT you are denying what Jesus Christ said in John 3:16 and Matt 7:13.

You should know that a Greek word study on perish/destruction, etc., from credible sources, can show how it is possible to use these terms even while things or person remain aware/in existence. Someone can destroy my life financially, but I do not cease to exist. A fresh fruit can perish in its intended purpose/quality, yet still exist or be eaten by an animal.

ECT has responded to the liberal challenges of the new fad teachings infecting the church (yes, some Church Fathers also held them, but this is why we argue from Scripture, not fallible, contradictory Fathers).

Rob Bell and others are compromising truth, not leading a Spirit-led restoration of it.

The biblical, historical, orthodox view will stand up to scrutiny. Fads come and go, but they tickle itching ears.

Having said that, there is room under the Christian tent for differing views on this.

I commend Timotheos for being civil and putting up with our abuse.

tomlapalm
February 9th, 2013, 04:23 PM
Is that why ECTists keep on insulting me?



John 3:16 says that those who believe in Jesus will not perish. This means that the rest will perish.
Matthew 7:13 says that the way is wide that leads to destruction. Destruction is not "eternal non destruction but conscious torment in hell instead of destruction."

By believing in ECT you are denying what Jesus Christ said in John 3:16 and Matt 7:13.

I was giving a generalization not personal. I believe much of your error is from deriving doctrine from English, not Greek and Hebrew.

I think I insulted you earlier. I think you will reveal your agenda soon

freelight
February 9th, 2013, 10:50 PM
I want to make it clear to those who believe in eternal conscious torment that there are two separate groups who don't believe in the false doctrine of ECT. One group believes that everyone will eventually be saved, they are called the Christian Universalists. Rob Bell seems to be one of those. The other group believes that the penalty for sin is actually death. Real death where the sinner actually dies and is not alive and conscious. We call this view "Conditional Immortality" since immortality is only granted under the conditon that the sinner receive Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. This view is also known as "Annihilationism" since we believe the soul perishes in hell. I don't like this term though, because of all of the confusion over the word "annihilate."

Each of the three doctrines has something in common and one thing against the other two.

Conditionalists and Eternal Tormentists agree that there is an eternal punishment for sin and disagree with the Universalists that all will be saved.

Conditionalists and Universalists agree that there is no eternal conscious torment in hell and disagree with the Tormentists about the nature of hell.

Universalists and Tormentists agree that everyone lives forever and disagree with the Conditionalists that some people actually will perish.


Correct analysis, for conditionalists and universalists reject the idea of ECT (the former believe rejectors of 'God' will be 'extinguished', while universalists believe all souls will ultimately be 'saved'), while traditionalist believers in ECT assume that human souls-spirits are inherently more or less eternal and must remain as conscious living beings for all eternity (therefore no one ever ceases to exist, or could suffer an actual eternal termination of existence).

I approach this and problems associated with ECT from a more liberal spiritualist view, as shared ealier here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3352144&postcount=84) & here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3352219&postcount=90). There's more to consider, which includes the nature and destiny of souls, their 'constitution' and 'potential' in the plan of 'God' as far as 'survival' or 'salvation' goes. 'Scriptures' do not necessarily have the final or perfect answer on these matters, so are 'open' to 'interpretation'.

Apart from dogmas and assumptions,....exploring this philosophically enables a versatility of possibilities. As shared earlier,....I see that all souls that still have the ability and capacity for repentance, keep the possibility of salvation open to them, as long as divine love and will allows for the provision of restoration and healing. Therefore, a soul could only be in eternal conscious torment, if that soul is continually sinning and reaping the consequences of such which is suffering, disease and death. That would be 'hell',...if a soul could continually use its 'free will' to choose sin and self-destruction. According to the law of karma or 'compensation'....all that is sown, must be reaped, so a soul that continues in sin...will naturally reap the consequences of such. In this view, it is NEVER 'God' enforcing or keeping a soul in this condition of suffering or torment, for such suffering is self-inflicted, for the soul itself much pay for its own sins, and afford itself salvation via 'reform', 'repentance', and drawing near to God for transformation of heart & soul.

If we entertain the idea that spirit-souls are inherently more or less eternal, so that they continue on in some condition or state in the afterlife...then its reasonable to assume the same laws that govern one's psychic and spiritual condition and progress continue on in the spirit-world....so that one carries on his spiritual journey right after physical death in the dimensions beyond. As long as one's soul can be affected or conditioned in any way.....souls still reap what they sow...for such is a universal law. They can either progress spiritually or remain stagnant..or degenerate to a certain degree...before they choose to lift themselves towards the grace and helps that are ever availing...to ascend Godward...and enjoy the happiness and health that comes with obeying God's laws....being in a state of 'at-one-ment' with Him.

~*~*~

The Padgett messages (http://thepadgettmessages.net/) offer a view that rejects the traditional concept of 'atonement' here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3349409&postcount=45) ....and expands on the 'Law of compensation' here (http://www.divinetruth.com/E-Books/Kindle/Jesus%20Law%20of%20Compensation.pdf). While these messages present their own terms and context concerning the soul's development and destiny, outside of a stringent orthodox interpretation of 'scripture', their teaching stands on its own merit, soundness and wisdom, so are to be understood within the context of the teaching itself....as a whole. Such is shared as another perspective regarding soul-salvation. According to this school,...all spirits generally progress upward, but some may only attain the perfection of 'natural love' and go no further than the 6th sphere in the spirit-world, while others will receive the 'divine love' and experience the 'new birth' of the Spirit where souls become partakers of the 'divine nature' and actually become 'immortalized' by their union with God, attaining the 7th sphere and continuing beyond in the celestial worlds. In this view then, 'immortality' is 'conditional' in that only the souls who receive the 'divine love' and experience the 'new birth' become 'immortal',..while other spirits may become perfect in 'natural love' only progressing so far in the spirit-world. Only souls that share in the immortality of 'God' are assured eternal life and survival into eternity, while others maintain a life consonant to their own soul's condition or development from the level of 'natural human love'.




pj

Lighthouse
February 10th, 2013, 03:08 AM
Tim-
Do you think the people in the Lake of Fire are tormented in themselves by the fact they will never have the chance to change their circumstances and be in the presence of God ever again?

Sealeaf
February 10th, 2013, 03:52 AM
The doctrin of eternal damnation may or may not be Biblical but it is logical.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 07:00 AM
It is unreasonable to identify the biblical adherents as tormentists (loaded language). This makes Jesus an evil tormenter, not a righteous Judge.


I never identified the biblical adherents as "Tormentists". I identified the biblical adherents as "Conditionalists". I don't know how else to identify those who believe in eternal torment. I certainly can't call them "biblical adherents". There is no verse in the bible that says "For the wages of sin is eternal conscious torment, but the gift of God is to not be eternally consciously tormented". If you believe that your doctrine makes Jesus and evil tormenter, perhaps it is time to leave that doctrine. Jesus is a righteous Judge. If he sent His enemies away to eternal conscious torment, he would not be a righteous judge, because that would not be justice.


Physical death only makes us separate from this planet.
That's a new one, that I haven't heard before. So in your opinion, Death is not Death, like not being alive anymore? In your opinion death is a rocket? Can you give me the chapter and verse where the Bible says that death is a rocket?


It does not negate the person.
I don't know what you mean by this. Are you saying that a person can be killed and not have it affect their life?
I believe that death causes a person to die, but they can be resurrected again. I believe that there is no resurrection from the second death after the resurrection from the first death. People die, they are resurrected from death and are judged. The judgement determines whether they receive eternal life or go to the second death.


I assume you believe in soul sleep
What do you mean by soul sleep? I believe the wages of sin is death. I don't think dead people are alive, do you? I believe that people live, people die, people can and will be resurrected by Jesus Christ when He returns. In short, I believe the Bible.


Are you SDA?
No. Are you Mormon?


Physical death is separation of spirit-soul from body.
I don't believe this is true. Can you supply the Chapter and Verse from the Bible that says "Physical death is separation of spirit-soul from body". Thanks a bunch.


Spiritual death is relational separation from God.
You have a lot of funny beliefs. Can you give the scripture reference that says this?


Dead in sin (Eph. 2) does not mean non-existent, non-conscious (I Tim. 5:6 alive while dead?!).
Metaphors do not negate the plain meaning of the word "death". You committing the fallacy the D.A. Carson calls "Illegitamate Totality Transfer", whereby you assign the definition of word from one context into a completely different context and assume it means exactly the same thing in the new context.


Eternal death/second death is separation of sinner from holy God forever.
Only because the death kills the sinner.
If you are assuming the sinner remains alive and separated from God while he is dead, please supply the appropriate chaper and verse.


It is not cessation of existence/consciousness.
If you believe that dead people are conscious, it is up to you to prove that. I don't bring my assuptions to the Bible, like you do


A computer can be destroyed as to function without being atomized or non-existent.
That's true. But we are not talking about computers, are we? A person can be dead without being atomized or non-existent too. Just because they are not atomized or non-existent, doesn't mean that they are alilve and conscious while they are dead.


Too many verses support a view of consciousness in after life.
Toss a couple over here. Too many verses support the fact that the wicked will perish, be destroyed, and be no more.


There are two destinies with a heaven to gain and a hell to shun.
Who told you this? Is it in the Bible? Can you give the scripture reference that says this?


Liberal, modern compromises of this to make God/gospel more palatable are lies.
Again, I am only asking, "What does the Bible actually say?" I am not liberal, and the doctrine that the wages of sin is death is not modern. It has been around since Adam, and described throughout the Bible, and believed by the early church prior to the time of Augustine who made the idea of ECT popular.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 07:09 AM
I was giving a generalization not personal. I believe much of your error is from deriving doctrine from English, not Greek and Hebrew.



Okay, you caught me up. I derived my doctrine from reading English Translations of the Bible. I also read the NT in the original Greek, about a chapter a day. It supports Conditionalism even stronger than the translations do. I'm sorry that I cannot read Hebrew, but I know that there are no passages in the OT that say that the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever while they are dead. BUT, I started learning Hebrew this year.


I think I insulted you earlier. I think you will reveal your agenda soon
You caught me again! Yes, I am about to reveal my agenda. Are you ready? My agenda is this: I want people to read the Bible for themselves, and test every belief they have to see if their beliefs come from scripture or man made traditions.

But, thanks for apologizing for insulting me. Apology accepted. May God bless you richly today.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 07:14 AM
Tim-
Do you think the people in the Lake of Fire are tormented in themselves by the fact they will never have the chance to change their circumstances and be in the presence of God ever again?

No. According to the Bible, the lake of fire is the second death. Since those who are in the lake of fire are dead, they don't have the ability to torment themselves. The Biblical word for what those who are in the lake of fire are is "ash". Malachi 4:3

bybee
February 10th, 2013, 07:22 AM
No. According to the Bible, the lake of fire is the second death. Since those who are in the lake of fire are dead, they don't have the ability to torment themselves. The Biblical word for what those who are in the lake of fire are is "ash". Malachi 4:3

I suspect that once someone is insane enough to separate him/herself from God, he is dead already. He is no longer in the light from whence comes love and sustenance.
His ultimate end is disintegration into nothingness.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 07:51 AM
I suspect that once someone is insane enough to separate him/herself from God, he is dead already. He is no longer in the light from whence comes love and sustenance.
His ultimate end is disintegration into nothingness.

This would mean that once a person becomes an atheist, they drop dead right there. I don't believe this. I believe that we have this lifetime to either accept Jesus Christ or reject Him. Then we all die.

When Jesus Christ returns, He resurrects everyone out of the grave, John 5:25, and He will judge the everyone in the world. Those who have put their trust in Him will receive eternal life from Him, and those who have rejected Him will go to their second death.

tomlapalm
February 10th, 2013, 08:39 AM
Okay, you caught me up. I derived my doctrine from reading English Translations of the Bible. I also read the NT in the original Greek, about a chapter a day. It supports Conditionalism even stronger than the translations do. I'm sorry that I cannot read Hebrew, but I know that there are no passages in the OT that say that the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever while they are dead. BUT, I started learning Hebrew this year.


You caught me again! Yes, I am about to reveal my agenda. Are you ready? My agenda is this: I want people to read the Bible for themselves, and test every belief they have to see if their beliefs come from scripture or man made traditions.

But, thanks for apologizing for insulting me. Apology accepted. May God bless you richly today.

your original post was to question scripture and God. Why test what is plainly stated in several places?

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 08:56 AM
your original post was to question scripture and God. Why test what is plainly stated in several places?

What? You are not God, and you don't write scripture, AFAIK. :chuckle:
This is the question:
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not? How is that questioning scripture and God?

The reason to test is to test what we assume is plainly stated in scripture in several places, but on closer inspection we find is not stated at all. This way we can purge our own ignorance and discern the truth of scripture. The unexamined belief is not worth holding. A belief, before it is examined by the light of scripture is not really a belief at all, but an assumption. I understand your fear to test your assumptions, you may fear that what you believe is not really true and your whole belief system may come crumbling down around your knees. That is a risk we all take when we believe something. I would rather test my belief that I have received a fine set of clothing that only those who are worthy can see, than walk out of my palace completely naked.

Aside from that, it is very rewarding to put your beliefs to the test and find that the Bible actually does support your beliefs. You also gain a richer understanding of your beliefs and are better able to defend them against atheists.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 10:08 AM
I commend Timotheos for being civil and putting up with our abuse.

Thank you.

AdHoms don't prove anything one way or the other.

Angel4Truth
February 10th, 2013, 10:27 AM
This would mean that once a person becomes an atheist, they drop dead right there. I don't believe this. I believe that we have this lifetime to either accept Jesus Christ or reject Him. Then we all die.

When Jesus Christ returns, He resurrects everyone out of the grave, John 5:25, and He will judge the everyone in the world. Those who have put their trust in Him will receive eternal life from Him, and those who have rejected Him will go to their second death.

Are you SDA if you dont mind me asking?

bybee
February 10th, 2013, 10:34 AM
This would mean that once a person becomes an atheist, they drop dead right there. I don't believe this. I believe that we have this lifetime to either accept Jesus Christ or reject Him. Then we all die.

When Jesus Christ returns, He resurrects everyone out of the grave, John 5:25, and He will judge the everyone in the world. Those who have put their trust in Him will receive eternal life from Him, and those who have rejected Him will go to their second death.

Nope, it does not mean that!
I said "disintegration" begins. Perhaps, if caught early, repairs may be made. If not, the downhill slide into the furnace can be quite steep.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 10:36 AM
Are you SDA if you dont mind me asking?

I don't much like you asking, but no. I am not SDA.
I'm a Bible Believing Truth Loving Christian, inotherwords, I am a Conditionalist. (who is sick today and that's why I'm not pew sitting!)

Angel4Truth
February 10th, 2013, 10:39 AM
I don't much like you asking, but no. I am not SDA.
I'm a Bible Believing Truth Loving Christian, inotherwords, I am a Conditionalist. (who is sick today and that's why I'm not pew sitting!)

It appeared to me you were saying you believe in both soul sleep and annihilation.

Ive only known of SDA believers who believed both of those at once.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 10:59 AM
It appeared to me you were saying you believe in both soul sleep and annihilation.

Ive only known of SDA believers who believed both of those at once.

The term "soul sleep" is pretty offensive, don't you think?
Jesus said "our friend lazarus sleepeth". Would you call Jesus Christ a SDA or a believer in "soul sleep"?

I could use derogatory terms for the beliefs of others too. I could, but I won't.

Angel4Truth
February 10th, 2013, 11:02 AM
The term "soul sleep" is pretty offensive, don't you think?
Jesus said "our friend lazarus sleepeth". Would you call Jesus Christ a SDA or a believer in "soul sleep"?

I could use derogatory terms for the beliefs of others too. I could, but I won't.

I would call Lazarus, dead and brought out of abrahams bosom which no longer exists imo since the cross, when Christ emptied paradise.

Christ says those who believe in Him have passed from death into life which eliminates soul sleep imo and says we have already been judged- if we have already been judged once we are in Christ, we will not be appearing at the great white throne judgment, and instead when we are no longer present in the body, we will be present with the Lord (again, since we have already been judged).

I am assuming you know all these scriptures but if you like i will quote them all instead of using the paraphrase in my response. Just ask.

Tell me what is offensive about calling the belief that the soul sleeps till the white throne judgement - soul sleep is offensive.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 11:05 AM
The only people around here who believe in living dead spirits that travel to heaven, hell, and other worlds are Mormons.

Are you a Mormon?
(see what I did there? I said I wouldn't do it, but I did :chuckle:)

godrulz
February 10th, 2013, 11:09 AM
The doctrin of eternal damnation may or may not be Biblical but it is logical.

http://www.challies.com/articles/the-essential-hell?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_campaign=0&utm_content=5575

It is biblical and logical.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 11:10 AM
Angel, I understand your son died, and I don't want to be insensitive.

I believe he will live again and be with you in the resurrection. Read the account of Martha, Mary and Lazarus in John, Chapter 11.

I believe in Jesus, I also believe what He believed.

Angel4Truth
February 10th, 2013, 11:10 AM
The only people around here who believe in living dead spirits that travel to heaven, hell, and other worlds are Mormons.

Are you a Mormon?
(see what I did there? I said I wouldn't do it, but I did :chuckle:)

No mormon, and you must not know many Christians, because nearly all of them i know, believe when you die physically, if you are a believer then you are present with the Lord.

godrulz
February 10th, 2013, 11:12 AM
I don't much like you asking, but no. I am not SDA.
I'm a Bible Believing Truth Loving Christian, inotherwords, I am a Conditionalist. (who is sick today and that's why I'm not pew sitting!)

Which church do you go to?

godrulz
February 10th, 2013, 11:14 AM
The term "soul sleep" is pretty offensive, don't you think?
Jesus said "our friend lazarus sleepeth". Would you call Jesus Christ a SDA or a believer in "soul sleep"?

I could use derogatory terms for the beliefs of others too. I could, but I won't.

Jesus was using sleep as a metaphor for death. A dead person looks like they are sleeping.

Soul sleep heresy refers to the JW/SDA idea that we are not conscious after death until the resurrection. The biblical position is that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. We don't have a dirt nap when we die, but are conscious in heaven or hell until our bodies are resurrected (at the rapture before the Trib for believers and after the millennium at the GWT for unbelievers).

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 11:14 AM
http://www.challies.com/articles/the-essential-hell?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_campaign=0&utm_content=5575

It is biblical and logical.

It is unbiblical and illogical.

When you post things like this, also post WHY you believe them. Say "It is Biblical, because John 3:16 says that God will torment sinners in hot hell for all eternity" or "It is logical for God to torment sinners for billions upon billions of years because of one sin they committed, because that's fair."

ECT is unbiblical, because there is not one Bible verse that supports the false doctrine.

ECT is illogical, because God is just and it is inherently injust and illogical to torment a person forever and ever without end.

bybee
February 10th, 2013, 11:15 AM
Angel, I understand your son died, and I don't want to be insensitive.

I believe he will live again and be with you in the resurrection. Read the account of Martha, Mary and Lazarus in John, Chapter 11.

I believe in Jesus, I also believe what He believed.

Timotheo, I shal dislike you very much if you are one of those posters who presumes to tell other Christians the bleeding obvious!
We all read the Bible and we all know the story of Mary, Martha and Lazarus!

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 11:16 AM
No mormon, and you must not know many Christians, because nearly all of them i know, believe when you die physically, if you are a believer then you are present with the Lord.

No, I know them. I just don't determine what the truth is by counting noses. What does the Bible say? Is the wages of sin eternal conscious torment or is the wages of sin death? Read Romans 6:23 and tell me what it says.

godrulz
February 10th, 2013, 11:16 AM
Angel, I understand your son died, and I don't want to be insensitive.

I believe he will live again and be with you in the resurrection. Read the account of Martha, Mary and Lazarus in John, Chapter 11.

I believe in Jesus, I also believe what He believed.

You keep equating your views with the plain Bible and plain Jesus. Your views are interpretative and wrong. Lk. 16 shows that Jesus had a different view than you, parable or not (and I think not, but even if it is, it would not falsely portrary doctrine; if your view is right, Jesus would not have used falsehood, metaphor or not, to convey intended spiritual truth/reality).

Angel4Truth
February 10th, 2013, 11:18 AM
Angel, I understand your son died, and I don't want to be insensitive.

I believe he will live again and be with you in the resurrection. Read the account of Martha, Mary and Lazarus in John, Chapter 11.

I believe in Jesus, I also believe what He believed.

I believe hes already with Jesus.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 11:19 AM
Timotheo, I shal dislike you very much if you are one of those posters who presumes to tell other Christians the bleeding obvious!
We all read the Bible and we all know the story of Mary, Martha and Lazarus!

That was meant as a comfort to a lady who lost her son. It was a reminder of what Jesus said to Martha and Mary who lost their brother. Take instant offense, why don't you? Jesus will resurrect the dead. Paul TOLD us to comfort one another with these words. If you don't like me, fine. Go away. I am unlikeable anyway.

godrulz
February 10th, 2013, 11:21 AM
It is unbiblical and illogical.

When you post things like this, also post WHY you believe them. Say "It is Biblical, because John 3:16 says that God will torment sinners in hot hell for all eternity" or "It is logical for God to torment sinners for billions upon billions of years because of one sin they committed, because that's fair."

ECT is unbiblical, because there is not one Bible verse that supports the false doctrine.

ECT is illogical, because God is just and it is inherently injust and illogical to torment a person forever and ever without end.

You are like rationalist C.T. Russell (JW) in your arguments, putting sentiment and reason above revelation.

Most conditionalists would not be so dishonest to say there is not one verse to support other views. We all must interpret. My view is based on the cumulative evidence, but you want a verse to say that death means separation, hell is ECT, etc. You ignore principles and explicit words (tormented day and night forever and ever....the two people still there being tormented when others are added 1000 years later, etc.) and twist and rationalize any that contradict you. Word studies on punishment, destruction, etc. also do not have to support your view (you assume your own definitions and fail to recognize semantic range of meaning).

You sound confidant and argue reasonably well, but you have a wrong view. It is arrogant to assume that 2000 years of wrestling with this topic leading to a majority view (until recent popular compromises/attacks) have not produced 1 verse for the traditional view or many against your view.

You are starting to waste our time.

Since you worship Jesus as YHWH (I hope), we agree to disagree on a non-salvific issue.:box:

Angel4Truth
February 10th, 2013, 11:21 AM
No, I know them. I just don't determine what the truth is by counting noses. What does the Bible say? Is the wages of sin eternal conscious torment or is the wages of sin death? Read Romans 6:23 and tell me what it says.

Read John 5:24 and tell me what it says, then read 2 Corinthians 5:8 and tell me what it says also.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 11:21 AM
You keep equating your views with the plain Bible and plain Jesus. Your views are interpretative and wrong. Lk. 16 shows that Jesus had a different view than you, parable or not (and I think not, but even if it is, it would not falsely portrary doctrine; if your view is right, Jesus would not have used falsehood, metaphor or not, to convey intended spiritual truth/reality).

And you call me a heretic for not believing you when you tell me the bible says something that the bible does not say. Maybe you interpret the bible differently than I do, but at least when I say the bible says something, that's what the bible says.

godrulz
February 10th, 2013, 11:24 AM
No, I know them. I just don't determine what the truth is by counting noses. What does the Bible say? Is the wages of sin eternal conscious torment or is the wages of sin death? Read Romans 6:23 and tell me what it says.

In principle, death is separation. Adam died, yet was alive, when he sinned, for e.g. You beg the question by assuming your definition of death as cessation is right. Different contexts also talk about physical, spiritual, eternal death (some of your verses just show that those who die physically do not know the news stories on earth in the after life).

Using your logic, the triune God is not trinity because some verses only mention Father or Son, but do not say 'God is trinity'.

You argue like a JW on the issue of hell. Shame.

bybee
February 10th, 2013, 11:26 AM
In principle, death is separation. Adam died, yet was alive, when he sinned, for e.g. You beg the question by assuming your definition of death as cessation is right. Different contexts also talk about physical, spiritual, eternal death (some of your verses just show that those who die physically do not know the news stories on earth in the after life).

Using your logic, the triune God is not trinity because some verses only mention Father or Son, but do not say 'God is trinity'.

You argue like a JW on the issue of hell. Shame.

I'm beginning to see similarities in Timotheo to another former JW poster. You may be on to something !

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 11:28 AM
Read John 5:24 and tell me what it says, then read 2 Corinthians 5:8 and tell me what it says also.

I asked you first! What does Romans 6:23 say is the wages of sin?

John 5:24 says "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life."

Yes, this is what I believe. At the judgment, they pass from death to life and have eternal life. Those who reject him come into judgment and go to the second death. Obviously unbelievers do not pass from death to life, only believers.

2 Corinthians 5:8 says "So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord,"

In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul is talking about the resurrection. This doesn't say that we are instantly with the Lord when we die. If we were, why would he return to resurrect us?

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 11:33 AM
I'm beginning to see similarities in Timotheo to another former JW poster. You may be on to something !

Adhominum attacks do not prove your point. The fact that you make them proves that you don't have any scriptural support for your position. If you had any scriptures to support your false position, you would use them instead of merely calling me names. The fallacy you are committing is called "poisoning the well", and I have warned other posters who have committed this fallacy.

So while we are poisoning the well, Mormons, Muslims, the Spanish Inquistion, and Adolph Hitler all believed in ECT. More Cults teach ECT than teach any other doctrine. So there.

godrulz
February 10th, 2013, 11:33 AM
I'm beginning to see similarities in Timotheo to another former JW poster. You may be on to something !

No. He is not like JW Chandler. I am just saying his arguments and logic are JW-like (pseudo-scholarship).

He has not denied being trinitarian (but he is evasive at times), so I assume we are dealing with a brother in Christ. There is room under our tent for his view, as wrong as it is.

Angel4Truth
February 10th, 2013, 11:33 AM
I asked you first! What does Romans 6:23 say is the wages of sin?

John 5:24 says "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life."

Yes, this is what I believe. At the judgment, they pass from death to life and have eternal life. Those who reject him come into judgment and go to the second death. Obviously unbelievers do not pass from death to life, only believers.

2 Corinthians 5:8 says "So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord,"

In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul is talking about the resurrection. This doesn't say that we are instantly with the Lord when we die. If we were, why would he return to resurrect us?

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life eternal for those who believe and Christ already said that those who believe have passed (have passed is past tense) from death into life, so the wages of sin for them for them is no longer death because they have ALREADY been risen to life in Christ, so when they physically die, they are already present with the Lord in Spirit.

Why would the wages of death apply to one alive in Christ?

See your own contradiction in your own words in red, you directly contradict scripture by claiming there is a judgment for the believer when Christ already said there would not be because they have already passed from death (wages of sin) to life.

godrulz
February 10th, 2013, 11:33 AM
I asked you first! What does Romans 6:23 say is the wages of sin?

John 5:24 says "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life."

Yes, this is what I believe. At the judgment, they pass from death to life and have eternal life. Those who reject him come into judgment and go to the second death. Obviously unbelievers do not pass from death to life, only believers.

2 Corinthians 5:8 says "So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord,"

In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul is talking about the resurrection. This doesn't say that we are instantly with the Lord when we die. If we were, why would he return to resurrect us?

Is he talking about the resurrection or our experience at death?

I Cor. 15 IS talking explicitly about the resurrection, another matter.

godrulz
February 10th, 2013, 11:34 AM
Adhominum attacks do not prove your point. The fact that you make them proves that you don't have any scriptural support for your position. If you had any scriptures to support your false position, you would use them instead of merely calling me names. The fallacy you are committing is called "poisoning the well", and I have warned other posters who have committed this fallacy.

So while we are poisoning the well, Mormons, Muslims, the Spanish Inquistion, and Adolph Hitler all believed in ECT. More Cults teach ECT than teach any other doctrine. So there.

I like how people throw logical fallacy accusations around (my observation was valid, not a fallacy) while they commit them themselves.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 11:35 AM
No. He is not like JW Chandler. I am just saying his arguments and logic is JW-like (pseudo-scholarship).

He has not denied being trinitarian (but he is evasive at times), so I assume we are dealing with a brother in Christ. There is room under our tent for his view, as wrong as it is.

Then you MUST be a MORMON or a MUSLIM.

I never denied the trinity. You will try any scheme to try to discredit me, won't you? Your actions are shameful.

godrulz
February 10th, 2013, 11:42 AM
Then you MUST be a MORMON or a MUSLIM.

I never denied the trinity. You will try any scheme to try to discredit me, won't you? Your actions are shameful.

That is what I said...you did not deny the trinity, so you are not JW. This does not mean that you do not use the same or similar arguments against hell that they do (and can be refuted).

If I argue for pre-existence of the soul, then you can rightly say that my arguments are Mormon-like without meaning that I am Mormon or that I am trying to discredit you.

My point is that you share the same mindset and errors on this one topic, not that you are wrong about everything else or are a closet cultist. You are failing to quote me where I call you a brother and recognize that other capable, godly believers have come to your position (you are the one that keeps trying to say the rest of us are illogical and unbiblical...kettle/pot).

Have you seen the newer movie 'Hellbound' http://www.hellboundthemovie.com/

It was done by a fellow Canadian. I am in a city of a million. They showed the moved 2x. There were about 8 of us for the second showing. I appreciate people of faith who love God's Word. Most just want sex, action, etc., not deeper thinking on the most important issue ever (gospel/eternity/God).

You should watch the movie. The bias favors your side, but I enjoyed it (and was not persuaded, but cringed).

As an Open Theist, some of my favorite guys (Gregory Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, etc.), agree more with you than me, so chill. There is no conspiracy to tar and feather you, as smug as you can be.

I have other non-traditional beliefs, so I am not stuck in traditional ruts, but desire truth, as do you. Do you have any other non-traditional views? I am Pentecostal, deny original sin, favor Moral Government Theology, am Open Theist, etc.

godrulz
February 10th, 2013, 11:54 AM
Timo reported my post that says his argument was JW-like, but he is NOT a JW?! Big baby....you should also report my clarifications (you jumped to the wrong conclusions). It is also manly to work things out to clarify before you run to mommie.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 02:51 PM
Timo reported my post that says his argument was JW-like, but he is NOT a JW?! Big baby....you should also report my clarifications (you jumped to the wrong conclusions). It is also manly to work things out to clarify before you run to mommie.

That is correct, I reported your post. That is not "running to mommie" or being a "big baby".

If you don't want to discuss this, you don't have to continue the discussion. If you want to continue the discussion, we can. Although I don't have time right now.

Talk to you later, have a nice evening.

godrulz
February 10th, 2013, 02:53 PM
That is correct, I reported your post. That is not "running to mommie" or being a "big baby".

If you don't want to discuss this, you don't have to continue the discussion. If you want to continue the discussion, we can. Although I don't have time right now.

Talk to you later, have a nice evening.

I predict you will not last long here. I also predict that you are probably in your 20s and don't realize that you don't know it all.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 04:24 PM
I predict you will not last long here. I also predict that you are probably in your 20s and don't realize that you don't know it all.

48

And apparently, I know more than you.

Totton Linnet
February 10th, 2013, 04:43 PM
Well, I suppose if we were to take the highly symbolic Book of Revelation completely literally that would be three. The Devil, The Beast, and The False Prophet.

Can you find any verses that say "The wicked will go to Hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever while they are dead"? That's really what I'm looking for.

Here's something to think about when you read the Book of Revelation. The BOR was written in the "Apocalyptic Style" which is characterized by an abundant use of symbolism. It might not be the best idea to grab a doctrine from the BOR and then use it to interpret all of the rest of scripture. A sound hermeneutical principle is to interpret less clear passages in the light of more clear passages. Don't start in Revelation and work backwards from there.

Actually, that's just a friendly suggestion. You can do whatever you want. Bless you brother!

Lazaruz was in torment and very conscious.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 04:55 PM
Lazaruz was in torment and very conscious.

Lazarus was not in torment.

tomlapalm
February 10th, 2013, 04:55 PM
Lazaruz was in torment and very conscious.
The rich man, not Lazarus

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 05:21 PM
According to the Bible, the soul who sins will die. Ezekiel 18:4
Fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna. Matt 10:28
According to Jesus, Both body and soul will be destroyed in Gehenna.

surrender
February 10th, 2013, 05:28 PM
Lazarus was not in torment.Some things to think about. If the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is literal (i.e. it happened as stated word for word), doesn't that mean that punishment for "deeds done in the flesh" begins before judgment of those deeds takes place (which is at the final judgement)?

Jesus used actual people (i.e. Abraham) in this story. But people who’ve lived before can be used in parables as a point of reference. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the story being told is an actual historical event. And that Jesus tells this story in order to get a particular message across is indicative of a parable. Further, the message derived from this story coincidentally parallels the same message found in the four preceding parables (lost sheep, lost coin, lost son, shrewd manager): God’s compassion for the lost and rebuke of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

Totton Linnet
February 10th, 2013, 06:17 PM
The rich man, not Lazarus

I am very proud of my memory...but it is USELESS, of course it is Dives not Lazarus

BigBoof1959
February 10th, 2013, 06:19 PM
The account of the rich man and Lazarus is not a literal description of heaven and "hell". If it was a literal account, you would have people in "Abraham's bosom" wanting to go to the "other side" of suffering where the rich man was, and the need for a huge gulf to prevent them from doing it. The "great gulf" reminds me of the "wall of separation" that Paul spoke about in Ephesians 2:14. Like Surrender said, this story is a parable about the exclusivist attitude that many of the Jews had. Judah had 5 brothers, he was the kingly tribe (purple robe), and had all the advantages in the things of God. Lazarus was poor and the parable seems to portray him as a Gentile. I say that because there is the mention of suffering, crumbs of bread falling from the table and dogs. The only other accounts that have these same elements are found in Matt. 15:27 and Mark 7:28, which both describe a Gentile woman asking Jesus to help her suffering daughter. I have always found it strange that none of the chain reference or study bibles I have looked at ever have a cross reference between Luke 16:21 and Matthew 15:27 or Mark 7:28, but they are filled with other cross-references that have a lot less in common than these do. Maybe because they want to hold on to this as a literal account and discourage people from seeing the rich man and Lazarus as a parable?

Ktoyou
February 10th, 2013, 06:52 PM
In principle, death is separation. Adam died, yet was alive, when he sinned, for e.g. You beg the question by assuming your definition of death as cessation is right. Different contexts also talk about physical, spiritual, eternal death (some of your verses just show that those who die physically do not know the news stories on earth in the after life).
this
Using your logic, the triune God is not trinity because some verses only mention Father or Son, but do not say 'God is trinity'.

You argue like a JW on the issue of hell. Shame.
Timotheos, He is not breaking any rules, but you are being a pest, reporting a member's opinion.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 06:57 PM
Timotheos, He is not breaking any rules, but you are being a pest, reporting a member's opinion.

It had to be done. People don't like their deeds exposed. But I am trying to have a civilized conversation.

I'm sorry if you feel am am a pest. You are welcome to ignore this thread, or participate if you want to. I enjoy intelligent conversation with people like you. I hope you are blessed by this conversation.

Peace!

Totton Linnet
February 10th, 2013, 07:51 PM
The account of the rich man and Lazarus is not a literal description of heaven and "hell". If it was a literal account, you would have people in "Abraham's bosom" wanting to go to the "other side" of suffering where the rich man was, and the need for a huge gulf to prevent them from doing it. The "great gulf" reminds me of the "wall of separation" that Paul spoke about in Ephesians 2:14. Like Surrender said, this story is a parable about the exclusivist attitude that many of the Jews had. Judah had 5 brothers, he was the kingly tribe (purple robe), and had all the advantages in the things of God. Lazarus was poor and the parable seems to portray him as a Gentile. I say that because there is the mention of suffering, crumbs of bread falling from the table and dogs. The only other accounts that have these same elements are found in Matt. 15:27 and Mark 7:28, which both describe a Gentile woman asking Jesus to help her suffering daughter. I have always found it strange that none of the chain reference or study bibles I have looked at ever have a cross reference between Luke 16:21 and Matthew 15:27 or Mark 7:28, but they are filled with other cross-references that have a lot less in common than these do. Maybe because they want to hold on to this as a literal account and discourage people from seeing the rich man and Lazarus as a parable?

Parables were used by our Lord to establish truth not fiction

Totton Linnet
February 10th, 2013, 07:53 PM
It had to be done. People don't like their deeds exposed. But I am trying to have a civilized conversation.

I'm sorry if you feel am am a pest. You are welcome to ignore this thread, or participate if you want to. I enjoy intelligent conversation with people like you. I hope you are blessed by this conversation.

Peace!

Your reporting rulz was crybaby, his opinion was creditable.

tomlapalm
February 10th, 2013, 08:22 PM
The account of the rich man and Lazarus is not a literal description of heaven and "hell". If it was a literal account, you would have people in "Abraham's bosom" wanting to go to the "other side" of suffering where the rich man was, and the need for a huge gulf to prevent them from doing it. The "great gulf" reminds me of the "wall of separation" that Paul spoke about in Ephesians 2:14. Like Surrender said, this story is a parable about the exclusivist attitude that many of the Jews had. Judah had 5 brothers, he was the kingly tribe (purple robe), and had all the advantages in the things of God. Lazarus was poor and the parable seems to portray him as a Gentile. I say that because there is the mention of suffering, crumbs of bread falling from the table and dogs. The only other accounts that have these same elements are found in Matt. 15:27 and Mark 7:28, which both describe a Gentile woman asking Jesus to help her suffering daughter. I have always found it strange that none of the chain reference or study bibles I have looked at ever have a cross reference between Luke 16:21 and Matthew 15:27 or Mark 7:28, but they are filled with other cross-references that have a lot less in common than these do. Maybe because they want to hold on to this as a literal account and discourage people from seeing the rich man and Lazarus as a parable?

Do you think it was figurative of something that you think doesn't exist?

It reflected Paradise, the destination of the righteous before the Cross when they were allowed into God's presence .The great gulf wad between the righteous and unrighteous dead.

Real commonly know names are not used in figurative parables. This Lazarus was a well know beggar who asked at prominent public places.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 08:32 PM
Your reporting rulz was crybaby, his opinion was creditable.

I'm sorry, I'm rather new. I didn't know reporting bad behavior was against the rules. Usually people who want to get away with stuff don't like it when you report them. It wasn't crybaby at all. Name calling (ie crybaby) just shows that you can't defend your position using logic and scripture. I'm sure that you are too mature to engage in childish namecalling.

tomlapalm
February 10th, 2013, 08:35 PM
Oh no we like to report Real bad behaviour . You haven't seen it yet..

Tambora
February 10th, 2013, 08:45 PM
Name calling (ie crybaby) just shows that you can't defend your position using logic and scripture.
No it doesn't.
One can perfectly defend their position with logic and scripture, and still call you a crybaby.

Calling you a crybaby doesn't have squat to do with whether one can defend a position or not.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 08:47 PM
I'm sorry, I'm new to this playground. You guys have fun.

The adults will talk later.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 08:48 PM
While you two are napping

freelight
February 10th, 2013, 08:52 PM
ECT is illogical, because God is just and it is inherently injust and illogical to torment a person forever and ever without end.

Correct,......for it would seem insane for a God of justice and mercy to detain or hold living beings FOREVER in a state of eternal torment and suffering to no end or resolve, - such would be sadistic, illogical, barbaric, unbecoming of a God of goodness. If a religious writing states something that is contrary to reason, logic or sanity, let alone 'justice' or 'mercy'...it is to be rejected.

It is more logical that punishments are meant to be 'corrective' in nature and only commensurate with the measure of sin committed, while mercy and love continue their mediation to all souls...calling for their repentance. What is the will of Infinite Love? Does that will ever change?

Concerning the view of soul-death:

If a soul has reached a point of no return and is no longer able to repent, having chosen a final and eternal death (a total embrace of iniquity resulting in soul-destruction)...it would seem more appropriate and resourceful for that soul to truly 'die', be wiped out of existence (meaning that that living soul is no longer alive/conscious, - its 'integrity' and 'potential' as a living personality has been 'expunged'. Such is a complete termination of that particular soul and its life-potential. While there may be some metaphysical problems with this position according to some schools, it is much more tenable than ECT. As shared earlier, the Urantia Papers have a reasonable description of what happens to souls that undergo disintegration. The Bible does not have all the information (or 'revelation' for that matter) in the world, which is why other revealed texts and information are helpful in our study.

As we shared previously here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3353194&postcount=121), philosophically ECT is insane and illogical. The two most common alternatives are 'conditional immortality' and 'universalism', and some spiritualist views that blend and coordinate these two in various ways. All thru-out God's universe and kingdoms,....we must not forget He rules with perfect justice and mercy. Souls are 'judged' and 'saved' according to the just laws and merciful ministry of 'God' in all conditions and situations. This would be more essential to understand, while we may not have a complete knowledge of all details, apart from revealed information, our own powers of reason, and progressive revelation.

The ninny-picking here is more inevitable among those who only use a limited context of the Bible in contemplating these questions, since there are only a few 'proof texts' used to support various positions. The other resources shared that are 'extra-biblical' add further insights and revealed information that broadens ones comprehension of the subject exploring possibilities outside of usual dogmas and assumptions. A true researcher considers all information available on these subjects, continually questioning his own 'opinions' being open to new discovery, revelation and new points of view, for such are subject to change in the wake of better knowledge. One is to keep asking, seeking and knocking...as the Lord Jesus encourages....for only those who do, draw near to truth.




pj

bybee
February 10th, 2013, 09:33 PM
Correct,......for it would seem insane for a God of justice and mercy to detain or hold living beings FOREVER in a state of eternal torment and suffering to no end or resolve, - such would be sadistic, illogical, barbaric, unbecoming of a God of goodness. If a religious writing states something that is contrary to reason, logic or sanity, let alone 'justice' or 'mercy'...it is to be rejected.

It is more logical that punishments are meant to be 'corrective' in nature and only commensurate with the measure of sin committed, while mercy and love continue their mediation to all souls...calling for their repentance. What is the will of Infinite Love? Does that will ever change?

Concerning the view of soul-death:

If a soul has reached a point of no return and is no longer able to repent, having chosen a final and eternal death (a total embrace of iniquity resulting in soul-destruction)...it would seem more appropriate and resourceful for that soul to truly 'die', be wiped out of existence (meaning that that living soul is no longer alive/conscious, - its 'integrity' and 'potential' as a living personality has been 'expunged'. Such is a complete termination of that particular soul and its life-potential. While there may be some metaphysical problems with this position according to some schools, it is much more tenable than ECT. As shared earlier, the Urantia Papers have a reasonable description of what happens to souls that undergo disintegration. The Bible does not have all the information (or 'revelation' for that matter) in the world, which is why other revealed texts and information are helpful in our study.

As we shared previously here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3353194&postcount=121), philosophically ECT is insane and illogical. The two most common alternatives are 'conditional immortality' and 'universalism', and some spiritualist views that blend and coordinate these two in various ways. All thru-out God's universe and kingdoms,....we must not forget He rules with perfect justice and mercy. Souls are 'judged' and 'saved' according to the just laws and merciful ministry of 'God' in all conditions and situations. This would be more essential to understand, while we may not have a complete knowledge of all details, apart from revealed information, our own powers of reason, and progressive revelation.

The ninny-picking here is more inevitable among those who only use a limited context of the Bible in contemplating these questions, since there are only a few 'proof texts' used to support various positions. The other resources shared that are 'extra-biblical' add further insights and revealed information that broadens ones comprehension of the subject exploring possibilities outside of usual dogmas and assumptions. A true researcher considers all information available on these subjects, continually questioning his own 'opinions' being open to new discovery, revelation and new points of view, for such are subject to change in the wake of better knowledge. One is to keep asking, seeking and knocking...as the Lord Jesus encourages....for only those who do, draw near to truth.




pj

Well said. Amen!

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 09:54 PM
Calling you a crybaby doesn't have squat to do with whether one can defend a position or not.

Adhominums do not prove your point. The fact that you use them proves that you don't have any scriptural support for your position. If you had any scriptures to support your position, you would use them instead of merely calling me a crybaby, which proves nothing.

bybee
February 10th, 2013, 09:58 PM
Adhominums do not prove your point. The fact that you use them proves that you don't have any scriptural support for your position. If you had any scriptures to support your position, you would use them instead of merely calling me a crybaby, which proves nothing.

You don't know who you are talking to. Tambora is very learned theologically. I have the utmost regard for her.
You, however, are new here and absolutely out of line to speak to her in such a fashion.
I'm beginning to see a mean spirit in you.

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 10:15 PM
You don't know who you are talking to. Tambora is very learned theologically. I have the utmost regard for her.
You, however, are new here and absolutely out of line to speak to her in such a fashion.
I'm beginning to see a mean spirit in you.

Okay, I stand corrected. Adhoms do prove something.
But there was no way that I could tell that she was "very learned theologically" by her "crybaby" remark. Do you understand what I am saying to you? I could have heard the same thing in 2nd grade. Which advanced degree teaches how to call someone a "crybaby"? Is there a Poopyhead 101 Course that I need to take?

Timotheos
February 10th, 2013, 10:20 PM
You, however, are new here and absolutely out of line to speak to her in such a fashion.


So you people can dish it out but can't take it yourself. You seem like a bunch of crybabys to me.

freelight
February 10th, 2013, 10:46 PM
Well said. Amen!

Thanks dear,....I always love to bring a variety of perspectives from different schools, and let readers research things for themselves, after all,...thats the most reasonable approach. As an 'eclectic' those who know me, know I'm not limited to just the 'Bible', but respect those who choose to limit themseslves to that 'context', although I see so much more, and offer further expansions for those who will dare to 'think outside the box' :)

In any case,...the kindergarten level exchange of little 'egos' that are surfacing in the thread do no justice to the topic (neither to sincere readers here), neither does such enhance or inspire real dialogue...which is the purpose of the forum. It is most honest to just to say, this is what I currently believe on the subject, and be open to keep investigating, realizing that your 'view' or 'position' could change, if you're open to learn more on the subject, admitting that your 'conclusion' might not be 'absolute'. Much 'truth' anyways on religious/philosophical levels is more or less 'relative' from a human perspective, and alot is pure speculation. An honest person will admit this, beyond what he can confirm by his own soul-faculties or personal religious experience.

At times it does appear to be 'pearls to swine' when contributing to certain threads (if dialogue becomes petty and immature), which is why I'll be creating some new threads of my own, since many of my classic threads were deleted in the recent system-change over.

Again, what more could we say about ECT? One is free to believe it if they wish, but there is much more involved than just the traditional assumption here (the passage in Revelation, a few passage in the gospels, etc.), regarding the nature of the soul, destiny, and the principles that actually govern and determine destinies, not to mention the Justice and Mercy of God that are ever mediating the case of all sentient beings.

If a serious and intelligent discussion cannot be had here, then this entity will have to venture elsewhere, letting the ball roll on its own so to speak. 'Creative dialogue' is the key for constructive and enjoyable discussion IMO, and so let us be true to the art (or retire yourself).


Namaste!



paulie

keypurr
February 10th, 2013, 10:50 PM
No. He is not like JW Chandler. I am just saying his arguments and logic are JW-like (pseudo-scholarship).

He has not denied being trinitarian (but he is evasive at times), so I assume we are dealing with a brother in Christ. There is room under our tent for his view, as wrong as it is.

Yes, but he is speaking a lot of truth. Listen and learn GR.

keypurr
February 10th, 2013, 10:53 PM
48

And apparently, I know more than you.

You do. But he's OK when you get to know him.

Tambora
February 10th, 2013, 10:59 PM
Correct,......for it would seem insane for a God of justice and mercy to detain or hold living beings FOREVER in a state of eternal torment and suffering to no end or resolve, - such would be sadistic, illogical, barbaric, unbecoming of a God of goodness.

"Logic" doesn't really have anything to do with it.
If you want to simply rely on logic, would it not be logical for a God of justice and mercy to forgive and fix everyone, rather than just some and not others?


If a religious writing states something that is contrary to reason, logic or sanity, let alone 'justice' or 'mercy'...it is to be rejected.Then you are going to have to reject much of the bible.
For God did many things that seem illogical to our limited view of what real logic is.

One instance is the healing of Naaman (2 Kings 5).
Naaman had leprosy.
He was told to wash in the Jordan River 7 times.
There was no logic to that, and he even questioned the logic of it because there were several bodies of water closer than the Jordan River.
Why did it have to be the Jordan River, and why 7 times?

And yet, he did it just the way he was told, and was healed.

If washing in the Jordan River had any "logical" reason to heal leprosy, then every leper in the country would have done it and been healed, and there would have been no more lepers in the country.

While puny little man likes to think he has the right to question God's logic, he can't really even fathom the logic of God's ways.

Best to just believe what God says, and leave the logic up to Him. He's much better at it!

Tambora
February 10th, 2013, 11:30 PM
Adhominums do not prove your point. No, they don't prove your point.
And they don't discredit your point either.

The point is the point, whether an ad-hominem is added or not.
The added ad-hominem has nothing to do with whether the point was valid or not.






The fact that you use them proves that you don't have any scriptural support for your position. No, it doesn't.
One can give plenty of scripture for their point, and call you a crybaby also.
The "crybaby" part doesn't have squat to do with whether one can provide scripture or not.

And for the record, I am not the one that called you a crybaby.

I merely pointed out that one could call you a crybaby, and have a made a valid point using scripture also.

Tambora
February 10th, 2013, 11:34 PM
So you people can dish it out but can't take it yourself. You seem like a bunch of crybabys to me.I can take all you want to dish out.
It still won't have squat to do with whether your point is valid or not.

godrulz
February 10th, 2013, 11:58 PM
48

And apparently, I know more than you.

Humble apologies. You know more about me on your conditional view. I apparently know more of the Bible in context than you.:ha:

Humble apologies for the age thing. However, maturity is not dependent on chronological age. At least you are not old and senile like me (52).

godrulz
February 10th, 2013, 11:59 PM
Lazarus was not in torment.

They were conscious in the after life. Jesus does not teach false things, but spiritual truth/reality (whether metaphor or not).

godrulz
February 11th, 2013, 12:01 AM
I'm sorry, I'm rather new. I didn't know reporting bad behavior was against the rules. Usually people who want to get away with stuff don't like it when you report them. It wasn't crybaby at all. Name calling (ie crybaby) just shows that you can't defend your position using logic and scripture. I'm sure that you are too mature to engage in childish namecalling.

You are not a moderator. You also misunderstood what I was saying and did not factor in the proximal clarification posts that take away perceived grounds of offense.

Aimiel
February 11th, 2013, 07:19 AM
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) biblical or not?Obviously ECT is true:

Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

The smoke of their torment will ascend for ever and ever. In order to have smoke: you have to have torment. For there to be torment, someone has to be conscious. Obviously they will be tormented in flames for eternity.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 07:19 AM
"Logic" doesn't really have anything to do with it.
If you want to simply rely on logic, would it not be logical for a God of justice and mercy to forgive and fix everyone, rather than just some and not others?

Then you are going to have to reject much of the bible.
For God did many things that seem illogical to our limited view of what real logic is.

One instance is the healing of Naaman (2 Kings 5).
Naaman had leprosy.
He was told to wash in the Jordan River 7 times.
There was no logic to that, and he even questioned the logic of it because there were several bodies of water closer than the Jordan River.
Why did it have to be the Jordan River, and why 7 times?

And yet, he did it just the way he was told, and was healed.

If washing in the Jordan River had any "logical" reason to heal leprosy, then every leper in the country would have done it and been healed, and there would have been no more lepers in the country.

While puny little man likes to think he has the right to question God's logic, he can't really even fathom the logic of God's ways.

Best to just believe what God says, and leave the logic up to Him. He's much better at it!

I was merely questioning the logic of a person assuming that name calling proved anything. My position stands solidly on scripture. I wasn't questioning God's logic. Jesus said that the body and soul can be destroyed in Gehenna, but the other side questions him on this and thinks that the soul will not be destroyed in Gehenna. And the "proof" they offer for this? "Tim is a heretic, Tim is like a JW, Tim is like a SDA, and Tim is a crybaby if he reports what we call him."

Someone has said that you are intelligent, so why don't we forget the playground talk and just discuss this like inteligent people. I do believe what God says. I don't believe what "Godrulz" says. He is not really God.

Totton Linnet
February 11th, 2013, 07:23 AM
Ummm, because some people claim that God sends his enemies to a torture pit and keeps them alive there being tortured (I call it like I see it) forever and ever. Why does a lamp focus light in the dark places? To expose the error that lies hidden in the dark. Yes, let's forget this false doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell and focus on the Light of the world who came to rescue us from death and give us eternal life. Bless you Ktoyou, God willing we will move on from this present darkness into the light of God's truth. But as long as people are trapped in this dark pit of error, people like you and I need to shine a light in and show them the way out.
:comeout:

It is YOU who are stuck in morbidity, for th most part we are rejoicing n the One who has saved us. All you can talk about is hell.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 07:27 AM
Humble apologies.

Apology accepted, I'm glad we can put the playground arguments behind us. They just distract from the truth found in scripture.

Now, Jesus said that the way is wide that leads to destruction. This clearly means that Jesus believed that the result of sin is destruction, not eternal conscious torment. Jesus spoke of destruction in Gehenna, not eternal conscious torment in Gehenna. Do you see why I believe that there is destruction in Gehenna and not eternal conscious torment in Gehenna?

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 08:01 AM
It is YOU who are stuck in morbidity, for th most part we are rejoicing n the One who has saved us. All you can talk about is hell.

Bless you, I can see why you think that.

But, in my defense the reason all I want to talk about on this thread is hell is that is the topic of this thread. Did you see the Thread Title before you posted? "IS THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CONSCIOUS TORMENT BIBLICAL OR NOT?" Did you think we would be talking about daisy fields here? I agree that it is morbid for people to assume that God set up a place of eternal torture and sends people there. That is why I point out the scripture that says otherwise, and that's why I point out that the scriptures that people claim as proof of ECT do not actually prove ECT.

If you want to talk about something else, there are a few other threads on TOL where you can. If you can't find one, you could always start your own thread.

Totton Linnet
February 11th, 2013, 08:07 AM
You can't use one or even one hundred scriptures in order to disprove other scriptures which make you cry, that is an unlawful use of scripture.

What place in heaven could the wicked have? if even talking about Jesus makes them angry now how will they feel in His presence?

Best place for them is hell.

Totton Linnet
February 11th, 2013, 08:12 AM
What kindness God has, what love for us to create the sun, to reject God is to reject His kindness and His gifts....who is sending them?

Totton Linnet
February 11th, 2013, 08:14 AM
In hell they can seethe in their anger and hate as much as they want to...salted with fire.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 08:15 AM
Obviously ECT is true:

Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

The smoke of their torment will ascend for ever and ever. In order to have smoke: you have to have torment. For there to be torment, someone has to be conscious. Obviously they will be tormented in flames for eternity.

Do you usually use passages from the Apocalyptic Book of Revelation to interpret all other scripture? Since Revelation says that Jesus was a lamb, do you interpret all of the gospels that way? Mary gave birth to a lamb in a manger? John baptized a lamb in the Jordan River? Pontius Pilate had a lamb crucified? If this sounds ridiculous, it is. But it is the same thing you are doing. Read John 3:16 and tell me about those who do not believe in the Son of God. It says that they perish. Read Matthew 7:13 and tell me where the wide road leads. To destruction, not eternal conscious torment in hell. Read Romans 6:23 and tell me what the wages of sin is. The wages of sin is death, not eternal conscious torment. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says that they pay the penalty of eternal destruction. Jude and Peter say that the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah is an example of the coming destruction for those who reject God. Even Revelation tells us that the lake of fire is the second death. It is death, not eternal conscious torment.

You are taking one out of context prooftext from a book that is full of symbolism and you are using that one verse to trump all of the rest of scripture. That is not sound exegesis.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 08:29 AM
You can't use one or even one hundred scriptures in order to disprove other scriptures which make you cry, that is an unlawful use of scripture.

What place in heaven could the wicked have? if even talking about Jesus makes them angry now how will they feel in His presence?

Best place for them is hell.

I thought you didn't want to talk about hell?
I never said the wicked go to heaven when they die. I agree with what the Bible says. The wicked perish (Psalm 37:20) and the wicked will be no more (Psalm 37:10).

I don't use scripture to disprove other scripture. All of scripture agrees that the wicked are destroyed, and there will be no more wickedness. You can't use one scripture and use it to disprove all of the rest of scripture. That is an unlawful use of scripture. I am just reading scripture and pointing out what it says. The Bible (Matthew 3:12) says the chaff is burned up. Scripture does not say that the chaff burns forever and is never burnt up.

I've given you some of the scripture that proves what I am saying is true, there is much more. But you haven't given any scripture that shows the wicked go to hell when they die where they are to be tormented alive forever while they are dead. I know that this is something different than you always thought was true, but what does the Bible actually say? Does it say that the penalty for sin is death? Or does it say the penalty for sin is eternal life in hell being tormented alive forever? Read Romans 6:23 and tell me what it says the wages of sin is.

Aimiel
February 11th, 2013, 08:34 AM
You are taking one out of context prooftext from a book that is full of symbolism and you are using that one verse to trump all of the rest of scripture. That is not sound exegesis.Yet we use the book of Revelation to help us believe that in the end: God wins. The New Heaven and The New Earth give us solace, in that we know our God holds the future. We know from what Jesus said that Heaven is real. We also know from what Jesus said that hell is real. He described the rich man in hell and told us that there was no relief from his torments. The facts stated in Revelation are facts, even though the book is rich with symbolism. We know (in part) that what is described will take place. We know (in part) that Jesus is The Door, The Lamb, The Way, The Truth, The Life and The Only Eternal Life; and yet we do not get confused and follow strangers. We also know that hell and eternal conscious torment is real and so we don't have to believe those who come along to try to tell us it is merely symbolic.

Totton Linnet
February 11th, 2013, 08:36 AM
Are you more knowledgable than Christ? He said these will depart into everlasting punishment.

Do you love sinners? have you given your life, your blood for them? will comforting them in their rebellion against God help them? surely you are easing them on their way to hell. Will God thank you for that?

Aimiel
February 11th, 2013, 08:37 AM
...but what does the Bible actually say? Does it say that the penalty for sin is death? Or does it say the penalty for sin is eternal life in hell being tormented alive forever? Read Romans 6:23 and tell me what it says the wages of sin is.Death is the punishment human bodies receive for sin. The Second Death (ECT) is what souls receive at judgement. Being tormented in flames for ever and ever isn't life. It is constant death. It is punishment, not life. It is far more severe than we can begin to imagine.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 08:45 AM
Are you more knowledgable than Christ?
No, do you think you are?



He said these will depart into everlasting punishment.
And I agree with him. This doesn't say that the everlasting punishment is everlasting torment. Are you more knowledgable than Christ? He said that they go to destruction. Matthew 7:13. So the everlasting punishment (at least according to Christ and little ol me, is to be destroyed and never remade.)


Do you love sinners?
Yes


have you given your life, your blood for them?
No, but I believe the one who has, and He said that they will perish, but all who believe in Him will not perish, but will have eternal life. John 3:16. I believe Him, why don't you believe Him too?


surely you are easing them on their way to hell.
I don't know what you mean by this. I tell everyone I meet that the wages of sin is death, and by trusting Jesus Christ they can have eternal life.


Will God thank you for that?
I don't know.

Do you have any scripture that backs up your belief that the wicked will not perish but will rather live forever after they die in hell where they will be tormented alive forever while they are dead?

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 08:53 AM
Death is the punishment human bodies receive for sin. The Second Death (ECT) is what souls receive at judgement. Being tormented in flames for ever and ever isn't life. It is constant death. It is punishment, not life. It is far more severe than we can begin to imagine.

The second death is not eternal conscious torment. If it were, it would not be death. If they can feel the torment of the flames then they are not dead, they are alive. You are redefining words to fit your doctrine. That is the only way you can hold onto your doctrine. First you assume your doctrine is true, then you redefine the words of the bible to fit your doctrine. This is called eisegesis, reading your view into scripture. Exegesis is reading scripture and deriving your doctrine out of what scripture says. Let go of your preconceptions and read what scripture actually says. The wicked will perish and will be no more, because the wages of sin is death. The destruction of Sodom is an example of the coming destruction of the wicked on Judgment Day. The lake of fire is the second death. This is what scripture says.

Aimiel
February 11th, 2013, 09:09 AM
The lake of fire is the second death. This is what scripture says.The Scripture also says that smoke ascends from their torment forever. Where there is smoke: there is fire. The fire does not go out. The torment does not cease. The smoke from the fire of their torment is eternally rising. It isn't going to change just because you don't like it. Scripture says it. Stop trying to deny it means what it says. You're in denial. That isn't healthy.

steko
February 11th, 2013, 10:09 AM
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.


Then:

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.


And a thousand years later, we find that the beast and false prophet have not been anihilated in the lake of fire, but are still there:


Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

hopou kai to thērion kai ho pseudoprophētēs- where are also the beast and the false prophet

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 10:19 AM
The Scripture also says that smoke ascends from their torment forever. Where there is smoke: there is fire. The fire does not go out. The torment does not cease. The smoke from the fire of their torment is eternally rising. It isn't going to change just because you don't like it. Scripture says it. Stop trying to deny it means what it says. You're in denial. That isn't healthy.

i'm sorry, but I'm not in denial. :chuckle:

The reason the smoke goes up, is because something is burned. The smoke rising indicates the destruction of the sinner, which coincidentally is just what the rest of the Bible says will happen to the unrepentant sinner.

You are in denial, and you and I agree that denial is not healthy, so...Stop trying to deny what scripture says. The wages of sin is death.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 10:50 AM
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.


Then:

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.


And a thousand years later, we find that the beast and false prophet have not been anihilated in the lake of fire, but are still there:


Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

hopou kai to thērion kai ho pseudoprophētēs- where are also the beast and the false prophet

Do you find it best to take passages out of the Book o fRevelation and use them to interpret the rest of scripture?

I find that important doctrines are re-iterated throughout scripture and not merely found in only one book.

If you look at the passage you are referring to, Revelation 20:10, you can see that it doesn't say that people will be be burned alive in hell forever after they die. You brought up the greek, so let's look at it. καὶ ὁ διάβολος ὁ πλανῶν αὐτοὺς ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ θείου ὅπου καὶ τὸ θηρίον καὶ ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης, καὶ βασανισθήσονται ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.

As you can see from the greek, the devil (ὁ διάβολος), the beast (τὸ θηρίον), and the false prophet (ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης) are in the lake of fire. Don't forget that Rev 20:14 specifically says that the lake of fire is the second death. So those that worship the beast are tossed into the lake of fire, which is the second death, and destroyed there along with them. The beast and the false prophet represent institutions which are lead by the devil. This is saying they will be destroyed along with the devil. It is likely that the beast represents corrupt human government, and the false prophet represents corrupt religion. But it is risky to interpret these symbols since it seeems everyone interprets them differently. That's one more reason, by the way, to not just get your doctrine from the BOR.

Edit: also, do not forget that Revelation 17:11 says that the beast goes to destruction.

Aimiel
February 11th, 2013, 11:07 AM
i'm sorry, but I'm not in denial. Yeah, you are. You deny Scriptural Truth. You deny obvious clues. You deny basic Christian tenets. Deny, deny, deny. Yup. Denial.
The reason the smoke goes up, is because something is burned. Yup... eternal torment creates smoke, so smoke ascending eternally is what it is: evidence of eternal torment taking place.
The smoke rising indicates the destruction of the sinner, which coincidentally is just what the rest of the Bible says will happen to the unrepentant sinner. But if they were not being tormented for eternity why would the smoke be spoken of as ascending eternally? Wouldn't it dissipate? Wouldn't it be recycled? Wouldn't it stop, eventually? It cannot though: since it is eternally rising.
You are in denial, and you and I agree that denial is not healthy, so...Stop trying to deny what scripture says. The wages of sin is death.What am I denying? Show me anything you think I'm denying. I have shown you (even though you deny it). I won't do the same. I will admit to it, if you can show me anything you think I might be denying.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 12:03 PM
Yeah, you are. You deny Scriptural Truth. You deny obvious clues. You deny basic Christian tenets. Deny, deny, deny. Yup. Denial.Yup...
So you say. Do you have any proof? Or shall I just accept your word as gospel, so to speak? I don't deny scriptural truth. I believe the scriptures are accurate. Why don't we stick to scripture in this discussion instead of your faulty idea of my mental state? This seems uncomfortably close to an adhom fallacy to me. ButI've learned my lesson on that.


eternal torment creates smoke,
Does it? Burning things is what creates smoke, but I suppose that goes against your doctrine, so "where there's smoke, there's torment", at least in your mind.


so smoke ascending eternally is what it is: evidence of eternal torment taking place. But if they were not being tormented for eternity why would the smoke be spoken of as ascending eternally? Wouldn't it dissipate? Wouldn't it be recycled? Wouldn't it stop, eventually? It cannot though: since it is eternally rising.What am I denying?
Check to see how the phrase is used in the rest of scripture and you will have your answer.


Show me anything you think I'm denying. I have shown you (even though you deny it). I won't do the same. I will admit to it, if you can show me anything you think I might be denying.
John 3:16 says perish, Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death, over and over the bible promises eternal life only to those who have faith in Jesus Christ. By saying that the wicked do not perish, don't go to their death, and everyone gets eternal life in heaven or hell, you are denying these scriptures.

Aimiel
February 11th, 2013, 12:09 PM
Do you have any proof? Smoke ascending for ever and ever... torment continuing for ever and ever... that proves it, indeed. Do you deny that Scripture states that?
Burning things is what creates smoke, but I suppose that goes against your doctrine, so "where there's smoke, there's torment", at least in your mind.It doesn't say, "Smoke of their destruction," though, does it? :think:

Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Check to see how the phrase is used in the rest of scripture and you will have your answer.


John 3:16 says perish, Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death, over and over the bible promises eternal life only to those who have faith in Jesus Christ. By saying that the wicked do not perish, don't go to their death, and everyone gets eternal life in heaven or hell, you are denying these scriptures.No, I admit they are going to their death. Souls are being tormented for ever and ever. That isn't life. Life is growth. Life is change. Life is learning. Life is beautiful. Look it up. Life is great. The first death is an end to our body. The Second Death is torment in the Lake of Fire. The Bible says so. It doesn't say: "They will be eliminated," It says they will be tormented for ever and ever. Please believe what It says. The Bible doesn't lie.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 12:55 PM
Smoke ascending for ever and ever... torment continuing for ever and ever... that proves it, indeed. Do you deny that Scripture states that?It doesn't say, "Smoke of their destruction," though, does it? :think:

Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.No, I admit they are going to their death. Souls are being tormented for ever and ever. That isn't life. Life is growth. Life is change. Life is learning. Life is beautiful. Look it up. Life is great. The first death is an end to our body. The Second Death is torment in the Lake of Fire. The Bible says so. It doesn't say: "They will be eliminated," It says they will be tormented for ever and ever. Please believe what It says. The Bible doesn't lie.

I typed out a long reply to this, and the computer lost it.

The bible does say that the wicked will be eliminated. Read Psalm 37:10
a little while, and the wicked will be no more;
though you look for them, they will not be found.

The Bible says that the lake of fire is the second death. The Bible doesn't say the second death is torment in the lake of fire. Why do you think it says the lake of fire is the second death? It is because the lake of fire is the second death. The first death is when a person dies. Then they are resurrected on Judgment Day, then they go to their second death. They have already died once, the second death is the final death.

Please believe what the Bible says, as you say, it doesn't lie. The wicked perish and are no more.

Tambora
February 11th, 2013, 12:55 PM
Death is separation, not cessation, in Scripture.
Yes.
"Contrast" may even be a better word to use than "separation", although both have the same concept and fit just as well.

Dead is in contrast to not dead.

Perished is in contrast to not perished.

Lost is in contrast to not lost.

Not saved is in contrast to saved.

Destroyed is in contrast to not destroyed.

Condemned is in contrast to not condemned.

etc.
etc.
etc.

All listed as red are essentially the same group of folks, and all listed as green are essentially the same group of folks.
And none of them mean "annihilation/ceased to exist".






Why don't you look up John 3:16 and tell me what it says? "All who believe in Him will not perish, but will have eternal life."


John 3 KJV
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


"Perish" is the Greek verb ἀπόληται. And is translated in several ways: perish, lost, lose, die, etc.




2 Peter 3 KJV
(6) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
Obviously, the world still existed.






Luke 19 KJV
(10) For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
Obviously, Christ did not come to seek and to save that which no longer existed.





John 18 KJV
(14) Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
Obviously, He did not cease to exist.


Your exegesis of the word ἀπόληται fails.

Aimiel
February 11th, 2013, 01:11 PM
I typed out a long reply to this, and the computer lost it.I'm sorry that happened. It's happened to me far too many times to count.
The bible does say that the wicked will be eliminated. Read Psalm 37:10
a little while, and the wicked will be no more;
though you look for them, they will not be found. Well, I imagine they won'd be found, in the whole New Earth or New Heaven.
The Bible says that the lake of fire is the second death. The Bible doesn't say the second death is torment in the lake of fire. Why do you think it says the lake of fire is the second death? It is because the lake of fire is the second death. The first death is when a person dies. Then they are resurrected on Judgment Day, then they go to their second death. They have already died once, the second death is the final death. The Bible says that they are cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death: to be tormented as Scripture explicitly states, for ever and ever.

Revelation 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Revelation 2:11
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

The second death hurts. The first one doesn't hurt. It's just a shadow of the torment that is coming in the Lake of Fire (Second Death).
Please believe what the Bible says, as you say, it doesn't lie. The wicked perish and are no more.I do believe what The Bible says:

Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

No rest. Sorry, but if they were poofed out of existence they would be resting. God is Just. He doesn't give the wicked rest. He gives them ECT.

Tambora
February 11th, 2013, 01:18 PM
The Scripture also says that smoke ascends from their torment forever. Where there is smoke: there is fire. The fire does not go out. The torment does not cease. The smoke from the fire of their torment is eternally rising. It isn't going to change just because you don't like it. Scripture says it. Stop trying to deny it means what it says. You're in denial. That isn't healthy.
Exactly.

No fuel, no fire, no smoke.


Smoke ascending is a common descriptive way of describing the cries (prayers) of mankind to God throughout scripture.

No cries, no smoke.

The only way for the smoke to continually ascend is if the cries are continual.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 01:20 PM
John 3 KJV
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


"Perish" is the Greek verb ἀπόληται. And is translated in several ways: perish, lost, lose, die, etc.




2 Peter 3 KJV
(6) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
Obviously, the world still existed.






Luke 19 KJV
(10) For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
Obviously, Christ did not come to seek and to save that which no longer existed.





John 18 KJV
(14) Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
Obviously, He did not cease to exist.


Your exegesis of the word ἀπόληται fails.

My exegesis of the word ἀπόληται does not fail, for this reason.
You can't take the meaning of a word from one context, and apply that willy-nilly to the word in a different context. D.A. Carson calls this the fallacy of "Illlegitament Totality Transfer". Look at the context ofἀπόληται in John 3:16. οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

ἀπόληται (which means "perish" whether or not that produces problems for your pet doctrine) is contrasted with the phrase ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (have eternal life). So clearly Jesus Christ is saying there are two choices. Perish (ἀπόληται) or have eternal life (ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον). Anyone that has eternal life will not perish, and anyone that perishes does not have eternal life.

Now look at Caiphais words. Did he intend to say that Jesus would die or not? He meant what he said. He knew that perish means to kill. It was not his intention to not cause Jesus to perish. It wasn't his intention to "lose" Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact, whenever the word is used of a person in the gospels, it means the person will die.

Peter meant what he said too. Everyone in the world, except for Noah and his family perished, they died. This doesn't support your use of apoletai to mean "not quite perished at all".

And Jesus Christ, knowing the fate of the lost is to perish, came to seek and to save those who are perishing. Paul even says "The Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is the power of God to those of us who are being saved."

Your exegesis fails, and you claimed victory a little too soon. But I am impressed that you also can read greek, although your attraction to the doctine of ECT colors your interpretation a little.

If you go to a website called Rethinking hell, (all one word) you can read Dr. Glenn Peoples' analysis of the words apollumi and apoletai.

Tambora
February 11th, 2013, 01:20 PM
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.


Then:

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.


And a thousand years later, we find that the beast and false prophet have not been anihilated in the lake of fire, but are still there:


Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

hopou kai to thērion kai ho pseudoprophētēs- where are also the beast and the false prophet
:up:

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 01:22 PM
I'm sorry that happened. It's happened to me far too many times to count.Well, I imagine they won'd be found, in the whole New Earth or New Heaven.The Bible says that they are cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death: to be tormented as Scripture explicitly states, for ever and ever.

Revelation 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Revelation 2:11
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

The second death hurts. The first one doesn't hurt. It's just a shadow of the torment that is coming in the Lake of Fire (Second Death). I do believe what The Bible says:

Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

No rest. Sorry, but if they were poofed out of existence they would be resting. God is Just. He doesn't give the wicked rest. He gives them ECT.

Okay, I can see that there is no gettting past your assumption that there is ECT, so I won't try with you any longer. You are fully committed to your doctrine. Goodbye, and I hope that you are blessed by God forever.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 01:25 PM
Exactly.

No fuel, no fire, no smoke.


Smoke ascending is a common descriptive way of describing the cries (prayers) of mankind to God throughout scripture.

No cries, no smoke.

The only way for the smoke to continually ascend is if the cries are continual.

I don't think you are listening to a thing I'm saying. I'm not saying there is no fire. I am saying that this fire does what fire does. It burns up the wicked, and the smoke of this burning rises forever. This language indicates complete destruction. The smoke of the destruction of Edom rises forever, This is what Isaiah said. But we know that Edom was completely destroyed. You have to understand the language of Revelation.

Aimiel
February 11th, 2013, 01:38 PM
The only way for the smoke to continually ascend is if the cries are continual.:thumb:

A very logical conclusion. :chuckle:

Aimiel
February 11th, 2013, 01:40 PM
Okay, I can see that there is no gettting past your assumption that there is ECT, so I won't try with you any longer. You are fully committed to your doctrine. Goodbye, and I hope that you are blessed by God forever.Amen... I am. I do hope that one day you might come to understand more Truth than you've come to grips with so far. *waves bye-bye*

Tambora
February 11th, 2013, 02:00 PM
You can't take the meaning of a word from one context, and apply that willy-nilly to the word in a different context. D.A. Carson calls this the fallacy of "Illlegitament Totality Transfer". Look at the context ofἀπόληται in John 3:16. οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

ἀπόληται (which means "perish" whether or not that produces problems for your pet doctrine) is contrasted with the phrase ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (have eternal life). So clearly Jesus Christ is saying there are two choices. Perish (ἀπόληται) or have eternal life (ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον). Anyone that has eternal life will not perish, and anyone that perishes does not have eternal life.Yep, it is a contrast, which is exactly what I pointed out in my post.
And in none of the contrasts did it mean that one side of the contrast meant "cease to exist".




Now look at Caiphais words. Did he intend to say that Jesus would die or not? He meant what he said. He certainly did mean what he said.
The problem for you is that when he said Jesus should die (ἀπόληται) , it did not mean that Jesus would cease to exist.




Peter meant what he said too. Everyone in the world, except for Noah and his family perished, they died. This doesn't support your use of apoletai to mean "not quite perished at all".Yep, Peter meant what he said ---- that the world perished (ἀπόληται). It did not mean that the world ceased to exist.




And Jesus Christ, knowing the fate of the lost is to perish, came to seek and to save those who are perishing. Yep, Jesus meant what He said too, to save the lost (ἀπόληται). What he did not mean was that He came to save those that had ceased to exist.




Your exegesis fails No, it doesn't. As shown by the verses I quoted using the word ἀπόληται, none of them is talking about something that no longer exists.




But I am impressed that you also can read greek, And Hebrew also.





If you go to a website called Rethinking hell, (all one word) you can read Dr. Glenn Peoples' analysis of the words apollumi and apoletai.Don't need to. I already know what the words are, and what they mean.

And sites could just as easily be given that agree that ἀπόληται does not mean "cease to exist".

So link dropping isn't going to accomplish much.

Especially when scripture can be produced that show that ἀπόληται obviously does not mean "cease to exist".

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 02:07 PM
Amen... I am. I do hope that one day you might come to understand more Truth than you've come to grips with so far. *waves bye-bye*

I hope you stick around, you may disagree, but come to learn something new anyway. Life is dull if we are just around those who think exactly like we do.

Anyway, I've just scratched the surface, there are at least a hundred bible passages that each prove that the wicked perish and are no more and are not tormented alive forever when they are dead.

For insistance:
Matthew 13:30
First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up,
The greek word that is used is katakausai, which comes from katakaio, and it means to consume by burning, burn down. The greek prefix kata means down. Completely burned down, like a house is burned down. The tares are gone after they burned. The meaning is that the wicked will be completely destroyed. And as Jesus says in verse 40,
So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. Just as the tares are destroyed by burning, the wicked will be destroyed by burning, this will happen when Jesus returns on Judgment Day at the end of the age.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 02:10 PM
Don't need to. I already know what the words are, and what they mean.

That's okay, I knew that you wouldn't go there. Perhaps if anyone else is reading this, and wants to know more they will go there.
God Bless

Tambora
February 11th, 2013, 02:26 PM
Exactly.

No fuel, no fire, no smoke.


Smoke ascending is a common descriptive way of describing the cries (prayers) of mankind to God throughout scripture.

No cries, no smoke.

The only way for the smoke to continually ascend is if the cries are continual.

I don't think you are listening to a thing I'm saying.
I don't think you are understanding a thing I'm saying.

If you knew scripture at all, then you would know that the cries (prayers) of the people were represented by ascending smoke (as the altar of incense describes).

But when judgment comes, those cries are useless and will no longer have any chance of being answered.
Just as the rich man cried out, but his cries were not answered (Luke 16:19-31).

For those that know scripture, it is not rocket science to figure out what the continual ascending smoke of torment is.

freelight
February 11th, 2013, 02:36 PM
Continuing from my previous post here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3354197&postcount=184)


Originally Posted by freelight :

Correct,......for it would seem insane for a God of justice and mercy to detain or hold living beings FOREVER in a state of eternal torment and suffering to no end or resolve, - such would be sadistic, illogical, barbaric, unbecoming of a God of goodness.



Tambora wrote:

"Logic" doesn't really have anything to do with it.
If you want to simply rely on logic, would it not be logical for a God of justice and mercy to forgive and fix everyone, rather than just some and not others?

There is more than just mere 'logic' to employ when judging actions which are 'supposed' to be Gods, for we have 'reason', 'common sense', 'intelligence', 'intuitive wisdom', 'revelation', etc. I've never endorsed using 'logic' alone, in fact as more of a mystic, I share more from an 'intuitive/esoteric' perspective. God's justice and mercy however is perfect in that it is perfectly mediated because these are his eternal qualities of character, being his 'constitution'. Therefore 'God' grants all sentient beings equal opportunity for repentance, reform and restoration within the universal laws of divine government and free will. Your 'assumption' that it is 'logical' for God to forgive and fix everyone somehow automatically is 'illogical', because it does not address the factors of 'free will' and other universal laws such as 'karma' which I've shared on previously. All previous expounding holds, for a God who acts 'insanely' is not 'Real God', but a figment of one's imagination, framed from distorted interpretations of 'scripture'.



freelight wrote:

If a religious writing states something that is contrary to reason, logic or sanity, let alone 'justice' or 'mercy'...it is to be rejected.





Then you are going to have to reject much of the bible.
For God did many things that seem illogical to our limited view of what real logic is.

One instance is the healing of Naaman (2 Kings 5).
Naaman had leprosy.
He was told to wash in the Jordan River 7 times.
There was no logic to that, and he even questioned the logic of it because there were several bodies of water closer than the Jordan River.
Why did it have to be the Jordan River, and why 7 times?

And yet, he did it just the way he was told, and was healed.

If washing in the Jordan River had any "logical" reason to heal leprosy, then every leper in the country would have done it and been healed, and there would have been no more lepers in the country.

My reference to rejecting something in the Bible was 'specific' to the subject of ECT we're dealing with in the thread, but it also applies to any concept, principle or idea...whether these are shared in the Bible or any other book. The Bible contains many concepts, laws and ideas that are no longer applicable in our modern culture, being relative only to the times and mind-sets of the people of that era. Concerning the mention of miracles, one can believe those accounts on 'faith' if they wish, for as a spiritualist with charasmatic tendencies I've always believed in the psychic and spiritual powers of Man, and all the gifts of the Spirit. Miracles, signs and wonders do happen, by certain natural and supernatural laws, so I wouldnt apply any 'logic' to them, for they operate on different principles.


While puny little man likes to think he has the right to question God's logic, he can't really even fathom the logic of God's ways.

Best to just believe what God says, and leave the logic up to Him. He's much better at it!

We're talking about the problem of ECT here and I've shared IMO how it is illogical, unjust and insane. You're basing your 'position' on the belief that the Bible is 'God's Word' and somehow complete, perfect and infallible, which I do not believe. It may be inspired as are other religious writings (God is not limited to one book or religious cult), but its imperfect, fallible by human nature and language-limitations, and subject to 'mis-interpretation'.

A sentient being of spiritual intelligence has every right to question religious principles, ideas and beliefs and judge such by sound principle, reason, logic, spiritual sense and wisdom,....discernment on all levels. ECT is problematic, and even more so to assume human souls are detained and bound by God in a state of everlasting punishment, torment without end....to no end. This is the most insane assumption and imposition on 'God', one that violates his essential character. Passages regarding burning forever, everlasting punishment, etc. are metaphorical/symbolic...and the 'law of compensation' (karma) and other universal laws continue to affect and inspire souls to either fulfill their purpose of existence or forfeit such life-potential.

Again we come back to the concepts of 'free will', 'karma' and whether souls can choose eternal death (disintegration/extinction) or whether all souls ultimately come into harmony with God (universalism). There is more involved here, than just a belief that fallen angels and wicked souls will be burning in everlasting torment in a lake of fire, forever and ever and ever, with no hope or resolve. And to what end? That is INSANE. - if you want to believe your God who is supposed to be LOVE(itself) has set this up according to his will, then it is most monstrous.



What the hell is hell? (http://what-the-hell-is-hell.com/)



pj

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 02:45 PM
I don't think you are understanding a thing I'm saying.

If you knew scripture at all, then you would know that the cries (prayers) of the people were represented by ascending smoke (as the altar of incense describes).

But when judgment comes, those cries are useless and will no longer have any chance of being answered.
Just as the rich man cried out, but his cries were not answered (Luke 16:19-31).

For those that know scripture, it is not rocket science to figure out what the continual ascending smoke of torment is.

Honestly now, If you didn't already hold the doctrine of eternal conscious torment do you think you would arrive at that conclusion by reading that the smoke of the wicked rises forever when they are burned up? You are reading your doctrine into scripture rather than reading it with an open mind. It is not rocket science to understand that smoke rises when something burns.

Aimiel
February 11th, 2013, 02:52 PM
Honestly now, If you didn't already hold the doctrine of eternal conscious torment do you think you would arrive at that conclusion by reading that the smoke of the wicked rises forever when they are burned up? You are reading your doctrine into scripture rather than reading it with an open mind. It is not rocket science to understand that smoke rises when something burns.:thumb:

freelight
February 11th, 2013, 02:56 PM
Are you more knowledgable than Christ? He said these will depart into everlasting punishment.

Are you so sure Jesus said such and its not an interpolation? Also the 'term' 'everlasting punishment' could be variously interpreted, for according to the law of compensation....a soul can only reap what he has sowed, in equal and just proportion...for such is the law. An infinite amount of punishment for a finite, temporal degree of 'sin' is unjust, not to mention immoral. I've covered principles of 'free will' & 'karma' that also factor in here, plus how that all divine mediation forever satisfies the true balance and ministration of both justice and MERCY. God's Infinite Love and Will are ever at the forefront here, they are 'ultimate'. Love cannot act contrary to its nature.


Do you love sinners?

Love does according to its nature.

God is Love.


have you given your life, your blood for them?

Love naturally gives its soul in service to its beloved. You can accept this even without a belief in some 'blood atonement'. Love saves, inspires, redeems, empowers, restores, ennobles, envalues. Is Love's will eternal or not?


will comforting them in their rebellion against God help them?

No one is comforting anyone here,.....'God is not mocked,...whatever a man sows, that also shall he reap'. Did you forget the law of compensation? Pain, suffering, punishment, consequences are a natural 'effect' of trangressing natural and spiritual laws. In the context of eternal LOVE...they are corrective in nature...encouraging souls to come into harmony with Source.



pj

Tambora
February 11th, 2013, 03:26 PM
You're basing your 'position' on the belief that the Bible is 'God's Word' Absolutely.

Totton Linnet
February 11th, 2013, 03:33 PM
No, do you think you are?



And I agree with him. This doesn't say that the everlasting punishment is everlasting torment. Are you more knowledgable than Christ? He said that they go to destruction. Matthew 7:13. So the everlasting punishment (at least according to Christ and little ol me, is to be destroyed and never remade.)


Yes


No, but I believe the one who has, and He said that they will perish, but all who believe in Him will not perish, but will have eternal life. John 3:16. I believe Him, why don't you believe Him too?


I don't know what you mean by this. I tell everyone I meet that the wages of sin is death, and by trusting Jesus Christ they can have eternal life.


I don't know.

Do you have any scripture that backs up your belief that the wicked will not perish but will rather live forever after they die in hell where they will be tormented alive forever while they are dead?

Thou wast in Eden, strengthening Adam's hand to sin.

Tambora
February 11th, 2013, 03:50 PM
You are reading your doctrine into scripture rather than reading it with an open mind. I tire when folks say things like this.
For I could just as easily say the same about you.

It doesn't contribute or settle a darn thing.



It is not rocket science to understand that smoke rises when something burns.It sure isn't rocket science to know that.
And it's not rocket science to know that if there is no perpetual fuel for the fire to burn, the fire would be quenched, and there would be no perpetual smoke.

But scripture tells us that the fire will never be quenched, and therefore the smoke will be continual.
Hence, the fuel does not cease to exist.

And scripture plainly says that the continual smoke that ascends stems from torment, not a lack of torment.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 03:58 PM
And scripture plainly says that the continual smoke that ascends stems from torment, not a lack of torment.

How can smoke rise from torment? Smoke doesn't rise from torment. Smoke rises from fire. Fire burns things up. The smoke rises. The term refers to the complete destruction of what is burned up. Which is exactly what the rest of the Bible teaches.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 04:11 PM
Thou wast in Eden, strengthening Adam's hand to sin.

What does this mean? How does this prove that there is ECT?
Ezekiel 28:13 says "You were in Eden", is this the scripture reference you are thinking of? If you read on Ezekiel 28:16 says "I destroyed you", verse 18 says, "I brought fire out...it consumed you" and "I turned you to ashes", verse 19 says "you have come to a dreadful end and will be no more forever."

This proves that the penalty for the King of Tyre (and prophetically, Satan) is complete destruction, not ECT.

Totton Linnet
February 11th, 2013, 05:14 PM
If the serpent had not decieved Adam into believing that God's punishment would not happen as God said it would happen would Adam have sinned?

Your deception is the same.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 05:19 PM
If the serpent had not decieved Adam into believing that God's punishment would not happen as God said it would happen would Adam have sinned?

Your deception is the same.

Tell me more.

What is it that I say the penalty for sin is, What did the snake say, and what did God say, and what do you say?

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 05:25 PM
If the serpent had not decieved Adam into believing that God's punishment would not happen as God said it would happen would Adam have sinned?

Your deception is the same.

No sir, I am afraid that you have been deceived by the serpent.

I believe that the wages of sin is death, which is what the Bible says.
God said that Adam and Eve would die if they ate the fruit.
The serpent said they wouldn't die,

And you are saying the wages of sin is not death, but eternal life in hell being tormented alive forever.

Your deception is the same as the serpent's.

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 05:52 PM
But my view is the same as Jesus Christ's who said in Luke 13:3
I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

He didn't say 'unless you repent you will will be burned alive in hell forever after you die'.

Aimiel
February 11th, 2013, 05:53 PM
How can smoke rise from torment? Smoke doesn't rise from torment. Smoke rises from fire. Fire burns things up. The smoke rises. The term refers to the complete destruction of what is burned up. Which is exactly what the rest of the Bible teaches.Were that the case: The Lord might more clearly have said: "The smoke from their destruction," rather than torment, don't you think? :think:

Timotheos
February 11th, 2013, 06:00 PM
Were that the case: The Lord might more clearly have said: "The smoke from their destruction," rather than torment, don't you think? :think:

The language refers to the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah.

Aimiel
February 11th, 2013, 06:02 PM
The language refers to the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah.Methinks thou dost surely jest. :hammer: