Actually the iota makes αιωνιος makes a permanent thing, but worse yet, adjectives in Greek work the same grammatically as nouns. Look at the morphology, and there will be no difference.
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
Only the word αιωνιος has such a similar meaning, but the word implies something that has a permanent impact, rather than a perpetual action.
Any more silliness and I may have to argue for ECT of Satan based on your silly assumption.
I don't interpret Revelation 20:10 to explain it away. It doesn't say that there is eternal conscious torment for everyone who rejects Christ's offer of forgiveness and eternal life. Verse 15 specifically says that the lake of fire is the second death. How do you interpret being cast into the lake of fire as NOT being the second death, when the Bible specifically says that it is?
Edit to add: I'm not explaining any of the verses of the Bible away. If you read what they say, even the favorite verses of ECTism, they support the death and destruction of the unrepentant much better than they support ECTism. I can see how you can get ECT if you explain how the verse doesn't really mean what it says. But if you read the Bible as it was written, it supports the doctrine of only eternal life for those who are in Christ. This means that there is no eternal life being tortured for those who reject Christ. They perish, just as the Bible says. We can have a discussion about this, but your attitude that I just want to ignore scripture or explain it away really stinks.
That's in verse 10, the verse we have been discussing.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Because I believe the verses of The Holy Bible which state that ECT is REAL. The second death isn't erasure from existence, obviously, since we're told about what the Lake of Fire does: torments for ever and ever.
Your attitude that denies the truths stated in Scripture smells far worse.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Well, a simple reading of the next four verses tosses your presumption down the tubes.
As I said, I don't deny the truth of the Bible. I deny your false interpretation. There is no scripture that says that the wicked go to hell when they die where they are tormented alive forever, so I don't know what scripture you claim I am denying.
Not if you read what it says.
So, according to you...the second death is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of death???
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
pop-theology takes a dive.......
pop-theology takes a dive.......
Again, due to the figurative nature of the passage, the other human souls are 'figured' to join the 'big wigs' in the lake of fire. (lets remember the writer of Revelation is recounting his 'visions', being 'figurative'(likely of the astral realm), not to mention this book barely made it into the canon and was rejected by some as 'canonical'). Then we have a possible difference in how fallen angels might be judged vs. men, due to nature and potential of will.
As I shared earlier as well,...there would have be divine wisdom and knowledge as to the 'savability' of these souls (their potential for repentance, since that would be Love's will), for they would have to have truly 'exhausted' all 'opportunity' and 'possibility' of salvation, if thats possible..... and lawfully 'earned' the full penalty of sin or iniquity being a final and eternal death. If such is so,...the death would be wholly 'earned' according to the laws that govern such actions, resulting in the total de-struction of that soul. But its speculative as to how far a soul can 'sin' or be given over to iniquity before it reaches that point of no return. We 'sin' more or less everyday....since we are not perfect. Does that mean we are 'dead' or 'spiritually dead' to varying degrees depending on severity of sin? As you can see...it just poses more questions, speculations and possibilities, beyond assumptions.
The traditionalist ECT'ers have to assume that those punished eternally have exhausted their ability or capacity to repent, and are beyond saving having to endure an eternity of suffering with no relief. Pretty dismal affair. But can one prove these souls have reached a point of no return or potential for repentance/salvation? If we see the 'second death' as a final and eternal death....then we have to assume they've embraced iniquity to the full extent to effect destruction (complete disintegration).
Since we've seen the insanity of ECT, the view of 'soul-death' would seem much more sane, as laws and actions fulfill their principle, while Love extends itself always, keeping its arms open to the sinner as long as he can respond. As long as souls have not reached the point of no return, and can still re-turn to 'God', the pathway to salvation is open to them.
The eternal torture chamber method (even though godrulz rejects this caricature, which is just semantics) is insidious.
pj
pop-theology takes a dive.......
Again, due to the figurative nature of the passage, the other human souls are 'figured' to join the 'big wigs' in the lake of fire. (lets remember the writer of Revelation is recounting his 'visions', being 'figurative'(likely of the astral realm), not to mention this book barely made it into the canon and was rejected by some as 'canonical'). Then we have a possible difference in how fallen angels might be judged vs. men, due to nature and potential of will.
As I shared earlier as well,...there would have be divine wisdom and knowledge as to the 'savability' of these souls (their potential for repentance, since that would be Love's will), for they would have to have truly 'exhausted' all 'opportunity' and 'possibility' of salvation, if thats possible..... and lawfully 'earned' the full penalty of sin or iniquity being a final and eternal death. If such is so,...the death would be wholly 'earned' according to the laws that govern such actions, resulting in the total de-struction of that soul. But its speculative as to how far a soul can 'sin' or be given over to iniquity before it reaches that point of no return. We 'sin' more or less everyday....since we are not perfect. Does that mean we are 'dead' or 'spiritually dead' to varying degrees depending on severity of sin? As you can see...it just poses more questions, speculations and possibilities, beyond assumptions.
The traditionalist ECT'ers have to assume that those punished eternally have exhausted their ability or capacity to repent, and are beyond saving having to endure an eternity of suffering with no relief. Pretty dismal affair. But can one prove these souls have reached a point of no return or potential for repentance/salvation? If we see the 'second death' as a final and eternal death....then we have to assume they've embraced iniquity to the full extent to effect destruction (complete disintegration).
Since we've seen the insanity of ECT, the view of 'soul-death' would seem much more sane, as laws and actions fulfill their principle, while Love extends itself always, keeping its arms open to the sinner as long as he can respond. As long as souls have not reached the point of no return, and can still re-turn to 'God', the pathway to salvation is open to them.
The eternal torture chamber method (even though godrulz rejects this caricature, which is just semantics) is insidious.
pj
Doormat
New member
It's more than just semantics when people claim the story of the rich man and Lazarus is a factual historical account then claim it's figurative, i.e. claiming the rich man wasn't being literally tortured in literal flames.
The problem with the story is the wicked man is in the kingdom of god, is a slave and is being reformed. The ECT theories on this story are lame.
Then we are in agreement. If they are not alive, then they are dead. They have perished in the flames and are not in eternal conscious torment in the flames.
Such a flimsy reply based on opinion shows the character of those who claim our God is a demon and act the same as he.
LA
2COR12:9
New member
Something to consider is, that possibly where mankind may be consumed, angelic beings will not. We can perceive from Matthew 25:41, that this fire (pur), is the same as in the lake of fire, and when it says God is a consuming fire, so as not be confused with some intermediary "hell", but the final destination of what is called the second death; that this metaphysical realm of punishment is revealed as prepared for the Devil and his angels. Of who's ontology does not consist as being the same in nature to are own. We can already perceive from scripture that their existence has stretched on since their creation denoting a potentially infinite quality that has been inherent from the start, as opposed to man's physicality being of a finite limit.
Now if a man separate from God is rendered spiritually dead (Genesis 2:17), until such a time as the new birth, where Spirit gives birth to spirit (John 3:6). Then a man may possibly be considered finite until such a time. John 17:3 leaves no illusion to the state of eternal life is only through knowing God, and through regeneration produces the spirit, amongst other things (John 3:5, Titus 3:5). No where else apart from those who hold to PCE can I see it explicitly state that the soul is formed as, or always has been eternal. I see it only apparent once the spirit is made alive within the converted.
As angelic beings are incorporeal and not bound to our laws of nature, their existence is that already of spirit, and even though one may fall from grace, they do not lose this inherent quality for it is all that they are.
So we may possibly conclude that upon resurrection all will be raised in bodily form, for the believer the corruptible flesh turns incorruptible, but no such process is promised to the wicked. There they remain sustained only by God's power until they have endured through the final judgement. At which time they will be thrown into the lake of fire, a place of possible everlasting torture for those who have obtained an already infinite quality, and in which such a place was designed to contain such beings for all eternity, there they would remain (spirit beings), while those who were thrown into the place which was not designed for them (humans), they would be destroyed as said in Matthew 10:28. The soul's existence being contingent with the body, not like the spirit, in which though it may be dead or non existent in the unbeliever, yet he still lives while his corporeal body remains animate.
This would enable a literal rendering of Revelation 20:10 possible for torment day and night for ever and ever. Where in fact it is the only explicit statement referring to an ongoing torment for any actual beings. Everything else is implicit, such as the smoke rising, the fire unquenched, the worm never dieing, which could be merely allegorical to emphasize the finality of such punishment, that no return is possible. So for such an explicit statement to finally be found, strangely enough it is only applied to the devil, and the beast and false prophet. This would explain why they were still there existing after the 1000 years when the devil was finally thrown in with them, but we no such revelation of man existing beyond the point of being thrown in.
Regardless of your view, of which I stand in a position of ambiguity and wait till the day reveals it, upon which I will know for sure; annihilationism is at least plausible based on the gathered biblical data and such interpretations there of. Amongst believers this position should no more be considered heretical then any other drawn conclusions upon the certain passages that does not infect any foundational views of God, His salvation and will, and what is centered upon Christ. Such as Calvinism and Arminianism, old earth vs. young earth, your positions concerning eschatology, the rapture, baptism, spiritual gifts, etc.. These are open for discussion amongst those whose foundation is Christ, and leaves no ground in my understanding for us to divide or point fingers. Especially in areas that may have the possibility to be gray until such a time when we shall know fully, to call your position dogma and every other view as heretical is unwarranted and immature. This debate for me clearly falls in the category of theological opinion and should not be considered a threat, though some clearly take it as such
Now if a man separate from God is rendered spiritually dead (Genesis 2:17), until such a time as the new birth, where Spirit gives birth to spirit (John 3:6). Then a man may possibly be considered finite until such a time. John 17:3 leaves no illusion to the state of eternal life is only through knowing God, and through regeneration produces the spirit, amongst other things (John 3:5, Titus 3:5). No where else apart from those who hold to PCE can I see it explicitly state that the soul is formed as, or always has been eternal. I see it only apparent once the spirit is made alive within the converted.
As angelic beings are incorporeal and not bound to our laws of nature, their existence is that already of spirit, and even though one may fall from grace, they do not lose this inherent quality for it is all that they are.
So we may possibly conclude that upon resurrection all will be raised in bodily form, for the believer the corruptible flesh turns incorruptible, but no such process is promised to the wicked. There they remain sustained only by God's power until they have endured through the final judgement. At which time they will be thrown into the lake of fire, a place of possible everlasting torture for those who have obtained an already infinite quality, and in which such a place was designed to contain such beings for all eternity, there they would remain (spirit beings), while those who were thrown into the place which was not designed for them (humans), they would be destroyed as said in Matthew 10:28. The soul's existence being contingent with the body, not like the spirit, in which though it may be dead or non existent in the unbeliever, yet he still lives while his corporeal body remains animate.
This would enable a literal rendering of Revelation 20:10 possible for torment day and night for ever and ever. Where in fact it is the only explicit statement referring to an ongoing torment for any actual beings. Everything else is implicit, such as the smoke rising, the fire unquenched, the worm never dieing, which could be merely allegorical to emphasize the finality of such punishment, that no return is possible. So for such an explicit statement to finally be found, strangely enough it is only applied to the devil, and the beast and false prophet. This would explain why they were still there existing after the 1000 years when the devil was finally thrown in with them, but we no such revelation of man existing beyond the point of being thrown in.
Regardless of your view, of which I stand in a position of ambiguity and wait till the day reveals it, upon which I will know for sure; annihilationism is at least plausible based on the gathered biblical data and such interpretations there of. Amongst believers this position should no more be considered heretical then any other drawn conclusions upon the certain passages that does not infect any foundational views of God, His salvation and will, and what is centered upon Christ. Such as Calvinism and Arminianism, old earth vs. young earth, your positions concerning eschatology, the rapture, baptism, spiritual gifts, etc.. These are open for discussion amongst those whose foundation is Christ, and leaves no ground in my understanding for us to divide or point fingers. Especially in areas that may have the possibility to be gray until such a time when we shall know fully, to call your position dogma and every other view as heretical is unwarranted and immature. This debate for me clearly falls in the category of theological opinion and should not be considered a threat, though some clearly take it as such
Well, I looked at it in Greek and I just don't think it is conclusive. It could be read either way.
You could read it as the first death was the death of the body (which I guess is accepted by all), then comes a resurrection (whether by way of reuniting the soul to a fresh body of some sort or by recreating the person or some other method, no one knows) which proves that the first death was not final. But the mention of the second appears to imply that this is a final death, from which there will be no return.
That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable and sensible interpretation. However, it could also support your view that everyone goes there to be tormented eternally. But since I consider that the first view is also plausible, it must be said that the passage is inconclusive. You would need something more substantial to prove ECT.
I think the pointers are against ECT here, though I can't prove it.
There's no need to lecture me on ancient Greek. You are wrong. Adjectives are not nouns and nouns are not adjectives. Adjectives can be used as pronouns, which is possibly what you are thinking of but I don't see what relevance that could have in this passage. I also don't see what's 'worse yet' about it.
Aimiel, this must surely be the weakest aspect of your argument. You seem to need to resort to using death as a metaphor. And likewise you use life as a metaphor. There is a phrase 'a living death'. That is a metaphor, everyone knows that. You seem to be clutching at straws.
Hi Paul, thanks for spending the time to respond at length.
Good questions. The Christian answer is that salvation comes through faith in Christ. A person's 'savability' is not a quality intrinsic to that person but extrinsic, determined by God's willingness to extend grace. That grace is offered in Christ so the individual basically has only to repent (follow Christ and his commands) and accept that Jesus is God's gift to him to bring about salvation. He also gets the Holy Spirit, which proves that salvation is not just about an afterlife but about the quality of body life - Earth life and therefore justifies the reality of the world we live in now. On his own, man would not be 'savable'.
Repenting isn't something that one has a certain capacity for like a petrol tank and when that capacity has been exhausted, they can no longer repent. It's just a decision you make. You can always make such a decision, unless you are mentally disabled and can't. But once you die, then you can't repent afterwards. That's what I believe and what I think pretty much all Christians do too.
I used to believe the opposite and that it was not possible to believe in reward for the righteous without also believing in punishment for the wicked. Because if wickedness is not punished, then righteousness has no meaning. Although I still believe that in principle, I have modified my view on what constitutes acceptable punishment for the wicked.
Good questions. The Christian answer is that salvation comes through faith in Christ. A person's 'savability' is not a quality intrinsic to that person but extrinsic, determined by God's willingness to extend grace. That grace is offered in Christ so the individual basically has only to repent (follow Christ and his commands) and accept that Jesus is God's gift to him to bring about salvation. He also gets the Holy Spirit, which proves that salvation is not just about an afterlife but about the quality of body life - Earth life and therefore justifies the reality of the world we live in now. On his own, man would not be 'savable'.
Repenting isn't something that one has a certain capacity for like a petrol tank and when that capacity has been exhausted, they can no longer repent. It's just a decision you make. You can always make such a decision, unless you are mentally disabled and can't. But once you die, then you can't repent afterwards. That's what I believe and what I think pretty much all Christians do too.
I used to believe the opposite and that it was not possible to believe in reward for the righteous without also believing in punishment for the wicked. Because if wickedness is not punished, then righteousness has no meaning. Although I still believe that in principle, I have modified my view on what constitutes acceptable punishment for the wicked.