Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
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?
Neg rep for calling someone a demon possessed perverted of the truth.
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
New member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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?
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."
We are eternal beings? Chapter and verse please, Can you show any verse that says the lost are immortal?
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.
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.
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.
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
New member
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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