Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
You really do NOT know what you are talking about. Isn't begging the question to assume your position as proof of your position? So when you guys assume that "eternal punishment" is automatically "eternal torment" as if death is no punishment at all, you are smack dab in the center of Begging the Question Land. Whereas I have not "begged the question" at all in any way. I merely believe the Bible is true when it says that the wicked will perish. Although YOU redefine "perish so that it no longer means perish. AND you twist Romans 6:23 to mean that the wages of sin is NOT DEATH at all, but eternal conscious torment instead. Whereas I believe that Romans 6:23 means exactly what it says. And you have not provided any contrary evidence AT ALL, you STILL haven't shown even ONE verse from the Bible that says that the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever.
Summing up, nothing you said even slightly applies to me, but everything you said describes YOU perfectly.
The reason this is not pleasant for you is because you are attempting to use the Bible to prove a doctrine that is unbiblical. That's too bad for you.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
principles............
principles............
godrulz ignores alot and is 'stuck' in a 'groove'
Why not tell your 'god' this, as he condemns untold numbers of sentient beings to an eternity of hell-fire and torment? Its a very unpleasant and horrible 'punishment', especially more heinous if the 'punishment' is never-ending and these suffering souls have absolutely no hope of salvation, relief, liberation, repentance, etc.
As we consider principles again -
At least from a 'soul-death' point of view,...it is recognized that the seed of 'sin' bears the fruit of 'death'; (the wages that sin pays is death)...in that if a soul wholly embraces the depths of iniquity, that ultimately that sin results in the 'death/disintegration/destruction' of that soul, because anything incorporating itself with the principle of sin, eventually 'dies', becoming 'nothing', 'unreal', 'destroyed'. (the result of the transgression of law fulfills itself as a total negation or obliteration of that which embraces it or takes on its effect). Hence, the ultimate fate of the unrepentant and willfull 'sinner', when that state of rebellion/corruption/insanity has reached its stage of a certain fullness or 'ripeness'...is dis-integration. A total embrace of what is unlawful is the 'void' of what is lawful, real, true, beautiful, essential, living. Death is the negation of the life-potential and principle.
pj
principles............
godrulz ignores alot and is 'stuck' in a 'groove'
Why not tell your 'god' this, as he condemns untold numbers of sentient beings to an eternity of hell-fire and torment? Its a very unpleasant and horrible 'punishment', especially more heinous if the 'punishment' is never-ending and these suffering souls have absolutely no hope of salvation, relief, liberation, repentance, etc.
As we consider principles again -
At least from a 'soul-death' point of view,...it is recognized that the seed of 'sin' bears the fruit of 'death'; (the wages that sin pays is death)...in that if a soul wholly embraces the depths of iniquity, that ultimately that sin results in the 'death/disintegration/destruction' of that soul, because anything incorporating itself with the principle of sin, eventually 'dies', becoming 'nothing', 'unreal', 'destroyed'. (the result of the transgression of law fulfills itself as a total negation or obliteration of that which embraces it or takes on its effect). Hence, the ultimate fate of the unrepentant and willfull 'sinner', when that state of rebellion/corruption/insanity has reached its stage of a certain fullness or 'ripeness'...is dis-integration. A total embrace of what is unlawful is the 'void' of what is lawful, real, true, beautiful, essential, living. Death is the negation of the life-potential and principle.
pj
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
figures of speech......
figures of speech......
Even godrulz agrees that the 'belief' or 'disbelief' about ECT does not necessarily affect one's salvation, but accepting ECT still challenges or contradicts the character of God on a moral and philosophical level, if anything. It would behoove one to put 'first principles' first, before exalting figurative language and metaphors to the level of some 'absolute truth' or 'eschatological certainty'.
A 'figure' is never the reality, but a respresentation of something, subject to 'distortion' or 'interpretation'.
pj
figures of speech......
Even godrulz agrees that the 'belief' or 'disbelief' about ECT does not necessarily affect one's salvation, but accepting ECT still challenges or contradicts the character of God on a moral and philosophical level, if anything. It would behoove one to put 'first principles' first, before exalting figurative language and metaphors to the level of some 'absolute truth' or 'eschatological certainty'.
A 'figure' is never the reality, but a respresentation of something, subject to 'distortion' or 'interpretation'.
pj
godrulz ignores alot and is 'stuck' in a 'groove'
Rather than accusations without proof, Mr Rulz should offer evidence along with his slander. Rather than saying "Tim simply begs the question," he SHOULD say "Tim begs the question because he believes that the wicked perish, due to his interpretation of Psalm 37:20 which says "the wicked shall perish." Of course this makes no sense, since I do NOT beg the question.
Rather than saying "Tim redefines things to suit his view", he should say "Tim redefines "death" to mean "death", rather than our proper redefinition of death which means a separation." But that would also be senseless because I don't redefine words to mean their opposites and he does.
Rather than saying "Tim twists verses to fit his view", He should say "Tim twists John 3:16 to say whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." Of course, that is exactly what John 3:16 says, So Rulz has no case for his slander.
Rather than saying "Tim ignores contrary evidence", He SHOULD say "Tim doesn't accept evidence we have not produced, and we don't like the way he doesn't just accept what WE say, even though we don't offer any proof for our false beliefs.
But Rulz can't do any of that, because if he did, it would be obvious that his hateful slander is false.
I have identified one of your exegetical fallacies as not seeing that words have a semantical range of meaning. Your definitions of perish, soul, destruction, punishment, etc. are popular, not theological. The cumulative evidence stands against your position. You make an argument that death means death, perish means perish, etc., but you simply assume your convenient definition, not the biblical one or the evidence based on all relevant verses vs proof texts out of context.
You are not stupid, but you are stubborn.:bang:
You are not stupid, but you are stubborn.:bang:
The Pope is pleased with you.
You prefer tradition over the straightforward words of Jesus.
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 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.
LA
I agree that the meaning of the word is the meaning that the author intended when he wrote the word. I don't agree with you that you can go to a list of definitions and pick out the one that you like best. I am not committing an exegetical fallacy. It is best to look at the context to get the meaning of the author's words. Look at John 3:16, as one example. He says that those who believe in the Son of God will not perish (apoletai) but will have eternal life. Get the meaning of apoletai from the context. If someone has eternal life, that means that they will have life forever. What would happen to prevent a person from living forever? Death? Exactly. Perishing. This is what happens if a person does not have eternal life. So you can see from the context that apoletai actually does mean perish, it is translated correctly in John 3:16. You are committing the exegetical fallacy of changing the meaning of words to fit your theology. This fallacy is called eisegesis. It means "reading your doctrine INTO the text", rather than determining your doctrine FROM the text.
I use the standard meanings of perish, destruction, and punishment. I've looked at the Hebrew and Greek words that are translated "soul" to determine the meaning of them. Your idea of the soul is in error. There is not a disembodied soul that survives when a person dies. Read Ezekiel 18:4. The soul who sin shall die. If the soul can't die, why does God say that the soul shall die? The Hebrew word for soul is nepesh and it means the person. The Greek word is psyche and also means the person.
No, this is your claim, but you haven't provided any evidence, nor have you even responded to the evidence that I provided against your position and for my position. You can't just claim that the cumulative evidence defeats my position without actually providing any evidence.
I make my argument from what the Bible says. I have not needed to redefine any words to mean the opposite of what they say. I haven't had to redefine death to mean "eternal life in hell separated from God". I have not taken any verse out of context. If you think that I have, I want you to prove it, rather than just accuse me of it with no proof at all, as you are doing. I've shown the proof of my position by showing you the scripture in context from throughout the Bible.
Thank you, I am not stupid, I am right and you should consider what I've said. Check out the Bible passages I've provided throughout this conversation, and you will see that they say what I've told you they say, and they are not taken out of context or the meanings redefined in any way.
Being stubborn is a virtue when you are correct. I agree with what the Bible says, and I won't stop believing the Bible just because you say I should believe your tradition instead. You know that there is not one verse in the entire Bible that says the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will be conscious of torment for all eternity. Don't claim that the whole Bible says this, it does not. Not one verse, not all of the verses put together. If the wages of sin is eternal torment in Hell, why didn't God tell Adam that? Why didn't Moses tell about the punishment of eternal torment in the law? Why didn't any prophet warn of Eternal Torment? Why didn't Jesus tell anyone that the punishment for sin is eternal torment? Why didn't any of the apostles write to say that the wages of sin is eternal conscious torment? And why, if the punishment for sin is eternal conscious torment, do so many Bible passages say that the punishment is death? And if death means "eternal conscious torment in hell", why isn't there even one verse if the Bible that says this? Does God expect us to guess? Are we expected to just "know" that when the Bible says the wages of sin is death, it really means the wages of sin is life in hell being tormented alive forever?
You are just being stubborn, and in your case it is not a virtue, because you have set aside what the scriptures plainly say so that you can stubbornly hold onto your tradition.
he is one of God's children
You are correct. The people who are accusing us of ignoring scripture (Aimiel and godrulz) are ignoring plain scripture. Nobody could read that and come up with Eternal Torment, UNLESS they had already decided that they were going to believe in Eternal Torment no matter what the Bible says. It says right there that there are 2 different outcomes.
PERISH or HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.
Zeke
Well-known member
The bigger picture is what is Gods will, and purpose for the perishing of those perceived to be lost forever, plenty of scriptures shows Gods will is the Soveriegn force behind and in front of everything, Romans 9:21, Isaiah 10:15, 45:9, Jeremiah 18:6, Romans 9:20-22, Jeremiah 18:4.
The anology of our own flesh verses desires Romans 7:1, the natural mind or left side has a veil on it and thinks following the letter is the path to a spiritual life instead of death 2Cor 3:13 and is working in darkness John 21:3 instead of light John 21:4-6 the right side of the mind 2Cor 3:17.
Paul in Romans 7:14 has the spirit of Christ Galatians 4:6, and could do nothing to free himself from the sin that dwelled in is body even though His mind was spiritual Romans 7:22 which is why we cry abba Father for help against it Romans 7:24, 8:14-17.
Gods will is that none perish so I will side with that will instead of tradistional doctrines of men wearing veils, who have lost the ability to perceive Gods Will and love for all, Romans 11:28-35.
The anology of our own flesh verses desires Romans 7:1, the natural mind or left side has a veil on it and thinks following the letter is the path to a spiritual life instead of death 2Cor 3:13 and is working in darkness John 21:3 instead of light John 21:4-6 the right side of the mind 2Cor 3:17.
Paul in Romans 7:14 has the spirit of Christ Galatians 4:6, and could do nothing to free himself from the sin that dwelled in is body even though His mind was spiritual Romans 7:22 which is why we cry abba Father for help against it Romans 7:24, 8:14-17.
Gods will is that none perish so I will side with that will instead of tradistional doctrines of men wearing veils, who have lost the ability to perceive Gods Will and love for all, Romans 11:28-35.
This is patently false. We have shown you in context how those in hell are conscious and in torment day and night forever and ever. You must make things figurative that can be taken at face value to retain your compromised view.
Duplicated - sorry.
GR, this does sound rather ad hominem. I refer you to my earlier post
and I also commented on Rev 14:11 here:
You need a little more than
to prove your point. Timotheos has quoted many relevant and completely unambiguous passages that indicate that the general destination of the unrighteous is destruction. However, the passages you have quoted need to be worked on to get at their supposed meaning.
Compromised view? Do you always talk to people this way? So you don't think that I should read the figurative elements of the Book of Revelation as figurative? So the seven headed, ten horned beast is not to be taken figuratively? But the wages of sin is death, in Romans 6:23? THAT must be taken figuratively??? You have to take that figuratively to retain YOUR compromised view. But I think the bigger problem with you is the way you treat people. I'm not really seeing the love of Jesus Christ in your attitude. Even if you know all the secrets of the Bible, but have an unloving attitude, you aren't able to gain any benefit from your knowledge. But you don't have the knowledge either. You take one passage from the figurative Book of Revelation, force it to be taken literally, and then you read the rest of the Bible figuratively to make up for it.
You are ignoring John 3:16, Romans 6:23, and a multitude of other verses that say there is only eternal life in Christ, and nowhere else.
You say that I take verses out of context. Read John 3:16 and tell my WHY you think Eternal life on one hand and perishing on the other is taken out of context. I haven't taken anything out of context, and you have not been able to back up your accusation that I have. You have not even attempted to back up your accusation. All you do is make empty accusations. I'm wondering if you really are a Christian. You seem to be merely trolling.
Jesus made it clear by His speaking of-
Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Mar 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Using the same terms--
Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
Here the wicked are only carcasses.
However it is the worm and fire which is not quenched, not that which is thrown into it.
LA
Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Mar 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Using the same terms--
Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
Here the wicked are only carcasses.
However it is the worm and fire which is not quenched, not that which is thrown into it.
LA
I do not ignore verses, but interpret them exegetically. I dispute your flawed interpretation, assumptions, etc.
You cannot negate a literal passage by pointing out that there are figurative ones in the Book. Context is king.
We disagree on interpretation/evidence. I am suggesting you are wrong, while you are convinced you are right. Checkmate in my mind, but stalemate practically.
Jn. 3:16 does not support your view.
Calvinists and Arminians have opposite views, yet claim the same verses. This is where we are at.
Of course, books and debates are endless on this subject. Like you, I am convinced I am right and biblical and you are wrong/unbiblical. Quoting verses with perish/destruction do not prove or disprove either view. The cumulative evidence is the issue (you simply use them in one way when other uses exist). A flawed view of soul, death, punishment, etc. is your problem.
You cannot negate a literal passage by pointing out that there are figurative ones in the Book. Context is king.
We disagree on interpretation/evidence. I am suggesting you are wrong, while you are convinced you are right. Checkmate in my mind, but stalemate practically.
Jn. 3:16 does not support your view.
Calvinists and Arminians have opposite views, yet claim the same verses. This is where we are at.
Of course, books and debates are endless on this subject. Like you, I am convinced I am right and biblical and you are wrong/unbiblical. Quoting verses with perish/destruction do not prove or disprove either view. The cumulative evidence is the issue (you simply use them in one way when other uses exist). A flawed view of soul, death, punishment, etc. is your problem.
You must redefine death to mean eternal life in hell in order to hold your view, and you claim that I have a flawed view of death? No, I believe death is what it is. You've redefined death in order to support your doctrine. Also punishment. Have you never heard of the death penalty? How is that NOT punishment? You've redefined punishment to only include one form of punishment, torment.
I've repeatedly asked for examples and proof that I have a flawed interpretation and assumptions, and you haven't provided any. Apparently you can't think of any flaws in my interpretation or assumptions on my part, but you just like saying that.
John 3:16 says exactly what I am saying, so I am curious why you assume that it does not support my view. You claim that nobody perishes and everyone has eternal life either in heaven or hell, and John 3:16 says that only those who believe in the Son of God have eternal life. The alternative is to perish. John 3:16 specifically and directly supports the doctrine that those who do no have eternal life will perish. John 3:16 specifically contradicts your doctrine.
You haven't interpreted these verses exegetically, you've ignored them completely:
I want you to tell me why you believe these verses don't mean what they say.
so this is your argument?
just answer this question please
does God want you to suffer eternally?
or
can He not do anything about it?
BigBoof1959
New member
Can anyone reconcile what Peter says in 2 Peter 2:1 with what Ezekiel says about Sodom and Gomorrah in chapter 16? Deuteronomy 32:39 shows God wounding and then healing, killing and then making alive. 2 Peter 2:1 has Sodom and Gomorrah suffering the vengeance of "eternal fire", but Ezekiel 16 has them being restored and given to Jerusalem. Why do Christians need to believe that somebody has to be punished forever in order for God to be just? People that "perish" or are "destroyed" are not beyond the reach of God. Death is destroyed by being swallowed up by life. You can destroy an enemy by making them your friend.