Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[godrulz]

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?

You need to do a word study on destruction and its use in various contexts. Words have a semantical range of meaning. You are hung up on one use. We need to formulate a doctrine based on all relevant verses. This supports ECT and is consistent with other legit uses of word destruction, punishment, torment, everlasting, etc.

I honestly believe your arguments have been refuted over and over and do not stand up to scrutiny. Your view is not new, but I believe it can be refuted.

 

[godrulz]

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.

We recognize figurative language when the context demands it. The reality is better/worse than the symbol. Revelation should be interpreted with a normative, literal approach, but we recognize more symbolism, etc. You cannot dismiss its face value teachings when they disagree with by dismissing the whole genre. Much of Revelation can and should be interpreted literally. We also see limited allegory, etc. elsewhere, but we do not dismiss historical narrative in the majority of books just because there is isolated figurative language.:hammer:

 

[godrulz]

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'.

Begging the question....you are assuming a definition and assuming it has only one meaning. You are arguing like God is not trinity since the Bible says God, not trinity? We can establish trinity from the cumulative evidence without the literal word just as we can establish ECT without the exact phrase (perish/destruction can fit either view, as you have been shown; you are selective in what evidence you keep vs throw out).

 

[godrulz]

Ezekiel 18:4 says "the soul who sins will die". It doesn't say "the soul who sins will be tormented alive forever in hell while it is dead."

Death is separation, not cessation. You again assume a flawed understanding of death and beg the question. D.A Carson would not be pleased with you for misapplying his good understanding of fallacies.

 

[godrulz]

I asked you to stop. I've reported you.

M.O.each:

Lk. 16 is not a parable. Even if it is, it would still not teach false doctrine. It supports our view, not yours. Your exegesis is flawed as is your theology on this point.

I think we should report you:baby:

 

[keypurr]

You don't believe the parable? It's not a parable. Specific persons are named. Think you may want to look at Revelation 20:11-15

Revelation 20:11-15

King James Version (KJV)

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

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

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

It's a parable my friend. Our new poster, Timotheos,. is teaching TRUTH. He is like a breath of fresh air. His argument is sound and logical.

 

[Lighthouse]

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

What about Hell, then, before the Lake of Fire? Do you think they are tormented there?

Also, what leads you to believe that which God created to be eternal [souls] can be destroyed?

And what of Jesus' words that on eternal condemnation?

[Jesus]“Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”[/Jesus]
-Mark 3:28-30

And why is it said the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be tormented day and night forever and ever in the lake of fire and brimstone, and those who worship the beast will be tormented with fire and brimstone, and the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night?

 

[freelight]

free will as a depending factor.......

free will as a depending factor.......

That's a parable, not a travel description of an actual place. Do you actually believe everyone goes to hell, and the good are separated from the bad by a canyon? Besides, this thread is about the final punishment, and the rich man's brothers were still alive, so this parable can't be about the final punishment. Also, this parable says nothing about eternal torment.

Yes, a 'parable' is merely a story used to illustrate something,...it may be more or less true or embellished to serve the speakers purpose.

What many seem to be failing to realize or contemplate is God as Infinite LOVE. God's very being and essence is Love itself. - all souls if they have the free will to reject Life and embrace destruction, do so upon the merit of their own freedom to choose, if such is allowed by divine providence. However because God is Love...every opportunity in space and time is afforded souls for their choosing of eternal life, - however, some may not elect such a destiny, so their free will is honored respecting its consequences. In this view, free will is 'sovereign' regarding the soul's ability to choose life or death. Some souls choose life, others death. Death is the final and eternal result of the total embrace of sin/iniquity which results in termination of life, a true 'death' from which there is no resurrection. This is the second death, it is final concerning the individual soul itself. In this scenario and in all concerning soul-destinies, the 'freedom of choice' is pivotal.

From the Urantia Papers:

(2:3.2) How futile to make puerile appeals to such a God to modify his changeless decrees so that we can avoid the just consequences of the operation of his wise natural laws and righteous spiritual mandates! "Be not deceived; God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap." True, even in the justice of reaping the harvest of wrongdoing, this divine justice is always tempered with mercy. Infinite wisdom is the eternal arbiter which determines the proportions of justice and mercy which shall be meted out in any given circumstance. The greatest punishment (in reality an inevitable consequence) for wrongdoing and deliberate rebellion against the government of God is loss of existence as an individual subject of that government. The final result of wholehearted sin is annihilation. In the last analysis, such sin-identified individuals have destroyed themselves by becoming wholly unreal through their embrace of iniquity.

(2:3.4) When this sentence is finally confirmed, the sin-identified being instantly becomes as though he had not been. There is no resurrection from such a fate; it is everlasting and eternal. The living energy factors of identity are resolved by the transformations of time and the metamorphoses of space into the cosmic potentials whence they once emerged. As for the personality of the iniquitous one, it is deprived of a continuing life vehicle by the creature's failure to make those choices and final decisions which would have assured eternal life. When the continued embrace of sin by the associated mind culminates in complete self-identification with iniquity, then upon the cessation of life, upon cosmic dissolution, such an isolated personality is absorbed into the oversoul of creation, becoming a part of the evolving experience of the Supreme Being. Never again does it appear as a personality; its identity becomes as though it had never been.

When understanding these principles, we see that such consequences granted by divine providence are truly just and merciful, since all is granted sentient beings that provision of free will to decide their 'condition' and 'desinity' at any given moment, and in every circumstance. Ultimately such choices bear their effects, towards life or death.

If we consider the other option of 'universalism', it too has scriptural supports and philosophical reasonings that are esteemd by those of its persuasion, - each group has their 'proof texts' and system of 'logic', branding a certain mentality. And so it goes.



pj

 

[godrulz]

What about Hell, then, before the Lake of Fire? Do you think they are tormented there?

Also, what leads you to believe that which God created to be eternal [souls] can be destroyed?

And what of Jesus' words that on eternal condemnation?

[Jesus]“Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”[/Jesus]
-Mark 3:28-30

And why is it said the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be tormented day and night forever and ever in the lake of fire and brimstone, and those who worship the beast will be tormented with fire and brimstone, and the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night?

Were you not an annihilationist a year or two ago?

 

[Timotheos]

It's not a parable. Specific persons are named.

There is no rule that says a parable can't use a name. The teaching of this parable was not about the conditions of hell. This also is not about the final judgment, which is what I'm discussing, also the torment of the rich man is not eternal. A lot of problems arise if you want to take this parable literally.

Think you may want to look at Revelation 20:11-15

I already have, thank you. Revelation 20:14 says that the lake of fire is the second death, so this passage doesn't convince me that the lake of fire is not the second death but eternal conscious torment instead.

I think that you shouldn't take one passage out of Revelation and a parable about not trusting in riches and use them to delevop a doctrine that contradicts the rest of the Bible. You can't even get the doctrine of ECT from those passages anyway.

 

[Timotheos]

You need to do a word study on destruction and its use in various contexts. Words have a semantical range of meaning. You are hung up on one use.

No, a word's meaning depends on the context. You are asking me to accept the meaning of a word in one context and apply that same meaning in a completely different context. D.A. Carson calls this the illegitament totality transfer fallacy. Also my case does not just depend on the meaning of the words destroy and perish. The wicked are said to be no more, they are said to be consumed by fire, burned up, they are wiped out like Sodom and Gemorrah. No, I am not "hung up" on one use. The full witness of scripture supports the case that the wages of sin really is death.

We need to formulate a doctrine based on all relevant verses.

Which is what I've done. You want to take one passage out of Revelation and one parable and build a doctrine out of these two passages, neither of which actually supports your doctrine. Then you want to rewrite the rest of scripture to agree with your beloved doctrine.

This supports ECT and is consistent with other legit uses of word destruction, punishment, torment, everlasting, etc.

The only way you can supprt ECT is by denying that destruction ever really means destruction.

I honestly believe your arguments have been refuted over and over and do not stand up to scrutiny. Your view is not new, but I believe it can be refuted.

It's okay of your believe that, but you haven't refuted my argument at all. Am I supposed to look at the :hammer: smiley and say to myself "Oh, Godrulz thinks I've hit my head with a hammer, there must be eternal conscious torment!"

We recognize figurative language when the context demands it. The reality is better/worse than the symbol. Revelation should be interpreted with a normative, literal approach, but we recognize more symbolism, etc. You cannot dismiss its face value teachings when they disagree with by dismissing the whole genre. Much of Revelation can and should be interpreted literally. We also see limited allegory, etc. elsewhere, but we do not dismiss historical narrative in the majority of books just because there is isolated figurative language.

You are taking symbolic passages out of context in order to justify the doctrine that you like.

Begging the question....you are assuming a definition and assuming it has only one meaning. You are arguing like God is not trinity since the Bible says God, not trinity? We can establish trinity from the cumulative evidence without the literal word just as we can establish ECT without the exact phrase (perish/destruction can fit either view, as you have been shown; you are selective in what evidence you keep vs throw out).

No, you haven't shown any verses that say "People go to hell when they die where they are tormented alive forever while they are dead." You just admitted that there is no such verse in the Bible. This discussion is not about the trinity. There is solid biblical evidence for the trinity. There is no solid biblical evidence for ECT. That's the difference.

Death is separation, not cessation. You again assume a flawed understanding of death and beg the question.

You have not shown me any Bible passage that says "death is separation" even though I've asked you to many times. Assuming your definition of death is correct and saying I have a flawed understanding of death because I don't agree that death is separation is the definition of begging the question.

D.A Carson would not be pleased with you for misapplying his good understanding of fallacies.

I haven't misapplied D.A. Carson's rule.

M.O. each:

I am allowed to report bad behavior and I will continue to report bad behavior. If you don't like it, learn to control yourself.

Lk. 16 is not a parable. Even if it is, it would still not teach false doctrine. It supports our view, not yours. Your exegesis is flawed as is your theology on this point.

It is a parable, and even if it were not, it doesn't support the doctrine of eternal conscious torment since it is not describing the final punishment and it is not eternal.

I think we should report you :baby:

If I act as bad as you do, you should.

 

[bybee]

There is no rule that says a parable can't use a name. The teaching of this parable was not about the conditions of hell. This also is not about the final judgment, which is what I'm discussing, also the torment of the rich man is not eternal. A lot of problems arise if you want to take this parable literally.


I already have, thank you. Revelation 20:14 says that the lake of fire is the second death, so this passage doesn't convince me that the lake of fire is not the second death but eternal conscious torment instead.

I think that you shouldn't take one passage out of Revelation and a parable about not trusting in riches and use them to delevop a doctrine that contradicts the rest of the Bible. You can't even get the doctrine of ECT from those passages anyway.

It would appear that, sometimes, people get so involved in the attribute of judgment that they forget about "God is Love"?
During "The Great Awakening" Jonathan Edwards gave a famous (infamous?) sermon titled "Sinners In The Hands of an Angry God". We studied it in a World Religion class in college. Needless to say it shocked and frightened people. Some even committed suicide. Many did amend their ways because of it. But fear was the motivation. I wrote a paper on it with the title of "We are Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God". And here we are on TOL still wrestling with this apparent dichotomy.
Granted that the mind of God contains a picture bigger than my comprehension, however, logic tells me that God acts out of a matrix of love. God's mercy and forgiveness are a result of His love.
So I believe.

 

[Timotheos]

What about Hell, then, before the Lake of Fire? Do you think they are tormented there?

What do you mean by hell? Which greek or hebrew word are you referring to? No, people are not tormented in Sheol. They are dead in Sheol. Hades is the greek equivalent of Sheol, so they are not tormented there either. Gehenna is a place where people were sacrificed to a false god. It was full of death and was a place of graves. People were not tormented there either.

Also, what leads you to believe that which God created to be eternal [souls] can be destroyed?

Jesus said they can be destroyed. Matthew 10:28
What leads you to believe the wicked can't be destroyed?

And what of Jesus' words that on eternal condemnation?

[Jesus]“Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”[/Jesus]
-Mark 3:28-30
Destruction and death are eternal condemnation.

And why is it said the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be tormented day and night forever and ever in the lake of fire and brimstone, and those who worship the beast will be tormented with fire and brimstone, and the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night?

That is typical of the language of Apocalyptic Literature. The smoke is a reference to the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah, and the destruction of Edom. John's readers knew what he meant. Besides, John tells what he means by the lake of fire. He said it in Rev 20:14 "The lake of fire is the second death."

 

[Timotheos]

It would appear that, sometimes, people get so involved in the attribute of judgment that they forget about "God is Love"?
During "The Great Awakening" Jonathan Edwards gave a famous (infamous?) sermon titled "Sinners In The Hands of an Angry God". We studied it in a World Religion class in college. Needless to say it shocked and frightened people. Some even committed suicide. Many did amend their ways because of it. But fear was the motivation. I wrote a paper on it with the title of "We are Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God". And here we are on TOL still wrestling with this apparent dichotomy.
Granted that the mind of God contains a picture bigger than my comprehension, however, logic tells me that God acts out of a matrix of love. God's mercy and forgiveness are a result of His love.
So I believe.

I never used the argument "God is love so He won't torment people in hell for all eternity." I am asking if the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is biblical or not. If it is biblical, then the argument from God's love doesn't matter. He will do it. If it is not biblical, then the argument from God's love doesn't matter, He won't do it.

I've read Edwards' sermon. He would have done better to stick to scripture rather than his imagination of what hell is like. I'm sorry to hear that some people killed themselves because of what Jon Edwards wrote. If he had stuck to scripture instead of bizarre stories, that would not have happened. If Edwards is right, the kindest thing you can do for an infant is to not allow it to grow up. If Edwards is right, the child may reject God and go to hell. It would be kinder to end his life before that. But Edwards is not right. The Bible is right.

 

[chrysostom]

John's readers knew what he meant. Besides, John tells what he means by the lake of fire. He said it in Rev 20:14 "The lake of fire is the second death."

amen

 

[bybee]

I never used the argument "God is love so He won't torment people in hell for all eternity." I am asking if the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is biblical or not. If it is biblical, then the argument from God's love doesn't matter. He will do it. If it is not biblical, then the argument from God's love doesn't matter, He won't do it.

I've read Edwards' sermon. He would have done better to stick to scripture rather than his imagination of what hell is like. I'm sorry to hear that some people killed themselves because of what Jon Edwards wrote. If he had stuck to scripture instead of bizarre stories, that would not have happened. If Edwards is right, the kindest thing you can do for an infant is to not allow it to grow up. If Edwards is right, the child may reject God and go to hell. It would be kinder to end his life before that. But Edwards is not right. The Bible is right.

Apparently, I digressed. Sorry.

 

[Timotheos]

Apparently, I digressed. Sorry.

I'm sorry too, I overreacted to your post because I've heard the misrepresentation of my position so often, as "you say that if God is just then God is a meany and you can't handle the truth that God torments people like I say that he does". I heard one guy say "This is nothing more than a weenie attempt to turn God into a nice guy."

The arguments against Conditional Immortality are all really bad. It seems that they don't even realize just how bad their arguments are.

Should we expand the thread to all of the philosophical reasons why eternal conscious torment is not what God has planned? I usually don't use philosophical arguments, because ECTists reject them anyway.

 

[chrysostom]

I usually don't use philosophical arguments, because ECTists reject them anyway.

they also reject reason and logic

 

[Timotheos]

they also reject reason and logic

It is funny to watch them argue against using reason and logic:

"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.
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!

As if Logos could be illogical.

 

[Timotheos]

The doctrine of Conditional Immortality is logical, reasonable AND Biblical.

They admit that the doctrine of Eternal Tormentism is unreasonable and illogical.
But they hold it because they think it is Biblical. So I show the scripture says otherwise, and ask them to provide supporting scripture, which they can't do. They give scriptures that don't say the lost go to hell when they die where they are tormented alive forever and say "See? The bible says the lost go to hell when they die where they are tormented alive forever!"