Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[doloresistere]

You have no concept of holiness, justice, wrath, love if you think a loving God could not or would not send Satan and the lost to everlasting separation.

Of course, a wrong view of man/creation/spirit/soul does not help.

The arguments for universalism are based on a wrong view of God's love and holiness and the reality of fallen creation/redemption. It is akin to thinking we know better than God or making a god in our own desirous image.

I said nothing about everlasting separation or universalism. Learn to read what is written.

 

[doloresistere]

Unitarian sites sound good, but they are flawed. Anti-hell sites might sound good on the surface, but they lack credibility.

We could dissect the whole link, but who would care? There is more than enough available info to know that the traditional view is biblical.

Catholics quote Church Fathers has persuasive, authoritative, but many were wrong, contradicted each other, etc.

You can find people in Church history to agree with you, but many who will not, so only the Bible properly interpreted is the final authority. If Origen agrees with you on some point, but the Bible teaches otherwise, you are both wrong, early church father or not.

I had no idea the site was Unitarian, but what of it? Once you put a label on someone, are you able to dismiss what they say then?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I had no idea the site was Unitarian, but what of it? Once you put a label on someone, are you able to dismiss what they say then?

I don't even think it's unitarian anyway. I wouldn't label either the site or myself as one...

 

[Timotheos]

We have shown you a semantical range of meaning with death. You flat out have a wrong view of it and simply beg the question/circular reasoning to retain it.

You are selective in your evidence an impervious to all relevant evidence (you ignore what contradicts your view and cling to misunderstandings to retain it).

If eternal life is forever, then eternal punishment is forever. You equivocate and make forever mean something different to suit your view, not because grammar demands it. The cumulative evidence negates your view, but you simply spout the same wrong view on death and think you have conquered the world.

WOT>

"A semantic range of meaning" is not the same thing as a plain reading of the text. It is not clear that death means eternal life in hell. You have not proven that or shown that the bible claims that death equals "not death".
A plain reading of scripture supports our position. Your position can only be supported if the regular definitions of words are changed to fit your needs.

 

[godrulz]

Where do you think the bible came from GR? What actual authority do you have to dismiss the prevailing school of thought from the early church and embrace eternal torment as truth?

Heck, it's not as if you're immune from heretical accusations yourself on here.

Those who think the trinity or hell are pagan, Catholic vs biblical ideas are conspiracy theory nuts and in error.

Do you deny the trinity (a more important issue than the nature of hell)?

 

[godrulz]

I had no idea the site was Unitarian, but what of it? Once you put a label on someone, are you able to dismiss what they say then?

I did not say the site is Unitarian. I did not even read the site. I was making a parallel argument in that many anti-trinitarians post Anthony Buzzard Unitarian pseudo-scholarship that sounds good, but is false and refutable.

Sorry for the confusion. I don't know the source of the site. It is also possible for a Unitarian to be wrong on trinity, but right on some other doctrine.

If a site teaches universalism, anti-trinitarianism, annihilationism, etc., I am confidant that the scholarship will not stand up to scrutiny. Minimally, there will be a host of other true experts that will disagree and give contrary, credible evidence.

The site is Christian Universalism. Who are these guys? They do not hold a candle in research/scholarship to 2000 years of conservative, evangelical, biblical scholarship. Universalism is heretical (even though sincere Christians have held the view). It is not biblical. The arguments are not supported by Scripture. I will not get my biblical exegesis from a site that is primarily beating a dead horse against hell.

 

[godrulz]

"A semantic range of meaning" is not the same thing as a plain reading of the text. It is not clear that death means eternal life in hell. You have not proven that or shown that the bible claims that death equals "not death".
A plain reading of scripture supports our position. Your position can only be supported if the regular definitions of words are changed to fit your needs.

Unless you distinguish physical, spiritual, eternal death, you will have problems. You have not explained the principles where death/destruction are applied to conscious people.

Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.

 

[Timotheos]

Your single-minded description of "death" is causing you as much trouble as your single-minded description of "perish".

Luke 8 KJV
(24) And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased, and there was a calm.
​

Well, looky there.
Folks that perish, and yet are still conscious.

2 Corinthians 4 KJV
(16) For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
​

Well, looky there.

Well look there! Do you think because they said "we are perishing", now suddenly death no longer means death but eternal life in hell instead? That is a major assumption on your side. How did you jump directly from "we perish" to "death no longer means death"?
And because I don't accept that "we perish" means "death is eternal life in hell", you cop an attitude? What is that?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Those who think the trinity or hell are pagan, Catholic vs biblical ideas are conspiracy theory nuts and in error.

Do you deny the trinity (a more important issue than the nature of hell)?

The fact that you actually think there's something more important than whether or not other people actually suffer horrific agonies pretty much sums you up GR. No wonder you have such a warped view of love and 'sentimentality'...

:freak:

 

[godrulz]

The fact that you actually think there's something more important than whether or not other people actually suffer horrific agonies pretty much sums you up GR. No wonder you have such a warped view of love and 'sentimentality'...

:freak:

Your view of God's love, justice, holiness, wrath is warped.

There is no biblical, logical way to defend universalism if free will theism is true (and it is).

God does not delight in the death of sinners. He does not delight in suffering now, but He allows it. God does not desire people to go to hell and has made it possible for them to avoid it, at great cost.

Universalism is not taught in Scripture. Quit wasting our time, Rob Bell.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I did not say the site is Unitarian. I did not even read the site. I was making a parallel argument in that many anti-trinitarians post Anthony Buzzard Unitarian pseudo-scholarship that sounds good, but is false and refutable.

Sorry for the confusion. I don't know the source of the site. It is also possible for a Unitarian to be wrong on trinity, but right on some other doctrine.

If a site teaches universalism, anti-trinitarianism, annihilationism, etc., I am confidant that the scholarship will not stand up to scrutiny. Minimally, there will be a host of other true experts that will disagree and give contrary, credible evidence.

The site is Christian Universalism. Who are these guys? They do not hold a candle in research/scholarship to 2000 years of conservative, evangelical, biblical scholarship. Universalism is heretical (even though sincere Christians have held the view). It is not biblical. The arguments are not supported by Scripture. I will not get my biblical exegesis from a site that is primarily beating a dead horse against hell.

Is there anything in the article which is untrue in regards to the early church and the prevailing schools of thought at the time?

If you're unfamiliar with such then you've no room criticizing it, let alone say such views were heretical. Are you an expert in Greek/Hebrew to debunk them? Banging on some 'scholarship' drum doesn't say anything much at all.

 

[godrulz]

Is there anything in the article which is untrue in regards to the early church and the prevailing schools of thought at the time?

If you're unfamiliar with such then you've no room criticizing it, let alone say such views were heretical. Are you an expert in Greek/Hebrew to debunk them? Banging on some 'scholarship' drum doesn't say anything much at all.

For every person, article, etc. you have on your view, there are a plethora of more credible sources to refute them.

Do you also infant baptize? Why selectively pick and choose your evidence?


The Bible is the issue, not the errors of popes, etc.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Your view of God's love, justice, holiness, wrath is warped.

There is no biblical, logical way to defend universalism if free will theism is true (and it is).

God does not delight in the death of sinners. He does not delight in suffering now, but He allows it. God does not desire people to go to hell and has made it possible for them to avoid it, at great cost.

Universalism is not taught in Scripture. Quit wasting our time, Rob Bell.

What's warped is your utterly baffling conflation of opposition to eternal agonised suffering with "sentimentality". The whole doctrine of never ending burning or suffering is the antithesis of love. If you weren't so bound up with 'intellectual legalism' you might just see that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

For every person, article, etc. you have on your view, there are a plethora of more credible sources to refute them.

Do you also infant baptize? Why selectively pick and choose your evidence?


The Bible is the issue, not the errors of popes, etc.

And which "bible" would that be GR? The one that you think is most accurate in regards to translation from the original texts? You go on about 'credible sources' as if it's an argument. You're yet to refute the link already here. The evidence is there as to how the doctrine of eternal torment became part of the "traditional" canon so debunk it.

 

[doloresistere]

Your view of God's love, justice, holiness, wrath is warped.

There is no biblical, logical way to defend universalism if free will theism is true (and it is).

God does not delight in the death of sinners. He does not delight in suffering now, but He allows it. God does not desire people to go to hell and has made it possible for them to avoid it, at great cost.

Universalism is not taught in Scripture. Quit wasting our time, Rob Bell.

Who is promoting universalism here? All we are saying is that the doctrine of people suffering physical torment in a never ending manner is not biblical and is an evil notion. This is a separate idea from universalism which teaches that all will be saved in the end. That is not what I am promoting here.

 

[godrulz]

Who is promoting universalism here? All we are saying is that the doctrine of people suffering physical torment in a never ending manner is not biblical and is an evil notion. This is a separate idea from universalism which teaches that all will be saved in the end. That is not what I am promoting here.

It IS what Arthur is promoting (the person I am most dialoguing with at the moment). The two heresies often go hand in hand, though.

 

[doloresistere]

It IS what Arthur is promoting (the person I am most dialoguing with at the moment). The two heresies often go hand in hand, though.

You might be able to debunk universalism but you are not able to support the idea of never ending physical pain without death. The idea of burning skin without the skin dissolving is a sadistic idea that is totally foreign to the idea of the God that I know.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It IS what Arthur is promoting (the person I am most dialoguing with at the moment). The two heresies often go hand in hand, though.

I don't tag it as 'universalism' but whatever. The notion that an almighty loving God being able to restore all that He creates can be called heretical by you or whoever. Doctrines tend to limit such a deity's power I've noticed and your objection is hardly any different. Funny how the term 'heresy' is thrown about though isn't it? Your theology is not exactly regarded as 'proper' either. It's certainly not given much credence overall on here alone, yet you must be right and all others wrong?

Half the time actual 'love' is lost betwixt pompous human intellectualism IMO.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It IS what Arthur is promoting (the person I am most dialoguing with at the moment). The two heresies often go hand in hand, though.

You're a paramedic right? Has your exposure to human suffering made you desensitized to it? A serious question here GR if I'm right in regards to your profession. If not my apologies.

 

[godrulz]

You might be able to debunk universalism but you are not able to support the idea of never ending physical pain without death. The idea of burning skin without the skin dissolving is a sadistic idea that is totally foreign to the idea of the God that I know.

I agree. This is why we stick to the Bible, not Dante's Inferno as a medieval torture chamber. This big issue is separation from God, so you are rejecting a straw man that I also reject.

God is not a sadist, but putting people in jail makes a human judge just, not a sadist.