Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Rightglory]

We give scripture.

When you disagree with scripture you parrot the same thing back, which is just plain dishonest.

LA

Did you not notice I cited texts, even more than you did that says the opposite. So what?

You have accepted a supposition, the attending proof texts with their redefined meaning to fit the created supposition. On that basis alone, since you ascribe to scripture as the source of your authority, then you should also believe in Mormonism, Universalism, Unitarianism, Predestination, Seventh Day Adventist, Monotheletism , Arianism, Nestorianism, Montanism, premillennialism, Pelagianism and a host of others because every single one of these teachings, are solidly based on scripture.
Using your selected method of interpretation, you could not prove these false any more than you could prove yours true. All a sola scripturist can do is show that any other view is not like his own. He must of necessity accept all views as valid since they are all based on scripture.

This is essentially all you have done. You have taken a man's interpretation, a created supposition he developed and then supported by some proof texts that he takes out of context or redefines their meaning to suit his own supposition.

Other sola scripturists disagree with you but for naught. They all have texts as well whereby their own supposition is the opposite of yours. His is as valid as yours, thus we have two teachings from scripture, both valid, but opposite in meaning. But, hey, so what? Any man has the authority to develop his own notions from scripture and they are valid for him.

All I have done is pointed out to you what the Gospel has always meant from the beginning. The Gospel of Christ has not changed in 2000 years. That is the power and work of the Holy Spirit who promised that the Gospel would be guarded and preserved by Him. History shows He has lived up to His promise. Man has tried many times to change the Gospel, just look at the list above, which is far from complete. Yet, not a single one of them was able to change the Gospel of Christ.
They have all been declared heretical by the Church, as yours also, come 1500 years ago. That should not mean anything to you since you are not controlled by the Church, but by your own authority. However, it does not change the Gospel.

 

[Timotheos]

Did you not notice I cited texts, even more than you did that says the opposite. So what?

Did the texts you posted actually say that when an unsaved person dies he goes to hell and is conscious of torment forever? Or was that to be inferred from the texts you posted?

Did the texts I posted actually say that the wages of sin is death, as I claim and that whoever believes in Him shall not PERISH but will have ETERNAL LIFE? You can see from Romans 6:23 and John 3:16 that they do.

This is not a matter of "interpreting texts", this is a matter of believing what the Bible actually says, or refusing to believe what the Bible actually says simply because your tradition says otherwise.

I am not arguing with you, I am merely telling you that the Bible says that the wages of sin is death, and those who reject Jesus Christ perish. they are not tormented alive forever in hell. This is just what the Bible says.

What does Romans 6:23 say in your Bible? Just tell me that, without saying "but it actually means this instead of what it says". Go ahead. Post Romans 6:23. It is clear enough to understand.

 

[Rightglory]

Did the texts you posted actually say that when an unsaved person dies he goes to hell and is conscious of torment forever? Or was that to be inferred from the texts you posted?

Why don't you check. They seem very straightforward to me.

Did the texts I posted actually say that the wages of sin is death, as I claim and that whoever believes in Him shall not PERISH but will have ETERNAL LIFE? You can see from Romans 6:23 and John 3:16 that they do.

So what? As I stated a sola scripturist can define words to suit his own supposition, as you have done. Even if I was a sola scripturist, I could define them differently and you could not disprove my supposition. The ONLY thing you can assert is that both are different, both are based on scripture, equally valid.

This is not a matter of "interpreting texts", this is a matter of believing what the Bible actually says, or refusing to believe what the Bible actually says simply because your tradition says otherwise.

Holy Tradition, which is what the Holy Spirit gave to the Apostles takes precedence over any tradition of man. His Authority, I would presume, is far greater than yours or any other man.
Again, your statement belies the large number of differences of sola scripturists and all of them, without exception, make the very same claim you are now making. Scripture is exactly as "I" say it means.

I am not arguing with you, I am merely telling you that the Bible says that the wages of sin is death, and those who reject Jesus Christ perish. they are not tormented alive forever in hell. This is just what the Bible says.

Again, so says you, but scripture has never had that meaning from the beginning. The apostles did not teach what you are claiming scripture means.

What does Romans 6:23 say in your Bible? Just tell me that, without saying "but it actually means this instead of what it says". Go ahead. Post Romans 6:23. It is clear enough to understand.

Again, so you say. I can say the opposite but that proves nothing. The test is what has it always meant from the beginning. Produce the evidence that the Church has always believed in the ideas of annihilationism, or what you apparently are calling, "conditional immortality" or a combination of both.

If you cannot, it is a false teaching of scripture. You can continue to believe it, since you are not under the authority of the Gospel of Christ as He gave it and has preserved it. You are apparently comfortable in establishing your own gospel.

 

[Timotheos]

Why don't you check. They seem very straightforward to me.

I did check. None of the scriptures you posted actually said that the unsaved will go to hell when they die where they will be conscious of torment forever. The scriptures are very straightforward. They just don't say what you want them to say. I wanted you to see this for yourself, and that is why I asked you if they supported the false doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECTism).

Also, I asked you to tell me what Romans 6:23 says in your Bible. I see that you failed to do this. Why is that? Because it obviously disagrees with your doctrine. Your doctrine has a major problem if you can't post a scripture from the Bible because the Bible disagrees with your doctrine. So go ahead, tell me what Romans 6:23 says in your Bible without also saying "but it doesn't mean what it says, it means something else instead. Go ahead, post it now. It is clear enough to understand.

 

[Timotheos]

You are apparently comfortable in establishing your own gospel.

I am very comfortable believing the gospel as written in God's Word. You are apparently comfortable in believing tradition over scripture. Are you Catholic?

 

[resurrected]

godrulz posts, and I give a refute which is ignored. 370 times.
Aimiel posts, and I give a refute which is ignored. 277 times.
GT posts, and I give a refute which is ignored. 237 times.

:think:

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

i prefer to be charitable and suspect that you are retarded instead of insane :thumb:

 

[Timotheos]

i prefer to be charitable and suspect that you are retarded instead of insane :thumb:

Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice

And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

:think:
Where did I see this posted? Oh yeah! In Resur's sig line.

Hypocrite:
"a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs."

 

[resurrected]

godrulz posts, and I give a refute which is ignored. 370 times.
Aimiel posts, and I give a refute which is ignored. 277 times.
GT posts, and I give a refute which is ignored. 237 times.

:think:

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

 

[Timotheos]

The harassment has been reported.

Have a nice day.

 

[resurrected]

The harassment has been reported.

dude - that's retarded :chuckle:

 

[Ben Masada]

there is only one holy, catholic, and apostolic church

What's apostolic about the Church, the assumed connection with the Apostles of Jesus or the apostolic role of the Church vis-à-vis the Gentiles? I am of the opinion that were not for the Church of after the 4th Century, Christianity could have collapsed because the Gentiles were not the priority in the gospel of Paul who was more interested in the Jews than in Gentiles. And this, mind you, since his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome. (Acts 9:1,2 and 28:17)

 

[Rightglory]

I did check. None of the scriptures you posted actually said that the unsaved will go to hell when they die where they will be conscious of torment forever. The scriptures are very straightforward. They just don't say what you want them to say. I wanted you to see this for yourself, and that is why I asked you if they supported the false doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECTism).

Ah, just as I predicted. The very texts that the Church does use you deny and have redefined the terms.
It is not a matter of what I want them to say, but what they have always meant.
At this point what you call ECT has never been declared false or heretical. On the other hand what you are espousing has already been declared heretical centuries ago.

Also, I asked you to tell me what Romans 6:23 says in your Bible. I see that you failed to do this. Why is that? Because it obviously disagrees with your doctrine. Your doctrine has a major problem if you can't post a scripture from the Bible because the Bible disagrees with your doctrine. So go ahead, tell me what Romans 6:23 says in your Bible without also saying "but it doesn't mean what it says, it means something else instead. Go ahead, post it now. It is clear enough to understand.

True to form again.
I already described Rom 6:23 at least three times already. Your supposition disagrees with what scripture has always meant.

You are the one with the problem. You cannot produce any evidence that ECT has not always been the understanding of scripture.
If scripture was SO CLEAR, I would think that every sola scripturist would arrive at the very SAME interpretation every single time. Yet, that has rarily if ever happened. Every one of them needs scripture to mean what they interpret it to mean, notwithstanding what it might actually mean. And the result is thousands of denominations, groups, sects, all fighting over what scripture means.
The irony is that for 500 years sola scripturist have been working diligently trying to find what scripture might mean, and in the meantime since no one knows what it means, no one can use scripture the way it is supposed to be used.

 

[Rightglory]

I am very comfortable believing the gospel as written in God's Word. You are apparently comfortable in believing tradition over scripture. Are you Catholic?

Which is what every single sola scripturist states. Yet his meaning is one of several thousand now in existence. Scripture obviously cannot have hundreds of meanings. A single text cannot have multiple meanings.
So, what you believe is your unique and particular interpretation of scripture.

What I have stated that I believe is what the Holy Spirit gave in the beginning which has been preserved by the Holy Spirit without change.
I believe what the Apostles taught from the beginning. It is the Tradition that Paul tells Timothy to guard and not forsake.
If it is important to you, I am Orthodox, not Roman Catholic.

 

[Hawkins]

Eternal hell can be a logical outcome.

From the design perspective, humans are to live an eternity but with a physical body which is decayable. Humans can recognize each other only through the physical body as an image. On the other hand, the physical body can't act as an eternal ID from the witnessing perspective. The continuity of an individual cannot be witnessed once the body is decayed. To simply put, humans need a permanent ID which is independent of the decayable physical body.

That's why humans need a soul (immortality) which serves as the ID of an individual. Soul is thus capable of lasting forever, unlike the decayable body.

On the other hand, God is the only source of good. When a human soul leaves God, the only way he can go is to become evil. Without God's guidance, one can only go more and more evil. Satan actually sets such an example.

It is expected that hellfire will come when the souls of the wicked become unbearably evil, unless God gives out His grace to destroy the immortal souls.

However, God's promised grace is given out only through Christ but no other names. There might not be other form of grace for the destroying of those immortal souls. Plus that, God ever said the oath that "they can never enter my rest". There will be no rest for the wicked.

So if the above theological assumptions are correct, an eternal hell becomes a logical outcome. Plus that you are not anything superior to the angels. It’s by God’s mercy that Adam’s descendants are given the second chance to return to God.


Humans on earth rely heavily on our so called conscience to act. This could the law God wrote in our hearts. Once we leave God, He may take it back. That is, those wicked souls in Hades may no longer be guided by the law or anything from God, as they are in a separation from God. Without God's guidance, they may turn quickly to someone like Satan himself.

 

[Timotheos]

Ah, just as I predicted. The very texts that the Church does use you deny and have redefined the terms.

Please explain. The scriptures say "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord".
Which of these words do you think I have redefined when I believe that the wages of sin is death?

It is not a matter of what I want them to say, but what they have always meant.

I see. And how long has "death" meant "eternal life in hell"?

At this point what you call ECT has never been declared false or heretical.

By whom? I find no evidence for Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) in the Bible, and you have shown no evidence for it either. I believe that the wages of sin is death just as Paul and the Early Church believed, and I believe that the souls of the lost will be destroyed in hell just as Jesus Christ said.

On the other hand what you are espousing has already been declared heretical centuries ago.

This charge has been proven false. You were unable to show where the 5th Ecumenical Council has ever declared Conditional Immortality a heresy, and I am merely stating what Jesus Christ and the Apostles and Prophets taught. So it wouldn't matter to me if your group declared my view to be a heresy.

True to form again.
I already described Rom 6:23 at least three times already. Your supposition disagrees with what scripture has always meant.

You have never once posted what Romans 6:23 says in your Bible. If you did you would find that it says exactly what I said that it says.
I don't take YOUR word for that Romans 6:23 disagrees with what Romans 6:23 has always meant.
Here's what it says in my Bible and here is what I believe: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord".

You are the one with the problem.

No, I believe what the Bible says

You cannot produce any evidence that ECT has not always been the understanding of scripture.

The evidence that I have presented is the words of Paul the Apostle and Jesus Christ. Go back to where you first challenged me and look at my response. You never said whether the testimony of Jesus Christ as the head of the Church was enough for you or if you needed something from one of your little bishops.

If scripture was SO CLEAR, I would think that every sola scripturist would arrive at the very SAME interpretation every single time.

How can it be MY fault that OTHERS do not understand or accept that the wages of sin really is death, just as the Bible says?

Yet, that has rarily if ever happened.

So you just expect me to accept the varying opinions of men and their councils rather than the solid ground of Scripture? No thank you.

Every one of them needs scripture to mean what they interpret it to mean, notwithstanding what it might actually mean. And the result is thousands of denominations, groups, sects, all fighting over what scripture means.

And you expect me to believe that your little denomination is "the one and only true church from the time of Adam and Paul"? I don't believe you.

The irony is that for 500 years sola scripturist have been working diligently trying to find what scripture might mean, and in the meantime since no one knows what it means, no one can use scripture the way it is supposed to be used.

This is not about sola scriptura, this is about what the Apostle Paul wrote, which you reject. And it is about what Jesus Christ said (Fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell), which you also reject.

I'm not arguing with you, I am merely telling you what scripture says. It is up to you whether or not you want to believe it.

 

[Timotheos]

If it is important to you, I am Orthodox, not Roman Catholic.

Then you are required to believe whatever they tell you is the truth.

May God bless you.

 

[bybee]

The harassment has been reported.

Have a nice day.

It does no good to report him. He runs the show here! Best to ignore fulminating little turd.

 

[Rightglory]

Then you are required to believe whatever they tell you is the truth.

May God bless you.

Quite the contrary. I can believe whatever I choose to believe, just like you.
However, due to all the evidence, I have chosen to follow Christ as He has prescribed I do, if I desire to be in union with Him. That Gospel of Christ was given to the Church, His Body over which He is Head. It is where the Holy Spirit resides, enlivening that very Body. It is through that Body that the Holy Spirit works in guarding the Body itself as well as His gospel.

Man on the other hand has usurped a text, yanked it out of its context, denied its full contents and then imposed his own will and authority over that text. The consequences are very obvious, visible and can only be described as chaos, confusion and division. It is clearly not the work of the Holy Spirit.

I might also add that any man can choose what He wills. One can choose to serve Christ, who is the Head of the Church, or man can develop something completely outside of Christ, His actual Gospel and be the head of that creation.

And, YES, I am also required to actually follow Christ, if I have chosen to be united with Him. I don't get to pick and choose what I would like as if it is a smorgasbord, or change the meaning to suit my fancy.

 

[Timotheos]

Quite the contrary. I can believe whatever I choose to believe, just like you.
However, do to all the evidence, I have chosen to follow Christ as He has prescribed I do, if I desire to be in union with Him. That Gospel of Christ was given to the Church, His Body over which He is Head. It is where the Holy Spirit resides, enlivening that very Body. It is through that Body that the Holy Spirit works in guarding the Body itself as well as His gospel.

Man on the other hand has usurped a text, yanked it out of its context, denied its full contents and then imposed his own will and authority over that text. The consequences are very obvious, visible and can only be described as chaos, confusion and division. It is clearly not the work of the Holy Spirit.

I might also add that any man can choose what He wills. One can choose to serve Christ, who is the Head of the Church, or man can develop something completely outside of Christ, His actual Gospel and be the head of that creation.

And, YES, I am also required to actually follow Christ, if I have chosen to be united with Him. I don't get to pick and choose what I would like as if it is a smorgasbord, or change the meaning to suit my fancy.

The question from the beginning of this thread is "Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?"

The question is not "Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment what the Orthodox Church believes or not?"

or even: "Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment true or not?"

Please stick to the topic, Is ECT Biblical or not. Does the Bible support ECT? Which verses support ECT the best, if you believe ECT is Biblical.

I don't care what you believe. This is a discussion, and anyone can state their opinion. I have not changed the meaning of "death" as you claim. The definition of death is "the end of life". If you believe that death means something other than that, I am interesting in hearing your proof. I have heard people say "death means separation". I haven't seen any proof of that. You are welcome to look up death in a dictionary and see if I have changed the meaning of death. Let me know what you find.

 

[Timotheos]

It does no good to report him. He runs the show here! Best to ignore fulminating little turd.

Seriously? He runs the place? He is an example of the worst kind of "Christian". He is giving all other Christians a bad image, especially those who are in the ECT camp. He has never once said WHY he disagrees with the Scriptures that state that those who do not receive eternal life will perish. He hasn't given a single scripture to support his own view. He merely rants and raves, and calls intelligent people "retards".

If I were in the ECT camp, I would be ashamed to have "resurrected" on my side.