Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Zeke]

Rom. 6-8 is about sanctification. Paul uses flesh as a metaphor for sin. I Cor. 15 deals with future bodily resurrection, while difficult 2 Cor. 5 deals with the intermediate state.

What are you rambling about?:bang:

Romans seven is showing that Paul who had received the spirit of a son of God Galatians 4:6 had to cry out to the Father for help Romans 7:24 with the war going on in his flesh against the will of his mind Romans 7:23.

So if we take your rmetaphore and apply it to the fruits of the flesh in Pauls body then what happens to it? does it end up in a metaphoric hell to be punished seperate from Paul, if not what happens to it?

To those of us who have went through the metaphore I am here to report, at least in my experience it was certainly not a metaphore like the mad religious doctor wants to claim.

 

[Timotheos]

They perish and are separated from God's presence. This does not mean they are non-existent.

If a fruit or vegetable perishes, it does not mean it is atomized into non-existence when the word is used.

Show me where I said that if a person perishes they are atomized into non-existence. The verse does not say "God is not willing that any perish and are separated from God's presence". When a person perishes, they die. That is what the word means.

He has been given many proofs/verses over the years. Like him, you simply dismiss the evidence and cling to your personal views assuming infallibility.

This is not true. You keep CLAIMING that you have given proof for your position, but you actually haven't. And why should I assume that I am wrong when you haven't proven me wrong? That is not assuming that I am infallible. But once again, you resort to insults rather than proof.

Edit to add: The truth is that I haven't dismissed ANY evidence. I defy you to show me ONE piece of evidence you've presented that I've "simply dismissed". You are trolling again.

 

[BigBoof1959]

There is no conflict between 2 Peter 2:1 and Ezekiel 16.

(Your post made it seem that I said "I was hoping someone would address the apparent conflict...", I didn't say that and I don't believe that there is a conflict.

OOOPS! You are quite correct. That's what I get for working from 3pm til 2am in a noisy factory, sleeping a few hours and then trying to type coherently before the coffee kicks in. I meant to say Jude 1:7, instead of 2Peter 2:1 -

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

This definitely appears to be in conflict with Ezekiel 16 if "πυρὸς αἰωνίου" in Jude 1:7 means "eternal fire".

And I'm sorry I made it seem like you were avoiding the non-existent conflict that I referenced. It is clear from your previous post which verses you want addressed -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timotheos View Post

Ezekiel 18:4 says that "the soul who sins shall die". Isaiah 66:16 speaks of the coming judgment and says "those slain by the lord will be many. Psalm 37:20 says that the wicked will perish. Psalm 37:10 says that the wicked will be no more. Joel speaks of the day of judgment and says in Joel 1:15 "Alas for the day! For the day of the Lord is near, and as destruction from the Almighty it comes. Malachi 4 says that the wicked will be like stubble in a field that is burned away and the wicked will be like ashes. John the Baptist said that the wicked will be like chaff that is completely burned up. Matthew 3:12. Jesus said that many will be destroyed, the road to destruction is wide. Matthew 7:13, Jesus said the false prophets are like trees that bear bad fruit, they will be cut down and burned. Matthew 7:19. John 3:16 says that whoever believes in the Son of God will not perish but will have eternal life. Therefore, who doesn't believe will perish and will not have eternal life. Paul said that death came through sin, Romans 5:12. Paul said that the wages of sin is death, Romans 6:23. He also said that those who do not obey the gospel will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, 2 Thessalonians 1:9. Hebrews 10:27 says that the judgment fire consumes the adversaries. James says that "sin when it is fully grown brings forth death." James 1:15. Peter refers to the judgment as "swift destruction", 2 Peter 2:1. Peter says that Sodom and Gomorrah were "condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly." 2 Peter 2:6. Jude 7 concurs. John said "God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life." 1 John 5:11-12.
And the book of Revelation specifically says that the lake of fire is the second death, not eternal conscious torment.

I want you to tell me why you believe these verses don't mean what they say.

In reading back over your post quoted here I just noticed that you did create a link between 2 Peter and Jude 1:7. I didn't consciously notice that yesterday, but it might be why I jumped on 2 Peter 2:1. In any case I was contrasting your desire for Godrulz to address the verses you referenced, with my desire for someone to explain the apparent contradiction between Jude 1:7 and Ezekiel 16, which speaks of the restoration of Sodom and Gomorrah and their being given to Jerusalem as "daughters". I have never read or heard a satisfying explanation of this other than that "αἰωνίου" does not mean "eternal" or "forever" If one solves this apparent contradiction by realizing that "αἰωνίου" does not signify "eternal, it has implications for those who hold to either ECT and eternal annihilation.

The remainder of my post about Isaiah, Paul on the road to Damascus, etc. was meant to show that the idea of "destruction" conveyed in scripture is clearly not limited to the total and eternal destruction of a person. The Isaiah that existed before seeing the LORD in glory was "destroyed" and did not exist afterward. The mad persecutor of the church known as Saul suffered the same fate. Put out of existence. Same thing happened to the "enemies" in Romans 5:10 and Colossians 1:21.

 

[Timotheos]

He has been given many proofs/verses over the years. Like him, you simply dismiss the evidence and cling to your personal views assuming infallibility.

According to the Bible, the wages of sin is death. There is really no reason at all to believe that the wages of sin is not death but eternal conscious torment in hell instead.

 

[godrulz]

According to the Bible, the wages of sin is death. There is really no reason at all to believe that the wages of sin is not death but eternal conscious torment in hell instead.

In principle, death is separation, not cessation. We gave you evidence for it, but you reject it. You now play a game by inserting eternal death or ECT into a verse that is talking about physical and spiritual death (also consequences of sin).

This is like the JW playing games with Jn. 1:1

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus as with Jesus, and Jesus was Jesus. Of course, this is nonsensical and shows they do not understand Greek grammar and are importing their foolish thinking to try to justify their twisting of the verse.

You cannot substitute ECT into every place that says death, punishment, etc. This may convince the ignorant, but it does not wash at the academic level or critical thinkers.

You beg the question by assuming your definition is right. If it is wrong, then your case falls apart and you are not refuting the right view, just entrenching yourself in a wrong view with a logical and exegetical fallacy.

This is why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. When a verse contradicts you, you play the figurative card to retain your wrong view.

What would save your bacon and credibility would be to learn how to do credible exegesis with proper tools and knowledge.

You can make the Bible support any nonsensical view like the cults do, but this is at the expense of sound thinking/exegesis.

All you are doing is showing that you are an amateur who could use some formal training.

 

[Desert Reign]

You beg the question by assuming your definition is right. If it is wrong, then your case falls apart and you are not refuting the right view, just entrenching yourself in a wrong view with a logical and exegetical fallacy...

All you are doing is showing that you are an amateur who could use some formal training.

But I am no amateur and you haven't argued against anything I have said even though I said more or less exactly what Timotheos said. Interpreting something to mean what it most normally means is not begging the question. When fruit perishes it degrades until it is no longer fruit. The component parts may still be there, a mushy mess, but the fruit is dead. It is an ex fruit. And when a person dies, his body is still there but he is an ex person (though not an ex parrot according to a popular misunderstanding). The body is a mushy mix of chemicals that just look like what the person once was.

 

[godrulz]

But I am no amateur and you haven't argued against anything I have said even though I said more or less exactly what Timotheos said. Interpreting something to mean what it most normally means is not begging the question. When fruit perishes it degrades until it is no longer fruit. The component parts may still be there, a mushy mess, but the fruit is dead. It is an ex fruit. And when a person dies, his body is still there but he is an ex person (though not an ex parrot according to a popular misunderstanding). The body is a mushy mix of chemicals that just look like what the person once was.

You are talking about physical death/body, but your forget that the spirit-soul, the real person, lives on (the body without the spirit is dead, but the spirit without the body lives). There will also be a future physical resurrection for all.

Physical, spiritual, eternal death are related, but not identical, so your analogy/observation (that I agree with qualified) does not negate truths about the other kinds of death.

A wrong assumption that death means cessation vs separation is another issue in addition to nature of the immaterial part of man.

You are not as arrogant as Tim, so I am not talking about you (I have not followed your thinking enough to comment).

I do not have a problem with godly, capable believers holding various views on this subject, but I will not compromise the biblical, historical, orthodox view.

I would rather side with F.F. Bruce, etc. than Rob Bell.

As well, I cut you some slack for being a fellow Open Theist?

 

[Desert Reign]

You are talking about physical death/body, but your forget that the spirit-soul, the real person, lives on (the body without the spirit is dead, but the spirit without the body lives).

But that's your assumption. In my view, transmigration is a Platonic idea and not in the Bible. It's also dualistic, which again is a Platonic idea. The Jews had a monist view of the person. This is clear from Genesis 2. The man became a living soul. He didn't get a soul, he became one. Soul means living person not eternal non-physical spirit.

So no, I didn't forget that the 'spirit-soul' lives on. I just believed that when God said to Adam that he would die, that is exactly what he meant - to dust he would return. There was no 'living-on' part. Soul in the Jewish context was a construct not an actual thing. The construct was a way of saying that the thing was alive.

 

[Nazaroo]

I too am interested in this subject.

Prima face eternal torment seems to go against a loving God.
But death is most certainly the minimal consequence of mortal sin.
Mortals are mortal and need the extra gift, eternal life / sonship,
which comes only to those who receive Father and Son and Spirit.

If someone never receives that special conditional gift, they remain mortal.

The soul (self) dies. It is the spirit which returns to God who gave it.
That enemy which was defeated by Christ's action was death,
as opposed to eternal torment.

I can also understand the idea that some special cases might require
unusual punishments, such as fallen angels, the Adversary, anti-christs,
the 'son of perdition' etc.
Such specially sinful persons might be those who knew God but
did not honour God as God (as mentioned in Romans 1) or
those who committed 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit',
or those rejecting Christ (again) as mentioned in Hebrews.

But the norm should be the death sentence pronounced in the O.T. Law,
rescinded by the granting of new eternal life via a New Covenant.

I can't see how the parable of Lazarus for instance, meant to
warn the Pharisees, can tip over the whole rest of the weight of Scripture,
or how Holy Scripture would require us to also embrace Platonism.

 

[godrulz]

But that's your assumption. In my view, transmigration is a Platonic idea and not in the Bible. It's also dualistic, which again is a Platonic idea. The Jews had a monist view of the person. This is clear from Genesis 2. The man became a living soul. He didn't get a soul, he became one. Soul means living person not eternal non-physical spirit.

So no, I didn't forget that the 'spirit-soul' lives on. I just believed that when God said to Adam that he would die, that is exactly what he meant - to dust he would return. There was no 'living-on' part. Soul in the Jewish context was a construct not an actual thing. The construct was a way of saying that the thing was alive.

Jewish revelation was rudimentary and Paul's inspired understanding grew over time. Progressive revelation in the NT trumps Genesis.

Soul is also used in more than one way. JWs make a mistake to assume Sheol/Hades is always the common grave of man (some contexts, not all) and that soul is used in only one way. Soul can refer to the whole person (many souls were lost at sea) or to the will/intellect/emotions of man housed in a body. The person is a whole and that is one reason there will be a bodily resurrection. This does not mean that we also do not have a material-immaterial component in the image of God (God is not physical, but spirit).

As well, the Platonic concepts of immortality/soul are not identical to the biblical concepts of them. It is JW vs Christian thinking that tries to negate biblical truth with a false pagan assumption (same with trinity, etc.).

So, I think you are jumping to wrong conclusions because of wrong assumptions and distorted information.

Let's not make the Rob Bell mistake (universalist) of falling for recycled heresies and divorcing God's love from His profound holiness.

 

[Timotheos]

In principle, death is separation, not cessation. We gave you evidence for it, but you reject it. You now play a game by inserting eternal death or ECT into a verse that is talking about physical and spiritual death (also consequences of sin).

This is like the JW playing games with Jn. 1:1

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus as with Jesus, and Jesus was Jesus. Of course, this is nonsensical and shows they do not understand Greek grammar and are importing their foolish thinking to try to justify their twisting of the verse.

You cannot substitute ECT into every place that says death, punishment, etc. This may convince the ignorant, but it does not wash at the academic level or critical thinkers.

You beg the question by assuming your definition is right. If it is wrong, then your case falls apart and you are not refuting the right view, just entrenching yourself in a wrong view with a logical and exegetical fallacy.

This is why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. When a verse contradicts you, you play the figurative card to retain your wrong view.

What would save your bacon and credibility would be to learn how to do credible exegesis with proper tools and knowledge.

You can make the Bible support any nonsensical view like the cults do, but this is at the expense of sound thinking/exegesis.

All you are doing is showing that you are an amateur who could use some formal training.

You haven't said why the wages of sin is not death. You also say that you gave evidence that "death is separation". I have seen that claim made many times, but I haven't seen any evidence presented that proves that "death is separation". If I accidentally missed the proof that "Death is separation" could you please present it again, or point it out for me? I am not making the Bible support a nonsensical view, I am merely pointing out to you what the Bible actually says. The punishment for sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ. It says so in Romans 6:23 and in many other passages. There is only eternal life in Christ. Eternal life can't be obtained from anyone else.

You are not as arrogant as Tim

You also have not presented any evidence that I am arrogant. I accept a lot of name calling from you, and I don't return it. It is not arrogant to ask you to give the reasons that you believe that people go to hell when they die where they are tormented alive forever while they are dead. It is not arrogant to ask you to show me the proof that you claim you have presented. Watch the Monte Python video. It is very funny. After you watch it answer this question. Is the parrot dead or separated? Talking to you is just like the man (John Cleese?) talking to the pet shop employee.
"This is a dead parrot, this parrot is no more".
"No its not".
"This parrot is cold stone dead! The only reason it was on the perch is that is was nailed there."
"No its not dead, it's resting. It's separated".

it does not wash at the academic level or critical thinkers.

I hope that you are not arrogantly including yourself in this.

 

[Timotheos]

Death does not mean "separation", and I will prove it right now.
Paul says in Romans 8:38 and 39 that neither death nor life can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Death can't separate us from God, so death is not separation. Death is not being alive. God can resurrect us from death, the condition of not being alive, and make us alive again.
Death is not separation. Death and Separation are two different things.
Death is the condition of not being alive.
Separation is the condition of being apart.

Here is the whole passage:
For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The Greek word for separate χωρίζω, occurs 13 times in the New Testament, and it never means death.

 

[BigBoof1959]

OOOPS! You are quite correct. That's what I get for working from 3pm til 2am in a noisy factory, sleeping a few hours and then trying to type coherently before the coffee kicks in. I meant to say Jude 1:7, instead of 2Peter 2:1 -

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

This definitely appears to be in conflict with Ezekiel 16 if "πυρὸς αἰωνίου" in Jude 1:7 means "eternal fire".

And I'm sorry I made it seem like you were avoiding the non-existent conflict that I referenced. It is clear from your previous post which verses you want addressed -



In reading back over your post quoted here I just noticed that you did create a link between 2 Peter and Jude 1:7. I didn't consciously notice that yesterday, but it might be why I jumped on 2 Peter 2:1. In any case I was contrasting your desire for Godrulz to address the verses you referenced, with my desire for someone to explain the apparent contradiction between Jude 1:7 and Ezekiel 16, which speaks of the restoration of Sodom and Gomorrah and their being given to Jerusalem as "daughters". I have never read or heard a satisfying explanation of this other than that "αἰωνίου" does not mean "eternal" or "forever" If one solves this apparent contradiction by realizing that "αἰωνίου" does not signify "eternal, it has implications for those who hold to either ECT and eternal annihilation.

The remainder of my post about Isaiah, Paul on the road to Damascus, etc. was meant to show that the idea of "destruction" conveyed in scripture is clearly not limited to the total and eternal destruction of a person. The Isaiah that existed before seeing the LORD in glory was "destroyed" and did not exist afterward. The mad persecutor of the church known as Saul suffered the same fate. Put out of existence. Same thing happened to the "enemies" in Romans 5:10 and Colossians 1:21.

Does anyone have an explanation for the apparent discrepancy between Jude 1:7 and Ezekiel 16?

 

[Timotheos]

Does anyone have an explanation for the apparent discrepancy between Jude 1:7 and Ezekiel 16?

Jude 1:7
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Ezekiel 16:46b-58
Your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite. 46And your elder sister is Samaria, who lived with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you, is Sodom with her daughters. 47Not only did you walk in their ways and do according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways. 48As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. 51Samaria has not committed half your sins. You have committed more abominations than they, and have made your sisters appear righteous by all the abominations that you have committed. 52Bear your disgrace, you also, for you have intervened on behalf of your sisters. Because of your sins in which you acted more abominably than they, they are more in the right than you. So be ashamed, you also, and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.

53“I will restore their fortunes, both the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters, and the fortunes of Samaria and her daughters, and I will restore your own fortunes in their midst, 54that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all that you have done, becoming a consolation to them. 55As for your sisters, Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former state, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former state, and you and your daughters shall return to your former state. 56Was not your sister Sodom a byword in your mouth in the day of your pride, 57before your wickedness was uncovered? Now you have become an object of reproach for the daughters of Syriah and all those around her, and for the daughters of the Philistines, those all around who despise you. 58You bear the penalty of your lewdness and your abominations, declares the Lord.

I don't have an answer for you.
Sodom was destroyed. That destruction is an example of the coming destruction. Ezekiel knows that Sodom was destroyed, but he says Sodom will be restored. Peter wrote that the world will destroyed by fire on the Day of Judgment. A new world will be created. Perhaps Sodom will be on that new world, but it won't be populated by wicked people, the new people of Sodom will be those who have been redeemed by Jesus Christ.

 

[godrulz]

Words have a semantical range of meaning. We would have to look at all uses of the word death, soul, punishment, etc. to formulate a view on any given text and an overall theology.

I stand firm that Tim is an amateur and does not know what he is talking about and uses selective evidence while ignoring things contrary to his view.

There is a wealth of stuff available to establish the biblical, historical, orthodox view, so I am not going to beat a dead horse with someone who is recalcitrant.:rip:

 

[Timotheos]

Words have a semantical range of meaning. We would have to look at all uses of the word death, soul, punishment, etc. to formulate a view on any given text and an overall theology.

I stand firm that Tim is an amateur and does not know what he is talking about and uses selective evidence while ignoring things contrary to his view.

There is a wealth of stuff available to establish the biblical, historical, orthodox view, so I am not going to beat a dead horse with someone who is recalcitrant.:rip:

Okay, you are entitled to your opinion. I am not recalcitrant, there you go with the name calling AGAIN. I've said it many times, if you would offer any proof for your position, I am happy to reconsider my position. But I won't just because you call me names.

You say that I am an amateur. Okay, but an amateur does not have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Look at Paul, He refused to take pay for delivering the gospel message. Here is what Peter says "Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." In other words, serve because you love, not because you are getting paid.

And just let me ask you this, since you have such a low opinion of me, can you read Greek? Have you read the New Testament in the original language? I'm not saying this to brag in any way, so don't take it like that. I'm just saying that you aren't the high and mighty that you think you are. You keep putting me down with at every opportunity. I don't think you have ever posted anything that doesn't have an insult in it. Do you think God is pleased with you when you do that? Why can't we just have a nice discussion about what the Bible says? Why do you feel that you have to use insults to get your own way?

 

[godrulz]

I have formally studied Greek as a student, but am not a Greek master. The Greek masters can call you on your exegetical fallacies, flawed word studies, etc. as they support the traditional view. I am in good company. Yes, John Stott went your way before he died, but he is godly, not infallible.

 

[Omniskeptical]

I have formally studied Greek as a student, but am not a Greek master. The Greek masters can call you on your exegetical fallacies, flawed word studies, etc. as they support the traditional view. I am in good company. Yes, John Stott went your way before he died, but he is godly, not infallible.

The traditional crap view of everlasting life in torture?

 

[Timotheos]

The Greek masters can call you on your exegetical fallacies, flawed word studies, etc. as they support the traditional view.

You have not shown any exegetical fallacies, flawed word studies, or etc.

You haven't shown that apollumi doesn't mean "destroyed" as all the experts translate it. You haven't shown that apoleia doesn't mean "perish" as all the experts translate it. And you haven't shown even one verse in the Bible that says that the wicked will go to hell when they die where they are to be tormented alive forever while they are dead.

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you want to say that I am wrong, please bring proof, not your opinion.

 

[Timotheos]

I have formally studied Greek as a student, but am not a Greek master. The Greek masters can call you on your exegetical fallacies, flawed word studies, etc. as they support the traditional view. I am in good company. Yes, John Stott went your way before he died, but he is godly, not infallible.

Speaking of "flawed word studies" here is what one Greek Master (Weymouth) had to say about translating Apollumi as "ruin but not destroyed, maintaining a wretched existence":

"My mind fails to conceive a grosser misinterpretation of language than when the five or six strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying 'destroy,' or 'destruction,' are explained to mean maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence. To translate black as white is nothing to this."​

The exegetical fallacies and the flawed word studies are done by those who misguidedly defend the false tradition of eternal conscious torment. You are the ones who claim that the wages of sin is death, but death means everything and anything except death. You are the ones who exegete John 3:16 until it means the opposite of what it says. You are the ones who commit the fallacy of poisoning the well by comparing those who believe that the wages of sin is death to cult members every chance you get. You commit the fallacy of appealing to the bandwagon. If everyone (except the wise!) jumped off a cliff, you would be urging me that the correct thing to do is jump! You are the ones who commit the adhom fallacy every time you post, you insult me instead of offering any proof for your position.