Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Desert Reign]

Jewish revelation was rudimentary

Do you realise what you are saying here? About God - about the Jews? About the value of the Old Testament? That just about sounds the most conceited thing you have said while I have been here. I am really shocked. If I were you, I would stop right there because if you carry on in this vein you will do yourself no favours and you will do your theological position a great disservice.

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

Refuting scripture with scripture? And you talk about exegesis?

Soul is also used in more than one way. JWs make a mistake...

I'm not really bothered what they say.

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.

I'm not interested in Bob Bell. I think you are descending rapidly into incoherence and bias.

 

[godrulz]

Weymouth was a Baptist layman. He is not a Greek Master like A.T. Robertson. Both were Baptist and many scholars would disagree with his bias (experts disagree on many things). Most Baptists believe in ECT. I don't know if Weymouth was part of a group that did not or if your isolated quote does not reflect his views or if he disagreed with his church. This is like Unitarian? Thayer rejecting the Deity of Christ while sometimes being honest and getting it right e.g. his word study on Col. 2:9.

You have quoted an obscure source to try to back up your point, while ignoring far more credible, conservative biblical scholarship/Greek masters/resources.

I know you are not JW, but that is exactly what they do trying desperately to find support for their errors. They will quote liberals, Unitarians, etc., but have to misquote Christian scholars out of context to try to find some support for their view. Your thinking has more credibility than theirs, but you still make similar mistakes that they do.

I will not budge on this because of illumination on revelation. For every source you can find that is obscure, we will find 10 that are more credible.

 

[godrulz]

Do you realise what you are saying here? About God - about the Jews? About the value of the Old Testament? That just about sounds the most conceited thing you have said while I have been here. I am really shocked. If I were you, I would stop right there because if carry on in this vein you will yourself no favours and you will do your theological position a gret disservice.


Refuting scripture with scripture? And you talk about exegesis?



I'm not really bothered what they say.



I'm not interested in Bob Bell. I think you are descending rapidly into incoherence and bias.

You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting my views. Don't jump to conclusions I do not hold.

 

[godrulz]

http://thoughtstheological.com/bett...in-alternatives-regarding-the-nature-of-hell/

Clarifications on two main views of the nature of hell?

 

[Timotheos]

Weymouth was a Baptist layman. He is not a Greek Master like A.T. Robertson. Both were Baptist and many scholars would disagree with his bias (experts disagree on many things). Most Baptists believe in ECT. I don't know if Weymouth was part of a group that did not or if your isolated quote does not reflect his views or if he disagreed with his church. This is like Unitarian? Thayer rejecting the Deity of Christ while sometimes being honest and getting it right e.g. his word study on Col. 2:9.

You have quoted an obscure source to try to back up your point, while ignoring far more credible, conservative biblical scholarship/Greek masters/resources.

I know you are not JW, but that is exactly what they do trying desperately to find support for their errors. They will quote liberals, Unitarians, etc., but have to misquote Christian scholars out of context to try to find some support for their view. Your thinking has more credibility than theirs, but you still make similar mistakes that they do.

I will not budge on this because of illumination on revelation. For every source you can find that is obscure, we will find 10 that are more credible.

I believe that I could quote Jesus Christ and you would say that He is not credible. "For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction."

I believe that I could quote God Himself and you would say that He is not credible. "You will surely die".

I don't think you are in a cult, but you make a lot of the same mistakes cult members make.

 

[Timotheos]

http://thoughtstheological.com/bett...in-alternatives-regarding-the-nature-of-hell/

Clarifications on two main views of the nature of hell?

So what should the doctrine of "endless conscious punishment" be called? Since the only thing your side considers to be punishment is torment, I suggest the term Tormentism.

 

[godrulz]

I believe that I could quote Jesus Christ and you would say that He is not credible. "For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction."

I believe that I could quote God Himself and you would say that He is not credible. "You will surely die".

I don't think you are in a cult, but you make a lot of the same mistakes cult members make.

The narrow way is about Jesus vs Buddha, Mohammed, etc., not your pet doctrinal hobby horse of no hell. Jesus taught heaven and hell. You are teaching a lie/false doctrine.

I believe the Word and the fact that sinners die. God said Adam would die the day he sinned, yet he was conscious. Death, punishment, etc. is not what you think it is.

 

[Timotheos]

For every source you can find that is obscure, we will find 10 that are more credible.

That's your plan?!
Ignore the evidence, and count up the noses of everyone who has an opinion?

 

[godrulz]

So what should the doctrine of "endless conscious punishment" be called? Since the only thing your side considers to be punishment is torment, I suggest the term Tormentism.

Hell is NOT a medieval torture chamber. God is not cruel/evil.

Torment is a biblical word.

The key concept is separation, not torture.

Man lives forever, like it or not (spirit in the image of God). Since many reject Him, they will not abide with Him.

At least you are not a universalist, another heresy similar to yours (both give false hope for the impenitent).

 

[godrulz]

That's your plan?!
Ignore the evidence, and count up the noses of everyone who has an opinion?

You have quoted an obscure source, not necessarily in context, and are ignoring a wealth of more credible evidence that does not support your view. It is not a numbers game, but an issue of objective evidence.

Anti-trinitarians quote liberal, cultic sources that lack scholastic credibility to try to support their views. They selectively ignore solid scholastics and sources that contradict them.

This is a confirmation bias problem. If you want to be objective, you will have to do better than Weymouth, a version/source no one uses for good reason.

 

[Desert Reign]

You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting my views. Don't jump to conclusions I do not hold.

So what conclusions would these be?

I spent days of hard work refuting Lon in a 1 on 1 on the basis of his poor exegesis of texts and his faulty methods and you can destroy it all in one sentence by saying that the New Testament takes precedence over Genesis where they disagree. GR, this is not exegesis and the NT does not disagree with Genesis. If I am misunderstanding you then disavow what you previously said and say something different. Please!

 

[Timotheos]

You have quoted an obscure source, not necessarily in context, and are ignoring a wealth of more credible evidence that does not support your view. It is not a numbers game, but an issue of objective evidence.

But you said before that it WAS a numbers game. You said 10:1. Now it's not? Its stuff like this that makes me think you aren't really being objective.

Anti-trinitarians quote liberal, cultic sources that lack scholastic credibility to try to support their views. They selectively ignore solid scholastics and sources that contradict them.

Anti-Trinitarians? We were talking about...Oh look! A Bunny!
Please make some attempt to stay on topic.

This is a confirmation bias problem. If you want to be objective, you will have to do better than Weymouth, a version/source no one uses for good reason.

I think the real reason you don't like Weymouth is...


Wait for it...



He disagrees with you.
:banana:

 

[Timotheos]

Hell is NOT a medieval torture chamber. God is not cruel/evil.

Torment is a biblical word.

The key concept is separation, not torture.

Man lives forever, like it or not (spirit in the image of God). Since many reject Him, they will not abide with Him.

At least you are not a universalist, another heresy similar to yours (both give false hope for the impenitent).

Hey! At least you aren't a universalist, another heresy similar to yours. (Both ignore what God said about the wages of sin being death, and both agree with that Serpent Dude from the Garden who said "Surely you will not die".

Man lives forever, like it or not

Surely you will not die

I don't think you are a Satanic cultist, but you agree with the Serpent.

 

[godrulz]

So what conclusions would these be?

I spent days of hard work refuting Lon in a 1 on 1 on the basis of his poor exegesis of texts and his faulty methods and you can destroy it all in one sentence by saying that the New Testament takes precedence over Genesis where they disagree. GR, this is not exegesis and the NT does not disagree with Genesis. If I am misunderstanding you then disavow what you previously said and say something different. Please!

I did not say the NT takes precedent over Genesis where they disagree. I believe the NT and Genesis complement, not contradict, since they are equally inspired by the same Holy Spirit.

Progressive revelation is an established principle (Heb. 1:1-3).

 

[Desert Reign]

I did not say the NT takes precedent over Genesis where they disagree. I believe the NT and Genesis complement, not contradict, since they are equally inspired by the same Holy Spirit.

Progressive revelation is an established principle (Heb. 1:1-3).

GR,

You said

Soul is also used in more than one way.

But it is not used in more than one way in any given place. Think about that. Just because words have a range of meanings doesn't mean that they have that same range in every place they are used. What you are saying is that the New Testament disagrees with Genesis and takes precedence over it. That's what the word 'trump' means. If you didn't mean 'trump' then retract it.

Hebrews 1:1-3 refers to the means of revelation, not the content of it. I will tear the Bible up if I have to disregard any part of it because one part trumps the other part. From the day I became a Christian I believed the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible. I've no intention of backtracking on this.

 

[Letsargue]

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.

If Death means, "Put away from God", then that would include "Perish", "Destroyed", "vanished", "Ended", - (( "WAS NOT" )), but in Heaven!!!!????????

Paul -- 032312

 

[chrysostom]

If Death means, "Put away from God", then that would include "Perish", "Destroyed", "vanished", "Ended", - (( "WAS NOT" )), but in Heaven!!!!????????

Paul -- 032312

do you believe there will be never ending suffering for those who are not saved?

 

[Letsargue]

do you believe there will be never ending suffering for those who are not saved?

(( You all have missed the point ))!! – You, as the one who was born with a fleshy body, only goes to the Grave(.) --- It’s what is, or who is in the Heart, or “Expanded Mind”. If “Error”, that is lies, or false doctrines, which is the Devil. – You, are only in Hell Eternally in the mind, or memory of Satan., it’s still you in “Spirit” / “Thought” ----/--- Do that same thing with the Saved, and Christ and God. We are only Memories, or Thoughts in the Mind of God who is also in our “Expanded Minds” while in the Flesh. ---- Psalms 119:32 KJV -----//--- God just says it!!!

Paul – 032312

 

[Timotheos]

If Death means, "Put away from God", then that would include "Perish", "Destroyed", "vanished", "Ended", - (( "WAS NOT" )), but in Heaven!!!!????????

Paul -- 032312

That's a rather big "IF", don't you agree?
"Death" does not mean "Put away from God".
"Death" means the end of life.

By the way, the Bible never, ever, ever, ever, says that "death is separation."

 

[Letsargue]

That's a rather big "IF", don't you agree?
"Death" does not mean "Put away from God".
"Death" means the end of life.

By the way, the Bible never, ever, ever, ever says that "death is separation."

To separate from God, - is "Ending your life, and beginning the Second Death", ((( Which IS the Lake of Fire))), that never is quenched. - That's what God says!!!! - Take it or leave it, I can't care less!!

Paul -- 032312