Krsto
Well-known member
Translation: I, Aimiel, am a prophet of God who gets his doctrine straight from the source. No human teaches me anything. Whatever I don't get straight from God I reject as phony religion.
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
Translation: I, Aimiel, am a prophet of God who gets his doctrine straight from the source. No human teaches me anything. Whatever I don't get straight from God I reject as phony religion.
Just stop. I do not slither and you know it. Why don't you just stop lying about me? I don't believe that was Jesus' point. That doesn't mean I slither. Should I say that you slither around the truth because you deny that the road is wide that leads to destruction? Or because you claim that the wages of sin is NOT death? It's merely name calling. Why do you have to resort to empty name calling? Why can't you be a decent person and leave the name calling on the playground?
Just stop trying to falsely claim that I slither around the truth. Admit that it is not true and it is a bad thing for one Christian to accuse another Christian of doing. The Bible specifically says that the wages of sin is death. I believe that the wages of sin is death. This is called "believing the Bible", not slithering. So stop falsely accusing me.
That's enough of your lies. I hear and understand the words of Jesus Christ. The way is wide that leads to destruction. I believe him when he said destruction and YOU DO NOT. Jesus said in Luke 13:3 "Unless you repent you will likewise PERISH." I believe Him, you do not, since you believe the wicked will not perish but will have everlasting life in torment in hell.
You don't believe the plain words of scripture, and you are falsely accusing me of not believing. You have never proven your false accusation that I "slither around the truth". I am sick and tired of your false accusations. I am beginning to believe that you are not a Christian at all. Why do you act like this, if you follow Christ? Do you have a conscience at all?
Matt:25 explains what destruction is, death finishes all things but the punishment of the wicked is everlasting.
Krsto
Well-known member
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"
I agree with this.
That is not what Matthew 25 says.
The punishment of the wicked is everlasting because they perish and are no more. This continues forever. Destruction is never defined as NOT DESTROYED in Matthew 25 or anywhere else in the Bible. The Bible clearly says that the wages of sin is death. I don't know what you hope to achieve by denying this.
Parables convey a major point with details being incidental. Jesus did not use parables that were blatantly contrary to spiritual truth. Lk. 16 is not necessarily a parable. Even if it is, it would not teach false teaching. It pictures our view, not yours.
You also dismiss literal statements in Revelation because they disagree with you. Just because it is apocalyptic and has figurative language does not mean it is all so.
The biblical, historical, orthodox view precludes the heresies of annihilationism, post-mortem conversion, inclusivism, universalism, etc.
Debating you is becoming pointless. You need a course in hermeneutics.
So what about you guys? Romans is neither a parable nor apocalyptic, so why do you take Romans 6:23 figuratively? You CLAIM that annihilationism is a heresy. Why is that? Because you disagree with it? The Bible supports it, unless you read your view of ECT into parables and apocalyptic literature. Is 2 Thess 1:9 figurative? Why is destruction not really destruction? Is John 3:16 meant to be taken figuratively? How about Luke 13:3? Is Matthew 7:13 figurative? Why should I assume when Jesus said destruction he didn't really mean it?
Debating me is pointless for you, but not because I need a course in hermeneutics. It is pointless for you because you are trying desperately to FORCE the Bible to support a doctrine that it doesn't support. You need to twist parables and figurative apocalyptic literature around to support your view, and you need to completely ignore plain scripture. You never post the verse that says the lost go to hell when they die where they are to be tormented forever. The reason is that there is no such verse in the Bible. No verse supports your doctrine, but you mock me for believing that the Bible means what it says over and over that the penalty for sin is death.
Wile E. Coyote
New member
Death does NOT mean annihilation. The prodigal son was "dead."
Destruction does NOT mean annihilation. The prodigal son was "destroyed." The Greek word "apollumi" which is erroneously translated "lost" actually means "to destroy."
The heavens and the earth in Noah's day were "destroyed." Yet they are still here. Death and destruction are to be understood qualitatively.
You have no case for your annihilationist views.
So in your view I have no case for annihilationism because death doesn't really mean death, destruction doesn't really mean destruction, destroy doesn't really mean destroy, perish doesn't really mean perish, and "the wicked will be no more" doesn't really mean "the wicked will be no more".
According to the Bible, the wages of sin is death. You can deny this all you want but you won't change the fact that the Bible says that the wages of sin is death, not eternal conscious torment.
You have no case for ECTism. The Bible does not support it.
It is really quite simple.
If you believe that the Bible says that the lost go to hell when they die where they are tormented alive forever while they are dead, give me the Chapter and Verse that says this. If you can't support your doctrine Biblically, then your doctrine is not biblical.
Put up or shut up.
If you believe that the Bible says that the lost go to hell when they die where they are tormented alive forever while they are dead, give me the Chapter and Verse that says this. If you can't support your doctrine Biblically, then your doctrine is not biblical.
Put up or shut up.
Wile E. Coyote
New member
The scripture says that the prodigal son was "dead." Yet he was not annihilated. It says that he was "destroyed." Yet he was not annihilated.
These terms have qualitative reference. Peter said that the heavens and the earth in Noah's day were "destroyed." Yet they are still here.
I am not aware of a scripture which says that the wicked shall be no more. Daniel says that the wicked shall "awake."
The prodigal's father wasn't speaking literally when he said "My son was dead and now he is alive". Please, you are grasping at straws. Obviously, he had thought that his son was dead, and now he found out that his son is alive.
I am not aware that Peter said the heavens and the earth were destroyed in Noah's day. Please give the chapter and verse, so we can examine it.
And the verse that says the wicked shall be no more (one verse out of many that say that the wicked shall be no more) is Psalm 37:10, go ahead and read all of Psalm 37, so that you are sure to take in the context.
And I'm still waiting for the verse that says the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will be conscious of torment forever.
And I agree with him.
Everyone will "awake" from death to stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, the good to receive their reward, eternal life and the wicked to receive their penalty, the second death. Since all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God, only those who have had their sins forgiven and paid for by Jesus Christ will receive eternal life.
We should take things literally if they are meant to be taken literally. Read parables as parables, apocalyptic literature as apocalyptic literature. The same book that says the smoke of their torment rises forever says the beast has seven heads and ten horns. Is it wise to take this literally? I read each book of the Bible understanding the genre in which it was written.
To retain a preconceived idea, Godrulz arbitrarily makes things figurative if they disagree with him, (Romans 6:23, John 3:16, Psalm 37, 2 Thess 1:9, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 7:13) and woodenly literal if they agree with him, EVEN IF THEY ARE WRITTEN IN A BOOK KNOWN FOR ITS SYMBOLISM, like the Book of Revelation. Even so, Godrulz cannot point to even ONE verse that backs up his claim that the lost will go to hell when they die where they will experience eternal conscious torment.
If there is not even one verse that agrees with your doctrine, you should rethink your doctrine.
When we do post scriptures you slither around them.
meh :idunno:
it seems to make him happy
I had a special ed kid yesterday who spent half a period playing with a three-hole punch
It didn't do her any harm and we would have lost ground if we'd tried to take it away from her.
Let Timmy believe what he wants to believe
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Do you think a man - who is in literal physical fire - would be capable of any sort of coherent speech? Do you think such a person would also ask for 'a drop of water on their tongue' even if they somehow could?! Why not a waterfall? Some sort of fire extinguisher? How people can read this literally is just baffling.