Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Fallacy:
Poisoning the well.

It is not if my statements and arguments are factual. I am not misrepresenting your views in my argument.

It is still true that your views are suspect when they are embraced by groups that deny biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity because of their rationalistic mindset that twists revelation to suit their conceptions of what God can or should do.
 

Timotheos

New member
Poisoning the well:
The views you hold are also held by Islamic terrorists, the Spanish Inquisition, and Adolph Hitler, not to mention the Cult of Mormonism.
The only issue is, does your doctrine agree with what the bible says? The issue is NOT, Can I think of any groups who happen to hold the same doctrine, so that I can paint Tim as an extremist. Any group that has read the Bible SHOULD hold my belief. It doesn't make my belief unbibilical if they hold other beliefs that are unbiblical.
The reason I believe what I believe is that is what is written in the Bible.
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
Can you find any verse in the bible that speaks of being tormented forever and ever other than this verse in Revelation? Do you believe everything in Revelation is literal? If not, why not? Doesn't that tell you something. But even if you take this verse literally, it doesn't speak of men being tormented forever and ever. It speaks of the Devil, the Beast and the False Prophet as being tormented forever and ever.
Actually, it does. What makes you think it doesn't?
 

GuitarKidd

New member
Here's are some thoughts from Greg Boyd. I appreciate his openness on this topic and many other..

http://reknew.org/2008/01/are-you-an-annihilationist-and-if-so-why/

Are you an annihilationist, and if so, why?
19
JAN
2008
POSTED BY: GREG BOYD
Annihilationism is the view that whoever and whatever cannot be redeemed by God is ultimately put out of existence. Sentient beings do not suffer eternally, as the traditional view of hell teaches.I’m strongly inclined toward the annihilationist position. The reason is that it strikes me as the view that has the best biblical support. I’ll group the Scriptural data into 16 points. (For a fuller exposition of this, see the essay “The Case for Annihilationism”)

1) The Bible teaches that immortality belongs to God alone (I Tim. 6:16). God graciously offers immortality as a gift to people who align themselves with his will (e.g. John 3:15–16; 10:28; 17:2; Rom. 2:7; 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:42f; 50, 54; Gal. 6:8; 1 John 5:11). Those who choose to reject God’s will are denied this gift, following the pattern of Adam and Eve when God denied them access to “the tree of life” (Gen 3:22-24). This implies that all who reject the gift of eternal life perish. The traditional view of hell, however, assumes that people are inherently immortality, which is a Greek, not a biblical, view.

2) Scripture teaches that the wicked suffer “eternal punishment”(Mt 25:46), “eternal judgment” (Heb 6:2) and “eternal destruction” (2 Thess 1:9), but this doesn’t mean the wick endure “eternal destruction.” They rather experience “eternal destruction” the same way the elect experience “eternal redemption” (Heb 5:9, 9:12). The elect do not undergo an eternal process of redemption. Their redemption is “eternal” in the sense that once the elect are redeemed, it is forever. So too, the damned do not undergo an eternal process of destruction (is that even a coherent concept?). The wicked are “destroyed forever” (Ps 92:7), but they are not forever being destroyed.

3) If read in context, its clear that Scripture’s references to an “unquenchable fire” and “undying worm” refer to the finality of judgment, not its duration (Isa. 66:24, cf. 2 Kgs 22:17; 1:31; 51:8; Jer. 4:4; 7:20; 21:12; Ezek. 20:47–48). The fire is unquenchable in the sense that it cannot be put it out before it consumes those thrown into it. And the worm is undying in the sense that there is no hope for the condemned that it will be prevented from devouring their corpse.

4) Peter specifically cites the total destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as a pattern of how God judges the wicked. The Lord turned the inhabitants of these cities “to ashes” and “condemned them to extinction” thus making “them an example of what is coming to the ungodly…” (2 Pet. 2:6). Conversely, the Lord’s rescue of Lot sets a pattern for how the Lord will “rescue the godly from trial” (2 Pet. 2:9).

5) Throughout the Old Testament the Lord threatens the wicked with annihilation. About the wicked Moses says God will “blot out their names from under heaven” (Deut. 29:20). God will destroy them “like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah…which the Lord destroyed in his fierce anger…’” (Deut. 29:23).

6) All the metaphors about God’s judgment in the Old Testament imply total annihilation. For example, in Isaiah the Lord warns that “rebels and sinners shall be destroyed together”: they “shall be consumed”; they will “…be like an oak whose leaf withers”; they will be like “tinder” and they and their work “shall burn together” (Isa 1:28, 30-31). Elsewhere Isaiah says the wicked will be like stubble and dry grass burned up in fire ( Isa 5:24).

7) In Pslams we read that the wicked shall be “like chaff that the wind drives away… the wicked will perish” (Ps. 1:4, 6). They shall be “blotted out of the book of the living…” (Ps. 69:28, cf. Deut. 29:20). God will “cut off the remembrance of them from the earth…(Ps. 34:16, 21). In the powerful words of Obediah, the wicked “shall be as though they had never been” (Obed. 16, emphasis added).

8 ) Along the same lines the Psalmist says the wicked “will soon fade like the grass, and wither like the green herb” (Ps. 37:2). They “shall be cut off…and…will be no more; though you look diligently for their place, they will not be there“ (Ps. 37:9–10). While the righteous “abide forever” (37:27), “the wicked perish…like smoke they vanish away” (Ps. 37:20); they “vanish like water that runs away; like grass [they shall] be trodden down and wither”; “like the snail that dissolves into slime; like the untimely birth that never sees the sun” (Ps. 58:7–8). And again, “…transgressors shall be altogether destroyed” (Ps. 37:38, cf. vs. 34, emphasis added). In short, the fate of the wicked is disintegration into nothingness.

9) Other Old Testament authors use similar annihilationist language to describe God’s judgment of the wicked. Daniel says rebells will be “like the chaff of the summer threshing floor” blown away by the wind “so that not a trace of them [can] be found” (Dan. 2:35). Nahum says that in the judgment the wicked “are consumed like dry straw” (Nahum 1:10). Malachi tells us that the judgment day shall come “burning like an oven” and “all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble.” The judgment thus “shall burn them up” (Mal. 4:1).

10) So too, Proverbs tells us that after God’s judgment “the wicked are no more…” (10:25, emphasis added). When God’s fury rises, “[t]he wicked are overthrown and are no more…” (12:7, emphasis added). And finally, “[t]he evil have no future; the lamp of the wicked will go out” (24:20). How can passages like this be reconciled with the traditional view that says the wicked will forever exist in conscious suffering?

11) Throughout the Old Testament we’re taught that while God’s anger endures for a moment, his love endures forever (Ps. 30:5; e.g. 2 Chr. 5:13; 7:3, 6; 20:21; Ps. 100:5; 103:9; 106:1; 107:1; Ps 118;1-4, 29; 136:10-26). How is this consistent with the traditional teaching that God’s love and anger are equally eternal?

12) Just as with the Old Testament, all the main metaphors used to describe God’s judgment in the New Testament imply annihilation. For example, John the Baptist proclaimed that “every tree…that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown in the fire” (Matt. 3:10). He announced that the Messiah “will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the grainary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” (Matt. 3:12). Jesus himself describes hell as a consuming fire several times (Matt. 7:19; 13:40; John 15:6) as do a number of other passages (Heb 6:8, 10:7; Jude 7, cf. Isa 33:11).

13) The New Testament describes the fate of rebells as destruction. Jesus contrasts the wide gate that “leads to destruction” with the narrow gate that “leads to life” (Matt. 7:13). So too, he tells his disciples not to fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). The implication is that God will do to the soul of the wicked what humans do to the body when they kill it. And this implies that the soul of the wicked will not go on existing in a conscious state after it has been destroyed.

Along the same lines, James teaches that God alone is able to both “save and destroy” (Jam. 4:12). Peter teaches that “destruction” awaits false, greedy teachers (2 Pet. 2:3). And Paul teaches that the quest for riches can plunge people into “ruin and destruction” (1 Tim. 6:9). Moreover, all who are “enemies of the cross” have “destruction” as their final end (Phil. 3:18–19, cf. 1:28). So too, if anyone “destroys the temple of God, God will destroy that person” (1 Cor. 3:17). With the same force the apostle teaches that “udden destruction” will come upon the wicked in the last days (1 Thess. 5:3). This day is elsewhere described as a day for “the destruction of the godless” (2 Pet. 3:7). These passages seem to contradict the traditional view that damned souls are in fact never destroyed but rather endure endless torment.

14) The New Testament also frequently expresses the destiny of the wicked by depicting them as dying or perishing. John says Jesus came so that “everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (John 3:16). Paul utilizes this same contrast when he states that while those who proclaim the gospel are a “fragrance from life to life” to those “who are being saved,” it is “a fragrance from death to death” to those “who are perishing” (2 Cor. 2:15–16). So too, Paul teaches that “the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life” (Rom. 6:23, cf. 21, 1:32). This is consistent with Jesus teaching when he says that those who try to find life apart from God end up losing it (Matt. 10:39). Many other passages depict the fate of the wicked as death as well (Ja 1:15; 5:19; 1 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 2:14. The repeated contrast in all these passages between “death,” losing life, and “perishing,” on the one hand, with “life,” on the other, seems quite incompatible with the contrast of eternal bliss with eternal pain which the traditional teaching on hell presupposes.

15) The most powerful scriptural passages that can be cited against annihilationism is Revelations 14:10-11 and 20:10. These speak of the wicked being tormented “day and night forever and ever.” Yet, these passages are not all that hard to explain. We must keep in mind that Revelation is a highly symbolic book. Its apocalyptic images should not be interpreted literally. This is particularly true of the phrase “for ever and ever” since similar phrases are used elsewhere in Scripture in contexts where they clearly cannot literally mean “unending” (e.g. Gen 49:26; Ex 40:15; Nu 25:13; Ps 24:7).

The most significant example of this is Isaiah 34:9-10, for it closely parallels the two passages in Revelation. In this passage Isaiah says that the fire that shall consume Edom shall burn “[n]ight and day” and “shall not be quenched.” Its smoke “shall go up forever” and no one shall pass through this land again “forever and ever.” Obviously, this is symbolic, for the fire and smoke of Edom’s judgment isn’t still ascending today. If we know the phrase isn’t literal in Isaiah, how much less inclined should we be to interpret a nearly identical expression literally in Revelation?

16) Finally, I find it impossible to reconcile the all important New Testament message that God is love (1 Jn 4:8, 16) with the traditional teaching that hell involves hopeless, conscious suffering. In the traditional view, the damned don’t suffer in order to learn anything. There’s nothing remedial about their pain. There’s literally no point to their suffering, other than the pain itself. And this pain is without hope of ever being terminated or relieved. How is this view at all compatible with a God whose heart was expressed on Calvary — when Jesus gave his life for these very people? Would we call a human being good or merciful – or anything other than cruel — who retaliated on his foes with this sort of unmitigated, insatiable, unending vengeance? Isn’t it more reasonable, and more biblical, to suppose that the God who gave his life for those who are damned would simply put them out of their misery if and when they became hopelessly irredeemable?

From the annihilationist perspective, God’s justice and mercy unite in condemning the wicked to extinction. He justly punishes their sin and forbids them a place within the Kingdom. And he eventually mercifully annihilates them precisely so they will not endlessly endure what the traditional view says they endure.
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
Here are some quotes from Stephen E. Alexander's article, entitled:
"Flaws in the Arguments for Annihilationism."

Beginning in the 4th century, some Christian theologians argued that when non-believers die, their souls disappear into nothingness. Several prominent evangelicals today subscribe to this doctrine of annihilationism, and their numbers are growing. Why is this doctrine so flawed, and why should we be concerned about its prevalence?

The origins of the doctrine known as “annihilationism” go all the way back to the 4th-century when a man named Arnobius first propagated a doctrine that unbelievers passed into “nonexistence” either at death or at the time of resurrection. “As to man, Arnobius . . . denies his immortality. The soul outlives the body but depends solely on God for the gift of eternal duration. The wicked go to the fire of Gehenna, and will ultimately be consumed or annihilated” (Schaff 859). It was condemned as heresy at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D. The doctrine did not reappear again in church history until at least the 12th century. Throughout church history, leading church fathers have taken a strong stand against annihilationism (or conditionalism) in favor of the traditional (orthodox) view of hell as eternal punishment (everlasting) for those who choose to reject Jesus Christ and His gracious offer of eternal life. A few of the more famous figures of Christ’s church who have given whole-hearted support to the traditional doctrine include: Tertullian, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitefield, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, and Dwight L. Moody. The Westminster Confession of Faith was very clear in its affirming of hell as eternal punishment: “but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (Grudem 1196).

This past generation has experienced the movement of men believed to be stalwart evangelicals reaching to defend annihilationism. The well-known ones include John Stott, Clark Pinnock, John Wenham, Philip E. Hughes, Steven Travis, and their numbers (those advocating “annihilationism”) appear to be growing. Why should this be so, and what is the Biblical “weight” to be given their arguments? Can it be possible that evangelicalism is being attacked from within by a low view of God and His inspired, infallible, and inerrant word?

ANNIHILATIONISM ARGUMENT #1

Our immortality is not a natural attribute of being human (is not inherent in the make-up of man as a corporal-spiritual creature) at present; so, eternal life can only be given to believers at the resurrection as God’s gift. Unbelievers will pass into destruction (annihilation) of body and soul in hell (Matt. 10:28). Only God has immortality in Himself (I Tim. 6:15-16).

RESPONSE

The eternity of God and eternal life for believers is not in doubt amongst evangelical Christians. What is at issue is whether eternity means the same in regards to “eternal punishment.” Clark Pinnock argues that if souls will exist forever, then those who reject the Gospel must be put somewhere: “I am convinced that the Hellenistic belief in the immortality of the soul has done more than anything else (specifically more than the Bible) to give credibility to the doctrine of the everlasting conscious punishment of the wicked” (252).

Louis Berkhof argues that: “God is indeed the only one that has inherent immortality. Man’s immortality is derived, but this is not equivalent to saying that he does not posses it in virtue of his creation . . . . Eternal life is indeed the gift of God in Jesus Christ, a gift which the wicked do not receive, but this does not mean that they will not continue to exist (691).

Edward Fudge, in summarizing his annihilation argument for Matthew 25:41, 46 says that unbelievers:

are banished into eschatological fire prepared for the satanic angels. There they will eventually be destroyed forever, both body and soul, as the divine penalty for sin . . . . The ‘eternal punishment’ itself is the capital execution, the everlasting loss of existence, the everlasting loss of the eternal life of joy and blessing in the company with God and the redeemed (125).

Our Lord Jesus Christ tells us perhaps as clearly as anywhere else in the Bible that the unsaved “will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46). Significant here would seem to be the parallelism. Millard Erickson holds that it (the parallelism) is of great significance:

“If the one (life) is of unending duration, then the other (punishment) must be also. Nothing in the contest gives us warrant to interpret the word (eternal) differently in the two clauses . . . . Humans were designed to live eternally with God; if they pervert this their destiny, they will experience eternally the consequences of that act . . . . It is a human’s choice to experience the agony of hell. His or her own sin sends the person there, and his or her rejection of the benefits of Christ’s death prevents escape” (1246-1247).

Finally, John tells us in Revelation 20:10-15 that first the devil is thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, to “be tormented day and night forever and ever” and a few verses later he describes unbelievers as being thrown into the same lake of fire. Robert A Peterson closes out this discussion aptly:

“This is in keeping with Jesus’ words to unsaved people, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil’ (Matt. 25:41). I conclude that Fudge’s appeal to word order in the expression, ‘The lake of fire is the second death’ to make it fit annihilationism is an evasion of the teaching of Revelation 20 (168). [Fudge argues] . . . that Revelation 20:14-15 never says that human beings are tormented for ever and ever. Technically, this is correct, but it is a case of straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel . . . . If (unbelieving humans are meant for annihilation) . . . why hasn’t John informed his readers of the change in meaning? Because there is not change in meaning; the lake of fire means everlasting torment for them, too (Fudge and Peterson 168).

The eternality of hell and its eternal punishment of the wicked could not be clearer than Christ’s own description in Mark 9:48: “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” in conjunction with Jude 7’s scenario : “[the wicked] are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” This writer must conclude, as does John Walvoord, that: “eternal punishment is everlasting, regardless of the terminology, [for] . . . it is never regarded as being terminated . . . . Doubting the matter of eternal punishment requires either doubting the Word of God or denying its literal, normal interpretation (26-27).

This writer concludes that the arguments here for annihilationism by Pinnock and Fudge are shallow and are not supported by Scripture.


I agree, they are VERY shallow, indeed.
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
Because right there in plain english, it says NADA about men being tortured forever and ever. You have to be reading that into the passage to get it out of the passage.
What part am I 'reading into' the text to make this passage...

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

... say anything that it doesn't explicitly state? If men are not found written in the Book of Life they are cast into the Lake of Fire. What is it that you 'think' it doesn't say? The Lake of Fire was prepared for the Devil and his angels and they are described as being tormented in it for ever and ever...

Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Certainly it's MEN this passage is speaking of as worshiping the Beast and his image. Men are the only ones who receive the mark of his name. Men are cast alive into the Lake of Fire and certainly we don't have any reason to believe that since their torment continues day and night with no rest: they must be receiving the same torment that the Devil and demons do: eternal conscious torment. If not, then what conclusions have you drawn from these passages and why?
 

Timotheos

New member
Here are some quotes from Stephen E. Alexander's article, entitled:
"Flaws in the Arguments for Annihilationism."

There are serious problems with Alexander's article.

Annihilationism didn't start in the 4th Century with Arnobius. There were Annihilationists before him. Alexander didn't do his homework.

Can it be possible that evangelicalism is being attacked from within by a low view of God and His inspired, infallible, and inerrant word?
No. We believe in Conditional Immortality precisely because we have a high view of scripture and we believe what it says, that there is only eternal life in Christ and nowhere else. This just seems like name calling.

Eternal life is indeed the gift of God in Jesus Christ, a gift which the wicked do not receive, but this does not mean that they will not continue to exist
That is what not having eternal life means. If this guy has a different definition of "life", he hasn't established it as fact.

“If the one (life) is of unending duration, then the other (punishment) must be also.
We are not arguing that the punishment is not eternal. We differ on the form the eternal punishment takes. You say eternal conscious torment, we say that the punishment is death, which is also eternal.

Peterson brings up the eternal fire, as if that settled the matter. Reading literally should mean "eternal torment". Doesn't Peterson know what happens to an object that is thrown into fire, even an eternal fire? Should we take this illustration of the punishment of the wicked to mean the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it says? Is this magic fire that does not consume what it burns, but merely torments it? And if this is magic fire, why doesn't the Bible tell us that?

Peterson admits that Revelation 20:14-15 never says that PEOPLE are tormented day and night forever. But he apparently wants us to believe it anyway. He tries to convince by the gnat straining, camel swallowing illustration. If the verse does not say that people go to hell where they are tormented alive forever while they are dead, how is it swallowing a camel to believe it doesn't say this?

Then he rhetorically asks "why hasn’t John informed his readers of the change in meaning?" Evidently he missed the part of the verse where John explains the lake of fire. "The lake of fire is the second death". John didn't want us to miss this, but Peterson still did.

Mark 9:48 has been explained many times before, but it still gets brought up as if this time it will work. Again, this is a reference to Isaiah 66, the fire burns DEAD BODIES, the worm consumes DEAD Bodies. This is not a reference to eternal conscious torment and it is a perfect illustration of the wicked perishing, as we say happens.

The Jude 7 is probably the worst argument that a traditionalist could make. Jude specifically says that the destruction of the wicked in Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of the coming punishment. So if Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, then the wicked will be destroyed just as we claim. If the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were tormented without being destroyed, then the claims of the ECTists are correct. Well, Sodom and Gomorrah WERE destroyed, so we know that the coming judgment involves destruction, NOT eternal conscious torment.

While he is taking the Jude passage to mean the complete opposite of what it says, he makes this claim:
Doubting the matter of eternal punishment requires either doubting the Word of God or denying its literal, normal interpretation.
No, do not deny the Word of God's literal normal interpretation. THEY do. And we don't "doubt the matter of eternal punishment, we simply agree with God's Word that eternal punishment is eternal destruction, not eternal conscious torment.
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
Obviously, you cannot read Scripture and believe that eternal conscious torment is not the fate of sinners. You have to deny Scripture means what It says or simply ignore It altogether, of which you seem to do both.
 

Timotheos

New member
Obviously, you cannot read Scripture and believe that eternal conscious torment is not the fate of sinners. You have to deny Scripture means what It says or simply ignore It altogether, of which you seem to do both.

You should re-read my post, where this is explained. Obviously you cannot read scripture which says the wicked are destroyed and are no more and also believe that the wicked are not destroyed and are kept around forever in hell being tormented. You have to deny Scripture means what It says or simply ignore It altogether, of which you seem to do both.

Jude 7 SPECIFICALLY SAYS that the punishment of Sodom which is total destruction is an example of the coming punishment. I do not know why you are not able to see what the Bible clearly states.
Is Sodom around today being tortured by God? NO! They were destroyed. That's the example Jude gives us. You have to WANT there to be eternal torture in order to read what the Bible says and see the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it says. And it is beyond bizarre for you to then turn around and say that I deny scripture.
 

God's Truth

New member
You should re-read my post, where this is explained. Obviously you cannot read scripture which says the wicked are destroyed and are no more and also believe that the wicked are not destroyed and are kept around forever in hell being tormented. You have to deny Scripture means what It says or simply ignore It altogether, of which you seem to do both.

Jude 7 SPECIFICALLY SAYS that the punishment of Sodom which is total destruction is an example of the coming punishment. I do not know why you are not able to see what the Bible clearly states.
Is Sodom around today being tortured by God? NO! They were destroyed. That's the example Jude gives us. You have to WANT there to be eternal torture in order to read what the Bible says and see the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it says. And it is beyond bizarre for you to then turn around and say that I deny scripture.

The people of Sodom and Gomorrah lived on in the spirit.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Going in circles.....

Going in circles.....

I resonate with Boyd's Open Theism, but disagree with him, Sanders, Pinnock on this subject.

Ah, apparently these open theists accept the scriptural and philosophical conclusion of souls actually suffering a final and eternal 'death', a disintegration of individuality, an actual extinction of a particular personality coming to an end. You have presuppositions and assumptions that give you a different view. Do you have proof that a soul cannot actually disintegrate, be destroyed, become extinct, be truly terminated from existence?

Even beyond these more petty side-details, we've already covered the insanity of ECT Here.

You can disagree if you like, but know that all points of view or beliefs are SUBJECT to change. It does come back to semantics, point of view, school of thought, opinion, speculation at the end of the day. That's the peculiar thing about 'interpretation'. Soul-death or Universalism is much more sane or logical than the traditional concept of ECT, which is really no better than a medieval torture chamber, despite your disagreement. All you have is a 'belief'. It might be argued other points of view are just 'beliefs' as well, so that gets no one anywhere really....since they don't absolutely KNOW. A subtle agnosis here behind all the religious fanfare might actually be a 'salvation' most are unware of.




pj
 

God's Truth

New member
Not according to Jude or Genesis.

Jude and Genesis do not say we do have spirits that live on after the death of the body.

I have given you scriptures about our spirits living on, but you choose to dismiss them.

There were those who disobeyed and died before Jesus came to earth, though they were dead their spirits went to a prison, unlike the spirits of the righteous. After Jesus was crucified, he preached to those who were dead, he preached to the spirits in prison, the spirits of those who had died and disobeyed long ago (see 1 Peter 3:18-19). Those people who disobeyed and died before learning of Jesus...Jesus preached the gospel to them, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit (1 Peter 4:5-6). For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God, even those who lived and died before Jesus.
 
Last edited:

God's Truth

New member
Ah, apparently these open theists accept the scriptural and philosophical conclusion of souls actually suffering a final and eternal 'death', a disintegration of individuality, an actual extinction of a particular personality coming to an end. You have presuppositions and assumptions that give you a different view. Do you have proof that a soul cannot actually disintegrate, be destroyed, become extinct, be truly terminated from existence?

Even beyond these more petty side-details, we've already covered the insanity of ECT Here.

You can disagree if you like, but know that all points of view or beliefs are SUBJECT to change. It does come back to semantics, point of view, school of thought, opinion, speculation at the end of the day. That's the peculiar thing about 'interpretation'. Soul-death or Universalism is much more sane or logical than the traditional concept of ECT, which is really no better than a medieval torture chamber, despite your disagreement. All you have is a 'belief'. It might be argued other points of view are just 'beliefs' as well, so that gets no one anywhere really....since they don't absolutely KNOW. A subtle agnosis here behind all the religious fanfare might actually be a 'salvation' most are unware of.




pj

Man cannot kill the body with the spirit. If man can kill someone's body, but not their spirit...how do you get that that person's spirit is not living on after the death of the body?
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
clarity......

clarity......

Man cannot kill the body with the spirit. If man can kill someone's body, but not their spirit...how do you get that that person's spirit is not living on after the death of the body?

I don't think you're following. See my previous posts on ECT linked earlier here (which is a compile of some of my posts made previously in this thread).

I was describing the position of 'soul-death' (call it 'annihilation' if you like) which is the complete, final and eternal destruction (disintegration) of a soul. Souls who suffer this 'second death' are NO MORE. They no longer exist as living conscious individual personalities. They have fully 'perished'. Those who suffer the 'second death' do not live on at all, in any form whatsoever, except perhaps in other's memories and the collective consciousness. Is this clear? In other words, at the time of a soul's event of 'dying' (disintegration).....its conscious existence/personality...is dissolved (no matter how long it lives on in a spirit or ethereal form after physical death). Following? (this is the view of 'annihilation' as described by the author of the thread and others taking on this 'interpretation' of scripture)

~*~*~

Now provided you have read and 'understand' my broader views and insights upon the subject already shared, you'll see I also explore and expound a purely spiritualist view, which does hold that souls continue on after physical death, and continue to progress towards greater spiritual purity and perfection, either in the spirit-world and/or within a program of continual re-incarnations. In this sense, souls are more or less eternal, and further have immortality-potential, as offspring of 'God'. This view generally does not accept a concept of 'annihilation', especially if it is more 'universalist' in nature, where all souls eventually/ultimately fulfill the purpose of their existence, and attain union/harmony with Source.



pj
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
Jude 7 SPECIFICALLY SAYS that the punishment of Sodom which is total destruction is an example of the coming punishment. I do not know why you are not able to see what the Bible clearly states. Is Sodom around today being tortured by God?
Actually, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are in hell, awaiting judgment, when they'll be cast into the Lake of Fire to be tormented for ever and ever in flames that never go out and with worms eating them which never die. How you cannot understand Scripture is WAY beyond me. Being 'destroyed' in this temporal realm of time and space is quite different than being destroyed in the spirit realm of eternity. You simply avoid understanding that difference because it doesn't fit your phony theology du jour.
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
I was describing the position of 'soul-death' (call it 'annihilation' if you like) which is the complete, final and eternal destruction (disintegration) of a soul. Souls who suffer this 'second death' are NO MORE. They no longer exist as living conscious individual personalities. They have fully 'perished'. Those who suffer the 'second death' do not live on at all, in any form whatsoever, except perhaps in other's memories and the collective consciousness. Is this clear? In other words, at the time of a soul's event of 'dying' (disintegration).....its conscious existence/personality...is dissolved (no matter how long it lives on in a spirit or ethereal form after physical death). Following? (this is the view of 'annihilation' as described by the author of the thread and others taking on this 'interpretation' of scripture)
Which scripture(s) have you 'interpreted' to mean soul-death? I don't see such nonsense anywhere in The Holy Bible.
 
Top