Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Arthur Brain]

careful Jordan - I'm sensing a tardfest coming on

I've seen this behavior from artie before - when he gets upset he starts to become abusive and irrational

best to break it off now

The day when you become rational and non abusive would be a good day indeed. Now why don't you run along and express your glee at the prospect of someone's burning agony or something. No need to derail this thread with the usual troll antics.

:e4e:

 

[Jordan Fontenot]

Which version? Which translation? They're not all the same. As my previous link showed, the majority of the early church didn't glean such from the original texts so which version are you reading and why should your interpretation stand above theirs?

I read the greek

 

[doloresistere]

Er, people don't choose eternal torment by not being perfect sinless beings. You argue that a loving God doesn't force people into loving Him, that He doesn't force them into hell, yet by creating billions of fallible beings and setting the parameters where a handful of years and a 'choice' is required to escape the most indescribable fate how is God not doing just that? It amazes me that people blithely accept a doctrine of the most atrocious cruelty and associate it with a loving God.

I usually disagree with you 95% of the time but you are right on target with this subject, especially this post.

 

[godrulz]

Thanks for the link. It seems that the doctrine of eternal torment is of pagan origin. Not only did Christianity change the world around it, pagan elements of the world changed Christianity. The word that Christ uses for the duration of torment is temporary. He could have used a word that meant non-ending punishment, but he didn't. That was a doctrine that was espoused by the Pharisees.

For every anti-trinitarian, anti-hell link on the internet with shoddy pseudo-scholarship, there is a wealth of counter arguments based on sound, conservative, biblical scholarship.

The arguments against biblical, historical, orthodox views might sound good, but they are like the KJV-only guys stretching credulity with their non-evidence based pseudo-arguments.

 

[godrulz]

I read the greek

The way they interpret Scripture requires twisting and rationalization. They commit exegetical, logical fallacies. If we take Scripture at face value (including original languages) and understand semantical range of meaning with words (hence context and all relevant verses vs proof texts/eisegesis are needed), their view crumbles as wishful thinking, not Word of God.

Using their logic, there is no way in plain English to teach everlasting, conscious punishment (whether they agree with it or not). I take God at His Word without trying to rationalize it away to tame God and make Him more palatable for those who exalt sentimental luv or divine love and holiness.

 

[doloresistere]

For every anti-trinitarian, anti-hell link on the internet with shoddy pseudo-scholarship, there is a wealth of counter arguments based on sound, conservative, biblical scholarship.

The arguments against biblical, historical, orthodox views might sound good, but they are like the KJV-only guys stretching credulity with their non-evidence based pseudo-arguments.

I said nothing about the trinity. Where is your counter argument against the points that the link made?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I read the greek

So what exalts your interpretation over such people as Gregory Of Nyssa etc?

 

[Arthur Brain]

The way they interpret Scripture requires twisting and rationalization. They commit exegetical, logical fallacies. If we take Scripture at face value (including original languages) and understand semantical range of meaning with words (hence context and all relevant verses vs proof texts/eisegesis are needed), their view crumbles as wishful thinking, not Word of God.

Using their logic, there is no way in plain English to teach everlasting, conscious punishment (whether they agree with it or not). I take God at His Word without trying to rationalize it away to tame God and make Him more palatable for those who exalt sentimental luv or divine love and holiness.

How you conflate an objection to eternal toment with 'sentimental luv' is as tiresome and deluded as it ever was to begin with GR.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I usually disagree with you 95% of the time but you are right on target with this subject, especially this post.

5% agreement is pretty good odds for me overall....

 

[Timotheos]

The way they interpret Scripture requires twisting and rationalization. They commit exegetical, logical fallacies. If we take Scripture at face value (including original languages) and understand semantical range of meaning with words (hence context and all relevant verses vs proof texts/eisegesis are needed), their view crumbles as wishful thinking, not Word of God.

Using their logic, there is no way in plain English to teach everlasting, conscious punishment (whether they agree with it or not). I take God at His Word without trying to rationalize it away to tame God and make Him more palatable for those who exalt sentimental luv or divine love and holiness.

The wages of sin is death. The plain reading agrees with us, we agree with it. But your side keeps insisting that death isn't death but eternal life in hell instead. Now you claim a plain reading supports your side. It doesn't.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The wages of sin is death. The plain reading agrees with us, we agree with it. But your side keeps insisting that death isn't death but eternal life in hell instead. Now you claim a plain reading supports your side. It doesn't.

Well, everyone dies on this plane and as far as ECT goes I certainly agree insofar as that is a warped doctrine. But why insist that the 'second death' means either a 'life' of some sort (in eternal suffering) or another cessation of existence? Annihilation presents its own problems in certain regards as I'd argued with Krsto.

Presuming he still holds the same view, (by all means correct me if this has changed Krsto) he believes that children who die simply go out of existence as they've not repented, or had chance to. What's there to say to a parent who's lost a dearly loved child if that's your position as well? It may not be so could you clarify where you stand?

 

[doloresistere]

Refraining from sending someone to everlasting physical torment is sentimental love? What an odd thing to say.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Refraining from sending someone to everlasting physical torment is sentimental love? What an odd thing to say.

GR seems to think it's akin to Hollywood schmaltz or something. It's the umpteenth time he's used the "comparison"...

 

[godrulz]

I said nothing about the trinity. Where is your counter argument against the points that the link made?

Unitarian sites sound good, but they are flawed. Anti-hell sites might sound good on the surface, but they lack credibility.

We could dissect the whole link, but who would care? There is more than enough available info to know that the traditional view is biblical.

Catholics quote Church Fathers has persuasive, authoritative, but many were wrong, contradicted each other, etc.

You can find people in Church history to agree with you, but many who will not, so only the Bible properly interpreted is the final authority. If Origen agrees with you on some point, but the Bible teaches otherwise, you are both wrong, early church father or not.

 

[godrulz]

Refraining from sending someone to everlasting physical torment is sentimental love? What an odd thing to say.

You have no concept of holiness, justice, wrath, love if you think a loving God could not or would not send Satan and the lost to everlasting separation.

Of course, a wrong view of man/creation/spirit/soul does not help.

The arguments for universalism are based on a wrong view of God's love and holiness and the reality of fallen creation/redemption. It is akin to thinking we know better than God or making a god in our own desirous image.

 

[godrulz]

So what exalts your interpretation over such people as Gregory Of Nyssa etc?

ECFathers contradicted each other, changed their views, were imprecise in their views, were wrong about some things, but right about other things.

The Bible is the only credible, objective authority. CFs are all over the map. You can always find someone to agree or disagree with you. There is truth and error, those with sound doctrine, and those promoting heresy.

 

[godrulz]

The wages of sin is death. The plain reading agrees with us, we agree with it. But your side keeps insisting that death isn't death but eternal life in hell instead. Now you claim a plain reading supports your side. It doesn't.

We have shown you a semantical range of meaning with death. You flat out have a wrong view of it and simply beg the question/circular reasoning to retain it.

You are selective in your evidence an impervious to all relevant evidence (you ignore what contradicts your view and cling to misunderstandings to retain it).

If eternal life is forever, then eternal punishment is forever. You equivocate and make forever mean something different to suit your view, not because grammar demands it. The cumulative evidence negates your view, but you simply spout the same wrong view on death and think you have conquered the world.

WOT>

 

[Arthur Brain]

ECFathers contradicted each other, changed their views, were imprecise in their views, were wrong about some things, but right about other things.

The Bible is the only credible, objective authority. CFs are all over the map. You can always find someone to agree or disagree with you. There is truth and error, those with sound doctrine, and those promoting heresy.

Where do you think the bible came from GR? What actual authority do you have to dismiss the prevailing school of thought from the early church and embrace eternal torment as truth?

Heck, it's not as if you're immune from heretical accusations yourself on here.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You have no concept of holiness, justice, wrath, love if you think a loving God could not or would not send Satan and the lost to everlasting separation.

Of course, a wrong view of man/creation/spirit/soul does not help.

The arguments for universalism are based on a wrong view of God's love and holiness and the reality of fallen creation/redemption. It is akin to thinking we know better than God or making a god in our own desirous image.

What on earth concept do you have of love to confuse objections to eternal suffering with "sentimentality"?!

 

[Arthur Brain]

Unitarian sites sound good, but they are flawed. Anti-hell sites might sound good on the surface, but they lack credibility.

We could dissect the whole link, but who would care? There is more than enough available info to know that the traditional view is biblical.

Catholics quote Church Fathers has persuasive, authoritative, but many were wrong, contradicted each other, etc.

You can find people in Church history to agree with you, but many who will not, so only the Bible properly interpreted is the final authority. If Origen agrees with you on some point, but the Bible teaches otherwise, you are both wrong, early church father or not.

Which 'traditional' view would that be GR? The "modern" one? Can you debunk the link or the prevailing schools of thought at the time described, or how the doctrine of eternal torment came into being? You're all for talking about what the bible teaches yet it's apparently only the 'proper interpreters' who should be llistened to, like you I suppose? Are you fluent in Greek? More so than those in the early church? Which bible is the most accurate in translation from the original texts to English? The KJV would hardly count....