what it really comes down to is they want you to suffer
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
no that is the point, It is not what we want or don't want. It is shown in scripture. We, both sides of his debate, have to accept it. The problem might from developing doctrine from loose rendered English from the original. Torment might not be considered torture as in the Inquisition. But torment is BAD, nobody wants it for anyone, Not God. He has done all this cosmos and died to prevent it.
If one continues to deny torment as a challenge to impune God goodness, the real agenda is shown.
If one continues to deny torment as a challenge to impune God goodness, the real agenda is shown.
BigBoof1959
New member
Can anyone explain to me why a person in the "paradise" of "Abraham's bosom" would need to have a huge gulf set before them to stop them from leaving and going over to join the "rich man"? If you answer that they have the same heart as Paul when he said he was willing to be separated from Christ if his countrymen could be saved, then does that mean that the constant agony that Paul felt over his fellow Jews is going to last forever for those in Abraham's bosom, just like the "rich man's" woe?
We have been programmed to read the scriptures with "an eternal punishment" filter on our eyes. I had read through the bible six or seven times before someone pointed out to me a passage that I had always skimmed right over. The "glasses" I had on my eyes as I read this passage in the past was along the lines of Jude 1:7 -
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 verse, and so many others like it, caused me to skim right over another set of verses that tell a different story.
Ezekiel 16:53 -55-
When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them:
That thou mayest bear thine own shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, in that thou art a comfort unto them.
When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.
I've heard all kinds of "explanations" on how this passage is talking about restoring "another Sodom" that came to be built at a later time than the original one (if that is the case why wasn't this "later Sodom" well enough known for wickedness to be able to provide a comparable example to Jerusalem's sins?), or that it is the city that is going to be restored and returned to it's former estate (a city that has been destroyed along with it's people no longer has a "captivity". If it is proposed that Lot and his descendants are "the captivity" that will be returned, this doesn't work because he wasn't guilty of the offenses that prompted Jerusalem to look down their noses at Sodom for in Ezekiel 16:49-50)
If God can create out of nothing, it is equally possible for Him to restore something that has perished or been destroyed.
We have been programmed to read the scriptures with "an eternal punishment" filter on our eyes. I had read through the bible six or seven times before someone pointed out to me a passage that I had always skimmed right over. The "glasses" I had on my eyes as I read this passage in the past was along the lines of Jude 1:7 -
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 verse, and so many others like it, caused me to skim right over another set of verses that tell a different story.
Ezekiel 16:53 -55-
When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them:
That thou mayest bear thine own shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, in that thou art a comfort unto them.
When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.
I've heard all kinds of "explanations" on how this passage is talking about restoring "another Sodom" that came to be built at a later time than the original one (if that is the case why wasn't this "later Sodom" well enough known for wickedness to be able to provide a comparable example to Jerusalem's sins?), or that it is the city that is going to be restored and returned to it's former estate (a city that has been destroyed along with it's people no longer has a "captivity". If it is proposed that Lot and his descendants are "the captivity" that will be returned, this doesn't work because he wasn't guilty of the offenses that prompted Jerusalem to look down their noses at Sodom for in Ezekiel 16:49-50)
If God can create out of nothing, it is equally possible for Him to restore something that has perished or been destroyed.
I would not presume to say that "God is a meany". That is blasphemous. God is just. God is.
Personally? I believe that done is done.
The biggest problem i can see is that the greek word used for eternity when speaking of our eternal life in Christ is the same word for eternity when it is combined with torment.
Its not reasonable to assume one is correct and the other incorrect just because we do not like what that means.
Its not reasonable to assume one is correct and the other incorrect just because we do not like what that means.
Indeed! However, context and intent and focus matter in the interpretation of biblical text.
AND, this is where subjectivity enters in.
The only thing I am prepared to defend is:
1. That which I believe is salvific
2. My belief in what constitutes blasphemy
I am not wise enough to joust over jots ant tittles!
That's not very nice!
So, likewise...
If someone continues to deny that the wages of sin is death rather than torment, their real agenda is shown?
For me it all comes down to this. Which doctrine has better scriptural support? There is no verse in the entire Bible that says that people go to hell when they die where they are tormented alive forever while they are dead. But there are numerous passages, I've counted close to 100, that say the wicked will perish, be destroyed, and be no more. The wicked are compared to chaff that is burned up, chaff that is blown away, ash that is blown away, a city that has been destroyed, an animal that has been slaughtered, dust, etc etc etc.
The arguments that the wicked are kept around forever in torment just do not hold water, and they contradict all of the passages that specifically say that the wicked will not be kept around forever, plus they contradict all of the passages that specifically say the wicked will perish and be destroyed, plus they contradict all of the passages that say only the righteous will have eternal life.
The only reason to hang onto the doctrine of ECT is that you don't want to give up your tradition.
Reread what I wrote. I think you misunderstood. My argument is that the scriptures show that Conditional Immortality is the right doctrine and scriptures show that ECTism is the wrong doctrine.
You need to read more carefully.
And that is not what we are doing. What passage do you have in mind? Let's discuss it.
It is not reasonable for you to assume that you are correct because you don't like what we are saying.
I agree that eternity is forever. But there is not one passage in the entire bible that says the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive for all eternity.
Perhaps if you were a little less didactic....?
The doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment was invented by Augustine in order to combine his prior belief in the immortality of the soul (which he got from Platonic teaching) with his mother's Christian belief. The doctrine gained ground in the early middle ages (aka "Dark Ages") when few people could read the Bible for themselves, and the Church had a motive for allowing people to believe that they would burn alive in hell if they diobeyed the Church. The money flowed into the Church and the Church became powerful.
Now, there is no reason to continue the belief in ECT, people can read the Bible for themselves and see that the wages of sin is death, not eternal conscious torment. But for some reason, people don't read the Bible for themselves. They prefer to continue to believe the tradition. We might as well be in the Dark Ages.
Now, there is no reason to continue the belief in ECT, people can read the Bible for themselves and see that the wages of sin is death, not eternal conscious torment. But for some reason, people don't read the Bible for themselves. They prefer to continue to believe the tradition. We might as well be in the Dark Ages.
I don't know what that means. Perhaps if you read what I wrote, rather than what I didn't write....?
"designed or intended to teach"
So you think I should just let others teach, even though they teach ECT contrary to what the Bible teaches? I suppose that's one way to go.
Hell is not eternal, but the lake of fire is, and youve already been given the verse - its in revelation, yet you glossed it.
If it were not for that verse, i would believe in annihilation myself , yet cannot because of it and its pretty clear.
So in order for me to believe life with Christ is eternal, i have to also believe that there is eternal life apart from Him, because the bible says so and uses the same word to signify eternal in both, so its neither reasonable nor logical to believe otherwise, unless i were to believe that eternal life with Christ were also limited.
Come on, The Bible says the lake of fire is the second death. The second death is eternal. You don't have to believe that there is eternal life in hell to believe that there is eternal life with Christ. The punishment is death, and death is eternal. It is not reasonable nor logical to assume that if people have eternal life in Christ there must also be people who have eternal life without Christ. He is the life, there is no life outside Him. No life = death. And it's eternal.
Did you want to talk to me about hell, or the lake of fire, you said hell before.
Hell is thrown into the lake of fire and is no more.
Now lake of fire is eternal seperation from God - just like everlasting life, is eternal togetherness with God.
There are those who see themselves as teachers and others who see themselves as seekers.
As a seeker, I prefer my teachers to be other seekers, sharing what they've learned and sharing that which still puzzles them.
Those who bang around saying, in effect, "I know it all! You should listen to me!" tend to turn me away.
:IA: Now listen! You need to just settle down, keep your mouth shut and learn from the experts.
The trouble is, that is not what the Bible says about the lake of fire. According to the Bible, the lake of fire is the second death. Death is not eternal separation from God, death is eternal separation fron life.