Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Timotheos]

Derf, I am still commenting on your objections. Here is your second statement, the one I was really thinking of when I said, "there are real problems with your objections":

Body and Soul are "destroyed" in hell. But if "destroy" means the same as "kill", then you have to deal with the idea that the body is killed, then it is killed again. On the other hand, if "destroy" means something different than "kill", which might be why Jesus used the different word, it suggests that there is something else going on in the second part of the verse than in the first.

You are correct that I have to deal with the "problem" that the body is killed and then killed again. But clearly this is not a problem for a Bible Believing Christian, is it? The Bible clearly speaks of resurrection from death, judgment, and a second death for those who reject Christ, right? Do ECTists believe in the resurrection of the dead, and judgment? I didn't think that ECTists rejected THAT as well as the destruction of the wicked. How deep does the error of ECTism reach? Do they really deny the resurrection of the dead? Do they really deny the second death? Do they deny that Christ will return to judge the quick and the dead? Am I only seeing the tip of the error of the ECTist iceberg? Help me out here! How much of the Bible do you want me to reject so that I can come to agree with the ECTist error?

 

[Timotheos]

Besides the insanity on ECT already shared here (blog post of earlier archived posts from this thread, and additional comments/links), I haven't seen anywhere where Tim lets the devil go scot free. All actions have their consequences and and such judgments are meted out in perfect fairness, justly and mercifully, if any being could repent or return to God, affording them salvation. If a being has reached a point of no return, and embraced iniquity whole-heartedly (and is beyond repentance), then the end result or fruit of such is 'death', so that 'death' is the consequence(penalty). The 'death' is final, eternal in that sense, in that the soul is disintegrated, terminated, wiped out, no more. The same powers that can create or form a soul, can also uncreate or disintegrate a soul.

Thanks.

I do not believe that the devil gets off scot free. On the contrary, I believe the devil will be destroyed along with all of the wicked, just as the Bible says. In other words, I am a simple Bible Believing Christian. Of course, this also requires that I reject the unbiblical doctrine of eternal torture.

 

[Timotheos]

Knight didn't feel the post was large enough for a ban, and that is his prerogative. It is his forum.

I think this is an interesting topic, one that is worth discussing and researching.

 

[ok doser]

Please do your homework

did it

BEFORE you object to the truth.

your "truth"

the truth of tards :chuckle:

There is only eternal life in Christ, and nowhere else. The only way to HAVE eternal life is on the condition that you received eternal life from Christ. Therefore, Immortality is CONDITIONAL upon receiving Jesus Christ. This doctrine is called "Conditional Immortality".

:darwinsm:

 

[ok doser]

they want the others to suffer

i don't want anyone to suffer

but i recognize that many will reject Christ's free gift of salvation

 

[Derf]

Derf, I am still commenting on your objections. Here is your second statement, the one I was really thinking of when I said, "there are real problems with your objections":


You are correct that I have to deal with the "problem" that the body is killed and then killed again. But clearly this is not a problem for a Bible Believing Christian, is it? The Bible clearly speaks of resurrection from death, judgment, and a second death for those who reject Christ, right? Do ECTists believe in the resurrection of the dead, and judgment? I didn't think that ECTists rejected THAT as well as the destruction of the wicked. How deep does the error of ECTism reach? Do they really deny the resurrection of the dead? Do they really deny the second death? Do they deny that Christ will return to judge the quick and the dead? Am I only seeing the tip of the error of the ECTist iceberg? Help me out here! How much of the Bible do you want me to reject so that I can come to agree with the ECTist error?

If you want to converse with ECTists in general, then you'll lose your local audience. If you want to have a conversation with me, then leave off the whining about ECTists.

In my statement, which goes with the others in context, I pointed out that a second death may not mean the same thing as total annihilation just like the first death did not mean that.

If we use the Rich Man/Lazarus story to show what happens after the first death, presumably before the resurrection, as Lazarus was still in Abraham's bosom, both Lazarus and RM were conscious, as was Abraham.

The other option is that it is after the resurrection, but then why would the brothers of RM not be with him already?

Can we use the RM/Laz story to show anything? I know that's been discussed a fair amount already, there's some that say it is just a parable. I would argue that if it's a parable, it seems like it wold have no meaning to the Jews it was intended for, unless it had that aspect of truth to it, that there is some conscious torment some time.

If you say that the dead are consciously tormented before the resurrection, then you have to deal with the problem of "death" not meaning "lack of consciousness". And if it can mean that prior to the resurrection, then it could mean that after the resurrection (in the second death).

If you say that the dead are not consciously tormented before the resurrection, then the story loses it's time-basis as the bothers are still alive the first time.

Or you could say that Jesus was using a story that held no meaning to the people of His day. But that seems a little hard to believe.

 

[genuineoriginal]

it says there are two kinds of people awakening

Dan 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
some to everlasting life,
and
some to shame and everlasting contempt.

but at least you have both on the same side,
now you just have to get the fact that it is talking
about the two kinds of people awakening

Yes, two kinds of people awake for the judgment.
Some will receive everlasting life.
Those that do not receive everlasting life are not going to live forever in the lake of fire, they will be destroyed forever.

I am running out of crazy ideas of how to interpret this verse

The only crazy way to interpret it is to claim that both groups get eternal life when the verse clearly distinguishes between gaining eternal life and an alternative.

Christians have shame and everlasting contempt
God has shame and everlasting contempt
every one but the sinners have shame and everlasting contempt.

The righteous (saints, God, angels, etc.) will know the way the wicked are despised and held in contempt forever.
The wicked are destroyed, so they won't be around forever to feel any of the suffering you want them to feel.

 

[ok doser]

they want the others to suffer

...they won't be around forever to feel any of the suffering you want them to feel.

what makes you guys think this has anything to do with a desire for suffering on the parts of those who read scripture differently than you?

is it because your interpretations are based primarily on your desires?

i believe that's called projection

How much of the Bible do you want me to reject so that I can come to agree with the ECTist error?

what makes you think anybody wants to make you agree with them?

once again, looks like projection to me

 

[Timotheos]

If you want to converse with ECTists in general, then you'll lose your local audience. If you want to have a conversation with me, then leave off the whining about ECTists.

In my statement, which goes with the others in context, I pointed out that a second death may not mean the same thing as total annihilation just like the first death did not mean that.

If we use the Rich Man/Lazarus story to show what happens after the first death, presumably before the resurrection, as Lazarus was still in Abraham's bosom, both Lazarus and RM were conscious, as was Abraham.

The other option is that it is after the resurrection, but then why would the brothers of RM not be with him already?

Can we use the RM/Laz story to show anything? I know that's been discussed a fair amount already, there's some that say it is just a parable. I would argue that if it's a parable, it seems like it wold have no meaning to the Jews it was intended for, unless it had that aspect of truth to it, that there is some conscious torment some time.

If you say that the dead are consciously tormented before the resurrection, then you have to deal with the problem of "death" not meaning "lack of consciousness". And if it can mean that prior to the resurrection, then it could mean that after the resurrection (in the second death).

If you say that the dead are not consciously tormented before the resurrection, then the story loses it's time-basis as the bothers are still alive the first time.

Or you could say that Jesus was using a story that held no meaning to the people of His day. But that seems a little hard to believe.

In Matthew 7:13-14 you can plainly see that destruction is contrasted with life. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man does not change that. The other option that you didn't explore is that the parable of Lazarus is a story from the pharisees that Jesus turned around on them. There is evidence that the story was around before Jesus used it. Clearly Matthew 7:13-14 shows that the wide road leads to destruction and not eternal life in hell.

 

[Timotheos]

Derf, I am continuing to comment on your objections to the long post in which I set out some of the Biblical Proof against ECTism.

3 Matthew 13:30
First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up,
The greek word that is used is katakausai, which comes from katakaio, and it means to consume by burning, burn down. The tares are gone after they burned. The meaning is the same as in the last 2 verses, that the wicked will be destroyed. As Jesus says in verse 40,
So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.

Just as the tares are destroyed by burning, the wicked people will be destroyed by burning, at the end of the age.

4 Luke 13:3
I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Here, the greek word for perish is apoleisthe, which comes from the word apollumi, and means "to utterly destroy, kill, slay, demolish. Apoleisthe is the future tense form of apollumi which means will be utterly destroyed or will be killed.
What apoleisthe does not mean is "will be tortured alive forever."

It's interesting that you focus on the word "perish".

Actually, I did not "focus on the word perish". In Matthew 3:12 I talked about the word "katakausai", and in Luke 13:3 I talked about the word perish. I didn't "focus" on either apoleisthe (perish) or katakausai (burn down). I just looked at what the Bible said and agreed with what it said.

How is "perish" presented? It is clarified with an adverb: "likewise". What does "likewise" refer to? for both Vs 3 and Vs 5, "likewise" refers to people that had "perished", meaning they had been killed. This is obviously not the same as being cast into hell for a limited time of torment any more than it is the same as being cast into hell for eternal torment.

That's true, and it is the point. Just as the Galileans were killed, that is what will happen to those who refuse to repent. We all agree that the Galileans were not tortured alive.

In fact, I think we would all agree that the Gallileans in vs 2 and the men of Jerusalem in vs 4 still had yet to face their final judgment.

Yes, but Jesus said that their deaths were an example of what will happen to those who refuse to repent.

So "perish" is definitely NOT an utter and absolute and final destruction, at least not in this case.

Just as the Galileans perished, so will the unrepentant perish. You haven't shown that perish does not mean "to die".

 

[ok doser]

matthew 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

who will be wailing and gnashing their teeth?

 

[chrysostom]

God does not want you to suffer -
and -
God can do something about it -

the second death -

 

[ok doser]

God does not want you to suffer -
and -
God can do something about it -

the second death -

so God's ok with you suffering for a while, just not eternally?

 

[musterion]

Purgatory is the individual suffering and paying for sins that went unforgiven at the Cross. It's a false gospel unto itself.

 

[chrysostom]

so God's ok with you suffering for a while, just not eternally?

yes -

it is used to purify you -
if -
you respond in the right way -

 

[ok doser]

so God's ok with you suffering for a while, just not eternally?

yes -

does timmy know this?

 

[chrysostom]

does timmy know this?

I think so

 

[ok doser]

and he (and you) are comfortable conceiving of a God who allows for limited suffering?

but not eternal, because that would be mean?

 

[chrysostom]

and he (and you) are comfortable conceiving of a God who allows for limited suffering?

but not eternal, because that would be mean?

nothing wrong with suffering -
if -
it has purpose -

 

[ok doser]

why do you think eternal suffering doesn't have purpose?

does executing child molesters have purpose?