Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Rosenritter]

The irony is that I was referring to you before, when I said that I didn't hold a person as being any less if they were persuaded after carefully considering evidence. You had said that you had changed positions at one point... I had assumed that you used careful consideration. When someone says something kind to you and you return it with an insult it doesn't lend much weight to what you say thereafter.

If you want to be able to persuade someone, you need to be able to recognize when they do have valid points instead of arguing lost battles. Examples of the use of "death" as metaphor in common speech are not irrelevant. Christ was speaking to common people using common speech.

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Question: Are you really contesting that Romans 7:9 uses the words "alive" and "died" as metaphor in this passage? "Sin" is not even a person ... if someone said that this "theology thread came to life" or that "they killed the topic" would you be confused? I don't even understand your question.

You asked, "how were these people dead, physically?"
Eph 2:1 And He has made you alive, who were once dead in trespasses and sins,

I'm not sure you are getting the point. They were not dead physically... for if they were, that would be literal. Paul makes use of metaphor. Christ has made them alive (given them the promise of Eternal Life), who were once dead (doomed by the condemnation of death) because of the (wages) of trespasses and sins.

Question for you Way2Go.... when considering the phrase "This is the second death" what does the "This" refer to? By this I mean that it seems that your choice of "place" is rather arbitrary. Why not say that "death is an action?" There is just as much support for saying that the second death is the LITERAL ACTION of throwing someone into a lake of fire as there is as saying that death is the LITERAL LOCATION of the lake of fire.

This is a good instance of where that example (that you deemed irrelevant) applies. If I said "It's death out there" it might be because there was literal mortal danger present. It doesn't mean the place itself is death (or named "Death") but the figure of speech called "metaphor" is being used.

If you are inflexible (or stubborn) in something basic you will have little chance of persuading anyone that you are being reasonable in something more complex. An "aggressive ignorance" approach will not be successful in either short or long term.

Ah... almost lost this in that staccato of in-line comments:

Your question read: "the dead in "Let the dead bury" are what , physically dead? that's what Timotheos believes."

Let those who are "dead" (under the curse of death, metaphorically dead) bury those that have "already died" is the meaning. It is unclear what you are arguing. If you demand that the meaning of "dead" be consistent in both places the passage becomes nonsensical with any interpretation. Obviously, people only bury that which will succumb to physical decay.

You don't want to appear argumentative for the sake of argument. Consider what you say to make sure it doesn't cut equally back against you. For example, although you said "have an opinion and be able to back it up" you didn't back up your opinions. For example, you stated "Death here is a place" but where was the proof to distinguish it from other options?

In mathematics statements can be made, but then procedure is followed to prove or disprove those statements bit by bit to prevent error from slipping in. There is the potential for a 5000+ post forum like this is to become more like a Philosophy class or Mars Hill, where everyone says whatever they like without being held to standards of logic or evidence. Is God the author of confusion? Shall we choose math, or philosophy?

 

[way 2 go]

The irony is that I was referring to you before, when I said that I didn't hold a person as being any less if they were persuaded after carefully considering evidence.

to me that still sounds like truth does not matter to you

You had said that you had changed positions at one point... I had assumed that you used careful consideration.

absolutely still looking for someone to prove Mid Acts Dispensation wrong.
truth matters

If you want to be able to persuade someone, you need to be able to recognize when they do have valid points instead of arguing lost battles. Examples of the use of "death" as metaphor in common speech are not irrelevant. Christ was speaking to common people using common speech.

I'm waiting for a valid point.

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Question: Are you really contesting that Romans 7:9 uses the words "alive" and "died" as metaphor in this passage? "Sin" is not even a person ... if someone said that this "theology thread came to life" or that "they killed the topic" would you be confused? I don't even understand your question.

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

I was once alive apart from the law
physically or spiritually ?


and I died ?
physically or spiritually ?

You asked, "how were these people dead, physically?"
Eph 2:1 And He has made you alive, who were once dead in trespasses and sins,

I'm not sure you are getting the point. They were not dead physically... for if they were, that would be literal. Paul makes use of metaphor. Christ has made them alive (given them the promise of Eternal Life), who were once dead (doomed by the condemnation of death) because of the (wages) of trespasses and sins.

Eph 2:1 And He has made you alive, who were once dead in trespasses and sins,

not future alive not future death

He has made you alive, present tense
once dead, past tense

he makes us spiritually alive today
Rom 8:9

and the opposite is spiritually dead
Rom 8:6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death

Question for you Way2Go.... when considering the phrase "This is the second death" what does the "This" refer to?

Rev 21:8 ...lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

By this I mean that it seems that your choice of "place" is rather arbitrary.

not arbitrary

place.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them

Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.

Why not say that "death is an action?"

dying is an action

This is a good instance of where that example (that you deemed irrelevant) applies. If I said "It's death out there" it might be because there was literal mortal danger present. It doesn't mean the place itself is death (or named "Death") but the figure of speech called "metaphor" is being used.

not a spiritual subject so not a good example

1Jn 5:12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
1Jn 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

Ah... almost lost this in that staccato of in-line comments:

Your question read: "the dead in "Let the dead bury" are what , physically dead? that's what Timotheos believes."

Let those who are "dead" (under the curse of death, metaphorically dead) bury those that have "already died" is the meaning. It is unclear what you are arguing. If you demand that the meaning of "dead" be consistent in both places the passage becomes nonsensical with any interpretation. Obviously, people only bury that which will succumb to physical decay.

every one dies
we all die physically we are all "under the curse of death"
so that does not differentiate from the person he is talking
to from anyone

You don't want to appear argumentative for the sake of argument. Consider what you say to make sure it doesn't cut equally back against you. For example, although you said "have an opinion and be able to back it up" you didn't back up your opinions. For example, you stated "Death here is a place" but where was the proof to distinguish it from other options?

place:

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

In mathematics statements can be made, but then procedure is followed to prove or disprove those statements bit by bit to prevent error from slipping in. There is the potential for a 5000+ post forum like this is to become more like a Philosophy class or Mars Hill, where everyone says whatever they like without being held to standards of logic or evidence. Is God the author of confusion? Shall we choose math, or philosophy?

 

[Nihilo]

For instance, does the law create sin? 'Round here, it seems like we're supposed to read Paul saying, "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died," as if the law itself is where sin comes from. What else does Paul say? "For without the law sin was dead." What? Sin is a reality, with or without quote-unquote the law. The law is holy because it accurately identifies sin. In fact, in so doing, sin became "exceeding sinful." It was always there, ever since Adam opened "Pandora's box." Sin is not something created by the law. The law identifies sin. It's as if we're all blind, and that's OK, so long as we don't stumble in the treacherous parts, and those parts are sin, and they fortunately have a spotlight on them, so that you'll never be surprised by it.

But the reality is that we all stumble because we're all sinners; we all trespass. Trespass. Moral or fatal sins are those with no---eternal, therefore---endpoint for resolution, in your soul. Your soul will spend eternity futilely pursuing resolution of your fatal sins, and even in eternity, you'll run out of time trying to do it, because they don't resolve, logically; they can't. Sins and sin don't and doesn't resolve because they and it can't. It's like dividing a number by zero. It will never stop, and there's no way out of it. You can't get out, and the only way to be freed from it is if the Maker Himself sacrifices His Son for your sins, and He has done that, and all you have to do is believe in Him and get baptized, or at least intend to whenever possible, although, it's possible to be validly baptized anywhere there is another person willing to do it seriously.

 

[freelight]

Lets have another look and research our own 'assumptions'......

Lets have another look and research our own 'assumptions'......

If in Christ ones life is eternal, or forever, so is ones separation from God in the lake of fire.

The same greek word is used to signify forever. You can use google to check it out if you are actually interested.

'Forever' is an English word with its own implications and is NOT the word used by the original writers,...you'll want to study up on the greek word 'aionios' and its derivitives, how its used as an 'adjective' and what it indicates for a better understanding of the passages in 'context'.

See: Stop the Insanity

My former commentary on ECT here for newbies oly:

The issues of ECT, the definition of 'death' and other moral/philosophical issues about these terms and their 'conditions' is what is being researched here, since in investigating a matter we also use our reason, conscience, logic, intelligence and spiritual discernment,....and upon issues that are unknown or unknowable, remain open to continue research on these matters. Also its a sign of intellectual honesty to assume a purely 'agnostic' position, and admit "I don't know" on a particular issue. Again, stay open-minded and willing to consider new perspectives, points of view, etc.

If this is simplified to being a matter of 'life' or 'death' in a temporal or eternal sense, this can vary if we are speaking metaphorically, unless considering 'life' or 'death' in the 'ultimate' (or 'absolute') sense. If there is an actual gift of eternal life (if this is 'aionios' life, it indicates life associated with an 'age' or 'dispensation', not necessarily never-ending) or more definitvely....a putting on of immortality (God's own divine nature)...then when a soul becomes 'immortal' as God is 'immortal',...only then does it become like 'God', no longer subject to death. Note, 'aionios' life, does not refer to 'immortality', it only refers to an age-enduring dispensation or indefinite period of time. Seeing this 'distinction' is key in this debate.

For an awesome study of conditional immortality go here. - you wanted so called 'biblical' evidence? See for yourself.

Now if we consider those who have wholeheartedly given themselves over to iniquity and made a complete and final CHOICE to self-destructby the full fruition of embraced sin,....then the ultimate result/consequence or fruit of such sin is 'death',...if it is 'ultimate',...it is a final and irreversible death, dis-integration of existence. Such is the 'second death',...final, eternal in consequence. This would be the general view of 'conditional immortality'. Some objections would be if such a state of 'death' is possible for a soul, since some 'assume' a soul is somehow eternal, but the Jewish view of the soul does NOT teach this, it was a philosophical concept introduced by other cultures, especially eastern perhaps Vedic and notably greek philosophical influences. Many protestants are accepting 'conditional immortality' in an effort to be more 'biblical', if one is especially being true to the textual proofs of a soul NOT being inherently immortal, and being able to actually DIE. Beyond the technicalities involved here and arguments over terms and meanings,....it still stands that the NT teaches that immortality is a gift of God, it is something that The Immortal ONE can alone give, where one becomes a partaker of the divine nature, and shares the same quality of divine life that God has, and that God IS. 'Aionios' life pertains to an age....it is not necessarily 'eternal' or 'never-ending'. Therefore using the English word 'forever' for 'aionios' is not altogether correct and has perpetuated notions of ECT. However,...what is most important is for a soul to become a partaker of the divine nature, to actually PUT ON IMMORTALITY. It is only when a soul does this, that it is no longer subject to death! So, its this merging with the very nature of God, and sharing in that divnity that really counts here, if you want a life that has the qualities, nature and attributes of divinity.

 

[CherubRam]

CherubRam, I think both sides are in agreement that God will take away their lives. Isn't the disagreement as to the nature of death, whether it is conscious experience or the absence of experience?

A body and spirit makes a soul. God kills both the body and spirit. In other words, the persons no longer exist.

 

[Timotheos]

Its completely biblical and i hope to God that people wake up before its too late.

The trouble I have with the penalty for sin being eternal conscious torment in hell when you die is that it is not stated anywhere in the Bible. However, the penalty for sin being death is clearly stated in the Bible. I also hope that people will wake up and accept what the Bible says instead of the false tradition of eternal conscious torment in hell. That's why I started this thread.

If you think that Eternal Conscious Torment is Biblical, state the verse from the Bible that says that sinners go to hell when they die where they will experience eternal conscious torment. Since we've been through this song and dance before, don't post a verse that doesn't say that and then claim that it does. And don't bother making the claim that you have already posted a verse that says that, because we both know that there is no verse in the Bible that says that sinners go to hell when they die where they are tortured alive forever while they are dead.

 

[Timotheos]

I think I may have seen this posed as a question earlier, may I present it again please?

Source text: Revelation 20:9-10 KJV
(9) And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
(10) And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

This is not a question about the beast and false prophet. It does not say they lived in the fire for 1000 years. However, many people read that passage and conclude that God is a being that will torment at least one being (that is, the devil) without end. If so, then it would indicate that "eternal conscious torment" is true, that it is an existing element of God's character.

I did read an earlier post of yours where you asked "What happens if you throw a toad into a lake of fire?" That answer is pretty simple, it burns up and dies. Anyone who has read Lord of the Rings should also be familiar with the concept of what happens when someone is thrown into a lake of fire. If the beast and false prophet represent persons (or peoples) then I understand your reasoning that if they were thrown into that fire, they also burn up and die.

However, the specific case we are reading of here is the devil. If devils are haunting a house we don't burn down the house hoping to be able to kill it. They aren't normally killed by fire. Granted, they aren't normally hurt by fire either, so the torment is either something other than fire or God will have to change the nature of their existence so that fire causes torment.

But if God has the character of one that inflicts never ending torment on anyone or anything, then that is an element of his character and perhaps reading other passages in such a light may be justified. I think that Way2Go (and others here) understand it in this way. Can you show anything from scripture that would demonstrate that such an assumption is mistaken?

Thank you. Yes, I've seen Revelation 20:9-10 used to try to justify the doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell, but as you can see it doesn't say that. Apart from the problems inherent in taking the Apocalypse of John literally and ignoring the genre, even if Rev. 20:9-10 were taken completely literally, it doesn't SAY that humans will go to hell when they die where they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. It says the devil, the beast, and the false prophet. Three entities, and one of these has seven heads. This one verse is supposed to overturn all of the rest of the Bible which clearly states in many places that the wicked will be destroyed? Wow. That is a lot to expect from one verse about a seven headed beast!

So, Yes. I CAN show something from scripture that shows that Way2Go (and others) are mistaken in their assumption, and I have shown them MANY verses from Scripture that shows that their assuption is mistaken. John 3:16 says that those who believe in the Son of God will not perish but will have eternal life. Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death, and tells that the reward is eternal life. 2 Thess 1:9 says that the penalty is destruction. Second Peter is FILLED with references to the destruction of the wicked. Jesus said that that both the body and the soul of those in Gehenna would be destroyed, in Matthew 10:28. Jesus said the way is wide that leads to destruction and narrow that leads to life in Matthew 7:13-14.

I've even been banned when I posted a portion of all of the verses that prove that the wicked will be destroyed, because the post was too long, and it was REALLY LONG. The Biblical evidence that the wicked will be destroyed is overwhelming. It is only sheer stubbornness that prevents Way2Go and others like him from accepting the truth.

 

[Timotheos]

I do NOT believe that when Jesus said "Let the dead bury the dead" that the dead undertakers were physically dead, and I've told Way2Go that before so he has NO excuse for this lie. I said before and I'll say it again (and I'll be ignored again) that Jesus was speaking metaphorically! Way2Go cannot understand metaphors.

 

[Zeke]

I do NOT believe that when Jesus said "Let the dead bury the dead" that the dead undertakers were physically dead, and I've told Way2Go that before so he has NO excuse for this lie. I said before and I'll say it again (and I'll be ignored again) that Jesus was speaking metaphorically! Way2Go cannot understand metaphors.

Same concept being referred to in Galatians 4:23-28, the first born of the temporal flesh that inherits corruption, mentally blind/dead to the spiritual kingdom within Matt 11:11 Luke 17:20-21, subjected to physical death verses the spiritual born of Divine conscience that transcends the limitations of religious dogmas that major in the least level understanding mentioned about Johns state of mind/theology 2Cor 3:6 stuck in the letter, who are still looking for a outward Savior to herd their flesh/persona/strawman through the gate of immortality that is guarded by spiritual flaming fire which blocks their entry into the mentality of Luke 1:37.

 

[Timotheos]

Same concept being referred to in Galatians 4:23-28, the first born of the temporal flesh that inherits corruption, mentally blind/dead to the spiritual kingdom within Matt 11:11 Luke 17:20-21, subjected to physical death verses the spiritual born of Divine conscience that transcends the limitations of religious dogmas that major in the least level understanding mentioned about Johns state of mind/theology 2Cor 3:6 stuck in the letter, who are still looking for a outward Savior to herd their flesh/persona/strawman through the gate of immortality that is guarded by spiritual flaming fire which blocks their entry into the mentality of Luke 1:37.

To me, It makes perfect sense for Jesus Christ to refer to people who will not receive eternal LIFE as "the dead". It doesn't mean that they are dead at the time that they are alive, and it doesn't NEED TO. People's confusion about "Let the dead bury the dead" means that SOME people are not ready for books that are written for grown-ups.

 

[Ben Masada]

No one has contested whether the punishment of sin is eternal. Although there seems to be an agreement that the eternal punishment is death, some people are saying that it means the cessation of conscious existence, others the perpetual continuation of conscious existence, albeit in torment.

If you are going to say that it is "completely biblical" then please support that statement with biblical examples that can be discussed.

There is nothing eternal about man but death. As an analogy, when Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden, the reason was to prevent them from eating from the tree of life and live forever. (Genesis 3:22,23) It means that, to live forever, it belongs with God only. As man is concerned, only death is eternal.

 

[freelight]

One life to live, and then its "curtains".......

One life to live, and then its "curtains".......

There is nothing eternal about man but death. As an analogy, when Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden, the reason was to prevent them from eating from the tree of life and live forever. (Genesis 3:22,23) It means that, to live forever, it belongs with God only. As man is concerned, only death is eternal.

Hi Ben,

As we've been over before,...there are Jewish views/beliefs/perspectives that do not agree with yours, since some Jews do indeed believe in resurrection and some kind of afterlife - as in 'Olam ha ba' (the world to come) ,...and some esoteric Jews who hold to the Kaballah...accept the doctrine of 'reincarnation/rebirth' - see: Gilgul. I don't think you're view of 'eternal death' with no resurrection or afterlife, is the commonly accepted view among Jews, orthodox or liberal, since other allowances for 'resurrection' and 'gilgul' are acceptable too. To confirm your view, do you still hold that there is no resurrection or afterlife whatsoever, and that man only has death to look forward to after one mortal incarnation? Thank you.

 

[patrick jane]

The trouble I have with the penalty for sin being eternal conscious torment in hell when you die is that it is not stated anywhere in the Bible. However, the penalty for sin being death is clearly stated in the Bible. I also hope that people will wake up and accept what the Bible says instead of the false tradition of eternal conscious torment in hell. That's why I started this thread.

If you think that Eternal Conscious Torment is Biblical, state the verse from the Bible that says that sinners go to hell when they die where they will experience eternal conscious torment. Since we've been through this song and dance before, don't post a verse that doesn't say that and then claim that it does. And don't bother making the claim that you have already posted a verse that says that, because we both know that there is no verse in the Bible that says that sinners go to hell when they die where they are tortured alive forever while they are dead.

Tell her Timmy !!!

 

[Crucible]

The trouble I have with the penalty for sin being eternal conscious torment in hell when you die is that it is not stated anywhere in the Bible. However, the penalty for sin being death is clearly stated in the Bible. I also hope that people will wake up and accept what the Bible says instead of the false tradition of eternal conscious torment in hell. That's why I started this thread.

If you think that Eternal Conscious Torment is Biblical, state the verse from the Bible that says that sinners go to hell when they die where they will experience eternal conscious torment. Since we've been through this song and dance before, don't post a verse that doesn't say that and then claim that it does. And don't bother making the claim that you have already posted a verse that says that, because we both know that there is no verse in the Bible that says that sinners go to hell when they die where they are tortured alive forever while they are dead.

The Bible is not the only source of information. Nowhere is it stated within that if it's not stated in Scripture, it is not true.

If there is a place of eternal salvation, then it stands to reason that there is a place of eternal damnation. That's what justice is- a balance. If death is the only threat, then that doesn't make Jesus' gift- and God's wrath- very meaningful.

When Jesus talks about it being better for one to be dismembered then to end up in Hell, he is not simply speaking of dying- which is essentially what Hell-deniers ultimately say when they try to make it all about the Valley of Hinnom. If one is dead, it makes no difference if one is buried or thrown into a pit of filth.

 

[Rosenritter]

Dear Way 2 Go,

You aren't getting the answer you want because your question itself is flawed. That is, it presumes what you are trying to prove in the first place. Paul was not dead, he was using "dead" as a metaphor. Unless you can prove that he could not have been speaking in metaphor, any objections how may make are invalid.

Instead I will make a request. You keep using a term that I don't see in in scripture, "spiritual death." Obviously this is a term of philosophical construction - in other words, it has been invented. Please define your meaning (and explain how it would differ from metaphor) and then show me exactly how you are constructing this term from scripture. In other words, what necessitates that you must create an entirely new term that isn't already covered by the common use of language of either literal or metaphorical?


Skipping to our passage in Revelation, you seem to maintain that "death" is a specific place. However, from the context of the passage, it seems rather that it isn't the place that is death, but that being cast into that place is what results in death. Grammatically, being "cast into the lake of fire" and "having their part in the lake of fire" seems to work equally well. Is there any meaningful difference between that and what you were saying above? (or in other words, is there really any need for disagreement on that?)

Anyway... please teach us how this idea of a separate "spiritual death" comes from scripture. To me it looks like an unneeded philosophical construct. If it was meant to be doctrine, why wouldn't the phrase be used in scripture?

 

[Rosenritter]

The Bible is not the only source of information. Nowhere is it stated within that if it's not stated in Scripture, it is not true.

If there is a place of eternal salvation, then it stands to reason that there is a place of eternal damnation. That's what justice is- a balance. If death is the only threat, then that doesn't make Jesus' gift- and God's wrath- very meaningful.

When Jesus talks about it being better for one to be dismembered then to end up in Hell, he is not simply speaking of dying- which is essentially what Hell-deniers ultimately say when they try to make it all about the Valley of Hinnom. If one is dead, it makes no difference if one is buried or thrown into a pit of filth.

Crucible, there's a flaw in your logic. While it is true that something doesn't have to be in scripture to be true, that does not mean that something must be true because it is not in scripture. Kangaroos may live in Australia (true, but not in scripture) but that does not mean that Unicorns live in Australia.

Earlier I saw others point out that "eternal damnation" does not necessarily mean "eternal conscious torment" (damnation does not require torment)... so unless that is sorted out one way or another, reasoning that "eternal salvation requires eternal damnation" doesn't further the topic any further. Regardless, I would contest your reasoning. God does not require balance. God may be all powerful, that does not mean that he will allow the Devil to be all powerful to balance things out.

For accuracy's sake I should point out that your recollection of Christ's passage is a little different. Jesus didn't say better to be "dismembered" than to end up in hell... he said it was better to lose a hand or an eye than to be case into hell fire whole. Dismemberment usually implies death.

Mark 9:47-48 KJV
(47) And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
(48) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

When someone loses a hand or an eye they usually live through the experience. However, when someone is cast into a huge fire they usually die. That passage is often used to contrast life (minus a limb) with dying with all limbs intact.

 

[Crucible]

Dismemberment means to lose a limb, or otherwise a part of one's body.

In some cultures, dismemberment casts out demons from possessed souls. Thought that might be interesting to think about, given Jesus' teaching.

 

[Zeke]

To me, It makes perfect sense for Jesus Christ to refer to people who will not receive eternal LIFE as "the dead". It doesn't mean that they are dead at the time that they are alive, and it doesn't NEED TO. People's confusion about "Let the dead bury the dead" means that SOME people are not ready for books that are written for grown-ups.

Luke 15:45 being another example of using death in a metaphoric way.

 

[Rosenritter]

Timotheos, I appreciate your response but it seems to have missed something.

Per Revelation 20:9-10, the problem presented for you is that if what God would do to one person he could do to any person. It defines his character. So even if you reason that "only the devil will endure Eternal Conscious Torment" you still have a God of Eternal Conscious Torment.

Yes, you do have many (many) passages saying that the wicked will be destroyed. You needn't quote them all here. However, aren't you forgetting something? The devil is the definition of wicked. If the devil will not be destroyed, than what of the rest of the wicked?

Yes, Romans 6:23 does say that the wages of sin is death. But hasn't the devil also sinned? Why would God punish one person for sinning with death but the other with eternal conscious torment? If God's ways are equal, then shouldn't the punishments be similar? If "death" means "eternal conscious torment" where the devil is concerned, how can you be sure that it doesn't also mean "eternal conscious torment" for everyone else?

What I'm trying to point out is that regardless of weight of evidence of one side, even one contradiction would disprove your case. If the devil hath immortality and will not be destroyed by fire, and if he is cast into fire and tormented for ever, then he is not consumed by that fire and "Eternal Conscious Torment" is not only proved, but possibly implied for other fallen angels and even the race of Adam as well.

Are there other passages on the judgment that might be relevant here that we could use for context? I am not willing to accept a "biblical contradiction" explanation so easily. Are we misreading this somehow?

 

[Rosenritter]

Personally I was thinking of Exodus 12:33, "And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men."

Would you do me a favor and post the text you were referring to? I don't have a Luke 15:45 so I figure that's probably a typo. Oops, never mind, I think I found it:

Luke 15:32 KJV
(32) It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

The son was not literally dead, but he was dead to his family (having left them for good) and in danger of literally dying from the famine.