Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[ok doser]

I didn't see anyone talking about "timmy's dopey thread".

It certainly wasn't the thread Artie referred me to.

ok, so if not the OP, what do you think is the "topic at hand" that's not being discussed?

 

[glorydaz]

are you suggesting that God would guide us to act against His nature? :freak:

I'm suggesting you don't know what you're talking about from one minute to the next.

God giving instructions to men about forgiving each other has nothing to do with repentance unto salvation.

He also changes the rules depending on who He is addressing.

Those under the law had to forgive in order to be forgiven.
Those under grace do NOT.

 

[glorydaz]

ok, so if not the OP, what do you think is the "topic at hand" that's not being discussed?

Still confused, huh? The topic is not about anyone's empathy, or artie, or what we think of killers and rapists. It's about whether ECT is Biblical or merely a doctrine of men that has fallen away from the truth.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What "greater torment" would that be without God's mercy exactly

This would be unknowable because it is not possible. God would not take action apart from His nature, and He is merciful and longsuffering. That’s why it’s such heinous blasphemy to misrepresent the scriptural doctrine of ECT (though as I’ve said, that’s a horrible acronym for a problematic label).

and why is it not possible that God can actually subject all back unto Him?

This, like so many other queries that are based on human speculation according to a corrupted heart and mind, is a question of plausibilities that belies an understanding of God’s eternal noumenon relative to created phenomenon.

The functional answer is something like this... Those who were brought into a lapsed form of phenomenal existence in creation who are those eventually suffering spiritual death until their physical death and are in hades and then cast into the lake of fire, are not in the eternal noumenon of God that is compatible with this created reality of existence.

IOW... These would never have existed in the original creation if had never lapses, so they are not included in the new heavens and new earth as the new creation. So their existence after the new creation is one in which they have no “place” to be. They have no correlation of their ontology to any form of tangible reality. They were never to have existed. Their reality was only contingent upon their origin in sin and evil (both of which are privations, not stand-alone things. They are a something like a hole or void or chasm is a something.

This (if someone can perceive it) is what scientifically positing multi-verse theory is all about. The multiversity of all contingent potentialities and plausible possibilities is solely within the eternal mind of God. There is an attempt to make this external to God within tangible reality to establish multiple parralel universes that each have different characters and outcomess.

These false hypostases are not “the all” in scripture. They have no authentic phenomenal existence relative to the new heaven and the new earth. That would require for them to be IN Christ. Hypostatically joined. Translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son. Seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Living and moving and having THEIR BEING in Him.

All the coulda-woulda-shoulda in the world is not valid. It’s an attempt via corrupt human epistemics to project our self-righteous standards upon God as though man is somehow more holy and moral than the one true and living God.

Be assured that any question or thought or comment that exalts man’s presumed superior morality of thought and deed above God’s is rooted in a total lack of understanding of God and an exaltation of our own self-righteous alternatives. We could not have created, nor could we have established a new creation when the original lapsed from spiritual death and sin brought on by man. And it’s this pride of life that is the source of such questions and comments, etc.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You're taking our Lord's admonition to us for forgiving other men's trespasses against US, and using it as some criteria that binds God Himself.

Are there different levels of righteousness, and so God holds himself to a higher standard of righteousness than He does His creation? Or is there only one standard of righteousness, and He is that standard?

I'd watch out saying what was impossible for God, were I you.

It is impossible for God to count the number of hairs on the Boogieman's head, because Mr. Boogieman doesn't exist

It is impossible for God to make a square circle, because a circle, by definition, has no corners, and a square, by definition, has four corners.

Speaking of salvation....

Matthew 19:25-26
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.​

I'd wager that "all things" in this passage doesn't actually mean "all things", because, as I pointed out above, there are things that are impossible, even for God.

Also, there's a difference between "possible" and "just".

 

[Arthur Brain]

do you ever get the feeling that he's just a total fraud, a troll, that none of what he presents as his past is true?

And there you are again with the smarting and projection. What have I claimed to be on here exactly? Some guy in a high flying job? An astro physicist or the like? A marine or something?

Nope, don't need to. Get a grip dude. Your trolling on here is all on you, nobody else.

 

[Arthur Brain]

This would be unknowable because it is not possible. God would not take action apart from His nature, and He is merciful and longsuffering. That’s why it’s such heinous blasphemy to misrepresent the scriptural doctrine of ECT (though as I’ve said, that’s a horrible acronym for a problematic label).



This, like so many other queries that are based on human speculation according to a corrupted heart and mind, is a question of plausibilities that belies an understanding of God’s eternal noumenon relative to created phenomenon.

The functional answer is something like this... Those who were brought into a lapsed form of phenomenal existence in creation who are those eventually suffering spiritual death until their physical death and are in hades and then cast into the lake of fire, are not in the eternal noumenon of God that is compatible with this created reality of existence.

IOW... These would never have existed in the original creation if had never lapses, so they are not included in the new heavens and new earth as the new creation. So their existence after the new creation is one in which they have no “place” to be. They have no correlation of their ontology to any form of tangible reality. They were never to have existed. Their reality was only contingent upon their origin in sin and evil (both of which are privations, not stand-alone things. They are a something like a hole or void or chasm is a something.

This (if someone can perceive it) is what scientifically positing multi-verse theory is all about. The multiversity of all contingent potentialities and plausible possibilities is solely within the eternal mind of God. There is an attempt to make this external to God within tangible reality to establish multiple parralel universes that each have different characters and outcomess.

These false hypostases are not “the all” in scripture. They have no authentic phenomenal existence relative to the new heaven and the new earth. That would require for them to be IN Christ. Hypostatically joined. Translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son. Seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Living and moving and having THEIR BEING in Him.

All the coulda-woulda-shoulda in the world is not valid. It’s an attempt via corrupt human epistemics to project our self-righteous standards upon God as though man is somehow more holy and moral than the one true and living God.

Be assured that any question or thought or comment that exalts man’s presumed superior morality of thought and deed above God’s is rooted in a total lack of understanding of God and an exaltation of our own self-righteous alternatives. We could not have created, nor could we have established a new creation when the original lapsed from spiritual death and sin brought on by man. And it’s this pride of life that is the source of such questions and comments, etc.

Okay, so why again is it that God can't subject all back unto Himself again?

(Break it down a bit, ya know, like in English)

 

[Arthur Brain]

no, thank God He finally made me see my sins through your trolling

Oh give it up with the projection for sanity's sake.

:freak:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Are you talking about a refining fire...now that would be God administering mercy, as I see it.

What would be the point of this fire?

The fire is God. He is omnipresent. So there is no presence wherein He would not be present in some manner. His enopion (presence) in this case is puros (fire). It’s the purifying that He administers externally, for the lost cannot have God’s attributes administered to them internally. That was forfeited in their physical life.

The point of the fire is that God’s presence is still mercy, and thus merciful. This is the mercy that pushes back the consequences of sin (the condition) for the unredeemed. It is the only thing that abates what would be exponentially greater torment. The torment is the aeviternal presence of their sin. It’s their everlasting state of being apart from the prosopon of Christ.

I'm sorry if I seem dense,

Not at all. This is extensive and extended lexical explication of what many Greek and Hebrew words mean in correlation and application. Few could or would be able to understand this. You’re actually very spiritually intuitive.

but if the flames are not only mercy but forgiveness, then it's not actually forgiveness in the true sense of the word, is it?

It is the only remaining post-judgment functional means of setting their sin apart from them in any manner or to any degree. Sin is in their nature, so this is God setting their very nature apart from them by Himself as the fire. It’s the only parallel to authentic salvation that they can ever experience.

Forgiveness is not what most conceptualize. It’s a setting apart of resulting offenses by someone for their own sake. The fire is the only thing that will ever do that in any way.

So these people who are in this state, why aren't they able to eat of the tree of life in the ages to come?

Because their ontology was never changed in their physical life. They’re not compatible with the sacrifice for sin (the state of being).

Revelation 22:1-3
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:​

This is specifically what the redeemed are saved from and to. HIS servants. Not the servants of themselves.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Okay, so why again is it that God can't subject all back unto Himself again?

(Break it down a bit, ya know, like in English)

Because they have not been purged of the evil and sin that God cannot, by nature, take back within Himself from the lapsed cosmos. Evil and sin are privation. God is wholeness. Lack and missingness cannot be within God. So they must remain external to Him in His presence (enopion) instead of being in the presence (prosopon) of the Lord (Christ).

So God has made provision for the lost to be able to have His everlasting mercy administered to them, as they are incompatible to return to God AND incompatible to be in the new heaven and the new earth.

These are ontological considerations, not economic issues. It isn’t because of anything anyone ever “did” as an act. It’s because their states of being is not compatible with God who is holy and righteous. Man must be purified. And the everlasting flames of the lake of fire do that in spite of the inhabitants’ procivities otherwise. They have never known God. Yet He condescends to still administer His love via mercy for all everlasting.

The “really short” answer is:

There’s garbage in unredeemed man that can’t be gotten out of him except through the specific means of salvation God has prescribed in this life; and God can’t take that garbage into Himself and remain holy and righteous. All the redeemed have been purged by the finished work of Christ as final sacrifice, so theirs has already been hauled off.

The question is actually from man’s vanity. To ask why God couldn’t do something other than what He does is a challenge that is beyond our pay grade, presuming that we are more righteous and/or moral than He.

 

[glorydaz]

Are there different levels of righteousness, and so God holds himself to a higher standard of righteousness than He does His creation? Or is there only one standard of righteousness, and He is that standard?

Don't try to change the subject. The verse you used had nothing to do with God's standard, but it was the standard He was giving to His followers. Those who were under the law.

It is impossible for God to count the number of hairs on the Boogieman's head, because Mr. Boogieman doesn't exist

It is impossible for God to make a square circle, because a circle, by definition, has no corners, and a square, by definition, has four corners.

That's just plain silly, and adds nothing to this conversation.

Scripture says All things are possible with God.

I'd wager that "all things" in this passage doesn't actually mean "all things", because, as I pointed out above, there are things that are impossible, even for God.

Also, there's a difference between "possible" and "just".

So you're saying all things will NOT be under His feet? :think:

Col. 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.​

I know there are differences between possible and just, but that doesn't mean all things are NOT possible with God.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

All things under His feet doesn't mean all things?

“The all” is a specific construct. Yes, all things are under His feet. The lost will be in subjection. They would never yield if it weren’t for judgment.

It seems like satan would have a lot to gloat over if that's the case. :think:

Not at all. He’ll be in no condition to gloat. This qualitative existence in the afterlife was made for him.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The fire is God. He is omnipresent. So there is no presence wherein He would not be present in some manner. His enopion (presence) in this case is puros (fire). It’s the purifying that He administers externally, for the lost cannot have God’s attributes administered to them internally. That was forfeited in their physical life.

The point of the fire is that God’s presence is still mercy, and thus merciful. This is the mercy that pushes back the consequences of sin (the condition) for the unredeemed. It is the only thing that abates what would be exponentially greater torment. The torment is the aeviternal presence of their sin. It’s their everlasting state of being apart from the prosopon of Christ.



Not at all. This is extensive and extended lexical explication of what many Greek and Hebrew words mean in correlation and application. Few could or would be able to understand this. You’re actually very spiritually intuitive.



It is the only remaining post-judgment functional means of setting their sin apart from them in any manner or to any degree. Sin is in their nature, so this is God setting their very nature apart from them by Himself as the fire. It’s the only parallel to authentic salvation that they can ever experience.

Forgiveness is not what most conceptualize. It’s a setting apart of resulting offenses by someone for their own sake. The fire is the only thing that will ever do that in any way.



Because their ontology was never changed in their physical life. They’re not compatible with the sacrifice for sin (the state of being).



This is specifically what the redeemed are saved from and to. HIS servants. Not the servants of themselves.

So basically, people can only be reconciled while in a physical body before physical death is the essence here. After that, it's a whole load of stuff about how God is being merciful while bestowing fire/presence that can't redeem but would be worse for the "lost" if it wasn't there.

You've got a grand lexicon at your disposal PPS but throwing scrabble tiles about at random would make more sense.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I did...hoping you'd stay there when you went on this "empathy" tirade. Unfortunately, no one seemed to be buying it over there, either. You'd rather come over here and scold us for not cheering for the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment.

Scold us for not "laughing" about people suffering for eternity.

Ohhhhh. I didn’t know you rejected ECT. Now your questions come into better focus. You’re asking from the perspective of not accepting ECT.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because they have not been purged of the evil and sin that God cannot, by nature, take back within Himself from the lapsed cosmos. Evil and sin are privation. God is wholeness. Lack and missingness cannot be within God. So they must remain external to Him in His presence (enopion) instead of being in the presence (prosopon) of the Lord (Christ).

So God has made provision for the lost to be able to have His everlasting mercy administered to them, as they are incompatible to return to God AND incompatible to be in the new heaven and the new earth.

These are ontological considerations, not economic issues. It isn’t because of anything anyone ever “did” as an act. It’s because their states of being is not compatible with God who is holy and righteous. Man must be purified. And the everlasting flames of the lake of fire do that in spite of the inhabitants’ procivities otherwise. They have never known God. Yet He condescends to still administer His love via mercy for all everlasting.

The “really short” answer is:

There’s garbage in unredeemed man that can’t be gotten out of him except through the specific means of salvation God has prescribed in this life; and God can’t take that garbage into Himself and remain holy and righteous. All the redeemed have been purged by the finished work of Christ as final sacrifice, so theirs has already been hauled off.

The question is actually from man’s vanity. To ask why God couldn’t do something other than what He does is a challenge that is beyond our pay grade, presuming that we are more righteous and/or moral than He.

If the lake of fire actually purifies (and that makes sense as even physical fire can be a cleanser) then why is it not possible for all to be restored? You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So basically, people can only be reconciled while in a physical body before physical death is the essence here. After that, it's a whole load of stuff about how God is being merciful while bestowing fire/presence that can't redeem but would be worse for the "lost" if it wasn't there.

A fair enough summary.

You've got a grand lexicon at your disposal PPS but throwing scrabble tiles about at random would make more sense.

Yeah, it’s the curse of having to represent lexicography to a wide audience, and it gets all verbose. There’s really not much option, but I understand the frustration.

And Scrabble tiles are very flingable, BTW. LOL

 

[JudgeRightly]

Don't try to change the subject.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that ideas have consequences.

The verse you used had nothing to do with God's standard, but it was the standard He was giving to His followers.

So what I said is not true, that automatic forgiveness keeps people from Christ?

Glory, does automatic forgiveness of the wicked teach them that repentance is necessary or unnecessary for forgiveness?

And if unnecessary, then what does our automatic forgiveness of others teach them about God's requirement for repentance towards God in order to be saved?

Those who were under the law.

Can we not learn truth from things that were written to others? Especially when it comes to an important topic such as forgiveness?

That's just plain silly, and adds nothing to this conversation.

Scripture says All things are possible with God.

So are "all" things possible, or are "only some" things possible.

OR

Could it be that "all things" doesn't actually mean literally all things, but instead means "all things [to the extent defined by the context]"?

So you're saying all things will NOT be under His feet? :think:

Col. 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.​

No, I'm saying you're overestimating "all things."

Or does "all things" include God the Father?

I know there are differences between possible and just, but that doesn't mean all things are NOT possible with God.

Consider this:

All things that are possible are possible with God.

All things that are not possible are not possible with God.

Boogie Man's hair is not possible, square circle is not possible.

Taking "all things" literally includes those two things.

Therefore, either the Bible was lying when it says "all things", or it uses "all things" as a figure of speech."

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

If the lake of fire actually purifies (and that makes sense as even physical fire can be a cleanser) then why is it not possible for all to be restored? You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here.

Because the purifying is for an ontology, not economies of action. They cannot be translated into a state of being that can ever be purifiED. The fire must be perpetually purifying for them to have ANY relief from torment.

Their state of being cannot ever be changed into one that doesn’t need purifying. Believers are purifiED. Resting in the imputed righeousness of Christ.

The key is the hypostasis of the Son as Theanthropos. The lost have no access to the divine nature itself, so the only compensatory thing available to them is the flames of the fire. They can never be cleansed and whole by the final sacrifice of Christ. They must bear their own sin and its guilt in and of themselves. The fire makes that bearable in their hopeless state of being.

 

[ok doser]

It's about whether ECT is Biblical ....

asked and answered

six years ago

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because the purifying is for an ontology, not economies of action. They cannot be translated into a state of being that can ever be purifiED. The fire must be perpetually purifying for them to have ANY relief from torment.

Their state of being cannot ever be changed into one that doesn’t need purifying. Believers are purifiED. Resting in the imputed righeousness of Christ.

The key is the hypostasis of the Son as Theanthropos. The lost have no access to the divine nature itself, so the only compensatory thing available to them is the flames of the fire. They can never be cleansed and whole by the final sacrifice of Christ. They must bear their own sin and its guilt in and of themselves. The fire makes that bearable in their hopeless state of being.

So they have a bearable state of torment then? How is the fire perpetually purifying? It's not purifying anything if it doesn't result in purification. You might as well argue that a dry well isn't dry if there's a drop of water that hits it every so often. This is as verbiose as it gets but it doesn't really mean anything.