Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[TrumpTrainCA]

Timmy posted that six years ago. About a year in he threatened to "find me and hurt me" :darwinsm:

Oh my.

 

[FineLinen]

The “elect” is a pointess reference for you; for all mankind for all ages are the “elect” according to your heresy. There are no “non-elect” in Universalism, which makes there being an “elect” quite superfluous.

Dear P.P.S. The eklektos ἐκλεκτός are gathered, or picked out (chosen) by the Father "before the foundation of the world". The Source of this election is the Father's love and grace, NOT human will, but wholly from Him, thru Him & for Him. The eklektos are the first-fruits of the harvest, the malista of Abba.

There is no such animal as "non elect". Those who are not the eklektos are lost sheep who the Master of Reconciliation specializes in reaching in their apollumi condition.

He is the reconciliation for our sins, and NOT for our sins ONLY, but for the sins of the whole world

Yes, my friend, Jesus Christ is the hilasmos of the holos!

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Dear P.P.S. The eklektos ἐκλεκτός are gathered, or picked out (chosen) by the Father "before the foundation of the world". The Source of this election is the Father's love and grace, NOT human will, but wholly from Him, thru Him & for Him. The eklektos are the first-fruits of the harvest, the malista of Abba.

There is no such animal as "non elect". Those who are not the eklektos are lost sheep who the Master of Reconciliation specializes in reaching in their apollumi condition.

He is the reconciliation for our sins, and NOT for our sins ONLY, but for the sins of the whole world

Yes, my friend, Jesus Christ is the hilasmos of the holos!

What’s the name of your cult?

 

[Aimiel]

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?

Every post. :thumb:

 

[way 2 go]

hippies like to ignore those parts

artie does not quote the bible , he is arguing this from his feelings , which is not the topic.

Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not ?

Mat 25:45 Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.'
Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

Dear P.P.S. The eklektos ἐκλεκτός are gathered, or picked out (chosen) by the Father "before the foundation of the world". The Source of this election is the Father's love and grace, NOT human will, but wholly from Him, thru Him & for Him. The eklektos are the first-fruits of the harvest, the malista of Abba.

There is no such animal as "non elect". Those who are not the eklektos are lost sheep who the Master of Reconciliation specializes in reaching in their apollumi condition.

He is the reconciliation for our sins, and NOT for our sins ONLY, but for the sins of the whole world

Yes, my friend, Jesus Christ is the hilasmos of the holos!

Crack kills.

 

[way 2 go]

doctrine of ECT (though as I’ve said, that’s a horrible acronym for a problematic label).

what would you suggest we call ECT ?

eternal conscious punishment

eternal conscious seperation

 

[ok doser]

what would you suggest we call ECT ?

eternal conscious punishment

eternal conscious seperation

separation works for me, although i'm sure it will be unsatisfactory to those who choose to oppose God

 

[way 2 go]

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.

would you add to this , why redemption is not available after death ?
thank you.

 

[way 2 go]

separation works for me, although i'm sure it will be unsatisfactory to those who choose to oppose God

separation seems to be the point of all scripture .
some will choose redemption and no longer be separated from God in this life and the next
and
some like their separation from God and will forever be separated from God



Joh 3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
Joh 3:20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.

 

[way 2 go]

Well... I don’t prefer the term or concept of original sin from the Augustinian perspective, because Uncle Augies was not very good at expressing what it actually is. It’s really to be understood in the sense of negation, as in “Lack of original righteousness”. Sin isn’t a “something”, it’s something missing. So sin is a something like a hole is a something. So most confuse “Original Sin” as a weird kind of “something”, and that it was this thing that was added to man like some intangible tumor on his nature.

What I’m saying is that the missingness and lack in the unredeemed is not something that ever be filled after physical death while in their spiritual death. Thanatos (death) as a lack of communion means all that is necessary to fill that void that is sin is not available to them. Christ is the only means of administering this, and that’s done by being hypostatically joined to Him in this physical life.



It’s the difference between sin as a state of being and sinS as the resulting actions from acting.

Since the unredeemed in the lake of fire can never have their ontology changed (their ousia/being and its physis/nature), then the only relief at all is the fleeting setting apart of the torment within them from the actions they have committed. They bear the torment of the guilt and remorse, etc. This is the torment, and it’s primarily internal. Most perceive the torment as external and physical, when this is not a physical place in the sense that we understand from the cosmos.

It’s much the same idea as a hug giving some kind of external comfort that has a fleeting temporary internal effect, but the grief or pain or sadness inside is not abated. This is maybe as close as words can come to describing this.



This is Objective Justification versus Subjective Justification. Related to Unlimited Atonement, but not in the Arminian sense.

Savior of sin (the state of being).



Well... That’s my concern, too. There are too many false gospels and too much false doctrine. Few understand or even want to know the truth if it differs with their own acquired beliefs; and few have a valid source for their beliefs.

I don't often think of "sin" as a "something missing" but that is what makes a person lost

would you agree that pharaoh's hardening of his heart was , if i get what you are saying , more missing of his heart ,
an ability to hear God ?

Exo 8:13 And the LORD did according to the word of Moses. The frogs died out in the houses, the courtyards, and the fields.
Exo 8:14 And they gathered them together in heaps, and the land stank.
Exo 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart and would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

what would you suggest we call ECT ?

eternal conscious punishment

eternal conscious seperation

It needs to be a term of negation, IMHO; and eternal and aeviternal are not the same thing, so I’d prefer everlasting to the fallacious term eternal. This might prompt discussions on a delineation between the two terms, which would be helpful.

This would be a great thread topic, if it didn’t turn into a septic tank.

I’ll give it some thought rather than hastily responding. Great question.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

would you add to this , why redemption is not available after death ?
thank you.

This would require quite a lengthy delineation of Anthropology Proper (the constitution of man and the propagation of souls, etc.).

The hypostasis is the “person”, but is more literally “the underlying substanding objective reality of individual existence”. It’s very often referred to as substance, as it is for faith in Hebrews (Now faith is the substance - hypostasis - of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen).

This is the core ontology of man as “who”ness (individuality), and it underlies the ousia (the essence as wealth of beingness) as man’s “what”ness (humanity). The human hypostasis is man as a living soul; and the fact that the “who”ness is foundational for the “what”ness means Darwinian Theory is absolutely false and impossible.

The ousia (essence) of a being is its special (spee-cee-ahl, as in species) designation, and it cannot change for it is determined by that which underlies it. We are not individuals OF the human race, we are a human race because we are each individuals.

Man must be hypostatically joined to Christ while at least one aspect of life is present (either physical or spiritual), and since all are conceived in spiritual death with attendant sin (the state of being) then man is not truly a living soul (like Adam) until resurrected unto spiritual life.

Once someone is both spiritually AND physically dead, there is no means of restoring the constant communion that is spiritual life (zoe). So spiritual resurrection must occur during man’s physical life. Man is not a “real” hypostasis until he becomes a living soul as was Adam (before the Edenic lapse).

It’s a matter of lexical meaning for all the applicable words, demonstrating a functionality of divine order that was abrogated and must be restored in a specific manner. Redemption must happen exactly how God has prescribed, and it has to occur while there is physical life for spiritual life to be restored.

And all of this is why the redeemded will not be hurt of the second death. It’s also why we need not fear him who can kill the body, but him who can kill both body and soul in hell.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I don't often think of "sin" as a "something missing" but that is what makes a person lost

would you agree that pharaoh's hardening of his heart was , if i get what you are saying , more missing of his heart ,
an ability to hear God ?

Exo 8:13 And the LORD did according to the word of Moses. The frogs died out in the houses, the courtyards, and the fields.
Exo 8:14 And they gathered them together in heaps, and the land stank.
Exo 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart and would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Sin is hamartia. Hamartia is an agglutinative of a- (no/not) and meros (share/part/place). Sin is the missing share/part/place that is the void in man as a “something” that is absent.

Hamartia is a noun, and is an archer term. It refers not to merely “missing the mark”, as so many presume and also assume it’s a verb. Hamartia refers to the archer’s state of being. It means that with hamartia, it doesn’t matter if the archer is shooting or at rest or doing anything else in life. He doesn’t have the ability to hit the mark. It means the archer can’t accomplish the act of shooting the target, whether he picks up a bow or not. It’s his condition as an archer. His state of being. Any economy of action will reflect this, as the archer will NEVER be able to hit any target. Not one. Ever.

So hamartia is a privation or negation. It’s a “something” in the same sense that a hole or a void is a something. It’s a “somethinglessness”, and it’s man’s innate state of being attendant to spiritual death into which all men are conceived and born. It’s a condition in which man cannot accomplish the righteousness of God, even if all resulting actions parallel the standard of God for inner character and outer conduct.

All allegedly good and benevolent works of unredeemed man come from this source as state of being. So every seeming good work of man is sin if not redeemed. Feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked... ALL are sin if not of faith. That which is not of faith is sin.

And Believers are subject to this as well. If a work is done in faith it’s not sin. Conversely, any work that is NOT of faith IS sin. All of them. That’s because the source OF the action is the issue, not merely the economy of action.


As for Pharoah... This applies to him and his heart. Because he wasn’t under the Abrahamic faith covenant, he was unable to commune with God in spiritual death. So what you’ve said is basically accurate.

It was that which was missing in him that was the source of the disposition of his heart and his actions. It’s because of his state of being in spiritual death and sin.

 

[clefty]

This would require quite a lengthy delineation of Anthropology Proper (the constitution of man and the propagation of souls, etc.).

The hypostasis is the “person”, but is more literally “the underlying substanding objective reality of individual existence”. It’s very often referred to as substance, as it is for faith in Hebrews (Now faith is the substance - hypostasis - of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen).

This is the core ontology of man as “who”ness (individuality), and it underlies the ousia (the essence as wealth of beingness) as man’s “what”ness (humanity). The human hypostasis is man as a living soul; and the fact that the “who”ness is foundational for the “what”ness means Darwinian Theory is absolutely false and impossible.

The ousia (essence) of a being is its special (spee-cee-ahl, as in species) designation, and it cannot change for it is determined by that which underlies it. We are not individuals OF the human race, we are a human race because we are each individuals.

Man must be hypostatically joined to Christ while at least one aspect of life is present (either physical or spiritual), and since all are conceived in spiritual death with attendant sin (the state of being) then man is not truly a living soul (like Adam) until resurrected unto spiritual life.

Once someone is both spiritually AND physically dead, there is no means of restoring the constant communion that is spiritual life (zoe). So spiritual resurrection must occur during man’s physical life. Man is not a “real” hypostasis until he becomes a living soul as was Adam (before the Edenic lapse).

It’s a matter of lexical meaning for all the applicable words, demonstrating a functionality of divine order that was abrogated and must be restored in a specific manner. Redemption must happen exactly how God has prescribed, and it has to occur while there is physical life for spiritual life to be restored.

And all of this is why the redeemded will not be hurt of the second death. It’s also why we need not fear him who can kill the body, but him who can kill both body and soul in hell.

Matt 28:10 “Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy sustain forever the destroying of both soul and body in hell.”

There NOW it says what you want/need it to say...

 

[JudgeRightly]

Matt 28:10 “Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy sustain forever the destroying of both soul and body in hell.”

There NOW it says what you want/need it to say...

You probably missed it, but here is my response to rstrats to a similar challenge.

You're confusing physical life and physical death with spiritual death.

You and I are physically alive right now.

If you're a Christian (Romans 10:9-10), you're also alive spiritually.

However, if you are not, even though you are alive physically, you're dead spiritually.

Because "death" is simply separation, not cessation of existence.

Physical life is body, soul, and spirit together.

Physical death is separation of body and soul/spirit.

Spiritual life is having a relationship with God.

Spiritual death is separation from God, not cessation of existence.

Eternal torment implies existence, not non-existence. You could say that those who will experience it are still alive, in a sense, but they're not living. They are dead, but still extant, separated from their Creator who loves them.

 

[clefty]

You probably missed it, but here is my response to rstrats to a similar challenge.

Not a challenge...

If you noticed I am attempting to help yours with the scripture...

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not a challenge...

If you noticed I am attempting to help yours with the scripture...

Yes, it was a challenge.

Your assertion was that in order for us to establish our belief, we would have to change what the Bible says.

Which isn't true at all, because of what I said in my post that I quoted.

Instead of ignoring it, why don't you try addressing my argument.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Matt 28:10 “Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy sustain forever the destroying of both soul and body in hell.”

There NOW it says what you want/need it to say...

I never know who has which view, so (before I address Greek grammar and semantics) are you posting to support Annihilationism, Universalism, or “ECT” (still hate that term)?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I never know who has which view, so (before I address Greek grammar and semantics) are you posting to support Annihilationism, Universalism, or “ECT” (still hate that term)?

Clefty is definitely not "ECT" (for lack of a better term).