Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Here's what I'm saying. There are many people who God is drawing...as we speak. He knows their heart even when they don't know it themselves. I don't think we're going about the Lord's business when we stop being His ambassadors in order to constantly be reprimanding them. I'm not speaking specifically to you, although we're all guilty of that, I'm afraid. But, it seems to be way out of control.... if anyone were to ask me.

Amidst all the hubris, I’m just trying to represent absolute lexical truth in all these things to maintain an integrity of meaning for words that are disparately used to mean a broad scope of erroneous things.

I wasn’t attempting to judge AB’s heart. In fact, I only passively did so because I thought I had remembered him insisting he wasn’t a professing Believer years ago. Maybe I’m wrong.

All I attempt to do is provide a baseline of truth for expression. A plum line. And it’s not me, it’s the inspired text in all its minutiae. It’s me trying to serve the Body in ways many are simply not called to. Nobody should have to study and become a linguist or semioticist, etc. if it’s not God’s holy calling for them.

I’m here so that those with simpler expressions aren’t burdened with such things and can speak as God directs. My motives aren’t negative or condescending.

For Arthur, I have to provide the correction that is his subjectivities being at odds with objective truth. But most don’t want to hear this kind of thing, and instead will argue with lexicography and grammar from the inspired text. I draw those distinctions and allow others to do with them as they will.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

not sure I'd consider it a "residue", but an integral framework

if you consider it a residue, it seems to me that suggests that some have more than others, and that there's a mechanism by which it is either lost or retained

I was trying to be colloquial (and changed it to latency). What it is is a spectrum of negation and privation. The degree to which evil and sin have progressed, which can be to the point that little is left.

Evil and sin are both privations. They’re what is missing. The void. They’re both a “somethinglessness” like a hole is such instead of a “something”. This is why most don’t realize that virtually everything in their lives is sin - the state of being. Few realize that everything is sin if it is not of faith (as the source OF their action/s).

Most Believers live a life of sin (I do; I’m not exempt in the least), even without committing heinous acts. Much more so the unbelieving.

 

[ok doser]

I was trying to be colloquial. What it is is a spectrum of negation and privation. The degree to which evil and sin have progressed, which can be to the point that little is left.

Evil and sin are both privations. They’re what is missing. The void. They’re both a “somethinglessness” like a hole is such instead of a “something”. This is why most don’t realize that virtually everything in their lives is sin - the state of being. Few realize that everything is sin if it is not of faith (as the source OF their action/s).

Most Believers live a life of sin, even without committing heinous acts. Much more so the unbelieving.

i had a similar coversation with jim hilston many years ago, before my thoughts on the subject had developed - his use of the concept of everything being of faith semed false to me (which may just have been the childish disagreement we were having)

but i've never forgotten it

to get back to the original point, we're all made in God's image, we're all imbued (if that's the right word) with God's righteousness, we all have knowledge of the Law, we all have God's Law written on our hearts

i consider that an immutable framework, one that gets covered with filthy rags as we stray from God, but remains there, unchanged, all the same

does that make sense?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

i had a similar coversation with jim hilston many years ago, before my thoughts on the subject had developed - his use of the concept of everything being of faith semed false to me (which may just have been the childish disagreement we were having)

but i've never forgotten it

to get back to the original point, we're all made in God's image, we're all imbued (if that's the right word) with God's righteousness, we all have knowledge of the Law, we all have God's Law written on our hearts

i consider that an immutable framework, one that gets covered with filthy rags as we stray from God, but remains there, unchanged, all the same

does that make sense?

It does, but with a significant exception/clarification.

Adam was made in the image of God (this is immediate creation, as was Eve). After the Edenic lapse and man’s fall, scripture indicates all men are in the image of Seth after Adam (Genesis 5:3).

So all who are mediate creation via procreation are not in the Image of God unless and until they are resurrected unto life as a new creation in Christ.

We are resurrectABLE to God’s image, but men are in the image of (the first man) Adam (until redeemed by the last Adam, a quickening Spirit). But unbelievers are unresurrectED. Thus, the latency of the Imago Dei. It’s inoperable/non-functional, having been subjected to the privation and negation of evil and sin.

Only those who are in the New Creation are made in the Imago Dei (Image of God).

 

[ok doser]

gotta run, i'll chew on that and get back to you

consider though, the case of the good samaritan and the heathen whose works are (Godly?) dunnno which term to use


i'll be back

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

gotta run, i'll chew on that and get back to you

consider though, the case of the good samaritan and the heathen whose works are (Godly?) dunnno which term to use

i'll be back

It’s all Coram Mundo (before men), not Coram Deo (before God). They’re all temporal. They have no aeviternal significance.

No works of the flesh will survive the fire of judgment. They will all be burned off if not of faith. This doesn’t mean all of those works weren’t by the direct grace of God somehow moving upon the hearts and natures of men.

The hungry are still fed when the feeding is sin. The homeless are still sheltered when the housing is sin. It doesn’t mean any of it was of faith (as the source), which is quite impossible for unbelievers.

Notice these are all temporal and according to physical need. Such is the case with all Arthur Brain was referring to. None of this is everlasting; only temporal.

God administers His grace however He does, and through whomever He chooses. There are no limitations. So God can readily demonstrate His love for men through those who are lost. The problem is attributing any of that to them instead of God.

 

[glorydaz]

It does, but with a significant exception/clarification.

Adam was made in the image of God (this is immediate creation, as was Eve). After the Edenic lapse and man’s fall, scripture indicates all men are in the image of Seth after Adam (Genesis 5:3).

So all who are mediate creation via procreation are not in the Image of God unless and until they are resurrected unto life as a new creation in Christ.

We are resurrectABLE to God’s image, but men are in the image of (the first man) Adam (until redeemed by the last Adam, a quickening Spirit). But unbelievers are unresurrectED. Thus, the latency of the Imago Dei. It’s inoperable/non-functional, having been subjected to the privation and negation of evil and sin.

Only those who are in the New Creation are made in the Imago Dei (Image of God).

I've heard this before, but in this verse we see no such distinction.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.​

Rather, this text looks like a chronology rather than a great divide about images and likeness.

Genesis 5:1-4
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:​

God mentions having created man....rather than just man procreating.

Genesis 6:7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.​

This idea also seems too close to Total Depravity.
Which merely gives man an excuse when Paul says man is without excuse. Romans 1:20

Why does this idea you present NOT give man an excuse?

 

[glorydaz]

Of course I don’t. But even those things meagerly understood or partially revealed are all still lexical on a continuum.

Why do you say just "meagerly understood" or partially revealed?

 

[glorydaz]

Most Believers live a life of sin (I do; I’m not exempt in the least), even without committing heinous acts. Much more so the unbelieving.

Live a life of sin?

Who is it that condemns us of sin?

Romans 8:33-34 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. 34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.​

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I've heard this before, but in this verse we see no such distinction.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.​

This is no contradiction of Gen. 5:3. Instead, it indicates man originally being made in the Imago Dei. That image is still latent in all men, but is not functional according to divine order. It’s suppressed, with the image of Adam having taken preeminence in functionality. It doesn’t mean the Imago Dei is eradication and doesn’t exist; it means it is dysfunctionalized by evil and sin, needing a means of resurrection for functionality.

It’s the resurrection of man unto spiritual life that restores the functionality of divine order by Him who is the eternal Logos and the means of all creation - both old and new.

Rather, this text looks like a chronology rather than a great divide about images and likeness.

Genesis 5:1-4
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:​

That’s because God’s creative act required no further action from Him to perpetuate as life from life. God is a seed God. His immediate creation is perpetuated by mediate creation. Mediate creation is not something that requires more direct and immediate creative action from God.

God mentions having created man....rather than just man procreating.

Genesis 6:7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.​

Procreation IS creation. Mediate creation by delegated means.

This idea also seems too close to Total Depravity.

Total Depravity is a doctrinal title used by both Calvinists and Arminians with varying meaning. Like several other labels, I don’t particularly care for this label. It’s too vague as merely two capitalized words with no explication.

It should be a title that indicates privation and negation rather merely a resulting state of being that is seen on a nebulous spectrum.

Lack of Total Innate Righteousness - or something similar - would be a better stand-alone label. Man is conceived in a state of being devoid of God’s righteousness and its imputation. Thus, we need a Savior; we cannot effect our own salvation.

Total Depravity indicates man has an added horrible something, when the truth is it’s a lack with something missing. What’s missing is restorable by inward spiritual resurrection unto new life in Christ. It’s not the presence of something (total depravity), but the absence of something.

The Imago Dei hasn’t been “undone” enough that any man is beyond God’s resurrecting power. But no unbeliever is in the image of God by defintion of those words. It is literally like internally renovating and refacing a dilapidated building. It is a reconditioning, and this is via becoming a new creation.

Which merely gives man an excuse when Paul says man is without excuse. Romans 1:20

Why does this idea you present NOT give man an excuse?

Man is without excuse because God’s grace is demonstrated in so many ways throughout creation, and particularly through men (both Believers and unbelievers). God is unbound by anything in creation from administering His grace.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Why do you say just "meagerly understood" or partially revealed?

It was in support of your point that simpler understandings and expressions are sufficient. Not everyone has to delineate depths of meaning for things to be basically true at all levels of understanding and/or revelation.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Live a life of sin?

Who is it that condemns us of sin?

Romans 8:33-34 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. 34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.​

Exactly. Believers have the standing of the imputed righteousness of God in Christ, so whatever life of sin they live is not something that brings condemnation (which includes final judgment, by definition and application).

Noting the sin state of being for oneself or regarding others is NOT condemnation, it’s edification that we have an Advocate that unbelievers don’t. It doesn’t mean that we are in condemnation. It means we are free to confess/profess (same Greek word for both aspects) according to our imputed righteousness.

 

[oatmeal]

We've addressed Matthew 25:46 here.

Capital punishment on this plane of existence is not 'eternal', but only a forced death of the physical organism. It is questionable that such is even beneficial to the soul itself, let alone being a deterrent to others to avoid crime.

As far as death being just a moment in time or continuing state, we've covered that here. It depends on how one defines 'death', and how a soul 'dies' as the result of 'sin', which makes for a complex subject with different points of view. Thats the whole 'kit n kaboodle' here.



pj

How does God define death?

It is the opposite of life, it is the absence of life.

Psalm 6:5
For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

Ecclesiastes 9:4-6

4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

If the dead are not dead, but alive then we language and words are irrelevant and useless for communication.

The dead are dead

The living are alive.

Hence the need for raising of the dead, for there to be resurrections, otherwise the dead would remain dead.

 

[oatmeal]

Dear Oatmeal,

There are details involved. Read some of the posts here. It's all more involved that what you've stated so far.

God Bless You!!

Michael

The answer is as simple as scripture.

The dead are dead,

The living are alive.

Death is the opposite of life, death is the absence of life

Hence the need for the dead to be raised to life to be alive

 

[oatmeal]

No? then you are very similar to Oatmeal and maybe like squeaky, huh?

Oatmeal is nutritious and delicious if prepared properly and topped with your favorite toppings

Butter, cinammon, and brown sugar works well for me

 

[oatmeal]

Then how do you understand Revelation 20:15, Revelation 14:10-11, and Matthew 25:41,46?

For what is eternally punishing (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:10-11) about the future, "Gehenna" hell (Luke 12:5, Greek: G1067) is fire eternally burning the physical body, and worms eternally eating the physical body (Mark 9:46, Isaiah 66:24). The physical bodies of non-Christians in Gehenna need not be exactly like people have now, which do not regenerate parts of themselves if those parts are burned or eaten. For before non-Christians are cast into the Gehenna hell (also called the lake of fire), they will be physically resurrected (Revelation 20:12-15, John 5:29b). And their new, physical resurrection bodies could eternally regenerate parts of themselves whenever those parts are burned or eaten. But then the regenerated parts could be burned or eaten again, only to regenerate again, only to be burned or eaten again, and so on, forever: an everlasting suffering (Revelation 14:10-11).

In Gehenna the fire will never go out (Mark 9:46). It will never run out of fuel, but will continue to punish non-Christians forever (Matthew 25:41,46, Revelation 14:10-11, Revelation 20:10,15). The fact that the fire will already be burning before the physical resurrection bodies of non-Christians are cast into it (Matthew 25:41, Revelation 20:15) means that their bodies will not be the fire's fuel. The fire will have its own source of fuel by which it will burn/punish non-Christians forever (Revelation 14:10-11, Revelation 20:10,15, Matthew 25:41,46, Mark 9:45-46).

Revelation 20:15

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Does that verse say that those cast into the lake of fire are alive?

No, it does not, so from that verse alone we cannot assume that they are nor are not.

For that matter is the lake of fire literal or figurative?

God uses figures of speech abundantly in scripture so to ignore them is counterproductive.


Revelation 14:10-11

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

I am not claiming to understand fully what these verses mean but consider the following.

Is it literal wine? Is is grape wine or something else? What does a cup have to do with eternal punishment?

Revelation 14:7-9

7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,


Who is going to drink of this cup?

a. those who were alive before the beast appears in the future

b. those who worship the beast and receive his mark on his forehead or in his hand


The beast is future not today so to extrapolate what is future into the present let alone into the past is not justifiable.


Matthew 25:41,46

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Will those referred to in verse 41 be dead or alive when they are in the everlasting fire?

verse 46 tells us that they will be dead.

Where do the righteous go?

into life internal.

life eternal is set in contrast with the "these" by the word "but" which sets the second phrase in contrast to the first phrase.

Thus in contrast to life eternal we have death eternal which is sufficient everlasting punishment for they will die the second death knowing the goodness of God that they rejected and abhorred.

God is love and love is not cruel. God is merciful thus He does not torture people. He simply lets their own evil be the source of their own self destruction.

They rejected the love and light and life that God offered so they reap the results of their choices

To accuse God of cruelty is not right

 

[JudgeRightly]

How does God define death?

It is the opposite of life, it is the absence of life.

Psalm 6:5
For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

Ecclesiastes 9:4-6

4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

If the dead are not dead, but alive then we language and words are irrelevant and useless for communication.

The dead are dead

The living are alive.

Hence the need for raising of the dead, for there to be resurrections, otherwise the dead would remain dead.

Hey, Oatsy, was the girl in Matthew 9:24 actually dead, or was she just asleep?

Did Jesus lie?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Revelation 20:15

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Does that verse say that those cast into the lake of fire are alive?

No, it does not, so from that verse alone we cannot assume that they are nor are not.

Argument from silence.

For that matter is the lake of fire literal or figurative?

Quite literal.

God uses figures of speech abundantly in scripture so to ignore them is counterproductive.

Thinking that all of scripture is a figure of speech is counterproductive.

Revelation 14:10-11

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

I am not claiming to understand fully what these verses mean but consider the following.

Is it literal wine? Is is grape wine or something else? What does a cup have to do with eternal punishment?

Revelation 14:7-9

7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,


Who is going to drink of this cup?

a. those who were alive before the beast appears in the future

b. those who worship the beast and receive his mark on his forehead or in his hand


The beast is future not today so to extrapolate what is future into the present let alone into the past is not justifiable.


Matthew 25:41,46

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Will those referred to in verse 41 be dead or alive when they are in the everlasting fire?

verse 46 tells us that they will be dead.

Where do the righteous go?

into life internal.

life eternal is set in contrast with the "these" by the word "but" which sets the second phrase in contrast to the first phrase.

Thus in contrast to life eternal we have death eternal which is sufficient everlasting punishment for they will die the second death knowing the goodness of God that they rejected and abhorred.

God is love and love is not cruel. God is merciful thus He does not torture people. He simply lets their own evil be the source of their own self destruction.

They rejected the love and light and life that God offered so they reap the results of their choices

To accuse God of cruelty is not right

Which is exactly what you accuse God of.

Annihilation? non-existence?

I wouldn't ever which such on my worst enemy.

 

[oatmeal]

Num 14:26 And the LORD spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying,
Num 14:27 "How long shall this wicked congregation grumble against me? I have heard the grumblings of the people of Israel, which they grumble against me.
Num 14:28 Say to them, 'As I live, declares the LORD, what you have said in my hearing I will do to you:
Num 14:29 your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness, and of all your number, listed in the census from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against me,
...
Num 14:32 But as for you, your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness.


Luk 19:27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'"

Jud 1:5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
Jud 1:6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—
Jud 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Did God torture them endlessly?

No, he simply let them reap the consequences of their choices.

God plainly states that He is God and none else, that He created the heavens and the earth and that He is light and love and goodness, but those who reject that simply do not receive that, if they do not receive life from God, then the only other option is death

 

[oatmeal]

God is not doing the tormentING, and it’s not the physical literality that you presume from this lapsed cosmos. It’s a different state of being.

(But I know you won’t listen to anything or anyone else except yourself and “The Way Whatever Whatever” cult.)

Ok, oh wise one, why don't you elaborate instead of skirting the issue?

So God has someone else sadistically torment God rejectors forever? Who might that be?