Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[godrulz]

You guys who believe in ECT, how are you reading this verse? How does it fit into your theology?
James 4:12a
εἷς ἐστιν νομοθέτης καὶ κριτὴς ὁ δυνάμενος σῶσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι·
There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy.

If nobody is really destroyed, aren't you simply denying scripture?

Words have a semantical range of meaning. You assume one meaning for the words death, destroy, etc. without developing a biblical theology in context.

For someone who read Carson's book, you sure have a selective application of exegetical fallacies (you are immune to them, but the rest of us make them all the time).

You beg the question/circular reasoning, pound your chest, pontificate, etc., but we are not gullible and will defend and proclaim the biblical, historical, orthodox view in the face of compromise.

Having said that, you have a right to argue for and defend your possible, but not plausible/probable view and still be considered a fellow believer.

 

[godrulz]

Apology accepted. I don't mind talking to you even you you talk like a parrot and never give the scripture behind your beliefs. I know that is merely because there is no scripture support for your belief in hell.
Yes, you meant that I am the parrot, but you are the one parroting the false belief in ECT. Here's the truth, God loves us and wants to rescue us from the wages of sin, which is death. That's why He sent his Son, so that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but will have eternal life instead.

Like the JWs, you have a conclusion that is wrong and you string together verses out of context thinking you are proving your point (deductive). This is the weakness of a systematic vs biblical theology.

They put up there sectarian doctrine in a statement and string verses together that seem to support it. These verses actually do not support it (e.g. denying Deity of Christ), but show they do not understand the trinity, incarnation, etc. (straw man attacks).

You are not a JW, but you make their hermeneutical mistakes.

Don't bother countering that my view has similarities with Mormons. Mormons and JWs are right/wrong about any given subject (cf. Catholics). The point is about you thinking your list of verses supports your view.

Like Calvinism vs Arminianism/OSAS/POTS, we can pit one set of verses against another or even claim the same verses for opposing views.

Exegesis/hermeneutics/theology is a challenge. I would not be so quick to think history has been stupid or that you being dogmatic proves you are right.

Metaphorical language also conveys spiritual truth. You default to figurative if a text disagrees with your view. The reality is worse than the symbol and we need to look at cumulative evidence (word studies, context, historical background, etc. vs eisegesis).

Jn. 1:1 is true. JWs will pit Jn. 14:28 against it to create a contradiction. The problem is their wrong interpretation of both texts (sectarian, preconceived errors). Likewise, your verses are claimed for your view, but they are not a problem for the traditional view with proper exegesis.

Again, you are not a JW, but you make their exegetical mistakes on this doctrine (they agree with you, argue like you, and are wrong like you). Thankfully you are right about essentials, unlike them.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Like the JWs, you have a conclusion that is wrong and you string together verses out of context thinking you are proving your point (deductive). This is the weakness of a systematic vs biblical theology.

They put up there sectarian doctrine in a statement and string verses together that seem to support it. These verses actually do not support it (e.g. denying Deity of Christ), but show they do not understand the trinity, incarnation, etc. (straw man attacks).

You are not a JW, but you make their hermeneutical mistakes.

Don't bother countering that my view has similarities with Mormons. Mormons and JWs are right/wrong about any given subject (cf. Catholics). The point is about you thinking your list of verses supports your view.

Like Calvinism vs Arminianism/OSAS/POTS, we can pit one set of verses against another or even claim the same verses for opposing views.

Exegesis/hermeneutics/theology is a challenge. I would not be so quick to think history has been stupid or that you being dogmatic proves you are right.

Metaphorical language also conveys spiritual truth. You default to figurative if a text disagrees with your view. The reality is worse than the symbol and we need to look at cumulative evidence (word studies, context, historical background, etc. vs eisegesis).

Jn. 1:1 is true. JWs will pit Jn. 14:28 against it to create a contradiction. The problem is their wrong interpretation of both texts (sectarian, preconceived errors). Likewise, your verses are claimed for your view, but they are not a problem for the traditional view with proper exegesis.

Again, you are not a JW, but you make their exegetical mistakes on this doctrine (they agree with you, argue like you, and are wrong like you). Thankfully you are right about essentials, unlike them.

The solution is very simple,

but it is to deep for you to grasp.

LA

 

[TruthSetsFree]

Yes, that does prove that ECT is not biblical. Here's why.
In Matthew 25:46 it says some go to eternal life. They don't ALL go to eternal life. The others go to eternal punishment, but you can't tell from this verse what the eternal punishment is. It MIGHT be eternal conscious torment, but the verse doesn't say that. It might be death, yet.

to cease to exist is NO punishment!!!

Jesus clearly says eternal punishment

 

[godrulz]

The solution is very simple,

but it is to deep for you to grasp.

LA

I don't need Gnostic, secret knowledge, just sound translation/interpretation/illumination of revelation.

 

[Aimiel]

Is trash like this really necessary? Did your parrot tell you to post that?

Obviously you have not given much thought or meditation to Scripture.

Obviously you have not given much thought or meditation to Scripture.

Obviously you have not given much thought or meditation to Scripture.

Obviously you have not given much thought or meditation to Scripture.

Obviously you have not given much thought or meditation to Scripture.

Obviously you have not given much thought or meditation to Scripture.

Parrot.

 

[Aimiel]

to cease to exist is NO punishment!!!

Jesus clearly says eternal punishment

:thumb:

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I don't need Gnostic, secret knowledge, just sound translation/interpretation/illumination of revelation.

You need a living Christ instead of your dead religion.


LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

to cease to exist is NO punishment!!!

Jesus clearly says eternal punishment

Punishment comes before annialation in the Bible.

LA

 

[not4sure]

Endless ECT threads are punishment. I bet the discussion in hell never stops!

 

[keypurr]

Some have knowledge, some have wisdom.

Tim, you have wisdom.
You speak the truth, but they are not interested in truth.

 

[freelight]

Love avails as long as souls can respond..........

Love avails as long as souls can respond..........

to cease to exist is NO punishment!!!

'Sin', or any trangression of natural or spiritual laws....produces its own consequences, to whatever degree or severity, as the karmic law holds...."what a man sows, that also shall he reap". The law of compensation (or karma) is universal, - souls punish themselves by their own free will choice and actions.

'Eternal punishment' is 'figurative' ...and could refer to a 'death' or 'destruction' of the soul, that is 'eternal' in its effect and finality. In this case,...souls would suffer only in proportion to their sins (as the law of karma allocates)...and if they embrace sin wholeheartedly and are given completely over to iniquity...these souls in this view...reap the full consequence for such rejection of 'God', which is DEATH. This 'death' is 'de-struction', 'dis-integration', 'extinction', the soul-life and potential being expunged from existence. This death then, is actually death (cessation of being, individuality, consciousess). The total perishing of that soul. This death is total, complete, absolute.

The death is 'eternal'. It might be seen as a 'punishment', if thats your prefered terminology,...but its a lawful execution or consequence of the total rejection of God, Reality, Truth, Life, etc. Its a state of unreality, void, nothingness, oblivion. Such is assumed to be the final and eternal state of those who have made a complete and final choice to embrace the fullness of iniquity. Those choosing such a way....PERISH. - there is no ECT. We've already shared the problems on many levels with the traditional concept of ECT.

Jesus clearly says eternal punishment

Figuratively speaking, in a parable perhaps...but thats a matter of 'interpretation'.


With respect to God's offspring -

Is God's love infinite?

Does God's will change?

Then Love will always be available to save souls as long as they are able and capable of turning to God. This has been my steady spiritualist-universalist viewpoint and still holds. Like the story of the prodigal son...does not the Father ever wait for the return of his wayward son? Does the Father ever will an eternal punishment or state of suffering with no hope of relief or salvation upon his child? To assume such is beyond imagining.



pj

 

[freelight]

Book resource......

Book resource......

~*~*~

A good book reflecting the view of 'conditional immortality' being 'biblical' and not supporting ECT is Immortality or Resurrection?
A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi.

4 of the 10 chapters of the book are available to read to the left of the page. Interesting case, and I would agree with the authors logics against ECT, which leave the alternatives of 'conditional immorality' and 'universalism' open, and the various aspects of soul-progression and destiny taught in the Spiritualist/Spiritist schools.

Important aspects the author brings up is how most Christianity has adopted the body/soul dualism of platonic greek philosophy, where the soul is assumed as inherently immortal, where only the bodies dies, whereas the Old Testament teaches a 'wholism' of the person being a 'soul' (the mind-body-spirit complex) together as a 'unit', so that when a body dies....its 'sentient being' is no more, since the soul includes the physical body vitalized by the spirit. Once the body dies, the soul does as well, UNLESS it is resurrected to new life by some power outside of it.

Anyways,...the 4 chapters are a good primer for the view of 'conditional immortality' and emphasis on 'resurrection' of all souls....the righteous to immortality, the unrighteous to 'death'....the metaphysics behind it, and the 'qualifications' of such being 'biblical'.




pj

 

[Desert Reign]

Important aspects the author brings up is how most Christianity has adopted the body/soul dualism of platonic greek philosophy, where the soul is assumed as inherently immortal, where only the bodies dies, whereas the Old Testament teaches a 'wholism' of the person being a 'soul' (the mind-body-spirit complex) together as a 'unit', so that when a body dies....its 'sentient being' is no more, since the soul includes the physical body vitalized by the spirit. Once the body dies, the soul does as well, UNLESS it is resurrected to new life by some power outside of it.

Paul, that's exactly why I presently do not believe in eternal conscious torment. And you have put it very well there. Mr Plato has his repercussions in almost every area of Christian doctrine.

 

[Timotheos]

Like the JWs, you have a conclusion that is wrong and you string together verses out of context thinking you are proving your point (deductive). This is the weakness of a systematic vs biblical theology.

They put up there sectarian doctrine in a statement and string verses together that seem to support it. These verses actually do not support it (e.g. denying Deity of Christ), but show they do not understand the trinity, incarnation, etc. (straw man attacks).

You are not a JW, but you make their hermeneutical mistakes.

Don't bother countering that my view has similarities with Mormons. Mormons and JWs are right/wrong about any given subject (cf. Catholics). The point is about you thinking your list of verses supports your view.

Like Calvinism vs Arminianism/OSAS/POTS, we can pit one set of verses against another or even claim the same verses for opposing views.

Exegesis/hermeneutics/theology is a challenge. I would not be so quick to think history has been stupid or that you being dogmatic proves you are right.

Metaphorical language also conveys spiritual truth. You default to figurative if a text disagrees with your view. The reality is worse than the symbol and we need to look at cumulative evidence (word studies, context, historical background, etc. vs eisegesis).

Jn. 1:1 is true. JWs will pit Jn. 14:28 against it to create a contradiction. The problem is their wrong interpretation of both texts (sectarian, preconceived errors). Likewise, your verses are claimed for your view, but they are not a problem for the traditional view with proper exegesis.

Again, you are not a JW, but you make their exegetical mistakes on this doctrine (they agree with you, argue like you, and are wrong like you). Thankfully you are right about essentials, unlike them.

You seem more like a JW than I do, the way you hang onto the doctrine in spite of all the evidence against it. I'm just looking at the Bible, using the regular meanings of the words the Bible uses. I'm making any weird claims like "the word was God" should be "the word was a god". You make claims like that. You claim that the word destruction doesn't really mean destruction. They claim the word was God doesn't really mean that the word was God. It's the same thing. You keep on bringing up the JWs in a futile attempt to link me with a cult, because you don't like the doctrine that doesn't include eternal conscious torment. I am not a JW and I have nothing to do with the JWs.

If you believe that people go to hell when they die where they are conscious of torment forever just post the verse that says that. IF you are correct, that should be easy. If your doctrine has no biblical support, you won't be able to do it. The JWs have NOTHING to do with this. Can you produce any verse that supports your doctrine or not? If you say one more word about how I am like a JW (when I am not) it is as good as a full confession that you can't find any biblical support for your doctrine.

 

[Timotheos]

to cease to exist is NO punishment!!!

Jesus clearly says eternal punishment

To cease to exist IS the punishment. The wages of sin is death. The wicked will be like chaff that is blown away, though you look for them they will not be found. They will be no more. Read the verses I posted in support of the bible.

 

[Timotheos]

I don't need Gnostic, secret knowledge, just sound translation/interpretation/illumination of revelation.

I agree, you need sound translation/interpretation/illumination of revelation. You also need sound illumination of the rest of the books of the bible. But you insist that destruction doesn't mean destruction, die doesn't mean die, perish doesn't mean perish, and "they will be no more" means "they will continue to exist forever being tormented in hell."

 

[Timotheos]

Endless ECT threads are punishment. I bet the discussion in hell never stops!

If you don't like this discussion, you could always leave this discussion.

 

[chrysostom]

to cease to exist is NO punishment!!!

why would you have them suffer?

 

[Timotheos]

For someone who read Carson's book, you sure have a selective application of exegetical fallacies (you are immune to them, but the rest of us make them all the time).

You beg the question/circular reasoning, pound your chest, pontificate, etc., but we are not gullible and will defend and proclaim the biblical, historical, orthodox view in the face of compromise.

I don't "pound my chest". If you would be so kind as to point out any exegetical fallacies you believe I have made, I would appreciate it. Naturally I do not want to commit any fallacies, since that would weaken my argument. By the same token, you should not get upset when I point out the fallacies you use. When you poison the well it weakens your case for ECT. If you really want to be convincing, don't commit the logical fallacies. I am not persuaded by circular reasoning. I've been told that since Matthew 25:46 says there is eternal punishment, that means there is eternal torment. Since there is eternal torment, the eternal punishment in Matt 25:46 is eternal torment. This is classic circular reasoning. I agree that Matt 25:46 says there is eternal punishment. I just disagree with the ECT crowd on the form that the eternal punishment takes. I've been told that only conscious punishment is punishment, so death is not a punishment. The reason they give is that you have to be conscious to be punished. That's circular reasoning. It's saying "I believe that only conscious punishment is punishment because I believe that only conscious punishment is punishment." Do you really not see the inconsistencies in the arguments for ECT?

I am not "immune" to logical inconsistencies. You simply haven't demonstrated that I've committed any. I'm sorry to have to say that, but I am interested if you have any proof. I want to strengthen my case.

Edit to add quote from Carson's book:
“it is all too easy to read the traditional interpretations we have received from others into the text of Scripture. Then we may unwittingly transfer the authority of Scripture to our traditional interpretations and invest them with a false, even an idolatrous, degree of certainty. Because traditions are reshaped as they are passed on, after a while we may drift far from God’s Word while still insisting all our theological opinions are ‘biblical’ and therefore true. If when we are in such a state we study the Bible uncritically, more than likely it will simply reinforce our errors” (Carson, “Exegetical Fallacies,” page 17).
(quote lifted from http://thecenterfortheologicalstudi...01/exegetical-fallacies-in-da-carsons_17.html)