Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Aimiel]

You could read it as the first death was the death of the body (which I guess is accepted by all), then comes a resurrection (whether by way of reuniting the soul to a fresh body of some sort or by recreating the person or some other method, no one knows) which proves that the first death was not final. But the mention of the second appears to imply that this is a final death, from which there will be no return.

I don't buy the death of the body being the 'end' of that body, since Jesus warned us about fearing God, Who has the power to destroy both body and soul in hell.

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Knowing what will happen, He wouldn't warn us about our body if our body were not to take part in the torment which He was describing. Again: the 'second death' He spoke of could hardly be annihilation, since the first death could easily have accomplished that. He meant that the torment in flames for ever and ever isn't life, it is a death sentence which never lets the lost rest from.

Revelation 14:11
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.

Those who no longer exist would certainly be resting, now wouldn't they?

 

[Aimiel]

Aimiel, this must surely be the weakest aspect of your argument. You seem to need to resort to using death as a metaphor. And likewise you use life as a metaphor. There is a phrase 'a living death'. That is a metaphor, everyone knows that. You seem to be clutching at straws.

Hardly. We know from Scripture that ECT is real and is to be shunned. Were it not so, Jesus would not have described it and neither would angels.

 

[Timotheos]

They're the un-dead.

Okay, I see your problem. You have the bible written by Stephanie Meyer. I'm done talking to you now. You aren't worth my time.

Except for this:

Hardly. We know from Scripture that ECT is real and is to be shunned. Were it not so, Jesus would not have described it and neither would angels.

It just keeps getting better and better.

 

[Desert Reign]

Timotheos, Aimiel is a good guy. We might differ about ECT but it's hardly the most important issue in the scheme of things. Please try to be kind. We all need each other. You don't know when you may need his support.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Hardly. We know from Scripture that ECT is real and is to be shunned. Were it not so, Jesus would not have described it and neither would angels.

Jesus did not describe ECT.

The worm and fire dies not in Gehenna but everything thrown in there was consumed.

LA

 

[godrulz]

Yes, in this case it does indeed mean for ever and ever. Of course it is specifically about the devil, the beast and the false prophet and not about people generally. For people generally, the passage refers to their fate as 'the second death'. I think this distinction is insufficient for you to build a case that they are tormented for ever and ever like the devil, the beast and the false prohpet. These three seem to have been singled out for a worse punishment than anyone else.

They will be punished worse than average, but this verse shows that all the unregenerate will join them.

Rev. 20:11-15 they end up in the lake of fire...no hint of cessation eventually, but joining those already there in continuation of existence.

Rev. 20:10 Satan joins the other two 1000 years later where they are still being tormented (Rev. 19:20 were thrown alive and continue to exist).

Rev. 14:11 no rest day/night parallel concept...day and night forever and ever...

 

[freelight]

you reap what you sow........

you reap what you sow........

Hi Paul, thanks for spending the time to respond at length.

Hi DR,

You're welcome,...I've elaborated my views amply here so far, which include 'biblical' considerations and knowledge outside of what would be termed 'biblical', but I find the term 'ambivalent'.

Good questions. The Christian answer is that salvation comes through faith in Christ. A person's 'savability' is not a quality intrinsic to that person but extrinsic, determined by God's willingness to extend grace. That grace is offered in Christ so the individual basically has only to repent (follow Christ and his commands) and accept that Jesus is God's gift to him to bring about salvation. He also gets the Holy Spirit, which proves that salvation is not just about an afterlife but about the quality of body life - Earth life and therefore justifies the reality of the world we live in now. On his own, man would not be 'savable'.

Yes, this is one standardized 'Christian' view - but my questions remain. As you note, while 'God' extends grace, because He is Love...its the individuals 'response-ability' to 'God' that has 'determinative' affects. The question of a soul's ability to respond to 'God' via repentance seems to be a pivotal issue here as to that soul's salvation, as Love calls the sinner to itself. Its a part of human presumption that 'God' shuts the door eternally to some souls which further gets obscured thru various theological explanations and assumptions.

Repenting isn't something that one has a certain capacity for like a petrol tank and when that capacity has been exhausted, they can no longer repent. It's just a decision you make. You can always make such a decision, unless you are mentally disabled and can't.

Ok, even if I leave out the word 'capacity' and use only the word 'ability', the proposition remains, for if a soul still has the ability to repent, why would 'God' close the door eternally to that soul? UNLESS that soul has exhausted its 'time-allottment' to respond to God (if God has placed such a limit on time), or that the soul has reached a point of no return, wholly corrupted beyond recovery. It would seem just.... that Love would do all in its power to save, redeem, encourage, empower and restore souls. In this way justice and mercy work together, towards the same goal, to see the fulfillment of God's will. That is not only God's joy but all creations.

But once you die, then you can't repent afterwards.

This is not accepted from a spiritualist persepective, since we believe the door is always open to all souls to respond or return to God, in this world and all worlds (as long as the soul can actually do so of its own free will enabled by God's grace). Physical death does not sever the infinity of God's love, neither diminish it. Since spirit-souls continue on after shedding the physical body, the life, vitality and consciousness of 'God' is ever availing....since no 'being' exists independent of 'God'. If a soul is conscious and still has 'freedom of choice' outside of the physical body, why cannot it continue to make choices like it did while in the physical form? - If a soul could call on 'God' and be saved on earth,...why not in the spirit-world...or any world? If I'm conscious and able to make decisions for or against 'God',...then that freedom...at any time that I exist....is there.

To answer this from a 'soul-death' perspective, YES.....once a soul is wholly terminated (fully dies)....there is no repentance possible, for there is no longer a conscious entity existing. In this school, its assumed these souls were totally lost and unable to be saved for whatever reason.

That's what I believe and what I think pretty much all Christians do too.

Its a 'debatable' belief. Unfortunately my 'Reincarnation' thread was deleted in the system-changeover, since it was an older thread, but a new one may be on the horizon - I dont think 'God' gives souls just one chance limited to only one life-time for a soul to perfect itself or be 'saved',...but that multiple life-experiences (call them re-emobiments, incarnations, existences) are afforded for the soul's journey of learning, development, refining, perfecting.

I used to believe the opposite and that it was not possible to believe in reward for the righteous without also believing in punishment for the wicked. Because if wickedness is not punished, then righteousness has no meaning.

Aha,.....I too find it unreasonable or even illogical to assume that just because the righteous get 'eternal life'...that sinners must get 'eternal punishment' or 'hell-fire' as some 'parallel-compensation'. Talk about a bi-polar theology.

Although I still believe that in principle, I have modified my view on what constitutes acceptable punishment for the wicked.

Good to hear you keep your heart-soul open to continued revelation and learning. Its an admirable trait, and one thats essential to
education. The law of karma universally takes care of all actions in the cosmos, as much as they are 'conditional' in nature, consonant with the law of cause/effect, in perfect measures...since sowing and reaping is always equivalent. - which is why ECT is so unfathomable....UNLESS a soul could continue to engross itself with SIN continuously, being permanently insane with no hope or remedy. That would be 'hell', to use the term 'figuratively'.



pj

 

[Desert Reign]

They will be punished worse than average, but this verse shows that all the unregenerate will join them.

Rev. 20:11-15 they end up in the lake of fire...no hint of cessation eventually, but joining those already there in continuation of existence.

Rev. 20:10 Satan joins the other two 1000 years later where they are still being tormented (Rev. 19:20 were thrown alive and continue to exist).

Rev. 14:11 no rest day/night parallel concept...day and night forever and ever...

I've already commented on Rev 20:10 etc. and your merely quoting it again as evidence doesn't make your point any better. My comments still stand.

Re Rev 14:11, I've looked at this and I agree that there is an everlasting punishment for some. It is for those who worship the beast and his image. Putting the mark of the beast on their foreheads and hands indicates those who openly and brazenly worship the beast. In the context, although I am not sure who the beast is or Babylon, it seems that this is a specific class of people at a specific point in history.

There is a view (based partly on Col 1:23 - read back to the beginning of Rev 14) that Rome is mentioned here and those who worshipped the beast would have been those Jews who sided with the Romans up to the time of its fall. It is true that there are endless debates on who is meant but surely all of them have in common that it is a specific period of earthly history.

I'm glad this debate was raised because it's clarifying for me an interesting point of justice. Namely there is a principle that God's justice demands that the punishment fit the crime. I've not really been comfortable with a blanket solution for all, especially as we are repeatedly told in scripture that we are judged according to our works. I think you get the picture.

 

[Desert Reign]

Hi DR,
Ok, even if I leave out the word 'capacity' and use only the word 'ability', the proposition remains, for if a soul still has the ability to repent, why would 'God' close the door eternally to that soul? UNLESS that soul has exhausted its 'time-allottment' to respond to God (if God has placed such a limit on time), or that the soul has reached a point of no return, wholly corrupted beyond recovery. It would seem just.... that Love would do all in its power to save, redeem, encourage, empower and restore souls. In this way justice and mercy work together, towards the same goal, to see the fulfillment of God's will. That is not only God's joy but all creations.

I think the answer is clear. It is not that there is an arbitrary length of time given to each soul to repent. It is the idea that this world is real. It is the idea that what we do in this world is important for its own sake. There isn't an absolute definition of righteousness and wickedness. These things are defined in relation to the real world in which we live. If we allow people to change their minds in an afterlife, it sort of proves that what we do in this life does not matter.

I think that's a problem with various kinds of fatalism or determinism. It would seem it was better to kill babies at birth if that meant that they would either avoid the potential suffering of this world and 'get to heaven' or 'be given another chance'. And in the middle ages, the sufferings and oppression of the people by their leaders was justified by the teaching that this was but a fleeting moment compared to eternity. That's wrong because this world is real and the decisions we make are in relation to this real world and what happens in an afterlife is not a new life but a justification of the life spent in the body, in the real world.

 

[Timotheos]

Timotheos, Aimiel is a good guy. We might differ about ECT but it's hardly the most important issue in the scheme of things. Please try to be kind. We all need each other. You don't know when you may need his support.

Okay, I'll try to be kind.

Aimiel, I am sorry I was harsh on your post. I shouldn't have said that you got your theology from vampire fiction. You said some things that have no support from the bible. There is no biblical evidence for the "undead". Jesus did not talk about Eternal Conscious Torment. And the angels certainly didn't talk about ECT. Please give the scripture reference when you make these claims. That way, you will have support for your statements.

 

[Timotheos]

Your attitude that denies the truths stated in Scripture smells far worse.

Please tell which scripture you think I am denying the truth of. Be Specific. Give the scripture passage that you think I deny. Is it John 3:16? Do I deny that whosoever believes in the Son of God will have eternal life, and whoever doesn't will perish? No, I don't deny that. Do I deny that the wages of sin is death? No, I proclaim that because of Romans 6:23.

How can you say that I deny the truths stated in scripture when I agree with them and you deny them? You deny the truth stated in John 3:16 and Romans 6:23. I've give over 50 bible passages that you have to deny in order to hold on to the false doctrine of ECTism. You haven't shown me even one scripture passage that I've denied. So what smells? The fact that I believe the Bible or the fact that you assume that I don't?

 

[Desert Reign]

Okay, I'll try to be kind.

Aimiel, I am sorry I was harsh on your post. I shouldn't have said that you got your theology from vampire fiction. You said some things that have no support from the bible. There is no biblical evidence for the "undead". Jesus did not talk about Eternal Conscious Torment. And the angels certainly didn't talk about ECT. Please give the scripture reference when you make these claims. That way, you will have support for your statements.

Thank you T. And I am looking forward to Aimiel's reply to your questions / comments as well as to mine.

By the way, I like your avatar.

 

[Zeke]

What is amazing is that you still hold on to this 'concept' of 'God' punishing souls forever and ever (to no end, purpose or resolve), which might indicate your own tendency towards vindictiveness, sadism and insanity, an egotistical sense of justice, however twisted. You might want to inspect your 'theology' and see how this 'torture' represents God's eternal mercy, love and wisdom. How does eternally punishing souls fulfill God's eternal will? How is Love satisfied therein? What kind of justice is served in keeping untold number of souls in a state of conscious perpetual unending suffering with no remedy or hope of salvation????

This is one reason many reject the traditional-brand of pop- Christianity which presents 'God' as an eternal PUNISHER, not as an eternal Lover or Redeemer. A 'god' who willfully sustains and maintains the eternal punishment and torture of sentient beings TO NO END is no 'God' at all, but a fiend.

If souls can suffer a final and eternal death (the second death), being the consequence of unrepented sin, finally judged by God because the soul is beyond repentance somehow, then that 'death' is the lawful culmination of sin's fruit. If that soul is snuffed out of existence, the punishment is final/complete. End of story. - there is no more entity to be affected in any way.

If souls however do undergo sufferings, trials and punishments, and these are corrective/rehabilitative in nature, then souls are availed continued opportunity for reform and progress.....as Love affords. Is this not Love's will? If the love and will of God ultimately triumph and all souls eventually re-turn to God, their true Home....then all trials and suffering have been natural aids and conductors leading souls back in concert with God. Every trial and error are therefore educational, accessories to salvation, seg-ways back to Love.



pj

Excellent post Paul, they can't find any rational dispute to counter your claims, they are idol (bible) worshippers fighting against the restitution off all things that they proclaim Christ paid the price to restore, then turn around and deny he did by claimimng some things can't be restored by that victorious act for all of adams sons, death wasn't really defeated after all, only for the card carrying club members.

 

[freelight]

as long as there is consciousness......

as long as there is consciousness......

I think the answer is clear. It is not that there is an arbitrary length of time given to each soul to repent. It is the idea that this world is real. It is the idea that what we do in this world is important for its own sake. There isn't an absolute definition of righteousness and wickedness. These things are defined in relation to the real world in which we live. If we allow people to change their minds in an afterlife, it sort of proves that what we do in this life does not matter.

This world is real as it accords with our experience, true....since reality includes all that is perceivable, experiencable, knowable. My suggestion of sentient beings having the ability to 'think', 'repent', work towards their betterment, spiritual evolution... is still possible in the spirit-world beyond, whether souls continue to progress in those spirit-worlds or re-incarnate to continue their soul-journey of learning and perfecting in some physical world. If we hold to reincarnation, souls might have special 'interims' or 'reflection-periods' where they work on issues, before re-embodying in the physical again. I dont see the possibility of 'exercising(changing) our minds' in the Afterlife or in some spiritual realm of existence as a denial of the important learning experience of any physical incarnation. Neither do I see justification for this one-life time being the only 'time-allocation' for a soul to perfect or 'save' itself...hence the logical provision of 're-embodiments'.

I think that's a problem with various kinds of fatalism or determinism. It would seem it was better to kill babies at birth if that meant that they would either avoid the potential suffering of this world and 'get to heaven' or 'be given another chance'.

I dont agree with this in general, since our birth into the physical is apparently a part of the soul's valuable lesson of 'experience'. Any second chances or opportunities for soul-growth, progress or development EXIST as long as there is consciousness (in this world or any world).

And in the middle ages, the sufferings and oppression of the people by their leaders was justified by the teaching that this was but a fleeting moment compared to eternity. That's wrong because this world is real and the decisions we make are in relation to this real world and what happens in an afterlife is not a new life but a justification of the life spent in the body, in the real world.

Well, compared to eternity....this is a 'flash in the pan'. What we do here (or anywhere) certainly relates to and affects our experience of life (in all its phases), for the law of karma continues as long as we are conditioned by thoughts, words, actions. Again we reiterate, as long as a soul is conscious and able to exercise its 'mind', its engaging its potential and possibilities.



pj

 

[Aimiel]

Jesus did not describe ECT.

The worm and fire dies not in Gehenna but everything thrown in there was consumed.

LA

You said some things that have no support from the bible. There is no biblical evidence for the "undead".

While I wouldn't go that far, to say that there is no evidence to support calling those in the Lake of Fire: "Undead," I still think it gives a better explanation (since their fate of being tormented for ever and ever is called: "The Second Death") for what state they will be in. They will not see any light, they will never escape, they will never again see another soul and they will never grow or overcome their torments. That isn't life, by any stretch.

Jesus did not talk about Eternal Conscious Torment.

Jesus actually did, and described the torment of a specific rich man there, as well as say that those on His left hand should be cast into torment. It's not only misleading but also dishonest to say that He didn't. He actually quoted Himself (using future-perfect tense, as ONLY The Lord can do):

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:

And the angels certainly didn't talk about ECT.

The angel who was quoted by John in Revelation Chapter 20 did describe ECT:

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

 

[Aimiel]

Looking at several Scriptures, many mistaken theologies might find some support, but one must weigh all of Scripture and incorporate whatever might be relevant to the subject at hand to decide what Scripture is describing. Ignoring ECT which is certainly described by Jesus and by angels, one must conclude that it is real and is the fate of sinners.

 

[Timotheos]

While I wouldn't go that far, to say that there is no evidence to support calling those in the Lake of Fire: "Undead," I still think it gives a better explanation (since their fate of being tormented for ever and ever is called: "The Second Death") for what state they will be in. They will not see any light, they will never escape, they will never again see another soul and they will never grow or overcome their torments. That isn't life, by any stretch. Jesus actually did, and described the torment of a specific rich man there, as well as say that those on His left hand should be cast into torment. It's not only misleading but also dishonest to say that He didn't. He actually quoted Himself (using future-perfect tense, as ONLY The Lord can do):

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:
The angel who was quoted by John in Revelation Chapter 20 did describe ECT:

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

I agree that those who are in the lake of fire are not alive. This is because they are dead. The lake of fire is the second death.

Jesus did not say 'depart from me, ye cursed, into eternal conscious torment'. He said into everlasting fire. Fire consumes what is put into it, so this language supports eternal destruction much more than eternal conscious torment.

And the Angel from Revelation didn't say that the lost go to ECT either. He said they go to the lake of fire, which would certainly kill a person. If that isn't enough, Revelation specifically says that the lake of fire is the second DEATH, not ECT.

The rich man is not said to be in eternal torment in the parable Jesus told. This is specifically NOT eternal torment, because the rich man was said to be in "Hades", and Hades itself will be thrown into the lake of fire. It will come to an end.

So your claim that Jesus and the Angels talk about ECT is false.

Looking at several Scriptures, many mistaken theologies might find some support, but one must weigh all of Scripture and incorporate whatever might be relevant to the subject at hand to decide what Scripture is describing. Ignoring ECT which is certainly described by Jesus and by angels, one must conclude that it is real and is the fate of sinners.

You have to look at the scriptures in order to "weigh all of Scripture". Since there is no verse in the Bible anywhere that says the lost go to hell when they die where they are tormented forever, then adding up all of the scriptures that DON'T say there is ECT doesn't produce the doctrine of ECT. If you weigh all of the scriptures, you find that the evidence supports the conclusion that the wicked are destroyed and are no more. You can't produce any evidence for your doctrine, but you expect me to believe that all of the lack of evidence you produce adds up to evidence of the doctrine that you can't find any scriptural support for? Isn't the more likely explanation that you can't produce any evidence because there is none, but you don't want to discard the doctrine of Eternal Torment?

 

[not4sure]

Ad nauseum.

 

[Timotheos]

Ad nauseum.

If you are feeling ill, you may be excused from the discussion.
If you have any evidence for ECT, I really want to hear it.
If you have no evidence, but do not wish to leave the discussion, just keep posting these meaningless little snipes.

 

[freelight]

Love without end.......

Love without end.......

Ad nauseum.

Some doctrines like 'ECT' are just that because they ignore principles that render the 'belief' untenable or outright absurd. - this becomes more ignoble as we consider the true nature of divine justice and mercy, which mediates itself thru wisdom and love, which tends towards the salvation of souls...not their eternal punishment and suffering. Love does not enforce an eternity of punishment or suffering, because that is not Love's will or nature. Would you consider that God's Love is infinite? It may do you well.




pj