Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Timotheos]

You can destroy an enemy by making them your friend.

That's not how I use the word "Destroy". I don't think that is what the Bible means by "destroy". How is an enemy destroyed by making them your friend? If they are your friend, why would you want them to be destroyed?

These are the verses that "godrulz" has been ignoring. I was hoping that he would finally give me an answer.

 

[keypurr]

That's not how I use the word "Destroy". I don't think that is what the Bible means by "destroy". How is an enemy destroyed by making them your friend? If they are your friend, why would you want them to be destroyed?

These are the verses that "godrulz" has been ignoring. I was hoping that he would finally give me an answer.

Friend, there over 1300 posts on this thread and they still will not listen. They are not interested in truth.

 

[Timotheos]

Friend, there over 1300 posts on this thread and they still will not listen. They are not interested in truth.

I never thought of it that way. I suspected that "rulz" was merely trolling, but I like to think the best of everyone.

 

[keypurr]

I never thought of it that way. I suspected that "rulz" was merely trolling, but I like to think the best of everyone.

I also, but they have shown that they only want to defend what they have been brought up in. You will see this in every thread, no matter what the subject.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

People seeking the truth must realize that the Bible contains the truth, whereas most popular beliefs of churches came from theologians linked to the RCC of the middle ages and earlier types of people.

The majority of christianity is inagreement with the RCC on most matters which matter, and the Lord does not allow repentance in those who follow men, in particular themselves.

Thus they are exposed for what they really are.



LA.

 

[Desert Reign]

I do not ignore verses, but interpret them exegetically.

GR you are not making sense here. Exegesis is just a posh word for interpretation. You can't exegete them exegetically. You don't have a magic method of interpreting the Bible called "exegesis" that somehow allows you to believe that you can see things that others can't just because they don't have this magic method. If you want a name for this fallacy, how about the 'claiming the high ground fallacy'? The only question is whether your exegesis is right or wrong.

You cannot negate a literal passage by pointing out that there are figurative ones in the Book. Context is king.

That's exactly right. So why do you seem to think that all the passages that 'literally' speak of the destruction of the wicked (and there are very many) don't mean that the wicked are destroyed?

Jn. 3:16 does not support your view.

I don't know whose view you are referring to here. However, I would have thought that John 3:16 clearly implies that people perish unless they are born again. If this were not so then there would have been no point in Jesus saying what he did.

Calvinists and Arminians have opposite views, yet claim the same verses. This is where we are at.

That's a logical fallacy and doesn't support your position.

Of course, books and debates are endless on this subject.

Again, a logical fallacy. This lends no support to your case at all.

Like you, I am convinced I am right and biblical and you are wrong/unbiblical.

Again, the fact that we disagree doesn't imply that you have a right to be right. This is not an issue of sympathy but of simple bringing of evidence and weighing it. Personally I'm disappointed that so much of what you are saying is completely beside the point. And actually I am not convinced that ECT is wrong or that you are unbiblical and I would not accuse you of being so. I'm a simple and practical person, just waiting for some concrete evidence for ECT and the fact loads of books have been written on the subject or that you are convinced you are right doesn't really cut it.

Quoting verses with perish/destruction do not prove or disprove either view.

On the contrary, every passage which refers to the destruction of the wicked is a piece of evidence that supports the contention that the wicked are destroyed. The fact that there are so many of them leads, prima facie, to the conclusion that the prevailing belief of both Jesus and contemporary Jewish society was that the wicked are destroyed. Or are you trying to suggest that those who believe that the wicked are destroyed are allowed to bring any evidence they can to the table except passages of scripture that say that the wicked are destroyed?

A flawed view of soul, death, punishment, etc. is your problem.

This has been pointed out to you before: what you are admitting here is that your argument is circular. You are saying that if you don't start out with a belief in the immortality of the soul then you won't read the Bible correctly as teaching the immortality of the soul. Can you not see this? It really does put the nail in the coffin. And I'm not saying that ECT is therefore irrefutably dismissed. I am still open to the evidence but with the large number of passages that speak of destruction, it must surely be considered normative to believe in destruction so the onus is on you now to bring the contrary evidence.

 

[freelight]

flawed sense of 'justice'........

flawed sense of 'justice'........

A flawed view of soul, death, punishment, etc. is your problem.

Your doctrine of ECT violates principle, no matter what preconceptions or presuppositions you bring to the table. Again, you'd have to prove that your God of love is capable of enforcing the eternal punishment and suffering of souls, to no end. The problem as explained many times previously is that such an act of endless punishment is unbecoming of a God of Love whose will is the salvation and happiness of his children, and whose Love would be available to souls that still have the ability to respond to his calling, as long as they have consciousness and 'free will'.

What you are left with to give to the world is a 'god' of torture, contradiction and bile,....who perpetuates suffering in the false name of love and inflicts punishment under the guise of justice....but to no end,...but his own 'ego' which glories in his 'right' to make eternal misery and a 'show' of his creatures to those who would defy him. Such a 'god' is an evil maniac, an EGO-tist.

Love, if real, eternal and infinite, only wills the good and prosperity of its children, and cannot change its will...being eternal in nature. A soul could not be 'seperate' from 'God' ever...even though a soul my darken or corrupt its own perception and affection of 'God' by its own 'ignorance', 'misperception', 'rebellion', etc......, but the very life and light within a soul that enables it to be conscious, is from 'God', so that even if a soul becomes lost or disintegrated somehow...the spirit-spark or soul-essence goes on to other combinations or to serve the greater collective, even though that individual soul may 'die' having forfeited its life-potential. Life, light, consciousness, and its positive values and potential.....must go on in some form or personality-expression.

Only a fiend would keep souls in an eternal state of suffering and anguish, with no remedy or relief or offer of salvation. This is insane. One does not even have to be a religionist or philanthropist to see how repugnant and inhumane this is, besides so contrary to the 'God' portrayed by most as loving, gracious, kind, just, beneficent, all-wise and fair. It is no wonder that on this score, many are happy to be 'atheists'.


pj

 

[godrulz]

so this is your argument?

just answer this question please

does God want you to suffer eternally?
or
can He not do anything about it?

God is not willing for any to perish or suffer forever (2 Peter 3:9). He has done something about it in the cross of Christ!

 

[godrulz]

I never thought of it that way. I suspected that "rulz" was merely trolling, but I like to think the best of everyone.

Keypurr denies the Deity of Christ and Trinity. Does that make him a troll on the Deity/Trinity threads for sincerely objecting to our position (which is true, contrary to his)?

He is wrong about hell and Christ. The former is not consequential compared to the latter.

 

[chrysostom]

just answer this question please

does God want you to suffer eternally?
or
can He not do anything about it?

God is not willing for any to perish or suffer forever (2 Peter 3:9). He has done something about it in the cross of Christ!

please answer the question

 

[Timotheos]

God is not willing for any to perish or suffer forever (2 Peter 3:9). He has done something about it in the cross of Christ!

2 Peter 3:9 does not include the words you added, "or suffer forever". I suggest that you go back and re-read the verse. Peter says what happens to those who refuse to come to repentance. They perish.

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

 

[Timotheos]

Keypurr denies the Deity of Christ and Trinity. Does that make him a troll on the Deity/Trinity threads for sincerely objecting to our position (which is true, contrary to his)?

He is wrong about hell and Christ. The former is not consequential compared to the latter.

"Trolling is an Internet slang term used to describe any Internet user behavior that is meant to intentionally anger or frustrate someone else. It is often associated with online discussions where users are subjected to offensive or superfluous posts and messages in order to provoke a response."

A person's religious beliefs are not indicators of whether they are trolling or not. You make the same accusations over and over, and refuse to offer any proof of your accusations. This is behavior that is meant to intentionally anger and frustrate someone else. What you are doing is trolling.

You claim Keypurr is wrong about Hell and Christ. You offer no proof, apparently he is wrong merely because he disagrees with you. You claim I am wrong about Hell, You claim I take verses out of context, you claim I use improper word definitions, but you don't offer any proof supporting your claim. Apparently, you say that I am wrong merely because I am disagreeing with you. You seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong for that reason. No doubt but you are the man, and wisdom shall die with you. Job 12:2, paraphrased.

 

[BigBoof1959]

That's not how I use the word "Destroy". I don't think that is what the Bible means by "destroy". How is an enemy destroyed by making them your friend? If they are your friend, why would you want them to be destroyed?

The bible uses a lot of words that are translated "destroy". One is found in Isaiah 6:5, but is translated there as "undone" in many bibles. The "Isaiah" that existed before he saw the LORD on His throne in glory was "destroyed". The same thing happened with Paul on the way to Damascus. Prior to his conversion Paul was an enemy of God, Jesus and the church. What happened to this enemy? If you looked for this raving persecutor at Ananias' house in Damascus would you have found him? He would be nowhere to be found. Out of existence. "Destroyed". What happened to all of the "enemies" in Romans 5:10 and Colossians 1:21? You can take other words that are translated as destroy, like the one found in Genesis 13:10 that is used to describe what the LORD did to Sodom and Gomorrah, and then look at Ezekiel chapter 16 and ask yourself how something that was "destroyed" as Sodom was, can be "returned" and given to Jerusalem as a daughter.

These are the verses that "godrulz" has been ignoring. I was hoping that he would finally give me an answer

.

I was hoping someone would address the apparent conflict between 2 Peter 2:1 and Ezekiel chapter 16.

 

[Zeke]

God is not willing for any to perish or suffer forever (2 Peter 3:9). He has done something about it in the cross of Christ!

To you God is a blind potter, who makes marred pots and then gets upset that they are.

The cross is foolishness to man so how is that doing something about mans unbelief? He tells you in Romans 9-11 but you don't really except those scripture that clearly shows the enemies of the gospel are blinded by God Will for a purpose Romans 11:30-31, and their still beloved by God, and other scripture that states He is the Saviour of all men etc.....

You take statements (as most others here do) to and about the flesh perishing and apply that to the innerman, which Paul teaches can't overcome the flesh through human will Romans 7:15..

 

[Timotheos]

I was hoping someone would address the apparent conflict between 2 Peter 2:1 and Ezekiel chapter 16.

There is no conflict between 2 Peter 2:1 and Ezekiel 16.

(Your post made it seem that I said "I was hoping someone would address the apparent conflict...", I didn't say that and I don't believe that there is a conflict.

 

[godrulz]

please answer the question

I did answer the question fully. However, the objective provision must be subjectively appropriated and God's will, intentions, desires for the individual can be rejected (Lk. 7:30; Matthew 23:37).

 

[godrulz]

2 Peter 3:9 does not include the words you added, "or suffer forever". I suggest that you go back and re-read the verse. Peter says what happens to those who refuse to come to repentance. They perish.

They perish and are separated from God's presence. This does not mean they are non-existent.

If a fruit or vegetable perishes, it does not mean it is atomized into non-existence when the word is used.

 

[godrulz]

"Trolling is an Internet slang term used to describe any Internet user behavior that is meant to intentionally anger or frustrate someone else. It is often associated with online discussions where users are subjected to offensive or superfluous posts and messages in order to provoke a response."

A person's religious beliefs are not indicators of whether they are trolling or not. You make the same accusations over and over, and refuse to offer any proof of your accusations. This is behavior that is meant to intentionally anger and frustrate someone else. What you are doing is trolling.

You claim Keypurr is wrong about Hell and Christ. You offer no proof, apparently he is wrong merely because he disagrees with you. You claim I am wrong about Hell, You claim I take verses out of context, you claim I use improper word definitions, but you don't offer any proof supporting your claim. Apparently, you say that I am wrong merely because I am disagreeing with you. You seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong for that reason. No doubt but you are the man, and wisdom shall die with you. Job 12:2, paraphrased.

He has been given many proofs/verses over the years. Like him, you simply dismiss the evidence and cling to your personal views assuming infallibility.

 

[Zeke]

Godrulz what happens to the flesh that Paul talks about in Romans 7:18 and does it include the innerman who can't stop it from doing the things against the innermans will? Should we condemn the whole man or just the flesh? At least the others here who still want to condenm the whole man let death be the final punishment instead of the eternal torment your religious warped mind embraces.

Your starting to sound like religious dictator who has lost his mind Godrulz, and will be last instead of first.

 

[godrulz]

Godrulz what happens to the flesh that Paul talks about in Romans 7:18 and does it include the innerman who can't stop it from doing the things against the innermans will? Should we condemn the whole man or just the flesh? At least the others here who still want to condenm the whole man let death be the final punishment instead of the eternal torment your religious warped mind embraces.

Your starting to sound like religious dictator who has lost his mind Godrulz, and will be last instead of first.

Rom. 6-8 is about sanctification. Paul uses flesh as a metaphor for sin. I Cor. 15 deals with future bodily resurrection, while difficult 2 Cor. 5 deals with the intermediate state.

What are you rambling about?:bang: