Conditional Immortality! Do You Understand It? Do You Believe It?

All well and good, but I have it on good authority that the punishment of hell is everlasting.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.​

Your doctrine rests on the fallacy that death and unconsciousness or a cessation of being are synonymous in biblical parlance.

 

Annihilationism is the attempt to exorcise death of its pains, where there is neither weeping nor gnashing of teeth.

 

Martin, I'd like to point out that your arguments have missed the force of the original post. It was an argument for conditional immortality, not just a list of verses without an argument. I respect your list of verses, but you didn't provide any explanation of why you think they support your view rather than the OP's conditional immortality, and you didn't attempt to explain why the OP is wrong.

If the OP remains unchallenged, that means this thread concludes that the Bible teaches conditional immortality. Your verses may be interpreted in that light -- and they are actually simple to interpret that way.

Mark pointed out that this passages is about corpses being thrown into a valley. If you look at Jesus' other "pluck it out" passages, for example in Matt 5:29, you'll see that it is indeed "your whole body" being thrown into gehenna, showing that Jesus is aware of the context and intends to use it in the same way.

I'd like to point a different thing out. What exactly is Jesus comparing gehenna to? He's saying gehenna is worse than "entering the kingdom of God with one eye." He's asking us to imagine living forever with only one eye, giving up half of our eyesight and all our depth vision in order to be free from sin. He's NOT asking us to compare gehenna to pain, but rather to loss and destruction -- which is what conditional immortality teaches.

This passage, on closer examination, not only can be interpreted in accordance with conditional immortality, but actually positively affirms it.

What does having a weight around your neck do to the process of drowning? You seem to think it's painful, but although drowning is painful, adding a millstone doesn't add pain. It makes it quicker, which isn't obviously worse -- what's worse is that it makes it inescapable. And that is the point Jesus is making; sins that seem small, like causing someone else to stumble, are judged with all seriousness on the last day; and nobody will escape their judgment.

And of course, the penalty being described in this metaphor is death.

I can only guess what your argument is in regards to this passage; but since you've edited out most of the passage, I have a pretty good chance of guessing. You probably think that this passage is non-symbolic, to be taken strictly literally; and you think that everything thrown into the Lake of Fire will undergo exactly the same punishment. I'll go with you on your assumption that this passage is literal, although that actually contradicts Rev 17:8-11, which is the interpretation of the beast as "going to destruction."

But is your main premise true? Will everything thrown into the lake of fire undergo the same punishment? The text makes it clear that this is not true. The part you cut out includes death being thrown into the Lake of Fire; and after the judgment, Rev 21:4 says "death is no more." So there are two different fates for at least death and Satan (and not to belabor the point, but it looks like the beast is supposed to be destroyed alongside death).

Nor is there any good reason to think humans are seen in the same light as the two beasts and Satan; unlike those, humans are raised from the dead and judged, a very different process than the beasts received. Then, when their punishment is exegeted, the humans' fate in the lake of fire is explained as "the second death" -- a phrase which in its context interprets the lake of fire. Humans thrown into the lake of fire die. And that's exactly what all the rest of the Bible teaches -- God will kill the rebels at gehenna, as Luke 12:5 says.

The conclusion should not be to presume that humans receive whatever Satan is depicted as receiving; the conclusion should be that whatever happens to Satan (eternal torment or the destruction that the rest of the Bible promised him), the fate of people is not the same; it's death.

I don't have much time, so I'm going to post this -- I apologize for shorting a very complex discussion. One more simple thing.

You quoted Daniel 12:2, which says that the wicked will be raised to "shame and eternal contempt." But look at this. Shame is an emotion shameful people feel, and contempt is an emotion contemptuous people feel. Although contempt is a negative emotion, it's not something that's bad to feel; it means you're judging someone else. Shame IS bad to feel; to be shamed is to BE judged. In other words, the shame is felt by the wicked; the contempt is felt by everyone else, including God, toward the wicked.

And the only part that's eternal is the contempt. That's because, just as in Isaiah 66:24, the righteous are alive forever to scorn the wicked, while the wicked -- after their resurrection to shame -- are killed, and remain dead.

 

I like your first name, it is good name "Mark" and I share it with you. However, it seems that you are confusing "life' and "death" with existence and non-existence when both are actually two different states of existence. Life is the state of existence of eternal union with God. Death is the state of existence of eternal separation from God. For example, consider Matthew 10:28 that even God cannot "destroy" the soul after physical death of the body until the time of final judgement when it is cast into Gehenna. The Greek term apollumi does not mean annihilate but to render useless. Man kills the body to render it useless for soul expressions (hate, envy, etc.) but God renders it useless by placing it in Gehenna where it cannot administer soul expressions on anyone but those deserving. The wine skins were apolummi but not annihilated, but rendered useless for their designed purpose. Christ was sent to the apolummi house of Israel as they were existing in state of uselessness for their designed purpose - to glorify God and receive the Messiah. It seems you are confusing two different states of existence with the idea of non-existence and existence. You seem to be calling the state of eternal life existence and death non-existence when in fact eternal life describes a state of existence with God and in union with God whereas death describes a state of separation.

 

The Bible certainly does mention eternal punishment.
Matthew 25:46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Eternal punishment includes as a consequence, eternal separation from God. I have seen the arguments about being separated being a fiction, but again scripture supports the view. God is holy and sin causes a separation.

First, lets avoid making strawman arguments, I did not say eternal punishment was comprised solely of eternal separation. I addressed those going into eternal punishment will suffer torment as required to satisfy God's perfect justice. Next, when God destroys the soul and body of those lost, that is the second death. It seems to me you were seeking to find fault where none exists.

Sinners in a sinful state are separated from God. They are dead in their trespasses. United with God = alive, separated from God = spiritually dead.

Yet another strawman, no one claimed torment is the only penalty for sin.

We have what God's word says, and it also says sinners will be punished in a place of torment.

Minor point but Satan suffers torment for ever and ever, and scripture does not say his existence is ever terminated.

Did I advocate that view? Nope. What is that, the third strawman?

Those who have fallen asleep in Christ are resting in peace, they have entered His rest.

Again, another strawman, did I say the lost never are destroyed?

 

Hello Martin. Can you tell me why this verse necessarily means a person is conscious of the shame and the everlasting contempt? I have contempt for people (both dead and alive) who have done evil things and yet they are not conscious of this fact. It means being the object of contempt does not necessarily imply one is aware of this. Hence, I would look for a clear clue from the text itself that the everlasting contempt is one people will necessarily experience. But I see none. So I am wondering if you can explain exactly what you see in the text.

 

So, what is your understanding of the biblical references to sinners being "destroyed" in hell?

 

I like the name Mark, also. Some thoughts I have about your statement.

1. The Conditionalist case does not rest on apollumi meaning "annihilation". The Conditionalists I know will point out that apollumi has a range of meaning (including "to render useless" which, incidentally, John Stackhouse jr. uses to establish is case for Conditionalism) but argue that usage in a given context is determinative of meaning. It seems to me, however, that you are arguing that appolumi always means "to render useless". If so what do you make of texts like Matt. 2:13; 12:14; 21:41; 27:20; Mark 3:6; 9: 22; Luke 6:9 where the ending of a person's life is in view?

2. I also think Conditionalists will happily concede your argument that "man kills the body to render it useless" because this is all bound up with the destruction of the body (whether by the initial act of killing or by the decomposition of the body). I am not sure how your definition of "to kill" helps you.

3. In any case, by quoting Matt 10:28 you seem to recognise that "to kill" and "to destroy" are juxtaposed in a way that sets them in parallel. Since being killed ipso facto means one loses the faculty of consciousness, and since you are arguing that "to kill" and "to destroy" have the same implication or meaning in Matt 10:28, is it not natural to think that being "destroyed" also entails the loss of the faculty of consciousness? I am interested in your thoughts on this.

 

I think you may be guilty of illegitimate totality transfer.

eternal life does not necessarily mean life forever

aiōnion seems to almost certainly refer to a quality, rather than a duration

 

We've addressed this already -- in short, we affirm that the wicked are punished with eternal destruction in its ordinary sense, a complete death and destruction affecting both body and soul. I suspect you haven't read the whole discussion above.

No, it doesn't. It rests on the truth that the Bible sees death as being the end of the life that God gave each man. Without God's gift of life, man cannot "live, and move, and have his being" anymore.

We do not deny that humans can be conscious after death; but this consciousness is a temporary provision called "the intermediate state" during which the soul is kept alive by God. We do not, unlike you, presume that consciousness and life continues unconditionally; rather, we recognize that both gifts are tied together in the gift of God's spirit by which man became a living soul.

This is a disappointing argument; it's a fabrication of our motives which ignores completely the points we've made and substitutes an irrelevant fiction. We not only admit but positively affirm that death is painful -- not as a state, but as a process of dying. We affirm that in the furnace of fire people will weep and gnash their teeth -- but Jesus says they will be like the tares in the fire, and like the "causes of stumbling", and will be burnt up (Matt 13:40ff).

You suppose that the wicked are unlike tares being burnt in that they endure through the fire; but can you substantiate that from the Bible? And what about all the other passages affirming similar things -- that the wicked are like "chaff burnt up" in "unquenchable fire", that they're like tinder set aflame, that they're like dead trees being burnt... that the righteous will tread on the ashes of the wicked? Do you know of even ONE passage that even so much as hints that the wicked will actually endure past the judgment?

The Bible overwhelmingly directly teaches that the purpose of God's judgment is to remove the wicked, leaving only those He has made righteous. Only the righteous are those who are worthy to attain to the next age, and only they cannot die, since they are sons of the resurrection.

 

James, I was responding to HankD, who quoted Matt 25:46 to "prove" that hell lasted forever, because (he implied) the wicked go into eternal punishment while the righteous go into eternal life. Following his logic, both "life" and "punishment" have equal duration.

Now, you're telling me that merely because I'm replying to HankD I'm guilty of ITT. In fact neither Hank nor I have erred, as "eternal life" is the broad majority definition of the Greek words in question. It's quite simply their face value, what they would normally mean. This is not fancy theological terminology, nor is it derived from remote Scriptural passages with no connection to this; it's simply what every Greek on the street would understand when they see those words. I've also quoted a huge number of other Biblical expressions which mean the same thing, such as saying that those with eternal life will "not die", or that they'll "live forever and ever."

However, you would like to argue instead that "eternal life" and "eternal punishment" are qualities of life and punishment, NOT duration. That's OK with me, because of course now ANYONE can see that eternal destruction in unquenchable fire -- like chaff in the unquenchable fire -- is the type of punishment given at the Day of the Lord.

 

I think we may need to back up a little.

I noticed in the OP it showed the definition of immortality as "eternal life"

I took that as an assertion of the two being synonymous (immortality = eternal life)

So I asked if that was the initial premise, and asked for biblical support for the premise.

I wasn't asking anything about Hank or what he wrote, or what you replied to him. I simply asked for biblical support that immortality = eternal life

I didn't think you supported the premise with anything other than mere assertion. And saying every on the street understands it your way is error, imho.

 

I'm sure you have, but saying that the cessation of being is the everlasting point does violence to the simple, straightforward and succinct maxim stated by Christ.

They will suffer forever. Not temporarily.

But if you don't yield to the Scripture, there's nothing I can say that will change your mind.

 

Tell me what you think the first death is?

 

First, the English word "hell" is used to translate two very different Greek words - Hades and Gehenna. Scripture says God can destroy both the body and the soul in Gehenna, the location of the Lake of Fire. (Matthew 10:28) I believe the word translated "destroy" was meant to convey the idea of putting an end to the existence of body and soul. But scripture also says the lost are conveyed to Hades when they physically die, and they are punished with torment in accordance with the wrath they stored up during their physical lifetime. i believe after God's perfect justice is satisfied, the lost are destroyed.

To support this view I point to the verses that say the punishment of some will be more tolerable than the punishment of others. Thus it appears the punishment will be tailored to the individual sins of the lost person. Eternal torment OTOH appears to provide one punishment for all, thus is less likely to be the correct view.