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

this same state of existence called "dead" is further described as being "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18) which is not metaphorical life but actual eternal life that comes from God as many other passages bear out.

No more a "huge assumption" that Ephesians 2:2-3 is a further explanation of that "dead" condition. Ephesians 4:18-19 describes the very same condition described in Ephesians 2:2-3 or will you deny that? It is not a matter of distance between these texts but a matter of common subject matter

Do you think using John 1:1-3 as proof for the absolute deity of Christ is inappropriate when supporting John 20:28 ("my Lord and My God") as proof for his absolute deity because it literally spans more than 19 chapters???? Or do both have common subject matter? Think about it!

 

Life, light, love and holiness are found in God alone and only spiritual union with God can experience the life, light, love and holiness of God. Anyone alienated from the life of God is alienated from the light, love and holiness of God and is in a spiritual state of depravity (without holiness), darkness (without light), dead (without the life of God) and enmity (without love for God).

You admit "undeniably all were spiritually dead" but then you quote a text that undeniably refers to PHYSICAL life rather than spiritual life. They had been given the gift of PHYSICAL life but as you admit they were without spiritual life as you admit they were spiritually dead. Your response makes no sense as you are confusing apples with oranges.

However, you prove my point, that being spiritual dead while being physically alive refers to a spiritual condition or the lack of spiritual union with God who IS life, light, love and enmity with regard to SPIRITUAL life.

 

Eph. 2:1 ¶ And you has he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Ephesians 2:1 declares that a past SPIRITUAL condition "dead in tresspasses and sins" was reversed "you hath he quickened." However, verses 2-3 further describes and defines that past spiritual "dead in tresspasses and sins" condition as a conscious SPIRITUAL active rebellion against God. Hence, "dead" does not refer to an inactive or non-existent SPIRITUAL condition but describes the condition of the spirit of man in his opposition against God. Ephesians 4:18-19 further describes it as a SEPARATED condition from God who is the source of everything that was rectified by quickening, that brought them back into spiritual UNION with God or having been "created IN Christ" rather than "dead IN tresspasses and sins".

Eph. 4:17 ¶ This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you from now on walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But you have not so learned Christ;

1. God IS Light - "dead in...sins" IS "darkened" because spiritual SEPARATION from God.

2. God IS life - "dead in...sins" is "alienated from the life of God" because of spiritual SEPARATION from God.

3. God IS love - "dead in...sins" is "blindness (lit. Grk. "hardened") of their heart ....past feeling" because of spiritual SEPARATION from God

4. God IS holy - "dead in...sins" is "given themselves to lasciviousness...all uncleaness" because of spiritual SEPARATION from God.

The reversal of this "dead IN...sins" is to be "created IN Christ" thereby bringing the spirit of man back into spiritual UNION with God. The opposite of UNION is SEPARATION and that is what death is - separation. Spiritual death = separation of the human spirit of man from the Spirit of God (rectified by spiritual union = life). Physical death = separation of the material from the immateral nature of man (rectified by reUNION of physical and spirit by resurrection = future eternal life of the body). Second death = separation of the whole man into Gehenna.

 

See Luke 16:19-31 -- note that the comment only quoted vvs 23-25.

The main point you're probably making is this this passage clearly shows that pain (torment in fire) is part of the judgment God applies against sin (I'm guessing that's your point, because you quoted the three verses which mention pain).

Conditionalists agree that the purpose of the fire God will bring on the last day is to kill, but the means by which the fire kills can be painful, if God reduces the intensity of the consuming fire enough to make the duration of the burning longer. This passage depicts a scene that seems broadly compatible with this -- the rich man is being tormented for what seems to him to be a surprising duration, especially given that he probably expected to be received in honor. And of course, in the rest of the parable, Abraham shows that the rich man cannot hope to ever cross over to escape the flames, nor even to reduce his deserved torment by a mere drop of watery relief.

But this story includes no element that would change the expected ending of being tormented by flames -- normally, a person tormented in flames will die of the burns, if not of the temperature. There's nothing in the story as it's told to hint that this person will survive. If the wages of sin actually is death, then this man will die, and therefore will not remain alive in the flames. The fact that the story doesn't depict his final punishment doesn't mean it excludes it.

So using this story to prove eternal torment is an overshoot -- it proves torment, but not eternal torment. (On the other hand, this story DOES clearly speak against the universalist idea that those who are judged unworthy can cross over to become the saved.)

 

God has decided that it is still better to live forever in Hell than be burnt away and cease to exist.....

 

Many here seem to equate ruin/destruction /second death as ceasing to exist, but the Bible uses those terms to indicate livinfg on totally devoid of the presence of God!

 

First, nowhere does Jesus say this is a "parable" - nowhere!

Second, Jesus never uses proper names and historic persons in parables.

Third, if it were a parable, the purpose of a parable is to convey a truth. What is the truth being conveyed AFTER death in this story if not penal sufferings after physical death and eternal bliss after physical death.

Fourth, his body has been buried and so it is his immaterial substance which is experiencing pain

Fifth, God is "spirit" and yet the Scriptures consistently use bodily parts to help us to understand God's Person and the same would be true with regard to our spirit substance either in hades or heaven.

Sixth, this is an actual historical story with actual historical persons (Moses, Abraham, Lazerus, brothers) and it completely refutes your whole position.

 

In an attempt to get both of us to discuss what we actually believe rather than arguing in circles about whether we believe it, I posted my actual beliefs -- and then I quoted your own post, and copied down what you claimed your belief was.

You can see what I'm trying to do -- exhibit my definition in a simple form, and show how it differs from the definition you previously gave. I even took the time to disclaim that obviously we had other differences.

But this? This doesn't make any sense at all. Are you saying that "death is separation" is a far cry from your claim, or are you saying it's the essence of your claim? Make up your mind! And of course I don't believe it's everything -- I SAID that, didn't I?

No, my definition of "death" as the "end of life" is the cessation of animation in the thing that dies. It is NOT the cessation of the thing itself. If you don't like it, show me why my definition is wrong rather than calling it names like "pure semantics". Show, don't tell. And remember, I've actually SHOWN you how my definition works in all of the passages you've quoted.

You are completely lacking in any Biblical passage that actually defines death as separation; all you have is a couple of claims that death is sometimes associated with separation, but even there, your mainstay in Ephesians 4 is actually speaking of a alienation from life, which matches my definition perfectly. Meanwhile, every dictionary in the world, Greek and English as well as all the other languages, defines death as the end of life as marked by a loss of animation. Your definition is absolutely unique -- even Grudem doesn't hold to it, for which you (amusingly) blame him as using the wrong word.

See that? Yeshua1 uses the wrong word too, by your definition. But Yeshua1 is being clear: this is what both he and you actually believe: that the wicked will continue "living on" forever. That is, in the ordinary language dictionary sense of the words "living on".

And Yeshua1, by using simple and clear terms, allows discussion to proceed. He's right that we think to be "destroyed" can either mean simply to be killed or to be killed AND to cease to exist, depending on context. That's a genuine difference between him and me, since he thinks it means not to be killed but to live on.

(On the other hand, we do not think "second death" means to cease to exist. We believe it means a second instance of death, while Yeshua1 believes it means a completely different kind of thing that's coincidentally called "death", but not like death because it actually means "living on".)

 

Jesus will abolish death, so there will be those living on forever apart from God!

 

Yeshua1, you're speaking like a prophet in telling us what God's decided, but you're not quoting Scripture. Can you show us where God had actually decided that it is still better to live forever in Hell than be burnt away and cease to exist?

I can think of a few contrary claims. Gen 3:22 says it would be bad for man to live forever. Rom 1:32 says all who sin deserve to die. Heb 10:26-27 actually contrasts the fate of a faithful person with that of an adversary about to be consumed by fire. The same difference between the faithful and the unfaithful is repeated in Heb 12:27 to warn that the faithful will remain in the part of creation that is not "removed", by God who IS consuming fire.

I've picked out words that don't simply clash with the claims you made in the post about "ruin/destruction/second death."

I didn't even realize I'd called it one. I take that back -- old habit. I said nothing that would depend on this being a parable; I pointed only to what this story actually affirms or denies.

That's exactly what I said this story was conveying -- minus the part about eternal bliss, since this story doesn't mention anything about eternity.

I know, that's what good doctrine says, and what I believe! But the actual text is perfectly clear: he has a tongue, and he calls for Lazarus to use his finger to bring water to put on the tongue. In the story, both characters are portrayed as having bodies. The rich man has no clue why he's being tormented (in total defiance of the fact that God says he will judge the wicked, not just punish them and leave them clueless). Lazarus has no lines or actions at all; he's completely inert.

Can you actually "help us understand" this story by showing how the rich man's tongue's need for water and Lazarus' finger are figures of speech for something, as God's "hand" is a figure for His power and competence? Or are you actually just discarding the part of the story that doesn't fit your beliefs? (Of course you are.)

I don't have to discard anything; I think every element is significant. And the part that's important to our argument here is that this story does not mention eternal torment. It only mentions torment -- which is a part of final judgment on which all sides agree. This was my previous argument, and it remains unaddressed.

Hm. You're actually responding to my post, and yet you haven't made any response at all to my argument. This means you cannot respond, and are blustering instead.

 

Two excellent books that set out the Biblical teaching on hell are Whatever happened to Hell? by John Blanchard, and a smaller book called What comes after Death by Edward Donnelly (Banner of Truth; ISBN 0-85151-811-7). This second book also gives a brief teaching on the subject of heaven

The first book seems to be missing from my library which probably means that I have lent it to someone, but it is well worth reading. The doctrine of Eternal Punishment is a very sombre one and I don't think a preacher should ever cover it without a tear in his eye and without giving a thorough preaching of the Gospel which alone can bring men to heaven. However, because it is unpalatable does not mean it is not true.

 

Notice that this is completely at odds with Biblicist's claims that death actually means separation and that people will remain in separation from God -- which by his definition means they remain in death. If your claim is correct, his must be wrong. You're both arguing for the same conclusion, but are applying opposite claims about it. Here's one example of his claims:

And as you and TCassidy agree, death is abolished and is no more in the eternal state -- this last claim actually appears in the Bible, unlike the claim that death means separation. So we should believe that "death is no more" in the eternal state, and since that's incompatible with the non-Biblical claim that the essence of death is separation, we should not believe that.

How does this work with conditionalism? Very simply. The wicked are never promised life; they will not have their lives continued. Their death will happen -- and be final -- on the Day of the Lord. Thereafter there will be no more death, because never again will the life (animation) be taken away from a living thing.

 

I don't have to deal with arguments which have not been made. Make the argument, and I will deal with it. Don't make it, and I cannot "fail".

In Genesis 2, God states that He made "man" (or "Adam") from the dust, and He told Adam "you will return to dust." God did NOT say He made Adam's body from dust; He says He made Adam. And He did not say "your body will return", but "you." The distinction you're attempting to make is putting more weight on what is NOT said than what God directly speaks.

I have always affirmed to you that the spiritual component of man is held by God -- we know that it's held for the resurrection and judgment. But contrary to your "total disregard" claim, I'm teaching exactly what Solomon taught there and ignoring nothing -- he says the essence of death is what it LOOKS like, not that the essence of death should be ignored and go look at another verse instead of this one. And God teaches the same thing in Genesis 3; your attempt to pretend that you can ignore the entire verse doesn't make you a good exegete, but a non-exegete.

Unbelievable -- you are so allergic to this verse you have to flee to chapter 12 in order to save your precious doctrine. What you're doing is not "interpreting according to the context"; it's ignoring one verse and substituting a different one.

God takes the spirit so that He can judge our works at the Day of Judgment. This doesn't force Solomon to contradict himself; you don't get to ignore chapter 3 merely because it doesn't fit your doctrine.

You pick and choose which verses you'll pay attention to. I'm following them ALL, and accepting that death is accompanied by a separation; but this doesn't contradict the clear Biblical teaching that death is an end to animating life, as depicted for us by God's design for the body He created for us. That is the essential nature of death as a concept; and it's also what the word "death" means in every language including Greek.

You are not doing "proper exegesis." All you're doing is overinterpreting the one Hebrew word "b'yom" ("on the day"), and taking that as a licence to insert whatever meaning you want, in spite of the passage's own self-explanation as being about death in every respect.

And of course, the meaning you want to insert is a "spiritual death" when all of the Biblical texts that discuss Adam's fall make it clear that Adam brought death as a whole, not just whatever you define as "spiritual death." No, it didn't all happen on one day -- but your assumption that it must is purely a foreigner's overreading of a routine Hebrew threat. Solomon gave the same threat in 1Kings 2 against Shimei, and he made no attempt to enforce the death on the same day either.

But even if Solomon was misusing Hebrew when he did that (no), you still don't get to creatively alter the curse to NOT mean the death of the body as well as the death of the person. The point of the curse passage isn't that Adam was separated; separation is never mentioned as a punishment. The point is that he would toil, struggle to survive, and DIE.

I see that now you're inserting the word "physical" into the passage, denying the simple and plain meaning of the text as it stands -- man cannot LIVE FOREVER. Not "live forever physically." Just live forever, full stop.

Being reduced to ashes in body and soul -- as Matt 10:28 and 2 Peter 2:6 confirm -- surely is enough to call "cessation of all personal existence." But I don't call this "death" -- it's destruction, not death. God uses many different words for His different works; we don't get to sandblast them all into one blob. Let God tell us what He'll do, and listen.

What? No. "if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly..."

It's speaking of the time of Lot as an example of what WILL HAPPEN to the ungodly. That's not about the time of Lot; it's about the Day of the Lord. It is specifically the reduction to ashes that this passage calls out as an example of what will happen to the ungodly. (Are you claiming this will happen to ungodly buildings?)

You meant to say Gen 2:7, not 3:7. And that isn't a plural; it's singular. Look it up in any dictionary, or just do a form search in your Bible; you'll see that it's simply the way to express the concept of "having life". It's spelled as a plural, but it's singular in use. And it's incredibly common -- since you don't recognize it I can see you've never read Hebrew, but you should look it up.

To "survive" -- which you claim the soul does -- means to remain alive. You do not believe the soul dies when the body dies. Yet both separate. There's a difference: the soul separates so that God will preserve it for judgment. The body He does not preserve, but lets die, so that we can see its death and know what death is.

 

The unredeemed won't be changed, but you're saying that only Christians are living at the last Trump. Is that how it was in the days of Noah?

Your eschatology needs some tweaking, but working backward from one's notions concerning Revelation is a tenuous hermeneutic to employ. Jesus said it pretty simply. Everlasting punishment. Once someone ceases to exist, the punishment is over.

 

Right now death reigns within this present world. In the new world to come there will be no more death. Death will be no more in the eternal kingdom of God but will be vanished. However,death and hades will be cast into Gehenna which will be outside the new heaven and earth.

 

You need to go back and read your own words. You did make the argument. You made the point with emphasis placed on "YOU" that will return to dust. By making that argument you have entered into the origin and make up of man. However, that is not the complete nature of man which I merely pointed out which made your whole argument invalid! You repeat it again in the following words:

So you make the same invalid point again. Invalid because the immaterial part of man originated directly from God breathing it into man not from the dust. Ecclesiastes tells you that it came directly from God and returns to God just as the body came from dust and came from the dust. - case closed.

 

Yes, he is telling you what it "LOOKS like" from the human perspective "under the sun." Keep that in mind. When the body is put under the sod it ceases to be the vehicle of the soul as the spirit of man does not go under the sod, but returns to God making the body and spirit distinct from each other. If the immatieral part of man were from the dust it would return to the dust but it does not. Just think it through.

I hate to inform you of this, but not all that scripture has to say is found in one text. There is a thing called "immediate" context and "overall" context. Perhaps you might have heard of these terms before???? What is unbelievable is that you think other scripture dealing with the nature of man is irrelevant in deciding the nature of man - that is what is unbelievable.

As Lk 16 and other texts clearly show that spirit remains in a conscious active state in hades.

That is a joke! You just complained about using a very relevant text in Ecclesiastes 12 while selecting another text in Ecclesiates to use to try to prove your point - which was a complete failure!

No one denies that the body ceases to be animated by the soul at physical death, but Lk 16 completely refutes the soul ceases to be conscious and active. The whole conversation between Abraham and the rich man is ridiculous and without any meaning if the soul ceases to be conscious and active.