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

Though we all know what you mean, you may want to go back and correct these (second instance I've noticed) and add the 't' for future C&P.

I'm curious which category you fall in:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

 

I am beginning to wonder if you have any training at all in Biblical interpretation??? That prepositional phrase restricts the time frame in which Adam is said to "die" with regard to eating of the forbidden fruit. He did not eat the fruit the day after, a week after, a month after, a year after. The penalty is clearly and expressly stated to occur on the very same day the sin is committed.Either he did die as God said within that time frame or God is a liar. Ephesians 2:1 clearly states that there is a form of death in direct relationship to sin just as in Genesis there is a death in direct relationship to sin. The death in Ephesians is spiritual death as the remedy is spiritual quickening as neither the bodies of the Ephesians had been dead. The only other aspect of human nature in addition to the material aspect is the spiritual aspect. Jesus makes it clear it is the "spirit" of man that is regenerated.My exegetical conclusions are solid."of man metaphorical but an actual real aspect of human nature, and the only possible aspect since in neither case can the body be in view. My exegesis is solid as a rock.

 

You are actually comparing the word of a fallible human being to that of God?????? You accuse me of poor exegesis???? Utterly amazing!!!! So since Solomon FAILED to keep his word that proves God FAILED to keep His word????? No wonder you can believe what you do with this kind of interpretative liscence!

Your reasoning is called circular reasoning. You assume your theory is correct and then argue on that basis. You assume your interpretation of "death" is cessation of biological animation which only involves the body, when in fact the cessation of biological animation does not make the soul cease at physical death (Mt. 10:28;Lk. 16). However, physical death does in fact SEPARATE the material aspect of man from his immaterial aspect DUE TO SIN and Ephesians 2:1 proves there is a state of death separate from the body that also separates man from God due to Sin (Isa.59:2). The only possible aspect of human nature that this can apply to in both cases is the immaterial aspect of man and the absolute proof is the remedy provided which the overall context of scripture demands is quickening of the "spirit" of man. You case simply falls apart when overall context is taken into consideration and proper exegesis is applied.

 

Again, you are assuming your definition and application of death is correct and argue from that basis - circular reasoning. Man is more than a material being and while the material aspect of his being is living there is another aspect that is "dead" presently (Eph.2:1) and yet that "dead" aspect is fully active and conscious (Eph. 2:2-3; 4:17-19) both now and after physical death (Lk. 16; Mt. 10:28). Your reasoning is invalid and irrational based on obvious evidence that you have no exegetical based response. Namely that the remedy for this "dead" state is "quickening" of the human spirit (Jn. 3:6) the new birth, "saved" (Eph. 2:5,8) and being brought back into UNION with God through Christ ("created in Christ Jesus"). Are you really going to deny there is spiritual UNION between true believers and God that did not exist previous to the new birth????????

Neither text confirms such a thing! Matthew 10:28 explicitly denies that the soul dies or is destroyed at physical death and at Sodom and Gomorah only the material aspect of man will be reduced to ashes unless Christ lied about the soul in Matthew 10:28? Furthermore, the coming judgement that is compared to Sodom and Gomorah is not Gehenna or the Great White Seat judgement but Armageddon and the coming of the Lord from heaven "in fire" and vengance upon the ungodly presently living on earth.

 

...ain't the first time that very same typo has occurred here...

Thanks. You intend to dive into a Cal/Arm discussion in the future?

 

Neither are we in agreement on John 3:16 and your interpretation as a one size fits all approach. There is a past tense but continuing present possession of eternal life (Eph. 2:8 periphrastic construct perfect tense joined with present tense verb) with regard to what is born again - the spirit as the body is not born of the Spirit. Also there is eternal life present possession with regard to our judicial standing or the doctrine of justification by faith. There is a future eternal life with regard to the body which is not received in the body until glorification. There is a present tense salvation or loss of life decided by whether we are currently walking in the Spirit or walking after the flesh by which we either are "redeeming the time" (Eph. 5:16) or suffering loss (1 Cor. 3:14-15) without suffering loss of the soul.

 

Ahhhh, the favorite cop out used to turn the tables when you can't give an answer. Try providing an exegetical based answer instead. You are also not fair and balanced as he too was the first to respond in that manner - "Unbelievable -- you are so allergic "

I think my response is a reasonable evaluation when he is comparing God's word to Solomon's word implying God failed as Solomon failed to keep his word. When you have to go that extreme to avoid what the text clearly and explicitly says, it is reasonable to question that person's exegetical skills.

However, for the sake of keeping the lines open, My apology is offered and I simply ask you to give a valid exegetical response.

 

Sure, it is so much easier to ignore Greek and Hebrew and stick only to the English text. It is so much easier to believe one source, etc.,etc. Your position simply will not stand up to solid exegetical scrutiny.

 

I offer the burning bush of Moses that burned and was not consumed. I offer the repetitive language used to convey eternal realities in current expressions "day an night forever and forever" as that is a current expression of continuity without end. Your evidences have been exposed and repudiated by sound principles of exegesis. Ephesians 2:1-10 has never been answered. Your "metaphorical' response cannot stand up to the immediate context (Eph. 2:1-3, 5, 8, 10) nor the overall context. In a word you have no real evidence at all.

 

So true! And arguing interpretations of Revelation in a discussion forum hasn't worked well.

For this reason, I'd like to re-stress a point Mark made a while ago. The point St. John is making with "second death" need not be that it's the second death anyone receives. Rather, it seems that he's saying there are two events of death, one that we all experience alone (typically), and another one, the second death, which will be a mass event. The first event is death; the second event is death, too.

The second event differs from the first in several ways: it follows a proper judgment with evidence and a verdict, its method of execution is more thorough (body and soul, rather than just body), and it'll take care of everything including death and hades.

This is not true. Death is a punishment by all accounts that does not cease when you die, nor when your body decomposes -- it only ceases if God resurrects (and that won't happen after the second death).

And the punishment of death by fire is what's being talked about in Matt 25:41, being sent into the eternal fire. The eternal fire is a more powerful consuming agent than typical fires, because of its self-fueling ever-burning nature; compare Aachan's death to what Hebrews 10 records is due for violators of the New Covenant (and note that God himself is recorded as being the consuming fire we're threatened with in Heb 12:29, which also notes that everything not in the New Covenant will be "shaken" and "removed").

There are other examples in the Bible of "everlasting things" that are achieved and made permanent by a single action. The most clear of these is in Hebrews 9:12- "He entered the most holy place once for all, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." The word "redemption" refers to an economic transaction; Christ exchanged His life-blood on our behalf, with permanent results for our benefit. But of course this was accomplished by an explicitly one-time act of redeeming, now long done.

The same is true for this "eternal punishment" of the wicked; it will be secured by the one-time act of what the eternal fire does to them, which is exemplified (according to 2 Pet 2:6 and Jude 1:7) by Sodom's reduction to ashes.

 

The thing is that we need o get what the Greek and Hebrew terms mean on this issue, not what the English states!

 

Another problem for your restricted (but unbiblical) definition of death. The Great White Seat Judgment is a PERSONAL judgement of your PERSONAL works with a PERSONAL consequence. It is not a "mass" event but a personalized event. The first death is a consequence of a verdict - "the wages of sin is death". The first death accompanies a life of evidence verified by conscience. The first accompanies a method of execution more than through the body but includes the immaterial aspect as well (Lk. 16 hades) consciously suffering in Hades. The difference, is that the second is eternal in personal conscious endurance of suffering and wholistic rather than in a divided condition as the first death.

Completely irrational!!!! Why the need for an "eternal" enduring fire for a temporal burning????? Does God need extra light in the eternal age?????

Another irrational argument! The only permanent results of your view of Gehenna is NOTHINGNESS whereas the permanent result of the cross is the continuing everlasting new heaven and new earth.

Sodom and Gomorrah is compared to the Second Coming of Christ with fire upon the kingdoms of this present age that has nothing but the TEMPORAL existence of the armies of Armageddon in view not Gehenna. Your position is based wholly on smoke and mirrors without a shred of exegetical solid evidence.

 

I guess it escapes me how you separate 'Conditional Immortality' as you've presented it here from 'synergism'.

But I'll leave it at that.

 

Jesus ALWATS statedHell in terms that meant existing, not simple burnt away!

 

Lol. Yall go ahead and belabor your illusions.

Jesus said everlasting punishment or torment. Can neither punish nor torment one who has ceased to be.