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

James this is a concentrated effort by a special interest group to overpower the forum with their heresies.

 

Yeah, I kinda figured so. I kinda like the back-and-forth. Keeps everyone in the scriptures.

You've done a great job countering their posts, btw.

 

First, you are misrepresenting our position and argument. The argument not only hinges on the same Greek term translated "eternal" or "everlasting" but on the Greek term translated "punishment" (kolasin). This term and its cognates are found only five times in the New Testament and if Matthew 24 and 2 Pet are excepted as debatable then the other three cases demonstrate it refers conscious punishment rather than annihilation.

So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done. - Acts 4:21

As also the high priest does bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters to the brothers, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound to Jerusalem, for to be punished. - Acts 22:5

And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even to strange cities. - Acts 26:11

The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust to the day of judgment to be punished: - 2 Pet.2:9

The term kolas denies this is an act of "vengeance" but rather an act of pure blind justice. Acts 26:11 defines the character of the punishment being inflicted by Jews and it is not the death penalty.

So this is eternal conscious punishment that is being contrasted to eternal life, rather than eternal cessation contrasted with eternal life.

 

I offer the adversaries of God, who will be consumed by fire (Heb 10:27). Isn't it great that you picked an example of what the Bible says WILL happen to the wicked -- to be consumed by fire? How much more clear could you possibly make it?

I simply agree. That's correct. And it doesn't EVER say that the wicked will be tormented forever and ever. Or "forever." (Satan and the 2 beasts it definitely DOES say; but nobody else.) So again, you've picked a passage that describes something that the Bible doesn't say will happen to the wicked.

You've never actually responded to any of the passages in the original post, let alone the later Biblical evidence. All you've done is claim to have a special magic definition of "death" as "separation", which I've shown exhaustively does not work -- and I shouldn't have to show it, because it's obvious that you're attempting to randomly redefine words rather than trying to obey what the Scripture says.

You've done almost nothing but argue for your redefinition of words away from all Greek lexicons.

 

We are accurately representing the argument we claimed to be representing. Now, let's hear your new argument, and I think we'll quickly see why people who know Greek don't make it.

It appears four times, not five.

In fact, a lexicon will quickly answer that the punishment can be capital or corporal; the examples given include both. One example of a capital punishment is 2 Macc 4:38: "...leading him through the whole city unto that very place, where he had committed impiety against Onias, there slew he the cursed murderer. Thus the Lord rewarded him his punishment (kolasis), as he had deserved."

They kept them in prison for a night, but couldn't find a way to punish them. Obviously "punishment" is not merely keeping someone conscious in prison.

This is a different Greek word.

Also a different Greek word.

The meaning of this word depends on what the final punishment is -- although from the context there's an example of this punishment in the reduction of Sodom to ashes.

False: vengeance is justice when wielded by God. 2 Thess 1:5-10 clearly says that God's justice means Jesus will come to repay vengeance against the persecutors.

False: Paul DID execute many Christians; he said so in his testimony. And the Jews applied the death penalty against Paul many times by stoning him and leaving him for dead. He doesn't take "credit" for killing Stephen, but his presence there is called out.

You forgot the part of your argument where you prove your point using your evidences. All you did was list some verses (proving you can't read Greek, BTW), and then make two false statements in a row. You didn't even draw a conclusion using the evidence -- your only conclusion was pre-set by what you wanted to prove.

If you'd actually considered the evidence of the verses you cited, you would have said "this is ambiguous." If you'd looked for more evidence, it would have proven you wrong.

 

As a matter of fact, I do know what it means. Yes. Now, I'd like to know why you reply to my post which says "I don't define 'death' to mean 'annihilation'", and tell me in response that I DO define death to mean annihilation.

Can you help me understand how I can say "X" and hear you repeat "you believe not-X"? I mean, aside from just SAYING it?

I don't like to post exactly the same thing as someone else. I agree with him. The Bible DOES say that the wicked will be destroyed with fire, reduced to ash, and the ash will be walked on by the righteous. So it seems reasonable to discuss that. My problem is that you've pointed out a genuine fallacy (redefining death to mean annihilation) which we don't make.

 

I'll look at a few points in it, but I'm really puzzled why you're picking out this passage. It doesn't say anything about final judgment; it's all about temporal blessings and curses, about people whose future is assured by "multiplying" (one of the blessings) rather than by living forever.

Um... You seem to be assuming that God is promising final judgment against Israel here. Of course he's not; he offers neither eternal life nor eternal punishment, let alone "annihilation" or "torment forever and ever". You're trying to read WAY too much into this passage. Not finding "annihilation" (we use the word "destruction", since the word "annihilation" doesn't exist in the Greek or Hebrew) is hardly interesting when none of the other words like "eternal torment" appear either.

God says he will single out the man who disobeys and will never forgive; He then says He will exile and scatter, and then gather and restore. Clearly the man singled out is not the same as those scattered, gathered, and restored -- the contrast between "not forgiven" and "restored" makes that obvious.

This is the one point I can see where there's some evidence of this covenant applying to eternal punishment, but the punishment is supposed to be according to the covenant curses, which all seem to focus on a painful life ending in death.

Right -- and "not prolong your days." Whereas eternal torment requires eternally prolonged days.

Really? I don't think God failed to use any Hebrew word that means to kill, destroy, and cut short -- in this passage plus the covenant curses in the previous one. You're not just wrong here, but 180 degrees off. When God says He will "not prolong your days", that means their days will be short. And of course, those are the literal meanings of kill, perish, destroy, die, and so on.

When have I ever said anything that silly? I don't believe "life means to live forever", and I don't believe "death means to cease to exist." Living forever is connoted by "live forever", and death means to stop living. Destruction is a hyponym of "annihilation", so the two have some ties, which I suspect is why some people call us annihilationists (although really, I prefer "conditionalist", after the "conditional immortality" title of the OP).

Here are a few verses from the previous chapter, the covenant curses that this chapter affirms:

20 The Lord will send against you curses, confusion, and rebuke in everything you do until you are destroyed and quickly perish, because of the wickedness of your actions in abandoning Me. 21 The Lord will make pestilence cling to you until He has exterminated you from the land you are entering to possess. 22 The Lord will afflict you with wasting disease, fever, inflammation, burning heat, drought, blight, and mildew; these will pursue you until you perish.

Note that this includes two phases of punishment: suffering which continues UNTIL death, destruction, extermination, or until they perish. This is not endless suffering; it's suffering with the purpose of killing, and which does not continue after the killing.

 

Here's why I said you equate death and annihilation.....

From post #101, titled
THE LANGUAGE OF ANNIHILATION IN THE PSALMS

For sure you agree, and you clicked the "agree" icon on post #101

He quoted language of "die, destroyed, etc" to support annihilation. Why did you click "agree" if you don't?

 

Riddle me this:

Why do I reply to Mark and attribute something to him, and then you ask me where did YOU say such a thing ??

Are you and he the same entity?

 

I think I might see the confusion. You correctly see that these passages predict annihilation (well, "complete destruction") of the wicked, and also that they predict death; and you think that means he thinks complete destruction is completely identical to death. We don't. Destruction can cause death, but the converse is not true -- death does not cause destruction. When we hear that a body is dead, we do not assume it's destroyed.

Destruction can cause death, and therefore all of the Biblical words for "destruction" can be used to represent a killing (although some of them are a bit hyperbolic when used that way). (In fact, as you know, the word "annihilate" can mean to kill.) For this reason, I believe, the Psalms often sets "destroy" in parallel with "kill". Other times it's clear that it's used literally; for example, "Though the LORD's enemies are like the flowers of the field, they will be consumed, they will go up in smoke."

Because the Bible includes both uses, we believe that both are true -- God will kill the wicked, and God will destroy them. We know that the wages of sin is death, so that makes sense to us.

However, now I'm interested. Do you think it's important that the Psalms support the case we're making?

 

No, we're different beings. Sorry, never met him, so I can't post a photo of us together to prove it. I just agree with what he's saying, and want to help him explain his message.

 

You didn't answer.

Why did you reply as if I was writing to you?

 

I repeat this unanswered post because it really drives the nail in the coffin of your position.

wTanksley said: ↑
In other words, I rebutted your argument; you have not replied to my rebuttal at all. We're done with that topic until you find a way around God's words promising Adam that he personally will return to dust. The consequence of Adam's sin is that Adam will personally return to the dust completely, in all parts, body and soul. Your attempt to counter this by pointing out that Adam is made of two parts is irrelevant; God tells us that the PERSON Adam will return to dust, which can only mean ALL of the parts.

With this kind of rational there is no basis for any kind of reasonable discussion as your arguments are completely irrational. First, as you admit there is a material aspect of the human nature (body) and an immaterial aspect of the human nature. As you admit the immaterial returns to God as that is what the scripture explicitly states. That is what Luke 16 explicitly states and records an active consciousness after the death of the body between Abraham (whose body hard returned to dust 2000 years before Luke 16 was recorded) and Lazerus whose body was buried. Obviously then an unbiased person with common sense can easily see the immaterial aspect of man does not return to dust with the death of the body.

Moreover, any unbaised person can readily see that Ephesians 2:1 does not refer to the material aspect of the human nature. When the overall NT. teaching is considered with regard to what was "dead" also was "quickened....saved....created in Christ Jesus" the clear words of Christ claim it is the immaterial aspect of the human nature that had been "quickened" or "saved" or "created in Christ" or "born again" as John 3:6 clearly states.

Therefore, there is clear explicit evidence that the immaterial aspect of man suffers death PREVIOUS to the death of the body as what was "quickened" was previously "dead" or there was no need to quicken it.

Morover, it is clearly stated what this dead state is attributed to "sin" and that is precisely what God said would be the immediate result "on the day" Adam sinned. - The case is closed to any rational reasonable interpreter of Scripture.

Finally, what "returned" to dust is what came from dust, and Ecclesiastes explicitly says the immaterial part of man does not "return" to dust." This is not rocket science but so simple and so clear that only a strong bias would oppose such obvious simple truth.

 

Yes, my only excuse is that I was without my glasses when looking at my Youngs and the fine print which had kolasis right above and I simply failed to see the other Greek term right below over these two passages.

 

Oh, sorry—you meant out there, beyond this forum? Conditionalism is a large and growing group within the evangelical church worldwide, many of whom are Baptists and Anglicans. It was held tentatively by John Stott for 70+ years, and is the view of a number of Bible scholars and teachers, such as Richard Bauckham, P.E. Hughes, E. Earle Ellis, I. Howard Marshall and Anthony Thistleton, to name a few. F.F. Bruce famously rejected eternal torment, and recommended conditionalism instead, although stopped short of affirming a view himself. See Conditional Immortality—An Acceptable View? for more.

 

No, I meant how many of you guys have come here to this forum all at once?

I'm familiar enough with the doctrine and some groups who hold it.

Seems most of the objections to eternal torment are on philosophical grounds, then it simply becomes a doctrine in search of a text.

That's why the OP can simply have a text box with a bible verse, and draw some pretty arrows to a couple of words and demand that different words replace them.

That's why numerous times in this thread, I've seen where he has written that something "doesn't make sense" or something else does make sense, or it stands to reason, etc.... he has fallen prey to the philosophical construct first, and is now looking for any text he can impose that philosophy upon.

That leads to the illegitimate totality transfer that I mentioned on the (i think) first page of this thread. The blanket assertion (and insistence) is made that eternal life means such and such.... but you know as well as I do, something does not become true just because somebody keeps saying it over and over and over.