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

There's nothing to reply to, Biblicist. You can't answer my rebuttal, so you're copying and pasting the same already-refuted argument. My answer's the same -- until you can actually address the argument, instead of pretending I'm not a dualist, you haven't got anything to say.

Anyhow, absolutely none of your argument addresses the topic of conditional immortality as presented in the OP; you came into this argument claiming to have a Biblical definition for death (and therefore for immortality, half of the topic) which would override all of the dictionaries and lexicons, and instead all you've been able to do is show one "passage" consisting of two verses separated by 4 chapters that, if pasted together, say that Christians before they were saved were both "dead" and "alienated from life." You didn't show that death is separation from God, or from the spirit, or from the body; all you showed is that it's alienation from life.

For all your grandiose claims, then, you've come up with as close to nothing as it's possible to get; your completely unacceptable compound prooftext doesn't even disprove my point -- since IF, as I claim, death is the deprivation of animation, it follows that calling death an alienation from life works just as well as calling it the end of life.

The dictionary definition of death as the end of life remains: and therefore the Bible teaches that the wicked will ultimately pay the wages of sin, death (the end of their animate life), while the righteous will be granted life without end. All in the simple, ordinary dictionary meaning of the words.

 

The OP posts Bible verse after Bible verse showing how they each and every one support his point... and to you, that's evidence that it's a doctrine in search of a text. To me, that's a doctrine with many texts as prima facie evidence.

I sincerely am puzzled why you would say otherwise.

So you're claiming that whenever someone says "that doesn't make sense", it means nothing they believe has Biblical support?

I noticed. You haven't read Barr's definition of ITT, since what you cited isn't a fallacy and isn't called the ITT. "The Semantics of Biblical Language", BTW. ITT is when someone does an exhaustive topical study, and comes up with an encyclopedic definition for a concept, and then inserts that entire concept into the meaning of a single word of the Biblical text, instead of using a dictionary to find the meaning appropriate to the word's context.

This happens when Biblicist insists "death is Biblically defined as separation". No, death is a word that comes to mean what it means by us experiencing people die and talking about it; and the dictionary records how that all works. And no dictionary lists "separation" as the definition of death; and no translator ever has chosen "separation" as a reasonable gloss of one of the Greek words for death.

No, I don't know what you're talking about, because you haven't finished any sentences there. Who's made a blanket assertion that eternal life means such and such? What are you even talking about?

Here's the entry from my favorite online dictionary for "life". Admittedly this is only English; Greek has three separate words I can think of for this one English word, so it's rather more complex.

life (n.)
Old English life (dative lif) "animated corporeal existence; lifetime, period between birth and death; the history of an individual from birth to death, written account of a person's life; way of life (good or bad); condition of being a living thing, opposite of death; spiritual existence imparted by God, through Christ, to the believer," from Proto-Germanic *libam (source also of Old Norse lif "life, body," Old Frisian, Old Saxon lif "life, person, body," Dutch lijf "body," Old High German lib "life," German Leib "body"), properly "continuance, perseverance," from PIE root *leip- "to stick, adhere."

The noun associated with live (v.) "to live," which is literally "to continue, remain." Extended 1703 to inanimate objects, "term of duration or existence." Sense of "vitality, energy in action, expression, etc." is from 1580s. Meaning "conspicuously active part of human existence, pleasures or pursuits of the world or society" is by 1770s. Meaning "cause or source of living" led to the sense "vivifying or animating principle," and thus "one who keeps things lively" in life of the party (1787). Meaning "imprisonment for life, a life sentence" is from 1903. Paired alliteratively with limb from 1640s. Not on your life "by no means" is attested from 1896.

In gaming, an additional turn at play for a character; this transferred use was prefigured by uses in card-playing (1806), billiards (1856), etc., in reference to a certain number of chances or required objects without which one's turn at the game fails. The life "the living form or model, semblance" is from 1590s. Life-and-death "of dire importance" is from 1822; life-or-death (adj.) is from 1897. Life-jacket is from 1840; life-preserver from 1630s of anything that is meant to save a life, 1803 of devices worn to prevent drowning. Life-saver is from 1883, figurative use from 1909, as a brand of hard sugar candy from 1912, so called for shape.

Life-form is from 1861; life-cycle is from 1855; life-expectancy from 1847; life-history in biology from 1870; life-science from 1935. Life-work "the labor to which one's life has been devoted" is from 1848. Expression this is the life is from 1919; verbal shrug that's life is from 1924 (earlier such is life, 1778).

 

I just noticed that my reply to this (and a couple of other messages) got buried in my badly edited quote markers. Oops.

Anyhow, my reply: We conditionalists agree with all of the expert translators on this that the Greek words should be translated as we've quoted them. There are no secret meanings that our translators are unaware of.

This means that when the translators say that Jesus is threatening to "destroy the body and the soul", that's really a good way to express what he means. Scholars may be able to refine that a bit, but it's not going to wholesale change. This goes doubly so when a huge number of translations express it the same way (well, for reasons other than simply being based on the same old version, of course).

So people telling us that the English is wrong, and the Greek for "death" really means "separation", or "destruction" really means something else, should feel compelled to explain why they think they're better translators than the pros.

 

Great, I understood you correctly the first time then! The answer is 2, if by "all at once" you allow a span of a couple of days. An army of two conditionalists have joined in recent days. I've read conversations here since last year, but finally took the plunge to sign up and chime in. I see one other conditionalist on this forum who signed up a few days ago. Perhaps you were thrown by the conspiracy theory being pushed here. First, an admin's claim that there had been "a steady influx" of conditionalists "over the past few days." But there was only 1 at that time who had influxed themselves to the forum. Since then, I'm the second and final influxer. The original poster had registered a few weeks ago, and another conditionalist here had been on the forum since last year. So there's no hostile takeover; no "concentrated effort by a special interest group to overpower the forum with their heresies." Just people sharing their convictions. 4 people, plus those who disagree. Baptists all. It'd be great if that could be done without the narrative of suspicion (from others, not yourself), including the unfortunate suggestion that two different people are really the same person.

OK, well I'm not familiar with any groups who hold it in the form evangelicals do. That's why the distinction is made between evangelical conditionalism and any others. The particular distinctives of our view include standard first-tier evangelical affirmations (Trinity, etc.), an insistence upon the resurrection of all people, and the exclusion of any view on the intermediate state and anthropological constitution (read: dualism is just fine).

As a movement within the evangelical church, it is odd to hear it conveniently cast aside as "heresies." Do Baptists ascribe any more heresies than the broader evangelical church does, which I somehow don't know about? Which ecumenical councils do we hold to as authoritative that also condemned conditionalism/annihilation as heresy? (A: none). Conditionalists can readily affirm every word of the SBC's Baptist Faith and Message, and every word of the ecumenical creeds. The most that could be said against it is that statements of faith for some Baptist institutions exclude it, but by no means all, and that conditionalists can't affirm every single word of the 1689 Baptist confession (which hardly makes it a heresy).

To appreciate how Baptist non-conditionalists should regard and interact with fellow Baptist conditionalists, look no further than Al Mohler's dialogue with Chris Date of Rethinking Hell (the host of that show being also a conditionalist).

I'm sure that the OP knows that as well as we do. I'm sure you can appreciate that, due to certain constraints, it's OK to make your assertions up front and then proceed to justification later as needed. I recall that he has pointed to his word studies on his own blog; whether that covers the point you highlighted, I'm not sure. But I think we can credit him with having formed his views in more than thin air, just as it ought to be admitted that the conditionalists I mentioned above are no slouches in this area. J.I. Packer disagreed with their view, but nonetheless called them "honored evangelicals," regarding it "distasteful to argue in print" against them.

I'm familiar with the conditionalist-traditionalist conversation on the whole, and what I've found regarding disagreements over what "eternal life means," is that both sides are willing to affirm both the qualitative and quantitative meanings. There is a long history in theology, particular in the patristic writers and then again in the Reformed tradition, of "eternal life" being that which Adam might have enjoyed had he not fallen, including, as prelapsarian life did, a full fellowship with God. As you know, the future vision of eternal life in Revelation draws upon imagery from Eden, and is seen as a kind of recapitulation and consummation of it. So there is a continuum between creational life as given first to Adam and Eve (and as redeemed by Christ and participated in now through the Spirit), and eternal life with God. There is more than one usage of "life" in the scriptures, but if we can be so bold as to claim a general "biblical definition," it must surely be grounded in the life given to human beings as "living creatures" animated by the "breath of life," the God we worship being the one who "gives life and breath and everything" to all of us.

I'm not going to give a discourse on it, but there are good reasons to think that Jesus spoke in both qualitative and quantitative terms, not one or the other. Since you're not convinced of the quantitative, I will simply offer his statement in John 12:25—

"Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life."

A plain sense reading of the logic of this saying suggests that any human's life is "kept" for eternal life if and only if they hate how this is experienced in the present world/age. Given that psychḗ is the term here for ordinary life (and whether that is understood to refer to one's breath, or to one's soul, or to the vital principle more generally), it does seem to be implicated in eternal life. Jesus presents a similar continuum elsewhere, saying things like "The one who believes in me will LIVE, even though they DIE; and whoever lives by believing in me will NEVER DIE." and "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they DIED. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and NOT DIE. ...Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has ETERNAL LIFE, and I will raise him up on the last day. ... This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and DIED. Whoever feeds on this bread will LIVE FOREVER." He also said that the sons of the resurrection are they that "can no longer die."

It's not that there is definitive proof here either way. But both sides need to account for the recalcitrant data, as is often said. And there's plenty of it in our favor, right through Paul's writings where the doctrine of overcoming death and mortality by a glorious resurrection is made explicit.

You know I couldn't disagree more. I'm absolutely convinced that the explanation for the rise of evangelical conditionalism again in our day (just as it rose in the nineteenth century) is the compelling biblical case. It is a common and unjustified myth that the motivation and substantial case of conditionalists is something other than that. The movement's published works are a testament to that (and I have read whole collections of them). In my opinion, the reverse tends to be true, if anything. Traditionalists are those who typically tend to jump to philosophical argumentation. The two most common examples of this are the infinite God=infinite torment argument, and the aggregate sin argument (whereby endless torment is justified by positing perpetual, impenitent fist-shaking in hell). Two contradicting arguments, by the way.

 

For those interested in a quick summary of Conditional Immortality, the website Got Questions? has a decent introduction here.

The Statement on Evangelical Conditionalism is also well worth a read. Meanwhile, www.rethinkinghellbooks.com offers the best recent publications to review, and the website www.rethinkinghell.com is among the best go-to sources just in general (blog, podcast, etc.). Finally, for those wrestling with whether this view could be considered acceptable even if one disagrees, I recommend a quick read of Conditional Immortality—An Acceptable View?

 

total and complete irrational response.You have no argument to refute! You don't dare challenge my rebuttal because you can't and you know it, or else you would.

 

I repeat this unanswered post because it really drives the nail in the coffin of your position. And it does address the OP because it proves that "death" involves separation with regard to all aspects of the human nature and so that "life" and "death" are not properly defined by those embracing this kind of conditional immortality type argument.

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" but rather "returned" to God in contrast to the material aspect returning to dust. This is not rocket science but so simple and so clear that only a strong bias would oppose such obvious simple truth.

Finally, this debate has not even begun to touch the wealth of Biblical evidence for the Biblical doctrine of eternal conscious punishment in Gehenna.

 

Wrong, it is about both. Sin in both cases is the cause as scripture clearly states "the wages of sin IS death" and Ephesians 2:1 directly relates "dead" to tresspasses and sins whereas verses 2-3 describe the state of death as an active conscious rebellion against God. Finally, Ephesians also describes the prescription for that state of death and it is to be "QUICKENED" (MADE ALIVE). Therefore, both death and life are found in this passage contrasted.What you have ignorned is the fact that what is "quickened" is what was formerly dead and that is not the WHOLE person, and it is not their physical bodies. The overall Biblical context makes it clear it is the immaterial aspect of their nature that is quickened - "what is born of Spirit IS SPIRIT" (Jn. 3:6) and so it is the spirit which was formerly dead but yet consciously active in its union with Satan (Eph. 2:2-3) against God and that union is manifested by rebellion of the whole man against God. So your response is no response at all because what was "dead" is not the body but the immaterial aspect of man - his spirit and that is what is quickened and therefore death is not cessatian of spirit animation as that "dead" spirit animation is responsible for what is described in Ephesians 2:2-3 and 4:17-19. So I have dealt with the issue of the OP with regard to death and life and your view and arguments simply fail to satisfy the text and context of Ephesians 2-4.

Genesis 3 defines the precise time when Adam would die in precise association with the precise action. He would die "on the day" he sinned. His body did not die "in the day" he sinned. Ephesians 2 proves that the spirit of man can be "dead" prior to the body being "dead" and remember what was "dead" in Ephesians 2 is precisely what is quickened and that is the "spirit" of man (Jn.3:6).

 

So it didn't drive the nail in the coffin the first and second times you posted it? This tactic of dialogue is called steamrolling.

Your comment isn't anywhere near as strong as you seem to think it is. You're arguing against a view of anthropology and the intermediate state, which evangelical conditionalism does not incorporate. Meanwhile, you're also arguing against what a lot of traditionalists (ancient and modern) argue about Adam's death culminating in his physical death. Any so-called "spiritual death" in Genesis is compatible with that, but beside the point. One large group you are arguing against is most of the YECs. You will find on major YEC websites the view that physical death was what was introduced to Adam, and forewarned. This is an important historic view. Yet you consider it "case... closed to any rational reasonable interpreter of Scripture."

 

For an example of this view not put forward by conditionalists, see: Why did Adam not Die Immediately?

 

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

Not if God IS the consuming fire. Since that's what God says, your objection is answered. - wTanksley

Here is another absurd response. It is the Lake of Fire that does the burning rather than God's own person. The conditionalist avocate confuses "the Lake OF FIRE" with the Person of God. The lost are cast "into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:15) not into the Person of God. So again, why is there need for an "eternal" enduring fire for a temporal burning?

Furthermore, the book of Revelation uses language from our present existence to convey everlasting PRESENCE of the lost within that lake.

1. The False prophet and beast are cast into that fire at Armageddon (Rev. 19:20) and are still PRESENT in that same fire after 1000 years (Rev. 20:10).

2. Rev.14:10 "he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."

Their torment is "forever and ever" as "they have no rest day nor night" meaning they have no rest from their torment which proves there is no instanteous annihilation and that the "forever" ascending "smoke of the torment" is proof they continue as the phrase "they have no rest day or night" further demands the torment is continuous.

 

Call it what you will, all four of you have avoided dealing with it comprehensively and it is obvious why you have skirted it..

Oh yes it is, it is completely devestating to your whole false doctrine. It proves that the spirit of man was formerly in a "dead" state but not a non-existent or unconscious state as it is the "dead" spirit that is responsible for the active rebellion against God which is attributed to being in spiritual UNION with Satan ("in them") , thus SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED from God and it is that EXISTING spirit that later is "quickened....saved.....created IN Christ" (vv.1,5,8,10) thus brought into SPIRITUAL UNION with God the source of life as He alone is the true source of life and he alone is immortal by nature. Hence, neither death or life can be restricted to your definitions. Yes, I do consider it cased closed as your position is not compatible with the truths stated in either passage and not consistent with the human nature.

 

Lol, that's scary!

IMO, 'conditionlists' = made over free willers, nothing derogatory intended.

 

Who said it did? Exclamation marks have a grammatical purpose and I used them according to that purpose - emphasis! Is it wrong to emphasize by your standard of rules? I would concern yourself with the substance rather than nitpicking.

 

Shouldn't be surprising!!!! (emphasis). Thanks for the invitation but I will pass,as I have read many others holding your perspective and it is all the same kind of eisgetical mental gymnastics.

 

The Apostle of love (John) and the person of incarnate love (Jesus) spoke more on the conscious eternal torments of Gehenna than any other writers in scripture. Jesus warned it would be better to amputate a body part or kill the whole body than to enter into Gehenna, which makes no sense if it Gehenna was simply cessation of existence. He described it in terms of enduring conscious punishement "where the worm dieth not" which makes no sense if it were excessive heat that would instantly annihilate a person.

The bottom line, is that those who defend this error have a love view of sin and a low view of God (not intentionally I am sure) as they fail to see the enormity of sin and the holiness of God. They also have a wrong view of human nature with regard to Biblical salvation for the whole man (spirit, soul and body) or a three-fold salvation (past tense completed action "saved" (spirit) - present tense incompleted action - "save" (soul) and a future tense completed action "shall be saved" (body) relating to each aspect of the human nature.

Finally, their view is not a historic Baptist (or Biblical) perspective, but an historic Christian cult perspective that is now attempting to invade Baptist thought.

 

In as few words as possible, what makes the two necessarily related?