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

So Jesus was wrong, when he claimed that punishment lasts forever?

 

The scripture does not speak to loss of all life, but that one does not have eternal life, as in having the relationship with God!

 

Why would eternal punishment be wrong?

 

Why would Hell lasting for eternity be wrong?

 

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.

WHAT case is closed? Ecclesiastes never says that God intended us to understand death by looking at the spirit returning to God; it says God intended us to understand death by looking at the body ceasing to move. You've failed to provide ANY alternate interpretation of Eccl 3.

You've not addressed my argument from Eccl 3 at all, not even one single word to suggest there's even an alternate interpretation. You and I actually agree completely on what Eccl 12 means, but this doesn't change the fact that Eccl3 says that it's the death of the body that allows us humans to know what death really means.

But that's not a point I disagree with! In fact it bolsters my point, as others in the thread recognize that the soul remaining animated would mean the soul is ALIVE. The point I disagree with is your claim that the essence of death is an unobservable and abstract "separation," instead of the lack of animation that literally every dictionary ever written says people think it means.

When the body ceases to be animated, it is dead. You don't have to measure how far away a soul is from it; the doctor in an ER can measure death using only physical tools.

And your redefinition of death doesn't work at all for the soul. The soul that separates from the body is not dead, even though IT is separated from the body. In fact, by your interpretation of Luke 16, the soul of the rich man is separated from both God AND the body -- by your definition his soul IS dead, yet nobody would call it that who wanted to communicate. No, separation does not define death. Lack of animation DOES.

Nor does your definition as separation account for the post-great-white-throne penalty of the wicked being called "death". By every definition they were already separated from everything of importance; this shows that like everyone else, Revelation doesn't think "separation is the essence of death."

You seem so confident. Yet the text contains absolutely no mention of Adam receiving a consequence of death within 24 hours. Serious scholars admit that this needs to be explained; not merely brushed away by inventing a new definition for death like you do. And the explanation is found by comparing how Hebrew speakers issue threats, like the one Solomon gave to Shimei.

I can see you haven't read 1Kings 2, to say that Solomon is WRONG about Shimei. Solomon is speaking to Shimei AFTER he'd broken his promise. Solomon, at that point, knows exactly what happened. And at that point, Solomon repeats his promise back to Shimei verbatim. You can say Solomon was fallible in making the threat BEFORE Shimei violated it, but your claim NOW is that Solomon is just wrong about how to use Hebrew to make a threat. And that is truly absurd.

Solomon knows how to speak Hebrew better than you or any man living. His use of the exact same form as God did shows that both are intensified threats -- not as chronologies.

The Bible is a lot clearer than your "a form of death in direct relationship" obfuscation. Ephesians 2:1 is not about the penalty for sin, but rather its environment. Genesis 3 is not about the environment, but about the penalty. Your hope is to scramble them all up until nobody can possibly hope to understand that the Bible teaches that the wages of sin is actual death the way everyone understands it when spoken.

I like picturing someone who actually BELIEVES that death means separation trying to carry on a normal conversation -- it's pure invention on your part.

 

I don't know if you ever answered. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. Did you ever answer? I don't think so.

Given your definition of dead, what are we to make of:
Dead battery
Dead electrical circuit
Dead end street
Dead ends (in someone's hair)
Acoustically dead (as is wood)

Are we to think of and annihilated battery, annihilated electrical circuit, annihilated Road, annihilated hair, or annihilated wood?

I'm still waiting on any kind of substantive answer as to why you think dead means "cease to exist" ?? Or however you defined it

Now remember, you are the one who said we can read it in English and understand it perfectly in the Bible. So what are we supposed to make of these English uses of the word dead? Because annihilation doesn't fit in any of them I've listed

 

The level of rhetoric and invective from you is really interesting. I quoted a Bible verse, and you respond with your completely ungrounded personal opinion, and slander me for a lack of evidence. But I have to wonder where you picked up the opinion that 2 Peter 2:6 is talking only about Armageddon (the Genesis 19 battle) rather than the fire of gehenna (which applies to every wicked person including those in Armageddon and the Genesis 21). You haven't even hinted why you think that.

But both Jude and 2 Peter are talking not about a specific later group of evil people, but rather about false teachers who Peter describes in terms of their present behavior in the church (suggesting that Peter is prophetically stating that some of the current members are false believers and will become these false teachers). He says of these members 2000 years ago "Bold, arrogant people! They do not tremble when they blaspheme the glorious ones; 11 however, angels, who are greater in might and power, do not bring a slanderous charge against them before the Lord. 12 But these people, like irrational animals-creatures of instinct born to be caught and destroyed-speak blasphemies about things they don't understand, and in their destruction they too will be destroyed, 13 suffering harm as the payment for unrighteousness."

Your claim that the people to be reduced to ash are a yet-future group of people is false; it is specifically talking about a group of ancient teachers that Peter knew would shortly begin to seduce the church, and which were already living a life of sin and error. Jude says this same group is already present and teaching.

As an aside, I've always claimed to use the lexical definition, the one that people use when speaking Hebrew, Greek, or English. The Bible is not a dictionary and does not redefine language to mean something different; when someone claims it is, they're almost always redefining words to fit their own personal biases. And this is what you're doing.

The only thing here I disagree with is your claim "it is not a mass event." Of course it is. The only text in the Bible which refers to the Great White Throne Judgment (not "seat" BTW, I think you're confusing it with the Bema Seat) is Rev 21; there the throne is set up, and "the dead, small and great" all come before it, and the books are opened. This is a mass judgment.

It's also personal, but I didn't say anything to contradict that.

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

This isn't even _like_ an answer to my argument. I pointed out that "eternal punishment" and "eternal redemption" are both grammatically the same, and both address a finite action which has permanent results. The finite action of "punishing" in the eternal fire results in the wicked receiving the punishment of death; and the finite action of Christ redeeming us with His sacrifice results in us receiving the eternal redemption He bought with that blood.

Rant all you want about nothingness, it's not a refutation of the clear parallel between those two.

 

NOBODY here thinks "dead" means "cease to exist." Everyone here has denied that, and given a different meaning. Nobody has ever affirmed that's the meaning of "dead".

My definition of "dead" is to be deprived of life; a death is the end of life for a formerly living thing. One more definition is needed, though: what is "life"? Life is the animation that allows a being to move, react, perceive, and so on, according to how God's designed it to behave.

I claimed that this concept comes into all human languages because of the post-fall reality of the death of human bodies (see Eccl 3:18-19); therefore, no matter what fancy philosophies people have about death (such as reincarnation) their languages always tend back to meaning that dead=powerless and inactive.

You give a list of figures of speech in which someone calls a non-living thing "dead". Those are great examples! Let me show how my definition works for them.

Dead battery: it lacks all operation and power, like a corpse. Cannot function.
Dead electrical circuit: it lacks all operation and power, like a corpse. Cannot function.
Dead end street: A "dead end" means an utter stop to the road.
Dead ends (in someone's hair): I've never heard that. Don't know.
Acoustically dead (as is wood): Lacks ability to reflect and/or transmit sound.

To give another illustration, though, let me tell a story: my young son handed me a toy, told me "it dead!" I checked it, said "it doesn't work!" He repeated, "dead." I then replaced the battery, turned it on, and he happily corrected himself: "not dead, empty." Yes. Exactly -- the toy was not dead at all, since all it needed was a little fixup.

A dead body doesn't "need a little fixup" -- apart from the power of God, deadness is forever. And what happens when a soul dies -- as in James 5:20 -- is completely unfixable. Nothing is worth more to a man than his own soul, and this is hardly surprising; when the soul dies, there's nothing left of the man to function as a person.

This is what conditionalists like myself and Mark think of when we read that the wages of sin is death -- we see it as saying that if we sin and Christ does not bear the punishment of our sin, we will die in this normal-language sense; but not just in the body, but body and soul, because it is God who carries out this final punishment.

Compare these two gospels' rendering what is likely the same saying of Jesus, or at least sayings that mean exactly the same thing:

Matthew 16:26
What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?
Luke 9:25
What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, yet loses or forfeits his very self?

These passages show that a forfeited soul is a forfeited self. There's nothing left to enjoy owning the world.

And with that quoted:

I've quoted two parallel texts that show that ALL is lost for someone who's not saved. Let's look at the similar texts, though. The answer will be clear, that rebellion against Christ costs ALL life, not part of it; but following Christ will reward you with everything you THINK you lost in this world, most especially your life.

John 12:25 Whoever loves his life will lose it, but whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

Matthew 10:39 (in the same speech as Matthew 10:28, by the way, using the same Greek word)
Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Mark 8:35 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and for the gospel will save it.

Mark 8:35 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and for the gospel will save it.

Luke 9:24 (see 9:25 above) For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.

Luke 17:33 Whoever tries to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it.

 

There's literally nothing in common at all. How do you possibly join them?

Synergism means to work along with God in saving oneself. Conditional immortality means that only those saved by God (the "condition") will live forever (the "immortality").

How can someone "work" to make oneself live forever? It's literally and utterly impossible.

 

Consider Deuteronomy 29, where God made a covenant with Israel in Moab.

In verse 9, he says if they were to keep the words of the covenant they would prosper.

And he also had strong words for those who would take the covenant lightly...

19 It shall be when he hears the words of this curse, that he will boast, saying, ‘I have peace though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart in order to destroy the watered land with the dry.’ 20 The Lord shall never be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the Lord and His jealousy will burn against that man, and every curse which is written in this book will rest on him, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven. 21 Then the Lord will single him out for adversity from all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant which are written in this book of the law.

And in verse 28 He says He would cast them into another land.

See the description... The Lord will never forgive the one who disregards the Covenant; the anger and jealousy of the Lord will burn against him, Every curse will rest on him, and his name will be blotted out. And the whole nation will be scattered.

But let's keep reading into 30:1-3
1“So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the LORD your God has banished you, 2and you return to the LORD your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today, you and your sons, 3then the LORD your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you.

Here, he says he would gather them and restore them after being scattered.

So she's clearly talking about blessing and adversity - not annihilation, right? Now let's look further into Chapter 30:6-10

6“Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. 7“The LORD your God will inflict all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. 8“And you shall again obey the LORD, and observe all His commandments which I command you today. 9“Then the LORD your God will prosper you abundantly in all the work of your hand, in the offspring of your body and in the offspring of your cattle and in the produce of your ground, for the LORD will again rejoice over you for good, just as He rejoiced over your fathers; 10if you obey the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul.

More of the same theme - blessing and prosperity versus cursing and adversity. So now, the summary

15“See, I have set before you today LIFE and prosperity, and DEATH and adversity; 16in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. 17“But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, 18I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. 19“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants.

After all of the description of the prosperity verses adversity, blessing and cursing, God sums it all up by calling it life and death.

and there isn't anything in this passage that speaks to Annihilation or cessation. He's talking about adversity, scattering them....

Like I said, the burden is on you to demonstrate that life means live forever and death means cease to exist. You've done nothing but assert it and say things like " it makes no sense to think..."

You have rightly noted that the scriptures seem to mean more to the people here than in other discussion forums. Not only the scriptures, but the scriptures rightly divided.

 

It begs the question to suggest that punishment can only consistent in a corporal/conscious mode. Is capital punishment suddenly incoherent and off limits? Capital punishment is a most serious form of punishment, and consists in ongoing privation of life. It is about the loss of what once was possessed, and the forfeit of what might have been.

Annihilation (the loss of life and immortality) is an "eternal punishment," by being both a valid form of punishment (privation), and by being permanent. The grammar of that phrase in Matthew 25:46 is variously called a result noun, deverbal noun, or noun of action, and in this case speaks to the everlasting result or effect of the punishment. The same form occurs elsewhere, for example the "eternal redemption" of Hebrews 9:12, which refers to the everlasting outcome of Christ's one-time act of redemption. It is not saying that "redeeming" continues forever, and neither is it said that "punishing" continues forever.

Jesus, of course, did not say "torment" (βάσανος). He said "punishment" (κόλασις). The latter can receive the meaning of any form of punishment that is given in its context. It appears elsewhere only in 1 John 4:18, where it is likewise translated as "punishment." Beyond the canon, it appears in apocryphal works and in Josephus in contexts where capital punishment is in view. Here in Matthew, if anything is suggested by context, whether conscious torment or capital loss of life, it would have to be the latter, since the contrast is being made with those who do receive life. The reciprocity of the parallel should at least be acknowledged.

You seem to be scoffing at the view as if it's absurd (as you did try to argue). And yet in suggesting that annihilation is no punishment at all, you're in tension with the likes of Augustine, who wrote that the damned would be "overjoyed" to receive eternal torment if the alternative had been annihilation. Meanwhile, in suggesting that annihilation is no eternal punishment, you're in tension with the likes of Jonathan Edwards, who wrote that annihilation "answers the scripture expressions" about eternal punishment just "as well" as eternal torment.

“If those wretches were offered immortality, on the condition that their misery would be undying, with the alternative that if they refused to live for ever in the same misery they would cease to have any existence at all, and would perish utterly, then they would certainly be overjoyed to choose perpetual misery in preference to complete annihilation.”

—St. Augustine, City of God, XI.27 (Penguin Classics Edition).​

“For, if it be owned, that Scripture expressions denote a punishment that is properly eternal, but that it is in no other sense properly so, than as the annihilation, or state of non-existence, to which the wicked shall return, will be eternal; and that this eternal annihilation is that death which is so often threatened for sin, perishing for ever, everlasting destruction, being lost, utterly consumed . . . it answers the scripture expressions as well, to suppose that they shall be annihilated immediately, without any long pains, provided the annihilation be everlasting.”

—Jonathan Edwards, The Works of President Edwards: With a Memoir of His Life (G. & C. & H. Carvill, 1830), 401.
​

 

Do you know what the word annihilate means?

to reduce to utter ruin or nonexistence; destroy utterly - (from dictionary.com)

You guys have made destroy and death, annihilate, etc synonymous.

So you're not making the same argument as the other guy is?

 

Dang, where did you come from? How many of y'all are there?

 

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.

 

Four, if I'm not mistaken. I came from the internet.