• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mark Corbett

Active Member
Matthew 5:26. "Assuredly I say to you, you will by no means get out of there until you have paid the last penny."
Mark 9:47-48. "And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two yes, to be cast into hell fire-- where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'"

Here, I'll attempt to reply to the first two of the 5 (+1 in a follow up comment) passages you listed.

Matthew 5:26. "Assuredly I say to you, you will by no means get out of there until you have paid the last penny."

I think we both agree that Jesus was not teaching that people would eventually get out of Hell after they had "paid the last penny". Taken on its own, the verse could mean this, but I think we agree that there is such a large amount evidence that those cast into Hell will never get out that such an interpretation is not supported.

This passage really does not say anything clear about whether or not the unrighteous will eventually be annihilated.

Mark 9:47-48. "And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two yes, to be cast into hell fire-- where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'"

Many people who read this do not realize that when Jesus says "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" He is quoting pretty much word for word from the last verse of Isaiah:

ESV Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

Notice that the fire and the worms are not being used to torment living, conscious people, but to dispose of their "dead bodies". This makes more sense, because all around the world all throughout history the vast majority of dead bodies have been disposed of by either being turned to dust by worms or turned to ashes by fire. Thus, this verse really supports the annihilation of the unrighteous rather than eternal conscious torment.
 

Mark Corbett

Active Member
Luke 12:4-5. "My friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: fear Him who after He has killed, has power to cast into hell. Yes, I say to you, fear Him!"

Martin, In this post I will attempt to explain how I reconcile the 3rd of 6 Bible passages you listed which appear to many people to be contrary to Conditional Immortality:

Luke 12:4-5. "My friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: fear Him who after He has killed, has power to cast into hell. Yes, I say to you, fear Him!"

We all agree that God will throw people into Hell if their sins are not forgiven through God's grace to those who have faith in Jesus Christ. What we disagree on is whether or not those thrown into Hell will have a type of immortality where they continue to live, albeit in torment. While the passage you quoted from Luke does not tell us what happens to people once they are thrown into Hell, a similar passage in Matthew does:

ESV Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Here, we see that what happens to people in hell is the destruction of both their body and their soul. This is consistent with the doctrine of Conditional Immortality, which teaches that those not saved will not be immortal.

God bless you. I know it's Sunday. May God bless you as you worship Him together with others (I hope you are able to do this). I'll be leaving for church soon myself.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
All well and good, but I have it on good authority that the punishment of hell is everlasting.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.​

Your doctrine rests on the fallacy that death and unconsciousness or a cessation of being are synonymous in biblical parlance.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Annihilationism is the attempt to exorcise death of its pains, where there is neither weeping nor gnashing of teeth.
 

wTanksley

Member
Martin, I'd like to point out that your arguments have missed the force of the original post. It was an argument for conditional immortality, not just a list of verses without an argument. I respect your list of verses, but you didn't provide any explanation of why you think they support your view rather than the OP's conditional immortality, and you didn't attempt to explain why the OP is wrong.

If the OP remains unchallenged, that means this thread concludes that the Bible teaches conditional immortality. Your verses may be interpreted in that light -- and they are actually simple to interpret that way.

Mark 9:47-48. "And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two yes, to be cast into hell fire-- where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'"


Mark pointed out that this passages is about corpses being thrown into a valley. If you look at Jesus' other "pluck it out" passages, for example in Matt 5:29, you'll see that it is indeed "your whole body" being thrown into gehenna, showing that Jesus is aware of the context and intends to use it in the same way.

I'd like to point a different thing out. What exactly is Jesus comparing gehenna to? He's saying gehenna is worse than "entering the kingdom of God with one eye." He's asking us to imagine living forever with only one eye, giving up half of our eyesight and all our depth vision in order to be free from sin. He's NOT asking us to compare gehenna to pain, but rather to loss and destruction -- which is what conditional immortality teaches.

This passage, on closer examination, not only can be interpreted in accordance with conditional immortality, but actually positively affirms it.

. "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung about his neck and he were thrown into the sea........"


What does having a weight around your neck do to the process of drowning? You seem to think it's painful, but although drowning is painful, adding a millstone doesn't add pain. It makes it quicker, which isn't obviously worse -- what's worse is that it makes it inescapable. And that is the point Jesus is making; sins that seem small, like causing someone else to stumble, are judged with all seriousness on the last day; and nobody will escape their judgment.

And of course, the penalty being described in this metaphor is death.

Revelation 20:10ff. 'The devil.....was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever..........And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.'

I can only guess what your argument is in regards to this passage; but since you've edited out most of the passage, I have a pretty good chance of guessing. You probably think that this passage is non-symbolic, to be taken strictly literally; and you think that everything thrown into the Lake of Fire will undergo exactly the same punishment. I'll go with you on your assumption that this passage is literal, although that actually contradicts Rev 17:8-11, which is the interpretation of the beast as "going to destruction."

But is your main premise true? Will everything thrown into the lake of fire undergo the same punishment? The text makes it clear that this is not true. The part you cut out includes death being thrown into the Lake of Fire; and after the judgment, Rev 21:4 says "death is no more." So there are two different fates for at least death and Satan (and not to belabor the point, but it looks like the beast is supposed to be destroyed alongside death).

Nor is there any good reason to think humans are seen in the same light as the two beasts and Satan; unlike those, humans are raised from the dead and judged, a very different process than the beasts received. Then, when their punishment is exegeted, the humans' fate in the lake of fire is explained as "the second death" -- a phrase which in its context interprets the lake of fire. Humans thrown into the lake of fire die. And that's exactly what all the rest of the Bible teaches -- God will kill the rebels at gehenna, as Luke 12:5 says.

The conclusion should not be to presume that humans receive whatever Satan is depicted as receiving; the conclusion should be that whatever happens to Satan (eternal torment or the destruction that the rest of the Bible promised him), the fate of people is not the same; it's death.

I don't have much time, so I'm going to post this -- I apologize for shorting a very complex discussion. One more simple thing.

You quoted Daniel 12:2, which says that the wicked will be raised to "shame and eternal contempt." But look at this. Shame is an emotion shameful people feel, and contempt is an emotion contemptuous people feel. Although contempt is a negative emotion, it's not something that's bad to feel; it means you're judging someone else. Shame IS bad to feel; to be shamed is to BE judged. In other words, the shame is felt by the wicked; the contempt is felt by everyone else, including God, toward the wicked.

And the only part that's eternal is the contempt. That's because, just as in Isaiah 66:24, the righteous are alive forever to scorn the wicked, while the wicked -- after their resurrection to shame -- are killed, and remain dead.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua, I honestly cannot find a verse which says that the unrighteous have immortal life. Can you?
I like your first name, it is good name "Mark" and I share it with you. However, it seems that you are confusing "life' and "death" with existence and non-existence when both are actually two different states of existence. Life is the state of existence of eternal union with God. Death is the state of existence of eternal separation from God. For example, consider Matthew 10:28 that even God cannot "destroy" the soul after physical death of the body until the time of final judgement when it is cast into Gehenna. The Greek term apollumi does not mean annihilate but to render useless. Man kills the body to render it useless for soul expressions (hate, envy, etc.) but God renders it useless by placing it in Gehenna where it cannot administer soul expressions on anyone but those deserving. The wine skins were apolummi but not annihilated, but rendered useless for their designed purpose. Christ was sent to the apolummi house of Israel as they were existing in state of uselessness for their designed purpose - to glorify God and receive the Messiah. It seems you are confusing two different states of existence with the idea of non-existence and existence. You seem to be calling the state of eternal life existence and death non-existence when in fact eternal life describes a state of existence with God and in union with God whereas death describes a state of separation.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I really like it when people give Biblical reasons to think the way they do. I clicked "Like" on HankD's message for that reason, even though I don't think he got the passage he was quoting perfectly right -- he was reading a Biblical text, and interpreting it well; the only problem is that he missed part of the text.

Van said:
Eternal punishment - a punishment with eternal consequences - separation from God forever.

But when you say this kind of thing, I have to wonder... why do you even think it's true? It doesn't sound like anything the Bible mentions.

The Bible certainly does mention eternal punishment.
Matthew 25:46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Eternal punishment includes as a consequence, eternal separation from God. I have seen the arguments about being separated being a fiction, but again scripture supports the view. God is holy and sin causes a separation.

In the context of Matt 25, Jesus offers two hints that preclude that "mere separation" reading.

First, this punishment includes being sent into the eternal fire. This is NOT mere "separation", but a punishment which begins by sending them into the same fire that Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6 say reduced Sodom to ashes.

Second, as Mark Corbett mentioned in response to HankD's challenge, this "eternal punishment" is opposed to the fate of "eternal life." The righteous, in this picture of final judgment, are sent into life, and receive no punishment; the wicked are sent into punishment and receive no life. But this is _death_, not mere separation.

First, lets avoid making strawman arguments, I did not say eternal punishment was comprised solely of eternal separation. I addressed those going into eternal punishment will suffer torment as required to satisfy God's perfect justice. Next, when God destroys the soul and body of those lost, that is the second death. It seems to me you were seeking to find fault where none exists.

I could add a third problem with this mere separation view, although it's not contextual: it ignores the problem of mankind existing apart from God. Throughout the Bible God's presence is what gives us life; Paul explains when testifying to pagans "in Him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28). There's no reason to think that being separated from God makes sense even _now_. And in the age to come it makes even less sense: then, "God will be all in all" and all things will be submitted to Christ and to Himself (Eph 1:22, 1 Cor 15:27, Heb 2:8), uniting all things to God (see the context of the previous passages).
Sinners in a sinful state are separated from God. They are dead in their trespasses. United with God = alive, separated from God = spiritually dead.

Conditionalists (that is, believers in conditional immortality as presented above) do affirm this. Torment will last as long as God's perfect justice requires. But torment is not in general the wages of sin!
Yet another strawman, no one claimed torment is the only penalty for sin.

Rather, torment is the penalty deserved for specific acts which violate conscience (Rom 2), persecute believers (2Thess 1), or harm God's church (Luke 12). The wages of sin, ALL sin and ANY sin, is _death_; as Romans 1:32 says, this is what everyone knows God's righteous decree is against all who sin.
We have what God's word says, and it also says sinners will be punished in a place of torment.

That is the fundamental problem the first murderer (the serpent) introduced in the world; and it's the problem Eve's offspring, Jesus, solved by dying for us. From the first sin in Genesis to the resurrection in Revelation, the problem is sin leading to death, and the cure is the Spirit giving everlasting life. There is no life apart from salvation in Christ!
Minor point but Satan suffers torment for ever and ever, and scripture does not say his existence is ever terminated.

Well, that certainly is a profound confusion about the message of Christ, yes! But it's entirely due to a confusion about what we mean when we say "rest in peace." Resting, sleeping, is only wonderful when we know someone's going to wake up later. That's not the case with your "eternal rest in peace."
Did I advocate that view? Nope. What is that, the third strawman?

When Paul considered the possibility of resurrection never happening, his reaction was not that we would eternally rest in peace; it was that we are of all men the most miserable, because our dead who we think have merely "fallen asleep" would in fact have "already perished."
Those who have fallen asleep in Christ are resting in peace, they have entered His rest.

And this shows us that to perish doesn't mean to be tormented forever; it means to lose your life, and NOT to be able to take it up again. This is why Jesus warned that whoever denies Him in order to save their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life by continuing to preach Him will save it. Surely this has to be the most frequently repeated teaching of Christ in the Gospels! And this, again, is the clear and continuous teaching of conditional immortality in the Bible.
Again, another strawman, did I say the lost never are destroyed?
 

Darren J. Clark

New Member
I forgot one other text:
Daniel 12:2. 'And many of those who sleep in the dust shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt.'...


Hello Martin. Can you tell me why this verse necessarily means a person is conscious of the shame and the everlasting contempt? I have contempt for people (both dead and alive) who have done evil things and yet they are not conscious of this fact. It means being the object of contempt does not necessarily imply one is aware of this. Hence, I would look for a clear clue from the text itself that the everlasting contempt is one people will necessarily experience. But I see none. So I am wondering if you can explain exactly what you see in the text.
 

Mark Corbett

Active Member
All well and good, but I have it on good authority that the punishment of hell is everlasting.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.​

Your doctrine rests on the fallacy that death and unconsciousness or a cessation of being are synonymous in biblical parlance.

As far as Matthew 25:46, I addressed this from the Conditional Immortality point of view in comment #8. I certainly don't expect people to read all the previous comments before raising a new point, but in this case if you want to discuss this verse further with me it would help if you explain what you disagree with in comment #8.
 

Mark Corbett

Active Member
Annihilationism is the attempt to exorcise death of its pains, where there is neither weeping nor gnashing of teeth.

Aaron, I've been reading and communicating with people who believe in Conditional Immortality rather extensively for around 8 years. I have never heard a single one deny that there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. In fact, we readily affirm that. I certainly expect that judgment will involve conscious suffering in some form leading up to the second death, and that this suffering will be just according to a persons sins. Perhaps you do not understand the view you are arguing against?
 

Darren J. Clark

New Member
... consider Matthew 10:28 that even God cannot "destroy" the soul after physical death of the body until the time of final judgement when it is cast into Gehenna. The Greek term apollumi does not mean annihilate but to render useless. Man kills the body to render it useless for soul expressions (hate, envy, etc.) but God renders it useless by placing it in Gehenna where it cannot administer soul expressions on anyone but those deserving. .


I like the name Mark, also. Some thoughts I have about your statement.

1. The Conditionalist case does not rest on apollumi meaning "annihilation". The Conditionalists I know will point out that apollumi has a range of meaning (including "to render useless" which, incidentally, John Stackhouse jr. uses to establish is case for Conditionalism) but argue that usage in a given context is determinative of meaning. It seems to me, however, that you are arguing that appolumi always means "to render useless". If so what do you make of texts like Matt. 2:13; 12:14; 21:41; 27:20; Mark 3:6; 9: 22; Luke 6:9 where the ending of a person's life is in view?

2. I also think Conditionalists will happily concede your argument that "man kills the body to render it useless" because this is all bound up with the destruction of the body (whether by the initial act of killing or by the decomposition of the body). I am not sure how your definition of "to kill" helps you.

3. In any case, by quoting Matt 10:28 you seem to recognise that "to kill" and "to destroy" are juxtaposed in a way that sets them in parallel. Since being killed ipso facto means one loses the faculty of consciousness, and since you are arguing that "to kill" and "to destroy" have the same implication or meaning in Matt 10:28, is it not natural to think that being "destroyed" also entails the loss of the faculty of consciousness? I am interested in your thoughts on this.
 

JamesL

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That's a good question, because it addresses the actual point being made.

Yes. First of all, "immortality" means "without death", both in Greek and English. "Eternal life" means (at least) life forever, which requires a lack of dying. You can check this in any Greek-English lexicon (which means a list of how a given Greek word is translated to English -- there's a very good lexicon at www.stepbible.org).

The relationship between death and life is established first in Genesis 3, which tells us that man cannot live forever due to his sin, and therefore God sends him away from the Tree of Life which would potentially enable that. As a result, Adam finds himself forced to struggle for food until he finally dies, at which point God tells him "you will return to dust." At Adam's death, at least part of his life ends; the implication is the ultimately, his life cannot go on forever, but must end utterly.

The close pairing of immortality with living forever is perhaps clearer in Hebrew, where the idea of God being immortal cannot be directly stated; rather, over and over those who understand God address Him as "the one who lives forever." To Nebuchadnezzar, this was the humiliation God put him through -- that God's plans would be carried out because God will be living forever, while we do not. Moses didn't need to be humiliated in this way; in Psalm 90, the "song of Moses", he proclaims that we live only briefly, but God lives forever.

But Jesus made clear something the prophets could only faintly see -- that the good news of immortality in eternal life was available through Him. This is why Paul said Jesus "abolished death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." (2 Tim. 1:10 CSB) Jesus likewise tells us that "Everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die-- ever." (Jn. 11:26 CSB) This promise is nowhere offered to the wicked, as Mark made clear in the OP.

So yes, living forever means to be immortal. And everyone who has eternal life will never die; nobody who lacks eternal life will live forever; rather, their life will be taken from them by the one with the power to destroy body and soul in gehenna.
I think you may be guilty of illegitimate totality transfer.

eternal life does not necessarily mean life forever

aiōnion seems to almost certainly refer to a quality, rather than a duration
 

wTanksley

Member
All well and good, but I have it on good authority that the punishment of hell is everlasting.

We've addressed this already -- in short, we affirm that the wicked are punished with eternal destruction in its ordinary sense, a complete death and destruction affecting both body and soul. I suspect you haven't read the whole discussion above.

Your doctrine rests on the fallacy that death and unconsciousness are synonymous in biblical parlance.

No, it doesn't. It rests on the truth that the Bible sees death as being the end of the life that God gave each man. Without God's gift of life, man cannot "live, and move, and have his being" anymore.

We do not deny that humans can be conscious after death; but this consciousness is a temporary provision called "the intermediate state" during which the soul is kept alive by God. We do not, unlike you, presume that consciousness and life continues unconditionally; rather, we recognize that both gifts are tied together in the gift of God's spirit by which man became a living soul.

Annihilationism is the attempt to exorcise death of its pains, where there is no weeping nor gnashing of teeth.

This is a disappointing argument; it's a fabrication of our motives which ignores completely the points we've made and substitutes an irrelevant fiction. We not only admit but positively affirm that death is painful -- not as a state, but as a process of dying. We affirm that in the furnace of fire people will weep and gnash their teeth -- but Jesus says they will be like the tares in the fire, and like the "causes of stumbling", and will be burnt up (Matt 13:40ff).

You suppose that the wicked are unlike tares being burnt in that they endure through the fire; but can you substantiate that from the Bible? And what about all the other passages affirming similar things -- that the wicked are like "chaff burnt up" in "unquenchable fire", that they're like tinder set aflame, that they're like dead trees being burnt... that the righteous will tread on the ashes of the wicked? Do you know of even ONE passage that even so much as hints that the wicked will actually endure past the judgment?

The Bible overwhelmingly directly teaches that the purpose of God's judgment is to remove the wicked, leaving only those He has made righteous. Only the righteous are those who are worthy to attain to the next age, and only they cannot die, since they are sons of the resurrection.
 

wTanksley

Member
I think you may be guilty of illegitimate totality transfer. Eternal life does not necessarily mean life forever. aiōnion seems to almost certainly refer to a quality, rather than a duration

James, I was responding to HankD, who quoted Matt 25:46 to "prove" that hell lasted forever, because (he implied) the wicked go into eternal punishment while the righteous go into eternal life. Following his logic, both "life" and "punishment" have equal duration.

Now, you're telling me that merely because I'm replying to HankD I'm guilty of ITT. In fact neither Hank nor I have erred, as "eternal life" is the broad majority definition of the Greek words in question. It's quite simply their face value, what they would normally mean. This is not fancy theological terminology, nor is it derived from remote Scriptural passages with no connection to this; it's simply what every Greek on the street would understand when they see those words. I've also quoted a huge number of other Biblical expressions which mean the same thing, such as saying that those with eternal life will "not die", or that they'll "live forever and ever."

However, you would like to argue instead that "eternal life" and "eternal punishment" are qualities of life and punishment, NOT duration. That's OK with me, because of course now ANYONE can see that eternal destruction in unquenchable fire -- like chaff in the unquenchable fire -- is the type of punishment given at the Day of the Lord.
 

JamesL

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
James, I was responding to HankD, who quoted Matt 25:46 to "prove" that hell lasted forever, because (he implied) the wicked go into eternal punishment while the righteous go into eternal life. Following his logic, both "life" and "punishment" have equal duration.

Now, you're telling me that merely because I'm replying to HankD I'm guilty of ITT. In fact neither Hank nor I have erred, as "eternal life" is the broad majority definition of the Greek words in question. It's quite simply their face value, what they would normally mean. This is not fancy theological terminology, nor is it derived from remote Scriptural passages with no connection to this; it's simply what every Greek on the street would understand when they see those words. I've also quoted a huge number of other Biblical expressions which mean the same thing, such as saying that those with eternal life will "not die", or that they'll "live forever and ever."

However, you would like to argue instead that "eternal life" and "eternal punishment" are qualities of life and punishment, NOT duration. That's OK with me, because of course now ANYONE can see that eternal destruction in unquenchable fire -- like chaff in the unquenchable fire -- is the type of punishment given at the Day of the Lord.
I think we may need to back up a little.

I noticed in the OP it showed the definition of immortality as "eternal life"

I took that as an assertion of the two being synonymous (immortality = eternal life)

So I asked if that was the initial premise, and asked for biblical support for the premise.

I wasn't asking anything about Hank or what he wrote, or what you replied to him. I simply asked for biblical support that immortality = eternal life

I didn't think you supported the premise with anything other than mere assertion. And saying every on the street understands it your way is error, imho.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
We've addressed this already
I'm sure you have, but saying that the cessation of being is the everlasting point does violence to the simple, straightforward and succinct maxim stated by Christ.

They will suffer forever. Not temporarily.

But if you don't yield to the Scripture, there's nothing I can say that will change your mind.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Aaron, I've been reading and communicating with people who believe in Conditional Immortality rather extensively for around 8 years. I have never heard a single one deny that there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. In fact, we readily affirm that. I certainly expect that judgment will involve conscious suffering in some form leading up to the second death, and that this suffering will be just according to a persons sins. Perhaps you do not understand the view you are arguing against?
Tell me what you think the first death is?
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So, what is your understanding of the biblical references to sinners being "destroyed" in hell?

First, the English word "hell" is used to translate two very different Greek words - Hades and Gehenna. Scripture says God can destroy both the body and the soul in Gehenna, the location of the Lake of Fire. (Matthew 10:28) I believe the word translated "destroy" was meant to convey the idea of putting an end to the existence of body and soul. But scripture also says the lost are conveyed to Hades when they physically die, and they are punished with torment in accordance with the wrath they stored up during their physical lifetime. i believe after God's perfect justice is satisfied, the lost are destroyed.

To support this view I point to the verses that say the punishment of some will be more tolerable than the punishment of others. Thus it appears the punishment will be tailored to the individual sins of the lost person. Eternal torment OTOH appears to provide one punishment for all, thus is less likely to be the correct view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top