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

[Mark Corbett]

In my opinion, if this one point fails then the whole doctrine unravels. I think it's been built on this one premise to that extent.

One thing that I can't get on board with (at least yet) is a mere assertion that "eternal life" means "living forever"

In terms of "eternal life" meaning "living forever", before I give another Biblical reference, I think it helps to keep in mind that the Bible uses normal human language in order to teach God's truths. This doesn't mean the Bible can't take a normal word and give it a specialized meaning or additional meaning. But even when it does this, like with the words "Apostle" and "Good News", these words still maintain a core element of their original day to day meaning. An "Apostle" is still someone sent by someone in authority to represent them, and the message about Jesus is still, quite literally, "Good News". And so it would be quite strange if the phrase "eternal life" did not mean, quite literally, "to live forever".

Now here's another Bible reference that might help:

John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

In verse 47 Jesus mentions "eternal life". As in many other verses, this "eternal life" is condtional. The condition is believing in Jesus.

In verse 49 Jesus mentions the Israelites who died in the wilderness. Of course, they literally died.

In verse 50, Jesus says that He came from Heaven to be the bread of life so that we may eat of it (accept Him, believe Him, receive Him) and not die.

verse 47: believing leads to eternal life
verse 49: mentions people who died, referring to their physical death
verse 50: eating (accepting/believing/receiving) Jesus leads to not dying

I hope this helps.

One difficulty with the premise of eternal life meaning "live forever" is that eternal life is presented in two manners in scripture:
1) a present possession
2) a future attainment

I think this is another example of the "already/not yet" nature of the Christian life which is seen throughout the New Testament. We already possess eternal life in terms of it being a certainty for those who have accepted Christ. Yet we are not yet seeing it with our eyes in the way we will in the next age.

 

[Mark Corbett]

It certainly is a strange doctrine. I understand this is a discussion forum and esoteric topics are sometimes discussed, but I can't figure out how championing this doctrine helps the cause of Christ, edifies Christians, or advances the gospel.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

First, let me say that I really like your forum name “in the light”. That’s how we all want to live!

Second, many true doctrines seems “strange”, especially when we first study them. God sending His Son to die in our place seems very strange to many people, but praise God, it’s true! A doctrine feeling strange does not in itself make it true or false.

Now, wrt to figuring out the usefulness of the doctrine of Conditional Immortality:

We evaluate a doctrine by the Biblical evidence first, not by whether or not we think it will be helpful. For example, I believe that all homosexual acts are sinful acts because of what the Bible teaches, even though in our current cultural setting such a belief is extremely unpopular and at a surface level seems to make it more difficult for us to spread God’s message.

However, please don’t think I’m saying it is wrong to ask how a certain doctrine, if true, “helps the cause of Christ, edifies Christians, or advances the gospel”. The question “how is it useful?” is a great question when it comes AFTER the question “based on the Bible, is it true?”

Here are two ways in which the doctrine of Conditional Immortality can be useful:

1. Many people have turned away from a theologically conservative, evangelical faith in part because they are reacting against the teaching that a good, loving God would keep people alive and torment them for far longer than a trillion years for sins they committed in one short lifetime. They wrongly think that the best alternative is a postmodern theology (like Rob Bell), or even worse they reject Christianity altogether and embrace atheism. If we taught Conditional Immortality, we would take away one of the major reasons people give for rejecting a Biblical, evangelical faith.

2. The doctrine of eternal torment harms God’s Name by making Him look unjust in the eyes of many. Conditional Immortality corrects this.

I am NOT saying we should believe in Conditional Immortality because of these benefits. I am saying that after we study the Bible, if a person sees that it teaches Conditional Immortality, than there are benefits, including the two mentioned above.

Thanks for bringing this up, it is important to see why something is important!

 

[Mark Corbett]

many of them have significantly better educations than you do, and several of them have extensive experience as college and seminary professors.

I don't doubt that you are correct. I thank God for the opportunity to interact on a forum with many people who are better educated than I am and who have experiences that I don't. I'm glad for the opportunity to share my ideas and thoughts and to receive feedback from such men and women.

But I want to go father than that. I'm thankful for the feedback I get and the things I learn from ALL the members of this forum community, including some who may have less formal education than I do.

When we were serving the Lord in Indonesia, we experienced the immense blessing of serving alongside some Indonesian believers. One in particular was an amazing example to me. She often spent several hours a day in prayer, and this is not an exaggeration. And she was constantly going and ministering in the power of Christ to her neighbors, including her Muslim neighbors. She also often counseled, comforted, and encouraged women who were younger than her. This lady was very short, but I looked up to her. She never graduated from elementary school. She reminded me of this verse:

ESV Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

 

[Aaron]

Aaron, thanks for asking! James helps us with this:

ESV James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

At the first death, only our body is dead. Our body is no longer able to feel or think anything. Thus, the first death involves the complete cessation of all the normal functions of our body.

And although our soul separates from our body at death, death does not mean separation. If that were true, our soul would be just as dead as our body, since the soul is separated from the body and the the body from the soul.

Please also read comment #41 where I give a much more extended and detailed explanation of the various meanings of death found in the bible. Thanks!

No, the first death is one's death in sin and trespass. Eph. 2:1

 

[Mark Corbett]

No, the first death is one's death in sin and trespass. Eph. 2:1

Aaron,

You asked me the following question:

“Tell me what the first death is?” (see comment #43)

To my knowledge the Bible never uses the phrase “first death”. However, it does use the phrase “second death”. I tried to answer your question in relation to the phrase “second death”. Here are some further thoughts on that:

Let’s look at the first use of the phrase “second death”:

Revelation 2:10 Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor's crown. 11 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death.

It is significant that the first use of “second death” occurs in the context of a letter to a local church. The church in Smyrna was facing persecution. Jesus encourages them to remain faithful even if they are put to death for their faith. This refers to literal death (what else would it refer to?). Jesus then promises them that even if they die, He will give them life as a victor’s crown. He also promises that they will not be hurt by “the second death”. In verse 10, “death” clearly refers to a literal, physical death. In this context, that would be their “first death”.

Having said that, I don’t disagree that people are metaphorically dead (unresponsive to God) before they are saved (if they do get saved) and before they experience physical death. You may call that a “first death”, but the Bible does not use that term, and that is not what the Bible is referring to when it implies there is a “first death” by using the phrase “second death”.

 

[The Biblicist]

Now here's another Bible reference that might help:

John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

In verse 47 Jesus mentions "eternal life". As in many other verses, this "eternal life" is condtional. The condition is believing in Jesus.

In verse 49 Jesus mentions the Israelites who died in the wilderness. Of course, they literally died.

In verse 50, Jesus says that He came from Heaven to be the bread of life so that we may eat of it (accept Him, believe Him, receive Him) and not die.

verse 47: believing leads to eternal life
verse 49: mentions people who died, referring to their physical death
verse 50: eating (accepting/believing/receiving) Jesus leads to not dying

You seem to have a habit of jerking texts out of their context. Of course that is how heresy is formulated. A look at the overall context repudiates your whole line of reasoning. First, we have three types of reasons for coming to Christ but not for eternal life.

1. Those who came to see miracles - v. 2
2. Those who came to seize power - vv. 14-15
3. Those who came to him for food - v. 26

None of these came to Christ by faith for eternal life. This chapter is devoted to defining the true origin of saving faith. It is the work of God (Jn. 6:29) and this is proven by Christ by claiming only those given to the Father come to him by faith (vv. 37-40) and only those drawn to the Son by Father come to him by Faith (Jn. 6:44). Both giving and drawing is the work of God.

Second, true saving faith does not "lead to eternal life" but actually obtains eternal life here and now in the present tense and it is not conditional but eternal that can never be lost by any the Father gives or draws to the Son (Jn. 6:37-40). This is true because eternal life with regard to faith has to do with both the quickening (making alive) the human Spirit, meaning, the human spirit is brought into spiritual union with God by quickening and because justification is based upon faith - or our legal position before God, both of which are irreversable with regard to all who have been given to the Son by the Father and who have been drawn to the son by the Father.

The group in John 6:26-36 had never been given to the Son by the Father, nor had they ever been drawn to the Son by the Father just as many of the professing disciples of Christ had never been given or drawn by the Father (Jn. 6:64-66).

BTW, you never responded to my previous posts.

 

[kyredneck]

not one word of complaint would come forth from my mouth

Same here.

You think there are those Christians that want to be 'vindicated' who would complain?

I do. And a lot of them.

 

[InTheLight]

Like most words, “death” can mean a number of things. But it can’t mean just anything. It does not make sense to use the word “death” to describe a situation where people actually continue to feel and think forever and ever and never actually die. It is fine to say that “death” is used metaphorically in the Bible (it certainly is!), but that doesn’t mean it can mean just anything. “Death” is used to mean either “literally dead”, “doomed to die,” or “nonresponsive”.

Putting aside the argument about what death means, do the lost suffer punishment of hellfire for all eternity or not?

I'm a layman trying to follow your meandering arguments; I wish you'd just lay your beliefs bare so they can be easily grasped.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Putting aside the argument about what death means, do the lost suffer punishment of hellfire for all eternity or not?

I'm a layman trying to follow your meandering arguments; I wish you'd just lay your beliefs bare so they can be easily grasped.

Sure. Because I've been studying Conditional Immortality for about 8 years or so (and was introduced to it quite a bit before then), it's easy to forget that not everyone knows what I mean by Conditional Immortality.

The positive side, which is not really controversial, is that those who truly believe in Jesus Christ (the condition) will live forever (the immortality).

The controversial side of this doctrine concerns the fate of the unrighteous. This part of the doctrine is often called annihilationism. Here's what I understand the Bible to teach about the fate of the unrighteous:

1. They will be resurrected for the purpose of facing judgment.

2. Part of their judgment consists in a finite amount of conscious suffering. The Bible clearly indicates this is the case, but does not give details. I do think the Bible implies that this part of their punishment will vary depending on factors such as the amount and nature of their sin and also how much knowledge they had of God's will.

3. All the unrighteous will eventually be completely destroyed body and soul. There may be ashes, smoke, or dust left over, but there will not be any conscious people able to feel pain.

If you have more questions, let me know. I'll do my best to answer. I also preached a 2 part sermon where I explained the negative side of Conditional Immortality (annihilationism) as carefully as possible. You may view part 1 here and after that it should be easy to find part 2, :

 

[InTheLight]

2. Part of their judgment consists in a finite amount of conscious suffering. The Bible clearly indicates this is the case, but does not give details. I do think the Bible implies that this part of their punishment will vary depending on factors such as the amount and nature of their sin and also how much knowledge they had of God's will.

3. All the unrighteous will eventually be completely destroyed body and soul. There may be ashes, smoke, or dust left over, but there will not be any conscious people able to feel pain.

In light of your assertions, how do you handle Jude 7?

Jude 7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

 

[wTanksley]

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.

The common argument is that conditional immortality is false BECAUSE eternal punishment is separation from God. I challenged you by pointing out that this claim is not in the Bible. Your response here is nothing more than "yes it is." Don't tell me, show me! The Bible is the authority, not your claims about it.

As an added point -- you've now nuanced your claim in two ways. Your original claim responded to conditional immortality, that death couldn't be the eternal punishment because separation was actually the eternal punishment. You've now clarified your claim to saying that separation is merely one of the consequences of eternal punishment; but this is compatible with death being ANOTHER one of the consequences. And the second nuance is that you say "sin causes a separation"; and this is true, but sin also causes death, not only separation.

Your nuancing shows that your argument actually is perfectly compatible with conditional immortality.

First, lets avoid making strawman arguments, I did not say eternal punishment was comprised solely of eternal separation.

I'm attempting no strawman and accept your clarification of your argument -- but now your argument doesn't exclude conditional immortality.

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.

"Finding fault?" Really, you enter into a debate telling me I'm wrong, and then you complain that I'm "finding fault? I'm defending my view of conditional immortality against the arguments commonly presented against it.

Sinners in a sinful state are separated from God. They are dead in their trespasses. United with God = alive, separated from God = spiritually dead.

There's some truth in the claims you're making, individually. It's true that sinners are separated from God; and it's also true that they're dead in their sins (until and unless God makes them alive). But nothing in the Bible says the two conditions, separated and dead, actually mean the same thing. And they do NOT. Nor do they mean the same thing as what will happen to sinners as a punishment for their sin, when God kills the wicked.

Furthermore, these things are true about the wicked in the present life. They're not automatically also their punishments on the Day of the Lord! Those punishments are done to give the wicked what they deserve and didn't receive before.

Yet another strawman, no one claimed torment is the only penalty for sin.

That's very unkind of you. I was _explicitly_ explaining my view. I wasn't making a strawman of yours even slightly. My view is that the wages of sin is ACTUALLY death, and I was pointing out that the Bible affirms that. I actually _affirmed_ your view that there's some torment.

We have what God's word says, and it also says sinners will be punished in a place of torment.

It is indeed true that God will afflict people on the Day of the Lord (see 2Thess 1:5-10 for example); what's missing from your claim is that this affliction is never said to go beyond that Day. As 2 Thess 1:9-10 says, "they will pay the penalty ... when He comes, on that Day."

Minor point but Satan suffers torment for ever and ever, and scripture does not say his existence is ever terminated.

I have to guess you're saying that because I mentioned the serpent in passing, right? Perhaps we should discuss that later. For now, I'm interested that you have no reply to my point about the Bible's systematic teaching about life and death other than talking about the serpent. (In other words, I suspect we agree that Satan is a "minor point".)

I had said '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?

I know you weren't advocating any view; you were snarking at mine by calling the destruction of the wicked "eternal rest in peace." I was demonstrating that your snark was misplaced. The Christian doctrine of "rest in peace" is totally contradictory to the false idea that simply being dead is "rest."

Again, another strawman, did I say the lost never are destroyed?

I'm replying to what you said, not to what you didn't say. But I'm curious: I believe the unrepentant actually will be destroyed on the Day Christ comes. Do you?

 

[InTheLight]

As long as we're offering up semantics I take the word "immortality" to mean a person living forever, in their original body. I do not accept that "immortality" = "eternal life".

 

[kyredneck]

No, the first death is one's death in sin and trespass. Eph. 2:1

To my knowledge the Bible never uses the phrase “first death”. However, it does use the phrase “second death”.

It stands to reason a 'second death' implies a first one. Likewise, a 'first resurrection' [Colossians 3:1] implies a second one [Acts 24:15]

 

[Mark Corbett]

In light of your assertions, how do you handle Jude 7?

Jude 7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

ESV Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

The simple answer is that while the fire may be eternal, the people consumed by it are not.

Here’s a more complex explanation.

Jude 1:7 is saying a couple of things which are relevant to our discussion:

1. The people of Sodom Gomorrah underwent a “punishment of eternal fire.”

2. Their fate serves as an example.

There is no fire continuing to burn in Sodom and Gomorrah today. So why is the fire called “eternal fire”?

The best explanation I’ve heard is that the fire comes from God. God is often presented as having fire around Him. It seems that this fire of God/fire from God can affect people differently depending on their situation. For the redeemed in Heaven, this glowing fire is beautiful and glorious. But for the impure, it destroys them. Thus, any given expression of the fire, like the fire that burned up Sodom and Gomorrah, may not last forever. However, the fire itself, which is closely associated with God, does last forever.

We can understand this even more clearly by looking at another verse which mentions the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example:

ESV 2 Peter 2:6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

This verse makes it explicit that the ungodly will be burned to ashes. I just recently explored this topic in a post on my blog:

parresiazomai: Downburned and Ashified, The Annihilation of the Unrighteous

 

[Yeshua1]

Mark, I really like how you put that -- the contrast between the condition of salvation (leading to eternal life by means of making our corruptible bodies incorruptible and immortal) and non-salvation (forfeiting eternal life, by means of death which is the end of a life) could not be made more clear in the Bible.

I think the two eschatological views that teach unconditional immortality (universalism and eternal conscious torment) both make a very simple mistake of treating a temporary thing as though it were permanent. Universalism treats the temporary gift of life given to all men since the Fall as being man's rightful condition, so that God is being unjust if He removes it; while eternal torment treats the "Day of Judgment" as being a permanent condition instead of being a Day.



Yeshua1, I agree that man is in the image of God still; but this is nowhere in the Bible taught to mean that man deserves to live forever. It's not sensible to assume it means that without some kind of justification; otherwise people could simply assume that being in the image of God means whatever crazy doctrine they wanted to push.

In the institution of the Image of God (Genesis 1:26) God explains that the image of God is given to "let man rule over" the other creatures on Earth. This has nothing to do with being immortal; and perhaps more importantly, this could not possibly be fulfilled in a place (like hell is in the eternal-torment theory) where man no longer can rule over the other creatures and can no longer represent God to those creatures.

In Genesis 3:22, God, although remembering that man is in His image, nonetheless says that given man's knowledge of good and evil, man cannot live forever. There's no hint here that this problem is limited to man's body; on the contrary, man's knowledge of good and evil impacts his mind, as many passages in the New Testament make clear we cannot call ourselves saved from sin without the renewal of the mind.

We next see God's image mentioned in Genesis 9:6, where it's the justification for executing murderers. This passage shows that the ancients could not possibly have thought that "in God's image" means "immortal", since here it means man CAN be killed!

There are no other clear texts that bear on the issue of the image of God. James correctly tells us that it's bad to despise the image of God verbally when we honor God in church; and some people think Jesus tells us that because we have the image of God stamped on us we owe ourselves to God (just as we owe Caesar taxes on coins stamped with Caesar's image). But none of this helps us understand whether immortality is part of man's inherent condition.

So I don't think simply pointing out that we're in the image of God helps settle this issue at all.

On the other hand, when Paul glorifies Christ as God by saying that He is the one "who alone has immortality", or that Christ's gospel "brought immortality to light", I think he makes it very clear that we did not and could not expect immortality apart from Christ.

The passages that are often used, such as ruined/destroyed/second death, do not mean the sinner ceases to exist, but does denote the concept that one existing apart from God would be the literal meaning of being in hell! problem here is that you and others try to force english concept and meaning into Greek terms!

 

[Mark Corbett]

It stands to reason a 'second death' implies a first one. Likewise, a 'first resurrection' [Colossians 3:1] implies a second one [Acts 24:15]

I completely agree that a "second death" implies a first one, as can be seen by reading the rest of the comment you partly quoted.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Jesus should know about that, as he also stated that Hell was created for satan and His demons, and that they suffer eternal punishment!!

 

[Yeshua1]

Who else would be using my screen name?

Perhaps if you would have bothered to get to know some of these people you might have discovered many of them have significantly better educations than you do, and several of them have extensive expeience as college and seminary professors.

And this is not a "blog." It is a discussion forum. This is not a place for you to post long confused articles regarding your pet false doctrine. It is a place for people to have honest discussions regarding Baptist doctrines.

For not trying you certainly did so.

This doctrine is held by such as the JW and the SDA, why even on the Baptist section instead of the other religions one?

 

[Yeshua1]

As long as we're offering up semantics I take the word "immortality" to mean a person living forever, in their original body. I do not accept that "immortality" = "eternal life".

Good point, as those advocating for this seem to see them as regerring to the same thing!
Acriptures teach that saved/lost live forever, but eternal life is immortality AND being with God!

 

[InTheLight]

ESV Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

The simple answer is that while the fire may be eternal, the people consumed by it are not.

The punishment is via an eternal fire, i.e. the punishment is eternal. Why would only the fire be eternal? By your own admission once the judgment is completed these lost souls will be extinguished, so why would the fire continue on forever and forever?

Here’s a more complex explanation.
Jude 1:7 is saying a couple of things which are relevant to our discussion:

1. The people of Sodom Gomorrah underwent a “punishment of eternal fire.”

2. Their fate serves as an example.

There is no fire continuing to burn in Sodom and Gomorrah today. So why is the fire called “eternal fire”?

Because they are still in Hell being punished by its eternal fire.

We can understand this even more clearly by looking at another verse which mentions the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example:

ESV 2 Peter 2:6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

This verse makes it explicit that the ungodly will be burned to ashes.

No, it says the cities were burned to ashes. Jude says the people are still being punished by eternal fire.