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

[Yeshua1]

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?



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



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

That viewpoint dies not seem to be driven by scriptures. but by a desire there not to be a Hell,,,,

 

[Van]

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.

Behold, the Lord’s hand is not so short That it cannot save; Nor is His ear so dull That it cannot hear.But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.

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.

False claim, no quote will be forthcoming.

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.

Good Grief, did I say death - end of existence - was not part of eternal punishment. More strawman arguments.

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

LOL, you have just now figured that out.

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

It never did.

"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.

My issue is you implied the common arguments against it were being endorsed by me. Totally false and misleading.

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.

We here at least we have an actual area of disagreement, being spiritually dead means being spiritually separated from God.

You say "nothing in the Bible says the two conditions separated and dead, actually mean the same thing." (Ephesians 2:1-5)

And you, although you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit now working in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all formerly lived in the desires of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the mind, and we were children of wrath by nature, as also the rest of them were.

4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, 5 and we being dead in trespasses, he made us alive together with Christ (by grace you are saved), Inescapably, those not "together with Christ" i.e. separated, are dead, those united with Christ alive.

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.

To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Thus to say the separation does not have a higher impact once a person is consigned to Hades is to miss the reality.

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.

Anytime my character is attacked (now I am supposed to be unkind by pointing out your error) I know my argument was spot on. I did not assert that torment was the only penalty of sin.

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."

I did not address the "Day of the Lord." I addressed that sinners will go to a place of torment, and the duration will last until the second coming of Christ.

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".)

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

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."'

Unless eternal punishment includes suffering for the lost's sins, your view could be said to be eternal rest in peace.

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."

Those who have fallen asleep in Christ are resting in peace, they have entered His rest.

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?

No, the Bible does not specify the duration of our conscience awareness once thrown into the Lake of fire, but scripture does allude to suffering.

And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” (Revelation 14:11)

 

[TCassidy]

The Greek word translated destroy in 1Cor. 15:26,27 is not "apollumi." The word used here is "katageo" and means to nullify, discard, exempt, abolish, to make unproductive. This "last enemy" of Christ will ultimately be "nullified, discarded, abolished, or destroyed." Therefore, this clearly teaches that death is the last enemy and that in the future "death" will be destroyed. Hence, there can be no "eternal death." To teach an "eternal death" is to contradict the scriptures.

 

[TCassidy]

That viewpoint dies not seem to be driven by scriptures. but by a desire there not to be a Hell,,,,

It is driven by the encroachment of Theological Liberalism into main stream Christendom.

Some "holier than God" "Christians" decided that sin is "not so bad" that infinite sin requires infinite punishment, and that, as they had more compassion than God, they just couldn't worship such a mean old God who would torment their lost loved ones forever. (Remember, encroaching modern thought is that sin is not really all that bad.)

So they invented this unscriptural theory that God was as loving as they were, and He didn't think sin was all that bad either so it did not really require eternal torment. After all, sin can't be that bad, can it? After all we are all sinners and we are really good people at heart, right?

So, they reinvented God in their own image. There. Problem solved.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is driven by the encroachment of Theological Liberalism into main stream Christendom.

Some "holier than God" "Christians" decided that sin is "not so bad" that infinite sin requires infinite punishment, and that, as they had more compassion than God, they just couldn't worship such a mean old God who would torment their lost loved ones forever. (Remember, encroaching modern thought is that sin is not really all that bad.)

So they invented this unscriptural theory that God was as loving as they were, and He didn't think sin was all that bad either so it did not really require eternal torment. After all, sin can't be that bad, can it? After all we are all sinners and we are really good people at heart, right?

So, they reinvented God in their own image. There. Problem solved.

Good points, also shows how really ignorant many Christians are of the full teaching of the Bible, for those such as Rob bell would have been shunned and ignored past times!

 

[Yeshua1]

The Greek word translated destroy in 1Cor. 15:26,27 is not "apollumi." The word used here is "katageo" and means to nullify, discard, exempt, abolish, to make unproductive. This "last enemy" of Christ will ultimately be "nullified, discarded, abolished, or destroyed." Therefore, this clearly teaches that death is the last enemy and that in the future "death" will be destroyed. Hence, there can be no "eternal death." To teach an "eternal death" is to contradict the scriptures.

Think this highlights that many are confusing just what the greejk terms used for ruin/death/destruction, as they try to force English meanings into them!

 

[wTanksley]

The problem is the definition of "life" and "death". They interpret these terms as existing and non-existing.

No, this is not what we do; it plays no part in our argument at all, and I challenge you to show otherwise. We do NOT define death as non-existing. We do believe that God will destroy the wicked by reducing them to ashes (2 Peter 2:6, Mal 4:1-3); but that comes after their punishment, which is death. This is important not merely because it comes up in arguments like this; it's important because Jesus died due to crucifixion, and Jesus did not cease to exist. Jesus' death was not identical to destruction, but Jesus truly died.

So what DO we believe about life and death?

We explain life as the gift of God given to us at our personal creation. By our nature, the Bible says, the gift of life is temporary; we are made from dust and we will return to it (Gen 3; Psa 104). This is a contrast to God, who alone lives forever and who alone is immortal (Psalm 90, 1 Tim 6:16).

So we believe, in contrast, that the Bible understands death as meaning the end of life, the end and exclusion of this gift God gave. A dead thing, like a corpse, is something that used to be alive, and now lacks all life. Being dead is not a state of being; it's simply a marker that there was something alive. So being dead and then (say) burnt to ashes means there's no longer a dead body. Conversely, though, it's also possible to be dead and remain in existence; in fact, that's the normal course of nature.

To be immortal is to never die -- in fact, that's the literal meaning of the parts of the word "im-mortal." "Eternal life" can be a flatly factual statement regarding life that never ends in death; or it can refer to the quality of the life which is never ended with death.

Mark and I happen to both be dualists (I see him mentioning that above). As such, we recognize that the soul does not die when the body does; but we ask you to consider that the Bible DOES teach that the soul can die (for example, James 5:20), and in fact, the fate of body and soul alike for the wicked is not only death, but also destruction (Matt 10:28).

That kind of definition does not hold up to the overall Biblical teaching. Eternal life and live forever are synonyms when "life" and "live" are properly defined to be a RELATIONSHIP with God who IS life. Lost people are presently without that relationship and are "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18) but still EXISTING with regard to biological life but without spiritual life or spiritual union (relationship) with God.

You seem to have a very complex confusion when you say "still EXISTING with regard to biological life" -- it sounds like you're mixing up the two words "existing" and "living". How ironic, then, that you claim WE falsely define death as not existing! The unsaved are not only existing but also biologically living. In fact, their soul is _also_ alive. They lack a relationship with God, but this doesn't make them dead in anything but a manner of speaking.

However, when they are judged before the throne of God, they will be killed and thrown into hell (Luke 12:5). This "killing", we claim, is not a manner of speaking, but the actual end of their life. However, even if we're wrong and it IS a manner of speaking, it cannot simply mean "the end of relationship with God", because they HAD no relationship with God. Your explanation here does not account for the Biblical data, while ours does -- and our explanation, unlike yours, takes the Biblical teaching that the wicked will be killed at face value.

Second, true saving faith does not "lead to eternal life" but actually obtains eternal life here and now in the present tense

Actually, the Bible says it does both. It's true that we have eternal life by believing on Christ; but it's also true that we will be given eternal life in the age to come, which means in that age "they cannot die anymore" (Luke 20:36). Or consider, "Whoever believes (present tense) in him WILL NOT PERISH but WILL HAVE everlasting life." Or Mark 10:30, "and in the age to come, eternal life."

Having eternal life NOW means that when the judgment comes, you will be among those granted glory, honor, and immortality. It means that you live according to the spirit, and that same spirit will raise up your mortal body, defeating death and bringing an end to the enslavement to corruption (Romans 8). Romans 8 is a great example of the already-not-yet of eternal life: we have the spirit NOW, but there's a time coming in the plan of the Father where we'll have literally everlasting life without corruption.

and it is not conditional but eternal that can never be lost

The "conditional" in "conditional immortality" isn't about whether or not we can lose our immortality; that's not what "conditional" means. It's about whether only the saved will be immortal (conditional), or whether all men are immortal (unconditional).

 

[wTanksley]

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!

You seem to be happy to SAY what scriptures teach. Can you SHOW where the scriptures teach that both the saved and lost live forever? Of course, you cannot. That's the point of the original post -- that the scriptures clearly teach that God offers salvation from death in the form of eternal life, resulting in immortality and living forever with Him. No part of this is given to the unrepentant wicked; they will pay the penalty of eternal destruction when He comes on that Day.

 

[wTanksley]

LOL, you have just now figured that out.

Van, I have no idea what you're arguing with me about. If all you can do is tell me "no, that's not it", there's really no point in going on. I've made my point: death in the Bible does not mean separation. It means the end of life. I don't even know what your point is -- I thought I knew, but you assure me I'm wrong. Fine. Since you refuse to clarify, I'm done.

 

[wTanksley]

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, then I'm sure you were just about to quote that Scripture in which Christ actually simply, straightforwardly, and succinctly states "they will suffer forever, not temporarily."

Actually, no. I'm being sarcastic. I'm not expecting you to do that, because what you just said is false. Jesus does not in fact ever say "they will suffer forever." In your imagination, you're not only sure that He says this; you're actually sure he says this "straightforwardly" and "succinctly."

But what Jesus says straightforwardly and succinctly is that He came to save people from death, and came to give them life. Literally! Straightforwardly! Succinctly! And in many different words.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, this is not what we do; it plays no part in our argument at all, and I challenge you to show otherwise.

I will gladly take your challenge and prove my point with your own words. You defined death as cessation of existence both when you limit death to physical death "from dust we will return" thus cessation of physical existence, and when you defined eternal death "burnt to ashes" thus cessation of all personal existence. You do believe that ultimately death is cessation of all personal existence. As a dualist, you provide no information on the state of the soul at the death of the body.

However, your first definition deals only with the material aspect of man - his body, and your second definition of eternal death is simply unbiblical. Moreover, the Bible does not restrict death to merely biological physical death but it does in fact define it as separation and I previously provided the evidence but your friend Mark could not respond to the evidence when I pointed out his responses were not exegetically sound and provided the evidence why they were not sound:

For example, Ephesians 2:1 Paul is speaking to phyically alive people who were nevertheless "dead" in a specific sense or in the sphere of "trespasses and sins." Furthermore, later in Ephesians 4:18 they had been "alienated from the life of God" due to the very same issue (sinful nature) but were yet physically alive. In Isaiah 59:2 sin "separated" them from an omnipresent God. Adam in fact did die "in the day he ate" but not physically (Gen. 5:5). The reversing of this state proves this. What is born of Spirit is NOT FLESH but the spirit, thus what is "quickened" is not flesh but the spirit of man.

You are doing the typically JW, SDA argument which isolates terms to the animalistic nature of man while ignorning that animals (who have physical bodies) are not made in the "image" of God who is INVISIBLE who is "spirit" and that this image is restored by an act of creation defined as quickening (Eph. 2:1, 5, 10). So your following evidence is merely one sided.

WITH REGARD TO THE EPHESIANS 2:1 CONTEXT:

The remedy for the contextual "dead" in this passage is to be "quickened" which is further described as being "saved" (vv. 5, 8) and further defined as the creative work of God (v 10). You also avoided the fact that this same state of existence called "dead" is further described as being "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18) which is not metaphorical life but actual eternal life that comes from God as many other passages bear out. Moreover, being "quickened" has the "spirit" of man in view (Jn.3:6) and those "born of the Spirit" are those who "live in the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). Your position simply will not stand up to any critical examination of the total Biblical context and evidences.

Moreover, man does not have a "metaphorical" spirit but an actual spirit and it is the spirit that is being quickened from a previous "dead" state. Not a previous non-existent state but a state of existing in a separated condition from the life, light, holiness and love of God. Quickening unites the spirit of man with the life, light, love, and holiness of God as a creative act that restores the moral "image" (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).

WITH REGARD TO THE ROMANS CONTEXT:

In this context "death" is being contrasted to "life and peace" as a state of existence rather than a contrast between non-existence and existence. Death here is a "hostile" state of existence toward God. A lost man is living in a state of spiritual existence that is hostile to God. A saved man who allows the law of indwelling sin to rule in the mind is separated from the active influence of God's Spirit over his mind and thus over his life, because as a man thinketh so is he. In this mental state of separation from the active influence of the Spirit of God the works of the flesh will be manifest and the Spirit will be grieved in a true child of God.

Here is the bottom line. God "is spirit" as that is his substance. He does not have a "metaphorical" spirit but "is" in reality "spirit" nature. Man has a spirit nature distinct from the flesh or material substance (jn. 3:6). He does not have a "metaphorical" spirit but he has a real "spirit" nature. Life, light, love and holiness are found in God alone and only spiritual union with God can experience the life, light, love and holiness of God. Anyone alienated from the life of God is alienated from the light, love and holiness of God and is in a spiritual state of depravity (without holiness), darkness (without light), dead (without the life of God) and enmity (without love for God). God "is spirit" and those who worship God must worship him "in spirit" and if the spirit of man is alienated from the life of God there is no worship, there is no love, there is light, there is no righteousness.

So, to be "dead" in spirit simply means their human spirit is "alienated from the life of God" and thus depraved, darkened and at enmity toward God. Those whose spirit is "quickened" (made alive) are in spiritual union with God and therefore in spiritual union with the life, light, love, and holiness of God.

Hence, to be "dead" spiritually is to EXIST in a state of spiritual separation from God.
Hence, to be "alive" spiritually is to EXIST in a state of spiritual union with God. - end of story.

 

[wTanksley]

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!

Can you back up your accusation there? What English meaning are we "forcing" that isn't in a Greek lexicon? And what Greek lexicon tells you that /apollumi/ means "to exist apart from God is the literal meaning of being in hell"? It feels like you're just making stuff up because you want to keep believing -- you just can't stand the clearly phrased teaching of the Bible that the wicked will be killed, destroyed, and be no more.

This is hardly dependent on a rarely used Greek word, either. Not only are the words involved perfectly clear (/apollumi/ etc), but Jesus and the other prophets and apostles repeated the same teaching so many different ways it's hard to see how anyone could miss it.

Remember when he warned his apostles to ignore threats from persecutors? He said they'd threaten to kill them, and offer to save their lives if they renounced Jesus. But Jesus said "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." This has to be the most quoted saying of Jesus in the Gospels, including John, who phrases it: "Whoever loves his life will lose it, but whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." Clearly, Jesus meant that when called to testify to Him we must not try to save our lives by denying Him. When we try to save our life, we get nothing; when we scorn the threat against our life, Jesus Himself will preserve our life.

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

Because we are Baptists. We don't ask you to join the Islamic discussion board merely because they also believe in eternal torment in hell, after all.

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?

The point of "the eternal fire" is that it means the fire is uniquely powerful, so much so that it lasts forever by its own nature. The point is not ever made that the fire is eternal because the things in it are eternal; in fact, the fire has been eternal since at least Sodom and Gomorrah, at which time it reduced the cities to ashes.

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

No, Jude does NOT say that, and no translation can reasonably add the word "still". Jude says they "are set forth as an example, undergoing the penalty of eternal fire." They are at present "set forth" as an example -- the place where they're set forth is, of course, in the Bible, especially the teaching of Jesus. In the New Testament this teaching setting forth Sodom's punishment is found in Luke 17:29 "but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all", and 2Pe 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".

And what they're set forth as for us is an example of God's destructive judgment, and they're an example of what will happen to the wicked.

 

[Mark Corbett]

What God Did NOT Want to Happen

Another strong piece of evidence against eternal conscious punishment is found in the account of the fall of mankind:

ESV Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever-- "

There is one terrible future which God took action to make sure would not come to past. God did not want people to live forever in a fallen state. Does this all by itself prove that annihilationism is correct? No, but annihilationism fits in with God’s concern and His action in Genesis 3:22 much more harmoniously than eternal conscious punishment.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Hence, there can be no "eternal death." To teach an "eternal death" is to contradict the scriptures.

So, in your view, how long does the "second death" last? When does it end?

 

[The Biblicist]

Ephesians 2:1 proves there is something "dead" and it cannot be speaking of a metaphorical death, because what had formerly been "dead" has also been "quickened" and therefore, if it were metaphorical death that is in view so must it be metaphorical quickening in view. However, some aspect of the human nature besides the physical body was "dead" and was made alive ("quickened"). Additionally, this act of quickening is further defined as being 'saved" (Eph. 2:5, 8) and ultimately described as a creative work of God that placed them "in Christ" or brought into spiritual union with Christ who is God. Hence, your metaphorical argument falls flat on its face.

Moreover, this former "dead" condition is further described by Paul in the very same book as being "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18).

Finally, this "dead" state is defined "in trespasses and sins" and thus it is sin that has "alienated from the life of God." This same alienation is described by the word "separated" in Isaiah 59:2 with regard to the very same condition of sin. In the day that Adam sinned he died and it was not physical death and it was not a metaphorical death, but it was actual death or separation of the human spirit from God who "is a spirit" that made him incapable of worshipping God because all who worship God must worship God "in spirit" (Jn. 4:24).

This very same act of quickening in Ephesians 2:1,5 is confined to the human spirit by Christ (Jn. 3:6) and therefore it is the human spirit of man that exists in the state of death prior to the new birth.

Your theory is based upon PARTIAL Biblical evidence that is primarily related to biological life and death, while ignoring a vast amount of other Biblical evidence that simply cannot fit your theory.

 

[Peter G]

The Greek word translated destroy in 1Cor. 15:26,27 is not "apollumi." The word used here is "katageo" and means to nullify, discard, exempt, abolish, to make unproductive. This "last enemy" of Christ will ultimately be "nullified, discarded, abolished, or destroyed." Therefore, this clearly teaches that death is the last enemy and that in the future "death" will be destroyed. Hence, there can be no "eternal death." To teach an "eternal death" is to contradict the scriptures.

Your argument is sound, but you don't seem aware that an "eternal death" is ubiquitously taught by traditionalists on hell, including Mohler, Sproul and Spurgeon, to name but a few. It is essential language, since for example, final punishment is the second "death," and the wages of sin is "death." Jonathan Edwards wrote:

"The eternal death which God threatens is not annihilation, but an abiding sensible punishment or misery."

Annihilation renders the second death eternal in everlasting effect, so that there really is no more death after it has occurred. But traditionalism renders the second death itself everlasting, so that there really is death beyond the point where death is abolished. Of these two views, only eternal torment is susceptible to your criticism.

And it's not easily deflected by saying that it's not the same kind of death spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15, because the "death" of hell is nothing if not the wages of sin, a concept to be understood in light of the death that reigned through Adam's sin, even between Adam and Moses, where there was no law to make sin punishable with death. Many commentators insist upon this connection, and many conservatives agree that it was not only Adam's spiritual death in view, but also its culmination in his actual death. Edwards calls it "the eternal death with which wicked men are threatened in Scripture." He writes,

"It is doubtless called the second death in reference to the death of the body, and as the death of the body is ordinarily attended with great pain and distress, so the like, or something vastly greater, is implied in calling the eternal punishment of the wicked the second death. ...And this second death wicked men will suffer, for it cannot be called the second death with respect to any other than men. It cannot be called so with respect to devils, as they die no temporal death, which is the first death. ...His body was brought into a corruptible, mortal, and dying condition, and so it continued till it was dissolved. If we look at all that death which was comprehended in the threatening, it was, properly speaking, fulfilled in Christ. When God said to Adam, "If thou eatest, thou shalt die," he spoke not only to him, and of him personally, but the words respected mankind, Adam and his race, and doubtless were so understood by him. His offspring were to be looked upon as sinning in him, and so should die with him. The words do as justly allow of an imputation of death as of sin. They are as well consistent with dying in a surety, as with sinning in one. Therefore, the threatening is fulfilled in the death of Christ, the surety."

So in this scripture-wide implementation of the penalty for sin, the problem lies. But it's not a problem for conditionalists, who say that the death of Adam, and the death of Jesus, and the second death, is loss of life, the latter being loss of life forever. It is a problem for traditionalists, however, insofar as they affirm the death of Adam as punishment for sin, the death of Jesus as paying the penalty for sin, and an unprecedented, new kind of "everlasting death" where death itself continues forever, as the penalty for sin, but they never actually die (and hence death is not finally abolished).

 

[wTanksley]

I will gladly take your challenge and prove my point with your own words.

Thank you. Unfortunately, although you quote my words, you don't quote me ever saying or implying that death equals nonexistence. In case there's any doubt, I don't believe that. I believe that the wicked will be killed, and that they will be destroyed, but I do not believe that the two things are the same, nor that they mean each other.

You defined death as cessation of existence both when you limit death to physical death "from dust we will return" thus cessation of physical existence, and when you defined eternal death "burnt to ashes" thus cessation of all personal existence. [...] However, your first definition deals only with the material aspect of man - his body, and your second definition of eternal death is simply unbiblical.

My first and primary definition of death is (as you've noticed) God's words at the institution of death. God did not define that as physical death; He said "YOU will return to dust," not "your body will return to dust." Nonetheless, physical death is a genuine type of death, and shows us what death is like -- as the Teacher says in Eccl 3:18-19, God is teaching man by showing him death in physical terms, so that he will learn. Furthermore, I did not ONLY quote Genesis 3:19; I also quoted Genesis 3:22, in which God explains that because of sin man cannot "live forever" (which is a crucial part of my definition of death as a privation of animate life). And finally, of course, I did not claim that this return to dust means that "death is a cessation of all personal existence." That last claim is all yours, and not even a little bit from me. You are putting words in my mouth, words that do ALL of the work in "proving" your claim.

My second statement was not a definition of death at all, let alone the non-biblical words "eternal death." There I am explaining what the Bible says about the final end of the wicked. Because, you see, the Bible does not ONLY say that the wicked will die; it also predicts that they will be reduced to ashes. You're so devoted to your false belief in the eternal life of the wicked that you call "unbiblical" the words of 2 Peter 2:6.

You do believe that ultimately death is cessation of all personal existence.

You've been given a chance, you took it, and you failed. Now, it's time for you to stop playing semantics, and actually debate the issues at hand.

What I ACTUALLY say death means is "the end of life." Life is a one-time gift God provides to some of His creatures that animates them, allowing them to move, breathe, speak, feel, react, and so on, unlike non-living things. I believe that when the Bible says the wicked will die, it means that the wicked will cease to live in that sense -- they will lose the gift from God.

You believe that when the Bible says the wicked will die, it MEANS that the wicked will retain all of the animation they were given at creation, but be separated from God. We have other differences, of course, but this is the one you've shared with me.

This sounds like a very interesting topic to discuss, don't you think? It's a clear disagreement, where both sides have been permitted to state their own side. However, it's going to be very difficult for you, because you disagree with all lexicons by claiming that death means separation.

As a dualist, you provide no information on the state of the soul at the death of the body.

I think you're right that I haven't done that. But so what? When the body dies, IT dies. When the body dies, the state of the soul doesn't define death -- the state of the BODY does, because it's the thing that's dead. That's why we call it physical death; it's death, of the body. We do not know what the death of the soul is like; we can't see it, and the Bible doesn't explain. But if we accept my definition, we do know that when the soul dies, its death would mean that its life ends. What happens in between is a different question.

(What would your definition mean happens when the soul dies? This matters, because the Bible does speak of souls dying -- for example, James 5:20.)

 

[wTanksley]

Moreover, the Bible does not restrict death to merely biological physical death but it does in fact define it as separation ...

Let's take your claim as "the Bible in fact defines death as separation." (By the way, I did NOT say that the Bible restricts death to merely biological physical death; I said that death is the end of life for the thing that dies, and life is the gift of God that animates us.)

For example, Ephesians 2:1 Paul is speaking to phyically alive people who were nevertheless "dead" in a specific sense or in the sphere of "trespasses and sins."

Right. But you're not showing what you need to show: a passage in which the Bible defines death as separation, contrary to the dictionary/lexicon definition.

By _my_ definition of death, the ordinary lexicon definition, the unsaved were dead in the specific sense that like a dead thing, they could not act, specifically toward holiness or God; they were only able to remain in their sins, like a corpse in a gutter. This is very like Romans 6, in which Christians are dead to sin but alive to God -- not separated from sin, but unreactive and inanimate. And this is the interpretation of this passage as I've always heard it -- this passage shows how the salvation of the wicked is entirely by God's grace, not by our own power. "Not by its own power" is very much a limitation of a dead thing, which by definition has no power (or animation) of its own.

This passage does not define death, though. It USES the mental image of a corpse to explain what we were like before salvation.

Furthermore, later in Ephesians 4:18 they had been "alienated from the life of God" due to the very same issue (sinful nature) but were yet physically alive. In Isaiah 59:2 sin "separated" them from an omnipresent God.

These two passage do not define death. In fact, neither one mentions it at all. I'm not sure why you think they're important. Obviously they mention separation and alienation, but I never claimed those don't happen; I only claim that they don't exhaust the definition of what death is. In these two passages they aren't even used alongside death.

Adam in fact did die "in the day he ate" but not physically (Gen. 5:5).

What's your argument here? You're supposed to be showing that the Biblical definition of death is separation, and you're not presenting any case for that at all.

Obviously, I disagree with your implicit claim that God's curse didn't include physical death along with total death, but I simply don't know how that disagreement is supposed to give you evidence that the Bible defines death as separation. I think the point of God's threat was that He would ensure Adam died if Adam ate; and I think that's the entire point of chapter 3.

The reversing of this state proves this. What is born of Spirit is NOT FLESH but the spirit, thus what is "quickened" is not flesh but the spirit of man.

Did you leave out a Bible reference? I think you might be referring to Col 2:13? If so, the contrast between "death" and "making alive" is self-explanatory; the Bible teaches that death is the end of life (and of animation), so the cure for death is to be made alive. It does NOT teach, here or elsewhere, that death means separation.

are not made in the "image" of God who is INVISIBLE who is "spirit" and that this image is restored by an act of creation defined as quickening (Eph. 2:1, 5, 10).

_Quickening_ means to make alive. Death is a privation of life; when God cures death, he does so by providing life. And the quickening changes us from dead to alive, which then enables (animates) us to do good works. This passage is ALL about the plain, ordinary definitions of life and death.

this same state of existence called "dead" is further described as being "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18) which is not metaphorical life but actual eternal life that comes from God as many other passages bear out.

This is a huge assumption on your part -- you're literally spanning 4 chapters in order to put the phrase "death is alienation from the life of God" together. I don't buy it at all, and I don't think anyone ever should believe a claim that has to span that much.

With that said, though, I do think that if death is the end of animating life (as I claim), it would follow that someone alienated from the life of God would be dead to God, since life is absent from them in that specific respect. I don't think that's the point here, but if Paul had actually written the sentence you're constructing, it would be reasonable to read it that way.

Your task, if you'll recall, was to show that the Bible defines death as separation, in contrast to me defining death as the end of possession of life that gives animation. This passage works perfectly well with death as being a privation of life; it happens to use separation terms, BUT they are separation terms about a dead thing being separated from life, NOT terms about a dead thing being separated from God.

WITH REGARD TO THE ROMANS CONTEXT:

I'm guessing you're pointing to Rom 8:6?

In this context "death" is being contrasted to "life and peace" as a state of existence rather than a contrast between non-existence and existence.

Actually, Paul is finishing up a long series of expanded metaphors; he's compared the end of the law to the death of a spouse, and has told us that Christians are to see themselves as dead to sin (that is, as inanimate and unreactive as a corpse). However, his core point has always been the same from the beginning: the problem of sin causes men to die, and all men "know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die." He contrasts that to the standard of righteousness, and how those who strive for "glory, honor, and immortality" would be given that "with eternal life" (Rom 1:32-2:7). So the metaphors serve the central point: actual death caused by sin-guilt under the law and our consciences.

Your definition REVERSES the problem -- you have man being separated, and therefore sinning. Paul has man sinning, and therefore doomed to die -- because he cannot deserve to be given immortality.

And so Romans 8 wraps all that up. Man's sin earns him death in many ways. But the main point Paul is making in Romans 8 is God's glorious solution to the problem of death, which isn't merely to remove a separation; but ALSO to give us life. "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also GIVE LIFE to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." Get that: it is our dying bodies that will be given life. This will make them alive again. This is the resurrection! The resurrection is the heart of Christian doctrine.

Death here is a "hostile" state of existence toward God.

No more than death "is" a freedom from a husband, as the previous chapter said. Death is much worse than that! God says death is the punishment for this hostility, not merely the hostility itself and nothing more.

Life, light, love and holiness are found in God alone and only spiritual union with God can experience the life, light, love and holiness of God. Anyone alienated from the life of God is alienated from the light, love and holiness of God and is in a spiritual state of depravity (without holiness), darkness (without light), dead (without the life of God) and enmity (without love for God).

That's all true, but it's not the definition of death, and it's not the punishment for sin. In fact, all of that is the environment of sin.

Paul told the pagans at Mars Hill (undeniably all were spiritually dead!) that "in Him we live, and move, and have our being." Paul knew that God had given them the gift of life, and he asked them to recognize and thank the giver. Note that he taught that they had that gift from God! But he didn't teach them that they could simply continue living, and moving, and having their being while rebelling against God.

So, to be "dead" in spirit simply means their human spirit is "alienated from the life of God" and thus depraved, darkened and at enmity toward God. Those whose spirit is "quickened" (made alive) are in spiritual union with God and therefore in spiritual union with the life, light, love, and holiness of God.

Is this the end of the story? Did you forget all about judgment day, the resurrection, and God killing and then throwing into gehenna? Man, in your theory, is hostile toward God; and God calls that death, even though the word "death" doesn't mean that in any dictionary, and in your theory, that's the WHOLE story?

Well, No. That's NOT the whole story. God says that those hostile against him will be burned up like thorns in a fire; they will gnash their teeth and melt away. They will not be in their place. They will be killed and thrown into gehenna, to be destroyed body and soul. Their hostility will be a LAUGHINGSTOCK -- we will say "why do the nations rage, and why do the people imagine a vain thing?"

Their hostility -- even their separation -- will evaporate on the Day of the Lord, when He comes against them with power. "Many will be the slain of the Lord," as Isaiah 66 says.

 

[wTanksley]

Your theory is based upon PARTIAL Biblical evidence that is primarily related to biological life and death, while ignoring a vast amount of other Biblical evidence that simply cannot fit your theory.

None of that is true. We're arguing about what "death" means, and I'm taking a position based on all lexicons ever written; while you're taking a position with no lexical support, based on stitching together 2 verses separated by 4 chapters that don't even rule out my view even so.

And the worst thing is, your claim doesn't even address the original post. Go up, and look at all the passages he posted. Immortality is conditional on salvation. Only the saved will live forever; the others will die.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Ephesians 2:1 proves there is something "dead" and it cannot be speaking of a metaphorical death, because what had formerly been "dead" has also been "quickened" and therefore, if it were metaphorical death that is in view so must it be metaphorical quickening in view. However, some aspect of the human nature besides the physical body was "dead" and was made alive ("quickened"). Additionally, this act of quickening is further defined as being 'saved" (Eph. 2:5, 8) and ultimately described as a creative work of God that placed them "in Christ" or brought into spiritual union with Christ who is God. Hence, your metaphorical argument falls flat on its face.

Moreover, this former "dead" condition is further described by Paul in the very same book as being "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18).

Finally, this "dead" state is defined "in trespasses and sins" and thus it is sin that has "alienated from the life of God." This same alienation is described by the word "separated" in Isaiah 59:2 with regard to the very same condition of sin. In the day that Adam sinned he died and it was not physical death and it was not a metaphorical death, but it was actual death or separation of the human spirit from God who "is a spirit" that made him incapable of worshipping God because all who worship God must worship God "in spirit" (Jn. 4:24).

This very same act of quickening in Ephesians 2:1,5 is confined to the human spirit by Christ (Jn. 3:6) and therefore it is the human spirit of man that exists in the state of death prior to the new birth.

Your theory is based upon PARTIAL Biblical evidence that is primarily related to biological life and death, while ignoring a vast amount of other Biblical evidence that simply cannot fit your theory.

Biblicist, I appreciate your commitment to the Bible as our source of truth and understanding, as shown by your choice of a Forum Name and also by your focus on the text of the Bible in comments. One of the things I really like about BaptistForums is that most people here seem to share this high view of Scripture. I also interact on another Christian forum, but am often frustrated there because some (certainly not all, or even most) of the people on that forum have so little common ground with me that it is hard to talk with them. The issue is that they do not really treat the Bible as completely true and authoritative.

Now, concerning your post, I’m honestly trying to understand a little more clearly both what you are saying and how it relates to Conditional Immortality. To help me, I would like to ask if you agree with this quote from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (pg 481), especially the part which I but in red text:

Does Our Spirit Come Alive at Regeneration?

The human spirit is not something that is dead in an unbeliever but comes to life when someone trusts in Christ, because the Bible talks about unbelievers having a spirit that is obviously alive but is in rebellion against God – whether Sihon, King of Heshbon (Deut. 2:30: the Lord “hardened his spirit”), or Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 5:20: “his spirit was hardened so that he dealt proudly), or the unfaithful people of Israel (Ps 78:8: their “spirit was not faithful to God”). When Paul says, “Your spirit is are alive because of righteousness” (Rom 8:10), he apparently means “alive to God,” but he does not imply that our spirits were completely “dead” before, only that they were living out of fellowship with God and were dead in that sense.​

If you disagree with this, if you have time, can you explain how and why (I'm not saying Grudem is our authority, I disagree with him on a number of issues, I'm just using his explanation to try to clarify your view for myself).