• 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.

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
immorality does not mean eternal life

Though we all know what you mean, you may want to go back and correct these (second instance I've noticed) and add the 't' for future C&P. :)

Conditional Immortality

I'm curious which category you fall in:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are not doing "proper exegesis." All you're doing is overinterpreting the one Hebrew word "b'yom" ("on the day"), and taking that as a licence to insert whatever meaning you want, in spite of the passage's own self-explanation as being about death in every respect.

I am beginning to wonder if you have any training at all in Biblical interpretation??? That prepositional phrase restricts the time frame in which Adam is said to "die" with regard to eating of the forbidden fruit. He did not eat the fruit the day after, a week after, a month after, a year after. The penalty is clearly and expressly stated to occur on the very same day the sin is committed.Either he did die as God said within that time frame or God is a liar. Ephesians 2:1 clearly states that there is a form of death in direct relationship to sin just as in Genesis there is a death in direct relationship to sin. The death in Ephesians is spiritual death as the remedy is spiritual quickening as neither the bodies of the Ephesians had been dead. The only other aspect of human nature in addition to the material aspect is the spiritual aspect. Jesus makes it clear it is the "spirit" of man that is regenerated.My exegetical conclusions are solid."of man metaphorical but an actual real aspect of human nature, and the only possible aspect since in neither case can the body be in view. My exegesis is solid as a rock.
 

Mark Corbett

Active Member
Though we all know what you mean, you may want to go back and correct these (second instance I've noticed) and add the 't' for future C&P. :)

I'm curious which category you fall in:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

First, thanks for helping me with the typo!

I don't want to risk side tracking this discussion by bringing up the Calvinism vs. Arminianism topic. But if you're interested in my view, you can read a post on my blog.

If my blog post does not answer your question, would you consider sending me a "conversation" (use the envelope looking icon at the top of the page) so we can discuss this topic without sidetracking others in the discussion? Thanks!
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
And of course, the meaning you want to insert is a "spiritual death" when all of the Biblical texts that discuss Adam's fall make it clear that Adam brought death as a whole, not just whatever you define as "spiritual death." No, it didn't all happen on one day -- but your assumption that it must is purely a foreigner's overreading of a routine Hebrew threat. Solomon gave the same threat in 1Kings 2 against Shimei, and he made no attempt to enforce the death on the same day either.

You are actually comparing the word of a fallible human being to that of God?????? You accuse me of poor exegesis???? Utterly amazing!!!! So since Solomon FAILED to keep his word that proves God FAILED to keep His word????? No wonder you can believe what you do with this kind of interpretative liscence!

But even if Solomon was misusing Hebrew when he did that (no), you still don't get to creatively alter the curse to NOT mean the death of the body as well as the death of the person. The point of the curse passage isn't that Adam was separated; separation is never mentioned as a punishment. The point is that he would toil, struggle to survive, and DIE.

Your reasoning is called circular reasoning. You assume your theory is correct and then argue on that basis. You assume your interpretation of "death" is cessation of biological animation which only involves the body, when in fact the cessation of biological animation does not make the soul cease at physical death (Mt. 10:28;Lk. 16). However, physical death does in fact SEPARATE the material aspect of man from his immaterial aspect DUE TO SIN and Ephesians 2:1 proves there is a state of death separate from the body that also separates man from God due to Sin (Isa.59:2). The only possible aspect of human nature that this can apply to in both cases is the immaterial aspect of man and the absolute proof is the remedy provided which the overall context of scripture demands is quickening of the "spirit" of man. You case simply falls apart when overall context is taken into consideration and proper exegesis is applied.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I see that now you're inserting the word "physical" into the passage, denying the simple and plain meaning of the text as it stands -- man cannot LIVE FOREVER. Not "live forever physically." Just live forever, full stop.

Again, you are assuming your definition and application of death is correct and argue from that basis - circular reasoning. Man is more than a material being and while the material aspect of his being is living there is another aspect that is "dead" presently (Eph.2:1) and yet that "dead" aspect is fully active and conscious (Eph. 2:2-3; 4:17-19) both now and after physical death (Lk. 16; Mt. 10:28). Your reasoning is invalid and irrational based on obvious evidence that you have no exegetical based response. Namely that the remedy for this "dead" state is "quickening" of the human spirit (Jn. 3:6) the new birth, "saved" (Eph. 2:5,8) and being brought back into UNION with God through Christ ("created in Christ Jesus"). Are you really going to deny there is spiritual UNION between true believers and God that did not exist previous to the new birth????????



Being reduced to ashes in body and soul -- as Matt 10:28 and 2 Peter 2:6 confirm

Neither text confirms such a thing! Matthew 10:28 explicitly denies that the soul dies or is destroyed at physical death and at Sodom and Gomorah only the material aspect of man will be reduced to ashes unless Christ lied about the soul in Matthew 10:28? Furthermore, the coming judgement that is compared to Sodom and Gomorah is not Gehenna or the Great White Seat judgement but Armageddon and the coming of the Lord from heaven "in fire" and vengance upon the ungodly presently living on earth.
 

Mark Corbett

Active Member
I am beginning to wonder if you have any training at all in Biblical interpretation???
. . . .
My exegesis is solid as a rock.

If your exegesis is so solid, there should be no need for ad hominem arguments mixed into your comments. These distract from your evidence, rather than support it.
 

Mark Corbett

Active Member
...ain't the first time that very same typo has occurred here... :)

Thanks. You intend to dive into a Cal/Arm discussion in the future?

I'm not sure. I've studied it some, and as you've seen I've posted one post about it on my own blog, but I have not studied Cal/Arm issues in anywhere near the same depth as Conditional Immortality. Also, I feel like relatively speaking there are vastly more people speaking truth on that issue than there are speaking truth on the Conditional Immortality issue.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Conditional%2BImmortality%2B2.JPG

Neither are we in agreement on John 3:16 and your interpretation as a one size fits all approach. There is a past tense but continuing present possession of eternal life (Eph. 2:8 periphrastic construct perfect tense joined with present tense verb) with regard to what is born again - the spirit as the body is not born of the Spirit. Also there is eternal life present possession with regard to our judicial standing or the doctrine of justification by faith. There is a future eternal life with regard to the body which is not received in the body until glorification. There is a present tense salvation or loss of life decided by whether we are currently walking in the Spirit or walking after the flesh by which we either are "redeeming the time" (Eph. 5:16) or suffering loss (1 Cor. 3:14-15) without suffering loss of the soul.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If your exegesis is so solid, there should be no need for ad hominem arguments mixed into your comments. These distract from your evidence, rather than support it.

Ahhhh, the favorite cop out used to turn the tables when you can't give an answer. Try providing an exegetical based answer instead. You are also not fair and balanced as he too was the first to respond in that manner - "Unbelievable -- you are so allergic "

I think my response is a reasonable evaluation when he is comparing God's word to Solomon's word implying God failed as Solomon failed to keep his word. When you have to go that extreme to avoid what the text clearly and explicitly says, it is reasonable to question that person's exegetical skills.

However, for the sake of keeping the lines open, My apology is offered and I simply ask you to give a valid exegetical response.
 
Last edited:

Mark Corbett

Active Member
Neither are we in agreement on John 3:16 and your interpretation as a one size fits all approach. There is a past tense but continuing present possession of eternal life (Eph. 2:8 periphrastic construct perfect tense joined with present tense verb) with regard to what is born again - the spirit as the body is not born of the Spirit. Also there is eternal life present possession with regard to our judicial standing or the doctrine of justification by faith. There is a future eternal life with regard to the body which is not received in the body until glorification. There is a present tense salvation or loss of life decided by whether we are currently walking in the Spirit or walking after the flesh by which we either are "redeeming the time" (Eph. 5:16) or suffering loss (1 Cor. 3:14-15) without suffering loss of the soul.

It's so much easier for us who believe that "perish" means "perish".
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It's so much easier for us who believe that "perish" means "perish".

Sure, it is so much easier to ignore Greek and Hebrew and stick only to the English text. It is so much easier to believe one source, etc.,etc. Your position simply will not stand up to solid exegetical scrutiny.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Downburned%2Band%2BAshified%252C%2BThe%2BAnnihilation%2Bof%2Bthe%2BUnrighteous.jpg


In addition to all the exegetical evidence given in my OP and throughout the comments, I offer this post on my blog as additional evidence that the unsaved will be literally burned to ashes.

I offer the burning bush of Moses that burned and was not consumed. I offer the repetitive language used to convey eternal realities in current expressions "day an night forever and forever" as that is a current expression of continuity without end. Your evidences have been exposed and repudiated by sound principles of exegesis. Ephesians 2:1-10 has never been answered. Your "metaphorical' response cannot stand up to the immediate context (Eph. 2:1-3, 5, 8, 10) nor the overall context. In a word you have no real evidence at all.
 

wTanksley

Member
Your eschatology needs some tweaking, but working backward from one's notions concerning Revelation is a tenuous hermeneutic to employ.

So true! And arguing interpretations of Revelation in a discussion forum hasn't worked well.

For this reason, I'd like to re-stress a point Mark made a while ago. The point St. John is making with "second death" need not be that it's the second death anyone receives. Rather, it seems that he's saying there are two events of death, one that we all experience alone (typically), and another one, the second death, which will be a mass event. The first event is death; the second event is death, too.

The second event differs from the first in several ways: it follows a proper judgment with evidence and a verdict, its method of execution is more thorough (body and soul, rather than just body), and it'll take care of everything including death and hades.

Jesus said it pretty simply. Everlasting punishment. Once someone ceases to exist, the punishment is over.

This is not true. Death is a punishment by all accounts that does not cease when you die, nor when your body decomposes -- it only ceases if God resurrects (and that won't happen after the second death).

And the punishment of death by fire is what's being talked about in Matt 25:41, being sent into the eternal fire. The eternal fire is a more powerful consuming agent than typical fires, because of its self-fueling ever-burning nature; compare Aachan's death to what Hebrews 10 records is due for violators of the New Covenant (and note that God himself is recorded as being the consuming fire we're threatened with in Heb 12:29, which also notes that everything not in the New Covenant will be "shaken" and "removed").

There are other examples in the Bible of "everlasting things" that are achieved and made permanent by a single action. The most clear of these is in Hebrews 9:12- "He entered the most holy place once for all, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." The word "redemption" refers to an economic transaction; Christ exchanged His life-blood on our behalf, with permanent results for our benefit. But of course this was accomplished by an explicitly one-time act of redeeming, now long done.

The same is true for this "eternal punishment" of the wicked; it will be secured by the one-time act of what the eternal fire does to them, which is exemplified (according to 2 Pet 2:6 and Jude 1:7) by Sodom's reduction to ashes.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As I've kept up with this discussion, I've noticed something about the case for eternal conscious torment. To a large extent it seems to depend on arguing that words in our English translations of the Bible do not have the normal, every day meaning people usually give to them. In defending eternal conscious torment, it has been argued that:

* immortality does not mean eternal life
* death does not involve the cessation of thinking and feeling
* perish does not mean what anyone who ever used the word to refer to what happened to a friend or relative means by perish
* destroy does not really mean destroy, but merely damage or ruin

Two responses come to mind:
1. I believe that all the most important doctrines of the Bible can be plainly understood in English translations of the Bible.
2. Nevertheless, having spent many, many hours studying the Greek words translated "death, perish, and destroy", I have found that they simply mean "death, perish, and destroy".

One advantage of Conditional Immortality is that we can defend our view by just defending the plain ordinary meaning of the words of the Bible. Like the children in A Series of Unfortunate Events, "we know what perished means":


The thing is that we need o get what the Greek and Hebrew terms mean on this issue, not what the English states!
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
For this reason, I'd like to re-stress a point Mark made a while ago. The point St. John is making with "second death" need not be that it's the second death anyone receives.

Another problem for your restricted (but unbiblical) definition of death. The Great White Seat Judgment is a PERSONAL judgement of your PERSONAL works with a PERSONAL consequence. It is not a "mass" event but a personalized event. The first death is a consequence of a verdict - "the wages of sin is death". The first death accompanies a life of evidence verified by conscience. The first accompanies a method of execution more than through the body but includes the immaterial aspect as well (Lk. 16 hades) consciously suffering in Hades. The difference, is that the second is eternal in personal conscious endurance of suffering and wholistic rather than in a divided condition as the first death.


And the punishment of death by fire is what's being talked about in Matt 25:41, being sent into the eternal fire. The eternal fire is a more powerful consuming agent than typical fires, because of its self-fueling ever-burning nature; compare Aachan's death to what Hebrews 10 records is due for violators of the New Covenant (and note that God himself is recorded as being the consuming fire we're threatened with in Heb 12:29, which also notes that everything not in the New Covenant will be "shaken" and "removed").

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

There are other examples in the Bible of "everlasting things" that are achieved and made permanent by a single action. The most clear of these is in Hebrews 9:12- "He entered the most holy place once for all, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." The word "redemption" refers to an economic transaction; Christ exchanged His life-blood on our behalf, with permanent results for our benefit. But of course this was accomplished by an explicitly one-time act of redeeming, now long done.

Another irrational argument! The only permanent results of your view of Gehenna is NOTHINGNESS whereas the permanent result of the cross is the continuing everlasting new heaven and new earth.

The same is true for this "eternal punishment" of the wicked; it will be secured by the one-time act of what the eternal fire does to them, which is exemplified (according to 2 Pet 2:6 and Jude 1:7) by Sodom's reduction to ashes.

Sodom and Gomorrah is compared to the Second Coming of Christ with fire upon the kingdoms of this present age that has nothing but the TEMPORAL existence of the armies of Armageddon in view not Gehenna. Your position is based wholly on smoke and mirrors without a shred of exegetical solid evidence.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm not sure. I've studied it some, and as you've seen I've posted one post about it on my own blog, but I have not studied Cal/Arm issues in anywhere near the same depth as Conditional Immortality. Also, I feel like relatively speaking there are vastly more people speaking truth on that issue than there are speaking truth on the Conditional Immortality issue.

I guess it escapes me how you separate 'Conditional Immortality' as you've presented it here from 'synergism'.

But I'll leave it at that.
 

Mark Corbett

Active Member
The thing is that we need o get what the Greek and Hebrew terms mean on this issue, not what the English states!

Thankfully, the teams of translators of the KJV, NIV, NAS, ESV, CSB, and other English translations have done a pretty good job. So for those of you without special study skills in Greek, you can learn doctrine from your English translation with confidence.

But for those of us who love to do word studies in Greek, this only strengthens the case for Conditional Immortality and Annihilationism.

For me, the most important word study has been the study of the Greek words apollumi, a verb, and apoleia, a noun based on the same root. All words have a range of meaning depending on their context. If you wanted to choose a single English verb and noun to translate apollumi and apoleia, good choices would probably be “destroy” and “destruction”.

Apollumi/apoleia is probably the word used most often in the New Testament to describe the fate of the unrighteous. In Matthew 10:28 it is translated “destroy” (also see Philippians 1:28, Hebrews 10:39, and James 4:12), in Matthew 21:41 it is translated “put . . . to . . . death”, in John 3:16 and other verses it is translated “perish” (see Luke 13:3, 5; Romans 2:12, and 2 Peter 3:9), and in Philippians 3:19 it is translated “destruction” (see also Matthew 7:13, Romans 9:22, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 2 Peter 3:7, Revelation 17:11). More examples could be given.

As one who used to believe in eternal conscious torment, and even teach it, I know the usual explanation for verses like Matthew 10:28 and John 3:16. It is pointed out that apollumi can also mean “ruin” (see Matthew 9:17) or “lost” (Luke 15:9). That’s true. But this fact fails to recognize that when speaking about people, apollumi/apoleia very consistently refers to death, usually a violent death. When speaking about inanimate objects like a wine skin or coins, it can indeed simply mean “ruined” or “lost”, but not when speaking about what happens to people, and especially not when speaking about what one person does to another person.

There are in fact quite a few verses where apollumi is not referring to the eternal fate of people but simply to people killing, or wanting to kill, other people in this world. Here are some examples:

Matthew 2:13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill (apollumi) him."

Matthew 27:20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed (apollumi).

Acts 5:37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed (apollumi), and all his followers were scattered.

If you want to see more examples, look at: Matthew 12:14, Matthew 21:41, Matthew 22:7, and Luke 13:33.

While all this information is useful, I found (I was not the first to find this!) even more amazing information about apollumi/apoleia. You might wonder if the Greeks had a word which was used to refer to the whole person, soul and body, being completely extinguished after death? This is what we mean by “annihilationism”. It turns out they did!

The Greeks had a Word for It!

The Greek philosopher Plato was widely read throughout the Greek speaking world for centuries after he died. In one of his works, Phaedo, Plato discussed rather extensively his thoughts and opinions about what happens to human souls after death. One of the options he discussed (but did not agree with) was the possibility that a person’s soul would entirely cease to exist, which is what we mean by annihilationism. When he described this possibility he used the word apollumi:

[from Phaedo, 70a]. They fear that when the soul leaves the body it no longer exists anywhere, and that on the day when the man dies it is destroyed (apollumi) and perishes, and when it leaves the body and departs from it, straightway it flies away and is no longer anywhere, scattering like a breath or smoke.

This is just one example. If you want to research this, you may also find apollumi used to mean what we mean by “annihilation” in Phaedo, 80d, 86d, 91d, 95d, and 106b.

In Plato’s Republic he also uses apollumi to refer to annihilation of the human soul:

“Have you never perceived,” said I, “that our soul is immortal and never perishes (apollumi)?” (Republic, 10.608d)

Now, Plato was writing around 400 years prior to the NT, and every language changes over time. Just look at the KJV. Many words have the same meaning today, but there are also many that do not. So we cannot just assume that apollumi was still being used the same way at the time of the NT, even though Plato was still widely read through that time.

Far more (way more, incredibly more) important than seeing that Plato used apollumi to mean the annihilation of the whole person after death, there is a clear example of the Apostle Paul using apollumi in the same way.

Paul discussed a terrible hypothetical situation where Jesus did not rise from the dead (he did this to show how important the resurrection is to our faith). In this terrible hypothetical situation Paul said that there would be no resurrection for anyone if Jesus did not rise. In this terrible hypothetical situation, Paul explained that even Christians would have apollumi-ed:

ESV 1 Corinthians 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished (apollumi).

Further, Paul cannot have meant merely that the bodies of Christians were destroyed while their souls suffered for their sin, because Paul goes on to say:

ESV 1 Corinthians 15:32b If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

If there is any type of just judgment and punishment after death, it would not make sense to live only for pleasure in this world. So when Paul says that if Christ did not rise from the dead then dead Christians have perished (apollumi) he is saying exactly what I have been claiming apollumi means, namely the complete destruction of body and soul. The word Paul uses to describe this “annihilation” is the very same word which the New Testament authors, including Paul, most frequently used to describe the final fate of the unrighteous!

This is truth is worth highlighting:

apollumi%2Bannihilationism%2Beternal%2Btorment%2B1a.jpg
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I offer the burning bush of Moses that burned and was not consumed. I offer the repetitive language used to convey eternal realities in current expressions "day an night forever and forever" as that is a current expression of continuity without end. Your evidences have been exposed and repudiated by sound principles of exegesis. Ephesians 2:1-10 has never been answered. Your "metaphorical' response cannot stand up to the immediate context (Eph. 2:1-3, 5, 8, 10) nor the overall context. In a word you have no real evidence at all.
Jesus ALWATS statedHell in terms that meant existing, not simple burnt away!
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Lol. Yall go ahead and belabor your illusions.

Jesus said everlasting punishment or torment. Can neither punish nor torment one who has ceased to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top