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

[Mark Corbett]

He described it in terms of enduring conscious punishement "where the worm dieth not" which makes no sense if it were excessive heat that would instantly annihilate a person.

First, no one on this thread has argued that God will instantly annihilate. After all this discussion, it appears that you still have significant misunderstandings of the position you are arguing against.

Second, when Jesus says "where the worm dieth not", did you know He was quoting the last verse in Isaiah? Here it is:

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

The worms are NOT torturing live people, they are consuming dead bodies. And doesn't that make sense? Fire and worms are mentioned here. And all over the world all throughout history there have been two methods by which the vast majority of dead bodies have been disposed of: worms turning them to dust or fire turning them to ashes. Your quote from Jesus turns out to give strong support to the doctrine of Annihilationism.

 

[Mark Corbett]

In as few words as possible, what makes the two necessarily related?

Great question. I tried to explain this very carefully in the OP, so you can look there. But very briefly:

If people only gain eternal life by meeting a condition, and not all people meet that condition, than this entails the conclusion that some people will not go on living after the judgment. As long as you use the normal definition of "living" which people all over the world in every language easily understand, you end up with the doctrine of annihilationism.

 

[Peter G]

Oh yes it is, it is completely devestating to your whole false doctrine. It proves that the spirit of man was formerly in a "dead" state but not a non-existent or unconscious state as it is the "dead" spirit that is responsible for the active rebellion against God which is attributed to being in spiritual UNION with Satan ("in them") , thus SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED from God and it is that EXISTING spirit that later is "quickened....saved.....created IN Christ" (vv.1,5,8,10) thus brought into SPIRITUAL UNION with God the source of life as He alone is the true source of life and he alone is immortal by nature. Hence, neither death or life can be restricted to your definitions. Yes, I do consider it cased closed as your position is not compatible with the truths stated in either passage and not consistent with the human nature.

I like your confidence. Would that we could all self-adjudicate! But that's not how public dialogue works. In fact the more someone resorts to repeating themselves and using ALL CAPS and reckoning their arguments "completely devastating," the more I have to wonder whether those things are really having the desired effect.

I entirely accept the notion of being spiritually separated from God. But the Bible is not a Gnostic text, so the spiritualization of every point of redemption needs to be reigned in. Christ took on the form of a human being so that He could live obediently to the point of death, even death on a cross. Any discussion of the wages of sin, death, needs also to consider the orthodox view that Christ actually died for our sins (and not just spiritually, before He died by crucifixion). That is, using His own syntax, He "laid down his life" (which, by the way, no Bible scholar thinks this means a "spiritual life," as if that were the default biblical definition).

Meanwhile, we eagerly await "our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we are saved." (Rom 8:23-34). Yes, we humans are embodied creatures, and our bodies will be quickened at the completion of the salvation process. As Philippians 3:20-21 puts it, "the Lord Jesus Christ... will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body." The resurrection body of believers is critically important to understand and emphasize, given that it is to be immortalized in a way that overcomes death (cf. 1 Cor 15:53-54, "For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”").

What is said positively of the resurrection bodies of the righteous cannot be said of the unrighteous, and therefore the unsaved are resurrected mortal, and await their second death. Whatever we say about death in this context must comport with text like 2 Timothy 1:9, which say that Jesus "destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." He did this through His own death on the cross, as it says in Hebrews 2:14-15—

"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery."

I think most people can parse the logic there. There's no sign of "spiritual death." Ordinary non-Christians have a fear of death, and Jesus comes in physical form precisely in order to die like humans die, in turn to conquer death for those He redeems. His victory over sin and death is actually a victory over the grave, which is why His Resurrection is so profound. As Paul says in Romans 6, "death no longer had dominion over him," and that is why He, "being raised from the dead, will never die again." Accordingly, through baptism into "a death like his," we will also be "united with him in a resurrection like his." The basic scheme of salvation is clear: Jesus saves us not merely from a spiritual "death," but also, and principally, from death itself, via a resurrection to never-dying (literally the meaning of the term "immortality"). Your arguments haven't so much as begun to engage with the important and central usages of basic terms like life and death. Unfortunately, the opportunity to do so on this forum is shortly itself to die.

 

[kyredneck]

Great question. I tried to explain this very carefully in the OP, so you can look there. But very briefly:

If people only gain eternal life by meeting a condition, and not all people meet that condition, than this entails the conclusion that some people will not go on living after the judgment. As long as you use the normal definition of "living" which people all over the world in every language easily understand, you end up with the doctrine of annihilationism.

Thanks. I had gotten that point but my attention is on the 'conditons' that must be met to acquire immortality and WHY some meet those conditions and others don't. The way you've presented it is that the scriptures contain a 'formula' whereby one (anyone?) can attain immortality which is the same error the Jews made.

 

[kyredneck]

I'd like to see this thread continued after Squire closes it. It's a good topic.

 

[Peter G]

He described it in terms of enduring conscious punishement "where the worm dieth not" which makes no sense if it were excessive heat that would instantly annihilate a person.

So "where the worm dieth not" indicates that people are "conscious," is that right? Like in Isaiah 66:24, which Jesus is quoting from verbatim, which explicitly says that those maggots are feeding on "the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me"? The same ones that were just slain by the Lord with fire and sword (v15-16), and which were "destine[d]... to the sword, and all of you shall bow down to the slaughter" in Isa 65:12? The same of whom it was prophesied that "a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt. Therefore earth's inhabitants are burned up, and very few are left"? The same people who "will be as if burned to lime, like thorns cut down, that are burned in the fire..." and who can NOT "dwell with consuming fire," nor "dwell with everlasting burnings" (Isa 33:12, 14)—though eternal torment holds that they can and do?

 

[The Biblicist]

First, no one on this thread has argued that God will instantly annihilate. After all this discussion, it appears that you still have significant misunderstandings of the position you are arguing against.

More nonsensical responses? Surely the fire of Gehenna is hotter than any fire man can produce? The fire of the sun would instantly reduce anyone to ashes. So are you now admitting that God is able to cause the resurrected person to endure such a fire? If so, you have lost your argument.

Second, when Jesus says "where the worm dieth not", did you know He was quoting the last verse in Isaiah? Here it is:

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

The worms are NOT torturing live people, they are consuming dead bodies. And doesn't that make sense? Fire and worms are mentioned here. And all over the world all throughout history there have been two methods by which the vast majority of dead bodies have been disposed of: worms turning them to dust or fire turning them to ashes. Your quote from Jesus turns out to give strong support to the doctrine of Annihilationism.

Surely you can see the vanity of your argument? Surely you don't believe that in Gehenna there is going to be a rotting process?Christ is applying this directly to Gehenna in metaphorical terms to describe eternal consciousness.

 

[The Biblicist]

So "where the worm dieth not" indicates that people are "conscious," is that right? Like in Isaiah 66:24, which Jesus is quoting from verbatim, which explicitly says that those maggots are feeding on "the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me"? The same ones that were just slain by the Lord with fire and sword (v15-16), and which were "destine[d]... to the sword, and all of you shall bow down to the slaughter" in Isa 65:12? The same of whom it was prophesied that "a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt. Therefore earth's inhabitants are burned up, and very few are left"? The same people who "will be as if burned to lime, like thorns cut down, that are burned in the fire..." and who can NOT "dwell with consuming fire," nor "dwell with everlasting burnings" (Isa 33:12, 14)—though eternal torment holds that they can and do?

Surely you can't believe there is going to be a literal rotting process of bodies in Gehenna???? Surely you can see that Christ is using this phrase with regard to Gehenna? Surely you can see that this is a clear metaphor for continuing conscious existence in Gehenna. No worm could withstand the fire of Gehenna for an instant and so it certainly cannot have any literal value but is a clear metaphorical expression of the continuing existence of bodies in Gehenna and conscious existence.

 

[Peter G]

Thanks. I had gotten that point but my attention is on the 'conditons' that must be met to acquire immortality and WHY some meet those conditions and others don't. The way you've presented it is that the scriptures contain a 'formula' whereby one (anyone?) can attain immortality which is the same error the Jews made.

Apologies if jumping in, but this is an important question to address before the thread closes. The "condition" is simply what pertains to "salvation" (those who are "in Christ" is a useful proxy). But in terms of the full label, it is the same as if the denial of "universal salvation" were called "conditional salvation." Since the subject is immortality, "conditional immortality" is the denial of everyone ending up immortal, or living forever. Both traditionalism (ECT) and universalism affirm that as a tenet.

As well, the term "conditional immortality" follows a convention that can be traced to discussions among early patristic writers (and later, Augustine) concerning Adam's situation before the Fall. There is something of a consensus that Adam was neither mortal nor immortal, such that his destiny in that regard hung upon the condition of his obedience. I discuss this fascinating area of Christian theology, and also other considerations about the label "conditional immortality," here.

 

[The Biblicist]

I entirely accept the notion of being spiritually separated from God.

. Try defining what exactly you think that "notion" is and is not.Your definition would determine whether we are even speaking of the same thing. Man has a literal "spirit" which with regard to Christians was formerly "dead" yet existent as it later is "quickened." You are too vague to be believable.

But the Bible is not a Gnostic text, so the spiritualization of every point of redemption needs to be reigned in.

And may I ask who are you charging as spiritualizing a text? I am certainly not. If anyone is spiritualizing the word "dead" in Ephesians 2:1 it is coming from your camp. You have the problem that what was fomerly said to be "dead" is "quickened" and that quickening act is further defined as "saved" (Eph. 2:5,8) and further defined as being "created in Christ." Jesus certainly was not spiritualizing when he said "what is born of Spirit IS SPIRIT" making the human spirit of this quickening action, thus proving it is the spirit that was formerly "dead" but not non-existent as your friends demand by their definition of death.

 

[Peter G]

Surely you can't believe there is going to be a literal rotting process of bodies in Gehenna???? Surely you can see that Christ is using this phrase with regard to Gehenna? Surely you can see that this is a clear metaphor for continuing conscious existence in Gehenna. No worm could withstand the fire of Gehenna for an instant and so it certainly cannot have any literal value but is a clear metaphorical expression of the continuing existence of bodies in Gehenna and conscious existence.

Why wouldn't there be literal rotting bodies at Gehenna, if that's what Isaiah prophesies? Your rationale about maggots not being able to stand the heat does not render the explicit statement of "dead bodies" suddenly alive (and it's circular, because you're assuming your view of what Gehenna is). It would hardly be the first time that God's eternal fire sprang forth in unquenchable judgment, leaving literal burning bodies on the ground (for instance, with 250 men in the rebellion of Korah, or at the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, which Jude 7 refers to as one of "eternal fire"). In fact when the return of Jesus is described in 2 Thessalonians 1, it is presented in the same terms as Isaiah 66: He's going to be "revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God." Surely this is not a metaphor? When Jesus refers to Gehenna, He is referring to OT prophecies about eschatological Gehenna, which is to become known as The Valley of Slaughter.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Thanks. I had gotten that point but my attention is on the 'conditons' that must be met to acquire immortality and WHY some meet those conditions and others don't. The way you've presented it is that the scriptures contain a 'formula' whereby one (anyone?) can attain immortality which is the same error the Jews made.

To add to what Peter said, I think it might help you to know that there are Calvinists who are fully committed to Conditional Immortality and there are those who lean Arminian who hold to Conditional Immortality. I lean Arminian and that may have been reflected mildly in the way I worded some things, but it was not at all my intention to tie Conditional Immortality to an Arminian view.

 

[The Biblicist]

Apologies if jumping in, but this is an important question to address before the thread closes. The "condition" is simply what pertains to "salvation" (those who are "in Christ" is a useful proxy). But in terms of the full label, it is the same as if the denial of "universal salvation" were called "conditional salvation." Since the subject is immortality, "conditional immortality" is the denial of everyone ending up immortal, or living forever. Both traditionalism (ECT) and universalism affirm that as a tenet.

As well, the term "conditional immortality" follows a convention that can be traced to discussions among early patristic writers (and later, Augustine) concerning Adam's situation before the Fall. There is something of a consensus that Adam was neither mortal nor immortal, such that his destiny in that regard hung upon the condition of his obedience. I discuss this fascinating area of Christian theology, and also other considerations about the label "conditional immortality," here.

This is simply not true! Your definitions of life and death are false and the Ephesian passage clearly proves they are false. You are confusing eternal existence with life and they are not the same. You are confusing cessation of existence with death and they are not the same. God alone has "immortality" just as God alone is holy, is love, is light as they belong exclusively to him as being inherent by nature. He is the source. All other rational creatures must derive such characteristics from Him alone. However, all other rational moral creatures have his "spirit" nature, both angels and mankind and that is what gives them eternal existence.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why wouldn't there be literal rotting bodies at Gehenna, if that's what Isaiah prophesies? Your rationale about maggots not being able to stand the heat does not render the explicit statement of "dead bodies" suddenly alive

"suddenly alive" is circular reasoning on your part as you are including you position in your argument for your position. Second, your response is totally irrational and has no reasonable basis in common sense as no body can go through a rotting process if cast on the surface of the sun much less the fire of Gehenna. One must give up all common sense to embrace your arguments and interpretations. Jesus is speaking metaphorically and using terms common to our existence to explain eternal conscious sufferings in Gehenna.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, your position is not an historic Baptist position but is a historic Christian cult position. It is not based upon sound principles of exegesis as has been proven. It defies common sense and requires mental gynastics to defend it.

 

[Peter G]

Second, you response is totally irrational and has no reasonable basis in common sense as no body can go through a rotting process if cast on the surface of the sun much less the fire of Gehenna.

lol, no, I think you'll find that the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom is not located on the surface of the sun or anywhere like it! It's right outside Jerusalem. All the prophecies about it cannot be wrested from their contexts. Isaiah 66 is just the last in a series, as Jesus (in agreement with various Rabbis at the time) confirms.

Try defining what exactly you think that "notion" is and is not.Your definition would determine whether we are even speaking of the same thing.

Well I'm not interest particularly in whether you or I agree, considering that the thread is about to close. I'm much more interested in serving the many who may read this exchange now and in future, and in whether I'd concur with their view on this. I'm reasonably sure of that, because I've interacted with many traditionalists about a "spiritual" usage of death here, and I do concur with them generally speaking. Certainly there is the idea that we are dead in our sins, and so forth. I have to say I find your argument from it a little peculiar, but that's OK. My point was that you haven't launched the devastating argument you think you have. Future readers can be the judge. Your summary above of your repeated argument aims at a straw man. I see no reason to try to tease it apart given that the thread is winding up. Besides, it's after midnight where I am, and you've shown no signs of accepting feedback on our actual view anyway. You've been quite impressed with your responses; I'm content to leave you being convinced of that.

 

[The Biblicist]

about a "spiritual" usage of death here,

False! There is no spiritualization of the word "dead" in Ephesians 2:1 or Genesis 2:17. Remember, what was formerly called "dead" in Ephesians 2:1 is called "quickened" and "saved" and "created in Christ" so are these spiritualizations also????? Your position simply fails. If you are going to spiritualize "dead" or accuse us of spiritualizing "dead" in Ephesians 2:1 you are forced to spiritualize "quicken....saved....created in Christ" as these are the remedies provided to reverse that "dead" state.

Moreover, are you going to accuse Jesus of spiritualization when he explicitly states that it is the human "spirit" as opposed to the body that is quickened or born again in John 3:6? So you are stuck! the literal spirit of man is literally dead just as it is literally quickened which proves your definitions of dead and quickened (made alive) are manifestly false.

 

[kyredneck]

FYI, if I 'like' a post doesn't 'neccessarily' mean I agree with all its content. Just sayin'.

 

[wTanksley]

The Apostle of love (John) and the person of incarnate love (Jesus) spoke more on the conscious eternal torments of Gehenna than any other writers in scripture.

John mentioned eternal torment once, and Jesus mentioned it never. That's one more time between them than anyone else mentioned it.

Jesus warned it would be better to amputate a body part or kill the whole body than to enter into Gehenna, which makes no sense if it Gehenna was simply cessation of existence.

You're altering His warning. He warned that it would be better to enter life without a body part then to enter into gehenna with your whole body. Unless you think "entering into life" is a picture of pain, this is not about pain; it's about lacking a body part versus exposing your WHOLE body to the eternal fire -- in other words, to being turned to ashes.

Every single one of His "better to X than to enter gehenna" sayings is like this; the comparison is always between entering partially into the kingdom or life versus going whole into gehenna. This is about comparing a partial loss to a complete loss. Gehenna destroys what's put into it, body and soul.

He described it in terms of enduring conscious punishement "where the worm dieth not" which makes no sense if it were excessive heat that would instantly annihilate a person.

You're altering His warning. He didn't mention eternal consciousness; all he mentioned is worms and fire, quoting a verse about them being on corpses. He also didn't mention "excessive heat that would instantly annihilate a person," which is not a point we make either. (Really, are you trying to argue that Jesus is wrong?)

The bottom line, is that those who defend this error have a love view of sin and a low view of God (not intentionally I am sure) as they fail to see the enormity of sin and the holiness of God

Our high view of God's holiness leads us to realize that God means it when he says sin cannot endure in His presence, and all who oppose Him will be destroyed. The bottom line is that your view is that God will allow sin to continue for all eternity; our view is that He will end all sin and all sinners, burning them up like tares (Matt 13:40-41). Only those who have been made holy by Christ will be "found worthy to enter the coming age" (Luke 20:35); all else will not enter it, because they will die at the terrible Day of Judgment.

They also have a wrong view of human nature with regard to Biblical salvation for the whole man (spirit, soul and body) or a three-fold salvation (past tense completed action "saved" (spirit) - present tense incompleted action - "save" (soul) and a future tense completed action "shall be saved" (body) relating to each aspect of the human nature.

You keep making up irrelevant stuff about us. Above you pretended I don't believe in a spirit; now you're pretending I don't believe the whole person will be saved. And of course we do believe that.

Where we disagree is what happens to those who are NOT saved -- and I suspect we both agree they will be condemned in the whole person, so even this doesn't distinguish us.

Finally, their view is not a historic Baptist (or Biblical) perspective, but an historic Christian cult perspective that is now attempting to invade Baptist thought.

The cults grabbed conditional immortality long after the Baptists rediscovered it in the early 1800s; nor was it historically a cultic perspective, but rather a view held by the entire Ephesian church in the early church days, with Irenaeus being the clearest expositor. Historically, ECT was held by the Roman and Carthage churches (which were politically intertwined) most strongly, and when Rome took over and Greek study disappeared in favor of Latin, ECT became the majority by default.

 

[Peter G]

False! There is no spiritualization of the word "dead" in Ephesians 2:1 or Genesis 2:17.

Time to stop conflating different things I've said, drawing assumptions about it, and twisting it into something I don't recognize! Your triumphalism in dialogue yields a questionable method. I'm sure you'll carry on with it though...