Conditional Immortality of Souls

[Baptist Believer]

But there is here no annihilation.

Please note that I do not claim "annihilation" - whatever that means to you. I simply hold to the death of the wicked, which is the biblical language.

This is plain from Isa. ... 66:24.

"And they shall go forth,
and look upon the carcasses of the men
that have transgressed against me:

for their worm shall not die,
neither shall their fire be quenched;

and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."[/quote]
Yes. Jesus quoted this regarding the fate of the wicked. Please note that these persons are DEAD, since it refers to their corpses. And no one brushes off the fly larvae off of them or put out the fire that consumes their bodies. They die in shame and their bodies are consumed.

(2) The description of this punishment as the "second death."

The "second death" corresponds
to the death of the race in Adam,
and not to physical death.

By this death man was unfitted for God's fellowship
and brought under the wrath of God,
but was not put beyond hope or the reach of God.

The "second death" brings the execution of the wrath of God
through "the continuation of spiritual death in another
and timeless existence" (E. G. Robinson);

In other words, "death" doesn't REALLY mean death. That's not very respectful of scripture.

Thus the "second death" no more implies non-existence
than does the sinner's present state of spiritual death.

This is a weird statement. If the sinner is currently spiritually dead, then he is spiritually dead. However, he is physically alive, so any claim of non-existence is delusional.

When one physically dies, it is the first death. When one spiritually dies, it is the second death.

Mark 9:48, 49 shows clearly that the wicked in Gehenna
retain conscious existence.

"Salted with fire" may mean that the fire will have a preserving quality like salt.

That's a reach. A more obvious interpretation is that they are sprinkled with fire, hastening their destruction.

(3) The declaration that unbelievers are to perish.
Luke 13:3; Acts 8:20; 1 Cor. 1:18.

But that this perishing does not denote annihilation
is proved by the fact that the Greek word in Acts 8:20
is the same word used to describe the perdition of the Beast
(Rev. 17:8),

and we find that the Beast is still in the lake of fire
a thousand years later (Rev. 20:10).

The Beast is not human.

An annihilated being can never afterward be anywhere.

But a dead one can.

(4) The representation
of the final punishment of the wicked as destruction.

Rom. 9:22; 2 Thess. 1:9. The Greek word in Rom. 9:22
is the same as the one for perdition in Rev. 17:8,
which does not express annihilation,
as we have just pointed out above.

Yes, but the Beast is not human, and the straw man of "annihilation" is working overtime here.

And the Greek word in 2 Thess. 1:9
is the same as the one used
for the destruction of the carnal nature in 1 Cor. 5:5;

and we know that the carnal nature
is not annihilated in this life.

1 Corinthians 5:5 is about the literal destruction of the body unto death so that one's spirit might be saved.

People die all the time. Perhaps they are not "annihilated" (whatever that means to you), but that has never been the point.

Finally, the fact that there are to be degrees of punishment,
because of which it will be "more tolerable"
for some than for others (Matt. 11:20-24),
shows that the final punishment of the sinner is not annihilation;

for in such a case all sinners would suffer the same penalty...

Who has made that claim? Persons will receive punishment for their deeds before they die. Death is the END of the punishment, not the beginning.

...and it would be nonsense to speak of annihilation
as being more tolerable for some than for others.

Every wicked person being tormented for eternity sounds essentially like the same punishment.

Luke 12:48 reads:

And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.​

If eternal conscious torment is valid doctrine, how can the ignorant servant only receive A FEW stripes (lashings)?

It is clear that both you and the guy you are quoting extensively does not understand the doctrine of conditional immortality. Stop relying on other people to do your thinking for you. Go back and study the scriptures for yourself and evaluate what other people write in terms of the scripture.

 

[Baptist Believer]

This is the most confusing thread, beginning with the op, I have ever read on these forums, I think. I have read the whole thing up til this post and I cannot figure the argument out. Is the contention about whether an unsaved person has consciousness after his soul departs his body, which is the meaning of physical death?

What is being discussed is the fate of the wicked. The Roman Catholic view that developed, based on Platonic philosophy, claims that human beings are immortal (or at least, eternally sustained by God) and will eventually end up in Heaven (or a restored earth) or in the lake of fire in eternal torment. In this view, God never eliminates evil.

Some of us maintain, based on the teachings of the New Testament -- especially the teachings of Jesus, that the fate of the wicked eventually ends in death and they are consumed in the lake of fire, where even death and Hades are destroyed (Revelation 20:14-15). In this view, God eliminates evil.

Those who hold to the Roman Catholic teaching of eternal conscious torment have barely participated in discussing scripture, which seems to be because they don't actually understand the position they are attacking and rejecting out of hand. Those of us who hold to conditional immortality have been trying to work through these issues with them, but we are not getting very far.

 

[AustinC]

Scripture has been shared.

Conditional immortality of souls is annihilationism no matter how much you dress up the pig.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Scripture has been shared.

Conditional immortality of souls is annihilationism no matter how much you dress up the pig.

You are just emphasizing your ignorance of the issues.

Annihilationism places emphasis in the ACTIVE destruction of a person while conditional mortality places emphasis upon a person’s dependence upon God for life (which is what I emphasized in the second post of this thread).

Moreover, annihilationism is often connected to doctrines such as soul sleep and other unbiblical doctrines.

It’s quite clear you have nothing to add to this thread except insults, smears, and distortions.

 

[JD731]

What is being discussed is the fate of the wicked. The Roman Catholic view that developed, based on Platonic philosophy, claims that human beings are immortal (or at least, eternally sustained by God) and will eventually end up in Heaven (or a restored earth) or in the lake of fire in eternal torment. In this view, God never eliminates evil.

Some of us maintain, based on the teachings of the New Testament -- especially the teachings of Jesus, that the fate of the wicked eventually ends in death and they are consumed in the lake of fire, where even death and Hades are destroyed (Revelation 20:14-15). In this view, God eliminates evil.

Those who hold to the Roman Catholic teaching of eternal conscious torment have barely participated in discussing scripture, which seems to be because they don't actually understand the position they are attacking and rejecting out of hand. Those of us who hold to conditional immortality have been trying to work through these issues with them, but we are not getting very far.

Thanks, BB. It seems to me that the real problem might just be that the participants in this discussion have a different definition of life, eternal life, and death, and the second death. A biblical understanding of these terms would most certainly lead us to sound doctrine of eternal destinies.

How would you define life? If you think this is a diversion from the topic of the thread just say so and I will start a new thread on the subject.

 

[kyredneck]

insults, smears, and distortions.

That's @AustinC's M.O.

Excellent point on how he holds to Roman Catholic belief. The accuser gets accused.

 

[kyredneck]

Great Whore = Roman Catholic Church

Wrong. She's apostate Judaism (represented by Jerusalem), the unfaithful wife of Jehovah.

34 Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:
35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Mt 23

33 Nevertheless I must go on my way to-day and to-morrow and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. Lu 13

24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth Rev 18.

It is the seventh head with ten horns where you will find the Holy Roman Empire that persecuted both the Church and the Harlot:

12 And the ten horns that thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet; but they receive authority as kings, with the beast, for one hour.
13 These have one mind, and they give their power and authority unto the beast.
14 These shall war against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they also shall overcome that are with him, called and chosen and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest, and the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her utterly with fire. Rev 17 (read the curses of Lev 26 & Dt 28)

 

[37818]

You're in the twist, not me. What I said was your 3 views are not held by Baptist denominations. Your view is an outlier in the Baptist community. I am not wrong.

Ah, what the word of God actually teaches are true Baptist teachings.

Conditional immortality of souls is annihilationism no matter how much you dress up the pig.

Was Christ annihilated on the cross for our sins? Isaiah 53:12, ". . . He hath poured out his soul unto death: . . ." verse 10, ". . . make His soul an offering for sin, . . ."

 

[AustinC]

Ah, what the word of God actually teaches are true Baptist teachings.

Was Christ annihilated on the cross for our sins? Isaiah 53:12, ". . . He hath poured out his soul unto death: . . ." verse 10, ". . . make His soul an offering for sin, . . ."

You realize that your question shows your annihilation theory is wrong... don't you?
Both the redeemed and the damned are eternal beings. Neither are annihilated.
But, thanks for skewering your own theory for us.

 

[AustinC]

You are just emphasizing your ignorance of the issues.

Annihilationism places emphasis in the ACTIVE destruction of a person while conditional mortality places emphasis upon a person’s dependence upon God for life (which is what I emphasized in the second post of this thread).

Moreover, annihilationism is often connected to doctrines such as soul sleep and other unbiblical doctrines.

It’s quite clear you have nothing to add to this thread except insults, smears, and distortions.

You keep trying to dress up a pig and tell us it's not a pig. It's like an atheist telling you that he has no belief in God and it's different than believing there is no God. Both are saying the same thing, it's just that one is putting lipstick on the pig.

 

[AustinC]

That's @AustinC's M.O.

Excellent point on how he holds to Roman Catholic belief. The accuser gets accused.

Not everything in the RCC is wrong. But justification by faith plus works is certainly wrong.

 

[37818]

You realize that your question shows your annihilation theory is wrong... don't you?

Biblical conditional immortality is a teaching against the error of annihilationism. Always has been.

 

[37818]

justification by faith plus works is certainly wrong.

Who is teaching that here?

 

[AustinC]

Who is teaching that here?

talk to @kyredneck who denies we are justified by faith alone and insists we are justified by faith plus works.

 

[AustinC]

Biblical conditional immortality is a teaching against the error of annihilationism. Always has been.

It's annihilationism by another name. It just takes longer. It's a pig with lipstick.

 

[37818]

talk to @kyredneck who denies we are justified by faith alone and insists we are justified by faith plus works.

Did he bring this up in this thread?

 

[37818]

It's annihilationism by another name. It just takes longer. It's a pig with lipstick.

Gibberish. Annihilationism is not taught in the word of God. Mark 9:48.

 

[kyredneck]

Did he bring this up in this thread?

Here.

 

[kyredneck]

But justification by faith plus works is certainly wrong.

Lol,

....Paul did not teach 'faith alone'. You've added it to the gospel:


13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

...neither was it James's view:

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2
(the only place in the scriptures where 'faith alone' is addressed)

 

[Alan Gross]

The plain meaning of this is that the fire is everlasting. That says nothing about suffering.

Give it up.