conditional immortality

[Darrell C]

Immortality can be seen in both the saved and the lost,

Sure, lots of people see that in the scriptures, especially since it is the dominant view at this time. It is also supported by popular culture in the Western World. But many of us have set aside those presuppositions and looked at the scriptures carefully and found something a little different.

Regardless of "dominant view," the primary issue some have in trying to understand this issue is failure to distinguish between "immortal" and eternal. These terms have to be understood first from a Biblical understanding, then we are forced to contend with what people think they believe.

For example, those who are born again have eternal life, right? Now think about that, does that mean that they have always existed?

And the answer is no, of course not, only God is Eternal in His Being. So we have to distinguish what is meant and how we apply that to those in view in the focus of the OP, right?
Secondly, as I pointed out before, we have to distinguish between what is actually immortal, and what the context is that it is being asserted. We know, as I said, that the spirit of a man does not cease to exist, and in that regard they might be considered immortal, or, incorruptible in the sense that the spirits of men do not cease to exist, even when they are cast into Hell. So we see this in both the lost and the saved, because all men will spend eternity somethere, and as pointed out, this does not constitute eternal life in a REdemptive context, which has its source in being in relationship with He Who is Eternal.

Jesus is quite clear that only His disciples have eternal life.

Could you show me where Christ said His disciples had eternal life during His Ministry?

John writes that we know we have eternal life, but this is Post Law. What Christ did say was that all who believe on Him would have eternal life, which He clarifies as being His Body, that is...His death. That is why the New Testament Writers repeatedly state His "blood" (death) as the means of salvation.

So if we distinguish between what is dead and what is "alive," we are better able to answer the questions posed here. When the spirits of the lost are raised to stand before the Great White Throne, they are called "the dead." They still exist, but, they have no life, because they are not in union with God.

No, I don't think so.

Christ is clear...


John 6:53-54

King James Version (KJV)

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.


He made it clear that the fathers, who received the provision the Law offered (manna)...were dead:


John 6:49-51

King James Version (KJV)

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.


Now, the "death" in view here is contrasted with the "life" bestowed through belief in Christ. The provision of the Old Testament (manna) is contrasted with the Provision of Christ (the True Bread). In view is not physical death, every man standing there was well aware that Moses was physically dead, so we see that in view is an absence of the Life He came to bring.



50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


Note that (1) the True Bread came down from Heaven, that specifies the timing of this Provision (the Incarnation and specifically His death); (2) those who partake of this bread will not die (as the fathers are said to have done), which is again not speaking about physical death, because believing on Christ does not negate the fact that Christians do die physically; and (3) the "True Bread," the provision contrasted with the provision of the Old Testament...

...is clarified as His flesh, which is speaking about His death on the Cross.

Now I think that the "I don't think so" you state in response to this...

So if we distinguish between what is dead and what is "alive," we are better able to answer the questions posed here. When the spirits of the lost are raised to stand before the Great White Throne, they are called "the dead." They still exist, but, they have no life, because they are not in union with God.

...deals in large part with my reference to the dead standing before the Throne in judgment, so I will now address the points you raise, though I thought it necessary to once again clarify the distinction we must make when we are speaking of life and death in a Redemptive context.

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Let's look at the passage (Revelation 20:11-15):

And I saw a great white throne, and Him who is sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven did flee away, and place was not found for them; and I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and scrolls were opened, and another scroll was opened, which is that of the life, and the dead were judged out of the things written in the scrolls -- according to their works; and the sea did give up those dead in it, and the death and the hades did give up the dead in them, and they were judged, each one according to their works; and the death and the hades were cast to the lake of the fire -- this [is] the second death; and if any one was not found written in the scroll of the life, he was cast to the lake of the fire.

Immediately after they are called the "dead," the lake of fire is described as "the second death." So it seems that these persons are NOT dead before God at this point.

I agree, the lost have been raised from the dead in bodies suitable for their eternal punishment:





Revelation 20:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


But again, we have something entirely different to the Eternal Life those who believe on Christ receive. Unless we understand that we will not understand the magnitude of our redemption in Christ.

An interesting issue to consider, also, is...what is the first death? If we consider it to be physical death, then we have to correlate that to judgment which ends in being cast into Hell, which is unlikely.

But, if we understand the Principle I am referring to above (and in the previous post), we understand that the "death" in view is spiritual death, and that all men are born...

...dead.

Men are born out of relationship with God, thus Christ's statement "...you fathers are dead." He makes it clear that apart from Himself men cannot have the "life" which He came from Heaven to bestow. He said "your fathers are dead," and consider who those specific fathers were: Abraham, Aaron, and Joshua, and by extension, anyone that partook of manna, the provision given for the sustenance of "life" in that day. It is the physical provision contrasted with the eternal provision. Another example would be the "rest" provided in that day, which was also physical. That is contrasted with Rest in Christ, and extends to the Eternal State, whereas the "fathers" received a piece of physical property.

When the "dead" stand before the Great White Throne Judgment...they will have been physically raised from the dead, and we know based on the teaching of Christ that the bodies they are raised in are suitable for the eternal punishment which has no end.

But...they are still dead, just as the fathers were, because they did not partake of the True Bread, which equates to believing on the Risen Savior.

Think about whether faith and belief in a coming Messiah can bestow eternal life. The answer is no. If that were true, then the many Jews today, who still await the first coming of the Messiah...would have eternal life. So we can't impose eternal life in the person who has not trusted in Christ in His role as the True Bread.

Moreover, the last sentence leaves open that there may be some there who ARE in the "scroll of the life" (aka "book of life") who are not thrown into the lake of fire.

I wouldn't be dogmatic in arguing against that, though I take the position that only the lost will stand before the Great White Throne. First, we see they are called the dead, which doesn't correlate to the fact that those who physically die in Christ have eternal life, and cannot be called "dead:"




John 6:47-51

King James Version (KJV)

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


Secondly, the notion that believers are judged from an eternal perspective (in regards to eternal destiny) is false. Our works are indeed judged, but our eternal destiny is secure in Christ through the indwelling of the Spirit of God, our guarantee.

Therefore it makes more sense to understand those who are judged according to their works and the those things written in the books (which I view to be Scripture and the record of their lives) have not come into relationship with God through Christ, and thus are "dead" and stand before God in judgment. I do think, though, that some of these may stand in this judgment, as we see a Basic Principle set forth in the Word of God whereby all men have written in their hearts the works of the Law of God, and they have the opportunity to come into obedience to that God has written in their hearts:


Romans 2:11-16

King James Version (KJV)

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

All persons are going to be judged according to their works. Those who are in Christ will be rewarded according to their faithfulness. Those who are not in Christ will be judged according to their unfaithfulness to God. (Look to the explicit teaching of Jesus for support for that assertion.)

I agree, all men will be judged according to their works, but only the dead, those not in Christ, those who do not have life...will be judged in regards to eternal destiny based on their works.

Both believing and unbelieving are judged according to their works, but as you point out, in view is reward (or lack thereof) for believers, and the severity of punishment for the unbeliever.

But this does not negate our necessity to distinguish between these two groups, and we do not have believers standing with the dead in identical judgment.

This is the passage that got me thinking about conditional immortality and force me to go back and review everything in scripture on the subject. The people depicted here were already "dead," but now they face the fate of being doubly dead (second death).

And that is the primary problem I see...you are ascribing "life" to those who never had life.

Physical life, yes, but men are born without the life which is relevant in a context of redemption. Paul is not being metaphorical when he states...


Ephesians 2:1

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Colossians 2:13

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;


Note in both statements we see the "death" in view contrasted with being made alive in Christ. We are "dead" until we receive eternal life.

Lastly, on this topic (of the OP), I would suggest that despite the fact that we have eternal life we are still not "Eternal." Only God is eternal in the truest sense, and we are deemed to have eternal life based only on one thing: He Who is Eternal dwells in us and we in Him. That is our only claim to eternal life.

This is important to recognize, especially when the notion of "conditional immortality" arises, for there is simply...

...no such thing.

Not in a redemptive context, and not in a context that deals with man's unending existence after he is created. When a man comes into existence from that point on he will never cease to exist. This is not "immortality" in a Biblical sense because he is born corrupt to begin with. It is not eternality because man would have always had to exist in order for that to be true. And when we go to the end of those that are dead, who suffer the Second Death, I feel it is more reasonable to see the "first death" as that judgment of God which befell mankind through the Fall, and the Second Death being that final separation from God which has no end. We don't see the unbelievers "die" when they are cast into Hell, but the opposite, they are raised from the dead to stand in judgment and then are cast into the fire which shall never be quesnched.

Hope that helps.


God bless.

 

[wTanksley]

When the spirits of the lost are raised to stand before the Great White Throne, they are called "the dead." They still exist, but, they have no life, because they are not in union with God.

This is not how Rev 20 self-interprets, so you're going out on a limb to claim this. But worse, when you claim that by merely saying "the dead" you know that they have no union with God, you make 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thess 4:16, both of which speak of "the dead" in reference to Christians, impossible to interpret.

Clearly in both of the Pauline passages "the dead" should be taken to mean those who have died, not those who are forever dead. And just as clearly, John's use of "the dead" should be explained by its own context, not just by those two words. And this makes it impossible to claim, as you do, that "dead" simply means to be not in union with God.

 

[Darrell C]

When the spirits of the lost are raised to stand before the Great White Throne, they are called "the dead." They still exist, but, they have no life, because they are not in union with God.

This is not how Rev 20 self-interprets, so you're going out on a limb to claim this. But worse, when you claim that by merely saying "the dead" you know that they have no union with God, you make 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thess 4:16, both of which speak of "the dead" in reference to Christians, impossible to interpret.

On the contrary, that is precisely my point: the context defines itself, and we see the distinction made between physical death and the "death" in view concerning man's condition.

Consider:


Revelation 20:4-5

King James Version (KJV)


4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.



12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.


13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.


In view is a physical resurrection of the "dead." These are contrasted with the Tribulation Martyrs who are raised from the dead. It is not a casual assumption that those who are raised from the dead and reign with Christ for one thousand years...have the "life" bestowed by God to believers, nor is it a leap to see those who are not raised at that time, but are raised again one thousand years later, as being without the "life" of Christ.

The context deals with physical resurrection, as does 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4. The requirement, though, for glorification (which is the context of these two chapters), is that one is in Christ, which equates to them having eternal life, which Christ contrasts with physical life in John 6.

Note in the second quote John sees "the dead" (who are without controversy those among the dead who were not raised at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom). That is the point. They are termed "dead," which in this context deals with a singular event in Redemptive History, where men are judged and cast into Hell (the Lake of Fire).

But I do see your point: believers are termed dead in 1 Thessalonians 4, which would seem to create a general basis that would make moot the use of Revelation 20 in regards to a context where spiritual death is in view, contrasted with physical death. Point acknowledged, and I agree for the most part, but, I would also point out that when the "dead," which are not raised again at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom (the end of the Tribulation), are raised one thousand years later, we consider that they are raised in bodies, which like those of the glorified saint, are suitable for the eternal punishment they are cast into, so, in one sense, they are "glorified" as well, because those bodies will not be destroyed by either the conditions of Hell or time.

Which would fit in the context of 1 Corinthians 15, though we know that chapter has a focus on believers.

Clearly in both of the Pauline passages "the dead" should be taken to mean those who have died, not those who are forever dead.

Agreed, but, we still go back to the point I sought to make in distinguishing between those who do not have the life Christ came to bestow, and those who do. In other words, Christ states "the father ate manna and are dead." He is not speaking about them being physically dead, just as we, in our former condition, were not physically dead while being dead in trespasses and sins.

Death is a separation, and the ultimate "death" is separation from God. Man is born dead, separated from God, and the only means of life is union with God, which is what occurs when we are saved. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.

Being "forever dead" would, then, be more appropriately imposed on those who have no chance of being made alive in Christ. In Matthew 25, when the goats (the physically living unbelievers at Christ's Return) are judged, we are told they go into everlasting punishment, meaning, while not yet cast into Hell (the Lake of Fire), their fate is still final.

And just as clearly, John's use of "the dead" should be explained by its own context, not just by those two words.

Agreed, but, we see that "the dead" in view have already been physically raised. John sees "the dead" standing before the Great White Throne. That is John defining those individuals, not me.

And this makes it impossible to claim, as you do, that "dead" simply means to be not in union with God.

There is a little more than a simple statement in regards to the focus of that point in the preceding posts, so I would just encourage you to read them and address what you see as contradicting or erroneous in regards to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles that the "life" of Christ is what makes the natural man have "life" that is more than just physical life.

In regards to the natural man being made alive, I will leave you with a few quotes to consider:


Ephesians 2

King James Version (KJV)


4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,


5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)




Colossians 2:12-14

King James Version (KJV)

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;


The point I sought to make was that men are dead apart from Christ, and we are made alive with Him, specifically because we are placed in Him, and He in us. That is the source of eternal life for the believer. It is not a substance poured into us at salvation, but the Person of God within us, when we are brought into union with Him. And this "union" is a "reunion" from the perspective of The Fall. Man was separated from God through Adam's sin, and is reunited with God through Christ, at which point they are alive, as opposed to being "dead."


God bless.

 

[Baptist Believer]

QUICK NOTE:

(1) In the other thread that references the conditional view, I clearly expressed my complete disinterest in having a debate about this issue. Debates do not change minds. Thoughtful discussion combined with careful reflection and the study of scripture changes minds. I do not want to discuss areas of eschatology beyond the ultimate fate of the wicked because I am not fully settled in those areas and I want to work through the scriptures carefully before I have too many presuppositions pushed upon me. Furthermore, I think the scriptures don't actually give us as much information as many people think, and much of what is believed comes from outside the scripture.

(2) I am going to be on the road, traveling for business most of the week and will have limited opportunities to respond and provide thoughtful answers. I really hate getting entangled in a deep conversation about this subject when if is probable that I will not be able to keep up with it.

We know, as I said, that the spirit of a man does not cease to exist, and in that regard they might be considered immortal, or, incorruptible in the sense that the spirits of men do not cease to exist, even when they are cast into Hell.

That is the dominant view, but "we" do not know that - you and many others believe they know that. This whole conversation centers around whether or not your assertion is accurate. And when you use the word "hell," what biblical word do you actually mean?

1) Sheol (the grave/pit) from Hebrew?
2) Hades (the grave/pit) from Greek?
3) Tartarus (prison) from Greek, used only once to describe the imprisonment of angels (2 Peter 2:4)
4) Gehenna (variant of the literal Valley of Hinnom), a place of burning trash, pagan worship, sacrifice of children, etc.

So we see this in both the lost and the saved, because all men will spend eternity somethere, and as pointed out, this does not constitute eternal life in a REdemptive context, which has its source in being in relationship with He Who is Eternal.

If you want to use the label "eternal life" for those who are condemned, what do the gospels mean when they contrast "eternal life" with perishing?

Just to pick one of most well-known scriptures on this subject:

John 3:16-17 (Young's Literal Translation)
...for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him...​

John 3:16-17 (New English Translation)
For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him.​

There is a clear contrast between someone who will "perish" and someone who has eternal life (aka "life age-during."

Could you show me where Christ said His disciples had eternal life during His Ministry?

Jesus promised that eternal life is a present reality for His disciples:

John 4:14
“But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life.”

John 5:24
“I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life.”

John 6:40
For this is the will of my Father—for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

John 6:47
“I tell you the solemn truth, the one who believes has eternal life.”

John 6:54
“The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 10:28
“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand.”

John writes that we know we have eternal life, but this is Post Law.

I don't know what being "Post Law" has to do with it.

What Christ did say was that all who believe on Him would have eternal life, which He clarifies as being His Body, that is...His death.

Actually no.

You can diminish many of the above quoted passages with your theory, but John 10:28 flatly contradicts it.

That is why the New Testament Writers repeatedly state His "blood" (death) as the means of salvation.

Jesus is the "means" of salvation. His blood was shed for us in a way that made a difference, but I am quite averse to separating "Jesus" from His "blood." His blood only has relevance because of Who Jesus is and Who God is.

Now I know you probably didn't mean anything different, but I just like to clarify that.

 

[wTanksley]

God bless.

God bless you, and thank you for actually thinking deeply and well about the challenge.

"5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."

Note in the second quote John sees "the dead". That is the point. They are termed "dead," which in this context deals with a singular event in Redemptive History, where men are judged and cast into Hell (the Lake of Fire).

Notice, though, that in the *first* quote, they were called "the rest of the dead." If there is a "rest", there is also a first part; and both parts together constitute "the dead." And without possible dispute, the first part of the dead are those in the First Resurrection. This shows us -- as I showed from other passages -- that even John cannot teach, merely by saying "the dead", that those people are mysteriously still dead even while they live. This is consistent with the normal use of the phrase "the dead" in all literature, including the Bible -- except the Bible is adding an amazing truth that the dead will be raised, ALL of them (John 5:29ff), some in a "resurrection of life" granting glory, honor, and immortality by means of the gift of "eternal life" (Rom 2:7); and others in a "resurrection of judgment" which will include affliction, wrath, tribulation all in proportion to the wicked and conscious deeds they've done, and which will end in the way prescribed in God's law that even Gentiles know and the Jews have in writing: "they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die..."

Now focus on that -- Gentiles _know_ that already. Yet gentiles don't know the dead will be raised; they don't know that there's eternal torment. Paul describes them as "those who have no hope", contradicting the hope of resurrection to everlasting life.

The wages of sin really _is_ death.

when the "dead" are raised one thousand years later, we consider that they are raised in bodies, which like those of the glorified saint, are suitable for the eternal punishment they are cast into, so, in one sense, they are "glorified" as well, because those bodies will not be destroyed by either the conditions of Hell or time.

You're making an extrabiblical claim here. I know you believe this, but I do not have any reason to join you in this belief -- and on the contrary, if you're going to claim that their bodies will be given "glory ... honor ... power ... incorruption ... spiritual ... the image of the man of heaven" as 1 Cor 15 says, then it follows that you must deny Jesus' words in Matt 10:28ff, that we should fear the One who has the power to destroy both body and soul in gehenna -- why should we fear something that won't possibly happen even to their *body*?

Which would fit in the context of 1 Corinthians 15, though we know that chapter has a focus on believers.

It would not fit in any way for unbelievers to participate in the salvation described in 1 Cor 15; on the contrary, 1 Cor 15:2 says that it applies only to those who are being saved by holding fast to the gospel. Through the entire rest of the chapter, the gifts given through the single resurrection are all gifts only promised to believers.

I challenge you: do you have any passage that explicitly or implicitly attaches a resurrection to incorruptibility to unbelievers? Or _anything_ that might enable unbelievers to endure in the eternal fire, so that unlike Sodom and Gomorrah, which "by turning the cities ... to ashes He condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly"?

If not, isn't it reasonable to take the Bible literally at _some_ point? If Jesus, John, Jude, Malachi, and Isaiah all compare the wicked to tares, dead vines, trees, and tinder in hot fires, shouldn't we have some reason to disagree before we declare that the wicked are SO unlike all those things that they'll NOT be reduced to ashes?

In other words, Christ states "the father ate manna and are dead." He is not speaking about them being physically dead,

Of course He is. They were asking for literal bread, and He answered their request by pointing out that bread doesn't preserve their fathers' lives, so that their fathers literally died (including Moses and Joshua, both of whom are fathers, ate the manna, and died).

Death is a separation, and the ultimate "death" is separation from God. Man is born dead, separated from God, and the only means of life is union with God, which is what occurs when we are saved. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.

I agree that the only means of life is union with God, but the rest of your claims here don't make sense Biblically (or even in your own sentence). How can death merely be separation? How can a separation that begins at birth be followed by a mere separation?

The Bible's teaching is comparatively clear! In Genesis 3 that death is the end of man's painful toil, and that death is followed by "you shall return to dust." Not a word is spoken in this definitional passage about separation -- in fact, when man finally is exiled, the purpose is to make the death eventually certain by denying access to the means of life "lest man live forever". Death is not merely separation!

And separation from God is not merely a lower quality of continuing life; as Paul said, "in Him we live and move and have our being," and "He is not far from each one of us". Separation from God, in Paul's consistent theology, is only achievable through "eternal destruction" (2Thess 1:5-10), a penalty that the wicked will pay with affliction "when He comes, on that Day" -- not a penalty they will actively continue to pay forever (because they pay on a Day), even though it's a penalty that will justly remain on them forever (because it's eternal).

Being "forever dead" would, then, be more appropriately imposed on those who have no chance of being made alive in Christ.

That would be reasonable if God merely said He'd abandon them. But He didn't; He said He'd kill them (for example, Luke 12:5). He's _changing_ their state, not leaving it the same as it was when they were born.

In Matthew 25, when the goats [...] are judged, we are told they go into everlasting punishment, meaning [...] their fate is still final.

No, when it says "they will go" it means their state is _changed_, not left "still final." And notice also the distinction He's making: the righteous "go into everlasting life", while the wicked "go into everlasting punishment." The language is unmistakable, and the courtroom metaphor makes it more clear: the wicked will not receive life, and the righteous will not receive punishment. Your anthropology requires that the wicked have *some* life, in fact more than they do now (because they no longer sleep).

The point I sought to make was that men are dead apart from Christ, and we are made alive with Him, specifically because we are placed in Him, and He in us. That is the source of eternal life for the believer.

This is a metaphorical point that John makes in His gospel and epistles, showing that by believing we partake in Christ and are united with Him. It's true, and instructive, but metaphors don't reverse the meaning of literal senses; rather, they _use_ them. Jesus taught, in and out of John, that more than merely metaphorically participating in eternal life now (as the epistles clearly teach), we would actually live forever, and even if we die, we will live again and never die.

And here I think it's appropriate to loop back to Paul's twice-used metaphor of having been dead in sins. This is not a redefinition of death to mean separation, contrary to your claim; it's not a redefinition at all, because Paul doesn't _define_ the term in that context. Rather, this is a metaphor in which Paul expects his readers to picture a dead body lying in an unclean pool (of refuse and sins) -- and then he runs with the metaphor.

To underscore how bad it is to interpret a metaphor as an redefinition, I need to point out that Paul does the same thing for Christians in Romans 6, saying that we "died to sins" and are now "dead." Obviously no theologian dares to redefine death based on _this_; rather, we correctly see it a metaphor, using the fact that a dead person lacks all power to desire or perform sins. When Paul uses slavery in the following verses, we understand that slavery to God is the metaphorical opposite of being dead to God (because unlike a dead person a slave MUST respond to their master) -- but we don't think he's being literal about either death or slavery. We are not like slaves in every possible sense of the word; we are only like slaves in the passage's intended sense.

 

[The Biblicist]

Mortality simply means subject to death, not subject to non-existence. Immortality means not being subject to death, not subject to non-existence.

Life and death are terms of TWO DIFFERENT STATES OF EXISTENCE not non-existence versus existence.

 

[Darrell C]

QUICK NOTE:

(1) In the other thread that references the conditional view, I clearly expressed my complete disinterest in having a debate about this issue. Debates do not change minds. Thoughtful discussion combined with careful reflection and the study of scripture changes minds. I do not want to discuss areas of eschatology beyond the ultimate fate of the wicked because I am not fully settled in those areas and I want to work through the scriptures carefully before I have too many presuppositions pushed upon me. Furthermore, I think the scriptures don't actually give us as much information as many people think, and much of what is believed comes from outside the scripture.

I am not privy to the other thread, but still assert that a concept of "Conditional Immortality" is not taught in Scripture. This implies the receiving of "immortality" that at some point might be lost or taken away, or perhaps walked away from. But Scripture teaches that in regards to mankind in his natural state (that to which he is born into) that he is in fact corruptible, and in need of life. In regards to being made incorruptible, which will of course culminate in the glorified body we receive, that is guaranteed due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We do not construct a scenario where those who are not saved have opportunity to be "immortal," it is only when we apply a modern understanding of what it means to be immortal that such a notion might be entertained.

And I have to disagree, debate do, and should...change minds. Particularly between believers who are looking to the Word of God for validation or invalidation of Doctrine. But, what we can say is debate does not change hearts, only God has that ability.

If you are not "fully settled on maters of Eschatology," all the more reason to discuss it, my friend. You are not having presuppositions pushed on you if, again, your reliance for validation is the Word and our Teacher. I think we do well to fully confront not only the opposition to our views, but the positions presented to us by others. The Doctrine I hold to has been formed specifically by examining the arguments and positions of basically every position imaginable. That has forced me to get into the Word to see if these things be true or not. It is an ancient method, lol, and one we can benefit from.

And I also have to disagree with what "we" believe coming from outside of the Scriptures, or that Scripture does not give us enough to know God's will for future events. Scripture sufficiently gives us details of future events right into the Eternal State.

(2) I am going to be on the road, traveling for business most of the week and will have limited opportunities to respond and provide thoughtful answers. I really hate getting entangled in a deep conversation about this subject when if is probable that I will not be able to keep up with it.

Understood, and don't worry about it, it will be here when you get back. I am not myself planning on investing a great deal of time on the forum right now, as I have other irons in the fire and a business to run. I was just popping in and made the mistake of commenting, lol.

So we see this in both the lost and the saved, because all men will spend eternity somewhere, and as pointed out, this does not constitute eternal life in a Redemptive context, which has its source in being in relationship with He Who is Eternal.

That is the dominant view, but "we" do not know that - you and many others believe they know that.

"We" believe that because that is precisely what Christ taught. For both believers and unbelievers there is taught an unending existence, either in Hell, or with God. Again, the point I sought to make is that despite this, we do not equate Eternal Life with the unending existence of the Lost. Many want to believe something other than what Christ taught, because in their minds it seems "unfair," and the doctrine of cults that teach annihilation and universalism have made great inroads into the theologies of many Christians (and those who call themselves Christians) in these days. That is an in-depth study and one we should all have accomplished, and settled in our hearts.

This whole conversation centers around whether or not your assertion is accurate. And when you use the word "hell," what biblical word do you actually mean?

All conversations center on "right" doctrine.

And I mean the Hell Christ taught when speaking in terms which indicate an unending damnation, punishment, and separation from God: gehenna.

1) Sheol (the grave/pit) from Hebrew?
2) Hades (the grave/pit) from Greek?
3) Tartarus (prison) from Greek, used only once to describe the imprisonment of angels (2 Peter 2:4)
4) Gehenna (variant of the literal Valley of Hinnom), a place of burning trash, pagan worship, sacrifice of children, etc.

Consider:



Matthew 10:28

King James Version (KJV)


28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell.


This is used as a proof-text for Annihilationists, the basic premise being that the "Soul" (incorrectly identified as the immaterial aspect of men which separates from his body when he dies (that would be, according to Christ, the spirit)) and body is destroyed in Hell.

The problem with that is this interpretation does not align with concepts taught by Christ such as fire which cannot be quenched, or worms that do not die (which implies a perpetual state of the body of the dead).

But note "to destroy" in the text and consider its usage of another group:


Matthew 10:5-6

King James Version (KJV)


5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.




Matthew 15:24

King James Version (KJV)


24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


Same word in both, descriptive of a people in a state of destruction (as Israel was) who were in need of salvation (as Israel was, for they awaited Redemption and were in need of it from a spiritual and Eternal perspective, rather than the temporal perspective evidences in Scripture that they had) who...

...had not ceased to exist.

We do not call the lost The Lost without good cause, my friend. But the point is, we can, if we consider Christ's teachings on eternal punishment, know that it is not teaching annihilation.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

So we see this in both the lost and the saved, because all men will spend eternity somewhere, and as pointed out, this does not constitute eternal life in a Redemptive context, which has its source in being in relationship with He Who is Eternal.

If you want to use the label "eternal life" for those who are condemned, what do the gospels mean when they contrast "eternal life" with perishing?

I didn't do that, but quite the opposite:

We know, as I said, that the spirit of a man does not cease to exist, and in that regard they might be considered immortal, or, incorruptible in the sense that the spirits of men do not cease to exist, even when they are cast into Hell. So we see this in both the lost and the saved, because all men will spend eternity somewhere, and as pointed out, this does not constitute eternal life in a Redemptive context, which has its source in being in relationship with He Who is Eternal.

The point was, just because all men will exist throughout eternity, that doesn't mean we equate that with eternal life the believer receives through union with God.

If you want to use the label "eternal life" for those who are condemned, what do the gospels mean when they contrast "eternal life" with perishing?

Those who are condemned do not have eternal life, and that too is the point I was seeking to draw to your attention. No man has life apart from Christ, and this means that no man had eternal life in the New Covenant Union with God which is eternal, because we are immersed into God Who is eternal through faith in Christ. The faith of the coming of Messiah for the Jew under the Law should not be equated with the specific faith in Christ's Sacrifice taught by Christ in John 6.

If you want to use the label "eternal life" for those who are condemned, what do the gospels mean when they contrast "eternal life" with perishing?

Christ makes it clear in his contrast, one will either believe and receive eternal life, or, and take careful note of this distinction...they remain in the same state they are already currently in:




John 3:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Man is born outside of relationship with God, that is why he sins, and that is why his destination is Hell. He does not "earn" separation from God, Adam brought that condition upon humanity.

If you want to use the label "eternal life" for those who are condemned, what do the gospels mean when they contrast "eternal life" with perishing?

Just to pick one of most well-known scriptures on this subject:

John 3:16-17 (Young's Literal Translation)
...for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him...
John 3:16-17 (New English Translation)
For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him.
There is a clear contrast between someone who will "perish" and someone who has eternal life (aka "life age-during."

I will first say I am not a fan of the YLT, just very droll and a very poor translation.

And I think you are arguing this point with yourself. I made it clear that there is a difference between those who have the Life Christ came to bestow and those who do not. And further, my argument is that it was not until Christ died and resurrected that this life began to be bestowed upon believers. Please do not take that to mean I am implying the Old Testament Saints were not saved, they were, by grace through faith...in the revelation provided to them. But what had not taken place was the sending of the Promised Spirit through Whom we have eternal life.

This, Christ taught, would not take place until the Comforter came, which could not take place until He left. If you read John 14 and 16 and keep in mind that Christ is teaching the disciples what will happen, not what is happening at the time, you will see what I mean.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Could you show me where Christ said His disciples had eternal life during His Ministry?

Jesus promised that eternal life is a present reality for His disciples:

John 4:14
“But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life.”

John 5:24
“I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life.”

John 6:40
For this is the will of my Father—for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

John 6:47
“I tell you the solemn truth, the one who believes has eternal life.”

John 6:54
“The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 10:28
“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand.”

And not one of these justifies a position which conflicts with what we are taught elsewhere. Let's take the first quote, for an example:


John 4:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.


Now let's see this statement made again:


John 7:37-39

King James Version (KJV)


37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


What He is teaching is that eternal life would be the result for those that believe on Him. In John 6 He is specific that it is faith in His death, for He states...





John 6:51-53

King James Version (KJV)


51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


Now faith in Christ is specific to the Cross, would you agree? And the result of that faith is salvation, at which time we receive the eternal indwelling of God, apart from which Paul makes clear one is not saved. That is what Christ is saying also, except one eat of His flesh and drink of His blood (euphemistic of His Sacrifice) they do not have life. In the above quotations, including your own, there is a future expectation of this being fulfilled, and it is correlated to events which take place after He is glorified. The rivers of living waters is contrasted to the water of the well, and speaks of eternal life as opposed to physical life sustained by physical water drawn from the well (John 4).

Again we see the prophetic nature of Christ's teaching in regards to the Spirit here...


John 16:7

King James Version (KJV)

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.


So it is up to us to correlate correctly what is being taught and how that applies in a Post and Pre-Pentecost context.

You say they had eternal life then, I say they didn't. They were saved, yes, but, they had not been reconciled to God, which would come about through Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, at which time He would return to Heaven and send the Promised Spirit.

And one more to show that this had not taken place during Christ's ministry:


Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)


4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


Most minimize the Baptism with the Holy Ghost to "empowerment," which makes little sense since we see (1) the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is foretold by John the Baptist which shows it is not taking place prior to this, and (2) we already know that empowerment had taken place prior to this, for the disciples were empowered to preach the Kingdom Gospel, heal, and cast out demons. The Holy Spirit has always ministered to, through, and in men throughout Biblical History, so we can conclude that the Ministry that will begin at Pentecost is not only new, but that it is the fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy and Promise.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

John writes that we know we have eternal life, but this is Post Law.

I don't know what being "Post Law" has to do with it.

It has everything to do with it, lol, when we are considering if men had the Life Christ states He came from Heaven to bring.

In 1 John, Post (Covenant of) Law, we can say with confidence we know we have eternal life through Christ. That contrasted with the promise of eternal life in the Old Testament.

Eternal Life is not to be equated with the unending nature of the spirit of man, and that is the very point I tried to make in my initial post/s.

The Old Testament Saint was just as secure in their salvation, being justified by faith, but that did not mean their sins had been atoned for. They all died not receiving the Promise/s:



Hebrews 11:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.



Hebrews 11:39-40

King James Version (KJV)

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.


The "perfection" in view refers to completion, a bringing to an end, and the Writer's primary focus is the remission of sins. The Law held a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very image of those things (Hebrews 10:1-4). Christ, however, by one sacrifice (contrasted with the unending sacrifice and service of the Priest under Law) perfected, or, brought completion to sacrifice for sins forever (Hebrews 10:14).

The Old Testament Saint, again, was saved in that his eternal destiny was secure, but, that does not mean we impose the fulfillment of the Promises of God into an Age when they were not fulfilled, and could only be fulfilled by Christ in His Work.

What Christ did say was that all who believe on Him would have eternal life, which He clarifies as being His Body, that is...His death.

Actually no.

You can diminish many of the above quoted passages with your theory, but John 10:28 flatly contradicts it.

Man take the same position, but I will ask you, can you show me one person that had faith in the Risen Christ prior to Pentecost? Even one?

I can already tell you that you cannot, because Christ had not died and arose that men might believe.

Secondly, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was a Mystery at that point, not revealed in that, or any other Age:



Romans 16:25-26

King James Version (KJV)


25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:


Do a word search on the word "mystery." What you will find is that while the Gospel is given and foretold in Prophecy, it was not revealed to men. THis is why Peter would be against the very work which was the only work which could save him on an eternal basis:


Matthew 16:20-23

King James Version (KJV)


20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.



Peter, like many in Israel, was a man of faith and had his hope in the coming Messiah. The problem he had, though, is that it had not yet been revealed to him how Messiah would redeem Israel (and the world).

The Messiah they expected would ride in on a charger and overthrow Rome, and restore Israel to her former glory, with an unending Throne over which the Son of David would reside.

Didn't quite work out for them like that, did it? And the redemption that was effected through Christ by far exceeded what any man could have hoped for, which is why Paul quotes this prophecy:


1 Corinthians 2:7-10

King James Version (KJV)


7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.


And how were these truths revealed?


10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.



The revelation of the Mystery of Christ began when the Comforter came. Until then, it is understood why Peter would be in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, even when it came directly from Christ Himself.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

That is why the New Testament Writers repeatedly state His "blood" (death) as the means of salvation.

Jesus is the "means" of salvation. His blood was shed for us in a way that made a difference, but I am quite averse to separating "Jesus" from His "blood." His blood only has relevance because of Who Jesus is and Who God is.

And that is precisely what I said, my friend.

The term "blood" is euphemistic for death.

Consider:



Matthew 23:30

King James Version (KJV)

30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.



Luke 11:51

King James Version (KJV)

51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.



Colossians 1:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:



We look at the principle behind sacrifice, where it is not simply bleeding required, but death. The wages of sin is death, and the Old Testament provision for remission of sins required a vicarious death, not simply a blood-letting.

Now I know you probably didn't mean anything different, but I just like to clarify that.

Well, it's a point worthy of clarification, because some take it to refer to the literal blood which ran through His veins. Just as some view the euphemism "sleep" for death to literally speak of sleeping, hence the erroneous doctrine of soul sleep.


Great post, thanks for the response.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

God bless you, and thank you for actually thinking deeply and well about the challenge.

"5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."

Thanks for the response, and hopefully we can work through what I see as a little bit of confusion as to what the focal point is.

Note in the second quote John sees "the dead" (who are without controversy those among the dead who were not raised at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom). That is the point. They are termed "dead," which in this context deals with a singular event in Redemptive History, where men are judged and cast into Hell (the Lake of Fire).

Notice, though, that in the *first* quote, they were called "the rest of the dead." If there is a "rest", there is also a first part; and both parts together constitute "the dead."

That is not in dispute, and is in fact the central focus: those who are dead here are those who are physically dead, and at this time the Tribulation Martyrs are physically resurrected into glorified bodies.

The "rest of the dead" are unbelievers who are not physically resurrected and will not be for another thousand years.

Now, the focal point of the discussion is the difference between Eternal Life, which only believers have, and physical life, which all men receive. The point being missed is that depsite having physical life...men can be termed dead. Being "alive" from a redemptive perspective only occurs through faith in Christ.

But, that does not negate John's statement that "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years are up," which speaks to their physical resurrection which has to be distinguished from the "life" that believers receive.

They were dead though they had physical life before their deaths, and they are still dead when they are physically resurrected to stand before God at the end of the Millennial Kingdom.

And without possible dispute, the first part of the dead are those in the First Resurrection. This shows us -- as I showed from other passages -- that even John cannot teach, merely by saying "the dead", that those people are mysteriously still dead even while they live. This is consistent with the normal use of the phrase "the dead" in all literature, including the Bible -- except the Bible is adding an amazing truth that the dead will be raised, ALL of them (John 5:29ff), some in a "resurrection of life" granting glory, honor, and immortality by means of the gift of "eternal life" (Rom 2:7); and others in a "resurrection of judgment" which will include affliction, wrath, tribulation all in proportion to the wicked and conscious deeds they've done, and which will end in the way prescribed in God's law that even Gentiles know and the Jews have in writing: "they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die..."

Those who are raised in the First Resurrection had life before they were resurrected, Tanksley. That is the central focus here. They are raised in the First Resurrection because they came to believe during the Tribulation, and would have received the Life of Christ when they believed. Their resurrection, therefore...is specific to physical resurrection in the glorified body.

The resurrection of the dead is an Old Testament foundational teaching, and as you say, it taught a general resurrection of the just and the unjust. What it did not teach was the body men are raised in. It did not teach the Mystery of the Rapture.

You are presenting a position that is implying that men receive eternal life when they are resurrected, and that, again, is the focal issue here. Believers do not receive eternal life when they are resurrected, they receive eternal life when they are saved:


1 John 5:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.


And I will break this up so that we might be able to narrow down where the misunderstanding centers.


Continued...

 

[wTanksley]

Mortality simply means subject to death, not subject to non-existence. Immortality means not being subject to death, not subject to non-existence. Life and death are terms of TWO DIFFERENT STATES OF EXISTENCE not non-existence versus existence.

I not only agree here, every Christian must insist on this. Jesus died, but certainly did not cease to exist! But ... so what? You're only telling us what death isn't. I've turned to Genesis 3 to show you what death IS.

But death is accompanied (and caused, and followed) by corruption, the reduction of the person to the dust of uncreation: as God promised Adam, "you will return to dust." For Jesus, corruption not only didn't win, it didn't even touch Him. "God raised Him up" (Acts 2) -- and His body was clothed in incorruption, a result which will be given to us when we're conformed to His glorious nature.

But those who are not united with Him in His death, will likewise not be raised up with Him in life. And this means the curse given to Adam holds in full; they will return to dust, and as Job 21 hoped, "their own eyes will see their destruction." Even the wicked who "have no pains until death" will know the Lord's wrath, and in terrors will vanish like a dream when the Lord rouses Himself (Psalm 73). All rebels and all causes of stumbling will be burnt up like tares in the furnace so that the righteous can shine like the stars (Matt 13). Finally, "the meek will inherit the earth", and "although you seek for the wicked in their place, they will not be there" (Psalm 37). In the end, God is "all in all", and all things are united in Christ as the center of the Church (Col 1).

Eternal suffering is not a part of the new heavens and new earth; there is no more death, and everything has become new.

 

[Darrell C]

Now focus on that -- Gentiles _know_ that already. Yet gentiles don't know the dead will be raised; they don't know that there's eternal torment. Paul describes them as "those who have no hope", contradicting the hope of resurrection to everlasting life.

The knowledge of the Gentiles is irrelevant to New Testament revelation, because believers are one in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile.

Of course they knew and know...that is who Paul wrote to.

So you will need to provide Scripture to expand on what it is you are trying to say here. That Gentile Inclusion was foretold yet not revealed, and was a Mystery is very clear, but, again, Paul writes to them and reveals that Mystery:


Colossians 1:25-27

King James Version (KJV)


25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:


Since believers will all be glorified, whether they be Jews or Gentile is irrelevant.

The wages of sin really _is_ death

This is very true, and still true even for Christians (i.e., Ananias and Sapphira, those partaking of Communion unworthily, and those who sin a sin unto death).

However, we see two exactings of that wage, in the physical, as well as in the eternal. The Old Testament primarily deals with the physical punishment, whereas the New Testament reveals the eternality of death for the sinner. A good chapter to test this on is Ezekiel 18, often taught by some to refer to eternal punishment and eternal life, which, if that were the case...

...then we can see a conflict with the New Testament which makes it abundantly clear that eternal life cannot be obtained by the keeping of the works of the Law.

when the "dead," which are not raised again at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom (the end of the Tribulation), are raised one thousand years later, we consider that they are raised in bodies, which like those of the glorified saint, are suitable for the eternal punishment they are cast into, so, in one sense, they are "glorified" as well, because those bodies will not be destroyed by either the conditions of Hell or time.

You're making an extrabiblical claim here.

On the contrary, this is the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself. We also see Jude and Peter teach this in specificity.

The Word of God makes it clear that the Lost will go into eternal punishment which has no end. While you might consider the terminology of being burned as implying cessation of existence, what you cannot deny is that the terms are very clear.

Secondly, as far as their bodies go, that they are everlasting (which does not equate to having eternal life, which you have erroneously charged me with implying) is a necessity, for they could not endure everlasting punishment, torment, damnation...if their bodies are burned up. They are burned up, to be sure, but, that burning does not end.

But we are straying from the focal point, and I would just suggest that if you would like to discuss your view of Annihilation, start a thread. let's stick to the focus for now, which is the distinction between having life and having eternal life, which will help us to determine whether "Conditional Immortality" is a valid concept.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I know you believe this, but I do not have any reason to join you in this belief -- and on the contrary, if you're going to claim that their bodies will be given "glory ... honor ... power ... incorruption ... spiritual ... the image of the man of heaven" as 1 Cor 15 says

Here you impose things into my view that I did not even hint at. You are confusing a resurrected body of the lost with the believer, who not only is resurrected in a glorified body...but has eternal life.

That is the element missing from the dead.

The dead are not simply raised in physical bodies, for one thing, the heavens and the earth will have passed out of existence at that point:


Revelation 20:11-12

King James Version (KJV)


11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.


Can a body which is physical only...exist in a scenario that has no substance?

then it follows that you must deny Jesus' words in Matt 10:28ff, that we should fear the One who has the power to destroy both body and soul in gehenna -- why should we fear something that won't possibly happen even to their *body*?

I will say the same thing I said to the other member:


Consider:



Matthew 10:28

King James Version (KJV)


28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell.


This is used as a proof-text for Annihilationists, the basic premise being that the "Soul" (incorrectly identified as the immaterial aspect of men which separates from his body when he dies (that would be, according to Christ, the spirit)) and body is destroyed in Hell.

The problem with that is this interpretation does not align with concepts taught by Christ such as fire which cannot be quenched, or worms that do not die (which implies a perpetual state of the body of the dead).

But note "to destroy" in the text and consider its usage of another group:


Matthew 10:5-6

King James Version (KJV)


5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.




Matthew 15:24

King James Version (KJV)


24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


Same word in both, descriptive of a people in a state of destruction (as Israel was) who were in need of salvation (as Israel was, for they awaited Redemption and were in need of it from a spiritual and Eternal perspective, rather than the temporal perspective evidences in Scripture that they had) who...

...had not ceased to exist.

We do not call the lost The Lost without good cause, my friend. But the point is, we can, if we consider Christ's teachings on eternal punishment, know that it is not teaching annihilation.


Israel was in a state of destruction, but...had they ceased to exist?

The same is true concerning Matthew 10:28, the favorite proof-text of the Annihilationist.

The destruction in view does not contradict Christ's teachings that there will be no end to eternal punishment. They will be destroyed in Hell for eternity.



Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Which would fit in the context of 1 Corinthians 15, though we know that chapter has a focus on believers.

It would not fit in any way for unbelievers to participate in the salvation described in 1 Cor 15;

You're the only one speaking about that, lol. Nothing I have said can be construed to mean that the lost have salvation.

That is the point I am trying to make...the lost do not have eternal life, which must be distinguished from physical life.

Just as the "Lost Sheep" of Israel sat in a state of destruction, yet were physically alive, even so every man is born having physical life...but no eternal life. Two entirely different things.

on the contrary, 1 Cor 15:2 says that it applies only to those who are being saved by holding fast to the gospel. Through the entire rest of the chapter, the gifts given through the single resurrection are all gifts only promised to believers.

As I said, the context is dealing primarily with believers, but, that doesn't mean we nullify the fact that the dead (lost) will be resurrected as well.

But they have to die physically first. And if a man dies not having received the life of Christ, he will have gone his entire existence without life, though he had physical life. And that will be his state for eternity.

I challenge you: do you have any passage that explicitly or implicitly attaches a resurrection to incorruptibility to unbelievers?

Why would I need one...you're the one speaking in those terms.

What I am saying is that men are born in corruption, and do not have life. We do not view the lost as being resurrected to incorruptibility in a context that parallels that which believers enjoy. They will be resurrected in bodies that will exist in eternal torment and separation from God, but we do not equate that to the eternal life believers have when they are saved.

Two entirely different things.

Or _anything_ that might enable unbelievers to endure in the eternal fire, so that unlike Sodom and Gomorrah, which "by turning the cities ... to ashes He condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly"?

And you are equating the physical )Sodom) with the eternal (Hell).

We can't do that.

But, I would suggest that you study the teachings of Christ concerning the fate of the Lost. The terms speak of unending duration. But I will give you an example of this here:



Jude 12-13

King James Version (KJV)

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.


In view are men, not demons (for whom Hell was prepared). Kind of hard for the blackness of darkness to be reserved forever for them if they are simply annihilated, isn't it?

In view is an equal punishment (though not in terms of severity, simply destination) for both demons and the lost.

Peter echoes Jude:



2 Peter 2:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.


In view is not a cessation of existence, but the conditions that they will be under forever. See the links.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

If not, isn't it reasonable to take the Bible literally at _some_ point?

This is pretty funny, lol. Usually I am rebuked for being a literalist.

Now can I ask you...why you do not take Scripture literally? The terms everlasting and eternal in conjunction with other terms such as punishment, torment, and damnation...should be taken literally.

If Jesus, John, Jude, Malachi, and Isaiah all compare the wicked to tares, dead vines, trees, and tinder in hot fires, shouldn't we have some reason to disagree before we declare that the wicked are SO unlike all those things that they'll NOT be reduced to ashes?

But what you are forgetting is that they are deemed "tares, dead vines, trees, and tinder in hot fires" in regards to their physical existence. That is...in their physical bodies. This is not relevant to the resurrected body, as punishment of the lost begins when they die, as exampled in Luke 16. The rich man was in torment in Hades. The Goats of Matthew 25 go into everlasting punishment when they are physically put to death:


Matthew 25:46

King James Version (KJV)

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


This takes place at Christ's return, and all of the unbelieving are destroyed physically, as taught in Ezekiel 39 and Revelation 19. But we see that they go into everlasting punishment, which at this time is going into Hades, from which they will be resurrected at the end of the Millennial Kingdom.

No cessation of existence there, either.

In other words, Christ states "the fathers ate manna and are dead." He is not speaking about them being physically dead, just as we, in our former condition, were not physically dead while being dead in trespasses and sins.

Of course He is. They were asking for literal bread, and He answered their request by pointing out that bread doesn't preserve their fathers' lives, so that their fathers literally died (including Moses and Joshua, both of whom are fathers, ate the manna, and died).

Great, now that you acknowledge that the Jews were asking for physical bread, can you admit that the True Bread is not physical?

And in recognizing that simple truth can you acknowledge that in view is Eternal Life through Christ (and specifically trusting in His death) as contrasted with the physical life the Children of Israel received when they ate manna?

That is the point, Tanksley...they received that provision and Christ's teaching is comparing that bread and it's benefit with the Bread He came from Heaven to bestow.

You have got to grasp that before we can go any further in this discussion.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Death is a separation, and the ultimate "death" is separation from God. Man is born dead, separated from God, and the only means of life is union with God, which is what occurs when we are saved. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.

I agree that the only means of life is union with God, but the rest of your claims here don't make sense Biblically (or even in your own sentence). How can death merely be separation? How can a separation that begins at birth be followed by a mere separation?

Again you place your understanding into what I have said. You say "mere separation" when I clearly distinguish "ultimate death" above. I can't invest time addressing arguments that are not mine.

Until you grasp the distinction between eternal life and physical life you will continue to misinterpret and transpose your misunderstanding into what I have said.

The Bible's teaching is comparatively clear! In Genesis 3 that death is the end of man's painful toil, and that death is followed by "you shall return to dust." Not a word is spoken in this definitional passage about separation -- in fact, when man finally is exiled, the purpose is to make the death eventually certain by denying access to the means of life "lest man live forever". Death is not merely separation!

I would just ask what kind of Baptist are you? What Baptist group teaches annihilation?

As far as you missing the separation seen in physical death, it is the separation of a man's spirit from his body. This is affirmed in both the understanding of the First Century disciples as well as validated by Christ Himself:


Luke 24:36-39

King James Version (KJV)


36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


And we do not construct Doctrine by taking obscure passages, particularly when they are limited in regards to revelation (which is clear in the case of man's condition in Genesis, as well as the entire Old Testament, as compared to the revelation provided in the New), and trying to proof-text something that is clearly taught in the New Testament.

Man died in Adam, and it was a spiritual death, hence man has a need for life, though he has physical life.

That is the whole point of what I have been saying, my friend.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

And separation from God is not merely a lower quality of continuing life;

I would agree: separation from God is an absence of life.

That's the point, Tanksley:


John 6:53

King James Version (KJV)

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.



This is why we view the lost to be spritually dead.

as Paul said, "in Him we live and move and have our being," and "He is not far from each one of us"

Relevance? This is not in dispute, and irrelevant to the condition of those who do not have the life of Christ.

Separation from God, in Paul's consistent theology, is only achievable through "eternal destruction" (2Thess 1:5-10),

Not sure what Paul you are speaking of, but Paul the Apostle makes it pretty clear that unbelievers are not in Christ.

What he is teaching in the first chapter of 2 Thessalonians is the ultimate fate of the dead.

Are you going to tell me that you believe that the lost have eternal life and do not lose that life until they receive eternal destruction? And again, in view is Christ's return, which separates their going into Hell and the destruction that begins at Christ's return with a thousand year period.

a penalty that the wicked will pay with affliction "when He comes, on that Day" -- not a penalty they will actively continue to pay forever (because they pay on a Day), even though it's a penalty that will justly remain on them forever (because it's eternal).

Sorry, but again...there is a thousand years separating their deaths at Christ's return from their being cast into Hell.

Here are two men, not demons, who first go into eternal punishment in it's culmination:


Revelation 19:20

King James Version (KJV)

20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.


Here they are again a thousand years later:


Revelation 20:7-10

King James Version (KJV)


7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


While you might want to say "Well that just means the devil is tormented day and night forever," again I would recommend Jude and Peter's teaching, which speaks of men. That it is unending is emphasized with "day and night."

Demons and unbelievers will suffer the same fate, my friend...


Matthew 25:41

King James Version (KJV)

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:


Continued...