conditional immortality

[wTanksley]

But the focus of the error employed in this context is that we have an understanding about eternal judgment not revealed in the Old Testament.

How could you commit such a fundamental error, Darrell? I showed with simple, clear analysis, that the Old Testament defines postmortem punishment of the wicked in specific terms as being their dissolution. Unless you're Marcionite you cannot simply reject a positive teaching of the Old Testament; you must show how the New Testament expands on it with new revelation, not simply use the New to contradict what the Old shows.

I gave you WAY more credit than you deserved, it looks like, by assuming that you meant only what you _said_ when you claimed:

The above commentary is an example of the failure to understand the distinctions between those under Law and previous economies and those under the New Covenant.

Your original claim was a difference between "those under Law" and "those under the New Covenant". That -- "those under" -- is a claim about people, not a claim about revelation. That's an adequate reason for me to respond about people receiving final punishment.

Your _new_ claim is that:



But, of course, aside from a bit of Schadenfreude, I won't push that point. Go ahead and modify your arguments anyhow you want.

 

[Darrell C]

How could you commit such a fundamental error, Darrell? I showed with simple, clear analysis, that the Old Testament defines postmortem punishment of the wicked in specific terms as being their dissolution. Unless you're Marcionite you cannot simply reject a positive teaching of the Old Testament; you must show how the New Testament expands on it with new revelation, not simply use the New to contradict what the Old shows.

I gave you WAY more credit than you deserved, it looks like, by assuming that you meant only what you _said_ when you claimed:



Your original claim was a difference between "those under Law" and "those under the New Covenant". That -- "those under" -- is a claim about people, not a claim about revelation. That's an adequate reason for me to respond about people receiving final punishment.

Your _new_ claim is that:



But, of course, aside from a bit of Schadenfreude, I won't push that point. Go ahead and modify your arguments anyhow you want.

Goodbye, Tanksley. It is clear you cannot be honest in debate and I will waste no more time with you. When you can start being honest I will be happy to pick up the discussion again.

I will just say...you are not teaching Baptist doctrine. You know it, I know it, and the discerning that read here know it. That is why you shy away from such a simple question.


God bless.

 

[wTanksley]

Sorry, wrong button. Your new claim is that:

But the focus of the error employed in this context is that we have an understanding about eternal judgment not revealed in the Old Testament.

Here you claim progressive revelation.

Nothing abstract about the difference between the understanding of the Old Testament Saint and the New.

Interestingly, you can't consistently maintain your claim; NOW, you switch from talking about progressive revelation to talking about the Saints in the two+ dispensations. But saints are not the wicked in the final judgment; you err in focusing off the topic.

Your analysis is poor. Syllogistic. And in error. Just like your conclusions concerning the fate of the lost are.

I love this -- did you just try to insult me by calling my analysis "syllogistic"? Please do that again.

 

[Darrell C]

I love this -- did you just try to insult me by calling my analysis "syllogistic"? Please do that again.

No need...you continue to publicly display the syllogistic nature of your reasoning, which explains to the reading public why your conclusions are in error.

But if it makes you happy: "Your reasoning is syllogistic."



And that's my last post in this thread until you state what kind of Baptist you are, and what Baptist group teaches annihilation. Are you afraid of blowing your cover? lol


God bless.

 

[wTanksley]

Third, the Public that looks in this, or any other forum, has a right to know who it is teaching the doctrine they are perusing.

They actually don't, but since it helps people understand, I'm required to (and do) adhere to both of the following confessions:

By my church:
The London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF) 1644

By my membership in Rethinking Hell:
The Rethinking Hell Statement of Faith

Following is not a statement anyone's required to adhere to, but a statement about evangelical conditionalism:
Statement on Evangelical Conditionalism

 

[wTanksley]

No need...you continue to publicly display the syllogistic nature of your reasoning, which explains to the reading public why your conclusions are in error.

I'm laughing, because you say my reasoning is syllogistic, and you clearly don't realize what you're saying. You don't even know what a syllogism is?

 

[agedman]

Rejecting the teaching of eternal consequences does not automatically make the teaching of conditional immortality (or annihilation teaching) biblical.

Spending eternity in torment is just as biblical as spending eternity in heavenly bliss. Both are biblical, and both the OT and NT writers did not depart from the eternal aspect of either.

It is merely typical human desire to not have friends and relatives spending eternity in the torments of the lake of fire that provides for some purgatorial or annihilation teaching.

If the torments of the lake of fire are not eternal, then neither is the heavenly bliss of the redeemed. For what thesis exists without antithesis?

 

[Darrell C]

While this does not really state what type of Baptist you are, but is general, and simply presents an obscure statement of faith from antiquity, lol, it is at least a little better than avoiding the question altogether.

In one sense (and I know how you have trouble understanding what that means, lol), you do show what kind of Baptist you are in the second and third links, which is someone who calls themselves Baptist yet want to reform traditional views. While I doubt anyone is going to find a group that believes identically in every area with themselves (and question those who have, suspecting indoctrination is the reason for this, rather than study), when it comes to doctrines such as eternal/everlating punishment, torment, damnation, and separation, it attacks a Basic Bible teaching taught by Christ and the Apostles.

Let's look at your links:

Third, the Public that looks in this, or any other forum, has a right to know who it is teaching the doctrine they are perusing.

They actually don't, but since it helps people understand, I'm required to (and do) adhere to both of the following confessions:

Actually, they do, when it comes to a Baptist Only Section of a Baptist Forum. Many who will come here come for one reason...because they disagree with Baptist Doctrine.

And you have still presented no Baptist group that teaches this, merely a movement that might have "Baptists" involved.

This is no different than ecumenical projects that arise where there is sought a union between differing faiths for what is thought to be a good cause. But just as Catholics and Evangelicals stand in direct contradiction of each other, should such movements be successful the logical course of action is to identify that group as distinct from those who disagree, and a new name be given to that group.

At this point, the best I can conclude from the links is that you call yourself a Baptist but are opposed to what is traditionally a Baptist Distinctive. So I would venture a guess (and have to because you are not outright and forthcoming) that you should be considered evangelical, yet have separated yourself by this doctrinal position, as we see all those who embrace immortal conditionalism have been separated, and, as I said...seem to find their way into books about cults.

You basically use the name Baptist as a means of getting your foot in the door. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

By my church:
The London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF) 1644

Your church is the seven churches of London of 1644?

I doubt that very much. Surely your fellowship has a more recent confession of faith?

The only thing I could find concerning the eternality of men in this particular confession was...


All mankind being thus fallen, and become altogether dead in sins and trespasses, and subject to the eternal wrath of the great God by transgression; yet the elect, which God has(1) loved with an everlasting love, are(2) redeemed, quickened, and saved, not by themselves, neither by their own works, lest any man should boast himself, but wholly and only by God of(3) His free grace and mercy through Jesus Christ, who of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, that as it is written he that rejoices, let him rejoice in the Lord.

1) Jer. 31:2
2) Gen 3:15; Eph. 1:3, 7; 2:4, 9; 1 Thes. 5:9; Acts 13:38
3) 1 Cor.5:21; Jer. 9:23, 24

VI.

(1) This therefore is life eternal, to know the only true God, and whom He has sent Jesus Christ.(2) And on the contrary, the Lord will render vengeance in flaming fire to them that know not God, and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1) John 17:3; Heb. 5:9; Jer. 23:5, 6
2) 2 Thes. 1:8; John 3:36


How convenient, lol.

It states that what is contrary to eternal life is...eternal wrath and flaming fire (though the context of the Tribulation has to be recognized as well).

And in your teaching you have denied what is made clear in this confession, because you teach that men receive eternal life at the resurrection. Or am I not remembering this discussion too well?

No, wait, here it is...

This is not what John is actually saying in this chapter. You're inserting a made-up systematic theology on top of the Biblical text, completely overriding John's actual words. John is talking about a literal raising of literally dead (and decomposed) people to literal life. He is not referencing any of the other passages that talk about how we have at present the eternal life that unbelievers lack. It's impossible to read the passage the way you're doing it, because BOTH groups, the martyrs AND the rest, are referred to as "the dead."

You seem to assume that only one can be true. In fact, you'll find that both statements are made in clear teaching passages. John tends to emphasize the present reality of eternal life -- that by knowing God and Jesus we partake in a present experience of eternal life (John 17, 1 John). But in saying this John can not ignore the gift of eternal life writers like Paul promise in a future tense, in passages like Romans 2:7, or Jesus' Mar 10:30 quote repeated in every gospel.

Nor does John attempt to deny it; he knows that both are true, as is clearly shown in John 11:25-26. In that passage both the present and future promise are given, along with the fact that Jesus IS life. In a sense we have eternal life now, even though in apparent contradiction to that we normally expect to die

But in another sense we teach that eternal life *will* be given at the resurrection, in its most literal and complete sense. Both are true; and it must be so, since our acceptance or rejection of the One who is eternal life now determines irrevocably our eternal fate.

Your trying to ride the fence, lol, and it's just not working, because eventually you reveal what you teach. The more you talk, Tanksley, the more your error is exposed.

Again we see your syllogistic approach and your imposing of your own misunderstanding and ignorance of Eternal Life in Christ into what I have said:

You seem to assume that only one can be true.

Nothing in what I have said even hints that I "assume only one can be true. lol

You suggest you recognize that men gain eternal life when they are saved, but you distinguish between two types of "eternal life," which are distinguished by one "eternal life" which results in death, which again shows the physical nature of your understanding.

The redemption of the Body is not a separate form of eternal life, it is the physical aspect of what we receive in salvation in Christ. Because you have ignored what I have said, and addressed what you think I said, you continue to...debate with yourself. And both of you are losing.




Continued...

 

[wTanksley]

Rejecting the teaching of eternal consequences does not automatically make the teaching of conditional immortality (or annihilation teaching) biblical.

Um... I never reject eternal consequences. The eternal consequence of rebellion against the giver of life is to die, therefore never again living in any sense at all.

Spending eternity in torment is just as biblical as spending eternity in heavenly bliss. Both are biblical, and both the OT and NT writers did not depart from the eternal aspect of either.

It's good that you accept the validity of OT revelation, but your weakness is your willingness to be vague and non-Biblical in your claims. "Spending eternity in torment" is not something any Biblical passage actually says; the only possible passage you can possibly be alluding to is Rev 20:10, which is not about the fate of the wicked but about the fate of Satan, the Beast, and the False Prophet. Eternal torment is _never_ taught to be the fate of the wicked; death is.

Torment -- not eternal torment -- is the punishment for harming people, and is amplified by malice and by knowledge. Death is the punishment for sin against the creator.

It is merely typical human desire to not have friends and relatives spending eternity in the torments of the lake of fire that provides for some purgatorial or annihilation teaching.

Look back through my arguments, and you'll find that I've provided some of the reasons I believe in annihilation. You may disagree with them, and that's perfectly fair. But unless you're going to use the authority of God to tell me that I DON'T believe in them, your claim that "merely human desire" drives annihilation teaching is simply falsified by the presence of other motives.

Nor is it merely human desire to see persecutors suffer that drives the teaching of eternal torment -- although that was a major argument for the first person to argue in favor of eternal torment, Tertullian, the father of Latin Christianity. Augustine came later, and set the infant doctrine on a profoundly philosophical foundation (in fact, almost all of the modern arguments for eternal torment come from his systematic theology; nobody wants to quote Tertullian on the subject anymore).

Unlike Tertullian, Irenaeus, the first person to clearly argue for conditionalism, didn't base it on what he wanted to see, but on unapologetically presented eschatological truths from the Bible.

So in fact, both beliefs, eternal torment and conditional immortality, have clear philosophical and Scriptural arguments. They do not depend in the slightest on emotional concerns, let alone depending (as you claim) MERELY on emotions.

If the torments of the lake of fire are not eternal, then neither is the heavenly bliss of the redeemed. For what thesis exists without antithesis?

You're making a non-Christian argument. God exists without antithesis. We're not Hegelians here; we're Christians.

 

[Darrell C]

By my membership in Rethinking Hell:
The Rethinking Hell Statement of Faith

Well, I guess we can say that the Reformed are still Catholics, as well, right? I mean, if there is nothing wrong with taking a position that is contradictory to what has been traditionally held, and one can remain of that faith in doing so, then, okay...you are a Baptist.

This is not a Baptist site.

Now will you show me what Baptist group teaches Annihilation?

Following is not a statement anyone's required to adhere to, but a statement about evangelical conditionalism:
Statement on Evangelical Conditionalism

This is not a Baptist site.

Got one of those?

Now, another example of your selectivity in what you will answer. Here are the other two points that went along with the one you decided to answer:

Here is the argument, so you understand: Annihilation is not a Baptist Doctrine, it is the doctrine of offshoot groups. Most of which are questionable in numerous doctrinal positions and several that usually find their way into books dealing with cults.

Understand?

Secondly, this is a Baptist Only section, so, those who teach doctrines not associated with Baptist groups make one wonder if they are in fact Baptist (and simply in disagreement with certain Baptist Distinctives, which happens quite a bit seeing there are numerous beliefs among Baptists that conflict) or...a member of a questionable group playing double agent, which is based on deception which is not a Christian manner of conduct. No reason for you to not simply answer my question.

Third, the Public that looks in this, or any other forum, has a right to know who it is teaching the doctrine they are perusing.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I'm laughing, because you say my reasoning is syllogistic, and you clearly don't realize what you're saying. You don't even know what a syllogism is?

Is that a question?

I'm guessing (again) that you looked it up, and thought this is a good thing, right?

Let me explain why a syllogistic approach is not good, my friend: the basic structure is simple, it has a major premise, and a minor premise, and a conclusion. This is contrasted with incorporating all relevant data to arrive at conclusions.

Understand?

Now, let's take a look at one of your conclusions, and outline it:

Major Premise: Darrell C says men gain eternal life when they are saved;

Minor Premise: Darrell C did not include wTanksleys' belief that men receive eternal life at physical resurrection;

Conclusion: Darrel C said "men do not receive eternal life when they are resurrected."

Your conclusion is not only wrong but it is slander, and you do not acknowledge your error when it is pointed out.

I did a post that discussed that. Could you give me a post # where you addressed my response?

And here is how you arrive at your conclusions in what I say in this debate, you do not include all relevant data necessary to arrive at proper conclusions.

I address that here (Post# 81):

Here is another example of your method:

wTanksley said: ↑

Where are you _getting_ that?

You're the one who said that -- let me copy from your quote -- "Believers do not receive eternal life when they are resurrected."

Here is what I actually said...



Darrell C said: ↑

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.



Had you quoted all that I said you would not even have made the above statement, and saved us both some time.


It's amazing how much different a conclusion can be when what is actually said is the the premise for the response, no?

Still laughing?


God bless.

 

[wTanksley]

And you have still presented no Baptist group that teaches this, merely a movement that might have "Baptists" involved.

I do hope those links help you, but I'm writing it for people who wonder what type of Baptist can affirm conditional immortality. The answer is that a 1644 LBCF Baptist can. In order to accept conditional immortality in a 1689 LBCF confessional church you'd have to talk to your elders and make sure they're OK with you not upholding the two articles that teach that every man is created immortal and that the wicked will be cast into everlasting torments -- some churches require "full subscription" so of course you cannot in good conscience stay, but most accept good-faith exceptions based on disagreements about Biblical texts.

It sounds like you don't actually know how churches work -- it's possible you're currently going to a church without any confession at all, or that you're going to one where agreement with the rulers is strictly enforced. Or, of course more likely, you just don't care and merely want to talk about how much you disagree with me.

 

[wTanksley]

which are distinguished by one "eternal life" which results in death

What are you even talking about?

 

[wTanksley]

Had you quoted all that I said you would not even have made the above statement, and saved us both some time.

I quoted that entire statement two or three times and asked you what you meant. You never gave me that grace; you pretended REPEATEDLY that I deny that people receive eternal life when they're saved. Unlike you, I never said anything LIKE that.

You can't handle logic, you lie about what I say, you treat an accurate quote of yourself as though it were a personal offense.

I have an idea. You can't handle the Old Testament; so I'm going to exegete a long New Testament passage. Let's see if you just make excuses and avoid it, like you did with Psalm 73.

 

[Darrell C]

Um... I never reject eternal consequences. The eternal consequence of rebellion against the giver of life is to die, therefore never again living in any sense at all.

And you apparently have no understanding between what is spiritual and what is physical. You have a carnal understanding of the Word of God.

We see that here:

Nor does John attempt to deny it; he knows that both are true, as is clearly shown in John 11:25-26. In that passage both the present and future promise are given, along with the fact that Jesus IS life. In a sense we have eternal life now, even though in apparent contradiction to that we normally expect to die.

There is no contradiction, Tanksley, because in view is eternal life, which when a man has, he shall never die:


John 11:25

King James Version (KJV)

25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:


You separate eternal life with a carnal view, which is why you see an "apparent contradiction."

It's good that you accept the validity of OT revelation,

Do you know someone here who doesn't? lol

I am very sorry you do not understand the significance of progressive revelation, and even sorrier you assert false charges against your antagonists, and even sorrierer (just wanted to give your spell check something to do) that you have such a limited understanding of Scripture.

And you know, not sure I can help you with that at this point.

but your weakness is your willingness to be vague and non-Biblical in your claims.

I would affirm his statement as Biblical.

Everything he states is true:

Rejecting the teaching of eternal consequences does not automatically make the teaching of conditional immortality (or annihilation teaching) biblical.

Spending eternity in torment is just as biblical as spending eternity in heavenly bliss. Both are biblical, and both the OT and NT writers did not depart from the eternal aspect of either.

It is merely typical human desire to not have friends and relatives spending eternity in the torments of the lake of fire that provides for some purgatorial or annihilation teaching.

If the torments of the lake of fire are not eternal, then neither is the heavenly bliss of the redeemed. For what thesis exists without antithesis?

And if someone does get extensive in their address of your doctrine...you ignore it. So what exactly is it that you want?

I can tell you, the same thing the cults want: people who will simply accept what they have to say without argument.

"Spending eternity in torment" is not something any Biblical passage actually says; the only possible passage you can possibly be alluding to is Rev 20:10, which is not about the fate of the wicked but about the fate of Satan, the Beast, and the False Prophet. Eternal torment is _never_ taught to be the fate of the wicked; death is.

I have several passages for you to address.

Here's another chance to show the error of the traditionalist:


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:


Now I think we can both agree that Hell was prepared for Satan and his angels, right? Where we might disagree (and concerning demons I have no idea because you have not addressed the first argument presented) is whether that judgment is unending or is final. Just note here in this verse that men are in view.

Here are some demons' reaction to the Lord:


Matthew 8:28-29

King James Version (KJV)


28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?


See the link, Tanksley.

Do you see that these demons know there is coming a time of torment, not annihilation? Where is the response to this issue already brought up in this discussion? Would you please give me a Post#?

But as I said, here is your chance to show the error of the traditional view.

Torment -- not eternal torment -- is the punishment for harming people, and is amplified by malice and by knowledge. Death is the punishment for sin against the creator.

Eternal Torment:


Revelation 20:10

King James Version (KJV)


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.


Notice that the Antichrist and False Prophet, both men, are in the Lake of Fire where Satan is cast.


Matthew 25:46

King James Version (KJV)

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


As Agedman pointed out, the same everlasting context applies to both the life of those who believe, as well as to those who go into everlasting punishment, torment, damnation, and separation from God. The finality of your view is not taught in Scripture, and that is why it has traditionally been considered false. I agree with him entirely that the reason some will ignore Scripture and adopt this false teaching is because they do not understand the Just nature of God and the demand of His Holy nature to judge sin. This shows sympathy for those who spit in the face of God and His Word, rather than accepting that which He has stated. God gives every man opportunity to be saved, but many will reject that opportunity.

Another picture Christ gives of man's state after death, which is within the framework of the Law, is seen here:


Luke 16:23-25

King James Version (KJV)


23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.


The rich man's spirit is not asleep, but in Hades (not to be confused with Hell, the Lake of Fire). He is tormented. And guess what...he is dead. Yet he still exists. Now when you can understand that everlasting torment means just that, then you will understand the teaching that is actually provided to us in Scripture.

And about out of time, I just ask at this point that you try quoting all your antagonist has to say, and addressing each point. If you do this, trust me, it will be to your benefit.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's OK as a kinda vague summary, sure. But it's not in the Bible; the Bible includes much more specific information.
That which I gave was exactly what the Bible states to us though!


And jesus made it quite clear that saints will have eternal life with Him right now on earth, and wil have it fully realized at the Second coming...

And jesus stated to us eternal blessing/punishment, SAME terminology for each time/ state after this life!

 

[Darrell C]

What are you even talking about?

Well, if you would address the posts you would work yourself through your confusion. Because if you quote in full it will limit much of the statements you make, and force you to actually address this from a Doctrinal perspective. So far you have continued to dodge the issues. You're not helping yourself.

I quoted that entire statement two or three times and asked you what you meant. You never gave me that grace; you pretended REPEATEDLY that I deny that people receive eternal life when they're saved. Unlike you, I never said anything LIKE that.

How is this...

You're the one who said that -- let me copy from your quote -- "Believers do not receive eternal life when they are resurrected."

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.

...quoting the entire statement? I see a comma after resurrected in what I actually said, whereas you have inserted a period. That is not a direct quote, nor is it quoting the entire statement. It is in fact an obvious restatement to justify yourself. And this is precisely what you are doing to Scripture itself.

I think this has been pointed out three times now and you are still denying your wresting of my statement.

As far as you denying that men receive eternal life when they are saved, you don't realize it, but by making a distinction between the life received and seeing it as literal in the resurrection (rather than the physical as contrasted with the spiritual, which has been your underlying failure in understanding Scripture)...that is precisely what you are doing.

You can't handle logic, you lie about what I say, you treat an accurate quote of yourself as though it were a personal offense.

So quote me where I lied. I wish you would. And you charge someone else with being vague? lol

I have an idea. You can't handle the Old Testament; so I'm going to exegete a long New Testament passage. Let's see if you just make excuses and avoid it, like you did with Psalm 73.

Here is more of your syllogistic approach at work. So now I can't handle the Old Testament. lol

And you, exegete? C'mon, Tanksley, you can't even follow the conversation, much less exegete the New Testament...



But have at it. It will likely evidence the same fundamental ignorance that is usually presented by those who do not properly distinguish between the eternal/spiritual and the physical/temporal, or between the understanding of men in the Old Testament and the understanding provided by New Testament Revelation.

You are basically wasting time, and will continue to do so until you learn to quote your antagonist and address what he actually says in it's context. You will save yourself some time and build your understanding. Right now you have the limited understanding that a carnal understanding affords. You can understand Scripture better if you simply recognize some basic truths.

Here are a few to consider:

1. The Old Testament deals primarily in physical terms;

2. The Old Testament does not reveal the mysteries that are revealed in the New Testament;

3. Revelation is progressive, and as new revelation is given, we better understand what came before.


It is not a matter of denying, or not being able to handle the Old Testament, but quite the opposite, it is keeping the Word of God within it's proper context/s so we don't make the blunders the cults make, and we will not be led astray unto damnable doctrines that contradict Scripture itself.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I do hope those links help you, but I'm writing it for people who wonder what type of Baptist can affirm conditional immortality.

I can answer that...no Baptist can embrace annihilation, and when he does, he should have the integrity to remove himself from the Baptist group he is pretending to be in agreement with.

The answer is that a 1644 LBCF Baptist can.

Could you show me annihilation in that confession?

In order to accept conditional immortality in a 1689 LBCF confessional church you'd have to talk to your elders and make sure they're OK with you not upholding the two articles that teach that every man is created immortal and that the wicked will be cast into everlasting torments -- some churches require "full subscription" so of course you cannot in good conscience stay, but most accept good-faith exceptions based on disagreements about Biblical texts.

Where does the "1689 LBCF confessional church" come into this and how is that relevant to what church you go to, or what kind of Baptist you claim to be?

Are you a member of the "1689 LBCF confessional church" or does your church use the same statement of belief?

It sounds like you don't actually know how churches work -- it's possible you're currently going to a church without any confession at all, or that you're going to one where agreement with the rulers is strictly enforced. Or, of course more likely, you just don't care and merely want to talk about how much you disagree with me.

Sadly, I do know how "churches work," and that among all groups there are those who disagree with something, or perhaps even many things their fellowship teaches. That's not surprising. But, that doesn't mean this would make someone afraid to publicly declare what church they go to, or post their statement of faith.

My guess is that the fellowship you go to teaches Eternal Punishment, thus you cannot post their statement of faith and belief, but have to search out an obscure statement of men long since dead.

I go to an independent fundamental Baptist Church, and while I too disagree with some of what is taught there, doesn't mean I am ashamed to post publicly what my church is...


Heritage Baptist Church


Here is their publicly displayed statement of belief:


What We Believe

THE BIBLE: We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, inerrant, complete and final revelation of God’s will to man, and the supreme standard to all faith and life. (Isaiah 40:8; II Timothy 3:16, 17; John 10:35; II Peter 1:19-21).



GOD: We believe in one God, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, manifesting himself in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; one in nature, attributes, power, and glory. (Genesis 1:1; Mark 12:39; Mathew. 28:19; II Corinthians 13:14; John 1:1-4, 14; John 5:17-27; Philippians 2: 6-11).



JESUS CHRIST: We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin, Mary, and that He is true God and true man. (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35; John 1:1-4,14; John 5:17-27; Philippians 2:6-11).



MAN: We believe that man was created in the image and likeness of God, that he sinned, and thereby incurred not only physical death, but also spiritual death, which is separation from God; that all human beings are born with a sinful nature and are sinners in thought, word, and deed. (Genesis 1:26; 2:7-9, 16, 17; 3:1-9; Psalm 14:3, 4; 51:5; 58:3; Romans 5:12; Ephesians 2:1-3).



SALVATION: We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures as a substitutionary sacrifice, and that all who believe-on Him are justified on the ground of His shed blood on the cross, and are saved by grace through faith, wholly apart from human-merit and works. (John 1:29; Acts 13:38, 39; 16:31; Romans 3: 21-28; Ephesians 2:8-10, Titus 3:3-8).



REGENERATION: We believe that all who receive the Lord Jesus Christ by faith are born again by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God, and thereby become children of God. (John 3:3-8, 14-16, 1:12, 13, 5:24; 10:28, 29; I Peter 1:23; II Peter 1:4-7; I John 3:1-3).



THE HOLY SPIRIT: We believe that the Holy Spirit is a divine person, and the administrator of the things of God: convincing of sin, revealing Christ, teaching the truth, restraining evil, energizing believers in prayer, worship and service, and is ever present in the believer as our comforter and helper. (Psalm 139:7-12; John 7:38, 39; 15:26; 16:13, 14; Acts 1:8; Romans 8:9; I Corinthians 6:19; II Thessalonians 2).



SATAN: We believe in the reality and personality of Satan: that he is a created being of beauty and power, the prince of this world, the god of this age, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; that he fell through pride, and that he will be judged and cast into the lake of fire. (Ezekiel 28:12-18; Isaiah 14:12-14; Job 1:6, 7; John 8:44; Ephesians 2:2; II Corinthians 4:4, 11, 13-15; Revelation 20:1-3, 7-10).



THE RETURN OF CHRIST: We believe in the resurrection of the crucified body of our Lord, His ascension into Heaven, His present life there for us as our High Priest and Advocate, and His personal, bodily, visible, premillenial return to establish His kingdom on earth, to reign as the only potentate: the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. (Luke 24:26-43; John 20:24-29; Acts 1:9, 10; I Corinthians 15:20-25; I Timothy 6:14, 15; Revelation 1:7; 19:11-16; 20:6).



THE RAPTURE OF THE CHURCH: We believe that at any moment the rapture of the saved may occur, when the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven. . . .” to catch up His people to meet Him in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (John 14:1-3; I Thessalonians 4:13-18; I Corinthians 15:51-58).



HEAVEN AND HELL: We believe in the bodily resurrection of all the dead: the saved, to a life of eternal glory and bliss in heaven with God; the unsaved, to eternal judgment of conscious suffering and woe in the lake of fire. (John 5:28-29; Revelation 20:6, 11-15, 21:1-8; Matthew 10:28, 18:8-9, 25:41 and 46; Mark 9:43-49; II Thessalonians 1:6-9).



EVANGELISM: We believe that it is the privilege and responsibility of every believer to be a personal soul winner and to do his utmost to give the Gospel of Christ to the whole world. (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 1:8; Matthew 4:19; John 17:18, 20:21 and II Corinthians 5:20).



SEPARATION: We believe that we are called to be a separated people to abide in Christ, to walk in the Spirit and to enjoy victory over the world, the flesh and the devil. (Romans 12:1-2; Galatians 5:16; I John 2:15- 17; Colossians 3:1-17 and II Corinthians 2:14).



OUR RESOLUTION ON SEPARATION: Whereas the practice of inclusivism is infiltrating fundamentalism, and whereas fundamentalism is a movement of separation, be it therefore resolved that we reaffirm our historic separatist position by observing Scripture.



(1) SEPARATION FROM DOCTRINAL SCHISMATICS AND APOSTATES:



1. “Mark them” (Philippians 3: 17-18) .

2. “Avoid them” (Romans 16: 17-18) .

3. “Identify them’! (I Timothy 1:20; II Timothy 1:15,4:14).

4. “From such turn away” ( I I Timothy 3: 5) .

5. “Reprove them” (Ephesians 5: 11) .

6. “Have no fellowship with them” (Ephesians 5: 11).

7. “Be not unequally yoked together with” (I I Corinthians 6: 14-16)

8. “Come out from among them” ( I I Corinthians 6: 17) .

9. “Reject them” (Titus 3: 10).



(2) SEPARATION FROM DISOBEDIENT SAINTS AND APPEASERS:



1. “Note that man” (I I Thessalonians 3: 14) .

2. “Withdraw yourself” ( I I Thessalonians 3: 14) .

3. “Have no company with” (I I Thessalonians 3: 14) .

4. “Rebuke them sharply” (Titus 1: 13) .

5. “Admonish him as a brother” ( I I Thessalonians 3: 15) .

6. “Count him not an enemy” (I I Thessalonians 3: 15).

7. “Keep not company” (I Corinthians 5: 11) .

8. “With such an one, no, not to eat” (I Corinthians 5: 11) .



(3) SEPARATION IN SOUL-WINNING ACTIVITY: Jude 22-23, “And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” Be it further resolved that while’ adhering to this separatist position, we “let brotherly love continue” – Hebrews 13:1.



ORDINANCES: We believe that there are two ordinances of the Church: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. We-believe that believer’s baptism by immersion is the scriptural mode. (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; I Corinthians 11:23-32 and Matthew 3:16).



ETERNAL SECURITY: We believe that all who have truly been born again by the Spirit of God through faith in Christ are eternally secure. We believe it is the privilege of all such to be assured of their present salvation and eternal security. (John 10:20-29, 5:24; II Timothy 1:12; Philippians 1:6 and Romans 8:33-39).



Feel free to take a look and disagree with anything if it conflicts with your own beliefs. Care to list your church and it's statement of faith?


God bless.

 

[wTanksley]

My statement is showing the implication of your doctrine.

Your multiple statements, all of which are wrong? Since they're wrong, they're showing that you're wrong about the implications of my doctrine.

Your church is the seven churches of London of 1644? I doubt that very much. Surely your fellowship has a more recent confession of faith?

Why on earth would we want a newer confession? Was something wrong with the old one? Why on earth would anyone DO that? Unless, of course, you disagree with the older confession. That's OK, a confession isn't the Bible. You're allowed to disagree.

I don't disagree with these older confessions. If you disagree you're allowed to write a new one and claim I violate THAT. You're not allowed to claim that means anything to me. I'm not bound by your confessions. Even YOU openly claim you're not bound by your confession.

My guess is that the fellowship you go to teaches Eternal Punishment, thus you cannot post their statement of faith and belief, but have to search out an obscure statement of men long since dead.

That so-called "guess" defies all the evidence you have. It's not even speculation; it's just motivated, wishful thinking on your part.

And in your teaching you have denied what is made clear in this confession, because you teach that men receive eternal life at the resurrection. Or am I not remembering this discussion too well?

I certainly believe men receive eternal life in the age to come, as Jesus says in Mark 10:30 (to name just one in the list of verses I gave). This confession doesn't appear to affirm anything opposed to that.

Nothing in what I have said even hints that I "assume only one can be true. lol

You directly state I'm denying present eternal life "because teach that men receive eternal life at the resurrection." As you say above and below. You couldn't come to that conclusion from that data without believing that only one can be true.

You're so confident in this conclusion that you think it overrides my _direct_ testimony about my own beliefs.

How is this... ...quoting the entire statement? I see a comma after resurrected in what I actually said, whereas you have inserted a period. That is not a direct quote, nor is it quoting the entire statement. It is in fact an obvious restatement to justify yourself.

A ... comma? A period? That's the best you have to show for yourself? And for THAT you're going to accuse me of misquoting you? That's astounding. Can you at least affirm the opposite of what that extracted quote actually says? I mean, if I'm really misquoting you, I MUST be making the quote mean something you reject. I've been working with you on this for days now, and you've been completely unable to reject the claim you protest against.

Here's the quote again, again, again (how many times have I put this EXACT quote in?):

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:

You actually made your claim here THE FOCAL ISSUE. You're DISAGREEING with me that the righteous receive eternal life in the age to come, and you're contradicting me by saying "Believers do not receive eternal life when they are resurrected", and you imagine you're supporting your disagreement by adding "they receive eternal life when they are saved" (even though you know I affirm that, so you should know it isn't a point of disagreement).

As far as you denying that men receive eternal life when they are saved, you don't realize it, but by making a distinction between the life received and seeing it as literal in the resurrection (rather than the physical as contrasted with the spiritual, which has been your underlying failure in understanding Scripture)...that is precisely what you are doing.

I just had to quote the whole thing in sequence -- that is the worst trainwreck of bad logic ever.

I affirm that the righteous receive eternal life when they know Christ, because that's what the Bible says. I don't need to agree with you precisely in how you fit those into a systematic theology UNLESS you can fit it into the Bible.

However, I'm curious. Do you affirm that believers receive eternal life _physically_ at the resurrection? Is that what you're trying to say? I can't quite tell, because your paragraph doesn't say, it just talks about a distinction without defining it.

So quote me where I lied.

Where you said that I deny present reception of eternal life. Since I not only don't deny it but actually affirm it and you know I affirm it, your continuing claim that I deny it is a lie.

If what you MEAN is that I'm being inconsistent, that's what you should _say_. You shouldn't claim I'm denying something that I openly affirm.

I can answer that...no Baptist can embrace annihilation, and when he does, he should have the integrity to remove himself from the Baptist group he is pretending to be in agreement with.

Yes, I recognize you believe that. Clearly in YOUR church that's true (it's what your confession says). But why should any other Baptist church do what you order us to do?

 

[wTanksley]

Well, I guess we can say that the Reformed are still Catholics, as well, right? I mean, if there is nothing wrong with taking a position that is contradictory to what has been traditionally held, and one can remain of that faith in doing so, then, okay...you are a Baptist.

The Lutherans and Reformed -- and Puritans -- all desperately wanted to be part of their original churches. The name Reformed actually _meant_ "Reformed Catholic". Since I am in full communion with and under the authority of my Baptist church (unlike, finally, all of the above), I am a Baptist.

Let me explain why a syllogistic approach is not good, my friend: the basic structure is simple, it has a major premise, and a minor premise, and a conclusion. This is contrasted with incorporating all relevant data to arrive at conclusions.

You're missing --- and it SHOWS in your example -- that the premises have to be related to the conclusion. This is how you can tell that the premises are "relevant".

You give a brilliant example of an absurd conclusion that flows from your failure to apply logic. Syllogisms are bad, you say, because they have <a specific structure>. Your logic is good, on the other hand, because it incorporates "all relevant data". Consistently with your claim, you aren't presenting a valid logical argument; as a result, your desired conclusion does not follow even if all of your claims are true. The fact that syllogisms have a structure isn't _relevant_ to the conclusion you're trying to present.

Now, let's take a look at one of your conclusions, and outline it:
Major Premise: Darrell C says men gain eternal life when they are saved;
Minor Premise: Darrell C did not include wTanksleys' belief that men receive eternal life at physical resurrection;
Conclusion: Darrel C said "men do not receive eternal life when they are resurrected."

That's not syllogistic, and it's not my argument.

The "major premise" is something both of us agree on, so it's not even a distinguishing point.

Your "minor premise" is factually incorrect -- the problem I repeatedly explained is not a lack of inclusion, but your direct written denial that Christians receive eternal life when resurrected, together with a repeated claim that I'm wrong when I say they do. So the so-called major premise never comes into play -- the so-called conclusion is directly in the minor premise, rather than following the alleged logic.

I did a post that discussed that. Could you give me a post # where you addressed my response?

Yes, you did quite a bit of posts ignoring my direct quotes of you directly saying exactly what you denied saying. I addressed them all over and over by re-quoting you. You're not performing logic; you're denying reality.

Now I think we can both agree that Hell was prepared for Satan and his angels, right?

No. "Hell", whether gehenna or hades, is never once in the Bible connected to Satan or angels. Look it up -- there are only 12 mentions of "gehenna" and 2 of "hades" in the NT. The eternal fire is connected to Satan and his angels; and the lake of fire is; but not hell. Our only description of Satan in the eternal fire (Rev 20:10) shows him being tormented forever and ever; but our only description of people in eternal fire says that it actually was poured on Sodom and burnt them to ashes, making them an example of what will happen to the wicked.

Where we might disagree (and concerning demons I have no idea because you have not addressed the first argument presented) is whether that judgment is unending or is final. Just note here in this verse that men are in view.

The verse clearly says unending. Capital punishment is intrinsically unending; so would be keeping people alive in mere imprisonment; so would keeping them alive to torment them. Merely saying "unending" isn't enough to distinguish between our positions (although it completely crushes universalism); the crucial thing is that the punishment is a deprivation of living, which means death; and that it's in the eternal fire, which according to Jude and 2Peter, results in men turning to ashes.

We've already discussed all of this, and your "arguments" consisted only of denials. This is the problem with responding to everything you post -- you don't return the favor (you've never responded to most of my exegesis), and you post re-re-retreads of old claims you made without even touching on the counterclaims I made.

Do you see that these demons know there is coming a time of torment, not annihilation?

Wait. "Torment, not annihilation"? Where did the "not annihilation" come from? Torment and annihilation can both be true! In fact, Jesus confronts other demons (Mark 1:24) who say almost the same thing, except that they DO say "destruction" rather than mentioning torment. The only way they can all be true is if the demons expect Jesus to torment them and then destroy them.

Notice that the Antichrist and False Prophet, both men, are in the Lake of Fire where Satan is cast.

The Beast has seven heads that are mountains and kings, which isn't a description of a person. The False prophet is a beast with two horns. They do at times represent humans (particularly the 8th king); but your assumption cannot hold in every passage, and there's no reason to suppose it holds true here.

As Agedman pointed out, the same everlasting context applies to both the life of those who believe, as well as to those who go into everlasting punishment, torment, damnation, and separation from God.

Nope -- only the "punishment" is said to be everlasting, and the punishment is antithetical to continuing life. Never in the Bible is everlasting torment predicted for people; and nowhere is separation from God said to be everlasting (in fact, there's no place that can possibly be separate from God; Psalm 137:8).

The rich man's spirit is not asleep, but in Hades (not to be confused with Hell, the Lake of Fire). He is tormented.

The rich man's BODY is there too -- a tongue, at least. So's Lazarus' finger. And yes, he's awake. All of this is surprising, and you're just picking the parts that don't surprise you. The overall scene fits right into the prophet's pictures, not of sheol, but of the final judgment when the Lord comes with fire -- except for the second half, which cannot fit into the prophecies of that time.

But Jesus has a purpose for the second half; He uses it to explicitly warn against people preaching this story as a warning about hell when he ends the parable with the magnificent punch line: ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’ In other words, you don't convert people by convincing them about an elaborate picture of hell; you convert them with the Law and the Prophets. The same ones you explicitly refused to address when I exegeted the Psalms, remember?

And guess what...he is dead. Yet he still exists.

The rich man in this story not only _exists_ but is both _alive_ and embodied, after he died. This looks like resurrection.

And what you're missing is that although he's in torment without the ability to escape or be relieved, he's not said to be in endless torment. His request for a drop of water parallels Christ's request once He knew he would die, and there's absolutely no explanation for either one aside from believing that death was imminent, so that the tiny relief would last until death. The normal, expected result of being in torment in flames is to die; your assumption that he'll continue forever in the same state is purely conjectural.

Now when you can understand that everlasting torment means just that, then you will understand the teaching that is actually provided to us in Scripture.

And when YOU can admit that torment forever and ever is mentioned only for three beings, and everlasting torment is NEVER mentioned, you will understand why I'm not impressed with your empty claims about what a phrase that doesn't appear in the Bible means.