conditional immortality

[Darrell C]

Another issue you should resolve in order to understand this better is...

...when are men placed in the Book of Life?

I would suggest to you that all men are in the Book of Life, and that the "Lamb's Book of Life" is specific to those who are saved, but, does not detract from the general principle taught in Scripture that men are in the Book of Life, and are blotted out depending on their obedience to God's will.

I don't think this is relevant to the issue, but what you're describing is impossible. John says that ALL people on earth, EXCEPT those written in the book of life from the foundations of the world, will worship the beast.

Rev 17:8 "The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come."

Rev 13:8 "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain."

So it's not possible that EVERYONE starts out written in it; that would mean NOBODY would worship, because none of them were NOT written from the foundation.

However, again, I don't think this actually is relevant -- it's just that you seem to think it is.

They are not written in the Book of Life from the foundations of the world the same way these...


Matthew 25:34
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:


Was the Kingdom already in place? We know He is not speaking about the spiritual Kingdom all believers enter into upon salvation, but it is either the Millennial Kingdom or the Eternal State. Seeing that Christ went to prepare that place for us when He returned to Heaven, the most probable Kingdom in view is the Millennial Kingdom, which fits within the framework of the Covenant of Law, which is what Christ ministered under.


Ephesians 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:


Again we see the foreknowledge of God. But we know that it is not fulfilled until each individual is born and comes to saving faith in Christ.


Hebrews 4:3
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.


So when did the Rest of Christ become available? It was not when they entered into the promised land, but when men began entering into Christ Himself. Yet this is viewed as finished from the foundation of the world.


1 Peter 1:20
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,


Again, we see something from before the foundation of the world fulfilled at a later time.

Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Again the foreknowledge of God is in view, and this is a statement that marks the certainty of their destruction. Again...can't be blotted out of the Book of Life if you were never in there, and every single member of the lost will be blotted out.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Of course that's true -- the normal state of man is mortality, doomed to die and forbidden to live forever (Genesis 3:22ff).

So said the Sadducees.



Mark 12:26-27

King James Version (KJV)

26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.


And this is really the central focus for what I have been saying. You say man's state is mortality, yet you fail to see that man has a spirit that Christ teaches...does not cease to exist. Just as the spirits of men do not cease to exist at physical death, neither will they cease to exist when they are bodily resurrected.

The extraordinary gift of God is that we should not perish, but have everlasting life. To be raised to life, and never to die, _conditional_ on believing in Christ, having Christ's completed work applied to us (John 11).

Now let's look at something that seems contradictory to Christ's statement above (He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living):


John 6:49

King James Version (KJV)

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


When you are able to clarify the context, you will see that there is a life and death that exists outside of the physical.

Thus, heaven is indeed conditional.

I agree one hundred percent:


1 Peter 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.


The conditions are believe the Gospel, repent and turn to Christ in faith.

What did you have in mind?

Wink

But "conditional" doesn't mean temporary -- I think you'd better look up the word.

Could you show me "conditional" or temporary in Scripture? And tell me where exactly you think he/I should look them up?

It means that it's the opposite of universal. Both you and universalists believe that God will keep the wicked alive and conscious forever;

Actually, Universalists believe that God will save everyone in the end. Which is another false doctrine created out of a refusal to take God at His Word.

we conditionalists alone deny that.

A number of cults deny that Eternal Damnation is eternal, lol.

We claim that God will slay the wicked on the Day of Judgment.

You're not alone in that view, but, you have no basis for this doctrine.

And one of the problems is apparently you do not understand how the word "day" is used in Scripture. If you think "day" is restricted to a particular day, this will impact your understanding of a number of key passages.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

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.

Darrell, do you see that this is missing the entire point the OP is making? He and I are claiming that the persons of men ARE mortal and corruptible, and that your side is making a mistake in assuming without any Biblical evidence that they're immortal and/or indestructible. So unless you have scriptural support for the claim they're not, your statement "we know, as I have said", is just repeating your own personal beliefs rather than knowledge.

We do _not_ "know" this unless we find it in the Bible. And it is _not_ in the Bible.

We do know. At least those of us that are able to understand the concepts as they are presented by Scripture.

As far as men being "mortal and corruptible," I would agree with both of you, but, when you deny that the spirit of a man will never cease to exist, that's where I take issue.

Secondly, I made it clear in my first post I do not view men as "immortal" in the sense of being eternal, that nature is ascribed only to God.

Here is what I said:

Immortality can be seen in both the saved and the lost, because based on Christ's teaching we know the lost will suffer eternal punishment, which is described as unending. But, only those brought into union with God have eternal life, and this is because they are in relationship with He that is the source of eternal life, being the Only One Who is eternal.

This is looking at man's condition from the eternal persepctive, and has in view his spirit, not simply his physical nature.

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 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.

Yet you go on to impose into what I have said an intent that men receive glorification in the same sense as believers.

And quite a bit of time has been wasted.

The point being missed is that depsite having physical life...men can be termed dead.

I'm not "missing" that point. I responded to it directly, and you haven't replied -- you actually replied to irrelevant text around it. Men can be "termed dead" even while they're alive, but only in figurative language. In reality, being dead and being alive are mutually exclusive.

Not sure how you can say I haven't replied. I am guessing that you saw my reply as irrelevant because you are not grasping what is being said.

Here you say "being dead and being alive are mutually exclusive" which shows...

...you are still missing it.

Being dead and being alive are not mutually exclusive, lol. For Pete's sake, I have just spent two pages providing Scripture that shows you the error of such a statement. You write it off as figurative, and all I can say ask is...

...since when does teaching employing figurative language still not remain a teaching?

This...


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.


...is not figurative. Christ is literally saying, with literal meaning, "If a man does not believe in my death...he has no life."

In fact, in Romans 6 Paul explicitly calls Christians "dead." This is every bit as obviously a metaphor as Ephesians and Galatians use about the unsaved being dead. It does _not_ mean that we should ignore all of the explicit teaching about death and life the Bible gives.

I would ask that you actually start quoting me in full, instead of cherry-picking the parts you think you can answer, and to actually be a little more specific if you are going to quote a passage, but I know that is a request that will not likely be fulfilled.

You give Romans 6 as an example, so now tell me...were these Christians dead when they were saved? If so...how?

Apparently you do not take Scripture's view of man literally, but instead see it as figurative, rather than literal. But it is literal, before men are saved they are spiritually dead.

And by the way, the context of Romans 6 is not relevant: in view is our death to sin. That does not bear on our being spiritually dead.

It does _not_ mean that we should ignore all of the explicit teaching about death and life the Bible gives.

That is funny, lol. You are denying a literal application to men being dead in sins, and you are going to charge me with ignoring all of the explicit teaching about death and life? Too rich.

So tell me again, when does a man have eternal life?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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.

You admitted I was right with your very first reply -- the Bible normally uses "the dead" not to mean unbelievers' lack of spiritual life, but to mean people who actually died. This is contextually the case here -- and we've been over this many, many times. Both the saved and the unsaved in this passage are explicitly called "the dead", and both receive a resurrection that raises them from the dead.

Could you quote me as saying "the Bible normally uses "the dead" not to mean unbelievers' lack of spiritual life, but to mean people who actually died?"

I'd like to see that.

Secondly, since I have to weed through this cherry-picked response, and you completely obscure the context (which is another reason the same issues are having to be reiterated), would you mind telling me why you are still missing the point here?

I never said the Tribulation Martyrs were not dead, in fact pointed out that they are raised physically, which is not to be confused with them being raised spiritually in regeneration (that is, new birth, in case you are not sure what I mean).

Contextually both are dead physically, yes, but that is not the point. The point is, again...the unbelievers never had life, the believers did, that is why they are raised bodily at this time and the unbelievers are not.

They are dead. Dead in the sense Christ speaks of for those who reject Him. Those who do not believe.

The rest of Revelation explains how they differ; the people who are not touched by the second death are the ones who overcome. They're the ones whose names were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.

Agreed, now if you could just combine what you say here with what you are actually teaching, lol.

You need to understand how one overcomes, and when one is written in the Book of Life.

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.

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."

John teaches this in Revelation, the Gospel of John, and 1 John...quite explicitly.

He makes it clear who has life and who does not have life.

Here's another relevant verse:


1 John 5:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.


It doesn't get any simpler than that.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Those who are raised in the First Resurrection had life before they were resurrected, Tanksley. That is the central focus here.

That may be _true_, Darrell, and I'm willing to discuss it; but it's not "the central focus" of John in Revelation. It's not something he mentions or alludes to. Your attempt to make it the central focus simply distracts from John's actual teaching, and also from our discussion here. This is a serious problem, Darrell, because it's a consistent one in your Scriptural interpretation: you ignore clear teaching passages on the actual topic at hand, in favor of vague implications contained in passages that don't make the distinction.

It is the central focus...only those who are in Christ are raised in the First Resurrection, just as only those who are in Christ are raised at the Rapture.

How that impacts the OPs topic is...

...central.

And I agree, it is a serious problem for your doctrine.

Again, you are missing the fact that one receives eternal life when they are born again, and while we await the resurrection of our bodies, it is much like those who are destroyed when Christ returns, going into everlasting punishment. It is not the culmination of what will be fulfilled, but you can't change it to mean they don't go into everlasting punishment (and endure one thousand years in that state) any more than you can change those who are born again have life.

This distinguishes, on an eternal and spiritual level, the dead from the living.


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)


If one is made alive with Christ...what was he before he was made alive, Tanksley?

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 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.

Only one is true, your doctrine is in error.

Both statements are not made in any passage.

You simply do not understand that eternal life begins at regeneration, which makes the dead alive (literally, not figuratively), and that we await the redemption of our bodies doesn't change that.

Of course there is a future fulfillment we await on, but that is a determined outcome. That doesn't mean we do not recognize that believers are made alive when they are born again, and unbelievers remain dead until salvation.

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.

And God does kill as a punishment for sin. This is true for both believers and unbelievers alike...in any Age. It is simply a Basic Bible Principle.

I don't know where you got the idea that it's a "basic Bible principle"

From the Bible, lol.

You want to tell me a period when this...


Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


...is not true?

Honestly, do you make all of your antagonists repeat the same things over and over, or am I just special? lol

-- maybe from Job's comforters who were certain that God normatively punishes the wicked. To say that God kills to punish sin in this age overlooks that God takes credit for ALL deaths in this age, and even for all sparrows falling and all hairs falling out.

You are seriously confused. You cannot even distinguish between God judging sin in men's lives and the consequences of sin in general.

So you feel God takes credit for all deaths? Even the sparrows? Got a verse for that?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Simply knowing that God approved of a person's death doesn't tell you whether the person is righteous or unrighteous!

Again...seriously confused.

This...


2 Peter 3:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

...is the God of the Bible.

I am not familiar with the god you speak of, who "takes credit for all deaths" and "approves of deaths."

All men who are put to death by God have received fair warning, and because they have rejected His will they have brought this upon themselves.

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.

If you ACTUALLY had some clear terms, why don't you quote them? I quoted mine. Show me a verse that teaches the wicked are durable.

For what purpose?

Go back and look at the Scripture you did not quote and the context they were presented in and the associated points.

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.

Again, your conclusion precedes your logic. Their bodies (and souls) being destroyed is an essential part of their everlasting punishment. There's nothing left of them.

Oh, so my "conclusion preceded my logic" before? lol

Do tell. But thanks for ascribing me with using logic.



And are you retracting that which you "loved" that I knew? That the "soul" refers to the person?

Or do you want to persist in defining "lost" as though it were a coin misplaced, or a person unsure of where they are?

The destruction imposed on both soul (the person) and the body (in the context deprived of spirit because the soul has been killed by men) is described in terms of everlasting. I have given a number of reasons why I take that view yet you have not addressed them sufficiently tha your doctrine might be deemed credible. Rather, you have presented an opinion based on incredible reasoning (and I use that term loosely, lol).

When Christ returns, men go into everlasting punishment. There is one thousand years separating their physical deaths and the second death.

Do you see that everlasting punishment begins then...according to the Word of Lord?

But you can go back and view the arguments presented, I've wasted enough time.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

They are burned up, to be sure, but, that burning does not end.

The fire is eternal, yes; it isn't quenched, and their worm doesn't die. But the fire was eternal when it burned Sodom, and incinerated them to ashes, making them an example of the punishment of eternal fire. The fire is still eternal, but it's not burning them -- it already reduced them to ashes, which is the entire point Peter makes in 2 Peter 2:6: "if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly..."

Got a verse that shows the physical cities received eternal fire? That was a physical judgment, lol. Surely you don't mean that by imposing "extinction" into this verse that you are proof-texting your argument?

And which translation is that?

The "overthrow" refers to what took place, that is the example of what will happen for the ungodly:


2 Peter 2

King James Version (KJV)


6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;


And just to bring that home in the context of this discussion...


Matthew 10:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.


...there was no extinction except on a physical level. That is the example.

So why is it important that the fire is eternal? Because the eternal fire is unquenchable, unstoppable. Nothing can survive that is thrown into it; it doesn't dim or wane, ever. In fact, Hebrews 12:29 draws the book to a close with a warning that it is God Himself who is the consuming fire.

Nothing can survive?

And you equate God with Hell?

As shown before, men and demons will receive the same fate. Christ, Peter, and Jude, not to mention John...all make that clear. And I have quote a number of passages and presented points, so you can review, and perhaps see again why you have cherry-picked my posts.

Consider:


Revelation 14:9-11

King James Version (KJV)

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.


Notice that it is the smoke of their torment that ascends forever. Not hard to see that the torment, as Christ taught...is everlasting.

No wonder Luke 12, Luke's ONLY mention of gehenna, is so clear that people are killed before being thrown into gehenna. And look at the context: Luke (and Matthew 10) both emphasize Christ's point that His preachers will be threatened with death by men, and they must not try to save their lives by denying Christ, or God will see to it that they lose their lives (or in some of the verses, "lose himself"). The punishment is exactly parallel to the crime -- try to save your life, and you will lose it; except where men can only take your life subject to God's authority, God can take life in a complete and utter way. (This last point is one of the reasons universalism is such a bad understanding of final punishment -- universalism presupposes that God's ultimate punishment is LESS permanent than man's ultimate punishment.)

Your doctrine does not allow you to see what He is saying:


Luke 12

King James Version (KJV)

4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.

5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.


Note two things, already mentioned, but I think I'm getting used to this reiteration, lol: first, only the body is said in Matthew and Luke to be "killed." Secondly, Your very point implies endurance after being "killed."

In other words, if annihilation were in view...why go through the trouble of sending them to Hades? Those who went into Hades thousands of years ago will suffer less than Hitler, or Stalin?

No fear to be generated by annihilation, and in fact this is good reason for some to commit suicide, because there is no consequence. Your doctrine, as I said before, destroys the whole point of the warning.


Also, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and James are the only ones who use the word gehenna, so...does this mean they are the only ones who spoke of Hell?

And honestly...

And look at the context: Luke (and Matthew 10) both emphasize Christ's point that His preachers will be threatened with death by men, and they must not try to save their lives by denying Christ, or God will see to it that they lose their lives (or in some of the verses, "lose himself").

Christ is saying "Hey, you guys preaching for Me, don't try to save your lives or I will kill you and cast you into Hell."

Seriously?

Now, I understand that you want to talk about "eternal life", but as I've shown above, your theology has blinded you to the clear teaching of the Bible that we (in one sense) HAVE eternal life; and (in another sense) will be given eternal life as an inheritance in the eternal Kingdom. This means that we cannot distinguish between your view and my view using ONLY the teachings about "eternal life". The only reason you think it would work is that you didn't bother looking up how the words are actually used; you imagined that you knew because someone had taught you an incomplete systematic theology and you didn't ever check it against the Bible.

Okay, my theology has blinded me, lol.

Maybe someday I will "look up" those verses.

And that is about it for me with you, Tanksley.

Please share exactly what kind of Baptist you are, if you don't mind. Not often I run into a "Baptist" that refuses to state what kind of Baptist he is, so of course, that, coupled with your doctrine, brings that claim into question. I do understand there are those who adopt the name "Baptist," but that doesn't make them any more Baptist than the claim of Jehovah's Witnesses to being Christian. We judge what something is by their doctrine, and when that doctrine comes into conflict with Scripture...we not only have a right to judge, but a duty to do so. Not just for our sake, but for the sake of those in view, as well as those who fall under their teachings.


God bless.

 

[wTanksley]

If you're actually serious that your claims about "eternal life" are your focus, you won't just _consider_ looking at the verses that mention it; you'll actually read them. I'm going to present them to any interested readers.

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:

Now, look closely at your claim that "believers do not receive eternal life when they are resurrected"; here's mine:

he [John] 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.

So you believe that eternal life is NOT given at the resurrection; you believe it's ONLY given now. I believe both are true in different senses, but the primary sense is that eternal life lasts forever (because that's what "eternal" means), and that it's life, which involves (but is NOT limited to) not falling down dead.

Let's get a little more specific:

Those who trust in Christ, that is, they believe He died for them and place their faith in Him...will never die, because they have eternal life. That eternal life is bestowed when believers are placed in Christ, which is identical in meaning to the eternal indwelling of God, which is the guarantee we have concerning the Security of Salvation in Christ.

Here your claims are true, but you're missing the entire point. Yes, we have a "guarantee ... concerning the Security of Salvation" -- but what's more, we also have a _salvation_ that's being guaranteed. THIS is the eternal life we will receive at the Resurrection, and THAT is the importance of your denial.

I've just done a search for all verses containing "eternal life", and I'm going to present the ones that _clearly_ teach believers will receive eternal life in the next age, and some that _also_ contrast that to the fate of the wicked, which is to be given death (not to remain dead, as you claim).

Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”​

These righteous people were giving every sign of having eternal life in them at present (they were Christ's), but here their eschatological reward is eternal life. And nobody receives eternal life at the judgment who didn't believe while in the body (I've noticed you correctly affirm that).

Mar 10:30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.​

Again, an eschatological promise, and one in clear contrast to the sufferings most Christians experience in the Church Age. This is the future gift of "eternal life" that you claim is never taught in Scripture.

Joh 12:25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.​

Not only is this another promise of "eternal life" in the future, this is also very similar to the teaching you mocked in Matt 10 and Luke 12, where Christ warns His missionaries that if they seek to save their lives they'll lose them. If you'd read those passages instead of just saying "Seriously?", you'd see that this is correct: Christ tells His followers that He's offering them the chance to live forever, but when they betray Him in the face of lethal threats (in other words, trying to save their own lives) they will receive death (lose their lives).

A believer in the Hope of eternal life would not care what men threatened -- he'd know that Jesus would give him life even if men took it away. But an unbeliever has to protect his own life, because he doesn't trust Christ.

Rom 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;​

Again, a future promise of eternal life. Contrast this to the almost immediately preceding passage according to which it is "God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die" -- not that they ARE DEAD but that they DESERVE TO DIE. And the rest of the chapter likewise promises that those who know the Law are judged according to the Law (i.e. they deserve to die), while those who do not know the Law perish (which means to experience death).

Rom 6:22-23 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

A future promise of receiving eternal life -- and that eternal life is the alternative to receiving the wages of sin, which is death. Note that if "death" here simply meant our state at birth it wouldn't be "wages of sin", since "wages" are what's paid to someone who's earned them.

Gal 6:8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.​

This is unmistakable: not only that eternal life is a future promise (which completely destroys your self-titled "focus"), and not only that "eternal life" is opposed to "corruption" (as in what a dead body does in the grave), but also that this corruption is passed on from the body to the whole person (body and spirit).

Tit 3:7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.​

And again, not to miss one more: the hope of eternal life is, as Paul said in Romans 8:24, "once seen, no longer hope."

 

[wTanksley]

Got a verse that shows the physical cities received eternal fire? That was a physical judgment, lol. Surely you don't mean that by imposing "extinction" into this verse that you are proof-texting your argument?

OK... I didn't expect to look those up for you, but here you go. First 2Peter 2:6, which says that God condemned the cities to destruction/extinction by reducing them to ashes, thereby making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly (i.e., they'll also be reduced to ashes). Of course, since you claim I'm making that up I'll provide multiple translations:

English Standard Version
if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
Berean Study Bible
if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, reducing them to ashes as an example of what is coming on the ungodly;
Berean Literal Bible
and He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, having reduced them to ashes, having set an example of what is coming on the ungodly;
New American Standard Bible
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
Holman Christian Standard Bible
and if He reduced the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes and condemned them to ruin, making them an example to those who were going to be ungodly;
International Standard Version
and if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and destroyed them by burning them to ashes, making them an example to ungodly people of what is going to happen to them;​

OK! Next you asked for "a verse that says the physical cities received eternal fire". Keep in mind that Jude and 2Peter are parallel here -- 2Peter is probably quoting Jude to make a similar point:

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.​

Notice here that they are "set forth as an example", or "are on display as an example." The word for "example" there -- look it up in Greek -- means something that fits into the category, not something that's merely similar. This means they actually had eternal fire fall on them, and that is what's "set forth" for us -- but where exactly is that "set forth"? In the Bible. If you believe Genesis, and if you also believe Jude, then it follows that you now believe that Sodom had eternal fire fall on them and leave nothing more than a black spot on the plains and smoke rising. If you also believe 2Peter, you also believe that it's the turning into ashes by an overthrow that's the example they're providing of what's going to happen to the wicked.

I believe Genesis, and Jude, and 2Peter. Because of that, I don't believe your made-up stuff about the wicked somehow being transformed into stuff tough enough to last through the divine wrath.

 

[TCassidy]

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Metonymy.

 

[Darrell C]

So you believe that eternal life is NOT given at the resurrection; you believe it's ONLY given now.

Again, you impose into my view something that is not there, but in fact your own words.

Eternal Life is ultimately fulfilled in the Eternal State, and at that time we will have our resurrection bodies.

But eternal life begins the moment we believe. That is just basic.

Now, what kind of Baptist are you again?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

OK... I didn't expect to look those up for you, but here you go. First 2Peter 2:6, which says that God condemned the cities to destruction/extinction by reducing them to ashes, thereby making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly (i.e., they'll also be reduced to ashes). Of course, since you claim I'm making that up I'll provide multiple translations:

English Standard Version
if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
Berean Study Bible
if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, reducing them to ashes as an example of what is coming on the ungodly;
Berean Literal Bible
and He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, having reduced them to ashes, having set an example of what is coming on the ungodly;
New American Standard Bible
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
Holman Christian Standard Bible
and if He reduced the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes and condemned them to ruin, making them an example to those who were going to be ungodly;
International Standard Version
and if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and destroyed them by burning them to ashes, making them an example to ungodly people of what is going to happen to them;
OK! Next you asked for "a verse that says the physical cities received eternal fire". Keep in mind that Jude and 2Peter are parallel here -- 2Peter is probably quoting Jude to make a similar point:

I still think you are making up whatever you think will help justify your doctrine.

You still haven't provided a verse that states the physical cities received eternal fire. The reference to Sodom and Gomorrha deals with the people...not the physical cities.

Secondly...the turning to ashes refers to the event itself, so we don't erase the rest of the teachings of Scripture and justify annihilation with this one verse.

Third, the translation "extinction," which you have noted several times, does not have an eternal context, because they were not annihilated when judgment fell on them in their physical bodies. Not only does Jude make this clear, but so does the Lord:


Matthew 10:15
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.


While they may have been made "extinct" in the physical sense, they are awaiting Hell.

Lastly, Christ presents the principle of varying degrees of punishment in Hell. How will it be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha if everyone is "burned to ashes?"

OK! Next you asked for "a verse that says the physical cities received eternal fire". Keep in mind that Jude and 2Peter are parallel here -- 2Peter is probably quoting Jude to make a similar point:

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Notice here that they are "set forth as an example", or "are on display as an example." The word for "example" there -- look it up in Greek -- means something that fits into the category, not something that's merely similar. This means they actually had eternal fire fall on them, and that is what's "set forth" for us -- but where exactly is that "set forth"? In the Bible. If you believe Genesis, and if you also believe Jude, then it follows that you now believe that Sodom had eternal fire fall on them and leave nothing more than a black spot on the plains and smoke rising. If you also believe 2Peter, you also believe that it's the turning into ashes by an overthrow that's the example they're providing of what's going to happen to the wicked.

"Look it up?"

Can you tell me where you got your definition for example?

Let's see it used here:


Hebrews 8:5

King James Version (KJV)

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.


Yet you deny that they are an example, but impose a reality to them. We find the type in the physical, the anti-type in the spiritual/eternal.

Did the buildings of the city give themselves over to fornication and go after strange flesh? No, it was the people, and the people...did not cease to exist. They have been all these years in torment. When they are cast into the Lake of Fire, according to Christ, they will not receive a judgment as bad as those who reject Christ.

Again, the destruction imposed on them was physical, not eternal. What is eternal is the destruction those who live ungodly will also face...on an eternal level.

I believe Genesis, and Jude, and 2Peter.

Doesn't appear that you do. Your doctrine teaches the fire is quenched, the worms dies, the smoke of their torment does not rise up forever, and in general, that everlasting damnation is not everlasting.

Now you compound your error by saying that eternal life is not eternal life.

I don't believe your made-up stuff about the wicked somehow being transformed into stuff tough enough to last through the divine wrath.

It's a basic principle that only cults reject.

As I said, cults have made great inroads into the Body, infecting it with their damnable doctrine of demons. They do not want people to fear eternal damnation, but give them ease in their conscience concerning the fate that awaits them.

Could you do me a favor, now that I've asked four times, and tell me what Baptist Group you are a part of. It seems more that you are a member of another group with the intention of teaching doctrine which is not Baptist.


God bless.

 

[agedman]

BOTH eternal life and eternal punishment are ETERNAL.

There can be NO "conditional immortality" in which the lost cease to exist. For then the statement of Christ of the ETERNITY of both those who have life and those who do not would be considered unreliable.

Matt 25:46

“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
​

The punishment of the second death is eternal. One does not CEASE in that place anymore than one ceases in the place of eternal life. Those in that eternal punishment remain as long as the righteous remain in the new heaven and earth. Eternally

IMO, "Conditional Immorality" should be condemned as a heretical teaching that departs from the truth of Scriptures and embraces error. But, that is only my opinion.​

 

[Darrell C]

BOTH eternal life and eternal punishment are ETERNAL.

There can be NO "conditional immortality" in which the lost cease to exist. For then the statement of Christ of the ETERNITY of both those who have life and those who do not would be considered unreliable.

Matt 25:46
“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
The punishment of the second death is eternal. One does not CEASE in that place anymore than one ceases in the place of eternal life. Those in that eternal punishment remain as long as the righteous remain in the new heaven and earth. Eternally

Agreed. That is the point I have tried to make, lol.

IMO, "Conditional Immorality" should be condemned as a heretical teaching that departs from the truth of Scriptures and embraces error. But, that is only my opinion.

It's not just your opinion, my friend. The destruction of the spirit has been considered heresy long before this modern age in which the doctrines of cults and "isms" wormed their way into "Christian" circles.

The Doctrine of Hell is a doctrine feared by Satan, because he knows that when God enlightens men to the reality of everlasting punishment they will repent.

The "fear of God" has for far too long dismissed as "reverent awe" when is is spiritually healthy for men to understand that God will judge sin justly, and that when He does that mankind stands no chance apart from the Savior God.

Christ makes that clear:


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.



Proverbs 1:7

King James Version (KJV)

7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.



God bless.

 

[wTanksley]

Again, you impose into my view something that is not there, but in fact your own words.

The claim is not only sourced from a direct quote, I quoted it with a proper link. Here's the quote again:

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:

Not only is it a direct quote, it's the absolutely essential underpinning of the argument you called your "focus". So when you admit the following:

Eternal Life is ultimately fulfilled in the Eternal State, and at that time we will have our resurrection bodies.

...you are admitting something you mocked and scorned me for saying: that Christians are given a gift at the Resurrection that's called "eternal life". Furthermore, it's PROPERLY called eternal life, because after we're given that we will actually live forever in the literal sense of the words. Unbelievers are never promised any part of this resurrection-day gift; on the contrary, they are told they'll last a short time.

But eternal life begins the moment we believe. That is just basic.

It's so basic that I keep agreeing. It's never been a point of difference between us. The point of difference is that you deny we receive incorruption through the gift of eternal life at the Resurrection, while the Bible and I think we will.

I still think you are making up whatever you think will help justify your doctrine.

You're replying directly to me quoting several Bible translations to show that all those translators think that the way I quoted that verse is correct. Your beliefs are so alien to the Bible that your beliefs cause you to claim 2Peter is made up by an annihilationist. Well... you're right, the apostle Peter was a conditionalist, and he's the man who wrote 2Peter.

You still haven't provided a verse that states the physical cities received eternal fire. The reference to Sodom and Gomorrha deals with the people...not the physical cities.

How exactly is this goalpost moving supposed to help your argument? Jude 1:7 _clearly_ teaches that S&G are "set forth as an example" of undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. You want to claim that the "example" is something that's never mentioned in the Bible, and is therefore completely invisible to us? That means it's not "set forth" at all.

Secondly...the turning to ashes refers to the event itself, so we don't erase the rest of the teachings of Scripture and justify annihilation with this one verse.

Of course turning to ashes is an "event". According to 2Peter2, it's an event which was like the event that will happen to the wicked on the Day of the Lord. That's what Peter says -- that IN TURNING THEM TO ASHES God made them an example of what will happen to the wicked. Notice that it's not hurting them, or turning them into spirits that's like what happens to the wicked; it's turning them to ashes.

And "the rest of the teachings of Scripture" are is composed of passages like this one. It's SO easy to CLAIM "the rest of the teachings of Scripture", but I can exegete passages while you make claims. All you can find is verses that _indirectly suggest_ -- but I find verses that _directly teach_. The entire thing with "eternal life" is an example of you trying to find an indirect suggestion that the wicked MIGHT be given incorruptible bodies.

There are hundreds of verses that teach the wicked will be killed, destroyed, or are like things that burn up; hundreds of verses that say there will be no evil or suffering in the New Creation. There are several verses that say everything will be in union and harmony with God. Several that say the suffering will be "on the day". Others that say the punishment for sin against God is _death_, while none say that it's suffering. The punishment for hurting a human is to be hurt in equal measure (not infinitely).

ALL of the explicit teaching on what will happen to wicked humans is about their painful deaths.

Third, the translation "extinction," which you have noted several times, does not have an eternal context, because they were not annihilated when judgment fell on them in their physical bodies. Not only does Jude make this clear, but so does the Lord:

Of course they didn't receive a final judgment. That's transparently clear. So? The passage STILL compares the thing we CAN see, the "set forth" judgment against S&G, to something we have not yet seen, the Lord's Day judgment against the wicked. This is what the passage explains. You are trying to explain that away, by pretending that the judgment against S&G that 2Peter 2 explicitly describes is unlike the judgment that will be against the wicked.

"Look it up?" Can you tell me where you got your definition for example? Let's see it used here: Hebrews 8:5

I told you, in the Greek -- Strong's would be fine (there's a link to the word for Jude's phrase 'set forth', and here's a link to Jude's word for 'example', and here's the link for Peter's word). The word "set forth" used in Jude means something is placed in front of you. The word "example" in Jude means a thing that actually IS one of the things being discussed. The word used in Peter also ALWAYS means something one can see, although it can also mean a "copy" (which will of course not be the same thing as the antitype) -- nonetheless, the precise way in which Peter says it's intended as a type is that it's a reduction to ashes.

What you teach is that there will be NO turning to ashes; that instead the opposite will happen and they will become invulnerable. What I teach is that just as the "type" was turning to ashes, so also the antitype will be -- but where the type only destroyed the body, the antitype will destroy body and soul.

Did the buildings of the city give themselves over to fornication and go after strange flesh? No, it was the people, and the people...did not cease to exist. They have been all these years in torment. When they are cast into the Lake of Fire, according to Christ, they will not receive a judgment as bad as those who reject Christ.

So you've got all your money on the option that what IS NOT set forth about Sodom is actually the example of what will happen to the ungodly; that whatever their example is, it's secretly NOT in being turned to ashes.

But there's your problem: what you propose is not ever mentioned in the Bible. It's therefore NOT something that can be said to be either an "example" or "set forth" in the way these verses express themselves.

Doesn't appear that you do. Your doctrine teaches the fire is quenched, the worms dies, the smoke of their torment does not rise up forever, and in general, that everlasting damnation is not everlasting.

You have no valid opinion on what my doctrine teaches -- you've never asked me.

"fire is quenched" - the eternal fire is unquenchable, it's been always burning since before the world was turning. But the metaphorical chaff thrown into it will not endure.

"the worms dies" - "their worm", not "worms". It does not die. Their worm will enjoy its feast, will pupate, and will fly away to the nearest good source of food.

"the smoke of their torment does not rise up forever" - It will. It will rise as long as the smoke of Mystery Babylon (forever and ever), which was consumed in a single hour (or period of time). However long the Day of the Lord last is the most they'll last; then a New Earth will be here, and "no more pain."

"that everlasting damnation is not everlasting" - nope, only universalists believe THIS. I believe the condemnation to death is an eternal condemnation, that nobody will ever undo.

Now you compound your error by saying that eternal life is not eternal life.

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." I've affirmed that they DO, and showed you some tens of verses (most of the verses that even mention the words "eternal life") positively teaching that part of what believers inherit in the age to come is Eternal Life (which includes living forever in glory without possibility of corruption or death). Rom 2:7 says that when God's righteous judgment is revealed, "to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life" -- showing that eternal life ultimately bears glory, honor, and immortality. But this is only the beginning; it's what we see when we follow _your_ "focus" where the Bible actually leads us.

This wasn't a topic of my choosing; it was entirely yours. And yet even this topic leads to a conclusion of conditional immortality.

 

[Darrell C]

The claim is not only sourced from a direct quote, I quoted it with a proper link. Here's the quote again:



Not only is it a direct quote, it's the absolutely essential underpinning of the argument you called your "focus". So when you admit the following:



...you are admitting something you mocked and scorned me for saying: that Christians are given a gift at the Resurrection that's called "eternal life". Furthermore, it's PROPERLY called eternal life, because after we're given that we will actually live forever in the literal sense of the words. Unbelievers are never promised any part of this resurrection-day gift; on the contrary, they are told they'll last a short time.



It's so basic that I keep agreeing. It's never been a point of difference between us. The point of difference is that you deny we receive incorruption through the gift of eternal life at the Resurrection, while the Bible and I think we will.



You're replying directly to me quoting several Bible translations to show that all those translators think that the way I quoted that verse is correct. Your beliefs are so alien to the Bible that your beliefs cause you to claim 2Peter is made up by an annihilationist. Well... you're right, the apostle Peter was a conditionalist, and he's the man who wrote 2Peter.



How exactly is this goalpost moving supposed to help your argument? Jude 1:7 _clearly_ teaches that S&G are "set forth as an example" of undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. You want to claim that the "example" is something that's never mentioned in the Bible, and is therefore completely invisible to us? That means it's not "set forth" at all.



Of course turning to ashes is an "event". According to 2Peter2, it's an event which was like the event that will happen to the wicked on the Day of the Lord. That's what Peter says -- that IN TURNING THEM TO ASHES God made them an example of what will happen to the wicked. Notice that it's not hurting them, or turning them into spirits that's like what happens to the wicked; it's turning them to ashes.

And "the rest of the teachings of Scripture" are is composed of passages like this one. It's SO easy to CLAIM "the rest of the teachings of Scripture", but I can exegete passages while you make claims. All you can find is verses that _indirectly suggest_ -- but I find verses that _directly teach_. The entire thing with "eternal life" is an example of you trying to find an indirect suggestion that the wicked MIGHT be given incorruptible bodies.

There are hundreds of verses that teach the wicked will be killed, destroyed, or are like things that burn up; hundreds of verses that say there will be no evil or suffering in the New Creation. There are several verses that say everything will be in union and harmony with God. Several that say the suffering will be "on the day". Others that say the punishment for sin against God is _death_, while none say that it's suffering. The punishment for hurting a human is to be hurt in equal measure (not infinitely).

ALL of the explicit teaching on what will happen to wicked humans is about their painful deaths.



Of course they didn't receive a final judgment. That's transparently clear. So? The passage STILL compares the thing we CAN see, the "set forth" judgment against S&G, to something we have not yet seen, the Lord's Day judgment against the wicked. This is what the passage explains. You are trying to explain that away, by pretending that the judgment against S&G that 2Peter 2 explicitly describes is unlike the judgment that will be against the wicked.



I told you, in the Greek -- Strong's would be fine (there's a link to the word for Jude's phrase 'set forth', and here's a link to Jude's word for 'example', and here's the link for Peter's word). The word "set forth" used in Jude means something is placed in front of you. The word "example" in Jude means a thing that actually IS one of the things being discussed. The word used in Peter also ALWAYS means something one can see, although it can also mean a "copy" (which will of course not be the same thing as the antitype) -- nonetheless, the precise way in which Peter says it's intended as a type is that it's a reduction to ashes.

What you teach is that there will be NO turning to ashes; that instead the opposite will happen and they will become invulnerable. What I teach is that just as the "type" was turning to ashes, so also the antitype will be -- but where the type only destroyed the body, the antitype will destroy body and soul.



So you've got all your money on the option that what IS NOT set forth about Sodom is actually the example of what will happen to the ungodly; that whatever their example is, it's secretly NOT in being turned to ashes.

But there's your problem: what you propose is not ever mentioned in the Bible. It's therefore NOT something that can be said to be either an "example" or "set forth" in the way these verses express themselves.



You have no valid opinion on what my doctrine teaches -- you've never asked me.

"fire is quenched" - the eternal fire is unquenchable, it's been always burning since before the world was turning. But the metaphorical chaff thrown into it will not endure.

"the worms dies" - "their worm", not "worms". It does not die. Their worm will enjoy its feast, will pupate, and will fly away to the nearest good source of food.

"the smoke of their torment does not rise up forever" - It will. It will rise as long as the smoke of Mystery Babylon (forever and ever), which was consumed in a single hour (or period of time). However long the Day of the Lord last is the most they'll last; then a New Earth will be here, and "no more pain."

"that everlasting damnation is not everlasting" - nope, only universalists believe THIS. I believe the condemnation to death is an eternal condemnation, that nobody will ever undo.



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." I've affirmed that they DO, and showed you some tens of verses (most of the verses that even mention the words "eternal life") positively teaching that part of what believers inherit in the age to come is Eternal Life (which includes living forever in glory without possibility of corruption or death). Rom 2:7 says that when God's righteous judgment is revealed, "to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life" -- showing that eternal life ultimately bears glory, honor, and immortality. But this is only the beginning; it's what we see when we follow _your_ "focus" where the Bible actually leads us.

This wasn't a topic of my choosing; it was entirely yours. And yet even this topic leads to a conclusion of conditional immortality.

I appreciate the response, Tanksley, but seeing you still cannot even understand the issue of imposing something into my view, I see no reason to try to discuss Theology with you.

You're not teaching Baptist Doctrine and you're presence in the Baptist only section is questionable.

When you can start being honest and actually answer the questions posed to you, I may reconsider discussion, but, it is futile to keep going in circles with you.

What kind of Baptist are you. What is the Baptist group you are associated with. These are the only questions before you now that I will respond to.


God bless.

 

[wTanksley]

BOTH eternal life and eternal punishment are ETERNAL.

Amen! Life forever on the one hand; and judgment forever on the other.

There can be NO "conditional immortality" in which the lost cease to exist. For then the statement of Christ of the ETERNITY of both those who have life and those who do not would be considered unreliable.

That's the oldest lie in the book, literally. Christ said that those who give up professing Christ to save their lives, will lose their lives. It's Satan who said that disobeying God leads to not dying, and thereby living forever. In response, God cursed Adam and explained that his life of painful toil would END and he would return to dust -- not just "your body will return" (although that's true) but "you will return to dust." God then took positive action which He explained was to prevent sinful man from living forever (Gen 3:22).

Let's look at what you imagine is Christ agreeing with the serpent:

Matt 25:46
“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Those are two opposite fates. On one side, people are given life, and it lasts forever. On the other side, people are given punishment, and it lasts forever. But those given life are deprived of all punishment by verdict of the court; and those given punishment are deprived of life by the same verdict. Just as on Earth, the authority of the court extends to the strongest punishment, Capital Punishment; and this removal of life will endure forever without end. That's my argument directly from this verse -- although it's purely inferential, it's nonetheless perfectly valid.

Your only argument _directly_ from this verse requires the assumption that the "punishment" for sin cannot be death; but the Bible contradicts that claim, not only by inference in this verse, but by direct teaching in hundreds of passages.

The punishment of the second death is eternal. One does not CEASE in that place anymore than one ceases in the place of eternal life.

What you're imagining here is that "the second death" is the name of a place, when actually just as "death" is an event, and "the first resurrection" is an event, so also "the second death" is an event. There's nothing more to your exegesis than this mistake of an event for a place.

Those in that eternal punishment remain as long as the righteous remain in the new heaven and earth. Eternally

On the theme of "remaining", then, consider the Bible's teaching that sinners will not stand in the judgment, and therefore their way will perish (Psalm 1) -- but the righteous will remain forever; that the form of the wicked will be consumed in sheol leaving no place to stay (Psalm 49) -- but God will rescue the righteous from Sheol; that sinners dread because they cannot dwell with consuming fire and everlasting burning in the purging of Jerusalem (Isa 33:14) -- but the righteous will endure and be given provisions. Psalm 37 says the wicked vanish like smoke and have thier future cut off, Psalm 73 says they will become like a dream when one awakens (and the latter is explicitly after the wicked have died).

In the New Testament, 2Peter says wicked teachers will "utterly perish in their corruption" like brute beasts die, and that God holds them FOR that fate, which is their /telos/ (purpose, end, termination). Luke 9:25 says that the choice is between a man seeking Christ or "losing himself", which is parallel to losing his life. Luke 24:36-37 says the ones found worthy to attain to the Age are the sons of the resurrection and cannot die. 1 Cor 3:15-17 shows that believers will be saved in spite of inadequate works, while those who defile the temple (which you-plural are) will be destroyed. Heb 10:27 says that the enemies will be _consumed_. 1John 2:17 promises that the righteous will abide forever, unlike the world and its desires.

So no, the only promise to remain forever are the righteous.

IMO, "Conditional Immorality" should be condemned as a heretical teaching that departs from the truth of Scriptures and embraces error. But, that is only my opinion.

Right; you'd need Scripture, or at least support from the ancient church, not just your opinion.

It's not just your opinion, my friend. The destruction of the spirit has been considered heresy long before this modern age in which the doctrines of cults and "isms" wormed their way into "Christian" circles.

An excellent claim! Now, before I switched to conditionalism (it took me 2 years and a complete read-through of the Bible) I looked for anything that might hint that the ancient church condemned conditionalists, because it's obvious that the church knew about and _included_ explicit conditionalists, like St. Irenaeus.

Some people point to the "Anathematisms against Origin", but not only is this against universalism rather than conditionalism, it wasn't even written by a council -- it's attributed to Emperor Justinian and is a _request_. The council responded with the "Anathemas Against Origin", which have nothing that can be interpreted as against conditionalism, but is rather against a strange Gnostic Universalism in which Christ was resurrected into a spherical body (no, really, read it).

Other people point to the Fifth Lateran, but this is a sectarian council that was actually ruling on what can be taught in Roman Catholic schools -- and Martin Luther quoted to and responded to the ruling as follows:

However, I permit the Pope to establish articles of faith for himself and for his own faithful—such are: That the bread and wine are transubstantiated in the sacrament; that the essence of God neither generates nor is generated; that the soul is the substantial form of the human body that he [the pope] is emperor of the world and king of heaven, and earthly god; that the soul is immortal; and all these endless monstrosities in the Roman dunghill of decretals—in order that such as his faith is, such may be his gospel, such also his faithful, and such his church, and that the lips may have suitable lettuce and the lid may be worthy of the dish.—Martin Luther, Assertio Omnium Articulorum M. Lutheri per Bullam Leonis X. Novissimam Damnatorum (Assertion of all the articles of M. Luther condemned by the latest Bull of Leo X), article 27.​

Make no mistake -- Luther always believed the wicked would be tormented forever. He states that clearly in his commentary on Jonah. But like all of the church fathers before him, he did not condemn people where the Bible is silent. Even Augustine, the first non-Greek speaking church father and the origin of all the modern apologetics for eternal torment, didn't dare anathematize _even the universalists_, but rather tried to persuade them they are wrong (which, of course, they are).

The Doctrine of Hell is a doctrine feared by Satan, because he knows that when God enlightens men to the reality of everlasting punishment they will repent.

Amen. That's why Satan has always been recorded as teaching men that they won't die.

The "fear of God" has for far too long dismissed as "reverent awe" when is is spiritually healthy for men to understand that God will judge sin justly, and that when He does that mankind stands no chance apart from the Savior God.

Amen -- nothing can preserve them apart from faith in the completed work of Christ.

 

[wTanksley]

I appreciate the response, Tanksley, but seeing you still cannot even understand the issue of imposing something into my view, I see no reason to try to discuss Theology with you.

Not only do I understand why it's an issue, I specifically did the back research and quoted you directly, and then showed how it was essential to your argument. You're the one who made this specific argument your "focus", and blasted me for arguing something else. Now you realize you don't have a leg to stand on, so you want to change the subject. OK -- go ahead. Pick anything.

I the meantime, don't think I miss the irony in YOU talking about imposing something on someone's view -- when I just showed that your claims about my belief in regard to the worm that does not die and other descriptions of the fate of the wicked were not only false, but made up from thin air and your imagination. THAT is imposition -- not what I did, which was to quote you and show your argument's reliance on the claim you made.

You're not teaching Baptist Doctrine and you're presence in the Baptist only section is questionable.

Why? I'm a Baptist. I know you're embarrassed by Baptists who disagree with you, but we're allowed to do that. Baptists don't have popes. Our one infallible authority is the Scripture.

When you can start being honest and actually answer the questions posed to you, I may reconsider discussion, but, it is futile to keep going in circles with you.

I've never lied to you, told the whole truth as I've seen it. You have no grounds for the testimony you are bringing against me -- which makes you guilty of false witness, with intent to harm me by excluding me from a section in which my beliefs are directly on-topic. And I've been polite and gracious in the face of your continuous slander, too.

 

[Darrell C]

I appreciate the response, Tanksley, but seeing you still cannot even understand the issue of imposing something into my view, I see no reason to try to discuss Theology with you.

Not only do I understand why it's an issue, I specifically did the back research and quoted you directly, and then showed how it was essential to your argument. You're the one who made this specific argument your "focus", and blasted me for arguing something else. Now you realize you don't have a leg to stand on, so you want to change the subject. OK -- go ahead. Pick anything.

Not sure why you would think I would like to "pick" a topic for discussion when I have just told you I see no point. You cherry-pick my responses, refuse to address what I have said, cannot comprehend what I have said, and teach the doctrine only cults have embraced.

As far as imposing into my own view something not there, here are a few examples:

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*?

To which I said...

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.

You respond to this...

I may be wrong and I don't want to just beg the question -- but it's not accurate for you to claim I'm "imposing on your view" when I'm actually disagreeing with an essential underlying support for your claim. If you can support your claim that the wicked are given a "glorified" body, please do.

The fact is you are not comprehending what I am saying. You are confusing eternal life with the condition of man's existence, which is that he has a body and a spirit. Because men have a spirit is not to be confused with eternal life, which occurs when men have the Spirit of God, which takes place when men are saved. Yet you impose into what I have said, because I said "in a sense they receive a 'glorified body," that unbelievers receive power and glory and honor."

Your words not mine, and due to you inability to differentiate the conditions men exist in between the natural condition and being made alive in Christ.

Here it is again:

In an attempt to argue against the "glorified body" claim, I've cited the Bible's consistent contrast between the glory, honor, and immortality gifted by God to believers by means of eternal life (see Romans 2:7) against the wicked's reception of tribulation, distress, wrath, and finally perishing (Romans 2:8ff).

Here you deny your own view:

That answer doesn't beg any questions about what happens after judgment, doesn't depend on questionable assumptions about all matter being destroyed or the environment of the judgment being unsurvivable (why would you think it's unsurvivable?).

This is offered in regards to my question...

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

You can see men existing in an environment in which the physical universe has passed away, but...not in Hell?

Here are a few more examples:

Could you quote me as saying "the Bible normally uses "the dead" not to mean unbelievers' lack of spiritual life, but to mean people who actually died?"

I'd like to see that.

Secondly, since I have to weed through this cherry-picked response, and you completely obscure the context (which is another reason the same issues are having to be reiterated), would you mind telling me why you are still missing the point here?

I never said the Tribulation Martyrs were not dead, in fact pointed out that they are raised physically, which is not to be confused with them being raised spiritually in regeneration (that is, new birth, in case you are not sure what I mean).

So you believe that eternal life is NOT given at the resurrection; you believe it's ONLY given now.

And I will once again offer up the very thing I have been trying to get through to you...

Again, you impose into my view something that is not there, but in fact your own words.

Eternal Life is ultimately fulfilled in the Eternal State, and at that time we will have our resurrection bodies.

But eternal life begins the moment we believe. That is just basic.

This is something you deny.

So here we are wasting time because you refuse to address the points raised, but simply cherry-pick what you think you can answer.

I'll ride the merry-go-round for a little while, but as I said, you need to start quoting me fully and addressing the points raised.


Continued...

 

[Yeshua1]

the scriptures teach to us that we RIGHT NOW have already passed over from death unto eternal life, as that is in essense having the Holy Spirit now residing in is and living out the life of Jesus through us, and THAT is a surety thatat the second Coming we shall receive the full inheritance of the physical resurrection and glorification of the body.

And again, why would there be a real sense of judgement if all sinners are just turned into smoke, so why would it amtter of I choose to be Hilter, Jim Jones, or a "good person?"