Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

[Darren J. Clark]

I dont view video clips people post on you tube or the internet in general. Scripture is clear on what is stated

If Scripture is clear then why are you using arguments not sourced from Scripture?

 

[stuart lawrence]

That isn't the narrative the Traditionalist scholars tell us.

In my view, scholars and theologians mugged the church as it were, when they quickly appeared after the first century. Ever pouring over the scriptures, trying to unearth some new doctrine they could insist everyone must believe

 

[stuart lawrence]

If Scripture is clear then why are you using arguments not sourced from Scripture?

I've just given you what is sourced from scripture, directly relating to the point at hand. Whether people not in heaven exist after the final judgement

 

[Darren J. Clark]

I've just given you what is sourced from scripture, directly relating to the point at hand. Whether people not in heaven exist after the final judgement

Yet just prior to that it was the fear of eternal torment keeps people in church argument.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Yet just prior to that it was the fear of eternal torment keeps people in church argument.

Well I can't give you scripture that shows people who attend churches today do so motivated by fear of spending eternity in hell

 

[Darren J. Clark]

Well I can't give you scripture that shows people who attend churches today do so motivated by fear of spending eternity in hell

All I am saying is at you don't stick to just arguments from Scripture, which I think was the reason you gave for not viewing the video clips Chris Date posted above. The one on Rev is all about the question of what Rev does say, by the way so is on topic.

 

[stuart lawrence]

It's a widely accepted belief. One very well known evangelist( can't remember his name said:
If many believed eternity in hell did not exist they would immediatley forsake God/ church. They would be off like a shot

 

[stuart lawrence]

All I am saying is at you don't stick to just arguments from Scripture, which I think was the reason you gave for not viewing the video clips Chris Date posted above. The one on Rev is all about the question of what Rev does say, by the way so is on topic.

I won't tell you why I don't watch video clips posted on YouTube as I don't wish to offend.
What I quoted from revelation directly speaks of the question at hand. So to say I do not source scripture, is plainly untrue

 

[Darren J. Clark]

It's a widely accepted belief. One very well known evangelist( can't remember his name said:
If many believed eternity in hell did not exist they would immediatley forsake God/ church. They would be off like a shot

So? I conceded that point saying it is what Scripture says that is important. I have only added that Traditionalist scholars tend to emphasize that hell is not preached in church as a way of hinting that there are more reasons why people stay or leave church than the issue of hell. None of this is really going to prove anything unless we have empirical data on the reasons for church attendance. I am from Australia and I can tell you (only anecdotally) that many people don't factor hell into their decision to stay at church. But I can't be definitive and neither can you. Let's stick to discussing what we think Scripture says.

If you don't want to watch the videos Chris Date posted on Rev because you just want to stick to Scripture then chat to him here. He is well able to answer the questions you have about Rev.

 

[Darren J. Clark]

.

 

[Darren J. Clark]

I am getting tired in the brain. Taking a break. I will check in tomorrow.

 

[stuart lawrence]

So? I conceded that point saying it is what Scripture says that is important. I have only added that Traditionalist scholars tend to emphasize that hell is not preached in church as a way of hinting that there are more reasons why people stay or leave church than the issue of hell. None of this is really going to prove anything unless we have empirical data on the reasons for church attendance. I am from Australia and I can tell you (only anecdotally) that many people don't factor hell into their decision to stay at church. But I can't be definitive and neither can you. Let's stick to discussing what we think Scripture says.

If you don't want to watch the videos Chris Date posted on Rev because you just want to stick to Scripture then chat to him here. He is well able to answer the questions you have about Rev.

I have not said everyone who attends Church does so through fear of spending eternity in hell. Please quote me accurately

 

[Darren J. Clark]

I won't tell you why I don't watch video clips posted on YouTube as I don't wish to offend.
What I quoted from revelation directly speaks of the question at hand. So to say I do not source scripture, is plainly untrue

I am not offended. I am not worried that you don't watch videos. It is purely your choice and I respect that. I was just pointing out that you used the reason of only arguing from Scripture while arguing from a church attendance argument, which isn't an argument from Scripture. That is all. I have to go but I will check in tomorrow to engage on the issue.

 

[stuart lawrence]

I am not offended. I am not worried that you don't watch videos. It is purely your choice and I respect that. I was just pointing out that you used the reason of only arguing from Scripture while arguing from a church attendance argument, which isn't an argument from Scripture. That is all. I have to go but I will check in tomorrow to engage on the issue.

I think you need a break. I wasn't arguing that why people attend church prove who is right or wrong concerning this debate

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

In post 167 to you I quoted rev22:13&14.

I apologize, but I didn't even see it. Thanks for pointing it out. However, everything I've said holds true even with all of your claim; I cited and discussed clear Scripture. It looks like you think one verse in Revelation is divinely intended to override all of the ones I cited, because you're not even trying to discuss them. Do you believe in inerrancy? I do, which is why I believe I must account for every verse, not only the ones that agree with my beliefs.

When the new Jerusalem has come, judgement day has taken place.

True, but this has nothing to do with what Rev 22:14-15 says. Look at v14: //Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.//

"Those who wash their robes" _now_, in this age, are the only ones who WILL have the right and who will therefore be able to enter the city. This verse clearly and specifically sets itself in the present age, NOT in the age to come; it makes a future-tense promise about Christians' rights in the age to come based on whether we "wash our robes" now.

The next verse, which starts with "outside are ... " is therefore ALSO set in the present age. They are outside of the city not because they're inside a lake of fire -- on the contrary, the verse describes them as "everyone who loves and practices falsehood." That's a present-tense practice, just as "wash their robes" is present-tense. They're not loving falsehood while in the lake; they're loving falsehood in this age, and that means "their lot ... is the second death."

The Bible says there are people outside the city/ the new Heaven, it doesn't say they cease to exist/ are destroyed.

But of course the Bible does say they're destroyed over and over. Mal 4:1-3, Matt 10:28, Psalm 37, Psalm 73, Obad 1:16, and hundreds of other passages. These two verses don't say it, but they certainly don't contradict the other ones that DO say it.

The Bible says those people exist outside NOW, not that they will exist outside in the age to come. They are outside in the sense that they are not permitted inside, not in the sense that the city is here now.

God dwells with his people inside the city, not outside of it.

You're assuming that God being inside means God isn't outside. In fact God dwells with us inside the city AND outside of it; the city, according to Rev 21, is located in the New Heavens and New Earth, which is entirely described as "made new." There's "no more death" after the judgment -- not only no more inside the city, but no more anywhere. No surprise, because Romans 8 tells us that the entire creation will be freed from bondage to corruption.

In Rev 21, it also says that the kings of the Earth will bring the treasures into the city through its gates, which are never shut. But the kings couldn't enter if they were unsaved, and if they're saved God dwells among them and they are His people; so therefore God is with them whether they're in the city or somewhere else in the New Heavens and New Earth. The city is not an armored fortress, but the capital city of a redeemed cosmos, its gates OPEN to spread the goodness of God's Image to all creation.

What is the name of the place that is outside the city?

The place outside the City is explicitly called "The New Earth"; there's also a place from which the city descends (and therefore outside of it) called "the New Heavens." The Lake of Fire as a symbol is never said to be near it.

 

[ClementofA]

In addition to comment #7, where I explain why I don't agree that Matthew 25:46 does not "put to rest Annihilationism", I want to add that I do feel that this verse argues very strongly against universalism.

Matt.25:46 is more favorable to universalism than any other opinion:

Concordant Literal New Testament, 1983
And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959
"And these shall go away into age-abiding correction, But the righteous into age-abiding life."

Youngs Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1898:
"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."


The vast majority of learned sources agree the word aionios, & the noun, aion, can refer to a duration which is of a limited time period that has an end. The real issue here, then, is whether or not the word means a limited time period in the context of Matthew 25:31-46 in regards to punishment. That is something that should be a matter of serious study rather than assumptions based on what my pastor or bible study group assumes to be the case.

Considering the Greek word kolasis ("punishment", Mt.25:46, KJV) can refer to a corrective punishment, that should tell the reader of Matthew 25:46 what the possible duration of aionios ("everlasting", KJV) is & that it may refer to a finite punishment. Why? Because since it is corrective, it is with the purpose of bringing the person corrected to salvation. Oncce saved the person no longer has need of such a punishment & it ends. So it isn't "everlasting". [Or if it "everlasting", it is only everlasting in its positive effect]. Therefore this passage could just as easily support universalism as anything else.

From a review of a book by Ilaria Ramelli, namely The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp):

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena | Nemes | Journal of Analytic Theology


"...in a passage in Origen in which he speaks of “life after aionios life” (160). As a native speaker of Greek he does not see a contradiction in such phrasing; that is because aionios life does not mean “unending, eternal life,” but rather “life of the next age.” Likewise the Bible uses the word kolasis to describe the punishment of the age to come. Aristotle distinguished kolasis from timoria, the latter referring to punishment inflicted “in the interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction.” On the other hand, kolasis refers to correction, it “is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer” (quoted at 32). Thus Plato can affirm that it is good to be punished (to undergo kolasis), because in this way a person is made better (ibid.). This distinction survived even past the time of the writing of the New Testament, since Clement of Alexandria affirms that God does not timoreitai, punish for retribution, but he does kolazei, correct sinners (127)."
http://journalofanalytictheology.com/jat/index.php/jat/article/viewFile/jat.2015-3.181913130418a/271

"Augustine raised the argument that since aionios in Mt. 25:46 referred to both life and punishment, it had to carry the same duration in both cases.5 However, he failed to consider that the duration of aionios is determined by the subject to which it refers. For example, when aionios referred to the duration of Jonah’s entrapment in the fish, it was limited to three days. To a slave, aionios referred to his life span. To the Aaronic priesthood, it referred to the generation preceding the Melchizedek priesthood. To Solomon’s temple, it referred to 400 years. To God it encompasses and transcends time altogether."

"Thus, the word cannot have a set value. It is a relative term and its duration depends upon that with which it is associated. It is similar to what “tall” is to height. The size of a tall building can be 300 feet, a tall man six feet, and a tall dog three feet. Black Beauty was a great horse, Abraham Lincoln a great man, and Yahweh the GREAT God. Though God is called “great,” the word “great” is neither eternal nor divine. The horse is still a horse. An adjective relates to the noun it modifies. In relation to God, “great” becomes GREAT only because of who and what God is. This silences the contention that aion must always mean forever because it modifies God. God is described as the God of Israel and the God of Abraham. This does not mean He is not the God of Gentiles, or the God of you and me. Though He is called the God of the “ages,” He nonetheless remains the God who transcends the ages."

"In addition, Augustine’s reasoning does not hold up in light of Ro. 16:25, 26 and Hab. 3:6. Here, in both cases, the same word is used twice—with God and with something temporal. “In accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now…according to the injunction of the eonian God” (Ro. 16:25, 26 CLT). An eonian secret revealed at some point cannot be eternal even though it is revealed by the eonian God. Eonian does not make God eternal, but God makes eonian eternal. “And the everlasting mountains were scattered.…His ways are everlasting” (Hab. 3:6). Mountains are not eternal, though they will last a very long time. God’s ways however, are eternal, because He is eternal."
Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Jude 7 speaks of the fire that destroyed Sodom as an example of "aionion fire" (the same words aionion fire used in Mt.25:41, compare v.46). Did Sodom burn forever?

Philo was contemporary with Christ & we have this translation of his words which use the same words Christ used at Mt.25:46:

"It is better absolutely never to make any promise at all than not to assist another willingly, for no blame attaches to the one, but great dislike on the part of
those who are less powerful, and intense hatred and long enduring punishment [kolasis aiónios] from those who are more powerful, is the result of the other line of
conduct." Philo: Appendix 2: Fragments

In the year 544 A.D. the emperor Justinian wrote a letter:

"It is conceded that the half-heathen emperor held to the idea of endless misery, for he proceeds not only to defend, but to define the doctrine.2 He does not merely say, "We believe in aionion kolasin," for that was just what Origen himself taught. Nor does he say "the word aionion has been misunderstood; it denotes endless duration," as he would have said, had there been such a disagreement. But, writing in Greek, with all the words of that abundant language from which to choose, he says: "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aeonian (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked." If he supposed aionios denoted endless duration, he would not have added the stronger word to it. The fact that he qualified it by ateleutetos, demonstrated that as late as the sixth century the former word did not signify endless duration.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd21.html

If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios? Why not instead use the word aperantos ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? The answer seems obvious.

Early Church Father universalists who were Greek scholars & many others of the time did not see Mt.25:46 contradicting their belief:

"The first Christians, it will be seen, said in their creeds, "I believe in the æonian life;" later, they modified the phrase "æonian life," to "the life of the coming æon," showing that the phrases are equivalent. But not a word of endless punishment. "The life of the age to come" was the first Christian creed, and later, Origen himself (an Early Church Father universalist) declares his belief in æonian punishment, and in æonian life beyond. How, then, could æonian punishment have been regarded as endless?"
https://tentmaker.org/forum/word-studies/another-aionios-thread-these-things-go-on-forever/


"Adolph Deissman gives this account: "Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: 'I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty...' If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?" "

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter9.html


As regards the fate of the Jewish people, early in the gospel of Saint Matthew Jesus' word does correct them re the false teachings of endless torments and annihilation, as follows:

Mt.1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt.2:6b ...my people Israel.

"Isn't it ironic that the passage most often used to support everlasting punishment is in fact one strongly opposing it when accurately understood?" (Tom Talbott, author of "The Inescapable Love of God").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Talbott
http://www.thomastalbott.com/index.php

 

[stuart lawrence]

I apologize, but I didn't even see it. Thanks for pointing it out. However, everything I've said holds true even with all of your claim; I cited and discussed clear Scripture. It looks like you think one verse in Revelation is divinely intended to override all of the ones I cited, because you're not even trying to discuss them. Do you believe in inerrancy? I do, which is why I believe I must account for every verse, not only the ones that agree with my beliefs.



True, but this has nothing to do with what Rev 22:14-15 says. Look at v14: //Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.//

"Those who wash their robes" _now_, in this age, are the only ones who WILL have the right and who will therefore be able to enter the city. This verse clearly and specifically sets itself in the present age, NOT in the age to come; it makes a future-tense promise about Christians' rights in the age to come based on whether we "wash our robes" now.

The next verse, which starts with "outside are ... " is therefore ALSO set in the present age. They are outside of the city not because they're inside a lake of fire -- on the contrary, the verse describes them as "everyone who loves and practices falsehood." That's a present-tense practice, just as "wash their robes" is present-tense. They're not loving falsehood while in the lake; they're loving falsehood in this age, and that means "their lot ... is the second death."



But of course the Bible does say they're destroyed over and over. Mal 4:1-3, Matt 10:28, Psalm 37, Psalm 73, Obad 1:16, and hundreds of other passages. These two verses don't say it, but they certainly don't contradict the other ones that DO say it.

The Bible says those people exist outside NOW, not that they will exist outside in the age to come. They are outside in the sense that they are not permitted inside, not in the sense that the city is here now.



You're assuming that God being inside means God isn't outside. In fact God dwells with us inside the city AND outside of it; the city, according to Rev 21, is located in the New Heavens and New Earth, which is entirely described as "made new." There's "no more death" after the judgment -- not only no more inside the city, but no more anywhere. No surprise, because Romans 8 tells us that the entire creation will be freed from bondage to corruption.

In Rev 21, it also says that the kings of the Earth will bring the treasures into the city through its gates, which are never shut. But the kings couldn't enter if they were unsaved, and if they're saved God dwells among them and they are His people; so therefore God is with them whether they're in the city or somewhere else in the New Heavens and New Earth. The city is not an armored fortress, but the capital city of a redeemed cosmos, its gates OPEN to spread the goodness of God's Image to all creation.



The place outside the City is explicitly called "The New Earth"; there's also a place from which the city descends (and therefore outside of it) called "the New Heavens." The Lake of Fire as a symbol is never said to be near it.

Sorry, but your attempt at explaining the verses don't work.
They speak of people dwelling in the new Jerusalem and those outside of it. So it does not speak of now, but a time after the final judgement has taken place

 

[Darren J. Clark]

I think you need a break. I wasn't arguing that why people attend church prove who is right or wrong concerning this debate

You are right I am tired.

But I was responding to the following, how else is that to be taken other than an argument for the Traditional view of hell? If I have misunderstood you then I apologize. But you can see why I thought you were using this as an argument while claiming you only use arguments from Scripture.

 

[stuart lawrence]

You are right I am tired.

But I was responding to the following, how else is that to be taken other than an argument for the Traditional view of hell? If I have misunderstood you then I apologize. But you can see why I thought you were using this as an argument while claiming you only use arguments from Scripture.

View attachment 203014

I simply made an initial comment( can't recall who to) that if many who attend church believed the view that eternity in hell did not exist, they would stop going to church.
That statement was not, not could it possibly be viewed as trying to prove my POV in this debate is correct, and the opposing view wrong

 

[SkyWriting]

It has already been shown in this thread that you are in error, but let's suppose you are right...Suppose someone dies at 20 years of age, not believing in God. This person had an opportunity to accept Jesus but wouldn't. This person, for the most part, did what he could to avoid causing suffering for others. How is it fair to torture him for all eternity in unimaginable pain for not believing in God? Please explain. I want a logical explanation of how you think that punishment is "extremely fair".

A twenty year old kid, living with a God
for eternity whom you did not Trust,
have faith in, and fills every aspect of
your existence sounds much more painful.
This would define insanity. You don't want
to drive non-believers insane do you?

A small version of this is a step-child living
with a step parent. It's living with a parent
who is not your accepted parent and you
must live by their rules.
This is why God hates divorce.
Step parents are like a miniature Hell.
I know this.

Instead, leave them alone, per their wishes
to "forever" live with themselves, being
tormented, mostly by what they have
said with their tounge.

Or perhaps just waiting for judgment day,
then final annihilation. Final annihilation
is the just punishment or second death.
That would be the coming relief from
self imposes torments.

Edit.
Sorry, I missed this: "This person, for the most part, did what he could to avoid causing suffering for others."

Their actions indicate they accept the Holy Spirit in their lives
and so live by the Golden rule. They have saving Faith in God.
If they reject the Holy Spirit, and kill others for fun, then to Hell with them.

 

[ClementofA]

ESV Philippians 3:19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

This is easily harmonized with the Scriptural teaching of universalism, the salvation of all:

"So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth." (Gen.6:13)

The "end" of all people was "destruction" by God. This already happened. Yet they are not annihilated forever. And they will be resurrected. Their "end" was only a temporary end or result or outcome. Not final destiny.

Likewise with Phil.3:19.

The earth was destroyed not endlessly annihilated.

Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; 10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil.2:9-11)

Hebrews speaks of those who reject Christ as deserving a "sorer" punishment than death by Moses' law, i.e. stoning:

10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Stoning to death is not a very sore or longlasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.

Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed the wicked would be punished with something so monstrous as being endlessly annihilated or tormented, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death. Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is an unfeeling terminator machine or sadist who abandons forever the beings He created in His own image & likeness so easily.

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for all mankind for life's justifying."

Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just."

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf