Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

[Dartman]

Of course you can't accept what the Bible plainly states for the reasons previously given

Sorry, it's you that can't accept what the Bible plainly states.
The wicked are destroyed, they are "ashes", they are "burned up", they "return to the grave".
Mal 4:1-3 For, behold, the day cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
2 But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings; and ye shall go forth, and gambol as calves of the stall.
3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I make, saith Jehovah of hosts.

Ps 9:17 The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that forget God.

Prov 10:30 The righteous shall never be removed: but the wicked shall not inhabit the earth.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Sorry, it's you that can't accept what the Bible plainly states.
The wicked are destroyed, they are "ashes", they are "burned up", they "return to the grave".
Mal 4:1-3 For, behold, the day cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
2 But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings; and ye shall go forth, and gambol as calves of the stall.
3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I make, saith Jehovah of hosts.

Ps 9:17 The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that forget God.

Prov 10:30 The righteous shall never be removed: but the wicked shall not inhabit the earth.

Only two comments then I will leave you to it.
Firstly, the first death did not result in ceasing to ex ist, neither does the second.
Second, you obviously believe your understanding is greater than the eminent scholars from all over the world who took fifteen years to compile the NIV.
I will repeat what I stated previously. The letter of the Bible contains a spiritual message. When Paul said he died in rom7:9, he didn't mean he literally died and ceased to exist did he

 

[he-man]

Paul, thanks your gracious words and thanks for bringing up that verse. For anyone else reading, the verse Paul is referring to is this one:
Mark 9:47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where "'the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
This verse is often used to support eternal conscious torment. But, what many people do not realize is that Jesus is quoting from the last verse in Isaiah, which reads:
NIV Isaiah 66:24 "And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."
We can see from Isaiah, that the fire that is not quenched and the worms that do not die are being using to dispose of dead bodies, not to torment living people.
And this makes a lot of sense. All over the world there are two methods by which the vast majority of dead bodies are disposed of. They are either burned to ashes or turned to dust by worms.​

Why would Jesus warn people about something which could not affect them in any way? A dead person cannot know, or be concerned about, what happens to their remains or how long the fire burns or the worms live. When Jesus quoted Isaiah 66:24 how did His Jewish audience understand that? Here is what many believed.

"the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment Enoch x. 6, xci. 9, et al. "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity"Judith xvi. 17. The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to,Isa. xxxiii. 11
Link:Jewish Encyclopedia Online​

Mt. 10:10 annhiliation [ABP]

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

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

I gave detailed reasons in a post that spanned several paragraphs. You have answered none of them, and instead have chosen to merely contradict the Bible's explicit words, using only your own words.

I will repeat what I think are the strongest arguments, although I call your attention you your complete lack of ANY response to ANY of the arguments.

The ones who are outside are "loving falsehoods" while they are outside. This means they are not at that time in the lake of fire; they are in a place where they can carry on those sins. Meanwhile, whose who are washing their robes are not yet inside the city; they wash their robes in order to come in. The entire text of the passage starting at 22:6 is explicitly written to people in this age. It is part of the book's closing appeal to those who read it and who want to "keep" the words of its prophecies.

Furthermore, the consequence of washing one's robe is to have the right to LATER enter the city by the gates -- it's not a statement that those who obey by washing their robes are presently inside the city, but that they have the right to enter it later, while everyone else is "outside" because they do NOT have the right to enter.

And this is crucial, because only those who can enter the city can eat from the tree of life. Without eating from the tree, man cannot live forever -- see Genesis 3:22. There is no way to live forever except through the gifts of God. The wicked do not receive the gift, and so they will surely die (just as God said).

 

[stuart lawrence]

I gave detailed reasons in a post that spanned several paragraphs. You have answered none of them, and instead have chosen to merely contradict the Bible's explicit words, using only your own words.

I will repeat what I think are the strongest arguments, although I call your attention you your complete lack of ANY response to ANY of the arguments.

The ones who are outside are "loving falsehoods" while they are outside. This means they are not at that time in the lake of fire; they are in a place where they can carry on those sins. Meanwhile, whose who are washing their robes are not yet inside the city; they wash their robes in order to come in. The entire text of the passage starting at 22:6 is explicitly written to people in this age. It is part of the book's closing appeal to those who read it and who want to "keep" the words of its prophecies.

Furthermore, the consequence of washing one's robe is to have the right to LATER enter the city by the gates -- it's not a statement that those who obey by washing their robes are presently inside the city, but that they have the right to enter it later, while everyone else is "outside" because they do NOT have the right to enter.

And this is crucial, because only those who can enter the city can eat from the tree of life. Without eating from the tree, man cannot live forever -- see Genesis 3:22. There is no way to live forever except through the gifts of God. The wicked do not receive the gift, and so they will surely die (just as God said).

There is no need to at length debate various scriptures when I have given you what proves the truth at the heart of this matter.
The problem is, no one admits to error in theological debates. They come with their set beliefs and leave with them. It does not matter the plain scripture you place before them. They either ignore it, or write long posts trying to reason anything to usurp the plain words of scripture. This is especially true of those who consider themselves teachers of the word. Admitting to error is unthinkable.
The Bible plainly states there are people inside the new Jerusalem and outside of it/ the city at the same time.
You can only be in the new Jerusalem if judgement day has come. Therefore the truth is proven. But as I say, I appreciate you have to resist it

 

[redleghunter]

The problem with this statement is, annihilation IS an eternal punishment.

If someone is made extinct then how do they know?

 

[Mark Corbett]

. . .
The problem is, no one admits to error in theological debates. . . . This is especially true of those who consider themselves teachers of the word. Admitting to error is unthinkable.

Stuart, I always find it a little strange when someone on a forum repeatedly states how useless it it to discuss something, and yet the keep posting comments. Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm glad to see you continue to interact with us here. If you want to stop (as you have said), go in peace. If you want to continue, than please do try to interact by continuing to present reasonable arguments from Scripture. You have done this some, and I'd be glad if you want to continue.

Now, as far as your pessimism about the usefulness of theological debates, I have a few thoughts:
1. Why are you on a debate forum?
2. I agree that people are unlikely to openly change positions (at least on something they have a strong conviction about) during a public debate/discussion. However, that is not the end of the story. We often continue to process new ideas and evidence after we initially hear them, and so people may very well change their view later on.
3. As far as a Bible teacher changing their view on the topic of this thread, I'm proof that it can happen. I used to believe the Bible taught eternal conscious torment. I grew up in churches that taught this view. The seminary I attended taught eternal conscious torment. I myself taught and defended this view. But when I read about annihilationism (initially from John Stott), it prompted me to reconsider. I eventually studied the topic in depth over a period of a couple of years before I become sufficiently convinced of Conditional Immortality to teach this view to others. The point is that people can and do change their views as a result of hearing evidence and reason from the Scriptures from other Christians.

Grace and Peace, Mark

 

[stuart lawrence]

Stuart, I always find it a little strange when someone on a forum repeatedly states how useless it it to discuss something, and yet the keep posting comments. Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm glad to see you continue to interact with us here. If you want to stop (as you have said), go in peace. If you want to continue, than please do try to interact by continuing to present reasonable arguments from Scripture. You have done this some, and I'd be glad if you want to continue.

Now, as far as your pessimism about the usefulness of theological debates, I have a few thoughts:
1. Why are you on a debate forum?
2. I agree that people are unlikely to openly change positions (at least on something they have a strong conviction about) during a public debate/discussion. However, that is not the end of the story. We often continue to process new ideas and evidence after we initially hear them, and so people may very well change their view later on.
3. As far as a Bible teacher changing their view on the topic of this thread, I'm proof that it can happen. I used to believe the Bible taught eternal conscious torment. I grew up in churches that taught this view. The seminary I attended taught eternal conscious torment. I myself taught and defended this view. But when I read about annihilationism (initially from John Stott), it prompted me to reconsider. I eventually studied the topic in depth over a period of a couple of years before I become sufficiently convinced of Conditional Immortality to teach this view to others. The point is that people can and do change their views as a result of hearing evidence and reason from the Scriptures from other Christians.

Grace and Peace, Mark

I once told a Godly woman of fifty years I chatted on Internet debating websites. She shook her head and said:
People who go on those sites are bored, they have too much time on their hands.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Mark Corbett]

If someone is made extinct then how do they know?

After someone's body and soul are destroyed, they will in fact no longer know anything. That's a valid point. However, before this happens they will be judged and they will know and understand that they are going to miss out forever on the joys of eternal life. There may be some time between the sentence and its final execution during which their painful awareness of their fate may be part of their punishment.

 

[stuart lawrence]

I say prayers for internet ministers!

 

[Mark Corbett]

I once told a Godly woman of fifty years I chatted on Internet debating websites. She shook her head and said:
People who go on those sites are bored, they have too much time in their hands.

Does that answer your question?

Stuart, thanks for being humbly honest. I sincerely pray that God will fill your life with good things which will replace boredom. Good relationships and good ministries of various types. I'm glad that you are here instead of more dangerous parts of the internet. So feel free to stay (not that you need my permission). However long you are here (on Christian discussion forums, which are mostly, but not entirely, debates) I pray that God will use it for good in your life and in the lives of those you interact with. God bless you!

 

[Mark Corbett]

I say prayers for internet ministers!

Thanks! The internet is only one part of what I feel called to do. But I'll take all the prayer I can get. I need it!

 

[stuart lawrence]

Stuart, thanks for being humbly honest. I sincerely pray that God will fill your life with good things which will replace boredom. Good relationships and good ministries of various types. I'm glad that you are here instead of more dangerous parts of the internet. So feel free to stay (not that you need my permission). However long you are here (on Christian discussion forums, which are mostly, but not entirely, debates) I pray that God will use it for good in your life and in the lives of those you interact with. God bless you!

Thank you. If I didn't get bored I wouldn't come on these sites. I wasn't always cynical of them. But after a lot of yeArs on them I came to understand it is mostly just a scripture Quoting contest with most just trying to teaCh each other

 

[redleghunter]

1. We would be more effective at winning some atheists and agnostics because they often mention the perceived gross injustice of eternal conscious torment as one of the reasons they reject Biblical Christianity.

Good day Mark.

Before I address the above quote, I must say the entire post was quite logical and lovingly addressed.

On the quoted I mentioned earlier to you (could have been another) the deeply embedded post modernism of secular society would look to finality of sentence positively. Whether that would be good or bad for evangelism is debatable.

However, the deeper issue with our society today is widespread materialism. Which does go hand in hand with post modern moral relativism.

Being offered total annihilation after a brief punishment is a shoulder shrug to the materialistic mindset.

Yet I do see you and @Chris Date addressed your views of this and did so from a conservative Reformed position. Which is commendable.

Oh too often the annihilation position is couched or fully exposed as an appeal to emotionalism and sentimentality.

You have not done so. I thank you for your patient and honest approach.

I am still looking at your presented "vocabulary of destruction."

However, also looking at the compendium of terms which also indicate a continuing punishment which does not end in extinction of the wicked.

I believe @Der Alter made some solid points showing us when we are at an impasse we should look at how the audience received the messages of final judgment. Which historical context is a pillar of exegesis.

 

[Chris Date]

"The beginning" starts the moment I see it written in scripture.
You may be discussing somebody else's journey, but I don't know them.

I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying you do not believe in the future bodily resurrection ("bodily resurrection" is actually redundant; that's what resurrection means) of the dead?

 

[Mark Corbett]

Thank you. If I didn't get bored I wouldn't come on these sites. I wasn't always cynical of them. But after a lot of yeArs on them I came to understand it is mostly just a scripture Quoting contest with most just trying to teaCh each other

If you're not doing this already, I encourage you to check out some of the non-debate sections of Christian Forums, like sections for Spiritual Growth and Prayer. Not instead of the debate forums, but in addition to them.

 

[stuart lawrence]

If you're not doing this already, I encourage you to check out some of the non-debate sections of Christian Forums, like sections for Spiritual Growth and Prayer. Not instead of the debate forums, but in addition to them.

Well actually I have started partaking of threads where people seek affinity & advice on particular problems in their lives. They do seem worthwhile to me

 

[redleghunter]

Well actually I have started partaking of threads where people seek affinity & advice on particular problems in their lives. They do seem worthwhile to me

Stuart don't kid yourself. You do quite well and are a most refreshing participant in these threads.

 

[Darren J. Clark]

Only two comments then I will leave you to it.
Firstly, the first death did not result in ceasing to ex ist, neither does the second.
Second, you obviously believe your understanding is greater than the eminent scholars from all over the world who took fifteen years to compile the NIV.
I will repeat what I stated previously. The letter of the Bible contains a spiritual message. When Paul said he died in rom7:9, he didn't mean he literally died and ceased to exist did he

I will jump in here if I may. The case for Evangelical Conditionalism/annihilationism doesn't hang on the idea that "death" involves a ceasing to exists. Sounds strange, I know. It is more accurate to say that just as the death of the body is the ending of life resulting in the inability of that body to maintain consciousness so the destruction of the body and soul by God (Matt 10:28) is the ending of life of the whole person so that there is the inability to maintain consciousness in hell. That is how we read the parallelism in Matt 10:28. Yes, it can be argued that just as the remains of the body will decompose implying a nothingness (maybe) but t our case doesn't rest on that issue. So when I see many a good folk trying to show how the soul can't cease to exist or the "destruction" language doesn't mean "annihilation" it makes me think that the point has been missed because we have miscommunicated.

Also, you keep pointing to Rom 7:9. Took me a while to figure out that it is in verse 10 that you are referring to and not verse 9 (they need to be taken together). I agree in the "spiritual" dimension is in view here but so what? Identifying variegated meanings in unrelated contexts is half the job. One still needs to look at each reference to death in context and there are plenty of reasons to think Paul and Jesus (in Matt) where talking about two different issues. You wouldn't apply the "spiritual" dimension reading as in Rom 7:9-10 to the "killing" of the body in Matt 10:28, would you?

 

[stuart lawrence]

Stuart don't kid yourself. You do quite well and are a most refreshing participant in these threads.

It's kind of you To say so. And coming from you, it means much, for I have read the posts of few people on the internet as insightful as yours. You certainly know the gospel.
God bless