Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

[William Tanksley Jr]

Now why are you still trying to tell me people's time ends when I have already shown you from scripture people exist outside of the new heaven. I can assure you, I won't cease accepting what scripture states.

With all respect, you brought up Luke 20, and I'm exegeting the whole argument Jesus made in context. You're free to discuss the argument Jesus made, but right now you're not -- you're ignoring it in favor of another passage you like more.

So when the Bible speaks of people dying/ death comes to them, it doesn't mean they cease to exist at all

Amen. I don't claim it does mean that. Dead means dead, not "destroyed"; but being dead doesn't simply mean the same thing as being alive. And other passages tells us WHY being dead doesn't mean ceasing to exist. It's not because God lied in Genesis 3:19; it's because of the point made in 2 Peter 2:19: "the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished..." The wicked are reserved and kept until the day of judgment. They will not escape the proper punishment even by dying.

And we agree on this, I believe. Where we disagree is what that punishment consists of. Here's a few passages from 2 Peter where he explains what it means.

2:6 "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."

2:12 "But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction."

There's no doubt about the ultimate fate of the wicked. God made Sodom an example of what will happen to them; and that example is _specifically_ that they were turned to ashes in a catastrophe of judgment.

"Dead" doesn't mean "turned to ashes" and "destroyed like irrational animals"; but "turned to ashes" and "destroyed like irrational animals" means much more than dead.

 

[stuart lawrence]

With all respect, you brought up Luke 20, and I'm exegeting the whole argument Jesus made in context. You're free to discuss the argument Jesus made, but right now you're not -- you're ignoring it in favor of another passage you like more.



Amen. I don't claim it does mean that. Dead means dead, not "destroyed"; but being dead doesn't simply mean the same thing as being alive. And other passages tells us WHY being dead doesn't mean ceasing to exist. It's not because God lied in Genesis 3:19; it's because of the point made in 2 Peter 2:19: "the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished..." The wicked are reserved and kept until the day of judgment. They will not escape the proper punishment even by dying.

And we agree on this, I believe. Where we disagree is what that punishment consists of. Here's a few passages from 2 Peter where he explains what it means.

2:6 "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."

2:12 "But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction."

There's no doubt about the ultimate fate of the wicked. God made Sodom an example of what will happen to them; and that example is _specifically_ that they were turned to ashes in a catastrophe of judgment.

"Dead" doesn't mean "turned to ashes" and "destroyed like irrational animals"; but "turned to ashes" and "destroyed like irrational animals" means much more than dead.

Please read posts 392&397

 

[stuart lawrence]

With all respect, you brought up Luke 20, and I'm exegeting the whole argument Jesus made in context. You're free to discuss the argument Jesus made, but right now you're not -- you're ignoring it in favor of another passage you like more.



Amen. I don't claim it does mean that. Dead means dead, not "destroyed"; but being dead doesn't simply mean the same thing as being alive. And other passages tells us WHY being dead doesn't mean ceasing to exist. It's not because God lied in Genesis 3:19; it's because of the point made in 2 Peter 2:19: "the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished..." The wicked are reserved and kept until the day of judgment. They will not escape the proper punishment even by dying.

And we agree on this, I believe. Where we disagree is what that punishment consists of. Here's a few passages from 2 Peter where he explains what it means.

2:6 "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."

2:12 "But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction."

There's no doubt about the ultimate fate of the wicked. God made Sodom an example of what will happen to them; and that example is _specifically_ that they were turned to ashes in a catastrophe of judgment.

"Dead" doesn't mean "turned to ashes" and "destroyed like irrational animals"; but "turned to ashes" and "destroyed like irrational animals" means much more than dead.

And your exegeting it seems to me is an attempt to overturn the plain truth. The other account simply confirms the truth

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

That's kind of you. It was a few years ago my wife died, so I am ok. She is in a better place than this earth. That's comforting to know

Praise God for that comfort and hope!

This is an important point. When we read words like perish in the Bible. Do we just take such words literally as we would naturally understand them, or, do we view the Bible as containing a spiritual message within the letter?

I have a question for you. When we read words like "torment" in the Bible, do we just take each word literally as we would naturally understand them, or, do we view the Bible as containing a spiritual message within the letter?

I'm joking by quoting your own words back at you, but I'm very serious in pointing out that you're dismissing the literal meaning of the word "perish", and the literal teaching of thousands of other passages in context, in favor of a strained literal meaning of a few verses of Revelation that completely ignores Revelation's own explanation of those verses.

When Jesus was explaining to Nicodemus, he used simple words and expanded on them, explaining how His lifted-up death saves those who believe on Him from perishing by giving them eternal life, just as Moses' lifted-up serpent saved the people who looked to it from dying. He told the woman in Samaria that He offered water which would spring up to eternal life, and praise God she believed. In both of those teachings the consequence of disbelief is the same as the judgment for your evil deeds -- to perish.

The lake of fire( or fiery lake of sulphur) of rev20:14 is the same place and is the second death also. So in this place you are thrown, you are tormented forever. You do not literally get incinerated and cease to exist.
Why are they being tormented forever?

The "Second Death" is not the same fate that the devil, beast, and false prophet are said to receive; rather, it's the fate that death and hades are said to receive. Read the text! And "death is no more" after the Day of Judgment passes.

Now, I don't take Revelation literally, since as you mentioned its message is spiritual; looking for a 7-headed beast (for example) won't show me who the antichrist really is. We all know that, right? But you seem to want to take it JUST literally enough to smear Revelation's teaching about Satan around until it applies to everyone thrown into the Lake of Fire, even though the book itself doesn't actually say that.

Jesus said, a world without his followers who have Gods presence in them, would be an intolerable place.

No, He didn't. You're putting words in Jesus' mouth.

God is not tormenting you, you are being tormented by living in the place you are in.

God _always_ takes responsibility for the torment He causes. He says as much in Rev 14:9-11, and in 2 Thess 1:5-10. It directly says that God actively causes the affliction of the wicked, and their torment. He never blames the torment on the place the wicked are in.

A place where Gods presence does not exist, an intolerable place. A place you ended up in because you rejected Christ. You chose a life without Christ, now your eternity must be spent apart from him.

Never mentioned in the Bible. In fact, the idea of a place where God's presence is not there is explicitly denied in passages like Psalm 139.

 

[stuart lawrence]

[QUOTE="William Tanksley Jr, post: 71587360, member: 400God for that comfort and hope!



I have a question for you. When we read words like "torment" in the Bible, do we just take each word literally as we would naturally understand them, or, do we view the Bible as containing a spiritual message within the letter?

I'm joking by quoting your own words back at you, but I'm very serious in pointing out that you're dismissing the literal meaning of the word "perish", and the literal teaching of thousands of other passages in context, in favor of a strained literal meaning of a few verses of Revelation that completely ignores Revelation's own explanation of those verses.

When Jesus was explaining to Nicodemus, he used simple words and expanded on them, explaining how His lifted-up death saves those who believe on Him from perishing by giving them eternal life, just as Moses' lifted-up serpent saved the people who looked to it from dying. He told the woman in Samaria that He offered water which would spring up to eternal life, and praise God she believed. In both of those teachings the consequence of disbelief is the same as the judgment for your evil deeds -- to perish.



The "Second Death" is not the same fate that the devil, beast, and false prophet are said to receive; rather, it's the fate that death and hades are said to receive. Read the text! And "death is no more" after the Day of Judgment passes.

Now, I don't take Revelation literally, since as you mentioned its message is spiritual; looking for a 7-headed beast (for example) won't show me who the antichrist really is. We all know that, right? But you seem to want to take it JUST literally enough to smear Revelation's teaching about Satan around until it applies to everyone thrown into the Lake of Fire, even though the book itself doesn't actually say that.



No, He didn't. You're putting words in Jesus' mouth.



God _always_ takes responsibility for the torment He causes. He says as much in Rev 14:9-11, and in 2 Thess 1:5-10. It directly says that God actively causes the affliction of the wicked, and their torment. He never blames the torment on the place the wicked are in.



Never mentioned in the Bible. In fact, the idea of a place where God's presence is not there is explicitly denied in passages like Psalm 139.[/QUOTE]
I will just respond to your initial point.
I have been quoting what happens at and after judgement day. I align those scriptures and show from them people are tormented forever and live outside of the new Jerusalem. You quote words such as perish, death, destruction before this time to try and show people cease to exist. You have now brought scripture into contradiction with scripture. I repeat, I am quoting from the time that is central to this discussion. What happens at and after the final judgement!
The Bible is a spiritual book with a spiritual message. You are quoting the partial letter but failing to understand the spiritual message contained in it. Hence you bring contradiction

 

[stuart lawrence]

I do understand the evangelical mindset of many, I was once part of it. It is just taking Random literal verses of scripture and quoting them. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. And when I did that I saw very little.
I fully believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit for today. I should worship at evangelical churches, but there's a problem. The mist important message of all is justification/ sanctification and I'm afraid few evangelicals seem to correctly understanding that message. So my preferred church is Baptist.
It is a mystery to me, why many churches who promote the gifts of the holy spirit seem to have less understanding of the central message than those who dont

 

[stuart lawrence]

That's right. But what he paid is the penalty believers deserved, and believers did not deserve a different penalty than what the unsaved deserve. Er go, the penalty the unsaved deserve is death, not eternal life in immortal torment.

Anyone else like to respond to my challenge?

It's not a case of what they deserve, it's a case of what they chose.
All are raised at the day of judgement, all exist after it. Those who accepted Christ as their saviour live in the new heaven. Those who rejected him live outside of it.
Jesus said the believers, who had the presence of God with them made the world tolerable. Otherwise it would be intolerable. Those outside the new heaven rejected Christ, and therefore rejected God. So they live forever outside of Gods presence. They chose that, God did not choose that for them.
So they live in an intolerable existence. That brings weeping and gnashing of teeth. They are in anguish in this intolerable place, like flames of fire inside of them that never die. Like a lake of fire they must live in.
God is NOT tormenting them. They are outside of his presence, he dwells with his people in the new Jerusalem.
Those outside if it, are tormented forever and ever by being in an intolerable place because they rejected Gods Son

So God is not making them pay An extra price for their sin. he gave them what they chose, a life bereft of Him and his Son, a life outside of his presence

 

[Darren J. Clark]

[QUOTE="William Tanksley Jr, post: 71587360, member: 400God for that comfort and hope!



I have a question for you. When we read words like "torment" in the Bible, do we just take each word literally as we would naturally understand them, or, do we view the Bible as containing a spiritual message within the letter?

I'm joking by quoting your own words back at you, but I'm very serious in pointing out that you're dismissing the literal meaning of the word "perish", and the literal teaching of thousands of other passages in context, in favor of a strained literal meaning of a few verses of Revelation that completely ignores Revelation's own explanation of those verses.

When Jesus was explaining to Nicodemus, he used simple words and expanded on them, explaining how His lifted-up death saves those who believe on Him from perishing by giving them eternal life, just as Moses' lifted-up serpent saved the people who looked to it from dying. He told the woman in Samaria that He offered water which would spring up to eternal life, and praise God she believed. In both of those teachings the consequence of disbelief is the same as the judgment for your evil deeds -- to perish.



The "Second Death" is not the same fate that the devil, beast, and false prophet are said to receive; rather, it's the fate that death and hades are said to receive. Read the text! And "death is no more" after the Day of Judgment passes.

Now, I don't take Revelation literally, since as you mentioned its message is spiritual; looking for a 7-headed beast (for example) won't show me who the antichrist really is. We all know that, right? But you seem to want to take it JUST literally enough to smear Revelation's teaching about Satan around until it applies to everyone thrown into the Lake of Fire, even though the book itself doesn't actually say that.



No, He didn't. You're putting words in Jesus' mouth.



God _always_ takes responsibility for the torment He causes. He says as much in Rev 14:9-11, and in 2 Thess 1:5-10. It directly says that God actively causes the affliction of the wicked, and their torment. He never blames the torment on the place the wicked are in.



Never mentioned in the Bible. In fact, the idea of a place where God's presence is not there is explicitly denied in passages like Psalm 139.

I will just respond to your initial point.
I have been quoting what happens at and after judgement day. I align those scriptures and show from them people are tormented forever and live outside of the new Jerusalem. You quote words such as perish, death, destruction before this time to try and show people cease to exist. You have now brought scripture into contradiction with scripture. I repeat, I am quoting from the time that is central to this discussion. What happens at and after the final judgement!
The Bible is a spiritual book with a spiritual message. You are quoting the letter but failing to understand the spiritual message contained in it. Hence you bring contradiction[/QUOTE]

For crying out loud. Both William and I have made it clear that we are not arguing that "perish" means "non-existence". Stop attributing arguments to us that we do not make.

Stop repeating the tired allegation that we are ignoring the spirit of the text vis-à-vis the literal letter of the text. William and I have both addressed the fallacy behind that mode of argumentation. Yet you haven't responded to that specific challenge from us.

 

[stuart lawrence]

I will just respond to your initial point.
I have been quoting what happens at and after judgement day. I align those scriptures and show from them people are tormented forever and live outside of the new Jerusalem. You quote words such as perish, death, destruction before this time to try and show people cease to exist. You have now brought scripture into contradiction with scripture. I repeat, I am quoting from the time that is central to this discussion. What happens at and after the final judgement!
The Bible is a spiritual book with a spiritual message. You are quoting the letter but failing to understand the spiritual message contained in it. Hence you bring contradiction

For crying out loud. Both William and I have made it clear that we are not arguing that "perish" means "non-existence". Stop attributing arguments to us that we do not make.

Stop repeating the tired allegation that we are ignoring the spirit of the text vis-à-vis the literal letter of the text. William and I have both addressed the fallacy behind that mode of argumentation. Yet you haven't responded to that specific challenge from us.[/QUOTE]
I get weary of responding to post after post of people who refuse to see( in my view.)
And when the posts are long, I usually only respond to one point. For no matter how much debate takes place, no matter how much scripture is quoted you will both leave this debate with your beliefs intact and I with mine. And doubtless we will each say the other refuses to accept the truth.
As for perish.
Mark quoted John 3:16.
You congratulated him on his post.
WHY?

 

[stuart lawrence]

That is a good point, Mark.

Why respond to john3:16 with the above? Please tell me, truthfully!

 

[Darren J. Clark]

Why respond to john3:16 with the above? Please tell me, truthfully!

I was referring to a comment Mark made.

 

[stuart lawrence]

I was referring to a comment Mark made.

I know that, the comment was solely john3:16
Now please tell me truthfully why you responded:

That is a good point mark

 

[stuart lawrence]

When people start being economical with the truth, it shows a problem, with them

 

[Darren J. Clark]

I know that, the comment was solely john3:16
Now please tell me truthfully why you responded:

That is a good point mark

Because I thought Mark made a salient comment. That is the truth, I promise.

 

[stuart lawrence]

For crying out loud. Both William and I have made it clear that we are not arguing that "perish" means "non-existence". Stop attributing arguments to us that we do not make.

.

I repeat. Why respond:
That's a good comment mark
To john3:16

 

[stuart lawrence]

Because I thought Mark made a salient comment. That is the truth, I promise.

No, you considered the word perish in John 3:16 to mean non existence, that's the truth

 

[stuart lawrence]

Because I thought Mark made a salient comment. That is the truth, I promise.

Mark did not make any personal comment, he just quoted john3:16

 

[Darren J. Clark]

I repeat. Why respond:
That's a good comment mark
To john3:16

I repeat, because I thought he made a salient comment.

 

[stuart lawrence]

I repeat, because I thought he made a salient comment.

If you cannot be honest I will not continue discussion with you.
So I will ask you one last time, then I will place you on ignore.

Did you say
That's a good point mark
For you considered the word perish to mean non existence?

 

[stuart lawrence]

And the only reason I have pursued this is because of your:

For crying out loud
comment