Eternal Damnation, Conditional Immortality, or Universal Reconciliation: A CF poll

[DavidPT]

First ECT, or "Eternal Conscious Torment" does not occur anywhere in the Bible. The correct Biblical term is "eternal punishment" spoken by Jesus.

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”[p. 96]​

…..Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-. Note, the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, translated “aionios,” in Matt 25:46, as “eternal,” NOT “age.”
…..Who is better qualified than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], quoted above and below, to know the correct translation of the Greek in the N.T.?

So then, why can't eternal punishment simply mean eternal death, as in, one is literally dead forever? Would it be reasonable to argue that death is not a punishment?

You indicate "Eternal Conscious Torment" does not occur anywhere in the Bible. Did you then forget what Revelation 20:10 records? and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Explain how none of that is describing Eternal Conscious Torment.

While I do agree that is satan's and his angels fate, and the fate of the beast and false prophet, that is not the same judgment involving Revelation 20:11-15, though. Nowhere within those verses does it ever say any humans cast into the LOF, they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. It calls their fate the 2nd death, not eternal torment instead.


As to a first and 2nd death, death only makes sense if something actually literally dies. Per the first death it is the body that actually literally dies. Per your view then, involving the 2nd death, what is it that you propose literally dies? Nothing? If so, why would something literally die per the first death, but not per the 2nd death?

 

[Der Alte]

So then, why can't eternal punishment simply mean eternal death, as in, one is literally dead forever? Would it be reasonable to argue that death is not a punishment?
You indicate "Eternal Conscious Torment" does not occur anywhere in the Bible. Did you then forget what Revelation 20:10 records? and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Explain how none of that is describing Eternal Conscious Torment.
While I do agree that is satan's and his angels fate, and the fate of the beast and false prophet, that is not the same judgment involving Revelation 20:11-15, though. Nowhere within those verses does it ever say any humans cast into the LOF, they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. It calls their fate the 2nd death, not eternal torment instead.
As to a first and 2nd death, death only makes sense if something actually literally dies. Per the first death it is the body that actually literally dies. Per your view then, involving the 2nd death, what is it that you propose literally dies? Nothing? If so, why would something literally die per the first death, but not per the 2nd death?

As I said the phrase "eternal conscious torment" does not occur anywhere in the Bible. And FYI one of the three tossed in the LOF and tormented day and night for ever and ever, i.e. the false prophet was a person.
The correct term is "eternal punishment" and Jesus said it. Why can't "eternal punishment" mean "eternal death?" Jesus is quoted as saying "death" 18 times. When Jesus meant "death" that is what He said. Jesus used "punishment" one time because that is what He meant.
I repeat my position while the LOF is called "the second death" three times. Nowhere is it written that anyone, anything is thrown into the LOF then they/it dies. In fact, the terms are used interchangeably the lake of fire is the second death and the second death is the lake of fire.
Rev. 20:4 says "no more death" but 4 vss. later 8 groups of sinners are thrown into the LOF and it is still called the second death. If there is no more death after vs. 4 the 8 groups of sinners tossed in the LOF do not die.

 

[keras]

What people here seem to have missed, is this statement:
Romans 9:22 .....God has tolerated vessels [people] made for destruction.

When everyone who has ever lived, stand before God in Judgment, Revelation 20:11-15, Daniel 7:9-10, then there will be a simple and quick sorting out. Those whose names are found in the Book of Life will receive immortality. The rest will be destroyed and will be remembered no more.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Did you then forget what Revelation 20:10 records? and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Explain how none of that is describing Eternal Conscious Torment.

The question would be, "Does the word 'forever' always mean 'perpetual' in scripture?" Here is one scripture where "forever" obviously does not mean "perpetual". Isaiah 32:14-15 says, "...the forts and towers shall be for dens forever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks; UNTIL the spirit be poured upon us from on high..." In this text, "forever" only persists UNTIL something else happens.

In the text you are highlighting, that torment during day and night was to last for "the ages of the ages". The last time I checked, "ages" have both a beginning and also an ending point. (Do you remember Hebrews 9:26 referring to "the ends of the ages"?) In addition, we can see that regular day and night cycles were still going on during this "torment" imposed on these individuals.

The Lake of Fire that these individuals were thrown into was in a particular location where God's "furnace of fire" was located (Matthew 13:42). This "furnace" of God's fire was specifically said to be in the city of Jerusalem, according to Isaiah 31:9: "...the LORD, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem."

The Lake of Fire was said to be the equivalent of the "Second Death" (Rev. 20:14). This was the second death of the city of Jerusalem in AD 70, which had once died its first death along with its temple during the Babylonian invasion in 586 BC. Toward the end of the AD 66-70 period, the city under siege appeared to those outside the city to be a literal lake of fire from one end of the city to another.

 

[Andrewn]

What I said is that those who are wicked will have their wills enter a state of non-being, stripped of their humanity which returns to Christ.

What you're saying is that the ego/personality is annihilated while the human spirit is saved. I have a similar view, but I wonder if any aspects of the personality are saved. Parts of the subconscious/unconscious?

 

[Hmm]

Interesting poll results: 18 voted ED, 11 voted CI, and 11 voted UR. Clearly, that's not everyone on CF, but there are a good number that support UR, more than actually discuss it regularly. And, the fact only 18 voted ED is somewhat hopeful, I think.

I'm surprised so many favour CI, which seems to be the least supported view in scripture. I wonder if that indicates a move away from ED rather than a positive vote for CI itself. From online testimonies I've read, ED is often used as a halfway house as people move away from ED as a way to get some time to recover from the trauma of believing that God tortures, before finally embracing UR. It would be nice to think so anyway!

 

[Der Alte]

The question would be, "Does the word 'forever' always mean 'perpetual' in scripture?" Here is one scripture where "forever" obviously does not mean "perpetual". Isaiah 32:14-15 says, "...the forts and towers shall be for dens forever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks; UNTIL the spirit be poured upon us from on high..." In this text, "forever" only persists UNTIL something else happens.
In the text you are highlighting, that torment during day and night was to last for "the ages of the ages". The last time I checked, "ages" have both a beginning and also an ending point. (Do you remember Hebrews 9:26 referring to "the ends of the ages"?) In addition, we can see that regular day and night cycles were still going on during this "torment" imposed on these individuals.
The Lake of Fire that these individuals were thrown into was in a particular location where God's "furnace of fire" was located (Matthew 13:42). This "furnace" of God's fire was specifically said to be in the city of Jerusalem, according to Isaiah 31:9: "...the LORD, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem."
The Lake of Fire was said to be the equivalent of the "Second Death" (Rev. 20:14). This was the second death of the city of Jerusalem in AD 70, which had once died its first death along with its temple during the Babylonian invasion in 586 BC. Toward the end of the AD 66-70 period, the city under siege appeared to those outside the city to be a literal lake of fire from one end of the city to another.

Re: Isa 32:14-15 and Heb 9:26, One figurative use of a word does not determine the meaning of that word.
In the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation of the Hebrew OT, לעלם ועד L'olam w'ad is translated "for ever and ever."

1 Timothy 1:17​

(17) Now unto the King eternal [αἰώνων], immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. [εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων·] Amen.​

In this vs. "aionios" and "aion of the aion" are paralleled with "immortal." Thus ainios means eternal and aions to aions means eternity unto eternity. The reduplication of words is a Hebraism for emphasis.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think it would be interesting to get a sense of where CFers stand on this issue.

Eternal Damnation - some (many) will suffer eternal torment/separation from God and some will be given everlasting life

Conditional Immortality - some ( many) will be annihilated and some will be given everlasting life

Universal Reconciliation - all will eventually be reconciled to God in Christ

Agnostic - not committed to any of the three options above

I am assuming any who are "hopeful universalists" are basically in the agnostic camp.

For myself, I was agnostic for a long time while arguing that UR was the most likely position, having the better arguments on its side. Eventually, I have come to embrace UR. I do believe that some will suffer terribly, some not as much, and others will experience great joy as we all enter the unmitigated presence of God. To be in Christ is to be conformed to his image and prepared for the unmitigated presence of God who is an unquenchable fire that purifies us of all dross. Eventually, at the end of the ages, God will be all in all. As Origen said, either we are baptized by water in this life or fire in the next.

At any rate, please vote so that we can see what folks on CF believe. I have left voting anonymous so that everyone can vote their conscience without feeling compelled to defend their position. I'm hoping most everyone will vote so we can get a good sense of the group. But feel free to engage in lively but lovely discussion below. I've said my piece (many times over) so I'll turn it over to y'all. God bless us all.

I chose conditional immortality which I’m not familiar with that term but after looking it up it appears to be the same as annihilationism. Although I’m probably in the agnostic category because I’m not entirely convinced that annihilationism is what will actually take place I believe that eternal punishment is also very possible.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Thank you, Der Alte. Did you vote?

I think he voted agnostic lol

 

[BNR32FAN]

Jesus said it. I believe it that settles it.

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left vs. 41] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”[EOB p. 96]​

…..Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-. Note, the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, translated “aionios,” in Matt 25:46, as “eternal,” NOT “age.”
…..Who is better qualified than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], quoted above and below, to know the correct translation of the Greek in the N.T.?
Link to EOB online:

The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The New Testament (The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible)

archive.org

…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., 1st occurrence Matt 25:46, above, and 2nd occurrence 1 John 4:18., below.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.[EOB p. 518]​

In the EOB the Greek word “kolasis” is translated “punishment” in both Matt 25:46 and 1 John 4:18.
…..Some badly informed folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction.”
Sorry, that is impossible, both “prune” and “correction” are verbs. “Kolasis” is a noun. One cannot translate a noun as a verb.
Also according to the EOB Greek scholars “kolasis” means “punishment.”
Note: in 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect. Thus “kolasis” does not/cannot mean “correction.”
The word “correction” occurs one time in the NT 2 Timothy 3:16 ἐπανόρθωσις/epanorthosis. It looks nothing like kolasis.
…..It is acknowledged that modern Greek differs from koine Greek but I am confident that the native Greek speaking EOB scholars, supported by 2000 years +/- of uninterrupted Greek scholarship, are competent enough to know the correct translation of obsolete Greek words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer in use and to translate them correctly. Just as scholars today know the meaning of obsolete English words which occur in e.g. the 1611 KJV and can define them correctly.

I think that annihilationism could be considered an eternal punishment because there’s no coming back from it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The problem is partly that we don't look at what scripture does say, but rather what we think it says.

Well from what I’ve seen from the universalist side so far it’s mainly based on human sentiment not scripture.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The reduplication of words is a Hebraism for emphasis.

Of course, that is a given.

But you are not allowing that scripture presents varying ways that "forever" can be understood. It does not necessarily mean "perpetual" or "eternal unto eternity" in every context. For example, the OT prohibition in Leviticus 10:9 against the Levites drinking wine before they went into the tabernacle, which was to be "a statute forever throughout your generations..." But those "generations" of the Israelite tribes came to an end, as well as their physical temple and the separation of the Levites from the other tribes. The significance of that Levitical priesthood system has been subsumed into, and is fulfilled by the priesthood of all the believers.

The "ends of the ages" Hebrews 9:26 said had come upon those to whom the author was then addressing. It was THAT generation in the ends of those particular ages which experienced the torment of Jerusalem's second death as the city and the temple was disintegrating in those final years between AD 66-70.

 

[Der Alte]

Of course, that is a given.
But you are not allowing that scripture presents varying ways that "forever" can be understood. It does not necessarily mean "perpetual" or "eternal unto eternity" in every context. For example, the OT prohibition in Leviticus 10:9 against the Levites drinking wine before they went into the tabernacle, which was to be "a statute forever throughout your generations..." But those "generations" of the Israelite tribes came to an end, as well as their physical temple and the separation of the Levites from the other tribes. The significance of that Levitical priesthood system has been subsumed into, and is fulfilled by the priesthood of all the believers.
The "ends of the ages" Hebrews 9:26 said had come upon those to whom the author was then addressing. It was THAT generation in the ends of those particular ages which experienced the torment of Jerusalem's second death as the city and the temple was disintegrating in those final years between AD 66-70.

My view is many times words are used figuratively, including aionios and aion. For example, Simon was not literally a stone when Jesus named him "Petros i.e. stone. Herod was not literally a fox when Jesus called him one. James and john were not literally the sons of thunder when Jesus named them that. Figuratively. Jesus defined "aionios" as "eternal" in 10 vss. I will quote 3 of them.

John 10:28​

(28) I give them eternal [αιωνιον/aionion] life, and they shall never​

[εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα/eis ton aiona][lit. unto eternity] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. ​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aiona” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aiona” means “age(s), a finite period,” “age(s) is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

John 3:15​

(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.​

John 3:16​

(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life. ​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion life” with “should not perish,” twice! Believers could eventually perish in a finite period also "aionios" is an adjective and "age" is a noun. An adjective cannot be translated as a noun. Thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.
The other 7 vss. are John 5:24, John 4:14, John 6:27, John 8:57, John 3:36, Luke 1:33
A word cannot mean one thing sometimes then something else other times. "Aionios" is never defined/described as a period less that eternal anywhere in the N.T. as they are defined/described, as eternal, in the above vss.

 

[Hmm]

A word cannot mean one thing sometimes then something else other times.

How about: "I set off on my walk. When I got back my jelly had set. I set the table and eat it. I then set a goal not to eat any more empty calories in future. I then watched the sun set and went to bed."?

 

[Andrewn]

I chose conditional immortality which I’m not familiar with that term but after looking it up it appears to be the same as annihilationism. Although I’m probably in the agnostic category

Ultimately everyone is "agnostic" when it comes to eternity, so it is pointless to vote that way. The exception, of course, is Baptists.

 

[Der Alte]

How about: "I set off on my walk. When I got back my jelly had set. I set the table and eat it. I then set a goal not to eat any more empty calories in future. I then watched the sun set and went to bed."?

Can we say deflection? We are not talking about English we are talking about Greek. "Aionios" and "aion" each have specific lexical meanings i.e. from a lexicon. Otherwise, how would formerly pagan Christians, all of whom spoke Greek as a second language, in such diverse places as Samaria, Egypt, Babylon, Italy, Greece, Asia, modern day Turkey etc. understand what the NT writers were saying? And please do not quote Strong's to me. Strong's is not a lexicon, all Strong did was write down how words were translated in the KJV. And Strong's has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions.

 

[sparow]

I presume you are referring to the "narrow gate" verses, which really only applied to the nation of Israel at the time of Christ's earthly ministry, when the prophets said that there would only be a "remnant" that would be saved. Though the children of Israel would numerically increase as the sand of the sea, yet only a "remnant" would be saved (Romans 9:27). When the incarnate Christ came unto His own, generally speaking His own would not receive Him, as John 1:11 testified.

Paul expressed agreement with the OT prophets about the state of his own people the Israelites when he said that "at this present time there remaineth also a remnant according to the election of grace" (Romans 11:5). The greater percentage of the national Israelites ended up rejecting Christ when He came among them, even though a small remnant of them did believe that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah.

That "present time" of a small believing remnant of national Israelites was in Paul's generation. This was NOT a prediction for all time - that the harvest of humanity which are children of God will be small when compared to the total of all humanity. On the contrary, the saved from all nations and tongues would be presented as a multitude in heaven which "no man could number" (Rev. 7:9). Also, Hebrews 2:10 said that God through Christ's sufferings would bring "MANY sons into glory" - not a few of them.

And as I said above, the "harvest" of humanity is compared to a "WHEAT harvest" - NOT a "TARES harvest". If the majority were unbelieving "tares", then it would have been called a "tares harvest". But it wasn't. The majority of that harvest is "wheat", which represents children of God gathered by the resurrection into His "barn".

I do not use Paul, if I did I would read my own meaning into his words like everyone else. The conclusion I reach from the teaching of Jesus is that the harvest is of a crop sown which involves entering into a contract which involves baptism and commitment, from here a person grows into harvestable grain or tares.

 

[sparow]

I can sort of see that if we assume that in the end most pople are simply NPCs placed here to see what how the real characters will respond to them.

God could have designed the universe in any way at all the seemed food to Him. He's God, right? So it could have been some get saved, none get saved, all get saved, every third one gets saved, ad infinitum.

I assume God id a rational God and that there is a reason and purpose to everything He does; God does not throw dice, and that the difference between life and death is huge, not a whim.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I do not use Paul,

That's strange, considering that God chose this man to become an Apostle by commissioning Paul and giving him revelation directly. Actually, it was not Paul who originated that statement about the "remnant" of Israel being saved. That was from Isaiah the prophet who predicted that Israel would end up with only a small remnant that would be saved.

Your comment doesn't really address the point of what the greatest percentage of the harvest would be - whether wheat or tares.

 

[Andrewn]

It was THAT generation in the ends of those particular ages which experienced the torment of Jerusalem's second death as the city and the temple was disintegrating in those final years between AD 66-70.

This is a different interpretation of the second death/lake of fire. But it doesn't seem to fit with the book of Revelation. The LoF is mentioned in 5 verses in Revelation:

14:10-11 The LOF is not mentioned by name but is clearly described as the fate of people who worship the beast. They will be tormented forever and ever.

19:20 After the last battle, the beast and the false prophet are thrown into the LOF.

20:10 After the last battle, the devil is thrown in the LOF.

20:14-15 After the resurrection and the final judgment, death and hades and the unsaved are thrown in the LOF. The LOF is the second death.

Then God makes everything new in Rev 21:5-8, which includes:

21:8 “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

How are the Devil, the Beast, and the False Prophet destroyed in the Valley of Gehinnom?