Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Timotheos]

Timotheos, I appreciate your response but it seems to have missed something.

Per Revelation 20:9-10, the problem presented for you is that if what God would do to one person he could do to any person. It defines his character. So even if you reason that "only the devil will endure Eternal Conscious Torment" you still have a God of Eternal Conscious Torment.

Yes, you do have many (many) passages saying that the wicked will be destroyed. You needn't quote them all here. However, aren't you forgetting something? The devil is the definition of wicked. If the devil will not be destroyed, than what of the rest of the wicked?

Yes, Romans 6:23 does say that the wages of sin is death. But hasn't the devil also sinned? Why would God punish one person for sinning with death but the other with eternal conscious torment? If God's ways are equal, then shouldn't the punishments be similar? If "death" means "eternal conscious torment" where the devil is concerned, how can you be sure that it doesn't also mean "eternal conscious torment" for everyone else?

What I'm trying to point out is that regardless of weight of evidence of one side, even one contradiction would disprove your case. If the devil hath immortality and will not be destroyed by fire, and if he is cast into fire and tormented for ever, then he is not consumed by that fire and "Eternal Conscious Torment" is not only proved, but possibly implied for other fallen angels and even the race of Adam as well.

Are there other passages on the judgment that might be relevant here that we could use for context? I am not willing to accept a "biblical contradiction" explanation so easily. Are we misreading this somehow?

Yes. All of that neatly illustrates the problems with taking a passage from the Apocalypse of John and trying to insist that it must be taken literally. If a doctrine can't be proven using 65 Books of the Bible, then an appeal to the Apocalypse isn't going to help that doctrine. You must recognize the genre of the book you are reading in order to understand the meaning the author intended. When John explained what he meant by the lake of fire, he said the lake of fire is the second death. Speculation about what happens to the devil doesn't really help the doctrine of eternal torture. It reminds me of Deep Theological Discussions about the number of angels that can fit comfortably on the head of a pin.

Since there are many passages throughout the Bible that specifically state that the wicked will be destroyed, and that the devil will be destroyed, it is best to look at the verse from the Apocalypse as an anonomoly. It is okay to say "I don't know about that", but the overwhelming evidence from the Bible as a whole is that the wicked will be destroyed.

 

[Rosenritter]

I understand what you are saying. Given the weight of what you do understand, you would need something more than a single passage. In the meantime, you are willing to admit that there may be a verse that you do not understand or cannot explain.

But on the other side, there are some people that take the book of Revelation very seriously. And it is not a book that stands alone, it has support of many books of the bible behind it. If I were to present clear passages from other books (whole sections, not single verses) that clearly support and elaborate Revelation 20:10 as regarding the fate of the devil in hell fire and the judgment, would you accept those?

Way 2 Go, Angel4Truth (etc) would you agree that this would be a fair test? That we should accept what scripture spells spells out clearly in this case? I want to make sure that there's agreement on this on both sides of the thread community first, before I show Timotheous where Revelation 20:10 ties into the previous 65 books of the bible.

 

[patrick jane]

I understand what you are saying. Given the weight of what you do understand, you would need something more than a single passage. In the meantime, you are willing to admit that there may be a verse that you do not understand or cannot explain.

But on the other side, there are some people that take the book of Revelation very seriously. And it is not a book that stands alone, it has support of many books of the bible behind it. If I were to present clear passages from other books (whole sections, not single verses) that clearly support and elaborate Revelation 20:10 as regarding the fate of the devil in hell fire and the judgment, would you accept those?

Way 2 Go, Angel4Truth (etc) would you agree that this would be a fair test? That we should accept what scripture spells spells out clearly in this case? I want to make sure that there's agreement on this on both sides of the thread community first, before I show Timotheous where Revelation 20:10 ties into the previous 65 books of the bible.

It's only the the devil, the beast and the false prophet that are tormented forever, plain as day in Revelation 20:10 KJV -

 

[Ben Masada]

Hi Ben,

As we've been over before,...there are Jewish views/beliefs/perspectives that do not agree with yours, since some Jews do indeed believe in resurrection and some kind of afterlife - as in 'Olam ha ba' (the world to come)and some esoteric Jews who hold to the Kaballah...accept the doctrine of 'reincarnation/rebirth' -

I agree with you for there are many Jews who read the Scriptures without studying it. The Truth becomes alien to them. These are among the thousands, even millions of Jews who have converted to Christianity. They get used to the Christian method and doctrines and become Christians even worse than those who have taught them the gospel of Paul.

see: I don't think you're view of 'eternal death' with no resurrection or afterlife, is the commonly accepted view among Jews, orthodox or liberal, since other allowances for 'resurrection' and 'gilgul' are acceptable too.

More Orthodox than liberals, mind you! They have learned the Christian method of rewards in the afterlife which functions as treats given to dogs in order to behave well and perform according to their masters have commanded.

To confirm your view, do you still hold that there is no resurrection or afterlife whatsoever, and that man only has death to look forward to after one mortal incarnation? Thank you.

Yes, and so far I haven't found no one to disprove what II Samuel 12:23; Isaiah 26:14; and Job 7:9 who endorse the truth that, once dead, one will never return from the grave. Resurrection is denied by the Prophets and reincarnation to exist, it won't without resurrection. Now, with regards to the "Olam Haba" aka the world after this life, I believe there is, but we all will spend it in the grave without any form of consciousness. So, the world to come is the world of the grave.

 

[Rosenritter]

Yes, and so far I haven't found no one to disprove what II Samuel 12:23; Isaiah 26:14; and Job 7:9 who endorse the truth that, once dead, one will never return from the grave. Resurrection is denied by the Prophets and reincarnation to exist, it won't without resurrection. Now, with regards to the "Olam Haba" aka the world after this life, I believe there is, but we all will spend it in the grave without any form of consciousness. So, the world to come is the world of the grave.

Job denies the resurrection???

Job 19:23-27 KJV
(23) Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!
(24) That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!
(25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
(26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
(27) Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Isaiah denies the resurrection???

Isaiah 26:19 KJV
(19) Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

Then there is Daniel...

Daniel 12:1-3 KJV
(1) And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
(2) And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
(3) And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

It doesn't look to me like the prophets deny the resurrection. The dead may die, and not rise by themselves, but the prophets do agree that the day is coming when the dead shall rise.

Mark 12:24-27 KJV
(24) And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
(25) For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
(26) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
(27) He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

 

[way 2 go]

Dear Way 2 Go,



Instead I will make a request. You keep using a term that I don't see in in scripture, "spiritual death." Obviously this is a term of philosophical construction - in other words, it has been invented. Please define your meaning (and explain how it would differ from metaphor) and then show me exactly how you are constructing this term from scripture. In other words, what necessitates that you must create an entirely new term that isn't already covered by the common use of language of either literal or metaphorical?

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Paul is talking about spiritual condition for himself but actually
applies to everyone.

YOU do not go to hell for Adam's sin
you do inherit his sin nature

hence

I was once alive
past tense and literal and spiritual

Paul is not talking about a tree or a thread on the internet
or his physical body or an emotional condition

He is talking about being born spiritually alive and
it is followed by spiritual death.

Skipping to our passage in Revelation, you seem to maintain that "death" is a specific place. However, from the context of the passage, it seems rather that it isn't the place that is death, but that being cast into that place is what results in death. Grammatically, being "cast into the lake of fire" and "having their part in the lake of fire" seems to work equally well. Is there any meaningful difference between that and what you were saying above? (or in other words, is there really any need for disagreement on that?)

no .

Rev 20:13... Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them

so if New York and L.A. gave up the dead that were in them those would still be places even if they were thrown into the lake of fire.

Anyway... please teach us how this idea of a separate "spiritual death" comes from scripture. To me it looks like an unneeded philosophical construct. If it was meant to be doctrine, why wouldn't the phrase be used in scripture?

why is trinity not in the bible :idunno:

 

[freelight]

Job denies the resurrection???

Job 19:23-27 KJV
(23) Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!
(24) That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!
(25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
(26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
(27) Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Isaiah denies the resurrection???

Isaiah 26:19 KJV
(19) Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

Then there is Daniel...

Daniel 12:1-3 KJV
(1) And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
(2) And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
(3) And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

It doesn't look to me like the prophets deny the resurrection. The dead may die, and not rise by themselves, but the prophets do agree that the day is coming when the dead shall rise.

Mark 12:24-27 KJV
(24) And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
(25) For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
(26) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
(27) He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

Good points above Rosenritter,

But you accidentally made the quote out to be by me, instead of Ben Masada. You may have to tinker a bit in 'Preview' mode before posting and make sure you have the right person being quoted. In 'preview' mode you can edit and make any corrections that need to be done before final post

Edit note: oops,...somehow it now shows the quote is from BM,...sorry, looks like something going on with the editing. I might remind you ....BM is pretty resolute with his non-belief of resurrection or an afterlife of any kind, except the GRAVE,....that's IT folks. I've addressed this rather 'fatalistic' or 'nihilist' view before,...but hes pretty comfy with it for the time being.

 

[way 2 go]

I do NOT believe that when Jesus said "Let the dead bury the dead" that the dead undertakers were physically dead, and I've told Way2Go that before so he has NO excuse for this lie. I said before and I'll say it again (and I'll be ignored again) that Jesus was speaking metaphorically! Way2Go cannot understand metaphors.

wow you added a new addition to the meaning of death
:think:

 

[Rosenritter]

Romans 7:9 doesn't require a new definition of "dead" and "alive" - metaphor still describes the relationship just as well. "Dead" can be under the sentence of death" and "alive" would be "freed from the sentence of death." Can you find an example which would require a new definition?

As for your question of why "Trinity" is not in the bible, it might have something to do with it not being in scripture in the first place. I've read the whole bible and for some reason "Trinity" didn't merit a mention from Genesis through Revelation. In truth it's a man-made model to attempt to explain how God could be in more than one place at a time. I'd go as far to say it's not even a good model because most people have different ideas as to what it means. My point being is that it's a "man-made" model. Last anyone checked, "Trinity" is neither referenced, defined, or even required by scripture.

I'd like to stay on topic if possible. On topic and scripture based is my meaning. Two years and 5000+ plus posts and this one topic still requires resolution, so let this question stand or fall on its own scriptural merit. Can you show that "spiritual death" is a *required* construct from scripture, that requires a specific definition that cannot be otherwise resolved by the normal understanding of metaphor?

My favorite hard-bound bible has a quote at the front, titled The Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation:

"When the PLAIN SENSE of Scripture makes COMMON SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE. Therefore, take EVERY WORD at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, UNLESS the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages, and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate CLEARLY otherwise. God, in revealing his Word, neither intends nor permits the reader to be confused. He wants His children to understand."

That seems pretty sensible to me. How about you?

For clarification:
Metaphor | Define Metaphor at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/metaphor
Metaphor definition, a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, ...

For example,
Psalms 18:30 KJV
(30) As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

Is God a literal buckler? No.
Do we need a new definition for buckler, or a doctrine of Spiritual Bucklers? No.
Is the passage using metaphor? Yes, there is a resemblance between God's aspect of protection and the buckler.

 

[freelight]

God is LIFE...........

God is LIFE...........

I agree with you for there are many Jews who read the Scriptures without studying it. The Truth becomes alien to them. These are among the thousands, even millions of Jews who have converted to Christianity. They get used to the Christian method and doctrines and become Christians even worse than those who have taught them the gospel of Paul.

Well,...the fact that a diverse spectrum of beliefs or points of view exist from a community all using the same holy book, speaks to the books vagueness or liberality of philosophical freedom given to how its interpreted, even if there are not many verses on the subject of 'resurrection' or 'reincarnation', but there are. Again,...a matter of 'translation' eh?

More Orthodox than liberals, mind you! They have learned the Christian method of rewards in the afterlife which functions as treats given to dogs in order to behave well and perform according to their masters have commanded.

Well,....only those 'orthodox' stuck in a concept of 'death' being man's only ultimate destiny. Granted the OT doesn't talk a lot about an afterlife,...that's why they had to liberally interpret some passages and add or innovate philosophical concepts already existing in other religious cultures and belief-systems, these concepts being 'universal' anyways. In truth-seeking, why would one not draw from the entire collective of human wisdom, knowledge and philosophy from all cultures and traditions? Remember,...this reality we call 'God' or 'Deity' is INFINITE - this means LIFE is infinite. 'Death' is but a concept or assumption.

Your 'polemic' against the 'Christian method' is noted (Hey, I have my own as well)...but I don't think its necessarily warranted beyond a 'preconception' or 'assumption' of the 'afterlife' being merely a 'reward' within some belief-system....it just might be that 'eternal progression' and continuation of consciousness is part of the natural cycle of life, and that how you lived your life in one period of time, affects your future embodiments,...assuming that souls do either 'resurrect' or 'reincarnate'....either way,...there is a natural and just karmic compensation - do note as well, the notion that energy is neither created nor destroyed, it just undergoes 'trans-formation'. I think perhaps a little more exploration into metaphysics may spruce up your studies, and open up new horizons.

Yes, and so far I haven't found no one to disprove what II Samuel 12:23; Isaiah 26:14; and Job 7:9 who endorse the truth that, once dead, one will never return from the grave. Resurrection is denied by the Prophets and reincarnation to exist, it won't without resurrection. Now, with regards to the "Olam Haba" aka the world after this life, I believe there is, but we all will spend it in the grave without any form of consciousness. So, the world to come is the world of the grave.

But as Rosenritter has shown, there are other passages from these writers that do support a concept of resurrection/rebirth.

Do note as well,...that in Jesus time and nearabouts that the 3 main groups of Jews were Pharisees, Saducees and the Essenes,...and that ONLY the Saducees denied resurrection or an afterlife. So you apparently are more of their school, since Pharisees and the Essenes (actually two schools closer to the belief-system/cultural disposition of Jesus) do believe in resurrection/rebirth and henceforth the continuation of consciousness beyond the the grave. Furthermore if you accept Jesus words contained in the 4 canonized gospels,....Jesus CLEARLY teaches a resurrection of souls, and an 'eternal' (aionios) life being given to them, so this indicates a dispensation of life given to souls for an indefinite period of time, for instance in the 'olam ha ba' or some 'millenial' dispensation. Beyond this of course,...the NT further teaches souls can PUT ON IMMORTALITY. So you see,...the 'evidence' for soul's being given extra dispensations of conscious life (they don't remain dead!) and further having the opportunity to share in the divine nature or life of God himself,.....is clearly taught in the NT,...and is a concept accepted in other religious traditions, either by revelation or man's own intuition.

 

[Timotheos]

If I were to present clear passages from other books (whole sections, not single verses) that clearly support and elaborate Revelation 20:10 as regarding the fate of the devil in hell fire and the judgment, would you accept those?

Absolutely. If unclear passages are supported by clear passages, I accept that. I wonder why all of the clear passages in the Bible that speak of the destruction of the wicked are not accepted by Way2Go and his group. What does it take anyway? If Jesus Christ Himself said that we should fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell, would you (and them) accept His word as truth? Well, He did and they don't.

 

[Timotheos]

why is trinity not in the bible :idunno:

Great point! Since the word Trinity is not in the Bible, anyone can come up with any doctrine they like and support it by saying "Trinity isn't in the Bible either."

Let me try one, Although the Bible doesn't say that Peter was a kangaroo, the Bible also doesn't say that there is a trinity, since there is a trinity, Peter also must be a kangaroo.

 

[Timotheos]

wow you added a new addition to the meaning of death
:think:

No, I did not. Why do you post pictures of Spock when you are unable to think logically? Do you think that if you post his picture, people will think the nonsense you post is logical? Learn how to read.

 

[patrick jane]

No, I did not. Why do you post pictures of Spock when you are unable to think logically? Do you think that if you post his picture, people will think the nonsesnse you post is logical? Learn how to read.

View attachment 24391

 

[lifeisgood]

why is trinity not in the bible :idunno:

The word 'trinity' is not; however, the fundamental principle of the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the Bible, that is, if you want to find it.

 

[Rosenritter]

The word 'trinity' is not; however, the fundamental principle of the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the Bible, that is, if you want to find it.

I am not trying to hijack this thread onto a new topic, but I know of a couple contradictions that inevitably result from hardcore Trinity enthusiasm. But I cannot tell from your response what you think this fundamental principle is so it doesn't help communication much. If, however, this principle is from the Bible then it would stand on its own if you tried to communicate it - without ever needing a word like Trinity.

I can say much of what would need to be said with Isaiah 9:6 and 1 John 5:7 etc. No creeds needed to be recited. No one needing to be burned at the stake in Geneva. If it says God was manifest in the flesh and walked among us but we knew him not, is that not sufficient?

At an airport right now thumb typing so I am not at great liberty for great detail. Regardless, let's stay on topic. If you want to start a nature of God or Trinity thread please feel free to invite me, if you wish.

Sent from my LG-D852 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Nihilo]

As for your question of why "Trinity" is not in the bible, it might have something to do with it not being in scripture in the first place. I've read the whole bible and for some reason "Trinity" didn't merit a mention from Genesis through Revelation. In truth it's a man-made model to attempt to explain how God could be in more than one place at a time. I'd go as far to say it's not even a good model because most people have different ideas as to what it means. My point being is that it's a "man-made" model. Last anyone checked, "Trinity" is neither referenced, defined, or even required by scripture.

So you're another "non-trin." Great.

 

[Timotheos]

So you're another "non-trin." Great.

He didn't actually say that.

 

[Hawkins]

This is a concept long standing even back in Jesus time. What a parable is? A parable is the making use of simple concepts to illustrate a less obvious point. To the Jews immortal soul, hell, lake of fire, eternal torment etc. are common Jewish concepts back then. Both Pharisees and Essenes held these concepts. So are the Jews in majority as they are influenced basically by the Pharisees.

From Josephus,

In this region there is a certain place set apart, as a lake of unquenchable fire, whereinto we suppose no one hath hitherto been cast; but it is prepared for a day afore-determined by God, in which one righteous sentence shall deservedly be passed upon all men; when the unjust, and those that have been disobedient to God, and have given honor to such idols as have been the vain operations of the hands of men as to God himself, shall be adjudged to this everlasting punishment, as having been the causes of defilement; while the just shall obtain an incorruptible and never-fading kingdom. These are now indeed confined in Hades, but not in the same place wherein the unjust are confined.


If there's a problem in the concept, Jesus should have corrected it instead of making parable out of it.

 

[Timotheos]

The word 'trinity' is not; however, the fundamental principle of the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the Bible, that is, if you want to find it.

Exactly! That's the difference between "Trinity" and "Spiritually Dead".