Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[FineLinen]

The first person to write about Eternal Hell was the Latin North African Tertullian who is considered the Father of the Latin Church.

As most people reason, Hell is a place for people you don't like to go! Tertullian fantasized that not only the wicked would be in Hell but also every philosopher and theologian who ever argued with him! He envisioned a time when he would look down from Heaven at those people in Hell and laugh with glee!

By far, the main person responsible for making Hell eternal in the Western Church was St. Augustine (354-430 CE). Augustine's Christian mother did not kick him out of her house for not marrying the girlfriend he got pregnant, but she did oust him when he became a Manichean Gnostic. Later, he renounced Manichaeism and returned to the Roman Church where he was made Bishop of Hippo in North Africa . He did not know Greek, had tried to study it, but stated that he hated it. Sadly, it is his misunderstanding of Greek that cemented the concept of Eternal Hell in the Western Church . Augustine not only said that Hell was eternal for the wicked but also for anyone who wasn't a Christian.

So complete was his concept of God's exclusion of non-Christians that he considered un-baptized babies as damned; when these babies died, Augustine softened slightly to declare that they would be sent to the "upper level" of Hell.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The first person to write about Eternal Hell was the Latin North African Tertullian who is considered the Father of the Latin Church.

As most people reason, Hell is a place for people you don't like to go! Tertullian fantasized that not only the wicked would be in Hell but also every philosopher and theologian who ever argued with him! He envisioned a time when he would look down from Heaven at those people in Hell and laugh with glee!

By far, the main person responsible for making Hell eternal in the Western Church was St. Augustine (354-430 CE). Augustine's Christian mother did not kick him out of her house for not marrying the girlfriend he got pregnant, but she did oust him when he became a Manichean Gnostic. Later, he renounced Manichaeism and returned to the Roman Church where he was made Bishop of Hippo in North Africa . He did not know Greek, had tried to study it, but stated that he hated it. Sadly, it is his misunderstanding of Greek that cemented the concept of Eternal Hell in the Western Church . Augustine not only said that Hell was eternal for the wicked but also for anyone who wasn't a Christian.

So complete was his concept of God's exclusion of non-Christians that he considered un-baptized babies as damned; when these babies died, Augustine softened slightly to declare that they would be sent to the "upper level" of Hell.

LOL. I’m both an historian and linguist, and this is preposterous historical revisionism from a horrifically biased source.

Why resort to this? It demonstrates how desperate you are to impugn scripture and Apostolic doctrine.

BTW... Scripture predates Tertullian, and Tertullian (after some great early contributions to doctrine and apologetics) succumbed to Montanism; so he isn’t considered the “father” of the Latin church by much of anyone.

Where do you get this landfill of falsities?

And what is the name of your cult? (Of course you won’t answer, and we all know why.)

 

[way 2 go]

This doesn’t mean they are not conceived in spiritual death with attendant sin; it means the sin is not imputed to them.

what it means is the bible does not address babies .

what book would babies be in on judgement day ?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

what it means is the bible does not address babies.

Fair enough. At least not in the direct manner to which you’re referring. I see it very indirectly addressed via lexicography, but that’s certainly not obvious to most.

what book would babies be in on judgement day ?

This requires a compound answer that might seem abrupt and/or absurd if someone doesn’t understand the apocalyptic literary style the Holy Spirit chose to inspire for the Revelation through its human authorship.

The “Book” is Christ and His life (those who are translated into Him hypostatically being “written” therein, and thus having “His” very life imputed to them).

The “books” are the lives of individuals. This is a particular form of typology in this literary style, so for babies there isn’t anything to “read” as entries. No sin is imputed to them absent law.

 

[FineLinen]

Irenaeus of Gaul (d. 202), perhaps the most important Christian theologian of the second century, had a slightly earlier career than Tertullian (d. 225), who wrote of the torments of hell as ghoulish entertainment for Christians as they watch their persecutors tormented in fire. Irenaeus, however, spoke of no such thing.

Like other early church fathers, Irenaeus used the biblical phrase “eternal fire,” along with biblical images like a “furnace of fire” and the “outer darkness.” He also quoted Isaiah’s depiction of the slain enemies of God, whose “worm does not die” and whose “fire is not quenched.” Because of this, a number of theologians who advocate the traditional view of hell as eternal torment have jumped to the conclusion that Irenaeus must have shared their view.

Like most Christians since his time, Irenaeus believed that when our bodies die our souls live on. But unlike some of the other early church fathers, Irenaeus didn’t believe that everyone lives forever. In chapter 34 of his book Against Heresies, Irenaeus explains his view on the soul by denying that souls move on to another body after death, but that they do live on after death (a claim that he defends by using the story of the rich man and Lazarus). But just how long should a person expect to live after death?

Irenaeus’s answer was straightforward: For as long as God decides! He compares our own longevity to that of the heavenly bodies:

For as the heaven which is above us, the firmament, the sun, the moon, the rest of the stars, and all their grandeur, although they had no previous existence, were called into being, and continue throughout a long course of time according to the will of God, so also any one who thinks thus respecting souls and spirits, and, in fact, respecting all created things, will not by any means go far astray, inasmuch as all things that have been made had a beginning when they were formed, but endure as long as God wills that they should have an existence and continuance.

We are created, just as everything else in the universe is, so the soul is dependent on God for its existence each moment. For as long as God allows the moon (for example) to have “continuance,” it continues to exist, and the same is true of us. If God did not grant continuance to us – or the moon – we, like it, would simply stop existing.

But look what comes next: He thus speaks respecting the salvation of man: ‘He asked life of Thee, and Thou gavest him length of days for ever and ever;’ indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved.

For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature; but it is bestowed according to the grace of God.

 

[way 2 go]

Fair enough. At least not in the direct manner to which you’re referring. I see it very indirectly addressed via lexicography, but that’s certianly not obvious to most.

please share

(or link to a page)

This requires a compound answer that might seem abrupt and/or absurd if someone doesn’t understand the apocalyptic literary style the Holy Spirit chose to inspire for the Revelation through its human authorship.

I know I'm missing something

The “Book” is Christ and His life (those who are translated in Him hypostatically being “written” therein, and thus having “His” very life imputed to them).

which does not apply to babies


Man must be hypostatically joined to Christ while at least one aspect of life is present (either physical or spiritual), and since all are conceived in spiritual death with attendant sin (the state of being) then man is not truly a living soul (like Adam) until resurrected unto spiritual life.

The “books” are the lives of individuals. This is a particular form of typology in this literary style, so for babies there isn’t anything to “read” as entries. No sin is imputed to them absent law.

but not "hypostatically joined to Christ "

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

please share

(or link to a page)

I know I'm missing something

which does not apply to babies


Man must be hypostatically joined to Christ while at least one aspect of life is present (either physical or spiritual), and since all are conceived in spiritual death with attendant sin (the state of being) then man is not truly a living soul (like Adam) until resurrected unto spiritual life.

but not "hypostatically joined to Christ "

What’s missing is understanding that faith is a (singular anarthrous) noun, and God can give that noun to anyone He chooses according to His eternal foreknowledge. Faith is the hypostasis (substance) of things hoped for, so it is the means of our hypsotatic union with Christ.

This is a problematically difficult thing to grasp for most anti-sacramental Protestants. Faith isn’t believING, it’s the thing given to man that does the believing. Even the unborn, as demonstrated by John the Baptist in the womb, can have the basics of physical cognitive development to have sentient functionality for faith to be administered by God. This is why infants have always been baptized in the Christian faith; only abrogating that position and practice after Zwingli’s influence during the Reformation.

But as I said, this is a difficult thing for modern western Protestants. It’s likely the last thing Evangelicals could understand and embrace, even though it’s been Christian orthodox practice for two millennia since the Apostolic era.

I was previously addressing adults.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Irenaeus of Gaul (d. 202), perhaps the most important Christian theologian of the second century, had a slightly earlier career than Tertullian (d. 225), who wrote of the torments of hell as ghoulish entertainment for Christians as they watch their persecutors tormented in fire. Irenaeus, however, spoke of no such thing.

Like other early church fathers, Irenaeus used the biblical phrase “eternal fire,” along with biblical images like a “furnace of fire” and the “outer darkness.” He also quoted Isaiah’s depiction of the slain enemies of God, whose “worm does not die” and whose “fire is not quenched.” Because of this, a number of theologians who advocate the traditional view of hell as eternal torment have jumped to the conclusion that Irenaeus must have shared their view.

Like most Christians since his time, Irenaeus believed that when our bodies die our souls live on. But unlike some of the other early church fathers, Irenaeus didn’t believe that everyone lives forever. In chapter 34 of his book Against Heresies, Irenaeus explains his view on the soul by denying that souls move on to another body after death, but that they do live on after death (a claim that he defends by using the story of the rich man and Lazarus). But just how long should a person expect to live after death?

Irenaeus’s answer was straightforward: For as long as God decides! He compares our own longevity to that of the heavenly bodies:

For as the heaven which is above us, the firmament, the sun, the moon, the rest of the stars, and all their grandeur, although they had no previous existence, were called into being, and continue throughout a long course of time according to the will of God, so also any one who thinks thus respecting souls and spirits, and, in fact, respecting all created things, will not by any means go far astray, inasmuch as all things that have been made had a beginning when they were formed, but endure as long as God wills that they should have an existence and continuance.

We are created, just as everything else in the universe is, so the soul is dependent on God for its existence each moment. For as long as God allows the moon (for example) to have “continuance,” it continues to exist, and the same is true of us. If God did not grant continuance to us – or the moon – we, like it, would simply stop existing.

But look what comes next: He thus speaks respecting the salvation of man: ‘He asked life of Thee, and Thou gavest him length of days for ever and ever;’ indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved.

For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature; but it is bestowed according to the grace of God.

Your evaluations and assessment of those like Irenaeus are completely driven by your own presuppositions.

Of course he doesn’t intimate that all will live forever. Everlasting life is only for Believers. Everlasting death is NOT everlasting life. And you STILL think death is either annihilative or somehow purgative unto life (but with no resurrection, which is even more odd).

 

[FineLinen]

Your evaluations and assessment of those like Irenaeus are completely driven by your own presuppositions.

Of course he doesn’t intimate that all will live forever. Everlasting life is only for Believers. Everlasting death is NOT everlasting life. And you STILL think death is either annihilative or somehow purgative unto life (but with no resurrection, which is even more odd).

There is no such animal as everlasting death. "He shall swallow up death in victory."

Make it the Big Gulp of the Victorious One!

"So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.

For as through the one man's disobedience the polus were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the polus will be made righteous."

Many= many

Polus= polus

Are our broadest hopes broad enough? Shall there be a nook or abyss, in all the universe of God, finally unlightened by the Cross? Shall there be a sin, or sorrow, or pain unhealed? Is the very universe, is creation in all its extent, a field wide enough for the Son of God?

 

[Glen]

LOL. I’m both an historian and linguist, and this is preposterous historical revisionism from a horrifically biased source.

Why resort to this? It demonstrates how desperate you are to impugn scripture and Apostolic doctrine.

BTW... Scripture predates Tertullian, and Tertullian (after some great early contributions to doctrine and apologetics) succumbed to Montanism; so he isn’t considered the “father” of the Latin church by much of anyone.

Where do you get this landfill of falsities?

And what is the name of your cult? (Of course you won’t answer, and we all know why.)

Historian verses the ever present now, your smart in nothing new under the sun but kingdom and temple illiterate, any God who can be offended is man made like all fear based wisdom from egocentric delusion.

 

[glorydaz]

What’s missing is understanding that faith is a (singular anarthrous) noun, and God can give that noun to anyone He chooses according to His eternal foreknowledge. Faith is the hypostasis (substance) of things hoped for, so it is the means of our hypsotatic union with Christ.

This is a problematically difficult thing to grasp for most anti-sacramental Protestants. Faith isn’t believING, it’s the thing given to man that does the believing. Even the unborn, as demonstrated by John the Baptist in the womb, can have the basics of physical cognitive development to have sentient functionality for faith to be administered by God. This is why infants have always been baptized in the Christian faith; only abrogating that position and practice after Zwingli’s influence during the Reformation.

But as I said, this is a difficult thing for modern western Protestants. It’s likely the last thing Evangelicals could understand and embrace, even though it’s been Christian orthodox practice for two millennia since the Apostolic era.

I was previously addressing adults.

What you seem to be talking about here sounds a lot like Calvin.

 

[glorydaz]

I know I'm missing something

I think that's because something is missing. :think:

 

[oatmeal]

Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) biblical or not?

Which verses in the Bible support ECT and which verses in the bible support the doctrine that the wicked perish instead?

No.

Romans 6:23.

 

[Aimiel]

No.

Romans 6:23.

YES!!!

Isaiah 66:22-24
Daniel 12:1-2
Matthew 18:6-9
Matthew 25:31-46
Mark 9:42-48
2 Thessalonians 1:5-10
Jude 7
Jude 13
Revelation 14:9-11
Revelation 20:10, 14-15

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What you seem to be talking about here sounds a lot like Calvin.

It may seem so, but it isn’t in agreement with Calvin at all (or Arminius). It’s far more ancient. Apostolic and Patristic.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I think that's because something is missing. :think:

I’ll have to say I was very surprised to learn you’re a Universalist. I never knew that before late in this thread.

 

[oatmeal]

YES!!!

Isaiah 66:22-24
Daniel 12:1-2
Matthew 18:6-9
Matthew 25:31-46
Mark 9:42-48
2 Thessalonians 1:5-10
Jude 7
Jude 13
Revelation 14:9-11
Revelation 20:10, 14-15

Thank you for supporting my post.

Only Revelation 20:10 seems to suggest an eternal torment. But only for the Devil and the beast and the false prophet, no one else.

The others do not speak of eternal torment. The speak of other things but not eternal torment

 

[glorydaz]

I’ll have to say I was very surprised to learn you’re a Universalist. I never knew that before late in this thread.

What? I'm not sure where you get that idea.

 

[glorydaz]

It may seem so, but it isn’t in agreement with Calvin at all (or Arminius). It’s far more ancient. Apostolic and Patristic.

When you say, "for faith to be administered by God" it reminds me of what the Calvinists say.

But, to be honest, I have a hard time following what you mean, so you probably meant something else.

 

[bibleverse2]

Only Revelation 20:10 seems to suggest an eternal torment. But only for the Devil and the beast and the false prophet, no one else.

The others do not speak of eternal torment. The speak of other things but not eternal torment

Then how do you understand Revelation 20:15, Revelation 14:10-11, and Matthew 25:41,46?

For what is eternally punishing (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:10-11) about the future, "Gehenna" hell (Luke 12:5, Greek: G1067) is fire eternally burning the physical body, and worms eternally eating the physical body (Mark 9:46, Isaiah 66:24). The physical bodies of non-Christians in Gehenna need not be exactly like people have now, which do not regenerate parts of themselves if those parts are burned or eaten. For before non-Christians are cast into the Gehenna hell (also called the lake of fire), they will be physically resurrected (Revelation 20:12-15, John 5:29b). And their new, physical resurrection bodies could eternally regenerate parts of themselves whenever those parts are burned or eaten. But then the regenerated parts could be burned or eaten again, only to regenerate again, only to be burned or eaten again, and so on, forever: an everlasting suffering (Revelation 14:10-11).

In Gehenna the fire will never go out (Mark 9:46). It will never run out of fuel, but will continue to punish non-Christians forever (Matthew 25:41,46, Revelation 14:10-11, Revelation 20:10,15). The fact that the fire will already be burning before the physical resurrection bodies of non-Christians are cast into it (Matthew 25:41, Revelation 20:15) means that their bodies will not be the fire's fuel. The fire will have its own source of fuel by which it will burn/punish non-Christians forever (Revelation 14:10-11, Revelation 20:10,15, Matthew 25:41,46, Mark 9:45-46).