You do not know the motives of my heart and to imply (strongly imply) that I do not desire truth is a judgment of the motives of my heart. Whenever someone disagrees with you on biblical motivations do you tend to start judging the motives of their heart instead of patiently interacting with the biblical evidence, or is this an unusual case where you did it with me for some reason?
Conditional Immortality (a view of hell): Is this doctrine true?
- Thread starter MarkCorbett
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You quote Revelation 20:10-15 without giving any comment on these verses. Do you assume they teach eternal torment? Many Christians do, and here I can understand why because Revelation is often a complex book to interpret. I explain in this 20 minute video why this passage actually supports annihilationism for people, not eternal torment:
That still isn't crystal clear to me because verse 10 specifies who is going to the lake of fire to be tormented day and night forever: the devil, beast, and false prophet. Doesn't specify those who are not written in the Lamb's book of life.
Contrasted, by verse 14 and 15 which says that death, hell, and those not found written in the Lamb's book of life are cast into the lake of fire to experience a second death. It doesn't say they'll be tormented day and night forever.
I think long held traditions and beliefs cause us to read something into the scripture that isn't actually stated.
The first death is our mortal physical bodies no longer having life sustaining capabilities. Why would the second death be any different?
Contrasted, by verse 14 and 15 which says that death, hell, and those not found written in the Lamb's book of life are cast into the lake of fire to experience a second death. It doesn't say they'll be tormented day and night forever.
I think long held traditions and beliefs cause us to read something into the scripture that isn't actually stated.
The first death is our mortal physical bodies no longer having life sustaining capabilities. Why would the second death be any different?
-
2
- Show all
Does "eternal"/"everlasting" (Strong's 166) mean without end? Or perpetual?
Is the Lake of Fire in or on earth?
What happens when earth and heaven fade away and New Jerusalem is between new earth and new heaven?
Do the souls in the Lake of Fire "fade away" with earth when it fades away?
Is the Lake of Fire in or on earth?
What happens when earth and heaven fade away and New Jerusalem is between new earth and new heaven?
Do the souls in the Lake of Fire "fade away" with earth when it fades away?
Agreed and amen 
The idea that unbelievers will face ~eternal~ torment and separation from God in the age to come has been the historical/traditional understanding of the church for a number of very good (Biblical) reasons. It's a doctrine that is so horrific that I do not believe that anyone would ever conceive of such a thing on their own, or that God would use so much ink to tell us about it unless it was true.
You seem very capable of expressing yourself clearly, which is a great thing (and, as as result, I suspect that you are a very good teacher & preacher). Do you ever worry that your strong belief (in Annihilationism .. which would be considered GREAT news and a GREAT relief by all, non-Christians and Christians alike .. if true) is something that could actually work to partially undo/upset the good that the Lord intended when He told us about the horrific/eternal fate of those who die outside of Christ
Thanks!
~Deut
The idea that unbelievers will face ~eternal~ torment and separation from God in the age to come has been the historical/traditional understanding of the church for a number of very good (Biblical) reasons. It's a doctrine that is so horrific that I do not believe that anyone would ever conceive of such a thing on their own, or that God would use so much ink to tell us about it unless it was true.
You seem very capable of expressing yourself clearly, which is a great thing
(and, as as result, I suspect that you are a very good teacher & preacher). Do you ever worry that your strong belief (in Annihilationism .. which would be considered GREAT news and a GREAT relief by all, non-Christians and Christians alike .. if true) is something that could actually work to partially undo/upset the good that the Lord intended when He told us about the horrific/eternal fate of those who die outside of Christ Thanks!
~Deut
More problems with this doctrine:
Revelation 20:10
New King James Version
10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet ARE. And THEY will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
If the LOF annihilated everything that’s cast into it, the beast (Antichrist), and false prophet, WOULD’NT still be there when Satan is cast in it, a thousand years after they were.
Revelation 20:10
New King James Version
10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet ARE. And THEY will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
If the LOF annihilated everything that’s cast into it, the beast (Antichrist), and false prophet, WOULD’NT still be there when Satan is cast in it, a thousand years after they were.
-
1
- Show all
Revelation was a vision of the future given to John. The context of 'current' and 'future' is a bit skewed because "now" in Revelation could refer to the future. The vision lapses through periods or moments in time up to New Jerusalem.
The "forever" in Greek could mean perpetuity instead of endless. And there is the interesting question about whether the LoF fades away with earth and heaven.
The "forever" in Greek could mean perpetuity instead of endless. And there is the interesting question about whether the LoF fades away with earth and heaven.
Deut, I really appreciate your tone although you clearly disagree with my view. I feel like you are a good example of how to interact with Christians when you feel they are teaching a wrong doctrine (well, a wrong doctrine on an issue that is important, but not a primary, core essential of the faith). You raise a number of points and issues in two well written paragraphs. I will try to respond to them in separate comments. Here's your first point:
It is true that the doctrine of eternal torment is the traditional view and has been the majority view throughout most of church history. IMO, this is the strongest argument for eternal torment, in fact I would be so bold as to claim that it is the only strong argument for this view (I don't expect you to agree - but that's where I'm at now). Church tradition and the majority view should not be cast aside lightly or quickly. At the same time, I am among those who am convinced that there is a higher authority and that is God's Word - the Bible (I sense that we agree about this). Given the history of the church and some of the severe doctrinal errors that were dominant for many centuries in much of the church, we should not be surprised to find that the majority is still sometimes wrong. Also, there is good evidence that some of the earliest church fathers believed in conditional immortality. So, it is to Scripture we must turn. I would not be teaching against a view that so many men whom I respect so much hold if Scripture was not sufficiently clear on the topic to compel me to do so.
It is true that the doctrine of eternal torment is the traditional view and has been the majority view throughout most of church history. IMO, this is the strongest argument for eternal torment, in fact I would be so bold as to claim that it is the only strong argument for this view (I don't expect you to agree - but that's where I'm at now). Church tradition and the majority view should not be cast aside lightly or quickly. At the same time, I am among those who am convinced that there is a higher authority and that is God's Word - the Bible (I sense that we agree about this). Given the history of the church and some of the severe doctrinal errors that were dominant for many centuries in much of the church, we should not be surprised to find that the majority is still sometimes wrong. Also, there is good evidence that some of the earliest church fathers believed in conditional immortality. So, it is to Scripture we must turn. I would not be teaching against a view that so many men whom I respect so much hold if Scripture was not sufficiently clear on the topic to compel me to do so.
Although the fact that many Christians (including many very godly Christians) feel that the doctrine of eternal torment is horrific does not prove the doctrine is wrong, it certainly is not a factor in favor of its truth. Our understandable revulsion to the idea of God sentencing a large portion of humanity to torment for many billions of years and then on to eternity is a reason to take a second look at the biblical data. Whatever we find in the Bible we must humbly accept, even if we do not understand it or like it.
You seem to be suggesting that eternal torment is such a horrific doctrine that it's source must truly be from God. I don't think that is the case. Determining how an error arose is often not possible, even when we see the error itself quite clearly. I think it is possible that this error crept into the church when some of the church fathers (like Athenagoras of Athens) unintentionally were influenced by the platonic worldview that they came out of and were surrounded by. Plato taught that all human souls were inherently immortal. If you believe this (and Athenagoras did) and you also rightly reject universalism, it quickly leads to the idea of eternal torment. Once this doctrine became tradition (thanks at least in part to Augustine), most people absorbed it through the teaching of the church.
As to God using a lot of ink to tell us about eternal torment, I just don't find that to be true. Actually there are only two verses in the Bible which either directly mention (Revelation 20:10) or seem to imply (Revelation 14:11) eternal torment. Other verses that people cite for eternal torment do not actually say that people will be tormented forever. Now the fact that the only two verses that mention eternal torment are found in the highly sybolic visions of John in Revelation, should at least give people pause in being so confident that this doctrine is true. It should at least seem plausible that the eternal torment is part of the non-literal imagery that we find throughout the book of Revelation and that verses that seem to plainly teach conditional immortality in other parts of the Bible actually are teaching conditional immortality.
You seem to be suggesting that eternal torment is such a horrific doctrine that it's source must truly be from God. I don't think that is the case. Determining how an error arose is often not possible, even when we see the error itself quite clearly. I think it is possible that this error crept into the church when some of the church fathers (like Athenagoras of Athens) unintentionally were influenced by the platonic worldview that they came out of and were surrounded by. Plato taught that all human souls were inherently immortal. If you believe this (and Athenagoras did) and you also rightly reject universalism, it quickly leads to the idea of eternal torment. Once this doctrine became tradition (thanks at least in part to Augustine), most people absorbed it through the teaching of the church.
As to God using a lot of ink to tell us about eternal torment, I just don't find that to be true. Actually there are only two verses in the Bible which either directly mention (Revelation 20:10) or seem to imply (Revelation 14:11) eternal torment. Other verses that people cite for eternal torment do not actually say that people will be tormented forever. Now the fact that the only two verses that mention eternal torment are found in the highly sybolic visions of John in Revelation, should at least give people pause in being so confident that this doctrine is true. It should at least seem plausible that the eternal torment is part of the non-literal imagery that we find throughout the book of Revelation and that verses that seem to plainly teach conditional immortality in other parts of the Bible actually are teaching conditional immortality.
You seem very capable of expressing yourself clearly, which is a great thing (and, as as result, I suspect that you are a very good teacher & preacher). Do you ever worry that your strong belief (in Annihilationism .. which would be considered GREAT news and a GREAT relief by all, non-Christians and Christians alike .. if true) is something that could actually work to partially undo/upset the good that the Lord intended when He told us about the horrific/eternal fate of those who die outside of Christ
(and, as as result, I suspect that you are a very good teacher & preacher). Do you ever worry that your strong belief (in Annihilationism .. which would be considered GREAT news and a GREAT relief by all, non-Christians and Christians alike .. if true) is something that could actually work to partially undo/upset the good that the Lord intended when He told us about the horrific/eternal fate of those who die outside of Christ
Since I have begun to publicly teach the doctrine of conditional immortality I have come across many people for whom the doctrine of eternal torment had very negative effects. I have found that many atheists mention eternal torment as a top reason that they reject Christianity. Likewise, many who have slid down into a sub-biblical progressive or theologically liberal form of Christianity site the doctrine of eternal torment as a reason they left evangelicalism (certainly not the only reason, and perhaps not the main reason, but a significant contributing factor). And many faithful Christians have confessed experiencing severe mental anguish because of the doctrine of eternal torment. You are far less likely to hear these stories if you yourself are still defending eternal torment. These stories were NOT the reason I rejected eternal torment, I heard most of them after I rejected it for biblical reasons. And so, far from doing harm by teaching conditional immortality, I believe that I am part of a growing movement of evangelical conditionalists whom God is graciously working through to correct a damaging error and bring people to a more accurate understanding of His Word.
While I don't view life as "mere existence," I do view it as conscious existence. People who are alive are conscious (or capable of waking up and becoming conscious).
One of the great advantages of the doctrine of conditional immortality (aka annihilationism) is that it allows many words in the Bible to be read and understood with their basic, normal meaning.
life simply refers to being alive, which for humans includes consciousness at some level
Death refers to the end of life or the absence of life. If some boys find a possum that is playing dead and they poke it with a stick and it squeals, they instantly know that it was not really dead. Those boys don't need advanced theology degrees to know what death is nor to understand Bible verses that mention death as the fate of the unsaved.
Perish means to loose your life. If (God forbid) a friend was captured by ISIS and was being held in a dungeon and tortured, we would not say they have already perished. But if they were incinerated by a large IED, we would say they have perished.
Burned up, consumed, and turned to ashes can all be taken as literal descriptions of the fate of the unsaved.
One of the great advantages of the doctrine of conditional immortality (aka annihilationism) is that it allows many words in the Bible to be read and understood with their basic, normal meaning.
life simply refers to being alive, which for humans includes consciousness at some level
Death refers to the end of life or the absence of life. If some boys find a possum that is playing dead and they poke it with a stick and it squeals, they instantly know that it was not really dead. Those boys don't need advanced theology degrees to know what death is nor to understand Bible verses that mention death as the fate of the unsaved.
Perish means to loose your life. If (God forbid) a friend was captured by ISIS and was being held in a dungeon and tortured, we would not say they have already perished. But if they were incinerated by a large IED, we would say they have perished.
Burned up, consumed, and turned to ashes can all be taken as literal descriptions of the fate of the unsaved.
Another strength of the conditional immortality view is that it has support from throughout the Bible, beginning early in Genesis:
ESV Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever-- "
God took action to prevent fallen people from living forever in a fallen state. That fits with conditional immortality.
ESV Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever-- "
God took action to prevent fallen people from living forever in a fallen state. That fits with conditional immortality.