Jump to content
IGNORED

Christian Conditionalism vs Traditionalism (Rethinking Hell)


Hawkeye

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  820
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  01/09/2011
  • Status:  Offline

Thanks for opening this thread, Shiloh.

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

 

I am confused.  Do you believe that those who go to hell will suffer eternally and consciously?

No, I don't believe in eternal conscious torment. I believe the unsaved will be killed/destroyed and thus, not be conscious. Whether or not they are utterly annihilated is to me irrelevant, which is why I want to draw a distinction between cessation of life and cessation of existence.

 

 

 

 

Edited by LuftWaffle
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  820
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  01/09/2011
  • Status:  Offline

8 minutes ago, BacKaran said:

Or are you saying there is hell that kills then nothing?

I believe that the saved will inherit eternal life (literally) and the unsaved will die and be destroyed (literally). Whether the end result is that nothing will remain of the unsaved is not a necessary part of my view. In other words attempting to disprove cessation of existence does nothing to disprove my view, because it's not essential to my view.

Edited by LuftWaffle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
8 minutes ago, LuftWaffle said:

Thanks for opening this thread, Shiloh.

No, I don't believe in eternal conscious torment. I believe the unsaved will be killed/destroyed and thus, not be conscious. Whether or not they are utterly annihilated is to me irrelevant, which is why I want to draw a distinction between cessation of life and cessation of existence.

 

 

 

 

What is the difference between cessation of life and cessation of existence?  Sorry for the 20000 questions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Graduated to Heaven
  • Followers:  57
  • Topic Count:  1,546
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  10,320
  • Content Per Day:  1.42
  • Reputation:   12,323
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  04/15/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/05/1951

20 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

This a continuation of a discussion from another thread about Conditional immortality vs. Traditionalism.

Why? If I might ask. Why not just go to an existing thread on that topic? (Like the one Hawkeye started) Just wondering why people want to have so many parallel threads at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
Just now, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Why? If I might ask. Why not just go to an existing thread on that topic? (Like the one Hawkeye started) Just wondering why people want to have so many parallel threads at times.

I didn't know that hawkeye started a new thread on that topic.   The other thread is about whether or not hell is real, not the conditionalism vs. traditionalism.  I just thought this deserved its own thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  820
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  01/09/2011
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

What is the difference between cessation of life and cessation of existence?  Sorry for the 20000 questions. 

Chairs exist, but they aren't alive. Square-circles neither exist nor are they alive. So there's an obvious distinction between existing and living. The focus on cessation of existence places the burden of proof on me to show that the unsaved will vanish, but I hold a more modest view, which is merely that the unsaved will not live.

If we take John 3:16 then it seems to teach that one group, the saved, will inherit eternal life, and those who do not believe will perish and die. I take this at face value. Does that make sense?


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.13
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

19 minutes ago, LuftWaffle said:

Thanks for opening this thread, Shiloh.

No, I don't believe in eternal conscious torment. I believe the unsaved will be killed/destroyed and thus, not be conscious. Whether or not they are utterly annihilated is to me irrelevant, which is why I want to draw a distinction between cessation of life and cessation of existence.

 

 

 

 

The Bible says otherwise.....

“And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.” (Isaiah 66:24)

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2)

Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (Matt. 25:41,46)

Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:14-15)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that Scripture teaches that everyone will exist forever, either in Heaven with Christ or in the Lake of Fire with Satan. It does make a difference because if those who aren't saved believe that they will not spend eternity in Hell but cease to exist, then they can feel that they really have nothing to lose; even if they do believe that those who are saved will live forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  820
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  01/09/2011
  • Status:  Offline

4 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

The Bible says otherwise.....

“And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.” (Isaiah 66:24)

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2)

Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (Matt. 25:41,46)

Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:14-15)

Isaiah 66:24 refers to dead bodies being consumed by worms and burned up by fire. I'm sure Shiloh will affirm that in Jewish culture nothing is worse than for the bodies to be exposed to decay and devoured like this. The loathsomeness of this scene is the fact that these corpses are exposed and being devoured by worms. Isaiah isn't sketching a scene that supports the traditional view of people living forever in torment will immortal worms eating immortal bodies, but rather a scene of large scale slaughter.

The verse in Daniel juxtaposes the everlasting life to the shame and the contempt. If both groups were living eternally, then wouldn't it have been much better if the verse in Daniel had read, some will awaken to everlasting life in heaven, others to everlasting life in hell. Daniel says that only one group gets everlasting life, and you're assuming that the shame and contempt is felt by those in hell, but it's much more likely that the living are the ones viewing the lost with shame and contempt as the Isaiah verses so clearly shows, contempt and shame is felt toward the dead.

In terms of Matthew the word eternal fire, is just a reference to fire from heaven. The traditionalist side makes the assumption that eternal fire means a fire that burns forever and thus the fire must have something to burn forever. But eternal fire when used elsewhere in scripture is a figure of speech referring to heavenly fire.

...just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
(Jud 1:7)

In terms of Revelation 20:14-15, wouldn't you say that there's a book of life, is support for the view that only those whose names are in the book will inherit life?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  820
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  01/09/2011
  • Status:  Offline

15 minutes ago, Yowm said:

I see no Scriptural support that the dead in hell will exist but not be conscious.

What is the scriptural support that both the saved and the unsaved will live forever? The entire traditionalist doctrine is based on the belief that both the saved and the unsaved will live forever in different locations (heaven and hell) whereas the bible is full of descriptions giving eternal life to the saved and death, destruction and perish for the unsaved.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
(Joh 3:16)

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
(Mat 7:13-14)

Our God is a God of salvation, and to GOD, the Lord, belong deliverances from death.
(Psa 68:20)

For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
(1Co 15:53-56)

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Rom 6:23)

 

Humour me for a second, if you don't mind:

Suppose, just for the sake of argument that the proposition is true: That the bible teaches that only the saved will inherit everlasting life, and that the unsaved will be killed/destroyed: would you grant that above verse I quoted are consistent with that proposition? Would you admit in fact that the verses that would be consistent with the proposition would be a great number indeed because the bible talks about life and death all the time?

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...