Kirk Cameron Rejects Eternal Conscious Torment, Embraces Conditional Immortality

[atpollard]

ECT or Annihilation does not appear critical to "orthodoxy" based on the ecumenical CREEDS.
[So, it is not a "heresy" issue.]

 

[JesusFan]

ECT or Annihilation does not appear critical to "orthodoxy" based on the ecumenical CREEDS.
[So, it is not a "heresy" issue.]

Heresy is perhaps too loose a term to be placed upon it as a doctrine, but it would and must be classified along with Universalism as twin doctines that are outside the pale of orthodox Christianity

 

[TMSO]

But they will still be alive during that time, as judgement for their sins and especially for rejecting Jesus as Messiah does not bring extinction

No, no it does not. They will face judgment. However, what their punishment will be is a mystery. How are the levels of punishment meted out, and what are the levels of punishment. Even Jesus said it would be worse for some than others. Then you have a specific woe and punishment for those who give in to the beast, and take his image. Why? The words used in Greek. They love the beast... with all their heart, soul, and mind. The conotation is that if they could continue to follow/worship the beast in their torment, they would still choose to do so.

 

[Josheb]

Lake of Fire is etrnal in duration,

Got scripture for that?

...the lost are aware of existing apart from the presense of God,

Got scripture for that?

and God sees that state as being preferred to just being snuffed out

Got scripture for that?



Answer me this question: Does death exist in the new creation? When you and I are raised incorruptible and immortal on the other side of the grave, will there be death in the new creation? It's a simple yes or no question. Please answer the question asked, and answer the question asked with a simple yes or no. Please also feel free to offer any succinct commentary you think germane, but not at the expense of never answering the question asked. I am not asking for Dr. X's teaching or Dr. Y's. I am asking you to think through what scripture, and scripture alone, teaches.

Revelation 20:14
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

Death suffers the second death in the lake of fire. According to Paul, the last enemy to be destroyed is death. Death is abolished, nullified, made void.... destroyed to the point existence ceases.



I, therefore, ask you: Does death exist in the new creation? Yes or no?

 

[Josheb]

It is denied by every creed and confession though

Do you believe creeds over scripture? Would that be the Arminian creeds or the Calvinist ones? Am I to read that comment to mean you are asking me to ally with creeds over scripture? Or are you making an appeal to authority? Surely you can see the problem inherent when anyone pits creeds against scripture. I am a big fan of the creeds and creedalism in general, but never at the expense of the authority of scripture.

The fact of scripture is that it uses the word "destroy" to mean the cessation of existence on multiple occasions. No matter what you post you must address that fact. Post #2 samples scripture's use of the word "destroy," and it shows where our English translations translate correctly and where they don't. There is not one single appeal to anything extra-biblical in that entire post. It's scripture and nothing but scripture. It's scripture as stated, unembellished by any additional interpretation of my doing. All I ask of anyone who disagrees with annihilation is that they look first and foremost on what scripture states. Scripture uses two basic words. One word means rot or decay, the other literally means destruction to the point existence ceases.

There was a time when Christians used to believe the world would end. This was largely due to the 17th century translations (the Douay-Rheims and the KJV), and the modern translations that favor that tradition (like the ASV). The problem is that is NOT what the Greek states. The Greek does not use the word "end," (Gk = telos) and the Greek does not use the word "world." (Gk = kosmos). What the Greek states is "consummation of the age." The Greek says "age" not world.... AND scripture never once states the world will end. The closest anyone will ever come to finding a verse that can be interpreted to say the world will end is 2 Peter 3:10. This single misinterpretation of one verse corrupted Christian eschatology for centuries. For centuries priests and pastors incorrectly taught the world was going to come to an end. But that is not what scripture actually states. It is not what scripture teaches. Even to this day we have a lot of KJVOists trying to defend the mistaken interpretation and a pile of Christians who think the God is literally going to literally destroy the literal world. And that belief in absolute destruction is very curious because those folks believe the world will be destroyed to the point of no longer existing but not sinners.​

The word "destroy" sometimes means destroy. In Greek the word for absolute destruction to the point of cessation of existence is apolesai. Look it up. Look it up and do not pit doctrine over scripture.

Matthew 10:28
And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy [apollosai] both soul and body in hell.

Scripture explicitly states both soul and body can and will be destroyed in hell to the point of no longer existing. That's not an added interpretation. That's not an extra-biblical doctrinal statement. That is the blunt fact of scripture. Look it up.


Adjust thinking, doctrine, and practice accordingly.

 

[JesusFan]

Do you believe creeds over scripture? Would that be the Arminian creeds or the Calvinist ones? Am I to read that comment to mean you are asking me to ally with creeds over scripture? Or are you making an appeal to authority? Surely you can see the problem inherent when anyone pits creeds against scripture. I am a big fan of the creeds and creedalism in general, but never at the expense of the authority of scripture.

The fact of scripture is that it uses the word "destroy" to mean the cessation of existence on multiple occasions. No matter what you post you must address that fact. Post #2 samples scripture's use of the word "destroy," and it shows where our English translations translate correctly and where they don't. There is not one single appeal to anything extra-biblical in that entire post. It's scripture and nothing but scripture. It's scripture as stated, unembellished by any additional interpretation of my doing. All I ask of anyone who disagrees with annihilation is that they look first and foremost on what scripture states. Scripture uses two basic words. One word means rot or decay, the other literally means destruction to the point existence ceases.

There was a time when Christians used to believe the world would end. This was largely due to the 17th century translations (the Douay-Rheims and the KJV), and the modern translations that favor that tradition (like the ASV). The problem is that is NOT what the Greek states. The Greek does not use the word "end," (Gk = telos) and the Greek does not use the word "world." (Gk = kosmos). What the Greek states is "consummation of the age." The Greek says "age" not world.... AND scripture never once states the world will end. The closest anyone will ever come to finding a verse that can be interpreted to say the world will end is 2 Peter 3:10. This single misinterpretation of one verse corrupted Christian eschatology for centuries. For centuries priests and pastors incorrectly taught the world was going to come to an end. But that is not what scripture actually states. It is not what scripture teaches. Even to this day we have a lot of KJVOists trying to defend the mistaken interpretation and a pile of Christians who think the God is literally going to literally destroy the literal world. And that belief in absolute destruction is very curious because those folks believe the world will be destroyed to the point of no longer existing but not sinners.​

The word "destroy" sometimes means destroy. In Greek the word for absolute destruction to the point of cessation of existence is apolesai. Look it up. Look it up and do not pit doctrine over scripture.

Matthew 10:28
And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy [apollosai] both soul and body in hell.

Scripture explicitly states both soul and body can and will be destroyed in hell to the point of no longer existing. That's not an added interpretation. That's not an extra-biblical doctrinal statement. That is the blunt fact of scripture. Look it up.


Adjust thinking, doctrine, and practice accordingly.

Word study on olethros, destroy - CARM

 

[Josheb]

Word study on olethros, destroy - CARM

Great. Did you see the flaws in that article?

 

[Josheb]

Word study on olethros, destroy - CARM

Great. Why were the questions I asked in Post 65 ignored?

Do you believe creeds over scripture? Would that be the Arminian creeds or the Calvinist ones? Am I to read that comment to mean you are asking me to ally with creeds over scripture? Or are you making an appeal to authority? Surely you can see the problem inherent when anyone pits creeds against scripture.

?????

1. Do you believe creeds over scripture?
2. Would that be the Arminian creeds or the Calvinist ones?
3. Am I to read that comment to mean you are asking me to ally with creeds over scripture?
4. Or are you making an appeal to authority?

Those are not rhetorically asked questions. I'd like to have them answered, and answered succinctly.​

 

[Josheb]

Word study on olethros, destroy - CARM

Great. Now how about a word study of apollumi and phthora that doesn't move the goalposts? Have you ever bothered to examine how Greeks of the first century used words, or do you look solely to Strong's and Greek Lexicons written by Christian authors? Try this HERE instead of Matt Slick.

Or are you following the words of whoever fits your already existing position and hoping I'll accept the confirmation bias?

 

[Hobie]

R.C. Sproul was a
staunch opponent of the annihilation doctrine, which he considered an erroneous view with no scriptural basis. He firmly held the traditional Christian position that hell is a place of conscious, unending, and eternal punishment.

Dr. James White's opinion
is firmly against the annihilationist doctrine, holding to the traditional view of eternal conscious torment (ECT) for the unsaved, seeing annihilationism as a softening of God's justice and a departure from biblical truth, though he acknowledges it's a secondary theological issue debated even within Reformed circles. He argues the Bible depicts hell as perpetual suffering, not a final cessation of existence, and emphasizes that the infinite atonement of Christ necessitates eternal punishment for sin

John MacArthur
strongly rejected annihilationism (the belief that the unsaved are completely destroyed/extinguished in hell), viewing it as a denial of Scripture that redefines "eternal" punishment; he championed the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment ( ECT) for the damned, arguing that the same Greek word (aionios) used for the eternal life of believers also describes the punishment of the wicked, meaning one cannot be eternal without the other, and that hell is a real, everlasting place of suffering, not extinction, citing passages like Matthew 25:46

Need to remember Romans 3:4, as man can say whatever they think they know, but that doesn't make it true so don't rely on man. God knows and He has the final word...

 

[JesusFan]

Great. Now how about a word study of apollumi and phthora that doesn't move the goalposts? Have you ever bothered to examine how Greeks of the first century used words, or do you look solely to Strong's and Greek Lexicons written by Christian authors? Try this HERE instead of Matt Slick.

Or are you following the words of whoever fits your already existing position and hoping I'll accept the confirmation bias?

Think that my view would be the accepted and prominant viewpoint in historical Christianity

 

[JesusFan]

Great. Why were the questions I asked in Post 65 ignored?

​

​

?????​

​

1. Do you believe creeds over scripture?
2. Would that be the Arminian creeds or the Calvinist ones?
3. Am I to read that comment to mean you are asking me to ally with creeds over scripture?
4. Or are you making an appeal to authority?

​

​

Those are not rhetorically asked questions. I'd like to have them answered, and answered succinctly.​

Scriptures were inspired, Creeds and Confessions were not
Am a Reformed baptist so would be the 1689 for me
No, stating that both creeds and Confessions hold to eternal Hell
Appealing to ultimate authority, jesus Himself, who stated hell was eternal

 

[Josheb]

Think that my view would be the accepted and prominant viewpoint in historical Christianity

The point of the op is that what's accepted a a matter of popular view may not be correct. You're familiar with the fallacy known as ad populum?

Scriptures were inspired, Creeds and Confessions were not
Am a Reformed baptist so would be the 1689 for me
No, stating that both creeds and Confessions hold to eternal Hell
Appealing to ultimate authority, jesus Himself, who stated hell was eternal

Yes, scripture is inspired. Creeds are not. Personal affiliation is irrelevant. You've already asserted this content. Are you now arguing ad nauseam?

Can you make your case from scripture, or not? If so, then please do so BUT don't bother if you're not willing to have it critically examined because I will go through it verse by verse and explain how and why it is incorrect. All the annihilationists here were once ECTs. We know all the scriptures and the theological arguments for ECT. Do you know the alternative, or are you simply accepting what the "prominent viewpoint" says?

Make your case.

 

[TMSO]

Do you believe creeds over scripture? Would that be the Arminian creeds or the Calvinist ones? Am I to read that comment to mean you are asking me to ally with creeds over scripture? Or are you making an appeal to authority? Surely you can see the problem inherent when anyone pits creeds against scripture. I am a big fan of the creeds and creedalism in general, but never at the expense of the authority of scripture.

The fact of scripture is that it uses the word "destroy" to mean the cessation of existence on multiple occasions. No matter what you post you must address that fact. Post #2 samples scripture's use of the word "destroy," and it shows where our English translations translate correctly and where they don't. There is not one single appeal to anything extra-biblical in that entire post. It's scripture and nothing but scripture. It's scripture as stated, unembellished by any additional interpretation of my doing. All I ask of anyone who disagrees with annihilation is that they look first and foremost on what scripture states. Scripture uses two basic words. One word means rot or decay, the other literally means destruction to the point existence ceases.

There was a time when Christians used to believe the world would end. This was largely due to the 17th century translations (the Douay-Rheims and the KJV), and the modern translations that favor that tradition (like the ASV). The problem is that is NOT what the Greek states. The Greek does not use the word "end," (Gk = telos) and the Greek does not use the word "world." (Gk = kosmos). What the Greek states is "consummation of the age." The Greek says "age" not world.... AND scripture never once states the world will end. The closest anyone will ever come to finding a verse that can be interpreted to say the world will end is 2 Peter 3:10. This single misinterpretation of one verse corrupted Christian eschatology for centuries. For centuries priests and pastors incorrectly taught the world was going to come to an end. But that is not what scripture actually states. It is not what scripture teaches. Even to this day we have a lot of KJVOists trying to defend the mistaken interpretation and a pile of Christians who think the God is literally going to literally destroy the literal world. And that belief in absolute destruction is very curious because those folks believe the world will be destroyed to the point of no longer existing but not sinners.​

The word "destroy" sometimes means destroy. In Greek the word for absolute destruction to the point of cessation of existence is apolesai. Look it up. Look it up and do not pit doctrine over scripture.

Matthew 10:28
And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy [apollosai] both soul and body in hell.

Scripture explicitly states both soul and body can and will be destroyed in hell to the point of no longer existing. That's not an added interpretation. That's not an extra-biblical doctrinal statement. That is the blunt fact of scripture. Look it up.


Adjust thinking, doctrine, and practice accordingly.

It may also help to know that the word everlasting doesn't mean everlasting in the original language. It actually means age-during. So the everlasting kingdom is not everlasting, but lasts an age. The English word does not properly convey the meaning of the original language. Hen millennial kingdom. God told us how long the age of the Kingdom would be. One thousand years. However, eternal may still mean eternal. And when the scripture says the "worm" never dies, What is your take on the fire never being extinguished, and the worm never dies?

The consummation of the age is the end of this world. The temporal age of man, where sin reigns. Revelation 21 puts it as the first things passing away. However, Revelation 20 speaks of those who worship the beast and his image as being tormented, and the smoke of their torment forever rising before the Father and the Lamb.

On "to destroy" in Matthew 10:28 the Strongs concordance says metaphorically, to devote or give over to eternal misery.

As for the world, it is literally going to be destroyed, and replaced with a New Heavens and New Earth. As Revelation 21 says, the first Earth has passed away.
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea."
Peter says that all the elements burn up in fervent heat. This is basically what will happen when God releases all the atomic forces in the universe. BOOOM! Imagine what happens when God removes all the, what we call, nuclear forces by which the whole of creation is held together. The tainted and corrupted creation will be gone, and there will be a NHNE, for the old has gone bye bye, a long with pain, suffering, crying, which are called "first things" in Revelation 21.

As for Matthew 10:28, Jesus was being metaphorical, showing the difference between what men can do, and what God can and will do. There is no reason to fear man who can simply kill the body, but cannot touch the soul. Fear what God can and will do to both. If we are talking about complete destruction, what is there to fear at all? Why fear God if what one faces is ceasing to exist? Enjoy life to a hell that doesn't exist, where consciousness will cease. No pain, no suffering, only gain, right? The gain of enjoying everything sin bring, right? Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we cease to exist, right?

 

[Josheb]

It may also help to know that the word everlasting doesn't mean everlasting in the original language. It actually means age-during.

Yes, or "ages of ages." The Hebrew term means "time escaping," and the Greek term means "ages of ages."

So the everlasting kingdom is not everlasting, but lasts an age.

No. It escapes time (Ps. 145:13) or it endures without end (Lk.1:33), and/or lasts ages of ages (Heb. 1:8). Neither is a specified period of time BUT 1 Corinthians 10:11 would bear on the matter if we were to measure "everlasting" as an age.

1 Corinthians 10:1-11
1For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and they all passed through the sea; 2and they all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3and they all ate the same spiritual food, 4and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased; for their dead bodies were spread out in the wilderness. 6Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they indeed craved them. 7Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play." 8Nor are we to commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. 9Nor are we to put the Lord to the test, as some of them did, and were killed by the snakes. 10Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were killed by the destroyer. 11Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

No more ages! No more ages of ages. We live in a paradoxical ageless age . Or...... and extending period of time in which ages do not exist, a condition that escapes time. This has a variety of consequences on doctrine. Man-made terms like "church age" and "kingdom age" prove to be dross. According to Paul, the ends (plural) of the ages (plural) came back in the first century. He did not say the beginning of an age had come. He stated the ends of all of them had come.

God told us how long the age of the Kingdom would be. One thousand years.

That is not what the text states at all. The word "age" is nowhere to be found in Revelation 20. Take care what you believe, think, and say. Take care what is heard/read from others because of Revelation 22:18. The FACT of Revelation is that nothing in the entire book ever explicitly states Jesus has left heaven and physically come to earth until chapters 21 and 22. Look it up. What the text does state - repeatedly - is that Jesus is seen in heaven and everything that happens - whether it be on earth or in heaven - is commanded from heaven. Even that part about Jesus riding on the white horse. There's no mention of he or the horse ever leaving heaven .

This is a fatal blow to ALL premillennialisms, not just the Dispensational varieties.

Look it up. Give the book of Revelation a quick read-through today. Consciously and conscientiously LOOK for the explicit report stating Jesus has left heaven and is physically on the earth. Then, after realizing there is no such verse accept the fact that there are a huge pile of Christians adding inferences to Revelation in violation of Rev. 22:18. Anyone who is a modern futurist has bought into a teaching that contradicts what is repeatedly stated in the book. Jesus is in heaven the whole time all the events of Revelation 1 through 20 occur. Only when the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven is Jesus said to come to earth. That happens after the thousand years of chapter 20. That means his coming if "post-millennial." That means only amilliennialist, postmillennialist, and idealist eschatologies can be correct. ALL premillennialisms are precluded by the text if and when the text is read as written.

The consummation of the age is the end of this world.

Nope. It's the end of the age. The KJV and those translations abiding by the KJV tradition translate "aionos" as "world" when the word means age. The Greek word for "world" is "kosmos." There is nothing in the manuscript text stating the world is going to end. It gets restored or renewed, not ended.

The temporal age of man, where sin reigns.

...is over.

Revelation 21 puts it as the first things passing away..............

Getting off the op. This thread is about annihilationism and, by extension, what happens at the sentencing hearing. The judgment has already been rendered. The verdict has also been rendered: Men love darkness and will not come into the light. The wages of sin is death. When we speak of "judgment day" what we're really talking about is the day of sentencing, the day God metes out the just recompense for sin. Anyone not covered in Christ's blood gets destroyed.

It is common practice for Dispensational Premillennialists to try and hijack every thread and attempt to make it all about their eschatology. I will not collaborate with that. Keep the commentary relevant to the op. If any further desire to discuss modern futurist views persists, then I have written six ops on the problems inherent in Dispensationalism (scroll down the page). Pick one and post there rather than derailing this op.

As for Matthew 10:28, Jesus was being metaphorical, showing the difference between what men can do, and what God can and will do.

The text says otherwise.

There is no reason to fear man who can simply kill the body, but cannot touch the soul. Fear what God can and will do to both.

Now think that through. God CAN destroy the body and soul. The body and soul can be destroyed. It is hugely inconsistent to say the world is "literally destroyed" (which is what Post 74 states), but the body and soul are not destroyed. You'd be using the same word with two different meanings (and doing so solely to fit a doctrine, not the other way around). This then goes back to a point I made at the beginning of this thread: If death is not literally destroyed to the point of no longer existing in the lake of fire, then nothing else is destroyed, either. That means death exists in the new heavens and earth. Jesus brings death with him in the new creation. If (on the other hand), death is literally destroyed and there is no more death, then everything else thrown into the fiery lake meets the same exact end. They no longer exist.


Post #65 is not an excuse to hijack the thread and make it about Dispensational eschatology. This op is about annihilationism. The eschatological concerns of Post 74 have been addressed any further discussion should occur in an op that is about DPism. I'm confident why that is the case is understood.

 

[JesusFan]

The point of the op is that what's accepted a a matter of popular view may not be correct. You're familiar with the fallacy known as ad populum?

Yes, scripture is inspired. Creeds are not. Personal affiliation is irrelevant. You've already asserted this content. Are you now arguing ad nauseam?

Can you make your case from scripture, or not? If so, then please do so BUT don't bother if you're not willing to have it critically examined because I will go through it verse by verse and explain how and why it is incorrect. All the annihilationists here were once ECTs. We know all the scriptures and the theological arguments for ECT. Do you know the alternative, or are you simply accepting what the "prominent viewpoint" says?

Make your case.

Jesus agreed with Isaiah, do you?
Isaiah 66:24: Mentions "their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched,"

 

[Josheb]

Jesus agreed with Isaiah, do you?
Isaiah 66:24: Mentions "their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched,"

Already addressed that verse. Have you read the posts or not? Were they understood, or not? If read and understood, then why bring up something already addressed as if it hasn't already been posted?

 

[JesusFan]

Already addressed that verse. Have you read the posts or not? Were they understood, or not? If read and understood, then why bring up something already addressed as if it hasn't already been posted?

What bothers you about eternal judgement though? Are they not reaping their own reward?

 

[Josheb]

What bothers you about eternal judgement though?

Eternal judgement is not the problem. Unending torture in which sin and death remain in the new creation is the problem. Both are hugely inconsistent with the premise of a new creation, especially if the new creation bears any resemblance to the way God originally created creation: good and sinless. It is self-contradictory to have badness in a new creation and call it good. It is equally self-contradictory to have sin in a new creation and call it sinless. It is also equally self-contradictory to say death has been annulled, destroyed to the point if no longer exists and then say death remains a part of the new creation. Relegating these things to a place of torture does not resolve the contradiction. I am not "bothered" by eternal judgment at all, and if my posts had been read it would have been observed I stated that at the beginning of this thread.

Please do not misrepresent my position again.

Are they not reaping their own reward?

Those dead in sin do not have a "reward" in the normal definition of that word. What they receive is the just recompense for sin and...... I have already explained all this earlier in the thread. This is now the second time my posts have been misrepresented and the eighth time the contents of Posts 2, 8, 14 and 15 have been ignored. I will not collaborate with another post like that does either. Be the Acts 17:11 guy, not the Titus 3 guy. We're not actually having a discussion if already posted content is ignored and already answered questions are asked. ALL the concerns you've expressed so far have already been addressed and addressed exegetically and rationally using scripture well rendered.

 

[makesends]

Those dead in sin do not have a "reward" in the normal definition of that word.

No doubt you will have an answer for me. When I say that God does not use a word the way we do you have a problem, but here you do the same thing.