Kirk Cameron Rejects Eternal Conscious Torment, Embraces Conditional Immortality

[TMSO]

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

The Hebrew term olamim means "age of ages". Gentile aiōnion "agelong"

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.

So the ends of the ages have come for... us That is, believers. So no eternal life. Nice. The whom goes back to the last antecedent, which is... OUR.

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.

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.

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.

...is over.

Getting off the op.

You are expanding the amount of information to deal with the op. How things are understood is at the heart of 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.

The text says otherwise.

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.

Those scholars who learn the nuance of language, as language is all about nuance, say that Jesus is speaking metaphorically simply to state that one should not be afraid of man, but afraid of God. Man can only kill the body, but can do nothing to the soul. God can "destroy" BOTH the body (so a step up from simply killing) and soul (a step up from a man who cannot touch the soul) in hell. (Where the fire is never quenched and the worm never dies.) [Worm is figurative for soul.]

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.

{All off topic material deleted by staff}

All the above is to deal with various details that touch upon the idea of whether the soul is immortal (does God's living breath disappear and cease to exist?), soul sleep (a heresy), and the idea that God visits retribution upon those who sin against Him.

 

[Josheb]

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.

My response is to ignore the post because I've already answered that inquiry, you know I've already answer it, the answer is being ignored and, therefore, Post 80 serves only to muck up the thread.....

....and tell you what I just said. Don't ask me questions I have already answered and don't bring that dross from one thread into another.

 

[Josheb]

The Hebrew term olamim means "age of ages". Gentile aiōnion "agelong"

Is that an acknowledgment Post 74 was incorrect? Ages of ages in not synonymous with "age-during." If, as Post 81 has just affirmed, aionion means ages of ages then it does not mean age-during.

So the ends of the ages have come for... us That is, believers. So no eternal life. Nice. The whom goes back to the last antecedent, which is... OUR.

Well..... since everyone else eventually gets destroyed in a fiery lake the ages end for everyone else, too.

The end of ages is at the end of the Millennial Kingdom, which is the final age.

That is not what the text states and I will not collaborate with the rank and reckless abuse of scripture employed to make that statement. That's scripture subjugated to man-made doctrine, not the other way around. I will not collaborate with attempts to hijack the thread and change the subject to Dispensational Premillennialism, either. I am reporting Post 81 because it persists in making the thread about DPism, not annihilationism.

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.

I will not be collaborating with posters who ignore what was posted, either.

This op is about annihilationism. Comments related to annihilationism (for or against) will be considered.