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.

 

[TMSO]

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.

aionion means age long, like the post says. That is not ages of ages. Age during is synonymous with age long.

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

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 an aspect of annihilationism, whether one wants to believe it or not. There are passages in Revelation that clearly seem to say that there is no annihilationism, and God will actually get the opportunity to punish those who would not follow His commands/laws. The main point is this. Faith. Abraham had faith that no matter what happened, even if he could not understand it as a human, God would fulfill the covenant/promises made with Abraham without fail. How many people had Abraham seen raised back to life in his day? Yet, he not once questioned God's command to kill the one whom the promise was made through. The average human being would question, "But your promise requires that person." Abraham's reaction was, that promise requires this person, so you are going to raise him from the dead. That is the only way. And Abraham not once doubted that God could/would do it. He didn't know God was going to call it off at the last minute.

Revelation says that those who take the beasts image and worship the beast, whatever those symbols stand for in this literal woe to these people, will face eternal torment, and the smoke of their torment will rise forever. That speaks against annihilationism. The rich man... Jesus is clear that the rich man was in hell, while Lazarus was with Abraham. No annihilation.

As for destruction, I still think that God lets it all go in the end. All the atomic forces just gone. Instance nuclear destruction of all creation as every atom splits at the same time.

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.

Annihilationism is not what the Bible teaches. However, it doesn't go in depth enough to know what it meant when Jesus said that judgment day will be worse for some then for others. For instance, does it mean that the annihilation is slow? Painful? Do they have to watch the baby shark video the whole time? What makes it worse? I mean, if one knew they would simply cease to exist, that makes everything better, right?

 

[makesends]

I mean, if one knew they would simply cease to exist, that makes everything better, right?

That might make them think it will be ok, but God will still hold them accountable for every evil thought and deed. He is thoroughly just, giving them precisely according to their sin —no more and no less. (I.e. it doesn't matter what they think they will get away with.)

 

[TMSO]

That might make them think it will be ok, but God will still hold them accountable for every evil thought and deed. He is thoroughly just, giving them precisely according to their sin —no more and no less. (I.e. it doesn't matter what they think they will get away with.)

Are there levels of annihilation?

 

[makesends]

Are there levels of annihilation?

Who said anything about levels?

 

[TMSO]

Who said anything about levels?

Jesus did. He said that certain town would have it worse in judgment than Ninevah, and even Sodom and Gomorrah. Why? At least Ninevah repented when faced with God's words of judgment. It didn't last, but they didn't reject. They immediately repented, which was what Jonah was afraid of from the start. However, those countries who had the Messiah walking through them, testifying about Himself, speaking out the words of the Father, and rejecting... They will find their situation worse in judgment. That is what I mean by levels.

 

[makesends]

Jesus did. He said that certain town would have it worse in judgment than Ninevah, and even Sodom and Gomorrah. Why? At least Ninevah repented when faced with God's words of judgment. It didn't last, but they didn't reject. They immediately repented, which was what Jonah was afraid of from the start. However, those countries who had the Messiah walking through them, testifying about Himself, speaking out the words of the Father, and rejecting... They will find their situation worse in judgment. That is what I mean by levels.

(Oh. You mean what I refer to as degrees. I thought you might be thinking of something along the lines of Dante's notions. Nobody's judgement compares to the level of someone else's.)

Yes, there are worse sins and related judgement. Always, precise, apt and thorough justice will be done. But, I think even the annihilationist agrees with that. The justice done is not by annihilation, as I understand it, but before or within it, depending on the differing ideas, there. (I'm not an annihilationist. Nor, for that matter, does the usual notion of ECT represent what I believe. Both depend on some sort of "before" and "after", subsequent to the judgement. My idea doesn't.)

 

[atpollard]

Annihilationism is not what the Bible teaches ...

Except for the verses where it does ... using terms like "destroy" and "death" and "cut to pieces" to describe the same people that other verses describe with the term "eternal torment". So, both sides need to tread just a little lighter in their "emphatic certainty".

 

[John Bauer]

Jesus said that certain town would have it worse in judgment than Ninevah, and even Sodom and Gomorrah. Why? At least Ninevah repented when faced with God's words of judgment. It didn't last, but they didn't reject. They immediately repented, which was what Jonah was afraid of from the start. However, those countries who had the Messiah walking through them, testifying about Himself, speaking out the words of the Father, and rejecting... They will find their situation worse in judgment. That is what I mean by levels.

Alternatively, on the eternal conscious torment view, some sinners are tormented forever in hellfire while other sinners are tormented forever in hellfire.

I would suggest that a more defensible reading of Luke 10:12-15 is that it’s talking about shame, not pain. The text is framed in honor–shame and covenantal categories, not calibrated pain levels. Notice the terms that Jesus uses. In the day of judgment, it will be “more tolerable” for some than others who are “not exalted” but “brought down.” These are judicial and reputational terms. In Scripture, judgment often consists in public vindication or humiliation (e.g., Dan 12:2), not in a graduated torture scheme.

Interestingly, this reading works on either view (eternal conscious torment or annihilation).

 

[TMSO]

Except for the verses where it does ... using terms like "destroy" and "death" and "cut to pieces" to describe the same people that other verses describe with the term "eternal torment". So, both sides need to tread just a little lighter in their "emphatic certainty".

So Adam was annihilated when he ate the fruit?

 

[atpollard]

So Adam was annihilated when he ate the fruit?

So Adam entered Eternal Conscious Torment when he ate the fruit?

 

[atpollard]

If you are going to reject even the POSSIBILITY of annihilation, then you will need to explain these verses:

Matthew 24:48-51
48 "But if that evil slave says in his heart, 'My master is not coming for a long time,' 49 and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; 50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, 51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

• Is each hacked-up piece Eternally Conscious and in Torment? Or is only the Head Conscious and in Torment?
• Is it possible that something other than ECT is meant by Jesus? (He was making a different point.)

2 Peter 2:4-9
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.

• "Holding for judgement" is the opposite of Eternal ... it is by definition a description of a finite period of time.

Revelation 21:8
8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars — their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

• The word is DEATH, not ETERNAL TORMENT (which is the opposite of Death).

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 both soul and body in hell.”

• It says DESTROY the soul, not Eternally Torment the soul.

I am not claiming that these verses cannot be explained to support ECT. I am saying that the Bible does not present NOTHING to make someone question ECT.

... and those who would dismiss ECT as "unbiblical" must address:

Matthew 25:46
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

 

[Arial]

Are there levels of annihilation?

Only if annihilation loses all meaning.

 

[Josheb]

aionion means age long, like the post says. That is not ages of ages. Age during is synonymous with age long.

The facts in evidence prove otherwise.

Annihilationism is not what the Bible teaches.

The facts in evidence prove otherwise.

 

[TMSO]

If you are going to reject even the POSSIBILITY of annihilation, then you will need to explain these verses:

Matthew 24:48-51
48 "But if that evil slave says in his heart, 'My master is not coming for a long time,' 49 and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; 50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, 51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

• Is each hacked-up piece Eternally Conscious and in Torment? Or is only the Head Conscious and in Torment?
• Is it possible that something other than ECT is meant by Jesus? (He was making a different point.)

It is saying that the servant will be put to death (physical), but spiritually, assigned a place with the hypocrites, in taht place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. It is a PARABLE. This torture following judgment is eternal, and is shown by being assigned a place (judgment) where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (The signs of torment.)

2 Peter 2:4-9
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.

• "Holding for judgement" is the opposite of Eternal ... it is by definition a description of a finite period of time.

Yes, that is because the eternal torment comes after the judgment. For some, it is personal, and the smoke of their torment rises before the throne of the Father for eternity, those who worship the beast and take his mark.

Revelation 21:8
8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars — their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

• The word is DEATH, not ETERNAL TORMENT (which is the opposite of Death).

Yes, and the word in Greek does this to the verse: "The verb θνησκω (thnesko) means to die, and is the opposite of the verb ζαω (zao), meaning to live." So instead of going to eternal life with believers in heaven, their go back to the death they were already in, but this time in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. There is a word in the New Testament used to mean destroy, but... it isn't used here. Simple death such as one waking up dead (great line). So it isn't destruction or annihilation, it is simply remaining dead. To be more specific, separation from God who is life.

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 both soul and body in hell.”

• It says DESTROY the soul, not Eternally Torment the soul.

It will take Him eternity to do that... Jesus is speaking metaphorically. Do not be afraid of what man can do, because man can only kill the body, not the soul. God can send one to eternal torment, or eternal life. He is the one you are to fear. If not, then there is no reason to fear God.

I am not claiming that these verses cannot be explained to support ECT. I am saying that the Bible does not present NOTHING to make someone question ECT.

... and those who would dismiss ECT as "unbiblical" must address:

Matthew 25:46
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

The issue I have is the failed exegesis of the verses above, especially in light of the verse you present. This is one of those things where we have humans have no shared experience of eternal torment, so we can't comprehend it. We live and learn by shared experience. No shared experience, no understanding, and no learning.

 

[TMSO]

Only if annihilation loses all meaning.

I believe that annihilation has no meaning. It is an existential question of non-existence.

 

[Arial]

I believe that annihilation has no meaning. It is an existential question of non-existence.

Turns out annihilation does have a conceptual/semantic meaning: complete destruction or obliteration.

Perhaps you simply framed your statement in a way that is philosophically confused. As it stands it equivocates between conceptual meaning and experiential content.

Did you mean annihilation cannot be experienced or describe, because non-existence has no subject to experience, therefore annihilation is "meaningless"?

 

[makesends]

Turns out annihilation does have a conceptual/semantic meaning: complete destruction or obliteration.

Perhaps you simply framed your statement in a way that is philosophically confused. As it stands it equivocates between conceptual meaning and experiential content.

Did you mean annihilation cannot be experienced or describe, because non-existence has no subject to experience, therefore annihilation is "meaningless"?

I can see something about what @TMSO might be saying, in that one might, upon consideration of the meaning of 'annihilation', feel a lack of positive completion. It gives me a feeling, like Garrison Keillor's (Lake Wobegon) description of stepping out your mobile home back door at night only too late to realize someone has moved the cement block. I want to say, "But......uh....."

The person [supposedly] annihilated DID exist. It is fact, that cannot be undone. That it happened in a vaporous kind of existence, compared to the solid reality of heaven, no more changes the fact than that they are condemned. Their condemnation has to do with what they are to God, and not just with what they were. This is why I reject both annihilation and classic ECT as too literal-according-to-our-parameters. I go for an infinitive —intensity rather than temporal passage.

I don't think ECT and Annihilation are the only two alternatives.