How does C.I and E.C.T affect the Gospel?

[Doulos Iesou]

Jeff,
If one stops and thinks about conditional immortality, It mirrors works based salvation. Conditional immortality says," a person can pay for their own sins by some or a lot of punishment, then God will annihilate them and Gods Justice is rendered satisfied."

No, Conditionalists simply agree with Paul. The wages of sin is death. Hence, it was Jesus' death that redeemed us.

The deal is, God requires innocent blood for the penalty we owe. If a person does not have the innocent blood(Christ) one does not have forgiveness and cannot pay the penalty. Even an eternity of suffering does not pay the penalty for us.

This is an odd concept. That God must shed innocent blood in order for justice to be met.

If the penalty for sin is death ("the soul who sins shall die"), then why would God need to punish an innocent by shedding their blood.

Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent-- the LORD detests them both. Proverbs 17:15 (NIV)

There are some serious holes with the Reformed formulation of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, where God condemns an innocent man, which is an abomination to him. I don't see how a vicarious punishment would render a different sentence for any man.

Imagine if we played this out in our culture. Where we condemned innocent men, in order to let the murderers and rapists go free. The Romans and Jews convicted an innocent man, and what they meant for evil, God meant for good.

The only acceptable payment is the blood of an INNOCENT man and the only sinless man was Jesus Christ. Even after a million years in the lake of fire, one is still guilty and has not payed the penalty due.

Please explain how this is just, and where is your Biblical foundation.

You seem to have confused the idea of redemption and penalty. Jesus didn't pay the price of our punishment, but rather he bought us with his blood.

Conditional immortality says," We can somehow pay this penalty with our own suffering and death." When in reality God requires the innocent blood of Christ and nothing else will suffice.

Why does God require innocent blood?

This conception of God is utterly strange to me, that God could only be satisfied with sin by the shedding of innocent blood. Greater evil does not right lesser evil. God conquered evil in the death of his Son, and overcame it by rising from the dead and revoking Satan's ability to accuse us. He then redeemed his people from the power of sin, and has given them access to New Life through the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit.

The wages of sin is death, the penalty is the destruction of both body and soul in hell.

 

[MarkT]

Death does not mean annihilation. That's why quoting Paul without an understanding of death is meaningless. The Bible tells us the wicked go down to Hades. The righteous are preserved in Christ. This is the first death. The dead are resurrected, the books are opened and if your name is not found in the book of life you are cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. In the second death even Death is destroyed. So the people who are in hell will long for death but they won't find it; their worm does not die. So the punishment is eternal, everlasting, never ending.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Death does not mean annihilation.

Death is the end of life. It seems a rather odd definition to have death pretty much equal everlasting life. Also, Jesus tells us that both body and soul are destroyed in hell so there isn't much room for semantics.

The Bible tells us the wicked go down to Hades. The righteous are preserved in Christ. This is the first death.

What do you imagine they're doing down in Sheol (Hades is the Greek representation)? I don't imagine they do anything.

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going. Ecclesiastes 9:10 (ESV)

ECT makes so many contradictions in the Bible, when if one simply acknowledges the majority of the texts on the subject they will easily see that parables such as the Rich Man and Lazarus are not teaching doctrine on the afterlife. Otherwise it would create a contradiction, among other things.

The dead are resurrected, the books are opened and if your name is not found in the book of life you are cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Yes, you have a body and then you die. This is the first death. Then you're raised again and cast into the fire, and therefore die again. Hence they call it the second death.

In the second death even Death is destroyed.

What does the text actually say?

The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 1 Corinthians 15:26 (ESV)

The last one to be destroyed is death, which means there are many other enemies destroyed before that.

So the people who are in hell will long for death but they won't find it; their worm does not die.

Wait, so they'll be dead and longing for death, while continuing to live. It makes no sense, it is a fallacious argument to equivocate on the word death.

And the imagery you are drawing on is from Isaiah 66:24, which is describing not living beings, but corpses.

So the punishment is eternal, everlasting, never ending.

The destruction is permanent, there is no return or resurrection, and they are cut off from the living and the blessings of God for all eternity.

 

[chessman]

Conditional immortality says," We can somehow pay this penalty with our own suffering and death.".

Aren't you arguing against the logic of ECT here? ECT says we can somehow pay the debt whether it takes 10 years, 10 million years or more (lot's more).

That is, God needs to eternally torture the wicked in an attempt to equal the punishment necessary for sin. Yet never actually reaching the debt payment.

There's a reason that believing in Jesus' death and resurrection does our work for us. It (His death, not ECT) remediates our sin debt:

Colossians 1:14 Colossians 2:14 in whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins,
...
having destroyed the certificate of indebtedness in ordinances against us, which was hostile to us, and removed it out of the way by nailing it to the cross. ​

It's no coincidence that while on the subject no human works could ever save us, saying this:

Ephesians 2:8-9, 13 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast.
​

Paul also says this:

But now in Christ Jesus you, the ones who once were far away, have become near by the blood of Christ.
​

For ECT to be true, would it not have been necessary for us to believe in Christ's eternal suffering for the remediation for sin? I think it would.

And yes, I'm familiar with the philosophical argument that an infinite Being needs eternal torture to equate to his sacrifice. How is that not boastful of our human worth just as much as for our salvation would be?

Funny though, Paul never mentions that an infinite Being's suffering needs an infinite amount of suffering to pay the debt. Probably for the same reasons that our works can never save us, no matter how good or for how long we attempted them, our suffering cannot either.

 

[MarkT]

What does the text actually say?

The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 1 Corinthians 15:26 (ESV)

The last one to be destroyed is death, which means there are many other enemies destroyed before that.

No. The second death is the lake of fire. The second death swallows up the first death or death as we know it. So Death is not active in the lake of fire.

 

[MarkT]

What do you imagine they're doing down in Sheol (Hades is the Greek representation)? I don't imagine they do anything.

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going. Ecclesiastes 9:10 (ESV)

ECT makes so many contradictions in the Bible, when if one simply acknowledges the majority of the texts on the subject they will easily see that parables such as the Rich Man and Lazarus are not teaching doctrine on the afterlife. Otherwise it would create a contradiction, among other things.

They are in prison, in chains, in torment. Hades/Sheol is the prison. Where is the contradiction? Jesus went and preached to the spirits in prison. The rich man was in Hades in torment in flames. This is what Jesus taught. There are so many references to Hades (Jesus' own words) it makes no sense to deny it.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

They are in prison, in chains, in torment.

This seems to be an allusion to a text about angels, not men.

Hades/Sheol is the prison.

The Greek used there is actually Tartarosas not Hades.

Where is the contradiction?

The OT teaches that people are not actively doing anything in Sheol, nor does it depict it as a place of punishment.

Jesus went and preached to the spirits in prison.

That's a very ambiguous text, not really good to make doctrine off of as it isn't clear what this is a reference to.

The rich man was in Hades in torment in flames.

He also had a tongue and was in physical agony. Do spirits have tongues or experience physical agony?

This is a parable that you have confused with actually teaching doctrine.

Can you find me another description of Hades/Sheol being depicted as a place of punishment or fiery torment? I can find countless texts that contradict that notion.

There are so many references to Hades (Jesus' own words) it makes no sense to deny it.

I'm disagreeing with you on what the nature of Hades is. Most of your references seem rather confused, strained or simply in error.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

No. The second death is the lake of fire. The second death swallows up the first death or death as we know it. So Death is not active in the lake of fire.

So they live in not dying? It's nonsensical.

This makes sense.

Humans are raised from the dead and judged for their sins, as a result of their sins they are then cast into a lake of fire, which is the second death. This lake of fire, called "hell" by Jesus, is where both soul and body are destroyed by God.

 

[jeff77]

Jeff,
If one stops and thinks about conditional immortality, It mirrors works based salvation. Conditional immortality says," a person can pay for their own sins by some or a lot of punishment, then God will annihilate them and Gods Justice is rendered satisfied."

The deal is, God requires innocent blood for the penalty we owe. If a person does not have the innocent blood(Christ) one does not have forgiveness and cannot pay the penalty. Even an eternity of suffering does not pay the penalty for us. The only acceptable payment is the blood of an INNOCENT man and the only sinless man was Jesus Christ. Even after a million years in the lake of fire, one is still guilty and has not payed the penalty due.

Conditional immortality says," We can somehow pay this penalty with our own suffering and death." When in reality God requires the innocent blood of Christ and nothing else will suffice.

This is why the lake of fire is forever and ever. They went there without Christ, and their penalty can never be paid. They have no access to the innocent blood of the Lamb.

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't really have a whole lot to add to this subject right now. I might come across a verse that I have a question about every now and then. In John 3:16 which death do you think it is referring to when it says "the wages of sin is death"? The one everybody dies? I had always wondered about it because I had never heard of the "second death" mentioned in Revelation until I heard about C.I.

 

[MarkT]

Peter is referring to the souls of the men who perished in Noah's day. All flesh was destroyed back then except for Noah and his family and the animals he saved.

He also had a tongue and was in physical agony. Do spirits have tongues or experience physical agony?

This is a parable that you have confused with actually teaching doctrine.

Everything in the Bible is worth teaching. There is the death of the body and the death of the soul, two different things. The soul that goes down to Hades isn't dead. It's in the land of the dead. I have no doubt they heard Jesus preach the kingdom while they were in Hades. You can kill the body, but you can't kill the soul. So in this light you can see they are not dead, and God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. No doubt spirits can communicate with one another.

Can you find me another description of Hades/Sheol being depicted as a place of punishment or fiery torment? I can find countless texts that contradict that notion.

The unrighteous are kept under punishment until the day of judgment according to 2 Peter 2:9. This is a reference to the men of Noah's day and to the men of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[gr8grace3]

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't really have a whole lot to add to this subject right now. I might come across a verse that I have a question about every now and then. In John 3:16 which death do you think it is referring to when it says "the wages of sin is death"? The one everybody dies? I had always wondered about it because I had never heard of the "second death" mentioned in Revelation until I heard about C.I.

It is talking about Christs death on the Cross. He Paid the price for ALL sin, past,present and future. If our physical death could pay the penalty, we would all be saved and we would not need Christ.........this is how it affects the Gospel. Christ satisfies Gods Justice, nothing else.

 

[jeff77]

It is talking about Christs death on the Cross. He Paid the price for ALL sin, past,present and future. If our physical death could pay the penalty, we would all be saved and we would not need Christ.........this is how it affects the Gospel. Christ satisfies Gods Justice, nothing else.

So "the wages of sin is death" refers to Christ dying on the cross for all sins. The physical death that will happen to everyone and the second death has nothing to do with it? That makes sense to me. It is interesting though that some people that believe in C.I will say John 3:16 is the most obvious verse to support their doctrine.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It is talking about Christs death on the Cross. He Paid the price for ALL sin, past,present and future. If our physical death could pay the penalty, we would all be saved and we would not need Christ.........this is how it affects the Gospel. Christ satisfies Gods Justice, nothing else.

God is so angry that someone innocent needed to be punished. He then sends his Son, and thinks to himself, "ah that does the trick."

This conception of Penal Substitutionary Atonement has little to do with the Cross.

This along with ECT has very little to do with Justice, or at least anything that looks like Justice, but rather the opposite.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

So "the wages of sin is death" refers to Christ dying on the cross for all sins. The physical death that will happen to everyone and the second death has nothing to do with it? That makes sense to me. It is interesting though that some people that believe in C.I will say John 3:16 is the most obvious verse to support their doctrine.

That's not the context of Paul's passage.

In case this text isn't clear enough.

Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. Romans 1:32

People who practice the sins detailed in Romans 1 deserve to die according to God's decree, not be eternally tormented. I agree with God's decree.

 

[JLB]

God is so angry that someone innocent needed to be punished. He then sends his Son, and thinks to himself, "ah that does the trick."

This conception of Penal Substitutionary Atonement has little to do with the Cross.

This along with ECT has very little to do with Justice, or at least anything that looks like Justice, but rather the opposite.

Here is what the Just One said to those on His left hand -

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:41

Do you believe this was justice, or not.

Please explain.


JLB

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Here is what the Just One said to those on His left hand -

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:41

Do you believe this was justice, or not.

Please explain.


JLB

I do believe it will be Justice, as this is describing a future event. Sodom and Gomorrah underwent the same punishment and they now serve as an example for us of God's Justice towards evil.

 

[JLB]

I do believe it will be Justice, as this is describing a future event. Sodom and Gomorrah underwent the same punishment and they now serve as an example for us of God's Justice towards evil.

As you quoted this verse in another post concerning this very thing, it is clear that the punishment for Sodom and Gomorrah was a death of the physical body and not an eternal punishment in the hell or the lake of fire.

27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:27-32

The punishment of God upon the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah is not the same as when Jesus returns to judge at the resurrection and execute the judgement upon those who will been sent to the same fate as the devil which is tormented day and night in the lake of fire forever and ever.


JLB

 

[Doulos Iesou]

As you quoted this verse in another post concerning this very thing, it is clear that the punishment for Sodom and Gomorrah was a death of the physical body and not an eternal punishment in the hell or the lake of fire.

27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:27-32

The punishment of God upon the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah is not the same as when Jesus returns to judge at the resurrection and execute the judgement upon those who will been sent to the same fate as the devil which is tormented day and night in the lake of fire forever and ever.


JLB

In case you didn't notice, there is a resurrection just prior to the final judgment, so I hold that the punishment rendered will have both body and soul destroyed in hell, as Jesus said God could do should we reject Jesus.

Curious, the text you quoted says only that those who practice such things are "deserving of death." I agree with the text, and disagree with your statements.

 

[JLB]

In case you didn't notice, there is a resurrection just prior to the final judgment, so I hold that the punishment rendered will have both body and soul destroyed in hell, as Jesus said God could do should we reject Jesus.

Curious, the text you quoted says only that those who practice such things are "deserving of death." I agree with the text, and disagree with your statements.

So you believe the phrase deserving of death is a reference to being cast into everlasting fire that was prepared for the devil, rather that the death that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah suffered?


JLB

 

[Doulos Iesou]

So you believe the phrase deserving of death is a reference to being cast into everlasting fire that was prepared for the devil, rather that the death that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah suffered?


JLB

I think "deserving of death" is a reference of what God's decree says they deserve as the text says. So yes, I think the ultimate punishment that God will render on the wicked will be death.

I disagree with the distinction you are trying to create. Sodom and Gomorrah was punished with eternal fire and so will the wicked, the end result will be the same.