WHY?

[Atonement]

And one has a choice to pick and choose what they decide to post under..

 

[jgredline]

Where does one draw the line between loving someone like these seeker friendly churches do in loving them right into hell?

The Bible is clear.
Jesus said '' your either with me or your against me''
He left no room on the fence.

Ask yourself. Would a Christian make a statement such as what sput said?
Whould you make a statement like that?

 

[golfjack]

reply

There has been much said about whether there is a literal hell, does the spirit of the unbeliever cease to exist, and what the greek and Hebrew words mean. I believe we all have different personalities, and have different ways of delivering God's message. I admit that I have little patience for people who distort the Word of God. As far as I am concerned, I don't have a problem with what Oscar has said. If people were in my Church and started to infect the Body, I can assure you they would be told to leave until they repent.

I know some are concerned about the meanings of Greek and Hebrew words in the Bible, but what is God concerned about? He is concerned about the heart of mankind. God judges one by their heart and not by what they know in their intellects. God appointed David King by looking at his heart. There were some in my Bible School that were expecting to learn Greek and Hebrew, but found out that it is important that one heeds to what the Spirit of God is saying to one's heart ( spirit).

One more point: There was a teacher at my Bible School who was teaching Univrersalism, and the head of the school told him he had one hour to pack his bags and leave.

Therefore, God's business is very serious and too precious to be mocked. I am done with this hell thread, as there is no fruit here and the Bible says not to cast pearls to swine.


May God bless, golfjack

 

[destiny]

Where does one draw the line between loving someone like these seeker friendly churches do in loving them right into hell?

The Bible is clear.
Jesus said '' your either with me or your against me''
He left no room on the fence.

Ask yourself. Would a Christian make a statement such as what sput said?
Whould you make a statement like that?

One draws the line when all that can be done to restore is exausted. That doesn't mean giving an individual free reign to post anything either, and it doesn't mean you are compromised or 'seeker friendly', it's our mandate as believers.
And no, we don't have to put up with a post that disrespects God in order to reach someone. It's in finding the right balance, but it's not in being mean and hateful.
Truthfully until someone who can modify or delete offensive posts shows up, theres not a whole lot you can do. I have noticed name calling tends to make a bad situation a whole lot worse.

And golfjack, your church handled the situation with the false teacher in the right way. It's just that on these forums people break Gods laws by quarreling, instead of nipping leaven in the bud.
It causes one to have to invent new ways of handling situations.

 

[guibox]

The problem here is that 'correct theology' and 'falsehoods' are determined by the mainstream status quo. If it disagrees, no matter how biblically accurate, it is automatically assumed 'false' or 'heretical'

Hmmm. Where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah!

It was the Catholic Church!

The same arguments were put forth to counteract the Reformation. The same arguments were used to keep people in spiritual darkness while others said they had the true interpretation of scripture. Nonsense that after 1500 years was proven incorrect after all.

But, no. It is just us who use the Bible to support what some Reformers and 1000s after them to this day as well as learned scholars who are well versed in the Bible, have been saying all along and what even atheistis can see as complete falsehood and tyrannical cruelty: that the dead are NOT alive as 'souls' and that God will punish and destroy completely the wicked.

Sorry that you seem to think the Bible is 'heresy' for the weight of the scales of annhilation and conditional mortality far outweigh (in scripture quantity alone, never mind context and linguistics) that of eternal torment and immortality of the soul.

"Nope. Don't confuse me with bible facts and exegetical study of the Bible. My interpretation is right and you are all 'false teachers'".

This audacious mantra in the face of such obvious teaching of scriptures is getting old and only exposes more, that when one can't clean up the gross inconsistencies and contradictions that are created with these beliefs, that it is easier to label people and cling tighter to orthodox theology with no good reason but that it is the way they were grown up to think.

Strange...The Catholic Church has done the same throughout the ages with Marianism, transubstantiation, saint adoration, priestly forgiveness of sins and baby baptism.

Like the Eternal torment and immortality of the soul advocates, they only have a few ambiguous esiegetical interpretation of their texts too.

"But THEY are wrong! Can't they see in the Bible that what they believe is incorrect and that there are other bible texts they don't take into account that contradict them?"

Sounds familiar. Funny how the traditionalist doesn't want that same shoe to fit them too.

 

[jgredline]

Guibox
Of the topic
What does your screen name mean?

 

[guibox]

Guibox
Of the topic
What does your screen name mean?

I am a guitar player and I used to call the guitar the 'guitbox' as in 'Get out your guitbox and lets play!"

Somehow, I ended up saying guibox instead.

 

[destiny]

The problem here is that 'correct theology' and 'falsehoods' are determined by the mainstream status quo. If it disagrees, no matter how biblically accurate, it is automatically assumed 'false' or 'heretical'

Hmmm. Where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah!

It was the Catholic Church!

The same arguments were put forth to counteract the Reformation. The same arguments were used to keep people in spiritual darkness while others said they had the true interpretation of scripture. Nonsense that after 1500 years was proven incorrect after all.

But, no. It is just us who use the Bible to support what some Reformers and 1000s after them to this day as well as learned scholars who are well versed in the Bible, have been saying all along and what even atheistis can see as complete falsehood and tyrannical cruelty: that the dead are NOT alive as 'souls' and that God will punish and destroy completely the wicked.

Sorry that you seem to think the Bible is 'heresy' for the weight of the scales of annhilation and conditional mortality far outweigh (in scripture quantity alone, never mind context and linguistics) that of eternal torment and immortality of the soul.

"Nope. Don't confuse me with bible facts and exegetical study of the Bible. My interpretation is right and you are all 'false teachers'".

This audacious mantra in the face of such obvious teaching of scriptures is getting old and only exposes more, that when one can't clean up the gross inconsistencies and contradictions that are created with these beliefs, that it is easier to label people and cling tighter to orthodox theology with no good reason but that it is the way they were grown up to think.

Strange...The Catholic Church has done the same throughout the ages with Marianism, transubstantiation, saint adoration, priestly forgiveness of sins and baby baptism.

Like the Eternal torment and immortality of the soul advocates, they only have a few ambiguous esiegetical interpretation of their texts too.

"But THEY are wrong! Can't they see in the Bible that what they believe is incorrect and that there are other bible texts they don't take into account that contradict them?"

Sounds familiar. Funny how the traditionalist doesn't want that same shoe to fit them too.

Guibox ....I don't believe everything is a salvation issue, but thats not the point of what i'm about to say.
From what I see, the bible doesn't need elaborate interpretations, it only requires simple belief.
It was written for anyone with basic comprehension.
When you get into the "thats just your interpretation" issue, you are basically saying everything is relevant.
There is an absolute truth that can be found in the word, and it is knowable to all; not saying that theres not some issues that shouldn't matter.
Theres even issues that are subject to a different interpretational meanings that aren't salvation issues.
When we try to interpret things instead of take them at face value as they were intended, I think thats when we start getting into error.
Most of those disciples were simple men with simple lives, the word of God isn't a book that requires elaborate interpretations. IMO

 

[jgredline]

Guibox ....I don't believe everything is a salvation issue, but thats not the point of what i'm about to say.
From what I see, the bible doesn't need elaborate interpretations, it only requires simple belief.
It was written for anyone with basic comprehension.
When you get into the "thats just your interpretation" issue, you are basically saying everything is relevant.
There is an absolute truth that can be found in the word, and it is knowable to all; not saying that theres not some issues that shouldn't matter.
Theres even issues that are subject to a different interpretational meanings that aren't salvation issues.
When we try to interpret things instead of take them at face value as they were intended, I think thats when we start getting into error.
Most of those disciples were simple men with simple lives, the word of God isn't a book that requires elaborate interpretations. IMO

Amen and Amen. Destiny you said what I said early on in this debate but you said it much better that I. God is not a God of confusion. God says what he means and he means what he says. Its really that simple.
I will give an example.
The Book of Romans which is one of my favs is perhaps the most difficult, most theologically rich in all the new testiment perhaps second only to Hebrews ''Maybe''
YET it is the book I recommend to all ''NEW BELIEVERS'' along with the Gospel of John because if you read it at face value it will offer you the Gospel in a very simple way. it will encourage you and grow you.

Most people that will read the bible will not know anything about Hebrew, Greek, jewish customs, Hebrew customs, or any of those things.

Like Lovely said. The Bible is unique in that its Gods word and meant to be understood by all generations.

Its my opinion that only those that are afraid of death are the ones defending this false doctrine of annahalatianabuuubb..

What did Paul say? Do die is Gian?

 

[jgredline]

I am a guitar player and I used to call the guitar the 'guitbox' as in 'Get out your guitbox and lets play!"

Somehow, I ended up saying guibox instead.

Cool 8-) What kind of music do u play?

 

[destiny]

Amen and Amen. Destiny you said what I said early on in this debate but you said it much better that I. God is not a God of confusion. God says what he means and he means what he says. Its really that simple.
I will give an example.
The Book of Romans which is one of my favs is perhaps the most difficult, most theologically rich in all the new testiment perhaps second only to Hebrews ''Maybe''
YET it is the book I recommend to all ''NEW BELIEVERS'' along with the Gospel of John because if you read it at face value it will offer you the Gospel in a very simple way. it will encourage you and grow you.

Most people that will read the bible will not know anything about Hebrew, Greek, jewish customs, Hebrew customs, or any of those things.

Like Lovely said. The Bible is unique in that its Gods word and meant to be understood by all generations.

Its my opinion that only those that are afraid of death are the ones defending this false doctrine of annahalatianabuuubb..

What did Paul say? Do die is Gian?

Thanks jg..
I interpret this scripture as saying some people are too smart for God, so they stumble right over Him.. ;-)

1 Corinthians 1:26-29
For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence.

 

[guibox]

Most people that will read the bible will not know anything about Hebrew, Greek, jewish customs, Hebrew customs, or any of those things.
Its my opinion that only those that are afraid of death are the ones defending this false doctrine of annahalatianabuuubb.

Then forget the Hebrew or Greek. Merely look at the English context and allow the Bible explain itself

When you do, you will see the usage of terms like 'destroy', 'forever and ever', day and night', 'unquenchable' and 'everlasting punishment' is used throughout the Bible to explain temporary instances and complete and utter destruction.

The problem lies in the fact that Revelation 14:10,11 and Revelation 20 are looked at and automatically interpreted as being literally what you want them to say. But their is no comparison in the scriptures to see if that is indeed what they are meaning by those words.

Instead, ones interpretation of a cursory, literal reading of those terms is automatically read into the rest of the scriptures which is faulty herumenutics.

Examples:

unquenchable fire - - - Jeremiah 17:27; Isaiah 34:10
worm dieth not - - - Isaiah 66:24
forever and ever - - - 1 Samuel 1:22,28; Isaiah 34:10
smoke ascendeth up - - - Isaiah 34:10
eternal fire - - Jude 7
fire and brimstone - - - Isaiah 34:10
consuming/fire not consuming - - - Exodus 3:2

We must let the Bible and the context explain what it means and not impose our long held cherished orthodox beliefs we grew up with taint it (BTW, I grew up Catholic)

Cool What kind of music do u play?

I am primarily a bluegrass flat-picker but I also play fingerstyle, folk and country. I own a Thompson TMD Dreadnought acoustic and a Larrivee Rosewood 0-3 Dreadnought.

 

[jgredline]

Guibox
Lets see what happens if you read the bible and interpret it for what it says.


Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Jer 23:40 And I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten.


Matt 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Matt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Matt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.


Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:


Jude 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire

Sounds like your in trouble to me.

 

[guibox]

Guibox
Lets see what happens if you read the bible and interpret it for what it says.


Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Jer 23:40 And I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten.


Matt 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Matt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Matt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.


Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:


Jude 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire

Sounds like your in trouble to me.

No because you are assuming too many things here instead of letting the clearer texts speak for the ambiguous ones.

BTW, I noticed you didn't even mention the incredible similarities of the language you believe supports eternal torment that was borrowed from the OT to explain temporary actions with eternal results in my provided texts.

You are assuming that 'contempt', 'damnation' 'perish' all mean 'eternal torment'. These could also mean annihilation and judgment of temporary fire too.

But then you take this assumption and read into clear texts that speak of the annihilation of the wicked which uses the literal terms of 'death', 'destroy' 'destruction' but interpret these clear terms to mean 'eternal torment'. The OT did NOT have an eschaetology that included a lake of fire or eternal torment. Hence you cannot use Daniel 12 to support eternal torment. The clear language of the destruction of God's enemies must be what interprets the meaning of Daniel 12, not the other way around (besides, you are still assuming that Daniel MEANT eternal torment, which is not true according to the initial context)

By clinging to these assumptive views on ambiguous terms, you either miss the meaning of the clear terms in the texts, or read into them what doesn't belong contextually.

Even IF, the fire IS 'eternal' in it's duration, NOTHING in the bible says that what is thrown in is eternal either. However, fire is 'eternal' in it's results, not its duration. Jude 7 is a prime example. S&G are not burning now and their existence on this earth was what was destroyed by fire. The results of which are what is eternal, not the duration. The wicked cannot burn eternally because they do not have immortality in any form.

This is still something on which you ignore the clear teaching of the bible.

The wicked have not received the gift of eternal life. The immortality of the soul is incorrect. Eternal life is only given by Jesus Christ who saved us from DEATH. Not before. Christ's death and resurrection allowed immortal life to be bestowed on the righteous.

Text after clear text shows that this ONLY happens for the righteous.

 

[lovely]

Hi Sputnik,

Sputnikboy wrote:

Have any of you ever wondered why anyone should be 'punished' - whether by eternal torment or annihilation - simply for not having accepted Jesus Christ? I have and I still do. Not accepting Jesus Christ hardly qualifies as a 'crime' in my book. So, while neither of the alternative 'penalties' makes too much sense to me, there DO appear to be only two positions on this issue so I (somewhat begrudgingly) opt for the latter.

Why is 'unbelief' considered to be a 'sin' as such and why is it deemed as being worthy of such a severe penalty ...?

I know we have never agreed on anything, and I was hesitant to respond for that reason.

Consider Adam, and Eve, and what happened in the garden. They did not believe God, and sinned. Belief, is a way to avoid sin, and the death that comes with it.

Adam and Eve were tempted in three ways. Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

What if they would have believed? They didn't, and now sin has entered, and we are sinners.

How are we tempted? In the same three ways Adam and Eve were.
1 John 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

If we believe God, and do not presume to know better than He, then we can resist sin, and it's consequences in this world, but more importantly receive salvation. Consider the words of David in Psalm 19:13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

Then, consider how Christ was tempted, and how He responded with the Word.
Matthew 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

These response correspond with the provision of manna for Israel, the testing of God by Israel, and the failure to put God first.

God is jealous for us because He is our Creator authority, and the one who provides for us, teaches us, and protects us. To presume we know more than God by unbelief, is to be in sin, and to ignore the telling of even the creation around us. (read all of Psalm 19)

That is why it is all about belief. We are already doomed to death, and the belief in Him...which causes us to acknowledge we are sinners in need of salvation from the death that we are facing...is our salvation and redemption.

We see a great picture of this with Noah, and the Ark. He believed God, and obeyed God, and he, along with his family, entered the ark which saved them from God's wrath, and judgement.

Belief is essential to salvation. Unbelief literally dictates that those people will not enter in by lack of belief. We are ALL guilty of sin, but belief is what will save some of us.

I hope this helps, and the Lord bless you.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Thanks for the tone of your post, lovely. You know, the 'tone' of a post makes all the difference?!

I've just been laying low today thinking about what I can say next and wondering where this thread is headed. Right now I feel pretty bad at having initiated it...so, by comparison to some, your post was nice and non-condemning and I appreciate that. Thanks also to destiny.

 

[lovely]

Hi Sputnik,

You know, that post was actually my second post to you because I hit the submit button, and ended up being logged out...lost the whole post. :-? I decided to write it again, but looking back through it this morning, I left out something I wanted to say to you on a personal note.

When I was a younger believer, I did wonder why belief, and unbelief, were so important, and asked this question (along with similar types of questions) in my mind more than once. Since I have a more shy nature, and extremely so as a younger person, I would have never asked aloud. Anyway, questions like this have always caused me to dig deeper in order to give an answer for what I believed, not to others, but for myself. I was a believer, but I didn't truly understand all that it entailed right from the start. I am still finding out! I do not want to stay on milk, but sometimes it feels as if I will forever. Perhaps it goes down easier. : My point is, being in God's grip, I have never lost my faith due to a theological question, but have only had it deepen as I search the Scripture for the Truth. I do not ask questions so much anymore about these things (probably asked them all!), but now I seem to dig into the Word for a better glimpse of the One I have fallen in love with so deeply...and it seems to truly grow by the day. I want to know more about Him, and be more like Christ, but when I was a younger believer I spent time asking things it seemed other believers already knew, and being amazed as God unlocked each precious mystery to me in His own time, and just when I seemed to need it most. Anyway, I appreciate your question, because others may be wondering silently too for fear of condemnation...as I use to do. The Lord bless you today.

 

[guibox]

:x SB, do you ever check your PMs? I've only sent you three or 4, the first one being 4 days ago....

Don't make me come through here and slap you one.. ;-)

 

[Drew]

Lets see what happens if you read the bible and interpret it for what it says.

Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
.
.
.
Sounds like your in trouble to me.

Again, I must object. I take no umbrage at your attitude which is good, but at the way explanations that run counter to your position are seemingly ignored, rather than squarely addressed as they should be.

I will repeat the argument: Even if everlasting means "everlasting", the text could be seen to read: the lost are held in contempt eternally - they do not experience contempt eternally.

To imply that Dan 12:2 is an item of evidence in favour of the eternal hell position, you must show that "my" take on the verse is incorrect. You cannot simply assume that your take (which is plausible, at least when considered in isolation) carries the day, if there are plausible alternatives (and there is one in this case). And circular arguments don't count.

There is a problem that seems widespread in discussions of this and other topics - people seem to assume that a plausible interpretation rules out a competing plausible interpretation, simply by virtue of its plausibility. This is a fundamental and deep misunderstanding. It has plagued disussions of Calvinism where a poster effectively argued that his reading was the correct one, simply because it was plausible.

 

[jgredline]

No because you are assuming too many things here instead of letting the clearer texts speak for the ambiguous ones.

LOL, The verses I posted speak very well on there own, especially the ones from the Lord Jesus Christ. How can I or any man say things more clearly than Jesus.

BTW, I noticed you didn't even mention the incredible similarities of the language you believe supports eternal torment that was borrowed from the OT to explain temporary actions with eternal results in my provided texts.

Guibox
No prob. I would be happy to do so as it will only strenthen my position. Give me a little bit of time as I am at work, and so I need to get this in before the boss shows up and rebukes me.

You are assuming that 'contempt', 'damnation' 'perish' all mean 'eternal torment'. These could also mean annihilation and judgment of temporary fire too.

LOL, Give me a break. If Jesus was speaking of annihalation and temporary fire, don't you think he would have just said it plainly? Perhaps something like this.

'' Listen fellas, Seeing that you chose Hell instead of me, I am going to send you to the lake of fire, but don't worry, you will only be tortured and tormented for 6 trillion years and that point I will annahilate you. How does that sound?''

But then you take this assumption and read into clear texts that speak of the annihilation of the wicked which uses the literal terms of 'death', 'destroy' 'destruction' but interpret these clear terms to mean 'eternal torment'. The OT did NOT have an eschaetology that included a lake of fire or eternal torment. Hence you cannot use Daniel 12 to support eternal torment. The clear language of the destruction of God's enemies must be what interprets the meaning of Daniel 12, not the other way around (besides, you are still assuming that Daniel MEANT eternal torment, which is not true according to the initial context)

Guibox
You need to get a new dictionary, According to yours, eternal means temporary LOL

By clinging to these assumptive views on ambiguous terms, you either miss the meaning of the clear terms in the texts, or read into them what doesn't belong contextually.

LOL, I have been the one giving you and your posey the entire context of the sctriptures. Go back and read my post.

Even IF, the fire IS 'eternal' in it's duration, NOTHING in the bible says that what is thrown in is eternal either. However, fire is 'eternal' in it's results, not its duration. Jude 7 is a prime example. S&G are not burning now and their existence on this earth was what was destroyed by fire. The results of which are what is eternal, not the duration. The wicked cannot burn eternally because they do not have immortality in any form.

This is still something on which you ignore the clear teaching of the bible.

LOL, THIS is really funny stuff. I ignore the clear teaching of the bible. Lets see. Who is the one who is saying that hell is a rest stop before annahilation, Who is the one who is saying that Luke 16 is a parable, Who is the one who ignores Rev 19-20. Its not me, so guess who?

The wicked have not received the gift of eternal life. The immortality of the soul is incorrect. Eternal life is only given by Jesus Christ who saved us from DEATH. Not before. Christ's death and resurrection allowed immortal life to be bestowed on the righteous.

Text after clear text shows that this ONLY happens for the righteous.

Friend
The soul is immortal as the scriptures clearly teach and as has been proven to you guys over and over again.
The wicked do not recieve eternal ife is correct. Wow we agree on 1 thing.
Text after text shows that those who are not found in the book of life will inherit eternal torture, for ever and ever..

My Friend. Is your name in the book of life?
If so, then why are you afraid?