The Immortality of the Human Soul

[MichaelB]

Among various pseudo-Christian movements such as the Watchtower Society and the Christadelphians, there has been an apologetic effort to posit the notion of the conditional immortality (or "CI") of the human soul. In light of the propositions of those who purport CI, Christians must find the basis for their belief in the revelation of the Almighty God. Should the Scriptures concur with either view, the incorrect view must be surrendered and given unto the trash heap of demonic doctrines and fallible traditions (2Cor 10:5). It is my position that the orthodox view is not only substantiated in Scripture, but assumed. Therefore, I will provide some of the most clear and obvious proofs for the immortality of the soul as provided by the Spirit of truth.

Luke 23:43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

To even the most ardent of critics, this text provides an important look into how the Lord Jesus understood the afterlife. I contend that within this text, the Lord Jesus tells the thief that indeed, "today you will be with me in paradise." Incredibly, even given the explicit nature of this statement, there are arguments to the contrary. David Burge, a unitarian CI apologist offers the following arguments:

"In the original Greek manuscripts of the New Testament there was no punctuation. We are at liberty to read the text, “I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). There are a number of reasons for preferring this option:

1. The thief actually asked Jesus to remember him “when you come into your kingdom”(Luke 23:42), that is when he begins his future Messianic reign;
2. The “paradise” of Scripture is the New Heavens and the New Earth (Rev. 2:7, 22:1-5), Eden restored! It is yet future, when Christ shall come in his kingdom;
3. Had Luke intended the word “today”to belong to the latter clause and not the former he might have put the Greek word hoti as he does in Luke 4:21 and 19:9. He does not.
4. Phrases such as “I command you this day” are used frequently in the book of Deuteronomy, for example, to give emphasis to solemn utterances. “This day” goes with verb preceding it in both Matthew 6:11 and Luke 2:11 for other New Testament examples of this."(1.)

While I commend Burge's acknowledgement that the punctuation we now employ in our English translations was not present in the ancient witnesses, I do wonder whether or not Burge has considered the translator's methodology for employing the comma where it resides in nearly ever recognized English translation in existence. Firstly, one must consider the textual basis for the rendering; every single time our Lord has preceded a discourse with the clause "amên legô umin" or "truly I say to you" the following word belongs in the latter clause. If Burge were correct, out of the seventy-two times the phrase is used, this would be the only exception.

Burge begs the question in presupposing the thief's understanding of the time and place of Jesus' "kingdom." Certainly the kingdom of Christ will consist of the new heavens and new earth, but it is by no means limited to that. The Lord Jesus when speaking to Pilot stated " My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36)." In addition, given the Apostolic timing of Psalm 110:1 (Acts 2:32-35, Heb 10:12-13), it is undeniably clear that Jesus is currently ruling as Lord in His kingdom. There is of course, a sense of the "all ready not yet" when it comes to the kingdom of Christ. The great consummation and the realization of the new heavens and new earth do not constitute the beginning of Christ's reign, but the zenith of it.

The paradise of God is simply the literal presence of God, unbridled and unaffected by one's own sin. Therefore, for the Lord Jesus to state "today you will be with me in paradise" is simply another way of stating that "today you will be in my presence free of sin and it's effects and consequences." What greater paradise is there, than enjoying the glorious presence of our great God and Savior (Titus 2:13) free from the sinful flesh and subsequent judgement? This is why Jesus in His High Priestly prayer petitions the Father "I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory (John 17:24)." Christ's request was for His own to be with Him in His glory; the paradise of God. What makes the new heavens and the new earth paradise? Surely it is the fact that the dwelling place of God will be among His people (Rev 21:3-4). Therefore, to say that the thief will be with Christ post mortem is to say that the thief will be free of sin in paradise because Christ is God (John 1:1c, 2Cor 12:3). Notice the wording employed by our Lord in verse 46, "“Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." The Lord Jesus used the term "paratithemi" or "commit," which literally means "to set forth(2)." The text echoes the sentiments of Stephen in Acts 7:59 when he stated "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Stephen uses the word "dechomai" which literally means "to take hold of (3)." The CI adherent must ask, what was the Lord Jesus to take hold of if Stephen was to reside solely within the grave? Surely the petition was pointing to the fact that although Stephen's flesh met the grave, his spirit was going to be with Christ (Phil 1:23).
Burge's attempt to provide a contrast between the usage of "today" in Luke 4:21 and 19:9 over and against it's usage in Luke 23:43 is a desperate one. Firstly, 4:21 and 19:9 employ different syntactical constructions intended to communicate entirely different ideas. The conjunction "hoti" means "since" or "because" (4). Therefore, the statement in Luke 4:21 "hoti sêmeron peplêrôtai ê graphê autê en tois ôsin umôn" is the equivalent of saying "because of today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.(5)" This conjunction would be completely out of place in Luke 23:43, and it would import a notion that is foreign to the verse. Burge's suggestion would render the statement "because of today you will be with me in Paradise;" clearly not the rendering that Burge suggested would result. Although the addition of the conjunction would relegate "semeron" to the second clause, it would only do so by means of changing the plain meaning of the verse. The word "semeron" or "today" literally means "this very day (6)." Either way, the word "today" belongs to the second clause, and there is no textual or grammatical basis to suggest otherwise.

Burge's plea to the usage of "semeron" in Matthew 6:11 and Luke 2:11 is utterly without contextual warrant. These texts are completely different syntactical constructions by two different authors. The appeal to these two texts can only be viewed as an ignorant attempt at buttressing a failed argument. One need only to take a cursory glance at how Jesus used the phrase "truly I say to you" to see just how differently the two cited texts are. It seems as though Burge simply searched the New Testament for places in which the word "today" was used following a verb to provide credibility for his position.

2Corinthians 12:2-3 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—

Paul's description in the above text presupposes the possibility that one may exist outside of the physical body. For if the person of the Apostle could have experienced the third heaven outside of the body that would denote a recognition of non-physical existence. His lack of knowledge provides insight into his belief that such a spiritual experience would have been a possibility or even likely. Should conditional immortality be true, such a possibility would have been inevitably precluded thereby introducing error into the Apostolic interpretation of a miraculous experience. Note the plain similarity in description between the paradise the Lord Jesus spoke of, and the one Paul presumably experienced.

Philippians 1:19-26 for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, as it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again.

Should the CI position be correct, Paul is suggesting that ceasing to possess conscious existence for an indefinite period of time is better than living (Matt 24:36), or that Paul is equivocating to "be with Christ" with the resurrection of the believer. The preceding sentence indicates that Paul is yearning to, or longing to "be with Christ." It is this state, "with Christ," that is far better. Paul gives no indication that to die, or to depart, leads to an unconscious state, but rather a conscience state to enjoy Christ. This is inevitably why the Apostle states "to die is gain" (Phil 1:22), as opposed to importing the resurrection into his discourse. Paul juxtaposes continuing to live in the flesh with dying and being with Christ. Both are a state of living; the latter a spiritual existence with Christ. There is a sense of immediacy communicated by Paul in his statement "to depart and be with Christ." The Apostle recognizes no unconscious intermediate state. The CI proponent must import the notion of the resurrection onto the text, ignoring the cause and effect clearly stated by the Apostle.

2 Corinthians 5:6-9 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.

Similarly to Philippians 1:22-23, the Apostle provides a contrast between being in the body or with the Lord. He explicitly states that a person can be away from the body and at home with the Lord. The differences between the doctrine of conditional immortality and the above text are irreconcilable.

Matthew 29:33 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching

Although the context of the text is on the topic of the resurrection of the dead, the Lord Jesus provides us with an important insight that transcends the immediate context by virtue of the fact that it is grounded in the identity of God. The Lord Jesus stated "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living" in reference to the patriarchs who had long since died. This precept is undeniably clear and confirmed in Matthew 17:3 when Moses and Elijah appeared and spoke with Christ. Should CI be correct, the Lord Jesus is not only incorrect in His teaching, but the occurrence of the transfiguration should be called into question.

James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

God has described in the Scriptures an immaterial aspect of mankind. The above text notes this. Perhaps it may be argued that "pneuma" and "ruach" simply refer to the breath of life, or a particular aspect of the flesh. Why then is the immaterial Spirit of God described as He is? We see very clearly in Genesis 1:26-27, that God created man in a superior fashion as compared to the beast, fish, or fowl. For man was created in the image of God, and it was God Himself who breathed into man's nostrils and gave him life (Gen 2:7). Job recognized this immaterial aspect and stated "But it is the spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand" (Job 32:8). The late Primitive Baptist commentator Sylvester Hassell provided an excellent description of the human spirit: "as God is immaterial, so is there an immaterial principle in man, endowed with thought and will and conscience (7)." It is this entity that the Scriptures speak of existing after physical death. Although the body decays, the spirit lives on. Solomon spoke of this when he stated "and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it" (Ecc 12:7). This inner self is that which was mysteriously created by God when He formed us in the womb (Ecc 1:5, Zec 12:1), and it is that which undergoes sanctification (2Cor 4:16).

Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life

There is a parallel drawn in the above text by the Lord Jesus. The word "aionios" or "eternal" is employed in both clauses. The word literally means eternal or everlasting (8). Should the CI adherent suggest that eternal punishment in it's literal sense is not in view here, consistency demands that it eternal life is also not in view.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

The believer possesses eternal life. Should the CI position be correct, this powerful statement by the Lord Jesus could not be true. How can a person possess eternal life, and yet exist in a conscienceless state bound by the constraints of the grave? While physical death is the temporal ending of the fleshly life of the believer, the spirit of the believer lives on and is with Christ.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Here the Apostle clearly delineates between the flesh and the spirit. He echoes the sentiments of the Lord Jesus when He stated "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt 10:28). Incredibly, the quoted text is used to support conditional immortality, when in fact it speaks of an everlasting destruction (2Thes 1:9) that consists of fiery eternal torment (Rev 20:10/20:15).

It has been argued Luke 16:19-31 is parabolic. This is not the case. Unlike parables, the Lord Jesus used the names of actual persons; Lazarus, Abraham, and Moses. The account also coincides with the notion of fiery torment for the reprobate as seen in other texts such as Isaiah 50:11 and Revelation 14:9-10. This detailed account also does not by nature employ a parabolic meaning. Parables consist of a story wherein lies a second meaning. There is no second meaning present in the account. One Christadelphian commentator argued "The parable condemns Caiaphas the chief Shepherd of Israel for his selfish irresponsibility in neglecting the spiritual and material needs of Jews in Israel. Lazarus represents this neglected class. The parable is a further indictment of the Sadducees (who denied the resurrection of the body and were about to reject the miraculous resurrection of Lazarus) in their disbelief of Moses and the prophets.(9)" This argument amounts to a crass allegorization of scripture that finds it's basis in bold eisegesis. Would the Lord Jesus really veil the suggested meanings in such a tale? Hardly. The narrative is meant to be understood just as it was told. Should the account be simply a fallacious story, Jesus would have been attributing things to Abraham that he did not actual say (vs 29). This presents an impossibility, since the Lord Jesus is incapable of deceit. Even if one accepted the notion that the text is a parable, Jesus always utilized real world scenarios in parables. Therefore, if parabolic, the passage would be utilizing a scenario that has no basis in truth; hardly the method of the Truth (John 14:6). What of the five brothers, and the vain attempt of the rich man to reach them? Can this also be explained away with allegory? No, in fact it speaks to the inevitable thoughts that any damned person would consider having been placed in such a horrific state. Perhaps one may argue that the account exists within a section of scripture that is laden with parables. Although this is true, the passage is also riddled with non-parabolic texts, including the texts before and after Luke 16:19-31.


Hebrews 12:18-24 For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.-

The author of Hebrews speaks of the spirits of the righteous made perfect. These people are in communion with the angels, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus. As clear and obvious as this text is, there remains the objection from the proponent of conditional immortality. David Burge for example argues that "the 'spirits of just men made perfect' are living believers (when Paul was writing) who, figuratively or spiritually speaking, are worshipping 'in the spirit' in heaven (10)." Burge has resorted to attempting to misconstrue the text to protect his doctrine. Firstly, it is news to the theological world that Paul wrote Hebrews. Secondly, the context removes the possibility of Burge's suggestion. The author is speaking of those who are present in the "heavenly Jerusalem." The realm in which "angels in festal gathering, God, the judge of all, the spirits of the righteous made perfect" and Jesus" co-exist. The author of Hebrews places Jesus in "Heaven" (12:25), and therefore the "spirits of the righteous" coincide in that place. Furthermore, Burge's attempt at convuluting the text to fit in his doctrine meets is demise within the phrase "the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven." This assembly consists of those who are of Christ, the "firstborn" (Col 1:15), who are enrolled in heaven, but not yet present in heaven. This assembly is the church on earth, and they are clearly differentiated from those who are actually present in heaven; "the spirits of the righteous made perfect," part of which are the "great cloud of witnesses (12:1)." Should Burge's explanation be accepted, there would be a silly redundancy within the text.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten

Ecclesiastes 9:10 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.

The above texts are some of the most often used to prop up conditional immortality. When ripped out of context, and considered absent of the remainder of scripture, the texts can be taken to support CI. However, the genuine meaning of both texts are easy to ascertain. Consider the spiritual state of the author of Ecclesiastes: he considers life to be meaningless or vain (Ecc 1:2), he places emphasis on temporal trappings (5:185, 10:19), and he possesses what is best described as an agnostic view of the afterlife (3:21-22). Judging from this, it is obvious that 9:5 is a reflection of death from the author's worldview. From his perspective, the dead know nothing, and the memory of the dead is forgotten. Verse six underscores the fact that verse five is only the perspective of the author who is concerned with that which "is done under the sun." Verse ten carries on that same theme. It is not a description of the actual state of the dead, but a description of the author's perspective of those who are in the abode of the dead. Should the CI apologist disagree, one need only examine the themes of the book and the other positions of the author. Solomon himself professed explicit agnosticism when he stated "Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? (Ecc 3:21)" The attempts of the CI adherent in utilizing the above texts can only be considered contrived and driven by preexisting doctrinal positions.

The ultimate victim in the propagation of conditional immortality is God Himself. The doctrine infringes upon His holiness, His excellence, and perfect justice. For it is God who is infinitely holy, perfect, and righteous. God has created humanity with reason (Is 1:18), volition (Joshua 24:15), logic, and a knowledge of His law (Rom 2:15). Therefore, humanity is obligated to obey the decree of God. Or as the great puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards put it, "our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority" and "His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him (11)." Hence, a singular sin is an act of treason. A sin is an act of rebellion against an infinitely holy God of whom humanity is obligated to honor and obey. It is because God is infinitely holy, a single sin committed against Him is an infinitely heinous crime. Justice demands that a crime be met with a commensurate punishment that is in direct accordance to the offense. Consequently, the just punishment for sin is an infinite one. The Scriptures bear this out; "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name" Revelation 14:1. The eternality spoken of in the phrase "they have no rest, day or night" is inescapable. The linguistic parallel provided in Revelation 4:8 undoubtedly leads to the acceptance of the notion of eternality of action; these creatures never cease praising the Living God. Compare this language, with the finitude of annihilation. The sufferings of those annihilated ceases. Their punishment stops; for those annihilated are no more. They do possess a sense of rest that is in direct contradiction to the fiery torment of which the Scriptures speak.

Perhaps the CI adherent would ask why God would engage in such an activity as the eternal torment of the reprobate. Other than the demands of His justice as seen above, God has made it known that He desires to display the power of His wrath. Or as the Apostle states "what if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" Romans 9:22. God displays (12) the full strength of His incomprehensible wrath justly (Rom 2:5) to amplify the extent of glory and mercy to those of whom He has saved from sin (Rom 9:23). A great many who refuse to acknowledge the stated texts appeal to Ezekiel 18:23, 32, and 33:11 wherein it is said that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. This plea finds it's fault in that it fails to recognize the fact that God finds pleasure not in the act of death of the wicked, but the upholding of His perfect judgement and excellent justice.
In conclusion, there is no question as to the biblical reality that God has sovereignly created and ordained that man possess a spirit that exists in a conscious state after physical death. This state will consist of either eternal life for the redeemed person, or eternal torment for the person who does not bend the knee to Christ and repent.

1. "The Penitent Thief" article by David Burge

2.Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Paratithemi". "The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon"

3.Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Dechomai". "The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon"
4. Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Hoti". "The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon"

5. The Complete Jewish translation gets the sense right when it translates Luke 4:21 "He started to speak to them: "Today, as you heard it read, this passage of the Scripture was fulfilled!" Thus my translated is further substantiated.

6. Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Semeron". "The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon".

7. "Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Denying the Immortality and Endless Duration of the Soul" an article from "The Gospel Messenger—August, 1894" by Sylvester Hassell

8. Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Aionios". "The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon".

9. Excerpt from "Christadelphian handbook: Wrested Scriptures" by Ron Able

10. "Twisted Scripture: Hebrews 12:23" by David Burge

11. Excerpts from "The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners," by Jonathan Edwards

12. God's wrath is currently being revealed: Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

[37818]

Immortality of the human soul is NOT biblical. But neither is the notion that the death of the soul is extinction of consciousness. The proof of this is Jesus' death on the cross. It was completed on the cross (John 19:28) before His physical death. Isaiah tells us that it was His soul He gave (Isaiah 53:6, 10, 12.)

This is important in that it shows in the second death, there is the death of the soul, where the soul remains conscious, because in the second physical death after resurrection of the dead (Revelation 20:11-) includes ruin or death of the soul (Matthew 10:28), And that Matthew 10:28 also shows killing of the body is not the killing of the soul. (Hence many mistakenly believe in the immortality of the soul. But it does speak of the destruction/ruin of the soul in Gehenna (i.e. lake of fire).)

Revelation 14:10 reveals the conscious suffering of the lost will be eternal.

And it is important to note that Christ's death of His soul was by means of His shed blood (1 Peter 1:18,19), by reason that He was resurrected both in body and soul (Acts 2:27).

. . . the person who does not bend the knee to Christ and repent.

I should add that every knee will bend to Christ (Philippians 2:11. Romans 14:9-11). And biblical repentance precedes faith in God's grace (Mark 1:15, 2 Timothy 2:24-26. Ephesians 2:8,9. 1 John 5:9-12.).

[Glenn P]

MichaelB, I want to come across as encouraging people on to better things and making genuine suggestions, rather than seeming overly critical, so I want to be careful how I word this (even though my assessment of this article is not a positive one). Let me put it this way:

You've commented on some specific comments by David Burge (who, incidentally, passed away in recent months). But given your interest in the subject, you must certainly be aware of the wealth of writing that has been done on the issues and texts you address.

When writing a critical article, it's always a good idea to try to, as they say, "advcance the debate." The reality is, every claim you've made has already been addressed multiple times in the literature. How do you address the arguments? We just don't know, because you don't mention them.

It's a bit like seeing a science professor getting up in front of an audience and announcing criticisms of a view that was published a century ago - and presenting, word for word, criticisms that were offered a century ago, even though there have been many books writtien on those criticisms and the responses tot hem since then.

In order to directly answer your objections, the proponent of conditional immortality would be regurgitating rebuttals that have been given before, and the standard responses to them have been heard many times before, and the answers to those have been heard many times before, and so on. In short, a huge volume of water has passed under the bridge since these very old criticisms were first heard, and in my estimation, the current score well and truly favours the proponents of conditional immortality. As such a believer, I read your arguments and was not in the least bit worried, because they have for many years now been part of the museum of arguments against conditional immortality that did not work the first time, and are no better now.

I know, that all sounds very negative, but the thing to do, I think is this: Get a handle on the contempiorary scholarly literature on the subject - and there's plenty out there. Then come up with a way of rebutting the arguments that has not yet been done. Or if it has been done and the scholars who defend conditional immortality have already answered it, show specifically where their arguments have flaws.

There are people here at Theologyweb who can point you in the direction of some of that literature if you're interested in looking further into it.

[MichaelB]

MichaelB, I want to come across as encouraging people on to better things and making genuine suggestions, rather than seeming overly critical, so I want to be careful how I word this (even though my assessment of this article is not a positive one). Let me put it this way:

You've commented on some specific comments by David Burge (who, incidentally, passed away in recent months). But given your interest in the subject, you must certainly be aware of the wealth of writing that has been done on the issues and texts you address.

When writing a critical article, it's always a good idea to try to, as they say, "advcance the debate." The reality is, every claim you've made has already been addressed multiple times in the literature. How do you address the arguments? We just don't know, because you don't mention them.

It's a bit like seeing a science professor getting up in front of an audience and announcing criticisms of a view that was published a century ago - and presenting, word for word, criticisms that were offered a century ago, even though there have been many books writtien on those criticisms and the responses tot hem since then.

In order to directly answer your objections, the proponent of conditional immortality would be regurgitating rebuttals that have been given before, and the standard responses to them have been heard many times before, and the answers to those have been heard many times before, and so on. In short, a huge volume of water has passed under the bridge since these very old criticisms were first heard, and in my estimation, the current score well and truly favours the proponents of conditional immortality. As such a believer, I read your arguments and was not in the least bit worried, because they have for many years now been part of the museum of arguments against conditional immortality that did not work the first time, and are no better now.

I know, that all sounds very negative, but the thing to do, I think is this: Get a handle on the contempiorary scholarly literature on the subject - and there's plenty out there. Then come up with a way of rebutting the arguments that has not yet been done. Or if it has been done and the scholars who defend conditional immortality have already answered it, show specifically where their arguments have flaws.

There are people here at Theologyweb who can point you in the direction of some of that literature if you're interested in looking further into it.

Given the fact that CI proponents are still propogating the type of argumentation I addressed, I felt the need to do just that. I have spoken with a number of unitarians within the last few months including Dr. Anthony Buzzard and I have found that this type of argumentation is still utilized. In fact, it was my interaction with Buzzard that inspired me to write the article, among other things. Should you feel that your position is superior then please feel free to give that answer in accordance with the command (1Pet 3:15). I'd love to see you attempt to refute what I have provided in the article. Your claim of being a Calvinist and holding this unbiblical view is both odd and worthy of a sincere smack-down. I am nearly entirely uneducated, so far as formal education. I don't possess the resources to purchase many books, especially those of theological errror. Since you possess quite a few "letters" after your name, let us address the text in a cordial fashion. I'm feeling pretty confident on this issue; but I am open to hear a brother who possesses a better education than I. BTW do you do a podcast?

[MichaelB]

Immortality of the human soul is NOT biblical. But neither is the notion that the death of the soul is extinction of consciousness. The proof of this is Jesus' death on the cross. It was completed on the cross (John 19:28) before His physical death. Isaiah tells us that it was His soul He gave (Isaiah 53:6, 10, 12.)

Firstly, when the wrath of the Father was satisfied, that is when He spoke "It is finished." Secondly, Is 53:6 has nothing to do with this topic. Thirdly, He possessed two natures, see Chalcedon 451. He gave His human soul unto death; but it was this soul that was present with the Father post mortem (Luke 23:46).

And, I too believe that repentance precedes faith, I am Reformed.

[Glenn P]

Your claim of being a Calvinist and holding this unbiblical view is both odd and worthy of a sincere smack-down.

Well if that's to be your approach then I'm not about to indulge that desire of yours.

Fortunately for those who hold my view, if that's going to be your approach, you also won't persuade anyone.


EDIT: OK, I thought I'd add something else too: Another reason that I would not indulge your request is already spelled out in my earlier comment. To do so would simply be to repeat old debates that have already been had. There's an avalanche of response to your arguments already out there, and there's no need to reinvent the wheel by having those old arguments here in this thread. It's like asking me to prove that the eart is not flat, or asking me to prove that Acts was written by Luke. Those debates are history. The world has already seen those debates play out, and there's nothing new here to make proponents of conditional immortality worry. You haven't offered a challenge to the arguments that have already been used to soundly rebut the claims you made, so the status quo has not changed.

[gharfish]

So the damned have eternal life of their own ?


>

[37818]

Firstly, when the wrath of the Father was satisfied, that is when He spoke "It is finished."

The redemption was finished, that "all things were now accomplished" (v.28) prior to Jesus saying, "It is finished" (v.30). And Jesus having declared "It is finished" prior to His physical death. The redemption was fully completed prior to His physical death. Isaiah wrote, "hath poured out his soul unto death" that His soul died on the cross through the payment for sins with His shed blood. (The soul is mortal see Ezekiel 18:4, "the soul that sinneth it shall die.") The written word of God explicitly teaches conditional immortality of the soul. Only those who have placed their faith in our Lord Jesus Christ have life (John 3:16, 1 John 5:12.)

Jesus' death of His soul and conscious suffering on the cross demonstrates the conscious suffering that the lost will face for all eternity. (Psalm 22:6.)

Secondly, Is 53:6 has nothing to do with this topic.

On the contrary, I referenced also verses 10 (". . . make his soul an offering for sin. . ." and 12 (", , , poured out his soul unto death . . . ."). Which makes it (v.6) very relevant in my view.

Thirdly, He possessed two natures, see Chalcedon 451.

First, Chalcedon 451 has no valid authority in my view (i.e. baptist). Secondly, Yes, but He has always had two natures (John 1:1, both "with" and "was God"), which is even prior to His incarnation (John 1:14).

He gave His human soul unto death; but it was this soul that was present with the Father post mortem (Luke 23:46).

Yes. His soul died on the cross before His physical death (John 19:30), But, in so doing, He did not cease being a human soul (Acts 2:27. 1 Timothy 2:5. Isaiah 53:12.)

And, I too believe that repentance precedes faith, I am Reformed.

Good, we agree on this.

[37818]

So the damned have eternal life of their own ?
>

No. The lost have in the second death both a second death of the body and an eternal death of their souls. (John 15:6, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 10:28, Revelation 20:11-15.) What lives on is their worm of consciousness. Their worm will never die. (Mark 9:48, Isaiah 66:24. Revelation 14:10, Revelation 21:8.)

[gharfish]

37818,

Hello.

Let me just dive in...
Where in the scriptures could I find something that says that the disembodied human souls who are called forth from Sheol ('Hades') to Heaven for the final judgement are given bodies ?

Physical death is eternal - that is, it's permanent and final unless God resurrects [us]. Does God do anything for these in The Rev. 20: 12 & 13, beyond just calling them to His presence in their essential human form: soul ? They are given newly created mortal bodies in order that that body can be destroyed too ? ...Anyway, this is not my main point.

I can agree with you that those who are condemned to the otherworldly hell do live on, but only for some time - not forever. I believe that they are eventually destroyed everlastingly by some means that the Bible doesn't reveal to us.

You say that they in their consciousness will never cease to be; right ? How can what you call the 'eternal death' of a person - a human soul - be an undying death ?

And consciousness is metaphorically a worm ?

"The worm" is from Jesus quoting Isaiah 66: 24. That worm is consuming the bodies of the actual rebellious people that God had killed, in v. 16. Their corpses remain there, unburied, for numerous months to be viewed (v. 23). The worms are maggots, like the maggots that consumed dead men in the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) from which we get our word, hell.

From Isaiah 66, the worms that dieth not are like the fire that is not quenched. How ? The destroying fire cannot be put out, and neither will the worms on corpses be restrained from doing their eating, because they represent the actual judgement and punishment of God. His punishment cannot be escaped nor stopped and it stands irreversibly.




>

[MichaelB]

Well if that's to be your approach then I'm not about to indulge that desire of yours.

How convenient.

Fortunately for those who hold my view, if that's going to be your approach, you also won't persuade anyone.

I doubt that anyone who holds your position and is aware of the related texts can be persuaded by anything other than an act of God the Holy Spirit. Not only do I find your position contrived, I believe it to be blasphemous. Of course, you already knew that I am sure.

EDIT: OK, I thought I'd add something else too: Another reason that I would not indulge your request is already spelled out in my earlier comment. To do so would simply be to repeat old debates that have already been had. There's an avalanche of response to your arguments already out there, and there's no need to reinvent the wheel by having those old arguments here in this thread. It's like asking me to prove that the eart is not flat, or asking me to prove that Acts was written by Luke. Those debates are history. The world has already seen those debates play out, and there's nothing new here to make proponents of conditional immortality worry. You haven't offered a challenge to the arguments that have already been used to soundly rebut the claims you made, so the status quo has not changed.

Again, entirely convenient. Theological high-browism, and a bit of circular reasoning thrown it too.

[MichaelB]

No. The lost have in the second death both a second death of the body and an eternal death of their souls. (John 15:6, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 10:28, Revelation 20:11-15.) What lives on is their worm of consciousness. Their worm will never die. (Mark 9:48, Isaiah 66:24. Revelation 14:10, Revelation 21:8.)

Indeed.

[MichaelB]

The redemption was finished, that "all things were now accomplished" (v.28) prior to Jesus saying, "It is finished" (v.30). And Jesus having declared "It is finished" prior to His physical death. The redemption was fully completed prior to His physical death. Isaiah wrote, "hath poured out his soul unto death" that His soul died on the cross through the payment for sins with His shed blood. (The soul is mortal see Ezekiel 18:4, "the soul that sinneth it shall die.") The written word of God explicitly teaches conditional immortality of the soul. Only those who have placed their faith in our Lord Jesus Christ have life (John 3:16, 1 John 5:12.)

Yes I agree that His death brough finality to redemption so far as the PSA aspect goes. However, His statement was like that of the High Priestly prayer. He speaks as one who has completed that which He is about to do. Your appeal to Ez 18:4 carries with it a wooden presupposition. The prophet does not remark that the actual soul shall die. Consider the semantical range of the term. Soul is synonomous with an individual identity. Certianly, the person who sins shall die; but this death is one that is physical. The non-physical aspect of humanity is not dependent upon the flesh for life; as this is the repeated declaration of the Scriptures as I have demonstrated in the article.

First, Chalcedon 451 has no valid authority in my view (i.e. baptist). Secondly, Yes, but He has always had two natures (John 1:1, both "with" and "was God"), which is even prior to His incarnation (John 1:14).

Chalcedon has no authority? Your out of line. Chalcedon is the statement of orthodoxy by the Christian church; the body of believers who hold to orthodox Christology. Being Baptist does not somehow exclude you from recognizing the creeds. In John 1:1c we are provided with an anarthrous construction. The Word is given the definite article ("ho") and therefore the clause is descriptive of the Word and not an identification of the Word. The Apostle tells us that this Word is as to His nature identical with the God of the second clause; the Word is as to His nature deity. The Word does not become flesh until 1:14. Both the second and third clauses are pre-incarnate truths that lend no (read zero) weight to your odd position. I would gladly bring your odd position out to pasture should you wish to subject it to the riggors of formal debate (I can assure you, we'd be eating steak for dinner).

Yes. His soul died on the cross before His physical death (John 19:30), But, in so doing, He did not cease being a human soul (Acts 2:27. 1 Timothy 2:5. Isaiah 53:12.)
Good, we agree on this.

Your conclusion based upon John 19:30 is eisegesis of the highest order. His death was His actual death. He did not die twice. Your tampering with some very sensitive doctrines. And your Christology is way off.

Why don't you address what I actually wrote in the article?

[AllisonLeslie]

37818,

Hello.

Let me just dive in...
Where in the scriptures could I find something that says that the disembodied human souls who are called forth from Sheol ('Hades') to Heaven for the final judgement are given bodies ?

Physical death is eternal - that is, it's permanent and final unless God resurrects [us]. Does God do anything for these in The Rev. 20: 12 & 13, beyond just calling them to His presence in their essential human form: soul ? They are given newly created mortal bodies in order that that body can be destroyed too ? ...Anyway, this is not my main point.

I can agree with you that those who are condemned to the otherworldly hell do live on, but only for some time - not forever. I believe that they are eventually destroyed everlastingly by some means that the Bible doesn't reveal to us.

You say that they in their consciousness will never cease to be; right ? How can what you call the 'eternal death' of a person - a human soul - be an undying death ?

And consciousness is metaphorically a worm ?

"The worm" is from Jesus quoting Isaiah 66: 24. That worm is consuming the bodies of the actual rebellious people that God had killed, in v. 16. Their corpses remain there, unburied, for numerous months to be viewed (v. 23). The worms are maggots, like the maggots that consumed dead men in the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) from which we get our word, hell.

From Isaiah 66, the worms that dieth not are like the fire that is not quenched. How ? The destroying fire cannot be put out, and neither will the worms on corpses be restrained from doing their eating, because they represent the actual judgement and punishment of God. His punishment cannot be escaped nor stopped and it stands irreversibly.




>

Death means separation - eternal separation from God wouild be eternal death, right?

[AllisonLeslie]

Are we trying to see as high as God? Are we trying to understand as deep as God? Isn't it nice that we can trust God to take care of eternity as well as morality.