I certainly don't consider this proof of the doctrine, but the more I look at it, the more it seems to have some scriptural warrant. I've put together some thoughts on the position - as defending it - and would be very interested in responses.

As background, there are 2 sides to this issue. Conditional and inherent immortality. Inherent immortality says that man has immortality naturally, by birth, by creation and cannot lose it. Conditional immortality says that immortality is conferred upon someone, finally and irrevocably, at the resurrection - but only the believer. I think there is a modified version that has it applied immediately one believes, but that really is the same thing in a different suit. Either way, immortality is conferred upon only those who qualify. I suppose there could be an
unconditionally conferred immortality position as well. That is, man is not naturally immortal, but all WILL be made immortal at the resurrection to receive eternal life or eternal punishment (and both fixed eternally). That would, in my mind, be a minor modification of the inherent immortality belief since the more critical point is who partakes in immortality.

It seems to me that the general approach to scripture's dealing with the mortality of man, is one that is vague and somewhat unsatisfying. That approach (it seems to me) tends to assume inherent immortality primarily on the basis of the existence of the phrases "eternal life" and "eternal damnation" that both appear in scripture. From that apparent assumption,
inherent immortality seems to be read back into scripture everywhere and it forms a kind of backwards proof.

I'm not saying that inherent immortality is absolutely not true, just that if it is, the proof of it does not seem to be clearly rendered in scripture. It has to be assumed in more of a revelatory sense. There are certainly scriptures that, read on their own, would militate strongly in favor of inherent immortality, but other scriptures seem to go well the other way. And in balance, it seems to me that one has to do more contorting to reconcile the inherent immortality position than the conditional immortality position.

For me, there are a handful of scriptures that seem to cast serious doubt on the inherent immortality view. First of all, there is the plain and simple statement made by God through the prophet Ezekiel :

The soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Ezekiel 18:4,20

I note that God is dealing with the soul ITSELF. Verse 4 actually starts out "Behold, all souls are mine". That, and the fact that the soul is referred to as "it", seems to me to imply something beyond mere physical death. It is God looking at the results of sin from a spiritual, eternal perspective and the man as being more importantly soul than flesh. And the fact that space is given for repentance means that physical death does not always follow sin. That being the case, the statement that the sinning soul shall die must take on a greater significance than merely physical cause and effect. It doesn't prove it, but it certainly implies it.

Which leads me to the next verse :

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 10:28

This is Jesus warning us not to fear mere physical death (which comes to every man) but to fear God who can destroy the body and the soul in hell. If we assert that that destruction is merely rendering it useless for its intended purpose (as I have heard some say so that inherent immortality for all is maintained), then we must believe that the body is immortal as well as the soul. That is, the physical body will always exist, and will always feel pain, but will never be able to actually do anything anymore. Based on this verse, it must be accepted that inherent immortality requires that both body and soul live on (though useless) eternally in hell. Destruction, in that sense, being merely a removal of ability to perform functions for which it was created - not actual death. For if it were described as death, then inherent immortality would, again, be proven wrong. In this case, the inherent immortality belief results in a sort of zombie-like creature being perpetuated eternally. I will address that shortly.

The parallel verse to Matthew 10:28 is actually a couple of verses in Luke :

And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Luke 12;5-6

Granted, this one muddies the waters a little. Here, "killed" and "cast into hell" are parallels of the body and the soul in Matthew 10:28. These passages can't prove inherent immortality, but they can be consistently interpreted with that belief. In that case, Matthew shows that both body and soul suffer destruction, while Luke shows that that destruction is different (the flesh is "killed" while the soul is "cast into hell"). So, it can be consistently interpreted within that belief, but it doesn't prove it. And it can also be consistently interpreted from a conditional standpoint. Conditionally, both are describing death of body and soul where one (the body) is in the hands of man to a certain extent, and man can kill the body. But given that all souls are God's, it is HIS prerogative (and His alone) to cast souls into hell. Referencing back to Ezekiel 18, this is consistent with the belief that the soul is actually mortal and dies.

Moving on, there is a passage in the epistles that strongly supports the conditional view :

That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
I Timothy 6:14-16

Pretty plainly, God (Jesus Christ, specifically referenced here) is the ONLY one who possesses immortality. That is, He is the ONLY one who is inherently immortal. Hard to debate this one.

And while there are probably those who say immortality is not conditional OR inherent, but all men WILL be given immortality at the resurrection and then go to their reward or punishment, what of this passage :

Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Romans 2:4-8

Here, Paul is making clear God's judgments and rewards. And to those that patiently continue in well doing and seek glory, honour AND IMMORTALITY - they receive eternal life. They seek immortality. They receive immortality. The disobedient nowhere are said to receive immortality or eternal life. Their recompense is awful. And, again, in conjunction with Ezekiel 18, their end is death.

Back to this thought on zombies. One might well assert that that is exactly what is being referenced when it talks about those who suffer eternal punishment. But if we go back to where this whole mess began, I think there is a good indication that God deliberately made sure that situation wouldn't occur. Adam and Eve have just eaten of the forbidden fruit and are suffering God's judgment. And just as He is expelling them, this takes place :

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Genesis 3:22-24

The tree of life - which was formerly okay for them to eat from - was now forbidden and heavily guarded. Why? Verse 22 makes it pretty clear that God didn't want this fallen creature becoming immortal - thus enshrining forever the rebellion and sin that came through him. Such a creature would be more twisted, awful and grotesque (spiritually, at least) than any horror film could even begin to depict. A sinful creature (dead in trespasses and sin) walking around not able to die. However, when we look to the final pages of scripture, we see this :

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. {Note that the middle of the garden is exactly where Genesis 2:9 places it}
Revelation 2:7

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Revelation 22:14

Clearly, the tree of life is ONLY for those that attain to it. How do men attain to it? Overcome, obey Jesus and His commands. Thus, this living forever is conditional upon men's obedience to God.

That's my case (at least so far) for conditional immortality. There are many other verses that support the belief, but these, I think, are the most defining.

I'm interested in any and all responses.

Clarification after the fact :

I said :

I suppose there could be an unconditionally conferred immortality position as well. That is, man is not naturally immortal, but all WILL be made immortal at the resurrection to receive eternal life or eternal punishment (and both fixed eternally). That would, in my mind, be a minor modification of the inherent immortality belief since the more critical point is who partakes in immortality.

The thought there is that immortality would be conferred upon everyone regardless, so that the punishment (or reward) could be experienced without end (assuming the punishment not to be loss of existence, or a form of spiritual "capital punishment", I suppose).

Really, there are 3 related issues here :

Soul sleep (i.e. immortality conferred later - all men being resurrected at the general resurrected, then receiving immortality - but recipients not specified)
Conditional Immortality (i.e. immortality is not inherent but to be conferred upon certain persons meeting certain criteria - not necessarily, a priori excluding anyone at all)
Annihilation (i.e. a result of conditional immortality assuming that some do not receive it AND those who do not receive it are ultimately punished with extinction)

Sometimes it's hard to keep these separate. So when I read of many of the Reformers being supporters of conditional immortality, I find that they certainly would be in support of the first 2 of those 3 elements, but not conclusively in support of the 3rd element. Having said that, I would have to read more to know how they (e.g. Tyndale, Wishart, Luther etc...) believed about ultimate punishment with respect to immortality and eternal (non)existence.

That's just to clear up any confusion that might arise from this idea. I have difficulty divorcing elements 2 and 3. That is, I don't (at this point) see that you can avoid concluding annihilation if you conclude (based on scripture) conditional immortality. But I'm open to being corrected about that.

I believe in conditional immortality; annihilation of the psyche and person the eventual fate of the lost to God. I see in the scriptures evidences for this view of the eternal punishment that is the otherworldly hell, which is the second death (lake of fire).

I do not believe in soul sleep, though, if that term describes soul cessation/death. I see in the scriptures that human persons/souls still exist after their death, disembodied, (of course) in the place-state S/sheol. They are there awaiting the final judgement [day].


>

There is a good rebuttal to the conditional immortality (mainly annihilationist) argument in a book entitled Heresies Exposed by William Irvine. The section is only a few pages and can be read on Google Books for free. You can find the book here. The section of interest is in pp15-19.

1) The word "destroy" in Matthew 10:28 is ἀπόλλυμι. It never means "disintegrate; cease all existence." It's the word that describes Herod's attempt to kill baby Jesus in Matthew 2:13, for instance. It's used for the act of plucking out an eyeball or amputating a hand in Matthew 5:29-30. It's used for the drowning which the disciples fear in Matthew 8:25, for broken wineskins in Matthew 9:17, for lost sheep in Matthew 10:6, etc., etc. The core meaning of the word is, "Something really bad is happening to this person/thing." Indeed, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says that the damned, who receive "everlasting destruction," also are being "shut out from the presence of the Lord," which would be odd if they no longer exist.

2) Ezekiel 18 doesn't indicate that the "death" experienced by damned souls consists of annihilation. Is there an interpretation of this verse that's compatible with annihilation? Sure. But there's nothing here that poses a problem for the doctrine of eternal torment.

3) Similarly in Romans 2:4-8, "wrath and indignation" is compatible with any punishment you might suggest. The apposition to "eternal life" is consistent with other passages (John 3:17-18 for instance) which contrast eternal life in Christ with God's wrath. Hell is eternal death, but if death is understood as separation from God's goodness, there's no reason to equate it with annihilation. That's the sense of life and death that Genesis 3 and Revelation 2 and 22 discuss life and death. Life is communion with God; death is its absence.

Originally posted by RBerman

1) The word "destroy" in Matthew 10:28 is ἀπόλλυμι. It never means "disintegrate; cease all existence." It's the word that describes Herod's attempt to kill baby Jesus in Matthew 2:13, for instance. It's used for the act of plucking out an eyeball or amputating a hand in Matthew 5:29-30. It's used for the drowning which the disciples fear in Matthew 8:25, for broken wineskins in Matthew 9:17, for lost sheep in Matthew 10:6, etc., etc. The core meaning of the word is, "Something really bad is happening to this person/thing." Indeed, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says that the damned, who receive "everlasting destruction," also are being "shut out from the presence of the Lord," which would be odd if they no longer exist.

So in the broader context, what this verse implies (if you are correct) is that destruction is something akin to a chair - which isn't alive to begin with - being torn to bits and rendered useless? I can accept that. But then one has to make death=destruction, doesn't one? Or am I missing something?

2) Ezekiel 18 doesn't indicate that the "death" experienced by damned souls consists of annihilation. Is there an interpretation of this verse that's compatible with annihilation? Sure. But there's nothing here that poses a problem for the doctrine of eternal torment.

No. Certainly nothing in Ezekiel 18 that does so. In fact, I don't see that any one passage does. I don't even reject the proposal of eternal torment. Where it gets hairy for me is accepting that it is proven. For example, one argument against annihilation is that "immortal" simply means "not subject to death" and "mortal" means "subject to death". No problem. But it just pushes the inevitable off a little. Granted, it does no such thing as prove annihilation, but the lack of proof for annihilation doesn't prove (at least as far - or near - as I can see) the converse either. Rather, the apparent absence of a positive statement about annihilation is used to negate it. So when one goes to define death in terms of being mortal and eternal things, one need not accept annihilation if eternal conscious torment is also rejected (which, again, I'm not saying I do). Rather, if death is considered in the sense of being inanimate, insensate (e.g. rocks are not living - they are neither animate or sensate, yet they still exist and always will), then the "conscious" in "eternal conscious torment" is dubious. And if that disappears, can one assert torment in the absence of sensation and/or animation?

So while I can see that disproving eternal torment is probably not a possibility, I think there is something missing in its proof.

[quuote]3) Similarly in Romans 2:4-8, "wrath and indignation" is compatible with any punishment you might suggest. The apposition to "eternal life" is consistent with other passages (John 3:17-18 for instance) which contrast eternal life in Christ with God's wrath. Hell is eternal death, but if death is understood as separation from God's goodness, there's no reason to equate it with annihilation. That's the sense of life and death that Genesis 3 and Revelation 2 and 22 discuss life and death. Life is communion with God; death is its absence.[/quote]

No quarrel there. It's the eternality of the punishment that I wonder about. That is, will the sensation of the punishment be felt without end? Once punished, is it possible that there is an end and then no consciousness? I ask that, in part, based on Matthew 5:26 (you will not get out until you have paid the uttermost farthing). More a sense than a direct application. I'm not saying it implies earning one's way into life, but rather a satisfaction of justice that has a termination. Sort of, also, like Luke 12:47-48. There is a gradation of severity, but both have a beginning and an end. I grant it may merely refer to severity and not length of time, but it seems that number of stripes implies some limitation in time.

Which leads me again to Genesis 3:22-24. Were Adam and Eve already dead ("in the day thou eat of the fruit, thou shalt surely die")? If so, what was the implication THEN of Ezekiel 18's proclamation of death? If Adam and Eve (and their forbears) were already spiritually dead, and were destined for physical death, what is the import of the soul dying (a second time?)?

Originally posted by RBerman

1) The word "destroy" in Matthew 10:28 is ἀπόλλυμι. It never means "disintegrate; cease all existence."

1 Cor. 1:19 would seem to be along those lines: "it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.' "

Also here:

"They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. (Heb 1:11 NIV)

But I agree that this is not always the meaning.

We may note that John Stott believed in annihilationism, and some leaders crafting a doctrinal statement for evangelicals wondered to themselves if they wanted to phrase their statement of eternal destinies to exclude John Stott from the fold of the orthodox--we may note that they didn't.

Blessings,
Lee

Originally posted by nikolai_42

So while I can see that disproving eternal torment is probably not a possibility, I think there is something missing in its proof.

That's because we haven't discussed any of the passages which point toward eternal conscious torment. What do you find lacking in the traditional exegesis of those passages?

Which leads me again to Genesis 3:22-24. Were Adam and Eve already dead ("in the day thou eat of the fruit, thou shalt surely die")? If so, what was the implication THEN of Ezekiel 18's proclamation of death? If Adam and Eve (and their forbears) were already spiritually dead, and were destined for physical death, what is the import of the soul dying (a second time?)?

The meaning of "soul" in the context of Ezekiel 18 is "person." This sort of language was common in our culture until recently: "Titanic sank. 1,800 souls saved. 600 souls lost." It's not an existential comment; it's just a way of talking about people. You'll notice that the rest of Ezekiel 18 simply talks about people, without any reference to "souls."

Originally posted by RBerman

That's because we haven't discussed any of the passages which point toward eternal conscious torment. What do you find lacking in the traditional exegesis of those passages?


The meaning of "soul" in the context of Ezekiel 18 is "person." This sort of language was common in our culture until recently: "Titanic sank. 1,800 souls saved. 600 souls lost." It's not an existential comment; it's just a way of talking about people. You'll notice that the rest of Ezekiel 18 simply talks about people, without any reference to "souls."

Are you saying, then, that (at least according to Ezekiel 18) the wages of sin is merely physical death? This is an important fork in the road.

Originally posted by RBerman

That's because we haven't discussed any of the passages which point toward eternal conscious torment. What do you find lacking in the traditional exegesis of those passages?

For the moment, I hope it will suffice for me to say this :

While there are certainly passages that speak of eternal punishment, everlasting destruction from the presence of God, and even one which speaks of "the smoke of their torment" rising up "forever and ever", But the only place that speaks of actually being tormented for ever and ever is Revelation 20:10 - the Beast and the False Prophet are so tormented. Now, while it does say that the smoke of torment rises up forever and ever for those that worship the Beast and False Prophet, that is the only place that even hints at endless torment. But if we are to be literal, isn't that speaking of the smoke which may well ascend long after the fire of torment has ceased to burn? Certainly, as I say, this is a strong hint that even verges on saying it. But the fact that Revelation 20:10 comes straight out and says it of the Beast and False Prophet but falls just shy of doing so with mortals...It is a highly symbolic book, so I don't want to draw a false conclusion when the same thing is being described simply in 2 different ways. But the fact that the Beast and False Prophet are Satanic implies that they know full well what they are doing. And even though sinful man is duped into it and fails to repent (and is, thus, responsible), the degrees may well not be the same. And if Satan IS a being that cannot die, those that are in the Lake of Fire - they are "lesser" beings (mortals) and certainly can die. As such, their punishments cannot be equated. While I can't pretend to understand the distinction if indeed both are tormented for eternity, the difference in mortality would, as I see it, make the mortals at least candidates for ending the punishment. There are scriptures in the gospels where Jesus alludes to a debtor not getting out until he pays the last farthing, that one is delivered to his tormentors until he pay all that he owes. Torment, yes. Unending, not so sure.

I say all that to point out that eternal conscious torment has to rest on a single scripture. Torment itself does not. Conscious torment does not. But eternal conscious torment does. And if that single scripture buckles, it weakens the whole thing. But if torment is not held to be eternal (be that annihilation, or merely temporary torment with whatever relief may come at the end - be it loss of consciousness or a place of dwelling somewhere outside the City of God etc....), then many scriptures rush to its full aid. Unless I'm missing scriptures that clearly teach eternal conscious torment. Anywhere eternal fire is spoken of, eternal modifies the fire, does it not?

Okay...I said more than I intended. But basically, it seems to me that the length of conscious torment one undergoes is not clearly delineated in scripture. I want to discuss this, but sometimes I have a hard time concentrating on two lines of thought at the same time. So if we can deal with the line flowing from the Garden of Eden and Ezekiel 18 first, that would be helpful for me. This will just be a placeholder until I can give it my full attention. Feel free to respond as you can and will, but I can't promise responding to both lines immediately.

Originally posted by nikolai_42

Are you saying, then, that (at least according to Ezekiel 18) the wages of sin is merely physical death? This is an important fork in the road.

I'm saying that "the soul who sins is the one who will die" is not making a metaphysical distinction between soul/spirit/body. It's saying that if you sin, you will be "put to death" (verse 13) but the rest of your family will not (verse 17b-18). You ask whether it's talking about physical death or spiritual. I don't think the text attempts to draw an important distinction between the two, inasmuch as God's displeasure is not simply a temporal matter but an eternal one. But if you want to press the issue, I'd say that passage in particular focuses on physical death, although with implications for eternal consequences as well.

Originally posted by nikolai_42

While there are certainly passages that speak of eternal punishment, everlasting destruction from the presence of God, and even one which speaks of "the smoke of their torment" rising up "forever and ever", But the only place that speaks of actually being tormented for ever and ever is Revelation 20:10 - the Beast and the False Prophet are so tormented. Now, while it does say that the smoke of torment rises up forever and ever for those that worship the Beast and False Prophet, that is the only place that even hints at endless torment. But if we are to be literal, isn't that speaking of the smoke which may well ascend long after the fire of torment has ceased to burn? Certainly, as I say, this is a strong hint that even verges on saying it. But the fact that Revelation 20:10 comes straight out and says it of the Beast and False Prophet but falls just shy of doing so with mortals...It is a highly symbolic book, so I don't want to draw a false conclusion when the same thing is being described simply in 2 different ways. But the fact that the Beast and False Prophet are Satanic implies that they know full well what they are doing. And even though sinful man is duped into it and fails to repent (and is, thus, responsible), the degrees may well not be the same. And if Satan IS a being that cannot die, those that are in the Lake of Fire - they are "lesser" beings (mortals) and certainly can die. As such, their punishments cannot be equated. While I can't pretend to understand the distinction if indeed both are tormented for eternity, the difference in mortality would, as I see it, make the mortals at least candidates for ending the punishment. There are scriptures in the gospels where Jesus alludes to a debtor not getting out until he pays the last farthing, that one is delivered to his tormentors until he pay all that he owes. Torment, yes. Unending, not so sure.

I say all that to point out that eternal conscious torment has to rest on a single scripture. Torment itself does not. Conscious torment does not. But eternal conscious torment does. And if that single scripture buckles, it weakens the whole thing. But if torment is not held to be eternal (be that annihilation, or merely temporary torment with whatever relief may come at the end - be it loss of consciousness or a place of dwelling somewhere outside the City of God etc....), then many scriptures rush to its full aid. Unless I'm missing scriptures that clearly teach eternal conscious torment. Anywhere eternal fire is spoken of, eternal modifies the fire, does it not?

Okay...I said more than I intended. But basically, it seems to me that the length of conscious torment one undergoes is not clearly delineated in scripture. I want to discuss this, but sometimes I have a hard time concentrating on two lines of thought at the same time. So if we can deal with the line flowing from the Garden of Eden and Ezekiel 18 first, that would be helpful for me. This will just be a placeholder until I can give it my full attention. Feel free to respond as you can and will, but I can't promise responding to both lines immediately.

It's not just that the smoke rises forever. It's that the Lake of Fire where the Beast and the Devil are tormented forever (Revelation 20:10) is also where the damned are placed (Revelation 20:15 and 21:8), the implication being that they share Satan's fate of eternal torment. It doesn't seem that they're annihilated, since they still exist, outside the city (Revelation 22:15). You may think, "Men are mortal, so maybe they are annihilated in the Lake of Fire," but there's nothing I'm aware of in Scripture to back that up. All Scripture says is that Satan is tormented forever, and that damned men are placed in the lake of fire and remain "outside the city." There's certainly no Scripture that speaks of eventual "relief" for the damned in that state.

Originally posted by RBerman

All Scripture says is that Satan is tormented forever, and that damned men are placed in the lake of fire and remain "outside the city." There's certainly no Scripture that speaks of eventual "relief" for the damned in that state.

Unless you put these two passages together:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7 NIV)

I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them. (Eze 16:53 NIV)

I actually think there is a good Scriptural case to be made for all three views, for eternal punishment, and annihilationism, and yet we may hope for all to be saved--and I'm not sure how these could all possibly be true. Nor do I know how light can be both a wave and a particle, and a photon can take all possible paths while going from point A to point B.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Blessings,
Lee

Originally posted by lee_merrill

I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them. (Eze 16:53 NIV)

Read that whole passage. It's not talking about reversing the punishment given to the inhabitants of Sodom a thousand years beforehand. It's talking about a time when Jerusalem, Edom, and Philistia will all return to prosperity.

Originally posted by RBerman

I'm saying that "the soul who sins is the one who will die" is not making a metaphysical distinction between soul/spirit/body. It's saying that if you sin, you will be "put to death" (verse 13) but the rest of your family will not (verse 17b-18). You ask whether it's talking about physical death or spiritual. I don't think the text attempts to draw an important distinction between the two, inasmuch as God's displeasure is not simply a temporal matter but an eternal one. But if you want to press the issue, I'd say that passage in particular focuses on physical death, although with implications for eternal consequences as well.

Here's where I struggle with this. In light of God's decree that Adam would die in the day that he ate of the forbidden fruit, and the fact that he was prevented (after so eating) from the tree of life (lest he live forever), there is already a death underway. So if we accept that the consequence of Adam's sin was being made mortal - subject to death - and we say that this death was a physical death, then we must accept Ezekiel 18 to be spiritual in nature. Otherwise, we either have a man dying twice, physically, or saying that that which he has been made subject to (physically) can be avoided (physically). Then, we have a situation in which it is NOT appointed unto man once to die. The conclusion is, I think, that man's death in Ezekiel 18 must be a spiritual death. And the fact that Christ makes a distinction between body and soul and "kill" and "destroy" seems to be pertinent (I understand I am making a concession to my original post, here - but my intent is not to necessarily assert that it is airtight as is, just an indication that conditional immortality is a very real possibilty and even see if that leads, ultimately, to annihilation). Thus, the difference between physical and spiritual death becomes all the more important.

This becomes problematic, I see, because of what Paul says about us being "dead in trespasses and sin". Something, somewhere has to give to resolve the inevitable dilemma (or trilemma, as the case may be).

1. If Adam's death was mainly spiritual with physical implications, then God blocked the tree of life, it would seem, to keep from sin being enshrined forever in a rebellious being. Sort of keeping the world from being forever populated with "little Satans". But at Ezekiel 18, we have ambiguity as to the intent of God's declaration. Was He talking about saving one's physical life? Certainly not - not if we are to "return to dust" per His decree. If it refers merely to extension of life, then that minimizes the importance of eternity beyond, does it not? Sin affecting only (or primarily) how long you live on earth? While there may be truth to that, it puts the cart before the horse. Good works become a form of humanism more than a service to God.

2. If Adam's death was more in the line of being made subject to death (which I think is the most scriptural), then Ezekiel 18 can be physical, but then what of man's spiritual state? Is he not already dead in trespasses and sins? Then is Ezekiel 18 avoiding that whole thing just to address the ability for a (spiritually dead) man to live eternally?

The nature of the deaths in Genesis 3 and Ezekiel 18 are, I think, critical.

Originally posted by RBerman

It's not just that the smoke rises forever. It's that the Lake of Fire where the Beast and the Devil are tormented forever (Revelation 20:10) is also where the damned are placed (Revelation 20:15 and 21:8), the implication being that they share Satan's fate of eternal torment. It doesn't seem that they're annihilated, since they still exist, outside the city (Revelation 22:15). You may think, "Men are mortal, so maybe they are annihilated in the Lake of Fire," but there's nothing I'm aware of in Scripture to back that up. All Scripture says is that Satan is tormented forever, and that damned men are placed in the lake of fire and remain "outside the city." There's certainly no Scripture that speaks of eventual "relief" for the damned in that state.

If the Beast and the Devil share mortality in the same way as men, then I would say the point is at least nearly proven. But when Jesus casts men into that fire, it doesn't say, explicitly, they are tormented there forever and ever. It uses different language. If mortal man is to be burned, and we are to allow that analogies carry some weight, then man being referred to as chaff, his works being referred to (in the negative) as wood, hay and stubble must carry some meaning towards destruction. We admit these things are burnt up and disappear. They don't remain - certainly not as they were - but are turned into their most basic elements (broken down to a very basic molecular structure). Can consciousness be disembodied and still exist? If not, then eternal conscious torment goes away. If so, what is the nature of that consciousness? That is, what is it? If death involves loss of consciousness and inanimation, then can we not at least consider that the second death could involve that on a more fundamental level?

But again, this is not to prove it, only show that there are leaps that must be taken to conclusively prove eternal conscious torment.

Personally, the only reason I find myself able to debate the matter is that, fundamentally, the statement of God's that "all souls are mine" and that God is a God of justice means that there won't be any protestation of any punishment by anyone. It will all be fair to an infinite degree such that all mouths will be stopped. Some may wail and mourn and gnash their teeth - absolutely - but they will have no complaint against God. Which means the restitution of all things will be a great and terrible thing and God will owe no man anything. Order will reign. It isn't a matter of trying to avoid punishment, it's a matter of being conformed to Christ. So while I may differ on the outcome of punishment, the cause of it (i.e. sin) is something that can only be rectified by a full and perfect salvation in Jesus Christ the Righteous.