Conditional Immortality and Revelation

Conditional immortality and the millennium part 4

"There is nothing in the Revelation that contradicts conditional immortality. Indeed, the passages clearly say that the damned will be killed. References to perpetual torture are all references to spiritual beings."

You can read more on conditional immortality and the book of Revelation
Will Enock and Elijah be the end time prophets
also

and
Annihiliationism : the worms and the fire of hell?

The Rich Man and Lazarus

This metaphor of coming to heaven is found in Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in Luke 16:19-31. Our dying prayer is to be carried safely to heaven to rest in God’s arms. With this confidence, we can face death without fear, and look at the “narrow chamber” of our tomb like a “bedroom” in which we sleep peacefully until the Lord awakens our bodies in the resurrection of the dead. (Note: this is not a reference to “soul sleep,” but as the story of Lazarus makes clear, our souls are immediately taken to heaven or hell and remain conscious. It’s our bodies that await the reawakening of the resurrection on the Last Day.) The glorious sight that our eyes will see when they are awakened from death is the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Our heart’s treasure and portion, our greatest gain is Jesus our Savior.

http://thejoshuavictortheory.blogspot.com/2010/09/lord-thee-i-love-with-all-my-heart.html

Does the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus teach that our souls " are immediately taken to heaven or hell and remain conscious"?
Does Jesus parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) establish the fact that the wicked are even now suffering conscious torment?
Please read this article
The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus

The passage says nothing at all about souls and spirits, only of whole persons, and if taken literally would contradict all other Scriptures on this topic (c.f. 25 with Psa. 6:5 )

-------------
http://3-ringbinder.blogspot.com/2010/09/explanation-of-my-controversial-though.html

... I don’t just believe this because it is convenient or makes me feel better. I believe that the Bible does actually teach that the damned will be destroyed, and that the traditional view of eternal torment, as well as universalism (which likewise affirms universal human immortality), are incorrect.

Conditional Immortality, Soul Sleep is the doctrine incorrect?

In the New Testament we see Paul say in

 

2 Cor. 5:8, "we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord."  Paul is clearly telling us that when he dies, he will go and be with the Lord.  Furthermore, at the Transfiguration of Jesus (Matt. 17:1-8) we see Moses and Elijah who were alive.  There was no soul sleep with them.

Therefore, the doctrine of soul sleep is incorrect.  The soul continues on after death.  The wicked face the judgment of God, and the Christians will dwell in His presence.

http://carm.org/soul-sleep ( emphasis mine)

I think the issue is a little more complicated! Here are some articles that address these passages

Conditional Immortality ? answering absent from the body to be with Christ

Conditional Immortality ? The Mount of Transfiguration Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-9, Luke 9:28-36 by Warren Prestidge

See also
What is Conditional Immortality ? A Brief Summary
the above article lists the passages that I think clearly teach that we do not have immortal soul.

Annihilationism is a motivator for evangelism

But the point of all of this is not to determine here and now which doctrine is right; although much study should be given to these points by any faithful Christian. The point here is to recognize that our works are vitally important. That we need to have a biblical vision of hell as well as that biblical vision of "suffering loss". The first will propel us forth to reach the lost (something I confess that I have not been very faithful in); the second will propel us (as has been on my heart for many years now) to reach those in the church who are not building properly or not building at all on the foundation of Jesus they have received from God. While the Lord might have in mind for me to continue to reach those in the church who are not building with fire-proof materials, still, I believe He would have me sharpen my vision of hell for those that are lost as well. Both visions will keep us faithful in "doing" and will cause us to be building with fire-proof materials that will stand in the coming judgment.

http://womenwalkinginvictory.blogspot.com/2010/07/envisioning-hell.html
The author doesn't decide which "version" of hell he thinks the Bible teaches, he does acknowlegde that it should be done. He makes an important point: by ignoring hell because the issue is too hard, we are missing an motivator for evangelism.  We need lives that are invested in eternity. As you know, I am convinced of annihilationism and conditional immortality. That fact that life is only found in Christ is a motivator for me to share my faith. It also motives me to live my present life in light of eternity.

Annihilation

http://www.alanhartung.com/2004/12/why_is_conditional_immortality_important/

This is a pretty hot issue right now. I am curious if anyone knows of a really good pro-conditional immortality article I could read? I have found plenty of stuff negating it, but I would like to read something that clearly outlines the entire basis. The page up above is a start, but I’d like to read more. I can’t seem to find much.

There are  many articles that explore these issues on the <a href="http://www.afterlife.co.nz//">Afterlife | Conditional Immortality, Soul Sleep and Annihilationism</a> website.
Places to start :

An index of the series is here
Conditional Immortality Videos : Life Death and the Resurrection
and an article
What is conditional immortality?

Link to the Debate on Hell

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2523
You can listen to the mp3 of the debate that I mentioned in the previous post.
and also
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=5953
It reminds me how annihilation is an important doctrine.

Annihilation

 M and M have updated their blog. I did a wee hunt and found their articles on hell

www.mandm.org.nz/2008/06/william-lane-craig-raymond-bradley-and-the-problem-of-hell-part-one.html

www.mandm.org.nz/2008/06/william-lane-craig-raymond-bradley-and-the-problem-of-hell-part-two.html

Professor Raymond Bradley’s contention that, the bible teaches that God will torture people endlessly for their beliefs.

In essence, then, {he}  is mistaken. It is based on an excessively literalistic reading of Apocalyptic literature. Bradley’s argument is not an argument for atheism. It can only succeed as an argument for atheism if one accepts both the infallibility of scripture and an excessively literalistic reading of the text, one that fails to take into account the genre of Jewish Apocalyptic writings. The correct response to this objection is not to become an atheist but to reject poor hermeneutics.

The issue of annihilation is important for Christians to consider. One reason is how we are able to give the reasons for the hope we have: We have a God who is just and will destroy all evil not torture evil doers for ever.

Conditional Immortality

http://atheolous.blogspot.com/2010/09/place-where-deceased-believers-are.html

The scriptures are very clear regarding soul sleep, as well as annihilation. It is next to impossible for most professing believers to admit it, but the Jehovah's Witnesses got this one right. The Reformed Christians got it wrong.

http://www.angelfire.com/planet/watchman/biblical_case_for_annihilationis.htm

A report by the Evangelical Alliance Commission on Unity and Truth Among Evangelicals (ACUTE) produced a short book (approx. 150 pages) in 2000 on the nature of Hell. It was the result of a two-year study on “Hell” by a working group of ACUTE which comes to this conclusion and recommendations: 
“We recognize that the interpretation of hell in terms of conditional immortality is a significant minority evangelical view. Furthermore, we believe that the traditionalist-conditionalist debate on hell should be regarded as a secondary rather a primary issue for evangelical theology. Although hell is a profoundly serious matter, we view the holding of either one of these two views of it over against the other to be neither essential in respect of Christian doctrine, nor finally definitive of what it means to be an evangelical Christian.” (cited by Sylvia Penny, Book Review, The nature of Hell, Search mag., Feb/Mar 2002, The Open Bible Trust, p.7)

Strong emotional reactions are to be expected from those whose beliefs are challenged by biblical scholarship. In some cases, the reaction has taken the form of harassment or guilt by associations.
Pinnock mentions some of the tactics of harassment used to discredit those evangelical scholars who have abandoned the traditional view. One of the tactics has been to associate such scholars with liberals or cultic groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians and Seventh-Day Adventists. Pinnock writes:
 It seems that a new criterion for truth has been discovered which says that if Adventists or liberal hold any view, that view must be wrong. Apparently a truth claim can be decided by its association and does not need to be tested by public criteria in open debate. Such an argument, though useless in intelligent discussion, can be effective with the ignorant who are fooled by such rhetoric.

Yes, let us please take a look at the doctrine of  conditional immortality in light of what the Bible says not just dismiss the doctrine because of association.

Discussion of Conditional Immorality, The Tree of Life and posse non peccare

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/conditional-immortality-50219/
I was going to post a comment with some thoughts  directly  to the above thread but it is a closed forum: I can not join because I can agree to their statement of faith.
However here is an extract from the original post

Does anyone believe that Adam and Eve had conditional immortality prior to the fall? Meaning that they had the ability to die, but were sustained by the tree of life?

The author quotes Erickson

"I would suggest the concept of conditional immortality as the state of Adam before the fall. He was not inherently able to live forever, but he need not have died. Given the right conditions, he could have lived on forever: This may be the meaning of God's words when he decided to expel Adam and Eve from Eden and from the presence of the tree of life: "and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (3:22). The impression is given that Adam, even after the fall, could have lived forever if he had eaten the fruit of the tree of life. What happened at the time of his explusion from Eden was that man, who formerly could have lived forever or died, was now separated from those conditions which made eternal life possible, and thus it became inevitable that he die. Previously he *could* die; now he *would* die. This also means that Jesus was born with a body that was subject to death. He had to eat to live; had he failed to eat he would have starved to death.

We should note that there were other changes as a result of sin. In Eden man had a body which could become diseased; after the fall there were diseases for him to contract. The curse, involving the coming of death to mankind, also included a whole host of ills which would lead to death. Paul tells us that someday this set of conditions will be removed, and the whole creation delivered from this 'bondage to decay' (Rom 8:18-23).

To sum up: the potential of death was within the creation from the beginning. But the potential of eternal life was also there. Sin, in the case of Adam and each of us, means that death is no longer merely potential but actual."
Erickson, "Christian Theology" p. 613

This would seem to be the physical counterpart to posse peccare, posse non peccare. The conditional aspect of immortality would have been removed had Adam fulfilled the covenant.

Thoughts?

Both John Calvin and Millard Erickson spoke of pre-fall humanity as capable of not sinning (posse non peccare) before the fall, thus being conditionally immortal. The idea being that if Adam and Eve had not sinned they would have eventually eaten of the tree of life and thus become immortal. Then both Calvin and Erickson (in my opinion) ruin their arguments by going on to say that in spite of breaking the prohibition, they still have immortality!

You can find some more thoughts: The Tree of Life and Conditional Immortality