>>621698
>Sounds to me like someone is pretty triggered by this thread. Or, more precisely, by my bringing the church fathers into the fray.
I was rather calm. I sometimes rant here but that was not the case.
>You're all over the place making justifications that don't really stand-up to much scrutiny.
Do you really presume that this topic is worthy of lengthy answers?
>Yes, but that only reinforces my point: he equates salvation and immortality and, by inference, the unsaved are therefore not immortal. Otherwise, why use the word "immortality" at all if ALL are immortal? He's applying a condition on it.
I remind you that if a=>b then you cannot say that b=>a. He calls being saved immortality, not immortality salvation.
Also, he says this:
Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire, and so will anyone who listens to him (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1-2)
Plus he refers to Last Judgment in his epistle to Smyrna. You cannot have Last Judgment without immorality of soul.
>Are you applying your own logic to what God is doing, anon? Doesn't stand-up to scrutiny since He has allowed much to be destroyed (incl. future tense) that He Himself made: the present heavens and earth being not the least.
No. I do however paraphrase Scripture that Justin himself used, namely Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach.
Plus to use Justin own words: Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve (FA 12)
>wut … ? Are you playing word games here? I think you're playing some legalistic word games.
It's plain. Nor wicked nor demons will cease to exist i.e. they will stop being and pass into nothingness. But they will cease to exist in current state. Or to use Justin again:
[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons (FA 52)
>And oooouuuuttt comes the ad hominem. It's all my fault because I can't read what is made vague in front of me. Nah, mang, "so long as God wills them to exist"/"cease to exist" is pretty clear. Try again, fam.
You want to see things, you will see things. Devil will provide. Luther wanted to see "faith alone" everywhere where faith is mentioned and he did. But as reading of NT disproves Luther so reading of Justin and other fathers disproove you as alredy prooven in above paragraph.
>Psalm 21, once again, is not universal: it applies to one man, the king; nor, even if it was, does it negate any conditionality for the king ASKS for life
But that's not how Ireanus uses this psalm. He does not even quote it in length, he just barrows language. In another place, namely AH 4:28:2) he explains about soul of the wicked:
The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . It is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire," they will be damned forever.
>Nah, mang, I may not disagree with you in terms of a traditional view of such things, but your argumentation is not slam-dunking the traditional view at all. Let's face facts, some early church fathers appeared to have thought immortality was conditional.
Some early fathers distinguished immorality with Christ, true immorality, from natural immorality of the soul.