| Author | Message | ||
| Timo K |
Jude, We are eternal always in Christ. My security and eternity is now a reality in Christ. This is always true. When Christ died, we died; When Christ rose we rose. In our Representative, we are eternal and not intrisicially in ourselves. If we were eternal now or after we die (in ourselves), that seemed to me a pretty imperfect eternity. When Christ returnes we will be transformed to the same eternal beings that we already are in Christ. The Holy Spirit gives a "foretaste" or "firstfruit" for us to taste from the eternity above. timo | ||
| Bruce H |
Timo K ---It is true that conditionalism and "soul sleep" was not invented by adventist. Most of the very early "church fathers" held the conditionalistic view. The idea of "immortal soul" came to cristianity from hellenism. Plato was the main architect of the idea.------ I have done a lot of reading of the early church fathers and I cannot remember them comming to that conclusion, but I was not looking for it either could you give me some sources? ----Although early Christians rejected the belief that the soul was of divine essense or deity many eventually compromised with Greek philosophy by accepting the idea that all humans have a soul that is immortal.---- Again you make the statments but I did not find this in my readings could you give me sources rather then statments? I will do a study on this point of early church father and the soul I have an extensive CD rom collection as well as library. ---I will quarantee you that all evangelical conditionalist use Bible to support their ideas.--- And Adventist will use there bible quotes out of context to distort the truth. Let us see your Bible texts in the contexts of the bible and see if it holds water. I am for TRUTH and am not affraid of it give us some examples. ----Many attempts have been made to classify the conditional view as cultic, but in vain since more and more Biblical evidense support the doctrine.---- please show the evidense not just statments. I also believe that the number of evangelical conditionalits are very small. People like to make claims without backing it up I think this comes from our Adventist background because I cant remember very many times people backed up the sermons or staments with scripture. Let us use Gods word and not our words. Timo K, I am not saying this to be mean because in truth I do not really care if we are immortal or not, or if the souls sleeps or not, you may be right but if you are wrong then we do harm. When we make statments that we feel as truth then let us show them in the word for all to see for we all have the Holy Spirit and it is promised he will guide us into all truth. I do know that I will live with Christ forever and nothing not EVEN DEATH can separate me from him, but I do care for the TRUTH because the TRUTH will set us free. Bruce Heinrich BH | ||
| Jorden Archer |
As an SDA I believed in soul sleep for more than half my life. Since then I have done a thorough study on the state of the dead. I no longer believe in soul sleep, but neither do I find that the spirit goes to heaven at death. I find II Cor. 5:1-10 to be the clearest evidence against soul sleep. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Christ said to the thief on the cross, "today thou shalt be with Me in PARADISE. Where did Christ go that day? He didn't go to heaven, as evidenced when he told Mary, I have not yet ascended to My Father. I peter 4:18-20 tells us that Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison while His body was in the tomb. That shows that neither Christ nor the spirits were unconscious. It seems similar to the two compartments of Sheol as described in the Rich Man and Lazarus. | ||
| Timo |
Bruce, did you read the web-pages I did send on my recent post? The quotation about the Church fathers was from there. I recommend you to read Babu G. Ranganathan web-page. It is not very long. Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for THEIR WORM SHALL NOT DIE, NEITHER SHALL THEIR FIRE QUENCHED; and they shall be abhorring unto all flesh." Jesus seems to borrow this in Mark.9:48. In my opinion to understand what this expression means, we need to see how people at Jesus time understood it. To look more closely to the expression "the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" in Mark it is good to notice what kind of situation Jesus borrowed it. Worms and fire did work on "dead bodies" in Isaiah. Could that be a clue to understand what Jesus ment? Worms and fire do the work until it is finished. Isaiah gives the impression that worms and fire do the finishing touch to a total destruction. Worms do their work on dead bodies only. This is only one text and since the language is symbolical, our task is to decide what this expression most likely mean. Bruce might think that this is proof of eternal torture, for me it is more likely to express a total destruction. The Hebrew word "Shoel" often translated in greek as "Hades" is also translated as meaning grave sometimes. Also I have read that in the early Jewish thought Shoel was regarded as one and a same place for both good and bad people. Does anybody have any idea about this? As you can see, Bruce, it will take very long to go through (with my english) the Bible more thoroughly, so if you do not read about the subject from the conditional point of view from books etc., you will lack a large flow of information that only study can do. I will also write some but I don't have the capacity to give a full biblical evidence as you asked; but a small portion I can write if time allows. timo | ||
| Allenette |
HI GEORGE----> have you noticed that you are getting fairly ignored on here unless you post a nearly ORGASMIC response to someone's epiphany? Wonder what would happen IF YOU GOT SAVED (thank you JEEZUS) on here? | ||
| David |
I know that this is probably a heretical recommendation because the author was SDA, but the definitive work on conditionalism and the immortality of the soul is "The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers" by Leroy Edwin Froom. It is a work of two volumes and examines in detail this topic and the incorporation of Hellenistic thinking/philosophy on Judaism and Christianity. It is well researched and presented and the documentation is excellent. I might warn you ahead of time that the Bible scholars who have believed in the conditionalist position are legion. Conditionalism is not an Adventist construct. I believe that my input on this topic has come to a close. All who have read what I have posted these past couple of days have enough of my submission to understand what I believe and the Bible reasons that I have for that belief. In the final analysis the truth is that "it just don't matter" one way or the other. The place where it does matter, however, is in ordering the prophetic. From my perspective and understanding, the Bible speaks clearly of an overwhelming event that will give resurrection life to every believer in Christ whether presently dead and buried or alive when He appears upon His cloud. Relatively speaking, the dead make a seamless transition to that moment as passage of time means nothing to them. We are the ones making a "big deal" out of it. Bruce, I cannot recall the name of the Ratzleff tape where the statement was made concerning the SDA dreaming up the state of the dead doctrine to support the IJ, but I did see it and was surprised by that assertion as I have know believers outside of the SDA church who have believed in the conditionalist position of the Bible. Sorry I can't give you the reference, it was a borrowed and returned tape, but I will ask my friend if she remembers the name of it. As for what is a parable and what is not, let each man decide. To me it seems obvious, but I apologize for my presumption. As for the final destruction of the wicked, I am confident that God knows how to be just and merciful at the same time and that He knows how to wipe the tears from our eyes without damaging our faith in His mercy and compassion. | ||
| Colleentinker |
I believe the tape to which David refers in which Ratzlaff mentions soul sleep being a result of the IJ was "Adventism: The Spirit Behind the Church". Ratzlaff does make the comment that soul sleep had to evolve as a result of the IJ asserting that no one was judged before 1844. When we attended the membership class for Trinity E.V. Free Church a little more than a year ago we talked to the pastor about our difficulty with an eternal hell. He said there was a significant group of evangelicals who also do not proclaim an eternal hell. He said we would not be denied membership for a non-belief in eternal hell. The ironic thing, though, is that the more we studied the Bible, the more it seemed we had to take seriously Jesus' repeated references to eternal fire or punishment. It seemed to us that Jesus himself wouldn't refer to eternal punishment over and over if it was only a metaphor for annihilation. I began to understand it this way (thanks in part to a fellow FAF Friday night regular): punishment for unbelief must be proportional to what was given up. The unsaved rejected Jesus, God, eternal life. The consequence for that must be quantitatively equivalent to what they gave up. And no, I don't believe that the saved will in any way be faced with a continual reminder or view of sinners suffering. God's presence is EVERYWHERE, even, in some way, in hell. He is omnipresent; Hell cannot be outside his jurisdiction and observation. But he also will not allow paradise to be tainted. Observation and undending grief would taint eternity. Jude said it well when he pointed out that in the Bible, death and the dead refer to the unsaved. The living are the saved. And the living, from the moment they accept Jesus, are present with the Lord and praise him eternally. David is right; the state of the soul in death should not divide believers. The Bible is not specific about what happens after death. It paints broad, suggestive brush strokes, but it does not include details. The one thing we know is that death cannot separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. I praise God for being Love and for being both merciful and just. I know I can trust Him. Colleen | ||
| Timo |
I think we all agree that the "right" view of hell does not save us. That is why, as long as we have Jesus, we are saved no matter what we think about hell. My main concern is how conditionalist have often been treated by fellow evangelicals. It sounds much similar to what happened to many of us who at the 70:s didn't accept the IJ teaching. A friend of mine was warned about me and the "bibleworker" recommended that my friend should not bring me to the church. Another pastor asked me politely if I have thought to leave the church. Which I also did then. I am glad that not all evangelical churches are "harassing" "conditional" people. One good example is Colliins church. In the book "Four Views on Hell" professor Pinnock tells a story that shows that many evangelicals do not regard conditional evangelicals quite "real". On page 159-160 he wrote: "In a major conference in 1989 held to discuss what it means to be evangelical, it was seriously debated wheater a person such as John Stott or Philip Hughes, who hold to hell as annihilation, should be considered evangelicals. They can be accepted when sprinkling babies but perhaps not when advocating a revision of the tradition on nature of hell. The vote to exclude such theologians who hold this opinion failed only narrowly. Obviously, a lot of people are wrestling with the legitimate limits of diversity in evangelicalism." Luckily the outcome there was better than at "Glaciar View". But the point I like to make is simply this. I have some doubts that many on that major conference did know as little about conditionalism as adventist "administeres" knew about Dr. Fords findings about "investigative judgment". Since this is not my main forum to write, my contribution here will likely be periodical and limited. My main forum at the moment is called "Cornerstone". It is a finnish forum, where many former JW write. Also some pentacostals and other Christians write to show Christ to those who have left the JW-cult. Bruce wanted me to show from the Bible what I claim. Some of it I can show, but as I said earlier my visit is mainly to inform about available material, for those who will stydy the "conditional" view in detail. It would even take "forever" to go through all the Biblical evidence which I agree with Mr.Fudge. I am not concerned either about in which condition I wait for my "bodyly resorection". But I am concerned about how a loving God is presented. Of course if the Bible would teach that God will torment people in hell forever, I have to accept that. But to my satisfaction the evangelical conditionalist have convinsed me that the Bible does not teach that. I agree that the Bible is not 100% clear on that, but more evidence is for the conditional view than traditionalist view (in my opinion). Does anyone have information about the Rich man and Lazarus parables background? To my knowledge Jesus used a wellknown folk-lore as a basis for this parable. timo | ||
| Bruce H |
Timo Thanks for the references I am going to do a study on this any information you give will be helpful. Jordan Archer real good point, i like that one. David ---As for the final destruction of the wicked, I am confident that God knows how to be just and merciful at the same time and that He knows how to wipe the tears from our eyes without damaging our faith in His mercy and compassion. --- I do agree it is in His hands and he know what is best no matter which way it is. Timo k ---My main concern is how conditionalist have often been treated by fellow evangelicals.--- My concern is not the way you or David are bringing this up it is the way this idea has been put out by some people like Graham Maxwell who state that unless you have a proper view of God you are not his. Another concern of mine of this philosophy is that if it is not true and you misslead others who may say well if all that happens to me is oblivion then maybe I do not want to submit to this Jesus Christ. I do not know if I want that on my shoulders for eternalty. I do not think that annihilationist should be treated with any disrespect but with caution not to exclude the other view. Leave it up to the Lord he will guide in all truth. Bruce HEINR | ||
| Bruce H |
Timo ---Does anyone have information about the Rich man and Lazarus parables background? To my knowledge Jesus used a wellknown folk-lore as a basis for this parable.---- This sounds like Adventist propoganda to me. Adventist are always trying to tear down the Bible. A pastor gave a friend of my a paper written by a theology student who was trying to show that the writers of the Bible coppied and stole just like Ellen White. In one example the writter showed that John hade coppied from the apocryphal book of esdras for his writing on Revelation (and to think he got it from Jesus Christ). but he showed the similarites and it was very close. But I did a little study and found that the Book of Esdras was written about 40 to 60 years after Revelation, if any copping had been done it was by the writters of Esdrus (By the way Ellen White quotes the book of Esdras many times). I believe that that Adventist theologen knew this but I believe that he intentionally decieved other to make his point about Ellen White. Timo K when I hear things like well Jesus copied or borrowed or used an old fork-lore like this, I get the feeling you have been reading to much Adventist literature. Whatch out they are tricky. By the way Mormans are even better at tearing down the Bible then Adventist I have found most of my material from there writtings. Bruce Heinrich BH | ||
| Jorden Archer |
David, I totally agree with you about how Christ brings back the saints at the second coming, because he took them to Heaven before the plagues began. It is interesting that a church calls itself Adventist, when they don't even know what the 2nd advent is. What others call the "rapture" they call the 2nd coming. They admit that His feet don't touch the earth, Acts 1:11 states that He will come in like manner as He went. He went from the Mount of Olives. Zech 14:4 states that his feet do touch the earth. Not only that, they touch down on the very mount from which He ascended. Now as to eternal punishment. I think that the "everlasting" is literal, but the "fire" is figurative. You know that we are told that by treating our enemy well we will "heap coals of fire upon his head" I think that having to live forever regretting their sinful life is hell enough. We who have accepted Christ have had our sins cast into the sea, and remembered no more. If He forgets them I'm sure we do as well. | ||
| Timo K |
Bruce, In the book "FIRE THAT CONSUMES" on page 126 Fudge states:"The plot of the parable, the reversal of eartly fortunes after death, was familiar in popular Palestinian stories of Jesus time. Gressman cites a Greek parallel from a first-century Egyptian papyrys and he says that there are at least seven versions of the story in Jewish literature." Also at the footnote on same page is following: "Moorey acknowledges that Jesus borrowed this story from a common rabbinical tale of the time and that it should not be pressed into a literal preview of the world to come (Afterlife pp.30f,84f)" I have no problems of Jesus using understandable means to present a point. Jesus used all kinds of illustrations to make His point across. Who are we to say that Jesus could not borrow where ever He wanted. My sources of conditional information is from non-adventist sources. I have not read Maxwell at all. Also I am not afraid of "namecalling"; have been called brinsmeadian, fordian, pentacostal, churchdivider, antiadventist etc; all these "propagandist", I have been called to be, so if somebody calls my propaganda adventist so let it be. Salvation is not dependent on accepting conditionalistic view, so I don't consider myself a person who mislead people. Where is the Gospel on this statement, or did I understand it wrong? "Shut Door" does not belong to my beliefs system. Is really "eternal" hell clearly taught in the Bible? Even many traditionalist acknowledges this uncertanty. timo | ||
| bruce H |
Timo k I would like to see this parable I have seen stories that some people say Jesus borrowed from and I myself when I saw them did not find any similarities, what you are saying is not new just the parable that you said was copied is new to me. Could you give us the examples so we all could compare and see for ourselves. ----I have no problems of Jesus using understandable means to present a point. Jesus used all kinds of illustrations to make His point across. Who are we to say that Jesus could not borrow where ever He wanted. --- I agree God can do what he wants and since He created all things then he has a right to do with his creations as He sees fit. ----Also I am not afraid of "namecalling"; have been called brinsmeadian, fordian, pentacostal, churchdivider, antiadventist etc; all these "propagandist", I have been called to be, so if somebody calls my propaganda adventist so let it be. --- I am sorry if you thought I was accusing you. I meant that your statement sounded like Adventist propoganda. I tend to be a little jumpy when I feel sombody is tearing down the Bible, my aploogies. ----Salvation is not dependent on accepting conditionalistic view, so I don't consider myself a person who mislead people. Where is the Gospel on this statement, or did I understand it wrong? I agree. I did not mean that you are here to mislead people, I meant that Adventist misslead others. As far as the Gospel and how it relates to it, I believe that Hell is an integral part of it. It is what we are saved from. Timo K I am not against you for bring up this point in fact I like it, but I wish you would back up your stamentments with examples for us. I do have a question for you. You seem to be very passionate about this point. If it is not important and is a trivial point as far as the Gospel is concerned (as you said) then why do you have this strong opinion to convince others? I can remember you bring up these point before. Bruce H | ||
| maryann |
Hi George, I came up with the answer to this asking for forgiveness thing on the way down to Ca. This is the first chance I had at the computer. Allenette, That wasn't very nice :-( :-( Anyway , here's the reason I think we are comanded to ask for forgiveness EVEN though we are saved; it is to simply acknowledge the fact that our sins are forgiven, past present and future. Make sense? Maryann | ||
| Allenette |
Maryann: Well, no it wasnt, but it is an observation that is accurate.....read the posts. George gets kudos when he "sees the light" and no one acknowledges his existence on here otherwise. Is THAT nice? He's asking legitimate questions, making legitimate comments....I, OTOH, expect to get ignored :-) Back into the woodwork. Maybe I'll email you this weekend. Less obtrusive that way :-) Happy Easter egg hunting :-) | ||
| Timo K |
Bruce, The reason I reacted to "namecalling" was that I am not very interested if something "sounds adventist". It is not a matter what it sounds but if it is true or not. "Sound" to me is more like a feeling. We all might have some bad feelings about adventism, and we might have been hurt a lot inside the church. But our feelings can never be a "judge" to determine if something is right or wrong. No matter how we feel about adventism, we need to examine their teaching POINT BY POINT. Wrong way to "judge" it is to say; since it has cultic teaching (such as IJ) they have everything wrong. I don't know Bruce what you mean by the expression that "the Spirit will lead us to all truth"? If you mean that the Spirit will lead us all to a complete doctrinal unity in everything, I disagree strongly with you. "All Truth" to me means Christ. All truth to me means that Christ is our salvation, our everything. He gave us also the Holy Spirit. "All Truth" means that Jesus Blood is all we need for our salvation. I am not quite sure why I feel very strongly about this hell question. Only answer I can give that it is not because of understanding hell having salvanic meaning. One reason might be that I see conditionalism as a Biblical concept. If biblical, then we give wrong impression about God if we claim He tortures forever. Since the symbolism of hell in scripture is described very painful and then the pain will last forever, it is a real PR-problem for God. Of course if I had the traditionalistic view, I would have to "swollow" eternal hell concept too. I know that there are different oppinions what the early Church Fathers taught, but according to Fudge, there is not dispute about that Arnobius was conditionalist. Can you Bruce prove this otherwise? Even Bible is disputed. Some people see Jesus teaching conditional hell and some see Him teaching traditional hell. Bruce do you have a literal or metaphorical view of hell or a third variation? Hell is in no way taught equally among traditionalists. timo | ||
| Bruce H |
Allenette and George If we have ignored you like Allenette says I am sorry. You do ask very hard questions, like what are the three aspects of man body soul and spirit. I pass somtimes hopping sombody will do a better job. Thankyou Allenette for bring this to our attention. Bruce Heinrich | ||
| Bruce H |
Timo K As I see it right now I believe that it is possible that Hell is eternal but it may be possible that it is not. I however believe that both ideas can be taught but with caution like saying well would a God of Love burn his children in Hell for eternity. What if when God made us in His image that means we are eternal will you gamble your life on that. I believe that God who knows the future knew that this would be a problem yet He in his writting did not decide to make it clear and sure. I believe that God want us to accept Him however he is because he knows all. So the debate is not is there a hell or not it is do you accept God either way it is!!!! If God is worried about his reputation, I believe he would have put this debate to rest. Bruce | ||
| Bruce H |
Timo K Here is something from the Zondrvan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. The Early Church. in the period immediately after NT days, the doctrine of hell was clearly taught. Many of the martyrs of the period, considering hell to be the fate of those who denied the faith, were given courage to face martyrdom by the conviction that this was the easier of the two alternatives. In the 2nd cent. the (Early) Church Fathers give evidence in their writings of their convictions on the subject. For example Ignatius (died A.D. 117), commenting on a passage in Ephesians says, 3one so defiled will go into unquenchable fire.2 The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 115) speaks of 3those which fell into the fire and were burned are those who have departed for ever from the living God.2 The Epistle of Barnabas (c. 120) mentions 3the way of eternal death with punishment.2 Justin Martyr (c. 110) in his Apology says, 3We are fully convinced that each will suffer punishment by eternal fire, according to the demerit of his actions.2 Irenaeus (A.D. 135-200) uses the term 3eternal fire2 repeatedly. Tertullian (c. 160-220) mentions 3the greatness of the punishment which continueth, not for a long time, but forever.2 It mentions a lot more Early Church Father, basically most of them and say they support the concept of Hell, by the way I can get these writing in full and put them on the net if you would like. Here are some more writing from the Encyclopedia. Intertestamental views. In the Ap. Lit. of this period, the term 3Gehenna2 is used to describe the compartment for punishment. The pseudepigraphical Enoch gives detailed descriptions of this place of punishment. The Pharisees accepted this view. Josephus states that the Pharisees believed that 3the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment2 (Jos. War II. viii. 14). Elsewhere he describes the position of the Pharisees by saying that the wicked 3are to be detained in everlasting prison.2 Here is one more. Teachings of Jesus. It should be noted that in the NT, Gehenna is used only in the synoptics except for an occurrence in James (3:6), and that in these synoptic references the word was used only by Jesus Christ. In other words, the knowledge of hell comes almost exclusively from the teaching of Christ, who spoke emphatically on the subject on a number of occasions. For anybody else it is a good read The Zondervan Encyclopedia on the word Hell. It will give you good sources. Ý Timo K Who is this Fudge, or Gressman, or professor Pinnock, or John Stott or Philip Hughes, what are their backgrounds what denominations do they go to, what are their beliefs. I am a little suspect right now because of the little study I have already done refutes some of the things that they said like the Early Church Fathers did not teach the concept of Hell yet as I am reading I find that almost all of the Early Church Fathers did teach it. I am now looking for this parable that Jesus suposidly coppied from. I would be a little cautious of these guys. Bruce Heinrich BH | ||
| Timo K |
Bruce, The post you wrote above is about what I think also. There are possibilities that hell is either traditional or conditional or even something else. Since hell is not salvanic, there are other reasons why God gave us that concept. As an practising adventist (ages ago), I never studied about hell. It is now when I am a "practising" christian that the hell question has been challenged. That's why I was seeking answers from a broader evangelical viewpoint. I called first the Good News-office and asked Roy Gee, if he or Dr.Ford know any non-adventist material about the conditional hell where the author(s) have come to the conclusion that the hell is not eternal. Roy told me about Fudge and other names too. While studing Fudges material and different web-pages, I am convinced that conditionalism is a Biblical and evangelical concept. With biblical, I mean that the arguments are drawn from the Bible. With "biblical", I don't mean that it is 100% sure that conditionalism is a right interpretation. I agree with you Bruce, that outside-of salvation-stuff in Bible is not always 100% clear. The reason why I have mentioned that conditional view is not cultic is because of a book I found at Barns&Noble bookstore. (I didn't buy the book but sat down and read about hell). In his opinion annihilism is a cultic doctrine and to prove it he said that cults such as JW have that doctrine. The writer forgot to mention that there are also evangelical Christians who have conditional interpretation. And JW does not have any hell, which I think Bible believing Christians must have, since Bible speaks about hell. Your question whether I believe we are eternal, I have already answered but here it is again. We are at the moment and all the time eternal in Christ. That is true even when we are in the grave. After Golgatha, we have always been in Christ. This eternity is inputed to us now and when Christ returns it will also be imparted. We will recieve a glorious new body as a gift because of Jesus. Everything we will once become, we already are in the Belowed. In my opinion Bible is clear that we were in Christ in every step which Jesus did. Even the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit is because of Jesus. Acts.3:32-33 "This Jesus hath God raised up, wherof we are witnesses. (33) Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye see and here." Holy Spirit is a Gift to us because of Jesus. Jesus was exhalted and we received the "fruit" of His work. We have the Holy Spirit until the end. When Jesus comes down he brings us our new "Glorious Body" Resurection body. This is also a Gift, and we are able to see our Lord and God face to Face. timo |
