| Author | Message | ||
| Cindy |
Hi Jeff! Yes, I agree with you that God must be outside of time. This is a mystery to me, but very interesting to look into. 2 Timothy 1:9 tells us that grace was given us in Jesus "before the beginning of time"!! The promise was given "before the beginning of time"! (Titus 1:2). Was 'time' created at the beginning of the creation of this world when God set the sun, moon, and earth in motion? I like how Michael Card sings in one of his songs, "Eternity stepped into Time"... Gratefully,in His Grace alone, Cindy | ||
| Lydell |
Colleen, I think that what you have pointed out is exactly the key. God says that at the moment we believe we have already passed out of death into life and that we will never see death. Speculation over the concept of time can't get around the "never see death" (John 8:51). That leaves no room for any interruption in time. Max, thanks for the kind words. Many times my thoughts don't seem to come through correctly in my words! By the way, I was cleaning our "computer room" yesterday (a monumental undertaking! that uncovered a horribly large stack of papers from our homeschooling days that I must now go through!). In cleaning off a book shelf, I found a little booklet "He Made Planet Earth!" by none other than Max Gordon Phillips. Gee, that's a familiar name | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Lydell, That must have been a thrill! It gave me goose bumps. Paxton's book, "Shaking of Adventism", does the same thing when I see it on the shelf. Just something special about knowing an author. Maryann | ||
| Pat Darnell |
Great discussion! Just a couple of additional thoughts. Several Bible teachers I've heard or read, who know Biblical languages, say that the term "departure" which Paul uses in speaking of his upcoming death, is used in the Bible in only these (two, I think) instances. It is a nautical term, indicating a ship LADEN FOR A VOYAGE - the beginning of something, not the end. Also, heaven is a spiritual place. God is "spirit". The angels are ministering "spirits". Jesus' body, tho' physical, was also a spiritual body, as He could enter a room or disappear without being noticed. Our physical bodies would not be appropriate for a "spiritual" place. But when the earth is made new, our bodies would be appropriate for "building houses and inhabiting them, planting vineyards and eating the fruit thereof", as well as interaction with each other. While Paul tells Timothy (1 Tm 6:16) that only God has immortality, and it is the one big text for SDAs, he also says in 2 Tm 1:8-11 (and I never heard this one quoted) that God has saved us, not because of anything we have done, "but because of His own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Saviour, Christ jesus, WHO HAS DESTROYED DEATH AND BROUGHT LIFE AND IMMORTALITY TO LIGHT THROUGH THE GOSPEL." And one more: In 1 Th 4 Paul says "We believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God WILL BRING WITH JESUS THOSE WHO HAVE FALLEN ASLEEP IN HIM." Couple that with "Behold, the Lord comes with 10,000s of His saints." Just as our former church tried to tell us that Michael the Archangel is Jesus, so they tried to say that those "saints" are angels. But "saints" are not angels, nor are angels saints! This was the most difficult doctrine for me to settle, like Lydell. But with lots of prayers and tears and study, I now believe that if Jesus was going to leave ALL OF OUR BEING in a hole in the ground, or in the ashes of fires, or in the bellies of fish in the ocean , for a long time, He would have said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His Son that whosoever believes in Him should have everlasting life after hundreds and thousands of years." We cannot understand "soul" and "spirit"...but we are not supposed to understand everything about God. His ways are higher than ours; the secret things belong to Him. But we DO live by faith in Him and in His promises! Precious promises! Pat | ||
| sherry |
This naturally leads to a question about hell. What is FAF's understanding there? | ||
| Colleen Tinker (Colleentinker) |
I can't speak for other FAF'ers, but I can tell you what I've thought about the subject of hell. Hell was the last big question for me to deal with. I still don't feel as if I have a complete understanding of what hell is, but I've come to believe that Jesus' teachings about it are true. As Dale Ratzlaff points out, most of our Christian teaching about hell come from Jesus' own words. First, I believe that hell really is eternal punishment. If eternal life is accepting Jesus and spending literal eternity with him, then the consequences of rejecting eternal love must be of equal magnitude. Hell isn't about being punished for "sins". Hell is about rejecting God. And if we reject Him, it makes sense that the consequences would be equally serious as the rewards are for accepting Him. Ellen's explanation of people suffering greater or lesser amounts depending on the seriousness of their sins before being annihilated really negates the seriousness of sin. Sin is sin: it is turning our backs on our Creator. Hell, it seems to me, is a spiritual reality. If our spirits are forever with Jesus, even in death, when we accept him, then it makes sense that the spirits of the damned would be sent to a spiritual place. I've actually thought of it as being in a different dimension that we can't access here in our 3-dimensional state. I think that Jesus' words which describe hell as eternal fire are words describing the seriousness of the reality of hell. We can't perceive outside our dimensions. We can't perceive the true nature of heaven, either. Jesus described something that would give us a metaphor to illustrate a reality we're incapable of fully understanding. When Jesus talked about the "dead", as in his statement "Let the dead bury the dead," he was talking about the spiritually dead. The spiritually dead may be physically alive or physically dead. We think of the dead in the only way we can phsyically perceive it: the body has no life. But the real dead are spiritually deadódead like Adam and Eve were after they sinned before their bodies died; dead like we are before we accept Jesus and become alive. Dead souls may not be non-existent. They may be dead in a different senseóthey're not connected to Life and LightñGod. Dead souls, according to Jesus, will suffer eternally in hell. No, I don't think hell is a physical fire like we understand fire. But I believe it's real. It's a spiritual reality that possibly exists in a dimension we can't access here in time. Colleen | ||
| Billtwisse |
I would say 'amen' to most all that Colleen has said here. I have a promised post that I'm working on to express my additional thoughts. The point I especially like is that the SDA notion of gradations of punishment, followed by eternal unconsciousness, accomplishes nothing in dealing with the seriousness of rejection of the everlasting gospel. It only focuses on a pound-for-pound torture for specific acts of sin. But the principle of the NT is this: those who reject an infinite and eternal salvation, provided by the suffering & death of God himself, will experience an eternal retribution as the just consequence. More to say later. --Twisse | ||
| Bob |
For those of you who want to study further what the Bible teaches on the subject of Hell , I have found a new book that looks worthy of examination. The title is "Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue" by Edward W. Fudge and Robert A. Peterson. (paperback, 228 pp.) It is published by InterVarsity Press (ISBN 0-8308-2255-0). I found my copy in a Christian bookstore, but if you can't find it in a store, you can purchase it from Amazon.com for under $10. This book offers an in-depth study and dialogue by two solidly evangelical theologians who hold two different views of hell. One writer (Edward Fudge) argues that the Bible teaches Conditional Immortality and a Hellfire punishment that eventually will end in the total extinction of the lost.(His view is essentially the same as SDA teaching). The other man (Robert Peterson), argues for the "traditional" view of an eternally-burning hell. Their dialogue about what the Bible teaches on this subject will inform and challenge you! | ||
| Sherry2 |
Thank you Bob. I'm going to have to get a hold of that book. Sounds very interesting! :) | ||
| Bruceh |
Sherry2 Is it not great to know that now that you are in Christ Jesus he has set you free to look at anyting without fear because your salvation does not fall into what you believe, but in who you believe. I remember that time and it was so exciting to look at every thing with the freedom that Christ gives you. The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth do not trust in us but in Christ he will not disapoint you. Bruce Heinrich | ||
| Billtwisse |
I would like to emphasize that the views of conditionalism and traditionalism, thank God, are definitely not our only two options. Many books have been published in response to "The Fire That Consumes" by Ed Fudge. Although I personally believe in the eternal existence of the souls of the wicked, I have yet to see one of the 'responses' (including Morey, whom I respect a lot) deal with the biblical doctrine of judgment as celebrative victory over God's enemies. Neither does Fudge himself. They all speak of hell as a terrifying event that the saved must dislike and shrink with horror at the thought of witnessing. None of the popular scenarios that have God's people mourning over the wicked in hell is found anywhere in scripture. In the Bible, the downfall of God's enemies is always a matter of celebration. The 'warning' aspect of hell has significance only in proclaiming the destiny that will be experienced by those who reject the gospel. Ed Fudge was certainly right about one thing. The traditionalists only recite arguments that have been around since Augustine. There is nothing new. --Twisse | ||
| Bob |
Bill Twisse, In your post you say "I personally believe in the eternal existence of the souls of the wicked..." I am still in the process of deciding what I should believe about the duration of Hell. I am interested to know which scriptures are for you the most convincing that lost men and women will, like the saved, have an eternal, endless existence. | ||
| Timo |
Bill, Many things come in place in my thinking, after I read Ed Fudges book. I was not satisfied with the adventist "concept of hell". Fudge gave me an evangelical and Biblical perspective of punishment. Conditionalism made sense for me after reading the book. timo | ||
| Billtwisse |
Bob and Timo, I sympathize greatly with your desire to know the Bible truth about these things. I had many personal conversations with Ed Fudge on the issue of hell, and I was able to at least present my lingering concerns about some of his interpretation. From an 'evangelical' perspective, one may accept either view. There is no inherent deception in either of the common positions that will cause one to endanger his salvation. However, the real scriptural evidence must be considered. The findings of Dr. Robert Morey in "Death and the Afterlife" were a real challenge for me. He goes far beyond the other researchers in his painstaking study of the biblical & historical data. Although I disagree with his traditionalist approach to the doctrine of judgment, his argument about the eternal nature of the human spirit is overwhelming. I have never found a more thorough attempt to honestly deal with the biblical question of eternal existence of all creatures made in God's image vs. extinction of the wicked. Accepting the eternal nature of hell does not mean accepting the traditionalist dogma of God's delight in everlasting physical torture. There are other issues to consider. The gospel brings eternal life to those that believe. To those that disbelieve, the just consequence of their action is eternal knowledge of the awfulness of rejecting such a great salvation. More to say later, --Twisse | ||
| Colleentinker |
Hi, Bob! I remember being surprised a couple of years ago when I heard Dale Ratzlaff say, "Most of the teaching about hell came from Jesus himself." Since then I've discovered he's right. Two of the passages that have especially impacted me are Jesus' parable of the faithful and unfaithful servants in Matthew 24: 36-51 and his parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 26:31-46. Those are just two that have impacted me. There are more! Colleen | ||
| Billtwisse |
Bob, The scriptures that convince me the most are as follows: Daniel 12:1,2 Matthew 25:31-46 Revelation 14:9-11 However, I know this isn't saying much in and of itself. The traditionalists will cite these same scriptures and many more. As an introduction, here is where I see both conditionalism and traditionalism as falling short of the Bible: Conditionalism reduces the curse of the gospel to the level of the curse of the law. Traditionalism elevates the curse of the law to the level of the curse of the gospel. Does this make any sense? The wicked are not covered by Christ's atonement. They will experience both the curse of the law and the curse of the gospel. Christ bore the curse of the law for his people, but he did not experience the curse of the gospel, because his people will never commit the sin of rejecting his salvation eternally. God will set all accounts right in the day of judgment. Because of disobedience to authorities, murder, adultery, theft, a spirit of lies, and covetousness, lost humanity will experience a 'pound for pound' retribution in the body for its sins. But the punishment does not end there. Rejecting the gospel is a rejection of God himself. This is a crime of the spirit and requires eternal retribution: like that apportioned to the non-elect angels. The only just punishment for rejection of an eternal God and his work to save a rebellious humanity is eternal, conscious shame of the spirit. This is the real torment described in the teaching of Christ. It is not physical torture (which would disable the spirit of thinking due to the pain) but full conscious suffering in contemplation of what has been rejected. Does this help? I hope to say more on this issue as time progresses. --Twisse | ||
| Colleentinker |
Very interestisng, Bill. Thank you. Colleen | ||
| Bob |
Bill: Thank you for your reply. As usual, your insight has given us much to think about and to study! Bob | ||
| Chyna |
hi dear friends, in my talk with the former boyfriend, we went over the sabbath vs. the lord's day, not that there really should be a vs. at all, but anyway, and then he said he wanted to pick a topic: soul-sleep. i hadn't researched it because, quite honestly, I got really tired. i had been reading up so much on other points that I neglected to do an indepth on soul sleep/hell is annihilation. now i can conceive the whole adventist thread! 1. since the soul sleeps, this means (somehow) that death is total death the soul and body are one, the spirit returns to God (like in starwars the life force ;)) 2. because of this, this proves that the soul is not eternal, and that God will annihilate the wicked. 3. this also is good because if you reject salvation after you are saved THEN you don't have to face eternal torment (God wouldn't be that cruel), you just wink out of existence. like colleen has said, one falls, they all start to fall. in my reading of soul-sleep, I read that in Psalms, the Israelites did not have a complete picture of what death was aside from the obvious that it was the opposite of life. there they mourned in the Psalms that they could no longer praise/thank God, and a Hebraist said that it means they could no longer praise God in the public congregation of the living. so that accounts for Psalms. it's talking mostly about the mortal life, the physical death consequences. they also thought that the death of a righteous man was much better than the death of a wicked man. Ecclesiastes is talking about how everything is useless without God. One person noted that Ecclesiastes is poetry and not intended for theological support of death. Ec 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. (so I'm not distinctly articulate on the subject yet, but i'm working it out, ok?) in psalm 146:4 it says the thoughts will perish when they die, but it's also translated as plans will perish. I think it's talking about the mortal life, the physical body not being able to complete plans or have thoughts any longer, but not the soul. so, the bottom line there that there is reward after death as we do know (Matt 5:12, 1 Cor 3:14, Rev 22:12) we do know that souls remember things because in Revelations 6:9-10, the souls of the martyrs are crying out to God for vengeance and this is before the second coming. or something, hm. anyway, they sure seem like they do remember. also, we know that Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, these saints are the ones that are already with Him in heaven. anyway, there is a soul and not soul sleep, otherwise Paul would not have yearned so deeply to be with God 2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. of course Matt 10:28 is a pivotal verse: Matt 10:28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable * to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. And a parallel passage: Luke 12:4-5 "I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no * more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes , I tell you, fear Him! dear friends, the term: destroy both soul and body in hell is the same idea as casting into hell. Here we see that destroy does not mean annihilation, but is a metaphor: to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell. the word destroy is also used by demons howling encountering Jesus: Luke 4:34 "Let us alone ! What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth ? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are--the Holy One of God !" cross referencing: Mt 8:29 And they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time ?" so destroy here means to torment. i find it particularly interesting that the demons already know their fate is to be tormented. TORMENT: Basanizo 1:561,96 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech bas-an-id'-zo /cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=0928g/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=0928g Verb Definition 1. to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal 2. to question by applying torture 3. to torture 4. to vex with grievous pains (of body or mind), to torment 5. to be harassed, distressed 1. of those who at sea are struggling with a head wind DESTROY: Apollumi 1:394,67 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech ap-ol'-loo-mee Verb Definition 1. to destroy 1. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin 2. render useless 3. to kill 4. to declare that one must be put to death 5. metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell 6. to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed 2. to destroy 1. to lose so the typical Adventist argument does not stand, on soul-sleep, or that hell is annihilation. out of my own curiosity I searched the greek/hebrew lexicon for a word that meant the same thing as ANNIHILATE in English. not a single word came up. now onto Eternal Security. this one I have thought about. since i don't believe in soul-sleep, and i do think hell is eternal, it would just follow that I would go against ANOTHER adventist doctrine Conditional Salvation vs. Eternal Security. it puzzled me why my boyfriend felt like I had an animosity towards Adventism. it wasn't I who had the different doctrine, it was him :) hee. anyway. Last night, God blessed me with this illustration of salvation. when we accept salvation we become a new creature: 2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (also Gal 6:15) please note that this is not "like" a new creature, but IS a new creature. not just resembling a new creature, but IS a new creature. i can't emphasize that enough. when we accept Christ, who transforms us? God does. it is not through our abilities that we become new creatures. true we do our part to accept God's gift of eternal life, but there is nothing we do to make ourselves righteous before God. what is sin? sin is missing the mark, or anything that doesn't go along with God's will, basically. anyway, so you're saved but now you want to reject salvation? rejection of salvation is sin, right? it is missing the mark. however, after you are saved there is no condemnation. you already have been forgiven that sin, so that sin cannot remove you from God's hand. so you can sin and say you don't want salvation anymore, but you can't transform yourself back into a creature dead in sin, anymore than you could have transformed yourself into a new creature who could be with God. the way I see someone who would reject their salvation after becoming saved, becoming a new creature is this: many times the transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly is a symbol of our salvation. we are given FREEDOM from sin, new wings. beautiful wings :), beautiful. anyway, after a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, it decides it does not want it's wings anymore. thus it returns to the ground toddling along on its legs. is there a more pitiful image than a butterfly trying to revert back into a caterpillar? outright REFUSING to use its wings because it denies them. it is the same with us, if we are saved and accept Christ into our lives, and then we try to deny Him, we are like butterflies trying to crawl around on the ground as caterpillars. and I'll tell you what else is likely, that not exercising those wings is going to make them weak. *heehee* if you're still reading this God Bless you! i know it's a long post, but i'm just happy to share what God has blessed me with. love in Christ, Chyna | ||
| Steve |
Hi Chyna, WOW! You've been doing some homework. You make many good points. Someday I'd like to look into "annihilation" and it's occurrence in scripture. One version that I've always liked, the New Jerusalem Bible, uses the word annihilate a number of times in reference to the wicked. I don't know how much liberty they took in the translation of the Hebrew, but it's something that I'd like to look into, but not now. You make an excellent point about Ecclesiastes. I had not heard that you shouldn't make doctrine out of statements found there until a number of years after I had become SDA. I used it to support soul sleep before I had heard that, but was careful not to use it with my non-SDA Christian friends after I had learned that. Your comment: "One person noted that Ecclesiastes is poetry and not intended for theological support of death." is exactly what many need to be aware of. Recently I was pointing out a verse I had discovered in Proverbs. The SDA pastor I showed it to said that he didn't put too much into what Solomon said, because of certain life experiences of Solomon. So even some SDA's are aware of the problem. But Ecclesiastes has been used in many, many sermons and evangelistic presentations I've heard. It's unfortunate that many aren't trained to observe, not only the context that a passage is in, but also the context of the life of the writer, particularly on questionable matters. Now I believe that any major doctrinal issue that is not supported by clear evidence from various places and writers in scripture, especially if it is not supported by New Testament scripture, should be worked out very carefully. God Bless, Steve |
