| Author | Message | ||
| Trippllb |
I get so much courage from this site. I have looked at what happens after you die since my mother-in-law died last September. (I had been lucky not to have anyone close to me pass away before then.) I talked to my dad (SDA Bible teacher) and asked him and he sent me a quick and dirty study on soul sleep. It didn't put my questions to rest, but raised more. It is nice to know that people can have differing opinions here and learn from each others view points. Whenever I think I've got it all figured out, I can come here and read for a while and realize that the only truth is found by searching the scriptures for yourself. That's not to say that this discussion has set in stone (pardon the pun) my belief one way or another. However, Gods grace has shown me in the last year that it's OK to not know and to trust that he will tell me when I'm ready. It's so wonderful to know there is a place to come where people can have differing opinions and still learn from each other without animosity toward the other. | ||
| Nate |
I am not sure what to do with this topic. I have always felt that the SDA position on Hell being a destruction of the wicked that is quick, has eternal results, and has a beginning and ending, seemed to fit the nature of the God better. I have a hard time with concept of an eternal punishing process. That is why I have tended toward the SDA position even though it is a minority position in christian circles. There are many others who are not SDA that believe in soul sleep and the mortality vs immortality of the soul. The point is there can be a reasonable case made for either side. The scriptures allow for either interpretation. While I do not believe that those who believe that the soul goes directly to heaven at death are heretical. I do not see this as some dangerous heresy a SDA's and especially EGW's writings teach. But there is much scripture on either side. I agree with Trippllb on this one. It is great to have a place where we do not have to see things the same way to enjoy fellowship. we can learn from each other and grow. It is exciting for me to be thinking outside the SDA box and exploring the scriptures with a discovery mindset rather than a defensive one. Who knows where all of this will end up. A few years ago I would never have thought that I would believe the Sabbath was a temporary institution fulfilled by Christ. Who knows what will happen on this issue. The point is that it is not a Salvation issue whichever way one goes on the subject. Regardless of what happens at death, one thing I know. The next face I see will be the face of Jesus! Praise God! I want to help as many people as possible accept this marvelous gift. God bless, In Christ, Nate | ||
| Trippllb |
Nate, I have been doing a study on the Sabbath and was wondering if you had anything that is fairly comprehensive on how you came to determine that the Sabbath was a temporary institution. I am leaning in that direction, but there are a few areas that keep bringing me back and keep the shadow of doubt hovering overhead. Given your unique position within the church, I would be very interested in the scriptures you used and lines of thought involved in the change in your mindset. I came into this firmly believing that the 7th day was the Sabbath, but the deeper I dive into the scriptures, the more I question that theology. Maybe you've already posted it somewhere and I have just not found it yet. Personally I'd be greatful for anything you could provide. I realize that there is no greater way to reach your personal beliefs than searching the scriptures for yourself and relying on the spirit to impress the truth upon your heart, however, a road map through the scriptures never hurts. :-) As far as what happens after you die, I haven't spent a lot of time focusing on this one since ultimately, it can be argued quite convincingly either way. I am relying on God to give me the informaiton I need when I need it and just focusing on spending time with him in his word and building a personal relationship with him. Every one of us will eventually have first hand knowledge of what happens when we get there. Should God choose to reveal to me before then exactly what happens, then I'm grateful, I'm just happy knowing that regardless of logistics of what happens, his arms will be carrying me. I believe that ultimately the essentials are what matter and if I'm lucky enough to understand the rest, then that's just gravy. | ||
| Chuckiej |
I'm still a believer in conditional immortality ("soul-sleep"). And I guess the reason is, that, to me, the weight of Scripture leans in that direction. The majority of immortal soul evidence comes from Paul, who even Scripture says is difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Therefore, I'm not comfortable going against unambiguous statements in favor of more cryptic ones. Thanks to everone for answering my question. I know I tend to defend SDA posibut this issue of the Millenium is one that I'm not dogmatic about. I'm looking for different perspectives and I appreciate everyone's posts. | ||
| Dennis |
Dear Christian friends, It took, my wife and I, several years of prayer and Bible study to unlearn esoteric Adventist dogma. Hopefully, others may not be so deeply entrenched as we were. Also, many may not be such slow learners as we were. Anyway, as you diligently study the various doctrines(i.e., state of the dead, traditional vs. conditional views of hell, Sabbath observance, tithing, eternal security in Christ, etc.), the Holy Spirit will impress your mind how all things fit together as in a completed puzzle. Obviously, the overall picture may not be there when you first start your Biblical quest for truth. We still have much to learn, but we thank our Lord Jesus for His indwelling Spirit that put the basic puzzle together for us. Good news! The Gospel really is very uncomplicated; even a child can readily understand it. Most of what we know about hell, for example, is what Jesus taught about it. While there are several views on many doctrines available today, I have found it important to view doctrinal tenets as a whole. Furthermore, it is most significant to bring all salvific dogma together as a complete package. Without the proof text method, an inductive study will keep things in context. It was indeed a thrilling moment when the Holy Spirit suddenly clicked something within us to see the doctrinal unity in Scripture. I actually jumped up from my office chair to share the good news with my wife. We had a few questions to ponder, but now the puzzle was complete at last. All doctrine is interrelated, each complimenting and verifying the other. If we truly seek Him with all our heart, He will abundantly bless our quest for truth. Another exegetical tool is to determine how a certain interpretation may impact or change another salvific doctrine (with the aid of Hebrew or NT Greek). Thank God NT Greek is a much more precise language than our modern English. More often than not, we can know exactly what the author of the passage had in mind. I find the Blue Bible Website very time-saving and definitive (www.bluebible.com). Check it out! Best Christian wishes, Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker |
Nate, it has been interesting to watch the formers that we fellowship with struggle with Adventist doctrines as they leave. The interesting thing is that there is a distinct pattern or sequence. The biggie, of course, is the Sabbath. Once we figure that one out, we realize that we've placed ourselves beyond the boundaries of our heritage. Without exception, I might say, the next doctrine people struggle with is the state of a person in death. That struggle nearly always PRECEEDS a re-looking at hell. It took me about a year to become convinced about the state of death. It took me another couple of years before I was comfortable with a re-worked view of hell. You might find it interesting to hear how our pastor responded when we went through membership class at our church. (It's an Evangelical Free Cburch.) We took the class a little over two years ago. At that point both Richard and I had become convinced, based upon our own study of the Bible, that the spirit lives eternally once a person has accepted Jesus. Neither of us, though, could accept eternal hell. After the class, we approached our pastor (who happens to be extremely bright and well-educated, by the way, and the best Bible teacher I've ever gotten to learn from), and Richard said, "We have trouble with one doctrine." He looked at us (he knew our background) and said, "Hell!" We were a bit astonished and admitted it. He proceeded to tell us that there is a small but significant group of evangelicals who believe in soul-sleep. He said it is certainly not a mainstream understanding, but it is not considered heretical, either. He said he believes the Biblical evidence supports the spirit going to God, but given our background, he said, we would not be denied membership because of our questions about hell. Interestingly, he said if we had come from an unbelieving background and just didn't want to embrace God's judgment and justice, we would probably be denied membership because of the same view. Here's what I know from experience; as God brings certain doctrines clearly before you, He will help you to study them and to know his will. I truly believe that God directs our understanding of scripture and the unfolding of truth when we are committed to really knowing it. We can completely trust him with our questions and doubts, and we can completely trust his timing and his answers. By the way, Richard and I personally have actually come to believe in eternal hell. It didn't happen in a flash of insight; rather, it grew slowly, almost organically, and to us it makes the most sense biblically now. I just finished working on a Bible study over Hebrews 11:27-28, and I went back to Exodus to find the original story of Moses' flight from Egypt and subsequent call. What really impressed me was that I was taught as an Adventist that essentially the wicked destroy themselves. They choose to stay disconnected from God, and that disconnection from life kills them. A truly loving God, I was taught, would not kill his children. That would be inconsistent with his character. But Exodus clearly says God killed those Egyptian firstborn. It was not the death angel, as I was taught as a child. It repeatedly says God passed over Egypt and killed those children. And God would have killed Israelite children if they had not had the blood on their doors. Isralites were not spared because of their characters or their chosenness. They were spared ONLY because of the blood. The OT has other stories of God killing rebellious people, even Israelites. (see Numbers 16) Here's what distilled out of this for me: When we say God is eternal, sovereign, infinite, and omnipotent but say he would never kill, we are denying part of the reality of his omnipotence. If God truly is ultimately loving and just, then he has to hate evil with as much intensity as he loves righteousness. Truth, as Scot Peck says in "A Different Drum", is always a paradox. A half-truth is a heresy. God cannot be infinitely just and merciful and simultaneously not constitutionally able to kill or punish. If that were true, He would have had to be a twisted monster to have part of himself, his Son, become a frail human and die the second death. How could someone for whom mortal punishment was out-of-character send his son to die? How could he justify our living? I also remember being taught that the "fear of God" did not mean literal fear. It meant "respect". God is love, I was told. We do not fear whom we love. But how can love be powerful and salvific if the lover is impotent to punish? How can we respect someone who benignly loves but cannot mete out justice? Also, what are we, then, to make of the "wrath of God" and God's vengeance texts? (see John 3:36; Romans 1:18-19; 9:22; Romans 12:19; 2 Tiumothy 4:1; Hebrews 10:30-31; Deut. 32:35-36, etc.) I've come to believe that we should fear God. If we have not accepted his death on the cross and his forgiveness and his righteousness, then we absolutely should fear God's wrath and vengeance. It is real. Fear isn't a completely untenable route to discover the truth about God if one is not a believer. After all, God embodies ALL reality and truth. He cannot be loving and not just. He told us that vengeance is his; he will repay. (Deut. 32:35; Romans 12:19) It was just a bit overwhelming to think all this through today. If God is sovereign, then we have to admit that he is sovereign over mercy, justice, death, and life. If he is not, if the wicked really do kill themselves by removing themselves from the source of life, then we have made God simply one of a set of choices. Humans, then, have ultimate power. God is stripped of eternal power and vested instead with a benign love that will allow us to do whatever we want to ourselves. He will not hurt us, and he will not intervene if we hurt ourselves. The Bible quite clearly talks about the wrath of God and makes it plain that God destroy evil and evildoing. And I say, Praise God! I really do serve an omipotent, eternally loving God whose cleansing love resulted in the unheard-of death of Jesus, God the Son! That death was no cosmic accident; that was a powerful choice that reversed the ineveitable curse of sin! How astounding! Colleen | ||
| Dennis |
CORRECTION: The Website address is www.blueletterbible.org (not www.bluebible.com as I listed in my last post) Sorry! --Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Windmotion |
Colleen, one of the questions that you brought up is one of the main ones that has pushed my husband away from Christianity, and that is why did God kill little children in Egypt? Why did they deserve it and not the second-oldest child. My response was that trying to understand God's reasoning is like asking a blind man to explain an elephant was not enough. And I felt blindly abstract when I said God is infinitely just, and therefore all His actions must be infinitely just. If he weren't infinitely just, wouldn't he have chosen another way to save the world than through the crucifixion? It is enough for me, but not enough for him. I was curious how you resolved that in your own life. Closely related to that is the question, why does God create anyone He knows will someday go to hell. Free will would still be in affect, God would just create everyone that He knew would someday freely choose heaven. The only answer to this is the limited omniscience doctrine that I'm not sure I believe in. Anyone else have any ideas? On the subject of differing doctrines, I think doctrinal views should be kept in perspective of our relationship to God. If cannot find a way that it affects, then the doctrine is not important enough to argue about. Also, if your doctrine causes you to have a negative belief about God, then your doctrine may be incorrect. For instance, my husband and I have gone around and around on eternal security. Me supporting and him not. It would usually end with him saying he wished he could believe in eternal security, but it did not match the view of God he already had in his head. (A God that he believes is sending him to hell) He would even say he wished he had never been an Adventist. All that to say, your doctrines (such a dry word)should strengthen your love for God as they reveal more and more about His character as it is given in Scripture. Question: should I sweetly ask my husband to go to church with me every week, or should I just plan to go alone and hope he comes with me sometimes? Hannah | ||
| Lori |
Question: Why does God allow so many children to die? Why does God allow so many children to suffer and die at a young age? MY ANSWER: On the other hand, what would happen to all these children (let's take Ethopia for example) if they were allowed to live to adulthood? These childrens countries have rejected God, they worship a false God, is this not the reason that they are in the state of poverty that they are? The choices they have made have created their situation--God can not be blamed. So why does God allow so many of these children to die? Have you considered the idea that there is a massive harvest of Ethopians that are in heaven BECAUSE he let them die? Have you considered that it is the mercy of God that took them out of this life and that same mercy will keep them with Him forever? By letting them die he has saved them to eternal life! QUESTION: Why did God allow people to live that were going to choose to reject Him and by doing so choose eternal death? MY ANSWER: Our world is involved in an angelic conflict. We are the evidence for the prosecution. We are the evidence that creatures of free will WILL choose God even if we don't receive immediate gratification. Satan has accused God of being unfair. We are the evidence to all of the angels (good and evil) that God is fair, God is just, God is righteous. We are being watched by the angels-they are learning about the integrity of God and the vileness of Lucifer as the "trial" unfolds. When this "court room trial" is over all of the angelic hosts will know without a doubt that God is righteous, God is justise, God is mercy, God is love, GOD IS FAIR!! We stand as evidence for the "prosecution"--We each will take our stand in the witness chair and we each will be accused by Satan, "Yes, look at Lori, look at what she has done, she is a miserable creature, with no good in her" And his comments are true, in comparison to God's righteousness I am a miserable, filthy, disgusting creature BUT I heard this wonderful story-a story that seemed too good to be true-it was the gospel message of Jesus Christ and if I would simply believe in Him, He would save me. And, I made my decision--I would believe in Him. SO, as I stand before the jury and face the accusations of Satan. Thinking I will not be a good witness for the prosecution (the defendant knows too much about me)!! Much to my amazement I find that the story WAS true--because right after the accuser concludes his statements my "attorney" begins to speak. His voice is the most beautiful voice that I have ever heard, such tenderness, such compassion, so much love. I hear these words, "She has met the conditions, Father, she has believed in Me, she is white as snow, she is covered with my righteousness". I am another witness for the prosecution--a witness that proves that a free will creature will choose God. QUESTION: Should I sweetly ask my husband to go to church with me every week, or should I just plan to go alone and hope he comes with me sometimes? MY ANSWER: Go to church and say nothing to your husband--the words he hears in "your" church will only be heard through Adventist hears, he will only hear exactly what the Adventist have told him to hear--cheap grace. He will only feel as if he is "in Babylon". He will resent being there. The peace and happiness that you find in your new found grace based beliefs will be the best witness to your husband. You will weather the "storms" of life with calm assurance, your husband will be tossed around in the waves and he will begin to wonder why his deceived wife has so much more contentment and peace in life than he does. This will take time, it won't happen over night or next week. I had husband who left me alone, he let me have my cultic beliefs, but his life, his contentment, his assurance in the circumstances of life made me begin to question---WHY??? I was in the remnant church-I should have been more assured than him!!! Something was seriously wrong. It was the beginning of my diligent search for truth. Your husband is only going to "harden" himself against the truth if he attends church with you without doing it for the right reason. Go to church alone. Feed your Spiritual life abundantly and let the joy, peace and love that abound from God's grace reveal to your husband the darkness that he has accepted as truth. | ||
| Lydell |
I would change that to "go to church, and invite your husband to go". Invite him along just as you would invite him to go anywhere with you. Don't react as if hurt or offended if he declines. But always issue the invitation. My friend did this for years, and suddenly one day her husband got up, got dressed and began going to church with her. Nate and Colleen, for years when we were in the denomination we would hear the "many other Christian groups also teach soul-sleep" statement. But I never heard them referred to by name, other than a vague reference that Presbyterians were one. Yet, I have had friends in both Presbyterian groups who definitely did not believe this doctrine. Do you have specifics? Over a year or so ago I saw an article in a major publication, I believe it was possibly Christianity Today??, discussing the various views on hell. As I recall it seemed to hold to the traditional view of hellfire being eternally burning while acknowledging that there is growing numbers of mainline Protestants who are re-examining the issue and concluding that it does look possible that hell at some point will have an end. Thought it was interesting. | ||
| Sherry2 |
I just opened my Bible and the first stuff I was reading was about the Levites....Numbers 8:17 says "every firstborn male in Israell, whether man or animal, is mine. When I struck down all the firstborn of Egypt, I set them apart for myself." I just found that startling consider your query Windmonton, that when I picked up the Bible it fell open to this passage. He set them apart for himself. Wow. Lydell, that is correct about the article in Christianity Today. In fact there is a book written (which I saw but cannot remember the title) that looks at both sides. One authors shows the reasoning for conditional hell, the other for eternal hell. I do believe there is an eternal fire definitely. Revelation and Jesus own talks leave no question in my mind about it. The thing I've noticed for myself and others is the lack of regard towards others salvation because of the "knowledge" they won't burn forever. My next door neighbor is a flaming pagan, and when she shared her discomfort with the idea of hell as most Christians say it is (eternal), I as an SDA proceeded to comfort her with the "fact" that indeed hell is not forever. Where was my passion for saving this woman irregardless of the eternal consequence of an eternal or conditional hell? Why does it seem (Church of God Seventh-day holds this doctrine and I'll find the name of some of the others)that denominations that hold to conditionalism often do espouse "special" doctrines like the Sabbath and stuff that they need to share with people to help already Christians become better Christians, rather than literally saving the truly lost? | ||
| Colleentinker |
Really good points, Lydell, Lori, Sherry, and all. BTW, Lydell, our pastor did name some significant theologians who are teaching soul sleep, but I, being so long Adventist, did not recognize them and quickly forgot their names. Further, he did say "evangelical", and I don't think Presbyterians are always considered evangelical, although I'm venturing into territory I don't know much about! Our pastor, I hasten to add, does not believe soul sleep to be biblical at all. Sherry, thank you for bringing up the point about the firstborn. Another thing that really impacted me besides the fact that God metes out punishment in the story of Israel/Egypt is this: God caused Pharaoh to change his mind about Israel leaving and to chase them and be drowned. He did this, he told Moses om Exodus 14:4, so "I will gain glory for myself and the Egyptians will klnow that I am the Lord." All of God's judgments on Egypt were ultimately for their salvation. Egypt was the "world" from which God called his people, but it was the "world" which He also wanted to save. God's people have never been intended to sequester themselves and avoid the world. They were/are to avoid worldly practices, but their mission, both Israel's and the church's, is to bring the knowledge of God and his salvation to the unbelieving world. The firstborn question, as you pointed out, Sherry, is significant on many levels. Jesus is called the firstborn: he is the firstborn over all creation (Col. 1:15), the firstborn from among the dead (Col 1:18)--there's the hope for those Egyptians!--and he's the firstborn among many brothers (Romans 8:29). The firstborn in Israel were set apart for God, but God told Israel that he chose the tribe of Levi to redeem the firstborn. Instead of families offering their firstborn to God (as the pagans had to--they had to burn their firstborn as offerings to Molech), God allowed the Levites, dedicated to serve God in the temple and not to own their own land, to redeem the firstborn. Those Israelite babies were not a capricious death by a capricious God. The Egyptians understood offering firstborn children as offerings. God wanted them to know that He was the true God--He was sovereign over life and death. AND those firstborn were symbols of Jesus himself--the firstborn of creation who died as the supreme offering to God to save us and every person who chooses him from eternal death. Those Egyptian babies' deaths were the salvation, in an immediate sense, of Israel. They really did prefigure Christ. The Israelites, on the other hand, prefigured the New Covenant. Their babies were spared as long as they were under the blood. When you begin to see the big picture--which most of us as Adventists didn't see--God's acts among men have always been to glorify himself and bring salvation to the world. And the truth is, we don't know the outcome of those babies. They may actually be nestled in the heart of Jesus waiting for the resurrection as we speak (or write)! When we don't have to believe that death is an indeterminate length of separation from life and love, we can believe that God takes those he loves to be with himself! And speaking of our concern for our unsaved neighbors--Richard and I were walking the dogs a few weeks ago, and it was already past sundown. Lights were coming on in the houses we passed. I said something inane which I can't remember, but Richard responded with a statement that impacted me with an almost physical force. "Just think of all the dead people living in these houses." I realized with shock and shame that I've never really thought like that. As an Adventist I always sort-of believed that almost anybody might be saved, especially if they hadn't really heard about the Sabbath. I realized that evening that people really ARE either dead or alive, and as a person who has the miracle of eternal life, I have to see my unsaved neighbors as needing to know Jesus! That means I have to ask God to show me how to live and witness so He makes himself known through me. That means I need to ask God to help me see people as he sees them, and show me how he wants me to love them for him. I really do praise God for his faithfulness and love. And Hannah, he loves your husband, too, and he will show you how to love him for him! Colleen | ||
| Dennis |
Lydell, The title of the book featured in Christianity Today is TWO VIEWS OF HELL A Biblical & Theological Dialogue by Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson. It is an excellent 228 page paperback on the topic of hell. Fudge is the conditionalist, and Peterson is the traditionalist. Peterson did a good job showing how the traditionist view (eternal hell) fits into the entire Christian dogma. Fudge, on the other hand, relies heavily on OT proof texts that are not in context. Matthew 25:41,46 clearly teach "eternal fire" and "eternal punishment." Here are brief excerpts from Peterson's concluding thoughts on hell: "traditionalism, not annihilationism, correctly integrates Christology with the doctrine of hell (page 178)." Also, "if Jesus the God-man was annihilated and thus ceased to exist between his death and resurrection, then the Trinity only consisted of two persons during that period of time. The Trinity would have been reduced to a Binity, or the resurrection of Jesus meant the re-creation of the second person of the Trinity. In that case, the second person of the Trinity would be a created being (page 177)." "...annihilation does not constitute the ultimate punishment. Rather, annihilation would constitute the end of punishment...the ungodly in hell would like for annihilation to be true (pp. 180,181)." Finally Peterson says "it is the historic view of the Christian church--and for good reason because it is abundantly taught in Scripture. And as we might expect of one aspect of God's truth, it coheres well with other biblical teachings (p. 181)." In Christ, Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Nate |
Trippllb, I am currently working on a letter/paper that discusses how I came to the conclusion that the Sabbath is a temporary institution. But I am not ready yet to put it out because of my process in moving out of Adventism. There are parts of the paper that make my situation too public for now. At some point I am sure I will share it in a more public setting. Let me suggest Dale Ratzlaff's book, the Sabbath in Crisis for starters. You can get a copy through WWW.Ratzlaf.com. Another excellent book and much more technical is a book edited by D.A. Carson called the Sabbath to the Lord's day. It is heavy to wade through, but a tremendous help for the serious student. You can order it from the same website. Thanks to all for the discussion of soul sleep/hell. All the insights are helpful as a part of my study. Colleen, Is it possible from your perspective for a person to Fear God, to see God as one who punishes for sin and rebellion, but does not do so for all eternity. I guess the problem I have is with the mercy side of God rather than the Justice side. I have a book, Lydell, that was written by some scholars out of Indiana that I read recently on th issue of soul sleep They were definitely no Adventist because of their views on the millenium. I have no others that come to mind, but I was talking with Richard Fredericks the other day and he mentioned a number of names. I forgot which ones. But I will try to get in touch with him and ask him. Some of the names He mentioned were familiar names in theological circles, but I do not remember which ones. The good news is this... What ever happens at death, there is a passionate loving heavenly Father who sent His son to give us eteranl life. The good news out weighs the bad news! God bless, In Christ, Nate | ||
| Lydell |
Thanks Nate. I'll be interested to hear the names. As you said, the good news is good indeed. And whatever one believes happens with hell, the important thing is, we AREN'T going to be there! | ||
| Joni |
Nate, I am wondering what the book from Indiana is? Is it from CES? If so, have you read any of their other books? I am reading one now that I would like to discuss with someone. If you are familar with them, please email me at lbuhler@tir.com Thanks, Joni | ||
| Colleentinker |
Nate, yes, I can see God as a God of justice and still have punishment not be eternal. I'll explain how I've come to think it might be eternal. Please, though, don't hear me being absolutely dogmatic about this. It's just how I've come to see it--after a period of a couple of years, I might add. As Dale Ratzlaff says, most of the Bible's teaching about hell comes from Jesus. For example, Matthew 25:31-46 has Jesus talking about the sheep and the goats. Verse 41 says, "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.' î And again in verse 46, "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." I realize eternal pusnishment could be considered non-existence, but the implication is something more active than that. Also, the word "eternal" is the same for both "eternal punishment" and "eternal life". Our pastor Gary Inrig spoke to our Friday night group over a year ago, at our request, about the subject of hell. There were about 25 of us present, all ready with our questions and understandings of scripture. He was very focused and calm and handled us very logically. One of the things he said which most startled me and impacted me was his interpretation of the parable of Lazarus and Abraham. We were all quick to point out to him that the parable of Lazarus in hell could not be considered instructive about death because it was a PARABLE. It was not literal. Gary looked at us with surprise and replied that Jesus' parables always referred to real-life situations even if they were "merely" stories. He said a parable would not be instructive for any purpose if it did not refer to reality. Further, he said that Jesus would not make up something that was false to prove something that was true. That point stuck with me. I realized that the only reason I was able to believe that Jesus had made up a false scenario to prove a point of truth was that I had been taught that truth can proceed out of error. The Adventist teaching about progressive revelation says that EGW corrected some of her earlier statements as she received more light. But the problem was that her earlier statements were not just less detail about truth; they were completely opposed to her later statements. Dale Ratzlaff points out so well that progressive revelation cannot begin as error and progress to truth. It must begin as truth and progress to more truth. You cannot begin with black and have it become white. I also realize that we were tuaght that Jesus held his hand over the error in EGW's "vision" of his coming in 1843. When the vision was updated to 1844, she said Jesus had held his hand over the error so people would be ready. In other words, he manipulated the data to get people to do what he wanted. Suddenly, when Gary said Jesus would not make up something false to prove something true, I realized he spoke the truth. We had been conditioned to believe that God would play with the facts in order to get us to fall into line. That kind of manipulation is antithetical to who God is. Another thing that began to make sense to me was what one of our Friday night members said one evening: it makes sense that the punishment for rejecting life (Jesus himself) would be equal in intensity and significance to the reward for those who accept him. I wondered for a while how punishment could be eternal if a person were dead. Then it dawned on me that THAT could actually be death. If sin is a dead spirit (we were dead in transgressions and sins-- Eph. 2:1), unconnected to God, and life is a living spirit reconnected to God by the indwelling Holy Spirit, then death could actually be the dead, unconnceted spirit spending eternity away from Life. And hell does not have to be literal, three--dimensional fire. We are stuck in a three-dimensional world. We cannot perceive what it will mean to have a resurrection body and to live in eternity, freed from time. Hell can also be a spiritual reality that is somewhere in the universe away from where God is. It could certainly be a reality in another dimension. So there you have my thinking. I'm sorry I didn't see your question until this evening--it's been a few days! Again, I don't feel as if I know for sure how it will be. I just know that I'm tending to see hell as eternal, and it's beginning to seem congruent with everything else I'm coming to know. Isn't it amazing that when you really commit all of yourself to Jesus and ask him to lead you into truth, all of life and reality starts to make more sense? It's sort-of like the unified theory of everything physicists are trying to find! Praising God for life and praying for you and yours, Nate, Colleen | ||
| Nate |
The names of the Soul Sleep theologians are John Stott in his commentary on I Thess. IVP Bible Speaks Series. Also Edward Fudge, and Oscar Cullman. Joni, I think it is CES. But I am not sure. I am not able to get to my library right now, but if it does prove to be CES, I will contact you. Coleen, Thanks for your insights. I am of course interested in growing in my understanding of this issue. There is much more to look at than I have allowed myself to see before. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. God bless, In Christ, Nate | ||
| Draper |
Question: How do you know WHO "the one" is in 2 Thes. 2:7,its says, "For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but THE ONE who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way". My Adventist friend says "the one" refers to the Holy Spirit and at that time the Holy Spirit will be withdraw. I asked her how that could be when scripture says "I will never leave you or forsake you" She said that Jesus was separated from God when he died on the cross and so all humanity shall be separated from God in the end time to stand alone on their own righteousness. That's a one big scary thought!!! So I asked her what does it mean when it says in 1 Thes. 1:10 "...Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath" and in Rev. 3:10 where is says "I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth". She says that those text just mean that we won't suffer the afflictions caused by the wrath of God--we will be spared just like the children of Israel were spared from the plagues. Is this a good comparison, to compare us to the children of Israel being protected from the plagues? Truth is, I don't know how to prove who "the one" is in 2 Thes. 2; I don't know how to prove that the rapture is real. That's just what I've always been taught! I did find an archived article on this thread by Doug (?) that was interesting but it didn't really address this particular text. Any insight you could share with me would be appreciated, Draper | ||
| Lori |
Draper, I have been "struggling" with this topic recently. I don't have the answer to your question, rather, I have more questions to add to it. One of the texts that Draper quoted was Rev. 3:10--"I will keep you from the hour of trial...". This comment was directed to the Philadelphia church ONLY. It was the only church that exhibited love. My question is: are the only believers that will be rapture those that love each other and like Philadelphia are not condemned for anything? We are commanded to believe and love others. The text in 1 Thes. was also given to those who "loved". Will all those who believe in Jesus Christ be raptured or will it only be those who believe and have advanced to that place in their spiritual life where they have learned how to love others without exclusion? Lori |
