| Author |
Message |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1416
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 8:40 pm: |     |
I've been told "a loving God would not torture his creation eternally"... and "how could we enjoy heaven knowing our lost loved ones were in torment eternally"....
I know I am comforted completely by those two ideas to support the concept! (tongue firmly planted in cheek) 
someone else might have deeper background.... |
Honestwitness
Registered user
Username: Honestwitness
Post Number: 81
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 9:43 pm: | |
I once wrote out a list of every Scripture passage about hell, Sheol, or Hades. The list was several pages long. I used Strong's concordance to find them all and I wrote the entire verse on the paper.
Then I went back through the list and wrote a "+" in the margin beside every verse that supported conscious existence after death and a "-" for every verse that supported soul-sleep. Some verses were clearly pluses, while other verses were clearly minuses. About a third of the verses could be either.
Then I added up all the pluses and all the minuses. I was astonished to find there was an equal number of each.
I personally agree with the article on the WCG's website, which basically says the same thing -- that both views can be supported by Scripture. |
Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom
Post Number: 130
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 9:44 pm: | |
Richard, I appreciated what you said, "We cannot and must not go to the Bible to support an emotional or rational argument. It must always be the other way around! Reason and emotion must be brought into subjection to and harmony with Scripture!"
The topic of "hell" is another one of those topics that I've been avoiding. I'll be honest, what Melissa stated above as what she's been told is kind of how I feel. I have a hard time accepting the idea of eternal torment.
I don't understand how believing in annihilation trivializes sin and God's wrath. Isn't it punishment enough that they are eternally separated from God? The whole torture thing just seems to be unnecessary, and quite honestly I see it as a little disturbing.
Granted, like Richard said above, it's not about what we feel or want the Bible to say, it's what the Bible says. I guess I just don't see it real clearly yet.
If we are born "spiritually dead", and only God gives eternal life, then how can one burn eternally outside of God's Spirit? With the belief of eternal punishment, unbelievers must have eternal life too -- just a really bad one! But how do they live on without God's gift of life to them? Does God just give them the ability to live so they can be eternally punished? Again, that just seems really disturbing. And if you pair that up with predestination, it becomes really disturbing.
I admit, I need to study those texts on hell again with Richard's challenge in mind and try to not let my emotions dictate my interpretation. Ultimately what the Bible says, is what the Bible says. And if in my study, I find out that hell really is 'eternal' then I have to accept that.
It just doesn't seem to fit at this point for me into my picture of who God is. I'm going to have to prayerfully study this doctrine out. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1382
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 10:14 pm: | |
Grace,
If the unsaved are annihilated then they are not eternally separated from God. I like how Hank Hanegraaff puts it: Separation from God's presence implies consciousness.
When we are born "spiritually dead" that means that we have a dead spirit--a spirit which is separated from God. It doesn't mean that our spirit is non-existent or unconscious--just that it is separated from God, that it is sinful, and is against God. When it says that we were "dead in our transgressions," it doesn't mean that we were "non-existent in our transgressions." Eternal life means that our spirit has been eternally connected to God.
So to say that those in hell have eternal life is to miss the Biblical definition of eternal life--spiritual life is being connected to God. Spiritual death is separation from God. Therefore, Biblically, hell is eternal death, not eternal life. Their spirits are dead. But Biblically death does not equal "non-existence." The word death simply means "separation." Physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body. Spiritual death is the separation of the spirit from God. It is not non-existence or annihilation.
It always fascinates me when people talk about whether or not "eternal punishment" is Biblical.
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:46 NASB.)
I would say that's pretty Biblical.
But don't worry if it's not all clear to you yet, just study God's Word, accept it for what it says, and it will become clearer to you.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on July 08, 2006) |
Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom
Post Number: 132
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 10:31 pm: | |
Jeremy,
Thanks for helping clarify.
Hmmm... I guess I'm still not understanding the nature of human spirit. So are you saying that the human spirit (whether spiritually alive or spiritually dead) can never become unconscious or non-existent? It just always is?
I guess I was thinking about our spirits never dying or always existing as the spirits that have been made alive through Jesus, not just spirits in general. Can you share some texts that support that?
Grace |
Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom
Post Number: 133
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 10:43 pm: | |
I was re-reading some of these posts on this thread with the perspective of our human spirits not being able to become non-existant, and came across a post where it mentioned that Jesus died 2 deaths: a physical death and spiritual death. How does this fit in? Did Jesus die a spiritual death (being separated from God)? |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 786
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 11:04 pm: | |
Adventists like to say that they would never worship a God who would torment the unsaved eternally. Indeed, they have chosen another god. The words of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 25:46, do not comprise one of their prooftexts nor ever a memory verse. Completely ignoring Bible passages that do not support their view is commonplace. For example, try telling an Adventist about Matthew 25:46 without their immediate desire to jump to another passage. It is nearly impossible to hold them to one passage for even a few moments if they don't agree with it.
As I mentioned in another post, Adventism trivializes sin. They fail to grasp how serious sin is to God. The easy-fix of annihilationism is Satan's favorite choice for culminating a profane life. However, God will not allow annihilation, the rocks and mountains to fall on them, nor committing suicide to shield the ungodly from His divine wrath.
The SDA god doesn't have much wrath if any at all. They have created their own god and they plan to actually put him on trial. Their god is completely accountable to them; he is dependent upon their vindicating him to the universe. Furthermore, they set the standards and rules because their god is not generally referred to as being sovereign. When was the last time you heard an Adventist sermon using the word "sovereign" in it? Chances are very slim that you heard it more than once or twice.
Dennis Fischer |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4286
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 11:34 pm: | |
Grace, It took me over two years AFTER realizing that my spirit was not my breath and was the part of me that knows God to begin to "see" the concept of eternal punishment. I did pray a lot about it and study the subject, but truly, there's no need to worry about understanding it. As I've mentioned before, that subject didn't make sense to me even when we joined Trinity Church. God teaches us what we need to know in His time, and He is faithful. The bottom line for us is to be willing to know the truthóand God will teach us. Even so, He gives different people different insights and understandings of the same subject. That's OK!
But you can know this: the issue of eternal punishment is one that, I believe on the basis of my own experience and that of others I know, God will teach you in His way and in His time.
That being said, I'll just list a few things that were part of my grappling with it.
First, as Jeremy mentioned above, was the idea that the definition of "death" might be different from what I had always thought. I began to realize that "death" is never defined anywhere in the Bible as "ceasing to exist". Spiritual death is defined as being separated from Godóthis fact is why Jesus' "new and living way" opened by His body was vital. Without being immersed/washed by His blood, we would be eternally separatedóeternally dead. (see Hebrews 10:19-22; Ephesians 2:1-10)
Yet right now, we can see that we can be spiritually dead yet physically alive. And we can see from John 5:24; 2 Cor. 5, Phil 1:22-23, that we can be physically dead yet spiritually alive. We see in Ephesians 1:13-14 that we can be both physically and spiritually alive, and we see in Matthew 10:28 that a person can be dead both physically and spirituallyókilled, Jesus said, by the One (God) who can kill both body and soul in hell.
We know from having been physically alive and spiritually dead in our own lifetimes that spiritual death doesn't mean non-existence. We are born spiritually disconnected from God, yet God brought our spirits to life. They were deadóbut not non-existent. We pray for the unsaved because they are spiritually deadóbut their spirits are not non-existent. They have hope of life. Only if they permanently reject the call of Jesus and His truth do they lose the chance to be made aliveóand only God knows when a person has made that permanent rejection. Yet even then they do not cease to exist.
Another idea that helped me was realizing that speaking of hell as "fire" is undoubtedly descriptive, but it's limited because we are merely 3-dimensional and time-bound. Hell could well be in a "dimension", if you will, that we do not have access toóit's undoubtedly not going to be a three-dimensional, time-bound inferno.
Further, both old and new testaments identify God as a "consuming fire". We know from many texts that God is sovereign over everything, even evil. Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the Lord, do all these things."
Psalm 139:8 says, "If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths [Hebrew-sheol] you are there."
God IS EVERYWHERE. There is no place where He is notóand there is nothing He does not control. Even death. Even evil. He is Lord and Sovereign, and He has broken the power of sin and evil through Jesus' blood.
With this fact of God's onmipresence, He is sovereign over hell. It is not outside the scope of His presence and power. What greater suffering could there be than to be in a place where a person's spirit knew that God was there, so to speak, but it would be impossible to know Himóor to truly "know" anyone else because God's Spirit and Sacrifice were no longer accessible? To be in such a condition would be to existósomehow, somewhereóin the presence of the Consuming Fire and to be His enemy instead of His child.
Another thought that helped me was thinking about the implications of accepting Jesus' sacrifice: eternal life. The rejection of Jesus' sacrifice must have equally serious consequencesóbut of a negative nature. Annhilation is not the opposite of eternal life. Rejecting Jesus must have eternal consequences that are as serious as eternal life.
Finally, Jesus Himself (as well as many texts both in the Old and New Testaments) admonish us to "fear" God. Matthew 10:28, mentioned above, for example, has Jesus saying, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather be afraid of the One (note that One is God, not Satan) who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
I heard someone on the radio recently saying they looked up the original language for the word "fear" in reference to a text saying to "fear God". He found that in the original language, the word translated "fear" meantóFEAR! Imagine! I was taught that word did not literally mean "fear". It meant awe or respect.
Yet Jesus Himself said to fear God who can destroy both body and soul in hell. If we are in Christ, we have absolutely no need to fear God. We have been brought near through the blood of Christ; We are adopted as sons; we are God's glory along with Christ (Ephe 3:20-21). But if we are not in Christ, we absolutely have reason, ultimately, to fear Godóbecause He will deal with sin.
As long as we have physical life, God is working with us, drawing usóbut if we have rejected Him by the time of our deaths, our future IS fearsome.
When I began to see how great, how real is the fate Jesus saved me from, my astonishment and reverenece for Him and my gratitude increased even more. And understanding that our God is a consuming fire, that we should fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell, gives me a much more urgent response to Jesus' commission to go and make disciples.
God is so faithfulóand He has called and chosen us from the foundation of the earth! Jesus is all we need!
Colleen |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1860
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 11:56 pm: | |
Richard started something by posting that article above http://www.the-highway.com/articleMay05.html
I want to see the arguments that the respected Reformed scholar Philip Edgcumbe Hughes makes for annihilation. So I happened to find some used copies on-line and was able to order his book. I want to compare the arguments he makes to the ones that Morey or others make. As I said before, this is a topic that I have left alone, so Grace, I don't blame you for feeling the way you do on this topic. I don't believe you can be totally dogmatic on this topic. At least I want to study it more, before I comment further.
Stan |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1383
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 1:34 pm: | |
Grace,
When we were spiritually dead, our spirits were dead to God in sin. But at the same time, they were not non-existent--in fact they were alive to sin at the same time that they were dead to God. Now, we have died to sin and are alive to God. (See Ephesians 2:1-5, and Romans 6.) This is how our "old self" (or sinful nature) died. (Of course, we still have the sinful flesh to deal with).
As David Cloud points out in chapter 3 of his book Avoiding the Snare of Seventh-day Adventism: "Deuteronomy 2:30 is another example of this. Here we find God hardening the spirit of King Sihon. [...] Certainly none of these references could be construed to be speaking of the spirit as the breath."
Notice that King Sihon was unsaved--in other words he had a dead spirit, but his spirit still wasn't non-existent. A similar example of this can be found in 1 Chronicles 5:26.
Jesus' story in Luke 16:19-31 shows that even the unsaved dead are conscious.
2 Peter 2:4-9 (NIV) says:
quote:"For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)ó 9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment."
Also, 1 Peter 3:18-20 (NASB) says:
quote:"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water."
These passages speak of the current, temporary hell (Hades)--the holding place of the unsaved dead. Other passages of course speak of the eternal Lake of Fire (Gehenna), which the unsaved will be thrown into after the Great White Throne judgment. Revelation 20:14 and 21:8 both say that the Lake of Fire is the second death. In Revelation 22, the unsaved are spoken of as very much still existing:
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
15Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying." (Revelation 22:14-15 NASB.)
Also, Revelation 19:20 (NASB) says:
"And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone."
This is before the Millennium. Then, after one thousand years, Revelation 20:10 (NASB) tells us:
"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
The beast and the false prophet are still there in the lake of fire, after 1,000 years, and it says "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
Revelation 14:9-11 (the "third angel's message") also makes it clear:
quote:"Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,
10he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
11"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (NASB.)
Anyway, those are just some of the texts that deal with spiritual death, eternal hell, etc. Jesus had much to say on the subject of hell; in fact, I've heard it said that He talked more about hell than He did heaven.
Colleen wrote: "Another thought that helped me was thinking about the implications of accepting Jesus' sacrifice: eternal life. The rejection of Jesus' sacrifice must have equally serious consequencesóbut of a negative nature. Annhilation is not the opposite of eternal life. Rejecting Jesus must have eternal consequences that are as serious as eternal life."
Along similar lines are Jesus' own words: "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (Mark 3:29 NASB.)
An eternal sin requires eternal punishment.
As for Jesus, I don't believe that His spirit died, or else He would have had to have been born again/saved just like the rest of us. (Which is, incidentally, what those in the false Faith Movement actually do teach.) Also, it is just not Biblical considering the fact that Jesus is not only man but is also God. Jesus never had a dead spirit or a sinful nature.
Dennis,
That was a great post. Indeed, even Richard O'Ffill admitted to me on the revivalsermons.org forum last year that, based on this very issue of annihilationism, he worships a different "God" than I do.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on July 09, 2006) |
Doggy
Registered user
Username: Doggy
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 6:45 am: | |
Very thought provoking stuff here. Hannah and I have debated the two sides of the hell question before but never very seriously. Hell simply isn't a big deal to me because I know I won't be there. I imagine as time goes on it will concern me more as I consider it's implications for the lost. I was drawn to the love of Christ, not scared to Him by hell.
David |
Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom
Post Number: 134
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 9:24 am: | |
Thanks Colleen and Jeremy for the spirit clarification. That really helped. After going through the texts again, and thinking about it some more, I realized I wasn't getting it completely. I thought that ONLY when you're born again does your spirit become alive (and then exist), but for the unbelievers their spirit is dead (not only spiritually but physically too). They had breath (the essence of life), but their spirits were not really there. Now that I think about that, it makes absolutely no sense, and I can't figure out how I made that work in my head. I somehow formed this hybrid of Adventism vs. Bible truth ideology. That actually concerns me a bit about how that happened -- scary!! My confusion is probably one of the reasons I tend to avoid these topics -- it just didn't really make sense when I would think it out! So your posts, and restudying the texts on the spirit, DEFINITELY helped in sorting that out in my head.
I have some comments/questions about hell I want to post. When I get a chance, I'll do that. In the meantime, thanks for explanation.
Grace |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 2655
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 9:37 am: | |
I want to add my thanks on this discussion of the spirit. It really made it so much clearer to me.
Now I will ask a question. Explain hell/hades/grave/ eternal damnation?
Thanks.
Wow, I am always awed by God and how He provides for His children. He has given me all of you to help me grow.
Diana |
Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom
Post Number: 135
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 3:03 pm: | |
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:46 NASB.)
I guess I've always seen this verse as just as it says "eternal punishment" (without hope of having eternal life) and not necessarily "eternal punishing". I see it as a statement of it being a done deal. Just like eternal life is forever and a sealed fact, so is eternal punishment. Eternal punishment meaning it's completed and final (we can never be given eternal life), but not necessarily eternal suffering and on-going physical pain.
Now the verse: "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." Revelation 14:11
This does appear to imply an ongoing, forever and ever thing. But sometimes the Bible uses terms like forever and eternal and everlasting when it wasn't literally that (although the effects were). For instance, Jude 7 talks about Sodom and Gomorrah undergoing eternal fire, but itís not still burning today. Or Isaiah 34:8-10 describes Edomís destruction as "It will not be quenched night or day; it's smoke will go up forever" (verse 10) . Edom was destroyed, but it's smoke is not still "forever" right now. It burned until it was burned up. Just like Sodom and Gomorrah was burned until it burned up.
Now, I admit, I have a lot to learn in this area. It is not a subject I have touched on much outside of my Adventist teachings in it. Yesterday, I started to go through a concordance on the words spirit, death, life, hell, and punishment to see what I can learn in these areas. This will take a long time (there are a lot of verses within these subjects!).
I am thankful that I can now study these areas without fear and dread. By the way, Colleen, your description of hell really made an impression on me: "What greater suffering could there be than to be in a place where a person's spirit knew that God was there, so to speak, but it would be impossible to know Himóor to truly "know" anyone else because God's Spirit and Sacrifice were no longer accessible? To be in such a condition would be to existósomehow, somewhereóin the presence of the Consuming Fire and to be His enemy instead of His child." You're right, that would be great suffering! I never saw it that way before, and as an Adventist, I don't think it would have been as devastating to see it that way. But having experienced God, and knowing what that's like -- to not have it, or ever have hopes of having it (but yet knowing how wonderful it could be) would be HELL. Your post really impacted me, and reminded me and made me realize what my fate could have been (whether eternal or not, it still humbled me to know what "could have been" outside of Christ).
In a way, I'm thankful that as an Adventist I believed in annihilation. If I understood Hell the way most Christians believed it, combined with my inability to meet up to the "requirements" perfectly, I would have been even more of a mess! Whew! I'm thankful for Jesus and His truth. And I'm thankful I can now truly study this without fear, but with actual excitement at what God will reveal.
|
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1864
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 3:21 pm: | |
Here is an interesting Christianity Today article about the controversy over annihilationism and the traditional view. This is a balanced article that gives the various views, but then concludes clearly taking the traditional view.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/012/1.30.html
Stan |
Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom
Post Number: 136
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 3:26 pm: | |
By the way, the phrase "Fear God" always meant awe and respect to me too, not literally fear. I didn't like the idea of worshipping a God that caused "fear". But, as much as I hate thinking about the wrath of God, I do see it as a part of God now. By being in Christ we have no reason to fear God, but if we're not in Him, then we should very much be in fear (and that feeling is not only okay, but warranted and necessary!). I understand that more clearly now (just last night actually). I see now that to not appreciate God's wrath is to almost see God as weaker than He is. Part of worshipping and acknowledging God's power is acknowledging His judgment towards sin. As believers, it's not something we should be scared of, but it is something we need to take very seriously.
It's amazing how big God is. I've been learning so much about His love (the feel good stuff), and now I'm learning about His power and wrath. And although it's not necessarily the "feel good stuff", it makes me want to praise Him more for loving me and drawing me to Him so I don't have to fear my future. That assurance is so amazing to me! It makes me want to praise Him more! I would have never thought that studying Hell could bring a joyful reaction! |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1387
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 3:43 pm: | |
Stan,
Thanks for that link. I think it is sad that today there are "controversies" in the church over things that Christians have always held to strongly since the beginning of the church. Eternal hell is one of those teachings which has been taught by Christians starting with Jesus Christ and the apostles, the earliest church fathers, the Ante-Nicene fathers, up through the middle ages, the Reformation era, in Protestantism--for 2000 years the Christian Church has believed this doctrine and rejected any deviation from it. I just think it is sad that now some people are accepting the heresy of annihilationism as a valid teaching.
Anyway, I just glanced at that article, but I was very interested in this paragraph:
quote:Fudge and I recently coauthored Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Debate (InterVarsity, 2000). Fudge argues that Jesus was "destroyed" when he died on the cross. I inquire whether he means that Jesus' whole person was destroyed or just his human nature. Either answer has disastrous implications for Christology: either God is "destroyed" or Jesus' two natures are separable in a way that Chalcedon would have condemned. Edward becomes agitated in response, signaling, I think, that he recognizes the theological problem.
That is exactly what I have been trying to point out many times on this forum! The SDAs teach (including in their official belief book) that Jesus ceased to exist when He died--in other words, there was a point in time when Jesus Christ did not exist. That is a denial of His deity. Another consequence of this teaching is that the "resurrected" Christ is really just a new creation of God. In other words, the Jesus that died on the Cross no longer exists--if He ceased to exist, the "resurrection" would merely be a new creation of a "new" Jesus. It denies the Resurrection.
At the same time, they also teach the only other option (since EGW taught both, of course ;-))--that His "divinity" lived on and his humanity died. But this is Gnosticism and antichrist--separating his humanity and divinity and basically making him two persons. (Of course, they also teach this Gnostic teaching besides just at His death, as I talked about in this post.) This option also denies the resurrection of Christ, and makes the "human part" of Him a new creation--a different person.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on July 10, 2006) |
Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom
Post Number: 137
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 3:45 pm: | |
The more I think the more I want to write. Part of the thing that concerned me about Hell (actually most of the thing that concerned me about Hell) was my worry for those close to me who don't know Jesus. And of course, my concerns wouldn't be honest if I didn't include my issue with the whole fairness problem when you combine a punishing type of hell with predestination.
But again, over the past couple of days, I can even have peace about this. Understanding just how BIG God is, and how completely sovereign He is, and how much He absolutely loves us (even more than we love our family and friends), and knowing He's in control of EVERYTHING, makes my earlier issues with hell almost a non-issue for me now. It does make me have a deeper passion for sharing the gospel, but without the guilt or the fear of "what if I didn't do enough". I can rest assured that God is in control, and in everything. It's really out of our hands. We respond in obedience to Him by sharing His love and gospel to others, and then let the Holy Spirit do the work. If we've followed through on our part by being living sacrifices, we can in a sense, sit back and watch what He does. No matter the outcome, I don't see how we can't come away from being blessed by seeing His work play out in our lives this way.
Not much to do with Hell, but in a way, it's very much related for me. |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1865
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 3:57 pm: | |
Jeremy,
I agree with you about Fudge's view. However, when John Stott or Philip Hughes teach annihilation, they are not in the same camp as Fudge, who i believe is SDA. Stott and Hughes do believe in the doctrine of the human spirit, they just say that a person who is not regenerated or given a resurrected soul just doesn't survive eternally, and after a finite period of time of experiencing due punishment, then they are annihilated. But, after I read Hughes book, I will give a book report. I am only interested in seeing how these folks like Stott and Hughes, who are otherwise very solidly evangelical get around those texts of Jesus.
I do find it interesting, that even Dr. Talbot admits that at least Hughes gives credible arguments, and that Talbot believes that his view only has slightly more Biblical support than Hughes, But maybe this was just Dr. Talbot being charitable in his asessment of Hughes.
Stan |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1388
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 4:05 pm: | |
Stan,
I agree that there is a difference between the human spirit/death doctrine and annihilationism by itself. I just happened to also be commenting on the spirit/death teaching since it was mentioned in the CT article.
Jeremy |
Deadmanwalking
Registered user
Username: Deadmanwalking
Post Number: 21
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 4:48 pm: | |
I took the liberty of copying the following from a review of Fudgeís book. Unfortunately, the author remained anonymous so I can not give proper credit. I post it here because it I could have written it!
"Fudge goes to great lengths to make it clear that he is not a SDA nor has he ever been SDA. However, his book is basically a rehashing and condensation of LeRoy Froom's "The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers" Even better is, "Immortality or Resurrection?" by S. Bacchiochhi. However, like other books that promote this perspective, it doesn't directly deal/grapple/interact with the defenses of the traditional position that have been around for years and years. I'm now a "traditionalist" who used to hold to the view that Fudge's book attempts to defend, but after studying the issues from ALL perspectives I was forced to hold to the traditional understanding of Eternal Punishment (enduring torment) if I was going to be faithful to what the Scriptures ACTUALLY teach about hell and not what my preconceived notions would tell me "must be what the Bible has to mean". Our emotions can get in the way of exegesis and so we have to guard ourselves from interpreting the Bible from our own prejudices. If you really want to know the Biblical teaching on the subject of hell, I recommend that you do the research and get this book along with S. Bacchiocchi's and L. Froom's (if you can find this one) books and compare them with that champion the traditional view.
Master the positions on all sides, and I'm confident that by prayer and diligent study you will end up convinced like I am that the traditional view is correct."
I could not have stated the above better if Iíd written it myself.
Stan, I look forward to your thoughts after you read Hughes. My concern with what I know about both Stott and Hughes on this topic, as Iíve mentioned before, is their hermeneutic. Iíve not read his book but the articles Iíve seen by Hughes seem to rely on an Enlightenment Rationalism both on this and other topics. I was surprised to hear him referred to so charitably by Talbot. If you really like what Hughes has to say, let me know!
Soli Deo Gloria,
Richard |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4296
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 5:26 pm: | |
Interesting article, Stan.
Grace, I understand what you're saying. When I began to realize that there is reason to actually fear God if one is not in Him, when I began to realize that His justice is eternal, just as is His mercy, and when I began to realize that hell was probably more significant (and eternal!) than I had previously realized, I also began to develop such a sense of relief and awe and security.
It's hard to explain, but finally realizing that God's justice and wrath are as much a part of Him as are His mercy and grace made me feel more reverence for Him, and more gratitutde and amazement at His reaching to me and saving me!
All I can really say about it all is by way of contrast: as an Adventist, I did not have an understanding of God that elicited feelings of security and reverence; awe and joy, gratitude and worship. Coming to "embrace" a doctrine of hell that included real and eternal punishment actually made me feel more safe and more joyful than did my annihilationist understanding.
Can't quite explain it, but it's been profound!
Colleen
|
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 788
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 8:19 pm: | |
BOOK RECOMMENDATION:
TWO VIEWS OF HELL by Edward William Fudge & Robert A. Peterson; InterVarsity Press, Downer's Grove, Illinois; Copyright 2000.
Richard,
When my wife Sylvia and I grappled with this topic several years ago, we read and studied both sides carefully. The above-mentioned book, among others, was very helpful in assessing both views. In regard to the late L. E. Froom, I consider his research very faulty and even dishonest. If he hadn't tried so hard to be right, he would have been more credible.
Above all, the Bible provided us with a clear understanding. If we don't get Genesis right, with it portraying the dualistic nature of man, the whole Bible becomes very confusing in regard to its Christological and soteriological aspects. The bottom line for us was that traditionalism, not conditionalism, coheres well with the other essential teachings of the Christian faith. Suddenly, we were able to see the BIG PICTURE.
Dennis Fischer |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 160
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 12:40 am: | |
[Popping back in ever-so-briefly...]
Jeremy, you wrote---
quote:That is exactly what I have been trying to point out many times on this forum! The SDAs teach (including in their official belief book) that Jesus ceased to exist when He died--in other words, there was a point in time when Jesus Christ did not exist. That is a denial of His deity. Another consequence of this teaching is that the "resurrected" Christ is really just a new creation of God. In other words, the Jesus that died on the Cross no longer exists--if He ceased to exist, the "resurrection" would merely be a new creation of a "new" Jesus. It denies the Resurrection.
At the same time, they also teach the only other option (since EGW taught both, of course ;-))--that His "divinity" lived on and his humanity died. But this is Gnosticism and antichrist--separating his humanity and divinity and basically making him two persons. (Of course, they also teach this Gnostic teaching besides just at His death, as I talked about in this post.) This option also denies the resurrection of Christ, and makes the "human part" of Him a new creation--a different person.
I don't know how quite to explain it, but I think this is splitting things a bit too far. For example (and please don't let this sidetrack your present discussion here), Calvin taught limited atonement, but the Bible has verses which clearly speak of full atonement. Maintaining a strict and very detailed explanatory view in his case meant that he had to either ignore certain texts, or explain them in such a way as to maintain his theory. We all do this, but as I wrote in this post, I think that when we feel we must figure out a smooth & detailed explanation, we end up having to discard certain texts, and in so doing we miss out on something wonderful, even if it is paradoxical. (Again this is just an example... if you disagree on Calvin's idea, please go to that linked thread and we'll discuss it there... I don't want to carry folks off topic).
In a similar way, I don't think it's good to break down "resurrection" and "death" too much. What I mean is that "resurrection" means life from death. Something was dead, and it has been brought back to life. The detailed explanation you spoke of seems to argue that there can be no resurrection if there is true death---death can only be partial, because what is totally dead cannot be resurrected (then it would be re-creation, you argue). While this makes sense, at the same time, if we instead allow the words to mean what they say (death, resurrection), the incredible awe of God and impact of what He is capable of comes to light. In other words, He is God---He can do it. Because He is God, He can bring life back from death. The view you wrote of might seem to limit what God is able to do because it focuses rather on our own souls, implying that once they totally die, they cannot be brought back even by God.
Of course, we could get crazy and ask if God can bring back something that He has destroyed---it's the old semi-joking question, "Can God make a hot dog so big that He can't eat it?" But we don't have to go there, because "death" is not always a judgment from God. Still, we'll find ourselves splitting theological hairs asking "how much" of death is "death", how "dead" the "dead" really are... and I think when we go into that kind of territory, we lose sight of God.
[...Popping back out]
(God bless you all!) |
U2bsda
Registered user
Username: U2bsda
Post Number: 21
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 9:46 am: | |
The whole issue of soul-sleep became clear to me when I understood that "spirt" didn't mean breath of life. I understand why SDAs believe that they must be perfect if they do not have a spirit. My spirit was recreated and made perfect by the blood of Jesus and my body is now a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit who is the convictor of all truth. An SDA believes that Jesus covers their sins and enables them to be holy. If they don't keep confessing their sin they are at risk of eternal peril. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4303
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 5:58 pm: | |
U2ósame for me. Understanding that the spirit isn't the "breath of life" literally and only has made all the difference!
Colleen |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1876
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 12:45 pm: | |
Ramone,
Since you brought up the Calvinist argument in your above post, I cannot resist but post an article that I just ran across that very honestly deals with the paradoxes of scripture regarding election and free-will. The Bible teaches both human responsibility for choices
made as well as God's sovereignty. This article is excellent in forcing both sides of the argument to examine all texts related to this subject. In other words, the Calvinist cannot ignore verses that seem to teach that man makes choices, and the Arminians cannot ignore the texts that teach God is sovereign. Anyway, this is one of the best articles I have seen on this subject, and deals with the apparent paradox in a Biblical way. Here is the link:
http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/CalvinismArminianism.htm Here is an excerpt:
Who Gets the Credit for
Your Decision for Christ:
The Evangelist, You or God?
How to Evangelize with Confidence
In God's Power to Change Sinners
By Greg Gibson
Two identical twins visit the same church service. They hear the same gospel message. One twin believes on Christ, is baptized, and follows Him. The other twin scoffs at the gospel, and continues in unbelief and sin.
Why did one twin receive Christ, but the other reject Him? (cf. Jacob & Esau, Rom. 9:11-13.) Who gets the credit for the one twin's decision: The evangelist, the hearer, or God? Or, to ask the question another way, who made the difference in conversion: The evangelist, the hearer, or God? Read more by clicking on the link.
There is also an interesting section showing how the Roman Catholic Council of Trent not only pronounced anathema on Luther and Calvin for the doctrine of Justification by faith alone, but this same council also pronounced anathema on these and other Reformers, and all who hold the doctrine that God is the sole agent in salvation. Ellen White, and many evangelical churches, have also condemned this doctrine of the Reformers:
Many Protestants Believe the
Jesuit-Romanist View of Free Will
(The Roman Catholic Council of Trent, The Sixth Session: Justification)
Canon IV. If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, no-wise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema." Canon V. If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema."
These are strong statements against the Reformed faith made by the RCC, but similar statements have been made in evangelical churches, and say nothing of what the Maxwellian SDAs are saying about this doctrine on HS.
Stan
|
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 169
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 5:55 pm: | |
Hi Stan---
Thanks for the article. Let's move responses about this back to the "Calvinism" thread.
Dealing with predestination is a good example, as you noted, of ignoring some texts in order to maintain a belief system---which is what I cited the Calvinist limited atonement as an example of. Since I picked that belief, it's only fair that you mentioned another one that Calvin attempted to deal with more squarely than some others.
The point I attempted to make, however, is easily lost if one is passionate about Calvinism (and if one has to sort their way through my own inadequate explanations!). Calvin's belief was just one example of what we all do---we want to make a detailed systematic theology that explains nearly everything, and in so doing, we ignore things that are obvious.
So let's call it even (for the sake of this thread and what everyone else was discussing) and let's move our responses back to the Calvinism thread.
I brought the example up in response to a detailed picking apart of which parts of Jesus actually died on the Cross and which parts didn't, and which parts were resurrected and which parts of Him continued living. I sought a return to the simple and powerful force behind the simple words of Scripture. Also, I suggested that God is God, and that perhaps our focus on weakening the meaning of "death" suggests that we may not believe it's possible for Him to resurrect what has died. (The body seems to be something we allow that He can resurrect, but if the soul is said to be resurrected, we could have problems letting God be able to do that, perhaps because it might be beyond Him?)
--Ramone |
|
