| Author | Message | ||
| Deadmanwalking Registered user Username: Deadmanwalking Post Number: 17 Registered: 4-2006  |
I hope I'm not repeating something here that has already been discussed, but I just ran across this excellent article by Mark Talbot on "The Morality of Everlasting Punishment" http://www.the-highway.com/articleMay05.html In the article he quotes, ìthat, historically, annihilationism has gone hand in hand with a denial of Jesusí deity.î When I read that I blinked and a light came on, Early Adventism embraced both doctrines, indeed "they go hand in hand." Soli Deo Gloria, Richard | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 148 Registered: 10-2002  |
Dennis--- Thanks for all your quotes & searches! But again, we're not talking about annihilationism (yet).  | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 149 Registered: 10-2002 |
Wow, much to read... will do when I get home tonight or tomorrow. Blessings to all! | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 782 Registered: 4-2000  |
Richard, Dr. Talbot's exposition is outstanding and biblical. Annihilationism clearly trivializes sin. The so-called "mercy theologians" are actually most merciless because they cause people to underestimate the sufferings of hell. For example, the Greek word "aionios," as found in Matthew 25:46, demonstrates the truth that "aionios" means an unending condition for one class as much as for the other. The parallelism in this passage is too obvious to miss. Indeed, we can trust the words of Jesus. Thanks for sharing the link with us. In awe of His grace, Dennis Fischer | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1848 Registered: 3-2005 |
I second what Dennis said about that article, Richard. Here is an excerpt from the first paragraph: At the Last Judgment will those whose sins remain uncovered by the blood of Christ depart from His presence to suffer unending conscious torment? Recently, this doctrine of everlasting punishment has been questioned even by so thoroughly Reformed a theologian as Philip Edgcumbe Hughes and so staunchly evangelical a churchman as John R.W. Stott. In its place they propose putting the doctrine that the wicked will ultimately be annihilatedóthat Scriptureís remarks about the ìsecond deathî are properly interpreted as meaning that those not saved through Christ will ultimately cease to exist. They, along with a growing number of others, hold that this alternative to the traditional doctrine is scripturally defensible. As Stott puts it, while he holds his position tentatively, he believes that ìthe ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to [the traditional evangelical belief in] eternal conscious torment.î1 John Stott was recently a welcome guest at LLU SDA church. He lends credibility to the doctrine of annihilationism. While, I don't agree with Joh Stott, and others on this, at least it seems that this should not be a doctrine that divides true Christians when it comes to fellowship. Or would you disagree with this? Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4270 Registered: 12-2003  |
Interesting question, Stan. I've come to believe, as Dennis has suggested, that the doctrine of eternal punishment is really as essential as the other core doctrines of Christianity. (BTW, interesting observation, Richard!) I do believe, however, that there are circumstances in which we can be less dogmatic about this belief than others. I'll give an example. When we were joining our church, we could affirm all the points of the doctrinal statement except eternal hell. We were stuck on that one, and we just couldn't see it as mandatory. We went to our pastor, and when we said we had just one problem, he looked at us and said, "Hell, right?" (He already understood former Adventists!) Then he told us that because of our particular background, we would not be kept from membership because of this doctrine. If we had been coming into Christianity from a non-Christian background, he stressed, they would not make this exception because it would signify a refusal to acknowledge God's justice. What Gary understood was that we had been taught the Bible with a "twist", and he had encountered enough "formers" to know that when they found Jesus and risked enough to join a Sunday church, they really knew Jesus. He knew that we were not negating God's justice, and that we would learn more as we encountered good Bible teaching. The interesting thing is that within a year, without our hearing anything about hell at church (although we did hear sermons discussing it later), Richard and I both came to see the Bible really teaches eternal punishment. We came to this by praying to know the truth and pursuing inductive studies about the subject on our own. I do believe that this doctrine is serious enough to warrant division, because annhilation negates the existence of the human spirit separate from the body. In Christ-followers, the living spirit is our new connection to God, and it is our current experience with eternal life. Conversely, annhilation negates the existence of a spirit dead in sin which is separate from the flesh. If there is no living spirit eternally connected with Godóor if there is no separate spirit in mankindóthen sin is physical, not spiritual, and we really SHOULD be able to overcome sin by discipline. Further, if there is no living spirit, then Jesus was not different from us, and He must have inherited sin in his flesh and been a sinner just like us. If believing in Jesus is eternally significant enough to result in eternal life, rejecting Him has to yield equally serious but opposite results. Annhilation is not the opposite of eternal life. Annihilation is a serious heresy, in my opinion. But I am willing to be gentle with former Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses because they truly were taught this subject in a way that requires time to "undo". God is faithful; He teaches us Himself when we belong to Him. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1376 Registered: 10-2004  |
Stan, I agree with Colleen that it is serious enough to warrant division. I see it as an essential Christian doctrine, as has the Christian church throughout the centuries. There is no reason for the church to get soft on this point now. I see annihilationism as being just about the same as saying that there is no judgment, no punishment, no hell. As the Christian talking to Justin Martyr said (in a different context) in the quote posted above by Jeremiah, "they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment." No, eternal hell is not something which is optional in Christian doctrine. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on July 06, 2006) | ||
| Lori Registered user Username: Lori Post Number: 47 Registered: 11-1999 |
Isaiah 14:9-11 concerns the death of Belshazzar in 539, "The grave below is all astir to meet you at your coming; it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you--all those who were leaders in the world; it makes them rise from their thrones--all those who were kings over nations. They will all respond, they will say to you, 'You also have become weak, as we are; you have become like us.' All your pomp has been brought down to the grave, along with the noise of your harps; maggots are spread out beneath you and worms cover you." How does the grave below stir to meet Belshazzar at his coming and how do the spirits rouse to greet him if they have been annihilated??? How do they respond to him and say, "you also have become like us...." if they have no conscious thought??? This text certainly supports the NT story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. | ||
| Lori Registered user Username: Lori Post Number: 48 Registered: 11-1999 |
Ramone, Concerning 2 Cor. 5:9,10, I see these more as a affirmation to the Corinthians of the confidence they can have in Christ. They can be confident of Him in life and also confident in Him in death. The Greek word <philotimeomia> in verse 9 means we consider it an honor to be accepted by Him. We will be "accepted" in Christ whether we are at home in the boday or away from it. I don't know what your understanding of the judgment seat of Christ is, however, this is the key to understanding this text. In 1 Cor. 3:12-15 Paul had addressed the rewards which would be received by believers...in 2 Cor 5:10 he speaks again to believers telling them "each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good (gold, silver, costly stones) or bad (wood, hay, straw). At the judgment seat of Christ believers will become acutely aware of what they have done in their time on earth to "please God". Some will walk away with virtually nothing (everything they did was human good) and others will have "treasure in heaven" (rewards received because they did divine good while in the body). The confidence is this: regardless of what we "have as reward" in heaven for what we have done "in the body" we can have confidence in Christ because he provided us an earthly tent and he also has waiting for us a heavenly dwelling because regardless of what we "do" Christ's love for us never changes. We will always be accepted by (pleasing to) Him. Lori | ||
| Lori Registered user Username: Lori Post Number: 49 Registered: 11-1999 |
Ramone, I went back to read your post #130. You mentioned 1 Thes. 4:13....the Thessalonians thought that only those who were alive would resurrected. Paul was telling them, "I don't want you to ignorant about those who have fallen asleep"....they won't miss out on the resurrection!!!! Verse 14 "God will bring WITH JESUS those who have fallen asleep". Did you get that? God is going to BRING WITH JESUS those who have fallen asleep. Verse 16 says, the dead in Christ will rise first. How can they be brought WITH JESUS and also RISE FIRST? The spirit which can not die is WITH JESUS. We have eternal life, right here, right now. I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. John 5:24 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. John 6:48 I give them eternal life and they shall never perish... John 10:28 He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this? John 11:25,26 The body which is perishable is asleep. 1 Cor. 15 and on talks about the resurrection body. Verse 42 says, "the body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable" The body Christ had after his resurrection was different from the body which was sown. He "apparated" through walls when he appeared to the disciplines and again on damascus road. He told Mary not to "touch" him because he had not yet ascended to his Father. Mary could only touch his "body"....the spirit can not be touched. His spirit had already been committed to God but his body had not ascended yet. In regard to Abrahams Bosom: 1 Cor. 15:20 Christ was the first fruits of those who had fallen asleep. No one could go to heaven before Christ. The issue of sin had not be resolved. The debt had not been paid. Christ died two deaths on the cross. A spiritual death and a physical death. 1st death; Spiritual death: He was separated from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit while he bore our sins in his body. It is at this point that he cries out, "My God (the Father), My God (the Holy Spirit) why have you forsaken me." 2nd Death; Physical death: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. When he said this he breathed his last" (His spirit was committed to God; his body "slept" in the grave until as 1 Cor. 15 states "the body that is sown...perishable is raised imperishable"). Another text on the separation of body and spirit...Phil 1:21 "For to me, to live is Christ and TO DIE IS GAIN. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far (death is gain) but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body." I hope you find some of this helpful....Lori | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 153 Registered: 10-2002 |
I started this thread on the topic of "Immortality of the Soul vs. Resurrection of the Dead", so I want to politely skip the "annihilation" stuff with one exception... Colleen, you said that the doctrine of annihilation was one that is serious enough to "warrant division", yet your pastor did not "divide" you and Richard from joining them. Rather, he knew something of your background and he accepted you (instead of rejecting you). He followed what Paul wrote in Philippians 3--- "All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained." The model of what your pastor did, Colleen, speaks volumes. It suggests that we should seek to understand one another before we reject and label one another based on doctrines. It also suggests that knowing Christ is paramount. Adventists believe in punishment, but a different kind than other Christians do. The important point, your pastor decided, was admitting God's justice---and hence, our need for grace, our need for Christ. Now that we have received grace from people like your pastor, shall we in turn erect a wall of division instead of following the example of grace? I have the utmost respect for everyone here and all the different things we've all been brought out of, all the pains, all the wounds, and all the healings and greatest of all the rest we have in Jesus Christ. Yet I would cautiously protest that we are all too trigger-happy when labeling people and beliefs "cultic" or "heresy", when we say that something is "the worst" or "most damaging" teaching of Adventism, etc. I fear that in our excitement at uncovering truth and discovering error, we are in danger of losing sight of the gospel of God's grace by focusing elsewhere. Yes, we easily tie it all together and say this affects this, that affects that, and so we mathematically bring it back to the central point. But when I try to do that, I feel like I'm kidding myself. The presence of God, the utter force of His grace, is something far different from picking apart doctrines about (for example) whether we're conscious after we die or not. I've realized this for myself as I've been discussing things in this particular thread (as well as in others). I've missed God's presence by focusing on these things, and I fear I may need to take a break soon. I don't pin this on others, but on myself. Part of me wants to keep discussing, because it seems I'm on the verge of something, and part of me wants to continue going so it doesn't seem like I stopped because I could answer no futher. But the hunger for God is welling up and will soon (I pray) overshadow my hunger for things about God. In another thread, you wondered why some people are becoming more silent here. I think that many of us have learned a great deal of things, and it's become easy for us to passionately (and even divisively) discuss many beliefs & doctrines, etc. But if we're not careful, we can become experts at discussing "grace" and yet lose the ability to show grace in our conversation. It's possible to discuss things about grace and yet we may not know grace. I feel worst of all in this respect, and I beg the pardon of everyone here because I don't want to point fingers, and more than that, I don't think I can. But this is simply what's happening inside of me as I talk about these things here. I pray that in some way my sharing this will help, and I beg your forgiveness if I offended you in any way. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 154 Registered: 10-2002 |
All--- I do want to answer and search these things out, but because of things (mentioned in my last post) in myself, I think it's probably best for me to abandon this one for now. Thank you so much for all your comments---especially the ones of your personal experiences. In love and in Christ, Ramone | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 155 Registered: 10-2002 |
No, I need to be more honest about this: I have to let this thread go for now because I miss God's presence, and I can't pretend that this has all been "discussion" and not "argument"... I don't know how it's been for others, but in myself it's felt that way at times, and it's seemed that way from others. In order to engage in that, you have to entrench yourself in a position, and though I've tried not to do that, it nevertheless feels like that, not only in myself, but also from others. Please forgive me for ducking out at this point and not giving you much a chance to respond. For me it's come to a crux in the last few days, though. First, I spend too much time on here... I need to spend more time with my wife. But more glaringly, I need to spend more time with God. I'm getting hungry for Him. I know someone will challenge what I've written in these last three posts, talking about the seriousness of "ignoring" doctrines, etc. I trust that you'll understand I've ranked some doctrines above others----Christ and the New Covenant being chief, and matters such as the state of the dead being of lesser importance. For some, this ranking may sound like heresy, and they may question what I mean by being hungry for God and needing to spend time with Him. I can't take the time to explain that, largely because I don't know how to, and I trust that the one who is drawing me with hunger for Him will be able to explain the difference between lesser doctrines & His presence much better than I can. In Him, Ramone | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1850 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ramone, I am with you on this issue. I am impressed enough by men like John Stott, and now some other responsible scholars, and BTW, John Stott is respected and quoted by other authors who disagree with him on this issue. But when good men differ on points such as these, I would tend to err on the side of caution and grace before breaking fellowship over this issue. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4274 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ramone, I completely understand. And please don't hear me saying we should divide with true believers over these issues. My point, actually, was that where we come from affects how we understand thingsóand God teaches us according to His will and His timing. When I said it was a point of division, I didn't make myself clear at all. I was actually picturing the "Big Picture" of false doctrine as opposed to the gospel of Jesus. I believe that God's justice is an issue that in the sweep of Christian history and growth is one that must be understood. That aside, I do believe that those who have been tuaght to understand God's justice and the state of man in death one wayócan truly be left alone with it until or unless God begins to teach them further. As long as they are embracing Jesus and growing in Him, we can totally trust Him to teach them. It's just that on a theoretical level (ieó"liberal" Christianity vs. "fundamentalism" vs. "false gospels", etc.) I think it's important to take a stand on God's justice. As far as other Christ-followers, howeveróI would not think of dividing with them. Gary's distinction makes sense to me: because of where we came from, the issue was less than essential. If, however, we had come from a non-Christian background to a belief in Jesus, the issue would have been important. I hope this clarifies what I meant! I so enjoy your thoughtful and Christ-centered insights! He truly is the clarifier of doctrine. If we are committed to Him, He teaches usóand no argument defending "truth" is necessary. He embodies truth. Colleen | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 219 Registered: 12-2004 |
Ramone, Peace to you, and remember your thoughtful conversation is always welcome and appreciated here. Enjoy your time with God and reconnect with your wife. That is a take home message that would do me good as well. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1852 Registered: 3-2005 |
I'd like to go back to that article Richard posted above by Dr. Mark Talbot. While Dr. Talbot argues well for eternal punishment, and I agree that the Biblical evidence on the whole supports this doctrine, it should be noted that Dr. Talbot also has a spirit of charitability to those who differ with him. There is no spirit of dividing with his Reformed brother Philip Hughes, but there is a good spirit of debate. Here is an example from his article: Theologically, a lot hangs on whether our sins merit everlasting punishment, including part of the answer to the question why only God incarnate could make adequate atonement for our sins. Yet the exegetical considerations advanced by Stott, Hughes, and others against the traditional doctrine are not so far-fetched that they can be rejected out of hand.6 A convincing defense of the traditional doctrine needs, then, to address the sorts of wider considerations that have prompted sincere believers like Stott and Hughes to depart from the plain meaning of the biblical texts. I do that here by arguing that the never-ending torment of the impenitent is moral in the sense of serving a just and proper end." Then if you go to the author's footnote number 6 listed above, you find Dr. Talbot saying: "In my judgment, the exegetical considerations supporting the traditional doctrine are somewhat better than those against it." See, for instance, Kendall S. Harmon, ìThe Case Against Conditionalism: A response to Edward William Fudge,î in Cameron, ed., op. cit." So, if even an author who is making a good case for eternal punishment, can show enough grace to say that the exegetical considerations are only somewhat better for his position than those who disagree with him, then I can hardly see an argument for dividing with other Christians over this issue. I have to admit, that this is a doctrine that I have not studied very thoroughly. Many others on here have spent more time on this than I have. From scriptural evidence, I could argue both ways,but the weight of the evidence supports eternal punishment. But that article above has piqued my curiosity to study this issue more, and I would like to read why John Stott and Philip Hughes changed their minds on this. Stan | ||
| Deadmanwalking Registered user Username: Deadmanwalking Post Number: 18 Registered: 4-2006 |
A couple of things: Ramone, I hope your still here. I want to encourage you to continue to wrestle with these doctrinal issues. The importance of right doctrine is that the Beauty and Glory of Christ is more clearly seen and He becomes more precious to me the more clearly I see Him. The old saints declared that the purpose of EVERYTHING is to more clearly reveal the attributes of God. Right doctrine provides me with the window through which I see and experience Him. I am thoroughly persuaded that right doctrine defines and explains the Truth revealed in the Word of God. This Absolute Truth is not variable, it not only coheres with eternal reality it is eternal reality (1st. chapter of the Gospel of John). Doctrine could be described as human understanding or knowledge of that Truth. As such it will always fall short, but that does not mean that I should cease from my struggle to more closely apprehend Truth. In fact, the more I apprehend of the Beauty of God through the face of Jesus, the hungrier I get for more of His presence. As I strain to see Him more clearly, I reach up to wipe the glass I'm looking through or I move to another window to see from that vantage point, and the more I see the more I want to see! Right doctrine is the means through which I come into His presence. I cannot separate doctrine from God's presence! Secondly, John Stott has been very honest in his move toward annihilationism. He clearly states that he found the idea of eternal hell to be emotionally unbearable. Hughesís objections seem to be more rationally constructed. I think Mark Talbot chose those two individuals because they represent the two primary motivations toward a doctrine of annihilation. While I commend Stott for searching the Scriptures to rest his doctrine upon, I challenge his and Hughesís method. 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! This is the very error of Adventist hermeneutics! Soli Deo Gloria, Richard | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1855 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree Richard about your take on SDA hermeneutics. The doctrine of an eternal hell is so difficult to comprehend because of the finite amount of time a person lives on earth. I used to think that the traditional SDA doctrine of hell, where a person suffers in the lake of fire in direct proportion to the heinousness of crimes committed made perfect sense in justice. So, if a person believes that there is terrible retribution for sin, and the amount of time of suffering may be for a very long period of time, which seems to be Stott's position, then I would have a hard time necessarily labeling them a heretic. But liberal SDAism such as what some here have seen on another forum recently, where there is no literal suffering or punishment of any kind, and you just die, then that kind of anhilationism would be heretical, and contradicts everythin the Bible teaches about judgment and the wrath of God. Then I would not fellowship with that group. BTW, Richard, are you familiar with how Philip Hughes, our reformed brother, constructs his arguments on this? Stan | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 40 Registered: 6-2006  |
I'm curious, The belief in anhilationism - is this a doctrine Adventists have (as well as JWs) because of the lack of assurance of Salvation? Are Adventists so afraid about their own Salvation (or the salvation of loved ones) so much that they can't bear the idea of eternal punishment, just in case? Trying to understand, Leigh Anne |
