Condensed Suffering Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 5 » Condensed Suffering « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through October 05, 2006Melissa14 10-05-06  7:47 pm
Archive through October 07, 2006Jeremy20 10-07-06  11:47 am
Archive through October 11, 2006Riverfonz20 10-11-06  3:09 pm
Archive through October 15, 2006Melissa20 10-15-06  5:44 pm
Archive through October 18, 2006Riverfonz20 10-18-06  10:53 pm
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4807
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 7:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I respect their approachesóbut I don't personally find them totally convincing. I believe the issue of eternal punishment is still mostly a mystery which has not been revealed.

I personally find the arguments for annhilation less than convincing in view of the eternal nature of God's justice, the seriousness of rejecting the Sin Bearer, and the statements of Jesus.

I won't be devastated if annhilation turns out to be the reality of the mystery, but I don't see annhilation in view in the Bible. I don't see this as a point of division, however.

I respect Bruce and Stott and Hughes, but I do not find their arguments totally convincing. I believe that part of the mystery of hell will be that it deals with dimensions to which we have no access. From our limited persepctive, "fire" and "burning" are the best ways we can grasp the suffering. In reality, however, it seems likely that hell is something we cannot understand or explain because of our temporal limitations.

I suspect the flames of hell are no more literal than the streets of heaven are actual gold as we know gold, or that the pearls that are the gates of the New Jerusalem are literal pearls as we know them. Undoubtedly hell is far worse than we can imagine, but I don't think that our temporal knowledge of "fire" can be expected to explain the nature of hell.

Colleen
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1556
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 2:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Stan,

Thanks for your comments--I appreciate them. I have not always wanted to keep replying to this thread, but have felt compelled to do so.


quote:

...but what you have to ask yourself is this: Why would F.F. Bruce...




I don't believe that I have to ask myself anything about F.F. Bruce. All we have to ask ourselves is: What does the Bible teach?

But Stan, don't you at least see a problem with Stott saying that he does not believe that "fire" can indicate being "tormented forever"--when those are the very words of Scripture that he's using, and he's saying that they are wrong? Don't you at least have a problem with that??


quote:

I will take my chances on the idea that if their is reasonable disagreement and a benefit of doubt, then I will side with God's mercy.




But that's the thing. In Hebrews 10, it makes it clear that even under the Law of Moses they died "without mercy" and that the unsaved will suffer much more severe punishment. They don't receive or experience God's mercy at all. Revelation 14 says that they experience God's wrath "mixed in full strength." It is pure wrath--not mixed with love or mercy.

I know, I used to use that argument about God's mercy, too, arguing that a merciful God would not torment sinners forever. But mercy means not getting what you deserve. But that does not happen for those who reject Christ. They do get exactly what they deserve--meaning they get no mercy. They get the full and unmixed pure wrath of God. And this is so important to not try to water down God's wrath with mercy or love. In fact, it is a denial of God's wrath. If it is not pure wrath, then it is not wrath at all.

If God can show mercy to the lost (meaning they don't get what they deserve), then Jesus did not need to die for us at all! He could have just given us "mercy" without justice. Or if Jesus had only suffered some of the penalty, but the rest was just forgiven by mercy--then God would not be just.

So to try to add in mercy for the unsaved, would be to do away with God's justice and His wrath. But the Bible says that the unsaved do not receive mercy.

This is why it is so important for us to evangelize and share the Gospel with our loved ones, and others.


quote:

His death on the cross I believe conquered death forever, and all his enemies will be put under His feet. We will live in a New Heavens and a New earth where death will be no more. As this verse in Colossians 1 says:

"He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."

If there is an ever burning place of fiery torture, then Christ's victory on the cross would not be complete.




Now it sounds like you are using the SDA Great Controversy scenario arguments. Please see this post of mine that addresses those type of arguments about Christ's victory: http://rtinker.powweb.com/discus/discus/messages/11/4764.html#POST62026 In short, Jesus did not need to "conquer" or "gain the victory over" death or sin on the cross--He has always been in control of both. He is the Sovereign God of the universe. He conquered death on behalf of those who would trust in Him.


quote:

Why is not a finite time of severe punishment even for days or weeks or months for those deserving sufficient punishment?




Because to reject Jesus is an eternal sin--not a finite sin, according to Jesus (Mark 2:29).

Also, if the wicked are annihilated, then it's as if they were never punished at all. They won't even know they were punished.

Also, Jesus says: "The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." (Matthew 26:24 NASB.)

But if he is going to be annihilated, then it will be as if he had not been born!

Also, if the penalty for sin is, as you say, "a finite time of severe punishment even for days or weeks or months"--then after that penalty has been paid, wouldn't God be obligated to take the wicked into heaven (universalism)?

And if any of us could pay the penalty for our sins, then Jesus did not need to die!

Jeremy

(Message edited by jeremy on October 19, 2006)
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 353
Registered: 7-2005


Posted on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 2:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I believe that Stott and the other annihlationists had not studied the subject using good rules of hermeneutic. They need to analyze the texts in a larger context, the historical and cultural context. The ambiguity disappears when the historical and cultural context of the NT writings about eternal punishment is acknowledge.

The ambiguity comes from the fact that the Bible, especially when it discloses information about afterlife, it uses figurative language, and these figures of speech may allow different interpretations when someone doesnít know the historical and cultural context.

I will borrow from DePinho testimony about ìshut doorî posted on this site. He says

quote:

Now let's clarify by using a simple example. If I were to hold out my hand and say to you, "Slap me five!" or similarly, if I held my hand up and said, "High Five!" any American living today would understand what I meant because my words would be in today's jargon. The person I said it to would slap my hand signifying excitement and agreement. The culture knows what those phrases mean. It was just so in EGW's time. A "High Five" would not be understood in her time, 150 years ago, and likewise we don't understand the "Shut Door" without a little background. But now that we have the background, the conclusion is impossible to miss.




The same is true with those words that Jesus and apostles used when they talked about afterlife. The culture knows what those phrases mean.

It is recognized today that the jews who lived in the time of Christ believed in the eternal punishment. The well known historian Josephus Flavius writes that only the Sadducees denied the eternal punishment. The inter-testamental rabbinical literature is borrowing from the figurative language of OT descriptions of final punishment.

For example, in the book of Judith we have the following


quote:

Woe to the nations that rise up against my Kindred! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment, in putting fire and worms in their flesh; and they shall feel them and weep forever ( 16:17)




Weeping forever means obviously conscious unending suffering, and fire and worms are expressions taken from Isa. 66:24 The fire and worms do not annihilate the wicked but torment them forever. Whatís interesting is that Jesus used the same images, like weeping (Matthew 8:11-12) and worms and fire, which for the jews represented eternal torment. His words were spoken in a context when they mean eternal, conscious punishment. Jesus lived in a society when belief in a conscious eternal punishment and suffering was universal, with the exception of Sadducees, all jews rejected annihilationism. If He wanted to teach annihilationism, He failed, because He used the figurative language of eternal punishment, understood by all the jews as meaning eternal conscious suffering.

Stott also introduces his expectations in the interpretation. Indeed we expect things to be consumed when they are in fire, but also Moses expected this. But, sadly, the bush did not burn up (Ex. 3:2) to meet and confirm his expectation.
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4810
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 6:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jackob, that is a very interesting point you made about the burning bush Moses saw not burning up. And Jeremy, I also appreciated your point about God's mercy being for those who accept Jesus. His mercy is summarized in Jesus and in the Father's gift of the Son. That God would heal the rift of sin and restore ruined humanity to Himself is astonishing.

God's mercy is immeasurableóand so is His wrath against sin and those who remain outside His mercy in Christ.

Perahps surprisngly (or not!), I'm finding this discussion to be anchoring my belief in eternal punishment even more strongly. The consequences of rejecting the Sin Bearer have to be eternal and severe. He is the only way we can avoid suffering the consequences of suppressing the knowledge of God by our wickedness, as Paul says in Romans 1.

Colleen
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 2173
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 7:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I guess I have to say after reading the Bible for some time now, I see a God whose justice and mercy are beyond our understanding.

The more I research this topic, and study the Bible texts for what they say at face value, the more I realize that I will unlikely ever to be able to accept the doctrine of eternal concious torment. Malachi 4: 1-6 is so clear and specific that the wicked will be totally annihilated, destroyed root and branch, they will be ashes under your feet. The doctrine of eternal torment would contradict this clear scripture, and that is why I believe Revelation to be symbolic.

The scene in Revelation in Revelation 14 where it talks about the smoke of their torment going up forever and ever, and the torment is going on in the presence of the Lamb. This scene is taking place in heaven. Then cross reference Isaiah 34 where the same language is used for the total destruction of Edom.

Also, the text in Mark 9:48 or so, about the worm dying not is a clear reference to Isaiah 66:24 where the worms are feeding on dead bodies! This is all symbolic language.

Also, can someone find just one sermon in Acts that was preached where the gospel was preached by threatening its hearers with eternal torment in the fires of hell. The word judgment is used by Paul in his sermon on Mars Hill, but that is not said to be eternal torment.

Also why do the translators of all Bibles we have today use the word destroy rather than torment in hell, or use perishing, or death? The epistles always use the word destruction etc. (I know I am repeating myself here.)

If there is enough controversy in the use of language to even give a scholar like FF Bruce pause to be humble enough to admit that the evidence could go either way, and he knows the Greek better than I do, then, in light of this, I have to also base my opinion on this on what I believe to be the most reasonable scenario is likely by reading the entire 66 books, and learning about the justice and mercy of God.

It just seems inconceivable that God would torment creatures created in His Image, who are fallen, and born into this world by no choice of their own, and cannot be redeemed unless they are elected from before the foundation of the world, and regenerated supernaturally, that it would be just to torment these billions of people in flames (if you take the texts Jeremy quoted literally) for all eternity. However, this doesn't mean that I believe He is obligated to save anyone, as we deserve death, but do unregenerated creatures who are clearly responsible for rejecting Christ, because they are fallen and can't come to Christ unless granted by the Father, then deserve to suffer eternally in torment forever?

My answer after years of studying the bible, and spending a lot of time over the past three months studying this issue, and reading every Biblical text on this including the whole New Testament, and reading the testimony of godly men on both sides of this issue, I have to come to the conclusion that God will judge sinners severely and fairly but according to their deeds, and it will not be eternal conscious torment.

I just cannot buy the argument that the reward of eternal life means an equal reaction of eternal conscious torment, as this does not follow logically, and Philip Hughes made some terrific arguments which were convincing to me on this issue.

I am at peace with what I have come to believe on this issue, and I know a lot of people are disappointed in my "backsliding into SDA" (smiley--just kidding, not that bad folks!), but I consider all my Christian brothers and sisters who disagree with me on this with respect and they may be right, but I know that this issue will not separate us. I have been up front with my PCA pastor on this and he is understanding, and he has a lot of respect for his Reformed brothers(Hughes and Stott) who disagree with him.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Stan

Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1557
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 12:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan,

Have you asked your pastor if you should interpret the OT in light of the NT?

Yes, I am not only disappointed, but concerned about you "backsliding into SDA." How much longer until you give up your belief in the intermediate state? Or the human spirit? Or that Jesus is the Sabbath? The faulty hermeneutics that are used for annihilationism are the same as those used by the cults--and they can be used to defend any SDA (or LDS, or JW, etc.) doctrine. If you were to give credence to an SDA using the same hermeneutics to interpret Scripture, you could become an Adventist within a month.

It is dangerous to use faulty hermeneutics, Stan. Please ask your pastor about it.

Also, take a look at the following link on Biblical hermeneutics, including "Principle #4: The Progressive Revelation Principle": http://www.forananswer.org/Top_General/Hermeneutics.htm

Jeremy
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 141
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 2:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan, your arguments about annihilationism sound exactly like the arguments given to me by my ex-GF about why the Bible teaches Sabbath keeping. It's like you are putting more weight in the OT than in the NT's interpretation of the OT.

This worries me.

The way Eastern Orthodox resolve the apparent contradiction of eternal burning torment and God being loving merciful and just is to put 100% of the blame for sinners being tortured on the sinners themselves. EO go so far as to say that in fact Hell and Heaven aren't different from each other; it's the difference between sinners and saints that causes the different reaction to God's love. Heaven is hell to those who have rejected God. And those who have rejected God become hardened forever in that rejection.

This view depends upon man at least initially having free-will.

Calvinists apparently think God decides who will be burned forever and who will be in heaven.

Jeremiah
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 142
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 3:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Matthew 5:45 "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. "

Luke 6:35 "But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. "

One interesting thing I have realized in my study is that Jesus destroyed death not only for the righteous, but also for the wicked;

John 5:28 "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, "
29 "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. "

Revelation 20: 7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 4:6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.

Revelation 15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

We have here a sea of glass/lake of fire. After the resurrections are done, the righteous stand on the sea of glass but the wicked including the Devil are thrown into the lake of fire. It is the same thing, just the difference between righteous and wicked determines whether it will be torment or not.

For the righteous it is eternal life; for the wicked it is the second death.

Jeremiah
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4815
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 3:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan wrote:

It just seems inconceivable that God would torment creatures created in His Image, who are fallen, and born into this world by no choice of their own, and cannot be redeemed unless they are elected from before the foundation of the world, and regenerated supernaturally, that it would be just to torment these billions of people in flames (if you take the texts Jeremy quoted literally) for all eternity. However, this doesn't mean that I believe He is obligated to save anyone, as we deserve death, but do unregenerated creatures who are clearly responsible for rejecting Christ, because they are fallen and can't come to Christ unless granted by the Father, then deserve to suffer eternally in torment forever?

I find this reasoning to be using one exmaple of God's sovereignty (election) to create an argument against another example of the same sovereignty (God's justice and wrath). If one believes God to be absolutely sovereign, it really is a logical fallacy to say, then, that someone God "prepared for destruction" doesn't "deserve" to be eternally punished. If God is sovereign, He absolutely can do whatever is just from His perspective. There is no arguing for "mercy" from a standpoint of fairness. God's ways are not measured by our perception of fairness.

Conversely, there might be room here for considering that people might actually have a moment given to them by God in which He gives them the capability either to embrace or to spurn Jesus. (Adam and Eve, after all, had such a moment of clarity before they died spiritually.)

Again, there is mystery here in the exactly way God works in the salvation or destruction of each individual. But whatever the case, we cannot argue against God's possible actions by using His own choice as an argument against His own sovereign right.

I would also concur that we cannot read Malachi apart from interpreting him through the New Testament. As 1 Timothy 1:10 says, Jesus is the one who brought life and immortality to lightóand that includes a greater clarity in seeing eternal reality. The OT prophets were not given the glimpses into eternity that the NT apostles and Jesus Himself had.

Interesting dicucssion, thoughóthanks to all of you!

Colleen
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 2176
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 9:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why is it that I can see the clear reasoning behind why the Sabbath is to be interpreted through the light of the New Testament--the reason is that it is obvious!

How can we compare New Covenant theology and reasoning to a clear teaching by the prophet Malachi? Malachi is clearer than the symbols used for God's just judgment in Revelation. And there is honest dispute between good Christian scholars on the sayings of Jesus.

If scholars like Philip Hughes, John Stott, and FF Bruce see that there is room for interpretation on texts such as Matthew 10:28 and Matthew 25:46, then why is the attitude of some reeking with such arrogance on this issue?

I am a fan of Robert Morey who did write the classsic work from an eternal torment standpoint, called "Death and the afterlife". But, why does it seem that so many with this view act in such a ridiculing and condescending manner to those who disagree with them. I have met Robert Morey. I listen to him on the radio. He uses the crudest language on the radio. He even illustrated Jesus human nature in a very crude manner. When you have to draw an audience on the radio by saying that Jesus was so human, that he even far--- (the street term for passing gas) and even use the exact same four letter word even while preaching a sermon at his own church, and yes it got him a lot of laughs. This is the same man who put a false story out about Billy Graham that was proven by Chris on this forum to have no basis in fact. Yet this is the man that everyone points to as the "expert" on eternal fiery torment. But it is his spirit of ridicule that bothers me the most.

There was another example of ridicule that was posted on this thread directed at a great saint of God named John Stott:

"No matter our supposed "expectation," Scripture itself plainly says "tormented forever"! It is sad to see that John Stott does not believe the words of Scripture, but instead denounces "tormented forever"--the very words of Scripture! Absolutely incredible!

"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." (Revelation 20:10 NASB.)

The Bible itself says right there that the word "fire" indicates being "tormented forever"!

Stott is just plain wrong.

I am still amazed at such a blatant denouncing of God's own words!

WOW!!! '
-------------------------------------------------

Is this the kind of rhetoric that builds up the body of Christ?

See, when I read John Stott, Philip Hughes, and F.F. Bruce, I see hearts that are humble towards the things of God. I admit that I need to seek after this same kind of spirit of humility that is used by men like these rather than the Morey's et al.

Now, I know it doesn't follow logically that because Morey is so obnoxious, that he is necessarily wrong. But, credibility means so much, and we lose it when we resort to ad hominim attacks (and I admit I have been guilty of this), but the gentle spirit spoken by the Stotts and Hughes of the world who are also Reformed in their soteriology goes a long way with adding credence to their arguments.

Jeremy, you posted this in addition to your direct attack on John Stott above:

"Yes, I am not only disappointed, but concerned about you "backsliding into SDA." How much longer until you give up your belief in the intermediate state? Or the human spirit? Or that Jesus is the Sabbath? The faulty hermeneutics that are used for annihilationism are the same as those used by the cults--and they can be used to defend any SDA (or LDS, or JW, etc.) doctrine. If you were to give credence to an SDA using the same hermeneutics to interpret Scripture, you could become an Adventist within a month."
-------------------------------------------------

Please consider once again this quote from John Stott:

"There is no ëknockdowní argument on either side which effectively settles this issue; both sides are faced with difficult texts. I am disturbed by the excessive dogmatism of those who claim that only one view is biblical. I plead for greater humility of judgment. We evangelical people need to give one another liberty in areas in which Scripture is not absolutely plain. F. F. Bruce wrote to me in 1989 that ìannihilation is certainly an acceptable interpretation of the relevant New Testament passagesî. He added, ìFor myself, I remain agnostic.î My position is similar."
--------------------------------------------------
I say Amen to the above!

One other point Colleen that you mentioned above is this quote:

"Conversely, there might be room here for considering that people might actually have a moment given to them by God in which He gives them the capability either to embrace or to spurn Jesus. (Adam and Eve, after all, had such a moment of clarity before they died spiritually.)"
-------------------------------------------------

I am not on here arguing Arminianism vs. Calvinism on this thread, but for the record, that is the classic Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace, where everyone is brought to the same point of grace and is quickened by the Holy Spirit, where everyone has an equal chance to accept Christ and be saved. You might be right about this argument, but then in the final analysis the ultimate choice is ours, because it boils down to our choosing and we then share in the credit for our salvation, and we are in heaven because we made the choice. Feel free to correct me if I am misinterpreting your position.

This may be the reason Arminian theology is so popular today in evangelical circles, because then the doctrine of hell becomes more palatable, because, after all everyone had equal chance to accept Christ.

Also, has anyone noticed how watered down the doctrine of hell is in so many churches, even in the churches that theoretically print in their belief statements that "hell is eternal separation from God", well that statement can be interpreted either way, as the annihialtionist agrees with that doctrine. But go to any seeker sensitive website and this is what you will find.

Edward Fudge makes an iteresting point about this on his website. Hell would have even a greater impact on the teaching in the church if it was taught as a definite just vengeance of God, where the suffering of hell will be very intense, albeit for a limited time, but even a temporal hell had a significant impact on me growing up in Adventism. It makes too much sense that the intensity and suffering inflicted by God is just and fair and proportional.

Thanks again to all of you on this thread for allowing to express my doubts about the doctrine of eternal hell, and I pray for God's guidance as I continue to study this topic.

Stan





Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 847
Registered: 4-2000


Posted on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 11:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What makes the book, "Death and the Afterlife," by Dr. Robert Morey (www.faithdefenders.com) particularly appealing and relevant to the Adventist reader is that he covers point by point the major flaws of the late SDA apologist, Leroy Froom. Dr. Morey meticulously proves from history how Froom misrepresented and misquoted the fathers of the church as being virtually all conditionalists. As with Ellen White, this goes directly to the integrity of the late L. E. Froom. It is nothing less than outright deception.

As the late Dr. Walter Martin said this book: "The scholarship of this volume will impress those have studied the subject with any degree of thoroughness. The most comprehensive biblical study of the subject in the last half century!"

Dennis Fischer
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 354
Registered: 7-2005


Posted on Saturday, October 21, 2006 - 9:07 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan,

John Stott said, as you qoted from him


quote:

It is not the torment itself but its ësmokeí (symbol of the completed burning) which will be ëfor ever and ever.




When Stott attacked the idea that the torment will be "for ever and ever" using Revelation 14:11, he entered in contradiction with Revelation 20:10.


quote:

They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.




Of course, Stott does not believe that he is in contradiction with Revelation 20:10. He thinks probably that Revelation 20:10 is using figures of speech, and it is not to be taken literally.

Suppose Revelation 20:10 is symbolical, it's a figure of speech and it's wrong to read it as a literal description of the final state of the wicked. What this figure of speech suggest: that the wicked will be annihilated, or will suffer endlessly? Symbols are signs, pointing to directions, and certainly Revelation 20:10 is in opposition with Stott.

But why to take this text as symbolical? When Stott denounced the idea of eternal torment, he denounced a literal eternal torment, he expect us to take his words in a literal sense. But when he comes to Revelation 20:10, perhaps he thinks that the words "tormented day and night for ever and ever" is figurative language, and does not say what it is supposed to say by a normal reading.

When Stott attacked the idea of "tormented forever and ever" he attacked a biblical text. Jeremy pointed this not because he does not respect Stott, but because he respect the Bible more than Stott.

The great apostle Peter was rebuked in public by the apostle Paul when he acted as a hypocrite, because the gospel truth was at stake (Galatians 2:11-14). In that moment apostle Paul respected Peter as much as any other time, but he acted in a way that seems disrespectful for the sake of the gospel. He esteemed the gospel more than Peter.

As Jeremy pointed, we are concerned because you are returning to adventists hermeneutics, and one of our concerns are especially about your source of authority, erring men, or the unerring word of God. We are concerned because you seems offended by the fact that somebody said that a man of God who is respected is plainly wrong, and contradicts blatantly the words of the Bible. Jeremy and I just apply the principle of Sola Scriptura and said that Stott is clearly in contradiction with it. As Peter, even the highest and most respected christians and mens of God can be at odds with the gospel and the truth of the Bible.

I'm expecting that you will take our concerns as a friendly answer adressed to you, and want to remember you that we respect you and Stott, and other christians with the respect you and him deserve, and respect the Bible with the respect it deserves.
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4821
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Saturday, October 21, 2006 - 12:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jackob, you explained the concern re: Stott's words so well. I really like your example of Peter and Paul. Saying we believe Stott is not dealing consistently with the Biblical text does not mean we don't respect Stott, but that we respect the Bible more.

We really cannot base our beliefs on the works of theologians. Of course they can lend clarity to our thinking, but our primary and continuous study must be in the word of God. As you put it, Jackob, the "unerring word of God" must be our authority, not "erring men".

Colleen

(Message edited by Colleentinker on October 21, 2006)

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration