| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4740 Registered: 12-2003  |
Honestwitness, Jesus appeared to the disciples in His resurrection body. To prove He was Himself, "he showed them his hands and side" (John 20:20). Luke also records Jesus appearing to His disciples after His resurrection and says, in 24:39-40, that He invited the disciples to touch Him so they would know He was not a ghost. "When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet." And then, as final proof it was He, He asked for food and ate in their presence. A week after Jesus appeared and identified Himself by showing his hand and side, Jesus appeared again. Thomas had not been with them the first time. Thomas said he would not believe Jesus was alive unless he touched the nail marks in his hands and the spear mark in his side. When Jesus appeared among the disciples this time, he asked Thomas to put his finger "here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." (John 20:27) We know that Jesus' scars will be visible for eternity because they were His identification marks AFTER His resurrection in His resurrection bodyóthe body that proves to us that we also will be resurrected with new bodies (see 1 Corinthians 15:20-23). The remarkable thing about Jesus carrying our scars for eternity is that before the cross, the physical scar that identified God's covenant with man was circumcision. After the cross, the physical scars are on Jesus' body, not on ours. In the New Covenant, ALL OT shadows are fulfilled and, from a human perspective, turned upside-down. Jesus is EVERYTHINGóeven the one who bears the eternal marks of the curse of sin. Thank you for your point-by-point discussion above, Jeremy. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1543 Registered: 10-2004  |
Thank you for your thoughts, Colleen. Here is one other passage: "Can a woman forget her nursing child And have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you. 16"Behold, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands; Your walls are continually before Me." (Isaiah 49:15-16 NASB.) Here is David Guzik's commentary on this passage:
Jeremy | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 832 Registered: 4-2000  |
Excellent post, Jeremy! | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2134 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy wrote: "To use this chapter as proof of annihilation is utterly laughable. Hughes' argmument is a total joke and makes a mockery of Scripture read in context! Quite frankly, I am surprised that all of those quotes from Hughes were not deleted. It made me very upset to read through them and read all of this false teacher's blasphemous statements and twisting of Scripture and using the same false anti-Biblical definitions that Adventism uses. This is not what those wanting to know what the Bible says on this issue need to be reading and in my opinion, it was not appropriate at all for the quotes to be posted on this forum. If it disturbed me, I can imagine that it disturbed others. Those who have come out of Adventism are sensitive to such things." ------------------------------------------------- Look folks, I was just sharing my heart on this. If you go back to where I first started posting on this topic, I said the views being posted were the views of my research from other very respected evangelicals. I have no quarrel with Jeremy, Dennis, or Jacob, or Colleen on this, but I am just saying that I don't find the Biblical evidence on this topic as conclusive as I find the five points of Reformed theology, which I believe with all my being. Jeremy, to make those kind of comments about a man as respected as Dr. Philip Hughes (and also by inference John Stott and John Wenham) makes me sad. I appreciate your mild apology, and I suppose I am just getting some of my own "medicine" back from my dogmatic statements on other threads.(smiley) But don't blame his theology on Ellen White. These men who hold this position could care less about Adventism and Ellen White. The book written by Hughes is endorsed by J.I. Packer (who disagrees with him on this issue), and by Sinclair Ferguson--one of the top scholars at Westminster Theological Seminary in the Calvinist tradition. My pastor Ron Gleason(PCA) who disagrees with Hughes, nonetheless agrees that Hughes holds these views from his Biblical study. Philip Hughes also has written one of the finest commentaries on the book of Hebrews, and R.C. Sproul frequently quotes from him. We are not dealing with a liberal unscholarly theologian here, so it is very dangerous and very uncharitable to make some of the comments as stated above. Is it so wrong to even question certain doctrines, when I think we all struggle with the doctrines of God's sovereignty and justice? I want to take this opportunity to apologize for overly harsh comments I have made on this forum over the 20 months I have been here. I want to say that a forum like this is very important. I am thankful for Richard and Colleen's vision for a forum like this, as I wish I had this when I was processing out of Adventism. When Ramone opened this thread, I seemed to read a spirit of genuine concern about his struggle over this issue of eternal torment. I am also still struggling with this, so that was why I was interested in seeing what other respected non SDAs had to say about this topic. I am still studying this issue, and I appreciate constructive comments about this. Jackob, You are right about Walter Martin on this topic. But to answer what Martin said, I would say that "no, I wouldn't love God any less, or question His justice even if eternal torment is true." One way I have resolved this issue for now pending further study is to rejoice in the fact that I believe God's Word is absolutely true, and He is absolutely sovereign over everything, and because I trust the character of God, I believe that He is perfectly just and His judgments are true. I just ask Him to give me better understanding. Soli Deo Gloria, Stan | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 590 Registered: 7-2004  |
Stan, I can understand your issue here. I read alot, on both sides of the issue (from people who have no backgound in SDAism or ellen). I don't find the evidence as overwhelmingly one-sided as some of the people here do. But I do find it easier to reconcile the texts in the direction of eternal punishment. I don't find this doctrine to be a watershed of orthodoxy and the only reason I debate it with any SDAs is to demonstrate that the answer isn't as clear cut as they might have thought. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 833 Registered: 4-2000 |
I have read some of Dr. John Stott's comments about annihilationism. Interestingly, he admits it is mostly his sentimentalism that gives him this idea--not solid biblical scholarship. He is NOT dogmatic about it. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 407 Registered: 10-2002  |
Stan, thanks for what you've written here, brother.  I took a quick look in the "Last Week" to see what was new, and well, as you all probably know, there are certain threads (some of which I've started!) which I skip and do not read. When I saw that you (Stan) replied to what I'd said here, I wanted to read that, so I clicked there. Then I scrolled down past what you'd written and began reading and felt "Oh, here we go again"... the word "heresy" got thrown around a lot again. I don't know which post it was of yours here, Stan, but I saw that you were really struggling and searching about this. And I'm touched (and humbled) by your vulnerability in doing so. When I started this thread I shared a thought and then high-tailed it out of here because I knew another harsh battle would ensue, with many accusations of heresy, etc. I purposefully did not open myself on this thread --- I didn't make myself vulnerable. I've been burnt too many times here to do that again. But you did open your heart, and I really, really, REALLY respect and appreciate that. There's a difference between caring about truths and caring about people. When we care about truths more than people, we can be very harsh in "bringing people to the truth". But when we have looked through God's eyes and decided that people are more important than getting all the facts straight (even though facts are important), we will be gentle and understanding when someone opens their heart to us and makes themselves vulnerable. As an Adventist I remember thinking of "evangelizing" in terms of "proof texts" -- that is, if you show someone the right texts, the right "proof", they will accept it and believe it. Now that I've left Adventism, I realize that many of us in the whole body of Christ still don't know how to evangelize beyond giving proof texts. But there is so, so, so much more. Chief among everyting is love. Loving the person you're talking to, listening to them, crying with them, rejoicing with them, mourning with them, caring about them. While still Adventist, someone shared a good thought with me about Bible teaching: "Don't teach the Bible, teach your students". Often while teaching in a Bible class, I was more interested in proving Scriptures, in linking this to that, or in establishing this or that fact. I had no patience or care to hear how much my students understood. I wasn't interested in what they thought -- I just wanted them to accept and believe the right things. I was teaching the Bible, not my students. Earlier this year sometime I was invited to a yahoo group of Christians, many of them from Albania. I'm humbled and in complete awe of the sheer love that I've seen in them. They love Christ with a purity I have never imagined, and they love each other with that same love. The moderater who began the group has emailed me several times, and we've gotten to share a lot. One thing that he's shared a lot with me is how much he wants to hear from everyone in the group. The people who don't comment, the people who are quiet -- they too are the body of Christ. Christ has an expression of Himself in each person, and each person needs to be heard, and we can all be blessed by hearing Christ express Himself through each of our brothers and sisters. As I began to understand this more, and as I began to be filled with God's love for the people in the group, I found myself wanting to not comment. I found myself wanting to stand back and wait to hear what others thought. Yes, I had my own thoughts on what was being talked about. I could give what I thought was "the answer". The result would be maybe agreement from a few or even some "amen"s, but then it would die. I began to want to hear what others thought. I wanted to see their hearts, I wanted to wait and hear Christ moving in them, and who knows, maybe I would learn more than I thought I knew. I'm saying this to hopefully help others like me see the contrast between loving people and loving truths. Yes, we love the Truth, but the Truth Himself is madly in love with people, and often we don't share that same love He has for people. We mistakenly think that if people know the right truths, they will know the Truth. But even though ancient Israel had the best knowledge of God in the world, many did not know and love Him, and they fell under His judgment. In the New Covenant we learn that it is His knowledge of us that counts, more than our knowledge of Him. We are saved by faith, not by possessing a certain amount of minimum information. We are saved by trusting in God, by God we are saved. It's His knowledge of us that matters. Once we rest in that, we become free to love others with His love. That is how Christ was able to love us "while we were His enemies." Someone once said that they wanted to love a Muslim friend not because of an eventual outcome (conversion), but they wanted to love that person. I realized that sometimes we love people based only on the outcome of our talks with them. If we're loving them based on their agreement with truths, then we're not loving the person at all. Christ loved us and gave Himself for us, I believe, regardless of the outcome. He loved us for who we are, not merely who we will become. His love for us is not based on our eventual perfection. He is already surrounded by infinite perfection and perfect beings in heaven. No, He wanted us. Yes, He will make/has made us perfect, but He has done that because He wanted us. Anyway, I hope the difference between loving truths & loving people is apparent, and I pray we can all learn how to love each other more than loving each other only for the sake of getting one another to agree on something. Blessings in Jesus Christ, Ramone (Message edited by agapetos on October 08, 2006) | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 408 Registered: 10-2002 |
P.S. Stan, about the sermon by Edwards, I definitely agree it's too much. From what little I've read, Edwards was definitely a cool guy, but I've always felt that sermon was way over the top. I've heard many people say that you aren't really saved until you know you are really lost. In other words, you kind of need to see "hell" first before you can truly say you're saved. It seems like a logical formula for salvation, but in my own life it's not been this way and yet the Lord has let me know I belong to Him. I've learned that it is His goodness that draws us to Him. It is sight of the Cross, of His grace & love for us, that draws us to Him. It is what He has done that convicts us of our sin (see John 16). It is as the hymn says, "'Twas grace that taught my hear to fear And grace my fears relieved" Seeing "hell" or punishment is not enough to bring us to Him. It is seeing His grace that does it, and it is only His grace that truly changes and transforms us. The famous verse in 1st John sums it up: "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." His love drives out our fear, even our fear of punishment. He does not want us to come to Him merely to escape hell. He wants a bride who is in love with Him, not who is choosing marriage only because she doesn't want to die. I think we shouldn't make such giant appeals to peoples' fear of death, but rather we should introduce them to a love that has conquered death. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2888 Registered: 3-2004  |
Ramone, I truly agree with you that we should love people, care for them, listen to them, be a friend. Today at my Bible class at the Baptist church there was a visiting missionary. She is a missionary to Russia. What she said is the same as what you are saying. In Russia because of 70 years of communist, most of the people have no idea of Jesus. But they do like to be friends and if they are your friend they will have you over for tea and you will invite them over for tea and just talk about life. It is a slow process, because of their lack of knowledge of Jesus and Christianity. Just wanted to let you know I understand and agree with what you are saying. God sure is awesome. Diana | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 409 Registered: 10-2002 |
Thanks Diana. Hmm, on the same note, maybe it's okay to share two thoughts. One was from when I attended a local meeting of churches on the national day of prayer some years ago. Someone stood up and shared a word they felt they'd been receiving from God: "Your neighbors are your inheritance." The second thought is one I learned when my old church in Japan was becoming more and more interested in "prosperity" teaching. They took verses from Isaiah and kept talking about the wealth of the nations coming into the church. It was terrible. But over all of these, I heard God's voice in my spirit tell me that people are the "wealth of the nations" in His sight, and I had to break down in tears, and I'm doing it again as I write about this. People are His inheritance, people are His priceless treasures. You are the pearl of great price that He sold everything to purchase. He "bought the field" so that He could have you---His hidden treasure. And it is true of our neighbors, our friends, our enemies. They too are His treasures, His inheritance. And our inheritance is His inheritance -- we are co-heirs with Christ. I pray that He fills us more and more with His heart and with His sight, that we may see what (who!) He loves so much, and that we may love with Him, and that we may truly find His "treasures" to be treasures indeed. | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 735 Registered: 7-2004 |
Ramone, "He 'bought the field' so that He could have you---His hidden treasure." Our sermon at church was about buying the field, finding the treasure. Thank you for giving me one more view of that one verse parable that says so much. I always appreciate reading your thoughts and insights. Thanks for being so willing to share yourself. Your love for Jesus is inspiring. Digging for treasure, Denise | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2136 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ric_b, I appreciate your thoughts. I am actively studying this topic now, and the more I study the Bible and line up the texts on one position vs. the other, the less convinced I am that eternal punishment is an absolute Biblical certainty. It seems that the epistles with all the didactic teaching it contains had every opportunity to clearly lay out the doctrine of eternal punishment, instead of using words like "perish", or "destruction", or "extinction" (RSV and ESV), especially in 2 Peter where Peter spends chapter 2 and 3 talking about the punishment of the wicked, he talks about the elements melting with fervent heat, he compares the destruction of the wicked to Sodom and Gomorrah, yet why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire him to clearly say that it will be eternal misery and torment with a specially created immortal body to endure these flames that will melt the elements with fervent heat? In 1 Cor 15, the bodies that will put on immortality are those of the redeemed, and not the condemned. Revelation is apocalyptic and very symbolic with symbols of destruction vry similar to Sodom and Gommorrah. If Matthew 10:28 wasn't there where Jesus says specifically that we are to fear God who can desroy both body and soul in hell, then I would be more inclined to believe that eternal punishment in Matt 25:46 meant eternal conscious torment. I just have a hard time buying the fact that "death" doesn't mean death. Dennis mentioned the sentimental aspect of this doctrine that John Stott mentioned. Just maybe I am in that same category, as a practicing physician seeing the suffering and dying, and having treated burn patients, I just find it difficult to believe as I examine my soul on this and look into the mirror, that I can hardly believe that God will create special immortal bodies to endure intense pain and heat for all eternity. St. Augustine actually argued this by saying that the salamander could survive fervent heat and survive! This was supposed to be his proof that unregenerate sinners would also be given bodies of immortality (but Paul only ascribes this body to believers). Charles Spurgeon also taught that God will create special bodies to endure the torments of hell for all eternity, however, I understand, he later realized that annihilation did have some biblical basis, even though he didn't ever change his mind on this that we know of. I believe immortality is only ascribed to believers. Ramone, Thanks so much for your thoughts. I will expand my apology to include especially you, as I was quite over the top on one thread on the theology section of the forum. We may not agree on all points of theology, but you are my brother in Christ. We do need a safe place to express our theological doubts without being ridiculed or so threatenly attacked. So, to this end I will try to not attack you in the future, and again I apologize for past posts that were overly harsh. Stan | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 156 Registered: 7-2005  |
It took most of my sixteen years in Adventism to shift my paradigm from the belief in eternal conscious torment to believing in the eventual permanent loss of conscious existence. And I fought this shift harder than almost all the other shifts involved for a person who had been raised in Orthodox Protestantism. I once got out my Strong's concordance and looked up every verse with the word "hell," and made a list with two columns. One column was for eternal conscious torment and the other was for cessation of existence. After assigning each verse to the column it clearly supported, I counted the verses in each column and found there was an equal number in each. Some of the verses could be taken either way and were therefore not counted. It was at that point I began to seriously entertain the idea that permanent cessation of existence could be a viable conclusion from Scripture. Now that I'm forever finished with Adventism, the thought of eternal conscious torment is the most difficult orthodox belief for me to go back to. Strange, huh? Honestwitness | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2894 Registered: 3-2004 |
Thank God this is not a salvation issue. When I learned how my Mom had treated her step children, I wanted to cry. I did, in fact, cry as I thought that Mom would not be in heaven because when she was dying my half sister went to say good-bye and all Mom did was turn away from her. Right then and there God let me know that He is just and He will do what is right for each individual. It is not my place to worry about where Mom will end up. So, I say again, thank God it is not a salvation issue. God you are awesome and I know you will do what is just for each individual. Diana | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 836 Registered: 4-2000 |
I have listened to and read many testimonies of those who came to the serious conclusion that getting "fire insurance" was a necessity in their case. Knowing that we will all spend eternity in either heaven or hell (please reread the words of Jesus in Matt. 25:46)should give us sober reflection. By the way, Jesus could not have spoken more clearly about this topic. In spite of Ellen White's distorted view of "eternal punishment," the doctrine of eternal hell has ably served as a salvific catylst for countless souls as the Holy Spirit transformed their hearts in bringing them to faith in Christ. Indeed, there is no safety nor security net outside of being in Christ. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 837 Registered: 4-2000 |
I have listened to and read many testimonies of those who came to the serious conclusion that getting "fire insurance" was a necessity in their case. Knowing that we will all spend eternity in either heaven or hell (please reread the words of Jesus in Matt. 25:46)should give us sober reflection. By the way, Jesus could not have spoken more clearly about this topic. In spite of Ellen White's distorted view of "eternal punishment," the doctrine of eternal hell has ably served as a salvific catylst for countless souls as the Holy Spirit transformed their hearts in bringing them to faith in Christ. Indeed, there is no safety nor security net outside of being in Christ. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2138 Registered: 3-2005 |
I appreciate both Dennis' concerns and honestwitness' concerns, and thanks Diana for your thoughts. What my research has proven so far, that it is not just SDAs who have held to the possibility of the lake of fire truly being the second death. For so long, it was my anti-SDA spirit and the testimony of most of the reformed writers that I admire, that led me to unchallenging and almost automatic acceptance of the doctrine of eternal torment. I know I will lose a lot of my Calvinist friends if I decide to finally accept the doctrine of annihilation (smiley), but the good news is it will not separate me from respecting both sides of this argument. Certainly the side of history of the church goes with eternal conscious torment doctrine, although I understand Justin Martyr may have held to an annihilationist viewpoint. But no longer in my Christian experience will I hold a viewpoint because a writer or a church I admire holds to a certain viewpoint. But certainly there are godly men whose writings we can evaluate and test them against scripture for ourselves. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4765 Registered: 12-2003 |
I realize that this argument is somewhat philosophical, but somehow resurrecting a body for the sake of a temporary punishment trivializes the importance of both rejecting Jesus and the significance of the resurrection. The Bible never teaches a different "type" of resurrection than the resurrection experienced by the saved. Nowhere does the Bible hint that the resurrection bodies of the lost are different from the resurrection bodies of the saved. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul describes the resurrection in general terms; like a seed that is planted and yields a plant, so is the body. The mortal dies, and the resurrection body is related to that mortal one but is different from it. Revelation 20 describes the second death as the sea, death, and Hades giving up the dead in order to receive judgment in the lake of fire which is the second death. Nothing indicates this resurrection yields different bodies from the first described earlier in the same chapter. The second death is for all those who reject their Sin Bearer. The consequences of rejecting Jesus must be equally significant as the consequences for accepting Him are. If the second death is just about human sin, then a temporary punishment makes sense. But people are lost for not believing in Jesus. As has been stated somewhere here before, no human can properly atone for sinóeven for his ownóbecause his sin is bigger than his bad deeds. Sin is being dead to Life. The consequences for rejecting the Source of Life and Forgiveness must be equally significant as the result of accepting Him. And besides, the wicked are resurrected just as are the saved. Their resurrection bodies are for the purpose of receiving punishment, just as the resurrection bodies of the elect are for the purpose of glorification for eternity. Colleen | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 67 Registered: 8-2006  |
I do not have a clue which point is most valid here. But the one thing that really bothers me is the other major denomination that fully supports annihilationism and soul sleep is the Jehovahs Witnesses. Both the JWs and SDAs teach that a significant supernatural invisible event took place. In both instances the souls of the dead could not be conscious because Christ attonement was not complete at the cross. Or his work of salvation was not over. The SDAs say Christ had to Judge everyone starting in 1844; The JWs say that Christ came in Spirit in 1914 or (15?) In other words; the rest of their doctrine makes it mandatory to keep the souls dead in order for their particular beliefs to harmonize. It is pleasing to read through this argument and understand that there is no hidden 'agenda' to prove this point one way or the other. The only agenda here is to understand the plain teaching of the Bible. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2141 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen wrote: "Their resurrection bodies are for the purpose of receiving punishment, just as the resurrection bodies of the elect are for the purpose of glorification for eternity." This is an excellent point, but still I don't see why a temporary punishment which is just recompense for the deeds actually done would not be a worthwhile reason for resurrection, because, unbelief is a sin just like other sins committed in the body. One of Christ's parables has to do with the idea of some being beaten with many stripes, and some being beaten for few stripes according to their deeds. If eternal torment in hell fire is the same reward for everybody, then that does raise important questions as well. I know the Annihilation position is more comforting, as I would hate to think of my lost relatives and friends who didn't know Christ being tormented for all eternity. Also, for all those who never had the chance to hear the gospel, and who are non-elect, then somehow I find the annhilation position more tenable in light of God's character of Love. But our doctrines can not be determined by what is more comforting, and I realize that. Stan |
