| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4767 Registered: 12-2003  |
The Bible does seem to suggest that there are degrees of suffering in hell. Exactly what that means is simply not revealed. But the suggestion does remain. It seems the inverse of the idea of rewards for the saved. Colleen | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 184 Registered: 11-2005 |
I haven't been keeping up on these threads like I normally do, but Jeremy, I just now read your post 1541 (October 7). You know, by trained default, I still tend to think of things sometimes with the Great Controversy worldview. Your repeated thought of "God has always been in control of sin" is something I realize that I need to really pound into my head. I KNOW God is sovereign and in control, but many times unknowingly, I don't realize how much I still think like "that" old familiar way. So thank you for your point by point discussion. It was very helpful for me! Grace | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2147 Registered: 3-2005 |
I have had a lot of time this week to go through a lot of the Bible examining my views on eternal torment. This subject has bothered me for a long time, but I have finally decided to study this topic in earnest, as I have in the past changed my view in favor of eternal torment because of trusting a lot of good authors on this subject. Even though I understand why most of the Christian church teaches this, and has taught it through most of church history, I still see the doctrine of eternal torment as a matter of a Biblical essential that separates Christians from one another, as just not having enough Biblical authority. I am amazed at the amount of Biblical support there is for annihilation. This idea comes from a large amount of reading this week I have done from the Bible alone, but it is true that because of another credible voice in Reformed theology (Philip Hughes) whose book I did read, that I thought there was enough evidence for me personally to do an exhaustive scriptural study. I am even becoming suspicious that the doctrine of eternal torment has been held in some instances in church history, as a weapon to scare people and to bring them into submission. It is a matter of public record that when honest scholars such as Philip Hughes or John Stott have questioned this doctrine, that they themselves have been accused of becoming liberals, and undermining the authority of scripture. Philip Hughes had to resign his teaching position at Westminster Theological seminary in order to publish his book "The True Image"--I can't imagine any other motive than truth for people to dispute this topic, and to risk the scorn and ridicule that comes from their colleagues. Despite the unpopularity in conservative Christianity of annihilation, the only final test of whether it is true must be scripture and not some other author. So, anyway I hope to share my Biblical research, and I welcome all opposition remarks. I will say one other thing as many of our ideas are shaped by authors we read. One fine author who is considered an authority on this topic is Robert Morey who wrote "Death and the Afterlife". I do have respect for this author, but unfortunately my views on his work are clouded because I have personally met him and listened to him preach, and listen to his daily radio show. Unfortuantely this author has been caught in many different overstatements in several of his books, and his credibility has been hurt by his attacks on Billy Graham that were not able to be substantiated. He almost seems to have an attitude of "delight" and arrogance on this topic of eternal punishment, and ridicules his opposition which was mainly Leroy Froom, as his book was basically a diatribe against Leroy Froom (an SDA). But it is amazing, how today, even on a very good evangelical website called www.apologetics.com you can do a search and find that Froom's research was respected, although not always agreed upon. Edward Fudge, who wrote "Fire that Consumes"--another non SDA author--is also highly respected by superb Greek scholars such as John Wenham. So, I think a spirit of genuine humility should accompany our discussions on this topic, and just labeling a view we disagree with as wrong because SDAs teach it doesn't seem helpful. Hell will be a TERRIBLE experience regardless of the view that is held by either group. In fact, it was Ellen White's graphic description of suffering in the lake of fire even for a finite period of time gave me great nightmares while growing up, because I knew I would burn for a long time because of my exceeding sinfulness. So, at least for me an idea of eventual annihilation gave me no comfort, and didn't prevent me from seeking a savior, and thankfully, because of Christ graciously saving me I won't have to experience hell no matter what the punishment is. Another reason we need to be very cautious and humble with regard to the topic of hell would be a presumption from our study that we know the mind of God on this topic with absolute certainty. Since judgment is the prerogative of God, then caution is in order. But, in my study so far, I can't be near as dogmatic on this subject as I can be on the doctrine of election. Election is taught thruout the entire Bible, and eternal punishment is alluded to and seemingly taught only in the synoptic gospels (not the gospel of John) and in the apocalypse of Revelation where a lot of symbolic language is used. No clear teaching of eternal punishment occurs in any of the sermons preached by Peter or Paul in Acts (for example Mars Hill), or in any of the epistles except for perhaps Jude, and even that reference is opened to honest questioning. Election is taught thruout Acts and the Epistles. So, this is all I have time for today while on vacation as the swimming pool calls me here on the "hot hot" desert, so I will go experience that heat now, but I would like to present some questions from my scriptural (not other book) study that I have done recently. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1549 Registered: 10-2004  |
Ramone, I would ask you to please try to understand why we use words such as "heresy." It is out of love. I call annihilationism dangerous heresy because that is what it is. Let me try to illustrate this. Many former Adventists, evolutionists/materialists/humanists/atheists already expect to be annihilated--that is what they have chosen and they are fine with it. How could you ever have any success telling them the Gospel without telling them what danger they are in? If you tell them that they are only facing annihilation without Christ--well that is what they have already chosen! How is that going to convince them that they need Christ? I believe that one of the reasons so few former Adventists are Christians is that they have been taught annihilationism. They give up on trying to be perfect and they figure that even if there is a God, they are only facing annihilation for rebelling against Him. They have no real fear of God. Whether He exists or not, their ultimate end will be annihilation. Jesus gave no such assurance to those who would reject Him! Dennis said it so well above: "Indeed, there is no safety nor security net outside of being in Christ." Just think of how many Adventists/former Adventists there may be who have given up and committed suicide--believing they will only be annihilated, which is more preferable to them than to keep on living. Also, as I mentioned before, annihilationism can very easily lead to universalism. Annihilationism also denigrates Christ's sacrifice, salvation, and God and His holiness, justice, and wrath. It reduces the seriousness of sinning against an infinitely holy God and of rejecting Jesus Christ. In short, it is dangerous heresy and it can lead people to eternal Hell. There is a reason why the cults deny the doctrine of Hell. Getting people to not believe in the serious reality of Hell is one of Satan's favorite tactics. Yes God's love for us causes us to love Him--but that love is that He died for us to save us from an eternity of torment apart from Him even though that is what we were guilty of (which means that annihilationism even lessens God's love for us!). People need to know both--they need to know that they are in eternal danger without Christ and they need to know that He loved them so much that He took their punishment for them. And that will cause them to believe in Him and also to love Him in return! Who would love Him more? One who was forgiven little (one guilty of temporal punishment and annihilation)? Or one who was forgiven much (one guily of eternal punishment)? Truly, when we see what Jesus has saved us from, it makes us all the more grateful! (See Luke 7:36-50.) Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on October 13, 2006) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1550 Registered: 10-2004 |
Hi Stan, You wrote:
As I showed before, the Greek word translated "destroy" and "perish" (apollumi) does not, primarily, mean annihilation. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18: "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing [apollumi], but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (NASB.) Were the people he was speaking of being annihilated? Not at all. As for 2 Peter 2, Jude was written as a recap of 2 Peter, and Jude interpreted Peter as talking about eternal fire. As for Peter talking about the elements melting with fervent heat--it is very clear that he is not describing Hell (the Lake of Fire/Gehenna) at all. It is talking about the earth being burned up. And according to Revelation 20-21, the first earth and heaven pass away before the wicked are judged and cast into the Lake of Fire.
Revelation should be taken symbolically only when it tells us that it is speaking symbolically. Otherwise, we need to take it literally for what it says. If "forever and ever" does not mean "forever and ever" for the torment, then how can we say just a little later when Revelation speaks of us reigning "forever and ever" that that does mean "forever and ever"? That is not consistent at all. If it means "forever and ever" when it talks about us reigning, than the torment must also be "forever and ever." The fact that Revelation at times speaks symbolically does not give us license or permission to not believe what it tells us, or to try to change a clear statement into something different. We are warned not to add or take away from the words of the book.
God destroys (renders useless) both body and soul in hell for eternity. Notice that Jesus is very clear and careful in His word selection in this verse. Let's read the whole verse: "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28 NASB.) According to annihilationism, He should have said, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to kill both soul and body in hell." But that's not what He said. He was very specific. He said that man can "kill" the body but can't "kill" the soul (it continues to exist in Hades, or heaven). Then He did NOT say that God "kills" the body OR soul. He said that He "destroys" (apollumi) both body and soul in hell (Gehenna). Obviously, this is something different than being "killed."
Death does mean death. But it's necessary to have a Biblical definition of death. The Bible nowhere defines death as non-existence! Does the first death mean annihilation (as the SDAs teach)?
Stan, hell is not heaven. I know that is a frank statement, but it is reality. The consequences for sinning against God are supposed to be horrible and terrible. Regarding the sentimental aspect, it is so important that we don't try to create God in our own image, but that we accept Him as He reveals Himself to us in His word. We can't let our sentimental ideas shape our view of Scripture. Regarding the creation of special bodies that won't burn up--even if the body did burn up, how would the spirit? How would spirits be burned up by flames of fire? Also, according to that logic, wouldn't God have to create special bodies for unbelievers that would not burn up right away, in order for them to burn for a long period of finite time? The truth is, God sustains us right now in our sufferings. God can certainly continue to sustain His creatures' bodies for eternity. No, the wicked do not have immortal (undying) or incorruptible bodies. Their bodies are continously being corrupted and are continuously dying in Hell. But just as our mortal bodies are being sustained right now by God, so will the bodies of the wicked be sustained by Him. If the eternal existence of unbelievers' bodies would mean they have immortality, then how can we say that the saints who will be raptured (or who already have been, such as Enoch and Elijah) were ever mortal--if they never die? We have mortal, dying bodies. But that doesn't mean that they will ever die necessarily. Remember, Hebrews 9 says that it is only appointed for men to die once physically, and after this comes judgment ("eternal judgment"--Hebrews 6:2)--not a second physical death!
I take exception to this statement. We believe in the lake of fire truly being the second death. Notice that it is the lake of fire itself that is the second death--not annihilation.
Jesus says that unbelief is an "eternal sin" (Mark 2:29).
Everybody does not receive the same reward. There are degrees of suffering in Hell. This is clearly taught in Scripture, and firmly believed by those who believe in eternal punishment.
Then don't you think that it would be more comforting to Satan and those who have rejected Christ, as well? Hell is not supposed to be comforting for the wicked in any way.
The non-elect do not experience God's love in hell. Revelation 14 says they receive His wrath without mixture/in full strength--not mixed with love or mercy. And this is not in any way unfair--it is completely just as it is what they deserve for their sins. It is also what we deserve for our sins--but Jesus suffered infinitely for us, in our place! How humbling and amazing! Praise Him!
I would like to say that I did not come to the conclusion that eternal hell is the truth because of reading authors. It was by studying what the Bible says. I did not read any books on the subject (and still have not read an entire book on it). I also have not labeled the doctrine as wrong because SDAs teach it. I have done so because it is unBiblical. Since I grew up SDA myself, I had to go from believing in annihilation to believing in eternal hell. I had to deal with Scripture--including verses that SDAs try to use to teach their view. In fact, even before I was convinced of eternal hell, I could see why annihilationism could be called heresy if it was wrong (even though I did not see the same with soul sleep at the time!).
That argument could be used for any doctrine. I see eternal hell as one of the clearest doctrines of Scripture. When God reveals things in His Word with absolute certainty, then yes we can believe His Word and have absolute certainty about what He says.
First of all, the epistles were written to believers, not unbelievers--so we may not expect to find as much detailed explanations of hell there. But Jesus warned unbelievers of the eternal punishment they were facing, and the apostles and early church believed Him and recorded His words. But, I disagree that eternal punishment is only taught in the synoptic Gospels and Revelation. See my reference to Hebrews 6:2 above. Also see 2 Thessalonians 1:9. Also, the doctrine is also taught in Daniel 12:2, which says that righteous will be resurrected bodily to everlasting life, but the wicked will be resurrected bodily, not to annihilation or another death of the body, but "to disgrace and everlasting contempt." Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on October 13, 2006) | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 413 Registered: 10-2002  |
Hi Jeremy, Thanks for your very understanding post. I'll reply (hopefully briefly) but not dogmatically by any means, because well, I'm not heavily convinced in either direction (although as I mentioned earlier, I do see Biblical evidence leaning in one direction more than the other). The problem is that the various groups of people you've mentioned here all have different ideas about what "annihilation" means. For example, people who do not believe in Christianity may think that death--passing away--is their annihilation. This is different than the Adventist idea that annihilation follows punishment. Merely ceasing to exist is different than being severely punished before ceasing to exist. And I know that many have said, "Well, it's practically the same" to the idea of temporal punishment followed by ceasing to exist. Yet I'm not sure it's good to minimize anyone's pain -- not only in the end of the world, but also now. I find it hard to judge whose pain and torment has been worse in any two given situations. If God decides that punishment must be eternal, then that will be appropriate. But if He decides that torment will cease, then that torment will also be exactly what was needed and I would not judge that it wasn't enough. The point where we differ is this: I don't believe one needs an utterly clear view of "hell" in order to see that they need Jesus Christ. I don't see hell very clearly, but I have seen that I need Jesus Christ. Most people know they are sinful. Everyone knows they're going to die. If this is not enough to convince someone they need Jesus, then that person likely has some other problems which need addressing. The book of Hebrews even says that Christ came to set us free who were held captive by our fear of death. There are countless ways to see that we need Christ. I'm not intending to minimize hell (whatever its reality turns out to be), however I am intending to emphasize the fact that Life is a greater convincer of our "need" than Death. Once we come into contact with His very real Life, that is more convincing and has a greater drawing power than any fear of death or realization of hell. If you've been living in darkness, when you see Light, that has made all the difference already. You know well enough from then on that you need Light. Additionally, in praying the other day some Scriptures came to mind from the Psalms which call us to rejoice because the Lord comes to judge the earth. In my own life I've seen "sin" and just knowing that He's coming to judge that, coming to judge all evil and get rid of it forever... my goodness, that is reason enough to rejoice! There is reason to rejoice about the judgment coming in the last day. As I realized this I broke out in tears thanking God. I'm relieved and happy that He is coming to judge the earth! I trust His judgment -- He is love, and He knows best. I'm at the point where I am trusting His judgment about which is better -- whether eternal "death" or eternal "dying" (as odd as the source of that distinction of words is, I think I've rarely found a better description of the different beliefs, because to be conscious --even in torment-- does seem to be "living" ... one might say "eternal life in torment"). But either way, I believe in His punishment, and I believe it's just as much as He knows is right... who am I to judge how much people need? If I am wrong, I am happy to be wrong, because God truly knows best in this matter and in every matter. I'm not exactly sure that this is how many people believe. Speaking for some of my own relatives (who've left Adventism), one of them does not believe in God altogether. Another has gone into astrology and apparently some wiccanism. They believe that they pass onto a different kind of spiritual life. They're not expecting annihilation at all. While some people do consciously feel like they're rebelling against God, I think most do not. However, at a deeper and perhaps subconscious level, most do feel like they're rebelling against God. This is very, very deep, however, and I don't believe that their expectation of what'll happen when they die is the major factor at all. Rather, it's that deep knowing that testifies within us all that we are sinful, that God is right, and that we really need Him and are wearing ourselves out without Him. I'm not really sure how many fall into this category, particularly those who've committed suicide. I had a dear friend (non-Christian) who committed suicide in 2002, and for her it was because of depression. Her life had become too painful to go on. And yes, it is difficult to even mention her now. I was also attending LaSierra when a student committed suicide. I don't believe people usually commit suicide because they don't fear of eternal punishment. Rather, they commit suicide because life has become so painful they cannot see any light. They've become afraid of life, not punishment. For them, living has become punishment. Many things can lead to universalism. Many things can lead people to Hell. And chief among the latter are the sins of the heart that we deal with today on a daily basis. One might have correct beliefs but may be full of pride, bitterness, and unforgiveness. They may believe in eternal dying but they may also be living a life of extreme legalism or in rejection of God's agape love. I appreciate the passion you're sharing and the good sense it makes, and as I said, I'm not unconvinced of the argument you're making. However on the last point, I have known of too many people who have begun believing the same things (eternal life, eternal hell), and yet they have left Christ. This has led me to believe that there is a lot more--so, so much more--involved. This makes sense. But of course, looking at the woman about whom Jesus said those words in Luke, we can see that she loved Him "more" because of the life she had led and her many sins. It was knowledge of these being forgiven that made her love Him, and it was this love that made Him speak lovingly of her. I don't know if she believed in eternal hell or not at that point, you know? For that lady, His forgiveness for her sins and rescue from her own sinful life was enough to swell her heart with love for Him, and He appreciated that completely. I don't have a perfect understanding of hell, but from that story, I realize that no matter how perfectly I understand, Jesus appreciates my love for Him. I know He's forgiven me, and I have enough in my past and in my "old man" to be ashamed of. I'm thankful He appreciates whatever little I "pour" on Him. Thanks again for your sensitive response, Jeremy. In Christian love, and in love with Christ, your brother Ramone | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 186 Registered: 11-2005 |
Wow, this is such a good discussion! Stan, you have brought up so many of the very questions regarding Hell that I've had. And Jeremy, your response was very helpful in seeing the "other" side and giving answers to those questions. Like Ramone, I'm not real set one way or another yet, although I'm tending to lean more in one direction the more I study this out. I think part of my lack of understanding comes from the fact that I don't have a real solid understanding of the biblical view of LIFE or DEATH yet. It makes sense that our spirits can never die, and I believe it, but yet it's not real solidified in my head how that works. When I try to explain it, sometimes I get the feeling like I did when I was an Adventist trying to explain something that sort of made sense, but not really. Because of that, I've been hesitant to come to a complete stance on it just because, well, I don't want that icky Adventist-type-trying-to-convince-myself-feeling ever again. And actually, it's been comforting to know that I don't have to know or completely understand right now. God has been faithful to grow me in His understanding, and I trust He will continue to do so in His time. What I do know, is that I don't have to fear death or punishment (however either of those end up being). I do have a question on sequence of events though in understanding death from a non-Adventist standpoint. I'm a bit confused. So -- say a believer dies. His body returns to the ground (decays), but his spirit returns to God. And however this is (I understand this is a mystery too), conscious or unconscious, God is our holding place? Then when Jesus comes, we are given our glorified bodies, and then go to heaven again with our bodies? Or is that when we go to the new earth? Or is this another mystery? I guess I don't understand why we have to wait for our bodies, or even why we would even need bodies. Why can't we just continue to exist as spirits? Now, when an unbeliever dies -- his body returns to the ground, and his spirit goes where? To a holding place kind of like hell? Or is it hell? Is it actual punishment (where there's fire, or is it just punishment in the fact that it's separation from God) or is it a neutral place until the judgment? So what happens when Jesus comes? Are unbelievers returned to their "bodies" too? These obviously aren't glorified bodies, so are these just their same earthly bodies? And then do they get thrown into the lake of fire? Again, what's the point of being reunited with their bodies? As you can tell, I still have lots of questions... Grace | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 286 Registered: 12-2004 |
Grace, Thank-you for being willing to admit your confusion. This is a topic that has not been important to me, as I do not believe that having the "correct understanding" is a salvation issue. For me annihilation vs eternal torment are moot points, in that both represent eternal separation from God. If the threat of eternal torment is what keeps, or scares a person into a relationship with God, then I believe it is no relationship at all. I have to leave this whole matter in God's hands and trust that He will ultimately do what is right, whether in my humaness I can fully understand the reasons or not. I have enough things in my life that keep my shorts tied in a knot that this is one I am not going to fret about. May you have a blessed Sabbath week in Jesus our Lord, Randy | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2899 Registered: 3-2004  |
Randy, I, like you, am so thankful this is not a salvation issue. In the Bible the important things are made crystal clear, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because that is how we receive salvation. Everything else is not clear. We only get a glimpse of this and it is interesting to discuss it. So, I leave all those things like annihilation vs eternal torment, end time events and all that in God's hands. One thing I was glad to give up when I left adventism was having all the answers to everything. It is so good to say I do not know. That is in God's hands. It is not that I am not interested. It is that I am not going to try to second guess God. Like you, I have other things in my life to fret about, when I want to fret. God, take all these things and take care of them as only you can. Give each of us here a blessed week with you, one day at a time. You are always so awesome. Diana | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2900 Registered: 3-2004 |
Whoops, I forgot to say I am confused also. There are so many things to study and I can only study one at a time. I will never know it all. Diana | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 237 Registered: 6-2006  |
Randy, you make such important points. In reading through the posts, I'm not sure I understand the importance of eternal punishment versus annihilationism. Heaven = eternal union with Christ Hell = eternal separation with Christ Is the issue about personal feelings? Like I'll feel better about my Grandpa being in Hell if I know that he's going to be annhiliated? I don't really think I would feel better about Grandpa being in Hell for even a minute! Also, being that there will be rejoicing in Heaven, (Rev 21) I don't think it will even matter or be an issue as to what is happening in Hell, or where's Grandpa. We just won't be affected in Heaven the way we are down here with our sin-distracted minds. I'm sorry for sounding dumb. To me this is in God's hands, like when Jesus is coming back. I'll sure have an awful lot of questions when I get there! Leigh Anne | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 287 Registered: 12-2004 |
Diana, post #2900...you go girl! and all of them positive!! | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 745 Registered: 7-2004 |
Randy, Diana and Leigh Anne, Thanks for saying what I have been saying to myself. I am so very grateful to be released from the bondage of the fear of not knowing. Jesus set me free when His Holy Word tells me, "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Those Revelation Seminar's were about fear of death and I praise God I am wrapped up in the joy of Jesus! It's all about Him! Denise | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2148 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks Jeremy and everyone for your thoughts. But I have just come back from a week of studying just about all of the texts on this topic, and I must say, there is a LOT MORE evidence for annihilation if you take the texts at face value, instead of trying to explain why death doesn't mean you are dead. First of all, I disagree entirely with the SDA position that the spirit is only breath, and I believe Adam was created as a corporeal-spiritual entity who was immortal on the condition that he didn't eat of the fruit. But here is what God said to them: 15 "The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die." Now, where is there any reference at all to an immortal soul? Adam died spiritually immediately, and he died bodily 900+ years later. Paul elaborates on this point further in Romans 5: Death in Adam, Life in Christ 12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:12-17 ESV) Paul clearly says DEATH and condemnation came through Adam, but there is not necessarily any implication of eternal torment for finite beings from these statements, and in Romans 6:23 Paul says "For the wages of sin is DEATH (not eternal torment) but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord". And 1 Timothy 6:16 is the clincher about the soul's immortality, as it is stated God ALONE has immortality: ... appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which he will display at the proper time--he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen." But Malachi is great little book, because it teaches both election in Malachi 1 and total annihilation in Mal. 3,4. I will start with Malachi 3 and see if there is not resemblance to the book of Revelation in this statement: The Book of Remembrance 16Then those who feared the LORD spoke with one another. The LORD paid attention and heard them, and a book of remembrance was written before him of those who feared the LORD and esteemed his name. 17"They shall be mine, says the LORD of hosts, in the day when I make up my treasured possession, and I will spare them as a man spares his son who serves him. 18Then once more you shall see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve him." This passage continues immediately in Malachi 4: 1[a] "For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. 2But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. 3And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the LORD of hosts." Now even the editors of the Reformation Study Bible, who don't believe in annihilation admit this text is quite comprehensive and I was STUNNED by their admission about this text in Malachi "the wicked are compared to a tree that will be consumed down to its roots, TOTALLY DESTROYED." Now I don't know how these editors can then come back later and say that eternal torment is true. I know Jeremy, you can come back and annihilate this argument in Malachi 4, but I find it so totally convincing, that I don't know how I ever changed my position to eternal torment. Is it just because this is an Old Testament reference, that this isn't valid? I believe all less clear texts on eternal torment have to be read in light of this one very clear statement in Malachi 4. Also, Jesus statement in Matthew 10:28: 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Now why can't I accept these very words of Jesus at face value that God can destroy both body and soul in hell? Dr. Hughes certainly says this is a valid interpretation. Also the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is the very model on which almost all the teaching on eternal punishment is likened to: 23The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar. 24Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven. 25And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26But Lot's wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. 27And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD. 28And he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the valley, and he looked and, behold, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace." That sulfur and fire completely destroyed the Sodomites, as that punishment wasn't eternal conscious torment. I have so much more scriptural evidence to present on this, as I have only scratched the surface. I found texts that I didn't even know existed supporting annihilation. Anyway Jeremy, keep up the challenges to my position, as I don't want to believe false doctrine. But I now feel convicted that I must uphold the position that I believe scripture teaches. But notice, I do not hold to the SDA position as I believe in the human spirit, and I believe in the intermediate state, that we still go to be with the Lord, and the wicked are being held awaiting the final judgment. Jeremy, I don't understand your philosophical arguments you stated above. Leading to universalism just is not likely--unless you are a liberal SDA, or the like liberal. And leading to suicides is without any evidence whatsoever. I believe that the doctrine of eternal torment might even keep people from taking the claims of Christianity seriously, except for the sovereign grace of God which works through these kind of errors. Stan | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 350 Registered: 7-2005  |
Stan, I will challenge you about your understanding and internal coherence of your position. You said
and after this you claimed
In your first statement you claimed that the soul of Adam does not survive his death at 900 years. because you spoke about conditional immortality. Certainly Adam does not fulfilled the condition of obedience, and his death implies in your view that the soul will not survive the body. But the next statement is not in harmony with the first, because it affirms the fact that the soul is continuing it's existence after the death of the body. Without this it will not be an intermediate state. How do you reconcile these points? | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2149 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks Jacob for pointing out a possible inconsistency. I do believe that Adam is likely saved, and therefore he is with the Lord awaiting the final resurrection along with the rest of the saints who have died in the Lord. There is no scriptural evidence for the immortality of the soul, as this is a concept that came from Plato and not scripture. Just to quote again from Dr. Philip Hughes, a respected Reformed scholar: "What may be deduced from the Biblical revelation? First of all, that man as originally created was both potentially immortal and potentially mortal. In close association with this is his having been created potentially sinless, but also potentially sinful. The possibility of his sinning involved the possibility of his dying, just as the possibility of his not sinning involved the possibility of his not dying. As we have remarked earlier, this does not mean that man was originally created in a state of neutrality between righteousness and sinfulness and between living and dying; for, on the contrary, his creation in the divine image, which is the bond of his personal fellowship with his Maker, placed his existence quite positively within the sphere of godliness and life. His loving and grateful concurrence with the will of God, who is the source of his life and blessedness, would have ensured the continuation of his existence in unclouded blessing as he conformed himself to that image in which he is constituted. It was by his rebellion against his Creator that he passed from a positive to a negative relationship and brought the curse upon himself. His death, which is the sum of that curse, is also the evidence that man is not inherently immortal." "To contend that only the human soul is innately immortal is to maintain a position which is nowhere approved in the teaching of Scripture, for in the biblical purview human nature is always seen as integrally compounded of both the spiritual and the bodily. If this were not so, the whole doctrine of the incarnation and of the death and resurrection of the Son would be despoiled of meaning and reality. Man is essentially a corporeal-spiritual entity. God's warning at the beginning, regarding the forbidden tree, 'In the day that you eat of it you shall die,' was addressed to man as a corporeal-spiritual creature-- should he eat of it, it as such that he would die. There is NO SUGGESTION that a part of him was undying and therefore that his dying would be in part only." Stan | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 188 Registered: 11-2005 |
In following this thread more (reading Stan and Jackob's post), I realized I didn't really know the difference between a "soul" and "spirit" (if there is one). I came across a website that addresses this question. http://www.gotquestions.org/soul-spirit.html According to this website (and more importantly, the Bible), there is a difference. I guess now the question is, do unbelievers have a "spirit" (just a dead one)? Or no "spirit" at all, and only "soul"? If they don't have a "spirit" and only a "soul", then it seems the soul would have to be immortal (like the spirit) for there to be an eternal hell for unbelievers. Or no? I realize that this is not a salvational issue, which is why it's been something I've not really bothered seeking out too much. And I'm thankful for that! But, I feel understanding the "spirit" helps me relate my newfound "walk in the Spirit" and being born again of the Spirit (literally!! -- contrary to what I used to think) with my Adventist friends a lot more clearly. Even if I never end up discussing the state of dead or hell with them (which probably isn't the best way to start witnessing to your Adventist friends anyway!), I feel if I have a better understanding of the Spirit, then I can better communicate the big picture. Not sure if that makes sense, or if even my questions make sense. It's sometimes hard to articulate all the thoughts and questions that go on in my head. Anyway, this is a good topic. I'm learning a lot. Grace | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1552 Registered: 10-2004 |
Hi Stan, I appreciate the fact that you are inviting me to challenge your position. First of all, I would say that with that quote you posted and your other post, you have demolished your own position better than I could!  The quote you posted says:
And you wrote:
And then you wrote:
So, you yourself did a great job of "trying to explain why death doesn't mean you are dead"!! As you said, Adam's spirit died the day he ate the fruit. Was his spirit non-existent? No, of course not. As you yourself affirm, his dead spirit would have gone on to suffer consciously in Hades after his body died (if he had not been saved). Therefore, a dead spirit does NOT = a non-existent spirit. Therefore, we have no evidence that dead (sinful) spirits will ever cease to exist. Death means separation from God--a dead spirit is dead to God in transgressions, but is alive to sin. Paul says in Romans 6 that before our spirits were regenerated, we were very much alive--to sin. So the fact that Adam's spirit died the day he ate the fruit, tells us that a spirit continues to exist while "dead"--therefore, a continuation of existence does not = immortal. A dead spirit is not an immortal spirit. But again, the fact that Adam's spirit died tells us that a spirit continues to exist while "dead"--meaning, no annihilation! The spirit is as dead as it gets, yet still existing. We have to define the second death the way the Bible defines it, which is separation from God in the eternal lake of fire. Also, Christians do not believe in the Greek concept of "the immortality of the soul." This meant that the body was a prison and that at death the soul got to be set free and that that was the ultimate purpose for a human--to be a soul without a body, for eternity. This was a denial of the resurrection and the fact that God created us to have bodies and that we, in fact, are not complete without a body. As for 1 Timothy 6:16, see my response to your interpretation of that verse on October 5. As for Malachi 3 sounding like Revelation--actually, the book of remembrance spoken of is not the same as the Lamb's book of life. As for Malachi 4, first of all I have to say that no, no, no, you are very wrong about how we should interpret things! The Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the NEW TESTAMENT, NOT the other way around!! This is how SDAs get so messed up with their theology including Sabbath/Law keeping. God's ultimate revelation to mankind is in Jesus Christ--the NT is fuller, clearer revelation. We must interpret OT texts in light of the very clear statements in the NT. You said: "I believe all less clear texts on eternal torment have to be read in light of this one very clear statement in Malachi 4." Like I said, that is a very dangerous position to take. Any good Bible teacher will tell you that one of the most important and basic rules of hermeneutics is to interpret the OT in light of the NT. So, why not interpret all other texts in light of the clear statements in the NT, including Jesus' words? If the OT seems more clear to you--than there is a problem with your interpretation. The OT cannot be more clear than the fuller revelation in the NT. Stan, I'm not surprised at all at those Study Bible editors. They are doing what they are supposed to be doing--interpreting the OT in light of the NT. And they weren't saying that Malachi is teaching annihilation--they were saying that the wicked are "totally destroyed"! But again, let's come back to that word destroyed. Here are a couple of good paragraphs from Samuel Fisk's book The Problems of the Afterlife, in the section talking about the NT Greek word apollumi and the word "destroy." The following paragraphs are from page 46:
Now, regarding Malachi 4, there is no question that this passage is a prophecy of Jesus' first coming. As for a second fulfillment of the passage, however, there are a few important points to mention. First of all, the mention of ashes could only refer to the bodies of the wicked. How could their spirits be turned to ashes? They couldn't--ashes are physical/material--spirits are immaterial. I don't see any evidence here at all of the annihilation of the spirits of the wicked. Also, we have to determine how literal this passage is. Will the wicked literally be straw/chaff (which is what the word translated "stubble" means)? Also, the wicked do not have literal "roots" or "branches." So, perhaps we should not take the part about treading down the wicked and walking on top of ashes strictly literally, either. Also, the Bible says that we will dwell in the new earth and the new Jerusalem. Are we literally going to walk on the ashes of the wicked? If so, where? The Bible says that the lake of fire is eternal. And as for the part about leaving them neither root nor branch, here is David Guzik's commentary:
Even if the part about walking on the ashes of the wicked is to be taken literally, where is the proof that this is talking about the Lake of Fire? Why couldn't it be talking about the following event at the end of the Millennium, which happens before the resurrection of the wicked and Great White Throne judgment and lake of fire? "And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them." (Revelation 20:9 NASB.) Or yet another option could be at the second coming of Christ. To say that this passage (Malachi 4) is absolute, clear proof of annihilation, is just not accurate.
I take them at face value. As I pointed out before, God does not kill the soul or the body, He destroys (renders useless) both soul and body in hell. God does something (apollumi) to the body that man cannot do. And yet man can kill/burn up/turn to ashes a human body. But what God does is worse. Why does Jesus not say that He can "kill both soul and body in hell"??
Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, see the following link: http://www.forananswer.org/Jude/Jude7.htm Also, just because Jude verse 7 says that they were an example or type of what would happen to the wicked does not necessarily mean that it is an exact type. Also, the existence of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah did not end on earth but continued in Hades and will continue to exist forever and ever according to the NT. Also Jude 6 connects to verse 7 with a "just as"--which is very interesting if you read verse 6. Also, verse 13 of Jude says: "for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever." So, the wicked will experience outer darkness (as Jesus talks about) "forever."
If the penalty for sin is burning in the Lake of Fire for a finite period of time--then after the penalty has been paid God would be obligated to take the wicked (including Satan himself) to heaven.
I have heard stories, including on this forum, of Adventists who have gone off into the world, figuring that they cannot become perfect and that they will be annihilated even if they try real hard so they might as well enjoy life, and also of those who have committed suicide because they have given up on trying to become perfect. To say that the expectation of being annihilated played no role in these people abandoning God would be unrealistic, in my opinion. Jeremy | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 839 Registered: 4-2000  |
Stan, An important church council, the Council of Chalcedon in A. D. 451, was largely convened to correct the heresy of soul sleep and annihilationism. Centuries later, the great Reformer, John Calvin, devoted his FIRST literary work to debunk this aberration of the Christian faith. The theory of annihilationism in which the wicked pass into nonexistence either at death or at the resurrection was first advanced by Arnobius, a fourth-century "Christian" apologist [see Baker's Dictionary of Theology, page 184]. Interestingly and strikingly, the Scriptures portray how the wicked will actually beg for annihilation in asking for the rocks and mountains to fall on them to hide them "from the wrath of the Lamb" (Rev. 6:16). However, despite their frantic pleas, suicide and/or annihilation will not be permitted to substitute for their "eternal punishment" (Matt. 25:46). The annhilationist's claim that the traditional view of death came from the Greek philosophers is a bogus claim. For example, Aristotle did not believe like Plato on this topic. In fact, the Aristotle view of death is very similar to the SDA view of death. Furthermore, the Greeks (Plato included) did not believe in death and the afterlife like Christians do. The Greeks did not believe in a bodily resurrection. Indeed, the Greek philosophers were not united in their view of death. By citing Plato, and not Aristotle as well, is selective reading that grossly distorts the facts on this topic. The extinction/re-creation view holds that at death human beings cease to exist and that the resurrection of the dead involves their re-creation. The ungodly in hell would like for annihilation to be true, as Jonathan Edwards noted more than two centuries ago: "Wicked men will hereafter earnestly wish to be turned to nothing and forever cease to be that they might escape the wrath of God." Edwards further spoke the truth when he declared, "all Scripture is very express and abundant in this matter that the eternal punishment is in sensible misery and torment and not annihilation." Traditionalism, not conditionalism, is the historic view of the Christian church--and for good reason because it is abundantly taught in Scripture. And as we might expect of one aspect of God's truth, it coheres well with other biblical teachings. Like a completed puzzle, it reveals the BIG PICTURE Christologically and soteriologically. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1495 Registered: 7-2003 |
Stan, thanks for your honest view of study you have presented. I appreciate the tone and openness with which you present the view. Like Grace above, I'm so glad I don't have to 'know'. I do hate that some would use it to divide ... and I'm not talking about the debate here, but those within adventism who use such disagreements to hold an air of superiority. Your post does not hold such tone and I appreciate the honest way in which you presented the 'opposing' view. |
