| Author | Message | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1553 Registered: 10-2004  |
Hi Grace, You wrote:
When we die, we depart and go to be with Christ (Philippians 1:21-24). In other words, our spirit/soul continues to exist consciously in heaven.
1 Thessalonians 4 says that God brings us to our bodies at the time of the rapture, at which time we will be caught up bodily in the air. What happens after that is debated among Christians based on their view of the timing of the rapture, etc.
Because God created us to have bodies and we are not complete without them. God wants to redeem ALL of you, not just your spirit. 
The unbeliever's spirit goes to Hades (Sheol in the Hebrew OT). This has been translated "hell" in the KJV, but it is only a temporary holding place until the judgment and the eternal "hell" (Gehenna in the Greek)/the lake of fire. According to Jesus in Luke 16, this temporary holding place is a place of torment in flames, but it is not the final judgment. It is kind of like a criminal being held in jail before they are judged and receive their sentence.
The unbelievers are returned to their bodies, yes, but not when Jesus comes. The second resurrection (which is of the wicked) occurs after the Millennium (Revelation 20).
Yes, they are thrown into the lake of fire after their bodies are resurrected. The point of being reunited with their bodies, as I see it, is so that they can fully suffer the punishment that is due them. They sinned in and with their bodies and they must suffer in their bodies.
Yes, unbelievers definitely have a spirit. This is very clear from Scripture. Their spirit is dead to God, but alive to sin--and very much exists. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on October 15, 2006) | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2150 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, Grace, Melissa, Dennis, and Jacob and others, This is an interesting discussion. Thanks for everyone's participation. Also thanks to Richard and Colleen for allowing this discussion. I frankly don't have all the answers to this question, as my study this past week consisted of reading Bible passages from the Old Testament and I read the entire New Testament, as I wanted to see a big picture of what the Bible teaches, and using no commentaries. I have many more comments, but my wife Marti is calling me to dinner now, so will have a few thoughts more later. Stan | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 189 Registered: 11-2005 |
Thanks, Jeremy. I feel so stupid sometimes having such elementary and basic questions, but yet it's understanding the "basics" that I realized I was really sketchy on. I really appreciate the time you took to answer my questions. Grace | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 157 Registered: 7-2005  |
I need a definition of immortal here. I would guess that the "im-" would mean not...not mortal. So does mortal mean created? Only God is not created, therefore only God is not mortal. Right? So if humans are immortal, does that mean we have always existed, as God has always existed? The Mormons believe this, don't they? That the human spirit exists both before and after it is united with an earthly body? If a human spirit can exist after the body dies, couldn't it also exist before birth, as the Mormons teach? I personally don't believe this myself, but I'm just wondering whether teaching that the soul/spirit is immortal would open the door for a person to come the the same conclusion the Mormons came to. Honestwitness | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2151 Registered: 3-2005 |
Grace, Don't feel stupid, as none of us have all the answers, as it is not as simple as some would have us believe. The more I study the Bible, the more I find that I don't have all the answers, but essential Biblical doctrine is able to be understood without a degree in Greek, and the Holy Spirit will make truth known to our hearts. It is going to take a lot of time to answer all of your questions Jeremy and Dennis, and Jacob, but I will try to answer them as I get time, as just having come off vacation, I now need to get back to my day job of ministering to the sick, suffering, and dying and this is where my "soft" side of theology is having an effect on me. I know we are not supposed to determine doctrine on emotion, and I am very conservative as to Biblical inerrancy. I have participated in discussions on this forum in the past on this subject clearly and confidently spouting the party line of traditional evangelicalism about eternal torment, but, somehow there was something in my spirit that never made me feel quite content that I was necessarily right. The sin of Adam definitely confers a fallen nature on the entire human race, and except for the monergistic regenerating grace of God, we all deserve death. But why does that death sentence of Genesis 2 necessarily demand eternal torment in the fires of hell for all eternity for all those who reject Christ, or who were non-elect?There are so many dying everyday who have never heard of Christ, and are doomed to this most frightening fate. I deal everyday with the suffering and dying--many good people, but they don't know Christ. Is their fate eternal burning and torment for all eternity? Billions who were born into this world by no choice of their own, and DEAD in their trespasses, unless regenerated by God's grace, necessarily consigned to burn in hell for eternity? I ignored this problem for so long thinking that it was only SDAs and many other liberals in liberal Christianity that taught annihilation. In fact it is liberal SDA and liberal Christianity that teaches NO PUNISHMENT of any kind. At least Ellen White in Great Controversy taught what seemed to be a very just final punishment where sinners suffered in hell proportionately to their sins. THIS WAS A DETERRENT for me, since I was such a sinner, so that when I was saved in 1982, I felt a great sense of relief that I wouldn't have to suffer that penalty. So Hell will be terrible whether it is temporal or eternal. It was only when I realized that their were other conservative Reformed and evangelical scholars who also had problems with the traditional view of eternal torment, that then I was driven to study this topic, and use my vacation time for this purpose(And it was very rewarding!) I know I stated these things before, but this is where I am coming from, so next I will get to some other scriptures that raise questions regarding the traditional view of eternal torment. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1554 Registered: 10-2004 |
Grace, don't feel stupid! All of us were completely ignorant of the "basics" growing up in Adventism! Honestwitness, According to blueletterbible.org, the word translated "immortality" in 1 Corinthians 15 means: "1) undying, immortality, everlasting." The word "immortality" has do with the body, however. The phrase "eternal life" is what is used for the spirit/soul. The spirit/soul is nowhere described as "mortal" or "immortal," but rather as "dead" or "alive." Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2152 Registered: 3-2005 |
Honestwitness, I just saw your post and that is an excellent point. That is why we have to go by what the Bible says about who is immortal and that is GOD ALONE. (1 Timothy 6:15,16) There are some other basic considerations that are important. All of the New Testament teaching on hell is contained in Matthew, Mark, Luke(the synoptic gospels) and Revelation. In a sense the synoptic gospels were apocalyptic leading up to the judgment on the Jewish nation in A.D. 70, and it is also possible based on some very good research by Kenneth Gentry that Revelation was written prior to AD 70. The gospel of John which does not have Christ's references to hell or Gehenna was likely written after AD 70. Why is the above paragraph possibly significant? Well because of the abundant Old Testament imagery and teaching with regard to judgment. It is irresponsible to ignore all the Old Testament imagery that Jesus used in the Synoptic gospels and John used in Revelation to then come up with a doctrine of punishment of the wicked in the New Testament that was foreign to the Old Testament. I agree with Jeremy that our Sabbath doctrine should come from interpreting the OT in light of the NT. But the same is not necessarily true with regard to APOCALYPTIC literature. Malachi 4:1-6 is too explicit to just ignore: 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 as far as I know this hasn't happened yet. But I take this statement at FACE VALUE. If the wicked are destroyed root and branch and are ashes, then they cannot be a body-spirit entity undergoing the eternal torments of hell. Mark 9:42-48 is commonly used to teach eternal torment: 42"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[g] it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell,[h] to the unquenchable fire.[i] 45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.' However this is a direct reference to several passages in Isaiah that the Jews would be familiar with. The word for hell "Gehenna" refers to a garbage dump outside Jerusalem that was always burning, and Gehenna referred to the Valley of Hinnom. Look at Isaiah 66:24: 24"And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." So the worms that die not are feasting on the dead bodies, not bodies that are suffering eternal torment. There is corresponding terminology that John borrows in Revelation 14:10 about the smoke of their torment going up forever and ever in Isaiah 34: 8"For the LORD has a day of vengeance, a year of recompense for the cause of Zion. 9And the streams of Edom[b] shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into sulfur; her land shall become burning pitch. 10Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever. 11But the hawk and the porcupine[c] shall possess it," So, in the apocalyptic literature pointing to AD 70 and beyond to the end of time, there are references to judgment, and pictures of punishment in the pictures and scriptures that the audience Jesus and John were addressing that they would be familiar with, but certainly eternal torment was not being taught in the scriptures that were being cross-referenced. There are so many more examples but so little time. Here is a revealing text in Hebrews 10:26-31: 26For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of FIRE that will CONSUME the adversaries. 28Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "VENGEANCE is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Now in plain English "Consume" means just that. But I am sure that there is some Greek scholar somewhere that will tell me that it doesn't. The clear implication of that last text in Hebrews is that God will consume the adversaries and exact Vengeance proportional to what is just. This brings up another point about quoting Greek scholars about the meanings of certain Greek words such as appollinari or whatever. Jeremy will quote a Greek scholar who will claim a word means one thing, yet just as good of one such as John Wenham, well respected in Reformed and evangelical scholarship will disagree and say that the English meaning is just fine thank-you. This idea that we cannot take English words for what they really mean, but instead we have to listen to some Greek scholar, and one who agrees with whatever side you are taking is somewhat troubling. The Bible alone with the good English translations such as ESV etc. are plenty good at coming up with the proper meanings if you compare scripture with scripture. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4781 Registered: 12-2003  |
Honestwitness, you brought up an important point. God alone is immortal, and the fact that a saved person has eternal life does not mean he is "immortal". First, the definition of "immortal" means "not subject to death", accoring to my Webster's, and truly a saved person is not subject to eternal death. But humans, as you pointed out, have points of originóand God does not. Second, a saved person's spirit does not intrinsically have immortality. In fact, we are born with spirits dead to God. We are not born with living spirits as Jesus was. Our eventual "immortality" is the gift of Jesus' sacrifice opening the way for us to be connected to God, thus inheriting our eternal life. We are not intrinsically immortal. Similarly, the unrepentand will die eternally. Death, or being not connected to God who is Life, is not "immortality". If a human exists eternally in a state of non-relationship and suffering, that person is not alive. In fact, this state is something we can relate to when we think about an unconverted human now. We are born dead. Unless we believe in the Lord Jesus, we die as dead men and women. The earthly life of an unsaved person is a "life of death". Yet this existence does not make them truly "alive". They are only physically aliveóin other words, they now exist. Had they never been conceived, then they would not exist. What happens for eternity, I believe, makes some sense when we think about what we know about life on this side of the cross. Before Jesus came, there was no such thing as people being indwelt by the Holy Spirit in the New Birth. That wasn't possible until Jesus died and opened the new, living way to the Father (Hebrews 10). Now, however, the earth is full of two kinds of people: the spiritually alive, and the spiritually dead. Eternity will also be occupied by the alive and the dead. Now, I admit there is mystery here which has not been revealed. We can't say FOR SURE what eternal death will "look" like. But because I can look at people right now and see that some are alive and some are dead, I can see how a similar situation could exist for eternity. Death is not lifeóand even now, the spiritually dead are not truly aliveóeven though they are moving about on the earth. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2154 Registered: 3-2005 |
John Stott is one of the leading evangelicals who believe that annihilation is the most Biblical view and here is a current interview by Christianity Today which is interesting: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/october/32.94.html Here is one excerpt regarding the dangers of pride: Pride is the ever-present danger that faces all of us. In many ways, it is good for us to be despised and rejected. I think of Jesus' words, "Woe unto you when all men speak well of you." Going back to the hapax, it's a very humbling concept. The essence of evangelicalism is very humbling. You have William Temple saying, "The only thing of my very own which I contribute to redemption is the sin from which I need to be redeemed." I like that--the only thing I contribute to redemption is the sin from which I need to be redeemed! That is a humbling concept. More evidence of how well John Stott is respected despite what some would call his "aberrant" view on annihilation is the following compilation of most recommended books compiled by a prominent Reformed or "Calvinist" leader named C.J. Mahaney of www.sovereigngraceministries.com and guess who is at the top of his list--yes, it is John Stott: C. J. Mahaney leads Sovereign Grace Ministries. Here is his list of books that should have been most influential in evangelicalism in the last 50 years: 1.)The Cross of Christ, by John Stott 2.)Knowing God, by J. I. Packer 3.)The Holiness of God, by R.C. Sproul 4)Fundamentalism and the Word of God, by J.I. Packer 5.)Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem 6.)The Cross and Christian Ministry, by D.A. Carson 7.)The Trilogy (The God Who Is There; Escape From Reason; He is There and He is Not Silent), by Francis Schaeffer 8.)Competent to Counsel, by Jay Adams and Instruments in the Redeemers Hands, by Paul Tripp 9.)Systematic Theology, by Wayne Grudem 10.)Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14, by D. A. Carson, Godís Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, by Gordon Fee I like that list of books as listed above. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2155 Registered: 3-2005 |
And then I researched further and found Pastor Philip Ryken's list of what should have been the list of the ten most influential books. Ryken is the PCA pastor of the famous Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, and he also independently of Mahaney above put John Stott at the very top: Those that should have been most influential include: John Stott, Basic Christianity Jerry Bridges, The Pursuit of Holiness J. I. Packer, Knowing God Patrick Johnstone, Operation World John Piper, Desiring God Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God David Wells, No Place for Truth The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy Will Metzger, Tell the Truth R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross ------------------------------------------------- So it is interesting that John Stott, despite his belief in annihilation doesn't disqualify himself from those who disagree with him as two of the most prominent leaders in Reformed circles put his books at the top. So maybe this doctrine is one that we will just have to agree to disagree on agreeably. Stan | ||
| Olga Registered user Username: Olga Post Number: 20 Registered: 11-2005 |
This is one of the most civil, yet interesting discussions on such controversial topic as this one; we all have different views on the matter (as for me, I am one of those "confused" individuals and I do thank God I don't really have to know the answer or I would be lost!!!). Please try to keep up with the tone seen in the latest posts; it is nice knowing no one will "beat you up" (or others here) for having different views on this and other issues. "Let the peace that Christ gives control your thinking, because you were all called together in one body to have peace. Always be thankful." (Colossians 3:15) Olga | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 351 Registered: 7-2005  |
Stan, I'm amusing myself to "death" reading the above paragraph. You already are listening to greek scholars who translated the Bible for you! And they used the words they consider appropriate to convey the original meaning of greek. The meaning of the enghlish words has no value if it is not in harmony with the meaning in greek. You are already depending on greek scholars, for the NT translation which you have in your hands! I hope you are not returning to adventists hermeneutics. Because they trusted fully their KJV, and rejected correction from hebrew scholars who understood the word in the original language, adventists connected Daniel 8:14, "the sanctuary will be cleansed" with Leviticus 16, based on the word cleansed. They ignored that in hebrew, the original language of OT, the word "cleansed" is "taher" in Leviticus 16 and tsadaq in Daniel 8. Linguistically they had no connection, but using the english translation they arrived at a conclusion which is not supported by the Bible. I insist on the importance of hermeneutics because the entire SDA church based it's sanctuary doctrine on bad hermeneutics, which ignored the original meaning of the text, and favoured the KJV translation. Actually Miller was immune to correction from bible scholars who tried to show him that some words have in original a different meaning than the KJV suggest. Miller said to one scholar
I hope you laughed when you read the above argument, which seems logical, but it's a par of the way cults interpret the Bible usually. But Jeremy had not asked you to trust scholars alone, but check how the word translated "destroyed", apollumni, was used in other contexts, ofeering a link to see the word used in other contexts. You used the same method when you talked about the word "draw" and his usage in NT, drawing a sword, etc. Beside the greek expert, you offered biblical proofs open for everybody to read, where the same greek word was used. Of course, You know that some people will capitalize on the english meaning of the word draw implying that it means "allure". With gentleness you will remember them to use the biblical meaning of the word, not what they think the word in english means. Jeremy did the same about the word "destroy". | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2157 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jacob, My point is not that scholars are bad, and of course I believe in scholarship, but John Wenham(a non SDA well recognized Greek scholar) is just as qualified a scholar as the others mentioned and he believes the Greek rendering of these words supports annihilation--maybe he is biased, but, again he is respected by the scholars who disagree with him. But thanks Jacob for the question, as again I don't have all the answers either. And thanks Olga for your encouraging words, as I believe everyone has conducted themselves well. Stan | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 352 Registered: 7-2005 |
Stan, As I said, you are not supposed to chose between scholars, both respected and with knowledge in greek. You can search for yourself and see if the meaning of some word in greek is used properly by them in context. This can be easily done by reading the texts that contains the same words. It seems to me that you were stuck in a position where the only exit was to cling to what a word means in english. But from your answer it looks that this is not the case. Maybe you will come later and show why you prefer John Wenham's interpretation of appolumni. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2158 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here is a must read article on the subject of annihilation vs. eternal punishment, and this presents a balanced view of the problematic arguments represented by both sides of this controversy. John Stott is allowed to give his reasons why he leans toward annihilation, and to me his views make total Biblical sense. I had not had an opprtunity to read his rationale before, but this article is excellent and comprehensive: http://www.christianity.co.nz/life_death11.htm Here is just one excerpt on the problem of interpretation: First, there is the question of the use of language and the meaning of the terms used. Frequent terminology used in relation to the final state of the lost is that relating to ìdestructionî. The commonest Greek words used are the verb apollumi (to destroy) and the noun apÚleia (destruction). When the verb is active and transitive it means to ìkillî. It is used in this sense when Herod wanted to kill the baby Jesus and when the Jewish leaders plotted to have him executed (Matthew 2:13; 12:14; 27:20). It is used at least twenty-two times in this plain sense. Jesus used this word when he talked of God destroying ìboth soul and body in hellî (Matthew 10:28; cf. James 4:12). Stott comments, ìIf to kill is to deprive the body of life, hell would seem to be the deprivation of both physical and spiritual life, that is, an extinction of being.î When this verb is used in the middle and intransitive tense, then it means to be destroyed and so to ìperishî. It is used often of perishing physically (e.g. Luke 15:17; 1 Corinthians 10:9), but also, in about nine instances, of those who perish spiritually. Unbelievers are spoken of as ìthose who are perishingî (1 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 2:15; 4:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:10). The word used in 1 Thessalonians 5:3 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is olethros, which also means ìruinî or ìdestructionî. John Stott comments on the use of these terms: "It would seem strange, therefore, if people who are said to suffer destruction are in fact not destroyed; andÖit is difficult to imagine a perpetually inconclusive process of perishing. It cannot, I think, be replied that it is impossible to destroy human beings because they are immortal, for the immortalityóand therefore indestructibilityóof the soul is a Greek not a biblical concept." Some would be more dogmatic than this. R. F. Weymouth, who translated the New Testament into English (first published in 1903) directly from the Greek, after many years of intensive study of textual criticism, wrote: "My mind fails to conceive a grosser misinterpretation of language than when the five or six strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying ëdestroyí, or ídestructioní, are explained to mean maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence. To translate black as white is nothing to this." [51] -------------------------------------------------- That last paragraph is amazing. Weymouth who actually translated the bible from Greek into English making such a strong statement upholding annihilation. Also notice this statement from John Stott: I think it is appropriate to give the final statement on this issue also to John Stott. In a personal statement which he prepared in reply to a number of correspondents who questioned him on these issues, which Timothy Dudley-Smith records in the second volume of his magnificent biography of Stottís life, John Stott: A Global Ministry, [56] he says: "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." -------------------------------------------------- So, even F.F. Bruce(one of the greatest New Testament greek scholars that ever lived) agreed with Stott that there is room for differences here and even Bruce could not come to a certain conclusion on the matter and remained agnostic on this issue of eternal torment. I have read many other statements from people who believe in eternal torment also say that those who disagree have valid arguments. So, it seems it is difficult to attach a label of heresy so readily as some do today. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2163 Registered: 3-2005 |
Some other interesting points that John Stott makes: "Another matter for debate is the meaning and use of the word ìeternalî, which keeps popping up in the context of both the future destiny of both the saved and the lost. [52] As regards its use at the end of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats where ìeternal punishmentî is contrasted with ìeternal lifeî (Matthew 25:46), Stott comments: "What Jesus said is that both the life and the punishment would be eternal, but he did not in that passage define the nature of either. Because he elsewhere spoke of eternal life as a conscious enjoyment of God (John 17:3), it does not follow that eternal punishment must be a conscious experience of pain at the hand of God. On the contrary, although declaring both to be eternal, Jesus is contrasting the two destinies: the more unlike they are, the better." "The issue at stake is whether the word ìeternalî refers to the length of the punishment, or merely to the irreversible nature of the punishment, whatever that punishment might include. There is nothing here that might necessarily preclude the second option." The second area of debate concerns the symbolic imagery used in Scripture to characterise hell, particularly that of fire. The most common expression that Jesus used of hell was gehenna, a transliteration from the Hebrew ge hinnom. It occurs eleven times in the gospels. [53] Hinnom was a valley south of Jerusalem where, under the kings Ahaz and Manasseh, children were sacrificed in the fire to the god Molech (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6; 2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6). The prophets borrowed the term as a symbol of judgement (Jeremiah 7:31, 32; 19:6). In Jesusí day, the valley was used as a burial place for criminals and for burning garbage. Closely associated with this imagery is the concept of fire, which is mentioned about twenty times in connection with the final judgement. We read such terms as ìhell fireî (literally: ìgehenna of fireîóMatthew 5:22), ìeverlasting fireî (Matthew 18:8), the place ìwhere the fire never goes outî (Mark 9:43) and ìthe lake of fireî (Revelation 20:15). God himself, in a passage that speaks of final judgement, is spoken of as ìa consuming fireî (Hebrews 12:29). We may well accept that the ìfireî is to be taken figuratively and not literally, as is the term ìouter darknessî which is used on several occasions. [54] (Anyway, fire and darkness would appear to exclude each other if taken literally.) However, the images that are used are meant to mean something. Stott aptly comments: "It is doubtless because we have all had experience of the acute pain of being burned, that fire is associated in our minds with ëconscious tormentí. But the main function of fire is not to cause pain, but to secure destruction, as all the worldís incinerators bear witness. Hence the biblical expression ëa consuming fireí and John the Baptistís picture of the Judge ëburning up the chaff with unquenchable fireí (Matthew 3:12; cf. Luke 3:17). The fire itself is termed ëeternalí and ëunquenchableí, but it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible. Our expectation would be the opposite: it would be consumed forever, not tormented forever. Hence it is the smoke (evidence that fire has done its work) which ërises for ever and everí (Revelation 14:11; cf. 19:3)." There are other passages where fire is mentioned that are much debated, such as the torment experienced by the rich man in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), and the statement that some will be tormented ìin the presence of the holy angels and of the LambÖAnd the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever.î (Revelation 14:10, 11). We must be careful in interpreting a parable, which the story in Luke appears to be, rather than a real-life instance. However, Stottís comment also seems appropriate here: "These two states were experienced immediately after Dives [the rich man] died (verses 22, 23). The natural interpretation would be that Jesus was referring to the so-called ëintermediate (or interim) stateí between death and resurrection. I myself believe that this will be a time (if indeed we shall be aware of the passage of time) when the lost will come to the unimaginably painful realisation of their fate. This is not incompatible, however, with their final annihilation. Similarly, the ëtormentí of Revelation 14:10, because it will be experienced ëin the presence of the holy angels and of the Lambí, seems to refer to the moment of judgement, not to the eternal state. It is not the torment itself but its ësmokeí (symbol of the completed burning) which will be ëfor ever and everí." "It is also significant that the statement that the smoke rises ìfor ever and everî seems to be an echo of almost identical words in Isaiah 34:10 where the prophet foretells Godís judgement on Edom. In Isaiah, these words are immediately followed by the statement that, ìnone shall pass through it for ever and everî. In other words, it will be completely devoid of human life." At least the above is food for thought in this ongoing debate. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1555 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan wrote:
That is simply not true, as I pointed out before.
What are you implying? That all of the references to Hell may have also (only??) applied to AD 70?? If that is not what you're saying, then it is even more of a stretch to say that your above assertions have any bearing on the discussion.
First of all, it was not foreign to the OT at all. In fact, many Jews to this day believe in eternal conscious isolation of the wicked! What is irresponsible is to ignore the way Jesus Himself interpreted the "OT imagery." According to Jesus' interpretation, that "OT imagery" was a type/shadow of the final judgement. It's ultimate fulfillment is in the eternal judgement of the wicked. Again, the issue of hermeneutics is so important, as Jackob pointed out. It cannot be stressed enough. And part of proper hermeneutics is that the OT, with all of its "imagery," must be interpreted in light of the fuller revelation in the NT.
Yes the same is necessarily true for the entire Bible. The OT has to be interpreted in light of the NT. (Including Malachi 4, Isaiah 66 [which has lots of symbolic Old Covenant imagery], etc.)
So, taking it at what you call face value--then since you believe this includes the spirit as well as the body, then I take it that you don't believe the "ashes" are literal ashes (with regard to the spirit)?
Again, as you said, they are pictures--pictures which find their ultimate fulfillment in the judgement of the wicked. Again, we have to accept the NT's interpretation. Notice what the text in Revelation 14 actually says in context. The article you quoted in your latest post left out part of the context--it is not just that "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever." It tells us more than that: "he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:10-11 NASB.) So, first we have, not just "smoke" rising forever, but specifically "the smoke of their torment" rising forever. Then the next phrase interprets it as them having no rest day and night. It is clearly conscious eternal torment! There is just no way around it. I tried to get around it when I left Adventism, believe me. I had to make sure that there was no way around these clear texts, in order to be convinced of the Biblical doctrine of eternal punishment.
First of all, it is proportional to what is just, absolutely! But it seems you missed something in that passage (and I didn't notice it either when I first read your post). It says: "Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:28-29 NASB.) Right there we have annihilation totally ruled out! Notice that it says that the wicked deserve much more severe punishment than death. It also asks, "how much severer" and describes what a horrible sin it is to reject Christ. The implication is that it is incomparably, incalculably, infinitely worse! Also notice that it says they have "insulted the Spirit of grace"--Jesus says in Mark 2:29 that this is an "eternal sin"! It is plain that this is no finite sin to be paid for with finite punishment! Again, it outright says that the wicked will receive punishment that is "MUCH SEVERER" than death!
First of all, what you are saying to do is not necessarily accurate if you do not compare the uses of the original word but instead compare the uses of the same English word like William Miller did, as Jackob pointed out above! The word in Hebrews 10:27 is usually translated as "eat." It is also used in the Septuagint to speak of money, in Genesis 31:15. As for English words such as "consume," "devour," and "destroy," they are used many different ways in our English translations of Scripture, and in English usage (look them up in a dictionary). Also, regarding the usage of the word "destroy" in English, see the quote I posted before. As for the word apollumi, I was doing exactly what you say to do--compare usages in Scripture! Let's see how well the definition of "annihilation" fits in the following passages which contain the word apollumi:
It just cannot be said that apollumi has to mean annihilation. As for the texts where the word is used to mean "kill"--well, those who are killed are not annihilated, either, are they? Also, regarding the three texts mentioned in your quote above which speak of "those who are perishing"--they also cannot refer to "those who are being annihilated"! From an article quoted by Stan above:
The deprivatation of spiritual life does NOT equal "an extinction of being"! As you yourself have affirmed, Stan, a dead spirit does not equal a non-existent spirit. Therefore, if the spirit is deprived of life--that does not mean that it is extinct!
And eternal punishment is very unlike eternal life. And in order for the punishment to be punishment, it must be conscious punishment. Also, he says that "although declaring both to be eternal, Jesus is contrasting the two destinies." Yes, and what is the eternal destiny of the wicked according to this verse? Punishment. Not annihilation.
The irreversible nature of the punishment??? Most punishment is irreversible. If a person spends six months in jail, is that reversible? Is it then "eternal punishment"??? Jesus says that it is the punishment itself that is eternal. There is just no way around it! Also, according to Strong's concordance, the definition of the Greek word for "eternal" is "perpetual"! The punishment is ongoing, continuous, perpetual, everlasting punishment!
It is inconsistent for the author to then quote Stott claiming that "fire" is an image for annihilation, and to ignore the fact that being "cast into the outer darkness" is an image for conscious punishment! Stott says:
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!!! Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2169 Registered: 3-2005 |
I appreciate your passion Jeremy, but what you have to ask yourself is this: Why would F.F. Bruce, who is so well respected for his New Testament Greek scholarship, and in fact wrote the classic work on the New Testament documents "The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable?" and in light of this quote: "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." ------------------------------------------------- Did you realize also that FF Bruce wrote the forward to Edward Fudge's book "The Fire that Consumes"? Now, for a scholar of his stature to even pay any value at all to Fudge's work which drew on Leroy Froom's work, speaks volumes to me. I am sorry Jeremy, I just don't see this issue as black and white as you do. I just have a hard time believeing that all those English words for destroy, death, perish, extinction, means eternal conscious torment in fire that causes acute screaming and pain for billions of people without any relief for all eternity. 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. 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. This is where I stand now on this topic, but my research has only just begun, as I intend to pursue this topic further, as I believe that the belief in eternal torment actually keeps people away from studying the claims of Christ, and just may place a stumbling block. Why is not a finite time of severe punishment even for days or weeks or months for those deserving sufficient punishment? Just the description by Ellen White of finite hell in the last Great Controversy chapter gave me nightmares and drew me to find a refuge in Christ. I respect you jeremy, and I am delighted for your passion for the Word of God, but we just disagree for now. But thanks for participating in the converstion, as it continues to make me think. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4805 Registered: 12-2003 |
Very interesting post, Jeremy. I am more and more convinced that eternal punishment must be exactly thatóbut I do appreciate the collegial tone of the discussion. Thanks to all! Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2172 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen, What do you think of FF Bruce and John Stott as well as Philip Hughes' approach to the topic? Do you believe they are just liberals and don't regard the Word of God? I am amazed how Stott remained unscathed in the evangelical and Reformed communities on this topic while others have been tarred and feathered. Thanks for allowing us to have this conversation. Stan |
