| Author |
Message |
Skeeter
Registered user
Username: Skeeter
Post Number: 1251
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2011 - 9:12 pm: |     |
Jim, I can sympathize with you... I have a hard time with the concept of a never ending place of torment also. I can read different Bible passages and can see from them the possibility from both directions. So, I have decided that I am not going waste time worrying about a place that I have no intention of going to.
I know that God is a God of love and mercy, I also know He is a God of Justice.
I believe that He is able to save us eternally, or to destroy us totally and completely both body and soul. He can create with just a thought or word, I believe He can destroy the same way. I do not know if the soul can be destroyed along with the physical body by fire as we know fire...but I believe the fires of hell just may be different from our concept of "fire". and I know God is quite able to destroy just as He is able to bring into existence.
If Hell is a place of eternal suffering throughout endless ages, or if the "eternal" means "as long as it lasts" I do not know. But I believe that however God's plan works out, it will be fair and just and done with compassion.
Would an everlasting hell of torture be fair and just ? Maybe.... I don't see how "compassion"
would fit into that scenario... Nevertheless... I trust Him to do the right thing. Whatever that thing is.
I am trying to stop worrying about the things I cannot understand because I know that if I stay in His word, He will show me everything that I NEED to know. God is in control, HE knows what He is doing, so I dont need to know it all.... I trust Him 
Francie |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3577
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2011 - 10:38 pm: | |
Where does the Bible say that the unsaved receive compassion or mercy?
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on February 13, 2011) |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 7152
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2011 - 6:04 am: | |
I want to address two quotes here.
Quote:
“I think the SDA and Human mind wants to know what about God is rock solid, unchangeable, predictable. The law seems to be fertile ground for that attempt.”
Firstly it does not seem to me that the SDA mind grasp faith, nor does it really want to know what is rock solid and unchangeable.
Quote:
“It is not a perfect science, and beyond individual faith, what can be declared fact when it comes to these interpretations?”
Secondly you say that beyond individual faith, it is not an exact science.
Firstly I would like to consider what bible faith is. Is it a leap of faith? Or is it based on some rock solid evidence?
Lets consider the question, “What can be declared fact when it comes to these interpretations?”
If an interpretation can be proved out as fact, then the interpretation is good, if it cannot, then the interpretation is bad.
Lets talk about science, good science is based on fact, would you agree to that? A thing based on some belief, yet cannot be proven as fact is called ‘poor science’ and a thing that is based on belief, and does prove out is based on ‘good science’.
I generally have summer projects and winter projects, something that I can apply myself to over a season, a season in this instance consisting of a range of 4 to six months.
Three summers ago I began planning my project for the summer in February. I had, in the previous summers restored old tractors, but I had grown tired of that. Gas prices were again on the rise, so I thought, “What better way to spend the summer than a science project to see if, in fact, I could improve on the fuel mileage of the internal combustion engine?”
So that is what I decided upon. I immediately began to recall what I knew about fuel combustion in a cylinder. In college, we did not spend much time on how to turn a wrench, what we studied was things like atomic structure of fuels, such things as valences, protons, electrons and nucleus’s, carbons, hydrocarbons and hydrogen’s..stuff like that.
How gasoline is used to fire an internal combustion engine is very important…in a word,,,science.
So armed with this knowledge, I began my experiments. Fact..combustion takes place in a cylinder on the combustion stroke..some flammable fuel is taken in, burned, causing the piston to move down, then exhausted and the cycle starts over again. Much of the gasoline fuels that are taken in does not have time to burn, and is pushed out the exhaust pipe as waste which produces what we call smog. This waste not only uses up dollars that we need, it wants to kill us too! Can you say carbon monoxide?
So..my area of work had to do with combustion, getting the cylinder to burn more of the fuel we have at our disposal.
I explored hydrogen, a very simple process consisting of a hydrogen generator, and I also explored pre-evaporated gasoline…basically, and very basically, the idea was to kindle the fires early on so that more of my fuel gets burned instead of shoving it out the tail pipe as waste. Either through hydrogen or pre-evaporated gasoline’s. Both are highly volatile and extremely fast burning.
These experiments were not based on wishful thinking, they were based on something we call physics. I won’t go into the physics because it takes too much time and space and besides..I’m not your physics teacher.
Now the statement was, “It is not a perfect science, beyond individual faith” And your question was, “what can be declared fact when it comes to these interpretations?”
Beyond an individual faith? What kind of science is that? I’ll tell you what kind of science it is, it is poor science. You want to know what SDA’ism is based on? Poor science is what it is based on. Poor science is based on unworkable theories. Basically, poor science is an idiot’s view of the universe and of things out of this universe.
Man,,I wouldn’t give you a plugged nickel for a bible that is not based on fact and on reality.
I don’t need to split an atom to believe they can be split, Hiroshima was enough proof for me, the Nevada testing grounds was enough for me.
Faith is not based on intangible proofs, it is not based on ‘a leap of faith’. Such things as big foots and UFO’s are based on ‘a leap of faith’.
The bible says, now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
God cannot be seen, pre-evaporated fuels cannot be seen, hydrogen gas cannot be seen with the naked eye. SDA’s saw Ellen White with the naked eye, and based their beliefs on a leap of faith, without a shred of proof, and they have to go nit picking through the bible to try and furnish proof of an unworkable theory or theory’s. Bad science.
It is true that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word by the word of God. The word of God is the kindling that lights the fires of faith and faith exerts tangible force. There is good faith and bad faith, good faith is based on fact, bad faith is based on an unworkable theory. If I put five bucks on a lottery ticket and I believe in my heart I am going to win the lottery, will I win it? I might convince myself that God is going to cause me to win the lottery..does that increase my chances of winning it?
If I have convinced myself that I am going to win the lottery for whatever reason, and I spend five bucks on a ticket, it is surely bad science unless I am the only person buying a ticket, if I am it’s good science. Let me know if that happens, I don’t buy lottery tickets, but I will if I am the only lottery ticket buyer, because that’s good science.
The bible is not based on bad science. Jesus was not based on bad science, he was both seen and handled. Scientific fact. If God verifies the interpretation it is fact, if not, then it is fallacy.
Miller misinterpreted the word of God, so did Ellen White. Miller finally admitted his mistake so they say, Ellen white never did, but instead, piled on even more fallacies. The Adventist church is based on unworkable theories, bad science.
Not an exact science? Have you been smoking that wacky backy again? The Bible is an exact science, it is up to us to find a workable interpretation, not based on ‘a leap of faith’, but based on a faith that is reality.
The reason for my whole summers work that summer, backed up by many dollars spent, was to find out what is a reality. But the basic science had to be conducted according to the laws of physics.
The hydrogen generator was based on the laws of physics, the pre-evaporated gasoline’s was based on the laws of physics, not wishful thinking. The laws of physics do not change from one day to the next, and neither does God.
I succeeded in adding miles to a gallon of gas, and not only that, more power to pull a load with my pick-up, under certain conditions. Not with hydrogen, but with pre-evaporated gasoline’s, Hydrogen works too, but the hydrogen generator was too bulky and demanded too much draw on the alternator and space under the hood of cars packed with parts so tight its hard to find the dip stick.
As usual, the simpler approach worked best, because it runs off vacuum and heat which is already present and available. No wires, no bulky hydrogen generators.
If you want to know what’s best with the word of God, then tap what is present and available.
That will prove to be the correct and best interpretation.
What your faith is based on I do not know, but my faith is based on what works, not what doesn’t.
When the Lord first reached down and saved me (I did not reach down and save myself) I looked at that bible and I said, “Prove it!” And boy, did he ever?
Friend, I was born with a scientific mind, I caught my finger in a Big Ben clock when I was a baby after I tore it apart. I screamed until they pried my finger loose, I stuck my dads test instrument in both sides of a light socket and reaped an explosion, I studied three years because I had to know how a radio signal is transmitted in the air unfelt and unseen, I tore engines apart to see how they worked, it never was enough for me to know it was a car, when computers became available I built one, I built a laser, I studied the stars, light regions of frequencies, mechanical engineering, weaponry, survival, home building, boat building, welding, ranching, farming, aluminum production, both sail and power boating, climbing, diving, business practices and much more and every bit of it is based on science, math, physics. If you dive, you better not base your available air on a leap of faith, if you do you will most likely die most ricky tic. If you misread your depth gauge, you may still die.
The word of God is based on substance, reality, yet many people spend their life in unreality. Bible faith is not based on a non-substance, nor is it based on individual interpretations, if my interpretation is not based on fact, It is no good to me, to you, nor anybody else. IMHO.
River
Oh... and I'm waiting to see if anybody can answer Jeremy's question. |
Gcfrankie
Registered user
Username: Gcfrankie
Post Number: 777
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2011 - 8:47 am: | |
Jeremy, in answer to your question, nowhere that I can find.
Gail |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1607
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2011 - 12:31 pm: | |
For God so loved the world (a lost, unsaved world) that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Jn. 3:16
Isn't that compassion for the unsaved?
Hec |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3578
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2011 - 1:25 pm: | |
Hec,
Yes, but I was referring to those who do not believe in Him (in other words, the reprobate). Where is mercy found, except in Jesus Christ?
Jeremy |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 1695
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2011 - 3:41 pm: | |
Jeremy; how about this verse:
"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8 |
Skeeter
Registered user
Username: Skeeter
Post Number: 1252
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2011 - 4:30 pm: | |
“O God, be merciful to me, a sinner” (Luke 18:13).
"Exodus 33:19
And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
(from this I see that it is Gods decision, not ours, HE is the judge)
"Nehemiah 9:31
But in your great mercy you did not put an end to them or abandon them, for you are a gracious and merciful God."
"Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
If He destroys both the body AND SOUL in hell... does the soul continue to exist ?
I have heard it said that the body can be destroyed in hell,,, but the soul cannot be destroyed by fire. But here it says that God CAN destroy BOTH body and soul in hell. Maybe the "fire" cannot destroy the soul.... but GOD can. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3579
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2011 - 4:46 pm: | |
We were talking about the lost in Hell--that was the context of my question. So, to rephrase the question: Where does the Bible say that those in Hell receive compassion or mercy? Revelation 14:9-11 indicates the opposite.
quote:"Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
If He destroys both the body AND SOUL in hell... does the soul continue to exist ?
Yes, because notice that God does not kill the body or the soul in hell. Notice that Jesus says that men can kill the body but cannot kill the soul--then He switches terminology and says that God can destroy the soul and body in hell. The Greek word for "destroy" (apollumi) can mean to "render useless" and is used multiple times in the New Testament to refer to living human beings. For example, Jesus also says, in Matthew 15: "But He answered and said, 'I was sent only to the lost [apollumi] sheep of the house of Israel.'" (Matthew 15:24 NASB.)
Was Jesus sent only to non-existent Israelites? Of course not.
Jeremy |
Skeeter
Registered user
Username: Skeeter
Post Number: 1253
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2011 - 8:12 pm: | |
seems to me that to "destroy" something goes even beyond "killing" it.
But...then again, you may be correct in your assessment.... I honestly don't know, and I am not going to stress over it one way or other... only time will tell for sure and whatever God's plan is I trust that it will be the BEST plan, because God will do nothing less than what is best.
Francie |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 12259
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2011 - 11:19 pm: | |
If the consequence of believing in the Lord Jesus is eternal life in the presence of God as a spiritually living person, the consequence of refusing to believe must be equally significant in the opposite direction.
Being annihilated is not an "equal but opposite" consequence. Being eternally spiritually dead, however—that would be an equal but opposite consequence.
It's interesting that Revelation 20 refers to the "second resurrection" in which all the wicked are raised for judgment. This resurrection is actually called "resurrection". When Jesus raised the dead—Lazarus, for example—He did not resurrect them with eternal, glorified bodies. The Bible says He raised them from death. They were still mortal and had to die again.
Jesus was the first human to be resurrected...the firstfruits from the dead. Now, I can't go beyond Scripture...I can't draw firm conclusions about this—but the fact that the wicked are "resurrected" for judgment does raise the question to me about whether their bodies might be eternal bodies. It seems significant that the wicked are resurrected for judgment and sentenced to hell with their spirits (dead as they are) reconnected to their bodies.
Since "resurrection" only seems to be used in reference to spirits being reunited with eternal bodies (as in 1 Cor 15), I do see the possibility that Revelation 20 suggests the wicked are raised for eternal punishment.
However, I cannot be dogmatic about this idea...but I do have to take Jesus' words about eternal hell seriously .
Colleen |
Skeeter
Registered user
Username: Skeeter
Post Number: 1254
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 12:36 am: | |
Not meaning to argue the point, I am just wondering....where does the Bible say that
"the consequence of refusing to believe must be equally significant in the opposite direction."?
I just see no point in God keeping souls alive throughout all eternity for the sole purpose of keeping them in eternal torment. What purpose would it serve ? The wicked deserve to be punished, and I believe they will be, but throughout all eternity ? why ? what is the point ? If God is to make all things new, if He is to wipe every tear from our eyes, if heaven is a place of peace and contentment, pure joy and communion with and worship of our Lord, how could those in heaven be completely happy knowing that there is ALWAYS to be a place where so many are suffering in eternal torment... ? Just doesnt make sense to me.
I wanted to share a couple of things I just found online... I am NOT saying the people who wrote these are correct.. but I believe we should give it some thought.
"There are two fates for all of humanity. Life through faith in the atoning death of Christ on the cross, or death for the sinner who lacks faith. The unsaved will not see life, they will perish. Eternal punishing and torment in Hell for sinners is a perversion of scripture and a Catholic fiction. Hell is the grave, a complete cessation of life."
Found this on a different site :
"Bible scholars" of our day argue that Jesus taught one's stay in hell was an eternal experience. Often quoted is Rev. 14:11, "And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." Is this a true representation of the original? NO!!!!! Our loving Father would never require a punishment of "eternal torment" no matter how wicked the sin.
The "for ever and ever" of Rev. 14:11 is actually a liberal embellishment if not an intentional mistranslation of the Greek aions kai aions. Aion (pronounced ay-on), literally meaning an age, a finite time segment, is often mistranslated eternal or for ever. If the singular form aion is translated eternal (unending), then how are we to understand its plural form, aions? Would aions be successive eternities? That would be ridiculous. In Rev. 14:11 the Greek aions of the aions is translated for ever and ever. Can one eternal period of time follow after another? Of course not! It doesn't take genius to recognize that man once again has interjected his own bias into God's perfect Word.
Revelation 11:15 says of Jesus, "...He shall reign for ever and ever".
Yet I Cor. 15:24,25 says, "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." Fortunately God's Word is self correcting. Paul understood that Christ would reign until He had put all enemies under His feet. Literally the Word declares, "He shall reign unto the ages of ages." An age is a limited period of time. Many ages are still just several limited periods. These ages may or may not "just keep rolling along".
"To understand these Greek words so often mistranslated "eternal" and "for ever and ever", picture the horizon. What is beyond the horizon is also beyond your vision. So it is with many applications of time in scripture. When the Greek speaks of a singular age or plural ages the duration is often undefined, as well as unseen (beyond the horizon and therefore beyond one's vision).
The context of most scripture dealing with "salvation" shows us our heavenly inheritance is in fact unending. However, in the context of God's all encompassing love we should understand that no one is destined for Hell eternally. God's plan is too great for that.
"To believe as you see fit is your personal privilege, yet personal 'beliefs' cannot alter FACTS in the slightest. IF from the Bible we gather the evidence which constitutes the foundation for 'belief in Heaven and Hell, then by the verdict of the same Record we ought to detail our concept thereof and freely accept its unequivocal statements. What I am trying to say is, since it is recorded that God has said the 'SOUL' which sins shall 'DIE', it leaves us no right to say the 'soul' is deathless and shall be 'tormented' through time unending. Clearly are we told that we have no right to 'interpret' Scripture; yet man is willfully stubborn to disobey God, while others woefully gullible to believe the lies."
I don't know if these writers are correct or not, but I found their statements interesting. |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 655
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 2:36 am: | |
This sounds like the Watchtower, or at least someone using the same arguments. There is a fair bit of error in it, but just a couple of points.
The Greek expression in Rev 14: 11 is "eis aiónas aiónón". This is quite a common expression, also in the form "eis tous aiónas tón aiónón" and it does literally mean "into the ages of ages". However, there is no other word in Greek which expresses eternity any more powerfully than this phrase.
If we check some other verses with this expression, just in Revelation, they are: 1: 6; 1: 18; 4: 9, 10; 5: 13; 7: 12; 11: 15; 14: 11; 15: 7; 19: 3; 20: 10; 22: 5. These verses refer to how long God will live and how long he will receive glory, how long Jesus will live, how long he will reign, how long God and Jesus will reign, and how long the devil and the unrepentant will be tormented. It is the same expression in every case.
So if you want to argue based on the literal meaning of this phrase that the torment of the wicked will come to an end, then you have to accept that the reign of God, and even his existence will also come to an end. If you simply check out the way this expression is used, the argument just does not work.
What did they say?
"To believe as you see fit is your personal privilege, yet personal 'beliefs' cannot alter FACTS in the slightest. IF from the Bible we gather the evidence which constitutes the foundation for belief in Heaven and Hell, then by the verdict of the same Record we ought to detail our concept thereof and freely accept its unequivocal statements." Exactly!
The other point, "the soul who sins will die" Ezekiel 18: 4 - favourite JW passage. But what does "die" mean? Both theologians and linguists agree that in the ancient languages, the basic idea behind the words for "death" is "separation", and not annihilation or cessation of existence, which is a fairly modern concept. What causes the confusion is when modern, materialistic views of life and death are read back into ancient documents. Death means separation, life means relationship. See Ephesians 2: 1. Spiritual death is separation from God.
So, we can either translate, or interpret, the Ezekiel passage to mean "the soul that sins will cease to exist" or "the soul that sins will be separated from God." In the usage of the ancient languages, and in the context of the whole chapter, the latter makes more sense.
Another thing, they use emotive language like "a God of love would never do that", etc. This is not an argument based on Scripture, so that is not acceptable either. I don't relish the idea of eternal punishment either, but I can't get away from the fact that, when exegeted correctly, the Bible teaches it.
Adrian |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 656
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 3:02 am: | |
Sort of on the same subject. Something I found interesting to consider.
In the time of Jesus there were various sects of the Jews who had somewhat different beliefs about the afterlife. The Sadducees believed that the soul as well as the body was made up of atoms, and so when the body died the soul disintegrated shortly afterwards, and in consequence of this, there was no resurrection. They probably got this idea from Ephecurian Greek philosphy (Cf. Acts 17: 18). The Essenes believed that at death the soul "escaped" from the body to enter a better state and so there was no need for resurrection. That sounds rather like Platonism. The Pharisees believed the soul survived death and continued to exist until the resurrection of the body. This information comes from Josephus, the first century Jewish historian.
The thing is, if EGW is correct, and the soul ceases to exist at death and the whole person is recreated at the resurrection, then all the Jews in Jesus' day were wrong. This is a sort of combination between the belief of the Sadducees about death and the belief of the Pharisees on the resurrection.
We don't read about Jesus encountering the Essenes, they were ascetics who lived in the dessert, but Paul corrects a similar error in 1 Cor 15. Jesus did tell the Sadducees they were wrong about death and the resurrection (Matthew 22: 29-32), but he never told the Pharisees they were wrong (about death, he didn't pull punches on other subjects). In fact, he rather reinforced their ideas in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which is perfectly in line with the Pharisees' beliefs (Luke 16).
So the thought is, if all the Jewish factions were wrong about the state of the dead and the resurrection, why is it that neither Jesus nor the apostles bothered to teach people the correct concept, and we had to wait for a 19th century prophet to come along to set us straight?
God bless,
Adrian |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 7153
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 3:51 am: | |
I agree Adrian, it has been said that hell was not made for man, and I believe that is true.
This conversation reminds me of a documentary called 'Beyond Scared Straight' I just saw wherein teen agers were taken to a state prison in an effort to try and get them stop breaking the law.
The prisoner said too them, "Do not come here."
Years back I taken a teen ager down to the jail to try and do the same thing. The teen ager ignored that, and later received a life sentence.
He would tell you today, "Do not come here."
Consequently in the gospels where Jesus tells about a man who is alive in hell, the man says the same thing in so many words, "Do not come here."
As Colleen well said, I cannot go beyond scripture and we need to take Jesus words seriously. We have every right to interpret scripture concerning hell as eternal and to take stern warning from them.
It is bad enough in todays prisons to walk in there and talk to these guys who have no hope of ever coming out, they know what they have lost. They know full well that they have squandered their place in life on the outside.
I cannot find in scripture any concept of a hope for those who have squandered the opportunity that Jesus has provided.
The gospel of salvation is so simple, Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Acts 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Acts 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
The gospel is so simple and the consequences of refusal is so horrible to contemplate.
If God took such extreme measures to send his son, John 3:16-18, wouldn't you think there is an opposite extreme? Unrepentant sinner take warning, "do not come here."
River |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3580
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 11:27 am: | |
The first quote in Skeeter's post comes from a Seventh-day Adventist's site and the second one comes from (how do I put this nicely...?) an "interesting" individual who boldly proclaims at the top of each page that he is "Non-Orthodox."
Not very credible sources. And as Adrian showed, the "scholarship" is, shall we say, "lacking."
To further emphasize Adrian's point about how ludicrous their claim is with regard to the word aion, let's just compare those last two verses Adrian listed (which contain the exact same expression in the original Greek):
"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.)
And then less than two chapters later:
"And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever." (Revelation 22:5 NASB.)
The inescapable conclusion is that heaven and hell are of the exact same duration.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on February 15, 2011) |
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 4:03 pm: | |
Francie:
Jim, I can sympathize with you... I have a hard time with the concept of a never ending place of torment also.
J:
This is something I think many people struggle with. I find it hard to contrast with God's Love, compassion and mercy.
It is not my purpose to convince anyone that hell is either way.
It really was a question as to how people cope with the worse case scenario of eternal hell and realize as they are in heavenly bliss , there is ongoing agony eternally perpetuated. To me, on the face of it , it is not logical to perpetuate hell.
F:
I can read different Bible passages and can see from them the possibility from both directions.
J: As do I , though I readily admitt that I see the many eternal passages as well. I am not in denial that these passages do not exist. I just am not sure how to apply them or interpret them theologically.
People say use the simplest method. That is the problem, there is no one method in reading the Bible. A number of disciplines and methodologies are applied. We have no first level authority to ask directly. We have only the cannon and our individual faith walk in Christ through the aid of God's Holy Spirit.
F:
I am trying to stop worrying about the things I cannot understand because I know that if I stay in His word, He will show me everything that I NEED to know.
J: Amen |
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 4:31 pm: | |
River,
Religon is not science in the sense it is not exactly the same for each person.
While there are universal truths in God's word, the reception of and understanding of that word is not universal. It is an individual walk in faith. The Apostle Paul pointed that out in matters of those with a weak conscience as he put it. Saying that, God would enable them to stand.
You spoke of making a leap of faith.
I agree in that. Faith is about trust and trust is about relationship that is built upon a closer walk with Christ.
I come to this forum to ask questions and to explore understandings and insights other may offer. I exchange my own thoughts in a manner that are hopefully lucid and with a purpose towards growing towards deeper understandings.
Since I am a former adventists it is reasonable to consider that I may reference previously learned concepts that come from that SDA background. At times it seems that metioning anything remotely SDA in nature is forbidden here.
I am not championing the SDA , nor however do I dismiss them 100%. It is a progressive process towards truth and that means I ask hard questions and I honestly struggle with some of them.
It has been pointed out that SDA see things thru EGW filters. That is no doubt true at times.
But just as often in my own case is the fact that I see proposed mainline doctrines through Biblical filters as well.
Again, it is not an exact duplicable science (between people) because the learning process is subjective when interpreting and comprehending text.
Rock Solid.
What can I know about God that He chooses to reveal about Himself to me?
What does God say about himself?
These are examples of Biblical filters that sometimes generate confusions when it comes to concepts such as eternal hell.
There is no doubt that God is to be feared, He is a consuming fire.
The Bible records many examples of consequence, punishments and so forth from God.
This too is another filter. Thsi too is why I am so slow regarding the release of the old laws.
Why I am trying to understand Christ's law.
Why I am trying to make some sense of the new way of Christ while reflecting upon the sterness of the OT era, then going back to the end time judgements , eternal hell , and I see God in two contrasts of extremes.
When I sense this reality, my reaction is to err on the side of legalism, which means more bondage and fear. Love is there, but it is oppressed with fear, confusion and weariness.
I ask questions for a reason.
Jim |
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02
Post Number: 1086
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 4:57 pm: | |
Colleen,
You wrote:
Being annihilated is not an "equal but opposite" consequence. Being eternally spiritually dead, however—that would be an equal but opposite consequence.
J: This I suppose has been the thorn to this question.
If you gain salvation, all is good.
If You lose salvation, there is no end.
In effect there is not a "no contest" plea in the court of heaven.
Once a person is born, by this doctrine, they have eternal existance, eternal consciousness regardless of being saved or lost.
There is no opt out.
This then makes salvation mandatory in order to escape the fires of hell and eternal torments.
That person simply cannot cease to exist. Therefore there is no escape from misery.
How do you settle this in your Love for Christ?
I cannot even frame this question without fear of condemnation.
Ultimately, when something does not makes sense, when common sense is violated, then most likely, there is an error in the doctrine.
The two outcomes are really no choice at all.
Is this a matter of faith?
Obviously it is.
God is above human sensibilities. Yet we live and respond from them.
How do you find peace inside this doctrine?
So far, most everyone has decided they will look beyond it, not ponder the unknowable.
Probably a lot of sense in that.
That leap of faith.
Jim |
Skeeter
Registered user
Username: Skeeter
Post Number: 1255
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 8:56 pm: | |
I am confused about this matter as well as others such as the teaching of a "rapture", and that of "tongues". I cant say I either believe or disbelieve, and I do not feel that my believing or not believing in these or other subjects comes from Adventism... they are just confusing to me. I dont know what to believe about certain things. Maybe I am just not yet a mature enough Christian to be able to know for sure. As the saying goes.. "Please be patient, God isn't finished with me yet".
I believe our walk with the Lord is one of CONTINUAL learning and changing. We may fully believe something only to later find that we were mistaken and change our mind completely about something. I guess most of us were convinced without a doubt at some point in our lives that Adventism was "God's true remnant church". Look at all we have learned since that time.. I wonder if it is safe to believe so strongly, to be so convinced in our own minds about issues that are not matters of our Salvation that we are not willing to even consider the possibility that there may be a different explanation that we just have not discovered or that we are unwilling to investigate because we are so convinced that we already have the "truth" on that matter...?
I still have a LOT to learn and I do NOT post anything on here to try to stir things up and cause arguments. I am just looking for honest Biblical answers. I just keep remembering that at one time we were convinced that the SDA church taught truth and that it could be proven by the Bible with all the proof texting that was done.
I just dont want to make that same mistake again.
I believe as long as we are willing to learn God will provide the answers we are looking for, but not until He knows we are able to receive what He has for us.
I still have SO MUCH to learn about so many things. Please pray for me to be willing and able to learn and to accept what God wants me to learn.
I will be praying for that for all of us
Francie |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 7154
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 2:16 am: | |
Skeeter, as long as we are willing to learn, and not become fortified, or in other words, be willing to boil in your own bathwater, you WILL learn, it just takes time as I believe Jim was saying.
If I myself sound too harsh in my post, I do ask forgiveness, I know I am a very passionate person, but I also am compassionate I hope.
I do know this, it is a formidable amount of data for an ex-Adventist who is seeking after wisdom and knowledge to assimilate after a lifetime of filtering through a wrong lens.
I think Jims questions are really very typical as he asks, "What did I learn before this that was wrong and what am I learning now that is right?"
From my perspective I think that would be a normal human reaction.
I myself, sometimes react strongly to the reaction, but that does not mean I want to strip you, tie you to the main mast and flay you with a cat of nine tails.
That just my opinion on the matter.
River |
Yenc
Registered user
Username: Yenc
Post Number: 362
Registered: 6-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 1:13 pm: | |
Skeeter, I SO relate to your position.
As I study, I pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten my understanding. I am aware that many, many SDA teachings are false, but I cannot reject everything outright, because Satan loves to deceive by mixing truth with error. Thus I have to let the Holy Spirit help me make sense of problematic Scriptures. Sometimes I just have to hold concepts in suspension until it all falls into place and my mind can see the logic. Some Bible passages are problematic becaus we do not sufficiently understand the original languages. God may keep other concepts just out of grasp to encourage further study and thought.
It is easy for me to understand the concept of "eternal life" as an unending fellowship with God, a time of happiness, with no pain, no misery, not even bad memories. What I have trouble with is this: Would the righteous truly enjoy withnessing (or even knowing about) an eternally burning place of misery and horrible suffering, especially if some of their loved ones were not with them in heaven?
Thus, to me, eternal death has to mean annihilation, because eternal burning, with a consciousness of agony and punishment, is still eternal LIFE, albeit horrible! Hellfire cannot be extinguished by any outside force, but the fire extinguishes itself and the smoke goes away forever when the fuel is totally consumed. That is eternal death! Those who have rejected God's way are annihilated, eternally gone, never again to be alive or aware of anything. And the memory of them will be erased so as not to be a cause of pain to the saved ones who live forever, happy in God's presence.
This is the only explanation that makes everything sensible to me.
Yen |
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02
Post Number: 1087
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 5:47 pm: | |
Francie,
Praying for you and for all of us here on the forum.
Jim |
Darrell
Registered user
Username: Darrell
Post Number: 125
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 10:22 pm: | |
This relates more to the original subject of this thread. I just did not read it until now. In the Hebrew, the words are the same in the expressions "perpetual covenant" and "everlasting covenant" in these verses:
"So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant." Exodus 31:16
"This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. . . .Thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." Genesis 17:10,13
Yet we know from Paul that circumcision is no longer a requirement, so the expression everlasting covenant cannot be used to say something is still a requirement for us today!
-Darrell |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1620
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2011 - 1:54 pm: | |
So everlasting ins not an absolute? Sometimes in may mean it last until... something else happens?
Hec |
Rossbondreturns
Registered user
Username: Rossbondreturns
Post Number: 101
Registered: 10-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2011 - 2:39 pm: | |
If eternal life is eternal...then a just God mus also make the punishment for not believing Him eternal.
Eternal wonderful life in Heaven.
Eternal horrible damnation hell. |
|
