| Author |
Message |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 772
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 9:09 pm: |     |
Dennis, like I asked one of my students who kept quoting EGW, Where is the Word? You quote Sproul, but, Where is the Word?
Hec |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10670
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 9:43 pm: | |
Hec, Matthew 25:41-46; Revelation 20:10-15; Jude 1:7.
Mark 3:29: "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"
Ephesians 2:3 tells us that we all are, by nature, "children [or objects] of wrath". Without knowing Jesus and being born again, we are innately doomed and worthy only of God's wrath.
We are conditioned to think that "death" means non-existence. The Bible, however, never describes death as non-existence. Spiritual death, into which we all are born, means our spirits are disconnected from God. Spiritual death is not non-existnece. It is existence apart from the life of God.
The second death occurs after being resurrected for judgment (Rev 20). But that judgment and subsequent death do not necessarily mean that they cease to exist. "Destruction" does not mean the components are annihilated. It simply means the destroyed thing can no longer function as it was created to function. A totalled car does not cease to exist or even cease to resemble a car. it's just destroyed for use.
Colleen |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 773
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 10:02 pm: | |
Jude 1:7 Sodom and Gomorrah are an example of eternal fire. Are they burning today?
Hec |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 3081
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 10:32 pm: | |
http://www.formeradventist.com/discus/messages/5370/3384.html#POST45070
http://www.forananswer.org/Jude/Jude7.htm
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on November 17, 2009) |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 774
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 2:06 pm: | |
The forananser.org explanation of Jude 7 reminds me of EGW and the SDAs. They come with a preconceived idea and try to twist the verse to say whatever they want. Oh. the fires of Sodom and Gomorrah are burning today! If that is not eisegesis rather than exegesis, then, What is eisegesis?
Hec |
Animal
Registered user
Username: Animal
Post Number: 706
Registered: 7-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 3:16 pm: | |
I am soooo glad that God has all the answers and that we can trust all things into His hands.Sometimes a mystery can be a good thing.
...Animal |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10673
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 3:36 pm: | |
Hec, two things: First, at the time Jude wrote, it really is possible that the common belief was that there was still fire burning in the area of Sodom and Gomorrah, deep underground. But whether or not it was is not the issue: the issue is that Jude used Sodom and Gomorrah as a metaphor to explain hell.
It is quite likely that he believed there was some sort of continuing burning—and if that was a common belief, Sodom and Gomorrah would be a perfect example to use as figurative language to illustrate the concept of hell. For SURE in OT times, the continual fires of the garbage dumps and the sacrifices to Chemosh in the valley of Gehenna outside Jerusalem were examples of the continual fires of hell.
I don't believe the forananswer website is trying to prove the fires of Sodom and Gomorrah "are burning today" or even that they were burning then. It's only showing that this idea was commonly held in Jude's day, and this idea would influence Jude's choice of metaphor.
The Bible is full of figurative language. Metaphors and similes are not intended, even in the Bible, to be literal. They are examples that would cause the readers to understand the concept.
Second, we cannot explain eternal spiritual reality in temporal physical terms. Yet that problem is what we're stuck with. Hell is something no one alive has ever seen or experienced, and we are here trying to understand what cannot be physically and temporally comprehended.
The best way I have understood the concept of hell is this: Accepting Jesus as my Sin Bearer is something so significant and enormous that it has eternal consequences—because Jesus is eternal. My acceptance of His eternal sacrifice ushers me into eternal life.
If, on the other hand, I do not accept Jesus as Sin Bearer, the consequence for that must be equally but oppositely significant. If accepting Jesus has eternal consequences for me, rejecting Him must also. Annhilation is not an eternal "consequence". Once something is annhilated, there is no "eternal anything".
Moreover, we cannot suppose that the definition of death means non-existence. The first death does not mean non-existence—it means a separation of the spirit from the body. The second death is never defined in the Bible as non-existence.
Spiritual death means our spirits are naturally dead in sin—yet we are all born physically alive with dead spirits. We are all born experiencing death—the most serious kind: spirits dead in sin. The second death is also, according to Jesus and Revelation 20, eternal separation from God. If we begin to think of "death" as "separation", it begins to make eternal hell look different. The Bible doesn't describe the dead as non-existent, and it clearly says the wicked are punished eternally.
The fact that consciousness and perhaps even physical existence may continue eternally does not mean those people are "alive". It means they are eternally experiencing "death", never able to experience relationship or intimacy with God—and therefore, never with any other person or creature, either. They are eternally isolated and comfortless.
Colleen |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1827
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 4:44 pm: | |
The SDA view of death trivializes sin. After all, many former Adventists have testified that as Adventists they often didn't worry about the consequences for their sins. The very worst that could happen to them would be merely the quick-fix of a momentary annihilation anyway. Human beings can tolerate fairly well momentary discomfort and even intense pain. So why worry about the consequences for a profane life? Why not just eat, drink, and be merry?
Seventh-day Adventists already know that they can't be perfect as Ellen White prescribed for them (COL, page 69). Consequently and sadly, with no heaven to gain due to their imperfection, many look at annihilation as the perfect ending for a profane life. We can only appreciate God's grace to the extent that we understand the depth of His divine wrath. Sin is high offense ("cosmic reason and a crime") against the holiness of God.
If we don't get Genesis right, with its material and immaterial parts of man) it clouds our entire understanding of the Bible. For example, understanding regeneration or being born again is impossible without a dualistic understanding of the nature of man. Traditionalism, not annihilationism, correctly integrates Christology with the doctrine of hell. Indeed, the truthfulness of traditionalism is confirmed by the fact that it coheres well with other biblical teachings.
Dennis Fischer
BOOK RECOMMENDATION:
"Death and the Afterlife" by Dr. Robert Morey (can be ordered directly from the author's website at www.faithdefenders.com). This book is unique that it goes point by point over all the claims of the late SDA conditionalist, L. E. Froom. A must-read for serious Bible students. The late cult watcher, Dr. Walter Martin, said of this book: "The most comprehensive biblical study of the subject in the last half century!" |
Seekinglight
Registered user
Username: Seekinglight
Post Number: 485
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:35 pm: | |
For Hec, Skeeter, and others who aren't sure on the eternal hell question...
This is a very difficult concept to even think about when we're first coming out of Adventism. If you feel the H.S. pushing you to study it all out right away, by all means do so. However, I think it's also ok to put the matter on the "back burner" for awhile and revisit it later on. We know that this is not a salvation matter, so perhaps it would be better to focus on Jesus and build up faith in Him to be able to trust His heart, intentions, and His sovereignty.
In John 6, Jesus fed 5,000 people and also walked on the water in the storm in order to build up His disciples' faith, so they would have the fortitude to hear the hard doctrines of election and eating His flesh/drinking His blood later on in that chapter.
Those who have been out of Adventism awhile and have come to terms with the doctrine of hell should be patient those of us who find it too emotionally painful or confusing to accept your interpretation. This doesn't mean we don't take sin seriously--and even if it did, none of us take sin as seriously as we should. Thank you in advance for treating this subject with extra gentleness and care. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 10677
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 7:36 pm: | |
Seekinglight, you're right about this subject taking longer and coming later. It took me about two or three years after leaving to get to the point of really grappling with "hell".
God teaches us in His own way and in His own time...and He gives us the courage to trust Him as He teaches us through His word!
Colleen |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 777
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 8:31 pm: | |
I'm starting to believe that both, SDAs and Evangelicals are wrong in the understanding of this topic. Now, don't just jump and say, Wow, Hec, you're so arrogant. Everybody is wrong but you. No.
I think that both are just stuck on terms definitions. SDAs stick to death as non-existence, and Evangelicals stick to death as separation. What if they are both right like Paul and James in relation to the law? What if death is separation the first time and non-existence the second time?
Hec |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 5758
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 9:21 pm: | |
Because Hec, the bible does not teach that. It is not sound Bible doctrine.
Dennis gave a pretty good rundown on the subject, however I have to go along with Seekinglight, these changes in thinking may have to come gradually over time. To kind of add to what Seekinglight said, it may be better to spend time with Jesus and building oneself up on their most Holy faith, just learning to lean and to trust the father's wisdom completely.
That is why I was so gentle in my answer to Skeeter, I know how to be gentle if that is what is called for, tough when that is called for.
River |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 5759
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 9:26 pm: | |
On second thought you might strike that Hec, there are an awful lot of people who disagree when I feel tough is called for, they go for the sugar cookies, but I can't seem to sell tough love much.
River |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 779
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 9:49 pm: | |
I don't want neither boulders nor sugar cookies.
quote:Because Hec, the bible does not teach that. It is not sound Bible doctrine.
It might not be "sound doctrine" because it doesn't make much sound since the majority believes otherwise. But I don't subscribe to the believe that the majority sets the standard. The Bible does, and I still cannot find that "sound doctrine" clearly explained in the Bible. It might be possible to get that from the Bible, but it is also possible to get the opposite understanding. It is not like "the spirit". That has explanations and the Bible passages cannot be explained away. But "eternal punishing" does not fall into that category. There are passages on both sides and they cannot be just dismissed. I don't see how one can just stick the heals in the sand and say, "this is what the Bible say" when it's not necessarily what the Bible say.
Hec |
Clintonc
Registered user
Username: Clintonc
Post Number: 49
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 10:25 am: | |
Yes, this is a hard subject for a former. My wife and I argued with this plenty in the past. She always uses the accursed koinia greek on me!
I have come the conclusion that I still don't understand it completely. I too, am learning to trust in the Word as I learn from it, and learning to accept what the Spirit is teaching me, even while the precepts don't match with my understanding. |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 7750
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 10:45 am: | |
This is a subject that I do not understand either. My take on it is that God knows what He is doing. He is in charge. If He wanted us to understand it He would have made it very easy to understand. He did not. It is not a salvation issue. So I will trust God that He knows what He is doing. When I get to heaven I will be so happy to be there I will not want to think about the days prior to that glorious day. He died to save me. No one can take me from His or the Father's hand. NO ONE!!!
Diana L |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1828
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 11:17 am: | |
Hec,
You owe it to yourself to get Dr. Morey's classic, 315-page book on this topic. Like for yourself, other new formers, and myself as well, this book assists in establishing the hermeneutics of death. Without adhering to the accepted principles of hermeneutics, we just talk past each other. By the way, this book is not light reading. It requires paying close attention to every sentence. It is excellent as a reference book as well.
Here is one typical example of faulty hermeneutics:
1) JWs/SDAs insist that the word "destroy" always means obliteration.
2) "The chronic alcoholic down the street destroyed his family." This sentence doesn't necessarily mean that the drunk literally killed his family members or even obliterated them. By the way, my late SDA father was an alcoholic and I am still alive.
"When an annihilationist or Universalist gives an elaborate and esoteric interpretation of those biblical texts which speak of endless punishment, they go to great lengths to demonstrate that "everlasting" does not mean everlasting and "torment" does not mean torment! It never seems to occur to them that if the biblical authors wanted to express clearly the idea of extinction or ultimate salvation of the wicked, there were words available to them in Hebrew and Greek languages which could have been used. But the biblical authors did not use those words." (Excerpt taken from Dr. Morey's book, DEATH AND THE AFTERLIFE, page 22)
Dr. Morey also explains the cyclical nature of the teaching of annihilationism and/or the extinction/re-creation view in Christian history. "In terms of this cycle, Bible-believing Christians have passed through the acknowledgement, indifference, ignorance, doubt, denial and irritation phases and are now entering the affirmation phase. The Universalists and the annihilationists have invaded the Christian Church just as the Philistines invaded Israel. It is once again necessary to defend the gospel truth that unbelief results in God's wrath (John 3:36) and that this wrath is eternal (Matt. 25:46)." (Ibid, page 18) All in all, the SDA view of death adversely affects the natures of God, man, and salvation. Indeed, it is a very serious aberration of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, many people continue to believe what they prefer to be true.
Dennis Fischer |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 782
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 12:08 pm: | |
quote:1) JWs/SDAs insist that the word "destroy" always means obliteration.
2) "The chronic alcoholic down the street destroyed his family." This sentence doesn't necessarily mean that the drunk literally killed his family members or even obliterated them. By the way, my late SDA father was an alcoholic and I am still alive.
Yes, I think that's part of the problem. The SDAs insist that the word destruction always means obliteration and the Evangelicals insist that the word destruction always means separation.
1. "The chronic alcoholic down the street destroyed his family."
2. "The chronic alcoholic down the street destroyed his house by burning it down to ashes."
In the above examples, number 1 does not mean obliteration. Number 2 obviously does. There will be no more house in any way, shape, or form. The ashes will become part of the dust of the earth.
To make the Bible not contradict itself, I think we will have to agree that in some cases the word destruction means separation and in other cases it means obliteration. Like in any other case, we will have to take the context into account and also what the entire Bible says about it. When we stick our heals on one definition and ignore others then it becomes confusing and imposible to unravel.
Yes, I think that hermeneutics are important, but I don't think that the writers of the Bible wrote to only enlightened people who were educated and knew about hermeneutics. I believe that the writers believed that their readers would understand what they wrote to them, even those who were not so educated. At the time education was no as ubiquitous as it is today. I kind of place a red flag on topics that only the educated can understand.
Hec |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1829
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 12:50 pm: | |
Hec,
The common people in Bible times could readily understand the Hebrew and Koine Greek languages. However, since these languages are no longer "common" languages, it requires some scholarship to grasp the full meaning of words and phrases. So, what was once common and easily understood is now considered somewhat scholarly.
Fortunately, to our advantage, the Bible was written in languages that are very precise in meaning to enable us to avoid any distortion or falsity. Admittedly, the SDA view of death was the last segment of Adventism that I discarded as well. The reason why this heresy is such a powerful sticking point is due to it involving the natures of God, man, and salvation. It truly taints the entire Bible.
Dennis Fischer, biblical correspondent
(specializing in issues related to the doctrine of hell)
www.truthorfables.com |
|
