| Author | Message | ||
| Skeeter Registered user Username: Skeeter Post Number: 564 Registered: 12-2007 |
Colleen, You said :"Even if you understand "hell" the same way next week or month or year, if you are willing to let go of annihilation as being the only way God can be loving and admit the possibility that eternal hell might be part of God's love—just that release of your worldview to Him will begin to give you a deep peace and sense of awe that is missing while we hold onto our "comforting" opinion. We really can't embrace reality while we hold onto internal paradigms that feel comforting but are actually unexamined against Scripture. " Again I agree totally ! And I AM willing to accept that which ever way God handles the situation of Hell is HIS decision and I am confident that His way is the best way which ever way that is. HE is all knowing, we are not. My trust is in HIM to do what needs to be done. I do feel at peace with it, even though I do not know the answer, because my confidence is in HIM, not in my own understanding. Skeeter | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3169 Registered: 10-2004  |
Hec,
The difference is that Jesus switched from using the word "kill" to using another word, "destroy." Do you really think that His change in words was unintentional or meaningless? And you're still not understanding the Biblical definition of "destroy." Let me repeat myself: This word translated "destroy" is also used of the lost sheep, the lost coin, etc. Jesus even uses it of "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Were these people or things non-existent or annihilated? Of course not. That's not the primary meaning of the word appolumi. In fact, again, Jesus contrasts it with the word "kill." For more on how the Bible specifically defines the "destruction" of the wicked, see a previous post of mine here: http://www.formeradventist.com/discus/messages/7427/5613.html#POST74593
There will be no more of the first death. There will certainly still be the second death (Revelation 20:14-15, Revelation 21:8). Ironically, it is the annihilationist that denies there will be no more death. They believe that billions of people will be dead, for all eternity. If that's true, then there will be death!
If the ultimate result is death, then how is it a "much severer punishment" than death? And again, it is a rhetorical question that the writer puts forth, implying that the punishment is infinite.
The type is not identical to the antitype. The earthly/physical/temporal is only a mere foreshadowing of the spiritual/eternal.
Of course they won't inherit the earth. They will be no more, as far as the earth is concerned. They will have no part in the New Earth. "Yet a little while and the wicked man will be no more; And you will look carefully for his place and he will not be there." (Psalm 37:10 NASB.) Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on March 06, 2010) | ||
| Skeeter Registered user Username: Skeeter Post Number: 565 Registered: 12-2007 |
And round and round we go..... Aint this fun ? LOL At least it is keeping us alert and studying. :-) Skeeter | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 903 Registered: 3-2009 |
Yes, it is fun! I like going round and round as long as we discuss the topic and not attack the person. I appreciate that no one has attacked me on this topic even when I've been very hard headed. That's the way I learn. Thanks for helping me understand. Hec | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 904 Registered: 3-2009 |
Maybe he switched words as anyone does so as not to sound repetitious. But even if it were intentionally, if he did not intend destroy to mean that, couldn't he use a different word that meant what he intended?
Is there a possibility that a word would have more than one meaning? Why is it necessary to accept the meaning that accommodates to destroy meaning something else?
It says there will be no more death, it doesn't say there will be no more of the first death.
For death to exist, there have to be something to die. The saved will not die, they have eternal life, and the wicked will not die, they will be already dead for eternity. So there is nothing to die and there is no more death.
How about the method or duration of the punishment is more severer? Why does it necessarily has to be duration? The passage does not specify in which way will it be more severer.
The problem I find here is that the passage says, they will be no more. It doesn't say, they will be no more as far as the earth is concerned. Hec | ||
| Skeeter Registered user Username: Skeeter Post Number: 567 Registered: 12-2007 |
I think we should try to be careful when discussing scripture to not add our own suppositions to what it actually says to make it fit what we think it says. that is true of parties on both sides of the discussion.lets keep it "fair" after all the purpose is not to "win" the argument, but to get to the "truth" right? Skeeter | ||
| Skeeter Registered user Username: Skeeter Post Number: 568 Registered: 12-2007 |
I was searching through numerous sites to find out what various denominations believe about an eternal Hell, etc and thought it was interesting that someone wrote this on one of them under the comment section. " Kevin September 12, 2009 I’m a Southern Baptist doing a study into the biblical teaching on Hell. So far I’ve come to this simple conclusion. God is just and punishment must be just. There is a Hell but it appears that at some point Hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire and annihilated. The original greek terms translated to imply forever could rightfully be interpreted to mean a finality. As my study of this subject continues I’m leaning toward the finality of Hell (and it’s contents) in the Lake of Fire.-----" Is anyone on here Southern Baptist ? Just wondering what the stance on this is according to Baptists ? Is this opinion common in Baptist churches or is this man pretty much on his own ? Is it true that " The original greek terms translated to imply forever could rightfully be interpreted to mean a finality." ?? I sure do not know anything about Greek.... Skeeter | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 6072 Registered: 9-2006  |
I suppose it must have been about 37 years ago, I struggled with this same question. I came to the conclusion that for we as human beings to be completely separated from God for eternity would be an apt description of hell. Even as sinners the Holy Spirit is close enough to bring conviction to the hearts of sinners, but when the final call is made, even that closeness will be no more. Whether sinner or saved we are totally dependant on him for our existence and our sustenance for we are created by him. At the time I did not have the ability to understand, because I hadn’t brought all the scriptures together to be able to understand true Bible doctrine. I would imagine most new Christians who are unskilled in the word do go through this. Like Skeeter, I decided that God was just and loving, in spite of my lack of understanding. She sounds like me when I was a new Christian.  I do consider most formers on this forum as new Christians, simply because that’s what they sound like, sometimes needing encouragement, sometime needing someone to cry with them, and sometimes needing a swift kick in the slats. I don’t consider practicing Adventist as Christians simply because God has not led me to believe they are, although I wanted to believe this of them. I consider Skeeter, as a new Christian, to have taken the safe road until her understanding grows from having fed on the meat of the word, now she desires the sincere milk of the word, and that’s enough. That’s enough for most on this forum. But for someone who claims to be a teacher of the word of God, and having years to grow, to claim conditionalism, needs to be dealt with swiftly, truthfully and firmly, simple because it is a dangerous teaching. It gives the sinner a false since of security, ignores clear scripture, warnings and examples given by Jesus. The clearest example that comes to mind in the Bible is contained in Luke 16:19-31, and in 16:9 Jesus calls it clearly, a mans eternal home. For men to try and make something else out of Jesus example is shear lunacy, stubbornness and rebellion. I don’t claim to be a teacher, I am not, I am a student who needs to be taught, so I will leave the teaching to those who are willing to risk the greater condemnation. But I have been around the class room long enough to know how to at least make a good start on rightly dividing the Word, and conditionalism, in my own opinion fails miserably at it. All the same it takes time to feed on the milk of the Word, and to grow. This subject is contained in the vast area of scripture, and it is advisable to take in the whole word of God on any subject. I don’t think one can take this subject in, nor understand it, by arguing whether ‘destroy’ means ‘destroy’ or not. As Forest Gump says, ‘That’s all I got to say about that’. River P.S. Skeeter, I don't know much greek either, but I got news for you, Holy Spirit knows both greek and English, just take your time and wait on him in faith, and he will teach you. | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 1661 Registered: 6-2006  |
Skeeter, I'm not Southern Baptist, but I'm very sure they don't believe in annihilation. I believe that guy was unique in his belief. When I went into the Southern Baptist main page, I typed "Hell eternal" in their search engine and although I didn't get an direct answer, I got two articles - one on Jehovah's Witnesses and the other on Seventh-Day Adventists. For those who hold to conditionalism, does it bother you that the doctrine is rooted mainly to two unorthodox (or cultic teaching) churches? Or is that even a factor? I'm asking not to be rude, but I guess it would bother me personally. Forgive me if that's too personal a question, and please don't feel obligated to answer if that's the case. Leigh Anne | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1895 Registered: 4-2000  |
Fortunately, Koine Greek was a very precise language that God used to convey His message in the original New Testament manuscripts. Unlike the White Estate claims to the contrary, every word in Scripture is very important and inspired ("God-breathed"). Therefore, we can fully trust the words of the New Testament. The NT writers were well aware of various Greek words available to them to best express God's messages. If the inspired penmen wanted to express a belief compatible with a nineteenth-century cult, they certainly had the knowledge to do so linguistically, grammatically, and etymologically. Of course, the inspired writers had no bent toward error. Inerrancy signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions. It is important to remember that official Adventism doesn't hold even one doctrine that is not tainted with heresy. Likewise, in the area of eschatology, Adventism has no credibility--given their many past errors and failed prophecies. Dennis Fischer Today's Gem: Salvation is a gift to be received, not a goal to be achieved. (Message edited by Dennis on March 07, 2010) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3170 Registered: 10-2004 |
Skeeter, You asked:
The man is pretty much on his own. The Southern Baptist Convention (like every other orthodox Christian denomination, by the way) teaches eternal Hell. Here is a quote from their official statement of faith:
The only groups that officially teach annihilationism are recognized cults which also deny the Trinity (JW, SDA, Armstrongism, Christadelphians, etc.).
No, that is not true at all. For example, the Greek in Revelation 20:10, translated "forever and ever," literally means "into the eons of the eons" or "unto the ages of the ages." In other words, it does not simply mean finality, but it has to do with duration and means exactly what it says in English: "forever and ever." By the way, this same phrase is used just a couple chapters later (Revelation 22:5) in speaking of the saints, and it says, "they will reign forever and ever." If Revelation 20:10 does not actually mean forever but is only temporary ("they will be tormented day and night forever and ever"), then the reign of the saints (heaven/new earth) must also be temporary and not actually forever ("they will reign forever and ever"). You can't have it both ways. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3171 Registered: 10-2004 |
Hec,
It meant exactly what He intended: "to render useless."
The Bible defines for us exactly what it means by "destroy" and "destruction" when it comes to the lost. So let's let the Bible itself define it for us. In Revelation 17, we read the following:
So here we see that the beast will go to "destruction." The Greek word used here for "destruction" is apoleia, the noun form of the verb apollumi ("destroy" in Matthew 10:28), discussed above. And if we keep reading in Revelation, we will find out exactly what the definition is of that "destruction" that the beast must face. The next mention of the beast after verse 17 of chapter 17, is in chapter 19 verses 19-20:
So here, we are told that the beast and the false prophet are thrown alive into the lake of fire. And in the next chapter, after one thousand years have passed, we read:
Notice that after one thousand years of being in the lake of fire, the beast and the false prophet are still alive, and that they will be "tormented day and night forever and ever"! So, now we finally have the exact definition for the "destruction" mentioned in Revelation 17. According to Revelation, "destruction" means being "tormented day and night forever and ever" in the lake of fire. You can't get any clearer than that.
Now you're switching back to Revelation 21:4 again, which only applies to the saved (which I'll address again below). Revelation 20:14 simply says: "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire." It does imply that the "death" spoken of in the first sentence is the "first death." Since the Lake of Fire is eternal (see verse 10), and the Lake of Fire is the second death, then the second death continues eternally.
According to annihilationism, the Christian martyrs had to suffer Hell by being burned to death at the stake, which is no different than what the lost will have to endure. But Hell is infinitely more severe than the punishment of being put to death under Moses' Law.
That's what it is saying in context. To take this text out of its context and apply it to mean that the wicked are annihilated is to not use proper Biblical hermeneutics. "For evildoers will be cut off, But those who wait for the LORD, they will inherit the land. 10Yet a little while and the wicked man will be no more; And you will look carefully for his place and he will not be there. 11But the humble will inherit the land And will delight themselves in abundant prosperity." (Psalm 37:9-11 NASB.) Now, going back to something you wrote earlier:
Let's take a look at the whole passage in context:
So verse 4 only applies to "he who overcomes" (verse 7)--only "he who overcomes will inherit these things" (including the things mentioned in verse 4). "BUT" for the cowardly and unbelieving, etc. (verse 8), they will experience the second death, the eternal Lake of Fire, where "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 20:10).
It is not only for "some time." It is in the present tense ("are") and it is in the eternal state (Revelation 22). Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on March 07, 2010) | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 905 Registered: 3-2009 |
Jeremy, Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. Hec | ||
| Skeeter Registered user Username: Skeeter Post Number: 571 Registered: 12-2007 |
River, Thank you for your patience and understanding :-) "I do consider most formers on this forum as new Christians, simply because that’s what they sound like, sometimes needing encouragement, sometime needing someone to cry with them, and sometimes needing a swift kick in the slats. " And you are just the one to do it too. ! LOL Skeeter | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 908 Registered: 3-2009 |
Jeremy, et al, I am in need of a Bible passage/verse which says that the soul/spirit is immortal. Could you give me that? This is not an argument. This is a request. Hec | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1896 Registered: 4-2000 |
Moreover, Romans 8:38-39 makes annihilatonism and soul extinction impossible.
In the preceding Johnanine passage, Jesus was obviously not talking about the physical death of the body or "tent" as Paul described it. Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on March 09, 2010) (Message edited by dennis on March 09, 2010) | ||
| Skeeter Registered user Username: Skeeter Post Number: 575 Registered: 12-2007 |
Dennis, Forgive my intrusion on this conversation as I know your statements were directed to Hec..... But as I was reading your explanation the thought came to mind that the statement you made "All such arguments from silence are obviously invalid. " bothers me as that is the very reasoning that SDA's use to 'prove' that the Sabbath is still binding. They reason that since the other 9 commandments are repeated in some form in the NT that it should be 'assumed' that the sabbath command is still binding also. that "All such arguments from silence are obviously invalid." I understand your reasoning that just because a subject is not worded in the Bible in a specific way does not make it any less true,, but without that specific wording available to us, I can see how that rationalization could be used both ways. As for me, I am still undecided one way or other, but God is our Judge, it is His job to decide our fate and I am confident He will do so with a mixture of justice, mercy, love and even vengeance. I believe it is possible to have all those at the same time. "HIS will be done" Francie | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 527 Registered: 2-2003  |
I like that Morey quote, thanks Dennis. Adrian | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11025 Registered: 12-2003  |
Great quote, Dennis. Skeeter, there are other Bible verses that show the spirit survives the body: 2 Cor 5:1-10; Phil 1:22-23, and Jesus Himself saying He was giving His Spirit into His Father's hands right after telling the thief He would be with Him that day in Paradise. Colleen | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 911 Registered: 3-2009 |
Denis, In my post, I clarified that this is not an argument but a request. I am not trying to argue the invalidity of your position based on the absence of the term immortality in the Bible. Just like the term Trinity is not mention in the Bible, but you can develop the concept from other passages and terms, I was hoping that someone, instead of getting defensive, would give me the same explanation. I need to know how the Bible explains that the soul/spirit is incapable of dying. I know the word immortal is not found in the Bible, but I need to know how to explain the concept even if the word is not found in the Bible. Just like Trinity. Saying that the fire is eternal, or the punishment is eternal does not makes the spirit/soul eternal. There are other explanations for that. So I still request that anyone here who can clearly explain how the soul/spirit is incapable of dying to please do it. I need that information. I'm not arguing. I am after understanding and information. Hec |
