| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12246 Registered: 12-2003  |
Our church, Trinity Church in Redlands, CA, is on a Bible-reading plan called Route 66. It's fun, actually, because the congregation is on this "read the Bible in a year" plan which we are all doing together. There is a Rout 66 blog where people can question and comment as they read. This last weekend a question was asked, and when Richard and I read it, be both said, "That's got to be written by an Adventist..." Well, I don't know whether or not it was; there are people following the blog who are not members of our church—but it surely COULD have been written by an Adventist. I'm going to share the question below, and then I'll do another post where I share my response to the question. Here's the question concerning a phrase repeated throughout Exodus 29:
Colleen | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12247 Registered: 12-2003 |
So here's the response I wrote:
You know, the longer I am out of Adventism, the more the "character of God" arguments annoy me. The implication that God would be impugned if the covenant commands changed is insulting to God and a refusal to acknowledge His sovereignty. Ultimately, the refusal to admit that the Lord Jesus fulfilled the law reduces Jesus to a servant of the Law instead of the Author of the law. It makes Jesus merely a man. Indeed, no mere man could fulfill the law. It required God's Son incarnate in a human body to do that! He is Sovereign Himself! Colleen PS--you can participate in Route 66 if you wish and also read the blog by going here | ||
| Mkfound Registered user Username: Mkfound Post Number: 19 Registered: 1-2011 |
Colleen, I just thought of something as I was reading your post. Yes, Adventists in particular will use the 'God never changes' and 'forever really does mean forever' type of argument to defend keeping the law, or at least parts of the law. But they want to sit on both sides of the fence, so to speak, when it comes to the word 'forever'. Adventists have no problem when speaking of hell-fire to argue that forever does not in fact mean 'forever'. They explain away verses like: Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." They explain that the evil people will burn--until they burn up, however long that takes: This is what I have heard time and again at evangelistic meetings to explain 'soul sleep'. And then of course, we know EGW's colourful explanation: the very wicked will burn like big branches and the not so very wicked will burn like twigs--therefore varying amounts of time. So it seems that SDA's are OK with forever not always meaning 'forever' as long as it fits their dogma. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12248 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ooh, yes--Mkfound—you're absolutely right! Good insight. Colleen | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1603 Registered: 3-2009 |
That is the same thing that came to my mind when I read the "forever" word. Only it came to my mind from the other direction. Every time we are discussing the duration of hell, people say that forever means without end. However this usage is an indication that forever not always means without end. Colleen says:"“Forever” lasts as long as the nation and and the covenant lasted." Why couldn't forever when referring to hell mean as long as the material which is burning lasts? Hec | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12249 Registered: 12-2003 |
Well, in Matthew 25:41 and 46 Jesus talks about "eternal fire" and "eternal life". The Greek word is the same in each case. They have to mean the same thing. "Forever" is a different word...the only place I'm aware of where "eternal" and "covenant" are used together is in Hebrews 13:20-21:
"Eternal" is not used to describe the shadows of the old covenant. Colleen | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 998 Registered: 2-2008  |
Mkfound, I completely agree... a word is always translated or interpreted to fit EGW's writings. Such as the word "law" in Romans. If the word has to do with keeping the Sabbath, then it would mean eternally, but if the same Hebrew word is used to describe the Passover feast (which it is in Ex. 12:17) then "forever" means until Jesus' death made it no longer necessary to keep it. How can anyone keep up with all the interpretations of their words? vivian | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3574 Registered: 10-2004  |
Vivian, You're right--the SDAs usually say that "forever" only means "forever" when referring to the Sabbath but not the "ceremonial law." So I'm not sure that the person who was referencing Exodus 29 is an Adventist. Colleen, Actually, the Hebrew word for "eternal" (owlam) is translated "forever" and "perpetual" in the Law of Moses. Some have said that it does mean eternal in the Law, because Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and thus these statutes continue eternally, in Him. Also, when considering the meaning of any word, the context must be taken into consideration. Even if the words "forever" or "eternal" do not literally mean eternal in a certain passage, that does not mean that they don't mean eternal when describing heaven or hell. For example, the emphasis in Revelation 14:11 and Revelation 20:10 makes it unmistakable, as does the contrast in Matthew 25. Hec, You asked, "Why couldn't forever when referring to hell mean as long as the material which is burning lasts?" Well, what about things that are not material, such as spirits? Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on February 09, 2011) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12252 Registered: 12-2003 |
Thanks, Jeremy--I appreciate your word study--and yes, the idea of the law continuing eternally in Jesus is profound. I get frustrated with trying to talk about this idea with Adventists. They "picture" Jesus as "upholding" and "vindicating" the law...as if it is an eternal "thing" that even God honors. Your statement, Jeremy, that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and thus these statutes continue in Him is significant, but they don't understand it. They argue that we can also expect the principles of the law to be written on our hearts...meaning the Decalogue is imprinted in our consciences so we will always be reminded to keep and honor it. The fact that Jesus is above the law and authored it, that all law flows from the Trinity, is just confusion to a dyed-in-the-wool Adventist. Absolutely "law" is eternal! God is eternal, and law comes from Him. But an impersonal "law" generated in writing is not eternal...and when people cling to an impersonal law, they eclipse the Person of Jesus, and they end up, ultimately, with an impersonal, cognitive theology that gives them no transformation or hope. Also, Hec, regarding hell and eternal--Jeremy's point about spiritual reality is really significant. Even physical things will become eternal when the new heavens and earth are made. So somehow, all creation will be released from decay as per Romans 8, and hell—however it "looks", will be eternal as will life. Even though we don't have any explanation for how it will "work", it is significant that the wicked will be resurrected for hell. We can't say that those resurrected bodies of the wicked will "burn up" the way matter burns on earth within time. Hell is not on earth, and it's in eternity, not time. And no matter what the outcome for the bodies, the spirits of the wicked are not "burnable matter". Colleen | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1078 Registered: 5-2007 |
This is one of those topics that split into multiple subjects. Colleen , I see a lot of truths and keys being expressed in your words here, but some statements strike me more as assertions which then become a task for processing. (My bad) The example of eternal, forever. Just because the same word may have been used does not always follow that is has the same meaning, implication or conclusion. Are you saying that there are no contextual abstract uses or literal homonyms in the Hebrew or Greek languages? But that runs full circle back to precept upon precept and cross checking within the canon. Sometimes, there is not enough to be absolutely sure. This is when the assertions become the filler of gaps. How do we know that our Spirts are not burnable? Christ implied that God is capable of destroying body and soul. What does neither root nor stuble mean? Why did Christ say he does not have pleasure in the death of the wicked? If in fact they do not die? Then ofcourse this goes into definitions and my head starts hurting. Ultimatley, I find I cannot answer the question of hell and eternal torment. Spiritually, I find in contray to my perception of God. It serves no purpose to punish "actively" or "ongoing" eternally. Gen: 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. J: Eternal Hell is not a 'good'. It is sin, living sin and torment imortalized. What is that gulf we speak of. Beyond the judgement day. Shall we be like the Romans and go to the arena to watch em burn? This is a good ? What is the purpose of eternal hell? A celebration ritual, a perpetual warning, just in case, a retribution. Let's all fill in the gaps? No more suffering , no more tears. Jim | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1688 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; we cannot possibly understand hell with our tiny little minds. All we can understand is that Jesus died to save us from a horrible fate - separation from God for all eternity. Also God says He will wipe away all tears from the saved ones' eyes. That means that they won't be watching the wicked be separated/burn/whatever. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1080 Registered: 5-2007 |
Colleen, The main topic you presented was followed by the statement that Jesus is the Author of the law. 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. I think about when Jesus said Sabbath was made for man ,not man for the Sabbath. This proves your point. God could apply, interpret and clarify the intent of the law. The covenant duration is also a part of that. What I am trying to explore is the law of Christ as it applies to the unchangeable nature or attributes of God. Certainly, a man cannot figure out God on any level, but we can be hidden in the cleft of the rock and at least understand a faith that is based upon the Solid Rock. So many things are subject to change , to redefinition and new teachings. People naturally hold to the Voice they know. That is why people need to know God will not change. Words like Forever, Eternal, unchangeable, these are mine fields to the understanding. How do we settle these interpretations with any authority? It is not a perfect science, and beyond individual faith, what can be declared fact when it comes to these interpretations? One of teh advantages of the SDA system was a resolved confidence (as an attribute of faith) that EGW was God's messenger to His remnant people. We felt a unique Catholic like sense of authority and safety over our faith. With that stripped away, finding a basis for authority in settling matters of doctrine has become well nigh impossible. How do you negotiate this vacuum? Jim | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12256 Registered: 12-2003 |
I negotiate it by trusting God, Jim. His Word says that He cannot lie, and His word cannot fail. Instead of trusting a fallen human as my interpretive authority, I take the Bible literally, reading it as it is written, assuming the words mean what their plain meaning would mean in any other context. If God says He will provide food and clothing and shelter for His people if they seek His kingdom first, I believe He will do that—even if there is no foreseeable way that could happen. And He does do it. If He says Jesus bore the sins of all humanity in His body, then I place my trust in that fact. If the Bible says that Jesus fulfilled the law, then I believe that the Lord Jesus is the "goal",or end-point of the law and the One whom I must trust and to whom I must look for my marching orders. If He says all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for correction and instruction in righteousness, I will make it my foundation for reality. We have to trust someone. We either trust a mortal, or we trust God. God has spoken to us through His word and through His Son—I place my faith in Him. Colleen | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1081 Registered: 5-2007 |
I do not believe in eternal hell. I will leave it at that. Jim | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 2397 Registered: 5-2007  |
Our belief or non-belief will not alter whatever hell is. Since we have no way of understanding the nature of hell, it would be best simply to accept what the bible says and leave it at that. Fearless Phil | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1083 Registered: 5-2007 |
Phil, I find passages that to me read both ways on the subject of hell. That is why I am having a problem settling it in my mind. It is also a relational impression that I have towards God, about God. How I concieve God from my overall impression of Christ and how that affects my knowledge about God in view of the concept of Hell. Not in the sense of who am I to judge or question God. No , never. But how it affects my capacity to love God and to approach a God of love. God is love to me. I cannot put hell and love in the same thought. Jim | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1693 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; ask God to reveal Himself and truth to you. I don't entirely know what to think about hell either, but I know that God is a God of love. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1694 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; have you ever experienced God? Meaning have you ever felt Him hold your mind/spirit and sensed His love? Or have you at least sensed His Presence? (I never did when I was an SDA.) | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 861 Registered: 7-2008  |
Why should a child of God be concerned about hell? My only concerns are my relationship with God and how I can share Him with others. I have no intension of visiting hell during my eternal communion with God...Are you?? ....Animal...gonna let God worry about hell. My focus is in heaven !!! | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 8980 Registered: 3-2004  |
All I know is that hell exists, but then heaven does to. I am more concerned about heaven. The only way I will get there is because I have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Hell is not a salvation issue. If God wants me to know more about it He will teach me. Right now He is teaching me more about my relationship with Him. I am learning to be comfortable with the things I no longer have an answer to. If it is not concerned with salvation, I leave it to our awesome God. Diana L |
