| Author | Message | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1154 Registered: 5-2007 |
I have not had a chance to absorb this string. Colleen, You explained your interpretation view on the word death. "Eternal hell is not life. People whose souls are separated from God and are not united with Him by faith in Christ, remain dead. The world is even now filled with the walking dead...and hell will be those "walking dead" separated from God for eternity. They will not have access to the living...but neither physical nor spiritual death means "cease to exist". " Can you think of any specific scripture that supports this interpretation? I am not understanding how you are arriving at this. Jim | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12589 Registered: 12-2003  |
Leigh Anne--such great points. The SDA view that "a loving God wouldn't" makes our fallen human nature the standard by which we evaluate love. That is arrogance and is completely upside-down. Jim, in Genesis 2 God told Adam that if he ate that fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that he would die the day he ate it. They ate it...and they DID die. They suddenly knew shame, and they hid from God. Their spirits DID die. God was not being "metaphorical". When He said they would die, He meant it. They died. Moreover, Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 tell us that in Adam all died, and Ephesians 2:1-3 and Colossians 1:13 tell us that before God changes us, we are born and living as spiritually dead people. We are not spiritually alive, even though our bodies are alive. When Jesus died he cried, "Into Your hands I commit my spirit." In Acts 7 when Stephen died he saw heaven opened, and he committed his spirit to Jesus. 2 Cor 5 explains that our essential identity goes to be with God, leaving its earthly tent, when we die, and Phil. 1:22-23 also has Paul saying it is better by far to die and be with the Lord than to remain here. Revelation 20 describes the second death. It is not a condition of people or a condition of evil angels. Rather, wicked people are thrown resurrected into the lake of fire—and the lake of fire is called "the second death". In other words, the second death is different from the first. The first death is something from which we return: body and soul/spirit reunite in resurrection. The second death is something into which the whole person is thrown, body and spirit reunited. It is the lake of fire which is named "the second death". That term is not applied to the condition of the people; rather, people enter, as resurrected individuals, the second death, and Scripture never gives us any hint of the second death ending. The second death, like eternal life, is eternal. Colleen | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 994 Registered: 7-2004  |
We recently finished 2 Cor 5 in our Bible study. Even having read and heard teachings on this chapter, this time in study really struck me just how completely this chapter dispels the holistic theology that denies a real, distinct, separate spirit. Even though it has been many years since I believed the SDA viewpoint on the state of the dead, the eyes wide open experience of reading the chapter for what it plainly states was amazing. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 995 Registered: 7-2004 |
Animal, I'd suggest being careful saying "never" in regards to something dealing with God. I'm not saying tht He takes these as a personal challenge. But I have to think He laughs at our silly certainties. On a more serious note, I do question the benefit of deciding ahead of time what must be true and then studying Scripture with that presupposition. If you are so confident that something is true, you don't need to fear studying with an open mind. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1156 Registered: 5-2007 |
They only way we have to relate to Love, is in our capacity as a humans. God gives us the gift of love in our emotions, our sensibilities and our Spirit. I do not presume to judge God. But when there is a situation such as tragedy or horror, I do not see it as arrogant to ask, how can this be love? We are not asked to love an evil thing or act. Yet on another level, "though He slay me, yet will I trust Him". God is Love. But God allows, causes great loss or suffering. Tragedy. We do not see Love , not because we are arrogant, but because all creation suffers in this age. It alarms me that we insist that Love is present when evil takes another victim. When disastor strikes, accidents, disease. That is not Love. God has His reasons. But while we face these things, there is no Love in this evil. If there be Love at all. It is in the Hope of a future when this evil will end. Which is why Hell presents such a problem. Evil is eternal if Hell is. Death, Cease to exist? Separation? Am I to understand that in every passage that uses that word, I should now substitute the word? Do they make a Bible that reads like that. One that inserts all the redifined words? Like almost every topic. We cannot establish the logic rules. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12597 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jim, death is...death. But the Bible does teach us that our understanding of human death on this earth is something from which we return; that's why it's called "sleep". The Bible teaches that our bodies decay, but our spirits go into God's keeping. Colleen | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 998 Registered: 7-2004 |
If we insist on a god who conforms to our ideas, emotions, and logic we have created a god after our own image. The alternative is to accept the God Who has revealed Himself through Scripture without amendments to match our feelings. Once we begin modifying the God revealed in Scripture because we can't imagine that He could really be how He says He is, then we have set aside our faith in the One True God and placed our faith in an idol made with our own minds. | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 932 Registered: 7-2008  |
Ric... All I did was share my opinion. I am so sorry that doing so causes your criticism. I guess only certain people are allowed to state such opinions. Guess I am not one of them...forgive me for sharing openly my thoughts. I will try to be more careful. You seem to be smarter than me in issues of theology. I should know better. Animal | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 999 Registered: 7-2004 |
Animal, the comment directed to you about avoiding saying "never" in regards to God wasn't meant to attack you. It was intended as a humorous reminder of all the times many of us have said never, only to look back years later and see how funny that seems. I could never go to a Sunday church. I could never raise my hands in worship. The list could go on and on. Maybe you haven't had to face one of your nevers yet, but it is a running joke among most of my friends who are formers. No offense was meant. | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 577 Registered: 1-2006  |
Colleen, Fear, and an "us against them" mentality. Bob | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 933 Registered: 7-2008 |
I think my days of sharing my opinions are over here. Good bye and God bless all of you. Animal | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1582 Registered: 7-2003  |
I think the thing I find the most frustrating about discussions of Hell is that they aren't about Hell at all. I say this because they hardly ever focus on the question, "What conclusion is the Church led to if we simply accept the overwhelming weight of the biblical data on Hell in its own context?" Heck, even if we just narrowed down our focus to, "What did Jesus Himself say about Hell and can I trust Him to be right on this?" these discussions would be so much more informative, objective, and on topic. Unfortunately, I think every (so-called) discussion of Hell I have ever seen has always focused on "What do I think should be acceptable for a god I would like to worship?" That's a far different conversation. That's not even really about Hell at all. That really goes back to the same old fleshy struggle we all still experience, trying to be our own god and do things our way. It comes down to bending the knee before the God revealed in Scripture, even when we don't understand and (gasp) don't approve, or choosing to create a god in our own image. I truly think these discussion are much more about that then they are about Hell. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1000 Registered: 7-2004 |
Chris, You were, once again, far more articulate at making the point I saw trying to describe. Thanks for your post. | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1769 Registered: 3-2009 |
When I joined this forum, I had the idea that this was a safe place to unload, to come and say what I had to say without being afraid of ridicule or attacks in any form. That even if I was not "politically correct", I would still be accepted and loved. Now, I'm not so sure. It seems to me that there are a few James and Ellen White, Bates, etc. that dominate the forum and when someone says something different to what they believe then they use the influence, as those pioneers did to correct and straighten the poor lost sheep. Please,don't misunderstand me, there are very loving, understanding people here, but it's becoming scaring to share for fear of being jump on by those pillar of the forum. (And to make it clear, I am not referring to Colleen, if any thing, she is the one who tries to keep the peace.) Forgive me for saying this but is how I feel. It's like this is a microcosm of the SDA church. I'm right and you are wrong. And when you try to prove to me that I'm wrong, I attack you. Please watch out. The devil may well use this fantastic means of support for formers to separate us and get away with his plan anyways. Have I ever talked like that? NO. But I feel (River would say, "the Spirit put it in me to say) these things, even if it gains me a whole bunch of enemies here. God bless you all. Hec | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1001 Registered: 7-2004 |
So, should only one set of opinions be allowed to be posted? I find it ironic to be compared to Ellen White for encouraging people to rely on nothing but Scripture for their understanding of God. My intent was certainly not to offend or attack. But I do think think that relying on our personal feelings rather than Scripture to guide our understanding of God is Spiritually dangerous and it is important to me to warn those who are posting, or only reading posts, about this danger. I would love to discover a Biblically sound alternative to eternal punishment in Hell. That is an SDA doctrine that I found appealing long after I left, it still sounds appealing. But, I am constrained by what the Bible says, not by what I like best. If you believe that the Bible teaches something different from what I understand, then we have a basis for discussing how we come to different conclusions. But if you believe that your feelings alone should be the unchallengeable basis for doctrinal teaching, we do not have a common Authority. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1157 Registered: 5-2007 |
It is not about me wanting to form God to fit my will. Or for me to build up an image of God to suit my fancy. It is about me trying to rectify the tenor of scriptures as a whole. Sound doctrine is a prime directive, but not always possible on every point of discussion. The Bible says that there is a second death. It also says there will be a tree of life for the saved. But I have not seen any mention of a tree of life for the lost. Simply , death. It points out that the old order is passed away. That includes hell, suffering and death. It seems that the test theologically is that no matter what scenario we percieve of God creating or causing, we must somehow filter it through a love and trust lens of total acceptance no matter how horrific. Our sensibilities have no meaning then? We can have common sense and values of Love in every other situation in life and between one another (one of the Spiritual laws) but somehow, Love for God has no frame of reference whatsoever. If God is Love, what is Love? What does Love convey? Paul describes Love. But when it refers to God, do we exempt every facet of that concept? When Jesus was on earth, He showed us Love we could percieve and relate to. He showed us Love in action. Yet when someone says , this concpet of eternal active hell is out of the character of God, we are told that all bets are off when it comes to God. God is not accountable to us. He does not have to vindicate Himself of His law. I agree with that. But God is accountable to God. God is true to Himself. God is Love. God's Love vindicates itself. I have no clever rebuttal to this Hell question. Nor is my attitude one of rebellion or denial. It is how I see it, how I sense it. | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1770 Registered: 3-2009 |
Rick, I was not referring exclusively to you. I made a general statement so that whoever feels alluded to will think abut it. I believe that all kinds of opinions should be allowed. That's precisely my point. All opinions should be allowed in the safety of knowing that even if I am not "correct", I will be scripturally shown where is my mistake, but my integrity will not be attacked. I should feel safe to make a mistake knowing that I'll be corrected with love, not with words that put me down or make me fell like the commentator is saying "I know better than you". After all, who knows? Again my comments were not directed to any one in particular. They were directed at the feet of everybody, so if the shoe fits, just wear it. If it doesn't, just keep going barefooted. Hec | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1002 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jim, Thank you for returning the discussion to some of the Biblical aspects of the question. The Bible mentions the second death, but it also describes it? How do you understand the Biblical description ofbwhat the second death is and how does that influence your theology on this subject? In the same chapter that Paul describes love, he also points out that right now we only see dimly. Do you think it is reasonable to conclude that our understanding of God's perfect combination of Love, wrath and justice is an incomplete understanding? Personally, I believe that there may be something in the timelessness of God that we can't understand as mortal beings inside time that makes more sense of the passages. And I look forward to that day when I no longer see dimly and it makes more sense. I would encourage you that you should not allow your perceived tenor of Scripture to over-ride the plain words of Scripture. Returning to the topic of the thread, that is exactly how the Great Controversy affects people long after leaving SDAism. It creates a filter or lens through which we understand Scripture and that creates tones that aren't really there. These tones we hear are hallucinatory artifacts of a false world view. This is why the only defense that I know is to trust the His Word is exactly true, as it plainly reads, whether that makes sense to us or not. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1003 Registered: 7-2004 |
Hec, I could say the same thing, "if the shoe fits". I didn't mention you by name earlier. But the conversation participants are obvious once you remove Colleen's name from the list. So please don't beat around the bush. It seems clear that I offended you, and I can take the consequences of my words. I meant to challenge your approach, not to attack you as a person. Clearly I didn't do the best job of making that distinction obvious and I apologize for any personal attack within that challenge. I don't understand safe and loving to mean that a statement is never challenged. There are areas where any one of us may have more understanding or struggled through studying for longer. But even if there is a topic that I believe I am understanding more fully than another, I don't presume that it is because I am a better, smarter, or any other-er than someone else. Nor am I foolish enough to believe that I don't have something to learn from others on the same topic. The day that happens is the day I should stop discussing theology. But I do implore you, use Scripture alone to both understand and explain your beliefs, particularly on controversial subjects. Our feelings should be made subject to Scripture, rather than the other way around. When you promote a position based on your feelings, it isn't clear whether you are doing this. I hope that was a better job of expressing my concern without any personal attack mixed in. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1159 Registered: 5-2007 |
Ric-b, I am all for plainly understanding Scripture. What do the words plainly mean? If we have ambigous definitions of the words themselves that alter a passage, then you have no plain reading. I got out my exhaustive concordance and looked up the Hebrew and Greek words. By and large, ' Death means Death. The word Hell has so many variations it is mind boggling. But the tenor I speak of is not an imagining or wishful thinking. It is a common sense absorbtion of the whole body. If we go for proof texts, our experience with out of context conclusions is well known. I find that the models of doctrines do not fit. Or some conclusions hang by the thinest of theorys. Yes , I see the "eternal" words. I see it. But I do not think it fits the whole. But on the string topic point itself. The GC gave a basis to hold together a consensus of authority. We believed God settled these matters by special communication with EGW. So, now in this age. We cannot with authority settle these questions. There is no resource to fill in the gaps. Some things are not given to us to know for certain. It was mentioned that most (Mainline) faiths do not deal with these issues as they have accepted these teachings as part of the whole package. That is the point ! The GC was our whole package! If you were suddely striped as a nonformer mainliner of all you knew and relied on from your church of your youth, what would it do to your memories, your customs, your comforts. You would feel ripped apart and lost. We face these issues because we are trying to recover a sanity of trust in our faith and our relationship in Christ. We have to rebuild as if we had amnesia and have to relearn life itself all over. Even how to talk and think. |
