30 Jul 14
1 edit
Here then lies the problem with the heinous eternal suffering doctrine. It is completely contradictory in scripture and also in terms of the revealed nature of God.
In order for adherents to support the doctrine of eternal burning in hell they have to reconcile that the scripture explicitly calls the punishment for unbelief the 2nd death, I.e. Comparing it with the 1st death not being something distinct and different from it as sonship is trying to do by using non-scriptural words such as "existence".
As checkbaiter correctly points out, the bible states explicitly that "the wages of sin is death" 1st death and then 2nd death. Not: 1st death and then "existence" which is kind of like death but also a bit like life, and actually goes on for eternity".
Finally the adherent has to cognitively and spiritually disown the the nature on a god who is described in john 3:16 as "so loving the world", not just loving Christians, but loving the world... Then adherents have to ignore that throughout the bible it states explicitly many many times "mercy triumphs over judgement", "god is love" "his love endures forever" (read that psalm a few times for perspective!).
Then take the couple of spurious verses from a book in the bible which is universally know for symbolism, add in some cultish medieval fear thinking and bingo, the gospel and nature of a redemptive god is disparaged.
Christians, examine these beliefs.
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI refer you to my post above.
Death is usually defined as the loss of life. Death does not have to mean complete annihilation. There are many things that are considered dead, but remain in existence. We make houses from dead trees. A rock is dead and exists, and therefore, some evolutionists believe it can come to life.
30 Jul 14
It is extraordinary that the belief that god has created a place of eternal burning in agony for those who are not Christians is even accepted at all; let's consider it's importance:
- It is not required for salvation
- It is not required for day to day Christian living
- It is not required for entering into the spirit
- It is not required for preaching the gospel
- It is not required for judgement, as "second death" is not eternal life suffering
It is not required at all, and yet many Christians here will hold to it like it is gold.
30 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterThis is getting funny. Are not you the one that has been on the two Jehovah Witnesses for so long? I believe so. Now you are using the same tactic of "that word isn't in the Bible, so you can't use it." How funny can it get?
Here then lies the problem with the heinous eternal suffering doctrine. It is completely contradictory in scripture and also in terms of the revealed nature of God.
In order for adherents to support the doctrine of eternal burning in hell they have to reconcile that the scripture explicitly calls the punishment for unbelief the 2nd death, I.e. Compari ...[text shortened]... , the gospel and nature of a redemptive god is disparaged.
Christians, examine these beliefs.
The translators are not inspired to translate in words that can only be used to explain concepts in the Holy Bible. If a better word comes along it can be used. Here is an example from the Revised Standard Version:
as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
Romans 4:17 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
If it is possible for God to call into existence the things that do not exist, then why would it not be possible for Him to allow the dead to be tormented for as long as he believed they deserved it?
30 Jul 14
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI see; you have noticed that while challenging sonship's use of the word "existence" as a substitute for the word "death" in bible, I mistakenly typed:
This is getting funny. Are not you the one that has been on the two Jehovah Witnesses for so long? I believe so. Now you are using the same tactic of "that word isn't in the Bible, so you can't use it." How funny can it get?
The translators are not inspired to translate in words that can only be used to explain concepts in the Holy Bible. If a better ...[text shortened]... possible for Him to allow the dead to be tormented for as long as he believed they deserved it?
"the word 'existence' is not a word used in the bible"
When what I should have said is:
"the word 'existence' is not used in the bible as a substitute for the word 'death'"
I can see why you think this is funny. Is this your best defence of your horrendous erroneous doctrine which disparages the nature of our redemptive god?
PS by the way, sonship started a thread a whole ago attacking you for not citing the bible correctly and here he is doing the same thing himself. Again.
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by divegeesterIf life is given to the dead, then the dead must exist, right? If so, that would mean that the dead are in some state of existence, even though their bodies have returned to the dust of the ground.
I see; you have noticed that while challenging sonship's use of the word "existence" as a substitute for the word "death" in bible, I mistakenly typed:
"the word 'existence' is not a word used in the bible"
When what I should have said is:
"the word 'existence' is not used in the bible as a substitute for the word 'death'"
I can see why you t ...[text shortened]... cking you for not citing the bible correctly and here he is doing the same thing himself. Again.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jul 14
5 edits
Originally posted by checkbaiter
I suggest that perhaps you are using these verses out of context. Perish means perish, nothing "eternal" involved here.
Your assumption is based on Greek Mythology of the "eternal soul" which is also not found in scripture.
It is not so that one has to lay a foundation of Greek philosophy of an "immortal soul" before one can believe in eternal states. This argument of yours assumes that there is an explicitly stated doctrine of the "immortal soul" which is in harmony with Greek philosophy. And therefore, eternal perdition came along as a forgone conclusion.
We can go from the Scriptures to see ground for what happens to a soul lasts for eternity without claiming that there is an explicit biblical doctrine claiming that the soul in and of itself is eternal.
This is a brief response.
Soul is merely breath life, when it is gone, it is gone. It ceases to exist. Animals have a soul, breath life. Do they go on "living after death" as well?
So in Genesis 2:7 you believe that the breath of life IS the soul?
" Jehovah God formed man with the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." (Gen. 2:7)
I do not take this passage to mean that there the breath of life breathed out by God was per se man's soul. Rather the soul of man came into being as a result of something as the breath of life from God coming in contact with the human body.
Three matters - the breath of life from God + the formed body of man from the dust of ground = man became a living soul. The soul came about as a result of the joining of this breath of life from God with the physical man formed from the dust of the ground.
While there is no explicit teaching of the immortality of this human living soul per se, I think we can see that there are some destinies pertaining to it that can be eternal.
We definitely see an immaterial component of man being conscious after physical death. I would be as an ostrich burying my head in the sand ignoring the real situation, if I claimed no such death surviving dealings involve the soul of man.
This would be so in both the Old and New Testaments. One instance in the OT is the immaterial component of the prophet Samuel which God allowed to come up out of Sheol at King Saul's wayward request.
Five times it is repeated that the speaker who came up from the realm of the dead was Samuel.
Firstly Samuel did DIE (1 Sam. 25:1;28:3).
Under God's sovereignty He permitted the soul of Samuel to come up from the earth - 28:11 - "And he said [to the witch] bring me up Samuel." "... Now when the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice ... why have you deceived me. For you are Saul." (v.12).
This is the first verse stating that Samuel came up. Verse 13 strongly implies that Samuel did not come up by himself but was escorted or accompanied by angels.
Verse 14 says that " Saul knew that it was Samuel". It does not say he believed it or was deceived about it. But he KNEW that it was indeed Samuel.
Verse 15 says - "Samuel said to Saul ..."
Verse 16 again says - "And Samuel said ...".
Verse 20 says Saul had heard "Samuel's words" - " ... and he [Saul] was very afraid because of Samuel's words."
It is impossible for me to escape the conclusion that Samuel's actual immaterial component was brought up from the realm of Sheol, a place of the dead. There he had been not non-existent but at rest -
"And Samuel said to Saul, Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"
Samuel did not say "You brought me back" but that Saul had brought him "up." Furthermore, Samuel foretells that Saul and his sons are headed for the same place with him in the following day.
"And Jehovah will also give Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me; ..." (v.19)
He did not say he and his sons would be no more but that "you and your sons will be with me." Of course from the standpoint of all remaining on the earth, they would be no more. But concerning the immaterial part of the deceased Samuel, they would be with him in some realm of which we living only have a few hints.
So without an explicitly stated doctrine of the eternality of the human soul we do see destinies for the soul extending beyond physical death in the Bible.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jul 14
6 edits
Originally posted by divegeester
It is extraordinary that the belief that god has created a place of eternal burning in agony for those who are not Christians is even accepted at all; let's consider it's importance:
That such a destiny exists is extraordinary. Arguing that mean people invented the concept and placed it into the New Testament document is a losing proposition.
This is not to imply some abuse of the teaching, like practically any other NT teaching, has never occurred. I have seen so-called Gospel about hell which I did not think were well written. But God can use our mistakes and still move in people's hearts unto salvation.
- It is not required for salvation
I agree that a belief in eternal punishment is not a requirement to salvation.
We are to believe in Christ and that God raised Him from the dead.
If you board a jumbo jet that is headed from New York to LA you will arrive at LA. And this regardless of whether you believe in LA or not. Getting aboard the jumbo jet will TAKE you to the destination.
The "Jumbo Jesus" will take us out of God's eternal judgment and to Himself.
- It is not required for day to day Christian living
It is important to the gospel burden to live Christ and preach Christ.
It is not forbidden to consider it and Paul seems to have had it in his mind on occasion.
"I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great grief and unceasing pain in my heart.
For I could wish that I myself were a curse, separated from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites ..." (Rom. 9:1-4a)
I think Paul was considering the curse of eternal perdition and in anguish for his brethren Jews. This may not be a statement about him absolutely knowing their destiny in all cases. I think it is a statement on his concern them being saved from eternal punishment.
- It is not required for entering into the spirit
I agree. But it is not forbidden and it can be a powerful motivator for people to be saved AS the words out from the mouth of Jesus Christ (not men's invention) indicate is SHOULD be a motivator.
But if you go through the various cases of Jesus approaching sinners in the Gospel of John, it is just not the ONLY and SOLE way in which He preached the Gospel.
- It is not required for preaching the gospel
It may not always be required. But its usage you have to blame, again, on Jesus Christ. It is from His mouth we learn examples of when He did preach the Gospel with regard to salvation from eternal perdition.
Something which you have to blame on Jesus Christ, you are attempting to blame on other people. It is chiefly from the mouth of the Son of God that we have both the most comforting words of love and forgiveness AND the most dreadful words of warning of inescapable wrath of God.
This is what always gets me about Universalists and Annhilationists. They seem not to realize that for the greater part the concept of eternal punishment came from His mouth.
- It is not required for judgement, as "second death" is not eternal life suffering
The place of the second death is described explicitly as eternal suffering in Revelation 14. That there should be a different result to anyone else who goes to that place is risky speculation at best.
The intent of the Scripture is to cause us to FEAR going to such a place. It is to be avoided entirely and completely. That it is not the ONLY approach to the Gospel is agreed. But it is an approach.
Some people think that the elimination of the teaching of eternal perdition will make atheists and skeptics more open to salvation in Christ. I have never seen much evidence of this personally.
I would wager that the average die hard Atheist probably has contempt for you attempting to portray God as somehow more acceptable if the teaching of eternal punishment is eliminated.
It is not required at all, and yet many Christians here will hold to it like it is gold.
I don't agree with you attitude. In the Gospel of John Jesus does not mention anything about eternal punishment to the thirsty woman at the well in chapter 4. But He does mention it in the instance with Nicodemus - "shall not perish but have eternal life" .
John the Baptist in the same chapter speaks of the unbeliever abiding under the wrath of God. Unless you want to teach that John the Baptist also didn't know what he was talking about, you should see the Evangelist's inclusion of his words there to reinforce what Jesus had just said.
"He who believes into the Son has eternal life; but he who disobeys the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him." (John 3:36)[
If you are non-existent you cannot abide under the wrath of God. Nothing which does not have being can be said to be abiding under the wrath of God.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jul 14
1 edit
I left out the word tracts in this edited typo.
This is not to imply some abuse of the teaching, like practically any other NT teaching, has never occurred. I have seen so-called Gospel [tracts] about hell which I did not think were well written. But God can use our mistakes and still move in people's hearts unto salvation.
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by sonship12" of post to confirm that the only you actually think the doctrine is required for is judgement.It is extraordinary that the belief that god has created a place of eternal burning in agony for those who are not Christians is even accepted at all; let's consider it's importance:
That such a destiny exists is extraordinary. Arguing that mean people invented the concept and placed it into the New Testament document is a losing proposi ...[text shortened]... ath of God. Nothing which does not have being can be said to be abiding under the wrath of God.
Let's scare people into church like the cults do - then let's scare them to keep them paying.
Abhorrent.
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by divegeesterHe is probably lacking inches in other areas so he is compensating in his posts. Long posts turn him on. .. 😀
12" of post to confirm that the only you actually think the doctrine is required for is judgement.
Let's scare people into church like the cults do - then let's scare them to keep them paying.
Abhorrent.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jul 14
4 edits
Originally posted by divegeester
12" of post to confirm that the only you actually think the doctrine is required for is judgement.
Let's scare people into church like the cults do - then let's scare them to keep them paying.
Abhorrent.
12" of post and you still are blaming me for what the New Testament said.
Rather silly.
What you need to do is find us an ancient manuscript of the New Testament, preferably in Koine Greek, with no references to eternal punishment. Then argue that this represents the original document and the scary stuff about damnation was added latter by mean people eager to show God as a punisher.
Get back to me when you locate one.
