Here is another interesting compilation of the history of conditional immortality:

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/champions_of_conditional_immortality.html

Stan

At another Christian forum I belong to, this person posted an argument about those who insist that when the bible uses ‘death’ it means ‘the lake of fire which burns eternally’ or ‘separation of the soul from the body’, rather than ‘cessation of life or existence’.

He addressed the former in tis quote and I would like to address the latter. I believe that logically these views on ‘death’ make no sense when taken to their absurd conclusion.

Lets consider death according to your definition.
> - What is death?
> Stage where soul is separate from the body.
>
> - Who are thrown in the lake of fire?
> Resurrected wicked.
>
> - What is resurrection?
> Soul back in body.
>
> - What is soul back in body?
> Life
>
> - What is wages of sin?
> Death.
>
> “Wicked in lake of fire = eternal soul + body = eternal life = not the wages for sin.”
>
> Can you find a promise given to the wicked where they are given life for their sin? Or are you willing make a case that the wicked souls are thrown in the lake of fire but not along with their resurrected bodies? According to your definition of death, which is separation of soul from body (if it is true), then this is the wages for sin, yet in the lake of fire the wicked have both their souls and body which isn’t death. How do you reconcile that?

Other than to say that it is indeed the ‘soul’ and not the body that burns eternally, the traditionalist is left with a problem explaining this simple logic as well as creating new problems:

1) How exactly does a disembodied soul ‘burn eternally’

2) Where exactly is the biblical proof that it is merely the soul and not the body that burns eternally.

The second argument that the ‘second death’ is not ‘cessation of life’ but the ‘lake of fire’ also needs careful consideration.

THis argument is used to show that when the Bible says ‘the lake of fire IS the second death’ this means that ‘death’ can be eternal torment simply by associating the reality as the lake of fire which is ‘eternal’.

The problem with this is two fold:

1) The bible says that ‘Hades and death’ were cast into the lake of fire. How can thelake of fire be cast into itself if ‘death’ is indeed the lake of fire’. The ‘death’ being spoken of here cannot be merely the ‘first death’ for it has already occurred and eternity is now a reality.

The Bible also says that ‘the last enemy to be destroyed is death’. If this ‘death’ is now the lake of fire and the lake of fire continues to burn, we have a serious complication and contradiction. Also we need to keep the meaning of ‘destroyed’ consistent as ‘the separation of the soul from the body’. This also creates another absurd conclusion. If the terms ‘destroy’ and ‘death’ are meant to mean eternal torment, then we have the punishment of the lake of fire eternally consciously burning itself.

???????

Either ‘death’ as a concept and reality is destroyed or it continues to exist as the lake of fire. The Bible makes it clear that it is the former that occurs.

2) It makes no sense that the ‘first death’ is the cessation of earthly life but the ‘second death’ is the contination of eternal existence. The simple fact that it is called the SECOND death and not something completely different implies that it is similar to the first death in some regards.

It is truly unfortunate that the traditionalist insists on making ‘death’ mean its opposite by eisegetical analysis to support the idea from a few metaphorical texts that the wicked are immortal and can be burned eternally.

As we see, this fanciful reworking of the clear words used in the Bible only create nonsensical conclusions ,contradictions and a complete rewriting of eternal consquences. Saying that ‘death’ means ‘eternal torment’ is one thing. Trying to show any evidence to support the conclusions one comes to when they depart so radically from the context is something that the traditionalist has painted themselves in a corner to try and do.

It’s like playing chess, me putting you in ‘check’ and instead of going back toyour original position to find another method, you move from the check position to another check position and then from there to another position and another. By getting further and further away from the original source, the traditionalist is moving into waters that the bible has no charter for. Yet, they insist on following this so they can hopefully come back around to show support for their original conclusion.

What an absurd way to study the scriptures.

Guibox,

I agree completely with the arguments made above. Phillip E. Hughes, the fine Reformed theologian exposed the faulty logic behind the eternal torment doctrine.

However, the orthodox position on hell does not allow for only the disembodied soul to be in torment. It clearly affirms that “death” means the reuniting of soul and body to suffer eternal torment. So that would be life and not death.

However, let us not minimize that hell will be a terrible place. Jesus does affirm that the pain and suffering will be real, as he speaks about weeping and gnashing of teeth. Also, the word torment in Revelation is very strong. So I believe the lake of fire to be literal as Peter affirms in 2 Peter 2 and 3, and that it is a place to avoid, as the pain and suffereing will be meted out according to the evil works. Praise God that as Christians we will never experience the second death.

Yes, it defies all logic and I think ignoring a lot of scripture such as Malachi 4:1-3, to come up with a doctrine that the wicked will be burned alive for the endless ages of eternity, while the redeemed are in an earth and universe made new. I am really happy there is a lot of scholarship outside Adventism which re-affirms that Adventism is correct on this particular doctrine.

But where I have to disagree with you, Guibox, is using this doctrine to somehow justify Adventism. Comparing the SDA view of 1844 to the doctrine of eternal torment is like comparing apples to oranges. We who differ from other Christians on the doctrine of annihilation, must recognize fully that there are several problematic scriptures that do seem to teach ET such as Matt 25:46 or Revelation 14, and several others. This doctrine is a peripheral issue and not central to the gospel.

In contrast, the doctrine of 1844 is central to Adventism, and without the doctrine of 1844, the leaders of Adventism realize that Adventism would have no reason to exist.

The doctrine of 1844 and the Investigative Judgment of those who put their trust in Christ, have absolutely no scriptures to support their position, In fact an IJ directly contradicts John 5:24. This text should end all discussion on whether those trusting in Jesus need to go through an IJ as described by Ellen White. The doctrine of the IJ as taught by EGW denies the believer any assurance of salvation, and robs them of their joy, and keeps Christians defeated.

The very central pillar of Adventism stands or falls on the interpretation of Daniel 8:14, and if the central pillar falls, there is no foundation for Adventism to survive. Why else do we see all these different groups in Adventism from the historical SDA to the ultra-liberal SDA who believes in very little.

While I see that the doctrine of eternal torment has caused great harm, it is a different topic than trying to justify Adventism and it’s central doctrine which is opposed to the gospel.

But thanks Guibox for bringing up some excellent points about the logical problems with eternal torment.

Stan

Stan,

Though I stand by my comment, I have removed the reference to 1844 from my last post. I don’t want to take away the focus of this topic on to something else and the potshot on 1844 was not necessary on my part.

I would like to hear Greg’s comments on the matter as well as other former-SDAs that have been posting here.

Glennspring, you strike me as a transitioning SDA to soon to be former based on your posts. Correct me if I am wrong.
Is this like the IJ and other areas, that you have moved closer to the orthodox position on?

I guess I just don’t understand this desire to return so frequently to the hell debate, as if everything in Christianity hinges on the degree of hell’s torments.  Like Stan said, and I’ve said all along, hell will be a horrifying experience for anyone who is unfortunate enough to find themselves there.  Whether this experience lasts 5 minutes, 5 years or 5 millenia, it won’t change the fact that the person/soul/body will be in conscious agony throughout.

“If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 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.” (Revelation 14:9-11 ESV)

I don’t understand how some will place so much weight on the issue of whether hell is eternal or not, yet give their denomination a free pass on a doctrine which denies all hope in the promises of Jesus in this life.

So often, arguments constructed to show that hell is not eternal seem designed to make hell more palatable, and thus remove the fear of ever ending up there.  When the bar of judgment is set so high for the professed believers of Jesus Christ, perhaps this development is not surprising.

Guibox, please understand what I will say next, because I want to convey it in the most sincere and loving way possible.  I challenge you to have the same passion you’ve shown for this issue in affirming the good news of Jesus Christ and that we can know today we will not come into judgment, avoiding hell entirely. (John 5:24)

Greg

Greg,

I am sorry that you feel this isn’t an important issue. I believe it is very much so.

Why?

1) God’s character is being misrepresented by the very people that should be holding it up

2) More atheists have been created by this false doctrine than anything else in Christendom. Souls that are possibly lost forever due to a gross misrepresentation promulgated by His own children

3) The false belief of the immortality of the soul of which both Martin Luther and William Tyndale denied has opened the door to spiritualism, new age, eastern religion and occultic thought. Without the belief in the immortality of the soul, Marianism, praying to saints, believing in ‘God sent apparitions’ would not exist.

The door to deception to the highest degree is wide open.

4) We have a responsibility to know and promote the truth, especially about a doctrine that makes a God of Love seem like a Jekyll and Hyde creation; a cruel tyrant that WANTS to punish sinners and created a hell for that exact purpose.

However, if this is not a forum to discuss certain things such as this, and strictly limit it to the ‘gospel’ (though the gospel is all about a God of love, is it not?) then I will cease and desist from promoting this.

And BTW, if I can’t talk about anything without the discussion coming back and being compared to ‘why is this so important when your church denies the atonement of Christ by preaching the IJ’ then I’m afraid the content of my posts is going to drastically suffer in quality and quantity.

I could probably start a thread on the delights of butterscotch ripple ice-cream and it would end up turning into a discussion on the SDAs preaching of the false security of the IJ.

Guibox, I didn’t say this wasn’t important, I said I couldn’t understand how this ends up being the defining issue in Christianity.  I wonder why you did not want to acknowledge John 5:24?  This is the good news of the gospel, not arguing over whether hell is finite or infinite.

How long would a person need to burn in hell for you to be uncomfortable about it?  You don’t like eternity, but are you satisfied with 1 year?  100?  1000?

I suppose the apostle Paul was also guilty of creating many atheists too, when he said “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (Romans 9:22-23).

I’m really curious how you believe this is not misrepresenting the character of God as you have accused most Christians of doing?

You are free to speak your mind here and I think you should realize this by now.  I’d just caution you on making the doctrine of hell a bigger deal than the good news of Jesus Christ.

Greg

Guibox wrote:

3) “The false belief of the immortality of the soul of which both Martin Luther and William Tyndale denied has opened the door to spiritualism, new age, eastern religion and occultic thought. Without the belief in the immortality of the soul, Marianism, praying to saints, believing in ‘God sent apparitions’ would not exist”
----------------------------------------------------------

Guibox, the above statement I think would be hard to prove. The greatest apologists against the occult have been those who believe in an intermediate state. Do you have any examples or data to document that belief in the intermediate state predisposes to the above?

Even the very idea that God sent His Son to suffer the most cruel death as a substitute for our sins also creates a lot of atheists. This doctrine even causes panic attacks among the Adventists who post on http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com and many other progressive sites.

I always appreciate your comments and questions Guibox, but as Greg said, it is important to keep a balanced perspective on what is really important as essentials of the faith. Soul Sleep, and punishment have always been considered peripheral issues, even by the severest critics of Adventism.

Stan

Friends,

Before I pass judgment on the delights of butterscotch ripple ice-cream, I think I am going to have to investigate.

Thank-you all for this discussion. Eternal torment has not been a topic that I have delved into in detail.

Over the last several months I have followed the posts and research of Guibox and Stan in this area on several other forums. I have appreciated their presentation and understanding, as I respect both of their abilities.

I am still enjoying my study of the Good News of the Gospel that I have not felt the need to delve deeply into the Hell debate.

I can see how the proponents of both sides of this particular doctrine have drawn their conclusions. As of yet, it has not become a doctrine that I completely understand so I am having to trust that God’s will in this area will be done, regardless of my understanding.

It is also an area that will not separate me from fellowship with fellow believers. This is a topic that for me does not influence my perception of God and His justice. I have to believe that God as our heavenly Father will be just in dealing with sin, and compassionate in dealing with His children.

Now bring on the Ben and Jerrys. 

Hmmm...I wonder if their original recipe goes back to say....1844? Maybe it was called Ben and Jerry’s Battle Creek Butter Scotch Ripple back then.

Randy

Randy, thanks for bringing us back to basics.

Guibox, while I disagree with some of your conclusions on hell, I don’t disagree with your earnestness in searching for answers.  You are welcome to share your thoughts with us and thanks for giving us the opportunity to respond.

If we could all sit down for some of that Ben and Jerry’s Randy mentioned, we could “cool” the hell debate in an instant.

It is my prayer that whatever we do end up debating, we will not lose sight of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Greg

Randy, you make me chuckle.

On another Christian forum, it is not the IJ, rarely believing EGW as a prophet and rarely keeping the Sabbath that has gotten me labeled a ‘cultist, an ‘imp of Satan’, a ‘follower of the father of lies’ and a ‘false teacher’. It is my belief in the completely biblical idea that God will not torture sinners for eternity.

This has caused more hackles raised with the Christians I have encountered more than any other doctrinal issue. You’d not believe how many times I have had someone,knowing I am SDA, play the “cult card” in debate when I speak out against eternal torment.

Obviously, there are many in Christendom who DO take it seriously and act negatively on anybody that challenges this cherished doctrine.

I still believe that it is one of the most misunderstood yet fundamentally important doctrines among Christians that not too many really give a second, logical and rational look at it and its ramifications (How in the world can Christians just walk around when they know that their loved ones are suffering as we speak? How can they not break down doors to tell people about such a hellish horror that awaits them? Do we have cauterized consciences or deep down do we know that such a belief is foreign to a gospel of love?). I believe that a cursory glance and acceptance at such a doctrine makes a mockery of the very gospel of Christ that so many here espouse.

God cannot be praised for His sacrifice and imputation of grace when:

1) He basically saved us from Himself and not the death penalty
2) He created us for the sole purpose of torture, knowing that we would sin, and knowing that many would be condemned to eternal torment that He created (Don’t even get me started on the implications for Calvinsim)
3) Instead of it being ‘Sin brings death, God brings life. Choose Him to so that you can avoid the death that you brought on by your actions’ it becomes ‘I created Hell at the foundation of the world. By sinning you are destined to burn. Choose me so you will be saved from my own creation’ It is basically God saying ‘Serve me or burn for eternity’ as opposed to ‘Serve me or allow sin to take its natural course’

Well, I can see that it is mostly I who is passionate about that subject, so like a geek that can’t see that his object of affection has no interest in him and he’d be best to let it be, so I will too unless people feel the need to question.

Well Guibox, I think you could see the passion I exhibited on this topic on another forum, where I was the lone advocate of the position that you and I hold on this topic. In fact, by taking the annihilationist position, I lost several of my Calvinist friends. I was accused on that other forum of going back to becoming an Adventist again. Some of the responses I got were very emotional.

This topic always gets people worked up, and emotions, rather than reasoned debate usually take over.

Those on the traditional side see any deviance from the long established evangelical view as giving into liberalism.

Men like John Stott and Phillip Hughes and John W. Wenham have brought this debate out of the level of the cults to the mainstream of Christianity. I think we would be surprisd how many pastors who at least give lip service to the doctrine of eternal torment, don’t really believe this doctrine in their heart of hearts. I hear even well respeted radio pastors seem to hedge on this issue if you listen carefully. Even most traditionalists don’t believe that hell will be a literal torturing in literal flames as Revelation 14 says if you take it literally.

I do agree with Guibox, if the high profile pastors we hear today really believed in eternal torture of the lost, they would be preaching this doctrine more passionately. When is the last time anyone heard a Chuck Swindoll preach a sermon on hell? Certainly the seeker sensitive preachers rarely mention it.

But Edward Fudge makes a good point about this. He believes that if hell were preached as a true reality, that the lake of fire is real, and that God will mete out the appropriate punishment as the deeds of the wicked deserve, but eventually consuming the wicked, then the doctrine of hell would be preached more and more effectively, because it would have real credibility.

However, on this forum, we have a much different emphasis, and that is FOR THE GOSPEL. I don’t see how debating hell and debating what the nature of this awful place is like serves a real purpose. There is so much we don’t know about the subject. The epistles never speak of hell in much detail, except for the reality that the wicked will be destroyed by fire that melts the elements with fervent heat as in 2 Peter. 

Debate on peripheral issues does detract so often from the centrality of the cross and the gospel.

Stan

A new thought for me, but one that leaves me with raised eyebrows suggesting “What if?” is the idea of the
consciousness of man “remaining” conscious throughout eternity; knowing that for all eternity they will never have any chance of regaining entrance into God’s heaven!
I cannot think of any greater eternal hell, not withstanding the unspeakable physical pain experienced by literal flames burning one’s flesh, his organs, brain, eyes, etc.  As Jonathan Edwards pictures.  Of course consciousness would appear to suggest one’s spirit or soul
would be alive throughout eternity.  Again we return to the question about whether the wages of sin IS death, or eternal life in hell?

Dt 29:29 comes to mind in such discussions.

Jess

I praise my Jesus, My God and Saviour for He alone is the fountain of inmortality. Only He can “unbreath” the “breath of life” that was bestowed to our parents (Adam n Even), in the beginning. Yes, only fear He who could “kill the soul” (unplug, unbreath, terminate., or “do away” the breath that animates the “claybody”. I find it hard to accept that Christianity now “shares” the belief that “other” pagan entities hold unto. Think about it, Christianity and any other religious or non religious bodies have another thing in common, “inmortal soul”. I mean, could it be true that Satan was right,..."You will not surely die.” Gn 3.4 and upon eating of the fruit we would become like “...God...”, Gn3.5

Just Imagine, We, humans, (for argument sake),that have a span of what --70 - 110 years, are now subjected to eternal life in a “place” called hell to suffer?, because of our unbelief?. I mean, because we so called “followers of Christ”, choose not to be “renewed of our mind”, but continue to “entertain” the “toys” of satan?; Therefore, creating unbelief on the rest of the world?. Be it, Christ walked in this world showing in essence the true character of the One n True God, and many rejected him, why?, because “we love darkness more than light”. It is this kind of attitude that forces God to just allow us go our way, allowing deceiving spirits to take over our minds. Yes, we reap what ever we sow. Remember, only the “bruises” (scars, pierce hands, etc..), that will remind us of the terrible ordeal our human race put God through. For He promised to make all things new and the old things are passed away.” Rev 22.4