It is really interesting how different the gospel of John is from the Synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In John, one cannot find one reference that is as explicit as some of the synoptic gospel references on hell.
I believe there are some eschatological reasons for this. The synoptics were written primarily to the Jews, and the gospel of John was written primarily to the Christian church.
RC Sproul wrote a great book called “The Last Days according to Jesus”. In that book Sproul details how Jesus was mainly talking about the destruction of Jerusalem, so the synoptics were apocalyptic literature regarding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The references to hell mainly were talking about Gehenna, which was a big garbage dump that was always burning outside of Jerusalem. That garbage was being annihilated or destroyed on a continuous basis, and was symbolic of the final judgment.
There is also good evidence that the book of Revelation was actually written before John wrote the gospel of John. Sproul also believes that most of the book of Revelation was written to the very early church detailing the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem, so the symbolic references to fire as judgment would make sense.
RC Sproul details what happened from historical references when Jerusalem was destroyed. There were large fires in the garbage dumps or Gehenna, and it was a frightful scene as the worms were feeding on the dead bodies--where the worm does not die.
I also find it interesting that outside the synoptics and the book of Revelation, the rest of the NT does not emphasize the doctrine of eternal conscious torment. Paul got his revelation directly from Jesus in the wilderness as documented in Galatians 1. But you don’t find any explicit reference in Paul’s writings about eternal conscious torment. In fact if you take the totality of Peter’s epistles, you would think that annihilation makes more sense. Certainly if the doctrine of eternal conscious torment was the norm, would you not think that there would be more references to it in the epistles where there was a lot of didactic teaching on so many other doctrines, but not on the endless torment of the wicked?
James is silent on the issue, and the epistles of John also are silent on the issue.
I am saying that the total context of the Bible’s teachings on hell are challenging, and it is not as simple as some of the flame throwing proof texters on here have tried to make it.
In 25 years of studying the Bible since I left the SDA church, I somehow believe that the character of God would not allow for finite human beings to be tormented in the fires of hell for an eternity; This flies in the face of all logic and reason, and also against many scriptural references.
RC Sproul wrote a great book called “The Last Days according to Jesus”. In that book Sproul details how Jesus was mainly talking about the destruction of Jerusalem, so the synoptics were apocalyptic literature regarding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The references to hell mainly were talking about Gehenna, which was a big garbage dump that was always burning outside of Jerusalem. That garbage was being annihilated or destroyed on a continuous basis, and was symbolic of the final judgment.Stan
Agreed Stan. This ‘gehenna’ as linked to the Valley of Hinnom in the minds of the Jews is further developed in some of Christ’s strongest words about hell in Mark 9:43-44
It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched; where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched
We see that Jesus is referring to the prophecy of Isaiah 66:24 here. Notice the similar language.
And they shall go forth and look Upon the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, and their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh
Now we see that according to all the OT texts specifically the ones I quoted earlier in Psalm 37 and Malachi 4, that the wicked are to be destroyed, not kept alive in perpetual torment. Therefore, this Isaiah passage must be interpreted as such as well in the use of this figurative language.
There are not immortal, asbestos covered worms that can withstand an eternity of fire to feed on corpses. As we shall see, there are not ‘live immortal souls’ being eaten here. They are ‘corpses’. This is a reference to gehenna, the valley dump which in the minds of the Jews, as adequately explained by Isaiah, represented abhorrence, destruction and finality. The unquenchable fire as is mentioned in Jeremiah 17:27 is fire that cannot be put out. Worms that cannot die and fire that cannot be put out show the totality of the destruction. Nothing will stop them from doing their work uninterrupted. The continuity of the destruction will be constant. Once the worms have eaten it and once the fires have destroyed, then it will be done. Logic, science and every other usage of these things in the Bible show that worms cannot feed on bodies forever and fire cannot keep burning once what it is burning is gone.
For that matter, where in the Bible (particularly in Revelation) do we see that there will be worms in the lake of fire? Do you not see the figurative language of destruction here? Worms means death, decay, corpses, finality.
Now in going back to the NT, Jesus used the EXACT same language of destruction in Mark 9. What exactly has changed from Isaiah to Mark that now these terms are used to denote ‘eternal conscious suffering’ when nothing about the wicked’s nature has changed? They still have not accepted Christ, they still have not received the gift of eternal life.
Readers, can you not see the parallels here? How can you not see the figurative usage of these terms? Why do some insist that when Isaiah says ‘The sky is blue’ and we see the same words ‘The sky is blue’ in the NT that we are to interpret it as ‘The sky is red’? This is what many are doing without even giving a second thought to the gross negligence of exegesis and wholistic biblical application.
RC Sproul wrote a great book called “The Last Days according to Jesus”. In that book Sproul details how Jesus was mainly talking about the destruction of Jerusalem, so the synoptics were apocalyptic literature regarding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The references to hell mainly were talking about Gehenna, which was a big garbage dump that was always burning outside of Jerusalem. That garbage was being annihilated or destroyed on a continuous basis, and was symbolic of the final judgment.Stan
Agreed Stan. This ‘gehenna’ as linked to the Valley of Hinnom in the minds of the Jews is further developed in some of Christ’s strongest words about hell in Mark 9:43-44
It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched; where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched
We see that Jesus is referring to the prophecy of Isaiah 66:24 here. Notice the similar language.
And they shall go forth and look Upon the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, and their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh
Now we see that according to all the OT texts specifically the ones I quoted earlier in Psalm 37 and Malachi 4, that the wicked are to be destroyed, not kept alive in perpetual torment. Therefore, this Isaiah passage must be interpreted as such as well in the use of this figurative language.
There are not immortal, asbestos covered worms that can withstand an eternity of fire to feed on corpses. As we shall see, there are not ‘live immortal souls’ being eaten here. They are ‘corpses’. This is a reference to gehenna, the valley dump which in the minds of the Jews, as adequately explained by Isaiah, represented abhorrence, destruction and finality. The unquenchable fire as is mentioned in Jeremiah 17:27 is fire that cannot be put out. Worms that cannot die and fire that cannot be put out show the totality of the destruction. Nothing will stop them from doing their work uninterrupted. The continuity of the destruction will be constant. Once the worms have eaten it and once the fires have destroyed, then it will be done. Logic, science and every other usage of these things in the Bible show that worms cannot feed on bodies forever and fire cannot keep burning once what it is burning is gone.
For that matter, where in the Bible (particularly in Revelation) do we see that there will be worms in the lake of fire? Do you not see the figurative language of destruction here? Worms means death, decay, corpses, finality.
Now in going back to the NT, Jesus used the EXACT same language of destruction in Mark 9. What exactly has changed from Isaiah to Mark that now these terms are used to denote ‘eternal conscious suffering’ when nothing about the wicked’s nature has changed? They still have not accepted Christ, they still have not received the gift of eternal life.
Readers, can you not see the parallels here? How can you not see the figurative usage of these terms? Why do some insist that when Isaiah says ‘The sky is blue’ and we see the same words ‘The sky is blue’ in the NT that we are to interpret it as ‘The sky is red’? This is what many are doing without even giving a second thought to the gross negligence of exegesis and wholistic biblical application.
Guibox,
Thanks for coming on and clearly defining the issues.
It looks like those who would take issue with your position have suddenly fled. Where are all those who were so quick to criticize your position just a few days ago?
Thanks for coming on and clearly defining the issues.
It looks like those who would take issue with your position have suddenly fled. Where are all those who were so quick to criticize your position just a few days ago?
Stan
I am assuming that the critics are busy formulating their answers. I hope that at least some of what I wrote gives some food for thought and reflection instead of automatic rejection simply because it doesn’t agree with tradition. Where would the Reformation have gone if so many had rejected Luther’s views right out of hand due to it not agreeing with 1500 years of accepted biblical interpretation and tradition?
Thanks for coming on and clearly defining the issues.
It looks like those who would take issue with your position have suddenly fled. Where are all those who were so quick to criticize your position just a few days ago?
Stan
I am assuming that the critics are busy formulating their answers. I hope that at least some of what I wrote gives some food for thought and reflection instead of automatic rejection simply because it doesn’t agree with tradition. Where would the Reformation have gone if so many had rejected Luther’s views right out of hand due to it not agreeing with 1500 years of accepted biblical interpretation and tradition?
Guibox,
No, I have not been busy “formulating” my answers. I haven’t had the time to post on here the last several days, and have also had to deal with some other issues. But this shouldn’t be taken to mean that I don’t want to address this issue. I already posted two long posts addressing every argument that had been posted in support of annihilation in the last couple of months. So far, no one has responded to most of what I wrote, but instead have responded with post after post of new arguments. This is not a good way to have a discussion. I will try to respond to the direct replies I received, but it might be tonight or tomorrow before I am able to do so.
As for the reference to Luther, that is a false analogy, as he did not invent any “new” doctrines, or teach anything different than what the apostles and early church fathers taught.
I already posted two long posts addressing every argument that had been posted in support of annihilation in the last couple of months. So far, no one has responded to most of what I wrote, but instead have responded with post after post of new arguments
Jeremy, thanks for responding. However you are mistaken. It was Stan and I that put forth these arguments at the beginning of this entire thread and the vast majority were virtually ignored by you, Dennis and Greg.
The original arguments put forth by Stan who started this thread, and myself who added to it need to be addressed. They are the same arguments we’ve posted in the last few posts. Here is what I put forth at the beginning:
Post # 14
You know, I’ve quibbled over the semantics many times with traditionalists of texts like Matthew 25:46. I guess if one tries hard enough, one can dispute every little text that comes along but the problem the traditionalist has which really determines the rest of the argument is this:
1) They cannot prove the inate immortality of the soul by scriptures
2) They cannot prove that immortality either in a ‘soul’ form or in body is an attribute of the wicked
Until these two things are proven without a biblical doubt, the doctrine of eternal torment falls flat.
and this one post #21
1) They cannot prove that the wicked are raised immortal to be tormented for eternity. The Bible is silent specifically in mentioning and it makes it abundantly clear that it is only the righteous that ‘have eternal life’ that ‘inherit everlasting life’ and are raised in body ‘incorruptible and immortal’ The wicked are shown in direct contrast to ‘perish’, experience ‘death’ and ‘destruction’ and are raised to suffer the ‘second death’
2) They completely ignore that all the words used in the NT are used throughout the scriptures to denote complete annihilation and destruction. The words of Revelation 14, 20 and Mark 9 are used in both the OT and NT to denote temporary actions with eternal effects using the exact same languagethat many use to support eternal torment. Rather than admit this, the tradtionalist either glosses over it with contradictions or completely ignores it to continue claiming that these NT words denote eternal torment. This is like saying that even though the word ‘blue’ is used in the OT to say ‘the sky is blue’ the same phrase in the NT ‘the sky is blue’ is saying that ‘blue’ really means ‘red’ so ‘the sky is blue’ means that the sky is indeed ‘red’.
3) By basing nearly their entire theology on apocalyptic passages, they cannot explain the myriad of contradictions that occur. For example:
* How can the wicked be tormented for eternity in the presence of the lamb when wicked man cannot see God without death and when the Bible also says that they will be put away from the presence of God?
* How can the lake of fire be eternal and literally burning the wicked for eternity when death and Hades (both concepts) are also cast into the lake of fire. Someone said that this might mean that the inhabitants are transferred from Hades to the lake of fire, but Revelation 20 makes this plain that this has already happened BEFORE death and hell are cast in “And death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them’
* If ‘death’ means ‘eternal torment’ as the traditionalist says, and the ‘second death’ is eternal torment, how do they explain the truth that ‘death is the last enemy to be destroyed’? Logically, the lake of fire would cease to exist. By making ‘destroy’ mean ‘eternal torment’ then they would have to logically say that the ‘second death’ experiences itself (????) Which brings me to #4
4) They cannot fully explain how the words ‘destroy’, ‘death’ ‘destuction’ ‘perish’ all contrasted with eternal life, are never used in the Bbile to denote ‘eternal concious punishment’ and that the figurative use of the word is dependant on the literal meaning. Stan has posted before the words of R.F Weymouth, Greek translator saying the same thing:
“"My mind fails to conceive a grosser misrepresentation of language than when five or six of the strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses,
signifying to destroy or destruction, are explained to mean `maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence.’ To translate black as white is nothing to this.”
5) They cannot get around the clear bible teaching that
God’s enemies are compared to combustible materials (way too many bible texts to mention here) and that they will be ompletely wiped off the face of the earth and cease to exist (Malachi 4:1-3; Psalm 37; 2 Peter 2:6; Obadiah 1:15-16)
These posts were completely ignored by you and others and not addressed, so it is these arguments that are the crux of the matter that need to be addressed. Until they are, we cannot adequately move on.
They were not “ignored” by me. I was not involved in this forum at that time, and did not become a member until this year. I do not intend to respond to the first dozen or so pages of posts in this thread. I will try to respond to the points in your last post (hopefully tonight or tomorrow), but some of them I already addressed in my posts on page 16.
Jeremy, I believe I already addressed some of your views on the lake of fire and have brought out glaring contradictions that need to be addressed for what you say to be true from the posts on pg 16. I would like to address one of your quotes in answer to Stan quoting RF Weymouth. I am a little preturbed that you so quickly and frivolously cast aside what Weymouth (a reknowned Greek scholar and translator) had to say on the words of destruction.
JeremyG - 21 October 2009 12:32 PM
Dr. R. F. Weymouth (1822-1902) was the headmaster of Mill Hill School and translator of New Testament in Modern Speech. He said:
“My mind fails to conceive a grosser misrepresentation of language than when five or six of the strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying to destroy or destruction, are explained to mean `maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence.’ To translate black as white is nothing to this.” [7700]
But what Weymouth did not seem to realize was that he was condemning John the Revelator himself (and the Holy Spirit who inspired his words), as Revelation itself explains, and defines, the word “destruction” as being “tormented day and night forever and ever"--as I proved in detail in this previous post in this thread: http://www.forthegospel.org/forum/viewreply/6811/
Weymouth’s mistake seems to be in focusing only on what he thought the Greek word meant, instead of looking at how Scripture itself defines the word. If God defines a word for us in Scripture, and tells us how He is using it, then we better believe what He says!.
I have shown by using the Bible itself that the way the words are used in the Bible show out the clear, literal meaning of the Greek words. Instead, I see tradition reading from the English text outward and interpreting what they believe the words to mean and reading that back into the Greek.
Please see my previous posts on this page as to the usage of the language of destruction. A close, exegetical look at the usages of these terms bears out what Weymouth, and not tradition, are saying these words mean.
I just wanted to look at another of your quotes from pg.16 before you answer some of mine and Stan’s arguments.
JeremyG - 21 October 2009 01:41 PM
Again, we have to define our terms. Jesus says that eternal life is to know God. Eternal conscious existence does not equal eternal life. Life does not equal existence. Death does not equal non-existence. This is where Adventism has redefined terms. Life is being connected to God--death means separation. Physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body. Spiritual death is the separation of the spirit from God. But a dead spirit is still very much existent--in fact, Romans 6 says that believers used to be dead to God but still very much alive to sin. Now, after being born again (the spirit being regenerated and brought to eternal life), believers are dead to sin and alive to God.
This is where it is you, not SDAs, that are redfining the Bible, Jeremy. The Bible does in fact call eternal life as eternal conscious existence. Those who ‘know God’ are GIVEN eternal life as a ‘gift’ (Romans 6:23).
John 10:27-28 lays out this quite well and how it is the opposite of ‘perishing’ which is what the wicked receive.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Christ gives them eternal life. The wicked will not have eternal life, or life everlasting, but will perish. To denote that ‘eternal life’ means ‘life with God’ and ‘perishing’ means ‘conscious existence without God’ is to twist the meanings and comparisons and to read into the passages what cannot be supported by the words themselves.
In the case of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, this ‘mortal’ must put on immortality’. Our spiritual bodies, our whole existence is made ‘immortal’ which means that it will never die. It will never ‘perish’ or be ‘corruptible’. Immortality, eternal life, everlasting life are all synonymous. There is no precedence in the scriptures to establish that when we see the words ‘eternal life’ it solely means ‘life only with Christ’ and that ‘death’ actually means ‘life conscious existence of the spirit’.
I fail to see how you can say ‘death’ means ‘conscious existence’. I hear you say ,physical death means separation of the spirit from the body (i.e., the spirit is still living’), spiritual death means ‘separation of the spirit from God’ (i.e, the spirit is still living). In the 93 or so uses of ‘thanatos’, the Greek word for death, where can you honestly apply such meaning to it’s usage? Where is ‘death’ ever applied to the ‘spirit (the ruach/pneuma) and if so, where does it mean that the ‘spirit lives on in conscious existence’?
You are creating definitions that fit your theories but you are twisting the meaning.
I noticed that in your criticism of Weymouth, you were saying we know what the words mean by the way the Bible uses them. I hold you to your reasoning. Where does ‘death’ mean ‘physical and spiritual separation of the spirit from God’ in the majority of the uses of ‘thanatos’ in the NT? There is one meaning of ‘thanatos’ in Young’s Literal Concordance. DEATH. Not ‘death, separation, existence of the spirit’. Just DEATH. Nowhere in the texts for the wicked’s fate are the Greek and Hebrew words for ‘separate’ or ‘separation’ and their similar meanings, ‘ahorizo, parad, badal, niddah’ ‘nezer’ used.
On another note, I was researching the meanings and usages of ‘apollumi’ to ‘destroy’ and came across Dr. Lorraine Day’s website. I am a bit confused. I always believed her to be an SDA but in reading this article, it sounds like she is dissing annihilation and the traditional view and supporting universalism as far as the destruction of the wicked goes.
The original arguments put forth by Stan who started this thread, and myself who added to it need to be addressed. They are the same arguments we’ve posted in the last few posts. Here is what I put forth at the beginning:
Post # 14
You know, I’ve quibbled over the semantics many times with traditionalists of texts like Matthew 25:46. I guess if one tries hard enough, one can dispute every little text that comes along but the problem the traditionalist has which really determines the rest of the argument is this:
1) They cannot prove the inate immortality of the soul by scriptures
2) They cannot prove that immortality either in a ‘soul’ form or in body is an attribute of the wicked
Until these two things are proven without a biblical doubt, the doctrine of eternal torment falls flat.
And as I already stated, I simply disagree with that premise.
guibox - 27 October 2009 02:02 PM
and this one post #21
1) They cannot prove that the wicked are raised immortal to be tormented for eternity. The Bible is silent specifically in mentioning and it makes it abundantly clear that it is only the righteous that ‘have eternal life’ that ‘inherit everlasting life’ and are raised in body ‘incorruptible and immortal’ The wicked are shown in direct contrast to ‘perish’, experience ‘death’ and ‘destruction’ and are raised to suffer the ‘second death’
Of course the wicked’s bodies are not “incorruptible and immortal"--they are being destroyed continuously “day and night forever and ever” (see Revelation 19:20 and 20:10).
guibox - 27 October 2009 02:02 PM
2) They completely ignore that all the words used in the NT are used throughout the scriptures to denote complete annihilation and destruction. The words of Revelation 14, 20 and Mark 9 are used in both the OT and NT to denote temporary actions with eternal effects using the exact same languagethat many use to support eternal torment. Rather than admit this, the tradtionalist either glosses over it with contradictions or completely ignores it to continue claiming that these NT words denote eternal torment. This is like saying that even though the word ‘blue’ is used in the OT to say ‘the sky is blue’ the same phrase in the NT ‘the sky is blue’ is saying that ‘blue’ really means ‘red’ so ‘the sky is blue’ means that the sky is indeed ‘red’.
This is where annihilationism uses unbiblical hermeneutics, particularly ignoring the progressive revelation principle, and does not let the NT interpret the OT, but instead insists on trying to interpret the NT by the OT. This is completely backwards from Biblical hermeneutics, and so it is no wonder that the two sides have a hard time even communicating their different understandings. The OT foreshadowed the realities revealed more clearly in the NT--it’s not a matter of the OT meaning “blue” and the NT meaning “red.”
guibox - 27 October 2009 02:02 PM
3) By basing nearly their entire theology on apocalyptic passages, they cannot explain the myriad of contradictions that occur.
This is totally inaccurate. As Dennis has said so many times, most of what we know about Hell comes from Jesus’ own teachings, not “apocalyptic passages.” Although, in a sense, since Hell is an end-time event, then any teaching on it is by definition “apocalytpic.”
guibox - 27 October 2009 02:02 PM
For example:
* How can the wicked be tormented for eternity in the presence of the lamb when wicked man cannot see God without death and when the Bible also says that they will be put away from the presence of God?
Simple. Two different Greek words. The word used in 2 Thessalonians is prosopon, meaning “the face"--speaking more of physical presence. The word used in Revelation 14:10 is enopion, meaning “in the presence of.” God is omnipresent so of course the wicked and Hell are in His presence. However, they only experience His justice and wrath, unmixed with any mercy or love (Revelation 14:10). They do not experience His loving presence and only experience everlasting ("perpetual" in the Greek) destruction away from the physical presence of the Lord Jesus (2 Thessalonians 1:9). Of course, Jesus Christ is, however, omnipresent (since He is the one true God), so there is no possible way that anything could not be in His presence.
There is no contradiction here at all.
guibox - 27 October 2009 02:02 PM
* How can the lake of fire be eternal and literally burning the wicked for eternity when death and Hades (both concepts) are also cast into the lake of fire. Someone said that this might mean that the inhabitants are transferred from Hades to the lake of fire, but Revelation 20 makes this plain that this has already happened BEFORE death and hell are cast in “And death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them’
This is indeed a contradiction for the annihilationist, for they are the ones who must hold to the lake of fire being a literal fire which annihilates the wicked. So all I have to do is ask you the question: how does a literal fire burn up a “concept,” such as “death”?
“14. Death and Hades, as personified representatives of the enemies of Christ’ and His Church, are said to be cast into the lake of fire to express the truth that Christ and His people shall never more die, or be in the state of disembodied spirits.” (JFB Commentary)
guibox - 27 October 2009 02:02 PM
* If ‘death’ means ‘eternal torment’ as the traditionalist says, and the ‘second death’ is eternal torment, how do they explain the truth that ‘death is the last enemy to be destroyed’? Logically, the lake of fire would cease to exist. By making ‘destroy’ mean ‘eternal torment’ then they would have to logically say that the ‘second death’ experiences itself (????) Which brings me to #4
That is utterly ridiculous. First of all, the word used for “destroyed” (KJV) or “abolished” (NASB) in 1 Corinthians 15:26, katargeo, is never used to describe Hell. The word can either mean to render inoperative or to cause to cease/put an end to/do away with/abolish. In any case, the context is talking about physical death and the physical resurrection of the dead, not eternal punishment. Again, a non-argument, and there is no contradiction here.
guibox - 27 October 2009 02:02 PM
4) They cannot fully explain how the words ‘destroy’, ‘death’ ‘destuction’ ‘perish’ all contrasted with eternal life, are never used in the Bbile to denote ‘eternal concious punishment’ and that the figurative use of the word is dependant on the literal meaning. Stan has posted before the words of R.F Weymouth, Greek translator saying the same thing:
“"My mind fails to conceive a grosser misrepresentation of language than when five or six of the strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses,
signifying to destroy or destruction, are explained to mean `maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence.’ To translate black as white is nothing to this.”
I already addressed this in detail here: http://www.forthegospel.org/forum/viewreply/6811/ As I show in that post, the word “destruction” definitely is used in the Bible “to denote ‘eternal concious punishment’"--in fact, that is how it is defined by the Bible.
And I did not “quickly and frivolously cast aside what Weymouth” said. I have seen that quote of his for years (thanks to Stan ). And like I said, the vast majority of Greek scholars have disagreed with him, obviously, so why hold his quote out like it proves something? And if the Bible itself defines the word for us, as I show in the link above, then why should I listen to Weymouth?
guibox - 27 October 2009 02:02 PM
5) They cannot get around the clear bible teaching that
God’s enemies are compared to combustible materials (way too many bible texts to mention here) and that they will be ompletely wiped off the face of the earth and cease to exist (Malachi 4:1-3; Psalm 37; 2 Peter 2:6; Obadiah 1:15-16)
I would dispute the context of many of those OT passages as even talking about Hell, and again, they must be interpreted in light of the clearer revelation in the NT. And I already addressed 2 Peter 2:6 earlier. Also, a type is not exactly like its anti-type. The anti-type would be greater than the type.
I just wanted to look at another of your quotes from pg.16 before you answer some of mine and Stan’s arguments.
JeremyG - 21 October 2009 01:41 PM
Again, we have to define our terms. Jesus says that eternal life is to know God. Eternal conscious existence does not equal eternal life. Life does not equal existence. Death does not equal non-existence. This is where Adventism has redefined terms. Life is being connected to God--death means separation. Physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body. Spiritual death is the separation of the spirit from God. But a dead spirit is still very much existent--in fact, Romans 6 says that believers used to be dead to God but still very much alive to sin. Now, after being born again (the spirit being regenerated and brought to eternal life), believers are dead to sin and alive to God.
This is where it is you, not SDAs, that are redfining the Bible, Jeremy. The Bible does in fact call eternal life as eternal conscious existence.
Chapter and verse, please. And you still have not dealt with Jesus’ own definition of eternal life (in John 17:3).
guibox - 28 October 2009 10:28 AM
Those who ‘know God’ are GIVEN eternal life as a ‘gift’ (Romans 6:23).
Absolutely.
guibox - 28 October 2009 10:28 AM
John 10:27-28 lays out this quite well and how it is the opposite of ‘perishing’ which is what the wicked receive.
How is being annihilated the opposite of eternal life? The opposite of eternal life would be eternal punishment, as Jesus affirms in Matthew 25:46.
guibox - 28 October 2009 10:28 AM
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Christ gives them eternal life. The wicked will not have eternal life, or life everlasting, but will perish. To denote that ‘eternal life’ means ‘life with God’ and ‘perishing’ means ‘conscious existence without God’ is to twist the meanings and comparisons and to read into the passages what cannot be supported by the words themselves.
The Bible is clear that believers have eternal life right now and unbelievers do not. It has absolutely nothing to do with existence. Jesus Himself says that eternal life is to know Him.
guibox - 28 October 2009 10:28 AM
In the case of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, this ‘mortal’ must put on immortality’. Our spiritual bodies, our whole existence is made ‘immortal’ which means that it will never die. It will never ‘perish’ or be ‘corruptible’. Immortality, eternal life, everlasting life are all synonymous. There is no precedence in the scriptures to establish that when we see the words ‘eternal life’ it solely means ‘life only with Christ’ and that ‘death’ actually means ‘life conscious existence of the spirit’.
I fail to see how you can say ‘death’ means ‘conscious existence’. I hear you say ,physical death means separation of the spirit from the body (i.e., the spirit is still living’), spiritual death means ‘separation of the spirit from God’ (i.e, the spirit is still living). In the 93 or so uses of ‘thanatos’, the Greek word for death, where can you honestly apply such meaning to it’s usage? Where is ‘death’ ever applied to the ‘spirit (the ruach/pneuma) and if so, where does it mean that the ‘spirit lives on in conscious existence’?
You are creating definitions that fit your theories but you are twisting the meaning.
I noticed that in your criticism of Weymouth, you were saying we know what the words mean by the way the Bible uses them. I hold you to your reasoning. Where does ‘death’ mean ‘physical and spiritual separation of the spirit from God’ in the majority of the uses of ‘thanatos’ in the NT? There is one meaning of ‘thanatos’ in Young’s Literal Concordance. DEATH. Not ‘death, separation, existence of the spirit’. Just DEATH. Nowhere in the texts for the wicked’s fate are the Greek and Hebrew words for ‘separate’ or ‘separation’ and their similar meanings, ‘ahorizo, parad, badal, niddah’ ‘nezer’ used.
Who is redefining terms, Jeremy?
Adam died the day he ate the fruit. Yet he still existed. We are born dead in trespasses and sins, yet we are still existent. When we are born again, our spirit is given life (John 3:6, Romans 8:10) (so it was obviously dead), and we are connected to God and indwelt by Him. Before that, our dead spirits are separated from God--they are dead to God but very much alive to sin (Romans 6)--conscious existence.
Also, your argument that “death” is never applied to the “spirit” would actually prove against annihilationism, not in favor of it.
OK, I responded to your last three posts to me, Guibox. Now these next posts will be in response to your previous replies from pages 17 and 18 (going from earliest to latest).
which says that the Lake of Fire/Hell comes after the fire in 2 Peter 3:10.
Jeremy
There is no biblical precedence to separate the two. The context of 2 Peter 3:10 makes it quite clear that the ‘day of the Lord’ is the final end of all things. It is the day when all is set straight, the old is destroyed and the new is created. This is also supported by Malachi 4:1. This is not a judgement of ‘sinful bodies’. It is the final day of reckoning and judgment with the total and complete destruction of God’s enemies for all eternity. Nowhere in the Bible is there support for two judgements, two fires of destruction and two separate punishments.
Revelation 21 not only is the direct result of Peter and Malachi, but chronologically speaking, directly follows Revelation 20. All that was promised occurred in Revelation 20 and now we see that after these events, John saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth’. Revelation 20 is merely describing the same events. What you are saying is that from vs 9-15, there are two judgments? Where is this explicitly explained?
First, I want to know, did you read the paragraphs earlier in my post where I showed in detail, from Revelation 20, how it has to be two separate fires? If so, then we can proceed to discuss it some more.
OK: yes or no, are the angels inherently immortal?
Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. - 1 Timothy 6:16
Angels are created beings. Man was created ‘a little lower than the angels’. Adam and Eve would have lived forever by eating the tree of life and been connected by God. Why would the angels be given inherent immortality and man inherited? 1 Timothy clears this up.
I take that as a “yes” to my “yes” or “no” question. If you did not mean it as a “yes” then please correct me.
So if angels are inherently immortal, then why do Adventists use 1 Timothy 6:16 to “prove” that man is not immortal? If angels are inherently immortal, then what does 1 Timothy 6:16 mean to you?
And if angels are inherently immortal, then that would have to mean that the fallen angels, including Satan, will continue to exist forever in Hell, correct?
guibox - 21 October 2009 03:31 PM
JeremyG - 21 October 2009 02:47 PM
But do you notice how the verse you quoted says that the unsaved “do not have life” (present tense). They, even in the present, do not have life. And yet they are still existent. Everything you post just keeps proving my point.
So? They do not have eternal life. Neither do the righteous in their living moment.
Well see, here’s the problem. If you’re going to deny clear, Biblical, basic essentials of the Christian faith, such as that believers currently have eternal life, then we have no real shared foundation upon which to even have a workable debate. The very passage you were quoting from in 1 John 5 (especially 1 John 5:13), among many other passages, says explicitly that believers have (present tense) eternal life currently, already.
guibox - 21 October 2009 03:31 PM
They will still die a physical death, as will the wicked. Ah, but what happens after? The righteous will LIVE ON because they are no longer ‘under the penalty of death’. The wicked who have not been regenerated will NOT LIVE ON. For they do not have ‘life’ at all. Simply because they are existent right now doesn’t mean that they will be existent in their afterlife. It makes no sense to say that they are ‘spiritually dead’ but will become ‘spiritually alive’ after their bodies die.
This is a contradiction. Their spirit is ‘dead’ even though their bodies are alive. What you are saying is that their ‘spirit is dead’ which really means ‘their spirit is alive and will continue to live on after physical death’.
Death is not life and life is not death.
Well, since believers do currently have eternal life (even though you deny it), and unbelievers “do not have life,” this means that the absence of eternal life does not equal the absence of conscious existence.
And for the last time, no, I am not saying that the wicked will become “spiritually alive.” Please quit misrepresenting what I said. I am saying that currently their spirit is dead in sin and yet consciously existent (the Bible refers to the spirits of living wicked men as conscious entities--for example, the verse I posted earlier where Ahab’s spirit was “sad” and other examples). And when they physically die, their spirit will remain in the exact same condition, dead but consciously existent (dead to God but alive to sin), as the Bible also teaches in multiple places.
guibox - 21 October 2009 03:31 PM
JeremyG - 21 October 2009 02:47 PM
Where is the fate of the wicked clearly spelled out with words such as “mortal” or “consumed away into smoke”? Or even “extinction”?
All men are ‘mortal’ until they ‘put on immortality’. Only the righteous do so. They are immortal, the wicked are still mortal. What does it mean to be ‘immortal’? Don’t give me this ‘it means they are with God and to be ‘mortal’ is to be without God stuff. To be immortal is to live forever, to never die, to have everlasting life...period.
‘consume’ ‘consume away into smoke’ and other such combustible materials like ‘chaff’ and ‘branches’
But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away. - Psalm 37:20
What about Matthew 13:49 and 50?
So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Now keep in mind that Jesus was using the parable of the tares (vs 38 and 39). Tares completely burn up and the wicked are compared all through the OT as combustible materials that are burnt up in the fire. The Greek word ‘katakaio’ means ‘to burn down’.
See also Luke 3:17
Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn (katakaio) with fire unquenchable
This same unquenchable fire is spoken of in Jeremiah 17:27 about the fires at the gates of Jerusalem. You cannot have something ‘burn down’ by fire that never goes out and still say that something is still burning forever At the very least, this would prove Edward Fudge’s point that ‘even if the fires burned forever, there is nothing saying that what goes in would burn forever. Unquenchable means the fire will do its work uninterrupted without being put out.
The Hebrew words ‘kalah’ and ‘akal’ for ‘consume’ mean to ‘eat devour, consume and finish’. Text after text after text use fire as a consumer. Leviticus, Job and Isaiah use the ‘fire that consumes’ constantly. Now all of a sudden, we want to make fire as something that maintains an everlasting, wretched existence for the fate of the wicked? Even while they are described in the same language as being consumed’, destroyed, and burnt up?
And the above article includes this quote about the Hebrew words:
The Hebrew words translated “to consume” can mean any number of things, including: “to eat, devour, slay, to be wasted, to be destroyed, to feed, exterminate, to cause to cease, be accomplished, and exhaust, among others” (see “Akal,” 1999; “Kalah,” 1999).
BTW, the word “away” is added to Psalm 37:20 and is not even in the original Hebrew.
guibox - 21 October 2009 03:31 PM
‘extinction’
if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction,(B) making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly - 2 Peter 2:6 (ESV)
That does not say that the wicked will suffer “extinction"--it only says what happened is an example, or type, of the punishment awaiting the wicked. The anti-type is never the exact same thing as the type. The anti-type is much worse than mere extinction.
Plus, the Greek word there is simply katastrophe (what English word does that sound like?) and is not translated extinction in any translation except the ESV.
Also, if the inhabitants of Sodom were already annihilated, then how can they suffer in the Lake of Fire?
guibox - 21 October 2009 03:31 PM
They shall be as though they had not been.- Obadiah 1:16
First of all, this verse may not even talking about hell. Also, it is talking about nations and not necessarily as individuals. Also, there are different opinions on how this verse should be translated from the Hebrew, which is somewhat ambiguous. The verb in the first half is exactly the same as the verb in the second half of the clause. Young’s Literal Translation simply translates it as: “And they have been as they have not been.” Also, the word “though” is added and is not in the original Hebrew. This obscure part-of-a-verse from the OT, taken out of it’s immediate context, cannot legitimately be used to teach annihilationism.
Here is what the JFB commentary says on this verse:
as ye have drunk, &c;.--namely, the cup of wrath, being dispossessed of your goods and places as a nation, by Edom and all the heathen; so shall all the heathen (Edom included) drink the same cup ( Psa 60:3 Isa 51:17, 22 Jer 13:12, 13 25:15-33 49:12 51:7 Lam 4:21, 22 Nah 3:11 Hab 2:16 ).
continually--whereas Judah’s calamity shall be temporary ( Oba 1:17 ). The foes of Judah shall never regain their former position ( Oba 1:18, 19 ).
swallow down--so as not to leave anything in the cup of calamity; not merely “drink” ( Psa 75:8 ).
be as though they had not been--not a trace left of their national existence ( Job 10:19 Psa 37:36 Eze 26:21 ).
Again Jeremy, in light of the dozens of texts I haven’t even put forward comparing the wicked to combustible and finite materials, you still have to prove from the word of God that despite this evidence, the wicked are immortal to suffer eternal conscious torment.
Where is the biblical evidence for this, other than reading from the inward out from Revelation 14 and 20?
There is much, much more Biblical evidence than just Revelation 14 and 20 (which are extremely clear, btw), as I’m sure you are well aware.
). And like I said, the vast majority of Greek scholars have disagreed with him, obviously, so why hold his quote out like it proves something? And if the Bible itself defines the word for us, as I show in the link above, then why should I listen to Weymouth?
