So the major things that need to be defined as our understanding of them will taint further biblical evidence we may look at are:
1) Where in the history of creation nature,the redemption process and the second coming do we find that the wicked have inherent immortality or are given immortality?
2) How exactly is ‘death’ defined in the Bible and how is it used in applying to the destruction of the wicked?
As we define the first one, this will influence how we interpret the language applying to the second point. I will reiterate one point that I made earlier that Stan has reposted, here as well as add to it, for I believe the logic needs to be explained if death is defined as ‘separation of the soul from the body’ or ‘the eternal lake of fire’
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 (????). If ‘death’ is defined as the ‘separation of the soul from the body’, how exactly do we interpret ‘the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death’? If to ‘destroy’ means an ongoing process revealed in eternal torment, than we have another absurdity by substituting these words. “The last enemy to receive eternal conscious torment is the soul separate from the body”
Or we could say ‘the last enemy to experience constant perishing is the lake of fire’
This ridiculous twisting of the linguistic usage and meaning of these words cannot simply be ignored folks. Apparently the traditionalist likes to use ‘cease to exist’ as one definition of ‘destroy’ or ‘death’ when it suits them and ‘conscious eternal torment’ and ‘soul separation’ in another instance.
Where does the Bible define ‘death’ and ‘destruction’ by it’s linguistic nature and usage in applying to the wicked as ‘eternal conscious torment’?
Stan and I await your analysis of these problems...And of course we look for proper biblical evidence to support your views.
OK, I think the points in the above post have already been addressed.
For further comparison, lets look at the idea of ‘life’ and ‘death’ for the righteous and wicked in the Bible.
Let’s start with the basics:
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life
We see that two opposites are contrasted here ‘perish’ vs ‘everlasting life’. We find nothing in this verse to denote that ‘everlasting life’ implies ‘everlasting life in heaven’ and that ‘perish’ means ‘everlasting life in hell’. Rather we see that like many other biblical passages ‘light vs dark’, ‘sheep vs goats’ etc) that these two fates are opposite each other.
Let’s look at two more together
John 5:29
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life
Again we see two opposite comparisons. ‘life’ vs ‘death’. Nowhere in the scriptures do we see further qualification on the word ‘life’ to imply that death means ‘life in hell’ and ‘life’ means ‘life in heaven’. Everlasting life, life and resurrection to life are all contrasted with their opposites ‘perish’, ‘death’, ‘damnation’.
Again, I point to John 17:3, which defines eternal life as knowing God. Eternal death is the opposite of this. The Bible defines the second death as “the lake of fire” where the wicked are “tormented day and night forever and ever.”
Also, notice that in John 5:29 “damnation” is contrasted with “life"--the verse says nothing about death, only life and punishment, just like Matthew 25:46 contrasts eternal life with eternal punishment.
guibox - 24 October 2009 06:58 AM
Let’s compare this with Daniel 12:2
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt
This is further reiterated in John 5. We see that everlasting life is life everlasting and contempt is everlasting as well. Based on the other texts, we see that what is everlasting is the result, this death and damnation. There cannot be a continual process of ‘contempt’ or ‘destruction’. These are states, not processes. They are results, not duration.
As we shall see, the wicked do not have eternal life, therefore could not experience anything eternally in duration.
This is circular reasoning and does not even make any sense. The verse clearly says that the wicked will experience “shame and everlasting contempt.” Yes, it is continual--it will be experienced forever and ever. Again, ”everlasting life” is directly contrasted with “shame and everlasting contempt.” You can’t say that one is continual/perpetual/eternal and the other isn’t. No, they do not have eternal life, but that does not mean that they cannot experience anything eternally in duration. The verse clearly says that they do. Notice that it specifically says they ”awake...to...shame and everlasting contempt.” That is what they “awake to.” They never physically die again! They are resurrected to experience eternal punishment. I don’t see how it could get any clearer.
guibox - 24 October 2009 06:58 AM
Do the wicked or the righteous have life? Again, we see that there is no further qualification to imply that there is life for the righteous AND life for the wicked just in another form. The bible is quite clear who gets immortality/eternal life.
We’ve just seen from Romans that eternal life is a ‘gift of God’.
John 10:27-28
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.
We see two things here. eternal life is given for His sheep who He knows, and that they will not receive perishing, but eternal life. Eternal life is the opposite of perishing.
Contrast this with what will happen to the wicked:
Psalms 68:2
As smoke is blown away by the wind, may you blow them away;
as wax melts before the fire, may the wicked perish before God
Another translation has this last line ‘let the wicked be destroyed’. We see that ‘perish’ and ‘destroyed’ mean the same thing.
The wax melts, but it is not annihilated!
guibox - 24 October 2009 06:58 AM
Notice also the allusions to Revelation’s language:
Revelation 14:10
he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb
Let’s look at further evidence of the fate of the wicked
Psalm 37:20
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
Notice Exodus 3:2
2And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed
To be consumed is not to ‘burn continually and eternally’ as the fires of hell are supposed to be. To be ‘consumed’ and ‘devoured’ is to be ‘burnt up’. This is further reiterated in Malachi 4:1-2 in describing the fate of the wicked on judgment day.
The perishing in Psalm 37:20, also labeled as ‘consumed’, is the same ‘perishing’ that John 3:16 mentions. The fates of the wicked and the righteous. As the righteous receive eternal/everlasting life, the wicked ‘perish’ receive ‘death’ and ‘consume away into smoke’ just like ‘wax before a candle’.
We could interpret John 3:16 as this using the proper language from the scriptures to interpret itself.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not be consumed away into smoke, but have everlasting life
This is shown in the finality and continuity, not the duration of Revelation 14:11
11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night
This text cannot be taken in isolation. We must see the figurative language as it is described and supported in the rest of the scripture. ‘Consuming away into smoke’ is the ‘smoke ascendeth forever’. Eventually this smoke shows that they have in fact consumed away. ‘have no rest day or night’ denotes continuity not duration.. This is shown by the phrases ‘unquenchable fire’ which is a fire that cannot be put out, not that it will never go out. As is the case in Jeremiah 17:27.
It does not just say that the “smoke ascendeth forever"--it says that “the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.” Also, the fact that “have no rest day nor night” is directly attached to the smoke of their torment ascending forever certainly does indicate duration, or everlasting punishment.
guibox - 24 October 2009 06:58 AM
There are still dozens of texts comparing the wicked and their fate to ‘dross’, ‘tares’ ‘branches’ and other combustible materials that perish in the fire.
fire is the most destructive element and symbol in the Bible. Traditionalists want us to believe that this destructive force which is used to destroy God’s enemies and sinful powers and places (think Sodom and Gomorroah, Edom) is now to be used as a constant burning ting that never burns up what goes in it?
This flies in the face of every precedent set in the Bible.
Well, if “fire is the most destructive element and symbol in the Bible” then it would make a very good ”symbol” for the worst destruction imaginable, wouldn’t it--perpetual/everlasting destruction.
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.
Of course the (living) wicked’s bodies will be killed and turned into corpses and ashes--in Revelation 20:9. And then they will be resurrected, judged, and thrown into the eternal lake of fire (see the rest of the chapter). Revelation 20 is very clear.
Jeremy, before I even address these we need to answer a simple question.
Do the wicked have immortal souls/spirits?
Yes or no.
If yes, other than reading Revelation 14 and 20 eisegetically, where in the Bible do we see this in relation to the nature of man especially the righteous. Your casting aside the language of ‘immortality’ and ‘eternal life’ like you do is negligent. The Bible gives us this language for a reason. Even if I believe that I have eternal life as a disembodied soul right now...without using these texts and interpreting outward from assumption, WHERE in the Bible is this an attribute of the wicked?
You seem to think this is not an issue, but the fact is is that this is THE issue and cannot be cast aside so easily as you desire to.
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.
Dr.Lorraine Day is not an SDA. She is an interesting person. She used to be the chief of Orthopedic surgery at San Francisco General Hospital, but resigned her position due to her fear of AIDS. She was also a crusader to try to keep the blood supply safe from tainted transfusions. She spent a lot of time at Loma Linda and then developed breast cancer and was cured through natural remedies.
She has now ventured into the study of theology. She is now trying to argue for Universalism.
She does acknowledge that John 6 would teach Calvinism, except she is interpreting the passage to mean that God will eventually save every person.
She also denies the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, saying that the Holy Spirit is basically a force.
Perhaps the most important reason I had not engaged in this debate is that by far this debate covers such a wide range of Christian doctrines that requires a simultaneous treatment of all of them. It starts with the doctrines of revelation, principles of hermeneutics (how to interpret the Bible), extends to anthropology (man’s nature) and there are others. It is simple impossible to deal with all these subjects simultaneously because what somebody believes in one area reflects in the other and we are asked to answer objections requiring establishing first a common base that at the moment doesn’t exist. Without a true common ground to which we can appeal in our dialogue, we can only speak past each other like we speak two different languages which fail to accomplish the desired result.
There is a reason why eternal punishment is considered an orthodox doctrine and annihilationism was condemned as heresy. These doctrines are just the tip of the iceberg. If we see only the tip of the iceberg and focus only on it, we will fail to see that the real strength of the iceberg is below the water. There is a reason why non-christian groups share in annihilationism: atheists, liberla christians and Jehova’s Witnesses, in the past Worldwide Church of God (Herbert Armstrong’s group). Their annihilationism reflect a radical way in which they approach the Bible, God’s revelation, the function of reason, principles of interpretation, etc. When somebody wants to present the case for annihilationism as a biblical case, his goal is to introduce in the ranks of Bible believing christians a doctrine which historically was present outside the bounds of historic orthodox christianity. But since the doctrine was formed and existed outside the bonds of historical christianity, it has at it’s basis a non-christian hermeneutic, view of the Bible, because it’s the product of non-christian thought. In order to be acceptable in the christian ranks, it needs to establish itself on another basis, on a correct view of Bible inspiration, revelation, etc. I don’t see this happening. What I see are questions and objections that have at it’s basis a low view of Scripture, a cultic hermeneutic which barricades itself in the Old Testament refusing to allow the clarity of the New Testament to inform us about the final state of man, arguments from silence which ask for further proof from the Bible while neglecting the information which is already available. That’s why, contemplating a debate on this topic shows that little common ground can be established in order to have hopes for a future improvement and development of dialogue.
Perhaps the most important reason I had not engaged in this debate is that by far this debate covers such a wide range of Christian doctrines that requires a simultaneous treatment of all of them. It starts with the doctrines of revelation, principles of hermeneutics (how to interpret the Bible), extends to anthropology (man’s nature) and there are others. It is simple impossible to deal with all these subjects simultaneously because what somebody believes in one area reflects in the other and we are asked to answer objections requiring establishing first a common base that at the moment doesn’t exist. Without a true common ground to which we can appeal in our dialogue, we can only speak past each other like we speak two different languages which fail to accomplish the desired result.
There is a reason why eternal punishment is considered an orthodox doctrine and annihilationism was condemned as heresy. These doctrines are just the tip of the iceberg. If we see only the tip of the iceberg and focus only on it, we will fail to see that the real strength of the iceberg is below the water. There is a reason why non-christian groups share in annihilationism: atheists, liberla christians and Jehova’s Witnesses, in the past Worldwide Church of God (Herbert Armstrong’s group). Their annihilationism reflect a radical way in which they approach the Bible, God’s revelation, the function of reason, principles of interpretation, etc. When somebody wants to present the case for annihilationism as a biblical case, his goal is to introduce in the ranks of Bible believing christians a doctrine which historically was present outside the bounds of historic orthodox christianity. But since the doctrine was formed and existed outside the bonds of historical christianity, it has at it’s basis a non-christian hermeneutic, view of the Bible, because it’s the product of non-christian thought. In order to be acceptable in the christian ranks, it needs to establish itself on another basis, on a correct view of Bible inspiration, revelation, etc. I don’t see this happening. What I see are questions and objections that have at it’s basis a low view of Scripture, a cultic hermeneutic which barricades itself in the Old Testament refusing to allow the clarity of the New Testament to inform us about the final state of man, arguments from silence which ask for further proof from the Bible while neglecting the information which is already available. That’s why, contemplating a debate on this topic shows that little common ground can be established in order to have hopes for a future improvement and development of dialogue.
Gabriel
Gabriel, I agree completely. That is exactly what I was trying to point out. Thanks for saying it so clearly.
Jeremy, before I even address these we need to answer a simple question.
Do the wicked have immortal souls/spirits?
Yes or no.
If yes, other than reading Revelation 14 and 20 eisegetically, where in the Bible do we see this in relation to the nature of man especially the righteous. Your casting aside the language of ‘immortality’ and ‘eternal life’ like you do is negligent. The Bible gives us this language for a reason. Even if I believe that I have eternal life as a disembodied soul right now...without using these texts and interpreting outward from assumption, WHERE in the Bible is this an attribute of the wicked?
You seem to think this is not an issue, but the fact is is that this is THE issue and cannot be cast aside so easily as you desire to.
Guibox,
The Bible teaches several basic facts:
1. Man was created in the image of God with an immaterial spirit (within the material body).
2. The Bible never teaches that spirits (including human spirits) ever cease to exist.
3. The Bible does teach that the spirits of saved people continue in conscious existence after physical death.
4. The Bible also teaches that the spirits of unsaved people continue in conscious existence after physical death.
5. The Bible teaches that the spirits of saved people will return to their bodies and they will be resurrected and be with the Lord Jesus forever.
6. The Bible teaches that the spirits of unsaved people will also return to their bodies and they will be resurrected and be punished eternally.
Now, these are facts which are taught throughout the Bible. If you want to call the above Biblical facts “immortal soul” I couldn’t care less. But I’m not going to let you force me into labeling these Biblical facts with a term the Bible does not use just so you can say that I’m unBiblical.
I want to add something to my previous post. There are some objections and questions from the annihilationist party that are based on naturalistic assumptions, on an atheistic worldview of life. One is the issue of God raising people with immortal bodies as a condition of eternal punishment. The question is where does the Bible teaches us this truth. Because the Bible is silent on the nature of resurrected bodies of the wicked, it is assumed that we read in the Bible what is not there, an immortal resurrected body for the wicked.
That question assumes naturalistic presuppositions. God is involved actively in sustaining this world, our bodies, and all that exists (Col. 1:17). If God decides, for example, to sustain one element of creation for an indefinite time, that element will not cease to exist as long as God sustains its existence. A good example is the burning bush which Moses saw, a bush that was burning and burning and burning but the effect was like the bush was fireproofed. It was a bush like any other bushes, no different in nature. God may burn even today wicked people in their current natural bodies for any time he wishes. There is no need for him to change first the nature of their bodies, to make them different than they are today. Only in an universe which is not sustained by God’s power having a different body is a condition required.
The same is true with the soul and its existence. Without conferring any special attribute to the soul, without changing its nature, God is able to prolong the soul’s existence as long as he deems it necessary to accomplish his purposes. A mortal soul does not need to become immortal in order to be punished forever.
That’s why it is difficult to deal with this topic.
I hope I’m not taking this too far off-topic but I recently listened to a two-part series by John MacArthur on his radio show, Grace to You, about what happens to babies when they die. You can read or download the free MP3 here for Part 1 or here for Part 2.
I thought this was very interesting:
You see, it’s only pure true reformed soteriology, salvation, only pure true reformed soteriology can account for the fact that fallen, sinful, guilty, depraved children who die with no spiritual merit, die with no religious merit, die with no moral merit of their own can be welcomed by a holy God into eternal glory...only pure reformed theology can allow for that because only the purest theology believes that salvation is all by grace. How were you saved? By what? Grace.
...
One more question. If infants are saved when they die, by what means are they saved? If those who are retarded, mentally retarded, mentally disabled, dysfunctional and therefore in the same category as an infant would be in the condition of not having a capability to understand matters of salvation, if they are saved when they die, by what means are they saved? By what means?
Well, I’ll tell you the means. By the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ because that is the only means that anybody can be saved. Now listen to what I say. God has predestined all He wills into salvation, including those in infancy. That salvation is by His sovereign choice through grace alone though all infants deserve eternal judgment because of their guilt and corruption. Their sins were paid for by the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross in which He bore the wrath of God not only for all who could believe, but for all who could not believe. I really do believe that only those who understand true reformed theology can grasp the redemption of little ones which fits so beautifully because it’s all of sovereignty and it’s all of grace.
B.B. Warfield, the great Princeton theologian, wrote this, “The destiny of infants who die is determined irrespective of their choice by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own. And their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills. And if death in infancy does depend on God’s providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation. This is but to say that they are unconditionally, predestined to salvation from the foundation of the world. If only a single infant dying in irresponsible infancy be saved, the whole Arminian principle is traversed. If all infants dying such are saved, not only the majority of the saved but doubtless the majority of the human race hitherto have entered into life by a non-Arminian pathway.” A little tongue and cheek there.
I don’t post this to start an argument, necessarily. I post it because Calvinist’s have been accused of promoting a view that damns infants and the mentally retarded to hell for an eternithy which has been true in some cases but has been the exception rather than the rule.
As someone who lost a child through miscarriage, this sermon was very comforting.
1. Man was created in the image of God with an immaterial spirit (within the material body).
2. The Bible never teaches that spirits (including human spirits) ever cease to exist.
Exactly how do you define ‘spirit’, according to the biblical usage? Where does ‘ruach/pneuma’ mean a conscious existence of man’s ‘soul’ that survives and lives on after death?
JeremyG - 31 October 2009 11:11 AM
3. The Bible does teach that the spirits of saved people continue in conscious existence after physical death.. 4. The Bible also teaches that the spirits of unsaved people continue in conscious existence after physical death
And how is this supported by the Bible? The only place that would give you that impression is Ecclesiastes 3:21 and Ecclesiastes 12:7 which says that the ‘spirit goes back to God who gave it’. First of all, the ‘spirit’ is ‘ruach’ which is ‘breath’. There is nothing in this or other passages like it that give us the impression that this ‘spirit’ is the ‘conscious, thinking, feeling part of man outside the body’. Second, even if this were something that lives on, this passage and it’s surrounding verses say that this is ALL men’s spirits, not just the righteous that ‘go back to God who gave it’. This verse alone destroys the idea that the ‘souls’ of the wicked go to ‘hell’ at death to be tormented.
Nowhere in the Bible do we see anything that tells us that the wicked survive death in a conscious form. This is pure speculation with no biblical support or merit. It is assumption built on assumption from a poor, cursory reading of the text and an incorrect interpretation of the biblical language.
JeremyG - 31 October 2009 11:11 AM
5. The Bible teaches that the spirits of saved people will return to their bodies and they will be resurrected and be with the Lord Jesus forever.
This is an assumption not supported in the Bible. There is no place in the Bible that supports this ‘body/sou’ reunification’, and especially for the wicked to be punished for eternity. This is twisting the scriptures to say something that is not even there!
The only place that you could get this idea from is 1 Thessalonians 4:14 which says ‘will God bring with Him’. The assumption that God will bring the ‘souls of the saints’ from heaven to inhabit their bodies is complete speculation that is not supported. How in the world can you criticize SDAs for interpreting Daniel 8:14 as the investigative judgment when you take one verse such as this and make a theology out of it while ignoring the context?
I’ll address this passage and what it is really saying at a later date, as well as the rest of your post.
This is an assumption not supported in the Bible. There is no place in the Bible that supports this ‘body/sou’ reunification’, and especially for the wicked to be punished for eternity. This is twisting the scriptures to say something that is not even there!
The only place that you could get this idea from is 1 Thessalonians 4:14 which says ‘will God bring with Him’. The assumption that God will bring the ‘souls of the saints’ from heaven to inhabit their bodies is complete speculation that is not supported. How in the world can you criticize SDAs for interpreting Daniel 8:14 as the investigative judgment when you take one verse such as this and make a theology out of it while ignoring the context?
I’ll address this passage and what it is really saying at a later date, as well as the rest of your post.
Maybe I’m wrong (and I’m not really jumping into the debate here, just making an observation), but this seems to be what Gabriel is talking about. There must be a foundation of agreement on certain core issues for legitimate discussion and when the two sides can’t even agree that “spirit” can mean more than simply “breath” you’re never going to get anywhere with annihilation. Why do you think it comes up so often in “discussion” forums with anyone RARELY ever swayed to the other side? It’s like arguing soteriology with a Mormon who doesn’t believe in Jesus as eternal God, or abortion with someone that can’t agree that the fetus is even a life (thank you, Speaker Pelosi!). Around and around it goes…
Stan, a while back you appointed Guibox as your spokesman in this thread. Do you agree with his foundational point above that a “spirit” existing outside the body is fantasy? If so, then what does happen when you die? See how one belief builds on the other? Just something to think about.
Stan, a while back you appointed Guibox as your spokesman in this thread. Do you agree with his foundational point above that a “spirit” existing outside the body is fantasy? If so, then what does happen when you die? See how one belief builds on the other? Just something to think about.
Stan has made it plain earlier that he doesn’t agree with me on this subject. However, I’m venturing to guess that neither does John Stott, Philip Hughes, John Wenham, Michael Green and Edward Fudge and yet they have no problems believing in annihilation and arguing against eternal torment. Simply because I can believe that the righteous spirit goes to heaven and lives on, doesn’t mean that I must therefore accept that wicked souls can be burned for trillions of years.
Again, nowhere in the Bible do we see that immortality is a gift granted to the wicked. Yes, as Gabriel says, God could choose to prolong their life. This argument won’t work for an Arminian traditionalist who tries hard to take the blame off of God by saying ‘God doesn’t send sinners to hell, they send themselves there by their choice’. However, I think the Bible has ample enough evidence for both the wicked and the righteous as far as man’s nature goes and nothing in the Bible gives us the impression that wicked man’s soul, spirit or body is given immortality.
I find it funny how so many of you can slam continually SDAs for some of their biblical interpretation and proof texting, and yet you are here with no real evidence but assumption even claiming things that are not in the Bible (God can choose to prolong the life of the wicked soul) simply to continue trying to find validity to your arguments to support eternal torment. And in some cases of some, questioning the validity of one’s Christian walk with God because of believing in annihilation.
I think I need to check this website...has it become Revival Sermons all of a sudden? I thought I left that proof texting, assumptive reasoning, close minded legalism and elitist thinking? I can’t figure out for the life of me why I’m finding it on a “non-SDA ‘I’m-so-glad-I left-that-cult’,Calvinist” forum.
I hope I’m not taking this too far off-topic but I recently listened to a two-part series by John MacArthur on his radio show, Grace to You, about what happens to babies when they die. You can read or download the free MP3 here for Part 1 or here for Part 2.
I thought this was very interesting:
You see, it’s only pure true reformed soteriology, salvation, only pure true reformed soteriology can account for the fact that fallen, sinful, guilty, depraved children who die with no spiritual merit, die with no religious merit, die with no moral merit of their own can be welcomed by a holy God into eternal glory...only pure reformed theology can allow for that because only the purest theology believes that salvation is all by grace. How were you saved? By what? Grace.
...
One more question. If infants are saved when they die, by what means are they saved? If those who are retarded, mentally retarded, mentally disabled, dysfunctional and therefore in the same category as an infant would be in the condition of not having a capability to understand matters of salvation, if they are saved when they die, by what means are they saved? By what means?
Well, I’ll tell you the means. By the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ because that is the only means that anybody can be saved. Now listen to what I say. God has predestined all He wills into salvation, including those in infancy. That salvation is by His sovereign choice through grace alone though all infants deserve eternal judgment because of their guilt and corruption. Their sins were paid for by the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross in which He bore the wrath of God not only for all who could believe, but for all who could not believe. I really do believe that only those who understand true reformed theology can grasp the redemption of little ones which fits so beautifully because it’s all of sovereignty and it’s all of grace.
B.B. Warfield, the great Princeton theologian, wrote this, “The destiny of infants who die is determined irrespective of their choice by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own. And their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills. And if death in infancy does depend on God’s providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation. This is but to say that they are unconditionally, predestined to salvation from the foundation of the world. If only a single infant dying in irresponsible infancy be saved, the whole Arminian principle is traversed. If all infants dying such are saved, not only the majority of the saved but doubtless the majority of the human race hitherto have entered into life by a non-Arminian pathway.” A little tongue and cheek there.
I don’t post this to start an argument, necessarily. I post it because Calvinist’s have been accused of promoting a view that damns infants and the mentally retarded to hell for an eternithy which has been true in some cases but has been the exception rather than the rule.
As someone who lost a child through miscarriage, this sermon was very comforting.
Aaron,
There is a Calvinist who posts on FAF and used to post here who drew a lot of fire a few years ago for claiming that toddlers were condemned to hell for eternity if they were not chosen, This is incidentally a classic and a consistent argument Calvinists have made, but the newer Calvinists state it as MacArthur has.
