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.
Guibox
I agree with your last point. But since you’re holding this position, Aaron’s question is legitimate. Personally I care less that you are holding this doctrine since I expect an adventist to be a true adventist and stick with annihilationism. But I expressed my concerns in regard to Stan’s position and sought a fruitful dialogue with him because I thought that I had sufficient common ground with him in order to start a conversation on this particular subject. As Aaron and Nate noticed, our assumed common calvinist position seems to be a shaky ground to build a dialogue. The other assumed common ground was Stan’s belief in the existence of the soul and the intermediate state. But since Stan let you play his part in the dialogue we cannot appeal to this common ground anymore. This is important because we can’t use an essential position which we hold in common as a basis for further argumentation. Your point below illustrates my thesis:
guibox - 01 November 2009 07:26 AM
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.
The missed common ground here is the belief in existence of the soul in the intermediate state, between the first death and resurrection. Based on texts as the parable of rich man and Lazarus we believe that both the righteous and the wicked soul has an existence apart from the body. Of course, from the adventist hermeneutic this parable has a different understanding, and in their view there is no biblical proof that God prolongs the life of the wicked soul (even if adventists agree that God prolongs the life of wicked souls’ angels from the creation until the judgment, at least). And because of this lack of common ground we simply must run and start from the beginning, from proper hermeneutics and interpretation of the Bible, how a parable should be understood, etc., etc. We almost should start from the scratch and build our case from the ground, and a true progress in conversation is highly improbable. An adventist needs to modify too many of his previous views and this process takes time. It is a common experience of former adventists that annihilationism is the last doctrine which they abandon in the process of detoxification from the toxic adventist theological system. There is a reason for this: they learned how to study the Bible in a christian way and not with cultic presuppositions and now they graduate from adventism by abandoning the last vestige of their old life.
That’s not because the texts are not clear. They are clear enough, but the adventist background colors the interpretation of the Bible that distorts the perception to the degree that eternal punishment is excluded. That’s why it is properly to keep in mind that there are some necessary steps that need to be made before a former adventist is prepared to arrive at the doctrine of eternal punishment.
I don’t want to offend guibox or any other adventist, but Aaron’s desire to have a conversation with Stan (and Jeremy’s) is reasonable enough. With Stan they have, or are supposed to have, enough common ground to proceed further. But since Stan appointed guibox as a spokesman for this subject, the impression left is that the arguments of annihilationists win the day, because their questions cannot be answered before agreeing on other important subjects, like the existence of the soul apart from the body. Stan may believe in it, but since guibox talks in Stan’s place, Stan’s belief is not reflected in the conversation. It seems to me that this is a highly disadvantage for Jeremy, Aaron and anybody who wants to participate in this dialogue, because we can’t use arguments based on the existence of the soul apart from the body. As one who initially brought the subject on the stage, my intent was to persuade Stan to reconsider his position on annihilationism, not to persuade guibox to change his position on this subject. I don’t know what other participants on this forum think, but it seems that they wanted to talk with Stan or at least with somebody who holds Stan’s view on calvinism and intermediate state. But they become suddenly engaged with people who hold different views about what the first death means, and also the predominant writer is the one with whom they have less ground than they have with Stan. You know me from other engagements on this forum that I’m not evading difficult conversations which needs a lot of reflection for posting, but I felt thought that it is not fair to debate this subject with guibox who doesn’t qualify as a spokesmen for Stan due to his different views regarding a doctrine which is closely related with the subject of debate.
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.
Stan
Spurgeon, Calvin (I think it was Calvin) and others have spoken strongly against the notion as JM brings out, yet he has said that some have taught this or given an “I don’t know” response when asked, even pastors he greatly respects. I don’t deny that, either, and I know about the poster on FAF. I’m just telling you what JM said. He says that Biblically all babies or those that are developmentally babies in intellect are elect and makes a pretty good case for it, at least it seems to me. I posted this as encouragement for those who have lost a child either before or after they were actually born.
I don’t want to offend guibox or any other adventist, but Aaron’s desire to have a conversation with Stan (and Jeremy’s) is reasonable enough. With Stan they have, or are supposed to have, enough common ground to proceed further. But since Stan appointed guibox as a spokesman for this subject, the impression left is that the arguments of annihilationists win the day, because their questions cannot be answered before agreeing on other important subjects, like the existence of the soul apart from the body. Stan may believe in it, but since guibox talks in Stan’s place, Stan’s belief is not reflected in the conversation. It seems to me that this is a highly disadvantage for Jeremy, Aaron and anybody who wants to participate in this dialogue, because we can’t use arguments based on the existence of the soul apart from the body. As one who initially brought the subject on the stage, my intent was to persuade Stan to reconsider his position on annihilationism, not to persuade guibox to change his position on this subject. I don’t know what other participants on this forum think, but it seems that they wanted to talk with Stan or at least with somebody who holds Stan’s view on calvinism and intermediate state. But they become suddenly engaged with people who hold different views about what the first death means, and also the predominant writer is the one with whom they have less ground than they have with Stan. You know me from other engagements on this forum that I’m not evading difficult conversations which needs a lot of reflection for posting, but I felt thought that it is not fair to debate this subject with guibox who doesn’t qualify as a spokesmen for Stan due to his different views regarding a doctrine which is closely related with the subject of debate.
Gabriel
Yes, that is exactly how I feel also, Gabriel. And so that’s why the discussion has become a bit frustrating for me.
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.
“The only place that would give you that impression is...”
“The only place that you could get this idea from is...”
Guibox, talk about “assumptive reasoning”! I didn’t mention any references/texts in my post, and yet you assume that I am using these, and only these, texts, to establish my beliefs, and go on to talk about my supposed “assumptions” based on these texts that you assume I am referring to!
There are a multitude of texts that teach the points I posted, and there are multiple passages for each point. I can try to compile a list for you, if you’d like.
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.
Guibox,
We do disagree on the intermediate state of the believers, and Hughes and Stott also agree that the saved are in an intermediate state. However, there are good men on both sides of the argument and the text can be open to debate. This is not the great issue on which salvation hangs.
The most important issues of the Christian faith do not hinge on whether or not we believe that the lost will be tormented for all time.
Here is what I believe the best Biblical evidence says:
When Adam sinned, the whole human race died spiritually and physically. We were originally created immortal in the image of God. But our bodies and souls died with the fall of Adam. The soul does not become immortal again until we are regenerated and given resurrected souls which then live forever, first in the intermediate state, and then in the resurrected state. This I believe is Biblical.
However, I cannot accept from the Biblical evidence that a fallen human being still lives forever either in an intermediate state or in a resurrected state. Even Robert Morey, the staunchest of the staunch, concedes the point that Jesus was not making a statement on the intermediate state of the dead with the parable in Luke 16--but some have decided to build an entire doctrine on this one example.
However there are many Biblical doctrines that we can be dogmatic on and these would be the doctrine of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity, as well as monergistic regeneration and justification by faith alone, just to name a few.
As Aaron and Nate noticed, our assumed common calvinist position seems to be a shaky ground to build a dialogue. The other assumed common ground was Stan’s belief in the existence of the soul and the intermediate state. But since Stan let you play his part in the dialogue we cannot appeal to this common ground anymore. This is important because we can’t use an essential position which we hold in common as a basis for further argumentation.
Gabriel, you aren’t even a native English speaker yet you were far more articulate with my concern than I was!
Perhaps another concern would be that uncharitable behavior has gone on on both sides of this issue in this thread, not just the one discussed earlier. But constructing strawmen and personally attacking someone based on that strawman isn’t acceptable either but seems to be hard for some people not to engage in. This only serves as an obstacle to reasonable dialogue yet I’m just not convinced reasonable dialogue is possible in this thread.
Here is what I believe the best Biblical evidence says:
When Adam sinned, the whole human race died spiritually and physically. We were originally created immortal in the image of God. But our bodies and souls died with the fall of Adam. The soul does not become immortal again until we are regenerated and given resurrected souls which then live forever, first in the intermediate state, and then in the resurrected state. This I believe is Biblical.
However, I cannot accept from the Biblical evidence that a fallen human being still lives forever either in an intermediate state or in a resurrected state. Even Robert Morey, the staunchest of the staunch, concedes the point that Jesus was not making a statement on the intermediate state of the dead with the parable in Luke 16--but some have decided to build an entire doctrine on this one example.Stan
And this is why I disagree with you Gabriel. Stan has put forth the crux of the matter (and one in which neither you and Jeremy have answered, though Jeremy seems to think his dancing around the subject is enough), from someone who DOES believe in the intermediate state of the soul. Despite the evidence that could give one the impression that we ‘go to heaven at death’...i.e, there is evidence in the scriptures that could lead one to this conclusion, I concede that), NOWHERE in this evidence do we find that this is an attribute of the wicked. Nowhere do we see that immortality is something given to the wicked man. As Stan has pointed out, I can believe that humans WERE immortal but lost it due to sin. This is given back when (if I may use your Calvinist language) the elect are chosen.
From both a Calvinist and Arminian perspective, NOWHERE do we see that the wicked get this same favor. They lost their immortality in the garden...they never got it back through regeneration through Christ.
It is through this biblically supported and logical fact we then interpret the clear language of Romans 6:23 and John 3:16. It is through these eyes and the metaphorical language of destruction that we interpret the ambiguous and apocalyptic imagery of Revelation 14 and 20.
You don’t have to agree with me on the ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ to denounce eternal torment. Simply show me where wicked man has an inherent immortal soul that is rejoined with it’s body to suffer eternal torment. It’s not there. Even if I believe my dear grandmother is playing a harp on the golden streets right now...nowhere do we see that the wicked are alive forever as a disembodied soul. The biblical language and context contradict this.
Personally I care less that you are holding this doctrine since I expect an adventist to be a true adventist and stick with annihilationism. But I expressed my concerns in regard to Stan’s position and sought a fruitful dialogue with him because I thought that I had sufficient common ground with him in order to start a conversation on this particular subject.
Perhaps this is your’s and Jeremy’s problem. Like so many former and anti-SDAs, you seem to make this an ‘SDA’ or ‘cultic’ aberrant doctrine and expect a canned response, “Hey, it’s a cultic doctrine! Expect a cultist to follow the party line!”, all the while thinking that there is no biblical merit to it. Stan is not an SDA. Many, many Christians and scholars who believe it are not SDA. I do not believe in annhilation because I am SDA. I and many non-SDAs believe it because it is biblical. I reject the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and much of my church’s take on prophetic interpretation. I disagree with sinless perfection and I don’t view Sabbath observance like my conservative brethren. I would sooner concede that the Sabbath is no longer valid before I would concede that there is such a thing as eternal torment. This is what my studies, my logic, my sense of reasoning, my rationality and my conscience has born out through many years of study.
Numerous scholars both Arminian and Calvinist are coming to the same conclusion, not from being swindled by conniving Adventist arguments, but from biblical exegesis and numerous years of bible study. If you and Jeremy want to call this ‘heresy’ and pooh-pooh, whitewash and ignore text after text of convincing evidence that at the very least should cause you, like a few eternal torment scholars Stan has pointed out, to at least concede that there is biblical merit to the rejection of eternal torment, there is nothing we can say to convince you. Our suggestion to you is to not sit there in judgement on this like we have had no biblical study or foundation to go by on this subject, and take the high road of monopolized truth on it as if we had proposed that Mary Magdalene and Jesus were a married couple or something.
My problem is that I’m seeing the same elitist and close minded thinking and cultic spirit here over this doctrine just like I’ve seen at Revival Sermons. Some folks here are so critical of SDAs for the same illogical hermeneutic I’m seeing being thrown around here on this forum. I see Pharisaism in a different spectrum here from some of you and it is ironic and sad at the same time.
Even Robert Morey, the staunchest of the staunch, concedes the point that Jesus was not making a statement on the intermediate state of the dead with the parable in Luke 16--but some have decided to build an entire doctrine on this one example.
Stan, just because I gave one proof doesn’t mean I rely only on one proof. See Isaiah 14, for another example.
Regarding Morey, I don’t think he’s saying that Luke 16 doesn’t teach the intermediate state, look below: I’m disturbed by the impression your words give that we are the worst kind of radicals, since even Morey, the fanatic of fanatics on this subject doesn’t rely on Luke 16 for teaching the intermediate state.
The rabbinic literature before, during, and after the time of Christ is filled with parables which built imaginative stories around real historical characters. There are multiple examples in the Talmud and Midrash of parables in which Abraham had dialogues with people such as Nimrod, with whom he could never have spoken literally. Everyone understood that these parables and dialogues did not literally take place.
It was understood that the rabbis used imaginative stories and dialogues as a teaching method. It was understood by all that these dialogues never took place…
...Christ used a rabbinic story and dialogue in Luke 16:19-31 which was not ‘true’ or ‘real’ in the sense of being literal [in a historical sense, but literal indeed in what it is teaching]. It is obvious that Lazarus did not literally sit in Abraham’s literal bosom. The rich man did not have literal lips which literal water could quench.
What is important for us to grasp is that Christ used the mental images conjured up by this rabbinic parable to teach that, in the hereafter, the wicked experience torment and the righteous bliss. This is clear from the rabbinic sources from which he drew this parable.
Since the dialogue between the rich man and Abraham was a teaching tool used by the rabbis before Christ, it is obvious that Christ was not trying to teach that we will talk with the wicked in the hereafter. He was merely using the dialogue method to get across the concept that there is no escape from torment, no second chance, and we must believe the Scriptures in this life unto salvation.”
guibox - 01 November 2009 11:48 AM
And this is why I disagree with you Gabriel. Stan has put forth the crux of the matter (and one in which neither you and Jeremy have answered, though Jeremy seems to think his dancing around the subject is enough), from someone who DOES believe in the intermediate state of the soul.
After his last post, it seems that Stan believes only half of this doctrine. He changed his views on the subject.
guibox - 01 November 2009 11:48 AM
Simply show me where wicked man has an inherent immortal soul that is rejoined with it’s body to suffer eternal torment. It’s not there.
First, I don’t believe that a soul has inherent immortality. Neither Adam was created with an immortal soul in the sense that it was inherent in him
Stan said that we can be dogmatic about Trinity. I assisted to a debate on this subject, and one of the objection raised against Jesus being the true God was the lack of explicit biblical proof for the case. They pointed that Jesus himself said that the Father is the one true God (John 17) and his claim was to be only his son. What they failed to see is that Jesus’ acts and words strongly infer his identity in being with his Father. Nobody else than God himself receives worship from creature, only the Creature. Contrast Jesus’ behavior toward Thomas and others who gave him worship with the angels who refused to receive worship. By inference, implicitly, what the Bible tells about Jesus strongly imply that he is not just the son of God, but he is identical with his Father, the same being.
In a similar way, while not explicitly saying that the bible has an immortal soul, there is enough information to draw a valid inference. We see that God preserves his creation even in the fire (burning bush), we see that God sustains the souls of the wicked angels (see Jude 6, for example) and also we see that the life of the wicked souls are prolonged in the intermediate state (Luke 16, Isaiah 14). So, when the metaphors and symbols from Revelation with Jesus’ expressions pointing in the direction of the an eternal duration of punishment, it is a valid inference to believe that the wicked have their life prolonged in order to receive their due punishment. In the same way as a lack of explicit statement about Jesus identity with the Father doesn’t invalidate the testimony of the other implicit proofs, a lack of explicit statement about the nature of the wicked soul does not invalidate the other implicit proofs. They are as clear as the proofs regarding Jesus identity with his Father, and don’t forget that in the last case they appear to contradict the explicit statements in which the Father is identified as the only true God.
guibox - 01 November 2009 11:48 AM
It is through these eyes and the metaphorical language of destruction that we interpret the ambiguous and apocalyptic imagery of Revelation 14 and 20.
I remember the time when I thought also that the statements from Revelation seemed ambiguous. I had learned in the meantime that this is not as obscure a language as it appears to be, but God gave me according to my wishes Jude 6 and 13 as the proof outside Revelation in order to persuade me about the eternal punishment of the wicked. Nevertheless, as I said, it’s a difference of hermeneutics which leads to the different conclusions we arrive at.
First, I don’t believe that a soul has inherent immortality. Neither Adam was created with an immortal soul in the sense that it was inherent in him...In a similar way, while not explicitly saying that the bible has an immortal soul, there is enough information to draw a valid inference.
You can’t have it both ways, Gabriel. Either man has an inherent soul (and that would include all men) and thus both the wicked and righteous can experience conscious rewards as immortal entities, or man does not and is given the gift of life upon coming into Christ’s fold. If it is the second, we know that the wicked’s state and fate is not ‘implicit’ but quite clear in contrast to the righteous.
You say there is implicit evidence of an immortal soul. I don’t believe so. I do believe that there is explicit evidence for man’s mortality, especially the wicked. Why take implicit evidence of an assumptive area when the opposite which clearly contradicts is evident?
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 02 November 2009 08:08 AM
We see that God preserves his creation even in the fire (burning bush),
Unlike the burning bush however which burned but ‘was not consumed’, we see that the fire ‘consumes’ the wicked. Numerous OT texts that explain the final judgment of the day of the Lord like Malachi 4:1, Psalm 37:20 and Isaiah 66:24 show that the wicked are not kept alive by fire, but consumed by it. The burning bush in Exodus shows us that the fate of the wicked is the opposite of the burning bush, not the same as.
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 02 November 2009 08:08 AM
We see that God sustains the souls of the wicked angels (see Jude 6, for example) and also we see that the life of the wicked souls are prolonged in the intermediate state (Luke 16, Isaiah 14).
First of all, where do you get ‘souls’ from this? Nowhere in any of these passages is ‘psuche’ used. You are doing two things here: 1) Reading in your own version of the meaning of soul, 2) Assuming that some ‘soul’ as you define it is being spoken of in these passages. They are not there. The Luke 16 passage gives actual body parts to the people involved. They are not ‘psuches’ They are dead as us mentioned at the end of the parable. It is simple personification. Just as the passage in Isaiah.
8Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. 9Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.10All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?11Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee
The dead ‘speak’ no more than the cedars of Lebanon do. The language here is obvious personification. It is right along words used to denote death’, decay such as “worms” and “grave”. Either the dead are alive or dead in the grave.
The OT makes it clear elsewhere that the ‘dead know nothing’ and await the resurrection in their graves when they will ‘live again’.
Your insistence to take isolated passages such as these two when there is NO other support in the Bible for their concepts and when there is much evidence to the contrary is as negligent as SDAs creating the investigative judgment by using Daniel 8:14.
Just wondering why it is so necessary to question the integrity of and take personal shots at the opposition with just about every post? The tone of them is sounding like it did a few pages back yet it isn’t surprising since for some reason this topic just about always degenerates into something similar. It’s alright, though. It’ll get dropped before too long then the same arguments will start up here a year from now or another forum maybe sooner than that before it gets dropped and picked up again later with the same arguments hashed and re-hashed, label a few people cultists, etc., then it all repeats again.
I’m really beginning to seriously wonder about the effectiveness of “discussion forums” any longer. If this is the spirit of supposed Christians then no wonder so many non-Christians look at “Christians” and don’t want any part of what they’re selling. If the imperative containted in 1 Peter 3:15 actually meant something to people maybe it would be a different story.
Stan Ermshar - 01 November 2009 10:32 AM
The most important issues of the Christian faith do not hinge on whether or not we believe that the lost will be tormented for all time.
I’m unconvinced that all here would agree with this.
However there are many Biblical doctrines that we can be dogmatic on and these would be the doctrine of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity, as well as monergistic regeneration and justification by faith alone, just to name a few.
I wish this were so but there is plenty of dogmatism on this topic to go around and I doubt you’ll get full agreement regarding monergistic regeneration.
However, I cannot accept from the Biblical evidence that a fallen human being still lives forever either in an intermediate state or in a resurrected state.
Stan,
Then how can those fallen humans suffer in the Lake of Fire, if they have ceased to exist? Does God “re-create” these people (as SDAs teach), making “new” humans suffer in the place of those who have ceased? How is that just or fair in any way?
Also, this seems to contradict what you wrote in this previous post, which seemed to indicate that you did believe in an intermediate state for the wicked:
Stan Ermshar - 14 October 2009 09:42 PM
I did not say that the inhabitants of Sodom were annihilated but that their bodies were incinerated at that time, and yes they will face the final judgment.
Could you please clarify for us your position on this, Stan?
First, I don’t believe that a soul has inherent immortality. Neither Adam was created with an immortal soul in the sense that it was inherent in him...In a similar way, while not explicitly saying that the bible has an immortal soul, there is enough information to draw a valid inference.
You can’t have it both ways, Gabriel. Either man has an inherent soul (and that would include all men) and thus both the wicked and righteous can experience conscious rewards as immortal entities, or man does not and is given the gift of life upon coming into Christ’s fold. If it is the second, we know that the wicked’s state and fate is not ‘implicit’ but quite clear in contrast to the righteous.
I think that this proves again that we have too little common ground on which we can argue. We use the same words but have different meanings for them because the meaning for words is shaped by the context in which we found them. My views about salvation informs my understanding about what it means “eternal life”. I don’t believe that eternal life means unending existence, and because these are two different categories for me, I’m not contradicting myself when I say that eternal life is given only to the believers because I don’t mean that only believers receive a mere unending existence. Eternal life is a different quality of life defined by a knowledge of God (see John 17), and you already disagreed with what Jeremy said about this subject.
In the adventist understanding, eternal life is what Adam lost in Eden and now through the gift of salvation he receives back, a coming back to the initial state. But here we go in deep trouble, because Adam was not created possessing eternal life as believers receive in Christ. “Knowing Christ” means more than believing in truth about Christ, more than believing in Christ himself, it means to be united with Christ at the spiritual level in which the soul of believer is indwelt by Christ. And because of this union which is based on God’s incarnation we are on a different qualitative level in relationship with God than Adam was in Eden. It’s a union that cannot be destroyed, the future salvation is assured for anybody who’s united with Christ, who “knows” Christ in this way. That’s the mystery illustrated in the language of union between wife and husband, a physical union which points to the spiritual union between a believer and Christ. And by spiritual I don’t mean only sharing the same ideas, but a union between real immaterial spirits that are more than “breath”. A mystery, of course, but a reality nevertheless. Adam had not possessed this “eternal life” in Eden, otherwise he would have not lost it. And this kind of relationship, this union guarantees for eternal ages that we will never sin again. It’s something better and bigger and qualitatively different than what Adam lost in Eden.
I wrote the previous paragraph just to prove that I’m not inconsistent as you may think I am. Of course, you may start to question the description of eternal life I presented above, and since you believe that spirit is mere breath, we should first find agreement on this question. Also, since you believe that a true believer may go back to his old life and be lost you’ll disagree with another element which sustains my understanding of the eternal life. You just think that the believer receives what Adam lost in Eden and nothing else. And as Adam, he can lose this unending life tomorrow. But I’m a calvinist, I believe that God saves man perfectly and salvation is guaranteed by Christ’s life, death and resurrection. This informs my views about eternal life, while your disagreement on assurance of salvation informs your view about eternal life. It precludes you to see that eternal life is something different than what Adam had in Eden, unending existence. It stands in the way of coming to the conclusion that believers possess something different than mere unending existence. And you will read your understanding of “eternal life” in my words, assuming that they doesn’t mean anything that “unending existence.” And you will arrive at the conclusion that I’m inconsistent.
What’s my point? That there is too much ground to cover in order to have a meaningful talk about the subject. It involves our views of salvation, nature of man, and so on. Calvin wrote a lot about union with Christ, about this spiritual union, Thomas Boston wrote his “Man’s Nature in its Fourfold State” (a brilliant work) developing the thesis of St. Augustine etc. etc. This is hard and deep theology which involves interpreting the Bible in a profound, systematic and consistent way that takes time and effort to digest. Discussing this subject with a calvinist, with someone who shares this perspective, with someone who had read Calvin, Boston, Augustin and other theologians which had a deep impact with their exposition of the Bible on the protestant churches, is something different than debating with an adventist who’s background was informed by a theology produced by a group which was proud of their independence of thought and isolation from the “Babylon”, christian church at large.
I’m not saying that someone should read Calvin, Boston, Augustin before qualifying for a discussion. What I’m saying is that people need to interact and be brought in contact with the mentality that shapes the protestant worldview, the need to understand your opponent viewpoint before criticizing it.
There is simple no way to do the hard work of study for an adventist. And I can’t, in a short space, do this for you, deal with distortions of my view, answering objections that assume naturalistic presuppositions, and so on. You may deny my thesis that your adventist background colors your understanding of the Bible, but your idea that I’m not consistent rests on looking at the issue of eternal life through adventist glasses. You simply read your understanding of the expression “eternal life” in my usage of it and draw the conclusion that I’m contradicting myself. The irony of this situation is that in a previous post you qualified my concerns about not sharing enough common ground with you as an elitist attitude and cultic spirit, while you had construed a straw man from my words because you had read them through adventist glasses.
Gabriel, I am not interpreting this through Adventist glasses. The majority of Christians that I know that would define ‘immortality’ and ‘eternal life’ would say ‘living forever’ and ‘to be immortal - never die’. This is not rocket science and the Bible never intended it to be.
Nonetheless, your argument still can answer whether the wicked have this ‘eternal soul’ attribute as the righteous. It’s very simple, Gabriel even by both our definitions of ‘eternal life’, and election or freedom of choice.
Stop dancing around the issue. Yes, or no. Do the wicked have immortal souls that live on after death? If so, where is the biblical evidence of when this happened? If man is not inherently immortal and the elect are given ‘eternal life’, what are the attributes of the wicked? If ‘eternal life’ means ‘life with God’, and ‘death’ means ‘life without God’, we must go back further to determine how the wicked have ‘life’ to begin with.
If you are going to continue to complicate and redefine the clear, basic terms of scripture, you better have biblical evidence to support it. Right now, all I see is that the ‘immortality of the wicked’ is accepted by you and Jeremy apriori and terms such as ‘death’, ‘destroy’ ‘consume’ and ‘destruction’ are thus defined by that.
What I’m seeing is a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy.
Get down to the bear bone basics of salvation history:
1) What is sin?
2) What did Christ come to save mankind from?
3) What happens to those who are still under the penalty and not the elect?
4) How are the nature (spirit etc whatever you want to define it) different between the righteous and unrighteous?
5) How are ‘thanatos’, ‘psuche’, ‘apollumi’ to thus be interpreted based on #1-4?
6) How do you get around the clear language of ultimate destruction of God’s enemies and the metaphorical language of destruction that is explained by the Bible in ambiguous passages such as Mark 9:44-45 and Revelation 14:11?
You can’t take one aspect in isolation, Gabriel. There are so many factors that must be brought into harmony and the doctrine of eternal torment skews one or another of those factors. Traditionalists gloss over, pooh-pooh, contradict themselves, create absurdities and ignore blatant scriptural references to adopt assumptions to make their philosophy work.
Just wondering why it is so necessary to question the integrity of and take personal shots at the opposition with just about every post? The tone of them is sounding like it did a few pages back yet it isn’t surprising since for some reason this topic just about always degenerates into something similar.
I’m really beginning to seriously wonder about the effectiveness of “discussion forums” any longer. If this is the spirit of supposed Christians then no wonder so many non-Christians look at “Christians” and don’t want any part of what they’re selling. If the imperative contained in 1 Peter 3:15 actually meant something to people maybe it would be a different story.
I’m sorry you feel like this is degenerating. I don’t feel I or any others here are ‘taking potshots’ like questioning each other’s salvation as it was a few pages ago. If I come across strong it is because I feel like I’m being judged and questioned by my belief in annihilation, like I have no right to because it is heretical. Well, I don’t think it is and I merely point out the hypocrisy of those who take the high and mighty road over this doctrine.
If people are going to say ‘SDAism is a cult because they do this and this with the Bible’, then buddy, I’m going to point out exactly where others who point the fingers do the exact same thing and expect them to use the same logic and biblical hermeneutic they expect from SDAs.
I didn’t mention any references/texts in my post, and yet you assume that I am using these, and only these, texts, to establish my beliefs, and go on to talk about my supposed “assumptions” based on these texts that you assume I am referring to!