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?
See Jeremy’s point regarding the resurrection of the wicked. Your definition of death makes resurrection impossible.
guibox - 02 November 2009 09:44 AM
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.
You assume that I used the image of the burning bush as a type of the final judgment. I didn’t and the Bible doesn’t present the burning bush as a type of final judgment. The burning bush still informs me that God can preserve his fallen creation which in normal conditions will go into extinction (fire, water, poisonous gas) as long as he deems necessary for his purposes. I believe that this applies in the present with the wicked angels. That’s why Jeremy asked you if you believe these wicked angels are immortal.
guibox - 02 November 2009 09:44 AM
quote author="GABRIEL PROKSCH” date="1257199692"] 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.
I get souls from Hebrews 1:14 where angels are described as ministering spirits, the word “pneuma” which designates human’s souls. I don’t need to get this definition of what angels are at every point where angels are mentioned in the Bible in order to believe that I deal with spirits
guibox - 02 November 2009 09:44 AM
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.
Figures of speech do not make everything a big figure of speech, otherwise you will end up with a big fable with no truth in it.
What would the parable of rich man and Lazarus mean if there is no place of suffering after death? What is the reason to tell a parable that warns people not to end up in a place that doesn’t exist, where they doesn’t suffer at all? According to adventists, Jesus told the parable in order to tell us that after death there is no possibility to change our eternal destiny and that even somebody coming from death will not persuade people if they don’t believe the scriptures. Beside this, nothing is real. No place of suffering after death, no place of comfort for the righteous. But in this case, since the rest of the parable isn’t rooted in reality, why bother with the lesson? It’s just good to scare superstitious people and nothing else. The thought that Jesus would use a fable which is not rooted in reality just to impress people with a moral lesson is scary.
guibox - 02 November 2009 09:44 AM
The OT makes it clear elsewhere that the ‘dead know nothing’ and await the resurrection in their graves when they will ‘live again’.
I got the message, but that part from where you’re quoting doesn’t say a word about resurrection, just the opposite.
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun. Eccl. 9:5,6
No reward, memory forgotten, no more share in all that is done under the sun. No resurrection. That’s life, it happened, it will not happened again, all is lost, thoughts, rewards, anything. Adventists take this part from Ecclesiastes as describing the reality, while the author presents the case as it is “under the sun”, from the perspective of this life, a pure materialistic life without the expectancy of a future life. The message is clear, dead know nothing and they remain dead forever. This is consistent with the definition of death as cessation of existence. No resurrection, no future.
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?
Jeremy
Jeremy,
those destroyed at Sodom were not annihilated, but will be resurrected at the last day to receive final judgment. I don’t believe that the souls of the wicked consciously experience torment awaiting the final judgment. What would be the purpose of that? This would mean that those who were lost and died thousands of years ago would have to be experiencing torment much longer than those who were lost later, but I guess this doesn’t matter since the suffering will be for an eternity anyway according to the reasoning of the traditionalist.
However when a redeemed person receives salvation, their soul is resurrected and at death departs to be with Christ.
Only God alone possesses immortality, and He will confer immortality on those He saves. There is no life or existence apart from Christ.
The wicked will be resurrected to receive a terrible final judgment and will not get away easy, but I see no evidence that the souls of the wicked live eternally.
Why is it so hard for God to resurrect the wicked just as they were previous to death? I don’t see your point Jeremy about why I am arguing for God resurrecting new persons as you stated here:
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?
This is not what I believe.
It is not only Adventists who believe in annihilation, but that is what is being implied by many statements.
FAF forum was very happy to feature this article certifying SDA to be a cult, but I doubt they would be too happy with Dr. Reagan now that he has changed his position on eternal torment?
If you are going to continue to complicate and redefine the clear, basic terms of scripture, you better have biblical evidence to support it. .
What guarantee do I have to believe that future texts will be classified as no evidence because they contain figures of speech? Hermeneutics do matter.
guibox - 02 November 2009 02:20 PM
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.
I expect you to recognize that my hermeneutics and understanding of Luke 16 entitle me to believe that souls of the wicked had a separated existence from the body. Even if you doesn’t agree with my way of interpretation, you have no right to assume that I’m accepting this view apriori. I was one time in your place and I modified my views in time due to studying the Bible by using different hermeneutics than what I learned in adventism.
guibox - 02 November 2009 02:20 PM
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?
Again, hermeneutics are important. You let your Old Testament texts control the interpretation of the New Testament by saying that NT texts are ambiguous and OT texts are clear. A basic principle in hermeneutics is the principle of progressive revelation in which the NT has the final word and is much clear thant the OT. OT is the place for shadows, NT is the place for substance.
Second, it was a time when I considered that OT texts as clear until I understand that the “clear” passage saying that the dead know nothing deny also the resurrection. I understood what Stan has a hard time to understand, that you cannot press the language of destruction and the imagery of the OT without denying resurrection. One example is the NT usage of the burning of Sodom. Adventists capitalize on this text and say that Sodom suffered the punishment of eternal fire, but still affirm that those in Sodom will be resurrected (as Jesus explicitly said). But if indeed those at Sodom suffered the punishment of eternal fire, according to the adventist interpretation of eternal fire as a fire which completely wipes out of existence people bringing an irreversible situation (dead forever), no one from Sodom will be resurrected. The same is true with other texts which are seen as proof of extincition. If death is extinction, nothing remains to be resurrected. That’s why I can’t see those texts as clearly teaching annihilationism, extinction.
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.
Hey, whatever you need to do to justify it. Carry on, buddy.
You let your Old Testament texts control the interpretation of the New Testament by saying that NT texts are ambiguous and OT texts are clear. A basic principle in hermeneutics is the principle of progressive revelation in which the NT has the final word and is much clear thant the OT. OT is the place for shadows, NT is the place for substance.
Gabriel, we’re not talking Old verses New Covenant here. The OT was the only Bible Jesus and the NT Christians had. When Isaiah says ‘The worm shall not die and the fire shall not be quenched’ talking about dead bodies and corpses in the final judgment day, and Jeremiah says that a fire will kindle in the gates of Jerusalem that ‘shall not be quenched’, and then Jesus says of the final days in Mark 9 the EXACT same language, there is no reason to not interpret it the same. When the language of the finite destruction of Edom are described using metaphorical language in Isaiah 34:10 and Revelation 14:11 uses the EXACT same language, we have no reason to interpret the biblical language differently. The only way you wouldn’t is to assume (as I said) apriori that the wicked are immortal and thus these phrases would mean ‘eternal torment’ in the NT.
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 November 2009 03:38 AM
that you cannot press the language of destruction and the imagery of the OT without denying resurrection.
I’m not sure how you can say this. The OT folk believed whole heartedly in a resurrection. John 5:28 confirms Daniel 12:1-2. 1 Corinthians 15 confirms Job 14:10-14.
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 November 2009 03:38 AM
One example is the NT usage of the burning of Sodom. Adventists capitalize on this text and say that Sodom suffered the punishment of eternal fire, but still affirm that those in Sodom will be resurrected (as Jesus explicitly said). But if indeed those at Sodom suffered the punishment of eternal fire, according to the adventist interpretation of eternal fire as a fire which completely wipes out of existence people bringing an irreversible situation (dead forever), no one from Sodom will be resurrected.
The point of referring to Jude is to show that ‘eternal’ doesn’t always mean ‘for all ceaseless ages of eternity. S&G;will never be built again. Their temporal destruction was ‘eternal’ because of the fire. ‘Eternal fire’ cannot mean ‘eternal in duration’ as S&G;are not being burned now. The fire that came down from heaven to destroy it was not the fires at the end of time, but it is described as ‘eternal’ in it’s destruction as mentioned in the OT.
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 November 2009 03:38 AM
If death is extinction, nothing remains to be resurrected. That’s why I can’t see those texts as clearly teaching annihilationism, extinction.
Gabriel
The first death is not extinction. The second death is. “Blessed are they who take part in the first resurrection as such the second death has no power over them” These words are used elsewhere to show Jesus got ‘power over death’. Death is hovering over mankind. Resurrection conquers death, it doesn’t conquer an eternal torment burning lake of fire. Because the righteous are resurrected immortal, extinction has no power OVER them as death ‘reigned’ before Christ. The language here is obvious. It is only a problem and ignored when one tries to make ‘death’ mean ‘conscious existence.
FAF forum was very happy to feature this article certifying SDA to be a cult, but I doubt they would be too happy with Dr. Reagan now that he has changed his position on eternal torment?
Stan
Associated with Dr. David Reagan of Lion and Lamb ministries is another evangelist who has written some good material on this topic at the following site:
This site is to show the Biblical evidence that the UNSAVED DEAD are not suffering conscious torment while awaiting the final terrible day of judgment.
The only problem with the above sites is that he doesn’t identify himself or who he is affiliated with, but he emailed me assuring me that he is indeed evangelical and writes for Lion and Lamb and preaches at a Sunday church.
I only point this stuff out, because those who are strongly opposed to annihilation always seem to phrase their posting as the Adventist view, when it is clear from history that Adventists hold no corner on what is a very sensible and logical view of hell which can be supported by scripture.
It is true that not everyone interprets words the same or uses the same hermeneutic, but again, this issue is not on what Christianity hangs.
Jesus said in John 13:34,35
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
------------------------
We are not known to be Christians based on our view of hell.
Interesting that one won’t find many threads on any Christian discussion board discussing the application of the above words of Jesus.
Aaron made a good point above about what unbelievers might think if they came across our discussion. Both sides of this debate need to be careful of the tone in which the arguments are presented, and I include myself at the top of this list.
10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
Notice that life and immortality are only available through the gospel.
How can the body and the souls of the wicked be considered to be immortal to be tormented forever in light of the above text?
Christ has abolished death and brought life.
The lake of fire swallows up death and Hades and becomes the final second death.
----------------------
I think 2 Timothy 1:10 is quite a powerful argument.
Why is it so hard for God to resurrect the wicked just as they were previous to death?
Because, how can God resurrect someone who has ceased to exist?
Stan Ermshar - 02 November 2009 11:58 PM
I don’t see your point Jeremy about why I am arguing for God resurrecting new persons as you stated here:
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?
This is not what I believe.
It is not only Adventists who believe in annihilation, but that is what is being implied by many statements.
Stan
If a person’s consciousness has ceased, then how is that person in existence any longer? How can they be resurrected? How is it not a new person that is created?
The SDAs are actually admitting now that they believe in a “re-creation” (they actually used that word in their 2nd quarter 2009 quarterly!).
There is a huge difference between a resurrection and a re-creation.
FAF forum was very happy to feature this article certifying SDA to be a cult, but I doubt they would be too happy with Dr. Reagan now that he has changed his position on eternal torment?
Stan
Associated with Dr. David Reagan of Lion and Lamb ministries is another evangelist who has written some good material on this topic at the following site:
This site is to show the Biblical evidence that the UNSAVED DEAD are not suffering conscious torment while awaiting the final terrible day of judgment.
The only problem with the above sites is that he doesn’t identify himself or who he is affiliated with, but he emailed me assuring me that he is indeed evangelical and writes for Lion and Lamb and preaches at a Sunday church.
I only point this stuff out, because those who are strongly opposed to annihilation always seem to phrase their posting as the Adventist view, when it is clear from history that Adventists hold no corner on what is a very sensible and logical view of hell which can be supported by scripture.
It looks like the above sites believe differently than Adventists, and actually hold to Sheol/Hades being a real place (in the spiritual realm) in the center of the earth--but they believe that the souls of the dead are “asleep” and “unconscious” (which again causes problems as I pointed out above), although they seem to think that there are somehow actual souls/spirits still in existence (which, again, differs from the materialist view of SDA). Some Christians have taught a similar view of “soul sleep” although they would say that the soul is not entirely “unconscious” (as that would cause the person to cease to exist). I’m not entirely sure what the above author thinks, as I didn’t read all of his conclusions.
10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
Notice that life and immortality are only available through the gospel.
How can the body and the souls of the wicked be considered to be immortal to be tormented forever in light of the above text?
Christ has abolished death and brought life.
The lake of fire swallows up death and Hades and becomes the final second death.
----------------------
I think 2 Timothy 1:10 is quite a powerful argument.
Stan
Stan,
Notice that the verse says that Jesus hasalready abolished death (past tense). So you can’t change this to the future lake of fire, and say that it’s referring to something in the future.
10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
Notice that life and immortality are only available through the gospel.
How can the body and the souls of the wicked be considered to be immortal to be tormented forever in light of the above text?
Christ has abolished death and brought life.
The lake of fire swallows up death and Hades and becomes the final second death.
----------------------
I think 2 Timothy 1:10 is quite a powerful argument.
Stan
Yes Stan it very well is. It should cause all of you here to stop and give a big “Hmm..” at the very least.
Notice that ‘death’ is contrasted with ‘immortality’ and ‘life’. Would all of you here not agree that this is applying for the righteous? That ‘death’ here does in fact mean ‘cessation of existence’ if you believe that when Christians die, they continue to exist in another form? Is not this what you believe that this verse is saying?
If this is the case, then it is clear that ‘death’ doesn’t mean ‘separation of the soul from the body’ for this is what ‘life’ is for the righteous. From a traditional point of view, this ‘death’ here means that after our physical death, the righteous do not experience ‘death (cessation of existence) of the soul but continue on in immortality.
How can you thus turn Romans 6:23 on it’s head and call death ‘life without God’ when like this Timothy verse it is contrasted with ‘eternal life’ for the wicked?
Unbelievable site, Stan. This site is CHOCK full of systematic and logical biblical exegesis that I cannot fathom how anyone who puts their preconceived notions on the shelf and reads through this taking care of the biblical words and meanings can walk away calling this ‘heresy’.
Fantastic and I encourage all of you to please, please take the time to look through it.
And this one off of the above link is the first part.
10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
Notice that life and immortality are only available through the gospel.
How can the body and the souls of the wicked be considered to be immortal to be tormented forever in light of the above text?
Christ has abolished death and brought life.
The lake of fire swallows up death and Hades and becomes the final second death.
----------------------
I think 2 Timothy 1:10 is quite a powerful argument.
Stan
Yes Stan it very well is. It should cause all of you here to stop and give a big “Hmm..” at the very least.
Notice that ‘death’ is contrasted with ‘immortality’ and ‘life’. Would all of you here not agree that this is applying for the righteous? That ‘death’ here does in fact mean ‘cessation of existence’ if you believe that when Christians die, they continue to exist in another form? Is not this what you believe that this verse is saying?
If this is the case, then it is clear that ‘death’ doesn’t mean ‘separation of the soul from the body’ for this is what ‘life’ is for the righteous. From a traditional point of view, this ‘death’ here means that after our physical death, the righteous do not experience ‘death (cessation of existence) of the soul but continue on in immortality.
How can you thus turn Romans 6:23 on it’s head and call death ‘life without God’ when like this Timothy verse it is contrasted with ‘eternal life’ for the wicked?
Guibox,
You still don’t understand what we are saying. No, we don’t believe the verse is talking about the righteous not having to experience the cessation of the soul. The believer is set free from death (spiritual death--a dead spirit, separated from God) the moment he trusts in Jesus Christ. John 5:24 says that the believer has passed from death to life--already! And “life” is speaking of eternal life--the spiritual life (alive spirit, connected to God, indwelt by God) that happens the moment one trusts in Jesus. It is also true that because Jesus Christ abolished death, the believer will also be raised with an incorruptible and immortal body (the “immortality” part). So, “immortality” refers to the bodily resurrection of the believer and “life” refers to the spirit--the spiritual eternal life that the believer has currently. So neither part refers to what happens when a believer dies, other than the fact that the believer’s spirit continues to be with God and is not separated from Him and does not go to Hades as the spirits of the unbelievers do, because he ”has” eternal life.
So, in summary, no I do not agree that the verse is saying that Jesus has abolished “cessation of existence” (which seemed to be your main contention).
You still don’t understand what we are saying. No, we don’t believe the verse is talking about the righteous not having to experience the cessation of the soul. The believer is set free from death (spiritual death--a dead spirit, separated from God) the moment he trusts in Jesus Christ. John 5:24 says that the believer has passed from death to life--already! And “life” is speaking of eternal life--the spiritual life (alive spirit, connected to God, indwelt by God) that happens the moment one trusts in Jesus. It is also true that because Jesus Christ abolished death, the believer will also be raised with an incorruptible and immortal body (the “immortality” part). So, “immortality” refers to the bodily resurrection of the believer and “life” refers to the spirit--the spiritual eternal life that the believer has currently. So neither part refers to what happens when a believer dies, other than the fact that the believer’s spirit continues to be with God and is not separated from Him and does not go to Hades as the spirits of the unbelievers do, because he ”has” eternal life.
So, in summary, no I do not agree that the verse is saying that Jesus has abolished “cessation of existence” (which seemed to be your main contention).
Jeremy
No I guess I don’t understand because you are continually making ‘death’ mean ‘life’ when it is not. You are assuming that ‘thanatos’ means ‘separation of the soul from the body apart from God’ when ‘thanatos’ is never used this way. This then skews the rest of your interpretation to the point that you say ‘life’ means only ‘spirit life in Christ’ and ‘immortality’ means ‘body’.
The death that Jesus abolished was DEATH, not ‘separation of the soul apart from Christ’. Jesus came to save man from death to life. When man sinned, he did not bring about ‘separation from Christ as a soul’, he began to die “and in dying ye shall die”.
The only way you can make ‘death’ not mean death is to make man inherently immortal. This is the only way that you can make your definition of death work for the wicked, Jeremy.
Did you not say that man was not inherently immortal?
Again, we are back to the wicked having immortality or not.
Again, let’s look at Jesus words “He who hath the Son hath life, he who doesn’t have the Son does not have life’ Come on Jeremy, if you define ‘life’ as ‘a live spirit’ then the wicked do not have any such thing.
