The basic problem with your objections that we are trying to point out is that we don’t recognize our own position in the things you are saying. It would be like me saying, “You believe that Ellen White is your savior,” or something like that. All we are saying is that it would behoove you to read a defense of Calvinism written by someone more learned and eloquent than ourselves so that you can attack it (if you wish) from a position of strength.
As to God “striving with man” and “offering repentence” and the like… Romans 9 (once again) talks about this. “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called...” (Romans 9:22-23) Just because God is longsuffering and patient doesn’t mean that He isn’t in control.
Lastly, even though I got a bit giddy and defended something that I’m passionate about (God’s sovereignty), debating Calvinism is also a distraction, just like debating hell. We would have just as many problems with the Adventist gospel and eschatology from an Arminian perspective (such as Des Ford’s). Election wouldn’t even have to come into the picture for us to realize that the IJ or Adventist eschatology are unbiblical.
I don’t get it. However, seeing as apparently I am misconstruing Calvinism and don’t understand it, I will not ‘rail’ against it anymore, as some have accused me of doing. The more and more I try to understand it, the more and more I realize that I will never accept it. Especially with an eternal hell also on the auction block.
You’re too positive about sin and I agree that as long as your view about sin and God’s sovereignty and holiness doesn’t change, it will prevent you from embracing the doctrines of grace. I bet that if ever you’ll change your views about sin you’ll start seeing more truthfulness in what we are saying. Until than I should be content to be perceived as a wacko. I admit that it still disturbs me a lot, and I’m struggle with the thought that for many I’m considered more or less crazy, but that’s the way things are. It’s like talking about the earth circling around the sun while the majority believes that the earth is fixed and point me to the sky in order to demonstrate “objectively” that the sun is moving and not the earth.
Sorry folks to revisit this controversial topic again, but in light of Michael Dever of Capitol Baptist church reminding us of John Wenham’s scholarship, I cannot resist posting this from another thread I just posted on.
Here is an excellent article by Michael Dever, the pastor of Capitol Baptist church, on the history of the inerrancy debate:
What is the best book on inerrancy according to Dever?
I’ve saved the best for last. If I could just recommend one book on the inerrancy of the Bible it would undoubtedly be this one—John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Tyndale Press, 1972 [UK]; IVP, 1973 [US]).Wenham’s book has been through three editions and makes the simple point that our trust in Scripture is to be a part of our following Christ, because that is the way that Christ treated Scripture—as true, and therefore authoritative. (Robert Lightner, a professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Seminary published a similar book a few years later, A Biblical Case for Total Inerrancy: How Jesus Viewed the Old Testament [Kregel, 1978].)Wenham had first put these ideas in print with a little Tyndale pamphlet in 1953 called Our Lord’s View of the Old Testament. In Christ and the Bible, Wenham, an Anglican evangelical who taught Greek for many years at Oxford, has done us all a great service in providing us with a book which understands that we do not come by our adherence to Scripture fundamentally from the inductive resolutions of discrepancies, but from the teaching of the Lord Jesus.Only because of the Living Word may we finally know to trust the Written Word.May God use these resources of those who’ve gone before us to equip and encourage us in so trusting.
-----------------------------
I find it encouraging that such a distinguished scholar who believes in the inerrancy of scripture can find significant flaws in the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment. He wrote a book called “Facing Hell” in which he said this:
“I believe that endless torment is a hideous and unscriptural doctrine which has been a terrible burden on the mind of the church for many centuries and a terrible blot on her presentation of the gospel. I should indeed be happy if, before I die, I could help in sweeping it away”.
-----------------------
I echo Wenham’s thoughts, and I thank Michael Dever for reminding us of the great scholarship of John Wenham.
“I believe that endless torment is a hideous and unscriptural doctrine which has been a terrible burden on the mind of the church for many centuries and a terrible blot on her presentation of the gospel. I should indeed be happy if, before I die, I could help in sweeping it away”.
Amen!
I agree, it is a ”terrible blot”
I cannot help but conclude that endless torment comes from the perception that they serve some angry God who is out to get us, not THE loving God who died to save us.
In defiance of God’s ‘you will surely die’ and ‘who (God) alone possesses immortality’ eternal torment is based on the concept of an innate immortality (echoing Lucifer’s ”You surely will not die!) resulting in the Gospel not being about life and death but instead a quality of life issue. The emphasis on ‘ETERNAL TORMENT’ puts the focus on escaping pain, not the desire to be with our loving God.
Sorry folks to revisit this controversial topic again, but in light of Michael Dever of Capitol Baptist church reminding us of John Wenham’s scholarship, I cannot resist posting this from another thread I just posted on.
Here is an excellent article by Michael Dever, the pastor of Capitol Baptist church, on the history of the inerrancy debate:
What is the best book on inerrancy according to Dever?
I’ve saved the best for last. If I could just recommend one book on the inerrancy of the Bible it would undoubtedly be this one—John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Tyndale Press, 1972 [UK]; IVP, 1973 [US]).Wenham’s book has been through three editions and makes the simple point that our trust in Scripture is to be a part of our following Christ, because that is the way that Christ treated Scripture—as true, and therefore authoritative. (Robert Lightner, a professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Seminary published a similar book a few years later, A Biblical Case for Total Inerrancy: How Jesus Viewed the Old Testament [Kregel, 1978].)Wenham had first put these ideas in print with a little Tyndale pamphlet in 1953 called Our Lord’s View of the Old Testament. In Christ and the Bible, Wenham, an Anglican evangelical who taught Greek for many years at Oxford, has done us all a great service in providing us with a book which understands that we do not come by our adherence to Scripture fundamentally from the inductive resolutions of discrepancies, but from the teaching of the Lord Jesus.Only because of the Living Word may we finally know to trust the Written Word.May God use these resources of those who’ve gone before us to equip and encourage us in so trusting.
-----------------------------
I find it encouraging that such a distinguished scholar who believes in the inerrancy of scripture can find significant flaws in the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment. He wrote a book called “Facing Hell” in which he said this:
“I believe that endless torment is a hideous and unscriptural doctrine which has been a terrible burden on the mind of the church for many centuries and a terrible blot on her presentation of the gospel. I should indeed be happy if, before I die, I could help in sweeping it away”.
-----------------------
I echo Wenham’s thoughts, and I thank Michael Dever for reminding us of the great scholarship of John Wenham.
Sorry folks to revisit this controversial topic again, but in light of Michael Dever of Capitol Baptist church reminding us of John Wenham’s scholarship, I cannot resist posting this from another thread I just posted on.
Here is an excellent article by Michael Dever, the pastor of Capitol Baptist church, on the history of the inerrancy debate:
What is the best book on inerrancy according to Dever?
I’ve saved the best for last. If I could just recommend one book on the inerrancy of the Bible it would undoubtedly be this one—John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Tyndale Press, 1972 [UK]; IVP, 1973 [US]).Wenham’s book has been through three editions and makes the simple point that our trust in Scripture is to be a part of our following Christ, because that is the way that Christ treated Scripture—as true, and therefore authoritative. (Robert Lightner, a professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Seminary published a similar book a few years later, A Biblical Case for Total Inerrancy: How Jesus Viewed the Old Testament [Kregel, 1978].)Wenham had first put these ideas in print with a little Tyndale pamphlet in 1953 called Our Lord’s View of the Old Testament. In Christ and the Bible, Wenham, an Anglican evangelical who taught Greek for many years at Oxford, has done us all a great service in providing us with a book which understands that we do not come by our adherence to Scripture fundamentally from the inductive resolutions of discrepancies, but from the teaching of the Lord Jesus.Only because of the Living Word may we finally know to trust the Written Word.May God use these resources of those who’ve gone before us to equip and encourage us in so trusting.
-----------------------------
I find it encouraging that such a distinguished scholar who believes in the inerrancy of scripture can find significant flaws in the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment. He wrote a book called “Facing Hell” in which he said this:
“I believe that endless torment is a hideous and unscriptural doctrine which has been a terrible burden on the mind of the church for many centuries and a terrible blot on her presentation of the gospel. I should indeed be happy if, before I die, I could help in sweeping it away”.
-----------------------
I echo Wenham’s thoughts, and I thank Michael Dever for reminding us of the great scholarship of John Wenham.
Yes Jeremy. You did a good job compiling those passages, however, I just disagree with your conclusions that the texts you believe teach eternal conscious torment do in fact teach that.
The scholarship of John Wenham is superb in refuting the texts claimed to be teaching eternal torment in his book “Facing Hell”. I wish you could read his book and see why those texts might not be interpreted correctly by the traditionalists.
Yes Jeremy. You did a good job compiling those passages, however, I just disagree with your conclusions that the texts you believe teach eternal conscious torment do in fact teach that.
The scholarship of John Wenham is superb in refuting the texts claimed to be teaching eternal torment in his book “Facing Hell”. I wish you could read his book and see why those texts might not be interpreted correctly by the traditionalists.
Stan
Stan, I don’t need a “scholar” to tell me that the Bible does not actually mean what it clearly says. When the Bible says “they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10) that is “eternal torment.” It’s that simple. It’s not something that we’re “claiming.” It’s what the text actually says. It’s not a complicated or confusing doctrine.
For example, if I found a quote by some theologian who said he believed that the wicked would be tormented day and night forever and ever, you would say, “that man is teaching eternal torment!”
But if the Bible says it (Revelation 20:10), then you claim it doesn’t mean what it says.
That is not consistent or logical literary exegesis or hermeneutics.
Stan, I don’t need a “scholar” to tell me that the Bible does not actually mean what it clearly says. When the Bible says “they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10) that is “eternal torment.” It’s that simple. It’s not something that we’re “claiming.” It’s what the text actually says. It’s not a complicated or confusing doctrine.
Yes Jeremy. And the Bible is quite clear in Hebrews 4 that says ‘A Sabbath is left behind’. And Jesus clear words “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath’. Paul also says that he went to preach to both Jews and Gentiles on the Sabbath and actually spoke to Gentiles alone on the Sabbath. The Bible also says this in John 3:16-17
“"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotton Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotton Son of God.
and this
Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
and this
“You always resist the Holy Spirit!” (Acts 7:51).
and this
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chicks under her wings, and ye would not
And yet you clearly weave your way around a 7th day Sabbath and Arminianism and denying that God’s will cannot be resisted in our salvation, instead of taking the Bible clearly at its word. Why? Why I guess you’d refer to other parts of the bible that say something different and more clearly. You’d probably look at the original language and the context as well.
Ta da!
The same goes for an ambiguous, contradicting, symbolic solo text in an apocalyptic book.
An analysis of the language and other passages explain it quite clearly.
I suggest you follow your advice if we are to take it as the text actually says. The fact that so many scholars and theologians from so many different faiths have come to different conclusions, many on the side of annihilation show that the text cannot and should not be taken at what you deem its face value.
Respectfully, please explain to us (to me, to some of us) what is ambiguous about: Revelation 20:10?
Dan…
Well for one thing...If ‘souls’ are in hell right now and at the end of time as is traditionally taught, how exactly can they be ‘tormented’ by physical fire? Two, how exactly does ‘aionios’ mean ‘without end’ when it is used in other places to simply mean ‘age lasting’ and/or to derive it’s meaning based on the subject? Three, how can we interpret this verse literally when ‘forever’ is used in the Bible to mean ‘as long as life lasts’. Four, how can we take this literally when it is clearly contradicted by verses such as Malachi 4:1,3, 2 Peter 3:10 and 2 Peter 2:6. Five, how can we take this literally when the Bible is clear that the wicked do not receive immortality or eternal life in any form and the bible is devoid of any proof to show otherwise?
Perhaps ambiguous was not the right term to use but it is clear that taking this and Revelation 14:11 at their face value is as much proof texting out of context as much as the SDA interpretation of Daniel 8:14.
10 REASONS WHY REVELATION 20:10 DOESN’T PROVE THE THEORY OF AN EVERLASTING BURNING HELL
The text says: “And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, were the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever”.
1st. – Because there is a rule in good Theological studies that doctrines are not established based on parables, symbolic texts or those isolated in the Scriptures, especially the ones of unclear meaning. Revelation is full of allegories drawn from the Old Testament, which need to be understood within the characteristics of such illustrations and according to their own original application. Thus we have references to Balaam [2:14], Jezebel [2:20], the two olive trees of Zechariah 4 [11:4], Elijah and the draught [11:6], Sodom and Egypt [11:8], Babylon [14:8, chaps. 17 e 18], Gog and Magog [20:8], the beast compounded of the same animals of Daniel 7 [13:2], etc.
2nd. – Because the language of “tormented day and night” is taken from Isaiah 34:10, that describes the fire that destroys Edom as one that “it will not be quenched night and day”, representing an intense and complete process of destruction while it lasts, being desolate “from generation to generation” (which is tantamount to “for ever and ever”). However, Edom doesn’t exist for millennia. Also in Jeremiah 17:27 we read about the fire that would consume Jerusalem’s doors and wouldn’t be put down. But that fire has extinguished for millennia.
3rd. – Because the picture of the fire that doesn’t end, being unquenchable, also is part of the Old Testament language employed in Ezekiel 20:47, 48. The reason that the fire that destroys the enemies of God won’t extinguish is because “I, the Lord, have kindled it”. The whole context presents a language of vengeance and has a tenor of “consume” (see 21:31, e 32—“you will be fuel for the fire”, and 22:20—“I will gather you in My anger and my wrath and . . . melt you. . .”).
4th. – Because in the book of Revelation itself John utilizes the same language of 20:10 in other places in a sense of something that lasts “day and night” denoting continuity, not eternal duration of an action. Thus he describes the living creatures praising God without rest “day and night” (Rev. 4:8), the martyrs who serve God “day and night” (Rev. 7:15) and Satan accusing the brethren “day and night” (Rev. 12:10).
5th. – Because Babylon, symbol of the false religion, to which the beast and the false prophet are associated, is thrown into the “lake of fire” jointly with these others to face total destruction, to the point that it “will be thrown down, never to be found again” (Rev. 14:11 and 18:8 e 21).
6th. – Because the armies of Gog and Magog, mentioned in the immediate context (vs. 8), remind the episode prophesied by Ezekiel, of Israel’s enemies that were totally desolated and destroyed (see Ezekiel chaps. 38 and 39). In Isaiah 66:24 the described scenery is one of final death of the transgressors, with cadavers and worms that hyperbolically never die, amidst a fire that never ends, with no mention to a place called hell or to souls or spirits.
7th. – Because the language of pouring the cup of God’s wrath, applied to Babylon, is a well-established symbol of divine judgment in the Old Testament (Isa. 51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15-38; Psa. 60:3; 75:8). God pours the cup “full strength”, i.e., without dilution (Rev. 14:10), to secure its lethal effect. The prophets employed similar language: “they will drink and drink and be as if they had never been” (Oba. 16; cf. Jer. 25:18, 27, 33). The same cup of God’s wrath is served to Babylon, the city that corrupts the people. God “mixes her a double portion”, and the result is “much torture and grief . . . death, mourning and famine”, as well as destruction by fire (Rev. 18: 6, 8). The end of Babylon, destroyed by fire, is also the end of the apostate who drink from the cup without mixture from God.
8th. – Because, according to the Scriptures, only God possesses immortality in Himself (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16). He grants immortality as a gift of the gospel (2 Tim. 1:10:) and those who will be lost are the ones who didn’t receive such a blessing. In Romans 2:7 Paul speaks about those who will receive life eternal since they look for glory, honor and immortality. We don’t look for something we already possess, supposedly as an eternal element that is carried in the innermost of each human being.
9th. – Because the contrast between saved and lost ones is defined as those who have life eternal (John 6:54), and those who will perish, since the wages of sin is death (John 3:16; Rom. 6:23). They will be rather thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, which “is the second death” (Rev. 20:14 and 21:8). Revelation 20:9 says that those who face the gehenna’s fire will be “consumed”.
10th. – Because the final lot of the devil himself will be destruction, described in very graphic language in Ezekiel 28:18 and 19 (as is represented as the king of Tyre, such as in Isaiah 14 the symbol is the king of Babylon), “. . . a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground . . . and will be no more” (compare with Isa. 14:14, 15 and Mal. 4:1-3). Also one of the demons who was going to be expelled by Christ asks him: “did you come to destroy us”? This shows that these evil spiritual beings already know they are doomed to a final total destruction (Mar 1:24).
Respectfully, please explain to us (to me, to some of us) what is ambiguous about: Revelation 20:10?
Dan…
Well for one thing...If ‘souls’ are in hell right now and at the end of time as is traditionally taught, how exactly can they be ‘tormented’ by physical fire? Two, how exactly does ‘aionios’ mean ‘without end’ when it is used in other places to simply mean ‘age lasting’ and/or to derive it’s meaning based on the subject? Three, how can we interpret this verse literally when ‘forever’ is used in the Bible to mean ‘as long as life lasts’. Four, how can we take this literally when it is clearly contradicted by verses such as Malachi 4:1,3, 2 Peter 3:10 and 2 Peter 2:6. Five, how can we take this literally when the Bible is clear that the wicked do not receive immortality or eternal life in any form and the bible is devoid of any proof to show otherwise?
Perhaps ambiguous was not the right term to use but it is clear that taking this and Revelation 14:11 at their face value is as much proof texting out of context as much as the SDA interpretation of Daniel 8:14.
Brother Guibox,
Your Malachi, and 2 Peter quotations all are representations of the physical destruction of evildoers and are completely devoid of any change in the spiritual (soul or spirit) condition. In Malachi 4, the metaphor of “stubble” proffers a representation of the sinful Hebrews as being useless, cut down, without life or usefulness (what useful thing can be gleaned from a field of stubble), meaning complete and utter emptiness, and God will leave them in a completely hopeless state, without sustenance (root) or familial connection to God (nor branch): “it will leave them neither root nor branch.” To “set ablaze” is another analogy of a physically destructive process (as in “strike them down") that in no way can have an effect on the spirit or a spiritual entity. 2 Peter 3 is addressing the dissolution and destruction of things (heavenly bodies) again without reference to the spiritual or the soul. 2 Peter 2 tells again of the physical destruction of Sodomites and their cities “to ashes” and “to extinction”. But there is nothing here to imply that the souls of the condemned are now non-existent. Of course there is the Biblical fact that when these people died they were sealed in their sin, and lost any possible chance of redemption. Now that is something that effects the spirit/soul to be sure…
If you see a strong case for annihilation in these verses then I would respectfully ask you to look again, carefully!. And also be very careful to not limit God’s power and capability to punish a soul by applying any of the scientific limitations found in the physical process of rapid oxidation. This well known chemical process of material conversion certainly does “consume” its source material. But I don’t for a minute believe that this is the process being spoken about in the book of Revelation or elsewhere in the Bible as the “fires of Hell.”
10 QUESTIONS FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL
1st. – Why does Jesus say to His followers that He would go to “prepare a place for you”, but the emphasis on the occupation of said abodes is not when they died and their souls went to heaven to occupy them, but the moment of their reunion with Him when He returns (John 14:1-3)?
Note: The popular opinion is that at death the deceased’s souls head to heaven, when they will meet Christ and all the others who went there before. However, it seems strange that Jesus says nothing regarding these abodes being available before the time of His return, implying that only then He will take His ones with Him to occupy the places He prepared for them.
2nd. – Why, when comforting the sisters of Lazarus, besides having used the sleep metaphor before—“Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep . . .”—He did not tell them that the deceased was in the heavenly glory, but pointed to them the resurrection hope (John 11:17-27)?
Note: Among the religious people it is so common to comfort the bereaved ones telling them how the deceased is well, happily enjoying the bliss of a better world far from the suffering and pain of this life. However, that is not the picture in the dialogue during Lazarus’ death, both on the part of Christ and that of his bereaved sisters. The theme of their conversation is not the supposed heavenly destination of the faithful follower of Christ, but the FUTURE resurrection of the dead ones.
3rd. – When Christ resurrected Lazarus, after His friend had been dead for four days, did He bring him from heaven, hell or purgatory? If it was from heaven, then He did a bad thing to him for He brought him back to this Earth’s suffering. If it was from hell (improbable, for he was a follower of the Master), He granted him a second salvation opportunity, which is unbiblical.
Note: The logic of this question is very clear: Lazarus rose from the tomb and brought no information about the afterlife. If he had something to tell, undoubtedly John evangelist would have the greatest interest and would be pleased to reproduce his words and testimony in his gospel.
4th. – Why both Christ and Paul stress that the dead ones will rise as they hear the voice of the archangel and the divine trumpet, being “awakened” from death’s sleep (Matt. 24:30; 1 Thes. 4:16), when their souls supposedly come from heaven, hell, purgatory, well awakened, in order to reincorporate?
Note: The sleep metaphor is constant both in the Old and New Testament, representing death. In the face of the clear texts that deal with the unconsciousness of the dead ones (who “don’t praise the Lord”—Psa. 115:17) it can be noticed why such metaphor is used, as in Psa. 13:3—“sleep in death”; in Dan. 12:2, many “who sleep in the dust of the earth”; John 11:11, “Lazarus has fallen asleep”; 1 Thes. 4:13, “those who fall asleep”; 1 Cor. 15:18, “those who have fallen asleep in Christ. . .”: it’s because during death a condition of UNCONSCIOUSNESS prevails for those who died. Some more clear texts about that are: Psa. 146:4; Eccl. 9:5, 6, 10; Isa. 38:18,19; 1 Kings 2:10; 1 Kings 11:43; Job 14:10-12; Jer. 51:39.
5th. – Why does Paul, as he discusses specifically and in detail in 1 Thes. 4:13-18 and 1 Cor. 15 how the final encounter of all saved ones with the Savior will be, nowhere describes souls coming from heaven, or from wherever, to reincorporate?
Note: As at the beginning of human’s history there is no “immortal soul” introduced in the original man, nothing is also said on souls coming from heaven, hell or purgatory to reincorporate when those who are gone appear during the resurrection.
6th. – Paul also says to the Thessalonians that they should not regret for their dear ones who are “asleep”, concluding with the recommendation: “Therefore, encourage one another with these words” (vs. 18). He never says that they already enjoyed the heavenly bliss, but that were “asleep” and would be awakened. Why does the encouragement stem from the promised resurrection, not from the souls of their dear ones being already in heaven?
Note: This question is also of indisputable clarity. The consolation would proceed from the resurrection hope, not from the fact that those who “slept” would be already enjoying the heavenly glories.
7th. – Paul says clearly that without the resurrection of the dead—confirmed and guaranteed by that of Christ Himself—“those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost” (1 Cor. 15:16-18). Why would they be lost, since they should rather be guaranteed with their souls in heaven?
Note: The dominant theme of the chapter is the resurrection of the dead—“For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either” (1 Cor. 15:16)—thus the logic of the question is inescapable. In 1 Thes. 4:14 it is said that Christ will bring with Him “those who have fallen asleep”, but the entire tenor of the passage and the global Bible teaching is that He will bring them, not from heaven, but from their graves (see John 5:28, 29; Dan. 12:2).
8th. – Later on in the same chapter, Paul confirms what he had said in vs. 16 a 18, stressing that he risked to die fighting beasts in Ephesus, implying that if he died he would also having be lost (vs. 32). In his commentary, “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” isn’t he clearly indicating that without the resurrection there is no hope of eternal life?
Note: On the light of the previous question, this reveals an irrefutable evidence that Paul didn’t think of an “immortal soul” going to heaven when he died, for he didn’t harbor such a hope. His expectation is expressed in 2 Tim. 4:6-8 where he speaks that “on that day” he expected to receive his eternal reward. For Paul, were not for the resurrection, it wouldn’t even be worthwhile to live, since death would be the end of everything. It’s interesting to see what vs. 30 and 31 say: “As for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I die every day. . .” The idea of death/resurrection without anything in-between is very clear.
9th.. – Why does Job speak of his hope of seeing his Redeemer “in my flesh”, when He finally “will stand upon the Earth”, not that he would see Him when his soul went to heaven (Job 19:25)?
Note: In chapter 14 patriarch Job applies a mortal blow on the belief in the immortality of the soul, comparing death with water from the sea that disappears and a riverbed that dries up. Now he stressed that he expected to see his Redeemer only when He stood upon the Earth (the 2nd advent of Christ), and when he had his body back, covered with his skin, not when his soul went to heaven.
10th. – Why do the words “soul” and “spirit” appear so many times in the Bible, in different meanings and contexts, but are never accompanied by the adjectives “immortal”, “eternal”, “perpetual”, besides the fact that instead of declaring that the soul will never die, what we read is about death of the soul, both in the Old and New Testaments (Eze. 18:4 and Jas. 5:20)?
Note: An embarrassing fact to the dualist Christians is that no pagan people, either of the present or the past, is known as having renounced to their belief in souls and spirits (even attributing these to such things as volcanoes, rivers, forests, and animals) to believe that “the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28, 29). The belief in the final resurrection of all dead ones is a characteristic of genuine Christianity, which doesn’t accept notions of clear pagan origin. It is the result of the first lie uttered on this planet: “You will not die” (Gen. 3:4).
You have already been shown to not have God. What difference does it make to you whether hell lasts forever or not, or the state of the dead. The punishment God has for a wicked people will be infinitely fightening, I am sure of that. As if the wicked, like you, have some input into your punishment process! Ha.
Here is wickedness: SDA’s claim Gods own blood contaminated heaven. That is a doozey of a heresy!
You have already been shown to not have God. What difference does it make to you whether hell lasts forever or not, or the state of the dead. The punishment God has for a wicked people will be infinitely fightening, I am sure of that. As if the wicked, like you, have some input into your punishment process! Ha.
Here is wickedness: SDA’s claim Gods own blood contaminated heaven. That is a doozey of a heresy!
Personal attacks seem like a demonstration of stregth, but they are rather a demonstration of WEAKNESS. It has been always considered “the tool of the incompetent”.
When some people see they have no arguments based on the Bible they resort to bashing, either a church or its members. That doesn’t make truth not to be truth, and ERROR not to continue being error.
I challenge you to answer one by one of my questions. If you don’t, it shows that it is because you DON’T HAVE THE TRUTH regarding that subject. It’s as simple as that. . .
Attempts to CHANGE THE FOCUS of the discussion to obfuscate the matter is another clear evidence of that. Another tool of the incompetent .
