Hello P1LGR1M
And I'm happy to meet you too.
Hello again, Hillsage.
It is said by most in this thread (that have participated in it in any significant manner) that scripture does not teach that eternal punishment is eternal punishment. So the burden is on them, and you, not to just say it, but to show the basis for your statement.
Yes, it always seems to be on us to prove our position right.
No worries, this burden is on all who present as well as deny teachings.
It is a level playing field.
Agreed.
But as I already quoted earlier....from a Baptist to boot
4 of the 6 theological schools taught Universalism.
And just as in classifying someone by the name of their faith and denomination, the mistake I see in relying upon historiccal figures and stats is that the assumption that they are correct is made.
There are a number of great men of God that I will gladly quote in part, but I do not embrace the whole of their teaching, so I tend not to quote those men because the minute I do, some wiseguy is going to quote him saying something that contradicts the teaching from scripture I am trying to present.
So if we stay within the boundaries of what (most of us here believe) God has said as recorded in His word, then we do not complicate and obfuscate the doctrine we are examining.
But when the Catholic church disagreed they not only killed 'the heretics' but I assume, tried to destroy all of their teachings. That only makes sense doesn't it?
I have talked with many atheists that use the Catholic Church as a flag to wave for why they reject God. The question I pose to them is..."how do you know that their doctrine and practice is that which is taught in scripture?" Also, "If their practice is contrary to that taught in scripture, such as murder, then why would you confuse historical events and practices to represent the Once Delivered Faith?"
They are forced then to show how the actions come from scripture, that those that committed the atrocities they gleefully renounce were in fact...Christians.
As far as trying to kill the teachings of others, this is something that will take place in all groups, saved and unsaved alike. We have a mandate to adhere to sound doctrine and reject that which is unsound, so somewhere along the line there is going to be legitimate representatives and illegitimate, who will be known by their fruit which has as it's source the very doctrine they hold.
A scriptural basis, preferably.
That is easier to do, but only if one reads a critical text that consistently deals with the definition of just a few words.
My friend, I cam into this thread at about page 50. If you would like to go back and view those "few words" I would be grateful, lol.
However, I am also willing to once again present the very same doctrine (that everlasting punishment is everlasting and that the destruction of the damned is not a cessation of existence)...all over again.
Both context and definition can be clearly seen in both explicit and implicit teaching in scripture. Destruction does not mean cessation of existence.
So far we have not even broached the subject, as we also need to examine the teaching of the Old Testament, which is where, because context is misunderstood and death is innapropriately equated to spiritual death, and a knowledge which was not revealed to the Old Testament saints is eisegetically inserted, people conclude that everlasting punishment is not only fictitious, but it has a mean-spirited basis in the hearts of those that teach it.
Which might be true in some, but not all.
One of those words is "eternal" and the other is "hell".
And at this point you will seek to say "eternal" does not mean everlasting? There is a difference in the concept of "eternal" which we would ascribe only to God, however, it does represent an everlasting state which is what is in view. It has been accepted for years and only when sematics enter the fray do we get our focus on the issue, which is the duration of the punishment received by those judged.
As far as Hell goes, this is hardly an issue, most distinguish between Hell, Hades, and Tartarus...if that is your meaning.
I am truly sorry if I lead anyone to believe that Catholics can't be saved. I was born and baptized a RCC, but was never saved until a few years after leaving 'the church.
And we hear testimony of those "saved out of the dull, dead, Baptist Church."
And those saved out of Charismatic Churches.
And those saved out of cults.
Each one believing the faith they were saved from is populated with those that are in error in their doctrine.
We see this also among atheists, who say they were "saved from religion," lol. In some cases this is true. For there are "religions" one needs to be "saved from."
But, when we examine the basis for their particular belief system (and atheism is a belief system that has adherents every bit as religious as any of those that profess a belief in God) we are able by examining their interpretation and understanding of scripture (as well as believers) to be that which corresponds to the natural man (having no understanding of spiritual things) and can easily be seen to have not kept...anything, in context.
And I fellowship today with Catholics who I truly believe are not only just 'saved'... but spirit baptized and 'tongue talking' too.
I will not get into the gift of languages in this thread, there is one (What Baptists believe about speaking in tongues (or something along those lines)) where that discussionis taking place.
It would be better to focus on that here, though it has been derailed due to a lack of interest in proper response and an intention of highlighting other doctrines which while they may have a bearing, do not deal directly with Annihilation.
Continued...
But I am willing to deal with 'bites' while chewing on the elephant...but only if you can too. If not, then
on their "American spirit". And I still haven't figured out how they got 4 wheel drive out of "two tires". I too had a good Ford pickup I loved...now I love my Toy.....ota, that is. 
