Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A good observation.Behold I make 10% of things new doesn't have the same ring.
In the OT, "soul" (Heb: nephesh), used in Ezekiel 18:20, often refers to persons, as in Genesis 2:7, Genesis 12:5, Genesis 12:13, Exodus 30:12; Leviticus 17:11, Leviticus 26:15; 1 Samuel 1:26; Psalms 120:2, etc., and which is its meaning in Ezekiel 18:20, which refers back to Ezekiel 18:10-13.As a conditionalist (I believe in the conditional immortality of the soul; that one will only be raised to be immortal and again die if he/she believes in Jesus Christ, and I reject the inherent immortality of the soul, as the Bible simply gives no concrete words indicating as such, and yet we have
Ezekiel 18:20 right there in plain English telling us that the soul is subject to death -
I'm retired x3, 22 years one profession, 25 years another and total 65 for SS. This is the closest thing I have to a job and I have been active here for more than 2 decades. When I first started I soon noticed the same arguments, the same out-of-context proof texts etc. are endlessly repeated so I started saving my replies and buying resources such as BDAG, Wallace's GGB. Eastern Orthodox Bible etc. and of course concealing all of my purchases from my wifeThis is one of the more bizarre pieces of text I've read recently. We have a second death of which no one dies?
I admit I've only reviewed the chapters where this stuff appears, but it looks to me like it's the second death for humans, and eternal torment for the devil, the beast and the false prophet.
"Hades" can either be the grave or the place of eternal punishment. Graves at that time would be empty holes. Empty cannot be thrown anywhere.... one thing I'm wondering though, which I think is rather odd, is that if we take that bit about the Lake of Fire literally, don't we have to also see both Hades and Death as literal living, sentient beings who will also suffer for Eternity?
If this is the case (and it might be that I'm not interepreting things rightly due to the various books I've read that have influenced my thinking), it strikes me as strange since there's no mention in the rest of the Bible about Hades and Death being sentient beings who can suffer along with The Dragon, The Beast and The False Prophet.
What's your view on this bit of Scripture in Revelation, Clare?
Not in figurative prophecy.... one thing I'm wondering though, which I think is rather odd, is that if we take that bit about the Lake of Fire literally, don't we have to also see both Hades and Death as literal living, sentient beings who will also suffer for Eternity?
But there is in the same book, Revelation 6:8, where they are horsemen.If this is the case (and it might be that I'm not interepreting things rightly due to the various books I've read that have influenced my thinking), it strikes me as strange since there's no mention in the rest of the Bible about Hades and Death being sentient beings who can suffer along with The Dragon, The Beast and The False Prophet.
My view on prophecy is:What's your view on this bit of Scripture in Revelation, Clare?
Do they believe his death atoned for the sin of all who believe in and trust on his person and sacrificial death (blood--Romans 3:25) for the remission of their sin (and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty,' accounted righteous)?If believing all of the biblical scripture is considered a cult you are free to believe as you wish.
Many did not believe Jesus was the Messiah either.
Your God is too small.We have a God of love and eternal torment is not a God of love.
I see arguments for it, not quite compelling. After debating many universalists, I have found myself more 'understanding' toward annihilationism, though.
But as much as it lies in me to do so, I try to see things from God's POV.
Considering that he has withdrawn from them, they do, to me, seem to not even resemble the persons we thought of them to be, while alive. To my mind it is altogether reasonable to say they are devoid of virtue, with no redeeming qualities to them at all anymore. There is nothing to pity there anymore, just enmity to God.
There is also to be considered, I think, from God's POV, the idea of timelessness, rather than forever-long time. Their crimes were infinite, being against the infinite God, so the in-kind payment is not related to time, so much as quality. While I cannot deny that the characteristic of 'never-ending-ness' may be one of their torments, I don't know that it is actual in the way we imagine while here. Anyhow, whatever it is, Christ took ours for us (the Redeemed), and though he conquered it, I have to believe it was infinite upon him.
With both the mathematical feel of justice and repayment of debt, and the depth of visceral hatred against sin in the revenge God has promised, the texture of the whole matter feels almost clinical, to me, as though those there are mere vacuous spirits, not even persons, anymore. Yet, when I consider the notion that when God spoke us into existence,
Do you mean the same state by "completed form" and "phantom thing"?it is quite likely that from his POV he spoke the finished product —the Bride of Christ— into completed form, though it took this many thousands of temporal years to accomplish it in us; if so, then it would also be reasonable to think that from his point of view, those receiving his justice and revenge were created to be that very phantom thing, and that, to the praise of God's glory. (God is not the "safe"*, tame, kindly being we like to think of! "But he is good."*)
*From a quote from CS Lewis in the Chronicles of Narnia: when asked whether the great and fearsome lion Aslan was safe, Mr Beaver answers, something like, "Safe??!! NO he's not safe, but he is good."
I guess I’m getting cranky in my old age. This no longer sounds Christian to me. Nothing against you personally. You seem to love God. This just doesn’t seem to match the Gospel. It sounds like the older brother in the prodigal son. Forgiveness isn’t enough; somebody’s got to suffer.Your God is too small.
And we have a God of justice. . .where the penalty for sin must be paid. . .which is why that same God, in his Son became flesh and paid the penalty himself for our sin to satisfy his own justice, so that we could be his sons through faith in his Son.
Hi Claire,Do they believe his death atoned for the sin of all who believe in and trust on his person and sacrificial death (blood--Romans 3:25) for ther remission of their sin (and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty,' accounted righteous)?
Of not, they are still in their sin.
Your God is too small.
And we have a God of justice. . .where the penalty for sin must be paid. . .which is why that same God, in his Son became flesh and paid the penalty himself for our sin to satisfy his own justice, so that we could be his sons through faith in his Son.
I agree.This just doesn’t seem to match the Gospel. It sounds like the older brother in the prodigal son. Forgiveness isn’t enough; somebody’s got to suffer.
I'm not sure what you say is not matching the gospel in the above.I guess I’m getting cranky in my old age. This no longer sounds Christian to me. Nothing against you personally. You seem to love God. This just doesn’t seem to match the Gospel. It sounds like the older brother in the prodigal son. Forgiveness isn’t enough; somebody’s got to suffer.
Some wires are crossed somewhere.Hi Claire,
Did I say Jesus was only about love?
That's not necessary. . .but I do defend the Scriptures against non-orthodoxy... and there's plenty of that around.I think you like to argue to argue so feel free to continue this discussion without me.
You can’t take love out of Jesus.Some wires are crossed somewhere.
Is objection to eternal torment about the love of Jesus?
. . .and there's plenty of that around.
No. That’s one of several understandings of the atonement, and a relatively late one. Here’s Wikipedia’s summary of several views. Salvation in Christianity - Wikipedia The idea that Christ had to save us from God seems to start in the 11th Cent. My personal preference is Paul’s understanding, e.g. Rom 6. He says that in dying and rising with Christ we get beyond the domination of sin, into a new existence. Calvin has a further development of this. He says that the atonement is based not just on Christ’s death, but his whole life of obedience to God. Faith unites us to Christ in what he calls a fellowship of righteousness, by which we share in his victory over sin and death. But Rom 6 and Calvin have been called participation models of the atonement.I'm not sure what you say is not matching the gospel in the above.
Are you referring to the justice of God?
Didn't Jesus suffer and die as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for my sin?
What was that all about?
Isn't that the gospel?
I wouldn’t throw the Revelation out, but I wouldn’t make doctrine from it.After the final lake of fire judgment Jesus says a curious thing.
Behold, I make all things new.
This implies either all things in the lake of fire were either 1) redeemed at that point or 2) Annihilated.
So in a sense Annihilationism and Ultimate Reconciliation come from a similar place, though the God they imply to be judging in either case is completely different.
In the same way, eternal torment implies a different God also.
Perhaps it was better that Revelation was never added to the canon, better to just stick with the gospels in that regard.
My biggest objection is that Jesus taught thst God is eager to forgive us, requiring at most repentance. (Sometimes Jesus told someone they were forgiven, and they responded with repentance, so even repentance is not always a precondition.) There’s no sign that someone had to be punished for forgiveness. Apparently audiences sometimes objected that his ideas of forgiveness violated Gods justice, as you are saying. You can see his response both in the prodigal son and the laborers in the vineyard.I'm not sure what you say is not matching the gospel in the above.
Are you referring to the justice of God?
Didn't Jesus suffer and die as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for my sin?
What was that all about?
Isn't that the gospel?
That's probably a good reason to remove it from the bible then. As long as it's in there, people will create doctrines from it and continue to divide the church.I wouldn’t throw the Revelation out, but I wouldn’t make doctrine from it.
Oh wow, it's like encouraging everyone to become obedient so that they can become gods too? that's a dangerous premise.He says that the atonement is based not just on Christ’s death, but his whole life of obedience to God.
Do you mean the same state by "completed form" and "phantom thing"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?