Well said!
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Do you believe in hell?
- Thread starter Kathi
- Start date
Well said!
We are on the same page, bro.
I wanted to demonstrate by the preponderance of evidence that the belief is contrary to what the words mean and the grammar state
Free,
Luke 16:19-31 (ESV) is not tenuous at all. Its main point is what happens to an unbeliever (the rich man) and a believer (Lazarus) at death. It is crystal clear that,
(1) There is conscious existence after death for both the unbeliever and believer;
(2) The unbeliever is in anguish in Hades (vv 22-24);
(3) The believer was in Abraham's bosom, being comforted (v 22, 25);
(4) There is a a great chasm that is 'fixed' between the believer and unbeliever in the after life (v 26).
You say that I didn't address what you said about 'sleep' only being used of believers in NT examples. Absence of direct statement that unbelievers don't 'sleep' at death, does not prove anything about what happens at death for unbelievers. It is simply an example of how God chose to communicate what happens in death in Scripture.
But the fact remains that in this thread I have provided ample examples to demonstrate that soul sleep is not biblical teaching and that nobody, believer or unbeliever, has a soul that sleeps in death. Believers go to Abraham's bosom (or a special place in Hades) and unbelievers go to Hades at death. The body goes into the grave to rot into dust, but the soul/spirit goes into the presence of the Lord. That's the biblical teaching as I understand the exegesis.
You stated: 'And I'm quite certain I could find theologians who agree with me'. But you provided NOT ONE example. I gave you the exegesis of an eminent NT exegete, Leon Morris, and not that of a theologian.
However, I will provide an example of a theologian who opposes soul sleep. He is Wayne Grudem (an evangelical, Reformed, Baptist). In his Systematic Theology (1994, Zondervan, pp 816-824), he stated:
The Bible does not teach the doctrine "soul sleep."
The fact that souls of believers go immediately into God's presence also means that the doctrine of soul sleep is incorrect. This doctrine teaches that when believers die they go into a state of unconscious existence, and the next thing that they are conscious of will be when Christ returns and raises them to eternal life. This doctrine has never found wide acceptance in the church.
Support for this view has generally been found in the fact that Scripture several times speaks of the state of death as "sleep" or "falling asleep" (Matt.9:24,27:52; John 11:11; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Col.5:6,18-20; 1 Thess.4:13;5:10). Moreover, certain passages seem to teach that the dead do not have a conscious existence (see Ps.6:5;15:17-18; Eccl.9:10; Isa.38:19). But when Scripture represents death as "sleep," it is simply a metaphorical expression used to indicate that death is only temporary for Christians, just as sleep is temporary. This is clearly seen, for example, when Jesus tells his disciples about the death of Lazarus. He says, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but now I will go and wake him up." (John 11:11). Then John explains, "They thought Jesus meant Lazarus was simply sleeping, but Jesus meant Lazarus had died. So he told them plainly, 'Lazarus is dead.'" (John 11:13-14). The other passages that speak about people sleeping when they die are likewise to be interpreted as simply a metaphorical expression to teach that death is temporary.
As for the passages that indicate that the dead do not praise God, or that there is a ceasing of conscious activity when people die, these are all to be understood from the perspective of life in this world. From our perspective, it appears that once people die, they do not engage in these activities any longer. But Psalm 115 presents the full biblical perspective on this viewpoint. It Says, "The dead cannot sing praises to the Lord, for they have gone into the silence of the grave." But then it continues in the very next verse with a contrast indicating that those who believe in God can bless the Lord forever: "But we can praise the Lord both now and forever! 'Praise the LORD!'" (Ps.115:17-18).
Finally, the passages quoted above demonstrating that the souls of believers go immediately into God's presence and enjoy fellowship with him there (Phil.1:23; Heb.12:23) all indicate that there is conscious existence and fellowship with God immediately after death for the believer. Jesus did not say, "Today you will no longer have consciousness of anything that is going on," but, "Today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43). Certainly the conception of paradise understood at that time was not one of unconscious existence but one of great blessing and joy in God's presence. Paul did not say, "My desire is to depart and be unconscious for a long period of time," but rather, "My desire is to depart and be with Christ" (Phil.1:23) - and he certainly know that Christ was not an unconscious, sleeping Savior, but one who was living and reigning in heaven. To be with Christ was to enjoy the blessing of fellowship in his presence, and that is why to depart and be with him was "far better." I’m torn between two desires: I long to go and be with Christ, which would be far better for me.(Phil.1:23) Thus, he says, "We would rather be away from these earthly bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord." (2 Cor.5:8) (Grudem 1994:819-820).
Thank you for your encouragement on this teaching. Soul sleep, sadly, although promoted by some cults (JWs, Christadelphians - some would not put the SDAs in the category of a cult), is making some inroads into the evangelical church.
I can't help but think, in my part of the world, that it is because much of contemporary evangelicalism is giving little emphasis to sound theology and careful exposition of Scripture in the church services and Bible studies.
It is not only in Oz that it happens, it is all over. There are some in some places who seem to believe that "doctrine divides" when in fact it creates unity.
While some of those people have "itching ears" and only wish to hear about their favorite theological hobby horse, it is very difficult for people like me who have the personality to be a teacher, have been privileged to study beyond college and wish to impart truth wherever we go to say, "This is truth, and that is error."
Here is a brief about the style of personality that I have: from HERE This uses the Myers-Briggs Temperament Indicator
Portrait of an ENTJ -
Extraverted iNtuitive Thinking Judging (Extraverted Thinking with Introverted Intuition)
The Executive
As an ENTJ, your primary mode of living is focused externally, where you deal with things rationally and logically. Your secondary mode is internal, where you take things in primarily via your intuition.
ENTJs are natural born leaders. They live in a world of possibilities where they see all sorts challenges to be surmounted, and they want to be the ones responsible for surmounting them. They have a drive for leadership, which is well-served by their quickness to grasp complexities, their ability to absorb a large amount of impersonal information, and their quick and decisive judgments. They are "take charge" people.
There is not much room for error in the world of the ENTJ. They dislike to see mistakes repeated, and have no patience with inefficiency. They may become quite harsh when their patience is tried in these respects, because they are not naturally tuned in to people's feelings, and more than likely don't believe that they should tailor their judgments in consideration for people's feelings. ENTJs, like many types, have difficulty seeing things from outside their own perspective. Unlike other types, ENTJs naturally have little patience with people who do not see things the same way as the ENTJ. The ENTJ needs to consciously work on recognizing the value of other people's opinions, as well as the value of being sensitive towards people's feelings. In the absence of this awareness, the ENTJ will be a forceful, intimidating and overbearing individual. This may be a real problem for the ENTJ, who may be deprived of important information and collaboration from others. In their personal world, it can make some ENTJs overbearing as spouses or parents.
.
ENTJs are very career-focused, and fit into the corporate world quite naturally. They are constantly scanning their environment for potential problems which they can turn into solutions. They generally see things from a long-range perspective, and are usually successful at identifying plans to turn problems around - especially problems of a corporate nature. ENTJs are usually successful in the business world, because they are so driven to leadership. They're tireless in their efforts on the job, and driven to visualize where an organization is headed. For these reasons, they are natural corporate leaders.There is not much room for error in the world of the ENTJ. They dislike to see mistakes repeated, and have no patience with inefficiency. They may become quite harsh when their patience is tried in these respects, because they are not naturally tuned in to people's feelings, and more than likely don't believe that they should tailor their judgments in consideration for people's feelings. ENTJs, like many types, have difficulty seeing things from outside their own perspective. Unlike other types, ENTJs naturally have little patience with people who do not see things the same way as the ENTJ. The ENTJ needs to consciously work on recognizing the value of other people's opinions, as well as the value of being sensitive towards people's feelings. In the absence of this awareness, the ENTJ will be a forceful, intimidating and overbearing individual. This may be a real problem for the ENTJ, who may be deprived of important information and collaboration from others. In their personal world, it can make some ENTJs overbearing as spouses or parents.
Yeah this gets me in trouble sometimes!
So in places where I see people not understanding facts, and they insist on a feelings-oriented approach, I tend to almost go ballistic. They will say things like "Just because you cannot prove it exists, that does not mean that it can't exist." or else say something like, "Who are you to tell me that my opinion is wrong, and your opinion is right?"
If you are an ENTJ, you scratch your head at such things, and point out errors in logic, hoping that the other one will understand what you mean, or else you dig up the Koine Greek, the Critical Apparatus Lowe & Niada and well-known exegetes, and then reply with, "No, this is not my opinion, these are the FACTS." or in exasperation, you ask a series of questions that will lead to the truth of what you are saying.
Then the person leaves the conversation, and takes up another topic on another thread.
Thanks for letting me ventilate!
Thanks so much for giving me an insight into your personality and how it works out on CF and elsewhere.
Sounds like you've met a few theological brick walls in your day as well.
It doesn't only happen in the church. I've just finished listening to our federal treasurer being interviewed on one of our national TV current affairs' programs. Not one of the questions did he answer as directed by the content of the question. All of them were answered to include his own spin - and most times the answers had nothing to do with the questions asked. One of the questions was something like: There is a national distrust of politicians; what do you think is causing Australians to think this way about politicians? He avoided it and spun off into another subject.
But that can also happen in Christian conversations.
TimothyW
Member
Do you know what the "Guilt by Association" Fallacy is?
Basically, the idea is that just because someone believes something that a disliked group also believes, it is assumed that what the first person believes is incorrect.
I see this fallacy all the time in these discussions. I wish people would discuss the truth or falsehood of an idea without poisoning the well like this.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/12-ad-hominem-guilt-by-association
I most certainly know the 'Guilt by Association' fallacy and I have not been using it. I have provided evidence from Scripture that opposes the doctrine of soul sleep. However, the facts are that some cults are known to promote it. I have not made soul sleep guilty because of its association with cults. I have demonstrated that it is a non-biblical teaching and THEN said that some of the cults promote it.
This is the 'guilt by association fallacy' as I understand it:
Description of Guilt By Association (The Nizkor Project)http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.
Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).
Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
- It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
- Therefore P is false
The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.
Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).
TimothyW
Member
Thanks, I see the difference.
Muslims believe in eternal conscious torment in hell, although the Bible never ever says that the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will experience eternal conscious torment forever and ever while they are dead. I don't believe in ECT because I find no support in the Bible for it, and the fact that evil muslim terrorists believe in ECT has nothing to do with why I don't believe the false doctrine of ECT which Muslims teach...
Muslims believe in eternal conscious torment in hell, although the Bible never ever says that the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will experience eternal conscious torment forever and ever while they are dead. I don't believe in ECT because I find no support in the Bible for it, and the fact that evil muslim terrorists believe in ECT has nothing to do with why I don't believe the false doctrine of ECT which Muslims teach...
It's too bad that some of our earliest English translations used 'hell' instead of Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus.
Is the last name of your National Treasurer "Obama"?
From what you wrote, I believe you may share some of the same traits
This is the logical error of presentism. It is a form of anachronism because it taking the things of the present and imposing them on the past. You see, the KJV is an excellent translation, and believe it or not, it is more Reformed in its outlook than many other translations are today.
In the 400+ years since the 1611 edition it is the English language which has changed even though our present "1611 edition" Is more properly a product of the 18th century (1758??). I assume that you have read Shakespeare; most of us in the English-speaking world have done so. If we were to read the 1611 edition of the KJV, it would be much like what Shakespeare wrote. In other words, difficult to read. That is ALSO because the latter version of the KJV has a readability level of 12th grade (high school senior class) and many of the present translations of the Bible such as the NIV are written on a 7th grade level.
Here is a funny incident about my theological brick wall. Our professor was out, and a senior student filled in for the day. I did not care for the replacement for two reasons, I had more education than he, and he was a "Calvi-Nazi". In the middle of his lecture, he made the most astonishing error of presentism I ever heard. He said "Paul was a Calvinist".
Immediately I raised my hand, and when recognized I repeated what he said and asked him to verify it; he affirmed it. Then I said, "Gee, I always thought that Paul was an Apostle." The collective silence of the class was as thick as pea soup.
Is the last name of your National Treasurer "Obama"?
From what you wrote, I believe you may share some of the same traits
This is the logical error of presentism. It is a form of anachronism because it taking the things of the present and imposing them on the past. You see, the KJV is an excellent translation, and believe it or not, it is more Reformed in its outlook than many other translations are today.
In the 400+ years since the 1611 edition it is the English language which has changed even though our present "1611 edition" Is more properly a product of the 18th century (1758??). I assume that you have read Shakespeare; most of us in the English-speaking world have done so. If we were to read the 1611 edition of the KJV, it would be much like what Shakespeare wrote. In other words, difficult to read. That is ALSO because the latter version of the KJV has a readability level of 12th grade (high school senior class) and many of the present translations of the Bible such as the NIV are written on a 7th grade level.
Here is a funny incident about my theological brick wall. Our professor was out, and a senior student filled in for the day. I did not care for the replacement for two reasons, I had more education than he, and he was a "Calvi-Nazi". In the middle of his lecture, he made the most astonishing error of presentism I ever heard. He said "Paul was a Calvinist".
Immediately I raised my hand, and when recognized I repeated what he said and asked him to verify it; he affirmed it. Then I said, "Gee, I always thought that Paul was an Apostle." The collective silence of the class was as thick as pea soup.
Our federal treasurer is Joe Hockey, but he might as well be in Obama's pocket - although Hockey is the equivalent of your Republican party in his affiliation. I was so agitated by his response on last night's TV programme that I developed it into an article today for my homepage: Politicians, people and the pits
Yes, we may share some of the same traits. I'm a former introvert (in my days in high school) who entered the mass media as a radio DJ and then a TV news reader who quickly had to become an extrovert. As a result, I have some activist traits and that extends into the action in the local church.
I agree that the KJV was an excellent translation in its day. I'm preaching on James 1:19-21 (NIV) this Sunday night and I love the exquisite, anachronistic KJV translation of a Greek phrase in Jas 1:21 (KJV), 'superfluity of naughtiness'. Many people fail to realise that the KJV that is freely available today is not the 1611 edition that came complete with the Apocrypha. My hard copy edition of the KJV is a 1769 revision.
However, the major difficulty I find with the KJV is its use of the Textus Receptus for the Greek of the NT. See my assessment at:The Greek Text, the KJV, and English translations.
I'm an Aussie and old enough to have been educated in Shakespeare in high school. As you like it, Henry IV, Henry VIII, etc were common fare in English at high school. Hated them then and still do - even though now I appreciate the grand mastery of English drama that Shakespeare had. I'd much sooner read N T Wright, D A Carson, George Eldon Ladd and Norm Geisler today.
Re Reformed: Maybe you are aware of this citation from Charles Spurgeon:
"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder
through England again." (A defense of Calvinism)
"... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else" (Christ crucified Sermon no. 7).
You were a brave one about Calvin in the classroom.
through England again." (A defense of Calvinism)
"... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else" (Christ crucified Sermon no. 7).
You were a brave one about Calvin in the classroom.
Last edited:
But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. 1 John 2:27
Who taught Abraham to keep God's laws and commandments and precepts?
JLB
If I follow your advice, I'll need to cut these verses out of my Bible:
1 Tim 4:11 (ESV): 'Command and teach these things'.
1 Tim 6:2 (ESV), 'Teach and urge these things'.
Titus 2:1 (ESV), 'But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine'.
James 3;1 ESV), 'Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness'.
You forgot to list the ministry of teachers as well.
Without the Spirit of God, we can not understand what the scriptures teach.
Without the Spirit of God teaching us, then all we are doing is eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
We need all of the five fold ministry to mature and grow, however if these are not anointed and led by the spirit then what will they be teaching us?
But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. 1 John 2:27
Please answer this simple question -
Who taught Abraham to keep God's laws and commandments and precepts?
JLB
All believers receive the anointing (anointment) from God. Only some receive the gift of teaching.
As for who taught Abraham to keep God's laws and commandments and precepts, you are trying to creep in with this question when you have asked me the same question in the 'Soul Sleep - True/False' thread. My answer to you here is the same as there. When you answer post #95 in the soul sleep thread, then we'll have grounds for discussion.
It's 10.43pm for me on Thursday night and bed is calling. Night, night!
All believers receive the anointing (anointment) from God. Only some receive the gift of teaching.
As for who taught Abraham to keep God's laws and commandments and precepts, you are trying to creep in with this question when you have asked me the same question in the 'Soul Sleep - True/False' thread. My answer to you here is the same as there. When you answer post #95 in the soul sleep thread, then we'll have grounds for discussion.
It's 10.43pm for me on Thursday night and bed is calling. Night, night!
33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jeremiah 31:33-34
We can all know the Lord, and be taught by Him, as His Spirit will lead us and guide us into all Truth.
The way of the New Covenant is for all of His Children to know Him and be taught of Him.
39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. John 5:39-40
16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. Matthew 16:16-17
27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. 1 John 2:27
We should apply ourselves to study, but the balance is that we should spend time with Him, and rely on Him to teach us from His word.
If we ask Him, He will teach us.
He will not force us to learn from Him, we must humble ourselves and ask as a little child.
He loves us.
He wants to teach us.
He wants us to learn from Him.
I can do nothing without Him.
JLB
IMO, OzSpen was making a simile rather than an an error of logic. The GBA false logic ususlly ends with "therefore you are..." So if OzSpen stated "Because these groups believe that, therefore you must be a member of one of those groups." it would then be a logical fallacy.
The difference is subtle, but significant.
TimothyW
Member
Yes, did you see my reply to him where I admitted that subtle difference?
Mormons, Muslims, The Spanish Inquisition, and Adolf Hitler all believed in eternal conscious torment. Why do I bring this up? I don't know. It certainly is not to influence anyone that believing in eternal conscious torment is something that only evil people and cultists believe in. I believe that people bring up what cults and fringe groups believe, not to say "Therefore you are one of them if you believe that", but rather to subtly suggest that they should not believe that. If they come right out and say "You are a JW if you believe that dead people really are dead", it is easy to see the logical fallacy. But if they say "JWs believe that", then the fallacy is hidden and it is a more effective strategy. Either way, it is a logical fallacy. What difference does it make what SDAs believe? Why mention it, if not to suggest that because SDAs believe it, it must be false?
So I really don't buy the claim that OzSpen made that since he didn't use the SDAs as proof that soul sleep is false, but it was only a unrelated fact about the SDA Church, that is was not an example of the Bad Company Fallacy.
Mormons, Muslims, the Spanish Inquisition, and Nazis all believe in eternal conscious torment, but that fact should not stop anyone from believing in eternal conscious torment in hell just like they did. Terrorism and Cult Activity are not good things.
(See what I did there?)
***ref(subset paragraph 33c, page 1233, volume 13, 34th edition) :
IF the greeks and other pagans (all the greeks were pagans at one time, and all were pagans at the time referred to here) believed in eternal torment,
and IF the Hebrews / Israeli Nation / Abraham and His descendents/ did not believe in eternal torment,
THEN it would or at least seems like it would be a good idea to find out the truth from Yhvh with much prayer and even with great thanksgiving to Him that HE at least knows !
***ref is used solely and simply as an example, and any similarity to real or imaginary documents or people is entirely either 1) Yhvh's Design OR 2) accidental.
IF the greeks and other pagans (all the greeks were pagans at one time, and all were pagans at the time referred to here) believed in eternal torment,
and IF the Hebrews / Israeli Nation / Abraham and His descendents/ did not believe in eternal torment,
THEN it would or at least seems like it would be a good idea to find out the truth from Yhvh with much prayer and even with great thanksgiving to Him that HE at least knows !
***ref is used solely and simply as an example, and any similarity to real or imaginary documents or people is entirely either 1) Yhvh's Design OR 2) accidental.