Do you believe in hell?

[DRS81]

by grace has a point. both are related.

Believing if there's a hell and soul sleep are two different topics.

 

[jasonc]

Believing if there's a hell and soul sleep are two different topics.

ok do you anyone whom believes in gehanna and soul sleep? I used to believe as you do. but as I said about the student of koine greek.

she said this

you can know what hades means by a greek dictionary or by reading the classics

she is well aware of the fact the Christians redefined words, but even agape isn't that far from the greek view of it, to wit unconditional love, its just used mostly by the church then and today.if hades doesn't refer to this in the greek lxx and the nt please show me why?
hades: the god of the underworld. the abode of the dead, and the grave.

 

[Eugene]

some believe that and I can find a study I listened to a few days a go on this from
http://skipheitzig.com/

WOW! $25.00 for books? I'd hate to see his price for healing, cleansing a leper would be outrageous, and casting out devils would clean the both of us out; I mean of money. Ever heard the expression "The devil's in the details"?

Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

Besides I couldn't find the article pertaining to temporary bodies after death.

At least you didn't direct me to Chabad. I once emailed them a question, and for years received requests for support; they must surely be poor souls,

 

[jasonc]

yes I have issues with the calvary church over that. most pastors of that do sell books. at least with lwf.org they don't seem to do that.

 

[By Grace]

Dude, seriously? Do you know what it means to derail a thread. Go to the soul sleep thread if you want to talk about soul sleep.

Excuse me????
Do you remember posting this in post 121 above?

By Grace http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/soul-sleep-true-false.55660/

http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/soul-sleep-true-false.55660/

That was YOUR derail, and NOT mine.You answered that post to me, and it began with this:" I believe soul sleep is truth, because we are not walking around as breath in the third heaven. Let's discuss."

What you are doing here is bearing false witness against me, and I am fairly certain that someone will have something to say about that sooner or later.

 

[DRS81]

Excuse me????

You obviously are not getting it. We're done

 

[OzSpen]

Believing if there's a hell and soul sleep are two different topics.

Actually it is one topic in theological discussion. It is called the Intermediate State. 'Hell' and 'soul sleep' are only 2 aspects of the Intermediate State theology. Other aspects could include sheol, hades, tartarus, gehenna, paradise, heaven, Abraham's bosom/side, etc.

In my 1994 edition of Wayne Grudem's, Systematic Theology (Zondervan), he has 8 pages (pp. 816-824) dealing with the Intermediate State from a scriptural perspective. Topics covered include:

1. The souls of believers go immediately into God's presence:

(a) The Bible does not teach the doctrine of purgatory;
(b) The Bible does not teach the doctrine of 'soul sleep';
(c) Did Old Testament believers enter immediately into God's presence?
(d) Should we pray for the dead?​

2. The souls of unbelievers go immediately to eternal punishment:

• There is conscious punishment for unbelievers after they die and this goes on forever; their bodies will not be raised until the day of final judgment;
  
• We cannot accept as faithful to Scripture the doctrine of annihilationism (unbelievers will cease to exist on death or after a period of suffering).

So what happens at death for believer and unbeliever is covered under the one teaching known as the Intermediate State.

Oz

 

[DRS81]

So what happens at death for believer and unbeliever is covered under the one teaching known as the Intermediate State.

But in this intermediate state how do we exist without arms, legs, a brain, eyes and ears.

These things are connected to our body, and our body is resurrected at the first resurrection.

 

[OzSpen]

But in this intermediate state how do we exist without arms, legs, a brain, eyes and ears.

These things are connected to our body, and our body is resurrected at the first resurrection.

Your response is a begging the question logical fallacy - circular reasoning. We can't have a rational conversation when you do this.

In addition, you have committed a
red herring logical fallacy because you did not address the content of what I wrote.

 

[DRS81]

Your response is a begging the question logical fallacy - circular reasoning. We can't have a rational conversation when you do this.

In addition, you have committed a red herring logical fallacy because you did not address the content of what I wrote.

I'm not sure how I did that, I committed a fallacy by asking a question? or do you not know the answer.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not sure how I did that, I committed a fallacy by asking a question? or do you not know the answer.

Your reply demonstrates that you did not read the links I gave to 'begging the question' and 'red herring' logical fallacies.

I suggest that you become familiar with the major logical fallacies that can be committed in conversation. See The Nizkor Project for a very practical list and explanation for each fallacy.

Please know the difference between a fallacy (a falsehood) and a logical fallacy (an illogical way of reasoning). To my knowledge, you can't commit a fallacy by asking a question. A fallacy is made when a false statement is made.

Why don't you now get back to the specific issues I raised with you and keep to the subjects I raised, instead of wandering off into what you want to discuss?

Oz

 

[DRS81]

Why don't you now get back to the specific issues I raised with you and keep to the subjects I raised, instead of wandering off into what you want to discuss?

Who says Wayne Grudem isn't just another false teacher.

You're answering a question with a question, which means you don't know the answer to my question.

 

[Obadiah]

There have been some issues that keep coming up as a result of people quoting scripture and not including the version or translation they are quoting from in the reference. I've had to mention this in threads several times now. Please read ToS 2.7 below:

"2.7: All Bible verses and passages must be referenced (NASB, NIV, etc.) unless it is public domain like the KJV, YLT, etc."

Violation of this, as with any ToS, CAN result in infraction points issued to you, which CAN result in limiting you use of CF.NET. Please don't let this happen over such and easy thing to avoid!

Even if you are quoting the KJV or other non-copyrighted version, there is nothing wrong with still putting this in your reference as a courtesy to your readers who want to look up the passage for themselves. (And it keeps you in the habit of doing this so you will not inadvertently be in violation of the ToS.)

 

[turnorburn]

Thanks for that reminder Obadiah I've been seeing verses quoted I've not seen before and they say they do it to make the bible easier to understand?

tob

 

[OzSpen]

Who says Wayne Grudem isn't just another false teacher.

You're answering a question with a question, which means you don't know the answer to my question.

There you go with another red herring logical fallacy. You can't stick with the subject I'm discussing with you, which is a demonstration of the red herring fallacy. We can't have a logical (reasonable) discussion when you do this.

 

[By Grace]

Who says Wayne Grudem isn't just another false teacher.
You're answering a question with a question, which means you don't know the answer to my question.

Why are you putting down someone who you most likely have never met in an effort to seemingly avoid answering a simple question of another?

Wayne A. Grudem is an evangelical theologian, seminary professor and author. He co-founded the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and served as the general editor of the ESV Study Bible. Grudem holds a B.A. in Economics from Harvard University, an M.Div and D.D. from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D in New Testament studies from the University of Cambridge. In 2001, Grudem became Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary. Prior to that, he had taught for 20 years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he was chairman of the department of Biblical and Systematic Theology.
en.wikipedia.org · Text under CC-BY-SA license
Born: 1948 · Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin
Education: Harvard University · University of Cambridge · Westminster Theological Seminary​

.
Professor Grudem is not a false teacher.

 

[By Grace]

There you go with another red herring logical fallacy. You can't stick with the subject I'm discussing with you, which is a demonstration of the red herring fallacy. We can't have a logical (reasonable) discussion when you do this.

From my monitor, it seems as there may be two completely different definitions of "reasonable" in use here.

DEFINITION 1:

DRS81 puts forth his reasons for believing in a doctrine, such as the impermanence/non existence of hell. These reasons come from two sources:
.

a) His/her( I do believe that the poster is a woman) thoughts about the nature of things in the universe, and perhaps a "soft view" of the justice of God
b) Any sort of Scripture, no matter how unrelated (we say "out of context) it may be to the matter at hand.​

.
Therefore, she is stating her reasons, but she is not revealing the presuppositions behind those reasons. One of those presuppositions may be that the love of God is such that it will not harm any human, created in the image of God. In other words, it is an emotional approach.

DEFINITION 2:

Dare I say "ours"? I see reason differently than that the first definition because I see it in a systematic series of thoughts whereby one thought is a natural derivative of the preceding one. Such is the case when one is trained in rhetoric philosophy or systematic theology. It is an academic approach. I posit that those who believe this, (definition 2) are most likely favoring a Reformed view of theology. For someone who has an "emotional" presuppositional view of God, this line upon line, layer upon layer approach is as cuddly as a brick wall.

For someone who "loves the brick wall" this solid structure is a source of comfort because it is immutable (never changing), and its solid form is representative of the God who makes and creates covenants with His people, sayhing many times in the OT, "I will be their God, and they shall be my people". The presuppositions behind this "brick wall" theology are both the immutability and predictability of God.

a) Immutability means "never changing" , so when we read about choosing who will become His people iit is a comfort to know that God will never change His miknd about our effectual calling and sealing our election before the foundation of the Earth (Ephesians 1:4)
b) Similar to immutability is "predictability", but its foundation is the sovereignty of God. Those believing that know that God will NEVER act in any way that is contrary to His intrinsic nature. That is why instead of the TULIP, the Arminian flower is the daisy: ("He loves, He loves me not...) So there is no such thing as a capricious God. When we read "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" we can go to Hebrews 12:16 and see that the reason behind that is that Esau was a profane man.
​

Is either of the above approaches better than the other? I say no. BUT I do affirm that it is necessary to make an effort to understand from where the other person comes, and more important, it should be expected that one person should not attempt to "back the other into a corner" because that engenders a hostile and personal attack from the other. Instead, we need to build bridges of understanding, knowing in advance that we may never meet in the middle, but we will neither burn a bridge to another who makes a claim that Jesus is their Savior.

However, in dealing with Mormons and other cultists, it is important to (Edited, ToS 2.7. All Bible verses and passages must be referenced (NASB, NIV, etc.) unless it is public domain like the KJV, YLT, etc. Obadiah.) because in doing so, we may snatch a log from the all-0consuming fire. In that case we are doing evangelism, and not discussing Christianity. But that is an altogether different issue than is here at present.

​

.
​

 

[DRS81]

There you go with another red herring logical fallacy. You can't stick with the subject I'm discussing with you, which is a demonstration of the red herring fallacy. We can't have a logical (reasonable) discussion when you do this.

By my questions are a part of soul sleep topic. How do we have a relationship with Jesus in the third heaven without a brain, arms, legs, eyes and ears?

 

[DRS81]

DRS81 puts forth his reasons for believing in a doctrine, such as the impermanence/non existence of hell.

I believe in hell. I never said I didn't. Soul sleep and believing in a hell are different topics.

 

[OzSpen]

By Grace,

What you stated at #141 is correct about Wayne Grudem. He is an evangelical, Reformed, Baptist theologian who has a high view of the authority of Scripture.

At #137, DRS stated: 'Who says Wayne Grudem isn't just another false teacher'. This is a genetic logical fallacy where the origin of a person's belief (false teacher) is blamed for his (Grudem's) current teaching. Logical discussion is impossible when a poster makes this kind of post.

​