Summing up “the soul of man”

[Jim Parker]

Has it not been made obvious that there have been many kinds of lost souls, atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, humanists, prostitutes and whoremongers, and many others who were born to die unsaved, and yet showed kindness and care to others in need, sometimes risking or giving their lives for their sake, even for the sake others who they do not know, and yet have lived and died ignoring the Gospel message, preferring the thought of the endless cessation of their lives rather than live without their worldly pleasures and their deluded sense of freedom?

So are you proposing that your hypothetical situations negate the teaching of scripture?
Please clarify.

 

[Free]

Free, do you or do you not believe man was born with an immortal soul?

I lean towards the belief that man is born with an immortal soul but I am not certain.

Let me try and explain again what I see: Man was made mortal with the ability to acquire immortality through knowing God and His goodness. In the beginning Adam was made mortal with the ability to acquire immortality by eating from the tree of life whereby he would then live forever.

You are presuming that Adam and Eve were created mortal. You cannot argue to a point after the Fall, after they were cursed, to make the argument that they were created moral, a point prior to the Fall. But it is also possible that they did eat from the Tree of Life continually and would have needed to do so after the Fall in order to live forever.

But you have also sidestepped what Luke 12:4-5 tells us. How about addressing that passage and the points I made about it.

I also see God telling us that when a man dies in this life his body and consciousness will at some time be made alive again, either for glory or for the judgement and condemnation, but only when the wisdom and justice of God so wills; and whilst it has been made clear to me there is a punishment of endless torment awaiting the vilest of unrepentant evil souls who know God and the good revealed to us through Jesus Christ, it has also been made clear to me there is a punishment of eventual annihilation for those least offensive souls who were born to die never rightly knowing God or knowing and understanding of the good which they ignored and offended - (often because of the corruption and hypocrisy found in many churches). Whatever physical or mental suffering those least offensive might receive before their final termination will to some degree depend upon whatever suffering or terror they maliciously willed or inflicted on others without good reason and without remorse.

That's all opinion. Do you have any Scripture to back that up?

“He will render to each one according to his works”, justice will then be done and will be seen to be done; whilst all who were given knowledge and understanding of the truth and despise and hate the good so clearly revealed through Jesus Christ, and seek only to keep fulfilling their depraved desires to seduce and corrupt, torture and destroy whoever or whatever they know is good shall forever be seen to have been justly given the greater condemnation, and justice will be seen by all to be done.

If there is one thing we agree on, it is that regardless of what punishment unbelievers get, even if it is eternal torment in hell for the least of them, we will all know that justice was done.

“the soul who sins shall die.” Ezekiel 18:43, ESV, KJV, NKJV, and depending on God's decisions and judgements, immortality will be given or denied.

God will give immortality to whoever He decides shall have immortality. He will give a punishment of endless torment to whoever He decides will deserve to suffer a punishment of endless torment. He will also give a punishment of endless death to whoever He decides will deserve to ultimately suffer a punishment of endless death...and He will give endless glory to whoever He decides will be made ready to receive endless glory.

Again, that is mostly opinion. You need to provide Scriptural support.

...and nowhere in Scripture does God tell us every condemned soul will be kept alive and conscious in the lake of fire forever.

Neither does Scripture tell us otherwise.

 

[Free]

If evil came into existence once when a free and perfect angel through pride – a high or inordinate opinion of one’s own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, decided he no longer cared to live for truth and love, then with no remedial action such a rebellion could, over the course of eternity, just as easily happen again, and again ad infinitum. With no remedial action there would be a very real eternal threat to creation. Deterrents do work and the ultimate deterrent for evil therefore will serve as the ultimate safeguard for good:

After the great tribulation when the contagious and deadly spirit of evil has been allowed by God to run a course of lies, corruption, terror and misery and to reach it’s climax on earth, and after the final judgement when every condemned soul has been seen to be justly cast into the lake of fire, then all creation will forever know where the subtle way of pride can lead. No free and perfect mind of reason then, like the fallen angels once had, will ever again admire the wild and exciting spirit of rebellion and dare to venture into Satan’s reckless state of valuing the self above God and truth.

Never again will evil threaten to destroy creation.

So God is going to use scare tactics to try and ensure we don't sin? Why wouldn't God just remove the desire to sin?

But to cause or allow any suffering beyond what is necessary for the eternal safety of creation would be as offensive to the God of love and reason as it would be alien to reason and love.

This "eternal safety of creation" argument really doesn't make sense. There will be no threat to the eternal safety of creation regardless of whether or not all unbelievers are alive in hell for eternity. I've noticed that you seem to have a lot of opinion but not a whole lot to back it up.

Let me address it now. I didn't see a single good reason why Mooreland should write what he did. Basically all I saw were feeble excuses for believing God will keep the least offensive and least knowledgeable condemned souls alive in torment in the lake of fire forever.

That doesn't actually address the argument he makes. Not liking someone's argument is not addressing it.

 

[Jim Parker]

In the beginning Adam was made mortal with the ability to acquire immortality by eating from the tree of life whereby he would then live forever.

I haven't thought about this too much but that seems to me to make sense.
But what does it mean to "eat of the fruit of the tree of life"?
The first word that pops into my head is "Eucharist."

iakov the fool

 

[freewill]

You are active in the wrong forum if you must ask why he needs to know. Please see these rules for posting where you are.

Making claims and disputing those of others MUST include scripture to support the position. This is the Theology Forum; not the Lounge, and it's not Reddit. I suggest you either find scripture to support this or drop it.

Hello again Mike, I don't really see how I can continue having a good discussion here and be able to ask the questions I need to ask without occasionally breaking the rules.
So with that may I just say thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss what I have discussed. I have enjoyed it very much and have found it very helpful.

God bless us all.

 

[Jim Parker]

I don't really see how I can continue having a good discussion here and be able to ask the questions I need to ask without occasionally breaking the rules.

Yeah, that is an issue.....

 

[Mike]

Hello again Mike, I don't really see how I can continue having a good discussion here and be able to ask the questions I need to ask without occasionally breaking the rules.

The problem was not in you asking questions. You made a claim, and when you were asked for scripture to support your claim, you said this:

I'm not sure I can find any verses in Scripture where the least offensive vs the most offensive are clearly defined.

Why do you need to know? Has it not been made obvious that there have been

You were directly asked to support your stated position with scripture, in keeping with the primary rules on the TF. I understand that there will be times you need to seek more information. Scripture isn't necessary to do this, unless it's a rhetorical question, driving home a certain position. In this exchange, you made a statement that does not appear to be supported in scripture. When asked for that which you should have presented when you made the claim, your response was, "I don't know if I can find scripture to support my claim. Why do you need it?".

No further responses to this matter here. I suggest you start a TWITS discussion if you feel the need to. Thank you.