The image of God and the soul of man

[smaller]

No, the subject is still the same, it is still all about the soul of man and God's justice, and you have just accused me of supporting an anti-Christian web-page.

https://0testsite00.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/immortality-vs-mortality/

How do you know it is anti-Christian if you haven't read it and freely discussed it like I asked you to?

Your paper has several reasoning flaws.

The first mistake is that you "may" think Adam eternally died. He did not.

Paul delineates this matter quite succinctly, about Adam, in 1 Cor. 15:42-46, showing a first Adam, a natural man, planted in dishonor, corruption, weakness and in a natural body. And Paul also shows us a last Adam. He does not say the last Adam is Jesus, but Adam. We also know that Adam was Gods son. Luke 3:38. And Paul defines Gods Own Intentions, that there be a 'first natural man' and then, afterwards, a spiritual man, shown to us as the last Adam.

Paul defines this as Gods Way, first the natural, then the spiritual.

Your reasoning also fails at several other points of order regarding Adam and your understanding/dissections of the matters.

For example, we know that the law is for the "lawless." 1 Tim. 1:9, which LAW Adam also received in the command "do not eat" which came with a penalty of death (to the flesh). The law is always a command with a penalty for violation. But the essence of all LAW that has "penalty" attached to same is that it is for the lawless, which is prima facie evidence that Adam was already lawless, thereby the LAW was laid upon him.

We Adam NOT lawless already, there would have been no need of law/command and penalty.

Secondly, the law, that law given to Adam appears on the surface to contain a choice, an "eat freely" portion, but that freedom to eat was not "free" in the sense of free across the board. It was a limited freedom called "freely BUT."

There are many other observations of fact that can be drawn into the Garden, with both Adam and Eve that are missing in your account. I'd say you merely gave the Garden account a surface brush over with a surface analysis that is missing quite a number of factual scriptural components. And this has resulted in what you think is kinder than the average believer position, that of eternal annihilation. But I would submit also that your understanding would not be any sort of a 'critical component' understanding for salvation whatsoever.

In addition there is more than enough scriptural evidence that the devil and his messengers will enjoy eternal torture, NOT eternal annihilation.

Rev. 20:
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

There is no torment for the non-existing, as you surmise. If they were non-existing, there would be no torment. In addition we can also see that the devil was cast in where the beast and false prophet ARE. Meaning they were there, not eternally expunged.

 

[th1b.taylor]

No, the subject is still the same, it is still all about the soul of man and God's justice, and you have just accused me of supporting an anti-Christian web-page.

https://0testsite00.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/immortality-vs-mortality/

How do you know it is anti-Christian if you haven't read it and freely discussed it like I asked you to?

You will receive no decent response until you do likewise.

 

[Butch5]

freewill,
You went sideways when you were driving up this moutain. The soul, the actual being that live within the body of flesh is immortal. This body will die but this spirit, the real person, shall never cease to be, otherwise, what would be the purpose of the Lake of Fire, why would any of us be sent there with Satan and his bunch?

The gift of God is eternal life. It is given to believers, not unbelievers.

 

[Butch5]

In my very first post here I wrote...



On that web-page I gave a long list of all the main moral and scriptural reasons why I now believe as I do. If you would care to start at the beginning and carefully read through all those reasons in the same order as I have written them down, then you might begin to see there isn't a single good reason to believe God tells us the souls of men were made immortal and that He will forever torture even the least offensive of lost souls who were born to die offending the good they never knew.

After you have read it all, if there is anything I have written there that you do not agree with or do not understand then please copy and paste here the very first offending sentence or paragraph that you found there and carefully explain your reasons why you could not agree with it. I will then do my best to answer you and explain more. If we are both prepared to continue in this process through to the end then the truth concerning God's love, mercy and justice will I am sure be revealed a little more.

If we ignore and reject reason we remain slaves to bigotry.

You are correct. The soul is not immortal. Paul shows plainly that the Father alone has immortality. The soul is the whole person which includes the body. We can see this from Gen 2:7

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.1 (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

We can see from this passage that God created the man from the dust of the earth. God then breathed His breath of life into the man and the man became a living soul. From this we can see that a soul consists of a man (body) and the breath of life of God. What confuses many is that the word soul is used figuratively and metaphorically in the Scriptures.

 

[Jim Parker]

The soul, the actual being that live within the body of flesh is immortal. This body will die but this spirit, the real person, shall never cease to be,

You are proposing Greek philosophy (neo-Platonism) which held the belief that the soul was the "real" person which was imprisoned in a material body. The neo-platonists (among others) taught the dualism that the spiritual was good and the material was evil.
God created man with soul, spirit, and body and said it was all good. The three parts make up a human being.
When we are raised from the grave, we will have a physical body as did Jesus after His resurrection.
Luk 24:39 (RSV) <<Jesus speaking>>: See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."

and

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau for Jesus)




DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I am very sorry the ¿three? of you have been lied to and that in your personal studies you have not noticed these eight verses I lifted from the Bible Gateway:
Eternal Punishment
Most Relevant Verses
Revelation 20:10
2 Thessalonians 1:9
Matthew 25:41
Hebrews 6:2
Matthew 25:46
Mark 9:44-48

[where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.] "If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, "If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, John 5:29
Daniel 12:2
Verse Concepts
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.

 

[Butch5]

I am very sorry the ¿three? of you have been lied to and that in your personal studies you have not noticed these eight verses I lifted from the Bible Gateway:
Eternal Punishment
Most Relevant Verses
Revelation 20:10
2 Thessalonians 1:9
Matthew 25:41
Hebrews 6:2
Matthew 25:46
Mark 9:44-48

[where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.] "If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, "If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, John 5:29
Daniel 12:2
Verse Concepts
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.

A study of Olam and Aion is the first step in realizing these passages don't teach ETC. Jesus said the wicked would go into aionios fire as their aionios punishment. So, what is aionios fire? Jude explains what it is.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.1 (Jude 1:7 KJV)

Jude says that those of Sodom and Gomorrha suffered aionios (eternal) fire. Are Sodom and Gomorrha still burning? Can someone go to the Middle East and see this? They can't. So, aionios fire obviously doesn't burn for eternity.

 

[WIP]

ToS 2.4
Address issues not personalities. Respect where people are in their spiritual walk, and respect all others in general.

 

[smaller]

A study of Olam and Aion is the first step in realizing these passages don't teach ETC. Jesus said the wicked would go into aionios fire as their aionios punishment. So, what is aionios fire? Jude explains what it is.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.1 (Jude 1:7 KJV)

Jude says that those of Sodom and Gomorrha suffered aionios (eternal) fire. Are Sodom and Gomorrha still burning? Can someone go to the Middle East and see this? They can't. So, aionios fire obviously doesn't burn for eternity.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.1 (Jude 1:7 KJV)

Read the fine print. S & G was "an example." An example doesn't mean it is the reality of what it is "exampling."

The pre flood and flood itself during the time of Noah was also "an example." Matt. 24:37.

What are these "examples of" is the question. And the answer to that is the removal of the wicked. Which remains to be performed.

Proverbs 2:22
But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the transgressors shall be rooted out of it.

Matthew 13:41
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

Jesus tells us, specifically, WHO this pertains to prior to His conclusion in vs. 41:

Matthew 13:
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

The above is the example of Sodom and Gomorrah, shown, openly.

Jesus repeats the lesson in Matt. 25.

Matt. 25:
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Punishment, torment, does not exist if they are simply vanished into non-existence. Being "eternally dead" implies to a lot of minds that such exist no more. That is not the case. Existing no more would be that. There would be no need for "fire" "torment" or "punishment." They would be non-existing.

Devils know where they are headed:

Matthew 8:29
And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Eternal torment and eternal punishment is not possible if they are simply dead, gone and exist no more or non-existing. We are not provided a sight of non-existing. The LoF has occupants. Not non-existing occupants. IF they were non-existing there would be no reason for the LoF. Simple permanent expunging would suffice.

 

[Jim Parker]

We can see from this passage that God created the man from the dust of the earth. God then breathed His breath of life into the man and the man became a living soul. From this we can see that a soul consists of a man (body) and the breath of life of God.

If you are suggesting that the soul is the body (as taught by 7th Day Adventists and their spin-off organization, the Jehovah's Witnesses) then you are mistaken. Jesus clearly defines the soul and the body as two different things.
Mat 10:28 (RSV) And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

What confuses many is that the word soul is used figuratively and metaphorically in the Scriptures.

The ancient Hebraic word (נְשָׁמָה nĕshamah) is translated into modern English as both "breath" and "spirit." Just as a word in modern English can have several meanings, so did the words of the ancient Hebrews. (According to my OT professor, the story of the dispersion, [Gen 11:1-9] in which the languages of mankind were confused, is full of puns and double meanings.)

We need to be very careful when basing a doctrine on the " exact meaning" of an ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek word.

jus sayin


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)




DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Butch5]

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.1 (Jude 1:7 KJV)

Read the fine print. S & G was "an example." An example doesn't mean it is the reality of what it is "exampling."

The pre flood and flood itself during the time of Noah was also "an example." Matt. 24:37.

What are these "examples of" is the question. And the answer to that is the removal of the wicked. Which remains to be performed.

Proverbs 2:22
But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the transgressors shall be rooted out of it.

Matthew 13:41
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

Jesus tells us, specifically, WHO this pertains to prior to His conclusion in vs. 41:

Matthew 13:
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

The above is the example of Sodom and Gomorrah, shown, openly.

Jesus repeats the lesson in Matt. 25.

Matt. 25:
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Punishment, torment, does not exist if they are simply vanished into non-existence. Being "eternally dead" implies to a lot of minds that such exist no more. That is not the case. Existing no more would be that. There would be no need for "fire" "torment" or "punishment." They would be non-existing.

Devils know where they are headed:

Matthew 8:29
And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Eternal torment and eternal punishment is not possible if they are simply dead, gone and exist no more or non-existing. We are not provided a sight of non-existing. The LoF has occupants. Not non-existing occupants. IF they were non-existing there would be no reason for the LoF. Simple permanent expunging would suffice.

You might want to read the passage again. Jude said there are an example, suffering the vengeance of aionios fire. He said they suffered aionios fire. Sodom and Gomorrah are not still burning, thus, aionios fire is not an eternal burning.

You quoted several passages and underlined the word everlasting. I would suggest as I did in another post a study of the words Olam and aion. They do not mean eternal. Translating them as eternal shows translator bias.

 

[Butch5]

If you are suggesting that the soul is the body (as taught by 7th Day Adventists and their spin-off organization, the Jehovah's Witnesses) then you are mistaken. Jesus clearly defines the soul and the body as two different things.
Mat 10:28 (RSV) And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Jim, why not stop with the fallacy of poising the well? What 7th Day Adventists teach is irrelevant.

What I gave was straight out of Gen 2. Moses recorded how God created man. The passage says that God created the man from teh dust of the earth. It goes on to say that God breathed into the man the breath or spirit of life. When God did that something happened. The man became a living soul. Thus a living soul is the body of man and the breath of life from God.

The ancient Hebraic word (נְשָׁמָה nĕshamah) is translated into modern English as both "breath" and "spirit." Just as a word in modern English can have several meanings, so did the words of the ancient Hebrews. (According to my OT professor, the story of the dispersion, [Gen 11:1-9] in which the languages of mankind were confused, is full of puns and double meanings.)

We need to be very careful when basing a doctrine on the " exact meaning" of an ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek word.

As I said, what confuses many is that the word is used figuratively and metaphorically.

 

[Jim Parker]

You might want to read the passage again. Jude said there are an example, suffering the vengeance of aionios fire. He said they suffered aionios fire. Sodom and Gomorrah are not still burning, thus, aionios fire is not an eternal burning.

Jde 1:7 (RSV) just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Did the cities act immorally or was it the people who lived in the cities who acted immorally?
It was the people of course.

And where are those people right now?
They are in hell "undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." (Luke 16: Lazarus and the Rich Man)

It makes absolutely no sense to imagine that God would "punish" inanimate brick and mortar.
He punishes people who were created in His image (Gen 1:26) to do good works (Eph 2:10) but who loved darkness and did evil rather than good (Jhn 3:19)
So the fact that the brick and mortar CITIES are no longer in existence says absolutely nothing about PEOPLE existing in hell forever. What happened to cities is NOT what happened to the people who lived in those cities.
Your "Sodom and Gomorrah are gone" argument, because it confuses the cities with the inhabitants of the cities, is illogical and fails.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)




DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Jim Parker]

What I gave was straight out of Gen 2.

No it's not.
It's right out of the teachings of Ellen G. White (SDA) and Charles T. Russell.(JW)
It is an absolutely horrible distortion of Gen.2

The passage says that God created the man from teh dust of the earth. It goes on to say that God breathed into the man the breath or spirit of life. When God did that something happened. The man became a living soul. Thus a living soul is the body of man and the breath of life from God.

That is exactly the garbage the false teachers (SDA White and JW Russell) taught.
It's still garbage.

As I said, what confuses many is that the word is used figuratively and metaphorically.

And your "interpretation" is very confused.
Jesus clearly described the body and soul as two separate things without using metaphor or figurative speech.
Mat 10:28 (NKJV)
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

If someone can kill the body but cannot kill the soul then the body and soul must be different things.
If someone can kill BOTH the body AND the soul then the body and the soul must be two different things.

This is basic English and elementary logic both of which have to be completely ignored in order to accept the teaching of SDA Ellen G. White, JW Charles T. Russell and YOU.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)




DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Butch5]

No it's not.
It's right out of the teachings of Ellen G. White (SDA) and Charles T. Russell.(JW)
It is an absolutely horrible distortion of Gen.2

That is exactly the garbage the false teachers (SDA White and JW Russell) taught.
It's still garbage.

And your "interpretation" is very confused.
Jesus clearly described the body and soul as two separate things without using metaphor or figurative speech.
Mat 10:28 (NKJV)
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

If someone can kill the body but cannot kill the soul then the body and soul must be different things.
If someone can kill BOTH the body AND the soul then the body and the soul must be two different things.

This is basic English and elementary logic both of which have to be completely ignored in order to accept the teaching of SDA Ellen G. White, JW Charles T. Russell and YOU.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)




DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

Again with the logical fallacies. What part of Gen 2:7 did you not understand?

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (Gen. 2:1 KJV)

You're right that it's basic English and elementary logic. Now maybe you should find a way to understand Jesus' statement in light of how man was created. If you studied how the word soul is used in the Scriptures you'd find that it is used both concretely and abstractly. Concretely a soul is a living being. However, soul is also translated life. So, men can kill the body but the life of man is in God's hands. All men will be resurrected. So, if one kills the body they have not destroyed the life. However, God can destroy both the body and the life in Gehenna.

 

[Jim Parker]

Again with the logical fallacies. What part of Gen 2:7 did you not understand?

It is not I who misunderstands.
Again:

Jesus clearly described the body and soul as two separate things
without using metaphor or figurative speech.​

Mat 10:28 (NKJV)
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

If someone can kill the body but cannot kill the soul then the body and soul must be different things.
If someone can kill BOTH the body AND the soul then the body and the soul must be two different things.

If you studied how the word soul is used in the Scriptures...blah...blah...blah

If you studied basic English grammar you'd find out how absurd your assertions are.
As it is, you have demonstrated that you are not equipped to determine meaning of a passage written in English when it "spells out" the facts to you.

 

[childeye]

You have imagined well.



Exactly, and to hope for and to keep proclaiming, like many sad people still do, the slanderous idea that the God of love, mercy and reason will forever torture the least offensive of lost souls who were born to die offending the good they never knew, is as vile and offensive to God as it is to love, mercy and reason.

Our freedom then (for those of us who know the truth) is our freedom to choose reason and love or to choose death. ...or torment if that is preferred, the greater the evil the greater the condemnation.

The greater our understanding the greater our accountability.

Respectfully, I'm, not sure the term "accountability" is really what you mean to convey. I am inclined to believe that the term "culpability" might be more to your meaning.

It occurs to me that you recognize that the term "free" happens to be purely subjective, and relative in varying degrees according to what it is relative to. For example, we can be free from righteousness while servants to unrighteousness. And Paul said that we now only see as through a dark glass, implying that we are limited in discerning every detail concerning what can be known. It also appears that since wisdom is a vital component of choosing wisely, and wisdom is God's providence, then it is incumbent upon us to be thankful to God for any wisdom that would deliver us from ignorant and foolish choices, rather than take credit for our wisdom. And what of Love? Is Love subject to our discretion? Therefore the free will you are describing, is a New Testament perspective consistent with "The Truth shall set you free". However most people do not define free will in this manner since through the eyes of vanity it appears only as an excuse to sin. They usually do not even consider an occasion where men's wills are ever not free, or to that end, that there exists a disability of blindness that corrupts one's reasoning and therefore predictably affects one's choices.

In regards to our freedom therefore, it can be argued that a man is in chains to the truth that he sees, in that he will ultimately avoid what would be deemed as detrimental to his soul according to that truth that he believes in, including whether to accuse or excuse one's actions or intentions. It's a semantically driven argument. One cannot actually decide what will be true, yet must believe in something regardless of whether it is true or not. If you wish we can complicate the matter even further. Note that the decision or conviction to believe the Truth comes with the conviction that all men are sinners because we are also flesh. And flesh is weak and a contrary will all by it's self utterly contrary to Godly righteousness in a world that is subject to vanity. We do not simply decide to like winning and despise losing. It is a carnal impetus. I don't believe that a person can simply decide to enjoy cruelty one moment and then decide to be kind, and do so back and forth at their discretion.

In regards to what you refer to as a "slanderous idea" that God would destine to torture those who never knew good, this has it's problems in semantics also. Due to vanity, we see nothing slanderous about destining a man to righteousness and glory. I'm not even sure that God even tortures anyone in a context of cruelty. Scripture says that one man Adam sinned and all men die because of it. It is about corruption even because we know that God made man corruptible. If all men deserved death according to the law, it would not be unjust of God to show mercy to whom He wished and yet harden whom He wished. Given the fact that some men or angels would refuse to have Jesus as Lord, this does not negate the possibility that God is using flesh as a means to refine and purify the elements so that many of those who were first, would wind up being last and also that many of those who were last, would end up being first. Notice that those who are forgiven much, love the Master more than those who are forgiven little. And in this context, it is more a matter of circumstance rather than free will according to God's purpose. It seems to me, that whatever God has proposed to do from the beginning, it is not for us to question in our ignorance over such matters. Therefore, if He has made vessels of wrath for a purpose according to His wisdom, it may also be slanderous to say He is unjust to have done so.

 

[MarkT]

If you are suggesting that the soul is the body (as taught by 7th Day Adventists and their spin-off organization, the Jehovah's Witnesses) then you are mistaken. Jesus clearly defines the soul and the body as two different things.
Mat 10:28 (RSV) And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

They are two different things, but they perform the same function - that of a container. The soul is the container of the spirit as the body is the container of the soul. In this world you can't destroy the soul. In hell, which is a place, the soul is destroyed in an everlasting destruction, never totally destroyed.

 

[freewill]

Our freedom then (for those of us who know the truth) is our freedom to choose reason and love or to choose death. ...or torment if that is preferred, the greater the evil the greater the condemnation.

The greater our understanding the greater our accountability.

Respectfully, I'm, not sure the term "accountability" is really what you mean to convey. I am inclined to believe that the term "culpability" might be more to your meaning.

Respectfully, the word “culpability” can be seen meaning “responsibility for a fault or wrong; blame”. But culpability does not always apply when someone is given a greater understanding. A greater understanding can also lead to a greater good within us. A greater understanding of the truth can free us from evil and blame.

I am therefore inclined to believe that the term “Culpability” would not have been the right word to use in that sentence.
However, I do think it would be correct to say: The greater the understanding the greater the culpability there will be for those who wilfully continue to offend the good that is increasingly made known to them.

The greater the unrepentant evil the greater the condemnation.

It occurs to me that you recognize that the term "free" happens to be purely subjective, and relative in varying degrees according to what it is relative to. For example, we can be free from righteousness while servants to unrighteousness. And Paul said that we now only see as through a dark glass, implying that we are limited in discerning every detail concerning what can be known. It also appears that since wisdom is a vital component of choosing wisely, and wisdom is God's providence, then it is incumbent upon us to be thankful to God for any wisdom that would deliver us from ignorant and foolish choices, rather than take credit for our wisdom. And what of Love? Is Love subject to our discretion? Therefore the free will you are describing, is a New Testament perspective consistent with "The Truth shall set you free". However most people do not define free will in this manner since through the eyes of vanity it appears only as an excuse to sin. They usually do not even consider an occasion where men's wills are ever not free, or to that end, that there exists a disability of blindness that corrupts one's reasoning and therefore predictably affects one's choices.

In regards to our freedom therefore, it can be argued that a man is in chains to the truth that he sees, in that he will ultimately avoid what would be deemed as detrimental to his soul according to that truth that he believes in, including whether to accuse or excuse one's actions or intentions. It's a semantically driven argument. One cannot actually decide what will be true, yet must believe in something regardless of whether it is true or not. If you wish we can complicate the matter even further. Note that the decision or conviction to believe the Truth comes with the conviction that all men are sinners because we are also flesh. And flesh is weak and a contrary will all by it's self utterly contrary to Godly righteousness in a world that is subject to vanity. We do not simply decide to like winning and despise losing. It is a carnal impetus. I don't believe that a person can simply decide to enjoy cruelty one moment and then decide to be kind, and do so back and forth at their discretion.

In regards to what you refer to as a "slanderous idea" that God would destine to torture those who never knew good, this has it's problems in semantics also. Due to vanity, we see nothing slanderous about destining a man to righteousness and glory. I'm not even sure that God even tortures anyone in a context of cruelty. Scripture says that one man Adam sinned and all men die because of it. It is about corruption even because we know that God made man corruptible. If all men deserved death according to the law, it would not be unjust of God to show mercy to whom He wished and yet harden whom He wished. Given the fact that some men or angels would refuse to have Jesus as Lord, this does not negate the possibility that God is using flesh as a means to refine and purify the elements so that many of those who were first, would wind up being last and also that many of those who were last, would end up being first. Notice that those who are forgiven much, love the Master more than those who are forgiven little. And in this context, it is more a matter of circumstance rather than free will according to God's purpose. It seems to me, that whatever God has proposed to do from the beginning, it is not for us to question in our ignorance over such matters. Therefore, if He has made vessels of wrath for a purpose according to His wisdom, it may also be slanderous to say He is unjust to have done so.

Even so, to hope for and to keep proclaiming, like so many sad people still do, the unbiblical and slanderous idea that the God of love, mercy and reason will forever torture the least offensive of lost souls who were born to die offending the good they never knew, is as vile and offensive to God as it is to love, mercy and reason.

To cause or allow any suffering beyond what is necessary for the eternal safety of creation would be completely alien to reason and love. None are so lost as those who cannot and will not freely acknowledge this. None are so blind as those who cannot see.

 

[smaller]

To cause or allow any suffering beyond what is necessary for the eternal safety of creation would be completely alien to reason and love. None are so lost as those who cannot and will not freely acknowledge this. None are so blind as those who cannot see.

There are other scriptural factors that your one angled theological pony can not traverse. And what is even more bizarre is your failure to engage the subject matter.

There are anti-Christ spirits. 1 John 4:3. Do we even know what such things are, the entire "nature" of such spirits, other than with a surface brush/understanding?

Eph. 6:
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

IF we start any understandings of the LoF with these entities in mind being the obvious inhabitants therein, we might not be all that sympathetic to their plight, the plight of the eternal torment of Rev. 20:10. It may in fact not even BE torment to such beings, if we understand their nature, even with a surface brush.

So, I'd ask you again, do you have a problem with the "eternal" torment of Satan and anti-Christ spirits? If not, then it's time for your position to move on.

IF the fate of anti-Christ spirits and Satan was to simply END them, via termination, then we'd have been so advised by scripture. We have not been so advised by scripture. It is just as easy for me to see the LoF as a form of continual anti-heaven.

2 Peter 2:4
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

2 Peter 2:17
These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

Jude 1:6
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Jude 1:6
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.