The soul of man

[OzSpen]

What Butch is peddling:

By checking his profile, I found that Butch is peddling the teachings of the “Oasis Christian Church”,
8303 Jackson Springs Rd., Tampa, Florida 33615
http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/beliefs.html

I have cut and pasted what they teach from their website. It is in bold italics.

The Son of God: The Father brought forth (begat) a Son from His own essence, being 'The Beginning' of God's works,

That is the Arian heresy which makes Jesus a creature rather than God. Arius attempted to define Jesus according to the neo-Platonist teaching of being an “emanation from the monad.” It is one of the concepts which was encompassed in the teachings of Gnosticism in the 2nd century AD.

At the appointed time, He was baptized by John and was immediately anointed with a full measure of the holy Breath to empower Him to do miracles and accomplish the work the Father had appointed Him.

The Holy Breath of God: The holy Breath (Spirit) is a limited manifestation of God's power and presence within the creation, observing and hearing everything and extending His ability to manipulate nature. God's Breath is the "Anointing" which we have received from Christ, through which the Father and Son have a presence both in and among God's people.

This is another ancient heresy that the Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7th Day Adventist profess today. It denies the person of the Holy Spirit.

Conditional Immortality: God alone possesses immortality. All creatures are continuously dependent on Him for life itself. Man does not have an "immortal soul"; he IS "a living soul" -- a body animated by the breath of God -- a physical creature.

This heresy, that the soul is the body, is taught by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists.

The Total Destruction of the Wicked: ".

The annihilation of the wicked dead is another heresy taught by the JWs and 7thDAs

The nonsense that the council of Nicaea changed the original Christian teaching and "invented" the Trinity is also what you get from Jehovah's Witnesses.

So, now you know where Butch is coming from but wouldn't tell you you in so many words.

He, in accordance with the teachings of his church, denies the trinity. Therefore, his beliefs, as taught by the Oasis Christian Church of Tampa, Florida, are outside of orthodox Christian doctrine. They are simply a rehash of the teachings of the JWs.

jim

Jim,

Thank you for your excellent research and assessment of Butch's views, based on the church he links to in Florida.

Oz

 

[Mike]

OzSpen and Jim Parker, I'm assuming then, that both of you agree completely with every position your respective churches affirm. There are no points that you differ from them on? And so I could take a link from the church you're a member of and write a post here on CFnet telling everyone what you believe based on what your churches hold to. Anyone who does, probably isn't doing too much thinking for themselves. Anyone who doesn't probably shouldn't be saying what someone believes based on what their church affirms.

 

[Jim Parker]

OzSpen and Jim Parker, I'm assuming then, that both of you agree completely with every position your respective churches affirm. There are no points that you differ from them on? And so I could take a link from the church you're a member of and write a post here on CFnet telling everyone what you believe based on what your churches hold to. Anyone who does, probably isn't doing too much thinking for themselves. Anyone who doesn't probably shouldn't be saying what someone believes based on what their church affirms.

What you assume is of very little interest to me.
If you don't like what I post; ignore it.

 

[Jim Parker]

And so I could take a link from the church you're a member of and write a post here on CFnet telling everyone what you believe based on what your churches hold to.

Yes you could.

Anyone who does, probably isn't doing too much thinking for themselves.

Anyone who does may not be so arrogant to imagine that they are smarter than the past 2000 years of theologians.

Anyone who doesn't probably shouldn't be saying what someone believes based on what their church affirms.

Although he was trying to be clever in his presentation, Butch was preaching exactly what that church teaches.

 

[OzSpen]

OzSpen and Jim Parker, I'm assuming then, that both of you agree completely with every position your respective churches affirm. There are no points that you differ from them on? And so I could take a link from the church you're a member of and write a post here on CFnet telling everyone what you believe based on what your churches hold to. Anyone who does, probably isn't doing too much thinking for themselves. Anyone who doesn't probably shouldn't be saying what someone believes based on what their church affirms.

Mike,

If I didn't agree with the fundamental doctrines of the church I attend, I wouldn't be attending.

It so happens that I'm not a member of any church, so why are you even suggesting this when you don't know the facts?

Oz

 

[Randy]

Hello everyone,

If, like Calvinists and many other evangelical Christians, you happen to believe the souls of all men will live forever, could you explain to me please exactly where in the Bible such a doctrine comes from? The reason I ask is because I am a Christian who has regularly attended an evangelical church these last 19 years… https://0testsite00.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/immortality-vs-mortality/

Well I am free will. Hence people "earn" the 2nd death by their own deeds.
I think there is more than enough in scripture to show the soul survives the death of the body. (Our Spirit) The 2nd death would be the death of the soul. The difference, as noted, is in how Christians read the scriptures in regard to the 2nd death. Also noted. Some see "annihilationism" others see torment in the final judgment.
Obviously those not in Christ "perish". The question is then destruction or torment in the lake of fire.

Annihilationism (also known as extinctionism or destructionism) is a Christian belief that at the Last Judgment those not receiving salvation are destined for total destruction, not everlasting torment.

I myself do not hold to annihilationism after reading all that can be read in scripture. The scriptures suggest to me "everlasting torment" for those who earn the 2nd death. That is even if God can destroy "spirit" He doesn't appear to do so.

But certainly "eternal consequences" exist as in Danial 12:2

 

[Jim Parker]

Annihilationism (also known as extinctionism or destructionism) is a Christian belief that at the Last Judgment those not receiving salvation are destined for total destruction, not everlasting torment.

Actually, it is a non-Christian belief, a heresy.

iakov the fool

 

[GodsGrace]

Actually, it is a non-Christian belief, a heresy.

iakov the fool

I hate to say that I know some of the top in kkk that believe this.
Another belief circling is that hell is not eternal.
The Catholic Church is in a mess...

 

[Jim Parker]

I hate to say that I know some of the top in kkk that believe this.
Another belief circling is that hell is not eternal.
The Catholic Church is in a mess...

The Catholic Church does not teach either of those.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Catholic Church does not teach either of those.

The magisterium doesn't
But some priests believe this.
I'd rather not get into it.

 

[Jim Parker]

The magisterium doesn't
But some priests believe this.
I'd rather not get into it.

Ah! Well I've heard Protestant preachers teach some strange things too.
No church is so monolithic that there are no differences of opinion among the pastors, preachers, etc.
Unfortunately, many folks reject Christianity as a total scam for low IQ rubes because of the alleged "men and women of God" they see on television.
So, it may be prudent not to paint with too wide a brush. Yes?

iakov the fool

 

[GodsGrace]

Ah! Well I've heard Protestant preachers teach some strange things too.
No church is so monolithic that there are no differences of opinion among the pastors, preachers, etc.
Unfortunately, many folks reject Christianity as a total scam for low IQ rubes because of the alleged "men and women of God" they see on television.
So, it may be prudent not to paint with too wide a brush. Yes?

iakov the fool

Catholicism is supposed to be based on the CCC.
Priests are supposed to teach what the magesterium has declared and written.
They can personally believe what they wish.
Annihilationism, for instance, should not be spoken of from the pulpit.

Wondering

 

[chessman]

Annihilationism, for instance, should not be spoken of from the pulpit.

Matthew 10:28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul, but instead be afraid of the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.​

So skip this verse???

 

[GodsGrace]

Matthew 10:28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul, but instead be afraid of the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.​

So skip this verse???

As you must surely know Chessman,
Every denomination understands verses differently.
You must also know that the first rule of exegesis is that no
Verse is to be taken by itself but in conjunction with the entire NT.

 

[Jim Parker]

Catholicism is supposed to be based on the CCC.
Priests are supposed to teach what the magesterium has declared and written.
They can personally believe what they wish.
Annihilationism, for instance, should not be spoken of from the pulpit.

Wondering

True.
Protestantism does not have a magisterium so individual preachers, teachers, pastors, evangelists and apostles can promote whatever opinions they like because they are, essentially, answerable to no one. Thus we have the "Prosperity Gospel", the teaching that if you don't speak in tongues you are not saved and the teaching that if you do speak in tongues you're probably demon possessed, etc. And they all claim to hold to the same standard of "sola scriptura."

Having a magisterium or an ancient tradition tends to avoid that kind of "diversity of opinion" but they also introduce problems of their own. The magisterium confirmed the "Immaculate Conception of Mary" which was totally unnecessary and actually detracts from her honor. The council of Chalcedon ("dual nature of Christ") succeeded in dividing the church over whether Jesus' nature was "from" two natures (Coptics and Syrians) or "of" two natures. (Eastern and Western Roman world)

So there appear to be a multitude of opinions on which we can base our anathemas of one another and the division of the Kingdom of God is to tens of thousands of bickering fiefdoms.

Annihilation and universal salvation are two such opinions. I believe the scriptures are clear enough on the first to deem it heretical. The second is a bit less indefensible and could possibly, maybe, be a possibility. (maybe) (perhaps) (it would be nice but I don't see it...)

iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

True.
Protestantism does not have a magisterium so individual preachers, teachers, pastors, evangelists and apostles can promote whatever opinions they like because they are, essentially, answerable to no one. Thus we have the "Prosperity Gospel", the teaching that if you don't speak in tongues you are not saved and the teaching that if you do speak in tongues you're probably demon possessed, etc. And they all claim to hold to the same standard of "sola scriptura."

Having a magisterium or an ancient tradition tends to avoid that kind of "diversity of opinion" but they also introduce problems of their own. The magisterium confirmed the "Immaculate Conception of Mary" which was totally unnecessary and actually detracts from her honor. The council of Chalcedon ("dual nature of Christ") succeeded in dividing the church over whether Jesus' nature was "from" two natures (Coptics and Syrians) or "of" two natures. (Eastern and Western Roman world)

So there appear to be a multitude of opinions on which we can base our anathemas of one another and the division of the Kingdom of God is to tens of thousands of bickering fiefdoms.

Annihilation and universal salvation are two such opinions. I believe the scriptures are clear enough on the first to deem it heretical. The second is a bit less indefensible and could possibly, maybe, be a possibility. (maybe) (perhaps) (it would be nice but I don't see it...)

iakov the fool

Jim,

So, what do you consider is the best way to cancel, nullify, obliterate diverse (even contradictory) interpretations that have been produced by various branches of the church over the years?

Is there a simple solution to deal with the diversity of hermeneutical conclusions?

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

True.
Protestantism does not have a magisterium so individual preachers, teachers, pastors, evangelists and apostles can promote whatever opinions they like because they are, essentially, answerable to no one. Thus we have the "Prosperity Gospel", the teaching that if you don't speak in tongues you are not saved and the teaching that if you do speak in tongues you're probably demon possessed, etc. And they all claim to hold to the same standard of "sola scriptura."

Having a magisterium or an ancient tradition tends to avoid that kind of "diversity of opinion" but they also introduce problems of their own. The magisterium confirmed the "Immaculate Conception of Mary" which was totally unnecessary and actually detracts from her honor. The council of Chalcedon ("dual nature of Christ") succeeded in dividing the church over whether Jesus' nature was "from" two natures (Coptics and Syrians) or "of" two natures. (Eastern and Western Roman world)

So there appear to be a multitude of opinions on which we can base our anathemas of one another and the division of the Kingdom of God is to tens of thousands of bickering fiefdoms.

Annihilation and universal salvation are two such opinions. I believe the scriptures are clear enough on the first to deem it heretical. The second is a bit less indefensible and could possibly, maybe, be a possibility. (maybe) (perhaps) (it would be nice but I don't see it...)

iakov the fool

I don't believe either is correct.
Of, from - too much detail.
I don't believe Jesus meant for us to bicker.
We are to be like children, simple and accepting...

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim,

So, what do you consider is the best way to cancel, nullify, obliterate diverse (even contradictory) interpretations that have been produced by various branches of the church over the years?

Is there a simple solution to deal with the diversity of hermeneutical conclusions?

Oz

There is a simple solution: when Jesus comes, He will sort it all out.
Until then, well, boys will be boys and we will continue to go to war over which end of the egg we should open.

jim

 

[Jim Parker]

I don't believe Jesus meant for us to bicker.

Of course not.
But we will until He comes.

iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

Actually, it is a non-Christian belief, a heresy.

iakov the fool

Gavin Ortlund has written an article where the biblical evidence is gathered to demonstrate that annihilationism is not a biblical doctrine. See, 'J I Packer on why annihilationism is wrong'.

Leading evangelical exegete, Dr D A Carson, wrote:

“Despite the sincerity of their motives, one wonders more than a little to what extent the growing popularity of various forms of annihilationism and conditional immortality are a reflection of this age of pluralism. It is getting harder and harder to be faithful to the ‘hard lines’ of Scripture” (The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism, Zondervan, 1996:536.)​

Oz