What do you think?

[TanNinety]

Yup, aLoneVoice - I agree. I have said something similar to this on my first post in this thread regarding how both sides don't agree on the anthropology of man which makes it even more difficult to discuss the destiny of mankind. However the anthropology of man has already been discussed in relation to eternal torment and annihilation in the past. The result was the same, pages of debate and discussion and going in circles. The wholistic view of man with the hebrew thought in scriptures is what I am inclined to argue for. guibox, Drew and CP_Mike have taken this task of providing ample scriptural and linguistic support to show that man cannot be broken down into individual parts of existence but needs to be viewed as a singular whole. But I wish we could ask someone who is without bias regarding this subject to referee this discussion and see who has made a sound scriptural argument.

 

[guibox]

Lies, lies, and more lies. Will you never learn to accept the truth of the living God?

Solo, could you please, please, please step down as a moderator so I can put you on 'Ignore'? It would make my millenium.

Why don't you try and dispute what either Drew or I have said instead of spouting self-righteous nonsense like you do when your arguments fail and your contradictions are pointed out.

Better yet, why don't you try and use the Bible to try and support your views and dispute what we say? Exegetically, not super-imposed Greek beliefs.

Try it and maybe you might be in a better position to be so "Prophet-like" in your sanctimonious ramblings.

 

[Drew]

I have what I hope is a very specific question to pose to all those who believe the redeemed experience the full flower of conscious existence immediately after the moment of their physical death.

Consider the following from 1 Corinthians 15:

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

This text obviously describes an event that lies in the future - the return of Christ. The text seems clear that the act of "being made alive" lies in the future of all the saints.

If you believe that there are lots of saints presently in a state of full conscious existence at this very moment, exactly in what sense are they to be made alive at some point in future?

And if your answer is that the disembodied souls of the redeemed are given a body, please explain how you understand this to be a process where a saint is "made alive", given the very important constraint that you believe the saint is already fully conscious. Presumably, you would have to believe that being "made alive", whatever else it means, does not mean "being transformed from a non-conscious state to a conscious one".

Can you at least understand how suspicious this seems? It seems like the person is really just being "robed in flesh", not "made alive". It seems to me that a person who is already fully conscious and enjoying the state of bliss that Lazarus is could hardly be made any more "alive".

 

[Guest]

Question: How does God view sin? It is not up to us - or what we think is best, but ultimately God.

 

[Drew]

Question: How does God view sin? It is not up to us - or what we think is best, but ultimately God.

I will humbly suggest that the reader will interpret this statement as a tacit admission of the incoherence of claiming that a fully conscious soul can be made any more alive than it already is. What you post might be seen as a statement to the following effect: "I cannot reconcile my view about Lazarus' soul being alive right now with what Paul says, so I will invoke the 'we cannot understand these things' argument".

I am not saying that this what you wish to communicate, but I suggest that this is how some readers will see it.

 

[Guest]

I will humbly suggest that the reader will interpret this statement as a tacit admission of the incoherence of claiming that a fully conscious soul can be made any more alive than it already is. What you post might be seen as a statement to the following effect: "I cannot reconcile my view about Lazarus' soul being alive right now with what Paul says, so I will invoke the 'we cannot understand these things' argument".

I am not saying that this what you wish to communicate, but I suggest that this is how some readers will see it.

Geez... I thought I asked a pretty straight-forward question. How does God view sin?

Add all those fancy words you want Drew, but in the end it was meant tobe a simple question. How does God view sin? Like it or not, He is the one who set up the whole thing. So, how does God view sin?

 

[Drew]

Geez... I thought I asked a pretty straight-forward question. How does God view sin?

Add all those fancy words you want Drew, but in the end it was meant tobe a simple question. How does God view sin? Like it or not, He is the one who set up the whole thing. So, how does God view sin?

I am not sure where this is going, but I will venture that God does not like sin one bit and ultimately will expunge it from our Universe.

The heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up"

(2 Peter 3:10).

 

[jgredline]

:

 

[TanNinety]

Geez... I thought I asked a pretty straight-forward question.

Geez... I thought Drew asked a pretty straight forward question as well. How is something that is already alive be made any more alive in a future event?

Why accuse him of dodging a question when you yourself just did the same?

Anyway, this discussion has no place else to go but downhill with ad hominem and condescension so I am bowing out with disagreement.

 

[guibox]

Drew is not asking a question that I have not asked dozens of times before and been ignored or simply admonished by Solo who seems to have established himself as the forum's prophet of judgement, on whether my eternal salvation is in question or not.

As in Adam all DIE...so in Christ shall all be MADE ALIVE.

To be made alive is to receive eternal life. This scripture makes it plain WHEN.

AS in Adam...SO in Christ.

"But everyman in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward, they that are Christ's at His coming"

If one's soul goes to heaven at death, Adam's death has been conquered and Christ has indeed made you alive based on His death and resurrection.

You cannot glean a 'being made alive' for the body and a 'being made alive' for the soul. The context doesn't support it. Exegetical study doesn't support it, common sense doesn't support it.

Why are all of you so insistent, with no biblical support whatsoever, that you are right and we are questioning God?

We are not questioning God. We are questioning your horrific interpretations and close minded refusal to even see the scriptures without your preconceived dualistic glasses.

Je pense que nous parlons un autre langue qu'anglais! :roll:

 

[Guest]

Geez... I thought Drew asked a pretty straight forward question as well. How is something that is already alive be made any more alive in a future event?

Why accuse him of dodging a question when you yourself just did the same?

Anyway, this discussion has no place else to go but downhill with ad hominem and condescension so I am bowing out with disagreement.

I am sorry, did Drew ask me a question that I did not answer? If so, I will answer it.

 

[Guest]

I am not sure where this is going, but I will venture that God does not like sin one bit and ultimately will expunge it from our Universe.

Drew - I am not sure where it is going either. It seemed to me to be a logical place to start.

To figure out what God is ultimately going to do with 'sin' - one needs to figure out how God views it, right?

So - I am going to ask again - only because I believe we can come up with something more than a guess or a 'venture'.

How does God view sin?

 

[Guest]

Drew is not asking a question that I have not asked dozens of times before and been ignored or simply admonished by Solo who seems to have established himself as the forum's prophet of judgement, on whether my eternal salvation is in question or not.

As in Adam all DIE...so in Christ shall all be MADE ALIVE.

To be made alive is to receive eternal life. This scripture makes it plain WHEN.

AS in Adam...SO in Christ.

"But everyman in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward, they that are Christ's at His coming"

If one's soul goes to heaven at death, Adam's death has been conquered and Christ has indeed made you alive based on His death and resurrection.

You cannot glean a 'being made alive' for the body and a 'being made alive' for the soul. The context doesn't support it. Exegetical study doesn't support it, common sense doesn't support it.

Why are all of you so insistent, with no biblical support whatsoever, that you are right and we are questioning God?

We are not questioning God. We are questioning your horrific interpretations and close minded refusal to even see the scriptures without your preconceived dualistic glasses.

Je pense que nous parlons un autre langue qu'anglais! :roll:

Sorry... I have not been following this discussin too closely, but am I to assume that you too believe in a wholistic anthropology?

 

[stranger]

It does nothing to the annihilationist position because two completely different things are being taken into account here. The rich man is in 'Hades' where he goes immediately after his physical death. Annihilation doesn't occur until the end of the millenium in Revelation 20 where ALL enemies of God: death, Hades, the wicked are cast into gehenna lake of fire where 'the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death'

This is not only a parable but cannot be used one iota to support the immortality of the soul, never mind eternal torment.

Hi guibox,

I agree that Lazarus and the rich man have nothing to do with the annihilationist position. I was asking was there any parables that did? Why should not Jesus' parables speak about the end of the age?

Incidentally, Rev 20:14 refers to 'lake of fire' not the 'gehenna lake of fire' the word gehenna is not there. Are the devil and the demonic host annihilated in your construct?

 

[guibox]

Hi guibox,

I agree that Lazarus and the rich man have nothing to do with the annihilationist position. I was asking was there any parables that did? Why should not Jesus' parables speak about the end of the age?

stranger, it was not you that I was speaking about. Somebody else said that Luke 16 contradicted the annihilation argument.

I believe that Drew (or TanNinety) did show some parables that did speak about the end of the age.

Incidentally, Rev 20:14 refers to 'lake of fire' not the 'gehenna lake of fire' the word gehenna is not there. Are the devil and the demonic host annihilated in your construct?

stranger, when Christ speaks of the final punishment and damnation 'where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched' he is speaking of gehenna. What he is referring to is the final judgment,the second death. Though the word 'gehenna' is not used in Revelation 20, by inference, we deduce that 'gehenna' is realized in the lake of fire, as this is the only final judgment spoken of in the Bible. 'gehenna' is more a state as opposed to a literal place. It comes from the Valley of Hinnom but Jesus used its imagery to link it with the final judgement (see also Isaiah 66), so they would be able to relate to it.

(BTW, taking this into consideration, the Valley of Hinnom was a place of absolute destruction where bodies of criminals where completely consumed and annihilated)

 

[Drew]

So - I am going to ask again - only because I believe we can come up with something more than a guess or a 'venture'.

How does God view sin?

I am sorry but this question is too unfocused for me to answer without writing a massive tome. Given the general context, I am going to presume that your view is that the nature of sin is such that eternal torment is the only just punishment for it. If so, then we can certainly talk about that. But asking to answer "How does God view sin?" is just too open-ended a question.

 

[Drew]

Consider Romans 6:23 (yet again):

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord

People sometimes argue that the fact of a contrast is reason to believe that the "death" refered to has to be an "eternal" death - which is then in turn viewed as suggestive of eternal torment. But a little analysis seems to reveal that the fact of a contrast really is not really a reason to draw such a conclusion:

The reason is as follows.

1. It is, of course, a possible state of affairs that the wages of sin really are death in the "cessation of existence" sense.

2. It is, of course, possible that the gift of God really is eternal life in the neverending sense. In fact, I think we all agree that this is not only a possibility, but the real state of affairs.

3. If (1) and (2) are both factually correct, and they obviously can be, the natural way to express this is in a single sentence would be:

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

The mere fact of there being a contrast through the use of the "but" does not favour the eternal torment position. If this were so, it would be linguistically impossible to compare two fates, one eternal and the other not, in a single sentence. And this is clearly not a sensible position to take.

 

[guibox]

I'm not really following you here Drew. Maybe it's just been a rough day.

Many who support eternal torment interpret this two ways to support eternal torment:

1) 'The wages of sin is death' means only that we all physically die

2) 'death' means 'eternal torment' and not 'cessation of existence'

Usually when one falls apart, the traditionalist reverts to the other argument, mostly out of desperation.

The problem with number 1) is that the contrast must agree in quality (and maybe this is what you are talking about (or against) Drew). The contrast is eternity. Whether good or bad, we will all suffer the physical death. However, by adding 'BUT' the gift of God is eternal life, we see a contrast between the wicked and the righteous. Hence, 'death' is speaking of the eternal death.

Once, that arguement is proven, the traditionalist then says, 'Ha! Therefore it IS eternal torment!' as they jump over to arguement #2. The problem with 2) is, that eternal torment is also eternal life. However, John 3:16 is CONTRASTING the eternal destinies, not paralleling them in quality.

The gift of God is 'eternal LIFE' BUT 'the wages of sin is DEATH'

So who receives the 'gift of God'?

The Bible makes it plain that eternal life and NOT death is immortality and is given only to the righteous. Also known as 'those who know Him', also known as 'His sheep'.

 

[jgredline]

Guibox
You are so close to being converted, I can feel it.....

Once you realize that man is a threee part being a ''trinity'' you will come to a full understanding that Jesus meant what he said that those who are not his ''sheep'' will be thrown into the lake of fire for all eternity....

 

[stranger]

Consider Romans 6:23 (yet again):

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord

People sometimes argue that the fact of a contrast is reason to believe that the "death" refered to has to be an "eternal" death - which is then in turn viewed as suggestive of eternal torment. But a little analysis seems to reveal that the fact of a contrast really is not really a reason to draw such a conclusion:

The reason is as follows.

1. It is, of course, a possible state of affairs that the wages of sin really are death in the "cessation of existence" sense.

2. It is, of course, possible that the gift of God really is eternal life in the neverending sense. In fact, I think we all agree that this is not only a possibility, but the real state of affairs.

3. If (1) and (2) are both factually correct, and they obviously can be, the natural way to express this is in a single sentence would be:

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

The mere fact of there being a contrast through the use of the "but" does not favour the eternal torment position. If this were so, it would be linguistically impossible to compare two fates, one eternal and the other not, in a single sentence. And this is clearly not a sensible position to take.

(1) Drew, your first proposition does not explain why Adam did not cease to exist in the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In the day you eat from it you shall surely die (Gen 2:17). My contention is that Adam died on that day but not in the sense you intend in your first point.If you say the affect (wages) of sin were to be paid after the resurrection/ judgement then this contradicts what God said.

(2) The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus. This is the state of the redeemed in Christ.

So you are not able to arrive at Rom 6:23 via this line of reasoning. In case you do not see the relevance of Gen 2:17 - Paul goes back to Genesis in Romans 5 when he talks about Adam, sin and death.