What do you think?

[Drew]

• Prior to Jesus resurrection, the righteous died and their body went into the grave, while the soul went to paradise in Sheol/Hades.
• Prior to Jesus resurrection, the unrighteous died and their body went into the grave, while the soul went to flame and torment in Sheol/Hades.[/*:m:a2d45]
• After Jesus' resurrection the righteous souls in paradise went to heaven and paradise is no longer in Sheol/Hades but is in heaven.[/*:m:a2d45]
• After Jesus' resurrection the righteous died and their body went into the grave, while the soul went to heaven.[/*:m:a2d45]
• After Jesus' resurrection the unrighteous died and their body went into the grave, while the soul went to flame and torment in Sheol/Hades.[/*:m:a2d45]
• The righteous are never judged to decide whether they have eternal life or not, they are judged to determine their rewards.[/*:m:a2d45]
• The unrighteous are never judged to decide whether they are condemned or not, they are judged to determine the level of their torment.[/*:m:a2d45]
• After the judgment, the righteous remain with the Lord.[/*:m:a2d45]
• After the judgement, the unrighteous are cast into the lake of fire with Hades and death and satan and satan's angels and the false prophet and the beast.[/*:m:a2d45]

So the status of the unrighteous before judgement = their soul is in flames and torment. Their status after judgement = in the lake of fire.

What, exactly, has changed from pre-judgement to post-judgement? Evidently just their location - they are in flames of torment either way.

Sounds the result of judgement is just a change in location and not any substantial change in their status.

I would have thought that judgement would accomplish a little bit more than a change of address.

 

[Drew]

It seems awfully strange that the "immortal soul" supporters require that such texts refer only to the "flesh suit" that encases the immaterial soul - how could they not require this to be the case if an immortal soul lives on and is not consumed, devoured, etc?

No more strange than the annihilationist saying that when Jesus said "everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die", he really meant that they would be reconstitued at the resurrection, ceasing to exist from the point of death until that time.

It is a lot more strange and here's why. The texts that talk about being "consumed"' "devoured" and being "made to be no more" require that the true and fundamental essence of a person - their "soul" does not die at all - in contradiction to the texts which, mysteriously enough, do not draw this vital distinction. Once again, this is like saying "Fred is no more" means "Fred really does continue to exist in his fundamental essence, his flesh is the thing that is no more" Does that sound plausible?

Now to your reference to the claim that believers will never die. To die, for the annihilationist means precisely what Jesus says says in Matthew 10:28 - to have body and soul destroyed. Now before your minds snap into the mode where soul = "immortal entity" and think that I am contradicting myself, please remember what I have proposed for a possible meaning for "soul" (as in Matthew 10:28) - the "blueprint" or the "design" of a person, or perhaps more accurately the "information that specifies a person". For the believer, this soul is never really lost - it never dies. It remains "safe in the heart and mind of God" while we believers sleep in the grave (again this is consistent with a number of texts which suggest that the dead sleep).

Do you think that I am choosing a meaning for "soul" to "force" Matthew 10:28 to match my "theology"? I would decribe what I have as a reasonable interpretation that is justified by the fact that we know that "soul" is used in multiple senses in the Scriptures and my take on it is consonant with these mutiple senses, although admittedly maybe not identical to any one of them. And please remember - we annihilationists have never claimed that "soul" has one single meaning. It can mean the "whole person", it can mean the "life", etc. This is not "cheating" - secular people use the word "soul" in a number of different senses today.

Perhaps some of you will jump on my "admission" to interpreting the Scriptures and pontificate to the effect that "Drew is interpreting while I am not interpreting but reading it as God intended". As someone once said: "Go ahead, make my day".

I think that my take on what "soul" means in Matthew 10:28 fits within the general spectrum of how we know the term is used in the Scriptures. I realize that this assertion needs to be better defended - I hope to do this in future posts. I plan to argue that a construal of "soul" as "information about us in the mind of God" is really consonant with use of "soul" as the "life force that animates the body" as in the "soul of a creature is in the blood".

So, indeed, a believer never dies in this important and fundamental sense even as we sleep in the grave (1 Cor 15:6 - After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep).

 

[Free]

Perhaps some of you will jump on my "admission" to interpreting the Scriptures and pontificate to the effect that "Drew is interpreting while I am not interpreting but reading it as God intended". As someone once said: "Go ahead, make my day".

I won't say that but I will say that before you argue that "we should understand these terms the ways that the writers of Scripture would have intended them", we shouldn't go making up new meanings of words to fit a our theology.

The fact remains, neither you nor guibox have rebutted the fact that Luke 12:4-5 creates a distinction between body and soul, as does Luke 16:19-31.

Let me ask you this: At what point are both body and soul destroyed? According to Luke 12:4-5 when the body is dead, so the soul is dead as well, to be consistent with your position.

 

[Solo]

So the status of the unrighteous before judgement = their soul is in flames and torment. Their status after judgement = in the lake of fire.

What, exactly, has changed from pre-judgement to post-judgement? Evidently just their location - they are in flames of torment either way.

Sounds the result of judgement is just a change in location and not any substantial change in their status.

I would have thought that judgement would accomplish a little bit more than a change of address.

You will have to ask God, it is not expressed in any other way except that the unrighteous souls are in everlasting torment.

 

[Drew]

Who else agrees with Solo's position in which the future judgement of the unredeemed involves simply a change in their location, and no change in the experienced punishment that they undergo.

I get the impression that Free does not hold this view. I am not going to argue that since Solo and Free disagree, this is evidence of the falsity of "eternal torment".

But I would ask others such as jgredline and stranger directly and clearly express whether they agree with Solo's postion.

While I found Solo's position to be exceeding hard to believe - how is there any consequence to being judged except for a change in location - I will give him credit for clearly expressing that he believes in this view.

 

[Drew]

I won't say that but I will say that before you argue that "we should understand these terms the ways that the writers of Scripture would have intended them", we shouldn't go making up new meanings of words to fit a our theology.

To use an expression that a friend of mine uses, and I mean no disrespect at all Free - you are always a gentleman: "Right back at ya babe".

What I mean by this is that the believer in the immortal soul is equally vulnerable to the claim that they are "making up new meanings of words to fit their theology" in respect to texts like Matthew 10:28

Would the "immortal soul" supporter plead that Matthew 10:28 draws a distinction between body and soul and that this distinction warrants a conclusion that there exists an immortal soul that can survive bodily death?

What about the following statement that a person might make: "I like her body and her personality".

Does the drawing of this distinction - "body and personality" - mean that we can conclude that the speaker believes that the personality is an immortal entiry that can survive bodily death?

I will respond to your other questions later.

 

[jgredline]

Drew
I am in agreement with Free, Solo and Stranger....In a few post Free figured you out pretty quick...

quote: free
I won't say that but I will say that before you argue that "we should understand these terms the ways that the writers of Scripture would have intended them", we shouldn't go making up new meanings of words to fit a our theology.

This you have been known to do....Change scripture to fit or make theology....
You will find that only those who are from cults will agree with your and Guibox position....so u will have a small following.

 

[Drew]

Drew
I am in agreement with Free, Solo and Stranger....In a few post Free figured you out pretty quick...

This you have been known to do....Change scripture to fit or make theology....
You will find that only those who are from cults will agree with your and Guibox position....so u will have a small following.

I do not think that Free and Solo agree with each other in respect to what happens to the lost between their physical death and their future judgement.

As to your statement that "I change scripture", why not directly engage the content of this issue by directly challening my last post in which I actually string sentences together and show that the "immortal soul" supporter is in no position to make this judgement.

And what is your response the claim that, under your view if it is in fact the same as Solo's, that the great judgement accomplishes precisely nothing except the location of the eternal torment?

The playing of the cult card will only make you seem desperate to have your position prevail by such tactics.

 

[Drew]

You will find that only those who are from cults will agree with your and Guibox position....so u will have a small following.

By the way, which cult is John Stott associated with?

 

[jgredline]

I do not think that Free and Solo agree with each other in respect to what happens to the lost between their physical death and their future judgement.

As to your statement that "I change scripture", why not directly engage the content of this issue by directly challening my last post in which I actually string sentences together and show that the "immortal soul" supporter is in no position to make this judgement.

And what is your response the claim that, under your view if it is in fact the same as Solo's, that the great judgement accomplishes precisely nothing except the location of the eternal torment?

The playing of the cult card will only make you seem desperate to have your position prevail by such tactics.

OK, Drew...I will go and humor you and look at your lost post....As far as being desperate LOL...Who is the one who actually changes scripture? ''YOU''....Do I need to copy and paste it for you?....Who is the one who believes God does NOT KNOW the beginning from the end?...''YOU''...Do i need to go and copy and paste that for you as well.....''Cult Card''...I call it what it is....As far as the ''location of eternal toment''I believe the bible clearly teaches that people will be judged according to their works....There will be different levels for both the believer and the non believer.....I believe that when a person who does not have the seal of the Holy Spirit dies, his soul starts to ''cook''...albeit in a low flame, but he is a being cooked....
This is clear in Luke 16 where Jesus is telling us about it....Oh, Wait you also believe that Jesus lied in Matt 25:41-46.....While this you have never admitted to, you have not denied it either.....so i would not expect you to believe Jesus in luke 16...

 

[jgredline]

By the way, which cult is John Stott associated with?

Sadly John Stott, in spight of his ''good works'' clearly falls into this category....

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

 

[Drew]

Who is the one who actually changes scripture? ''YOU''..

This is, of course, an entirely misleading statement. It is only in the sometimes intellectually inbred world of North American evangelical Christianity that such absurd statements are countenanced. I should have predicted that a purely illustrative "what would we have thought if the scriptures said 'x' " thought experiment would be pounced on and used to support a cry of "look, he's changing the holy scriptures".

Ah, the scandal of the evangelical mind.....

 

[jgredline]

To use an expression that a friend of mine uses, and I mean no disrespect at all Free - you are always a gentleman: "Right back at ya babe".

What I mean by this is that the believer in the immortal soul is equally vulnerable to the claim that they are "making up new meanings of words to fit their theology" in respect to texts like Matthew 10:28

Would the "immortal soul" supporter plead that Matthew 10:28 draws a distinction between body and soul and that this distinction warrants a conclusion that there exists an immortal soul that can survive bodily death?

What about the following statement that a person might make: "I like her body and her personality".

Does the drawing of this distinction - "body and personality" - mean that we can conclude that the speaker believes that the personality is an immortal entiry that can survive bodily death?

I will respond to your other questions later.

OK Drew
Lets look at the ''context'' here....

24 “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household! 26 Therefore do not fear them. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.
27 “Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. 28 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. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.
32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven


Jesus reminded the apostles He was not asking something of them He Himself had not already experienced. In reaction to His casting out a demon, the religious leaders had claimed He was working by the prince of the demons (see verse 9:34). If they accused Jesus of demonic power, surely they would say the same thing of His servants.
However, the apostles need not fear the religious leaders who could destroy only the physical body (Matt. 10:28). The leaders’ true motives will be revealed in the judgment (see verse 26). Obedience to God, who ultimately is in charge of physical as well as spiritual life, is far more crucial.

Drew
Now to be even more clear, lets look at the actual scripture in the Greek....
Matt 10:28 1550TR
και μη φοβηθητε απο των αποκτεινοντων το (σωμα BODY) την δε (ψυχην SOUL) μη δυναμενων αποκτειναι φοβηθητε δε μαλλον τον δυναμενον και (ψυχην SOUL) και (σωμα BODY) απολεσαι εν γεεννη

The Greek makes a clear distinction between body and soul....

 

[Solo]

I do not think that Free and Solo agree with each other in respect to what happens to the lost between their physical death and their future judgement.

As to your statement that "I change scripture", why not directly engage the content of this issue by directly challening my last post in which I actually string sentences together and show that the "immortal soul" supporter is in no position to make this judgement.

And what is your response the claim that, under your view if it is in fact the same as Solo's, that the great judgement accomplishes precisely nothing except the location of the eternal torment?

The playing of the cult card will only make you seem desperate to have your position prevail by such tactics.

From what I read of Free's posts, we are in agreement.

 

[jgredline]

From what I read of Free's posts, we are in agreement.

Same here....

 

[Drew]

The Greek makes a clear distinction between body and soul....

Just pointing out that the Matthew 10:28 text distinguishes body from soul does not do the job - we all know this and no reasonable person would deny that the text says "body and soul". So clearly there is a distinction here. But you have not given any evidence that it is the distinction you believe it to be.

Why, exactly, should be believe that the distinction is between different fundamental parts of the human person, rather than the kind of distinction that is drawn when someone refers to "body and personality"?

Does this latter phrase draw a distinction? Obviously it does.

Is the distinction one that allows us to conclude that the personality is an immaterial quantity that can live in the absence of the body?

Let the reader decide.

 

[jgredline]

Just pointing out that the Matthew 10:28 text distinguishes body from soul does not do the job - we all know this and no reasonable person would deny that the text says "body and soul". So clearly there is a distinction here. But you have not given any evidence that it is the distinction you believe it to be.

Drew
Are listening to yourself? What this text clearly proves as you have yourself have stated

''we all know this and no reasonable person would deny that the text says "body and soul". So clearly there is a distinction here.''

proves that the Body and soul are distinct. They are different...This proves that your belief in monosim is false...You can't have it both ways...Admitted your wrong....believe me, you are not looking very sharp to those following along.....You are contradicting yourself way too much....

 

[Drew]

From what I read of Free's posts, we are in agreement.

Free has expressed uncertainty about whether the rich man is presently in torment of flames in Hades. I thought you believed otherwise.

 

[Solo]

Free has expressed uncertainty about whether the rich man is presently in torment of flames in Hades. I thought you believed otherwise.

Free believes that the rich man remains in the place in Sheol/Hades for the souls of the unrighteous dead. He stated "that he may or may not be in torment in flames". His uncertainty has nothing to do with my certainty of that being the case as that is what the Scripture says. I have been around a lot longer than Free, and my certainty has grown since I was Free's age. Free is right on the money with his understanding as to their position which is in direct conflict with your false teaching.

Along with following the devils tactic of spreading false doctrines, you are also following his tactic of dividing believers so that he can conquer. Not a surprise for one like me who has seen you type many times before.

Repentence and believing on the name of Jesus is at hand today, so I pray that God will bless you with opening your eyes to the Truth so that you might bring Him glory and honor the rest of your days.

God bless you in the name of Jesus.

 

[Drew]

The fact remains, neither you nor guibox have rebutted the fact that Luke 12:4-5 creates a distinction between body and soul

Here is Luke 12:4-5:

I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

Of course this text draws a distinction, but does it have to be the kind of distinction you think? This text does not support the existence of the immortal soul any more than it supports the wholistic view of man. I will not repeat what I have posted three times. I will merely point out how this text works with the "soul can refer to the information that specifies a human person" position that I have proposed in respect to Matthew 10:28.

God, like man, can kill the body. This much is obvious. If we provisionally assume that the soul is what I propose that it is in this usage, the text merely points out that only God has the power to destroy the body along with this information through the destroying agent of hell-fire. This is so even if the unredeemed are "embodied" when cast into the lake of fire.

The careful reader will know that I do not deny the reality of hell-fire. I just assert that it is a fire that consumes - as a lot of other Scriptural texts suggest. If the soul is seen as the "specification of the human person", the Luke text can be seen to assert "Fear God because, unlike man, He (God) has the power to consume the specification of you in fire, so that you are really gone for good". Surprise, surprise, this is consistent with "the wages of sin is death" and does not require us to redefine death to be "eternal conscious torment" - what could be more removed from the nominal sense of death than this?

I know that you disagree with my take on what "soul" means here. But that is not the point. I am showing that the Luke 12 text works perfectly well with my take on what "soul" means here.

Please feel free to counterargue. But please do not simply claim that a distinction is drawn and assume that this proves the kind of distinction you believe is meant. I have shown the insufficiency of such reasoning through the "body and personality" distinction. Simply drawing the distinction between body and personality obviously does not require us to conclude that the personality is an immaterial entity that can survive death.