|
Post by Admin on Mar 27, 2019 13:50:43 GMT
Facebook Poster One said:
Response: You misunderstood the point: many embrace Annihilation because of this. It seems too harsh for a loving God to judge with a judgment that is enduring torment.
Facebook Poster One said:
Response: Great. So if it is true then it can withstand criticisms and address the points raised to show that it is false.
And that isn't the case. It is built upon intellectual rationalization rather than exegesis.
Facebook Poster One said: As someone just stated:
Response: Show me a name in the parables used to address the error of their blasphemy:
Mark 3:23-29 King James Version (KJV)
23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?
24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.
28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
Verse 23 is the basis of the parables found in vv.24-25 and 28. The parables are used (always) to teach a truth, and the truth here is that Christ is not guilty of their charge:
Mark 3:22 King James Version (KJV)
22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.
Now, I will continue here because I would like for anyone to simply address this point. The claim is made, "Jesus does use a person in a parable elsewhere (Mark 3:23)," and I have now made the point that we do not see a name used in the parables given, so as I said, if your doctrine is actually built upon careful study you can both preent a Scriptural Basis for your doctrine as well as address the points showing it is false, just as I show the claim made here is false.
Continued...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 27, 2019 14:05:26 GMT
Facebook Poster One said:
Response: This is actually false: The account of the Rich Man and Lazarus does follow numerous parable but from the account through Chapter 17-which ends speaking of the judgment of men physically-we see no parables.
That parables use "persons" isn't the same as a parable having a proper name of character/s that are known Biblical figures (Abraham and Lazarus (though it can be debated that the Lazarus in this account is not the Lazarus who died and was raised (and why this would not be accepted as reasonable I have no clue))).
Facebook Poster One said:
Response: Even if we ignore that the description of Hades is given by Jesus Christ Himself, the fact remains that the Lord said this was the state of both after dying.
Are you calling into question that what He said isn't true (and this is just a question to emphasize the point, I am not charging you with anything or implying you have a low view of Christ's teachings)?
Facebook Poster One said:
Response: That name is found in the very account:
Luke 16:22 King James Version (KJV)
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Whether one embraces this as parable or not...in what parable does the Lord use false information to teach truth (which is what He is doing in this account)?
Facebook Poster One said:
Response: David had an understanding of an afterlife in which he would be with his son. The concept of Sheol is a well-known theme in the Old Testament which assumes an existence after death.
Job was also assured of an afterlife:
Job 19:25-27 King James Version (KJV)
25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
Facebook Poster One said:
Response: It's based on the implications of an afterlife that are found in the Hebrew Scriptures, but that is not actually relevant. The Lord affirms the traditional view of an afterlife and a separation between the Just and the Unjust. To deny that is to deny the teaching found in Luke 16 (and I am not saying you are denying it I am simply stating a fact).
Continued...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 27, 2019 14:16:33 GMT
Facebook Poster One said:
Response: Nor do I. But we don't forget that they did receive revelation from God and while we do not have much that is specific to this topic that doesn't mean that everything Jews believed departed from the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures. What we have to consider is that the Lord affirms this concept in Luke 16.
Facebook Poster One said:
Response: So He used error to teach them a lesson? Did He do that with the Sadducees when they tempted Him in regards to Annihilation? No...He used truth to correct error. THis is the only way He taught.
Facebook Poster One said:
Response: I agree that is part of the teaching, but that doesn't deny that He is also teaching an afterlife of torment for the Lost, and again we see someone in a state of destruction and torment who has not ceased to exist. Why can Annihilationists believe God will torment men for millennia but not for Eternity? That judgment of torment sets the precedent for what will be Eternal Judgment/Damnation/Torment.
Facebook Poster One said:
Response: Again, I don't see it as a fair intepretation but hopeful thinking, and I view most people to simply have been indoctrinated into the doctrine. The claim that it is from "careful study" doesn't correlate to something that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
And again...I have never said that embracing this doctrine damns anyone, I have merely said that it is a doctrine that correlates to doctrines that take people away from the truth of Scripture and can make the difference between Eternal Life and Eternal Judgment. Dobecauseu think that those in cults who embrace this doctrine becaue they are indoctrinated into it might look more closely at other doctrines they have mebraced if this doctrine was shown to be erroneous?
As far as heresy goes...it is a heretical belief. BEcause it stands in direct conflict with what Christ and the Apostles taught.
God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 27, 2019 15:06:48 GMT
I would agree, I think most have been indoctrinated into the belief, whether because they grew up in a group that teaches it or have been led into it by others. And I just want to make clear I have compassion for both, but that doesn't change my own view that we have a responsibility to help others in anything we see as error, and I do not take an "agree to disagree" approach. Secondly, when we debate these issues it is good for both sides, because ultimately points both sides hold to may be shown as either weak or faulty, and when we drop this kind of support for the positions we hold to we are ultimately made stronger in our personal faith.
Response: Response: I would agree with that, because I think there are many people who are sincere in their beliefs despite holding to false doctrine. Again this can be a result of indoctrination so we have to keep that in mind. Our ultimate goal is to lead men to the Lord and it is my personal belief that correction of error is one of the best approaches.
Response: I think this is one of the big reasons. It's ironic, though, that people can have a problem with God's Justice but embrace works-based salvation. It seems reasonable to think a loving God would not eternally judge men (though not Biblical) but unreasonable to claim Jesus saves but then you have to save yourself.
Response: That should be simple enough: define what Orthodox means and then see which view is.
Response: Not relevant, because Universal Salvation does the same thing Annihilation does...it denies the Eternal Judgment that Scripture teaches. It is no different than doctrines that deny the Deity of Christ. We know it is clearly taught in Scripture but those who deny it feel they have a good case to show that it doesn't. And just like Works-based salvation both have some very compelling proof-texts. But just as we would oppose those rigorously because we believe they contribute to the potential that those embracing them may not be saved (though we acknowledge men can be in error on doctrine and still be saved, all of us are born again as babes in Christ and very ignorant).
Any doctrine that denies a clearly taught Doctrine of the Bible must be confronted, and we do not know what other doctrines we might be repairing in their lives through this effort.
Response: Not a good excuse for error.
Response: Not a good excuse for error.
Response: Not a good excuse for error. I would also add that God's Holiness is impacted because it calls into question the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The arguments for Annihilation are largely intellectual rationalizations rather than Apologetics. The unjust and demons will face the same fate in Hell, and we are taught that there will be varying degrees of punishment in Hell:
Hebrews 10:26-29 King James Version (KJV)
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
2 Peter 2:20-22 King James Version (KJV)
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Matthew 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Matthew 11:22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Continued...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 27, 2019 15:31:41 GMT
Response: Not really, the severity of punishment and the varying degrees of punishment are nullified. Think about that in a context of the lost who are ready to end their lives and get it over with. Instead of understanding that their only hope is Jesus Christ they are essentially told "Go ahead...because everything will simply be over for you." Of course we know that those who die now go into Hades and torment according to the Lord, so it could be argued that this would be a deterrent, but it doesn't change the fact that they are not receiving what they should be...the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a hope for Eternal Life rather than Annihilation. That option is going to appeal to some, and if it is even one person who ends it all because of this that one too many.
Response: I disagree. Some people want it to be over. Faith isn't an issue because they do not have faith, do not want faith, but just want whatever it is they are going through to be over.
Response: On the contrary, Annihilation does away with the penalty for rejection of God's will.
Response: Where they differ is that one teaches what Scripture teaches and the other does not. If you deny that then tell me how there can be varying degrees of punishment in Annihilation. And that is not the only point, but will suffice as a starting point. I know you say you aren't defending it but basically you are becaue you are saying it isn't a problem if one embraces this doctrine, whereas I see it as a major problem.
Response: Neither applies, unless we apply it to cults who have stepped away from the Doctrine of Scripture on this and numerous other points. It must be remembered though that we do not levy an equal charge to the cult member as we do the cult and it's doctrine itself. Again, many in cults have been brought up in it and indoctrinated into thinking that the doctrine they hold to is correct, and while this doesn't alleviate responsibility on their part it is something we take into consideration as we seek to witness to them.
Response: No, false teaching is an apt description, because it is false and those embracing but be shown why.
Response: Anything anti-Biblical is Anti-God and antichrist. We can't view direct rejection of Christ's teachings as anything else.
Response: We all are accused of things, the question being...are they true? I know in my case sometimes they are/were. There are numerous doctrinal views I have held to that I have since rejected in light of something else.
Continued...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 27, 2019 15:42:34 GMT
We see a lot of "I am right and you are wrong" in Scripture based on Scripture itself. The idea that no-one can be right and no-one wrong is not a Biblical concept. We don't take this position in either the pulpit or Sunday School, do we? Do we tell members "No-one can be dogmatic about anything?"
No, the fact is that this excuse denies absolutes in Scripture. Would you take the same position on Free Grace? Can no-one be dogmatic? Can we "agree to disagree" about that? Do you?
Some are heretics, some are apostate, and many are false teacher. Nothing wrong with pointing out who is. It's been done for millennia by men who spoke for God.
As I said, picking and choosing denies a validity to the previous point. It is nothing less than cherry-picking where we are going to apply principles and where we will not.
I see that, lol.
I agree with that too: it is false doctrine, let's be careful we don't teach people it's okay to embrace false teachings. or that people can have opposing views and both of them be right.
I do. Because there is more at stake than meets the eye.
God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2019 16:25:46 GMT
Facebook Poster Two said: Darrell Conner man, I am so glad you responded this way (read this with sarcasm).
Response: It's not hard to read the sarcasm because despite trying to have a serious discussion about this topic there is a lot of that going on, yet it seems that I am the only one being charged with it. If you would like me to leave the group just say so. One thing I am not interested in is trying to participate in a group where Doctrine is overshadowed by friendships, especially when I see nothing being said about the comments of others.
Facebook Poster Two said: You are unduly harsh towards those who hold to or lean towards annihilation.
Response: That is incorrect: I am duly harsh on a doctrine that I see as false and deceptive, based on weak arguments and a refusal to address arguments that show it's weakness. What I don't understand is how anyone can possibly think that it's okay to allow people to think there are numerous acceptable positions concerning any given doctrine. I asked you before, do you take this same position when it comes to Free Grace? No...you won't even allow someone on this forum if they do not accept your view. Right? So why is it unacceptable to take a dogmatic position on this issue? Because it isn't a salvific issue? Is it a good idea to teach people it doesn't matter what they believe? It's always going to seem "harsh" to hear that one's views are in error, but, when a good reason is given to show that error and an inability to address those reasons there should be a better response than anger. I tried to have a discussion in the other thread and it was met with sarcasm and attack, yet I did not see you saying anything about that. Why not?
Facebook Poster Two said: And the reply to all my comments are not helpful whatsoever, "not good enough excuse for error."
Response: Sorry, but I like to be detailed in my responses and most of the time I will parse the responses. And I stand by my statement, because friendship and excuses for indulging in error are not excuses.
Facebook Poster Two said: And putting this on a par with denying the deity of Christ? Not.even.close. Yikes.
Response: That you distinguish between someone being in error on one doctrine being worse than being in error on another is not something I share. We should have a goal of being sound in our doctrine on all points of doctrine. But because that goal is assumed as arrogant and the excuse "No-one can be right about everything" we have the due results of that philosophy...people who simply don't care if they are right or wrong. "Don't confuse me with the facts..."
I don't categorize error, to be wrong is to be wrong and anyone that is okay with that, either for themselves or others...has no business being in a position of leadership.
Facebook Poster Two said: I was not - and am not - interested in debating here which view is or is not correct
Response: Why not? Are you saying this forum does not allow debate? Can there be discussion without debate? Kind of hard to have a discussion between opposing views without it, don't you think?
Facebook Poster Two said: (I see your response to me turned into that).
Response: That is because it is a debate. Annihilation versus Eternal Judgment as taught by Christ and the Apostles, also implied in Daniel 12:1-2, so we can include at least one Prophet.
Facebook Poster Two said: In fact, I stated my view.
Response: Correct, and I sought to discuss it. Is it a matter that no-one is allowed to disagree with Roger?
Facebook Poster Two said: However, my point is, while I disagree with annihilation, it is within the realm of orthodoxy, whether or not you agree with it.
Response: It is not within the realm of Orthodoxy. It is outside the realm of orthodoxy and has been rejected by the majority for nearly two millennia.
Facebook Poster Two said: If you want to "correct error," make that clear in the OP.
Response: I did. I asked that a direct response to the point/s be made and so far I have not received that. I looked to discuss the reasoning behind Annihilation and I have not received that. How can you possibly read the OP and not see I take the view Annihilation is wrong and the points given are meant to show that, and that a response to those points was requested?
Facebook Poster Two said: This is a discussion group,
Response: Apparently only for those who don't have a dogmatic view. Yet the funny thing being that someone started a thread on it and was converting people to it through their arguments for Annihilation. If you do not view it as correct it seems to me, as Admin, that you would take an interest in that. But you're all over someone trying to stop that.
Facebook Poster Two said: which should allow gracious discussions of differing views l.
Response: If you truly believed that you would have said something to those making smart comments and hurling accusations. Some seem to be able to say whatever they want without penalty. Why is that?
Facebook Poster Two said: It is okay to disagree, but the tone here is more lecture than discussion.
Response: Sorry, but I don't teach in a wishy washy way, I know what I believe and it is based on study, and if anyone wants to challenge that I am okay with that. That is as a matter of fact what I want, because it is important to me that my doctrine is sound and if there is something that is weak or in error I want to be the first one to know. So I rely on other believers to share their own understandings with me and if they can point out weakness or error I am actually grateful. If you feel like you have been lectured perhaps you ought to consider what it is that bothered you. IF you say my attitude only then I am going to have disagree, because nothing I said in my response to your post was meant to offend.
Continued...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2019 16:34:48 GMT
Response: It's not a matter of opinion. We see the Lord teach of a disembodied spirit in pain in Luke 16. Show any teaching of Christ that uses what is not truth to teach.
Here is another inspired teaching of spirits in pain:
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?
Demons are spirits and they acknowledge when they are judged they will be in torment (which essentially means torture).
Now, the way that you phrase your statement leads me to a question: do you also embrace Soul Sleep? You seem to discount a "disembodied spirit" speaking. And this is just a question, I am not trying to sound offensive, just want an honest answer before God.
Response: Understood. I addressed this.
Response: It's not open for debate, we can see when figurative language is used. There is nothing figurative about the Lord's account, it speaks of truths that are easily recognized. Figurative language, though, does not nullify the fact that truth is always the point, the reason for the employment of figurative language.
Response: And that is not relevant to the discusion. I have no reason to doubt that, nor have I ever called that into question. What I do call into question is your position concerning Biblical Doctrine, and the way that you arrive at it.
Response: I am already satisfied with His character and believe He has given us His Word that we might know what He is going to do that we might be more effective in our ministry of the Gospel. Anything we are in error on weakens our ability to minister to the Lost.
As to whether you are right or not I again encourage you to embrace the points made which show the weakness of your position. When you can present Annihilation from Scripture and from Scripture address arguments against it then you will be a stronger believer and a more effective witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Response: It is damnable in that it caters to error. One can believe it and it does not change whether they are saved or not, but if one believes error it may contribute to whether they will be saved or not. I have tried to explain this before. Don't you think that someone in a cult may be more open to the fact their group teaches error if it can be shown to them? If the reasoning behind the error can be dismantled?
As to your accusation (implied) that I have implied that you are not saved, well, you have taken this personally from the start and it is clear that you mean only to teach and convert with your doctrine, and will not engage in serious discussion about why you might be wrong. So be it.
God bless.
Response: You "could conceive" of this? Only someone holding to the Calvinist position would not. It is simply a basic principle of Scripture that God has, from the beginning, revealed His will to men and judged their response. That remains true throughout Scripture. Now, to make it clear that I also reject "Free Will" in a salvific context, I point out that before man can "make a choice" he is dependent on the revelation God provides. No man in his natural condition seeks after God nor has he an inherent ability to understand the spiritual things of God, he must be enlightened to truth and then...he makes that choice. You will not find a single man who is justified (either temporally or eternally) that has not received revelation from God.
Response: It absolutely does. Men are not regenerated in order to have faith, they make that decision before regeneration takes place. We see those who are held accountable because they know the truth:
Hebrews 10:26-29 King James Version (KJV)
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
2 Peter 2:20-22 King James Version (KJV)
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
This is what I have been saying, one error leads to another.
Response: Actually, I know of no allegory in Revelation but be glad to have you show me where it is, and I will also be glad to show you the truth that is being taught with the figurative language employed.
Secondly, parable and foreshadowing was meant to prefigure eternal realities. This is true concerning all usage of figurative language throughout Scripture. An early use can be seen in Joseph's dreams, and it is not all that hard to understand the truth being taught through the use of the visions.
Third, we have to keep in mind that the revelation of the New Testament defines much of what went before, and gives us a more detailed understanding of the Prophecy of the Hebrew Scriptures. So we don't nullify New Testament revelation to impose meaning into the Old Testament. An example would be the Prophecy concerning Christ's coming: we now know that we have to distinguish what is best applied to the first coming and what is best applied to the second. Jews thought Zechariah 14, for example, spoke of Christ's coming. We now know this is a reference to His Return.
Response: I agree, however, how they are used must also be kept in context, and my first suggestion to you is that Annihilation is based on a misapplication of the term "soul." You show in your later statements that you do this because you give out of context application to Old Testament statements that do not take into consideration "how certain phrases or passages are used elsewhere in scripture."
Both Annihilation and Soul Sleep are based on this error.
Response: That is just one point, there are many. One of which, I would suggest, is found in the OP. I asked in the OP that you address the OP and you have not done that. Why not?
As far as trying to nullify the eternal context of "for ever and ever," sorry, but it's a weak argument:
Revelation 14:10-11 King James Version (KJV)
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Being tormented with fire and brimstone doesn't speak of annihilation. Nor does the "smoke of their torment ascending for ever and ever." Only someone with an agenda would not read this as they would other statements. Going back to "how certain phrases or passages are used elsewhere in scripture," of the thirteen times the word for smoke is used, twelve of those are in Revelation and eleven of them are used in a context of Eternal Judgment. Something we can take from its use is that this is a resulting factor of judgment, whether temporal or eternal. That it ascends for ever and ever is really a no-brainer: there is no reason to see this as “for ages upon ages which does not necessarily mean forever." The context itself speaks of Eternal Judgment, not something that is simply going to occur for a "long time."
The second thing I would mention is that many who embrace Annihilation and Soul Sleep fail to distinguish between he primarily temporal nature of the Old Testament and the spiritual and eternal realities revealed to us in the New. When someone exists no more in the Old Testament it is a reference to the fact that they do not exist any longer among the living in a temporal sense. Yet what happens is that an eternal context is imposed thus rendering plausibility to the false doctrines of Annihilation and Soul Sleep. This is the very error that Christ rebuked the Sadducees for, because they believed in Annihilation.
Third, we see αἰών aiōn used to describe both Eternal Salvation as well as Eternal Judgment/damnation/Torment. While one might impose a cessation of existence into damnation they cannot do this with torment, which is...what those in v.14 are facing.
Continued...
Response: Did you ever stop to think that this looks forward towards Eternal Judgment and their state then? Have you considered the fact that in the Millennial Kingdom and the Eternal State Edom will not be present? Have you considered that "Edom" refers to the people as well as the land?
But again, let's go back to "how certain phrases or passages are used elsewhere in scripture to get a better idea of what they mean."
Isaiah 34 King James Version (KJV)
1 Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it.
2 For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.
3 Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.
4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
When does this speak of? We know that some Prophecy has an immediate context but also has a future application, the coming of Christ being the prime example. So let's look at a similarity between this prophecy and another:
Revelation 6:12-17 King James Version (KJV)
12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
The point being this: your doctrine relies on the prophecy already being fulfilled...and it hasn't seen its ultimate fulfillment yet. Hence your doctrine lacks a more complete application of the Word of God and can therefore be shown to be in error.
Continued...
Response: It's not true of Isaiah...so what now?
As far as it being interpreted literally...why not? You feel Edom will survive into the Millennial Kingdom? The Eternal State? You have tried to nullify Revelation 14:10-11 and failed, so now what?
Response: First, this clearly has a temporal context:
Psalm 92:13-15 King James Version (KJV)
13 Those that be planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God.
14 They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing;
15 To shew that the Lord is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.
Age doesn't apply to Eternity.
Second, the OP presents the reasoning for an eternal state of destruction. And yet no-one has addressed it. Why? You offer this argument when I have already addressed it in the OP. Had those the Lord came to seek and to save (either in the temporal sense of His earthly ministry or the eternal sense of HIs role as Redeemer/Savior) ceased to exist? Would you deny the Lord's designation of them (Israel) as being in a state of destruction? DEstroyed? Lost?
Response: Actually they are, because entrance to Eternal Punishment begins when the unbeliever dies:
Matthew 25:46 King James Version (KJV)
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
It is interesting to note that in the KJV the only other use of kolasis is translated as torment.
1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. G2851 He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
Response: So far I have not seen the first thing to substantiate that. How can one be annihilated and suffer torment? It isn't possible. That is an incorrect use of the word.
Response: Blotted out of what? The Book of Life, right? All men are in the Book of Life. It has a reference to physical life, coming into this world. And the only ones in the Lamb's Book of Life are those who actually receive the life He came to give. The rest of the examples you give are all...temporal. Show me the first one in New Testament revelation and we'll discuss it.
Response: Only if you ignore context.
Response: Again an appeal to men. I told you...I am only interested in First Century Doctrine of the Bible. I am not interested in the wrestings of men, even if they are called "church fathers." They aren't my fathers. I have a Father in Heaven and when it comes to a father among men that would probably have to go to Paul.
Response: Well, you can rely on the teachings of men, and I will rely on what Paul wrote to Ephesus that they might have sound doctrine.
God bless.
Response: The primary problem with your understanding of this issue is that you equate Eternal Life with an unending existence. You go on to say in a later post...
...what is the opposite of everlasting life? I’m just saying it’s not a no-brainer. I mean it could have said “the wages of sin is eternal torment “.
...without understanding, apparently, that all men are born dead, meaning that no man is born with Eternal Life and that when one receives Eternal Life they have something that those without it don't. So to try to support Annihilation based on this kind of reasoning is sad.
The reason that most believe that Eternal Judgment is a no-brainer is because you cannot read all of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles and not conclude that the Lost will receive Eternal Torment, which is not something that can have Annihilation imposed into it. And the duration of Eternal Torment is equal to the duration of Eternal Life.
Response: Actually the OP begins by stating a request for an address of the point made.
And if you want to show me where I say everyone will not live forever I would like to see it. What I said was "Nothing in Scripture teaches that spirits ever cease to exist.," so I would suggest you try to put a little more into your efforts to contribute to the discussion.
Response: We first have to change your false quoting of what I said to what I actually said, then try to weed through what you say to see if there is something tangible to discuss. Nope, nothing yet. Yet another attempt to denigrate an antagonist and jump on the basnd-wagon to mock and ridicule. How's that going so far, anyway?
Response: The implication being I do, lol. Insult duly noted, but never fear, as long as you are trying to ridicule me you are safe and will get many likes. Good Job. Keep up the good work. And by the way, if you would like to reread the OP and see what I actually said and would like to respond to the request and actually contribute something that would make this a discussion...that would be great.
God bless.
Let's test that. You said...
"It’s amazing to me that a lot of people believe it’s a no-brainer to believe that everyone will live forever."
You also said...
"The OP begins by saying that nowhere in scripture does it say they will not."
Nowhere do I say this, and I already pointed out your misrepresentation in the previous post:
I responded: "And if you want to show me where I say everyone will not live forever I would like to see it. What I said was "Nothing in Scripture teaches that spirits ever cease to exist.," so I would suggest you try to put a little more into your efforts to contribute to the discussion."
And if you would take note of the larger point which is that only those who receive Eternal Life live forever, and, that you do not understand the difference...perhaps you might understand why you misrepresented what I said.
You equate an unending existence of a spirit with "living forever." That is not the case, and that is an extremely important issue concerning Eternal Judgment.
Facebook Poster Four said: You said nowhere in the Bible does it say spirits cease to exist and I see that as living forever. I thought that was fair.
I know, but I am trying to teach you why it isn't and why this contributes to a willingness to embrace the false doctrine of Annihilation.
Now, do you see why you misrepresented what I said, now that it has been explained to you twice? And yes, that is a little yanking of your chain. It's a very useful way to get people who say "You have no right to a response!" to respond.
God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2019 16:44:56 GMT
Just want to mention that as a result of this "discussion" an Admin "temporarily turned off" my ability to post. This is my response to that: the leadership of that forum is corrupt as far as I am concerned. They are guilty of respect of persons and allow false doctrine to flourish. Is it any wonder that we have people professing to be Christians yet advocating abortion, homosexuality, and tolerance. That is not to say that I question that they are saved, I don't. What I question is their ability to lead the Body of Christ, even in a setting such as a Facebook group. Why would what goes on there be any different than what goes on inside a building believers meet in?
If anyone is wondering if it bothers me to have something like this happen...no, it does not. It's happened only twice in a number of years of debating the issues, even in groups where the members seek to antagonize someone into an argument. This is clearly the M.O. on this forum.
But I will also point out that not a single person raised a valid point. And only a couple points were raised to support Annihilation. Those easily dismissed. And not a single person addressed the points raised to deny Annihilation. A few made comments but there was no serious response to the numerous points raised, or the counterpoints.
Folks, if anything you believe cannot be substantially presented from Scripture, or someone can show you weakness in it and you cannot respond...you need to rethink your doctrine.
I have left that group and am moving on. While I do believe in "Free Grace" I fear that many there who do are not doing so based on Scripture, but based on the same reasoning as we see in these couple of threads dealing with Annihilation. I saw a fairly evident implication of Poster One's belief in not just Annihilation, but Soul Sleep as well, seeing that there was an implied denial of a waking consciousness of a disembodied spirit. As I mentioned to the Admin who felt he had been "scolded," one error leads to the embrace of another. And despite their belief that this has a salvific issue, that too is wishful thinking. I can only hope that at least one person in that group will give some consideration to the points made, and perhaps acknowledge the weakness of their doctrine and inability to actually defend it.
Eternal Judgment is the flip side of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and if that goes out the window for some, what else does? I will tell you one thing, the dire need of man to be redeemed by Jesus Christ.
God bless.
|
|