SDA and the heresy on hell

Glad to know that. We have an expert! I haven't looked at SDA doctrine since reviewing it in 1990 in a class on various sects and cults (FWIW, SDAs were considered part of a sect, not a cult.), so I am not going to make many claims about what SDA folks believe. I know "soul sleep" is one of the distinctives as well as a highly-detailed understanding of the Apocalypse.

Yes. God separated them from that which would continue their life. It was a mercy as well as a judgment.

Yes, I was trying to be brief in my comments. The Lake of Fire is the ultimate destination for those who oppose God. And that fire consumes those cast into it, like the furnace burns the chaff in the parable of Jesus.

Yes! Good citation. I should have mentioned that.

FWIW, I am a Baptist. There are a modest number of us who recognize that the Bible teaches conditional mortality (aka annihilationism).

 

Nice to meet you my friend.Good to hear of you modest number existing... "invite your friends" to this board - would love to see that light shining on this topic!

Are you familiar with "The Fire that Consumes" by Edward Fudge?

The 1 Thess 4 teaching on the dormant state of man at death and before the resurrection - has been part of SDA primary doctrine since the mid 1800's.

in Christ,

Bob

 

First of all that Matthew 22 discussion was what Christ claimed as bullet-proof iron-clad argument in favor of ... not the living dead... but the future resurrection. Christ argued two points that the Sadducees could not deny.
1. God is not the God of the Dead.
2. God said He was the "God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob" when talking to Moses centuries later at the burning bush.

Christ said the only way both those statements can be true - is if there is a future resurrection and it is such a compelling point that the text says the Sadducees were silenced. Had no come-back... no retort.

Yet many people today by glossing over every detail in the text will argue that Christ utterly failed to prove His future resurrection point and instead chose to totally undermine it by arguing that Moses was alive while God was talking to Moses as "the living dead". Which is something the Sadducees were not about to accept "in silence" and is something that would have totally destroyed his argument for future resurrection with a group like the Sadducees.

The only way Matt 22 works as "proof of future resurrection" is to be just as hard and fast on the dormant state of man "God is not the God of the dead" as the Sadducees.. and then Christ's argument becomes irrefutable logic in favor of the future resurrection which is what Christ claimed it was when He said "but regarding the resurrection have you not read that.."

The temptation to completely ignore Christ's statement that it is a proof of the future resurrection and instead to hijack it as proof of the "living dead who need no resurrection to be the children of God while dead" -- is strong.

True that Elijah (who was translated" and Moses (who is referenced in the Jude 9 quote of the book "The Assumption of Moses") do appear alive and fully interacting - in glory - with the sinless Christ ... in Matthew 17 before the cross.

But Elijah was bodily assumed into heaven - translated - while alive -- according to 2Kings.
And Jude 9's quote from the book the "Assumption of Moses" raises the possibility that the story it tells about Moses being resurrected and bodily assumed into heaven - fully explains how he could be standing there in Matthew 17 with Christ and Elijah - all of them in glorified form and non of it a 10 minute resurrection or a seance.

And if the dead were as fully enabled as Moses was standing with Christ and Elijah in glory - no apparent difference between the glorified living and the dead - then "no need for resurrection at all!!"

Yet 1 Thess 4 says that we fix our hope completely on the future resurrection -- so also does Phil 3 say it and so also does 1 Peter 1:13

 

Which words in that post were ad hominems?

 

Everlasting punishment, is not everlasting punishing. These two phrases are not synonymous. The first is a single event [punishment] that has eternal results - ie, death from which there is no resurrection, no life ever again, 2nd death, the wages of sin. The second is an ongoing, never-ending process, wherein there is never an actual 2nd death, but sustained immortal sinners in torments. The first is just and rightfully belongs to God the Judge, while the second is the product and ideology of a warped mind and depraved character, namely that of satan.

The everlasting / eternal fire is actually a reference to JEHOVAH God and God's just vengeance, for it is written:

Deuteronomy 32:35 KJB - To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.

Deuteronomy 32:41 KJB - If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.

Psalms 94:1 KJB - O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself.

Romans 12:19 KJB - Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.​

etc.

Deuteronomy 4:24 KJB - For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 9:3 KJB - Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee.

Deuteronomy 12:29 KJB - For our God is a consuming fire.​

Therefore, read Jude 1:7, etc, in this light, since it was JEHOVAH Emmanuel that came down to destroy it, see Genesis 17-19 KJB. It is saying that those cities were literally destroyed, permanently by JEHOVAH, the eternal and all consuming fire of Love:

1 John 4:8 KJB - He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

1 John 4:16 KJB - And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Song of Solomon 8:7 KJB - Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned.​

 

This is not a debate on "how hot" is hell. It is about "how long do the wicked remain unpunished to the full amount owed".

The Bible says they fully pay.

The immortal worm/immortal soul/immortal hell group claims that never in all of eternity do they actually pay the debt owed. eternal life in hell is the false doctrine that is being opposed here.. not "how hot is hell"

 

True this is the point where we agree.

True and that is my belief.

 

Ok then we have Daniel 12, John 11 and 1Thess 4 (and 1Cor 15) all teaching that the state of the first death is sleep... a dormant state.

This means that we need to look "very carefully" at any text that we think might be teaching "awake while asleep" or something of that nature.

Jesus declared this in the debate about future resurretion -
Matt 22
29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.
34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together

How did Jesus prove His doctrine on future resurrection in that example??

Answer: He put the Sadducees into a box where the ONLY SOLUTION - is the future resurrection.

31 But regarding the resurrection of the dead,-- He starts with "God is not the God of the DEAD" when proving his doctrine on the "resurrection of the DEAD". He does not call them "the resurrection of the ALIVE in Christ while dead"


Luke 20
34 Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. 37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 Now He is not the God of the dead but of the living; for all live to Him.”


But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed... Christ states that the subject is about the future resurrection of the DEAD - and the proof given argues that only because of the future resurrection can God say to Moses while Abraham is dead - "I am the God of Abraham".

This is the very point of the iron clad argument Christ makes -- and the very point many Christians would flat out deny. But the Sadducees were not about to leap off the cliff of "must be alive while dead" so they took this as irrefutable proof of future resurrection... unlike the popular views today.

On the contrary - if you take that view then Jesus' own claim that the future resurrection is the only way those statements can all be true -- WORKS!

 

Matt 17 Elijah and Moses stand in glory and appear with the sinless Christ --

Elijah having never died.
Moses having died but as Jude 9 quotes the book 'the Assumption of Moses" -- was resurrected.

The three of them stand in glory in the mount of transfiguration perfectly whole and glorified.

What need would Moses have of a future resurrection if in fact he is perfectly the same in form as the never-dead-but-translated Elijah?

Yet the NT authors argue that we are to "fix our hope" entirely on the future resurrection in 1Thess 4, in 1Cor 15 and in 1 Peter 1:13

 

Why debate this? Who cares what heretical views the SDA embraces? Their pro-abortion position clearly stated on their official website and the daily practice of hacking apart babies in the womb in their Adventist hospitals should be more than enough to immediately sicken and turn away bible believing Christians from this cult. Satan bellows in delight with each and every abortion performed in/by Adventist doctors in Adventists hospitals.

I'm sure I will be accused by Bob of trying to derail the thread by bringing up his churches position on abortion. However, he would like nothing better than to distract you from the official leaderships decisions to support something that bible believing Christians know is a 'stench in the nostrils of the Lord'. You can have an elective abortion performed at his Adventists hospitals but you cannot order a ham sandwich in that same hospitals cafeteria. You will notice that the other SDA posters (exception being Bob) on the BB took off like flies when they were called out on their churches pro-choice statements on the SDA website. This thread 'strains gnats and swallows camels'.

 

everyone as you suggest could climb down into some sectarian hole in the ground and "keep to themselves" I suppose.

But in the light of day - and the 21st century -- those dark ages ideas seem to find less and less appeal to the thinking person.

If your point was to highlight the fact that if all Catholic Judges on the supreme court voted against abortion.. then we wouldn't have that problem in America -- then you did remind me of it - so well done.

If your point was to highlight the fact that if all Catholic Judges on the supreme court voted against LGBT marriage then we wouldn't have that problem in America -- then you did remind me of it -- so well done.

 

Matthew 10:28
King James Version (KJV)

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


Not at all. In view is basically, "Do not fear those who can kill the body, but not kill the person, but fear Him Who can destroy both the person and the body in Hell."

It is a statement that affirms a physical existence in judgment, which correlates to the imagery Christ presented when teaching about judgment. For example, He gives the imagery of a burning dump that is on fire continuously, and worms eat at that which is there.

We see both in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus: he is in both mental and physical anguish. And seeing that He denied annihilation...


Matthew 22:23-32
King James Version (KJV)

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.


It could be argued that it is only the Sadducee's belief that men ceased to exist when they died physically the Lord rebukes them for, and that He is just saying "Not so, for they will be raised from the dead physically then annihilated," but, we are still vying with the very concept Christ makes clear in His teachings, as do several New Testament writers.

That is why most have held to the traditional belief that Eternal Judgment and Eternal Punishment and Eternal Torment are just that...

...Eternal. Everlasting. Without end.


God bless.

 

Destroyed as the Lord meant it refers to being ruined/wrecked, as living apart form God forever!

 

The resurrection of Christ bought though eternal state for all people, just some in heaven, some in Hell!
Those in hell will have immortality, but not eternal life, for that applies to just those whom Christ has redeemed, its qualify of life, now being in a relationship with God, which those in hell cannot experience.

 

Matthew 10:28 "Fear Him who is able to DESTROY BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell".

So while the Lake of Fire does provide literal torment of literal fire and literal brimstone to literal lost souls in literal lake of fire -- that supernatural event will end with the "destruction of BOTH body AND soul".


Rev 20
7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. 9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

Exek 18:4 "the soul that sin - it shall die"


Matthew 10:28 "DEsTROY both body and soul in fiery hell" as compared to those who merely "kill the body but unable to kill the soul".

DESTROYED Sodom and Gomorrah -- Luke 17:29 in fire and brimstone.
Destroyed by "reducing them to ashes" - 2 Peter 2:6 ... that city is gone.. buildings wiped out.

Precisely.

Your quote "of you" noted. I prefer the Bible

 

more "quote of you" and creative writing -- does not make it so

 

Jesus said that Hell will be a place of eternal torment, do you believe Ellen White over the Lord Himself?

 

Not at all. Perhaps if you addressed the argument, then, looked at the various texts you use as proof texts of your doctrine, and did so apart from your desire to proof text your doctrine, you might see the point is more than valid, it is inarguable.

And I am pretty sure we have discussed this passage before (Ezekiel 18), nevertheless, for the benefit of new readers, I will show you why "soul" means "person" in this text as well.

And since you are a fan of the NASB, I will use that this time:


Ezekiel 18
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

God Deals Justly with Individuals

1 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying,

2 “What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying,

‘The fathers eat the sour grapes,
But the children’s teeth [a]are set on edge’?

3 As I live,” declares the Lord God, “you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore.

4 Behold, all [c]souls are Mine; the [d]soul of the father as well as the [e]soul of the son is Mine. The [f]soul who sins will die.


Here is the footnote:

1. 
   
   
   • Ezekiel 18:4 Or person

We will see that the context deals with the individual in the physical, in the temporal, and that physical life and death is in view. We know the Lord is not contradicting His teaching elsewhere by teaching here that men can gain eternal life through works (which are precisely what God is commanding them to do), which is the conclusion we are forced to draw if the death here is eternal.

This is a physical context, not an eternal.

And your choice translation denotes soul as referring to a person.

Now, let's see what it is men do and don't do which will determine if they live or die:


5 “But if a man is righteous and practices justice and righteousness,

6 and does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman during her menstrual period—

7 if a man does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, does not commit robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing,

8 if he does not lend money on interest or take increase, if he keeps his hand from iniquity and executes true justice between man and man,

9 if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully—he is righteous and will surely live,” declares the Lord God.

Now Bob, I want you to seriously consider whether the Lord is saying "Men will have eternal life if they are righteous and practices justice and righteousness, do not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman during her menstrual period, do not oppress anyone, restores to the debtor his pledge, does not commit robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing, does not lend money on interest or take increase, if he keeps his hand from iniquity and executes true justice between man and man, if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully"

Can you honestly deny the Gospel of Christ by saying God is teaching eternal life through works here? That is what you would be doing, teaching two means by which men can obtain eternal life. The Cross...and works.

Is that what you are saying?


Continued...

 

Next we see reference to one's son, and what he does:

10 “Then he may [g]have a violent son who sheds blood and who does any of these things to a brother

11 (though he himself did not do any of these things), that is, he even eats at the mountain shrines, and defiles his neighbor’s wife,

12 oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore a pledge, but lifts up his eyes to the idols and commits abomination,

13 he lends money on interest and takes increase; will he live? He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be put to death; his blood will be [h]on his own head.


What does He mean "...his blood will be on his own head?"

The same thing Scripture usually means when it talks about "the blood," which is physical death.

When Scripture states "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission," it is speaking about death. That is because the penalty of sin is death. When we see reference to "the Blood of Christ," it is speaking of His death. When Christ speaks of the blood of the Prophets, we know He is speaking about them being put to death. When the Writer of Hebrews speaks of the blood of bulls and goats, he is speaking about them being put to death.

Here in Ezekiel 18:13, what He is saying is that those who do those things listed will suffer physical death. Again, if we make eternal death to be in view, then we must say that men can obtain eternal life through not doing them, and keeping the works of the Law.

And Paul flat out denies that in many of his teachings.

Next we see the son who does not sin as his father did/does...


14 “Now behold, he has a son who has observed all his father’s sins which he committed, and observing does not do likewise.

15 He does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor’s wife,

16 or oppress anyone, or retain a pledge, or commit robbery, but he gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing,

17 he keeps his hand from [j]the poor, does not take interest or increase, but executes My ordinances, and walks in My statutes; he will not die for his father’s iniquity, he will surely live.


Does this mean he gains eternal life? Not at all, it simply means he will not come under the penalty for sin, which is death. And in an Old Testament context, that is usually what is in view, not everlasting judgment.

That is just a basic principle of the Law: if you sin...you are put to death.

What about the father that does sin?


18 As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was not good among his people, behold, he will die for his iniquity.

He will die for his sin...physically.


19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live.

20 The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.


The son will not die due to his father's sin, but will surely live. Not obtain eternal life, but live on physically.


21 “But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

22 All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live.

23 Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, “[k]rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?


Where does someone turn from their ways? Here, while alive. What does it mean he will live? He will live physically.

And as I said, the error of the annihilationist is he imposes an eternal context, then completely skews the text by making a reference to the persons discussed refer to an immaterial aspect of man.

Now Bob, you will either cede this point or teach works-based salvation, and...

...two gospels.

That men can gain eternal life through faith in Christ and they can gain eternal life through obedience to the Law.


God bless.

 

The Sda is assuming spiritual death all the way through, but its really physical death in mind!