wTanksley, I'll respond to your post more tomorrow, but first I would like to ask you to respond to my posts #'s 25, 26, and 27 more fully as you said earlier in the thread.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A Case for Giving Satan and his Angels Eternal Torment
- Thread starter Steven Yeadon
- Start date
No, you are simply being inconsistent with the term "everlasting." Unceasing life is life that continues uninterrupted in endurance. Unceasing fire is fire that continues uninterrupted in endurance. Unceasing punishment is punishment that continues uninterrupted in endurance. But you do not believe that as your punishment has a finite beginning point and finite ending point and then ceases forever.
oxymoronoic to the hilt! It may be a judgement or sentence which has no reversal but your kind of punishment has a definite beginning and ending point that is finite as far as endurance and thus not unceasing.
That is totally absurd! Gehenna is a PLACE but God is a PERSON. The fire is IN Gehenna or IN the lake of fire. So you believe God exists in Gehenna forever as a burning fire????? That is absurd!
it is not correct and it is easy to see it is not correct.
You are confused because you are confusing what happens ON THIS EARTH at the end of THIS AGE rather than after the coming of Christ which introduces the age to come.
No, what is silly is your position as spirits cannot be burnt to ashes by any kind of fire. Revelation 19:21 and Rev. 20:10 clearly demonstrate your position is theory as the false prophet and antichrist continue in Gehenna for an extremely long period of time "a thousand years" and still continuing when Satan who is a "spirit" is cast into it. More mental gymnastics to come to defend your undefendable theory?!?
No the scripture does not say the soul will be annihilated,or burnt to ashes in gehenna. No, the Greek term does not mean that as it is used three times in the very same chapter and cannot possibly mean that in the other two instances.
There is continuing torment of his soul as his body had been "buried" and torment has now lasted about 2000 years and he is yet to be cast into Gehenna. 2000 years of conscious torment just to be turned into ashes as the most dreaded yet to come judgement???? Give me a break, if you were in conscious torment for 2000 years you would regard it as a blessing not a judgement to be put out of your misery. Your theory is nonsensical.
Oh no, the exegesis is correct. There is no difference between hades and gehenna except one is temporal continuous torment as some have been cast into hades suffering conscious torment going on 6000 years (Cain) whereas, Gehenna will never cease. The "lowest" hades is the same place. God's wrath against the ungodly only START in this life with physical judgements but it continues into hades and then into Gehenna. Atheists and drunks dream of your kind of Gehnna as do all the ungodly as it is the doctrine of human secularism - simply put out of existence forever.
I had said, in passing: "This is what it means for a thing to _die_ -- it means its life ends. Every dictionary in the world, in EVERY language, agrees with me."
Do you? NO. You do not affirm that death is when life ends. If you did, you would be saying that the death of the spirit of the unconverted, which is Biblical (Eph 2:1-3) and which you contend is literal, happened as an end to their spiritual literal life.
It follows that you disagree that death is in essence the event that ends life in a thing. You clarified this point by claiming that death is in essence separation; an separation is in essence a relative position of two things which does not necessarily affect either thing.
As for what “life” means — although I reject your criticism that I have to define BOTH in the same sentence, my definition of “life” is the dictionary one, augmented with the fact that God is the giver of life. Life is the quality of a thing which is animated, sensate, able to use power to accomplish its own ends; Life is the gift of God to the living beings He created.
In the case of humans, life is given to us (to borrow your trichotomy) in body, and in soul, and in spirit. EACH ONE has life, thanks to God, so long as it lives, and no longer. Life ends, according to my definition, when the animating power of God leaves a thing, and it becomes inactive, inanimate, powerless, insensate. This is "deadness".
If man is composed of three parts, it follows that each of the three must be given life by God, and it’s possible that all three could have life taken from them by God.
Really? So was Paul claiming to be dead when he said he went to the third heaven and paradise "whether in the body or out of it, I do not know"? No, of course not. God can carry our soul or our spirit apart from our body without killing any of them.
The separation is completely incidental to the death. Bodily life ends when the body ceases to be animate. And this is, indeed, the normal definition of bodily death. It follows that the soul dies when IT ceases to be animate, and the same with the spirit in its own time and place.
How do you know that's true? As far as I can see its only possible support is your own definition -- in other words, you're merely assuming your definition is true in order to prove your definition.
In fact, it seems to be the other way around; the body is important to the spirit, and when the body dies the spirit must leave. But the spirit doesn't CAUSE the body to die when it leaves; rather, a bullet or poison or old age causes the body to die, and THEN the spirit leaves.
Even worse for your view, when the body and soul separate, BOTH are separated from the other; but only the BODY is dead. The soul does not die until God kills before throwing it into gehenna, Luke 12:5.
I've shown that the death of the body is the cause of the separation, and not the other way around. Furthermore, I've shown that OTHER things aside from death can also cause a separation, without being death. Finally, I’ve shown that separation is insufficient to explain why we know the soul and body don’t die at the same time, even though they’re separated at the same time.
I agree with all this — no idea why you’re bringing it up.
I’ve long since proven that’s not how Hebrew works, by showing that others (e.g. 1 Kings 2) used the same manner of speaking not to express “direct association with the time” but rather to focus on the power of the threatener and the guilt of the threatenee.
Your response was that Solomon, when recounting Shimei’s violation of the command and repeating his threat back, was WRONG. In other words, you think a native Hebrew speaker in full knowledge of all the facts of the situation simply doesn’t know enough to not make an obvious error in front of an enemy. Nonsense, I say; Solomon and God were both making a threat not of immediate death, but certain death backed by sovereign power.
We agree, but disagree what “in some sense” means.
Correct; which means that “made alive together with Christ” doesn’t literally mean our body was resurrected from the dead at the same time Christ’s was. (Notice that the verb here isn’t “made alive” — it’s “made alive together”. Any literal understanding MUST apply “together” to Christ as well as us.)
That’s how metaphors work — they get expanded by literal text.
Back at you: eternal torment utterly discards the importance of the bodily death and resurrection of Christ as our substitutionary atonement, which Paul called “of first importance.”
That’s only the FUTURE element of salvation, as described in Eph 1 and Col 1, when God is all in all. And it’s FAR from “simple” — in order for that to happen to us, our mortal bodies have to become like His glorious body, and our corruption has to put on incorruption. All of this requires the event of the Resurrection with its transformation; without that, being brought into the presence of God would be _lethal_, since nobody can see Him and live.
The Hebrews were gifted with nearby, unseparated communion with God in order to point out that it is not NEARNESS to God that will save us. There’s MORE that’s needed. Our very hearts have to be changed from stone to flesh (a metaphor representing the indwelling Holy Spirit).
What nonsense! Unconditional mortality is all they know of. The good news Christ brought “brings immortality to light.” And although they dread death, they know they deserve it from the God whom they’ve scorned.
Heb 2:14-15 - "He also shared in [flesh and blood], so that through His death He might destroy the one holding the power of death-that is, the Devil- and free those who were held in slavery all their lives by the fear of death."
Romans 1:32 - “Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
Dodge that.
Do you? NO. You do not affirm that death is when life ends. If you did, you would be saying that the death of the spirit of the unconverted, which is Biblical (Eph 2:1-3) and which you contend is literal, happened as an end to their spiritual literal life.
It follows that you disagree that death is in essence the event that ends life in a thing. You clarified this point by claiming that death is in essence separation; an separation is in essence a relative position of two things which does not necessarily affect either thing.
As for what “life” means — although I reject your criticism that I have to define BOTH in the same sentence, my definition of “life” is the dictionary one, augmented with the fact that God is the giver of life. Life is the quality of a thing which is animated, sensate, able to use power to accomplish its own ends; Life is the gift of God to the living beings He created.
In the case of humans, life is given to us (to borrow your trichotomy) in body, and in soul, and in spirit. EACH ONE has life, thanks to God, so long as it lives, and no longer. Life ends, according to my definition, when the animating power of God leaves a thing, and it becomes inactive, inanimate, powerless, insensate. This is "deadness".
If man is composed of three parts, it follows that each of the three must be given life by God, and it’s possible that all three could have life taken from them by God.
Really? So was Paul claiming to be dead when he said he went to the third heaven and paradise "whether in the body or out of it, I do not know"? No, of course not. God can carry our soul or our spirit apart from our body without killing any of them.
The separation is completely incidental to the death. Bodily life ends when the body ceases to be animate. And this is, indeed, the normal definition of bodily death. It follows that the soul dies when IT ceases to be animate, and the same with the spirit in its own time and place.
How do you know that's true? As far as I can see its only possible support is your own definition -- in other words, you're merely assuming your definition is true in order to prove your definition.
In fact, it seems to be the other way around; the body is important to the spirit, and when the body dies the spirit must leave. But the spirit doesn't CAUSE the body to die when it leaves; rather, a bullet or poison or old age causes the body to die, and THEN the spirit leaves.
Even worse for your view, when the body and soul separate, BOTH are separated from the other; but only the BODY is dead. The soul does not die until God kills before throwing it into gehenna, Luke 12:5.
I've shown that the death of the body is the cause of the separation, and not the other way around. Furthermore, I've shown that OTHER things aside from death can also cause a separation, without being death. Finally, I’ve shown that separation is insufficient to explain why we know the soul and body don’t die at the same time, even though they’re separated at the same time.
I agree with all this — no idea why you’re bringing it up.
I’ve long since proven that’s not how Hebrew works, by showing that others (e.g. 1 Kings 2) used the same manner of speaking not to express “direct association with the time” but rather to focus on the power of the threatener and the guilt of the threatenee.
Your response was that Solomon, when recounting Shimei’s violation of the command and repeating his threat back, was WRONG. In other words, you think a native Hebrew speaker in full knowledge of all the facts of the situation simply doesn’t know enough to not make an obvious error in front of an enemy. Nonsense, I say; Solomon and God were both making a threat not of immediate death, but certain death backed by sovereign power.
We agree, but disagree what “in some sense” means.
Correct; which means that “made alive together with Christ” doesn’t literally mean our body was resurrected from the dead at the same time Christ’s was. (Notice that the verb here isn’t “made alive” — it’s “made alive together”. Any literal understanding MUST apply “together” to Christ as well as us.)
That’s how metaphors work — they get expanded by literal text.
Back at you: eternal torment utterly discards the importance of the bodily death and resurrection of Christ as our substitutionary atonement, which Paul called “of first importance.”
That’s only the FUTURE element of salvation, as described in Eph 1 and Col 1, when God is all in all. And it’s FAR from “simple” — in order for that to happen to us, our mortal bodies have to become like His glorious body, and our corruption has to put on incorruption. All of this requires the event of the Resurrection with its transformation; without that, being brought into the presence of God would be _lethal_, since nobody can see Him and live.
The Hebrews were gifted with nearby, unseparated communion with God in order to point out that it is not NEARNESS to God that will save us. There’s MORE that’s needed. Our very hearts have to be changed from stone to flesh (a metaphor representing the indwelling Holy Spirit).
What nonsense! Unconditional mortality is all they know of. The good news Christ brought “brings immortality to light.” And although they dread death, they know they deserve it from the God whom they’ve scorned.
Heb 2:14-15 - "He also shared in [flesh and blood], so that through His death He might destroy the one holding the power of death-that is, the Devil- and free those who were held in slavery all their lives by the fear of death."
Romans 1:32 - “Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
Dodge that.
True.
Whew! Applying that verse to unbelievers results in total universalism -- they'd be raised to immortality, but also to glory, honor, and power. This is not the case; that passage is a promise only to those who "hold fast to the gospel, by which you are being saved." The wicked are not raised to glory, but rather to judgment; which is why Jesus splits the resurrection "hour" into two events, the "resurrection to life" and the "resurrection to judgment" (John 5:29). The righteous, He said a few verses earlier, "do not enter into judgment", while we see that the wicked do not ultimately receive life (even if they do get a "Day"), any more than they receive glory or honor.
In this passage, as in ALL of his letters, Paul completely ignores the resurrection of unbelievers to judgment. He knew about it -- he testified before a Roman governor -- but never taught it in a letter, EXCEPT by implication in passages like 2Thess 1:9-10, in which he promised that the people then persecuting believers would "pay the penalty ... when He comes on that day." Obviously in order for this to happen "on that day" they must be raised to see Him.
But one thing about 1 Cor 15:51-55. The moment that death is defeated is the moment of resurrection and transformation; it's an "instant". How can YOU explain this? If the wicked are being raised to endure forever in the wages of their sin, called "death" by Paul, and if that ACTUALLY means remaining consciously in a condition called "death" forever, doesn't this mean that "death" endures forever -- and in fact, it BEGINS to triumph at that moment when Paul says it's defeated?
My explanation is simple: the defeat of death is the end of the righteous dying, as predicted from the beginning in Gen 3 and Isa 25:7. As Heb 2:15 promised, we are free from the slavery brought by our fear of death. The wicked are not freed from this, but rather are brought to their end in death.
You need to explain that -- if this is literal, they're thrown BODILY into the lake of fire, while still alive and without any mention of transformation. My explanation is entirely simple: those two beasts are symbolic figures, not humans. Their throwing into the lake of fire doesn't mean their human representatives cannot participate in the resurrection of the wicked later, when "all the dead, small and great" stand before God.
I respect your logic, and think it might be true. I don't see anything to confirm or deny it in the Bible, unless of course Rev 20:10 is sufficient -- the only passage in the entire Bible where anyone's said to endure eternal torment. For this reason, many conditionalists believe that Satan will be tormented forever and ever. No disrespect, but to take a strong position on this I need more than one single verse in the most figurative book in the Bible; not because one verse isn't enough, but because the same book also predicted that the beast would "go to destruction" (Rev 17:8,11), and this was a message in which an angel is EXPLAINING a vision.
If we trust the Bible to interpret itself, it follows that we must trust the interpretation given by the angel to John above the vision given to John, even when the details of the vision seem overwhelming. The interpretation explains the vision, after all.
But I hold to this loosely, even so. It may be that all your logic about Satan is correct. It does not follow that everyone cast into the lake of fire suffers the same end as Satan, though; after all, death is also cast in, and after the judgment is complete Rev 21:4 says "death is no more."
True. So my point is that Satan's goal in all of this is, according to Jesus, to murder. Not to torment people forever.
Circular reasoning! You are attempting to define my position by your definition of life. I define spiritual life as union of the human spirit with God's spirit and spiritual death as separation of the human spirit with God's spirit and so I am perfectly consistent within the framework of my own definition.
They were born physically into this world with an existent active spirit separated from God's spirit. Their spiritual lfie ended "in Adam" at the precise point he sinned as all were "in Adam" when he sinned and therefore "all have sinned" when he sinned. "through offence of one many be dead."
Death and life are two different states of existence that are either characterized by the love, light and holiness of God or by enmity, darkness and depravity.
Yes, bodily life can be taken away by God "it is appointed unto man once to die". Yes, spiritual life can be taken away by God "in the day you eat" all mankind existed and acted in adam and spiritual life was taken away so that NATURAL man is born spiritually dead. Yes, soul life can be taken away on a DAILY basis as it is only by walking in the Spirit that we "redeem" the time and save that time in the form of future rewards. We exist in a state of soul death whenever we are walking after the flesh as we are walking SEPARATED from the power and influence of the Spirit in our mind, hearts and will and thus in the expression of the will in the attitudes, words and actions that make up our daily existence.
What did he say? "I do not know" He is referring to the common experience of a prophet who is caught up in the spirit or given a revelation.
Absolutely false! It is death of the body. In the case of a child of God "to be ABSENT from the body is to be PRESENT with the Lord. Hence,, separation of the immaterial from the material is the very essence of physical death.
I just gave you a proof text by Paul in the above paragraph.
The spirit was already dead - Eph. 2:1 BEFORE the body died
You have shown no such thing! Ephesians 2:1 proves the spirit was dead PRIOR to the death of the bodies of the Ephesians. Adam was already spiritually dead "in the day" he sinned long before his physical death at 930 years of age.
Because you don't understand its significance with spiritual union. You have no life, light, love or holiness apart from spiritual union and thus spiritual union with God IS life, light, love and holiness. The reverse is equally true - SEPARATION from God IS death, darkness, enmity and depravity and that SEPARATION is due to sin.
You can't be serious? You are comparing the promise by a finite man who does not have the power to accomplish his promise to God who can? You can't be serious?
The function of a metaphor is not to spiritualize anything, but to provide literal representation from one noun to another noun. In other words there is literal qualities that are being taken from one noun and being taken over to the other noun so that the second noun actually is representative of those literal qualities. He is not speaking about future resurrection of the body but our spiritual union with Christ as verse 10 proves.
Absurd! I don't even see your logic in such a statement as his soul was separated from his body in death and then united again in resurrection.
You really believe that right now you can have spiritual life in a state of spiritual separation from God???????? There is no PRESENT salvation apart from spiritual union, there is no present spiritual life without PRESENT spiritual union as spiritual union with God IS life, light, love, and holiness.
The metaphor has to do with a change of love life which the heart is a metaphor of desires, love, etc. The new birth is partaking of the divine nature, thus giving you a new "want to" a new "love" life. Before, you loved darkness more than light and WOULD NOT come to the light. The law of God is inscribed upon the heart, thus giving a NEW heart that love what God loves and hates what God hates. The new birth is to be brought into spiritual UNION with God so that His life is your life, his love is your love, his light is your light, and his righteousness is your righteousness. SEPARATION from God IS an active state of death - or enmity, depravity, and darkness (Eph 4:18-19) which is a CONSCIOUS ACTIVE condition of the spirit of man or spiritual warefare (Eph. 2:2-3).
what planet do you live on???? Are you ignorant of our educational system? This world's doctrine of death is simply cessation of being and that is precisely what your doctrine concludes in being.
Dodge what? Death will be the last enemy that will be destroyed and it will be cast into Gehenna which is everlasting SEPARATION as a PLACE. Thus the STATE of death/separation (the wicked) will be confined in a PLACE of separation.
Last edited:
I have a quick request for clarification. In response to my claim that you don't believe death is the end of life, you responded by saying that
"They were born physically into this world with an existent active spirit separated from God's spirit. Their spiritual lfie ended "in Adam" at the precise point he sinned as all were "in Adam" when he sinned and therefore "all have sinned" when he sinned. "through offence of one many be dead." "
My question: did you intend to claim that the spirits of all humans existed at the time of Adam, and died "when he sinned" and had been alive prior to that?
Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk
Definition of "dead" from an ordinary dictionary:
adj., adv., & n. --adj. 1 no longer alive. 2 colloq. extremely tired or unwell. 3 benumbed; affected by loss of sensation (my fingers are dead). 4 (foll. by to) unappreciative or unconscious of; insensitive to. 5 no longer effective or in use; obsolete, extinct. 6 (of a match, of coal, etc.) no longer burning; extinguished. 7 inanimate. 8 a lacking force or vigour; dull, lustreless, muffled. b (of sound) not resonant. c (of sparkling wine etc.) no longer effervescent. 9 a quiet; lacking activity (the dead season). b motionless, idle. 10 a (of a microphone, telephone, etc.) not transmitting any sound, esp. because of a fault. b (of a circuit, conductor, etc.) carrying or transmitting no current; not connected to a source of electricity (a dead battery). 11 (of the ball in a game) out of play. 12 abrupt, complete, exact, unqualified, unrelieved (come to a dead stop; a dead faint; a dead calm; in dead silence; a dead certainty). 13 without spiritual life. --adv. 1 absolutely, exactly, completely (dead on target; dead level; dead tired). 2 colloq. very, extremely (dead good; dead easy). --n. (prec. by the) 1 (treated as pl.) those who have died.
Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk
adj., adv., & n. --adj. 1 no longer alive. 2 colloq. extremely tired or unwell. 3 benumbed; affected by loss of sensation (my fingers are dead). 4 (foll. by to) unappreciative or unconscious of; insensitive to. 5 no longer effective or in use; obsolete, extinct. 6 (of a match, of coal, etc.) no longer burning; extinguished. 7 inanimate. 8 a lacking force or vigour; dull, lustreless, muffled. b (of sound) not resonant. c (of sparkling wine etc.) no longer effervescent. 9 a quiet; lacking activity (the dead season). b motionless, idle. 10 a (of a microphone, telephone, etc.) not transmitting any sound, esp. because of a fault. b (of a circuit, conductor, etc.) carrying or transmitting no current; not connected to a source of electricity (a dead battery). 11 (of the ball in a game) out of play. 12 abrupt, complete, exact, unqualified, unrelieved (come to a dead stop; a dead faint; a dead calm; in dead silence; a dead certainty). 13 without spiritual life. --adv. 1 absolutely, exactly, completely (dead on target; dead level; dead tired). 2 colloq. very, extremely (dead good; dead easy). --n. (prec. by the) 1 (treated as pl.) those who have died.
Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk
I said I would reply today, but due to a family issue I am unable to do so. I will respond when I can in a satisfactory way.
I believe the totality of humanity existed in one man and thus represented the totality of mankind acted when he acted. This is precisely why Paul repeatedly states is is "by one man....that many were made" or "by one man's offence" many be condemned, dead. I believe that man like all living things reproduce after their own kind in the fullness of their nature and man's nature consists of spirit, soul and body. I do not believe human beings merely reproduce biological bodies and their immaterial aspects originate outside of humanity. Creation ended on the sixth day. Nor do I believe God creates depraved spirits and places them in the body at conception.
The human spirit of Adam was in union (life) with God and when he sinned it was separated (death) from God
I'm the last person to have any right to complain -- and I don't. I enjoy all of these conversations, even the ones that get a little heated. Including the Biblicist BTW.
Just FYI, I give no warrantee of quick responses -- I've found too many things can happen.
I fear I'm not understanding you. Forgive me when I ask, if it misses the target: Is this some kind of corporate spirit, so that all men receive a share of Adam's spirit as the totality of the spirit they're given? And what each of us receives is not only a share of Adam's spirit, but actually the same spirit in the same condition he left it, dead or alive?
I'm really confused here.
Paul used that language about both Adam and Christ. Are you trying to say he meant it "precisely" for Adam to describe man as a reproduced being? Did he also mean it "precisely" for Christ in the same way?
Sure, but if we receive the spirit just as it was when Adam gave it up (or whatever), it's not "reproduced", but rather just handed on.
I suspect you're traducianist, then; so am I.
Right, I got that you have that view. I'm trying to figure out this view that
You said you were a traducianist didn't you? "I suspect you're traducianist, then; so am I." You don't believe that God creates individual flawed sinful spirits at the birth of each child do you, because children come into this world with depraved natures? There is a common DNA with all of its potentials existing in Adam. Death is "passed" from male to male whereas the Savior came from the "seed of a woman" and that is why the incarnation was necessary to bypass the indwelling law of sin which is "passed" down. The human spirit is not created by God at birth but is derived from the paternal spirit with its own unique DNA characteristics.
All humanity was created "in Adam" and share his complete nature that is diversely manifested through procreation according to the diverse DNA initially created. With regard to Christ and those "in Christ" they must be individually "created in Christ" in order to be in spiritual union with God through Christ (Who is God). So at the point of creation of Adam all mankind was seminally in Adam and partook of the whole nature of Adam including spiritual union or union with the human spirit of Adam that is then diversely manifested through procreation due to diverse DNA. When we are "created in Christ" we then partake of spiritual union with Christ or partake of the Spirit of God.
Jesus stated that the devil and his demons will be in lasting eternal fires,so why not the lost?
Jesus stated that his spirit was commented unto the father to receive, and the Bible also stated that the spirits of the dead were still alive from the flood days, so were that not burnt away?
The physically dead who rejected Jesus to save them are right now separate from God, and in a type of hell, so how long have they experience separation from God? If you hold that they get burnt up at GWT, if that if far off, has not God been piunishing them a long time already than?
Recall my original question, "did you intend to claim that the spirits of all humans existed at the time of Adam, and died "when he sinned" and had been alive prior to that?"
I asked it in response to the following pair of quotes from the same message:
I asked it because you almost directly SAY that, although I felt I had to be misunderstanding you (a point I'll still admit is possible).
You answered with the above, in which you apparently renewed your claim that each and every man's spirit was living in Adam (although it's not clear whether you actually think the spirits of each man were DISTINCT from one another). So I asked about that. Your answer:
Bingo. This is perfectly orthodox, and completely contradicts what you were trying to claim earlier. If you're an ordinary traducian (yes, I am as well) then you believe each man's spirit is formed at or around the point of conception by DERIVATION from the spirit(s) of one or more parents. Traducianists do NOT believe in the preexistence of the spirit of a given man BEFORE his conception. Derivation and preexistence are incompatible with one another; since I was derived from my parents, I cannot have preexisted the time of my derivation.
We derive TRAITS from our parents (in body, soul, and spirit); but we do not take a part of their body, their soul, or their spirit from them. Our existence begins at conception, and although our nature is derived from our parents we ourselves, in ALL parts, are ontologically distinct.
It follows that we bear the stain of Adam's sin, and even the guilt of it; but we did not EXIST at the point Adam committed it, EXCEPT inasmuch as he was our parent. Because we did not exist, we were not alive in any sense at the moment before Adam first sinned.
This means that the fact Adam died because of his sin, even if it means that we can speak of Adam's spirit dying, doesn't allow us to say that our spirits ended their lives at the same time. A thing cannot change from dead to alive in any sense at a time when it does not exist.
And this means -- as I pointed out to you -- you cannot claim to believe that "death is the end of life", because you share the belief with me and all orthodox Christians that people begin their existence "spiritually dead" in the Ephesians 2 sense. The only way you can believe that "death is the end of life" is to assert that Paul is using "dead" in some kind of figurative sense.
I asked it in response to the following pair of quotes from the same message:
I asked it because you almost directly SAY that, although I felt I had to be misunderstanding you (a point I'll still admit is possible).
You answered with the above, in which you apparently renewed your claim that each and every man's spirit was living in Adam (although it's not clear whether you actually think the spirits of each man were DISTINCT from one another). So I asked about that. Your answer:
Bingo. This is perfectly orthodox, and completely contradicts what you were trying to claim earlier. If you're an ordinary traducian (yes, I am as well) then you believe each man's spirit is formed at or around the point of conception by DERIVATION from the spirit(s) of one or more parents. Traducianists do NOT believe in the preexistence of the spirit of a given man BEFORE his conception. Derivation and preexistence are incompatible with one another; since I was derived from my parents, I cannot have preexisted the time of my derivation.
We derive TRAITS from our parents (in body, soul, and spirit); but we do not take a part of their body, their soul, or their spirit from them. Our existence begins at conception, and although our nature is derived from our parents we ourselves, in ALL parts, are ontologically distinct.
It follows that we bear the stain of Adam's sin, and even the guilt of it; but we did not EXIST at the point Adam committed it, EXCEPT inasmuch as he was our parent. Because we did not exist, we were not alive in any sense at the moment before Adam first sinned.
This means that the fact Adam died because of his sin, even if it means that we can speak of Adam's spirit dying, doesn't allow us to say that our spirits ended their lives at the same time. A thing cannot change from dead to alive in any sense at a time when it does not exist.
And this means -- as I pointed out to you -- you cannot claim to believe that "death is the end of life", because you share the belief with me and all orthodox Christians that people begin their existence "spiritually dead" in the Ephesians 2 sense. The only way you can believe that "death is the end of life" is to assert that Paul is using "dead" in some kind of figurative sense.
No, it does not! Man in his totality was created but once - in the garden. I could care less what system you are following. I am following the scriptures. Levi paid tithes while in the loins of Abraham, we sinned in the loins of Adam, as we existed as one whole humanity, spirit, soul and body. It is that same depraved spirit that is derived through birth, while personality differences refer to the soul not the spirit of man.
Yeshua1, you made the following claim in one of your hundreds of one-off messages:
I pointed out that the Bible doesn't ever teach it, and you kept asserting it was true in spite of that. You've NEVER pointed to a single passage showing it, though. I listed a huge number of passages showing otherwise.
Of course the wicked will "go into the eternal fire" -- we don't have to rely on indirect reasoning, but can point to a specific verse in which that's said. We even agree that the fire will burn forever. This appears to mean, at face value, that they're going into a supernaturally strong fire, and one would expect that to burn them to ashes. Since that's exactly what so many other passages claim about the wicked, including passages that speak of them as "chaff" which Jesus will "burn up with unquenchable fire", it seems without any possibility of denial that the strength of the fire is deliberately intended to convey sure destruction, NOT the everlasting living you claim it'll give them.
Can you explain how you'd hoped that statement would challenge me? I don't understand your point. The purpose of hades isn't to burn people up, but rather to hold them.
Good question! Yes, it makes sense that if the wicked in sheol are conscious, as the rich man was shown to be in Luke 16, one should ask whether this difference in starting time of torment makes things unfair for people who go to sheol sooner rather than later.
The answer is that God in justice controls how much torment is given to each person, rather than punishing everyone at full strength all the time. We in our finite minds assume that the little glimpses of sheol the Bible provides give the full picture -- but this isn't enough. There's a little glimpse in Isaiah 14, in which a group of the wicked are chatting with one another, and a little glimpse in Luke 16 in which one wicked person says he's "in torment", and other little glimpses in the Psalms and wisdom literature where those in sheol are said to know nothing not even that they're dead. There's no contradiction here, because none of these passages pretend to tell us the whole story about sheol. God is in full control of what happens in sheol, and He administers it perfectly for the long haul.
And "the long haul" is an entirely apt phrase; the purpose of hades is to hold people for the long-coming Judgment Day, not to serve itself as the primary punishment. Perhaps this is why the rich man couldn't understand his punishment; he hadn't heard the verdict against him, since the Judgment Day hadn't come yet. This purpose of hades is well-described in 2 Peter 2:9, although it's a difficult translation:
KJV: The Lord knoweth how to ... reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished
ESV: then the Lord knows how ... to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,
What many people don't notice here is that this passage is not about hades specifically; because they don't notice it, they assume that "under punishment" means a continued and present torment in hades. This passage IS about the wicked in hades, but it's also about the presently living wicked people who are becoming wealthy by deceiving people. We need to understand, therefore, that "under punishment" here refers to "under SENTENCE of punishment", not to "under active punishment." Peter's goal is to help us see that even the prosperous false teachers, luxuriating in their immortality, are "kept under punishment" because God will punish them on the Day of the Lord.
Whether this means He torments some all the time, or most of the time, or only directly after they die is a question the Bible doesn't answer -- any more than God promises to torment the wicked in THIS life, which was a misunderstanding the ancient Hebrews often had (and Job's comforters as well). It seems to me that all of those possibilities are reconcilable very easily.
I pointed out that the Bible doesn't ever teach it, and you kept asserting it was true in spite of that. You've NEVER pointed to a single passage showing it, though. I listed a huge number of passages showing otherwise.
Of course the wicked will "go into the eternal fire" -- we don't have to rely on indirect reasoning, but can point to a specific verse in which that's said. We even agree that the fire will burn forever. This appears to mean, at face value, that they're going into a supernaturally strong fire, and one would expect that to burn them to ashes. Since that's exactly what so many other passages claim about the wicked, including passages that speak of them as "chaff" which Jesus will "burn up with unquenchable fire", it seems without any possibility of denial that the strength of the fire is deliberately intended to convey sure destruction, NOT the everlasting living you claim it'll give them.
Can you explain how you'd hoped that statement would challenge me? I don't understand your point. The purpose of hades isn't to burn people up, but rather to hold them.
Good question! Yes, it makes sense that if the wicked in sheol are conscious, as the rich man was shown to be in Luke 16, one should ask whether this difference in starting time of torment makes things unfair for people who go to sheol sooner rather than later.
The answer is that God in justice controls how much torment is given to each person, rather than punishing everyone at full strength all the time. We in our finite minds assume that the little glimpses of sheol the Bible provides give the full picture -- but this isn't enough. There's a little glimpse in Isaiah 14, in which a group of the wicked are chatting with one another, and a little glimpse in Luke 16 in which one wicked person says he's "in torment", and other little glimpses in the Psalms and wisdom literature where those in sheol are said to know nothing not even that they're dead. There's no contradiction here, because none of these passages pretend to tell us the whole story about sheol. God is in full control of what happens in sheol, and He administers it perfectly for the long haul.
And "the long haul" is an entirely apt phrase; the purpose of hades is to hold people for the long-coming Judgment Day, not to serve itself as the primary punishment. Perhaps this is why the rich man couldn't understand his punishment; he hadn't heard the verdict against him, since the Judgment Day hadn't come yet. This purpose of hades is well-described in 2 Peter 2:9, although it's a difficult translation:
KJV: The Lord knoweth how to ... reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished
ESV: then the Lord knows how ... to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,
What many people don't notice here is that this passage is not about hades specifically; because they don't notice it, they assume that "under punishment" means a continued and present torment in hades. This passage IS about the wicked in hades, but it's also about the presently living wicked people who are becoming wealthy by deceiving people. We need to understand, therefore, that "under punishment" here refers to "under SENTENCE of punishment", not to "under active punishment." Peter's goal is to help us see that even the prosperous false teachers, luxuriating in their immortality, are "kept under punishment" because God will punish them on the Day of the Lord.
Whether this means He torments some all the time, or most of the time, or only directly after they die is a question the Bible doesn't answer -- any more than God promises to torment the wicked in THIS life, which was a misunderstanding the ancient Hebrews often had (and Job's comforters as well). It seems to me that all of those possibilities are reconcilable very easily.
The following reassertion of your claim is WHOLLY inadequate as a response to my detailed criticism of your claim (which you cut out and did not address). It's barely better than "no it does not!"
AGAIN, this is a direct contradiction to your more orthodox claim that each man is derived from his parents. You can't insist on both. EITHER the substance preexists the parents' union because it began existence in the garden; OR the substance is derived from the parents; but not both. This is true for any substance, whether body, soul, or spirit.
No; you've invented a logically impossible claim (and a completely unscriptural one!) merely because you wanted to contradict me. Now you're backed into a corner, and only now do you pretend to follow the Scriptures, and only so you can avoid addressing the logical consequences of your arbitrary and unscriptural invention.
Again, you claimed to believe that "death is the end of life", but at the same time you affirmed that man is conceived and born in sin, "spiritually dead." His spirit therefore begins existence in a state you call "spiritually dead" -- although I recognize this as a metaphor for a state of complete helpless inability to stop sinning, you think it's literal. And your insistence that it's literal death of the spirit (the Bible neither claims it's literal nor claims it's only talking about the spirit), together with your admission that death is the end of life (which is everywhere assumed in the Bible), lands you in a logical impossibility.
You're ignoring that the author of Hebrews introduced the claim, "One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham..." Notice that explicit disclaimer "one might even say"! He's using a "manner of speaking", not a literal teaching affirming that Levi actually was there and DOING that.
This "manner of speaking" is true only as a point of superiority -- the passage is in context showing that since Levi was entirely inferior to his grandfather, and his grandfather acted as the inferior to Melchizedek, it follows that Levi's descendants (all inferior to him) are necessarily inferior to Melchizedek. This reasoning is explicit in the rest of the passage.
And that point of superiority is the ENTIRE POINT of the passage. You cannot rip that verse out of context to make it become a teaching on anthropology.
This isn't a Biblical claim at all.
And now, by admitting that your logic requires that "spirit, soul, and body" which Adam immersed in sin would have to ALL be ours as well, you've admitted that just as the derivation of our body and soul from our parents produces OUR body and a soul which did not exist when Adam sinned, so also the derivation of our spirit from Adam's produces a spirit which need not preexist.
Your rebuke is a complete overreach; if I'm wrong it's NOT for lack of evidence. Every word of what you call "poppycock" and "pure speculative imagination" was a quote directly from the Bible! Here it is again, this time annotated with specific Bible references:
The Bible teaches from front to back that the wicked will be killed (Luke 12:5), destroyed (Matt 10:28), turned to ash (Mal 4:1-3, 2Pet 2:6), will not attain to the age to come (Luke 20:35), will not have a part in the New Creation (Eph 1, Col 1, 2Pet 3:13, Psa 37:10), will cease to be (Ezek 27:36), will "be as though you had not been" (Obad 1:16)... It says that the fires of judgment will do to them what unquenchable fire does to chaff (Matt 3:12), tares (Matt 13:40-41), thorns (Isa 33:12), dead trees (Matt 3:10), cut-off vines (John 15:6)... when the Bible compares the wicked to present experience, it's always tinder (Isa 1:31) or weeds, never metal or stones in fire.
THIS IS EVIDENCE of the strongest type: direct, clear, REPEATED Biblical statements across all genres which are teaching on the topic of the judgment of the wicked. And there is a LOT more where this came from.
Compare this to the arguments you've been making, "Biblicist" -- you've turned to non-eschatological passages like Eph 2, you've made inferential arguments like claiming that Paul's speaking about a literal death of the spirit in a passage where Paul doesn't mention the spirit, and so on. NONE of your arguments in this thread have actually cited direct Biblical evidence for the fate of the unrepentant.
None of those verses are talking about Armageddon— NONE. 2 Pet 2:6 in particular -- which says that the reduction of Sodom to ashes is an example of what will happen to the unrighteous -- cannot be, because the wicked teachers he and Jude are specifically threatening lived and died while Jude was writing and therefore cannot be part of the prior-to-the-resurrection rebellion. This can only refer to the resurrection to judgment.
I don't at all. I recognize that the two happen at different times and to different things -- the death of the soul is the result of unrepentant sins (James 5:20), and happens only at final judgment (Luke 12:5) before throwing body and soul into gehenna (Matt 10:28).
By my definitions (and the dictionary's) death only has one meaning; it makes the dead thing inoperative and insensate, ending the life by which God granted operation and sensation. But you equivocate on the word "death", making multiple contradictory meanings without textual merit.
It is not an either/or! The spirit created in Eden is partaken of in each man, it is just that simple. The spirit that is partaken of by each man is already depraved proving it was the spirit that acted in Eden. If you deny this, you have to deny any Biblical grounds to say humans beings are born sinners by nature or any grounds to say they are "condemned already." Your logic is irrational as it disposes of any connection between Adam's posterity and Adam's sin with regard to the depraved spirit they are born into this world with. The fact they have a depraved spirit through procreation demands it was derived from Adam through procreation. Nothing hard about this!