• 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

wTanksley

Member
It is not an either/or! The spirit created in Eden is partaken of in each man, it is just that simple.

Wait, "the spirit" SINGULAR? You believe all humans share a SINGLE spirit in common? Where are you _getting_ this? No, really, I mean where in the BIBLE?

Having a spirit that became existent and active at the same time as your father's spirit became existent and active is a total contradiction from having a spirit derived from a parent. It's absolutely impossible for both to be true at the same time. It IS an "either/or", by definition of derivation.

The spirit that is partaken of by each man is already depraved proving it was the spirit that acted in Eden.

That's not a proof. Counterexample to proof: Each human's body and soul are also already depraved, and neither body nor soul participated in Adam's sin. Therefore, a thing being already depraved is not adequate to prove that the same thing 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."

"Biblical grounds" to say something means having a Bible verse that teaches it. I can have Biblical grounds for what I say completely without a systematic anthropology.

I say humans are born in sin because the Psalm says it (well, at least for David, and I think we're able to quote David). I say sinners are "condemned already" because Jesus said it.

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.

Why would you claim that? The obvious connection between Adam and his posterity is Adam's begetting of children. Each conceived child receives a body, soul, and spirit brought into existence at the moment of conception by the process of reproduction God designed. All three are touched by sin, depraved, by Adam's curse.

The fact they have a depraved spirit through procreation demands it was derived from Adam through procreation. Nothing hard about this!

That's what I've been telling you. You're claiming each man's spirit is depraved because it was active and participating in Adam's sin -- which is a contradiction to the claim that each spirit is depraved because it is derived by procreation from a corrupt source.

Either depraved because of direct participation, OR depraved because derived from a corrupt source.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Wait, "the spirit" SINGULAR? You believe all humans share a SINGLE spirit in common? Where are you _getting_ this? No, really, I mean where in the BIBLE?

Having a spirit that became existent and active at the same time as your father's spirit became existent and active is a total contradiction from having a spirit derived from a parent. It's absolutely impossible for both to be true at the same time. It IS an "either/or", by definition of derivation.



That's not a proof. Counterexample to proof: Each human's body and soul are also already depraved, and neither body nor soul participated in Adam's sin. Therefore, a thing being already depraved is not adequate to prove that the same thing acted in Eden.



"Biblical grounds" to say something means having a Bible verse that teaches it. I can have Biblical grounds for what I say completely without a systematic anthropology.

I say humans are born in sin because the Psalm says it (well, at least for David, and I think we're able to quote David). I say sinners are "condemned already" because Jesus said it.



Why would you claim that? The obvious connection between Adam and his posterity is Adam's begetting of children. Each conceived child receives a body, soul, and spirit brought into existence at the moment of conception by the process of reproduction God designed. All three are touched by sin, depraved, by Adam's curse.



That's what I've been telling you. You're claiming each man's spirit is depraved because it was active and participating in Adam's sin -- which is a contradiction to the claim that each spirit is depraved because it is derived by procreation from a corrupt source.

Either depraved because of direct participation, OR depraved because derived from a corrupt source.

We will have to agree to disagree as our bodies came from Adam, our soul came from Adam and our spirit came from Adam and DNA simply gives each its own personality traits. The human race existed and acted when Adam Acted and because they were actually "in" Adam and what was "in" Adam is simply procreated into individuals and the hard proof is each is born depraved - so simple.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We will have to agree to disagree as our bodies came from Adam, our soul came from Adam and our spirit came from Adam and DNA simply gives each its own personality traits. The human race existed and acted when Adam Acted and because they were actually "in" Adam and what was "in" Adam is simply procreated into individuals and the hard proof is each is born depraved - so simple.
Adam was the spokesman and head of lost humanity, while jesus is spokesman and head of saved humanity!
 

wTanksley

Member
We will have to agree to disagree as our bodies came from Adam, our soul came from Adam and our spirit came from Adam and DNA simply gives each its own personality traits.

No, that's not why we'll have to agree to disagree -- but if you'd like to set that aside, I'm willing as well. I've never thought it was significant.

The major difference between us that we were discussing there was a definition of death. I said, in brief, that I define death as the end of life; let me expand that to something I think we can better disagree on without having to argue endlessly on when the spirit's life ended (since we disagree on that).

I posted a definition of 'dead' from my phone's study Bible, which seems to be an old version of Oxford concise (and is also at this link). Its point is to give examples of how the word is routinely used in English. MY point is that conditionalists read the word "death" and "dead" in the English translations of the Bible in the same way that the dictionary tells us it's read in normal English -- with room for some metaphorical uses the dictionary also lists, such as "insensitive".

Here's the definition of 'death' from the same source (Oxford), perhaps more useful:

death, n.
1 the final cessation of vital functions in an organism; the ending of life.
2 the event that terminates life.
3 a the fact or process of being killed or killing (stone to death; fight to the death). b the fact or state of being dead (eyes closed in death; their deaths caused rioting).
4 a the destruction or permanent cessation of something (was the death of our hopes). b colloq. something terrible or appalling.
5 (usu. Death) a personification of death, esp. as a destructive power, usu. represented by a skeleton.
6 a lack of religious faith or spiritual life.

Greek resources give the same meanings, minus the uniquely English idea of "dead certain", which is used to mean "absolutely certain" (see etymologies for an explanation of this divergence) -- but English speakers have no more trouble keeping the two separate than Greek speakers have trouble keeping the two meanings of /apollumi/ (English: destroy, lose) separate. For completeness, I'll also include their definition of "life" (flip down to the Oxford entry for consistency).

life, n. (pl. lives)
1 the condition which distinguishes active animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
2 a living things and their activity (insect life; is there life on Mars?). b human presence or activity (no sign of life).
3 a the period during which life lasts, or the period from birth to the present time or from the present time to death (have done it all my life; will regret it all my life; life membership). b the duration of a thing's existence or of its ability to function; validity, efficacy, etc. (the battery has a life of two years).
4 a a person's state of existence as a living individual (sacrificed their lives; took many lives). b a living person (many lives were lost).
5 a an individual's occupation, actions, or fortunes; the manner of one's existence (that would make life easy; start a new life). b a particular aspect of this (love-life; private life).
6 the active part of existence; the business and pleasures of the world (travel is the best way to see life).
7 man's earthly or supposed future existence.
8 a energy, liveliness, animation (full of life; put some life into it!). b an animating influence (was the life of the party).

Some of these meanings apply only to some of the Greek words -- for example, the Greek /bios/ matches English 'life' in sense 5 (the means of living, wealth, equipment, as in the prodigal's father dividing his /bios/ among his sons), while /zoe/ matches more. Greek /psuche/ can take the sense 4 (whoever saves his life will lose it, etc.) in addition to meaning "soul". Nonetheless, the experts who translate our Bibles, both the godly ones and the ones who merely make it their profession, agree that the English and Greek senses line up, and there is no dissension that the Greek and Hebrew words /thanos/ or /muth/ should ever be translated "separation".

You, on the other hand, ask that we ignore how those words are used in all the languages, and instead substitute something that we know happens at the time of physical death ONLY, which is the separation of body from soul. In other words, you imagine that physical death's act of separation redefines ALL kinds of death, so that death itself means primarily something like the separation that happens at physical death, and NOT the losing of animation which the word connotes in all of the languages we use to study the Bible.

Now, here's the challenge I think you and the OP need to meet. You believe that the Bible defines "death" as separation, so regardless of what the dictionary says, the Bible overwhelms it. I say that's fair, and I want you to SHOW ME where the Bible redefines death as separation. Remember, it's not enough to show that separation happens at physical death; many other things happen at physical death which don't redefine death. The BEST evidence you can show is "you have heard it said that death means loss of animation; but I say to you that death means separation." Of course, I know this doesn't exist and I don't prejudge your case for it; but surely you have some reason to teach people that the Bible's definition of death is different from any dictionary ever.
 

wTanksley

Member
Anyone have a followup, or was my post the last word?

Adam was the spokesman and head of lost humanity, while jesus is spokesman and head of saved humanity!

I don't know why you posted that... I agree, though. Adam is important not because our spirits were literally inside him when he sinned, but rather because he represented us when he sinned. Jesus is important for the same reason -- and LIKEWISE, our spirits were not literally inside Jesus when He took the curse of the Law on Himself.

This doesn't really matter to this thread, though. The question here is what demons and the devil deserve, and how that relates to what human sinners deserve. I believe the devil is a willful murderer; the OP, in contrast, believes he's a willful torturer.
 

wTanksley

Member
Both satan and lost sinners will end up in the Lake of Fire....

Yes, both were seen as such in Revelation 20. So were "death" and "hades," both of which are known to be completely gone by the time the New Creation comes into view after the White Throne Judgment is over.

Your argument, if you made one, might end "therefore, since both are in the same place, both have exactly the same fate."

My first argument is that death and hades, together with "the rest of the dead" human sinners, are explicitly interpreted as suffering the second death. This is not given as an interpretation of the devil and two beasts' fates. There is therefore reason to suppose that the rest of humanity will receive a punishment more like Death and Hades, and less like the devil's depicted punishment.

My second argument is independent of that, and points out that although the devil's punishment is never interpreted in Revelation, the beast's punishment is -- Rev 17:8,11 say that both the beast and the 8th king representing him are "going to destruction." This is presented, in context, as an angelic interpretation intended to help John understand a confusing image. I suggest, therefore, that although the beast appears to live as long as God in the vision, we must interpret the vision consistently with him being actually destroyed -- just as a vision of seven stars in Jesus' right hand is actually to be interpreted as actually being angels of the seven churches, and not astronomical objects at all.
 
Top