conditional immortality

[Darrell C]

I the meantime, don't think I miss the irony in YOU talking about imposing something on someone's view -- when I just showed that your claims about my belief in regard to the worm that does not die and other descriptions of the fate of the wicked were not only false, but made up from thin air and your imagination. THAT is imposition -- not what I did, which was to quote you and show your argument's reliance on the claim you made.

My statement is showing the implication of your doctrine.

Here is another example of your method:

Where are you _getting_ that?

You're the one who said that -- let me copy from your quote -- "Believers do not receive eternal life when they are resurrected."

Here is what I actually said...

Believers do not receive eternal life when they are resurrected, they receive eternal life when they are saved:


1 John 5:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Had you quoted all that I said you would not even have made the above statement, and saved us both some time.

Why? I'm a Baptist. I know you're embarrassed by Baptists who disagree with you, but we're allowed to do that. Baptists don't have popes. Our one infallible authority is the Scripture.

I think the pubic record serves to show I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me...that's why I'm here, Tanksley.

As far as you having Scripture as your authority, perhaps you could explain why you have not addressed the Scripture presented to you on a number of points.

If Scripture were your infallible source you would not deny that men receive eternal life when they are saved, rather than your view that men receive eternal life when they are resurrected. And it is because you fail to recognize the simple principle I have been speaking about since I joined this thread that you still try to cherry-pick your way to justifying these cultish beliefs.

I've never lied to you, told the whole truth as I've seen it.

You would have to actually quote me fully and address the points raised for that to be true.

You have no grounds for the testimony you are bringing against me -- which makes you guilty of false witness,

On the contrary, I asked several times what kind of Baptist you are and what group you are associated with, with no answer, even when I goaded you, lol.

Again...what Baptist group teaches annihilation?

with intent to harm me by excluding me from a section in which my beliefs are directly on-topic.

My only intention is to help you, Tanksley.

You have embraced heresy. And if you would address the points raised I think you would see that.

If you can find other Baptists that disagree with me, and affirm annihilation, and that men do not receive eternal life when they are saved, then do so. Perhaps they will be worthy antagonists who will address the points raised to them. You have had several opportunities to do so, and you will not. You still try to cherry-pick your way through my posts, and think you should receive a response? That's a little one-sided, my friend.

And I've been polite and gracious in the face of your continuous slander, too

You have yet to show slander. It can't be slander if it's true. Annihilation is the doctrine of cults, no question. I know of no Baptist group that teaches it, and have asked for you to present the one that does because I would like to know if there is. You have only claimed to be a Baptist, yet have not given me the group of Baptist you are affiliated with. While there are Baptist groups confused about when one receives eternal life, this too is a suspect doctrine, that men do not receive eternal life until bodily resurrected.

So now I have wasted more time, and still have not seen an address of the points raised so far. While I enjoy addressing posts like yours, at the very least you can do me the courtesy of answering the points I raise. Most cherry-pick, I realize this, but, in your case there is more at stake than simple disagreement on doctrine, it also has to do with what Baptists believe, and integrity in who people say they are. It is just as bad for the public to look in and think that Baptists embrace Annihilation as it is for them to look in and think Baptists embrace a doctrine that men are pre-existing spirits, or angels, rather than a unique creation of God specific to the creation of this universe.

That's how I see it.

So once more, what kind of Baptist are you, and what group are you affiliated with...that teaches Annihilation?

It's a simple question, Tanksley.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

the scriptures teach to us that we RIGHT NOW have already passed over from death unto eternal life, as that is in essense having the Holy Spirit now residing in is and living out the life of Jesus through us, and THAT is a surety thatat the second Coming we shall receive the full inheritance of the physical resurrection and glorification of the body.

That is precisely what Scripture teaches, though the cults and "isms" deny it. Salvation is a "reward" if one "continues.

It is works-based salvation and contrary to the very Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And most Baptists teach the Biblical Doctrine of Eternal Security.

And again, why would there be a real sense of judgement if all sinners are just turned into smoke, so why would it amtter of I choose to be Hilter, Jim Jones, or a "good person?"

That is a question the Annihilationist can't answer. It denies the differing degrees of punishment for unbelievers. But because they build their doctrine on a number of misunderstanding, this being one of them, they cannot reconcile annihilation with the fact that there will be more severe judgment for some unbelievers than others.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Amen. That's why Satan has always been recorded as teaching men that they won't die.

Satan did not entirely lie:


Genesis 3

King James Version (KJV)


1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


First, while we do not have a record of God saying "Don't touch it," but because we are not going to create a concrete doctrine based on silence in Scripture we simply take it for granted that eating of the fruit (which was commanded) could not be accomplished apart from Eve "touching it," so to make Eve to be "adding" to God's Word is a little bit of a stretch, because since we argue from silence we could equally say that God told them at some other time or this is how Adam instructed her (Don't even touch it!). We see Abel offering up sacrifice yet we are given no passage where we could say God commanded this, but, based on the fact that the deaths of animals stood as a means for remission of sin consistently throughout Scripture, and that we see others offering up sacrifice, we can assume that somewhere along the lines God instructed men in regards to sacrifice for sin.

Secondly...


Genesis 3

King James Version (KJV)


1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.



When we look at Satan's statement he was correct...Adam and Eve did not die physically that day, which is what God did say without controversy (In the day ye eat...). And while men would lose access to the Tree of Life (which apparently sustained physical life), we again note God said the day you eat you will surely die. He was not, in all likelihood, using the term "day" to speak to an Age, because this became a constant for all Ages which follow. So we understand that it is most probably the death in view was not physical, but spiritual, and seeing that salvation in Christ reunites fallen man with God, again we see Satan is catering to Eve's understanding, which is physical in nature.


Third...


Genesis 3

King James Version (KJV)


1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.



Satan speaks truth here, affirmed by God Himself:


Genesis 3:22

King James Version (KJV)


22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:


A few points to consider would be...

1. In view is not eternal life, because eternal life was not the result of access to the tree of life, but sustained physical life;

2. In view is the condition of "knowing" good and evil, not eternal life, not becoming like God in nature;

3. When we ask what does it mean to "know" good and evil like God did, and they did not prior to eating of this fruit, it should become obvious when we understand the circumstances of their existence: their lives were good, and through disobedience they "experienced intimately" something not a part of their prior condition, that is...evil. We can see that they understood the concepts of good and evil, Eve knowing it was evil to eat of the fruit, yet at the same time understanding...



Genesis 3

King James Version (KJV)


6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


...the concepts of good and evil.

So what the Annihilationist does is remove the physical context to justify their doctrine. This has nothing to do with the unceasing existence of the spirit of man, but deals directly with the spiritual death suffered in the Fall.

They deny man "living forever" based on misunderstanding of a pretty simple text, but, we understand they have to because their beliefs depend on wresting Scripture. It si not a matter of "living forever" in view in the eternal perspective, it is a matter of men living forever physically in the condition of death that did arise that day.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

An excellent claim! Now, before I switched to conditionalism

Thought you were a Baptist?

You know...this cherry-picking may have some merit after all...




God bless.

 

[wTanksley]

Regarding people receiving eternal life when they believe:

This is something you deny.

You've said that repeatedly; you ignore me clearly affirming the opposite, that people DO receive eternal life when they believe. You are not coherently arguing against me when you tell me I disbelieve what I believe, without even trying to justify why you know what I believe better than I do.

As you correctly affirm, believers participate in eternal life from the moment they believe. But if this were the only result of being saved, we would be of all men the most miserable (1Cor 15). The Bible also teaches that believers will receive an inheritance of eternal life (Matt 19:29, Tit 3:7) with immortality (Rom 2:7) at the resurrection (Luk 22:36) on the Last Day -- and unbelievers are not given any such offer (none!). Believers do inherit eternal life, and therefore they will live, and not die (Joh 11:25-26).

The Bible's direct teaching on how God provides eternal life undermines your claims that the wicked will receive bodies designed to endure forever.

This is my on-point argument in response to the argument you called your "focus" (the "eternal life" focus, not the new "focus" about Sadducees).

You can see men existing in an environment in which the physical universe has passed away, but...not in Hell?

That's not my argument at all; it's yours only. It's bad logic. I see men existing in a universe in which the Heavens and the Earth have "fled, because there was no room for them." There's nothing in that passage about the area before the Throne being impossible for a normal body to exist in. You're purely _guessing_ that maybe it's unsurvivable for normal matter, but nothing in that passage says so.

This is typical of the arguments you've presented; remote philosophical stretches that don't directly state what you are trying to prove, but which you assert with utter vigor. You argue precisely like a universalist.

And the Bible says that men will exist in hell, so of course I affirm it -- both body and soul will be destroyed in hell, which means they begin by existing. Of course, "existing" doesn't mean conscious -- before throwing them in there, the Judge kills those men. They're not killed by hell, and they're not simply "dead in sins" like they were when they were born; rather, God kills them _right there_.

You are confusing eternal life with the condition of man's existence, which is that he has a body and a spirit.

I have no idea what you think I said that confuses those concepts. Someday maybe you'll explain. MAN you've repeated that a lot, though, so it might be important. The trouble is that nothing you've ever said makes this seem to matter. You believe that every man born will live forever (at least after the resurrection). You believe that they will have a body and a spirit together forever.

I believe that living means having a body and a spirit, but not every man will live forever -- some men will have their spirit permanently taken away by God, so that they return to dust like Adam was promised.

Yet you impose into what I have said, because I said "in a sense they receive a 'glorified body," that unbelievers receive power and glory and honor."

No, I was not "imposing onto what you said." I was pointing out that WHEN you said unbelievers would receive a kind of "glorified body" (your words), you were implicitly quoting Biblical verses that ALSO said everyone involved would receive glory, honor, power, and incorruption/immortality (1 Cor 15 and Rom 2).

My point isn't that YOU promise those things to unbelievers; it's that you can't Biblically cut these passages apart. They promise all of those things together, and never promise anyone a sorta glorified body (by which you apparently mean an incorruptible body) without _also_ promising glory, power, immortality, and honor -- and Rom 2 adds that "eternal life" is the means by which God gives all the others to the ones who sought them.

You've claimed I teach a doctrine that only cults teach. Of course, that's obviously a slander; you _know_ that godly men like Stott have also taught this (along with hundreds of Biblical scholars alive now, like Green and Stackhouse). You therefore are trying to argue that merely because some cults teach conditionalism, therefore it's only for cults. But this is bad logic; by that logic, I could conclude that because Islam teaches eternal torment, eternal torment is wrong. Obviously that's not valid. You're not a cultist, and the historical accident that one cult (Islam) shares your view of hell doesn't tell us otherwise.

So said the Sadducees.

The Bible is _very_ clear on the error of the Sadducees: they denied the resurrection. All of the gospel accounts concur on this error, and Paul is quoted in Acts as well. Because they denied the resurrection they also denied conditional immortality -- not because they were wrong about humans being doomed to die (Jesus never tried to argue with them about that), but because they rejected that God's reward to the righteous is immortality (i.e., conditional immortality).

They also are wrong, Christ says in Matt 22:29, "because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God." Notice what's missing from this list: they're not in error because they don't know how humans have spirits that never go out of existence. It's because they teach that only Moses wrote inspired Scripture, and because they teach that God doesn't preserve the righteous and wicked for ultimate judgment and reward.

In fact, while Christ was refuting the error of the Sadducees, he explained that:

Luke 20:35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. 37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed...​

This passage supports conditional immortality:

1) Only some people "attain to that age". Attaining to an age is enduring until a period of time; you believe everyone will thus endure, while Christ teaches, contradicting you, there are specific people who will be judged worthy of enduring, and by implication others who won't endure.

2) The judgment also conditionally grants the resurrection from the dead in which the Sadducees disbelieved, and the specific result is that "they cannot die anymore." Christ explains that this means marriage is no longer meaningful for them, using the understanding that marriage is for bearing young to carry on when you are dead.

And this is really the central focus for what I have been saying.

I'm amused by your retroactive dubbing of this new argument as having been "what you've been saying." I'm also amused this this replaces your old "central focus" (remember, your unbiblical doctrine that men aren't given eternal life in the age to come?) as though nothing had changed.

You say man's state is mortality, yet you fail to see that man has a spirit that Christ teaches...does not cease to exist.

Christ taught no such thing. Ever. It's not in the Bible.

Just as the spirits of men do not cease to exist at physical death, neither will they cease to exist when they are bodily resurrected.

It's correct that the spirits of men don't cease to exist, but of course sometime after death their bodies are destroyed. This is why the doctrine of the Resurrection was so offensive to both the Greeks and Sadducees -- many of the former believed in Plato's eternal spirits, while the latter didn't believe God could reassemble bodies.

Here's my analogy in response to yours: just as the body is destroyed by vengeful men (who can do no more!), so also the soul in totality is destroyed by God.

My analogy's Biblical. Yours isn't _ever_ supported in any way in the Bible, and is contradicted as early as Genesis 3.

 

[Darrell C]

Regarding people receiving eternal life when they believe:



You've said that repeatedly; you ignore me clearly affirming the opposite, that people DO receive eternal life when they believe. You are not coherently arguing against me when you tell me I disbelieve what I believe, without even trying to justify why you know what I believe better than I do.

As you correctly affirm, believers participate in eternal life from the moment they believe. But if this were the only result of being saved, we would be of all men the most miserable (1Cor 15). The Bible also teaches that believers will receive an inheritance of eternal life (Matt 19:29, Tit 3:7) with immortality (Rom 2:7) at the resurrection (Luk 22:36) on the Last Day -- and unbelievers are not given any such offer (none!). Believers do inherit eternal life, and therefore they will live, and not die (Joh 11:25-26).

The Bible's direct teaching on how God provides eternal life undermines your claims that the wicked will receive bodies designed to endure forever.

This is my on-point argument in response to the argument you called your "focus" (the "eternal life" focus, not the new "focus" about Sadducees).



That's not my argument at all; it's yours only. It's bad logic. I see men existing in a universe in which the Heavens and the Earth have "fled, because there was no room for them." There's nothing in that passage about the area before the Throne being impossible for a normal body to exist in. You're purely _guessing_ that maybe it's unsurvivable for normal matter, but nothing in that passage says so.

This is typical of the arguments you've presented; remote philosophical stretches that don't directly state what you are trying to prove, but which you assert with utter vigor. You argue precisely like a universalist.

And the Bible says that men will exist in hell, so of course I affirm it -- both body and soul will be destroyed in hell, which means they begin by existing. Of course, "existing" doesn't mean conscious -- before throwing them in there, the Judge kills those men. They're not killed by hell, and they're not simply "dead in sins" like they were when they were born; rather, God kills them _right there_.



I have no idea what you think I said that confuses those concepts. Someday maybe you'll explain. MAN you've repeated that a lot, though, so it might be important. The trouble is that nothing you've ever said makes this seem to matter. You believe that every man born will live forever (at least after the resurrection). You believe that they will have a body and a spirit together forever.

I believe that living means having a body and a spirit, but not every man will live forever -- some men will have their spirit permanently taken away by God, so that they return to dust like Adam was promised.



No, I was not "imposing onto what you said." I was pointing out that WHEN you said unbelievers would receive a kind of "glorified body" (your words), you were implicitly quoting Biblical verses that ALSO said everyone involved would receive glory, honor, power, and incorruption/immortality (1 Cor 15 and Rom 2).

My point isn't that YOU promise those things to unbelievers; it's that you can't Biblically cut these passages apart. They promise all of those things together, and never promise anyone a sorta glorified body (by which you apparently mean an incorruptible body) without _also_ promising glory, power, immortality, and honor -- and Rom 2 adds that "eternal life" is the means by which God gives all the others to the ones who sought them.

You've claimed I teach a doctrine that only cults teach. Of course, that's obviously a slander; you _know_ that godly men like Stott have also taught this (along with hundreds of Biblical scholars alive now, like Green and Stackhouse). You therefore are trying to argue that merely because some cults teach conditionalism, therefore it's only for cults. But this is bad logic; by that logic, I could conclude that because Islam teaches eternal torment, eternal torment is wrong. Obviously that's not valid. You're not a cultist, and the historical accident that one cult (Islam) shares your view of hell doesn't tell us otherwise.



The Bible is _very_ clear on the error of the Sadducees: they denied the resurrection. All of the gospel accounts concur on this error, and Paul is quoted in Acts as well. Because they denied the resurrection they also denied conditional immortality -- not because they were wrong about humans being doomed to die (Jesus never tried to argue with them about that), but because they rejected that God's reward to the righteous is immortality (i.e., conditional immortality).

They also are wrong, Christ says in Matt 22:29, "because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God." Notice what's missing from this list: they're not in error because they don't know how humans have spirits that never go out of existence. It's because they teach that only Moses wrote inspired Scripture, and because they teach that God doesn't preserve the righteous and wicked for ultimate judgment and reward.

In fact, while Christ was refuting the error of the Sadducees, he explained that:

Luke 20:35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. 37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed...​

This passage supports conditional immortality:

1) Only some people "attain to that age". Attaining to an age is enduring until a period of time; you believe everyone will thus endure, while Christ teaches, contradicting you, there are specific people who will be judged worthy of enduring, and by implication others who won't endure.

2) The judgment also conditionally grants the resurrection from the dead in which the Sadducees disbelieved, and the specific result is that "they cannot die anymore." Christ explains that this means marriage is no longer meaningful for them, using the understanding that marriage is for bearing young to carry on when you are dead.



I'm amused by your retroactive dubbing of this new argument as having been "what you've been saying." I'm also amused this this replaces your old "central focus" (remember, your unbiblical doctrine that men aren't given eternal life in the age to come?) as though nothing had changed.



Christ taught no such thing. Ever. It's not in the Bible.



It's correct that the spirits of men don't cease to exist, but of course sometime after death their bodies are destroyed. This is why the doctrine of the Resurrection was so offensive to both the Greeks and Sadducees -- many of the former believed in Plato's eternal spirits, while the latter didn't believe God could reassemble bodies.

Here's my analogy in response to yours: just as the body is destroyed by vengeful men (who can do no more!), so also the soul in totality is destroyed by God.

My analogy's Biblical. Yours isn't _ever_ supported in any way in the Bible, and is contradicted as early as Genesis 3.

Again, I will resume discussion once you state which Baptist Group is teaching annihilation, and the Baptist group you are affiliated with. Be glad to, again, show where you impose into what I have said things I never said. But I would ask you answer this question.


God bless.

 

[wTanksley]

Satan did not entirely lie:

You make a good point, and your exegesis is generally on-target; the serpent didn't lie in _everything_. But he did lie, and his lie made him "a murderer from the start" (John 8:44). The proper way to read a known liar in literature is to compare the liar's statements to a truth-teller's statements; in this case, God's direct speech is given, and God makes statements that are the same as the serpent's in all ways except one: "you will not surely die."

That one statement from the serpent is marked as a lie by the fact that it's one of the few statements he makes that God has _already_ contradicted, and of course as you correctly exegete God confirms all the serpent's other statements.

Now, your good exegesis aside where you show clearly TRUE statements the serpent made, let's turn to the problem:

When we look at Satan's statement he was correct...Adam and Eve did not die physically that day, which is what God did say without controversy (In the day ye eat...).

Now, what you're doing is excusing what the serpent lied about by incorrectly quoting the serpent by mixing it with the truth God told. Everything else in your _good_ exegesis shows an _exact_ match between what God said and what the serpent said; this one statement, when correctly quoted, is a direct contradiction to anything God said. Literarily, this is how we know what the liar is lying about. Remember -- the serpent is lying in order to kill, because he's a murderer from the beginning. The serpent assured her she'd not surely die, and he was lying _there_. He shouldn't be parsed to mean she'd die another day, or to mean she'd not die in a manner of speaking; the only way to parse this that's consistent with the context is to parse it as a deliberate lie, a direct contradiction of God, and a statement that simply has no truth in it.

He wasn't lying about "on the day", because he didn't mention it in his lie. We'll talk about "on the day" in a moment, of course; but you cannot escape the point of this particular quote to pretend the serpent was telling a half-truth -- his exact statement is, in context, and by the Bible's consistent interpretation, _all_ lie.

And while men would lose access to the Tree of Life (which apparently sustained physical life),

The Bible shows that its fruit sustains life, both in the original Garden and in the new Garden in the New Jerusalem. The Bible teaches nothing about a split between physical life and spiritual life that makes one of them everlastingly sustainable without the Tree; on the contrary, the Bible simply says life cannot be sustained forever without the Tree. You speak elsewhere of "Basic Truths" that are actually simply ad-hoc philosophies someone taught you, but that man cannot live forever without God's help is an _explicitly revealed_ basic truth.

we again note God said the day you eat you will surely die. He was not, in all likelihood, using the term "day" to speak to an Age, because this became a constant for all Ages which follow.

Your "note" is a masterpiece of grasping at straws. You're not reciting a rule of Hebrew grammar or of philosophy; you're just inventing some random blather that helps you feel good. The "reason" you give is specially invented by you for the single purpose of explaining away this one text, and is not useful here or anywhere else.

In fact, the 4 Hebrew letters pronounced /b'yom/ that make up the single word often translated "on the day" here are used more than 2000 times (double that if you count a difference in the vowels with the same literal meaning of "on the day"), and they simply mean "when" almost all the time -- you can tell in some contexts that it refers to a literal day, as for example in Gen 1:18 it should be translated "rules _over the day_". The root word is indeed "day" (yom), but the word's terseness leads to it being more common than any other word for "when" except for the more ambiguous 'ki' (which usually means "because" rather than "when"). The first example of this "when" translation is Genesis 2:4, where the exact same spelling of b'yom is used to describe "on the day the Lord created the heavens and earth", unmistakably referring to the entire span of creation previously described -- and showing that God uses b'yom to mean that God performed activity over many days and then described the purpose of that activity as focusing on the generations of the creation of the Garden of Eden (which is the focus of the section introduced by this verse). It's impossible to take this to simply _mean_ a single day; it just means a definite (finite) but unstated period of time (of course, the time is clearly stated elsewhere -- a literal 6 days).

If you refuse to take this word to mean something like "when", you recognize that you just forced the passage to contain a serious problem! Your solution is to refuse the sensible solution of treating "b'yom" as meaning "when", and instead you eisegete the idea of a spiritual death. But the passage rejects your eisegesis; throughout the rest of the passage God refers only to life and death in its complete all-encompassing sense, and God is so specific He makes it personal: that Adam _personally_ will return to dust. We know Adam's body returned to dust; but God threatened much more, that (apart from the seed of the woman hypothetically bringing Adam new life) Adam's _person_ will return to dust.

Now, let's look at some other facts. God used the expression literally rendered "on the day you eat of it, you will surely die". This exact expression -- "on the day you X, dying you will die" -- was used in royal threats not to give the king a 24-hour time limit, but rather to underscore the king's power and the offender's lack of ability to prevent the sentence from being carried out. Solomon uses almost the same expression in 1 Kings 2:37 (and again when carrying out the penalty), and unmistakably he suffered no embarrassment no matter how long Shemei had been travelling after he broke the law by crossing the river; he didn't even bother setting up special guards to make sure he wasn't embarrassed, but just depended on routine reports. So whether Shemei died the same day he crossed the river or two days later, the point Solomon was making that by crossing, Shemei inevitably and utterly doomed himself.

God is showing longsuffering mercy to Adam by allowing his sentence to lapse for a definite but unstated period in order to fulfill a greater promise (as with all the terms in God's law, as Christ explained with the "eye for an eye" law, mercy is permitted but the law must be upheld), but we also see in Gen 3:22 that God will not permit the serpent's only lie to be true. Throughout the text and in the entire rest of the Bible -- for example John 8:44 and Romans 5 -- that one quote is the lie that murdered. And Jesus, unlike you, meant John 8:40 literally -- he was saying his persecutors, like the serpent, literally sought to kill Him, not to make Him "spiritually dead".

 

[wTanksley]

So we understand that it is most probably the death in view was not physical, but spiritual, and seeing that salvation in Christ reunites fallen man with God, again we see Satan is catering to Eve's understanding, which is physical in nature.

This fantasy you're spinning is going to force you to contradict yourself, when you claim in your next quote that this passage is actually about "sustained physical life," whereas here you try to make it be about spiritual life.

1. In view is not eternal life, because eternal life was not the result of access to the tree of life, but sustained physical life;

When you make up artificial divisions (between 'spiritual death' and 'physical death') that the passage doesn't teach, you automatically force yourself into self-contradictions. The truth is that this passage simply teaches how God brought life, and sin brought death. It doesn't make a distinction between "spiritual death" and physical death; BOTH were brought by sin. And in the terms of this passage, the defeat of death is brought by the "seed of the woman" -- no distinction is needed between "eternal life" and "living forever" is possible, because the rest of the Bible shows that BOTH are brought by the seed of woman.

The Bible _never_ promises eternal life without promising sustained physical life forever. Christians are not gnostics who deny the body. In fact this text has Adam losing the right to "live forever" (Gen 3:22) specifically by losing access to the tree of life; access which believers are finally granted in the New Jerusalem. It's an essential part of the promise of Christianity, and the distinction that made Platonist Greeks consider Christianity foolishness.

So what the Annihilationist does is remove the physical context to justify their doctrine.

That's nonsense; the conditionalist doesn't have to remove anything. All we do is look at what the text appears to be positively teaching. The immortalist has to _insert_ something -- specifically, they insert the idea of "spiritual death" and pretend this passage is about that, even though every single word given in the passage is about death versus life, and it appears to treat it as a whole-person concept.

This has nothing to do with the unceasing existence of the spirit of man, but deals directly with the spiritual death suffered in the Fall.

Neither this, nor anything else in the Bible, has to do with the unbiblical claim that the spirit of the wicked man will continue unceasing. It's an invention that nobody in the Bible would have countenanced for a moment.

And there you go again; making up the idea that it "deals directly with the spiritual death suffered in the Fall." This passage never once uses the words or the concept of "spiritual death." There's not so much as a word of hinting about it. It's a pure imposition onto the text by traditionalists who grasp at straws to justify their doctrine. And of course, you claim it "deals directly" with a concept it doesn't mention once. The most you SHOULD say is that it "deals implicitly" with spiritual death; but it doesn't _teach_ it.

In fact, this is the one passage that CANNOT deal with "spiritual death" in the sense of Ephesians 2. Adam was NOT "dead in sin" when he brought sin into the world, and this passage doesn't mention him becoming "dead in sin"; rather, it explains him becoming dead personally, when "you will return to dust". Notice this doesn't say "your body will return to dust", but "YOU will return".

They deny man "living forever" based on misunderstanding of a pretty simple text, but, we understand they have to because their beliefs depend on wresting Scripture.

The "pretty simple scripture" actually _says_ that man shouldn't live forever, and God took positive action to prevent that.

It si not a matter of "living forever" in view in the eternal perspective, it is a matter of men living forever physically in the condition of death that did arise that day.

The passage teaches _directly_ about living forever in the blessed condition of the garden of Eden, or sinning and not living forever. There's no actual teaching in the passage about living in a condition of death; rather, the curse was to painful toil for food as long as Adam lived, until Adam would eventually die and return to dust. All of the nonsense about "living in a condition of death" and "eternal perspective", ALL of it, was invented ONLY in an attempt to justify believing in eternal conscious torment.

This passage clearly teaches conditionalism.

 

[wTanksley]

Again, I will resume discussion once you state which Baptist Group is teaching annihilation, and the Baptist group you are affiliated with. Be glad to, again, show where you impose into what I have said things I never said. But I would ask you answer this question. God bless.

I think God expects more of you than doubling-down on an obvious fallacy of guilt by association. However, I can't force you not to commit fallacies; I can only point them out.

You're welcome, though, to continue discussion, or not continue discussion, on any grounds you wish.

 

[Darrell C]

I think God expects more of you than doubling-down on an obvious fallacy of guilt by association. However, I can't force you not to commit fallacies; I can only point them out.

Guilt by association? You mean someone is forcing you...to be a Baptist? lol

It's a very simple question...what kind of Baptist are you? What Baptist group teaches annihilation?

You're welcome, though, to continue discussion, or not continue discussion, on any grounds you wish.

I would love to address your posts, but, I would prefer to know you are not being dishonest in your registry as a Baptist here, as you are being dishonest in your responses (imposing into my statements that which is not there).

Look, if you are a member of a Baptist Church, but disagree with them, fine. Not everyone agrees with everything taught by their fellowship. The question in view would be...why not be honest about it, and why not find a fellowship that does teach the doctrine you have embraced?

So at this point, this being about the fifth time asked, I think...I will forego addressing your posts because for one thing...it doesn't do any good. You do not bother to respond to the points made, cherry-pick your way through my posts, and impose into what I have said things that are not in my statements, even as you do with Scripture.

So what kind of Baptist are you? I can think of a few reasons why you wouldn't want to answer, such as you are a JW or SDA playing double agent, lol, or pride.

Which is it?


God bless.

 

[wTanksley]

So what kind of Baptist are you? I can think of a few reasons why you wouldn't want to answer, such as you are a JW or SDA playing double agent, lol, or pride.

You can't answer my arguments, so you get more personal even then before. You are a sick person, Darrell. I've answered questions like yours before, when asked by people who are discussing the issues. I can't even imagine why anyone would answer such a question from a person who's currently calling them a liar. If you honestly thought I was a liar, you wouldn't ask for my testimony.

I'm going to reply to other arguments.

 

[Darrell C]

You can't answer my arguments, so you get more personal even then before.

The record shows I have, unlike you, addressed every word you have said, every point you have made, and every argument you have presented.

You have returned the time spent with cherry-picking a few points and ignoring everything else.

As to whether your arguments have been answered, I will let the reader decide. I'm okay with that.

You are a sick person, Darrell.

Because I ask you to tell me what kind of Baptist...teaches annihilation?

Right.

I've answered questions like yours before,

I doubt that very seriously.

You have not answered anything, but continue to present a physical understanding of the truths of Scripture. You impose into my statements that which is not there, just as you impose into Scripture that which is not there.

I did an entire post showing your error, yet you do not address that. Curious?

No...expected.

when asked by people who are discussing the issues.

I wish we were discussing the issues, lol. But you avoid that which you cannot answer.

And what is curious is avoiding what kind of Baptist you are, and what Baptist group teaches annihilation.

I guess you are afraid that it will be revealed you are not affiliated with a Baptist group that teaches annihilation? There are numerous groups that call themselves "Baptist," which do not teach Baptist Doctrine. Some use the term negatively: "Bible Believing Baptist," for example. A statement of "We're Baptists that actually believe the Bible," lol. Usually Charismatics or Pentecostals borrowing the name.

I can't even imagine why anyone would answer such a question from a person who's currently calling them a liar.

Bingo.

It's especially worse when they are saying you said something you never did.

Here is another example:

Now, what you're doing is excusing what the serpent lied about by incorrectly quoting the serpent by mixing it with the truth God told. Everything else in your _good_ exegesis shows an _exact_ match between what God said and what the serpent said; this one statement, when correctly quoted, is a direct contradiction to anything God said.

Again, I would love to address such obvious confusion as this, where you are not only imposing into my statement something not there, but here you say two entirely different things in one statement. Which is it, Satan and God agree on what I was speaking about, or it is a direct contradiction? lol

Nothing in what I stated "excuses what the serpent lied about." You impose that into what I said, just like you impose the false doctrine of cults into Scripture.

Annihilation is a false doctrine which does stand in direct contradiction to all that God has said.

If you honestly thought I was a liar, you wouldn't ask for my testimony.

I'm not asking for your testimony, just want to verify you are a Baptist, and learn exactly what kind of Baptist has embraced annihilation.

I do not think you are a liar, but I do think you are seriously confused. There is a difference.

However, if you are SDA or JW, or one of the groups that have embraced annihilation, and are posing as a Baptist so you can "witness" on this board, then you would in fact be a liar of the worst caliber. So my question has in view only an answer to the question posed to you, I think this makes six times now.

Here it is again: what kind of Baptist are you (and I could care less if it is a Charismatic "Baptist") and what group of Baptist has embraced Annihilation?

I'm going to reply to other arguments.

You won't. You have already shown you are selective in what you will answer, and what you won't. The Public Record makes that very clear.

I will be happy to resume discussion on the false doctrine of conditionalism, when you can give an answer to this simple question. As I said, it's unusual for a Baptist to be ashamed that he is a Baptist. you said...

I think God expects more of you than doubling-down on an obvious fallacy of guilt by association.

...and this is curious. Guilt by association can refer to both sides. Are you guilty because you have embraced a doctrine that is not Baptist? Or are you guilty because you have? lol.

So feel free to cherry-pick what you can answer, and ignore that which you cannot. But I would recommend you consider the points made which you have ignored, and ask yourself why you have not addressed those issues.


God bless.

 

[wTanksley]

You won't. You have already shown you are selective in what you will answer, and what you won't. The Public Record makes that very clear.

OK, since you think that, the right thing to do would be to listen to your judgment of your own arguments. My consistent practice has been to try to respond mainly to claims you call your "central focus", since of course I don't have time to respond to all of the claims you make.

What past argument have you made that I didn't respond to, that you think still matters?

 

[Darrell C]

OK, since you think that, the right thing to do would be to listen to your judgment of your own arguments. My consistent practice has been to try to respond mainly to claims you call your "central focus", since of course I don't have time to respond to all of the claims you make.

What past argument have you made that I didn't respond to, that you think still matters?

What Baptist group are you affiliated with and what Baptist group teaches annihilation?


God bless.

 

[wTanksley]

While we're waiting for Darrell to find an actual argument that I haven't addressed (I accept his word that there's one of those in there somewhere), let's look at some of the explicit teaching of conditional immortality in the Bible.

I'll dedicate this post to Psalm 73. This is the first Psalm in the book of the Psalms of Asaph, and is among the oldest of the Psalms. We can see Asaph's intent here to show people both an eschatological expectation and the benefits of regular faithfulness to the assembling of the people together.

1 Truly God is good to Israel, to those who are pure in heart.
2 But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled, my steps had nearly slipped.
3 For I was envious of the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
4 For they have no pangs until death; their bodies are fat and sleek.
5 They are not in trouble as others are; they are not stricken like the rest of mankind.
6 Therefore pride is their necklace; violence covers them as a garment.
[... more about the wicked ...]
12 Behold, these are the wicked; always at ease, they increase in riches.
13 All in vain have I kept my heart clean and washed my hands in innocence.
14 For all the day long I have been stricken and rebuked every morning.
15 If I had said, "I will speak thus," I would have betrayed the generation of your children.
16 But when I thought how to understand this, it seemed to me a wearisome task,
17 until I went into the sanctuary of God; then I discerned their end.​

The author confesses two problems: one in his heart, and one in the world. The solution to the problem in his heart is to adopt an eternal perspective as taught in the sanctuary of God. And that eternal perspective reveals to him that the problems in the world will not endure forever; there is an "end" (either a literal ending or a purpose) to the wicked.

But back up a little bit, and look at the author's statement of the problem more closely. His problem is that the wicked prosper and are encouraged; but more than that, some of the wicked even _die_ without really experiencing the pain the righteous feel. This is a problem Asaph shares in common with Job 21 (which I'll quote as a footnote to this), although Job offers no comfort or remedy to the problem. Asaph, like Job, sees the death of the wicked as being a problem; not that they NEVER experience a painful death, but that many of them seem to be guarded and blessed up to death, and even there one cannot tell whether God has actually cursed them, since there are wicked who die as nobly as any righteous man. Job even adds that in the extreme cases the graves of the wicked are given an honor guard, and even if not, nobody can tell the difference between the righteous and the wicked among the clods of dirt.

This is the problem statement. What's the solution? Again, the solution is to look to the eternal perspective: what are we taught about the end of the wicked?

18 Truly you set them in slippery places; you make them fall to ruin.​

From the eternal perspective, the wicked are in these apparently exalted positions in order to accomplish a purpose of God in their end. Their places are "slippery", and lead to a forced "ruin". OK, but as many eternal torment believers have pointed out, "ruin" is a vague word. But unlike ECT believers, we cannot simply assume that because "ruin" is vague it actually means "torment"; we have to look at what the Bible says.

19 How they are destroyed in a moment, swept away utterly by terrors!​

"Ruin" can mean many things. But being "destroyed in a moment" is unambiguous. The pain, shame, and suffering the wicked experience is nothing like the pain, shame, and suffering Asaph writes about experiencing himself -- because unlike Asaph, even though their pain and terror is brief, it leads to being "destroyed in a moment" and "swept away utterly." But how utterly? Could it be that they're "swept away" partially, so there's some part of them under the rug?

20 Like a dream when one awakes, O Lord, when you rouse yourself, you despise them as phantoms.​

No; they're swept away utterly and become "like a dream when one awakens." Dreams might influence the brain, but they don't change anything; there's nothing left of the wicked after God rouses Himself. This poetic figure of rousing connects to the idea of a dream, of course, but it also connects to the idea of God ruling a settled order versus God judging and changing the world. Thus we know that this time -- this "moment" when "they" are "destroyed utterly" -- is God's judgment day, which is, befitting this verse, the only period of time when ALL the wicked are together facing an angry God.

21 When my soul was embittered, when I was pricked in heart,
22 I was brutish and ignorant; I was like a beast toward you.​

The author looks back on the when he was ignorant, uninformed, and undisciplined, and reflects.

23 Nevertheless, I am continually with you; you hold my right hand.​

In spite of ignorance, Asaph maintained the obedience God is due, and when he looks back, he realises that God even then was with him, and still is. God is not setting him on slippery places, but rather guiding Asaph's strength (the mention of "right hand"). This explains Asaph's continuing in disciplined self-denial (vv 13-14) even while his heart was bitter -- and of course it explains Asaph coming into the sanctuary where he needed to be.

24 You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will receive me to glory. 25 Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. 26 My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.​

My elder's wife's tombstone has this as her inscription; he and I may politely disagree on whether or not the wicked will actually be brought to an end, but this passage means the same to both of us. Indeed, ALL of the desires of the righteous are fulfilled, because the righteous are precisely the ones who desire only God.

27 For behold, those who are far from you shall perish; you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you.
28 But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord GOD my refuge, that I may tell of all your works.​

The choice offered to the Jewish worshipper by Asaph is twofold: they can be far from God and they will perish, and God will put an end to them (which, yes, means their very being will END); or they can join Asaph's song and be near to God, making God their place of safety.

Here's that promised footnote from Job, showing that he realized the same as Asaph, that God's justice did not guarantee that the wicked would suffer. Job didn't have the full picture, but we can see that he and Asaph started with the same problem, and neither one believed for one moment the foolishness that when God says he'll slay the wicked He's got a temporal perspective.

Job 21:29-33
29 Have you not asked those who travel the roads, and do you not accept their testimony 30 that the evil man is spared in the day of calamity, that he is rescued in the day of wrath? 31 Who declares his way to his face, and who repays him for what he has done? 32 When he is carried to the grave, watch is kept over his tomb. 33 The clods of the valley are sweet to him; all mankind follows after him, and those who go before him are innumerable.​

 

[Darrell C]

While we're waiting for Darrell to find an actual argument that I haven't addressed

You can begin with the argument concerning Baptist Doctrine.

What kind of Baptist are you and what Baptist group teaches annihilation?

The above commentary is an example of the failure to understand the distinctions between those under Law and previous economies and those under the New Covenant. I can help you with that, Tanksley.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

You can't answer my arguments, so you get more personal even then before. You are a sick person, Darrell. I've answered questions like yours before, when asked by people who are discussing the issues. I can't even imagine why anyone would answer such a question from a person who's currently calling them a liar. If you honestly thought I was a liar, you wouldn't ask for my testimony.

I'm going to reply to other arguments.

the Bible states that there is Eternal life that God gives unto the saved at the moment they receive the Lord jesus, as the Holy Spirit Himself is the pledge and seal and sign that we will one day have the physical resurrection of the Body...

So eternal life is right now for us, but not yet the fullness of our inherirtance, as that awaits the Second Coming...

And jesus Himself stated that BOTH saved and lost will be resurrecyed by Him, and that one will receive rewards, others what is justly due to them, but that BOTH are eternal...

So is Jesus confused here, and you are right? And again, if the lost turn into smoke, how can God even claim to be Holy and Rightious Judge, as all got same penalty for their sins?

 

[wTanksley]

You can begin with the argument concerning Baptist Doctrine.

You haven't begun to make an argument concerning Baptist doctrine. But you're welcome to do so. Note, however, that making claims is not the same as making an argument; so saying that I'm a Baptist (which is backed only by my own claims) or that I'm not a Baptist (which isn't backed by anything) isn't an argument.

The above commentary is an example of the failure to understand the distinctions between those under Law and previous economies and those under the New Covenant. I can help you with that, Tanksley.

Your above quote is an example of an attempt to distract attention from the actual words of scripture by appealing to abstract claims about "distinctions" and "understanding".

The claim you're explicitly making is that I lack understanding of the differences between covenants. The claim you're implicitly making is that there's some difference in the ultimate fate of the unbelieving wicked in the Old Covenant and their fate in the New -- since the ultimate fate of the wicked is what we're discussing, and what my analysis of that Psalm is unmistakably about. And that implied claim of distinction is not only unbiblical, but against all the beliefs of all the Baptists ever converted, whether confessional or anti-confessions.

 

[wTanksley]

the Bible states that there is Eternal life that God gives unto the saved at the moment they receive the Lord Jesus, as the Holy Spirit Himself is the pledge and seal and sign that we will one day have the physical resurrection of the Body...
So eternal life is right now for us, but not yet the fullness of our inherirtance, as that awaits the Second Coming...

That's OK as a kinda vague summary, sure. But it's not in the Bible; the Bible includes much more specific information.

And jesus Himself stated that BOTH saved and lost will be resurrecyed by Him, and that one will receive rewards, others what is justly due to them, but that BOTH are eternal...

Also true, again as a paraphrase, although you're not saying the same thing as any specific Biblical text. Clearly what you're paraphrasing is Matt 25:46 --

"And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."​

Now, this isn't vague about what these righteous people will receive; it's very specific that after this judgment they "go into eternal life". This means "life" that lasts forever without end -- a very wonderfully specific promise. And what they "go into" is not the same "eternal life" they already had, but something they actually receive right there -- otherwise it wouldn't be something they "go into".

But what about the wicked? They do _not_ "go into eternal life" in the sense of life that goes on forever; instead, they are directed into punishment that goes on forever.

And again, if the lost turn into smoke, how can God even claim to be Holy and Rightious Judge, as all got same penalty for their sins?

It's true that the lost are promised to turn into smoke in Psalm 37:20, a clearly eschatological Psalm quoted by Christ in the Beatitudes. So there's a surface presumption in favor of the fact that it's moral to turn the wicked into smoke, since that and Psalm 68:2 both say it'll happen (and by the way, "the wicked" in the Judgment are not "lost" -- Jesus and the apostles speak of the people they're going to convert as the "lost", while those who reject the gospel are not "lost" at all, but confirmed in their own love of darkness).

But you raise an interesting philosophical argument: how can it be just?

The answer is that every time we harm someone, we offend not only against the human, but against the holiness of God. God considers it just to afflict the wicked as they've afflicted the righteous (2Thess 1:6, elsewhere He promises to avenge the widow and orphan), so there's no doubt there's a debt of vengeance to be taken out in suffering; but unrepentant sin is not a crime against mere men, but against God, in whom "we live and move and have our being." The magnitude of our debt against people can be described as vengeance, and it's "eye for an eye" with at most 40 lashes added (Deut 25:3); but to God we owe our existence, and the debt comes due with no way to repay it.

TL/DR: God cuts down the wicked because they rebel against the source of their existence, the source of all existence.

But the existence of the wicked is finite, as are their crimes. He demands that they pay their own debts, since they reject the payment God made; and so their blood is on their own head, and they pay the penalty in full on the Day of Judgment.

 

[Darrell C]

You haven't begun to make an argument concerning Baptist doctrine. But you're welcome to do so. Note, however, that making claims is not the same as making an argument; so saying that I'm a Baptist (which is backed only by my own claims) or that I'm not a Baptist (which isn't backed by anything) isn't an argument.

Here is the argument, so you understand: Annihilation is not a Baptist Doctrine, it is the doctrine of offshoot groups. Most of which are questionable in numerous doctrinal positions and several that usually find their way into books dealing with cults.

Understand?

Secondly, this is a Baptist Only section, so, those who teach doctrines not associated with Baptist groups make one wonder if they are in fact Baptist (and simply in disagreement with certain Baptist Distinctives, which happens quite a bit seeing there are numerous beliefs among Baptists that conflict) or...a member of a questionable group playing double agent, which is based on deception which is not a Christian manner of conduct. No reason for you to not simply answer my question.

Third, the Public that looks in this, or any other forum, has a right to know who it is teaching the doctrine they are perusing.

If you cannot find an argument in that, then there is no reason to expect you to find an argument in the previous posts dealing with the heresy of Annihilation.

Your above quote is an example of an attempt to distract attention from the actual words of scripture by appealing to abstract claims about "distinctions" and "understanding".

Nothing abstract about the difference between the understanding of the Old Testament Saint and the New. But you are not alone in this particular error, many do it, because they cannot discern that teaching in Scripture.

But the focus of the error employed in this context is that we have an understanding about eternal judgment not revealed in the Old Testament.

The claim you're explicitly making is that I lack understanding of the differences between covenants.

Now watch, Tanksley, as you follow your inability to process statements and once again impose into what I have said...something that is not there. If you can learn not to do that with your antagonist, then perhaps you might stop doing that to Scripture.

While it is true those under the New Covenant enjoy quite a bit more than those who died under previous economies, in view is more related to revelation, and it's progressive nature.

Now let's see the conclusion/s you arrive at because you mistakenly identify the context of what I said:

The claim you're implicitly making is that there's some difference in the ultimate fate of the unbelieving wicked in the Old Covenant and their fate in the New --

Nothing in what I said even intimates there is a difference in the fate of the wicked...ever. In point of fact, I have consistently taught that the lost will all go into eternal punishment, torment, damnation, judgment, and separation.

You want to go back and see how you have imposed into my statement that which is not there? I doubt you will. I did an entire post dealing with that and you did not address it. So I won't hold my breath on this either.

since the ultimate fate of the wicked is what we're discussing, and what my analysis of that Psalm is unmistakably about.

So where did I say "the fate of Old versus New is different?"

Your analysis is poor. Syllogistic. And in error. Just like your conclusions concerning the fate of the lost are.

And that implied claim of distinction is not only unbiblical, but against all the beliefs of all the Baptists ever converted, whether confessional or anti-confessions.

Well, one thing I will agree with, the implied claim of distinction is in error, though I would point out, like on a number of occasions...only you are involved in it, because it is a construct of your mind.

I can help you with that Tanksley, but, you are going to need to be honest about...

...what type of Baptist you are and what Baptist group teaches annihilation.


God bless.