conditional immortality

[Darrell C]

I am short on time so I will forgo the usual courtesy of quotation with time-stamp, though I am putting in two time-stamps which gives the post where what is addressed comes from.

My statement is showing the implication of your doctrine.

Your multiple statements, all of which are wrong? Since they're wrong, they're showing that you're wrong about the implications of my doctrine.

You have not shown anything I have said is wrong, Tanksley. You have not addressed my posts that show your error.

Your church is the seven churches of London of 1644?

I doubt that very much. Surely your fellowship has a more recent confession of faith?

Why on earth would we want a newer confession? Was something wrong with the old one? Why on earth would anyone DO that? Unless, of course, you disagree with the older confession. That's OK, a confession isn't the Bible. You're allowed to disagree.

So this is the identical confession the church you go to has? Could you post the confession from your church so I can see that? Again, I doubt that very much, and I doubt you will post the confession from your church, because if it is a Baptist church it likely confesses Eternal Punishment.

You can easily settle this by posting the confession from your church, not an obscure confession from antiquity.

And yes, it is okay to disagree if you feel they are wrong, just don't think it is a Baptist Belief because you happen to go to a baptist fellowship.

I don't disagree with these older confessions. If you disagree you're allowed to write a new one and claim I violate THAT. You're not allowed to claim that means anything to me. I'm not bound by your confessions. Even YOU openly claim you're not bound by your confession.

The confession you offer is vague, hence irrelevant. If we were debating sprinkling versus immersion and you pulled a confession out of antiquity that doesn't mention it specifically, this doesn't make your position correct, and it doesn't justify your position, and it doesn't contribute to the debate at all.

My guess is that the fellowship you go to teaches Eternal Punishment, thus you cannot post their statement of faith and belief, but have to search out an obscure statement of men long since dead.

That so-called "guess" defies all the evidence you have. It's not even speculation; it's just motivated, wishful thinking on your part.

Must not be, seeing you do not post it to show my guess is in error, lol.

You do more to affirm my guess with your dodging of the point.

And in your teaching you have denied what is made clear in this confession, because you teach that men receive eternal life at the resurrection. Or am I not remembering this discussion too well?

I certainly believe men receive eternal life in the age to come, as Jesus says in Mark 10:30 (to name just one in the list of verses I gave). This confession doesn't appear to affirm anything opposed to that.

I notice you don't bother to requote my own quoting of what you have said that I gave to show why I see you denying eternal life being bestowed at salvation, as opposed to the "literal" obtaining of eternal life at resurrection.

Why is that, Tanksley?

And "list of verses?" lol

Nothing in what I have said even hints that I "assume only one can be true. lol

You directly state I'm denying present eternal life "because teach that men receive eternal life at the resurrection." As you say above and below. You couldn't come to that conclusion from that data without believing that only one can be true.

And I shopwed how you denied it. Go back and actually address what I said, instead of all this dodging. This is why you are going to continue to go in circles and maintain such a limited understanding of salvation and Eternal Punishment. This is how you embraced this doctrine of cults to begin with...because you refuse to address in Scripture that which doesn't align with what you want to believe.

You're so confident in this conclusion that you think it overrides my _direct_ testimony about my own beliefs.

Again, I quoted your words, and I didn't have to change any punctuation, lol.

How is this... ...quoting the entire statement? I see a comma after resurrected in what I actually said, whereas you have inserted a period. That is not a direct quote, nor is it quoting the entire statement. It is in fact an obvious restatement to justify yourself.

A ... comma? A period? That's the best you have to show for yourself? And for THAT you're going to accuse me of misquoting you? That's astounding. Can you at least affirm the opposite of what that extracted quote actually says? I mean, if I'm really misquoting you, I MUST be making the quote mean something you reject. I've been working with you on this for days now, and you've been completely unable to reject the claim you protest against.

No, Tanksley, it isn't the best I can "show for myself," lol. That's why I gave exactly what you said, which was not only taking what I said out of its context, but you physically changed what I said.

That is dishonest in discussion and debate. You need to learn that lesson now.

What you need to do at this point is go back and address what I said. I'm not going to stay on this merry-go-round with you.

Are you seriously going to say you don't see a difference between your conclusion and what I 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.

Now, look closely at your claim that "believers do not receive eternal life when they are resurrected"; here's mine:

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."

Seriously? You do not see the significant difference? You ignore not only what I said after your "direct quote," you ignore the focal issue which you are still missing.

I showed from your words that you see a difference in the "eternal life" bestowed at salvation and the "eternal life" of the resurrection, and now you want me to post all that again...so you can ignore it again?

Not going to happen, lol.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Here's the quote again, again, again (how many times have I put this EXACT quote in?):

You are presenting a position that is implying that men receive eternal life when they are resurrected, and that, again, is the focal issue here. Believers do not receive eternal life when they are resurrected, they receive eternal life when they are saved:

First, you can look above and see this is not what you quoted on several occasions in your syllogistic approach.

Secondly, we can see that what you misquoted before was misleading, let's now see this quote in its context:

You are presenting a position that is implying that men receive eternal life when they are resurrected, and that, again, is the focal issue here. 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.

Because you do not understand that eternal life is bestowed at salvation, men do not "receive eternal life at resurrection." You are waffling, amigo, because you know the points I have made show this is true.

And it is your carnal understanding that blinds you to this basic truth, preventing you from seeing the focal issue I have tried to get across to you from the beginning of our exchanges. The resurrection of both the just and unjust is physical in nature, and does not mean we have "more" eternal life than we do now, nor does it detract from the fact that even when physically raised, the unjust do not have life...period.

You are presenting a position that is implying that men receive eternal life when they are resurrected, and that, again, is the focal issue here. Believers do not receive eternal life when they are resurrected, they receive eternal life when they are saved:

You actually made your claim here THE FOCAL ISSUE. You're DISAGREEING with me that the righteous receive eternal life in the age to come, and you're contradicting me by saying "Believers do not receive eternal life when they are resurrected", and you imagine you're supporting your disagreement by adding "they receive eternal life when they are saved" (even though you know I affirm that, so you should know it isn't a point of disagreement).

Again we see the source of your confusion: you refuse to quote me in full. Instead, you impose a concept into what I said that I am saying they don't have eternal life when they are resurrected, lol.

I don't "support my argument" when I say they receive eternal life at salvation...

...that is the argument.

And because you don't understand, and don't want to understand, we cannot even get to a discussion concerning the fact that eternal punishment is as eternal as eternal life. Those who do not have life do not cease to exist, neither when they physically die, nor when they are resurrected.

You, on the other hand, are presenting a difference between the eternal life at salvation and at resurrection. There is a difference between spiritual resurrection and physical resurrection, but both involve the same eternal life Christ came to bestow upon those who believe on His name.

As far as you denying that men receive eternal life when they are saved, you don't realize it, but by making a distinction between the life received and seeing it as literal in the resurrection (rather than the physical as contrasted with the spiritual, which has been your underlying failure in understanding Scripture)...that is precisely what you are doing.

I just had to quote the whole thing in sequence -- that is the worst trainwreck of bad logic ever.

Well, if you were capable of putting everything that has been said together, you would realize the truth of the statement, and see where the real train wreck is, lol.

Are you saying now that you do not see a difference between eternal life at salvation and resurrection? That you do not see salvation as accomplished at resurrection? That you do not have a carnal view that is so thoroughly confusing the physical and spiritual elements of life and death?

I affirm that the righteous receive eternal life when they know Christ, because that's what the Bible says. I don't need to agree with you precisely in how you fit those into a systematic theology UNLESS you can fit it into the Bible.

And that is precisely what you try to do: fit systematic theology into the Bible, rather than bringing out of it what is there.

Your words:

John is talking about a literal raising of literally dead (and decomposed) people to literal life.

This has nothing to do with whether they had, or received...eternal life. They had eternal life when they died...that is why they are raised at the end of the Millennial Kingdom.

Yet you focus on the physical: "...a literal raising of literally dead (and decomposed) people to literal life."

See what you say here? If you cannot understand what you yourself are saying, isn't that a problem? And you say here they are "raised to literal life." You mean the eternal life they had before dying...wasn't literally literal?

See how the two concepts are being merged in your speech?

However, I'm curious. Do you affirm that believers receive eternal life _physically_ at the resurrection? Is that what you're trying to say? I can't quite tell, because your paragraph doesn't say, it just talks about a distinction without defining it.

Now you change what is in view from simply saying they receive eternal life to asking me if I affirm that they receive eternal life physically...

...good job, Tanksley!

We have just had a breakthrough.

Yes. Yes. Yes...their/our bodies are made everlasting when we are physically raised. But that does not deny that we have already, at salvation...been spiritually raised. That is the focal issue and what you need to focus on in your attempt to understand eternal punishment. Eternal Life is not a substance or figurative concept, it is the union of God with man when man is reconciled to God. Eternal Life is bestowed through the indwelling of God, not a condition or position ascribed to believers which awaits physical resurrection to occur.

That is the focal point.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

So quote me where I lied.

Where you said that I deny present reception of eternal life. Since I not only don't deny it but actually affirm it and you know I affirm it, your continuing claim that I deny it is a lie.

As I requested...quote me. If you need help learning how to do that let me know, I will be glad to help. All you have to do is highlight waht I say in a post and "quote/reply" pops up (though it won't if you highlight a quote in that post). If you highlight what you want to respond to, then hit quote, you then go down to the bottom and hit "insert quotes." Then a box comes up and you click on "insert these quotes", and they will appear in the box. I'm sure you already know how to do this, just putting this in on the off-chance you don't.

Now...quote me where I lied so I might stand before mine accuser. lol

Give the time-stamp (which it will if you properly quote it) so I can see it in it's context. Because that is your primary problem in debate, you repeatedly quote out of context.

If what you MEAN is that I'm being inconsistent, that's what you should _say_. You shouldn't claim I'm denying something that I openly affirm.

It's not inconsistency, Tanksley, you are consistent in in your syllogistic approach.



You are not seeing that I showed you how your conclusion is "Men receive eternal life when resurrected" though you say they receive eternal life when saved. You are hung up on the physical which is not allowing you to understand eternal life that is received, in full, when one is saved. You are not alone in this, all works-based mentalities echo this same error.

I can answer that...no Baptist can embrace annihilation, and when he does, he should have the integrity to remove himself from the Baptist group he is pretending to be in agreement with.

Yes, I recognize you believe that. Clearly in YOUR church that's true (it's what your confession says). But why should any other Baptist church do what you order us to do?

I have never intimated that I think people should blindly embrace confessions or professions of faith, because I believe we have an obligation to verify teachings throgh Scripture, and many statements of belief are either vague, incomplete, or perhaps misguided and in error. Embracing the teachings of one's own group simply because they are taught by that group is not a good approach. Hence I see it as a good idea that people belong to a group that echoes what they see Scripture teaching (as opposed to what they want to believe). Unlikely anyone is going to find that church, and if they do, then it might be considered that a blind following is the reason.

I above many understand what it means to believe something rejected by the many, Tanksley, but, when I debate those issues Scripture is my basis for belief, and justification for those views. And so far you have ignored the Scriptural presentation of the basis of my belief, thinking I have my views because I have adopted traditional beliefs. That is simply not the case.

And when it comes to eternal punishment, I have given a Scriptural presentation and so far you have not addressed those issues. The next post touches on it, but again your quoting of what I have said, and what I have presented is cherry-picked, not addressing the points I raise. This is why you can say...

and everlasting torment is NEVER mentioned,

...after being given Scripture that specifically speaks about eternal torment.

But you are doing a little better.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

You seem to not understand that the biblical terms used for duration in heaven/hell are the same, so that the Lord was stating to us both are eternal states...

And also, how can there be any real judgement and accountibility for sins commited, IF all sinners experience the same turning in to smoke?

And jesus himself stated that there will be lessoning/greater degrees of punishment in hell from God, so how can they be if all get smoked?

And why would it be FAR worse to go to judgement, and fall into habds of God, if all just get smoked?

 

[Darrell C]

I will add quotes from myself as I see them pertinent to your statements. Again, short on time so might not put them all in, but, may.

Well, I guess we can say that the Reformed are still Catholics, as well, right? I mean, if there is nothing wrong with taking a position that is contradictory to what has been traditionally held, and one can remain of that faith in doing so, then, okay...you are a Baptist.

]The Lutherans and Reformed -- and Puritans -- all desperately wanted to be part of their original churches. The name Reformed actually _meant_ "Reformed Catholic". Since I am in full communion with and under the authority of my Baptist church (unlike, finally, all of the above), I am a Baptist.[/QUOTE]

And what kind of Baptist is that, and what is it they believe? That is the question I have asked 7 or 8 times now and you still simply make the claim you are a Baptist.

You could be a charismatic "Bible Believing Baptist" but that does not make you a Baptist. Any more than it makes them "Bible Believing."

Let me explain why a syllogistic approach is not good, my friend: the basic structure is simple, it has a major premise, and a minor premise, and a conclusion. This is contrasted with incorporating all relevant data to arrive at conclusions.

You're missing --- and it SHOWS in your example -- that the premises have to be related to the conclusion. This is how you can tell that the premises are "relevant".

You give a brilliant example of an absurd conclusion that flows from your failure to apply logic. Syllogisms are bad, you say, because they have <a specific structure>. Your logic is good, on the other hand, because it incorporates "all relevant data". Consistently with your claim, you aren't presenting a valid logical argument; as a result, your desired conclusion does not follow even if all of your claims are true. The fact that syllogisms have a structure isn't _relevant_ to the conclusion you're trying to present.

And you give a key word that describes a syllogistic approach...absurd. What you miss in the examples is that the premises are not always...right. Thus the conclusion is wrong. Had you incorporated everything I have said instead of blatantly changing it, your conclusion stood a better chance of being right.

Here's another example of you changing what I said:

Let me explain why a syllogistic approach is not good, my friend: the basic structure is simple, it has a major premise, and a minor premise, and a conclusion. This is contrasted with incorporating all relevant data to arrive at conclusions.

Syllogisms are bad, you say, because they have <a specific structure>.

I didn't say "syllogisms are bad because they have a specific structure," lol. What I said is "a syllogistic approach is not good, my friend: the basic structure is simple, it has a major premise, and a minor premise, and a conclusion. This is contrasted with incorporating all relevant data to arrive at conclusions."

Can you seriously tell me you don't see the difference?

The point is that the approach reaches a conclusion based on only part of the relevant data necessary to properly conclude on an issue.

That's not syllogistic, and it's not my argument.

The "major premise" is something both of us agree on, so it's not even a distinguishing point.

Your "minor premise" is factually incorrect -- the problem I repeatedly explained is not a lack of inclusion, but your direct written denial that Christians receive eternal life when resurrected, together with a repeated claim that I'm wrong when I say they do. So the so-called major premise never comes into play -- the so-called conclusion is directly in the minor premise, rather than following the alleged logic.

Here is the example again:

Major Premise: Darrell C says men gain eternal life when they are saved;

Minor Premise: Darrell C did not include wTanksleys' belief that men receive eternal life at physical resurrection;

Conclusion: Darrel C said "men do not receive eternal life when they are resurrected."

Not sure, especially when you reiterate your argument, how you can say the minor premise is factually incorrect.

You again restate the false premise that I say men do not receive eternal life at resurrection, which is again a corruption of what I did say, which affirms that eternal life is bestowed upon salvation, and that when we are resurrected (believers), we are physically resurrected into bodies that are then everlasting.

You do not understand that physical resurrection isnot when men receive eternal life, it is when their body is made incorruptible. There's a big difference, and that is what you are confusing.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I did a post that discussed that. Could you give me a post # where you addressed my response?

Yes, you did quite a bit of posts ignoring my direct quotes of you directly saying exactly what you denied saying. I addressed them all over and over by re-quoting you. You're not performing logic; you're denying reality.

Here is my statement in full, in which I give the post # of where you were addressed...

I did a post that discussed that. Could you give me a post # where you addressed my response?

And here is how you arrive at your conclusions in what I say in this debate, you do not include all relevant data necessary to arrive at proper conclusions.

I address that here (Post# 81):

And you ignore my statement in this post where I ask you for a post number which can verify I ignored anything, or that you addressed anything.

It's all fluff, my friend. You are convincing yourself that you are addressing the issues, and it is simply not so. And worse, you are making me do that which you claim to do...address you over and over on the same issues. Address the posts, my friend, and we can actually get somewhere.

Now I think we can both agree that Hell was prepared for Satan and his angels, right? Where we might disagree (and concerning demons I have no idea because you have not addressed the first argument presented) is whether that judgment is unending or is final. Just note here in this verse that men are in view.

No. "Hell", whether gehenna or hades, is never once in the Bible connected to Satan or angels. Look it up -- there are only 12 mentions of "gehenna" and 2 of "hades" in the NT. The eternal fire is connected to Satan and his angels; and the lake of fire is; but not hell. Our only description of Satan in the eternal fire (Rev 20:10) shows him being tormented forever and ever; but our only description of people in eternal fire says that it actually was poured on Sodom and burnt them to ashes, making them an example of what will happen to the wicked.

Here it is again:

Matthew 25:41

King James Version (KJV)

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:


Now I think we can both agree that Hell was prepared for Satan and his angels, right? Where we might disagree (and concerning demons I have no idea because you have not addressed the first argument presented) is whether that judgment is unending or is final. Just note here in this verse that men are in view.

Here are some demons' reaction to the Lord:


Matthew 8:28-29

King James Version (KJV)


28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Not going to waste my time correcting the errors in your current statement, but simply ask you to address the Scripture presented, where you are given the Greek (that's the blue words which are links in case you did not realize that) and Scripture that makes it clear, by the Word of Christ, that Hell was created for Satan and his angels. That men will go into Hell. That the demons knew that there is a time when torment would begin.

You might ignore the difference between the usage of Hades and Gehenna, I get that. But to ignore what Christ states here? What the Word of God states here?

Did you ever address this...


Revelation 14:9-11

King James Version (KJV)


9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.


...?

Nope.

Nothing in the usage of torment points to a cessation of existence, but implies a state of, well, as the KJV translators put it...

...torment.

And it's men in view, amigo, not demons.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Where we might disagree (and concerning demons I have no idea because you have not addressed the first argument presented) is whether that judgment is unending or is final. Just note here in this verse that men are in view.

The verse clearly says unending. Capital punishment is intrinsically unending; so would be keeping people alive in mere imprisonment; so would keeping them alive to torment them. Merely saying "unending" isn't enough to distinguish between our positions (although it completely crushes universalism); the crucial thing is that the punishment is a deprivation of living, which means death; and that it's in the eternal fire, which according to Jude and 2Peter, results in men turning to ashes.

We've already discussed all of this, and your "arguments" consisted only of denials. This is the problem with responding to everything you post -- you don't return the favor (you've never responded to most of my exegesis), and you post re-re-retreads of old claims you made without even touching on the counterclaims I made.

I don't return the favor of you "responding to everything I post?" lol

That's rich.

Here is what I said again:

Matthew 25:41

King James Version (KJV)

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:


Now I think we can both agree that Hell was prepared for Satan and his angels, right? Where we might disagree (and concerning demons I have no idea because you have not addressed the first argument presented) is whether that judgment is unending or is final. Just note here in this verse that men are in view.

Every time Scripture is presented you leave the doctrinal arena and try to redirect attention to the personal.

Address the Scripture, my friend.

Do you see that these demons know there is coming a time of torment, not annihilation?

Wait. "Torment, not annihilation"? Where did the "not annihilation" come from? Torment and annihilation can both be true! In fact, Jesus confronts other demons (Mark 1:24) who say almost the same thing, except that they DO say "destruction" rather than mentioning torment. The only way they can all be true is if the demons expect Jesus to torment them and then destroy them.

Right, Tanksley. They do not say "Have you come to destroy us before the time, but to torment, which is quite different. Then, it is reiterated. You would grasp this if you didn't dodge the relevant data, my syllogistic friend.

Notice that the Antichrist and False Prophet, both men, are in the Lake of Fire where Satan is cast.

]The Beast has seven heads that are mountains and kings, which isn't a description of a person. The False prophet is a beast with two horns. They do at times represent humans (particularly the 8th king); but your assumption cannot hold in every passage, and there's no reason to suppose it holds true here.[/QUOTE]

You are saying two things at once, Tanksley. Either the Beast and False are human, and that is who is cast into Hell, or they aren't. Make up your mind and we'll discuss it.

In the meantime consider...


Revelation 13:3-5

King James Version (KJV)


3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.


That the Beast is the Antichrist is a debatable issue goes without saying, and I have no intention of even attempting to discuss Eschatology with you, but I will just ask you, are you saying that the beast and false prophet cast into hell are not human? Does this not contradict what you say above?


[QUOTE="wTanksley, post: 2234139, member: 12851"

]The Beast has seven heads that are mountains and kings, which isn't a description of a person. The False prophet is a beast with two horns. They do at times represent humans (particularly the 8th king); but your assumption cannot hold in every passage, and there's no reason to suppose it holds true here.[/QUOTE]


There is reason, because the Beast that is in view when Satan is in view is cast into the bottomless pit for one thousand years, then...Satan is cast into the lake of fire...where the beast and false prophet are (not were). So again the context of each usage has to be properly discerned, and you know in your heart that in view is the Antichrist, who is human, as is the false prophet. We do not have concepts cast into eternal judgment, but men. And we see numerous times men going into that eternal punishment, and there is nothing to suggest, apart from very poor exegesis built upon syllogistic approaches, which deny a correlation of context when it is convenient (which is again concluding apart from all relevant data).


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

As Agedman pointed out, the same everlasting context applies to both the life of those who believe, as well as to those who go into everlasting punishment, torment, damnation, and separation from God.

Nope -- only the "punishment" is said to be everlasting, and the punishment is antithetical to continuing life. Never in the Bible is everlasting torment predicted for people; and nowhere is separation from God said to be everlasting (in fact, there's no place that can possibly be separate from God; Psalm 137:8).

Again, those who are cast into Hell...never had life.

Only those born again have life through Christ. That is what keeps escaping you.

You then try to use a passage that has nothing to do with being in union with God, but refers to His Omniscience, to absurdly suggest men are not separated from God.

Tanksley...that is why they don't have life. That is the condition all men are born into.

Those who go into Hell never had life, and never will.

All of this wresting of Scripture simply so you can cling to what you want to believe, which is a doctrine of cults.

The rich man's spirit is not asleep, but in Hades (not to be confused with Hell, the Lake of Fire). He is tormented.

The rich man's BODY is there too -- a tongue, at least. So's Lazarus' finger. And yes, he's awake. All of this is surprising, and you're just picking the parts that don't surprise you. The overall scene fits right into the prophet's pictures, not of sheol, but of the final judgment when the Lord comes with fire -- except for the second half, which cannot fit into the prophecies of that time.

But Jesus has a purpose for the second half; He uses it to explicitly warn against people preaching this story as a warning about hell when he ends the parable with the magnificent punch line: ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’ In other words, you don't convert people by convincing them about an elaborate picture of hell; you convert them with the Law and the Prophets. The same ones you explicitly refused to address when I exegeted the Psalms, remember?

We see in the story of Lazarus' resurrection that his body remained on earth...corrupting.

Again, one has to distinguish between Hades and Gehenna to understand the concept of the disposition of the spirit when it is separated from the physical body.

Here is the Lord's commentary on what happens when one dies:



Luke 24:36-39

King James Version (KJV)


36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


The Lord affirms their view that when one dies they are separated from the body.

Secondly, that the general resurrection is not in view is clear because...

1. Abraham directs them to the Law and the Prophets, not to Christ, not to the Gospel (which shows this account falls within the framework of the Age of Law);

2. There is a physical continuance to physical life in that the rich man pleads that Lazarus be sent to his brothers, which, if this were the resurrection...would make no sense at all;

3. There are multiple resurrections listed in the New Testament, beginning with Christ's, then the Rapture, then the rapture of the Two Witnesses, then the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs, then the resurrection of those who do not have life, the dead, which takes place when this current creation passes away.

You can deny these points, and I certainly don't expect you to quote them in full and address them, lol, but, I think if you look into your heart you will recognize they are valid points.

And guess what...he is dead. Yet he still exists.

The rich man in this story not only _exists_ but is both _alive_ and embodied, after he died. This looks like resurrection.

And what you're missing is that although he's in torment without the ability to escape or be relieved, he's not said to be in endless torment. His request for a drop of water parallels Christ's request once He knew he would die, and there's absolutely no explanation for either one aside from believing that death was imminent, so that the tiny relief would last until death. The normal, expected result of being in torment in flames is to die; your assumption that he'll continue forever in the same state is purely conjectural.

Okay, Tanksley, he's not in endless torment.

Death is imminent.

Wait, hold on, what's this...



Luke 16:22-24

King James Version (KJV)


22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;


...Scripture states he died. So which view is correct? The Lord's as recounted by Luke, or Tanksley's?

And what's this...


23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.


...?

It almost seems as if the Lord is saying...the rich man is in torment.

You will just have to straighten me out here, Tanksley, because I am used to taking the Word of God as it is given.

Now when you can understand that everlasting torment means just that, then you will understand the teaching that is actually provided to us in Scripture.

And when YOU can admit that torment forever and ever is mentioned only for three beings, and everlasting torment is NEVER mentioned, you will understand why I'm not impressed with your empty claims about what a phrase that doesn't appear in the Bible means.

I can admit this: there is no difference between...

torment forever and ever is mentioned only for three beings,

...and...

everlasting torment is NEVER mentioned,

...of which you both affirm (for three beings) and deny.

You don't see the contradiction, but it is there.

you will understand why I'm not impressed with your empty claims about what a phrase that doesn't appear in the Bible means.

I have given you much that shows eternal punishment, torment, damnation, and separation is without question a Bible Doctrine.

When you can address the Scripture, perhaps you can deny this. But, the "exegesis" you give is a little absurd. For example, you deny the rich man is dead and conscious, saying death is "imminent." Scripture doesn't say that, it makes it clear, by the Word of Christ, that he died. That this death is physical can be understood by a child. That at physical death the spirit of a man departs from his physical frame is simply basic, affirmed by Christ, and undertood by the disciples of the First Century. It is not until we get out of what Scripture actually states that absurd doctrines like annihilation can be embraced.

But until you can learn to examine what is said and keep it in it's context, you will continue to maintain this doctrine. While ignoring what I say and taking it out of context is expected, it is inexcusable when it comes to the Word of God.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus himself promised that BOTH sinners and sainys will having a future resurrection, and that BOTH will be 'rewarded" in that event, as some will be with God for all eternity, while the lost face eternal punishment,,, Jesus indicated that both will have eternal consequences, and our friend here must address just how can there be varying degrees of punishment, as per jesus himself, if all get smoked?

And how come the Bible states that ternal punishemt/destruction is always linked to banishment from presence of God, and not forever killed off?

And to me the biggest thing on his viewpoint is just how can he reconcile God MUST judge sins case by case basis, and that will receive much greater penalty, if all are just smoked and made no more?

 

[wTanksley]

OK, Darrell, since you’ve flatly refused to even talk about the clear Old Testament revelation of the fate of the wicked as given in Psalm 73, let’s turn -- as I promised -- to the New.

2 Thessalonians 1:5–10

It should not be surprising that an annihilationist would turn to 2 Thess 1:9 as a prooftext. Taken at its most obvious surface meaning, most people freely admit that this text appears to teach the permanent destruction of the disobedient and the persecutors; those who want to deny this go to subtleties. But none of us are here to assume or to look at the surface only; let's look more deeply and in context at this -- at the full paragraph as the HCSB gives it.

5 It is a clear evidence of God’s righteous judgment that you will be counted worthy of God’s kingdom, for which you also are suffering, 6 since it is righteous for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you 7 and to reward with rest you who are afflicted, along with us.​

As with Psalm 73, we find the fate of the saints and the wicked set against one another, and even serving to comfort the saints. And just as in the Psalm, the fate of the wicked includes affliction. Adding to the information in the Psalm, this tells us that the affliction of the wicked is a “righteous” “repayment” for the persecution of the righteous, stressing the equitability between the persecution and the judgment; thus we know that the Judgment will include proportionate suffering. We also see here a promise made to specific wicked people; the persecutors of the Thessalonians were both Jews and Greeks, and this punishment will apply to those long-dead people, thus showing that this includes a resurrection.

The theme of equitable punishment and of repayment continues to verse 9, where both “repay” and “righteous” appear together in an idiom that means to pay a judicial fine. The word for “righteous” here is, notably, also the word elsewhere translated “just” and “justice”. We’re not merely seeing God acting because He’s righteous, but also because He is just.

This will take place at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with His powerful angels,​

This is the time Jesus appears visibly (the “revelation”), giving us a picture of Jesus beginning high in the heavens and descending toward us. This theme smoothly extends through Jesus being on earth using fire and angels, and then extends to Jesus being with the believers in v.10.

8 taking vengeance with flaming fire on those who don’t know God and on those who don’t obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.​

The theme of justice and repayment reappears here hidden in a compound word correctly translated “vengeance.” The literal meaning is from-justice, a punishment that’s due to a person because of what they did. And of course, Paul wants to point out that what he’s describing is for all of the wicked people and unbelievers ever, not just the ones who were persecuting Christians.

9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord’s presence and from His glorious strength 10 in that day when He comes to be glorified by His saints and to be admired by all those who have believed, because our testimony among you was believed.​

The wrapping up the of theme of justice/righteousness appears in the idiomatic phrase “pay the penalty”, whose Greek includes the exact word for justice that appears repeatedly above. The word for “pay” here means to make a complete repayment that closes the books. And most often ignored is the time statement that appears at the close of the sentence in v.10: this affliction of the wicked began which Christ appeared (with flaming fire and mighty angels), and the complete penalty will be paid “when He comes on that day.” Traditionalists tend to make a big deal of “from the Lord’s presence”, while annihilationists make a big deal of “eternal destruction”; but whatever repaid penalty this passage describes is paid in full in a Day (which is never an infinite amount of time). This should change anyone’s mind to conditionalism; it’s just such an explicitly clear Scriptural teaching.

Next we come to “eternal destruction.” Grammatically, this is the “object” of the sentence, and it shares the object role with the word “penalty” in a relationship called “apposition.” The literal translation of the subject/verb/object, therefore, is “these will repay the just penalty, eternal destruction, …”. Since Greek apposition can be either descriptive or explanatory, and since “the penalty” is already clearly explained in the previous text (meaning that there’s no value in an explanatory appositive), this means that “eternal destruction” further describes the judgment rendered in fire and with mighty angels. The previous text might look like a finite affliction that’s measured according to finite persecution; but this description clarifies that by the time the affliction is justly complete, the person is eternally destroyed -- that paying the penalty actually includes and ends with becoming eternally destroyed, and that will leave nothing more to be paid.

Traditionalists, as I’ve mentioned, often try to nuance the word “from” in this verse, but you can see that whatever this pair of prepositional phrases means, the action of “paying” being described will be complete at the end of the Day. Some translations, like the ESV, try to change “away” to “away from”, suggesting that they pay “away from the Lord”; but this seems to miss the fact that in this passage Christ is _coming_ in judgment rather than _leaving_ away from judgment; and additionally, the ESV doesn’t translate this preposition “away from” anywhere else. (The ESV also adds the concept of “suffering the penalty”, but although that’s true it removes the passage’s original emphasis on Christ making them pay for what they did, and thus is an inferior translation.)

An additional problem with the traditionalist attempt to nuance “from” is that there are actually two prepositional phrases, not just one. The wicked are paying the penalty not only from Christ’s presence, but also from His glorious strength. The latter obviously refers back to the fire and angels, and tells us that this “from” is a description of the source of the penalty-paying, not a preposition of dissociation. This is similar to how this phrase works other times in appears in the Greek text, for example “...times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord” in Acts 3:19.

So, in summary, we’ve seen that this passage teaches that the persecutors will suffer in an amount based on their persecution of Christians; that it will begin at Jesus’ advent; that the suffering is caused by fire and mighty angels; that all those who rebel against the gospel and who don’t know God are included; that the payment of this penalty of suffering in flames includes and leads to eternal destruction; and that the payment will be complete when the Day of the Lord ends, while we will be forever with the Lord after that day.

 

[Darrell C]

OK, Darrell, since you’ve flatly refused to even talk about the clear Old Testament revelation of the fate of the wicked as given in Psalm 73, let’s turn -- as I promised -- to the New.

Okay Tanksley, you are left to your own devices.


God bless.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

Some time after 11pm Pacific this thread will be closed.

 

[wTanksley]

Jesus himself promised that BOTH sinners and sainys will having a future resurrection,

Close! He actually promised that sinners will have a resurrection to judgment, and saints will have a resurrection to life. He didn't promise they'd share the same resurrection. In fact, in Luke 20:35-36 Jesus said:

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.​

Notice that not everyone attains to The Age (the Messianic Age) and the resurrection from the dead, but the result is that those in the resurrection "cannot die anymore" (in the same sense that they COULD die before).

This conversely points out that those who do NOT attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead are not granted those benefits -- not to mention the only way to not attain to an age is to be destroyed before the age begins.

and that BOTH will be 'rewarded" in that event, as some will be with God for all eternity, while the lost face eternal punishment,,, Jesus indicated that both will have eternal consequences

Of course. I've answered this many times in this one thread. Death is an innately eternal consequence unless God negates it through His mighty power.

Further, there's more. This is a courtroom verdict, and clearly stated in the form of a declaration of "righteous" and "guilty". As such, the verdict declares what SHOULD happen to each side, in completely pure terms: the guilty receive punishment, the righteous receive life, and both _forever_. But that's true the other way around as well; the consequence to the righteous is not shared with the wicked. One side gets no punishment ever; the other side gets no life ever. The ban from life is everlasting; so is the lack of punishment. Eternal consequences.

and our friend here must address just how can there be varying degrees of punishment, as per jesus himself, if all get smoked?

Jesus mentions varying degrees of punishment many times. For example, the gospels report that it will be more bearable for Sodom than for the cities that directly rejected His teaching on the Day of Judgment. He taught that for some there would be many stripes, and for others only few.

What's common to ALL of the teaching about varying punishment and suffering is that they all specifically list finite, measured punishments. Notice above the number of stripes, and the "Day" of judgment (as opposed to the Age). Paul also mentions the affliction being measured out in proportion to persecutions in 2Thess 1:5-10 (see my discussion of that), and says it's fully paid on the Day.

And how come the Bible states that ternal punishemt/destruction is always linked to banishment from presence of God, and not forever killed off?

The Bible does not say anything _like_ people being banished from the presence of God; there is no passage even _like_ that. It says in the last days they will TRY to hide from the presence of God (Isa 2), but they will fail because God is coming to judge them. It's impossible to escape the presence of God even in hell. So your evidence here is purely your own invention.

Further, you claim that punishment is never linked to being forever killed off; but the Bible DOES clearly and specifically say that the punishment for evil is to lose your life, be killed, lose yourself, be destroyed, be destroyed body and soul, go up like smoke, melt like wax, and so on.

 

[wTanksley]

I cannot respond in detail to the several posts you made since I last looked at the board before the thread closes. Nonetheless, some things stand out:

...good job, Tanksley!

We have just had a breakthrough.

Yes. Yes. Yes...their/our bodies are made everlasting when we are physically raised. But that does not deny that we have already, at salvation...been spiritually raised. That is the focal issue and what you need to focus on in your attempt to understand eternal punishment. Eternal Life is not a substance or figurative concept, it is the union of God with man when man is reconciled to God. Eternal Life is bestowed through the indwelling of God, not a condition or position ascribed to believers which awaits physical resurrection to occur.

So all along, you merely were raising a semantic quibble, and hide from discussing our genuine differences. As we've both stated very clearly, we both believe that there's a special quality of life that God gives to believers when they believe, that they will always have. In some passages this is called "eternal life".

We both _also_ believe that believers will live forever, and will in that ordinary sense receive "everlasting life". I've posted an exhaustive list of all the times the words "eternal life" are used that way in the Bible, with Mark 10:30 being an example. You've consistently tried to pretend that I'm doing something wrong by using the words this way, but Christ did the same thing.

Where we DIFFER, and have from the beginning, is that I point out that the Bible NEVER says the wicked will endure forever, live forever, last forever, or anything else. They're not given incorruptible bodies, not glorified, not given immortality, or ANY OTHER WORDS that could signify that they last past the Day of Judgment.

This is the real meat of our argument -- not that nonsense about syllogisms and blaming me for not responding to every word of every post you write.

You do not understand that physical resurrection isnot when men receive eternal life, it is when their body is made incorruptible. There's a big difference, and that is what you are confusing.

Jesus led me to teach and affirm what you deny, in Mark 10:30 and many other passages.

Okay Tanksley, you are left to your own devices.

I hoped you'd interact with exegesis ... Can't say I didn't try.

OK, well, hope God blesses you through your church.

 

[Darrell C]

So all along, you merely were raising a semantic quibble, and hide from discussing our genuine differences.

No semantics involved on my part.

From the beginning of our exchange I tried to illustrate the error of Annihilation by bringing to your attention the carnal view that allows men to be swayed into this position. It lacks an understanding of the Life of Christ which no man is born with, and which only those Born Again have. The simple point this understanding makes is that "death" cannot be viewed as a singular concept, which is what the carnal view is.

Until one understands this, they will continue to look at "death" as something that takes place in finality. There is a confusion about the disposition of man after physical death, and a confusion about his disposition when he is judged eternally.

We both _also_ believe that believers will live forever, and will in that ordinary sense receive "everlasting life".

Not exactly. You see eternal life as somewhat different at salvation and at physical resurrection. While the physical nature of resurrection is evident in the resurrection and is different from spiritual resurrection, the bottom line is that while both are resurrected only believers have life. So the concept of death must take into consideration that men are in a constant state of "death" from birth. And despite being dead, they do not cease to exist.

You seemed to have changed a little bit what you were saying, and I think you think we have a similar view about eternal life, but, I don't see what your view seems to present, that men receive "more" eternal life at the resurrection. And I outlined where I see this presented in your statements. No point reiterating the same points, which is something you have forced me to do because you don't address the points.

Here is one example of error which, if you would simply give attention to it, you would see how your doctrine is based on several arguments you have concinced yourself as true:

The Bible does not say anything _like_ people being banished from the presence of God; there is no passage even _like_ that.

There isn't? Here's a couple that present that same concept:




Matthew 7:23

King James Version (KJV)

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.




Matthew 8:11-12

King James Version (KJV)


11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.



Matthew 22:12-14

King James Version (KJV)


12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

14 For many are called, but few are chosen.



Matthew 25:10-12

King James Version (KJV)


10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.

12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.


Matthew 25:41

King James Version (KJV)

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:



This has already come up, and I pointed out you were confusing God's Omniscience with teachings concerning the eternal punishment of the wicked, yet here you are...making the same argument to someone else. But you know what they say, "Even the blind dog finds the water bowl now and then." I am sure you will find people to agree with your "exegesis," lol, but it is highly unlikely that those who do...

...will be Baptists.

This is the real meat of our argument -- not that nonsense about syllogisms and blaming me for not responding to every word of every post you write.

There's not really any "meat" here, Tanksley. When someone avoids points made, misquotes their antagonists, and simply claims they have shown something to be true...it is very hollow. I am willing to work with that type of antagonist for a while, but at some point I have to let them go until they learn how to carry on a conversation. Nothing will be accomplished in your life until you learn to talk with people, rather than at them. If you review this thread, you will see that numerous points have been raised in regards to eternal life and eternal punishment which you have avoided. You deny Eternal Torment even though I give both the Scripture and the Greek.

Yes, you are very syllogistic in your approach, and your premises are often both wrong, though it takes only one, thus are your conclusions wrong.

Major Premise: Men cannot escape from God's sight;

Minor Premise: The Bible does not say anything _like_ people being banished from the presence of God; there is no passage even _like_ that.

Conclusion: Annihilation.

I hoped you'd interact with exegesis ... Can't say I didn't try.

I agree, you have put forth some effort in an attempt to exegete. Hopefully you will, in further attempts, incorporate more of Scripture than that which you feel justifies your doctrine. And I have enjoyed it, really. I hope one day we might be able to interact on a level where it is actually a discussion. But a discussion requires that both sides listen to, and address the points of their antagonist. I would again recommend you begin quoting everything your antagonist states, precisely the way they say it, that the context is kept. It is possible to lose the context, or place something out of context by parsing, but, if that occurs and your antagonist brings it up, acknowledge the error and move on. I have done this myself, lol, and try to avoid making my antagonist say something they didn't.

OK, well, hope God blesses you through your church.

I am not really reliant on my church for blessing, and in fact, as I said, am in disagreement on a number of issues that the leadership in my church holds to. One of those things, listed in the Statement of Belief, is the separation from those who are "schismatic." While this is in fact a Biblical position, I feel it is taken to the extreme, and to the point where it violates the examples set forth by the men of God in Scripture. For example, there is a refusal to speak to atheists, they are considered morons, and a waste of time. I don't see it that way. I take into consideration that some of those atheists might just be brothers or sisters in need of restoration. I can understand how someone weak in faith might get mad at God (say through losing a loved one or child and it isn't felt as "fair"). There is a general attitude that we shouldn't "argue," but Paul's (not to mention Christ's) M.O. was to...dispute (see the Greek, lol). He "argued" the Gospel, and throughout Scripture a proper understanding and putting into practice what the Word of God teaches is simply a Bible Basic. And that is what Paul sought to accomplish.

Another would be what I view to be a bit of a lax presentation of the Sovereignty of God, which has made at least one member believe that Free Will is being taught, though in reality it is not. But it might sound like it when it is described as, "Well, God votes for you, Satan votes against you, and you...cast the deciding vote," lol. Humorous, but at the same time this is a very volatile subject that some feel to be a reason for the breaking of fellowship. Can't say I would blame them. And I would say it is better to break fellowship and find a fellowship that teaches the doctrine that is divisive in the mind of the congregant...than to badmouth the leadership.

Which swings us back to you, my friend. As I have said, Annihilation is a doctrine of cults, and is not a Baptist Doctrine. I have been surprised at a few things some Baptists believe, but, I doubt very seriously you will ever find a recognized Baptist Church that teaches that doctrine. You will only find, as you supplied, people who "rethink" that which is traditional. Joseph Smith did that. So did Charles Taze Russel. So did Jim Jones and David Koresh.

So while I would always advocate we examine the beliefs held as traditional, it has to always come into concert with Scripture, and if you cannot present a Biblical Presentation, nor address the arguments that are given to invalidate that doctrinal position, then we should rethink that doctrine in truth.

Again, enjoyed it, and hope to see you around.


God bless.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

Some time after 11pm Pacific this thread will be closed.

This thread is closed