finite SINNING punished with INFINITE torture?

[BobRyan]

Infinite torture for the finite sins each of the children of Adam commit - or FINITE torment for EACH sin with some owing more debt than others?

Let the objective reader see --

Luke 12
45 ""But if that slave says in his heart, "My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk;
46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47 ""And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
49 ""I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!

Instead of God's Word definining a system of debt consisting of infinite torture owed for EACH sin committed we see FINITE debt owed for the sins comitted - with some owing more than others.

But ALL getting the torment of the "second death" lake of fire.

Stil lin this system of FINITE torment - the Sacrifice of Christ is of such a depth as to cover the entire amount owed.

How very different from the man-made tradition that argues for INFINITE torture owed for each sin - with the unnexpected yet predictable result that INfINITE God' pays for at most - "one sin's debt".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Jude 1:7 (KJV) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. {strange: Gr. other}

Bob, if you go over to where Sodom and Gomorrah (the cities) once were, you will not see an everlasting fire burning.

Sodom and Gomorrah (the wicked people) are (present tense) set forth as an example (clear warning), in suffering (present tense) the vengeance of eternal fire.

In your quote above of the text of Jude you simply edit out -- and completely omit "and the cities around them" - allow me to RESTORE the quote

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire

Yet it is S&G AND the cities around them that ALL undergo the punishment of everlasting fire given as an example STILL TODAY for all to see!


And so after that -- you then simply "quote you"

HBSMN

Bob,
Whether you want to believe it or not does not make it any less a fact that those inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are indeed still feeling that eternal fire.

That is not a quote of Jude - it is a quote of you.

Nearly 2,000 years after the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were burned to ashes, Jude the brother of Jesus was informing the reader of his epistle that the inhabitants were still burning.

Again - you merely quote "you" saying "The inhabitants are still burning" INStEAD of that the text says that the EXAMPLE is stlll visible still available for all to see.

Several pictures of that area can be found at this site:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm

Not one of those pictures show a fire still burning,

Yet ALL show the destruction STILL AVAILABLE still EXHIBITED as an EXAMPLE for ALL to see.

The objective reader instantly notes that the text of Jude never claims "the fire is still burning" NOR does it claim "cities are still burning" RATHER it claims that the EXAMPLE still exists for us today of a city completely destroyed by everlasting fire fully exhibited even today for all to see the destruction awaiting the wicked.

The destroyed area is STILL available for all to see - as your own link stated

Biblical Warning For All
The cities of the plain were destroyed as a warning for all that this same event will happen again one day to the wicked. One would think God is capable of preserving this ancient lesson for us to see and to learn from.
"Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens" Genesis 19:24. "Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly" II Peter 2:6. (The word for "example" means an exhibit for warning.)​

Analysis of the Brimstone
These sulfur balls are mostly golf ball sized, and some have burn marks all around them! Webster's Dictionary says that "brimstone" = sulfur. Accordingly, we have found the absolute proof that we have finally located Sodom and Gomorrah, the cities of the plain!​

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm

yet Jude tells us it still is an EXAMPLE of the destruction by everlasting fire still EXHIBITED as a warning for all to see. I believe Jude and reject the false doctrine of man-made traditions about eternal torture.

(HBSMN you are making this too easy for me)

Thanks.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Yet ALL show the destruction STILL AVAILABLE still EXHIBITED as an EXAMPLE for ALL to see.

You also said, concerning that picture: " Not one of those pictures show a fire still burning,"
We all realize that God destroyed Sodom and Godmoroh and the cities round about with a fire that happened at that time, that lasted for a number of hours, and that turned those cities to ashes. There is no need to twist the meaning of these verses and force your twisted theology into them. The cities were burned. They were burned to the ground. They were never rebuilt.
BTW, your site is not a credible sit for it is an SDA site and should not have been posted in the first place. Obviously everything that is posted there is going to have a "certain predetermined theological bias." Posting SDA sites or sites that are of other religions are against BB rules.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, more accurately, burned to ashes by a temporal fire that happened about 2100 B.C. and lasted for just a few hours. During that time Lot's wife, because of her disobedience was turned into a pillar of salt. Many such pillars remain to this day. There is much archeological evidence concering what happened to Sodom and Gomorroh. But that doesn't negate the fact that the inhabitants are spending an eternity in Hell, suffering in eternal fire.

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire

Note:
1. The cities were destroyed. It doesn't take everlasting fire to destroy cities.
2. The inhabitants of the cities engaged in gross immorality.
3. They also faced a judgement, and it wasn't temporary, it was eternal.
4. Those that engaged in gross immorality undergo the punishment of eternal fire. (note very carefuly that the buildings of a city do not undergo the punishment of an eternal fire--a ridiculous concept--but people do.

The objective reader instantly notes that the text of Jude never claims "the fire is still burning" NOR does it claim "cities are still burning" RATHER it claims that the EXAMPLE still exists for us today of a city completely destroyed by everlasting fire fully exhibited even today for all to see the destruction awaiting the wicked.

A gross misinterpretation of the text.
The example is that the inhabitants are suffering an eternal punishment in Hell, and thus will be the punishment of the false teachers mentioned in Jude 7, as will it be with any other unbeliever.

 

[Andre]

Simply making statement such as

"But that doesn't negate the fact that the inhabitants are spending an eternity in Hell, suffering in eternal fire. "

and

"Those that engaged in gross immorality undergo the punishment of eternal fire. "

and

"The example is that the inhabitants are suffering an eternal punishment in Hell"

are really just that - statements. Fair enough, but these are not arguments to support your position, they are merely statements of it.

And when you write:

4. Those that engaged in gross immorality undergo the punishment of eternal fire. (note very carefuly that the buildings of a city do not undergo the punishment of an eternal fire--a ridiculous concept--but people do

You must, of course realize, that we who believe in annihilation will not simply accept a claim that the nature of this fire must be such that people of S&G are eternally preserved in it. Do you believe that the very meaning of the words make it unavoidably so? Obviously one cannot sensibly take this position because Scriptures like Romans 6:23, subjected to the same criteria, tell us that the wages of sin is death.

One can easily argue that Jude used the phrase "eternal fire" because he wanted to emphasize that the wicked are destroyed by God - an eternal being who is elsewhere described in Scripture as a consuming fire. At least this argument does not require a re-definition of words such as "death = eternal conscious separation from God". Sometimes people respond with the "that is the Biblical definition of death" argument. Well the annex with the "definitions" must have fallen out of my Bible.

The point is: these are hypotheses, not definitions. And they might turn to be correct, but all arguments I have read so far are obviously circular. The annihilationist can claim that the rather self-evident parallels between Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6 as one example, and those between Isaiah 34:9-10 and Rev 14:11 as another, are non-circular arguments supporting the annihilationist position. We need not invoke the vague "that is the Biblical definition" argument. There are solid reasons (already addressed) as to why 2 Peter 2:6 imposes important constraints on what "eternal fire" can really mean in Jude 7. It seems the only counterargument open to the "eternal torment" supporter is to claim that Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6 are making entirely different points.

Let the reader decide how credible that position is.

I have asked the following question before but it has gone unanswered. I would ask that each person who believes that the unredeemed are tormented forever, please answer this question:

As per 2 Peter 2:6, how does the reduction of the physical towns of S&G to ashes serve as an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly, if the ungodly are in fact never reduced to ashes, but instead preserved in a perpetual state of burning?

Here is an opportunity to do more than just state your position. The 2 Peter 2:6 text is what it it is and all of us who claim that all Scriptures are inspired must at least have something to say about this text.

 

[BobRyan]

From HBSMN's link --

Biblical Warning For All
The cities of the plain were destroyed as a warning for all that this same event will happen again one day to the wicked. One would think God is capable of preserving this ancient lesson for us to see and to learn from.
"Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens" Genesis 19:24. "Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly" II Peter 2:6. (The word for "example" means an exhibit for warning.)

Analysis of the Brimstone
These sulfur balls are mostly golf ball sized, and some have burn marks all around them! Webster's Dictionary says that "brimstone" = sulfur. Accordingly, we have found the absolute proof that we have finally located Sodom and Gomorrah, the cities of the plain!

(From the web site HBSMN posted on this thread)

Indeed they are “exhibited” still today of the complete and devastating destruction that IS the destruction of “everlasting fire”.

2Peter 2
6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire

Notice that just when the man-made tradition of "eternal torture" wants us to believe that 2Peter 2 DOES NOT refer to the destruction of the wicked by reducing them to ashes in the everlasting fire - the same that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah - 2Peter 2 says IT IS talking about the destruction of the wicked at the end of time.
.

2Peter 2
9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,
10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,
11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.
12 But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed

You also said, concerning that picture: " Not one of those pictures show a fire still burning,"

True they were destroyed by "everlasting fire" but that does not mean they "turned into everlasting FUEL" -- no way to spin it to that point sir.

DHK

We all realize that God destroyed Sodom and Godmoroh and the cities round about with a fire that happened at that time,

That "happened at the same time" as what?

Please Note: The Fire that is mentioned in God's Word is "EVERLASTING FIRE"


Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire

DHK

that lasted for a number of hours, and that turned those cities to ashes.

I keep saying that - or had you noticed??

The cities were burned. They were burned to the ground. They were never rebuilt.
BTW, your site is not a credible sit for it is an SDA site

Are you making the argument that the site referenced is either preaching distinctive SDA doctrine OR that it is in fact a ministry of the SDA church???? If so - what is your actual evidence for such wild claims?

Or are you complaining that it SHOWS Bible archaelology and the one doing it happens to also BE an SDA -- and according to BB rules SDAs are not supposed to know about science or Archaelogy??? In that case you gotta be choking each time I post on one of those topics for that alone is violation in such a bend of the rules as you suggest.


Please try to pay attention instead of simply complaining. I DID NOT BRING THAT SIGHT UP on this board. I am simply reporting what HBSMN pointed us to IN HIS post.


You can not blame me for agreeing with the posts of YOUR OWN side when they happen to do something reasonable - as if that agreement is "wrong".

I never go around looking for SDA sites to post here - but when your own side is bringing up a site NOT sponsord by the SDA church and NOT preaching distinctive SDA doctrines - then every once in a while I am happy to comply sir.

DHK . There is much archeological evidence concering what happened to Sodom and Gomorroh. But that doesn't negate the fact that the inhabitants are spending an eternity in Hell, suffering in eternal fire.

That is your "fervent hope" but proving it has turned out to be impossible since it is GOD that points to their LITERAL destruction by everlasting fire as the PERFECT EXAMPLE of such punishment STILL exhibited for us to VIEW today!!


Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire

Note:
1. The cities were destroyed. It doesn't take everlasting fire to destroy cities.

True enough - nobody MADE God connect those two -- He did it on His OWN! I for one am happy to just believe Him on that point.

The fact that the man-made tradition you are holding to can not endure this inconvenient fact of scripture speaks volumes.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

True enough - nobody MADE God connect those two -- He did it on His OWN! I for one am happy to just believe Him on that point.

If I understand what Bob is referring to here, I would echo what he is saying. I think that the connection between Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6 is so self-evident that it hardly needs to be explained. Both texts describe the same thing: the destruction of S&G by fire. Although it is true that the fire is described as "eternal", this is hardly a justification to conclude that the Jude 7 text describes the eternal torment of its people. Why? Because the 2 Peter 2:6 text imposes some very severe constraints that rule such an interpretation out.

The 2 Peter text tells us that S&G was reduced to ashes. So unless the Jude 7 text is making an entirely different statement about examples of what will happen to the wicked (this seems incredibly unlikely), we are forced to conclude that eternal fire reduces things to ashes.

As I think Bob is saying, the connection between these texts is so tight - both refer to the fate of S&G as an example of what will happen to the wicked - that it seems apparent to me that the Holy Spirit inspired this connection. The point being that the qualifying relationship between the 2 texts seems to spring right off the page at you.

Even if this connection is ignored, an "eternal torment" supporter still seems to face the challenge imposed by 2 Peter 2:6 on its own - how does the reduction of S&G to ashes serve as an example of what will happen to the wicked if the wicked are, contrary to the plain teaching of 2 Peter 2:6, not reduced to ashes at all, but rather maintained forever in torment.

One can, of course, come up with an exceedingly awkward explanation for all this that salvages the "eternal torment" position. However it would have to do things like the following:

- Deny that the two texts are talking about the same thing (e.g. claim that the Jude 7 account is about the fate of souls while the 2 Peter text is about the fate of bodies (the "eternal torment" supporter thereby avoids the conclustion that eternal fire reduces to ashes).

- Argue that 2 Peter 2:6 by necessity has to make reference to a process of burning that reduces to ashes, even though the intent is to give a lesson about a fate that involves never being actually reduced to ashes. The argument would be that the writer could not reference a process in nature that keeps its fuel burning forever since there are none. So he is obliged to make this very innacurate statement to the effect that the wicked are reduced to ashes, since he can draw on no better example from nature.

Neither of the above seem very attractive.

 

[DHK]

2Peter 2
6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire

Notice that just when the man-made tradition of "eternal torture" wants us to believe that 2Peter 2 DOES NOT refer to the destruction of the wicked by reducing them to ashes in the everlasting fire - the same that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah - 2Peter 2 says IT IS talking about the destruction of the wicked at the end of time.

What you keep on calling the "man-made tradition of eternal torture" is is the orthodox teaching which has been taught from the Apostles onwward. Your SDA teaching of annihilation of the wicked is your tradition taken from Ellen G. White, and perhaps a few other cults, but is certainly not an orthodox Biblical doctrine. There is no need for you to misrepresent the facts by slander.
.
Again, no one disagrees with the fact that Sodom and Gomorroh were destroyed by fire. That is not in question here. The buildings were indeed reduced to fire. Keep in mind that every person has a spirit; that spirit is immortal and cannot be destroyed--whether saved or unsaved; otherwise the term "eternal life" would have no meaning, and the saved person would have no purpose in living
Why become a Christian? As Paul put it:

1 Corinthians 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
1 Corinthians 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

If there is no resurrection; no eternal life to look forward to then it is the Christian that is living the most miserable life on the earth. But the Christian that does have an eternity with Christ to look forward to. Contrariwise, a just God has determined that the unbeliever has an erternity without Christ to look forward to called eternal death or separation from God for all eternity in a place called hell. This is the true meaning of Romans 6:23, something that Andre (and possibly yourself) will not come to terms with.

But why do you continue to miscontrue Scripture, and "destroy" the meaning thereof. The cities were destroyed within just a few hours. The eternal fire has nothing to do with the structures of the fire, but rather the inhabitants which make up the cities, which both of these verses refer to. These inhabitants will face an eternal punishment and torment in everlasting fire called hell. These passages are very plain on the teaching of this doctrine. What you have done is taken two Scriptures out of context, put your own spin on them, and totally ignored the rest of Scripture. I posted other Scripture which you have ignored. These texts in Jude and 2Peter, as you interpret totally contradit others such as:

There are no contradictions in the Bible. It interprets itself. When it says "shall be tormented day and night," then that is what it means. Likewise in Mat.25:41, where it says "punished with everlasting fire," then that is what it means.
Or, in Revelation 14:10-11, "he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone... And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night," then that is what it means.

The Bible only teaches one thing. It teaches eternal punishment. You cannot escape the plain teaching of these verses: "shall be tormented day and night forever and ever" has only one meaning and cannot be easily dismissed.

2Peter 2

9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,
10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,
11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.
12 But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed
True they were destroyed by "everlasting fire" but that does not mean they "turned into everlasting FUEL" -- no way to spin it to that point sir.

The buildings were destroyed by a temporary fire. Read the account. Do you account God for a fool? God does not need an everlasting fool to burn a few buildings to fire. You are not logical nor consistent. But he does reserve everlasting fire for everlasting punishment for the wicked, a doctrine which is consistently taught throughout the Bible. It is not an SDA invention, but rather a Biblical doctrine taught from the time of the Apostles onward. In this area, at least, you have lost and believe in the "traditions" of the SDA, and have no right to call this orthodox Biblical doctrne "a tradition."

That "happened at the same time" as what?

Please Note: The Fire that is mentioned in God's Word is "EVERLASTING FIRE"

I do not read that at all. Go back into the Genesis account and read the account again. Show me from the book of Genesis itself when fire and brimestone were brought upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorroh, that it was an everlasting fire. Does the Genesis account say that? Show me. Demonstrate your assertion through the historical Genesiss account.

 

[DHK]

Jude

7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire

I keep saying that - or had you noticed??

Noticed that the structures were destroyed with a temporary fire as the Genesis account states, but the inhabitants of the cities who were the one involved in gross immorality will suffer God's vengeance and suffer forever in eternal fire as the verse says. I am sorry that you can't understand plain English (or Greek).

Are you making the argument that the site referenced is either preaching distinctive SDA doctrine OR that it is in fact a ministry of the SDA church???? If so - what is your actual evidence for such wild claims?

Or are you complaining that it SHOWS Bible archaelology and the one doing it happens to also BE an SDA -- and according to BB rules SDAs are not supposed to know about science or Archaelogy??? In that case you gotta be choking each time I post on one of those topics for that alone is violation in such a bend of the rules as you suggest.


Please try to pay attention instead of simply complaining. I DID NOT BRING THAT SIGHT UP on this board. I am simply reporting what HBSMN pointed us to IN HIS post.


You can not blame me for agreeing with the posts of YOUR OWN side when they happen to do something reasonable - as if that agreement is "wrong".

I never go around looking for SDA sites to post here - but when your own side is bringing up a site NOT sponsord by the SDA church and NOT preaching distinctive SDA doctrines - then every once in a while I am happy to comply sir.

First of all, I did not know that HBSMN did not bring this site up first. He shouldn't have.
Second of all, the rule still stands that non-Baptist sites advertising non-Baptist doctrine are against BB rules. This is one of the rules that Claudia constantly violated and was eventually banned.
Here is evidence of the SDA site:

I first met Ron Wyatt in 1984, when I heard him speak at the First Seventh-day Adventist Church in Nashville. He was such a humble man in every presentation he gave, always desiring to lead people to the Lord. That afternoon he had some specimens from the Red Sea Crossing and Noah's Ark for us to look at after the program. When leaving the program he shook our hand at the door. I was truly touched by his sincerity, honesty and Holy example. I felt like I would like to do something to help him out someday.

Later, in 1989, I heard him speak at the Hendersonville North Carolina Seventh-day Adventist Church. The pastor there had roomed with Ron at Highland Academy as a teenager, and had arranged for Ron to speak Friday night, Sabbath for church, and Sabbath afternoon for a question and answer period (you can hear this session under our Audio/Video page).
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/ron_wyatt.htm

"Seventh-day Adventist quotes on Ark of the Covenant"
Ron was a Sabbath keeper and read many books by Ellen White concerning the Ark of the Covenant and the other discoveries.

--It is obviously an SDA site. The information presented in it will be somewhat biased.

That is your "fervent hope" but proving it has turned out to be impossible since it is GOD that points to their LITERAL destruction by everlasting fire as the PERFECT EXAMPLE of such punishment STILL exhibited for us to VIEW today!!

Check the Genesis account and demonstrate where eternal fire is used to wipe out a few cities. It was not. Eternal fire is used to punishment wicked spirits of those who inhabited those cities. There is a second resurrection. Someday they will receive their resurrected body and be cast into the lake of fire for all eternity, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever (Rev.20:10,15).

 

[BobRyan]

First of all, I did not know that HBSMN did not bring this site up first. He shouldn't have.
Second of all, the rule still stands that non-Baptist sites advertising non-Baptist doctrine are against BB rules. This is one of the rules that Claudia constantly violated and was eventually banned.
Here is evidence of the SDA site:

Well as we all know - I do not make any attempt to promote SDA sites on this board.

But secondly - your quote to "prove this is an SDA site" merely shows that the person reporting this Bible archaeology is himself an Adventist and that some of the churches he presents at are also Adventist.

What you did not show is that this is an SDA site (as in the church promoting it) NOR did you show any SDA doctrine being taught or promoted at that site.

You merely show that the PERSON is SDA.

Does that mean I can not reference any confirming Bible archaeology finds on this board IF they are not "discovered by Baptist Archaeologists"??? What happens when Lutheran's or Methodists FIND SOMETHING that is of interest to Christian in terms of Biblical history and archaeology????? BANNED???!!



I completely understand the rules for not promoting actual non-baptists doctrines from other sites -- BUT I can't believe that the BB policy intends anything like what you are stating. Surely the BB "admits" that non-Batists EXIST and that they contribute to pro-christian views in Bible Archaeology, Bible commentaries, Lexicons, History, (Without promoting the unique doctrines of their own churches) that would all be of use as evidence for topics on this board!!

If all I knew about SDAs was that "Ron Wyatt was one and that he claims to have found Sodom and Gomorrah" I don't think I would be SDA since a Biblically consistent find in Archaeology is just as much in favor of Baptist teaching as it is of SDA teaching. (I would have learned far more about what SDAs think reading BobRyan's posts on BB than reading about a find of Sodom and Gomorrah in Israel!!)

The limit you are setting here seems to be extreme - can you confirm that the BB policy itself is as extreme as your view here???

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Jude

7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire

...

Check the Genesis account and demonstrate where eternal fire is used to wipe out a few cities.

Hmm. When I quote the OT where God teaches us about the atonement you tell me not to use the OT.

When I quote the NT showing us ALL that EVERLASTING FIRE burns "Sodom and Gomorrah AND THE CITIES AROUND THEM" - you tell me to just use Genesis.

When I quote Jude 7 on EVERLASTING FIRE destroying the cities and the wicked along with 2Peter 2 showing the same thing you tell me not to use these texts to show what God the Son is teaching on Everlasting fire - just use Matt 25:41 which does not meantion the "Destruction" that we see in Jude and in 2Peter 2.

Your methods are pure text-proofing abuse as they consistently seek to AVOID the full bible teaching on a given subject and SHOW that you need small slices where you can INSERT your man-made traditions without fear of being contradicted by the clear teaching of SCRIPTURE where the subject is addressed throughout the Bible.

Aren't you just a little bit embarrassed by that sir?

Come on - be honest.

Even your own post above QUOTES the Jude 7 text and HIGHLIGHTS the fact that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah "AND THE CITIES AROUND THEM" were destroyed by everlasting fire. Then you go on to say that you did not get that level of detail on the fire from Genesis and you blatantly ask that we just look in Genesis instead of the text YOU just quoted in Jude 7????

It was not. Eternal fire is used to punishment wicked spirits of those who inhabited those cities.

I think all readers will agree that "wicked spirits" are not mentioned in 2Peter 2 and Jude 7 but EVERLASTING FIRE IS mentioned and the destruction it brings to the wicked people AND their cities is such that BOTH are "reduced to ashes".

Impossible to escape - impossible to ignore - impossible to twist and bend to some other purpose.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed they are “exhibited” still today of the complete and devastating destruction that IS the destruction of “everlasting fire”.

2Peter 2
6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire

DHK said

The buildings were destroyed by a temporary fire.

What a great misquote/rework/edit of Jude 7 regarding "Everlasting fire" and Sodom and Gomorrah AND the cities around them - sir!

Though we can agree that the destruction by that fire -- is still lasting. The cities have not been rebuilt!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

Again, no one disagrees with the fact that Sodom and Gomorroh were destroyed by fire. That is not in question here. The buildings were indeed reduced to fire. Keep in mind that every person has a spirit; that spirit is immortal and cannot be destroyed--whether saved or unsaved; otherwise the term "eternal life" would have no meaning, and the saved person would have no purpose in living

It seems some prominent figures in the history of the church do not share your position on the immortality of the spirit:

Consider the following statements made about prominent historical figures:

"According to Basil F. C. Atkinson, Martin Luther listed as the last of five cardinal errors of the papal Church the immortality of the soul, and was followed in this view by William Tyndale. (Ref. 6) Luther, in his Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull of 29 November, 1520, rejected this Roman Catholic doctrine, calling such an idea a "monstrous opinion" out of the "Roman dunghill of decretals"!"

"In 1548 John Calvin published his commentary on Paul's first letter to Timothy. He observed (at 1 Tim. 6:16) that the soul's coming into existence and its continuance depend entirely on God, so that "properly speaking, it does not have an immortal nature"; and in support of this he cited Acts 17:28."

"Thomas B. Strong in his Manual of Theology wrote in 1903: "The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is precarious and obscure in a very high degree."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre: It seems some prominent figures in the history of the church do not share your position on the immortality of the spirit:

HP: As if there was not already enough disagreement between the truth and Calvin, Martin Luther and others, with myself and what I believe is the truth according to Scripture and reason, this issue seems to be another clear example of them missing the mark. Any man that would deny the freedom of the will is bound to hold to many felicitous notions, denial of man being created to live forever simply must be yet another.

 

[Andre]

HP: As if there was not already enough disagreement between the truth and Calvin, Martin Luther and others, with myself and what I believe is the truth according to Scripture and reason, this issue seems to be another clear example of them missing the mark. Any man that would deny the freedom of the will is bound to hold to many felicitous notions, denial of man being created to live forever simply must be yet another.

I certainly am no fan of Calvin, at least in terms of how others represent his teaching. My point was to at least point out that historical figures, generally held in high regard, dispute the assertion that we possess immortal souls. I think that 1 Corinthians shows otherwise - immortality is only granted at Christ's return.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP:

"As if there was not already enough disagreement between the truth and Calvin, Martin Luther and others, with myself and what I believe is the truth according to Scripture and reason, this issue seems to be another clear example of them missing the mark. Any man that would deny the freedom of the will is bound to hold to many felicitous notions, denial of man being created to live forever simply must be yet another."

GE:

What idea you entertain of yourself my dear man!

But let me tell you, Any man that would deny the BONDAGE of the will, doesn't know it, nor indeed can he, because it is for the grace of God only that he might.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK hasn't answered any of my questions. In the meantime, here's another: Somewhere it speaks of the wicked as ash underneath the feet of the redeemed. Where's the fire?

 

[bound]

What about Infinite Forgiveness for finite Sins... :thumbs:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What about Infinite Forgiveness for finite Sins... :thumbs:

GE:

It sounds better, I think because it sounds more mysterious. The most finite sin though, unfortunately is absolutely infinite in that it 'trans'-gresses the infinite reaches of God's justice. Punishment should agree in scope. I cannot nor will not attempt to explain the mysteries of God's justice.

 

[Andre]

But let me tell you, Any man that would deny the BONDAGE of the will, doesn't know it, nor indeed can he, because it is for the grace of God only that he might.

This is a rather strange line of reasoning. It really amounts to a "your argument cannot possibly be right specifically because the truth that has been revealed to me has not been revealed to you" kind of statement.

And who can argue with that?

If we are to discuss the Scriptures we cannot really make assumptions that other people are "blinded to the truth". That gets us nowhere.

 

[DHK]

It seems some prominent figures in the history of the church do not share your position on the immortality of the spirit:

Consider the following statements made about prominent historical figures:

"According to Basil F. C. Atkinson, Martin Luther listed as the last of five cardinal errors of the papal Church the immortality of the soul, and was followed in this view by William Tyndale. (Ref. 6) Luther, in his Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull of 29 November, 1520, rejected this Roman Catholic doctrine, calling such an idea a "monstrous opinion" out of the "Roman dunghill of decretals"!"

"In 1548 John Calvin published his commentary on Paul's first letter to Timothy. He observed (at 1 Tim. 6:16) that the soul's coming into existence and its continuance depend entirely on God, so that "properly speaking, it does not have an immortal nature"; and in support of this he cited Acts 17:28."

"Thomas B. Strong in his Manual of Theology wrote in 1903: "The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is precarious and obscure in a very high degree."

It seems, rather, that your resarch is poor; your ignorance of the Reformation is lacking, and your accusations are akin to slander of the very people you speak of. Also you are deceitful in your tactics.

First of all who is "Thomas B. Strong?" To me he is a "nobody." There are many Strong's in this world. You happened to choose one who is an apostate. So how does that prove anything? The link that you gave is a website of a man by the name of "Custance" who denies that Christ died for our sins, and denies the Resurrection of Christ. Thus he features this other apostate Thomas Strong on his website as well. So if you have apostates as your friends and are trying to use them bolster your case you have just failed.
Perhaps you were thinking of A.J. Strong, noted theologian, and very orthodox in his doctrine. But you failed.

Secondly, I don't know where you got your information on Tyndale and Luther, but it is also wrong. They both beleived in Hell, and the eternal punishment of the soul. They had no reason not to being former Catholics. What they condemened was the heresies of the Catholic Church, not the orthodox doctrine of the Catholic Church such as the trinity, Heaven, Hell, and eternal life, eternal punishment. Here is a quote concernng some of Tyndale's beleifs:

This massive dose of bondage to sin and deliverance by blood-bought sovereign grace42 is missing in Erasmus. This is why there is an elitist lightness to his religion—just like there is to so much of evangelicalism today. Hell and sin and atonement and sovereign grace were not weighty realities for him. But for Tyndale they were everything. And in the middle of these great realities was the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This is why the Bible had to be translated, and ultimately this is why Tyndale was martyred.

By faith are we saved only in believing the promises. And though faith be never without love and good works, yet is our saving imputed neither to love nor unto good works but unto faith only.43

Faith the mother of all good works justifieth us, before we can bring forth any good work: as the husband marryeth his wife before he can have any lawful children by her.44

This is the answer to how William Tyndale accomplished what he did in translating the New Testament and writing books that set England on fire with the reformed faith. He worked assiduously like the most skilled artist in the craft of compelling translation, and he was deeply passionate about the great doctrinal truths of the gospel of sovereign grace. Man is lost, spiritually dead, condemned. God is sovereign; Christ is sufficient. Faith is all. Bible translation and Bible truth were inseparable for Tyndale, and in the end it was the truth—especially the truth of justification by faith—that ignited Britain with reformed fire and then brought the death sentence to this Bible translator.

Some of his last words before he died:

Let us therefore look diligently whereunto we are called, that we deceive not ourselves. We are called, not to dispute as the pope’s disciples do, but to die with Christ that we may live with him, and to suffer with him that we may reign with him

It is evident that Tyndale beleived in eternal life and eternal death. He expected to live with Christ forever--the immortality of the soul. He would reign with Christ.