finite SINNING punished with INFINITE torture?

[Andre]

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.

I ask that you provide evidence to the effect that I am being deceitful or retract this accusation. I will contact the administration of this site if you do not either support your claim or withdraw it. Remember, to show I am being deceitful, you will need to show that I engaged in intentional misrepresentation.

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.

I was not thinking of AJ Strong. I have no evidence to the effect that Thomas Strong is or is not "apostate" and my post made no representation to that either way. As a person who published a book in the era when one could not self-publish, I considered him to count as a prominent figure. Perhaps that is debatable. Will you now share with us your evidence that this person is an apostate or make a similar softening of your claim as I have just done in respect to Strong?

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.

Please stay on point. I never suggested that either of these denied eternal punishment of the human person - I simply pointed out that they made statements to the effect that the soul was not immortal. There is an important conceptual distinction that you should understand before you make brash accusations.

Regardless of what Custance does or does not believe, do you have any actual evidence that these representations about Calvin and Luther are false?

And please, answer my question about 2 Peter 2:6.

 

[DHK]

More deceit Andre,
Before you go on, let me tell you that my personal library ocntains about 2,000 books. It is fairly easy for me to look up what Calvin states about the immortality of the soul in the copies of his "Institutes of the Christian Religion," which I own. In Vol. I, in the 15th chapter from page 159 to 170 he spends the entire chapter giving a defence for the immortality of the soul.

Here are some of the sections he discusses as outlined on the first page (159)

The immortality of the soul proved from:
a. The testimony of conscience.
b. The knowledge of God.
c. The noble faculties with which it is endued.
d. Its activity and wondrous fancies in slep.
e. Innumerable passages of Scripture.

The image of God one of the strongest proofs of the immortality of the soul.
What meant by this image. The dreams of Osiander concerning the image of God refuted. Whether any difference between "image" and "likeness." Another objection of Osiander refuted. The image of god conspicuous in the whole Adam.

The image of God is in the soul. Its nature may be learnt from its renewal by Christ. What comprehended under this renewal. What the image of God in man before the fall. In what things in now appears. When and where it will be sean in perfection.

These are only half of the sections of the chapter that he has divided it into. He has given many more proofs than those mentioned above. So, again, you have resorted to ignorance, slander, and the laziness to do any proper research. Calvin definitley did believe in the immortality of the soul, and I am sure that Luther did as well. I greatly question your resources.

 

[DHK]

Please stay on point. I never suggested that either of these denied eternal punishment of the human person - I simply pointed out that they made statements to the effect that the soul was not immortal. There is an important conceptual distinction that you should understand before you make brash accusations.

You contradict yourself. If they believe in eternal punishment then obviously they believe in immortality of the soul. The soul must be immortal for them to suffer everlasting punishment.

 

[Andre]

You contradict yourself. If they believe in eternal punishment then obviously they believe in immortality of the soul. The soul must be immortal for them to suffer everlasting punishment.

This is simply not true. A person can suffer eternal punishment and not even have a soul. There is nothing at all conceptually incorrect about the idea that the human person can be be subject to eternal torment and yet not have a soul as the kind of "immaterial consciousness bearing" entity that many people believe in.

Just to make this even more clear.

Is it conceptually possible that humans have no soul of the "immaterial consciousness bearing" type? Of course it is.

Is it conceptually possible for a person, without such a soul to live forever? Of course.

Is it conceptually possible for such a person to be tormented forever. Of course.

Therefore a person need not have an immortal soul to suffer eternal punishment.

 

[Andre]

More deceit Andre

I have contacted board administration about this.

 

[DHK]

I have contacted board administration about this.

It is wrong for you to tell lies about Calvin; to misquote him; to slander his name; to say that he does not believe in the immortalitiy of the soul, when in fact he does. What shall I say? What is easier for you to accept? You are either being deceitful in your posting tactics or you are an outright liar. You choose. I have Calvin's writings in my possession. I quoted to you what he said. You deny it. Now what is there to report?

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

In Jonathan Edwards' book titled 'Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God', Mr Edwards wrote:

They are now the objects of that very same anger and wrath of God, that is expressed in the torments of hell. And the reason why they do not go down to hell at each moment, is not because God, in whose power they are, is not then very angry with them; as he is with many miserable creatures now tormented in hell, who there feel and bear the fierceness of his wrath. Yea, God is a great deal more angry with great numbers that are now on earth: yea, doubtless, with many that are now in this congregation, who it may be are at ease, than he is with many of those who are now in the flames of hell.

How right Mister Edwards was in stating that those who are in hell are feeling the torments therein.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

The following verses cannot be said to teach the annihilation of the soul cast into hell.

Revelation 19:20 (KJV) And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

A thousand years pass by, and according to John the beast and the false prophet were still alive in that lake of fire. It did not destroy them to ashes, even after a thousand years of burning.

Revelation 20:7 (KJV) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
Revelation 20:8 (KJV) And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom [is] as the sand of the sea.
Revelation 20:9 (KJV) And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
Revelation 20:10 (KJV) And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Here, the devil is cast into that lake of fire shortly after the thousand years and the beast and false prophet are still alive in that lake.

Revelation 20:14 (KJV) And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And death and hell were next thrown into that lake. This is the second death.

Lastly, those whose names were not in the Book of Life were cast into that lake.

Revelation 20:15 (KJV) And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The John writes what the Alpha and the Omega tells him in Chapter 22

Revelation 22:14 (KJV) Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Revelation 22:15 (KJV) For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Outside the city are those workers of iniquity that were previously cast into the lake of fire.

Still feeling the torments as the beast and prophet had been feeling them for a thousand years and will feel them for all eternity. It is not destruction as in 'annihilation', but rather destruction as in 'tearing down that which lifts itself above all that is God.' Putting those that do such in their place, with the one they served.

The Word of God says they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. This is the finality of all who reject Christ, not annihilation but eternal torture as John saw rightly wrote as shown to him on the Isle of Patmos.

 

[Andre]

It is wrong for you to tell lies about Calvin; to misquote him; to slander his name; to say that he does not believe in the immortalitiy of the soul, when in fact he does. What shall I say? What is easier for you to accept? You are either being deceitful in your posting tactics or you are an outright liar. You choose. I have Calvin's writings in my possession. I quoted to you what he said. You deny it. Now what is there to report?

We shall how the administration of this site views repeated false and accusatory personal attacks.

I have not lied.

I have not practiced deceit.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

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."

If you would have quoted the passage correctly concerning Calvin's commentary on 1 Timothy 6:16, you would have ceded that Calvin was affirming that that verse only meant that God gives immortality and that if God so chose, he could cease giving immortality to whomsoever he pleases.

He does not say man is not immortal as you imply. and Calvin affirms this in his continuing on with Acts 17:28 'In Him we live and move and have our being'... Attesting that it is only by God that all mankind has this present life.

 

[DHK]

Andre:
As a Bible-believing Christian I believe it is my duty to proclaim the truth and expose error. I have done this in this forum consistently since the day I joined, even long before I ever became a moderator. I believe it is the Scriptural duty of all Christians. Thus, when you post untruths I do not hesitate to point out the error (especially when it used in defence of heresy), and tell you and others that what is posted is wrong. If the truth hurts then so be it. If you have taken your information from unreliable sources then it is you that is at fault. Check your sources.
1. For example, concerning Thomas Strong: The man is an apostate. Why didn't you look at the site that you took the information from? A quick google search on the man revealed enough information about him that I could tell you that he was associated with people who denied that Christ died for our sins, and that Christ arose from the dead. So how does that kind of person prove your point. Why ask an atheist anything? What will that prove? I'm not saying that he is an atheist, but that he is very liberal in his theology, even to the point of denying some of the very cardinal doctrines of Christianity.

2. Look at your own quotes and examine them:

"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."

Who is Atkinson, and where did he get his information? You are getting your information second hand, whereas I have access to some of the writings of Tyndale and Luther themselves. So whose sources are more reliable? As HBSMN pointed out to you took Calvin's words out of context and misconstrued them to your own advantage making him say something that he wasn't saying. I referred you to an entire chapter, even quoting to you part of the introduction, where he defends the immortality of the soul. So in effect you are spreading lies on the internet about John Calvin and others.
If anything you owe the BB an apology for your lies and misrepresentation of these people and their stand. Next time you quote someone make sure you have your information straight.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

I reckon he will be reporting me to the administration too, DHK, for I call him on the error he has posted.

 

[Andre]

It is wrong for you to tell lies about Calvin; to misquote him; to slander his name; to say that he does not believe in the immortalitiy of the soul, when in fact he does. What shall I say? What is easier for you to accept? You are either being deceitful in your posting tactics or you are an outright liar. You choose. I have Calvin's writings in my possession. I quoted to you what he said. You deny it. Now what is there to report?

The material in bold is obviously false. I am mystified at the incompetent thinking that I see in this site. And, unlike your statements about me, I can prove mine.

It is, of course, possible that I am lying and it is, of course, possible that I am being deceitful. But there is, of course, a third possibility (not to mention others, including the possibility that these quotes are indeed representative): namely that I am intellectually incompetent and have posted quotes from someone other than the luminaries to whom the quotes are attributed.

That it is indeed possible for someone to be intellectually incompetent has been made eminently clear by some of the posts in this very thread.....

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

The material in bold is obviously false. I am mystified at the incompetent thinking that I see in this site. And, unlike your statements about me, I can prove mine.

It is, of course, possible that I am lying and it is, of course, possible that I am being deceitful. But there is, of course, a third possibility (not to mention others, including the possibility that these quotes are indeed representative): namely that I am intellectually incompetent and have posted quotes from someone other than the luminaries to whom the quotes are attributed.

That it is indeed possible for someone to be intellectually incompetent has been made eminently clear by some of the posts in this very thread.....

I bet those who posted competent posts are none other than DHK and myself:laugh::wavey:

 

[Andre]

If anything you owe the BB an apology for your lies....

Administration, please perform your function.

Item 4 from the rules states that " Personal attacks will not be tolerated". Calling someone a liar and / or a deceitful person at least 4 times is obviously a personal attack.

Not to mention the fact that these claims are false.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Andre,

You are calling God a liar when you refute eternal torment as His Word teaches.

Why cry about someone pointing out the Truth?

 

[BobRyan]

I bet those who posted competent posts are none other than DHK and myself:laugh::wavey:

Now That's funny!:laugh: :laugh:

 

[BobRyan]

From post 244 -- Andre asks that some attention be paid to scripture specifically 2Peter 2:6

Simply making statement such as


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.

Excellent point -- going unnanswered I believe.

But in truth DHK ALREADY gave HIS example of the fires of eternal torture that do NOT "consume". He asks that we look to the burning bush at the time of Moses INSTEAD of the CONSUMING fire in 2Peter 2 that "reduces to ashes".

DHK claims that it is the fire that does NOT CONSUME in the book of Exodus that REALLY represents everlasting fire and the way it does NOT consume -- does NOT "reduce to ashes".

Perhaps DHK's answer to your question about 2Peter 2 -- is that Peter goofed - apparenly DHK thinks that Peter shoulda picked an example of "everlasting fire" that DOES NOT consume instead of one that DOES!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said -
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

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 ...

That's just empty whining DHK no one is quoting SDA sites (except you keep accusing HBSMN of it) or Ellen White here - please find a point that has substance instead.

DHK said -

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.

That was debunked already in the verses just quoted above - where we see that in both 2Peter 2 AND in Jude 7 it is in reference to the WICKED that the fire destroys and burns and punishes -- BOTH texts make it clear that it is BOTH the people AND "the cities around them" that are being subjected to "everlasting fire".

As often as you gloss over that inconvenient detail - I simply point out your slight of hand.

Easy. Predictable. And incredibly "instructive" to the objective reader.

Neat little game for the objective reader: Go to the texts at the top of this post and delete out the parts "in blue". Then (and only then) DHK's argument starts to hold water. But if your not willing to edit and abuse the text in that fashion - then DHK's arguments merely "take on water".


In Christ,

Bob

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Seeing the lake of fire and those assigned thereto from Rev. 17, 19, 20, and 21 clearly shows that the lake of fire that people who reject Christ are cast into are not reduced to ashes.

Not one of those cast into the lake of fire are said to be annihilated.