finite SINNING punished with INFINITE torture?

[DHK]

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

When you are ready to discuss Scripture without personal attack and sarcasm get back to me Bob. Othewise you are only showing the true nature of your colors and have defeated your own arguments.

 

[Andre]

On the matter of Luther and Tyndale and the immortality of the soul:

From Wikipedia:

Soul sleep is a minority Christian belief that the soul sleeps unconsciously between the death of the body and its resurrection on Judgment Day. Soul sleep is also known as psychopannychism (from Greek psuche (soul, mind) + pannuchizein (to last the night)).
A similar belief is thnetopsychism (from Greek thnetos (mortal) + psuche (soul, mind)), the view that the soul dies with the body to be recalled to life at the resurrection, or that the soul is not separate from the body and so there is no "spiritual" self to survive bodily death.

Famous historical psychopannychites and thnetopsychists have included:

• William Tyndale (1484-1536), English Bible translator
  • "And ye, in putting them [the departed souls] in heaven, hell and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection...And again, if the souls be in heaven, tell me why they be not in as good a case as the angels be ? And then what cause is there of the resurrection ?" - William Tyndale, An Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue (1530)
• Martin Luther (1493-1546), German reformer and Bible translator
  • "Salomon judgeth that the dead are a sleepe, and feele nothing at all. For the dead lye there accompting neyther dayes nor yeares, but when they are awaked, they shall seeme to haue slept scarce one minute." - Martin Luther, An Exposition of Salomon's Booke, called Ecclesiastes or the Preacher (translation 1573)

Are the publishers of Wikipedia liars as well?

 

[Andre]

We have dealt with Luther and Tyndale.

Now to further rebut the utterly scurrilous accusation that I have lied or otherwise practiced deceit, we turn to our friend Calvin. Here is what DHK originally posted:

Originally Posted by DHK

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

I responded:

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:


"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."

DHK made a very specific claim - the spirit cannot be destoyed. Calvin states that it can. So this statement of Calvin's does indeed differ from the claim of DHK and my initial post stands as written (at least in respect to Tyndale, Calvin, and Luther)

In my post which stimulated this controversy, I never made representation to the effect that Luther or Calvin or Tyndale did not believe that the unredeemed will suffer eternal torment. That is a seperate issue. As has been clearly shown, it is entirely possible to believe in eternal torment and yet not believe that the soul cannot be destroyed.

Not only has there been no lying or deceit, it appears as though my original post is substantively correct in representing Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin as disputing the claim that the soul cannot be destroyed.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

The fact that Wikipedia is listed as 'The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit' makes it an unreliable source for hard truth.

 

[DHK]

Not only has there been no lying or deceit, it appears as though my original post is substantively correct in representing Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin as disputing the claim that the soul cannot be destroyed.

Why do you persist in these "lies" and misrepresentations, when this is not the case. If you deliberately continue this course of misrepresentation I will indeed take this up with the administration as to your privilege to posting. This has got to stop. You cannot go on posting "beliefs" that Calvin did not hold. Stop lying about this. If you want clear evidence from his work here it is:

Moreover, there can be no question that man consists of a body and a
soul; meaning by soul, an immortal though created essence, which is his
nobler part. Sometimes he is called a spirit. But though the two terms,
while they are used together differ in their meaning, still, when spirit is
used by itself it is equivalent to soul, as when Solomon speaking of death
says, that the spirit returns to God who gave it, (Ecclesiastes 12:7.) And
Christ, in commending his spirit to the Father, and Stephen his to Christ,
simply mean, that when the soul is freed from the prison-house of the
body, God becomes its perpetual keeper. Those who imagine that the soul
is called a spirit because it is a breath or energy divinely infused into
bodies, but devoid of essence, err too grossly, as is shown both by the
nature of the thing, and the whole tenor of Scripture. It is true, indeed, that
men cleaving too much to the earth are dull of apprehension, nay, being
alienated from the Father of Lights, are so immersed in darkness as to
imagine that they will not survive the grave; still the light is not so
completely quenched in darkness that all sense of immortality is lost.
Conscience, which, distinguishing, between good and evil, responds to the
judgment of God, is an undoubted sign of an immortal spirit. How could
motion devoid of essence penetrate to the judgment-seat of God, and under
a sense of guilt strike itself with terror? The body cannot be affected by
any fear of spiritual punishment. This is competent only to the soul,
which must therefore be endued with essence. Then the mere knowledge of
a God sufficiently proves that souls which rise higher than the world must
be immortal, it being impossible that any evanescent vigor could reach the
very fountain of life. In fine, while the many noble faculties with which the
human mind is endued proclaim that something divine is engraven on it,
they are so many evidences of an immortal essence. For such sense as the
lower animals possess goes not beyond the body, or at least not beyond
the objects actually presented to it. But the swiftness with which the
human mind glances from heaven to earth, scans the secrets of nature, and,
after it has embraced all ages, with intellect and memory digests each in its
proper order, and reads the future in the past, clearly demonstrates that
there lurks in man a something separated from the body. We have intellect
by which we are able to conceive of the invisible God and angels — a thing
of which body is altogether incapable. We have ideas of rectitude, justice,
and honesty — ideas which the bodily senses cannot reach. The seat of
these ideas must therefore be a spirit. Nay, sleep itself, which stupefying
215
the man, seems even to deprive him of life, is no obscure evidence of
immortality; not only suggesting thoughts of things which never existed,
but foreboding future events. I briefly touch on topics which even profane
writers describe with a more splendid eloquence. For pious readers, a
simple reference is sufficient. Were not the soul some kind of essence
separated from the body, Scripture would not teach 121 that we dwell in
houses of clay, and at death remove from a tabernacle of flesh; that we put
off that which is corruptible, in order that, at the last day, we may finally
receive according to the deeds done in the body. These, and similar
passages which everywhere occur, not only clearly distinguish the soul
from the body, but by giving it the name of man, intimate that it is his
principal part. Again, when Paul exhorts believers to cleanse themselves
from all filthiness of the flesh and the spirit, he shows that there are two
parts in which the taint of sin resides. Peter, also, in calling Christ the
Shepherd and Bishop of souls, would have spoken absurdly if there were
no souls towards which he might discharge such an office. Nor would there
be any ground for what he says concerning the eternal salvation of souls,
or for his injunction to purify our souls, or for his assertion that fleshly
lusts war against the soul; neither could the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews say, that pastors watch as those who must give an account for
our souls, if souls were devoid of essence. To the same effect Paul calls
God to witness upon his soul, which could not be brought to trial before
God if incapable of suffering punishment. This is still more clearly
expressed by our Savior, when he bids us fear him who, after he has killed
the body, is able also to cast into hell fire. Again when the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews distinguishes the fathers of our flesh from God,
who alone is the Father of our spirits, he could not have asserted the
essence of the soul in clearer terms. Moreover, did not the soul, when freed
from the fetters of the body, continue to exist, our Savior would not have
represented the soul of Lazarus as enjoying blessedness in Abraham s
bosom, while, on the contrary, that of Dives was suffering dreadful
torments. Paul assures us of the same thing when he says, that so long as
we are present in the body, we are absent from the Lord. Not to dwell on a
matter as to which there is little obscurity, I will only add, that Luke
mentions among the errors of the Sadducees that they believed neither
angel nor spirit.

From Calvin's Institute's Vol. I. Chapter. 15, pp. 214,215
If you don't believe Calvin himself, then who will you believe?

 

[BobRyan]

Andre said

my original post is substantively correct in representing Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin as disputing the claim that the soul cannot be destroyed.

DHK appears to then DUCK the point by providing a quote that shows that the soul EXISTS!! In fact the quote DHK gives shows us that this is the same soul that is mentioned in Matt 10:28 where we see "BOTH SOUL AND BODY DESTROYED" in fiery hell!

How transparent that DHK dodge the point of his quote from Andre's post!!

So we wait for DHK to have another shot at it!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

When you are ready to discuss Scripture without personal attack and sarcasm get back to me Bob. Othewise you are only showing the true nature of your colors and have defeated your own arguments.

It has been my policy not to call those who debate against me "deceitful" or "liars" or "cultists" or other such pointless hollow things.

Can you say the same sir??

How then do you reference my quote that simply points to te fact that you are not answering the point with substance - as a personnal attack by comparison to the methods you have used here repeatedly??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Andre said

DHK appears to then DUCK the point by providing a quote that shows that the soul EXISTS!! In fact the quote DHK gives shows us that this is the same soul that is mentioned in Matt 10:28 where we see "BOTH SOUL AND BODY DESTROYED" in fiery hell!

How transparent that DHK dodge the point of his quote from Andre's post!!

So we wait for DHK to have another shot at it!

In Christ,

Bob

Andre originally said:

"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."

He then said:

my original post is substantively correct in representing Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin as disputing the claim that the soul cannot be destroyed.

I misread it. Even so it is a total contradiction of what he previously posted. He still contradicts himself, and without apology. He still says that both statements mean the same thing, when in fact they are at polar opposites of each other because he takes one quote out of its context and misconstrues it to mean something else than the author intends it. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Andre]

DHK claimed that the soul cannot be destroyed. The statement attributed to Calvin clearly claims otherwise.

If the statement attributed to Calvin turns out to be correct, then my point about Calvin denying the non-destructability of the soul stands. If (and I am investigating) the quote is misrepresentative, I will retract it.

My point in respect to Calvin was that he did not believe that the soul was indestructable. I never said that Calvin did not believe that the soul survived physical death, and, in point of fact, is not actually destroyed. There is a perhaps subtle difference here - when one says that the soul cannot be destroyed, one is saying that even God cannot destroy a soul. I think that Calvin clearly states otherwise, even though I know he believes that God does not, in point of fact, exercise His power to destroy souls (which are therefore indeed "destoy-able").

Perhaps there has been some lack of precision on my part in the original post. At worst, the original post was unintentionally ambiguous in respect to what specific aspect of DHK's statement was being responded to. In any event, accusations of lying and deceit are entirely unjustified in such a situation.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I would ask that the participants of this thread cease immediately from personal attacks. If you have a point to make, state your point and then offer any proofs to substantiate your point.

If you disagree with a point, simply state facts to the contrary. Let the facts speak for themselves.

You report; let us decide. :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

Andre originally said:

He then said:
I misread it. Even so it is a total contradiction ...

My point was that in your recent response to Andre you provided this quote of Andre --

Originally Posted by Andre

Not only has there been no lying or deceit, it appears as though my original post is substantively correct in representing Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin as disputing the claim that the soul cannot be destroyed.

Then you provided a quote from Calvin that shows that the soul exists and that it even exists as an entity as much as the body is also a thing or an entity.

However that does not address the point of the post that you were quoting when you added that reference to Calvin. I was simply pointing that out sir.

There still remains the issue of "cannot be destroyed" and maybe you conceed now that "it can" (I can't tell from your responses since they are all over the board on this). In your initial response to Calvin you point out that Calvin argues that the soul relies upon God every moment for even its continued existence so it does not have "life in itself" -- its own ability to exist. Do you still stand by that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

There still remains the issue of "cannot be destroyed" and maybe you conceed now that "it can" (I can't tell from your responses since they are all over the board on this). In your initial response to Calvin you point out that Calvin argues that the soul relies upon God every moment for even its continued existence so it does not have "life in itself" -- its own ability to exist. Do you still stand by that?

In Christ,

Bob

Read through Calvin's Institute's yourself. In no uncertain terms does he give many proofs of the immortality of the soul. The soul cannot be destroyed. It is immortal. There is no such Biblical doctrine as the annihilation of the wicked. To put it frankly it is a damnable heresy. Calvin never believed it. The Bible does not teach it. You have failied to demonstrate it through Scripture. There is not one Scripture that backs it up. In the past 30 pages I have answered every Scripture that you have tossed out. If you don't like the answers I give then that is your problem. Nevertheless I have refuted your position time and again as others have done as well. But you refuse the plain teaching of Scripture. You refuse to listen when the Scripture plainly teaches "shall be tormented day and night forever and ever," which can only have one meaning. You have rejected outright the plain teaching of the Scripture, and have decided to hang your hat on a gross misinterpretation of two or three passages of the Bible in which your interpretation goes contrary to the vast totality of Scripture. That is not rightly dividing the word of truth. If you want to continue this discussion you will have to do it verse by verse--not an onslaught of a lsit of verses all at once, and as Pastor Bob has said, without personal attack.

 

[Andre]

There is no such Biblical doctrine as the annihilation of the wicked. To put it frankly it is a damnable heresy. Calvin never believed it. The Bible does not teach it. You have failied to demonstrate it through Scripture. There is not one Scripture that backs it up. In the past 30 pages I have answered every Scripture that you have tossed out.

How about 2 Peter 2:6?: I will ask (yet again):

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?

 

[Andre]

You refuse to listen when the Scripture plainly teaches "shall be tormented day and night forever and ever," which can only have one meaning.

Romans 6:23 states that the wages of sin is death. The word death has a meaning - the cessation of life functions, including conscious existence. The "this can only have one meaning" argument simply does not work - it backfires on both sides of this debate:

The "eternal torment" supporters have to believe that death means something radically different from its nominal meaning. You yourself have admitted this - that "death" in the Scriptures means something other than its nominal meaning (nominal meaning = extinction).

The annihilationists have to believe that "forever and ever" means (at least in some contexts) something radically different from its nominal meaning.

You have the right to make a case that death = "eternal conscious torment" and not its nominal meaning . But in so doing, you rather obviously forfeit the right to claim that we all need to take "tormented day and night forever" at its nominal meaning.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

2 Peter 2:3 (KJV) And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
2 Peter 2:4 (KJV) For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2 Peter 2:5 (KJV) And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

2 Peter 2:6 (KJV) And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

2 Peter 2:7 (KJV) And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
2 Peter 2:8 (KJV) (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed [his] righteous soul from day to day with [their] unlawful deeds
2 Peter 2:9 (KJV) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

In verse 6, we see that Peter is indeed speoking of cities and not individual people shown the example of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah being reduced to ashes.

Just as the angels that sinned were cast into hell in chains of darkness are still alive in hell to this day, feeling the torments of hell and knowing the lake of fire is to come, those who take pleasure in unrighteousness will aslo be delivered to those same chains of darkness reserved unto the same judgment.

It has been pointed out that in the book of Revelation, chapters 19, 20 & 21 those who are cast into that lake of fire are still feeling the torments of that lake 1,000 years later.

They were not burned to ashes in a thousand years, nor will anyone who is cast in that lake who stands before the Great White Throne.

 

[Andre]

In verse 6, we see that Peter is indeed speoking of cities and not individual people shown the example of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah being reduced to ashes.

This is held up as an example of what will happen to the ungodly. So we conclude that the ungodly will be reduced to ashes by the action of fire. I see no other way to read this. You believe that the unredeemed will be eternally torment and not reduced to ashes, right? Well, the 2 Peter text says otherwise - it rather clearly states that the ungodly will be reduced to ashes.

Just as the angels that sinned were cast into hell in chains of darkness are still alive in hell to this day, feeling the torments of hell and knowing the lake of fire is to come, those who take pleasure in unrighteousness will aslo be delivered to those same chains of darkness reserved unto the same judgment.

Why do you choose to apply this argument to verse 4 and not verse 5? You are being selective here and without justification. You assume that verse 6 does not mean what it says but rather invoke a connection to verse 4, arguing that the real fate of the wicked is as per verse 4. Well, why not verse 5? This would lead to a conclusion that the unredeemed will be washed away.

So please be as precise as you can in your answer to the following question: What is your reason for believing that the example in verse 6 ia elaborated on by the content of verse 4 in particular, and not verse 5?

It has been pointed out that in the book of Revelation, chapters 17, 19, 20 & 21 those who are cast into that lake of fire are still feeling the torments of that lake 1,000 years later.

They were not burned to ashes in a thousand years, nor will anyone who is cast in that lake who stands before the Great White Throne.

Hope to respond to this later.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Genesis is the Book of Beginnings. It shows mankind how all things started.

Revelation is the Book of Endings. It reveals to mankind what the end will be.

Revelation states that those who are assigned to the lake of fire and brimstone will have no rest day, nor night for all eternity. That settles it... for anyone who does not doubt God's Holy Word to be Truth.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

2 Peter 2:6 (KJVSL) And <kai> turning <tephroo> the cities <polis> of Sodom <Sodoma> and <kai> Gomorrha <Gomorrha> into ashes <tephroo> condemned <katakrino> [them] with an overthrow <katastrophe>, making <tithemi> [them] an ensample <hupodeigma> unto those that after should <mello> live ungodly <asebeo>;

All Peter was showing in verse 6 is that the cities of those who lived ungodly lives were reduced to ashes. And for those who choose to live ungodly lives, one day, their cities will also be burned to ashes.

NOWHERE does Peter state the people of the city were burned to ashes.

Even the book of Genesis does not say those citizens were reduced to ashes. Only that the cities themselves were.

Oh, I am sure the citizens were killed, but I see no Scripture to back the claim that they themselves were reduced to ashes.

 

[Andre]

Genesis is the Book of Beginnings. It shows mankind how all things started.

Revelation is the Book of Endings. It reveals to mankind what the end will be.

Revelation states that those who are assigned to the lake of fire and brimstone will have no rest day, nor night for all eternity. That settles it... for anyone who does not doubt God's Holy Word to be Truth.

Is this your answer to my question from my previous post? If so, there is no explanation in what you write to justify your decision to use the content of verse 2 Peter 2:4 and not 2 Peter 2:5 to inform your interpretation of 2 Peter 2:6.

I would suggest that you need to justify this decision.

Besides, I could borrow your very phraseology and write "Romans 6:23 states that the wages of sin is death. That settles it... for anyone who does not doubt God's Holy Word to be Truth."

I am a little mystified that both you and DHK seem happy to insist on a literal reading of certain expressions like "forever and ever", and to entertain no possibility of non-literal usage, when, at the same time, you hold to non-literal meanings of other words like "death", "sleep", "destroy", "consume" etc.

Can you explain how this is not inconsistent?

 

[DHK]

How about 2 Peter 2:6?: I will ask (yet again):

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?

If you look back in previous pages I am sure that you will find the answer to your question, nevertheless:

2 Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

First, consider that the bodies of such men as Tyndale, Huss, Wycliffe, and many of the Anabaptists and other Bible-believing Christians of that era were taken and burned at the stake, their bodies reduced to ashes, and in some cases taken and strewn over a river. Your said unbelief in a soul or spirit does not negate the Bible's teaching in the existence of both a soul and a spirit. So your objection to such is moot.

There is no question in anyone's mind as they read the historical account given in Genesis chapter 19 that both Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities round about were burned and turned into ashes. If you don't believe that man has a soul or spirit, obviously you are confused about this verse. But man does have an immortal spirit. Though his body has been reduced to ashes, his spirit lives on forever, whether in hell or heaven. Thus there is nothing difficult to understand about this verse. It means what it says. Everything physical was turned to ashes. What is the problem? I believe in the straightforward literal interpretation of the verse.
There is nothing in verse six to indicate any perpetual burning. They were burned up--immediately.

Genesis 19:24-25 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

The verse says exactly what happened in Gen.19:24,25. It is not difficult to understand. It doesn't say anything about a perpetual fire here. It is speaking of the consequence of sin. There is a consequence to sin.

The entire chapter speaks of false teachers and the punishment that they will receive. You can read it for yourself. The lesson taken from this episode is given in the next verse, verse 7.

2 Peter 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
--Lot escaped. He was delvered from this judgement because he was a saved man. God calls him both just and righteous. We have nothing to fear of such widespread judgments. Why? Look at verse 9:

2 Peter 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
--The Lord knows how to deliver the Godly out of temptations (trials), and He reserves the unjust to the day of judgement. There is the teaching of the chapter summed up into one verse.
God delivers the righteous and condemns the unrighteous. Someday the unrighteous will stand before God, in that great day of judgement, and receive their final sentence to be cast into the Lake of Fire and there suffer for all eternity. See Rev.20:10-15.
But the righteous he delivers.