Talking to the DEAD

[Eliyahu]

I have never known of a Baptist to believe in soul sleep or the annihilation of the wicked. Both doctrines are heretical, as far as orthodox Christianity is concerned. Here is what David Cloud (IFB) says:

file:///C:/FundamentalBaptistLibrary2000/WWW/Ency/ency0068.htm#0068_13FA

[/font]

1. As for the history of Anabaptist and Waldensians, we can hardly make a quick judgment on their faith. So, it needs some time for me to confirm.

2. Many accusations against SDA may not be proven unless we allow them to speak for their own belief.
It is new to me that they deny the immortality of the souls. We need to hear from them.

3. I do believe the immortality of the souls, but believe that the souls are sleeping too.
You brought the case of Elijah, but also we know that the soul of Lazarus was sleeping before he was raised up in John 11

4. The article which you brought doesn't explain how it can compromise with numerous verses of the Bible saying that the souls are sleeping such as 1 Cor 11:30, 15:20 1 Thess 4:15.

Any direct explanation over the verses teaching us the sleeping souls must be presented.

 

[BobRyan]

SDAs do not believe in an "immortal soul" and we find no statement to that effect in the Bible. However we do believe that the person (soul) goes into a dormant "sleep" state at death and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Because humans are not ontologically immortal - but rather "Mortal man" there is no "burn the children forever in hell of eternal torture" doctrine in the SDA church.

So while it is true that in Rev 14:10 we have the wicked in torment in flames in fire and birmstone and IN the presence of Christ and of His holy ones (just as we SEE happening in Rev 20 and the second death) it is not true that God "gives them eternal life".

Rather this is the second death - they are "consumed" -- "reduced to ashes" "Destroyed by reducing them to ashes" as the example we have in Jude and 2Peter 2.

By contrast - at the resurrection the saints DO receive immortal bodies (1Cor 15, and 2Cor 5) and do live forever.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

SDAs do not believe in an "immortal soul" and we find no statement to that effect in the Bible. However we do believe that the person (soul) goes into a dormant "sleep" state at death and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Then I must disagree with you on the immortality of the souls.

Because humans are not ontologically immortal - but rather "Mortal man" there is no "burn the children forever in hell of eternal torture" doctrine in the SDA church.

children are another subject. They may be preserved by another way of God's grace.

So while it is true that in Rev 14:10 we have the wicked in torment in flames in fire and birmstone and IN the presence of Christ and of His holy ones (just as we SEE happening in Rev 20 and the second death) it is not true that God "gives them eternal life".

Rather this is the second death - they are "consumed" -- "reduced to ashes" "Destroyed by reducing them to ashes" as the example we have in Jude and 2Peter 2.

By contrast - at the resurrection the saints DO receive immortal bodies (1Cor 15, and 2Cor 5) and do live forever.

in Christ,

Bob

I believe, Immortality of Souls, Mortality of Body, Souls sleep, We will receive another body after the resurrection ( as we read 1 Cor 15:20-).

What about the Lazarus in John 11 ?
After his resurrection, he ate the meal with Jesus, and Jews tried to kill him. Do you think he lost all the memory before his death?

Saints in Rev praise the Lord. Do they praise Him by new souls? Then do they forget about the past because their souls are not the ones which they had before ?

Was the soul of Jesus changed from the one before death to the one after resurrection?

 

[DHK]

4. The article which you brought doesn't explain how it can compromise with numerous verses of the Bible saying that the souls are sleeping such as 1 Cor 11:30, 15:20 1 Thess 4:15.
Any direct explanation over the verses teaching us the sleeping souls must be presented.

Verses like 1Cor.11:30 never speak of the soul. Take the verses in context.

1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

This was a judgment on those believers in the church at Corinth who were abusing the Lord's Supper. It was purely physical, and had nothing to do with the soul. Some were weak--weak in the body, not in the soul. Some were sickly, sickly in the body, not in the soul. Many slept--that is they were dead, dead in the body, not in the soul. The soul is immortal, living on throughout eternity. Paul spoke strictly about the body here as the context verifies. He says nothing about the soul.

 

[Eliyahu]

Verses like 1Cor.11:30 never speak of the soul. Take the verses in context.

1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

This was a judgment on those believers in the church at Corinth who were abusing the Lord's Supper. It was purely physical, and had nothing to do with the soul. Some were weak--weak in the body, not in the soul. Some were sickly, sickly in the body, not in the soul. Many slept--that is they were dead, dead in the body, not in the soul. The soul is immortal, living on throughout eternity. Paul spoke strictly about the body here as the context verifies. He says nothing about the soul.

We must define and confirm what is soul in such case.
Soul is the part of human being which can feel the pain, sorrrow, can praise God, identify the people etc.

Body is rotten away. When we are resurrected, we will not have the bodies which we have now, but will have new bodies as we read 1 Cor 15.

When Jesus comes again, He will bring the souls sleeping in Him, not the body because the bodies are already rotten. The Souls can be combined with the Spirit filled with Holy Spirit. So, the main part of the persons are Souls.

Some examples: ( Quotes from www.crosswalk.com)
.

Mr 12:33And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Mr 14:34 And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.
Lu 1:46And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
Lu 2:35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.


If the souls are not sleeping, they must be feeling the pains and sorrows continuously.

I believe the immortality of the souls but they also sleep and will be brought by the Lord when He comes again.

1 Cor 11:30 should not necessarily speak about the body only, Bible often change the modes and subjects or objects.

When the Bible mentions the ID of people, it says " soul" as we read Acts 7:14. When someone is sleeping it means his soul is sleeping as the body disappears. I don't know what similarity will exist between the resurrected body and the current body.

 

[DHK]

I believe the immortality of the souls but they also sleep and will be brought by the Lord when He comes again.

1 Cor 11:30 should not necessarily speak about the body only, Bible often change the modes and subjects or objects.

When the Bible mentions the ID of people, it says " soul" as we read Acts 7:14. When someone is sleeping it means his soul is sleeping as the body disappears. I don't know what similarity will exist between the resurrected body and the current body.

If we read into a passage of Scripture things that are not there we become no better than the RCC who justifies infant baptism because "there were infants in the jailor's household." But where is their evidence? There is none.
Similarly, where is your evidence that Paul is speaking of the soul? There is none. It is not in the passage. You are reading into the passage something that is not there. "Sleep" consistently throughout the Bible refers to "death." It refers to death in the common way that a person thinks of death--that is physical death. Some Corinthians had died. The soul was not the subject. The subject was that they had to bury some bodies because of the judgement of God, and they had to beware lest that same judgement would fall on them, if they would continue to abuse the Lord's Supper.

So likewise Jesus had to say bluntly to his disciples:

John 11:11-14 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

The soul is not in question here. Jesus plainly speaks of a physical death. Sleep is equated with physical death. There was no thelogical question or debate about the soul or the spirit, and the immortality thereof. It was a simple matter of whether he was alive or buried in the grave--dead. When they got there, they found that he had been dead for four days already. His body would have alread started to decay they supposed. It was the body that was in their mind. It was body that was sleeping. Sleep refers to the physical death. Jesus awoke him, that is raised his body from the dead. There is no theological debate here about his spirit or soul. Sleep refers to physical death--the body. Don't let the SDA theology confuse you on this point. The spirit never sleeps. It is either present with the body or present with the Lord, or in existence in Hell. Those are the only three options. It is immortal. It always is in a conscious state. It never ceases to have a conscious state. We were created spirit beings. Now we have a "terrestial" body. It is our spirits that are clothed with a temporary body. Someday they will have a "celestial" body. We wait for that day. But until that day comes the spirit will live on. It will not sleep. The Bible does not teach that.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

If we read into a passage of Scripture things that are not there we become no better than the RCC who justifies infant baptism because "there were infants in the jailor's household." But where is their evidence? There is none.

And where's DHK's evidence that there wasn't?
-

 

[DHK]

And where's DHK's evidence that there wasn't?

The jailor's household consisted of seven people outside of the jailor and his wife.
First there was the eldest son and his wife, who had just married and had no children yet.
Second, they had a twenty year old daughter.
Third, they had twins, both sixteen years of age.
Fourth, they had a fourteen year old son.
And, finally, they had another daughter who was twelve. All had made a profession of faith. There were no infants in the household at all. The servants were all single young men.

My source: the same as yours.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

The jailor's household consisted of seven people outside of the jailor and his wife.
First there was the eldest son and his wife, who had just married and had no children yet.
Second, they had a twenty year old daughter.
Third, they had twins, both sixteen years of age.
Fourth, they had a fourteen year old son.
And, finally, they had another daughter who was twelve.

Is that what the Early first century ‘Baptist’ fathers taught? LOL, funny huh?
Granted you can’t prove any more than I the ages of his household. And rest assured that more households were baptized than what Scripture states and also considering the society of the time, there were no reliable forms of birth control. And, if this, not baptizing infants was a no, no, then Scripture would’ve been more explicit regarding the matter.

Furthermore, the very few individually identified people that were baptized in Scripture were adults, which makes sense, since these were converted adults. There were no ‘cradle Christians’, brought up in Christian homes.

All had made a profession of faith.

The Bible never says, as far as I know, that a ‘profession of faith’ is necessary for salvation with an expectation for infants. The Bible says that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. Yet for the fundamentalist, as yourself, there must be an exception for infants regarding profession of faith for salvation, unless you want to condemn infants to hell. So why DHK, do you scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

I’ve learned from not only studying Orthodoxy, but other Protestant Churches who practice infant baptism, that for the fundamentalist, it’s not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. The witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings has thoroughly silenced those who criticize Orthodoxy’s teachings on infant baptism.
-

 

[DHK]

I
The Bible never says, as far as I know, that a ‘profession of faith’ is necessary for salvation with an expectation for infants.

The one requirement for salvation is belief.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
Belief is always a prerequisite to baptism. Baptism is but a step of obedience in the believer's life, one who has believed. An infant cannot believe, does not have the power to make choices of his own volition. All in the jailor's house "believed" as the text indicated. It is foolish to say that infants "believed."

The Bible says that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. Yet for the fundamentalist, as yourself, there must be an exception for infants regarding profession of faith for salvation, unless you want to condemn infants to hell.

Perhaps there is an exception. But it is not the RCC's exception. It is not baptism. It is not man's way. I don't condemn any person to Hell. God said that all in the household of the jailor believed. If you can't accept God's Word for what it is, but deny it, when it plainly says that they believed, when infants cannot believe, then I feel sorry for you. It is the same as calling God a liar. We know that infants can't believe. So God really didn't mean what he said. He lied, according to you.

So why DHK, do you scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

I criticize the RCC for inferring that God lies; for not believing the Bible when it is so clear in its teaching; for putting its own man-made traditions and superstitions above the authority of the Bible.

I’ve learned from not only studying Orthodoxy, but other Protestant Churches who practice infant baptism, that for the fundamentalist, it’s not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. The witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings has thoroughly silenced those who criticize Orthodoxy’s teachings on infant baptism.

The majority isn't always right; in fact it is usually wrong.
The majority believes that works save; they are wrong.
The majority of the world still believes in reincarnation; the majority is wrong.
Why do you believe the majority? I believe the Bible; not the majority.

 

[Eliyahu]

Agnus!

You sound like talking to the Dead in different tongue now!

As for Jailor in Philippi, here is the Bible teaching:


1) Believers Baptism:
Acts 8:37 - Philip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest" . And he answered and said, " I believe that Jesus christ is the Son of God"

Matt 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and TEACH all nations, baptizing them...
We cannot teach the Infants.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved
He that doesn't believe is not expected to be baptized.

Acts 2:38 - Repent and be Baptized...
Baptism without repentence means nothing but a disobedience.

Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house(hold).
" If you believe in Jesus, you will be saved, and then your household will believe in Jesus and they will be saved"

This happened actually there:

Acts 16:34 -And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, Believing in God with all his household

All of Jailor's household believed in Jesus and therefore they were baptized.


Could Babies believe in Jesus?



2) Baptism by Immersion

- Word Baptizo itself means Immersion.
- Matt 3:16 - Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of water ( from inside of the water)
- Acts 8:38 -and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the enuch, and he baptized him.
8:39 - and when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip,.

- Romans 6:3-4: Baptism by sprinkling cannot give this teaching-

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

John 3:23 - And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there, and they came and were baptized.

If they were baptized by sprinkling, they didn't need much water.

Baptism by sprinkling came from the paganism, sprinkling so-called " Holy Water" which is quite popular all over the world such as in Asia, Andes Indians, Egypt, Babylon.

3. Why is the Infant Baptism a problem?

Thereby Satan could bring millions of unbelievers into the Christendom, and the churches have become the assemblies of the mixtures of believers and unbelievers, eventaully the corruption of the church.

 

[Eliyahu]

DHK,

You seem to be confused between Soul and Spirit. Soul itself is the identity of the person, and therefore Soul doesn't need to be mentioned.
It seems that my stance is different from SDA. Once I read the article Waldensians and Anabaptists believed in Soul sleep, which may be different from that of SDA, but similar to me. Spirit is unchanged but accept the Holy Spirit. I believe the division of Spirit, Soul, Body.

 

[Eliyahu]

Agnus,

Baptists or Brethren are different from the Protestants which may be defined the dissidents after Reformation, and may be called Reformers or their followers.

There were Baptists before the Reformation, There were Brethren before the Reformation such as West Deutsche Bruder Gemeinde. Brethen define Waldensians also as Brethren.

One proof for the Baptists before Reformation is here:

[FONT=&#48148]The writings of both Augustine and Optatus - both strong opponents of the Donatists - disprove this charge. Both writers charge that the Donatists insisted on rebaptism of those who came to them from the "established" churches, and further insisted on baptism of believers only by total immersion. The Council of Milevi in 416 A.D. passed the following edict against the Donatists: "Whosoever denies that newly-born infants are to be baptized...let him be accursed." This edict proves that the Donatists denied the practice of infant baptism[/FONT]
[FONT=&#48148][/FONT]
[FONT=&#48148]http://www.beaconmbc.com/In Defense of, Biblical, Historical, Christianity.htm[/FONT]

 

[DHK]

DHK,

You seem to be confused between Soul and Spirit. Soul itself is the identity of the person, and therefore Soul doesn't need to be mentioned.
It seems that my stance is different from SDA. Once I read the article Waldensians and Anabaptists believed in Soul sleep, which may be different from that of SDA, but similar to me. Spirit is unchanged but accept the Holy Spirit. I believe the division of Spirit, Soul, Body.

I also believe in a differentiation of soul and spirit. But in this we also have a problem. Sometimes the terms soul and spirit are used interchangeably in the New Testament, and thus only context can determine which one is being talked about.
Since the SDA''s don't differentiate between the soul and spirit, when speaking with them I simply refer to the soul, and ignore the spirit. In their mind they are one and the same.
I Thes.5:23 teaches that there is body, soul, and spirit.
Technically I believe that the soul refers to the emotions, the intellect, that part of the mind that is able to reason.
The spirit is that part of man which God gave to man which makes even more different than animals. With his spirit he is able to communicate with God. There is a spiritual part of man. That part becomes alive when when it is "quickened" by the Holy Spirit at the time of conversion. Before that time it is dead or inoperable. (Eph.2:1).

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I also believe in a differentiation of soul and spirit. But in this we also have a problem. Sometimes the terms soul and spirit are used interchangeably in the New Testament, and thus only context can determine which one is being talked about.
Since the SDA''s don't differentiate between the soul and spirit, when speaking with them I simply refer to the soul, and ignore the spirit. In their mind they are one and the same.
I Thes.5:23 teaches that there is body, soul, and spirit.
Technically I believe that the soul refers to the emotions, the intellect, that part of the mind that is able to reason.
The spirit is that part of man which God gave to man which makes even more different than animals. With his spirit he is able to communicate with God. There is a spiritual part of man. That part becomes alive when when it is "quickened" by the Holy Spirit at the time of conversion. Before that time it is dead or inoperable. (Eph.2:1).

DHK, are the SDA's a cult?
-

 

[Eric B]

WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES: Immortality is used in different senses in Scripture. In one sense, only God has immortality. In another sense, only those who are saved will have immortality. In yet another sense, every man has an immortal soul.
There are two Greek words translated "immortal." Athanasia means deathlessness and is translated immortal in 1 Co. 15:53,54 and 1 Ti. 6:16. Aphthartos is translated "immortal" in Ro. 2:7; 1 Ti. 1:17; and 2 Ti. 1:10. The same word is translated "incorrupt" and is used to describe the resurrection body (1 Co. 15:42,50,52,53,54), God (Ro. 1:23), the Christian’s reward (1 Co. 9:25), the Christian’s inheritance (1 Pe. 1:4), the Word of God (1 Pe. 1:23), and the inner man (1 Pe. 3:4). The root meaning of aphthartos is "undecaying in essence" (Strong).
1. The immorality of eternal life. The term "immortality" is sometimes used synonymously with eternal life in Jesus Christ (Ro. 2:7; 2 Ti. 1:10). This immortality is the gift of God through Christ and is possessed only by the saved. Immortality in this sense refers to the blessed state of being passed from spiritual death into life, of being forever united to Christ Jesus in positional justification. This immortality will be enjoyed in its fullest sense when the saved are given their immortal glorified bodies.
2. The immortality of God. There is another sense in which only God is said to possess immortality. "...the Lord of lords; who only hath immortality..." (1 Ti. 6:15-16). As the sole source and giver of life, only the eternal God naturally possesses immortality.
3. The immortal soul. The term "immortal" in the sense of deathlessness, as it is sometimes used in Scripture, can apply to the condition of even the unsaved. This is simply in the sense of everlasting consciousness, which the Bible plainly teaches the lost must suffer (Re. 20:10-15; 14:10-11; Mt. 25:46; Mk. 9:43- 48).

Problem is, he's forgetting that these scriptures (with the exception of Rev.14, which in its context is actually describing the tormenting of those who worship the beast, not hell) are describing the resurrected wicked's judgment. Cloud is trying to refute mortality of the soul before the resurrection (in the first death), but of course that mortality will be moot once the people are resurrected, so those texts prove nothing regarding the first death.

Man possesses an immaterial conscious soul, or spirit, which is distinct from the body. This soul continues to have conscious existence after death and throughout eternity whether it is saved or lost. We will demonstrate this from Scripture under the next point.
WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES: The word soul has different meanings in Scripture. Sometimes it does refer to the whole man. Often, though, it refers to a conscious, immaterial part of man that exists apart from the body beyond death. Words in the Bible must be defined by the context in which they are found, since almost all Bible words have various usages and definitions in different contexts. This is true with words in normal language usage in or out of the Bible.
Old Testament examples of the soul as an immaterial, conscious part of the man are seen in Genesis 35:18 and 1 Kings 17:21-22. In Genesis 35 the death of Rachel is recorded, and we learn that her soul departed when she died. "...as her soul was in departing, (for she died)..." In 1 Kings 17 it is recorded that a young boy died and was raised again through Elijah’s ministry. The Bible plainly says his soul departed and returned to him: "...O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived." Obviously the prophet Elijah did not have the same idea about the soul and death as the Adventists do.
In the New Testament, the word "soul" is also used to describe a spiritual part of man distinct from his body. "...I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Th. 5:23). Here we are told that man has three parts. Paul did not say man IS a soul; he says man HAS a soul.

So he's playing upon the word "departed", as well as distinction, but this still says nothing about "conscious", and still doesn't prove a conscious "immortal" soul. If we were to change it to "his consciousness departed him", it would mean the same thing as what the Adventists teach, but it would obviously not mean some person's invisible "ghost" rising up out of the body in space, and floating off "somewhere".

The cults use the faulty "key method" of Bible interpretation. This means they develop a definition of a certain word or phrase from selected passages, then force that definition upon every passage, regardless of the context. They interpret all passages by this preconceived meaning or "key." This is faulty and dangerous. Bible words and phrases must always be defined in light of the particular context in which they are located and never according to some preconceived "key." This is true of the words "soul," "death," "spirit," even "immortality." Let the Bible student beware of developing definitions of Bible words that do not give the Bible freedom to define its words differently in various contexts.

It's true that that may become a problem. IF, the contexts elsewhere really point somewhere else. However, if the contexts do not contradict it, it might be a handy "scripture interprets scripture" method. The problem is, the traditionalists proof text their doctrine into the contexts of other passages, and if you really examine it, it doesn't really follow. In other words, they use the same exact "key method", but with their own opposing preconceived interpretations, which are then forced on the pertinent prooftexts. We see this above with "departed". What is that, but the same type of "key" taken and forced into a particular meaning, and this one is not even based on some other passage, like the SDA's keys, but rather on what we think "depart" means based on our everyday experience (though we know other uses of it exist, but these are always blocked out for the monent). The concept of "distinction" is another one. It is mentioned as a separate thing, so then it can float off as its own separate "conscious" entity, even though the text says no such thing. Also, "smoke ascends forever; no rest day and night" and especially "fire and brimstone" in Rev.14:10 interpreted as "eternal hell", where the context does not support it. Hell is described in ch.20, and ch14 is describing the temporal torment of beast followers (not even their first death, which was said to elude them at that time—9:6!). Yet is is universally snatched up, and even the soul-sleep advocates seem to be going with it.

It's these forms of double standards (doing the same exact things they criticize "cults" for) that led me to think on my own, and arrive at some different conclusions, from the so-called "orthodox Christianity". Group[s like the SDA's are actually right on some of these things. It's just that there is more of a majority acceptance of the other side of the issue; unlike Calvinism vs. Arminianism, where orthodoxy is almost evenly divided (and even there, the way the charge of "heresy" is often thrown around in that issue, particularly by one side; if there was a large majority, the minority would definitely be ejected from the the communion of the "orthodox").

 

[Zenas]

Eliyahu says:

Baptism by sprinkling came from the paganism, sprinkling so-called " Holy Water" which is quite popular all over the world such as in Asia, Andes Indians, Egypt, Babylon

.

Actually, baptism by sprinkling came about because of the scarcity of water in some regions. We first read about it in The Didache, written between 50 A.D. and 120 A.D. This writing was lost until 1873 but we knew it existed because it was referenced in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, first by Eusebius in 324 A.D. Here is Chapter 7 of The Didache, also known as "The Lord's Teaching through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations":

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

 

[BobRyan]

In yet another sense, every man has an immortal soul."

no text says "immortal soul".

No text says of the wicked that they "live forever"

NO text says of the wicked "they are deathless"

NO text says of the wicked "they will never die"

NO text says of the wicked "they will never be consumed - burned but never consumed".

The fact that man is MORTAL and not IMMORTAL is one of the key reasons for not "talking to the DEAD" -- only the demons are there to "listen".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I also believe in a differentiation of soul and spirit. But in this we also have a problem. Sometimes the terms soul and spirit are used interchangeably in the New Testament, and thus only context can determine which one is being talked about.
Since the SDA''s don't differentiate between the soul and spirit, when speaking with them I simply refer to the soul, and ignore the spirit. In their mind they are one and the same.
I Thes.5:23 teaches that there is body, soul, and spirit.
Technically I believe that the soul refers to the emotions, the intellect, that part of the mind that is able to reason.
The spirit is that part of man which God gave to man which makes even more different than animals. With his spirit he is able to communicate with God. There is a spiritual part of man. That part becomes alive when when it is "quickened" by the Holy Spirit at the time of conversion. Before that time it is dead or inoperable. (Eph.2:1).

What SDA's "actually teach" is that in most case in scripture the SOUL is the PERSON (that part responsible for thought and emotions) and that the SPIRIT is the LIFE FORCE (that part that makes a person ALIVE).

In the Bible God speaks of taking his spirit OUT of ALL flesh saying that if He should do so ALL flesh would perish.

But in other cases the Bible contrasts BODY and SPIRIT (Eccl 12 for example) and in those cases the spirit is the essence of the person. When the spirit goes back to god - it is in a dormant state (as 1Thess 4 describes the PERSON as being ASLEEP -- so does John 11 and so does 1Cor 15).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I believe, Immortality of Souls, Mortality of Body, Souls sleep, We will receive another body after the resurrection ( as we read 1 Cor 15:20-).

If the PERSON is mortal - and the soul IS the person - then the SOUL is mortal. It can die. "The SOUL that sins IT SHALL DIE" Ezek 18:4.

I am surprised that you would find that debatable.

However I agree that the soul goes into a dormant state of SLEEP at death (see John 11, 1Thess 4, 1Cor 15 as well as a host of other texts that boldly state this fact).

Yet in the SECOND death (Rev 20) God "DESTROYS BOTH body AND SOUL in fiery hell" Matt 10:28.

The soul is not immortal.

What about the Lazarus in John 11 ?
After his resurrection, he ate the meal with Jesus, and Jews tried to kill him. Do you think he lost all the memory before his death?

No. But why would that have to be the case for the view I have stated?

Saints in Rev praise the Lord. Do they praise Him by new souls? Then do they forget about the past because their souls are not the ones which they had before ?

No. But why would that have to be the case for the view I have stated?

Was the soul of Jesus changed from the one before death to the one after resurrection?

No. (But He was God and therefore technically immortal) --

In Christ,

Bob