As the saying goes, "turn-about is fair play". Now that we've pretty thoroughly flogged Christian Universalism (and probably not changed anyone's mind), I'd like to see those who believe in, or "lean toward" Annihilationism (aka Conditional Immortality) step up and present their case.
Any takers?
Conditional Immortality
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Conditional Immortality
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I lean that direction
I simply believe that God alone is immortal. But God loved the world so much that He sent His Son so that all who believe in Him can share His immortality. Since God alone is immortal, I lean toward the opinion that it would go against His nature to keep people living just so they could be in misery. We only obtain immortality by being in Christ Jesus.
But I'm not set in stone on this, nor do I feel compelled to make a concrete decision.
I simply believe that God alone is immortal. But God loved the world so much that He sent His Son so that all who believe in Him can share His immortality. Since God alone is immortal, I lean toward the opinion that it would go against His nature to keep people living just so they could be in misery. We only obtain immortality by being in Christ Jesus.
But I'm not set in stone on this, nor do I feel compelled to make a concrete decision.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
Hello Danny,
I am not set in stone either. But one of the things I am still working through is the fact that since we are made in the Image of God, will God annihilate His own Image? Or am I looking at the Image of God from the wrong perspective? Evidently, that Image of Him in Man is important to Him. We are reminded as such of life's sacredness in Gen 9:6 when executing the death penalty. An eternal seperation or quarrintine of the wicked in the LOF would allow for that free-will aspect of God's Image to be preserved, and respected. The imagery used to describe the fate of the "wicked" is apparently a concious on going living seperation from the goodness of God. If the free-will He gave has no real value, then the choice and call of Life or Death, repent or perish becomes a meaningless exercise, IMO. Especially if He ultimatley saves "all" anyway.
There would be no real loss if you were blown out of existence either. I am just wicked
enough to say;' so what, I'll be 'dead'...A living death on the otherhand is pretty frightening. Whatever the reality though, I will always trust God to do what's right.
I am not set in stone either. But one of the things I am still working through is the fact that since we are made in the Image of God, will God annihilate His own Image? Or am I looking at the Image of God from the wrong perspective? Evidently, that Image of Him in Man is important to Him. We are reminded as such of life's sacredness in Gen 9:6 when executing the death penalty. An eternal seperation or quarrintine of the wicked in the LOF would allow for that free-will aspect of God's Image to be preserved, and respected. The imagery used to describe the fate of the "wicked" is apparently a concious on going living seperation from the goodness of God. If the free-will He gave has no real value, then the choice and call of Life or Death, repent or perish becomes a meaningless exercise, IMO. Especially if He ultimatley saves "all" anyway.
There would be no real loss if you were blown out of existence either. I am just wicked
enough to say;' so what, I'll be 'dead'...A living death on the otherhand is pretty frightening. Whatever the reality though, I will always trust God to do what's right.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Mind if I interrupt?Traveler wrote:Hello Danny,
So your argument here is that God wouldn't annihilate his own image; however in the very verse you cite the death penalty is prescribed. In order to fulfill that command, a life will be destroyed. Apparently that isn't an affront to the image of God, so how would it follow that God wouldn't destroy his image by annihilating the wicked?I am not set in stone either. But one of the things I am still working through is the fact that since we are made in the Image of God, will God annihilate His own Image? Or am I looking at the Image of God from the wrong perspective? Evidently, that Image of Him in Man is important to Him. We are reminded as such of life's sacredness in Gen 9:6 when executing the death penalty.
Earlier in the same book, Gen. 6:7 God says he will destroy most people:
"So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." "
God does destroy what he has made, even human beings made in his image.
Do you believe in eternal torment? It doesn't sound like it, because torment like that wouldn't exactly be "respectful."An eternal separation or quarrantine of the wicked in the LOF would allow for that free-will aspect of God's Image to be preserved, and respected.
You didn't show any scripture where this imagery comes from, but... "Life or Death, repent or perish" sound like...well... dying and perishing, or in other words: annihilation.The imagery used to describe the fate of the "wicked" is apparently a conscious on going living separation from the goodness of God. If the free-will He gave has no real value, then the choice and call of Life or Death, repent or perish becomes a meaningless exercise, IMO.
I trust God to do what's right, too. I also love him, not because I'm afraid of being annihilated forever, but because I just do.Especially if He ultimately saves "all" anyway.
There would be no real loss if you were blown out of existence either. I am just wicked
Michelle
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Greetings,
Just some general observations.
Setting the context.
Technically speakling, "the intertestamental period" was from when Malachi was written at about 400BC to the times of Jesus and/or the composition of the NT books. But when NT era experts refer to the intertestamental period, they usually mean an overlapping period of time that went from about 200BC--150AD. It was during this 'IT period' beginning at about 200AD, that apocalyptic literature came to the forefront. This was also a time when Jewish eschatology was "blossoming" so to speak. New ideas about the resurrection, the coming of Messiah, "the age to come" and so on were in rapid development. The IT period can be said to be one of "impending bloom" --- the end of the old world order was fading away and the new world order was just around the corner, if not already here!
This was the world Jesus lived in. Experts of the NT era now see that there were at least twelve 'schools' of Judaism: Josephus mentioned only four: Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Sicarri and/or Zealots. So there weren't only more 'groups' of Jews (whom Jospehus called "sects") that had different beliefs; there were also divisions inside each one of them as can be seen with the Pharisees in the NT.
In apocalyptic intertestamental literature there were all kinds of eschatological variations. One example is the reign of Messiah. Some of the literature has him coming and reigning on earth forever, another has him reigning from heaven after having come to earth first, and yet again, another has the Messiah coming, going back to heaven reigning and then coming back to earth to continue to reign forever. The length of time varies also. It goes from about one week to 400 years in this literature. In Revelation we see Messiah's reign as 1,000 years.
There are also variations on Messiah's judgment and/or final judgment and who will be included in Messiah's eternal kingdom. Some will be literally "saved" from Messiah's condemnation and will inherit, or be included, in his eternal kingdom and live forever. Of all of the literature that I've studied, I've found only a very small percentage that saw the salvation of every person who ever lived (which would be compatible with 'Christian Universalism'). I'd estimate it to be around 3-5% at the most. This literature specifically said (in writing) this would happen...unlike the NT which is silent about universal reconciliation.
Joesphus tells us that the Pharisees believed in what we would call 'eternal punishment or torment'. As far as I know, he didn't describe any Jewish 'sect' as believing in CI (or annihilationism). On this forum it has been argued that Augustine 'brought the eternal punishment belief' into the church. But it had been around long before Augustine.
In the earliest of Early Church Fathers, the predominent view was CI (annihilationsim). This view---which I haven't mentioned was held by many Jews of Jesus' time---was one of the two primary views held by the vast majority of the Jews; the other being 'eternal torment'.
Of course, we more [theologically] conservative Christians don't base our views on what any Early Fathers believed. We go by the Bible in context. When the Early Fathers agree with the apostolic doctrine (what the Apostles taught and believed) we agree naturally with them. And when they drift away from it, we naturally don't agree with them.
My view.
1. I believe there's evidence to suggest Jesus actually may have 'offered a rebuttal' to the Pharsisaical beliefs in 'eternal torment' and in favor of CI! (which I won't post now).
2. I discount universalism as the view Jesus (and the apostles) held based on: a. the NT is completely silent about it, b. the universalist view was held by a very, very small number of Jews, c. though Jesus and the apostles could conceivably have held this view...they never said or wrote anything to indicate they did, and, d. Origen wasn't a first century person, leave alone Jewish.
3. I can only really say, "I lean toward what the Bible teaches" (and along with number 1. above, and see, below).
Rick
Just some general observations.
Setting the context.
Technically speakling, "the intertestamental period" was from when Malachi was written at about 400BC to the times of Jesus and/or the composition of the NT books. But when NT era experts refer to the intertestamental period, they usually mean an overlapping period of time that went from about 200BC--150AD. It was during this 'IT period' beginning at about 200AD, that apocalyptic literature came to the forefront. This was also a time when Jewish eschatology was "blossoming" so to speak. New ideas about the resurrection, the coming of Messiah, "the age to come" and so on were in rapid development. The IT period can be said to be one of "impending bloom" --- the end of the old world order was fading away and the new world order was just around the corner, if not already here!
This was the world Jesus lived in. Experts of the NT era now see that there were at least twelve 'schools' of Judaism: Josephus mentioned only four: Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Sicarri and/or Zealots. So there weren't only more 'groups' of Jews (whom Jospehus called "sects") that had different beliefs; there were also divisions inside each one of them as can be seen with the Pharisees in the NT.
In apocalyptic intertestamental literature there were all kinds of eschatological variations. One example is the reign of Messiah. Some of the literature has him coming and reigning on earth forever, another has him reigning from heaven after having come to earth first, and yet again, another has the Messiah coming, going back to heaven reigning and then coming back to earth to continue to reign forever. The length of time varies also. It goes from about one week to 400 years in this literature. In Revelation we see Messiah's reign as 1,000 years.
There are also variations on Messiah's judgment and/or final judgment and who will be included in Messiah's eternal kingdom. Some will be literally "saved" from Messiah's condemnation and will inherit, or be included, in his eternal kingdom and live forever. Of all of the literature that I've studied, I've found only a very small percentage that saw the salvation of every person who ever lived (which would be compatible with 'Christian Universalism'). I'd estimate it to be around 3-5% at the most. This literature specifically said (in writing) this would happen...unlike the NT which is silent about universal reconciliation.
Joesphus tells us that the Pharisees believed in what we would call 'eternal punishment or torment'. As far as I know, he didn't describe any Jewish 'sect' as believing in CI (or annihilationism). On this forum it has been argued that Augustine 'brought the eternal punishment belief' into the church. But it had been around long before Augustine.
In the earliest of Early Church Fathers, the predominent view was CI (annihilationsim). This view---which I haven't mentioned was held by many Jews of Jesus' time---was one of the two primary views held by the vast majority of the Jews; the other being 'eternal torment'.
Of course, we more [theologically] conservative Christians don't base our views on what any Early Fathers believed. We go by the Bible in context. When the Early Fathers agree with the apostolic doctrine (what the Apostles taught and believed) we agree naturally with them. And when they drift away from it, we naturally don't agree with them.
My view.
1. I believe there's evidence to suggest Jesus actually may have 'offered a rebuttal' to the Pharsisaical beliefs in 'eternal torment' and in favor of CI! (which I won't post now).
2. I discount universalism as the view Jesus (and the apostles) held based on: a. the NT is completely silent about it, b. the universalist view was held by a very, very small number of Jews, c. though Jesus and the apostles could conceivably have held this view...they never said or wrote anything to indicate they did, and, d. Origen wasn't a first century person, leave alone Jewish.
3. I can only really say, "I lean toward what the Bible teaches" (and along with number 1. above, and see, below).
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:38 pm, edited 9 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hello Michelle,
As I said, I am working through this issue. That's why I said nothing is set in stone in my mind. But, we have a tendency to limit "death" in the OT to merely biological cessation of life. Since we have the NT revelation, we know more of the story than the ancients had to operate with don't we? We know that "all" will be raised, including those who perished in the Flood. Unless of course you are like Danny and believe the Flood account is merely an epic myth and therefore not to be taken literally. So my point or rather better my question, really relates to the immaterial part of man's constitutional nature or makeup as being in the Image of God. I am not refering therefore to merely the death of the "flesh".
Apostle Paul said something interesting in I Cor.5:5 for example with regard to the "immoral brother"; "I have decided to deliver such a one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Here a distinction is being made between the 'destruction of the flesh' and a presevation of the man's spirit
unto the day of Jesus. Also in I John 5:16, what is the sin that leads to death? What death? Death of the flesh or body? Death of the spirit? Murder commited in the realm of the flesh could be a sin that leads to death under Gen 9:6, or even Pauls comment in I Cor 5:5, and may require a "giving over" of the person to destruction of the "flesh",i.e, execution under civil law. But it does not necessarliy follow his spirit will suffer God's destruction or annihilation especially if he is a believer. Just because we are 'saved from the wrath to come' by being in Jesus doesn't of course mean that when we sin even as believers, we escape the "sword of God's justice" in this life or age. If we steal, or murder, we will still suffer under God's principal law of 'sowing and reaping'. When we repent, there is still forgiveness with God. But God never delivers us from sins effects commited in this life. We will always reap what we sow in this life, whether in Jesus or not.
BTW, "torment" is not at the hands of God. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. You are a mother right? Do you ever give your child a time out or restrict them? Don't you isolate them by removing them from the rest of the family and their normal activity?
It would seem like you were "tormenting" them, wouldn't it? Ever get restricted to your room for a long period by your parents? Now, put this 'restriction' on an eternal scale from God's perspective. He has given the 'wicked' life and breath. He has given them ample opportunity to repent. They have refused Jesus and the 'Good News". They have rejected God all their lives. They have become incorrigable. What would you do with an incorriagable child? If he refused to be corrected, would you kill him or isolate him? Or would you like many parents today, let their kids get away with whatever?
Now I am not being domatic. Just trying to understand the issue better.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!,
In Jesus,
Bob
As I said, I am working through this issue. That's why I said nothing is set in stone in my mind. But, we have a tendency to limit "death" in the OT to merely biological cessation of life. Since we have the NT revelation, we know more of the story than the ancients had to operate with don't we? We know that "all" will be raised, including those who perished in the Flood. Unless of course you are like Danny and believe the Flood account is merely an epic myth and therefore not to be taken literally. So my point or rather better my question, really relates to the immaterial part of man's constitutional nature or makeup as being in the Image of God. I am not refering therefore to merely the death of the "flesh".
Apostle Paul said something interesting in I Cor.5:5 for example with regard to the "immoral brother"; "I have decided to deliver such a one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Here a distinction is being made between the 'destruction of the flesh' and a presevation of the man's spirit
unto the day of Jesus. Also in I John 5:16, what is the sin that leads to death? What death? Death of the flesh or body? Death of the spirit? Murder commited in the realm of the flesh could be a sin that leads to death under Gen 9:6, or even Pauls comment in I Cor 5:5, and may require a "giving over" of the person to destruction of the "flesh",i.e, execution under civil law. But it does not necessarliy follow his spirit will suffer God's destruction or annihilation especially if he is a believer. Just because we are 'saved from the wrath to come' by being in Jesus doesn't of course mean that when we sin even as believers, we escape the "sword of God's justice" in this life or age. If we steal, or murder, we will still suffer under God's principal law of 'sowing and reaping'. When we repent, there is still forgiveness with God. But God never delivers us from sins effects commited in this life. We will always reap what we sow in this life, whether in Jesus or not.
BTW, "torment" is not at the hands of God. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. You are a mother right? Do you ever give your child a time out or restrict them? Don't you isolate them by removing them from the rest of the family and their normal activity?
It would seem like you were "tormenting" them, wouldn't it? Ever get restricted to your room for a long period by your parents? Now, put this 'restriction' on an eternal scale from God's perspective. He has given the 'wicked' life and breath. He has given them ample opportunity to repent. They have refused Jesus and the 'Good News". They have rejected God all their lives. They have become incorrigable. What would you do with an incorriagable child? If he refused to be corrected, would you kill him or isolate him? Or would you like many parents today, let their kids get away with whatever?
Now I am not being domatic. Just trying to understand the issue better.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!,
In Jesus,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Bob,
If I might chime in here, and not to butt in, Michelle, keep on posting, imo!
First, along with what Michelle said, it seems you still mostly believe in 'eternal torment' and/or 'eternal separation from God'. Not that I want to debate you about it, though. But consider the following....
Paul didn't teach that it is our spirits that will be saved. Rather, in 1 Cor 15 he taught and spelled out that believers will be resurrected with real physical bodies, though they will be animated by the Spirit.
When Paul said this man's flesh would or might be destroyed, I think his meaning was "so that he will stop doing the deeds of the [his] flesh". This man was habitually doing what a natural person "in the flesh" (non-Christian) does, cf. Romans 8:4-6. In 1 Cor 5:1, it says the man "has" his father's wife in the present tense. Iow, he was (habitually) "living in [this particular] sin." On an interesting note, it doesn't appear this man's father and stepmother (or mother?) were ever in the church because we know Paul! "He would have had it out" with them too!
When Paul said "so his spirit may be saved" I think he simply meant that this man would consider his misdeed (sin) of fornication/adultery/incest and repent, thereby having the Spirit of God indwelling him (cf. especially, Ro 8:11 below) both "now" upon the condition of his repentance, and at the future Day of the Lord Jesus Christ, His second coming.
Ro 8 (NKJV)
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
This man who was kicked out of the church may have had the Spirit of God at one time. He may have been a believer. We don't know. But whatever the case may have been on that, Paul kicked him out of the church because he was doing something that Christians can't do: live according to the flesh. In verse 10, above, "the body is dead because of sin" means the same thing as "the destruction of the [guy's] flesh". Christians aren't under the 'reign' of what our natural bodies may want or want to do. Why not? Because we no longer obey fleshly desires of our natural bodies as we have the Spirit of God in us. This man, after being excommunicated, still had the chance to keep living according to his flesh or repent in order that the misdeeds of his flesh would, in effect, be destroyed. He'd still have his same body. But his fleshly desires being carried out, as with all Christians, would no longer have the 'reign' over him. Paul talks about this also in Ro 6.
This makes sense to me, anyway.
But as to what death? Once more, the Jews (Jesus and the NT) didn't believe the body is a separate thing from the spirit. So I don't see it being a question of a separate spiritual death and another physical death.
I doubt Paul meant "giving over" this man to the civil authorities. Reason being is, Paul always talks about the church judging itself! In fact, this was what he was doing when he excommunicated the man. Also, I'm not sure what the Roman laws were on the sins this guy committed. If the woman was his step-mother (which we don't know but most scholars think she was); I don't know if that was illegal or not. If there was consent, they may have allowed it, I don't know. We don't know if his father permitted it either. In those Corinthian temples just about 'anything went' in terms of sexual immorality. We do know, however, that what was happening between these two people was considered to be very unusual or "not mentioned" by even the pagans (1 Cor 5:1); if it happened it was 'in the closet' by even the pagan standards of morality.
Make sense, Bob? Does to me but I'm not the best with words sometimes.
Rick
If I might chime in here, and not to butt in, Michelle, keep on posting, imo!
First, along with what Michelle said, it seems you still mostly believe in 'eternal torment' and/or 'eternal separation from God'. Not that I want to debate you about it, though. But consider the following....
I think Paul used terminology he knew the Corinthians would readily understand. Namely, he used the Greek ideas of matter as over against spirit. Or put another way, the material body or "flesh" as compared to the "inner spirit man".You wrote:Apostle Paul said something interesting in I Cor.5:5 for example with regard to the "immoral brother"; "I have decided to deliver such a one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Here a distinction is being made between the 'destruction of the flesh' and a presevation of the man's spirit unto the day of Jesus.
Paul didn't teach that it is our spirits that will be saved. Rather, in 1 Cor 15 he taught and spelled out that believers will be resurrected with real physical bodies, though they will be animated by the Spirit.
When Paul said this man's flesh would or might be destroyed, I think his meaning was "so that he will stop doing the deeds of the [his] flesh". This man was habitually doing what a natural person "in the flesh" (non-Christian) does, cf. Romans 8:4-6. In 1 Cor 5:1, it says the man "has" his father's wife in the present tense. Iow, he was (habitually) "living in [this particular] sin." On an interesting note, it doesn't appear this man's father and stepmother (or mother?) were ever in the church because we know Paul! "He would have had it out" with them too!
When Paul said "so his spirit may be saved" I think he simply meant that this man would consider his misdeed (sin) of fornication/adultery/incest and repent, thereby having the Spirit of God indwelling him (cf. especially, Ro 8:11 below) both "now" upon the condition of his repentance, and at the future Day of the Lord Jesus Christ, His second coming.
Ro 8 (NKJV)
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
This man who was kicked out of the church may have had the Spirit of God at one time. He may have been a believer. We don't know. But whatever the case may have been on that, Paul kicked him out of the church because he was doing something that Christians can't do: live according to the flesh. In verse 10, above, "the body is dead because of sin" means the same thing as "the destruction of the [guy's] flesh". Christians aren't under the 'reign' of what our natural bodies may want or want to do. Why not? Because we no longer obey fleshly desires of our natural bodies as we have the Spirit of God in us. This man, after being excommunicated, still had the chance to keep living according to his flesh or repent in order that the misdeeds of his flesh would, in effect, be destroyed. He'd still have his same body. But his fleshly desires being carried out, as with all Christians, would no longer have the 'reign' over him. Paul talks about this also in Ro 6.
This makes sense to me, anyway.
Some think the sin that leads to death is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit which Jesus said would never be forgiven.You also wrote:Also in I John 5:16, what is the sin that leads to death? What death? Death of the flesh or body? Death of the spirit? Murder commited in the realm of the flesh could be a sin that leads to death under Gen 9:6, or even Pauls comment in I Cor 5:5, and may require a "giving over" of the person to destruction of the "flesh",i.e, execution under civil law.
But as to what death? Once more, the Jews (Jesus and the NT) didn't believe the body is a separate thing from the spirit. So I don't see it being a question of a separate spiritual death and another physical death.
I doubt Paul meant "giving over" this man to the civil authorities. Reason being is, Paul always talks about the church judging itself! In fact, this was what he was doing when he excommunicated the man. Also, I'm not sure what the Roman laws were on the sins this guy committed. If the woman was his step-mother (which we don't know but most scholars think she was); I don't know if that was illegal or not. If there was consent, they may have allowed it, I don't know. We don't know if his father permitted it either. In those Corinthian temples just about 'anything went' in terms of sexual immorality. We do know, however, that what was happening between these two people was considered to be very unusual or "not mentioned" by even the pagans (1 Cor 5:1); if it happened it was 'in the closet' by even the pagan standards of morality.
Paul taught our whole selves will be resurrected physically but sometimes used Greek terms to express 'our whole selves' like: "body, soul, spirit, mind". All of we Christians with every 'component' of our beings will be finally and fully saved when Jesus comes back. Every 'part' of a convicted murderer who got saved before being sentenced to death will be saved though he 'paid the civil authorities' for his murder. All of us and every 'thing' we are will be saved. And following in kind, every 'part, thing, or component' of the unsaved won't be saved.Lastly, you wrote:But it does not necessarliy follow his spirit will suffer God's destruction or annihilation especially if he is a believer. Just because we are 'saved from the wrath to come' by being in Jesus doesn't of course mean that when we sin even as believers, we escape the "sword of God's justice" in this life or age. If we steal, or murder, we will still suffer under God's principal law of 'sowing and reaping'. When we repent, there is still forgiveness with God. But God never delivers us from sins effects committed in this life. We will always reap what we sow in this life, whether in Jesus or not.
Make sense, Bob? Does to me but I'm not the best with words sometimes.
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Hi Traveler, Happy Thanksgiving!Traveler wrote:Hello Michelle,
I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. Do you believe that the Old Testament did not talk about the resurrection? How about this passage from Job 19: 25 - 27:As I said, I am working through this issue. That's why I said nothing is set in stone in my mind. But, we have a tendency to limit "death" in the OT to merely biological cessation of life. Since we have the NT revelation, we know more of the story than the ancients had to operate with don't we? We know that "all" will be raised, including those who perished in the Flood. Unless of course you are like Danny and believe the Flood account is merely an epic myth and therefore not to be taken literally.
- 25 For I know that my Redeemer lives,
And He shall stand at last on the earth;
26 And after my skin is destroyed, this I know,
That in my flesh I shall see God,
27 Whom I shall see for myself,
And my eyes shall behold, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!
Are you saying that you believe the Image of God is immortality? Do you believe that the moment a person is conceived they are immortal? I don't.So my point or rather better my question, really relates to the immaterial part of man's constitutional nature or makeup as being in the Image of God. I am not referring therefore to merely the death of the "flesh".
From the Old Testament:
After Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, God said this:
- Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--(Gen3:22)
They didn't seem to lose the Image of God, however, since, as you pointed out, that's the reason God gave for punishing murderers, as well as the reason Paul gave for men to uncover their heads while praying (1Cr 11:7.)
I'm not really sure what the Image of God is in full, but I don't think it's immortality. I think God gives immortality to those who are in Christ.
- 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
55 "O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?" (I Cor 15: 50-55)
Rick_C did a great job with this passage...way better than I could ever hope to...unless I steal it from him.Apostle Paul said something interesting in I Cor.5:5 for example with regard to the "immoral brother"; "I have decided to deliver such a one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Here a distinction is being made between the 'destruction of the flesh' and a presevation of the man's spirit
unto the day of Jesus. Also in I John 5:16, what is the sin that leads to death? What death? Death of the flesh or body? Death of the spirit? Murder commited in the realm of the flesh could be a sin that leads to death under Gen 9:6, or even Pauls comment in I Cor 5:5, and may require a "giving over" of the person to destruction of the "flesh",i.e, execution under civil law. But it does not necessarliy follow his spirit will suffer God's destruction or annihilation especially if he is a believer. Just because we are 'saved from the wrath to come' by being in Jesus doesn't of course mean that when we sin even as believers, we escape the "sword of God's justice" in this life or age. If we steal, or murder, we will still suffer under God's principal law of 'sowing and reaping'. When we repent, there is still forgiveness with God. But God never delivers us from sins effects commited in this life. We will always reap what we sow in this life, whether in Jesus or not.
I guess to the child it does seem like torment for a while. For the parent, at least for me, it had a purpose, however, and that purpose was remedial which would make this a better analogy for the Universal Reconciliationists than for Eternal Torment-ists.BTW, "torment" is not at the hands of God. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. You are a mother right? Do you ever give your child a time out or restrict them? Don't you isolate them by removing them from the rest of the family and their normal activity?
It would seem like you were "tormenting" them, wouldn't it?
Nah, I was a perfect kid.Ever get restricted to your room for a long period by your parents?
Isn't it interesting that in the Old Testament there was a death penalty for stubborn and rebellious sons (Deut 21: 18-23)Now, put this 'restriction' on an eternal scale from God's perspective. He has given the 'wicked' life and breath. He has given them ample opportunity to repent. They have refused Jesus and the 'Good News". They have rejected God all their lives. They have become incorrigible. What would you do with an incorrigible child? If he refused to be corrected, would you kill him or isolate him? Or would you like many parents today, let their kids get away with whatever?
Now I am not being dogmatic. Just trying to understand the issue better.
You seem to believe what I've heard many times; that everyone lives forever, it's just a matter of where you'll spend eternity. It sounds like the wicked will spend eternity away from the presence of God - on permanent restriction - which I've heard, also, and which is a little more pleasant than "burning forever without any relief."
I have a hard time reading passages that use such terms as: death and perish and destroy; and making them mean unpleasant immortality, though.
Here's one of them:
- "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Mat 10:28 )
Same to you,Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!,
In Jesus,
Bob
Michelle
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Greetings,
tyvm
Paralleled in the Synoptics (Matt & Luke):
Mat 10:28 (RSV)
And fear not those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.
But rather fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in gehenna.
Lu 12:4-5 (RSV)
4 But I say to you, my friends, fear not those who kill the body and after these things have nothing left to do. 5 But I will show you whom to fear. Fear the one who, after killing, has authority to cast one into gehenna. Yes, I say to you, fear this one.
In Matthew's account Jesus was speaking only to his disciples; giving them instructions for their evangelistic mission (Mat 10:12 ff.). But in Luke, when a crowd was gathering around Jesus and his disciples, Jesus was initially talking with only his disciples ("spoke to them first", Lu 12:1). For context, note the warning in Lu 12:1, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."
It seems like when Jesus said "my friends" (Lu 12:4) may have been when he shifted to talking to the whole crowd, the disciples obviously included. If Luke 12 is the record of one occasion or one sermon; this is something else I need to look into....
Anyway. Later in Luke 12, Peter asks Jesus if he was speaking only to the disciples or also to the crowd (Lu 12:41). Yet there had been interaction with the crowd after the initial private conversation up to this point.
Back to my view: Number 1.
Steve Gregg pointed out in one of his lectures that Jesus rarely agreed with the Pharisees. And if Josephus was correct that the Pharisees believed in 'eternal torment'; it seems that Jesus is teaching 'conditional immortality' in the above passages and, thus was "contra-Pharisees" on the final state of the damned.
After warning about the Pharisees' 'leaven' he teaches the disciples and the crowd what his views are.
(I had mistaken Jesus actually speaking with the Pharisees in a Temple 'debate setting' about this, and was probably thinking of his disputes with the Sadducees over the reality of the resurrection where Jesus' 'refutation' was to simply say 'there will be a resurrection')! How can anyone win a debate with the Son of God?
In any event and needless to say, there were certainly Pharisees in the crowd Jesus spoke to. Based on the teachings of Jesus alone in these texts, it seems he taught 'conditional immortality' both privately to his disciples and to the public: That he 'just said it' over and against 'eternal torment' and/or Pharisaical doctrine. I don't see how another conclusion can be reached on this (?).
However, I know in the preterist view or at least according to some preterist viewpoints; "gehenna" is thought to be the firey judgment of the Jewish nation of 70AD. In this or these views, the 'gehenna judgment' has come and gone. Much more could be said about this but I'll defer till later.
Texts to compare:
Matthew 5 (RYLT)
21 `You heard that it was said to the ancients: You shall not kill, and whoever may kill shall be in danger of[1] the judgment; 22 but I -- I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of[1] the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! Shall be in danger of[1] the sanhedrim {the Sanhedrin Council} , and whoever may say, Rebel! Shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire[2].
[1] Greek, enoxos estai, "shall be in danger of, shall be subject to, shall be liable to this or that tribunal, i.e., guilty and liable to punishment imposed by this or that tribunal"
[2] Greek, enoxos estai eis gehennan tou puros, Literally, "shall be in danger of {subject to, liable to, etc.} the gehenna of [the] fire" (in other words, RYLT is correct).
5:30 `And, if your right hand does cause you to stumble, cut it off, and cast from you, for it is good to you that one of your members may perish, and not your whole body be cast to gehenna.
One thought about "the gehenna of the fire".
It has a similar ring with "the lake of fire" in Revelation. This brings other possible aspects into the discussion. In another thread I saw where Danny said he is leaning toward Full Preterism in so many words. So we might have a lot to talk and/or debate about!
Finally, in my initial post I mentioned that we can and should (imo) discern the teachings of different NT people, books, types of literary genres' and so on. This post is one on: The teachings of Jesus.
I hope y'all had a great Thanksgiving,
Rick
P.S. Michelle, how do you get verses to 'post in the middle' of the page?
Thanks all.
Michelle, that was the verse!I wrote:On to my view.
1. I believe there's evidence to suggest Jesus actually may have 'offered a rebuttal' to the Pharsisaical beliefs in 'eternal torment' and in favor of 'conditional immortality' (which I won't post now).
And saw where Michelle wrote:
I have a hard time reading passages that use such terms as: death and perish and destroy; and making them mean unpleasant immortality, though.
Here's one of them:
"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Mat 10:28 )
tyvmParalleled in the Synoptics (Matt & Luke):
Mat 10:28 (RSV)
And fear not those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.
But rather fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in gehenna.
Lu 12:4-5 (RSV)
4 But I say to you, my friends, fear not those who kill the body and after these things have nothing left to do. 5 But I will show you whom to fear. Fear the one who, after killing, has authority to cast one into gehenna. Yes, I say to you, fear this one.
In Matthew's account Jesus was speaking only to his disciples; giving them instructions for their evangelistic mission (Mat 10:12 ff.). But in Luke, when a crowd was gathering around Jesus and his disciples, Jesus was initially talking with only his disciples ("spoke to them first", Lu 12:1). For context, note the warning in Lu 12:1, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."
It seems like when Jesus said "my friends" (Lu 12:4) may have been when he shifted to talking to the whole crowd, the disciples obviously included. If Luke 12 is the record of one occasion or one sermon; this is something else I need to look into....
Anyway. Later in Luke 12, Peter asks Jesus if he was speaking only to the disciples or also to the crowd (Lu 12:41). Yet there had been interaction with the crowd after the initial private conversation up to this point.
Back to my view: Number 1.
Steve Gregg pointed out in one of his lectures that Jesus rarely agreed with the Pharisees. And if Josephus was correct that the Pharisees believed in 'eternal torment'; it seems that Jesus is teaching 'conditional immortality' in the above passages and, thus was "contra-Pharisees" on the final state of the damned.
After warning about the Pharisees' 'leaven' he teaches the disciples and the crowd what his views are.
(I had mistaken Jesus actually speaking with the Pharisees in a Temple 'debate setting' about this, and was probably thinking of his disputes with the Sadducees over the reality of the resurrection where Jesus' 'refutation' was to simply say 'there will be a resurrection')! How can anyone win a debate with the Son of God?
In any event and needless to say, there were certainly Pharisees in the crowd Jesus spoke to. Based on the teachings of Jesus alone in these texts, it seems he taught 'conditional immortality' both privately to his disciples and to the public: That he 'just said it' over and against 'eternal torment' and/or Pharisaical doctrine. I don't see how another conclusion can be reached on this (?).
However, I know in the preterist view or at least according to some preterist viewpoints; "gehenna" is thought to be the firey judgment of the Jewish nation of 70AD. In this or these views, the 'gehenna judgment' has come and gone. Much more could be said about this but I'll defer till later.
Texts to compare:
Matthew 5 (RYLT)
21 `You heard that it was said to the ancients: You shall not kill, and whoever may kill shall be in danger of[1] the judgment; 22 but I -- I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of[1] the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! Shall be in danger of[1] the sanhedrim {the Sanhedrin Council} , and whoever may say, Rebel! Shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire[2].
[1] Greek, enoxos estai, "shall be in danger of, shall be subject to, shall be liable to this or that tribunal, i.e., guilty and liable to punishment imposed by this or that tribunal"
[2] Greek, enoxos estai eis gehennan tou puros, Literally, "shall be in danger of {subject to, liable to, etc.} the gehenna of [the] fire" (in other words, RYLT is correct).
5:30 `And, if your right hand does cause you to stumble, cut it off, and cast from you, for it is good to you that one of your members may perish, and not your whole body be cast to gehenna.
One thought about "the gehenna of the fire".
It has a similar ring with "the lake of fire" in Revelation. This brings other possible aspects into the discussion. In another thread I saw where Danny said he is leaning toward Full Preterism in so many words. So we might have a lot to talk and/or debate about!
Finally, in my initial post I mentioned that we can and should (imo) discern the teachings of different NT people, books, types of literary genres' and so on. This post is one on: The teachings of Jesus.
I hope y'all had a great Thanksgiving,
Rick
P.S. Michelle, how do you get verses to 'post in the middle' of the page?
Thanks all.
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth