Beware of false Christian theologies

pauldla

Sorry to interrupt, but as an observer with no dog in the fight “everlasting destruction” does seem pretty definitive. It’s not the kind of punishment that’s accompanied by “and no iPad for a week”.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I answer your points in the order you made them as follows:

Dictionary.com online defines death as follows: " The end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism." That definition is good enough for me. I don't know where you got your assertion that " a person is dead before they are born again" from. You certainly did not get it from the Bible. Please reveal where you got it from ?

With respect, a dictionary isn't sufficient a terminus for theological definitions.

You'll notice the dictionary talks about an organism. But we are not talking about an organism - which is merely a vehicle carrying the spiritual element of a being around.

Romans 5/6 talk of spiritual death and resurrection - all whilst the organism lives.

And it's this spiritual element, which has been crucified and resurrected which you need to deal with. Sure, death means the end of the organism - but you appear to suppose it means the death of the totality of the person, which is something more than just the organism.

This is an example of a Bible verse which implies the total destruction of the wicked: "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." ( 2 Thess 1:9) ( The verse didn't say "total destruction" but that is what is meant by it.

1. I'm not trying to demonstrate my view correct. Rather, I'm positing an alternative view in order to stalemate your view. If two takes are possible and neither take can elevate itself above the other then stalemate.

2. "Everlasting" attached to a ruined-yet-still-existing-city merely means the ruined-yet-existing status going on forever. Being "shut out" works in that context - given usual uses of the term "being shut out" implying existence of those outside the gates. This verse harmonises fine with my view - even if it doesn't prove it.

antiskeptic

pauldla wrote: »

Sorry to interrupt, but as an observer with no dog in the fight “everlasting destruction” does seem pretty definitive. It’s not the kind of punishment that’s accompanied by “and no iPad for a week”.

We're arguing whether annihilation or existence in Hell. My view involves existence.


One picture is Berlin after the 2nd world war: utterly destroyed as a functioning city, but existing. The everlasting element merely means it won't ever be reconstructed. It will remain a ruined and broken, yet existent city .. forever.

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

With respect, a dictionary isn't sufficient a terminus for theological definitions.

You'll notice the dictionary talks about an organism. But we are not talking about an organism - which is merely a vehicle carrying the spiritual element of a being around.

Romans 5/6 talk of spiritual death and resurrection - all whilst the organism lives.

And it's this spiritual element, which has been crucified and resurrected which you need to deal with. Sure, death means the end of the organism - but you appear to suppose it means the death of the totality of the person, which is something more than just the organism.


1. I'm not trying to demonstrate my view correct. Rather, I'm positing an alternative view in order to stalemate your view. If two takes are possible and neither take can elevate itself above the other then stalemate.

2. "Everlasting" attached to a ruined-yet-still-existing-city merely means the ruined-yet-existing status going on forever. Being "shut out" works in that context - given usual uses of the term "being shut out" implying existence of those outside the gates. This verse harmonises fine with my view - even if it doesn't prove it.

When you said the following in your post of 28.2.18 " We know a person is dead before they are born again. Dead, yet existing." I thought you were taking about a physical death. In your reply, you referred to a spiritual death and resurrection in Romans 5/6 which I could not find. Precise give me the precise biblical reference.

I am well aware you are trying to counter my view but you have not come up
with anything conclusive in that respect.

You are well aware that I do not agree with the analogy you have come up with in respect of Berlin because it was not created by God but man. Had you used a wild beast, or a domestic pet such as a dog, in your analogy that would be valid because the Bible tells us they were created by God.

I have found an excellent piece on the Internet titled : " Are The Dead Really Dead ? ", which exactly coincides with my beliefs on this subject and related matters. It can be accessed here:
https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/study-guide/e/4987/t/are-the-dead-really-dead-

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

When you said the following in your post of 28.2.18 " We know a person is dead before they are born again. Dead, yet existing." I thought you were taking about a physical death. In your reply, you referred to a spiritual death and resurrection in Romans 5/6 which I could not find. Precise give me the precise biblical reference.

My bad. In discussions like this, you rely on certain common ground from which to push off on the areas where we disagree. I know you don't believe in the immortal soul, but it appears you don't believe in the soul at all - judging by your link.

Since it's not going to be possible to work through the argument of Romans, given the lack of common ground, I'll stick to slivers of scripture.

John 3:36. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life.

Has = present tense.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Has eternal life. Has passed from death to life. Since this all occurs whilst the person is physically alive, the death involved isn't a physical one.

1 John 5:11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life

Past tense.

Romans7: 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.



An example where "death" doesn't mean physical death. He died. Past tense.


Now I know you can wriggle around on this and suppose "has eternal life" as one has a yet to be cashed in lotto ticket. The wealth is to come later. Or suppose "I died" to mean subject to future physical death. But there is no particular need to.

You are well aware that I do not agree with the analogy you have come up with in respect of Berlin because it was not created by God but man.

This discussion is a matter of semantics: the meaning of words. We have seen generally speaking, that the word "destroy" doesn't necessarily mean annihilation.

God can destroy and maintain the destructed-yet-existing state just as man can destroy and maintain the destructed-yet-existing state. The focus is on the meaning of the verb, not the subject or the object in the sentence.

If you want to suppose it does mean annihilation in a particular case (because, for instance, it is God created the object he is now destroying) then it's up to you to show it. You need some kind of secret sauce to transcend the basic meaning of words.

I have found an excellent piece on the Internet titled : " Are The Dead Really Dead ? ", which exactly coincides with my beliefs on this subject and related matters. It can be accessed here:
https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/study-guide/e/4987/t/are-the-dead-really-dead-

A bit too heavy on the bald assertion front for me.

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

My bad. In discussions like this, you rely on certain common ground from which to push off on the areas where we disagree. I know you don't believe in the immortal soul, but it appears you don't believe in the soul at all - judging by your link.

Since it's not going to be possible to work through the argument of Romans, given the lack of common ground, I'll stick to slivers of scripture.

John 3:36. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life.

Has = present tense.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Has eternal life. Has passed from death to life. Since this all occurs whilst the person is physically alive, the death involved isn't a physical one.

1 John 5:11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life

Past tense.

Romans7: 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.



An example where "death" doesn't mean physical death. He died. Past tense.


Now I know you can wriggle around on this and suppose "has eternal life" as one has a yet to be cashed in lotto ticket. The wealth is to come later. Or suppose "I died" to mean subject to future physical death. But there is no particular need to.


This discussion is a matter of semantics: the meaning of words. We have seen generally speaking, that the word "destroy" doesn't necessarily mean annihilation.

God can destroy and maintain the destructed-yet-existing state just as man can destroy and maintain the destructed-yet-existing state. The focus is on the meaning of the verb, not the subject or the object in the sentence.

If you want to suppose it does mean annihilation in a particular case (because, for instance, it is God created the object he is now destroying) then it's up to you to show it. You need some kind of secret sauce to transcend the basic meaning of words.


A bit too heavy on the bald assertion front for me.

I comment on your post in the order of your points as follows.

You are right to assume that I do not believe in the immortal soul. The following Bible verses all either state or imply that the reward of immortality is given after Jesus Christ returns to the earth and carries out the resurrection: Daniel 12:2, Luke 14:14, Revelation 22:12, Matthew 16:27, John 5:28/29, John 6:40, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16.

There cannot be contradictions within the Bible therefore verses like
John 3:36. " Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life." should be interpreted as" has earned eternal life to be granted at the resurrection of the dead". It should be borne in mind that the dead fall into two categories: the " firstfruits " or those who died " in Christ " who are resurrected to immortality; and the rest who are resurrected and judged and are either rewarded or punished based on the judgement.

Therefore the only death recognised in the Bible is a physical one in which all parts of a person ceases to function from once God removes the spirit- the breath of life.

The word "destroy" in the context of God's judgement on the wicked means: " get rid of for ever so no trace is left ". , That is good enough for me but may not satisfy your definition of annihilation.

You should not dismiss the contents of the link that I gave concerning the state of the dead with the words " A bit too heavy on the bald assertion front for me ", because all the statements made in it are founded on the Bible. For the benefit of readers of this thread, here is the link again:
https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/study-guide/e/4987/t/are-the-dead-really-dead-

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

You are right to assume that I do not believe in the immortal soul.

Your link doesn't appear to believe in the (spiritual) soul at all. It views God breathing into Adam as merely giving him physical life.

Daniel 12:2

2"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt

I don't think anyone is arguing that there isn't physical death from which resurrection. Interestingly, your own verse uses the word sleep. Sleeping isn't a non-existent state.

Physical resurrection doesn't conflict with eternal life starting in this life, as verses already given indicate has happened.

Luke 14:14

More resurrection. No conflict here

Matthew 16:27

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done


Relevance?

There cannot be contradictions within the Bible

Indeed. But you haven't shown one yet. Rather, you assume the position that death means total end and work from there. It's this assumption I've been querying.

therefore verses like
John 3:36. " Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life." should be interpreted as" has earned eternal life to be granted at the resurrection of the dead". It should be borne in mind that the dead fall into two categories: the " firstfruits " or those who died " in Christ " who are resurrected to immortality; and the rest who are resurrected and judged and are either rewarded or punished based on the judgement.


Therefore the only death recognised in the Bible is a physical one in which all parts of a person ceases to function from once God removes the spirit- the breath of life.

You've done as I supposed you would do:

"Now I know you can wriggle around on this and suppose "has eternal life" as one has a yet to be cashed in lotto ticket. The wealth is to come later. Or suppose "I died" to mean subject to future physical death. But there is no particular need to."

Nothing you've said forces one to read as you read it. I can more easily take "I died (whilst physically alive)" to mean "I died (whilst physically alive)" and "have eternal life" to mean "have eternal life". I don't have to project an idea onto scripture - rather I deduce what I hold to be the case from scripture.

It's not as if there isn't ample support for the notion of people being dead to God and coming alive to God ...in this life.

The word "destroy" in the context of God's judgement on the wicked means: " get rid of for ever so no trace is left ". , That is good enough for me but may not satisfy your definition of annihilation.

Your bolded bit is a good enough definition of annihilation. But you haven't shown why we should take destroy to mean this. You're simply reasserting it here.

Graces7

Serenity Quaint Bedroom wrote: »

What I mean is that there is only One Church. The church of the redeemed ones. You must be a Christian to be part of it and visa versa.
It's a Church which has its place in both heaven and earth. Just read Hebrews!

Can you ( and this is not a challenge!)qualify this from the words of Jesus, please?

enfant terrible

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your bolded bit is a good enough definition of annihilation. But you haven't shown why we should take destroy to mean this. You're simply reasserting it here.

Is the original Greek work you guys are debating "apollumi"?

Here is an article looking at the use of "apollumi in the Greek Scriptures.

http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/wicked2.htm

antiskeptic

Graces7 wrote: »

Can you ( and this is not a challenge!)qualify this from the words of Jesus, please?

We haven't got the words of Jesus. We have the words of people who purport to report the words of Jesus.

We rely on the notion of God inspired. Hebrews thus on a par with "the words of Jesus"