12 reasons why hell is not eternal conscious torment
- Thread starter Classic Rider
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Funny how you can come up with something I've asked a few times but can't produce even ONE of your own direct responses? I can't help it if you refuse to deal with anything and keep going in circles.Butch5 said:
Throughout this post, and also in other posts, is a repeated reference to EG White and T Russell. It appears that Mr Parker is attempting to defame all who disagree with him on this subject on the basis of association. Is he doing this because he doesn't have a leg to stand on using sound exegesis? And he has the temerity to charge us all with poor exegesis?JimParker said:
Canadian theologian Clark Pinnock in his book Four Views on Hell writes: "It seems that a new criterion for truth has been discovered which says that if Adventists or liberals hold any view, that view must be wrong. Apparently a truth claim can be decided by its association and does not need to be tested by public criteria in open debate. Such an argument, though useless in intelligent discussion, can be effective with the ignorant who are fooled by such rhetoric." Cited in Immortality or Resurrection by Samuelle Bacchiocchi.
I would suggest that if Mr Parker is the good theologian he claims to be, he ought to be taking into account all perspectives from other theologians on the subject, before rendering a judgement. A good place to start, if he can get over his bigotry regarding "sects", would be the aforementioned book by Bacchiocchi, available here...https://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/immortality_resurrection/ or if he prefers, perhaps he could access some of the recent findings on the subject by the highly respected evangelical John Stott?
We are all affected one way or another by our traditions Jim, even Biblical language experts. It takes humility and courage to buck the prevailing current of tradition, and to study this subject without recourse to the opinion of others, and to hold the subject up in light of the scriptures alone. It is true that I am not a theologian. I rely on others to teach me. I read widely, have done for all 40 years of my Christian walk. I started out my Christian life powerfully influenced by the likes of Hal Lindsay, Watchman Nee, and David Wilkerson. I do not rely solely on the Holy Spirit, but trust in almighty God to lead me into all truth, using His servants as He sees fit. I have over the years learned much, but one rule I cling to for dear life...I trust no man or woman or institution without recourse to the Bible. There the Holy Spirit lets me know clearly when I am being lied to. I well remember just a few short months after becoming a Christian and being totally ignorant of Christian truth, doctrine, and theology, becoming physically ill when I first picked up a Book of Mormon, which I had never heard of previously. That nauseous feeling in the pit of my stomach immediately subsided the moment I put it down. Not that I rely on 'gut feelings' (pun intended) today, but certainly trust God to live up to His promises that He would guide into all truth those who love and seek truth.
No offense Jim, but this seems to be the argument with everyone so far. I am not uneducated or ignorant and I gave you sound arguments for what I believe. However, it seems to me that you continue to beat the same drum.JimParker said:
No doubt. However, he said he was going to refute my doctrine. I am just waiting for that.ATP said:
<< I am not uneducated or ignorant>>Butch5 said:
Have you had training in Biblical languages, hermeneutics, the literary forms of the Bible, classes which dealt specifically with the Pentateuch, history, wisdom literature, Psalms, Hebrew prophets, Gospels, letters, Pauline theology, etc.? Those are subjects which are germane to discussions of theology.
Everyone is ignorant and uneducated in all but a few fields. You may have a Ph.D. in physics or philosophy and still be uneducated and ignorant with regard to interpretation of the Bible and the basis of Christian doctrine. Don't ask me to do calculus!
<I gave you sound arguments for what I believe.>>
Apparently I did not find them convincing.
And I go back to the fact that one doesn't have to be a Bible scholar to see contradictions. Just like one doesn't have to be a mathematician to know that 1+1 doesn't equal three.JimParker said:<< I am not uneducated or ignorant>>
Have you had training in Biblical languages, hermeneutics, the literary forms of the Bible, classes which dealt specifically with the Pentateuch, history, wisdom literature, Psalms, Hebrew prophets, Gospels, letters, Pauline theology, etc.? Those are subjects which are germane to discussions of theology.
Everyone is ignorant and uneducated in all but a few fields. You may have a Ph.D. in physics or philosophy and still be uneducated and ignorant with regard to interpretation of the Bible and the basis of Christian doctrine. Don't ask me to do calculus!
<I gave you sound arguments for what I believe.>>
Apparently I did not find them convincing.
Jim, are you suggesting that only those who have degrees in these subjects you've listed can be saved? I mean really, if those who don't have degrees in these fields can't even have enough understanding to hold a conversation how in the world could they possibly understand enough to be saved?
If you're not a professional driver does that mean you can't drive? What about you're pay check Jim? Is the accountant a mathematician? if not who do you know you're not being ripped off?
Seriously, I have to agree with Brakelite here, I think you're hiding behind this argument so as not to have to defend the traditional position.
When you're finished with your mutual admiration society maybe you can get down to actually addressing my requests and stop bloviating.Butch5 said:
<< one doesn't have to be a Bible scholar to see contradictions. >.Butch5 said:
But not being a scholar opens one to "seeing" contradictions where none exist. (Particularly when the "seer" doesn't research what he thinks is a contradiction.)
<< one doesn't have to be a mathematician to know that 1+1 doesn't equal three.>>
False analogy.
We aren't talking about elementary arithmetic that a 6-year-old can master. We're talking about our eternal life or eternal death.
<<Jim, are you suggesting that only those who have degrees in these subjects you've listed can be saved?>>
Absolutely not and I never suggested anything like that.
<<if those who don't have degrees in these fields can't even have enough understanding to hold a conversation how in the world could they possibly understand enough to be saved?>>
By trusting in Jesus to save them. As the "Jesus Prayer" says; "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner."
<< If you're not a professional driver does that mean you can't drive? >>
Another false analogy. There are levels of driving. In fact I can't drive an 18-wheeled semi and I can't drive in a NASCAR race because, even though I can drive a passenger car, I am not competent to drive a semi or a NASCAR race car.
Your analogy fails because you are mixing levels of competence as if they were equal. So when (an actual occurrence) a grammar-school dropout tells me (BA in English plus 3 Master's Degrees including one in theology) that I don't understand the Bible, I ignore his attempts to "straighten me out" but still comment on his crackpot notions of what the (KJV) Bible says so as to clarify for others why his "interpretation" is less than accurate.
<<What about you're pay check Jim?>>
What pay check???? And same false analogy. No one needs a Ph.d. in mathematics to figure out what their gross pay should be if they can keep track of their hours and remember what their pay rate is. It's basic arithmetic.
Of course the average person with a 4th grade reading level (about the level of a high school graduate in the USA) can understand the basics of Christianity. Completely illiterate and uneducated people can.
But that's a whole different ball game than that "average person with a 4th grade reading level", who may be qualified to drive a semi rig, pontificating on why your soul is your body or why Jesus is Michael the archangel or some other equally absurd nonsense.
You're asking the wrong questions.
How about, if you needed surgery, would you go to a person who had a doctorate in medicine and was a board certified surgeon or would you go to someone who reads a book on surgery every day and looks up all the big words in a dictionary?
<<I think you're hiding behind this argument so as not to have to defend the traditional position.>>
I have repeatedly defended the "traditional" position, primarily from scripture.
Maybe you just validated my argument. I have repeatedly defended my "traditional" position and you haven't understood it.
You are absolutely correct in this regard, which is why we are admonished to study the word and test all spirits. Of course it doesn't hurt to learn sound hermeneutical principles, as long as that if what we do learn and not dogma from the denomination that supports the educational institution we attend.Butch5 said:
JimParker said:
That may be true to some extent, however, that doesn’t mean one can just assume that because someone isn’t a scholar any contradiction they see is invalid. So far that about all I’ve seen you say Jim. Every time someone says something you disagree with you claim they’re not a scholar.
Do you extensively research every person you read to make sure they are a qualified scholar in the particular area in which you are studying? I doubt that you do.
It’s not a false analogy. If the Bible can only be understood by the Scholarly then there isn’t much hope for anyone else. Yet the Scriptures tell us to come to Christ as child. I don’t know many children who are Bible Scholars or fluent in Biblical Greek and Hebrew.
How then can anyone other than the Scholars be saved? If everyone else is ignorant then how can they be saved?
But Jim, there’s nothing like that in the Scriptures. The sinners prayer isn’t in the Scriptures.
The analogy doesn’t fail because you’re rejecting anyone who doesn’t have a degree as ignorant. I don’t have BA in English or Masters in Theology, however, my IQ is in the top 5 percent of people in American so you are not conversing with a grammar school dropout. I understand how to form a logical argument and I also know contradictions when I see them.
However, just because one has a degree in anything only means they’ve studied something, it doesn’t mean what they studied is true. I made this point before. There are those who have degrees in both Arminian and Reformed theology and these systems teach opposing doctrines from the same Scriptures. Logic dictates that both cannot be correct. So, at least one of them is wrong. That means one of them has a degree is error. At least one of them who has a degree doesn’t properly understand the Bible.
Jim, one doesn’t have to be ignorant to be wrong as I pointed out above. Let me ask this. You have a masters in Theology, correct? When did you answer my question about say one could be saved by saying the sinners prayer? Where do you see anything in Scripture that suggests one is saved by saying the sinners prayer?
That would depend on whether or not I trusted the board that did the certification. Personally, I don’t trust doctors very much, they’re to quick to hand out a pill. But let me remind you of the all of the unnecessary surgeries that are done, the mistakes that are made, the people who die, etc. just because one is board certified doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes. Also there is little difference between your analogy and Theology. If I go to the surgeon, I’m not likely to find 35 different opinions on how it should be performed. One can find just about any theology they want to believe.
I’m not aware of anywhere you’ve done this, however, if you could point me to a post or two I’d be happy to look at it, cause, believe me, I’d understand it.
What is you method of Hermeneutics?StanJ said:
see post 426StanJ said:
Well the first 6 were not directed to me so obviously I would answer then nor probably read them. The members you did address them to are more than capable of answering you.Butch5 said:
Post 310 was addressed in 320, 321 in 324, 329 in 337, and 339 in 344.
I asked for ONE example but your MO seems to be to inundate us with quantity and obfuscation, not quality or exegesis.
Please place you call again.
It's not MY method, it's THE method and it's properly practised by exegesis....you should try it.Butch5 said:
The internet is full of definitions which I'm sure you can find on your own.
I'm not going to delve into every post reference that developed between you and Butch, but would like to comment on this one, because it touches on something I brought up myself. Your reply here is in response to Butch's (and mine) quote from Jude, which you have repeated above, this time from the NKJV. I would like to submit YLT if I may, and see if it sheds any light on the discussionStanJ said:
YLT Jude:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, having given themselves to whoredom, and gone after other flesh, have been set before — an example, of fire age-during, justice suffering.
To me it is clear. It is the punishment of the cities that is set forth as an example for wicked men. This punishment is a common denominator between the two, because their sin is the same also. The cities would not be an example if there were any difference between the two punishments. So, what is that punishment? It certainly is not the 'never-ending' punishing commonly connected to the English word 'eternal'.' Age during ' means that the fires burned until such time as they had completed their work. This is corroberated by history in that the cities are destroyed, and no longer burning. Right? So the problem in our understanding is not that the punishment is ever-continuing, but rather with our understanding of the word 'eternal'. It is evident that the fire that destroyed the two cities is eternal, not because of its duration but because of its permanent results.
The YLT is about as reliable as the KJV is brakelite so this doesn't hold much water.brakelite said:
If you want a Jewish rendering then try the OJB, which follows;
As S’dom and Amora and the cities around them, in a doime (similar) manner to these, indulging in gilui arayot (sexual immorality) against the course of nature and turning aside and going after alien flesh, are set forth to lie in public view as a mofet (example), undergoing the onesh of Eish Olam (Eternal Fire, YESHAYAH 66:24; Mt 25:46; Rv 20:10).
To me it is abundantly clear that the people of S & G were EXAMPLES of those who WILL suffer ETERNAL fire. You can strive all you want about these words but they will not change their meaning. The two go together but are NOT the same.
I've asked a few times now, but are you JW? Who here on this thread IS JW?
[SIZE=14pt]That may be true to some extent, however, that doesn’t mean one can just assume that because someone isn’t a scholar any contradiction they see is invalid.[/SIZE]Butch5 said:
[SIZE=14pt]That is true. However, the methodology used in identifying the alleged contradiction might be invalid due to lack of training. And that is what I have addressed and attempted to explain the error in the method.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]To no avail, unfortunately.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Every time someone says something you disagree with you claim they’re not a scholar.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]That is not accurate. I have asked on several occasions why I should accept the conclusion of an untrained person over that of an expert in the field like Moody, Spurgeon, Luther, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]No one has answered that question.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Do you extensively research every person you read to make sure they are a qualified scholar in the particular area in which you are studying?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Do you think I need to do that for people like [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Moody, Spurgeon, Luther, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, etc. or can I safely assume that they are experts?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]If the Bible can only be understood by the Scholarly then there isn’t much hope for anyone else.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]I never said that was the case. I have pointed out that the “proofs” that have been offered are seriously inadequate due to lack of training.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]How then can anyone other than the Scholars be saved? If everyone else is ignorant then how can they be saved? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Again, I never suggested anything like that.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]there’s nothing like that in the Scriptures. The sinners prayer isn’t in the Scriptures.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]So what is your point?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]There are those who have degrees in both Arminian and Reformed theology and these systems teach opposing doctrines from the same Scriptures.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]I have encountered neither of those gentlemen in any forum. We’re not talking about them.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]I have encountered quite a few people with no where near the education of either Calvin or Arminius, proclaiming totally crackpot notions and having no clue as to what their talking about or how to “rightfully divide the scripture.” But that doesn’t stop them from telling everyone else that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]I have repeatedly asked why I should accept some crackpot opinion about “soul sleep” and similar nonsense that is contrary to everything that had been taught for almost two thousand years. No one ever answers that question. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]You seem to be saying that a theological education is of no advantage in understanding scripture. If that is your point, your are wrong. It is a great advantage. It isn’t necessary for salvation but it is an extremely valuable tool in understanding scripture and a good defense against all the “winds of doctrine” with which untrained people are so easily enchanted. (Look how wealthy televangelists can get preaching ear-tickling tripe!)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]I’m fed up with ignorant people wanting to straighten me out on how Jesus is Michael the Archangel and similar nonsense. I’ll respond to such a person who poste to me once or twice and then, if I can’t get through to them, I’ll follow Paul’s advice and have nothing to do with such divisive people. ([/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Tit 3:10http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Tit&c=3&v=10&t=NIV#s=1132010[/SIZE])
[SIZE=14pt]I have no need to accept the babbling of some ignoramus as being of equivalent authority to the teaching of the Cappadocians or Athanasius or Gregory Palamas or Seraphim of Sarov etc. That notion is pure rubbish. Just as I am not capable of discussing quantum mechanics with a physicist, not everyone I encounter is qualified to discuss theology with me. And there are many, many theologians that I do not discuss anything with; I just shut up, listen attentively, and take notes.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Everyone has the right to speak his mind. Some would do well to remain silent.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Pro 17:28 [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.[/SIZE]
Similar threads
