One on One: Eternal Damnation VS Universal Salvation (Logos_X VS Apologist)
- Thread starter Apologist
- Start date
- Status
logos_x
New member
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
I think Genesis 3:22 knda has the tendancy to refute your notions Apologist. God pretected man from living forever without there being any remedy. What did God really accomplish in protecting man from living forever, if man lives forever anyway?
Your "logic" stems completely upon the idea of the innate immortality of the human soul. People who beleive in this idea don't think God really did much of anything in preventing Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of life. They think this refers only to physical life, but not to the soul.
And they have turned death into something God himself cannot remedy for all men...because of the construct that you have expressed.
But this construct is not found in God's word anywhere. If fact, virtually every construct that you have expressed as necessary Christian belief are things that scripture itself refutes. But when those scriptures are brought up...there is a dull thud and the desperate whimper that those scriptures cannot mean what they in fact say.
You have even gone so far as to say that they are irrelevent.
So...there we are. Your whole plausibility structure flies in the face of scriptural testimony like smoke. And your arguments have not stood up to scrutiny and have been shown to be damned nonsense. But you cling to the eternal torment doctrine like a sucking child thinking it nourishes and sustains you. And...your church has a history of murdering people who question the doctrine, and insisting that the whole human race must believe in this Hell of yours and its insatiable appitite that even God Himself cannot (or will not) give sufficient Grace to remedy.
I have a mind to watch Lord of the Rings again, and veiwing the ring as the belief in eternal torment.
But, before I do I'll ask a few more questions:
1.) Do you ardently DESIRE the salvation of all men?
2.) Is it true that God "openeth his hand and satisfieth the desire of every living thing?" -- (Ps. 145:16)
3.) Do you fervently PRAY for the salvation of all men? (1 Tim. 2:1)
5.) Do you pray in FAITH, nothing doubting? (James 1:6)
6.) Are you aware, "that whatsoever is not of faith is sin?" -- (Rom 14:23)
7.) Would God require us to pray for all men, and to pray in faith, unless He intends all men should be saved?
8.) If you believe endless misery to be the truth of God, why should you desire and pray that it may prove false?
2.) Is it true that God "openeth his hand and satisfieth the desire of every living thing?" -- (Ps. 145:16)
3.) Do you fervently PRAY for the salvation of all men? (1 Tim. 2:1)
5.) Do you pray in FAITH, nothing doubting? (James 1:6)
6.) Are you aware, "that whatsoever is not of faith is sin?" -- (Rom 14:23)
7.) Would God require us to pray for all men, and to pray in faith, unless He intends all men should be saved?
8.) If you believe endless misery to be the truth of God, why should you desire and pray that it may prove false?
1.) If God willed the endless misery of a part of His creatures, why is it said that "he will have all men to be saved?" -- (1 Tim. 2:4)
2.) If the Scriptures should testify, that God "will have all men to be damned," could we safely infer that a part might be saved?
3.) If the Scriptures testify, that God "will have all men to be saved," can we safely infer that a part may be damned?
2.) If the Scriptures should testify, that God "will have all men to be damned," could we safely infer that a part might be saved?
3.) If the Scriptures testify, that God "will have all men to be saved," can we safely infer that a part may be damned?
1.) Can sufficient provision be made for the salvation of all men, if some men are never saved?
2.) Must not sufficient provision be sufficient to subdue the will of the creature?
3.) Is there any other way to determine the sufficiency of the means employed, than by the accomplishment of the end designed?
2.) Must not sufficient provision be sufficient to subdue the will of the creature?
3.) Is there any other way to determine the sufficiency of the means employed, than by the accomplishment of the end designed?
logos_x
New member
And one more question.
I would like you to consider the following passage of scripture and explain why it says what it says.
1Ti 6:12 Exert all your strength in the honourable struggle for the faith; lay hold of the Life of the Ages, to which you were called, when you made your noble profession of faith before many witnesses.
1Ti 6:13 I charge you--as in the presence of God who gives life to all creatures, and of Christ Jesus who at the bar of Pontius Pilate made a noble profession of faith--
1Ti 6:14 that you keep God's commandments stainlessly and without reproach till the Appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Ti 6:15 For, as its appointed time, this will be brought about by the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
1Ti 6:16 who alone possesses immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, and whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be eternal honour and power! Amen.
I would like you to consider the following passage of scripture and explain why it says what it says.
1Ti 6:12 Exert all your strength in the honourable struggle for the faith; lay hold of the Life of the Ages, to which you were called, when you made your noble profession of faith before many witnesses.
1Ti 6:13 I charge you--as in the presence of God who gives life to all creatures, and of Christ Jesus who at the bar of Pontius Pilate made a noble profession of faith--
1Ti 6:14 that you keep God's commandments stainlessly and without reproach till the Appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Ti 6:15 For, as its appointed time, this will be brought about by the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
1Ti 6:16 who alone possesses immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, and whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be eternal honour and power! Amen.
:thumb: Notably, God wasn't really protecting man when he cast him out of the garden from the tree of life. That was a punishment. He wasn't "protecting man from having immortality." He was casting man out of what he might otherwise have been freely given, because man had attempted to steal it.
God can remedy it for all men. He did that when Christ Jesus suffered and died on the cross for us. Unfortunately, not all men are willing to accept it.
Sure, but the desire for salvation of men does not mean that those men will take the initiative to repent and believe.
Sure, presuming that said living things ask for it. "Ask and ye shall recieve, seek and ye shall find." "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness; they shall be filled."
A chaplet of the divine mercy every Saturday, the 15 prayers of St. Bridget nightly, and the rosary every so often. I am gonna say the Rosary more, however, when i finish the 15 prayers of St. Bridget. (Only like 40 days left! :dunce: )
Intention does not necessarily demand fulfillment.
logos_x
New member
Apologist said:
He cast them out "lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever".
Yes it was a punishment but it was not eternal.
How do you know?
Hell would motivate them.
Hell will correct this oversight.
Why?
Horse Hockey!
Answer the question.
Horse Hockey!
What is possible?
Will He "do all my pleasure" as He says He will?
I'm not dodging, you are.
I disagree with you. Are you surprized?
What you are saying here is speculation. I don't believe it. I think it is a lie.
But if it weren't a lie...what does it actually say? That God put some of Himself into man...and made things so that this part of Himself will burn forever if man uses his "free" will to sin against the very thing placed inside him.
Not only is it nonsense, but it is circular. You insist that it must be so or eternal torment would not be true. I'm saying Hell is corrective...which would be more consistent with your position that the soul is immortal because it is made of "God stuff". You still haven't said anything of consequence that necessitates a belief in eternal torment.
One of the biggest inconsistencies that you are ignoring is God never says anything at all about eternal torment when he tells Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And that death is the "wages" of sin...from cover to cover in the Bible...not eternal torment.
You continue to ignore these salient points and refuse to even acknowledge that they, in fact, refute your premise. All so you can maintain your plausibility structure at the expense of credibility. You're believing a lie of Satan "you will not surely die" and thereby made death supreme even in light of Christ's complete victory over it.
That you cannot see that, or are merely unwilling to admit it, I cannot tell.
Last edited:
logos_x
New member
In this discussion, as with all my discussions on this subject, one thing becomes glaringly obvious.
There is a motivation that is difficult to justify on the part of damnationalists.
They doubt universalism, they doubt annihilationism...but flat out refuse to doubt that their perceptions in regard to eternal torment might in fact be erroneous. This in spite of the fact that it deserves to be proved to be so in order for it to be believed.
Why?
Apologist, I'm curious. What motivates you to never question that eternal torment is true?
There is a motivation that is difficult to justify on the part of damnationalists.
They doubt universalism, they doubt annihilationism...but flat out refuse to doubt that their perceptions in regard to eternal torment might in fact be erroneous. This in spite of the fact that it deserves to be proved to be so in order for it to be believed.
Why?
Apologist, I'm curious. What motivates you to never question that eternal torment is true?
logos_x said:
Which is, of course, where our opinions, though the same scriptures are used, much be divergent.
Satanism
Atheism
Judaism
Paganism and Heathanism
Pick 1 of two options:
A) Either the soul is indestructable or
B) Hellfire would consume it and burn it to ashes.
Logos_x said:
How can something static be corrected?
Logos, i want to dance the disco with Elvis. Unfortunately, Elvis is dead, and he didn't dance the disco. Therefore, while i may desire it, there is no reason to think it will happen.
Sounds like your problem.
Sounds good to me!
Sounds good to me :thumb:
Wrong. My logical argument is anything but circular. All that it requires is the concession that the soul issues from the being of God as opposed to being created from another substance. This is proven when it says that God "Breathed into man the breath of life." All else logically follows.
Unfortunately, that is your opinion. You openly conceded in your OP that Universalism is "A completely different way of viewing scripture." Likewise, however, because i view the Scriptures in a completely different light, your opinion and my opinion of what the bible says holds absolutely no grounds in this particular section of this topic.
Again, this is where Scripture alone fails to be sufficient. We are reading the exact same thing, and seeing two totally different things.
logos_x
New member
Apologist said:
Indeed.
Or, Hellfire consumes sin , evil, Hades...even death...from the entire Universe including souls.
Hmmm...must not be static!
You, thankfully, could not cause such a thing to happen.
We are talking about God...not you.
believe me, it isn't a problem.
Probably wouldn't sound very good to the vast magority of people, though. Nor to God.
And it is bunk. Therefore eternal torment is bunk as well.
Are you getting upset?
Then...you conceed that there is no way to win this argument?
logos_x
New member
Beliefs of the early Church
Beliefs of the early Church
Very well...since an appeal to scripture is something you seem to think will be unable to resolve the issue...then what is left but to show what some of the Church fathers believed and taught that shows that they also disagreed with eternal torment and the supposed staticity of souls after death.
So...here we go:
As you can see, these men saw the same as I do. I'm not out here all alone beleiving something that is made up.
In fact, if you want to go with Church History...I can show that the prevailing doctrine was Universal Salvation for about the first 500 years of Christianity.
As I said before: An honest look at history shows that the majority of the early church believed that all would eventually be saved. The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge by Schaff-Herzog says in volume 12, page 96, “In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.”
That is a lot of history to cover up and dismiss as heretical, Apologist. As long as history since the European discovery of America!
The second major church council composed of hundreds of bishops from the entire church met in Constantinople in 381 AD and elected Gregory of Nazianzus, an avowed Universalist, as president proving clearly that the great majority of the church leadership at the end of the fourth century believed in universal salvation. Yet today universal salvation is considered a heresy in most denominations. The early church -- better versed in the original languages of the Scriptures and closer to the apostles’ teachings --- thought otherwise. Who do you think is more likely to have the truth? The early Church or the thousands of divisions of Christianity formed by men “drawing disciples after themselves” centuries later? (Acts 20:30)
More for your consideration can be seen HERE
Beliefs of the early Church
Apologist said:
Very well...since an appeal to scripture is something you seem to think will be unable to resolve the issue...then what is left but to show what some of the Church fathers believed and taught that shows that they also disagreed with eternal torment and the supposed staticity of souls after death.
So...here we go:
And God showed great kindness to man, in this, that He did not suffer him to continue being in sin forever; but as it were, by a kind of banishement, cast him out of paradise in order that, having punishment expiated within an appointed time, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be recalled...just as a vessel, when one being fashioned it has some flaw, is remoulded or remade that it may become new and entire; so also it happens to man by death. For he is broken up by force, that in the resurrection he may be found whole; I mean spotless, righteous and immortal. --Theophilus of Antioch (168 A.D.)
Wherefore also he drove him out of paradise and removed him far from the tree of life, not because He envied him the tree of life, as some dare assert, but because He pitied him and desired that he should not be immortal and the evil interminable and irremediable. --Iraneaus of Lyons (182 A.D.)
For it is evident that God will in truth be all in all when there shall be no evil in existence, when every created being is at harmony with iteself and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; when every creature shall have been made one body. --Gregory of Nyssa, 335-390
We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer to redeem, to rescue, to discipline in his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life. –Clement of Alexandria
Do not suppose that the soul is punished for endless eons (apeirou aionas) in Tartarus. Very properly, the soul is not punished to gratify the revenge of the divinity, but for the sake of healing. But we say that the soul is punished for an aionion period (aionios) calling its life and its allotted period of punishment, its aeon. --Olnmpiodorus (AD 550)
That in the world to come, those who have done evil all their life long, will be made worthy of the sweetness of the Divine bounty. For never would Christ have said, "You will never get out until you have paid the last penny" unless it were possible for us to get cleansed when we paid the debt. --Peter Chrysologus, 435
In the liberation of all no one remains a captive! At the time of the Lord's passion the devil alone was injured by losing all the of the captives he was keeping. --Didymus, 370 AD
The nations are gathered to the Judgment, that on them may be poured out the wrath of the fury of the Lord, and this in pity and with a design to heal. in order that every one may return to the confession of the Lord, that in Jesus' Name every knee may bow, and every tongue may confess that He is Lord. All God's enemies shall perish, not that they cease to exist, but cease to be enemies.—Jerome (340 to 420 A.D), commenting on Zephaniah 3:8-10
Our Savior has appointed two kinds of resurrection in the Apocalypse. 'Blessed is he that hath part in the first resurrection,' for such come to grace without the judgment. As for those who do not come to the first, but are reserved unto the second resurrection, these shall be disciplined until their appointed times, between the first and the second resurrection.-- Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (340-397 A.D.)
In the present life God is in all, for His nature is without limits, but he is not all in all. But in the coming life, when mortality is at an end and immortality granted, and sin has no longer any place, God will be all in all. For the Lord, who loves man, punishes medicinally, that He may check the course of impeity. --Theodoret the Blessed, 387-458
When death shall no longer exist, or the sting of death, nor any evil at all, then truly God will be all in all. --Origen
All men are Christ's, some by knowing Him, the rest not yet. He is the Savior, not of some and the rest not. For how is He Savior and Lord, if not the Savior and Lord of all?—Clement of Alexandria
Wherefore also he drove him out of paradise and removed him far from the tree of life, not because He envied him the tree of life, as some dare assert, but because He pitied him and desired that he should not be immortal and the evil interminable and irremediable. --Iraneaus of Lyons (182 A.D.)
For it is evident that God will in truth be all in all when there shall be no evil in existence, when every created being is at harmony with iteself and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; when every creature shall have been made one body. --Gregory of Nyssa, 335-390
We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer to redeem, to rescue, to discipline in his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life. –Clement of Alexandria
Do not suppose that the soul is punished for endless eons (apeirou aionas) in Tartarus. Very properly, the soul is not punished to gratify the revenge of the divinity, but for the sake of healing. But we say that the soul is punished for an aionion period (aionios) calling its life and its allotted period of punishment, its aeon. --Olnmpiodorus (AD 550)
That in the world to come, those who have done evil all their life long, will be made worthy of the sweetness of the Divine bounty. For never would Christ have said, "You will never get out until you have paid the last penny" unless it were possible for us to get cleansed when we paid the debt. --Peter Chrysologus, 435
In the liberation of all no one remains a captive! At the time of the Lord's passion the devil alone was injured by losing all the of the captives he was keeping. --Didymus, 370 AD
The nations are gathered to the Judgment, that on them may be poured out the wrath of the fury of the Lord, and this in pity and with a design to heal. in order that every one may return to the confession of the Lord, that in Jesus' Name every knee may bow, and every tongue may confess that He is Lord. All God's enemies shall perish, not that they cease to exist, but cease to be enemies.—Jerome (340 to 420 A.D), commenting on Zephaniah 3:8-10
Our Savior has appointed two kinds of resurrection in the Apocalypse. 'Blessed is he that hath part in the first resurrection,' for such come to grace without the judgment. As for those who do not come to the first, but are reserved unto the second resurrection, these shall be disciplined until their appointed times, between the first and the second resurrection.-- Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (340-397 A.D.)
In the present life God is in all, for His nature is without limits, but he is not all in all. But in the coming life, when mortality is at an end and immortality granted, and sin has no longer any place, God will be all in all. For the Lord, who loves man, punishes medicinally, that He may check the course of impeity. --Theodoret the Blessed, 387-458
When death shall no longer exist, or the sting of death, nor any evil at all, then truly God will be all in all. --Origen
All men are Christ's, some by knowing Him, the rest not yet. He is the Savior, not of some and the rest not. For how is He Savior and Lord, if not the Savior and Lord of all?—Clement of Alexandria
As you can see, these men saw the same as I do. I'm not out here all alone beleiving something that is made up.
In fact, if you want to go with Church History...I can show that the prevailing doctrine was Universal Salvation for about the first 500 years of Christianity.
As I said before: An honest look at history shows that the majority of the early church believed that all would eventually be saved. The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge by Schaff-Herzog says in volume 12, page 96, “In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.”
That is a lot of history to cover up and dismiss as heretical, Apologist. As long as history since the European discovery of America!
The second major church council composed of hundreds of bishops from the entire church met in Constantinople in 381 AD and elected Gregory of Nazianzus, an avowed Universalist, as president proving clearly that the great majority of the church leadership at the end of the fourth century believed in universal salvation. Yet today universal salvation is considered a heresy in most denominations. The early church -- better versed in the original languages of the Scriptures and closer to the apostles’ teachings --- thought otherwise. Who do you think is more likely to have the truth? The early Church or the thousands of divisions of Christianity formed by men “drawing disciples after themselves” centuries later? (Acts 20:30)
More for your consideration can be seen HERE
You didn't logically prove that.
You didn't logically prove that. You are dodging around the real issue. Does the soul procede from God? Did God breath into man the breath of life? If that is the case, then all else necessarily follows.
PS:
Concerning your big long thing as concerning the other people who think the same thing you did: I don't care what a bunch of heretics think. The opinions of heretics is not proof.
logos_x
New member
Apologist said:
Yes, I did.
God beathing into man the beath of life does not infer innate immortality.
But...let me illustrate why.
1.) God told Adam in the Genesis story that if he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil then death would follow. No mention of something indestructible involved, and no mention of eternal torment.
2.) After they ate God removed them from the Garden of Eden so they could not eat of the tree of life and live forever in their sinful state. The mortal state had to remain intact so salvation could be assured.
3.) Therefore the whole idea of the soul possessing immortality regardless of our aversion to God and apart from reconciliation is not infered in our creation. The potential for immortalty is there, but not its realisation.
All life proceeds from God. That does not make it immortal or indestuctible.
Even if it could be infered..it does not follow that aionion life becomes static at physical death. The two pronged fallacy falls apart because neither innate immortality nor staticity at death can be proven...and the rest of scripture in fact states otherwise.
Such proof scriptures are these:
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.
Immortality is associated with resurrection...not death.
BTW...you have not logically proven your position.
Ok...if you insist.
Nor does the erroneous teaching of the Catholic Church constitute proof. I don't care what a bunch of heretic's opinions are, either.
Logos, your "refutations" of what i had stated are based entirely on your understanding of the bible. They are, therefore automatically invalid as concerning this particular part of the argument. Without using the bible or your understanding of the bible, prove that the soul, proceding from God, of the same substance as God, and therefore of the same qualities as God, is destructable, when God, from whom it procedes, is not.
Last edited:
logos_x
New member
Apologist said:
Are you totally deranged?
How would that constitute in any way a valid argument?
It wouldn't be a valid argument if anyone came up with any kind of speculation, no matter how logical, if it did not line up with scripture.
I submit this is precisely what you have done...and now you want me to do the same thing you have done.
This is ridiculous.
You are completely ignoring all the fallacies that I have pointed out. And also you are ignoring that even if innate immortality of the soul could be determined true it still would not prove your premise that eternal torment is true.
If you cannot verify what you believe without going against scripture and contradicting the revelation contained in the Bible then you have to conceed this debate is over and you cannot verify eternal torment in any valid way.
Are you conceeding?
logos_x
New member
On "logic", resurrection, and FIRE!
On "logic", resurrection, and FIRE!
Apologist, your argument goes something like this:
Man by his created nature possesses an immortal soul. Therefore, when a man dies physically, his immortal soul must spend eternity "somewhere".
Depending upon your religious background, either in heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo, or ongoing reincarnation.
On the other hand, what if man does not have an immortal soul? Then the conclusions concerning man's state in death would change dramatically. This point cannot be over emphasized. Our presuppositions -- those beliefs we hold to be "givens" -- cause conclusions to be drawn to support these biases. For example, in the mind of an atheist, the theory of the Spontaneous Generation of Life has to be true. Why, you might ask? Because he presupposes (holds to be true) the belief that there is no God. The logical argument would go something akin to this:
Major Premise: There is no God;
Minor Premise: But here we are;
Conclusion: Therefore, the Spontaneous Generation of life must have occurred.
Does this argument "hold water"? Of course it does IF you assume the Major Premise that God does not exist. ASSUMING otherwise brings other results.
The same holds true with the "orthodox" view of the immortality of the soul. The conclusion that the "soul" would spend eternity "somewhere" is true and logical IF the Major Premise is true -- that man possesses by his very NATURE immortality. The syllogism would look something like this:
Major Premise: Man possesses by his created nature an immortal soul or spirit;
Minor Premise: But we all die;
Conclusion: Therefore, his soul or spirit will spend an eternity somewhere.
The key to this discussion is OUR presupposition or assumption. The Biblical verses that seem to speak on the subject would have to be interpreted based upon one's presupposition. On the other hand, if we assume that man does NOT have an eternal soul, then our conclusions based upon the same passages would be vastly different.
Doesn't this make perfect sense? This is the reason the subject is so crucial. A vast amount of "theological" conclusions HAVE been drawn, based upon the Major Premise that man possesses by his nature an "immortal soul".
At this point a person may ask: why, if the Bible does not teach it, have so many scholars concluded that the soul of man is immortal?
Many assumptions are made concerning popular beliefs that have no basis in fact. We have been guilty of "assuming facts not in evidence," as lawyers like to say it. Everyone could think of many examples in his personal experience. Certainly, scholars are not immune to this intellectually destructive behavior. They, like you and me, are products of their experiences, backgrounds, training, and personal biases. False information has always been a major danger to the seeker of TRUTH. Jesus, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, warned specifically of this peril.
There is also, at times, a general lack of knowledge of the Old Testament and its figures, especially when dealing with the language of judgment. Many do not treat the Bible -- Old and New Testaments -- as one continuous revelation. Many discount the fact that the New Testament prophets draw repeatedly from Old Testament figures. They borrow the language and subsequently apply this language to current events and situations of their day. Therefore scholars, by the very nature of their influence, bear special watching. They simply may not be right!!
The theology of the "immortality of the soul" falls into this category. It is evident that the Old Testament Scriptures do NOT teach the view of soul immortality. on the contrary, this view can be traced to Plato. It is therefore of Greek rather than of Biblical origin.
Thus the object of this part of our debate is to prove that "soul immortality" is not taught in the Bible, separate from the supernatural and redemptive intervention of Almighty God.
It has not been uncommon, at any particular time in history, for man to borrow ideas from pagan sources and incorporate them into God's theology. A very good example is the doctrine of forbidding marriage to the "clergy". This idea came from the Greek philosophy of Gnosticism. This deviation was identified and condemned repeatedly by the apostles in the first century church. Paul says the doctrine of "forbidding to marry" was the teaching of demons (1 Tim. 4:1,3). As we can see, however, the Roman Catholic church is still incorporating this doctrine into their theology, believing that it came from God. [John refers here to marriage of priests. The Catholic Church not only accepts marriage for others but promotes it as a sacrament. Although the issue has been reconsidered several times in Catholic history, the Church will not allow its priests to marry.] It may surprise many, but the doctrines of the "immortality of the soul", eternal torment in the fires of hell, and other like doctrines have also been perpetuated by the Catholic church. These concepts, like gnosticism, originated from Greek and not Biblical thought.
As I mentioned, the philosophy of the "immortality of the soul" sprang from the writings of Plato. Plato was a Greek philosopher who lived around 400 BC. Plato, like many before and after him, was interested in "personal survival" after death. Since everyone knows -- "experientially" that "all men are mortal" -- argumentation needed developing that would make credible the idea of "survival". Plato exposited three ways to circumvent the massive difficulties of mortality. They could be classified as the Immortal - Soul Doctrine, The Reconstitution Doctrine, and The Shadow - Man Doctrine. It is not my intention to repeat Plato's theory but to demonstrate where the theory originated. If you have an interest in reading it for yourself, it can be found in Plato's PHAEDO and PHAEDRUS.
I realize that just because the doctrine existed in Greek thought, that doesn't necessarily prove that it is unbiblical. However, it helps to show that the philosophy could have other "ancestries" besides the sacred text.
"Soul" in the Old Testament
"All those who are fat upon the earth shall eat and worship: all those who go down to the dust shall bend before him: and none can keep alive his own soul" (Psalms 22:29).
Many assume that the scriptures teach that man possesses by his nature an "immortal soul". That this teaching is clearly untrue can be demonstrated very easily. As the above verse states, "none can keep alive his own soul." Why should one try to keep alive that which is by nature immortal? Isn't that a valid question? It begs for a reasonable answer!! The Scriptures speak, "Only he [God] possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, which no man has seen or can see" (1 Timothy 6:16).
If God doesn't keep your "soul" alive friend, you can kiss it good-bye!
The word that is translated "soul" throughout the KJV is the Hebrew word nephesh, which is defined as a breathing creature -- man or beast. It is derived from the Hebrew word naphash which means "to breathe". There are two different words for "spirit". These are the Hebrew words nishma and ruwach and can be translated breath, spirit, or wind depending upon the context and/or translators.
If we compare Genesis 1:20 to Genesis 1:30, we see that both man and beast are referred to as "living souls". In other words, man does not contain a "soul", he IS a "soul". The KJV uses the word "creature" and "life" instead of "soul" but the same Hebrew word nephesh is used. The Bible also includes animals within the category of "souls" in Numbers 31:28. The children of Israel were to take "one soul out of five hundred, of humankind and of the beasts, and of the *****, and of the sheep."
At the end of the New Testament animals are also included in this idea of "soul". "...And every living soul died in the sea" (Rev. 16:3). In Job 41:21, even the "Leviathan" is called a soul (nephesh) although the KJV translates the word "breath".
"His breath (nephesh) kindles coals, and flame goes out of his mouth."
It would have been better translated, "His soul (nephesh) kindles coals..." It is the only time nephesh was translated breath in the entire KJV Bible.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:13, the apostle Paul alludes to the three elements of our humanity -- soul, spirit, and body. In Genesis 2:7, Scripture puts it this way, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."
If we break this verse down, we can see the three elements of our nature" "God formed man from the dust of the ground."
At this point we have a body. It is lifeless but nevertheless it is a body. James said, "... the body without the spirit is dead...." God had to "vitalize" this lifeless form so He, "breathed in his nostrils the breath (nishma) of life".
The Hebrew word for "breathe" is naphach which means to puff, inflate, blow hard, kindle, to expire. The word translated breath can be and often is translated "spirit". It could actually be translated that God breathed into his nostrils the spirit of life.
A startling thing happened at this point, "...man BECAME a living SOUL".
What were the "ABC's" necessary to make up this "living soul", this "unit"? A body and breath or spirit from God. With this combination of body AND spirit or breath, you now have a living "soul". Therefore the "soul" is the UNIT of body and spirit or breath from God.
The Soul, is your personality, your will, emotions, and mind...everything that is not of the body,
It is the soul that connects body and Spirit..and chooses between the two concerning behavior.
From this knowledge, it is evident that once the separation of body and spirit takes place, the soul would not exist at all unless God preserves it for some purpose. "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:26). The necessary inference is that the "soul" is not immortal. When the spirit of life leaves the body, the UNIT or "soul" isn't in reality there at all. In other words, "you can't have one without the other." The "soul" consists of a body and spirit! You will find this is the continual teaching of the Scriptures.
As I said before...you are confusing soul and Spirit.
This is not a matter of semantics.
The survival of who you are, after death, is with the Lord in Heaven, or in Hades...which is translated "Hell" (hidden) in the KJV of the Bible.
But that is not the end. And it is not static.
Both, whether in Heaven or Hell, await resurrection...the reuniting of Spirit with a raised body like that if Jesus Christ Himself.
There are two resurrections. The First resurrection Jesus raises the elect, and no punishment at all awaits them...but they still can learn and grow in knowledge.
The second resurrection happens at the end of the millenial kingdom of Christ on Earth.
These have remained dead and in Hell during this time...this age...to come.
Some of these will have accepted Christ during their ordeal because they come to faith and believe while in Hell (Hades)...for these all punishment is done. Some others require the same refining fires as Satan himself and are cast into the process of fire and theon so that they are completely re-formed, before accepting their place as God's creature and submit to His grace.
This is why the Bible says things exactly the way it does, and there are no contradictions between Gods grace and wrath.
Your belief in innate immortality makes resurrection essentially void of any redemptive value whatsoever. That alone makes the belief erroneous.
FIRE!
But..I wish to also point out as well some of the various meanings of fire in the Word of God...see if you came get the gestalt of the entire Bible in these words alone:
It is not surprising that fire plays such a significant role in the Bible. The Creator Himself is described as a "consuming fire." (Dan. 4:24; Heb. 12:29)
Now...doesn’t it seem rather strange to our understanding within the current cultural plausibility structure to call the Creator a consuming fire? Rarely, if ever, do we associate fire with the creation process. We usually associate it with destruction. Clearly, something is being revealed in the Bible that we have not considered..in fact have been forbidden to consider
I believe, in order to understand our English Bible translation, we must know something about the culture of the people who wrote the original in their native languages. Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek are highly figurative, extremely expressive languages, full of many kinds of idiomatic expressions and figures of speech. The customs of the Semitic peoples in particular are quite foreign to the Western mind. We must understand how they used the word "fire" if we are to understand the meaning of the word "fire" in the Bible.
Fire, is first and foremost, a symbol of divinity in the Semitic Middle East. It is a symbol of Yahweh Himself. God manifesting in physical fire could be a favorable judgment as when He came to consecrate Solomon’s Temple or a negative judgment as when He swallowed up Aaron’s son for offering up "strange fire." Being creatures quick to become fearful, we have a tendency to dwell on the negative side of things and so usually associate divine fire with wrath. (Lev. 10:1) This has been a serious mistake of the church throughout much of its existence.
It is interesting to note that the more judgmental, vengeful, legalistic, ritualistic, and "fundamental" one is, the more likely they are to see fire as God’s punishment. They have a difficult time seeing fire as a positive symbol of God. For this mindset, fire usually means Hell, the lake of fire, and "everlasting" punishment. On the other hand, the more loving, merciful, and compassionate one has become, the more likely they are to see fire as a symbol of love, zeal, and sacredness. They are "on fire for God" is an expression used in a positive sense. The judgmental person will usually see fire away from themselves, out in the future somewhere awaiting those whom it would swallow up in judgment, its flames flickering like the tongue of a snake sensing the air for the smell of those whom it will eternally torment or annihilate.
Christians who have allowed the fire of God to enter the very recesses of their lives will see His fire in a totally different light. Rather than being utterly destroyed by the fire, they are purified, corrected, cleansed. God’s fire within brings forth a love that desires to bring healing and restoration to all mankind. The more spiritually minded, desirous to be changed, and willing to be conformed to the image of Christ one is, the less fear they have of fire in the Bible. The latter group is more likely to use the word "fire" in a positive sense. I think the latter group is also more likely to be spiritually alive.
On "logic", resurrection, and FIRE!
Apologist, your argument goes something like this:
Man by his created nature possesses an immortal soul. Therefore, when a man dies physically, his immortal soul must spend eternity "somewhere".
Depending upon your religious background, either in heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo, or ongoing reincarnation.
On the other hand, what if man does not have an immortal soul? Then the conclusions concerning man's state in death would change dramatically. This point cannot be over emphasized. Our presuppositions -- those beliefs we hold to be "givens" -- cause conclusions to be drawn to support these biases. For example, in the mind of an atheist, the theory of the Spontaneous Generation of Life has to be true. Why, you might ask? Because he presupposes (holds to be true) the belief that there is no God. The logical argument would go something akin to this:
Major Premise: There is no God;
Minor Premise: But here we are;
Conclusion: Therefore, the Spontaneous Generation of life must have occurred.
Does this argument "hold water"? Of course it does IF you assume the Major Premise that God does not exist. ASSUMING otherwise brings other results.
The same holds true with the "orthodox" view of the immortality of the soul. The conclusion that the "soul" would spend eternity "somewhere" is true and logical IF the Major Premise is true -- that man possesses by his very NATURE immortality. The syllogism would look something like this:
Major Premise: Man possesses by his created nature an immortal soul or spirit;
Minor Premise: But we all die;
Conclusion: Therefore, his soul or spirit will spend an eternity somewhere.
The key to this discussion is OUR presupposition or assumption. The Biblical verses that seem to speak on the subject would have to be interpreted based upon one's presupposition. On the other hand, if we assume that man does NOT have an eternal soul, then our conclusions based upon the same passages would be vastly different.
Doesn't this make perfect sense? This is the reason the subject is so crucial. A vast amount of "theological" conclusions HAVE been drawn, based upon the Major Premise that man possesses by his nature an "immortal soul".
At this point a person may ask: why, if the Bible does not teach it, have so many scholars concluded that the soul of man is immortal?
Many assumptions are made concerning popular beliefs that have no basis in fact. We have been guilty of "assuming facts not in evidence," as lawyers like to say it. Everyone could think of many examples in his personal experience. Certainly, scholars are not immune to this intellectually destructive behavior. They, like you and me, are products of their experiences, backgrounds, training, and personal biases. False information has always been a major danger to the seeker of TRUTH. Jesus, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, warned specifically of this peril.
There is also, at times, a general lack of knowledge of the Old Testament and its figures, especially when dealing with the language of judgment. Many do not treat the Bible -- Old and New Testaments -- as one continuous revelation. Many discount the fact that the New Testament prophets draw repeatedly from Old Testament figures. They borrow the language and subsequently apply this language to current events and situations of their day. Therefore scholars, by the very nature of their influence, bear special watching. They simply may not be right!!
The theology of the "immortality of the soul" falls into this category. It is evident that the Old Testament Scriptures do NOT teach the view of soul immortality. on the contrary, this view can be traced to Plato. It is therefore of Greek rather than of Biblical origin.
Thus the object of this part of our debate is to prove that "soul immortality" is not taught in the Bible, separate from the supernatural and redemptive intervention of Almighty God.
It has not been uncommon, at any particular time in history, for man to borrow ideas from pagan sources and incorporate them into God's theology. A very good example is the doctrine of forbidding marriage to the "clergy". This idea came from the Greek philosophy of Gnosticism. This deviation was identified and condemned repeatedly by the apostles in the first century church. Paul says the doctrine of "forbidding to marry" was the teaching of demons (1 Tim. 4:1,3). As we can see, however, the Roman Catholic church is still incorporating this doctrine into their theology, believing that it came from God. [John refers here to marriage of priests. The Catholic Church not only accepts marriage for others but promotes it as a sacrament. Although the issue has been reconsidered several times in Catholic history, the Church will not allow its priests to marry.] It may surprise many, but the doctrines of the "immortality of the soul", eternal torment in the fires of hell, and other like doctrines have also been perpetuated by the Catholic church. These concepts, like gnosticism, originated from Greek and not Biblical thought.
As I mentioned, the philosophy of the "immortality of the soul" sprang from the writings of Plato. Plato was a Greek philosopher who lived around 400 BC. Plato, like many before and after him, was interested in "personal survival" after death. Since everyone knows -- "experientially" that "all men are mortal" -- argumentation needed developing that would make credible the idea of "survival". Plato exposited three ways to circumvent the massive difficulties of mortality. They could be classified as the Immortal - Soul Doctrine, The Reconstitution Doctrine, and The Shadow - Man Doctrine. It is not my intention to repeat Plato's theory but to demonstrate where the theory originated. If you have an interest in reading it for yourself, it can be found in Plato's PHAEDO and PHAEDRUS.
I realize that just because the doctrine existed in Greek thought, that doesn't necessarily prove that it is unbiblical. However, it helps to show that the philosophy could have other "ancestries" besides the sacred text.
"Soul" in the Old Testament
"All those who are fat upon the earth shall eat and worship: all those who go down to the dust shall bend before him: and none can keep alive his own soul" (Psalms 22:29).
Many assume that the scriptures teach that man possesses by his nature an "immortal soul". That this teaching is clearly untrue can be demonstrated very easily. As the above verse states, "none can keep alive his own soul." Why should one try to keep alive that which is by nature immortal? Isn't that a valid question? It begs for a reasonable answer!! The Scriptures speak, "Only he [God] possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, which no man has seen or can see" (1 Timothy 6:16).
If God doesn't keep your "soul" alive friend, you can kiss it good-bye!
The word that is translated "soul" throughout the KJV is the Hebrew word nephesh, which is defined as a breathing creature -- man or beast. It is derived from the Hebrew word naphash which means "to breathe". There are two different words for "spirit". These are the Hebrew words nishma and ruwach and can be translated breath, spirit, or wind depending upon the context and/or translators.
If we compare Genesis 1:20 to Genesis 1:30, we see that both man and beast are referred to as "living souls". In other words, man does not contain a "soul", he IS a "soul". The KJV uses the word "creature" and "life" instead of "soul" but the same Hebrew word nephesh is used. The Bible also includes animals within the category of "souls" in Numbers 31:28. The children of Israel were to take "one soul out of five hundred, of humankind and of the beasts, and of the *****, and of the sheep."
At the end of the New Testament animals are also included in this idea of "soul". "...And every living soul died in the sea" (Rev. 16:3). In Job 41:21, even the "Leviathan" is called a soul (nephesh) although the KJV translates the word "breath".
"His breath (nephesh) kindles coals, and flame goes out of his mouth."
It would have been better translated, "His soul (nephesh) kindles coals..." It is the only time nephesh was translated breath in the entire KJV Bible.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:13, the apostle Paul alludes to the three elements of our humanity -- soul, spirit, and body. In Genesis 2:7, Scripture puts it this way, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."
If we break this verse down, we can see the three elements of our nature" "God formed man from the dust of the ground."
At this point we have a body. It is lifeless but nevertheless it is a body. James said, "... the body without the spirit is dead...." God had to "vitalize" this lifeless form so He, "breathed in his nostrils the breath (nishma) of life".
The Hebrew word for "breathe" is naphach which means to puff, inflate, blow hard, kindle, to expire. The word translated breath can be and often is translated "spirit". It could actually be translated that God breathed into his nostrils the spirit of life.
A startling thing happened at this point, "...man BECAME a living SOUL".
What were the "ABC's" necessary to make up this "living soul", this "unit"? A body and breath or spirit from God. With this combination of body AND spirit or breath, you now have a living "soul". Therefore the "soul" is the UNIT of body and spirit or breath from God.
The Soul, is your personality, your will, emotions, and mind...everything that is not of the body,
It is the soul that connects body and Spirit..and chooses between the two concerning behavior.
From this knowledge, it is evident that once the separation of body and spirit takes place, the soul would not exist at all unless God preserves it for some purpose. "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:26). The necessary inference is that the "soul" is not immortal. When the spirit of life leaves the body, the UNIT or "soul" isn't in reality there at all. In other words, "you can't have one without the other." The "soul" consists of a body and spirit! You will find this is the continual teaching of the Scriptures.
As I said before...you are confusing soul and Spirit.
This is not a matter of semantics.
The survival of who you are, after death, is with the Lord in Heaven, or in Hades...which is translated "Hell" (hidden) in the KJV of the Bible.
But that is not the end. And it is not static.
Both, whether in Heaven or Hell, await resurrection...the reuniting of Spirit with a raised body like that if Jesus Christ Himself.
There are two resurrections. The First resurrection Jesus raises the elect, and no punishment at all awaits them...but they still can learn and grow in knowledge.
The second resurrection happens at the end of the millenial kingdom of Christ on Earth.
These have remained dead and in Hell during this time...this age...to come.
Some of these will have accepted Christ during their ordeal because they come to faith and believe while in Hell (Hades)...for these all punishment is done. Some others require the same refining fires as Satan himself and are cast into the process of fire and theon so that they are completely re-formed, before accepting their place as God's creature and submit to His grace.
This is why the Bible says things exactly the way it does, and there are no contradictions between Gods grace and wrath.
Your belief in innate immortality makes resurrection essentially void of any redemptive value whatsoever. That alone makes the belief erroneous.
FIRE!
But..I wish to also point out as well some of the various meanings of fire in the Word of God...see if you came get the gestalt of the entire Bible in these words alone:
Yahweh manifested Himself in various forms of fire on many different occasions. We find some of these manifestations in the making of the Covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15:17), the burning bush (Exo. 3:2-4), pillar of fire (Exo. 13:21), on Sinai (Exo.19:18), in the flame on the altar (Judg. 13:20), and Yahweh answering by fire (1 Kings 18:24, 38).
Sacrifices and offerings (including incense which represented the prayers of the people) were to be made by fire. (Exo. 12:8,9,10; Lev. 1) Fire often meant the acceptance of a sacrifice by Yahweh (Judges 6:21; 1 Kin. 18:38; 1 Chr. 21:26). Leviticus 9:24 tells us that the sacrificial fire "came forth from Yahweh." The fire on the altar was to be continually burning. (Lev. 6:12,13)
Fire came down from heaven at the consecration of Solomon’s Temple. (BTW...Yahweh said He would dwell there "forever" according to the King James Bible, yet we know the Temple was destroyed and the fire put out. Did Yahweh lie? Is the Bible in error?)
The fire on the altar, according to many Bible translations, was to be an "everlasting" fire, but was extinguished a few centuries later. (2 Chr. 7:1) There were many things called "everlasting" in the Old Testament which no longer exist or were done away with by the New Testament. The reason why some Bibles "appear" to have contradictions stems from the incorrect translation of the Hebrew word "olam" and its counterpart in the New Testament "aion." These words indicate "an indefinite period of time," not "everlasting." there are lengthy studies on these words for those interested in pursuing the subject.
While Yahweh’s answer by fire was usually a positive act, there were times when His manifestation in fire, or the use of fire, was used as a correction or destruction of evil (Gen. 19:24, Sodom and Gomorra; Ex. 9:23; Num. 11:1; Num. 16:35; Psalm 104:4; Lev 20:14; Lev. 21:9; Josh .7:25).
Fire is also figuratively used of Yahweh’s glory (Dan 7:9), of His holiness (Isa. 33:14), of His protection of His people (2 Kings 6:17; Zec. 2:5), of His jealousy for His sole worship (Deut. 4:24; Heb. 12:29; Ps. 79:5), of His wrath (Deut. 9:3; Ps. 18:8; Ps. 89:46; Isa. 5:24), of His Word in power (Jer. 5:14; Jer. 23:29), of Divine truth (Ps. 39:3; Jer. 20:9; Lk. 12:49), of that which guides men (Isa. 50:10-11), of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:3), of Christ in His glory (Rev 1:14), of the power of love to overcome evil (Rom. 12:20), of trial and suffering (Ps. 66:12; Isa 43:2; 1 Peter 1:7; 1 Peter 4:12), of evil (Prov. 6:27; Isa 9:18; Isa. 65:5), of lust or desire (Hos. 7:6; 1 Cor. 7:9), of greed (Prov. 30:16), of the evil tongue (James 3:5-6), of heaven and its purity and glory (Rev. 15:2; Rev 21:22-23), and of Divine testing for divinity (Rev. 20). I am sure I have not exhausted the list of the various ways fire is used in the Bible. If we studied light and heat (attributes of fire), I’m sure we could greatly expand the list.
Sacrifices and offerings (including incense which represented the prayers of the people) were to be made by fire. (Exo. 12:8,9,10; Lev. 1) Fire often meant the acceptance of a sacrifice by Yahweh (Judges 6:21; 1 Kin. 18:38; 1 Chr. 21:26). Leviticus 9:24 tells us that the sacrificial fire "came forth from Yahweh." The fire on the altar was to be continually burning. (Lev. 6:12,13)
Fire came down from heaven at the consecration of Solomon’s Temple. (BTW...Yahweh said He would dwell there "forever" according to the King James Bible, yet we know the Temple was destroyed and the fire put out. Did Yahweh lie? Is the Bible in error?)
The fire on the altar, according to many Bible translations, was to be an "everlasting" fire, but was extinguished a few centuries later. (2 Chr. 7:1) There were many things called "everlasting" in the Old Testament which no longer exist or were done away with by the New Testament. The reason why some Bibles "appear" to have contradictions stems from the incorrect translation of the Hebrew word "olam" and its counterpart in the New Testament "aion." These words indicate "an indefinite period of time," not "everlasting." there are lengthy studies on these words for those interested in pursuing the subject.
While Yahweh’s answer by fire was usually a positive act, there were times when His manifestation in fire, or the use of fire, was used as a correction or destruction of evil (Gen. 19:24, Sodom and Gomorra; Ex. 9:23; Num. 11:1; Num. 16:35; Psalm 104:4; Lev 20:14; Lev. 21:9; Josh .7:25).
Fire is also figuratively used of Yahweh’s glory (Dan 7:9), of His holiness (Isa. 33:14), of His protection of His people (2 Kings 6:17; Zec. 2:5), of His jealousy for His sole worship (Deut. 4:24; Heb. 12:29; Ps. 79:5), of His wrath (Deut. 9:3; Ps. 18:8; Ps. 89:46; Isa. 5:24), of His Word in power (Jer. 5:14; Jer. 23:29), of Divine truth (Ps. 39:3; Jer. 20:9; Lk. 12:49), of that which guides men (Isa. 50:10-11), of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:3), of Christ in His glory (Rev 1:14), of the power of love to overcome evil (Rom. 12:20), of trial and suffering (Ps. 66:12; Isa 43:2; 1 Peter 1:7; 1 Peter 4:12), of evil (Prov. 6:27; Isa 9:18; Isa. 65:5), of lust or desire (Hos. 7:6; 1 Cor. 7:9), of greed (Prov. 30:16), of the evil tongue (James 3:5-6), of heaven and its purity and glory (Rev. 15:2; Rev 21:22-23), and of Divine testing for divinity (Rev. 20). I am sure I have not exhausted the list of the various ways fire is used in the Bible. If we studied light and heat (attributes of fire), I’m sure we could greatly expand the list.
It is not surprising that fire plays such a significant role in the Bible. The Creator Himself is described as a "consuming fire." (Dan. 4:24; Heb. 12:29)
Now...doesn’t it seem rather strange to our understanding within the current cultural plausibility structure to call the Creator a consuming fire? Rarely, if ever, do we associate fire with the creation process. We usually associate it with destruction. Clearly, something is being revealed in the Bible that we have not considered..in fact have been forbidden to consider
I believe, in order to understand our English Bible translation, we must know something about the culture of the people who wrote the original in their native languages. Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek are highly figurative, extremely expressive languages, full of many kinds of idiomatic expressions and figures of speech. The customs of the Semitic peoples in particular are quite foreign to the Western mind. We must understand how they used the word "fire" if we are to understand the meaning of the word "fire" in the Bible.
Fire, is first and foremost, a symbol of divinity in the Semitic Middle East. It is a symbol of Yahweh Himself. God manifesting in physical fire could be a favorable judgment as when He came to consecrate Solomon’s Temple or a negative judgment as when He swallowed up Aaron’s son for offering up "strange fire." Being creatures quick to become fearful, we have a tendency to dwell on the negative side of things and so usually associate divine fire with wrath. (Lev. 10:1) This has been a serious mistake of the church throughout much of its existence.
It is interesting to note that the more judgmental, vengeful, legalistic, ritualistic, and "fundamental" one is, the more likely they are to see fire as God’s punishment. They have a difficult time seeing fire as a positive symbol of God. For this mindset, fire usually means Hell, the lake of fire, and "everlasting" punishment. On the other hand, the more loving, merciful, and compassionate one has become, the more likely they are to see fire as a symbol of love, zeal, and sacredness. They are "on fire for God" is an expression used in a positive sense. The judgmental person will usually see fire away from themselves, out in the future somewhere awaiting those whom it would swallow up in judgment, its flames flickering like the tongue of a snake sensing the air for the smell of those whom it will eternally torment or annihilate.
Christians who have allowed the fire of God to enter the very recesses of their lives will see His fire in a totally different light. Rather than being utterly destroyed by the fire, they are purified, corrected, cleansed. God’s fire within brings forth a love that desires to bring healing and restoration to all mankind. The more spiritually minded, desirous to be changed, and willing to be conformed to the image of Christ one is, the less fear they have of fire in the Bible. The latter group is more likely to use the word "fire" in a positive sense. I think the latter group is also more likely to be spiritually alive.
Last edited:
logos_x
New member
So...the logical constructs that are used in Universal Salvation as I have posited would be as follows:
Major Premise: Man is not innately immortal in any way.
Minor premise: God has promised aionion life and resurrection from death to Life.
Conclusion: Man is completey dependent on God to have aionion life and to be ressurected out of death.
And:
Major premise: In the end God is to be all in all, and there is to be a restitution of all things.
Minor Premise: God is not currently all in all, and the resititution of all things has not yet occured.
Conclusion: this is the future state of Creation and everything is designed to that end.
And:
Major Premise: The Father and Creator desires the salvation of all men.
Minor Premise: God will "do all His pleasure."
Conclusion: All things work in such a way to God's pleasure being done.
And:
Major Premise: Christ is the Savior of all men.
Minor Premise: Christ has the keys of Hell and of Death.
Conclusion: Hell is corrective and not eternal or static, and is not the final state of any creature, and death is reversed and defeated.
and so on...
Is this what you are looking for Apologist?
Major Premise: Man is not innately immortal in any way.
Minor premise: God has promised aionion life and resurrection from death to Life.
Conclusion: Man is completey dependent on God to have aionion life and to be ressurected out of death.
And:
Major premise: In the end God is to be all in all, and there is to be a restitution of all things.
Minor Premise: God is not currently all in all, and the resititution of all things has not yet occured.
Conclusion: this is the future state of Creation and everything is designed to that end.
And:
Major Premise: The Father and Creator desires the salvation of all men.
Minor Premise: God will "do all His pleasure."
Conclusion: All things work in such a way to God's pleasure being done.
And:
Major Premise: Christ is the Savior of all men.
Minor Premise: Christ has the keys of Hell and of Death.
Conclusion: Hell is corrective and not eternal or static, and is not the final state of any creature, and death is reversed and defeated.
and so on...
Is this what you are looking for Apologist?
logos_x said:
:dizzy:
Very simply, I am asking you this:
If the substance (i use the term loosely, for God is comprised neither of form or matter) of God is indestructable, and the soul is of nothing but the substance of God (For the soul issues forth and procedes, it is not formed or created of any other substance), then how can the soul be anything other than like God?
Notably, if you deny that the soul is of God's substance, then please commence to telling me exactly what the soul is made of. :think:
I understand you believe that such a thing goes against scripture. I don't. The verses you pointed out were ambiguous at best, and Mother Church holds a very much different understanding on those verses than you do. Scripture cannot be held as a valid source in this particular point of debate for exactly that reason.
Very good point. Indestructability alone would not prove eternal torment. However, staticity would.
Ok. Please verify using the bible advanced quantum theory. After all, if it is not in the bible and it doesn't line up with your understanding of it, it must be false, right? Are you saying advanced quantum theory is bull?
logos_x
New member
Apologist said:
The soul is your mind, heart, emotions, and will.
It is your consciousness and it is your "breath".
It is the same thing that all life is made of..It is the "imager" or reflector of God, but it is not God.
You are still confusing soul with Spirit.
Soul is what we ARE...it is where Spirit and body come together, the interface between two worlds.
Man walks between worlds of Spirit and physical matter.
Staticity is not implied in God's word. Physical death is simply not the end in scripture.
We are told that Christ has the keys of Hell and death. He is the resurrection and the life.
This refutes conclusively staticity at physical death.
Nothing in advanced quantum theory goes against what is presented in scripture.
Innate immortality of the soul and saticity at physical death does, as I have already shown.
- Status