etymology
-
Posts
41 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
In so far as I know there are only three named individuals to whom the sentence of the second death is allotted in Scripture. They are, as you say, the devil, the falsie prophet and the man of sin or antichrist. Of these three only one is angelic by origination and the other two are men born of women. All three are possessed by strong demonic spirits at the time they are judged. Yet Satan is already judged so he doesn't go to the lake of fire when the strong demonic spirits are removed from his being, but to the bottomless pit. His lake of fire judgement takes place after the allotted time. We could say a similar thing about the false prophet and the antichrist because we already know there end. Trying to assert an end to judgement, as some do, insofar as they cite that judgement means to be annihilated, simply removes and true accountability for the harm that men do when their misdeeds cause so much harm in the churches. That would mean in the type you have stated and much much worse than those also. Having a reason to hold to the belief in eternal consequences is a simple matter for the devil and the false prophet and the antichrist - but brethren are increasingly shrinking back from recognising that whilst only three individuals are named to be sentenced to the second death an entire judgement seat is revealed that expresses an unnamed and numberless fact of others according to their works - yet ratified by whether their name is written in the book of life.
-
Well I am glad that I was not wrong.
-
Would you please let me express my own views and not instruct me as to what I can and cannot say. The term heretical is a perfectly valid term when used to describe the effect of Annihilation as a doctrine. I asked you if you held that view and you gave what you called [not a] commonly asserted view. So whilst this OP is not about annihilation you were party to the transaction. You gave a somewhat extended list of what needed to be discussed. The OP is about the soul and the author is engaging with myself and I with him having read some of his comments and visited his website to read more extensively into his meanings. I do sincerely hope that things improve without having to guess at every nuance of what is and is not permitted.
-
I could be wrong but @Retrobyter doesn't hold to the doctrine of Annihilation as an eschatological claim extending to the new heavens and the new earth or the lake of fire or the second death. His doctrine appears as a limited demarcation cited in millennial kingdom terms as a measuring barometer. His doctrine seems like Annihilation on face value but I believe is an expression of the condition and meaning of the state of death that is applicable to all men in all time - outside of resurrection.
-
I am uncertain as to what you find amusing! I find nothing here remotely amusing at all! I am, however, beginning to find the way of it.
-
Clearly not if I take your teaching into account regarding your claims to the soul in a state of death. On the other hand, if I take a simple view that the Witch was alarmed and her own words express what that alarm consisted of, then I can easily see that her "scream" is semantically directed at realising that the man she was divining for was the King. The very same King she had earlier expressed a predicative fear that he (the King) had forbidden what she was being asked to do (and now had done). I can't see anything in that to make me believe anything other than a sincere account giving rise to a belief that she was afraid because she knew that the man sat with her at that moment had authority to have her put to death. If we then introduce the idea that Satan had used the situation that Saul found himself in then what is there left of anything? We can dismiss everything as much as we can include anything by the same mechanism of distrusting words or else believing that the words simply cannot confirm anything at all. In which case we comfortably arrive at the removal of a passage of Scripture that questions your position to a loss of sentience in death. So I will give you this link by a Messianic Jewish Scholar that does not hold to your belief that the divine being (my expression) divine dead (his expression) do not exist. http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Heiser Elohim of Ps82 Gods or Men ETS2010.pdf The relevant section is found at 2.1
-
First things first. In British English an exclamatory question can me marked as an exclamatory when the question is self evident and where the exclamatory may be clausal to the preceding expressions that have not been exclaimed. The clue is in the word delighted. Middle French Derivation The witch was somewhat concerned by Samuel's appearance which she saw eyn when Samuel was disturbed from his sleep - for which cause he rebuked Saul.
-
Delighted that you are animated by my observation. The resurrection would be important regardless of what condition the soul were held in - be that in death or a divine spirit - as in the example of Samuel the prophet and Saul. Samuel did speak with Saul did he not!
-
Yet you hold that in the interim the soul of man (in a state of death) ceases to have any sentience and exists only in the mind of God!
-
I feel sure that I have read through your posts - at least as many as I can stomach in three days - and being a mere child of just Thursday gone I expect that by the middle of January I will have read everything I need to be finally delivered from the non sequitur label. What an ambition! Your Annihilationism is Annihilationism. What form it takes seems to be a small point to me. I hold it to be heretical. I was simply trying to understand how that view comes across in your comments or how your theologies are informed by it - and so I asked the question. I didn't want to be held to making any claims (in time) that were baseless - so your own direct comment is clear enough.
-
Just use the term "rules" as a figure of speech! The comment I attached the question to seemed pretty robust as a cumulative direction. They were your expressions and Alive did seem to like them very much. So why would my expression made just prior to his wonder at the male and the female created He man expression not be presumed to arise from his agreement to your own somewhat exhaustive set of things that needed to be discussed? In that vein rules doesn't seem to bad after all. Isn't Alive a Moderator?
-
Have you heard or read: The Tripartite Nature of Man: Spirit, Soul, and Body, Applied to Illustrate and Explain the Doctrines of Original Sin, the New Birth, the Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body. John Bickford Heard Published 1923 May I also ask you if you hold to Annihilationism?
-
Are these the rules?
-
It would appear that there is always a way to refuse any reason and to deny any precept and to embellish any point so long as it makes some benefit to your argument. How would I come by the rules of discourse for the Worthy Forums?
-
I have gone back and read the posts. Your reply to myself did elaborate on the blueberry muffing part and expressed that the blueberry muffin, unlike the chocolate chip cookie could not be separated easily after the baking process was complete. That did seem to be the strength of the essence of your main thrust of argument. I suppose I should have added, existentially speaking to my question you have so kindly answered now. To the term the baking process: I feel like I have mistakenly joined the Great British Bake Off by some random chance of Quantum Mechanics. As to the non sequitur one would need the logic of your argument in its completeness as outlined in the post from which I took the tripartite nature of the tripartite nature quote before you could insist that someone is arguing in a non sequitur manner. Unless you mean that you are speaking about man and that Benny Hinn is speaking about God! Weren't we made in the image and likeness of God?