Originally posted by robbie carrobieGreat. So, you admit that you eschew poignancy and relevance and seek to insert your own derailing fluff.
destroying another thread? wow it appears to me that with the exception of a smattering of scriptures from grandpa bobby i am the only person to have produced any reference to the Bible and attempted to explain my position through scripture which makes this latest delusion of your simply that, the words of a rather embittered and crazy old bat. I ca ...[text shortened]... and the same with jaywills long-winded monologues into cyber space, life is too short for that.
Sounds like we can all easily justify alerting your posts from now on, and well as complaining to the admins about you continuing to violate the ToS.
Awesome.
Originally posted by Suziannesorry i have no idea what you are slobbering about, nothing you say makes any sense, its like you are wired to the moon and navigate the internet using sonar.
Great. So, you admit that you eschew poignancy and relevance and seek to insert your own derailing fluff.
Sounds like we can all easily justify alerting your posts from now on, and well as complaining to the admins about you continuing to violate the ToS.
Awesome.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNoted and alerted! Keep on violating that ToS!
sorry i have no idea what you are slobbering about, nothing you say makes any sense, its like you are wired to the moon and navigate the internet using sonar.
P.S. When are you going to start ignoring me again? Right now would be good.
Originally posted by SuzianneIs there a provision in the terms of service against producing copious amounts of slobbery drool? if so could you alert yourself, you're like a drool explosion all over the internet! a stupendous one woman zombie apocalypse!
Noted and alerted! Keep on violating that ToS!
P.S. When are you going to start ignoring me again? Right now would be good.
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 2:53 AM
Subject: RE: Daily Notes
Good. Jim, do you have any notes or material on the False Doctrine of “Annihilation of Unbelievers” after the Great White Throne Judgment? Here’s the only site I’ve found: http://www.theopedia.com/Annihilationism Thanks.
In Christ, Bob
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 4:55 PM
To: Robert.....
Subject: Re: Daily Notes
"Thanks Bob, Attached is Chafer's study on Annihilation from his Systematic Theology.
Pastor Jim.... John 15:13, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."
"Systematic Theology Chapter 27, The Eternal State L.S. Chafer
IV. THEORIES RELATING TO A FUTURE STATE
"Human speculation on man’s estate after death is natural and as old as the race. On this subject, however, there is more disposition to ignore divine revelation than on any other. Concerning the future estate of the lost, men otherwise amenable to the Word of God often, for want of a right understanding of the doctrine, turn from it, and wantonly intrude their useless opinions. Certain theories have been advanced which demand refutation.
1. DEATH AS CESSATION OF EXISTENCE. This aspect of animalism has been held by atheists in spite of the natural desire for continued existence on the part of all men. The Bible consistently and universally asserts the unending existence of all created beings.
2. TRANSMIGRATION OF THE SOUL. The idea that the soul passes from one incarnation to another has been held by men in all generations. That there is no ground for such a belief, either Biblical or otherwise, need not be argued. Though believed by the native of India, Max Muller states that there is no trace of it (a metempsychosis) in the Veda: “There is in the Veda no trace of metempsychosis, or that transmigration of souls from human to animal bodies, which is generally supposed to be a distinguishing feature of Indian religion” (Chips, 1, 44, cited by New Standard Dictionary, 1913 ed., sv. ‘transmigration&rsquo😉.
3. CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY. Drawn somewhat from the Bible, in that immortality is recognized, this theory, which embraces the atheistic notion of the cessation of existence at death for the unregenerate, originates in mere human reason. The theory avers that, apart from the gift of God which is eternal life, men are no higher than the animals and like the animals cease their existence at death. It denies the Word of God relative to the endless subsistence of all rational beings, and sometimes includes in its field of error the sleep of the soul in the grave between death and resurrection. In the face of clear Scriptural teaching that the unregenerate are raised from the dead (cf. Dan. 12:2; John 5:25-29; Rev. 20:12-15), some modify their views to the point of contending that the unsaved when raised are annihilated and such is the meaning of the second death (cf. Rev. 20:14-15; 21:8). But the second death is only a continuation of spiritual death-the separation of the soul from God. That it is a continued consciousness is seen when Revelation 19:20 is compared with 20: 10, observing the truth that the terms second death and lake of fire are identical (cf. Rev. 20:14-15). Dr. B. B. Warfield writes in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, (1, 183 ff.) as follows:
Definition and Classification of Theories:
Annihilationism is “a term designating broadly a large body of theories which united in contending that human beings pass, or are put, out of existence altogether.” These theories fall logically into three classes, according as they hold that all souls, being mortal, actually cease to exist at death; or that, souls being naturally mortal, only those persist in life to which immortality is given by God; or that, though souls are naturally immortal and persist in existence unless destroyed by a force working upon them from without, wicked souls are actually thus destroyed. These three classes of theories may be conveniently called respectively, (1) pure mortalism, (2) conditional immortality, and (3) annihilationism proper.
1. Pure Mortalism
The common contention of the theories which form the first of these classes is that human life is bound up with the organism, and that therefore the entire man passes out of being with the dissolution of the organism. The usual basis of this contention is either materialistic or pantheistic or at least pantheizing (e.g. realistic); the soul being conceived in the former case as but a function of organized matter and necessarily ceasing to exist with the dis- solution of the organism, in the latter case as but the individualized manifestation of a much more extensive entity, back into which it sinks with the dissoIution of the organism in connection with which the individualization takes place. Rarely, however, the contention in question is based on the notion that the soul, although a spiritual entity distinct from the material body, is incapable of maintaining its existence separate from the body. The promise of eternal life is too essential an element of Christianity for theories like these to thrive in a Christian atmosphere. . . .
2. Conditional Immortality
The class of theories to which the designation of “conditional immortality” is most properly applicable, agree with the theories of pure mortalism in teaching the natural mortality of man in his entirety, but separate from them in maintaining that this mortal may, and in many cases does, put on immortality. Immortality in their view is a gift of God, conferred on those who have entered into living communion with Him. Many theorists of this class adopt frankly the materialistic doctrine of the soul, and deny that it is a distinct entity; they therefore teach that the soul necessarily dies with the body, and identify life beyond death with the resurrection, conceived as essentially a recreation of the entire man. Whether all men are subjects of this recreative resurrection is a mooted question among themselves. Some deny it, and affirm therefore that the wicked perish finally at death, the children of God alone attaining to resurrection. The greater part, however, teach a resurrection for all, and a “second death,” which is annihilation, for the wicked. . . .
3. Annihilationism Proper
Already, however, in speaking of extinction we are passing beyond the limits of “conditionalism” pure and simple and entering the region of annihilation- ism proper. Whether we think of this extinction as the result of the punishment or as the gradual dying out of the personality under the enfeebling effects of sin, we are no longer looking at the soul as naturally mortal and requiring a new gift of grace to keep it in existence, but as naturally immortal and suffering destruction at the hands of an inimical power. And this becomes even more apparent when the assumed mortalism of the soul is grounded not in its nature but in its sinfulness; so that the theory deals not with souls as such, but with sinful souls, and it is a question of salvation by a gift of grace to everlasting life or of being left to the disintegrating effects of sin. The point of distinction between theories of this class and “conditionalism” is that these theories with more or less consistency or heartiness recognize what is called the “natural immortality of the soul,” and are not tempted therefore to think of the soul as by nature passing out of being at death (or at any time), and yet teach that the actual punishment inflicted upon or suffered by the wicked results in extinction of being."
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 11)
Originally posted by Suzianne
Since I consider myself perhaps one of the more vocal proponents of Annihilationism, consider this post only my first salvo in what may become an interesting conversation, and hopefully not just a "my opinion is obviously correct, and be quiet and learn" moment for you.
Sure, Suzi. May I suggest that you consider opening the topic of "Annihilationism"
up to a wider audience by giving it thread status of its own. I'll contribute.
Originally posted by Suzianne (Page 12)
It's your idea, Bob. I don't feel as moved as you to post a new thread about it, I mean you've already done some research. If you feel strongly about it and wish to propel the discussion, I'll participate. But you're the one with the hypothesis that the idea is not correct. My case 'for' it is not exactly burning inside me to come out... if it was, I'd have posted about it before now, but if you're moved to try to shoot it down, you have the floor. Either way, I'm not averse to just continuing it here, either.
Do you have any thought about my answer to "Conditional Immortality"? There's plenty more of your initial post to comment on, too. 🙂
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI'm beginning to see why the atheists get so pissed off at you when you post all your bizarro ideas on atheism.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 11)
Originally posted by Suzianne
Since I consider myself perhaps one of the more vocal proponents of Annihilationism, consider this post only my first salvo in what may become an interesting conversation, and hopefully not just a "my opinion is obviously correct, and be quiet and learn" moment for ...[text shortened]... to "Conditional Immortality"? There's plenty more of your initial post to comment on, too. 🙂
I'm already more than a little tired of you putting words into my mouth, defining my beliefs incorrectly and shoving them out of the way with your own beliefs.
Originally posted by SuzianneSuzi, you asked specifically about "Conditional Immortality"; since it was a new term to me, I asked a pastor/teacher friend in the Boston Area for information on the general topic of Annihilation. I thought you would be pleased with its inclusion of Conditional Immortality. Any and all of your "words" posted here or anywhere else are quoted verbatim. -Bob
I'm beginning to see why the atheists get so pissed off at you when you post all your bizarro ideas on atheism.
I'm already more than a little tired of you putting words into my mouth, defining my beliefs incorrectly and shoving them out of the way with your own beliefs.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWhat you missed was that I do not believe in "Conditional Immortality", and your browbeating of me by posting about it again and again in response to my posts on Annihilationism show you're not "getting it".
Suzi, you asked specifically about "Conditional Immortality"; since it was a new term to me, I asked a pastor/teacher friend in the Boston Area for information on the general topic of Annihilation. I thought you would be pleased with its inclusion of Conditional Immortality. Any and all of your "words" posted here or anywhere else are quoted verbatim. -Bob
So I'll just take a play from your playbook and just repost the relevant bit from my earlier post (from page 11, sorry about the more than a dozen intervening pages of pissing contests by robbie, first with divegeester and then with FMF).
----------------------------------------
As far as "Conditional Immortality" goes, I do not happen to believe that the soul is "not innately immortal". Of course it is immortal, it is made so by God. However, that does not mean that God cannot destroy a soul filled with unrepentant sin. As proof, I submit only this:
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." -- Matthew 10:28, KJV
--------------------------------------------
I said right here I do not believe in Conditional Immortality, so I'm eliminating one of the arguments from your initial post on Annihilationism, and then in response you post another post about Conditional Immortality. That's why I said what I did in my other post about you not "getting it".
Originally posted by SuzianneHonest error. Please forgive my misunderstanding. Neither do I believe there's the least truth in Conditional Mortality. Am I also mistaken in understanding that you had no interest in exploring the topic of Annihilation with a thread of your own?
What you missed was that I do not believe in "Conditional Immortality", and your browbeating of me by posting about it again and again in response to my posts on Annihilationism show you're not "getting it".
"browbeating me"? Hardly. I'm not here to hurt anyone, believers in Christ or those who have so far rejected God's Grace Gift of eternal live through faith alone in Christ alone; nor am I here to placate those who see this forum through the self serving prism of socializing by placating atheists at the risk of doing them the disservice by watering down and weakening the hard acid truths of God's Word. It's poignantly painful to consider the possibility that these unbelieving men and women will eventually regret their decisions which they enunciate daily with impunity. Yet I fully appreciate the freedom of volitional choice each of them have [and do pray often that God will give them additional opportunities to change their minds].
Suzi, here's the absolute reality of the cause of dissension and dislike: Matthew 10:34-39 NIV 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother in law; 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ 7 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."
Originally posted by SuzianneMessage received and understood. I'd be interested in your further comments on the rest of Chafer's Study on Annihilation.
So I'll just take a play from your playbook and just repost the relevant bit from my earlier post (from page 11, sorry about the more than a dozen intervening pages of pissing contests by robbie, first with divegeester and then with FMF).
----------------------------------------
As far as "Conditional Immortality" goes, I do not happen to believe that t ...[text shortened]... ditional Immortality. That's why I said what I did in my other post about you not "getting it".