If your definition of "Conservative Evangelical Fundamental" means "believing the dead are alive" then your definition is clearly circular. Not that it actually matters, but there are a fair amount of Christians that will side with me on this, some of them with names you might even recognize. Not that it matters a whit to me, but would
John Stott be a sufficient modern example to disprove your assertion?
I guess you didn't deem William Tyndale as Evangelical enough - he was martyred for translating the bible and distributing it illegally in England... seems to me that you've adopted the circular definition method. A method, I might add, which is meaningless regardless. What happened to "scripture only" rather than "let's take a poll and make sure we have approval of our fellows?" Who is it trying to please men here?
No Conservative Evangelical Fundamental believer will side with you on this. It may surprise you, and I hope it does, that you are in an extreme minority regarding this passage as far as Christians. As far as the world? Yeah, you are among good company. The question: Who are you willing to compromise? God or men. It must lean toward biblical revelation or toward men's sensibilities. NonChristians are very happy with the idea of annihilation. Atheists are resigned to it. Your 'sensitive' gesture, one way or the other, never makes more converts to Christianity, just 'more comfortable' rejecters. Think about that long and hard (please).
And I showed you, point-blank, the Sadducees were wrong. The Pharisees got it right on this one.
Others might be better educated (doubtful) but I'm reasonably intelligent and fairly confident. Appeals to authority or to someone supposedly 'smarter' aren't going to work.
Snippets, most often out of context, never ever bother me. Everyone who has EVER tried to talk me out of a belief, tends to never have the credential integrity for it. An internet search doesn't help much. I've been over study on this doctrine many times. I am sympathetic toward annihilationists BUT I am unconvinced of anywise a superior intellect, study integrity, or strong history of appeal. So 1) You can believe as you desire and have some little scriptural confidence, but to me, it doesn't look right. BECAUSE I am unmovingly convinced Luke 16:19-31 Luke 17:1-4 as a warning, only convinces me further that it is not just a story. You can 'assert' opposed, but that's all you've got. I believe you are wrong and can defend a reasoned response to why it is more likely true, not just a story, than not.
... and so you have unmovingly decided that the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is not a parable, but a real story, with real elements. Never mind that the Bible states with precision that it is a parable, of which parables by nature are known to contain fictional elements. Matthew 13:34, Mark 4:34, "... all these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them.That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet... " Jesus was speaking before a multitude, Luke lists the multitude as present, ergo, Jesus does not suddenly change his speech and insert a non-parable in the mix without warning.
But as you say, you've chosen to make up your mind regardless of what anyone has to say on the matter. Even Matthew, Mark, and the prophet.
:nono: I rather believe God is good and that I don't 'have' to be the one to defend Him. He has rocks for that, among other things. Rather, I'm only concerned (only) with being biblical, not 'emotional' or subjective.
I don't think you believe God is actually good, I think you're redefining good to match what you have chosen to believe about God. Since when is keeping trillions alive for the sake of inflicting unending and infinite amounts of pain and torment an attribute of goodness? What would you think of someone who tortured an animal for pleasure, keeping it alive for just a couple weeks at a time? Multiply that by a million million, and again.
Goes both ways. ▲ Read ▲ Deference to a pagan does not make less pagans. There is no real sense you are helping them at all and may very well be hurting them. I did not come to Christ fearing eternal torment. I came because love drew me. Those without Christ are, imho, already living in this hell. If it weren't for saints and the presence of God, it'd be unbearable. In the end, hell will be all of us removed. It is already happening in society. Those flames, whatever they may be, may very well be flames of their own making and desire.
Pardon this interjection, but my understanding of Calvinism was that it was impossible to help or hurt anyone, that all was predetermined and unchangeable. I am not of Calvinist persuasion, but I thought that you were. Have I misunderstood you?
And the second question, from the way you are describing things it sounds like you don't believe in a literal hell fire. "Those without Christ are .. already living in this hell?" "Hell is all of us removed?" "Flames of their own making and desire?" The bible says no such thing Lon. Here's what it does say: "For behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the ay that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." Mal 4:1 KJV. None of this liberal "hell is the world without us" that it sounds like you're saying. "Burn them up" it says. "Leave them neither root nor branch" it says. Nothing about living in hell.
Not at all, I am sympathetic, and would be an annihilation proponent if I believed I could with any biblical integrity.
So far your arguments have been exactly that the Bible does NOT have integrity. Here's what I've seen you use so far:
1) The Bible has to be read with custom definitions that means the opposite of their normal meaning, including "death" "live" and "perish"
2) Most of the Bible that speaks of death and judgement has no actual clue to the reality and should be ignored, or at least dismissed by "they only meant physical death"
3) A philosophical "non-physical death" must be invented and accepted, in line with the pagan Greek philosophical traditions. The Bible must be read with this filter accepted as a given, and must yield to this standard.
4) Christ is allowed to contradict himself and otherwise make a fool of his own arguments, as long as this pagan tradition is preserved.
5) Scriptural contradicts are ignored, and pointed questions are passed over hoping they will be buried under tons of added postings
All of this he said/she said, goes both ways. You are actually more entrenched than I. I would believe what you believe in a moment if I felt it was biblically supported. I do not.
:nono: I'm not for pick'n'choose theology. I'm for truth.
You don't believe God when he says "You shall surely die" now, do you Lon? The serpent said "You shall not surely die" and you've chosen to believe that, instead. I guess God didn't understand death back then?
You don't believe the gospels when they say that Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables, and without parables he spoke not unto them. You'd rather prefer to believe that a parable is no parable at all.
You don't believe Jesus when he says that without repentance, the wicked will surely perish. That's one of the words that you've redefined, in a way that the Bible never defines nor requires.You don't believe the Bible when it says the wicked will be reduced to ashes, and be no more. You don't believe the Bible when it says that death is the cessation of being, the absence of love, thought, hatred, envy, or the knowledge that one is alive, and that the wicked are not troubled in death. How is "knowledge that you are dead" something that is a physical thing, Lon? You've chosen to read everything though a non-biblical pagan filter!
OF COURSE ITS GOING TO COME OUT DIFFERENT!
As much as I care for people, I cannot and will not seek your approval foremost. I will rather seek God foremost. Allowing a nonChristian (by his own rejection of us), to dictate what the bible says to you, is a grave mistake. They may occasionally side with us, but we have nothing in common. 2 Corinthians 6:15
I think I'm actually better at this than you, simply because you don't line-item your responses like I do. :think:
Glad to hear it. Luke 16:19-31, imho, contradicts you. Let's talk about the Bible instead of our mercurial sensibilities.
Answer the questions then Lon. Stop dodging them. What is the name of the rich man in this parable? Likewise, do you accept all parables as containing real elements? If so, prove to me you're being consistent. Because I'm aware of parables where the plants speak among themselves and hold elections.
