@trini_girl,

Thank you so very much for making me the very same person as shahan. I guess you're not the first to have thought so; and there's no harm in it, afterall you were only expressing an "observation".

However, let me state categorically that I am NOT the same person as shahan. I don't know the best proof you want for that; but if this will be of any help, here's an email I sent to my "alter" nearly a forthnight ago:

Hi 'shahan',

I was wondering if you're in Abuja at the moment and thot we could meet up. Been following your write ups and simply love the way you articulate your persuasions. Lol. Many on the forum are beginning to wonder if we're the very same person; perhaps we should keep them going?

I'm presently in Maitama. And if you're not too busy, then we could meet up soon?

Cheers.

That email was sent on the evening of March 6th; but I haven't received a reply from her. The next morning 7th, I travelled impromptu with my husband to Lagos; and so did not have the time to make any responses to some of the other issues awaiting my responses to them.

For instance, I was going to reply to Bobbyaf's post on Hell Fire: A Twisted Truth Untangled; and to babs787's on The Holy Bible And Prophet Muhammed. When I checked the threads later, I found to my delight that shahan had addressed most of the issues in reference to Bobbyaf's; although she did not do so in babs787's.

Further, here are a few things you should bear in mind:

(a) shahan claims to have been a muslim - and her posts in debating muslims are almost persuasive that she was: whereas, I have never been a Muslim at all.

(b) shahan is not yet married (at least, to the best of my knowledge); whereas, I got married late last year to a Nigerian from the East (Igbo).

(c) I was on Nairaland long before shahan showed up; if I were the same person, what would be the point of assuming another username to get praised on the Forum?

(d) shahan and I had/have different stances in some issues, such as in the Pastor Chris Oyakhilome thread. There, shahan (in my opinion) was directly accusative; whereas, I questioned the criticism against Pastor Chris (even though I may have been wrong and many rejoinders actually said so).

(e) I showed appreciation to several Nairalanders including TayoD, Analytical and gbade. x - would I also be all these people, by the same theory you devised?

Once again, I thank you so very much for your "observation"; and it is inconsequential if shahan shows up another 2 1/2 hours to react to this. I simply wanted to open your eyes to what you didn't see; and yes, I appreciate the well-articulated rejoinder by goodguy to this petty "observation".

@TayoD,
Much appreciate your outline on Tartarus and Hades - interesting. Regards.

@Analytical,
Lol. . . I've read through some of yours and I must express my gratitude in meeting so many intelligent users on the Forum. Look forward to yours whenever you find the time. Cheers.

@Bobbyaf,
Thanks for yours in the previous pages. Commitments the past week prevented my being online - but I trust that shahan's rejoinder has well articulated most of my concerns. Cheers and blessings.

@TV01,
Your queries have been interesting, and I would consider your concerns in reading those verses in yours as legitimate indeed; although I may not agree with all the inferences you drew from them. Just wanted to appreciate your efforts all the same. Many blessings.

@sage and demosky,
Even though I do not agree with your persuasions, I would still have to acknowledge that they're equally legitimate as the Scriptures you offered cannot be ignored. Thank you, and many blessings.

@gbade.x,
Good observation you gave earlier, and your subsequent submission. Another one well appreciated. Cheers.

@shahan,
Once again, you wowed me in your spirited defence of your persuasion on this subject. I've been busy the past week and couldn't be here to contribute to the thread. However, you said it better than I ever would have dreamed to articulate what I had in mind.

@All,
You've all been very inspiring, and I trust to read more of your intelligent inputs on many other topics. Bless y'all.

@shahan,

Very interesting rejoinder. I'm quite amazed, and your diction is inspiring.

@gbade. x,

Perhaps you've been having the same technical hitches as me - that's why the repostings. I don't know if this one will be posted; but my recent posts just keep disappearing. . . Lol.

@Bobbyaf,

I lost my reply to yours due to technical hitches; but as soon as I can get back on, you'll read them.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

@sage,

Many thanks for offering those verses. I'll patiently go through them and offer my concerns soonest.

@Brethren,

Please, let me offer a peace-leaf to us all. I welcome the fact that we all differ in persuasions on this and many subjects in other threads; but even so, there should be no grounds for heated responses.

- - - - - - -

@TV01,

Many thanks for stating your point. Any lines in mine that might have unwittingly been misread by you is regretted. I had only wanted to offer a clear perspective on the present concern - and indeed I anticipated many would descend on me for taking the views I've maintained hitherto.

TV01:

As far "Pastor Chris" or the matter of the "49million seed/tithe", not only do I consider us in very differnt places on many planes, but I have very little knowledge of him, his ministry or the particular incident, as such I have hitherto refrained from comment. Hence my blanket type statement.

Okay, point noted. I'm not a member of, or an apologist for, Christ Embassy. Having tried to carefully follow the present issue, my conclusions were outlined initially (about 5 points); and then narrowed down to just one question: 'who is being accused of what?'

As regards addressing issues from Scripture, I believe we are all learning and to this end don't have problems with anyone posting verses without comments - as long as they speak to the point. This, I believe, was exactly what TayoD offered.

I am grateful for the grace expressed especially by TayoD in bearing out his position to have disagreed with me initially and say so with clear reasons. I do hope that we would all receive more grace to see beyond our differences and hold on to what binds us in the love of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

God bless you all.

@TV01,

TV01:

Okay Sis' Syrup, please tell, in what sense exactly did you mean it

In just precisely the sense that I stated what I did without reference to your assumptions. If you disagree, please point out where I used the word ministry in any of the meanings you gave.

TV01:

If you are referring to TayoD's grandiloquent (but low tariff) cutting and pasting exercise, then no!

All the same, I find it quizzical that you take a heated position in discussing issues with people while failing to see the weakness in yours. This is what you stated earlier:

TV01:

The error of "my ministry" is evident when people look to it and it's results to justify what the Bible abhors. You can't lose a ministry because you don't have one. What you lose or keep is your salvation.

To that effect I referenced a verse to point out that you were greatly mistaken to have supposed that one doesn't have a ministry.

TV01:

Certanly, if you care to be more specific about what it is specifically you'd like me to be more specific about!

I have been very specific in my inputs and have not been ambiguous. You're not obliged to be as specific if you do not wish to do so.

TV01:

Touchy? to whom exactly? I say it like I see it, and on an issue by issue or point by point basis. If people take offence, apologies. But I'm not given to exaggerated expressions of piety.

Touchy issue in itself - not to you nor anyone else. Where you read exaggerated expressions of piety is taking things too far, TV01. If you disagree, you could as well keep it up.

TV01:

As ever I'm not overly concerned by any individual, just commenting on what I see as the scriptural imperative on the matter.

Is that not exactly what so many people have been doing - make comments as they see issues from the "scriptural imperative on the matter"? Was that not why we offered scripture on so many persuasions heretofore?

TV01:

But I'll say this, what disqualifies/qualifies, any "true believer" is exactly the same in all cases.

A blanket statement that hasn't said anything. In any case, out of love, I still seek to know this: Even so, who is being accused of what?

@sage,

My dear sir, you are rushing issues; and I seriously hope for your sake that you won't come back falling over your statements. In anycase, let me address them individually:

sage:

Ezekiel 18:4 shows that the soul that is sinning would die, Paul clearly shows that death pays for sins,

If death pays for sins, why hasn't anyone paid for his/her owns by their own deaths?

sage:

and the bible clealy shows that the dead are conscious of nothing at all,

You don't seem to be able to reconcile your persuasions with the fact that Ecclesiates 9 speaks of issues concerning life experiences in our world - the dead have no "more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun" (vs.6). You will have to look at other scripture texts that deal with the state of affairs beyond the grave.

sage:

and Jeremiah showsthat the loving God clearly has no intentions of putting his creation into fire,

I guess when you make such statements off-handedly, then any reader following your reasoning should think the Lord's words are not to be taken seriously:

"And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." (Matt. 18:9)

sage:

hell is the common grave of mankind and Jesus was in hell too and no such thing as eternal torment exists.

If hell is the common grave and only that, what then would be the purpose of the Lord Jesus warning people against being cast into "the common grave"?

Jesus was never in the place prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41).

sage:

The bible teaches anahilation of the wicked

I'll wait for you to establish this from Scripture.

sage:

The eternal fire doctrine is ludicrious. A falsehood that blasphames God.

I've heard this false piety that takes the liberty to accuse God of all sorts; but for all that, it doesn't change the statements and their meanings in Scripture.

sage:

Il be back with all the scriptures you guys need but i have serious doubts even after 30 passages from the bible showing that no such thing as eternal torment, some people here who there minds have been blinded will still argue blindly.

I hope you come to realize your own blind arguments afterwards.

sage:

Syrup, il be grately dissapointed if you try to explain away the bible in order to support a false belief

No bother: I haven't been in the least impressed by the convoluted interpretations of verses to support the doctrines you force into Scripture that simply aren't there.

Regards.

@sage,

Misled or not, that is your personal opinion - and you are entitled to it. I await your list of plenty of Scriptures; and hope that you can discuss them in a fair manner.

sage:

The doctrine of eternal torment remains one of the biggest wrongdoings of the church.
And Tayo D still questions it when i say the church would be judged and destroyed? Its partly because of false teachings like these.

I'm not surprised that you can see the biggest wrongdoings of the church, and yet fail to realize that your persuasion is foreign to the Word of God. The Church will NOT be judged and destroyed; unless you really don't know what God's Word teaches about the Church.

@TV01,

Many thanks for yours again. Let me try as best I could to offer a few clarifications:

TV01:

As ever I have to commend you for the academic rigour you bring to the discussion. I particularly appreciate it in light of the fact that it is in many ways a contradistinction to my approach. Fond memories of how you dealt with me on my use of the term “theocracy” a while back.

Lol. . . I wished you never hinted on that; but I do regret having been that forward - and had to be reprimanded by a dear friend to be more tempered: I'm doing my best to take her advise on board.

TV01:

So you are necessarily saying some or all of the following;
~ All humans already have eternal life? Surely it’s required to suffer eternally?

No, I did not say or hint that at all. If all humans already have eternal life, what would be the point of being offered what we might already posses?

Secondly, eternal life is NOT required in order to suffer eternally. I have shown severally that there is a state of conscious existence beyond the grave; and "the dead" who stand before God to be judged on that Day are conscious of what is going on even though they were never in possession of eternal life (Rev. 20:12).

TV01:

~ The eternal life offered by God in Christ is not in contradistinction to perishing?

I did mention earlier that 'a literal punishment is juxtaposed or contrasted with the blessings of a literal eternal life'.

TV01:

~ Also note John 3:16 which states everlasting life. You are of a necessity saying that those who perish already/also have everlasting life

Nowhere did I say such; and I've also clarified my point as regards the idea of "perish."

TV01:

~ The eternal punishment is perhaps spiritual in nature (conscious existence), or do the wicked also get resurrected bodies?

#1. Whatever you might mean by eternal punishment being 'spiritual in nature' should not take away from the fact that it is a literal experience.

#2. Isn't it apparent that the dead are raised with a body as well? The difference is that their bodies are not the same with the glorified bodies of the resurrected saints.

TV01:

~ Does this suggest immortality of the soul? Not that I have any deeply held position on that point as yet, I’m just clarifying.

It all depends on what exactly you mean by immortality of the soul, as many people use the phrase in various contradistinct connotations. However, I believe that the soul and spirit of man live beyond the grave.

TV01:

When you say that many have a state of “conscious existence beyond the grave”, please clarify that. Is the bible not clear that those who sleep do so until the first or second resurrections? Who are those who have this “deathly state consciousness”? Is resurrection purely a physical experience?

I'm sure there was no idea of a "deathly state consciousness" in my posts. However, in stating that "the dead" are in 'a state of conscious existence' (a different thing altogether), it is clear in context as meaning that "the dead" are not inactively unconscious or unaware of events when they stand before God to be judged at that Day.

TV01:

My understanding is that Judaism does not teach or believe in eternal punishment. In Judaism, death is final. I am not talking about Christians developing a doctrine through new and old testaments. The verses you quoted from the OT are not read as eternal punishment in Judaism and by some in Christianity I might add).

If in Judaism, "death is final", then perhaps Daniel 12:2 would never have supposed a resurrection of the dead at all. Even then, how many OT prophets would then have had to be teaching something else where they mentioned the matter in equally explicit terms?

TV01:

So again, no matter how much you insist that the eternity is in the punishment and not the irrevocability/finality of the judgment, this has not yet been clearly illustrated from scripture.

I insisted on nothing to the case, other than elucidating that in the final judgement, Scripture speaks of an "eternal judgement" (Heb. 6:2) and graphically presents its nature to us in Revelation 20:10.

TV01:

Here you have shifted focus somewhat. My point was that punishment for sin (the wages of) was death. I was not referring to the taking away of sin, or sanctification, just the penalty for.

I did not shift focus all the same. Rather, my point was to clarify what I believe is the nature of Jesus' vicarious sacrifice on the Cross. To that end, I queried if anyone thought Jesus went to the lake of fire on anyone's behalf. His death on the Cross is not to be misconstrued as suffering the torments of "the second death".

TV01:

Syrup wrote;
#1. Not only the Psalms employ poetic language; but other books as well. However, that is not to mean that the Psalms are only poetic.
- - -
My response;
#1 Same difference here, which is no difference at all!

Sorry, it is not what you think. That the Psalms employ poetic language does not mean the same as that the only thing one reads in the Psalms is poetry! Two different things.

TV01:

#2. The parables may be figurative; but then they express solid literal truths - for that is why the Lord often interpreted and explained them.
- - -
Likewise.

Clear difference.

TV01:

Taking verses that read different to Rev 20:10 and insisting that they buttress it or it somehow adds depth to them, just  doesn’t give a unified clear-cut whole. It’s a force-fit. If the Bible teaches it, it should be clearly and variously outlined.

I think that the argument to make Rev. 20:10 mean and say something other than it says is actually a force-fit. Until then, it would be helpful to see an exegesis that enunciates that verse in the unified clear-cut whole you propose.

TV01:

Syrup wrote;
What other interpretations are there to the parable in Luke 16 about the rich man and Lazarus? The issue is not whether or not anyone is in heaven or hell right now; but rather, the solid truth expressed in the parable that hell is a real place of torment.

My response;
Please note, I am not arguing against hell, or against torment for the wicked in it, which is why I feel no need of introducing (and complicating) alternative renderings. My point remains that I don’t see a clearly defined (and non-contradictory) doctrine of eternal punishment.

In which case I've tried severally to offer that the doctrine of eternal punishment is without contradiction.

TV01:

What I am hearing is scripture that speak to the finality and irrevocability of the judgment being read to insist eternality of punishment.

Could I then propose the same question I offered Bobbyaf: How long is the "ages" that Satan and his rebels shall be tormented as specified in Revelation 20:10?

TV01:

#1 An example of what? Surely it’s of the total destruction after the final judgement of the wicked? It does not speak directly or indirectly to eternal torment.

Where did you read the "total destruction" after the final judgement of the wicked?

TV01:

#2 The tense changes nothing. And we could even read from verse 5. Unbelief is rewarded with destruction. Verse 7 qualifies verse 6 and emphasises verse 5. We can look long and hard, but there is no eternal torment explicitly or implicitly cited here.

I don't remember stating that eternal torment was cited there in Jude 7. My argument was that "until we open (and) read the graphic nature of the eternal punishment in Rev. 20:10, we would never be able to understand what exactly the wrath of God entails"

TV01:

Nothing speaks of eternal torment until Rev 20:10. Proponents of eternal torment  back-read all the other scripture to somehow mean the same thing.

I have proposed once and again that if Rev. 20:10 does not mean what it says, then debaters should please elucidate what they think it actually does say. So far, it only seems that the counter claims have been tediously ferreting far-fetched ideas to beat around it, and never seriously have come to terms with the explicit declaration thereto.

TV01:

I will agree that in isolation verse 46 – everlasting punishment – could be read as just that; the punishment is forever.

I'm not one of those who take verses in isolation; and such isolated treatment of scripture is contrary to the principles of a balanced interpretation of the Word (2 Pet. 1:20). Even so, the graphic language used in detailing the nature of eternal punishment speaks to the point of the wicked being 'tormented, day and night, for ever and ever.'

TV01:

But then again, verse 41 buttresses claims that it is the fire that is unquenchable, everlasting (and in the sense that it burns until everything is consumed – as in S&G). So, verse 46 could be equally and validly read as the punishment being everlasting in application. That is, no more resurrection, no possibility of repeal or of the sentence being commuted.

The flaw in your persuasion is simply that you fail to take into account the meaning of "unquenchable" and "everlasting". It is a contradiction in terms to suppose that unquenchable and everlasting fire would have a clause somewhere along the line to suggest an "burns UNTIL". There is just nothing in the verses in question to support that notion.

However, comparing the figure of speech as appears in other texts as in Mark 9, we read: "to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched" (vs.43); "and the fire is not quenched" (vs.44); "to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched" (vs.45).

Where then appears the clause along the line of a "burns UNTIL" as you suggested?

TV01:

Could Revelations 20:10 be referring solely to the unholy trio?

I am not sure that could be the case; for the place of the wicked dead is not a separate one from where Satan and his sinister ministers of sin end up:

Matt. 25:41 ~ "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

Rev. 20:15 ~ "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

TV01:

So, my position remains unchanged. I have not seen a clear unforced exposition of the doctrine of eternal torment. I still await a convincing explanation for the few scriptures that seems to fly in the face of (or could be read as opposing) a doctrine of eternal destruction (annihilation). I am yet to be fully convinced either way, but on the balance of probabilities and for sheer weight of scripture I’d go for the latter.

It's easier to see a doctrine of annihilation in the Bible where it does not exist. Scripture does not deal with probabilities on weighty matters as the present subject; and so far those proposing annihilation still have many questions to answer than they've offered.

Regards.

@Backslider,

Okay, appreciate your views. Even so, who is being accused of what?

@TayoD,

Thanks. I could not have helped the response to TV01's enquiries any better.

Perhaps, though, maybe I should indeed try to say a few things directly to his.

Regards.

@TV01,

TV01:

Syrup, I believe the idea that one has a ministry as a construct, franchise, or entity in it's own right is erroneous thinking.

Thank you, TV01. But I don't think that I ever used the word 'ministry' in any of the sense you thought to have read in my post. As in TayoD's outline, it is clear that people have ministry committed to them from the Lord Jesus Himself. "And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it" (Col. 4:17).

TV01:

The error of "my ministry" is evident when people look to it and it's results to justify what the Bible abhors. You can't lose a ministry because you don't have one. What you lose or keep is your salvation.

Okay, I trust that following TayoD's outline from Scripture, the concept of "my ministry" is not erroneous afterall: "For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:8).

TV01:

Let me give you a hint. The early believers understood and articulated ministry as service, an act. The religiously inclined in this age think it's a thing! I kind of doubt you'll see it though!

Could you be more specific, please.

TV01:

There was a time I quite admired you fervour. I now understand that for what it truly is. A virulent strain of unthinking religious zeal - which I must say is apparent in many proponents, both for and against Pastor Chris, (both of them) - Evidenced by your focusing on people, a refusal to appreciate questioning of your position, the fear of scrutinising it, or ability to fully articulate it.

I hope for love's sake you have not been precisely self-descriptive. This is a very touchy issue; but whether for or against, I don't think it was ethical to have alleged the "virulent strain of unthinking religious zeal," no matter what your persuasion or position may be in the discussion.

Yet, for all that, could I propose to ask the discussants: what exactly is/are the accusation(s) that disqualifies(-y) Pastor Chris as a minister of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Bless all.

Hello guys,

I've carefully followed the persuasions of subsequent rejoinders and here's what I've got to say:

@Backslider,

Backslider:

@Syrup

In Ezekiel :33 The watchman sin was washed away already. If You are not Worthy there is no need of Being a watchman this is how true revival comes.

GOD HATES SINNERS AND SIN TRUE OR FALSE?

Backslider:

Answer Is God Hates Sinner and Sin

First, I apologise that you wanted an immediate answer to your questions; but I was a lil busy with other commitments.

Now, here's what I'm persuaded about the love of God: God hates sin, but loves sinners.

As regards Ezek 33, I don't follow your meaning about being "worthy" to be a watchman. I think my position is clear enough: I am NOT condoning sin in any measure; and I've said so before time and again:

syrup:

We all agree stealing is wrong and should be discouraged at all levels.

syrup:

I think I've posted my say on that and indicated my condemnation of sin in clear terms

syrup:

I detest sin in all its forms. . .
may God help me love everyone and reject what is not of HIM.

I really don't know what it is that you want me to say beyond that. Even then, I'm thankful for your concern.

@Backslider,

Again, as with others, I am grateful for your brotherly love and response.

Backslider:

@SYRUP

Rom 14:4 - "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand."

THis Negates The Cry of God To Ezekial In EZE: 33

If Rom. 14:4 negates the cry of God in Ezek. 33, then I am sorry to observe that you are inferring that the Bible contradicts itself - which it does not.

Backslider:

We are Representative of God If we see sin and don't Condemn it We ourselves are Evil and their blood is on Our. However I am against the Moeckery of Christ.

I think I've posted my say on that and indicated my condemnation of sin in clear terms:

syrup:

This is not to suggest that I'm in support of sharp practices. However, whoever was stealing money from who and where did not diminish the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. When the Day arrives, all thieves will be judged by the Judge Himself.
- - -
We all agree stealing is wrong and should be discouraged at all levels.

. . . and:

syrup:

#2. That Pastor Chris understood the money was stolen (if at all true) and yet did not make any move to urge a refund of same, is disturbing enough.

I don't know if those two examples say anything about my disavowing sin in any quarter and at any level? But just like you said about being against the mockery of Christ, in practical terms we Christians continue to mock Him if we can't move on from here, and slow down harping on the same issue - sometimes with relish!

Backslider:

To warn a Servant and to tell him of the Judgement of God is NOT DOING WHAT ROM 14:4 is saying.

Agreed. But in all honesty, how many posters on this thread have personally warned Pastor Chris directly? It seems we have rather used this Forum as a highway for criticism than loving appeal to reach out to people.

Backslider:

The Devil also quotes the bible too and he knows that very verse and it is in the mouth of New Age "Christians"

I'm grateful to know that as well, without assenting to New Age philosophy.

Backslider:

They will say Things like "don't Judge", "If it is not of God it will fade away" "God is love and he wants us to Share his Love".

True again. But I wonder if we should be more interested in the ministry of judging, criticizing and lampooning [JCL] simply because we don't want to be seen and heard as New Age 'Christians'.

Backslider:

WHEN OUR LORD JESUS WENT TO CALVARY HOW MANY PEOPLE STOOD and were with him

It doesn't have to be a matter of number - whether the whole world or just a few, I'm thankful to know that those who stood there loved Him dearly. More than, He loved us enough to redeem and bless us in spite of our mockery and rejecting Him.

Backslider:

Even Peter had Backslided.
Even Thomas did not believe it when Christ resurrected.

Painful, wasn't it? But both Peter and Thomas didn't lose their ministries - and we are thankful that the 'backslider' Peter was so used of God to have left us two very inspiring epistles in the NT.

Backslider:

But There were people that Stood and even helped him carry the Cross.

Amen.

Backslider:

THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL DIE WETHER PASTOR OR NO PASTOR
BE YOU KUMUYI
BE YOU CHRIS
BE YOU HAGIN
BE YOU WHATEVER

Do we really wish these men dead - is that the overriding focus of our concern?

It's easy to magnify the faults of others and blast them in our emporium; but do we realize how often we ourselves are as deserving of death in our sin (whether by commission or ommission)?? 1 John 1:10.

Backslider:

The Wages of Sin is death by hellfire

I believe the Bible teaches judgement by hell-fire; but more than that, I believe that the most criticized servant of the Lord is accountable to HIM and not to me.

I detest sin in all its forms. May God help me to see MINE more than any one else's so that HE is glorified in my life. Not many may agree with my persuasions; but may God help me love everyone and reject what is not of HIM.

[center]Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults - Psalm 19:12.[/center]

@Bobbyaf,

Here's where the dilemma is for most people:

Bobbyaf:

The word "aion" in all its forms refers to "ages" which have ends and beginnings.

Now, that being the case, then one must also apply the same rule to the One who lives 'for ever and ever' and suppose that He has ends and beginnings:

Rev. 4:9 - 'And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever.'

Rev 5:14 - 'And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.'

The phrase 'for ever and ever' in those two verses is exactly the same in Greek as used in Rev. 20:10 ~~

'And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.'

If this phrase ('for ever and ever') in its contextual emphasis does not mean what it says in the latter verse, and has to be interpreted as meaning 'in all its forms refers to "ages" which have ends and beginnings' as you stated; then in the same manner, one must apply the same rule "in all its forms" to God having "ends and beginnings". And the moment you do that, you immediately find your problems of interpretation multiplied.

However, if we go by your meaning of 'for ever and ever' as indicative of "ages", may I propose two questions for you:

#1. How long is the "ages" that Satan and his rebels shall be tormented as specified in Revelation 20:10?

#2. How long is the "ages" of Him who lives and is worshipped according to Revelation 4:9 & 5:14?

Hi @goodguy,

goodguy:

Now, my own question: You claim to speak in tongues. What I will like to know is this: Can/Do you interprete whatever you speak in tongues? If you can't/don't, have you ever prayed for the gift of Interpretation, as Paul admonished?

If I could just offer an answer:

I do not always understand or interpret whatever I speak in tongues (I Cor. 14:2). Consequently, I pray for interpretation of whatever I speak in tongues - and a few times I clearly understand in the Spirit what I speak.

Some of it is pure praise; some is prayer expressed in deep passion; other times it's what I may call a 'searching' - that is, a burden about something that is impressed on my heart, usually as a concern for others. At other times, it is simply a declarative statement in power against the whiles of the enemy.

But like I said, nt at every instance have I understood whatever I speak in tongues; but I don't let even this situation hinder my speaking in tongues.

abdkabir:

Nice Idea Ma Sis.

Lol. . . I thought buluti was male?? Nevermind: I've been referred to as a "him"!

Hi @davidylan,

davidylan:

There is nothing like the "big picture" when it comes to holiness. You are either holy or unholy, there is no middle wall where sin is acceptable as long as it does not overshadow the big picture of the salvation by the preaching of the gospel. The gospel by itself has power to transform, it has nothing to do with the vessel being used.
However the vessel can be a hindrance to the spiritual growth of the flock.

You have spoken well. Yet, I don't suppose that Pastor Chris makes sin an acceptable factor in his ministry.

davidylan:

Jeremiah 23:2 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD.

A good reference, no doubt. I only want to ask if the allegations highlighted thereto can be charged against pastor Chris? Here:

                  * scattered my flock

                  * driven them away

                  * not visited them.

Which of these is pastor Chris accused of?

davidylan:

Achan, 1 man out of millions, stole a garment from the people of Ai and the whole army of Isreal was defeated!

That's true. However, history has recorded more than 100 thieves in Christianity who have stolen anything from money to cars, garments, wives, and other property. In spite of this sad fact, the whole of Christianity has not been defeated!

davidylan:

Did Jesus not condemn Judas? As TayoD said, Judas did not steal to help Jesus ministry rather he stole from the purse to help his own personal "ministry". We all know where Judas ended up. That should be lesson enough.

I don't remember reading if Jesus condemned Judas for stealing money (neither did He condone it). "Condemn" is a strong word; and I would rather be persuaded that the Lord Jesus warned Judas instead of condemning him.

Judas ended up lost as a 'son of pedition' (John 17:12); but the reason thereto was much more a case of betraying the Son of God, than of how much money he stole ~~ "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born." (Mark 14:21).

davidylan:

Stolen money will not diminish the preaching of the gospel. However the gifts and callings of God are without repentance. God's work will continue whether you are in sin or not. However, there is coming a day when ALL evil hidden will be revealed! Our gifts will not be able to save us in that day

Amen. I agree without reservations.

@TayoD,

TayoD:

@Syrup,

It appears I will be disagreeing with you for the first time on nairaland.

All the same, I am most grateful for that and even more thankful for your brotherly love.

TayoD:

If I may ask, what do you think would have happened to that ministry if the crime commited happened in say, the U.K. For instance, Davidylan pointed at how Matthew Ashimolowo lost his minitry in the U.K. due to money. Why should the State have a higher level of integrity than the Church? is it not supposed to be the other way round?

Granted - the Church should be the light of the world with highest integrity. But sad as the case may be, there are other sadder instances of money issues in many quarters - within and outside the Church. At the end of the day, I don't think it is happier for anyone to lose their ministry regardless. The Kingdom of God suffers much damage in our hands if we pedantically call attention to these issues, than we do in rejoicing in the blessings God grants in spite of the turbulence.

Through a painful experience, I have learnt the true meaning of Rom 14:4 - "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand." It is verses like this that show me my own insignificance in the sight of God, rather than focus on another's faults.

That is why I have rather started praying for Christian leaders, especially people like pastor Matthew Ashimolowo. In his repentance, may God uplift and increase him all the more, as well as raise many more mighty men who are sold out to the Lord.

TayoD:

The case of Judas and Jesus' ministry is different. Judas didn't steal money and put it into Jesus' ministry, rather, he stole money from Jesus' treasury to spend on himself. What do you think Jesus would have done if Judas stole N35 million naira and put it into Jesus' ministry? While Pastor Chris may not have received the money directly, do you think the branch didn't send a tithe of the money to the main branch? I think not.

At the end of the day, Judas was a thief; and it does not make much difference how he operated. The Lord knew "he stole money" (as you acknowledged), but the Lord never once asked him to return the money to His treasury. This is not to suggest that I'm in support of sharp practices. However, whoever was stealing money from who and where did not diminish the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. When the Day arrives, all thieves will be judged by the Judge Himself.

TayoD:

Here what paul had to say with regards to himself and his ministry: 1 Thessalonians 2:10 Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: I guess this scripture is not binding on Christ Embassy.

I do pray that a day will come when we will rejoice to see much more than we know about holiness - not only as we wish for in Loveworld; but much more than that, as applicable in our own lives.

We all agree stealing is wrong and should be discouraged at all levels. Yet, I confess that God has not made me a judge over anyone's ministry. I pray rather that we may all live in brotherly love even in the midst of our differences.

God bless you much.

@TV01,

Thanks again for your well-reasoned input with questions for our consideration. However, I'd like to point out a few things thereto:

TV01:

Now, for the wicked to suffer eternal punishment, they also must be given eternal life so as to suffer eternal punishment, as opposed to eternal destruction.

Not so; the wicked do not have to be given eternal life so as to suffer eternal punishment. The gift of eternal life does not mean merely 'continued existence'. The Bible shows that many who do not have 'eternal life' yet are in a state of conscious existence beyond the grave even though they are described as "the dead". I have made that clear once and again.

TV01:

As for the OT references, first, my point was that Judaism does not have the concept of eternal punishment.

Judaism verily had the concept of eternal punishment, although it may be argued only in terms that it was not a fully developed theological concept until the NT. Whatever understanding anyone derived from the concept of eternal punishment, at least Dan. 12:2 speaks of a rising from the dead unto "everlasting contempt." The contempt was punishment, no doubt; and its duration was there declared to be "everlasting."

TV01:

Secondly, punishment for sin was obtained by the one time death of the animal type not torture or endless punishment.

You would recall that the blood of bulls and of goats never took away sins (Heb. 10:4), else Christ would not have needed to die on the Cross afterall. At best, the Bible teaches that the blood of those animals only served in the sense that it "sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh" (Heb. 9:13).

It was only in Jesus Christ that the "one time death" satisfied the question of sin (Heb. 9:12). This is underscored again in Rom. 3:25 ~~ "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God."

TV01:

Thirdly, the impenitent sinner in the OT was “cut-off” that is destroyed from among the people.

To be "cut off" or "destroyed" from among the people does not negate, nor mean the same thing as, the final judgement. In some instances, the expression applied to people who died as a result of their obstinacy in sin; and for all that, they will be raised to face the aweful judgement on that great Day.

Exo. 9:15 - "For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth." To be cut off from "the earth" here means that Pharoah and his host perished in the deluge that covered them in their pursuit after the Israelites; but that is not the same thing as the final judgement in Revelation.

Again, Zec. 13:8 - "And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein."

And yet, one cannot suppose that the term can be used in any sense to mean "destroyed" as applied to the Messiah: "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. . ." (Dan. 9:26); and, "He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." (Isa. 53:8)

TV01:

Fourthly, there are literally dozens of references to the fact that the wicked perish, are destroyed, consumed, no more, burnt up like stubble etc, etc and not just in the poetic Psalms. I note your referring to the Psalms as “poetic”. The parables are often figurative and not literal

#1. Not only the Psalms employ poetic language; but other books as well. However, that is not to mean that the Psalms are only poetic.

#2. The parables may be figurative; but then they express solid literal truths - for that is why the Lord often interpreted and explained them.

#3. The expressions perish, destroyed, consumed, no more, burnt up, etc. are all variously expressive of judgement, and not annihilation. Yet, Rev. 20:10 furnishes us with graphic detail of the nature of eternal punishment.

TV01:

So, to parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16. We should note that this is just that, a parable. Are there any people in heaven or hell right now? Where is Abraham bosom? I won’t overly make an issue of your interpretation of this, however, it is pertinent to note that there are other interpretations.

What other interpretations are there to the parable in Luke 16 about the rich man and Lazarus? The issue is not whether or not anyone is in heaven or hell right now; but rather, the solid truth expressed in the parable that hell is a real place of torment.

TV01:

Cross reference Luke 17, immediately after the Lazarus parable in 16.

Luke 17:29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

How does one explain the fate that S&G suffered? Especially in light of Jude 7.

Jude7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

It was noted as being by eternal fire, and indeed, the judgement was final (everlasting), but is it still burning?

Two things you might have to realize here:

#1. We are told that the incidence as reported in Jude 7 is "set forth as an example"; which clearly means that the final judgement spoken of in Revelation had not taken place. Rather an example of what is to come was meted out in the case of the judgement that fell on Sodom and Gomorrah; and that is a figure of the lot that the wicked will experience.

#2. Also, Jude 7 should not be taken in isolation apart from a study of other verses. The tense used in Jude 7 is a present continuous tense ("suffering"; and its meaning certainly does not suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah iare still suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Rather, Jude puts the case perculiarly in contrast to what ungodly and wicked people will experience when the final judgement takes place.

Notice that the whole gist begins from verse 6 - " And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." And then he opens verse 7 with these words: "Even as. . ." It therefore becomes obvious that until we open the read the graphic nature of the eternal punishment in Rev. 20:10, we would never be able to understand what exactly the wrath of God entails.

TV01:

Likewise, the broad way (Matthew 7) leads to “destruction” not to eternal burning

The term "destruction" only strengthens the warning of the Lord; rather than conflict with declaration of Rev. 20:10. Further, the Lord Jesus elsewhere warned about the severity of God's outpoured wrath in other terms: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. . . And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matt. 25:41 & 46)

TV01:

So what the case for eternal torment essentially boils down to is the verse in Rev 20:10 (which I am not denying and will not overlook) and the Lazarus/rich man parable (which is debatable). But neither can I overlook the equally cogent proposition by proponents of eternal destruction meaning just that.

So can anyone reconcile the two?

I guess there is already a reconciliation of several aspects now. Regards.

@TayoD,

TayoD:

@Syrup,

I must confess, I have not been this "tripped" by a lady on nairaland since I've been reading from babyosisi. Keep it up darling. You are doing a great job.

Wow! Lol. . . many thanks. I'm just a student; but besides babyosisi, there have been several other ladies that continue to wow me with their intelligence and deep thinking, such as shahan and a host of others! I wish she could just appear and help us out with her inputs on the present subject, such as you helped to concisely put across my persuasion on Psa. 37:20.

TayoD:

@TV01,I beg to disagree that the story about Lazarus is a parable. This was a reality. Jesus told the story of what actually happened. The characters in the story like Abraham are real.

I was coming to that as a matter of fact, and will do so presently. Many blessings.

Hi @TayoD,

I think you have fine-tuned what I was trying to say about the case of Psalm 37:20 referenced earlier by Bobbyaf:

TayoD:

@Bobbyaf who quotes Psalm 37: 20 - But the wicked shall perish; And the enemies of the LORD, Like the splendor of the meadows, shall vanish. Into smoke they shall vanish away.  Please be adviced that this scripture does not support the notion you are pushing forward. That scripture relates to the lifetime of those enemies. It suggests that all they do is only for a while and God Himself will be here after they are gone.  See James 4:4 - For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.  Does this mean that you will also be turned into vapour? These two scriptures only point to the temporality of our lives as humans.

Thank you so very much, and many blessings for that being concise and straight to the point. 

However, perhaps you meant to quote Bobbyaf instead of TV01 in the following ~~

TayoD:

I wish TV01 will show us how his theory is supported by the scripture. He has claimed the devil will receive more punishments than others and have suggested people will be punished to the extent of their sin.

This is why:

Bobbyaf:

So here we see what forever means in those contexts. In those contexts the act of doing something was limited to one's lifetime. Likewise the devil, the beast and the false prophet do not necessarily burn in hell indefinitely, but they do so as long as their level of punishment allows. Some of the wicked no doubt will be punished over a longer time period than others, and might I add that Satan will be punished the longest, being the instigator of evil Himself.

Regards.

@sage,

Thank you for your response.

Let me assure you that I am not deceiving myself - not in any way; and my posts have sought to deal with issues rather than seek to re-interpret the message of the Bible to mean something different from what is categorically stated.

sage:

@syrup

stop decieving yourself. the only thing that the bible does not teach is eternal torment

there is no such thing. The dead have no feelings or thoughts whatsoever.

There are many things the Bible does not teach, including annihilation. Yet, what many people deny about 'eternal torment' is categorically taught in the Bible - and once and again, I have offered texts to show this as best as anyone could understand it.

Besides, the Bible shows indeed that to be 'dead' does not mean a cessation of conscious existence. Death cuts one off from the reality of the present existence in our world; but it does not presuppose that 'the dead' do not exist in a state of conscious existence beyond the grave. Let me offer you some verses in view to that:

#1. "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" (Rev. 6:9-10).

Notice that these people were slain and patiently awaiting God avenging them. Here the Bible claerly says that the same "slain" people cried to God with a loud voice! Also, they were contrasted with the living who dwell on the earth (vs. 10); and in vs. 11 it is obvious that the resurrection had not taken place as yet when these slain souls cried out with a loud voice.

#2. "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." (Luke 16:22-24).

Again, notice that the rich man is said to have died and was buried. But then, beyond the grave, he was in a state of conscious existence enough to have both seen and spoken to Abraham, confessing that he was tormented in the flames. If the rich dead man was not in a state of conscious existence beyond the grave so that he had "no feelings" (as you opined), then he could NOT have confessed his feelings of the torment he experienced in the flames.

sage:

The bible clearly explained the lake of fire as the second death.

I know that, and have already discussed it. Yet, for all that, the second death does not mean a cessation of conscious existence.

sage:

Death pays for your sins.

The question is: whose death pays for our sins? If a broad generalization could be made about your statement, then just about everyone could pay for his or her own sins - which is antithetical to the teaching of God's Word.

There's only one Person whose death purchased our Redemption - Jesus Christ and Him alone.

sage:

The bible shows that at death, u no longer have feelings, pains or any thought whatsoever and the bible also clearly shows that destruction is what awaits the wicked, not eternal fire of any sort. Eternal torment is falsehood and has no basis on the bible.

The first part of your concern has been dealt with in measure. As to the second part, there is no ambiguity in the statement in Revelation 20:10 as to the wicked being "tormented day and night for ever and ever".

sage:

I'm kind of busy now but il post a lot of scriptural refrences in due course.

But to start with, check out Ecclesiastics 9: 5,6,10
Psalms 37, 9-11, 29

I appreciate your offer of Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6 & 10 and Psalms 37, 9-11, 29, which I quote herewith below; but in retrospect I've dealt in measure with the latter and shall focus on the former:

Eccl. 9 - ⁵For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. ⁶Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. ¹⁰Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Please note the sphere of activity being discussed above is the reality of what takes place under the sun (that is, in our present world and experience - vs. 9) and not beyond the grave (vs. 10). The preacher is concerned that the dead do not participate "in any thing that is done under the sun"; but for all that, these words are not to be treated in isolation of other verses that declare the state of conscious existence of the dead beyond the grave, as I've shown earlier.

@All,

I know some might as well descend on me in stating the following:

#1. I have tried to follow the case of the N49m 'offering' and have to conclude that Pastor Chris did not personally receive the money.

#2. That Pastor Chris understood the money was stolen (if at all true) and yet did not make any move to urge a refund of same, is disturbing enough.

#3. Even so, both the 'giver' and 'receiver' are ultimately accountable to God - and so are the rest of us quizzers and defenders.

#4. The case of stolen money should not overshadow the bigger picture of people being saved through the preaching of the Gospel.

#5. Whatever our grievances in this mystery, let us have large enough hearts to forgive and move on; rather than strain at this issue as if the whole ministry committed to Pastor Chris rested on it.

As in #4 above, one out of the twelve apostles chosen by the Lord Jesus was a thief (John 12:6). Anyone would have had cause to accuse the ministry of Jesus because one of His apostles had such a sad reputation; but that did not stop the ministry of saving the lost in the name of Jesus Christ, did it??

Wherefore, brethren, may we be gracious enough to let this matter rest; and rather rejoice that one case of suspected stolen money will NEVER diminish the preaching of the Gospel. By this, I am not in the least encouraging crime (high or low); but in a spirit of thankfulness, let us seek and think on those things which glorify the interest of God's Kingdom.


[center]Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults - Psalm 19:12.[/center]

Bless all.

Hi @TV01,

I think the discussions and references made in my rejoinders are pretty clear; however, I'll oblige you a second consideration in view of your question.

TV01:

kmcutez link=topic=42512.msg935212#msg935212 date=1173022994:

If the wicked are tormented forever and ever, then we can rightly say Jesus did not pay the price for our sins. For if he had paid the price for our sins then he should have been tormented forever and ever in the context which you describe forever and ever(that is without an end) and should be in hell right now still being tormented. But since the only price he paid for our sins was to die for us, then it makes sense that the wicked should only die in the context which Bobbyaf described die(that is cease to exist). The bible says God is a just God. If his son cannot pay the price of being tormented forever and ever, then why should we pay that price.

I am not sure you answered quite as posed.

If you read again my response, you will find that my points were articulated in correspondence to the issues raised in her arguments. However, I would rather consider your questions a set of fresh enquiries.

TV01:

If the wages of sin = death (not eternal anihilation, but eternal torment). How was that price paid at the cross.

Let's be clear about something here. By "that price" I suppose you meant "the wages" of sin; and by "death" you meant "eternal torment" as in brackets? That being the case, I don't suppose the Bible teaches that Christ paid the wages of eternal torment.

I'm not sure that is what the Scriptures mean in describing the the work of Jesus on the Cross. The closest I could think of to this question is that, because we as believers are "now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Rom. 5:9; see also I Thes. 1:10).

The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23); but did the Scriptures actually say that Jesus Christ paid the wages of 'eternal torment'? The term "wages" simply means "rewards" - and I can't remember Christ paying for the "reward" of 'eternal torment'. Rather, I offer that "Christ died for our sins" (I Cor. 15:3 - not the "wages" of our eternal torment"; and in dying, He 'paid the price' (so to speak) for our redemption, as in the following verses:

Tit. 2:14 - "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

Eph. 1:7 & 14 ~~ "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. . . until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."

Heb. 9:12 - "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

In our evangelical language, we speak of the "price paid" by Jesus on the Cross. However, the 'price' paid at the Cross was the price of Redemption; and NOT the price of "eternal torment".

TV01:

And how can it be satisfied short of the "propitiator" suffering eternal torment?

My dear, I don't think the Bible teaches that Christ suffered an "eternal torment" on anyone's behalf. If He ever did, He would still be there suffering the same torment, as long as the word "eternal" connotes. The Bible says that Christ rose from the dead because it was NOT possible that death should hold Him bound (Acts 2:24, 27, 31). Further, not one time did we read that Christ went to "the lake of fire" on behalf of anyone; for that aweful place is reserved for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41).

Crucial question: if Jesus ever went to the lake of fire on behalf of anyone (the devil included), why then would Satan yet be cast into that same aweful place according to Rev. 20:10?

TV01:

And you wrote this;

and there is no need for anyone to introduce a foreign interpretation of "cease to exist" as the Bible nowhere teaches the doctrine of annihilation.

That is I believe the heart of the discussion at this point. Is the punishment eternal or is it the finality of the judgement that is thus termed?

The verse in question declares both a finality of divine judgement and its duration of "for ever and ever." And I believe that this has been discussed in my previous rejoinders.

TV01:

The Bible says this;

2 Thessalonians 1: 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.

So if one replaces the "anihilaton" or "cease to exist" with "eternal destruction", what exactly is the difference? We are still at the same point.

The terms are NOT synonymous at all. 'Eternal destruction' is not the same thing as 'annihilation'; and I've shown from Luke 16:22-24 that the wicked dead who are judged in the lake of fire will be in a state of conscious existence when they experience the torments of the flames described in Revelation 20:10 - which categorically states that they "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

One can hardly speak of someone being "tormented" for that long if they simply "cease to exist"! The very fact that the wicked dead will be in a state of conscious existence in the lake of fire is underscored by what the Lord Jesus declared of the rich man's confession in Luke 16:24 - in hell the rich man consciously said: "I am tormented in this flame." That is not the activity of someone who is annihilated or has ceased to exist!

TV01:

Can anyone point to a type of eternal torment in the OT that corresponds to the new. I understand that the Jewish religion has no concept of eternal torment.

I suppose that Judaism actually teaches "eternal torment" with various ideas such as eternal (or, everlasting) judgement/damnation, in just the same manner that eternal life was taught; although, these are concepts that they is not well developed or comprehensively taught as appears in the NT.

From the OT scriptures, we read the following:

Dan. 12:2 - "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Isa. 66:24 - "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." (compare Mark 9:44-48)

Only in the NT do we read the graphic detail of the wrath of God upon the wicked - as we have hitherto articulated.

@Bobbyaf,

I think most of your concerns have been addressed in my rejoinder to kmcutez' enquiry just above. However, I'll seek to address your concern stated below:

Bobbyaf:

My question is this. Is the torment literal, or figurative? It has to be one of both descriptions. My contention is not whether there is a lake of fire, and that the wicked will be punished literally, because there can be no doubt about the literalness of such a punishment, but with the use of and application of the phrase "forever and ever"

I offer that it is unhealthy to interpret the duration of the literal punishment in Revelation 20:10 as anything less than is stated. Its duration is "day and night, for ever and ever."

Secondly, please take note that a literal punishment is juxtaposed or contrasted with the blessings of a literal eternal life:

#1. "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matt. 25:46)

#2. "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:15).

#3. "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever." (Rev. 22:5)

Now, the basic question here is: How long is "eternal life" - is it a literal or figurative life of concious existence for eternity; or is it anything less than what it means?

If the duration of the 'literal punishment' is NOT "for ever and ever" (whether figuratively applied or not), then in the same way the 'literal blessing' of "eternal life" could NOT possibly be endless. I believe that God's Word on this subject is not to be confused by theories to make it say something other than was stated.

Bobbyaf:

Listen as David describes the same wicked:, But the wicked shall perish; And the enemies of the LORD, Like the splendor of the meadows, shall vanish. Into smoke they shall vanish away. Psalm 37: 20.

I have posted quite a few texts that un-equivocally show that the wicked will perish and be no more. How does one compare Rev. 20:10 with those, unless they take into account that the expression must be viewed in its rightful context?

The Psalmist does not negate the fact that the wicked will be "tormented"; neither does he suggest that the literal punishment of the wicked will last a short time. Revelation 20:10 presents both aspects of the solid truth in graphic detail; while Psa. 37:20 expresses a general truth that the wicked will not share in the inheritance of the righteous (compare Psa. 125:3).

The poetic language the Psalmist employs is in a general sense evident throughout that chapter 37, as we find in the opening verses 1-2 >> "Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb."

In other instances, the Psalmist declared that, "The wicked shall be turned into hell" (Psa. 9:17); and "Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup" (Psa. 11:6). Any reader of the Psalms should never miss the fact that poetic language is many times employed in declaring truth in a general sense rather than in detail.

In contrast to the wicked, the blessing of the righteous is that -- "The LORD knoweth the days of the upright: and their inheritance shall be for ever. . . For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off." (Psa. 37:18 & 28).

"VANISH AWAY" = FADE AWAY

But the wicked shall perish; And the enemies of the LORD, Like the splendor of the meadows, shall vanish. Into smoke they shall vanish away. Psalm 37: 20.

This language is employed by many writers, including Job, Isaiah, and NT writers like James and Peter. They contrast the glory of man the grass (or meadows) which vanishes/fades/passes away - which is the same thing that the Psalmist was conveying. Compare this with Psalm 103:15 - "As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth." And again, "Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not" (Job 14:1-2)

James 1:10-11
"But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away. For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways." (compare I Pet. 1:24).

One cannot use Psalm 37:20 to misrepresnt the solid graphic delaration of the end of the wicked in Rev. 20:10.

Bobbyaf:

My take on it is that the expression "dead who stand before God" means that their life's record will do the standing.

Nope, the Bible does not say that at all. It says clearly that it is the people themselves (referred to as "the dead" that will stand before God; not their life's record standing before God.

Bobbyaf:

There are some who will take it even further and say that we will stand literally before God in the judgement, but God doesn't have to do that in order to judge us, becasue our life's record is there to judge us, and that is why John said that the books were opened. It is these books that contain every thought and action that we produce during our life time.

Just as above; and Rev. 20:12 is clear when it says "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God" - it was the people themselves who stand before God; and elsewhere the Bible states clearly that people will stand before Him in the matter of divine judgement --

"And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats" (Matt. 25:32).

Bobbyaf:

I recall using a text in Revelation 22:11, 12 that bring support to the above understanding. It says:

11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

This is what the judgement is all about. Jesus as our High Priest is our lawyer who defends us as His people. He atones for us in the sanctuary or temple. Each time we confess our sins He forgives and at the end of the overall  judgement He blots them out for good. If after the probationary period ceases and our records are not up to God's standards of righteousness, then such records will remain filthy. There can be no change afterwards. Jesus now hands down a reward for both sets of people, the righteous and the wicked. He seals God's people for life everlasting, and he seals the wicked for their reward. At His second coming according to verse 12 the rewards will become obvious.

First, I am aware of the SDA doctrine of "probationary period" - it is not taught in Scripture.

Second, when the Lord Jesus rewards people, it does not negate the fact that they stand before Him to be judged, as is clear from Matt. 25:31-32 ~~

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats."

Bobbyaf:

Then there is the judgement that is given to the saints of the Most High God after we get to heaven. We will be previleged to see the books for ourselves.

Can you please provide some verses for your persuasion in emphasis?

Bobbyaf:

God Himself the king of the universe places His judgement at our disposal. All our questions will be fully answered as to why God made certain decisions. We will see why brother so and so wasn't saved, and why sister so and so who we thought could not make it, did. We will see who faked it from those who didn't. Everything will be revealed to God's redeemed during the 1000 thousand years.

Where did you get this idea from?

Bobbyaf:

The only other aspect of the judgement that remains is that of hell fire which would be rewarded to Satan, his angels and the wicked who followed him in rebellion against God. However, before the fire begins God will allow them to see why He has to punish them. God doesn't just up and destroy without showing to them where they went wrong, and all the opportunities he provided, and so forth, and why He must put an end to sin and those who chose to cling to it, once and for all.

Perhaps you have gone right beyond Scripture in the above. In anycase, God has already stated clearly why Satan and his rebels will be judged in divine wrath -

"And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible" (Isa. 13:11)

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." (Rom. 1:21)

The question I want to ask you is: HOW LONG is Satan's judgement to last - for ever and ever, or just for a short time?

Bobbyaf:


Yes the wicked will be able to see live people in God's kingdom, and vice verse. The weeping begins when God shows them their wasted opportunities and where they could have been if they had made the right choices. He shows them that sin, and those who cling to it, could not be tolerated to continue for ever and has to be totally annhilated from the presence of the Lord.

Again, the Sriptures do NOT teach "annihilation" of the wicked. Rather, they shall be "tormented, day and night, for ever and ever."

Bobbyaf:

Then the fire begins to fall from heaven and soon every wicked will be totally destroyed from God's presence. The earth will be cleansed from sin, and after the fire would have done its work, God once again makes a new heaven and a new earth. The people within the city will once again walk the earth in total peace and harmony. God will dwell with them and Be their God. The earth will now become the new capital of the universe where God's control centre will be. The scripture says as it was in the beginning so shall it be in the end.

The last line in your post could be referring to what verse?

And then, when you say that the fire begins to "fall from heaven", how does that correlate with the fact that the wicked shall be "cast into" the lake of fire; rather than the other way round?

@kmcutez,

kmcutez:

@ Syrup

If the wicked are tormented forever and ever, then we can rightly say Jesus did not pay the price for our sins.

My dear, where did you get that kind of theology from? You cannot equate God's offer of grace in such a manner to the obstinacy of the wicked. Divine mercy is offered to all through grace in Jesus Christ - including the wicked. That some will reject that offer does not at all negate the fact that Jesus went to the Cross.

"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" (Rom. 3:3).

I'm sure you know the answer to the question in the verse above. However, as regards the the question of the wicked being tormented "for ever and ever", I don't see how you can force an interpretation to make it say or mean something else than the explicit declaration in Rev. 20:10.

kmcutez:

For if he had paid the price for our sins then he should have been tormented forever and ever in the context which you describe forever and ever(that is without an end) and should be in hell right now still being tormented.

He paid the price, but it was NOT possible that He should be held bound by death.

"Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. . . Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. . . He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." (Act 2:24, 27, 31).

kmcutez:

But since the only price he paid for our sins was to die for us, then it makes sense that the wicked should only die in the context which Bobbyaf described die(that is cease to exist).

If the meaning of death is to "cease to exist", does that apply in Jesus' death - did Jesus "cease to exist" when He died??

The Bible tells us that Jesus died in the flesh, but He was still active in the spirit realms: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison" (1 Pet. 3:18-19).

Death does not mean to "cease to exist" because the Bible nowhere teaches a doctrine of annihilation.

Again, since Jesus paid the price for our sins, it does not therefore mean that the wicked will "cease to exist" when they die. The Bible shows clearly that "the dead"  who are judged are in a state of conscious existence when they will be "tormented." You cannot use the word "torment" for someone who is un[/b]conscious of the fact - and that is what Jesus illustrated for us in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in [b]Luke 16:22-24 ~~

"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."

Now ask yourself this question: If "dying" and being "in hell" means to "cease to exist", how then did the Lord Jesus Christ categorically say that the rich man both 'died', was "in hell" experienced "torments", and yet was conscious enough to do three things:

                (a) lift up his eyes to "see" and recognize Abraham and Lazarus?

                (b) the fact that he "cried" to Abraham for mercy? (vs. 24)

                (c) the fact that he was conscious enough to confess: "I am tormented in this flame"? (vs. 24).

This is why people will try to invent all kinds of theories as to deny the clear declaration of Revelation 20:10 - they "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever"! Those who are tormented are clearly in a state of conscious existence; and there is no need for anyone to introduce a foreign interpretation of "cease to exist" as the Bible nowhere teaches the doctrine of annihilation.

kmcutez:

The bible says God is a just God. If his son cannot pay the price of being tormented forever and ever, then why should we pay that price.

Here, let me share with you some salient considerations:

#1. God is just, and so He will "render to every man according to his deeds. . .Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile. . .For there is no respect of persons with God" (Rom. 2:6, 9, 11). The justice of God does not mean that the wicked will be blessed or rewarded in just the same manner as those who practise righteousness. 

#2. Jesus paid the price for our redemption, that those who believe might escape the coming wrath of God. "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Rom. 5:9); and, "And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come" (1 Thes. 1:10).

#3. Those who believe do NOT come under judgement; so your question "then why should we pay that price" confuses the persons in view of the judgement. WE as believers will NOT have to pay any price of being tormented 'for ever and ever', because "God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thes. 5:9).

Hi again @Bobbyaf,

The problem with many in understanding the second death is that they envisage a situation of annihilation, which is not what the Bible teaches. The word 'death' to such indicates non-existence and inactivity. However, if you carefully study the various meanings of the word 'death', you will find that people could be very active and alive in another context, while being described as 'dead'.

Let me give you two examples:

#1. "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ" (Eph. 2:5)

#2. "But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." (1 Tim. 5:6)

In these two instances, you find that to be "dead" does not mean cessation of life, annihilation or inactivity; it rather describes a state of conscious existence in reality quite different from the way many people take the ordinary meaning to apply to every case.

In the same way, when Revelation 20:10 speaks of torment 'day and night for ever and ever', it affirms that the wicked who experience the wrath of God in the second death are actually conscious in the lake of fire. This may be hard to take in; but the context bears it out plainly.

Another way of understanding the word 'dead' as sometimes describing a state of conscious existence in another plane is found in Revelation 20:12 ~~ "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God. . ." The question is: do "dead" people stand at all? Certainly not in the ordinary sense! So what is meant by the dead who stand before God in that verse? Simply that the word 'dead' describes their state in precisely the same way that Eph. 2:5 uses the word - "dead" in their sins. They are in a state of conscious existence when standing before God to be judged; but for all that, they are described as "the dead" as a matter of their fate.

People who are alive and conscious of their sinful existence are described as 'dead' nonetheless - that is, dead in their sins. It does not mean that they are un[/b]conscious; rather, it simply points out that the wicked will be conscious of their torment when judged by God on that Day. And that is so clear in [b]Revelation 20:10.

mukina2:

david

syrup suck it up with a straw .now i get to see who people really i . .

i wind you up so much and you fell for it ma bad

no hard feelings
keep on being intelligent

Happier now? Many thanks.

mukina2:

and please watever i post anywhere .just be kind enough to let me be . .

quote someone else dnt quote me .
since you believe you are in a league of your own stay there .

Are you now the Admin? Don't be intimidated by anyone's intelligence. Cheers.

Point noted, mukina2.

mukina2:

lmao inever knew really reall was an insult what do i know and sabi sabi too .oya teach me more

No, I shouldn't have guessed you would know, Lol.

mukina2:

what did i start was i the one who quoted you or the other way round?

For simply repeating my question?

mukina2:

yeah you are really' very intelligent online' how about sending a few tips my way . .no one mentioned Muslim here . you did .you were just looking for a way to bash someone .quit the banging of your head it will only cause you more head ache . .
madam intelligent please help teach the 'muslims'

Another confirmation as earlier.