What are you thoughts on Annihilation?

The most important question to ask yourself is do you believe Christ paid the penalty on our behalf by dying in our place? Eternal conscious torment denies that fact.

The most important question to ask yourself is do you believe Christ paid the penalty on our behalf by dying in our place?

According to your heretical view EVERY person is equivalent to Christ. because every person can, by their own death, pay for their own sins.

Is God WRATH satisfied by the mere death of the sinner? Why then does the sinner need to be resurrected for the GWT judgment? Has the sinner himself paid for the debt of his own sin by his own death? Why then does he need to die twice?

You do err....

Learn? From you? I have no intention of learning heresy from you or anybody else.

I'm not sure how you "figure" that.








[quoting from an old post...]


Paul Wilson - [Source: Biblecentre, link below]


The Two Goats Of Leviticus 16

"The "limited atonement" doctrine is built upon a premise that lacks understanding of the two views of the cross of Christ as regards His work, that is, propitiation and substitution. The types used on the day of atonement in Leviticus 16 are set aside in deference to a theory, a doctrine of men (be they good men or bad is not the point). On that memorable day, which occurred once a year in Israel's history, there were, among other similitudes two goats - one called the Lord's lot, and the other the people's. The goat of the Lord's lot was killed and its blood taken inside of the veil by the high priest, where he sprinkled the blood once upon the mercy seat and seven times on the desert sand before it. It was there above the mercy seat that God dwelt among the people, and as they were sinners He must needs have the evidence of death presented before Him - the blood was sprinkled there. This was propitiation - a satisfaction rendered to God whereby He could act in grace toward a sinful people. On the head of the other goat, the sins of the people were confessed by the high priest, and it was led into a land not inhabited, so that their sins were removed. This was substitution.

"In a sense, both goats are one in the matter of sin - the one being slain and its blood presented before God, and the other bearing the sins away to be remembered no more - for without the blood of the one goat there could be no bearing away of sins on the other. Let us notice the words of another:

Denial Of Substitution

"There is a continual tendency in the different classes, even of believers in Christendom, to ignore one or other of these truths. Take for instance those zealous that the gospel go out to every creature. It is notorious that most of these deny God's special favor to the elect. They overlook or pare down any positive difference on God's part toward His own children. They hold that a man throughout his course may be a child of God today and not tomorrow. This destroys substitution [seen in the live goat led away]. They hold propitiation [seen in the blood of the other goat as presented before God], and there they are right, and quite justified in preaching the gospel unrestrictedly to every creature, as the Lord indeed enjoined, But how their one-sidedness enfeebles the proper portion of the saints!

Denial Of Propitiation

"But look for a moment at the opposite side [Mr. Pink's], which holds that all God has done and reveals is in view of the elect only, and that all He has wrought in Christ Jesus is in effect for the Church, and that He does not care about the world, except to judge it at the last day. This may be put rather bluntly, for I do not present such grievous narrowness toward man and dishonor of God and His Son in as polished terms as those might desire who cherish notions so unsavory and unsound. But it is true that a certain respectable class around us do see nothing but the elect as the object of God. Their doctrine supposes only the second goat, or the people's lot. They see the all-importance of substitution, but Jehovah's lot has no place as distinct."

http://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=892


[and from the same link / article, further]

"Mr. Pink's dedication to defend an unscriptural idea brought him into trouble with 2 Corinthians 5:14,15 and I Timothy 2:5, 6. The former says, "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again."' Now Mr. Pink labors to prove that these 'alls' mean only 'all the elect'. And then to bolster that point he makes "all were dead" to mean the elect believers died with Christ.

"This is not only far-fetched, but it is wrong from the very context. The all were in the place of death; that was the portion of all mankind because of sin. Then in grace the Lord Jesus came down and went into death for all - it is again the general thought as seen in propitiation. But the verse adds, "that they which live" might henceforth live "unto Him which died for them, and rose again." There is a contrast between the all being morally in the place of death, and death their allotted portion, and the "they which live" (not now all, but the saved who have life in Christ) who should now "live unto Him."

"Here are the words of another: "Christ's death for all is the proof that it was all over for mankind. If He went down in grace to the grave, it was just because men were already there, and none otherwise could be delivered.... There is then life in Him risen, and this not in Him only, but for those who believe. He is our life. And such is the meaning of 'those who live'; not merely those alive on earth (though this be implied, of course), but living of His life, in contrast with 'all dead.' "After going into the meaning of the Greek words, this writer adds concerning those who live: "It is not as including all for whom He died, but as of some out of all, 'those that live' in contradistinction to all dead. . . . The reader will observe that Christ's resurrection is associated only with 'those who live.' This again confirms the special class of the living, as only included in, and not identical with, all for whom He died. Those who would narrow the all for whom He died to the elect lose the first truth" - the judgment of death seen written on all, so that Christ's death becomes the ground of deliverance.

"We will not take time or space to elaborate on Mr. Pink's justifying his same error in connection with I Timothy 2:5, 6. The "ransom for all" is what it says - "for all." The Apostle by the Spirit had just stated that the mediator between God and men was the Man Christ Jesus- but man is reluctant to believe in God's grace to him even when One died and rose for his deliverance; "it is 'a ransom for all,' whoever may bow and reap the blessing; which those do who, renouncing their own proud will for God's mercy in Christ, repent and believe the gospel." Simply believing what God says, the way He says it, is very much better than raising objections to conform to 'a pre-determined scheme, and then having to explain away what the Word says."


[end quoting; bold and underline mine]

"The lake of fire: this is the second death" is symbolic because a lake of fire does not describe death.

Death is described often in the Bible and rarely is it about being in a lake of fire.

This is the assumption I am challenging.

That's because the death mostly described in the Bible is the first death.
This brings us back to my question I asked you in post# 570 (which I haven't gotten an answer from you yet):
When you are reading a passage in the Bible that mentions death, how do you differentiate which "death" it is talking about?

The main theme is not man's natural death in scripture. The main theme is God's redemptive plan to have many sons and daughters--that is achieved thru Christ's sacrificial death on the cross. Again this argument is a 'bait and switch'

I understand if a person is not a believer or is simple minded or ignorant-they may not be able to tell the difference, but this needs no further explanation "The wages of sin is DEATH." of course it is not speaking of natural death. It is talking about man's end at Christ's Second Coming and subsequent Judgment.

DW,

I didn't have to figure it out--God SPELLED it out in black and white in HIS WORD.

But what you seem to be doing is denying what is spelled out in black and white in HIS WORD too:

"And the devil, the one deceiving them, was cast into the lake of fire and of sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet also are; and they will be tormented day and night to/unto the ages [plural] of the ages [plural]." (which latter phrase ALWAYS means the SAME THING in ALL 21x it is used!!<--you deny this fact.)

--Revelation 20:10 (and where v.15 says others are "cast in" also)

But what you seem to be doing is denying what is spelled out in black and white in HIS WORD too:

"And the devil, the one deceiving them, was cast into the lake of fire and of sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet also are; and they will be tormented day and night to/unto the ages [plural] of the ages [plural]." (which latter phrase ALWAYS means the SAME THING in ALL 21x it is used!!<--you deny this fact.)

--Revelation 20:10 (and where v.15 says others [besides these three] are "cast in" also... at this GWTj... which pertains to "the dead," per v.12,13)

That's because the death mostly described in the Bible is the first death.
This brings us back to my question I asked you in post# 570 (which I haven't gotten an answer from you yet):
When you are reading a passage in the Bible that mentions death, how do you differentiate which "death" it is talking about?

It is obvious in the text I shared because the angel says "I will explain to you the meaning."
The angel says 'This IS ThaT, These ARE ___"
In the SAME MANNER the Angel says The Lake of Fire IS the Second Death.

The main theme is not man's natural death in scripture. The main theme is God's redemptive plan to have many sons and daughters--that is achieved thru Christ's sacrificial death on the cross. Again this argument is a 'bait and switch'

I understand if a person is not a believer or is simple minded or ignorant-they may not be able to tell the difference, but this needs no further explanation "The wages of sin is DEATH." of course it is not speaking of natural death. It is talking about man's end at Christ's Second Coming and subsequent Judgment.

It is obvious in the text I shared because the angel says "I will explain to you the meaning."
The angel says 'This IS ThaT, These ARE ___"
In the SAME MANNER the Angel says The Lake of Fire IS the Second Death.

Also as I have said before 'torment' in this context is 'punished'.

'Day and night signifies eternity.

I agree that Jesus or an angel are the ones who explain what the symbols mean.
But you have made yet another assumption: an angel didn't interpret anything to John in Rev 20:14. In fact, there was no angel present at all.

This is John's own description of what he saw. It wasn't an interpretation like in Rev 17, where there is an angel (interpreter) with him. For the same reason, Rev 20:6 (the first resurrection) is also not symbolic...

“The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.” (Revelation 20:5)
...because there is no interpreter present (including the OT).

So no, "the lake of fire" in Rev 20:14 is not "in the same manner" as Rev 17, where John had someone with him, interpreting symbols.

You're doing it again. One conversation at a time, please.

Brother Radius Here is my problem with it,first please read Rev 20:10 now look at all those who go to the same place!! Verse 15 FOREVER!!! Meaning has no end. Meaning that if he is correct every Spirit of woman and man will reach an end of some kind according to his out look. Which would mean the Bible is in error?? LOL Death is for the body, not for the Spirit of any to me.And who is it that holds all things together??? ( Col 1:16-17!) Just my thought's on it brother.

I agree that Jesus or an angel are the ones who explain what the symbols mean.
But you have made yet another assumption: an angel didn't interpret anything to John in Rev 20:14. In fact, there was no angel present at all.

This is John's own description of what he saw. It wasn't an interpretation like in Rev 17, where there is an angel (interpreter) with him. For the same reason, Rev 20:6 (the first resurrection) is also not symbolic...

“The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.” (Revelation 20:5)
...because there is no interpreter present (including the OT).

So no, "the lake of fire" in Rev 20:14 is not "in the same manner" as Rev 17, where John had someone with him, interpreting symbols.

- Physical death of Herod. They went to Egypt because they were physically hiding from Herod.

Matthew 2:15
15And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

- Physical death. People cannot kill someone else's soul or spirit

Matthew 10:21
21And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

- People do not physically live forever because of Christ, not yet anyway, this is talking about spiritual death.

Romans 5:17
17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

James 1:15
15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.