Annihilation

Posted on by
Reply

There is a concept that some people believe, that says hell will eventually burn out, and everyone in hell will be completely destroyed, ceasing to exist.

Originally posted 11/1/2004 on bibleforums.org:

The overwhelming majority of Christian scholarship that I have seen rejects the concept of annihilation.

Matthew 25:46 seems to make it pretty clear:
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Commentary from the People’s New Testament:

These things are certain: (1) A separation between the righteous and the wicked takes place at judgment. (2) The righteous inherit the kingdom; the wicked “depart into everlasting fire.” (3) The state of the righteous is “life eternal;” the state of the wicked is “everlasting punishment.” (4) The duration of these two states is the same, exactly the same Greek word being used in each case (aionios). Then if the state of punishment has an end, so has the life.

One other thought, “destruction” does not equal “cease to exist.”

I think we can all agree that we have a spiritual existence (our spirit) and a physical existence (our body). (Then there’s the soul, which is a little more confusing.)

I think we can also agree that both the spiritual and the physical can die, and both can be resurrected. You can’t be resurrected unless you’re dead, so death happens first, then resurrection.

Physical death is fairly straightforward; I think we all understand what it means for our bodies to die. Our physical death on earth is not final. A number of people in the Bible were physically resurrected, but they would still be subject to another physcial death. Then, at the final judgement, there will be one final physical resurrection. The Bible indicates in Acts 24:15 and Revelation 20:13 that both believers and unbelievers who have died will be rejoined (at least temporarily) with their bodies for the judgement. After that point, unbelievers will be physically dead for good, and believers will be physically alive for good.

Spiritual death is a little harder to understand, but from what Paul says in Romans 7:9 (“Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.”), it appears that spiritual death has already occured. Since unbelievers are already spiritually dead, it becomes clear that spiritual death does not mean our spirits cease to exist. (Just as physical death does not mean our bodies cease to exist; it just means they’re dead, not alive.) As with physical death, spiritual death doesn’t have to be final. Spiritual resurrection occurs when we give our lives to Christ and He breathes new life into our spirits. We are not granted spiritual life or death at the final judgement. The final judgement will be a confirmation of our current spiritual state. Those who are spiritually dead, will remain dead eternally. With this understanding, eternal death does not necessarily mean obliteration, it simply underscores the finality of death; there are no longer any second chances.

E.T.

Posted on by
Reply

Is there life on other planets?

Orginally posted 10/26/2004 on bibleforums.org:

I’ve heard it said that the best evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence is that it hasn’t tried to contact us.

My best guess is that God did not create life on other planets. I guess it’s possible, but I doubt it. Even if He did, I doubt we would ever find each other.

3rd-party Politics

Posted on by
Reply

Many people are dissatisfied with the Republicans and Democrats, but what can we do about it?

Originally posted 10/19/2004 on bibleforums.org:

I’d like to get some opinions on viable ways to get better candidates elected.

I know a lot of Christians are disappointed with President Bush, and would like to see someone more like Michael Peroutka get elected president. However, Peroutka doesn’t even show up on the polls, so there is no way he will be elected. Anyone who does vote for him is usually taking away a vote from Bush, meaning Kerry is more likely to get elected, and most of us certainly don’t want that.

Is it reasonable to think someone with little or no political experience, who has never held an elected office…

a) has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected?
b) is likely to be effective even if they did get elected?

I was watching the Indiana gubernatorial debate the other day, and I liked the Libertarian candidate’s idea of eliminating property tax and slashing educational costs by 50% or more by getting government out of education and converting every public school into a charter school. However, even if he managed to get elected, the legislature made up of Republicans and Democrats would never in a thousand years be willing to do that.

The Constitution Party has the same problem. They have 100 or so candidates running for offices across the country, but no incumbents from what I could tell. If they can’t even get a candidate elected to local or state government, how can they expect their presidential candidate to stand a chance? And even if he somehow was elected, with no Constitution Party support in the House or Senate, what could he really accomplish? Everything he would attempt to do would be blocked. If Peroutka is their top candidate, why “waste” him on the presidential race? Why doesn’t he run for something he has a better chance of winning, so the Constitution Party can get their foot in the door?

Please read this article and share your thoughts:
http://www.worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=9370

Quotes from article by Gene Edward Veith:

A constant refrain among “Third Party” members is their frustration at the idea of picking what they consider the lesser of two evils among the major parties. Greens on the left and Constitutionalists on the right insist on voting for what—and who—they believe in, even if that person doesn’t have a chance in the world to win, and even though their vote will help the side that they most oppose.

…

…a purist vote for a third-party candidate does not advance one’s cause, but rather advances the polar opposite of that cause. A vote for the Green candidate really will help keep George W. Bush in office, and a vote for the Constitution Party candidate really will help elect John Kerry and potentially enshrine pro-abortionists in the courts for decades to come.

…

Third parties can be built, though, not by nominating presidential candidates who are sure to lose but by starting from the ground up, by electing candidates to local and state offices, who might eventually develop the expertise and the reputation to win election to higher office.

…

…a grassroots movement must grow from the grassroots.

Relationships (marriage)

Posted on by
Reply

Random thoughts on marriage and relationships in general…

Orginally posted 10/14/2004 on bibleforums.org:

I think it’s probably best for two people to be at relatively the same spiritual maturity, or at least on the same trajectory. Being unequally yoked doesn’t have to just mean believer w/ non-believer, it could also be spirit-led believer w/ carnal believer.

I believe God intends for the husband to be the spiritual leader in a marriage, but I don’t think this has anything to do with spiritual maturity. Being the leader means taking initiative and setting the pace, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are the stronger Christian of the two.

On being “unequally yoked…”

Originally posted 2/8/2005 on bibleforums.org:

2 Cor. 6:14-18 does not refer specifically to marriage; certainly it can be applied to a marriage relationship, but it also pertains to other relationships and activities as well. The critical factor is that in order for two or more people to effectively pursue Christ, they need to be united in their motivation and direction. If two people have different life purposes, or are heading in two different directions, they should not be bound together in a relationship. This could be a marriage relationship, a business relationship, or even a social relationship. This does not mean we should not have non-Christian friends, or do business with non-Christians; it means we should not make a commitment to “do life together” with someone who will attempt to lead us in a direction that is in conflict with our desired path.

While the most obvious example of an unequal yoke would be a believer with a non-believer, I think the same principle also applies even for people who profess Christianity. Someone who is a nominal Christian with no desire to grow in their knowledge of Christ, could be a hinderance to a spouse who is trying to follow Christ with all their heart. The “level” of their spiritual maturity is a minor point; what really matters is the trajectory that they’re on.

Fear or Love?

Posted on by
Reply

Do you believe in Jesus because you love Him, or because you fear hell? Should children obey their parents because they fear being punished, or because they love them?

This question stems from some negative reviews of Tedd Tripp’s book Shepherding a Child’s Heart.

Originally posted 10/2/2004, on bibleforums.org:

Which is better–obedience out of fear, or obedience out of love? I think we would all agree that obedience out of love is better. From what I’ve seen about this book, Tedd Tripp is saying the same thing. He is focused on the child’s heart moreso than their actions, and the parent’s role in protecting and guiding their child’s heart.

The difference of opinion appears to be in the best way to effectively guide and prepare children so that they will be most likely to acheive that goal of obedience to Christ out of love.

Which is better–obedience out of fear, or disobedience? Some people may disagree with me, but I think obedience always trumps disobedience. Every child I’ve ever seen is disobedient, so something needs to be done to help them move from disobedience to obedience. The big question is whether that is best accomplished by a two-part process (‘obey because there are consequences’ first, followed by ‘obey because you want to’) or a one-part process that skips right to the final goal.

The Old Testament tells us to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind; but it seems to talk even more about fearing God and keeping His commandments. Why did God wait 4,000 years before sending Jesus to redeem us for our sins? Why did He lay down the law to the Israelites and stress judgement for so long, instead of skipping right to grace and love? (not that grace and love are absent from the OT; they just don’t seem to be the focal point like they are in the NT.)

When I was a child, I loved my parents, but that isn’t necessarily why I obeyed them. When I was young, I obeyed them because I would get spanked if I didn’t. As I got older, I continued to obey them (for the most part) even if I knew I wouldn’t get caught, because they had taught me right from wrong and I loved and respected them.

Soldiers in basic training do what they’re told because their commanding officer will make their lives miserable if they don’t. Yet when their training is over, many soldiers would voluntarily lay down their lives for their commander. I doubt if our military would function nearly as well if it wasn’t for some healthy fear of disobeying. Now, soldiers aren’t children, and children should not be treated like soldiers, but I think the principle still applies. I don’t think it’s wrong to instill a little fear, because that is often a necessary motivator. It’s hard to teach someone love and respect if they won’t first obey.

It is wrong to overemphasize fear, or to stop at step 1 of a 2-step process. Some churches and leaders are guilty of this. They get so wrapped up in the negative consequences of disobedience, that they end up failing in their goal of guiding the heart, because outward behaviour gets priority instead. They don’t intentionally put outward behaviour above heart change, but that’s the message that comes across. As with most things in life, the best approach is balance not one or the other. It can be difficult to find the right balance.

More thoughts on “the fear of the Lord…”

Originally posted 10/4/2004 on bibleforums.org:

Some people get hung up on the word fear, because they associate it with terror. It has more to do with reverence and respect for the power and holiness of God. An illustration I like that sheds a little light on a proper context for fear goes something like this: a group of teenagers are hanging out and someone suggests going to do something that they shouldn’t do. One teen objects, and says “no, I’d be scared my dad would find out.” Another teen sneers, “what you’re afraid your daddy will hurt you if he finds out?” The teen replies, “no, I’m afraid if he found out it would hurt him.” This isn’t a perfect illustration, but it gives a picture of “being afraid” in a proper context.

I am reminded of a passage in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis (if you haven’t read the Chronicles of Narnia, I highly recommend you do).

If you’re familiar with the story, you know that it is an allegory, and Christ is represented by Aslan the lion. Much of the story centers on four children, Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy, and their journeies in Narnia. In the following passage, Mr. & Mrs. Beaver are describing Aslan (Jesus) to them:

“Is he—quite safe?” [asks Susan.] “I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”

“That you will dearie, and no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver; “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”

“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.

“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver; “don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”

There is something a little paradoxical about God being our shield, protector, provider, comforter, etc.; yet at the same time He is our fearsome judge and ruler. Is God safe? No, but He’s good, so you can trust Him. He gives us plenty of reason to fear getting on His bad side, but He also gives us His word that He knows what’s best for us and will take good care of us if we trust and obey Him.