Seventh Day Adventist Teachings On Hell

[Protestant101]

Larry - why are you requesting that Brandon must use scripture to answer your question? That seems to be very limiting being that Our Lord and Saviour certainly answered questions without Scripture. So if we are to follow His lead, it would make sense to use reason to answer your questions just as Jesus did so many times when Pharasees put forth questions.

What question did Jesus answer “without Scripture?”

 

[Protestant101]

It is not dishonesty unless you are asked and still do not give an direct answer. I am not sure what you are basing your belief that on Most occasions Adventists identify themselves up front. The popular media outreach programs, stop smoking seminars, many SDA Hosptials, prophecy/evangelistic seminars, and literature evangelists, all generally do not identify themselves up front, nor do they often put the name of the Church on their printed materials.

Contrast this with the LDS Church where the missionaries wear name tags and all their literature is identified clearly on the binding of the book, or on the back page of the pamphlet. If you think the SDA Church as an image problem of being cultic, the LDS Church has it 10 times worse, and they still don’t resort to hiding who they are.

In our society identity is important… when you call a business the first thing they do is answer the phone and identify the business and often the name of the employee. When you make a sales call to another company, you always identify yourself up front. Anyone who feels that they need to conceal their identity is often hiding something or should be treated with suspicion. Is it a lie? Maybe not initially, but nor is it above board.

I am glad that we found some agreement in post #109; however it is my feeling that some make too big a deal out of how much we do or do not identify ourselves “right away.” Most Adventists I know or have known never give this matter half as much thought as you and the odd other here seem to. This makes me ask why?

Sometimes, you seem to be saying that Adventists are somehow “dishonest” if they do not say right away what church they are from. You haven’t really shown us why it is so important to do it exactly as you say; except to say that “today, identity is very important.” Identity has always been important; and; it’s not just “today” that this is so. Jesus did not explicitly tell anyone to “not tell people who helped them;” as much as He

Adventists; as I tried to say before, have a solid history of doing a balanced mix of how much or what to say to people when witnessing in the community. There is nothing deliberately hidden from anyone. To delay telling some fact, at times, simply does not have any proof of "dishonesty; either in intentions, or in actual practice.

Conversely; I have seen some to be so agressive with telling people what denomination they are from; (such as Catholics) that they turn people off worse than anyone can by “not saying who they are right away.”

 

[Protestant101]

Yea… it kind of reminds me of the old used car salesman image… try to hook you and sink you before you have all the information to make a decision. “Don’t worry about who we are, just listen to what we say”… LOL

Protestant101 mentioned that Jesus told his followers at one point not to declare in who’s name they came, I doubt Jesus told Adventists to conceal their identity? Satan however often conceals his real identity. After all, if would have appeared in the Garden of Eden as a demon cast out of heaven, Eve would have been terribly biased and probably not listened to him. Much the same way the Adventists are afraid people will not listen to them. Things that make you go… hmmmm…

This is actually a very nice diversion from the topic of “eternal hell-fire.” One has to wonder why you insist on derailing the topic into this avenue.

 

[Hellisreal]

Conversely; I have seen some to be so agressive with telling people what denomination they are from; (such as Catholics) that they turn people off worse than anyone can by “not saying who they are right away.”

I would expect it would “turn people off” to hear I am a Catholic.
Yet I make it clear from the start.

I can not be ashamed of the Church Christ established.
I have no reason to hide who I am.

 

[SDA2RC]

I am glad that we found some agreement in post #109; however it is my feeling that some make too big a deal out of how much we do or do not identify ourselves “right away.” Most Adventists I know or have known never give this matter half as much thought as you and the odd other here seem to. This makes me ask why?

Sometimes, you seem to be saying that Adventists are somehow “dishonest” if they do not say right away what church they are from. You haven’t really shown us why it is so important to do it exactly as you say; except to say that “today, identity is very important.” Identity has always been important; and; it’s not just “today” that this is so. Jesus did not explicitly tell anyone to “not tell people who helped them;” as much as He

Adventists; as I tried to say before, have a solid history of doing a balanced mix of how much or what to say to people when witnessing in the community. There is nothing deliberately hidden from anyone. To delay telling some fact, at times, simply does not have any proof of "dishonesty; either in intentions, or in actual practice.

Conversely; I have seen some to be so agressive with telling people what denomination they are from; (such as Catholics) that they turn people off worse than anyone can by “not saying who they are right away.”

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on the identity topic…

 

[SDA2RC]

This is actually a very nice diversion from the topic of “eternal hell-fire.” One has to wonder why you insist on derailing the topic into this avenue.

LOL… well… I apologize if I “derailed” the topic, I was simply responding to what you said… so if I did derail it, it was by following your tracks (get it… tracks, derailed… come on smile)

 

[Protestant101]

I would expect it would “turn people off” to hear I am a Catholic.
Yet I make it clear from the start.

I can not be ashamed of the Church Christ established.
I have no reason to hide who I am.

Personally; I don’t “expect” people to be “turned off” because they know I am an Adventist. I have made it clear from the beginning on this forum that I am an Adventist. That alone kind of shoots a hole in the mantra about Adventists “hiding something.”

 

[Protestant101]

LOL… well… I apologize if I “derailed” the topic, I was simply responding to what you said… so if I did derail it, it was by following your tracks (get it… tracks, derailed… come on smile)

Can you show us where I started the topic of Adventists hiding their identity?

I believe you were actually following someone else’s footsteps. It sure wasn’t mine.

 

[Hellisreal]

I am glad that we found some agreement in post #109; however it is my feeling that some make too big a deal out of how much we do or do not identify ourselves “right away.” Most Adventists I know or have known never give this matter half as much thought as you and the odd other here seem to. This makes me ask why?

Sometimes, you seem to be saying that Adventists are somehow “dishonest” if they do not say right away what church they are from. You haven’t really shown us why it is so important to do it exactly as you say; except to say that “today, identity is very important.” Identity has always been important; and; it’s not just “today” that this is so. Jesus did not explicitly tell anyone to “not tell people who helped them;” as much as He

Adventists; as I tried to say before, have a solid history of doing a balanced mix of how much or what to say to people when witnessing in the community. There is nothing deliberately hidden from anyone. **To delay **telling some fact, at times, simply does not have any proof of "dishonesty; either in intentions, or in actual practice.
Conversely; I have seen some to be so agressive with telling people what denomination they are from; (such as Catholics) that they turn people off worse than anyone can by “not saying who they are right away.”

Who would the “some” be that would be delayed in being told the truth?

 

[Protestant101]

Since we seem to be stalled, here is a good summary of the Catholic teaching of Hell in the book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott.

The fire of hell was conceived by individual Fathers such as Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa, and by later Theologians, like Ambrosius Catharinus.J. A. Mohler and H. Klee, in a metaphorical sense as a symbol for purely spiritual has not been formally condemned by the Churth, /QUOTE]

No one is “stalled” on my end. I was under the impression that some on this board did not approve of Origen, and that they said the Catholic Church does not approve of him? I know that’s a bit of an aside; but since I read his name in your quote; i thought it would be interesting to hear comments on that; since he personally contributed to Catholic doctrine on eternal hell-fire.

Here is a quote by you from an earlier post, following which I will comment:

Quote by SDA2RC
Whoa… so this is what I love about Adventist apologetics, it often totally misrepresents what the verse actually says.

 

[Protestant101]

First, here are some other versions:

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (KJV)
Jud 1:7 As Sodom and Gomorrha and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. (DRB).

As here used, it cannot mean that the fires which consumed Sodom and Gomorrah were literally eternal, or were kept always burning, for that was not true. The expression seems to denote, in this connection, two things:

(1) That the destruction of the cities of the plain, with their inhabitants, was as entire and perpetual as if the fires had been always burning - the consumption was absolute and enduring - the sinners were wholly cut off, and the cities forever rendered desolate; and,

(2) that, in its nature and duration, this was a striking emblem of the destruction which will come upon the ungodly. I do not see that the apostle here means to affirm that those particular sinners who dwelt in Sodom would be punished forever, for his expressions do not directly affirm that, and his argument does not demand it; but still the “image” in his mind, in the destruction of those cities, was clearly that of the utter desolation and ruin of which this was the emblem; of the perpetual destruction of the wicked, like that of the cities of the plain. If this had not been the case, there was no reason why he should have used the word “eternal” - meaning here “perpetual” - since, if in his mind there was no image of future punishment, all that the argument would have demanded was the simple statement that they were cut off by fire.

The passage, then, cannot be used to prove that the particular dwellers in Sodom will be punished forever - whatever may be the truth on that point; but that there is a place of eternal punishment, of which that was a striking emblem. The meaning is, that the case was one which furnished a demonstration of the fact that God will punish sin; that this was an example of the punishment which God sometimes inflicts on sinners in this world, and a type of that eternal punishment which will be inflicted in the next.

Because this text tells us that the fires which destroyed these cities were an “example” to us, we can know that the same fire will be the avenue of destruction of the wicked in the final judgment, when Jesus comes. When the text uses the word “cities” as what was destroyed in the fires of Sodom and and the other cities; it says of the “cities:”

“Having given themselves over to…” which makes the text to mean that both the physical city and the physical people were the “example” that God uses to warn people today of the final judgment.

We must remember that other Bible texts will support the fact that the fires of hell do not literally burn forever; but they do say the effects of the fire are forever, for there is no resurrection again after the fires of the last days when Jesus comes again. Speaking of sinners and their final outcome,Jesus said:
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” ((Mat.25:46)

Notice, Jesus did not say that the wicked would suffer eternal “punishing;” but rather he clearly stated that the wicked would suffer eternal “punishment.” And what is the “punishment” for sin? 2 Thes.1:9 says that the wicked “shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.”

The punishment is destruction; and it is plainly shown to be of eternal duration. It is a destruction that never ends, because there will be no resurrection from this destruction spoken of in 2 Thes. 1:9. Paul tells us that “the wages of sin is death; (Rom.6:23), and John says that this death is “the second death;” meaning final, and eternal.

 

[SDA2RC]

Can you show us where I started the topic of Adventists hiding their identity?

I believe you were actually following someone else’s footsteps. It sure wasn’t mine.

I never said you started that topic, nor did I, however, you responded by saying in an earlier post that you found Biblical support for no identifying yourself up front as a certain denomination, and that even Christ told his apostles at one time to not tell people who had sent them.

It was to these remarks that I was responding.

 

[SDA2RC]

No one is “stalled” on my end. I was under the impression that some on this board did not approve of Origen, and that they said the Catholic Church does not approve of him? I know that’s a bit of an aside; but since I read his name in your quote; i thought it would be interesting to hear comments on that; since he personally contributed to Catholic doctrine on eternal hell-fire.

Origen was a greek father who had his share of personal beliefs which were rejected by the Church and his contemporaries. Hie belief in hell was one of those beliefs that was rejected as heretical.

Your baited question “Did the Bible lie;” is the part of Catholic apologetics that is so deceptive.

There is nothing deceptive about a question, it was a simply four word question.

I

t’s not too hard to figure out that both the people and the physical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were burned; and that collectively, the two are the “example” being referred to in the text.

The focal point of God’s wrath were the people, not the “brick and mortar” buildings in the cities, since they are inanimate, it makes no sense to claim that these were the target of God’s justice. God is not giving us as an example, the burning of buildings, he is giving us (humans) the example of the wrath of God falling upon other humans.

 

[SDA2RC]

First, here are some other versions:

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (KJV)
Jud 1:7 As Sodom and Gomorrha and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. (DRB).

As here used, it cannot mean that the fires which consumed Sodom and Gomorrah were literally eternal, or were kept always burning, for that was not true…

Again, your focusing on the buildings, but the text specifically calls out that it was “them”, “themselves” people who were going after strange flesh. Your right, the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is not still burining it is not eternal, but that is not he fire being spoken of in this text, it is the eternal fire which THE PEOPLE are suffering from.

(1) That the destruction of the cities of the plain, with their inhabitants, was as entire and perpetual as if the fires had been always burning - the consumption was absolute and enduring -

Ahh… see here… you have transferred the adjective eternal to the **effects (destruction) **of the fire rather than as describing the fire its self, which is how scripture uses it. The text says that the FIRE is eternal, not the that effects of the fire are eternal. “Eternal” as used in this text is derived from G165; agelong, or AIWN, from a prim. root appar. mean. continued duration; a space of time, an age. Eternal is a measure of time, not effect or destruction. The adjective in the text is describing the word fire. It is clarifying the duration of the fire. Fire is the greek word PUR, and it is speaking of actual fire, not the destruction of a fire.

Therefore, the text as simply read is saying that the fire which those who wandered after “strange flesh” were cast into, is eternal or without end. The word eternal is describing the fire, it is never indicated in the text that it is describing the effect of the fire.

As an example:
This is a hot iron.
Hot is used to describe the iron, not the effect of the iron on a shirt or hand. That would be stated completely different… as in:

The iron made the shirt hot.

(2) that, in its nature and duration, this was a striking emblem of the destruction which will come upon the ungodly.

Again… the word eternal is speaking of the fire, not the effects (destruction) of fire. They are two completely separate things.

I do not see that the apostle here means to affirm that those particular sinners who dwelt in Sodom would be punished forever, for his expressions do not directly affirm that,

They do! The writer says that those in the city were are suffering ETERNAL (endless) FIRE. Not that they are suffering the eternal effects of a fire. In order to come up with your interpretation, you must completely change the sentence structure in a way that is impossible from the text. This is why all translations put the adjective directly before the noun, because the adjective (eternal) is describing the noun its self (fire) not the effects of the noun. (fire)

If this had not been the case, there was no reason why he should have used the word “eternal” - meaning here “perpetual” - since, if in his mind there was no image of future punishment, all that the argument would have demanded was the simple statement that they were cut off by fire.

I dont understand your logic here… he is not describing how they were cut off with the word eternal, he is describing the fire. That THEY ARE suffering in ETERNAL Fire. The purpose of the word eternal is to describe the fire, it is an eternal fire… i.e. it is still burning.

The passage, then, cannot be used to prove that the particular dwellers in Sodom will be punished forever

It absolutely can, and is used in that way. The fire is eternal.

Because this text tells us that the fires which destroyed these cities were an “example” to us, we can know that the same fire will be the avenue of destruction of the wicked in the final judgment,

I agree… the same fire will punish all the wicked because it is an eternal fire, it never goes out, it is eternal.

continued

 

[SDA2RC]

Speaking of sinners and their final outcome,Jesus said:
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” ((Mat.25:46)

EXACTLY… what is everlasting (eternal) the effects of the punishment, or the punishment its self? The text says that the punishment is everlasting, which by default, means that the effects of the punishment must also be everlasting. Again, everlasting describes the length of the punishment, not the duration of the effects of the punishment. This is simply not supported in the text, it never mentions the effects of the punishment.

Notice, Jesus did not say that the wicked would suffer eternal “punishing;” but rather he clearly stated that the wicked would suffer eternal “punishment.

Funny… I use to say the EXACT same thing when giving Bible studies as an SDA… but them I looked up the word punishment in the dictionary… it means “the act of punishing”, LOL so what you said above makes no sense. In reality this text very plainly says that the ACT OF PUNISHING (which is what punishment means) is everlasting. i.e. an “everlasting act of punishment”. Act is a verb, meaning the carring out of the punishment. This verse very clearly states that the actual act of punishing is everlasting. btw… the link to the Merriam Webster definition of punishment is here

” And what is the “punishment” for sin? 2 Thes.1:9 says that the wicked “shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.” The punishment is destruction; and it is plainly shown to be of eternal duration.

Again… same verse I used to use. But I again, looked up the word “destruction” it means “the state or fact of being destroyed, or the action or process of destroying something.” This verse proves the Catholic view again. The wicked will be in an EVERLASTING STATE OF BEING DESTROYED, or an EVERLASTING PROCESS OF BEING DESTROYED. Destruction is a process through which an object goes through. This process according to scripture will be everlasting.

”It is a destruction that never ends,

I agree the destruction (process or state of being destroyed) never ends for these folks.

(Rev 20:10 NASB) And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

We find in Rev 20 the lake of fire and brimstone TORMENTS FOREVER AND EVER. IT doesn’t just have eternal effects, but it actually TORMENTS forever and ever.

(and you can look it up in ANY translation it says the same thing)

 

[SDA2RC]

Protestant101 or any other Adventist,

Eternal life and eternal punishment (fire) are used in contrast to each other… therefore, since you believe that the punishment in eternal punishment will come to an end and only the effects of the punishment are eternal. Do you also believe that the life of eternal life will come to an end and only the effects of the at life (love, pain, happiness, etc) are eternal?

 

[adventistnomore]

Your baited question “Did the Bible lie;” is the part of Catholic apologetics that is so deceptive.

I don’t think this is a “Catholic” technique. It’s more of a rhetorical strategy than an actual argument. It’s very common (though often dishonest).

 

[Protestant101]

I never said you started that topic, nor did I, however, you responded by saying in an earlier post that you found Biblical support for no identifying yourself up front as a certain denomination, and that even Christ told his apostles at one time to not tell people who had sent them.

It was to these remarks that I was responding.

Of course.

 

[Protestant101]

I don’t think this is a “Catholic” technique. It’s more of a rhetorical strategy than an actual argument. It’s very common (though often dishonest).

It is obviously not just a Catholic technique, as in originating from same; I only said it is used by them.

 

[Protestant101]

Funny… I use to say the EXACT same thing when giving Bible studies as an SDA… but them I looked up the word punishment in the dictionary… it means “the act of punishing”, LOL so what you said above makes no sense. In reality this text very plainly says that the ACT OF PUNISHING (which is what punishment means) is everlasting. i.e. an “everlasting act of punishment”. Act is a verb, meaning the carring out of the punishment. This verse very clearly states that the actual act of punishing is everlasting. btw… the link to the Merriam Webster definition of punishment is here

Of course; the word “act” is a verb; but this is not a grade school English lesson, nor is it prudent to use a dictionary to define Biblical terminology, the two are often too far apart in meaning.

As a parent, I sometimes have to “punish” one of my children, but do I punish them constantly with “everlasting” punishment? No. But the punishment is permanent in it’s effect; if it was appropriate. A constant, ongoing punishment is TORTURE; and if you want to say this is what God is into just to defend your state of the dead belief; then that is what the world will read here; I guess.

The only reason your idea here floats in your mind, is that it fits nicely with Catholic belief about the state of the dead; otherwise it wouldn’t hold water.

You asked the question that since some people believe that eternal life is forever, and does not end, then why do they believe that eternal death is only “permanent” and does have an end? it is because the two are two different things; and the use of certain words in the respective texts are used in different contexts.

Jesus Himself clearly teaches that the soul is not immortal; for he said that we are to “Fear not them which kill the body; but are not able to kill the soul; but rather, fear him which is able to DESTROY both body and soul in hell…”

Now, my friend, why don’t you try looking up “destroy” in your dictionary? In this case; it follows with the Biblical meaning nicely. Destroy means permanent, and not in the tense of an ongoing ordeal, as in your belief of eternal hell fire.