Seventh Day Adventist Teachings On Hell

[MarysRoses]

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.

Actually, when translating scripture, enormous effort is made to choose English words and phrases which will transmit the meaning of the original language as closely as possible. The idea that some words have special meanings in the context of the bible, would mean that the translators intentionally used some kind of special dictionary or code for the translation, ignoring standard English.

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.

But you never threaten your children with eternal fire or everlasting destruction, its not the same. Even if you did, you do not have the power to carry it out. Punishment is a noun descriptive of an act, not a past tense verb.

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.

(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.

The Greek word for tormented has the idea of an ordeal. Torment and Torture are not inappropriate translations. Future passive indicative - They shall be being tormented (ongoing future action).
day and night are genitive, they are directly describing the action of the verb. of the day and of the night. then the preposition eis which is into or leading into, into what?

eos ton eon. The root of eos is eo-. The word we know in English as eon. An age. So what does this ongoing action which is ongoing day and night lead into? The age of ages. forever. Eternity. Similar idioms, King of Kings, Lord of Lords. This isn’t a phrase you choose when you want to say ‘until it is done’.

I remember this verse very clearly. One of my Greek classes was taught by an SDA professor. One of the few willing to tackle the inconsistencies between Adventist theology and the bible. I remember the consternation of the men in the class preparing to be SDA pastors. They had always been taught that the results of the act were eternal, not the act. They had been taught that forever can mean ‘until it is finished’, not eternity. By the end of the second year, most Greek students grasp enough grammar to see that verse for what it is saying, not what they would like it to say.

The Adventist explanation remains that the phrase ‘into the age of ages’ is an idiom that can mean eternity or it can mean until something is finished. The fact that the contemporary evidence for this usage is lacking doesn’t seem to matter.

(cont. next post)

 

[MarysRoses]

( Cont. from previous post )

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 never responded to my post about Samuel. The Catholic teaching on the state of the dead is biblical, and is historical Christian teaching. Adventists are the one who came up with a reworking of a long ago condemned teaching that we do not have an immortal soul. That puts the burden of proof on you to show that Christians have been wrong for almost 2000 years.

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…”

Interesting you would bring up this verse, since it clearly distinguishes that we have a body AND a soul. And that killing the body does not kill the soul. God is able to utterly destroy us. That does not mean that he will choose to do so. Thats what this verse says, he is ABLE.

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.

What God has the power to do, and what he chooses to do with His power are not always the same thing. You reference our beliefs as an ongoing ordeal, which we DO have biblical support for, reference the breakdown of Rev 20 above. The tense of the verb and the meaning is ongoing torment.

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.

I’m going back to this quote for another comment. Your intention here seems to be to say that God couldn’t possibly do this, that somehow we are questioning God’s character with our belief that hell is eternal. Adventists use the serpents lie to Eve to suggest that an eternal hell is part of Satan’s deception. I find it very unconvincing that the lie would be refering to our souls, when death of the body itself was not yet something in human experience.

I have a different interpretation. The serpent convinced Eve that God did not REALLY mean what he said, after all, death is too awful to believe that God, who is Love, would ever REALLY do such a thing.

People who object to the teachings of an eternal hell based on its just too awful and God would never do that, are making the same mistake as Eve did in listening to the serpent.

MarysRoses

 

[adventistnomore]

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

Yeah, that’s fine, as long as you don’t mean to say that Adventists are immune to this kind of rhetoric. (Again, I don’t find it especially problematic, but to all their own.)

 

[Protestant101]

( Cont. from previous post )

You never responded to my post about Samuel. The Catholic teaching on the state of the dead is biblical, and is historical Christian teaching. Adventists are the one who came up with a reworking of a long ago condemned teaching that we do not have an immortal soul. That puts the burden of proof on you to show that Christians have been wrong for almost 2000 years.

Don’t worry so about whether I reply or not right away! I cannot possibly find time or energy to reply to multiple posts and subjects by so many of the Catholic members of this forum. There are not too many of me here; and I do my best to reply to what I see as the priority. I will however say that the topic of Samuel is one that I am very interested in personally; and that I will at some time asap, reply to that point that you raised.

Also; I would like to mention how that a long history of doing or believing something does not make it a Bible truth. There would be more required in order to determine it as truth. The true, “Early Church” wasn’t Catholics.

I would be interested to see though; some quotes as you mentioned where the teachings of “no immortal soul” were “condemned.” I believe that would be a good line of study to add to this topic.

Thanks for hanging in there with this “stubborn old Protestant!” I don’t see our discussions here as a lost cause, and look forward to more as time permits.

 

[Protestant101]

Yeah, that’s fine, as long as you don’t mean to say that Adventists are immune to this kind of rhetoric. (Again, I don’t find it especially problematic, but to all their own.)

It’s just that when we try to say “Does the Bible lie?” we say other things too. Perhaps this reflects the lie that one of us believes in so strongly.

 

[servus]

My question for Adventists is the following:
Do Adventists believe hell is eternal? Do Adventists believe heaven is eternal?

The Catholic Church believes hell is eternal, as is heaven. Scripture, oral tradition, and the teachings of the early Church fathers is the basis for this belief. In addition to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the following article is useful for understanding the Catholic position.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0110frs.asp

Sincerely,

Maria1212

It is a question of definitions. Is eternal Hell the opposite of eternal life? Or is eternal death the the opposite of eternal life?

 

[Protestant101]

It is a question of definitions. Is eternal Hell the opposite of eternal life? Or is eternal death the the opposite of eternal life?

Actually, it is a question of “What Does The Bible Say?”

 

[SDA2RC]

Actually, it is a question of “What Does The Bible Say?”

Right… and why it says is “Everlasting Punishment” “Eternal Fire” etc.

 

[Maria1212]

Right… and why it says is “Everlasting Punishment” “Eternal Fire” etc.

That is why I still do not undestand why Adventists believe that punishment in hell is not eternal. I dont need to agree with what Adventists teach, but I would like to better understand why they believe what they believe. (Larry, that is one of the reasons we are posting. To help others understand our beliefs, and vice versa, even if we dont agree with what they believe. There is still benefit in understanding the “why” and “how” of how another Christian interprets Scripture. That is not bickering).

I need to catch up on some of the previous posts.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[SDA2RC]

Mark 9 gives us another glimpse of what Christ meant when he spoke of an eternal fire, or hell.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed,** than having two hands to go into hell,** into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.

This verse repeats the piont that Hell is where the fire will not be quenched. The word quenched is G4570. sbennumi, a prim. vb.; to quench:-- extinguish(1), going out(1), put out(1), quench(1), quenched(4). These verses clearly teach that the fires of hell will never go out, or extinguish.

 

[Protestant101]

( Cont. from previous post )

You never responded to my post about Samuel. The Catholic teaching on the state of the dead is biblical, and is historical Christian teaching. Adventists are the one who came up with a reworking of a long ago condemned teaching that we do not have an immortal soul. That puts the burden of proof on you to show that Christians have been wrong for almost 2000 years.

MarysRoses

Life After Death?

1Sa 28:14 And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.

This spiritualistic séance is often quoted as “evidence” for life after death, and the spiritualistic doctrine of the immortal soul. But there are a number of related Bible points that would refute this clever and deceptive “doctrine of devils” :

**1/ ** In the Bible; wizards were always sentenced to death, and banned from the land: 1 Sam.28:3, Lev.20:7

**2/ ** Earlier in 1 Sam. 28, (vs.15), we are told that God had already departed from Saul; and would NOT communicate with him.

**3/ ** Samuel was supposedly “brought up.” Other expressions for the same text say “ascending out of the earth;” “cometh up,” and “bring…up.” Is this where the righteous dead are? Down in the Earth? Not according to anyone who believes in the immortal soul!

**4/ ** “Samuel” is described as an “old man,” and “covered with a mantle.” Is this the way that “immortal souls” would appear? And where did this “soul” get the body from? Immortal souls are said to be “disembodied;” when was this “Samuel” resurrected? Did God obey the beck and call of the witch and raise up Samuel? If not; then can it be? Can Satan raise the dead?

5/ The apparition of “Samuel” told Saul: “Tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me.” As we see in the Bible record; Saul committed suicide on the battle field the next day. Where did Samuel go if the wicked Saul was appointed to go to the same place?

**6/ ** The Bible never once says in this or any other passage that it was actually Saul who had seen this “Samuel.” He had received his information only second-handed from the witch; and the Bible only says that Saul “perceived” from the witch’s description, that it must have been “Samuel.”

The truth of this matter is that Satan had deceived the dissolute old woman; and she, in turn, deceived Saul. This incident of Saul going to the witch was nothing more than a Satanic séance.

7/ The enormity of Saul’s sin in going to a witch is revealed in these words:

“So Saul died…for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit; to inquire of it, and inquired not of the Lord: therefore He slew him.” 1 Chron.10:13-14

 

[MarysRoses]

**6/ ** The Bible never once says in this or any other passage that it was actually Saul who had seen this “Samuel.” He had received his information only second-handed from the witch; and the Bible only says that Saul “perceived” from the witch’s description, that it must have been “Samuel.”

I have to make a quick post. I think all the comments previous to this last one are distractions. The account is consistent with Hebrew beliefs of that time in sheol, before Christ came. That something is different AFTER Christ came, is evident from the New Testament. For example I Peter 3:18 etc…

18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

but this one:

**6/ ** The Bible never once says in this or any other passage that it was actually Saul who had seen this “Samuel.” He had received his information only second-handed from the witch; and the Bible only says that Saul “perceived” from the witch’s description, that it must have been “Samuel.”

I don’ t know what bible you are reading, THIS is what mine says:

13 The king said to her, “Don’t be afraid. What do you see?”
The woman said, “I see a spirit [a] coming up out of the ground.”
14 “What does he look like?” he asked.
“An old man wearing a robe is coming up,” she said.

Yes, he is asking her what she sees, but then directly afterward:

Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.

15 Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”
"I am in great distress," Saul said. “The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has turned away from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do.”

16 Samuel said, "Why do you consult me, now that the LORD has turned away from you and become your enemy? 17 The LORD has done what he predicted through me. The LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hands and given it to one of your neighbors—to David.

If this was only the woman’s perception, the bible writer was taken in as well. The narrative changes and the woman is no longer a participant. The Bible relates a conversation between Saul and Samuel. It does not relate it as having been only through the woman, nor does the Bible itself identify this as anything other than SAMUEL the prophet.

MarysRoses

 

[IamOdd4God]

My question for Adventists is the following: Do Adventists believe hell is eternal? Do Adventists believe heaven is eternal?

First of all, I cannot say that “ALL” Adventist believe the Adventist doctrine. So I’m not saying that every Adventist believes this way. That said, this is based off a discussion I had with people from 3ABN, which is an Adventist television station.

I know that they teach that the lake of fire is not eternal. They teach that the souls of them that are not written in the book of life will be thrown into the lake of fire, where they will be burned up. The man flat out said that they will no longer exist. He also said that they will not be tormented for all eternity as some teach.

Sooooooooo, knowing what the Scriptures says, I decided to write them and ask them if the punsihment is not everlasting, then why does the Bible describe it as being everlasting (Matthew 25:46)? And if the souls that are thrown into the lake of fire burns up to the point that they exist no more, then why does the Bible say that for them there is no rest forever and ever (Revelation 20:10; Revelation 14:10-11)?

The person on the other side could not explain. I waited for a response from the man who I heard teach that, and I heard nothing from him either.

The lake of fire is eternal, and there will be “NO REST” day or night forever and ever for those who go there. Who wants man to believe that there is no eternal punishment for sin? Satan. Don’t be decieved.

In the name of Jesus,

Ken

 

[Protestant101]

I have to make a quick post. I think all the comments previous to this last one are distractions. The account is consistent with Hebrew beliefs of that time in sheol, before Christ came. That something is different AFTER Christ came, is evident from the New Testament. For example I Peter 3:18 etc…

18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

Well; what you are saying we must believe is the “testimony” of a witch; as that is who Saul had gone to for this “evidence.” Some Bible versions say Saul “perceived” that it was Samuel; (KJV) thereby showing that he did not actually physically see this apparition himself, and that his perception was based on the say so of a witch. The Bible does not thereby sanction Christians to go to a witch or a medium today; nor the idea that this “proves” that there is life after death. The context is important here.

Bringing the text from 2 Pet.3:18 into this part of the study is the real distraction from the text we have under consideration; however, sonce you bring it up, you will find that point addressed here.

 

[adventistnomore]

Well; what you are saying we must believe is the “testimony” of a witch; as that is who Saul had gone to for this “evidence.” Some Bible versions say Saul “perceived” that it was Samuel; (KJV) thereby showing that he did not actually physically see this apparition himself, and that his perception was based on the say so of a witch.

Actually, the words of the witch or Saul are irrelevant to us. It’s the opinion of the biblical author who consistently refers to the being as “Samuel” that’s intriguing.

 

[MarysRoses]

Actually, the words of the witch or Saul are irrelevant to us. It’s the opinion of the biblical author who consistently refers to the being as “Samuel” that’s intriguing.

Thats my point. I’m not endorsing what Saul did, it was condemned.

MarysRoses

 

[SDA2RC]

Well; what you are saying we must believe is the “testimony” of a witch; as that is who Saul had gone to for this “evidence.” Some Bible versions say Saul “perceived” that it was Samuel; (KJV) thereby showing that he did not actually physically see this apparition himself, and that his perception was based on the say so of a witch. The Bible does not thereby sanction Christians to go to a witch or a medium today; nor the idea that this “proves” that there is life after death. The context is important here.

Protestant, no one is asking you to believe the Witch, we are asking you to believe scripture. The inspired writer of scripture said:

(Vs 12) “When the woman saw Samuel…”
(Vs 15) “Then Samuel said…”
(Vs. 16) “And Samuel said…”
Finally in verse 20 we read, “Then Saul immediately fell full length upon the ground and was very afraid because of the words of Samuel;”

What we are asking here Protestant101, is this, “Do you believe that when the INSPIRED writer of scripture identified the spirit as Samuel, he was wrong? Do you believe this part of scripture as it is written?”

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant, no one is asking you to believe the Witch, we are asking you to believe scripture. The inspired writer of scripture said:

(Vs 12) “When the woman saw Samuel…”
(Vs 15) “Then Samuel said…”
(Vs. 16) “And Samuel said…”
Finally in verse 20 we read, “Then Saul immediately fell full length upon the ground and was very afraid because of the words of Samuel;”

What we are asking here Protestant101, is this, “Do you believe that when the INSPIRED writer of scripture identified the spirit as Samuel, he was wrong? Do you believe this part of scripture as it is written?”

 

[SDA2RC]

Protestant,
I think your response didn’t go through on the previous post?

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant,
I think your response didn’t go through on the previous post?

LOL…I guess I did something not quite right. I will have to come back when I have a little time to re-do it. I wish I could delete it; but maybe if a Moderator sees it they will do it for me?

Anyways; I will be back asap.