Heaven & Hell Vs Annihilation

[BavarianWheels]

No!

That hurt. =)
.
.

[B. W.]

I see from your link that you maybe SA and read Ellen G. White's stuff? is that correct?

No! and No again! I just did a hurried google search and came accross the article at the link I gave you. After a quick glance, I thought it would be suitable for my purpose. Until you mentioned it in this context, I wasn't aware that there might be a connection between it, SA, and Ellen G. White. I still don't think it would matter though, because I think it still does justice to my way of thinking in that his human enemies could not resist the human logic that stephen used to refute them (the same human logic that relied upon the same human standards of irresistable logic that both Stephen and his enemies relied upon to support or refute any given position involving human logic, any logic, or anything that involves logic and the common rules that all fairminded humans appeal to in their disputes on every subject that requires logic).

Only a guess!

Problem, Stephen was stoned to death so the logic was irresistably rejected - not accepted by all. That is why it is by God's revelation enlightening the eyes to see and the ears to hear that is important. From this, one irresistably accepts or reject the message.

What are you looking for?

Here is a question for you: If Stephen was alive today, would you be casting stones? or accepting the message?
-
-
-

[Gman]

Some other good links on the subject..

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/hell.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km6pUkOL ... xt_from=TL

[CuriousBob]

Problem, Stephen was stoned to death so the logic was irresistably rejected - not accepted by all.

It most certainly does not appear that way to me. Rather, the Scripture gives me the unmistakable impression that there was absolutely nothing irresistable about the choice that Stephen's opponents made in rejecting (i.e., not accepting) his message. I think the real reason they rejected it was, more or less, because they didn't like it; I think it was because the people who rejected his message were too full of pride to allow one whom they considered to have an inferior knowledge of Jewish history and doctrine to silence them, with great ease and peacefully, whenever they presented him with logical arguments they were sure would prove him wrong; or I think it was because Stepehen made those who ended up rejecting his message and stoning him to death feel extremely stupid when he made it obvious to them that their logic was seriously flawed when exposed by the light of his faultless or irresistable logic. I don't believe for a moment as you have suggested: namely, that it was because they couldn't help themselves that they rejected Stephen's.

You have failed to give me a good reason for believing that the urge to reject Stepehen's message was irresistable.

The Scripture gives me the clearest impression that those who stoned Stephen could very easily have accepted his message if they had loved the truth, if they had not been so stubbornly hung up on the interpretations of Scripture that were handed down to them by their hard-hearted fathers, if they had been willing to swallow their stubborn pride and admit that their most cherished beliefs were demolished by an apparently unlearned man's obviously superior (i.e., irresistable) human logic and if they had been willing to acknowledge the flawless and irresistable nature of the spirit that instantly gave Stephen the arguments he needed and when they were needed to silence his critics without resorting to fraud, deceit, violence, or clever debating tactics (primarily used to save face, establish prestige, or establish anything other than a point of fact or truth).

I see no reason for doubting the conviction that the logic that Stephen used, as it is clearly presented in the book of Acts, was the same kind of logic that his purely human opponents were most familiar with; that it was the same kind of logic that well-informed men appeal to when seeking to expose and debunk myths; that it was the same kind of logic that well-informed men appeal to when attempting to establish once and for all any point of contention between themselves and other men; that it was the same kind of logic that is distinctly human and that wins arguments whenever its rules are correctly or flawlessly observed and applied; that it was the same kind of logic that the most informed historians appeal to when seeking to silence the critics of their histories; that it was the same kind of logic that relies entirely on peaceful methods of establishing facts or truths; that it was the only kind of logic that men who love and are not afraid of facts or the truth are willing to accept; or that it was the only kind of logic that men who hate and are afraid of certain facts or the truth cannot resist without resorting to unfair tactics like stoning the messenger who appeals to it.

Here is a question for you: If Stephen was alive today, would you be casting stones? or accepting the message?

My character is such that it does not allow me to think of, let alone carry out, any act of violence against anyone who is merely attempting to give me a message, whether I like that message or hate it. After all, in my normal state o mind, I cannot bring myself to harm anyone who has done nothing to harm me.

If Stephen were alive today, I would be very interested in his message, I would probably accept it, but I would also ask him the same questions I am asking you, just to see if he is just as capable of answering them to my complete satisfaction as he was in handling the questions that his NT enemies asked him about Jesus.

I most certainly would never think of stoning Stephen, simply because I don't see any justice or fairness in stoning anyone like him, a man who obviously had done nothing worthy of such a vicious or cruel act. In fact, I would be insanely infuriated with anyone who would attempt to stone a man like Stephen. If possible, I would deal far more severely with the would-be stoner than he or she would have thought to deal with Stephen. I would consider anyone who would indicate a willingness to stone or allow the stoning of a man like Stephen to be heartless and a criminal. If anyone should be stoned, it is the heartless or the criminal, definitely not Stephen, if my opinion is worth anything.

That is why it is by God's revelation enlightening the eyes to see and the ears to hear that is important. From this, one irresistably accepts or reject the message.

I can see why the new birth could never take place without a miracle. I can see how God must open the eyes of the spiritually dead before they will be able to discern the things of the Spirit of God, becase the natural man (i.e., the spiritual corpse that is dead in trespasses and sins) can never recognize, much less, accept spiritual gifts until a miracle happens and God makes it "dead unto trespasses and sins" and "alive unto God". But the natural (spiritually dead) men who opposed Stephen saw the irresistable nature of his spirit and heard his irresistable logic and knew that they could not resist it without resorting to the logic of dangerous criminals. So, their eyes and ears were opened and without a miracle.

"Irresistably accepts or rejects"?

I thought the Holy Spirity was more like a gentleman than a tyrant in that He never forces Himself or God's will on anyone or in that He never forces anyone to reject Him or God's will. But, if you are right, rather if I am understanding you correctly, then He does force Himself or God's will on us because we can't resist accepting or rejecting what He wills for us.

[B. W.]

Problem, Stephen was stoned to death so the logic was irresistibly rejected - not accepted by all.

It most certainly does not appear that way to me. Rather, the Scripture gives me the unmistakable impression that there was absolutely nothing irresistable about the choice that Stephen's opponents made in rejecting (i.e., not accepting) his message. I think the real reason they rejected it was, more or less, because they didn't like it; I think it was because the people who rejected his message were too full of pride to allow one whom they considered to have an inferior knowledge of Jewish history and doctrine to silence them, with great ease and peacefully, whenever they presented him with logical arguments they were sure would prove him wrong; or I think it was because Stepehen made those who ended up rejecting his message and stoning him to death feel extremely stupid when he made it obvious to them that their logic was seriously flawed when exposed by the light of his faultless or irresistible logic. I don't believe for a moment as you have suggested: namely, that it was because they couldn't help themselves that they rejected Stephen's.......You have failed to give me a good reason for believing that the urge to reject Stepehen's message was irresistible.

You have contradicted yourself when you stated “the real reason they rejected it…” They rejected it. Read Acts 8:1. These people irresistibly rejected the message as bore out by the great persecution the early Church went through right after this event. These people did not feel stupid and guilty in the least as you claim — they went on a holy crusade to rid their world of who they deemed as blasphemers. They rejected the Holy Spirit cutting of their heart (Acts 7:51, 54) irresistibly — then went after the Church. No evidence of remorse or feeling extremely stupid for what they done at all is mentioned in the bible.

..."Irresistibly accepts or rejects"?

I thought the Holy Spirit was more like a gentleman than a tyrant in that He never forces Himself or God's will on anyone or in that He never forces anyone to reject Him or God's will. But, if you are right, rather if I am understanding you correctly, then He does force Himself or God's will on us because we can't resist accepting or rejecting what He wills for us.

In fact, God violates human free will everyday with the message of salvation and this message causes us to either irresistibly accept it or reject it. He has too, for we are sinners who want nothing to do with God and need waking up. He has too violate our free will with a choice so that we can either irresistibly accept or irresistibly reject his offer. This way he has mercy on who he wills and whom he wills he hardens. His ways are Justice and He remains without iniquity.

I praise God for violating my free will and awakening me to my need in Christ. I accepted — irresistibly!

In Acts 7:51,54 and Acts 8:1, we find God, through Stephen, violating the peoples free will to awaken them (verse 54). They rejected the message sent to awaken them irresistibly as evidence by their actions mentioned in Acts 8:1. In Acts 9 we find the Lord violating Saul's free will (Acts 9:1) and changing him into Paul (Acts 9:20). The Lord awakened him and changed him because the Lord chose him (Acts 9:15-16).

Why not all irresistibly accept Christ like Paul? Answer — is based on God's foreknowledge of the end result that God's message will have on a person (Jeremiah 1:5) and from this he can do so as he so-ever wills — have mercy or harden. Nothing unjust about this. - what would be unjust would be to remain silent and never bother to violate one's free will…

The Lord is awakening you — what will you do? It is good you would never consent to stoning Stephen but your demands of irresistible logic for God to perform to convince acceptance to your complete satisfaction are these not like stones thrown at another Stephen? A Stephen who is not ashamed to warn you of an eternal Hell, and God's Judgment, so that you'll avoid such a place?

Those casting stones never did find complete satisfaction in Stephens address in Acts 7 so when their hearts were cut - they were irresistibly harden by the sword of the Spirit - the word of God. So when Jesus warns of hell and recompense as eternal without end - you are still not convinced?

Again - The Lord is awakening you — what will you do?
-
-
-

[Lyle]

jlay can i talk to you about something i dont know how to mail people if you dont mind giving your email mine is lrtlrt3@gmail.com please mail me and i will reply

[B. W.]

jlay can i talk to you about something i dont know how to mail people if you dont mind giving your email mine is lrtlrt3@gmail.com please mail me and i will reply

Hi Lyle,

Look to the right of the screen and you'll notice a PM icon and an Email icon. Run you mouse cursor over them and an info box should appear - select the PM button for the person you would like to contact on the thread frame that bears their name...

Hope this helps
-
-
-