Annihilationism

[StanJ]

The posts in the thread are looking more and more like attacks on the persons rather than the positions expressed.

Well when one is paranoid about their position one will project that paranoia onto themselves. Feel free to participate with fact and not assertion and innuendo.

 

[hedrick]

Judge: The court calls the rich man to be judged. Oooops....it seems that he has already been judged and punished. This is a little embarrassing. I thought I was supposed to be doing the judging now (at the Great White Throne). Anyway, Mr. Rich Man, you are hereby judged and sentenced to eternity in flames.

Let me play devil's advocate here, since I agree that some kind of destruction is the most plausible way to harmonize the various descriptions (if you have to do that).

I think there's pretty good agreement that it was common to believe in paradise as a temporary state where people experienced good things prior to the final bringing of the New Jerusalem.

If so, there's no logical problem with a temporary state where sinners receive a foretaste of eternal punishment. Indeed the Word Commentary says just this thing:

"On Hades, see at 10:15. Though representing the place of the dead quite generally, it comes increasingly to include the idea of a preliminary experience of what is to be the individual’s ultimate fate at the final judgment (see 2 Esd 7:80; 1 Enoch; 22:11; cf. Jude 6–7; 1 Pet 3:19–20)."

Another plausible reading, with some basis in Jewish belief, is that the Rich Man was being punished temporarily, and would eventually be saved.

Or perhaps God isn't limited by linear time, and arguments based on timing should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[StanJ]

D. A. Carson speaks a hard but necessary truth:

Despite the sincerity of their motives, one wonders more than a little to what extent the growing popularity of various forms of annihilationism and conditional immortality are a reflection of this age of pluralism. It is getting harder and harder to be faithful to the "hard lines" of Scripture. And in this way, evangelicalism itself may contribute to the gagging of God by silencing the severity of his warnings and by minimizing the awfulness of the punishment that justly awaits those untouched by his redeeming grace.

 

[hedrick]

D. A. Carson speaks a hard but necessary truth:

Despite the sincerity of their motives, one wonders more than a little to what extent the growing popularity of various forms of annihilationism and conditional immortality are a reflection of this age of pluralism. It is getting harder and harder to be faithful to the "hard lines" of Scripture. And in this way, evangelicalism itself may contribute to the gagging of God by silencing the severity of his warnings and by minimizing the awfulness of the punishment that justly awaits those untouched by his redeeming grace.

This is basically ad hominem, and is no more acceptable from a scholar than a normal CF reader. Indeed in some ways it is worse, since one basic requirement for scholarship is to be able to undestand views different from one's own and describe them sympathetically.

 

[StanJ]

This is basically ad hominem, and is no more acceptable from a scholar than a normal CF reader. Indeed in some ways it is worse, since one basic requirement for scholarship is to be able to undestand views different from one's own and describe them sympathetically.

It can't possibly be ad hominem as it isn't directed towards a particular person. It's directed at an idea. I'm pretty sure if you look up the definition of ad hominem this statement will not fit it. Given Carson's pedigree I find he has a legitimate right to make this observation.
You would have to digest his debates with conditionalists to find out whether or not he does use ad hominem, and I haven't seen any of that.
Are you also a conditionalist?

 

[ewq1938]

This is basically ad hominem, and is no more acceptable from a scholar than a normal CF reader.

Half the thread is I think

 

[hedrick]

It can't possibly be ad hominem as it isn't directed towards a particular person. It's directed at an idea. I'm pretty sure if you look up the definition of ad hominem this statement will not fit it. Given Carson's pedigree I find he has a legitimate right to make this observation.
You would have to digest his debates with conditionalists to find out whether or not he does use ad hominem, and I haven't seen any of that.
Are you also a conditionalist?

It's claiming that the motivations of people advocating a specific view are discreditable. It clearly implies that advocates are being misled by the spirit of the age. This is classic ad hominem. Sound reasoning looks at the detailed justifications. Sound Protestant reasoning looks at exegesis without being biased by traditional views.

If we're going to get ad hominem I can just as easily claim the advocates of ECT are being overly influenced by traditions going back to Catholic views that were not formed by Scripture. While being influenced by the spirit of the age is certainly something to watch out for, unconsciously being biased by the views you grew up with is probably a more common danger.

But this is silly. We need to do the exegesis, withou trying to dismiss people by our guesses at what leads to their views.

 

[expos4ever]

If so, there's no logical problem with a temporary state where sinners receive a foretaste of eternal punishment.

I think this is plausible, but unlikely. From the Luke 16 account, the rich man really does appear to be in quite a lot of distress:

"....I am in agony in this fire."

Have you seen Life of Brian? There is a stoning scene in which a man about to be stoned to death for blasphemy (saying the Lord's name aloud), once more utters the name of God. The guy in charge of the stoning cries out "You're only making it worse for yourself!". "Making it worse? How could it be worse?", replies the condemned man.

Likewise, it is hard to see how a rich man "in agony in flames" can be experiencing merely a "foretaste" of eternal punishment.

But in any event, the real point here is that many people insist that the Luke passage is "proof" of eternal torment. Surely you agree that such a view is clearly ruled out by Romans 2.

 

[expos4ever]

Are you also a conditionalist?

You certainly appear to be a "conditionalist" of sorts. More specifically, you only answer questions on the "condition" that answering them won't put you in an awkward spot.

To wit:

Please complete this simple sentence:

It is sensible for Paul to announce a future meting out of judgment and punishment for people (like the rich man inLuke 16) who have already experienced torment, whether eternal or not, because........

 

[hedrick]

I think this is plausible, but unlikely. From the Luke 16 account, the rich man really does appear to be in quite a lot of distress:

"....I am in agony in this fire."

Have you seen Life of Brian? There is a stoning scene in which a man about to be stoned to death for blasphemy (saying the Lord's name aloud), once more utters the name of God. The guy in charge of the stoning cries out "You're only making it worse for yourself!". "Making it worse? How could it be worse?", replies the condemned man.

Likewise, it is hard to see how a rich man "in agony in flames" can be experiencing merely a "foretaste" of eternal punishment.

But in any event, the real point here is that many people insist that the Luke passage is "proof" of eternal torment. Surely you agree that such a view is clearly ruled out by Romans 2.

I agree that if you're trying to produce a grand harmony of literal interpretation, this passage can't be used to support everlasting torture.

 

[StanJ]

It's claiming that the motivations of people advocating a specific view are discreditable. It clearly implies that advocates are being misled by the spirit of the age. This is classic ad hominem. Sound reasoning looks at the detailed justifications. Sound Protestant reasoning looks at exegesis without being biased by traditional views.
If we're going to get ad hominem I can just as easily claim the advocates of ECT are being overly influenced by traditions going back to Catholic views that were not formed by Scripture. While being influenced by the spirit of the age is certainly something to watch out for, unconsciously being biased by the views you grew up with is probably a more common danger.
But this is silly. We need to do the exegesis, withou trying to dismiss people by our guesses at what leads to their views.

He said no such thing so I have no idea how you come up with that? I agree that sound exegesis should be the reasoning behind everything that we believe but in my opinion haven't seen much of that in this thread. If one does grow up believing Doctrine rather than learning how to properly exegete the Bible then that is a distinct possibility and I've seen it manifested in many POVs within Christianity. If you know anything of Carson, then you know that he is not that type of person and as I said, his credentials speak for themselves. So far I haven't seen anybody else indicate credentialed points of view on this thread.

 

[Der Alte]

Let me play devil's advocate here, since I agree that some kind of destruction is the most plausible way to harmonize the various descriptions (if you have to do that).
I think there's pretty good agreement that it was common to believe in paradise as a temporary state where people experienced good things prior to the final bringing of the New Jerusalem.
If so, there's no logical problem with a temporary state where sinners receive a foretaste of eternal punishment. Indeed the Word Commentary says just this thing:
"On Hades, see at 10:15. Though representing the place of the dead quite generally, it comes increasingly to include the idea of a preliminary experience of what is to be the individual’s ultimate fate at the final judgment (see 2 Esd 7:80; 1 Enoch; 22:11; cf. Jude 6–7; 1 Pet 3:19–20)."
Another plausible reading, with some basis in Jewish belief, is that the Rich Man was being punished temporarily, and would eventually be saved.
Or perhaps God isn't limited by linear time, and arguments based on timing should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'll address your last point first. In John 8 when Jesus was in the temple present and debating with the Jewish leaders did He simultaneously exist before Abraham as He said He did? Since Jesus considered His existence "present tense," as it were, with a long ago historical event i.e. the birth of Abraham might He also consider a future event such as the rich man being tormented in a fiery hades, although apparently future to our finite human understanding, also "present tense" to Himself?
..... While there might have been a Jewish belief that sinners in sheol would be "punished temporarily, and would eventually be saved" Jesus quite emphatically precluded that end for the rich man when He quoted Abraham as saying "those who want to cross from this side to you cannot do so, nor can they cross from your side [hades] to us." Luke 16:26

 

[expos4ever]

Paul is referring to the Judgment of Israel in Romans 2 not the judgement or punishment of individuals.

No, and I challenge you to name a single scholar - and I mean a real scholar who did not their diploma through the internet - who believes that Romans 2 is about Israel.

It clearly cannot be as Gentiles are explicitly included within the scope of the judgment!:

There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

This is something you would know you actually study the Bible rather than try to pick it apart

Do you mean the kind of studying you seem to have done, where the clear inclusion of the Gentiles in the Romans 2 judgment has been overlooked?

Look: Others are pointing out your rudeness and inappropriate trash talk. Why not elevate the level of your debate and stop with the playground tactics.

 

[StanJ]

You certainly appear to be a "conditionalist" of sorts. More specifically, you only answer questions on the "condition" that answering them won't put you in an awkward spot.
To wit:
Please complete this simple sentence:
It is sensible for Paul to announce a future meting out of judgment and punishment for people (like the rich man inLuke 16) who have already experienced torment, whether eternal or not, because........

Asked and answered a few times now so I'm not really sure what you expect in addition? Not up to you to put conditions on anybody here as far as what they will or will not comply with. As I've already stated your sensibilities have nothing to do with scripture. It is God inspired and it is our responsibility to rightly divided. Once you start doing that we may have something to discuss. I know this is a main verse of conditionalism but I won't get sucked in to your logic when I already know what the end result is.

 

[expos4ever]

Asked and answered a few times now so I'm not really sure what you expect in addition?

Please direct us to the post in which you actually completed the sentence.

Because there is no such post and you bear false witness when you say otherwise. Here is the key point: Given that you believe Luke 16 is is literal and you (claim to, anyway) believe in Paul, you cannot allow those two beliefs to actually come together (and they are forced to come together if you complete the sentence). Why not? Because your two positions will be shown to be mutually contradictory if you complete this sentence. It certainly seems that you evade answering this rather clear question precisely because you have to evade it to maintain the mirage that a literal take on Luke 16 can work with Romans 2.

But, please, put me in my place: complete this sentence and display all this Biblical knowledge you claim that I lack:

It is sensible for Paul to announce a future meting out of judgment and punishment for people (like the rich man inLuke 16) who have already experienced torment, whether eternal or not, because........

 

[StanJ]

No, and I challenge you to name a single scholar - and I mean a real scholar who did not their diploma through the internet - who believes that Romans 2 is about Israel.
It clearly cannot be as Gentiles are explicitly included within the scope of the judgment!:
There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Well David Malick would be one. You can read the following out of the Expositors Bible Commentary;
5-11 The apostle speaks plainly in order to startle Jews out of their lethargy of self-deception. What the nation is doing by its stubbornness and impenitence is to invite retribution, which is slowly but surely building up a reservoir of divine wrath that will be crushing when it breaks over the guilty in the day of reckoning. Then the judgment will be revealed to all, in contrast to the indirect working of God's wrath in the present scene (cf. ch. 1). At that time a second principle of divine judgment will become apparent, emphasizing performance: "to each person according to what he has done" (lit., "according to his works"). What Paul has in mind here is the final reckoning (cf. the word "day"). National judgment may fit into a temporal scheme, but personal judgment belongs to the frontier of the ages to come.
The following is from Matthew Henry... you may have heard of him.
This is especially applicable to the Jews, who had singular tokens of the divine favour. Means are mercies, and the more light we sin against the more love we sin against. Low and mean thoughts of the divine goodness are at the bottom of a great deal of sin. There is in every wilful sin an interpretative contempt of the goodness of God; it is spurning at his bowels, particularly the goodness of his patience, his forbearance and long-suffering, taking occasion thence to be so much the more bold in sin.

Look: Others are pointing out your rudeness and inappropriate trash talk. Why not elevate the level of your debate and stop with the playground tactics.

Those kind of comments don't really help because they only come across as condescending and self-righteous so if you want to elevate the level of debate here then stop making supercilious statements. I have no problem reciprocating in kind, no matter what the kind is.

 

[expos4ever]

Not up to you to put conditions on anybody here as far as what they will or will not comply with.

Since when does asking you to answer a clear, meaningful question constitute any kind of inappropriate imposition of "conditions" on you. Have I asked you a question that you cannot answer without disclosing the incoherence of your view?

Guilty as charged.

I won't get sucked in to your logic when I already know what the end result is.

Indeed; you won't answer my question since it will expose the incoherence of your position.

 

[StanJ]

Please direct us to the post in which you actually completed the sentence.

Because there is no such post and you bear false witness when you say otherwise. Here is the key point: Given that you believe Luke 16 is is literal and you (claim to, anyway) believe in Paul, you cannot allow those two beliefs to actually come together (and they are forced to come together if you complete the sentence). Why not? Because your two positions will be shown to be mutually contradictory if you complete this sentence. It certainly seems that you evade answering this rather clear question precisely because you have to evade it to maintain the mirage that a literal take on Luke 16 can work with Romans 2.

But, please, put me in my place: complete this sentence and display all this Biblical knowledge you claim that I lack:

It is sensible for Paul to announce a future meting out of judgment and punishment for people (like the rich man inLuke 16) who have already experienced torment, whether eternal or not, because........

I tell you what, I'll answer this query if you answer all my previous questions that you've avoided.

 

[expos4ever]

Well David Malick would be one....

Fill in the blanks please:

There will be trouble and distress for XXXXX: first for the Jew, then for the XXXX; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the XXXX.

And remember your claim:

Paul is referring to the Judgment of Israel in Romans 2 not the judgement or punishment of individuals.

I will be interested to see if you fill in the blanks and then can reconcile that with this claim that the Romans 2 judgement is only about Israel.

I am gripped with anticipation at how you are going to reconcile this from Paul:

"There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil"

....with your denial that the Romans 2 judgment does not deal with judgment and punishment of individuals.

How can a judgment/punishment that falls on every human being who does evil not be "judgment and punishment of individuals"?

 

[StanJ]

Since when does asking you to answer a clear, meaningful question constitute any kind of inappropriate imposition of "conditions" on you. Have I asked you a question that you cannot answer without disclosing the incoherence of your view?
Guilty as charged.

So you actually admit to being manipulative?