Annihilation=No Wrath

[BurningBush84]

I know how I interpret it, as it was meant to be interpreted.... as a parable!

Could you and SarahsKnight answer the question ? What does Matthew 18:8-9 mean ?

 

[SarahsKnight]

Could you and SarahsKnight answer the question ? What does Matthew 18:8-9 mean ?

I just did.

 

[SarahsKnight]

I just did.

Could you and SarahsKnight answer the question ? What does Matthew 18:8-9 mean ?

Or at least I wrote out a reply. Guess I forgot to actually hit the button. My bad. I'll see if I can recover or type it out again later when I'm back home.

 

[deborahjoy429]

I do not understand how annihilationism can be perceived as an eternal, peaceful, soothing sleep. As with the root word from which the theology is coined, annihilation, in this view the unsaved would be destroyed completely, obliterated. Apart from not joining with God, which is itself punishment, their destruction is their punishment. Their existence within this punishment is simply finite, just as their earthly life of sins had been finite. Regardless of where one lands after study and prayer, it seems like a bizarre misconstrual to call their punishment peaceful and stranger yet to call it eternal rest when the whole gist of annhilationism is temporal finitude--neither eternal nor rest. They face the judgment seat and then are destroyed.

I've lost track of the threads I've pinged around on, so possibly this next comment is more pertinent to a different annhilationism thread. But I also saw folks suggesting that it would be unjust that they went through life as Christians if ECT is not what they have escaped by so doing. If the unsaved need to suffer a lot--and eternally--in order for my faith life to be worthwhile or if I would need to have suffered a lot eternally in order for my faith on earth to be worthwhile, I am "doing Christianity" wrong. As believers, our eternal life begins now at salvation in our union with God and our fruit-bearing life in Christ. I have suffered for my faith far more considerably than most Westerners I am aware of, but I don't need someone else to scream in pain for eternity to make my suffering worthwhile. The spiritual benefits of life in Christ are also their own reward despite circumstances. Plus many of the experiences we might crave to indulge in would ultimately devastate us in a variety of ways in this life, not just the next. Like the psalmists, I can get to feeling the bitterness of my comparative lot and have even gone through seasons where I struggled not to regret having chosen to decline some sinful experiences in the past because I hadn't received the good and compensatory experiences in this life that had been so strongly suggested by the church as one of the rewards. I do understand that we can reach points where the pain of how things turned out hits us in that way. Even Paul said that he was to be the most pitied of men if the cross wasn't true.

But what hurts the most is that many may never know life at one with God.

 

[BurningBush84]

I do not understand how annihilationism can be perceived as an eternal, peaceful, soothing sleep. As with the root word from which the theology is coined, annihilation, in this view the unsaved would be destroyed completely, obliterated. Apart from not joining with God, which is itself punishment, their destruction is their punishment. Their existence within this punishment is simply finite, just as their earthly life of sins had been finite. Regardless of where one lands after study and prayer, it seems like a bizarre misconstrual to call their punishment peaceful and stranger yet to call it eternal rest when the whole gist of annhilationism is temporal finitude--neither eternal nor rest. They face the judgment seat and then are destroyed.

I've lost track of the threads I've pinged around on, so possibly this next comment is more pertinent to a different annhilationism thread. But I also saw folks suggesting that it would be unjust that they went through life as Christians if ECT is not what they have escaped by so doing. If the unsaved need to suffer a lot--and eternally--in order for my faith life to be worthwhile or if I would need to have suffered a lot eternally in order for my faith on earth to be worthwhile, I am "doing Christianity" wrong. As believers, our eternal life begins now at salvation in our union with God and our fruit-bearing life in Christ. I have suffered for my faith far more considerably than most Westerners I am aware of, but I don't need someone else to scream in pain for eternity to make my suffering worthwhile. The spiritual benefits of life in Christ are also their own reward despite circumstances. Plus many of the experiences we might crave to indulge in would ultimately devastate us in a variety of ways in this life, not just the next. Like the psalmists, I can get to feeling the bitterness of my comparative lot and have even gone through seasons where I struggled not to regret having chosen to decline some sinful experiences in the past because I hadn't received the good and compensatory experiences in this life that had been so strongly suggested by the church as one of the rewards. I do understand that we can reach points where the pain of how things turned out hits us in that way. Even Paul said that he was to be the most pitied of men if the cross wasn't true.

But what hurts the most is that many may never know life at one with God.

SDA and JW's compare annihilation to eternal sleep. After the wicked receive a fast quick death on Judgement Day , they won't feel anything forever more. No remorse, no regret , no sadness , no pain,. You won't miss NOT being in Heaven because you won't exist anymore. Therefore the wicked will never have to ENDURE any consequences for rejecting Christ. A quick death followed by nothing / RIP

 

[BurningBush84]

Or at least I wrote out a reply. Guess I forgot to actually hit the button. My bad. I'll see if I can recover or type it out again later when I'm back home.

Being thrown into a lake of fire would make for a very quick death. A couple seconds of pain and you'd be annihilated right away. But what does Matthew 18:8 teach ? What does it say?

Jesus said self mutilation would be better than being thrown into hell. Self mutilation would cause a tremendous amount of pain that lasts a LONG time. How would that be better than a quick death ????? Because after annihilation you feel no pain, you feel nothing. Self mutilation is NOT better than a quick death. We all know that because it's common sense. Jesus words Matthew 18:8 make a lot more sense if ECT were true.

Everyone would prefer a quick death over suffering the long lasting pain of self mutilation.

Jesus would have preferred a quick death rather than being tortured and crucified.

 

[deborahjoy429]

SDA and JW's compare annihilation to eternal sleep. After the wicked receive a fast quick death on Judgement Day , they won't feel anything forever more. No remorse, no regret , no sadness , no pain,. You won't miss NOT being in Heaven because you won't exist anymore. Therefore the wicked will never have to ENDURE any consequences for rejecting Christ. A quick death followed by nothing / RIP

Oh, wow! I’ve only ever discussed this from evangelical perspectives (although maybe SDAs do consider themselves to be in that category?). So that is unfamiliar. My bad, then.

 

[crixus]

Annihilation... cute yet that's not what His word says. "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

Yeah I'm going with what God says

The wise choice.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Oh, wow! I’ve only ever discussed this from evangelical perspectives (although maybe SDAs do consider themselves to be in that category?). So that is unfamiliar. My bad, then.

Don't take that person's comment too seriously, for they so grossly misrepresented what SDAs believe and teach that it borders on lying. I've spent enough time studying with Adventists to know that they don't conflate annihilation (final state) and sleep (intermediate state).

And, yes, Adventists are evangelicals.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

"..... but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." Romans 12:19

"........their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them". Deuteronomy 32:35

Annihilation seems very peaceful, the total opposite of experiencing wrath. Annihilation is basically resting in eternal peace, a peaceful soothing eternal sleep. Annihilation means the wicked unbelievers wont have to endure any punishment in the afterlife. Annihilation seems like more of a blessing than a curse. Annihilation seems more like Gods grace rather than his wrath. If your trying to convince people that Gods wrath is peaceful eternal sleep, then Gods wrath is a gracious peaceful reward for the wicked. Absolutely no eternal consequences for the wicked unbeliever. Eternal sleep is a gift, not a consequence, not a punishment. No reason to fear Gods wrath. If you don't go to Heaven it wont matter because you wont know what your missing, you wont feel regret, remorse or pain, you wont feel anything. Is that what the Bible really teaches ??

Annihilationism is the alternative to Ultimate Reconciliation. When Jesus says "behold I make all things new" the lake of fire has already annihilated all the contents. However, like UR, this should be discussed in the controversial theology forum.

 

[SarahsKnight]

Being thrown into a lake of fire would make for a very quick death. A couple seconds of pain and you'd be annihilated right away. But what does Matthew 18:8 teach ? What does it say?

I'm not understanding what your obsession with your enemies feeling pain - or at least eternally ongoing pain - upon being excluded from the coming Kingdom is. What do you care, on a personal level?

I mean, Matthew 18:8 is easily reconciled with the annihilationist (or conditional immortality, whichever way you prefer to label or view it) position, as well as the ECT position. It is a verse about punishment by fire, and being eternal, that fire obviously comes from God. He's almost always used fire to destroy or purify throughout the Old Testament, and there's no reason to believe He'll do anything different when punishing unbelievers for the ultimate and final time before making all things new at the Great White Throne judgment. Whether you personally believe that the fire in Matthew 18:8 will be "only a couple of seconds of pain and you'd be annihilated", or just as lengthy and intense as that pain which our Savior suffered before His death on the cross (which I personally believe, because I see no reason to think of Jesus' time spent in great pain and humiliation on the cross before breathing His last as anything but a substitutionary punishment, but that's another discussion), or eternally ongoing without end, the message of Matthew 18:8 remains the same: even if you were to be literally maimed in order to have eternal life with God, it would still be better than meeting your end in His eternal fire.

Let's just go ahead and assume, for the sake of argument, that Jesus literally meant you would live forever with an eye plucked out or a hand amputated, if you had to do that before entering eternal life. Like, your eye or hand would never be restored. ... I would still rather have that, much rather, than lose my life forever in the second death in the Lake of the Fire, with no hope of resurrection ever again, no matter how short or long the pain of burning in the fire would last before actual death. Just because Jesus used the expression of maiming yourself physically in order to
escape the eternal fire, doesn't mean that the only worse alternative possible to the maiming, then, is to suffer the pain of burning forever without ever actually being consumed by the fire.

Jesus would have preferred a quick death rather than being tortured and crucified.

You're absolutely right. In fact, He was sweating great drops of blood in fearful anticipation of it, if I correctly recall the wording used in the gospels to describe His feelings about this while praying in the garden. But He did eventually die on the cross, didn't He? (The only difference between He and unbelievers being that He would resurrect from death, and the second death in the lake of fire will quite self-evidently deny them the chance.) If the ultimate fate of unbelievers in the lake of fire is anything like the six hours of pain and humiliation that Christ suffered before actual death, with never a chance to come back to life and have immortality forever like those who trust in Him will, then I want no part of it. A literal second death in the lake of fire is a fate I would still be greatly fearful of. Might be a lot better than eternal torment, but still a fearful punishment as far as I am concerned.

 

[BurningBush84]

I'm not understanding what your obsession with your enemies feeling pain - or at least eternally ongoing pain - upon being excluded from the coming Kingdom is. What do you care, on a personal level?

I mean, Matthew 18:8 is easily reconciled with the annihilationist (or conditional immortality, whichever way you prefer to label or view it) position, as well as the ECT position. It is a verse about punishment by fire, and being eternal, that fire obviously comes from God. He's almost always used fire to destroy or purify throughout the Old Testament, and there's no reason to believe He'll do anything different when punishing unbelievers for the ultimate and final time before making all things new at the Great White Throne judgment. Whether you personally believe that the fire in Matthew 18:8 will be "only a couple of seconds of pain and you'd be annihilated", or just as lengthy and intense as that pain which our Savior suffered before His death on the cross (which I personally believe, because I see no reason to think of Jesus' time spent in great pain and humiliation on the cross before breathing His last as anything but a substitutionary punishment, but that's another discussion), or eternally ongoing without end, the message of Matthew 18:8 remains the same: even if you were to be literally maimed in order to have eternal life with God, it would still be better than meeting your end in His eternal fire.

Let's just go ahead and assume, for the sake of argument, that Jesus literally meant you would live forever with an eye plucked out or a hand amputated, if you had to do that before entering eternal life. Like, your eye or hand would never be restored. ... I would still rather have that, much rather, than lose my life forever in the second death in the Lake of the Fire, with no hope of resurrection ever again, no matter how short or long the pain of burning in the fire would last before actual death. Just because Jesus used the expression of maiming yourself physically in order to
escape the eternal fire, doesn't mean that the only worse alternative possible to the maiming, then, is to suffer the pain of burning forever without ever actually being consumed by the fire.




You're absolutely right. In fact, He was sweating great drops of blood in fearful anticipation of it, if I correctly recall the wording used in the gospels to describe His feelings about this while praying in the garden. But He did eventually die on the cross, didn't He? (The only difference between He and unbelievers being that He would resurrect from death, and the second death in the lake of fire will quite self-evidently deny them the chance.) If the ultimate fate of unbelievers in the lake of fire is anything like the six hours of pain and humiliation that Christ suffered before actual death, with never a chance to come back to life and have immortality forever like those who trust in Him will, then I want no part of it. A literal second death in the lake of fire is a fate I would still be greatly fearful of. Might be a lot better than eternal torment, but still a fearful punishment as far as I am concerned.

And what about Revelation 14:11 ? How do you interpret that verse ?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

And what about Revelation 14:11 ? How do you interpret that verse ?

You need to ask these questions in the appropriate forum (controversial theology), where you'll start getting some real answers.

Assuming you actually want real answers.

 

[BurningBush84]

You need to ask these questions in the appropriate forum (controversial theology), where you'll start getting some real answers.

Assuming you actually want real answers.

Well I didn't know that . Sorry my mistake. Maybe a Moderator can move this thread for me ?

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

This Thread has Moved

From Christian Philosophy & Ethics

To Controversial Christian Theology

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Water and Fire]

So how can the dead bury the dead ??? You didn't answer my question on Luke 9:60.

Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.


That's how.

 

[BurningBush84]

Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.


That's how.

So how many

Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.


That's how.

What about Ecclesiastes 9:5 ? The dead know nothing. I see that is a favorite verse to use . So I will now use it how you also use it.

The dead can't bury the dead. Do you know why ? Because the dead know nothing . Their bodies are in the grave decaying , so how would they know how to bury someone when they are in soul sleep ???

 

[Water and Fire]

So how many


What about Ecclesiastes 9:5 ? The dead know nothing. I see that is a favorite verse to use . So I will now use it how you also use it.

The dead can't bury the dead. Do you know why ? Because the dead know nothing . Their bodies are in the grave decaying , so how would they know how to bury someone when they are in soul sleep ???

The dead are those who claim to know God, but don't have a clue who he is. They are spiritually dead, and indeed know nothing. When the indoctrinate new believers with the false doctrines, they do indeed bury the them, because the make them spiritually dead like themselves.
Scripture is spiritual, not literal. God is spirit and talks spiritually. Big shock, I know, but the it is.

The dead no nothing, because they are spiritually dead. They are carnally minded, not spiritually minded. The dead walk around and go to church on sundays.

 

[Water and Fire]

So how many


What about Ecclesiastes 9:5 ? The dead know nothing. I see that is a favorite verse to use . So I will now use it how you also use it.

The dead can't bury the dead. Do you know why ? Because the dead know nothing . Their bodies are in the grave decaying , so how would they know how to bury someone when they are in soul sleep ???

BTW, had meant to get back to you about your other post, but I never go around to it.

 

[BurningBush84]

BTW, had meant to get back to you about your other post, but I never go around to it.

So is Romans 6:23 talking about spiritual death or physical death or Annihilation ?