Annihilationism

Gregory Thompson · Sep 27, 2021

hedrick said:
Behold I make 10% of things new doesn't have the same ring.

A good observation.

hedrick · Sep 27, 2021

People seem to be concerned with justice. Whatever form it takes, there will surely be a judgement, which will remove all excuses. I suggest that while it’s natural to feel that those who follow Jesus in this life should have an advantage might consider Mat 20.

There seems to be this idea that being a Christian is a terrible burden, and if it’s not the only way to escape hell, we’ve been cheated. I’d suggest that it ought not to be that way, Though of course there is in some situations a cost.

Clare73 · Sep 27, 2021

SarahsKnight said:
As a conditionalist (I believe in the conditional immortality of the soul; that one will only be raised to be immortal and again die if he/she believes in Jesus Christ, and I reject the inherent immortality of the soul, as the Bible simply gives no concrete words indicating as such, and yet we have
Ezekiel 18:20 right there in plain English telling us that the soul is subject to death -

In the OT, "soul" (Heb: nephesh), used in Ezekiel 18:20, often refers to persons, as in Genesis 2:7, Genesis 12:5, Genesis 12:13, Exodus 30:12; Leviticus 17:11, Leviticus 26:15; 1 Samuel 1:26; Psalms 120:2, etc., and which is its meaning in Ezekiel 18:20, which refers back to Ezekiel 18:10-13.

Der Alte · Sep 27, 2021

hedrick said:
This is one of the more bizarre pieces of text I've read recently. We have a second death of which no one dies?
I admit I've only reviewed the chapters where this stuff appears, but it looks to me like it's the second death for humans, and eternal torment for the devil, the beast and the false prophet.

I'm retired x3, 22 years one profession, 25 years another and total 65 for SS. This is the closest thing I have to a job and I have been active here for more than 2 decades. When I first started I soon noticed the same arguments, the same out-of-context proof texts etc. are endlessly repeated so I started saving my replies and buying resources such as BDAG, Wallace's GGB. Eastern Orthodox Bible etc. and of course concealing all of my purchases from my wife

.
Here is another Apocalypse passage.

Revelation 21:3-4
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Vs. 4 "no more death."

Revelation 21:5-8
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Vs. 5 "I make all things new"

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Vs. 7 The converse is "He that does not overcome shall not inherit all things; and I will not be his God, and he shall not be my son."
Vs. 8 Although vs. 4 says "no more death" the lake of fire is still called "the second death" and after "all things new," vs. 5, eight groups of people will still be thrown into the LOF. Do they perish or burn forever? The remainder of the Apocalypse says nothing about any deaths. And Rev says nothing about universal reconciliation but it does say,

Revelation 22:11
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

Revelation 22:14-15
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

The converse of vs. 14 they that "do not do his commandments, they may not have the right to the tree of life, and may not enter in through the gates into the city." And outside are still "dogs, sorcerers, whoremongers, murderers, and idolaters." Two more verses the end of the book no mention of salvation or death.

Der Alte · Sep 27, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
... one thing I'm wondering though, which I think is rather odd, is that if we take that bit about the Lake of Fire literally, don't we have to also see both Hades and Death as literal living, sentient beings who will also suffer for Eternity?
If this is the case (and it might be that I'm not interepreting things rightly due to the various books I've read that have influenced my thinking), it strikes me as strange since there's no mention in the rest of the Bible about Hades and Death being sentient beings who can suffer along with The Dragon, The Beast and The False Prophet.
What's your view on this bit of Scripture in Revelation, Clare?

"Hades" can either be the grave or the place of eternal punishment. Graves at that time would be empty holes. Empty cannot be thrown anywhere.
Death is the point in time end of life and cannot be literally thrown anywhere. Neither hades nor death could or did die a first death so they can't die a second death.
But do not despair there is a scriptural answer which does not involve mixing literal with figurative. In scripture we do in fact see both Hades and Death as literal living, sentient beings who will also suffer for Eternity.

Revelation 6:8
8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Two sentient beings named death and hell who can be literally be thrown into the LOF and their power to kill ended.

Clare73 · Sep 27, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
... one thing I'm wondering though, which I think is rather odd, is that if we take that bit about the Lake of Fire literally, don't we have to also see both Hades and Death as literal living, sentient beings who will also suffer for Eternity?

Not in figurative prophecy.

If this is the case (and it might be that I'm not interepreting things rightly due to the various books I've read that have influenced my thinking), it strikes me as strange since there's no mention in the rest of the Bible about Hades and Death being sentient beings who can suffer along with The Dragon, The Beast and The False Prophet.

But there is in the same book, Revelation 6:8, where they are horsemen.

What's your view on this bit of Scripture in Revelation, Clare?

My view on prophecy is:
1) prophecy is given in riddles and not clearly (Number 12:8);
2) prophetic riddles are subject to more than one interpretation;
3) all intepretation of unfulfilled prophecy must be in agreement with NT teaching or it cannot be correct;
4) much interpretation of prophecy today contradicts authoritative NT teaching, thus making those interpretations patently false.

Clare73 · Sep 27, 2021

SabbathBlessings said:
If believing all of the biblical scripture is considered a cult you are free to believe as you wish.
Many did not believe Jesus was the Messiah either.

Do they believe his death atoned for the sin of all who believe in and trust on his person and sacrificial death (blood--Romans 3:25) for the remission of their sin (and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty,' accounted righteous)?

Of not, they are still in their sin.

We have a God of love and eternal torment is not a God of love.

Your God is too small.
And we have a God of justice. . .where the penalty for sin must be paid. . .which is why that same God, in his Son became flesh and paid the penalty himself for our sin to satisfy his own justice, so that we could be his sons through faith in his Son.

Clare73 · Sep 27, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
I see arguments for it, not quite compelling. After debating many universalists, I have found myself more 'understanding' toward annihilationism, though.

But as much as it lies in me to do so, I try to see things from God's POV.

Considering that he has withdrawn from them, they do, to me, seem to not even resemble the persons we thought of them to be, while alive. To my mind it is altogether reasonable to say they are devoid of virtue, with no redeeming qualities to them at all anymore. There is nothing to pity there anymore, just enmity to God.

There is also to be considered, I think, from God's POV, the idea of timelessness, rather than forever-long time. Their crimes were infinite, being against the infinite God, so the in-kind payment is not related to time, so much as quality. While I cannot deny that the characteristic of 'never-ending-ness' may be one of their torments, I don't know that it is actual in the way we imagine while here. Anyhow, whatever it is, Christ took ours for us (the Redeemed), and though he conquered it, I have to believe it was infinite upon him.

With both the mathematical feel of justice and repayment of debt, and the depth of visceral hatred against sin in the revenge God has promised, the texture of the whole matter feels almost clinical, to me, as though those there are mere vacuous spirits, not even persons, anymore. Yet, when I consider the notion that when God spoke us into existence,

it is quite likely that from his POV he spoke the finished product —the Bride of Christ— into completed form, though it took this many thousands of temporal years to accomplish it in us; if so, then it would also be reasonable to think that from his point of view, those receiving his justice and revenge were created to be that very phantom thing, and that, to the praise of God's glory. (God is not the "safe"*, tame, kindly being we like to think of! "But he is good."*)

Do you mean the same state by "completed form" and "phantom thing"?

*From a quote from CS Lewis in the Chronicles of Narnia: when asked whether the great and fearsome lion Aslan was safe, Mr Beaver answers, something like, "Safe??!! NO he's not safe, but he is good."

hedrick · Sep 27, 2021

Clare73 said:
Your God is too small.
And we have a God of justice. . .where the penalty for sin must be paid. . .which is why that same God, in his Son became flesh and paid the penalty himself for our sin to satisfy his own justice, so that we could be his sons through faith in his Son.

I guess I’m getting cranky in my old age. This no longer sounds Christian to me. Nothing against you personally. You seem to love God. This just doesn’t seem to match the Gospel. It sounds like the older brother in the prodigal son. Forgiveness isn’t enough; somebody’s got to suffer.

SabbathBlessings · Sep 27, 2021

Clare73 said:
Do they believe his death atoned for the sin of all who believe in and trust on his person and sacrificial death (blood--Romans 3:25) for ther remission of their sin (and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty,' accounted righteous)?

Of not, they are still in their sin.
Your God is too small.
And we have a God of justice. . .where the penalty for sin must be paid. . .which is why that same God, in his Son became flesh and paid the penalty himself for our sin to satisfy his own justice, so that we could be his sons through faith in his Son.

Hi Claire,
Did I say Jesus was only about love?

Gregory Thompson · Sep 27, 2021

hedrick said:
This just doesn’t seem to match the Gospel. It sounds like the older brother in the prodigal son. Forgiveness isn’t enough; somebody’s got to suffer.

I agree.

Clare73 · Sep 27, 2021

hedrick said:
I guess I’m getting cranky in my old age. This no longer sounds Christian to me. Nothing against you personally. You seem to love God. This just doesn’t seem to match the Gospel. It sounds like the older brother in the prodigal son. Forgiveness isn’t enough; somebody’s got to suffer.

I'm not sure what you say is not matching the gospel in the above.

Are you referring to the justice of God?
Didn't Jesus suffer and die as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for my sin?

What was that all about?
Isn't that the gospel?

Clare73 · Sep 27, 2021

SabbathBlessings said:
Hi Claire,
Did I say Jesus was only about love?

Some wires are crossed somewhere.

Is objection to eternal torment about the love of Jesus?

I think you like to argue to argue so feel free to continue this discussion without me.

That's not necessary. . .but I do defend the Scriptures against non-orthodoxy... and there's plenty of that around.

SabbathBlessings · Sep 27, 2021

Clare73 said:
Some wires are crossed somewhere.

Is objection to eternal torment about the love of Jesus?
. . .and there's plenty of that around.

You can’t take love out of Jesus.

Agree with your last statement.

hedrick · Sep 27, 2021

Clare73 said:
I'm not sure what you say is not matching the gospel in the above.

Are you referring to the justice of God?
Didn't Jesus suffer and die as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for my sin?

What was that all about?
Isn't that the gospel?

No. That’s one of several understandings of the atonement, and a relatively late one. Here’s Wikipedia’s summary of several views. Salvation in Christianity - Wikipedia The idea that Christ had to save us from God seems to start in the 11th Cent. My personal preference is Paul’s understanding, e.g. Rom 6. He says that in dying and rising with Christ we get beyond the domination of sin, into a new existence. Calvin has a further development of this. He says that the atonement is based not just on Christ’s death, but his whole life of obedience to God. Faith unites us to Christ in what he calls a fellowship of righteousness, by which we share in his victory over sin and death. But Rom 6 and Calvin have been called participation models of the atonement.

hedrick · Sep 27, 2021

Michael Collum said:
After the final lake of fire judgment Jesus says a curious thing.

Behold, I make all things new.

This implies either all things in the lake of fire were either 1) redeemed at that point or 2) Annihilated.

So in a sense Annihilationism and Ultimate Reconciliation come from a similar place, though the God they imply to be judging in either case is completely different.

In the same way, eternal torment implies a different God also.
Perhaps it was better that Revelation was never added to the canon, better to just stick with the gospels in that regard.

I wouldn’t throw the Revelation out, but I wouldn’t make doctrine from it.

hedrick · Sep 27, 2021

Clare73 said:
I'm not sure what you say is not matching the gospel in the above.

Are you referring to the justice of God?
Didn't Jesus suffer and die as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for my sin?

What was that all about?
Isn't that the gospel?

My biggest objection is that Jesus taught thst God is eager to forgive us, requiring at most repentance. (Sometimes Jesus told someone they were forgiven, and they responded with repentance, so even repentance is not always a precondition.) There’s no sign that someone had to be punished for forgiveness. Apparently audiences sometimes objected that his ideas of forgiveness violated Gods justice, as you are saying. You can see his response both in the prodigal son and the laborers in the vineyard.

Gregory Thompson · Sep 27, 2021

hedrick said:
I wouldn’t throw the Revelation out, but I wouldn’t make doctrine from it.

That's probably a good reason to remove it from the bible then. As long as it's in there, people will create doctrines from it and continue to divide the church.

It's not like those guys in the 1800s had any special authority to remove the apocryphal books from the protestant bible. But they did it anyway.

Gregory Thompson · Sep 27, 2021

hedrick said:
He says that the atonement is based not just on Christ’s death, but his whole life of obedience to God.

Oh wow, it's like encouraging everyone to become obedient so that they can become gods too? that's a dangerous premise.

Mark Quayle · Sep 27, 2021

Clare73 said:
Do you mean the same state by "completed form" and "phantom thing"?

Not sure quite how to take your question, or at least, how to deter some apparent implications if I was to answer in the affirmative.

They are both the final, and predestined, state of the person, the "completed form" (member of the Bride) and, "phantom thing" (person devoid of all graces of God.) There are many other parallels, or contrasts, that could be drawn from Scripture: for eg. as Sanctification has its results in the personality of each particular member of the Bride, so, the lives led by those lost to perdition carve their particular little niche in the Lake of Fire.

I draw a line though: If I say that this is what God made them for, that may provide a false implication, that God created for dual purposes —he did not. He created, for his own sake, the Bride of Christ. Those forever lost are part of what it took to produce that Bride, to his glory. That is, he did not create them for the mere purpose of damnation, but for the purpose of growing character into his Dwelling Place (the Bride).

I don't know if that is what you were asking, though.

Annihilationism

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Senior Veteran

Blood-bought

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Similar threads