Annihilationism

[sentipente]

I think both sides of the argument have missed the essential teachings of the Bible. One side does not understand that if man has an immortal soul then it means that God made something that he has no ultimate power over. The second side fails to explain how it is possible for God to destroy part of the unfied human race without destroying the entire human race. The woman was not the man's companion. She was bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. Trying to study the end of man without clarifying the beginnings of man leads to gross difficulties.

 

[tall73]

The second side fails to explain how it is possible for God to destroy part of the unfied human race without destroying the entire human race. The woman was not the man's companion. She was bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.

Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Rom 7:2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.

Mar 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven


A. You have not demonstrated that there is a "one-flesh" relationship between all humanity analogous to each married couple. The future man and wife become one flesh. There is no reason to become on flesh if they already are. It appears to be speaking of more than simply a biological reality of common descent.

B. The marriage relationship, which is your example, does not seem to necessarily endure through eternity but dissolves at the death of one party. Therefore it does not illustrate your point.

C. If the point you intended was that Adam and Eve were just from the same common biological matter then that in no way necessitates them both still enduring. We see rather common evidence of that in the earthly life.

D. Whatever the one-flesh wording is meant to convey it appears to be more about the endurance, unity and solemnity of the union as Jesus points out in His instruction on the passage:

Mat 19:5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'?
Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

 

[sentipente]

Tall73, I think you have it backward. It is the marriage relationship that is analogous to the one-flesh relationship of the human race. A couple points seem to have been missed by our theologians. First, there was lots of dirt around but the Creator took a part of Adam and out of that developed the woman. It was a deliberate act to emphasize that there was only one individual as far as He was concerned. Adam recognized that when he declared this is bone of my bone.

Second, Adam and Eve were never married. Unlike a marriage where two strangers come together and become one in Eden the Creator took one man and split him into two. A married couple become one for the purposes of their union but collectively we make up the human race. Unlike other organizations we cannot opt out of the human race. If this group dissolves tomorrow each of us will continue as if it had never existed. But if the human race ceases to exist then each of us ceases to exist.

We are to the human race what cells are to the human body.

 

[tall73]

Tall73, I think you have it backward. It is the marriage relationship that is analogous to the one-flesh relationship of the human race. A couple points seem to have been missed by our theologians. First, there was lots of dirt around but the Creator took a part of Adam and out of that developed the woman. It was a deliberate act to emphasize that there was only one individual as far as He was concerned. Adam recognized that when he declared this is bone of my bone.

Second, Adam and Eve were never married. Unlike a marriage where two strangers come together and become one in Eden the Creator took one man and split him into two. A married couple become one for the purposes of their union but collectively we make up the human race. Unlike other organizations we cannot opt out of the human race. If this group dissolves tomorrow each of us will continue as if it had never existed. But if the human race ceases to exist then each of us ceases to exist.

We are to the human race what cells are to the human body.

I put several options.

Apparently you are just saying it is descent. I don't see how that leads the conclusion that some cannot be destroyed while others are saved--especially when a number of texts say that.

Want to explain each of the above texts in my op from your perspective?

Care to explain where you are going with it more?

 

[MarkEvan]

Isa 34:8 For it is the day of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion. 9 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. 10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

John has obviously drawn on this passage describing the overthrow of Edom to paint the picture of torment expected for those who take the mark of the beast. The Edomite land was overthrown. And yet the language is a bit poetic, as again it is the results that we see but not a continuing burning or continuing smoke, etc. It describes total destruction and barrenness.

Hi Tall, sorry about the length of time it has taken to reply.
The OT we are told was given simply for our understanding, for within it were Spiritual truths to be beheld from literal things, I believe the passage of Isaiah is one such passage it is giving the Spiritual teaching and therfore uses the terms for ever and ever (even though as you have rightly said the flames did not go up for ever) it is a picture for you and I of what will happen at the end time.
As to is the soul eternal.......can a man live without a soul? No and yet man is described as being dead allready and yet he is alive physically, in what way then are they dead? Spiritually, they will never be Spiritually alive in hell.

Mark

 

[sentipente]

I put several options.

Apparently you are just saying it is descent. I don't see how that leads the conclusion that some cannot be destroyed while others are saved--especially when a number of texts say that.

Want to explain each of the above texts in my op from your perspective?

Care to explain where you are going with it more?

And now we discover why this debate continues. Because we have interpreted inspiration to mean consultation/dictation we labor under the belief that the writers of the Bible had a complete and accurate understanding of these issues. I understand why you would wish for me to address each of the texts you cited. I willingly concede that these texts (without reading each one) reflect the view you have expressed in your OP. I am suggesting that we cannot take what they say as fact without considering whether their conclusions logically and rationally flow from what we can determine of the origins of man.

That said, humans would have to be complete individuals to fit in with your interpretation. If we really were that separate it cannot be justice to burden us with guilt for actions that took place long before we came on the scene. Only if we are an intrinsic part of Adam can such attribution be just. And as in one man all sinned so in one man all have been made alive.

 

[ScottBot]

I was wondering how long it would that tall73 to start this conversation here. He has been griping about it for months. Congradulations. I'm sure that the SDAs won't have a problem policing this thread, since that particular denomination will be the primary ones conversing here. Let us know if you have any problems.

 

[Jipsah]

I'm sure that the SDAs won't have a problem policing this thread, since that particular denomination will be the primary ones conversing here.

Policing the thread? Hmmmm...

For my part, I'm a Presbyterian with distinct Lutheran leanings. I happen to hold with annihilationism, or, if you prefer, conditionalism, because it requires less of the "that's what it says but not what it means" (or TWISBNWIM) gibberish that people go through to make the Bible "say" what they want. It's also appears to me to be more in line with the description of God as one Whose "mercy endures forever and ever".

 

[tall73]

And now we discover why this debate continues. Because we have interpreted inspiration to mean consultation/dictation we labor under the belief that the writers of the Bible had a complete and accurate understanding of these issues. I understand why you would wish for me to address each of the texts you cited. I willingly concede that these texts (without reading each one) reflect the view you have expressed in your OP. I am suggesting that we cannot take what they say as fact without considering whether their conclusions logically and rationally flow from what we can determine of the origins of man.

I think we are just too far apart on the inspiration question to have meaningful dialogue.

That said, humans would have to be complete individuals to fit in with your interpretation. If we really were that separate it cannot be justice to burden us with guilt for actions that took place long before we came on the scene. Only if we are an intrinsic part of Adam can such attribution be just. And as in one man all sinned so in one man all have been made alive.

I do not hold to imposed guilt, but certainly imposed circumstances.

 

[tall73]

Hi Tall, sorry about the length of time it has taken to reply.
The OT we are told was given simply for our understanding, for within it were Spiritual truths to be beheld from literal things, I believe the passage of Isaiah is one such passage it is giving the Spiritual teaching and therfore uses the terms for ever and ever (even though as you have rightly said the flames did not go up for ever) it is a picture for you and I of what will happen at the end time.

It would make more sense to say that John incorporated the existing poetic language to his purpose than to re-interpret the poetic to point forward, since John seems to do that on numerous occassions.

As to is the soul eternal.......can a man live without a soul? No and yet man is described as being dead allready and yet he is alive physically, in what way then are they dead? Spiritually, they will never be Spiritually alive in hell.

Mark

Note this text:

Mat 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Man kills the body.

God destroys both.

So as the body was in the first death, the soul and body will be in the second.

Therefore the state in death is not really the issue. This is a CONTRAST between the state of death and the second death, and the second is even farther reaching, including the soul.

 

[sentipente]

I think we are just too far apart on the inspiration question to have meaningful dialogue.


I do not hold to imposed guilt, but certainly imposed circumstances.

Since inspiration can't be both you can't conscientiously ignore this fundamental question.

 

[tall73]

Since inspiration can't be both you can't conscientiously ignore this fundamental question.

I did not ignore it. I came to a different conclusion than you. If you want to discuss inspiration start a thread on it. This thread is looking at the details of the text assuming that they actually mean something.

 

[sentipente]

I did not ignore it. I came to a different conclusion than you. If you want to discuss inspiration start a thread on it. This thread is looking at the details of the text assuming that they actually mean something.

At this late stage of the game Christians need to decide whether they really want to solve the human problem or are satisfied with winning internal skirmishes. Deciding which railway car is better appointed is of no real meaning on a train that is going the wrong way.

 

[tall73]

At this late stage of the game Christians need to decide whether they really want to solve the human problem or are satisfied with winning internal skirmishes. Deciding which railway car is better appointed is of no real meaning on a train that is going the wrong way.

Post a thread on it.

 

[sentipente]

Post a thread on it.

Maybe I will. Thanks.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ subscribes

 

[Timothew]

LLOJ subscribes

me too!

 

[Mr Dave]

me too!

and me!

 

[98cwitr]

...wow you people are lost as sin: Here is the plain and blunt proof that Hell is eternal torment and that annihilationism is heresy.

Jude 1

5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.


Matthew 25:46
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

 

[Mr Dave]

...wow you people are lost as sin: Here is the plain and blunt proof that Hell is eternal torment and that annihilationism is heresy.

Jude 1

5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.


Matthew 25:46
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

In the Jude passage the eternal is part of the fire (πυρὸς αἰωνίου / puros aioniou). Jude tells us the fire is eternal, not the punishment. The length of the punishment is not specified.

The αἰωνίου (also used in the Matthew passage you mention) is used for "abstract things" where it is not possible to fully comprehend them. There are words that are used in Greek literature for when the everlasting continuation is understood, but these are not used here.

Matthew is the only synoptic gospel writer to use this phrase anyway, Mark and Luke talk of the πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον (pur to asbeston) - the fire that cannot be put out. It is not the fire that cannot go out (when deprived of fuel). This is the majority view in the gospels, and equally expresses the incomprehensibility of the length of time that these fires have been burning, but does not actually express that they have been and always will be perpetually burning.