Annihilationism

[expos4ever]

There is not one statement in all of scripture that points or alludes to the permanent destruction of beings.

Sure there are:

"For the wages of sin is death....."

"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell"

The defenders of eternal torment deal with these texts by either:

1. Redefining words like "death" and "destroy" to mean "preserve forever in a fully conscious state" - this is to take the concept of "death" and basically morph it to mean its opposite;

2. Arbitrarily (i.e. without supporting justification) assuming that such words are restricted in their scope of application. Thus, "the wages of sin is death" becomes "the wages of sin is death for the body only (and, by implication) eternal life, albeit in torment, for the soul".

Neither option is really very defensible.

 

[expos4ever]

It's OT imagery, e.g. Is 34:10. There's no smoke going up from Edom now.

This whole discussion is based on reading poetry or literary prose entirely the wrong way.

Correct, of course!

 

[StanJ]

That doesn't prove they are not destroyed.
Heb_2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Even the devil will be destroyed.

Equivocating about it or deflecting there something else doesn't change what Revelation says. Tormented day and night for Ever After does not mean destroyed it means exactly what it says. 1 Cor 15:26 & 2 Tim 1:10 state Jesus destroyed death. Do you believe there's a tall ghoulish figure walking around in long flowing black robes with a huge cycle?
What Luke states in Heb 2:14-15 is;
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
You guys read the words and don't really understand them but I guess that is understandable given you continue to quote the KJV which is not a very accurate translation at all. This is the twenty-first century, so we should try using an English translation that reflects the idioms of the 21st Century and not the Elizabethan English vernacular of the 16th century.

 

[StanJ]

I know. That is my position and it proves eternal torture to be wrong.

That's because the Bible doesn't teach eternal torture, some just try to promulgate it.

 

[ewq1938]

Equivocating about it or deflecting there something else doesn't change what Revelation says. Tormented day and night for Ever After does not mean destroyed it means exactly what it says.

Except that contradicts other scriptures so the torment is not experienced by Satan because he was destroyed. The torment continuing simply means his fate never changes. All who are cast into the LOF die and are destroyed.

 

[StanJ]

Sure there are:

"For the wages of sin is death....."

"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell"

The defenders of eternal torment deal with these texts by either:

1. Redefining words like "death" and "destroy" to mean "preserve forever in a fully conscious state" - this is to take the concept of "death" and basically morph it to mean its opposite;

2. Arbitrarily (i.e. without supporting justification) assuming that such words are restricted in their scope of application. Thus, "the wages of sin is death" becomes "the wages of sin is death for the body only (and, by implication) eternal life, albeit in torment, for the soul".

Neither option is really very defensible.

1. ἀπόλλυμι (apollymi) is ONLY used of the physical, NOT the meta-physical. There is consciousness after death now just as Jesus depicts in Luke 16:20-25
   
2. Because only human beings can sin while alive, not after the death of their body just as Hebrews 9:27 states. That is why we must be saved before we die. There is no such thing as universal salvation just as there is no such thing as annihilation, and to believe one is to believe the other.

I'd say they are very defensible, especially as the word of God is on this side of the truth.

 

[ewq1938]

That's because the Bible doesn't teach eternal torture, some just try to promulgate it.

It doesn't teach it yet people argue for it as you have.

 

[StanJ]

Except that contradicts other scriptures so the torment is not experienced by Satan because he was destroyed. The torment continuing simply means his fate never changes. All who are cast into the LOF die and are destroyed.

You have to actually prove it does not just assert it. Scripture never contradicts itself so if you think it does then you my friend have a problem with understanding what scripture is all about. You need to learn the difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

 

[StanJ]

It doesn't teach it yet people argue for it as you have.

Not once, and I challenge you to prove I did. Equivocating about words really just shows that you're not committed to your idea at all.

 

[ewq1938]

You have to actually prove it does not just assert it.

That has been done already. I quoted that Satan would be destroyed yet you claim he won't be.

 

[ewq1938]

Not once, and I challenge you to prove I did.

You promote it! Why deny it?

Tormented day and night for Ever After does not mean destroyed it means exactly what it says.

 

[expos4ever]

1. ἀπόλλυμι (apollymi) is ONLY used of the physical, NOT the meta-physical.

How do you know this? Can you cite any kind of a "dictionary" definition of this Greek word that demonstrates it only applies to the realm of the physical? And, no, a definition from a Bible lexicon does not count precisely because unlike a dictionary, the producers of lexicons often bring theological assumptions to their work that biases their definitions.

Note that you cannot use the Luke 16 account to make this case either because it is clearly at least possible that the Luke 16 account is a parable that was never intended to teach about life after death.

 

[expos4ever]

There is no such thing as universal salvation just as there is no such thing as annihilation, and to believe one is to believe the other.

Why? Please explain why a belief in annihilation necessitates a belief in universal salvation?

 

[expos4ever]

I'd say they are very defensible, especially as the word of God is on this side of the truth.

Please complete this sentence, imagining what Paul would say if he really believes the "death" in "the wages of sin is death" is merely the death of the body, after which the soul of the sinner continues to be fully alive, although in torment:

When I wrote that "the wages of sin is death (of the body)", I neglected to mention the much, much more significant result of sin, eternal torment of the soul in hell because.......<insert the explanation you would think Paul would give as to why he would overlook this much more serious consequence of sin in his assessment of what the wages of sin are.>

 

[Alithis]

Sure there are:

"For the wages of sin is death....."

"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell"

The defenders of eternal torment deal with these texts by either:

1. Redefining words like "death" and "destroy" to mean "preserve forever in a fully conscious state" - this is to take the concept of "death" and basically morph it to mean its opposite;

2. Arbitrarily (i.e. without supporting justification) assuming that such words are restricted in their scope of application. Thus, "the wages of sin is death" becomes "the wages of sin is death for the body only (and, by implication) eternal life, albeit in torment, for the soul".

Neither option is really very defensible.

you have again ,as others left out what eternal life is .. JEsus said .. and this is eternal life that they might KNOW you the one tru God

thus eternal death is to NOT know him but to be estranged from him cut off forever
so to be cut of forever from all that is god and peace and comfort and rest ... is to be in a state of all that is
everything torment -god is not vindictive ,he does not torture . but he will cast them from his presence .
neither stance even remotely suggest non existence

 

[StanJ]

You promote it! Why deny it?

Because I didn't state as you assert that the Bible teaches torture. If you can't be honest about what you accuse me of then there's no use for us to have a discussion. You asserted I support torture and I don't. The fact that you don't understand the difference between torture and torment only demonstrates your lack of comprehension of the English language or a deliberateness to misdirected and make false accusations.

 

[StanJ]

That has been done already. I quoted that Satan would be destroyed yet you claim he won't be.

I gave you the proper rendering of the verse and told you that you shouldn't be reading the KJV if you don't understand it to which you failed to reply with any kind of proper exegesis or exposition of the scripture. The fact that you use Elizabethan English and try to make it apply to modern-day just shows you don't understand the difference.

 

[expos4ever]

you have again ,as others left out what eternal life is .. JEsus said .. and this is eternal life that they might KNOW you the one tru God

Correct.

thus eternal death is to NOT know him but to be estranged from him cut off forever

Indeed, and to be annihilated is the textbook definition of this.

so to be cut of forever from all that is god and peace and comfort and rest ... is to be in a state of all that is everything torment.

This does not follow logically. You seem to be arguing that to be "cut off" from state X necessarily means that you must enter the state "opposite" to X.

But this is not true in general. If an animal is "cut off" from water, it dies and entirely ceases to be - it does not enter an eternal state of thirst.

 

[StanJ]

How do you know this? Can you cite any kind of a "dictionary" definition of this Greek word that demonstrates it only applies to the realm of the physical? And, no, a definition from a Bible lexicon does not count precisely because unlike a dictionary, the producers of lexicons often bring theological assumptions to their work that biases their definitions.

Note that you cannot use the Luke 16 account to make this case either because it is clearly at least possible that the Luke 16 account is a parable that was never intended to teach about life after death.

Because I know the English language and the rules of grammar. Unless you're using death in a metaphorical sense, it always relates to animation ceasing in a living organism. The same is true of the Bible.
Jesus used it as a way to teach a couple of truths, one of which is where we go after we die and the other was the fact that people would still not believe that he was the Messiah even after he rose from the dead. He used what he knew to be real life situations. Abraham was real, Lazarus was real, and so was the rich man.

 

[ewq1938]

Because I didn't state as you assert that the Bible teaches torture. If you can't be honest about what you accuse me of then there's no use for us to have a discussion. You asserted I support torture and I don't. The fact that you don't understand the difference between torture and torment only demonstrates your lack of comprehension of the English language or a deliberateness to misdirected and make false accusations.

There is no difference between torture and torment. You support that in the LOF people live forever in pain and that's biblically false.