Annihilationism

[Job8]

Please post any Scripture passages that you think prove that Annihilationism is untrue in this thread.

Please look up "eternal" and "torment". You would not believe the Scriptures anyhow.

 

[hedrick]

How would the Annihilists view the passage in Matthew 25 and in particular verse 46 where Jesus himself, speaking to the multitudes says " And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" ?

Previously in verse 41 Jesus says "Depart from me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" , speaking regarding the eventual judgment of all nations.

Just keen to understand some variant interpretations of this scripture.

The question is whether eternal always indicates an action that lasts forever, or whether sometime the results last forever. Let me give you some examples:

• Mark 3:29: eternal sin. The sin doesn’t last eternally. The results do
• Mark 16:8 eternal salvation. The process of being saved doesn’t last eternally. The results do.
• Jude 6: they are put in eternal chains to hold them until the last day, i.e. they don't actually last forever.
• In Rom 5:25 and 2 other places, God’s secret was kept in eternity. It’s translated “for long ages,” since obviously the secret was eventually revealed. But the Greek word is the same. I wonder whether "for long ages" is the right translation, or whether God's secret was kept hidden with him, though the difference doesn't really matter.

So there is certainly precedent for regarding eternal punishment as something occurring in God’s realm, whose results are permanent.

So how about the most common phrase, eternal life? Is its primarily characteristic that it lasts forever? I’m not so sure that it is. According to TDNT, there is a contrast between things that are in this world and temporal, and things that are in God’s realm. Thus the primary characteristic of the eternal Spirit (Heb 9:14) isn’t that it lasts forever, but that it is God’s. Eternal life is life with God.

Given that the punishment is also referred to as destruction and death, it's not unreasonable, nor does it show any disregard for Scripture, to pick a definition of eternal other than everlasting for eternal punishment.

As you know, my primary goal isn't to get everyone to accept annihilation, but to get people to understand that Christians who accept the authority of Scripture can quite reasonably understand it that way.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Yes, i see.
Well, God's Will be done, regardless.The condition for it would be God's Grace for universalism, as opposed to traditionalism.God is the Judge, not me.
"Comfort" is not the right word though.
But i am an annihilist.
But i'm just not sure when 'the wicked' have the last chance to repent.
Also, i don't think all unbelievers are 'wicked'.
Many people live 'decent lives' but are not Christian.
Unbelief is not an unpardonable sin, there apparently is just one unpardonable sin.
Scripture also mentions that some will be small in God's Kingdom.

I don't know, but i'm not a universalist.

When I say wicked I am simply referring to those who ultimately reject God and His grace. I also use the term because that is the term my Bible uses. Wickedness is simply the state of humanity no matter how "good" a person may be according to our standards. We must remember to always try and look at things from God's perspective, as He judges not just the actions of the unbelievers, but their hearts as well. An unbelieving heart is a wicked heart: not by our standards, but by God's. It's only by His Spirit that we grow in faith to Godliness.

 

[hedrick]

Please look up "eternal" and "torment". You would not believe the Scriptures anyhow.

Let's not descend to ad hominem. The people involved in this discussion generally have looked things up pretty carefully. We can disagree without saying that others don't believe the Scriptures.

 

[Hieronymus]

When I say wicked I am simply referring to those who ultimately reject God and His grace. I also use the term because that is the term my Bible uses. Wickedness is simply the state of humanity no matter how "good" a person may be according to our standards.

I'm not too sure about that.
Sure, "all fall short", but there is still the Law for unbelievers, and only blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unpardonable.
Furthermore, satan is apparently the prosecutor, but how much say will he have in the matter?
And why are the saved eventually uncountable?
Uncountable is a whole lot, it 'feels' like more than all who believed in God.
But again, i don't know, but i 'm allowed to hope for redemption for "all who eventually don't refuse".

We must remember to always try and look at things from God's perspective, as He judges not just the actions of the unbelievers, but their hearts as well. An unbelieving heart is a wicked heart: not by our standards, but by God's. It's only by His Spirit that we grow in faith to Godliness.

I know, i agree, but the heart of flesh stops its business when we die physically.
By the way, that's also where the wide road to destruction stops, isn't it?
But again, i don't know, i trust God will do the right thing, God decides what is right anyway.
But why would the whole world fall in one man, but not be redeemed in One Man?
But again, again, i don't know, but i can hope and pray.

I hear your warning between the lines though.
Not to make it my doctrine and 'teach' it to others.

God bless.

 

[Hieronymus]

Please post any Scripture passages that you think prove that Annihilationism is untrue in this thread.

Let's discuss them. I have only one other request, please be polite when you post here, I've had a lot of bad experiences with people who think that God plans to have the unrepentant tortured alive in hell.

So have i.
It may be ad hominem argumentation, but traditionalists often come across as if they think unbelievers deserve eternal conscious torture.
I can't see how they love and forgive their fellow humans, or how they believe they should.
Otherwise they would be hurting about it (i.m.o.)
But perhaps they don't realize what ECT really entails.
How can one justify the idea?
Beats me...

 

[Hieronymus]

I think one needs to define eternal life, because only believers are promised eternal life. Eternity in hell, I will contend is quite different than eternal life.

The opposite of life is death.
Eternal conscious torment is not death.
The wages of sin is death, the 2nd death being the terminal death.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

The opposite of life is death.
Eternal conscious torment is not death.
The wages of sin is death, the 2nd death being the terminal death.

The definition of death has been changing ever since Genesis 3.

 

[Hieronymus]

Please look up "eternal" and "torment". You would not believe the Scriptures anyhow.

This is an example of what i referred to.
What can it be that makes you upset about the wicked dying the 2nd death?
What makes you think that when God creates a new Heaven and Earth (i.e. Creation), as Scripture states, there will still be this facility where the people that 'didn't get it' (possily blinded by God Himself!) in their puny 80 years in the flesh on the old earth, will still be tortured consciously for no purpose?

 

[Hieronymus]

....aaaaanyway, what do i know?

Scripture indicates only a few will be let through the door, despite Revelation 7:9.
Yes that makes me sad...

Apparently we shouldn't take our salvation for granted either.
Scripture alludes to self assured believers, and God says "I never knew you."

 

[hedrick]

So have i.
It may be ad hominem argumentation, but traditionalists often come across as if they think unbelievers deserve eternal conscious torture.
I can't see how they love and forgive their fellow humans, or how they believe they should.
Otherwise they would be hurting about it (i.m.o.)
But perhaps they don't realize what ECT really entails.
How can one justify the idea?
Beats me...

Here’s a reasonable summary of the argument: https://calvarychapel.com/resources/article/view/finite-sins-and-eternal-punishment/

Summary: “And when we sin, we sin eternally. We're eternal beings committing eternally significant sins against an eternal authority.”

A question I find interesting is why it’s only in the last century or so that evangelicals have become concerned about the ethical implications of hell. Of course there have been skeptics and free-thinkers all along. But currently this concern is increasingly common among ordinary evangelical writers. What changed?

I don’t know.

 

[hedrick]

Scripture indicates only a few will be let through the door, despite Revelation 7:9.
Yes that makes me sad...

The best comment I've heard on that is that when he talked about the narrow door, Jesus was speaking as a shepherd, not a statistician.

 

[topcare]

A question I find interesting is why it’s only in the last century or so that evangelicals have become concerned about the ethical implications of hell. Of course there have been skeptics and free-thinkers all along. But currently this concern is increasingly common among ordinary evangelical writers. What changed?

I don’t know.

I think it's because it appears that many Christian only focus on one aspect Love and neglect others, they maybe don't have a well rounded view.

 

[Hieronymus]

What changed?

I don’t know.

The yoke of organised religion is gone now.
So traditional teachings lose their weight.
This is both good and bad i guess..
But the good thing is that true Bible exegesis is possible, and millions of believers communicate with eachother about it.
The internet is not just for inappropriate content.

 

[Job8]

What can it be that makes you upset about the wicked dying the 2nd death?

That's hardly the issue. We are discussing a Bible doctrine, and if we will not accept what the Bible has to say, then there is not much point in going further.

No one wants anyone to go to Hell. But to misinterpret the second death does not do anyone any good either. The first death is the separation of the soul and spirit from the body. The second death is the eternal separation of the individual from God in the Lake of Fire, where both physical death and Hades are "cast into the Lake of Fire" (meaning they are terminated). In other words all the unsaved go to Hell after the Great White Throne Judgement, and there is neither Hades nor death after that.

The first question which people should ask is why was the Lake of Fire created? Well, Jesus told us that it was created for the Devil and his angels. These are spirit beings, but they will not simply evaporate. They will be eternally punished in Hell, which is the Lake of Fire. So that cancels Annihilationism right there. Jesus linked this Hell with the everlasting punishment of sinners along with the evil angels.

Furthermore, Scripture makes it quite clear that all those who have taken the mark of the Beast, and all those whose names are not written in the book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire. This is not annihilation since their eternal torment is also clearly stated.

So now the only issue remaining is whether we take the Word of God for what it says, or we invent our own fantasies because we cannot stand the thought of eternal Hell. But no one needs to go to Hell.

Because Hell was not created for human beings, God sent His only begotten Son to take the place of every sinner on the Cross. He endured the agonies of Hell on behalf of humanity. Therefore to escape Hell it is necessary to obey the Gospel, not invent a fantasy. Had there been no real eternal Hell, there would have been no need for Christ to suffer and die for sinners.

 

[hedrick]

That's hardly the issue. We are discussing a Bible doctrine, and if we will not accept what the Bible has to say, then there is not much point in going further.

No one wants anyone to go to Hell. But to misinterpret the second death does not do anyone any good either. The first death is the separation of the soul and spirit from the body. The second death is the eternal separation of the individual from God in the Lake of Fire, where both physical death and Hades are "cast into the Lake of Fire" (meaning they are terminated). In other words all the unsaved go to Hell after the Great White Throne Judgement, and there is neither Hades nor death after that.

The first question which people should ask is why was the Lake of Fire created? Well, Jesus told us that it was created for the Devil and his angels. These are spirit beings, but they will not simply evaporate. They will be eternally punished in Hell, which is the Lake of Fire. So that cancels Annihilationism right there. Jesus linked this Hell with the everlasting punishment of sinners along with the evil angels.

Furthermore, Scripture makes it quite clear that all those who have taken the mark of the Beast, and all those whose names are not written in the book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire. This is not annihilation since their eternal torment is also clearly stated.

So now the only issue remaining is whether we take the Word of God for what it says, or we invent our own fantasies because we cannot stand the thought of eternal Hell. But no one needs to go to Hell.

Because Hell was not created for human beings, God sent His only begotten Son to take the place of every sinner on the Cross. He endured the agonies of Hell on behalf of humanity. Therefore to escape Hell it is necessary to obey the Gospel, not invent a fantasy. Had there been no real eternal Hell, there would have been no need for Christ to suffer and die for sinners.

Here's a reasonable review of Rev 20:10 from the other side: http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-a-conditionalist-response

As always you need to look at the OT roots of the terminology, and you need to look at the rest of the book. The case isn't as clear as you think. That's why people like Stott accept it. You can't reasonably expect that there's some passage they forgot to look at, nor can you plausibly say that they don't accept what the Bible has to say.

I would probably say that what we have is differing ways of dealing with Scripture differing by how much weight you place on examining the historical background and broader context of terminology.

 

[Hieronymus]

That's hardly the issue. We are discussing a Bible doctrine, and if we will not accept what the Bible has to say, then there is not much point in going further.

OKAY, I SEE.
WHAT MAKES YOU SO SURE YOU ARE AND I AM NOT IN LINE WITH SCRIPTURE ?

No one wants anyone to go to Hell.

I hope you're right.
Good to hear you also don't.

I was just thinking, that maybe it's the struggle with the concept that makes traditionalists come across as hardened.
But then, if hardening is the fruit of traditionalism, there could well be something wrong with it.
Combined with Calvinism you sometimes see these Macho Christians, who act like "Hey, look at me, i have no problem with God creating people to be tortured for ever and ever."

But to misinterpret the second death does not do anyone any good either. The first death is the separation of the soul and spirit from the body. The second death is the eternal separation of the individual from God in the Lake of Fire, where both physical death and Hades are "cast into the Lake of Fire" (meaning they are terminated). In other words all the unsaved go to Hell after the Great White Throne Judgement, and there is neither Hades nor death after that.

But then the 2nd death is no death, and they do not perish either.

The first question which people should ask is why was the Lake of Fire created? Well, Jesus told us that it was created for the Devil and his angels. These are spirit beings, but they will not simply evaporate.

I don't think it will be a fun experience, to be consumed by fire.

They will be eternally punished in Hell, which is the Lake of Fire. So that cancels Annihilationism right there.

The punishment is eternal, they will die forever and be no more, forever.

Jesus linked this Hell with the everlasting punishment of sinners along with the evil angels.

Same answer, more or less.
Not completely sure about the fallen angels though, but what would be the point or purpose?
Do you think the serpent will live on with a crushed head?

Furthermore, Scripture makes it quite clear that all those who have taken the mark of the Beast, and all those whose names are not written in the book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire.

So you only live when your name remains in the book of Life.

This is not annihilation since their eternal torment is also clearly stated.

I'll have to look into that in particular, but i think you're referring to Revelation, which is one of the few 'problem texts' for annihilists iirc.

So now the only issue remaining is whether we take the Word of God for what it says, or we invent our own fantasies because we cannot stand the thought of eternal Hell.

I have never been convinced of the traditional view based on Bible exegesis, but i was intimidated by the traditional view for some time.
I have however seen it debunked thoroughly, leaving only a few verses to support the traditional view, as opposed to the rest of the Bible alluding to the fate of the wicked.

But no one needs to go to Hell.

Well, it is written that God blinds people, deafens their ears and hardens their hearts.
This implies God chooses people to be tortured forever when you're a traditionalist.
Thank God it is also written that unlike the devil, God can also terminate the soul / spirit.
And what happens to the chaff after the harvest?
Or with the waste in Gehenna's incineration facility?

Because Hell was not created for human beings, God sent His only begotten Son to take the place of every sinner on the Cross. He endured the agonies of Hell on behalf of humanity.

There was a lot more going on there, between God and the gods that dwell on earth and in the lower heavens.
But that's another complicated subject i can't reproduce here..
I usually refer to video material, be it lectures or documentaries.

Therefore to escape Hell it is necessary to obey the Gospel, not invent a fantasy.

I agree there, don't get me wrong.
I'm an annihilist / conditionalist, not a universalist.

Had there been no real eternal Hell, there would have been no need for Christ to suffer and die for sinners.

I disagree because John 3:16.
Eternal life is conditional, otherwise we perish.

 

[ewq1938]

How would the Annihilists view the passage in Matthew 25 and in particular verse 46 where Jesus himself, speaking to the multitudes says " And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" ?

Obviously those are contrasting results not the same result for both. The punishment for the wicked is death and that death is everlasting. They do not live forever in a torment punishment. Eternal torturists always misunderstand that verse.

 

[Colter]

Please post any Scripture passages that you think prove that Annihilationism is untrue in this thread.

Let's discuss them. I have only one other request, please be polite when you post here, I've had a lot of bad experiences with people who think that God plans to have the unrepentant tortured alive in hell.

What the heck, I think I'll add a poll.

Well you finally found the right place to discuss this issue.

Ive never believed in Hell, just life or death. When compared to what us sons of God are and can become, it is truly hellish to consider what one is giving up when they embrace eternal death.

It's always been a matter of common sense that a Loving Father would never conceive of such a thing as an eternal, conscious, torture chamber.

 

[dqhall]

A person dies and does not come back. A few who were clinically dead came back. They did not describe being in a place of eternal torment. Once the brain dies, thinking is stopped. Unless God resurrects the person and gives the person a new body, the person cannot live.

A vineyard worker will prune weaker vine shoots and keep the healthy ones. The vine lives better without the worse of its members. The shoots that were cut out are forgotten. The life of the vine is in shoots allowed to continue their growth, its roots, etc.

God may remember a saint much longer than a trouble maker.

Jesus led a prayer and in it he stated, " Thy (the Lord's) will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Thinking too much about the future might cause one to neglect activities today.