Annihilationism

[ewq1938]

destruction. Before we were saved, we were spiritually dead, yet physically alive. The same goes for the second death. In the lake of fire, everyone will have spiritually died again, but will still be physically alive to experience suffering.

Not true. The second death is death of body soul and spirit through destruction. Multiple scriptures attest to this fact.

 

[ewq1938]

The second death does not necessarily mean actual death. It means there will be torment so horrible, it will be as feared as death.

You are just redefining death to match your own personal belief. None of this is scriptural plus redefining things in Revelation is very dangerous.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[StanJ]

First, there is some history to the term "second death." The Word commentary gives it in great detail. It can mean either complete annihilation or continuous dying, which is consistent with eternal torment. I do not see any suggestion, however, that it refers to the body only.

Indeed it would be inconsistent with normal Christianity if the wages of sin only affected the body. Dunn comment "At all events, the thought is again clearly of death as sin’s (final) payoff, that is, not just natural death, but death as the forfeiture of eternal life." You could conceivably take death metaphorically as including torment. There is some history of that interpretation.

The first death is one that everybody experiences as depicted in Hebrews 9:27. The second death is only for those who did not receive eternal life. Rev 20:6, 1 Cor 15:52.
The Greek word for death is θάνατος (thanatos), and connotes the extinction of life, whether naturally or violently. It NEVER relates to the actual extinction of our spirit.

 

[StanJ]

But tradition has, regardless of who introduced it.Then we should compare both cases that can be made, and then you will see the 2nd death is indeed death.

God written word speaks of it and the traditions of the church have kept that teaching. Even more so today because we have all of those Apostolic teachings and Old Testament teachings and agreeing together in the one book we call the Bible. Yes, death is death and in the Greek it only refers to the body not the soul, regardless of what connotations can be used with the Modern English word today the only connotation the Greek conveys is the one that eliminates the physical body. Now please show me where in the Bible the word death is used to visualize the elimination of a spiritual entity?

 

[Timothew]

It seems we cannot come to an agreement. But calling traditionalists "sociopaths" is wrong. I believe in the traditionalist view because why would Hell exist if all it did was burn up and kill sinners? It would be a pointless land of fire when God could just as easily erase them from existence with a thought. And if annihilationism is true, then where would the dead go after the second death? They would be given rest, which is not given to sinners as stated in Revelation 14:11 "...And they have no rest, day or night, who worship the beast and his image."

Being destroyed is not rest. Nobody thinks being destroyed iis the same as resting.

 

[hedrick]

The first death is one that everybody experiences as depicted in Hebrews 9:27. The second death is only for those who did not receive eternal life. Rev 20:6, 1 Cor 15:52.
The Greek word for death is θάνατος (thanatos), and connotes the extinction of life, whether naturally or violently. It NEVER relates to the actual extinction of our spirit.

So when Christ brings victory over sin and death, it's just the body? I think you will find this hard to sustain, nor will you find much support in commentators, whatever their view on annihilation.

 

[ewq1938]

Being destroyed is not rest. Nobody thinks being destroyed iis the same as resting.

Right. Only the living can rest.

 

[StanJ]

Being destroyed is not rest. Nobody thinks being destroyed iis the same as resting.

And the Greek word for destroy, ἀπόλλυμι (apollymi), connotes more a loss that actual destruction. See the following excerpt in Google Books;
https://books.google.ca/books?id=kRlgqWGnkUUC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=apollymi+used+in+a+sentence&source=bl&ots=AEIF4n_HjP&sig=-_5X0k9pp-rOocaV4ipsUM7stGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMzKrUudjNAhVF2IMKHa1FAVMQ6AEIJjAF#v=onepage&q=apollymi used in a sentence&f=false

Also see how it is used in Luke 15:4 & 8

 

[Der Alte]

Being destroyed is not rest. Nobody thinks being destroyed iis the same as resting.

Are you equating "perish/destruction" with "have no rest day or night?"

 

[Hieronymus]

This is way too strong.

I agree, i apologised (few posts back) and edited it.

There are plenty of non-sociopathic Christians who accept the traditional position.

Then i think they possibly don't grasp what ECT entails.
I can't look in other persons' heads though...

I do wonder, however, about the vision in Rev 21:4

he will wipe every tear from their eyes.
Death will be no more;
mourning and crying and pain will be no more,
for the first things have passed away.”

if in fact people we love are being tormented eternally at the same time.

Seems impossible.

Perhaps Christians will come to take the position that they’re just grateful that God rescued them, and that their loved ones who died without faith are just getting what they deserve.

ECT is ridiculous for 80 years in the flesh and not having been given the Faith.
I think people don't realise what eternity entails.
As someone said before, the punishment is never fulfilled when it is conscious eternal torment.

But I doubt many of us would feel that way if we saw something like the that happening in today’s world. That Christians would come to accept this in the New Jerusalem doesn’t seem like something good.

It also directly contradicts the vision that pain has passed away, because they are part of the “first things.” Eternal torment prolongs those first things indefinitely.

Might the author of the Revelation still have accepted that, even though I think it’s self-contradictory? Perhaps. Plenty of interpreters understand him as doing so. Some have cited 22:15 “Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood” as indicating that the rejects are still around outside the New Jerusalem.

But there’s a problem with this. 22:15 isn’t actually part of the final vision in 21, but rather is part of the epilog. That epilog is in large part an exhortation to the Christians living then. 22:14 is clearly addressed to them. So I don’t think the timeframe for 22:15 is that of the New Jerusalem.

However plenty of interpreters disagree with me, and thus by implication find the coexistence of 21:4 with eternal torment plausible. I just don’t see how.

Neither do i.
Thanks for the insight.

 

[DTate98]

He who seeks God and loves Truth, humbles himself for the Lord and does his Will, because God made man not to perish but to live.
Didn't you know that?

First, thank you for editing your post.

If man did not fear God, they would not seek Him. Romans 3:10-11

10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.

We, on our own, do not seek God.

And could you back up your statement with scripture? Because without it, I can't discern whether your statement is biblically correct or not.

 

[StanJ]

The Greek word translated perish/destruction

ἀπόλλυμι apollumi
Thayer Definition:
1) to destroy
1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
1b) render useless
1c) to kill
1d) to declare that one must be put to death
1e) metaphorically to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
1f) to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2) to destroy
2a) to lose
​

The Greek word translated torture.

G5178 τυμπανίζω tumpanizō
Thayer Definition:
1) to beat the drum or timbrel
2) to torture with the tympanum, an instrument of punishment​

Although it's good to have these resources at our fingertips to be able to rightly divide the word of truth, I sometimes have to wonder why these credentialed scholars use such words whose proper connotation is not the initial one? As I just pointed out above, there are two verses in Luke 15 that use the same word that Matthew does but they convey it as loss in the same NIV translation. Maybe I'll send an email to Dr. Moo and ask him why that is done.

 

[Timothew]

Are you equating "perish/destruction" with "have no rest day or night?"

No.

 

[Timothew]

So when Christ brings victory over sin and death, it's just the body? I think you will find this hard to sustain, nor will you find much support in commentators, whatever their view on annihilation.

Who are you asking this of?

 

[StanJ]

So when Christ brings victory over sin and death, it's just the body? I think you will find this hard to sustain, nor will you find much support in commentators, whatever their view on annihilation.

Jesus Christ brought and paid for his victory by willingly sacrificing his own life. He gave up his spirit as the gospel tells us. He paid the price that only he could pay as the only begotten son of God. Sin is the reason everybody dies because nobody lives perfectly and therefore his subject to what Hebrews 9:27 tells us. There only two recorded instances in the Bible where men did not die. It is my belief that they will be the two witnesses in the Great Tribulation. In any event I don't question why things are the way they are I just believe God and faith because I don't know and I won't know until I actually see Jesus. At that point I will be able to know all things as I have been known by God. So far I have found very few commentators that support conditionalism.

 

[ewq1938]

We, on our own, do not seek God.

Yes we do.

Proverbs 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

It is everyman's choice to choose the fear of the Lord.


Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

It is everyman's choice to choose to serve the Lord or not.


Hebrews 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

It is everyman's choice to choose to seek the Lord and be rewarded for that decision.


Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.

It is everyman's choice to choose seek and find the Lord.


Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

It is everyman's choice to choose to seek the Kingdom of God and his righteousness.

 

[hedrick]

So far I have found very few commentators that support conditionalism.

The problem is that commentaries aren't theology. They look at individual texts. I looked up the second death in my two commentaries on Revelation, one in the Word series there other in the Continental Commentary series. One thought it meant the end of existence. The other thought it meant "continuously dying," which would be consistent with eternal torment. There are examples of both in contemporary Jewish usage. Both agreed that the second with Rev 22:15 is it in an epilog that isn't continuous with the vision in Rev 21. But neither gave a specific judgement on this issue.

Ben Witherington gives a review here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/03/16/hell-no/. He concludes that both are possible understandings. He chooses the traditional view himself primarily because of Rev 21 and 22. I think he's failing to take into account that those passages don't take place in after the first things have passed away in Rev 21:4. But I agree with him that both views are possible. My judgement is based both on Jesus' fire metaphors, which suggest destruction and on the concept in Rev that the old has passed away and there is no longer death or pain.

I think there's now substantial understanding that both views are possible. The problem is that the language is metaphorical (people who claim to have a "literal" reading are kidding each other) and you can find examples of multiple contemporary understandings. That means that in the end you have to understand the overall picture the various authors are trying to paint. And that's a judgement call.

 

[StanJ]

The problem is that commentaries aren't theology. They look at individual texts. I looked up the second death in my two commentaries on Revelation, one in the Word series there other in the Continental Commentary series. One thought it meant the end of existence. The other thought it meant "continuously dying," which would be consistent with eternal torment. There are examples of both in contemporary Jewish usage. Both agreed that the second with Rev 22:15 is it in an epilog that isn't continuous with the vision in Rev 21. But neither gave a specific judgement on this issue.

No commentaries are not theology but they are put together by theologians. Why bring them up if you're just going to discount them when I respond? As far as they are concerned my view is that the majority opinion is what you're looking for and as far as the majority opinion is concerned Annihilation is not what is taught in the Bible.

Ben Witherington gives a review here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/03/16/hell-no/. He concludes that both are possible understandings. He chooses the traditional view himself primarily because of Rev 21 and 22. I think he's failing to take into account that those passages don't take place in after the first things have passed away in Rev 21:4. But I agree with him that both views are possible. My judgement is based both on Jesus' fire metaphors, which suggest destruction and on the concept in Rev that the old has passed away and there is no longer death or pain.

Whoever the actual author of that article is on Patheos, he lost my interest a few sentences in when he stated, "but then, since they are consumed, there is no eternal torment." I see no where in Revelation 20 then it says those that were thrown into the Lake of Fire were consumed. As a matter of fact it clearly shows in v10, that spirits are not destroyed, but will exist in torment day and night for all time or forever. As that is their fate and as unbelievers that are labeled goats in Matthew 25:41, will receive the same fate, I have no idea how anybody can conclude that they will be consumed? Did God equip Fire a lake with a spirit detector that can tell the difference between evil spirits and human spirits? If the false prophet is a human, then why did he end up being tormented forever but other spirits of dead humans don't?

I think there's now substantial understanding that both views are possible. The problem is that the language is metaphorical (people who claim to have a "literal" reading are kidding each other) and you can find examples of multiple contemporary understandings. That means that in the end you have to understand the overall picture the various authors are trying to paint. And that's a judgement call.

Not from my perspective, but I've only been studying the Bible for 45 years. Yes the point is that the Bible overall conveys a God that is just and rewards eternal life for accepting his son and eternal punishment or separation for not doing so. The opposite of eternal life cannot possibly be considered death as death ceases all activity and therefore cannot be torment. For such a great reward as eternal life there has to be an equal and opposite which, as the Bible says, for rejecting Jesus. Clearly the New Testament teaches us that this is indeed the case and that just as Believers are rewarded with eternal life for their perseverance, unbelievers receive eternal torment because they did not persevere. In my mind that's what Justice is all about and just because some liberal-minded Christians think that eternal torment does not portray their concept of God does not mean that they have the correct concept of God. And I'll just God will do exactly what he said he will do despite the fact that he also loves the world.

 

[hedrick]

Whoever the actual author of that article is on Patheos, he lost my interest a few sentences in when he stated, "but then, since they are consumed, there is no eternal torment." I see no where in Revelation 20 then it says those that were thrown into the Lake of Fire were consumed.

Huh? He was summarizing one of several views, which actually isn't his. You don't know who Ben Witherington is? So if you're going to ignore any scholar that even describes a view you disagree with, it's not going to be real useful to point you to references, is it?

I should also note that Biblical scholarship and theology are different disciplines. There are people who do both, but it's not the case that commentaries are generally written by theologians.

 

[StanJ]

Huh? He was summarizing one of several views, which actually isn't his. You don't know who Ben Witherington is? So if you're going to ignore any scholar that even describes a view you disagree with, it's not going to be real useful to point you to references, is it?

I should also note that Biblical scholarship and theology are different disciplines. There are people who do both, but it's not the case that commentaries are generally written by theologians.

No I don't know who he is but that link you gave me does not say he wrote the article. How do you know he wrote the article? I think we both know that links are not always useful with this type of discussion that is so polarizing.
Do you consider Moo or Wallace or the Mounce's, Scholars or Theologians? How else do you recognize an expert in their field unless they are a credentialed scholar?