Annihilationism

[StanJ]

It is not circular reasoning.

While I have indeed made an assumption, I did not use that assumption in a circular manner. My assumption was that when people use the concept of "perish" or "destroy" they intend to communicate that the essential or most important feature of the things that perishes, or is destroyed, is lost or eliminated. If I had used this assumption in an argument that purported to show that "when people use the concept of "perish" or "destroy" to communicate that the essential or most important feature of the things that perishes, or is destroyed, is lost or eliminated", that would be circular reasoning - to assume the very thing one is trying to make a case for.
I did not do this; instead I showed that if my assumption is correct, to then assert that a perishing human retains consciousness after death strongly violates that assumption. Granted, the whole argument rests on an assumption. But that does not make it a specifically circular argument.

Hey if it looks like a circle and talks like a circle and acts like a circle I guess it's a circle.

 

[StanJ]

Your statement was this:
All I am saying is that while I believe the lost are ultimately annihilated, I do not believe they are annihilated at death. That is my position, regardless of what a dictionary has to say about the term "annihilationist".

I see, so whenever dictionary search you you want to use them but whenever they don't suit you or go against what you believe you don't want to use them? That is a mighty convenient position for you to take.

 

[expos4ever]

It is not enough to say "the overall context of scripture is such that we are justified in taking 'apo' in this text from Thessalonians in a sense that does not entail physical separation of an existing 'soul'" you must demonstrate how that is true.

Of course! But let's remember how this started: StanJ tried to argue that the definition of the word "Apo" forced us to read the Thessalonians text as refuting annihilation (I added the emphasis):

2 Thess 1:9 And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power
(the word "apollumi" is NOT USED in 2 Thess 1:9)
Although the word "apollumi" is NOT USED in this verse, notice that hell is explained as being "away from God's presence and glory". This proves that hell is a banishment not an annihilation.

Let's be clear: All I have done is argued against such incorrect reasoning by pointing out that there are other ways to read "apo" that do not cause 2 Thess 1:9 to refute annihilation.

If you are familiar with my posts, you will know that I basically never take the view that an unsupported assertion is enough. Granted, I should have been more clear in what you are quoting from me, above. Allow me to refine thus:

And I maintain that the overall context of scripture is such that we are justified in taking "apo" in this text from Thessalonians in a sense that does not entail physical separation of an existing "soul". The arguments about how overall context supports this are variously scattered throughout this thread and we can talk about each of these as you wish.

 

[Timothew]

People get their ideas of Hell from a common reading of the Bible. Its ok not believe it, but have the courage to acknowledge it's there. Its when we act as if there has been a misunderstanding for thousands of years by billions of people that things go off the rails.

Of course! But let's remember how this started: StanJ tried to argue that the definition of the word "Apo" forced us to read the Thessalonians text as refuting annihilation (I added the emphasis):


Let's be clear: All I have done is argued against such incorrect reasoning by pointing out that there are other ways to read "apo" that do not cause 2 Thess 1:9 to refute annihilation.

If you are familiar with my posts, you will know that I basically never take the view that an unsupported assertion is enough. Granted, I should have been more clear in what you are quoting from me, above. Allow me to refine thus:

And I maintain that the overall context of scripture is such that we are justified in taking "apo" in this text from Thessalonians in a sense that does not entail physical separation of an existing "soul". The arguments about how overall context supports this are variously scattered throughout this thread and we can talk about each of these as you wish.

I agree, since the words "away from" are not included in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, the verse is not talking about banishment. The verse is talking about eternal destruction, the Greek word is Olethron. This is not banishment, and can't be read that way.

 

[expos4ever]

Remember how we were discussing "context" above? The context here is NOT physical death but being "dead to sin" yet physically alive.

Rom 6:7-11
(7) For he that is dead is freed from sin.
(8) Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
(9) Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
(10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
(11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.​

Of course! That you would think otherwise surprises me. I am, of course, fully aware that the context here is not death. But I think you may be trying to have it both ways. Isn't one of the central pillars of your argument the idea that words like "apolumi" do not necessarily entail annihilation. To wit:

.....ἀπόλλυμι/Apollumi occurs 86 times in the NT, of this 71 times, 83%, it cannot mean the destruction/annihilation which some argue supposedly occurs at the final judgment. Here is a list of those meanings.

And yet you go on to list all sorts of uses in contexts other than physical death, with the clear implication that this undercuts the annihilationist take on how apollumi is used in relation to physical death.

Surely you see the problem: When StanJ tries to argue that words have certain meanings universally as he does here with respect to "apo" (away from or from):

2 Thess 1:9 And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power
(the word "apollumi" is NOT USED in 2 Thess 1:9)
Although the word "apollumi" is NOT USED in this verse, notice that hell is explained as being "away from God's presence and glory". This proves that hell is a banishment not an annihilation.

...I am entirely justified in showing that this is not the case. As I did by presenting the Romans 6:7 passage. You are constructing a strawman by implying that in presenting Romans 6:7, I was arguing that the usage of apo in that text proves that apo could not mean "away from physically" in 2 Thess 1:9.

I was doing nothing of the kind.

 

[expos4ever]

People get their ideas of Hell from a common reading of the Bible. Its ok not believe it, but have the courage to acknowledge it's there. Its when we act as if there has been a misunderstanding for thousands of years by billions of people that things go off the rails.

What? Have the "courage to acknowledge it's there? I have invested considerable effort in actually making a case that it is, in fact, not there. Even though, as I fully concede, most Christians think otherwise.

I suggest you need to engage those arguments rather than suggesting I simply agree with you.

 

[expos4ever]

So then Jesus must have been telling the truth in Matthew 25:46 when he said they will endure Eternal punishment, and therefore won't be destroyed as you have continually asserted in the past on this thread. So what made you change your mind?

You are not following this carefully enough.

Here is what you originally posted:

Perish and death only ever relate to the body not the spirit. Rev 20:10 clearly shows this to be factual, as does Matthew 25:41 and Jude :13

...to which I responded:

I have already shown that Revelation 20:10 does not even mention "death" or "perishing.

And the same is true of Matthew 25:41 and 46.

And the same for the Jude text.

None of these texts support your assertion that "Perish and death only ever relate to the body not the spirit."

We are not talking about the concept of everlasting destruction in this particular back and forth. I have already conceded that that the Matthew 25 text needs to be dealt with. But the issue is your statement:

Perish and death only ever relate to the body not the spirit. Rev 20:10 clearly shows this to be factual, as does Matthew 25:41 and Jude :13

You clearly are saying these texts are evidence that "Perish and death only ever relate to the body not the spirit". And I believe I have shown they do not support such a statement at all.

 

[expos4ever]

Hey if it looks like a circle and talks like a circle and acts like a circle I guess it's a circle.

No. You made an error in claiming my reasoning was circular and no clever remark that evades the issue changes this. But, please, prove me wrong: explain to all and sundry how it is that my reasoning is specifically circular.

 

[expos4ever]

I see, so whenever dictionary search you you want to use them but whenever they don't suit you or go against what you believe you don't want to use them? That is a mighty convenient position for you to take.

I will not bandy words with you about this. All I will say is that I, for one, believe that the lost are annihilated ultimately, but not at death.

 

[expos4ever]

Life and death deal with the body not the soul, always has been throughout scripture. I challenge you to show once where the spirit dies or is killed in Scripture.

First, I see no case at all for your claim that "Life and death deal with the body not the soul, always has been throughout scripture". But let me deal with your challenge to "show once where the spirit dies or is killed in Scripture":

1. You assume that the scope of application of words like "perish", "death", and "destroy" are limited in application to the body to the exclusion of the spirit.

2. If this is a valid assumption - one borne out by non-circular arguments - then you definitely have a point.

3. If this is an invalid assumption - as I believe it is - it is of course entirely to be expected that there will be no Biblical texts that talk about death of the spirit. Why not? Because if you are wrong, statements like "the wages of sin is death" entail by definition the death of the spirit.

 

[StanJ]

Of course! But let's remember how this started: StanJ tried to argue that the definition of the word "Apo" forced us to read the Thessalonians text as refuting annihilation (I added the emphasis):

Which in fact it does, as I presented it. Adding anything to my wording would indeed be a misrepresentation.

Let's be clear: All I have done is argued against such incorrect reasoning by pointing out that there are other ways to read "apo" that do not cause 2 Thess 1:9 to refute annihilation.

As the word is not in 2 Thess 1:9 and the verse itself does refute 'annilation' as presented, I can only conclude that this assertion is not only based on oppositional bias, but also have oppositional defiance.

If you are familiar with my posts, you will know that I basically never take the view that an unsupported assertion is enough. Granted, I should have been more clear in what you are quoting from me, above. Allow me to refine thus:
And I maintain that the overall context of scripture is such that we are justified in taking "apo" in this text from Thessalonians in a sense that does not entail physical separation of an existing "soul". The arguments about how overall context supports this are variously scattered throughout this thread and we can talk about each of these as you wish.

I'm pretty sure that's what he and others have tried to do that without ANY success. Clearly in the New Testament the wording for Destruction always represents some loss but not total annihilation. That is what the majority of Greek Scholars and translators have property rendered and as such expect that those reading their mother language will take the normal meeting of that word into account. As we are made in God's image and as such are Triune beings the destruction or loss referred to is in the physical sense not in the Triune sense. When God's word requires that that type of detail the used, then it is used and there is no equivocal language in his word, as is evidenced by Heb 4:12
Please feel free to prove from scripture that anything entering the Lake of Fire is annihilated and ceases to exist on all levels of existence.

 

[StanJ]

I will not bandy words with you about this. All I will say is that I, for one, believe that the lost are annihilated ultimately, but not at death.

You will not bandy about words when you can't, but you do have a habit of trying to do so in any event. You sure it's not what you believe as you've made that clear the issue is how can you support or corroborate what you believe is being from scripture? That has not been as obvious and in the court of law you would have failedto prove your case.

 

[StanJ]

No. You made an error in claiming my reasoning was circular and no clever remark that evades the issue changes this. But, please, prove me wrong: explain to all and sundry how it is that my reasoning is specifically circular.

It wasn't a claim it was an observation of reality. Anyone who read the post I commented on and does not have positional bias will agree. You seem to think that only you can claim that somebody else is using circular reasoning not accept it for yourself?

 

[StanJ]

First, I see no case at all for your claim that "Life and death deal with the body not the soul, always has been throughout scripture". But let me deal with your challenge to "show once where the spirit dies or is killed in Scripture":

1. You assume that the scope of application of words like "perish", "death", and "destroy" are limited in application to the body to the exclusion of the spirit.

2. If this is a valid assumption - one borne out by non-circular arguments - then you definitely have a point.

3. If this is an invalid assumption - as I believe it is - it is of course entirely to be expected that there will be no Biblical texts that talk about death of the spirit. Why not? Because if you are wrong, statements like "the wages of sin is death" entail by definition the death of the spirit.

I asked a simple question what you have been unable to answer now a few times and yet you rant about people not answering your questions. Just answer the question, it's quite simple and will definitely go a long way to resolving this impasse if indeed you are willing that it be resolved?If you are unwilling to resolve it to the degree that we find the truth in God's word then I see no reason for you to keep responding, as you are not willing to reciprocate in kind and simply want everyone to accept your word as God's truth when it's apparent with many people that is not God's truth. In that fashion the totality of your arguments on this thread end up becoming circular because he use the same ones over and over and over again even though they continually are refuted. I hope you do realize that refutation is not about you accepting it but about others seeing the refutation and acknowledging the truth?

 

[Der Alte]

I agree, since the words "away from" are not included in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, the verse is not talking about banishment. The verse is talking about eternal destruction, the Greek word is Olethron. This is not banishment, and can't be read that way.

1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction [ὄλεθρος/olethros] of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
s.
2 Thessalonians 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction [ὄλεθρος/olethros] from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; ​

 

[StanJ]

I agree, since the words "away from" are not included in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, the verse is not talking about banishment. The verse is talking about eternal destruction, the Greek word is Olethron. This is not banishment, and can't be read that way.

You may want to read the following and re-think your assertion here?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thess+1:9&version=MOUNCE
Is this not the same ὄλεθρος (olethros), that is used in 1 Cor 5:5, or 1 Thess 5:3, or 1 Tim 6:9? But the gift of God is indeed ruined if one does not have eternal life. Not having eternal life as scripture indicates, does not mean or equate to annihilation of our spirit, only the RUINATION of the gift. Again the Greek does not convey what you assert the English does, and only by equivocating about the English are you able to get any traction on your fallacious point of view.

 

[expos4ever]

Which in fact it does, as I presented it. Adding anything to my wording would indeed be a misrepresentation.

No. There have been multiple posts which I suggest show the rather obvious flaw in your reasoning.

As the word is not in 2 Thess 1:9 and the verse itself does refute 'annilation' as presented, I can only conclude that this assertion is not only based on oppositional bias, but also have oppositional defiance.

The word "apo" is most certainly in 2 Thessalonians 1:9:

And you most certainly did present it as refuting annihilation:

2 Thess 1:9 And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power
(the word "apollumi" is NOT USED in 2 Thess 1:9)
Although the word "apollumi" is NOT USED in this verse, notice that hell is explained as being "away from God's presence and glory". This proves that hell is a banishment not an annihilation.

You may think I was talking about "apollumi" even though my post was explicitly about "apo".

<Staff Edit>

 

[expos4ever]

Clearly in the New Testament the wording for Destruction always represents some loss but not total annihilation.

That is what we are debating, you cannot simply assert it.

That is what the majority of Greek Scholars and translators have property rendered and as such expect that those reading their mother language will take the normal meeting of that word into account.

I do not believe you have made this case at all. It is important to distinguish between scholars with a theological position to defend and more "neutral" scholars with no skin in the game. If you can point us to some credible scholars who assert that "destruction" (or "perishing" of "death") were generally understood in that culture to be only about "the body", by all means, present their names and arguments.

As we are made in God's image and as such are Triune beings the destruction or loss referred to is in the physical sense not in the Triune sense.

How, and please be precise, does it follow that if we are triune beings, "destruction" or "loss" is limited in application to the physical?

Please feel free to prove from scripture that anything entering the Lake of Fire is annihilated and ceases to exist on all levels of existence.

Same principle as before, but with a slight modification:

1. You assume that to go into the Lake of Fire means you will never burn up completely.

2. If this is a valid assumption - one borne out by non-circular arguments - then you definitely have a point.

3. If this is an invalid assumption - as I believe it is - it is of course entirely to be expected that there will be no Biblical texts that explicitly assert people in the Lake of Fire will be burned up. Why not? Because if you are wrong, statements about people being tossed in the Lake of Fire entail by virtue of common knowledge that things tossed into fires generally do burn up.

 

[expos4ever]

It wasn't a claim it was an observation of reality. Anyone who read the post I commented on and does not have positional bias will agree. You seem to think that only you can claim that somebody else is using circular reasoning not accept it for yourself?

As you very often do - remember Romans 2 and your clearly indefensible claim that the judgment described therein was only for Jews - you simply do not answer a clear, well-posed question. Here it is again:

But, please, prove me wrong: explain to all and sundry how it is that my reasoning is specifically circular.

And I am confident Der Alter will not agree my argument is circular - he almost certainly knows better.

 

[expos4ever]

While I am reminded of Romans 2:

Let's review. You posted (but I added the bolding):

Paul is referring to the Judgment of Israel in Romans 2 not the judgement or punishment of individuals.

I replied by citing this text from Paul in Romans 2:

There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil

Now what do we have?

1. We have you directly asserting that Romans 2 does not deal with the judgment/punishment of individuals.
2. We have Paul asserting that every human being who does evil will be judged/punished.

How are you not directly contradicting Paul? Well, your answer is "context" - that the Romans 2 treatment is about the judgment of Israel. Well, if that were really true, you might have a leg to stand on. However, the possibility that Paul is talking about some national judgment of Israel is eliminated by this:

There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

It is clear from the clear and repeated references to the judgment/punishment of Gentiles, coupled with the explicit reference to "every human being" that the Romans 2 judgment is certainly not limited to Israel and indeed will apply to every human who has ever lived.

What is your response? I see no "context" other than a universal judgment of all person who have ever lived, Jew or Gentile. Please address the details of my challenge to your position.