Annihilationism

[Colter]

"Liveth and believeth in me" means that a person follows/does what Jesus tells him to do until he dies. God will then give him an inheritance of eternal life with them. If a person follows/obeys Jesus until he dies, Jesus will lead him into eternal life. The person follows Jesus into eternal life. If he does not obey Jesus' commandments and he is unrepentant at the time of his physical death, he will then suffer eternal condemnation/torment in hell which is called the second death.

Matthew 7:20-25
Thus you will know them by their fruits. 21 “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’ 24 “Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; 25 and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. rsv​

That's wishful thinking on your part and a sad theological conclusion for anyone claiming to Love as Jesus Loves. Somehow somewhere people are missing something.

 

[expos4ever]

Are we talking about the same Jesus who told the Jews in the temple "Before Abraham I am?" Jesus did not say "I was," past tense but "I am," present tense. How do you know that Jesus' audience did not think that way? See first sentence.

It seems a priori exceedingly unlikely that Jesus' contemporaries would, when Jesus says something is happening in the present (as in the case of the rich man in torment), believe that this is really a statement about the future instead.

How, then, would Jesus be able to make a statement about the present only if, as you are suggesting, His statements about the present can be taken to be statements about the future to the exclusion of the future.

I cannot stress how bizarre a position seems to me - I cannot imagine that Jesus would use language of the "present" to actually communicate facts about the future; even if Jesus sees Himself a transcending time, He still needs to communicate facts about the past, present, and future as experienced by His followers.

I think you are far better off conceding the account is a "story" - you can still claim that although there is no rich man presently in torment (at the moment Jesus tells the story), the story still teaches about the afterlife.

 

[expos4ever]

Jesus said the rich man was present in hell/Hades/Gehenna. He also said the rich man was being tormented by the flame. It is obvious that the rich man was not melting away, nor being annihilated, nor turning into charcoal. The rich man asked for a drop of water to cool his burning tongue. Jesus also said the rich man could not leave there.

We all know and agree what the account says! Surely you must understand that some of us think the account is not literal. And you cannot, legitimately anyway, simply declare that the account is literal.

You and others appear to simply assume that terms like "death", "perish", and "destroy' are defined in such a way as to mean "suffer eternally in hell" when applied to a person. We certainly don't use the term "perish" that way in our modern culture - when we say someone perishes, all we are saying is that their life "in this world" has come to an end, and we are entirely non-committal on the matter of an afterlife. So the question is, what did these words mean in the culture in which they were written.

But let me ask you something - please complete the following sentence:

In Romans 2, it is sensible for Paul to announce a future meting out of judgment and punishment for people (like the rich man in Luke 16) who have already experienced torment, whether eternal or not, because........

Two people to whom I have repeatedly asked this "complete the sentence" question to have have simply refused to - a devastating indictment of the strength of their particular arguments for eternal torment. Another person did answer, effectively saying that even though Jesus speaks of the present suffering of the rich man in torment, He instead knows the rich man is not suffering in the present after all (as understood by his listeners). And the explanation for this is that Jesus is "outside time". Well, even if that's true, His audience is not, and, from their perspective, Jesus would be effectively lying - saying the rich man is presently in torment while believing he will only enter torment in the distant future.

 

[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.

Obviously the Bible indeed teaches that the lost will experience eternal punishment. However, what does that term mean? It could mean eternal torment, but it could also mean annihilation that will never be reversed. As we annihilationists often point out, Jesus says the lost will endure eternal punishment, not eternal punishing. I would agree that to our western 21st century eyes, the concept "eternal punishment" is more likely to be seen as denoting eternal torment. I think there is an argument as to why the intuition to read the concept that way is misleading. But that is for another post.

For the present, consider Hebrews 5:9:

And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,..

Are we continually being "saved" eternally? Of course not - the clear meaning of "eternal salvation" is that we have been saved and are securely in that state forever.

So when Jesus speaks of eternal punishment, and given the meaning of eternal salvation, it is certainly plausible that the idea is that the lost are indeed annihilated and that state of non-existence is irreversible.

Exact same concept here in Hebrews 9:12

and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption

Are we being continually redeemed forever? Of course not - we have been redeemed and are secure in that state forever. Again, this sense of how "eternal" is used works against the notion that eternal punishment means an eternity of continual torment.

 

[Der Alte]

It seems a priori exceedingly unlikely that Jesus' contemporaries would, when Jesus says something is happening in the present (as in the case of the rich man in torment), believe that this is really a statement about the future instead.
How, then, would Jesus be able to make a statement about the present only if, as you are suggesting, His statements about the present can be taken to be statements about the future to the exclusion of the future.
I cannot stress how bizarre a position seems to me - I cannot imagine that Jesus would use language of the "present" to actually communicate facts about the future; even if Jesus sees Himself a transcending time, He still needs to communicate facts about the past, present, and future as experienced by His followers.

Actually Jesus did not speak of Lazarus and the rich man as present tense but past tense. The important part of the story was not when it occurs but what the penalty or reward was and that it was irreversible..

I think you are far better off conceding the account is a "story" - you can still claim that although there is no rich man presently in torment (at the moment Jesus tells the story), the story still teaches about the afterlife.

The Jews believed that when a person died angels immediately took them to paradise or sheol, see quote from John Gill in my post #745. What Jesus said in Luke 16:19-31 fully supported that belief. Assuming Jesus knew what the Jews believed, would He use a fictitious scenario to teach the truth about what happened after death knowing it would support a false belief?

 

[expos4ever]

Actually Jesus did not speak of Lazarus and the rich man as present tense but past tense.

Ok, but so what? How does my objection not remain in force? You appear to want things two ways:

1. You commendably (unlike others) take Romans 2 seriously and acknowledge punishment and judgment lie in the future;
2. You (apparently) claim that the Luke 16 account describes a rich man who has already been judged and punished.

If I understand you properly, you resolve this rather wrenching conflict by asserting that Jesus is "outside time" and sees the past, present, and future simultaneously. So Jesus knows the rich man has yet to be punished, but can somehow see it as "in the past" since Jesus is "outside time". And so He describes the rich man as already in torment! But surely you have to realize how highly contrived this is, especially since, unlike Jesus, his listeners - like you and me - are stuck in time.

And Jesus surely knows this! So why in the world would He effectively mislead them by placing the rich man's judgment/punishment in the past when it has yet to happen from the perspective of those who matter - the listeners.

The important part of the story was not when it occurs but what the penalty or reward was and that it was irreversible.

How is this not an evasion of the need to reconcile the timing problem I have referred to. Even if I agree with you that timing is not the most important thing, it is still clearly an issue.

 

[expos4ever]

The Jews believed that when a person died angels immediately took them to paradise or sheol, see quote from John Gill in my post #745. What Jesus said in Luke 16:19-31 fully supported that belief. Assuming Jesus knew what the Jews believed, would He use a fictitious scenario to teach the truth about what happened after death knowing it would support a false belief?

You still have the Romans 2 problem. Unless Paul is mistaken, judgment and punishment are meted out in the future regardless of what the Jews believed.

Do you, or do you not agree that Romans 2 places judgment and punishment (for the lost) in the future.

I cannot see an "out" for you on this. You cannot, I think, deny Romans 2 lies in the future. And yet you want to say that the rich man is already in torment. Let's suppose you take the line (even though the Luke 16 account itself undermines this with its vivid images of the agony of the torment) that the rich man is in some sort of "waiting" state for this future judgment and that state is "unpleasant". Well, that argument effectively concedes that what we have in the Luke 16 account is a "temporary" situation.

But many of you "eternal torment" supporters says that Luke 16 is proof of eternal torment! Perhaps you are not one of them, but in that case why are we even talking about Luke 16 at all?

As I have said before, the supporter of eternal torment does not need Luke 16 to be literal! That is what is so ironic about defending it as proof of eternal torment - it is, to me, a hopeless position precisely because of the Romans 2 problem: how can we have a rich man already suffering his eternal torment, who gets plucked out of agony in flames for the Romans 2 judgment and then sent right back down to effectively the same situation as if nothing has transpired.

That makes the Romans 2 judgment seem like a sham, an event of no consequence.

Perhaps there is something about your position that I am not getting.

 

[hedrick]

I've always assumed that Luke 16 refers to Hades, a temporary place where condemned await the final judgement. See also 1 Pet 3:19 and Rev 20:13. Those who are there are then judged at the same point that the righteous are resurrected into eternal life (per Rom 2:16) ending up in the "second death," the lake of fire.

As always I'm not confident of our ability to construct a detailed scenario, but certainly the outer darkness could be another reference to Hades, rather than to final judgement. After all, the few references to the outer darkness show someone as being thrown into it immediately, not being sent to it in something like a judgement.

 

[expos4ever]

The ECF were not concerned with answering some trick, gotcha question.

Come on now, that is unfair. My question is clear and coherent. How, and please be specific can it be characterized as a "trick" question?

Why would Paul write of future judgment/punishment for the lost if the rich man is already in flames in hell?

With all respect, you certainly appear to promote the idea that Jesus "transcends time" and expects his listeners in Luke 16 to take statements about the past (rich man already in torment) as really descriptive of a Romans 2 judgment yet to take place.

That certainly seems like a "trick" answer to me.

 

[Der Alte]

Obviously the Bible indeed teaches that the lost will experience eternal punishment. However, what does that term mean? It could mean eternal torment, but it could also mean annihilation that will never be reversed. As we annihilationists often point out, Jesus says the lost will endure eternal punishment, not eternal punishing. I would agree that to our western 21st century eyes, the concept "eternal punishment" is more likely to be seen as denoting eternal torment. I think there is an argument as to why the intuition to read the concept that way is misleading. But that is for another post.
For the present, consider Hebrews 5:9:
And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,..
Are we continually being "saved" eternally? Of course not - the clear meaning of "eternal salvation" is that we have been saved and are securely in that state forever.
So when Jesus speaks of eternal punishment, and given the meaning of eternal salvation, it is certainly plausible that the idea is that the lost are indeed annihilated and that state of non-existence is irreversible.

If we use your argument that the Bible teaches eternal punishment [noun] not eternal punishing,[verb] your proof text Hebrews 5:9 does not support you argument because it says "eternal salvation,"[noun] not "eternal saving." [verb] Further what is referred to as "eternal salvation" here, in other verses in the NT is called "eternal life" 26 times, "life eternal" 4 times, "everlasting life" 10 times and "life everlasting" 4 times.

Exact same concept here in Hebrews 9:12

and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption
Are we being continually redeemed forever? Of course not - we have been redeemed and are secure in that state forever. Again, this sense of how "eternal" is used works against the notion that eternal punishment means an eternity of continual torment.

Same argument as above, your proof text says "eternal redemption"[noun] not "eternal redeeming"[verb]

Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] Philosopher and Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew. Chap. IV
“‘Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.’​

 

[expos4ever]

Every ECF who quotes/refers to the account, not parable, of Lazarus and the rich man considered it to be literal.

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book II Chapter XXXIV.-Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning.
......
Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1 Chaper 11
......
Tertullian A Treatise On The Soul [A.D. 145-220.] Part First
.......
etc.​

Fair enough, but all this tells us is what the ECF believed. Although that is not entirely irrelevant, you appear to be "appealing to authority" here. And that is recognized as having relatively little value in these matters.

I could equally appeal to highly respected contemporary theologian NT Wright who believes Luke 16 is neither literal, nor has anything to say on life after death.

 

[StanJ]

Where exactly did I make this claim?

That wasn't my claim, that was a statement of what scripture says in Matt 3:12. This talks about wheat and chaff, and chaff is works of the flesh that will be burned up, as also indicated by Paul in 1 Cor 3:12-13. Again, it is a metaphorical use of Fire because we all know that if you put enough water on fire it can be quenched in the Physical Realm. You seem to have a problem differentiating between the literal and the metaphorical?

 

[expos4ever]

If we use your argument that the Bible teaches eternal punishment [noun] not eternal punishing,[verb] your proof text Hebrews 5:9 does not support you argument because it says "eternal salvation,"[noun] not "eternal saving."

Let's go through this:

1. You and others take eternal punishment (noun) to denote a state of ongoing continual torment forever;
2. But the author of Hebrews uses eternal salvation (noun) to denote a state, not of continual "saving" forever, but rather that of eternally retaining the "benefits" of being in a saved state.
3. Therefore, if the noun form "eternal salvation" does not not denote a situation of ongoing "getting saved", then this suggests that the noun form "eternal punishment", likewise does not denote a situation of ongoing "getting punished".

 

[StanJ]

They reveal what they can in the ages they appear. Jesus stated the facts without elaborating:
"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

That's right because those that believe and live for Jesus receive eternal life. So obviously they can't die if they have eternal life. Again it only refers to the body, not the spirit.

 

[expos4ever]

That wasn't my claim, that was a statement of what scripture says in Matt 3:12.

When you post this:

Indeed, the mere fact that Christ utilized the rabbinic language connected with Gehenna, such as "unquenchable fire" and "never- dying worms," demonstrates beyond all doubt to any reasonable person that he deliberately used the word Gehenna to impress upon his hearers that eternal punishment awaits the wicked after the resurrection. No other conclusion is possible.

....you are effectively claiming that an unquenchable fire is one that burns its fuel (lost people) forever. I am not talking about what Matthew 3:12 says; I am talking about what you said, above.

 

[Der Alte]

Fair enough, but all this tells us is what the ECF believed. Although that is not entirely irrelevant, you appear to be "appealing to authority" here. And that is recognized as having relatively little value in these matters.
I could equally appeal to highly respected contemporary theologian NT Wright who believes Luke 16 is neither literal, nor has anything to say on life after death.

You were arguing about how Jesus' audience understood him, here you want to ignore that and call on your go-to highly respected theologian Wright who is not a 2nd century Greek speaking Christian as Justin was. I have identified how at least one early Greek speaking Christian understood "eternal punishment."

 

[expos4ever]

You seem to have a problem differentiating between the literal and the metaphorical?

You stand almost alone in this strategy of repeatedly belittling others with these cheap shots. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with this strategy. I bet you will, once again, not be able to produce evidence to support this slur, just as you never provided evidence to support your falsehood that I have engaged in circular reasoning.

Look: Unlike you, I rely on carefully articulated arguments to express my view, not disparaging remarks about other people's motives, character, etc. So I will repeat what is a clear, comprehensive statement about what I think to be the case about the "Lake of Fire":

Ok, let's talk about this Lake of Fire thing. Do I believe it is a "real" fire? Probably not, not least because the book of Revelation (which is where, I believe, this term is used exclusively) is chock full of imagery that is clearly not to be taken literally.

So let's say that I agree that the Lake of Fire is not a real fire. This does not challenge my position that the lost are annihilated. Suppose a person wanted to construct a metaphorical image that captured the idea that the lost are ultimately annihilated.

What better image than fire - a force which is universally understood to, yes, reduce its fuel to smoke and ash.

So it is perfectly coherent to believe that the "Lake of Fire" is an image that appeals to something that every human knows - that fires consume their fuel - to make the point that the lost are ultimately annihilated.

It is well known that truths/ideas conveyed through the vehicle of literary device (such as metaphor) are often more effective in making a point than a purely declarative statement.

Now:

1. Do you deny that fires generally consume their fuel?

2. Do you deny that fires is something almost every human being who has ever lived is familiar with?

3. Do you deny that if, repeat if, a writer wanted to forcefully make the point the lost are consumed, describing a scenario in which they are cast into a Lake of Fire would be an effective way to make this very point?

 

[Der Alte]

Let's go through this:
1. You and others take eternal punishment (noun) to denote a state of ongoing continual torment forever;
2. But the author of Hebrews uses eternal salvation (noun) to denote a state, not of continual "saving" forever, but rather that of eternally retaining the "benefits" of being in a saved state.
3. Therefore, if the noun form "eternal salvation" does not not denote a situation of ongoing "getting saved", then this suggests that the noun form "eternal punishment", likewise does not denote a situation of ongoing "getting punished".

I didn't make the argument you did, I just extended out to its natural conclusion! So you shouldn't get all bent out of shape when it comes back to bite you. You left one out, if eternal punishment does not mean punishment that endures forever then eternal life does not mean life that endures forever.

 

[expos4ever]

You were arguing about how Jesus' audience understood him, here you want to ignore that and call on your go-to highly respected theologian Wright who is not a 2nd century Greek speaking Christian as Justin was. I have identified how at least one early Greek speaking Christian understood "eternal punishment."

How, and please be specific, does my referring to NT Wright as one who rejects a literal take on Luke 16 connect in any way to my exceedingly reasonable supposition that if Jesus wants his readers to understand that an event is in the future, he will refer to it using the future tense.

Not the past tense as you certainly appear to be arguing.

And you cannot deny that NT Wright is a highly credentialed scholar - even those who disagree with him cannot deny that he is one of the most accomplished living theologians.

 

[expos4ever]

I didn't make the argument you did, I just extended out to its natural conclusion! So you shouldn't get all bent out of shape when it comes back to bite you. You left one out, if eternal punishment does not mean punishment that endures forever then eternal life does not mean life that endures forever.

If there is a flaw in my reasoning, where is the flaw? My last post about this issue has three clear statements, and is presented as an argument leading to a conclusion.

Where is the error?

Now to this statement of yours:if eternal punishment does not mean punishment that endures forever then eternal life does not mean life that endures forever

Strawman - I never denied that eternal punishment does not mean punishment that lasts forever; I said something subtly, but importantly different:

the noun form "eternal punishment", likewise does not denote a situation of ongoing "getting punished

I believe "eternal punishment" means "the state of non-existence that comprises the penalty for sin lasts forever".

Just as I believe "eternal life" means that "the life that we are graciously given by God lasts forever".