Annihilationism

[expos4ever]

I've always assumed that Luke 16 refers to Hades, a temporary place where condemned await the final judgement.

OK, but do you believe the rich man is actually in Hades as Jesus tells the story? If so, there is a bit of a challenge since the rich man characterizes his state as being "in agony in flames".

I trust you see the problem: How could the final judgment be any worse for him than being in agony in flames? If, on the other hand, this waiting state is one in which he is simply waiting - and not roasting - then, you could make the case that it is a waiting state. But the Luke 16 account does have the rich man in real torment.

 

[Der Alte]

...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?

Was God a novelist writing a suspense novel trying to appeal to the fears and emotions of the reader?

 

[expos4ever]

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

O the irony! In the Luke 16 account, we have Lazarus described as having a finger:

Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame

When do the saved get bodies, and hence fingers? Paul clearly says that the general resurrection lies in the future (1 Cor 15). So unless Paul is mistaken, good old Lazarus is presently "fingerless", and has been so since he died.

And yet you have claimed the Luke 16 account is "literal".

I suggest you look in the mirror before casting aspersions on the ability of others to "understand the difference between the literal and the metaphorical".

 

[expos4ever]

Was God a novelist writing a suspense novel trying to appeal to the fears and emotions of the reader?

What are you asking me? If you take objection to anything I have posted, we can talk about that. I certainly stand behind my claim that Scripture is full of symbol and metaphor and would be happy to defend that claim.

 

[Der Alte]

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.

The Lazarus/rich man story is written in the past tense, not present tense. "There was a certain rich man" past tense,"there was a certain beggar" past tense. "it came to pass, that the beggar died" past tense

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.

While Wright may be a highly credentialed scholar without credible, verifiable, historical evidence, such as I provided, he can only give his opinion, not tell us how early Greek speaking Christians understood Luke 16:19-31.

 

[StanJ]

When you post this:
....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.

No that is what you were claiming but not surprisingly you misrepresent what I say and don't accept how I explain it which is consistent with everything you address. That you do this deliberately or are being deliberately obtuse I can't tell but it is definitely your problem not mine.

 

[StanJ]

What are you asking me? If you take objection to anything I have posted, we can talk about that. I certainly stand behind my claim that Scripture is full of symbol and metaphor and would be happy to defend that claim.

So what exactly is your view about the Lake of Fire? Is it literal or metaphorical?

 

[StanJ]

The Lazarus/rich man story is written in the past tense, not present tense. "There was a certain rich man" past tense,"there was a certain beggar" past tense. "it came to pass, that the beggar died" past tense

Yes very true, and as such this Lazarus maybe the very same Lazarus of John 11, but I won't go off topic by presenting the rationale for it.

 

[expos4ever]

No that is what you were claiming but not surprisingly you misrepresent what I say and don't accept how I explain it which is consistent with everything you address. That you do this deliberately or are being deliberately obtuse I can't tell but it is definitely your problem not mine.

How am I misrepresenting you? You posted 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.

I guess we need to walk through it:

1. You note that Jesus uses the concept "unquenchable fire" to demonstrate something. What is that something?
2. You state that that it is "that eternal punishment awaits the wicked after the resurrection"

Your response?

And, oh yes, please engage the details of my points 1 and 2, above.

We already know that I am obtuse, try to misrepresent, am not biblically literate, have a suppositional bias, and don't know the difference between the literal and the metaphorical......

Just address my argument, Chester.

 

[Der Alte]

What are you asking me? If you take objection to anything I have posted, we can talk about that. I certainly stand behind my claim that Scripture is full of symbol and metaphor and would be happy to defend that claim.

Here are the phrases I highlighted.

• chock full of imagery that is clearly not to be taken literally.
• Suppose a person wanted to construct a metaphorical image that captured the idea that the lost are ultimately annihilated. What better image than fire
• "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."
• "the vehicle of literary device."
• "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?"​

.....To which I replied "Was God a novelist writing a suspense novel trying to appeal to the fears and emotions of the reader?"
.....Why would God use literary devices, metaphors, etc. in the NT when He did not use them in the OT? In the OT God stated exactly what the punishment would be for disobedience; "eye for eye, tooth for tooth,""stoning,""put to death," etc.

 

[hedrick]

OK, but do you believe the rich man is actually in Hades as Jesus tells the story? If so, there is a bit of a challenge since the rich man characterizes his state as being "in agony in flames".

It's a parable, so "actually" is a bit odd. But yes.

I trust you see the problem: How could the final judgment be any worse for him than being in agony in flames? If, on the other hand, this waiting state is one in which he is simply waiting - and not roasting - then, you could make the case that it is a waiting state. But the Luke 16 account does have the rich man in real torment.

No, I don't see the problem. He's in agony in Hades, the intermediate state. He'll be destroyed in the final judgement.

I checked three commentaries on Luke. The Word commentary explicitly called it temporary. Hermeneia refers to a more explicit treatment in connection with 8:30, which calls it temporary. The Anchor Bible distinguishes it from Gehenna, but says it's far from certain.

TDNT has an article on Hades (to which the Anchor Bible refers). It portrays the usual understanding, which is that originally Sheol was everyone's destination. But in NT times several concepts coexisted. One was separation of Sheol / Hades into two parts, for saved and not. Another had the saved go immediately to Paradise, and then be resurrected in a general resurrection. They see Luke 16:23 as reflecting the first, and Luke 23:43 the second. Of course this may just be an issue of terminology, since one could certainly say that paradise was simply a term for the good part of Hades.

"In respect of the duration of this sojourn, there can be no doubt that it was originally thought to be everlasting (→ n. 2). Independently of the changes in the conception of Hades mentioned, this view lived on where only a partial doctrine of the resurrection was taught.[their references are to Jewish documents outside the NT] On the other hand, where a general resurrection was expected, the stay in Hades was thought to be limited in time, as everywhere in the NT. The fact that there were these different views as to which souls are in Hades, and for how long, meant that there were great variations on this question in the Judaism of NT days."

"Finally, the NT agrees that the stay in Hades is limited, as may be seen from the sharp distinction between ᾅδης and γέεννα. Throughout the NT Hades serves only an interim purpose. It receives souls after death,14 and delivers them up again at the resurrection (Rev. 20:13). The resurrection constitutes its end (20:14), and it is replaced by γέεννα (19:20; 20:10, 14 f.: λίμνη τοῦ πυρός) as the final place of punishment."

This quotation is followed by a description of variations on details in the NT, with Luke 16 seeing Hades as having both saved and unsaved (though with their experiences being very different), and in other cases the saved go immediately to Paradise.
[Joachim Jeremias, in TDNT]

To my knowledge, this is a consensus position among NT scholars. Hence Luke 16 is describing Hades, not the final judgement.

[There is also an article in TDNT on Gehenna, also by Jeremias. But it's briefer, and only speaks of being "destroyed by eternal fire." I assume he intends the usual meaning of destroyed, but I guess you can't be sure he doesn't mean destroyed in the sense of being tormented. Unfortunately there's really not enough detail in that article to be very helpful. So far I haven't found any good treatment of the history of the concept of Gehenna, and its likely NT meaning.]

 

[Colter]

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.

Those who do not achieve eternal life are destroyed, mind and soul.

 

[hedrick]

Here are the phrases I highlighted.

• chock full of imagery that is clearly not to be taken literally.
....​

.....Why would God use literary devices, metaphors, etc. in the NT when He did not use them in the OT? In the OT God stated exactly what the punishment would be for disobedience; "eye for eye, tooth for tooth,""stoning,""put to death," etc.

He certainly used them in the OT as well. Indeed it was the same non-literal wording as in the NT. One of the issues with you is that you fail to accept the OT background for phrases like "eternal fire." You also claim to be literal, but refuse to accept the normal meaning of words:
* destruction turns into preservation so you can be tormented
* death turns into eternal life so you can be tormented

 

[expos4ever]

No, I don't see the problem. He's in agony in Hades, the intermediate state. He'll be destroyed in the final judgement.

OK, my bad, I forgot that you had expressed doubts about eternal torment.

 

[StanJ]

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.

And you seem to stand alone and take everything personally even though it is framed as a question and not an accusation? But this is your M/O, as we have all come to know. What I try to achieve by questions is to get answers and most people do answer except for you. It is well known that reactive responses to simple questions are because people don't like being challenged about what they believe. Your reactiveness to everything that people challenge you on is very clear and obvious for all to see on this thread. If you would just simply answer these questions without including accusations and more questions, then this thread would be much more productive, but it is obvious that you're not willing to answer questions because you know they lead to refutation of your point of view.

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":

Well I guess my view, as with most, of 'carefully articulated', and yours is not one and the same but that's not surprising seeing as you disagree with most definitions that are supplied to you and equivocate about them. Your arguments definitely and clearly indicate one thing, a lack of being able to justify your arguments without resorting to equivocation or misrepresentation.

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.

This argument is based on what is commonly termed eisegesis, and is not how one properly reads and studies the Bible. Have you actually ever study what it takes to properly exegete scripture? Do you know what proper biblical hermeneutics is?

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.

Framing your view from a modern analogy to insist that it represents what you purport it did 2-3 thousand years ago is NOT TENABLE.
There were many well-known examples of fire in the Old Testament that did not consume anything but simply existed, with nothing to support the conflagration. Exodus 13:21 is an example of one that was actually a physical manifestation but did not consume anything. So basically the Jewish mindset was not one that you represent by your example. They could tell the difference between literal/physical fire and metaphorical fire and knew that neither one necessarily/actually consumed ANYTHING.

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.

That is only true if one is not predisposed to believe in something different. Metaphor won't work on someone who has a positional bias about the metaphor.

 

[Der Alte]

• He certainly used them in the OT as well. Indeed it was the same non-literal wording as in the NT.

Such as?

One of the issues with you is that you fail to accept the OT background for phrases like "eternal fire."

I accept the background of the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud which I posted previously in this thread. See my post #306, this thread.

You also claim to be literal, but refuse to accept the normal meaning of words:
* destruction turns into preservation so you can be tormented
* death turns into eternal life so you can be tormented

I expected better from someone on staff. This grossly misrepresents my position. See my post #640 this thread. My discussion of apolummi the Greek word translated destruction and perish.
And I have posted these verses more than once.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: ​

These verses tell me that all mankind, 100%, have sinned, all mankind, 100%, will die and all mankind, 100%, will face judgment. That fulfills Rom 6:23. What these verses do not say is "the wages of sin is death, resurrection and death again." Some may argue that Rev. mentions a second death. Rev. says the lake of fire [LOF] is the second death. These two phrases are interchangeable so the second death is the lake of fire. No where in Rev, does it say that anyone or anything is cast into the LOF then they die.
.....What Rev. does say is the beast, the false prophet and devil are cast into the LOF but they do not die they are tormented day and nigh for ever and ever. Rev. also says that death and hell are cast into the LOF. Neither of them can or has died a first time so they cannot die a second death.

 

[StanJ]

He certainly used them in the OT as well. Indeed it was the same non-literal wording as in the NT. One of the issues with you is that you fail to accept the OT background for phrases like "eternal fire." You also claim to be literal, but refuse to accept the normal meaning of words:
* destruction turns into preservation so you can be tormented
* death turns into eternal life so you can be tormented

I think it's pretty evident in this thread that the normal meaning or definitions of some words are not accepted by many conditionalists.

 

[StanJ]

Those who do not achieve eternal life are destroyed, mind and soul.

Which is your opinion and is not supported by scripture and as such is rejected outrightly.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes very true, and as such this Lazarus maybe the very same Lazarus of John 11, but I won't go off topic by presenting the rationale for it.

I tried searching for that but not much luck. Please message me with a link if you can.

 

[StanJ]

How am I misrepresenting you?

Clearly by saying I said something that I didn't say, I just quoted what Jesus said.

1. You note that Jesus uses the concept "unquenchable fire" to demonstrate something. What is that something?
2. You state that that it is "that eternal punishment awaits the wicked after the resurrection"
Your response?

1. Read the scripture I gave you.
2. Yes that is correct, it does, just as Jesus states in Matthew 25:46