Annihilationism

[expos4ever]

I was not dealing with your interpretation I was dealing with your sensibility or maybe lack thereof. Scripture has already been interpreted and translated for us all we have to do is read and accept it. Assigning personal viewpoints to scripture is called eisegesis and is not the proper way to read scripture. When one learns to properly exegete scripture and they usually don't have a problem understanding it or relaying it. The only thing I see demonstrably invalid are you own attempts at rationalizing your false teachings.

A simple question that I am confident you will evade:

How, and please be precise, would you expect an objective reader to conclude that you are engaged in exegesis and I am engaged in eisegesis?

I absolutely guarantee you will not be able to make this case.

 

[expos4ever]

The fact that I did answer you and you didn't recognize it just goes to show the extreme inculcation process you've gone through. Feel free to try and prove me wrong.

Another simple question. When a person in a debate refuses to answer a clear, well-formulated question (my "complete the sentence" request is quite clear), what is the most common interpretation the audience will draw?

 

[expos4ever]

Judgment is meted out in the future, punishment is meted out as soon as we die if we die as unbelievers.

This is directly refuted by Paul in this text that clearly places the meting out of punishment at a future day of wrath:

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile

Your position - that punishment takes place at death - would have required Paul to write this instead:

6 God “has already repayed each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he has give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there has already been wrath and anger. 9 There has already been trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile

What possible response can you offer? - it is clear that to place the meting out of punishment at death requires this radical rewriting of Paul's treatment in Romans 2.

 

[StanJ]

At last, a post without an insult or other cheap shot.

Too bad you couldn't reciprocate.

Now then, I am not sure what you mean by death being used "metaphorically" - can you explain? Either way, can you make a case as to why we should read "death" in Romans 6:23 as only referring death of the body? You appear to be essentially "defining your position to be correct" in asserting that "death refers to the death of the body" with the implication that the "soul" goes on living. How do you know this? How do you know that Paul does not mean death in the very normal sense of "body dies and its lights out for the 'soul'"?

Paul uses death metaphorically in Romans 8:13.
Ezekiel 18:20; The person who sins is the one who will die.
The separation of body and spirit is clearly depicted in Psalm 16:10 as it is in Luke 16:22-24. You can accept that or reject that, your choice.

I cannot imagine how you could make that case precisely because it would seem exceedingly odd for Paul to list the death of body as the penalty for sin and forget to also mention the obviously much worse consequence - eternal torment for the soul

Reality and the truth of the Bible is not based on your imagination or your understanding or your acceptance. It is based on God's truth and if you can't reconcile yourself to that truth, that's your problem. What exactly did God say to Adam in Genesis 2:17? What happened when Adam disobeyed God? Did Adam die? Did God lie? Stop reading the Bible with your predisposed ideas and start reading it
With an open mind to see what it actually does say

 

[StanJ]

This is directly refuted by Paul in this text that clearly places the meting out of punishment at a future day of wrath:
But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile
Your position - that punishment takes place at death - would have required Paul to write this instead:
6 God “has already repayed each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he has give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there has already been wrath and anger. 9 There has already been trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile
What possible response can you offer? - it is clear that to place the meting out of punishment at death requires this radical rewriting of Paul's treatment in Romans 2.

Your propensity for rewording or paraphrasing the word of God in terms that you understand is well noted, but not accepted. God's word is clear and that there will be a great white Throne judgement where all people who are not Believers will be thrown into the Lake of Fire to be tormented for all time. God's word is also clear that all people will reap what they sow. Lazarus the beggar received a reward of paradise with Abraham and the rich man reaped the reward of hell as depicted and Luke 16.

 

[Der Alte]

Another simple question. When a person in a debate refuses to answer a clear, well-formulated question (my "complete the sentence" request is quite clear), what is the most common interpretation the audience will draw?

Maybe Stan feels about it the way I do. This is not a game of 20 question. Valid question are those which ask for clarification or explanation of something already posted, not trick, gotcha questions.

 

[hedrick]

This is directly refuted by Paul in this text that clearly places the meting out of punishment at a future day of wrath:

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each ...

Your position - that punishment takes place at death - would have required Paul to write this instead:

6 God “has already repayed each person ...

What possible response can you offer? - it is clear that to place the meting out of punishment at death requires this radical rewriting of Paul's treatment in Romans 2.

Whether it happens exactly as we die or at a future date doesn’t seem to me to be all that important for this discussion. Paul does in fact envision a day of wrath, which I think is intended as a single time.

What is clear is that this passage doesn’t really say one way or another about whether the punishment is everlasting torment or a second death. He contrasts wrath and fury with glory and honor and peace. But eternal life is mentioned only for those who are saved. I think we need to look elsewhere for his idea of just what the wrath and fury is.

The most explicit description I know in Paul is 1 Cor 15:22 ff. Like many other passages we’re unlikely to agree what it means. A straightforward reading would be that everyone will end up being made alive in Christ. First Christ, then all who believe in him, and finally everyone. So that in the end he may be all in all. But of course he can’t possibly mean that, can he?

If he means everyone who is in Christ (which is the majority view, although it seems odd given 15:25), then I don't think this passage talks about just what happens to those who aren't in Christ. His enemies are put in subjection under his feet, but so is everyone.

The other major description is 2 Thes, which unfortunately uses “eternal destruction,” a term that we’re not likely to get agreement about here. The one thing we presumably can agree on is that it is final exclusion from God.

-------------

My personal position, if you recall, is that Scripture simply doesn’t give us details on what will happen. I believe there’s evidence of all three major views (though I think destruction -- whatever that means -- is the most common), and that attempts to work it all into one neat picture results in bad exegesis. This suggests to me that what’s really going to happen is something that will surprise us all.

 

[expos4ever]

Whether it happens exactly as we die or at a future date doesn’t seem to me to be all that important for this discussion. Paul does in fact envision a day of wrath, which I think is intended as a single time.

In one sense I agree with you - the timing does not, in and of itself, bear on the question as to whether the torment is eternal. But, in other sense, the timing does indeed matter: if you take Luke 16 as evidence of torment (eternal or otherwise) after death, the timing does matter. As I have already argued, the Luke 16 account cannot be a description of life after death if we take Paul seriously in Romans 2 where he clearly places the meting out of punishment in the future. It is, of course, no accident that the supporter of the view that Luke 16 is literal systematically refuse to complete this sentence:

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 are already in eternal torment because........

Actually, to be more precise, the sentence should really be this:

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........

They can't afford to answer this question since to do so would bring into sharp relief the incoherence of believing the rich man has already been in torment (whether everlasting or not) when Paul clearly places the meting out of punishment in the future.

To the extent that Luke 16 - which I concede does not say the torment is eternal - at least establishes torment after death (with no clear promise of an end in sight), Luke 16 could be part of a broader argument for eternal torment.

That is why the timing matters - the timing rules out the possible use of Luke 16 to make any point about the afterlife.

 

[StanJ]

Another simple question. When a person in a debate refuses to answer a clear, well-formulated question (my "complete the sentence" request is quite clear), what is the most common interpretation the audience will draw?

This audience is probably thinking why doesn't this guy pay attention to the answers he's already getting. Trying to reword scripture into something that only you understand and accept is not the way you read the Bible and that explains why you don't understand what it says about death.

 

[expos4ever]

What is clear is that this passage doesn’t really say one way or another about whether the punishment is everlasting torment or a second death. He contrasts wrath and fury with glory and honor and peace. But eternal life is mentioned only for those who are saved.

Agree, but, as per my last post, the fact that substantial punishment is meted out tells very strongly against a literal reading of Luke 16 precisely because the rich man in Luke 16 has clearly already received his substantial punishment. It is highly awkward to try to argue that the rich man - clearly already in torment - actually gets punished again in the future at the judgment described at Romans 2.

The most explicit description I know in Paul is 1 Cor 15:22 ff. Like many other passages we’re unlikely to agree what it means. A straightforward reading would be that everyone will end up being made alive in Christ. First Christ, then all who believe in him, and finally everyone. So that in the end he may be all in all. But of course he can’t possibly mean that, can he?

I don't think Paul is saying all will be ultimately saved.

His enemies are put in subjection under his feet, but so is everyone.

I have always thought of these enemies as "non-persons" - things like sin, death, disorder, fear, etc.

The other major description is 2 Thes, which unfortunately uses “eternal destruction,” a term that we’re not likely to get agreement about here. The one thing we presumably can agree on is that it is final exclusion from God.

On balance, and given the clear precedent in the OT (e.g. the Edom passage that I believe you have posted) for use of exaggerated "forever" language to denote time-limited events, I suggest the overall weight of evidence powerfully tilts in the annihilation direction. Take Romans 6:23 - can you see a realistic way to read this in a manner consistent with eternal torment? I can't - one has to either redefine death to mean "life in torment" (that's a huge stretch). Or you have to say Paul is speaking only of the death of the body; but if you make that move, you have to explain why Paul has made the incredible blunder of forgetting to mention the much much larger "wage" of sin - eternal torment. Paul is not that kind of a careless writer.

PS: Refreshing to read posts from someone who does not "trash talk".

 

[StanJ]

In one sense I agree with you - the timing does not, in and of itself, bear on the question as to whether the torment is eternal. But, in other sense, the timing does indeed matter: if you take Luke 16 as evidence of torment (eternal or otherwise) after death, the timing does matter. As I have already argued, the Luke 16 account cannot be a description of life after death if we take Paul seriously in Romans 2 where he clearly places the meting out of punishment in the future. It is, of course, no accident that the supporter of the view that Luke 16 is literal systematically refuse to complete this sentence:

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 are already in eternal torment because........

Actually, to be more precise, the sentence should really be this:

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........

They can't afford to answer this question since to do so would bring into sharp relief the incoherence of believing the rich man has already been in torment (whether everlasting or not) when Paul clearly places the meting out of punishment in the future.

To the extent that Luke 16 - which I concede does not say the torment is eternal - at least establishes torment after death (with no clear promise of an end in sight), Luke 16 could be part of a broader argument for eternal torment.

That is why the timing matters - the timing rules out the possible use of Luke 16 to make any point about the afterlife.

So you would rather call Jesus a liar than say that Paul wasn't talking about punishment but about judgement?
Yeah you stick with that and we'll see how far that gets you.

 

[expos4ever]

Your propensity for rewording or paraphrasing the word of God in terms that you understand is well noted, but not accepted.

I suggest you are placed in a very uncomfortable position when someone takes your position and explicitly lays out how it cannot work with other passages, as I have done by integrating your "punishment at death" position with Paul's treatment in Romans 2. Of course, it is shown to be you who rewords scripture since you have to reword that bit in Romans 2 to square it with "punishment at death".

I simply have shown the readers how your position actually cashes out when the rubber hits the scriptural road.

God's word is clear and that there will be a great white Throne judgement where all people who are not Believers will be thrown into the Lake of Fire to be tormented for all time. God's word is also clear that all people will reap what they sow. Lazarus the beggar received a reward of paradise with Abraham and the rich man reaped the reward of hell as depicted and Luke 16.

You effectively have the rich man already in a state of torment, being plucked out at the Great White Throne judgment, judged, and then tossed into a lake of Fire to be tormented eternally. Yet Paul says the punishment is meted out at the Great White Throne judgment.

You have punishment meted out before Paul it will be meted out. Who are we to believe, you or Paul?

 

[Der Alte]

In one sense I agree with you - the timing does not, in and of itself, bear on the question as to whether the torment is eternal. But, in other sense, the timing does indeed matter: if you take Luke 16 as evidence of torment (eternal or otherwise) after death, the timing does matter. As I have already argued, the Luke 16 account cannot be a description of life after death if we take Paul seriously in Romans 2 where he clearly places the meting out of punishment in the future. It is, of course, no accident that the supporter of the view that Luke 16 is literal systematically refuse to complete this sentence:
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 are already in eternal torment because........
Actually, to be more precise, the sentence should really be this:
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........
They can't afford to answer this question since to do so would bring into sharp relief the incoherence of believing the rich man has already been in torment (whether everlasting or not) when Paul clearly places the meting out of punishment in the future.
To the extent that Luke 16 - which I concede does not say the torment is eternal - at least establishes torment after death (with no clear promise of an end in sight), Luke 16 could be part of a broader argument for eternal torment.
That is why the timing matters - the timing rules out the possible use of Luke 16 to make any point about the afterlife.

The ECF were not concerned with answering some trick, gotcha question. 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.
Ireneaeus, 120-202 AD, was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John.
1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,-in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives [=Latin for rich] knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him-[Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead. By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognised, and retain the memory of things in this world; moreover, that the gift of prophecy was possessed by Abraham, and that each class of souls] receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1 Chaper 11
On the Resurrection. But he figuratively designates the vulgar rabble, attached to ephemeral pleasure, flourishing for a little, loving ornament, loving praise, and being everything but truth-loving, good for nothing but to be burned with fire. “There was a certain man,” said the Lord, narrating, “very rich, who was clothed in purple and scarlet, enjoying himself splendidly every day.” This was the day. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.

Tertullian A Treatise On The Soul [A.D. 145-220.] Part First
In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality. For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.

The Epistles Of Cyprian (A.D. 200-258) Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics
A good man out of the good treasure bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.” Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.

Methodius Fragments On The History Of Jonah (A.D. 260-312)
But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence, also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are such according to their essence.​

 

[expos4ever]

So you would rather call Jesus a liar than say that Paul wasn't talking about punishment but about judgement?
Yeah you stick with that and we'll see how far that gets you.

I am, of course, not calling Jesus a liar. The perspicacious reader will know that to argue that Jesus is telling a parable (that has nothing to do with the afterlife) does not entail calling Jesus a liar.

But you clearly deny Paul who explicitly speaks of punishment at the Romans 2 judgment:

But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil

You clearly believe that the rich man has already received his "wrath and anger".

 

[StanJ]

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, cutting through so as to divide soul from spirit, joints from marrow. It is even able to discern the thoughts and deliberations of the heart.
1 Thess 5:23
Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your spirit, soul, and body be preserved completely whole and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is very clear from scripture that our soul is our life force and it is part of our Triune nature just as we are made in the image of our Triune God. When we die our body dies by losing its life force but our spirit goes on to either reward or punishment.

 

[expos4ever]

This audience is probably thinking why doesn't this guy pay attention to the answers he's already getting. Trying to reword scripture into something that only you understand and accept is not the way you read the Bible and that explains why you don't understand what it says about death.

Here is the problem: You repeatedly refuse to deal with challenges I pose to you that involve "forcing" you to work out the implications of your position. That is what this "complete the sentence" exercise does - there is no way for you to complete the sentence without exposing the violent contradiction that your position produces.

The readers can plainly see this - when someone will not answer a clear, well-posed question, the clear conclusion is that they have no credible answer and are not willing to admit their view is problematic.

 

[ewq1938]

This audience is probably thinking why doesn't this guy pay attention to the answers he's already getting. Trying to reword scripture into something that only you understand and accept is not the way you read the Bible and that explains why you don't understand what it says about death.

The posts in the thread are looking more and more like attacks on the persons rather than the positions expressed.

 

[expos4ever]

I invite anyone, anyone at all, to complete this simple sentence:

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........

This cannot be answered, of course! It is the corner you have painted yourself into if you believe the rich man is being tormented. I can just imagine this ridiculous scenario at the future Great White Throne judgement if the rich man is really in torment already.

Judge: The court calls the rich man to be judged. Oooops....it seems that he has already been judged and punished. This is a little embarrassing. I thought I was supposed to be doing the judging now (at the Great White Throne). Anyway, Mr. Rich Man, you are hereby judged and sentenced to eternity in flames.

Rich Man: And how is that any worse than what I have undergoing for > 2000 years already?

 

[StanJ]

I am, of course, not calling Jesus a liar. The perspicacious reader will know that to argue that Jesus is telling a parable (that has nothing to do with the afterlife) does not entail calling Jesus a liar.

But you clearly deny Paul who explicitly speaks of punishment at the Romans 2 judgment:

But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil

You clearly believe that the rich man has already received his "wrath and anger".

It is exactly about the afterlife and it is also about Resurrection. The spiritual truth that is learned in what you call a parable is what happens after our death and the prophecy that happens in this story is the fact that Jesus did rise from the dead and people still didn't believe him.
The sign of cultic behavior is when people focus on one or two certain verses instead of taking the whole of the Bible into context. The Bible doesn't contradict itself and when people ignore other verses it is to the detriment of sound biblical exegesis and their own understanding.

 

[StanJ]

I invite anyone, anyone at all, to complete this simple sentence:

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........

This cannot be answered, of course! It is the corner you have painted yourself into if you believe the rich man is being tormented. I can just imagine this ridiculous scenario at the future Great White Throne judgement if the rich man is really in torment already.

Judge: The court calls the rich man to be judged. Oooops....it seems that he has already been judged and punished. This is a little embarrassing. I thought I was supposed to be doing the judging now (at the Great White Throne). Anyway, Mr. Rich Man, you are hereby judged and sentenced to eternity in flames.

Rich Man: And how is that any worse than what I have undergoing for > 2000 years already?

Again instead of seeking what God's word actually says you ask questions about what God's word doesn't say and you expect, some how, to get a reply? Paul is referring to the Judgment of Israel in Romans 2 not the judgement or punishment of individuals. God had a covenant with the children of Israel and as such the Covenant needs to have the final pronouncement for each Israelite that does not accept the New Covenant. This is something you would know you actually study the Bible rather than try to pick it apart