Annihilationism

[BobRyan]

Depends on what precisely you mean. The Resurrected body (which all will receive, the glorified and the damned) can not cease to exist and is immortal, and the matter from which our bodies are now made while it will break down after severance with the soul (which is death in the primary sense) it also does not cease to exist.

This passage refers to the eternal death though which is not a cessation of existence but in the soul a deprivation of living of God and in the body misery and pain. This is the final state of the damned, and it is rightly called destruction.

Matt 10:28
28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

I am pretty sure that Christ is not saying that people are able to kill the resurrected body given to saints (as we see in 1 Cor 15) - so that is not the context for Matt 10:28.

 

[BobRyan]

From: Annihilationism - Wikipedia
wikipedia:

"In Christianity, annihilationism (also known as extinctionism or destructionism)[1] is the belief that those who are wicked will perish or cease to exist. It states that after the Last Judgment, all unsaved human beings, all fallen angels (all of the damned) and Satan himself will be totally destroyed so as to not exist, or that their consciousness will be extinguished rather than suffer everlasting torment in Hell (often synonymized with the lake of fire). Annihilationism stands in contrast to both belief in eternal torture and suffering in the lake of fire and the belief that everyone will be saved (universal reconciliation or simply "universalism").

"Annihilationism is directly related to the doctrine of Christian conditionalism, the idea that a human soul is not immortal unless it is given eternal life. Annihilationism asserts that God will eventually destroy the wicked, leaving only the righteous to live on in immortality. Thus those who do not repent of their sins are eternally destroyed because of the inherent incompatibility of sin with God's holy character. Seventh-day Adventists posit that living in eternal hell is a false doctrine..."​

==============================

Of course - any doctrine that is "not true" would be considered a "false" doctrine.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Matt 10:28
28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

I am pretty sure that Christ is not saying that people are able to kill the resurrected body - so that is not the context for Matt 10:28.

That is why I spoke of different bodies, yes.

 

[BobRyan]

Matt 10:28
28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

This passage refers to the eternal death though which is not a cessation of existence but in the soul a deprivation of living of God and in the body misery and pain. This is the final state of the damned, and it is rightly called destruction.

"destroy both body AND soul" in fiery hell - is a pretty strong statement about the destruction of both. In the first part of the text "they are able to KILL the body" in the second part of the text God not only kills the body but "destroys" the body. More than this - destroys both body AND soul.

Its a greater and more all encompassing death of the body than in the case of those who "are able to kill the body". And the same holds for the soul - subjected to that same degree of "destruction".

2 Peter 2:6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example of what is coming for the ungodly;

So also is Ezek 18:4 a pretty strong statement about whether the soul can die.
Ezek 18:4 "the soul the sins - it shall die"

===============

In the first part of Matt 10:28 "they are unable" to kill the soul though they are fully and completely able to "kill the body".

That statement is not followed by "fear Him who is not able to Kill body or soul in fiery hell" the way some have interpreted it.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Matt 10:28
28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.



"destroy both body AND soul" in fiery hell - is a pretty strong statement about the destruction of both. In the first part of the text "they are able to KILL the body" in the second part of the text God not only kills but "destroys".

2 Peter 2:6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example of what is coming for the ungodly;

So also is Ezek 18:4 a pretty strong statement about whether the soul can die.
Ezek 18:4 "the soul the sins - it shall die"

On Matthew: a) what God is able to do and what He does is distinct, as brought up by another commenter in this thread, b) there are many ways to destroy a thing but not cause it to cease existing, or to simply change the way it exists. Therefore this text does not prove annihilationism.

On 2 Peter: Same as b) for Matthew.

On Ezekiel: death is the separation of body and soul, and the word "soul" here is often in the OT simply used of the whole living person, so this statement does not prove annihilationism but is consonant with an understanding of the immortality of the soul (which is a word that can be used in a multitude of ways, I just used it in two).

 

[BobRyan]

Matt 10:28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Eph 3:
20 Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, 21 to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.
.

In that Matt 10:28 and Eph 3:20 comparison it is shown conclusively that when NT writers speak about what God is "able to do" to motivate our choice/action -- they are not using an ivory-tower academic reference - such as "God is able to make monkey's fly" when they want to make a point. Rather it is reliable God is the one that will in fact (in real life) put both body and soul in fiery hell.

So the contrast is between what man can and cannot do - and in fact does do when persecuting the saints. As compared to what God can and will do - when it comes to punishing the wicked. The point of Matt 10:28 is not to fear man who is limited - but rather to fear God who can and will put the wicked in fiery hell - both body and soul.

Christ is not mixing into that a non-helpful point like "God can make monkeys fly (but of course never would do such a thing)" as if a factoid like that would strengthen his point.

On Matthew: a) what God is able to do and what He does is distinct,

Which was addressed in the Matt 10 and Eph 3:20 comparison.

If we add to Eph 3:20 ("what God is ABLE to do and what He WILL do are two different things") it destroys the whole point of Eph 3:20 and also destroys the argument made by Christ in Matt 10:28.

As an example of the alternative : --
If a billionaire owned a car dealership and said "come buy one of my cars - I am able to give you a billion dollars after all (but of course I would never do such a thing as that would leave me with nothing)" it destroys the entire argument that tries to motivate someone to make that choice.

 

[BobRyan]

On 2 Peter: Same as b) for Matthew.

2 Peter 2 merely shows that they are using the term "destroy" as in "reduce to ashes".

2 Peter 2:6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example of what is coming for the ungodly;

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, held for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example of what is coming for the ungodly; 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the perverted conduct of unscrupulous people 8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from a trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt passion, and despise authority.

You "appear" to suggest that in all those "IF"s the implied intent is "surely He did nothing of the sort" -- then it destroys the entire argument for the "THEN" part of the IF statement.

My point in that reference was not to open doors for people to doubt that God did what 2 Peter 2 says He did - but rather to show that their concept for "destroy" includes "by reducing them to ashes"

 

[Mark Quayle]

Annihilationism is the belief that rather than going to place of eternal torment, the wicked will be destroyed entirely, both in body and spirit. It is commonly promoted by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and related denominations.

Most contemporary Christians believe that the wicked will go to hell and suffer for eternity.

What are your thoughts on annihilationism? Is it biblical?

Personally, I am kinda agnostic on the issue. I lean towards the traditional view of hell being a literal place of torment, largely just to be on the safe side, but I do see some compelling arguments for annihilationism.

I see arguments for it, not quite compelling. After debating many universalists, I have found myself more 'understanding' toward annihilationism, though.

But as much as it lies in me to do so, I try to see things from God's POV.

Considering that he has withdrawn from them, they do, to me, seem to not even resemble the persons we thought of them to be, while alive. To my mind it is altogether reasonable to say they are devoid of virtue, with no redeeming qualities to them at all anymore. There is nothing to pity there anymore, just enmity to God.

There is also to be considered, I think, from God's POV, the idea of timelessness, rather than forever-long time. Their crimes were infinite, being against the infinite God, so the in-kind payment is not related to time, so much as quality. While I cannot deny that the characteristic of 'never-ending-ness' may be one of their torments, I don't know that it is actual in the way we imagine while here. Anyhow, whatever it is, Christ took ours for us (the Redeemed), and though he conquered it, I have to believe it was infinite upon him.

With both the mathematical feel of justice and repayment of debt, and the depth of visceral hatred against sin in the revenge God has promised, the texture of the whole matter feels almost clinical, to me, as though those there are mere vacuous spirits, not even persons, anymore. Yet, when I consider the notion that when God spoke us into existence, it is quite likely that from his POV he spoke the finished product —the Bride of Christ— into completed form, though it took this many thousands of temporal years to accomplish it in us; if so, then it would also be reasonable to think that from his point of view, those receiving his justice and revenge were created to be that very phantom thing, and that, to the praise of God's glory. (God is not the "safe"*, tame, kindly being we like to think of! "But he is good."*)

*From a quote from CS Lewis in the Chronicles of Narnia: when asked whether the great and fearsome lion Aslan was safe, Mr Beaver answers, something like, "Safe??!! NO he's not safe, but he is good."

 

[Aussie Pete]

Christian theologians, academicians, and especially organizations that specialize in "cult watching" consider annihilationism to be one of the marks of a church or religious movement that is classified as a cult.

That doesn't mean that mind control, etc. is a feature (that's a different kind of cult), but that the theology--even if Christ is claimed by such churches--is beyond or outside of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. All of these three Christian divisions, despite serious differences of belief on some matters, are in agreement on certain basics.

The reason for the cult designation is that annihilationism means a revision of the nature of Man. Any denial of the nature of God or of Man is a denial of a Christian essential.

WHY is annihilationism a denial of the nature of Man? Because Man was created in the image and likeness of God according to Genesis, and God has no beginning or end. To say that the wicked will be annihilated is to deny the nature of the human soul.

By definition, every denomination is a cult. Of course, we do not see it like that in practice. Perhaps we should. At least annihilists have some basis for their beliefs. I don't agree and I think it is fairly easy to disprove their stand.

Part of the issue with annihilists is in a way commendable. They don't want to see people in hell. It's a nice sentiment, but it's simply not the truth. It also removes one of the main motivations for people getting saved in the first place. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

I spent quite a bit of time pondering annihilation and universalism. I came to the conclusion that neither are correct. Man's fundamental problem is that he is spiritually dead. The only answer is to be made alive. That is only possible in and through Christ. Death is not the end of existence, it is separation from God. God no more will have dead people in His home than we would in ours. People get to choose in this lifetime where they will spend eternity.

 

[Albion]

By definition, every denomination is a cult.

That is indeed the original use of the word--as a reference to any system of devotion, such as when the Medieval "Cult of the Virgin" is referred to. BUT in more recent times, the word has been used to refer to churches or religious movements that are claimed by their adherents to be Christian but which are "beyond the pale" when it comes to basic Christian beliefs. And this is a valid classification.

That puts them outside even the usual disagreements that separate Catholic, Orthodox Christians, and Protestants. I hoped that people would recognize that, in my post, it was the current meaning of the word that was intended.

 

[BobRyan]

By definition, every denomination is a cult. Of course, we do not see it like that in practice.

In fact Christianity itself fits that technical definition. But it is still a handy pejorative term in common usage as short hand for "not a Christian group in my POV".

In the NT the Jews called it "a sect" - meaning "a condemned sect of Judaism"

 

[Aussie Pete]

That is indeed the use of the word--as a reference to any system of devotion, such as when the "Cult of the Virgin" which was prominent during the Middle Ages is referred to. BUT in more recent times, the word has been used to refer to churches or religious movements that are quasi-Christian but on basics are really "beyond the pale," even outside the usual disagreements that separate Catholic, Orthodox Christians, and Protestants. I hoped that people would recognize that it was the second and current use of the word that I was employing in my post.

I did recognise your meaning. I just think we have to be very careful before we call a movement a cult.

 

[Aussie Pete]

In fact Christianity itself fits that technical definition. But it is still a handy pejorative term in common usage as short hand for "not a Christian group in my POV".

In the NT the Jews called it "a sect" - meaning "a condemned sect of Judaism"

Yes. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is a difference of interpretation and what is false doctrine. And of course, some are obvious.

 

[BobRyan]

At least annihilists have some basis for their beliefs. I don't agree and I think it is fairly easy to disprove their stand.

Part of the issue with annihilists is in a way commendable. They don't want to see people in hell. .

"Yes" agreed in regard to the "basis for beliefs" found in these texts. So then the "disproof" (if it is possible) should be pretty easy since there are not 100 texts do have to deal with.

Matt 10:28
28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Eph 3:
20 Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, 21 to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.

Ezek 28 regarding Satan
15 You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
16 By the abundance of your trade
You were internally filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.
And I have destroyed you, you covering cherub,
From the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Your heart was haughty because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor.
I threw you to the ground;
I put you before kings,
That they may see you.
18 By the multitude of your wrongdoings,
In the unrighteousness of your trade
You profaned your sanctuaries.
Therefore I have brought fire from the midst of you;
It has consumed you,
And I have turned you to ashes on the earth
In the eyes of all who see you.
19 All who know you among the peoples
Are appalled at you;
You have become terrified
And you will cease to be forever.”’”

Ezek 18:4 "the soul the sins - it shall die"

you might find this post interesting.

Part of the issue with annihilists is in a way commendable. They don't want to see people in hell. .

The point of those texts is not that "there is no hell" or that "no one goes to hell" as can by seen in the case of the first example above...

Matt 10:28
28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

The issue is the duration and outcome of hell.

Is the debt paid and full and the person "destroyed both body and soul" according to the Bible?

Or is the debt infinite and "never paid in full" and the person "preserved body and soul" according to the Bible?

I spent quite a bit of time pondering annihilation and universalism. I came to the conclusion that neither are correct. Man's fundamental problem is that he is spiritually dead. The only answer is to be made alive. That is only possible in and through Christ.

Which does not prevent the Matt 10:28 case of "kill the body but not the soul" where the argument is that the soul even of the lost IS ALIVE in this life and that only in the fiery hell judgment of God are both body AND soul "destroyed" not merely killed - but "destroyed".

Death is not the end of existence, it is separation from God.

You are conflating two different contexts for the term.

"Lazarus sleeps I go that I may wake him" John 11
Followed by "Lazarus is dead".

Neither of which refer to Lazarus' "spiritual state being that of death".

So also in Matt 10:28 - the soul even of the wicked is alive and may not be killed by those who "kill the body but not the soul".

Yet the contrast is clear - that at the final judgment of fiery hell it is not only killed - but destroyed as is the physical body.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

By definition, every denomination is a cult. Of course, we do not see it like that in practice. Perhaps we should. At least annihilists have some basis for their beliefs. I don't agree and I think it is fairly easy to disprove their stand.

Part of the issue with annihilists is in a way commendable. They don't want to see people in hell. It's a nice sentiment, but it's simply not the truth. It also removes one of the main motivations for people getting saved in the first place. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

I spent quite a bit of time pondering annihilation and universalism. I came to the conclusion that neither are correct. Man's fundamental problem is that he is spiritually dead. The only answer is to be made alive. That is only possible in and through Christ. Death is not the end of existence, it is separation from God. God no more will have dead people in His home than we would in ours. People get to choose in this lifetime where they will spend eternity.

I must be a party of 'one,' then, because I consider myself an Annihiliationist AND I believe people who remain separated from Christ in this life will find themselves in Hades (whatever that really is ...)

Moreover, I'm an Annihilationist because of my hermeneutical approach to the Bible, not due to a sensitive emotional grievance that some other human beings will end up in Hades.

 

[Albion]

I did recognise your meaning. I just think we have to be very careful before we call a movement a cult.

Unfortunately, the word has also been widely used to refer to psychological extremists, to groups that practice mind control, sometimes featuring drug use, and which follow some guru-type leader who exploits his following for his personal benefit. The Manson Family is, for instance, often referred to as a cult.

 

[BobRyan]

The Manson Family is, for instance, often referred to as a cult.

True and by grouping Christianity and the Manson Family together (due to the technical precise definition of the term "cult") it makes it appear that Christianity has no more value than the Manson family. It would be like saying the devil and the Apostle Paul are examples of "free will" or "choice" or "sentient beings". Technically it is correct but it can be used to cast Paul in a poor light or "sentient being" in a poor light as one's favorite form of pejorative.

Rainbow in Gen 9:12-15 had a positive meaning - today that same symbol is given a very negative meaning as it has been co-opted by the devil in modern times -

 

[Aussie Pete]

"Yes" agreed in regard to the "basis for beliefs" found in these texts. So then the "disproof" (if it is possible) should be pretty easy since there are not 100 texts do have to deal with.





The point of those texts is not that "there is no hell" or that "no one goes to hell" as can by seen in the case of the first example above...

Matt 10:28
28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

The issue is the duration and outcome of hell.

Is the debt paid and full and the person "destroyed both body and soul" according to the Bible?

Or is the debt infinite and "never paid in full" and the person "preserved body and soul" according to the Bible?

I don't see the issue as a debt. All the sins of all mankind have already been paid for. The problem is that unbelievers are dead in trespass and sin. Paying the debt does not make them alive. For that you must be born again. What did Adam and Eve do when they disobeyed? The hid from God. They still existed. But God said that they would surely die the day that they disobeyed. They died spiritually. Yet they could walk and talk, think feel and choose.

People who are not born again will not be able or willing to enter heaven. If they hide from God on earth, how much more will they shrink back when they meet God face to face. They then experience the second death, a separation that is eternal. A dreadful fate that I would not wish on anyone. But people have the right to choose. God respects that. But there are consequences.............

 

[Aussie Pete]

Unfortunately, the word has also been widely used to refer to psychological extremists, to groups that practice mind control, sometimes featuring drug use, and which follow some guru-type leader who exploits his following for his personal benefit. The Manson Family is, for instance, often referred to as a cult.

True.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Unfortunately, the word has also been widely used to refer to psychological extremists, to groups that practice mind control, sometimes featuring drug use, and which follow some guru-type leader who exploits his following for his personal benefit. The Manson Family is, for instance, often referred to as a cult.

I think the term 'unorthodox' or, better yet, 'unconventional' would be a better one to ascribe to Annihilationism. Designating it as 'cultic' is a bit heavy-handed in my estimation.