Annihilationism

[Clare73]

Not that you meant this this way, but lest it be taken wrong: I don't think you mean that both interpretations (specially if they are mutually exclusive) are true. I think you mean that one interpretation isn't likely the only useful one, or, simply, that it is a fact that more than one interpretation can be taken from the text.

Thanks for clarifying. . .please feel free to do so at any time.
Could I get you to be my wanted editor?

(One of the principles taught in Hermeneutics 101 is that "nothing can be interpreted accurately two different ways", by which is meant, "two different interpretations". In this logical principle, the truth is one, two are necessarily mutually exclusive.)

One reason I answer this, ironically, is that sometimes I see in prophecy and prophetic poetry, etc, and other 'figures, symbols, parallels and parables' a "second use" for lack of a better term. Often Christendom has decided THIS IS WHAT THIS MEANS when there seems to me to be more to it than just what they have decided. There are multi-layered plays on words, plays on concepts, maybe even puns on riddles, laced-together themes with other scriptures (which is another way to know whether one book is Scripture or not (OT, sorry)), and my favorite —"literal" when everyone says "symbolic", because we see everything backwards. Admittedly though, it is dangerous to draw doctrines on such speculations.

Agreed.

 

[Clare73]

This is interesting to me, and curious. I am of rather a strong opinion that ECT is/will not be quite what people conceive of now, as regards the passage of time, but more likely, time-irrelevant. Thus the punishment is more a matter of quality, not quantity. I'm not sure it is so, but the fact that Jesus took that punishment belonging to all of the elect, and yet it is over for him (or so our minds like to think) might be indicative of what I am saying here. But the two concepts (ECT and Annihilationism) in this seem to approach one another; also in this, maybe some of the language of Scripture can be better understood.

Could the divinity of the atonement (God himself satisfying his own justice, Romans 3:25) have anything to do with that?

I mean:
1) it's God's justice, he gets to decide what is sufficient,
2) divine coinage may be worth more than human coinage.

 

[Clare73]

The same is true of eternal life. I’m not so sure it’s infinite time just like what we experience now.

Eternal life is God's life, which is both quantitative (everlasting as God is) and qualitative (God's life).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually, I have no interpretation, and I don't interpret it.

My response to you was from Revelation itself, no interpretation by me required.

However, there is no human rule book for interpreting prophecy other than:
1) all interpretation must be in agreement with NT teaching, which is God's completed revelation to his people, and
2) Scripture does not contradict itself regarding NT teaching. So if the apostles disagree with a present interpreation, I judge it to be in error.

I stand behind only what I assert regarding any interpretation disagreeing with NT teaching. The apostles knew nothing of many of these interpretations, and I don't think it's because they were more ignorant than we.

Sometimes I see figurative parallels to Christian doctrine in Revelation, but it's not anything I will defend against other interpretations, because my objections are based only on contradiction to NT teaching.

That's about the sum of it for me and interpreting unfulfilled prophecy, which I suspect will disappoint you.

Nah, I'm not disappointed, Clare.

Peace!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not in figurative prophecy.
But there is in the same book, Revelation 6:8, where they are horsemen.

So, am I correct in my understanding that you're saying that part of the book of Revelation is figurative, but other parts of it are literal? If so, then by what principles of exegesis do we discern this?

I'm just wondering because the answer to this may have some implications for whether or not the Lake of Fire is, itself, either figurative or literal in nature.

 

[Clare73]

So, am I correct in my understanding that you're saying that part of the book of Revelation is figurative, but other parts of it are literal? If so, then by what principles of exegesis do we discern this?

No, I was only pointing out that prophecy is figurative, not literal, and pointing out the nature of Death and Hades in Revelation's own terms; i.e., horsemen.
Other than that, I don't have a clue.

I'm just wondering because the answer to this may have some implications for whether or not the Lake of Fire is, itself, either figurative or literal in nature.

I suspect the lake of fire, Gehenna, Hades, unquenchable fire, etc. are all figurative expressions for the experience of being separated from God; i.e., separated from all good, left only with terrifying spiritual evil. . .that's really scary to me. . .just my thoughts, nothing I will defend.

 

[Clare73]

.

 

[Der Alte]

So, am I correct in my understanding that you're saying that part of the book of Revelation is figurative, but other parts of it are literal? If so, then by what principles of exegesis do we discern this?
I'm just wondering because the answer to this may have some implications for whether or not the Lake of Fire is, itself, either figurative or literal in nature.

There is an old adage about interpreting the Bible, "If the plain sense makes good sense, it is nonsense to seek any other sense."
Conversely, "If the plain sense does not make good sense, common sense should compel one to seek a figurative sense."An example might be Rev 20:14

Revelation 20:14
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.​

Death is the point in time end of life. It cannot be literally be thrown anywhere and it can't die. "Hades" the word translated "hell" can refer to the grave or the place of punishment. The graves would be empty at that time. Empty also can't be thrown anywhere. So they might be figurative.
However there is a scriptural answer which does not require mixing literal and figurative.

Revelation 6:8
8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.​

Two living, sentient beings, whom I call them the angel of death and the demon of hell others can call them whatever they will. This Death and Hell can be thrown and can die. Without these two guys Rev 20:14 would be figurative.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is an old adage about interpreting the Bible, "If the plain sense makes good sense, it is nonsense to seek any other sense."
Conversely, "If the plain sense does not make good sense, common sense should compel one to seek a figurative sense."An example might be Rev 20:14

Revelation 20:14
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.​

Death is the point in time end of life. It cannot be literally be thrown anywhere and it can't die. "Hades" the word translated "hell" can refer to the grave or the place of punishment. The graves would be empty at that time. Empty also can't be thrown anywhere. So they might be figurative.
However there is a scriptural answer which does not require mixing literal and figurative.

Revelation 6:8
8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.​

Two living, sentient beings, whom I call them the angel of death and the demon of hell others can call them whatever they will. This Death and Hell can be thrown and can die. Without these two guys Rev 20:14 would be figurative.

Yeah, I've heard that adage. I'm not sure I agree with it or that reading and understanding the Bible is that straighforward, but I respect the fact that you've studied and hold the opinion you do.

As far as the literary nature of the book of Revelation is concerned, I'm under the impression that everything provided in vision by the Lord to John is figurative in its language, giving us, the readers, content which is encased in metaphors and similies, expressing shadows and outlines of history whose literal manifestation in the actual world only the Lord Himself knows.

In the meantime, I'll continue with my studies ...

 

[Gregory Thompson]

With that reasoning we should throw out every other figurative, symbolic speaking, parable, hard to understand prophecy, and while we are at it, throw out all poetry and wisdom books just to be safe, and maybe Genesis 1 since that seems to be troubling some of us.

Ah good point, back the Apocrypha go then.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Or
3) evil is not a 'thing'.

That makes no sense, in Romans 7, Paul illustrates how the sin dwelling in his body is separate from him the person. Evil actually is a thing, it just took Jesus dying and being risen from the dead to give us the opportunity to see it that way.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
I'm not sure it is so, but the fact that Jesus took that punishment belonging to all of the elect, and yet it is over for him (or so our minds like to think) might be indicative of what I am saying here.

Could the divinity of the atonement (God himself satisfying his own justice, Romans 3:25) have anything to do with that?

I mean:
1) it's God's justice, he gets to decide what is sufficient,
2) divine coinage may be worth more than human coinage.

I expect you mean the fact of "God satisfying his own justice" relating to the 'fact' of the punishment being over with, for Christ. Haha, yes and no. I'm not altogether sure it is ever really over with. The sacrifice is done, yes, but the punishment is infinite, in keeping with the infinite crime. Also, the bruised heel is not said anywhere, as far as I know, to be only a temporal thing. I think God hurt himself, (which should be impossible, but such is the horror of sin), for our sakes, out of love for his Particular Creation by creating this temporal existence.

(There's a lot more I wish to know about this, but the resources I have found, even, The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ by John Owen, doesn't quite answer my questions. The Restoration of All Things to God, aka (I think) The Subjugation of All Things to Christ, is related.) It will certainly be good to see it all finally, there. God is amazing.

(an aside: To me the question may well answer the claim I hear from unbelievers, that if God (Jesus) takes a mere 'dirt nap', it was no big deal, no sacrifice.)

1. Agreed, though I don't see God having to decide, as in 'considering' or 'making up his mind', as to what is just, before exacting punishment.

2. An interesting observation. It certainly would apply to the fact of Christ's necessary divinity in substituting for anyone else's sin. This is something that no human, nor angel, can do.

#2, continued: You may be hinting at the notion that Christ, being greater than sinners, needed not suffer as much as sinners. I disagree. In fact, I think he suffered punishment in every way and detail, precisely and thoroughly, as we would have. But whether it is by "greater coinage" or not, being God he ever lives. Now my question to you: Does "ever lives to make intercession for us" refer to during this temporal world only, or to eternity with God also? Is Christ's continued love for his Bride necessary to keep God from destroying us even then, or at least, to maintain God's delight in, and favor towards his children? And does that question have any relevance to the question of his sacrifice?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah good point, back the Apocrypha go then.

No, because they simply do not fit. (In my judgement, anyway. I've read them and didn't even finish— they simply sound and feel all wrong. It was a long time ago, and I'm too lazy to bother to do it again, or I would give you some specific examples.) If it is relevant to you, I also think certain parts included in some Bibles don't belong, such as the Johannine comma.

 

[Clare73]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
I'm not sure it is so, but the fact that Jesus took that punishment belonging to all of the elect, and yet it is over for him (or so our minds like to think) might be indicative of what I am saying here.

I expect you mean the fact of "God satisfying his own justice" relating to the 'fact' of the punishment being over with, for Christ. Haha, yes and no. I'm not altogether sure it is ever really over with. The sacrifice is done, yes, but the punishment is infinite, in keeping with the infinite crime. Also, the bruised heel is not said anywhere, as far as I know, to be only a temporal thing. I think God hurt himself, (which should be impossible, but such is the horror of sin), for our sakes, out of love for his Particular Creation by creating this temporal existence.

(There's a lot more I wish to know about this, but the resources I have found, even, The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ by John Owen, doesn't quite answer my questions. The Restoration of All Things to God, aka (I think) The Subjugation of All Things to Christ, is related.) It will certainly be good to see it all finally, there. God is amazing.

(an aside: To me the question may well answer the claim I hear from unbelievers, that if God (Jesus) takes a mere 'dirt nap', it was no big deal, no sacrifice.)

1. Agreed, though I don't see God having to decide, as in 'considering' or 'making up his mind', as to what is just, before exacting punishment.

2. An interesting observation. It certainly would apply to the fact of Christ's necessary divinity in substituting for anyone else's sin. This is something that no human, nor angel, can do.

#2, continued: You may be hinting at the notion that Christ, being greater than sinners, needed not suffer as much as sinners. I disagree.

I'm thinking he suffered as much as was possible for him, but suffering of the Infinite "bought more" more than finite suffering.

In fact, I think he suffered punishment in every way and detail, precisely and thoroughly, as we would have. But whether it is by "greater coinage" or not, being God he ever lives.

Now my question to you: 1) Does "ever lives to make intercession for us" refer to during this temporal world only, or to eternity with God also? 2) Is Christ's continued love for his Bride necessary to keep God from destroying us even then, or at least, to maintain God's delight in, and favor towards his children? 3) And does that question have any relevance to the question of his sacrifice?

Without providing the Scriptures, I think the NT anwers are
1) temporal only
2) no
3) no

Are you taking me in over my head here?

 

[Mark Quayle]

That makes no sense, in Romans 7, Paul illustrates how the sin dwelling in his body is separate from him the person. Evil actually is a thing, it just took Jesus dying and being risen from the dead to give us the opportunity to see it that way.

It is a privation of good. At best, a parasite on good. But that doesn't work well in our minds. (We have to have a handle on what we perceive as principle). I can hardly wait for Heaven, when we see him as he is, and see how wrong we were about sin, from both extremes.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm thinking he suffered as much as was possible for him, but suffering of the Infinite "bought more" more than finite suffering.

I like the thought there, that may well be implied by the fact that he returned. However, if there is in any way implied that God's retribution against Christ exceeded precise, just, payment then I have to disagree.

Without providing the Scriptures, I think the NT anwers are
1) temporal only
2) no
3) no

Are you taking me in over my head here?

Hahaha! No, sorry. I thoroughly agree with your answers. In fact the questions are moot, since it is ludicrous to suppose that Christ would fail to love us anyway, or that God ever intended eternal harm against his elect children.

But they are interesting in that they make me think of the interplay between the persons of the Godhead, and the roles they separately (and together) occupy. Can you even begin to imagine us being one as they are one?

 

[Clare73]

I like the thought there, that may well be implied by the fact that he returned. However, if there is in any way implied that God's retribution against Christ exceeded precise, just, payment then I have to disagree.

Can't even figure out why that comes to your mind. . .

Hahaha! No, sorry. I thoroughly agree with your answers. In fact the questions are moot, since it is ludicrous to suppose that Christ would fail to love us anyway, or that God ever intended eternal harm against his elect children.

You're messin' with my mind.

But they are interesting in that they make me think of the interplay between the persons of the Godhead, and the roles they separately (and together) occupy. Can you even begin to imagine us being one as they are one?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No, because they simply do not fit. (In my judgement, anyway. I've read them and didn't even finish— they simply sound and feel all wrong.

So then we should get rid of revelation afterall.

The point I am making here is to be consistent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Can't even figure out why that comes to your mind. . .

You're messin' with my mind.

Sorry. Not meaning to. The sound of words make my brain go places, speculations begin...

 

[Mark Quayle]

So then we should get rid of revelation afterall.

The point I am making here is to be consistent.

I am. Revelation fits. Hardly any of it even hints at not fitting, certainly no worse than James as far as that goes, and on closer inspection, it is doesn't even hint after all, at not fitting.

Seems strange that one so erudite as yourself would take it upon your own authority to recommend ignoring or discarding Revelation.