Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

[SkyWriting]

Some have viewed it not as a parable, but as a true story Yeshua told to give details about the punishment of sinners in hell.

I currently hold that all parables are literally true stories, but used as parables.
I would be difficult for Jesus to hold that he was Truth, but needed to use
fiction to make clearer points.

 

[stuart lawrence]

No worries at all! As many great things as the Internet brings us, it often makes clear conversation and understanding more difficult, not less

You know, there's a lot of people who go to church who wouldn't be there if they held to your view. They go as they are afraid of spending eternity in hell

 

[Chris Date]

You know, there's a lot of people who go to church who wouldn't be there if they held to your view. They solely go as they are afraid of spending eternity in hell

I hear that sometimes, but I seriously doubt it to be true. One cannot fear it unless they believe it's real, but if one believes it's real, then one believes in the alternative offer of everlasting blissful life in the presence of God and his redeemed people. If one doesn't find that reason enough to trust in Christ, and needs fear of eternal torment, I question whether such a one has actually trusted in him to begin with.

Besides, as I demonstrated in this year's Eastern region ETS meeting, mankind is deathly afraid of death and annihilation. Even Augustine said any rational person would choose eternal torment in hell over annihilation. If annihilationism had dominated the Christian tradition since Augustine, rather than the doctrine of eternal torment, perhaps the people of whom you speak would be going to church solely out of fear of annihilation.

 

[stuart lawrence]

I hear that sometimes, but I seriously doubt it to be true. One cannot fear it unless they believe it's real, but if one believes it's real, then one believes in the alternative offer of everlasting blissful life in the presence of God and his redeemed people. If one doesn't find that reason enough to trust in Christ, and needs fear of eternal torment, I question whether such a one has actually trusted in him to begin with.

Besides, as I demonstrated in this year's Eastern region ETS meeting, mankind is deathly afraid of death and annihilation. Even Augustine said any rational person would choose eternal torment in hell over annihilation. If annihilationism had dominated the Christian tradition since Augustine, rather than the doctrine of eternal torment, perhaps the people of whom you speak would be going to church solely out of fear of annihilation.

I mustn't be a rational person then. For I would most certainly prefer annihalation to eternity in hell.

 

[Chris Date]

I mustn't be a rational person then. For I would most certainly prefer annihalationists to enter it in hell.

Well just because Augustine said it doesn't mean it's true and that you're therefore an irrational person! It just means that what's more terrifying--immortality and eternal life in torment, or annihilation--is a subjective, personal opinion. Some think the one is more fearful, others the other.

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

What God created He can certainly destroy but this verse does not say that God will destroy body and soul in hell only that He is able.

Actually, the passage isn't merely revealing God's capabilities to us; it's comparing what God threatens to do if we disobey Him to what man threatens to do if we disobey them. It's to remind the apostles that the message of hope they carry is intended to save their life even from death. Jesus uses the words "can do" because He wants this to NOT happen to the apostles. He wants them to stay faithful. He doesn't tell them "will do" because he's trying to get them to stay faithful so that God won't do that to them.

For that reason, Jesus adds in the same sermon that "Anyone finding his life will lose it, and anyone losing his life because of Me will find it." The apostles and preachers are sent to proclaim to people that Christ can save their lives, but if they cave in to men's threats this is a bad witness meaning that the apostles think Christ cannot save their lives, and only THEY can protect their lives. Of course this is incorrect.

This is what Jesus says "whoever finding his life" -- that is, whoever uses their own efforts to preserve themselves -- "will lose it" -- that is, the life they tried to save will be lost utterly and they will ultimately die, body and soul destroyed in Gehenna. "But whoever loses his life" -- that is, whoever is willing to let man kill them, and willing to lose every benefit of living -- "will find it."

This is _ultimately_ true. In the end, nobody who had distrusted Christ and who looks to their own efforts to save their life will be alive.

 

[Darren J. Clark]

I accept I misread his post, my apologies, but after what i previously read, I jumped to the wrong conclusion
Once again, my apoligies

It is alright if there are misunderstandings. To give further detail I would point out that a scholar like John Wenham argues that the Greek word group apoleia/apollymi, even when they mean "ruin" or "loss of function" as argued in Hell Under Fire, still clearly supports the Conditionalist position. This is because the "loss of function" or "ruin" includes the faculty of consciousness. That just gives you an idea of how Conditionalists proceed.

There is also the idea that apollymi is used in Matt 10:28 in parallel to "to kill". Noting how apollymi is always used throughout Matthew with the sense of "to kill" when one person (subject) "destroys" another person (object), Conditionalists like me argue that "destroy" in Matt 10:28 must be taken in the sense of "kill" (both body and soul). It is perhaps best summed up as "capital punishment". This relies on the natural sense of "to kill" to be read as the intended meaning for both parts of Matt 10:28. No one bothers all that much with me saying that the body is "killed" and it no longer has the capacity for consciousness. We all see it as the normal end of life process. Yes the body will decompose so it disappears but nobody has a problem with that. But when we point out that "destroy" means "to kill" in relation to the "body and soul" there is a great effort to show how that is somehow logically inconsistent. That is often through trying to show either that apollymi doesn't mean "annihilation" or by getting the Conditionalist to admit that in someway complete non existence is the result. Both of these approaches are moot because it doesn't matter for the Conditionalist case. Just like the decomposition of a body post death doesn't impinge on the idea that that body's life has ended and no longer has the capacity of consciousness so also the question of "annihilation" doesn't impinge on our understanding death of the body and soul at the hands of God. We just don't need annihilation to be part of the picture. These are just clarifying thoughts and Chris might do better but I am happy to answer any further questions on the issue if you have them. It is ok to ask probing questions.

 

[stuart lawrence]

It is alright if there are misunderstandings. To give further detail I would point out that a scholar like John Wenham argues that the Greek word group apoleia/apollymi, even when they mean "ruin" or "loss of function" as argued in Hell Under Fire, still clearly supports the Conditionalist position. This is because the "loss of function" or "ruin" includes the faculty of consciousness. That just gives you an idea of how Conditionalists proceed.

There is also the idea that apollymi is used in Matt 10:28 in parallel to "to kill". Noting how apollymi is always used throughout Matthew with the sense of "to kill" when one person (subject) "destroys" another person (object), Conditionalists like me argue that "destroy" in Matt 10:28 must be taken in the sense of "kill" (both body and soul). It is perhaps best summed up as "capital punishment". This relies on the natural sense of "to kill" to be read as the intended meaning for both parts of Matt 10:28. No one bothers all that much with me saying that the body is "killed" and it no longer has the capacity for consciousness. We all see it as the normal end of life process. Yes the body will decompose so it disappears but nobody has a problem with that. But when we point out that "destroy" means "to kill" in relation to the "body and soul" there is a great effort to show how that is somehow logically inconsistent. That is often through trying to show either that apollymi doesn't mean "annihilation" or by getting the Conditionalist to admit that in someway complete non existence is the result. Both of these approaches are moot because it doesn't matter for the Conditionalist case. Just like the decomposition of a body post death doesn't impinge on the idea that that body's life has ended and no longer has the capacity of consciousness so also the question of "annihilation" doesn't impinge on our understanding death of the body and soul at the hands of God. We just don't need annihilation to be part of the picture. These are just clarifying thoughts and Chris might do better but I am happy to answer any further questions on the issue if you have them. It is ok to ask probing questions.

But the decomposition of the body doesn't result in unconsciousness of the soul does it.
When Jesus died at Calvary he went and made proclamation of the message to the Spirits of those who had died long ago( 1peter3:18-20)
There wouldn't be any point in Jesus proclaiming the message to spirits that couldn't understand what was being proclaimed would there

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

So in your view, Gods presence exists in hell.

The Bible actually says God's presence is in sheol even when we try to escape (Ps 139:8), and we also know that the wicked are tormented in the presence of the Lamb and the holy angels as retribution for their false worship. My post argued in more detail that nobody at all can exist apart from God.

The question you're asking me misses the point of my claims, though. I wasn't trying to say that I believe there's a place named "hell" in which people live forever and God is therefore present there. Rather, I was pointing out that the defense of eternal torment that claims people must live forever away from God is Biblically impossible.

I believe the OP is correct, and people who cannot dwell in God's presence will be destroyed and their lives ended.

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

But the decomposition of the body doesn't result in unconsciousness of the soul does it.

No, but the death of the body absolutely results in unconsciousness of the body! The thing that dies loses all animation, self-direction, coherence, continuance, and power to interact. Talking about what the spirit does when the _body_ dies misses the point by looking at something that you don't think died.

So the question is, does God promise that sinners will _personally_ die, or does He only promise that their bodies will die? And of course the answer is clear: right now only the body dies, but later on, at the judgment, souls will die, and not only die, but be destroyed by God.

 

[stuart lawrence]

The Bible actually says God's presence is in sheol even when we try to escape (Ps 139:8), and we also know that the wicked are tormented in the presence of the Lamb and the holy angels as retribution for their false worship. My post argued in more detail that nobody at all can exist apart from God.

The question you're asking me misses the point of my claims, though. I wasn't trying to say that I believe there's a place named "hell" in which people live forever and God is therefore present there. Rather, I was pointing out that the defense of eternal torment that claims people must live forever away from God is Biblically impossible.

I believe the OP is correct, and people who cannot dwell in God's presence will be destroyed and their lives ended.

In post 167 to you I quoted rev22:13&14.

People are outside of the city/ the new Jerusalem/ the new Heaven. It doesn't say they cease to exist. Gods presence is inside the city, he dwells there with his people
Judgement day has already taken place

 

[Darren J. Clark]

You know, there's a lot of people who go to church who wouldn't be there if they held to your view. They go as they are afraid of spending eternity in hell

Taking note of what Chris Date said above, I also think this argument is a red herring. I say that because we are often told by Traditionalist scholars and authors that the Traditional view on hell has disappeared from the pulpit and people don't think or talk about it. Besides, the question Evangelical Conditionalists are concerned with is what position is best attested in Scripture and not which doctrine keeps people in church best because of its capacity to scare people. As an aside, on my private FB I am being challenged by an atheist friend who is arguing he won't go to church precisely because of the Christian belief in the eternal torture of sinners in hell. But, if one is Evangelical one ought to concede that the whole issue should be about the question of what the Bible does teach about hell.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Taking note of what Chris Date said above, I also think this argument is a red herring. I say that because we are often told by Traditionalist scholars and authors that the Traditional view on hell has disappeared from the pulpit and people don't think or talk about it. Besides, the question Evangelical Conditionalists are concerned with is what position is best attested in Scripture and not which doctrine keeps people in church best because of its capacity to scare people. As an aside, on my private FB I am being challenged by an atheist friend who is arguing he won't go to church precisely because of the Christian belief in the eternal torture of sinners in hell. But, if one is Evangelical one ought to concede that the whole issue should be about the question of what the Bible does teach about hell.

There's plenty of people in evangelical churches motivated to be there by fear if spending eternity in hell. I should know, I was raised evangelical

 

[Darren J. Clark]

But the decomposition of the body doesn't result in unconsciousness of the soul does it.
When Jesus died at Calvary he went and made proclamation of the message to the Spirits of those who had died long ago( 1peter3:18-20)
There wouldn't be any point in Jesus proclaiming the message to spirits that couldn't understand what was being proclaimed would there

Right, but the composition of the body isn't the issue. It is the ending of life that is the salient point. In Matt 10:28 the point is built on the idea that humans can't destroy the soul but God can. The fact the soul survives the death of the body before the final judgement is moot. The point is that God can end the life of the body and soul. In light of other passages in Matt which show God does end the life of sinners at the last judgement this is exactly what God will do at the close of the age (e.g. Matt 3:11-12; 13:39-43)

 

[stuart lawrence]

Right, but the composition of the body isn't the issue. It is the ending of life that is the salient point. In Matt 10:28 the point is built on the idea that humans can't destroy the soul but God can. The fact the soul survives the death of the body before the final judgement is moot. The point is that God can end the life of the body and soul. In light of other passages in Matt which show God does end the life of sinners at the last judgement this is exactly what God will do at the close of the age (e.g. Matt 3:11-12; 13:39-43)

But people are outside the new Heaven after the last judgement. They are not said to cease to exist. They are outside the city of the new Jerusalem.
Rev22:13&14

 

[Darren J. Clark]

There's plenty of people in evangelical churches motivated to be there by fear if spending eternity in hell. I should know, I was raised evangelical

I concede that many probably do but as I said the issue should revolve around the question of what Scripture teaches. Are we going to decide what Scripture teaches on the basis of what best keep the pews full?

 

[stuart lawrence]

I concede that many probably do but as I said the issue should revolve around the question of what Scripture teaches. Are we going to decide what Scripture teaches on the basis of what best keep the pews full?

Many ministers believe scripture teaches eternity in hell, and feel they must warn people of this. Plenty of evangelical ministers believe scripture teaches that

 

[Darren J. Clark]

But people are outside the new Heaven after the last judgement. They are not said to cease to exist. They are outside the city of the new Jerusalem.
Rev22:13&14

Well, since we are now turning to Rev I will refer you to the video clips Chris Date posted above. You can asking him follow up questions if you like since he really has looked into Revelation in some detail.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Well, since we are now turning to Rev I will refer you to the video clips Chris Date posted above. You can asking him follow up questions if you like since he really has looked into Revelation in some detail.

I dont view video clips people post on you tube or the internet in general. Scripture is clear on what is stated

 

[Darren J. Clark]

Many ministers believe scripture teaches eternity in hell, and feel they must warn people of this. Plenty of evangelical ministers believe scripture teaches that

That isn't the narrative the Traditionalist scholars tell us.