Could Hell and Annihilation Both Be True?

[rstrats]

1watchman,
re: "The whole of Scripture speaks of the soul of man as eternal..."

I'm not aware of any scripture that says that. What do you have in mind?

 

[1watchman]

I think I addressed that in the post above, friend. We will NEVER be annihilated as certain cults of christendom teach. As I reflect on this, I am also reminded that eternity properly means before and after now (as of God who is eternal), so that might not be the best word here, so we can use "everlasting", which means from life onward. I hope this helps, and I hope also we all don't get into a debate on this post over semantics???

 

[rstrats]

1watchman,

re: " As I reflect on this, I am also reminded that eternity properly means before and after now (as of God who is eternal), so that might not be the best word here, so we can use 'everlasting'."



So your statement that the "The whole of Scripture speaks of the soul of man as eternal..." should be changed to "The whole of Scripture speaks of the soul of man as everlasting"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hello!

I'm studying the afterlife through the Scriptures, and I am wondering if both the traditional view of hell and annihilationism can be true?

I don't have a strong lean either way, and I see both sides. While I had some connections to the SDA in the past and strongly considered joining them at one point, I decided against it, but their annihilationistic view is something I always found intriguing and has a stronger support biblically than I had previously thought.

Now, traditionally, it is believed that the wicked souls will suffer for eternity in the Lake of Fire, and the saved go to heaven.

There are plenty of verses about the wicked suffering an eternity in hell, however, some of these could be interpreted as favoring annihilationism.

For example 2 Thessalonians 1:9 states that "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might." How can destruction be "everlasting" unless it is referring to the effect of destruction?

Jude 1:7 states that "In a similar way, Sodom and Gamorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

What happened to Sodom and Gamorrah? They were destroyed, annihilated. The last sentence is a bit trickier for the annihilationist, though.

Jesus even spoke about the degrees of punishment in verses like Matthew 11: 20-22 and Matthew 11: 23, 24.

We will also be judged upon knowledge. Luke 12: 47, 48.

Annihilationists argue that God is merciful, even towards the wicked.

Since there are degrees of punishment based on knowledge of the individual and the severity of the sin, could annihilationism be a "light sentence" for the unsaved whose worst sin was not that severe and he committed it in ignorance, while eternal torment in hell is reserved for the especially wicked?

Could annihilationism be the fate of those who die without hearing the Gospel?

I think it's possible, and I think if we look closer at the semantics of all of the "Hell" verses of the Bible, we might find the full contexts do not necessarily imply a metaphysical fire of eternal duration. To me, that sounds more like a "Grecian Formula," pardon the pun.

In my view, there may be an actual 'Hell' that is a temporary holding place until the Final Judgment, and 'Hell' may, eventually, get pushed off into some final oblivion. But, that's my view on it. Either way, it's a bad deal for those who refuse Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[PROPHECYKID]

Hello!

I'm studying the afterlife through the Scriptures, and I am wondering if both the traditional view of hell and annihilationism can be true?

I don't have a strong lean either way, and I see both sides. While I had some connections to the SDA in the past and strongly considered joining them at one point, I decided against it, but their annihilationistic view is something I always found intriguing and has a stronger support biblically than I had previously thought.

Now, traditionally, it is believed that the wicked souls will suffer for eternity in the Lake of Fire, and the saved go to heaven.

There are plenty of verses about the wicked suffering an eternity in hell, however, some of these could be interpreted as favoring annihilationism.

For example 2 Thessalonians 1:9 states that "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might." How can destruction be "everlasting" unless it is referring to the effect of destruction?

Jude 1:7 states that "In a similar way, Sodom and Gamorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

What happened to Sodom and Gamorrah? They were destroyed, annihilated. The last sentence is a bit trickier for the annihilationist, though.

Jesus even spoke about the degrees of punishment in verses like Matthew 11: 20-22 and Matthew 11: 23, 24.

We will also be judged upon knowledge. Luke 12: 47, 48.

Annihilationists argue that God is merciful, even towards the wicked.

Since there are degrees of punishment based on knowledge of the individual and the severity of the sin, could annihilationism be a "light sentence" for the unsaved whose worst sin was not that severe and he committed it in ignorance, while eternal torment in hell is reserved for the especially wicked?

Could annihilationism be the fate of those who die without hearing the Gospel?

This is how I look at it. If God is a God of justice who gives punishment according to the crime, what would warrant someone suffering for all eternity?

If I lived a life of rebellion against God and died at 47, how is 100000000000 billions years + of punishment a suitable sentence for 47yrs of rebellion.

And again, the point of Jesus destroying the wicked is not because he really wants to destroy the wicked. It is because he must get rid of sin and those who therefore hold on to sin will also be destroyed.

Another thing to consider. The reward of the saved is eternal life right? Romans 6:23. But if I am tormented eternally doesn't that mean that I must also be given the gift of God which is eternal life? How else can i be tormented eternally if I am not alive eternally.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[rstrats]

PROPHECYKID,
re: "But if I am tormented eternally doesn't that mean that I must also be given the gift of God which is eternal life? How else can i be tormented eternally if I am not alive eternally.



Aye matey, ye be right about that. But the 24/7 torture for eternity advocates don't seem to be able to understand that.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[1watchman]

This is how I look at it. If God is a God of justice who gives punishment according to the crime, what would warrant someone suffering for all eternity?

If I lived a life of rebellion against God and died at 47, how is 100000000000 billions years + of punishment a suitable sentence for 47yrs of rebellion.

And again, the point of Jesus destroying the wicked is not because he really wants to destroy the wicked. It is because he must get rid of sin and those who therefore hold on to sin will also be destroyed.

Another thing to consider. The reward of the saved is eternal life right? Romans 6:23. But if I am tormented eternally doesn't that mean that I must also be given the gift of God which is eternal life? How else can i be tormented eternally if I am not alive eternally.

One needs to understand the nature of a soul, which is eternal; so, the lost souls will dwell in "eternal damnation" with Satan (Mark 3:9). All souls will dwell somewhere forever, because a soul cannot end. Even science says: "no energy is ever lost; it just moves on". Our bodies will go down to the earth, but the soul goes to an eternal holding place ---heaven or hell. One needs to learn these things from the Holy Bible, and NOT be challenging God by saying it could not be as He says ---that's not a nice thing to say to God ---right?