Why are so many Christians against annihilation in hell when scripture supports it?

[Butch5]

Yes we have. As long as people keep posting that Lazarus and the rich man is a parable I will keep refuting it, I think people need to needs all sides.
Now if I were to see some credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence, for example the ECF, to the contrary I might be persuaded.

I doubt it. Personally, I don't think you'd be persuaded if Jesus Himself provided the evidence

 

[Der Alte]

I doubt it. Personally, I don't think you'd be persuaded if Jesus Himself provided the evidence

Then prove me wrong. Do some research and find some credible, verifiable, historical evidence that disproves anything that I have ever posted. No rush I'll wait.

 

[Butch5]

Then prove me wrong. Do some research and find some credible, verifiable, historical evidence that disproves anything that I have ever posted. No rush I'll wait.

I already have. Numerous times.

 

[Der Alte]

I already have. Numerous times.

You have never provided me any credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence to refute anything I have posted. And this response is proof that you cannot do so. In fact, I think you told me it would be a cold day in hell before you would.

 

[Butch5]

You have never provided me any credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence to refute anything I have posted. And this response is proof that you cannot do so. In fact, I think you told me it would be a cold day in hell before you would.

You can take that nonsense somewhere else. There are plenty of people on this forum who know otherwise.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Before I begin I want to say that I am in no way one of those people who believe in annihilation to please my flesh or rely on my own understanding to make myself feel better. Sure you can use God's character as an argument, but I am here to show you pure biblical evidence where God clearly states the punishment for sin is death. If I saw in scripture God clearly say the wicked will have eternal conscious torment and hell is an eternal torture chamber, I would still trust him and accept that. But I just don't see the biblical evidence for this popular belief and ironically enough, so many Christians who are deep in the bible and far in their walk believe this view and think the truth (death of the wicked) is unbiblcal. I think scripture was twisted and the church popularized this false belief, and they obviously did a good job in it. As a side note, I truly think ceasing to exist is actually the worst punishment of all because you will never get a chance for life and you can never feel anything, so God is still just in that case and the wicked will pay for rejecting God. Some people believe in universal salvation which I do think is unbiblical.

I believe the lake of fire is a very real place. It clearly says the lake of fire is real in scripture, and there will be torment and punishment in there before the souls of the wicked perish and God restores his creation. When God makes the new heaven and new earth as stated in revelation, there will be no more room for suffering and evil. All evil will die and there will be no more need for existence of it. A lot of people make the argument that all souls are eternal, but that doesn't make any sense because before we were born, we did not exist. So we are not eternal in the way God is. Not to mention God has the power to destroy souls because he is the almighty creator. The bible says the righteous will have everlasting LIFE and the wicked will PERISH. It says the wages of sin is DEATH. The bible talks about everlasting "destruction". It says evil and hell will be thrown into the lake and fire for the second DEATH. I know a lot of people will make the argument death only refers to spiritual death, but it does not specifically say this in the bible, death means death, not only spiritual death but the death of your soul, and it seems pretty clear in the bible so there is no need to add to it. Most of all it talks about how the gift Jesus gives to the righteous is life, and if you don't believe in him you will receive the opposite which is death. The eternal punishment the bible talks about is the destruction of the soul for eternity.

Here is the biblical evidence:

Psalm 1:6 "For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish."

Psalm 37:20 "But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away." Psalm 69:28 "Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous" Psalm 34:16 "The face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth."

Psalm 92:7 "When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever:"

Proverbs 24:20 "For there shall be no reward to the evil man; the candle of the wicked shall be put out"

Isaiah 1:28, 30-31 "And the destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the LORD shall be consumed."

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Matthew 7:13 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:"

Philippians 3:19 "Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things."

1 Corinthians 3:17 "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy;"

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

The question of the title of this thread that says: “Why are so many Christians against annihilation in hell when scripture supports it?”

If you mean the Lake of Fire: Well, I see it as three reasons. Church tradition, a failure to always adhere to fair justice, and a misunderstanding on the word “forever.”

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The question of the title of this thread that says: “Why are so many Christians against annihilation in hell when scripture supports it?”

If you mean the Lake of Fire: Well, I see it as three reasons. Church tradition, a failure to always adhere to fair justice, and a misunderstanding on the word “forever.”

Yes, it seems the Hebrews, Israelites, had those three things more in their favor, when they were not going astray that is... not troubled with 'Church' tradition, a lot more adhering to true justice, and a much better understanding of their own language (that the Bible was /is originally in) (they did not know english at all, of course!) ....

Of course, the Hebrew/ Israeli understanding of Scripture (which The Creator gave to them/ entrusted to them) , does not help westerners or english speaking people unless some way to convey the wisdom is manifest/ accomplished, Yahuweh Willing...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes we have. As long as people keep posting that Lazarus and the rich man is a parable I will keep refuting it, I think people need to needs all sides.
Now if I were to see some credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence, for example the ECF, to the contrary I might be persuaded.

??
well.... maybe.... but realize all that still needs to be verified, not accepted at face value nor as is without testing and proving by Scripture, like the Bereans did.

 

[mmksparbud]

Yes we have. As long as people keep posting that Lazarus and the rich man is a parable I will keep refuting it, I think people need to needs all sides.
Now if I were to see some credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence, for example the ECF, to the contrary I might be persuaded.

Of course it's a parable---He was talking to the Pharisees--

Luk 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

and He went on to say a few other things and then He told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

Mat_13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

 

[Butch5]

Of course it's a parable---He was talking to the Pharisees--

Luk 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

and He went on to say a few other things and then He told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

Mat_13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

I find it funny how people will say Lazarus and the Rich Man isn't a parable, yet it starts out, 'there was a certain rich man'. The parable before it starts out, 'there was a certain rich man'. And, the parable before that one starts out. 'there was a certain man'. I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

 

[Deade]

The question of the title of this thread that says: “Why are so many Christians against annihilation in hell when scripture supports it?”

If you mean the Lake of Fire: Well, I see it as three reasons. Church tradition, a failure to always adhere to fair justice, and a misunderstanding on the word “forever.”

Yeah, church traditions. Let's talk about those. Like when the pagan Emperor of Rome, Constantine, took over the Christian banner. Set up the council of Nicaea: the wrecking ball on true worship. Then when the Protestants broke off that false church, and carried on with much of the same dogma. That is why the popes fit the false prophet and the antichrist (Babylon). The Protestants are the daughters of the mysterious great harlot (see Rev. 17:5).

Now about your signature: Could you list me just what commandments our Lord Jesus gave us in the New Testament? I only noticed Him expounding on the Sinai Commandments.

Also: Which commandments did Abraham keep? Gen. 26:5 "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Let's talk about those.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Of course ---He was talking to the Pharisees--

And the Pharisees (and Saducees or Scribes?) held to traditions that were not at all from Yahuweh, nor in line with Yahuweh's Plan, Word and Purpose....
so , yes, Jesus was exposing their errors / faulty traditions and faulty teachings by
using their own stories, traditions, beliefs/ that they understood/ as He exposed them; seems that is why they were angry with Jesus so often - He kept exposing their sins and faults publicly , openly, "with their own words/beliefs)

to wit:short excerpt from Bullinger's 20 page study online:
"Then the Lord immediately passes on to the culminating point of His lesson (v. 19): “There was a certain rich man”, etc. He makes no break. He does not call it, or give it as one of His own Parables; but He at once goes on to give another example from the traditions of the Pharisees, in order to judge them out of their own mouth. A parable of this kind need not be true in itself, or in fact; though it must be believed to be true by the hearers, if not by the speaker. No more that Jotham's parable of the Trees speaking (Judges 9:7-15). No more than when the Pharisees, on another occasion, said “this fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils”; and He, judging them out of their own mouth, did not contradict them, nor did He admit the truth of their words when He replied, “If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?” (Matt. 12:24-27). No! the Lord did not bandy words in argument with

"these arch-Traditionists, but turned the tables upon them. It was the same here, in Luke 16. He neither denied nor admitted the truth of their tradition when He used their own teachings against themselves. These are the “offences” of chapter 17.

It was the same in the case of the parable of the “pounds” a little later on, when He said, “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up what I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow” (Luke 19:22). The Lord was not, of course, an austere and unjust man; but He uses the words which those to whom He was speaking believed to be true; and condemned them out of their own mouth.

We believe that the Lord is doing the very same thing here. The framework of the illustration is exactly what the Pharisees believed and taught. It is a powerful and telling example of one of their distinctive traditions, by which they made the teaching of God's Word of none effect. It is, of course, adapted by the Lord so as to convey His condemnation of the Pharisees. He represents the dead as speaking, but the words put into Abraham's mouth contain the sting of what was His own teaching. In verse 18 He had given an example of their PRACTICE in making void the Law of God as to marriage and divorce; and in the very next verse (19) He proceeds to give an example of their Doctrine to show how their traditions made void the truth of God; using their very words as an argument against themselves; and showing, by His own words, which He puts into Abraham's mouth (verses 29 and 31), that all these traditions were contrary to God's truth."

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yeah, church traditions. Let's talk about those. Like when the pagan Emperor of Rome, Constantine, took over the Christian banner. Set up the council of Nicaea: the wrecking ball on true worship. Then when the Protestants broke off that false church, and carried on with much of the same dogma. That is why the popes fit the false prophet and the antichrist (Babylon). The Protestants are the daughters of the mysterious great harlot (see Rev. 17:5).

On other Christian forums I would have freedom to talk more openly about such things. However, here at ChristianForums.com, I am restricted to condemning churches by name without getting points, and being restricted access to the site. The best tactic here is to condemn the belief in a more subtle way without mentioning the church names, and or the people involved. So I cannot comment on this (unless it was by PM, Private Message).

Now about your signature: Could you list me just what commandments our Lord Jesus gave us in the New Testament? I only noticed Him expounding on the Sinai Commandments.

Jesus clearly was making changes to the Law (even before the cross):
(Which means He was not teaching primarily Old Covenant, but New Covenant):

The Old Way says:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"
(Matthew 5:38 cf. Exodus 21:23-25).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39).


The Old Way says:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matthew 5:21 cf. Numbers 35:30-32).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22).


The Old Way says:
"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:" (Matthew 5:34 cf. Numbers 30:1-2, Deuteronomy 23:21).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
34 "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:34-37).


The Old Way says:
"And of thy mercy cut off mine enemies, and destroy all them that afflict my soul: for I am thy servant." (Psalms 143:12).

"And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent." (Joshua 6:17).

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21).

16 "But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee" (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).

"They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them" (Psalms 106:34).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44).

Note: Yes, I am aware that the Old Way (Old Testament) also teaches to love one's enemies (Exodus 23:4-5) (Proverbs 25:21), but this was in context to their own Israelite people, and not pagan nations. Pagan nations were to be destroyed when God commanded the Israelites to destroy them. But Jesus taught a radically different way. Love your enemies, and do good to them that hate you, and to pray for those who persecute you.


The Old Way says:
20 "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel." (Deuteronomy 22:20-22).

4 "They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" (John 8:4-5).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. " (John 8:7).


Even after the cross, there were changes being made:

The Old Covenant says this about circumcision:
"And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." (Genesis 17:14).

Yet, the New Covenant says this about circumcision:
"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."
(Galatians 5:2).


The Old Covenant says this about the Sabbath:
32 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." (Numbers 15:32-36).

Yet, the New Covenant says this about the Sabbath:
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:" (Colossians 2:16).

So it appears things have changed.

This makes sense because again, Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."
(Hebrews 7:12).

“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
(John 1:17).

Jesus said,
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17).

Jesus came not to abolish the Law (in the sense of destroying all forms of Law), but Jesus came to fulfill the Law (i.e. to nail to the cross those ordinances that were against us [like the Old Covenant ceremonial laws], and Jesus came to give us a more fulfilled and perfect way of obeying God via the commands that come directly from Him and His followers). For Jesus offered a more perfect way of loving God, and loving our neighbor (Which of course is only possible via if we are first saved by God's grace through faith).

Also: Which commandments did Abraham keep? Gen. 26:5"Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Let's talk about those. View attachment 267133

After the "Fall of Mankind" (after Adam and Eve received the knowledge of good and evil): God's Eternal Moral Laws came into existence and they still exist today. These laws would be like: Do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, etc.; They are the kinds of laws that the Gentiles naturally know about without having the Written Law of Moses (Romans 2:14). For even today, if one turns on the news, they can see the condemnation of murder, theft, sexual abuse, etc.; In addition, there were certain Ceremonial Laws that existed prior to the Law of Moses (the 613). We see animal sacrifices took place before Sinai, we see the mention of clean, and unclean animals, etc.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."
(Hebrews 7:12).

What changed ?
The high priest.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What changed ?
The high priest.

Hebrews 7:12 says the Law also changed.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes we have. As long as people keep posting that Lazarus and the rich man is a parable I will keep refuting it, I think people need to needs all sides.
Now if I were to see some credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence, for example the ECF, to the contrary I might be persuaded.

How about a thorough , complete, harmony of all Scripture related to this ?
(not the ecf who I don't think would be a good testimony nor reliable witness.)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Hebrews 7:12 says the Law also changed.

That's exactly what I was referring to - what changed ? The high priest.
Not one jot nor tittle of TORAH. Not even when the earth and heaven depart.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That's exactly what I was referring to - what changed ? The high priest.
Not one jot nor tittle of TORAH. Not even when the earth and heaven depart.

So you believe the animal sacrifices from the Torah are still applicable?
Do you believe we are to still destroy enemy nations like the Israelites were commanded to do?
Or are we to love and pray for our enemies as Jesus commanded?
Pick and choose.
Which side will you pick?
Also, read Hebrews 7:12 again. It says the Law has changed.
I will quote again, just in case you missed it.

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Hebrews 7:12).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Hebrews 7:12).

Yes, but mistranslating that , and misinterpreting that, gets no one anywhere.

What changed ? The high priest did. Instead of fallible men who need to make sacrifices for themselves for their sin first,
we have a high priest who gave Himself once for all time, never to be sacrificed again.

That is the change.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, but mistranslating that , and misinterpreting that, gets no one anywhere.

What changed ? The high priest did. Instead of fallible men who need to make sacrifices for themselves for their sin first,
we have a high priest who gave Himself once for all time, never to be sacrificed again.

That is the change.

It is not mistranslating it. Hebrews 7:12 says, "there is made a necessity a change also of the Law." Do you not believe those words? If you think they say something different, then please explain what they really mean using the context.

Also, please carefully re-read again post #1634. It is clear that Jesus was making new changes to the Old Testament Law of Moses. Instead of an eye, for an eye, He said turn the other cheek. Instead of being allowed to make oaths, Jesus says do not make any oaths at all.