D
DivineNames
Guest
How do traditionalists answer this point?
How do annihilationists answer this point?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
How do traditionalists answer this point?
How do annihilationists answer this point?
B
belovedwolfofgod
Guest
What constitutes a traditionalist? Your traditionalist and mine i think are a little different. Mine are people like the followers of SSPX. Traditionalists in the eyes of some of my friends are orthodox Catholics.
B
belovedwolfofgod
Guest
This is from a Thomist perspective, but I agree with the Revelation 10:20 thing a bit. Sin has an infinite nature because its commited against an infinite God, and therefore all sin can be infinitely punished. I also dont see Hell and torment as going agains God being all in all. The people in hell made a choice. They chose to place their desires above God, and God loves us enough to let us persist in that choice until death, at which point we can choose no other. So all who desire God above all else recieve him, but those who desire things like Lust and Greed and Gluttony continue to desire those things which God cannot fulfill. So God is still all in all, but the human desires are not for God and God allows us to desire something other than Him. He just cant allow it to be sated because nothing exists outside of himself and the person would be desiring something that didnt exist. So hell isnt an offense to justice. An offering of free choice and then destroying the person for choosing it, i think, would be an offense to justice. In the case of the evil, its an end to pain. Nothing matters if you dont exist. In the case of those with inordinate desires, its an encroachment of free will to not allow them to persist in their desires. Grace only frees us so that we can make the choice between good and evil. It doesnt choose for us.
That was sloppy on my part, and I didnt fully understand your position, so please feel free to go point for point with me so that I understand exactly what we're talking about. And if I didnt address it, please let me know so I can make an intelligent response.
That was sloppy on my part, and I didnt fully understand your position, so please feel free to go point for point with me so that I understand exactly what we're talking about. And if I didnt address it, please let me know so I can make an intelligent response.
D
DivineNames
Guest
belovedwolfofgod said:
A traditionalist, in the context of what we are talking about, is someone who believes in hell. (An eternal hell, as Vic points out.)
D
DivineNames
Guest
belovedwolfofgod said:
OK, can you provide an argument to support that claim? (That sin would be infinite, if committed against an infinite God.)
D
DivineNames
Guest
belovedwolfofgod said:
So God being "all in all" includes hell?
If God being "all in all" includes hell, then why couldn't God be "all in all" already?
Drew
Member
DivineNames said:
As an "annihilationist", I would answer by disputing the assertion that Rev 20:10 asserts eternal conscious torment of the Devil. The rest of Rev 20 is obviously full of metaphor. Consider the following list:
- Reference to a "chain" used to bind Satan
- Reference to those who have been beheaded - I tend to think this is a general "metaphorical" reference to those who have been martyred.
- The mark on the forehead. Do you really think there will be such marks on people's foreheads? Its possible, of course. But common sense suggests that this is symbolic.
- Reference to Satan as a dragon or a serpent.
- Talk of the "earth and sky fleeing"
- Reference to the sea giving up its dead.
This highly metaphorical language combined with a precedent in the scriptures of using the phrase "forever and ever" in contexts where we know that a literal eternity is not intended (e.g. references to Edom being desolate forever and the cities of S&G being subject to "eternal fire") allows an annihilationist to claim that it is plausible that, in Rev 20:10, the words "forever and ever" are not to be taken literally. Not to mention the general Biblical theme of the destruction of sin, not it continued existence through all time.
B
BradtheImpaler
Guest
I suppose God can do anything He wants but how is this "just"? How/why should finite creatures be held accountable for a supposedly infinite sin? Is it our fault that God is infinite and perfect and we are finite and imperfect? Did we ask to be created in the first place? What sort of maniacal entity would damn his creations for the crime of failing to be perfect when only He is perfect?
No, they failed to believe in a deity who cannot be seen and who's existence cannot be proven, or, they did believe in an equally invisible and unprovable deity but got the wrong one. What sort of "choice" is involved here? It's all speculation.
So God says to hell with all human desires that are not directed towards God? Sounds self-centered on God's part. God wants to be worshipped - very human, very egocentric. But it does say we were created "in His Image", only we apparently go to hell for exhibiting the same qualities?
First of all, there's no "free choice" involving faith. An honest choice to present is when both sides of the opportunity of choice are known (proven) to exist. Your idea of justice is like asking someone to choose between 2 possible mates, one of whom he knows and one of whom is only rumoured to exist, and then damning that person to an eternity of pain because he didn't choose the one who he couldn't be sure existed. This is clearly demented.
No, God doesn't want to intervene to keep people from eternal suffering, but He did intervene when man made that initial "wrong choice" and thereby condemned the race to death.
One thing's for certain, if the gospel you believe is true, mankind (in general) would be infinitely better off had God never intervened in any fashion, or even had he never created us in the first place.
S
SputnikBoy
Guest
Intelligent post, Brad. Very difficult to argue against it.
Drew's explanation is rather interesting. I've always held Revelation to have a metaphorical quality. I just don't know to what extent. I think some cross-referencing of some verses would be needed or anything prophetic or containing a nature which would prefigure future events.
I'd also like to mention the reference to death being thrown into the lake of fire. How in the world can death be thrown into a lake of fire? Well, it explains later. Guess what - the lake of fire doesn't appear to be a real lake filled with fire; it's the Second Death. Metaphorical? I think so. Now does it say that the Second Death is a torment which will be upon all the people not in the Book of Life?
The next reference to this is in Revelation 21:8. And before this I only saw it mention that the Devil, the false prophet, and the Beast were thrown into this Lake of Fire where they would be tormented forever and ever. The devil is, well, the devil as far as I know - that angel that was once with God but tried to elevate himself higher than God and deceived everyone to their doom (note: when I say 'everyone' I mean everyone who was deceived - not everyone that ever existed - this would be an example of figurative speech. In this respect many people nitpick at all the details to build a case against God. Given this, I can think of one possible reason why God repeated himself so much in the Old Testament ;-) ). The false prophet, I think, is anyone who leads people astray to follow false gods or false doctrines (this would constitute many people in this age). The Beast, well, I've been struggling with that one. Anyone have any thoughts on it? Or anyone have any further input on the symbolism of Revelation? I would be glad to hear from you. 8-)
I'd also like to mention the reference to death being thrown into the lake of fire. How in the world can death be thrown into a lake of fire? Well, it explains later. Guess what - the lake of fire doesn't appear to be a real lake filled with fire; it's the Second Death. Metaphorical? I think so. Now does it say that the Second Death is a torment which will be upon all the people not in the Book of Life?
The next reference to this is in Revelation 21:8. And before this I only saw it mention that the Devil, the false prophet, and the Beast were thrown into this Lake of Fire where they would be tormented forever and ever. The devil is, well, the devil as far as I know - that angel that was once with God but tried to elevate himself higher than God and deceived everyone to their doom (note: when I say 'everyone' I mean everyone who was deceived - not everyone that ever existed - this would be an example of figurative speech. In this respect many people nitpick at all the details to build a case against God. Given this, I can think of one possible reason why God repeated himself so much in the Old Testament ;-) ). The false prophet, I think, is anyone who leads people astray to follow false gods or false doctrines (this would constitute many people in this age). The Beast, well, I've been struggling with that one. Anyone have any thoughts on it? Or anyone have any further input on the symbolism of Revelation? I would be glad to hear from you. 8-)
For the same reason that I can be justified in doing whatever I want to a cup/jar I've just made, a computer program, or a sentient AI. God could have created us and damned us to hell, went on a rampage and laughed at all the miserable people praying to him and slaughtered them just for fun. Hey, I've played Black and White and I used to have fun tossing my villagers around, burning them up with a miracle of fire, throwing them a mile away, and laughing when my pet unexpectantly ate them. I was also usually helpful to my people in that game. I did quit the game, though, and threw it in the trash later because I didn't believe that making oneself God was an appropriate lifestyle.
I don't know how to reconcile the concept of eternal damnation with our own consciences, but throughout all of history those who have followed God have been used of God in ways that would teach us a lesson such as Job or even Solomon (and their lives - as far as I know - have been meaningful in the least; greatly rewarding - such as Solomon's early life). Job followed God and Satan wanted to see if Job's character was in err. So God said something to the effect of, "Alright, go ahead and see for yourself, but I know that he will not reject me." God allowed Satan to kill off his family, allowed his wife to tempt him, allowed him to inflict Job with boils, etc. etc. All his wealth and loved ones were lost in a moment. However, since Job remained faithful to God, God gave him more children and greater wealth (as I remember). Satan was proven false again and this time he could see for himself that this one man - this wretched human did appear to have greater character than himself.
Job's children who were killed in this trial, I believe, would still be fine off if they were as Job and had not rejected God. I'm sure if they remained faithful to him, their deaths would be transient and they would be filled with life again just as the Faithful and Believing will be. In essence, their lives were used for a purpose and if they had been faithful to God, they will live once again. There is a passage in scripture (Romans 4:3/Genesis 15:6) which gives me the impression that we are made right to God by our faith. Is faith illogical? I really don't think so.
In Genesis we have God speaking the universe into existence. How can God speak the universe into existence? Did he use Hebrew, Greek, English, Latin, or some verbal variant to utter the sun and stars into existence? I, personally, don't think so. I think he used a universal language that we could all understand - with his words being the stars and the planets. Genesis, in my opinion, is very metaphorical as I believe Revelation is. And even some of these metaphorical passages are explained within their context. Christ spoke in parables and explained them later. Like Father, like Son, right? ;-) But if the worlds and stars are God's words, telling us that he exists and that he did create the universe, then wouldn't we be calling him a liar if we did not have faith in him? Or rather what atheists prefer - a lie.
My existence cannot be proven for certain either. You cannot see my face, but you can see my words. So while it cannot be proven that I exist for certain, it can be assumed that it is likely probable.
Sorry to get off on a tangent there. To summarize my point on hell - it may be metaphorical; it may not be. If it is not, God can do whatever he wants with his creation and it would be his right - though it might not appear to be very merciful. But then again, using a Scapegoat to inflict the injustice of the sins of the own people upon so that the sinful people can be transformed and enter paradise is not our idealistic version of justice either. This falls under the concept of "The good of the many outweighing the good of the few or of the one". Many of us, though, would probably say that a child is worth more than ten murderers. To those who have done wrong, they should suffer for that wrong. Eternally? It depends on if they wish to spend eternity with God or reject him and all that the rejection entails.
Well, there're my thoughts on the subject. I have faith that there is a reasonable explanation, but I do not sit idle and hope that I suddenly have a revelation. I search for it. Any reality where one's eternal self is in question deserves an answer - no matter your beliefs.
R
Rick W
Guest
PotLuck said:
Metaphorical/Allegorical/Mythological
Not literal
Sounds like the terms used to divide the creationist and the theological evolutionist. If one doesn't want to believe a literal translation these are the terms used.
The TE claims the major points of Genesis are a myth (the past). The annihilationist claims the major points of Revelation are a myth (the future). And the non-believer claims all in between is a myth or superstition. If it doesn't fit well with one's sense of comfort or judgment of God's nature then it's a myth. Simple.
So a TE's spiritual understanding evolved over time when evolution became popular. The old understanding of Genesis is wrong. Today's "feel good" society can't accept eternal Hell for those considered or judged innocent by man so the old understanding of Revelation is wrong.
"they were judged every man according to their works"
"whosoever was not found written in the book of life..."
These are facts.
"This is the second death"
Statement. Not a parable, not a comparison but as real as the statement "I am the way, the truth and the life".
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Why include "day and night"? Why not just say "forever and ever" or just "forever" and be done with it? God wants us to fully understand the seriousness of the matter. "This is", "They were", "Whosoever was" are terms of reality, not myth.
It's urgent that we get the Good News out. It's totally imperative to those we love that they hear the Word of God. And the ones we don't. No way around that. The urgency is there, it's not a game. It's not a myth but very real. If one doesn't accept this then the urgency is lost and complacency works it's wiles. And THAT is what Satan is saying...
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Oldest lie in the book. Literally.
Good post, Potluck. I commend you. The text "day and night" also had seemed to me that it would be literal in some way. So we can know or assume that the false prophet will be suffering torment forever just as Satan does. I still don't know what/who the Beast is. I haven't studied Revelation much yet. Anyone answer this?
I do believe that some things in Revelation just as in Genesis are meant in the literal sense. The text "day and night" is one of the easier ones to see. In my post above, I did NOT mean to say that the account of Genesis and Revelation are completely metaphorical or symbolic.
I do believe that some things in Revelation just as in Genesis are meant in the literal sense. The text "day and night" is one of the easier ones to see. In my post above, I did NOT mean to say that the account of Genesis and Revelation are completely metaphorical or symbolic.
Drew
Member
I do not believe that this is a fair characterization of annihilationists. In fact, it is simple for anyone to re-read a number of the recent threads on this topic. The unavoidable fact is that several annihilationists have provided Biblical arguments for their positions, sometimes rather extensive and carefully thought out ones. It is simply unfair and inaccurate to suggest that annihilationists adopt their position simply because the alternative "doesn't fit well with one's sense of comfort or judgment of God's nature ".PotLuck said:
One can simply read the annihilationist arguments to see that there is indeed a Biblical case - a case that is certainly open to refutation. But refutation cannot be simply dismissal by speculating about motive. The annihilationist's Biblical (and other) arguments need to be actually engaged and addressed (this seems to happen rather rarely).
One example of an annihilationist argument: Texts such as those in Isaiah 34 show that words like "eternal" and "everlasting" are sometimes used metaphorically. Consider Isaiah 34:
Edom's streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!
It will not be quenched night and day;
its smoke will rise forever
Clearly Edom is not still burning. So it seems that have hard evidence that "forever does not always mean forever". Of course, this (by itself) does not mean that "forever and ever" as used in Rev 20:10 does not truly mean forever.
But what is does show is that one cannot simply make the "forever means forever" argument and claim to have made the "eternal torment" case. More work needs to be done.
: Interesting discussion, though, all of you. I look forward to further information.
R
Rick W
Guest
A sentence can be sliced, diced and analysised word for word but the weight of the message therein is NOT the sum total of it's parts. Passion doesn't work by defining, redifining and analysing the smaller pieces into an acedemic soup of little substance but by the way the whole is said through the power of God and the majesty of His language. The Word is not a collection of pieces or meanings as in the text of a sciencific paper or thesis but the passionate plea of God reaching out to man's wayward heart and soul because He knows there is a greater consequence than going back to where one once was, back to oblivion.
Drew
Member
Can you please clarify specifically how this is relevant to establishing the "eternal torment" position? I am not sure that I understand this material, but I do not see how it is any more of a critique of the "annihilation" position than of the "eternal torment" positionPotLuck said:
PotLuck said:
No, 'no rest day or night' denotes 'continuity', not 'duration'. It means that for however the burning lasts, there will be no rest. There will be no breaks but a continual burning. However, there is no distinction in the nature of this phrase to denote HOW LONG this 'day or night' torment continues.
Again, the traditionalist needs to see Isaiah 34:10, read it, explain it or accept the fact that the same language used in Revelation 14 and 20 is LANGUAGE OF DESTRUCTION AND ANNIHILATION with TEMPORARY effects.
Constantly ignoring such clear explanations of figurative language only proves the annihilationist point: eternal torment is nothing more than preconceived notions read into the text that the bible doesn't support but blatantly contradicts.
The traditionalist is happy in their smug ignorance to blindly accept tradition instead of the clear word of God which explains itself.
G
Gary
Guest
How long would it take to burn the devil? Why even say "day and night"? Surely a "lake of fire and brimstone" would not need "forever and ever" to burn the devil?
Again, the annihilationist is happy in his smug ignorance to blindly accept their own tradition instead of the clear word of God which explains itself.
Annihilation is nothing more than preconceived notions read into the text that the Bible doesn't support but blatantly contradicts.
Any suggestion from them as to how long "day and night, forever and ever" actually is?
Again, the annihilationist is happy in his smug ignorance to blindly accept their own tradition instead of the clear word of God which explains itself.
Annihilation is nothing more than preconceived notions read into the text that the Bible doesn't support but blatantly contradicts.
Any suggestion from them as to how long "day and night, forever and ever" actually is?