Annihilation or Hell?

[Drew]

Drew, you quoted Simple Mind but addressed Guibox in your post. Is this correct? :-? :-?

I did that intentionally, although I can see how people might get confused.....

 

[guibox]

Greetings bretheren (unless "Simple Mind" is actually a "sisteren"):
Guibox, I am not sure that I understand what you mean when you draw a distinction between two types of "forever" - one of "results" and the other of "duration". However, I do not think this distinction is necessary to "make your case" anyway. Here is how I see things:

In the case of Edom 'forever' denotes finality of an event. Revelation gives the impression that 'forever' speaks about a process of constant torment. Also, Samuel tells us that 'forever and ever' means 'as long as life lasts'. So to take the words 'forever and ever' when applying to Samuel serving in Eli's temple, to mean this, but to take the words 'forever and ever' to apply to the wicked burning for 'eternity' is a misapplication of the words.

This is what I believe Simple Mind is doing.

Hence when the torment of Revelation says 'they shall be tormented day and night forever and ever' means that they will be 'continually tormented as long as their life lasts'.

Simple Mind,

I disagree and concur with Drew. 1 Samuel is explained by itself and reflects the Hebrew belief that the soul is not immortal and that 'forever' means, as long as life lasts'.

As far as your comments on 'unquenchable'...Something not being 'quenched' means that it cannot be PUT out, not that it will not eventually GO out. Did you not see the parallel of Mark with Edom? The fire that burned Edom could not be quenched. Is it still going on today? Being 'quenched' implies an outside action being done. A fire that burns house down and drives the fireman away cannot be 'quenched' it will do it's work UNITERRUPTED until whatever it has burnt will go out.

Look at Jeremiah 17:27 about the destruction of Jerusalem:

But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden....then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and it shall not be quenched

Is the fire burning outside Jerusalem today?

[/quote]

 

[Simple Mind]

Greetings bretheren (unless "Simple Mind" is actually a "sisteren"):

Brethren I am ... and yes, I enjoy these exchanges and have learned a lot. And please forgive if I come across a little aggressive at times - I don't mean to but my language is often poorly chosen. : I am trying.

1. In Isaiah 34, we have a prophecy about the destruction of Edom. Reference is made to "smoke going up forever" and no one passing through it "forever". Simple obervation tell us that Edom is not smoking today. In my view, this means that "forever" is a "poetic exaggeration" - the smoking of Edom lasted for a limited time, so forever really denotes a limited time. Simple Mind: I know what you are saying, but I suggest that the "destroyed state lasting into eternity" argument does not work here for the following reason: The process of "smoke rising up" is not really a description of a completed state, but rather a description of an ongoing process - "smoke rising up" suggests process, activity, etc, not a completed state. Perhaps you will reply that I am pushing things too far here...

One can simply state that "smoke rising up" is metaphor for an ongoing sign that indicates a "destroyed" state. The distinction doesn't change the meaning of "forever" for me.

There is no reason why "forever" must be metaphorical - your argument makes it so only because you first decided that "smoke going up" is not metaphorical - it doesn't have to be that way. If you allow for the smoke to be metaphorical, then there is no problem with "forever" being literal as I've shown before.

But here's the thing that I cannot get past: why did Isaiah say "forever" if he meant the opposite (i.e. "not forever"). We have to recognize that "forever" and "limited time" are actually opposites. I cannot explain that one away, but I can easily explain that "smoke rising up" is metaphorical.

2. I can see each of your respective points about 1 Sam, but I am inclined to think that v 28 and v 22 actually do refer to the same state of affairs, so I do think that "forever" means a limited time. However, I am not prepared to make that argument now.

I look forward to your argument - I cannot see how that can be but I'm curious to learn.

Let me give an example:

• If I say that "I will be home all day",
  then I say that "I will be gardening till noon",
  can you conclude that "all day" really means "till noon"? Of course not.
  
  Now just because Hannah said "I will bring him, that he may appear before the LORD, and there abide forever",
  and "as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the LORD",
  why do we think we can say "forever" really means "as long as he liveth"?

Hope that's clear.


BUT ...

The whole thing may be a red herring. The key isn't in these verses. The real issue is what did "forever" or "eternal" mean in Matt 25:46 and other NT verses. Even if we do find that the Hebrew term for "forever" sometimes means "not forever" (yet to be shown), it doesn't mean that the Greek word used by Jesus also doesn't mean forever.

It seems pretty clear in context that forever means forever in Matt 25:46. In the same sentence is eternal life and eternal punishment, same "eternal". If we accept the use of "eternal life" to mean forever, there is no case whatsoever to support that the other "eternal" means the opposite, "not forever". Jesus is playing a pretty weird, misleading, and cruel joke if he used the same word to mean two opposite things in the same sentence without giving us any hints in the passage that he's doing so.

Make up your own minds but I think I've completely drained what little knowledge I have on this subject ... I'll observe for a while.

In Him,
Lou

 

[Drew]

Aaaaargh!!!

I was just about to post a rather lengthy and painfully contrived post and I somehow deleted it. As, I suspect guibox would say, I must accept the permanence of the completed act of destruction I have somehow wrought upon that post......

Anyhoo, just as a heads up- Guibox: I was going to ask to clarify the whole relationship between your view of what "forever" means in each of Isaiah 34, 1 Samuel 1, and Rev 14. However, you may wish to wait until I reconstruct my lost post- my questions involved some rather precise technicalities. Gotta run......

 

[guibox]

Aaaaargh!!!

I was just about to post a rather lengthy and painfully contrived post and I somehow deleted it. As, I suspect guibox would say, I must accept the permanence of the completed act of destruction I have somehow wrought upon that post......

Anyhoo, just as a heads up- Guibox: I was going to ask to clarify the whole relationship between your view of what "forever" means in each of Isaiah 34, 1 Samuel 1, and Rev 14. However, you may wish to wait until I reconstruct my lost post- my questions involved some rather precise technicalities. Gotta run......

I understand your frustration.

Basically, Drew, the term 'forever' in the scriptures is relative to whom it is applying to. Forever when applied to Christ or the eternal redeemed at the end of the age does mean 'eternal' for they have immortality. 'Forever' when applied to mortal man (as in the case of Samuel) means 'as long as life lasts'

In Revelation 14, 'forever and ever' is aionios which in the Greek means 'lasting for an age' or 'an unspecified period of time'. It does not always mean 'eternal'.

So because the wicked are mortal and do not receive eternal life, 'forever' will be 'for an age' in describing their 'tormented day and night forever'. Day and night constitute continuity, not duration.

'Forever' also denotes the 'permanance of a result'. In the case of Edom and in Revelation, you cannot have a continual line of 'smoke ascending forever'. We also know that smoke is still not rising up from Edom. Smoke ascending is metaphoric for the permance of the result. When we see a fire burning it is represented by 'fire'. When we see the effects after the firehose or when it has burnt itself up, we see 'smoke'.

The smoke rises up from whatever it is that was burnt up and is gone 'forever'.

Hope that helps.

You still could have your metaphorical interpretation in this regard.

 

[Simple Mind]

Guibox, just couldn't help the need to clarify what you mean by summarizing, and respond to it. :-D

Basically, Drew, the term 'forever' in the scriptures is relative to whom it is applying to.

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is the word could mean "forever" or "for a limited time", as long as it applies to two different people. So in the case of Matt 25:46, you are saying that Jesus used the two words to mean opposite things in the same sentence, in which He spoke with perfect symmetry ("And they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life"). From what I understand you do think "eternal life" in this verse is really eternal, but "eternal punishment" is not.

And your supporting argument for that is the claim that Isaiah 34 and 1 Sam 1 uses "forever" to mean only "in this lifetime" (a claim which is a long way from being conclusive). And a general idea that "forever" is sometimes used to mean only "in this lifetime" elsewhere too.

Do I understand that correctly? :smt017


If that's what you mean, I'm afraid that using the idea that the word "eternal" could mean something else somewhere to argue that Jesus must have intended that other meaning is just not convincing for this simple mind.

That's like someone insisting I meant an elephant has "a large rectangular storage compartment" in front of its face, because they heard me say, "The elephant has a huge trunk between its eyes and mouth, and it used its trunk to wrap around the log a couple of times and pick it up." I would feel pretty misunderstood, especially when my meaning for the word "trunk" was quite evident in the second half of the sentence.

I'm really puzzled by your approach, but it could be due to my simple mind. We may just have to agree to disagree for now. But I appreciate all the thinking and exchange we have - it's been a blessing to explore with people who care about eternal life. Together, may we point more people to that life and the "fullest" life Jesus promised!

In Christ,
Lou

 

[guibox]

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is the word could mean "forever" or "for a limited time", as long as it applies to two different people. So in the case of Matt 25:46, you are saying that Jesus used the two words to mean opposite things in the same sentence, in which He spoke with perfect symmetry ("And they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life"). From what I understand you do think "eternal life" in this verse is really eternal, but "eternal punishment" is not.

Lou, I guess you have to determine what the 'punishment' is.

Ask yourself these questions:

1) What happened to the human race when Adam sinned?
2) Why did Christ come to earth and what did it accomplish?
3) How does John 3:16 and Romans 6:23 play a part?

What is the ultimate punishment for sin that Christ came to save us from?

Go ahead and answer those questions for me, please...

 

[Simple Mind]

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is the word could mean "forever" or "for a limited time", as long as it applies to two different people. So in the case of Matt 25:46, you are saying that Jesus used the two words to mean opposite things in the same sentence, in which He spoke with perfect symmetry ("And they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life"). From what I understand you do think "eternal life" in this verse is really eternal, but "eternal punishment" is not.

Lou, I guess you have to determine what the 'punishment' is.

Ask yourself these questions:

1) What happened to the human race when Adam sinned?
2) Why did Christ come to earth and what did it accomplish?
3) How does John 3:16 and Romans 6:23 play a part?

What is the ultimate punishment for sin that Christ came to save us from?

Go ahead and answer those questions for me, please...

Before I discuss those, do I understand correctly that you agree "eternal" in Matt 25:46 has the exact same meaning as applied to "punishment" and "life"?

Your issue is what exactly that eternal "punishment" is, right? Your position is that it is death and you interpret death as annihilation.

I just need to establish where we have common ground and where we differ before we go on. Thanks!

Much blessings,
Lou

 

[SputnikBoy]

Guibox, just couldn't help the need to clarify what you mean by summarizing, and respond to it. :-D

Basically, Drew, the term 'forever' in the scriptures is relative to whom it is applying to.

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is the word could mean "forever" or "for a limited time", as long as it applies to two different people. So in the case of Matt 25:46, you are saying that Jesus used the two words to mean opposite things in the same sentence, in which He spoke with perfect symmetry ("And they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life"). From what I understand you do think "eternal life" in this verse is really eternal, but "eternal punishment" is not.

If I may jump in here. I also have a relatively 'simple mind' and this is why I have such difficulty believing that those with more intellect than I have can possibly have a misunderstanding on this issue.

The term 'eternal' for both sides of this equation is exactly the same. However, one needs to put this whole thing in perspective. We are told in John 3:16 that those who believe in Jesus Christ will attain everlasting life. The opposite is true for those who don't accept Jesus Christ. We are told that they will perish, plain and simply. What is it about the word 'perish' that some don't seem to understand?

So, we're clearly told that the righteous (those who believe) will LIVE forever or eternally. We're told just as clearly that the unrighteous (those who don't believe) will perish or DIE forever or eternally. They will not pass 'Go', they will not collect $200.00, they will perish at the end of time with the same fire that will cleanse and prepare God's people for a new and purified earth. They will have been 'eternally punished' for their unbelief. The smoke of their torment (not literal but a symbolism) will rise forever (another symbolism to denote a completed act).

Former human beings will NOT be writhing in torment in a literal geographical place called hell. A literal 'hell' will NOT exist on the new earth. It will NOT exist in heaven. It will NOT exist on the planet Mars. It will NOT exist ANYWHERE other than in symbolic terms. All we need to know is that some will have chosen eternal life, some will have chosen eternal death. There are no gray areas ...it's either one or the other. Making the right choice NOW is the key to this issue.

 

[Rick W]

I'm still trying to figure out why oblivion is so bad when that's where we came from in the first place. I don't understand all the hoopla, even from God, about going back to where we were once before.
If spiritual death means nothingness then what's the big deal anyway? Been there done that. I have nothing to fear at all during this life of what I do or don't do since I go back to where I was in the first place. No biggie.

When people find out how Satan has decieved them with this lie of oblivion they're going to hate him with every fiber of their soul. And he's going to hate them right back.
Forever

 

[guibox]

Simple Plan, the answer to your questions are 'yes'.

I'm still trying to figure out why oblivion is so bad when that's where we came from in the first place. I don't understand all the hoopla, even from God, about going back to where we were once before.
If spiritual death means nothingness then what's the big deal anyway? Been there done that. I have nothing to fear at all during this life of what I do or don't do since I go back to where I was in the first place. No biggie.

When people find out how Satan has decieved them with this lie of oblivion they're going to hate him with every fiber of their soul. And he's going to hate them right back.
Forever

I fail to see why God's justice NEEDS and will not be satisfied unless someone suffers or that someone PAYS DEARLY for their rebellion? Does the Bible not say that 'while we were yet sinnersChrist died for us?' So when we were in that state of rebellion that will be the same as those who 'perish' at the end, Christ loved us so much that He came to save us from DEATH.

That is a wonderful God.

Now we are being told that this same God desires greatly (and will not be satisfied with merely the natural death that He came to save us from to begin with) that those same children face eternal torment because death is just to good for them and less painful.

Christ's desire is not to punish us but that 'all should not perish'. 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, saith the Lord, wherefore turn ye and live'.

* Man sinned---
* man was sentenced to death---
* Christ came to save us from the death the law brought---
* God wants and promises to 'cleanse the earth with fire' to eradicate the stain of sin from the earth and build a new one---
*sinners who do not choose life will die with it for they still suffer the wages of sin

Where does God wanting to punish sinners for eternity fit into the picture here?

Do not tell me that 'God's divine justice requires it, He doesn't want it'. That is hogwash and a flippant comment to do away with the evil of eternal torment. We are imposing a false view on God and carelessly making sensless comments to justify it.

If:

a) 'death' is not a 'good enough' punishment though death is the natural course of sin, and
b) eternal fire has no other purpose but to PUNISH,

then God WANTS to punish sinners.

It is the plain and simple logical truth. You cannot get around that fact.

Is this a God of love?

We are imposing our warped sense of human vengeance on the ultimate Love of God's characters. We could NEVER think of loving the WORST sinner unconditionally but would rather see him 'pay' for his sins in the worst way.

Our sense of justice is not God's.

 

[Rick W]

guibox,
Your entire reply is based on "Our sense of justice is not God's". I assume "our" is inclusive?
So what we then have here is disagreement on how we feel God's judgment should be.
There's that word "feel" again.

 

[Rick W]

Many will not accept scripture as written because it violates their sensibilities. Therefore to protect those feelings scripture must be read differently somehow. Is God unloving? Scripture says no. Are ALL of God's judgments righteous? Yes. Can I point to scripture and say I don't like what it says? Absolutely. Can I point to scripture, especially the OT, and claim an unjust God? Sure, why not? That's been done many times here.
Do I accept God's authority AND His love regardless that some scripture may appear unjust? Or will I be like Job trusting God that He knows what He's doing even though I don't understand it? Did Job get his answer to why he had to suffer while his friends told him he must have sinned because they "felt" God had to have a reason to punish Job? No. The answer God gave Job was something Job OR his self-righteous buddies didn't expect.
Was God unjust when He led his followers to kill everyone in a particular communities including women and children? Was God unjust to kill every living soul during the flood? If God doesn't inform us of His reasons then is He wrong? Some would and do say so.

All these things do not appeal to our sensibilities. And there are many. We have a choice. To either accept God's judgments, to accept Him as a loving God and have faith that how we feel is wrong or to make Him out to be that which he isn't... like unto man, to humanize Him that He should also share our same feelings and sense of right and wrong.
When we begin making him like unto man then we will find a lot of troubling issues in the bible that we can't explain thereby having need to make scripture say something else that makes us feel better or simply believing scripture isn't from God in the first place. For man himself is fallen and his "feelings" do not reflect the nature of God.

Does God tell us why He did what He did or why He does what He does in every case? No. Sure would make my life a lot easier when debate is opened citing something He did in the OT that doesn't align with our sense of right and wrong. Should He tell us why? Nope. He's not under any obligation to do so. None what-so-ever. God owes us nothing including explanations.

 

[guibox]

All these things do not appeal to our sensibilities. And there are many. We have a choice. To either accept God's judgments, to accept Him as a loving God and have faith that how we feel is wrong or to make Him out to be that which he isn't... like unto man, to humanize Him that He should also share our same feelings and sense of right and wrong.
When we begin making him like unto man then we will find a lot of troubling issues in the bible that we can't explain thereby having need to make scripture say something else that makes us feel better or simply believing scripture isn't from God in the first place. For man himself is fallen and his "feelings" do not reflect the nature of God

God's ways are 'far above our ways' and His thoughts 'higher than our thoughts'. God gave us a conscience. He gave us the concept of right and wrong regardless of our culture. And yet you are saying that eternal torment is far better, more moral and just when all these God given characteristics in our life revolts at such a concept?

You are making God less when by His nature, He is more.

You also didn't address the logistics of my post.

By logic and reasoning, God wants to punish sinners, God changed the death sentence to eternal hell, and God instituted something that He had to come to save us from. All of these concepts do not jive with the biblical facts, salvation history or the character of God in His attitude towards sinners.

A cavalier remark like 'God's justice is different from ours. We can't ignore the scripture because we don't 'feel' like eternal torment should be'.

We haven't. Scripture (ALL of it, not just a few metaphorical texts) should be taken into consideration. When we do, we see that such a concept of eternal torment doesn't fit morally, judicially, philosophically, linguistically or logically.

Too many would rather hang on to their three favorite texts as a 'theological island' straight from the King James' English and call it truth while ignoring the vast amount of evidence that makes it clear.

 

[SputnikBoy]

All these things do not appeal to our sensibilities. And there are many. We have a choice. To either accept God's judgments, to accept Him as a loving God and have faith that how we feel is wrong or to make Him out to be that which he isn't... like unto man, to humanize Him that He should also share our same feelings and sense of right and wrong.
When we begin making him like unto man then we will find a lot of troubling issues in the bible that we can't explain thereby having need to make scripture say something else that makes us feel better or simply believing scripture isn't from God in the first place. For man himself is fallen and his "feelings" do not reflect the nature of God

God's ways are 'far above our ways' and His thoughts 'higher than our thoughts'. God gave us a conscience. He gave us the concept of right and wrong regardless of our culture. And yet you are saying that eternal torment is far better, more moral and just when all these God given characteristics in our life revolts at such a concept?

You are making God less when by His nature, He is more.

You also didn't address the logistics of my post.

By logic and reasoning, God wants to punish sinners, God changed the death sentence to eternal hell, and God instituted something that He had to come to save us from. All of these concepts do not jive with the biblical facts, salvation history or the character of God in His attitude towards sinners.

A cavalier remark like 'God's justice is different from ours. We can't ignore the scripture because we don't 'feel' like eternal torment should be'.

We haven't. Scripture (ALL of it, not just a few metaphorical texts) should be taken into consideration. When we do, we see that such a concept of eternal torment doesn't fit morally, judicially, philosophically, linguistically or logically.

Too many would rather hang on to their three favorite texts as a 'theological island' straight from the King James' English and call it truth while ignoring the vast amount of evidence that makes it clear.

I absolutely agree with you, guibox, and I find it most disconcerting that other Christians don't see the God-given logic you express in your posts ...not to mention appropriate scriptures that have been given many times by you to support this God-given logic.

Potluck ...in one breath you refer to God as someone we CAN relate to and someone who is therefore possible for us to love. In the next breath you refer to God as someone we should love but someone who we can't possibly relate to according to our human - but God-given - sensibilities.

I can't reconcile the logic of these counter arguments that you make. Did God make us in His image (?) or didn't He? Are you saying that we mere mortals are incapable of determining 'right' from 'wrong' when it comes to the actions of God? Are you saying that, even when it's against our God-given sensibilities, we can possibly love a God who would torment our fellow human beings for eternity? And, why does oblivion or anihilation for the unrighteous not sit right with you? Do you feel that they deserve MORE than that? If so, is that not YOU who are giving God your own idea of justice?

 

[SputnikBoy]

I'm still trying to figure out why oblivion is so bad when that's where we came from in the first place. I don't understand all the hoopla, even from God, about going back to where we were once before.
If spiritual death means nothingness then what's the big deal anyway? Been there done that. I have nothing to fear at all during this life of what I do or don't do since I go back to where I was in the first place. No biggie.

When people find out how Satan has decieved them with this lie of oblivion they're going to hate him with every fiber of their soul. And he's going to hate them right back.
Forever

So, God's plan for the unrighteous will be 'eternal hatred' as well as 'eternal suffering'? I want no part of your God, PotLuck ...he (no capital 'h') sounds like the epitome of evil!

 

[Drew]

Too many would rather hang on to their three favorite texts as a 'theological island' straight from the King James' English and call it truth while ignoring the vast amount of evidence that makes it clear.

Agreed. Understanding the Scriptures is a "systems" level task. In my view, the "wider" view supports annihilation of the unredeemed, not eternal torment.

Somehow, this whole argument that we Christians cannot trust our sensibilities has gained far more purchase than it should. If we are truly children of God, as I believe that we are once we accept the gift of salvation, revelations about God's character may indeed strike us as awesome, inspiring, and humbling, but they should also strike a chord of recognition in us. There should be that sense of adding a piece to an admittedly imcomplete puzzle. The parts are not be incoherent one to another.

When we are presented with ideas (like eternal torment) that wildly clash with our rudimentary vision of God, we cannot build up a picture that is in any way useful or effective for us. Notions that God operates an eternal torture chamber clash so violently with other things we do know about God, as to render impossible the construction of any kind of workable picture of God, limited though it will certainly be.

The "traditionalist" seems to not go beyond the simple act of acceptance of the doctrine of eternal torment. They do not seem to see a need for their picture of God to be internally consistent and to enable them to have a "working" model of God. My suspicion is that they have no choice but to have a picture of God constructed of a series of disconnected assertions that do not mesh together into any kind of a workable whole.

Its perfectly fine to have a picture of God that is, to some degree, built up out of doctrinal statements about His character. But the various statements need to mesh, they need to synergize off one another. We simply cannot get anywhere if our image of God is not coherent.

In my view, eternal torment is inconsistent with the themes of God's character that pervade the Scriptures - redemption, love, justice, and (importantly in this context), the theme that death is the penalty for sin (not eternal torment).