What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Annihilationism ignores important Scriptures?

Knotical said:
"Why does the burden of proof lie with me?"

Because you are the one presenting the argument.
Click to expand...
I do not have to refute that for which there is no evidence, nor was my argument built upon refuting the notion of the immortal soul. There simply is no Scriptural evidence for this notion and is borrowed from Plato.

Present one argument from Scripture (since you brought up the point, and therefore and the instigator of the immortality of the soul argument) and I will address it.
 
Matthew 10:28 is in the middle of a passage on discipleship. The point that is being made there is that God is more powerful than anyone, or anything, including having the ability to destroy anything (including body and soul), but does that mean He will actually do it? Well, that is an answer we can only ask God.
 
Doulos Iesou said:
So, will your argument simply be, "it's clearly obvious that it doesn't support your case," and then provide no evidence?
Click to expand...

Please don't flame me but one of the Scriptures you quoted included a statement about smoke: "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever..." is it your determination that only the smoke itself remains for ever and ever?
 
Knotical said:
Matthew 10:28 is in the middle of a passage on discipleship. The point that is being made there is that God is more powerful than anyone, or anything, including having the ability to destroy anything (including body and soul), but does that mean He will actually do it? Well, that is an answer we can only ask God.
Click to expand...
The question is about who to fear, and he says for them to not fear those who can kill the body and then do nothing. Rather they are to fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. This tells them that he is able, and the reason to fear is because it's a realistic destiny.

What an odd statement it would be for him to tell them to fear God for something he would never do. Wouldn't it read "fear him is able to torture both body and soul in hell," if it fit your view. The most common punishment talked about in Scripture is Death and Destruction.
 
Knotical said:
To use the example of Sodom and Gomorrah is folly, as those were earthly places,
Click to expand...
2 Peter 2:6 (ESV) if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
Lest you think I just made up this Scripture, you might want to read it in your own Bible. This is a very good example of why this topic is worth studying respectuflly.
 
Last edited:
Sparrowhawke said:
Please don't flame me but one of the Scriptures you quoted included a statement about smoke: "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever..." is it your determination that only the smoke itself remains for ever and ever?
Click to expand...
No, in my argument I detail how the imagery itself is not literal, but is in keeping with it's apocalyptic tradition of literature in which the same imagery is used in Isaiah to describe the punishment of Edom. Yet we know there isn't smoke rising from modern day Edom, today.

Does that answer your question?
 
I does. You're saying that there is no eternal punishment.

The problem comes from knowing what is and what is not "apocalyptic". For instance, will the earth be destroyed by fire? That's apocalyptic language too. We look at those things that have happened knowing that they are to be accepted as symbols of the ultimate ending but that they themselves are not the ultimate ending which is yet to come.
 
Sparrowhawke said:
I does. You're saying that there is no eternal punishment.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, I do believe there is an eternal punishment, because Scripture plainly states that. I doubt you did this purposefully, but summing up my statements to mean that is a gross mischaracterization.

I interpret eternal punishment to be simply a punishment that lasts forever. I do not then infer that the person is either conscious or tormented during that period, but rather are destroyed and their being cut off from the blessings of the new Earth for all eternity is their punishment.
 
Sparrowhawke said:
The problem comes from knowing what is and what is not "apocalyptic". For instance, will the earth be destroyed by fire? That's apocalyptic language too. We look at those things that have happened knowing that they are to be accepted as symbols of the ultimate ending but that they themselves are not the ultimate ending which is yet to come.
Click to expand...
Well, do you have reason to believe that Revelation 14:9-10 is not apocalyptic literature, despite the fact that is is employing known apocalyptic language throughout and is in the midst of a vision that is clearly figurative and symbolic in nature.
 
Doulos Iesou said:
Incorrect, I do believe there is an eternal punishment, because Scripture plainly states that. I doubt you did this purposefully, but summing up my statements to mean that is a gross mischaracterization.

I interpret eternal punishment to be simply a punishment that lasts forever. I do not then infer that the person is either conscious or tormented during that period, but rather are destroyed and their being cut off from the blessings of the new Earth for all eternity is their punishment.
Click to expand...
You're correct about my not doing "this" purposefully in that I certainly did not want to grossly misstate your position. Can you see where I might have trouble finding words that are perfectly agreeable to you while speaking about what I thought you said?

You now state that you believe that there is an eternal punishment and that Scripture plainly states this. You then speak about the inference that your opponents draw that it necessarily means torment or demands consciousness. Am I correct so far? I've tried to stay as close to your exact words as I could but do correct me if I don't get what you mean.

Given your agreement that the above is a reasonably fair assessment what inference may we draw from phrases such as "gnashing of teeth"?
 
What is missing from your argument is where you apply it to God's promises. You can wish and hope all you want about how things will go after the end comes, but how does it coincide with God's promises?
 
Doulos Iesou said:
Well, do you have reason to believe that Revelation 14:9-10 is not apocalyptic literature, despite the fact that is is employing known apocalyptic language throughout and is in the midst of a vision that is clearly figurative and symbolic in nature.
Click to expand...
The fact that the Bible speaks of an ultimate end means that apocalyptic language must be used. There is no getting around it. Pointing to the fact that the language is apocalyptic does not allow us to disregard its meaning.
 
Knotical said:
Where do you prove that souls are not eternal? If souls are not eternal, unless they go to heaven, then where is the punishment for sin?
Click to expand...

Before we attempt to prove a negative (e.i. - souls are NOT eternal), we would do well to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that souls ARE in fact innately eternal. What scriptures support the idea that all souls possess immortality?
 
Knotical said:
What is missing from your argument is where you apply it to God's promises. You can wish and hope all you want about how things will go after the end comes, but how does it coincide with God's promises?
Click to expand...
Can you perhaps elaborate on why this is such a key point?
 
Sparrowhawke said:
The fact that the Bible speaks of an ultimate end means that apocalyptic language must be used. There is no getting around it. Pointing to the fact that the language is apocalyptic does not allow us to disregard its meaning.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that I disregarded it's meaning? I provided an explanation in my OP of the given text.
 
The Light said:
Before we attempt to prove a negative (e.i. - souls are NOT eternal), we would do well to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that souls ARE in fact innately eternal. What scriptures support the idea that all souls possess immortality?
Click to expand...
"which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen."

God alone is immortal, and we derive our immortality by being united with him. Man does not possess immortality, unless given through Jesus Christ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top