Annihilationism ignores important Scriptures?

[Doulos Iesou]

Because God never goes against His nature, and knowing what His promises are gives us a glimpse into what His nature is.

Here are some texts for you to chew on, regarding the character of God.

He will not always chide, nor will he keep his anger forever. Psalm 103:9 (ESV)

For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning. Psalm 30:5 (ESV)

Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love. Micah 7:18 (ESV)

For the Lord will not cast off forever, but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men. Lamentations 3:31-33 (ESV)

God, even in his judgement and anger is still our great merciful and compassionate God. What would it say about the mercy of God, if we declare that indeed his judgement is more severe merciless and pitiless than any tyrant that here walked this earth. That indeed, he holds never ending conscious torment without abatement for all who do not accept his Son.

The thought is too terrifying to fathom, too immoral in it's implications about justice (torture is the prime form of justice) and too unbiblical in it's foundation for me to accept such a position.

 

[Knotical]

Just because He doesn't stay angry all the time does not mean He will not punish those who deserve it.

 

[Sparkey]

Where did I say that I disregarded it's meaning? I provided an explanation in my OP of the given text.

I don't want to mince words with you. You have stated, "I do believe there is an eternal punishment..."

I agree. The punishment that God speaks about is eternal.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Just because He doesn't stay angry all the time does not mean He will not punish those who deserve it.

God's final judgement is an expression of his wrath poured out on the wicked. To say that he punishes continually, is to say that he is angry forever.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I don't want to mince words with you. You have stated, "I do believe there is an eternal punishment..."

I agree. The punishment that God speaks about is eternal.

What I meant, is that you and I believe very different things about the phrase "eternal punishment."

 

[Doulos Iesou]

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"?

Is there any inference from the phrase "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth," infer that there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth for all eternity?

 

[Knotical]

God's final judgement is an expression of his wrath poured out on the wicked. To say that he punishes continually, is to say that he is angry forever.

No. Not really.

When someone is convicted of a crime and sent to prison, does that mean the court system, or the judge, is continually angry with that person?

Again, how does your argument hold up against God's promises? From my viewpoint is that it is rather flimsy.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

No. Not really.

When someone is convicted of a crime and sent to prison, does that mean the court system, or the judge, is continually angry with that person?

Again, how does your argument hold up against God's promises? From my viewpoint is that it is rather flimsy.

This is a weak analogy fallacy. A secular court and a personal God are not totally analogous therefore the analogy fails. It is neither logical or Scriptural.

Care to share some Promises that somehow would undermine my contention?

 

[Knotical]

This is a weak analogy fallacy. A secular court and a personal God are not totally analogous therefore the analogy fails. It is neither logical or Scriptural.

Care to share some Promises that somehow would undermine my contention?

Actually the analogy is quite sound, even though some choose to ignore it.

The fact that you have yet to provide any of God's promises that support your contention is really quite telling.

Your argument has fallen apart like a house of cards.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Actually the analogy is quite sound, even though some choose to ignore it.

Simply stating that is sound, after I demonstrated it is guilty of a logical fallacy (Fallacy of the Weak Analogy), is rather odd.

It basically follows this form.

(1) A and B are similar.
(2) A has a certain characteristic.
Therefore:
(3) B must have that characteristic too.

And your argument is as follows.

(1) God and a Court are similar
(2) Courts can pass judgments without anger.
Therefore:
(3) God can pass judgments without anger.

The weak analogy fallacy is committed when the similarities are not strong enough. Judges are obligated by law to stay objective and cannot make judgments out of anger because of how it can cloud their reasoning. This is not so with God, and Scripture often holds his wrath and judgement in the same sense.

The fact that you have yet to provide any of God's promises that support your contention is really quite telling.

I honestly don't even know what you're asking for. What it tells me is that you haven't effectively communicated what you would like for me to provide.

I provided promises that demonstrate that God's character will not have him angry forever. You attempted to refute that with a common logical fallacy. You then, without defending the argument said that it is valid (despite my effective rebuttal) and claimed that some just choose to ignore it. A rather disingenuous accusation.

Your argument has fallen apart like a house of cards.

Your opinion on the matter is noted. However, you have not actually defended any of your rebuttals (which I addressed all of them) and you haven't dealt with the core arguments I presented in my OP. You basically just provided the kitchen sink of seemingly "gotcha" questions for someone of my view, not knowing of course that we have perfectly adequate answers for the objections.

So I have a hard time believing that my argument has "fallen apart like a house of cards," when no one has really addressed my original argument in detail.

 

[Sparkey]

Annihilationism is the belief that the final fate of those who are not saved is literal and final death and ultimate destruction. This belief runs counter to the understanding of hell as a place of eternal suffering and separation from God.

What I meant, is that you and I believe very different things about the phrase "eternal punishment."

So that's what you meant, is it?. Sure didn't seem that way when you said it. But now I'm puzzled again. I we believe "very different things" and if I can't speak for you, let me then just ask, "What did you mean when you said, 'I do believe there is an eternal punishment...' ?'

Either the punishment is eternal or it isn't. I don't see any way to quibble further.

 

[chessman]

Because God never goes against His nature, and knowing what His promises are gives us a glimpse into what His nature is.

That's the same argument Clement of Rome makes. It's not support for your position, however:

A. CLEMENT OF ROME, First Epistle:
How blessed and wonderful, beloved,are the gifts of God! Life in immortality,…
[It seems Clement of Rome recognized that immortality is a gift only to the saved. No wonder. It’s clearly anti-Biblical to think man is made immortal except via that gift upon believing in Him that is immortal]

CHAPTER 45 -- IT IS THE PART OF THE WICKED TO VEX THE RIGHTEOUS.

Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them. … The righteous were indeed persecuted, but only by the wicked.They were cast into prison, but only by the unholy; … Were Ananias, and Azarias, and Mishael shut up in a furnace of fire by those who observed the great and glorious worship of the Most High?

[Implied answer is no]
Far from us be such a thought!

[i.e. he’s talking about the thought of God casting the unsaved in a furnace being unjust. The contention about what does NOT pertain to salvation. He’s saying that’s not just to torture righteous people in a furnace. Only a wicked person would do that. Granted, the wicked are not righteous. but remember, he said the contention was not about salvation(could he mean the lost?). Yet, he doesn’t come right out and say God will not do that. But I think it’s implied.]

Who, then, were they that did such things? The hateful, and those full of all wickedness, were roused to such a pitch of fury, that they inflicted torture on those who served God with a holy and blameless purpose [of heart], not knowing that the Most High is the Defender and Protector of all such as with a pure conscience venerate" His all-excellent name; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[Clement doesn’t take an explicit position on the lost’s ECT that I’m aware of. But I don’t know what to make of this whole section of his writings, other than to be showing the logical point that to torture people (granted he means righteous people, not wicked ones) in a furnace is wicked and anti-Godly. Why else even write this and say God is the defender and protector of such. Why make this point about God and say; “Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them [Scripture]”?]

 

[Free]

Here are some texts for you to chew on, regarding the character of God.

He will not always chide, nor will he keep his anger forever. Psalm 103:9 (ESV)

For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning. Psalm 30:5 (ESV)

Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love. Micah 7:18 (ESV)

For the Lord will not cast off forever, but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men. Lamentations 3:31-33 (ESV)

God, even in his judgement and anger is still our great merciful and compassionate God. What would it say about the mercy of God, if we declare that indeed his judgement is more severe merciless and pitiless than any tyrant that here walked this earth. That indeed, he holds never ending conscious torment without abatement for all who do not accept his Son.

The thought is too terrifying to fathom, too immoral in it's implications about justice (torture is the prime form of justice) and too unbiblical in it's foundation for me to accept such a position.

The problem here is that you are equating 'torture' with 'torment'.

 

[Free]

Annihilationism is the belief that the final fate of those who are not saved is literal and final death and ultimate destruction. This belief runs counter to the understanding of hell as a place of eternal suffering and separation from God.



So that's what you meant, is it?. Sure didn't seem that way when you said it. But now I'm puzzled again. I we believe "very different things" and if I can't speak for you, let me then just ask, "What did you mean when you said, 'I do believe there is an eternal punishment...' ?'

Either the punishment is eternal or it isn't. I don't see any way to quibble further.

Annihilationists believe that the punishment of annihilation lasts forever, which it would, hence it is eternal.

Of course I will continue to argue that annihilationism undermines most of what Jesus said about hell and that it really isn't punishment at all.

 

[Butch5]

Of course God is not please that sin entered the world, but it did, and there must be punishment for it. Again, where is the proof that if someone does not enter heaving their soul will be obliterated? To use the example of Sodom and Gomorrah is folly, as those were earthly places, and those within it had earthly bodies. Where do you think their souls went after the cities, and their bodies, were burned?

Hi Knotical,

By Biblical definition a soul requires a flesh body. The Bible gives the creation of man as a body and the breath of God. God breathed into Adam the breath of life and Adam became a living soul. Man consists of two things, a body and the breath/spirit of God. Scripture tells us that when a man dies his body returns to the earth and the breath/spirit of God returns to God. There is nothing left to live on after death. The scriptures are clear the wages of sin is death, all sin, all die. The lake of fire is called the second death, there isn't much point in calling it the second death if no one dies in it.

 

[Knotical]

Hi Knotical,

By Biblical definition a soul requires a flesh body. The Bible gives the creation of man as a body and the breath of God. God breathed into Adam the breath of life and Adam became a living soul. Man consists of two things, a body and the breath/spirit of God. Scripture tells us that when a man dies his body returns to the earth and the breath/spirit of God returns to God. There is nothing left to live on after death. The scriptures are clear the wages of sin is death, all sin, all die. The lake of fire is called the second death, there isn't much point in calling it the second death if no one dies in it.

This completely contradicts the mere concept of hell, which is one of the many things that Jesus spoke about during his ministry on this earth. What of it?

 

[Butch5]

"Why does the burden of proof lie with me?"

Because you are the one presenting the argument.

He did present an argument, however, his argument demands that souls are not eternal. If you're claiming that souls are eternal can you give some evidence to support that claim?

This completely contradicts the mere concept of hell, which is one of the many things that Jesus spoke about during his ministry on this earth. What of it?

Not at all. First, when you say Hell, can you define what you mean? Are speaking of Hades or Gehenna? The idea of an immortal soul comes from Greek Philosophy and Plato. It's not a Biblical concept.

 

[Butch5]

This completely contradicts the mere concept of hell, which is one of the many things that Jesus spoke about during his ministry on this earth. What of it?

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:1 KJV)

A living soul consists of the breath/spirit of God and a body. This accords with what Job said.

14 If He should set His heart on it, If He should gather to Himself His Spirit and His breath,
15 All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.(Job 34:14-15 NKJ)

Solomon said,

17 I said in my heart, "God shall judge the righteous and the wicked, For there is a time there for every purpose and for every work."
18 I said in my heart, "Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals."
19 For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity.
20 All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust.
21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth? (Ecc 3:17-21 NKJ)

He says that in death man and animal are no different, all return to dust. We saw from Genesis that man consists of a body and the breath/spirit of God. We see here that that breath/spirit returns to God when man dies. There is no other spirit in a man, there is nothing to live on after death.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The problem here is that you are equating 'torture' with 'torment'.

There is actually no problem here.

tor·ture
noun
noun: torture
1.
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.

tor·ment
noun
noun: torment; plural noun: torments
1.
severe physical or mental suffering.

If a person's "torment" is as a result of their being punished actively by another agent, then this is rightly called torture. Both words come originally from the Latin word torquere (to twist).

These words properly describe the Eternal Conscious Torment view, because God in this view, is the one who is actively tormenting/torturing them.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Annihilationists believe that the punishment of annihilation lasts forever, which it would, hence it is eternal.

Of course I will continue to argue that annihilationism undermines most of what Jesus said about hell and that it really isn't punishment at all.

Undermines what in particular? Interesting how annihilationists are the only ones who have actually attempted to handle what Jesus had to say in this thread thus far.