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?

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.

Actually, just looking at this entire thread, I find that the OP supported the claims with scripture and scholarly work more than his critics, and answered their claims using the same verses. So, why do you believe there's an eternal hell? Because you were told that, (as opposed to honestly researching it). I'm not for FUD.
 
What does FUD mean?

Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. It was originally used in computer programming jargon. A way of spreading ideas keeping people believing in something for fear that if they don't, something bad will happen to them. In the case of computers, I know these days they use FUD in claiming you need "virus protection" on Linux-type smartphones. No you don't, but the idea is that "Microsoft gets them, and as more people use other OS's they will too". Since people remember the bad MS days, they fear the same will happen to their tablets or smartphones. One only has to know where their software comes from and they'll be OK. OK --- back to topic.....
 
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Man is created mortal not eternal. Without Christ, man is just as mortal as birds and dogs are. How can this fact not be obviuos?

Somebody has taught you error. It is plain in so many Scriptures, that man is not created as an immortal creature at birth.

Do you not read Romans 1:23 and 1Cor 15 and see that the "image of God" DOES NOT mean immortality?

"the image of God" in Genesis means a lot of things, but immortality is not one of them.

1Cor 15:53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

People can say things like: He created us in His image God is an eternal being we live eternally...

However, you cannot find one Scripture that says that except those that have Christ (saved people). It is flat out wrong and there are so many Scriptures that teach against that notion, it's astonishing that it's taught.

1Tim 6: 15 —God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal ...

Your teaching that Adam was created immortal is an affront to the Gospel:

2 Tim 1:10
Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

Immortality is brought about through Christ and the Gospel, not Adam. Not in the creation of Adam or in his descendants are we made immortal.

Why do you think Adam needed access to The Tree of Life?

Talk about posting against the SoF! We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, ...

Versus:
He created us in His image. God is an eternal being we live eternally...

You are claiming the first Adam to be created, not in the image of God, but rather an eternal god himself. living on eternally (one place or the other). That's a lie:
Gen 2:4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman.

But, there's more to the story:

Job 4:17
Can mortal man be in the right before God? Can a man be pure before his Maker?

Answer=yes, but only through Christ!
2 Tim 1:10
Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

The lost don't have Christ created in them at their(our) birth. Only at our re-birth do we receive Christ and His gift of eternal life. We are made a new creation (born again) in the Second Adam (Christ), not the first Adam.

Chessman, I don't think we disagree on this but I would say it very differently. God did not create us "eternal" because that is not something that may be created. He is eternal. It is His intent to share this live eternal with His creation. Being "eternal" can not be created. We have a beginning; God does not. He is eternal.

We are children of the Promise.

"To him who overcomes will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God."—Revelation 2:7.
 
Chessman, I don't think we disagree on this but I would say it very differently. God did not create us "eternal" because that is not something that may be created. He is eternal. It is His intent to share this live eternal with His creation. Being "eternal" can not be created. We have a beginning; God does not. He is eternal.

We are children of the Promise.

"To him who overcomes will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God."—Revelation 2:7.
He will share this eternal and immortal nature with those who are in Christ, but only them alone. That is Conditional Immortality.
 
Paul was speaking to Christians chessman the unbeliever won't be putting on the incorruptible they'll be stuck with the corruptible for all eternity.. its a shame after Gods Son went through all of that and those people said no thanks its my thing I'll do what i want to do..

tob
 
We are children of the Promise.
.
We who are saved are,sure. But those that are not His children, not so much. They only have Adam's flesh.

That's the point.

And it's not just one Scripture that teaches Adam (man) is not immortal. It's all over the Bible in many different contexts.

If someone desires to teach ECT based in "gnashing of teeth" or "worms not dying" or "smoke rising forever", whatever. fine. Go for it.

But teaching ECT cause man was created immortal in Adam and simply cannot be destroyed is so unbiblical it's mind boggling.

You cannot get past your (our) first article of SoF and believe an un-saved person has immortality past or future.

That's what Paul means by you must put on the imperishable.
 
Paul was speaking to Christians chessman the unbeliever won't be putting on the incorruptible they'll be stuck with the corruptible for all eternity.

tob

I agree. How about this:

1 Corinthians 15:53
For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.


Still talking to believers, right?

How about Peter:1 Peter 1:23. since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;

Who's born again through the living and abiding word? The saved or the unsaved or both?
 
Introduction

Recently, I was reading through the latest thread on this matter and was continually seeing the charge that Annihilationism (or as we prefer, Conditional Immortality) ignores important texts from Scripture and that we all need to study more.

I will refute that notion here by addressing the primary texts which we supposedly "ignore."
Argument #1 l Eternal Life and Eternal Punishment

Here is the text most commonly used to attempt to refute our position:
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”[1]

The logic goes like this for those of the Traditional view, the word eternal means the same thing both times it is said. The reward lasts forever as does the punishment.

This is something which at no time we have ever denied, and will agree that the punishment endures for an eternity and indeed lasts forever. What this text does not necessarily infer is what the punishment IS, just that it is permanent. In v.41 of the same chapter it describes the nature of the punishment as "eternal fire."

The only instance we have where people are actually punished with eternal fire is Sodom and Gomorrah, as seen here.
"just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."[2]

Notice that they experienced the punishment of "eternal fire," the very punishment promised to those who reject Christ. This punishment in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah was a complete obliteration, it did not involve any kind of torturing, and whatever suffering they experienced was as a result of that all engulfing flame.

Why should the punishment of eternal fire mean one thing in one instance and a completely different thing in another instance?

Argument #2 l Smoke of Their Torment

Here is the next text:
"And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”[3]

If we simply look at the message at face value we can glean the following.
1. Those who take the mark will experience God's wrath.
2. They will be tormented with fire and sulfur.
3. The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever.
4. They have not rest day or not.

What this truly does look like upon first inspection, it certainly does seem to support the view of Eternal Conscious Torment. However, with every instance of exegesis it is important for us to recognize the TYPE of literature this is written in. In this case, this is Apocalyptic literature and often employs symbolic and figurative language.

Is there perhaps another instance in Scripture where this exact style is used? Indeed there is:
"And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch,
and her soil into sulfur;
her land shall become burning pitch.
Night and day it shall not be quenched;
its smoke shall go up forever.
From generation to generation it shall lie waste;
none shall pass through it forever and ever."
[4]

This is apocalyptic language in the book of Isaiah, where it is describing the destruction of Edom. Now let's do the same exercise here as we did with Revelation, what can we learn at face value.

1. The streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch and soil into sulfur.
2. The land shall become a burning pitch.
3. It will not be quenched, either night or day, it's smoke will go up forever.
4. It shall lie waste and impassable forever.

Now, were any of these things true for Edom? No, today there is a highway that passes through ancient Edom. There is also no smoke continually rising from Edom, nor burning pitch. Neither does it lie waste, and it's streams are of water.

Is this a false prophecy then? Or does it rather demonstrate the foolishness of attempting to try to paint so literally, clearly figurative language. Notice how the same kind of language is employed:

1. Fire and Sulfur are both used.
2. The expression of it continuing night and day is used.
3. The very same phrase of the smoke going up forever and ever is used.

The similarities are apparent, and the fact that it is of the same genre of literature should reveal quite a bit to us. That the expressive and figurative language detailing God's judgement, is meant to convey permanence of destruction rather than conveying the literal interpretation of continuance of judgement. The nation of Edom was destroyed, as will be those who are not in the Lamb's book of life.

Argument #3 l Hell Was a Burning Garbage Dump

Another popular argument is that Jesus' usage of the word "Gehenna" (hell) denoted the fiery imagery of the garbage dump southwest of the city in the Valley of Hinnom. However, there is no evidence for this.

"The traditional explanation that a burning rubbish heap in the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem gave rise to the idea of a fiery Gehenna of judgment is attributed to Rabbi David Kimhi's commentary on Psalm 27:13 (ca. A.D. 1200). He maintained that in this loathsome valley fires were kept burning perpetually to consume the filth and cadavers thrown into it. However, Strack and Billerbeck state that there is neither archeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, in either the earlier in-tertestamental or the later rabbinic sources."[5]

The word Gehenna, which was a transliteration of the Hebrew word which meant Valley of Hinnom, was a place where children were sacrificed to Moloch. It is later prophesied that it would become known as the "Valley of Slaughter,"[6] and would become the site of the future slaughter of the wicked.[7]

In no ways does this support to the exclusion of other views, the traditional view of Eternal Conscious Torment.

Conclusion

Simply put, the eternal conscious torment view is not only emotionally untenable and an affront to the character and goodness of God. It is also not the best interpretation for these texts, and it is best understood to be representative of the punishment that was promised throughout Scripture. Death and Destruction.

Regards,
DI

[1] Matthew 25:46 (ESV)
[2] Jude 7 (ESV)
[3] Revelation 14:9-11
[4] Isaiah 34:9-10
[5] Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, 5 vols.
[6] Jeremiah 19:6
[7] Isaiah 66:24
Argument #1:
Matt 25:46~~"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

In which Greek grammar does it specify that any time aionios is paired with a noun, it signifies a process that has a completion?

Can it be shown in scripture that the "experience" of eternal punishment is not in view, but the result of it is?

If It was," then they will go away to eternal "entertainment." Would it be the experience or the result of the entertainment in view?


 
Argument #1:
Matt 25:46~~"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

In which Greek grammar does it specify that any time aionios is paired with a noun, it signifies a process that has a completion?

Can it be shown in scripture that the "experience" of eternal punishment is not in view, but the result of it is?

If It was," then they will go away to eternal "entertainment." Would it be the experience or the result of the entertainment in view?
"Eternal Destruction" is not the same as "Eternal Entertainment" for the ones who have been destroyed and will remain destroyed forever.
Since the punishment in Matt 25 is not specified, just "eternal punishment", this eternal punishment could be eternal torment OR eternal destruction according to this verse. Looking at other verses for confirmation, we find that the eternal punishment is not eternal conscious torment, it is death. Eternal destruction. Being destroyed and remaining destroyed forever.
 
"Eternal Destruction" is not the same as "Eternal Entertainment" for the ones who have been destroyed and will remain destroyed forever.
Since the punishment in Matt 25 is not specified, just "eternal punishment", this eternal punishment could be eternal torment OR eternal destruction according to this verse. Looking at other verses for confirmation, we find that the eternal punishment is not eternal conscious torment, it is death. Eternal destruction. Being destroyed and remaining destroyed forever.
So your answer begs the question:

In which Greek grammar does it specify that any time aionios is paired with a noun, it signifies a process that has a completion?

Eternal punishment, eternal destruction.....If one can show that these have a completion, one has a case. However, it is the experience/process that is eternal.
 
So your answer begs the question:

In which Greek grammar does it specify that any time aionios is paired with a noun, it signifies a process that has a completion?

Eternal punishment, eternal destruction.....If one can show that these have a completion, one has a case. However, it is the experience/process that is eternal.
What do you call destruction that isn't complete? Destruction? Or non-destruction? If something isn't destroyed, it hasn't been destroyed. So an eternal process of destruction is self refuting.
 
What do you call destruction that isn't complete? Destruction? Or non-destruction? If something isn't destroyed, it hasn't been destroyed. So an eternal process of destruction is self refuting.
Same thing Timothy,

Give an example in the scriptures In which the Greek grammar specifies that any time aionios is paired with a noun, it signifies a process that has a completion?
 
Same thing Timothy,

Give an example in the scriptures In which the Greek grammar specifies that any time aionios is paired with a noun, it signifies a process that has a completion?
Where did you study Greek? I don't see what you're getting at. Aionios, which can be translated as age-during, eternal or everlasting has no active sense to it as it seems you are implying. Where because the punishment is eternal it must be concluded that the person must be conscious and experiencing it. Rather it simply means that the punishment has no end, it is permanent.

So please, tell us what Greek grammatical rule are you appealing to?
 
Where did you study Greek? I don't see what you're getting at. Aionios, which can be translated as age-during, eternal or everlasting has no active sense to it as it seems you are implying. Where because the punishment is eternal it must be concluded that the person must be conscious and experiencing it. Rather it simply means that the punishment has no end, it is permanent.

So please, tell us what Greek grammatical rule are you appealing to?
I have highlighted what I agree with and underlined what has been changed in your theory. It is Eternal. The punishment is eternal. One can exist and not be punished, but one cannot be punished if one does not exist. The grammatical rule of eternal punishment equating to non existence In the scriptures is what is in question and it is not there.

The fact is, annihilationists want to present a grammatical rule that "eternal destruction" means non existence or annihilation and it is nowhere in scriptures.
 
Jesus gives everyone the strongest warning when the rich man was buried his body was destroyed/destruction then his spirit lived/lives on in eternal torment..

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

tob
 
I have highlighted what I agree with and underlined what has been changed in your theory. It is Eternal. The punishment is eternal. One can exist and not be punished, but one cannot be punished if one does not exist. The grammatical rule of eternal punishment equating to non existence In the scriptures is what is in question and it is not there.

The fact is, annihilationists want to present a grammatical rule that "eternal destruction" means non existence or annihilation and it is nowhere in scriptures.
I see you didn't actually address my question. Instead you presented your assumption that one has to exist in order to be punished, not considering that one's utter and total existence being ended is certainly a punishment. Destruction is punishment promised for those who break God's commands and do not repent, and there is no return from this, no sharing in the rich blessings of the new creation.

It is a punishment that lasts forever, it does not mean that a person is continually punished.

So again, what Grammatical rule were you appealing to regarding Aionios?

It's easy to talk about the Greek until someone who knows a little bit calls you out huh?
 
Back
Top