Annihilationism

[Kathi]

Annihilationism is the belief that unbelievers will not experience an eternity of suffering in hell,but will be "extinguished" after death.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Annihilationism is the belief that unbelievers will not experience an eternity of suffering in hell,but will be "extinguished" after death.

They will experience a limited duration of suffering, and will be destroyed both body and soul in hell after the final judgment.

 

[Kathi]

They will experience a limited duration of suffering, and will be destroyed both body and soul in hell after the final judgment.

Interesting.Would you please show me scripture to back up your statement?

 

[DRS81]

They will experience a limited duration of suffering, and will be destroyed both body and soul in hell after the final judgment.

Hi Doulos, and good afternoon.
Yes, please follow up with scripture.
Question also.
Does scripture give a specific time of suffering before being annihilated.
For example, is it hours/days/weeks/months/years.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Interesting.Would you please show me scripture to back up your statement?

Sure thing, I have done so very thoroughly in other posts, but here is the text about the destruction of both body and soul in hell.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28 (ESV)

Have a nice day.

DI

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Hi Doulos, and good afternoon.
Yes, please follow up with scripture.

Please see my reply to Kathi.

Question also.
Does scripture give a specific time of suffering before being annihilated.
For example, is it hours/days/weeks/months/years.

No, and I imagine it would differ depending on the severity of the punishment. What Scripture is clear about though is that the person is completely destroyed.

 

[DRS81]

Sure thing, I have done so very thoroughly in other posts, but here is the text about the destruction of both body and soul in hell.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28 (ESV)

Have a nice day.

DI

But why fear him if Annihilationism is true. For example, (it's your opinion over his) kinda thing.

Pulpit Commentary http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-28.htm
To destroy (ἀπολέσαι). The class of words to which this belongs denotes "utter and hopeless ruin; but they convey no idea whether the ruined object ceases to exist or continues a worthless existence"

A better way to approach this topic is to prove the scriptures that goes against Annihilationism and go from there.

Do you have such scripture, I know there's plenty. - DRS81

 

[Kathi]

Hi Doulos, and good afternoon.
Yes, please follow up with scripture.
Question also.
Does scripture give a specific time of suffering before being annihilated.
For example, is it hours/days/weeks/months/years.

That is a good question...

 

[Doulos Iesou]

But why fear him if Annihilationism is true. For example, (it's your opinion over his) kinda thing.

Pulpit Commentary http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-28.htm
To destroy (ἀπολέσαι). The class of words to which this belongs denotes "utter and hopeless ruin; but they convey no idea whether the ruined object ceases to exist or continues a worthless existence"

Let's see if the Pulpit's commentary actually stands up to scrutiny.

In Matthew 10, Jesus is sending out his disciples and in this section he tells them to have no fear. This particular text he has this rationale, that they shouldn't fear those who can kill the body, but afterwards do nothing to the soul. Rather, they should fear God who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. The word "apolesai" in no way denotes "utter and hopeless ruin" in this text, but rather destruction, which is why EVERY translation renders this word "to destroy" rather than "to ruin."

It denotes destroy because of the comparison to those who can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. He then uses a stronger word than kill, "apolesai," to denote the destruction of not only the body in hell, but also the soul. The entire destruction of a person's being. The Pulpit's commentary commits the classic argument of begging the question, they did not demonstrate the meaning via exegesis but rather inserted a favorable meaning so as to confirm their doctrine.

The whole reason behind the fear given in Scripture is because God can destroy body and soul in hell, but man cannot do anything to the soul. Does no longer existing not bother you at all?

A better way to approach this topic is to prove the scriptures that goes against Annihilationism and go from there.

That's a strange way to go about doing doctrine. Rather than individually interpreting these texts, you look to the ones you think refute Annihilationism (they don't) and then insert that doctrine everywhere else, despite the fact this eisegesis doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

Why wouldn't a better way to approach this topic be to prove the Scripture that goes against Eternal Conscious Torment and go from there?

Don't you see how this way of going about studying Scripture makes it entirely built on confirmation bias?

Do you have such scripture, I know there's plenty. - DRS81

I know of no Scripture that goes against Annihilationism, I know the very few proof texts that ECT'ers use to try to refute it and I have addressed those countless times on this board.

Here was the latest thread on the topic, where I went at length on such passages as Revelation 14:9-13 and Matthew 25:46.

Link:
http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/conditional-immortality.53795/

 

[reba]

again?

 

[Kathi]

Sure thing, I have done so very thoroughly in other posts, but here is the text about the destruction of both body and soul in hell.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28 (ESV)

Have a nice day.

DI

Doulos this verse of Matthew 10:28 is that man can kill the body but not the soul.The soul is immortal and will go on forever and ever in a conscious state of punishment and torment in hell for unbelievers or in heaven with Jesus Christ for those who are believers.

 

[Stan1953]

Annihilationism is the belief that unbelievers will not experience an eternity of suffering in hell,but will be "extinguished" after death.

Yep, and it is NOT a supported Biblical concept.

 

[Stan1953]

Sure thing, I have done so very thoroughly in other posts, but here is the text about the destruction of both body and soul in hell.
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28 (ESV)
Have a nice day.
DI

My response would be that God CAN do everything, but He doesn't and won't. Jesus Himself said unbelievers will spend eternity with the devil in the lake of fire. Matthew 25:41 (NIV)

 

[agua.]

again?

Gotta keep the post count up eh :D

Doulos this verse of Matthew 10:28 is that man can kill the body but not the soul.The soul is immortal and will go on forever and ever in a conscious state of punishment and torment in hell for unbelievers or in heaven with Jesus Christ for those who are believers.

Do you believe Jesus laid down His soul when He died ?

 

[DRS81]

Let's see if the Pulpit's commentary actually stands up to scrutiny.

In Matthew 10, Jesus is sending out his disciples and in this section he tells them to have no fear. This particular text he has this rationale, that they shouldn't fear those who can kill the body, but afterwards do nothing to the soul. Rather, they should fear God who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. The word "apolesai" in no way denotes "utter and hopeless ruin" in this text, but rather destruction, which is why EVERY translation renders this word "to destroy" rather than "to ruin."

Hey Doulos. Sorry my response took so long. I was in the end times section.

Wouldn't (to ruin) be a synonym of (destruction). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/destruction?s=t

Be careful not to fall into contradiction when speaking of synonyms. If you do then it's just your opinion over mine.

Let's see if the Pulpit's commentary actually stands up to scrutiny.

I think it was actually proper for the Pulpit's commentary to not take a stance, mainly because we're dealing with synonyms. (ruin and destruction)

Does no longer existing not bother you at all?

Well I don't fear God anymore, I'm no longer under his wrath. You would have to ask a Jehovah Witness, Catholic or a Muslim that.

Blessings, my friend. - DRS81

 

[Kathi]

Let's see if the Pulpit's commentary actually stands up to scrutiny.

In Matthew 10, Jesus is sending out his disciples and in this section he tells them to have no fear. This particular text he has this rationale, that they shouldn't fear those who can kill the body, but afterwards do nothing to the soul. Rather, they should fear God who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. The word "apolesai" in no way denotes "utter and hopeless ruin" in this text, but rather destruction, which is why EVERY translation renders this word "to destroy" rather than "to ruin."

It denotes destroy because of the comparison to those who can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. He then uses a stronger word than kill, "apolesai," to denote the destruction of not only the body in hell, but also the soul. The entire destruction of a person's being. The Pulpit's commentary commits the classic argument of begging the question, they did not demonstrate the meaning via exegesis but rather inserted a favorable meaning so as to confirm their doctrine.

The whole reason behind the fear given in Scripture is because God can destroy body and soul in hell, but man cannot do anything to the soul. Does no longer existing not bother you at all?


That's a strange way to go about doing doctrine. Rather than individually interpreting these texts, you look to the ones you think refute Annihilationism (they don't) and then insert that doctrine everywhere else, despite the fact this eisegesis doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

Why wouldn't a better way to approach this topic be to prove the Scripture that goes against Eternal Conscious Torment and go from there?

Don't you see how this way of going about studying Scripture makes it entirely built on confirmation bias?


I know of no Scripture that goes against Annihilationism, I know the very few proof texts that ECT'ers use to try to refute it and I have addressed those countless times on this board.

Here was the latest thread on the topic, where I went at length on such passages as Revelation 14:9-13 and Matthew 25:46.

Link:
http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/conditional-immortality.53795/

To no longer exist and just being burned and it is over would be a piece of cake.Now.....to be in a lake of fire and to be tortured and be conscious and aware of everything around you for an eternity...that means it never ends.That is a terribly frightful thought.

 

[DRS81]

To no longer exist and just being burned and it is over would be a piece of cake.Now.....to be in a lake of fire and to be tortured and be conscious and aware of everything around you for an eternity...that means it never ends.That is a terribly frightful thought.

and that's why evangelists are evangelists.

 

[agua.]

To no longer exist and just being burned and it is over would be a piece of cake.Now.....to be in a lake of fire and to be tortured and be conscious and aware of everything around you for an eternity...that means it never ends.That is a terribly frightful thought.

I'm guessing you think being punished violently and painfully is a piece of cake. What value do you give Eternal Life ?

 

[jeff77]

To no longer exist and just being burned and it is over would be a piece of cake.Now.....to be in a lake of fire and to be tortured and be conscious and aware of everything around you for an eternity...that means it never ends.That is a terribly frightful thought.

I don't believe in annihilation and I think it makes the consequence seem much lighter but I don't think the severity of hell scares people into becoming a Christ follower. I think no matter how bad hell sounds people will reject Jesus because they want to follow their own will.

 

[Gary]

What is the definition of "destruction"?