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!

Hellfire texts explained as annihilation

Vic said:
I believe most of us would agree it exists. The main question at hand (which you pointed out) is; who will go there, why and for what duration... duration being the key element in this discussion.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, 'when'. There are still some people who believe that sinners head straight to a burning pit as soon as they die to be tormented by demons. This convulted logic is along the same lines of thought as eternal torment. Both thoughts are remnants of false Catholic midieval theology which lumped all views of 'hell' into one view.

I would say that if the KJV has done one thing bad, it is in the current interpretation of the English 'hell' for Sheol/Hades/Gehenna/Tartaros. Such a horrible translation of these words have caused more confusion and false doctrine in Christianity than anything else in its history.
 
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Matthew 25:31-46

The word translated everlasting and eternal is the same word. Eternal life and Everlasting punishment are for the same duration of time.
 
Solo, NO ONE is disputing that the word 'eternal' has the same literal meaning. The same 'duration' can be applied to both life and death. Why is it so difficult to accept the scriptural fact that one either receives eternal life (reward) or eternal death (punishment)? The righteous attain immortality. The unrighteous don't. Can't you see this?
 
SputnikBoy said:
Solo, NO ONE is disputing that the word 'eternal' has the same literal meaning. The same 'duration' can be applied to both life and death. Why is it so difficult to accept the scriptural fact that one either receives eternal life (reward) or eternal death (punishment)? The righteous attain immortality. The unrighteous don't. Can't you see this?
Click to expand...
The duration of eternal life is eternity. The duration of everlasting life is ever lasting. If you do not understand this concept at this time, you will in eternity or ever lasting.
 
Makes me think how evangelicals these days prefer to refer to eternal 'separation' rather than eternal 'death'.
Because eternal death is actually a form of life the only difference is that one is with the Lord and the other separated. So in a way life separated from God is no life at all.
I can see why the concept of immortality of the soul creates confusion... many of us just arent sure whether we go to sleep when we die or just die physically but remain alive and conscious in spiritual realm, seems there is scripture to support both ideas.
 
Well lets take perhaps one of the most commonly quoted verses in scripture, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.â€Â

Now we accept everlasting life (with its reward in heaven) but then we somehow conclude that to perish means to have everlasting life in torment in hell. Why? Why can't we accept that perish means to perish?
 
mutzrein said:
Well lets take perhaps one of the most commonly quoted verses in scripture, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.â€Â

Now we accept everlasting life (with its reward in heaven) but then we somehow conclude that to perish means to have everlasting life in torment in hell. Why? Why can't we accept that perish means to perish?
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Solo said:
The duration of eternal life is eternity. The duration of everlasting life is ever lasting. If you do not understand this concept at this time, you will in eternity or ever lasting.
Click to expand...

And this is where the problem starts. Eternal and everlasting life are the same thing. One describes the other, quality in quantity. The problem is that this 'life' is contrasted with 'death'. This 'life' is only realized for the righteous and received at the second coming.

The wicked do not have this life but still suffer the wages of sin.

You cannot have 'everlasting life' contrasted with 'everlasting punishment' to both mean 'everlasting life', for that is EXACTLY what 'eternal torment in hell' IS. This then contradicts Romans 6:23, John 3:16,17 and numerous other verses that completely CONTRASTS the fates, not create a similar PARALLEL.
 
Jesus said, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal". Matthew 25:46
 
Mostly it's not about whether you accept a certain doctrine or belief, it's about what the *truth* is and how well you will accept it. If "eternal death" is the truth, we have to accept it, if however the Hell is the truth, we have to accept it as well.

If God allows a Hell to exist, there must be a reason behind it which could be at this moment out of our comprehension, unless you declare that you understand God's plan fully.
 
Solo said:
Jesus said, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal". Matthew 25:46
Click to expand...

Um, didn't we cover this just a few moments ago? Eternal = everlasting for both life (reward) and death (punishment).
 
Solo said:
Jesus said, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal". Matthew 25:46
Click to expand...

I’m not sure whether your response was to me or someone else and was to show that hell exists or, given that it exists, who goes there. But in any case your choice of scripture holds the key to both precisely. Lets look at the parable that it is taken from.

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?†The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.â€Â
“They also will answer, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?â€Â

‘He will reply, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.â€Â

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.â€Â

One thing seems for sure about this parable. Both the sheep and the goats were surprised at the judgment handed down to them.

The interpretation of this parable is very clear. The sheep reflect the nature of the vine as they walk by faith - without considering the benchmark of right or wrong according to human intelligence.
On the other hand, the goats have focused on trying to appease God by carrying out a lifestyle based on a code of ethics that is initiated by reason of human intelligence, claiming a self-imposed justification of works that leads to self righteousness and eternal damnation.

So, if mentioning this scripture was for the purpose of supporting the notion that hell exists – I agree. But if used to show who goes there, then that is a different story and it should be self evident. It is not the lost but those who know who Jesus is and have tried to attain their goal by human effort.
 
Hawkins said:
Mostly it's not about whether you accept a certain doctrine or belief, it's about what the *truth* is and how well you will accept it. If "eternal death" is the truth, we have to accept it, if however the Hell is the truth, we have to accept it as well.

If God allows a Hell to exist, there must be a reason behind it which could be at this moment out of our comprehension, unless you declare that you understand God's plan fully.
Click to expand...

It would be a foolish man that declared that he understood God’s plan fully but I do believe he has given to the man of the Spirit, knowledge of the things of the Spirit.

Hell of course does exist but not for the man of the flesh, since his end will be the grave.

But to those who have received the gift of eternal life, his reward will be according to what he has done with the gift God has given him. There will be those whose lives are a reflection of the vine and they will walk in faith fulfilling God’s righteouness but there will be those who after receiving the Spirit try to achieve their goal by human effort – self righteousness.

The way I see it, having received eternal life, those whose righteousness is in Christ will have their reward in Him, but those who have become self righteous will be judged. According to scripture these will go into everlasting punishment.
 
SputnikBoy said:
Solo said:
Jesus said, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal". Matthew 25:46
Click to expand...

Um, didn't we cover this just a few moments ago? Eternal = everlasting for both life (reward) and death (punishment).
Click to expand...

Jesus said, "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation". John 5:28-29
 
My opinion is that hell exists but that the unredeemed stay there only for a limited time. After they have been punished for their sins, they are annihilated. I am also open to the position that "hell" is really the process of annihilation itself.

I suspect that I am not the only one who thinks that both sides of the "eternal hell" vs "time-limted hell" have a real problem, namely that there are texts where a "plain reading" would suggest annihilation and there are texts where a plain reading would suggest eternal torment.

Note: I wrote the following material for a discussion on another board and am reposting it here:

I will address the following material to those who believe in eternal torment but it applies equally to the annihilationists.

Presumably if you believe in inerrancy, you believe that all the texts that seem to support annihilation cannot be taken at a "plain reading". Some argument must be made to the effect that they are metaphorical or that they are otherwise misunderstood by the annihilationists.

Consider six people who sit down at a circular banquet table. Each person sees one dinner roll to their left and one dinner roll to their right - there are 6 diners and 6 rolls. After several awkward moments, one person takes the initiative and reaches for the roll to her left. Now the ambiguity has been solved and all the hungry diners reach for the roll to their left. If the pro-active diner had reached for the roll to her right, everyone else would have done likewise.

I wonder if the ET position is not subject to a criticism that something analogous is going on in respect to how they interpret the scriptures. If one seizes on a text whose "plain meaning" supports ET, then might always be able to "explain away" a text "T" whose plain reading supports annihilation. This would be doneby resolving whatever ambiguity there might be about the meaning of T in a direction that is favourable to ET. The ETer might try to defend their view about T by appeals to allegorical meanings, etc.

It would seem that a rigorous defence of the ET position would need to justify a non "plain reading" interpretation of texts like T without appeals to a "framework of interpretation" that is based on an earlier decision to allow a small subset of all texts that deal with the fate of the unredeemed (and in particular, that subset where a "plain reading" supports ET) to establish an interpretive framework that favour the ET stance . However, sound reasoning would require that any attempt to "explain away" a text T could not legitimately depend on some previous interpretation or selection of texts that "could have gone the other way" - just like the selection of a dinner roll.

I hope what I am trying to communicate is clear. My present purpose is not to debate individual texts, but ask a more "proces-related" question about the nature of how we build up our views on this matter.

Is it possible that the views we hold on this issue are extremely sensitive to some initial decision that was not based on a sober, "global" view of scriptures. Once that initial choice was made, everything else seems to "fall into place", just as it does for the diners once that first diner has chosen a roll. But what if the diner chose the roll to her right?
 
Servant_2000 said:
Well..I'm adding my .02 cents worth to this conversation.

The Bible teaches that the lost must endure eternal conscious torment. This truth remains written in the Bible, whether or not it rubs uncomfortably against all human reason. Proof for this is found in Matthew 25:46, in which eternal life is compared to eternal punishment in duration and state. "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous unto life eternal."
Click to expand...

Yep, it sure does. Can you tell us what are the qualifications for "everlasting punishment" and "everlasting life" according to the context of St. Matthew 25?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top