The Biblical case against Annihilationism

[Gary]

The case against Annihilationism

Annihilationism is the doctrine that the souls of the wicked will be snuffed out of existence rather than be sent to an everlasting, conscious hell. The existence of the unrepentant will be extinguished, while the righteous will enter into everlasting bliss.

Support from Scripture

“The Second Death.†Annihilationists point to the Bible references to the fate of the wicked as “the second death†(Revelation 20:14) in support of their view. Since a person loses consciousness of this world at the first death (physical death), it is argued that the “second death†will involve unconsciousness in the world to come.

“Everlasting Destruction.†Scripture speaks of the wicked being “destroyed.†Paul said: “This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power†(2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). Annihilationists insist that the figure of “destruction†is incompatible with a continued, conscious existence.

“Perdition.†The wicked are said to go into “perdition†(kjv) or “destruction†(niv) (2 Peter 3:7), and Judas is called the “son of perdition†(John 17:12). The word perdition (apoleia) means to perish. This, annihilationists argue, indicates that the lost will perish or go out of existence.

Like Not Having Been Born. Jesus said of Judas, who was sent to perdition, that “It would be better for him if he had not been born†(Mark 14:21). Before one is conceived they do not exist. Thus, for hell to be like the pre-birth condition it must be a state of non-existence.

“The Wicked Will Perish.†Repeatedly, the Old Testament speaks of the wicked perishing. The psalmist wrote: “But the wicked will perish: The Lord’s enemies will be like the beauty of the fields, they will vanishâ€â€vanish like smoke†(Psalm 37:20; Psalm 68:2; Psalm 112:10). But to perish implies a state of nothingness.

Answering Arguments from Scripture.

When examined carefully in context, none of the above passages proves annihilationism. At some points language may permit such a construction, but nowhere does the text demand annihilationism. In context and comparison with other Scriptures, the concept must be rejected in every case.

Separation, Not Extinction. The first death is simply the separation of the soul from the body (James 2:26), not the annihilation of the soul. Scripture presents death as conscious separation. Adam and Eve died spiritually the moment they sinned, yet they still existed and could hear God’s voice (Genesis 3:10). Before one is saved, he is “dead in trespasses and sins†(Ephesians 2:1), and yet he still carries God’s image (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6; James 3:9). Though unable to come to Christ without the intervention of God, the “spiritually dead†are sufficiently aware that Scripture holds them accountable to believe (Acts 16:31), and repent (Acts 17:30). Continued awareness, but with separation from God and the inability to save oneselfâ€â€these constitute Scripture’s vision of the second death.

Destruction, Not Non-existence. “Everlasting†destruction would not be annihilation, which only takes an instant and is over. If someone undergoes everlasting destruction, then they have to have everlasting existence. The cars in a junkyard have been destroyed, but they are not annihilated. They are simply beyond repair or unredeemable. So are the people in hell.

Since the word perdition means to die, perish, or to come to ruin, the same objections apply. In 2 Peter 3:7 perdition is used in the context of judgment, clearly implying consciousness. In our junkyard analogy, ruined cars have perished, but they are still junkyard cars. In this connection, Jesus spoke of hell as a dump where the fire would not cease and where a person’s resurrected body would not be consumed (Mark 9:48).

In addition to comments on death and perdition above, it should be noted that the Hebrew word used to describe the wicked perishing in the Old Testament (דאבא) is also used to describe the righteous perishing (see Isaiah 57:1; Micah 7:2). But even the annihilationists admit that the righteous are not snuffed out of existence. That being the case, they should not conclude that the wicked will cease to exist based on this term.

The same word (דאבא) is used to describe things that are merely lost but then later found (Deuteronomy 22:3), which proves that lost does not mean nonexistent.

“It Would Have Been Better. . . .†When he says that it would have been better if Judas had not been born, Jesus is not comparing Judas’s perdition to his non-existence before conception but to his existence before birth. This hyperbolic figure of speech would almost certainly indicate the severity of his punishment, not a statement about the superiority of nonbeing over being. In a parallel condemnation on the Pharisees, Jesus said Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented had they seen his miracles (Matthew 11:23-24). This does not mean that they actually would have repented or God would surely have shown them these miracles 2 Peter 3:9. It is simply a powerful figure of speech indicating that their sin was so great that “it would be more tolerable†in the day of judgment for Sodom than for them (vs. 24).

Further, nothing cannot be better than something, since they have nothing in common to compare them. So nonbeing cannot be actually better than being. To assume otherwise is a category mistake.

-----more to follow-----

Source: Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (Page 22). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

 

[Relic]

Thank you Gary.

 

[Drew]

The following quote appears as part of the OP's argument against annihilationism:

Separation, Not Extinction. The first death is simply the separation of the soul from the body (James 2:26), not the annihilation of the soul. Scripture presents death as conscious separation. Adam and Eve died spiritually the moment they sinned, yet they still existed and could hear God’s voice (Genesis 3:10). Before one is saved, he is “dead in trespasses and sins†(Ephesians 2:1), and yet he still carries God’s image (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6; James 3:9). Though unable to come to Christ without the intervention of God, the “spiritually dead†are sufficiently aware that Scripture holds them accountable to believe (Acts 16:31), and repent (Acts 17:30). Continued awareness, but with separation from God and the inability to save oneselfâ€â€these constitute Scripture’s vision of the second death.

This argument has a weakness - it implicitly contains an unstated presumption against the legitmate deployment (by the Biblical authors) of multiple distinct uses of the word death, each with distinctive implications re the whole matter of continued awareness following that death. It is true that when the word "death" is used in one context, there is clear continued consciousness on the part of the person that has died. The argument presented in the quote above implies that the word "death", when used in a second context, carries the same implication of continued consciousness. There is every reason to doubt the legitimacy of this unargued implication.

The first context is one where the word "death" is used to describe the kind of death that arises when we sin against God - the so-called "spiritual death" referred to by the author of this quote. Quite correctly, he points out that this kind of death does not obliterate the awareness of the person who had "died" in this manner.

There is then an (unargued) attempt to impute the same "continued awareness" to the fate of those who have died physicallyin an unforgiven state. There are reasons to be skeptical about this.

Even today we use the word death in many different ways. We say: "I have died emotionally", for example. Imagine if someone argued as follows:

1. Fred has died emotionally.
2. Obviously, Fred retains conscious awareness after this "death"
3. When Fred dies physically, we can conclude that conscious awareness continues.

This argument just does not work. In the same way, the fact that "spiritual death in the sense of separation from God" (on the one hand) leaves us with continued awareness, does not warrant a conclusion that physical death (on the other) carries with it this same attribute of continued existence.

To be fair, the counter-argument that I have provided may also be used against us annihilationists, since we often argue that we need to use NT interpretations of words like "forever" in a manner that is consistent with OT uses. A supporter of the "hell is forever" position could argue that we are taking the same unjustified step as appears to be taken in the above quote. We can take up that discussion if anyone wants to.

 

[Relic]

The Eternity of Hell’s Torments.
By Jonathan Edwards, A.M.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell2.html

This is about an 8 page sermon. It is not the type of sermon to be skimmed over.

.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

The Eternity of Hell’s Torments.
By Jonathan Edwards, A.M.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell2.html

This is about an 8 page sermon. It is not the type of sermon to be skimmed over.

.

Oh good, Edwards again. Nothing better then reading halloween type sermons meant to scare people into accepting Christ. Gotta love those threats of eternal flames. OOOOOH! SPOOKY!!!!

I could also make a case with the Bible against the trinity. Against grace. Against a lot of things.

Sorry, my God is not a madman serial killer. He is a loving God who has made wonderful plans for all of His children.

 

[Relic]

Future Punishment
by Charles Hodge


http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell7.html

This is about a 6 page sermon. It is not the type of sermon to be skimmed over.


.

 

[guibox]

Answering Arguments from Scripture.

When examined carefully in context, none of the above passages proves annihilationism. At some points language may permit such a construction, but nowhere does the text demand annihilationism. In context and comparison with other Scriptures, the concept must be rejected in every case.

Yes, in some instances. The least you can say is that it 'permits' it. Therefore, we must also look at the rest of scripture and the context to determine it's true meaning. The fault of the traditionalist is that the words used to denote 'ongoing continuity' apply to every instance.

Separation, Not Extinction. The first death is simply the separation of the soul from the body (James 2:26), not the annihilation of the soul. Scripture presents death as conscious separation..

And here is the ultimate error of the traditional view and where their argument breaks down before it gets started...

1) That man has an immortal soul
2) That the wicked have immortality
3) That the spirit is the soul
4) That the spirit is conscious after death

Neither of these are proven from the scriptures, Gary

It looks like you 'cut and pasted' this from another source (forgive me, if I'm wrong, I would have liked to see your own arguments). You should really show discernment in choosing your source when they give the text of James 2:26.

Did you know that the bible doesn't specify that the 'spirit that goes back to God who gave it' is speaking ONLY about righteous people? The spirit of ALL men goes back to God for the spirit is merely the 'breath of life' that all creatures have. It is not some conscious, thinking, ethereal part of man.

Adam and Eve died spiritually the moment they sinned, yet they still existed and could hear God’s voice (Genesis 3:10). Before one is saved, he is “dead in trespasses and sins†(Ephesians 2:1), and yet he still carries God’s image (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6; James 3:9). Though unable to come to Christ without the intervention of God, the “spiritually dead†are sufficiently aware that Scripture holds them accountable to believe (Acts 16:31), and repent (Acts 17:30). Continued awareness, but with separation from God and the inability to save oneselfâ€â€these constitute Scripture’s vision of the second death.

You cannot take 'spiritual death' and apply it to the afterlife. The afterlife consists of bodies risen from the grave (both the righteous and the wicked). Again, this assumes that man, specifically the wicked, has an immortal soul that is 'spiritually dead' but can live forever.

Destruction, Not Non-existence. “Everlasting†destruction would not be annihilation, which only takes an instant and is over. If someone undergoes everlasting destruction, then they have to have everlasting existence. The cars in a junkyard have been destroyed, but they are not annihilated. They are simply beyond repair or unredeemable. So are the people in hell..

You assume that destruction is an ongoing thing instead of a one time thing with everlasting results. Your 'cars in the junkyard' analogy doesn't cut the mustard, Gary. Cars are not living beings and annihilation merely means 'non-existence' or 'non-awareness' of the conscious mind forever. If those cars had minds and thoughts, they would definitely be unaware.

Since the word perdition means to die, perish, or to come to ruin, the same objections apply. In 2 Peter 3:7 perdition is used in the context of judgment, clearly implying consciousness. In our junkyard analogy, ruined cars have perished, but they are still junkyard cars. In this connection, Jesus spoke of hell as a dump where the fire would not cease and where a person’s resurrected body would not be consumed (Mark 9:48)...

So make up your mind, traditionalists...

Is it a 'soul' or a 'body'? Traditionalists can't even get their facts straight on what the nature of the wicked will be at the afterlife and when this occurs. Is it at death, is it at the end of time.

You know why?

Because none of it can be supported by the scriptures so man must create his own beliefs and then build on those presuppositions and assumptions

You are assuming that the context of the word 'perdition' means to 'ruin' in every instance. That is not the case. 'die', 'death' and 'perishing' all mean annihilation when applying the wicked. Both linguistically and contextually because the wicked do not have immortality. Again, an assumption based on what the text doesn't say. Unquenchable doesn't mean that it will not GO out but merely that it cannot be PUT out until its job is done. This is total annihilation. The bible makes it clear that the wicked will be 'consumed' and 'devoured' by the fire. Do you know what to be 'consumed' means?

Look at Exodus 3:2. The meaning is quite clear, my friend.

In addition to comments on death and perdition above, it should be noted that the Hebrew word used to describe the wicked perishing in the Old Testament (דאבא) is also used to describe the righteous perishing (see Isaiah 57:1; Micah 7:2). But even the annihilationists admit that the righteous are not snuffed out of existence. That being the case, they should not conclude that the wicked will cease to exist based on this term.

The same word (דאבא) is used to describe things that are merely lost but then later found (Deuteronomy 22:3), which proves that lost does not mean nonexistent.)

'Perish' here is not used in conjunction with the wicked or the afterlife, hence you cannot make a blanket meaning to all uses of 'perishing' or 'death'. When these terms are used in conjunction with the wicked, they are always used both linguistically, proof-texting and contextually to mean 'finality'. Use your concordance and you will see.

 

[Relic]

Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell
Part One
by Alan W. Gomes

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell4.html

This is about a 7 page sermon. It is not the type of sermon to be skimmed over.



Excerpt from Part One:

And now, who is responsible for this God-dishonoring doctrine? And what is his purpose? The promulgator of it is Satan himself; and his purpose in introducing it has been to frighten the people away from studying the Bible and to make them hate God.

 Joseph Franklin Rutherford, Watchtower Society's Second President [1]

How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been? Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards, and by the gospel itself.

 Clark Pinnock, Professor and Noted Evangelical Author [2]

Christians through the centuries have affirmed that those who do not accept God's offer of salvation in Christ will suffer conscious, everlasting torment. Denial of this teaching has, until recently, been limited almost exclusively to cultic or quasi-cultic groups. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses vociferously reject the orthodox teaching on hell, denouncing it as an error of apostate Christendom. They teach that the wicked will be "annihilated" rather than suffer eternal torment. Likewise, Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, Christian Science, Mormonism, and the New Age movement all repudiate the orthodox doctrine. Besides these undeniably cultic groups, the Seventh-day Adventists also reject the historic doctrine in favor of annihilation. [3] While Seventh-day Adventism may not be a cult in the technical theological sense of the term I am using here, [4] they nonetheless have been perceived commonly as a "fringe" group by orthodox Christians. [5]

Alternative, unorthodox views concerning the final state of the wicked are no longer limited to the fringe. Today, individuals who have been regarded as solidly within the evangelical camp are abandoning the doctrine of conscious, eternal punishment in favor of various "annihilation" scenarios. Probably the most prominent evangelical to go over to the annihilationist position is Anglican John R. W. Stott, Rector of All Soul's church in London. Stott's shift came to light in a book published by InterVarsity Press entitled Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue. In this book, Stott responds to liberal Anglican David Edwards on a range of theological issues. It was in response to Edwards's position on judgment and hell that Stott presented his reformulated views.


Excerpt from Part One:

As emotionally traumatic as Stott finds the doctrine, he admits that our emotions "are a fluctuating, unreliable guide to truth and must not be exalted to a place of supreme authority in determining it." [13] Stott is, after all, an evangelical. As such, he declares that the issue for him is "not what does my heart tell me, but what does God's word say?" [14]

When one reads the writings of "evangelical annihilationists," it is clear that they believe the Bible is on their side. We are not dealing with liberal critics  like Samuel Davidson, the famous nineteenth-century rationalist critic [15]  who admit on the one hand that the Bible teaches the eternal torment of the lost, but who then reject the doctrine in the next breath. In a way, the evangelical annihilationists represent more of a threat to the orthodox doctrine than the cultists and liberals.

In the past, defenders of the traditional view could more readily attribute the annihilationist position to a cultic mind-set or to a general denigration of biblical authority.[16] Defenders of the doctrine of eternal punishment must now gird up their loins to meet the objections from within their own evangelical camp. [17]

=================
=================



Now please do go to the web site and read the whole 7 pages of Part One the article and

then

Go onto read Part Two of the article.

This too, is about a 7 page sermon. It is not the type of sermon to be skimmed over.


Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell
Part Two
by Alan W. Gomes

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell5.html

Excerpt from Part Two:

In Part One of this article I discussed how some prominent evangelicals recently have abandoned the doctrine of eternal, conscious punishment for the wicked in favor of various annihilation theories. I also examined the scriptural teaching on the doctrine of hell, paying particular attention to key passages from the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Revelation. From our investigation, we saw that the biblical teaching on the fate of the unsaved is clear: they will experience conscious torment of unending duration.

From what we saw in Part One, we might well question how anyone who claims to believe in the authority of Scripture  as the evangelical annihilationists do  could affirm anything but the traditional teaching. Evangelical annihilationists counter that they have rational and biblical evidence to support their position. In Part Two of this article, we will examine some of the main arguments advanced by annihilationists in support of their theory.

In the short space available it is not possible to present every proof annihilationists could marshal in defense of their position  just as there was not enough space in Part One to advance many of the arguments supporting the orthodox position. In Part One, I selected what I consider to be the strongest arguments in favor of the traditional teaching. In this concluding installment I will do the same in presenting the annihilationists' case. In selecting these arguments I have tried to discern which ones the annihilationists themselves regard as the strongest. These proofs appear in virtually every defense of the annihilationist view.

When annihilationists present their case, their evidence generally falls into one of three basic categories. First we have the moral arguments, which maintain that the traditional teaching on hell would  if true  involve immoral actions on God's part. Second are linguistic arguments, based on the meaning of key biblical terms used to describe the final fate of the wicked. Third are exegetical arguments that attempt to neutralize verses the traditionalists commonly offer in proof of their position (such as those expounded in Part One). We will consider evidence from each of these three categories. (A fourth category, that the traditional doctrine is derived from the Platonic notion of the soul's immortality, was adequately answered in Part One.)

Moral Arguments

Annihilationists frequently complain that it would be immoral for God to inflict everlasting torture on His creatures. Clark Pinnock regards the doctrine of endless punishment as "morally flawed" and a "moral enormity." [1] If the "outrageous doctrine" of the traditionalists were true, God would be a "cruel" and "vindictive" deity. In fact, He would be "more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards...." Indeed, the traditionalist's God is a "bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die." [2]

Annihilationists commonly argue that endless torment represents a punishment far in excess of the offense committed.

Excerpt from Part Two:

How much more serious, then, is even the slightest offense against an absolutely holy God, who is worthy of our complete and perpetual allegiance? [9] Indeed, sin against an absolutely holy God is absolutely serious. For this reason, the unredeemed suffer absolute, unending alienation from God; this alienation is the essence of hell. It is the annihilationist's theory that is morally flawed. Their God is not truly holy, for he does not demand that sin receive its due.

The reason these "sensitive Christians" have such an emotional problem with hell is because they, in the words of Anselm, "have not as yet estimated the great burden of sin." [10] If they truly saw sin as God does (recognizing that no sinner can do so perfectly), they would not have the slightest problem with the doctrine. Indeed, they would find themselves distraught if God did not punish sin for all eternity.


Read on now..... go the web page and read all 7 pages of Part Two of the Article in regards to Linguistic Arguments, Exegetical Arguments and Annihilationist Answers to Texts Supporting the Traditional View and then some closing comments; Superior Sensitivity or Secular Sentimentalism?


This is not an article to skimm over, so scroll back on up this post and click on those two links.

God Bless. :bday:



.

 

[Relic]

.


The following Excerpt is taken from:

A Kinder, Gentler Theology of Hell?
by Larry D. Pettegrew

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell5.html



... In midsummer of 1878, several hundred enthusiastic Christian ministers and lay people gathered at a hospital in Clifton Springs, New York, for a week of Bible conference. The founder of the hospital, a Methodist layman named Dr. Henry Foster, had erected a 50x80 foot tabernacle that seated about 650 people. Dr. Foster invited missionaries, teachers, pastors, and evangelists to stay in the hospital facilities free of charge for the purpose of rest and relaxation, and to use the tabernacle for Christian services.

The Christians who conducted the Bible conference in the summer of 1878 were known as the Believers’ Meeting for Bible Study. (1) They continued to meet at Clifton Springs for two more years, but eventually held their annual meetings at Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada, and became better known as the Niagara Bible Conference. Some historians consider the Niagara Bible Conference, and the First and Second American Bible and Prophecy Conferences which it spawned, to be the primary sources from which the American fundamentalist and premillennial evangelical movements came. (2)

Unfortunately, the Bible conference at Clifton Springs in 1878 was somewhat of a disappointment to the leaders. Among other reasons, “there were those hanging upon the outskirts who had no sympathy with the objects of the meeting, and there was danger of controversy, which always grieves the Holy Ghost.†(3) Postmillennialists and annihilationists had apparently caused the controversy. So in the following months, the Believers’ Meeting for Bible Study adopted a fourteen-point confession of faith, later known as the Niagara Creed, as a basis for their meetings. ...


.

Yep, It appears this is a stale mate subject!

So far, it has been way over 128 years of Stale Mate
wars between the traditionalists and the liberalists. Not much different than the protastant and the catholics over in Ireland, Or the wars between countries that are just so stubborn in having their own way. aye? :roll:

Goes to show why many people refuse to talk politics and religion. :roll:


Nuff said and done. I'm out of this thread too!




:angel: :bday:
.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

I have heard so many of these scare tactic sermons that I don't even have the desire to wade through these links. It is the same thing over and over. A lot of misrepresentation of God and super spooky teachings............................... BOO!

 

[Vic C.]

It may come as a surprise to many that the immortality of the soul and an eternal punnishment is Hellenistic in nature and was rejected by the likes of Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, (possibly) Hippolytus, Martin Luther, John Wesley and possibly others as well.

Martin Luther: "I think that there is not a place in Scripture of more force for the dead who have fallen asleep, than Ecc. 9:5 ("the dead know nothing at all"), understanding nothing of our state and condition  against the invocation of saints and the fiction of Purgatory."

 

[Relic]

I have heard so many of these scare tactic sermons that I don't even have the desire to wade through these links. It is the same thing over and over. A lot of misrepresentation of God and super spooky teachings............................... BOO!

Man, you just provoke to no end, don't you?

That is you're opinion

Lyric's Dad, Let's not get mean about it, ya know?
He who gets that last word in wins? is that it, with you? : What good do your tort remarks do to contribute to looking at both sides of the debate? :roll:

Those sermons you seem to be referring to are not scary to those who see them for what they are worth :-? And besides that, Your comments just proves, to those of us who have read them with clear understanding, that you don't read them all the way through, but just throw it in the garbage before the whole message is conveyed by the writer. I at least am willing to read both sides of the debate. I may back out of it the debate in that I refuse to continue on with the incessant bickering, but I don't stop reading.

And yes, Suffice it to say...
Both side are saying the same thing, "... It is the same thing over and over. A lot of misrepresentation of God...".

Sorry you are so closed minded that you refuse to read the articles I presented here, especially the article that is tow Parts, entitled " Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell, by Alan W. Gomes " Part One http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell4.html and Part Two http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell5.html
because, this article gives a good detail of the Annihilists argument just as quibox , Drew and others have presented here.
There is no sense in continuing on with the snide remarks, Lyric's Dad. Are you trying to get one up on those who don't believe in the annihilist point of view by those crude comments? :roll:

=======

Superior Sensitivity or Secular Sentimentalism?

Pinnock speaks of the "sensitive Christians" who have no choice but to abandon the doctrine of hell in favor of a kinder and gentler fate for the wicked. [43] But as J. I. Packer observes, "the feelings that make people want conditionalism to be true seem to me to reflect, not superior spiritual sensitivity, but secular sentimentalism which assumes that in heaven our feelings about others will be as at present, and our joy in the manifesting of God's justice will be no greater than it is now." [44]

We should never forget that it was the Lord Jesus Christ, more than any other, who enunciated the doctrine of everlasting torment for the lost. Christ had no need to attend a modern sensitivity training workshop; He was "sensitivity incarnate." But He also manifested a perfect balance of love and justice. The same holy God who "shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire" (2 Thess. 1:7) is the God who stooped to become one of us, and bore the vengeance of God's fire in His own body on the tree. If God should open our eyes to understand the terrible price He paid, we would in that instant comprehend the awful guilt of spurning that price. If those who scorned the old covenant were consumed with the fire of this present age, "how much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant" (Heb. 10:29)?

However, regardless of how either side comes to conclusion over this Topic....

Like I said previously,

this is a Stale Mate Subject.
One that's been argued over for far too long.

It hasn't gotten settled in over 128 years. :o

What makes anyone think it will get settled on a forum such as this one? :o :

Lyric's Dad, You can bicker on as much as you want with those tort comments od yours, they mean nothing as far as progression in this debate. Provoking others by your bitter comments makes no good sense.

I bid you to show some respect for the those who agree to disagree.

I presented articles to read and to think about, you presented nasty remarks. Shame, real shame. :-? Did it ever occur to you that others would like to visit tis thread and be able to read threads without having to face aggravating remarks such your immature loud Boo's and accusations of articles and sermons being of the spooky type teachings? It just so happens that those sermons and articles are not what you claim they are. When a mature approach is used in reading them it is then that a mature understanding takes place. If you refuse to read something, or throw a book or article in the garbage before you read it through, of course you are going to have a half-***** remark about it. Do you think you can grow out of it already? I'm mean really. How old are you anyway? Can this thread continue on with some maturity? I'm really tired of having to see almost every thread I post in full of your tort remarks against everything I post mainly from you, SputnikBoy, and Windozer. The three stooges (trouble makers) of this board who throw nasty remarks at mostly everyone they reply too. Sad, just so dad that people like that come onboard to create conflict and can't debate without getting nasty about it. :-?



.

 

[guibox]

It may come as a surprise to many that the immortality of the soul and an eternal punnishment is Hellenistic in nature and was rejected by the likes of Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, (possibly) Hippolytus, Martin Luther, John Wesley and possibly others as well.

Martin Luther: "I think that there is not a place in Scripture of more force for the dead who have fallen asleep, than Ecc. 9:5 ("the dead know nothing at all"), understanding nothing of our state and condition  against the invocation of saints and the fiction of Purgatory."

William Tyndale was an avid rejecter of the immortality of the soul doctrine and supported resurrection.

Relic, I know you mean well in placing all your links. The unfortunate problem comes down to what one believes about the 'soul'. When you believe as the bible says, that the 'soul' is not immortal outside the body and that the wicked do not have immortality like the righteous, all the other texts translated 'death', 'destroy','destruction', 'perish' all mean exactly that in applying to the fate of the wicked.

Also the metaphoric language used clearly and plainly elsewhere in the scriptures to denote complete destruction and annihilation (something you, nor anyone else on this forum has disputed whatsoever) such as 'forever and ever' ,'worm dieth not', 'unquenchable fire' and 'no rest day or night' are all temporal and conditional based on the wicked's mortality.

Until you come to accept this clear truth, you will always be hung up on the language of Revelation 14 and 20 and the alternative continual uses of the words for 'perish' and 'destroy'.

 

[Vic C.]

guibox, all I did was do a Google search on "early church fathers and an immortal soul" and found that out. I have no agenda and nothing I believe concerning this topic is carved in stone. I did find this info hard to ignore though, since many here place some sort of value on the early church father's beliefs.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

I have heard so many of these scare tactic sermons that I don't even have the desire to wade through these links. It is the same thing over and over. A lot of misrepresentation of God and super spooky teachings............................... BOO!

Man, you just provoke to no end, don't you?

That is you're opinion

Lyric's Dad, Let's not get mean about it, ya know?
He who gets that last word in wins? is that it, with you? : What good do your tort remarks do to contribute to looking at both sides of the debate? :roll:

Those sermons you seem to be referring to are not scary to those who see them for what they are worth :-? And besides that, Your comments just proves, to those of us who have read them with clear understanding, that you don't read them all the way through, but just throw it in the garbage before the whole message is conveyed by the writer. I at least am willing to read both sides of the debate. I may back out of it the debate in that I refuse to continue on with the incessant bickering, but I don't stop reading.

And yes, Suffice it to say...
Both side are saying the same thing, "... It is the same thing over and over. A lot of misrepresentation of God...".

Sorry you are so closed minded that you refuse to read the articles I presented here, especially the article that is tow Parts, entitled " Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell, by Alan W. Gomes " Part One http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell4.html and Part Two http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell5.html
because, this article gives a good detail of the Annihilists argument just as quibox , Drew and others have presented here.
There is no sense in continuing on with the snide remarks, Lyric's Dad. Are you trying to get one up on those who don't believe in the annihilist point of view by those crude comments? :roll:

=======

[quote="For those of you who are hesitant in reading the whole article, Here is an excerpt from Part Two":cc670]
Superior Sensitivity or Secular Sentimentalism?

Pinnock speaks of the "sensitive Christians" who have no choice but to abandon the doctrine of hell in favor of a kinder and gentler fate for the wicked. [43] But as J. I. Packer observes, "the feelings that make people want conditionalism to be true seem to me to reflect, not superior spiritual sensitivity, but secular sentimentalism which assumes that in heaven our feelings about others will be as at present, and our joy in the manifesting of God's justice will be no greater than it is now." [44]

We should never forget that it was the Lord Jesus Christ, more than any other, who enunciated the doctrine of everlasting torment for the lost. Christ had no need to attend a modern sensitivity training workshop; He was "sensitivity incarnate." But He also manifested a perfect balance of love and justice. The same holy God who "shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire" (2 Thess. 1:7) is the God who stooped to become one of us, and bore the vengeance of God's fire in His own body on the tree. If God should open our eyes to understand the terrible price He paid, we would in that instant comprehend the awful guilt of spurning that price. If those who scorned the old covenant were consumed with the fire of this present age, "how much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant" (Heb. 10:29)?

However, regardless of how either side comes to conclusion over this Topic....

Like I said previously,

this is a Stale Mate Subject.
One that's been argued over for far too long.

It hasn't gotten settled in over 128 years. :o

What makes anyone think it will get settled on a forum such as this one? :o :

Lyric's Dad, You can bicker on as much as you want with those tort comments od yours, they mean nothing as far as progression in this debate. Provoking others by your bitter comments makes no good sense.

I bid you to show some respect for the those who agree to disagree.

I presented articles to read and to think about, you presented nasty remarks. Shame, real shame. :-? Did it ever occur to you that others would like to visit tis thread and be able to read threads without having to face aggravating remarks such your immature loud Boo's and accusations of articles and sermons being of the spooky type teachings? It just so happens that those sermons and articles are not what you claim they are. When a mature approach is used in reading them it is then that a mature understanding takes place. If you refuse to read something, or throw a book or article in the garbage before you read it through, of course you are going to have a half-***** remark about it. Do you think you can grow out of it already? I'm mean really. How old are you anyway? Can this thread continue on with some maturity? I'm really tired of having to see almost every thread I post in full of your tort remarks against everything I post mainly from you, SputnikBoy, and Windozer. The three stooges (trouble makers) of this board who throw nasty remarks at mostly everyone they reply too. Sad, just so dad that people like that come onboard to create conflict and can't debate without getting nasty about it. :-?



.[/quote:cc670]Hey, you said I like to get the last word so this is my doing so.

In love;

Larry (or was that curly? No, maybe mo! WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP!)

 

[Drew]

Moral Arguments

Annihilationists frequently complain that it would be immoral for God to inflict everlasting torture on His creatures. Clark Pinnock regards the doctrine of endless punishment as "morally flawed" and a "moral enormity." [1] If the "outrageous doctrine" of the traditionalists were true, God would be a "cruel" and "vindictive" deity. In fact, He would be "more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards...." Indeed, the traditionalist's God is a "bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die." [2]

Annihilationists commonly argue that endless torment represents a punishment far in excess of the offense committed.

Excerpt from Part Two:

How much more serious, then, is even the slightest offense against an absolutely holy God, who is worthy of our complete and perpetual allegiance? [9] Indeed, sin against an absolutely holy God is absolutely serious. For this reason, the unredeemed suffer absolute, unending alienation from God; this alienation is the essence of hell. It is the annihilationist's theory that is morally flawed. Their God is not truly holy, for he does not demand that sin receive its due.

This counterargument to the annihilationist seems pretty dubious to me.

Note the actual way this counterargument is worded - it is really sleight of hand and word games. Note the exact words (I have added bold):

1. Indeed, sin against an absolutely holy God is absolutely serious.

2. For this reason, the unredeemed suffer absolute, unending alienation from God;

There is a wild unjustified leap of logic here. Let's say that we grant that there is such a thing as something that is "absolutely" serious (I have doubts about the meaningfulness of the phrase "absolutely serious", but lets let it pass for now). There is an obvious arbitrariness in concluding that unending punishment is the just result, just because such punishment is absolute in the temporal sense. One could just as easily argue as follows:

1. Indeed, sin against an absolutely holy God is absolutely serious.

2. For this reason, the unredeemed suffer absolute snuffing out of existence;

In the same way that unending torment is absolute in a temporal sense, extinction is absolute is "absolute" in an existential sense. So on what basis do you choose the target of the term "absolute" to be the temporal dimension and not the existential one?

 

[Solo]

I wonder why the second death is necessary if the first death is not annihilation; and if the first death is not annihilation, how can anyone be assured that the second death is annihiliation?

Perhaps death is something above what the finite human mind can comprehend, and it is not non-existance.
Perhaps death is separation from the body, from the Kingdom of God, from eternal life in Jesus Christ. Perhaps death is eternal separation from God in an eternal place of torment.

I suspect that the eternal torment will be such that the eternal consciousness of those created will be forever and ever.

I know that many speculate and guess what is, while all the time knowing nothing for sure, especially when wrongly dividing the Word of God.

 

[Drew]

I know that many speculate and guess what is, while all the time knowing nothing for sure, especially when wrongly dividing the Word of God.

Fair enough. You claim that others are wrongly dividing the Word of God. I would invite you now to defend that claim. How, exactly, does an annihilationist err in their interpretation of the Scriptures? What is their precise mistake? Any argument to the effect that "a plain reading" shows eternal torment must meet guibox's arguments about how Biblical precedent shows that words like "eternal" are sometimes used in a metaphorical manner, a manner that defies a literal interpretation.

In Jude, we read:

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

A "plain reading" suggests that S+G are burning today. Are they?

 

[Relic]

guibox, all I did was do a Google search on "early church fathers and an immortal soul" and found that out. I have no agenda and nothing I believe concerning this topic is carved in stone. I did find this info hard to ignore though, since many here place some sort of value on the early church father's beliefs.

How am I supposed to leave this topic alone with these kind of posts? :roll: :P


Albert Einstein once wrote:

“Religion without science is blind, and science without religion is lame.â€Â

(No, I am not of any particular denomination.)


God is not going to annihilate what is termed evil just so you can reside in heaven without having any knowledge of what it is. That evil will still exist "outside of heaven". In heaven there is no more evil. That evil will not be able to touch the pure, the purified.

Evil is still going to exist in it's own place and that place is considered a prison for anyone that is involved in it, them being in total unrepentance are in effect living in torment that is only what is in accordance to being in evil.

Man's Religious analogies of pro annihilation puts God in a box. Religion when in unison with Science proves He can't be kept in it.
To try and tip the scale of justice to the extreme right or left is to contradict the balance of God's creation.

To tip the scale of justice to the extreme in which there is nothing left to measure differences between good and evil is to contradict the evolution of God's creation in the future, and it contradicts the evidence of creation within the time infinite which travels backwards in time.

If God is the Alpha and the Omega, the Aleph and the Tav, you can't tip the scale that holds all of existence in balance, to suite your own sense what would eliminate the dis-ease for your own sake of pleasure.

"Zapping" evil is not going to is to take care of the "problem".
What takes care of the "problem" is that we have a way to "resist" and "overcome" the dis-ease. If we so choose to follow the way, the truth, and the life, that Jesus offered to all those who are willing to follow. Jesus knew not all would follow. Judas betrayed him. Peter denied him thrice. but was forgiven because of Peter's persistence in following even though he fell down. Peter got back up! But Judas did not.

God created both the evil and the good. He makes peace and he makes war which some people see as being evil when in fact if seen from the eyes of God it is all for His purpose. Man is the one who perverts that which God calls for his purpose. The will of man is left out of the annhihilists theory. They leave out the rule of accountability that is given to all "spirit" beings. For you to say he will annihilate one in order for the other to reign is not consistent with the foundations that hold the balance of and in all things in place.

Revelation 22:15 just proves It's all part of the balance in His creation.

God set the scale from which to measure, not man. We must still retain the consciousness of what evil was in order for the continued manifestation of appreciation in the glory, the victory, the praise, those things come from 'remembering' the victory in overcoming the evil which rules over sin.

If that which we overcome is annihilated, then how is it in the future we will have a foundation from which to measure?

Heaven is a place of protection from evil , it is not a place in which the evil that is outside of it, that is zapped out of existence.

For those of you who want to read more:
Here is yet another web site which gives even more refuting against annihilism. You can't skip around this web site, you have to read it from top to bottom, or you risk the chance of being confused in who is refuting what. http://www.bible.ca/su-annihilation-refuted.htm

Jesus’ teaching on eternal conscious torment is not untrue



.

 

[DivineNames]

Moral Arguments

Annihilationists frequently complain that it would be immoral for God to inflict everlasting torture on His creatures. Clark Pinnock regards the doctrine of endless punishment as "morally flawed" and a "moral enormity." [1] If the "outrageous doctrine" of the traditionalists were true, God would be a "cruel" and "vindictive" deity. In fact, He would be "more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards...." Indeed, the traditionalist's God is a "bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die." [2]

Annihilationists commonly argue that endless torment represents a punishment far in excess of the offense committed.

Excerpt from Part Two:

How much more serious, then, is even the slightest offense against an absolutely holy God, who is worthy of our complete and perpetual allegiance? [9] Indeed, sin against an absolutely holy God is absolutely serious. For this reason, the unredeemed suffer absolute, unending alienation from God; this alienation is the essence of hell. It is the annihilationist's theory that is morally flawed. Their God is not truly holy, for he does not demand that sin receive its due.

This counterargument to the annihilationist seems pretty dubious to me.

Note the actual way this counterargument is worded - it is really sleight of hand and word games. Note the exact words (I have added bold):

1. Indeed, sin against an absolutely holy God is absolutely serious.

2. For this reason, the unredeemed suffer absolute, unending alienation from God;

There is a wild unjustified leap of logic here. Let's say that we grant that there is such a thing as something that is "absolutely" serious (I have doubts about the meaningfulness of the phrase "absolutely serious", but lets let it pass for now). There is an obvious arbitrariness in concluding that unending punishment is the just result, just because such punishment is absolute in the temporal sense. One could just as easily argue as follows:

1. Indeed, sin against an absolutely holy God is absolutely serious.

2. For this reason, the unredeemed suffer absolute snuffing out of existence;

In the same way that unending torment is absolute in a temporal sense, extinction is absolute is "absolute" in an existential sense. So on what basis do you choose the target of the term "absolute" to be the temporal dimension and not the existential one?

Its widely accepted in Christianity that evil is a privation of being. How could there be an "absolute" or "infinite" sin? An unlimited absence of being having actuality? That appears to be something of a contradiction.