The Biblical case against Annihilationism

[Vic C.]

Wow, this got very interesting. Maybe at this time, we should define spirit.

What is the spirit?

What is it's purpose?

Can the spirit think for itself or is it an integral part of our being? (Job 32:8)

If so, how is it different from the soul?

 

[Relic]

Wow, this got very interesting. Maybe at this time, we should define spirit.

What is the spirit?

What is it's purpose?

Can the spirit think for itself or is it an integral part of our being? (Job 32:8)

If so, how is it different from the soul?

Oh Vic, You mean a discussion such as That "mess" of confusion that is being created over in this thread? 8-) :-? :roll:

The 'spirit' in the Bible


I don't even know where to dive in it is such a mess. guibox has managed to bring up a whole Case of Worms in that thread. I have some scriptures to clear up some of the confusion, but it's just a whole lot of work there that needs to be cleared up. I've already spent a whole night going over the thread to pic apart the errors and out of context scriptures and definition of terms that don't even apply to the word "breath". Too many other variables are being thrown in that don't apply. And so many contradictions in what is being said and what is not being said, it's enough to make your head spin!
Also, guibox jumps all over the place in the postings he's made. Too many issues being brought up before any are settled. It's like how do you eat an elephant? :silly:

So what do you want Vic?
Do you want to continue this here or take it over there? :smt102


.

 

[cj]

I don't even know where to dive in it is such a mess. guibox has managed to bring up a whole Case of Worms in that thread. I have some scriptures to clear up some of the confusion, but it's just a whole lot of work there that needs to be cleared up. I've already spent a whole night going over the thread to pic apart the errors and out of context scriptures and definition of terms that don't even apply to the word "breath". Too many other variables are being thrown in that don't apply. And so many contradictions in what is being said and what is not being said, it's enough to make your head spin!
Also, guibox jumps all over the place in the postings he's made. Too many issues being brought up before any are settled. It's like how do you eat an elephant?

You know, God is pretty handy at making the complicated simple, maybe you're viewing things from your perspective rather than God's.

God isn't asking you to think things through just turn to Him and by doing so you will spontaneously reflect Him.

Isn't that the easiest thing,.... turn and reflect, turn and reflect.

Look at the moon, it can't help but reflect the sun whenever it sees the sun.

That's how we should be.

Don't worry about how complicated others seem, just be concerned about being rightly positioned to reflect God and allow Him to unravel everything.


Relic, do you know that you comment to Vic above simply served to make what you deemed complicated even more complicated.


In love,
cj

 

[Relic]

Relic, do you know that you comment to Vic above simply served to make what you deemed complicated even more complicated.

:



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

cj,

Thanks for the advice on reflecting :D

.

 

[Vic C.]

Oh Vic, You mean a discussion such as That "mess" of confusion that is being created over in this thread? 8-) :-? :roll: ...

The 'spirit' in the Bible

... So what do you want Vic?
Do you want to continue this here or take it over there? :smt102

.

Well, someone took the initiative and started a new thread, which is fine. It needed to be discussed, since the subject of the state of the spirit was brought into the mix already.

I asked some basic questions in line with what was already being disussed. I had no preconceived ideas at the time I asked, except to read other's beliefs, to resolve some questions I had myself. I don't think that new thread is a mess at all. I actually agree with George and cj... it is an interesting topic.

 

[guibox]

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...the biblical case against annihilationism

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....Defenders of the doctrine of eternal punishment must now gird up their loins to meet the objections from within their own evangelical camp.

Perhaps this should tell you something. That serious scholars of the scriptures realize that the concept of eternal torment doesn't hold water when the entire scripture is held up and exegetical study and linguistic analysis is done. Add to that the dozens and dozens of scriptures that show that sin creates death and God's enemies will ultimately be destroyed, and you have a serious case for annihilationism.

Only church apologists desperate to hold on to their cherished beliefs will try to find fault with it. Serious scholars want to discover truth without having to uphold a platform, and the truth comes alive. If only we all could study this way.

When one reads the writings of "evangelical annihilationists," it is clear that they believe the Bible is on their side....In a way, the evangelical annihilationists represent more of a threat to the orthodox doctrine than the cultists and liberals.

A "threat"? What kind of nonsense that makes God to be merciful, just, loving and fulfilling what He said would happen to sin makes this belief a "threat"? Somehow, challenging the belief of torment for billions of years in fire which is based on ambiguity at best is called a "threat"?

How foolish. Desperate Orthodoxy knows no bounds. roll:

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.

And this truthful point has been proven over and over again regardless of the feeble semantic attempts by traditionalists to poke holes in it.

Moral Arguments

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

I fail to see how eternal torment of endless duration is 'demanding that sin receive its due'. What kind of God is it that needs His justice to be satisfied by eternal suffering? Especially when sin causes 'death'. Hence, sinners are merely being punished the due course of their actions. We sinned, we were separated from God and we were to die eternally. Why should this sentence caused by sin be commuted to eternal suffering?

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.

Oh my. This is nothing more than human claptrap reasoning imposed on God. Bringing Him down to our sadistic level. God's thoughts are 'high above our thoughts' and His 'ways above our ways', and yet we impose LESSER moral beliefs on His character. Our moral conscience abhors and revolts against such needless, cruel unending torture, and yet we are expecting that God is satisfied and pleased with such results?

Blasphemy!

 

[Relic]

.

guibox, please don't make it appear as if I plagiarized someone else's writing. Just because I posted an article does not mean I wrote it.


and please, it is very clear you and I don't agree. You believe in annihilationism and I don't. You clearly reject any and all postings provided as rebuttal. You rejected the Words of Jesus John 5:28-29 in regards to what happens to the spirit after the body is in the grave in the other thread, and now you come here to pick apart articles to continue on with the endless argument of which I told you is a stale mate between the two side.

The following quote which was taken out of an article I posted, again you present a reply to the article the exemplifies the endless argument and stale mate:

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.

And this truthful point has been proven over and over again regardless of the feeble semantic attempts by traditionalists to poke holes in it.

and guibox replies..... traditionalists present feeble semantics.


guibox is not going to accept any kind of rebuttal or proof shown to him, it matters not what scripture is presented. He'll just twist what you say and misrepresent who wrote what or and twist what was said.


Sorry guibox, Like I said, Stale mate! Dead end endless argument. :roll:


.

 

[DivineNames]

The quotes are from: Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell, Part Two, by Alan W. Gomes.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell5.html

The article was put forward by Relic.

Stott and Pinnock's argument that "sins committed in time cannot be worthy of eternal suffering" is fallacious. It assumes that the heinousness of a crime is directly related to the time it takes to commit it. But such a connection is nonexistent. Some crimes, such as murder, may take only a moment to commit, whereas it may take a thief hours to load up a moving van with someone's possessions. Yet, murder is a far more serious crime than theft.

I was able to find one of the sources online: The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent by Clark H. Pinnock.

What Pinnock says-

"What purpose of God would be served by the unending torture of the wicked except sheer vengeance and vindictiveness? ... Furthermore, it would amount to inflicting infinite suffering upon those who have committed finite sins. It would go far beyond an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. There would be a serious disproportion between sins committed in time and the suffering experienced forever. The fact that sin has been committed against an infinite God does not make the sin infinite. The chief point is that eternal torment serves no purpose and exhibits a vindictiveness out of keeping with the love of God revealed in the gospel."

http://www.abc-coggc.org/_old_web/COGGC ... 02-1-2.htm

A person can only commit a limited number of sins in a lifetime. If we assume that individual acts of sin are not, "infinite", then it follows that a person can only commit a finite amount of sin in total. To punish someone for all eternity when they have only committed a finite amount of sin would be disproportionate.

Clark Pinnock's argument, as I read it, is saying (or has implicit) something along those lines. So understood, that sins are, "committed in time", simply functions to limit the amount of sin that anyone could commit.

It doesn't, as Gomes claims, "assume that the heinousness of a crime is directly related to the time it takes to commit it". Gomes counter-argument is irrelevant.

Second, the nature of the object against which the sin is committed, as well as the nature of the sin itself, must be taken into account when determining the degree of heinousness. As W. G. T. Shedd observes, stealing in general is a crime, but stealing from one's mother is even more despicable because one owes special allegiance to one's parents. Torturing an animal is a crime, but torturing a human being is an even greater crime, worthy of greater punishment. The criminal act is the same in each case (i.e., stealing and torture), as is the person committing the act. But "the different worth and dignity of the objects upon whom his action terminates makes the difference in the gravity of the two offenses."

How much more serious, then, is even the slightest offense against an absolutely holy God, who is worthy of our complete and perpetual allegiance? Indeed, sin against an absolutely holy God is absolutely serious.

Alan Gomes argument is via an analogy concerned with the "object" against which sin is committed. Essential to which, is that sin can be of different degree. Gomes is trying to reach the conclusion that, "even the slightest offence", against God is, "absolutely serious". He seems to be talking about infinite sin here, (see footnote 9 of the article).

Perhaps Gomes has some strange theory where sin is simultaneously infinite against God, and finite against man. Or perhaps he has a theory where certain sins are against God (infinite) and certain sins are against man, (finite). If that is the case. well he hasn't bothered to explain his position. I will assume that he holds to no such theory. I read him as saying that all sin is against God, that all sin is infinite.

So if we believe Gomes, "even the slightest offence", against God is, "absolutely serious". What follows from this? Stealing in general is an infinite sin, and stealing from your mother is an infinite sin. There is no difference. There is no, "degree of heinousness", with regard to sin. It destroys the very analogy Gomes is trying to use to support his position. The argument is seriously confused, it is contradicted by the conclusion that Gomes wants.

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.

If they truly saw sin as God does... 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.

What is implicit in the argument, is that there is a moral standard outside of the will of God. The nature of sin, (in its seriousness), and the punishment it should rightly be given are outside of God's control. God has to obey this moral standard if he wishes to be "truly holy".

According to Christianity everyone is a sinner. According to Alan Gomes there is a moral standard that requires that God punish sin for all eternity. So why aren't Christians going to get burned in hell?

I imagine it could be said that the sins of Christians have been forgiven via the atonement. However, substitutionary atonement is merely the theory that God decides to switch who gets punished. Now if there is an objective standard of morality, that God has to obey, which requires that sin, "receive its due", then why on earth would God be at liberty to punish the wrong freaking person!?