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!

What do you think?

Question: How does annhilism bring Glory to God? Or help the un-renegerated to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ?

Our doctrine, not only needs to be in line with the Scriptures, but I believe that is needs to be pratical in that it brings the un-saved to salvation, and the saved to worship God.

Let me explain:

If I was a non-believer, why would I care about salvation, if what the annhilists are saying is true? What I am hearing is that when I die, if I am unsaved, I will ceases to exist in an afterlife. Okay - so I will just live my life to the fullest on earth - in other words, I could commit any and all sins - because in the end there is no consequence, I am merely going to die and cease to exist.

So, heck - let's "eat, drink and be merry" for tomorrow I die!
 
No, not from MY perspective.

For neither YOU nor I KNOW what happens UPON death. We do KNOW that we 'sleep'. But we know NOT what this sleep involves. It could VERY WELL be a 'place of DREAMS' where one 'lives out' their lives through the MEMORIES of that which they have DONE. And, atop this possible NIGHTMARE, WITH the knowledge that upon AWAKENING once again, it is THEN that they FACE JUDGEMENT. And for those that ARE lost, THEN the realization that they they will THEN CEASE TO EXIST.

I will NOT state that what I have offered IS FACT. For we simply DO NOT KNOW. The Bible speaks of EVERLASTING torment. Do you REALLY believe that God would allow YOUR PARENTS to copulate, producing YOU. And thenthese parents making NO EFFORT whatsoever to TEACH you of God. And then there is a God that would PUNISH you for ETERNITY for refusing to acknoledge His existence. A God that is NOTHING other than a God of LOVE? A God that is NOTHING BUT Love? That this God could POSSIBLY punish someone that simply refused to acknowledge Him to AN ETERNITY of pain? Now, I ask this: Where's the LOVE folks? I mean Punishment NO DOUBT. But a 'literal' ETERNITY of punishment? Seem a 'bit harsh' to me. And KNOWING that MUCH of the Bible IS symbolic and representational, WHO among us can PLAINLY state with ANY assurance that the words spoken of 'punishment' ARE literal? Beware of 'what you ASK for'. And beware of what you 'CHOOSE' to BELIEVE. for it IS THIS that one WILL be judged upon.

YES, there WILL be punishment for those that REBEL against Him. EXACTLY WHAT that punishment is IS NOT something that has been CLEARLY revealed to us. Even the 'fire' mentioned. We DO NOT KNOW exactly WHAT this 'fire' is. Whether it is a 'burning sensation' that we FEEL, or whether ACTUAL fire, we do NOT KNOW.

But I CAN say this; I can PROMISE YOU, that IF you were to spend day after day, and night after night, KNOWING NOTHING of time or space, STUCK with NOTHING but the WORST feelings that you have EVER experienced. UNTIL judgement, (which we KNOW is AT LEAST 1000 hence, I can PROMISE you, THAT WOULD "SEEM" like an ETERNITY. Not knowing one day from the next. Having NO SENSE of time and NO ability to discern time, days would seem ETERNAL. YEARS would 'seem' eternal. Decades would 'seem' eternal. Centureis would 'seem' eternal, Milinia would 'seem' eternal..................... Get it? Being 'stuck' with NOTHING other than the truth of the life one has led could be either just a 'dream' or the WORST 'nighmare' one could imagine. And THIS without ANY knowledge of exactly HOW LONG it was going to LAST. And then, with the knowledge that ONCE one awakens, they KNOW that their existence WILL be extinguished. For their judgement WILL be swift.

Just a 'little something to contemplate'. But a 'literal' ETERNAL punishment where one is IN PAIN forever seems a bit 'harsh' even for a jealous God. Perhaps we read a little too much literalness into these words that we have been offered and it is more 'figurative' than 'literal'. WhO KNows?

The important this is to accept Christ into one's heart and LOVE God and their neighbors. For this IS what we were placed here for. To come to the understanding of the righteousness of God and the love that He has offered through His Son.

But we CAN be assured, the opposite that is possible IS something that NO ONE, (once they are forced to face it), is going to be PLEASE with. For Whatever the 'truth' is concerning eternal damnation, it will NOT be something desirable. Rest assured in this.

MEC
 
The bible is pretty clear on what eternal torment is. Read Matt 25 and rev 20....

Why would a ''good'' and ''loving'' God send people to eternal torment where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth?....First, God does not send anyone there, people choose to go their of their own free will....Second..a study on the Book of Romans will show you why this is....To put it simply. God is Holy and because he is Holy, he can not look upon ''any'' sin....This is why Jesus had to go to the cross...for it is by his blood that he shed being the perfect atonement for sin ''and'' by us choosing to receive this '' gift of eternal life we are indeed spared of eternal torture...So the question really is this....How could a Holy God, stand in the presence of sin?....He can't.....

Now lets look at the basic make up of man....What many folk are missing is the center part of this diagram.....which by the way, I don't know where I got if from, but it is quite accurate.....


structureofapersonmc3.jpg
 
Hi AloneVoice:

In all honesty, I have never found this argument to be very convincing. I cannot speak for others, but I believe that the process of annihilation is no picnic - punishment is indeed visited upon the unrepentent. This whole line of reasoning that people will go hog wild if they think that no eternal torments awaits them is simply not true to the facts of life. I have plenty of un-believing friends who do not "party like its 1999" just because they do not believe in an eternal hell. This caricature of people engaging in all kinds of carnal behaviour has a kind of simplistic appeal, but the real world does not work that way.

Besides, people do fear non-existence. So there is indeed an "incentive" to pull people into the Kingdom. The "eternal toment" position has the following major problem - infinite punishment for finite sin. In addition, I submit that it is only in the world of Christian culture that the following concept is not seen as patently absurd: A loving God can subject humans to eternal torment. I submit that when you really, and I mean really, think about this, it makes no sense at all. I humbly suggest that most Christians respond to this challenge with a kind of "canned" answer of the form "God is not only a God of love, but a God of justice as well". Well how is inifinite punishment just in light of finite sin? I am not sure what the standard answer is for that.

I suggest that ideas have consequences - and the idea that love can be reconciled with eternal torment deflates the true notion of love of all its power. This may be partly responsible for why the Church is so ineffectual. One even sees the occasional situation where Christians take some delight at the thought of someone else "roasting forever". It happens in these very forums. People will say that they are not taking delight but are rather warning them. I submit that the rest of their posts often suggest otherwise.
 
Drew said:
Hi AloneVoice:

In all honesty, I have never found this argument to be very convincing. I cannot speak for others, but I believe that the process of annihilation is no picnic - punishment is indeed visited upon the unrepentent. This whole line of reasoning that people will go hog wild if they think that no eternal torments awaits them is simply not true to the facts of life. I have plenty of un-believing friends who do not "party like its 1999" just because they do not believe in an eternal hell. This caricature of people engaging in all kinds of carnal behaviour has a kind of simplistic appeal, but the real world does not work that way.

Question: Do the un-believing friends that you have hold to a position of 'annhilism'? Or is it that the 'real world does not work that way', because there is a sense of un-known?

The idea of annhilism is found in other faith structures outside of Christianity.

If I were an un-believer, and held to the view of annhilism - I would see no need to worry about an 'afterlife'. Also, if annhilism teaches that the un-repentive soul will be destroyed, why should I believe the repentive soul is to live on?


Besides, people do fear non-existence. So there is indeed an "incentive" to pull people into the Kingdom. The "eternal toment" position has the following major problem - infinite punishment for finite sin. In addition, I submit that it is only in the world of Christian culture that the following concept is not seen as patently absurd: A loving God can subject humans to eternal torment. I submit that when you really, and I mean really, think about this, it makes no sense at all. I humbly suggest that most Christians respond to this challenge with a kind of "canned" answer of the form "God is not only a God of love, but a God of justice as well". Well how is inifinite punishment just in light of finite sin? I am not sure what the standard answer is for that.

I suggest that ideas have consequences - and the idea that love can be reconciled with eternal torment deflates the true notion of love of all its power. This may be partly responsible for why the Church is so ineffectual. One even sees the occasional situation where Christians take some delight at the thought of someone else "roasting forever". It happens in these very forums. People will say that they are not taking delight but are rather warning them. I submit that the rest of their posts often suggest otherwise.

Where is the finite sin? Rebellion against God is infinite in life and death.

In other words - while on earth there is an option to rebel against God or repent. In the afterlife we live out the consequences of decision.
 
aLoneVoice said:
Question: Do the un-believing friends that you have hold to a position of 'annhilism'? Or is it that the 'real world does not work that way', because there is a sense of un-known?
In most cases where we have talked about this issue, my unbelieving friends have the view that when one dies physically, that's it. So yes, they believe in a form of annihilation.

aLoneVoice said:
Also, if annhilism teaches that the un-repentive soul will be destroyed, why should I believe the repentive soul is to live on?
Because the scriptures teach this. Examples: Romans 6:23, John 3:16.

aLoneVoice said:
Where is the finite sin? Rebellion against God is infinite in life and death.
I am not sure what you mean here.
 
jgredline said:
To put it simply. God is Holy and because he is Holy, he can not look upon ''any'' sin....This is why Jesus had to go to the cross...for it is by his blood that he shed being the perfect atonement for sin ''and'' by us choosing to receive this '' gift of eternal life we are indeed spared of eternal torture...So the question really is this....How could a Holy God, stand in the presence of sin?....He can't.....
I agree that God cannot stand in the presence of sin. How does this preferentially support the "unbelievers will be in eternal torment" position any more than the "unbelievers will be annihilated" position"?
 
Drew said:
In most cases where we have talked about this issue, my unbelieving friends have the view that when one dies physically, that's it. So yes, they believe in a form of annihilation.

Have you ever considered it is their belief in a 'form of annihilation' that has kept them from God?
 
aLoneVoice said:
if what the annhilists are saying is true? What I am hearing is that when I die, if I am unsaved, I will ceases to exist in an afterlife.

None of the annihilationists on this forum that I know of hold to the above position that you have described. The 'unsaved' do not die and cease to exist but are resurrected and thrown in the lake of fire at which point they pay the price for their sin and die and then cease to exist. So annihilationism doesn't promote "live like you want, you cease to exist", but on the contrary that "live like you want and you will pay the price in the lake of fire and then cease to exist".

How can something that is thrown in the lake of fire be separated from God and yet be sustained with life that is tortured for eternity while the rest of the universe depends on the very sustaining power of God? And if God has granted this sustaining power of life to the wicked in the lake of fire then why does He make a promise that this sustaning eternal life will only be given to the justified?

I cannot fathom how eternal torture brings glory to God. You said rebellion against God is infinite sin. But this infinite sin is accomplished in a finite life time according to you. Then how come infinite punishment be not administered by God in a finite life time? Why not? Why does God require infinite life time to achieve infinite justice to take care of infinite sin that was committed in finite life time? See where your logic fails?
 
TanNinety - I do not see "life" as being finite. God knew me before I was knit in my mother's womb. Our physical "birth" and our physical "death" are merely stages in our infinite life.

When we are 'born' we are born into a physical body - but I would suggest that the soul/spirit (I tend to be a dichotimist) has already existed and continues to exist after our physical death.
 
aLoneVoice - That view in my opinion just incredibly undermines the power and beauty of "resurrection".

Also you said God knew you before you were knit in your mother's womb and that your soul/spirit has already existed. Where and how long did this soul exist before you were born? What happens to its memory at birth? A soul-mind wipe? Why doesn't death have the same effect on the soul? Did God produce souls for test-tube babies as well? ..Who is doing the knitting in the mothers womb? If God, then why does He create birth defects?

What choice does a soul have before it becomes born physical? Does God randomly search for procreating humans on first come first serve basis reaching in to His bag of souls?

Why is this soul not mentioned in the very making of the human being in Genesis. Instead flesh + breath of life = living soul is given, shouldn't flesh + soul = living human be given? I prescribe to the wholistic being of man and that he cannot be divided into parts of dichotomy or trichotomy. I am not saying soul or spirit doesn't exist but that it doesn't exist in such a way that it operates on its own without the rest of the parts that make a human being. But I think we will go in circles regarding the eternal fate of man since we dont agree on the basics of what constitutes a man in the first place. This is demonstrably true based on my previous discussions regarding this topic, so I will go back to being a lurker and see if I can jump in later on.

I took issue with you saying that annihilationism promotes "live as you want" because you cease to exist, but truly we prescribe to "if you live as you want, justice will be required for your deeds in the lake of fire and then you cease to exist". No wicked deed is going to go unpunished. So annihilationism does not promote wicked life style.
 
Where is the power of the resurrection undermined? We are still resurrected and clothed in righteousness.

I do not understand how creation works, how God created the soul/spirit, etc etc. Nor, to be blunt do I care. What is suffice for me to know - is that God created me, and that I am fearfully and wonderfully made. And I praise God for that. How He did it - well, that is His business, and I will leave Him to it. I echo the praises that David wrote in Psalm 139

You ask why does God create birth defects. Why do you view them as a 'defect'?
 
Tan makes good points but so have the rest of us...all to no avail as well.

Tan is correct. Until we agree on the makeup of man, we will never agree on the the afterlife.

Unfortunately, too many here insist on taking a non-biblical position that cannt be supported linguistically, exegetically or culturally.

My friends, immortality is not something inherent in us but given to us by Christ.

Immortality is something we seek, not something we are born with:

Look at Romans 2:7

To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life

and 2 Timothy 1:10

But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ who hath abolished death and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel

The Bible makes it clear as crystal that immortality/everlasting life is given only to those who are Christ's, not to the wicked. Instead, we see that the wicked receive the exact OPPOSITE of the righteous' reward.

We see quite clearly that the righteous are given immortality at their resurrection. This resurrection to immortality is not given to the wicked

You guys must stop digging in your heels at all costs to defend something you cannot defend from the Bible.
 
aLoneVoice –
Lets consider death according to your definition.
What is death?
Stage where soul is separate from the body.

Who are thrown in the lake of fire?
Resurrected wicked.

What is resurrection?
Soul back in body.

What is soul back in body?
Life

What is wages of sin?
Death.

Wicked in lake of fire = eternal soul + body = eternal life = not the wage for sin.

Can you find a promise given to the wicked where they are given life for their sin? Or are you willing make a case that the wicked souls are thrown in the lake of fire but not along with their resurrected bodies? According to your definition of death, which is separation of soul from body (if it is true), then this is the wages for sin, yet in the lake of fire the wicked have both their souls and body which isn’t death. How do you reconcile that?
 
The chart I provided is the ''makeup'' of man that is in complete harmony with the scriptures....Those that hold to a wholeanistic view need to receive what is in the center of the diagram. That is called being born again. Once you have been born again the scriptures will be clear....
 
TanNinety said:
aLoneVoice –
Lets consider death according to your definition.
What is death?
Stage where soul is separate from the body.

Who are thrown in the lake of fire?
Resurrected wicked.

What is resurrection?
Soul back in body.

What is soul back in body?
Life

What is wages of sin?
Death.

Wicked in lake of fire = eternal soul + body = eternal life = not the wage for sin.

:-D Whos on first?

Tan, with your 'infinite punishment for infinite sin in a finite existence' or whatever and the above, my head is spinning!


TanNinety said:
Can you find a promise given to the wicked where they are given life for their sin? Or are you willing make a case that the wicked souls are thrown in the lake of fire but not along with their resurrected bodies? According to your definition of death, which is separation of soul from body (if it is true), then this is the wages for sin, yet in the lake of fire the wicked have both their souls and body which isn’t death. How do you reconcile that?

Isn't it amazing the absolute illogistics of the support of eternal life for the wicked? Somethign the Bible doesn't support (except for circular arguments).

I'm keeping this argument for my records as it is a completely logical analysis of the erroneous logic of the supporter of Greek dualism.

Sadly, this argument along with all the other biblical and logical arguments will go unoticed and unanswered to continue to harp on the Catholic pagan belief of the immortality of the soul, something both Martin Luther and William Tyndale denied vehemently.

The pope trumps the Bible, I guess.
 
Job writes:

7 At least there is hope for a tree:
If it is cut down, it will sprout again,
and its new shoots will not fail.

8 Its roots may grow old in the ground
and its stump die in the soil,

9 yet at the scent of water it will bud
and put forth shoots like a plant.

10 But man dies and is laid low;
he breathes his last and is no more.

11 As water disappears from the sea
or a riverbed becomes parched and dry,

12 so man lies down and does not rise;
till the heavens are no more, men will not awake
or be roused from their sleep.

13 "If only you would hide me in the grave
and conceal me till your anger has passed!
If only you would set me a time
and then remember me!

14 If a man dies, will he live again?
All the days of my hard service
I will wait for my renewal to come.

15 You will call and I will answer you;
you will long for the creature your hands have made


Now that I have been convinced of the wholistic nature of man (no immortal soul), texts like this one start to make a lot of sense. Perhaps even those who agree that the unredeemed are eventually annihilated (and that there is no immortal soul) will disagree with my take on this material. So be it. Please object as you see fit.

I think this text is a stirring hint that, although Job knows that man goes into the ground and "sleeps", a glorious day will come when he will live again. I think that this text harmoinizes beautifully with the "dead sleep until they are called forth" view. In verse 7, Job implicitly expresses the view that when man dies, its all over for good. This is echoed in verse 10 - man breathes his last and "is no more". And verse 12 suggests that Job believes that the sleep of death will never be reversed - man will never rise again "till the heavens are no more". I take this latter phrase to be a poetic expression for "forever".

Of course, none of us in this discussion believes this. Does this mean that I am suggesting that this section of Job is not inspired by God or is otherwise "wrong" since the author expresses a "when you die its all over" view.

Not at all. I think one can see that the despair expressed in the first half of this text is redressed in the second half - where Job expresses the wish "If only God would hide me in the grave and then remember me in the future" (v.13). In v14, Job raises the possibility that man will "live again" and be "renewed". In verse 15, those of us who, unlike Job, have seen the fullfillment of God's plan, can easily see a reference to the "calling forth" that is described in texts like 1 Corinthians 15. So we know about the future renewal of life what Job only hoped for.

What is really going on here? I submit that this poetic text basically says the following: It is true that man dies and sleeps, he really is "gone", he really is in the grave (a place of no conscious existence, Luke 16 objections notwithstanding). And yet there is a glimmer of hope expressed that this situation will be reversed, that God will remember his children and call them forth from their sleep.

If you imagine that the reality is that there is no immortal soul, that man sleeps after physical death, and then is called forth to life as per 1 Cor 15, the Job text can be seen as expressing an incomplete picture of this reality. And yet not really - the possibility of what we (who have 1 Corinthians 15 and other texts) know will happen is there. It is expressed as a hope, as "if only God would do this" kind of thing.

Now how does the view that "man dies and goes immediately into full-blown conscious existence, either in torment or in glory" fare in respect to this text? Not very well. If this view is correct, then Job does not have an incomplete view (albeit with hints of completeness), he has a patently incorrect view. He is wrong to state that man sleeps, he is wrong to say that man goes into the grave, he is wrong in his hope that man will be called forth to life from a state of slumber in the grave (since, like both Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16, man is not slumbering at all).

I think that this is yet another another example of the harmony of the Scriptures on this matter: man dies physically, sleeps in the grave and is, at some time in future, called forth to life (in the case of the redeemed). Job knew about the death and sleep and hoped for the calling forth. We, on the other hand, have seen what Job could only hope for, the resurrection of Christ and the associated promise and hope that we too will called forth at the appointed time.
 
John 3:13

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heavenâ€â€the Son of Man

I assume that those of you who think that Luke 16 is a factual account believe that Lazarus was in some place other than heaven at the time Jesus gave the Luke 16 account. I am pretty sure that Solo has expressed the view that Lazarus was in a part of Sheol called "paradise".

I wouldn't think one could get away with claiming that Lazarus went to heaven after he died, given what Jesus says above.

God is obviously free to construct whatever "system" He wants in respect to post - "life on this earth" existence. But one where where the dead go to one of 2 parts of Sheol, one higher than other by a "great gulf" seems a tad forced, given all the other descriptions of Sheol being down from this earthly existence.

The only system that seems to make this work is one where "the earth we live on" (where you and I are presently) is higher than "the Paradise part of Sheol" (where Lazarus was) which is in turn higher than the "tormenting" part of Sheol (where the rich man was).

This is, of course, a possible state of affairs. However, it does seem kind of unnatural to have to conclude that Lazarus went "down" to Sheol and yet experienced a better existence than he did "up here" on the earth. That just doesn't seem right with the heavy implication of "loss" that usually accompanies the notion of a person going "down".

In short, it would make a lot more sense to have the paradise part of Sheol described as "up" from this earthly plane. And yet it is described as "down".

This may "prove" nothing, but I think it at least might raise suspicion about this "two-level" model of Sheol.
 
Chuck Swindoll says it well........

The Bible clearly teaches that eternal punishment will be by fire. This was repeated so often from the lips of Jesus as well as by several New Testament writers that interpreters are not free to arbitrarily say it must mean something else.
The question as to whether eternal fire will annihilate those suffering in it is answered by the experience of the Beast, the False Prophet, and Satan, whose torment will last forever. Also the unsaved, from the moment of their death (which in some cases will be thousands of years before the Great White Throne judgment) will suffer, as described in Luke 16:19–31. However, the souls of believers who die are instantly transported into the presence of God.
The fact of eternal punishment of the lost should motivate Christians to do all they can to lead people to Christ before it is too late. While heaven will be a wonderful reunion of those who are saved, there will be no such fellowship in hell. No doubt much of this is difficult to understand. But apart from faith in Christ there is no mercy or grace. In His holiness and righteousness God has no alternative but to punish those, whether angels or people, who continue to sin against Him.

Swindoll, C. R.
 
TanNinety said:
None of the annihilationists on this forum that I know of hold to the above position that you have described. The 'unsaved' do not die and cease to exist but are resurrected and thrown in the lake of fire at which point they pay the price for their sin and die and then cease to exist. So annihilationism doesn't promote "live like you want, you cease to exist", but on the contrary that "live like you want and you will pay the price in the lake of fire and then cease to exist".

How can something that is thrown in the lake of fire be separated from God and yet be sustained with life that is tortured for eternity while the rest of the universe depends on the very sustaining power of God? And if God has granted this sustaining power of life to the wicked in the lake of fire then why does He make a promise that this sustaning eternal life will only be given to the justified?

I cannot fathom how eternal torture brings glory to God. You said rebellion against God is infinite sin. But this infinite sin is accomplished in a finite life time according to you. Then how come infinite punishment be not administered by God in a finite life time? Why not? Why does God require infinite life time to achieve infinite justice to take care of infinite sin that was committed in finite life time? See where your logic fails?
So then, Annihilation is just a theory that will be proven as a lie or the truth after the unrighteous dead are resurrected?
 
Back
Top