| Author | Message | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 402 Registered: 10-2002  |
I've noticed that when the debate about annihilationism arises, arguments against it tend to focus on how "unjust" it is. The idea is put forth that annihilationism detracts from God's justice, or that it wouldn't truly punish sin to simply annihilate. Something like that. When making this argument, we kind of judge "punishment" in a human way -- like prison, "time served" in the fire of hell, etc. This seems to make good sense, until I think of... ...the Cross. Certainly Christ's punishment for mankind's sins was comparitavely "short", wasn't it? None of us would dare say that He didn't suffer enough or long enough. We would all certainly agree that the depth of His suffering went beyond the time factor and even beyond the terrible physical pain of being flogged & crucified. When we think of the cross, certainly we would agree that God is able to concentrate suffering ("surely He hath born our griefs & carried our sorrows") into a short time or event, and He is able to do so in such a way that it is more terrible than what we have experienced. Would it be a stretch, then, to say that the punishment at the end of all things could also be dished out in a "short" version---but no less intense than what is deserved? Annihilationism seems to be textually unbiblical, and I think if we want to argue against it, we ought to limit our argument to that problem. Our sense of "justice" is a bit different from God's, and the Cross defies our notion of "fairness" in punishment -- one of the most common arguments against annihilationism. Now having said all that, I must confess that I have not learned the "truth" of the matter. I don't know if the traditional view or annihilationism is correct. I am simply relating a thought that came to me last night. I remember the extremely strong objections that came against annihilationism (even when I started a thread that had nothing to do with annihilationism!), so I probably won't stick around on this thread because I'm sure they'll come in like a tide very soon. If anyone is searching on this matter and want to share, then please feel free to email me. But if you already "have the answer", well, please don't. I'm not interested in arguing. I'm just thinking a bit. And honestly, I'm actually not worried about it very much at all. I'm resting in Him and I don't need to know the answer to this question immediately. Blessings in Him, Ramone | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1536 Registered: 10-2004  |
Ramone, I do think it would be a huge stretch to apply what happened with Christ's sacrifice to what could happen with the unsaved. Christ is infinite, and therefore suffered infinitely. This is something that a finite creature could not do--which is why the One who died for us had be the infinite Creator--God Himself!  The unsaved are not infinite and thus cannot pay for their sins against an infinite God--that is why they have to keep being punished forever, because they can't satisfy the penalty. If the penalty were ever paid, then they could be taken into heaven (universalism). But Jesus says that they are guilty of an "eternal sin" (Mark 3:29). Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on October 04, 2006) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4721 Registered: 12-2003  |
That's a good point, Jeremy. Ramone, I have struggled with the same questionóprobably most of us here have. I've come to see, though, that the consequences of sin, of not accepting the Sin Bearerómust be equally severe as the results of believing are intense. God is faithfulóHe teaches us what He wants us to know in His time. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2117 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ramone, You may be shocked to read this. But I really appreciate you asking these questions. I have studied this topic recently myself, and I have come to the conclusion that there is room for both sides of this argument. This is certainly not a point of dividing as Christians. I happened on a well respected Reformed theologian by the name of Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, whose book I have. He has made some cogent arguments for annihilationism that at least need to be respected. Even my Reformed PCA pastor who believes in eternal punishment says that this author is to be respected, even if we don't agree. I do have some summary statements from his book. If I have permission to post some of these, then I will do it. Otherwise, if anyone is interested, email me riverfonz@aol.com So Ramone, I don't fight you on everything! (smiley) Stan | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 177 Registered: 4-2006  |
Sure we respect people for what they belive, but we have to take a stand as well. This is a major doctrine and your world view is radical different if you belive in one or the other. I my self belive in eternal punishment for thoes who hasn't put there trust in Jesus Christ. Jeremy thanks for the reference. | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 217 Registered: 11-2004 |
I'm inclined to believe in eternal punishment since that seems to be what the Bible is stating, but I haven't studied the issue in detail. Either way, it is not a good option for someone without Christ. I do wonder though. Since we are spirit beings can a spirit cease to exist? Is there any Biblical evidence that a spirit ceases to exist? | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2119 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here are some devil's advocate arguments,(so please don't jump to any conclusions on where I stand (smiley). Check out this passage: 26"So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. 28And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."(Matthew 10:26-28) So, if the soul was immortal as Plato and John Calvin claimed, then why did Jesus even suggest that it was possible to destroy both body and soul in hell? Here is another interesting verse: , 15 "which he will display at the proper time--he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen."( 1 Timothy 6:15,16) So only the triune God alone has immortality, according to that verse. Here is another verse: 5 'if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to EXTINCTION making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly".(2Peter2:5-7) Also the author I cited above believes in the intermediate state, meaning that Jesus is still correct in Luke 16 about an intermediate state of punishment. He argues for the eventual annihilation of the wicked at the second death when all suffereing will cease and all things will be made new. I love this spine tingling passage from Revelation 21:1-8: 1"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place[a] of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people,[b] and God himself will be with them as their God.[c] 4He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." 5 And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." 6And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." Also in Revelation 14 where it talks about the SMOKE of their torment going up forever and ever, can be interpreted as a symbol that SMOKE means something that is finished. It is worth reading the symbolism in Genesis with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah. Remember the wrath of God is real and hell will be a very terrible reality regardless whether it is eternal, or is a very long finite time. Why does that change our zeal for evangelism? In other words, I don't have to believe that hell is eternal to decide if I am going to evangelize. The great Judge of the universe will do justly--that we can be assured of. But I won't any longer get into an argument over what exactly the punishment will be--it will be terrible!! This is a big difference from some SDA annihilationists, who say that there will be no literal punishment in the lake of fire. Now these people are wrong. Anyway, I have only scratched the surface of the arguments from the opposite side, but I could make strong arguments as well for eternal punishment. Philosophically, since I believe absolutely in the doctrine of election, and there is no question in my mind that God has chosen to save some and not others, then it just may be that since with the fall of Adam that everyone is condemned to DEATH. Romans 6:23 "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life thru Christ Jesus our Lord." In other words, only God can create an immortal resurrected soul in our dead souls, but He may choose to let the wicked perish in their sins, and still suffer the just wrath of God of what their sins deserve in their bodies, but, done in their finite lifetime. A question must be raised as to what purpose would be served when all things are made new, to have a separate part of the universe where people are being tormented forever. However, if this is the case, then I will trust absolutely in the Sovereign God of the universe that His judgments are pure and true. Stan | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 556 Registered: 7-2004  |
Just thought I'd point out that it depends on your translation. The NASB says condemned to DESTRUCTION. Both extinction and destruction are an interpretation of the original Greek word, and I think using extinction takes the interpretation farther than one can tell from the Greek (not that I know Greek). It's just when there is only one translation (ESB?) I know of that uses the word extinction it makes one wonder if the translator has an agenda. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1537 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, I must ask, have you read any good books on this issue from the other side? I highly recommend The Problems of the Afterlife by Samuel Fisk. No offense intended, but those arguments you posted just don't stand up at all to Biblical scrutiny. And so no, I cannot respect that heresy at all. I will address each argument point by point.
First of all, this verse destroys the idea that our soul ceases when we die, since it says that people can kill your body but not the soul. And yes God will DESTROY both soul and body in hell. To "destroy," however, does not mean to annihilate! The Greek word translated "destroy" is apollumi. Click here to see the various usages of this word. This same Greek word is used in Matthew 9:17, Mark 2:22 and Luke 5:37, where Jesus says that if you put new wine into old wineskins, the wineskins will burst and be ruined/perish. The wineskins obviously are not annihilated, only rendered useless. "This word apollumi is also found in Matthew 10:6, where it is rendered 'lost' when Jesus told His disciples to 'go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' But if their being 'lost' meant their annihilation, there would be no one to go to!" (The Problems of the Afterlife, by Samuel Fisk, page 44.) The word apollumi is also used to speak of the prodigal son. Was he annihilated or only "lost"? And here is what the above book says about Strong's definition: "Some lexicons suggest as a possible meaning of the word, to utterly or completely destroy. That, then, would mean utterly ruined or wholly incapable of fulfilling its original design. Strong's Concordance proposes 'to fully destroy.' But its compiler, Dr. James Strong himself, wrote a book, Doctrine of a Future Life, in which he says of 'the theory of annihilation... to this there are insuperable objections--biblical, moral, and philosophical. First, it is wholly unwarranted by Scripture. All the passages popularly quoted in its favor are perversions of exegesis that will not bear the test of careful analysis and inspection... Annihilation will not come at our bidding, nor may gehenna be voted out of existence.'" (The Problems of the Afterlife, by Samuel Fisk, page 45.) So Strong himself would not agree with the way annihilationists abuse/misuse his definition!!
The Bible also says that God alone is holy. Does that mean that the angels are not holy? Are the angels not immortal? Just because God alone possesses (in and of Himself) immortality, does not mean that He cannot continue to sustain His creation and universe and keep His creatures alive! Also, the Bible does not call eternal death (separation from God) and eternal destruction, "immortality"!!
I don't know what translation you were quoting from, but the Greek word for "extinction" (or "destruction" in the NASB) is katastrophe, which is used to mean "overthrow" (see here).
That's nice to know that Jesus is still correct in Luke 16 regarding the temporary hell (Hades). It's too bad that Jesus is not still correct in all of the places where He talks about the eternal hell (Gehenna).
Yes, suffering will cease--for the saved! But NOT for the unsaved or Satan or his demons!! The Bible says that their suffering will NOT cease. Revelation 14:11 says that "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have NO REST day and night,"--this means that they will NEVER cease suffering, they will NEVER have REST from their suffering. And Revelation 20:10 is also absolutely clear: "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
That passage says that the Lake of Fire IS the second death. What is the second death? Annihilation? No, the Lake of Fire!
It cannot be interpreted that way at all if you look at the immediate context, which I discussed above.
Adventism teaches that it will be a very short period of time on the surface of the earth before the earth is made new and we start dwelling on it. In fact, that is the only position that makes any sense for annihilationists. If all things will be made new means there will be no more hell--then hell will have to have occurred already and been done with. If the Lake of Fire is after the Millennium (which is very clear), and if when we dwell on the New Earth after the Millennium there is no more hell, then it must have burned everyone up pretty quickly or else there must have been a second Millennium or more while we are waiting for them to burn up so we can inhabit the New Earth after all things have been made new and there is no more suffering, etc.! You see what I'm saying? It cannot be a "very long finite time."
That also kind of goes along with what U2 said. But the fact is that many people who are without Christ would LOVE to be annihilated. That is what they want.
All annihilationists are wrong. (And no, I don't see much difference at all.) Seriously, if the heresy of annihilationism is all the sudden going to be respected/accepted by the Christian church after 2,000 years--then there are major problems in Christianity today!!!
Stan, it really concerns me that you are using false Adventist definitions for terms again (such as destroy, perish, death), instead of the Biblical definitions of these terms! Of course, sinners are condemned to death. But death does NOT equal non-existence. It means separation. When the Bible says that we were "DEAD in our transgressions" that doesn't mean we were NON-EXISTENT! It means we were separated from God. Our spirits were dead (separated from God), but that does NOT mean we had no spirit--the body without the spirit is dead, James says. Therefore, no sinner could be physically alive, if they didn't have a spirit! In fact, our spirits were ALIVE to sin (but dead to God) (Romans 6). When God regenerates our spirit, it does not mean that it does not exist previously, but that He eternally connects it to Himself and brings it to eternal life (which is knowing God--John 17:3). You said, "and still suffer the just wrath of God of what their sins deserve in their bodies, but, done in their finite lifetime." The just wrath that they deserve is NOT finite! That is exactly what I talked about yesterday on this thread and the other thread. We have sinned against an INFINITE God, therefore we must suffer INFINITE punishment--which is why only GOD, who is INFINITE, could suffer on our behalf. Also, Jesus says that the wicked who have rejected Him are guilty of, not a finite sin, but an "ETERNAL sin" (Mark 2:29). See my previous post on this thread.
No, a question must not be raised--we don't have a right to question God's purposes--He is Sovereign! We must simply believe His Word, rather than our own human logic. But as for a purpose, God's wrath and justice are just as eternal as His mercy and grace. And so He must display both eternally. Jeremy | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 226 Registered: 6-2006  |
Jeremy - you're on fire today! (HAHA!!) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4724 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jeremy, your last sentence is the idea that has completely convinced me of eternal punishment. I remember, during the time I was struggling and studying this doctrine, I realized one day (with a sense of God having suddenly awakened me to it) that my definition of death, based on my SDA understanding, was flawed. "Death" is not synomymous with "non-existence". "Death" means being irreconcilably separated from God. "Life" means being in Himó"death" is whatever the condition is outside Him. When I started thinking about the fact that God's attributes have to be eternally part of Him, not temporary, I realized that His justice and wrath are also eternalójust as are His grace and mercy. This eternal nature of justice and wrath by no means implies that the saved in any way participate with or even intersect with the eternally dead. But if God is God even over hell, then to be somehow aware of being in God's presence but completely unable to experience his love and mercy would be hell. One would, in that position, experience only his punishing "consuming fire". It's amazing that God saved us from the otherwise certain future of experiecing the consequences of sinning against His eternal Self! Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2121 Registered: 3-2005 |
Raven, the ESV uses the word extinction. And the context is comparing to Sodom and Gomorrah. I knew Jeremy that even stating the opposite side of the argument that a well respected conservative scholar put forth would get your response, and I appreciate your enthusiasm! (smile) It should also be mentioned that Dr. Mark Talbot who believes in eternal punishment admitted that his arguments for eternal punishment were only slightly better than Dr. Philip Hughes arguments. All I am saying is that I don't presume to know for sure what hell will be like, and I am just happy that by the grace of God, I will not have to find out. But God is just no matter what. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2122 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here is a link to the book I was referring to, if anyone is interested. http://www.marshillaudio.org/resources/article.asp?id=89 It is difficult to adequately represent an author's total defense on the short post above. Stan | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1489 Registered: 7-2003 |
I guess it depends upon where you are in life as to whether arguing or debating or having heated discussions (however one likes to phrase it) about such issues is beneficial. I tend to be in a spot like Stan stated above about evangelizing. I'm not trying to keep people from hell when I talk about God... I'm not selling fire insurance. I feel like the last few months specifically that I have seen evil exposed and made real to me personally in a way I never have before. And much as I've felt somewhat abandoned at times to face this alone, the reality of evil has become SOOO personified, that I have no real CHOICE but to seek God. There is nothing attractive or desirable about evil. From my recent experiences, I don't think evil is begun to be recognized in a life until you have had the kind of personal assault that threatens who you are to the core. I have seen people do bad things, but I'm talking about seeing evil nose to nose in a way I can recognize in my mind but not fully describe in words. If what evil can do feels like what I've experienced the last few months, I don't want to ever come close to experiencing the wrath of God. Evil frightens me, but I've got a healthy fear of the wrath of God as well. Someone described parenting to me one time as a dance between having your children's respect and fear .... and sometimes the line is pretty blurry. I want my children to listen to my directions because I am older than they are and at this point, though not perfect, wiser than they are. I kindof see that mirrored in my view of God sometimes. My fear of him doesn't define the entirety of my relationship with him, but it is there nonetheless. I don't care to argue about what I cannot change in eternity, but believing one minute under God's wrath would be more pallatable than an eternity under God's wrath seems like semantical games. Either way, 'the rest of your eternity' will be miserable....whether you view it as short or long. |
