Your Belief Regarding Hell

[$cirisme]

I'm curious what your belief of hell is.

[$cirisme]

BTW, my belief is the last one. :thumb:

And I can defend it Biblically. :thumb:

[Lizard]

cirisme:
BTW, my belief is the last one. :thumb:

And I can defend it Biblically. :thumb:

OK big man back it up.

(Actually I agree with you, but I would like to see what scripture you use to back it up)

[$cirisme]

Well, since you agree with me, I'm gonna cheat and just copy paste from an article I wrote. :D

Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
-Matthew 10:28

Annihilationists frequently use this verse to “prove” that man will be destroyed in hell. Two points:

1. Jesus did not say He would destroy man, He said that He could destroy “soul and body”.

2. Without a body, how can fire be real or people tortured with it?

Something I want to bring up in regards to point one is that the body and soul are critical in understanding the nature of hell. We, as humans, are created with three distinct manifestations, body, soul, and spirit:

May the God of peace himself sanctify you completely. May your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
–1 Timothy 5:23

Here, it clearly shows that we as individuals are made up of three distinct parts. Let me, briefly, explain what each one function as. The spirit is who we are. The soul is our “communication layer” between our spirit and other spirits. It is how we have a relationship with God, that is its ultimate purpose. It is always seeking God; that is where our “hole” comes from when we do not have a relationship with God. The body is the physical manifestation of our spirit; it is the primary way we communicate.

With that in mind, look at Matthew 10:28 again:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
-Matthew 10:28

In other words, people in hell will have no contact with anything good. No contact with other beings, and worse yet, no contact with the source of all good things, God Himself. If people have no body in hell, then clearly if the flames that is frequently spoken by God are literal, it is completely pointless. After all, without a body, how are you going to experience physical pain?

Imagine, for a moment, that you are asleep on your bed and wake up to discover that your house is on fire. You are completely surrounded by flames and smoke, no conceivable way to escape. You have no hope. Can you honestly imagine anything--except for possibly the cross--more horrifying than that? That is the picture Jesus intended to paint when He talked about fire and brimstone, He didn’t do it to scare people, He did it to show them the harsh reality of eternal separation from God:

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 1:8, 9

As for hell being "forever" instead of temporary, this quote is interesting...

The Greek word for "torment" in this verse is basanizo. Joseph Thayer's lexicon says the word means "to vex with grievous pains...to torment." Likewise, Arndt and Gingrich's lexicon say the word means "to torture, torment."
.....
...the same word for torment is used to speak of the pains of childbirth in Rev12:2. It is also used of the centurion's sick servant being grieveously tormented by palsy in Matt8:6. It is used in Luke 16:23 and 28 to describe the physical suffering of the rich man in Hades.
....
Now the "torment" in Revelation 14 is described as a 'never-ending' torment:

"And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever.... There is no rest day or night" (verse11).

The words "for ever and ever" translate an emphatic Greek phrase, 'eis aionas aionon' ("unto the ages of ages"). The twofold use of the term aionas is used in Scripture to emphasize the concept of eternity. And the plural forms ("unto the ages of ages") reinforces the idea of never-ending duration. Lutheran scholar R.C.H. Lenski comments,

The strongest expression for our "forever" is 'eis tous aionan ton aionon', "for the eons of eons"; many eons, each of vast duration , are multiplied by many more, which we imitate by "forever and ever." Human language is able to use only temporal terms to express what is altogether beyond time and timeless. The Greek takes its greatest term for time, the 'eon', pluralizes this, and then multiplies it by its own plural, even using articles which make these eons the definite ones.

[R.C.H Lenski, Revelation (Minneapolis: Augsburb, 1961), p.438.]


This same emphatic contruction is used to speak of the never-ending worshiop of God in Revelation 1:6, 4:9, and 5:3. It is also used to describe the eternality of God in Revelation 4:10 and 10:6. We cannot emphasize too strongly that this phrase shows beyond doubt that the physical torment of the wicked is forever and ever and ever.

[Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses, pp.336-337]

:D

[yxboom]

I voted #3 but it would have been really cool if #4 was apart of #3 :hrm:

[Captain Ochre]

yxboom:
I voted #3 but it would have been really cool if #4 was apart of #3 :hrm:

Ditto--except that I haven't voted as of this writing.

[dizzle]

Boom you think there is literal fire??

[Freak]

cirisme:
I'm curious what your belief of hell is.

Hell is a place for non-believers. A place of torment and fire (among many other things). Yes, God will be present in hell, in His wrath and judgement, for He is omnipresent.

[$cirisme]

Freak, would you like to address my argument?(above) :p

[Freak]

cirisme:
Freak, would you like to address my argument?(above) :p

I think you are correct in the eternal nature of hell but incorrect in assuming God is not present. The Triune God is in fact present. Colossians 1 speaks of Christ holding "all things" this includes this place known as hell.

In fact the Holy Scriptures tells us this:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Note: God created all things-God created hell. Secondly, "in Him all things (including hell) hold together." Paul uses the word "in Him" He is present when holding this place. He created called hell-He is present.

[$cirisme]

Jesus was separated from God while on the cross, how can that be if He were right there?

[Freak]

cirisme:
Jesus was separated from God while on the cross, how can that be if He were right there?

Jesus the man, was seperated (in the sense of intimacy) as He bore our sin but Jesus the Divine nature was never seperated.

Same with humans in hell. God will be present, for He is omnipresent. But God will withold His love, mercy, peace, etc. God will be present with His wrath and judgement. But, by His His very nature as God, He is present-as Paul points out in Colossians 1--

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

[$cirisme]

None of the verses you've quoted say that God is everywhere, or that God is in hell. :sarcasm:

[Freak]

cirisme:
None of the verses you've quoted say that God is everywhere, or that God is in hell. :sarcasm:

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

The Apostle Paul tells us in that portion of scripture: For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,...

I think it's pretty clear hell would be included. Who else created hell? The devil (he doesn't create)?

Again, I think Paul was clear when he decribes Christ as being present in this place called hell:...all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Note: All things hold together in Him -looks pretty clear to me that the triune God is present.

[$cirisme]

think it's pretty clear hell would be included. Who else created hell?

Where have I ever said that hell wasn't created by Christ?

I HAVEN'T!

Again, I think Paul was clear when he decribes Christ as being present in this place called hell:...all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Note: All things hold together in Him -looks pretty clear to me that the triune God is present.

Where does it say that? :huh:

It's pretty clear to me that without Christ, nothing would continue to exist. :sarcasm:

[Freak]

cirisme:


Run, little man run.

Where have I ever said that hell wasn't created by Christ?

I HAVEN'T!



Where does it say that? :huh:

It's pretty clear to me that without Christ, nothing would continue to exist. :sarcasm:

I'm deeply troubled to think that you have trouble being civil with me. I have shared the Scriptural evidence of my views. No reason to act the way you act.

I'll move on to another thread. Thanks and God bless.

[$cirisme]

I'm deeply troubled to think that you have trouble being civil with me. I have shared the Scriptural evidence of my views. No reason to act the way you act.

What have I done that offends you so greatly? :sarcasm:

[Jaltus]

One major problem with Cirisme's defense is his insistance that those in hell will not have bodies. Somebody has not been reading Revelation very closely!

Revelation 20
5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison
8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth-- Gog and Magog-- to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.
9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.
13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Hell, which is really the Lake of Fire, contains those who had been dead but were resurrected for the final judgment. Thus, they have bodies when they are thrown into hell, so real fire can in fact hurt them.

[Blake Reas]

I believe that Hell will be a place of eternal seperation from God. Fire is used as a Metaphor but I believe that it will be much much worse than that. When Jesus talks about the Worm never dying etc sounds pretty gruesome;) .
I also think that the unbelievers will suffer but they will go on with their sin in hell. They did not want God here and they still will not want him when they are in hell. It is what they wanted if they reject God. I may be wrong but I think I read that in D.A. Carson's "The Gagging of God" in the last Chapter. I maybe wrong but that is how I feel about it as of now.

In Christ,'
Blake

To back up the believer's wanting hell point (this maybe a misinterpretation. You tell me!)

"For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that hid deeds will be exposed. But he who practives truth comes to the Light, so that deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." (John 3:20-21)

"When all is done, the hell of hells, the torment of torments, is the everlasting abscense of God, and the everlasting possibility of returning to his presence....To fall out of the hands of the living God, is a horror beyond expression, beyond our imagination....What Tophet is not Paradise, what Brimstone is not Amber, what gnashing is not a comfort, what gnawing of the worme is not a tickling what torment is not a marriage bed to this damnation, to be secluded eternally, eternally from the sight of God."*

*Swermons IV 86: John Donne. Note* Spurgeon uses him so I am not sure if this is out of Spurgeons sermon or in a book of Donne's. I got this out of Carson's "Gagging of God".

God Bless,
Blake

[$cirisme]

Jaltus,

How is that a problem?

I believe(although I may have not made it clear :blush: :argh: ) that the bodies are destroyed in hell AFTER the resurrection. :thumb:

[smilax]

And now he will convert to preterism so that he can spiritualize away that icky little proof-text.

So is God present in hell? I say yes.

Psalms cxxxix, 7: "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?" (This is the same David who prayed, "Take not thy holy spirit from me.")

Jeremiah xxiii, 24: "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD."

Revelation xiv, 10: "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb."

[$cirisme]

smilax:
And now he will convert to preterism so that he can spiritualize away that icky little proof-text.

:sarcasm:



So is God present in hell? I say yes.

You're entitled to your opinion. :D ;)

Psalms cxxxix, 7: "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?" (This is the same David who prayed, "Take not thy holy spirit from me.")

Jeremiah xxiii, 24: "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD."

Both cases would be man "hiding" from God, which is impossible. Hell will be God separating Himself from man.

Revelation xiv, 10: "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb."

Sigh, fire and brimstone, in my opinion, is the pain of being separated from God, and everything God.

And Jesus will be there to issue the punishment, but they(the unbelievers) will be unable to perceive His presence, hence "separated".

They will be spirtually dead, because they are separated from spiritual life. :D

[smilax]

cirisme:
Both cases would be man "hiding" from God, which is impossible. Hell will be God separating Himself from man.Does anyone go to hell unwillingly?Sigh, fire and brimstone, in my opinion, is the pain of being separated from God, and everything God.I didn't say whether I believed the fire was literal or metaphorical.And Jesus will be there to issue the punishment, but they(the unbelievers) will be unable to perceive His presence, hence "separated".See? We agree. God is in hell, but they won't realize it. For a moment there, I thought you were denying omnipresence.

[$cirisme]

See? We agree.

HA!

You had me worried there for a second. ;) :D

[smilax]

Now...

What does this typological precursor to hell mean?

Isaiah lxvi, 24: "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

[$cirisme]

I believe that means that their punishment(separation) will not end. :thumb:

[dizzle]

I did not vote because my belief is not represented. I do not believe the flames are literal, but I also believe that it is not "separation" from God in the way it has been presented vy some here. It is separation from God's loving and communal presence, and being fully in His judgmental presence. There is no way to be fully outside of God's presence. That is impossible as Smilx pertinent citation from Psalm 139 demonstrated. Also, the bodies are not annihilated, the bodies are permenant in hell. It is a physical reality.

[$cirisme]

Dee Dee Warren:
I did not vote because my belief is not represented. I do not believe the flames are literal, but I also believe that it is not "separation" from God in the way it has been presented vy some here. It is separation from God's loving and communal presence, and being fully in His judgmental presence. There is no way to be fully outside of God's presence. That is impossible as Smilx pertinent citation from Psalm 139 demonstrated. Also, the bodies are not annihilated, the bodies are permenant in hell. It is a physical reality.

Interesting thought, Dee Dee. :idea:

[Blake Reas]

Dee Dee Warren:
I did not vote because my belief is not represented. I do not believe the flames are literal, but I also believe that it is not "separation" from God in the way it has been presented vy some here. It is separation from God's loving and communal presence, and being fully in His judgmental presence. There is no way to be fully outside of God's presence. That is impossible as Smilx pertinent citation from Psalm 139 demonstrated. Also, the bodies are not annihilated, the bodies are permenant in hell. It is a physical reality.

I am of the same opinion. When in Hell the unbeliever will be in the presence of God but his Judgement not his Love. They will see a rather different "side" of God so to speak.;)

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[Sozo]

Because God is present, does not mean that He possess or indwells all things.

[smilax]

Blake Reas:
When in Hell the unbeliever will be in the presence of God but his Judgement not his Love.Get used to seeing me post this link: http://justthinkingpages.tripod.com/hell.html.

[$cirisme]

Smilax,

You've posted that link so many times at TOL, that I think I'm going to finally read it indepth. ;)

[Blake Reas]

smilax:
Get used to seeing me post this link: http://justthinkingpages.tripod.com/hell.html.

I would not disagree with that. That makes me think some things over!:huh:

IN Christ,
Blake

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

smilax:
Now...

What does this typological precursor to hell mean?

Isaiah lxvi, 24: "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

Smilax, I'm curious. You imply that it would be teribly wrong to "spiritualise" the vision of torment in the book of Revelation. Here however, it seems that you are the one seeking to suppress the literal meaning of the text, calling it a typological precursor. Yet the context will not allow you to call this typology, since it is an event explicitly set in the future, predicte by the prophet. I could be wrong, but I get the feeling you simply don;t agree with what this passage appears to say (as it seems to picture hell as a state of destruction and death rather than torment) so you call it typology. I'd like to be wrong about that.

For an alternative treatment of this passage to one designed to support eternal torment, see http://pages.quicksilver.net.nz/theonomy/Hell1.doc

Ideally you would have the Greek.ttf font installed, easily obtainable from the net.

[Solly]

I voted for #5. The fire being not only the separation but the wrath without any grace in it at all, unlike now where people might experience some of God's wrath, but in wrath he remembers mercy.
Those in hell with have resurrection bodies because God deals with the whole person. The torments will be a combination of wrath and lack of grace: They will get exactly what they wanted, in spades, with all the consequences: the just recompence of reward as well as the judgement of God. This is the "beauty" of Dante's vision, that he did not go for the simple fire and brimstone view, but for an Intelligent Hell, where the punishment fits the crime.

[ItalianGold]

I don't think we will ever agree on the nature of hell. Nor do I believe we can "know" it. After all, no sinner has returned to tell us.

I'd be equally interested in the nature of heaven.

[$cirisme]

After all, no sinner has returned to tell us.

Of course, God has told us what it's like. :tongue:

as it seems to picture hell as a state of destruction and death rather than torment

I believe it is destruction and death. Destruction, not as "ceasing to exist", but being separated from Him who holds all things together.

Death, not as ceasing to exist, but separation from the one Who is Life itself.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

cirisme:
I believe it is destruction and death. Destruction, not as "ceasing to exist", but being separated from Him who holds all things together.

Death, not as ceasing to exist, but separation from the one Who is Life itself.

cirisme,

This kind of remark makes me curious. What would the Bible need to say about final punishment for you to accept that it is literal destruction? And likewise, what would the Bible need to say about final punishment for you to accept that it is literal death? When I see comments like the ones you've made (quoted above), I begin to fear that the Bible could say absolutely anything about final punshment, and some could still find a way to make it mean eternal torment. The same kind of problem could just as easily be present in the arguments of those who hold different views too of course. But the above example is one that is troubling largely due to its frequency.

Imagine someone who says this: "I too believe in eternal torment. Torment, not meaning perpetuated suffering, but the awfulness of nonbeing." What would we make of such an argument? We would conclude (rightly) that such a person is clearly beyond persuasion. The Bible could use all the language of the view this person opposes, and they would simply redefine the terms. Is it possible that's what we're seeing here? I can't help but think so.

Glenn

[Richard Romano]

[QUOTE]ItalianGold:
I don't think we will ever agree on the nature of hell. Nor do I believe we can "know" it. After all, no sinner has returned to tell us.

The only two real interpretations you can accept--in terms of the reality of hell--is a literal fire, and a metaphorical one, which still possesses the wrath and judgement of God and, of course, total separation from Him...my vote is for the last one, since the Bible uses conflicting and irreconcilable figures to explain the sheer horror of being seperated from God for all eternity.

On the contrary, we CAN agree on the nature of hell, that is, if you believe in biblical revelation. The nature of hell, in essence involves being seperated from God for all eternity...this interpretation alone is acceptable within the confines of Christian orthodoxy. Any other view falls outside these set parameters and remains heterodox.

You're right I.G.; no one has returned to tell us, but Jesus tells us a story that depicts the terrifying reality of hell and the fact that it is eternal and conscious (Luke 16:19-31). Who better to speak about the hell than the Creator Himself?

best,

R. Romano

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Richard Romano:
The nature of hell, in essence involves being seperated from God for all eternity...this interpretation alone is acceptable within the confines of Christian orthodoxy. Any other view falls outside these set parameters and remains heterodox.

What is your standard of orthodoxy? Certainly the major ecumenical Creeds do not insist on the view you've suggested. So it seems to me that if your comment is correct, we'd have to make "orthodoxy" measurable by some denominational statement of faith somewhere. If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean? How do you measure orthodoxy?

[$cirisme]

Theonomy:


cirisme,

This kind of remark makes me curious. What would the Bible need to say about final punishment for you to accept that it is literal destruction? And likewise, what would the Bible need to say about final punishment for you to accept that it is literal death? When I see comments like the ones you've made (quoted above), I begin to fear that the Bible could say absolutely anything about final punshment, and some could still find a way to make it mean eternal torment. The same kind of problem could just as easily be present in the arguments of those who hold different views too of course. But the above example is one that is troubling largely due to its frequency.

Imagine someone who says this: "I too believe in eternal torment. Torment, not meaning perpetuated suffering, but the awfulness of nonbeing." What would we make of such an argument? We would conclude (rightly) that such a person is clearly beyond persuasion. The Bible could use all the language of the view this person opposes, and they would simply redefine the terms. Is it possible that's what we're seeing here? I can't help but think so.

Glenn

Huh?

Where asre you coming from?

How did you vote?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

cirisme:
Huh?

Where asre you coming from?

How did you vote?

I may or may not agree with your view of hell. If I say now what my view is on hell, you might or might not become biased in your response to my argument.

My point was not about which view of hell is correct. My point is about a comment you made that I have challenged. It seems to me that you've created a criteria of evidence that would never allow an annihilationist view to be correct, regardless of the evidence. When we find all the language of the annihilationist view in Scripture, you re-define the words. So perhaps what I should do is ask a question: What would the Bible need to say in order for you to accept that it teaches the unsaved will be literally destroyed, as the annihilationists claim? (e.g. Edward Fudge, Edward White, John Stott)

Glenn

[Richard Romano]

QUOTE]Theonomy:
What is your standard of orthodoxy? Certainly the major ecumenical Creeds do not insist on the view you've suggested. So it seems to me that if your comment is correct, we'd have to make "orthodoxy" measurable by some denominational statement of faith somewhere. If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean? How do you measure orthodoxy? [/QUOTE]

Dear Theonomy, thanks for your reply. I think the key word in your comments is "ecumenical" which can, at times, involve a subtle, and deadly, depreciation of Christian doctrines that do not allow for the exclusivism that persists in Christ's teaching and the teaching of the early church. While I am certainly not attaching one's salvation to belief in hell; I am implying that Christian exclusivism involves that hell be real and a place for those who, as C.S. Lewis says, have chosen to do their own will. And God will remind them of their choice on that fateful day.

And, please, don't try to suggest that I am intolerant, since to hold that we should not acknowledge our very clear inconsistencies in our faiths, is a false foundation for respect.

Far too many "read in" or eisegete things into texts without drawing out the proper interpretation from sound hermeneutical application. It's not based on a denominational statement of any Christian church per se (although many Protestant churches certainly hold to it); it is the plain teaching of the Bible...teachings that characterized the early church and followers of them throughout the ages.

regards,

R. Romano

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Richard,

That's well and good, but it doesn't even approach my question. You said that alternative understandings of hell than the one you offer are outside of orthodoxy. My question was (and is), according to what statement of orthodoxy? How have you determined that such views are outside of orthodoxy? What do you mean by orthodox?

If you just mean "they are wrong," then maybe that's what you should have said. "Orthodox" Implies acceptance of a handed down belief, normally in the form of some sort of Creed. But none of the major Creeds insist on the view of hell you're suggesting, so that can't be what youmean. So please - what do you mean by "outside of orthodoxy"?

Glenn

[Richard Romano]

"That's well and good, but it doesn't even approach my question. You said that alternative understandings of hell than the one you offer are outside of orthodoxy. My question was (and is), according to what statement of orthodoxy? How have you determined that such views are outside of orthodoxy? What do you mean by orthodox?"

Glen,

Tell me, are you implying that the existence of hell will be more convincing if it is codified in some creed? So, things are only heretical when they aren't mentioned in the Apostle's creed, for example?

Orthodoxy is rooted in sound biblical interpretation, not creedal observance...I thought I made this clear? St. Paul's teachings are consistent with the entire panoply of the Bible, so his views are orthodox. His teaching on the reality of hell is in concert with Jesus' teaching on it; cf. Luke 16:19-31 with 2 Thess. 1:9.
In contrast, Herbert W. Armstrong's teachings are unorthodox, since they are in categoric opposition to revealed truth. We can say this not by appealing to a creed, but to scripture itself.

Please understand that I didn't try to imply that the belief in the existence of hell is contingent upon our salvation. If that is the case, I apologize for mis-speaking. Having said this, erroneous views concerning hell can lead us to erroneous views about who God is...hence, they can be dangerous...views, such as annihilationism, are heretical when they lead us to question who God is and how He has revealed Himself. You don't have to look very far to see proponents of unbiblical views of hell and see how heretical their views on God are...Bishop Spong being one.

In other words, let me make this more clear...any views that are outside proper biblical exegesis can lead us to falsely make God out to be something that He is not...and, therefore, can be dangerous, and in more ways than one. This is when it is heretical...when it causes us to question God and his salvation in Christ alone. Obviously, if certain unbiblical views don't lead us to question who God is, and who Christ is, then they aren't as dangerous as others. They take on a heretical status when they cause us to misconstrue the nature of God.

Don't put the cart before the horse...the Bible is the final authority, and creeds are useless unless they rely on biblical teachings from where they gain their merit. Personally, I think you are trying to nit-pick at non-issues and raise points that are irrelevant. Does hell lose any of its potency if it' s not mentioned in a creed or statement of belief somewhere? What will convince you that it is there? This is the same kind of reasoning which lead our friend Italian Gold to posit his belief in hell only if someone would return to tell us that it really is there. Again, this can lead us to question who God is, which has been my point all along, implicit and explicit. Sorry you missed it.

God bless,

Richard.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Richard Romano:
Orthodoxy is rooted in sound biblical interpretation, not creedal observance...I thought I made this clear?

So when you say that other views on hell are outside of orthodoxy, you only mean that you think they're un-biblical?

Well, with all respect, that's not what the word means. But at least now we know what you meant. Thanks.

Glenn

[$cirisme]

What would the Bible need to say in order for you to accept that it teaches the unsaved will be literally destroyed, as the annihilationists claim?

That the Bible actually says that. :bonk:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

cirisme:
That the Bible actually says that. :bonk:

What does that mean? That the Bible would simply need to say the unsaved are destroyed, and we should take it literally? Are you saying that would be sufficient proof for annihilationism?

[$cirisme]

Sufficient proof would be for annihilationism wold be:

Refuting that the Bible says that hell lasts forever.(I dealt with this earlier)

Proving "destruction" means nonexistence.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

cirisme:
Sufficient proof would be for annihilationism wold be:

Refuting that the Bible says that hell lasts forever.(I dealt with this earlier)

Proving "destruction" means nonexistence.

With respect, I think you may be trying not to address the question directly.

I'll try again: If there was something thatthe Bible could say (using language in a normal way) to teach that the unsaved will be literally destroyed, what would it be?

By destroyed of course I don't mean total metaphysical nonexistence. Annihilationists don;t mean that either, so it's a straw man to refer to it. They just mean literal destruction and non life, like if you were do incinerate a chair. Sure, metaphysically it still exists (ashes, smoke etc), but it has been destroyed.

How could the Bible express the same idea with regard to humanity. Would would it need to say before you'd accept it.

I'm not saying I can or want to prove a doctrine (annihilationism). I'm just probing to see if you would LET the Bible say the unsaved will literally be destroyed.

[Richard Romano]

Theonomy:

So when you say that other views on hell are outside of orthodoxy, you only mean that you think they're un-biblical?

Well, with all respect, that's not what the word means. But at least now we know what you meant. Thanks.

Glenn


Glenn,

I don't understand your position here. How then do you judge Paul's teachings as orthodox? Why are they orthodox and another teacher's not? Because they are in a creed and can be judged as proper? This doesn't make any sense. You are again putting the cart before the horse.

What you want to do is obfuscate issues by trying to make a distinction between sound biblical interpretation and orthodoxy...they are not to be divided, one must come from the other. Perhaps I should have been more clear, since you seem to think that I inferred that hermeneutics and orthodoxy are interchangeable terms...they are not, orthodoxy flows from proper exegesis. Sound teachings, then, take on the state of orthodoxy.

God bless,

Richard Romano

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Richard

Orthodoxy is capable of error, Scripture is not.

Orthodoxy means in accord with the traditions of the church, represented int he Creeds. I get the impression you don't like this definition, but sorry, that's how it is.

It is odd to talk about Paul as orthodox, since Paul's writings that we have are in fact Scripture. Creeds are attempts at summaries of Scripture and handed down tradition, so we cannot talk abotu Paul as orthodox in the historical sense of the word.

I'm not obfusacting. I made my point because as far as historical orthodoxy is concerned, other views of hell are not excluded. That's a fact of history. As far as biblical truth is concerned they might be, but I get the impression that when you said those views are outside of Christian orthodoxy, you were trying to score an extra point in addition to a biblical one, by saying that such views are both false (i.e. unbiblical) as well as unorthodox.

What it boils down to is this: Use words according to their historical meaning, and not your private meaning. That way we'll know what you mean. The bare fact is this: Understandings of hell apart from yours are NOT condemned by any widely accepted standard of orthodoxy. No amount of disagreement or protest can change that. You might think I'm being too picky by insisting on such technically correct usage of words, but this is a theology forum, so we must use theological terms properly.

I would further add that an alternative understanding of hell (i.e. thatthe unsaved will literally be destroyed) is not only not condemned by orthodoxy, but it is also biblical. Double bonus!

God bless,
Glenn

[Mikeb]

Hell is where we are, isn't it? You know, Post-Eden man seperated by God by choosing Knowledge instead of Life.

If it's not here, then where else could it be? While I have every confidence in God's ability, I don't think even he could create a more horrid place than we have created depending on our own knowledge of good and evil.

[Bill K.]

How about a combination of Annihilation and Purgatory?

I didn't see it up there!!!

In Christ,
Bill

[Richard Romano]

02-21-2003 @ 10:47 AM
Theonomy:

What it boils down to is this: Use words according to their historical meaning, and not your private meaning. That way we'll know what you mean. The bare fact is this: Understandings of hell apart from yours are NOT condemned by any widely accepted standard of orthodoxy. No amount of disagreement or protest can change that. You might think I'm being too picky by insisting on such technically correct usage of words, but this is a theology forum, so we must use theological terms properly.

I would further add that an alternative understanding of hell (i.e. thatthe unsaved will literally be destroyed) is not only not condemned by orthodoxy, but it is also biblical. Double bonus!

God bless,
Glenn


Dear Glenn,

Now it's more clear...you ARE trying to obfuscate issues by insisting on a distinction between orthodoxy and biblical teachings. This is so you can hold on to your unbiblical view of annihilationism.

Of course, orthodoxy is the the handing down of teachings, I agree. But, it also means "right" teaching...those teachings must be biblical, otherwise they will be unorthodox. I made this point earlier which you completely ignored.

Annihilationism incorrectly asserts that God is somehow unjust for allowing people to suffer in hell for all eternity. This is incorrect and does not allow the Creator to do what He wills with what He has made. As a matter of fact, hell is a testimony to God's faithfulness in that He honours our free choice as volitional beings, regardless of the consequences that result in those choices.

No double bonus my friend, two demerit points perhaps.

God bless you Glenn, I disagree with you, but appreciate who you are in Christ.

best,

Richard Romano.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-22-2003 @ 02:58 PM
Richard Romano:
Now it's more clear...you ARE trying to obfuscate issues by insisting on a distinction between orthodoxy and biblical teachings.

Not int he least. It is more obfuscation to say that the two are the same. They are different concepts. Orthodox means in harmony with the historical creedal statements of the church. Again, you might not like it, but you didn;t make the word up, so you don't get to choose the meaning.

This is so you can hold on to your unbiblical view of annihilationism.

Not at all. This is because people other than me defined the word "orthodox," and I'm not free to create a new meaning.

Of course, orthodoxy is the the handing down of teachings, I agree. But, it also means "right" teaching...those teachings must be biblical, otherwise they will be unorthodox. I made this point earlier which you completely ignored.

Of course orthodox views were handed down because they were believed to be right. But the fact that a view is right doesn't make it orthodox, and vice versa. You have no need to take issue with this. This is the meaning of the word orthodox.

Annihilationism incorrectly asserts that God is somehow unjust for allowing people to suffer in hell for all eternity.

This is a straw man. Annihilationism teaches that God will destroy the unsaved once and for all. Whether it would be just to torture them is a separate issue. Now, most annihilationists, I suspect, would saythat eternal torture would be unjust. But this in itself is not annihilationism.

On the other hand, some believers in eternal torment think that annihilation would be unjust. Does this mean that the traditional view in itself "does not allow the Creator to do what He wills with what He has made"? Surely not.


As a matter of fact, hell is a testimony to God's faithfulness in that He honours our free choice as volitional beings, regardless of the consequences that result in those choices.
Well if this is true, it would be true regardless of whether annihilation or eternal torment is true.

I just want to clean up the debate. I think it is plagued with unhelpful strategies and misrepresentations. - not you in particular, but the whole debate in general.

The facts are as follows:
1.) Annihilationism is not condemned by any of the major creeds, and so on a historical level, it cannot reasonably be called "outside of orthodoxy."
2.) Annihilationism does not arise because some people do not like the other major view. It exists because some people (rightly or not) thinkt he Bible does not teach the taditional view
3.) The case for annihilationism, whether it is right or wrong, is not so clearly way off or unbiblical that nobody could reasonably see it in Scripture (I realise you haven't said otherwise on this point).

I think that civility is best achieved in an enviroment of accuracy.

Glenn

[geoff]

I tend to agree with Glenn.

a) The bible teaches quite clearly and demonstrates examples of Gods wiping out of the sinful.

1. The flood.
2. Sodom and Gommorrah.

In none of the Biblical demonstrations of Gods ACTUAL punishment of Sin are people tormented anywhere for eternity.

b) Scripture teaches plainly that Jesus took MY punishment on the cross. He suffered the punishment I should have, for my sin.
Jesus died. He isnt being tormented eternally in some lake of fire.

c) Destroyed means destroyed. It doesnt mean "tormented".

d) Punishment is not the same as "punishing". The PUNISHMENT for sin, is death (Rom 6:23). You can not be in the "process" (punishing) of dying eternally. You can only cease to exist once, for the wicked, that will be judgement day.

e) The clincher for me. In Gen 3, Humanity is removed from the presence of God, so that they would NOT have access to the TREE OF LIFE. This is the tree of life, and is the source of eternal living. With no access, no one is eternal, and no one can then be tormented eternally, as they can not exist eternally.

Glenn can, and has cast more than a little doubt on the so called "traditional" view of how to understand hell. Especially in regards to the meanings of words like fire, worms, etc.


:read:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Hi Geoff

In a forum like this, I have basically given up on trying to persuade people to give up their view and accept mine. No offence to anyone on this thread, but I've learned that people's religious commitment to their view of hell is such that threads like this produce more dogmatism than discussion. That's why in my previous discussion here I've only been trying to "clean up" the way we conduct the debate, rather than trying to get people to admit that I'm right (even though I am) :smile:

But having said that, yes, you're absolutely correct :smile:

Glenn

[Richard Romano]

I would like to commend Glenn for his good attitude in discussing the views of hell. I agree that the argument faultered somewhat, since all the issues were not clearly presented.

I don't think it's fair, however, to claim straw man arguments when trying to demonstrate that annihilationism is not biblical, since that would mean any non-traditional views must be accepted or else face being accused of using straw man logic; how else can you defend the traditional view, or any view on any subject?

My argument against annihilationism is one that I have encountered and answered, perhaps presumptously, in like fashion. Further clarification on Glenn's views was needed before I could mount an argument against it...for this I apologize. However, that deems his accusation invalid, since it was in fact an argument an annihilationist had used in a discussion with me. A straw man is using a misrepresentation of a concept to show how incorrect it is...this is clearly not the case as I have shown.

At any rate, there is no need to abandon the traditional view of hell; a place that is eternal and for the unrepentant.

Glenn, if you can explain, please, what it is you intend to gain by teaching a different view of hell? What is it in fact you hold to in this area? (I am attempting to clear the problems with our discussion).

God bless,

Richard.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-23-2003 @ 12:15 AM
Richard Romano:
However, that deems his accusation invalid, since it was in fact an argument an annihilationist had used in a discussion with me. A straw man is using a misrepresentation of a concept to show how incorrect it is...this is clearly not the case as I have shown.

That's fair enough. If an annihilationist said that eternal torment was unjust, and that was his argument against eternal torment, I would not consider his objection a biblical one. I would defenitely suggest to such a person that perhaps a biblical basis is a much safer foundation for any view of final punishment. My point was that traditionalists have used the same kind of arguments, based on their view of fairness (e.g. Norman Geisler in his encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics). We can't reject the traditional view based on such bad arguments, and so I'd likewise say that we can't reject the annihilationist view because of people who use such bad arguements.

I think we agree there, so there's no need to dwell on it further.

Glenn, if you can explain, please, what it is you intend to gain by teaching a different view of hell? What is it in fact you hold to in this area?

Well, I don't teach on any theological issue to "gain" anything other than to express the truth of Scripture as best I can. If I'm persuaded that the Bible teaches thatthe unsaved will be destroyed rather than tormented eternally, then I teach this view for that reason. What I hope to gain is to teach what is true.

My view is this: That those who are not saved (whoever they may be) will finally lose their life - literally and finally, for all eternity. There will come a time when the only people left are those who love the Lord, and the whole universe will be totally free from all that is evil.

That's a pretty general description I know, but that's that basic outline of what I believe about hell.

One final note: Like you, I appreciate the tone of respect and good manner that I've seen in this discussion. Thank you. :smile:

Blessings,
Glenn

[geoff]

My is generally the same as Glenn's, in a general sense. We may differ at various points along the way.

I came to realise that the traditional view was false whilst I was studying genesis. And now, I am afraid, I find it very hard to believe the Bible teaches otherwise. I accept there are a couple of problem passages, but in reality, there is too much doubt about the traditional view anymore. SO the reason I have for opposing the traditional view is the same as Glenns, although I would say it more bluntly... it isnt the truth.

[Richard Romano]

[QUOTE]02-22-2003 @ 12:16 PM
geoff:

Dear Geoff,

The arguments you list in favour of annihilationism can also be used to demonstrate and undergird the traditional view.

a) The bible teaches quite clearly and demonstrates examples of Gods wiping out of the sinful.
1. The flood.
2. Sodom and Gommorrah.

--These stories, however, don't mention that the people ceased to exist! They were judged, period. The doctrine of hell became more pronounced as the biblical narratives reached their completion in the coming of Christ....little wonder that Jesus discoursed prolifically on the subject, since His coming signaled the coming of the end of the age or the "last days."

In none of the Biblical demonstrations of God's ACTUAL punishment of Sin are people tormented anywhere for eternity.

--And none of your arguments prove that God extinguished people either. You are question begging here.

b) Scripture teaches plainly that Jesus took MY punishment on the cross. He suffered the punishment I should have, for my sin.
Jesus died. He isnt being tormented eternally in some lake of fire.

--Uh, Jesus is God...and, hence, perfect. That the Bible plainly teaches that hell is a place for the unregenerate doesn't seem to matter to you. Jesus makes distinctions for the saved and lost, i.e., sheep and goats...that there will be unrepentant people is pretty clear from his teaching. Jesus doesn't qualify here, only sinful human beings do.

c) Destroyed means destroyed. It doesnt mean "tormented".

--Where is your biblical parallel here for destroyed? You haven't cited anything that strengthens the position that annihilationism is biblical.

d) Punishment is not the same as "punishing". The PUNISHMENT for sin, is death (Rom 6:23). You can not be in the "process" (punishing) of dying eternally. You can only cease to exist once, for the wicked, that will be judgement day.

--You clearly don't understand the biblical make up of humans. Most theologians hold to two positions, the trichotomy of man, and the dichotomy of man. That means that when the person dies physically, his spirit continues to endure; cf. Paul's longing to be "absent from the body and present with the Lord" with "Lazarus going immediately to the presence of bliss, while the rich man went to a place of torment. The Bible makes it clear that all people will be resurrected, some will go off to eternal torment (again, I ascribe to hell being a real place that is forever, the conflicting imagery is meant to typify how awful a place without God can be...not that people will burn forever, but that they will be forever aware of their awful choices and the conscious reminder of them) and others will go off to everlasting life (John 5:29).

e) The clincher for me. In Gen 3, Humanity is removed from the presence of God, so that they would NOT have access to the TREE OF LIFE. This is the tree of life, and is the source of eternal living. With no access, no one is eternal, and no one can then be tormented eternally, as they can not exist eternally.

--The tree of life also typifies life eternal and pure...one not stained with sin and death. That's why Adam and Eve were banished, lest they eat of the tree and live a constant eternal life of sin. There is no mention that life is extinguished here either, only that purity in life will be restored by Christ. Please read Gen 2 carefully, the entire context of the verse you quoted will make this clear--Christ's coming will restore the life that was tainted by sin.

Again, given your arguments, there is no need for anyone to abandon the traditional view of hell. You have simply not supplied sufficient evidence for preferring annihilationism over an eternal hell for the unrepentant.

Remember, traditionalists hold to hell being a place where people can live with the conscious choices they have made...annihilationism doesn't seem to properly address the issue of free will and consequences attached to free choice. What can you say in defense to this?

regards,

Richard Romano.

[geoff]

Hi Mr Romano

These stories, however, don't mention that the people ceased to exist!

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings; 22 everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred fifty days.


Genesis 13:10-13 10 Lot looked about him, and saw that the plain of the Jordan was well watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar; this was before the Lord had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

Gen 19:24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven; 25 and he overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
Jer 50:40 As when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighbors, says the Lord, so no one shall live there, nor shall anyone settle in her.

And none of your arguments prove that God extinguished people either. You are question begging here.

I dont think so, the examples above show my point quite clearly.

--Uh, Jesus is God...and, hence, perfect. That the Bible plainly teaches that hell is a place for the unregenerate doesn't seem to matter to you. Jesus makes distinctions for the saved and lost, i.e., sheep and goats...that there will be unrepentant people is pretty clear from his teaching. Jesus doesn't qualify here, only sinful human beings do.

I dont see what Jesus' perfection has to do with it. And I agree, hell is the final resting place of the wicked, the lake of fire.
And Jesus does qualify here. Jesus was fully human, he had to be, in order to represent me, to stand in for me, to take MY punishment, to die the death I deserve, in order that I might life eternally.
Think about it. If Jesus DID NOT die to take the punishment deserved by humanity, why did He die at all? "I give my life as a ransom for many".

Where is your biblical parallel here for destroyed? You haven't cited anything that strengthens the position that annihilationism is biblical.

Biblical parallel? Sorry, I dont understand what you are asking. I wasnt "trying" to strengthen the position of annihilation, merely giving my opinion.

--You clearly don't understand the biblical make up of humans. Most theologians hold to two positions, the trichotomy of man, and the dichotomy of man. That means that when the person dies physically, his spirit continues to endure; cf. Paul's longing to be "absent from the body and present with the Lord" with "Lazarus going immediately to the presence of bliss, while the rich man went to a place of torment. The Bible makes it clear that all people will be resurrected, some will go off to eternal torment (again, I ascribe to hell being a real place that is forever, the conflicting imagery is meant to typify how awful a place without God can be...not that people will burn forever, but that they will be forever aware of their awful choices and the conscious reminder of them) and others will go off to everlasting life (John 5:29).

Actually, I DO understand the Biblical make up of Humanity. Both Glenn and I have taught on it at various places. There is a third, and more accurate understanding, which is held by many, and that is that a human being is one whole. That is, that a human being can not be a human being should it be berift of any parts. A human being with no soul, is not a human being, and a soul without a body, or a Spirit, or a mind or anything else, is not a human being.

in order to discuss this, we would have to start a whole thread, suffice it to say, there is fairly good, and strong arguments showing that the ANE mind did not concieve of a trichotomy, or a dichotomy. They understood a human being as a whole person.. havent you heard someone say "when they talk about the heart, they mean the whole person" - that is the correct view.

--The tree of life also typifies life eternal and pure...one not stained with sin and death. That's why Adam and Eve were banished, lest they eat of the tree and live a constant eternal life of sin. There is no mention that life is extinguished here either, only that purity in life will be restored by Christ. Please read Gen 2 carefully, the entire context of the verse you quoted will make this clear--Christ's coming will restore the life that was tainted by sin.

It doesnt say "Adam and Eve were banished, lest they eat of the tree and live a constant eternal life of sin" - it says:
Gen 3:22Then the Lord God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"—3:23therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.
Because they had become like God, that is, they had tried to exceed the boundries of what it means to be human... They were sent forth from the garden because the tree of life, eternal life, is in the presence of God. Their punishment was banishment from the presence of God, and the way back barred. Which ever way you look at it, eternal life comes from access to the tree of life (in the presence of God), and no human being has access to it, apart from Christ. NO unrighteous person can live eternally, the way is barred by a cherubim and a flaming sword.



Remember, traditionalists hold to hell being a place where people can live with the conscious choices they have made...annihilationism doesn't seem to properly address the issue of free will and consequences attached to free choice. What can you say in defense to this?

I would say that traditionalism doesnt do anything, but misrepresent God and his purposes. Therefore it can not address any issues satisfactorily.

Annihilationism says that the unrighteous, in accordance with the choice they made to remain disobedient to God, will suffer an eternal punishment at Judgement day. They will, after having been created as a being intended to live eternally in close intimate relationship with God, be destroyed in a lake of fire. THAT is the proper consequence for being a sinner...

Rom 6:23 - the wages of sin is death - Rev 21: 8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

(Note, it is the SECOND DEATH, not the "first eternal torment".)

[$cirisme]

With respect, I think you may be trying not to address the question directly.

With respect, I think you don't like my answer. :wink:

I'll try again: If there was something thatthe Bible could say (using language in a normal way) to teach that the unsaved will be literally destroyed, what would it be?

NThe issue is not what the Bible doesn't say, the issue is what it does say.

Nothing that the Bible could hypothetically say would ever make me an annihilationist, because of what it already says.

The Bible says atleast two things regarding hell...
People are "destroyed" there.
Hell lasts forever.

This is either a contradiction, or there is something other than "ceasing to exist" to #1.

Now you can add to #1 all you want, but it won't make me annihilationist.

You would have to erase #2 for me to even consider annihilationism.

I'm not saying I can or want to prove a doctrine (annihilationism). I'm just probing to see if you would LET the Bible say the unsaved will literally be destroyed.

Of course I would let it, and then throw out my doctrine of inerrancy.

You either believe in inerrancy or annihilationism, it cannot be both.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

cirisme

You write the question off because you say it deals in "hypotheticals."

I don't think you've grasped the importance of the question. My point is that no matter whatthe Bible says, you will never allow yourself to see annihilationism in it. I know this, because when I asked you what you'd need to see in Scripture before you'd accept annihilationism, you cannot give any examples. In other words, NOTHING could ever be sufficient. The Bible could say as much as possibile to teach annihilationism, and you would persist in your opposition to it.

Consider this: If the Bible, in a passage that was clearly intended to be literal in nature, stated that the unsaved will suffer forever, I would accept it. If it stated in such a passage that there would be "everlasting torment," "Everlasting suffering," "never ending sorrow," "never ending pain," "never ending torture," "perpetual misery forever" or anything like that, I would accept that such a text was a good argument for eternal torment.
See ho easy that was? I can actually lay out criteria that I would accept as a good argument. Can you do the same? Can you tell us what you'd need to see before you'd accept that the unsaved will literally be destroyed?

I'll tell you how I would answer. If the Bible taught that the unsaved will be "destroyed" in a passage that appears to be literal, I'd accept that. If the Bible said that the unsaved would be *like* weeds that are burned up in the furnace, I'd accept that. If the Bible said that the unsaved will be destroyed just like Sodom or the people in the flood were destroyed, I'd accept that. If the Bible said that they would be ashes under the soles of the feet of the righteous, I'd accept that. If the Bible said that the wicked will be slain by God at His return, I'd accept that.

Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Glenn

[$cirisme]

It is clear from your post that you did not even read mine.

:hrm:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Well..... I'm not sure what to make of that. I read it and responded. If this is how you say you don't feel like discussing it anymore, I really don't mind, but you could have just said so. :smile:

Blessings

Glenn

[geoff]

Actually, it looks to me that Glenn did read it and commented appropriately..

Although, I would say it seems he doesnt like your answer, as opposed to his not wanting to continue discussing....

its funny how that works..

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I just have a hard time thinking that cirisme seriously thinks he can harmonise these two things:

1.) The Bible teaches that the unsaved will be "destroyed" in passages that appears to be literal. The Bible says that the unsaved will be like weeds that are burned up in the furnace. The Bible says that the unsaved will be destroyed just like Sodom and the people in the flood were destroyed. The Bible said that the wicked will be ashes under the soles of the feet of the righteous. The Bible says that the wicked will be slain by God at His return.
and
2.) The unsaved will be tormented eternally.

Now, he's tried to resolve this by saying that EVERYTHING the Bible says in 1.) must be toned down and made into a figurative statement. I would suggest a better way to resolve his problem:

3.) Cirisme is mistaken about 2.), and the Bible does not actually teach that the unsaved will be tormented forever.

Cirisme, recall what I said in my recent post:
If the Bible, in a passage that was clearly intended to be literal in nature, stated that the unsaved will suffer forever, I would accept it. If it stated in such a passage that there would be "everlasting torment," "Everlasting suffering," "never ending sorrow," "never ending pain," "never ending torture," "perpetual misery forever" or anything like that, I would accept that such a text was a good argument for eternal torment.

Do you actually know of any such evidence? Maybe you've assumed 2.) without adequate exegetical reflection after all.

Glenn

[geoff]

Glenn,

he says * Hell lasts forever.

Of course, we agree with that. The hell that is annihilation is eternal... once you are destroyed you are eternally gone... which of course is the worst possible outcome for a being that created to exist eternally (with God).

The 2 points he raises dont damage annihilationism at all, but do show that he has not in fact taken on board any of the counter arguments given.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-24-2003 @ 02:44 PM
geoff:
Of course, we agree with that. The hell that is annihilation is eternal...

Well, I'd be a bit cautious about saying "hell is forever," since by hell I actually think Cirisme means that hell is an eternal "place." Now it's obvious thatthere is no specific biblical evidence for this that could mee tthe criteria I suggested, hence cirisme's statement is false. I'd probably be happier to say that the outcome of judgement will be eternal.

What he is really suggesting is that evil will always be real, that creation will never be perfect, even after God has made all things new.

[Socrates]

Annihilationism is not based on Scriptural exegesis, but rather largely on the informal logical fallacy called argumentum ad misericordiam, or appeal to pity (related to the "Argument from outrage"). A Biblical Christian should as ask is, "What does God reveal in the Bible about His justice and the fate of the unsaved?"

For example, the word for ‘eternal’ (αιωνιος aionios) in Christ’s phrase ‘eternal punishment’ in Mt. 25:46 is the same as in ‘eternal life’ in the same sentence and same grammatical construction. This implies that the punishment of the wicked is just as eternal as the life of the righteous. If not, then we may as well give up trying to understand Scripture. Aionios is also used to describe the eternality of God (Rom. 16:26, 1 Tim. 1:7, Heb, 9:14, 13:8, Rev. 4:9).

Also, the word for the eternal torment in Revelation 14:11 is basanizo, which means to vex with grievous pains, and is used to describe labour pains in Rev. 12:2 and the centurion's sick servant "tormented" by palsy in Matthew 8:6.

So should we bow to the Scriptural teaching of the doctrine of eternal punishment, or do we allow human 'arguments from outrage' to override the clear teaching of Scripture? Just about all annihilationist arguments tug at the heartstrings and say how the doctrine of eternal punishment makes God a monster/ogre/etc.

If, as most of the Christian world has believed, the Bible does teach that the unsaved will be tormented eternally, then we should say that it is fit punishment, and build a model from there. It's even more straightforward, because it follows logically from other Scriptural principles. Our sin is against an infinite holy God, so requires infinite punishment. The only way a finite creature can be punished infinitely is if his punishment is of infinite duration.

Annihilationist views understate the extreme seriousness of sin against the holiness of God. This has dire flow on effects for other doctrines. E.g.: Christology and soteriology (the doctrines of Christ and Salvation): why does Christ need to be fully divine? Because a mere creature could not take upon himself the infinite punishment we deserve, but only the infinite God himself. The early Church Fathers and Anselm made much of the connection between these aspects of hamartiology (the doctrine of sin), soteriology and Christology. It is no accident that the JW cult denies the Deity of Christ.

Even Missiology (doctrine of missionary work) is affected: Many atheists are happy with the idea that they will cease to exist — annihilationist preaching doesn't do anything to make them realise the seriousness consequencs of a godless life. But Christ spoke more on Hell than Heaven.

Although this is all very unpleasant to contemplate, it would be very foolish to ignore the plain testimony of the Word of God. God has warned us and provided a way of escape. If we ignore His warning we have no one to blame but ourselves (Heb 2:1–4). In effect, God gives us our desire here on earth in eternity — eternal life under His rule, or eternal separation from Him (in ‘outer darkness’). If people choose to have nothing to do with God now, they chose that in eternity also. The big difference between now and then is that we have a choice now, we will not in eternity. It also means that we should make every effort to warn others of their impending fate, as the apostle Peter did on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38–41), that they might also escape (be saved).

There are a few other rationalizations by the JWs and Adventists, e.g. about the meaning of “soul” (Hebrew nephesh, Greek psyche). They commonly argue that it means the whole part of man, citing for example that God breathes into Adam and he becomes a living soul (nephesh), i.e. he is all “nephesh”. But to assume that nephesh always means that is a fallacy, assuming that words have only one meaning. For example, Rachel's death in Genesis 35:18 is equated with her soul (nephesh) departing, and Elijah prays in 1 Kings 17:21 for the return of the boy to life, O LORD my God, I pray you, let this child's nephesh come into him again. In both cases, the nephesh is something immaterial and distinct from the body that leaves upon death. In the NT (Matthew 10:28), Jesus warns, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul (psyche): but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Again, the soul in this context is something not killed when the body is killed.

Another rationalization is proposing a novel punctuation for “I say unto you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Unlike nearly all Bible translators, soul sleep advocates put the comma after today not before. But the phrase “I say unto you” (Greek amen soi lego) everywhere else in Scripture introduces what follows, so the comma must go after that phrase. This means it is a clear teaching that the repentant thief on the Cross and Jesus would be together and therefore conscious that very day.

See the further by the Christian Research Institute of annihilationist arguments by the leading proponent, the aptly named “Fudge” — Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell [url=tp://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0085a.html ]Part 1 (]refutation[/url) and Part 2 (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0137a.html ).

[geoff]

Glenn,

I am cautious :)

Yes, the result of the punishment is eternal, as opposed to the punishing. In fact, my english translations say "punishment" and not "punishing".

pun·ish·ment
n.

The act or an instance of punishing.
The condition of being punished.
A penalty imposed for wrongdoing: “The severity of the punishment must... be in keeping with the kind of obligation which has been violated” (Simone Weil).
Rough handling; mistreatment: These old skis have taken a lot of punishment over the years.

Punish \Pun"ish\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Punished; p. pr. & vb. n. Punishing.] [OE. punischen, F. punir, from L. punire, punitum, akin to poena punishment, penalty. See Pain, and -ish.] 1. To impose a penalty upon; to afflict with pain, loss, or suffering for a crime or fault, either with or without a view to the offender's amendment; to cause to suffer in retribution; to chasten; as, to punish traitors with death; a father punishes his child for willful disobedience.

What he is really suggesting is that evil will always be real, that creation will never be perfect, even after God has made all things new.

Yes, its sad isnt it, that God can not actually defeat evil. Perhaps if he sweeps it under the carpet and forgets about it, everthing will be ok.

[geoff]

Annihilationism is not based on Scriptural exegesis, but rather largely on the informal logical fallacy called argumentum ad misericordiam, or appeal to pity (related to the "Argument from outrage").

I think this argument stops here...

Glenn said, about 2 (or 3 or something) posts ago, that he didnt believe this was a biblical argument for annhiliation. I agree, it doesnt even get in the top 10 reasons why traditionalism is false.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-24-2003 @ 04:36 PM
Socrates:
Annihilationism is not based on Scriptural exegesis, but rather largely on the informal logical fallacy called argumentum ad misericordiam, or appeal to pity (related to the "Argument from outrage").

This is a classic case of the straw man fallacy. I could make an equivalent argument: "Eternal torment is not based on Scriptural exegesis but rather on an appeal to vindictiveness."

Clearly this is a spurious line of argument. Sure, it might be possible to argue that way, but the fact is, a case is still made for both views on the grounds of biblical exegesis. You may gleefully attack the appeal to pity, and you have not even touched my reasons for holding to annihilationism.


A Biblical Christian should as ask is, "What does God reveal in the Bible about His justice and the fate of the unsaved?"

I believe I'vemade this point already.

For example, the word for ‘eternal’

Have I ever disputed that eternal means forever? Again, this is a straw man.

Also, the word for the eternal torment in Revelation 14:11 is basanizo, which means to vex with grievous pains, and is used to describe labour pains in Rev. 12:2 and the centurion's sick servant "tormented" by palsy in Matthew 8:6.

Who disputes this? Note also that the beasts of revelation are each referred to as a "therion," which literally means animal. Do you think then that these images actually refer to animals in reality? It looks like you're engaging in isloated proof texting. I have dealt with the two favourite texts in the book of Revelation (14:11 and 20:10) in my paper here http://pages.quicksilver.net.nz/theonomy/Hell1.doc. - you'll need the font Greek.ttf

So should we bow to the Scriptural teaching of the doctrine of eternal punishment, or do we allow human 'arguments from outrage' to override the clear teaching of Scripture? Just about all annihilationist arguments tug at the heartstrings and say how the doctrine of eternal punishment makes God a monster/ogre/etc.

To put it gently, that's a wilful misrepresentation. You have never seen me offer such an argument, and I will not do so. Rather than painting a nasty picture of those who don't hold your view, it is wiser and more gracious to allow them to explain their own view. They probably know it better than you do.

Annihilationist views understate the extreme seriousness of sin against the holiness of God. This has dire flow on effects for other doctrines. E.g.: Christology and soteriology (the doctrines of Christ and Salvation): why does Christ need to be fully divine? Because a mere creature could not take upon himself the infinite punishment we deserve, but only the infinite God himself. The early Church Fathers and Anselm made much of the connection between these aspects of hamartiology (the doctrine of sin), soteriology and Christology.

This is not Scriptural exegesis. I'm more concerned about what the Bible says about final punishment than what Anselm said. I'm sure Anselm said much that you do not accept.

It is no accident that the JW cult denies the Deity of Christ.
This is not Scriptural exegesis, but rather a classic case of the "bad seed" variety of the argumentum ad hominem. It's essentially guilt by association. Imagine if I sought to smear those who hold to eternal torment by linking them with Muslims or Mormons, who hold to an erroneos view of the person of Christ, and who also hld to eternal torment. Clearly it's fallacious, not a logical or exegetical argument.

Even Missiology (doctrine of missionary work) is affected: Many atheists are happy with the idea that they will cease to exist — annihilationist preaching doesn't do anything to make them realise the seriousness consequencs of a godless life.
This is no Scriptural exegesis but a utilitarian and pragmatic argument. We do not teach one view or another because of what we think will happen as a result. Instead, we must teach based on Scriptural exegesis. It is just possible that unbelievers may find the idea of a God who sends people to eternal torment to be so offensive thatthey don;t want to know about Him. What then, would that make eternal torment false? Not at all. Use Scripture rather than emotive appeals or fallacious arguments.

Although this is all very unpleasant to contemplate, it would be very foolish to ignore the plain testimony of the Word of God.

Amen, but so what? This disagreement is not about whether we should believe the word of God, it is about what God's word actually teaches.

You then make several other smear attempts by referring to sectarian groups, but these are irelevant, since they don't address the issue of final punishment, and are fallacious.

On the whole, you reply was somewhat hypocritical. You say that annihilationism is not based on Scriptural exegesis but on a fallacy, then you made numerous arguments that are not based on Scriptural exegesis. That's unlikely to persuade anyone.

Glenn

[Socrates]

The falsely so called Theonomy spouts his annihilationalist heterodoxy:

Annihilationism is not based on Scriptural exegesis, but rather largely on the informal logical fallacy called argumentum ad misericordiam, or appeal to pity (related to the "Argument from outrage").
----------------------------------------------------------

This is a classic case of the straw man fallacy.
Not at all. I've yet to see an argument for this novel doctrine that doesn't invoke this to some extent. Lots of SDA and JW propaganda tugs at the heartstrings just this way.

[Captain Ochre]

02-24-2003 @ 11:20 AM
Socrates:

Not at all. I've yet to see an argument for this novel doctrine that doesn't invoke this to some extent. Lots of SDA and JW propaganda tugs at the heartstrings just this way.

I'll put in two cents here--I don't think that annihilationism may be dismissed simply because it is (supposedly) justified of according to the sense of morality. That practice isn't fallacious unless the position is simply contradicted in the text. Reading a text in the light most favorable to the author is a legitimate approach to interpretation. A conclusion based on that reading may be correct, or it may be incorrect (soundness of the conclusion is left up in the air, as with a fallacy); thus the issue should return to focus on the language used, and the context.

I suppose that what it amounts to is the idea that reading the text in its "best" light is a reasonable--if weak--inductive tool and a useless deductive one (compare argument from silence).

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-24-2003 @ 11:20 PM
Socrates:
Not at all. I've yet to see an argument for this novel doctrine that doesn't invoke this to some extent. Lots of SDA and JW propaganda tugs at the heartstrings just this way.

Then you really haven't read very widely on the issue. In fact, the above claim is simply false, since I've offered an argument on this very thread that doesn't involve an appeal to pity.

And once again, your fallacious reference to sectarian groups will not work. This is an exegetical debate, not a political one. You yourself were complaining about people who use fallacies rather than Scriptural exegesis, so your use of such tactics reflects poorly on your integrity. I could make repeated references to Mormons and Muslims who teach eternal torment, but I would be wasting my time, just as you are with comments like the one quoted here.

Glenn.

[geoff]

Not at all. I've yet to see an argument for this novel doctrine that doesn't invoke this to some extent. Lots of SDA and JW propaganda tugs at the heartstrings just this way.

I cant recall either myself OR Glenn arguing for annihilation from an "appeal to pity". Which is why its a straw man. Socrates has "tried" to cast doubt on our position by "attempting" to refute an argument we have never made, and an argument we admit isnt strong, nor biblical, and discount as weighty.

He then continues on to attempt to slander our names etc by associating us with SDA/JW propaganda... all that does is convince me that socrates isnt worth talking to, he just wants to flame people.. and knows nothing of the argument to which he has entered, which is why he can do nothing but flame people.

[PuritanD]

Here is a thought! I did not read all the posts in this thread, so I apologize for any redundancy here. I think that the vote choices were interesting.

I just find it odd that Jesus would spend so much time talking about a place that in essence doesn't exist (annihilationist). I think that Scripture strongly indicates an actual place of exsistence.

Anyways, what type of punishment is it to not exist anymore. It really doesn't sound tormenteous at all but relief. If that is the case why should one bother with salvation and try to live a holy life. Let's just eat, drink, be merry for tomorrow we will no longer exist :huh:

PuritanD

[geoff]

Actually, for the ancient near eastern mind, ceasing to exist was a horrible thing, why do you think they came up with reincarnation? (thats not a "reason" but an outcome).

Our argument is that Jesus IS NOT talking about a place, but a state of existence in effect. That is, a PUNISHMENT not a PUNISHING.

Lets use an analogy. If the USA was promising Iraq an "eternal punishment" and it consisted of this war (which one could equate to hell easily), then this war must go on for ever and ever, ad infinitum, and never cease. This is an eternal PUNISHING.

However, if it is an eternal PUNISHMENT, then once the war is won, the punishment is over eternally. Peace is restored and the world is back (supposedly) to normal - its intended state.

You are in fact proposing that God can not defeat evil, human sin, but rather, in its place, punish it for all eternity. That, quite frankly, flies in the face of Scripture. This one problem alone is cause for a serious re-examination of "traditionalism".

[HemofHisGarment]

Sorry, I didn't read all the posts but found the question posed a good opportunity to express:hi:

My idea of hell is damnation -
in which one is damned, or stopped,
from further progress/life with God.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

PuritanD:
Anyways, what type of punishment is it to not exist anymore. It really doesn't sound tormenteous at all but relief. If that is the case why should one bother with salvation and try to live a holy life. Let's just eat, drink, be merry for tomorrow we will no longer exist :huh:


With all respect, that's a pretty shallow analysis. If you're right,t hen the deathpenalty would not make criminals fear retribution for crime.

I simply cannot share the view that nonexistence is (metaphysically) a better state of affairs than suffering. That is precisely the way of thinking that promotes euthanasia. If suffering is really worse than death, then let's just kill those who are suffering! I can't do it, sorry.