Results 1 to 9 of 9
-
November 29th 2005, 09:31 PM #1
Pledge allegiance to the Lamb
---
- Join Date
- May 21st, 2003
- Location
- Newtown, PA
- Posts
- 11,297
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
Male - AmishGYM DEBATE: Annihilationism (Theonomy vs. magus)
If there is anything I’ve learned from both conservatives and liberals, it’s that we can have all the “right” answers and still be mean. And when you’re mean, it’s hard for people to listen to, much less desire, your truth.
-Shane Claiborne
-
November 29th 2005, 11:30 PM #2
I want to be forever young
---
- Join Date
- February 16th, 2003
- Posts
- 10,867
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
Male - bad ChristianRe: GYM DEBATE: Annihilationism (Theonomy vs. magus)
I want to start by thanking Magus for inviting me to discuss this topic. It's an issue that have had a side interest in for a while now, and as I have observed the debate over the years, including the debate that has taken place well before I became interested in it, it seems to me that there are some basic Biblical arguments in favour of annihilationism that the traditional view, that of eternal torment, simply lacks the resources to deal with.
I think that I can show that the Bible teaches that the lost will be finally and literally destroyed. That is to say, there will be a time when God’s people are participating in eternal life as the gift that God has given them, and when there are no “unsaved” people living anywhere at all, and that this is how things will stay forever. That is the position I am defending as biblical, and this is what I mean by the term “annihilationism.”
The basic Biblical arguments that I referred to above are the three arguments that I will be using in this debate. They are: the biblical question of immortality, the biblical vision of eternity, and the biblical language of destruction in describing the fate of the lost. Anyone who has discussed the issue of final punishment with me before will recognise these reasons, since I've used them before. I use them here again, not because I can;t come up with anything new, but because it seems to me that no good reason has been presented for rejecting them as good reasons for believing as I do. Since I still think that these biblical arguments establish the case, they are the arguments I use.
Furthermore, I think that the arguments for the traditional view that the Bible teaches the doctrine of eternal torment are demonstrably weak arguments, a claim that I will turn to when the time comes for rebuttal. For now, let's turn to the arguments in favour of annihilationism.
1. The Biblical Question of Immortality
Let’s start by turning to the book of Genesis, where the human story begins. We are all, I will assume, fairly familiar with the early chapters of Genesis where God created human beings. Genesis 2:7 portrays the scene intimately – God formed man from the dust of the ground, and He breathed into him the breath of life, and the man at that point becomes a living soul.
God created man for life and fellowship with God. The question can now be asked – is man mortal or immortal? That is, if things progressed naturally from the point of man’s creation and sin never entered the picture, would man naturally die? It has been said that rather than being either of these, hummanity before the fall was “immortable,” capable of becoming immortal, or capable of forfeiting that destiny. This is, I would say, certainly faithful to the way the story of humanity in Genesis unfolds.
God tells Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or he would die, or more literally “dying you shall die.” I agree with Calvin who said that this means not that man would completely die on the day that he ate, but rather that Adam’s death commenced on the day he ate, and culminated on the day that he returned to the dust. As we know, the first humans did in fact sin against God and disobey Him, and God judged them as a result. The serpent in this story had told Eve that even though God had told them that they would really die, in fact they would not. They would gain knowledge, and lose nothing.
In contrast to this lie, in Genesis 3:22 the writer tells us that God absolutely would not consider the possibility of man continuing life forever in his sinful state.
The NIV tidies up the grammar for us to make the language prettier, losing much of the impact of this quotation to be lost. The Hebrew does not say that man "must not be allowed to take of the fruit of the tree of life and eat and live forever." Instead it reads as follows.
God's sentence is actually incomplete. The consequences are literally unspeakable. Man is simply not permitted to have access to immorality in his fallen state, God will not even speak of such a thing. This is why death entered the world.
But if this is so, then it cannot be the case that lost, unredeemed mankind will ever be immortal, by which I simply mean, never dying. Yet this is precisely what the teaching of the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches tells us will happen, in one of its “three forms of Unity,” namely the Protestant confession of faith known as the Belgic Confession, which, when speaking on the last judgment, says of the lost, in article 37:
This is totally contrary to what Scripture tells us about immortality. The hope of immortality was lost in Adam, and gained in Christ, but only in Christ. This is the message of Scripture from start to finish. The book of Proverbs tells us:
Endless life is not a universal expectation. This is only affirmed more and more in the New Testament. In 2 Timothy 1, Paul tells Timothy about the saving grace of God:
It is through the Gospel that life and immorality can be restored to human beings. The tragic corollary of this is that if you ultimately reject the Gospel, you will not partake of immortality.
This theme arises again in 1 Corinthians 15, where the death brought about by the first man Adam is replaced with immortality brought about by the second Adam, Christ. Paul says in verse 49 that “just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so we shall bear the likeness of the man from heaven.” He goes further still speaking of the resurrection of the saints who will bear Christ’s glorious image, saying:
And so my first point is this: Contrary to what many believers think, as shown in the example of the Belgic Confession, and anecdotally in conversation with many Christians, the unsaved will not have immortality, that is, endless life. Immortality is a gift of God that He gives exclusively to His people. This means, among other things, that a time will come when God’s people are partaking of immortality, but there are no unsaved people alive anywhere.
2. The Biblical Vision of Eternity
The Bible presents us with a big picture of how it will all work out. This is different, of course, from presenting us with each and every detail of the eternal state. I don't claim that the Bible does this. There are many things Scripture just doesn't mention, as I'm sure Magus and I both agree. But Scripture certainly paints in broad strokes what eternity will “look” like, a picture where, to put it as simply as I can, evil simply does not exist.
In redeeming creation, God is “starting over” as it were. Recall His terrible words in the biblical account of the flood that killed all people except Noah and his family.
Notice what God says: He is going to destroy humanity in the flood because He is sorry that He has made them. Regardless of how He might have made them suffer, he would still have this problem of saying “I am sorry I have made them.” What God was doing then is starting over, a new world with His chosen people as the inhabitants. A world free of all the things that God regretted. Now, the flood is past history, it is not the final judgment, but it is illustrative of the way in which God approaches judgement to achieve something, and as we know – and this will become relevant later in this debate – the flood is used as a picture that foreshadows God’s final punishment of the lost.
The New Testament looks forward to a creation in which there is no cause for divine regret. All that lives will be under Christ in His kingdom, and that's all there will be. When the Apostle Paul is talking about God’s sovereign saving plan, ordained from all eternity, he says:
In context, Paul is speaking about the way that in Christ, God had purposed to save us from all eternity, so that the whole work of salvation gives glory to God alone. But notice that the work of sovereignly bringing us in under Christ our head is just part of God’s larger plan of bringing not only us, but literally everything that exists in creation also under one head, namely Christ. This allows us two possibilities. Either, as the universalists argue, those who reject the Gospel in this life will also, like us, be brought under one head, Christ, and be saved eventually as well, or else, as I argue, a time will come when there will simply be no people who persist in rejecting the Gospel, not because they have been converted, but because they are not alive anymore. In effect, we must choose: Annihilation or Universalism? I think the arguments for God’s eternal punishment upon the lost are much too strong to accept universalism, which leaves us with annihilationism as the way to account for the biblical vision of eternity.
Another example, although stated somewhat differently, is found in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28
Here Paul is discussing what happens after the resurrection of the dead. What is made clear is that God’s enemies are no more, even death itself is no more (death itself is certainly not being tortured in some far flung corner of creation, it will literally be gone altogether), and using what is actually accounting terminology, Paul says that God sums up all the totals, and Christ is all in all – there is literally nothing that is not under Christ. The picture is one of perfect unity and peace everywhere. But given such a perfect picture, whence evil?
Horrendously, the majority of the defenders of the traditional doctrine of eternal torment have taught the exact opposite, and even worse: That not only will creation be forever divided into a sharp dualism of glory and anguish, heaven and hell, but that this will actually be something that we take great pleasure in. Two examples will suffice to make this point, but many more could be shown. I will use one Catholic and one Protestant. First, Thomas Aquinas:
And secondly, Isaac Watts, the theologian and Hymn writer of the great awakening:
What a difference! How alien this vision of eternity is to Scripture’s vision of eternity. In Scripture, the glorious fact is that all evil is gone, all creation worships Christ, and He is all in all. In such a creation, endless torment of the damned is impossible, since there is simply nothing evil left to torment at all.
3. The Biblical Language of Destruction
While I think the two preceding arguments are fairly strong implicit arguments, this third argument has the additional strength that is involves what the Bible directly asserts about the nature of final punishment. The Bible uses a range of language to refer to what will finally happen to the enemies of God, but overwhelmingly we see that the language presented to us in Scripture is language of final death and destruction. It requires very little time and effort to show that this is the case, but here are a few examples.
Jesus warns of God’s ability to destroy the body and soul in hell. Without getting sidetracked onto the question of philosophical anthropology, that is, the question of how many basic elements make up a human being, let us at least observe that what we are seeing here is a reference to the whole person. Seeing the obvious problem that this poses for his own view of final punishment as eternal torment, eminent early 20th century South African theologian John Darragh argued,
In other words, Jesus’ warnings about God destroying body and soul in hell are as productive as if He had warned about God’s ability to turn the damned man into a chicken. Of course He is capable of doing it, and that is all that matters. But then, why would Jesus have warned about men who can destroy the body? Are the merely capable of it, but unwilling to actually do so? On the contrary, for many of the early disciples of Jesus, this is precisely what did happen. Likewise, throughout the rest of the New Testament, we learn that destruction is precisely what lies in store for those enemies of God at the last judgment. I'll browse through just a brief further sampling of these warnings.
Jesus says that the path of life is narrow, but the road to destruction is wide, and many find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)
Jesus compares the wicked to weeds that will be destroyed in a furnace. (Matt 13: 40-42)
The Apostle Paul says that "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." (Rom 3:23)
Paul says that the wicked will be punished with everlasting destruction. (2 Thess 1:9)
Peter said that by burning Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes, God made them an example of what He is going to do to the wicked in the future. (2 Pet 2:6)
This evidence is not exceptional. It is the norm, and given its vast quantity, this is just a very small sample. This is the ordinary way that the Bible directly speaks about the fate of the lost, and eternal torment is just not here. This is, for want of a better term, the doctrine of annihilationism. Surveying the overwhelming tendency of New Testament language, Clark Pinnock makes an observation which, in light of the evidence cited, seems fair to say the least:
I have some idea of what my opponent will make of these verses if he follows other writers who deny what seems like a fairly natural reading of the biblical texts, but that can wait until the time comes for rebuttal. For now, I submit that these three clear lines of biblical argument – The biblical question of immortality, the biblical vision of eternity, and the biblical language of destruction, provide a very solid biblical foundation for the claim in dispute here today. The Bible teaches that the lost will be finally and literally destroyed, and therefore Annihilationism is biblical."Personally though, I won't use psychoactives because of the possibility of contacting a demon." - Kelp
-
November 30th 2005, 07:54 PM #3
Sorceror of Cause
---
- Join Date
- November 7th, 2005
- Location
- Adelaide, Australia
- Posts
- 111
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
Re: GYM DEBATE: Annihilationism (Theonomy vs. magus)
Greetings to Theonomy. He is correct; I did ask him why he believed what he believed, and he responded by asking me if I wanted to discuss this in a different forum... so here we both are!
No rebuttal is going to take place in the opening rounds – we’re just establishing our respective stances. Well, since I’m the only one in the position of rebutting, this is actually rather stupidly phrased. I’m not going to do any rebutting in my opening, how’s that?
Also, as I am not a Biblical language scholar, I’ve taken the lazy way out and just referred to the NKJV for my source texts. YMMV, and if I’ve made any slip-ups in interpretation feel free to call me on it. From time to time I might refer to Young's Literal Translation as well - which may be the closest thing I can come to the actual language.
Both Theonomy and I would seem to agree that there is a class of people known as the ‘unsaved’. Regardless of freewill doctrines, the world will be divided into two groups of people; those who were ‘elected’ or ‘saved’, whose fate is to go to Heaven, and the rest, who are unsaved and will go to Hell.
What we’re debating is the nature of Hell. The doctrine of annihilationism, as agreed upon by both parties, is the oblivion of the consciousness. That is to say, when you are unsaved, and you have been judged, your existence will be terminated rather abruptly. You will no longer sense, think or feel. And this is irrevocable. Very much like what the atheists would say happens after we die, in fact.
I happen to be on the opposing side of this doctrine. I would say that given a plain reading of the Bible, this doctrine cannot be supported. And this is why.
In Genesis 2:17, God specifically stated the consequence of Adam sinning; “you shall surely die”. Our standard interpretation has always been that the death God is speaking of here is not only physical death, but spiritual death, or separation from God’s presence and intimacy. We see that this did, in fact, occur.
In the Bible, the Hebrews had a very simple view of Hell, or Hades, or Sheol (‘the grave’). The Hebrew word is ‘Gehenna’, or more colourfully as I have seen it put, the Jerusalem City Garbage Dump. It is literally a place for the cast-offs, the rubbish, the left-behinds. The imagery we get of flames and torment arises from the fact that a fire is permanently burning at the physical location, to get rid of the garbage.
Now, what is Hades like? Well, nobody truly knows! What we can say for sure is that some sort of twilight existence remains possible; cf Luke 16:23, Acts 2:27, Rev 20:13. We can, no doubt, make certain distinctions between the abode of the dead, the abode of the wicked, and the abode of the righteous. However, the issue remains that the Hebrews viewed true life as life where God is. Therefore, death is where God is not.
This is important. Unlike our current biological definition of death, which is the cessation of metabolic function, or our legal definition of death, which is the complete flatlining of brain activity, or our metaphysical definition of death, which is the oblivion of the consciousness, the Hebrew view of true death (arguably, the view God had in mind) is spiritual death - separation from the source of true life, who is God Himself. Of course, the Hebrews knew about physical death - who doesn't? But that is only part of the story, for they viewed God as not present in Sheol - so, physical death is as good as spiritual death!
Now, let’s take a good look at what is the true meat of the topic; the eventual fate of the unsaved. Because regardless of what you believe of Hell and Hades, and even Heaven, it is stated very clearly that these things will pass away. So I’m not going to go the usual route of ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ at this point, since it can be argued this may be an interim punishment (but let’s not go there either). God will inaugurate a new Heaven and a new Earth, and a new Jerusalem. Revelations 20:9,10 states
And vs 13 onwards says
So, even Hell will be cast into the lake of fire. But what does all that mean?
A key element here is the word ‘destroy’. For God will ‘destroy’ the works of the devil (and the devil himself) [Heb 2:14, 1 John 3:8], and we can see that the fate of the devil is also the fate of those who were not in the Book of Life. But what does that word mean?
If you were just to take it on a shallow basis, you might be tempted to say something like ‘ruin’, or ‘devastate’, or as annihilationists put it, ‘cease to exist’. For example, one can say “I destroyed his confidence” or “That kid destroys every toy he plays with” or “Atlantis was destroyed when it sank beneath the waves”. But…but… matter is neither created nor destroyed! Nor is energy, for that matter. Yet we know God can do such things (creatio ex nihilio). So a secular definition isn’t going to hack it – we have to see what’s going on in the Bible.
Well, in many parts of the Bible, it’s a physical destruction that’s referred to. And in various ways, too! Floods, earthquakes, fireballs, war, plague, famine, the list goes on and on… In all of the cases, however, the essential result is a rather lasting removal of offending party or parties. Utter ruin. Total uselessness and powerlessness. When God destroys, He’s very thorough! Regardless of the mechanism, however, the basic effect is on the lines of "well, he/it ain't a-gonna do that anymore!" I would argue that the term destroy should be seen not for its mechanism, but its effect.
Is anything said about how spiritual destruction occurs? Well, not really. All we can say is that the offending parties will be removed from God’s presence (and presumably ours as well, since we’ll be in God’s presence). According to my viewpoint, then, God simply removes such offenders to a place where He is not felt, not present, not intimately in relationship, where there is no possibility of there ever being an escape. From an elected person’s perspective, this is functionally/practically equivalent to annihilation, because if you cannot interact with this person and he cannot interact with you in any possible way, then whether the fellow still exists or not is not really an issue. But I’d say it makes a (pardon the pun) damned big difference to the unsaved fellow in question.
Another key element is the word ‘punishment’. Since we both agree that whatever the eventual fate is, it’s eternal (forever and ever, ages of the ages, aeons upon aeons, whatever the phrasing you prefer), this is not the issue. Is the punishment oblivion or not?
We, I believe, agree on the basic exegesis that the quality of life is more important than the quantity when reference is made to eternal life. A punishment can then be seen as a divine judgement that fits the crime/sin. And the whole issue revolves around Jesus of Nazareth. Do you want to follow Him? If you do, then He will be with you, and you will be with Him. That’s Heaven. If not, then He will not be with you , and vice versa. That’s Hell. An unending period of time and existence without God. They’re flip sides of salvation. Not continued existence vs oblivion, but continued existence with God vs without. Better is one day in the house of the Lord than thousands elsewhere.
Finally, there is the issue of death. It is appointed for man to die once, and then the judgement. For some, the judgement to glory. For the others, judgement to damnation. What does the Bible have to say? Rev 21:8 says
And v25-27,
Further, Rev 22:14-15 (referring to the New Jerusalem) states
Which implies that a continued existence beyond judgement. For it is illogical to say that these unsaved people are outside unless they are outside somewhere. How easy it would be to simply say “And nowhere are dogs and sorcerers…” if annihilationism was implied. Further, as the gates are perpetually open, it also implies that this somewhere is sealed off from New Jerusalem; this somewhere a.k.a. Hell.
So what is the second death? It is my contention that rather than oblivion, the evidence clearly indicates a sort of Godless existence, where God’s majesty, grace, mercy and love are not felt. Can you imagine a punishment worse than this? I cannot. And to think, atheists are already experiencing something similar! Talk about hell on earth!
Just for the record, then. I do not postulate eternal suffering or torment as in devil with pitchforks or neck high in [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] or any of the popular, jocular concepts of hell. I postulate simply a place where God’s presence is not, of which the natural consequence is an everlasting feeling of regret (which is a torment in and of itself, really). God remains sovereign over these unsaved people, and over the devil, and all of these that are in the ‘lake of fire’. His will is still carried out; namely, that these creatures should be able to exist the way they chose. And if you don’t think you’ll be absolutely destroyed when you arrive at such a state, well, what else can I say?
In summary:
1. True death entails not only physical death, but spiritual death, which is separation from God.
2. Sheol, Hades and Hell are seen as places where God's presence is not felt, but where some sort of twilight existence seems possible.
3. The eventual fate is what's under discussion.
4. The term 'destroy' should be seen for its effect, not its mechanism.
5. Corrolary to 1, true life is not just biological/physical life, but spiritual life, an indwelling of God's presence and Holy Spirit.
6. If the 'unsaved' are outside New Jerusalem, then there must be a place for them to be inside.
This concludes my opening post.
Love in Christ,
Magus
-
December 5th 2005, 04:38 AM #4
I want to be forever young
---
- Join Date
- February 16th, 2003
- Posts
- 10,867
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
Male - bad ChristianRe: GYM DEBATE: Annihilationism (Theonomy vs. magus)
I thank Magus for the cordial and gracious way that he has addressed me here. It is clear that we are debating this as brothers, not as adversaries, and that makes the exchange all the more enjoyable.
Also commendable is that way tha Magus has avoided needless quarreling over points that do not affect the outcome of the debate. In particular, unlike many opponents of annihilationism, he recognises that "Since we both agree that whatever the eventual fate is, it is eternal (forever and ever, ages of the ages, aeons upon aeons, whatever the phrasing you prefer), this is not the issue. Is the punishment oblivion or not? It is nothing but tiresome responding to defenders of the traditional view of hell who say that since eternal punishment is eternal, it must be eternal torment! I'm glad we won't be wasting words on that one here.
What then are the reasons that Magus has given us not to believe in annihilationism? His clarity makes this part of the task probably the easiest. He has given six clearly defined arguments against annihilationism. I will address each of these in turn.
1. Physical vs Spiritual Death
Magus says,
The question that this raises is: Is this fact incompatible with annihilationism? After all, as Magus notes, the consequences of sin consist "not only" in physical death, but in spiritual death. My reply is just to say that it wasn't one or the other, it was both.In Genesis 2:17, God specifically stated the consequence of Adam sinning; “you shall surely die”. Our standard interpretation has always been that the death God is speaking of here is not only physical death, but spiritual death, or separation from God’s presence and intimacy. We see that this did, in fact, occur.
Spiritual death is a broken relationship with God, and physical death is a result of this. This is the position taken, for example by the doctrine Commission of the Church of England in its 1995 report of entitled, The Mystery of Salvation, where they noted that with respect to the doctrine of final punishment "Hell is not eternal torment, but it is the final and irrevocable choosing of that which is opposed to God so completely and so absolutely that the only end is total non-being. Annihilation might be a truer picture of damnation than any of the traditional images of the hell of eternal torment." I agree. The ultimate outcome of severing ties with God who is the source of all life, is the eventual loss of life itself. Spiritual death is not incompatible with physical death. On the contrary, it is highly conducive to it.
2. Sheol, Hades, Gehenna
On a technical note, it is incorrect to say, as Magus did, that the Hebrews had a concept of a place called Sheol or Hades, and that the Hebrew name for this place is Gehenna. She`ol is the Hebrew word for the grave or the state of death. In the Greek version of the Old Testament, as well as in the Greek New Testament, the Greek word that Sheol is replaced with is Hades, which also refers to the grave or the state of death. Gehenna, however is not a Hebrew word, and it is not translated from Sheol, but has a different meaning altogether.
Gehenna Occurs much less frequently than She`ol or Hades, and it is a Greek word. It is the word translated as "Hell" in 12 places in the New Testament, most frequently in the very "Jewish" Gospel of Matthew (7 times). The greek word is a trasnliteration of the Hebrew place name, Ge-Hinnom, "Valley of Hinnom," or Ge-Ben-Hinnom, "Valley of the son of Hinnom."
This fact is often missed by readers of the New Testament, in part, I think, because the word "Hell" is given, and since we have a theological background that tells us what hell is supposed to be like, we don't realise that the Greek word is actually a proper place name, referring to an infamous place in Israel's history. Here are a few comments offered in the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary:
We are simply not able to make direct appeal to any "Jewish" view of the afterlife in Jesus' time, as this would give the incorrect impression that there was "a Jewish view," when in reality there were various competing Jewish views. I often see what seems to me to be an oversimplification when it comes to the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus and their views on the afterlife. Yes, on the one extreme was the belief in the immortality of the soul as well as belief in eternal torment. However we also know of other views that were current in Judaism. The Sadducees for example were on the opposite extreme, denied the immortality of the soul, eternal torment, and the resurrection – denying any future life at all. And there were views in between. Philo of Alexandria, as another example, an influential contemporary of Christ, is well known for advocating annihilationism by saying that the lost will be destroyed, using just the same language as Jesus in Matthew 10:28. It does strike me that no Jewish thinker who believed in eternal torment could possibly have expressed his theology by saying what Jesus said in Matthew 10:28, that Gehenna will consist in total destruction of body and soul.
Ge-Hinnom was a place well known to the people, a place of shame - and importantly for our discussion here, a place of very real destruction. Here's what Strong's Lexicon notes about this place:
Probably the passage using the word Gehenna that is most often used to support the doctrine of eternal torment is in Mark 9. Here Jesus refers to a state where “the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” We have all heard this phrase used before to bolster the doctrine of eternal torment I'm sure.
Our first task here is to note that this saying is not original. This is a direct quote from Isaiah chapter 66.
This is not eternal torment. Instead, what is in view is a scene of God’s enemies having been killed off, and now all that remains is a pile of corpses, being consumed by maggots and fire, a scene of disgust and abhorrence. This is precisely why the reference to the Valley of Hinnom is so fitting. All who knew of the place knew that it was a place of destruction and decay. Magus acknowledges this, but in my view he has not allowed this image to speak for itself. He noted:
Well said, and I agree. But if this should show us anything, it should sow us that Gehenna in the final sense "gets rid" of things, rather than keeps them in perpetual suffering.
Originally posted by Magus
3. The eventual fate
I am pleased that Magus made the point here that what is under discussion is the eventual fate of the lost, and not the nature of the intermediate state. This means, effectively, that whatever disagreements we might have over the nature of the intermediate state (She`ol or Hades) need not concern us here. It is certainly possible, for example, to believe in an unconsious intermediate state but also in eternal torment following the resurrection (as did Martin Luther or English Reformer William Tyndale), and it is also possible to believe in a conscious intermediate state and also the final destruction of the lost (a possibility entertained by John Stott).
This is another example where I have to commend Magus for distinguishing between arguments that are relevant to the real issue at stake, and those that are not (as in the case of the meaning of "eternal").
4. The effect of destruction rather than the mechanism
Here Magus makes another point which, rather than serving as an argument against annihilationism, is quite compatible with it, and I agree completely with what he says here. He starts out by asking exactly the right question, namely, what does the Bible mean when it says that God will destroy the lost?
Magus says that to take the word to refer to literal destruction as the annihilationist does would be a "shallow" approach, although as far as I can tell he doesn't quite explain why this would be so. He does say that the word can be used in other ways as well:A key element here is the word ‘destroy’. For God will ‘destroy’ the works of the devil (and the devil himself) [Heb 2:14, 1 John 3:8], and we can see that the fate of the devil is also the fate of those who were not in the Book of Life. But what does that word mean?
It does have to be pointed out that the annihilationist does not require that either matter or energy cease to exist. For example if you take a piece of paper and set fire to it, granted, the matter that made up that piece of paper has not ceased to exist, but the piece of paper as an organisation of that matter has certainly ceased to exist.For example, one can say “I destroyed his confidence” or “That kid destroys every toy he plays with” or “Atlantis was destroyed when it sank beneath the waves”. But…but… matter is neither created nor destroyed! Nor is energy, for that matter. Yet we know God can do such things (creatio ex nihilio).
What Magus says next is interesting.
Here I must agree entirely. There are probably millions upon millions of different ways for a thing to be destroyed, all with basically the same effect. This is certainly true of the biblical language that is used to desribe the destruction of the lost. The Greek word used, for example, in Matthew 10:28 to describe what will happen to those consigned to Gehenna is the word apollumi. As we look through the New Testament at how this word is used when it describes the actions of one agent or person against a person, the mechanism might not be the same in every case, but the effect certainly is. Here are some examples.Well, in many parts of the Bible, it’s a physical destruction that’s referred to. And in various ways, too! Floods, earthquakes, fireballs, war, plague, famine, the list goes on and on… In all of the cases, however, the essential result is a rather lasting removal of offending party or parties. Utter ruin. Total uselessness and powerlessness. When God destroys, He’s very thorough! Regardless of the mechanism, however, the basic effect is on the lines of "well, he/it ain't a-gonna do that anymore!" I would argue that the term destroy should be seen not for its mechanism, but its effect.
Here the word "kill" is translated from apollumi. The mechanism is not even referred to, but the outcome is fairly clear, based on what happened to the poor children massacred by Herod's soldiers.
The NIV obscures the point, giving the word “drown” as an interpretation, but literally the disciples said “Lord save us, we perish!” The form of the word apollumi here is used to mean be destroyed or die. Here is a different mechanism, drowning, but the same result, death or destruction.
Here the parents of a boy are describing the effects that an evil spirit has on him. Just as all translators note, the word apollumi rightly means literally destroy – to kill. A different mechanism, this time including either drowing or burning, but the same effect, death.
Again, apollumi is used here to describe what was going to be done to Jesus. He died, quite literally.
When the term apollumi is used in the Gospels to describe actions done to a person by another, it carries the meaning of literal destruction and death. The mechanism might not always be the same, but the effect is. Hence, I agree with Magus that the mechanism isn't what's important, the effect is. But what is that effect? The available New Testament evidence, especially in the Synoptic Gospels containing the teaching of the Lord on final punishment, show us that the effect is what the annihilationist claims will happen, literal death and destruction. When I see the way some defenders of eternal torment use the language of destruction, I am sympathetic to 19th century biblical translator R Weymouth:
(Quoted in Henry Constable, The Nature and Duration of Future Punishment (London: Edward Hobbs, 1886, 6th ed.), 36.)
But in spite our agreement on this principle, all is not well here. Magus says, "All we can say is that the offending parties will be removed from God’s presence (and presumably ours as well, since we’ll be in God’s presence)." But I do not think that this is all we can say, because of the considerable weight of biblical language that does tell us what the effect of final punishment will be, as illustrtated in my opening post. In some fo the strongest most vivid possible language available to the authors, the Scripture teaches that the lost will one day die forever and be no more. The Scripture does not satisfy our curiosity about the mechanism of destruction, but the effect and reality of that destruction is taught in the most solemn of terms.
5. Spiritual life vs Biological Life
Here Magus makes another point that in some ways I agree with, and in some other ways is not warranted by the biblical data. He says:
Obviously we agree together that eternal life is more than just endless life for the believer, but it is at least endless life. Eternal life entails life forever. I agree, naturally enough, that this issue revolves around Jesus of Nazereth, but here our disagreement ends. I see no reason at all to grant that the issue is one of two different modes of eternal existence. In fact that is precisely what this debate is about. According tot he biblical evidence that I have presented, and according tot he annihilationist view, we are debating whether or not the choice is endless life vs oblivion, and the above quote, so far as I can tell, doesn't contain any evidence from Scripture against the claim that eternal punishment will end in oblivion. Quantity of life just is key to the gift of eternal life, and eternal loss of life is a terrible loss indeed.We, I believe, agree on the basic exegesis that the quality of life is more important than the quantity when reference is made to eternal life. A punishment can then be seen as a divine judgement that fits the crime/sin. And the whole issue revolves around Jesus of Nazareth. Do you want to follow Him? If you do, then He will be with you, and you will be with Him. That's Heaven. If not, then He will not be with you , and vice versa. That's Hell. An unending period of time and existence without God. They're flip sides of salvation. Not continued existence vs oblivion, but continued existence with God vs without. Better is one day in the house of the Lord than thousands elsewhere.
6. Outside the New Jerusalem
Here Magus hits on what I daresay is his argument with the most biblical weight. 1) He notes that Revelation 21:8 states that the wicked will suffer the fate represented in the vision by the lake of fire, which is the second death. 2) He notes that in Revelation 21:25-27, the writer speaks of the New Jerusalem, and says that nothing abominable will enter it. 3) He then notes that Rev 22:14-15 reads as follows (this is probably his strongest text so I will quote it in full)
4) After listing these verses, Magus concludes that these passages of Scripture indicate a continuation of life for the lost, outside of the New Jerusalem where nothing abominable will enter, in the lake of fire.
There are two responses that need to be made, explaning why I do not think this last argument contributes to a refutation of annihilationism. Here is what Magus inferred form these texts:
The first thing to note is that by saying that a place called Hell is "referred" to here is somewhat difficult given a normal understanding of the word "refer." Certainly there is no reference to Gehenna in the chapters Magus is citing from, and the last reference made to hades was made earlier in chapoter 20, where Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. The received understanding of that reference, and I agree with it, is that it means death will be no more. But if this is what it means, then the lake of fire signifies things being no more, and hence anything that is thrown into the lake of fire will be no more.Which implies that a continued existence beyond judgement. For it is illogical to say that these unsaved people are outside unless they are outside somewhere. How easy it would be to simply say "And nowhere are dogs and sorcerers." if annihilationism was implied. Further, as the gates are perpetually open, it also implies that this somewhere is sealed off from New Jerusalem; this somewhere a.k.a. Hell.
But the two main responses I want to make to this argument are firstly that it doesn't adequately take account of the meaning of the imagery in the book of Revelation, and secondly, quite apart from the use of imagery involved, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Allow me to elaborate.
Firstly the imagery. I've already touched on the image of the ake of fire and what it signifies. But also take a look at the New Jerusalem. Magus' interpretation supposes that what we are seeing is a vision of future time passing in either heaven or on earth (and for now it doesn't matter which), in a city that is called the New Jerusalem, which is made of all the materials decribed by John, and with all the dimensions described there as well. I suggest that this is a mistake. The New Jerusalem is a picture of the church of Christ. The Church is the bride of Christ (see for example 2 Cor 11:2 or Revelation 19:7). But notice how the New Jerusalem is spoken of In Revelation 21:9-10.
Notice that the New Jerusalem is the Bride of Christ, which is what the Church is. Notice also that the New Jerusalem has the Apostles as a foundation (Rev 21:14), just as the Church does (Ephesians 2:20). The similarity is not accidental. The New Jerusalem is a symbol of the Church, the body and bride of Christ.
The point of these verses then is not to offer a geography of the future and eternal states, but to make a theological statement: There is no salvation outside the church.
Secondly, I do not think that even if this were a geography of the eternal state, that it would follow that these texts are a problem for annihilationism, for the simple reason that these texts do not say anything about how long the lost will remain. In Isaiah 66 for example we see the prediction that the enemies of God will be slain by the LORD, but even still the righteous are pictured as going forth and looking upon their corpses. On a note that is probably more familiar to us, I can quite accurately say that my father's parents are in a cemetary. Does this mean I think they are still alive? No, not at all. There is no reason, therfore to assume that just because the lost are said to be outside the New Jerusalem, they will have eternal consiousness there.
And so for these reasons, I do not think we have seen any good reason to reject the annihilationist view in favour of a more traditional view of hell as eternal torment.
In His service
Theonomy"Personally though, I won't use psychoactives because of the possibility of contacting a demon." - Kelp
-
December 11th 2005, 01:29 AM #5
Sorceror of Cause
---
- Join Date
- November 7th, 2005
- Location
- Adelaide, Australia
- Posts
- 111
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
Re: GYM DEBATE: Annihilationism (Theonomy vs. magus)
My apologies to Theonomy and all who are reading this debate for my late reply. I have been unable to access the Internet this past week - but I'mmm baaaacccckkkkkkk....! :) Originally posted by Theonomy
To rebut each of the points that Theonomy has brought up so far...
1. The Biblical Question of Immortality (and Physical vs Spiritual Death, why not?)
To summarise what Theonomy's point is, he basically argues that God might have created our first parents to be 'immortable', that is to say, on probation. My position is that while the practical effects might have worked out that way, technically this is not the proper way of stating how Adam and Eve were designed.
I don't know, but I believe that Theonomy and I both agree that the end of Creation Week are marked with God 'checking over' His handiwork (so to speak) and seeing that everything was 'very good' - thus indicating a state of perfection, where nothing could be better than it was. It could become worse (and it did become worse), but as things stood, things were just right.
In essence, Theonomy postulates that mankind was created with mortality as the default, with potential immortality that was not actualised. My argument is that man was created immortal by default, with potential mortality that was actualised. Or to be more precise, man was created with an indefinite lifespan. Mankind was not designed, and never meant, to die, physically or spiritually.
What is my evidence for supporting this particular stance? Well, it's a hodgepodge of scriptural and scientific evidence, actually. For one thing, Theonomy's stance would have Adam and Eve potentially on tenterhooks/probationary status perpetually. Until and unless God rescinded the command not to eat, they would not be immortal. Scripture records otherwise - they would not die unless they ate of the fruit, and this would be correct regardless of whether God rescinded His command or not. Best state of affairs deteriorating, rather than a not-so-good state of affairs becoming better. Furthermore, even after the Fall, humanity lived to astounding ages - centuries and centuries' worth!
That's scripture; scientific evidence is clearer. If you had a good look at cellular function, it's obvious that living cells are meant to continue indefinitely. To be more correct; living cells have the mechanism to continue indefinitely. If telomeres regenerated themselves, and the anti-cancer genetic defect correction systems functioned perfectly, anybody would be capable of living forever. My argument is that mankind was at the very least designed for indefinite lifespans, possibly forever. So much for physical life, anyways.
You know, both Theonomy and I agree on so many points you might wonder what we're really going on about!The question that this raises is: Is this fact incompatible with annihilationism? After all, as Magus notes, the consequences of sin consist "not only" in physical death, but in spiritual death. My reply is just to say that it wasn't one or the other, it was both.
Certainly physical death began on a macro level after Adam and Eve died spiritually.
Please note; I do not say that spiritual death is incompatible with physical death. What I am saying is simply that spiritual death is associated with an eternal separation from God's presence. Whichever line the Hebrews took on the afterlife, this is the central reality they all understood to be true. Therefore, spiritual life is paralleled by eternally basking in God's presence, love and intimacy. The whole point is that existence is meaningless without God's presence, and that is the true meaning of Hell. Not oblivion, which many would see as a blessing (certainly the atheists don't expect anything else), but a continued existence without God.
2. Sheol, Hades, Gehenna
So stipulated, and again not the point I was trying to make precisely. As Theonomy notes elsewhere in his rebuttal, the Jews always had different views on the afterlife (and whether there is even such a thing as an afterlife). My point is, no matter what you want to call it, the Hebrew concept identifies a twilight existence, and iirc, the NT writers never had any problems identifying sheol/hades/gehenna as all of the same type of thing. Now, please note, you can argue about whether the dead will be 'out of time', or whether there is an 'intermediate' state or not but regardless, this is the view of the afterlife. And as you will see later, the eventual state of unbelievers has something to do with the intermediate stage.On a technical note, it is incorrect to say, as Magus did, that the Hebrews had a concept of a place called Sheol or Hades, and that the Hebrew name for this place is Gehenna. She`ol is the Hebrew word for the grave or the state of death. In the Greek version of the Old Testament, as well as in the Greek New Testament, the Greek word that Sheol is replaced with is Hades, which also refers to the grave or the state of death. Gehenna, however is not a Hebrew word, and it is not translated from Sheol, but has a different meaning altogether.
For those who are not so informed, Theonomy has kindly dug up the meaning and context of Gehenna. I still think the simplification of 'Jerusalem City Garbage Dump' retains sufficient cultural context (and sounds really great
)
None of which detracts from the fact that 'getting rid' of undesirables can be accomplished by many methods, and removing it to a place of 'perpetual suffering', as Theonomy puts it, is as valid as 'causing to cease to exist' as a method.Magus acknowledges this, but in my view he has not allowed this image to speak for itself. He noted:
Well said, and I agree. But if this should show us anything, it should show us that Gehenna in the final sense "gets rid" of things, rather than keeps them in perpetual suffering. Originally posted by Magus
Now, we have a plethora of information on how Jesus viewed the Kingdom of Heaven/God. From this, we can extract what Jesus saw as the opposite fate. And in almost every instance, Jesus sees the opposite fate as a lost opportunity, a great regret on those who have missed out. Like it or not, Theonomy, 'weeping' and 'gnashing of teeth' form part of that imagery. But more to the point (since it's arguable that it's the intermediate stage), Jesus also points to eternal punishment (Matt 25:32). Even more, Jesus points out that severe judgement is meted out on those who commit certain sins, and in one instance says the judgement is worse than death!
3. The eventual fate
Which, to be honest, can be part of the argument. The terms of the debate are clear; it is the eventual state that is under discussion. But the in-between state becomes important under certain schemes of eschatology. I don't want to debate on that; it's a different kettle of fish. Just bear in mind that when we discuss the issue, the intermediate state can be in some casesI am pleased that Magus made the point here that what is under discussion is the eventual fate of the lost, and not the nature of the intermediate state. This means, effectively, that whatever disagreements we might have over the nature of the intermediate state (She`ol or Hades) need not concern us here. It is certainly possible, for example, to believe in an unconsious intermediate state but also in eternal torment following the resurrection (as did Martin Luther or English Reformer William Tyndale), and it is also possible to believe in a conscious intermediate state and also the final destruction of the lost (a possibility entertained by John Stott).
form an underlying axiom.
Nevertheless, let's keep it on the level - the eventual fate of the unsaved.
4. The effect of destruction rather than the mechanism
Oh, no. No no no. What I said was that 'destruction' is usually used to mean 'kill' or 'cease to exist'. But you can destroy something by ruining it, or turning it unfit for its original purpose without causing it to cease to exist entirely. Some verses from the Bible (NT) that say destroy without meaning cease to exist.Magus says that to take the word to refer to literal destruction as the annihilationist does would be a "shallow" approach, although as far as I can tell he doesn't quite explain why this would be so. He does say that the word can be used in other ways as well:
Matt 9:17, Lk 12:33, Jn 10:10, Acts 3:23, 1 Cor 1:19
And even from the rather short list presented above, it can be seen that this is not always true. The term 'destroy' when applied to physical things does not always mean the cessation of existence, cf new wine in old wineskins. The term destroy as applied to people in the physical sense means physical death. Can the term destroy as applied to ppl in the spiritual sense not mean spiritual death? And the one thing that unites it all, the common effect, is 'rendered unfit for use, unable to fulfill function as designed'. I think, Theonomy, you must agree to this. A city that has been destroyed, has been rendered unfit for use and is unable to fulfill function as designed. Similarly a wineskin. Similarly a person. Or a demon, for that matter.When the term apollumi is used in the Gospels to describe actions done to a person by another, it carries the meaning of literal destruction and death. The mechanism might not always be the same, but the effect is. Hence, I agree with Magus that the mechanism isn't what's important, the effect is. But what is that effect? The available New Testament evidence, especially in the Synoptic Gospels containing the teaching of the Lord on final punishment, show us that the effect is what the annihilationist claims will happen, literal death and destruction.
Indeed, I do not see that this is the case. On the contrary, Scripture teaches that there will be a judgement that is commeasurate with actions. To have a blanket punishment of oblivion is insufficient to answer the plethora of Scripture that speaks on judgement based on actions. And this is where the intermediate stage (if you say there is one) comes into play.In some fo the strongest most vivid possible language available to the authors, the Scripture teaches that the lost will one day die forever and be no more.
Someone on the commentary thread has even theorised that the eventual fate is indeed oblivion for the unbeliever... after a long (but presumably finite) time of torment. Talk about Purgatory in reverse! I hope you're not holding to this opinion, because I'll laugh at you for a long time if you do. Well, I'll laugh at the opinion, at any rate. Won't be Christian to laugh at you personally.
5. Spiritual life vs Biological Life
The point I wished to make here is simply this; true life is having a relationship of love with our Creator, our Heavenly Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The fact that it's eternal is not the issue, because the term 'eternal' simply means infinite time. Not to go into scientific terms, but we don't know if the new universe (new Heaven and new Earth and new Jerusalem) will have the same space/time setup or constraints. The universe had a beginning, it seems logical to posit an ending as well, and a new Creation.Obviously we agree together that eternal life is more than just endless life for the believer, but it is at least endless life. Eternal life entails life forever. I agree, naturally enough, that this issue revolves around Jesus of Nazereth, but here our disagreement ends. I see no reason at all to grant that the issue is one of two different modes of eternal existence. In fact that is precisely what this debate is about. According to the biblical evidence that I have presented, and according to the annihilationist view, we are debating whether or not the choice is endless life vs oblivion, and the above quote, so far as I can tell, doesn't contain any evidence from Scripture against the claim that eternal punishment will end in oblivion. Quantity of life just is key to the gift of eternal life, and eternal loss of life is a terrible loss indeed.
If that is so, then the issue of eternity boils down, in its true essence, to 'never ending'. True death, then, is NOT having a relationship with of love with God. The question of whether you continue to exist or not is almost secondary to the issue; but one would assume that you should be existing in order to feel this lack, this absence.
6. Outside the New Jerusalem
I would suggest that the more pertinent meaning is 'rendered powerless, meaningless, purposeless'. The wages of sin is death. No more sin, no more death. Death will be rendered meaningless, powerless, purposeless.There are two responses that need to be made, explaning why I do not think this last argument contributes to a refutation of annihilationism. Here is what Magus inferred form these texts:
The first thing to note is that by saying that a place called Hell is "referred" to here is somewhat difficult given a normal understanding of the word "refer." Certainly there is no reference to Gehenna in the chapters Magus is citing from, and the last reference made to hades was made earlier in chapoter 20, where Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. The received understanding of that reference, and I agree with it, is that it means death will be no more. But if this is what it means, then the lake of fire signifies things being no more, and hence anything that is thrown into the lake of fire will be no more.
Again, it's the issue of mechanism vs effect. The effect is that death becomes meaningless, purposeless, and the mechanism could be making death cease to exist. But death is a state of being. If that state of being is not experienced by anybody, then certainly it can be said to cease to exist. And therefore become meaningless and purposeless.
A human is not a state of being. A human is the actual being. And if death had been rendered meaningless, powerless, purposeless (and thus 'ceased to exist'), then when said human is thrown into the lake of fire, then he/she cannot suffer death/annihilation, because death itself no longer has power. Again, from context, we seem to be talking about physical death. So, really, what the annihilationist says is a proof text for their case can be seen as a proof text for the eternal-tormentist (what should we call ourselves? I don't know).
Hmph. Revelation being the book it is, I am not qualified enough to comment. However, I will state that I'll just view John as having actually seen New Jerusalem. There is nothing that directly contradicts the interpretation as a state of being that I've assumed. And because I don't know whether space/time as we know it is identical in the new Creation, I can't say dogmatically that this is a geographical issue. But I will say this. A state of being 'inside' implies there is an 'outside', whether or not it's a n-dimensional space or a state of existence. I can be 'out' of mind, 'out' of the closet, 'out' of my mind, 'out' of a marriage - all without invoking geographical location.The point of these verses then is not to offer a geography of the future and eternal states, but to make a theological statement: There is no salvation outside the church.
Ah hah! So, Purgatory in reverse! Unfortunately, there is insufficient data to see what Theonomy (or other annihilationists) reconcile judgement based on actions with eventual oblivion, so I'll just have to wait for you to build it, Theonomy.Secondly, I do not think that even if this were a geography of the eternal state, that it would follow that these texts are a problem for annihilationism, for the simple reason that these texts do not say anything about how long the lost will remain. In Isaiah 66 for example we see the prediction that the enemies of God will be slain by the LORD, but even still the righteous are pictured as going forth and looking upon their corpses. On a note that is probably more familiar to us, I can quite accurately say that my father's parents are in a cemetary. Does this mean I think they are still alive? No, not at all. There is no reason, therfore to assume that just because the lost are said to be outside the New Jerusalem, they will have eternal consiousness there.
In wrapping up this rebuttal, then, let me just put it in order;
1. Man was created to live indefinitely, forever even.
2. The underlying concept of true life is relationship with God.
3. Eternity is simply 'never ending'.
4. Therefore, true death is WITHOUT relationship with God. And by each unsaved person's choice, this state of affairs is never ending.
Love in Christ,
Magus
-
December 15th 2005, 04:04 AM #6
I want to be forever young
---
- Join Date
- February 16th, 2003
- Posts
- 10,867
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
Male - bad ChristianRe: GYM DEBATE: Annihilationism (Theonomy vs. magus)
Well, here we are, at round three. Here I'll comment on Magus' rebuttal effort.
Recall that my case consists of three argument. Firstly, the biblical argument from immortality. Secondly, the biblical vision of eternity, and thirdly the biblical language of destruction. I put it to the reader that Magus has only really addressed the first of these three, and eve then I will argue that his response is not successful.
Instead, Magus spent most of his rebuttal time re-defending his opening post against my rebuttal, although he occasionally alluded to my arguments, which was helpful. I suppose the best thing to do then is to work through his rebuttal of my points, and then to tackle his responses to my rebuttal, which have already been offered now.
The biblical question of immortality
Firstly Magus does turn directly to the biblical question of immortality. He does not, however, argue that my claim is false - that immortality was forfeited at the fall, and can only be regained through Christ. He does take issue with my use of the term "immortable," and he does say this:
This, actually, is his whole response to my argument from the biblical question of immortality. But notice that this fails to answer the case. Let's grant everything Magus says in this quote. We're still left with the argument untouched, which argues that death came through Adam, and immortality can only be gained in Christ. None fo the biblical grounds for this important argument were challenged in the least, and so it appears that the argument still stands entriely intact, and we can move on to see if Magus managed to address the other two arguments.In essence, Theonomy postulates that mankind was created with mortality as the default, with potential immortality that was not actualised. My argument is that man was created immortal by default, with potential mortality that was actualised. Or to be more precise, man was created with an indefinite lifespan. Mankind was not designed, and never meant, to die, physically or spiritually.
The biblical Vision of Eternity
Here I made the argument that Scripture presents a vision of the future of creation in which no evil exists. I used several biblical passages to argue for this end, and then I contrasted the biblical vision of eternity with the vision of eternity that is generated by the traditional doctrine of eternal torment, and I showed that there is a clear contflict between them.
But Magus did not see fit to mention this argument in his rebuttal at all. This is surely confusing, no less than the fact that he did not rebut the point of the first argument - or even attempt to do so. And so the first two arguments were simply left standing. Let's move on the thee third argument.
The biblical language of destruction
I showed that the majority of biblical language used to directly describe the fate of the lost is the language of death and destruction. I drew on well-known examples like Matthew 10:28, Matthew 7:13-14, Mattew 13:40-42, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and 2 Pter 2:6. Magus did not single this argument out for comment at all, at least not by directly referring to it. This was surprising for a rebuttal session, given the obvious force of the argument.
However, while discussing one of his own arguments (the effect rather than the mechanism of destruction), he disagrees with my claim that the Bible's use of terms like "destroy" indicates death and destruction. He provides a brief list, Matt 9:17, Lk 12:33, Jn 10:10, Acts 3:23, 1 Cor 1:19, and then says that even based on this short list we can see that y claim is not true.
Well, do we see that? Not at all. Matthew 9:17 refers to burst wineskins, Luke 12:33 refers to things that are consumed by moths (and actually that would support an annihilationist interpretation, if it were a relevant reference, and additionally it is a completely different greek word from apollumi), John 10:10 says that the thief comes to steal, kill and destroy (and I don't see why that wouldn't suit an annihlationist view of the word either), Acts 3:23 is a quote from the Law, where anyone who does not listen to Moses will be cut off from the people, which is a different word altogether, and which, also, can sometimes refer to the death penalty, so is still compatible with annihilationism. Lastly, 1 Cor. 1:19 says that God will destroy the wisdom of the wise.
Why do I not consider this to be evidence? The answer is simple - care needs to be taken when comparing words in our english translations. A range of factors need to be taken into consideration. Firstly, it clearly will not do any good to quote verses that don't even use the same Greek word as the one I am referring to (as in the case of Lk 12:33 or Acts 3:23. Additionally, care needs to be taken that uses of the word in question are relevantly similar. Take the reference to the "ruined" or "perished" wineskins. Can a wineskin actually die at all? Clearly not, and hence no matter what you do to a windeskin, no word will rightly convey the fact that it dies. It bursts. But what happens if a person bursts? Does he dies? Yes, of course. The error here is that I am saying that when the word is used to describe the actions of a person or agent against another person, it involves death. This observation simply cannot be defeated by using examples that do not involve the actions of one person against another at all. Such examples are not relevantly similar.
What I did show is that in the synoptic Gospels, when the word apollumi is used to describe the actions of one person or agent against another person, it really does involve literal death and destruction. Magus did not use any counter examples, and I can tell you why - there are none. The very language to describe what God is going to do to the lost is the same language which, when used elsewhere by the same writers to describe the actions of one person against another, conveys the idea of literal death and destruction.
Aside from reference to this specific word, non of my other points in the argument from the biblical language of destruction were mentioned at all.
And so in the whole space of his rebuttal piece, Magus did not even begin a rebuttal of my first two arguments, and made a claim about my second argument (actually it was a claim about his argument, but it was relevant to mine) which was demonstrably incorrect, and made irrelevant comparisons with other Greek words and passages that do not tell us what the languge of destruction means with respect to eternal punishment.
I'll just comment on a couple of additional things in Magus' rebuttal post.
Gehenna
There was no new material on the biblical references to Gehenna. However, recall that I had commented earlier on the fact that while Magus referred to gehenna as the rubbish dump, and as a place for getting rid of things, he did not, I argued, allow this image to take full effect. After all, what does a firey place of disposal do to get rid of things? It destroys them. But Magus says he doesn't find that persuasive. He says:
But notice that in going in this direction, Magus is leaving Gehenna behind altogether. My point wasn't just that God will get rid of the lost (although in itself this points to annihilationism is a likely scenario), my point is that the way a firey dump like Gehenna got rid of things is very clear - it did so by destroying them, and Magus used this very example as an illustration that Gehenna is a picture of the way God will "get rid of" the lost. But what good is such a picture if it conveys the very opposite of the intended message?None of which detracts from the fact that 'getting rid' of undesirables can be accomplished by many methods, and removing it to a place of 'perpetual suffering', as Theonomy puts it, is as valid as 'causing to cease to exist' as a method.
To reinforce this comment of his, Magus then makes a couple of additional claims that in my simply offer nothing to his argument. he says, "Like it or not, Theonomy, 'weeping' and 'gnashing of teeth' form part of that imagery." Yes, that's correct. But why should this indicate eternal torment? Jesus clerly saw no contradiction between saying that there is weeping and gnashing of teeth when something happens, and affirming that what happens involves real destruction. Take for example his illustrtion of the weeds thrown into the furnace. There will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth," even though the weeds are then utterly consumed (Matthew 13:40-43). Grotesque though the comparison may be, for the sake of making the point we could note that a person who is burnt at the stake might very well weep and gnash their teeth, but that is no protection against being killed.
The language of weeping and gnashing of teeth is used also in Psalms 112:10
So there is nothing inherent in the language of weeping and gnashing of teeth to suggest eternal torment.
Magus then adds, "But more to the point (since it's arguable that it's the intermediate stage), Jesus also points to eternal punishment (Matt 25:32)." But Magus himself has already surrendered this argument in his very first post. Remember how he said:
And I agreed with him. The issue is not whether or not the punishment is eternal, the issue is what the punishment is. Has he so quickly changed his stance on this matter?Another key element is the word ‘punishment’. Since we both agree that whatever the eventual fate is, it’s eternal (forever and ever, ages of the ages, aeons upon aeons, whatever the phrasing you prefer), this is not the issue. Is the punishment oblivion or not?
Lastly, Magus returns to his argument about those "outside the New Jerusalem." I noted firstly that the New Jerusalem is not a geographica location, it is the church. Those texts in the book of Revelation simply show that there is no salvation outside Christ's church. I also argued that quite apart from this, since we can sensibly talk of dead people being "in" a graveyard even though they have been dead many years, saying that the lost are "outside" the New Jerusalem need to be taken to imply that they are alive.
Magus admits that some of the issues associated witht he book of Revelation are more complex than he is preapred to tackle at the moment, which is fine. He does say, "A state of being 'inside' implies there is an 'outside', whether or not it's a n-dimensional space or a state of existence. I can be 'out' of mind, 'out' of the closet, 'out' of my mind, 'out' of a marriage - all without invoking geographical location." And this is also fine. I agree that the lost will forever be "outside" of the church, even if they have no geographical location.
However, Magus did add a very strange comment in response to me, when he said: "Ah hah! So, Purgatory in reverse! Unfortunately, there is insufficient data to see what Theonomy (or other annihilationists) reconcile judgement based on actions with eventual oblivion, so I'll just have to wait for you to build it, Theonomy."
I just don't know what to make of this. In Catholic theology, Purgatory is a place where Christians go to be purged of all the remnants of sin prior to entering heaven. But why my comments should be taken as resembling this in any way is quote beyond me. My point is that even if this were a geographical desription of heaven - which I do no accept - saying that the lost are "outside" does not entail their endless life, just as my saying that my grandparents are "in" a cemetary does not entail that they are now alive.
And so after Magus' rebuttal, I think my arguments are still intact. The Bible teaches that only the saved will live forever. The Bible teaches that one day there will be no evil, and the Bible teaches that one day the lost will be destroyed."Personally though, I won't use psychoactives because of the possibility of contacting a demon." - Kelp
-
December 21st 2005, 12:09 AM #7
Sorceror of Cause
---
- Join Date
- November 7th, 2005
- Location
- Adelaide, Australia
- Posts
- 111
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
Re: GYM DEBATE: Annihilationism (Theonomy vs. magus)
Yes, and it's my turn. Incidentally, considering the lag time between Theonomy's posting and when it actually showed up, might I take the opportunity to wish everybody a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Originally posted by Theonomy
Theonomy's argument is based on 3 points, right enough. IIRC, his case is built up like this:Recall that my case consists of three argument. Firstly, the biblical argument from immortality. Secondly, the biblical vision of eternity, and thirdly the biblical language of destruction. I put it to the reader that Magus has only really addressed the first of these three, and eve then I will argue that his response is not successful.
1. Man was not created immortal - death was the default position until he passed God's test(s).
2. In the eventual future (eternity), the Bible says no one will be against God any more. There will be no more evil.
3. Whenever the word 'destroy' (appolumi) is used to describe the actions of one person against another, the result is always death.
Now, while I don't really consider that I left his points alone, I will admit I'm not the most systematic when it comes to constructing arguments. So here goes.
1. Man was created immortal by default. Therefore, death was never God's intent/will for His creation. And if not, then oblivion isn't part of the package either.
2. [a point Calvinists and Arminians can fight over later] Good and Evil are defined by God's will. Good is what God's nature is; evil is not. What God desires, then, is good. Since, eventually, everybody has to acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, and in the final analysis, cannot rebel against Him anymore [remember, this takes place before judgement], then obviously, whether annihilated or not, evil will no longer exist anyway, because God will become sovereign over all.
3. The term 'destroy' is used in other contexts.
Let's grant everything Magus says in this quote. We're still left with the argument untouched, which argues that death came through Adam, and immortality can only be gained in Christ. None of the biblical grounds for this important argument were challenged in the least, and so it appears that the argument still stands entriely intact, and we can move on to see if Magus managed to address the other two arguments.
Looking at just the first verse in the cite, one can tell that we're supposed to die just once. From context, this is a physical death, of course. It's also partially spiritual, but in the main it's physical.
IOW, everyone will face a [physical] resurrection. [Physical] Immortality, then, is not the issue. We will be raised from the [physical] dead, Christian or otherwise. The issue is spiritual life, which will be eternal in nature.
The biblical Vision of EternityIndeed, because I saw no conflict. Certainly not the way Theonomy might see it. Let me reiterate. When you can no longer think evil thoughts, do evil deeds, say evil things, does evil exist? Of course not! Consider then the reality of Hell. You, a non-believer in your life, now know otherwise. You have seen the awesome power of God, His implacable Righteousness and Justice, His overwhelming sovereignty. You've witnessed the utter crushing of all rebellion towards Him, and you've been forced to accept Jesus as Lord of All. Even worse, you've seen the sheer joy and love and peace that God's people share with Him and one another.
Here I made the argument that Scripture presents a vision of the future of creation in which no evil exists. I used several biblical passages to argue for this end, and then I contrasted the biblical vision of eternity with the vision of eternity that is generated by the traditional doctrine of eternal torment, and I showed that there is a clear contflict between them.
But Magus did not see fit to mention this argument in his rebuttal at all. This is surely confusing, no less than the fact that he did not rebut the point of the first argument - or even attempt to do so. And so the first two arguments were simply left standing.
To cap things off, you are now in a place, or a state of being, where God's intimacy, God's gifts and rewards to His elect, do not exist. Now, tell me, can anybody, knowing all these things, still get up to trouble? Especially when they cannot escape Hell?
That's the Biblical view of eternity, and I say it's as compatible with Hell as anything.
The biblical language of destruction
Well, I must admit it was somewhat remiss of me. I just didn't see that I needed to, but nonetheless.I showed that the majority of biblical language used to directly describe the fate of the lost is the language of death and destruction. I drew on well-known examples like Matthew 10:28, Matthew 7:13-14, Mattew 13:40-42, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and 2 Pter 2:6. Magus did not single this argument out for comment at all, at least not by directly referring to it. This was surprising for a rebuttal session, given the obvious force of the argument.
Let's look at them.
1. Matt 10:28 sits in the middle of Jesus' exhortations to His disciples to go out and be bold in doing what they should do. Don't worry about physical dangers, He says, but rather, fear God. IOW, don't fear physical death, but fear the God who can both kill you and separate you from Himself. I'm not arguing whether God can destroy us or not, in the sense Theonomy is arguing. Of course He can - He's God. But does/will He? That's the issue. And, spiritual death is separation from God, with no sense of cessation of oblivion, from the Bible.
2. Matt 7:13-14 speaks of destruction vs life. Jolly good. So what?
3. Matt 13:40-42 speaks of the non-believers being separated from the believers and then burnt. Again, so what?
4. 2 Peter 2:6 speaks of fire, yet again.
Theonomy, perhaps my point wasn't made clearly enough. Let me grant you that destroy does mean death. Let's get that out of the way. So what? Physical destruction leads to physical death. Siritual destruction leads to spiritual death. But what is spiritual death? Spiritual death is separation from God, the source of true life.
Do you see why I didn't want to debate it too much? I though I made my point.
Agreed, and I'm not a languages scholar, so I couldn't tell which destroy was appolumi. Maybe I need a concordance.Firstly, it clearly will not do any good to quote verses that don't even use the same Greek word as the one I am referring to
Right, but the issue is not died. The issue is destroyed.Additionally, care needs to be taken that uses of the word in question are relevantly similar. Take the reference to the "ruined" or "perished" wineskins. Can a wineskin actually die at all? Clearly not, and hence no matter what you do to a wineskin, no word will rightly convey the fact that it dies. It bursts.
What am I talking about, you might ask. Well, the word is destroy. God can say 'kill', 'slay', 'execute', 'exterminate' (ok, that's a little too far) - but the NT authors (Paul, mostly) uses the word 'destroy'. It must surely carry more overtones than just kill/make dead. And my argument is that the effect of 'destroy' is consistently (whether the object being destroyed is organic/living or otherwise) 'render powerless/useless/meaningless/purposeless'. Now, obviously, the easiest way to do this is to kill, if it's a person you're talking about.
Not at all. But here's what I mean.And I agreed with him. The issue is not whether or not the punishment is eternal, the issue is what the punishment is. Has he so quickly changed his stance on this matter?
The Bible clearly posits that there are different grades of punishment at the judgement. God will judge according to a scale, not simply a Pass/Fail. Christians will Pass, all others will Fail, but in both instances there are grades.
Well, in order for the annihilationist view to be perfectly consistent, it must take that into account. Therefore, the graded punishment (NOT oblivion YET) can occur at two logical 'times' - intermediate stage or at the end. Now, if we leave the intermediate stage out of it, then only the end stage needs to be spoken of. But I don't know which viewpoint Theonomy will take.
I presume you meant 'need NOT be taken...'. Nevertheless, you're making the case for me. Annihilationism is not simply death. It's the utter oblivion of the consciousness - and I certainly assume that the associated physical body is 'destroyed' as well. If this is wrong, please correct me.I also argued that quite apart from this, since we can sensibly talk of dead people being "in" a graveyard even though they have been dead many years, saying that the lost are "outside" the New Jerusalem need to be taken to imply that they are alive.
Well then. A person may die, but his/her body will continue to exist for some time - several thousand years, in the case of mummified folk. Even more, depending on your YEC/OEC views.
So, yes, my grandfather is in a cemetary. But Adam? Is he anywhere? What about Esau? When the body - even the very bones - have decomposed and no longer exist in any coherent sense, you can no longer say they are 'in' Israel, or the Middle East, or whatever. The best that can be said is "Well, he WAS buried there, but there's nothing there now. Not even his bones."
'Outside' implies a state of being/existence. If annihilationism is true, then unbelievers do not exist, are NOT - so, they cannot have a state of being/existence.
As stated above, I would like to know how this comes down in the annihilationist view in terms of the judgement and graded punishments. Purgatory is the place where you 'expiate your sins' before going to Heaven. Is the annihilationist view that you'll have to suffer the consequences for all your sins before being snuffed out of existence? Or, contrary to the Bible, is it that you'll be snuffed out of existence immediately upon being thrown into the 'lake of fire' regardless of number and severity of sins? So, is it Purgatory in reverse?However, Magus did add a very strange comment in response to me, when he said: "Ah hah! So, Purgatory in reverse! Unfortunately, there is insufficient data to see what Theonomy (or other annihilationists) reconcile judgement based on actions with eventual oblivion, so I'll just have to wait for you to build it, Theonomy."
You cannot run away from the fact that judgement is based on actions, and there are relative severities involved. So, if the moderator will allow one more round other than the conclusion, I'm willing to let Theonomy build his viewpoint.
Love in Christ,
Magus
-
December 21st 2005, 10:09 PM #8
I want to be forever young
---
- Join Date
- February 16th, 2003
- Posts
- 10,867
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
Male - bad ChristianRe: GYM DEBATE: Annihilationism (Theonomy vs. magus)
Well, the arguments and counter arguments have all now been presented, and no new arguments or rebuttals will be presented. Here is how I think the debate has gone.
The Biblical Question of Immortality
I described the way the Bible spoke of death as a consequence of sin, and how the Bible promises immortality as something to be hoped for - but not by all. Rather, the Bible is clear that immortality is a gift to be received only by those in Christ. Magus really didn't offer a substantial counter argument to this at all.
The only comments that Magus did offer on this point were tangential in nature. His comments were about whether or not man was created neutral, with the hope of obtaining immortality or the possibility of not doing so - or whether man was immortal by default, and gave up that right. He even went so far as to say that my argument was that man was not immortal by default, and then he attacked that position as though it were my argument. He sums up my claim as: "1. Man was not created immortal - death was the default position until he passed God's test(s)."
But I responded to this quite adequate by pointing out that this is moot. Whether or not man was initially immortal or initially mortal, my argument, based on Scripture, is that man did end up subject to death through the fall, and that since then, His only hope of immortality is in Christ, as Scripture so clearly states. To this, there was no rebuttal at all.
The Biblical Vision of Eternity
This time, Magus did rightly understand my argument. He says that my claim is that "2. In the eventual future (eternity), the Bible says no one will be against God any more. There will be no more evil." And this is manifestly biblical. All things will be subject to Christ. All evil will be done away with.
The only way to hold this biblical view as well as the doctrine of eternal torment at the same time is to assert that there will be nothing sinful - only perfect righteousness, in hell itself. Is this the way Magus wanted to go? As with my first argument, aside from a very brief comment in his last post, this is an argument that Magus has stayed away from.
The Biblical language of destruction
My third point is the point that is usually the first reason that a person accepts annihilationism. It was the argument that first got me thinking, and eventually led to my own change of position. The vast majority of biblical language to describe the fate of the lost just is language of death and destruction. I showed many different examples of that. Significantly, I demonstrated - over and against claims to the contrary by Magus that were made without this kind of evidence - that when the Bible uses this very same language elsewhere to describe the actions of one person against another, the result is a very real death. The responses to this argument have not been particularly compelling. All that we have really seen in reply is that in some different kinds of contexts, when language of destruction is not used in the same way, and it doesn't describe the actions of one person against another (for example, what happens to inanimate objects like wineskins), it doesn't refer to death. Now, for some purposes this might be interesting to know, but for our purposes here, such contexts are just not relevantly similar, and they certainly offer nothing by way of rebuttal to this uncontroversial observation about the ordinary way the Bible talks about the fate of the lost.
Magus' counter arguments have tended to be such that they really aren;t in conflict with annihilationism. We can all agree, for example, that spiritual life is important, that is, life in union with God, but that's not an exegetical argument showing that the lost will always have consciousness, and as such it's not an argument against annihilationism. Likewise, Magus' point that the mechanism of destruction isn;t what matters, the end result is, is a claim that any annihilationist could gladly accept.
As I survey all that was said (and I will overlook the new argument introduced in his rebuttal, namely the argument about gradations of punishment), Magus' had but one respone to annihilationism, and that point was derived from a particular understanding of the vision of the New Jerusalem in the book of Revelation. In the face of such an array of biblical evidence in favour of annihilationism, that this should be the strongest rebuttal is revelaing indeed! But it is a rebuttal that has been adequately answered in two ways. Firstly the argument showed a lack of appreciateion of what the New Jerusalem actually referred to - it was theological (I would even say ecclesiastical) rather than geographical. And secondly, as I adequately showed, even if we granted the flase premise that this is a geographical description, the fact that God's enemies at one point are slain outside the city does not imply that they will always be there, and so this rebuttal just gets nowhere.
The more I see how defenders of the doctrine of eternal torment interact with these three basic biblical arguments, the more I am persuaded that they really do represent a faithful depiction of the overall biblical teaching concerning the fate of the lost. Firstly, immortality is something that will only be experienced by those in Christ. Secondly, it really is true that one day creation will be free of all that is atr odds with God. Evil and evildoers will be gone. And Thirdly, the vast majority of biblical language to describe the fate of the lost affirms again and again that they will one day be gone forever.
In short, the bible does teach annihilationism, and the arguments against this claim have been manifestly unsuccessful."Personally though, I won't use psychoactives because of the possibility of contacting a demon." - Kelp
-
June 1st 2008, 07:49 AM #9
Through Him...
- Join Date
- September 16th, 2006
- Location
- A farm in Lincolnshire
- Posts
- 33,911
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
Male - ChristianRe: GYM DEBATE: Annihilationism (Theonomy vs. magus)
...the compass of existence held more than my text-books had revealed, more than I had ever dreamed of. In short I lost my superiority, and this, though I was not then aware of it, is the first step towards finding God.-A.J. Cronin
the burn notice commercial worked beautifully, the actual vid just froze. well played google-yxboom
Similar Threads
-
GYM DEBATE: Annihilationism (ChosenOne66 vs. Theonomy)
By Rayado in forum Advanced Debate 301Replies: 9Last Post: June 1st 2008, 08:17 AM -
GYM DEBATE Commentary: Theonomy vs. ChosenOne66 (Annihilationism)
By Rayado in forum Theology 201Replies: 165Last Post: November 20th 2007, 09:56 PM -
Theonomy and The Unassumed on annihilationism
By Glenn P in forum RegistrationReplies: 5Last Post: November 18th 2006, 05:14 PM -
GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Annihilationism (Theonomy vs. magus)
By Amazing Rando in forum Theology 201Replies: 6Last Post: January 12th 2006, 09:05 AM -
Debate involving Theonomy and Magus on Annihilationism
By magus in forum RegistrationReplies: 1Last Post: November 29th 2005, 10:43 PM
Kings of Israel and Judah
Today, 12:09 AM in Apologetics 301