Annihilationism

[dgsinclair]

Sigh. I agree with Mitspa. People will see it as hell is temporary and you go poof. It's so sad that the church is so divided. I think God wants us to know if people suffer in hell permanently or just cease to exist. Sighs... but with all these bible translations.

Truth by Consequences?
Well, you don't determine truth or what scripture says based on people's reactions to it, though that might be a good indicator of how well your ideas match reality. I could make the same argument against ECT, whose perceived injustice has launched a thousand atheists into unbelief.

Truth by Level of Extremity?
There is another problem with the approach of guessing that people will suddenly not see hell as much of a motivator. The underlying assumption seems to be "we must make hell as horrific as possible in order to contrast it to the gospel, this makes God seem more appealing, and of course, we need the biggest stick possible." The problem here is that TRUTH is what the Holy Spirit will support - remember that in Jesus' day, the Pharisees had the harshness view, and Jesus bitch-slapped them with the concept of God the Father.

I am not arguing for a syrupy God here, just to say that the idea that the harshest understanding must be correct, and any other is a slippery slope has a strong, negative precedent in scripture.

The harshest version is not the truest. And we do not need to maximize the gap between God's wrath and his goodness to make evangelism work. Truth is what we need - the balanced, biblical truth. ECT is a misrepresentation of the text and the nature of God, imo.

Actual Effects on Evangelism
While CI (Conditional Immortality) may lessen people's fears of Hell, that may be a problem created by the traditional position, which has been so extreme. But that does not mean that people will not feel fear or anguish over losing eternity. Just like people fear death, they may equally fear the punishment of God AND the loss of eternal life - trust me, the closer you get to death, the more such a loss would seem horrific.

Let me give an example. ECT is like saying "if you don't repent, I will torture you forever." CI is like saying "you have used up your one short life, but you can live forever without pain or sin if you repent and believe." The loss felt in the latter is something like how we feel when a child dies - they had their whole life to live, and it was tragically lost. Imagine how tragic the loss of ETERNITY will feel in the light of soon destruction. Having been steeped in ECT, that seems so much less powerful. But perhaps ECT has merely desensitized us to truth with its violence and injustice. I think that is so, and with diminishing returns (driving more people away than awakening them).

So many people are turned away from Christianity by this doctrine, I would wager the net effect on evangelism (esp. if the Holy Spirit is confirming the CI message) would be hugely positive.

Justice and Mercy
Let's not forget that, while Universalism in some ways denies God's justice and promises of loss and punishment for some, CI maintains the personal responsibility and justice of God (and the fires of Hell), while also supporting the idea of finite, proportional justice, which ECT just aborts.

The Church Divided
The Church should divide over serious matters of truth. The Reformers knew this, so did the Anabaptists. We count ourselves with those who are restoring the Church to a Biblical view of God. No less, no more.

 

[dgsinclair]

BTW, for those who think us Conditionalists conspired to come and puke on the party then leave, here's my new intro thread. Hope you are happy o_O

http://www.christianforumsite.com/threads/dgsinclair-introduction.38344/

 

[MichaelH]

I was typing something similar and yours sounds better.

This thread is about weather God's Judgement puts people in eternal Punishment. There are a couple here that believe not at all, and One that believes that man shall recieve a punishment but yet at the 2nd death be destoryed.

I have not covered the doctrine, nor has anyone suggested that man is given a punishment according to what man has done and some get eternal punishment and some do not. This Doctrine has yet to be presented.

Blessings to you, I can be your great help, or......................... Go against scripture and i can be yet a hindrance.



Mike.

 

[Huntingteckel]

This thread is about weather God's Judgement puts people in eternal Punishment. There are a couple here that believe not at all, and One that believes that man shall recieve a punishment but yet at the 2nd death be destoryed.

I have not covered the doctrine, nor has anyone suggested that man is given a punishment according to what man has done and some get eternal punishment and some do not. This Doctrine has yet to be presented.

Blessings to you, I can be your great help, or......................... Go against scripture and i can be yet a hindrance.



Mike.

All of us here believe in eternal punishment. I think all the people that claim to be Conditionalist believe that we are destroyed at the final judgement. I don't know if anyone has specifically said they don't think that there is a time of punishment before destruction. I may be wrong here, though. There are so many posts coming it that I probably missed one or two.

Why did you quote my post, Michael? It doesn't sound like you are responding anything I said...

 

[dgsinclair]

All of us here believe in eternal punishment.

Yes, but for the Conditionalist/Annihilationist, it's an eternal death (death is the punishment), not an eternal punishing (eternal dying). Like eternal redemption. Accomplished once for eternity.[/quote]

I think all the people that claim to be Conditionalist believe that we are destroyed at the final judgement. I don't know if anyone has specifically said they don't think that there is a time of punishment before destruction.

There are many secondary discussions within Conditionalism, including how God accomplishes degrees of punishment. I think our main position is that there are at least four possible ways God could do this, including:

1. pain in execution
2. pain before and as part of execution (but not redemptive or atoning pain - death is the penalty for sin - such pain could be, for instance, direct, unavoidable experience of one's guilt in the presence of Christ)
3. degrees of shame associated with the executed (not directly experienced, but the shame of their life would be remembered eternally - this sounds like a reach until you start to explore 'eternal shame' and the role of shame for the dead in the OT)
4. pain before execution in the intermediate state (but this view is not really accepted by the majority of us, it has issues

BTW, lest you think CI is weak in this regard, the problem of degrees of punishment is a tough nut for ECT also. For example:

1. If the pain goes no forever, are differences in the comparative average or level of pain really any real difference - if both are 'multiplied by infinity'?

And the infinite nature of ECT is really what causes all kinds of logical and philosophic problems that compound its 'weak' scriptural case.

 

[Huntingteckel]

Yes, but for the Conditionalist/Annihilationist, it's an eternal death (death is the punishment), not an eternal punishing (not eternal dying). Like eternal redemption. Accomplished once for eternity.



There are many secondary discussions within Conditionalism, including how God accomplishes degrees of punishment. I think our main position is that there are at least four possible ways God could do this, including:

1. pain in execution
2. pain before and as part of execution (but not redemptive or atoning pain - death is the penalty for sin - such pain could be, for instance, direct, unavoidable experience of one's guilt in the presence of Christ)
3. degrees of shame associated with the executed (not directly experienced, but the shame of their life would be remembered eternally - this sounds like a reach until you start to explore 'eternal shame' and the role of shame for the dead in the OT)
4. pain before execution in the intermediate state (but this view is not really accepted by the majority of us, it has issues

BTW, lest you think CI is weak in this regard, the problem of degrees of punishment is a tough nut for ECT also. For example:

1. If the pain goes no forever, are differences in the comparative average or level of pain really any real difference - if both are 'multiplied by infinity'?

And the infinite nature of ECT is really what causes all kinds of logical and philosophic problems that compound its 'weak' scriptural case.

Of course, that's why it's punishment instead of punishing.

I'm not sure what I think about the actual suffering before or during the second death. I mean it would make sense that people had a different amount of suffering based on the lives they lived. Or at least to me.

 

[Panda]

I'm utterly dumbstruck by your refusal to elaborate or explain. As such, I believe there is nothing more to be said regarding your insistence that the only lesson that needs to come must come solely from quoting the verses and ignoring any attempt to actually discuss or teach. Even Jesus elaborated on His meaning when He quoted Scripture, as did Paul, and Peter, and John. If you will not explain, then I ask that you kindly step aside for the remainder of this discussion as you are adding nothing profitable to the general pool of learning.

EDIT : Ok, so I was premature. Apparently, Mitspa has be restricted from the site.

 

[Huntingteckel]

I'm utterly dumbstruck by your refusal to elaborate or explain. As such, I believe there is nothing more to be said regarding your insistence that the only lesson that needs to come must come solely from quoting the verses and ignoring any attempt to actually discuss or teach. Even Jesus elaborated on His meaning when He quoted Scripture, as did Paul, and Peter, and John. If you will not explain, then I ask that you kindly step aside for the remainder of this discussion as you are adding nothing profitable to the general pool of learning.

Are you talking to me?

 

[Panda]

Are you talking to me?

No, the board did something strange. I was responding to Mitspa since it showed his as the last post for me, then after I posted, everything changed.

 

[Huntingteckel]

No, the board did something strange. I was responding to Mitspa since it showed his as the last post for me, then after I posted, everything changed.

Oh, lol. My feelings were hurt and I was confused for a minute there!


*edit*
Did he get banned or something? His account says inactive.

 

[dgsinclair]

Of course, that's why it's punishment instead of punishing.

Yes. Even more interesting is if you apply this logic to 'eternal life.' Traditionalists argue that if 'eternal life' and 'eternal punishment' are held in a tight parallelism, then both must be of eternal DURATION. Conditionalists typically agree that both can be viewed as quantitative measures of time, but that they measure outcomes, not processes (punishment, not punishing). This would mean that 'life' is measured as having been inherited in a manner that will not change for eternity - the outcome of inheriting eternal life is immortality.

However, another way to keep the parallelism, other than changing the object of duration, is to understand these terms as primarily QUALITATIVE - that 'eternal' is not merely talking about time, but attributes of the life to come.

Duration may only be one attribute of life, and there are quite possibly others attributes of the life to come that we experience as part of having 'life,' like direct fellowship with God and others. So in this case, 'eternal' may be a container for all of the attributes of the age to come. I don't rely heavily on this argument, but it is an interesting thought experiment when you realize that you COULD maintain the strong parallelism between eternal life and punishment without making them eternal processes, but events with qualitative outcomes 'characteristic of' life or death. The outcome of receiving eternal life is immortality (quantitative duration), as well as healing, joy, fellowship (qualitative attributes). The outcome of eternal punishment is an end to life (for eternity).

 

[Panda]

Oh, lol. My feelings were hurt and I was confused for a minute there!

I apologize for the lack of clarity. That was not my intention at all. I was annoyed that Mitspa basically burned through three pages absolutely refusing to do anything but 1) continually repost the same two verses and 2) refuse to elaborate, explain, discuss, or teach why his "superweapon" was relevant.

 

[Huntingteckel]

I apologize for the lack of clarity. That was not my intention at all. I was annoyed that Mitspa basically burned through three pages absolutely refusing to do anything but 1) continually repost the same two verses and 2) refuse to elaborate, explain, discuss, or teach why his "superweapon" was relevant.

Now you know where I've been at for over 20 pages.

Yes. Even more interesting is if you apply this logic to 'eternal life.' Traditionalists argue that if 'eternal life' and 'eternal punishment' are held in a tight parallelism, then both must be of eternal DURATION. Conditionalists typically agree that both can be viewed as quantitative measures of time, but that they measure outcomes, not processes.

However, another way to keep the parallelism, other than changing the object of duration, is to understand these terms as primarily QUALITATIVE - that 'eternal' is not merely talking about time, but attributes of the life to come.

Duration may only be one attribute of life, and there are quite possibly others attributes of the life to come that we experience as part of having 'life,' like direct fellowship with God and others. So in this case, 'eternal' may be a container for all of the attributes of the age to come. I don't rely heavily on this argument, but it is an interesting thought experiment when you realize that you COULD maintain the strong parallelism between eternal life and punishment without making them eternal processes, but eternal outcomes. The outcome of receiving eternal life is immortality (quantitative duration), as well as healing, joy, fellowship (qualitative attributes).

I had never thought about it that way before. I'm trying to listen to all the podcasts to catch up. I bookmarked the site last year and I guess I forgot about it.

 

[MichaelH]

All of us here believe in eternal punishment. I think all the people that claim to be Conditionalist believe that we are destroyed at the final judgement. I don't know if anyone has specifically said they don't think that there is a time of punishment before destruction. I may be wrong here, though. There are so many posts coming it that I probably missed one or two.

Why did you quote my post, Michael? It doesn't sound like you are responding anything I said...

Actually I answered all your post, and have always responded to you in love and kindness. You don't come off with pride and I appreciate that.
If you missed some of my responses, then what can I say, the thread has gotten pretty long and has moved pretty fast.

Yes. Even more interesting is if you apply this logic to 'eternal life.' Traditionalists argue that if 'eternal life' and 'eternal punishment' are held in a tight parallelism, then both must be of eternal DURATION. Conditionalists typically agree that both can be viewed as quantitative measures of time, but that they measure outcomes, not processes (punishment, not punishing). This would mean that 'life' is measured as having been inherited in a manner that will not change for eternity - the outcome of inheriting eternal life is immortality.

However, another way to keep the parallelism, other than changing the object of duration, is to understand these terms as primarily QUALITATIVE - that 'eternal' is not merely talking about time, but attributes of the life to come.

Duration may only be one attribute of life, and there are quite possibly others attributes of the life to come that we experience as part of having 'life,' like direct fellowship with God and others. So in this case, 'eternal' may be a container for all of the attributes of the age to come. I don't rely heavily on this argument, but it is an interesting thought experiment when you realize that you COULD maintain the strong parallelism between eternal life and punishment without making them eternal processes, but events with qualitative outcomes 'characteristic of' life or death. The outcome of receiving eternal life is immortality (quantitative duration), as well as healing, joy, fellowship (qualitative attributes). The outcome of eternal punishment is an end to life (for eternity).

If you read through all 18-20 pages of how many it is........... You will find that peoples view of "Punishment" is different than yours and there are a few versions of it.

It does not end well for those that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior...... How bad it ends, has many different opinions.

What makes it even more hard, Is to find common ground in the understanding of Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna.

I think it's pretty clear that Gehenna was actually a physically place as there is no other reference to it but being the Hebrew for the Valley of the Sons of Himmon which was a very well know evil place by the Jewish folks in them days. Jesus mentioned the place and James mentioned the place.

I can't but agree that Jesus was referring to this physical place when saying fear not what man can do, but fear God who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna.

Now how we go from there would be different, and different views brought by others here.

 

[God calls me Olivia]

Since I don't have time to read through this book, I will get to the point. Ken Bussell I saw when reading through (about page 7 which is where I stopped) I saw that you said you refuted all points, but no one refuted yours. I did not see you however at that point where you made the statement give any explanation of the words eternal and everlasting. Your rebuttals were always death, destruction, and perish whose meanings could be debated. If you have answered this somewhere in the thread, please tell me where because it wasn't answered at the point you said it was.

 

[Andrew Manuel]

Since I don't have time to read through this book, I will get to the point. Ken Bussell I saw when reading through (about page 7 which is where I stopped) I saw that you said you refuted all points, but no one refuted yours. I did not see you however at that point where you made the statement give any explanation of the words eternal and everlasting. Your rebuttals were always death, destruction, and perish whose meanings could be debated. If you have answered this somewhere in the thread, please tell me where because it wasn't answered at the point you said it was.

Have a look at Daniel's posts #445 and #451

 

[God calls me Olivia]

If you want to stop debating the meaning of words, then stop debating the meaning of destruction.

"Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty" (Isaiah 6:5).

God kept making me think of this verse in relation to this thread. And then there was the deception God spoke to me of. At first I thought He was talking about the deception of annihilationism which I still believe to be deception, but that wasn't His point. His point was this.

"And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:2).

You have not posted anything on this forum except this subject. Your main words are destruction and perish. What is the main point of speaking what you believe to be knowledge without love and you cannot say it is love because someone in the Spirit and even often those out of the Spirit know the difference. Where are you on the other threads helping the low in heart? How is your focus on the negative bringing people to the love of God which can really transform them spiritually?

How is this subject so important, more important than the bringing of sheep into the fold. The emphasis and study on this is time that could have been spent loving others. Prove your point. You win! But with who? Yourself. Not God for God is love.

The tearing, the gripping, the agony of the spirit separated from the Spirit of God is agony that occurs even on earth for those burning inwardly in a torment as they cannot find God.

Holiness is pure love. Isaiah, as others when they really encounter God, are humbled to their depth. Where is the depth in this conversation, or is proving a point the only depth.

The Spirit of God is alive, yet I just don't see it here in this thread. Focus on destruction and perish or God's love?

 

[Andrew Manuel]

Actually I answered all your post, and have always responded to you in love and kindness. You don't come off with pride and I appreciate that.
If you missed some of my responses, then what can I say, the thread has gotten pretty long and has moved pretty fast.



If you read through all 18-20 pages of how many it is........... You will find that peoples view of "Punishment" is different than yours and there are a few versions of it.

It does not end well for those that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior...... How bad it ends, has many different opinions.

What makes it even more hard, Is to find common ground in the understanding of Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna.

I think it's pretty clear that Gehenna was actually a physically place as there is no other reference to it but being the Hebrew for the Valley of the Sons of Himmon which was a very well know evil place by the Jewish folks in them days. Jesus mentioned the place and James mentioned the place.

I can't but agree that Jesus was referring to this physical place when saying fear not what man can do, but fear God who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna.

Now how we go from there would be different, and different views brought by others here.

The different views of punishment for a conditionalist are listed in #445. I've never heard any other options, and the important thing to remember is that the final punishment is death (which is eternal because that death will never be reversed- no second ressurection).

It's true that there are some differences in opinion on the nature of Sheol/Hades, but I don't see how that makes our view of final punishment any less strong (Evangelical Christians have all kinds of differences of opinion on all kinds of subjects).

We all believe that Hades/Sheol and Gehenna are seperate.

I think you're the only person here who thinks people will go to the litteral Valley of the Sons of Hinnom. I've never heard that argument advanced, and I think it's far more likely that Gehenna was used to illustrate to the people of Jerusalem the nature of Hell (which they would have understood immediately from old testament references in which it is referred to as a place of slaughter- it would certainly be a huge leap from there to associating it with a place of eternal torment).

In any case, Gehenna is clearly the place of final punishment, as is the Lake of Fire, so even if it is in the litteral Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, I guess that's where the lake of fire will be as well...

 

[God calls me Olivia]

The different views of punishment for a conditionalist are listed in #445. I've never heard any other options, and the important thing to remember is that the final punishment is death (which is eternal because that death will never be reversed- no second ressurection).

It's true that there are some differences in opinion on the nature of Sheol/Hades, but I don't see how that makes our view of final punishment any less strong (Evangelical Christians have all kinds of differences of opinion on all kinds of subjects).

We all believe that Hades/Sheol and Gehenna are seperate.

I think you're the only person here who thinks people will go to the litteral Valley of the Sons of Hinnom. I've never heard that argument advanced, and I think it's far more likely that Gehenna was used to illustrate to the people of Jerusalem the nature of Hell (which they would have understood immediately from old testament references in which it is referred to as a place of slaughter- it would certainly be a huge leap from there to associating it with a place of eternal torment).

In any case, Gehenna is clearly the place of final punishment, as is the Lake of Fire, so even if it is in the litteral Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, I guess that's where the lake of fire will be as well...

And how does #458 apply to you?

 

[God calls me Olivia]

The different views of punishment for a conditionalist are listed in #445. I've never heard any other options, and the important thing to remember is that the final punishment is death (which is eternal because that death will never be reversed- no second ressurection).

It's true that there are some differences in opinion on the nature of Sheol/Hades, but I don't see how that makes our view of final punishment any less strong (Evangelical Christians have all kinds of differences of opinion on all kinds of subjects).

We all believe that Hades/Sheol and Gehenna are seperate.

I think you're the only person here who thinks people will go to the litteral Valley of the Sons of Hinnom. I've never heard that argument advanced, and I think it's far more likely that Gehenna was used to illustrate to the people of Jerusalem the nature of Hell (which they would have understood immediately from old testament references in which it is referred to as a place of slaughter- it would certainly be a huge leap from there to associating it with a place of eternal torment).

In any case, Gehenna is clearly the place of final punishment, as is the Lake of Fire, so even if it is in the litteral Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, I guess that's where the lake of fire will be as well...

Well Andrew Manuel, you just proved my point. I don't see the love of God anywhere on the red X on my post.