Annihilationism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you mind giving some Scriptures or is that your whole argument?

An argument??? See, it begins already.

In your very first post you stated......
To be clear, I’m not trying to start any argument in this thread".

I never argue my brother, and I always use Scripture as the basis for all truth. SO, what can we do for you on this.

Matthew 25:46: ...................
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

By no stretch of the imagination can the punishment spoken of in Matthew 25:46 be defined as a nonsuffering extinction of consciousness. Indeed, if actual suffering is lacking, then so is punishment. Let us be clear on this: punishment entails suffering. And suffering necessarily entails consciousness.

Now consider the fact that there are no degrees of annihilation. One is either annihilated or one is not. The Scriptures, by contrast, teach that there will be degrees of punishment on the day of judgment (Matthew 10:15; 11:21-24; 16:27; Luke 12:47-48; John 15:22; Hebrews 10:29; Revelation 20:11-15; 22:12).

The very fact that people will suffer varying degrees of punishment in hell shows that annihilation or the extinction of consciousness is not taught in Matthew 25:46 or anywhere else in Scripture. These are incompatible concepts.
 
I am an evangelical, Jesus loving, Bible believing, Christian pastor. I did a comprehensive sermon on the subject, an exhaustive review of all the scriptural evidence, both Old and New Testament. It's called "The Case for Conditionalism." Here is a link:


Simply put, the handful of proof texts for Eternal Conscious Torment come from parables, prophecies, and apocalyptic visions. The multitude of didactic teaching passages are overwhelmingly clear that the righteous in Christ shall receive eternal life, and the wicked shall perish. If you study the whole Bible on the subject, you will see for yourself that the evidence for conditionalism far outweighs the evidence for ECT.

I am familiar with your work and I have read the information on your web site on and off for awhile. While I find your teaching pretty much acceptable, this is not one of those instances for me.
 
Annihilationism has also long infected mainline denominations. In 1995 an Anglican Church doctrinal commission stated that "Hell is not eternal torment" but rather a state of "non-being". The doctrine of eternal punishment has also long been rejected among most mainline Presbyterians, Methodists, and the United Church of Christ.

All 3 of those denominations have taken a vote to allow homosexuals to take the pulpit, 1 has for sure, the other voted and one gives same sex marriages.

This is the camp that Annihilationism stands in. The camp of the wicked, and devil controlled.

It ought not to be named among us.

Once you lose your first love of the truth in the Word, the devil can bring in the rest.
As Ken said, He use to believe what was true about hell, until reasoning and foolishness replaced what was once true to him with doctrines of devils.
 
An argument??? See, it begins already.

In your very first post you stated......
To be clear, I’m not trying to start any argument in this thread".

I never argue my brother, and I always use Scripture as the basis for all truth. SO, what can we do for you on this.

Matthew 25:46: ...................
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

By no stretch of the imagination can the punishment spoken of in Matthew 25:46 be defined as a nonsuffering extinction of consciousness. Indeed, if actual suffering is lacking, then so is punishment. Let us be clear on this: punishment entails suffering. And suffering necessarily entails consciousness.

Now consider the fact that there are no degrees of annihilation. One is either annihilated or one is not. The Scriptures, by contrast, teach that there will be degrees of punishment on the day of judgment (Matthew 10:15; 11:21-24; 16:27; Luke 12:47-48; John 15:22; Hebrews 10:29; Revelation 20:11-15; 22:12).

The very fact that people will suffer varying degrees of punishment in hell shows that annihilation or the extinction of consciousness is not taught in Matthew 25:46 or anywhere else in Scripture. These are incompatible concepts.


You're right. Argument wasn't the correct word since we aren't "arguing" at all but discussing. I was asking if that was all you had to state your viewpoint since your initial post pretty much just said "nope."
 
You're right. Argument wasn't the correct word since we aren't "arguing" at all but discussing. I was asking if that was all you had to state your viewpoint since your initial post pretty much just said "nope."

I hope then that you have read subsequent posts on this subject that I have now responded to.
 
I never argue my brother, and I always use Scripture as the basis for all truth. SO, what can we do for you on this.

Matthew 25:46: ...................
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

By no stretch of the imagination can the punishment spoken of in Matthew 25:46 be defined as a nonsuffering extinction of consciousness. Indeed, if actual suffering is lacking, then so is punishment. Let us be clear on this: punishment entails suffering. And suffering necessarily entails consciousness.

So when criminals are sent ot the electric chair, this is not really punishment, because its not eternal??

Now consider the fact that there are no degrees of annihilation. One is either annihilated or one is not. The Scriptures, by contrast, teach that there will be degrees of punishment on the day of judgment (Matthew 10:15; 11:21-24; 16:27; Luke 12:47-48; John 15:22; Hebrews 10:29; Revelation 20:11-15; 22:12).

The very fact that people will suffer varying degrees of punishment in hell shows that annihilation or the extinction of consciousness is not taught in Matthew 25:46 or anywhere else in Scripture. These are incompatible concepts.

Ok, looking through your list of scriptures:

Matt 10:15 is referring to the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah as a city. It makes sense that some cities will fare better than others in judgement but this is not talking in an individual sense.

Matthew 11.21-24

This is referring to Tyre and Chorazin, again cities.

Matthew 16.27

This verse is talking about the reward for the saints (and even if it includes reward in a negative sense it doesn't talk about different punishments).

Luke 12.47-48

That verse is talking about stewardship of the people of God, not unbelievers. Its talking about those who know their Master's will.

John 15:22

Irrelevant verse. It says nothing about severity

Hebrews 10:29

Those that were stoned under old testament law didn't lose their eternal salvation. Those that committed the sin of rejecting Christ did. Thats all this is saying.

Revelation 20:11-15

This says nothing about different severity in the lake of fire either.

Revelation 22:12

This is talking of the reward of the saints. (I am having trouble seeing reward as a punishment. Even if it is it says nothing about severity.)

You will actually make it easier for all concerned if you post the entire body of the references you post and be able to proof read the verses yourself to see if they are indeed relevant.
 
All 3 of those denominations have taken a vote to allow homosexuals to take the pulpit, 1 has for sure, the other voted and one gives same sex marriages.

This is the camp that Annihilationism stands in. The camp of the wicked, and devil controlled.

It ought not to be named among us.

Are you serious? I suppose all those denominations believe in prayer, communion and any number of church doctrines. Should we stop praying because some praying churches believe in gay marriage?
 
Well because I wanted to discuss my views... why did you make this post? :rolleyes:
Yes but if you are going to say someone is wrong you should try to back that up with Scripture instead of just saying that it isn't worth your time.

*Edit*
LOL. Go ahead and disagree with my post if you like. You're just mad because Ken got you beat! :p
 
Yes but if you are going to say someone is wrong you should try to back that up with Scripture instead of just saying that it isn't worth your time.
Well how bout you decide where you will spend your efforts and time and I will decide where I comment and how much value I place on the importance of any certain topic. Ok..?:)
 
Well how bout you decide where you will spend your efforts and time and I will decide where I comment and how much value I place on the importance of any certain topic. Ok..?:)

Affirmative. I don't want to argue but I'm still waiting on a good response to Ken's video. I just thought you'd be the one to do it since you post long posts with scripture pretty often. :( Oh, well. My wait continues.
 
Affirmative. I don't want to argue but I'm still waiting on a good response to Ken's video. I just thought you'd be the one to do it since you post long posts with scripture pretty often. :( Oh, well. My wait continues.
Man he used so many scriptures, that it would take hours to explain each one in context and where some agreed with his point and some did not. Then would anyone really hear the correction..? I just don't see the value in the effort..so I just made a general statement of what I seen. With the condition that I would need to listen with more care to his points.. I don't see this issue as having great importance to believers as it compares to other truths.. By Gods grace I aint going to heck..:D I also think that heck should be left as a fearful place for those who do not fear God... so again not sure why it should be watered down?
 
He did use a ton of Scripture. I wish more pastors would do that. Most sermons I hear seem to have a couple of verses and then that's it. I'd be happy just to go to church to have someone read the bible to me.
 
Man he used so many scriptures, that it would take hours to explain each one in context and where some agreed with his point and some did not. Then would anyone really hear the correction..? I just don't see the value in the effort..so I just made a general statement of what I seen. With the condition that I would need to listen with more care to his points.. I don't see this issue as having great importance to believers as it compares to other truths.. By Gods grace I aint going to heck..:D I also think that heck should be left as a fearful place for those who do not fear God... so again not sure why it should be watered down?

Understood that there were many scriptures that he posted. Why not pick just a few like whether Sheol is (or was) the abode of both the righteous and the unrighteous or which word Sheol/Hades/Gehenna best represents what you call "hell" which Ken pointed out is not in any of the original languages but is an anglosaxon word.

Or if you are saying that Ken raised some good points and you feel ill-prepared to comment at this stage then I understand that as well.

Unfortunately the tone of this thread didn't start off well. It would have been better if we could have all had a rational/logical discussion (without threats or ridicule).
 
He did use a ton of Scripture. I wish more pastors would do that. Most sermons I hear seem to have a couple of verses and then that's it. I'd be happy just to go to church to have someone read the bible to me.
Well if the scriptures are intended to mean what you are trying to affirm, that's great? But the devil can quote many scriptures out of context and outside the truth. Every false denom in the world has a whole group of scriptures to twist into a lie. I had rather read the bible for myself and trust the Holy Spirit.."you need no man teach you" I do enjoy a good teacher but when I see some using scriptures out of context to back up a point..it makes me doubt the point they are trying to make..
 
Understood that there were many scriptures that he posted. Why not pick just a few like whether Sheol is (or was) the abode of both the righteous and the unrighteous or which word Sheol/Hades/Gehenna best represents what you call "hell" which Ken pointed out is not in any of the original languages but is an anglosaxon word.

Or if you are saying that Ken raised some good points and you feel ill-prepared to comment at this stage then I understand that as well.

Unfortunately the tone of this thread didn't start off well. It would have been better if we could have all had a rational/logical discussion (without threats or ridicule).
Well I had nothing to do with the tone of the thread.. just making a comment about an issue that has some value...but again is no great importance to those who are justified in Christ. And again what is the point in making what God intended to be a fearful place into a less fearful place? Not sure of the value in that?
 
Well if the scriptures are intended to mean what you are trying to affirm, that's great? But the devil can quote many scriptures out of context and outside the truth. Every false denom in the world has a whole group of scriptures to twist into a lie. I had rather read the bible for myself and trust the Holy Spirit.."you need no man teach you" I do enjoy a good teacher but when I see some using scriptures out of context to back up a point..it makes me doubt the point they are trying to make..
Are you saying than Ken used verses out or context? I agree that taking verses out of context can be horrible.
 
Well if the scriptures are intended to mean what you are trying to affirm, that's great? But the devil can quote many scriptures out of context and outside the truth. Every false denom in the world has a whole group of scriptures to twist into a lie. I had rather read the bible for myself and trust the Holy Spirit.."you need no man teach you" I do enjoy a good teacher but when I see some using scriptures out of context to back up a point..it makes me doubt the point they are trying to make..

The devil attends every Christian church and he works to mess them up if he can. We are all work in progress. None of us is perfect yet. What do they say about finding the perfect church, once any of us attend its not perfect anymore. Just because the devil can quote scripture does not frighten me away from investigating teaching to see if it is true or not.
 
Well I had nothing to do with the tone of the thread.. just making a comment about an issue that has some value...but again is no great importance to those who are justified in Christ. And again what is the point in making what God intended to be a fearful place into a less fearful place? Not sure of the value in that?

It's a horribly fearful place regardless. Teaching what the Bible actually says is what's important regardless of our personal feelings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top