As stated before something we can learn from the apostle Peter in Matthew 16:13-23.
Peter had a divine revelation of who Christ is, and Jesus told Peter that by such revelation He will build his Church. Then the next instant Peter told the Lord that He could not go to the cross and the Lord rebuked him (Matthew 16:23).
The meaning is clear, well meaning and intentioned Christians, including Fudge, Pennock, Stott, etc…can fall sway of the evil one. Therefore, how can one be sure they are not? Jesus’ words were clear and reveals how in his response to Peter in Matthew 16:23 – concern is always direct at what is best and most pleasing to men. When doctrine, such as annihilationism does this, one should take warning. Peter was not cast away from the Lord, but rebuked. Peter returned to his senses later on and remained in the Fold of Christ. Our Christian Annihilationist brothers and sisters should really examine their doctrine and see how appealing it is to men. Please also note -in no way am I implying Christian Annihilationist are false brethren but all I can do is ask that they privately search themselves to see under whose sway they are under.
Fudge states this in Link: Fudge-Morey
“. ..Words like die, perish, destroy, consume, and corrupt seem clearly to say what the conditionalist wishes to convey. He does not claim that these words are always used literally. He does note that figurative or metaphorical meanings are possible only if the words have some plain meaning from which the non-literal usage derives its content and power. And the conditionalist is confident that the ordinary man in the street can tell us what those words usually mean to him. Scripture was not written by scientists, the conditionalist notes, or in some technical or mystical language, but in the everyday Greek language of the common citizen, first century A. D.”
Note Fudge states clearly: And the conditionalist is confident that the ordinary man in the street can tell us what those words usually mean to him.
Now the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 2:14 – also 1 Corinthians 1:18 states spiritual subject matter is foolishness to the common man. So if foolishness – then Fudges’ statement is in contradiction of what the bible states. As well as supports that annihilationism is solely concerned with what’s best for man and not God.
This Next Link is for balance to Fudges’ article: Alan W. Gomes article
Note how annihilationist have defined the term ‘Traditional’ and go to great lengths to make the word imply – ignorant, outdated, etc…
This Term must be changed, even by Orthodox Christian responses, as they no longer mean the same to each party.
Note Alan Gomes last closing remarks again show clearly…
Alan Gomes wrote:Pinnock speaks of the "sensitive Christians" who have no choice but to abandon the doctrine of hell in favor of a kinder and gentler fate for the wicked. [43] But as J. I. Packer observes, "the feelings that make people want conditionalism to be true seem to me to reflect, not superior spiritual sensitivity, but secular sentimentalism which assumes that in heaven our feelings about others will be as at present, and our joy in the manifesting of God's justice will be no greater than it is now."
We should never forget that it was the Lord Jesus Christ, more than any other, who enunciated the doctrine of everlasting torment for the lost. Christ had no need to attend a modern sensitivity training workshop; He was "sensitivity incarnate." But He also manifested a perfect balance of love and justice. The same holy God who "shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire" (2 Thess. 1:7) is the God who stooped to become one of us, and bore the vengeance of God's fire in His own body on the tree. If God should open our eyes to understand the terrible price He paid, we would in that instant comprehend the awful guilt of spurning that price. If those who scorned the old covenant were consumed with the fire of this present age, "how much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant" (Heb. 10:29)?
…demonstrate annihilationist concern is solely for the best interest of men – the same Jesus rebuked Peter for having. Well meaning Christians’ can come under the sway of the evil one, still be Christians, and the way to identify false and error in doctrine is to discern if the concern is for what is best for man and compared to what is in God’s Best interest…that serves and reveals that He is always true to Himself…
-
-
-
).
- people have all kinds of reasons to 'walk away from the Gospel' but none of these hold water. The facts of the gospel, as we see the apostles presented them, do not include any view on the nature of hell. The facts are that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose from the grave and whosoever believes in this good news will be saved. Period. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts the sinner of the guilt of sin, righteousness and judgment to come. I do believe in the need for evangelism as that is what I believe Romans 10:13-15 requires of us. I do care that others experience the joy and eternal life promised in knowing Jesus. I don't think it is necessary to get people to believe by 'scaring the hell out of them', so to speak. Actually in Acts 2:40 Peter emphasized the current aspect of salvation when he said - 'With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." I believe if there is anything to emphasize regarding salvation it is the present corruption in our society that we can escape and have a new heart of peace, joy, love and hope, all the signs of the Spirit within. So, are we to plead with people to be a saved ? I think we will if we are intune with Christ's heart as Peter was. Am I intune to that extent, no. But I do believe anyone filled with the Spirit will be. 
Sorry, thats over my head.
