Infinite punishment for finite sins

[Katabole]

I'm sorry if my previous post appeared to be condescending. That was not my intention.

If the Second Death is not eternal death than what is it? Burning in the lake of fire forever is not eternal death. It is continual torture in another plane of existence. When I see that word "Death" it means the end of existence. Physical death is the end of life or the first death and from what I understand of scriptures some will die twice,(second death). I don't believe I have altered scripture to fit my world view because anyone could understand that physical death is exactly that; death. And in the case of the second death it is the non-existence or death of the soul. I don't understand why those of you who believe in Hell doctrine can't understand that word "death" and claim it's something other than what the defintion of the word says and at the same time claim that God is a God of mercy. That just doesn't cut it.

I used to believe in Hell. I thought it was only fitting that the worst kinds of humans were tortured forever. It seemed right people like Hitler or Stalin for example, would burn forever in pain, with or without Biblical documentation. And not that I'm a Nazi or Communist sympathizer but I believe that even the worst dregs of humanity, including Hitler and Stalin will be taught by Christ in the future. They are still His children regardless of how misled they were in life.

Anyways, I think this subject has been talked to death. LoL. So I'll just leave a few scriptures:


Dt 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; (KJV)

Dt 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Job 1:21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Peace. Ron

[B. W.]

I'm sorry if my previous post appeared to be condescending. That was not my intention.

If the Second Death is not eternal death than what is it? Burning in the lake of fire forever is not eternal death. It is continual torture in another plane of existence. When I see that word "Death" it means the end of existence. Physical death is the end of life or the first death and from what I understand of scriptures some will die twice,(second death). I don't believe I have altered scripture to fit my world view because anyone could understand that physical death is exactly that; death. And in the case of the second death it is the non-existence or death of the soul. I don't understand why those of you who believe in Hell doctrine can't understand that word "death" and claim it's something other than what the defintion of the word says and at the same time claim that God is a God of mercy. That just doesn't cut it.

I used to believe in Hell. I thought it was only fitting that the worst kinds of humans were tortured forever. It seemed right people like Hitler or Stalin for example, would burn forever in pain, with or without Biblical documentation. And not that I'm a Nazi or Communist sympathizer but I believe that even the worst dregs of humanity, including Hitler and Stalin will be taught by Christ in the future. They are still His children regardless of how misled they were in life....Peace. Ron

Katabole, what you are doing is reading into the text you cited (Jer 19:5 - Jer 32:35 - Psalm 37:20, 35-36 - Malachi 4:1-3 - Ezekiel 18:20, Romans 6:23) in your prior post on page 26 to mean oblivion – annihilation for words translated death, cut off, smoke, fire, condemned, etc. In the Old Testament era, the concept of mortal death was to awaken elsewhere as a shade (Hebrew-repaim) and in that state, one could not come back to the land of the mortals on earth. One was cut off – divided from the land of the mortal living. On earth, all memory of one’s life will be forgotten by the mortal living. There was no reason to fear the dead coming back to hurt the mortal living. These shades resided in Sheol, also called the pit, grave, the Trap, Netherworld, place of the dead, place of Abaddon – meaning ruin, waste, hopelessness - not non-existence.

Likewise, fire represented making what was once pleasant, fruitful land a waste land that is desolate, abandoned, forsaken, unfruitful. Invading armies would burn and salt a land of a country conquered so it becomes a wasteland - unusable to their enemies who could use that land for supplies during a time of war. These meanings are not considered in the different branches of annihilationism where all such words have only one meaning – extermination into non-being.

For example Ps 37:35-36 - means do not fear the dead coming back to take vengeance. So to put in a modern manner using modern day silly Hollywood style ling-go: Freddy Kruger - Michael Myers cannot come back from the dead and hurt you. The text is stating the fact that the wicked dead will not come back again and cause harm to the living. That is but one part of the symbolism of this text.

Please also note this about symbolism and metaphoric phrases used in the bible by what God said in Ezekiel 21:4, "Because I will cut off both righteous and wicked from you, therefore My sword shall go out of its sheath against all flesh from south to north…”

Now, let’s apply how annihilationist traditional defines what ‘cut off’ means to this text - "Because I will cut off (Annihilate into oblivion) both righteous and wicked from you…"

God says he will do the same to both righteous and wicked in this verse. If annihilation applies to the wicked – it must apply to the righteous in the same measure. However, it does not mean or covey annihilation. In fact, the Hebrew word translated ‘Cut off’ refers to cutting in two – dividing, separating – not annihilation into oblivion when used in such context regarding judgments. In other contexts- it means joining oneself into a covenant with someone.

Look at Ezekiel 20:47, 48, 49 for an example on use symbol of flame/fire to point out a truth hard to express in human language: "…and say to the forest of the South, 'Hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree and every dry tree in you; the blazing flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be scorched by it. 48 All flesh shall see that I, the LORD, have kindled it; it shall not be quenched.49 Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! They say of me, 'Does he not speak parables?"

Does fire and smoke only mean annihilation into oblivion? Or refer to something else? In Luke 3:16 John the Baptist told that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost and Fire – does that mean annihilation? What of the 3000 in the book of Acts – where they annihilated into oblivion because tongues of fire rested upon them? What of the Pillar of Fire and Smoke whom led the children of Israel in the wilderness? Now, if you can discern figures of speech elsewhere in the bible – why can’t you see them in the text you cited as the parable of speech intends?

(Read again Rev 14:11 for further illustrations of biblical symbolism and metaphors regarding smoke/fire)

Next,

It is truly amazing that all the bible passages/verses which objectively describe God’s character, nature, and attributes cannot be strung together in any manner to say any other thing other than what each objectively states about God. However, bible verses used by annihilationist tradition can indeed be strung together along with inserted definitions and innuendos to say just about anything.

If annihilationist traditional interpretations which are used do not line up and cannot be reconcile with the bible verses that objectively describe God’s character, nature, and attributes, then something is amiss, and such interpretations are invalid. Have you taken the time needed to explore who God is from the bible to see if they reconcile with who God is? God is unlike us in all venues.

If you would have, you would have discovered that they cannot be reconciled to how the biblical record objectively defines God. Therefore, the verses you cited mean something else entirely. It is the annihilationist who strings bible verses together, changing metaphors, analogies, and word meanings to fit the traditional ‘what best serves mans’ theology.

Looking at the typical line of reasoning that your Tradition imposes on the verses you cite, they do not reconcile with who God is as He reveals about Himself from the bible. How so - For such interpretations of scripture to be true, they would prove beyond all reasonable doubt that God must deny himself in order to be able to reconcile to the views of either annihilationism or universalism; therefore, such interpretations’ are way off the mark. They do not square with who God is. Rather they square with what people think best for themselves about how God should react to them.

Much like asking all convicted prison inmates what is the best sentence they would like and then having the judge sentence them according to their wishes. I worked in the human corrections field. A volunteer asked this of a group of inmates where I used to work. The results were like this: most wanted off the hook, promising never to do bad again, others wanted to punish their accusers once let go, those facing life sentences preferred either being let go or executed quickly instead. None thought the punishment they received fit the finite crime they committed. All of the inmates participating were repeat offenders and all accused the judge as unfair, unjust…

Now back to the subject of scriptures used to support Annihilationism:

Looking at the typical line of reasoning Annihilationist Tradition imposes on the verses cited in your post about Psalms 37 – etc.. Katabole, such interpretations do not reconcile with who God is as He reveals about Himself from the bible.

How so…

For God to exterminate into non-being oblivion would prove beyond all reasonable doubt that God is truly partial. How: by annihilating the life in one person then granting life to another. In other words, this proves that does God indeed revokes his own gift of life (Acts 17:25) by taking it away due to annihilation showing preference to another to live. Also such extermination proves that God cannot keep/fulfill his word as spoken in Gen 1:26 and that God is not truly righteously just to the just and to the unjust. To do as annihilationist insist, God must deny who He is – a God of profound Justice. If God annihilates the devil wins…

In fact the term used by annihilationist, conditional immortality, itself suggest God shows partiality to beings he purposed and designed to share part in his eternal image so that they can mirror i.e. be a reflection how God governs righteously, etc, wherever such were assigned! For conditional immortality be true it must result in God denying himself, his word, his gifts, by causing God to be absolutely partial in granting life to one and exterminating into non-existence another. God would need to deny who He is to do so.

To avoid all unrighteousness, God squares things by making a place to confine the Devil and his minions forever. No violation to anything God said, promised, or given is revoked. Instead, it is justly applied to all in ways too profound to go into great details here.

Here is Another Example of misapplied Annihilationist reasoning:

Mat 23:14, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.” NKJV

Notice Jesus’ words to the Pharisees regarding their eternal end. Jesus stated they would receive a greater condemnation based on what they had sown during their earthly lives. Therefore, how could they receive a greater condemnation if all are annihilated into non-being for what they had sown? How is that possible if all are equally annihilated into no-being?

Annihilationist, to get around this, contend that that God just temporarily turns up the heat on these people to whom Jesus spoke more than any others in the same fire before exterminating them. However, this does not jive due to the fact that this goes against Jesus’ own words spoken because how can greater be greater if all are annihilated (cease to be) equally?

In fact, how does the annihilationist tradition square with God giving to each according to what they have done if the final result is equality of extermination? Equal punishment is unjust and proves partiality, however, degrees of just punishment is just and impartial. By such annihilationist traditional reasoning on resulting equality of oblivion would indeed prove that God is unjust and partial. How? Let’s look further into this:

Traditional annihilationism believes humanity sins can be classed on levels of severity. Their Tradition states, that the punishment does not fit the crime. If that is so, then one very minor sin committed by a person being punished 1000 years in the current hell before the final Judgment and then another person committing the same exact minor sin is punished 10 years before the final judgment and then both burned up in the lake of fire. The year difference shows clear partiality.

In fact, for the sake of mercy, and love, why punish any at all, if not even a Holy God can bear looking upon suffering, then why not just blast every sinner into oblivion immediately after death? Why torture them at all? What good does that do since the punishment does not fit a finite crime not deserving annihilation? How can that really be Just?

Instead, what proves mercy and real love is a just honest life sentence based on the truth about God and the person convicted - not on extinction. That is where you need to look, not stringing bible verses together using annihilationist or universalist traditional logic and emotional rhetoric. In Fact, The annihilationist tradition would send people off into oblivion for the most minor of sins because according to their traditions – sin can be classed as minor to major due to man’s finiteness.

Granting such the rest of oblivion also denies what God said himself that He would not do – grant peace/rest to the wicked, or acquit them in any form. Therefore the passages annihilationist traditionally interpret their way do not line up with God’s character, nature, or attributes. The meanings of these passages cited on page 26 are quite different than what such Tradition claims. However, many annihilationist would not even consider this as even a remote possibility: That it is impossible for God to deny Himself.

It is due to His own deep great Love that God does not exterminate into nothingness or blindly allow all into heaven either. God does not force people to convert or repent in this life – he asks and persuades, leaving the individual to deicide their course instead. This is indeed just and that is one example of how just and righteous God is. That is one reason why he gives accordingly to what one has done. Forcing someone, after they die in the afterlife, to enter heaven to be with God whom they do not like would be unjust to the person as well as make God unjust to his own justice and love.

Isaiah 26:10 states the principle clearly why God does not grant afterlife salvation to all. Doing so, the person reverts back to sin that manipulates and games God’s own character traits for one’s personal benefit as he/she will not recognize the Majesty of God. Only during this mortal life can change justly happen through persuading which activates faith. God then justly invades a person and changes them inside out – prepping them for Heaven. There is no afterlife salvation.
-
-
-

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
Still waiting for "literal judgement".
.
.

[Byblos]

.
.
Still waiting for "literal judgement".
.
.

So there is more than one interpretation then? I don't know, what do you think the biblical interpretation is?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. May I assume, since you didn't make more clarification, that this then is in line with the biblical interpretation or understanding of 'judgment'?

I'll still allow for B.W.'s input.
.
.

BW can certainly add his own thought but let's assume that it is.

Now what?

[Sudsy]

Anyways, I think this subject has been talked to death. LoL.

I agree Katabole but it seems until there are some converts to the 'T' view we are going to keep getting more sermons. I thought giving this a rest for a couple days was a good sign but no, these guys act quite threatened by the 'A' view. Perhaps they are beginning to see that it is based on some good scriptural footings and so they must put spin on where a word means this and where the same word means that elsewhere according to their interpretations. Something quite similar to what they criticize the 'A' viewers of doing.

It is truly amazing that all the bible passages/verses which objectively describe God’s character, nature, and attributes cannot be strung together in any manner to say any other thing other than what each objectively states about God.

Yes, it is trully amazing. But B.W. and J. Davis can do it. Wow, quite amazing.

God is unlike us in all venues

Hmmm, a few posts ago we are made in the image of God and quite like God even with immortality. More twisting to suit.

I worked in the human corrections field.

Aha, now that explains a lot. It is beginning to add up to why you insist on this 'T' view being the one and only way to view the nature of hell. Why not leave vengence up to God as He said, He will repay. Don't put Him in a box with your interpretations and deny Him from being who He is. He certainly is much more merciful that you or I could ever be.

Katabole, such interpretations do not reconcile with who God is as He reveals about Himself from the bible.

Katabole, we know this isn't true but that is what B.W. wants readers to believe. Most of what he has posted is nothing but repeated rhetoric. He asks the same questions and then gives his own answers based on the framework he has decided fits a God of never ending wrath. Or He might call this love - allowing sinners to burn forever because they want to.

Traditional annihilationism believes humanity sins can be classed on levels of severity.

And most 'T' viewers I know believe that the punishing that is handed out will also be according to their severity. Now that is a good one.

But these arguments really don't matter if the belief is not lived out. If the 'T' view is truth, they certainly haven't grasped that truth in their hearts. I think this way of believing Jesus called hypocrisy - play acting. It was quite common amongst the Pharisees who were legalists and looked down their noses at anyone with an opposing point of view. Who could ever have the 'T' view in their heart and yet be here wasting precious time that could be used to try to snatch anyone from going into endless torment ? This question, IMO, so far has been poorly answered as the reality of it's impact is something that a 'T' viewer does not want to face up to. Sorry Byblos, nothing personal intended, but if these guys keep repeating their slams and getting away with it, then I guess it is fair game for all.

[Byblos]

Anyways, I think this subject has been talked to death. LoL.

I agree Katabole but it seems until there are some converts to the 'T' view we are going to keep getting more sermons. I thought giving this a rest for a couple days was a good sign but no, these guys act quite threatened by the 'A' view. Perhaps they are beginning to see that it is based on some good scriptural footings and so they must put spin on where a word means this and where the same word means that elsewhere according to their interpretations. Something quite similar to what they criticize the 'A' viewers of doing.

If you guys don't want to discuss this any more then please stop, no one is forcing you to.

But these arguments really don't matter if the belief is not lived out. If the 'T' view is truth, they certainly haven't grasped that truth in their hearts. I think this way of believing Jesus called hypocrisy - play acting. It was quite common amongst the Pharisees who were legalists and looked down their noses at anyone with an opposing point of view. Who could ever have the 'T' view in their heart and yet be here wasting precious time that could be used to try to snatch anyone from going into endless torment ? This question, IMO, so far has been poorly answered as the reality of it's impact is something that a 'T' viewer does not want to face up to. Sorry Byblos, nothing personal intended, but if these guys keep repeating their slams and getting away with it, then I guess it is fair game for all.

You still misunderstand me Sudsy. I have no issue whatsoever with you making the above claim. In fact in some way I agree with you that people need to live out their faith, no question about that. My only beef with your argument is that it seems to exempt you from doing the same simply because you do not believe in hell. That is why I find it to be a hypocritical stance.

[BavarianWheels]

Now what?

I wait for B.W. to give an interpretation. His avoiding this simply seems to scream a small volume.
.
.

[Byblos]

Now what?

I wait for B.W. to give an interpretation. His avoiding this simply seems to scream a small volume.
.
.

Or it could be that he doesn't think it's relevant in any way (as I do, until shown otherwise).

[Canuckster1127]

But these arguments really don't matter if the belief is not lived out. If the 'T' view is truth, they certainly haven't grasped that truth in their hearts. I think this way of believing Jesus called hypocrisy - play acting. It was quite common amongst the Pharisees who were legalists and looked down their noses at anyone with an opposing point of view. Who could ever have the 'T' view in their heart and yet be here wasting precious time that could be used to try to snatch anyone from going into endless torment ? This question, IMO, so far has been poorly answered as the reality of it's impact is something that a 'T' viewer does not want to face up to. Sorry Byblos, nothing personal intended, but if these guys keep repeating their slams and getting away with it, then I guess it is fair game for all.

Sudsy, I was with you at the start and then you lost me. I've purposely stayed out of the nuts and bolts of this discussion for a couple of reasons. First, I've been around this mulberry bush many times and I know that it's interminable.

Second, I've seen with these types of conversations, with several parties, equally convinced that they are right, that inevitably over time, it descends into personalities and a desire to win the argument, rather than winning a brother. The issue is important. The issue however doesn't rise to the level, in my opinion of damaged relationships.

I'm not addressing this next part to you solely. I've stepped in a couple of times to attempt to keep the tone elevated. I've seen valid points made from many involved in this conversation and I've learned some things or reinforced some things and I'm glad for that.

First, as I've stated in other contexts, and this is my opinion so everyone is free to take or leave it, when we become focused on Biblical truth without making Christ the focus, then we move outside of the focus the Bible itself has, again, Christ. I'm somewhat leary of starting in the Bible with attributes and characteristics of God starting from the OT and then taking that framework and forcing Christ into them. The reason I'm leary of that, is that I don't believe the Bible is God's fullest revelation of Himself. I think that is reserved for Christ Himself. I think that's why Christ Himself is given the title of "logos."

That said, it's a true saying that Christ Himself, spoke more of Hell than heaven. That in and of itself, highlights the importance of the issue and the seriousness of the contexts in which he used it. I tend to look at those sayings and more often than not I see that they are directed not to the lost, but primarily to the religious, and especially those who are in positions of leadership and authority and who are responsible for the spiritual welfare and direction of others. Jesus spent a lot of time too, addressing hypocrisy and base motives in that context and correspondingly He modelled his own leadership in contrast to that showing humility, deference and self-sacrifice for those He came to save.

The argument, Sudsy that a traditional view of Hell requires those who hold to it, to elevate above it everything else evangelism, is specious, as has been pointed out. It's no less a motivating factor to reach out to those facing obliteration or annihilation unless as an annihilationist you adopt a utilitarian type of approach that thinks that annihilation is somewhat a neutral state. It's no more fair for you or for anyone else to attribute motives to those who disagree with you than it is to be done in the opposite direction.

I'll throw out as well, for those coming from other directions, that it's not a telling argument to catalog annihiliationism as cultic only. It's certainly true that there has been, in our modern era, a skewing in that direction, but it is not exclusively so. Further, it's never been a valid position to claim that a mojority position must by definition be what is deemed "orthodox." While cults, by definition differ with orthodoxy on issues that have been deemed cardinal by most, it doesn't follow that everything that they believe is therefore wrong or suspect. Seventh Day Adventism, for example, holds some common ground with some groups identified as cults and yet, most accept SDA, even if in some areas with reservations (and please be gracious Bav ... I'm not attempting to denegrate your church).

There are strong theologians too even in modern times who are regularly cited in theological circles who are seen as orthodox and yet some have adopted a form of annihilationism. John R Stott is an example, and in addition there are some I've seen mentioned here such a Fudge and Pinnock. If nothing else, this should at least provide some allowance that not all who espouse annihilationism are therefore guilty by association with cults. If that were the case there are things everyone of us are in agreement with, with those same groups.

So, for what it is worth, I'm seeing some stretches in logic and repeated claims that aren't particularly fair to all involved.

If anyone would be interested, I'd like to suggest an interesting exercise for any who are interested, given that this topic appears to have elicited more passion and participation than any we've had here for quite some time.

What do you think might be the result of dropping the argument, or at least accepting that there is some disagreement here and assuming for the moment, that all involved here are sincere in their beliefs and are not evil people attempting to deceive others? Then, opening another thread and looking at what Christ has to say about hell, and starting there? I don't imagine that will bring about complete agreement by any means, but it might allow those involved to drop for a moment their preconceptions, even if just for the sake of this exercise and allow us to focus for a moment together, upon Christ and what He has to say about the matter.

Anyway, take it or leave it. It just seems to me that we're back at the point again of the conversation tipping back toward repeating, retrenching and escalating the personal rhetoric and in the end, I don't think that's going to change many minds or hearts not only in those participating, but I suspect this thread is getting a lot of lurkers and will be read by many in the future as well.

blessings,

bart

[Sudsy]

My only beef with your argument is that it seems to exempt you from doing the same simply because you do not believe in hell. That is why I find it to be a hypocritical stance.

Whoops, just to clarify, I do believe in hell and a punishment. I don't believe in never ending punishing.

I think you and I disagree on the severity of the punishment which I see as infinitely more terrible for one to burn in never ending torment than to be punished for a period (depending on the extent of a just sentence) and then be destroyed. If I understand you correctly, you regard the taking away of 'life' (immortality) that would disallow never ending punishment, to be as cruel as it denies free will and possibly as B.W. puts it, provides a state of peace.

If I thought these to be anywhere near the same, I agree that I would be acting similar and trying to save anyone from such a destiny. Although I believe there is a penalty associated with sinning and man will reap what he sows, I believe that penalty will differ from one person to another and yet all end with destruction. I believe we have a God given sense of fairness and justice that we should not ignore just because we interpret certain scriptures to be otherwise. God has given us a conscience and common sense and I believe the 'A' view better employs these gifts.

Bart, I just read your post before submitting this one as it was in progress. Good points ! I am willing to take your approach but probably will stay out of the new thread as I think it will head towards more heated arguments. I think I have made my point enough here about how we treat others. I need to change gears and show by example what I mean by expressing a view and not directly putting down other views. This was my first time on thousands of forum threads where my comments were snipped by a moderator. I did step over the line in my dishing it back. I don't need to go there again. I may fail in the future and when I do feel free to remind me.

If you guys don't want to discuss this any more then please stop, no one is forcing you to.

Discussions can be good but what is with these long winded sermons ? And scripture references that often have nothing to do with the topic ? It is too bad, IMO, that we can't agree to just state our case without the need to 'put down' another's view. But it seems disrespectful dialogue here is quite acceptable until we cross a certain line, which I'm not too sure about yet, with these slams.

I think this is the only thread I have ever been involved in anywhere that I have stood up to a couple of guys with the language I have used because I believe they need to get a taste of their own treatment of others. I think you will find me not engaging this way in other threads.

I take it that they want the last word(s) / sermons on this thread, so I will try once more to let them do their thing without rebuttal. I hope though they got a taste of what some others feel when their views are made sport of. Bullying is not a fruit of the Spirit.

[BavarianWheels]

Now what?

I wait for B.W. to give an interpretation. His avoiding this simply seems to scream a small volume.

Or it could be that he doesn't think it's relevant in any way (as I do, until shown otherwise).

That's true, Byblos. I gather you don't based on your belief, however you're not the one posting lengthy "proofs" of literal translations on words in question. I'd simply like his take on what judgment is.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

While cults, by definition differ with orthodoxy on issues that have been deemed cardinal by most, it doesn't follow that everything that they believe is therefore wrong or suspect. Seventh Day Adventism, for example, holds some common ground with some groups identified as cults and yet, most accept SDA, even if in some areas with reservations (and please be gracious Bav ... I'm not attempting to denegrate your church).

None taken. I think I've mentioned in this forum at least a few times, that while it is my belief that SDAism is closest to the "truth", IMHO, there are areas that I certainly disagree with and have no fear of exposing as such. Beliefs evolve and I believe the SDA Church has evolved in some of the areas that were first attributed as wrong or suspect. Other areas simply need more time to be seen...or I may at some point move on myself. Who knows.

Anyway, take it or leave it. It just seems to me that we're back at the point again of the conversation tipping back toward repeating, retrenching and escalating the personal rhetoric and in the end, I don't think that's going to change many minds or hearts not only in those participating, but I suspect this thread is getting a lot of lurkers and will be read by many in the future as well.

I think you're right. I don't think any human can change my mind on this. I gather it is much the same for the other wrong interpre...err. I'm sure all will hold to their beliefs.
.
.

[B. W.]

.
.
Still waiting for "literal judgement".
.
.

Still wait for a specific verse you are refering too - for example in the KJV the word Judgment is used 294 times and various Hebrew and Greek words are used - so which verses out of 285 verses in the KJV that use Judgment 294 times in the bible would you like to discuss?
-
-
-

[B. W.]

A Word on this Discussion:

In a discussion such as this, annihilationist tradition, like a steady drumbeat, bases its prime force of persuasion solely on human emotional sentimentality as only arbiter of biblical truth. If it feels good, then it must be right appears like a chanted mantra. Likewise, in any debate traditional annihilationism must rely and justify reinterpreted biblical text and biblical words to enforce its on credibility based on over done sentimentality.

In fact, I posted quotes from prominent annihilationist whom stated that their main goal is to reinterpret scripture and for what reason we might dare ask? Answer follows this line of logic: The text is unappealing to human sensibilities and therefore must be wrong. Then comes the name calling, derogatory comments, and shame used against anyone whom disagrees with annihilationist tradition.

Traditional annihilationists have counter arguments for prominent theologian objections such as Gomes, Packer, Mohler, Moo, Morgan and other Orthodox Christian Leaders. I tried to stay away from these because those stepped in annihilationist thought are ready with re-packaged comebacks that seek to shame the unwary into submission. We end up trading quotes and links to no end.

Instead of this approach, I proposed to explore how God will not deny Himself, or deny His word, or deny His gifts, or deny His callings. This is examined by looking at the objective truths stated bluntly within the bible that reveal God’s own Character, Attributes, and Nature. Though the Lord can do all things, He chooses self restraint over unjust actions that would stain and blight His great Name – why - because He lives true to Himself. He is Holy God.

The Lord in his full Majesty will always remain true to who He is – true to His own inherent Righteousness, Justice, Wisdom, Love, Mercy, remaining always perfect in all His ways. In this, we can praise the Majesty of the Lord who changes not! By comparing the objective truths within the bible that describe such characteristics of the Lord’s profound Majesty, we can discern if the doctrine we hold squares fully on The Lord, Our Solid Rock. We have the balance needed to discern if truth is truth.

An all powerful intelligent God left us clues within the bible that reveal who he is, so that by these truths we may get to know him better. I challenge the reader to find the scriptures that objectively verify God’s unique characteristics, ask the Lord during your study and prayer time, to explain how these truths fit what you believe and dispelling arguments of contradiction as well. Make a list of these scriptures and put them into your own words for your own reference and lay them to heart.

Doing so will cause the Lord and you to draw closer to each other and then farther away from man centered ideas. You may find a deeper relationship which many desire to have with the Lord begin to develop. This will be had by asking questions about the Lord’s Majestic Character to the Lord himself and how these square or not square with doctrines. The Lord will lead you, prod you, challenge you, and reason with you, through it all.

During the course of this debate posted here so far, my prayer is for the reader to judge themselves by the tone of the comments here about who is relying more on man centered sentiment as the measure of all biblical truth or the Lord Himself. In this, I was firm. I apologize for coming across harsh at times but so did Christ when He walked upon the earth and still does through his servants by the power of the Holy Spirit. James 5:19, 20 was my intent.

In no way am I implying Christian Annihilationist ‘are’ false brethren and not saved. If I do not know you, I will push to see if you are a believer in Christ or not. If that offends you sorry about that but also do not take this wrongly either as this is an open Web Forum. All I can ask is that Our Christian Annihilationist brothers and sisters should really examine their doctrine under the Light of the Lord and that each privately searches out their doctrine concerning this subject. If it causes God to deny himself, it should be held with suspect. .

God reveals himself within the bible in many various verses that objectively help people understand and know him better. God will not deny who He is. Jesus also demonstrated this as well. He spoke on Hell more than Heaven and had no need to mince his words about it.

When you speak on Hell, you’ll be scoffed at, mocked, called names, falsely accused of improper bible use, old fashioned, someone who delights in torturing people, a lair, unenlightened, stupid, crazy, insane, arrogant and others thing recorded here and others best left unsaid. But when a person begins to grasp the Majesty of the Lord, such insults cannot cause you to kowtow to their intimidation.

One thing I hope anyone reading this sees is how annihilationist traditions will not even remotely consider this absolute truth about God: That it is impossible for God to deny Himself.

Instead some continue to base annihilationist traditions on the conventional ‘what would be best for men’ ideology and biblical reinterpretations. Add to this constant appeals using hyper sentimentality as the sole criteria to determine doctrinal truth. Such reliance in and of itself, should be a red flag of warning to any seeker of the Lord wisdom regarding spiritual matters. Another red flag that should be discerned about the traditions of annihilationism is how these are shared equally by major non-Christian cults. Bring this up and you are accused of some sort crime of judgmentalness.

Ideas do have consequences…

Let’s move on…
-
-
-

[B. W.]

Continued from above comments:

Now, I tried to change the course back to the topic several pages ago so I’ll post the hypotheses again so we can measure it against who God is according to his own character and nature and attributes in hope we can move on.

Hypotheses

The infinite punishment for finite sins argument would be true only if human beings were created finite. Now if God designed humanity beginning at an individual’s birth to be an eternal being, sin likewise, residing unchecked, would be eternally corrupting. This would mean that sin from a ‘designed to be infinite being’ would indicate that there is no such thing a finite sins.

This does not mean that sin was created within a being as that is a different topic than this one at the moment. So what I am attempting to try to hypothesize is that since God designed individuals to have an eternal spirit (indicated by the bible), if they should fall into sin (which did happen – Rom 5:12 chose to sin), sin would remain within forever unless dealt with by a Just and equity minded blameless God. There is no such thing as a finite sin for a being that was originally created to live infinitely with God.

So the question hinges – does the bible state, objectively according to whom God is, that he designed Human beings as eternal beings with a definite beginning? Such a beginning nullifies Plato’s Immortality philosophy, plain and simple.Also note that due to sin entering the world, mortal death entered also, but being fashioned according to God's eternal image - the human spiritual state is released and resides onward... back to God to be judged by God.

Next are there really lesser and greater sins? Or is it the nature of sin to lead to ruin no matter how big or how small and if left uncheck, seeking the very ruin of God himself?
-
-
-