Immortality - Conditional or Not ?

[B. W.]

Agreed Bart...

Conditionalist and annihilationist reinterpreted bible texts to support annihilation into non-being by such words and phrases that use the following words: consume, cut off, fire, burn up, destroyed, destruction, death, die, perish, ashes, smoke. They claim that the meanings of these words can only refer to annihilation into non-being in bible text. For example:

Psalm 37:20, “But the wicked shall perish (non-exist) and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume (non-exisit) away….

Malachi 4:1, 3a, “For, behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch…3 And he shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.” KJV

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sins, it shall die (non-exist).

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death (non-exisitence); but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

2 Th 1:9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction (non-exisitence) from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power…

For the annihilationist (I am including conditionalist in this camp for reference) they take these to mean extinction into non-being. However, do their interpretations actually line up with how God reveals character and nature objectively within the bible? If not, then these texts and word meanings are suggesting something else. So, Let’s test their interpretations against who God is as He is described and ordained within the bible to be revealed:

Luke 20:38, "For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him."

Note: Genesis1:26

Ec 3:11-14 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end….

Note: context of Ec 3:11-14a directly connects to verse 14 and thus defines word translated eternity in verse 11 to mean eternity and...

Ec 3:14-15 I know that whatever God does, It shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, And nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before Him. 15 That which is has already been, And what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past

…Note: Contextually – defines what God does shall last forever as defined as His placement of eternity in the heart of man as well as future judgment as the rest of the verses in Ec 3 plainly indicate.

Next, what does the bible reveal in these next verses?

Ec 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,

2 Sa 14:14 For we will surely die and become like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. Yet God does not take away a life; but He devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him.

Psa 33:11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart to all generations.

Job 33:4 The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life

Isa 42:5 "Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it…"

Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him…

The principle from the bible is clearly outlined as God giving life to human beings just as the texts state: God gives. The bible tells us God gave human beings life, and placed eternity within them. In Gen 1:26-28 we discover God designed human beings to be able relate with him and help take care of a part of his creation, eternally. God alone is eternal and he places eternity as a gift from his own eternal image within us so we can live with him and do his will. Humanity fell into sin and mortal death came to us. Point is - our life is described as given – given as a gift.

Now the next question arises: Does God revoke what he gives i.e. his gifts? The bible itself answers this from....

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

…and…

Num 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

The Answer is in Fact, a resounding NO – God does not deny what he gives nor can he deny who he is…

If the annihilationist interpretations are correct, then would they not make God deny his gift of life and words promised, etc?

To get around this, annihilationist state that the bible no-where says God made human beings eternal beings despite the evidence form Ec 3:11-22, Gen 1:26, and all the verses that speak of God granting life which explicitly contradicts them. Just think, if man was actually made only potentially eternal, then this flies in the face of Romans 5:12 because if only potentially eternal would mean Adam and Eve would have died had they never had sinned but death came upon humanity how? If potentially eternal then to keep eternality would be contingent upon Adam and Eve’s own works to maintain this form of salvation and not on God alone!

Within 2 Sam 14:14 we find this statement true– God does not take away life…even after one experiences psychical death – we do not cease to exist., our real person continues on as God purposed it. God can kill the body and he has the power to cast into hell as well, he cannot be classed as murderer by any means, since people live on after physical death.

Will God deny himself? Again the bible answers No just as it is written in:

2 Ti 2:13: If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

Heb 6:18 - that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.

For the annihilationist, their interpretations pertain only to annihilation into non-existence as used in:

Psalm 37:20, “But the wicked shall perish (non-exist) and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume (be annihilated into non-being) away….

Malachi 4:1, 3a, “For, behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble (non-exist): and the day that cometh shall burn them up (exterminate), saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch…3 And he shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes (non-being) under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.”

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sins, it shall die (non-exist).

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death (Non-existence); but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

2 Th 1:9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction (non-existence) from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power…

John 3:15, “that whoever believes in Him should not perish (Non-exist) but have eternal life.”

Then compared with what God says first about himself as a living God (Luke 20:38) about life given to human beings (Job 33:4, Isa 42:5, Psa 33:11), God's fashioning us as an eternal beings (Ec 3:11, 14, Gen 1:16), that through sin mortal death entered the world but the real person continues on (Hebrews 9:27, Ec 12:7), because of this God does not take away life (2 Sam 14:14) - why? Numbers 23:19 answers why as does Romans 11:29 and further explained in 2 Ti 2:13...

Are his gifts revocable? Would God deny himself? How can annihilationist interpretations that violate these principles from the bible about God remain true?

But the annihilationist insist and say – gotcha - that God would not be denying or revoking his gifts since he spoke so often that he would annihilate into non-being the guiltily in the bible - therefore he would be keeping his word, say they...

However does this line of logic really does not line up with - what God says first about himself as a living God (Luke 20:38) about life given to human beings (Job 33:4, Isa 42:5, Psa 33:11), God's fashioning us as an eternal beings (Ec 3:11, 14, Gen 1:16), that through sin mortal death entered the world but the real person continues on (Hebrews 9:27, Ec 12:7), because of this God does not take away life (2 Sam 14:14) - why? Numbers 23:19 answers why as does Romans 11:29 and further explained in 2 Ti 2:13...

The answer remains NO - if not, then, you just prove the bible is in irrevocable contradiction with itself. Annihilationist traditions fail to rightly divide the word because they interject foreign thought into the bible to support their beliefs. The texts are saying and implying something else. If not, they pose a contradiction to God’s own character revealing that he is not anything he says himself to be. That is why annihilationist interpretations of scripture are to be held with suspect - they fail light of the Lord... Yes, God does indeed test the heart.

Are God’s gifts and callings revocable?

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable

Luke 20:38, "For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him."

Isa 42:5 "Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it…"

Job 33:4 The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life

Ec 3:11, 14, 15a, He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts...14 I know that whatever God does it shall be forever, nothing shall be added to it, and nothing shall be taken away from it. God does it that men may fear before him...15.. God shall judge the righteous and the wicked...21...Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,

2 Sa 14:14 For we will surely die and become like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. Yet God does not take away a life; but He devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him.

Psa 33:11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart to all generations.

Num 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

Heb 6:18a - that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie…

-
-
-

[Sudsy]

However, do their interpretations actually line up with how God reveals character and nature objectively within the bible?

Yes, they sure do. Actually they are much more reflective of God's character as reflected in scripture and in the life of Jesus than the traditional view of hell. That is one reason why the traditional view is seldom spoken about over pulpits today.

Scriptures are quite clear that God is not into torturing anyone. What a terrible way of describing God's character. God is just and will judge and sentence everyone according to His character and not according to man's interpretation of certain scriptures that places God in a predicament that He has no choice but to keep certain people in endless torment.

As we already have discussed if the endless torment was a view that the apostles believed, it would seem quite obvious to be a message that would be impressed upon the various early Christian churches in the letters sent to them that we have in the New Testament. But the fact is there is no mention of endless torment in these letters. So, did these apostles believe in it but did not want to preach it in case they might scare away people from the Gospel or did they not believe in it and therefore did not need to discuss it and instead preached the true, good news, Gospel ? I pose they understood much more clearly what Jesus was talking about when He referred to Gehenna and the judgment that did take place in their generation. It was man, actually some with very suspect character, that interpreted the KJV to change the wording to 'Hell'. A little research into some of these translators into the KJV is an interesting study for those interested. They were not all godly, Spirit filled men.

The bible tells us God gave human beings life, and placed eternity within them. In Gen 1:26-28 we discover God designed human beings to be able relate with him and help take care of a part of his creation, eternally. God alone is eternal and he places eternity as a gift from his own eternal image within us so we can live with him and do his will.

Disagree. The bold part I agree with. This other statement regarding God creating us immortal through a gift of life for every man is where the error occurs. God does give immortality as a gift, I will agree with that, and that gift is given at the new birth when one is born again. Otherwise the spirit man is dead and unless quickened by the Word of God, will remain as a dead spiritual body.

Now the next question arises: Does God revoke what he gives i.e. his gifts?

I agree with this. God gives immortality to believers and does not revoke what he gives. Some may say that a believer can abandon this gift while others say that is not even possible.

So, all this stuff about God not denying Himself doesn't hold water. God isn't locked into a situation where He must keep people in a non-existent state and therefore if they don't qualify for Heaven they are stuck with the other place, a lake of fire on endless torment. No, God didn't put Himself in such a predicament. He offers eternal life as a free gift that cannot be earned and if not accepted then all that remains of that person will be destroyed. There is no purpose to keeping someone in an endless state of torment and God has given us all a sense of fairness and common sense to know that He would not do that.

It is troubling to consider that some will abandon their sense of what is just and right due to a certain interpretation of selected scriptures. One could certainly fear such a god but could one love such a god ? How would you feel about your earthly father if he said that because you did not receive the gift I offered you, I will cause you endless pain for your entire existence. And if this father chose to make you this offer through an older sibling and this sibling failed to tell you the consequences of your choice regarding this free gift, how honest and fair would that be ?

So, when interpreting scripture there can be danger in abandoning the gift of common sense that He has given us. When people say that God is lovingly giving unbelievers what they want in granting them endless torment, they have abandoned common sense. Most unbelievers I know might choose hell if hell was similar to their life here on earth with their friends but not if the choice was endless torment in fire or heaven. Yet, many traditionalists are keeping their views on endless torment very quiet and so what does this say about their compassion for their fellow man ? Worth thinking about, no ?

And again, common sense tells me that if I believed in endless torment for my unsaved friends, and was not warning them and pleading with them to escape such a place, I would not be much of a friend. Ask any unbeliever if they would think you were a friend if you thought they might end up there and yet did not beg them to keep from going there. What I mean is you either have a belief that you live by or you are just blowin smoke. To me, you can't have Jesus compassion and not speak about such a place. And if you are not and yet feel you are lead by the Spirit in your witness, then might that also be an indicator that the Spirit is not supporting this belief ? As the apostles were filled and lead by the Spirit in their ministry and never spoke of endless torment, we should think about why this occured.

So, no one is suggesting by the 'A' view that God is lying or not true to Himself or is taking away gifts that He gives as has been presented here over and over again. On the contrary, God gives eternal life to those who accept His gift of salvation and for those who reject this gift, after they are judged and receive their fair sentence, He will remove all traces of evil and suffering forever. This reflects a truly just and loving and merciful Father who offers us this wonderful gift of eternal life to be received or not.

I am not going to question anyone's salvation or suggesting they are not desiring to be a follower of Christ if they don't accept the 'A' view as truth. I think that was taking this to an extreme on what has been said to be a non-essential, secondary belief. However, I have questioned the seemingly lack of compassion and forthrightness being shown by those I know that adhere to the traditional view. Something just doesn't add up, IMO. The talk and the walk just don't match up.

If anyone wants to explore an alternative view regarding a scriptural look at whether we are all immortal or not, this is a good 4 part video series - http://www.afterlife.co.nz/free-resourc ... n-video-2/

And regarding the topic of whether destruction means destruction, see video 4 the judgment of God, especially part 3 of 3. - http://www.afterlife.co.nz/free-resourc ... r-video-4/

[B. W.]

I am not going into any details here as they have been addressed on the Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins thread.

If it matters, I do not believe God purposefully designed a place of torture for those who reject Him. Rather, it is a place of necessity to contain those who do reject Him. Such are not tortured by God, but rather by their own consciousness and awareness to their everlasting situation. The source of all truth, good, peace, righteousness, light and what-have-you is withdrawn from those who reject Christ forever. They are left to a world of their own without such things.

Next, the Infinite punishment for finite sins’ case is based upon a false premise of what torment is. In many persons who hold this view, claim that it is God who does the tormenting and torture. This is a false premise wrought out by bad doctrine and not what the bible reveals. God is not the tormenter or the happy torturer inflicting torture - See below for what makes eternal punishment i.e. recompense:

First, Torment belongs to the person – it is their own torment that torments as the principle cites in Revelation 14:11. God is not doing any torture or tormenting. The person’s own conscience does that.

The argument used by annihilationist is not based on biblical fact. What it does reveal is a preponderance of basing new theology of annihilationism on human emotionalism to win arguments at any cost. Notice, it is they that accuse God of being a torturer (sadist as Pinnock stated), for even punishing.

Please note what Kurieuo stated and I stated on Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins thread as it mirrors the Orthodox scripture based position that defines the nature of eternal punishment as a consciousness awareness of their everlasting situation where the source of all truth, good, peace, righteousness, light, from God is withdrawn from those who reject Christ forever. They are left to a world of their own where Torment it is their own torment that torments as the principle in Revelation 14:11 reveals. God is not doing any torture or tormenting. The person’s own conscience is doing that.

Let’s look at what others concluded far more respectable than Kurieuo or I. Their conclusions are similar to what I have been repeatedly pointed out:

Quoted From this article linkA Kinder, Gentler Theology of Hell?

CONCLUSION

It has been the purpose of this essay to demonstrate by a survey of the doctrinal categories that the doctrine of annihilationism as taught by a few contemporary evangelicals is a significant part of a multifaceted compromise of a biblical systematic theology. I have also suggested that annihilationists often come to the Scriptures with cultural and theological preunderstandings that negate the historical-grammatical meaning of the passages. Carson is right in his observation:

“Despite the sincerity of their motives, one wonders more than a little to what extent the growing popularity of various forms of annihilationism and conditional immortality are a reflection of this age of pluralism. It is getting harder and harder to be faithful to the “hard” lines of Scripture. And in this way, evangelicalism itself may contribute to the gagging of God by silencing the severity of his warnings and by minimizing the awfulness of the punishment that justly awaits those untouched by his redeeming grace.46

46Carson, Gagging of God

Quoted From this article linkA Kinder, Gentler Theology of Hell?

There is a powerful moral revulsion against the traditional doctrine of the nature of hell. [As Pinnock said]

“ Everlasting torture is intolerable from a moral point of view because it pictures God acting like a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for his enemies whom he does not even allow to die. How can one love a God like that?”11

Is not Pinnock saying that people believe in what they enjoy, and since they do not enjoy the thought of eternal hell, they can dismiss it, and thus construct their own narrative, their own reality? With such cultural preunderstandings, it is impossible for one to interpret Scripture accurately.12

Some preunderstandings are theological. If one already has His mind made up about what God is like, what man is like, what sin and salvation are like, he may bring those preunderstandings to the passage of Scripture he is trying to understand. In other words, one’s larger theological system will probably impact his interpretation of an individual passage of Scripture. The purpose in the rest of this study, therefore, is to demonstrate that annihilationism is not an isolated deviation from orthodoxy, but is only a part of a larger theological breakdown. Annihilationists thus have not only departed from a biblical understanding of eschatology, but also from the doctrines of God, man, sin, and salvation.

11Pinnock, “The Conditional View,” in Four Views of Hell 149.

12See further, Larry D. Pettegrew, “Liberation Theology and Hermeneutical Preunderstandings,”
Bibliotheca Sacra 148/591 (July-September 1991):274-87.

-
-
-

[B. W.]

+
Continued from Above...

Quoted From this article linkA Kinder, Gentler Theology of Hell?

ANTHROPOLOGY: A DEPRECIATION OF THE HUMAN SOUL

Annihilationism: Conditional Immortality

Anthropology is another doctrine involved in the theological breakdown of those who hold to annihilationism. Annihilationists teach conditional immortality, which may be defined as “the idea that humans were made mortal with everlasting life being a gift, not a natural capacity.”31 Of course, physically human beings are mortal and will die unless the Lord’s returns first. But the question being debated is, Is the human soul inherently immortal (as the traditionalists teach), or does it become immortal only through salvation(as theannihilationists teach)?

Annihilationists typically teach that immortality is bestowed on the righteous at the resurrection.

Clark Pinnock explains,

"The Bible does not teach the natural immortality of the soul; it points instead to the resurrection of the body as God’s gift to believers... The Bible teaches conditionalism: God created humans mortal with a capacity for life everlasting, but it is not their inherent possession. Immortality is a gift God offers us in the gospel, not an inalienable possession.32"

31Pinnock and Brow, Unbounded Love 91.

216 The Master’s Seminary Journal

As Robert Peterson testifies, “I do not believe in the traditional view of hell because I accept the immortality of human beings, but the other way around. I believe in the immortality of human beings because the Bible clearly teaches everlasting damnation for the wicked and everlasting life

Annihilationism: Immortality Comes from Greek Philosophy

Annihilationists defend conditional immortality primarily with two arguments. First they argue that the traditional view of the immortality of the soul comes from Greek philosophy rather than from the Bible. Pinnock writes, “I am convinced that the hellenistic belief in the immortality of the soul has done more than anything else (specifically more than the Bible) to give credibility to the doctrine of the everlasting conscious punishment of the wicked. This belief, not holy Scripture, is what gives this doctrine the credibility it does not deserve.33”

But this argument is not convincing. First of all, the traditional Christian understanding of the immortality of the soul is different from Greek philosophy. Plato taught that souls were inherently immortal. Christians have taught that souls are derivatively immortal, that God grants immortality to human beings because they are made in His likeness.

Second, traditionalists insist that the doctrine of the everlasting nature of the soul comes from Scripture, not philosophy. In the Old Testament, the immortality of the soul is clearly implied at the creation of the human race. When God created the first man and woman, He said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. . . . So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. . . . And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen 1:26-27; 2:7, personal translation).

In this passage, there are two significant statements. First, God addresses Himself when He creates man—“Let us. . . .” This is different from the way He creates animals. The great nineteenth-century theologian, William Shedd, noted that “when God creates man, he addresses himself: ‘Let us . . . ,’

Gen. 1:26. But when he creates animals, he addresses the inanimate world: ‘Let the waters bring forth the moving creature,’ Gen. 1:20.”34 The immortality of the soul is implied in the divine personal relationship with mankind. The second significant statement in this passage is that God breathes the breath of life into man’s lungs. Again, this is totally unlike the way God brings life to the animals. There is an intimate inbreathing of God’s breath into man. In the opinion of Robert Landis, “The usage of the word (‘breathed’) cannot be mistaken. As used in the text, it is descriptive of imparting the immortal spirit. . .”35

Many NT passages also teach immortality of the soul. The many Scriptures that the other writers emphasize in this issue of The Master’s Seminary Journal all teach the immortality of the soul. Matthew 25:46, for example, says that at the judgment, some “will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Only an immortal soul can suffer eternal punishment

33Clark Pinnock, “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent,” Criswell Theological Review 4:2 (1990):254.

34William G. T. Shedd, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy (New York: Scribner’s, 1893) 5.

35Robert W. Landis, The Immortality of the Soul (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1859) 142.

[B. W.]

+
Continued from the above two frames:

Quoted From this article link HELL: NEVER, FOREVER, OR JUST FOR AWHILE?

140 The Master’s Seminary Journal

The questions concerning eternal torment raised by various opponents include “Isn’t eternal conscious torment needless cruelty?” and “Isn’t forever punishment incompatible with God’s love and mercy?” Preliminarily, one might observe that, for annihilationists, life imprisonment is more humane to the thinking of most than capital punishment or suffering through this life is more righteous than euthanasia. No major complaints are raised by annihilationists to the hundreds or thousands of years during which unbelievers suffer in the intermediate state. So why then be opposed to endless punishment in hell? This writer’s opinion would be that those sincere Christian scholars who have opted for conditional immortality have been far more influenced by an overemphasized anthropocentric view of the world and Scripture than a theocentric view (maybe more than they realize) and that this has colored their thinking.42

The question is raised, “To whom and when, if ever, is immortality bestowed to a mortal creature?” Opponents of eternal torment in hell often assert that the church was dramatically affected by Platonic thought which taught that the soul was naturally created immortal. To that it must be hypothetically admitted that one Christian generation could possibly be deceived by an unbiblical philosophy. However, to support the idea that 2,000 years of doctrinal history has been almost universally blind to embracing pagan thought on this issue is beyond acceptable reason.

God’s justice is often brought to the forefront of the discussion. “Isn’t eternal punishment unjust as retribution for a non-eternal violation?” Yet, it must be remembered that God defines and sets the standard for what is just and unjust. The Scriptures reveal what that measure is, and thus an exegetical, not a philosophical, approach is the only one that will yield satisfactory answers. It could just be that sin against an eternally holy God is far more serious from His perspective than from the human point of view.

It has also been asked, “Would not the joy of the saints be greatly diminished in heaven to know that others are suffering in hell?” Again, one must retreat to Scripture, particularly Rev 21:4, for an answer. Also, it could be asked of annihilationists in response, “Would not the joy of the saints be greatly diminished in heaven to know that their unsaved acquaintances and family have now gone out of existence?” Humanly speaking, that latter hypothetical situation seems as sorrowful, if not more so, as the former. 42

On the other hand, those who espouse conscious torment in hell have in their imaginative descriptions of hell’s awfulness often greatly exceeded what little detail the Scripture provides, beyond the fact of torment. For example, Dante Alighieri, Dante’s Inferno (Chicago: Thompson & Thompson, 1902), written in the thirteenth century.

Degrees of Eternal Punishment

Matthew 10:15; 11:22, 24 and Luke 10:12, 14; 20:47 point to the decided idea that there will be degrees of punishment in Gehenna for unbelievers appropriate to the evil deeds done during one’s life. This would strongly argue against annihilationism which basically calls for a “one size fits all” approach in that all are annihilated without variation.

REACHING A WORKING CONCLUSION

Because this essay is introductory in nature, not the final word in the anthology, let this writer propose a “working solution” to be affirmed and strengthened by the articles that follow. It is concluded, No variation of Universalism nor any form of Annihilationism/Conditional Immortality is biblically or otherwise acceptable as a legitimate Christian view of Hell (Gehenna), i.e., life hereafter in the final state for unbelievers.

Overall views other than Certain Eternal Existence as espoused in this essay are deemed to be historically, lexically, exegetically, contextually, and theologically deficient. We find satisfying the confident conclusion drawn by S. Lewis Johnson: “”It is doubtful that there is a doctrine in the Bible easier to prove than that of eternal punishment (cf. Matt. 25:46).””43

[Sudsy]

And for those who are not stuck on tradition and may want to consider that the traditional view may be quite in error as it does not reflect the God that others believe is described in scripture - try taking Fudge's quiz - http://www.edwardfudge.com/hellquiz.html#1

Here is a testimony of one who converted to the conditional immortality view and why - http://www.afterlife.co.nz/free-resourc ... r-video-5/

I don't doubt that there are many scholars and at this point perhaps the majority of scholars that will stick with the traditional view but that is no different than in Martin Luther's time. The 'A' viewers are labelled as too emotional and this is the driving force behind their theology. Well, one could say some 'T' viewers have too much pride to admit they may just be wrong or some 'T' viewers don't realize how impacted their theology has become from outside beliefs on the afterlife. The main issue is whether or not the view of endless torment is scriptural and reflective of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of the scriptures.

I think the argument that God is not torturing is a weak one. That is like saying, if your child opts to have himself chained to a post, soaked with gasoline and then lit on fire and you could stop the child from doing such an idiotic thing, you would not. And the reason for not rescuing the child is not to teach them a lesson. No, it is just that you are so loving, you are willing to give them what they want regarless of the pain involved. Well, I'm sure glad I did not have an earthly father who would allow such a thing to occur and I'm quite confident my heavenly Father is no where near that kind of characterization. God will punish according to His judgments and the punishment will have varying degress but ultimately all evil and those who don't repent will be destroyed. Now, that is a fair and loving God who is willing that none should perish but all should come to repentance.

I've yet to hear any good reason why the apostles did not preach on eternal punishing. In all those epistles, no mention of never ending torment in a lake of fire. Yet some 'T' viewers wil just ignore this fact as it doesn't fit with their understandings. I think we would be better off sticking with what the early church actually taught in the scriptures instead of adding to it as the traditions of man have for various reasons.

At one time, endless torment was used to scare people into following the Lord but today it is basically kept quiet as most people dismiss this interpretation as it is totally in contrast to a loving, merciful and just God. Although I disagree with the scare tactics as they are not supported by the Acts of the apostles, to believe in the 'T' view and keep it quiet, to me, is the greater sin. How deceptive to not make people aware of the consequence of their choice. Shame on those who believe hell is never ending torment and they are too selfish and/or uncaring to warn people of such a place.

[B. W.]

+

Again the annihilationist links provided prove what the author of this article stated below:

Quoted From this article link HELL: NEVER, FOREVER, OR JUST FOR AWHILE?

140 The Master’s Seminary Journal

This writer’s opinion would be that those sincere Christian scholars who have opted for conditional immortality have been far more influenced by an overemphasized anthropocentric view of the world and Scripture than a theocentric view (maybe more than they realize) and that this has colored their thinking.

Such interpretations of annihilationism are firmly documented in the words of annihilationist themselves that their doctrine is derived solely on anthropocentric view of the world and Scripture than a theocentric view

This should cause the reader alarm when visiting annihilationist websites especially when such anthropocentric doctrine is mirrored by major cults as the below quotes illustrates:

Quoted From this article linkChristian Research Institute Journal - Gomes part One

And now, who is responsible for this God-dishonoring doctrine? And what is his purpose? The promulgator of it is Satan himself; and his purpose in introducing it has been to frighten the people away from studying the Bible and to make them hate God.
-- Joseph Franklin Rutherford, Watchtower Society's Second President[1] 1 Joseph Franklin Rutherford, Let God Be True (1946; rev. 1952), 79.

How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been? Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards, and by the gospel itself.-- Clark Pinnock, Professor and Noted Evangelical Author[2] 2 Clark Pinnock, "The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent," Criswell Theological Review 4 (Spring 1990):246-47.

Again note the last three points in the below article points out that the current leadership proponents of annihilationism hermeneutics are either deliberately faulty, or the the proposers redefined their bibliology to warrant challenging the text and altering the meaning of different terms, or they use inferential reasoning from the character of God, His love, mercy, and grace to establish the total unreasonableness of eternal punishment.

I contend they do so from all three points - all based on an anthropocentric human emotional sentimentality in deciding how to correctly interpret the bible. This is a dangerous path to follow considering that is how all major cults stray into their peculiar errors.

Article quoted from ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IN JOHN’S REVELATION

Trevor P. Craigen

Associate Professor of Theology

Church history has witnessed many challenges to the traditional doctrine of eternal punishment, but John’s Revelation—particular chapters 14 and 20—emphasizes the effect of this life’s belief or unbelief on afterlife consequences. The angelic warning in Revelation 14 speaks of the eternal penalty resulting from the wrath of God in concert with Revelation 20 and its apostolic announcement that describes the same in terms of the lake of fire and the second death. The two passages specifically contradict recent claims that future punishment is remedial, not retributive. They also point out that God’s righteousness and holiness will prevail over His love, mercy, and grace in dealings with the lost after this life ends. Neither do they allow for the idea that the punishment is not conscious torment. They teach that the unsaved will experience the same fate as Satan, the beast, the false prophet, and demons. These chapters in John’s Revelation do not constitute an empty threat that God will not implement. They instill a fear that is justified in light of the irreversible consequences of divine judgment.

The reality and validity of eternal punishment in hell has been called into question frequently throughout church history.1a

Such questioning also stands attested as one of the hallmarks of different cults and sects.1 When proposing a position that quite obviously sounded different from the propositions of the biblical text, then the literal words of that text had to be explained in another way in order to maintain that new proposition.2

Either…
(1) the hermeneutic was deliberately faulty,
(2) the proposer redefined his bibliology to warrant challenging the text and altering the meaning of different terms, or
(3) he used inferential reasoning from the character of God, His love, mercy, and grace to establish the total unreasonableness of eternal punishment.3

Of course, all of this happened alongside fervent declarations of letting the Word of God speak for itself, so that it would be appropriate thereafter to assert that hell is indeed a grim prospect, and the proposer intended nothing to lessen it.4

Source List:

1a Thomas Talbot, “The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment,” Faith and Philosophy 7/1 (January 1990):23, remarked, “The evil of everlasting separation is itself . . . inconsistent with the existence of God.” He also opined, “God would never promote the happiness of one loved at the expense of another” (28) and “A doctrine of hell is defensible only if modified in one of two ways: one must either deny that hell is everlasting or deny that it is a place of punishment” (34). Charles H. Pridgeon, Is Hell Eternal or Will God’s Plan Fail? (Pittsburgh: The Evangelization Society of the Pittsburgh Bible Institute, 1931) unashamedly declared, “Hell was invented by pagans” (35), and Paul S. L. Johnson, Life, Death, Hereafter, revised and enlarged (Philadelphia: P. Johnson, 1937) 46, stated, “Thinking people cannot but disbelieve this legend.” He added further that the doctrine of eternal torment was undoubtedly introduced by the Papacy to induce the pagan to join in support of her system (49). Useful bibliography may be found in Freeman Barton, “Evangelicals in Defense of Hell—An Annotated Bibliography with Extended Introduction,” Journal of Religious & Theological Information 2/2 (1996):73-94.

1 Alan W. Gomes, “Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell,” Christian Research Journal (Spring 1991):15, writes, “Denial of this teaching [conscious everlasting torment] has, until recently, been limited almost exclusively to cultic or quasi-cultic groups.” He then names Jehovah’s Witnesses, Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God, Christian Science, Mormonism, the New Age movement, and Seventh Day Adventism.

2 William G.T. Shedd, The Doctrine of Endless Punishment (1980 reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, n.d.) 5-6, reminds that “the denial of endless punishment is usually associated with the denial of those tenets which are logically and closely connected with it, such as original sin, vicarious atonement, and regeneration. Thomas Talbot, “The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment” 20, goes further by concluding that Jesus’ rhetoric left room for His disciples to reinterpret Him as they matured in the faith. It was not, he says, “intended to provide final answers to their theological questions.”

3 William Crockett, “The Metaphorical View,” in Four Views on Hell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 50, cites Celsus’ words of God becoming a “cosmic cook.” See also Clark Pinnock, “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent,” Criswell Theological Review 4/2 (Spring 1990):253, who forcefully observes that everlasting torment turns God into a “bloodthirsty monster.”

4 Pinnock, “Destruction of the Finally Impenitent” 259.

Quoted From this article linkA Kinder, Gentler Theology of Hell?

CONCLUSION

It has been the purpose of this essay to demonstrate by a survey of the doctrinal categories that the doctrine of annihilationism as taught by a few contemporary evangelicals is a significant part of a multifaceted compromise of a biblical systematic theology. I have also suggested that annihilationists often come to the Scriptures with cultural and theological preunderstandings that negate the historical-grammatical meaning of the passages. Carson is right in his observation:

“Despite the sincerity of their motives, one wonders more than a little to what extent the growing popularity of various forms of annihilationism and conditional immortality are a reflection of this age of pluralism. It is getting harder and harder to be faithful to the “hard” lines of Scripture. And in this way, evangelicalism itself may contribute to the gagging of God by silencing the severity of his warnings and by minimizing the awfulness of the punishment that justly awaits those untouched by his redeeming grace.46

46 Carson, Gagging of God

-
-
-

[Sudsy]

No one has to fear looking into what the scriptures really do say regarding endless torment. It seems fear tactics are quite embedded in this traditional view even in attempting to maintain it. One of the oldest tactics used is the one saying that various cults also support the 'A' view. I suppose this may chase off some who will allow others to use such tactics on them but I think most modern day people don't allow others to do their thinking for them.

Being an Anabaptist in my basic beliefs, I was glad to learn about early Anabaptists standing for the view of conditional immortality. I think Fudge gives a pretty good history lesson on the traditional view and where it's roots were. Here is the first part of a 4 part youtube on this history - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS5xme6q ... re=related

Around the 7 minute mark on the second video of this series he talks about the Anabaptist history and some of the treatment they received. I guess I'm fortunate to be living in this century and in this culture.

[B. W.]

The following quoted artitical below should be considered before listening to Fudge: The Hermeneutics of Annihilationalism: The Theological Method of Edward Fudge by Robert A. Peterson

Like annihilationist of his caliber, Fudge uses the Logical Fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem to portray any opponents of his view, well for a lack of better words, are; stupid, uniformed, unenlightened, and archaician just to thwart anyone from seriously examining what he says.

In other words uses appeals to anthropocentric human sentimentality as the standard to correctly interpret the bible. Much like accusing any opposing annihilationism in the same class as Tetzel and he in the reformer role of Martin Luther – only problem with that – Orthodox Christianity bible based Theocentric view on hell is not into selling indulgences to escape the full justice of God’s wrath as annihilationism allegorically does.

The Hermeneutics of Annihilationalism: The Theological Method of Edward Fudge by Robert A. Peterson

LOGICAL FALLACIES

The Logical Fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem In his zeal to argue for conditionalism Fudge at times commits logical fallacies. I will cite two examples. Irving M. Copi defines argumentum ad hominem (abusive) as follows: "The phrase 'arguinentum ad hominem' translates literally into 'argument directed to the man....' This fallacy.... is committed when, instead of trying to disprove the truth of what is asserted, one attacks the man who made the assertion.... The way in which this irrelevant argument may sometimes persuade is through the psychological process of transference. Where an attitude of disapproval toward a person can be evoked, it may possibly tend to overflow the strictly emotional field and become disagreement with what the person says" (italics in original).34

Fudge argues in this manner in his treatment of Jesus' words in Matt 25:46. There, speaking of the goats and sheep respectively, Jesus declares, "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Traditionalists have often pointed to the parallelism of the fates of the righteous and unrighteous when making their case for the endless punishment for the wicked. Augustine, for example, argued this way, "Christ, in the very same passage, included both punishment and life in one and the same sentence when he said, 'So those people will go into eternal punishment, while the righteous will go into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46). Augustine contends:

"If both are "eternal", it follows necessarily that either both are to be taken as long-lasting but finite, or both as endless and perpetual. The phrases "eternal punishment" and "eternal life" are parallel and it would be absurd to use them in one and the same sentence to mean: "Eternal life will be infinite, while eternal punishment will have an end." Hence, because the eternal life of the saints will be endless, the eternal punishment also, for those condemned to it, will assuredly have no end." 35

How does Fudge counter this traditionalist argument? First, he contends that eternal punishment means irreversible annihilation. "When the wicked have perished, it will be forever - their destruction and punishment is unending as well as qualitatively different from anything we now know." 36

Second, Fudge responds to this traditionalist argument by employing an arguinentum ad hoininem. He writes, "We must be careful in pressing the parallel between 'eternal' life and 'eternal' punishment that we do not fall into any spirit of vindictiveness or ungodly joy at the fate of the wicked."37

The implication is that understanding Matt 25:46 as teaching endless punishment for the wicked makes one liable to vindictiveness. Copi puts the argumentum ad hominem into the category of "irrelevant arguments." The premises of such arguments "are logically irrelevant to, and therefore incapable of establishing the truth of, their conclusions."38 This is true of Fudge's argument here: whether traditionalists are vindictive or not has nothing to do with the meaning of Matt 25:46. In fact, the defenders of the orthodox doctrine of hell have often demonstrated compassion for the lost. But whether they are compassionate or vengeful does not help us understand Jesus' words.

Fudge, by arguing in this way, seeks to persuade by "the psychological process of transference," to use Copi's description. As was already noted, "Where an attitude of disapproval toward a person can be evoked, it may possibly tend to overflow the strictly emotional field and become disagreement with what the person says."39

Unfortunately, Fudge pursues this line of argumentation in a chapter of his book entitled, "Traditionalism's Problem of Pain."40 Here he cites extreme portrayals from church history of the wicked's "everlasting torture in agony," and declares, "If the whole point is to scare the poor and the little children, why not give them a fright they will never forget?" He even paints crude Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim pictures of hell to heap ridicule on the traditionalist view.41

Fudge's argument here is as unconvincing as that employed by defenders of endless punishment who use an argumentuin ad hoininein against annihilationism by grouping conditionalists with cultists.42

35 Knowles, ed., The City of God, XXI. 23 (pp. 1001-1002).

36 Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 195.

37 Ibid.

38 Copi, Introduction to Logic, 53

39 Ibid., 55.

40 Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 411-422.

41 Ibid., 419-420.

42 See John H. Gerstner, Repent or Perish (Ligonier, PA: Soli Den Gloria, 1990), 30; and Morey, Death and the Afterlife, 202-03.

Next from the same article, it points out another interesting note about Fudges views worth noting – please see the below quote:

From: The Hermeneutics of Annihilationalism: The Theological Method of Edward Fudge by Robert A. Peterson

...While commenting on the "wine of God's fury" in Rev 14:10, Fudge speaks of the cup of God's wrath. In this context he says:

"Such was the cup Jesus accepted from God's hand in Gethsemane, and to drink it unmixed He refused even the numbing wine offered by His murderers (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; 27:34). He suffered torment of body and soul. More than that, He drained the cup of God's wrath, passively enduring the simultaneous draining of His own life into total death." 48 Fudge, The Fire That Consumes,296

Here Fudge, following the examples of Atkinson and Froom before him, teaches that Jesus was annihilated in his death. In fact, Fudge devotes six panes of his book to the thesis: "Jesus' Death Involved Total Destruction." 49 Fudge, The Fire That Consumes,228-234

Here he quotes approvingly James Dunn's statements, "Man could not be helped other than through his [Jesus'] annihilation," and "This process of destruction is speeded up in the case of Jesus, the representative man, the hilasterion, and destroys him." 50 Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 229

Next Fudge agrees with Oscar Cullmann who wrote that

"[Jesus] can conquer death only by actually dying, by betaking Himself to the sphere of death, the destroyer of life, to the sphere of nothingness.... Whoever wants to conquer death must die; he must really cease to live - not simply live on as an immortal soul; but die in body and soul, lose life itself.... Furthermore, if life is to issue out of so genuine a death as this, a new divine act of creation is necessary. And this act of creation calls back to life not just a part of man, but the whole man - all that God had created and death had annihilated."51 Fudge, The Fire That Consumes,230

Fudge insists that the Scriptures teach that Jesus was annihilated:

"The Bible exhausts the vocabulary of dying in speaking of what happened to Jesus. He "died for out sins" (1 Cor 15:3). He laid down His "life [psyche]" (John 10:15). He was destroyed (Matt 27:20, KJV) or killed (Acts 3:15). Jesus compared his own death to the dissolution of a kernel of wheat... (John 12:23-26). Jesus "poured out His life [psyche] unto death" and in so doing was "numbered with the transgressors" (Isa 53:12)."52 Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 230

Fudge admits, "We naturally recoil from such a thought, that the Son of God could truly have perished - even for a moment." Yet this is what Fudge believes happened. He faults Calvin for his refusal to believe that "Jesus' 'soul' truly died."53 Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 231

In his conclusion Fudge writes:

"Every scriptural implication is that if Jesus had not been raised, He - like those fallen asleep in Him - would simply have perished (1 Cor 15:18). His resurrection reverses every such estimation of affairs1 assuring us instead of the death of Death (2 Tim 1:10; Heb 2:14; Rev 20:14).54" Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 233-234

To be precise, Fudge concurs with Edward White who held that when Jesus died in crucifixion his humanity was annihilated, but not his divinity.55

Fudge, therefore, seeks to strengthen his case for annihilationism by arguing that Jesus bore the pains of hell in his death, that is, he was annihilated.

What are the systematic implications of such a view? Do they strengthen or weaken Fudge's case for conditionalism?

The systematic implications of holding that Jesus was annihilated when he died are enormous. Nothing less than orthodox Christology is at stake. The definitive statement concerning the Person of Christ was made by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Included in the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon is the following formal confession of faith:

"In agreement, therefore, with the holy fathers, we all unanimously teach that we should confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the same of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in Godhead, and the same consubstantial with us in manhood, like us in all things except sin; begotten from the Father before the ages as regards His Godhead, and in these last days, the same, because of us and because of our salvation begotten from the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, as regards His manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopan and one hupostasis- not parted or divided into two prosopa, but one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old and Jesus Christ Himself taught us about Him and the creed of our fathers has handed down. "56 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (2nd ed. New York: NY: Har-Row, 1960), 339-340

Furthermore, if Jesus were annihilated on Calvary, and his natures separated because his humanity ceased to exist, then his resurrection constituted another incarnation. This incarnation would differ from the first in that this time the Word would take to himself resurrected flesh. Notwithstanding, it would be a second incarnation.

I conclude: instead of Fudge's appeal to systematic theology strengthening his case for conditionalism, it weakens it considerably. Indeed, to hold that Jesus' humanity was annihilated on the cross, brings one into conflict with Chalcedonian Christology. Such a prospect ought to cause conditionalists to re-examine their views, for the Bible teaches that Christ did suffer the pains of hell, but not as they are conceived by annihilationists. 59

CONCLUSION

Space prevents me from considering other aspects of Fudge's theological hermeneutic. I omitted one important aspect because it has been treated adequately by Kendall S. Harmon. That is Fudge's tendency to read into Scripture a period of penal suffering for the ungodly prior to their annihilation. To quote Harmon, "He [Fudge] often introduces a chronological lapse of time in New Testament passages which is not there in the texts themselves." 60

I have evaluated Fudge's use of the OT, appeal to linguistics, avoidance of texts and of opposing arguments, logical fallacies, and appeal to systematic theology. I have pointed out deficiencies in his methodological approach in these five areas. As a result, I conclude that Fudge's case for conditionalism is not as strong as he and others have thought. In fact, evaluated in terms of hermeneutics and theological method, his case appears to be weak.

56 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (2nd ed. New York: NY: Har-Row, 1960), 339-340.

57 John Cooper, Body, Soul, & Life Everlasting. Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 144.

58 Ibid., 144-145.

59 I thank my student Jimmy Agan for helping me to understand better the connection between the doctrine of hell and Christ's atonement.

60 Harmon, "The Case Against Conditionalism," 210-12. For two more examples of this error in The Fire That Consumes, see 47, 48.

-
-
-

[Sudsy]

The following quoted artitical below should be considered before listening to Fudge

And then read Glen Peoples response to Peterson, Peterson's response and finally Peoples again as they disagree. I find that quite often that traditionalists are so locked into what they have been taught that they cannot or dare not think otherwise.

But I really don't get why this view of hell is such a threat to some traditionalists. It is not as if this traditional view is being used much as a tool to scare people out of hell. As was pointed out in a previous link, one of the laments of some who used this view to scare people was that they sometimes obtained an immediate, emotional response but it was not always a response that lasted. It is interesting how the 'A' view has been criticized as a view based on emotions and yet the 'T' view is the view that has, historically, often played on people's emotions to get them to become a follower of Christ.

So, since we have provided all kinds of information on this topic, when is it considered enough to allow people to decide for themselves on this secondary, non-essential doctrine ? For anything that is posted in favour of the traditional view, I'm sure I can continue to find data suporting the Annihilationist view.

Or perhaps there is just an unwillingness to respect the other view and the traditionalist view is actually regarded as an essential Christian doctrine ? If you say it is not essential for salvation, fine, but is it an essential belief to be considered as Christian ? Perhaps we should get down to the reasons for insisting that the 'A' view is wrong and treating it as some heresy. Is it hersey or not ? Does it make someone who believes in the 'A' view a cult or not ? Or is it another view of the ultimate state of unbelievers that some Christians believe is scriptural ?

I am willing to accept that some Christians have mis-interpreted certain scriptures to believe in the traditional view but this does not make them any less as a follower of Christ. I don't think most live up to this view in practise yet that does not make them less of a Christ follower. I disagree with Calvinists also yet I would not say they are heretics. There are certain areas that we will only know the truth about in eternity.

Are you willing to accept the same regarding those who believe in conditional immortality and the final destruction of unbelievers ? Or is your mission to persuade all of Christianity that the traditional view on the nature of hell is the one and only view acceptable within Christianity ? Please explain what is behind this quest to rid the world of the 'A' view.

[stealthpengu]

Is this something worth arguing fiercely over enough that brothers will begin to hate each other? When it comes down to it, being wiped out into non-existence and eternal punishment are both terrible ends for a fellow man, and should make us ever more eager to share the gospel with our tongues and our lives. I'm not sure where I personally stand on this issue, and it's something I'll have to read about more. All I know is that I deserve either punishment... and my God, You are merciful enough to pour out your wrath on your own Son so I don't have to experience either.

[J.Davis]

Stealthpengu? What have you done?! No….you may have inadvertently reignited the very flames you speak against! May God have mercy on our souls….

However, most people that debate in this way or even get more fired up then this, do not hold a grudge over the matter. They know the rules (both spoken and unspoken) and complexities that come along with debating. Personally, I could debate anyone and no matter how fired up things get I never feel that it is personal (unless someone makes it clear that they are trying to be) or that the tone of one debate should be carried over to the next. Brothers (in real life) fight but that in no way means that they hate each other.

Really, you could call this brotherly love.

[B. W.]

Quote from this article:

Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell Part Two by Gomes

Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell Part Two

Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell Part Two

In Part One of this article I discussed how some prominent evangelicals recently have abandoned the doctrine of eternal, conscious punishment for the wicked in favor of various annihilation theories. I also examined the scriptural teaching on the doctrine of hell, paying particular attention to key passages from the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Revelation. From our investigation, we saw that the biblical teaching on the fate of the unsaved is clear: they will experience conscious torment of unending duration.

From what we saw in Part One, we might well question how anyone who claims to believe in the authority of Scripture — as the evangelical annihilationists do — could affirm anything but the traditional teaching. Evangelical annihilationists counter that they have rational and biblical evidence to support their position. In Part Two of this article, we will examine some of the main arguments advanced by annihilationists in support of their theory.

In the short space available it is not possible to present every proof annihilationists could marshal in defense of their position — just as there was not enough space in Part One to advance many of the arguments supporting the orthodox position. In Part One, I selected what I consider to be the strongest arguments in favor of the traditional teaching. In this concluding installment I will do the same in presenting the annihilationists' case. In selecting these arguments I have tried to discern which ones the annihilationists themselves regard as the strongest. These proofs appear in virtually every defense of the annihilationist view.

When annihilationists present their case, their evidence generally falls into one of three basic categories. First we have the moral arguments, which maintain that the traditional teaching on hell would — if true — involve immoral actions on God's part. Second are linguistic arguments, based on the meaning of key biblical terms used to describe the final fate of the wicked. Third are exegetical arguments that attempt to neutralize verses the traditionalists commonly offer in proof of their position (such as those expounded in Part One). We will consider evidence from each of these three categories. (A fourth category, that the traditional doctrine is derived from the Platonic notion of the soul's immortality, was adequately answered in Part One.)

Please read the following article for more detials:

Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell Part Two

Concluding remark from Gomes' article:

Superior Sensitivity or Secular Sentimentalism?

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." [44]

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)?

43. Pinnock, "Fire, Then Nothing," 40.

44. J. I. Packer, "Evangelicals and the Way of Salvation: New Challenges to the Gospel — Universalism, and Justification," in Evangelical Affirmations, ed. Kenneth Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 126.

Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute

[Sudsy]

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.

Wrong ! But I see this traditional view still feels threatened. And it should. God is not into endless torture as clearly revealed throughout scripture.

As I said before, if one believes in everlasting torment, then live accordingly and get out there and warn the wicked. Don't just sit behind a computer and argue a theory on the nature of hell. Very few people are reading this thread so few are getting any warning. Think what you will but a real belief is lived out. If this belief in endless torment ever gripped anyone's heart, they would be in frantic mode to warn everyone. I really wonder about guys like this 'Gomes' and how they are living out their belief. Well, only if they love their neighbour as themselves. This point in itself, IMO, proves that the early church did not believe in endless torment and therefore did not evangelize in a frantic mode.

But we have been over this many times before and just can't seem to get agreement that the conditional immortality and destruction view has an interpretative biblical support. It is not based on 'secular sentimentalism' as traditionalists would like everyone to believe but rather, IMO, a more accurate understanding of God and His love, justice and mercy.