Evidence for God from Science

Sudsy wrote:I don't think the term eternal needs changing at all. It is considered that the punishment need not be non-ending (the process) to still be called eternal. The forever concept is applied to the consequence (the result) of the punishment not the process. There is no reversing the punishment once it begins with the end result being destruction/ashes as this is the second death and therefore eternal punishment is still a proper term...

Okay then, it sounds like non-eternal punishment results in the eternalness of non-existence is how annihilationist would imply the use of the meaning of eternal in conjunction with punishment, judgment, so thank you Sudsy for clarifying this. So that is what we’ll look at next. I’ll touch only in part on this because this has already has already been reviewed. I’ll add a little bit more then stop, and continue on concerning the other definitions. I am only going to make a few points to the readers to ponder and move on, my intent is for the Reader to think with reason on these matters through and reach their own conclusions.

Before the reader begins, please note that when prominent annihilationist charge that the doctrine of eternal punishment is a terrible – horrible travesty to God’s name and character (Fudge and others make this claim) and must be eradicated from Christian doctrine at all cost. Such annihilationist charges must be answered by actually comparing what they claim with God’s own actual character with force…Because they know not what they do… So take heed before you read…

Some tongue tying Questions:

Well, how can temporal punishment really be eternal if punishment ceases at some future point granting the reality peace/rest through the agency that nothingness would eternally bring? Or how can temporal punishment really be eternal if punishment ceases by any means? Or how can punishment be defined as being eternal if nothing exists to punish because the punishment ceases but continues on in the form of non-punishment by vicarious non-existence?

Premise: Annihilationist have a habit of spinning a story line by redefining words and blending these definitions to fit human moralizing concepts that seek to mold these words into an image of christened Christianized Epicurus atomist philosophy. This comes about by changing word concepts and meanings to fit a one size fits all definition blended with annihilationist Epicurus’ concept into select biblical words and phrases. Let's test this premise...

How could this be done?

Well, for starters, first, by violating every principle of linguistics and grammar rules used in translating Matt 25:41, 46 from Koine Greek into English. Next, by distorting the contextual continuity of Scripture that the period Matthew 25:41-46 refers too defined by Daniel 12:2.

Daniel 12:2 speaks of everlasting contempt, abhorrence, disgrace. Annihilationists contend this cannot mean everlasting as in forever without end. They spin it to mean, temporary, lasting only for a brief moment, then poof, the offender is eternally gone.

However, Daniel 12:2 tells of everlasting contempt and abhorrence residing on the very eternal living cognizance of the recipients in order for such to be able to receive the contempt and abhorrence that surpasses all ages and is truly eternal by whomever is gazing upon them with such revulsion and not some weepy eyed agonizing moralized pity as annihilationist further use to buttress their interpretation.

Or it can be done by spinning the Revelation 14:11 text to only mean annihilationism final goal, non-existence, and not never-ending recompense as the text indicates. Let’s look at Revelation 14:11 - "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night…” NASB

Notice that forever and ever indicates eternality qualified by the phrase ‘no rest day or night’ which means just that, no rest day or night age to age - indicating forever and ever, not an Christianized Epicurus – poof you are gone after suffering but a mere few ages. After all, if their-own inflicted torment indeed ceases at some point, then this part of the verse would be untrue and, hmmm, where are those mentioned in this verse tossed into later and with whom?

This begs another question. For all the moralizing annihilationists do to prove that God would not be able to punish eternally because he could not stand to inflict eternal suffering on poor souls forever and ever fail to explain why God does not just annihilate into non-being immediately after one dies. Why wait if God cannot stand, or is too loving to endure inflicting eternal recompense, why go through the trouble and instead prove the superiority of cosmic mercy killing immediately?

Well, Revelation 20:10, 12, 15 reveals where those mentioned in Revelation 14:11 are headed and if their recompense ceases at some point, then how can any in this fiery final destination have no rest day or night as Rev 14:11 indicates as age surpassing successive age without ceasing by the very grammar of the text indicates? Or for that matter, if God cannot punish eternally due to being unable to endure inflicting everlasting affliction, then why would he enjoy inflicting temporal affliction – why not just get it over with by means of cosmic mercy killing?

The Rev 14:11 text indicates it is the person’s own torment is what torments, not God. This is in line with God’s Character giving unto a person according their deeds. Annihilationist attempts to moralize that God, the happy torturer concept, fail to note that God is not the one inflicting the torment upon the dam’d. It is the individuals own torment – reaping what they had sown and they are banished away forever from the presence of the Lord living in their own afflictions, reunited with their bodies, along with many fallen angels who hate them to boot.

How Does Annihilationism square with God who will not at all acquit the guilty, and said so himself that there will be no rest for the wicked?

The hallmark of annihilationism is its emphasis on an actual tangible cessation/peace/rest from one’s own inflicted torments by means of annihilation into non-being. Or stated another way: 'non-eternal punishment which results in the eternalness of non-existence’ indeed proves a tangible cessation from hostility, a real peace that a state of nothingness really produces.

How does this, non-eternal punishment which results in the eternalness of non-existence’, square with God’s Character? It does not. From the summaries posted on page 18 and based on scripture we learn:

God will not at all acquit the wicked. God holds one to account: God will bring every work into judgment. He repays man according to his work, and makes man to find a reward according to his own ways. God gives every man according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings. God keeps his word. He said that there will be no peace/rest for the wicked (Rom 2:8, Isaiah 48:22)

The annihilationist interpretation of eternal, as non-eternal, in convenient texts does not square with God’s Character because it clearly would prove God, beyond all reasonable doubt, unable to keep his word, as well as cause the Lord to deny who he is to himself and further by his own failure to implement just recompense failing to be a God of justice. This God will not do: be untrue to his own standards. God has his own purpose for eternal recompense and we'll examine this further in next post. In effect, annihilation into non-existence would cause God to deny himself in several diverse ways.

One last point: The argument that is oft used to thwart looking at God’s character, nature, attributes other than by only examining the words of Christ correctly interpreted by annihilationist and/or universalist dogma is not correct: Jesus said we can know God’s character... his name. Even the OT tells us to know his name…

“I will tell of Your name to my brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You,” Psalms 22:22 and Hebrews 2:12 NASB

Jesus said, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? John 14:9 NASB

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent,” John 17:3 NASB

"In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you,” John 14:20 NASB

It is His will for you and I to get to know the Father. He paid the ultimate price and the Holy Spirit sent so you and I can get to know God! Jesus spoke within the OT, denying the OT’s statements about who God is, is certainly not from Christ.
-
-
-

Whew, talk about spin, that explanation was something else.

I think anyone really wanting to hear the other side of all of these arguments can get them from what Annihilationists believe and why they believe it.

I'm going to trust that God is not going to act the way you think He will. If I am wrong in the end, I believe God in His great mercy and love will forgive me of any mis-understandings as He will for all born again believers regardless of their punishment views. I think God will do the same for those who have differing views on creation, OSAS, other end time events, predestination, election, etc, etc that are secondary understandings to the required Gospel message.

So, are you satisfied that you have shot down your view of Annihilationism yet ? These are not new arguments against it and there are many counter-arguments on each of your points. Plato and the Greeks had quite an effect on the church with their views on immortality for everyone and they carry on today.

Let me ask you this - do you consider those with other views than yourself on this as still Christian, born again ? In your wrath against other views, how far are you allowing other believers to think this out for themselves and still be saved ? Is this considered by you as an anathema or a sin that might send a believer to hell ?

Before the reader begins, please note that when prominent annihilationist charge that the doctrine of eternal punishment is a terrible – horrible travesty to God’s name and character (Fudge and others make this claim) and that must be eradicated from Christian doctrine at all cost. Such annihilationist charges must be answered by actually comparing what they claim with God’s own actual character with force of the Holy Spirit using much restraint, tuff love, and tact…Because they know not what they are doing… So take heed before you read…

Let's Begin...

...Annihilationists assume words translated from in the bible like perish, destruction, cut off, destroy, judgment, punishment, consume all indicate and mean absolute extinguishment of being when in reference to eternal recompense. By using bible software, it is interesting that in the New King James Version the words translated into various forms of perish are found about 146 times. There are ten Greek words and eleven Hebrew words translated as Perish. Eleven Hebrew words and ten Greek words which are translated into one word form perish/perishing in different passages should tell a person that the 'one definition fits all' that annihilationist use for the word perish does not fit all. So goes the same with consume, cut-off, judgment, etc.

The same is true for the New Testament Greek which uses 12 Greek words translated as destroy or destruction. For the annihilationist, these 12 different words all have the same convenient meaning of an absolute state of non-existence used in selected texts. This should also disclose something that will cause the eyebrows to raise a bit more. Proper linguistic method of figuring out what words mean in their native language takes into account how words are used elsewhere comparing how context and grammar refine the word examined into definable comparable words to use in translation. Annihilationist, for whatever reason they have, choose to ignore this rote. So, without investigating how words the same words are translated elsewhere – they have a one size fits all definition for several different words: Destruction, destroy, perish, cut off, consume, judgment, punishment, condemnation.

Annihilationist seem to pay no heed how these words, like destroy/destruction (622 st) are used elsewhere in the bible to describe ruined wineskins (Matt 9:17), lost sheep (Matt 15:24), spoiled food (John 6:27), destruction of flesh (1 Co 5:5), ruining a brother over food (1 Co 8:11), World destroyed by the flood (2 Pet 3:5, 6) but note the earth is still here - it was ruined-then renewed. Such one size fits all definitions for so many differing words translated in variations from one greek word should cause one to suspect something is amiss as well as awake the reader that they maybe some Spin going on in the annihilationist camp.

For example 1 Thessalonians 1:9 uses same word translated destruction as does 1 Corinthians 5:5 which refers to an individual being turned over to the devil for the destruction of the flesh so that his spirit will be saved in the day of the Lord. So, let’s apply annihilationist definition to what Paul writes in 1 Co 5:5 - “I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the (utter annihilation destruction into non-existence) of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” By using bible software and looking at around 95 occurrences that the same word 'apollumi' (including all tense forms) is used in 86 verses in the New Testament, this word has more to do about being brought into a state ruin, chaos, debasement, than it does extinction. One definition used for so many words to mean only one thing (extinction) in selected texts should cause the eyebrows to rise.

So let's move to the next point: how does Annihilationist definitions denoting only utter annihilation’s non-existence compare with God’s moral character? How does it square with who God is?

Psalms 96:10, “Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns; indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved; He will judge the peoples with equity." NASB

God judges with equity. Now does this mean God exterminates with equity? or that God judges even handedly all people - meaning his retribution is likewise just and rewards likewise just? How can you discern which is correct? Remember these facts about God’s character: there is no iniquity with the LORD. God shows no partiality, nor will he take a bribe.

There is no partiality with God. If destroying one into non-existence and then not another: that in and of itself demonstrates partiality – not evenhanded uprightness or judging with equity and rending unto man according to his deeds.

Next: What demonstrates absolute perfect mercy: A Life sentence or extermination into non-being? Of the two which is consistent with God’s nature as the Living God of the living? How can you tell?

Review of God's Character: God gives life to man (Gen 2:7–eternal image, Job 33:4). He placed eternity in the human heart with a definite beginning because He chose to be true to his own life giving nature as the Living God (Ec 3:11, 12, 13, 14-22). What God does endures forever. God does not take away life (2 Sam 14:14). God can slay –kill mortal flesh in order to bring into judgment (Heb 9:27); thus, he is cannot be convicted as a cosmic murderer. How can he be convicted since life continues on after death because He wills this due to His remaining true to himself as the Living God? Also, God provided the means by which the lost can be reconciled back to him through Christ. How can he be found unjust? He is perfect in all his ways. No unrighteousness in Him.

Which of the two is consistent with God’s character as keeping his word, reneges on no gifts: A Life sentence or extermination into non-being?

Which of the two remains consistent with God keeping his word and would not cause him to renege on any gift or calling or promise because it is impossible for God to lie or to deny himself? Can’t you see that exterminating into eternal non-existence is inconsistent with God’s character and nature because by simply doing so would indeed, without doubt, causes God to deny himself… even his own mercy...

What demonstrates God’s unfathomable love more: A Life sentence or extermination into non-being?

I can hear the annihilationist scream at me – Yeah but that’s only your opinion – you manipulated bible passage to produce an interpretation by stringing scriptures together. God would not want to see endless suffering, so mercy killing is the best course for God – we do the same for a suffering dog...

My response would be to this: According to whose standard? Yours or God’s? So you want God to deny himself to prove you right at all cost?

Annihilationist: God’s standard is annihilation as that is more merciful than a life sentence in torment… We base our views solely on the scriptures as we define them…in accordance with what Jesus spoke. Jesus preached annihilation as a more merciful course rather than endless suffering! Love would never allow this, endless suffering!

Response: So you would have God go against whom he is, deny his word and gifts, lie, in order to prove mercy according to mortal standards? If he did so, then he is not the God of the living is he? Who was deemed to be the ruler of the dead? Who has succeeded in manipulating you to test and temp God to deny himself so he can exalt his throne above God’s?

It is imperative that God not deny himself and always remain true to himself. Who is spinning what to suit the wishes of men and men’s definitions of mercy and love? Who are you to tell God what his mercy should be or that what he placed in the heart does not or should not exist? Who are you to tell God that he must annihilate/exterminate one’s complete life when God gave it as a gift? Why do you desire God to commit cosmic murder?

The apostle Peter had a divine revelation of who Christ is, and Jesus told Peter that by such revelation He will build his Church. Then the next instant Peter told the Lord that He could not go to the cross and the Lord rebuked him – how? He said,” get behind me Satan!” (Matthew 16:23). The meaning is clear, well meaning and intentioned Christians can fall sway of the evil one. Such swaying seeks ways to spin the bible in order to entice God to deny himself, prove he can’t keep his word, this happens even today in modern scholarship! (Matthew 16:13-23)

Annihilationism, as does Universalism, does just that. Both cannot square with who and what God is without spinning and changing word meanings to fit the best for men and not for God, seeking to stumble God, offend God, just as devil attempted through Peter so long ago: stumble/offend God into denying himself, denying his will, promises, word, gifts, deny his own character.

So before you come back at me and say: Who are you to tell God that he must keep alive, that he must place eternity in the heart; why that’s all just your privet interpretation and mindless repeating yourself.

Who are you to tell God that he must never show partiality, that he cannot lie, or that he is unable to deny himself? God can do so anytime – he’s God after all! No one man has a lock on truth and no guarantee that seeking any truth will result in finding it. So how dare you tell us that God will not violate any characteristic of his own nature! Why the nerve of you!

Who are you to judge that God must be true to the mercy he owns for his own sake? Why won't you allow people to make up their own mind as to what they will believe? Who are you to say God’s will is not to annihilate into non-being. (all intoned in a reproachingly voice) Who are you to say…

I would respond: – Can you hear what you are saying?

Yes – God indeed tests and searches the heart…

Father, forgive them for they know not what they do – open their eyes to see…
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:I hope anyone following these post realize that my intent was not to be harsh or cruel in the presentation. When Christians, who believe in the fundamentals of the Christ faith, specifically salvation by grace through faith in Christ as Jesus taught, can have differing views on other matters such as this debate between Christian annihilationist doctrine and orthodox Christian doctrine. Let it be known that what one believes regarding eternal recompense has no bearing on one’s personal salvation through Christ. Our views differ because the heart does not always discern truth.

What we all need to do as Christians is to check ourselves to see if what we believe in non-essential doctrines puts a stone in the Lord’s shoe. When what we believe goes against who God is and tries in any manner to have God deny Himself, we need to have the courage to change. In this last post, my intent was to reveal the need for such change. The reader can judge for him or herself if that need has or is being met within their own minds.

As Peter had his great revelation of truth about Christ one moment, and then the next he strayed (or should we say manipulated to stray away) from Christ onto what’s the best for man, Jesus rebuked. When such occurrences happen, they were attempts by the evil one to thwart God’s plan by enticing God to go against his own plan, purposes, intents, character, nature, etc. Well meaning scholars and lay persons can fall into such modes as Peter did thinking that what’s best for them would be the best for God and build whole doctrines from this.

My prayer is that the Holy Spirit will awaken you to this modus-operandi of the evil one. The best check is to search out the bible and discover what God’s Character is like in objectively stated scriptures that define it. From this, you’ll help yourself in your walk with the Lord. You will discover how the Holy Spirit teaches things profound and you’ll develop a living relationship with the Lord.

When the Lord was angry with the children of Israel, he asked Moses to step aside as he would make Moses’ progeny a new Israel, so that He could do away with the rebellious children of Israel justly. What did Moses do? His answer is astounding. His concern was not for himself or the Israelites but for God’s own Character!

Moses in Exodus 32:10, 12, 13, 14 concern was about God’s honor being stained amongst the heathen by not remaining true to His own promises. I am sure; God by his own foreknowledge knew Moses would ask this so by His wisdom He left us this testament to marvel at and learn from. The deeper we seek out the Lord, he reveals himself to us. He then tests us. Will our concern be found seeking what is best for us or concern unrivaled for God? The Hallmark of a man or woman of God is God testing to see what is in the Heart.

That was the intent of all my writing on this thread – to have the Holy Spirit teach you and show what’s in the heart.

B. W. wrote:Before the reader begins, please note that when prominent annihilationist charge that the doctrine of eternal punishment is a terrible – horrible travesty to God’s name and character (Fudge and others make this claim) and that must be eradicated from Christian doctrine at all cost. Such annihilationist charges must be answered by actually comparing what they claim with God’s own actual character with force of the Holy Spirit using much restraint, tuff love, and tact…Because they know not what they are doing… So take heed before you read…

Let's Begin...

...Annihilationists assume words translated from in the bible like perish, destruction, cut off, destroy, judgment, punishment, consume all indicate and mean absolute extinguishment of being when in reference to eternal recompense. By using bible software, it is interesting that in the New King James Version the words translated into various forms of perish are found about 146 times. There are ten Greek words and eleven Hebrew words translated as Perish. Eleven Hebrew words and ten Greek words which are translated into one word form perish/perishing in different passages should tell a person that the 'one definition fits all' that annihilationist use for the word perish does not fit all. So goes the same with consume, cut-off, judgment, etc.

The same is true for the New Testament Greek which uses 12 Greek words translated as destroy or destruction. For the annihilationist, these 12 different words all have the same convenient meaning of an absolute state of non-existence used in selected texts. This should also disclose something that will cause the eyebrows to raise a bit more. Proper linguistic method of figuring out what words mean in their native language takes into account how words are used elsewhere comparing how context and grammar refine the word examined into definable comparable words to use in translation. Annihilationist, for whatever reason they have, choose to ignore this rote. So, without investigating how words the same words are translated elsewhere – they have a one size fits all definition for several different words: Destruction, destroy, perish, cut off, consume, judgment, punishment, condemnation.

Annihilationist seem to pay no heed how these words, like destroy/destruction (622 st) are used elsewhere in the bible to describe ruined wineskins (Matt 9:17), lost sheep (Matt 15:24), spoiled food (John 6:27), destruction of flesh (1 Co 5:5), ruining a brother over food (1 Co 8:11), World destroyed by the flood (2 Pet 2:30) but note the earth is still here - it was ruined-then renewed. Such one size fits all definitions for so many differing words translated in variations from one greek word should cause one to suspect something is amiss as well as awake the reader that they maybe some Spin going on in the annihilationist camp.

For example 1 Thessalonians 1:9 uses same word translated destruction as does 1 Corinthians 5:5 which refers to an individual being turned over to the devil for the destruction of the flesh so that his spirit will be saved in the day of the Lord. So, let’s apply annihilationist definition to what Paul writes in 1 Co 5:5 - “I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the (utter annihilation destruction into non-existence) of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” By using bible software and looking at around 95 occurrences that the same word 'apollumi' (including all tense forms) is used in 86 verses in the New Testament, this word has more to do about being brought into a state ruin, chaos, debasement, than it does extinction. One definition used for so many words to mean only one thing (extinction) in selected texts should cause the eyebrows to rise.

So let's move to the next point: how does Annihilationist definitions denoting only utter annihilation’s non-existence compare with God’s moral character? How does it square with who God is?

Psalms 96:10, “Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns; indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved; He will judge the peoples with equity." NASB

God judges with equity. Now does this mean God exterminates with equity? or that God judges even handedly all people - meaning his retribution is likewise just and rewards likewise just? How can you discern which is correct? Remember these facts about God’s character: there is no iniquity with the LORD. God shows no partiality, nor will he take a bribe.

There is no partiality with God. If destroying one into non-existence and then not another: that in and of itself demonstrates partiality – not evenhanded uprightness or judging with equity and rending unto man according to his deeds.

Next: What demonstrates absolute perfect mercy: A Life sentence or extermination into non-being? Of the two which is consistent with God’s nature as the Living God of the living? How can you tell?

Review of God's Character: God gives life to man (Gen 2:7–eternal image, Job 33:4). He placed eternity in the human heart with a definite beginning because He chose to be true to his own life giving nature as the Living God (Ecc 3:11, 12, 13, 14-22). What God does endures forever. God does not take away life (2 Sam 14:14). God can slay –kill mortal flesh in order to bring into judgment (Heb 9:27); thus, he is cannot be convicted as a cosmic murderer. How can he be convicted since life continues on after death because He wills this due to His remaining true to himself as the Living God? Also, God provided the means by which the lost can be reconciled back to him through Christ. How can he be found unjust? He is perfect in all his ways. No unrighteousness in Him.

Which of the two is consistent with God’s character as keeping his word, reneges on no gifts: A Life sentence or extermination into non-being?

Which of the two remains consistent with God keeping his word and would not cause him to renege on any gift or calling or promise because it is impossible for God to lie or to deny himself? Can’t you see that exterminating into eternal non-existence is inconsistent with God’s character and nature because by simply doing so would indeed, without doubt, causes God to deny himself… even his own mercy...

What demonstrates God’s unfathomable love more: A Life sentence or extermination into non-being?

I can hear the annihilationist scream at me – Yeah but that’s only your opinion – you manipulated bible passage to produce an interpretation by stringing scriptures together. God would not want to see endless suffering, so mercy killing is the best course for God – we do the same for a suffering dog...

My response would be to this: According to whose standard? Yours or God’s? So you want God to deny himself to prove you right at all cost?

Annihilationist: God’s standard is annihilation as that is more merciful than a life sentence in torment… We base our views solely on the scriptures as we define them…in accordance with what Jesus spoke. Jesus preached annihilation as a more merciful course rather than endless suffering! Love would never allow this, endless suffering!

Response: So you would have God go against whom he is, deny his word and gifts, lie, in order to prove mercy according to mortal standards? If he did so, then he is not the God of the living is he? Who was deemed to be the ruler of the dead? Who has succeeded in manipulating you to test and temp God to deny himself so he can exalt his throne above God’s?

It is imperative that God not deny himself and always remain true to himself. Who is spinning what to suit the wishes of men and men’s definitions of mercy and love? Who are you to tell God what his mercy should be or that what he placed in the heart does not or should not exist? Who are you to tell God that he must annihilate/exterminate one’s complete life when God gave it as a gift? Why do you desire God to commit cosmic murder?

The apostle Peter had a divine revelation of who Christ is, and Jesus told Peter that by such revelation He will build his Church. Then the next instant Peter told the Lord that He could not go to the cross and the Lord rebuked him – how? He said,” get behind me Satan!” (Matthew 16:23). The meaning is clear, well meaning and intentioned Christians can fall sway of the evil one. Such swaying seeks ways to spin the bible in order to entice God to deny himself, prove he can’t keep his word, this happens even today in modern scholarship! (Matthew 16:13-23)

Annihilationism, as does Universalism, does just that. Both cannot square with who and what God is without spinning and changing word meanings to fit the best for men and not for God, seeking to stumble God, offend God, just as devil attempted through Peter so long ago: stumble/offend God into denying himself, denying his will, promises, word, gifts, deny his own character.

So before you come back at me and say: Who are you to tell God that he must keep alive, that he must place eternity in the heart; why that’s all just your privet interpretation and mindless repeating yourself.

Who are you to tell God that he must never show partiality, that he cannot lie, or that he is unable to deny himself? God can do so anytime – he’s God after all! No one man has a lock on truth and no guarantee that seeking any truth will result in finding it. So how dare you tell us that God will not violate any characteristic of his own nature! Why the nerve of you!

Who are you to judge that God must be true to the mercy he owns for his own sake? Why won't you allow people to make up their own mind as to what they will believe? Who are you to say God’s will is not to annihilate into non-being. (all intoned in a reproachingly voice) Who are you to say…

I would respond: – Can you hear what you are saying?

Yes – God indeed tests and searches the heart…

Father, forgive them for they know not what they do – open their eyes to see…
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:I hope anyone following these post realize that my intent was not to be harsh or cruel in the presentation. When Christians, who believe in the fundamentals of the Christ faith, specifically salvation by grace through faith in Christ as Jesus taught, can have differing views on other matters such as this debate between Christian annihilationist doctrine and orthodox Christian doctrine. Let it be known that what one believes regarding eternal recompense has no bearing on one’s personal salvation through Christ. Our views differ because the heart does not always discern truth.

What we all need to do as Christians is to check ourselves to see if what we believe in non-essential doctrines puts a stone in the Lord’s shoe. When what we believe goes against who God is and tries in any manner to have God deny Himself, we need to have the courage to change. In this last post, my intent was to reveal the need for such change. The reader can judge for him or herself if that need has or is being met within their own minds.

As Peter had his great revelation of truth about Christ one moment, and then the next he strayed (or should we say manipulated to stray away) from Christ onto what’s the best for man, Jesus rebuked. When such occurrences happen, they were attempts by the evil one to thwart God’s plan by enticing God to go against his own plan, purposes, intents, character, nature, etc. Well meaning scholars and lay persons can fall into such modes as Peter did thinking that what’s best for them would be the best for God and build whole doctrines from this.

My prayer is that the Holy Spirit will awaken you to this modus-operandi of the evil one. The best check is to search out the bible and discover what God’s Character is like in objectively stated scriptures that define it. From this, you’ll help yourself in your walk with the Lord. You will discover how the Holy Spirit teaches things profound and you’ll develop a living relationship with the Lord.

When the Lord was angry with the children of Israel, he asked Moses to step aside as he would make Moses’ progeny a new Israel, so that He could do away with the rebellious children of Israel justly. What did Moses do? His answer is astounding. His concern was not for himself or the Israelites but for God’s own Character!

Moses in Exodus 32:10, 12, 13, 14 concern was about God’s honor being stained amongst the heathen by not remaining true to His own promises. I am sure; God by his own foreknowledge knew Moses would ask this so by His wisdom He left us this testament to marvel at and learn from. The deeper we seek out the Lord, he reveals himself to us. He then tests us. Will our concern be found seeking what is best for us or concern unrivaled for God? The Hallmark of a man or woman of God is God testing to see what is in the Heart.

That was the intent of all my writing on this thread – to have the Holy Spirit teach you and show what’s in the heart.

Matthew 6:7 wrote:And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

This is certainly not a prayer and maybe not from a pagan, but it may fall in the more broad idea of this text.

I'm still waiting for a meaning of the word Judgment. One might think some are avoiding it.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote: I'm still waiting for a meaning of the word Judgment. One might think some are avoiding it.

There are also verses that speak of "eternal redemption". Are people in the process of being redeemed for the whole eternity? I don't think so.

smiley wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote: I'm still waiting for a meaning of the word Judgment. One might think some are avoiding it.

There are also verses that speak of "eternal redemption". Are people in the process of being redeemed for the whole eternity? I don't think so.

I agree.
.
.

B.W. - some comments and responses to you reasonings. My turn for a long post.

Well, how can temporal punishment really be eternal if punishment ceases at some future point granting the reality peace/rest through the agency that nothingness would eternally bring?

How can nothing be at peace ? That is weird logic. I cannot experience any sense of peace if I don't exist anymore.

Or how can temporal punishment really be eternal if punishment ceases by any means?

We've explained that - because the effect (result) is eternal (destruction) and not the process.

Or how can punishment be defined as being eternal if nothing exists to punish because the punishment ceases but continues on in the form of non-punishment by vicarious non-existence?

Punishment does not continue on after destruction. You cannot continue to punish nothing. Again we are talking the result not the process.

This begs another question. For all the moralizing annihilationists do to prove that God would not be able to punish eternally because he could not stand to inflict eternal suffering on poor souls forever and ever fail to explain why God does not just annihilate into non-being immediately after one dies. Why wait if God cannot stand, or is too loving to endure inflicting eternal recompense, why go through the trouble and instead prove the superiority of cosmic mercy killing immediately?

Thats an easy one - we reap what we sow. Some reap much in this life for their sinning, others do not. God is just and the adequate amount of punishment will be handed out prior to destruction.

Regarding Rev. 14:11 - this does not need to be viewed as a figurative reference to everyone who failed to put their trust in God. Rather this is specifically a judgment on those who took the mark of the beast and worshipped him. Furthermore, the verses clearly state this will take place "in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb." If nothing else, this should be enough to prove that this penalty is not an unending, conscious, torturing one because observing such a punishment is not the way the angels or the Lamb (Jesus Christ) will choose to spend eternity. So the passage appears to say nothing of hell or eternity at all. Instead, it would indicate that those people who are still alive at Christ's second coming who have worshipped the Beast and received his mark will be tormented and destroyed, in the presence of Jesus and the angels, by burning sulfur raining down from Heaven. And I might add even further, that if the Preterists are correct in their Eschatology, this has already occurred in AD70.

How Does Annihilationism square with God who will not at all acquit the guilty, and said so himself that there will be no rest for the wicked?

And there is no rest for the wicked while the wicked exists but the wicked will be destroyed and then rest or peace are non-issues.

God will not at all acquit the wicked. God holds one to account: God will bring every work into judgment. He repays man according to his work, and makes man to find a reward according to his own ways. God gives every man according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings. God keeps his word. He said that there will be no peace/rest for the wicked

Exactly as scripture says. There is no peace/rest for something that no longer exists as stated before. They have been held to account and sentenced and punished. God certainly keeps His word.

There is no partiality with God. If destroying one into non-existence and then not another: that in and of itself demonstrates partiality – not evenhanded uprightness or judging with equity and rending unto man according to his deeds.

, say what ? God will not be impartial to anyone and we will all get what we deserve according to His judgments. Quit judging that God cannot do this by destroying some and not others. This is your way of thinking.

Reviewing God's character - the major difference here is your view that all men are given immortality, a Platonistic and Greek concept. You talk about God being true to Himself in regard to this and so since He gives everyone eternal existence and what He does remains forever, then He cannot end eternal existence. However, scripture does not say man is immortal. Immortality is only given to believers as spoken of in Corinthians when Paul was talking to believers. This is a major difference in your understanding of God. Not believing in conditional immortality and therefore how God must act accordingly is a big part of your argument. Annihilationists do not share this understanding that God gave everyone immortality. So, God is always consistent with His nature. Annihilationist view does not suggest anything about God that is inconsistent.

What demonstrates God’s unfathomable love more: A Life sentence or extermination into non-being?

Now lets be clear,it is not just a 'life sentence' but rather never ending torment in a lake of fire and all kinds of other horrors that man has suggested. Common sense can answer this question. Your answer - 'So you want God to deny himself to prove you right at all cost?' No, because God is not denying himself. This comes from your assumption above regarding immortality.

So you would have God go against whom he is, deny his word and gifts, lie, in order to prove mercy according to mortal standards?

Again and again you suggest the 'A' view goes against who God is but they would say, not at all. It is your interpretation of God that is suspect.

Who are you to tell God what his mercy should be or that what he placed in the heart does not or should not exist?

Again this eternity being placed in the heart idea that this means immortality. Repeat, repeat.

Who are you to tell God that he must annihilate/exterminate one’s complete life when God gave it as a gift?

Again, no proof that God gave immortality to everyone as a gift. And the 'A' view is not telling God to do anything but rather interpreting many scriptures that say God will punish and then destroy.

Why do you desire God to commit cosmic murder?

No one is desiring God to do this or that but rather just interpreting what we believe He will ultimately do according to who He is.

The meaning is clear, well meaning and intentioned Christians can fall sway of the evil one. Such swaying seeks ways to spin the bible in order to entice God to deny himself, prove he can’t keep his word, this happens even today in modern scholarship!

And every day incorrect judgments are made regarding what other believers are believing and their reasons for believing what they do. You obviously have put 'spin' on various verses such as the 'eternity placed in man's heart'. Not many scholars, actually not any I have read, spins this verse as such.

B.W. , an annihilationist view is not asking God to be anything other than who He is. It is suggesting however that the 'T' view is not a proper view of who God is. You see it the other way around.

IMO, if you were to directly present the details of eternal torment to most Christians and allow them to consider that some if not many of their friends and relatives will end up there, that a vast majority will admit they don't really believe that will happen. Why, because in our hearts we don't accept that God needs to punish infinitely for finite sins. This is obvious to me because they do not live in this reality. They do not view their unsaved acquaintances as being on the very brink of never ending torment. And why is it not preached hardly ever ? I believe because of the questions it raises and the perceived unfairness it suggests. It is an embarrasing belief to many believers because they are not convicted in their hearts that this is really truth.

But if you can find other verses that clearly support that we are all immortal beings, then I would really have to change my current leanings. This, in my thinking, is the main issue. If we all are immortal then whether I understand it or not, punishment would be non-ending. Otherwise, punishment for those who are not given immortality will end with destruction called the second death.

Sudsy wrote: And every day incorrect judgments are made regarding what other believers are believing and their reasons for believing what they do. You obviously have put 'spin' on various verses such as the 'eternity placed in man's heart'. Not many scholars, actually not any I have read, spins this verse as such.

B.W. , an annihilationist view is not asking God to be anything other than who He is. It is suggesting however that the 'T' view is not a proper view of who God is. You see it the other way around.

IMO, if you were to directly present the details of eternal torment to most Christians and allow them to consider that some if not many of their friends and relatives will end up there, that a vast majority will admit they don't really believe that will happen. Why, because in our hearts we don't accept that God needs to punish infinitely for finite sins. This is obvious to me because they do not live in this reality. They do not view their unsaved acquaintances as being on the very brink of never ending torment. And why is it not preached hardly ever? I believe because of the questions it raises and the perceived unfairness it suggests. It is an embarrassing belief to many believers because they are not convicted in their hearts that this is really truth.

But if you can find other verses that clearly support that we are all immortal beings, then I would really have to change my current leanings. This, in my thinking, is the main issue. If we all are immortal then whether I understand it or not, punishment would be non-ending. Otherwise, punishment for those who are not given immortality will end with destruction called the second death.

Mat 16:15 – “…He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Mat 16:17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. Mat 16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. Mat 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

Mat 16:20,"Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. Mat 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. Mat 16:22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You." Mat 16:23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's." " NASB

Sudsy, your answers are based solely on what is best for men not on God...

You appeal to human emotionalism and not on God's word as it reveals who God is as He is according to His own Holiness.

RE: Immortality

No, Orthodox Christian doctrine does not teach Plato’s Immortality of the soul. WE had a definite beginning which disproves Plato’s Immortality of the soul. Since we have a definite beginning, only God is truly immortal. God designed humanity to be fashioned according to his eternal image and gave us life and it is from our own beginning is how God places eternity within the heart for what he does in matters of life and judgment, plans, purposes, gifts, callings, endures forever (Ec 12:7, Zec 12:1). God does not take away life, nor denies what he gives. We are mortal beings and we indeed die but our spiritual essence (or being) continues on after the mortal body dies, thus releasing the spiritual. This is supported in the OT and NT, and by Jesus himself in the NT.

Jesus warns of an eternal everlasting fiery hell to be avoided at all cost. He was explicit about it being eternal as in never ending in Matthew 25:46 as well in other places as well. Jesus stated this truth in Luke 16:31: “…But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' "NKJV -for a reason...

This reason answers your man centered argument:

Sudsy wrote: And why is it not preached hardly ever?...It is an embarrassing belief to many believers because they are not convicted in their hearts that this is really truth.

RE: Judgment

Annihilation is not terrifying – it offers hope that endorses peace/rest and acquittal from God’s own judgment. How - a being suffers for a bit of time then poof, receive peace from suffering, they are exterminated into bliss of nothingness. God himself states he will not at all acquit nor grant peace to those who have condemned themselves. God gives to each person according to his or her ways. God has his own reasons for this because Sin seeks out - to have God deny himself in his dealings with it in diverse ways and means.

RE: Annihilationist teachers – theologians

Peter had a great revelation of truth about Christ one moment and then the next tried to have the Lord stray away from his own plan based on God’s character to save those whom believe in Christ. Annihilationist teachers – theologians are guilty of the same because their concern based solely on what is mindful of men and not mindful of God. Origen strayed in this too as well as others in more recent times. Satan uses this technique in an attempt to entrap God into denying himself. My intent is that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to see how the devil so dupes and uses people as mere pawns to get at God.

Tree Known By Its Fruit

Jesus said that you know a tree by its fruit: Annihilationism in various forms is used by cults far more than any other doctrine. Jehovah Witnesses, Christadelphian, Mormonism, and etc.. use annihilationism or variations of it for the same arguments posed by prominent and lay Christian annihilationist. They do change word meanings of Jesus own word to say Jesus taught annihilationism as well as other bible text. This doctrine can be traced back to Epicurus line of reasoning (poof you ultimately non-exist) and then Christianize it: poof the condemned ultimately non-exist.

You keep saying, those holding to orthodox Christian doctrine can’t prove eternal punishment is forever, yet we do again and again. How - by being mindful of the ways of God and not man. We accept what Jesus says about this matter, and let that be that as it is. We seek not to change Jesus words on this matter but accept God as Holy.

On the other hand, Annihilationist interpretations are mindful only of the ways of men in their interpretations, use of scripture, word meanings, emotional appeals, and moral arguments as evidenced by what you yourself wrote. They have to change word meanings, Jesus own words and intent, to support appeals for what is best mindful of men. Can’t you hear what you are saying?

Again, my intent is that the Holy Spirit will open one’s eyes to see how the devil so dupes and uses people as mere pawns to get at God by pitting God’s own moral character against God’s own Character/nature.

That is one reason Jesus cried out from the cross – “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do…”

Through the cross, we now can see our sins, and why sin is such an offense toward a most Holy God. From this, God has his plan to restore the banished ones, who accept His work on the cross, be forgiven, and are cleansed, through Christ – they receive reconciliation. The others - the fruit of their own doings, forever and ever without end...
-
-
-
Post by B. W. are by:

B. W. Melvin
Author and speaker: A Land Unknown: Hell's Dominion

You are entitled to your opinion and can preach this view wherever they will agree with you.

Sudsy, your answers are based solely on what is best for men not on God...

Well, I've given proof enough that this is not true but if you want to stick your head in the sand, that is your choice.

God designed humanity to be fashioned according to his eternal image and gave us life and it is from our own beginning is how God places eternity within the heart for what he does in matters of life and judgment, plans, purposes, gifts, callings, endures forever

OK, if that is how you wish to view it, again you are interpreting what it means to be created in God's image and many would disagree with your take on this. One way or another you are determined to believe that this will result in all men ending up with an immortal body. For unbelievers, some kind of immortal body that burns but will never burn up.

Perhaps you can forward more particulars on what you really believe about this body for unbelievers. Will it be a child's body for those who died as a child in the first death or a broken down senior's body who died at 100 years old ? Will it retain all the flaws that some poor folk already have in their current bodies ? Etc, etc. How could the rich man, being tormented in flames, be able to carry on a normal conversation and only ask for a drip of water to cool his tongue. Doesn't sound like a lake of fire to me. Will these tormented souls be able to view believers in eternal bliss and be ever mindful of what they forfeited ? Will believers actually be ever mindful and perhaps be able to continue to observe these poor souls and their sufferings ? ( well, then again, this may be quite possible as they don't show much sensitivity to their plight now). Will believers somehow regard this all as just and right as they view this going on ? I have read some pretty horrible stuff that man has developed regarding the horrors of hell, Jonathan Edwards included, and I just wonder how much you have bought into some of these nightmares and supposed realities ?

Annihilationism in various forms is used by cults far more than any other doctrine.

And who determines what is a cult ? Those who put their faith and trust in certain traditional creeds and views of what all constitutes Christianity. I suspect that you might consider Seventh Day Adventists, a cult, whereas the RC faith, not a cult. Perhaps you should provide your definition of a cult since you refer to this term.

On the other hand, Annihilationist interpretations are mindful only of the ways of men in their interpretations, use of scripture, word meanings, emotional appeals, and moral arguments as evidenced by what you yourself wrote. They have to change word meanings, Jesus own words and intent, to support appeals for what is best mindful of men. Can’t you hear what you are saying?

Can't you hear how you are attempting to deceive people to believe in these lies that you are posting with such a statement ? It appears you want to be an authority on this subject but I think I'll trust the scriptures and not B.W. Melvin's convictions on what he thinks the scriptures say.

Again, my intent is that the Holy Spirit will open one’s eyes to see how the devil so dupes and uses people as mere pawns to get at God by pitting God’s own moral character against God’s own Character/nature.

We know what you repeat about your intent but perhaps you should leave this with the Holy Spirit and not think that your repeated posts of the same arguments and same slams of other views is what will make this happen. Similar intents as yours are being stated by both Annihilationists and Universalists as they present their beliefs. They want your eyes to be opened to the true God of the scriptures as they understand Him to be.

I see you ended this last post with adding this signature - 'B. W. Melvin, Author and speaker: A Land Unknown: Hell's Dominion'. Why ?

Due to the slams that Annihilationism is an attempt by man to make the scriptures say what they don't, I will suggest two sites for those who really want to observe what others think on this and just how they interpret scriptures. Then you can decide whether or not the traditional view holds water or not. Why allow traditionalist fears of being wrong hinder you from reading exactly what these views believe. You will see how these views have been distorted here.

1) http://www.jewishnotgreek.com/#A
2) http://www.hell-know.net/

Sudsy wrote:And who determines what is a cult ? Those who put their faith and trust in certain traditional creeds and views of what all constitutes Christianity. I suspect that you might consider Seventh Day Adventists, a cult,...

<Gasp!>

Sudsy wrote:How could the rich man, being tormented in flames, be able to carry on a normal conversation and only ask for a drip of water to cool his tongue. Doesn't sound like a lake of fire to me.

If we interpret literal, then (1) We are able to speak and conversate with the lost while they are burning. and (2) A drop of water in a lake of fire would "survive" to cool the tongue and not just go up in a tiny burst of steam before reaching his tongue.

Sudsy wrote:I see you ended this last post with adding this signature - 'B. W. Melvin, Author and speaker: A Land Unknown: Hell's Dominion'. Why ?

It is my guess that ending with "credentials" gives weight to his view. <clipped by moderator>
I still see no definition of what judgment is, let alone, eternal judgment. Let's stick with literal interpretation as that seems to be the road traveled here to get to this dogma.
.
.

Hi Bav, you made me lol with your gasp on what I said about Seventh Dayers. I had to use somebody for an example and it seemed you had pretty broad shoulders to post on this site. Actually, I have a lot of respect for the SDAs and glad they are part of those who scripture calls believers.

I just added a couple sites to my previous post that you may not have seen before. I have enjoyed looking through these arguments and I think these could give others a better appreciation for this view that seems to be so hated.

Good points on the literal interpretation of that story.

Sudsy wrote:Hi Bav, you made me lol with your gasp on what I said about Seventh Dayers. I had to use somebody for an example and it seemed you had pretty broad shoulders to post on this site. Actually, I have a lot of respect for the SDAs and glad they are part of those who scripture calls believers.

I just added a couple sites to my previous post that you may not have seen before. I have enjoyed looking through these arguments and I think these could give others a better appreciation for this view that seems to be so hated.

Good points on the literal interpretation of that story.

No ill will taken on the SDA cult thing. I'm not blind to the fact there are many that fit the definition quite well.

myself wrote:It is my guess that ending with "credentials" gives weight to his view. <clipped by moderator>

I slipped up again and publically apologize.
.
.

The one argument I hoped someone would elaborate on from the start is -

Jac3510 wrote:There is no such thing as a finite sin. "Sin" is a theological word for "offense against God." There can be no finite offense against an infinite God. That's a logical absurdity.

This is according to Wikipedia also what Thomas Aquinas argued. Anyone know where I can read up on that? In what sense is God "infinite"?

This really is the only defense of the traditional view of Hell that I'm aware of that might make some sense.

Aquinas used Aristotilian logic in most of his theology. Look up Thomist or thomastic teachings on hell and you should find plenty.

The infinite punishment for finite sins argument would be true only if human beings were created finite but if human beginnings, including from, conception/birth that God designed humanity to be eternal beings, sin likewise, residing unchecked, would be eternally corrupting. This would mean that sin from a ‘designed to be infinite being’ indicates 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 individual’s 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 an being who was created to live infinite.

Now look at the Summaries made which come from the bible which point out objectively, God’s character, nature attributes:

God gives life to man (Gen 2:7 –eternal image, Job 33:4, Acts 17:25 life to all). He placed his eternity in the human heart. What God does endures forever. God does not take away life (2 Sam 14:14). God provides means by which the lost can be reconciled back to him (Thru Christ – the doorway back to God. God keeps his word...

God forsakes the wicked granting them banishment/thrust out to live according to their own devises (Psalms 9:16, 17 – Isaiah 3:11 – Proverbs 14:32 - Psalms 11:4, 5, 6, 7 – Jeremiah 17:10). He will not at all acquit the guilty, He gives no rest/peace to the wicked. He gives to man according to man’s way/ reap what they sown.

God is good to all. God is a God of Justice and does no unrighteousness. God hates every evil path, iniquity, sin. God hates. God loves. God shows mercy. God takes vengeance. God jealously protects. He is a God of perfect judgment. God is perfect/blameless in all his ways.

Question: What does one learn about the nature of sin?
-
-
-