Infinite punishment for finite sins

[Kurieuo]

I'm looking forward to the day when every trace of evil is removed from existence and God is trully all in all. And we may all be surprised at how gracious God will be to many that we currently might be writing off. And as Billy Graham said he expects this to include people from various religions of the world. He just might be right.

Can you provide a reference for Graham's statement/s? I am certain extrapolation is happening here.

It at least needs qualification, since how you have put it would lead one to think Graham a blanket pluralist.

As previously posted on Oct 11th on this thread -

Since Billy Graham was referred to, here are a couple quotes by Billy when in an interview with Robert Schuller -

"I think that hell essentially is separation from God forever. And that is the worst hell that I can think of. But I think people have a hard time believing God is going to allow people to burn in literal fire forever. I think the fire that is mentioned in the Bible is a burning thirst for God that can never be quenched." Billy continued - "Jesus used three words to describe hell. ...The third word that He used is 'fire.' Jesus used this symbol over and over. This could be literal fire, as many believe. Or IT COULD BE SYMBOLIC. ...I've often thought that this fire could possibly be a burning thirst for God that is never quenched. What a terrible fire that would be-- never to find satisfaction, joy, or fulfillment!"

Even Billy strayed from traditional teachings on hell.

While I know many see the "Traditional" view of hell in a certain light as being literal smoke and fire, along with eternal punishment, these should not be conflated. One can believe in everlasting confinement and punishment in a place called Hell, but understand the terms used in Scripture of "fire", "outer darkness", "bottomless pit" and even the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna), as metaphorically conveying the horror of hell. Believing Hell to be separation from God along with everything that this entails, is very Wesleyan and I dare say what many knowledgable Christians today believe.

He also said - "God is calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven."

Again, I think we need context, and in my many years experience of apologetics this is a standard response to the question: "What happens to those who have never heard of Christ?"

The general response is that God is merciful and desiring all to be reunited with Himself. There is Scriptural evidence that young children will be saved. Then, there is Scriptural evidence that those who have not heard will be judged by their response to God's natural revelation. For the second, it is just much harder since a person who has never heard of Christ or the Gospel message are navigating a lot more blindly in life and have to see through a lot more darkness. Yet, all saved, are still saved through Christ.

I am not sure if that is straying from the "Traditional" view. I do not see that it is since I know many Christians, Evangelical and otherwise, believe the same. It is also still an exclusive view of salvation.

Bill's statements if read in context are referring to the very particular question involving those who have not heard. This becomes even more evident in the Schuller/Graham exchange you quoted (underlining mine for emphasis):

Dr. Schuller: "What I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into a human heart and soul and life even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?"

Dr. Graham: "Yes it is because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, have never heard of Jesus but they've believed in their hearts that there is a God and they tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived."

Dr. Schuller: "This is fantastic. I'm so thrilled to hear you say that. There's a wideness in God's mercy.

Dr. Graham: There is. There definitely is."

I see no issue with Graham's Christian theology as you have quoted. As I see it, there is no contradiction with Scripture, the Gospel or orthodox/traditional Christianity.

It is not my intention to defend Graham, but I think as with Bart's recent thread regarding Christians idolising the Bible above Christ Himself, that many Christians have in all probability had knee-jerk reactions to Graham without trying to really understand what he is saying.

[B. W.]

Good verse B.W., so would you? Would you insist that God live up to your expectations on the nature of hell ? Would you condemn God if He didn't ? Would you insist of God that He must judge in the way that you have interpreted certain scriptures ? Or would you in humility recognize that God alone knows what He will do in the end and what He will do will be in accordance with who He really is ?

Would an annihilationist insist that God live up to their expectations concerning the nature of hell?

Ultimately, any doctrine of hell must pass the moral test of the human conscience, and the doctrine of literal unending torment cannot pass such a test. Annihilationism, on the other hand, can pass the test for two reasons. First, it does not view hell as everlasting torture but permanent extinction of the wicked. Second, it recognizes that God respects the freedom of those who choose not to be saved. God morally is justified in destroying the wicked because He respects their choice. God desires the salvation of all people (2 Pet 3:9), but respects the freedom of those who refuse His gracious provision of salvation. God’s final punishment of the wicked is not vindictive, requiring everlasting torment, but rational, resulting in their permanent annihilation Quoted from web Link - Chapter VI - HELL: ETERNAL TORMENT OR ANNIHILATION? - Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University

Would an annihilationist condemn God if He doesn’t live up to annihilationist expectations concerning the nature of Hell?

“…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. . . . Surely the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is no fiend; torturing people without end is not what our God does.

Clark Pinnock, The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent, Criswell Theological Review 4, no 2 (Spring1990) 246-27, 253. Quoted in Peterson, Hell on Trial, 161.


"Fundamental to it [justice] is the belief that God will judge people ‘according to what they [have] done’ (e.g., Rev 20:12), which implies that the penalty inflicted will be commensurate with the evil done. This principle had been applied in the Jewish law courts in which penalties were limited to an exact retribution, ‘life for life, eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot’ (e. g., Ex 21:23-25). Would there not, then, be a serious disproportion between sins consciously committed in time and torment consciously experienced throughout eternity? I do not minimize the gravity of sin as rebellion against God our Creator, but I question whether ‘eternal conscious torment’ is compatible with the Biblical revelation of divine justice."

John Stott and David L. Edwards, Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (London, 1988) pp. 318-319

Would an annihilationist insist of God that He must judge in the way that they have interpreted certain scriptures?

“. ..Words like die, perish, destroy, consume, and corrupt seem clearly to say what the conditionalist wishes to convey. He does not claim that these words are always used literally. He does note that figurative or metaphorical meanings are possible only if the words have some plain meaning from which the non-literal usage derives its content and power. And the conditionalist is confident that the ordinary man in the street can tell us what those words usually mean to him.Scripture was not written by scientists, the conditionalist notes, or in some technical or mystical language, but in the everyday Greek language of the common citizen, first century A. D.” Link: From Fudge-Morey WebLink

Would an annihilationist in humility recognize that God alone knows what He will do in the end and what He will do will be in accordance with who He really is?

“…the popular tradition concerning the nature of punishment that some of the wicked will have to suffer is morally flawed.” Pinnock, Fire, Then Nothing, Christianity Today 20 (March, 1987).

“Let me say at the outset that I consider the concept of hell as endless torment in body and mind an outrageous doctrine, a theological and moral enormity, a bad doctrine of the tradition which needs to be changed. 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?

Clark Pinnock, The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent, Criswell Theological Review 4, no 2 (Spring1990) 246-27, 253. Quoted in Peterson, Hell on Trial, 161.

NOTE: Traditional Annihilationism would indeed have God deny Himself, His Word, and His Promises. It would place extra words in Jesus mouth that are not there when Jesus spoke of Hell as everlasting just to have Christ say what they desire him to have said instead. It would have God act contrary to Himself in all order to seek the best for men and not for God

Orthodox Christian doctrine does not prove nor make God ‘a happy torturer.’ We have already shown this within these pages of this thread. God has His own reasons for eternal punishment that is consistent with whom He is and all He is and in all that He promises, speaks, gives…

This is one area that the Traditions of Annihilationism refuse even to consider and/or actually investigate within the bible. It is easier to base Traditional Annihilationism on the ‘what’s best for men principle’ than to find out what is best for God and why… It is easier for Traditional Annihilationist to mock and scoff at truth about God rather than to accept it. A Tree is known by its fruit.

NOTE In no way am I implying Christian Annihilationist ‘are’ false brethren. Well meaning and intentioned Christians, including Fudge, Pennock, Stott, etc…can fall sway of the evil one. Therefore, how can one be sure they are not? Jesus’ words were clear and reveals how in his response to Peter in Matthew 16:23 which shows that there is a heighten concern which is always directed toward what is most pleasing to and best for men. When doctrine, such as traditional annihilationism does this, one should take warning.

Please note that Peter was not cast away from the Lord, but rebuked. Peter returned to his senses later on and remained part of the Fold of Christ. All I can ask is that Our Christian Annihilationist brothers and sisters should really examine their doctrine and see how appealing it is to men, and that each privately search themselves to see under whose sway they are under.
-
-
-

[J.Davis]

Why Annihilationist think that murdering the less fortunate (from their perspective) is ok is beyond me, it’s disturbing. Using their reasoning, all who suffer on earth (from the perspective of those who are more fortunate) should be put out of their miseries.

Now that is one of the most outrageous stretches of logic I have heard yet. When will you guys ever give up with your put downs of other Christian's views on the nature of hell ? Do you lay awake at night and dream up these slams ? Why can't you just state what you believe and trust that people can decide for themselves what to believe ? You are treating people as incompetent and unable to take what is said and decide for themselves ? Or perhaps you are insecure about what you believe and are repeating it to convince yourselves ? I'm beginning to think this must be why all this repetition. It is not to convince others but rather to convince yourself because of the various holes in the logic.

When I say hell I mean Hades then the lake of fire after the day of judgment….

Put downs??? This, coming from you...Sudsy, you have got to be kidding me!...lol. The belief that the fate of the unsaved (according to those who speak the truth concerning God’s word on the matter) is eternal life in hell is at the heart of annihilationist fleshly, human need to distort God’s word, pervert and criticize his character (if he does not deal with the unsaved in the way annihilationist approve of) and put down and demean Christians who speak the truth on the matter and proclaim that the unsaved spend eternity in hell. And that’s all annihilationism has to go on, the hope that human fear, reasoning, criticizing those who proclaim the clear truth behind God’s word (being eternal life in hell) will lead to (a misguided dangerous form of ) pity. In doing so annihilationism (I did not say annihilationist) seeks to dilute the fear humans have for God, create less concern for sin and give a false hope of freedom from hell. The whole twisted annihilationism belief reeks of Satan’s trickery as he attempts to play on the weakness of human flesh.

I’ll tell you what I see as an outrageous stretch of logic. Annihilationist say that the unsaved may be scared away from Jesus if they hear that life in hell is eternal and the unsaved burn in eternal flame. However, millions (or billions) believing in never ending burning in hell have become Christians. Annihilationist criticism against eternal life in hell is no better than the excuses some who are unsaved make when they say that God act’s unjustly concerning his actions as recorded in various scriptures of the bible, so therefore he is not a good God and does not exist/word is not true. Or that Jesus’ sacrifice was not really a sacrifice because he is God and came back to life. Or that the God of the bible, who should be good, allows evil in the world therefore he is a liar or unjust so he is not real or I will not accept him. Or maybe they will say there is no proof that God exist, where did he come from, no proof of free will etc etc and etc. There are endless excuses, endless beliefs for those who want to find a way to deny God or his word, and not one of them will be accepted when the unsaved see Jesus. The annihilationist reasoning that the unsaved maybe scared away from Jesus because they find his actions appalling is nothing new and obviously born of fleshy desires given that their reasoning is of the same nature as the reasoning used by people who seek a way to comfortably deny God’s truth so that they can live in sin and answer only to themselves for their guilt as a result of breaking (their personal interpretation of) God’s (though they claim ownership of it) law.

No Sudsy, I don’t lay awake at night and dream up slams. Actually, I am not putting any effort into slams concerning this debate at all. I am just defending (or supporting) my view. And as I said before, everyone is free to believe what they wish, but it is not biblical for Christians to agree with unsound doctrine. There are many beliefs in the world but under no circumstance are we suppose to shake hands and agree that unsound doctrines can coexist. That is why man has many different religious, so we don’t have to agree, and we won’t. But that in no way means that I do not respect one’s right to believe as they do nor am I trying to force (as I said near the beginning) anything on anyone. You seem to think that we should be able to come to some kind of compromise concerning unsound doctrine, just as men can compromise on many things. But we are not dealing with the things of men, the word of God has instructions and it is God who calls the shots. So again, just as your belief concerning hell, your belief that I should not put your belief down is unbiblical. Also, I am in no way treating people like they are incompetent and unable to take what is said and decide for themselves. In fact, I am just defending (or supporting) my view and will continue to do so when I feel lead to or when I wish to support those who believe what I believe. No one is forced to read or accept anything anyone says in this thread.

And I believe what I post just as sure as I believe that Jesus is God, I don’t play games when it comes to ministry and I will not post on a public forum if I have doubt.

[J.Davis]

In many people's lives the pleasures of sin have very little adverse consequences and this continues throughout their lives and many live much more happy lives than many Christians. So don't hand me all this nonsense about sinners living miserable lives. Some do but many do not. Actually many live much more enjoyable lives than many believers who live legalistic lives and know little of the abundant life they could be living. You need to get out more and see what enjoyments people are experiencing in their sinning.

Ok, this is extremely wrong and only a result of your personal perspective.

I know many of the unsaved feel they have a good life…As I said…

One thing to consider...God said that when Adam and Eve bit the fruit that they would die. And how bad is that death from an unsaved persons perspective? If you are truly saved and fellowship with God then you know it was Really bad. But if you are not saved then it is normal, just how life is. But to God, who knows perfect peace, joy, love and no sin etc. That death was extremely bad, seeing his creation fall into pain, corruption and the results of sin.

Sudsy, I was not talking about physical enjoyment such as entertainment, nice stuff, vacations, etc nor was I talking about the state of ones emotions. Those examples I gave (the ones about the well-off people and the poor ones) where to show a very inferior comparison of how rich (full of the fruits of the spirit and holiness) our hearts can become, how awesome fellowship with God can become, how incredible His gifts are, how extremely amazing His presence is (I’m addicted to it) and how miraculous the Holy Spirit is. Before Jesus, all those things did not exist in our life, we may have felt something was missing but we could not comprehend the greatness of God’s love, awesomeness of his gifts or how amazing the quality of our spiritual life would become/will become for those growing in Christ, just hang in there. We could not grasp just how bad, how corrupt, miserable and pitiful our spiritual life was (in the eyes of God and ourselves in our saved state). Our heart and spiritual life is all that matters when life is done, no amount of stuff can come with us and the quality of life we had on earth will not matter one bit nor will our emotions. If one lives in the spiritual slums on earth (unsaved) then they live in the spiritual slum after life. And as I said, they will be accustomed to that type of life. We will always have the poor, the sick, the insane, the addict. And we will always have the spiritually poor, sick, insane sin addict. Those who are less fortunate live among us.

Regarding Christians, I believe there is an abundant way of living that is able to live through the various forms of suffering sin brings into the world. Do most Christians live in this abundant living ? I don't think so or the world would sit up and take notice of a way of living better than the one they are experiencing. But what the world often sees is Christians straddling a fence, one foot in the world and one foot in Christinanity and often appearing quite miserable. Or fighting over secondary, non-essential doctrines as we are doing here and insisting on being correct.

Christians are always in the spiritual state that God say’s is best and superior to the unsaved spiritual state. We always have access to God, the Holy Spirit is always with us, we have our gifts and prayer life and we can bask in God’s presence. It matters not one bit what Christians feel like at a point in time or what possessions they may be lacking. They always have access to what God offers and he never, ever leaves us of forsakes us. Even on the worse day, the saved heart is in a vastly superior condition compared to the unsaved heart. And if someone is lukewarm or deep into unbiblical legalism then they are not living the life I am talking about. Christians can have the whole world crash down around them but their heart can still have faith, knowing that God, no matter what, will bring them out and they can have delight in that fact. No matter how bad life gets, the saved heart can always have what the unsaved heart does not have, what it can not even fathom. Hope, peace, love, joy, faith and strength in God, knowing that no matter what…He will bring you out. But that’s just on a bad day… On a good day the saved bask in the bounty of God’s spiritual kingdom…. Then, the gargantuan gap between the excellence and splendor of the saved spiritual state and the miserable, corrupt lowly, pitiful unsaved spiritual state is extremely obvious. If any saved person does not understand this then keep pressing for more of God (Pure Addiction).

And I am in no way putting down or demeaning the unsaved, God loves you guys like crazy and spiritual life with God is nothing I possess by my works, just God’s gift that I accepted so I do not speak in an arrogant prideful way towards you but I boast only about the greatness of God’s gift.

I highly recommend Jesus, he’s better than the best there is…

P.S, Sudsy, When speaking God’s word in public, if challenged, the bible tells us to defend the word (though we don’t have to do it forever). Also, the day of judgment and it’s details etc is not non-essential secondary doctrine to the unsaved, only to the saved.

[Sudsy]

I'm looking forward to the day when every trace of evil is removed from existence and God is trully all in all. And we may all be surprised at how gracious God will be to many that we currently might be writing off. And as Billy Graham said he expects this to include people from various religions of the world. He just might be right.

Can you provide a reference for Graham's statement/s? I am certain extrapolation is happening here.

It at least needs qualification, since how you have put it would lead one to think Graham a blanket pluralist.

As previously posted on Oct 11th on this thread -

Since Billy Graham was referred to, here are a couple quotes by Billy when in an interview with Robert Schuller -

"I think that hell essentially is separation from God forever. And that is the worst hell that I can think of. But I think people have a hard time believing God is going to allow people to burn in literal fire forever. I think the fire that is mentioned in the Bible is a burning thirst for God that can never be quenched." Billy continued - "Jesus used three words to describe hell. ...The third word that He used is 'fire.' Jesus used this symbol over and over. This could be literal fire, as many believe. Or IT COULD BE SYMBOLIC. ...I've often thought that this fire could possibly be a burning thirst for God that is never quenched. What a terrible fire that would be-- never to find satisfaction, joy, or fulfillment!"

Even Billy strayed from traditional teachings on hell.

While I know many see the "Traditional" view of hell in a certain light as being literal smoke and fire, along with eternal punishment, these should not be conflated. One can believe in everlasting confinement and punishment in a place called Hell, but understand the terms used in Scripture of "fire", "outer darkness", "bottomless pit" and even the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna), as metaphorically conveying the horror of hell. Believing Hell to be separation from God along with everything that this entails, is very Wesleyan and I dare say what many knowledgable Christians today believe.


My point was that even a very highly respected leader in Christianity is open to other views about the nature of hell than the more traditional view. When Graham says 'I think the fire that is mentioned in the Bible is a burning thirst for God that can never be quenched.' In all my years I never heard that interpretation. Then he goes on to say regarding 'the fire' that it could be symbolic. Quite the opposite of some here that are teaching a literal lake of fire that burns but does not consume flesh. However, the nature of hell with regard to duration is more of the topic on this thread.

He also said - "God is calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven."

Again, I think we need context, and in my many years experience of apologetics this is a standard response to the question: "What happens to those who have never heard of Christ?"

The general response is that God is merciful and desiring all to be reunited with Himself. There is Scriptural evidence that young children will be saved. Then, there is Scriptural evidence that those who have not heard will be judged by their response to God's natural revelation. For the second, it is just much harder since a person who has never heard of Christ or the Gospel message are navigating a lot more blindly in life and have to see through a lot more darkness. Yet, all saved, are still saved through Christ.

In response, I grew up in and still know know of many local churches that would be and actually were quite disturbed by Graham's inclusive comments. There are still those evangelicals that teach that all people who do not hear and accept Christ will go to hell. Period. I am especially intrigued by your second remark regarding it being 'much harder' as this would seem to indicate that God is not fair to give the same equal opportunity to everyone. Or are you just speaking from a human's view of what appears 'much harder' ?

I am not sure if that is straying from the "Traditional" view. I do not see that it is since I know many Christians, Evangelical and otherwise, believe the same. It is also still an exclusive view of salvation.

Bill's statements if read in context are referring to the very particular question involving those who have not heard. This becomes even more evident in the Schuller/Graham exchange you quoted (underlining mine for emphasis):

Dr. Schuller: "What I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into a human heart and soul and life even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?"

Dr. Graham: "Yes it is because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, have never heard of Jesus but they've believed in their hearts that there is a God and they tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived."

Dr. Schuller: "This is fantastic. I'm so thrilled to hear you say that. There's a wideness in God's mercy.

Dr. Graham: There is. There definitely is."

I see no issue with Graham's Christian theology as you have quoted. As I see it, there is no contradiction with Scripture, the Gospel or orthodox/traditional Christianity.

It is not my intention to defend Graham, but I think as with Bart's recent thread regarding Christians idolising the Bible above Christ Himself, that many Christians have in all probability had knee-jerk reactions to Graham without trying to really understand what he is saying.

So, let me see if I got this straight - Graham said - "I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, have never heard of Jesus but they've believed in their hearts that there is a God and they tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived." Does this not therefore include most dedicated Muslims and Jews, those that many Christians regard as cults, various other religions who believe in God and are trying to live good lives and those who have no religion per se but believe there is a God and just are good living people ? I think Schuller took it this way. Is this what most Christians believe to be true ?
IMO, I think Graham was giving an opinion on how God could be fair and merciful to all when He judges man, much like part of an annihilational argument that God will be fair and merciful through their interpretation of scriptures. Some 'T' viewers here think God can only be fair and merciful by not taking away man's eternal existence. I believe we can easily use our understandings to 'put God in a box' (in our thinking of course) instead of having the humility to admit that we could possibly be wrong when we see the scriptural arguments of others to the contrary.

Anyway, I believe some very respected leaders in Christianity have a much more open view on some subjects and don't find the need to convert everyone to their non-essential view. I don't doubt that some 'A' viewers and some 'T' viewers can't seem to follow this lead. They believe they are 'standing for the truth' or 'defending the truth'.

[BavarianWheels]

Would an annihilationist insist that God live up to their expectations concerning the nature of hell?

Would an annihilationist condemn God if He doesn’t live up to annihilationist expectations concerning the nature of Hell?

Would an annihilationist insist of God that He must judge in the way that they have interpreted certain scriptures?

Would an annihilationist in humility recognize that God alone knows what He will do in the end and what He will do will be in accordance with who He really is?

Would the Traditional Hellist like B.W.?
.
.

[Sudsy]

B.W. it is nice to see you referencing what some annihilationists have said and the reasons they give for believing what they believe. Although I still am surprised you got away with your insults and believe you need to apologize for how you protrayed 'A' viewers as liars.

When it comes to insisting on either view as the 'must' to believe as true, IMO, whether Annihilationists or Traditionalist, they both are going beyond what is necessary to believe. It is either a non-essential doctrine or it is not. And perhaps we need to define what we mean by 'non-essential'. We likely agree, that it is non-esstential to salvation. But it is also non-essential on this site as a statement of faith. Bart has pointed this out early in this thread. You are treating it as heretical. Do you do the same for your view on doctrines regarding mary, transubstantiation, eternal security, predestination, infant baptism, praying to saints, the sabbath, etc, etc. Or is this just your pet peeve that you invest so much of your time fighting ?

In no way am I implying Christian Annihilationist ‘are’ false brethren. Well meaning and intentioned Christians, including Fudge, Pennock, Stott, etc…can fall sway of the evil one.

And some 'A' viewers see you and others of the 'T' view also as one's that fell 'sway of the evil one'. And the Universalists pull out their scriptural support and say you are both wrong.

You use the Peter story to suggest that Peter was looking out for what is best for man and not for God and therefore this is the foundation of the 'A' view. So, using that logic one could say then that the opposite may be what motivates a 'T' viewer - unresolved hatred issues that cause them to delight in the idea of seeing people burn forever in eternal flames. Sometimes it even comes across that way as the unsaved are either mocked and/or they are just allowed to head towards such a place with little active concern for them.

All I can ask is that Our Christian Annihilationist brothers and sisters should really examine their doctrine and see how appealing it is to men, and that each privately search themselves to see under whose sway they are under.

So, heaven is also very appealing to men, does this make it something that is evil ? Yes, one should look at what might be behind believing in a certain view. As more and more Traditionalists consider who God is using the entire scriptures as a guide, I believe there will be a growing belief in the 'A' view that is neither a view of never ending punishing or the view of universal salvation. Some will fight it suggesting it is a form of liberalism. I believe essential doctrines are what we should most focus on and things like the prosperity gospel and the 'say this prayer and we believe you are born again' deceptive methods.

J. Davis -

P.S, Sudsy, When speaking God’s word in public, if challenged, the bible tells us to defend the word (though we don’t have to do it forever). Also, the day of judgment and it’s details etc is not non-essential secondary doctrine to the unsaved, only to the saved.

Really ? But you once said it is not your 'style' to speak of hell when evangelizing. If it is essential for the unsaved, then when do you make it known ? If you are anything like most 'T' viewers it is not in your conversations to the unsaved spelling it out as clearly as you say you believe it. Why ? I suggest because you know for many it is a stumblingblock and/or you are afraid of people mocking this idea. And again, although Byblos really hates me saying this , most of you really don't believe this view in your hearts anyway. Actions speak louder than words. I know this hurts to hear but Jesus told the Pharisees something similar. Real beliefs of the heart is what God is most interested in and not head beliefs that don't change the way we live. Some traditionalists on this topic are much like the Pharisees and instead of being merciful, show little to no concern for the less fortunate. Jesus demonstrated and said He is looking for a merciful attitude not one of cold hearted dogmatic religion. That is something to consider also.

[Byblos]

And again, although Byblos really hates me saying this , most of you really don't believe this view in your hearts anyway.

And now you profess to know what's in most of our hearts? The truth is most Orthodox evangelists preach equally as strongly about God's love and spending eternity with Him as they do about hell and its eternal torment away from God. The fact that the doctrine of hell is absent from our churches doesn't mean it needs to be replaced with a more tolerant doctrine. On the contrary it needs to be put back on the front burner so-to-speak.

And thanks for the nod (always watching ).

[B. W.]

B.W. it is nice to see you referencing what some annihilationists have said and the reasons they give for believing what they believe. Although I still am surprised you got away with your insults and believe you need to apologize for how you protrayed 'A' viewers as liars.

When it comes to insisting on either view as the 'must' to believe as true, IMO, whether Annihilationists or Traditionalist, they both are going beyond what is necessary to believe. It is either a non-essential doctrine or it is not. And perhaps we need to define what we mean by 'non-essential'. We likely agree, that it is non-esstential to salvation....

In no way am I implying Christian Annihilationist ‘are’ false brethren. Well meaning and intentioned Christians, including Fudge, Pennock, Stott, etc…can fall sway of the evil one.

And some 'A' viewers see you and others of the 'T' view also as one's that fell 'sway of the evil one'. And the Universalists pull out their scriptural support and say you are both wrong.

All I can ask is that Our Christian Annihilationist brothers and sisters should really examine their doctrine and see how appealing it is to men, and that each privately search themselves to see under whose sway they are under.

So, heaven is also very appealing to men, does this make it something that is evil ? Yes, one should look at what might be behind believing in a certain view. As more and more Traditionalists consider who God is using the entire scriptures as a guide, I believe there will be a growing belief in the 'A' view that is neither a view of never ending punishing or the view of universal salvation. Some will fight it suggesting it is a form of liberalism. I believe essential doctrines are what we should most focus on and things like the prosperity gospel and the 'say this prayer and we believe you are born again' deceptive methods...

God is a God of justice - Is He not?

Then how can Annihilationist Traditions teach things that would cause God to deny absolute justice for all?


God is a God who shows no partiality – Is He not?

Then how can Annihilationist Traditions teach things that would cause God to demonstrate partiality?


God is more than able to keep and perform His word – Is He not?

Then how can Annihilationist Traditions teach things that would cause God to deny His word spoken in Gen 1:26 that cause him to be unjust to all including Himself and His own words?

More:

Annihilationist Traditions teach that after the saved enter heaven they would be in anguish, distress, torment upon seeing lost loved ones suffering in the Lake of Fire and for that reason alone – God must exterminate into non-existence (mercy kill) the lost. If that were true, then how could the same also not be in the same state of anguish, agony, torment, seeing lost loved ones agonizingly melt away into such oblivion?

The bible does not teach this – read Revelation 21:4 and Revelation 22:15

Therefore: Why does Annihilationist Traditions go against the clear teaching of scripture in its usage of emotional appeals to human sentimentality?
-
-
-

[Katabole]

Let us reason shall we.

Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: (KJV)

Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

If it never even entered God's mind for the Israelites to burn their children alive as sacrifices to Molech, in the very same valley that Jesus uses as a metaphor for Hell, how can any of you who believe in Hell doctrine even consider that God would burn His children alive for all eternity?

Psalm 37:20 But the wicked shall perish and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.

Any of you ever witnessed the fat of a lamb dripping into a fire? It sizzles, is burned up and is gone and the smoke goes up forever and ever into nothing.

Psalm 37:35 I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree.

Psalm 37:36 Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not: yea, I sought him, but he could not be found.

Hmmmm, "passed away"= Death. He "was not"= Annihilation. "He could not be found"= Oblivion.

Malachi 4:1 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.

Malachi 4:3 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.

Again, these two verses are clearly speaking about complete annihilation. Ashes under the soles of feet is certainly not the same as burning in a fire forever.

Didn't God say that he set before us the way of life and the way of death? He certainly didn't say the way of life and the way of eternal torture.

It's so obvious through scripture that God completely annihilates the wicked that a child could understand it.

Why do those of you who believe in Hell doctrine have such a hard time with not only the scriptures I included but the following two scriptures:

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sins, it shall die.

And

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

The Bible doesn't contradict itself. It's eternal life on one side of the coin and death on the other. And as I stated before, eternal punishment? Absolutley. Eternal punishing? Absolutely not. The problem with Hell doctrine is that people have used it to convert others through fear when it is not Biblical. God wants those who come to Him to come to Him through love. Not fear.

[Sudsy]

God is a God of justice - Is He not?

Then how can Annihilationist Traditions teach things that would cause God to deny absolute justice for all?

This is a mental block in your thinking and 'A' viewers might say that you are the one that is causing God to deny absolute justice for all (as if any man could ). God will be just in His judgments but this does not need to include never ending torment to be just. Only in your way of stringing ideas together, does it. If our sense of justice is anywhere's close to how God is just, then infinite punishing is not anything that is even close to our sense of justice. You should know this through your common sense and conscience. But if you use the verse that God's ways are not our ways to support this belief, then I guess you could build a case to allow God to be and do most anything.

God is a God who shows no partiality – Is He not?

Then how can Annihilationist Traditions teach things that would cause God to demonstrate partiality?

It doesn't. Again your mental blocks on understanding another view continue to surface.

God is more than able to keep and perform His word – Is He not?

Then how can Annihilationist Traditions teach things that would cause God to deny His word spoken in Gen 1:26 that cause him to be unjust to all including Himself and His own words?

At this point, your arguments are just getting more silly. God is not denying His word and never will. This is your spin on this scripture. One that many disagree with regarding what it means to be in God's image.

Annihilationist Traditions teach that after the saved enter heaven they would be in anguish, distress, torment upon seeing lost loved ones suffering in the Lake of Fire and for that reason alone – God must exterminate into non-existence (mercy kill) the lost. If that were true, then how could the same also not be in the same state of anguish, agony, torment, seeing lost loved ones agonizingly melt away into such oblivion?

I thought it was people like Johnathan Edwards who promoted this view of saints looking down on sinners in torment and being happy about it. I don't think believers will have to behold any of the punishing going on prior to destruction. There is no point in this, IMO. You should again look at all the scriptures regarding destruction that I included on the thread about there being a rapture or not. It takes a lot of manipulation of their meaning to dismiss them. But I'm sure you are able to do that too.

I see Katabole has provided a good post above again providing scriptural support during my post creation. Good for you Katabole, it is good to have someone else give their wordings on this subject as mine are probably quite tiring to readers.

[BavarianWheels]

I see Katabole has provided a good post above again providing scriptural support during my post creation. Good for you Katabole, it is good to have someone else give their wordings on this subject as mine are probably quite tiring to readers.

Same as I felt when you came along on this subject.
.
.

[B. W.]

Regarding Children mentioned in Katabole's Post...

….how can any of you who believe in Hell doctrine even consider that God would burn His children alive for all eternity?

Kataoble’s appeal regarding children/burning is a prime example of how annihilationist and universalist traditions rely solely on a ‘what’s best from man’ theology buttressed solely on strong emotional rhetoric and not based on any firm biblical foundation whatsoever. Katabole, The Bible teaches that there are two kinds of children in God’s sight: those of darkness, wrath and those adopted back into God’s fold which are call His children by adoption.

God will not punish his adopted children of light (believers) in the Lake of fire. Only those who remain in darkness as children of wrath/darkness (child of the devil) will receive God’s wrath (Eph 2:3). Such children of wrath will be banished away forever from the Lord's presence, living in the dominion they chose to impose, that is their torment in the flames.

Is it any wonder Christ warned of this fate and did not mince his words? Jesus does not need annihilationist tradition to redefine what He really meant either.

Therefore, please look at the evidence for there being two kinds of children in God's sight

Examples of there being children of light/God

Eph 1:5 (God) predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son...

Examples that indicate that there are children of darkness/devil

Mat 13:38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.

1 John 3:10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

Acts 13:10 and said, "O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?

John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.

God chooses to warn:

Heb 12:25 See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. All Bible quotes from NKJV

The often cited apealing appeal that everyone is God’s child is not true. God is angry, or better said his anger grows everyday at the children of darkness.

This needed to be addressed frist before moving on to comment on the rest of the post...
-
-
-

[J.Davis]

Let us reason shall we.

Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: (KJV)

Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

If it never even entered God's mind for the Israelites to burn their children alive as sacrifices to Molech, in the very same valley that Jesus uses as a metaphor for Hell, how can any of you who believe in Hell doctrine even consider that God would burn His children alive for all eternity?

Reason? That’s the whole problem, annihilationism applies fleshly human reasoning to the word of God and distorts the truth. But I’ll go over a few things with you….

The scriptures you provided above have nothing to do with hell...It would not enter God’s mind for the Israelites to burn their children alive as a sacrifice to Molech because idolatry and murder are sins, It would never enter his mind. God gets jealous…And that’s the old testament God the Father we are talking about in the scriptures above, he didn’t take crap from anyone. As far as He is concerned, anyone that sacrifices to idols should be dragged out to the street and stoned to death (back in old testament times). You are talking about the God that turned a woman to salt, flooded the earth, destroyed cities and armies, caused plagues, killed disobedient servants as well as enemies of his servants etc- all because they defied him (sinned) and so he could make it clear that you don‘t trifle with God, in doing so, he created a name for himself that was to be feared, loved and respected, this gave him the power to save his creation until Jesus came to earth.

As for the rest of the scriptures you provided....

Psalm 37:35 I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree.

Psalm 37:36 Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not: yea, I sought him, but he could not be found.

Hmmmm, "passed away"= Death. He "was not"= Annihilation. "He could not be found"= Oblivion

You are way off here, that makes no sense at all given the nature of this psalm, the whole psalm speaks of God bringing the wicked to justice for the harm they bring or attempt to bring on the righteous.

Here are the first few scriptures...The rest of the psalm follows the same theme..

Psalm 37:1 Do not fret because of evildoers, Be not envious toward wrongdoers.2 For they will wither quickly like the grass And fade like the green herb.3 Trust in the Lord and do good; Dwell in the land and cultivate faithfulness. 4 Delight yourself in the Lord; And He will give you the desires of your heart.

This is clearly about life on earth...

Psalm 37:20 But the wicked shall perish and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.

David just stated that God would bless his people Psalm 37:18-19. And the scripture above says: But God will deal with the wicked for their evil against the righteous and those who stand against the Lord will dwindle (from the earth).

Psalm 37:35 I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. Psalm 37:36 Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not: yea, I sought him, but he could not be found.

As an example of the things mentioned previously concerning how the wicked seek to harm or kill the righteous but are brought to justice. David says: I knew a case such as this. There was a powerful wicked man abusing his power, spreading great wickedness against the righteous. But he passed away, and, to my great amazement, he was no more (his rain of terror was over), yeah (no doubt about it), I checked all his normal hangouts but could not find him (I made sure of it, couldn’t find him anywhere, he's dead).

Justice was served.. David gave his conclusion concerning what happened to the wicked man before he gave the reason why he came to his conclusion. In other words, David had already thoroughly searched for the wicked man because he noticed he had not been around for a period of time, he searched thoroughly but could not find him anywhere, therefore, David concluded that he was dead.

Note: lo means [ Old English lā, natural exclamation]

Malachi 4:1 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.

Malachi 4:3 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.

Again, these two verses are clearly speaking about complete annihilation. Ashes under the soles of feet is certainly not the same as burning in a fire forever.

Right, how can ashes be under the feet of ashes, they don’t have feet so that’s completely out of the question. According to annihilationist, no one will be left in hell to step on anything. And God and his saints certainly will not be there. You have these scriptures all wrong....

Malachi 4:1 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.

Malachi 4:3 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.

These scriptures speak of the day God takes revenge on Jerusalem..

Malachi 4:2 “But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. 3 “You will tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,” says the Lord of hosts.

Malachi 4:5 “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. 6 “He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.”

Still on earth here...

Didn't God say that he set before us the way of life and the way of death? He certainly didn't say the way of life and the way of eternal torture.

Acutely, he did say eternal torment...that is what he means when he say’s punishment concerning the following scripture..

The original word translated to punishment in Matthew 25:46 comes from the word kolazo meaning..

Strong number 2851...

punishment, torment.

From kolazo; penal infliction -- punishment, torment.

see GREEK kolazo

κόλασιν (kolasin) − 2 Occurrences

Also, Life and death, as it is used in the bible, in relation to those who are alive to make a decision to choose life or death on earth means.... Choose the fruits of the sprite and holiness (god’s way, character etc/God) or choose to live in an empty state, void of the fruits of the sprite and holiness (The corruption of sin and Satan's way). Those who are alive to make a choice will die a natural death and have no choice on the matter. Those who live for eternity with God will never die again. And those who burn in hell can not choose at all, therefore, the scripture does not apply to those in hell, only the scriptures that talk on the fate of those who burn in hell apply to those in hell, and we have been over them, their life in hell is eternal. God was extremely clear about the type of life and death he was talking about.

The first scripture of the choose life passage...

Deuteronomy 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;

You must exist to experience both prosperity and adversity so both life and death refers to those that exist.

Then God goes on to give the exact meaning of the life he speaks of...

Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

Deuteronomy 30:20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

Again, obviously we are talking about life on earth, not heaven and hell...

It's so obvious through scripture that God completely annihilates the wicked that a child could understand it.

Children may understand annihilationism but they are young and often ignore reality in favor of playing make-believe.

Why do those of you who believe in Hell doctrine have such a hard time with not only the scriptures I included but the following two scriptures:

Acutely, I don’t have a problem with them at all...I love God’s word. But seriously, your use and interpretation of God’s character and scripture is pretty far off the mark here. There may be other reasons we did not respond....But hey, you crossed the line with your insults...

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sins, it shall die.

You removed the portion above from the rest of the scripture...I’ll post starting from the first scripture of this passage ...

Ezekiel 18:1 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 2 “What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, ‘The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children’s teeth are set on edge’? 3 “As I live,” declares the Lord God, “you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. 4 “Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.

God say’s that each person is responsible for their own sins and He deals fairly, administering justice against each person according to the individuals own sins, not the sins of others, so you had better stop distorting his word and perfect image. Then it goes on to give details on the matter and various examples of how God will deal with each person.

The passage adds on to what David talked about in Psalm 37:1-4 (Others have talked on it as well)

Psalm 37:1 Do not fret because of evildoers, Be not envious toward wrongdoers.2 For they will wither quickly like the grass And fade like the green herb.3 Trust in the Lord and do good; Dwell in the land and cultivate faithfulness. 4 Delight yourself in the Lord; And He will give you the desires of your heart.

God brings the sinner to justice and blesses the righteous, each according to their own deeds. And yes, these scriptures are about life on earth, not heaven or hell...

And

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

Sin is a rip off (If sin is one’s boss/master it gives them something they don‘t want-sin cheats people); but God gives the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul writes in romans (among other things) that we should avoid sin, not only for ourselves but for the benefit of those watching.

[J.Davis]

The Bible doesn't contradict itself. It's eternal life on one side of the coin and death on the other. And as I stated before, eternal punishment? Absolutley. Eternal punishing? Absolutely not. The problem with Hell doctrine is that people have used it to convert others through fear when it is not Biblical. God wants those who come to Him to come to Him through love. Not fear.

No, the bible does not contradict it’s self, It's eternal life in heaven on one side of the coin and eternal life in hell on the other. And as I said before, eternal punishing? Absolutely, eternal punishment (annihilation)? Absolutely not. The problem with annihilationism is that people have used it to convert others through the ways of the flesh when it is not Biblical. God wants those who come to Him to come to Him through respect and love. Not because He is just by fleshy human standards.

Concerning fear...You are wrong and there are a large number of scriptures that cover the matter.

It is Jesus who warned of hell, it’s He who will judge humankind and take revenge on those that hate him (do not love him/the unsaved). The lake of fire gives Jesus a name that is to be feared and respected and that is exactly what he intended. God is not some pushover, he makes it clear in his word that he is to be revered and loved all at the same time. And the unsaved are not God’s children, they will spend eternity in hell because he said so (it’s a bit more technical but I’ve been over it). All good parents should be both loved and revered, or else, their children, who do not know better, will fall into harms way.

Just a few scriptures...

Deuteronomy 6:5 “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 “These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart.

Not even the love part of it is to be disrespected.

2 Ch 19:7 “Now then let the fear of the Lord be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the Lord our God will have no part in unrighteousness or partiality or the taking of a bribe.”

Luke 12:4 “I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do. 5 “But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!

Psalm 34:9 O fear the Lord, you His saints; For to those who fear Him there is no want.

Exodus 20:20 Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid; for God has come in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may 1remain with you, so that you may not sin.”

Revelation 14:7 and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.”

Revelation 15:4 His affection abounds all the more toward you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, how you received him with fear and trembling.4 “Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy; For all the nations will come and worship before You, For Your righteous acts have been revealed.”

Proverbs 3:7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord and turn away from evil.

Annihilationism dilutes the fear of God and it is unbiblical and dangerous, God knows his creation best.