annihilationism

[MennoSota]

A very good article regarding the various views on annihilationism.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/annihilation-or-eternal-punishment/

 

[Andrew]

They spend eternity in the lake of fire. They are not annihilated.
Does the term perish = annihilate?

They mean the exact same thing yes

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

They mean the exact same thing yes

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

No they do not. Please read the link I provided on the various viewpoints of annihilationism.

 

[Albion]

They mean the exact same thing yes

No. Here is the explanation from BibleGateway.com:

Their condition after casting off the mortal body is spoken of in these expressive words: "Fire that shall not be quenched" (Mark 9:45, 46), "fire unquenchable" (Luke 3:17), "the worm that never dies," the "bottomless pit" (Rev. 9:1), "the smoke of their torment ascending up for ever and ever" (Rev. 14:10, 11).

The idea that the "second death" (Rev. 20:14) is in the case of the wicked their absolute destruction, their annihilation, has not the slightest support from Scripture, which always represents their future as one of conscious suffering enduring for ever.

 

[Andrew]

Well we certainly don't want to go to hell either way. From my understanding the problem with the Jewish priesthood was that they focused too much on earthly riches and power and had no threat in an after life, Jesus taught a fate worse than death. I'll have to check out the sites later, but according to google both words mean the same.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

No. Here is the explanation from BibleGateway.com:

Their condition after casting off the mortal body is spoken of in these expressive words: "Fire that shall not be quenched" (Mark 9:45, 46), "fire unquenchable" (Luke 3:17), "the worm that never dies," the "bottomless pit" (Rev. 9:1), "the smoke of their torment ascending up for ever and ever" (Rev. 14:10, 11).

The idea that the "second death" (Rev. 20:14) is in the case of the wicked their absolute destruction, their annihilation, has not the slightest support from Scripture, which always represents their future as one of conscious suffering enduring for ever.

The first paragraph doesnt support much "immortality" of the soul but rather that the lake of fire/hell is everlasting, the worms etc... The smoke ascending upwards from the bottomless pit can also mean 'from the endless amount of souls thrown in that perish'.. i thought "from dust to dust' has never ceased except in the case that you believe in Christ Jesus where then you have eternal life. Im not solid on these views I just have a tough time seeing this particular post holding any evidence, that and mennos explaining away that 'annihilation' and 'pershing' are different, maybe past tense or as an adverb makes a slight difference but not really.
Indeed the smoke of torment is endless, indeed the flames are eternal, and indeed sinners perish in it... they die there... eternally... killed bodily and in soul...

 

[Andrew]

If sinners can simply cease to exist, why not floop make em not exist just like the devil. Universalism makes more sense. Neh doesnt make sense either. If God is so loving He makes everyone floop away or floop good why wait ages.

The devil and his angels will not perish but have their abode in hell... all who follow will them will perish (mark of the beast) ... eternal life is in Jesus only (mark of God).
Did Jesus save people in hell? Or did he save people from hell?
Serious question btw

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

Did Jesus save people in hell? Or did he save people from hell?
Serious question btw

Neither

 

[Andrew]

Neither

Ok... DOES Jesus save people from hell?
It doesn't matter, the point I was trying to get across was that followers of satan and his angelic minion are lead like sheep into slaughter, they are promised immortality (be like God) and are burnt asunder and lose eternal life. I'll lay my verses on standby while you try and convince me otherwise. Please do. Because if everyone went to hell before Christ saved us from hell, well that would make sense if "from dust you came and dust you return". Jesus silenced his audience when he said "from the Father I came and to the Father I return" I wonder why...

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

Ok... DOES Jesus save people from hell?

That is a question which is answered in our predestination topic.

 

[Andrew]

That is a question which is answered in our predestination topic.

Oh ok then, let me click on your suggested links and then afterwards read the entirety of a whole other topic

 

[Albion]

The first paragraph doesnt support much "immortality" of the soul but rather that the lake of fire/hell is everlasting, the worms etc... The smoke ascending upwards from the bottomless pit can also mean 'from the endless amount of souls thrown in that perish'.. i thought "from dust to dust' has never ceased except in the case that you believe in Christ Jesus where then you have eternal life. Im not solid on these views I just have a tough time seeing this particular post holding any evidence, that and mennos explaining away that 'annihilation' and 'pershing' are different, maybe past tense or as an adverb makes a slight difference but not really.
Indeed the smoke of torment is endless, indeed the flames are eternal, and indeed sinners perish in it... they die there... eternally... killed bodily and in soul...

I have noticed before that you have a difficult time contemplating that all sorts of words have more than one possible use or meaning. If that's so, there is not much chance of having a discussion about any of them, especially when the Bible's use is simply brushed aside in favor of the most commonly used meaning in everyday society.

As for your comment about the first paragraph, what sense is there in thinking that the fires and smoke, etc. of hell will go on eternally...even though there will not be any thing or any soul in hell for most of that eternity or any purpose behind continuing to have a hell?

 

[Stravinsk]

I have noticed before that you refuse to consider that all sorts of words have more than one possible use or meaning. If that's so, there is not much chance of having a discussion about any of them, especially when the Bible's use is simply brushed aside in favor of the most commonly used meaning in everyday society.

This is the position you and Mennosota and anyone else who holds to the doctrine of eternal living death must cling to - a position that ultimately comes from Greek Mythology, not the Bible. First, you brush aside verses from the Hebrew Scriptures as "too Jewish" and then when confronted with the very words of the person you say is Messiah - now it's about redefining words. The author of Mennosota's link does this in his first argument, he puts the word destruction in quotes and suggests it has alternate meanings.

I was thinking today that if I had an axe in my hand and was charging either of you screaming "I am going to destroy you!" you'd have no doubt as to what my intention was. You'd not think "but...what if 'destroy' actually means something else...". No, you'd run, get out of the way or try to counter an attack. However when it comes to a position you hold, now the weapons of "special interpretation" come into play in order to suit it. Of course now you'll probably site parable or other language methods that illuminate a motif, when it should be clear that such things were not being used by Messiah when giving the simple instructions like the one in Matthew 10:28.

 

[Albion]

This is the position you and Mennosota and anyone else who holds to the doctrine of eternal living death must cling to - a position that ultimately comes from Greek Mythology, not the Bible.

Well, that's wrong. The only reason I do hold to it, along with over 90% of all Christians of whatever denomination, is precisely because the Bible does teach it. There is really no point in trying to sustain a discussion by telling the other person (me) that he believes what he does not believe.

 

[Imalive]

But how can they be destroyed meaning stop to exist?
The only way is die with Christ. Then the old man is gone.

 

[MennoSota]

This is the position you and Mennosota and anyone else who holds to the doctrine of eternal living death must cling to - a position that ultimately comes from Greek Mythology, not the Bible. First, you brush aside verses from the Hebrew Scriptures as "too Jewish" and then when confronted with the very words of the person you say is Messiah - now it's about redefining words. The author of Mennosota's link does this in his first argument, he puts the word destruction in quotes and suggests it has alternate meanings.

I was thinking today that if I had an axe in my hand and was charging either of you screaming "I am going to destroy you!" you'd have no doubt as to what my intention was. You'd not think "but...what if 'destroy' actually means something else...". No, you'd run, get out of the way or try to counter an attack. However when it comes to a position you hold, now the weapons of "special interpretation" come into play in order to suit it. Of course now you'll probably site parable or other language methods that illuminate a motif, when it should be clear that such things were not being used by Messiah when giving the simple instructions like the one in Matthew 10:28.

First, you presume Greek mythology informs God's action. That is a silly thing you do.
Second, when you say "destroy me" I can interpret that many different ways. Context can help. Destroy may mean to kill. It may mean that you will disparage my reputation and the axe just symbolizes your intent. It likely doesn't mean that you will completely dematerialize me so that no part of who I am is leftover.
So, even your analogy leaves many different possibilities.
It would be a silly thing, then, for anyone to believe in annihilationism as the overall context makes it a moot point.

 

[Andrew]

Well I read the link Menno provided...
Not convinced and the guy just sounds like he could be a mormon.
All I know is that God is the God of the living and not the dead, I can agree however that the OPs concern of the teaching is dangerous albeit no more dangerous than teaching eternal punishment in fire (does the skin constantly burn at the 3rd degree?)
Join MY church and you will not burn in hell is the old medieval method of conversion.
Our God is a consuming fire burning away ALL lies and falsehood, but im not claiming to know much about heaven and hell as does the person in the link, ill stay humble and not find multiple meanings to words that can completely change the entire concept of the message. This is man debating over something that no man truly knows and wont know unless his faith is over shadowed with knowitall facts such as many inherit.. sad

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

Just wanted to add that I wont allow a website to label me this and that and that I simply don't claim to know the details of heaven or hell so consider me on the fence when discussing the torments of hell, whether they perish or not there is torment no doubt, but I see more symbolic and spiritual credit due where there be 'cold hard facts' especially when 'words' as argued, have "multiple" meanings.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

As for your comment about the first paragraph, what sense is there in thinking that the fires and smoke, etc. of hell will go on eternally...even though there will not be any thing or any soul in hell for most of that eternity or any purpose behind continuing to have a hell?

How else can you describe the absence of God when God is everywhere? (division?)
God has to be there (Jesus was and had to be there) and God is a consuming fire. There are life giving 'waters' in Heaven and a 'lake' of fire for hell and for death, im sure the amount of sin in this world would accumulate endless smoke to continually rise up from a 'bottomless' pit.
Time is actually an absence of eternity, mortality is the absence of immortality, our minds cannot possibly fathom such concepts.
We are in a fallen state raised into immortality and perfection and are merely seeing through a glass darkly, nevermind proper word use among The proper Word, words are the tongues most dangerous and potent form of man weaponry and you know it.
'Suffer the ultimate' has been around since forever and was used by the devil and false profits to forsake mankind into a zoroastrian babylonian false system of superstitious 'fear' worship. Hell should not be the reason for the season, God loves all and wills all to be saved and favors no man (No predestinationalism ).
Universalism? So be it you bet.. according to God ALL should be saved but you know... 'free will' and all, I believe however that given enough time with God... ALL things are possible.
So to take an evidently symbolic phrase such as "the smoke of their torment forever ascending" to mean "the everlasting smoke created from constant regenerated skin tissue over Gods eternal torture flames constantly billow upward into the stationary abode of saints who rejoice with loved ones while constantly breathing in the endless fumes of the crying and helpless but 'dead' bodies below" -thats not what the bible says but I guarantee that you wont argue against this for its what you have always been taught.
Death in sin is symbolic, alive and dead is a physical oxymoron but spiritually symbolic, but an 'afterlife living death' in perpetual torment' is acceptable to teach our kids today with no biblical support.




Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

How else can you describe the absence of God when God is everywhere? (division?)

I don't think that fires, smoke, etc is the obvious way to describe the absence of God. Not at all. And definitely not, coming then after the many scriptural references to hell as a place of horror.