annihilationism

[Josiah]

My mother's pastor is now preaching a series about hell which he is clearly teaching annihilationism of the soul. He is saying that the punishment for the lost is that their soul is destroyed. They don't suffer eternally. This is at a methodist church. I have given her numerous verses that talk about an eternal punishment in hell. Along with some web site that teach that hell is eternal

http://www.tektonics.org/af/annix.php

what are your thoughts?

I told her she should contact the areas bishop and let them know he is teaching this.

Troubling.....

 

[MennoSota]

Luke, not one of the Twelve, twisting the crucifixion story.

LOL, Luke is considered the greatest historian in antiquity by many scholars and here you are making a bogus statement. Who should I believe? The answer is: Not you.
The fact that Luke is not one of the 12 is a massive red herring on your part. Luke had access to many, many eyewitnesses and he was very thorough in his research and data. Your claim should be dismissed as bogus and irrelevant.
Now...back to the unfounded theory of annihilationism...

 

[Stravinsk]

LOL, Luke is considered the greatest historian in antiquity by many scholars and here you are making a bogus statement. Who should I believe? The answer is: Not you.
The fact that Luke is not one of the 12 is a massive red herring on your part. Luke had access to many, many eyewitnesses and he was very thorough in his research and data. Your claim should be dismissed as bogus and irrelevant.

The better question is not whether you should believe me, but whether you believe John or Matthew's accounts where they contradict Luke. No thief repented on the cross, just as Christ couldn't have said "Today you will be with me in paradise" on the day of the Crucifixion and also be speaking truth when He had not yet ascended a few days later on the day of Resurrection.

Oh wait...I forgot. Mainstream Christianity can't even count 3 days and 3 nights, trying to squeeze them into Friday sundown into Sunday rising without invoking some crap about "Jewish reckoning of days"

So so glad I left this affront to my mind behind.

 

[MennoSota]

The better question is not whether you should believe me, but whether you believe John or Matthew's accounts where they contradict Luke. No thief repented on the cross, just as Christ couldn't have said "Today you will be with me in paradise" on the day of the Crucifixion and also be speaking truth if He had not yet ascended a few days later on the day of Resurrection.

I believe them all. Point of view is important in a narrative so that one may provide information that another does not. It actually lends credibility to the authenticity of each narrative. Your complaint is actually a strength to the historic narrative surrounding Jesus, even though you use it as a poor crutch for your personal bias.
Now...to annihilationism...

 

[Stravinsk]

I believe them all. Point of view is important in a narrative so that one may provide information that another does not. It actually lends credibility to the authenticity of each narrative. Your complaint is actually a strength to the historic narrative surrounding Jesus, even though you use it as a poor crutch for your personal bias.
Now...to annihilationism...

No you don't, and intellectually honest people know it. However, most Christians are not so intellectually honest. Talk about not even being able to count 3 days and 3 nights ... it's like an invitation to stupidity.

 

[Imalive]

The better question is not whether you should believe me, but whether you believe John or Matthew's accounts where they contradict Luke. No thief repented on the cross, just as Christ couldn't have said "Today you will be with me in paradise" on the day of the Crucifixion and also be speaking truth when He had not yet ascended a few days later on the day of Resurrection.

Oh wait...I forgot. Mainstream Christianity can't even count 3 days and 3 nights, trying to squeeze them into Friday sundown into Sunday rising without invoking some crap about "Jewish reckoning of days"

So so glad I left this affront to my mind behind.

Paradise was in the earth then. He took em out and to heaven and it was 3 days and 3 nights because of easter and all that jewish stuff, they had 2 sabbaths after each other.

 

[MennoSota]

No you don't, and intellectually honest people know it. However, most Christians are not so intellectually honest. Talk about not even being able to count 3 days and 3 nights ... it's like an invitation to stupidity.

There's your crutch.
I have both secular and religious scholars who acknowledge Luke as a superior historian and you have...nothing but a biased opinion built around your own antagonist spirit. Talk to me when you really wish to be intellectually honest because what you are displaying is merely honest opinion from a bitter spirit.
Now...about annihilationism. My guess is that is your belief, merely because you deny either a spirit or a soul as a real entity. Is that correct? Are you simply a naturalist/materialist? Perhaps a utilitarian worldview, though that may be too complicated for you so you can look it up. In either case, your worldview forces your perspective in relation to annihilationism as does mine.

 

[Albion]

Ah, an appeal to the "we". Exactly what are you saying, Albion?

Forget the "we" part then. All that it meant was that you're talking to a bunch of Christians and trying, in effect, to have them to embrace Judaism rather than Christianity for the purposes of this particular issue.

But the testimony of the Bible, taken as a whole, is that there is an eternal life after (physical) death. If you cite only OT verses (and only those which seem to support your thinking), of course you can make what looks like a decent case for your thesis, but that's the only way to come up with the answer you want. If that were a valid approach, we could "prove" just about anything.

 

[Josiah]

what are your thoughts?

SERIOUSLY...... friend..... with a nod to Matthew 18:15 ff...... and I speak generically; not specifically to the issue of annihilationism.


1. IMO, your mom needs to be CLEAR on EXACTLY what her pastor is teaching and believes. We need to get our facts straight. Not all students perfectly understand their teacher; not all teachers perfectly convey their subject. IMO, there needs to be a PRIVATE meeting, where your mother comes with HUMILITY and with the firm conviction that the problem may well be with her as a poor student rather than with her pastor as a heretic. ASK.... LISTEN..... and keep doing so until she entirely understands exactly what he is teaching..... and do so with respect (not to argue or debate or correct).


2. Once she COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY understands what the pastor is teaching (and that needs to to be strongly confirmed), she is permitted to disagree. But IMO this still needs to be private. She can share why she disagrees. And be willing to be corrected. But she needs to do so humbly (her pastor likely IS far better educated in these matters) and recognize that it is SHE who may be wrong.


3. IF it is CLEAR to her that her pastor is teaching heresy.... and requiring others agree with him..... he should be held accountable. If this is a denominational parish, he has a supervisor (a bishop, etc.). In this case, I would FIRST check out the denomination to see if its Statement of Doctrine includes this topic (that can be hard to determine; most denominations are extremely weak on what they teach). IF the teaching of the pastor contradicts this, she can MEET WITH the bishop and inform him of the situation. She then leaves it in the hands of the Bishop - who may or may not do anything as a result, but that is up to him not to your mother; it's how denominations work.


4. IF the parish is a non-denom, then in lieu of # 3, she needs to inform whatever entity exists for correctness in that parish (good luck.... but non-denoms have none) and inform them of the teaching of their pastor and why she believes this is wrong. In that case, she again needs to leave it to their hands.


5. If she does all the above..... and feels that the false teaching is dangerous and/or serious..... she should leave that parish. All this depends a lot on how much agreement with the parish matters there (how much is dogmatic - requiring acceptance). I left a parish and denomination (which was very, very painful to do) because integrity allowed nothing else. But I did so only AFTER long talks with my Catholic teachers, my Deacon and finally my pastor.... and only because there were a couple of things I had to accept that I did not. I did so respectfully and quietly.



MY half cent.


- Josiah

 

[Albion]

Is it suffrage in hell that's eternal or hell that's eternal where man perish?

For the purposes of answering the question of this thread, it would not be necessary that suffering in Hell be everlasting.

 

[Imalive]

Luke, not one of the Twelve, twisting the crucifixion story.

John chapter 19: No mention of repentant thief.
Matthew chapter 27 vrs 44: No repentant thief rebuking the other. Both mocked Christ.

Thought it was complementary? One of the thieves had a change of heart after being crucified a while then rebuked the other, leading to the famous "Today you will be with me in paradise" ?

John disagrees:


John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

No mention doesnt matter. They dont all say all the same stuff. In Matthew they mocked. Then they crucified maybe more or he mocked first and then repented when he saw His response. I have mocked Him too when I wasnt saved.

 

[Imalive]

-

 

[Stravinsk]

Forget the "we" part then. All that it meant was that you're talking to a bunch of Christians and trying, in effect, to have them to embrace Judaism rather than Christianity for the purposes of this particular issue.

It's interesting that you equate "Judaism" and contrast it with Christianity simply on my quoting Hebrew Scriptures that touch on this issue. Christians nominally believe that Christ is the same (substance/essence) as the Father, and would readily say it is so in various forms such as the Trinity, but then put a divide between the two simply on the quoting of Hebrew Scriptures that Christ Himself acknowledged.

But the testimony of the Bible, taken as a whole, is that there is an eternal life after (physical) death. If you cite only OT verses (and only those which seem to support your thinking), of course you can make what looks like a decent case for your thesis, but that's the only way to come up with the answer you want. If that were a valid approach, we could "prove" just about anything.

I cited Christ's words in Matthew. So much for another of your misrepresentations. Oh wait, but you didn't quote that.

 

[Albion]

It's interesting that you equate "Judaism" and contrast it with Christianity simply on my quoting Hebrew Scriptures that touch on this issue.

The point was that you had to resort to using Scriptural passages that Jews would accept but which Christians would not consider to be the whole story.

Of course, anyone can 'cherry pick' Scripture that way, but it's well known that to do so invalidates the conclusion for Christians.

And yes, you threw in one verse from the New Testament which, however, did not speak to the issue of annihilationism.

 

[Stravinsk]

The point was that you had to resort to using Scriptural passages that Jews would accept but which Christians would not consider to be the whole story.

Christians are not of one mind on this issue as you suggest. However, I notice you pigeon hole those who don't agree with you as members of a cult. So basically, it's Christian belief by Albion's definition and really nothing more.

Of course, anyone can 'cherry pick' Scripture that way, but it's well known that to do so invalidates the conclusion for Christians.

Yeah, I know. The Scriptures Christ acknowledges "invalidates" "the conclusion" for Christians according to Albion's definition of what a Christian is. Albion is the type that says he believes in "the trinity" but really doesn't, because one who does so would not say or insinuate that such passages are invalid in any way.

And yes, you threw in one verse from the New Testament which, however, did not speak to the issue of annihilationism.

It speaks to it directly - unless you don't believe it, which you clearly don't. The passage in question compares the path of life with that of destruction. But in your world, "destruction" doesn't mean destruction, it means regenerative destruction where God doesn't really destroy forever, or if He does, he just regenerates so that He can destroy again and again and again. The sad thing - and one of the things that turns a great many of people off from your interpretation of things, is that you'd also say God is merciful - renderng the term meaningless.

 

[NewCreation435]

SERIOUSLY...... friend..... with a nod to Matthew 18:15 ff...... and I speak generically; not specifically to the issue of annihilationism.


1. IMO, your mom needs to be CLEAR on EXACTLY what her pastor is teaching and believes. We need to get our facts straight. Not all students perfectly understand their teacher; not all teachers perfectly convey their subject. IMO, there needs to be a PRIVATE meeting, where your mother comes with HUMILITY and with the firm conviction that the problem may well be with her as a poor student rather than with her pastor as a heretic. ASK.... LISTEN..... and keep doing so until she entirely understands exactly what he is teaching..... and do so with respect (not to argue or debate or correct).


2. Once she COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY understands what the pastor is teaching (and that needs to to be strongly confirmed), she is permitted to disagree. But IMO this still needs to be private. She can share why she disagrees. And be willing to be corrected. But she needs to do so humbly (her pastor likely IS far better educated in these matters) and recognize that it is SHE who may be wrong.


3. IF it is CLEAR to her that her pastor is teaching heresy.... and requiring others agree with him..... he should be held accountable. If this is a denominational parish, he has a supervisor (a bishop, etc.). In this case, I would FIRST check out the denomination to see if its Statement of Doctrine includes this topic (that can be hard to determine; most denominations are extremely weak on what they teach). IF the teaching of the pastor contradicts this, she can MEET WITH the bishop and inform him of the situation. She then leaves it in the hands of the Bishop - who may or may not do anything as a result, but that is up to him not to your mother; it's how denominations work.


4. IF the parish is a non-denom, then in lieu of # 3, she needs to inform whatever entity exists for correctness in that parish (good luck.... but non-denoms have none) and inform them of the teaching of their pastor and why she believes this is wrong. In that case, she again needs to leave it to their hands.


5. If she does all the above..... and feels that the false teaching is dangerous and/or serious..... she should leave that parish. All this depends a lot on how much agreement with the parish matters there (how much is dogmatic - requiring acceptance). I left a parish and denomination (which was very, very painful to do) because integrity allowed nothing else. But I did so only AFTER long talks with my Catholic teachers, my Deacon and finally my pastor.... and only because there were a couple of things I had to accept that I did not. I did so respectfully and quietly.



MY half cent.


- Josiah

He did clarify his view already and I am not overstating his views. Methodists are a little different than Baptist and some independent churches that don't have a hierarchy of leadership. In the Methodist faith they do have bishops who have an oversight role. I'm not sure how it is designed from that point on in terms of leadership. As it is, it is not a church that I attend any longer and I live halfway across the country. So, I'm not the one sitting in the pew

 

[Imalive]

He did clarify his view already and I am not overstating his views. Methodists are a little different than Baptist and some independent churches that don't have a hierarchy of leadership. In the Methodist faith they do have bishops who have an oversight role. I'm not sure how it is designed from that point on in terms of leadership. As it is, it is not a church that I attend any longer and I live halfway across the country. So, I'm not the one sitting in the pew

I'd mail him a warning from Steve Hill and leave.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ED5SoVZNS48

 

[atpollard]

The point was that you had to resort to using Scriptural passages that Jews would accept but which Christians would not consider to be the whole story.
Of course, anyone can 'cherry pick' Scripture that way, but it's well known that to do so invalidates the conclusion for Christians.
And yes, you threw in one verse from the New Testament which, however, did not speak to the issue of annihilationism.

Yeah, I know. The Scriptures Christ acknowledges "invalidates" "the conclusion" for Christians according to Albion's definition of what a Christian is. Albion is the type that says he believes in "the trinity" but really doesn't, because one who does so would not say or insinuate that such passages are invalid in any way.

Progressive Revelation

 

[NewCreation435]

Christians are not of one mind on this issue as you suggest. However, I notice you pigeon hole those who don't agree with you as members of a cult. So basically, it's Christian belief by Albion's definition and really nothing more.



Yeah, I know. The Scriptures Christ acknowledges "invalidates" "the conclusion" for Christians according to Albion's definition of what a Christian is. Albion is the type that says he believes in "the trinity" but really doesn't, because one who does so would not say or insinuate that such passages are invalid in any way.



It speaks to it directly - unless you don't believe it, which you clearly don't. The passage in question compares the path of life with that of destruction. But in your world, "destruction" doesn't mean destruction, it means regenerative destruction where God doesn't really destroy forever, or if He does, he just regenerates so that He can destroy again and again and again. The sad thing - and one of the things that turns a great many of people off from your interpretation of things, is that you'd also say God is merciful - renderng the term meaningless.

It's inappropriate on this forum to accuse another member of not believing in the Trinity. It's offensive and you need to stop these types of personal attacks of other people's beliefs

 

[Albion]

Christians are not of one mind on this issue as you suggest.

They're very nearly of one mind about it, though. Of the thousands of denominations, it's not often that every last doctrine is believed by every last one of them. It would be ridiculous to claim, therefore, that if even one can be found that dissents, this means there is no Christian standard.

But this teaching comes close to unanimity--and that's with the concession that cults which do not so believe are nevertheless classified as Christian, albeit heretical.