# Annihilationists



## Michael

Any advice on how to deal with those who attack the Biblical Doctrine of Hell using annihilationism as an 'excuse' for God instead? Arguments imposed include:

1. Eternal damnation would be unjust.

2. Misrepresentations of Biblical passages as purely symbolic (i.e. 'unquenchable fire'--Mk 9:43).

3. Philosophy that God can never be victorious if evil is not eventually just exterminated.

Thanks in advance...

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by Ezekiel16]


----------



## Michael

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> #2. First, we have to now how they're misrepresenting the passages?



Misrepresenting the Scriptural descriptions of hell as purely symbolic, not real punishment or torment.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

1. Eternal damnation would be unjust.

Answer: Sin is not simply breaking a law, but a personal offense against an infinite being and an assault on and against God's character. Since God's honor and character are infinite in value, the payment for the offense must be infinite - hence, hell is eternal (and even THIS is not long enough, since Hell has a beginning.... God doesn't. ). 

2. Misrepresentations of Biblical passages as purely symbolic (i.e. 'unquenchable fire'--Mk 9:43).

Answer: Three kinds of language about hell are found in the scriptures:
The language of destruction (2 Thess. 2)
The language of personal separation (Matt. 25:46)
The language of never-ending torment (Rev. 14:9-11, 20:10)

The conditionalist (a better term) believes that either A. all 'torment' ala Rev. 20:10 (which they can't escape) is only temporary and the fire of hell will consume (annihilate) those whom it touches B. the language of destruction should be used to interpret all the other passages.

I believe that all THREE are accurate in describing eternal punishment. I believe the 'destruction' language simply means 'ruin', not 'annihilation'. There's a passage in Deut. 30 (if I remember correctly) where God uses this very language of what will happen to Israel and then 2-3 verses later, in continuing what will happen, refers to the 'remaining people' after the destruction. In this example, the 'destruction' is not an eliminating - it is simply a ruining of an object (Israel), thus stopping it from being useful for its' original purpose. The personal separation language is self-explanatory - Hell will not be a place of fellowship with God, but a place of personal separation from such fellowship. And of course.... it'll be a place of pain.

3. Philosophy that God can never be victorious if evil is not eventually just exterminated.

Answer: This assumes that mans' definition of what constitutes the final 'victory' over evil is synonymous with God's. Contrary to what has been said by some conditionalists (that sinners in an eternal hell will keep cursing God), I believe that their pain and realization of their sinfulness and plight will become so plain to them that rebelling against God will be the last thing on their minds.

[Edited on 3-4-2005 by OS_X]


----------



## Michael

Thanks for your insight. Hell is one of the doctrines I have been least exposed to--in regards to specifics, that is. Scripture seems to me intentionally vague on the subject. This is not to say, however, that what is mentioned is not completely sufficient for us to understand the gravity of the implication. 

My apologetic discussions have been recently with individuals who believe or once believed in reincarnation. This is not a very difficult line of thinking to refute. The problem is, once fallacies are exposed they seem to only believe two options exist: annihilationism and universalism. Oh how the trick of the serpent manifests itself again and again!

My caution here is to insure that I do not water down truth while being specific in order to prove a point. I've heard some reputable Christians suggest that hell will just seem like a natural extension of a sinful life, but with all of God's beauty and grace removed. Others claim that everyone in hell will admit they are right where they wanted to be all along. I'm not sure I feel comfortable that Scripture warrants either of those statements.

My own personal query about everlasting damnation involves levels of punishment. We are told that God will impartialy judge each man according to his deeds (1 Pet 1:17). Obviously even the slightest sin justifies eternal hell, but are we to infer from this that there will be various levels of punishment according to the wisdom of God?


----------



## TimV

There comes a point where it's difficult to support the concept of eternal death from Scripture. Eternal life is clear from Scripture, and is easy to see in part because it is so consistant with other teachings. But to demand a belief in eternal torture isn't Biblical, to my mind. Punishment really isn't our business, it's God's.

There was a time when there was no sin, and there will come a time when there is no sin. I believe that God will make His enemies drink from His cup what they deserve, and they will be as if they had never been.

Over the years I have met many orthodox theologians who have seen it that way.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

> _Originally posted by Ezekiel16_
> My own personal query about everlasting damnation involves levels of punishment. We are told that God will impartialy judge each man according to his deeds (1 Pet 1:17). Obviously even the slightest sin justifies eternal hell, but are we to infer from this that there will be various levels of punishment according to the wisdom of God?



Yes. Mother Theresa won't get the same level of punishment, say, Adolph Hitler will receive. Similarly, Hitler was a saint compared to Satan.

A large portion of anti-enternal punishment arguments are emotive. And it's true - we who believe that God is a God of love do flinch when we read some of the harder sayings in the scriptures with regard to eternal punishment. I believe God put them there for a reason - we should be out on the streets consistently preaching the gospel and being honest with men about what the scriptures say in regard to their eternal destinity. Instinctively, we _know_ that hell isn't just annihilation - otherwise telling people to go there occassionally  wouldn't have much joy.

Attempts to ignore the force of Rev. 14:9-11 and 20:10 (usually by appealing to the symbolism of Revelation and saying that these verses shouldn't be taken literally) are all cheap cop outs, in my opinion. The text means what it says......


----------



## heartoflesh

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> ...to demand a belief in eternal torture isn't Biblical, to my mind. Punishment really isn't our business, it's God's.



This is a subject I struggle with-- (whether or not this doctrine should be a litmus test for orthodoxy). I readily admit to being unsettled on the matter. 

Consider the doctrine of Justification. Here we have a multitude of highly involved, detailed arguments presented to us so that we would in no way misunderstand this doctrine. If we have a wrong view of justification, we are accursed (Gal. 1:8-9). On the other hand, whether or not we believe God will subject the reprobate to endless torment or complete annihilation seems in the end to come down to our own philosophy (albeit however Bible-informed) of God's ultimate justice. In regards to Rev. 14:9-11 (since Rev. 20:10 says nothing about people), it may indeed support the doctrine of endless torment, and yet, will we base orthodoxy on a particular interpretation of this one verse? 

Again, I admit to being unsettled on the issue, and this thread has served well as an impetus for me to engage in further study. I feel in no way compelled to hold (in a knee-jerk fashion) to an Eternal Torment doctrine simply because Augustine taught it, or Calvin taught it, etc. I may always wonder, however, even if I do ultimately side with Eternal Torment, whether or not coming to that understanding was an essential for orthodoxy.

[Edited on 3-4-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

The Westminster Confession of Faith addresses the question of eternal punishment in Chapters 32 and 33 and bases it's statements on the Scriptures which teach this doctrine plainly. 

See http://www.epc.org.au/wcf/


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> Contrary to what has been said by some conditionalists (that sinners in an eternal hell will keep cursing God), I believe that their pain and realization of their sinfulness and plight will become so plain to them that rebelling against God will be the last thing on their minds.



Actually, I've seen this as an argument *for* eternal punishment. The annihilationist will say its unfair for God to punish a finite crime for all eternity. The orthodox Chritian will retort that the sinner in Hell continues to sin. I believe I read this in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God or another Edward's sermon.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Peter, Your reference to Edwards' sermon is very appropos. I think it's a sermon that every believer and unbeliever ought to read at least once in their lives. 

http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm


----------



## SmokingFlax

Sometimes I get the impression that unbelievers are so obstinate in their suppression of the truth that when they are in hell they will somehow be able to convince themselves that it is not REALLY hell but just some really hot and dark place. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch from denying the obvious witness of God in creation NOW than denying Him (even after judgment) later.

I have personally heard such heinous testimonies from people I've witnessed to in the past such as:

"Even if you could prove to me that there was a god I would still not not bow down and worship..."

or

"I don't want to be saved."

Needless to say I cringe when I even think back to these folks.

I've always considered the "eye for an eye" principle of justice and the differentiated degrees of punishment for sin in the OT to suggest that there will be different levels of punishment in hell.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Rick - pick up Robert Peterson and Edward Fudge's book 'Two Views on Hell: An Evangelical Dialogue'. Fudge is a conditionalist (annihilationist) and Peterson believes in the traditional view of eternal punishment. I don't think anyone can present the issue clearer than these two.

Here's my Amazon review of it from July of 2000:

I was passing through Ed Fudges' website when I saw that thistitle had went to print, so I...picked it up. Quite interesting!

Fudge and Peterson start off playing nice, but both get a little 'edgy' in their presentations. Fudge, like most conditionalists/annihilationists, plays up on the readers' emotions (although Fudge a lot less than folks like, say, Clark Pinnock) to 'poison the well' with regard to discussing his opponents' view. His exegesis is a bit unsound in my opinion- he spiritualizes everything and takes many OT references to the TEMPORAL (earthly) destruction of the wicked and tries to make them point toward final the final extinction of the wicked. I picked up on this most of the way through his presentation and found it funny that Peterson (in his refutation of Fudges' presentation) pointed out the exact same thing.

A lot of Fudge's presentation is cut-and-paste from his previous work on the subject, The Fire That Consumes. I find the conditionalist's position that the wicked may first endure some penal torture THEN face permanent extinction inconsistent with the Biblical record. The conditionalist and the annihilationist has to re-define key terms in scripture which denote eternal punishment and actual pain (i.e.- weeping and gnashing of teeth, smoke of their torment rising forever) and ignore (in many cases) the plain meaning of the text (Rev. 20:10-15 for example) for some convoluted meaning in order to force it to agree with conditionalism.

In addition, Fudge's attempted refutation of Peterson's arguments were disturbing at some points. He never adequately answered Peterson's charge of violating Chalcedonian Christology and his attitude toward creeds at this point goes disturbingly against the grain of 2000 years of Christian history. It may be well that brother. Fudge should re-evaluate his beliefs and position for believing that Christ's human nature was 'annihilated' after His death instead of existing in an intermediate state. My friend William Kilgore (also a conditionalist- http://www.flash.net/~thinkman) made a very wise statement on my apologetics list once- while Christian history is not infallible, if something hasn't been beleived by the early church, there's a good chance that holding it as a belief now may be in error.

I must thank Fudge, however, for his presentation. It was done (for the most part) sensibly and using his best argumentation. As a traditionalist and a solid apologist, I believe in using an opponents' best arguments as the standard for evaluating their view (and for formulating a response).

Peterson does a good job of presenting the traditional view of eternal punishment including his refutation of Fudges' chapter, although I did find a few of his arguments a bit stretched. His section was laid out and organized very well, although I'd have put the listing of theologians over time AFTER the Biblical presentation. What I'm finding is that many traditionalists (Walvoord, for example) are not taking the threat of conditionalism as an 'alternative' seriously. I think this may have influenced Peterson's usage of only 10 primary passages of scripture as evidence, whereas Fudge uses tons of scripture reference (albeit incorrectly in many places or out of context).

Overall, the book is still very well put together. I primarily picked it up to get Fudge's arguments. It's worth picking up by any believer who wishes to examine the issue for him/herself.

You can pick up the book from Amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0830822550/witnessministrie


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> Contrary to what has been said by some conditionalists (that sinners in an eternal hell will keep cursing God), I believe that their pain and realization of their sinfulness and plight will become so plain to them that rebelling against God will be the last thing on their minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I've seen this as an argument *for* eternal punishment. The annihilationist will say its unfair for God to punish a finite crime for all eternity. The orthodox Chritian will retort that the sinner in Hell continues to sin. I believe I read this in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God or another Edward's sermon.
Click to expand...


Good point, Peter. 

A few things... 
1. I don't believe that all annihilationists are God-hating heretics who are bent on destroying the church. I believe that many, like Stott, genuinely struggle over the concept of God being just in his punishment of a finite offense with an infinite punishment. I do, however, believe that they are in error.

2. A part of the "problem" comes from the fact that, quite frankly, the "images" we have of hell are picturesque and ment to convey the terror of the place, but if we consider all the images together they produce an image of hell that is kind of contradictory.
For example, we are told that hell has fire... and that hell is dark... but one of the characteristics of fire is that it produces light. We are told that in hell it is dark... but in the story of the rich man and Lazarus the man can see across the gulf (not to mention that he is able to form a coherent sentence... so much for being able to do nothing but scream in agony!)

3. While I've heard Edwards' argument about sin being worthy of an infinite punishment because the one who is sinned against is an infinite being, quite frankly, I think that is playing fast and loose. That basically makes all sins equally serious, though Jesus himself makes reference to some sins being greater than others. I believe that just as there will be varying degrees of reward in heaven for varying degrees of faithfulness, I believe that there will be varying degrees of punishment in hell for varying degrees of sinfulness... it just makes sense if God is really going to render unto each person according to their deeds.

4. I think that Edwards is correct in saying that folks in hell perpetuate their punishment (infinitely) because they continually sin. It is interesting to note that one action that is ascribed to occupants of hell is that of "gnashing of teeth." Check every other instance of when that expression is used... it is always in a context in which those doing it are FURIOUS. Thus I believe this action indicates that in hell they are fuming about it. They hate God for it. Thus they perpetuate their own torment eternally. And God is eternally glorified in his justice by his eternal punishment of those people.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

looks like I have some reading to do.  (clicks on link)


----------



## Peter

Or listening: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=&sermonID=770213541


----------



## TimV

The relevant Scripture quotes from the Westminter Confession are



> And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:





> endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction





> Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord,



There is nothing in these verses which say clearly that punishment will last for eternity, and all these quotes can be interpreted as saying the wicked will be destroyed and blotted out.

The amount of time and intensity of punishment is not clear in Scripture, and is none of our business. There will come a time when God is all in all.


----------



## Peter

Since when doesn't "everlasting" denote eternity?


----------



## TimV

They'll never be accepted into the Kingdom. Forever.

But how else would you interpret it? If their "smoke" as one verse says, "goes up forever" then are the carbon molecules re-incorperated back into their bodies?

That could be, but using the clear to interpret the less clear
the interpretation I offer (remember I said the whole deal is God's business, and it may well be everyone for ever or any lesser punishment downwards) then you could use the "broken" and "destroyed" and "be as though they had not been" Scriptures to do like I recommend, and just leave it up to God, without using it, as was earlier suggested, as a "litmus" test, and even making it a principle doctrine.

Eternal life doesn't have to have a dialectic opposite, antithesis, dualistic, whatever opposite.

Very best, and I'm just offering an alternate interpretation.


----------



## TimV

PS, I'll give a personal example.

In Papua New Guinea, I led the Sunday services once at a villiage that was so isolated that some of the people told me what human flesh tasted like!

After my talk, one guy asked me what to do with the murdered man that they had sitting up in one of the huts. I asked "how long has he been dead?" and they said three days. So I said they should bury him.

The next question was "what happened to all our ancestors that have died? And I said that murders, adulterers, theives etc.. went to Hell. And he said "All our ancestors thought those things were good. They never heard the Gospel, and are they all in Hell forever? I said that they were responsible for their behavior, but if I had to do it over again I would have said that God is a God of justice as well as a God of mercy, and I would have answered that they were punished for their sins, but it wasn't my business to say how or for how long.


----------



## tdowns

*Who would say it\'s heretical?*

Would anybody say it is heretical to say that Hell isn't eternal?

I'm just glad I'm trusting in God and not myself to not go there, cuz' this stuff is scary as he**...Glad it's not up to me...oh, sorry Arminianists, you won't know peace till you're in or out.

TD

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by tdowns007]


----------



## heartoflesh

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Since when doesn't "everlasting" denote eternity?



Here's one example:

*Genesis 17:12-13*
"He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an *everlasting* covenant."

Of course, circumcision does have a new covenant parallel, but this verse is specifically addressing "in your flesh". Apparently it was "everlasting" only until the time God had ordained for it to come to an end.


----------



## Peter

TIMV- But how else would you interpret it? If their "smoke" as one verse says, "goes up forever" then are the carbon molecules re-incorperated back into their bodies?

_Where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched._

Resurrected bodies are not the same as these bodies. I assume those who burn in hell wil burn but will not be consumed by the flames.

"what happened to all our ancestors that have died?"

The invisible things of God were within the dead ancestors of the people of Papua New Guinea and about them to leave them w/o excuse and God clear in judging still.


----------



## TimV

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. A worm can be eternal, as can a fire, but smoke is made of matter. It is symbolic or it isn't!

Best
Tim


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

From _Truth's Victory Over Error_ by David Dickson, the first commentary on the Westminster Confession: 



> Shall the wicked who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, be cast into everlasting torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power?
> 
> Yes; Mat. xxv.31 to the end. Rom. ix.22, 23. Acts iii.19. 2 Thes. i.7-9
> 
> Well then, do not the Socinians err, who defining eternal death to be the extinguishing of the body and soul, maintain, That the wicked are to suffer no torment in hell: and that their whole punishment will be to be deprived of eternity, or annihilated, that is, both soul and body turned into nothing?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Do not likewise the Origenists, and some Anabaptists err, who think, That not only the wicked, but the devils themselves, after many torments in hell, shall be received by God into favour, and be made blessed and happy?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> By what reason are they confuted?
> 
> 1st, Because the apostle affirms, almost in so many words, that which we have asserted, 2 Thes. i.7-10. 2nd, Because life eternal and death eternal, are in Scripture opposed to one another in the same sense, Mat. xxv.46. But life eternal in Scripture, is not taken for being simply eternal, but for being eternally happy, or to be in a blessed eternal state and condition, Psal. cxxxiii.3 Therefore, eternal death must be taken in Scripture, not for annihilation, or being turned into nothing, but for an eternal, wretched, and miserable state and condition. 3d, Because the Scripture says, But the children of the kingdom shall be cast into utter darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, Mat. viii.12, 13. 4th, Because the Scripture affirms expressly, that the wicked are tormented in hell, Luke xvi.24. Next, there are some degrees of torment there, but there are no degrees in _non esse_, that is, in not to be. 5th, Because Abraham says expressly, there can no man pass from the place of torment, to the place of bliss and happiness, Luke xvi.26. 6th, Because the torments of the wicked are called a worm that dieth not, a fire that cannot be extinguished. 7th, Because the Scriptures say, that the smoke of ther torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, Rev. xiv.11. Rev. xix.3. 8th, Because the wicked will be carried in everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, Mat. xxv.46. And the same wicked are to rise again to shame, and everlasting contempt, Dan. xii.2. And to suffer the vengeance of everlasting fire, Jude ver. 7. And now only is the accepted time, and now is the day of salvation, 2 Cor. vi.2.


----------



## TimV

> The invisible things of God were within the dead ancestors of the people of Papua New Guinea and about them to leave them w/o excuse and God clear in judging still.



I thought I said that!


----------



## Peter

Rick, good example. though doesn't it say the covenant is everlasting and not that the sign will be in the flesh for everlasting? Ie, circumscision will be the sign for an covenant that is everlasting but not necessarily that circumscision will be the everlasting covenant's sign forever.


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> 
> 
> 
> The invisible things of God were within the dead ancestors of the people of Papua New Guinea and about them to leave them w/o excuse and God clear in judging still.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I said that!
Click to expand...


You probably did but you didn't write it!!


----------



## TimV

> You probably did but you didn't write it!!



Yes I did. I told them they were responsible for their actions.


----------



## Michael

Tim, what was their response like?


----------



## TimV

They put their heads down and didn't say anything.


----------



## TimV

What's not a reality, Josh? Who here has even hinted that there will not be any judgment? What's the deal with Scripture that doesn't deal with any way, shape or form with the subject matter?

You wrote


> send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame."



Am I missing something? Who on this thread would you suspect of questioning this verse as authentic and inspired?


----------



## heartoflesh

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Rick, good example. though doesn't it say the covenant is everlasting and not that the sign will be in the flesh for everlasting? Ie, circumscision will be the sign for an covenant that is everlasting but not necessarily that circumscision will be the everlasting covenant's sign forever.



Yes, the sign that circumcision stood for remains eternal with God's people, i.e., baptism-- but the passage doesn't allude to that. It is specifically alluding to "in your flesh".


----------



## heartoflesh

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Basically, the passages, specifically the one in Revelation 14 seems to go against any idea of conditional immortality.



Yes, I believe Rev.14 is the _one_. 

Whatever the case, we know hell is bad and to be avoided. However, the Bible doesn't contain in gruesome detail the eschatogical end of the reprobate in the same way that subsequent confessions, and certain preacher's sermons do. You don't find Paul or Peter or anyone else dwelling on detailed specifics. "Eternal Destruction" seems to be sufficient for them. We are the ones who seek to clarify what exactly that means to a greater degree.

It may be the case that Hell is eternal torment, but I don't believe driving this point home in evangelism, or in our own minds, is necessary nor helpful. People are saved because they find they have a love for God, not a greater fear of Hell. Yes, Hell is real, sin has it's consequences, but that is not the main point. Demons know there is a hell, and they tremble--but the most important factor is that they do not love God. People must be saved by loving God--not because they want fire insurance.

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## heartoflesh

modertaor, please delete- thanks

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## blhowes

Tony Warren wrote an interesting article about the Rich man and Lazarus passage. He asks the question "Is this a parable or a true story?" He believes its a parable. Any thoughts about the article?

One thing he said relating to God's justice makes sense:


> For God to place men in the torment of hell before they have stood before him on the last day, is akin to a judge sentencing a person to be beaten before he has started the trial or read what he is accused of from the books or evidence. Divine righteous justice will not allow this! Some will be beaten with many stripes, some with few stripes, but none until the last day when they must stand to give account of their works. According to God (not I) man must be raised from the dead (hell, or hades) on "The Last Day," to stand before God, and have the evidence of his works opened, and only then will he is cast into the Hell (Lake of Fire) of torment to pay for those works which were written in that book. To say he is already there when he dies, is confusion, considering the rest of what God has to say.



[Edited on 3-5-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Tony Warren wrote an interesting article about the Rich man and Lazarus passage. He asks the question "Is this a parable or a true story?" He believes its a parable. Any thoughts about the article?
> 
> One thing he said relating to God's justice makes sense:
> 
> 
> 
> For God to place men in the torment of hell before they have stood before him on the last day, is akin to a judge sentencing a person to be beaten before he has started the trial or read what he is accused of from the books or evidence. Divine righteous justice will not allow this! Some will be beaten with many stripes, some with few stripes, but none until the last day when they must stand to give account of their works. According to God (not I) man must be raised from the dead (hell, or hades) on "The Last Day," to stand before God, and have the evidence of his works opened, and only then will he is cast into the Hell (Lake of Fire) of torment to pay for those works which were written in that book. To say he is already there when he dies, is confusion, considering the rest of what God has to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 3-5-2005 by blhowes]
Click to expand...


Bob, I haven't read his article but in response to that quote, I would affirm what the Westminster Confession says: 



> Chapter XXXII
> Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead
> 
> I. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption:[1] but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them:[2] the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies.[3] And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.[4] Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.
> 
> II. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed:[5] and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.[6]
> 
> III. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor: the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honor; and be made conformable to His own glorious body.[7]


----------



## Peter

Rick, take another look at the passage:

Genesis 17:12-13
"He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."

What is everlasting? That the covenant is in the flesh or the covenant itself? Do you see what I'm saying?


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Well, whether it's a parable or not is irrelevant (Although I believe it to be true and actual). Parables (stories) still told truths.


I agree that parables told truths. They use familiar things that we can understand and relate to to help us understand spiritual truths. I think Tony Warren, taking the passage as a parable instead of an actual account, brings out spiritual truths that most here would agree with, though they might not agree the truths should properly be gleaned from this particular passage. 

Is it relevant whether if its a parable or not? I think it is if you conclude as Tony Warren does that the passage doesn't teach the present suffering of the lost in hell. He brings up some good points worth considering.

[Edited on 3-6-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Bob, I haven't read his article but in response to that quote, I would affirm what the Westminster Confession says:...


At first glance, the excerpt I quoted makes sense. God is a just God and, if its a fair analogy to say that the judgment day corresponds to our present day judicial system, then it makes sense that God wouldn't carry out the sentence before judgment day. 

I am inclined, however, to give the Westminster/Baptist 1689 divines the benefit of the doubt. I'd be very surprised if the objection given in the quote wasn't something they considered. If punishing sinners before judgment day conflicted with God's justice as revealed in the law, the idea certainly would have raised a flag in their thinking.

Just thinking out loud, but the idea that God wouldn't/couldn't punish sinners before the judgment day may be presuming too much about God's mercy. God's mercy is evident in the lives of all mankind in that He doesn't give them what they deserve immediately. I guess its assumed that this mercy must continue beyond the grave until after judgment day.


----------



## TimV

> Just thinking out loud, but the idea that God wouldn't/couldn't punish sinners before the judgment day may be presuming too much about God's mercy


.

I think (not that I'm criticising you) that it presumes too much about God's since of Time rather than Justice. Some of the Puritans were weak on the subject.

All those "in order" argument like this one, the lapsarian issue etc.. are come from forgetting that Time is something that God created, and He's not subject to it.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> I think (not that I'm criticising you) that it presumes too much about God's since of Time rather than Justice. Some of the Puritans were weak on the subject.
> 
> All those "in order" argument like this one, the lapsarian issue etc.. are come from forgetting that Time is something that God created, and He's not subject to it.


Tim, I just woke up from my nap (good excuse), so I'm not exactly following what you're saying. Can you elaborate a little? In the mean time, I'm going to go get a coffee and see if I can wake up for real.
Thanks,
Bob


----------



## TimV

Hey Bob!

After you are up and around, read it again, and tell me if you don't understand.

Best
Tim


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> What a bum!


Say what they will about you, Josh, but you're an excellent judge of character!


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> Hey Bob!
> 
> After you are up and around, read it again, and tell me if you don't understand.
> 
> Best
> Tim


You guys lose me when you start talking about lapsarian vs supra (?) stuff, but my take from what you said is that God can do what he wants to when he wants to and it doesn't conflict with his being a just God.

Close?

[Edited on 3-7-2005 by blhowes]


----------

