Annihilationists

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
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".
 
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]
 
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]
 
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]

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]
 
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?
 
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]
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Hey Bob!

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

Best
Tim
 
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]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top