Eternal torment VS Annihilation

[dcontroversal]

When someone whose name is not written in the Lamb's book of life dies the second death, it is everlasting. That is the punishment for refusing God's grace affirmed in multiple books by multiple Scripture writer across the centuries. Claiming death is not a punishment seems extremely short sighted to me. It has always been God's way of punishing people. Good bye, David

I never implied any such thing and Good Bye seems abrupt haha like you are putting me on ignore or something hah

 

[JesusLives]

Question

Does Everlasting life = Eternal life or temporary?

How does that jive with...

Everlasting punishment = temporal punishment?

Romans 6:23 King James Version (KJV)

23 For the wages of sin is DEATH; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Permanent death is everlasting punishment. Complete separation from God.

We aren't given immortality at birth we die because of the wages of sin. Also Bible clearly states we are not immortal.

1 Corinthians 15

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

It also is stating that we will not be changed or immortal until the second coming of Jesus at the last trump.

 

[Gift1982]

The bible is written in Hebrew and Greek, having those meanings, and also employs figurative language to teach a lot of things.
Its important to keep track of it .
Psalms 37:18

The LORD knoweth the days of the upright: and their inheritance shall be for ever.

19 They shall not be ashamed in the evil time: and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied.

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.


So the whats the opposite of Perish ?


John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life.


Mat 10:26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul:

but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


These verses establish what Christ is teaching . Then reading other passages, should be recognized as figurative forms of language ; meant to convey what Psalms 37 does. The death of a soul. To perish .

Not to actually literally burn in heated flames in physical pain. These are figures meant to teach the above verses.


Theres also a time element to this because the Lake of fire, where that takes place only comes to be at the end , of the Lords Day. Revelation 20.

 

[garee]

So much wrong with that...

You've used several scriptures out of context to support a point, I'm not sure what it is. It's a mangled form of exegesis that undermines the authority of scripture.

You must of went to a different school?

Just call it a different opinion than yours. all scripture I offered is in support my point. You simply have another kind of hermeneutics .

Scripture exists in its own context and must be interpreted by scripture, not by what you want it to be.

I get the parable now. Its what you want it to be.LOL

The context is without parable Christ spoke not.

Why impair the hidden meaning in parables rather than view them according to the interpretation instructions?

When are we to apply the tool below for hearing God not seen in parables .. . When the word "parable" appears?

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

But I am not going to try and address it all at once. The following statement is incorrect (I'm not sure if your grasp of English is one point but perhaps you misunderstood something I was saying)

I hear what you are saying you simply are not comparing the spiritual meaning found in parables to the same. Its what literalist do avoid parables and all metaphors ..(its what parable are made of metaphors using the things seen to give us the unseen understanding his in parable or prophecy one of the manners .

"Many names are used in parables beginning with Adam. Abraham in the parable as the subject of Luke. Every name in the bible has a meaning attached to it for a "certain purpose"

Names in the Bible are used as attributes of authority or types used in signified language. God used many names a metaphor to give the spiritual understanding of the spiritual book the Bible. Each name used giving us a different glimpse of the gospel .

The whole book of Revelation. From the introduction defines the kind of language found throughout. Signified is the language of parables. It is shown not only as inspired but how we can hear the signified interpretation of what the Holy Spirit says to the churches or sects.

Revelation 1 King James Version (KJV) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and "signified" it by his angel unto his servant John:

There is no parable in the Bible that contains a name. This is because the parable is used as a comparative device to truth and explain a spiritual truth. I think your understanding of what a parable is is wonky and this leads to errant theology which is dangerous.

You keep saying that... but where is the warning in the scripture that says do not compare the things seen the temporal to those not seen the eternal .as in without parables Christ spoke not?

Is the kingdom of God here?. Does it come by what the eyes see? Has the 2nd rapture occurred and we are in our new incorruptible bodies? I would think if we are under the Sun . A metaphor to describe the temporal. . . seeing there will be no Sun or moon in the new order . We understanding that parable by looking to the things seen the Sun.

That is the hope of the literalist eliminate all possibilities of a parable..

I think you interpretation that literalizes the meaning of parables is wonky . Without parable Christ spoke not. The whole period of Kings in Israel is one parable . Some would literalize those periods and created what people call dispensations. In which God worked destroying the faith principle.

Sure there is a parable that uses the name Abraham. His name typifies our unseen father of many nations (all) .There are parables that speak of our sabbath rest, using creation as a comparison to the time period in Egypt, historically true as a parable. Or the parables of Abraham and Isaac Or the temporal time period of the Kings in Israel when God gave over to that which they should not of up until the "time of reformation" . How many witnesses are needed to believe parables are no less prophecy than any other manner. ?

Did you look into the parable found in Like 16. Both names are used in that pararable Abraham is used to represent the Holy Father of many nations as to include the Hebrew nation and Lazarus Lazarus = "whom God helps"

What is the purpose of the name Adam used in parables?.What does his name represent as a metaphor . Do you think God gives names without meaning to be used in parables.?

What does the name of God's name Jealous mean .Or why did God name Isaasc "laughter" if names are not used in parables? Why was the name Issac used in that parable rather than George or Stanley? What's the understanding. Did he like the sound of the word ?

Where is the scripture will you find support for the idea that without parables Christ spoke? Or the information, if first sense makes sense don't break the surface and look for hidden treasure ? I can find at least two that directly contradict the idea that we literalize the signified language or tongue of God.

 

[itbtsyp]

Only because it uses names does not disqualify it from being a parable. As I already asked, why would Abraham (and not God) be in charge of Hades? To me it is clear that this parable represents the blessing of being poor, which Jesus mentioned in Matthew 5 & 6. I mean, please read the first 18 Verses of Luke 16. Jesus warns us that we cannot serve two masters. Taken in context, the situation with Lazarus and the Rich Man makes sense. The rich man served money and thought he could have everything, but eventually had nothing.

I do not tend to be unkind, but it looks like both sides start to decide what is metaphorical and what not. I believe the Bible is, at least in most parts literal. But you are right, we are running in circles.

First time here, and I'm thoroughly enjoying this particular conversation. On the rich man and Lazarus parable argument I have this to offer. In Richard Bauckham's book The Fate of the Dead, in chapter 4, he breaks down the parable and points to two major narrative motifs that can be paralleled in ancient literature.

The first being from the Egyptian story of Steme and his son Si-Osiris (around 1250 B.C.E.) and a clear retelling of the same story, a Jewish version from the Palestinian Talmud.

I won't get into the lengthily details of the rich vs poor reversal aspect that Bauckham breaks down in each story line, but if you read chapter 4 of his book, he paints a convincing picture of how Jesus was likely using this common story of the day to communicate clearly to the Pharisees, the way Jesus did with parables, their error in how they treated the poor (namely Lazarus in this parable). Dressed in purple, walking past the poor on the way to the temple etc.

Interestingly the death scenes are highlighted in both folkloric story's that Jesus seems to be referencing.

For me, if Bauckham's comparison to the folkloric stories is accurate, it's clearly a parable as relevant as any of Jesus' other parables. A picture used to convey a message in the terms the people he's speaking to are capable of understanding based on their history and practices.

 

[itbtsyp]

God's wrath is as eternal as God Himself. The only punishment suitable for an eternal being is an eternal one. The New Age Christian version of God is a very weak god indeed. He seems to be unable or unwilling to punish eternal sin with eternal consequences. Not the God of the Bible.

A God ruled by wrath is what seems weak to me. If He can't forgive because he's capable of just forgiving, then He is ruled by his wrath.

 

[ToastAndTea]

A God ruled by wrath is what seems weak to me. If He can't forgive because he's capable of just forgiving, then He is ruled by his wrath.

Please provide examples of how I said that God is ruled by wrath ONLY. My view of God is that He is both loving and just, a view the annihilationists seem to forget in their haste to dispense with Hell. Both love and judgement are not mutually exclusive.

 

[itbtsyp]

Please provide examples of how I said that God is ruled by wrath ONLY. My view of God is that He is both loving and just, a view the annihilationists seem to forget in their haste to dispense with Hell. Both love and judgement are not mutually exclusive.

Well i didn't say you implied He's ruled by "Wrath ONLY". I'm simply asserting that if God is incapable of forgiving without wrath, then "God is a very weak god indeed" and there by ruled by wrath. He needs to be able to forgive without wrath to not be ruled by it see?

I'm enjoying seeing the different points of view between annihilation and some of the other point brought up. I'm always studying and learning and as my name implies (is the bible true? Struggling youth pastor). The debates in some of these threads really frustrate me personally. I've studied and heard so many different forms of interpretation and my perspective has broadened widely.

In my spirit i feel sleep is referred to as death, and refers to the body not the soul, but i see points for annihilation in the end, but not till then.

I seem to have a middle ground belief between annihilation and eternal conscious torment. I'm sure you know where that puts me. I don't believe that God's "wrath" is eternal because God is eternal. Again, that seems like God is restricted and ruled by his wrath in that sense. But I lean towards some of the scriptures brought up in this interesting thread that say there's different levels of punishment. That being said, some of the talk on the Greek translations of eternal and the word "age" seems fitting based on what I've read and studied personally. When I think of the word age, and I think of punishment as a purification process, that makes more sense to me. Rev. 20 to me stands out as the end of a soul that refuse to repent even after all the events up to Rev. 20 have taken place, but I'm still unsure of all that.

 

[garee]

First time here, and I'm thoroughly enjoying this particular conversation. On the rich man and Lazarus parable argument I have this to offer. In Richard Bauckham's book The Fate of the Dead, in chapter 4, he breaks down the parable and points to two major narrative motifs that can be paralleled in ancient literature.

The first being from the Egyptian story of Steme and his son Si-Osiris (around 1250 B.C.E.) and a clear retelling of the same story, a Jewish version from the Palestinian Talmud.

I won't get into the lengthily details of the rich vs poor reversal aspect that Bauckham breaks down in each story line, but if you read chapter 4 of his book, he paints a convincing picture of how Jesus was likely using this common story of the day to communicate clearly to the Pharisees, the way Jesus did with parables, their error in how they treated the poor (namely Lazarus in this parable). Dressed in fernced purple, walking past the poor on the way to the temple etc.

Interestingly the death scenes are highlighted in both folkloric story's that Jesus seems to be referencing.

For me, if Bauckham's comparison to the folkloric stories is accurate, it's clearly a parable as relevant as any of Jesus' other parables. A picture used to convey a message in the terms the people he's speaking to are capable of understanding based on their history and practices.

I don't think Jesus was inspired by folkloric story or false prophet named Hermes . Every word has a meaning that can be compared in other usages within.

Listening to a video of Bauckham upon hearing the word "apostolic" mesmerizing over and over it raised a red flag. it was enough to try the spirits and see if they are of men which they are . Adding new meanings to the word apostle creating the ideology of apostolic authority, apostolic age, apostolic order to focus in on the flesh of men .I would say is not rightly dividing . Its adding another authorship . The word apostle means sent one no thing more and nothing less. .Adding another destroy the original. Apostles are "sent ones" (defining the word apostle) with a authority, the word of God.

I would be careful how you hear that kind of teaching.

Change the meaning like.. in the garden.. Did God really say? Changing one word can change the commandments of the whole the direction as coming from another author .The word apostle clearly has ben violated, in that way the word apostle means multiple things in different religious circle.

Deuteronomy 4:2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments (plural) of the Lord your God which I command you.
In that way the integrity of the commandment is preserved


If you feel a call to share the gospel even on this media you are considered a apostle . Abel the first apostle martyred for his faith or belief.

The conclusion of the parable in Mark gives us the spiritual understanding, that if the person does not trust God then the demonstration of Christ raising from the dead will have no value. Like all parables used as teaching tool to help us learn how to hear God through his signified interpretation hiding the spiritual understanding form those who have no interest in searching out the meaning as for silver or gold.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.Mark 16:31

Those 5 brother would be the same ones who were not persuaded even when Jesus was raised from the dead

Word of God. . . not a apostolical tradition.

Reminds me of what I call a "think not doctrine ". think not that the apostles are a equal authority as the word of God . Think not of apostolical Age as if being sent had to do with time. .Think not of apostolic fame .

1 Corinthians 4:5-7 King James Version (KJV)Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

Apostles are sinners sent with the word of God.

 

[garee]

Please provide examples of how I said that God is ruled by wrath ONLY. My view of God is that He is both loving and just, a view the annihilationists seem to forget in their haste to dispense with Hell. Both love and judgement are not mutually exclusive.

I think you meant define hell. A living sacrifice. Some die for it . Some walk in the fire coming to us. The dead know nothing...

We do not deny it but rather explain its the wrath of God revealed as corrupted dying creation. not something he rules us by .

There is one way to peace through the power of the cross and his manner over me is love His banner over us is love

1 John 3:1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

 

[itbtsyp]

I don't think Jesus was inspired by folkloric story or false prophet named Hermes . Every word has a meaning that can be compared in other usages within.

I respectfully disagree. If you read those story's and follow the outline given, what Jesus did here, is use a common place tale of the time, switched it up for shock value and applied his version (in this case the real truth) of a retelling to make his visual points that grabbed the attention of the people he was speaking to. We see Jesus do that often enough. He used shock value phrases, hyperbole and exaggerations often. Plank in the eye, gouging out eyes etc. Matthew 5:29-30 and Matthew 7:3-5.

If you don't like the author I quoted, that's fine. It doesn't change the possibility that Jesus may have used a common folkloric tale of the time to communicate truth. And the fact that Hermes was a false prophet makes it all the more likely in my mind that he would use a false teaching, because he changed it up and perhaps corrected the teaching. All his words of course still have every ounce of meaning and truth he intended it to have.

Anyway, my perspective. I'm not an advocate one way or the other on whether or not the rich man and Lazarus is a parable, but this seems to make it more likely a parable to me.

Can anyone explain why it's a big deal if it is a parable or not? I found the debate interesting since I had a similar conversation with my wife's aunt who recently started going to a SDA church. She was married to a non-denominational preacher for many years, and when he passed away she started changing some of her long held beliefs, and started ascribing to SDA beliefs.

She seemed to cling to the story being a parable because, to her, it contradicted soul sleep.

Thanks.

 

[UnderGrace]

I respectfully disagree. If you read those story's and follow the outline given, what Jesus did here, is use a common place tale of the time, switched it up for shock value and applied his version (in this case the real truth) of a retelling to make his visual points that grabbed the attention of the people he was speaking to. We see Jesus do that often enough. He used shock value phrases, hyperbole and exaggerations often. Plank in the eye, gouging out eyes etc. Matthew 5:29-30 and Matthew 7:3-5.

If you don't like the author I quoted, that's fine. It doesn't change the possibility that Jesus may have used a common folkloric tale of the time to communicate truth. And the fact that Hermes was a false prophet makes it all the more likely in my mind that he would use a false teaching, because he changed it up and perhaps corrected the teaching. All his words of course still have every ounce of meaning and truth he intended it to have.

Anyway, my perspective. I'm not an advocate one way or the other on whether or not the rich man and Lazarus is a parable, but this seems to make it more likely a parable to me.

Can anyone explain why it's a big deal if it is a parable or not? I found the debate interesting since I had a similar conversation with my wife's aunt who recently started going to a SDA church. She was married to a non-denominational preacher for many years, and when he passed away she started changing some of her long held beliefs, and started ascribing to SDA beliefs.

She seemed to cling to the story being a parable because, to her, it contradicted soul sleep.

Thanks.

It could be a story, however soul sleep is still not supported by scripture either way.

There are many things in the story that make it a stretch to believe it really happened.

Jesus using the name "Lazarus" was also for specific purpose since the name means ..."he whom God helps."

He is juxtaposing "the have" and "the have nots".......ie the Jews and the Gentiles..... and the fate that awaited the Jewish nation, what an indictment for them to hear this story.

 

[UnderGrace]

I don't think Jesus was inspired by folkloric story or false prophet named Hermes

Agree

Especially Hermes. Yikes!!!

 

[Nehemiah6]

Can anyone explain why it's a big deal if it is a parable or not?

It is A VERY BIG DEAL. The following questions are affected by whether the narrative of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable or Bible truth presented by God the Son.

1. Is Jesus God with divine knowledge or is He a mere man?

2. Is God the only one who knows the truth about the afterlife?

3. Did anyone know about two divisions in Sheol/Hades before Christ revealed them?

4. Did anyone know that souls and spirits would be in conscious comfort or conscious torment in Hades before Christ revealed it?

5. Did anyone connect Sheol to Hades before Christ and is Hades still a reality?

6. Did Christ Himself literally go to Sheol/Hades for three days and three night where He was very much awake and alive while preaching to the spirits in prison?

7. Are the false doctrines of Soul Sleep and Annihilationism utterly destroyed by this narrative?

 

[Skyline]

I don’t get why some argue His love and His wrath must be equal in measure [human logic]. That is wouldn’t be fair for punishment not to be eternal torture for man. Matthew 20:1-16 shows His definition of fair is His own.

There are also 2 variations so the water gets a little tough reading through the thread: Conditionalism and Annihilationism.
They are not the exact same, Wikipedia defines them as:

Annihilationism: says man is born with natural immortality which is destroyed when thrown into the lake.
Conditionalism: says the gift of immortality is attached to belief in Christ and the human soul is mortal, eventually being destroyed in the lake.

I have seen it argued myself that some early church fathers held a view of Annihilationism/Conditionalism. Research this yourselves verse unequivocally accepting the current world view, [which appears to have came from the reformation?].

• Justin Martyr, ~155-167AD, Dialogue with Tyrypho, Ch. 6 & 7
• Irenaeus of Lyons, ~130-202AD, Against Heresies Book II, Ch. 34
  • Speaks of the rich man and Lazarus
• Arnobius of Sicca, ~253-327AD, Against the Heathen Book II, Sec. 14, 15,35,36,62
• Athanasius of Alexandira, ~293-373AD, On the Carnation of the Word, Ch. 1, Sec. 4

Why was the Tree of Life hidden and then is given in new Eden (Gen. 3:22-24, Rev. 22) if man is already born immortal?

I'm not set in stone on either side; but do admit I lean... one has to make assumptions either way.

 

[garee]

3. Did anyone know about two divisions in Sheol/Hades before Christ revealed them?

I am not familiar with the doctrine of two divisions .Division of what? Hell and hell? life and death? I think hell is a living suffering in a corrupted creation under the corrupted guidance of the god of this world. The wrath than began when he first corrupted it still being revealed. .

 

[UnderGrace]

Annihilationism: says man is born with natural immortality which is destroyed when thrown into the lake.
Conditionalism: says the gift of immortality is attached to belief in Christ and the human soul is mortal, eventually being destroyed in the lake.

This does not seem right according to what people here have written.

 

[Skyline]

This does not seem right according to what people here have written.

Here are the source links: Conditionalism vs Annihilationism

I don't think I misstated it but maybe

"The two ideas are not exactly equivalent, however, because in principle God may annihilate a soul which was previously created immortal"

 

[UnderGrace]

Here are the source links: Conditionalism vs Annihilationism

I don't think I misstated it but maybe

"The two ideas are not exactly equivalent, however, because in principle God may annihilate a soul which was previously created immortal"

No not you, I just think like many doctrines there are many shades and wikipedia captures only part of what is out there.

I just do not understand those that state humans do not have something that lives on after death ie mortal, but then state there is something to annihilate after death?

It is not logical to me. Do you know?

 

[garee]

I don’t get why some argue His love and His wrath must be equal in measure [human logic]. That is wouldn’t be fair for punishment not to be eternal torture for man. Matthew 20:1-16 shows His definition of fair is His own.

Thanks for that.

I see it a little differently .As of today, I would say they are equal. His name is Jealous. He owns all things. He is of one mind and always does what so ever his soul pleases. (Job23)

But because he is a God of Mercy His love is not jealous. His Love is eternal life to us new creatures..... released from the letter of the law as a commandment that kills as it did in the garden with mankind. His wrath is eternal never to rise to new spirit life. His mercy is different .To some he gives the reward of his labor of love or work of faith and gives them a new spirit and heart as that by which they could know the witness of his love. To others suffering is finished . Those who were yoked with his labor of love their load was made light giving them periods of rest.