One of the central texts in the debate over hell is Luke 16—the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Actually, whether or not this is a parable is part of the debate.
People who deny eternal conscious torment deny that Jesus’ story depicts a real situation. For example, many annihilationists want to deny it because, for one thing, they believe that death is the cessation of existence, not the separation of the soul from the body. They tend to be physicalists (man is a living body), not dichotomists (man is a body plus soul) or trichotomists (man is a body plus soul plus spirit).
Whether or not Jesus was telling a parable or recounting a historical event does not change the fact that He was depicting an intermediate state. Whether or not Lazarus and the rich man were historical persons, Jesus is teaching about Hades and Abraham’s Bosom. Why would Jesus depict a non-existent afterlife?
Some annihilationists think Jesus did exactly that. Edward Fudge calls this an appeal to “first-century folklore” (The Fire That Consumes, 3rd ed., p. 152) and “a revised rabbinical parable” (Ibid., p. 153) in order to make a point about how to deal with wealth. Fudge denies the details of the story or parable should be taken as literal descriptions of an intermediate state:
“Moreover, no one can seriously claim that the details should be understood literally: a drop of water would provide no palliative benefit against hadean fire; the redeemed and unredeemed do not converse face to face across a literal chasm” (Ibid., p. 153).
But how does Fudge know that? How can he be sure the redeemed and unredeemed do not talk to each other like that? Jesus says they do. Or, at least He depicts them as doing so. So why would Fudge resist it so confidently? It seems to be an issue of personal credulity, not Biblical evidence.
What reasons do I have to take those details literally? For one, I think of the story of Saul, Samuel and the Witch of Endor. In 1 Samuel 28, we read about how King Saul hired a witched to raise the spirit of Samuel from the dead. And Samuel came up!
“I have seen one like a god coming up from the ground!” He said to her, “What about his appearance?” She said, “An old man is coming up! He is wrapped in a robe!” Then Saul realized it was Samuel, and he bowed his face toward the ground and kneeled down. Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” (1 Sam 28:13b-15a)
There is no question but that this is history. This is not folklore or a rabbinic parable. This happened.
Notice how Samuel is depicted: a thinking, seeing, talking spirit who looked like himself. He came up—presumably from Sheol or Abraham’s bosom—and talked to Samuel about future events.
I quoted Fudge as saying, “No one can seriously claim…the redeemed and unredeemed do not converse face to face across a literal chasm.” But here is Samuel’s spirit depicted as talking face to face with Saul. If the dead can talk to the living, why can’t they talk, or be prevented from talking, to each other?
As I write my book, Final Punishment: A Biblical Case for Eternal Conscious Torment, and as I interact with annihilationist and universalist authors, I find that one of the biggest issues in this debate is not over the meaning of this or that text, but over the limits of an author’s credulity. What is the author willing to believe? For example, some universalists simply cannot believe in everlasting punishment because the Biblical evidence takes a backseat to their moral convictions. Or to take another example, Fudge and I can both see that Jesus is depicting dead people talking to each other in an afterlife, but he’s not willing to believe that could be literal, whereas I am.
It raises the question: where do those standards of credulity come from? How are they being shaped? Am I being shaped by Biblical standards, or by something else? What about you?
Phil
I am so glad you are taking up this topic. Annihilationism seems to be gaining quite a bit of ground over the last few decades and I would very much like to see it examined carefully.
(It is slightly amusing to me to see that its proponents have renamed it “Conditional Immortality.” Apparently that sounds more dignified.) But here’s an important concern: Jesus presented Hell as an integral part of his gospel message – as strong motivation to believe in Him. That motivation loses a great deal of its teeth if eternal suffering is reduced to eternal non-existence.
Brady Pollitt
Great point(s)!!!
Janelle
Does the gospel message lose it’s power if hell is annihilation and not eternal? I don’t think so.
Most people today still fear death, even though they conceive of it in the atheistic sense of loss of existence. Losing out on eternal life and how amazing heaven will be is a huge loss. Plus, as I argued in my post below, there could still be some element of suffering included as a person is being destroyed.
Alfonzo
Hello Phil. As a conditionalist, it does me good to see that our doctrine is catching on at a grass-roots level, and that folks who don’t hold to it nonetheless recognize this phenomena. Do you have evidence that “Conditional Immortality” is a new label? We believe that this label best summarizes our doctrine, and that it’s worded in such a way that is most consistent with how it has been expressed throughout church history – http://rethinkinghell.com/2016/01/01/conditional-immortality-meaning-best-label-2/
When I was an atheist I was horrified at the thought of dying and not existing any more, and I’ve since then met other atheists who feel exactly the same way. Hebrews 2:14-15 refers to Jesus becoming a man in order to destroy the devil who “had the power of death” in order to “deliver them who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” According to the Bible death in and of itself, is enough to fear.
Timothy Grady
Hey there Alfonzo !
Thanks for weighing in .
I actually said “post-Postmodernism” . I believe that is another discussion , whether data points would favor either of our assertions .
Long ago I encountered your website , and have been in extended dialogue with a number over the years .
I am sorry if you took offense , but I was making a broader point about the cultural milieu .
Most importantly , what is it you believe that a person needs to believe in order to have eternal life ?
Thanks much .
Timothy Grady
Thanks for tackling this issue , Shawn . It is so timely.
In a world awash in post Postmodernism, the biblical defense of ECT (Eternal Conscious Torment) is viewed as at least pre – Victorian .
Warning ⚠️: safe spaces may need to be outfitted with additional Binkies .
In effect , those who deny ECT envision a sort of Universal Sanctuary from accountability (think Gov. Moonbeam Jerry Brown) .
They trade on it being somehow “less loving for God to send someone to Hell”.
However , they do not consider the volitional violation involved . Moral agency allows a Friederich Nietzche to proclaim : “I would rather reign in Hell , than serve in Heaven “.
The biblical God can only act according to His nature and character. The loving thing to do can only be in accord with allowing created beings other than Himself, to make real choices .
All who end up in their respective eternal abodes will understand that they really belong there .
Alfonzo
Hello Timothy. Conditionalism has nothing whatsoever to do with postmodernism. Making that comparison is needlessly insulting and just shows people who are familiar with the topic that you don’t really know anything about it.
We don’t argue that it’s “less loving for God to send someone to Hell.” We make biblical arguments about eternal life (immortality) being conditional upon believing the gospel, and other such Bible-based arguments.
You seem to be conflating your political views with your theology. We conditionalists don’t need or want a “safe space”. We’re promoting our doctrine among evangelicals at a grass-roots level, and it’s becoming increasingly accepted. If anything, it seems to me like it’s the Traditionalists who need a safe space.
Please check out rethinkinghell.com to learn about conditionalism. Thanks.
Ken Tamashiro
Hi Pastor Shawn,
For me it is interesting that many Annihilationists believe the way they do.
I think for them it is an emotional argument as to why would God be so cruel as to make people suffer forever. I’m thinking possibly many Sadducees did not believe in the Resurrection as well.
It is my suspicion, that Abrahams bosom was a temporary place for those waiting, prior to Christ preaching to those who were held captive while waiting for the Messiah to set them free from that area called Abrahams bosom. I feel many are now in Heaven and are enjoying the fellowship with other Believers.
Grace and Peace to You,
Ken Tamashiro
Janelle
Annihilationists can still believe in an intermediate state.
The real question is whether hell lasts forever, or whether those who finally reject Jesus’ offer of salvation will be destroyed completely at some point after the final judgement. The line in Revelation 20:14 which says that death and Hades itself will one day be thrown into the lake of fire (a picture of total utter destruction – these things will be no more) makes much more sense than to say that death and hell are thrown into a literal real fire.
I wonder if there may be different rates of destruction (and more or less suffering as part of that destruction) depending on what God deems just for a person’s actions. That way, God’s justice is still shown. Time in an unpleasant intermediate state could be counted as ‘time served’. But eventually, they will no longer exist.
I’ve read Fudge’s book, and even though there are still a few difficult verses, I think his exegesis is more convincing than the eternal conscious torment proponents I’ve read.
Like him, I’d rather side with the overwhelming number of verses that simply say “eternal destruction” and “eternal death” and take those to mean “nonexistence”, rather than interpret these as “eternal existence in some place where you get tortured forever” due to one or two difficult verses in Revelation which is a highly difficult and symbolic book at the best of times. (See Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 3rd ed., 251-252.)
Timothy Grady
Thanks Janelle .
I would maintain that this is not soteriological . I would say that it can have wide ranging consequences on one’s worldview, and biblical hermeneutic . In that sense , it can affect the “gospel” .
Perhaps you can interact with clear texts that denote duration ?
For example : Rev. 14:11 , 20:10 ; Matt. 25:46 ; Daniel 12:2 .
Appreciate your thoughts .
Janelle
Hi Timothy,
By “this is not soteriological”, if you mean that a person’s beliefs about hell don’t affect their eternal salvation, I’d totally agree.
As to “affect the gospel”, I’d say annihilation does shift the gospel from “Believe in Jesus so that God won’t torture you forever” to “Believe in Jesus so that you don’t miss out on eternal life”. But I think the second is less problematic when evangelizing, and reflects God’s perfectly loving character much more than the first. I agree it does change your view of God, for the better.
Janelle
For the verses on duration:
* Daniel 12:2: their legacy will be “shame and everlasting contempt”, not that they continually experience this, but this is how they’ll be eternally remembered.(Fudge, p.82)
* Matt 25:46: Their punishment does last forever, for they are destroyed and do not exist forever. They never come back into existence.
* Rev. 14:11: The “smoke of torment” going up could indicate the results of their destruction lasts forever, not that the destruction is ongoing forever. They have no rest day or night while the destruction is in process, but once done, they no longer exist. Note the similarities to Sodom and Gomorrah – sulfur, fire, brimstone, smoke, but the cities were destroyed (Jude 1:7 even says they experienced “eternal fire”). See Fudge, p.240-241.
*Rev. 20:10: Fudge has difficulty here, noting it could be metaphorical if the beast and false prophet represent human religious and political systems (p.247). Otherwise, he claims it can represent eternal destruction, but he doesn’t really say why. I agree this is tough, but again, I’d rather side with the overwhelming evidence everywhere else which is compatible with annihilation, and admit I don’t know. At worst, it only proves 3 individuals experience eternal torment – Satan, the antichrist, and the false prophet.
Timothy Grady
Thanks Janelle .
It seems that the duration – clearly in the lexicon – demands an equivalence in Matt. 25:46 . If the saved have eternal durative quality , necessarily the unsaved do .
The grammar is unambiguous here .
It also seems exegetically in the Daniel text , short of reading into it a presupposed overlay .
I shall address other texts later . Time is of the essence with a 9 & 7 year old !
Question : on your view , where are clear texts that explicitly show us specific lengths of postmortem punishment , and when non existence occurs ?
Gracias .
Janelle
Hi Timothy,
I still think that yes, their “punishment” is eternal, just as “life” is eternal for the saved – the equivalence is still there. The question is, is that eternal punishment 1) eternal deprivation of existence/life or 2) eternal conscious torment? The meaning of ‘eternal’ is not the issue.
The contrast between eternal life and eternal death, taken as annihilation, is much sharper than the contrast between eternal life in heaven and eternal life in hell.
There’s no reason God has to keep the damned alive forever – Jesus said God can destroy both body *and* soul in hell (Matt 10:28). Immortality of the soul is a Greek idea that snuck into early Christianity.
I would see Isaiah 66:24 as an example of some sort of temporary suffering which led to destruction. It clearly mentions ‘dead bodies’, not ‘people still alive writing in agony’. So, either the people died beforehand, and are now being decomposed by worms and destroyed by fire, or else, worst case, they are thrown into the fire alive, and the fire and worms slowly do their work until the person dies.
Of course, the intensity and duration of any temporal suffering (if any) would be up to God to determine. Maybe for some people destruction is near-instantaneous, if that’s what God determines is just.
Timothy Grady
Thanks again Janelle .
It appears that the lexicon does not favor the Conditional position .
Objectively , the durative values assigned to the saved and unsaved are clearly equivalent .
Hoping that this is not the case cannot surmount the undeniable Biblical data .
It really comes down to hermeneutics . Honest exegesis demands fidelity to denotation .
You have opined that punishment is exacted metaphorically .
Can you give us an example of how conscious punishment is existentially possible on a non-existence ?
Your position also reinforces my earliest premise : that the ECT view is characterized as less ‘loving’ ; less ‘just’ . Presumably , this would mean less ‘holy’ and ‘righteous’ as well ?
I submit that an all loving God must necessarily be non potential in all attributes – including justice , righteousness , and holiness .
Absent the Medieval strawman mischaracterizations , the eternality of separation from God is THE most loving of all possible worlds (2 Thes. 1:5-10) .
Janelle
Hi Timothy,
What “lexicon” are you using? Lexicons are written by fallible humans. I do think annihilation takes scripture in a much plainer and clearer sense than eternal conscious torment.
The “punishment” I talk about is not metaphorical. You seem to insist it must be conscious punishment. But losing out on heaven and existence itself is a very real punishment, even if not experienced consciously for eternity. The verse you mentioned: 1 Thess 1:9, even says they suffer “the punishment of eternal destruction”. Not “the punishment of eternal torture”.
We may agree to disagree, but I would recommend reading more to really understand the annihilationist position, such as Fudge’s book. If you can read it with an open mind and still be an eternal conscious torment proponent at the end, then kudos to you, because I could not.
jon tretsven
Revelation 19:20 and 20:10 contribute to the doctrine of eternal punishment also. The Beast and False prophet were cast alive into the Lake of Fire before the start of the Millennium. They were still there after the Millennium, 1000 years later, when Satan will also be consigned to the same. Everlasting fire was prepared by God for the devil and his angels and since the fire is everlasting, the punishment must be also; otherwise, why is the fire forever (Matthew 25:41)? So the Lake of Fire will contain rebellious humanity also.
As to why the punishment is so severe. Look at the cup Jesus had to drink on the cross to take away the sin of the world. And this salvation through Christ was made available free of cost to all who simply believe. So, therefore, what punishment must come to those who refuse this free gift?
Alvin
I prefer to be shaped by someone who had the Spirit of God in them as Zane Hodges did. His article on “What Do We Mean by Propitiation?” Gives us some answers concerning these things, punishment, eternal corruption, natural law of sowing and reaping, where the worm never dies. Zane was an expert in the languages, so he knew what they could communicate.
Fudge believed you could lose your salvation, and that repentance, water baptism, and perseverance were conditions for eternal salvation. Other words he believed in a works salvation, which leaves him with only human reasoning.
Alfonzo
Shawn Lazar, what do you make of 1 Sam 28:13 depicting the witch saying, “I saw gods ascending out of the earth”? If she supposedly saw Samuel coming out of “Abraham’s Bosom”, why would she refer to that as seeing gods, which the Bible tells us are devils? In verse 7 Saul told his servants, “Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit”. So he wants them to find him a demon-possessed woman! This is strictly forbidden by God’s law, but you think he let Samuel out of “Abraham’s Bosom” upon the request of a demon-possessed witch? When verse 14 says, “Saul perceived that it was Samuel”, can’t that just be understood as giving us Saul’s perspective, rather than an objective statement? Thanks.
Ethan Whalley
Alfonzo, I just wanted to add that I find it interesting that Samuel says “Why hast thou DISQUIETED me, to bring me UP?”. It sounds like Samuel’s “rest” was disturbed – is it because he was in the grave? And is “up” just a euphemism for “bringing a spirit forth,” or does it carry the idea of literally bringing a spirit “up” from the grave?
Leo Z
One thing is for sure. There are only 2 eternal destinies for humanity. Remain dead and condemned for eternity or be reborn into eternal life, be with God or be separated from Him through eternity. At the final judgment day, when Jesus the Judge conveys the foregone sentence to the condemned, unbelievers will acknowledge without any doubt that He is Lord and they will be conscious and aware of their condemned state and destiny of eternal separation from God. In my estimation, knowing that thought and what they will be missing out on should be torment enough for anyone. Whether that torment goes on for eternity or end up in annihilation at some point is a moot point for me (my opinion). Either way, it’s not where one should end up in. People need “life” and it’s offered by God as a free gift to all in His Son, Jesus, the Christ! Believe in Him and you shall be saved! Life everlasting is yours!
Leo Z
Looking forward to your book Pastor Shawn. Praying for you and GES!
Barry Blundi
THEIR worn dies not and the fire is not quenched! But woe unto that man who betrays the Son of man. IT WERE GOOD FOR THAT MAN IF HE WERE NEVER BORN! Lord Jesus’ inference is clear, “…suffering eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord.” If Judas were never born, then he never existed. But he was born and then existed. The inference is clear, and nothung could be possibly clearer that, physical death was not the reason Jesus said “it were good for him….” Its clear that he will live forever, only suffering eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord!. next post
Barry Blundi
And that is the reason Lord Jesus said. “it were good…if he were NEVER born.” the positive ETERNAL destruction from the PRESENCE… Judas would never know that destruction if he stopped existing. Besides all this, ceasing to exist destroys the Lord Jesus Christ’s person and work. Their punishment must be equal to our Masters Suffering, less them availing themselves of the propitiatory value. God shut the ark door, not Noah. This side of glory, we REALLY do not know the holiness of God, and wrongfully still want pity for the lost once they die, and cannot understand Gods holiness. We still faulter in our thinking and will not shut the ark door. We think with the mind of the flesh. God must shut the door. Once out of the body we will agree with Lord Jesus when we see him face to face. Always compare our thoughts to the Lord Jesus and his work.
Barry Blundi
“Oh Israel, you have destroyed yourself”. Clearly they did not cease to exist. Lord Jesus suffered what eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord is like. The lost must suffer the same, or the Lords justice is unjust, and He would be guilty of extending mercy to them in a sense, in allowing ceasing to exist. Eternal destructing from his presence has no meaning if THEY do not experience it, as Our Master did. The Russellites have been deceived into this blissful alternative. But without the Holy city are dogs…etc. Noah not understanding the Holiness of God (as we do not), would never have come into the ark on his own. Neither would we.
Barry Blundi
The lie of Satan of ceasing to exist, is exactly equal to the lie of universalism, just from the oppisite end. It brings a false peace to the hearers. And first and foremost, it destroys the person and work of Lord Jesus!
Alvin
Part 1 Psalm 73:2-9 But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled; My steps had nearly slipped. For I was envious of the boastful, When I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no pangs in their death, But their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men, Nor are they plagued like other men. Therefore pride serves as their necklace; Violence covers them like a garment. Their eyes bulge with abundance; They have more that heart could wish. They scoff and speak loftily. They set their mouth against the heavens, And their tongue walks through the earth.
Alvin
Part 2 Psalm 73:16-20. When I thought how to understand this, It was too painful for me—Until I went into the sanctuary of God; Then I understood their end.
Surely You set them in slippery places;
You cast them down to
destruction.
Oh, how they are brought to
desolation, as in a moment!
They are utterly consumed with
terrors.
As a dream when one awakes,
So, Lord, when You awake,
You shall despise their image.
Remember they were created in God’s image, and can only be separated from Him.
“And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” (Rev 14:11)
Timothy Grady
Exactly Alvin .
There is zero exegetical support for nonexistence being a recipient of ‘torment’ or ‘punishment ‘.
Eisegesis alone can make the impossible seem plausible.
Timothy Grady
Thanks Janelle .
There is no warrant grammatically to convert ‘destruction’ into nonexistence . Nor is there anyone ‘there’ to punish . That is at minimum gratuitous , and begs the question .
Can you give us an example of destroying/destruction unambiguously denoting nonexistence , biblically or otherwise ?
Incidentally , pick a Lexicon – any Lexicon . Now can you equate nonexistence with destruction/destroy ?
As well , Mr. Fudge & Co. are “fallible”. His camp uses lexical references often . That is not the issue .
I have read Fudge , and listened to several debates . He advances a works based soteriology , unhappily . I see his hermeneutic as similarly troubling, and consistently arbitrary .
I remain convinced that the Biblical grammar is not friendly to Mr. Fudge .
I do not ‘hope’ that is the case . The very words tell the story.
Janelle
Hi Timothy,
I don’t agree with Fudge on everything. But I think his contribution to the topic of hell is significant and correct. No theologian is right on everything. I take what I think is good from those I read, while rejecting the problematic parts.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “destroy” as “to put out of existence”, synonym “annihilate”. In Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, he also says “Destruction” simply means destruction or ruin. “Ruin” he defines as “to corrupt, destroy, ruin, spoil, wipe out”. So lexicons are going to solve the debate. It seems to me the eternal conscious torment advocates are reading a meaning into these words that are not naturally there.
I prefer to take “destruction” in the common English meaning as “to put out of existence” than to metaphorically interpret it as “eternal existence in agony in hell”, which is not obvious. If eternal conscious torment is what God intended, he could have clearly said so everywhere in scripture, rather than using “death” and “destruction’ constantly everywhere except for two difficult verses in Revelation.
You previously mentioned “punishment” must be experienced consciously. What about “capital punishment” – the worst sentence for a human criminal? The suffering itself is brief, and leads to death. So clearly, severity of punishment is not equal to the amount of pain or duration of pain experienced.
Janelle
Ooops, I meant “Lexicons are *not* going to solve the issue.” Sorry for the typo.
If one side is insisting that a word mean something completely different than it usually means, they are the ones who need to show proof of that. No one in English reads “destroy” or “die” as “keep alive but in agony”. It means to cease existence.
Timothy Grady
Appreciate your thoughts Janelle .
You have made the point exactly . The Mounce is representative .
If I “destroy” a lightbulb – or anything physical – it continues to exist as physical matter . It is only functionally in “ruin” . It is not literally “annihilated” or “nonexistent” . The laws of thermodynamics render that impossible .
You seem to be trading in connotation , rather than denotation .
Question : why is the “beast” still in existence in Rev. 17:11 ? How does this “destruction” square with literal nonexistence ?
Isn’t it true that Satan and his kingdom are spiritual ? How is it that they clearly are bound for endless destruction/torment , along with two physical humans (beast/false prophet) ? Why is this somehow an ‘exception ‘ for Fudge, but not a possibility for what seems universal for all unbelievers ?
Who are the “anyone” , “his” , “he” , “their” , “whoever”, “these” , being tormented/punished/shamed/held in contempt) unto the endless ages of eternity (Rev. 14:9-13) ? In Rev. 20:15 ? Dan. 12:2 ?
It appears that you a physicalist – that life (soul,spirit,immateriality) ceases upon physical death . Is that fair to say ?
Once more , Thanks .
Janelle
Hi Timothy,
Even if there are “remnants” of the damned left for all to see (again, Isaiah 66:24, such as their “dead bodies”), they are not alive eternally being tortured.
God is not limited by the laws of thermodynamics. To say God can’t annihilate the things God created is bizarre, considering that God brought all things into existence from nothing (also a violation of thermodynamics, to be sure!). That includes Satan and his demons and the souls of humans.
Rev. 17:11 has nothing to do with hell – it’s talking about the reappearance and ultimate destiny of the final world-dominating government (as “beasts” are used in Dan. 7 to represent governments, not individuals). I already addressed Rev. 14:9-13, 20:14, and Dan 12:2 in one of my earlier responses.
I’m not a ‘physicalist’ in that I think humans are only bodies, like I argued above, an intermediate state is compatible with annihilationism. But God can destroy (wipe out of existence) body *and* soul in hell, which is contrasted to those who can kill the body but not the soul (Matt. 10:28).
Timothy Grady
Hello once again Janelle !
Thermodynamics apply to all known material phenomena . They only apply in a post fallen world , and are not integral to an ex nihilo fiat creation .
A lightbulb is material . Denotatively , a lightbulb ‘destroyed’ is not nonexistent in that it’s constituent elements don’t evaporate , but are functionally useless ; ruined .
That was the point .
You still have not given us an example – before Rev. 21:1- biblical or otherwise , as per the created universe- where a literal annihilation/nonexistence occurs .
One clear text that states when specifically a spirit/soul was/is/will be wiped from existence?
You agree that angels , Satan , and demons are spiritual? I did not understand your related point .
Rev. 17:11 , 19:20 , 20:10 clearly involve the same human (beast) as a recipient of endless judgement in the lake of fire , along with Satan (spiritual) , and the human false prophet.
The beast is not somehow wiped from existence. 17:11 uses ‘destruction’ as metaphor for ruin , undeniably.
The personal pronouns in Rev. , Dan. , Matt. (Etc.) certainly indicate more than nonexistence , as recipients of endless torment.
Janelle
Hi Timothy,
Thanks for the discussion, but I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. We’re going in circles here, where you keep insisting destruction means “ruin” but I say it means nonexistence and clearly neither of us will convince the other.
My point is not whether thermodynamics apply to a post-fallen world or not. My point is that God is sovereign over thermodynamics, and if he wants, he can annihilate something back to nonexistence just as easily as he brought everything into existence in the first place. God can destroy both physical and ‘spiritual’ things equally easily (so souls, or Satan, are both “destroyable” by God).
I would still recommend reading Fudge’s book for yourself though – he really gets into far more of the exegesis than is possible on a discussion forum. He makes a wonderful comprehensive argument that deals with every verse in Scripture that relates to hell, as well as the early church fathers and later theologians.
I guess one day we’ll know for sure. Good thing our salvation doesn’t depend on having all the right theological answers, but just faith in Christ. All the best to you, my brother in Christ.
Timothy Grady
Thanks for the dialogue Janelle . I appreciate your irenic tone .
To borrow from Shawn above , it really comes down to “credulity” .
Fudge echoes SDA/JW arguments I encountered in extended dialogues circa 1980’s . His is a personally tailored variant , using an allegorical eschatology that redefines personal pronouns and straightforward humans , in favor of his presupposition – arguably at the expense of a literal historical hermeneutic .
It has always come off to me as far too ‘convenient’ . It always screams ‘agenda’ .
I have never yet seen a clear biblical example of the central Fudge hypothesis .
Personal pronouns demand personal actors .
Recipients of unending torment , shame , and punishment – so clearly evident in Luke 16 , Matt. 25 , Dan. , & Rev. – are summarily relegated to allegory .
This is where the bounds of credulity snap .
It would seem that Fudge/SDA/JW’s are united in their view that God/Jehovah is “not playing fair” , on the ECT view .
One wonders why unending spiritual separation from God somehow impugns the nature and character of the One who created beings in His image ?
Quite otherwise , this exalts His glorious attributes to infinity .
Thanks again Janelle !
Blessings in truth .
Alvin
Matthew 7:13 Majority TEXT NOTES
απώλεια (apoleia). Noun that can mean waste (Matt 26:80), but in the NT is nearly always personal, meaning destruction, ruin
perdition. Once (Acts 25:16, NU omits) it means physical death, but elsewhere spiritual death, eternal destruction. Derived
from ἀπόλλυμι perish, be ruined, be destroyed, be lost, the noun απωλεια appears to focus on utter loss or ruin as a “final destiny”
for the wicked (as here in Matt. 7:13: also Rev. 17:8). A “son of perdition” (John 17:12; 2 Thess 2:3)is one so destined.
απώλεια differs little from the synonym ὄλεθρος, destruction, death, ruin, and occurs with it in 1 Tim. 6:9.
Alvin
Jesus said in Matthew 11:22
“But I say to you, it will be more TOLERABLE for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.
Say what~? The Lake Of Fire is going to be more tolerable for some than for others. Like I’ve said before it’s going to be more tolerable for the little old lady down the street that always tried to treat people nice, but never believed Jesus promise of life than for the man who use to beat up old ladies and children.
Alvin
Here is what blows my mind. That believers would take the word of unbelievers, that is ones who believe you can lose your salvation over believers who have the Spirit of God in them.
I’ll use Zane Hodges as an example, because I know of no one as a better example. His plumb line goes off of the foundation Jesus “the Christ.” That is the One who guarantees the eternal destiny of the one who believes in Him
by simple faith at a point in time they pass from death into life. They will never come into a judgment that will determine their eternal destiny (John 5:24).
These unbelievers don’t even believe that~! They think that everyone is going to be at the Great White Throne, and that some believers will be cast into the Lake of Fire because of their SINS. That is they don’t even believe Jesus took away the sin of the world (John 1:29).
When your plumb line doesn’t come off of the foundation you make all kinds of contradictions when you go into Books like Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, 1 John, Revelations.
These ones don’t even believe the childlike verses let alone the difficult ones.
Why would a believer take their word over someone who has the Spirit of God in them to guide them through Scripture~?
I have no idea? It’s like the blind leading the believer, it doesn’t make any sense???
Alvin
Fudge quote:
This is what has happened in the matter of once saved, always saved.” (The Reformational doctrine of the perseverance of the saints did not fall into this error, for it spoke of a people God foreknew, whom He would enable to persevere, not of a salvation delivered to man now at a single moment of decision to be irrevocably his apart from continuance in well doing.)
Those who say the Christian cannot fall picture him receiving salvation securely in his pocket. He can say with confidence, “I have salvation and I cannot lose it.” Those who say the Christian can fall and be lost picture him at conversion as receiving salvation in his pocket, but the pocket is open at the top. With a measure of care, the treasure is secure. It will not accidentally fall out, and no one else can take it from him. But through careless neglect or the Christian’s own willful decision, it might be lost.
Alvin
What Fudge doesn’t understand is not every believer is a overcomer, that is not every believer will persevere unto the end. That is they are sons and daughters of God but not in their experience. But, they still believed in Jesus for His gift of life that can be taken freely by anyone because He paid for it for everyone.
How people will counter this is by taking other Scriptures out of context, therefore making John 3:16 false which is impossible because it would make Jesus promise out to be not true. They either contradict this by saying if they don’t have works their faith is dead. What they mean by this is it is not a true faith, therefore they have made works a condition for a gift that is taken freely. Or they say you will know them by their fruit, but that is speaking to false teachers and talking about their words. Fudge and R.C. Sproul were not believing in Jesus for His promise of life, but looking at their works to prove they really had true faith.
Timothy Grady
Thanks Alvin .
You make some good points .