If you know where these are from please let me know. The second one may be somewhere in the United States.
From Facebook:
I do the best I can in this life and with my study of evil, asking God for help, but philosophically very very important things to ponder on are what happened before I existed (a first cause and originator of material reality or other?) and what will happen after I physically die (complete non-existence?, judgment?, heaven?, hell?). Death should make one ponder on such. My take: Hebrews 9: 27-28
thekingpin68
I am swamped with revisions, but here are some very non-exhaustive thoughts. Comments much appreciated. I provide the reader with a break from the philosophy of religion articles I have been presenting.
2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 (NASB)
5This is a (A)plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be (B)considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering.
6For after all (C)it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you,
7and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well (D)when the Lord Jesus will be revealed (E)from heaven (F)with His mighty angels (G)in flaming fire,
8dealing out retribution to those who (H)do not know God and to those who (I)do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
9These will pay the penalty of (J)eternal destruction, (K)away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
10when He comes to be (L)glorified in His saints on that (M)day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed--for our (N)testimony to you was believed.
Revelation 20:10-15 (NASB)
10And (AF)the devil who (AG)deceived them was thrown into the (AH)lake of fire and brimstone, where the (AI)beast and the (AJ)false prophet are also; and they will be (AK)tormented day and night forever and ever.
11Then I saw a great white (AL)throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence (AM)earth and heaven fled away, and (AN)no place was found for them.
12And I saw the dead, the (AO)great and the small, standing before the throne, and (AP)books were opened; and another book was opened, which is (AQ)the book of life; and the dead (AR)were judged from the things which were written in the books, (AS)according to their deeds.
13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and (AT)death and Hades (AU)gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them (AV)according to their deeds.
14Then (AW)death and Hades were thrown into (AX)the lake of fire This is the (AY)second death, the lake of fire.
15And if anyone's name was not found written in (AZ)the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Introduction
Celebrity death has been in the news lately. I reason death and hell are humanly distasteful, and on these points the Christian can often relate very well with the non-Christian. Death and the possibility of hell are very difficult to stomach especially when a deceased person really had a lot of valuable human qualities. However, Biblical Christianity states that there is an everlasting hell for those not in Christ. Many if not most Christian Biblical scholars and theologians appear to reason everlasting hell consists of conscious continual punishment. Other Christian scholars reason the figurative (not mythological!) hell type language allows for the Biblical possibility of annihilation of those outside of Christ, as does the Biblical concept of death meaning termination only. This in contrast to a concept of permanent banishment from God and everlasting life. For example, 'perish' from Strong (1986) page 16 can be interpreted in different ways depending on context. Strong provides the meanings as 'to destroy fully, to perish or lose, literally or figuratively, destroy, die, lose, mar, perish'.
From:
Perish
'Definition
1.to destroy
a.to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
b.render useless
c.to kill
d.to declare that one must be put to death
e.metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
f.to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2.to destroy
a.to lose'
Argument
I shall present an argument against the annihilation of unregenerate post-mortem persons. This is not exhaustive and is an argument, not the argument. This has been presented on satire and theology in the past and I add some material revised for this post from a hell lecture posted on this blog previously and from my MPhil posted here also. I have used Erickson as a source to support my premises and conclusion.
God is perfectly holy.
Erickson writes that God is totally separate from his creation. Erickson (1994: 284).
Erickson lists Exodus 15: 11, 1 Samuel 2: 2 and Isaiah 57: 15.
God is absolutely pure and good; God is not evil. Erickson (1994: 285).
Erickson lists Job 34: 12, Habakkuk 1: 13 and James 1: 13
Human beings are sinful.
Jeremiah 17: 9, Romans Chapter 1-3, Romans 3: 23, Romans 6: 23.
Sin must be atoned.
God is the administrator of justice and cannot justly simply forgive sins. Erickson (1994: 816). God is equally the God of love and justice. Justice is therefore not ignored for the sake of love, as a holy God must be just.
Christ as infinite God outlasted finite sin in the atonement.
As God, Christ’s death has infinite worth. Erickson (1994: 804). As God he can atone for all finite human sin.
Christ as a perfect man was sacrificed for imperfect persons in the atonement.
As a human, Christ could redeem other humans. Erickson (1994: 804). Christ redeemed all of human nature through the atonement. Erickson (1994: 804).
Conclusion
Therefore, those outside of Christ cannot justly be annihilated as their sins are never atoned. Biblically, all persons exist port-mortem (Revelation, Chapter 20). It could be reasoned that everlasting punishment exists as finite unregenerate persons continue to attempt to atone for their sins in hell, but can never fully cover their sins without Christ. Therefore they cannot justly be annihilated. Earthly sins are not covered, and post-mortem sins (rejecting God and related) in disembodied and resurrection states also remain uncovered.
C.S. Lewis:
Concerning the objection of the horrors of hell, and the intense punishment, Lewis rejected annihilationism because he stated that ". . . the destruction of one thing means the emergence of something else. . . . If souls can be destroyed, must there not be a state of having been a human soul?" Lewis (1940)(1996: 127). This could be the case, but I think it tenable to believe that God could completely destroy what he had created. To say he could not would be troubling in light of the Christian belief in God’s omnipotence (see my recent articles). It would not be contradiction for God to destruct what he had constructed, so I think Lewis has a logical point, but one that would not concern annihilationists, or critics of hell very much, since the God Christians believe in should possess the power to destroy his own creations.
It is quite possible that the level of hell one endures could very well be proportionate to their level of rebellion against God which takes place in their sin position. Jesus indicated there was greater sin for certain acts, as when he was handed over to the Romans by Judas and the Jews in John 19:11.
I think that annihilationism may be philosophically reasonable, and Biblically possible, although the argument from Scripture for everlasting punishment seems stronger. As well, if annihilationism is true, and a non-believer does not face God after death, or is simply annihilated after negative judgment, there seems to be a lack of justice. The sinner never is really faced with the trueness of his/her sin, and the foolishness of hating (Romans 5: 10 the unregenerate are enemies of God) and rejecting God (Romans 3) and not responding to the light one could have in life (Romans 1), although one cannot save self and is dependent on the regenerating work of God (John 3). If one is annihilated after judgment facing God, one must wonder how God can make one sinner's punishment worse than another person's? Everlasting death would seemingly be equal punishment for all.
With annihilation, the sins of the unregenerate are not atoned for by Christ and these people remain unrighteous (Romans 1, 4, 5). These people, although likely resurrected, are not fully sanctified with these resurrection bodies as are believers (1 Corinthians 15) and they are not suffering/punished for their sins in everlasting punishment. Is this just? In the name of divine justice, can some type of unlimited and universal atonement of Christ be applied to them for sin as they then face annihilation?
This seems problematic.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
LEWIS, C.S.(1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
I fell through a lawn chair once and scratched my back up pretty good.
A friend from Los Angeles sent me this...
Scientology
I found there was only one way to look thin, hang out with fat people.
Rodney Dangerfield
Some dog I got too. We call him Egypt. Because in every room he leaves a pyramid. Rodney Dangerfield
A girl phoned me the other day and said... Come on over, there's nobody home. I went over. Nobody was home. Rodney Dangerfield
I went to the psychiatrist, and he says, "You're crazy. " I tell him I want a second opinion. He says, “Okay, you're ugly too!" Rodney Dangerfield
The other night a mugger took off his mask and made me wear it. Rodney Dangerfield
So true it is hard to think about...i have known some really super duper great people but they do not believe...they have no faith in Jesus & what He did at the cross & therefore will not go to heaven!! :( And heaven is hard to stomach for some people who have done the most vile & wicked things yet they come to God in repentance & faith & receive eternal life & a ticket to heaven!! Hard to stomach...but God is God & he loves us all & gave us freewill!!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Sherry. The unregenerate person would be out of place in the culminated Kingdom of God, as well, as an enemy of God.
ReplyDelete10For if while we were (T)enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved (U)by His life.
11(V)And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received (W)the reconciliation.
Romans 5: 10-11 (NASB)
The unregenerate person would be out of place in the culminated Kingdom of God, as well, as an enemy of God.......................So true and The Kingdom of God is all about righteousness & peace & a common belief....its kind of like light & darkness...they cannot dwell together....each has to find its space!! SHERRY
ReplyDeleteYou are a wise young woman.
ReplyDeleteBut, do you find my humorous material interesting as well?;)
Thank-you...i study & learn so much from people like you who do all the heavy duty research & studies & some from the Holy Spirit!! :) Ok the chair thing was funny...i chuckled!! Personally I am more apt to glance over a comic rather than a vid!! :) Hmmm i am trying to add my name to open id but it isn't working!! :( SHERRY
ReplyDeleteI pray the Holy Spirit will guide me.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Sherry.
Well, I will not post comics every time, as I have to mix things up.;)
Chair fail is a classic. I will look for it again.
“Therefore, those outside of Christ cannot justly be annihilated as their sins are never atoned.”
ReplyDeleteI don’t think this necessarily follows from Erickson’s argument even if his statements are true (and I tend to agree with him). Christ’s atonement is effectual only for those who are called, for those who’ve been regenerated to life by the Spirit. To say that Christ has atoned for the sin of all humanity is simply to say that His atoning work is sufficient for every human being, not that it is effectual for every human being. Therefore, just because some human beings’ sins are never atoned for does not argue against annihilationism.
Lewis says, "...the destruction of one thing means the emergence of something else..."
This statement is not necessarily true and I agree with your assessment in the balance of this paragraph that Lewis does no harm to the annihilationist position. Since, as at least some annihilationists argue, the soul was not created immortal (a Platonic influence that has gripped the church for some time), there is no necessity for the soul to continue to exist for all of eternity.
“If one is annihilated after judgment facing God, one must wonder how God can make one sinner's punishment worse than another person's? Everlasting death would seemingly be equal punishment for all.”
This is assuming, of course, that annihilation occurs very soon after death and/or judgment. Hughes suggests that there can very well be a time (different for every person) of punishment for the unbeliever that is commensurate with his degree and manifestation of unbelief before the everlasting death (annihilation) that ultimately separates him from God forever.
“Is this just? In the name of divine justice, can some type of unlimited and universal atonement of Christ be applied to them for sin as they then face annihilation?”
Again, atonement is universal only in the sense that it is sufficient for every person—not necessarily effectual for every person.
So, in that regard...no, it is not problematic. At least not for me...and I’m not an annihilationist.:-)
I never really liked Rodney Dangerfield the actor, but I love his one-liners! No one does self-depreciation any funnier!
I'll have to veiw the videos when I get home. The Scientology looks pretty interesting.
GGM
p.s. "Metalling", funny! :-)
“Therefore, those outside of Christ cannot justly be annihilated as their sins are never atoned.”
ReplyDeleteI don’t think this necessarily follows from Erickson’s argument even if his statements are true (and I tend to agree with him). Christ’s atonement is effectual only for those who are called, for those who’ve been regenerated to life by the Spirit.
Jason, Erickson is not an annihilationist and his points support my view, although it is not his argument.
To say that Christ has atoned for the sin of all humanity is simply to say that His atoning work is sufficient for every human being, not that it is effectual for every human being.
I agree with the point about sufficient and effectual.
Therefore, just because some human beings’ sins are never atoned for does not argue against annihilationism.
I do not think this proves your point. If atonement is not applied to a person and is not effectual this means a person is still guilty of sin. How is this paid for and covered without atonement? It is not. Remember, Erickson pointed out that Christ as infinite God outlasted finite sin in the atonement.
“If one is annihilated after judgment facing God, one must wonder how God can make one sinner's punishment worse than another person's? Everlasting death would seemingly be equal punishment for all.”
I figured right away you would go to Hughes.;)
'This is assuming, of course, that annihilation occurs very soon after death and/or judgment. Hughes suggests that there can very well be a time (different for every person) of punishment for the unbeliever that is commensurate with his degree and manifestation of unbelief before the everlasting death (annihilation) that ultimately separates him from God forever.'
There are not different degrees of unbelief as unbelief is unbelief, but a person could be judged to different degrees due to deeds as Revelation 20 notes persons are judged for deeds.
Finite final punishment is possible, yes, but is very speculative and Hughes would be unable to demonstrate this from Scripture ( I was quoting him today in my PhD thesis by the way).
It is possible that no finite amount time of punishment could cover finite human sin (I do not think sin is infinite, by the way, as some suggest, as only God is infinite) as it is committed against an infinite God. Again Erickson noted Christ as infinite God outlasted finite sin in the atonement, and this is a key I reason.
“Is this just? In the name of divine justice, can some type of unlimited and universal atonement of Christ be applied to them for sin as they then face annihilation?”
Again, atonement is universal only in the sense that it is sufficient for every person—not necessarily effectual for every person.
So, in that regard...no, it is not problematic. At least not for me...and I’m not an annihilationist.:-)
I do not think your objection, although reasonable, solves the problem I raised, Jason.
If atonement is not effectual persons remain guilty and you have not demonstrated that any finite amount of time could pay the penalty for sin.
Yes, Christ's time on the cross was finite but he was both perfect man and infinite God and he outlasted finite sin.
Cheers.
Hey Russ,
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I'm not an annihilationist, so I'm just playing the "devil's advocate"; though also, as you know, I don't necessarily have a theological, biblical or philosophical problem with annihilationism when understand from a certain perspective.
First off: I realize Erickson is not an annihilationist (from here on "anni"--I'm tired of typing that long word!) and I was just saying that the conclusion, “Therefore, those outside of Christ cannot justly be annihilated as their sins are never atoned.” is not necessary from his argument; unless you are saying that this phrase, "Christ as infinite God outlasted finite sin in the atonement." makes it so. But even here, what is meant by "outlast"? God "outlasts" everything in the sense that God is eternal and nothing else is.
"I do not think this proves your point. If atonement is not applied to a person and is not effectual this means a person is still guilty of sin. How is this paid for and covered without atonement? It is not. Remember, Erickson pointed out that Christ as infinite God outlasted finite sin in the atonement."
Again, this last phrase is a bit ambiguous to me. Christ "paid" for the sins of His people. Those who are not His people die being guilty of their sins. Through God's punishment in Hell and subsequent anni (from the "anni's" point-of-view) the unbeliever has been punished and will then forever be separated from God and Life upon his annihilation. I'm not sure that it's necessary to equate the phrase "eternal punishment" with a never-ending existence of pain and torture; we can just as well biblically support the equivalency of "eternal punishment" with "eternal death" which, the anni's argue, is the the permanent "ceasing to exist".
"I figured right away you would go to Hughes"
Well, his is the most biblical and sound argument I've come across for the biblical validity of anni :-)
Part-1 (it seems I exceeding the allotment for characters)
Part-2
ReplyDelete"There are not different degrees of unbelief as unbelief is unbelief, but a person could be judged to different degrees due to deeds as Revelation 20 notes persons are judged for deeds."
Yes, I wasn't very clear here. I meant to relate this to the concept that "to whom much is given, much is required". I think the bible teaches that those who haven't had the means to hear the gospel have not exhibited the degree of unbelief that those who have heard and rejected the gospel display. In this sense, I believe those who have heard and disobeyed the gospel will endure a greater judgment than those who haven't heard yet still disobeyed (as in Rom. 1-2, etc.).
"Finite final punishment is possible, yes, but is very speculative and Hughes would be unable to demonstrate this from Scripture ( I was quoting him today in my PhD thesis by the way)."
Again, we must determine in what sense the bible is speaking of "punishment" and in what context. And I think his chapter on anni in "True Image" (in conjunction with other chapters) lays a solid biblical foundation for the understanding of "everlasting death" as a final punishment.
Now I agree that his arguments are more philosophical than strict exegetical; but he does no exegetical damage to the Scripture. There is much in the Scripture that allows for this understanding.
I think I'll give this topic some study and see if I can support it biblically as much as I think it can be. :-)
Maybe you can help me understand exactly what you mean by, "Christ as infinite God outlasted finite sin in the atonement." and why you consider this the key. Did anything I just wrote deal with this as you understand the meaning of the phrase?
Good talking to you, Russ. I'm trying to write fast while on a break, so hopefully my comments make sense...whether or not they are agreeable to you. :-) Pardon any and all spelling and grammatical errors...I do what I can in-between bites of chicken. :-)
Let me know what I've missed. I know that a more in-depth and detailed discussion would be better; but in this venue, this is might be as good as it gets.
GGM
Does this mean I'm now in Jeff's league? :-)
ReplyDeleteGGM
First off: I realize Erickson is not an annihilationist (from here on "anni"--I'm tired of typing that long word!) and I was just saying that the conclusion, “Therefore, those outside of Christ cannot justly be annihilated as their sins are never atoned.” is not necessary from his argument; unless you are saying that this phrase, "Christ as infinite God outlasted finite sin in the atonement." makes it so. But even here, what is meant by "outlast"? God "outlasts" everything in the sense that God is eternal and nothing else is.
ReplyDeleteI know, I thought you knew that Erickson was not an annihilationist.;) It is not from his argument. It is my argument using him as source of support.
His point on Christ as infinite outlasting finite sin, stands in view.
Erickson notes from Christian Theology page 1238-1239:
-Annihilationism contradicts the Bible.
-The future state of punishment is everlasting.
-There is not a context in Scripture indicating anything other than everlasting punishment.
-He notes the one cannot merely consider sin a finite act worthy of finite punishment because it is against an infinite God.
-He reasons it may be logically impossible for God to end the everlasting punishment. This is similar to what Lewis stated and I would tend not to agree.
'Through God's punishment in Hell and subsequent anni (from the "anni's" point-of-view) the unbeliever has been punished and will then forever be separated from God and Life upon his annihilation. I'm not sure that it's necessary to equate the phrase "eternal punishment" with a never-ending existence of pain and torture; we can just as well biblically support the equivalency of "eternal punishment" with "eternal death" which, the anni's argue, is the the permanent "ceasing to exist".'
I reason it is everlasting (beginning with no ending) and not eternal (no beginning, no ending), but basically Erickson answered this objection of yours with the last points I made.
Maybe you can help me understand exactly what you mean by, "Christ as infinite God outlasted finite sin in the atonement." and why you consider this the key. Did anything I just wrote deal with this as you understand the meaning of the phrase?
Good talking to you, Russ. I'm trying to write fast while on a break, so hopefully my comments make sense...whether or not they are agreeable to you. :-) Pardon any and all spelling and grammatical errors...I do what I can in-between bites of chicken. :-)
Let me know what I've missed. I know that a more in-depth and detailed discussion would be better; but in this venue, this is might be as good as it gets.
Yes, I am really busy too. We can annihilate this thread between you and I for now. But others feel free to comment.
This may go back to what Erickson stated that one cannot merely consider sin a finite act worthy of finite punishment because it is against an infinite God. If everlasting punishment and not annihilationism is the Biblical standard, it could be that nothing other than Christ's particular infinite God/perfect finite human being atoning work can cover and pay the penalty for sin. It could be that this alone applied to a person outlasts sin and allows one to not have to exist in a state of punishment.
I do not pretend to understand exactly how this works.;)
From my hell lecture and the post Lecture and study notes
'Walvoord believes that the nature of sin against God is infinite, and thus it demands infinite punishment. I disagree and think that only God is infinite, but resurrected everlasting rebellion seemingly deserves everlasting punishment.'
This is from the book Four Views on Hell which I do not own but have photocopies of in a cabinet full of photocopies.
Thanks much, my friend.
You are Jeff's junior.;)
Enjoyed the post and comments.
ReplyDeleteThere is not a context in Scripture indicating anything other than everlasting punishment.
That sums it up for me. I have no idea why some people feel compelled to "reason" away everlasting punishment. Why the need to explain it away? There is no ambiguity in scripture concerning this. Perhaps it is wishful thinking run amok.
LOL, actually, lately I've been trying to tone down my voluble verbosity and long-winded loquaciousness to merely a level of mild motormouth, with just a dash of magniloquence.
ReplyDeleteI'm working on a PhD in Pleonasm.
: )
Thanks, Stan.
ReplyDelete'That sums it up for me. I have no idea why some people feel compelled to "reason" away everlasting punishment. Why the need to explain it away? There is no ambiguity in scripture concerning this. Perhaps it is wishful thinking run amok.'
Non-exhaustive suggestions why certain persons, many within the UK theology scene, for example, support or consider annihilationism.
-As noted, everlasting hell is humanly distasteful in many cases.
-Sentimental theology (Hick at times) and universalism (Hick) or semi-universalism as in everyone will be saved but the worst people like Hitler, Manson and like.
-The figurative literal as opposed to plain literal language used at times in apocalyptic literature.
-Human evil and sinfulness is underestimated as is God's holiness.
By the way, I have Hughes' Hebrew commentary and he is an excellent scholar.
Jeff Jenkins, the man that broke blogger! Jeff presented comments that surpassed the maximum space allowed.
ReplyDelete"Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters."
Therefore, those outside of Christ cannot justly be annihilated as their sins are never atoned.
ReplyDeleteYes, a sinner cannot pay for sin any more than a penniless prisoner can pay his fine/bail.
Similarly, on Earth there are life sentences. In eternity there are eternal sentences. There are also no "executions" in eternity, since God made the human soul to be eternal. And prisoners do not get out on "good behavior." In fact, apparently, there will be very little (if any) "good behavior," as the following quote from your article suggests:
Earthly sins are not covered, and post-mortem sins (rejecting God and related) in disembodied and resurrection states also remain uncovered.
That's a good point about post-mortem sins. From my understanding, those in Hell will continue to curse God, and so, rather than being repentant, they will continue to heap upon themselves sin after sin. Therefore, the purpose of Hell is not to reform sinners, because apparently, sinners in Hell will remain sinners, and conceivably become even worse sinners than they were before. Even the rich man in Jesus' narrative about the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)---which I don't believe is a parable, because one of the characters is actually named---though he does gain an evangelistic heart for his brothers ("I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment"), he shows no signs of true repentance. Instead, he merely selfishly asks that Lazarus be removed from his place of comfort and come over to Hell to give him some relief. ("And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.") So he merely seeks relief rather than repentance.
Jeff Jenkins, the man that broke blogger! Jeff presented comments that surpassed the maximum space allowed.
ReplyDelete"Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters."
Yes, maybe in eternity I'll ask God if I can write comments that those in Hell will be forced to read, as part of their punishment. I'll write things so long that it will take them all of eternity to read, and they will wish they were annihilated, so they wouldn't have to keep reading my comments! : )
Funny how the world views Heaven as a boring place where drab people in white choir robes will be sitting on clouds playing harps and forced to follow strict rules, while Hell will be a wild party with all their friends partying with them.
ReplyDeleteAs far as annihilation, think of an electric chair. I don't think a person executed in an electric chair even begins to enact the justice upon them that they deserve after they have raped, say, 26 female children and 15 female adults, torturing them while they were still alive, then decapitating, mutilating and hacking them up after they were murdered. So how, then, can annihilation be considered just for a sinner who has committed, not 26 + 15 acts against other sinners who were also created (i.e., on their 'same level'), but tens of thousands, and even millions, of sins against their holy Creator (the omnipotent God Who is not merely another human being on their 'same level,' but is the Supreme Being, far above all human beings)? Sinning against a holy God, especially the God Who created you, is far worse than sinning against another human being. Another human being is simply another creation, while God is the Creator. If a dog kills another dog, that's bad; but if a dog kills a human being, that is far worse. And the gap between God and man is infinitely greater than the gap between a dog and a man. So therefore, if an electric chair doesn't even begin to cover the horrible, grotesque sins that some sick criminals have committed, then how can annihilation cover the sins of those who have sinned against their holy Creator over and over again, throughout their lifetime?
ReplyDelete'Therefore, the purpose of Hell is not to reform sinners, because apparently, sinners in Hell will remain sinners, and conceivably become even worse sinners than they were before.'
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
Luke 16:19-31
Good points, Jeff. There is debate on whether it is parable or not. I reason parable or not, it is describing, probably in figurative literal language, an actual place Hades which is a temporary place for the unregenerate spirit. That is my leaning based on what I have read so far.
I think often evangelical views on heaven need serious work.
I do not believe the Lord has created, has the problem of exist, saves the elect and then establishes a culminated Kingdom in order to create an order of Jesus groupies that follow him around at all times singing songs. Rather I reason we will be filled with the Holy Spirit always in all our endeavors as sinless. We will fellowship with Christ often and various others almost always.
Thank you, Jeff.
'As far as annihilation, think of an electric chair. I don't think a person executed in an electric chair even begins to enact the justice upon them that they deserve after they have raped, say, 26 female children and 15 female adults, torturing them while they were still alive, then decapitating, mutilating and hacking them up after they were murdered.'
ReplyDeleteAgreed. It only seems partial justice at best. Things are still not made right.
'Sinning against a holy God, especially the God Who created you, is far worse than sinning against another human being. Another human being is simply another creation, while God is the Creator. If a dog kills another dog, that's bad; but if a dog kills a human being, that is far worse. And the gap between God and man is infinitely greater than the gap between a dog and a man. So therefore, if an electric chair doesn't even begin to cover the horrible, grotesque sins that some sick criminals have committed, then how can annihilation cover the sins of those who have sinned against their holy Creator over and over again, throughout their lifetime?'
Erickson and Walvoord salute you.
Now for balance, I would certainly HATE with all my heart to be outside of Christ and damned. But, I accept that at judgment, if not previously in Hades, I would reasonably understand my actual guilt and the legitimacy of my sentence. I reason God will provide this to all.
We need to pray and pray for the lost in our lives. Pray that God's election will take place in relation to our God guided prayer.
Hey, Russ! Been out of the loop for a while, busy with home, family, and work.
ReplyDeleteInteresting argument you make against annihilation; never thought of it that way.
Regarding the question at the start of your post, I think the writer had it backwards. While mankind is indeed very fascinated about the origin of things and where we go after we die, it's what happens in this life that makes all the difference. We had no part in the Creation, and once we die, our fate is sealed; it is NOW that we must surrender to Christ and seek to do His will.
Thanks, Greg. I very much appreciate you being back.
ReplyDelete'Regarding the question at the start of your post, I think the writer had it backwards. While mankind is indeed very fascinated about the origin of things and where we go after we die, it's what happens in this life that makes all the difference. We had no part in the Creation, and once we die, our fate is sealed; it is NOW that we must surrender to Christ and seek to do His will.'
I disagree somewhat. But, I will explain my perspective and I think you will see what I mean. My point in writing that comment on Facebook was in the context of recent celebrity death and was to state that in reality many persons are not all that concerned with first cause, origin and death, Yes, there are scientific studies on the big bang and like and yet most people in the West are really more focused on everyday life. If persons pondered more on their creator and origins and their death and judgment this would be a more Biblical perspective than the present Western one which is mostly focused on everyday life and temporal success.
Yes as Christians we surrender to Christ, but this is only done via God's eternal plans for the elect to freely believe. The everlasting life we seek begins now in a sense for the Christian, but after physical death in the resurrection is culminated.
The "problem" is not so much our inability to grasp God's sovereignty and justice, as our inability to grasp the true meaning and depth of our own sin.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Chucky.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
I don't believe that God's justice and sovereignty is easier to understand than our sin, if our sin is indeed finite and God (and therefore, presumably his attributes) are infinite.
ReplyDeleteDear Anon,
ReplyDeleteThank you for our dinner conversation and our discussion concerning finite and infinite. Thank you as well, Sir Charles II.
Chuckles, Anon (computer guy from church, who is Menno and not Charles) wants to challenge you concerning your last remark.
He wants to arm wrestle. Sir Charles suggests a GTA pedestrian kill off.
Love,
Anon and Charles and of course me.
I think part of the reason that sinners don't truly understand their sinfulness is because they don't understand God's holiness.
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, I understand my sinfulness more and more, the more I grow in Christ.
If we could spend but one minute in Hell, and feel the devastating loneliness, the overwhelming hopelessness, and the excruciating pain, as well as see other souls screaming in agonizing torment and grinding their teeth together because of the unbearable pain, I think we would gain a burden for souls that would drive us to seek the lost on a consistent, daily basis, and plead with them to be saved, until we finally quit only from pure exhaustion.
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteMy studies overall have brought me to similar conclusions concerning God's holiness, even with the existence of the problem of evil.
Our sin in contrast should drive us as Christians to pray for and witness to non-believers.
God chooses persons and alone does the salvific work but God can use us to influence others for the gospel.
Yes indeed this would be a toughy for sure if you were a Christian officiating a funeral for someone who never accepted Jesus..
ReplyDeleteRodney dangerfield i still love him
God bless :)
One of my theology professors stated that at a funeral if the deceased person may be unsaved and this professor needed to speak, he would simply state something along the lines that God was a perfect and holy judge.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Tamela.
Scientology, where is the evidence that supposedly supports this belief system? I'm tired of hearing about such a farce by actors/celebrities who use their fame to push their ideals and beliefs on the public and their fans!
ReplyDelete-Politically Correct-
-No such thing!-
Yes, I cannot state that what I have read and heard about Scientology is very convincing.
ReplyDeleteCheers.
Thanks for the visit!
ReplyDeleteWelcome.:)
ReplyDelete