"Your statement is a straw man that has been used over and over again in this forum. The ONLY WAY to the Father is through Jesus Christ."

TMK,

Doctrine is not just some creed we say. True Doctrine, as described by the Bible, is to be passionately and vigorously applied to our lives. That's why Paul exhorted Timothy to be careful about doctrine. We, in the power of the Holy Spirit, must allow the truth to take us to its truest end--the glory of God. Anything else regarding doctrine is just knowledge that puffs up.

Also, I don't come in here with all sorts of hebrew and greek words and select a single synonymn that seems to agree with what I already think, etc, etc, etc. Many correct doctrines have been obtained that way, but also many destructive doctrines have as well. We need 2 things to understand doctrine as described in the scriptures: The Holy Spirit (by Whom we are regenerated) and the Scriptures themselves.

If I have to go all of the internet and read 10,000 books and listen to men who claim to know the "secrets" to the original biblical languages in order to extrapolate all manner of excuses for the twisting or out and out rejection of what the Scriptures plainly say, then I am deceived. I dont' care what doctrine you come up with. I don't care if you arrive at justification by faith through that method--you have circumvented both things we need to discern what the scriptures mean--the Holy Spirit and the plain reading of scripture.

Those poor brothers in North Korea or the Maldives or other places (most of whom dont' have the resources that we have) will just not be able to be as enlightened as us--a people who can go grab a lexicon and make the Bible say whatever we already think.

I am not against studing the Bible and using those resources. I am against the rejection of the plain reading of scripture and replacing it with those methods. That is why I am so careful with commentaries. I read them, but if they are not advocating a plain understanding of the Scriptures, I will not heed, even if what they say seems right to me. I especially am leery of phrases akin to, "What Paul really meant was..." or "The actual greek/hebrew word really means..." or "In that particular culture...", etc. Anything that makes me look outside the scriptures to come up with doctrine is faulty, even if the doctrine is correct.

That is all I will say about this subject.

Dolfan--

I appreciate your post and tone.

If someone is annihilated, is not that annihilation everlasting?

The contrast is clear-- be in the Lords presence forever or be wiped out forever. Personally I would choose the former.

When I said a million years I was not saying that the Bible says this. Proponents of universal reconciliation believe that punishment in hell is finite depending on what each person merits until they repent. Some people are more stubborn than others.

My biggest problem with eternal torment is that I just don't see how Jesus wins in that scenario. Scripture says he made a spectacle of satan at the cross. How can this be true if satan wins practically all of the human souls ever created?

Now I realize this is something of a "gut" argument but not entirely because the overriding theme of scripture is that Jesus wins and all things are reconciled in Him.

_________________
Todd

Jesus said, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”-Matt.10:28(NKJV)

Thought I’d share some of Matthew Henry’s comments on that verse here:

“Note, First, Hell is the destruction both of soul and body; not of the being of either, but the well—being of both; it is the ruin of the whole man; if the soul be lost, the body is lost too. They sinned together; the body was the soul's tempter to sin, and its tool in sin, and they must eternally suffer together. Secondly, This destruction comes from the power of God: he is able to destroy; it is a destruction from his glorious power (2 Th. 1:9); he will in it make his power known; not only his authority to sentence, but his ability to execute the sentence, Rom. 9:22. Thirdly, God is therefore to be feared, even by the best saints in this world. Knowing the terrors of the Lord, we persuade men to stand in awe of him. If according to his fear so is his wrath, then according to his wrath so should his fear be, especially because none knows the power of his anger, Ps. 90:11. When Adam, in innocency, was awed by a threatening, let none of Christ's disciples think that they need not the restraint of a holy fear. Happy is the man that fears always. The God of Abraham, who was then dead, is called the Fear of Isaac, who was yet alive, Gen. 31:42, 53. Fourthly, The fear of God, and of his power reigning in the soul, will be a sovereign antidote against the fear of man. It is better to fall under the frowns of all the world, than under God's frowns, and therefore, as it is most right in itself, so it is most safe for us, to obey God rather than men, Acts 4:19.”

Would temporary torment followed by annihilation or final reconciliation be a real cause for the fear of God? Let’s say an unconverted person were to be approached by someone on the streets, and that someone warned them about God’s judgment after death(as we see examples of such warnings all through the Bible). And let’s say that the unconverted person was told that hell is temporary and that it’s followed by annihilation or final reconciliation. Do we really think that such kind of warning would merit any kind of real fear of God’s judgment? Couldn't the unbeliever’s logical response be, “Well, I guess it’s not really that serious. I could do as I please because in the end I will only suffer for a certain period of time and then cease to exist(sort of like sleeping), or finally be reconciled to God. No real danger after all.”

If Universal Reconciliation were true, wouldn't that mean that the sinner would at least be partially paying for his/her sins in a temporary hell and that Christ would be paying for the rest of the penalty? I hope we can see how blasphemous such an idea is. Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe. If we say it is only a corrective temporal judgment I think we are hard-pressed to prove it from Scripture, since Judgment Day is not taught as a corrective Judgment but a final one. Universal Reconciliation is probably even more an affront to the cross than Annihilationism.

_________________
Oracio

Quote: "You say "does not have to mean eternal or everlasting although it can mean that." Why would it get translated that way 67 of the 71 times that it was translated in the KJV?"

I have no idea why they mistranslated this word (actually I do have some idea).

"Aion" means "age" (like the English word eon) and "ios" means "pertaining to". It doesn't have to mean forever nor does it have to mean temporary. If they had just translated the word as "age-lasting" it would have been a truer translation.

_________________
Todd

Quote: "You say "does not have to mean eternal or everlasting although it can mean that." Why would it get translated that way 67 of the 71 times that it was translated in the KJV?"

I have no idea why they mistranslated this word (actually I do have some idea).

"Aion" means "age" (like the English word eon) and "ios" means "pertaining to". It doesn't have to mean forever nor does it have to mean temporary. If they had just translated the word as "age-lasting" it would have been a truer translation.

_________________
Todd

_________________
Michael Strickland

TMK,

I also see that aeon/aion/eon is the original for everlasting in 2 Th. 1:9, 10. If this means a definite time period, then everlasting reward is also limited in time and is not eternal. Whenever aion is used with regard to afterlife consequences of reward, the use is always and only eternal of duration. The most succinct statement where this occurs, or maybe the most succinct, is Matt. 25:41-46.

What textual evidence suggests that aion in v. 46 means periodic duration and not everlasting duration as to life? If there is no such evidence as to v. 46, where is the evidence that in v. 41it means periodic duration and not everlasting duration as to fire/punishment?

Or, is there simply no evidence in Mt. 25:41-46 that aion means less than everlasting duration? If that evidence of an alternate meaning from everlasting is missing from this passage, where do we affirmatively find that evidence in the other passages on this topic that use aion?

I submit that aion means everlasting in duration as to both life and as to punishment throughout all its appearances on this topic.

_________________
Tim

by TMK,

_________________
Oracio

It is easy to demonize something that you do not understand. I am not convinced that those posting here have honestly looked at the annihilationist interpretation of Scripture. TMK is not necessarily presenting it well or thoroughly. I could attempt to play devil's advocate in order to explain annihilationism, but I am not interested in doing so in such a vitriolic environment. Oracio opened up the topic with an honest question and there are better places to research this topic and read the debates.

Some of what has been posted here seems arrogant. There does not seem to be any attempt to understand what Scriptural support there may be for other positions or investigation of what the Bible says. There seems to be an eagerness to judge the motivation behind these views rather than ascertaining the Scriptural integrity of the views themselves.

Perhaps if an articulate and knowledgeable annihilationist were to enter the discussion this thread may become informative; however, because of the tone I doubt one would be encouraged to do so.

I disagree with annihilationism; however, it is wrong to judge all who hold this view as idolaters, etc.

Reading what John Stott (whose sermons are hosted on this site) wrote on the subject may be illuminating.

_________________
Jonathan

TMK,

NOT trying to pile drive in you. But, I did want to address your fair question.

You asked me

If someone is annihilated, is not that annihilation everlasting?

Well, no. Nothing does not endure. Nothing is .... nothing. It is a non-state. It does not last or not last. To propose that annihilation is everlasting does not admit of true nothingness. It is a linguistic trick, unintentional perhaps, but one that lets us say one thing (nothingness) while truly being the opposite (somethingness). If it is something, then it is not annihilated.

_________________
Tim