SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Eternal Hell

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )

Joined: 2007/6/29
Posts: 342

 Re: Krispy

You wrote:
"So let me throw this in the mix... suppose this church wanted to minister to your youth, what then? They wanted to host events and what-not and use it as an outreach to other churches, and to the community.

Does that change anyone's thoughts on separation from them?"

You've focused the question, so I'll try to focus an answer.

I think a valuable insight and distinction may be gained from our Lord's instruction to John and the rest of his disciples in Mark chapter 9:

"And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

For he that is not against us is on our part." Mark 9:38-40

I think the things to take out of this are:

1. John saw other "Christians" who (as he saw it), didn't believe and do things "correctly" (i.e. they weren't following Jesus closely, like the apostles were.)

2. Our Lord confirmed that God was indeed still working through them nonetheless, saying they did "real" miracles. (i.e., We might say today, “people were really getting "saved" through their ministry.”)

3. Our Lord confirmed that it was not His will that such should be hindered. (A powerful indictment against the antichrist spirit infecting the Church that persecutes those with different opinions.)

4. Jesus did not say, however, to give up the truth that you know and go and join them in their error. (No, follow the Lord as closely as you can, according to the light you’ve been given.)

As individual Christians therefore, we must follow the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, while still patiently loving our neighbor as ourselves.

For instance:

If there is "real" fruit in another's ministry, do not hinder the work; God in His mercy has put the brother on the same Path you are on. Just pray for God to continue the work; and pray for what you know he lacks. (Just as we hope others, further down that same Path, who see our faults, are praying for us...)


The local Church, (as well as the individual for that matter), has the duty and responsibility to set some kind of guidelines of Truth: "Unless we can be shown from the Scriptures otherwise, we believe such and such things to be NECESSARILY true,...", etc.

Now, if a particular Church has come down on the side Eternal Punishment, for instance, they should not go and join in the work of those who "err" in this regard.

However, they should have large enough hearts to still pray that God, who is rich in mercy, would still mercifully bless the work, despite the secondary "errors" involved.

What do you think, Brothers?


 2011/10/14 16:19Profile

Joined: 2008/4/1
Posts: 531
America's Heartand


@ dietolive,

Your post is spot on. Well said! Could not agree more.



 2011/10/15 1:14Profile


Doug... I thought that was well said and tought out.

Thats where I am with this too. I dont think we should barge into some other church and start yelling "Ichabod!"... but at the same time we should not go and basically give credence to their err.

Thank you!


 2011/10/15 5:48

Joined: 2011/2/23
Posts: 58
Brest, France


I will try to address this in love. But basically, I have 5 good reason not to believe in annihilationism:

1- It is definitely another gospel (Good News). Well, isn't that a good new for all the unrepentant sinners out there. Now, imagine a preacher going: "it will not be that costly for you, you surely will suffer but friend it'll have an end... please repent, won't you?" I'm not sure of the effectiveness of that. because that sinner doesn't really need to repent, doesn't really need God, doesn't really and desperately need salvation since it'll come to an end, he HAS an alternative, salvation isn't salvation anymore, you still have your backup plan.

2- Atheists believe it. They do not believe in any form of afterlife, that's pretty much what annihilationism teaches at least for the reprobates, of course they will suffer, what a big deal, for a season, but it'll have an end...

3- It follows the trend of this present evil world. If God is love, that is tempting God, doubting His very nature (kind of If you are REALLY the Son of God, do this and that) why does He have to send His creature in hell? that's horrible? so what? He killed His own begotten Son for you? isn't that more horrible? The fact of the matter is, this mindset is I humbly believe self-centered, not God-centered

4- It makes Jesus' sacrifice way too costly (IMHO), personally, it makes violence to God's justice in order to stress God's love.

5- It makes great revivals questionable. It means that Jonathan Edwards was erring, and so does Finney (no debate on this please :D), the whole thing was built on lies not on truth, I do not believe it'd work.

Now, I do not label annihilationist heretical, it is possible not to believe in eternal hell and be saved, it really is. But if we were to evangelize, let's say i would not let him speak :)



 2011/10/15 8:04Profile


To deny the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement is to deny the very foundational teachings of Christ. Therefore it is a different gospel and Paul said he who preaches a different gospel let him be accursed.

So we should all be carefull what we preach.

In Hebrews 5,6 it lays out the first principle teaching of Christ.

Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Heb 6:1 ¶ Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, {principles...: or, word of the beginning of}
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

 2011/10/15 8:51

Joined: 2010/6/8
Posts: 191



u have said well.

Also if I might add, I dont think Christ is so much concerned about what doctrine we preach as he is our motive and as long as we preach Christ crucified, Christ risen and that He will come again

 2011/10/15 9:41Profile

Joined: 2009/5/15
Posts: 1042
Pacific Ocean


For the exact same reason that dietolive posted concerning the Greek word aionios, there is no way that I can interpret annihilationism into the bible. That pretty much settles it, as well as the torment that goes on forever from Revelation. Not to mention the last little section of the book of Isaiah, and the story (not parable) of the rich man and Lazarus. (Some people try to call that a parable in order to make it a fictional account, which Jesus never calls it a parable, and for that matter there is never any parable in the New Testament where characters are given names.)

Theologically the idea of annihilationism really undercuts the meaning of the gospel. If there is not an eternal punishment for sin, then the sufferings of the Christ on Calvary for lack of a better word. If the punishment for sin is not eternal, then why did it take an eternal son, not born of the seed of man, to atone for sin?

I would agree with other posters, and with you Krispy that to shout Ichabod would be rather pointless. I think each person is accountable for the materials they build with. I am of the opinion that annihilationism would be wood, hay, and stubble. It is not a material we are called to use to build on the superstructure with.

If love is the basis for why people promote the idea of annihilation, then I would suppose that they do not understand what love is. Love is not human, it is divine, to that extent, we must understand love by how God acts and performs his will because he is love. If God is love, and God is good, and if God is also a consuming fire, we have to understand eternal hell from this standpoint. We cannot drive the wrong way up a one way road just because we want to.

I think it was C.S. Lewis who said something to the affect that God, in his mercy, made hell, so the righteous do not have to suffer the filth of sin for eternity.

We were made in God's image, that makes us eternal beings. Death and time are temporary, merciful interruptions in that scheme.

Here are a few other great quotes he (Lewis) made about it that tend to reveal the seedy underbelly of attempting to prove annihilation out of a skewed understanding of love.

"God in His mercy made The fixed pains of Hell."

"What some people say on earth is that the final loss of one soul gives the lie to all the joy of those who are saved...'That sounds very merciful: but see what lurks behind it...' The demand of the loveless and the self-imprisoned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy: that theirs should be the final power; that Hell should be able to veto heaven."

"Though Our Lord often speaks of Hell as a sentence inflicted by a tribunal, He also says elsewhere that the judgement consists in the very fact that men prefer darkness to light, and that not He, but His "word," judges men. We are therefore at liberty--since the two conceptions, in the long run, mean the same thing--to think of this bad man's perdition not as a sentence imposed on him but as the mere fact of being what he is. The characteristic of lost souls is "their rejection of everything that is not simply themselves."

In Revelation 22 it says that outside the city are the "dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." It does not say that their ashes are there, but they themselves. What does this mean if they have been annihilated? Either they are outside the city...or they are not. Which is true? There are times where Revelation is figurative, but in this case, it is not.

Jeremiah Dusenberry

 2011/10/15 13:01Profile

Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2003
Joplin, Missouri



As I said in my first post, I know that I find myself on the opposite side of the fence as the larger number of believers on this issue. As I also said, I was raised in a very foundational Pentecostal movement which held as one of its core beliefs the doctrine of the destruction of the wicked, or as many call it annihilationism. I have studied both sides of the issue in great detail and have come to the conclusion that both sides can technically be supported Biblically. I have put down a few comments and verses that came to mind as I thought about this discussion and also a few things that crossed my mind as I read through the posts.

Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
(Heb 6:2)

Eternal judgment does not necessarily mean an ongoing punishment that is meted out over eternity. A death sentence for the spirit or soul of a lost man is eternal. From this judgment there is no coming back. It is final…forever.

There are a number of places where scripture teaches the wicked will be destroyed. One can make just as strong a case from these scriptures, I believe, as he can with the verses which seem to imply a torment that never ends.

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.
(Mat 10:28)

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
(2Th 1:8-9)

A few more observations:

“Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”
(Luk 16:29-31)
I believe this is clearly a parable. The story is not the point but rather the vehicle that carries the point. The very prophetic point is made in the last few verses. Though one (Jesus) would come back from the dead still the Jewish people will still not believe.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
(Mat 25:46)
Everlasting punishment is a punishment that is final, forever, and from which there is not repentance. Death or destruction of the spirit would qualify as just such a punishment. I would be interested to see the secular usage of the word kolasis as it is used only twice in the new testament. I am not sure that word usage in one other instance is enough to base a doctrine upon.

"The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."(Revelation 20:10)
This verse says in a very straightforward way that the beast and the false prophet along with the devil will be tormented day and night forever. What it does not say is that unbelievers will be as well. It seems that Mat 10:28 and 2Th 1:8-9 speak more specifically to the unbeliever.

As to the idea that it encourages people to not fear death I would reply that God does not use fear as a motivator for serving Him, at least not that kind of fear. The law produced that form of service. Love constrains me to serve God. I love Him because He first loved me, not because I am afraid of eternal Hell.

What I don’t think we can do is marginalize those who do hold to this point of view. I just don’t think scripture is so clear on this subject as to make it one that we can reject those who do not see it our way. It is a bit like the pre-trib. / post-trib. / mid-trib. discussion. I fall on the side of no special rapture at all, but rather one second coming. However I can definitely see how the pre-tribbers get their idea and I do still reserve the right to be wrong on the issue. I guess one day I will know for sure without a doubt.

Anyway, these are a few of my thoughts. I don’t present them in order to be argumentative, but as someone who has studied the issue and believes he has settled on what he thinks he sees in scripture on a topic that is a bit ambiguous in scripture. I present these things for your consideration.


 2011/10/15 16:39Profile

Joined: 2009/2/20
Posts: 494
Celina, Texas


It does seem that, if sin is made little of, then God's hatred of it is as well. If God's hatred of sin is made little of, then His Holy nature is not the same. If His Holy nature is made little of, then His justice must be downplayed. If His justice is brought to little or nothing then His Son's sacrifice must be minimized for what we have believed about it is now shown as too much of a ransom. If Christ's sacrifice is made little of, then we are kind of back to where we started with sin, so people must be somewhat good within themselves seeing that sin is not so bad. Therefore, God need not concern Himself too much with that wrath thing and Hell might not be such a bad place after all.........but we will be much more easily convinced then say Lazarus and his brothers.

I would be curious if anyone would share how they once abrogated scripture in the defense of annihilationism.

 2011/10/15 17:00Profile

Joined: 2010/7/31
Posts: 61


I'm not really knowledgeable enough on the subject to make an argument. I will point people to a very comprehensive article I read which changed my views from eternal damnation to something like annihilationism. Please read it for yourself. The author's contention is that verses translated as "forever" and "forever and ever" are mistranslated. Before you scoff, read it for yourself to see his specific arguments and inter-text comparison.

 2011/10/15 22:29Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy