Annihilation or Eternal Punishment?

ligonier.org ^ | February 2014 | Robert Peterson

[Cvengr]

Existentialism scars our thinking into believing death means annihilation. Death is simply a state of existence involving separation.

Too many people grieve themselves at the loss of a loved one, grieving for their separation from themselves, but then confusing their separation with annihilation.

[daniel1212]

Too many people grieve themselves at the loss of a loved one, grieving for their separation from themselves, but then confusing their separation with annihilation.

And eternal punishment is not only separation from God, but from anything positive while realizing proactive punishment.

"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. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented." (Luke 16:24-25)

[daniel1212]

A letter from an atheist

You are really convinced that you've got all the answers. You've tricked yourself into believing that you're 100% right. Well let me tell you just one thing. Do you consider yourself to be compassionate of other human beings? If you're right about GOD, as you say you are, and you believe that, then how can you sleep at night? When you speak with me, you are speaking with someone who you believe is walking directly into eternal damnation, into an endless onslaught of horrendous pain which your ‘loving’ GOD created, yet you stand by and do nothing.

If you believed one bit that thousands every day were falling into an eternal and unchangeable fate, you should be running the streets mad with rage at their blindness. That’s equivalent to standing on a street corner and watching every person that passes by you walk blindly into the path of a bus and die, yet you stand idly by and do nothing. You're just twiddling your thumbs, happy with the knowledge that one day that “Walk” signal will shine your way across the road.

Think about it. Imagine the horrors hell must have in store if the Bible is true. You're just going to allow that to happen and not care about saving anyone but yourself? If you're right, then you're an uncaring, unemotional, and purely selfish (expletive deleted) that has no right to talk about subjects as love and caring.

(A letter as reprinted by Ray Comfort in “The Evidence Bible, Pub. by Living Waters publications, 1-800- 437-1893, or on-line at http://www.livingwaters.com

[ScubieNuc]

A lot of word parsing there, but I still see nothing to contradict the fact of 1 Corinthians 15:53 which says that we are mortals until we take on Christ’s immortality. In other words we can’t live forever, in this life or the next without accepting Christ. The lost can not live forever in a state of torment because they do not have immortality.

The ONE verse that does specifically talk about torment forever and ever is Revelation 20:10, but if you look at that verse it specifies who is being tormented...the devil, the beast, and the false prophet. Maybe that’s because the are all fallen angels and were made with immortal souls. Whatever the reason, that verse doesn’t say that unsaved humans are being tormented forever and ever.

[ScubieNuc]

The story of Lazarus and the Rich man is a parable. Matthew 13:34 tells us that when Jesus spoke to the masses he ONLY spoke in parables.

Here is a good breakdown of the parable of Lazarus:
http://www.jeremyandchristine.com/articles/lazarus.html

[sr4402]

So how is it that billions of Indians, Chinese and Japanese who have already lived and died chose to burn forever?

One would think that, but this was answered by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1. That man chooses to be ignorant of God's biggest testimony to man; His Creation. "19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

What will be so tragic, is that many will stand before God on His Thone and wonder "Why did I choose to ignore what was right before my eyes? Why did I ignore all the indications I needed a Sacrifice for me in my Place?"

[null and void]

Your premise is faulty, and therefore your conclusion is.

Ah. Ayn Rand was right when she said check your premises.

Thank you for that and your clear and concise explanation that followed.

[daniel1212]

The story of Lazarus and the Rich man is a parable. Matthew 13:34 tells us that when Jesus spoke to the masses he ONLY spoke in parables.

What Matthew 13:34 actually says is "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them," "These things was while the Lord sitting by the sea side, where he spoke to "great multitudes" (Mt. 13:1,2) and then departs, while in other places as in Lk. 13 He teaches them both literal things as well as parables that use actual physical things which correspond to actual spiritual realities.

And here is where the parable polemic fails, for besides real names never being used in a parable, if Lk. 16:19-33 is a parable, then for the first and only time the Lord was using science fiction, for according to Annihilationism there is no suffering after the grave, thus unlike in other parables, the Lord would be using an fictional physical reality which corresponds to a spiritual reality.

In addition, the suffering that the rich man experiences is a poor illustration of what the parable polemic sets forth in its interpretation, that of the Pharisees being represented by the rich man and suffering exclusion, as in according to Annihilationism these will not be enduring long term suffering for relief immediate after death in a place of torment, but will be simply annihilated after the last judgment.

Moreover, even if Lk. 16:19ff is a parable, then the spiritual reality it represents can better correspond to the final judgment, with Abraham and the saints representing the jury,as the saints shall sit in judgment, and and the rich man representing the lost, such as who example their lack of Christian faith by not caring for the truly needy, and resulting in the everlasting torment which Scripture warns of.

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:" "And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:" (Matthew 25:31-32)

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" (Matthew 25:41)

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matthew 25:46)

"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Revelation 20:10)

[daniel1212]

The ONE verse that does specifically talk about torment forever and ever is Revelation 20:10, but if you look at that verse it specifies who is being tormented...the devil, the beast, and the false prophet.

But which, as i just showed, is where the lost go, and there is no mention of an Annihilation section:

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" (Matthew 25:41)

[ScubieNuc]

...for according to Annihilationism there is no suffering after the grave,

I see where you are confused....I'm not adhereing to this idea of annihilation, I accept what the Bible teaches, that there is suffering after the grave in Hell for the unbeliever. However, the Lake of Fire, which destroys Hell, also destroys the human unsaved.

Yes, the Lake of Fire was reserved for Satan and the angels which followed him, and the Lake of Fire is eternal, and the destruction of the souls, the punishment, of the human unsaved is eternal. None of those verses say that the human unsaved are tormented forever.

I can tell that you didn't even read the link I provided explaining the parable, but that's your right. You don't want to fully examine where you might be wrong and you just want to repost what you have been taught. I believe that you are a well meaning Christian, but I also know in my heart and from thorough study of all scriptures dealing with death and salvation, that the Bible teaches that the unsaved souls are destroyed, the "second death", in the Lake of Fire.

[sr4402]

I'm not a subscriber to absolute human will and the subject here is Annihilation or Eternal Punishment. And the real problem with Annihilation is it feeds those who say 'Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die". The mentality that there are no consequences for ones actions.

For God will judge every action, every thought, every falling short of His commandments and none who rely on their own merits will not be judged horrifically. The only recourse God gives is to believe that His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, paid it all on your behalf and is your only plea.

That is the ultimate love, to pay for what another cannot afford and as a gift for which one cannot buy with money.

[Former Fetus]

Thank you for all the information concerning “apollymi”. I’ve had some SDAs coming to my (S. Baptist) Sunday school class where we have argued for hours. Next time I will have this information with me! Even if they don’t change their minds, it will keep them from confusing my students.

[daniel1212]

I can tell that you didn't even read the link I provided explaining the parable, but that's your right. You don't want to fully examine where you might be wrong and you just want to repost what you have been taught.

I have already dealt with Annihilationists. The Lord was not bluffing about eternal torment, " "into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:45-46)

You source, Smith, begins by discrediting himself by saying,

Next to the gross error in translating the Greek aion (a period of time with a beginning and an end) into an English eternity (no time at all, neither having a beginning nor an ending),

which is absurd, as the very word he rejects as everlasting is the very word (aiōnios, used in Mt. 25:46) used to describe God in the LXX in such places as Psalms 90:2: "from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." And for "eternal" as in "eternal life" in the NT. Thus based on myopic annihilationism reasoning, aiōnios cannot mean God is eternal, as He is in Tim 1:17 "Now to the King eternal.

If aionios says God is eternal, then He is, likewise for life, likewise for punishment.

Smith also tries the same argument you did, that Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables ONLY based on Mat. 13:34, but which renders as symbolic such teachings as, "And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (Matthew 15:10-11) "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine." (Matthew 22:31-33) "Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:" (Luke 12:8)

Yet this is irrelevant, as Lk. 16 is not addressed to the multitudes, but begins with "he said also unto his disciples," to whom He told both true stories and parables as well as prophetic events.

It is true that the Lord told many stories as parables, but it cannot be proved that all stories as "as a certain man" were simply parables with no real events as their basis.

Also, and while stories are identified as parables 45 times, this is not the case in Lk. 16:19ff. Moreover naming two persons is unique, and real names are used when teaching such stories as, "The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." (Luke 11:32)

Smith then protests that "If the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is both literal and an historical fact, then it contradicts not only the laws of physics and logic," but on that basis he would have to render the post resurrection of account of the Lord to be fiction. How can a person with holes in his hands come thru a locked door and eat bread? Where did the bread go?

Thus the man is well on his way to rejecting Scriptural doctrine due to it not confirming to the physics of almighty God!

Smith then presents a contrived comparison btwn the rich man and Lazarus, in which he portrays the rich man as simply a man that was rich, with a nice house, and who fed the poor, and reverent towards authority!

And then Smith insolently asks, "Where else in Scripture do the character traits in the left column come under eternal condemnation? "Incredible! In contrast the Lord portrays the rich man as an extravagant glutton who could care less for the poor man who ate the scraps that were tossed out, and to whom dogs gave more care!.

And this is consistent with the Lord's other teaching that states, "And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:24-25)

Smith argues that "neither of those [riches or poverty] is Scriptural grounds for either being rewarded or condemned. Where? Present a Scripture." This testifies once again to to his misrepresentation of the rich man and superficial analysis, as the Lord obviously was portraying the rich man as an uncaring selfish man, and who built bigger barns while neglecting his soul, and which typifies the lost. And while nothing is said of the faith of Lazarus, as affliction is more conducive to faith like as riches is to complacency, Lazarus can be assumed to have been like those who are of a poor and contrite spirit who trembleth at God's word. (Is. 66:2)

And as faith is manifested by what it does, "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:17)

Smith also argues that "When theologians insist that this is a literal story, they place a huge blotch on the character of God! According to the Christian interpretation, this man is spending eternity in Hell fire, but has never had his day in court. "

Yet this displays more ignorance, as it is held that Hades is a type of holding cell, suffering in general as sinners, but awaiting the Great White Throne judgement, when "death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." (Revelation 20:13)

Furthermore, many texts all work together to support Paradise being Abraham's bosom where OT saints went before the Resurrection, (Hebrews 9:4; 10:4) with Christ setting them free upon His death, (Ephesians 4:8-9) thus the "good thief" went there with the Lord, (1Lk. 23:43) and graves opened up after His Resurrection (Matthew 27:51-53) and now Paradise is the 3rd heaven. (2Cor. 12:4)

Going even further in digging his own grave, Smith asks, "The rich man recognized Abraham on sight. Even called him "Father." How could someone who knows Abraham "...hear Moses...?" Moses didn't live until hundreds of years after Abraham? How could the rich man's "brothers" hear Moses? Moses didn't live until far into their future?"

Is Smith really this unlearned that he cannot comprehend that to "hear Moses" is to hear the law of Moses, or even to do what is contained in the Law by nature? (Rm. 2)

But such is the case with polemicists who have an axe to grind.

Smith then goes on to elaborately attempt the usual interpretation of Annihilationism, that the rich man represents the Jews and Lazarus the Gentiles, yet even if that were tenable, it is is simply spurious as rejecting postmortem torment, for again, it has the Lord teaching science fiction.

For as said, in parables the Lord uses known physical realities which correspond to spiritual realities, but if Annihilationism is true and Lk. 16 is a parable, then it is using fiction, that of a man being dead yet suffering torment, to represent some undefined spiritual reality.

If one wants to hold Lk. 16 as a parable, then he needs to see it as teaching that the lost, represented by the complacent rich man ("But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation" - Luke 6:24) will suffer in Hell, while Lazarus represents "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:3)

Thus Lk. 16 as teaching about literal postmortem punishment for the wicked, and consolation for the redeemed righteous, is what is congruent with the rest of Scripture.

[daniel1212]

The only recourse God gives is to believe that His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, paid it all on your behalf and is your only plea.

Amen!

[ScubieNuc]

Boy you can sure twist things up and make them complicated. I read Smith’s paper and researched his claims and they all made sense. It even gets into your question about the name Lazarus. Definitely makes more sense then what you are making.

Stick to your idea of an eternal punishING of the unsaved humans, if you want. It’s really no skin off of my nose. I’m just telling you that your twisting of the Scriptures to fit that narrative convolutes simple verses like John 3:16 which says that if you believe on Jesus you wont perish (die, cease to exist, etc.) but have everlasting life.

Let me ask you this....what is your belief on the issue of predestination?

[daniel1212]

Boy you can sure twist things up and make them complicated

Rather, it is Smith who deceives the willing with a multiplicity of words, while mine is consistent with the use of parables and other texts on the afterlife. Which did not include the use of science fiction.

Annihilationism relies on possible meanings of words to negate the obvious intent, and basically renders the Lord is being misleading and bluffing.

Consider (Mark 9:43-44) "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

This description is clearly warning of an enduring experience, which certainly does have a deterrent effect.

In contrast, despite the solemn warning about being in a place of unquenchable fire which they attempt to explain away, annihilationism renders Jesus to be trying to deter living a whole life indulging in the flesh on the basis that they will be annihilated in the end, and frankly, plenty will gladly trade a life of sin in exchange for being annihilated at the end.

I’m just telling you that your twisting of the Scriptures to fit that narrative convolutes simple verses like John 3:16 which says that if you believe on Jesus you wont perish (die, cease to exist, etc.) but have everlasting life.

That also is absurd, for as in other places, the lot of the wicked is set in contradistinction with the reward of the righteous, but you have the latter receiving eternal life while the former simply are annihilated, but which the Lord elsewhere describes as everlasting punishment in the same places as the devil. .

And anyone hearing the Lord warn of going into the same place as the devil and into everlasting punishment would most naturally understand it as being eternal. Annihilation is simply not dealing straightly with the whole counsel of God Over and out.

[redleghunter]

Excellent and clear post.