Category: Annihilationism
-
Undying Worms and Unquenchable Fire
It is often asserted that there is a problem (for so-called “traditionalists”) with the use of Mark 9:48 due to it’s relation with Isaiah 66:24. This problem, according to Fudge, is that 1) Jesus quotes it “without amendment” 2) That the body is “already dead” and 3) That the fire “is a consuming, irresistible fire”. He relates “salted with fire” to mean the salting of a field, or of a place in order to make it uninhabitable. He cites Fields for his source, but we aren’t told, by Fudge, why this is supposed to have any connection with the passage …
-
Matthew 25:41, Kolasis, and The Mediator
…(26:19) This phrase eternal fire is used again in Matthew 25:41, where Jesus says he will send those on his left into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. So they will be destroyed, just like Sodom and Gomorrah. He calls this eternal punishment a few verses later, but before you assume that this supports torment forever and ever, consider this. The word rendered punishment refers to a penalty of death in the Septuagint translation of Ezekiel 18:30-32, and in 2Maccabees 4:38. The verb form of the word likewise refers to being killed in at least a
-
Compare and Contrast: Date on Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6
…(24:33) What the Bible says is the nature of the final punishment: Jude assures his readers that the wicked will be punished, and tells us in verse 7 that Sodom and Gomorrah are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Of course, what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? Well, the Bible records only their destruction, and no torment, in a short span of 4 verses, in Genesis 19 after which Abraham awakes the next morning to look out at the smoke rising from its remains. No wonder that 2 Peter 2:6 likewise uses their being destroyed
-
Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6
It is often asserted by annihilationists that the “example” of Sodom and Gomorrah, as seen in Jude and 2 Peter 2 are support for their position. This cannot possibly be the case, for a variety of reasons. Consider; if something is symbolic of, or is representative of something else – especially something eternal, as the fire is here – of what nature is the symbol in comparison to the actuality? Is it greater than, equal to, or lesser than? Biblically, all symbols of God’s acts and/or nature are necessarily lesser than the fulfillment, or that which is exemplified. The prefigure …
-
My Opponent’s Position, as Stated
…(22:14)First, I fully hold to the orthodox essentials of the faith and other important doctrines; I believe in the Trinity, the deity and virgin birth of Christ, the total depravity of man and salvation by grace through faith alone; Sola Scriptura, the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. I’m not a Seventh Day Adventist, a Jehovah’s Witness, or a member of any other questionable denomination.
Second, I have no emotional or philosophical problem whatsoever with eternal conscious torment; everlasting suffering has never seemed to me to be incompatible with the love and justice of God, nor does it today.
-
Annihilationism, Conditionalism, Monism, et al.: The “Musty Canard” of the Alleged Platonic Dualistic Interpretive Lens
Adherents to a number of theological positions that are often related to annihilationism posit that the vast majority of Christians throughout history have incorrectly read the anthropological and eschatological teachings of Scripture through the Greek lens of Platonic dualism such that they have also settled upon unbiblical conclusions regarding the constitution of the human being, the intermediate state, and the eternal punishment of the wicked.
Even Greg Bahnsen gave some credence to this accusation (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa143.htm), though he continued to hold that there is an immaterial aspect to the human mind, an intermediate state in virtue of a temporary …
-
Augustine and Calvin on the Language of Corruption and Incorruption
Mortality, which in general, is the state of being susceptible, or of being subject to death, should be defined precisely, clearly, and unequivocally, if we are to speak on the subject. Not doing so will result in confusion, dissatisfaction, and eventually, error. This also requires us to speak to what this state presupposes, in order to be meaningful, or intelligible. Death, likewise, must be clearly, precisely, and unequivocally defined should we wish to deal with it.
…“Now every fault injures the nature, and is consequently contrary to the nature. The creature, therefore, which cleaves to God, differs from those
-
Propitiation, Wrath and Substitution
What is propitiation? That was one of the central elements of the Reformation of doctrine, and one of the most problematic issues in the modern Evangelical movement today. It has to do with many, many areas of theology, and we can’t possibly cover them exhaustively in a single blog post. But in a nutshell, what is it? In a nutshell, it is the “turning away of,” “appeasement” or “satisfaction for” the wrath of God due sinners. It is, therefore, intimately bound up to our notion of what the wrath of God actually is. It is bound up with sacrifice, atonement, …
-
Exploratory Questions For Chris Date #2
I asked some other exploratory questions here, previously.
1) Do unbelievers suffer in the Lake of Fire?
2) If so, are they then annihilated by or after this experience?
3) Why are they thus annihilated?
4) What is the significance of salt in Old Testament sacrifices, and what is the relevance to being “salted with fire” in Mark 9:49?
5) Do you believe that the Reformed doctrine of the immortality of man is of Greek origin?
6) What is death, per your position?
7) What sense does “eternal punishment” have when without respect to an object of that punishment?… -
Perspicacity and Ignorance
…If I assert that there is a black cat in the closet, and you assert that nobody knows what is in the closet, you have virtually told me that I am wrong in my hypothesis. So when I tell Mr. Black that God exists, and he responds very graciously by saying that perhaps I am right since nobody knows what is in the “Beyond,” he is virtually saying that I am wrong in my hypothesis. He is obviously thinking of such a god as could comfortably live in the realm of chance. But the God of Scripture cannot live in