Christian Conditionalism vs Traditionalism (Rethinking Hell)

[Deborah_]

17 minutes ago, Jeff2 said:

If Hell is no threat, but a simple annihilation, why even bring it up as a warning? Why wouldn't the Bible just dwell on the positive; heaven? a reward for being right?

I do not see in the example of the Rich man and Lazarus that those that are in torment will have their pain eased.

2 Thes. 1:9, speaking of those who "do not obey the gospel of Christ"(8)... "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction..."

Is "everlasting"temporary? If it is temporary, why doesn't it say so?

Eternal punishment in Matt. 25: 41; 46. It juxtaposed against "eternal life" for the righteous. If punishment that is "eternal" is limited and temporary, does that mean that "life" which is a reward to the righteous just a "limited" time offer too?

Why is simple annihilation not a threat? If Hell is annihilation, there is still great 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' as the damned realise the awfulness and inescapability of their fate. And why assume that the annihilation will be swift and painless?

As Luftwaffe has so ably explained, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is NOT describing their final destinies, but the "intermediate state" - which is evidently blissful for the righteous and agonising for the wicked.

And "eternal" can just as easily be interpreted as "permanent" - i.e. there is no escape from eternal punishment and no risk of us losing eternal life.

[Hawkeye]

Did Jesus take our punishment? Yes!

 If our punishment is everlasting torment for not trusting in Jesus, then why is he not currently burning for eternity? 

[Jeff2]

And "eternal" can just as easily be interpreted as "permanent" - i.e. there is no escape from eternal punishment and no risk of us losing eternal life. 

Deborah, thank you for bringing up a challenge. 

I agree that the Rich man and Lazarus is speaking of the intermediate state as you have pointed out. The argument however, is that there is no hope offered for the pleas of agony. If no pity is offered here, there would be no reason to suggest that this attitude of God about pity for those who reject His ways would exist in His Eternal Punishment after the Judgement.  

 

The replacement of meaning of "permanent" for "eternal" is not warranted from the Scriptures. In 42 occurrences aion  speaks of an "age", and the 42 times used, aionios  is translated consistently as "eternal." If there were examples of it being a loose term, the translators would have likely varied their translation. Sorry, but the alternative usage of a word in this case does not appear credible to me.

As a former Atheist, annihilation would have appeared better than heaven to me! What could be better than the non-existence after death that I already believed was true?  

 

[Hawkeye]

Just now, Jeff2 said:

And "eternal" can just as easily be interpreted as "permanent" - i.e. there is no escape from eternal punishment and no risk of us losing eternal life. 

Subjects who used multiple colors combined with underlines, circles, and stars, were also shown to have exceptionally high levels of spirituality, according to the final results of the study.as you have pointed out. The argument however, is that there is no hope offered for the pleas of agony. If no pity is offered here, there would be no reason to suggest that this attitude of God about pity for those who reject His ways would exist in His Eternal Punishment after the Judgement.  

 

The replacement of meaning of "permanent" for "eternal" is not warranted from the Scriptures. In 42 occurrences aion  speaks of an "age", and the 42 times used, aionios  is translated consistently as "eternal." If

As a former Atheist, annihilation would have appeared better than heaven to me! What could be better than the non-existence after death that I already believed was true?  

 

Nobody says the perishing will be immediate. Likewise, the ceasing to exist is forever, i.e. You die and will never be risen. How long that death takes and how painful it is lies in Gods hands. There is not a single reference in scripture that shows a non believer living forever.

 

in reality there is a parallel. Take Romans 6:23 death! John 3:16? perish! If eternal life is literal then how ca. Death be figurative in the same sentence? It's a logical fallacy.

[Running Gator]

1 hour ago, Yowm said:

It was a general question directed at no one in particular. Why would you make an assumption I was directing it at him?

If you are referring to Luftwaffe, anyone can support their view with Scripture by allegorizing/spiritualizing it. (I'm not good at nailing jello to a wall).

It is much tougher to defends ones' position when they take a more literal view of the text.

Everyone finds part of the Bible to be allegorical, the only debate is over which parts that are that way.  

Also, I do not think his position relies on allegory but on the way words are used throughout the rest of the Bible. 

[Hawkeye]

16 minutes ago, Yowm said:

What I am seeing here is that one side is providing Scripture as proof, the other side is providing 'logical' objections with no Scripture to bolster their 'conditional/annhilational stance.

If we are going to discuss those matters which are unknown to us apart from God's revelation then our stance must be based on Scripture and not logical deductions and reasoned objections. We are fully dependent on what God has revealed even if it runs contrary to the natural mind.

I'm sure many reasoned away the flood in Noah's day.

I'm limited in fully replying at work. I plan on a longer more indepth post later

[Running Gator]

57 minutes ago, Yowm said:

What I am seeing here is that one side is providing Scripture as proof, the other side is providing 'logical' objections with no Scripture to bolster their 'conditional/annhilational stance.

If we are going to discuss those matters which are unknown to us apart from God's revelation then our stance must be based on Scripture and not logical deductions and reasoned objections. We are fully dependent on what God has revealed even if it runs contrary to the natural mind.

I'm sure many reasoned away the flood in Noah's day.

What I have seen is every point that has been made has been supported by scriptures.

what I have also seen is the other side say "no, that is not what that passage means"

it is not unlike the debate between the OSAS and the "you can lose it" camps.  

[Guest Teditis]

I agree with OOTS... I've seen people discussing the same scriptures and wrangling over their exact meaning.

Both sides have discussed Scripture.

[Hawkeye]

Just now, Yowm said:

What Scriptures have been used to support the conditional/annhilational stance?

Lots. Read Waffles post

[Hawkeye]

1 minute ago, Yowm said:

Looking back at his posts, he would use some rather questionable texts from the old testament which did not speak directly to annhilation but had to be inferred. We have further progressive revelation in the NT which shines a clearer light on eternal torment of hell. It is poor exegesis to try and prove against what is clearly revealed in the NT by using questionable verses from the OT.

Show me 3 clear passages from the NT supporting the  conditional/annhilational stance and I'll treat this as a draw.

John 3:16, Romans 6:23