Jump to content
IGNORED

Annihilationism vs. Traditionalism.


Steve_S

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357

Wow, that is a lot to respond to, :)   I will need a few days to consider and respond.  I will not be able to respond line for line, as I just don't have that much time on hand, but I will cover all of the issues raised by Luftwaffle.  :)

Edited by shiloh357
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

To really get at the heart of a theological principle, you need to study it in terms of its history and in the light of the main proponents of that principle.  It is not enough to simply talk about what one’s personal theology is pertaining to that principle. So, in studying out the theology of Annihilationism, we need to get a better grip on where it came from.

Annihilationism is not a new concept.   It actually goes back to the 1800s. It has gained resurgence in the late 20th century among post-conservative and postmodern thinkers in the Church, the least of which was a man named Clark Pinnock.   Clark Pinnock was a former conservative theologian who spent the latter parts of his life pretty compromising on every conservative value he had espoused and adopting other views contrary to Scripture.  He flip-flopped on the inerrancy of Scripture, no longer holding to that view and he adopted the openness/limited omniscience view of God as well.  Clark is, perhaps, the most outspoken of those in the annihilationist camp along with John Stott.  In fact, many UK theologians are in fact, annihilationists. 

When one reads Pinnocks’s statements about his views you find an argument that relies heavily on emotion.   Pinnock’s argument is that the love of God is inconsistent with the doctrine of an eternity of suffering in Hell. “There is a powerful moral revulsion against the traditional doctrine of the nature of hell. Everlasting torture is intolerable from a moral point of view because it pictures God acting like a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for his enemies whom he does not even allow to die. How can one love a God like that?”[1]

And one can read other statements of Pinnock that seem to indicate that he agrees with those who characterize the traditional view as one that actually takes pleasure in the torture of sinners hell. “Unfortunately, Augustine is not alone in thinking this way but rather speaks for orthodoxy. The Protestant J. Edwards is every bit as rigorous in his doctrine of hell, as is well known. His sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is (in)famous for the picture of God dangling sinners over the flames like a loathsome spider. J. Gerstner, an Edwards scholar, summarizes Edwards’ view in this way:  Hell is a spiritual and material furnace of fire where its victims are exquisitely tortured in their minds and in their bodies eternally, according to their various capacities, by God, the devils, and damned humans including themselves, in their memories and consciences as well as in their raging, unsatisfied lusts, from which place of death God’s saving grace, mercy, and pity are gone forever, never for a moment to return.4  Not only is it God’s pleasure so to torture the wicked everlastingly, but it will be the happiness of the saints to see and know this is being faithfully done. It would not be unfair to picture the traditional doctrine in this way: just as one can imagine certain people watching a cat trapped in a microwave oven squirming in agony and taking delight in it, so the saints in heaven will, according to Edwards, experience the torments of the damned with pleasure and satisfaction.[2]

What I find when I read about the annihilationist view is that it reduces God down to one principle: LOVE.   God is love.  And you have many, many people today who reject not only eternal conscious agony in Hell, but the very existence of Hell.   They reject the notion that a loving, benevolent God who loves every person, could ever send anyone to Hell.

This kind of thinking either  that God is too loving to either send someone to Hell, or the annihilationist view that God would put someone through eternal torture, skews the holiness of God.  I say that because contrary to popular consensus, God’s primary attribute is not love; it is holiness.  Before God is anything else, God is holy and He has a perfect hatred of sin.  This was view espoused by Augustus Strong in his book on Systematic Theology: “There can be no proper doctrine of the atonement and no proper doctrine of retribution, so long as Holiness is refused its preeminence. Love must have a norm or standard, and this norm or standard can be found only in Holiness. The old conviction of sin and the sense of guilt that drove the convicted sinner to the cross are inseparable from a firm belief in the self-affirming attribute of God as logically prior to and as conditioning the self-communicating attribute. The theology of our day needs a newview of the Righteous One.”[3]

What we have with annihilationism is a compromise on the chief attribute of God and an inappropriate emphasis on the “love” of God.  Annihilationism is gaining popularity today due to a more liberal, postmodern society that has infiltrated the Church.    So, I would argue that annihilationism didn’t get it start from a principled, conservative approach to Scripture is rooted in a misunderstanding among other things, a wrong view of God, Himself.  

Another problem with annihilationism is the view it takes about death.  Luftwaffle states: 

 

 

Quote

 

“We define death in the plain everyday use of the term and as such synonymous with the definition of annihilation meaning “ceasing to live”, “no longer being alive” and so on.

When I say my pet fish died, I am saying that it is no longer alive. When I’m saying that David killed Goliath and he is now dead, I’m saying that Goliath has ceased to live.”

 

The question then is:  Is this how the Bible uniformly deals with death?   I believe the answer to this is, “no.”  The Bible deals with death differently in terms of physical death than it does with spiritual death.  I am not going to waste time proving that physical death means cessation of life or extinction.   That does not have to be belabored upon.   I will say that the Bible uses the word "death" three ways:

It has three different usages in the Bible in reference to:

1. Spiritual death—separation from God because of sin (Ep. 2:1; Jn. 5:24; Col. 2:13).

2. Physical death—separation of the spirit from the body (Mt. 2:15; Ge. 35:18; Jam. 2:26).

3. Eternal death or Second death—the final, eternal separation of the unsaved from God and life (Re. 20:14;
21:8; 2 Th. 1:9).

The problem as I see it, is what the Bible’s theology of death is in terms of the spiritual condition of the unredeemed.   To make the definition of cessation of life or non-existence, hence annihilation the working definition of “death” for duration of this conversation simply will not do.

The Bible uses “death” to describe living people. In Genesis 2:17 we read: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”  Did Adam and Eve die when Adam ate of the fruit?  Yes, they did.  Did they go out of existence? No, they did not.  They were dead, yet neither their physical body nor their soul became extinct at that point.   They clearly died spiritually. They were filled with shame and terror of God and hid themselves from His presence.   So Adam and Eve were dead, but they did not go out of existence.  

In John 5:24, It says, “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”   This is not possible IF the dead are out of existence.

In Eph. 2:1, 5 we find that unregenerate humanity, apart from Jesus Christ are “dead in trespasses and sins” or “dead in sins.” And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

 

In I John 3:14 we also read, “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.”   So again, death is described as a state of being for a living person.   One can be dead and yet still be alive.

 

I think I have given enough evidence that death does not mean, in theological terms regarding unregenerate sinners, what death means in normal, everyday parlance.  Death can also refer to the unregenerate of unsaved people who are separated from God.

 

In addition, It is important to note that Luftwaffle makes a fundamental error, theologically in this statement:

 

Quote

If the punishment that we justly deserved was eternal conscious torment, then how is it that the Bible says Christ died in our place? Jesus didn’t spiritually die in our place, He was actually crucified, and confirmed dead by the thrust of a Roman spear. So too is His resurrection a bodily resurrection, the tomb was found empty, and Thomas saw the holes in His hands and the felt the wound in His side. The resurrection is our proof that Jesus has broken the curse.

 

Jesus' death on the cross fully satisfied the payment for our sins.  Jesus was not paying for our sins during the 3 days nights he was in the grave.   Jesus' death on the cross accomplished that, which is what Jesus meant when He said, "It is Finished"  (Tetelestai - "Paid in full").  Jesus did not suffer in Hell, because the moment He died on the cross, sin was paid for.

Hell is what we deserve even if we don't commit a single sin our entire life because no one goes to hell for the sins they commit; they go to Hell for dying while in a state of separation from God.  They go to Hell for being dead in their sinful state, not for the sins themselves.  Jesus bore the penalty of the curse of the law on our behalf and fully satisfied the wrath of God against sin.  No one who goes to Hell is paying for their sin(s).

 

 


[1] Pettegrew, Larry D.. "A Kinder, Gentler Theology of Hell?." The Master's Seminary Journal 9, no. 2 (Fall 1998): 203-17.

Edited by shiloh357
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
Quote

 

Shiloh said as part of his first argument regarding Annihilationism, “It actually goes back to the 1800s. It has gained resurgence in the late 20th century among post-conservative and postmodern thinkers in the Church...”.

 

While this debate is a debate about what the bible says and not the history of the two views, I am actually quite glad that we’re going slightly off-topic here, because just like the Biblical case, the historical case for Annihilationism is pretty compelling, and the history of the Eternal Conscious Torment view shows its Hellenistic, rather than Biblical roots

The claim that annihilation goes back to the 1800s is just plain wrong.  Even critics of Annihilationism agree that the 4th century Church Father, Arnobius of Sicca, was an annihilationist, and since he was a Church father it means at the very least that there was a community Annihilationists who held that belief, unless one wishes to argue that Arnobius was a church father without a church.

Looking further back to the writings of especially the apostolic fathers, these are Christians who lived at the time of or shortly after the apostles themselves, such as Clement of Rome, Irenaeus and Athanasius these were most certainly Annihilationists too.

I won’t go into depth here but I will include some additional quotes, references and video links in the footnotes.

We also see later church fathers such as Justin Martyr, with a particularly interesting conversion from being a Greek philosopher as a young man, to believing that the soul will die, after converting to Christianity. Now why would a person who believes in the immortality of the soul, deny it after conversion to Christianity if Christianity was compatible with it?

Conversely, looking at the history of the Eternal Conscious Torment view we see Christianity gradually adopting the ideas of Plato such as the immortality of the soul and the defining of death as a separation. This culminated in Tertullian teaching eternal conscious torment and Augustine formulating the first systematic theology of eternal conscious torment. Most of the current doctrine of eternal conscious torment was developed by Augustine. Both Tertullian and Augustine were heavily influenced by Plato and quite open about it. Again see footnotes for more info.

 

I should clarify that when I said that Annihilationism goes back to the 1800s, I was referring to modern articulation of that view, not that no one believed anything similar prior the 1800s.  My apologies, as I should have explained that point better.

The fact that we can find early church fathers who believed in a similar view doesn’t lend it any credence as a doctrine.  I can find all kinds of things the early church fathers taught that are frankly, heresy.   Not to mention the fact that the anti-Semitism in Europe that led to the culmination of the Holocaust was rooted in the teachings of the early church fathers.   While they are good for understanding the historical mindset of  the post-apostolic early Church, they are a poor source for sound doctrine.

Quote

Shiloh says, “Pinnock’s argument is that the love of God is inconsistent with the doctrine of an eternity of suffering in Hell” and concludes that Annihilationism is largely based on emotion.

The problem is that I haven’t once argued an emotional case or argument against hell based on the love of God. In fact my wife says my writing is too dry, so this is nothing but a sweeping generalization.

But isn’t the sweeping generalization itself an emotional appeal? To paint Annihilationists as theological liberals, at odds with Biblical inerrancy, at odds with conservative Christianity, emotional, who sacrifice truth and a Biblical understanding of God’s Holiness for a wishy washy Christianity, isn’t an argument from scripture neither does it address the annihilationist case, instead it is purely meant to make Annihilationism appear unappealing. It says that if you’re one of the good guys then you should be a Traditionalist, because Annihilationists aren’t genuine Christians.

Unfortunately this appeal works too well, because most people are ignorant of what the Bible really says on this issue and they’re ignorant of the pros and cons for both views being discussed here. They believe Eternal Conscious Torment is biblical because they’re told it’s Biblical and they’re told that conservative Christians shouldn’t question Eternal Conscious Torment. It’s marketing and good marketing at that, and like all marketing it is itself an appeal to emotion.

I understand that Luftwaffle’s remarks are not based in emotion.  But one part of understanding a theological view is to understand where it comes from.   Luftwaffle isn’t the only person arguing for annihilationism and it is important to look at how a theological view has been developed of late.   Who are its major proponents and what did THEY say in defense of it?  

I am not painting all annihilationists as theological liberals, but it is important to understand that the modern proponents of annihilationists, are theological liberals.  Clark Pinnock, for example was, at the start of his career a theological conservative, but adopted a whole slew of liberal theological tenets and basically abandoned his conservative convictions when he embraced among other things, annihilationism.   And when you read his arguments, they are dripping with emotion.  His foundational view is that God cannot be so unkind as to cause people to suffer forever in Hell.   You can read the links I provided to see that.  

And point out the fact that so much of annihilationist arguments have rested on emotion is an important point to make, and it is a historical point.   It points to the way people like Pinnock skew the way the interpret Scriptures.  

And that is not, itself, an emotional appeal. It is an appeal to the facts.  

Traditionalists often argue that “death” should not be read as ceasing to live, but instead it must be read as “separation”. This is problematic for a great number of reasons:

 

Quote

 

Its origin isn’t Biblical.

As I mentioned earlier Plato famously believed that death must not be seen as the ending of life, but as a separation of the body from the soul. When Traditionalists say “death is a separation” they think they’re stating biblical theology but they’re actually quoting Plato.

Here’s an excerpt from Plato’s Phaedo:

"And they are right, Simmias, in saying this, with the exception of the words “They have found them out”; for they have not found out what is the nature of this death which the true philosopher desires, or how he deserves or desires death. But let us leave them and have a word with ourselves: Do we believe that there is such a thing as death?

To be sure, replied Simmias.

And is this anything but the separation of soul and body? And being dead is the attainment of this separation when the soul exists in herself, and is parted from the body and the body is parted from the soul—that is death?" - Plato's Phaeo 61-64 (http://www.bartleby.com/2/1/31.html)

Unlike Plato, the Bible never actually defines death as a separation although this hasn’t stopped Traditionalists from attempting to read it into the Bible

I fail to see what Plato’s view of separation of the body and soul at death has to do with man being separated from God by sin (spiritual death).   The two have absolutely no connection with each other.

 
Quote

 

The verses that Shiloh offered is a fairly common approach, but none of these proof-texts lead to the desired conclusion unless one is already committed to looking for separation in the Bible.

Eph 2:1  And you were dead in the trespasses and sins

The logical inference here is:

Paul is speaking to people who have not yet ceased to live.

Paul referred to them as having been dead.

Therefore being dead doesn’t mean ceasing to live.

From here an extension of Plato’s definition of death is then read into the passage interpreting the formerly unsaved sinful state as “separated from God” and then the final conclusion is that death must mean separation from God, even though the text states nothing of the sort.

 

Bible uses death to describe a spiritual condition.  It is widely understood that sin separated mankind from God.   Adam began the process of physical death when He was cut off  from God because of sin.  Adam was spiritually dead due to sin, just as God promised.  And we are described in our unregenerate state as dead.   We know from Rom. 5:12-21 that we are spiritually dead as a result of Adam’s sin, that we only receive eternal life because Jesus reversed the curse through being the second Adam who redeemed us from the penalty incurred upon us by the first Adam. 

Theologically, “death” is not limited to simply ceasing to exist.  In theological terms, death as a much broader meaning and usage than Luftwaffle cares to admit.

Quote

 

The next step in the traditionalist approach is to switch to this newly formulated definition of death in quite an ad hoc way, to get around the fate of the unsaved described as death.

Even if we grant that death in some context might mean separation from God, what is the exegetical justification for reading that particular definition into every instance that describes the fate of the unsaved as death?

No one is reading that particular definition into every instance that describes the fate of the unsaved at death.  That is something you are assigning to me, not something I have done.

 

Quote

So, even if Shiloh’s claim that Ephesians 2 proves that death means separation goes through, he’s only half way to doing what is needed, but Ephesians 2 doesn’t even do that, because the phrase “being dead in trespasses and sins” is clearly prolepsis when looked at in context.

 

That is true. I am only half way.  But that is how it works.  I have to build a case and the first thing I have to do is demonstrate that the Bible has a theology of death.   And I have to show that its theology of death is more complex than you seem to understand.  You have tried to oversimplify what death means and then make that the working definition of death for the conversation.  Before I can even start to tackle annihilationism, I have to have a foundational line of argumentation about what death is, from a theological (not philosophical) standpoint.

 

Quote

 

Prolepsis occurs when you’re using present tense language to describe something that’ll happen in the future, for instance the term “dead man walking” is used in when a person to be executed is walking to the electric chair. He isn’t dead at the time, but the prolepsis is used to describe that he is “as good as dead”. Paul’s description of the unsaved being dead in trespasses and sins, is prolepsis, saying that the death of the unsaved was a certainty, until Christ redeemed them.

The prolepsis obvious if we look at the entire passage:

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

 

(Eph 2:4-7)

Paul describes the former state as being “dead in trespasses” and he describes the new state as “being raised up and seated with Him in heavenly places”. These people hadn’t been raised up and seated with God at the time Paul wrote that, but Paul is using prolepsis to indicate their future glorification in the same way that he used prolepsis to describe their former state.

So, Paul isn’t introducing a special definition of death here.

 

Luftwaffle’s use of prolepsis here is invalid.   Paul is not using a proleptic argument at all.   Paul is talking about what we were prior to knowing Christ.  We were dead in trespasses and sins.   When Paul talks about us being raised up and seated with Jesus in Heavenly places, he is talking about our present spiritual position IN Christ.   In theological terms we are talking about positional justification, which is the result of our legal justification.   We are, spiritually, either in Adam or in Christ, or under the law or under grace.    We are positionally, in Christ, in heavenly places, and that puts under grace.  That is position, not where we are in terms of our actual experience.   This is not a statement from Paul about future glorification and the text doesn’t allow for that interpretation.

 

Quote

 

What about John 5:24?

If we just read the very next verse, we see that Jesus follows His description of the unsaved passing from death to life with a description of the future resurrection, where the dead will be resurrected unto everlasting life.

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

(Joh 5:24-25)

This verse is actually a pretty good example of how the Traditionalist view switches between definitions of death, not based on exegesis, but based on theological necessity.

Shiloh has claimed that the “death” in view in verse 24 is “spiritual death”, but what is the definition of “death” in verse 25? Clearly this can’t be ‘spiritual death’ because the spiritually dead aren’t going to hear the voice of God and live at the time of resurrection and judgement. This is referring to the physically dead. So either Jesus is mixing definitions mid-sentence or the idea that spiritual death is in view here is wrong. Not only is mixing definitions awkward, but there’s no reason to interpret it that way.

 

Actually, I see nothing in that verse that requires me to switch from one form of death to the other.   Spiritual death is in view.  

In this passage, he states that those who believe have (present tense) eternal life.  Verse 25 isn’t talking about the resurrection.  That is mentioned later.  “He says that hour is coming and now is…”   That isn’t speaking of the physical resurrection of the righteous dead.  That is not this present hour that “now is.”   In verse 25, it is talking about lost sinners hearing His voice and receiving eternal life.  It is a manner of speaking in that they hear His voice via the Person of the Holy Spirit convicting them to believe and obey the Gospel.

It is later in vv. 28-29 that we read: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

Prior to the day of judgment, the righteous dead and the unrighteous dead will be raised.  Those who died in Christ will receive their resurrected bodies and live with Christ forever.   Those who died without Jesus are resurrected for their final judgment, meaning the lake of fire or what the Bible calls, “the 2nd death.”   If dead in Hell are dead, why are they still alive for judgment, if dead means ceasing to live?   Shouldn’t they have simply been exterminated in Hell?

 

 
Quote

 

Separation of body and soul

The following 3 verses are offered as proof that the Bible defines physical death as the separation of body and soul.

 

I don't see what this has to do with our discussion.  If you are trying to teach soul sleep, or something, that is not germane to this topic.

Quote

 

A third kind of death?

 

Furthermore Shiloh offered Revelation 20:14, 21:8 and 2 Thes 1:9 as proof-texts for a third definition of death which he calls “eternal or second death”, but that begs the question. These are only examples of a different kind of death if one assumes the Traditionalist view in the first place, but that’s what needs to be proven.

The very fact that the second death is called the second death may very well be because it’s the second occurrence of death which the unsaved will experience.

If the first death is ordinary death then the second time it happens, it’s only reasonable that it would also be ordinary death.

 

2nd death isn’t my term.  That comes from the Bible, in the book of Revelation.  The 2nd death is distinguished from Hell, otherwise it would not be called “the 2nd death.”  I am not making that distinction; the Bible is.  I am just using biblical terminology for the lake of fire.

 
Quote

 

Ceasing to exist vs ceasing to live.

In my opening statement I have been careful to define death and annihilation as ceasing to live and I have also stated explicitly that I am not arguing cessation of existence.

It is curious then why Shiloh states the following:

“To make the definition of cessation of life or non-existence, hence annihilation the working definition of ‘death’ for duration of this conversation simply will not do.”

“Did they go out of existence? No, they did not. They were dead, yet neither their physical body nor their soul became extinct at that point.”

“This is not possible IF the dead are out of existence.”

 

Trying to distinguish between ceasing to live vs. ceasing to exist is really futile.   They both fundamentally mean the same thing.  It’s distinction without a difference.  If you die you cease to live and you also cease to exist.  It’s just commonsense.      So, I am perfectly valid in using either term to describe how you defined death.  They are synonymous.

 

Quote

 

Jesus died for our sins.

It seems that Shiloh misunderstood my argument that Jesus’ death on the cross, is evidence that the fate of the unsaved is death.

Both Shiloh and I agree that the punishment that Jesus bore on our behalf is death.

He says, “Jesus' death on the cross fully satisfied the payment for our sins.  Jesus was not paying for our sins during the 3 days nights he was in the grave.   Jesus' death on the cross accomplished that, which is what Jesus meant when He said, "It is Finished"  (Tetelestai - "Paid in full").  Jesus did not suffer in Hell, because the moment He died on the cross, sin was paid for.”

Exactly! So if the thing that Jesus suffered in our stead is death and not torment in hell, then the punishment for sin cannot be torment in hell but death. This creates a dilemma for the traditionalist who holds to penal substitutionary atonement. Here’s why:

1.      If the punishment for sin is eternal conscious torment

 

2.      And if Jesus took our punishment on our behalf

3.      Then Jesus would have been eternally consciously tormented on our behalf.

4.      Jesus wasn't tormented eternally on our behalf.

5.      Therefore the punishment isn't eternal conscious torment

Conversely:

1.      If the punishment is death

2.      And if Jesus took our punishment on our behalf

3.      Then Jesus would have died on our behalf.

4.      Jesus did die on our behalf

5.      Therefore the punishment is death

Traditionalists have two options here:

1.      Abandon the penal substitutionary atonement view of the cross, which teaches that Jesus took the penalty for our sins that we were meant to receive.

2.      Find some way to make Jesus death on the cross equate to eternal conscious torment while still somehow being a valid substitution. The only real attempt I’ve seen at dealing with this problem is the pseudo-mathematical equation from Anselm, stating that finite sins against an infinite God require a punishment infinite in duration. While this is certainly clever, the Bible doesn’t mention this anywhere, and the first occurrence of this idea is more than a millennium after the gospel was given. It also equivocates infinity as a quantity of duration with God’s qualitative holiness.

 

 

 

 

This is a fundamentally flawed argument, theologically.    It does not follow since Jesus paid for our sins on the cross and not in hell, that man’s punishment cannot be an eternity in Hell.  He is trying to make a philosophical argument, and it is simply not valid.

Jesus death on the cross saves man from an eternity in Hell.   Jesus wasn’t saving us from having to pay for our own sins.   Man is not in Hell paying for his own sins through punishment.  The punishment no way pays for our sins.  Hell is the consequence of rejecting Jesus’ offer of eternal life.

It is not about making Jesus’ death on the cross eternal conscious torment.  That completely misses the point of what Jesus did on the cross.  He satisfied God’s judgment on the cross.   But that is not automatically appropriated unless a person receives Jesus as Savior.   You are bound for Hell by default.   If a person chooses continued separation from God, they will spend that separation in torment, eternally.   An eternal decision has eternal consequences.

 

 

Quote

 

It appears then that proponents of the Traditionalist view of hell attempt to force a kind of Platonist definition of death, which is separation, onto the Bible by looking for instances where death is used in reference to living people, and then making a logical leap that this must be a special theological kind of ‘death’.

A further logical leaps are then made to conclude that this death must be separation because some verses can be interpreted that way even though none explicitly say so. Only then is the word death, able to be harmonized with the view that the unsaved will live forever in conscious torment.

 

No, that assessment of our line of argumentation completely misses the mark. This is not a philosophical discussion about death; it is a theological one, and this attempt to make it philosophical completely evades what is really said in Scripture.

Edited by shiloh357
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  820
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  01/09/2011
  • Status:  Offline

Quote

I should clarify that when I said that Annihilationism goes back to the 1800s, I was referring to modern articulation of that view, not that no one believed anything similar prior the 1800s.  My apologies, as I should have explained that point better.

 I am not aware of any “modern articulation of Annihilationism” as distinctly separate from the kind of Annihilationism one can read in Athanasius, Justin Martyr etc. I have also never heard of any Annihilationists distinguishing their view of the fate of the unsaved from that of the apostolic fathers, so as far as I can tell this distinction is made up.

Quote

The fact that we can find early church fathers who believed in a similar view doesn’t lend it any credence as a doctrine. 

I have offered the Annihilationism of the apostolic fathers as a counter to the false history that you presented, that "Annihilationism goes back to the 1800s”. I did not built my case for Annihilationism on the view of the apostolic fathers, so to now respond as if I did, is rather disingenuous.

Having said that though, the fact that the closest church fathers, some of whom were students of the original apostles, were mostly Annihilationists, and as time went on and more Hellenic views were adopted into mainstream Christianity the majority shifted toward the Eternal Conscious Torment view, certainly doesn't harm my case, does it?

If Eternal Conscious Torment is true, it would mean the church started out in error, and gradually got their view of hell right with Augustine and Tertullian, who just happened to be students of Plato.

So while I obviously don’t give the historical case as much credence as the scriptural case, I think the historical case is worth considering.

Weren’t you the one who said that in order to understand a view we must investigate where it comes from?

Quote

I understand that Luftwaffle’s remarks are not based in emotion.  But one part of understanding a theological view is to understand where it comes from.   Luftwaffle isn’t the only person arguing for annihilationism and it is important to look at how a theological view has been developed of late.   Who are its major proponents and what did THEY say in defense of it?

While you claimed that Annihilationism goes back to the 1800s you looked at a single 20th century proponent (Pinnock) who preceded his exegetical case for Annihilationism with a statement of moral outrage, and you have taken that as exemplifying all Annihilationists and what drives them. Forgive me for seeing this as purely an attempt at poisoning the well against Annihilationism.

It’s tantamount to taking John Wesley’s outrage at predestination as a proof that Arminians are basically theological liberals, driven by emotion.

I haven’t even read Pinnock before this discussion so to act as though Pinnock is representative of all Annihilationist is really unfortunate. Most of the Annihilationists that I’ve interacted with are very serious about what the Bible teaches, and it’s for Biblical reasons that most of us made the switch from Eternal Conscious Torment to Annihilationism knowing that we’ll be accused of liberalism, heresy and so on. I’m fine with it and as a rule I don’t complain, but one would not expect this sort of thing in a serious debate.

Quote

Bible uses death to describe a spiritual condition.  It is widely understood that sin separated mankind from God.   Adam began the process of physical death when He was cut off  from God because of sin.  Adam was spiritually dead due to sin, just as God promised.  And we are described in our unregenerate state as dead.   We know from Rom. 5:12-21 that we are spiritually dead as a result of Adam’s sin, that we only receive eternal life because Jesus reversed the curse through being the second Adam who redeemed us from the penalty incurred upon us by the first Adam. 

Theologically, “death” is not limited to simply ceasing to exist.  In theological terms, death as a much broader meaning and usage than Luftwaffle cares to admit

There are a lot of unsubstantiated assertions above about the Bible supposedly teaches, which is easy to do. You cannot simply assume that “death” must have a broader meaning than the straightforward every-day use of the word, a case needs to be made.

Quote

No one is reading that particular definition into every instance that describes the fate of the unsaved at death.  That is something you are assigning to me, not something I have done.

But you have ignored my extensive opening case where the Bible describes the fate of the unsaved as death, perishing and destruction and this is found everywhere in scripture. You think you can get around it, by redefining death to mean “separation” and then replacing the word wherever needed.

This is why you *need* a theological definition of “death”:

Quote

I have to build a case and the first thing I have to do is demonstrate that the Bible has a theology of death.   And I have to show that its theology of death is more complex than you seem to understand.  You have tried to oversimplify what death means and then make that the working definition of death for the conversation.  Before I can even start to tackle annihilationism, I have to have a foundational line of argumentation about what death is, from a theological (not philosophical) standpoint.

I’m surprised that you would call my definition of death philosophical and your definition of death theological when your idea of death was formulated by Augustine using the Greek philosopher Plato’s conceptualisation of death as a “separation”. Your statement, “Physical death—separation of the spirit from the body”, is practically a word-for-word quote from Plato. On the other hand the Annihilationist definition of death is vividly described in the Bible as returning to the ground, perishing, corruption, corpses consumed by worms and fire, exemplified by Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.

So it seems the exact opposite of what you say is true.

Quote

Luftwaffle’s use of prolepsis here is invalid.   Paul is not using a proleptic argument at all.   Paul is talking about what we were prior to knowing Christ.  We were dead in trespasses and sins.   When Paul talks about us being raised up and seated with Jesus in Heavenly places, he is talking about our present spiritual position IN Christ.   In theological terms we are talking about positional justification, which is the result of our legal justification.   We are, spiritually, either in Adam or in Christ, or under the law or under grace.    We are positionally, in Christ, in heavenly places, and that puts under grace.  That is position, not where we are in terms of our actual experience.   This is not a statement from Paul about future glorification and the text doesn’t allow for that interpretation.

Again you cannot merely insist that it is so, a case needs to be made.

Your use of this passage to establish a “theological definition of death” relies entirely on a false dilemma which states that if we encounter the word ‘death’ and its meaning isn’t literally true in the tense it was uttered, then the only possible interpretation is that this must be a new definition of death being introduced.

This strategy completely bypasses any literal devices that must be in play in the text, which far from how one normally exegetes the Bible. One doesn’t bypass any literary context, leaping straight to the conclusion that this must be talking about a special kind of “theological death”, which is really just Plato's definition masquerading as theology.

Both proof-texts that were offered to justify a special “theological” definition of death, refer to future events, namely the resurrection to life of the believer and a judgement for the unbeliever, but notice how Shiloh attempts to avoid the clear prolepsis: by claiming that the “being resurrected with Christ and seated in the heavenly places” must also be read “spiritually”. So his proof-text for the spiritualizing of the word “death”, relies on the spiritualizing of the other elements in the verse as well.  

But, even if we grant that Paul is using death in some figurative sense, that still doesn’t justify the leap to a whole new set of definitions for the word death, that just happens to be what Eternal Conscious Torment needs.

From an Annihilationist perspective I think Paul’s message is very simple: death entered the world through Adam, Christ died and was raised so that human beings either belong to the Adam group which is still subject to death, or the Christ group which is subject to Christ’s bodily resurrection and the hope of living forever. No need to switch definitions of death here, and no need to enlist the help of Plato or Augustine. Jesus didn’t die spiritually in our place, He died in the ordinary sense. His resurrection wasn’t some Gnostic spiritual resurrection but a physical resurrection. We can share in that conquest of ordinary death if we belong to the risen one. It's that simple!

While Shiloh may say this is an over-simplification, I can just as easily respond that his view is an over-complication. In the end, accusations and rhetoric is no substitute for a clear case which is what I made in my opening statement. 

Quote

In this passage, he states that those who believe have (present tense) eternal life.  Verse 25 isn’t talking about the resurrection.  That is mentioned later.  “He says that hour is coming and now is…”   That isn’t speaking of the physical resurrection of the righteous dead.  That is not this present hour that “now is.”   In verse 25, it is talking about lost sinners hearing His voice and receiving eternal life.  It is a manner of speaking in that they hear His voice via the Person of the Holy Spirit convicting them to believe and obey the Gospel.

Prolepsis, by definition is the present or past tense statement of a future event so merely pointing to the fact that the language uses the present tense doesn’t refute that this prolepsis is used by Jesus.

Jesus’ use of “the hour is coming and is now”, is a figure of speech denoting a new dispensation that has begun. To use that as an argument that this must be present sense misses the literary device Jesus is using.

For instance Jesus uses the exact same phrase in John 4:23 to describe the new Gospel. Jesus used the same expression to warn the disciples that they would flee from Him. Not once is that expression used to something that was busy happening at present. In each case the phrase was using to describe an outcome that was “at hand”.  

So nothing here really refutes the clear prolepsis at play in this passages. Resurrection and judgement is a future event and the life and death described in verse 25 is explained in subsequent verses. Shiloh claims that Jesus is only later speaking of the judgement and resurrection, but the verses are separated by the connecting statement “Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming” literally adjacent verses there is no indication that Jesus has changed topics here.

Quote

Prior to the day of judgment, the righteous dead and the unrighteous dead will be raised.  Those who died in Christ will receive their resurrected bodies and live with Christ forever.   Those who died without Jesus are resurrected for their final judgment, meaning the lake of fire or what the Bible calls, “the 2nd death.”   If dead in Hell are dead, why are they still alive for judgment, if dead means ceasing to live? 

You have answered you own question above, because as you say the unrighteous dead will be raised/resurrected prior to judgement.

Quote

2nd death isn’t my term.  That comes from the Bible, in the book of Revelation.  The 2nd death is distinguished from Hell, otherwise it would not be called “the 2nd death.”  I am not making that distinction; the Bible is.  I am just using biblical terminology for the lake of fire.

The interpreting Angel in revelation is interpreting the symbols that John sees, and the angel interprets the symbols as referring to the “second death”.

If you remember what I said about carnivorous cows:

Joseph when interpreting Pharao’s dream said, “the cows are seven years”, thus the cow is the symbol and what the symbol represents is seven years in real life.

The angel says, “The lake of fire is the second death”, so following the same reading the lake of fire is the symbol and what it represents in real life is the second death.

This of course is exactly what we see throughout scripture, because the bible consistently describes the fate of the unsaved as death throughout the Old and the New Testament. Virtually every proof-text for Eternal Conscious Torment when examined according to scripture also describe scenes of death and destruction and the angelic interpreter calls the interpretation of the symbols “the second death”.

Traditionalists tend to do the reverse here, they see the lake of fire as a literal lake of fire and they see the “second death” as some figurative symbol. They then use that figurative reading as proof that this is a special meaning of death, which as I pointed out is question begging.

Quote

Trying to distinguish between ceasing to live vs. ceasing to exist is really futile.   They both fundamentally mean the same thing. It’s distinction without a difference. If you die you cease to live and you also cease to exist. It’s just commonsense. So, I am perfectly valid in using either term to describe how you defined death.  They are synonymous.

If they both fundamentally mean the same thing then why do you insist on using “ceasing to exist” instead of “ceasing to live” which is a definition that I explicitly denied in my opening statement? If these definitions are synonymous as you claim, then you’d have no reason to prefer one definition over the other yet you do. Why?

I have explicitly defined “death” as “ceasing to live” and I have explicitly denied that I define death as “ceasing to exist”.

Tables and chairs exist but they are not alive, so the distinction between existing and being alive should be obvious.

But let’s be honest about what's going on here, because I'm not new to this issue: it’s a fairly common strategy to caricaturise Annihilationists as defining “death” as “ceasing to exist” which is then used to make the view look absurd as is the case when Shiloh said, “Adam and Eve died but they didn’t cease to exist”, which if that’s what we argued, would be ridiculous. So this is basically just a common strawman.

Quote

It does not follow since Jesus paid for our sins on the cross and not in hell, that man’s punishment cannot be an eternity in Hell.  He is trying to make a philosophical argument, and it is simply not valid.

Again we see the attempt to make it look as though everything Shiloh says is “theological” whereas everything I say is “philosophy”, even though the nature of the atonement is a theological question, not a philosophical one. You will be hard pressed to find the atonement discussed much in Philosophy, but it is a prominent feature in systematic theology.

Now, of course we can and should be logical when we approach scripture and the logic is straight forward: If one holds to an a substitutionary view of the atonement, which is that Jesus took the penalty we deserved in our stead, then the substitutionary atonement being death means the punishment taken by the substitute (which we deserved) would be death too.

Quote

Jesus death on the cross saves man from an eternity in Hell.   Jesus wasn’t saving us from having to pay for our own sins.   Man is not in Hell paying for his own sins through punishment.  The punishment no way pays for our sins.  Hell is the consequence of rejecting Jesus’ offer of eternal life.

Once again you keep focusing on the word “payment” and missing the point I’m making. The Bible describes the penalty/payment/wage/consequence of sin as death. Penal Substitutionary Atonement teaches that Christ's death on the cross wasn't just some symbolic gesture, but it was the substitute taking the penalty/payment/wage/consequence of sin in our place. Since the penalty/payment/wage/consequence of sin Jesus took was death and not eternal conscious torment, it’s reasonable that the penalty/payment/wage/consequence of sin humans deserve is death too.

Rom 3:23-25  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.  

Isa 53:5  But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.  

Gal 1:4  who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father

1Pe 2:24  He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Joh 3:14-16  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

 

Quote

No, that assessment of our line of argumentation completely misses the mark. This is not a philosophical discussion about death; it is a theological one, and this attempt to make it philosophical completely evades what is really said in Scripture.

....and again we see the repeated narrative that your view is theological and Annihilationism is based philosophy, in spite of the fact that your statement that physical death is a separation of the soul from the body is a direct quote from Plato and isn’t found anywhere in the Bible (unless it’s first read into the Bible).

The idea that all souls are immortal is also an undisputed Hellenic notion, which is openly contradicted by the Bible.

The mainstream systematic theology of eternal conscious torment, which is basically what you’re espousing here first appears on the scene in the 5th century in Augustine’s “City of God”, and I have mentioned already that both Augustine and Tertullian were students of Plato and their incorporation of Platonic concepts with mainstream Christianity isn't actually disputed.

I have even come across someone who claims that in order to understand Christianity one must read Plato (https://blog.logos.com/2013/11/plato-christianity-church-fathers/), and I was once called an alarmist for emphasising the Platonic connection to Eternal Conscious Torment, "because" I was told, "this isn't news to anybody".

So it seems we find ourselves in upside-down land. The Traditionalists trying to read Greek philosophy into the Bible are doing "theology" and those trying to get Greek Philosophy out of our theology are "attempting to make the discussion philosophical". 

Edited by LuftWaffle
  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  820
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  01/09/2011
  • Status:  Offline

Shiloh, I'm going to have to cut the debate short, because of some work related issues that require my attention for the next couple of weeks till well into the new year and this debate is taking more of my time than I would be able to spare.

So, I'd like to thank you for debating me, and to Steve for setting it up. 
Fortunately I think in only 3 rounds we covered a lot of ground and the main issues in this debate from a biblical perspective have been discussed, which I'm very satisfied with.

Closing statement
In closing I'd like to urge the readers to take a step back and look at the cases presented here:

We see a sweeping theme of life vs death occurring throughout scripture from cover to cover. We see a perfect symmertry in the gospel, of sin entering into the world bringing with it death, and we see Christ dying for mankind (for the wages of sin is death), to free them from it, so that while it's appointed for every man to die once, the faithful will not perish in the second death but will receive everlasting life. The unsaved will be destroyed in both body and soul and this second death will be permanent, an eternal destruction. This is Annihilationism plainly stated.

Conversely, the Traditionalist case is built on two pillars. The first being a handful of proof-texts, which as I demonstrated rely on bad inferences, but when read in light of the Bible, actually support the Annihilationist case. The second pillar is the notion that all souls are immortal and that death requires a special "spiritual" definition of some kind. Both the immortality of the soul and the notion that death means "separation" of some kind is explicitly found in the teachings of Plato, the Platonist influence on the early church is clearly documented in history, and most theologians are actually quite blazé about it (except when defending the traditional view of hell). 

If the proof-texts for Traditionalism cannot support the burden of proof placed on them, and the redefining of the word "death" is necessary to circumvent the consistent theme of life vs death found throughout the bible, what is left of the traditional case?
Sure, I expect to be told that my view of death isn't "spiritual" enough, that it is too ordinary and mundane, to which I say, "that is the strength of my case not a weakness!" 
The Bible doesn't make any distinction between ordinary death and a special "theological death" because it doesn't need to in order to be the hope of life for the fisherman, the tax collector and the prostitute. The gospel will always be a stumbling block to the Jew and a foolishness to the Greek. The eternal conscious torment view isn't more 'spiritual' for having a concept of "theological death", because the fact is that it needs it to harmonise the word "death" with the notion of living forever in torment.

We often tick our name next to the idea of "Sola Scriptura" and for Protestants to say it, has almost become trite. I have had to choose between tradition and what I read in the Bible and it has taken me almost two years of Bible study and prayer and research to finally commit to Annihilationism knowing full well that I will lose friends, that I will be called a liberal, a heretic, man-centred and that the Biblical case will for my view will be ignored and that my motives will be questioned. It's one thing believing in Sola Scriptura, but it's another thing having to say, "this is what the Bible says, this is what I've always been taught, I'm going to trust the Bible". I'm not saying this because I expect pity or praise, but because I do respect tradition and I do respect my opinions of my fellow Christians. One should never go against centuries of Christian teaching lightly, and one must not switch doctrines at a whim, but in the end I am convinced that Annihilationism is the correct view of what happens to the unsaved.

Thanks for reading

Edited by LuftWaffle
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

That's fine.  I will give Luftwaffle the last word.  Like I said before, I am not too emotionally vested in the issue.  It has been an interesting discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...