Eternal Torment vs Annihilation

[journeyman]

I believe the best argument against eternal torment is that it doesn't fit God's character. God uses pain to draw people to himself. There's no point to unending agony.

[agnostic]

But the Bible isn't consistent on the issue.

The Old Testament isn't terribly interested in the afterlife, but everyone dies and... that's it. Except for the book of Daniel, which has many people resurrected for life or punishment.

The New Testament has eternal torment in some parts, annihilation in some other parts, and universalism in a few other parts. The conclusion the reader comes to is a reflection of their values.

Ethically, I would agree with you. If God is good, then eternal torment would be out of his character. But the Bible is ambivalent.

[journeyman]

The Bible is consistent on this subject. If it seems inconvenient, it's because of our misunderstanding. The Bibe shows us how the unsaved will be tormented by the truth of their lives, but their lives will end.
The OT is better understood in light of the NT. For instance, the Patriarchs never received ownership of what God promised them and the NT tells us why.

It's good to consider God's character in attempting to understand his word.

[Redeemed]

The eternal torment vs annihilation question has been around forever for a very simple reason. There isn't enough clear scripture backed by other scripture on it to give a definitive answer.
What the word is clear on is that everybody will be judged. You will either hear the word, believe the word and become born again or you will be judged unworthy.

The New Testament has eternal torment in some parts, annihilation in some other parts, and universalism in a few other parts. The conclusion the reader comes to is a reflection of their values.

Universalism isn't found anywhere in Scripture. You have to do a whole lot of cherry picking of some scriptures while completely ignoring other scriptures to get anywhere close to it.

[Slug1]

I believe the best argument against eternal torment is that it doesn't fit God's character. God uses pain to draw people to himself. There's no point to unending agony.

I believe the best argument against eternal torment is that it doesn't fit God's character. God uses pain to draw people to himself. There's no point to unending agony.

I believe that with our present finite understanding, we do not fully comprehend God's character. Do you know that there are some who say killing is a sin, but when we read through the Bible, it is clearly God's character to kill mankind either by His own hand or through the hand of mankind?

When it comes to eternal torment/punishment vs annihilation, it is a matter of "accepting" scripture as is or rendering scripture as wanted. Meaning: Scripture warns us what will happen to those who are not saved. We can't forget, God is ETERNAL and we have to "try" to view His Word from that perspective as best we can. Point of this,  by wanting those Scripture to mean, no punishment, no torment... then the "warnings" are worthless and meaningless. One can even say, why fear God? Bur many will say, those who never believed will experience punishment and torment.

OK. Let's answer this question, does the Bible "say" punishment is temporary?

God is eternal, when He warns of punishment, why is that "not" eternal? Isn't God's Word everlasting? Again, if His Word states (says) punishment is eternal, why will some of mankind say it is not?

Are we really willing to "change" what Scripture "says" due to our interpretation of what we say God's character is all about?

[Redeemed]

I believe that with our present finite understanding, we do not fully comprehend God's character. Do you know that there are some who say killing is a sin, but when we read through the Bible, it is clearly God's character to kill mankind either by His own hand or through the hand of mankind?

Perfectly stated.


There's absolutely a "punishment" after judgement what isn't so clear is what the punishment/torment will definitively be. Will it be flames or will it be eternal separation from God or will it be total annihilation?   

That's the question isn't it? I grew up being taught and believing the  doctrine of eternal flames, wailing and gnashing of teeth and pain, pain everlasting pain. But on the other Bible Forums when asked to show scriptures clearly laying out this doctrine I was unable to to so and believe me brother I tried really, really hard.
It's never easy to realize that something you've wholeheartedly believed can't be substantiated with clear scriptures in context.

 

[Slug1]

I believe that with our present finite understanding, we do not fully comprehend God's character. Do you know that there are some who say killing is a sin, but when we read through the Bible, it is clearly God's character to kill mankind either by His own hand or through the hand of mankind?

Perfectly stated.


There's absolutely a "punishment" after judgement what isn't so clear is what the punishment/torment will definitively be. Will it be flames or will it be eternal separation from God or will it be total annihilation?   

That's the question isn't it? I grew up being taught and believing the  doctrine of eternal flames, wailing and gnashing of teeth and pain, pain everlasting pain. But on the other Bible Forums when asked to show scriptures clearly laying out this doctrine I was unable to to so and believe me brother I tried really, really hard.
It's never easy to realize that something you've wholeheartedly believed can't be substantiated with clear scriptures in context.

 

Eternal punishment can be accepted. Whether we understand it, is another matter. Here is why I say this and I had said it on BF in the past. We can't fathom "eternal" separation from our creator. We can reject him now because of the free-will provided in flesh. If we didn't have free will, it would be impossible to transgress God's will. Do we understand that when we die, both believers and unbelievers will resurrect into eternal bodies (no flesh).

In this "state" of being, we will either be eternally near God or eternally separated from God. Right now, we cannot comprehend the bliss of being in a body void of any carnalities in the "full" presence of God. The Word does however provide descriptions we "can" presently comprehend (no tears, no hurts, no fears, joy, love, etc). Also, we cannot comprehend the agony of being in a body void of any carnalities but separated from the presence of God. The Word does however provide descriptions we "can" presently comprehend (burning in fire, gnashing of teeth, everlasting agony etc).

When we accept what "is" provided in the Scriptures, we also find the value in promises God provides to us.

Again, if the "bliss" was not eternal, what "value" does the promise of  salvation hold and with this, if "agony" was not eternal, what "value" does the promise of eternal punishment hold?

Promises would be valueless.

We cannot forget, eternal punishment is MORE than a warning, it is a promise from God. A character of God is this, He IS eternal. As far as I understand, due to scripture, He MAKES promises as PART of His character.

[journeyman]

The eternal torment vs annihilation question has been around forever for a very simple reason. There isn't enough clear scripture backed by other scripture on it to give a definitive answer.

I believe scripture becomes clearer as we come to know our Lord better. When people disagree about what God will do, someone is wrong. Saying or teaching something about God that isn't true matters.

[journeyman]

I believe that with our present finite understanding, we do not fully comprehend God's character. Do you know that there are some who say killing is a sin, but when we read through the Bible, it is clearly God's character to kill mankind either by His own hand or through the hand of mankind?

Brother, I'm not saying our limited understanding can know everything about God, but we should grow in knowing him. And since God made us, he can do what he wants. I do believe his intentions toward his creation are meant for the better.

When it comes to eternal torment/punishment vs annihilation, it is a matter of "accepting" scripture as is or rendering scripture as wanted. Meaning: Scripture warns us what will happen to those who are not saved. We can't forget, God is ETERNAL and we have to "try" to view His Word from that perspective as best we can. Point of this,  by wanting those Scripture to mean, no punishment, no torment... then the "warnings" are worthless and meaningless. One can even say, why fear God? Bur many will say, those who never believed will experience punishment and torment.

OK. Let's answer this question, does the Bible "say" punishment is temporary?

God is eternal, when He warns of punishment, why is that "not" eternal? Isn't God's Word everlasting? Again, if His Word states (says) punishment is eternal, why will some of mankind say it is not?

Are we really willing to "change" what Scripture "says" due to our interpretation of what we say God's character is all about?

In fact, the Bible says only God possesses immortality, so the idea that creation also possesses immortality isn't true.

And I'm not saying there will be no torment come judgement day. Rev.14:10 says the unsaved will be tormented in the presence of our Lord. And why is that? I believe it's because all their sihameful deeds will be exposed and people now hide their wrongdoing because they fear exposure and fear has torment. I don't see where knowing ones life is going to end after experiencing the embarrassing truth about oneself is meaningless.

The term "forever" can mean eternally, but it can also mean for the duration of ones life and with respect to final judgement of ungodliness, I believe it refers to the latter.

[agnostic]

The Bible is consistent on this subject.

It really isn't. That's why the debate has been ongoing since the second century. If it were clear, it would have been settled immediately, not lasted for 1900 years. Instead, different views emerged and kept their footing because each one had enough support in this book or that book.

If a person thinks torture is acceptable, or if they think authority equals morality (might makes right), they're probably going to start with the parts of the Bible that teach eternal torment and read the rest from that point of view.

Or if a person thinks torture is always immoral, but they're more accepting of the death penalty and other harsh punitive measures, they're probably going to see the Bible verses that favor annihilation and read everything else through that lens.

And if they despise torture and capital punishment, and think prison should be rehabilitative and restorative, they're going to find those parts of the Bible that support universalism, and reinterpret the other stuff.

The conclusion a person comes to reflects their own values, not what the Bible as a whole says, because the Bible as a whole isn't consistent.

Universalism isn't found anywhere in Scripture. You have to do a whole lot of cherry picking of some scriptures while completely ignoring other scriptures to get anywhere close to it.

Not anymore cherry-picking than any other views on any other topic of debate. Each view has to put its preferred verses at the front of the line and make everything else go to the back.

Eternal torment is in the Bible, but it's only found in five books. Daniel, Mark, Matthew, Jude, and Revelation. Jesus taught eternal torment.

Annihilation is found in other parts of the NT. The gospel of John, 2 Thessalonians, and 2 Peter, maybe a couple of other books. There are a lot of parts in the Old Testament conducive to annihilationism, but the concept of absolutely, completely ceasing to exist after death didn't really emerge yet. Most OT authors thought of death as a place of shadowy ghosts.

The underlying premise of universalism is also supported in parts of the OT, but similarly the concept of resurrection, salvation, and the age to come hadn't really developed yet. Most of the OT has in mind a continuation of the world as they knew it, just better. Paul's seven letters (I follow the critical consensus that just seven are authentic, the others pseudonymous) teach universalism. The central thesis of Romans is a universalism through Jesus. Colossians and Ephesians are also pro-universalism.

[Slug1]

The term "forever" can mean eternally, but it can also mean for the duration of ones life and with respect to final judgement of ungodliness, I believe it refers to the latter.

When we stand before God, we are after the duration of one's life. Due to this fact, eternal punishment cannot refer to interpretation of the latter.

Both the righteous and the unrighteous lives have ended and before God, all are in their eternal resurrected forms (Acts 24:15) and once in our eternal form, some (the righteous) experience eternity with God and some (the unrighteous) experience eternity apart from God.

[Slug1]

Annihilation is found in other parts of the NT. The gospel of John, 2 Thessalonians, and 2 Peter, maybe a couple of other books. There are a lot of parts in the Old Testament conducive to annihilationism, but the concept of absolutely, completely ceasing to exist after death didn't really emerge yet. Most OT authors thought of death as a place of shadowy ghosts.

Usually the hashing out of such scriptures illuminates or corrects understanding. Care to post the verses for discussion?

[journeyman]

It really isn't. That's why the debate has been ongoing since the second century. If it were clear, it would have been settled immediately, not lasted for 1900 years. Instead, different views emerged and kept their footing because each one had enough support in this book or that book.

If a person thinks torture is acceptable, or if they think authority equals morality (might makes right), they're probably going to start with the parts of the Bible that teach eternal torment and read the rest from that point of view.

Or if a person thinks torture is always immoral, but they're more accepting of the death penalty and other harsh punitive measures, they're probably going to see the Bible verses that favor annihilation and read everything else through that lens.

And if they despise torture and capital punishment, and think prison should be rehabilitative and restorative, they're going to find those parts of the Bible that support universalism, and reinterpret the other stuff.

The conclusion a person comes to reflects their own values, not what the Bible as a whole says, because the Bible as a whole isn't consistent.

The Bible tells us not to rely on humanistic understanding, but to seek after God, because his ways are not mans ways and that is why disagreement exists. The Spirit doesn't tell one person something and then another the opposite. The end of the ungodly is consistent throughout the scriptures

[journeyman]

When we stand before God, we are after the duration of one's life. Due to this fact, eternal punishment cannot refer to interpretation of the latter.

The duration of ones life includes judgement day.

Both the righteous and the unrighteous lives have ended and before God, all are in their eternal resurrected forms (Acts 24:15) and once in our eternal form, some (the righteous) experience eternity with God and some (the unrighteous) experience eternity apart from God.

The resurrected form of the unsaved is corruptible, which will be completely consumed by the fire of Christ,

the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming 2Tim.2:8
Acts 24:15 says nothing about the ungodly existing beyond exposure by the Truth.

[agnostic]

The end of the ungodly is consistent throughout the scriptures

Either the Bible is consistent but not at all clear, or the Bible is not consistent to begin with. Either one explains how the same debate has been going on for 19 centuries.

But if the Bible is utterly consistent, and is utterly clear, there's not a good explanation for why no one can agree on what it says.

The Bible's inconsistency here is one of the reasons I stopped trusting it.