Eternal Torment vs Annihilation

[journeyman]

I'm not a supporter of Annihilationism. But for all intents and purposes, from our perspective, they will all be gone forever--out of sight, and out of mind. Thanks!

Any type of conscious separation from God that goes on for eternity with no hope of salvation is senseless.

[Slug1]

I'm not a supporter of Annihilationism. But for all intents and purposes, from our perspective, they will all be gone forever--out of sight, and out of mind. Thanks!

Any type of conscious separation from God that goes on for eternity with no hope of salvation is senseless.

Senseless from the finite perspective of sinful mankind, or from the eternal perspective of a Holy God?

[Slug1]

nonexistence will be eternal separation from God.

This statement fails to address a revealed truth of that separation from God... that the unbeliever separated, experiences the punishment. If they are annihilated, there is no gnashing of teeth, no punishment, etc. Either Scripture is truth and is to be accepted, or it's not truth and shouldn't be accepted.

[journeyman]

Senseless from the finite perspective of sinful mankind, or from the eternal perspective of a Holy God?

From God's perspective brother. All through scruptire, God allows torment to draw people to him.

[Slug1]

Senseless from the finite perspective of sinful mankind, or from the eternal perspective of a Holy God?

From God's perspective brother. All through scruptire, God allows torment to draw people to him.

You may not know it but you side stepped and changed from those who will be separated (God's Holy wrath), to referencing believers.

By removing the value of God's Holy wrath to those who DON'T turn to God due to the struggles they endure while "alive," they're troubles now, are nothing compared to after their physical death and once resurrected, stand before God in their eternal bodies and are separated from God, forevermore.

[Redeemed]

It's... word for word what he says.

I'm starting to think you're just playing games. 

[journeyman]

This statement fails to address a revealed truth of that separation from God... that the unbeliever separated, experiences the punishment. If they are annihilated, there is no gnashing of teeth, no punishment, etc. Either Scripture is truth and is to be accepted, or it's not truth and shouldn't be accepted.

Weeping and gnashing teeth occurs at Christ's judgement seat where the sins of the unrepentant are finally exposed and they see the glory of the redeemed, but are excluded from it. It doesn't mean they suffer as long as God lives. It means they suffer as long as they lived.

You may not know it but you side stepped and changed from those who will be separated (God's Holy wrath), to referencing believers.

By removing the value of God's Holy wrath to those who DON'T turn to God due to the struggles they endure while "alive," they're troubles now, are nothing compared to after their physical death and once resurrected, stand before God in their eternal bodies and are separated from God, forevermore.

The resurrected unsaved aren't raised with eternal bodies and the unrepentant who haven't died before the return of Christ aren't transformed to an immortal body. I cited 1Cor.15 to show that only the faithful are changed. Even wicked spirits aren't immortal.

[agnostic]

I'm starting to think you're just playing games.

Each thread I've participated in, I engage fully with what I'm responding to, and I treat the topic seriously and respectfully. The Bible in particular is a thing I'm passionate about understanding.

Completely dismissing everything I wrote just to say a wordier version of "lol no" is pretty rude. I'm putting in the effort. You can't, or you won't, therefore... I'm "playing games"...

[David Taylor]

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.

Other good O.T. resurrection passages:

“So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.  For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.”
Job 14:12, 19:25

“He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces.”
Isaiah 25:8

“Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.”
Isaiah 26:19

“For You will not abandon my soul to [the grave]; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.”
Psalm 16:10

“As for me, I shall behold Your face in righteousness; I will be satisfied with Your likeness when I awake.”
Psalms 17:15

“All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him, Even he who cannot keep his soul alive.”
Psalms 22:29

“With a long life I will satisfy him And let him see My salvation.”
Psalms 91:16

“Shall I ransom them from the power of [the grave]? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your thorns? O [grave], where is your sting?”
Hosea 13:14[\i]

[RandyPNW]

I'm not a supporter of Annihilationism. But for all intents and purposes, from our perspective, they will all be gone forever--out of sight, and out of mind. Thanks!

Any type of conscious separation from God that goes on for eternity with no hope of salvation is senseless.

I don't believe it's senseless to believe that an omnipotent God can create men in His own timeless image and somehow make it work, despite human rebellion. So I believe God has a place for rebellious men to serve Him, still displaying His image, on an eternal basis. I just don't believe it is a torture chamber. But I do believe there will be an eternal appointment, based on the level of rebellion. You may not like the idea, but for me, that's what being created in God's image means--to be an eternal being.

It does make not sense to just keep people alive to burn them alive for all eternity. I don't believe God will do that. The fire has to do with an eternal separation--the rebellious must be eternally separated from those who have adopted the holiness of Christ. The two cannot be mingled.

There is a reason that God has kept in existence Satan and his angels--they are eternal beings, as well. It would also make no sense to simply keep them in existence to toast them in an oven for all eternity. That's monstrous--as monstrous as any Devil!

But Satan is thrown, after his opportunity to choose the wrong, into a bottomless pit. The fire is for removal from God's presence forever. The pit is for eternal separation from God's presence--it is not a fire--it is a pit.
 

[Redeemed]

Each thread I've participated in, I engage fully with what I'm responding to, and I treat the topic seriously and respectfully. The Bible in particular is a thing I'm passionate about understanding.

Completely dismissing everything I wrote just to say a wordier version of "lol no" is pretty rude. I'm putting in the effort. You can't, or you won't, therefore... I'm "playing games"...

You claimed that the central thesis of Romans is  universalism through Jesus. I specifically addressed that and you pretty much ignored what I had written. Seemed like game playing to me.

But OK I'll take you at your word and if I'm wrong, my apologies. When I've the time I'll make a lengthier post and engage further. In fact I'll start a new thread on the subject.

[agnostic]

Other good O.T. resurrection passages:

None of these are about resurrection.

I could go through each one to explore with you why I think that, if you would find it beneficial.

[agnostic]

You claimed that the central thesis of Romans is  universalism through Jesus. I specifically addressed that and you pretty much ignored what I had written.

I didn't ignore what you said, though?

I pointed out that what you had said was not mutually exclusive to what I had said, and then I laid out in detail why I think Romans contains Paul's pro-universalism thesis. I'm not sure how that could be mistaken as "playing games".

[Redeemed]

I pointed out that what you had said was not mutually exclusive to what I had said, and then I laid out in detail why I think Romans contains Paul's pro-universalism thesis. I'm not sure how that could be mistaken as "playing games".

Because you did exactly what I said someone would have to do to find Universalism in scriptures. You cherry picked some verses while completely ignoring others to claim they convey something that they do not.

Just to be clear, you are claiming that all, believers and non believers alike, those who both worship and outright reject God will be reconciled to God? That all that ever lived will have their names written in the Book of Life and ultimately be judged worthy to enter the Kingdom of heaven? That everyone that ever lived or will live will be saved?

I'm trying to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. 
   

[agnostic]

Because you did exactly what I said someone would have to do to find Universalism in scriptures. You cherry picked some verses while completely ignoring others to claim they convey something that they do not.

Do you not remember that I acknowledged what you said, and replied that all three views (eternal torment, annihilation, universalism) require cherry-picking different parts of the Bible?

For a Christian to believe one demands they selectively read certain parts of the Bible above others, and it usually reflects their own values more than anything else.

So I'm not cherry-picking anymore than any of the views has to. However, I think you're misunderstanding something I said from the start

Just to be clear, you are claiming that

What I said from the start is that I think the Bible is inconsistent. Some parts teach eternal torment, some teach annihilation, and some teach universalism.

Paul's seven authentic epistles were written before any of the rest of the NT, and often only a single epistle was available to each community. So I try to read Romans -- as our example -- with the input of the Old Testament and other Jewish writings, and with the historical development of Jewish eschatologies up until his time, and with his other six authentic epistles to clarify what he meant here or there. The conclusion I come to is Paul was a universalist.

If a person assumes the theological unity of the entire Christian Bible and that Paul can only be understood by harmonizing everything he says with the gospels or other epistles or Revelation, then what I'm doing must sound like "cherry picking". But I don't begin with the assumption of theological unity.

all, believers and non believers alike, those who both worship and outright reject God will be reconciled to God? That all that ever lived will have their names written in the Book of Life and ultimately be judged worthy to enter the Kingdom of heaven? That everyone that ever lived or will live will be saved?

This is mostly a correct summary of what I think Paul believed (not any of the rest of the NT), with two qualifications.

(1) Paul said "every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord". Paul believed "no one" could make this confession without the holy spirit moving them first, and he believed anyone who made this confession was saved. Meaning, Paul thought that for all people to get to this point, they are not "outright rejecting God", they are in a place of obedience and trust. This is basically his point in Romans 9-11, where he uses a form of theological determinism to justify his belief (the potter and the clay, vessels of wrath, "imprisoning" people in disobedience to provoke others to salvation, "God imprisons all so he may show mercy to all").

(2) We both know that being judged "worthy" is not a typically Christian way of framing salvation. So scratch that part, maybe rephrase it as "and ultimately be shown mercy", since that is the key word Paul used.