FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

I happened to come across this video about 'annihilationism' or what would be better described as 'soul cease'. It's going to be brief since I came across it just as I was about to go to bed.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqH898UYyKs

So our good friend says that it would be a foreign idea to a loving God to have the lake of fire. I think the notion that your soul gets obliterated isn't a concept to a loving God and a far worse fate: especially if we were to add the context that the people remain in hell only due to the fact they refuse to believe that Christ paid for their sins since they don't want that reality (which is actually supported by Luke 16:31). Well one problem to annihilationism is Luke 16 (although I can think of many others). And I *knew* he was going to claim it was a parable before he even said it because there's no other excuse you can use to attack the passage. Sure enough "...and a thing about the story of Lazarus and the rich man is we have to understand that this is parable".
BAM. Called it. You can stop it there dead in the tracks since it's not a parable (parables don't use real people's names or events). And just because YOU have to MAKE it into a parable because you want it to be, does not make it so. To prove that in a few seconds, Abraham is not a parable.
Side note: traditionally Lazarus and the rich man was viewed as a parable by many older Christians such as the 17th century, but they weren't annihilationists.

The arguments portrayed in the video are like self-melting butter, you don't even need a knife to cut it.

Argument A: Luke 16 is wholly a parable
Response: as mentioned, parables don't use real names of people, otherwise they too would be a parable. And Abraham is definitely not a parable. His response to this is sometimes preachers use phrases like "peter at the pearly gates", sure they do, but that's an external story (of which I can't stand since pastors spend too much time making up said stories instead of going through the original language texts, verse by verse GREEK HEBREW GREEK HEBREW).

Argument B: the language used to open both is the same (i.e. "once upon a time"), therefore they're parables: Response: while it's true they use similar openings (not *as* close in the English mind you), Christ does not start all parables this way (take Matthew 25 for instance), so that argument has no consistency to back it up, thus getting shot down.

Argument C: Lazarus and the Rich man is Christ speaking about himself: that the Jews wouldn't believe 'even if' someone came back from the dead
Response: It would be an extremely bizarre parable for Christ to identify Himself with Abraham or Lazarus (he didn't tell us who) and then pit the notion of the rich man being the response of the Jews.

Argument D: He concludes that even if this wasn't a parable, it still wouldn't apply because of Revelation 20:14, so after everything is cast into the lake of fire, it then becomes annihilated / burns up: (sidenote: Revelation 20:14 looks a bit different in the Greek, older English bibles influenced by the Geneva Bible seem to be missing some text)

Well, 'the lake of fire' is an upgrade to hell (hades) which presently is an ethereal chamber inside the core of planet earth (I can only find Ephesians 4:9 at the moment, but there was a verse in the O.T. ratifying this as well). Which is why hades is 'moved' to the lake of fire.
Okay, so if we make the argument that everything gets burned up in the lake of fire, the problem is that the lake of fire is eternal:
Okay, let's say that the lake of fire is eternal for no reason other than God to keep it around for some sick personal amusement, and once everything tossed into it gets burned up. Well we hit a brick wall: Since the 'everlasting fire' doesn't burn up the false prophet with satan & co, then the other souls that will be there won't be burned up either. Not to mention, you can't burn a soul since it's immaterial. And of course the whole problem with the lake of fire being eternal in the first place...

To conclude, annihilationism is weird and probably one of the most 'anecdotal' since you have to ignore so many verses and make up 'assistive readings' to overlay obviousness.

And, juridically, God would be unfair to terminate a soul. For then its freedom to believe in Christ who paid for ALL sins, would be ended. So that's why hell MUST last, why there must be a Lake of Fire, so everyone who STILL refuses to believe (including Satan and Company who GO THERE, Matthew 25:41) -- so they FOREVER have opportunity to CHANGE THEIR MINDS.

Then they stay, only because they want to. Father got paid either way. So they can get out of hell/Lake, either way. Forever.

Luke 16, we see why they don't want to leave. So also, why they don't believe topside, and therefore you only say so much, do your own due diligence report, and.. then walk away.

What's even more interesting is that the rich man himself doesn't change his mind from unbelief to belief (while in hades), and then claims that sending someone from the dead to speak with his five brothers will change their mind: The kicker being... he hasn't even changed his mind while SEEING Abraham and being in Hades (so it makes no difference to the five brothers). Which I'm going to have to analyze some more, because that's a serious mental lock.

And yes I used 'mind change' instead of the English word re-penance, since it is a religious word and not what METANOIA means. So sue me.

Good points. I never thought about the claim of the five brothers in that way. So he's not making the connection himself that they wouldn't believe, either, since he doesn't. Isn't he also using that, though, to pretend that he's STUCK being in Hades? As if there was no way he could get out?

For why else would Paradise be visible to those in Hades? Most of us Christians would claim as he implicitly does, that it's too late once you die. Handy argument for him, so he can justify not believing, still. So would this be another nuance of meaning we get from the passage, why his 'mental lock' as you well put it? So then he's rationalizing God as forcing him to be there? To justify his own rejection?

But how can it be too late.. ever, since 2Pet3:9 and therefore 1 John 2:2, God never willing that anyone should perish and thus Christ paid for ALL? (Perish=apollumi, I don't have BW9 on this machine so can't paste the Greek.)

Yeah, the resurrection of death/second death totally blows annihilationism out of the water. It seems to me that annihilationism is nothing more than an attempt to dismiss personal responsibility for rejecting Christ.

Where else does the scripture imply that one can still be saved even after death? I like the idea, and it does make sense, but wouldn't something important like that be stated multiple times in scripture?

And what about the second death, where the dead recieve a death-resurrection? Could the last judgement be the deadline for faith? Like saying, "if you choose not to believe by the time you face the White Throne Judgement, you're decision will be finalized by recieving an everlasting body of corruption."

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Well, Anonynomemon, I posted the verses I knew, 2 Pet3:9 and 1 John2:2. There are probably others, but I have to identify the style of discourse. Those two would form a policy statement, since both are gnomic in meaning, continual states of being. If that interp is correct, then there will be other verses, but right now I don't know what phrasing to seek. Logically too, since Father should be propitiated for ALL sin forever, then no one would be ineligible for salvation, even post-death.

2nd death wouldn't necessarily mean no recourse, since resurrection occurs from the first death, so why not the second?

Still, to get the doctrine much more searching is needed. While technically it's true that only one verse in Scripture stating a doctrine would be enough, I can't think of a single doctrine which has only one verse explaining it. In fact, much of the problem we all have with interpretation, is that we aren't classifying all the rhetorical styles for any given doctrine, so our understanding of each doctrine is stunted. I submit that one of the big shortfalls in theological teaching is that there's not enough analysis of the rhetorical styles in Bible.

You also have the fact that the gates of New Jerusalem are never shut (theoretically that could imply anyone could pop out of the lake of fire and make their way in): If salvation had a 'deadline', then it presumably would be when everything (and everyone) is dumped into the lake of fire. We COULD argue that because there is presently a 'window' between hades and Abraham's bay, that it's a wake-up call prior to the deadline. But there are a lot of contradictions with deadline salvation. Not to mention that *I* have issues with it since it defies grace as I know it.

Deadline salvation and outer darkness (outer darkness is NOT the lake of fire) are two concepts which I've been struggling with for years, so I will be creating a separate topic dedicated to these two in the hopes of solving it once and for all. This will be done tomorrow since I spent most of my day writing another unitarianism article.

Guessing here, and this is just a placeholder. Topic needs to be fleshed out in some other thread, but I've no time now. So it's 'thinking out loud', nothing cast in stone, of course.

The 'outer darkness' verses in Matt 8, 22, 25 do mean unsaved. But the parallel 'weeping and gnashing' -- anger, recrimination, Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Lk. 13:28 -- isn't necessarily talking about unsaved, because one place is 'darkness' and the other is fire. So Matt 8, 22, 24, 25 passages are 'darkness', they seem to be separated in the Luke passage to mean unbelieving Israel specifically. Parallels would exist, of course. One can be saved and near, or saved and far. So if the Lord is Light, and one is far, then comparatively in the dark even though saved.

Next, Matt 7:23 parallelled in Luke 13:27, which most read as being the unsaved (especially Israel who rejected Him), yet the 'Lord, Lord' terminology more depicts the believer who turns afterwards to religion.

Backdrop is Psalm 5 and 6. Vindication for trusting in Him when the enemies around you had laughed or scoffed, and after you're vindicated they turn groupie. The Matthew 7:23 and parallel Luke 13:27 play on those passages changes the wording. In the two Psalm passages, David uses 'depart' to mean he won't join the scoffers. But the Lord uses it to signify His Vindication at 2nd Advent (and by way of extrapolation, ours for trusting Him, being scoffed at down here).

If we say 'Lord, Lord' means believers, the 'depart from Me' simply means they are enemies though saved to drag down the faith of others; so 'depart from me' is thus used the same way as in Psalm 6. Here, with the prophecy He will be victorious, so in the Luke 13 passage the groupie side is shown more trenchantly (could be a second or repeated instance of Him teaching the same idea). In Matthew it's all the folks who did works in His Name. In Luke, it's the folks who lived in the same area and saw Him. So then parallel is made maybe between the professing believers who turned religious instead, and the unbelievers (in Luke) who groupie by location; or, just as all those dufuses today who think themselves holy to walk where Jesus walked, but won't learn to walk in His Original Words. So two classes of saved believers who are 'out'. Saved, in heaven, but living in portions of it oh so far away.

For sure, Matthew 25 is about eternity, saved versus unsaved, and the food shelter clothing sick prison analogy is Gospel and Bible Doctrine. We who are entrusted with it, to give to others. Israel had that job. Church gets that job now. Israel will have that job again, and meanwhile is still the Chosen People, example of God's Faithfulness even when she (like we) is unfaithful.

For once you're a believer, you are cared for, parable of the ravens, etc. So to give the Gospel is the highest charity. Doesn't mean it is sold or pushed, etc. Does mean it's not withheld when the need is seen. So I am not to avoid people who ask me questions, nor push on them, either. Blessing by association, buying time for the world, also includes me learning and living on Bible myself, for how can I have anything to give, if I myself am going hungry? Ouch. Really puts down 'good deeds'. For if you're doing deeds instead of the Word, you're going hungry and hence denying charity to the world. Yikes: ties to 1John 3:16-18, living on the Word, not paying lip service to it.

For sure, parallel between being unsaved and being distant though saved. Expressly how, I'm not sure, need more verses especially in the OT, probably in the prophecies.

I'm not wording this idea well, sorry. Again, it's just a placeholder. Needs its own thread, and I need to do some more homework, but cannot do it now.

So how might this tie to the topic? Aha. Annihilation is a kind of deadline, but final. Claimed, in the name of God being gracious. But really is anti-grace, for if the soul terminates, God ends its freedom to believe. 2 Peter 3:9 says He's never willing.

So then there are deadlines, but not that kind: darkness, fire, weeping/gnashing, or wedding supper and inheriting the kingdom. But not termination. Question is, to what extent and in what way are the first three intended to be parallels for believers who don't grow, not merely for unbelievers? I'm not sure.

@ Brainout,

I do want start at topic on this, but I haven't time or energy today.

I see what you're trying to communicate, that mature believers will have access to more blessings than the less matured believers, however, I think it would be inaccurate to assume that a believer would be cast into a "place of outter darkness" or a "place of weeping and gnashing of teeth". By my reading, that place is reserved soley for non-believers.

1) There is no weeping in heaven, no sorrow or frustration. There is the realization that one may have waisted the opportunity to gain more blessings, but that is far from weeping and gnashing teeth.
2) There is no darkness that I can think of in heaven either.

The way I understand the parable of the talents in Matt 25, is the talent represents the knowledge of salvation made understood in the subject's mind by the Holy Spirit. The ones who exercise faith in Christ are the ones who invest the talents and make a profit. They will be rewarded with cities/kingdoms to govern. The one who burries the talent is the non-believer who understands the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit, but refuses to believe it. I don't remember the passage, but someone who is given the gift of understanding the gospel by the Holy Spirit and rejects it was better off not hearing the gospel in the first place. This is the one who will be cast into the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Those who cry "Lord, Lord" are doubtfully believers at all. The ones described in Matt 25 are specifically those who will refuse to clothe, feed, or shelter the tribulation saints. During the Great Tribulation, there are no grey areas. You either serve the beast, or you are a believer in Christ. Those who profess faith, but never actually had any will quickly fall into complacency with the beast when the pressure is on. A lot of people use this passage to support salvation by works, but that isn't what the passage says at all.


Those are just a few of my main points, but like I said, this deserves a thread of its own. Again, this is just my understanding.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Yeah, you and hupostasis bring up really good points. While I was typing, the reminder of 'no more sorrow no more tears no more pain no more death' kept going through my mind, so how does that square with outer darkness and wailing (not weeping, verb is klauthmos, LOUD BITTER MOURNING like in Greek drama or some ancient funeral where the mourners are paid to be showy).

IF a parallel between that and the stunted happiness of the believer who doesn't mature in doctrine is intended, the parallel would nonetheless be apt. 'Oh, roof!' said the Epsilon in Brave New World. Happy, but.. would you want to be like him? No. To a normal person that's easily as bad as hell.

The stingy servant with his one talent not invested in doctrine would be a believer, for he is a servant entrusted with money (Word, the 'noble deposit' as my pastor likes to translate the term in Paul). So saved, but what did he DO with his salvation? Grow? If not, then it's like burying your salvation in a napkin. Outer darkness would be in that parallel, the darkness of an Epsilon.

Still, the above is just a rudimentary sketching. How do we break this topic in parts? It's no longer annihilationism, that's for sure. Y'all decide, let me know. I'm not sure of anything, as usual. The key though will be to flesh out what-if's.

Example: what if what you're sketching is the right answer? What are the parameters? How do you explain the stingy servant having money from his master? Or other stuff? Same, I'd have to do, hupostasis would have to do, with whatever propositions we come up with to flesh out to a conclusion, to test for consistency versus contradiction re Scripture.

And, of course, anyone else chiming in. I'd bet money that the right answer is some mix of whatever we all come up with. How, not sure. I don't know any metered passages on this topic yet, nor whether there should be any, to help.

Well I just wrote up a topic dedicated to outer darkness to hopefully get things going:
viewtopic.php?f=37&t=342

Here's the catch though... the SONS OF THE KINGDOM *will* be weeping and gnashing their teeth post bema. And the sons of the kingdom are not unbelievers. No more sorrow / pain / tears are indicative of earthly attributes. Not to mention EVERYONE will be 'cut to pieces' on the bema, and EVERYONE will get some shock. Also, God still cannot force you to be all smiles and happy in heaven; what'll change is that the problems of biology will go away; and there are constant biology problems we face, chemical-induced emotion and sin being two.
Plus, believers will be DEBATING their talents, that they didn't get enough / why others got more. Perfect bliss? Wailing actually would be a good way to put it, you bet believers will be WAILING once they realize what's happening with the great inheritance shuffle.

Of course the concept of can you sin / be unhappy post bema is an entirely different topic.

I just realized... a lot of these questions and problems are a result of 'permanent salvation'.

I'll go look at that topic over the weekend, not sure I'll have time prior. There will be wailing at the Bema, true. There will be punishment there also. Saved, but no rewards. Phili 3 and what was it, 1 Cor 3 are on that, plus Rev 4 which is the Bema event kicking off Trib itself (meta tauta twice, door opens, John representing Church goes up, door closes, then split-screen TV heaven then Earth alternately depicted but happening simultaneous, Rev 4-7 all happening in that first 'hour' on two stages, heaven and earth).

Where do you get that believers at the Bema will be debating? We won't have sin natures then. Or do you mean something else?

Matthew 20:12 specifically. The day labourers argue why those who've worked "less" than them get the same payment. Not necessarily debating but arguing out God that it's unfair. I don't think you need a sin nature for volition to say "this is not to my liking" (well it's not to HIS liking either than inheritances are inequal, but that is solely on us).

In the Talents Parable, the lazy servant loses his talent. That doesn't seem consistent with salvation or the Bema seat, for in salvation, righteousness is credited to us upon faith. It makes more sense that the talent is the gospel. What do you do with the gospel? Do you believe it to be credited with righteousness (at which point, continued faith yeilds more riches)? Or do you burry it in a hole and never look at it again?

In Matt 8:9-12, Jesus is drawing a contrast between the great faith of the gentile centurion and the lack of faith on the part of Israel. A foreshadowing of the Church. Therefore, many (gentiles) will come from east and west to chill with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the children of the kingdom (who didn't believe in Christ) will be cast out. Who was supposed to be the children of the kingdom? Israel, but they didn't believe, so their blessings/talent was passed over to the believing gentiles.

We know this is a Heaven vs Hell issue because look at who is the focus in Matt 8...Christ! It's about who believes in Christ versus who was supposed to believe (but didn't).

No bitter weeping, no teeth grinding, and no dark places in heaven. Christ is within all of us believers. He cannot say He does not know us, even to the least of us.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Okay, quick responses to each of you, but a fuller response is really needed. Again, you both make good points, also furnishing the doctrinal hurdles which must be overcome. So here are some quick replies, not conclusive, of course:

Re Matt 20:12, the day laborers aren't believers. Metaphor for humanity in general, being upset that the 'last' (Church) gets the higher benefit. But then why not believers, or how can it be said there's no implicit parallel for believers? For free will remains, and yeah we will be happy, but it's not lalalaland happiness. Acceptance of justice breeds contentment, even if not wanting an outcome. God is Happy, but it's not lalala kind. Happy despite authoring and maintaining hell/Lake forever has to mean 'happy' has some other meaning than humanly imagined. Mature happiness even among humans, is not the lala kind.

Talents parable is not salvation, but Bible in your head. Christ called it by other names, such as true riches. Salvation is an inheritance, and so this is about what you do with your inheritance. Salvation's jurisprudence is that you get God's Righteousness (that's why you can be saved, His Righteousness is exchanged for yours), Gen 15:6 and 2 Cor 5:21. But what do you do after that?

Now, the taking away of the talent and giving it to one of the other servant, then throwing out the worthless servant, isn't necessarily heaven versus hell. First, the worthless servant is not executed: another way to know annihilationism is invalid, but annihilationism is essentially a claim that you are saved and your soul goes on living, or unsaved and your soul terminates. Since clearly here the soul does not terminate, it cannot be said -- if we read this as a heaven versus hell passage -- it cannot be said that the stingy servant stops existing.

But then there is no darkness, wailing in heaven. Well, not after the Bema (1 Cor3, Rev 4, Phili 3:18-19). But that doesn't mean kumbaya. Bema is the dais for reward/punishment announcements, and then they are put into effect. So Joe Blow Believer who was caused to spiritually mature, inherits all the money of many others who were also slated to be kings but instead acted like the stingy servant. So their 'talents' go to Joe, and he actually OWNS them, Isaiah 53:12's yahalleq shalal in Hebrew, meaning He (Christ) will share out the people-booty (English Bibles mess it up, here is the corr trans demo'd live.)

Paul plays with Isaiah 53:12 in Greek, terms are metron (share) merous (shared among), in Romans 12:1-3, Eph 4:16, both for Bible Doctrine. As coin of the realm. There are other verses, but if you just open any place in the NT you'll find Truth aka Bible Doctrine likened on the two opened pages, as food shelter, clothing, wealth, happiness.. commodities in parallel with physical blessings.

So why wouldn't it be appropriate to use parallelism in all these heaven vs. hell scenarios, since analogy/metaphor/parallelism is THE main rhetorical device in Bible? Okay, but all these metaphors of darkness, wailing, gnashing -- if parallel, then to what? I submit, parallel to having a lot of Doctrine and being crowned, versus being a peasant forever with an Epsilon's level of knowing God. Happy, but could have been a much larger metron!

Yeah, Gentile versus Jew in change of dispensation, such that any Jew who believes gets the Church covenant instead of the old law. Still, you have to go ON believing post-salvation, and that requires INFORMATION to use and live on, not merely some test of how much you believe in God (for even the demons believe and shudder). James is talking about using Doctrine in your saved 'implanted' soul. That there was a macro 'dispensation' component to how that Doctrine would be packaged and learned, a spiritual life structure, is still a post-salvation thing. Salvation itself, remains the same.

Matthew 8 then, is likely a dual description, like 1 Cor3's Bema. Surely if the unbeliever goes to hell, then the believer who was also niggardly of using his inheritance would have to have like justice of some kind. But afterwards, yeah no wailing, teeth grinding, but during the bema yes, Phili3:18-19. Bema lasts perhaps the seven years, Rev 4.

Yes, Christ within all of us but that's not kumbaya. Rev 3 ties.

Again, your points deserve better responses than these. It's just point counterpoint to more or less display the issues to resolve, at the moment.

@ Brainout

I went back and looked over the Parable of Talents after reading your response. I have to say, I agree that the lazy servant is saved too. If that is true, then there has to be a dark outter portion of heaven for weeping and gnashing of teeth. Now, obviously this has to be a very exaggerated description of that outter portion of heaven, since I seriously doubt there will be any actual "weeping/tooth gnashing" or "darkness". I just have a hard time assigning that particular symbol to even the slums of heaven. I guess its the shock factor.

So my conclusion is that you are correct.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Yeah, you're right about the exaggerated description being an issue. On some level it applies, but how much to take it literally, I don't know and I too doubt as you do, that there will be 'actual' wailing, post JSC Bemata.

There's a lot to flesh out here, and fortunately we don't have to stand stubbornly pat on our conclusions 'today'. So if you think of any better way to resolve the metaphors, will you be willing to state what you find?