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.
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.
: 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).
: the language used to open both is the same (i.e. "once upon a time"), therefore they're parables:
Luke 16:1 Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς· ἄνθρωπός τις ἦν πλούσιος ὃς εἶχεν οἰκονόμον, καὶ οὗτος διεβλήθη αὐτῷ ὡς διασκορπίζων τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ.
Luke 16:19 Ἄνθρωπος δέ τις ἦν πλούσιος, καὶ ἐνεδιδύσκετο πορφύραν καὶ βύσσον εὐφραινόμενος καθ᾽ ἡμέραν λαμπρῶς.
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.
: 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.
: 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:
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
(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)
Revelation 20:14 καὶ ὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ ᾅδης ἐβλήθησαν εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρός. οὗτος ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερός ἐστιν, ἡ λίμνη τοῦ πυρός.
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:
Matthew 25:41 Then shall He say also to them on the left hand: depart from me, you cursed, into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels
Matthew 25:41 τότε ἐρεῖ καὶ τοῖς ἐξ εὐωνύμων· πορεύεσθε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ [οἱ] κατηραμένοι εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον τὸ ἡτοιμασμένον τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ.
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:
Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Revelation 20:10 καὶ ὁ διάβολος ὁ πλανῶν αὐτοὺς ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ θείου ὅπου καὶ τὸ θηρίον καὶ ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης, καὶ βασανισθήσονται ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.
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.