Annihilation - Part One
Hell has long been a subject that we Christians have shied away from. To many the doctrine of hell as eternal conscious punishment is a throwaway, a forgotten doctrinal blemish who from time to time rears its ugly head. In evangelism and in our own relationship with God if often trips up our intellect and, in many cases, our sincere belief in a loving and just God, embodied and exampled in Jesus Christ. And yet those who cling to the scripture as inerrant see the doctrine as a necessary evil, unexplainable in human terms though taught inescapably throughout the Bible. They are afraid to fall into the void and deception of liberalism by rejecting a doctrine synonymous with orthodoxy and historical Christian belief. Is there an alternative? Are we forced to choose between scriptural adherence or bleeding heart liberalism? The wide and the narrow path? Well, we will determine whether these are the only options available to us, and for the glory of God will look deep and long into the Scriptures, the sole rule and authority of our faith, to mine the truth. First, some quotes:
“Because the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment is so foreign to the thought patterns of our culture, and, on a deeper level, to our instinctive and God-given sense of love and desire for redemption for every human being created in God’s image, this doctrine is emotionally one of the most difficult doctrines for Christians to affirm today. It also tends to be one of the first doctrines given up by people who are moving away from a commitment to the Bible as absolutely truthful in all that it affirms. Among liberal theologians who do not accept the absolute truthfulness of the Bible, there is probably no one today who believes in the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment.” Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, footnote on pg. 1151
“Few people want to study the subject [of hell] any more. The liberals do not believe in such things, and the conservatives are satisfied that they already have the answers. That leaves few people who are concerned to learn more.” Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, pg. 20
This "sound of silence" has led to two things: 1. The traditional view remains the unchallenged de facto view among "bible-believing" Christians 2. Any deviation is considered cult-like and unorthodox
We are going to challenge that silence and let the evidence lead where it may. Of course, in any study of Scipture, and in this one in particular, there are some things we should try to avoid: 1. Loyalty to the traditions of men in the face of biblical evidence (on either side) 2. "Emotional Eschatology"--Argument based on the presumed (and possibly unbiblical) character of God:
“If the doctrine of eternal punishment was clearly and unmistakably taught in every leaf of the Bible, and on every leaf of all the Bibles of all the world, I could not believe a word of it. I should appeal from these misconceptions of even the seers and the great men to the infinite and eternal Good, who only is God, and who only on such terms could be worshiped.” R.H. Savage, quoted by John Walvoord, Four Views On Hell, pg. 13-14
3. Strange arguments calculated for shock value (Straw Man Arguments):
“This understanding [of annihilation] resolves a deeper problem and exposes a lie that goes back to Eden. For there, God said to Eve that if she sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, “[she] will surely die.” And Satan replied, “You will not surely die”…The teaching of eternal torment repeats and elaborates on Satan’s original lie, claiming, “The wages of sin is not death, but eternal torment”…There is no middle ground. We believe either God or His adversary. Either the wicked die, or they live on forever. Either God loves us, or He does not. Either He will destroy sin as He has promised, or He will perpetuate it in an ever-burning hell. The choice that faced Eve faces each of us today.” Ed Dickerson, Will Hell Last Forever? Signs of the Times, May 04, pg. 17
4. Dogmatism (1 Corinthians 13:9-12)
"For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known."
On the other hand, here are some things we should strive for: 1. Honest exegesis of Scripture In 2 Peter 3:16, we are told of those who "twist" the scriptures to suit their own means, leading to their destruction. The word in the Greek is streblou, which means "to torture, to put to the rack". Let us make every effort to avoid manipulating the scriptures to suit our own tastes. 2. Conclusions based on evidence: In Acts 17, we read of the Bereans, who compared what Paul was presenting to them with the scriptures, and it reads "therefore many of them believed." They made their conclusions based on evidence; so should we. 3. Loving acceptance of the teaching of scripture: "Let God be true, and every man a liar (Romans 3:4) 4. Loving acceptance of those with different opinions (Romans 14:1-5)
So I'd better wrap this post up for now. What, you say? But you didn't even begin to talk about annihilation! Patience, my young padawans. This is a subject not to be entered into lightly or rashly. Next time, we will defend the traditionalist view of hell. I believe anyone who questions a view should have a very thorough understanding of said view, and a knowledge of how to defend it. And we will do that shortly. Just to make sure that your whistles remain wet, we'll leave with the Annihilationist Beginning Statement: It is our belief that the Bible points to the final annihilation of the wicked after a period of proportional punishment rather than eternally suffering in a lake of fire... To be continued...
posted by Team Kerbel @ 3:56 PM
14 Comments:
I'm looking forward to this, Simon. I can't wait to see what all you'll be posting.
... and what's a "padawan", anyway? :)
YEAH! You're back! I don't know anything about annihilation and to be honest I never heard of it before tonight (I had to look it up on Wikipeda, *blushes*). So this will be very interesting to me. I am excited to read more!
=oD
Michael--
I hope you're joking. What's a padawan?
You might as well say: Who's Yoda?
*wink*
Good start Simon. Although, I reminded of the Scripture Bo shared with us a few Sundays ago:
Hebrews 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
5:13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.
5:14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
6:1 ¶ Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
6:2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Looks like the anonymous writer of Hebrews is encouraging Christians to leave behind the elementary studies of those principles of Christ we should already be solid about.
He lists eternal judgment as one of these principles. Just food for thought. I carried that away with me from that teaching of Bo's.
:)
Actually, having never seen the original Star Wars movies, I honestly had no clue what a padawan might be.
*Gasp!* Yes, it's true. I've NEVER seen the Star Wars trilogy. I'm actually kind of proud of that.
Sadie--
I totally agree with you, we should be solid on the points enumerated above. However, there are two things I'd like to point out:
1. Eternal judgment is something we should hold as a principle, but I think that we can discuss the nature of that judgment without fear of being called a "babe." A lot of people see the words "eternal judgment" and automatically think of hell, fire and brimstone, torment forever. But these are implied definitions and images, not intrinsic within the words "eternal" or "judgment." So, we are left to discuss what the Scripture teaches about these words.
2. Even though these are listed as elementary principles, I cannot think of one of these that all Christians agree on. Repentance is very pivotal, but a lot of churches shy away from repentance in favor of "easy believism." The nature of faith is often disagreed on: is it merely believing, or acting out that belief? Baptisms: some people think that baptism saves you, some people speak of a baptism in the Holy Spirit, etc...Laying on of hands: is it for ordination of service, or healing, or just symbolic? Why don't most churches practice this foundational topic? Resurrection: I know many Christians that deny a physical, bodily resurrection of believers. After all "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." And, of course, our discussion of eternal judgment.
So what is the "real food" he is speaking of?
Heb 5:14
But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Solid food is living, and choosing the good over the evil. I fully agree that the most important thing in the Christian life is living, not belief. And that is my main focus on this blog. But I can't avoid discussing the things I have studied over the years that have helped me develop my beliefs.
By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, Sadie. I hope I didn't sound defensive.
Simon,
One of the papers I did for seminary this past semester was a debate paper on the traditional view of hell and conditional immortality (annihilation). Although in my paper I argued for Conditional immortality if you would ask me today I would lean more to a traditional view.
If you are interested in reading the unproofread version of the paper I have it posted at http://redeemtime.blogspot.com/2005/04/fight-over-hell_20.html . I'll look forward to seeing what you have to say about this difficult subject.
I hear what you're saying Simon and I don't think you're being defensive.
I guess I just think that sometimes we get so confused by the so called "simplist" of doctrines, that it makes for a bad witness to unbelievers.
The unbeliever can stand back and say," Gosh. Even Christians can't agree on what they believe or what the truth is."
The unbeliever can then make a case that the Bible is totally based on personal interpretation and that maybe they can open up the Scriptures and pick and choose whatever they want to believe; since it's all subjective and open for personal interpretation. Ya see what I mean?
I think that the importance of unity on basic doctrine is far more effective and should carry more weight than our disagreements about principles.
Don't get me wrong, I love a good theological/ biblical discussion about doctrine but I guess I see Paul and other disciples making a clear argument for not quarrling over spiritual matters. Which leaves me to wonder how appropriate it is to invest too much time into these conversations. What do you think?
Hey Simon, its Dan,
I have to admit, which is pretty rare for me that I get a little jumpy at this argument. While I do agree on being Berians with the word and learning the other side of the argument, it is hard for me to get around simple scripture. Let me ask a question is this the normal annihilationist response for Heb 5? Even though these are listed as elementary principles, I cannot think of one of these that all Christians agree on. "Repentance is very pivotal, but a lot of churches shy away from repentance in favor of "easy believism." Wouldn’t you consider churches who shy away from repentance to be babes who still need milk? "The nature of faith is often disagreed on: is it merely believing, or acting out that belief?" The writer of Hebrews is not talking about the nature of faith but the foundation of faith in God, another milky substance. He is writing to a church who seems to be having problems with foundational issues and included in the list is obviously eternal punishment. Should we baptize, should the elders of the church lay hands on the sick, should we teach that the dead will be resurrected someday? Possibly all questions asked by the church leaders in which Hebrews was written to. And I can safely say that any church that is wondering about the foundational teachings of stuff like this has some room to grow in the humility department.
I hope I too didn’t come off too harsh.
I'm not sure what has you guys in disagreement with me. If it's my "interpretation" of Hebrews 5, I'll lay off. I say again what I said above: real food, to the writer of Hebrews, is holy living. Doctrinal teachings are the "milk". Does that mean we never talk about doctrinal issues or make doctrinal arguments? Of course not; in fact, the writer of Hebrews is in the midst of developing one of the most complex theological arguments you can imagine. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul gives an extensive teaching on the nature of the resurrection and surveys the possible objections to the doctrine.
As regard the "eternal judgment", keep in mind that he is not talking specifically about eternal punishment, as you put it, Danwise. Just as the resurrection of the dead is kept general, so the talk of eternal judgment is general. He is speaking not just of the punishment of the nonbelievers but of the whole scope of the final and irrevocable judgment that will take place on the last day. Eternal judgment is a foundation in that one day every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, books will be opened, and the whole of humanity will be judged by our great king Jesus. That is the foundation, not whether unbelievers will be tormented forever or be consumed eternally. I doubt that anyone would say that understanding the nature of hell is a foundation of the Christian faith.
I do not presume that this discussion of annihilation is the most important thing in the Christian faith, nor do I regard it as even extremely important. However, I have seen a truth in Scripture that contradicts the traditional view of the nature of hell, and I choose to present it so that others might consider the scripturality of an alternative viewpoint. I do not wish to argue, to indoctrinate, etc...I simply want to share what I have found.
I, for one, am curious as all get out to see what your conclusions on this topic are. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be discussing these things and that you are wrong in doing so.
I guess I just find that Scripture supports putting importance on unity in the body vs. debating/ quarrling.
I want to be sure that in our quest to learn--we do not become quarrlsome.
To which I say Amen! I could not heartily agree with you anymore, Sadie. I favor unity in love far above these debates which, in the face of genuine sacrificial love and mutual edification, seems petty and unimportant.
Then we agree. I knew we would!
Onward with your findings!
Sorry Simon, I should have been clearer. Sometimes thoughts come into my mind and I say them, then later they coagulate into a clearer thought. Ok so the question here is according to Heb 5, is it considered milk to entertain what you are talking about here? Well, you are right, it does say eternal judgement which is different from eternal punishment. But the two are very closely related and clearly eternal. I simply get fearful to tread on this ground seeing that the two are closely related. As you said earlier how it would be a tragedy to believe in something that is untrue about God, possibly eternal torment in hell, it would be equally tragic to change our minds to believe possibly what may be untrue, annihilationism. So, on with it let see what you have found.
Post a Comment
<< Home