04 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIt's your idea, Bob. I don't feel as moved as you to post a new thread about it, I mean you've already done some research. If you feel strongly about it and wish to propel the discussion, I'll participate. But you're the one with the hypothesis that the idea is not correct. My case 'for' it is not exactly burning inside me to come out... if it was, I'd have posted about it before now, but if you're moved to try to shoot it down, you have the floor. Either way, I'm not averse to just continuing it here, either.
Originally posted by Suzianne
Since I consider myself perhaps one of the more vocal proponents of Annihilationism, consider this post only my first salvo in what may become an interesting conversation, and hopefully not just a "my opinion is obviously correct, and be quiet and learn" moment for you.
Sure, Suzi. May I suggest that you consider ...[text shortened]... nnihilationism"
up to a wider audience by giving it thread status of its own. I'll contribute.
Do you have any thought about my answer to "Conditional Immortality"? There's plenty more of your initial post to comment on, too. 🙂
04 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI dunno if I'm comfortable going up against a piece that knows my 'game plan', but we'll see. Maybe it'll be interesting. Or I might get stomped.
[b]Main arguments
The biblical language of destruction
Annihilationist argue that language used in the Bible to describe the fate of the lost speaks in terms of destruction, death, and similar terms which imply a ceasing to exist. Examples include Matthew 10:28, where Jesus warns of God's ability to destroy body and soul in Gehenna, Matt 13:40 ...[text shortened]... hat happened to Sodom and Gomorrah was an example of what will happen to the lost, and so forth.[/b]
/shrug
Maybe I need to go read the original page.
04 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneOriginally posted by Suzianne (Page 11)
It's your idea, Bob. I don't feel as moved as you to post a new thread about it, I mean you've already done some research. If you feel strongly about it and wish to propel the discussion, I'll participate. But you're the one with the hypothesis that the idea is not correct. My case 'for' it is not exactly burning inside me to come out... if it was, I'd ...[text shortened]... to "Conditional Immortality"? There's plenty more of your initial post to comment on, too. 🙂
Since I consider myself perhaps one of the more vocal proponents of Annihilationism, consider this post only my first salvo in what may become an interesting conversation, and hopefully not just a "my opinion is obviously correct, and be quiet and learn" moment for you.
As far as "Conditional Immortality" goes, I do not happen to believe that the soul is "not innately immortal". Of course it is immortal, it is made so by God. However, that does not mean that God cannot destroy a soul filled with unrepentant sin. As proof, I submit only this:
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." -- Matthew 10:28, KJV
.......................................................
Let's start with A, B, C. "Annihilationism": please help me understand what this "ism" has come to mean to you within a Biblical Frame of Reference and then I'll be glad to Comment (or question). I care about accuracy and clarity. Scripture doesn't contradict scripture: if it appears to present diametrically opposed "truths", it's because of our ignorance. Okay?
04 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneNo worries, Suzi... it's not a competitive event. Since God knows our thoughts and motives, only His approval matters.
I dunno if I'm comfortable going up against a piece that knows my 'game plan', but we'll see. Maybe it'll be interesting. Or I might get stomped.
/shrug
Maybe I need to go read the original page.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHah! A, B, C. I like it.
Let's start with A, B, C. "Annihilationism": please help me understand what this "ism" has come to mean to you within a Biblical Frame of Reference and then I'll be glad to Comment (or question). I care about accuracy and clarity. Scripture doesn't contradict scripture: if it appears to present diametrically opposed "truths", it's because of our ignorance. Okay?
I agree. Most disagreements about scripture come about because people assume and inject their own bias into what is presented. I don't know how many times someone has said to me "Look, right here in verse xxxx, it says that 'random concept having nothing to do with the verse', and I just say "It does NOT say that, what's wrong with you?" It's like all this noise from the YEC crowd that the world can only be 6000 years old. Wait, what??
To me, Annihilationism is just the concept that those found unrepentant (unworthy of Heaven, dead in their sin, name not written in the book of life, whatever phrase you like) and unbelieving (those not choosing Christ) at Judgement will face death, annihilation in the Lake of Fire, rather than some eternal torment punishment. I've already been around this track once before with jaywill.
05 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Suzianne"To me, Annihilationism is just the concept that those found unrepentant (unworthy of Heaven, dead in their sin, name not written in the book of life, whatever phrase you like) and unbelieving (those not choosing Christ) at Judgement will face death, annihilation in the Lake of Fire, rather than some eternal torment punishment. I've already been around this track once before with jaywill." ~Suzi
Hah! A, B, C. I like it.
I agree. Most disagreements about scripture come about because people assume and inject their own bias into what is presented. I don't know how many times someone has said to me "Look, right here in verse xxxx, it says that 'random concept having nothing to do with the verse', and I just say "It does NOT say that, what ...[text shortened]... some eternal torment punishment. I've already been around this track once before with jaywill.
Do you have biblical support for this "concept"? Even a few passages would be fine.
Note: "Hah! A, B, C. I like it." ~Suzi... Me likey, too.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneHowever, You are wrong on both of these points. There is not billions or millions of years of death of animals taught in the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible teaches that death came into the world as a result of the sin of man.
Hah! A, B, C. I like it.
I agree. Most disagreements about scripture come about because people assume and inject their own bias into what is presented. I don't know how many times someone has said to me "Look, right here in verse xxxx, it says that 'random concept having nothing to do with the verse', and I just say "It does NOT say that, what ...[text shortened]... some eternal torment punishment. I've already been around this track once before with jaywill.
Where do you find that death means annihilation in the Lake of Fire? I haven't seen it.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 10)
The Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15 NASB) [Thread is now closed January 4, 2014] Thread 157295
"If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:15*
05 Apr 14
2 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI have no idea why you are posting this stuff. The rest of your post has nothing to do with either the argument that "death" equates to "eternal suffering", which you seem incapable of addressing and in denial of the obvious contradiction. Nor does the rest of your post address the moral standpoint (within the Christian context) that should justice be required then that justice should include being burned alive for eternity.
Originally posted by divegeester
What has "justice" got to do with burning people in a fire for eternity?
The Lake of Fire is part of God's Word. Absolute Justice and Perfect Righteousness [which equal Divine Integrity] are Immutable Attributes of God's Sovereign Character. God's Justice cannot deny itself... if it could He wouldn't be God. ...[text shortened]... ated at Christ's crucifixion on Golgotha Hill as a substitute for all mankind." (post this page)
05 Apr 14
2 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe topic of 'annihilation', [as opposed to eternal suffering] is completely relevant to this thread, why would you think it not. In fact the juxtaposing doctrines are well documented for centuries which is why I was asking you what sources you had read that disagreed with your viewpoint, but you seemed to be incapable for finding any during your 4 day research exploration.
Originally posted by Suzianne
Since I consider myself perhaps one of the more vocal proponents of Annihilationism, consider this post only my first salvo in what may become an interesting conversation, and hopefully not just a "my opinion is obviously correct, and be quiet and learn" moment for you.
Sure, Suzi. May I suggest that you consider ...[text shortened]... nnihilationism"
up to a wider audience by giving it thread status of its own. I'll contribute.