In the first post I listed the main arguments of annihilationism
as this:
1) The biblical references for the
‘destruction’ of the wicked,
2) The inconsistency of an eternal
hell with the love of God,
3) The injustice or unfairness of
the disparity between sins committed in this life and the punishment of eternal
torment, and
4) That allowing evil to continue
in hell would mess with the perfection of the universe God will create after
the Judgment Day. (Order taken from Wayne Grudem)
In this post I hope to offer a rebuttal to these arguments.
Mind you this debate has been going on for years and I do not expect to change
their minds in this one post, in fact I fully expect more arguments will come
to show. (Some good resource to read are: Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology
page 1146 about Hell, J.I. Packer Knowing God chapter on The Wrath of God,
James Boice The Foundations of the Christian Faith chapter on The Wrath of God,
Jonathan Edwards sermons Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, The Justice of
God in the Damnation of Sinners, Of Eternal Punishment and many others.) Many
of my arguments here are taken from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology.
First the biblical references for the ‘destruction’ of the
wicked. References like Phil. 3:19; I Thess 5:3; II Thess 1:9; II Peter 3:7. “In
response it must be said that the passages of destruction do not necessarily
imply the cessation of existence.” (Hold on to your hats this part is a little
detailed and I’m no Greek scholar.)
In Phil. 3:19 and II Peter 3:7, “‘destruction’ is apoleia
which is the same as in Matt 26:8 to speak of ‘waste’ of the ointment. Now the
ointment did not cease to be, to exist; it was very evident on Jesus’ head. But
was ‘destroyed’ in the sense it no longer was able to be used on someone else
or sold.” This destruction is the type seen in these verses, not imply
annihilation but the simplicity of unable to be redeemed. Those who are in hell
are unredeemable; they did not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and are bearing
the just eternal punishment of their sins.
In I Thess 5:3 and II Thess 1:9, “’destruction’ is olethros,
used also in I Cor 5:5 of delivering a man to Satan (putting him out of the
church) for destruction of the flesh – but his flesh did not certainly cease to
be when he was put out of the church…” So destruction is once again not seen as
ceasing to exist it is seen as being done away with in a permanent since.
Verses about the eternality of hell:
I would highly recommend you look these verses up, especially the ones
in Revelation, which say things like “forever and ever.” All the verses are
linked for your viewing ease.
3 comments:
I must say I'm bummed you didn't wait until we'd chatted. You've missed an opportunity to respond to the real argument, and chosen instead to respond to a weaker, straw version of it.
Chris, Why is it that you have encouraged Sam not to post this material saying that it is "incomplete" and yet you do not respond directly to the material just continue to say how it is a "weaker, straw version of it". You said previously said he should e-mail you so you could explain to Sam what he was missing "but not turn it into a debate". To me it sounds like you want to debate this issue but do not want to respond publicly I was just curious why because I am curious of what you say he is missing.
Dave,
I am in private communications with Sam. That's why. I am happy to respond publicly, but as I said, I don't want to turn it into a debate; rather, I want to help Sam better understand the true nature of the debate, which I suspect will be easier over private email as we develop a bit of a friendship.
If Sam would prefer, I'm happy to respond here publicly, explaining why it is an incomplete, straw version of the argument from the biblical language of destruction.
Post a Comment