tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406336.post113192823662527543..comments2023-11-02T02:22:12.574-07:00Comments on Thought Renewal: Hell Hath No Fury? Annihilationism ConsideredLynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11998346902027037420noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406336.post-50570632895942773262008-12-02T09:17:00.000-08:002008-12-02T09:17:00.000-08:00http://www.cimmay.us/smith.htmlThis is one of the ...http://www.cimmay.us/smith.html<BR/>This is one of the best books ever written on the subject and it is purely Sola Scriptura.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406336.post-6079851625471441572008-03-09T08:33:00.000-07:002008-03-09T08:33:00.000-07:00Oh wow ... you guys made my day! What a wonderful ...Oh wow ... you guys made my day! What a wonderful thing to discover some enlightened Christians. I myself studied Theology at a Bible School which held to Eternal Torment, yet nowhere in Scripture could I find it. But Annihilationism, however, is everywhere.EJ Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02322172768163201002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406336.post-33376771472575391162007-11-01T19:40:00.000-07:002007-11-01T19:40:00.000-07:00I couldn't agree more with the complaint that so o...I couldn't agree more with the complaint that so often annihilationists are unfairly portrayed as being repulsed into their position by their dislike of th doctrine of eternal torment. Don't get me wrong - I don't like it! But before I came to hold an annihilationist view I felt differently about it. It was only after I came to understand the Scripture as teaching the final destruction of the lost that my feelings began to change on the matter.<BR/><BR/>If anything, I find more and more that emotional and pragmatic reasons are given for proclaiming the traditional view - we are told that we need to teach it to make people see how serious sin is, or we need to do it so that people don't underestimate the danger and they come to Christ. But neither of these are exegetical considerations.<BR/><BR/>I suspect you might find a published article of mine interesting. It's a critique of the arguments of Robert Peterson against annihilationism. It was in JETS earlier this year, but you can find it, along with his response (and my comments on that response) at http://www.beretta-online.com/articles/theology<BR/><BR/>I like the blog, keep it up!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406336.post-1151018329677997362006-06-22T16:18:00.000-07:002006-06-22T16:18:00.000-07:00Thanks Bible Student for your comments. I'm with ...Thanks Bible Student for your comments. I'm with you in a number of areas. My one concern though is that we never dismiss the reality of hell - and that preachers can "scare" us into heaven isn't necessarily always wrong. Hell is worse than we think, especially if we understand the bible to teach total destruction of the person. lgpLynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998346902027037420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406336.post-1151015307637008872006-06-22T15:28:00.000-07:002006-06-22T15:28:00.000-07:00As a bible studet i have noticed scriptures that s...As a bible studet i have noticed scriptures that support the non existance of a burning hell. Acts 2:31 states that Jesus resurrected from Hades(hell in Greek). Job in the Hebrew Scriptures asked God to sent his soul to Sheol(Hell in Hebrew) for he didnt want to keep on suffering.(something that he wouldnt of asked if he knew Hell was place of suffering.) Job would of wanted a finally rest in death. As for the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. It was just that a parable. Other scripures that seem to support a hellfire like the book of Apocalypse that states a lake of fire. Notice that abstract things were to be thrown in there like death. Interestingly that Hades(Hell in Greek) was to be thrown also into that lake of fire to burn forever. Contradiction or could it mean destruction. Hell has often been used by the clergy to move the masses into church or risk going to a fiery hell. But reading the entire Bible you find out that that is not necessarily what the Bible teaches.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406336.post-1132456487346407012005-11-19T19:14:00.000-08:002005-11-19T19:14:00.000-08:00Lyn:Your posts and those of Mark have been very in...Lyn:<BR/><BR/>Your posts and those of Mark have been very interesting and challenging. I admit that the annihilistic view of hell has some appeal but I'm not convinced of it Scripturally. <BR/><BR/>How do you read, for example, Luke 16: 19-31, the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus?<BR/><BR/>Is Jesus simple telling a story there that bears no resemblance to the nature of hell in reality? <BR/><BR/>Thanks again for your well-researched and well-expressed posts on this subject.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>AlexAlexander M. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00770170433201342289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406336.post-1132444278539101822005-11-19T15:51:00.000-08:002005-11-19T15:51:00.000-08:00For a well-reasoned response to this post and to m...For a well-reasoned response to this post and to my initial response to Mark, visit Runalong with Pastor Mark at http://homepage.mac.com/runalong/iblog/C1769191645/index.html<BR/><BR/>Let me start by saying that I enjoy this type of dialog and commend what Mark has said about modeling respectful disagreement. I think we can as believers - on many topics including the nature of heaven and hell - agree to disagree yet remain steadfast friends and colleagues in the kingdom. Especially when we are both taking our cues from the bible. <BR/><BR/>I do want to clarify, however, that I don't disagree with Mark regarding the serious nature of this topic. I get the impression that he thinks I'm trying to water down the doctrine. This is a common misunderstanding that the proponents of the literal and metaphorical view have. It's not that I find the belief in hell too repulsive or undignified that I'm looking for a loophole. I truly am coming from a scriptural position that, although a minority, is held by many solid evangelical leaders, including Clark H. Pinnock, John R. W. Stott, Edward Fudge, Philip E. Hughes, Stephen Travis, and Michael Green. <BR/><BR/>So I affirm with Mark: "We must never let our concern for whether people find a doctrine palatable or not to steer our interpretation of Scripture." The intent of my post was not "Less Hell = More Converts" as if making hell more palatable to unbelievers were a laudable goal. My point in the paragraph he quotes is that the preaching of hell is neglected because many Christians shy away from it due to the unfortunate overtones provided for us by Dante and other medieval writers. Deep down many understand that this holdover teaching of "hellfire and brimstone" is not a true biblical representation of the seriousness of hell. My concern - while keeping the non Christian audience in mind (we all do this whenever we witness, it's called contextualization) - is more to help believers regain the urgency to evangelize based on scripture, not scare tactics. This is what I mean when I talk about the effectiveness of evangelism being at stake. <BR/><BR/>While many people have been frightened into heaven, isn't it true that running from hell is, at best, a poor motivation and ultimately shallow reason for accepting the Good News of Jesus Christ? Yes, warnings have their place. Consequences must be spelled out. And for this reason, hell is an important part of the message. But shouldn't we first and foremost proclaim to the lost, like Paul (Rom 2:4) "that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?" God is love; but never does the bible say that God is wrath.<BR/><BR/>In the end, I believe Mark and I end up at the same place - we both hold that Hell is an irrevocable and terrible fate. I think that we will probably need a true conversation one day (as in face to face interaction) to fully explore a couple of our differences, including 1) his dissatisfaction with my handling of words like eternal and texts like Revelation 14:11; and 2) my dissatisfaction with his dismissal of the biblical teaching that our souls our conditionally immortal, not necessarily so, which implies that without the free gift of eternal life, our natural fate is extinction, death, which is exactly God's penalty for sin (proclaimed in Gen 2:17 & Rom 6:23).<BR/><BR/>Let me conclude again with my last paragraph of "Hell Hath No Fury? Annihilationism Considered" at Thought Renewal:<BR/>"Hell does have a fury. It will be unleashed on those who are impenitent. It is a permanent, irreversible state. Hell is a doctrine that is sobering and shocking to contemplate. And one which begs for an urgent response. We can no longer neglect the teaching of hell, nor can we afford to mistakenly assign God's pleasure to the torturing of his creation. Let the message of hope and salvation overcome our hesitancy to proclaim the full gospel of Jesus Christ."Lynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11998346902027037420noreply@blogger.com