On the one hand:
Rogereolson says:
July 4, 2012 at 12:43 pm
God doesn’t love us because of our inherent worth; we have inherent worth because God loves us. I thought that was clear. But for us to have inherent worth, God must love all of us–not just some select group (“the elect”). And it won’t work to say God loves all people in some ways but only some people in all ways IF that means he has predestined some to hell. If that’s the case, then it would have been better for them never to have been born and they are robbed of any real dignity or worth. (As Wesley said, “That is such a love as makes the blood run cold.”)
Bev Mitchell says:
July 3, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Well said Roger! The great puzzle, for me and probably many, is how could anyone who reads the Bible miss what you say here in a few good words? Is there a good psychological analysis of this kind of blindness? Is it spiritual? Do we have a clue as to its source? It certainly is tenacious and has more lives than the proverbial cat.
On the other hand:
The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born (Mt 26:24).
Owned.
ReplyDeleteThe Lord works out everything to its proper end —
ReplyDeleteeven the wicked for a day of disaster. Proverbs 16:4
It also makes for a nice disproof for annihilationism, since Jesus admits that a state of annihilation/non-existence would have been better than the fate Judas actually experienced.
ReplyDeleteI'm not advocating annihilationism but I think it's uncharitable to use this as a proof text against *all* forms of annihilationism since some annihilationists say that the process of being destroyed will be very unpleasant (to say the least) even if it will one day come to an end. But this is a problem for those annihilationists who believe that they simply pop out of existence, in my opinion. Just wanted to clarify! :)
ReplyDeleteThat's equivocal. Are you saying postmortem punishment is unpleasant, or annihilation? Annihilation would be instantaneous, would it not, even if (ex hypothesi) it's preceded by a period of postmortem punishment.
DeleteIt would also be argued that postulating a temporary phase of postmortem punishment is a makeshift compromise.
Before I address your comment I would like to reiterate that annihilationism is **not** my position. I was simply arguing that not all forms of annihilationism can be so easily refuted. And with that out of the way… on with the show!
ReplyDeleteSteve said: “That's equivocal. Are you saying postmortem punishment is unpleasant, or annihilation? Annihilation would be instantaneous, would it not, even if (ex hypothesi) it's preceded by a period of postmortem punishment. “
If I were to defend annihilationism, I would argue that annihilation should be seen as a process culminating in the non-existence of the wicked. You seem to be suggesting that the means by which a person is brought out of existence must be separated from the point in time when the person ceases to exist so that it would be improper to hold the two together as I would if I had to defend the position. But I don’t see why that must be the case. Take the example of a popsicle left outside in the heat all day. The popsicle will begin to melt and at a certain point (hard to say when!) it will cease to be a popsicle. It will lose its form and become a puddle of sugary liquid. Similarly, if you leave a person to sit under the wrath of God the person will begin to melt away and some time later cease to exist. I don’t think anyone would bat an eyelash if someone spoke of the process of annihilation that the popsicle had gone through. It fits quite well with the way we would ordinarily use the term.
However, there *are* annihilationists that seem to think that ceasing to exist is unpleasant but I think that’s confused. Why should I be scared of simply not existing? It would be painless – in any sense of the word whether it is emotional, spiritual, psychological, physical, etc. – since there would be no ‘you’ to experience it. Likewise, some annihilationists seem to think that the disappointment of being barred from eternal life is punishment enough but unless someone is around to be disappointed I think the punishment loses its sting. I don’t see the justice in a pagan living his entire life filled with pleasure doing evil - raping, pillaging, slaughtering the innocent - and as a punishment for his wicked life he simply pops out of existence in a puff of smoke. He would never have to experience any kind of retribution. The act of retribution itself would make it impossible for him to experience it on this view. If he could know his fate beforehand he’d probably laugh hysterically and all his victims would live on in everlasting confusion, wondering who is this monster they once called ‘God’ whose presence they must endure for endless ages.
Steve said: “It would also be argued that postulating a temporary phase of postmortem punishment is a makeshift compromise.”
That may be. It all depends on whether you believe that annihilation and degrees of punishment are both taught in Scripture. If you strongly believe that both are taught then one way to reconcile this is to posit something like the solution I sketched above.
I haven't read an annihilationist (Edward Fudge included) who has adequately dealt with Mt. 26:24.
DeleteIf you can point me to some that you feel have, I would appreciate it.
Thanks
What I know of annihilationism comes from blogs and podcasts and the like so I can't really help with book recommendations. However, as I said, I don't think Mt. 26:24 is really a problem for certain species of annihilationism (I could elaborate on that but I'm not gonna spend anymore time on the subject unless someone is really interested - life is short!). The most difficult passage I see for annihilationism is Mt. 25:46.
Delete