tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4601561668712316056..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: A Fudgesicle's chance in hellRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78298440186594096792015-01-10T10:16:26.115-05:002015-01-10T10:16:26.115-05:00steve - to what do you attribute the motivation of...steve - to what do you attribute the motivation of the annihilationist? For example are they seeking to protect God from accusations of being a moral monster for exacting punishment in excess of the crime?<br /><br />What's the perceived net gain or benefit of annihilationism over eternal perdition?<br /><br />Also I'm not sure if this is a valid line of argumentation, but wouldn't consistent annihilationism necessarily entail a denial of divine immutability? Maybe the annihilationist isn't wed to the doctrine, or has an answer, but it seems to me that if God's enemies are utterly destroyed/consumed and put out of existence then it follows that God's wrath would be satiated, and thus He would no longer be wrathful at all entailing an essential change in His being.<br /><br />Obviously God's wrath against those who are in Christ has been propitiated by Christ's sacrifice, but according to Scripture His wrath abides on those who remain outside Christ.<br /><br />But if annihilationism is true, God's wrath will at some point be fully satisfied by the utter destruction and putting out of existence of all objects of wrath, meaning God will change.<br /><br />At least it seems this way to me.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31101224991765476322015-01-09T18:13:06.085-05:002015-01-09T18:13:06.085-05:00For myself, one of the main reasons why I continue...For myself, one of the main reasons why I continue to hold to the traditionalist position is the fact that Jesus had no problem adopting pre-existing language and figures of speech used in intertestamental Jewish literature and by intertestamental rabbis which seemed to imply eternal punishment. Intertestamental literature/rabbis had various views regarding the afterlife (<a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes.xi.xviii.html" rel="nofollow">see this appendix by Jewish Christian Alfred Edersheim</a>). Some, like the Sadducees didn't believe in an afterlife (for either the just or wicked). While others did believe the righteous and the wicked did have some kind of afterlife. <b>Regarding the wicked, intertestamental Jews sometimes combined various conditions for the wicked. Some believed in annihilation for all or for some. Some believed in a purging of the wicked which resulted in their eventual salvation (a kind of Jewish purgatory). Some believed that the moderately wicked were annihilated while the extremely wicked were eternally punished. Others believed that eternal punishment awaited all the wicked/impenitent.</b> Though annihilationists dispute their proper interpretation, there are passages in Josephus where he seems to say that there were some Jews who believed in the immortality of the soul (removing annihilation as an option for those Jews). <b>In light of all these facts, it's interesting that Jesus DIDN'T LIMIT Himself ONLY to statements which could be interpreted to side with annihilation for all the wicked.</b> That's <b>even though</b> apparently some intertestamental literature/rabbis sometimes used the language annihilationists identify with extinction to refer to eternal torment. I agree with annihilationists that most traditionalists prooftexts from the Bible could (theoretically) be interpreted in an annihilationistic way. There are ingenious (sometimes sophistical) ways in which Evangelical annihilaiontists have done so. <b>However, if we ask ourselves how Jesus' original audience would have interpreted His statements, it seems clear (at least to me) that they would have interpreted Him to be teaching eternal torment for some or (or more likely) all the wicked/impenitent.</b> For example, grammatically speaking Matt. 25:41,46 could be interpreted in the way annihilationists do. However, I highly doubt that's how our Lord's actual first century hearers understood Him. Robert Morey's book does a great job making this argument. That's despite some of <a href="http://www.edwardfudge.com/morey.html" rel="nofollow">the (real) weaknesses of Morey's book which Fudge notes in his review</a>. While a lot of Fudge's criticisms hit the mark, I think Morey's book still presents insurmountable objections to annihilationism.<br /><br />Another reason why I stick with the traditional position is that while an intermediate state isn't inherently inconsistent with annihilationism (as evident by some Evangelicals who hold to both), a conscious intermediate state better fits into a traditionalist position (for various reasons). And a conscious intermediate state for both the wicked and righteous both before and after the cross can EASILY be made exegetically from the Bible.<br /><br />My collected internet resources defending the traditionalist position.<br /><a href="http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/04/resources-arguing-for-traditionalist.html" rel="nofollow">http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/04/resources-arguing-for-traditionalist.html</a>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32709544375839532282015-01-09T18:12:44.790-05:002015-01-09T18:12:44.790-05:00Fudge states...
When the Old Testament talks about...Fudge states...<br /><i>When the Old Testament talks about the final end of the wicked, it uses language that sounds like total extinction.</i><br /><br />When annihilationists focus on the Old Testament to make their case they aren't taking seriously enough the principle of progressive revelation. With that limited approach a person could wrongly conclude that there are OT passages that deny or preclude the possibility of an afterlife for the wicked AND the righteous (e.g. Eccl. 9:5-6, 10; Ps. 146:4 etc.).<br /><br />Fudge states...<br /><i>Interestingly, there are no people in this verse--only the devil, beast and false prophet. The latter two are symbolic personifications of anti-Christian institutions: ungodly government (the Roman state) and antichrist religion (the emperor cult).</i><br /><br />But the devil is an individual person (angelic though he may be). Does the reference to the devil there represent the demonic host (*plural*) and not to the *singular* demonic person we call Satan? I can't think of anywhere else in Revelation where the devil is mentioned to represent both himself and his demonic cohorts. In fact, there are verses where he is distinguished from them (e.g. Rev. 12:9, 4, 7). So, if the personal devil is punished eternally in Rev. 20:10; 19:20, then it seems more likely that the beast and false prophet are also individually punished as human persons. In which case, if at least two human persons could be punished eternally, why not more (i.e. the rest of damned humanity)? Also, if the personal devil can be eternally punished, then there's nothing inherently inconsistent with Divine goodness and the eternal punishment of personal agents (angelic or human).<br /><br />Continued in next post.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com