Around the Web – dialogue on Annihilation and Conditional Immortality continues

From Glenn Peoples www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/jonathan-edwards-comes-to-the-aid-of-annihilationism/

What? Jonathan Edwards comes to the aid of annihilationism? Why would I say that? We all know Jonathan Edwards didn’t believe that annihilationism is biblical. Yes, we do all know that, but there are ways to help a view that do not involve showing that it is biblical.

The Fate of the Unrighteous (Part II)

On a final note, Revelation is very heavily steeped in the Old Testament, one such allusion is to Isaiah 34.9-10, which reads,

And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into sulfur; her land shall become burning pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever.

I think it is obvious that this is figurative language, as the fire and smoke of Edom’s destruction is not still ascending today. Instead, it is describing the finality of the judgment and the everlasting nature of the destruction.

Rightly Dividing the Hell Debate linked from this article Annihilationism And The Christian Metaphysic written against annihilationism. Looks like we have the author concerned!

But it has recently come to my attention that annihiliationism is also gaining traction in evangelical circles, and among its adherents is evangelical giant John Stott. And just like evangelical Christianity did absolutely nothing regarding T. D. Jakes or the many other oneness preachers, it has refused to rise up and discredit Stott and the annihilationist preachers. Why? Because modern evangelicalism hates Christian fundamentalism worse than Christian heresy. Now is it possible to hold certain heretical or blasphemous views without being a heretic on his way to the lake of fire? I myself believe that to be the case, primarily because of my notion there are degrees of seriousness of doctrinal deviation, and also the hearer is only responsible for the portion of sound doctrine that he has been exposed to. But whatever the implications that a particular doctrine might have on the eternal salvation or damnation of its holder, certain views are still quite simply deviate from scripture, and those that preach them are not to be accepted or tolerated because of their standing or of some misguided desire not to be a Pharisee or cause of disunity, and that goes for John Stott and annihilationism, Billy Graham and universalism, or R. C. Sproul and infant baptism.

A discussion of preterism and conditional immortality

http://preterismdebate.ning.com/profiles/blogs/a-discussion-on-conditional

http://thinkingsoldier.blogspot.com/2010/03/philosophy-and-theology-of-eternal.html The Philosophy and Theology of Eternal Punishment

In 1868, Mill argued in the British Parliament that life imprisonment was ‘less severe indeed in appearance, and therefore less efficacious, but far more cruel in reality’ than capital punishment. This got me thinking about the philosophy and theology of eternal punishment.”

and another post http://thinkingsoldier.blogspot.com/2010/08/case-for-annihilationism.html

If you find other links that might be of interest please post them in the comments or email  respublishing@slingshot.co.nz

Speak Your Mind

*