onsdag 3. oktober 2018

No. 1713: The Bible clearly states that all non-believers will be wiped out at some point if their name is not in the bodys of life!

No. 1713:
The Bible clearly states that all non-believers will be wiped out at some point if their name is not in the bodys of life!
Picture of when a landscape is about to die completely, but the last remains are left. That's the way they are not believers, they will literally die out!


Presentation of annihilation argumentation
Church History and Learning Context
One of the most basic human questions is what happens when we die.ACUTE's The Nature of Hell lists philosophers, artists, scientists and religious leaders among those who have tried to answer this through history. In a Christian context, we read that the question has primarily been answered in the form of a contrast:
There are two ways when you die, heaven and hell.
Such a response says little about what these outlets mean.
What is referred to in this exercise as a traditional view, where hell implies eternal pain, has not been without resistance. In church history this has mainly come in the form ofuniversalism. Famous and influential theologians like Origen in the third century, and Gregor of Nyssa in the fourth, fought for this teaching. In his article, "How & When The Idea of ​​Eternal Torment Invaded Church Doctrine," Jacob McMillen claims that universalism was the most widespread teaching of learning until Augustin in the fourth century.McMillen writes:It shocks me to hear people argue that the doctrine of Hell has been the definitive belief of Christianity since the days of the New Testament. Such a claim demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of Church history and is a testament to how extensively St.Augustine's doctrine influenced the orthodox church.49
The article emphasizes August's influence on the teaching of the church, and doubts whether the doctrine of eternal pain really was the most recognized before Augustin began to embellishdebate. According to McMillen, both universalism and annihilation were widespread teaching already in the Old Church.
However, in 553, a significant change occurs: Universalism is rejected as the perpetrator of the Second Consignment in Constantinople. As the console represented at this time the entire church of today, the rejection was quickly and widely known. The intrinsic immortality of man, a thought promoted by Tertullian and Augustin, dominated the theological environment in the period as follows.
However, some exceptions exist, for example, Sophronius (Patriarch in Jerusalem from 634) who insisted that human immortality is not an inherent human trait but onegift given from god
When the Middle Ages follows, Catholic theology is characterized by a literal understanding of expressions such as "fire" and "torment." The endowment is understood as perpetual torture, as they perpetuated eternal torment. This is expressed, inter alia, in Dante's work, "The Divine Comedy."
The debate about the actual existence of destruction has therefore partially quenched. Instead, the focus is on hell's content.Annihilation teaching has been an important actor throughout this, but does not increase influence until after the Reformation period.Many of the Reformers sought, in their opposition to the papacy, back to the creed and theology of the fourth century. Froom describes in the "Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers" that in the Reformation period one can recognize a third part seen in the third, fourth and fifth centuries: A growing side supports the idea of ​​conditional immortality, the inherent immortality of another human being, a third thought of universalism.
In and after the reform, this third section is further developed.Luther, among other things, draws out the immortality of the soul as an assertion for no other reason, a pope's resolution. This meansnot that he supported the annihilation lesson. Some comprehensive, self-written review of Luther's thoughts of destruction is hard to find, but there is no doubt that hesupported the doctrine of eternal torment.
Confessio Augustana's Article XVII clarifies an explicit position in Lutheran tradition: "The pious and chosen shall he give eternal life and eternal pleasures, but the wicked people andhe will condemn the devils to be thrown without end. " This clarifies the learning attitude of the Norwegian Church, as well as other church communities with CA as a confession.Still, the mentioned triple still exists, and the teaching of destruction like annihilation seems to characterize it to an increasing extent. Where universality has largely been accommodated in liberal ecclesiasticalrelationships, annihilation teaching has increased its influence in more conservative circles.
Annihilation teaching is among other things official teachings in the Adventist community, and was described in 1995 as a truer picture of the destruction than everlasting pain by the English Church Education Commission.
Confessio Augustana's rejection of the annihilation scholarship will continue to apply to the churches where this is a confession, but Froom believes to witness an increased recognition of the doctrine of the theological discipline. To demonstrate this he refers to a number of reputabletheologians.
All in all, we can trace a church history development

related to the debate debate. Universalism, which was the basis of extensive discussion in the early centuries, has found affiliation iliberal ecclesiastical contexts. This now affects the other professional environment to a lesser degree. Questions about the immortality of the soul seem to get more attention, with the annihilation lesson as a contributing factor. That the loss in CA XVII is defined as eternal torment may have contributed to the fact that the debate has not gotten larger rooms in Norway (with the exception of the "hell battle" in the 50's. Nevertheless, the increased recognition of the annihilation teacher can make a new debate here also. Utnem is among those who defend the doctrine of eternal pain in the light of Lutheran teachings. A presentation of this is found in the book "Bakenfor inferno" (Aalen, Sverre & Aalen, Leiv. (1955). Oslo: Luther Foundation, pp. 73-78) .In this article, it is important to note that throughout history history has been debated about the content of destruction. Although the traditional view has been the most dominant, the annihilation teacher can trace his roots all the way back to the church. John Stott's annihilation argument As previously mentioned John Stott in the book "Essentials" is his tentative view of annihilation. The reason for his restrictive wording is his respect for interpretation tragedy In addition, the church's world-wide unity something Stott appreciates highly and he will not have a negative influence on this. Just Stott's influence and recognition as a conservative, evangelical theologian, may be what makes his statements on the subject as mentioned. Few, with a possible exception to Fudge, are drawn as often in the paper's literature as John Stott. This is despite the fact that his statement about the subject goes beyond nine pages. What's the hell? Before Stott presents his concrete arguments, he uses some words to form a basis for the biblical understanding of hell. We should also. Stott is clear that when Jesus and the apostles speak of the fire of the sea (eg: Rev. 20:15) or the darkness of the Lord (eg Matt 8:12), they speak figuratively. The descriptions are not meant to be understood literally, nor can they, all that time, fire and dark mutually exclude each other. Stott instead emphasizes Bible texts describing other elements by the hell. The words of Jesus "away from me" (Matthew 7:23; 25,41), as well as Paul's description "away from the face of the Lord" (2 Thess 1,5-10). This is a common ground that most annihilationists and traditionalists can agree. The question that separates the two is whether or not the destruction will mean an eternal conscious mind. Will they survive continue to suffer forever or will they cease to exist? Both outcomes can be described as true, eternal and terrible. Stott acknowledges that the former view is considered traditional orthodoxy, and that a majority of the church fathers, reformers and today's Christian leaders maintain this. However, he is not able to accept this position on an emotional level. Since Stott does not acknowledge feelings as a credible source of truth, he asks what the scriptures say about the subject. Will the traditional view of eternal torment fail if one investigates scripture? Stott has four arguments that imply this. They are related to language, imagery, justice and universalism. Language Vocabulary related to destruction is often used when writing about the baptism in the Bible. The most common Greek words are the word "apollumi" (to destroy) and the noun "apòleia" (destruction). When the verb is actively and transitive (on an object), it means "killing" as when Herod would kill the infant Jesus. Stott associates this with Jesus' words of fearing Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Matt. 10, 28, see also Jak 4,12). If killing is to rob the body for life, hell seems to be the robbery of both physical and spiritual life - that is, an extermination from existence. Still continues to present a number of Bible verses where the verb is used intransitively, with the meaning of being destroyed get lost (Luke 15,17; 1 Cor 10,9; Jhn 3,16; 10,28; 17,12; Rom 2,12; 1 Cor 15,18; 2 Pet 3,9). Starting with the same verb, the phrase "hoiapollumenoi" is also used for those who are lost in 1 Cor. 1.18; 2 Cor 2:15; 4.3 and 2 Tess 2.10. In the Mount Speaking, Jesus uses the verb when describing the contrast between the narrow path leading to life and the wide path leading to destruction (Matt 7:13), and we find it again in Romans 9,22; File 1.28; 3.19; Hebr 10.39; 2 pet 3,7; and open 17.8; 17.11. The word "olethros", which also means destroying, is used in 1 Thess 5.3 and 2 Thess 1.9.71 expresses the intense rivals of opponents in between - no one will die for that reason. After examining the Bible's holistic presentation, Stott believes that the fire is used as a picture of destruction, not on torment. Such an understanding of the fire lake meets mainly four counter-arguments addressed by Stott. The first is a picture we find in Mark 9.48, the hell being described as a place where "the earth as eter
they do not die and the fire does not extinguish "- a verse taken from Isaiah 66:24. Jesus' use of this verse says nothing about eternal torment. Like the verses we have previously mentioned, this does not mean that man remains forever. What does the destruction is eternal. Stott interprets this as an expression that there is no way for the lost - the punishment will persist until the destruction is complete. Such an assertion can be supported by looking into the Bible's use of the word of eternity. The second motive is based on Matt 25 , 46, in which Jesus presents a contrast between eternal life for the righteous and eternal punishment of the lost. To interpret the verse that the destruction involves eternal and conscious pain is to add the text an opinion that it does not express itself. Jesus temporarily points out that both life and punishment will be eternal. This without expressing the specific content of any of them. A destruction / destruction will equally be a punishment with eternal effect. A third counter argument can be based on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16,23-31, where the rich man cries out that he is "tormented in this flame" ( v. 24). Stott clarifies that one should be careful in interpreting parables, especially one that reads "Abraham's Capture" (v. 22) and Pentecostal Flames (v. 24). At the same time, the parable deals with the period just after the dear man and Lazarus's death, where the five brothers of the rich man are still alive with his father. This makes it natural to believe that Jesus here refers to what we call "the middle state" - the period between death and resurrection . Stott assumes that in this period they lost painfully will realize their destiny. This is not contrary to the idea of ​​later destruction. Similarly, Stott interprets the verse in Rev. 14.10, where the torment takes place the prince of the angels and the Lamb. This seems to refer to judgment day, rather than the eternal state that follows. The last opposition argument addressed by Stott deals with Rev. 20.10, where the lake of fire describes a place where "the day and night of torment forever". This is a description we can not find in other places, and it does not refer to man. In the verse the devil, the beast and the false prophet are exposed to eternal torment in the fire. The same fate is described for Babylon's wrath in Rev. 18.7; 18.10; 18.15, then without the addition "forever and ever". Common to those mentioned is that they are not individuals, but that they represent different sides of the world's rebellion against God. In that sense, they are not able to experience pain, like death and death kingdom thrown into the fire with them (v. 14). Stott will therefore argue that the most natural way of understanding these verses is that all resistance to God will ultimately be destroyed. Both word usage and image use therefore seem to point to an understanding of destruction as annihilation. Justice's third argument for destruction as annihilation is based on the Bible's representation of justice. Here is a basic concept that God will judge every one "for sincere things" (Rev. 20:12). This suggests a correlation between the evil done and the punishment received, a principle we can recognize from the Jewish tradition. Exodus 21,23-25 ​​finds the vitality as it was used in Jewish courts: "Eye by eye, tooth for tooth" (v. 23). Can sinful deeds be done in time, punished with eternal and conscious pain? Stotts argues that unless the perpetrators of revolt against God continue forever, such a punishment will contradict the biblical revelation of God's righteousness. Universelism is clear that he is not universalist, something he emphasizes by pointing out that the hope of salvation for all is a false hope, as it violates Jesus' teaching of a judgment with two eternal exits. The reason why his fourth and last argument is related to universalism is that the argument is based on Bible texts often used to speak the cause of universalism. By this, texts mean that Christ is going to draw everyone (John 12:32) that God will summarize everything in Christ (Eph. 1,10) that God should reconcile everything with himself (Col. 1:20) and that every knee in heaven, on earth and under the earth should bow down and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord (Phil 2,10f), so that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15, 28). Stott refuses to interpret these texts in the direction of universalism. There are too many texts that speak of the reality of hell to justify this. The question Stott is left with, as these texts may make sense if an unspecified number of people still exist without fellowship with God. The textual basis as a whole gives more meaning if the loss causes annihilation. Then the idea of ​​the reality of hell and the universal rule of God can be logically reconciled. Stott ends his account of the annihilation arguments by asking for an open dialogue, based on Scripture, regarding the question of destruction. He states that his position as annihilationist is somewhat reluctant, but that annihil
Asians should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically-based alternative to the doctrine of eternal pain. This is based on the four forthcoming arguments presented. The Bible's word of hell is in many places pictorial, but conveys an eternal and terrible reality for those who are lost. The Bible's language use suggests that their destiny involves destruction, which seems to support the imagery of texts. The scripture's representation of righteousness seems to be contradictory to the idea of ​​eternal punishment for timeless sinful deeds, while a number of touches the thought of the immortality of the soul in its argumentation about the Bible's language use. He denies this as Greek philosophy without a biblical basis, an assertion that is not accepted by the theological academic community. However, it is doubtful that Greek philosophy promoted this thought, something we can see in Socrates's conversation with Simmias: Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; When the soul exists in herself [...]. The question is not whether Greek philosophers like Plato and Socrates considered the soul as immortal, but whether such a thought has a Biblical basis. If it is so that all souls are immortal, it makes sense that they lost will suffer for eternity-they will forever exist outside heaven. For annihilationists, it is a key point that the soul is not immortal, but that eternal existence is given as a gift in the gospel. The question of the immortality of the soul is therefore central to a discussion about the annihilation teaching. It is necessary to clarify that there are different understandings of what an immortal soul implies. Very few theologians will argue that the soul has always existed and many will point out that God is in capable of destroying an immortal soul too. When speaking of an immortal soul, the thought is meant that man is immortal by virtue of being human, a trait given by God in creation. If God does not actively engage and destroy it, humanity will continue to exist forever. Such an understanding seems to be the most widespread. Mortality in Jewish tradition In the book "Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity," Dag Endally describes the evolution of Jewish faith in life after death. Finally, it is established that the belief in resurrection was not a typical idea in the older Jewish faith. Rather, surprisingly little is found in older Jewish texts that at all mention the subject. It may thus be speculated if there was any thought about life after death at all. Even though the Jews may have believed that death was the end of all, this does not mean that God was understood as insensitive. His promises of salvation were understood as a promise of survival for the Jewish people, not every single human being. Such thinking was also common among Jews in early Roman times.86 Finally, one refers to a text from Joseph, "The Sadducees hold that the soul perishes along with the body," and Setzer, who draws up a common inscription on Jewish tombs: «Be of good courage. No one is immortal. "Fathers are more disagreeable in terms of newer Jewish faith. Ending refers to Cavallin and Cohn-Sherbok, who claims that Jewish teachers in the post-biblical period felt compelled to conduct experimental exegesis to promote an immortality theory in line with the one found in their cultural context (including the Greek philosophy). Therefore, Old Testament texts were interpreted in a direction that supported this, an interpretation of which the researchers mentioned are critical. For example, Cavallin is very skeptical of interpreting Isaiah 26:19 ("Your dead shall be alive, my bodies shall rise [...] ) in the direction of a resurrection. This is because we have major problems understanding the Hebrew text and the context of the verse. Endjø claim that it is only 200 BC this year. can find concrete indications of a Jewish faith in resurrection from death. In the book "The Resurrection of the Son of God," N.T. promotes. Wright a little different sight. He claims that the relationship between God and the people of Israel is so strong that it can not be broken by death, an assertion he believes to find traces of the Old Testament texts. Wright rejects the notion that in earlier Jewish thinking, focused on the survival of the people, but believes that this thought evolved to encompass the individual in the Old Testament texts. So, Andsand and Wright are disagreeing when this development took place but also in largely agree: In older Jewish texts, there is little that suggests a resurrection from death before it gradually develops. In New Testament times, it is clear that this is still an ongoing debate, as described in Acts 23,7f. There is little evidence that a general, spiritual immortality in what we have examined here. The resurrection teachings that gradually developed were inextricably linked to God's covenant, like the idea of ​​immortality for the people of Israel. Mortality at Augustin 'The Fathers of Our Church' 95 presents Augustin as the first philosopher of Western Christianity's tradition
with a formal dissertation dealing with the immortality of the soul. Some have criticized the work of copying it by Greek philosophers, while others acknowledge its distinctive influence on philosophy history. Irrespective of inspiration, work has had a great influence on later Christian theology. His work "De immortalitate animae" is purely a reason-based argument for human immortal soul. Here the immortality of the soul is detected by first advocating its existence as a living, non-physical entity. The soul has to exist because it knows with certainty that its own ability for sensible thinking exists. It has to be live-like, only living creatures are in common sense, and it can not be physical because all physical substances occupy space and can endlessly be divided into smaller parts. After hastening the soul's existence, Augustin argues for its immortality. He points out that the soul, despite its non-physical nature, is the habitat of science. Science principles and content are true. That two and two becomes four is for example an assertion based on true and unchanging principles. Augustin states that there is no interruption in the existence of truth - it is eternal. Since this can only exist in a living, non-physical substance, that is, the soul, the soul must be eternal. However, Cornelia W. Wolfskeel points out that there are a number of internal contradictions in Augustin's work in the book, a consequence of which the work was intended as a basis for further work by Ends. Also studying the Jewish thought of Sheol, an element I do not share in my task . This because Sheol's content does not imply that all human beings possess an immortal soul, or can be linked to the eternal domination of destruction. Augustin himself. Dongsun Cho points out that in recent years Augustin defended the immortality of the soul out of Scripture, rather than philosophy. Among other things, he used Matthew 10,28, which implies that those who pursue Christians may be able to kill their bodies, but not their souls. This describes the ability of the soul to survive physical death, as well as its ability to exist independently of the body.100 Augustin sees the body as a creation of God, while the soul is not created in the same way. Its substance is of God itself, and therefore immortal.Fudge is among those who reject Augustine's interpretation of Matt. 10, 28. According to him, the verse of the verse is that the soul is immortal, but that God can kill both soul and body, as it is written in the second part of the verse. Where the human body can be influenced by what is happening on earth, God holds the ultimate judgment of man as a whole. Therefore, we should fear God's advocates. The verse as a whole seems to have this as a message, and conveys the actual opportunity of the soul to be destroyed. If the substance of the soul is of God itself, it seems strange to imply that God will destroy this. Mortality in the BibleOver Matthew 10,28, the immortality of the soul can be defended from human creation in the image of God (Genesis 1.27). The challenge with such an interpretation is that it is never stated in the text that the portion of God's nature is found in man. Just as God is immortal, He is also almighty and all-knowing, without anyone advocating that human beings participated in this. Ommennesket actually received an immortal soul, nor can we confidently say that it is not taken from us as a consequence of the fall. In verse 5, we read that Adam had a son after the image of his son, and in Gen. 2,17 we find that man will die on the day they eat of the tree of knowledge, whatever they do. We know that Adam did not die this day but he died. The text does not mention that this mortality does not include his soul. In history, it is interesting to draw forth Gen. 3,22: The Lord God said, "Look! Man has become one of us and knows good and evil. Only now does not stretch out and take off the tree of life so it eats and lives forever! 'God feares that man will acquire eternal life by eating of the tree of life. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that, after eating the wood of knowledge, man did not have eternal life. It is never suggested in the text that death and life comprise only one specific part of the human being. As will be explained later, the Bible seems to consistently speak of man as a whole. Without adding to the text an opinion that it does not convey itself, it seems clear that man in his present state is deadly. In addition, God expresses the wish that sinful man shall not live forever. By expelling them from the garden of Eden, they are deprived of the opportunity to acquire eternal life. An opportunity given later in the gospel. God does not want sinful people to exist forever in a sinful world. No matter if they choose it themselves. Another Bible place used to defend the immortality of the soul is found in Matthew 22:32: "I am the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob!" He is not a God for the dead but for living. "In an interpretation of this Fudge refers to Orr, pointing out that it is not a general undeadequality, but about the resurrection of the believers. Both context and argument point to this, rather than a general immortality for all people. Fudge at the same time problematises an understanding of the bible term "soul," where it functions as a separate and defined entity in man. The Bible undoubtedly speaks of the "soul," but among the instances of the Hebrew word "nephesh", which can be translated "soul," it is only about 130 that describe man. The diversity of the word, and the different contexts it uses, have led to English Bible translators using 45 different interpretations of the word. The word is thus not limited to dealing with a single dimension in man. "Nepesh" is used to describe so many different aspects of the existence of creatures that it is best understood as an expression of the individual as a whole. According to Fudge, this helps us understand why it would be contrary to the biblical texts to assume that the soul is a defined and separated part of man, able to survive in death. It is simply not in coherence with the Old Testament understanding of the term. If, among other things, there are a number of Bible texts that speak to save his soul (Mark 8:35, Heb. 10.39; 1 Pet 1.9). In GT we find similar verses, among other things. in the book of Psalms (16,9ff; 49,15; 73,24). 106 The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon. (U.å.). Retrieved 11.04.16 from: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/nephesh.html. the soul dies, the natural thought will be that this implies man as a whole. The same applies to the New Testament use of the word "psycho", which on 13 occasions uses iPaulus's letter, usually in reference to human natural life. Both here and in other New Testament texts, Fudge finds a similar understanding of the soul as the one we see in the GT. Accordingly, according to Reisenbach, Bloesch and a number of others, Fudge confirms that the teaching of human immortality is contrary to the teachings of the scriptures. It never refers to a death that deals with human body's physical body. Fudge points to the paulian texts as a whole to reinforce this argument. At Paul, human immortality does not originate from anything in human beings, but it is a gift given from God in the gospel. Those who accept this will live forever. Fudge argues that Paul thus continues the Jewish view of immortality: A life after death depends on the covenant with God. Fudge refers further to Darby and Beasley-Murray, emphasizing that this is the gospel's central message. If all human beings have an immortal soul, the resurrection of Jesus will only be an example of human immortality. This minimizes the real message of the gospel, in which man receives eternal life as a gift. Fudge puts it as follows: Whenever the Bible attributes immortality to human beings, it always describes the bodies (never disembodied souls or spirits) of the saved after the resurrection (never in the context of this created world as we know It can therefore be discussed whether there is at all a foundation in Scripture to define the soul as a separate and defined entity in human beings. The Bible seems to talk about humanity as unity, even when it deals with eternal life. This is inseparably attached to a bodily body. With such a starting point, it may seem more reasonable to define the soul as something towards the consciousness of the people. Unable to exist on its own, but with possibility forever. In an extension of this, Fudge also discusses the "middle state", the period between human death and the resurrection / judgment. Peterson is among those who argue that this indicates a human death that does not cover the whole human being (Peterson & Fudge, 2000, pp. 171-174). There are different views both in and outside the adulthood. Since a definite position regarding this is not required to defend the annihilation scholarship, I have chosen to leave the theme. It is referred instead to "The Fire That Consumes", (1994), pp. 21-40, and "Two Viewsof Hell", (2000), pp. 170-174. life in the glory described in 1 Cor. 15. The durability of the annihilation teachings does not depend on such a definition, but it can be argued that the Bible sets apart from a clear distinction between soul and body. As a corollary to this, it can be assumed that the immortality of the soul is enforceable in the biblical texts, and that these should be understood in light of it, but Fudge has difficulty accepting this as sufficient explanation that such a central theme is not explicitly formulated. It is problematic to assume that an immortal soul was a matter of course for the Biblical writers, especially among the Jewish descent, as this in no way clarifies the theme of Jewish tradition. Summary of the Immortality of the Soul The discussion I have presented here refers to an assertion: All Humans possesses an immortal soul, by virtue of being human. In church history this has been partially accepted, the conception that the soul had its beginning da God created it. However, the claim seems to have a little foundation in the biblical texts, and it can be argued that it originated from the world of philosophy. This does not necessarily mean that the statement is false, but if the assertion was adopted as ecclesiastical teaching, in an attempt to reconcile the theological understanding of the contemporary cultural environment, it can be argued that it has had unhealthy influence on the interpretation of Scripture. If it is assumed that the soul is immortal, there are few antitrust possibilities than that they lost will continue to exist - and suffer - forever. It must be emphasized that a mortal soul does not necessarily mean that lost human beings can not exist forever. God can by his power let all exist forever. The teaching of eternal torment can therefore be valid even though the soul of man is deadly. Nevertheless, this can be challenging to accept for followers of a traditional patience vision. If humanity does not possess inherent immortality, its eternal existence in destruction will be an active act from God's side. If it is not in human nature to exist forever, and a traditional perpetual vision is correct, God performs an active act to keep those lost in existence, even when this person keeps pains. The Bible's use of eternity Conviction is a challenging philosophical concept. In this context, however, there is a linguistic challenge for the term we are going to explore. Stott does not take this into account in his argument. Fudge and Berg.In NT, the Greek adjective "aiónios" is used, which in Norwegian is mainly translated "eternal", with the corresponding noun "aión". On several occasions this is in the context of fellow men's fate after death, which makes it interesting to explore. Linguistic struggles learned about the true meaning of the Greek word. In Greek literature it seems to have been used for different purposes. The question is therefore how it is used in the biblical texts.114 General use of the term In its book "No eternal torment", 115, Lars Berg systematically through all the occurrence uses the terms "aión" and "aiónios" in the Bible. His conclusion is that "aión" 82 of 102 is used in the meaning of "long time", "lifetime" or "age". Additionally, the use of words appears the text's context does not provide grounds for drawing a conclusion or dealing with an upcoming age. Berg also studied the places where "aiónios" occurs, with the conclusion that the word is primarily used as a reinforcing expression. On some occasions in the sense that the expression reflects an extension of time, others know in such a way that it works as a quality or degree-enhancing expression. Sometimes both. In Norwegian Bibles, the word is translated in a variety of ways, something Berg justifies the fact that in our language we do not have simple words that reflect "aión" or "aiónios" its full depth. It is necessary to note that although "aiónios" is often used as a reinforcing expression, it does not rule out that this reinforcement applies into eternity. Consequently, the term can deal with what we perceive as eternal, but do not have to do that in the biblical texts. In order to understand the meaning of the term in the individual text, we need to examine the context in which it is placed. In this context, it is useful to understand that the Bible speaks of two different ages: The Present and the Future. The Greek word used is "aión", where "aiónios" is the adjective associated with it (see, for example, Matthew 12:32). The significance of adjectives depends on the age of the object described. The present or the eternal kingdom of God? If it belongs exclusively to the present age, a description such as "eternal" will still end the age of this world (or earlier). If it belongs to the future age, which will always last, a description as "eternal" will mean just this. One example may be that if God is described as "eternal", it will mean "eternal" because God is not bound to our age . However, when mountain is described as "eternal" (see, for example, Sal 76.5) the meaning will be a very long time - or as long as they can last. Fudge refers to Nicole, pointing out that "aiónios" is used 51 times in the NT with reference to the eternal happiness of the saved. There is little doubt that the meaning is that this will never end. The Savior's eternal future belongs to the next age. Furthermore, it appears to Pétavel to emphasize that the word additionally occurs at least 70 times (in NT, and in GT in the form of the Hebrew olam) as a description of an object of temporary and limited nature. It is used to describe something in this age of the world. Literally, the word can still be translated "forever", but the meaning is limited by the inherent nature of the object. It is then a reinforcing expression, without the literal meaning of "eternal". This explains why we can see the terms used for something that has already ended. Aaronic Priesthood was eternalCaleb knew that the land should be his and his children's property forever (Jos 14,9), Sodom and Gomorrah were punished with eternal fire (Jud 1,7) and Gehasis's disease should be attached him forever (2 King 5,27). Pétavel emphasizes that the same goes for virtually all of the articles, rites and arrangements in the GT. It can therefore be argued that the Bible uses the term to describe unlimited time within the limits set by what is discussed. In addition, it may be argued that the words in themselves do not have the meaning of "perpetual" in any of the cases, but merely serves as an enhancing expression. That we choose to interpret this reinforcement into eternity is a consequence of our teo. Furthermore, we must carefully examine the relevant Bible sites to develop a credible understanding of what the text convey. In this context, Fudge is particularly interested in the texts in which the adjective "aiónios" actualizes a noun, thus dealing with actions or processes. This as opposed to describing people or things. Among the 70 instances of "aiónios" in the NT, we find this on six different occasions. These six are: eternal salvation (Heb. 5,9), eternal redemption / forever bought free (Hebrews 9:12), eternal judgment (Heb. 6,2), eternal sin (Mark 3,29), eternal punishment (Matt 25, 46) and eternal spoilage (2 Thess 1.9). In all of these, we can see that the use of the term "eternal" points in the direction of the age to come, which implies a perpetual perspective. Neither eternal salvation, eternal destruction nor any of the others seems to belong solely to the present age. The question thus becomes how, for example, the eternal ones can be forever. The judgment of the judgment, the actual judgment, will not be eternal. Fudge writes that the natural explanation is that there will be a conviction that results in an eternal sentence. The very act is not what will last forever, but the result of it. The same can be said of the eternal redemption. When Christ, with His own blood, bought us forever, it was the result of this, which was eternal, not the very act. In Heb 5,9, it is made clear that Jesus was the source of eternal salvation. This was promised by God in Isaiah 45:17: "But Israel is saved by the Lord with eternal salvation." The salvation of Jesus is clearly placed in time, and once this has taken place, the result remains the eternal salvation of God. Again, the very action is not what will last forever, but the result of it. In Mark 3,29, Jesus warns that the one who scoffs the Holy Ghost will never be forgiven but be guilty of eternal sin. Here too, we can see that the very act, the sinful act, does not last for eternity. Fudge refers to Romans 2.6-16 to emphasize that the punishment in hell is the result of evil deeds done in this age.122 In the next there will be no rebellion against God, but every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Phil 2, 10f). When in 2 Thess. 1.9 is spoken of eternal destruction, this is described as an exclusion from God's presence. In verse 10, we see that this exclusion will take place "on the day he will be praised by his saints and praised by all who believe." The very loss of human beings will not be a perpetual event. It will take place just this day. Fudge therefore adheres to other biblical texts to claim that the outcome of this destruction is a cessation of existence. The sentenced will be destroyed in a painful process, but it is not this process that will last forever. It is the result of it: that they lost will be destroyed and forever will be lost. The same applies in the face of the eternal punishment described in Matthew 25,46. Like the previous texts, here is described an action / process. It can be argued that all of the mentioned texts refer to an action / process for a given time, whose result remains for eternity. Fudge maintains that God will punish each individual in relation to his sin, but that the outcome of this punishment will be total destruction. A ceasefire of existence with an eternal result. In my opinion, it is at this point that Fudge's exegetical interpretations can be subjected to the most criticism. The interpretation of Matt 25,46 is based on a generalization of eternity, made on the basis of a selective text selection. This is not a course of interpretation of the text. It seems likely that the Bible in some places uses the concept of eternity with the meaning Fudge implies. Nevertheless, such an interpretation in this regard is more challenging to defend, as the same verse refers to the eternal life of the righteous, with a clear reference to an eternal state. That the same words, in the same verse, have a different meaning when describing the punishment will undoubtedly be possible to criticize, although the interpretation may be right. Summary of the eternal term in the Bible. It is clear that the term "eternal" is used in the Bible also about what is not will exist forever. One should therefore be careful to directly interpret the expression dithen that it odealing with one-sided existence. Often it is used as the hallmarks of some belonging kingdom of God, but we have also seen examples of time-limited elements. When the term is used in connection with events or processes, it often appears that the actual event / process is not eternal, but the result of it. It can therefore be argued that when the Bible speaks of eternal loss, judgment or punishment, this denotes a temporary event / process followed by an eternal outcome. In this case, this will be in harmony with the Bible study. The Bible's Revelation of the Lost In the Bible, we find many texts that directly refer to the loss. Understanding what these texts are meant to convey is a crucial factor in an analysis of annihilation learning. Therefore, I will study some aspects that are consistent with the Bible's mention of the perpetuation, as well as examine some of the most important texts in particular. Disappearance in the NTD can be useful with some introductory words regarding what is contained in New Testament texts associated with the perdition. In the synoptic gospels, Matthew finds more references to hell. The one time this is mentioned in Mark, as well as all Luke's references, can be found at Matthew. In addition, there is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus Lukukking with Lukas, a text that is often drawn in this regard. Johannes uses a more unique conceptual usage, without references to either hell, hades, torment, fire or the like. Instead, expressions are used as destruction, death and judgment. There is no mention of hell in the apostles' acts. It is spoken of salvation and resurrection, and although God's judgment is sometimes mentioned, it never specifies what this implies. Neither in the letters of Paul we can find specific mention of hell. However, a number of closely related topics are written. In Romans 6.23, death is the wages of sin, while in 1 Corinthians 15,26 the last enemy is destroyed. A repetitive theme is the wrath of God, which will come upon the disobedient (Rom 2.8f; 9,22; 1,18; 2,5; 3,5; 4,15; 5,9; 12,19; 13,4f ; If 2.3; 5.6; Col 3,6; 1 Thess 1.10; 2.16; 5.9). Furthermore, it is clear to Paul that everybody must appear before God's court (eg Romans 2,6: 3,6) and that those who are guilty will perish (eg Romans 2:12, 1 Cor. 1:18). Despite extensive talk about the possibility of destruction, it is only in 2 Thess 1.9 that Paul directly describes what this implies. In the Norwegian translation, it is written: "Your punishment will be a perpetual loss away from the Lord's face and from His glory and power." In order to better understand Stott's view of perdition as destruction, it may be useful to look at the English translation: "They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." The Greek word as used, translated "destruction" and "destruction" is "olethron". The word itself does not mean annihilation, but to lose everything that gives its worth value. In this way, the verse can also be used to defend one-traditional view of the loss. It may therefore be necessary to remind you that Stotts argumentation in this area is not based on this verse alone, but on the Bible's overall terminology associated with the perdition. A "passing away from the Lord's face" is not self-explanatory and must be understood in the light of the other biblical texts. In the other letters we find a mention of the fate of the lost in Hebrews 10,27, where they will be consumed by the judgment and God burning eagerness. Hebrews 6,2 describes the judgment as eternal. In Jacob's letter, terminology is used as "dead" and "destroys" (James 1:15; 4,12), while in Peter's two letters, they are spoken of (1 Pet 4,17) and perdition (2 Pet 3,7). In 2 Pet 2,9 it is unclear whether it refers to what follows the judgment or what is ahead of it. In Jud 1.7, a parallel is drawn between the perpetration and the eternal fire that punished Sodom and Gomorrah.130 In addition, 2 Pet.2,12 seems to talk about the destiny of the lost. Finally, there are a series of verses in John's revelation. Here, the destruction is described as "the second death" (2.11; 20.6), which is further described as a lake of fire and sulfur (21.8). In 22:15, the lost ones are placed "outside" the new Jerusalem, while 11.18 talks about "destroying those who destroy the earth." In addition, the devil will be thrown into the fire, together with the beast and the false prophet, where they will be tormented day and night forever and ever (20.10). Also the death and death kingdom itself will be thrown into the lake of fire (20,14) .131 A more thorough account of these verses will follow in the task (see 3.4.3 and 3.4.4). In addition, there are a number of references in the GT. The cultural and religious context makes these more challenging to interpret, and it will therefore mainly focus on the New Testament texts. Concept Uses in the Revelation of Destruction In its statement, Stott focuses on language and imagery when analyzing the biblical texts.132 Mountains do in their book "Eternal Life or Death" 133 some of the same. But instead of focusing on destruction as destruction, Bi is examined
belial description of death as the lost fate (eg Romans 6,21; 6,23; 1,15; Ezek 18,4; 18,20; Sal 143,3; Open 2,11; 20,6; 20,14; 21.8). These verses can not mention anything other than the final and absolute death. In addition, there are other words that express the same meaning. In Sal 9,6 they are wiped out, while those in Sal 37.38 go to bed and have their future cut off. In Malatians 4.1-3, all who do injustice should burn up, the same is true in Matt 3.12. Other expressions used for the lost ones include to be destroyed (Job 4:20), destroyed (Sal 145:20), destroyed (1 Corinthians 3:17), destroyed (2 Thess 2,8), consumed (Hebrews 10,27) and walked to the ground in the same way as the animals (2 Pet 2,12; Sal 49,13; Fork 3,18f). In particular, Berg draws out Sal 37.20 where we find: "But the lawless goes to the ground. Her enemies disappear like the flower fairy on the ground, they are gone like smoke." Bergen's argument for destruction as an eternal and absolute death largely reflects Stotts thoughts of destruction as destruction. Their conclusion is the same. Berg writes himself: [...] The destruction must consist of an absolute destruction, as the many biblical places tell us, not in perpetual torment. The Greek words used for destruction or perishment are by the way the same as other places are translated with: go to the ground, be destroyed, be consumed, destroyed. To be lost means: to be destroyed. The eternal death will hit those who do evil and show eternal life. Fudge also takes on the different expressions used for deception in the Bible and, like Stott, he focuses specifically on those who deal with fire. He highlights the words of Jesus in Matt. 13, 40-43, where they were thrown into the furnace. Fudge emphasizes that an unreasonable fire is a recurring theme both in GT and NT, with reference to Ezek. 21.3f; Am 5.6 and Matt 3.12. The fire of this God expresses an unreserved destruction of what is thrown in it. Consistently, the fire is eternal, a symbol that there is no hope for what burns in it. The furnace itself is also a part of the GT. In Dan 3 Shadrak, Meshach, and Abednego are thrown into the furnace of Nebuchadnezzar without burning. This because the angel of God rocked them (v. 28). It is clear, however, that God does not worship those who are thrown into the fire of destruction. Maternity 13: 40-43 also presents examples of paralysis sources beyond the use of fire: in the furnace they will disappear crying and cutting teeth. We also find the same expression. in Luke 13.28 and Matt 25.30. Like our daily associations, crying in the Bible is used to express fear, sorrow and pain. In Isaiah 22:12 the Jews cry over the destruction of Jerusalem, and in your 9,1 we cry over the fallen in the people. Cutting of teeth occurs both in GT and NT in conjunction with anger (Sal 37,12; Complaint 2.16; Apg 7.54). Neither the Matthew text nor the conceptual use in the Bible for the Other Considers that they are lost crying and cutting teeth will last forever. On the contrary, they describe the lost cuts of teeth in Sal 112, where the continuation is that they are thrown away and their longings become nothing (v. 10). An assumption that crying and cutting of teeth is a description that refers to the perpetual torment of the lost one does not originate in the biblical texts, but occurred a long time after the creation of the Bible. The lost fear, sorrow, pain and anger are their reaction when they realize their destiny. This does not mean that this destiny must consist of an eternal conscious mind. It can deal with the certainty of an eternal exclusion from the kingdom of God, and instead they will perish in the devouring fire.GehennaBlant the terms used in the Bible's dissemination of the destruction, we find the Greek wordGehenna. Jesus' first reference to this is found in Matthew 5,22, where it is translated in Norwegian to "hell." A natural question is whether we, with the word hell, get the same associations as Jesus listened to when he taught Gehenna. "Hell" is often associated with the medieval depictions, including torture. "Gehenna", in its view, does not make sense if one does not know the geography around Jerusalem. This is probably the reason why the word is used only once outside the gospels (Jas 3,6 - without reference to the destructive destiny), and that other terminology is used in NT's books aimed at heathen and relocated Jews. Because of different frame of reference, therefore, a Norwegian Bible translation might seem misleading when it refers to "hell." Gehenna is derived from the Hebrew "ge'hinnom" or the valley of Hinnom. This was located just south of Jerusalem and was a notorious place for idolatry was sacrificed to the god of Molech - dedowed. In addition, here were the bodies and the sacrifice bag was thrown (Jer 31.40). This may indicate that Gehenna was a garbage site, which has been a popular assumption. Archaeologists found that the valley did not work like this, but that it included burial sites and crematoriums. This fits well with the thought of Hinnom's valley as a place with flames and bodies. It is probably this place Isaiah refers to when he talks about mar
the one who will not die and the fire that does not extinguish (Isaiah 66:24). J. Arthur Hoyles has written a full description of Gehenna. The details of the description can not be fully demonstrated historically, but it conveys the core of the Jewish perception of the place: Here the fire burned day and night, destroying the garbage and purifying the atmosphere of the smell of rotten fish or decaying vegetation. In de tijd van oorlog zullen de carcasses of vanquished vijanden mengen met de vuil, waardoor de patriottische schrijvers zijn voorzien van een clue als de bestemming van hun eigen vervolgers. They were destined to be destroyed in the fires that were never quenched. In the gospels, Jesus is the only person who uses Gehenna as a description of the destruction. This occurs on four occasions: 1. In Matthew 5,22 Jesus mentions various sins that lead to Gehenna.2. In Matthew 5,29f and Mark 9,43ff, it is conveyed that it is better to go to mankind in life than to harbor hell in Gehenna. In Mark 9, then, the quotation follows from Isa 66.24.3. Nos. Matthew 10,28, and Luke 12,5, describes that we should only fear Him who has the power to destroy / throw the soul in Gehenna.4. In Matthew 23,15; 23.33 Jesus condemns some Pharisees as - clarity in the original texts regarding the content and duration of the punishment placed in Gehenna. We therefore find no direct connection between Jesus' use of Gehenna and an understanding of perdition as eternal conscious consciousness. Jesus and inter-Testament authors use the term in a manner similar to our own use of "hell"; It describes the perilability of being lost. The Jews' associations with Gehenna are, however, different from Western beliefs of hell. When Jesus spoke of Gehenna, this did not convey a place of eternal torture, but a place where they died disappeared in fire and indignation. God's wrath In his article "Luther's view of hell," 145, Erling Utnem points out that Luther's understanding of the loss is directly related to God wrath. Both hell, fire, and other biblical denominations of destruction should be understood as synonyms of this. Such a thought is supported, among other things. of Sal 21,10: "You make them a flaming furnace when you show. The Lord will devour them in their wrath, and the fire will devour them. "Such an interpretation is basically consistent with the annihilation teaching, with the judgment being defined as eternal torment. Utnem specifies that Luther understands the loss as this, but not on the basis of "metaphysical speculations of soul mortality." The suppression is understood as eternal pain because the judgment contains all the judge's characteristics. Therefore, it is also eternal and infinite. However, it can be discussed whether this is a matter of course. That the wrath of God always potentially exists is not the same as always being exercised. In that case, God's wrath must have expired before this world was created. Nor can it be argued that His actions are eternal in what they enter into force, without simultaneously implying that creation can not cease to exist. If God's creative power can cease, may the same be true of His anger? It is therefore necessary to present the reasons why God chooses to maintain his anger over the lost. In addition, this must correspond to the understanding of God's kindness and righteousness, an aspect we will now study. Justice in the Bible Statute's argument for the annihilation teachings uses what he calls the biblical understanding of justice: Penalties shall reflect the evil committed. In "The Nature of Hell," the love of God is drawn in this context. The question raised is in many ways the same: In light of God's goodness / justice: Can the punishment be eternal pain? According to ACUTE, traditionalists will agree that there must be a balance between the sins committed and the punishment received. At the same time, they claim that such a balance exists even when the punishment lasts forever. This can be justified by convictions committed against an infinite and holy God to deserve an infinite punishment. There are biblical examples that can support such a vision: Many women turn into a salt support because she returned to Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19, 26), and Ussa beaten dead because he touched the covenant (2 Sam 6,6 -7). In addition, it is stated in Jak. 2,10 that all who stumble in a commandment are bound to break all, which clarifies the severity of breaking God's commandments. In this regard, annihilationists may point out that Jak 2,10 does not convey that any sin deserves infinite punishment. What is clarified is that you are a criminal offender regardless of whether you break the marriage or kill him (v. 11). The verse clarifies that one is guilty or innocent, but does not say anything about what the punishment implies. The lyrics about Ussa and Lot's wife do not deal with the final punishment, but individual propositions are placed in a given context. The punishment which does not endlessly or everlastingly, as the last judgment has not yet taken place. Such individual texts should therefore not override the holistic understanding of God's righteousness. It is not sufficient to show that God's punishment may seem strict. It must shows that any sinful act against God deserves eternal torment as punishment. And this must be done in light of the kindness and righteousness of the Bible. In his religious philosophical work "A Theodicy of Hell", Charles Seymour investigates whether this can be done. He presents arguments promoted by, among other things, Augustin, Aquinas, Anselm and Edwards, all of whom try to reconcile God's righteousness with eternal torment. Occasionally using similar thoughts as the one we just investigated. A detailed study of the arguments by the way will require more space than we have here, but according to Seymour, none of them is able to achieve such an association. He sums it up as follows: "[...] none of the defenses thus have proven that our sins deserve eternal punishment." As he himself supports the teaching of eternal torment, he therefore proposes another solution: assuming that they lost hold free Will, even after judgment, Seymour argues that they will continue to sin forever. They will therefore deserve to be punished forever.155 Such a view makes it possible to maintain the biblical understanding of righteousness, and Stott considers this as the only opportunity if wishing to maintain the doctrine of eternal torment.156 Such a view, however, would be contrary to Stott's understanding of God's final victory, presented in point 3.2.5. It seems incompatible with the texts that speak of a new age, where God's victory over evil is final and absolute. In addition, such an understanding will mean that they still have the opportunity to return to God, as they have free will. Seymour admits that this is possible, but supposed to lose - as the earth has chosen to reject God - will continue to do this also in the loss. It will be challenging to maintain such an understanding without ignoring the eternal and final consequence of judgment. The attempt of God to justify God's punishment therefore seems to be in agreement with the other Biblical descriptions of the time that will come. It should not be necessary to change the basic understanding of God's judgment and His victory to justify God's kindness and righteousness. A better answer therefore seems to exist among the theories Seymour himself rejects. "Separationism", simply translated "separatism", is the idea that the eternal existence of the loss does not imply eternal punishment but an eternal detachment from God and His kindness. This condition will be without any kind of happiness, as everything is good to find in. Seymour refers to 153 Seymour, 2000, et al. 37-80. A detailed description of the arguments, as well as why Seymour thinks they do not hold a goal, is to be found in the dissertations. The thought will largely follow the interpretations of the annihilationists of Bible texts that mention the eternal punishment: these are the consequences of the punishment that is eternal, not the punishment itself. The question that separates is whether or not they will survive forever, a discussion characterized by the same elements as those we examined in section 3.3.1 - The immortality of the soul. In addition, such a vision meets exegetical challenges as regards how to understand the fire of fire in John's revelation. Annihilationists will argue that it symbolizes destruction (see paragraph, while traditionalists will argue that it symbolizes eternal pain. If one follows a separatist approach, none of these interpreting possibilities can be used.) In the article "Annihilationism: A Philosophical Dead End?", 160 discusses Brown and Wall's various philosophical considerations linked to the annihilation teachings claim that milder forms of hell, one of which have gone away from torture and literal fire, provide the answers needed to unite the doctrine of eternal torment with God's kindness and righteousness. Such theories are reminiscent of denseparatist, but maintains that God's punishment never ends. The assumption that this solves the challenge of God's righteousness is, in my opinion, based on erroneous philosophical decisions. Although the suffering of the individual is less in limited time, an eternity in this state will be similar fully result in an infinite amount of punishment. Such an understanding is therefore not available to defend the traditional view in the face of Stott's argument about God's righteousness. In my opinion, it is in this context that the traditional view meets the greatest challenges. Evil pain can not be differentiated, it will be endless for all. If it is true that everyone will be judged on the basis of their transgressions, it must be possible to justify all sins deserving of eternal torment as punishment. Here, the various exploration attempts seem to hold clear weaknesses. Admittedly, they can not be totally rejected, at least not because of the limited presentation that has been done here, but they are all the result of what appears to be a disagreement between the teaching of teaching and the rest of the revelation. British theologian John W. Wenham describes it as follows: Unending torment speaks to me of sadism, not justice. Det er en doktrin som jeg ikke kan forkynne uten å forkaste loveliness og glory of God. [...] Itis a doctrine that makes the Inquisition look reasonable. It seems to be far from a reality, but the teaching he criticizes involves everlasting pain for a large number of people. Such reactions may therefore be expected. If the teaching is to be acceptable, it must be justified in light of God's perfect kindness and righteousness. This is a challenge the annihilation teaching is not mentioned in the same way (this claim is defended under the heading "Destruction as punishment.") Can human goodness / justice be used as Scale? At the same time, it is a fact that we are not able to understand the full depth of God's nature. We understand paragraphs, as Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 13:12. Since God's thoughts are not thoughts, and our ways are not His ways (Isaiah 55,8), it can be said that eternal torment will prove to be a fair punishment, although we do not understand this now. In the face of such thinking, Nigel Wright and C.S. Lewis's similar thoughts. Lewis formulates this way: It is argued beyond doubt that his [God's] thoughts of "goodness" are different from ours. But you do not need to fear that you will be asked to reject your moral standards in the face of the holy one. When you discover the difference between divine ethics and yours, you will not really doubt that the change that is required of you goes in a direction you would call "better". The divine "goodness" is different from ours, but not completely different. It's no different, so white is different than black, but as a perfect circle is different from a child's attempt to draw a wheel. Lewis writes about God's goodness, but the same points can be promoted regarding God's righteousness. In Luk 12.57, ask Jesus: "And why do you not judge yourself about what is right?" With that, he confirms that people have a basic understanding of what is fair and good. Although we are not able to fully understand it or live it perfectly in our lives, we can rightly expect that God's kindness and righteousness is not entirely different from the pastor-just better. If God's goodness was in full contradiction with the human, we could not but describe Him as evil. If His righteousness is totally different from our own, we have no prerequisites for describing Him as righteous. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the sentence of the condemned person will not be perceived as totally incomprehensible from a human perspective. Declaration as a penalty To some extent, the criticisms as directed at the traditional view may also apply to the annihilation scholarship. Is not annihilation an infinite punishment, differentiated from the sins committed by the individual? Stott describes the destruction as a destruction process. Without wondering what this implies, we can conclude that it will be possible to differentiate such a process. The final disposition in this way does not need to be part of the punishment, but can be understood as a realization of the lost man's desire to be divorced from God. The thought reminiscent of what we previously referred to as separatism, with the difference that they lost not maintained in a tormented existence. This is defended by arguing that human beings have a mortal soul. In that case, no destruction is to be regarded as punishment, it is an absence of rescue. From the fall, destruction is the destiny of all men, but one can be saved by accepting the gospel. By rejecting God, they lose the opportunity to exist forever and will cease to exist after receiving their judgment and punishment. The Annihilation doctrine as a whole does not depend on such an interpretation, but it provides a possible understanding of the connection between God's righteousness and the punishment of the lost, which is not present in the doctrine of eternal torment. On the contrary, it can be argued that such a punishment is too mild. Is not this just a non-believer wishing / expecting? A cessation of existence? Wenham rejects such a thought, as it is based on an assumption that the first death is the final end and that they will not be judged out of their deeds. Few Annihilationists defend such a view, as it is not based on Scripture. The lost will get their judgment, but it will be adapted to the iniquities of the individual. Guillaume summarizes the perspective: But let none imagine that because eternal punishment does not mean everlasting torment, therefore it is a mild penalty that need not be feared. [...] How terrible the process of destruction will depend on the degree of each soul's guilt before God. [...] Remember those words of the Lord Jesus Christ. "To underpin an understanding of the punishment as temporary, the Atonement of Jesus can be lifted. This was accomplished through one particular event, in a specific place, with eternal and all-encompassing effect. If the punishment we deserve is eternal and deliberate torment, how could Jesus sanction this punishment within three daysr? At the same time, it is obvious that Jesus' death and resurrection is a special case. The sustainability of the argument is therefore dependent on an insight into a completely different branch of theology, which is not the case for this task. Exclusive arguments I have now presented an overall systematic theological understanding of key aspects of the destruction. To be trustworthy, such an understanding depends on building on solid exegesis of the individual text. Although this task is based primarily on synthetic rather than analytical method, it is still fruitful to examine some Bible texts at a more detailed level. These are texts that are often drawn in discussions related to the loss and which may be relevant to the understanding of what this implies. Luke 16,19-31Stott draws the parable of Luke 16 as a text often used to argue for destruction as eternal torment, before he briefly argues for its invalidity in this regard. Stott's claim: That the parable takes place while the brothers of the rich man are still alive on the earth suggests that the parable deals with the relationship between death and the statement / judgment. Fudge uses the same argument, but adds that the context of the parable is not in any way linked to the theme of eternal punishment. In front of the parable, Jesus teaches about greed and governance, and he warns against attempts to justify himself. The illustration illustrates how God's judgment does not deal with what people often consider important and how Moses and the prophets co-ordinate convey this. Few renowned theologians literally interpret the parable's descriptions, an interpretation that will lead to an interpersonal state of Abraham's captivity, as well as human beings tortured with fire, still able to conduct a conversation and without burning up. The parable simply says nothing about the ultimate destiny of the lost and should not be used to attempt to argue for different views on this point. In "The Nature of Hell" it is suggested that from a literary point of view, most researchers agree that The parable is based on an established popular narrative found in various versions of Jewish literature. John's Revelation 14,9b-11After the portrayals of the loss in John's revelation, we find what may be the most challenging texts if one wishes to defend the annihilation teachings.173 In Rev. 14,9b-11, if any one worships the beast and the image of it and receives the mark on the forehead or hand, he shall drink of the wine of God's wrath that is poured up unmixed in the wrath of his wrath, and he shall be tormented with fire and sulfur in the eyes of the holy angels and the Lamb. The smoke from their torment rises forever and ever - neither night nor day they get calm, those who adore and the image of the animal and accept its name. In meeting this text, both Stott and Fudge draw other Biblical texts where similar language is used . These contribute to an understanding of what the text conveys, and I will therefore investigate the same. Old Testament Context In Gen. 19, God makes it rain fire and sulfur over Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 24), and Abraham is allowed to rise afterward from the country afterwards (v. 28). The destruction of Edom is described in Isaiah 34 that the fire will neither extinguish day nor night, nor the smoke shall rise forever. (1 Pet. 38) In Ezek 38 God uses fire and sulfur as a tool for the destruction of Gog and his troops (v. 22). The aforementioned texts demonstrate that the expressions used in the Revelation book are well-known images from the Bible's other books. In these there is little doubt that fire and sulfur are used to proclaim destruction and extinction, and that it is the consequence of the destruction that is eternal, not the actual process. The texts in GT refer to events that have already ended. This despite the fact that the epistles imply eternal smoke and eternal fire (Jud 1,7: Jes 34,10). The use of the eternal term iBibel has been discussed previously, and in this context it is clear that "eternal" is not meant to be eternal. The smoke of Gen. 19 serves as a confirmation for Abraham that Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed. It has the same function in Isaiah 34, although it should rise here forever. In this case, the use of "eternal" will be classified as an enhancing expression. We know that the smoke has not yet risen forever, but the message it communicates - that the purpose of the fire is reached - still exists. The fire has consumed and the smoke acts as a witness for this destruction. Fudge claims that there is therefore an established understanding of what the terminology found in Rev. 14,9-11 means, and that nothing in the text implies that this understanding has changed.177 He maintains that the New Testament texts must be interpreted in light of the GT. When the same images are taken into use, one must assume that what is conveyed is the same. This unless the text itself implies something else. As the fire and sulfur, as well as the rising smoke that follows, are consistently used in the GT to convey a total destruction where nothing remains, the same understanding must also be used in the interpretation of the new
 Estonian texts. "No night or day they get calm." As for the vulnerable, neither will Guillebaud point out that this implies a continuous disorder. It does not have to be eternal. Fudge does not want to say good-bye in such an interpretation, but instead refers to how the Greek expression is used in other biblical contexts. When Paul in 1 Thessalonians 3.10 prays night and day does not convey this unqualified prayer from Paul. Here the genitive form of the expression is used. This, contrary to Jesus' speech in Mark 4,27, about the grain that sprouts and grows night and day. Such a continuous process uses the accusative form of the term. When it is mentioned in Rev. 14, 9-11 that they lost no rest day or night, it is the genitive form that is in use. In light of this, an understandable dithen that the perishable disorder is not necessarily continuous, but that neither day nor night can be sure to avoid it. John uses the same expression when he writes the creature's praise (Rev. 4.8), the martyrs service (Rev. 7:15), Satan's accusations (Rev. 12, 10) and the torment of the beast and the false prophet (Rev. 20:10). "Day and Night" or "Night and Day" is, in other words, an expression commonly used in the Bible, without necessarily referring to a continuous (or everlasting) state. Despite different approaches, Gilbertbaud and Fudge end up with the same conclusion: The expression does not imply that the torment will be eternal. The intersection timeBerg uses several of the same elements in its exegesis of the verses. In addition, he believes that their context suggests that they do not concern the judgment and the final destruction. Instead, the eros depictions of the great tribulation period we find, among other things, described in Matt. 24, pp. 13-19, and 6-11 of the Book of Revelations, according to Berg, contains images and statements associated with this time. However, interrupted by other pictures and statements. When we read in Rev. 9, 18, about people killed by fire, smoke and sulfur - clearly associated with tribulation times - Berg pulls the comparison to the plagues described in Rev. 14,9-11. The words used for "pine" ("basanismos", with the associated verb "basanizein") can also be translated as "test stone" and to be tried on the test stone. Berg points out that these same words are used when talking about the trials / troubles people are exposed to during the tribulation period (see, for example, Open 9.5; 18.7; 18.10; 18.15). Fudge also mentions this wine of God's wrath poured into the wrath of His harm, but as it is the duration of the punishment and not its content as the main focus of the mission, refer to Fudge, 1994, pp. 186-187, for profound comments about this. That those who are exposed to this do not get calm neither day nor night seems to be consistent with the other descriptions of the tribulation period, as well as Fudge's interpretation of the meaning of the term. The credibility of such an interpretation is strengthened by the holy angels and the Lamb to witness the torment. According to Berg, Jesus, probably by the end of tribulation, will come to create the millennial kingdom. This is described in Rev. 14.1, and thus it is understood that Jesus and the angels witnessed the torment described in chapter 14. Mountain excludes that Jesus may be pleased to witness the torment of human beings. A more comprehensive account of the greater context in John 'revelation will require more space than we can refer to here, but Stott, Fudge and Berg demonstrate how they turn to the direction of destruction as annihilation. The Sea of ​​Fire in John's RevelationThe interpretation of Rev. 14.9-11 is challenged by another text found in John's revelation. In chapter 20, verse 10, we read: "And the devil who had seduced them was thrown into the sea with fire and sulfur, where also the beast and the false prophet are. There they will be tormented day and night forever. "Unlike the other texts we have investigated, here is neither the fire nor the smoke described as eternal but the actual torment. Stott emphasizes that this is the only scripture that derpine directly relates to eternity. He also emphasizes that the description includes only the devil, the beast and the false prophet. Stott thus suggests that the verse alone can not serve as a basis for a traditional understanding of the loss, as it does not directly refer to people who are lost. Traditional interpretation will therefore depend on support from other texts. This does not mean that the verse can not be interpreted in such a direction, but it is a relevant moment to bring along. In the text, the pain of the devil, the beast and the false prophet is placed in the sea of ​​fire and sulfur, as other places in the Revelation book are referred to as the "fire lake". The term is used solely in Among the interesting texts to look into, if one wishes to investigate about such an interpretation of water, there are a number of inter-religious and apocryphal works. Fudge points out that it has been common to assume that the dissension of loss as a perpetual pain dissociates, but also emphasizes that this is not necessarily the case (Fudge, 1994, pp. 191-192). In this task I have chosen to see bplace of this debate, and focused on the biblical texts.this book, but both annihilationists and traditionalists agree that this describes the same final destiny that the gospels describe with "Gehenna". Earlier in the book we are already familiar with the lake of fire, and it is also described later in the book. To understand its meaning, we must look at all these verses. The animal and the false prophetThe first to be thrown into the fire is the beast and the false prophet (Rev. 19:20). Like Stott, Fudge understands these as symbols of different evil in the world. These will neither exist forever nor be able to experience pain. See for example 1 Corinthians 15:24, "Then comes the end when he surrenders his royal power to God, his Father, after he has destroyed all powers, powers and powers." In this context, the fire can not be a tool for eternal conscious consciousness. Instead, it indicates God's total victory over the wickedness of the world. An absolute annihilation of the evil forces that oppose Him. The lake of fire thus acts as a picture a total destruction. The moment When we come to the verses dealing with the devil (20.7-10), we see that they refer to Esek 38-39. Gog and Magog, as mentioned in verse 8, we know from these chapters. In the chapters of Ezekiel God exterminates the evil forces by pouring rain, hail stones, fire and sulfur over them (38,22). Fudge points out that this is in direct contradiction to the verses that follow, where their destruction will be given by giving birth to birds of prey and wildlife (39,4) and that the people of Israel will loot the remains (39,10). The pictures taken are different, yet the paintings are in perfect harmony. This because their message is the same: Gog and his people will be destroyed. The last battle that John witnesses, where Satan brings his people to battle, reflects denn camp. Satan is defeated and thrown into the fire. Here he will be tormented with the beast and the false prophet day and night forever and ever (v. 10). A common interpretation, where the beast and the false prophet are understood as the world's evil, makes it impossible to literally interpret this. That these are personified is necessary to enable John's revelation. Berg describes it thus: In verse 10 it is called that the devil was thrown into the sea with fire and sulfur. [...] As mentioned above, it is identical to the absolute and final extinction. Rev.. 20.10 is thus the story of the devil's destruction. Fudge admits that if the fire still symbolizes annihilation, this seems to be contrary to John being able to witness the devil's eternal torment. There is no obvious interpretation, but until now the text has not mentioned the destiny of the lost people. No one has been thrown into the lake of fire, and no verse has described their destiny as eternal torment. A more satisfactory interpretation of this verse could help to strengthen the sustainability of the annihilation teacher, but it does not depend on this. Death and death kingdom In verse 14, death and death row in the lake of fire are also thrown. This fits well with the other biblical texts. In Isaiah 25,8, it is prophesied that God will extinguish death forever, and in 1 Corinthians 15,26 Paul proclaims that the last enemy destroyed is death itself. In this context, the lake of ignorance can symbolize other than annihilation, just as it was the animal and the false prophet. Death to be destroyed. An interesting point can be made of John so precising: "And the fire of fire, it is the second death" (v. 14b). The wording is a linguistic tool John uses on several other occasions in the Revelation: "[...] Gold is full of incense, they are the prayers of the saints" (5,8), "Linen is the righteous deeds of the saints" (19.8) [...] The other dead were not alive until the thousand years passed. This is the first resurrection »(20.5). On all these occasions, the second description is the interpretation of the first. If this also applies to the fire and the second death, "the second death" is a clearer description of what the lake of fire really is. Such an understanding means that even the fire will end. It will be swallowed up by God and destroyed, as the Bible describes the destiny of death. Fudge admits that the interpretation is not obvious, but he argues that it is in coherence with the Bible's other texts. If both death and fire are biblical images of destruction, and this is an eternally conscious torment, what does it mean that the torment itself should be tormented? On the other hand, if the destruction is extinction, the Bible's message seems to be fulfilled. Death shall be no more (Rev. 21.4), Death has been destroyed (1 Cor. 1 'Never more will any die). Regardless of whether such an interpretation is correct, Fudge is its main point: The verse uses the lake of fire as a picture of complete destruction. The lost peopleIn Chapter 20, verse 15, the fate of lost people is mentioned for the first time in connection with the fire: "And if someone was not written into the book of life, he was thrown into the fire. " In chapter 21, this is repeated, as well as the description of iLake Lake as "the Second Death" (v. 8). An interpretation of what this implies depends on what understanding one has of the fire. If the lake of fire represents annihilation, as it has been argued for here, this verse will also underline the annihilation lesson. Traditionists have often interpreted the verses to describe an existence without God. Without the hope of resurrection to life, without communion with God and without His presence. Such a description is not found in the text itself. An understanding of the loss as an absence of God refers Hegstad to such a thing: Such an expulsion undoubtedly has a point, namely that the destruction is the last consequence of something that ultimately man himself has chosen to be responsible for. [...] But it does not yet come to terms with the biblical thought of God as the active in the loss-because the loss is an expression of God's judgment, it also implies a meeting with God himself. It's hard to come without God being present also in the loss. See for example Hebrews 10,31: "It is terrible to fall into the hands of the living God!". If one acknowledges that God at all times maintains everything in existence, it is clear that neither lost human canisters without Him. A simple description of the loss as "absence of God" is therefore not sufficient. A more sustainable understanding will be that the loss is the absence of God's kindness. Verses like 2 Tess 1.9 can be used to promote such a vision, and it can be united with the idea of ​​God as an asset of destruction. But none of the verses that speak about this imply eternal existence, and they are thereforeHead's description does not concern the verses of John. Directly, but understanding of the loss as God's absence. Not contrary to the annihilation doctrine. The presence of His judgment is to be found in the destruction of deceased , the same applies to the absence of His goodness. At the same time, their choice to reject God will have the consequence that they do not share in the kingdom of heaven and their destruction will end in destruction. For two occasions, first by the beast and the false prophet, so by death and death kingdom, the fire lake appears to represent annihilation . As far as Satan's fate is concerned, we have not reached a final conclusion, but this is a separate theme. Fudge claims that nothing in the text prevents the idea of ​​annihilation, but instead points in that direction, inter alia, when it implied the real meaning of the fire, the other is the death. Matthew 10,28. I have previously described how the Bible's general mention of the loss uses terminology as supports the annihilation teacher. Expression as extinction (Sal 9,6), burning up (Mal 4,1), destruction (1 Corinthians 3:17), extinction and destruction (2 Thess 2,8) to undergo as the animals (2 Pet 2, 12) and to disappear like the flowers on the ground (Sal 37,20) point in the direction of a final eradication of those who are lost. In order to elaborate on this perspective, it may be fruitful to look at one of the most important texts in this context. In Matthew 10,28 we find the text we also examined in conjunction with Augustin's thoughts about the soul: "Do not be afraid of them as kills the body but can not kill the soul. Fear ratherham who can destroy both soul and body in hell. "Here it is clear that God has the power to destroy both body and soul. Unless Jesus exaggerates or comes with empty threats, the verse seems to imply that this is exactly what will happen to hell. This is supported by the holistic understanding of the soul and body that the Bible seems to convey (see paragraph 3.3.1). The question therefore becomes whether the lost can be destroyed and still exist. In 1 Cor. 15.42ff is the resurrection of the saved. Among other things, they will arise into indestructibility (v. 42), which no longer will inherit (v. 50). Also immortality is given to the saved (v. 53f). If immortality and immortality are the characteristics of the saved receive in the resurrection, it seems clear that the destruction of body and soul that will take place in hell can only have one conclusion: Annihilation. The argument is closely related to the one we have investigated regarding the immortality of the soul, but in this context it is particularly difficult to understand how Jesus can speak of the destruction of the soul, if it is forever in existence. In this context, it has been claimed that A resurrection from death in itself will affect human nature. Therefore, the wicked will also be qualitatively different after a resurrection. Fudge rejects this idea by referring to Henry Constable. All resurrections to Jesus' resurrection occurred without the resurrected attributable to segnye qualities. For example, Jesus' resurrection of Lazarus in John 11 demonstrates that it is fully possible to arise from the dead and still to be fatal. Constable therefore calls for evidence that resurrection itself results in changes in human mortality. According to him, this applies solely to the resurrection that happens through the power of Jesus. The Bible contains several examples that people resurrect from death to die again. A description ofForgiveness as "the second death," in which it is eternal, works in this connection for gimening. Resurrection to eternal life, with immortal "spiritual bodies" ("soma pneumatikon"), belong to the resurrected in Christ. In addition, it is worth noting that in the Matthew verse Jesus describes the body and soul of the lost in the same way. They will both be destroyed. Unless otherwise insinuated in the text, it would be unnatural to assume that the destruction that takes place will have different results. If the bodily destruction will result in the body going away, the natural interpretation will be that the same applies to the soul. Preliminary Summary In this chapter, I have mainly focused on answering the first part of the problem's problem: "How can it be argued for destruction as annihilation?". This is done in light of the choices and limitations presented in the introduction, as well as the methodological principles presented in chapter two. Certain topics could of course be further elaborated, but the task's scope limitation imposes a selection of what is considered most relevant. I would like to refer to the main sources of the subject if the reader wishes to study the subject further. The chapter largely reflects the arguments presented by John Stott in "Essentials". The mortality of the soul is a necessary starting point, and the subject has been discussed in the light of other specialist literature. In addition, Stotts argumentation associated with the Bible's general mention of the loss, as well as the Bible's righteousness understanding, has been further discussed. In addition, I studied the Bible's use of eternity. This is an interesting theme associated with the annihilation lesson that Stott does not express in his argumentation. I have chosen to classify arguments as systematic theological arguments. Under another heading, what I have called exegetical arguments is presented. These are intended to substantiate the general understanding of the loss presented by the systematic theological arguments. I therefore believe that the chapter as a whole serves as an example of how it can be argued for destruction as annihilation, while referring to a number of theologians who have done the same and their argumentation. Assessment of Annihilation Argument This chapter's main focus is to further answer the second part of the problem: "[...] Sustainable is this argument?". Much is already discussed in Chapter Three, so it is necessary to see these two in context. In addition, it is important to note that this assessment does not determine whether the annihilation learning is true. If the purpose was to arrive at an answer regarding the content of the loss, it would be necessary to make a similar acquaintance with the contradictory teaching. The purpose of the chapter is instead to evaluate the argumentation presented in Chapter Three, in light of the assessment criteria described in Chapter Two. Such an approach assesses the internal durability of the arguments. The assessment criteriaThe above assessment criteria are presented and explained in Chapter Two. The description of these will therefore not be repeated here, but I would like to remind you of the headings: 1. Skriften2. Tradisjon3. Fornuft4. Religious experienceThese are not equal, but placed in priority order based on their weight as an assessment criterion. Occasionally, an assessment made in the light of a criterion will also include others, so it is necessary to read the chapter as a whole. In addition, the consistency and coherence of argumentation will play a role in the overall assessment of durability. The arguments There is no need to analyze each of the arguments presented individually. This would be a little effective procedure, as several of the arguments could be subjected to similar assessment. For example, all arguments for annihilation could be criticized for being contrary to Lutheran tradition, as such a position is rejected in CA. Basically, it should be emphasized that it is impossible to achieve absolute objectivity in an assessment like this. Any rating is marked by the reviewer. The purpose of setting defined and external assessment criteria is to minimize this effect. I therefore try to evaluate the argument as a whole, in light of each assessment criterion. On some occasions, however, it will be interesting to investigate a separate argument. I believe this will provide sufficient grounds for a comprehensive assessment of the sustainability of the argument. Since Stott's argumentation serves as a starting point for the assignment, this will be given a higher priority in the assessment. The sustainability of the holiness study is clear that Scripture has the highest authority in theological questions. Even though he experiences the doctrine of eternal pain as emotionally unbearable, he maintains that the question must be determined by what the Scriptures convey. It may be speculated whether or not, how much, his emotional conviction has affected the work, but in his argumentation he continually refers
G to the biblical texts. This strengthens the durability of the arguments he presents. Stott can not be accused because the argumentation is not biblically founded. If one is to criticize Stot's argument in the light of this assessment criterion, one must focus on how he uses and interprets the scriptures. An obvious accusation would be that his systematic theological and exegetical arguments are short and inadequate. Since his argumentation related to the loss constitutes only a small part of the book, Stott is unable to present a comprehensive and coherent reason for the annihilation lesson. It is replaced by "headlines", without sufficient theological justification. The soul's immortal error with two sentences, 207 "the meaning of Rev. 14,10 and 20,10 is explained underneath one page, and a number of Bible verses are thought to point toward annihilation without a detailed study of these.209 In addition, it is a numerous texts that avoid mention at all. It is of course likely that Stott has studied the verses he refers to in detail, but this is not highlighted in the book's argumentation. The criticism is therefore still valid. It is for this reason that I have used other literature in the thesis, which in its entirety is dedicated to the subject. For example, the same criticism can not be directed against Fudge and his "The FireThat Consumes". Here 19 pages are discussed for discussion about the immortality of the soul, and the vast majority of references to the destruction of ancient, inter-governmental, apocryphal and new-Testament texts are taken into account. Fudge, therefore, can not be criticized either for lack of biblical foundation or inadequate reason for his interpretation of the texts. Neither Berg can be accused of lack of thoroughness when examining the concept of eternity. In "No eternal torment" he sees the expression in our own language, NT, GT, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls. However, Berg's lack of education in the field weakens his immediate authority. What remains to be discussed is therefore whether their interpretations of the text are credible. It is thoroughly argued, and based on Scripture, but is it well-argued? First, it must be stated that the Bible texts are challenging to interpret. That recognized theologians and churches are scattered around the theme has its background in this. It is possible to promote conflicting theories based on the same textual basis, without the fact that any of these can be easily erased. It is therefore unreasonable to demand that the annihilation teacher be elevated over unity criticism. What is expected and which, in my opinion, is achieved, is a coherent argument based on exegetical interpretations and systematic theological considerations which together form a meaningful and credible whole. Of course, the teaching can be criticized, but it will be naive to believe that a task such as this will be able to reconcile the disagreements that exist. The pictorial representation of the fortune and the eschatological nature contribute to the fact that there is no obvious Bible interpretation. I would therefore like to support Stott's words: I plead for a frank dialogue among Evangelicals on the basis of Scripture. I also believe that the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment. It seems unwise for some of the parties to reject the contradictory view as without biblical basis. Both sides appreciate and acknowledge the Bible's content. The sustainability of the argument presented can not be criticized for being a result of inadequate work or lack of biblical basis. If one wishes to reject annihilation teaching, this must be done by making a more convincing interpretation of the biblical message than the annihilationists themselves do. The immortality of the soul In the immortality of the soul, Stott claims that such a thought does not have biblical coating, a claim supported by Fudge . The main argument is that Scripture seems to refer to humanity as a whole, where the soul is not defined as a separate entity. The whole human being is therefore deadly after the fall. In light of the biblical texts we have explored, such an interpretation seems to be of high durability. The assessment is supported by a report from talks between the Lutheran World Confederation and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Here it is said that the soul is not immortal, but that the teachings of the Bible are bodily resurrection. It is also argued that the teachings of an immortal soul are rooted in Greek philosophy. In this context, it is worth noting that Peterson is right when he writes: Even if he [Fudge] could prove that the fathers borrowed their idea of ​​immortality from Plato, that would not prove them wrong. Plato's idea is a mixture of error and truth. He believed in the existence of God, for example. So, if that's what Fudge claims, and the church fathers were influenced by Platon, this does not mean they're necessarily wrong. But it allows a criticism of the fathers Bible interpretation. If, from an ethosophical point of view, they were convinced that the soul was immortal, this could have led to a preconceived understanding of the content of the loss. It is not an unknown phenomenon that cultural surroundings represent contemporary Bible interpretation, neither in relation to perdition. Sverre and Leiv Aalen point out in his book "Bakenfor inferno" on a number of points where this has taken place. Deskriver: The Catholic doctrine of hell, which still goes on in protestant territory, is in fact an attempt to reconcile the biblical message of the verdict with the prerequisites of the ancient (ancient) pagan thinking and imagination. Among other things, the idea of ​​an underground penitentiary, as we know from medieval theology, is mentioned as a result of the influence of the Greek conception of the kingdom of death. A performance of Platon was central in the design of. It is therefore not unreasonable to claim that the Greek philosophy may have had an unhealthy influence on the fathers interpretation of the Bible texts. If so, learning about the immortality of the soul will have less durability. The use of the Bible by the concept of eternity The arguments presented about the concept of eternity are subject to similar assessment as we have seen above. They have their foundation in Scripture, but there will be disagreement with regard to interpretation. Nevertheless, I would like to say that there is more grounds for criticizing Fudge's work on this point. Among other things, Peterson points out that Fudge does not refer to reputable professionals in linguistics when analyzing the meaning of the term. Neither Berg refers to such authorities. Fudge is also criticized for the selection of texts he chooses to focus on. Why, for example, exclude "eternal life" in Matthew 25,46 and Luke 18,30? 224 That Fudge chooses to investigate the scriptures where the word deals with actions or processes, rather than persons or things, can be accused of being inadequate selection. Peterson believes this is a method Fudge uses to reinforce his theory, ignoring the scriptures that contradict it. A full understanding of the meaning of the term can not be achieved without mentioning the scriptures where "eternal" seems to mean just "eternal" as we see in Matthew 25,46 and Luke 18,30. It is understandable that all scriptures can not undergo a similar extensive exegesis, but Peterson seems to have a point when he criticizes Fudge's methodology. This weakens the durability of the argument. At the same time, there is little doubt that the concept of eternity is used with different meanings in the biblical texts. Although Fudge's argumentation can be criticized, it can not be rejected without further delay. The comprehensive meaning of the term, as well as the contexts used within it, make it extremely challenging to prepare an exegesis raised over doubt. In meeting the tradition. The Evangelical-Lutheran tradition has a definite position regarding the content of loss, confirmed in CA XVII.227. Independent of the individual's opinion, this is the Lutheran Church's official teaching. It is doubtful that the annihilation teaching is contrary to this tradition, and in this context, argumentation in that direction will have less durability. Those who wish to contradict the tradition thus have the burden of proof, but the theme is not indisputable. Based on Pannenberg, Hegstad clarifies: For theology as an academic subject, it means that it is both based on assumptions given in and with a particular religious tradition and that these assumptions can be discussed in the light of all types of available knowledge of existence. Aminhilanslær må therefore not automatically rejected, even in the Lutheran context. It is possible to challenge the traditional view with all available knowledge, and in particular, argument based on Scripture will be relevant as it has overall authority. Tradition is a prerequisite for theological discussion, not excluded from it. This was a central theme of the "hell battle" in Norway in the 50's. As part of this debate, bishop Schjelderup formulated a letter to the Ministry of Church and Education. Schjelderup distanced himself from the idea of ​​eternal punishment, and in the letter he discussed the role of confession in the Norwegian Church. He acknowledges their importance, but warns against churches without similar teachings formulated, the situation will be another. As this task belongs to a Lutheran church, this is a priority. a narrow interpretation of these. This will, according to Schjelderup, lead to an unconditional legal and moral obligation which the church is not entitled to impose on its employees. All the time confessions are historically specific and human imperfections, it should be possible to discuss their content. The ministry concluded that Schjelderup, despite its statements about the content of the loss, had not stood outside the confession. The department's statement contained a number of attachments that underlined the basis for their conclusion. In that CA XVII goes beyond the foundation found s in Scripture, when it is stated that they are going to be defiled "without end". The assertion was promoted on the basis of something I have previously discussed in this paper, the concept of eternity in the Bible. In the attachment it is formulated as follows: Eternal is not necessarily equal in time. Eternal denotes the quality of God's presence - contrary to our existence here, in time and in space. It may be that detda also really means "without end", but there is no reference for this in the Bible. Therefore, it is not possible to squeeze the words or to push others with these words. This does not mean that the Norwegian Church does not recognize CA's Article XVII, nor that the teaching of eternal torment here is rejected. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is room for discussing the contents of confession. The lesson of eternal torment - in light of tradition In this context, it may also be interesting to devote some words to the traditional view. The term "traditional" implies in itself that this is a view that more closely corresponds to the tradition. Nevertheless, this teaching is not raised above criticism at this point. McMiller's article claims that the doctrine of eternal torment did not have an overwhelming connection in the Old Church, Froom asserts that the teachings of conditional immortality were still found in several churches in the centuries that followed, and Fudge argues that Greek philosophy has had unhealthy influence on the interpretation of the Bible throughout this period. Should we believe the Aalen brothers, the sentence formulated in CA XVII has the purpose of clarifying that salvation is given in Christ, and that there is no gossip dispensation from this. In that case, it is essentially a clarification in relation to universalism. The annihilation teacher also maintains this. It can therefore be argued that the doctrine of eternal pine also does not support mountain support in the face of tradition as an appraisal criterion, and that one should be careful not to decay the annihilation lesson solely because of tradition. A critical look, even against traditional doctrines, is necessary for a further examination and extended understanding of the content of the scriptures. Regardless of whether the conclusion remains or is changing. In the sense of reason, the role of the air is most apparent in the argument of God's righteousness. That is why C.S.Lewis appeals when he claims that God's kindness will be a perfect edition of the person himself possesses. Several defendants of the annihilation teacher have argued that the teaching of eternal torment is inflamed with human kindness and righteousness. The Aalen brothers, who defend traditional teaching of learning, agree that eternal punishment can not unite with human reason. Of course, not all theologians will agree with this, but this is nevertheless a point where the traditional view is more vulnerable to criticism than the annihilation lesson. Reason was also drawn into the discussion of the immortality of the soul. In addition to a simplified presentation of Augustine's argumentation, I have not found room for a more comprehensive discussion of reason-based arguments for an immortal soul. Partly because the task belongs to systematic theology, and partly because such argumentation will in any case be moderated if one acknowledges God's power to destroy the soul as well. Discussion about the study's consistency and coherence is placed under its own heading. In meeting the religious experience In the method chapter, I find that individuals' inner experiences can not function as theological argumentation on their own. The role of theology is instead to help us interpret these. Hegstad explains something about this: Theology must present a content, as well as show how the content can be true. When Stott experiences the doctrine of eternal torment as emotionally intolerant, theology must therefore help him understand how this can coincide. Such explanations must be made in connection with the other teachings that God describes, inter alia, loving and fair. Stott's extensive theological competence makes it natural to assume that he has knowledge of such exploration attempts. Nevertheless, he experiences the teaching as intolerable. If perceived so will vary from person to person, but for Stott the annihilation teacher will have greater durability than the teaching of eternal torment. As academic argumentation, this will have little weight. It can not be accepted that the argument depends on the individual's experience, which again explains why religious experience is given a low priority as an assessment criterion. In order to apply religious experience in assessing the academic durability of annihilation teacher, it must be examined how this corresponds to religious experience in a multitude of Christians. This could indicate how the teaching is able to interpret people's experience of God. In this exercise, thoughts about this would be based on pure speculation. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that the criterion, despite low academic status, has a major impact on the individual's conviction. If one experiences the doctrine of eternal torment as incompatible with personal experience of God, one will be more easily inclined to reject the teaching. One such
thought can be used as an argument against the durability of annihilation teaching: Is it a result of a personal desire for a milder destiny for the lost? With the risk of exaggerated speculation, in many cases it may seem that such thought is the first to lead in direction of the annihilation teacher. I would nevertheless say that this is not a valid argument against the validity of the teaching. If that is the case, it is a consequence that the annihilation lesson corresponds to the individual's other reality perception. the teaching of eternal torment as incompatible with the goodness and honor of God, probably because of the lack of consistency between the experience of God (through Scripture and experience) and the teaching presented. This is a sign of inadequate consistency and coherence within the theology. The argument would also not affect the academic arguments that exist for the validity of the annihilation teaching. The consistency and consistency of argumentation As we have seen Hegstad, it requires every realization that it should be able to summarize the various single elements into a coherent whole. To what extent the annihilation teacher is able to unite with the rest of Christian teachings will characterize its durability. It is therefore interesting to use some sentences to investigate this. The inner context of Christian faith has its natural starting point in the belief in God who creates, savior and accomplishes. In addition, God's nature is characterized by perfect kindness and justice. It was argued that the annihilation teaching corresponds more closely with God's kindness and righteousness than the teaching of eternal torment. describes a mismatch between the doctrine of eternal torment and the Bible texts that refer to God's coming victory. Theologian John Baillie describes it as follows: What the doctrine of eternal punishment does then is to make evil an eternal element in the universe, no less positive than the good itself. If this is correct, it will increase the durability of the annihilation teacher. My opinion is that the annihilation lesson corresponds more closely with the rest of theology on these two points. If the revolt of the lost is also maintained in hell, this seems to be in violation of God's final victory and His rash of all evil. If their rebellion ends, and God continues to punish those lost forever, it seems to contradict the righteousness presented in the Bible. It can thus be argued that the annihilation lesson, to a greater extent than the doctrine of eternal torment, is able to unite with the rest of theology.

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar