Second Death punishment, then annihilation?

[njd83]

I have difficulties accepting "Second Death-Lake of Fire" judgement as something a soul can come out of. Also with accepting an ever-lasting torment. I guess I'm a hopeful universalist?

Question: Why would God call the Lake of Fire a second "Death", if souls will come out of the lake of fire someday ready to acknowledge God's perfect Will, and thus have Life?

See: Mat 10:28; Rev 20:13-15

Thanks for any thoughts.

Noah

[steve]

That's a good question. It does present a strong prima facie challenge to Christian Universalism. Every view of hell has its problem texts with which to contend. What the exact nature of the "second death" may be, and what occurs in the lake of fire are debated points. Even the first death (which I assume to be physical death) is debated. Is it an unconscious condition or a conscious one? The answer to this question might our inform our theories about the "second death" (if it is assumed to be analogous to the first).

Universalist Thomas Talbott argues that, if the second death is the final word for any person, then Paul's rhetorical question, "O death, where is thy victory" would seem to have an answer (which it is not supposed to!). Thomas Allin argued that the final annihilation of any for whom Christ died would be "death victorious."

Though non-universalists will not likely find it persuasive, some suggest that the second death is the death of the "old nature." Therefore, the first death would be the death of the physical body, leaving the spiritual state of the sinner un-remedied. The second death would be that which deals with the sinful condition after death (and after resurrection).

[robbyyoung]

Hello and God Bless,

When I read passages such as Matthew 25:41, 46:

"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; ...These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

I clearly get the "Elephant in the room" point! IMHO, we really don't need to muddy the water on the clarity of "We Don't Want Any Part Of This". God says eternal punishment vs. eternal life, so that's what I say. How will God meet out this promise? Well, the best book on the subject is at its best speculative, because God doesn't tell us emphatically. But based on what we do know, we would be on safe ground simply to repeat the words of Jesus.

God Bless!

[Singalphile]

I have difficulties accepting "Second Death-Lake of Fire" judgement as something a soul can come out of. Also with accepting an ever-lasting torment. I guess I'm a hopeful universalist?

Maybe, but there is at least one other option.

Question: Why would God call the Lake of Fire a second "Death", if souls will come out of the lake of fire someday ready to acknowledge God's perfect Will, and thus have Life?

He probably wouldn't have, I'd say. Something like what Steve mentioned might be plausible, imo, if the phrase "the second death" had that commonly known connotation in the 1st century.

Interestingly, the phrase "the second death" did not necessarily originate in Revelation. It apparently shows up in Jewish writings just before or during the 1st century AD. But I haven't looked into it beyond reading a wikipedia page or two.

Edit: By the way, the Search function seems to work a lot better in this forum upgrade.

[steve7150]

Question: Why would God call the Lake of Fire a second "Death", if souls will come out of the lake of fire someday ready to acknowledge God's perfect Will, and thus have Life?








Why go into the LOF just to be destroyed again? Why raise the dead only to annihilate them? Is that an accurate description of God's purposes when his will is that everyone s/b saved?
God's will is not a small matter to be put on a shelf. My understanding of the bible is ultimately God's will does get accomplished in the fullness of time.

Possibly the second death means a spiritual separation from God which would explain using a different description then simply "death." If this is true then it may not be a permanent death.

[dwilkins]

I think the key is the point to which Steve hinted: Those for whom Christ died shouldn't be able to die the second death. Calvinists would rejoice here because they'd say that limited atonement saves the day. But, I suspect that the real issue is Penal Substitutionary Atonement (or its basis). Their victory is based on the idea that while Christ was alive on the cross God downloaded all of the sins of all human history to him so that they they are judged and punished. In the standard Calvinist approach these are only the sins of those who are eventually saved. Everyone who was destined to be damned never had their sins paid for. In the Once Saved Always Saved system (Towns, Thieme, probably Chafer, etc.), Christ died for all personal sins of all men other than the sin of unbelief in Christ (their plot twist is that Christ couldn't pay for the sin of not believing in himself, so that is the only sin anyone is ever really judged for).

I suspect that all of this is nonsense. It seems to me that Hebrews' description of Christ perpetually interceding for us implies that he earned the right to forgive sin, but that in some way it is a dynamic action (not a static, algorithmic one). I don't have a systematic way of explaining this, but atonement seems to me to be a personal thing, bought at a personal price, and applied at the discretion of the person who earned it. It seems to me that Universalism is based deeply on Penal Substitutionary Atonement, or its assumptions (the eternal nature of the soul per Platonism and Origen, or the mechanistic application of the cross).

I am a hopeful Annihilationist. I hope that's the end game for the unredeemed because I don't think that universalism is possible. The only other option is eternal conscious torment, and that just doesn't seem correct.

Doug

[Paidion]

It seems to me that Universalism is based deeply on Penal Substitutionary Atonement, or its assumptions

Actually, I know of no believers in the ultimate universal reconcilation of all people to God who believe penal substitution. That includes myself.

I invite you to check out the Evangelical Universalist site and ask the UR people who post their whether they believe in penal substitution.

http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/index.php

[dwilkins]

It seems to me that Universalism is based deeply on Penal Substitutionary Atonement, or its assumptions

Actually, I know of no believers in the ultimate universal reconcilation of all people to God who believe penal substitution. That includes myself.

I invite you to check out the Evangelical Universalist site and ask the UR people who post their whether they believe in penal substitution.

http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/index.php

I browsed around over there a while back but I wasn't very impressed. The reason that limited atonement was created was to limit the possibility of universalism since universal atonement meant that there was no grounds for a final conviction of anyone. That's the primary point of that element of Calvinism. If all all sins were paid for then there are no grounds for sending anyone to hell (Lake of Fire, whatever). The only way to have a split population of people going to heaven and hell, and for sins to have been atoned for, is for not all sins to have been atoned for. I don't buy that God has an escrow type account in heaven in which some sins were atoned for but it is up to the people associated to take advantage of that atonement. It seem to me that they were either:

1) All atoned for, which results in universalism;
2) Partially atoned for on a static basis, which results in Calvinism (though I suppose Molinism might come into play here);
3) Partially atoned for on a dynamic basis, so that Christ has won the option as the judge and forgive sin and that this is done on an ongoing basis according to his discretion

Doug

[jriccitelli]

Universalism seems to be like adding Jesus to an Islamic post mortem doctrine and saying; “you see we allow for the possibility that after dying Jesus will come to you and reveal himself to you, then you will be all saved with Jesus” the Koran does not support such a thing, so why read such a thing into the Bible? Sure anything can happen but…

"Why go into the LOF just to be destroyed again? Why raise the dead only to annihilate them? Is that an accurate description of God's purposes when his will is that everyone s/b saved?" (7150)

7150, you are leaving out the point that God plans to further punish the wicked. They do not escape punishment ‘just’ by dying (as some have thought). Some or all are raised to face the judgment 'then' the Punishment’ (I consider hell to be the 'place' and details of punishment). ‘Then’ they are thrown and eliminated and annihilated in the LOF, along with all punishment and hell itself.
Universalists are reading to much into His will, Gods will is that they ‘repent’.
Again the first death is the physical body, the second the self, or the spirit.

[steve]

"Why go into the LOF just to be destroyed again? Why raise the dead only to annihilate them?... you are leaving out the point that God plans to further punish the wicked.

One of the great objections to eternal torment is that it serves no constructive purpose, and seems only an expression of God's eternal vindictiveness. There is reason to ask whether God wishes to (and could) accomplish some more positive purpose than merely this.

To annihilate the wicked would serve a constructive purpose that eternal torment fails to accomplish—viz., the elimination of sin from the universe once and for all. But what is the purpose of further punishment prior to annihilation?

If God raises only to annihilate, He seems to raise the wicked only to destroy them—which sounds to many as if it, too, serves no purpose other than vindictiveness. If, prior to annihilation, He tortures them for a while, this sounds even more vindictive. If we say, "They must be punished according to their works, so that the demands of justice may be balanced," then one might ask, "If the wages of sin is death, has not justice already been served, simply in the death of the sinner?"

If God has no higher plan for the wicked dead, why not just leave them dead? The best purpose in eternity that is resolved by annihilation is the bringing of a final end to sin. Yet this would be equally accomplished without God ever raising the wicked at all, and just letting them rot in their graves.

Yet, the BIble speaks of the wicked being raised, as well as the righteous. So, the questions is, to what purpose?