Untitled Sermon

Notes on Annihilationism

Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Answering Arguments from Scripture)

Answering Arguments from Scripture.

When examined carefully in context, none of the above passages proves annihilationism. At some points language may permit such a construction, but nowhere does the text demand annihilationism. In context and comparison with other Scriptures, the concept must be rejected in every case.

Separation, Not Extinction. The first death is simply the separation of the soul from the body (James 2:26), not the annihilation of the soul. Scripture presents death as conscious separation. Adam and Eve died spiritually the moment they sinned, yet they still existed and could hear God’s voice (Gen. 3:10). Before one is saved, he is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), and yet he still carries God’s image (Gen. 1:27; cf. Gen. 9:6; James 3:9). Though unable to come to Christ without the intervention of God, the “spiritually dead” are sufficiently aware that Scripture holds them accountable to believe (Acts 16:31), and repent (Acts 17:30). Continued awareness, but with separation from God and the inability to save oneself—these constitute Scripture’s vision of the second death.

Destruction, Not Nonexistence. “Everlasting” destruction would not be annihilation, which only takes an instant and is over. If someone undergoes everlasting destruction, then they have to have everlasting existence. The cars in a junkyard have been destroyed, but they are not annihilated. They are simply beyond repair or unredeemable. So are the people in hell.

Since the word perdition means to die, perish, or to come to ruin, the same objections apply. In 2 Peter 3:7 perdition is used in the context of judgment, clearly implying consciousness. In our junkyard analogy, ruined cars have perished, but they are still junkyard cars. In this connection, Jesus spoke of hell as a dump where the fire would not cease and where a person’s resurrected body would not be consumed (Mark 9:48).

In addition to comments on death and perdition above, it should be noted that the Hebrew word used to describe the wicked perishing in the Old Testament (abad) is also used to describe the righteous perishing (see Isa. 57:1; Micah 7:2). But even the annihilationists admit that the righteous are not snuffed out of existence. That being the case, they should not conclude that the wicked will cease to exist based on this term.

The same word (abad) is used to describe things that are merely lost but then later found (Deut. 22:3), which proves that lost does not mean nonexistent.

“It Would Have Been Better.…” When he says that it would have been better if Judas had not been born, Jesus is not comparing Judas’s perdition to his nonexistence before conception but to his existence before birth. This hyperbolic figure of speech would almost certainly indicate the severity of his punishment, not a statement about the superiority of nonbeing over being. In a parallel condemnation on the Pharisees, Jesus said Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented had they seen his miracles (Matt. 11:23–24). This does not mean that they actually would have repented or God would surely have shown them these miracles—2 Peter 3:9. It is simply a powerful figure of speech indicating that their sin was so great that “it would be more tolerable” in the day of judgment for Sodom than for them (vs. 24).

Further, nothing cannot be better than something, since they have nothing in common to compare them. So nonbeing cannot be actually better than being. To assume otherwise is a category mistake.

Notes on Universalism

Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Basis for Universalism)

Biblical Support for Universalism.

A number of biblical texts have been used to support the claim of universalists. It should be noted at the start of this survey that the Bible does not contradict itself (see BIBLE, ALLEGED ERRORS IN). Texts that can be interpreted in more than one way must be understood in the light of those that cannot:

Psalm 110:1. David said and Christ repeated (Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44): “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’ ”

The enemies, literally of the Christ, are here referred to as subjugated, not saved. They are called the Lord’s “footstool”—hardly an appropriate description of saints who are joint heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17; Eph. 1:3). In Psalm 110, David is speaking of the visitation of God’s wrath on his enemies, not of blessings on his people.

Acts 3:21. Peter speaks of Jesus who “must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.” This reference to the “restoration of all things” is taken by universalists to mean the restoration of all to God.

However, the context does not support such a conclusion. Acts 3:20–21 does not even remotely hint that there will be a total salvation. Other passages totally refute such an idea. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church (Matt. 16:18). He also promised his followers, “Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt. 28:20).

Jesus could not be with his followers to the end of the age if the entire church had gone into complete apostasy soon after its founding. In Ephesians 3:21, the apostle Paul says, “To him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever.” How could God be glorified in the church throughout all ages if there was no church for many centuries? Ephesians 4:11–16 speaks of the church growing to spiritual maturity, not degeneracy.

What then does “the restoration of all things” mean?

Peter is speaking to the Jews and refers to the “restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21). Here is the “covenant which God made with our [Jewish] fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed’ ” (vs. 25). This Abrahamic covenant was unconditional and included the promises of possessing the land of Palestine “forever” (Gen. 13:15). Peter refers to the future fulfillment of this Abrahamic covenant, the restoration of all things to Israel. Paul affirms the same in Romans 11 (see vss. 23–26).

Romans 5:18–19. Paul wrote: “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18–19).

From these verses universalists infer that Christ’s death for all guarantees salvation for all. This conclusion, however, is contrary to the context and certainly to the message of Romans as a whole. This is explicitly in the context of being justified by faith (5:1), not automatically. In the preceding verse he declares that salvation comes to those “who receive … the gift of righteousness” (5:17).

The rest of Romans makes it unmistakably clear that not everyone will be saved. Romans 1–2 speaks of the heathen, who are “without excuse” (Rom. 1:19). Upon them the wrath of God falls (1:18). It declares that “as many as have sinned without the law will also perish without law” (Rom. 2:12). At the heart of his argument, Paul concludes that, apart from justification by faith, the world is “guilty before God” (Rom. 3:19). Speaking of the destiny of both saved and lost, Paul affirms that “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Likewise, Paul recognized that, in spite of his prayers, not all of his kinsmen would be saved (Romans 11) but would be “accursed” (Rom. 9:3). The whole point of Romans is to show that only those who believe will be justified (Rom. 1:17; cf. 3:21–26). Romans 9 leaves no doubt that only the elect not everyone will be saved. The rest are “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (Rom. 9:22).

Outside of Romans are numerous passages that speak of the eternal destiny of lost people, including the vivid passage at the end of Revelation 10:11-15.

2 Corinthians 5:19. Universalists also use 2 Corinthians 5:19, in which Paul told the Corinthians “that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.” It is argued that “the world” was reconciled to God by Christ’s work. Thus, all are saved on the basis of Jesus’ work on the Cross.

The context clarifies the meaning of “the world.” First, reconciliation is regarded as a process according to God’s purpose, not an accomplished universal fact. God desires to save all (2 Peter 3:9), but all will not be saved (Matt. 7:13–14; Rev. 20:11–15). Second, the context indicates that actual reconciliation is only for those “in Christ,” not for all (vs. 17). If all were already saved, then Paul’s exhortation to be “ambassadors for Christ” and to “plead” with the world to “be reconciled to God” is senseless. They already are reconciled. All are made savable by Christ’s reconciliation, but not all are thereby saved.

Ephesians 1:10. Also misconstrued by universalists is Paul’s statement that in “the fullness of the times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are under the earth—in Him” (Eph. 1:10 NKJV). A careful examination of this text reveals that Paul is speaking only of believers. First, the context is those “he chose in Him before the foundation of the world” (1:4). Second, the phrase “in Christ” is never used in Scripture of anyone but believers. That unbelievers are excluded is further clarified by the omission of those “under the earth,” which Paul elsewhere uses to speak of the lost (Phil 2:10).

Philippians 2:10–11. Paul predicts that one day “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and the every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10–11). Here, the universalists insist, unbelievers are clearly in view in the phrase “under the earth.”

No one denies that unbelievers will eventually confess Jesus is Lord, but that does not mean they will be saved. Even demons believe that Jesus is Lord, but they refuse to submit to him (cf. James 2:19). Believing that Jesus is Lord will not save anyone. Only belief in Christ (James 2:21–26) saves. “Those under the earth” (= the lost) in this text, make a confession from their mouth, but this acknowledgment will not be from the heart. For salvation, Paul insisted, one must both confess and “believe in your heart” (Rom. 10:9).

1 Corinthians 15:25–28. Of the eschaton or culmination of history, Paul affirmed in 1 Corinthians 15:25–28 that “then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. He must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.… And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

On this text Origen wrote, “But if even that unreserved declaration of the apostle do not sufficiently inform us what is meant by ‘enemies being placed under his feet,’ listen to what he says in the following words, ‘For all things must be put under Him.’ What, then, is this ‘putting under’ by which all things must be made subject to Christ?” He added, “I am of opinion that it is this very subjection by which we also wish to be subject to Him, by which the apostles also were subject, and all the saints who have been followers of Christ” (Origen, 1.6.1)

This interpretation ignores both the content and context of this passage. Paul is not speaking of the salvation of the lost but, rather their condemnation. This is evident in such phrases as destroy, put under his feet, and put an end to all rule. This is the language of subjugation (see vss. 24, 27, 28). Those in view are spoken of as God’s “enemies,” not his friends or children. They are subjugated enemies, not saved friends. That God will be “all in all” (vs. 28) does not mean that all will be in God. He will reign supreme in all the universe after ending the rebellion against him. The phrase all things must be understood in its context. All things are made subject to Christ (vs. 28). But these “all things” are enemies (vs. 25). The phrase is used in parallel with enemies in successive verses (vss. 26–27).

Heaven is not a place where God overpowers the will of his enemies and forces them into the fold. So, there is not a hint in such passages of salvation for all unbelievers.

Conclusion.

Not only is there a lack of support for universalism, but there are decisive arguments against it.

Universalism is contrary to the implications of being created in the image of God. God made humankind in his image (Gen. 1:27) which included freedom. For everyone to be saved, those who refuse to love God would be forced to love him against their will. Forced “freedom” is not freedom. A corollary to this is that universalism is contrary to God’s love. Forced love is not love, but a kind of rape. No truly loving being forces himself on another.

Universalism is contrary to God’s perfection and justice. God is absolutely holy. And as such he must separate himself from and punish sin. Hence, as long as there is someone living in sin and rebellion against God, God must punish them. The Bible identifies this place of separation and punishment as hell (see Matthew 5; 10; 25).

Universalism is based on Scriptures wrenched out of context, and it ignores other clear passages.

Universalism is based on a kind of Freudian illusion. Sigmund Freud called any belief based on a mere wish to be an illusion. We do not wish anyone to suffer in hell forever, and this strong wish seems to be a primary impulse in the universalist thinking. But it is an illusion to believe that all wishes will be fulfilled.