Dr Greg Bahnsen - Sober News about Hell: More Vain Attempts - Annihilationsim (Part 5)

This morning we're continuing our series on the doctrine of hell in the Bible. And I'm continuing the sermon that I began last week, actually, which was a lesson dealing with vain attempts to make hell manageable. And so you can either call this vain attempts number two or more vain attempts, but specifically, I'd like to talk about the doctrine of annihilation this morning. And toward that end, please join me in reading Matthew the 13th chapter, verses 24 to 30, and then 36, 43. Hear now God's word. At Matthew 13. Beginning in the 24th verse, another parable set he before them, saying, the kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men slept, his enemy came, and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away. But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. And the servants of the householder came and said unto him, sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it tares? And he said unto them, an enemy hath done this? And the servants say unto him, wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he saith, nay, lest aptly, while ye gather up the tares, ye root up the wheat with them, let both grow together until the harvest. And in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn, but gather the wheat into my barn. And now continuing at verse 36, then he left the multitudes and went into the house, and his disciples came unto him, saying, explain unto us the parable of the tares of the field. And he answered and said, he that soweth the good seed is the Son of man, and the field is the world, and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom, and the tares are the sons of the evil one. And the enemy that sowed them is the devil. And the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are angels. As therefore tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the world. The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire, there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of the Father. He that hath ears, let him hear, and thus far the reading of God's word, as I've already Indicated, we're continuing to look at alternatives that are posed by people to the bleak biblical portrayal of the destiny of the damned as the unending punishment of ultimate pain, pain and shame. Perhaps the most academically fascinating attempt to make the scriptural discussion of hell manageable, I think, comes from a number of teachers who profess allegiance to the authority of God's word and wish to reinterpret it not as threatening unrelieved torment for the ungodly, but rather as teaching the annihilation or extinction of the ungodly, the eventual extinguishing of their existence. And that's what we're going to look at today, the doctrine of annihilation. That what God intends to do is not to have people suffer without relief forever, but rather he will take away their existence forever. He will annihilate them. I say this is the most academically fascinating because the people who are proposing this in our day are not those who are saying, well, the Bible says one thing, but I think I know better about God, or I have a better insight to the love of God. These are people who say the Bible teaches not unending torment in hell, but the Bible teaches that all of those images that we've been accustomed to thinking of as hell are in fact images having to do with extinction. A good example would be the parable that we just read. Jesus says, at the end of the world, his angels will gather the tares, the sons of the evil one, together, bind them in bundles and throw them into the furnace for burning. And now I would put before you what happens to tares when they're bundled together and put in the furnace for burning? They're consumed, aren't they? So that when the Bible speaks of such things as destruction and perishing and uses images like hell, fire and burning, what it's really talking about is not unrelieved torment, but being consumed completely, losing your existence altogether, going into non existence, being annihilated. Let me give you an example. John Wenham, an English theologian of some note, said recently, I believe that endless torment is a hideous and unscriptural doctrine which has been a terrible burden on the mind of the Church for many centuries and a terrible blot on her presentation of the Gospel. Notice he doesn't just say Hell is a terrible doctrine. What he's saying is hell is an unbiblical doctrine. Well, now, you've been listening to a series of sermons, some of them rather long, and I haven't said everything that could be said on the subject. And that may seem Surprising to you. There is so much in the Bible that teaches this doctrine of the destiny of the damned, being unending punishment, ultimate pain, ultimate shame, as I put it. And now we have theologians who say, no, you're misreading the Bible. We don't want to correct the Bible, we just want to read it properly. And the doctrine of hell, they say, is unscriptural. Okay? So I'm going to do my best to set this very clearly before you make sure you understand it, understand how it's argued. And then of course, I'm going to try to show you how the argument is not sufficient. In fact, has many biblical counter arguments that have not been taken into account in the first place. Those who are teaching this doctrine today are not teaching what we would call the naturalistic doctrine of annihilation. The naturalistic doctrine of annihilation is, as I put it, naturalism. Naturalism says there is no supernatural. There is no God, no angels, no spirits. There is no supernatural aspect to man. Man is just a natural product of evolution. Usually man is simply a physical body of a particular sort of. And when that physical body dies, man being a material being, his body dies and it decays in the tomb. And there is no life after death. Now that is annihilation. When you die, it's all over. However, that's the annihilation of the naturalist, the physicalist, the materialist, if you will. And we're not talking about that. We're talking about people who believe in the supernatural. And what they are teaching is that there's going to be an annihilation that God will use as the punishment for the wicked. Moreover, you should understand that those who are teaching this are not presenting the view that God will save everybody who ever lived. They're not saying God is too loving to punish anyone. Rather, they teach, God will truly damn, pardon me, will damn the ungodly. However, the form of that damnation will be a literal consuming of those who lived in rebellion against God. They will simply be no more. They will perish. However, having clarified that, this is not naturalism, but supernaturalism, nor is it universalism. There is a sense in which this is viewed as God's judgment on the wicked. The annihilationists do divide among themselves as to the timing of the annihilation. This judgmental annihilation can be interpreted as taking place at different times. The wicked might be thought of as passing away, first of all immediately at death. There are some who teach that when you die, an unbeliever, then you perish. You're Annihilated right then and there at death. Other annihilationists teach that God will annihilate the wicked after the resurrection and the final day of judgment. And of course then you have variations. There are some who say there is a kind of suffering that takes place while the wicked wait for the day of judgment, then they are annihilated. Others say the soul, as it were, sleeps. There is no consciousness until God revives people at the day of judgment, resurrects them for judgment, and then annihilates them. Okay, so one version says annihilation takes place at death. Another version says it takes place at the resurrection and final judgment. And then the more popular version of annihilation that we've been seeing the last few years is the view that after an appropriate period of suffering for their sins, God will then annihilate the wicked. That is, they will then after suffering for what is inappropriate and what will be a terrible thing for them during that period of time, they will disintegrate and pass into non existence. And now why would people hold something like that? Well, because that makes hell more manageable, doesn't it? Hell is a terrible thing, but it doesn't go on and on and on and on. God is not some kind of fiend that never lets you, his victims pass away, but after they've suffered the appropriate period of time, then they will pass away. Views such as these are sometimes called conditional immortality, conditional immortality. And I want to explain to you how we get that expression and how it is put to use. Conditional immortality is the view that immortality is not natural to man. Man is not essentially an immortal creature, but only God has immortality. And to support this, let's look at some Bible passages. First Timothy 6, 15, 16, which in its own times he shall show who is the blessed and only potentate, the King of kings and Lord of Lords, who only hath immortality dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen nor can see, to whom be honor and power are eternal. And so Paul here specifically says that God alone has immortality. And in John 5, verse 26, back in the gospel, the gospel of John 5, 26, the Lord Jesus says, for as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he life to the Son also to have life in himself. The idea here is that God has life, essentially he has it in himself. So only God is immortality. Only God inherently has life. So this is the first plank of the conditional immortalitist view. Man is not naturally immortal, but rather immortality, they say, is a gracious gift that God bestows only on believers, and support for that they think is found in 2 Timothy 1:10, 2nd Timothy 1:10, but hath now been manifested by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, so that the result of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and our believing the Gospel is said to be immortality. So we put all this together. Only God is immortal. Men are not naturally so. But those who believe the gospel and are saved by the redemptive work of Jesus have immortality given to them. And so this then leads to the question, when will the existence of the ungodly be terminated? When will God call it quits for the ungodly? And the answer to that question is the three options I've already given you. Either at death or at the resurrection, or after a period of time of suffering, then they will be annihilated. They'll go into non existence. God will revoke their privilege of their living. Now, you'll notice that in the last two options where we say God will revoke their privilege of living at the resurrection or after an appropriate period of suffering suffering, God is viewed as sustaining conscious life for some limited time. However, the point of this view is that the suffering will not be without end, and thus the view is considered more emotionally manageable. We can say on some versions of conditional immortality, yes, there will be suffering, but not unending suffering. Okay, well, let's begin by trying to formulate a faithful and biblical response to those who are claiming the Bible supports this doctrine, which is contrary to the view I've already taught you about unending torment and hell for the damned. First of all, with respect to conditional immortality, what about the idea that only God has immortality? That's what the Bible says. We've read the Bible verse. However, I think it's been misread because Scripture is there speaking of God alone having what we might call essential immortality. And that's certainly true. None of us have, by our very creaturely existence, any claim on unending life. Only God has life inherent to himself. That God, however, has endowed all men with immortality is the unavoidable conclusion that follows from the biblical teaching of the eternality of torment or the eternality of bliss for those that are in relationship with God. The fact that people will be tormented eternally shows that God has endowed immortality on them. And now notice that if people are going to be in torment forever, or if they're going to be in bliss forever, that both torment and bliss presuppose consciousness, you can't say of something or someone that is unconscious that it's feeling anything, torment or bliss. Therefore, the answer to the doctrine of conditional immortality is that since the Bible teaches conscious suffering forever, conscious blessing forever, therefore God has endowed man who does not naturally have it, has endowed man with immortality. Secondly, we need to realize that the reason the Bible can speak of Christ bringing immortality to the light by the Gospel is that in biblical terms, the opposite of immortality is not extinction, but rather eternal death. The opposite of immortality is not failure to be anything at all, but rather failure to have anything blessed in your life. It is a death that's unending according to the Bible. So you have to study those opposites. The opposite of immortality is exclusion from fellowship with God. Immortality is, to put it simply, to be equated with eternal life. Eternal life doesn't simply mean that you have unending existence. It means what you know, the fellowship of God and his blessing. This is what Jesus brought to light by his redemptive work. Notice that the passage we read there says he brought immortality and life. You see, those go together. It's the existence that is gracious and blessed of God, known as eternal life, that Jesus gives. And the opposite is not nothing. The opposite is eternal death. Those who don't enjoy the blessing of the Savior continue to exist, but in a condition that the Bible considers deathly ruined. Terrible. Well, what are the arguments that are used to teach annihilation from the Bible? Does the Bible in fact support the notion that at some point, either at death, at the resurrection, or after a period of suffering, that God will annihilate the wicked? There are three basic arguments you need to be aware of if you're taking notes, and I'm going to look at each one in turn. But the first argument comes from what we call the vocabulary of destruction or perishing. That this vocabulary is to be interpreted literally. So people really are destroyed, they're consumed, they perish, they are no more. The second argument comes from the imagery of fire or burning from the Bible, which it is said indicates eventual consuming of the wicked. As we all know, when you throw things into furnaces, they are consumed. And so what the Bible's talking about is the unbeliever, the wicked being consumed by the judgment of God going into non existence. And then thirdly, the argument is often found in the literature that when the Bible speaks of the eternality of punishment, it's really only referring to the results of the punishment never being reversed. The results are eternal, but the punishing is not so. The punishment as a finished act will never be undone. That's eternal. But that doesn't mean that God is punishing, punishing, punishing throughout all eternity. And why does the Bible speak of fire being unquenchable? Those who teach the doctrine of annihilation will say it's unquenchable as long as its job is unfinished, unquenchable. But then, of course, when everything is consumed and there is no more, then the job is finished and the fire goes out. So let's deal with all three of these arguments in turn. First of all, the argument from the vocabulary of destruction or perishing. Here we have the view that this vocabulary must be read literally and the perishing must be a total consuming of someone, a complete destroying of them so that they are no more. I have to tell you that regardless of what my view is at the end and what I might want to defend, anybody who comes to me and tells me that that figures of speech must be interpreted literally is not going to go very far in the argument with me. The Bible uses figures of speech that are not intended, first of all, to be understood literally at every point. And when it uses a figure of speech and we have interpreted it properly, it doesn't intend for us to take the figure all the way out and think that everything else you could say about whatever it is is true. Now, is God a father to us as children? You want to read that literally? Please forgive me. No disrespect is meant. God did not have sexual relations with my mother. That's not where I came from. And so if you read father figure of speech in that way, you've not been true to the Bible. In fact, you've actually been blasphemous toward God. Now, what do we know about fathers? Let's see if we can take this figure of speech out further. Now, every once in a while, my father slept in on Saturday mornings. Do you think God ever sleeps then? I mean, my father slept. So if God is a father, then he must sleep. Now, you would be able to correct me immediately if I tried to do theology this way. You'd say no anyway. Doctor, first, that that's a figure of speech. That's not literal. Secondly, you're not to take everything we know about fathers and build it. There's something specifically about fathers, the way in which they care for us and the way in which they're compassionate toward us and things like that which we know from context is what the figure of speech is trying to teach. So I'm just Reminding you of just what is really basic. Faithful biblical hermeneutics are principles of interpretation. When someone wants to take a figure of speech, read it literally and read it in the extreme in order to prove a doctrine, you ought to be very careful. And I don't know that I could say this 100%, but I would say in most every case don't trust them at all because they don't know what they're doing in handling literature. But now, what about the idea that destruction and perishing are literal in the Bible, not a figure of speech? Well, in the first place, the word destruction, incognate words, similar words, synonyms for destruction in the Bible usually means punishment of a ruined existence, not extinction. Let's take an example here. Turning your Bibles to Revelation, the 19th chapter, verse 20, Revelation 1920. And the Beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought the signs in his sight, wherewith he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image, they too were cast alive into the lake, the of of fire that burneth with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, even the sword which came forth out of his mouth. And all the birds were filled with their flesh. So in Revelation 19:20 we read that the beast is already undergoing God's punishment, being cast alive into the lake of fire. But then if you look at Revelation 27, we read, and when the thousand years are finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison. Now Satan is loosed, he's active on earth. And in verse 10 we read, and the devil that deceived him was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone. Where are also the beast and the false prophet, and they plural shall be tormented day and night, forever and ever. Now in this case it certainly was not immediate annihilation, because a thousand years later, I take that as figurative by the way. But a long time later, the beast and the false prophet were still there to be tormented now with Satan, who they had originally followed. Destruction doesn't always mean extinction. Punishment doesn't always mean extinction. In the Bible there are words in Hebrew and Greek that speak of the perishing, the cutting off of the wicked, the destroying of the wicked. And those same Greek and Hebrew words in other places could not possibly mean annihilation. I'm going to run through a series of illustrations real quickly for you here. First, Jeremiah number 9:12, turn in your bibles in the Old Testament to Jeremiah 9:12, who is the wise man that may understand this, and who is he to whom the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken that he may declare it? Wherefore is the land perished and burned up like a wilderness, so that none passeth through? Now, could we translate that? How then is the land annihilated, as though there's now what, some kind of a black hole there in the place of the land? Now, obviously, perishing here means to go into a condition that is not well, a condition that is wretched, a condition that is under judgment and torment. It doesn't mean to no longer ignore, exist, or consider Exodus 10:7 another Hebrew word that is used elsewhere in the Bible for what will happen to the wicked. But in Exodus 10:7, that word is used to say, and Pharaoh's servant said unto him, how long shall this man be a snare unto us? Let the men go, that they may serve Jehovah their God? Knowest thou knowest not yet that Egypt is destroyed? Well, now, if destruction here means annihilation, this is a very unusual picture. Servants in Egypt speaking to the Pharaoh in Egypt, saying, egypt doesn't exist. No, destruction doesn't mean annihilation. It means what? All that which was good or that which would give joy or pleasure in life has been taken away. It's a ruined existence, not non existence, that the verb is speaking of. Another example, Psalm 39:10. To take another Hebrew word that is applied to the wicked in the Bible, and those who teach conditional immortality or annihilation say it must mean non existence. Psalm 40, 39:10. David says, Remove thy stroke away from me, I am consumed by the blow of thy hand. Well, if David is consumed by the blow of God's hand, David's not there to even say, I'm consumed. I wish it were not necessary to go through this. But sometimes you have to reduce to absurdity what your opponent's saying, because these men are actually misleading the children of God. They know Greek and Hebrew people say, well, they should know. And sometimes it appears in certain verses. You could read that literally, it would make sense. But my point is you can't read it literally in other verses. And so you can't automatically assume extinction is the meaning. Another example now in the New Testament, Luke 15:17, Luke 15, at the 17th verse in the story of the prodigal Son, we read, and when he came to himself, he said, how many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare? And I perish here with hunger? I perish. I don't exist. No, that isn't what it means. And even if you take perishing here of just physical death, he's not yet physically dead, but he speaks of himself perishing. First Timothy 6, 9, 1 Timothy 6, and look at the ninth verse. But they that are minded to be rich fall into a temptation and a snare. And many fools, foolish and hurtful desires, such as drown men in destruction and perdition for the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, which some reaching after, have been led astray from the faith and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows. Now, what does the destruction and perdition at the end of verse 9 mean? Do you think that the love of money pursuing getting rich quick makes people annihilated? That they are perished, that they've reached perdition because they don't exist anymore? All that money they have has actually taken away their existence? Of course not. The next verse tells you exactly what it means. They are what pierced through with many sorrows. And so the Bible speaks of sorrowing. The Bible speaks of having a wretched condition. The Bible speaks of being under the heavy hand of God as perdition, as destruction. And so we cannot take the vocabulary of destruction and the vocabulary of perishing literally, in every case to mean annihilation. Consequently, those who do apply it to annihilation in those places referring to the destiny of the damned, are being arbitrary. They need more than just the vocabulary to prove their point, because that vocabulary does not in and of itself mean extinction or annihilation. There's a particular text I want to look at in this regard and pay a little more attention to Second Thessalonians 1:9. Second Thessalonians, the first chapter in verse nine, Paul says, who shall suffer punishment, eternal destruction, from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might. Now, what should catch your attention, I think, is that Paul speaks of destruction here, but he says the destruction is everlasting. If destruction means annihilation, what does it mean to be annihilated in an everlasting way? I mean, once annihilation is done, it's done, isn't it? It doesn't go on and on and on and on. Everlasting annihilation. Everlasting destruction, however, means something very important. Important if it's viewed as undergoing torment forever and especially being excluded from fellowship with God. That's what the verse means, I think, when you read it in context. Who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction, from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might? God, you see, is going to separate the wicked from Himself, and they will continue to exist in that condition of separation. Now, those of you who are being clever here might think this through. The heretic argues, well, where is God? God is everywhere. So if you're excluded from the presence of God, who is everywhere, then separation from God must mean what, you don't exist at all? You follow that? Go over it again. God is everywhere. You're separated from everywhere, therefore you are nowhere. Ergo, to be separated from God means annihilation. Well, but that isn't what it means in the Bible. I can give you, I think, a couple of passages to prove my point. Revelation 22:15. To be separated from fellow fellowship with God means to have a wretched condition, a wretched life, rather than to enjoy the blessing of being near your heavenly Father. Revelation 22:15. John has described the New Jerusalem and those who are therein. Every tear is wiped from their eyes. They wash their robes and the blood of the Lamb, they have a right to come to the tree of life, and so forth. Then verse 15 says, but outside without are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone that loves and makes alive. You see, separation from fellowship with God does not mean they don't exist. It means they're outside of his blessed presence. They exist outside the walls of the New Jerusalem. Another way in which we can see that this separation imagery does not mean extinction is by looking at Luke 13:27, 28, Luke 13:27 28. Jesus says, I tell you, I know not whence you are. Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be the word weeping and the gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves cast forth outside. Now you notice, Jesus says that those who are hypocrites, who will be expelled from his presence, don't go into a condition where they are conscious of nothing and they don't exist at all. He says, rather, from outside, they will what? See these others who are in the kingdom of God. So it's very similar to the Revelation 22: passage in that expulsion from the presence of God does not mean being nowhere, it means being outside of the blessing of God, the fellowship of God, the saving mercy of God. Jesus says, you will see those who are enjoying the presence of God, but you yourselves will be cast out. And therefore, in second Thessalonians 1:9, when Paul speaks of everlasting destruction from the face of the Lord, from the Bible elsewhere we know that he's not talking about extinction at all. He's talking about non fellowship without the blessing of God. Destruction therefore does not mean extinction and non existence. The argument from vocabulary is simply broken down. Now the next argument is the argument from the imagery of fire and burning. Annihilationists will say, well, what happens in the furnace? Things get consumed, right? They're burned up completely. Well, I'd like you to look at our scripture reading this morning because it seems to me if Jesus wished to teach that this was the perfect opportunity to do it. In Matthew 13, the parable of of the wheat and the tares, Jesus is asked for the interpretation. And he tells us in verse 42 that the imagery of the tares being cast into the fire means, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire. There shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth. Now this lesson is been a little bit harder than many of my sermons because I'm forcing you to think through arguments, okay? And chains of reasoning. Now I want you to test this chain of reasoning. Here's this reasoning that says the imagery of fire means being consumed, being annihilated. Jesus tells a story where tares are being thrown in a furnace. We know what furnaces do. They consume the. The fuel for the burning, right? And so if this is what Jesus thinks the fire is all about, extinction, I mean, this is the time to teach it, right? Well, this is not an argument from silence that Jesus fails to teach this. It's that Jesus teaches something directly contrary to it. Because Jesus could say they're cast into the fire, into the fragment furnace, and they're consumed. They are no more. But he doesn't, does he? How does Jesus interpret the fire? Does he interpret the fire as consumption? Or does he interpret the fire as torment? Well, it's right before you. He says, what will take place in that furnace? There will be weeping and the gnashing of teeth. People who don't exist don't weep. People who don't exist don't gnash their teeth. And so this was, I would dare say, if ever there was an opportunity for the annihilationist to have his doctrine taught, this is it. Jesus says the wicked will go into a furnace. What happens in furnaces? People are consumed, right? Or the fuel is consumed. But instead of saying they are consumed, he says rather, they will go through conscious torment. Luke 16, verses 23 and 24 is another place where, although we're talking about Hades and not Hell, we get an idea of what the imagery of fire is about. Fire is not an image of consumption when the Bible uses it for punishment. Luke 16:23 and in Hades he lifted the up, his eyes being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame. The imagery of flames and fire is the imagery of torment in the Bible, not the imagery of conscience consumption. Now you may tell me that furnaces do consume their fuel. That's all well and good, but fires also hurt people in the Bible. Those who wrote the Bible and certainly God have the freedom to decide which aspect of fire they want to emphasize when they use a figure of speech. And the point is that the Bible doesn't use consumption when it refers to the fire of punishment. It uses torment and anguish and pain. And therefore the second argument of the annihilationist seems to me is wiped out as well. The third argument doesn't take very long to deal with. Their third argument is that when the Bible speaks of the eternality of that torment, it only is referring to the results. Once people have suffered for a period of time and they go into non existence, that will never be reversed, the result is eternal, but the act of punishing, the act of tormenting is not eternal. What is my answer to that? My answer is there's not a stitch of evidence in the text for what you just said that has been read into the text rather than taken from the text. There's nothing in the text that says the result is eternal. And this is. This is a good example of how congregations need to be warned against false teachers. Sometimes good teachers make the same mistake. Basically, you're told the Bible teaches this with the following qualification. You need to ask, where does the qualification come from? Does it come from the Bible or was it brought to the Bible? And the qualification that the eternality is only of result, not of the action itself, hasn't any support whatsoever. This is all the more evident when people say, yes, the fire is unquenchable as long as it is doing its job. But once the job is finished, then the fire is quenched. Well, that certainly does help the doctrine of annihilation, but it doesn't gain its help from the Bible. It's the doctrine of. Of annihilation read in between the lines of the Bible. Those are, to put it very simply, arbitrary preconceptions read into the Bible rather than taken from the Bible. So is there support in the Bible for the doctrine of annihilation. That's where we started today. We started with the idea that certain evangelicals want to say it's unscriptural to teach the doctrine of hell, that in fact when you read the Bible properly, properly, it doesn't teach it at all. And then when all is said and done, by reading the Bible properly, they mean reading the Bible in light of annihilation, rather than reading the Bible to find annihilation. So they have no support whatsoever. There are insurmountable problems with the doctrine of annihilation, no matter what version of it you take. Let me go through these and then we'll be done in the first place. Place in the Bible, non existence is not portrayed as ultimate pain and shame. Non existence is portrayed in the Bible as better than coming under the wrath of God. Think about it. Matthew 26:24. Jesus says, the Son of man goeth even as it is written of him, but woe unto that man, man through whom the Son of man is betrayed. It would be better had he not been born. Those are telling words. Jesus says non existence would have been better than what you're going to go through, Judas. If non existence is a better state than going under the wrath of God, knowing the woe and the judgment of of God, then obviously annihilation cannot be viewed as a punishment, can it? Annihilation would be escaping punishment. Non existence would be the averting of the wrath of God in biblical terms. And so that destroys the doctrine right there. If we're supposed to believe that annihilation is the form of God's judgment, but this verse shows that it's in fact escaping God's judgment, then the theory has been refuted. Moreover, if there is no torment to be endured by the ungodly for their sins, then indeed death would not be something to fear at all, would it? If the wicked are annihilated upon death, why should they fear death at all? But Hebrews 2:14 15 teach us contrary to that. Hebrews 2:14, since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood. He also himself in like manner partook of the same, that through death he might bring to nothing him that had the power of death, that is the devil, and might deliver all them, who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. How could the Bible teach that there's a fear of death death if in fact the wicked simply are extinguished after they die? There'd be nothing to fear in death whatsoever. Indeed, as First Corinthians 15:32 says, Then indeed we should eat and drink because tomorrow we die. If the fate of the wicked is annihilation, that's not judgment, my friends. That's a ticket to party time. Can't you figure that out? There might be some people who would say, we might think, well, it's a poor choice. Some people might say, okay, I don't care to go on living forever and ever with God. Hearty, hardy. And then when it's all done, it's done. Paul says, well, then it would be just to say, eat and drink, because tomorrow we die. Annihilation is not judgment. And therefore the annihilationist doctrine cannot be reconciled with the Bible that teaches the ungodly will be judged. Annihilation is not judgment. Now, some people would say, okay, we got an answer for that. People won't be immediately annihilated. Well, if they won't be immediately annihilated because there has to be room for judgment, then what becomes of the premise that annihilation is the judgment? See, we've really got a different kind of doctrine now. A doctrine that says, yes, hell, Hell must be affirmed, but not everlasting hell. Hell must be a period of time that's restricted. So now you have people who are really trying to ride two positions at one time. They're trying to go across this theological river on two horses, really. The horse that teaches annihilation and the horse that teaches hell. They want a little bit of hell, then annihilation, so that it's not unending. If the torment with which God punishes the wicked ends, let's ask ourselves, let's follow this out. Why will it end? Why will the torment of the wicked end? The only answer an annihilationist could offer is that because the penalty has been paid in full. See, that's their whole point. They'll say, how can a person who has sinned for 80 years be tormented for 8 million? That's not fair. Well, there's real confusion in there. As though the amount of time you've sinned has anything to do with the depth of the sin. For all I know, it only takes 10 seconds to shoot a person and kill them. Does that mean I should only go to hell for 10 seconds? That whole thinking is skewed. But even given that, the idea that, well, the suffering must only be proportionate to the wickedness, and that's limited. We've already refuted that in earlier sermons. But that view leads people to the conclusion God will stop the torment once the penalty has been paid. Well, now I want to pick up right there. If the penalty for sin has been paid, why would God not then allow these people into his presence? Why would God, if they're not guilty anymore, guilty of unremitted sin, why would God then consign them to non existence? You see, the attempt to go across the river riding both these horses makes no sense because there's no need for annihilation if the penalty is paid. And why would God, if he is good and loving, annihilate people who have paid the price? Okay, I hope you followed the debater's logic here. If you believe in annihilation immediately at death, then death is nothing to fear. Annihilation is not a judgment at all. According to the Bible. If you believe in a little bit of punishment, well, little, maybe thousands of years, but still restricted so that annihilation takes place at the end, then the question is, why any annihilation at all? Why not just allow people into heaven at that point? Scripture teaches us, as you have heard me expound previously, that the ungodly will undergo torment. That's the biblical word. Scripture teaches that this torment will be, and I quote from Revelation 20, Night and day, forever and ever. Scripture teaches that men will be conscious enough to wail in pain and gnash their teeth in agony. The fire of hell, according to the Bible, is unquenchable because the fuel is never consumed and the worm never dies. We might want to, as an academic exercise, tip our hat to the the annihilationists and say you made a good go of it. Some of that sounded kind of interesting, maybe a little challenging, but it simply will not stand up to the full teaching of God's word. It is unreasonable, it is inconsistent, it is contrary to the theology that the Bible teaches elsewhere. And when all is said and done, it cannot account for the actual imagery and the wording of the Bible itself. How then will we manage this doctrine of hell? I think there is only one way to do so, and that is to come to the one who defeated death and brought immortality and life to light in the Gospel. For those who will not turn to the Lord Jesus Christ to gain salvation for their sins, there is no way to manage the the doctrine of hell. The reality of hell will be inescapable. And so, as I have in my past sermons, I would again end by calling on you. Take this seriously. There is no escape but one. Let's pray. Lord Jesus, I would ask especially this morning, that you would keep us from making the mistake that is so easy to make and so many have made of trying to twist the Bible into our preconceptions of what is right and wrong or what we might expect from you. Take away from us any desire to manipulate, to maneuver and to make manageable what the Bible says about hell. Lord Jesus, make us fear that ultimate destiny of the damned. Bring us to our senses and give us the conviction that there's only one way in which we can escape it. We cannot talk it away. We cannot rationalize it. We cannot make your word teach other than what we have learned about the destiny of the damned. And so, Lord Jesus, turn us to yourself. We know that you're the way, the truth and the life. Then no man will come to the Father but by you. It's in your precious name we pray. Amen.