John Stott. Essentials : a liberal-evangelical dialogue / by David L. Edwards with John Stott.
“The third argument in favour of the concept of annihilation concerns the biblical vision of justice. Fundamental to it is the believe that God will judge people ‘according to what they [have] done’ (e.g. Revelation 20:12), which implies that the penalty inflicted will be commensurate with the evil done. This principle had been applied in the Jewish law courts, in which penalties were limited to an exact retribution, ‘life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot’ (e.g. Exodus 21:23-25). Would there not, then, be a serious disproportion between sins consciously committed in time and torment consciously experienced throughout eternity? I do not minimize the gravity of sin as rebellion against God our Creator… but I question whether ‘eternal conscious torment’ is compatible with the biblical revelation of divine justice.”
Evangelical Annihilationism in Review
J. I. Packer
Reformation & Revival magazine, Volume 6, Number 2 - Spring 1997, p. 40.
“The justice of God’s final judgment, which Jesus will administer, according to the Gospel, lies in two things: first, the fact that what people receive is not only what they deserve but that they have in effect already chosen — namely, to be forever without God and therefore without any of the good that He gives; second, the fact that the sentence is proportioned to the knowledge of God’s Word, work and will that was actually disregarded (cf. Luke 12:42-48; Rom. 1:18-20, 32; 2:4, 12-15). Hell, according to the Gospel, is not immoral ferocity but moral retribution.”
Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the
“The greatest objection to the traditional view in recent times… has come from the deep revulsion many feel at the idea of the torture chamber in the middle of the castle of delights, the concentration camp in the middle of the beautiful countryside…” Wright presents this answer: “When human beings give their heartfelt allegiance to and worship that which is not God, they progressively cease to reflect the image of God… My suggestion is that it is possible for human beings so to continue down this road, so to refuse all whisperings of good news, all glimmers of the true light, all promptings to turn and go the other way, all signposts to the love of God, that after death they become at last, by their own effective choice,beings that once were human but now are not, creatures that have ceased to bear the divine image at all…. These creatures… no longer excite in themselves or others the natural sympathy some feel even for the hardened criminal.”
Pinnock. “The Conditional View.” In Four Views of Hell. Edited by William Crockett.
“Let readers ask themselves what lifestyle, what set of actions, would deserve the ultimate of penalties – everlasting conscious punishment? It is easy to accept that annihilation might be deserved by those whose lives turned in a definitive No to God, but it is hard to accept hell as everlasting conscious torment with no hope of escape or remittance as a just punishment for anything. It is too heavy a sentence and cannot be successfully defended as a just action on God’s part. Sending the wicked to everlasting torment would be to treat persons worse than they could deserve.”
The idea of care as a weapon seems like a contradiction, care is usually pictured as soft and gentle, not aggressive and attacking.
Pictures of a mother bending over a cradle or a nurse caring for a wounded soldier.
Although the website was created with input from their target audience; it still struggled to appeal to all ages in the study.
Writing a 3-paragraph introduction:
Paragraph 1: Catch your reader’s attention. See examples of creative introductions
Paragraph 2: Set up your topic. Don't go into detail, but give a general overview of your topic.
Paragraph 3: Give your thesis statement and main sections of your paper. Usually you will end with your thesis statement.
In making a case for ____, I am not saying that _____.
But my argument will do more than prove _____. In this paper, I will also ____
I believe, therefore, that _____. But let me back up and explain how I arrived at this conclusion: _____.
Although some readers may object that _____, I would answer that _______.
Although I grant that ____, I still maintain that _____.
Proponents of X are right to argue that _____. But they exagerate when they claim that _____.
While it is true that _____, it does not necessarily follow that ______.
On the one hand, I agree with X that _____. But on the other hand, I still insist that _____.