The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum The Doctrine of "H-E-double hockey sticks"

There seems to be increase in the position of annihilation, instead of conscious eternal punishment, for hell amongst believers. John Stott has switched his position to the side of “Annihilation”, is there any credence for this position?
Geomic

No.

Do we really need to say anything more?

One of the reasons for the increase is because people dont want to take what the Bible says. This is not new, it seems to happen every century. Shedd wrote a good book on this.
http://christianbeliefs.org/books/hell/hell1.html

Do a search on the Board for "Annihilation" going back 2 years and you will get LOTS of hits. There has been at least 2 perhaps 3 or more threads on this subject with plenty of good responses, links to articles and attached documents.

Pilgrim,
I will check it out, in the mean time, what is the scoop with John Stott (if you know).
Geomic

Geomic,
John Stott lost I believe two immediate family members(I know one is his daughter, I THink:)) and they were in an unsaved state. I think that is partially what has moved him from his old position to the new position. I know Stott is the classic fall guy on the position of annihilation, but we should all be at least sympthatic to his plight. If my daughter were to die, now you better believe it would be an intense struggle and I would definintly would be reaching at any straw handed to me. (Of course my daughter is one and so the matter is quite a bit different, but I'm just saying).
Theologians always bring who they are to their work. You never do exegesis and theologizing in an isolated place in your brain. Thank God He is merciful and we are accepted not on the merits of our theology, but on the merits of Jesus!
But nevertheless obviously if Dr. Stott wants to write out on this issue, then he should be prepared to deal with the criticisms that will come. So have at him, but speak the truth in love everyone. BTW, he is really wrong and is exegisis is fallacious. He takes the word for destroy in GK. and changes the meaning to mean annihilate, which in english may fit into the semantic range, but in Greek it does not. The same word is used for the bags that are destroyed, by putting the new wine into them in Jesus parable. Obviously the bags don't dissappear; they are ruined. He also somehow reasons the word eternal out of the picture on the applicable passages, saying eternal doesn't mean eternal.
Anyways, Speak the truth in love everyone, but speak the truth.
jason

Just quickly, re: John Stott, his embracing of Annihilationism isn't a "new" development but one which he has held for quite a number of years.

For a defense of the historical and biblical view, see these:

- The Morality of Everlasting Punishment, by Mark Talbot

- Annihilationism, by B.B. Warfield

- The Positive and Explicit Nature of Christ’s Teaching Concerning Eternal Punishment

In His grace,

Dear Jason,

whatever brought on this view for Stott, it wasn't because of the death of a daughter, since he is single!

You will find his view set out in a book coauthored with David Edwards entitled "Essentials". This book is a conversation between a liberal and an evangelical Anglican about points of difference.

Stott's position is foreshadowed by John Wenham's book The Goodness of God. I understand Philip Edgcumbe Hughes may have shared similar views.

Yours in Christ,

James.

In the passage of Luke 16:19-31; could it be possible that this isn’t a literal story and the “rich man” represents the Pharisees (Jews) and "Lazarus" represents the Gentiles? What implications are there, if this is indeed a parable, to what many believe is a major text to conscious eternal punishment?
Geomic

James

Although you are correct that Stott is single, he is single because of divorce, not because he was never married.
Of course this information is second hand, but it was talked about in Christian circles a few years back.
As to him loosing a daughter or someone close to him, I do not know.

Tom

What do you think the rich man's conscious torment is meant to symbolize?

Would you say Matthew Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.
Is a this a parable?

I don’t believe [color:"FF0000"]HELL[/color] <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/mad3.gif" alt="" /> in Luke 16:19-31 is a parable for it would be the only parable in the Bible that uses proper names (Lazarus, Abraham).

I am informed by someone long acquainted with Stott, that he has never married.
I also think, but I may be wrong, that I remember reading, in a recent interview with Stott, where he said something like he had not been advocating annhilationism as his own position but setting it forth as a legitimate Christian option.
It may be worthwhile to doublecheck both of these points.

"John Stott never married, though according to his biography he came close to it on two occasions ..."

For more concerning John's personal life read Timothy Dudley-Smith, John Stott: The Making of a Leader, vol. 1-2 (Leicester, U.K./Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1999) or you can read his partial biography at Langham Partnership International.