Social effects of Nicean Christianity embracing Annihilationism instead of Hell

[baltur2]

There is a minority view professed by some Christian denominations (Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, possibly also Christadelphians and Unitarians, not sure about the last two) that if you die as an unrepetant sinner, God punishes you not by sending you to Hell, but by destroying your soul, making you have no afterlife, and no bodily resurrection on Judgement Day.

How do you think religious beliefs and social practices of Christians would have been different from OTL if the Council of Nicea decided to embrace the doctrine of Annihilationism, instead of the doctrine of Hell?

One difference I suspect is that suicide would have been more widespread in Western culture. For example I've read about people in 17th century Sweden, who committed suicide-by-proxy (commiting a crime in the hope of receiving the capital punishment for it) so that if they die they would still go to Heaven. Perhaps if the mainstream belief was that after death oblivion comes instead of the Burning Hells, more people would have committed suicide through Christendom.

 

[Valena]

Why is this After 1900 with a 5th century PoD?

 

[baltur2]

Why is this After 1900 with a 5th century PoD?

Accidentally posted in after 1900, sorry. Mods could move it to Before.

 

[overoceans]

possibly also Christadelphians and Unitarians, not sure about the last two

Unitarians in the sense of Unitarian Universalists(and equivalent groups in the UK and elsewhere) hold to a wide variety of views on the afterlife, as befitting the church's support for individual autonomy in matters of religious belief. As a UU myself, I'd be surprised if many of them believed in either eternal damnation or Annihilation(well, the latter maybe if it meant that NO ONE survives into an afterlife, but I don't think that's the meaning used here).

Historically, unitarians were people who rejected the Trinity, but many still believed that Jesus was the Son of God, just not part of God. It could arguably be traced all the way back to Arius, at least, and I'm not sure what sort of beliefs in the afterlife were popular among that tendency.

 

[AspieMan]

As a Seventh-day Adeventist i have learned that Hell and the Lake of Fire are one in the same. After one dies, the sleep in the grave until the resurrection of life when Christ returns in power and glory at the beginning of the Milenium. the wicked dead remain dead and the living wicked are slain by the brightness of His glory. they remain dead until after the milennium when they are rsurrected, judged for their unbelief and cast into the Lake of Fire< which is aworldwide conflagration that destroys this sinful world as well as all sin and sinners, including Satan and his angels. at the return of Christ, the dead in Christ rise firtand along with the living believers are given glorified bodies. They meet the Lord in the air and travel beyond the stars to Heaven where they remain during the Milennium. After the Milennium, they retun to Earth along with the New Jerusalem, the City of God. the wicked dead are resurrected, Satan uses them to attempt an overthrow of the Eternal City which is halted by Christ when He judges them and God rains fire from Heaven, creating the previousl-mentioned Lake of Fire, carry out the death sentence on sin and all who cling to sin. after the worldwide conflagration burns itself out, having destroyed all sin, God will receate a new world even more beautiful than Eden and He, as Father< Son and holy Spirit will dwell personally with the faithful of all the ages for eternity in a kingdom forever free of sin. There is room for all in the kingdom of God, but that citizenship can only be gained by accepting Christ as your Savior. For God so loved the worl, that he gave hos only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. john 3:16,17.

 

[Madeleine Birchfield]

Religious annihilationism is compatible with the modern secular materialist scientific worldview that religions are simply social/cultural constructs and that when we die we simply stop existing and return back to the earth.

 

[AspieMan]

Jesus Himself described death as a sleep when going to resurrect Lazarus (John 11:13). Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 says this, For the living know that they shall die< but the dead know not any thing, for the memory of them is forgotten. And their love, and their hatred, and their envy: neither have they any more a portion in any thing that is done under the sun. That means all activity ceases since the budy returns to the dust it was made from & the spirit returns to God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7). if you read the Creation account, it states that we don't have souls, we ARE souls (see Genesis 2:7). The saved die once and live twice, the unsaved live once and die twice (John 3:16, 17, 5:28, 29, Revelation chapters 20 & 21).

 

[AspieMan]

Madeline Birchfield, it,s acase of science partially catching up to faith, but not seeing the whole picture.

 

[piratedude]

How do you think religious beliefs and social practices of Christians would have been different from OTL if the Council of Nicea decided to embrace the doctrine of Annihilationism, instead of the doctrine of Hell?

Why the council of Nicea? Afaik the scope of council only really dealt with arianism, the meletians (basically anotherbout of donetism), and a bit about church discipline, it wasn't called to deal with the different doctrines regarding hell.

Anyways, I'm not sure if the church would go with annihiltionism, but with the related idea conditionalism. Its more or less the same except conditionalism is nore passive, ie: the human soul isn't naturally immortal and dies without the life giving power of god,

 

[galanx]

delete

 

[Philip]

Why the council of Nicea? Afaik the scope of council only really dealt with arianism, the meletians (basically anotherbout of donetism), and a bit about church discipline, it wasn't called to deal with the different doctrines regarding hell.

Read Athanasius's On the Incarnation.

Nicea confirmed the Church's belief that the Jesus is (that is, the Incarnation did not end) the incarnate Word of God. It also confirmed the Word is God. One of the principle reasons Athanasius won the day was this explained how finite humans could have eternal life. Human Nature was joined with Divinity. As a result, all humans will have unending existence. This is not compatible with Annihilationism. Annihilationism is in effect a denial of the Incarnation.

 

[Falecius]

Read Athanasius's On the Incarnation.

Nicea confirmed the Church's belief that the Jesus is (that is, the Incarnation did not end) the incarnate Word of God. It also confirmed the Word is God. One of the principle reasons Athanasius won the day was this explained how finite humans could have eternal life. Human Nature was joined with Divinity. As a result, all humans will have unending existence. This is not compatible with Annihilationism. Annihilationism is in effect a denial of the Incarnation.

Not entirely. Christian Averroists did not deny the Incarnation, but they were largely annihilationists (ok, they thought salvation, too, implied the loss of individuality of the soul, which in their consistently Aristotelian view would not, as a pure form of a body, remain individuated without said body; this was, of course, considered heretical).

 

[Philip]

Not entirely. Christian Averroists did not deny the Incarnation, but they were largely annihilationists (ok, they thought salvation, too, implied the loss of individuality of the soul, which in their consistently Aristotelian view would not, as a pure form of a body, remain individuated without said body; this was, of course, considered heretical).

They denied the eternity of the body, correct?

 

[Falecius]

They denied the eternity of the body, correct?

As far as I recall without checking, yes.
Although it gets complicated in that some of them followed Averroes and Aristotle in suggesting an eternal created material world, which would imply (though they did not explicitly affirm that to my knowledge) the possibility of eternal recurrence.

 

[Philip]

As far as I recall without checking, yes.

This is why I say they deny the Incarnation, or at least the Nicene understanding of it. (Of course we have to rely largely on the defenders of Nicea since there are few records of the council itself.) Athanasius and company believed that the Christ's human body is without end since it is joined to his eternal divinity. As a result, the resurrected human body would be without end in the time to come. Denying the everlasting body of humans is denying the everlasting human body of Christ. This is turn denies the Incarnation.

Although it gets complicated in that some of them followed Averroes and Aristotle in suggesting an eternal created material world, which would imply (though they did not explicitly affirm that to my knowledge) the possibility of eternal recurrence.

Fair enough. I'm not sure how to interpret this in light of Nicea. If eternal means without beginning and without end, it would be completely foreign to both sides as both assumed creation ex nihilio and that only God was eternal. If eternal means only without end, then it is likely to be acceptable post-Incarnation. Recurrence is likely problematic.

 

[mrmandias]

Fair enough. I'm not sure how to interpret this in light of Nicea. If eternal means without beginning and without end, it would be completely foreign to both sides as both assumed creation ex nihilio and that only God was eternal. If eternal means only without end, then it is likely to be acceptable post-Incarnation. Recurrence is likely problematic.

Material creation doesn't have to have a beginning in time to be created under the conventional Nicene understanding.

 

[Falecius]

This is why I say they deny the Incarnation, or at least the Nicene understanding of it. (Of course we have to rely largely on the defenders of Nicea since there are few records of the council itself.) Athanasius and company believed that the Christ's human body is without end since it is joined to his eternal divinity. As a result, the resurrected human body would be without end in the time to come. Denying the everlasting body of humans is denying the everlasting human body of Christ. This is turn denies the Incarnation.



Fair enough. I'm not sure how to interpret this in light of Nicea. If eternal means without beginning and without end, it would be completely foreign to both sides as both assumed creation ex nihilio and that only God was eternal. If eternal means only without end, then it is likely to be acceptable post-Incarnation. Recurrence is likely problematic.

In the Averroist understanding (as far as I grasp it) a human body without end would be nonsense, so clearly the Athanasian interpretation of the Incarnation would not be acceptable to them I think (I am not sure if any of them ever wrote on the topic, since the Trinitarian and Christological debates were long settled by then).
They did not subscribe to creation ex nihilo at least not in terms of temporal creation. As far as I understand (and I may be mistaken) they understood the universe to have no beginning in time, but to be eternally caused by an eternal God - of course, this eternity means only indefinite duration in time - the universe remains contingent and caused.

 

[CalBear]

Rather than police what look to become a rather unfortunate debate involving religion, I'm just going to shut this down having been a dead thread.