Quick question to EU’s: does Gehenna/the Lake of Fire/the “second death” destroy the body the way the body is destroyed in this life, thereby requiring resurrection in order to enter into eternal life?
I would say the fire of the second death (almost literally “the death of death”, which is a colorfully threatening way to describe resurrection–can’t have a resurrection of the wicked out of death and hades without a death of death-and-hades!) does not. I’m not sure I’ve heard of any Christian universalist who thinks so either, so long as they believe in a bodily resurrection at all.
The lake of fire (which I agree to be Gehenna, although I think Gehenna starts before then, too) is prefigured by fires which do destroy bodies, however–including possibly or probably spiritual fires like the one called forth by YHWH-on-the-ground from YHWH-in-heaven to zorch Sodom and Gomorrah.
Obviously that’s a very quick and undetailed answer to a quick question. 
The ultra-universalists among us would tend to agree but in a different way, of course. They wouldn’t see the post-mortem fire as punishing in any way, although maybe transformative against the will of the person. I’ll let them make that case, though. 
(God acts against the will of sinners one way or another to some very significant degree in any case.)
OK, so at least you and some others here say it is punitive and was prefigured by punitive fire which destroyed bodies?
Yes.
Although (as you may recall from the debate) I don’t think the fire is purely punitive, only its operation in this regard. I consider the fire ultimately to be the Holy Spirit Himself, the 3rd Person of God. The salvific (including purgative) operations of the Holy Spirit as fire are also prefigured occasionally in the scriptures in more natural or poetic fashions.
You may also recall in my debate with TFan–(“Theopologetics” is Chris Date, who moderated our debate, for those who don’t know or remember)–that I argued Saint Paul was referencing a prophecy from several early chapters of Isaiah when describing the coming second advent of Christ in 2 Thess 1:9, and that this prophecy includes defeated rebels humbly reconciling with the righteous (who are called the survivors in distinction from the rebels) under God and being very explicitly purged by God’s fire and judgment as part of their salvation. Their bodies aren’t destroyed (again) by the eschatological fire; the fire of God cleans them from their filth and saves them from sin (although not without their express cooperation.)
I haven’t forgotten, and we can talk about that another time. I want to understand something, though. Destruction was the punishment meted out upon Sodom by God’s fire, yes?
By the way, Chris’ most recent podcast was an interview with Dr. Larry Dixon who argued ECT vs annihilation. A quick way to find both parts of that interview (episodes 63 and 64) would be to click here, which collects all the posts on Chris’ main blog that deal with anni (pro or con).
I haven’t listened to the interview yet, so I have no idea whether universalism is mentioned along the way.
I’d say “Yes.”
Sonia
That was the immediate result at least, I’d agree. Nor do I think it inherently unreasonable to consider that event an enacted parable (so to speak) of coming annihilation–even though those souls were not (yet) annihilated, and are slated for resurrection (if before annihilation), if the bodily resurrection of the wicked as well as the good is true.
(I can’t help but hear Max Von Sydow as Ming the Merciless growling “…before annihilation” in the prologue to the 80s Flash Gordon movie whenever I type that phrase. 
Beside the point, but personally amusing.)
Whether the eventual spiritual annihilation of Sodom, or its eventual salvation and restoration and reconciliation with (for example) destroyed rebel Samaria and rebel Israel, after the coming of the Day of YHWH, fits the overall scriptural narrative, is a further question, of course.
OK, so is destruction a punishment meted out after the resurrection?
I’m not trying to debate (yet), just asking exploratory questions for understanding.
I would say yes in various ways (though ultra-universalists would say no. Or not destruction as punishment anyway.)
Destruction, including in eschatological figuration, is definitely not annihilation in at least some cases. If Sodom is appealed to as an enacted parable of what eschatological destruction entails, I can appeal to the parable of the prodigal son as an enacted parable of what eschatological destruction entails. The application is directly invited by the moral, “He was dead but now he lives; he was destroyed but now is found.” (The word used for ‘lost’ there is the same as used for ‘destroyed’. Also in the parable of the lost coin and the lost sheep, btw.)
I’ve not found any of these other uses of the word translated “destroyed” or “lost” to be any challenge to annihilationism; in fact, I think they support it. But I want to table that, because as I said, I’m not trying to debate at this point, just gain understanding.
So, although some here would not agree, you would agree that destruction is a punishment meted out after the resurrection. What, then, is it that is destroyed (or “lost” or “ruined”)?
I’m curious to see how Jason will answer this!
For me … I wonder if the details of that destruction matter? I’d answer very generally and say “the man himself” is destroyed. But what that exactly means is another thing. The potter forms the pot, then crushes it, destroying it, and makes it anew. What that means in the case of the resurrected man, may perhaps be too far beyond us to understand except in principle. (Sorry if that seems like a cop-out!) But I think of it as the destruction of something the man thinks is “himself” – perhaps what he has made himself into by his choices. It is the corrupt, diseased thing the man values as “himself” which is other than what his creator would have him to be.
We must all die before we can be raised in the likeness of Christ – not just physically, I think, but everything that is “us” that is less than righteous.
Sonia
I would be at least technically curious to see how the usage of “destroyed/lost” in the parables of the prodigal son, and the 100th sheep/10th coin, support annihilationism (considering that in each case the destroyed/lost thing is saved after being destroyed/lost). But be that as it may.
(i.e., I could understand someone claiming such examples are not really a problem for annihilation due to variances in context, although I would dispute that; but to claim those examples themselves support anni, seems quite another thing. But hey, I have unexpected arguments for numerous ECT prooftexts supporting Kath soteriology, too, so I can’t say I ought to just disregard the possibility! 
)
Like Sonia, and most of us here (including the ultra-kaths in their own way), I find the sinful man to be lost/destroyed/ruined, and then the sinful nature afterward (with the man being restored to righteousness).
My exegetical argument for 2 Thess 1:9 from Isaiah 2-5, features this concept, for example: the completely ruined sinners are raised up again after being ruined, but not to the sort of esteem they previously held in their rebellious pride. The serpent from the garden eventually eats dust living in peace on God’s holy mountain; do not lift up doers of injustice again to the place they were before, for in what should man be esteemed; etc.
Their sin, in other words, is eventually destroyed to the extent of permanent annihilation (as is their sinful identity per se); but the persons themselves are destroyed only to the extent of being lost, not beyond recovery. (Ultra-kaths would agree with that, too; we disagree among ourselves about procedural details, so to speak.)
This has some relevance to the thread I created for Paul Manata’s article against a universalistic deployment of already/not-yet theology in interpreting 1 Cor 15 and Col 1, by the way.
As I said, we can table the annihilationism discussion for now.
OK, so let me see if I understand. The person–both body and soul?–is lost/destroyed/ruined, but remains bodily alive (not requiring resurrection) and conscious (not a disembodied one), and thus capable of repenting. And it is this destruction/ruination that is punitive (in your view). On the other hand, the “sinful nature” is permanently annihilated, but that is not punitive.
Is that fair?
And of course Jesus came to seek and save the lost (same word appolumi)
I would replace “not requiring resurrection” with “after the resurrection”, as well as clarify some other things.
So: the impenitent sinner, both body and soul, is lost/destroyed/ruined, in the first death, but remains spiritually alive (not resurrected yet, much less resurrected to eonian life, but conscious in a disembodied state), and thus is capable of repenting. (Note: aside from the last clause, these points are widely agreed to by Calvs and Arms both, I think, aside from proponents of soul sleep, of whom we also have some, and on which topic I am moderately agnostic. Soul sleep doesn’t much change the overall process here, though.)
The impenitent sinner, who has been lost/destroyed/ruined, is eventually resurrected in the body, not to eonian life but to further (and eonian) punishment in the lake of fire. This is the second death. (Note: also widely agreed to by Calvs and Arms both, even where they are annihilationists. I.e., the annihilation doesn’t happen until after the bodily resurrection of the wicked.)
While the sinners do not (yet) have eonian life, they do have spiritual as well as bodily existence (by the grace of God, i.e. conditionally not in inherent self-existence), and are still capable of repentance. (Note: some Arms would agree with the final clause, although they would say God won’t accept any such repentance anymore. Annihilationists would have to part ways with ECT and Kath proponents here eventually, although I think some Annis affirm a continuing punishment of substantial length before annihilation.)
In resurrecting the body, God cures it of natural tendencies to sin, even though this is not yet the same as giving the person eonian life or a spiritually transformed body. Any sin henceforth is purely willful by the person. I suspect this involves reintroducing sin into the body, too, but now coming into a more direct and sensitive conflict with God’s continual action in sustaining the spirit and the body. Sin hurts the sinner more obviously in Hades, and even more obviously again in the Gehenna of the resurrection of the wicked to eonian kolasis. (Note: this all could be granted pretty easily by either Calvs or Arms, I think; and whether ECT or Anni, too.)
Eventually, in Hades (before resurrection) or Gehenna (after resurrection), the pride of the soul is spiritually pulverized, or as we translate in English “made contrite”. This would be the point where I would expect the soul to fragment under the stress of rebellion against God, if I was annihilationistic. Instead I expect God acts to keep the spirit in existence in Gehenna, as He does in Hades, or even now when before death He acts to bring our souls to contrition!
The result is that the person is led to repent of their sins and to begin cooperating with God. The punishment was instrumental to this goal, and will cease as such when the goal is attained (although mutually cooperative disciplining may very well continue.)
The permanent (or where it continues to be instigated, the continuing) annihilation of the natural sin nature is not punishment, per se, as God will do the same thing for those who receive His eonian life in communion with Him. The permanent annihilation of the sinning is punitive, where the sinning is willfully impenitent, and goes through several related kinds or stages of punishment.
The sin is hated and destroyed; the sinner is loved and saved; and God in Christ, although sinless, shares this process with the sinner instead of merely inflicting it from on high.
I’m really glad you asked the question here too, as many others here are much more knowledgable than me.
Chris is pretty awesome. 
Personally, I think he and Paul Manata (also pretty awesome) should team up–even though their leaning-toward-Anni vs. solid ECT propensities (Chris and PaulM respectively) would conflict.