Sunday, September 25, 2011
Debate Announcement - Conditionalism Debate
Lord willing, I will be debating Ronnie of Consuming Fire on the topic of what he calls "Conditionalism" (Debate announcement and chance to submit "audience questions" here.), which evidently holds to the idea that those in hell will eventually be consumed by the fire there (leading others to describe it as "annihilationism").
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
63 comments:
TF, I pray that you do well in that debate. I am sure you will nail him with Dan. 12:2, Matt. 25:41; 46 and Revelation 20:10-15. Much of the arguments by " conditionalist " are emotionalism based by and large . This blinds them to the Biblical date on this matter and it will show when dealing with things like the word " eternal " or " everlasting " and " forever and ever " . A useful book to help prepare for your up coming debate would be the book Four Views On Hell with William Crockett as General Editor. The book is less than 200 pages. The replies of John Walvoord and William Crockett againist Pinnock on conditionalism is most helpful and points out the major flaws in the conditionalist arguments. I can't wait to be able to listen to the debate .
ChaferDTS: I am just curious as to whether or not you've read anything from the "conditionalist" side? If all you've encountered, is Pinnock's contribution to the Four Views book you mentioned, than I can certainly understand your comment that, "Much of the arguments by " conditionalists " are emotionalism based by and large". Pinnock tends to get into emotional arguments and comes off somewhat 'shrill' from time to time. I thought Walvoord's contribution was quite small in that book as compared to the other 3. I was pretty disappointed with it's brevity.
There are actually some really good works out there based primarily in Scripture arguing for the doctrine of conditionalism. You may not agree with the conclusions but they are worthy of the investment in time and money.
Hi, ChaferDTS. I'm Chris, host of the podcast on which TFan will be debating Ronnie.
I want to concur with Jonathan. I am not fully convinced of annihilationism, but am leaning that way, and it's not in the least for any emotional reasons. Quite the contrary: not only am I comfortable with the idea of eternal conscious torment, but what discomfort I do feel is with the idea of affirming annihilationism and having ministry doors closed to me as a result--which I hope we'll agree is not in and of itself a good reason to reject a view.
I am leaning toward annihilationism for primarily two reasons. First, I've found the traditionalist arguments against it--including the ones to which you've referred--very weak, and they leave me doubting that traditionalism has much biblical support. Second, I've found the exegetical arguments in favor of annihilationism compelling.
If you haven't listened to my interview with Edward Fudge, I recommend checking it out. You may not agree with Fudge, but I think you'll find that his arguments were not appeals to emotion at all, and he had reasoned, exegetical responses (even if they were incorrect) to all of my traditionalist objections. Also, I'm scheduled to interview Larry Dixon a week from today, author of The Other Side of the Good News, who is one outspoken critic of annihilationism and with whom Edward Fudge interacts in the 3rd edition of his book. Both interviews should serve to nicely set the stage for TFan vs. Ronnie :)
By the way, TFan, the reason he calls it "conditionalism" is because he and those like him believe that the immortality of the human soul is conditional upon God's keeping it in existence. He and some others prefer that term over "annihilationism" because many people think of the Jehovah's Witness doctrine when they hear the word, which is considerably different from Fudge's and Ronnie's (and Stott's and Pinnock's and others'). What's more, they often think of an instantaneous vanishing out of existence when they think of the word "annihilation," which is not what annihilationists contend. For these reasons (and perhaps others), they prefer "conditionalism" or "conditional immortality" to "annihilationism."
In any case, I can't wait for the debate. I'm going to try and present you both with as challenging questions as possible. Thanks so much for your willingness to do this. If you read my response to Fred Butler in the other debate announcement on your blog, you'll see why.
"ChaferDTS: I am just curious as to whether or not you've read anything from the "conditionalist" side? If all you've encountered, is Pinnock's contribution to the Four Views book you mentioned, than I can certainly understand your comment that, "Much of the arguments by " conditionalists " are emotionalism based by and large". Pinnock tends to get into emotional arguments and comes off somewhat 'shrill' from time to time.'
Yes I have over the years. Much of it were from Adventist and Jehovah Wittnesses who embrace conditionalism. Also from discussions on message boards from those who do hold to it who were not Adventist or JW's . Much of their arguments most often can be used againist the death of Jesus on the cross for our sins and they fail to see that or do not want to. Basically they were not being consistant with their own arguments. In all my discussions they really did not want to hear what I had to say. Over all, I did not feel Pinnock proved his case exegetically which is the most important issue for me. The method of interpretation plays a key role in finding out what Scripture teaches on it.
" I thought Walvoord's contribution was quite small in that book as compared to the other 3. I was pretty disappointed with it's brevity. "
Each of them had space limitations. Walvoord and each of them met that in each of their sections. When they wrote their parts I dont think they were thinking of how many pages to write but to rather present their own arguments and proof with the core issues. Walvoord was direct and right to the point which is the most important thing. He dealt with the essential issues involved. It is it's quality that is most important and it's exegetical basis for his position. The issue is reduced to the meaning of the words " eternal " , " everlasting " and " tormented " in relationship between the contrast between the elect and the non-elect with respect to where they will go and their respective states in each of them. This is where the method of interpretation becomes an issue.
"There are actually some really good works out there based primarily in Scripture arguing for the doctrine of conditionalism. You may not agree with the conclusions but they are worthy of the investment in time and money. "
I am aware of what they will say of each of the biblical text involved. To my knowledge many of those books come from Adventist who defend that position. I have seen some of them. At this point they wont ever convince me of their position. That is based from my own reading of Scripture and finding out the proper meaning of the key words involved in the discussion and their consistant use relating to each state regarding the elect and non-elect. It is really a manner of our own principle method of interpretation of which we use.
Hi Chris. Thank you for being the one to host the debate TF will be part of . I look forward to listening to the debate in the future. And I am very glad for that debate to take place so each side can state their case and offer a rebuttle to one another. The best way to deal with this issue is to find out the meaning of the words " eternal " , " everlasting " and " tormented " and see how they are used with respect to the elect and non-elect with respect to their respective states in the same context. Basically eternal and everlasting must have the same meaning in context when the words are used together when contrasting the elect and non-elect in the various contextual circumstances. Most often from my dealings with conditionalist they change what it means with the non-elect have have it mean " temporal punishment " . While having it mean unending bliss for the elect. Which each in conscienceness that is eternal starting at the point they enter their respective states. I wish you well in your interview. :) I get no joy at all of knowing that the non elect will be eternally tormented in the lake of fire one day. But I had to base my belief in it because that is what I see Scripture as teaching exegetically. I wont use my own personal feelings cause me to reject something I see in Scripture. As a Christian I am responsible to affirm what is taught in Scripture regardless of my own personal feelings about it. Takecare and God bless you.
Well I suppose I should drop in and say hello. Tfan, thanks for taking this debate. From what I can see here you are a skilled communicator and it looks like I'll have my hands full.
Minor correction to Chris's definition of conditionalism; "immortality of the human soul is conditional upon God's keeping it in existence." Most Christians would be conditionalists in that regard. The conditionalist's claim is more narrow, viz. that immortality is conditioned upon faith in Christ.
Fair enough, Ronnie. That's a good point, and I apologize for the misrepresentation.
You're very welcome. I, too, look forward to the debate because I'm hoping TFan can identify where the annihilationist exegesis I find so compelling goes wrong.
I haven't seen annihilationists treat "eternal" or "everlasting" any differently with respect to the non-elect than they do the elect. Edward Fudge points out that "eternal salvation," "eternal redemption" and "eternal sin" are all phrases used in the NT to describe the duration of that which results from an action that takes place at a point in time, since presumably (and I would agree) the saved do not go on being saved for eternity, the redeemed do not go on being redeemed for eternity, and the "eternal sin" refers to a sin at a point in time which will never be forgiven. So an annihilationist does not change "eternal punishment" to "temporal punishment," they argue that the punishment is eternal because it is a permanent, eternal destruction (2 Thess. 1:9).
So, the annihilationist says, just as the duration of the life is eternal, so, too, is the duration of the punishment. The problem is, most Christians (including myself until recently) think of punishment as suffering. The duration of a punishment could not be eternal, one might be tempted to think, unless the one is around to experience punishing. If, on the other hand, as annihilationists contend, the punishment is to be destroyed, then the punishment is eternal because the thing destroyed never comes back. I don't think this treats "eternal" differently for one group than for the other, and I don't think it's difficult to conceive of the punishment as being destroyed, rather than suffering.
But we'll see how TFan and Ronnie do. In the meantime, I lean toward annihilationism for the same reason you gave as the reason why you hold to the traditional view: because as much as I might prefer to affirm eternal conscious torment because of the doors it will leave open for me, I can't let my own personal feelings cause me to reject something I see in Scripture, which seems to be annihilationism.
Hi Chris. I am listening to the program right now. :) I am listening very carefully to the " conditionalist " on the program.
Great! I apologize in advance if you feel I didn't challenge Edward Fudge hard enough. I only had a limited amount of time and tried to level every challenge to his view I could find (I've since found one or two more), but it was an interview, not a debate, and I couldn't go back and forth even where I might not have agreed with him. By the way, I'm curious, why did you put "conditionalist" in quotes? Would you have put "annihilationist" in quotes, had you chosen to use that word instead?
ChaferDTS, may I ask you three interrelated questions?
1) Are Christians eternally being saved? See Hebrews 5:9
2) Are Christians eternally being redeemed? See Hebrews 9:12
3) Are those who committed the unforgiveable sin eternally sinning? See Mark 3:29
I ask because the bulk of your comment above suggests you think it is not possible to call a punishment eternal if it consists of a one-time irreversible act. Yet, each of these three phrases--"eternal salvation," "eternal redemption" and "eternal sin"--seem to describe one-time, irreversible acts.
"One concern I have with conditionalism is that it is usually held in connection with the doctrine of soulsleeep."
Some annihilationists are physicalists or monists, a view sometimes referred to as "soul sleep," but not all of them are. I think it is best to debate annihilationism on its merits, and not on the merits of physicalism/monism, unless it can be shown that the former inescapably leads to the latter.
"ChaferDTS, may I ask you three interrelated questions? "
Alright.
"1) Are Christians eternally being saved? See Hebrews 5:9"
The verse is teaching that Jesus by His death provides eternal forgiveness of sins whereas animal sacrifices could not. Christians are forever perfected by His work. Eternal salvation is the duration and the quality of this spiritual life. The word salvation used there means the deliverance for sin in relation to the forgiveness of their sins.
"2) Are Christians eternally being redeemed? See Hebrews 9:12"
The text stated " having obtained eternal redemption. Jesus by His death on the cross dealt with past, present and future sins by his one act of death on the cross. This has in view its redemption as applied to God's elect people of who have spiritual life by it. The word redemption refers to the act of freeing by payment of a ransom price.
"3) Are those who committed the unforgiveable sin eternally sinning? See Mark 3:29 "
It states those who commited this sin will never have forgiveness and has eternal condemnation. This specific sin was only commited by those during the ministry of Jesus Christ as indicated by the context of the passage of whom Jesus was speaking. The unforgiveable sin is saying Jesus did his mircales by an unclean spirit. That specific sin can not take place now since Jesus is physically in heaven and not presently on the earth. I will concede that there are other views on this specific sin.
"I ask because the bulk of your comment above suggests you think it is not possible to call a punishment eternal if it consists of a one-time irreversible act. Yet, each of these three phrases--"eternal salvation," "eternal redemption" and "eternal sin"--seem to describe one-time, irreversible acts. "
The idea of being " tormented " forever and ever would naturally of necessity conclude to be tormented such a person would have to have a conscious existence in the lake of fire. That is based on my own study and reading of Revelation 20:10. If once ceases to exist as conditionalist appear to believe then such punishment has ceased since that person would no longer be around. If they cease to exist there is no way to be tormented as the text states will happen. For each of those things it must be viewed in context to understand what each of those passages teaches. :) Eternal salvation, eternal redemption shows the quality and nature of the work of Jesus. The text does not state " eternal sin " but rather says eternal condemnation. That shows the eternal quality and duration of that spiritual death and wrath of God on such person who in the ministry of Jesus who commited that specific sin.
"Some annihilationists are physicalists or monists, a view sometimes referred to as "soul sleep," but not all of them are. I think it is best to debate annihilationism on its merits, and not on the merits of physicalism/monism, unless it can be shown that the former inescapably leads to the latter. "
I consider soulsleep and conditionalism as unbiblical. I usually discuss those issue seperately but I always noticed that they usually go together with those who I discussed this on. But like I said those people were either Adventist or Jehovah Wittnesses. I would not want to paint all who hold to conditionalism to that but is just a pattern I noticed on it. I usually deal with those issues seperately anyway.
"The word salvation used there means the deliverance for sin in relation to the forgiveness of their sins."
Agreed. But the act of saving was one-time. So "eternal punishment" could refer to a one-time act whose effects are likewise eternal, could it not?
"The word redemption refers to the act of freeing by payment of a ransom price."
Ehhhhhhhhhxactly. Redemption is a one-time act by Jesus, but it is called "eternal" because it eternally frees us from our sin based on the once-paid ransom price. So "eternal punishment" could refer to a one-time act called "eternal" because that which is destroyed is forever and irreversibly destroyed.
"That specific sin can not take place now since Jesus is physically in heaven and not presently on the earth. I will concede that there are other views on this specific sin."
You don't need to. I agree with you. But you're missing my point, it seems (I could be wrong). While the KJV and the manuscripts it is based upon read "eternal condemntation/damnation," modern translations based on (in many cases) more reliable manuscripts read "eternal sin." And even if the manuscripts upon which the KJV is based contain the correct original words of this verse, those erroneous manuscripts which read "eternal sin" would still demonstrate that a one-time act can be called "eternal."
If a one-time sin for which one can never, ever be forgiven can be called an "eternal sin," then it stands to reason that "eternal punishment" can refer to a destruction which can never, ever be undone.
"The idea of being " tormented " forever and ever would naturally of necessity conclude to be tormented such a person would have to have a conscious existence in the lake of fire."
That's a different argument that the one from Matthew 25:46, whose "eternal punishment," as has been demonstrated, can, it seems, refer to a one-time destruction which is forever irreversible. If you'd like to discuss Revelation we can, but I want to wrap up our discussion on Matthew 25:46 first.
"I consider soulsleep and conditionalism as unbiblical. I usually discuss those issue seperately but I always noticed that they usually go together with those who I discussed this on. But like I said those people were either Adventist or Jehovah Wittnesses. I would not want to paint all who hold to conditionalism to that but is just a pattern I noticed on it. I usually deal with those issues seperately anyway."
In our interview, Fudge admitted that he's sort of on the fence when it comes to physicalism or monism, but he cited annihilationists who are dualists and reject what you're calling "soul sleep." As such, while it is true that some annihilationists are also monists, I prefer to keep the arguments separate.
Sorry, I might have misspoken a little bit concerning the manuscript tradition of Mark 3:29. Here's a better analysis than I gave: http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2010/11-27b.html
"The Byzantine and three other old manuscripts have kriseos (judgment). Eight other manuscripts, some of equal age or older have hamartematos (sin, an act of disobedience)."
The article goes on to make the unwarranted assumption that "eternal sin" would mean "People guilty of this sin never repent and give this sin up, even in eternity." But even if one wants to make that unwarranted assumption, I'll fall back on "eternal salvation" and "eternal redemption," two one-time acts whose results were irreversible.
For what it is worth, I would offer another suggestion along with those already made in here as preparation for the coming debate?
I just listened to Jonathan Edward's sermon, reproduced on SermonAudio.com, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." The last few times listening to it brought out new insights of just what Edward's was establishing with that sermon.
I guess, from what I could gather of what followed the preached sermon, there was a whole lot of emotional reactions to it? Like a lot of light bulbs started coming on about the wrath of God and how permanent it is for those whose fate it is to end up eternally damned.
I was greatly edified by his message and an element of this Present Truth came through that sharpened my senses and just might sharpen your senses, too, some more, about the ever present reality of eternal damnation and the consequence of the error of those there or soon going there or will eventually end up there, if that is necessary?
Theopologetics,
I don't know you nor do I know much about you though I have stopped by your site.
In the comments above I would say something about these:
"...Edward Fudge points out that "eternal salvation," "eternal redemption" and "eternal sin" are all phrases used in the NT to describe the duration of that which results from an action that takes place at a point in time, since presumably (and I would agree) the saved do not go on being saved for eternity, the redeemed do not go on being redeemed for eternity, and the "eternal sin" refers to a sin at a point in time which will never be forgiven."
First, it seems the whole framework of that is wrong?
Second, I heard a recording a number of years ago, listening to Dr. J Sidlow Baxter when he was preaching at the University Baptist Church in Fayatteville Ark. touching on the "eternals" in Scripture. He asked those listening to do something. He asked that everyone start thinking backwards into eternity.
Now, after you do that for awhile, you are going to run out of human knowledge of history and then some and supposedly you, too, will be affected just as emotionally as anyone is who does that, one who starts thinking backwards into eternity?Questions like, "when" was the very first angel "created"? Who was that angel? When was "Satan" created and why did God permit him to fall off the proverbial wagon taking down multitude of angels with him?
At some point, I hope an "eternal" wisdom will dawn on you?
Here's a verse that just cuts to the chase, so to speak and should put some of the agony of the inability to think backwards into eternity to sleep?
Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.
The only thing I suppose one can conclude is what is concluded there, that God has placed eternity into man's heart for one specific purpose. If I am catching up with this "eternal purpose, it thus is requiring the "Elect" man to just live by His Faith and enter into His Sabbath rest now in this life's journey and into truly Holy Spirit filled fellowship with these Three Who are One now and into the coming eternity?
Baxter made this point about that experiment. He said, [my paraphrase], consider this, we were never "created" to think backwards into eternity. No, we were created to think, do, see and act forward going headlong triumphantly into Eternity through Christ by One Spirit!
Rom 5:17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Second, highlighting just one bit of the citation above, "...the saved do not go on being saved for eternity, the redeemed do not go on being redeemed for eternity, ...", I would point to a verse that seems to conclude otherwise:
Rev 22:2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
What say you? Seeing we both would agree there will be no "sickness" in the New Heavens and New Earth; and there certainly has never been any sickness in the Eternal Heaven, what do you say to those words underlined there? Answer me this, if you can, what does it mean then that the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations?
"First, it seems the whole framework of that is wrong?"
I don't know about that. As I explained to ChaferDTS, "eternal salvation" in Hebrews 5:9, "eternal redemption" in Hebrews 9:12 and "eternal sin" in Mark 3:29 all seem to speak of the permanent, irreversible impact of a one-time action. "Eternal punishment" would seem to be no different.
"Second, I heard a recording a number of years ago, listening to Dr. J Sidlow Baxter when he was preaching at the University Baptist Church in Fayatteville Ark. touching on the "eternals" in Scripture. He asked those listening to do something. He asked that everyone start thinking backwards into eternity..."
Please forgive me, Natamlle, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make in the paragraphs that follow.
"Second, highlighting just one bit of the citation above, "...the saved do not go on being saved for eternity, the redeemed do not go on being redeemed for eternity, ...", I would point to a verse that seems to conclude otherwise:
Rev 22:2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
What say you? Seeing we both would agree there will be no "sickness" in the New Heavens and New Earth; and there certainly has never been any sickness in the Eternal Heaven, what do you say to those words underlined there? Answer me this, if you can, what does it mean then that the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations?"
I really don't think we want to go the route of saying we go on need saving and redeeming throughout eternity. What's more, to suggest that we need healing of anything is to suggest that we haven't been raised incorruptible and imperishable (1 Cor. 15). I really honestly believe few orthodox evangelical Christians are going to suggest that this verse means we are constantly being healed, let alone constantly being saved or redeemed.
We need to remember that Revelation is an apocalyptic vision. The prophets of old all used very vivid, metaphorical imagery when the prophesied. Yes, that imagery represented something, but that which it represented was not identical to the imagery used. The same is true here. After all, John says in Revelation 12:1 that he saw "a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet." Do you think this meant there was literally a woman standing on the moon, with the sun hanging off her back like a cloak? Can you imagine the kind of sunscreen she would have needed, let alone the havoc that would wreak on our planet? Clearly this is a symbol that represents something, and there are countless examples of this in Revelation.
So in 22, John is shown (and is showing us) a picture of a tree whose fruit provides healing for the nations. We aren't called to take that literally. John is hearkening back to the perfection of God's originally created order, the garden of Eden in which the original tree of life had been planted. That original tree would have kept Adam and Eve alive, but in incorruptible, imperishable resurrection bodies (1 Cor. 15) we won't need a tree to keep us alive. John is just reminding us of the wonder and innocence of God's original creation--and then goes on to explain how much MORE glorious it will be, God dwelling among us.
So no, I think the message of Christianity is incompatible with the idea that we will eternally be being saved, being redeemed.
I agree that "the creature will never be able to maintain their existence 'separated' from [God]." This fits very well with annihilationism. I don't think it fits quite as well with the traditional view of hell, but a traditionalist could say that being separated from God does not mean God isn't preserving their existence. After all, we're born separated from God and yet we exist in this life. So although this arguably fits a little less well with traditionalism than annihilationism, it certainly doesn't support universalism.
Even if we take the healing fruit of the tree to mean we are totally dependent upon God, it doesn't follow that we are eternally being saved or eternally being redeemed, and thus "eternal salvation" and "eternal redemption" remain a challenge, I think, to those who insist "eternal punishment" cannot refer to a one-time punishing which is eternally irreversible.
Chris, I have a few verses from the Old Testament I want to ask you about. You have probably already responded to these verses on your blog or podcast. If so, rather than take your time here, if you could direct me to the links where you have interacted with these verses, that would be great.
Ezekiel 32:21 From within the realm of the dead the mighty leaders will say of Egypt and her allies, ‘They have come down and they lie with the uncircumcised, with those killed by the sword.’
So we have unsaved people speaking while ‘in the realm of the dead.’ These people are apparently conscious and not annihilated.
Ezekiel 32: 30-31 30 “All the princes of the north and all the Sidonians are there; they went down with the slain in disgrace despite the terror caused by their power. They lie uncircumcised with those killed by the sword and bear their shame with those who go down to the pit.
31 “Pharaoh—he and all his army—will see them and he will be consoled for all his hordes that were killed by the sword, declares the Sovereign LORD.
So some people in this place are bearing shame, which would require conscious existence. And Pharaoh sees and is consoled, while in the realm of the dead. Apparently Pharaoh continues to be conscious, though he experienced physical death.
The only way I could see these verses fitting into a conditionalist framework is to treat them as describing the intermediate state. Perhaps God allows the unregenerate to continue existing in the intermediate state, until the final judgment, when he annihilates them. In that way these unsaved dead people could be speaking, seeing, bearing shame, and being consoled. Is that your understanding?
Also, Daniel 12:2: Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
This I would have trouble fitting into a conditionalist understanding of the afterlife. If a person is annihilated, how does he experience ‘everlasting contempt?’ If the passage simply said ‘shame and contempt,’ we might assume that meant shame and contempt for the duration of the intermediate state, until annihilation at the final judgment. But ‘everlasting’ contempt? How does one experience that if there is no existence?
Thanks,
John Stebbe
Hi, John! Remember, I'm not an annihilationist yet, even if I'm leaning that way, so I'll answer how I think an annihilationist would answer but you might get a different answer from someone fully on board the conditionalist train.
I think the passages from Ezekiel are clearly metaphorical. Even if I reach a point where I once again comfortably affirm the traditional view of hell, I'll still say these are symbolic, and obviously so. But even if I didn't, as you point out, at best these support the intermediate state, not the eternal one.
Daniel 12:2 is addressed in my interview with Edward Fudge. I spent a whole hour challenging him with the best (and a couple of the worst) traditionalist arguments against conditionalism, this one included. I would encourage you to listen if you haven't already.
In the meantime, let me just show you the exact question I've sent to Larry Dixon, a traditionalist author whom I'll be interviewing in about a week and a half:
"19. You write that “one might grant for argument’s sake that man is not naturally endowed with immortality…[but] the Bible clearly speaks of the existence of the wicked after death.” You make the claim that Daniel 12:2’s “everlasting contempt” “assumes the continuing existence of the objects of God’s hatred,” and in the past I would have agreed. But the Hebrew word translated “contempt” is also used in Isaiah 66:24, not to describe an emotion experienced by the contemptuous, but to describe dead bodies as being “abhorrent” or “loathsome” to those who remain alive. Does the “everlasting contempt” to which the wicked will rise really assume they continue to exist?"
So you see, I think it's *possible* that shame and contempt do not describe the emotional experience of the wicked, but rather how they're eternally remembered.
Hmm. Here are some thoughts of mine which present themselves as I am reading your post, Chris.
Leaving aside whether the Ezekiel passages refer to eternal hell or the intermediate state, why are they so obviously metaphorical?
Regarding 'everlasting contempt,' you say that this refers to the attitude of the redeemed toward the memory of the wicked. I suppose you would need to conclude that, given conditionalist assumptions. Traditionalists, on the other hand, can see the 'everlasting contempt' as both the reaction of the redeemed towards the wicked and the experience of the wicked as they are held in contempt everlastingly. Must we restrict the meaning of 'everlasting contempt' to only one side of that coin?
About Isaiah 66:24, God's people loath the dead bodies, in a similar way that God's people will hold the wicked in everlasting contempt, it seems you are saying. So contempt could be the attitude of others towards the dead, rather than the experience of the wicked. I would grant that, but would also ask again, why must it be one or the other?
Also, in the Isaiah passage, God's people loath the dead bodies. But the dead bodies actually exist, whether or not their souls exist. So the loathing in Isaiah refers to the loathing of something real, not something which has been destroyed. So I am not convinced that Isaiah 66:24 can be used to overturn a traditionalist understanding of Daniel 12:2.
"Leaving aside whether the Ezekiel passages refer to eternal hell or the intermediate state, why are they so obviously metaphorical?"
Subjective feeling :) Plus, some of the apocalyptic imagery earlier in the passage. Additionally, as you know I've spent several episodes discussing physicalism/monism (you might be interested to know professor Scott Smith from Biola University joins me on Nov. 1st to defend dualism), and I've spent hours examining it off the air, and in all that time I've *never* seen this passage from Ezekiel used to support dualism. So I suspect many of us on either side of either debate see this as obviously metaphorical, or allegorical.
"Must we restrict the meaning of 'everlasting contempt' to only one side of that coin?"
No, and I didn't say we must. All I said was that it's possible to understand Daniel 12:2 in that way, given Isaiah 66. However, I will point out that according to blueletterbible.org, this word is used in only these two places, and in Isaiah it clearly refers not to an emotion experienced by the wicked, but something like the memory of them, or their legacy, or the emotion experienced by those who look upon them. I don't see any such contextual evidence in Daniel that it must refer to the emotion experienced by the wicked, and so I wonder if we shouldn't let the clear passage interpret the (arguably) less clear. What's more, blueletterbible.org says the word comes from a root word meaning "to repulse." If that's true, this would strengthen the conditionalist's claim that the word has nothing to do with the emotion experienced by the one who is repulsive.
"But the dead bodies actually exist, whether or not their souls exist. So the loathing in Isaiah refers to the loathing of something real, not something which has been destroyed."
Actually the wicked *have been* destroyed in that passage. They are dead, rotting bodies being eaten away by maggots (the maggots being something Jesus hearkened to when referring to the eternal state), not people being consciously tormented. And annihilationists don't say that the wicked instantaneously cease to exist, anyway.
Also, I don't see any reason why Isaiah 66:24 suggests that once those dead, rotting corpses completely decompose, they will cease being such an abhorrence. Shame and contempt are their legacy whether their bodies remain or not.
So while I appreciate that you don't find conditionalism as compelling as I do, I am convinced that Daniel 12:2 doesn't lend itself to the traditional view any more than it does conditionalism.
Another reason to take Ezekiel 32 allegorically, beyond those I gave before (is it putting more recent comments at the top?), is found in Isaiah 14. Thanks to Ronnie who pointed this out to me.
Isaiah 14:9-11 contains language similar to Ezekiel 32, depicting the spirits of the dead speaking of those made to lie down with them. But notice Isaiah 14:8 in which the TREES speak. I think it's clear that the dead speaking in Isaiah 14 is symbolic, and I don't see any reason to conclude differently of Ezekiel 32.
One more comment on Daniel 12:2 before I await your reply... While the "contempt" in "everlasting contempt" (dĕra'own) is used in only one other place, the word rendered "shame," cherpah, is used many other times. And it seems pretty often (if not very consistently) to refer, not to an emotional experience of being ashamed, but to being shameful in the eyes of others. And it is common for biblical figures and authors to plead with God to remove one's shame; that is, to be no longer shameful in the eyes of others. The more I look at this, the more I'm convinced that Daniel 12:2 doesn't really bear on the annihilationism debate, and is saying that whereas the righteous will rise to everlasting life, the wicked will rise to being forever shameful, without indicating that they will forever experience that shame.
Consider Jeremiah 49:13, which reads, "Bozrah will become an object of horror, a reproach, a ruin and a curse; and all its cities will become perpetual ruins." Notice that this is saying the cities of Bozrah will be destroyed, and in their destruction will be an object of horror, a reproach. In other words, the cities of Bozrah will be destroyed and always remembered in shame.
Thanks for the interaction, Chris. Yes, this site does appear to put the responses out of time order, for some reason.
You posted somewhere that you were reading several good books from the traditionalist position, and I am glad to know you are giving due consideration to both sides.
I was just looking at the Westminster Confession, and what it had to say about hell, and what verses the divines used as proof texts. The WC says, ". . . but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power."
The proof text given, among others, is 2 Thess. 1:9. “. . . Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power . . .”
With this passage in mind, the question I would have for a conditionalist would be this: Why is the punishment of the wicked referred to as 'everlasting' destruction? If the word 'destruction' all by itself must mean annihilation, then why modify 'destruction' with word with 'everlasting?' Wouldn't that be redundant? Is it not a more natural reading to understand 'destruction' as a form of conscious punishment, and 'everlasting' to indicate its eternal nature?
Other translations say that this ‘destruction’ will be ‘away from the presence of the Lord’ (ESV). The NIV says ‘shut out from the presence of the Lord.’ If a person is annihilated, what difference does it make what their proximity to God is? But if a person is consciously suffering for eternity, it seems to make more sense to note that such suffering will be experienced away from God’s presence.
Similar question with Matt 25:46. If it is so clear that ‘punishment’ refers to annihilation, then why modify ‘punishment’ with ‘everlasting?’ If ‘punishment’ and ‘annihilation’ are the same thing, then why tell us that this punishment is everlasting?
"Thanks for the interaction, Chris."
No, thank you! I very much appreciate discussions like these.
"Why is the punishment of the wicked referred to as 'everlasting' destruction? If the word 'destruction' all by itself must mean annihilation, then why modify 'destruction' with word with 'everlasting?' Wouldn't that be redundant? Is it not a more natural reading to understand 'destruction' as a form of conscious punishment, and 'everlasting' to indicate its eternal nature?"
No, I don't think so. An annihilationist would say that the destruction is everlasting for a very obvious reason: the destruction is permanent. If they're right, this isn't redundant, this is distinguishing that future everlasting destruction from the myriads of examples of temporary destructions which preceded it. After all, the ones being eternally destroyed were raised from the dead.
"If a person is annihilated, what difference does it make what their proximity to God is? But if a person is consciously suffering for eternity, it seems to make more sense to note that such suffering will be experienced away from God’s presence."
I know that traditionalists are fond of this argument, but as someone as of yet unconvinced of either side of the debate, I don't see why. It doesn't seem to be very compelling to me. After all, if one is permanently and utterly destroyed, he has been eternally shut out from God's presence. Alternatively, being separated from God, in whom all things have their very being, could certainly be the cause of one's permanent annihilation.
But I'm not certain that these translations have it right, anyway. Consider how the KJV renders it: "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." This reads somewhat differently from other translations, and it sounds like what is meant by "from" is that the destruction is caused by or issues forth from God's presence and glory. Thayer, for example, translates it, "destruction proceeding from the (incensed, wrathful) countenance of the Lord."
Consider Acts 3:19 which reads, "in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." The Greek is, "καιροί (times) ἀναψύξεως (refreshing) ἀπό (from) προσώπου (presence) τοῦ κυρίου (lord)." Similarly, 2 Thess. 1:9 reads, "ὄλεθρον (destruction) αἰώνιον (everlasting) ἀπὸ (from) προσώπου (presence) τοῦ κυρίου (lord)." In both cases the Greek is identical, and I seriously doubt that Acts 3:19 is saying there will be times of refreshing experienced apart from the presence of GOd. No, I think it's obvious that the refreshing will be caused by or issue from the presence of the Lord.
Likewise, then, I see no reason why annihilationists can't understand 2 Thess. 1:9 as saying that the everlasting destruction is caused by God's presence and glory.
"If it is so clear that ‘punishment’ refers to annihilation, then why modify ‘punishment’ with ‘everlasting?’ If ‘punishment’ and ‘annihilation’ are the same thing, then why tell us that this punishment is everlasting?"
I'm not sure annihilationists are saying "'punishment' and 'annihilation' are the same thing." I think they're saying annihilation is the means by which the wicked will be punished. Why modify it with "everlasting?" For the same reason I gave earlier: it is a permanent, forever irreversible destruction.
Theopologetics,
I am intrigued with your are ability to comprehend "spiritual" matters the way you do.
That may not have been a compliment.
Let me attempt skinning the cat this way, then?
Tell me your interpretation of Hebrews 6:1-2, especially the sixth point of the elementary doctrines of the Faith once delivered to the Saints?
And, if you would go to Hebrews chapter 9 and verse 14 and tell me what is literal about that verse?
I will ask you plainly. Have you ever been sprinkled with the Blood of Christ, ever?
Thanks
"That may not have been a compliment."
That's OK, I've been subjected, even here at TFan's blog (in another thread), to insults far more hurtful than this potentially backhanded compliment :)
"Tell me your interpretation of Hebrews 6:1-2, especially the sixth point of the elementary doctrines of the Faith once delivered to the Saints?"
Besides the "eternal judgement" (the sixth point), do you want my interpretation of any specific portion of this text? As far as that one, I think "eternal judgment" refers to the one-time future judgement of Rev. 20:11ff, when all the dead rise (the fifth point in Heb. 6:1-2), a permanent, irreversible judgment from which those whose names are not written in the Lamb's book of life will not escape. I certainly don't think it refers to an eternal judging, as though judgment is eternally ongoing. Whether the judgment results in an eternal punishing, or a permanent and irreversible destruction, is exactly the question I'm trying to figure out as someone on the fence between those two views.
"And, if you would go to Hebrews chapter 9 and verse 14 and tell me what is literal about that verse? I will ask you plainly. Have you ever been sprinkled with the Blood of Christ, ever?"
I think what is literal is that Jesus is the final, ultimate sacrifice for the sins of those for whom it was made, and yes, I believe that includes me. And in that sense I believe His blood covers me. Does that answer your question?
Theopologtics,
to the last question, no.
To the other, I believe the hang up is with the defining what destruction means to you and me?
Literal destruction could be rationalized in the sense of no restoration back to one's original intent; or, destruction in the sense of a long lasting ever present everlasting agony of anguish where the teeth gnaw and chatter endlessly in a place describe as a lake of fire?
I do not believe, as I heard an old woman say one day when I was going, dutifully, door to door handing out tracts and engaging in the home dwellers who wanted to engage in a discussion about Christianity, that "my life is like this book in my hand, when I turn the last page, that is it. My life is done and there is no more memory or feeling."
No, I believe eternal damnation, eternal destruction, or whatever you would us for a word to describe the "punishment", it is long lasting, never ending and you will be vividly conscious of the sorrow and grief you will bear for the rest of your eternal existence.
Define annihilation for me?
Let me ask you to consider something you may or may not have considered about the human being and what is constructed in the womb that was made by God to be replicated after conception by Adam and Eve. Do you hold that we are a four part being?
That is, we are spirit, soul, body and flesh?
Also, do you see that the flesh, or in the Greek, the "sarx" is what is perishable, dust to dust and ashes to ashes and it is this part that deteriorates back to its base elements?
"to the last question, no"
Forgive me, then. Can you be more specific? I don't want to avoid your questions, but I'm not sure what you're asking.
"No, I believe eternal damnation, eternal destruction, or whatever you would us for a word to describe the "punishment", it is long lasting, never ending and you will be vividly conscious of the sorrow and grief you will bear for the rest of your eternal existence."
Most Christians do, and I did up until not long ago. I'm trying to see where that's taught in the Bible, because those passages we've looked at here in this comments thread don't seem to say that.
"Define annihilation for me?"
The person is destroyed, body and soul. Finally, completely, and permanently. He is never again conscious, never again experiences anything at all. He is killed and never lives again, not in any sense of the word.
"Let me ask you to consider something you may or may not have considered about the human being and what is constructed in the womb that was made by God to be replicated after conception by Adam and Eve. Do you hold that we are a four part being? That is, we are spirit, soul, body and flesh?"
I believe that if traditional Christian dualism is true, spirit and soul refer to the same thing, the immaterial "part" of us, and body and flesh refer to the material part of us. So we're two parts. Some Christians say the soul and spirit are two different things, but I've never bought that.
"Also, do you see that the flesh, or in the Greek, the "sarx" is what is perishable, dust to dust and ashes to ashes and it is this part that deteriorates back to its base elements?"
Yes, as part of the first death. The question is, if we have a soul, can it, too, be destroyed? Jesus seemed to suggest that it can.
Chris, if you had not said you were still on the fence, I would assume that you were firmly in the conditionalist camp. But if you're not, then something on the traditionalist side must be keeping you from making the leap. What traditionalist arguments do you find compelling enough to keep you from choosing sides?
Theopolgetics,
hmmmmm. Ok, up until recently your view of eternal damnation, destruction, or, contempt, whichever, was traditional. Now it has changed?
Ok, why?
What study or studies or persons brought this about?
As for the Hebrews 9:14 mention, the point being, first came 9:13.
When reading the Scriptures, after the Gospel was revealed, God set up a legal system through Moses. From Abram/Abraham/Isaac/Jacob the bloodline came into being, the Son of Adam, Abraham, David, God, Jesus. During His short truncated days of human existence by the predetermined hands of ungodly men, they were still offering the blood sacrifices of lambs, rams, bulls, heifers and goats and these bloods at times, subscribed, the Priests were to sprinkle the various bloods on the altar and elsewhere for various reasons. This happened religiously.
What is different, then?
It is not as one famous artist, (in violation of the Third Commandment)depicts painted a painting of Jesus and the two criminals dying while hanging on their crosses. What you see is blood spatter on several women and others with a flow of blood coming down Jesus's brow and body and running down and dripping onto and off a young woman's mouth. That depiction does not tell the whole story of what purpose is enfolded within the meaning of Hebrews 9:14 which makes clear several things and none more important than the conclusion that we, by virtue of His real Blood and the Life it possesses now, serve the Living God, the Father, Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit. Wow! The wages of sin is death and the free gift of God is "eternal Life" in Jesus Christ Our Lord. Have you realized by the definition of Eternal Life what follows receiving this gift? And, when does it begin, after we die and go to Heaven or from now on into Heaven's Glory in Christ?
Our God is alive. His Word is active, living, powerful and it discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. It is there, also, parenthetically mentioned, where we see the division of one's soul from the spirit. No, we are indeed four parts. Of the four, only the three, the spirit, soul and body are consumed to Heaven when we are separated from our flesh so that it can go back to the earth from whence it was before the creation of Adam of it.
I will cite some verses and then wait your reply and by the way, in this sense there is no annihilation as you define it:
1Co 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1Co 15:46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
1Co 15:49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
1Co 15:50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Theopologetics,
where does Jesus "seem" to suggest that our soul can be destroyed?
What gave you the impression I was firmly in the conditionalist camp?
What's keeping me from making the leap is, quite simply, tradition. The earliest Christians writing after the close of the canon used biblical language, which language both sides of the debate claim supports their view. Then, in the second century, Greek converts to Christianity began using the language of eternal conscious torment. And it's been the dominant view ever since. I want to take time and care to make sure what it is I think the Bible says before I affirm something contrary to what has been the majority Christian report for nearly 2,000 years.
Matthew 10:28
"hmmmmm. Ok, up until recently your view of eternal damnation, destruction, or, contempt, whichever, was traditional. Now it has changed? Ok, why? What study or studies or persons brought this about?"
It has changed in the sense that I'm no longer convinced, and am finding myself leaning toward (but not convinced of) annihilationism. This is largely due to the work of Dr. Glenn Peoples and Edward Fudge.
"Have you realized by the definition of Eternal Life what follows receiving this gift? And, when does it begin, after we die and go to Heaven or from now on into Heaven's Glory in Christ?"
Forgive me, Nat, but I have no idea what you're getting at. I thought we were discussing the fate of the wicked, not the redeemed.
"No, we are indeed four parts. Of the four, only the three, the spirit, soul and body are consumed to Heaven when we are separated from our flesh so that it can go back to the earth from whence it was before the creation of Adam of it."
No, this isn't biblical at all. The Bible knows no distinction between body and flesh. Some Christians think "soul" and "spirit" are two different immaterial components of man, and thus say man is comprised of three parts: soul, spirit, and body/flesh. But most Christians reject that as well, for a traditional dualism of soul/spirit and body/flesh.
Besides, the Bible never says the spirit, soul and body are consumed to heaven, abandoning the flesh to the earth. That's made up out of thin air.
"I will cite some verses and then wait your reply and by the way, in this sense there is no annihilation as you define it."
That's because 1 Corinthians 15 is talking only about believers.
"What gave you the impression I was firmly in the conditionalist camp?"
I get that impression because none of the classical Biblical defenses of eternal hell seem to have any persuasive power for you.
So there are no Scriptures which make you think, "Hmm, maybe the traditionalist view is correct?"
How about Revelation 14:11? " . . . And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”
"I get that impression because none of the classical Biblical defenses of eternal hell seem to have any persuasive power for you."
Yeah, but I don't think it necessarily follows that I am firmly in the conditionalist camp. I suspect even some firm traditionalists would agree that I've shown how those passages don't clearly support their position.
"So there are no Scriptures which make you think, "Hmm, maybe the traditionalist view is correct?""
None so far, though I'm very much hoping to be shown some.
"How about Revelation 14:11?"
In Isaiah 34:10, the destruction of Edom results in fire which rises forever and ever, and what is being communicated is the finality of its destruction. It seems to me that this imagery in Revelation and Isaiah comes from Genesis 19 in which Abraham sees Sodom the day after it was utterly destroyed, smoke rising from its ashes.
As for "day and night," as Fudge writes, "Beale is a Greek scholar and he concurs with our explanation of this symbol, saying, 'There will be no rest as long as the duration of the suffering continues.' (Alas! Beale insists that the suffering continues forever, which is not our view.)" And, "Edom's fire [in Isaiah 34:10] would not be limited to a day shift or a night shift; it burned in the daytime and in the nightime. But when it had consumed all that was there, it went out; and then its smoke ascended as a memorial to God's thorough destruction."
In light of Isaiah 34:10, I find annihilationism compatible with, if not supported by, Revelation 14:11.
Jesus does not suggest but clearly states the soul is destroyed... in hell
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
The word " destroy " there means the lose of well being. It does not mean cease to exist. The unregenerate will forever be ruined in hell or the lake of fire. In it they forever will be away from the love , grace and mercy of God. They will be in a conscience state forever in it under the punishment of God Himself.
This is not true. For one, contextually it means "slay." The contrast is between those who can kill only the body but not the soul, and He who can kill both in Gehenna. For two, when the word is used in the synoptic gospels to describe what one person does to another, it consistently means something like "slay." For three, by referring to final punishment as Gehenna, a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, “valley of Hinnom,” Jesus hearkens to a place at which idol worshippers once burned up children as sacrifices to their gods. But Jeremiah 7:32 says Gehenna would become "the valley of Slaughter...The dead bodies of this people will be food for the birds of the sky and for the beasts of the earth; and no one will frighten them away.” Isaiah 30 speaks of God's fiery vengeance upon Gehenna, likening it to a funeral pyre, which is a pile of wood for burning up corpses. Isaiah 66:24 depicts the corpses of the slain wicked being irresistibly consumed by fire and maggots. Again, the context tells us, in multiple ways, that Jesus uses "destroy" here to mean "kill" or "slay."
Whether it contextually means "slay" or not, it does not mean "cease to exist."
Irrelevant. When conditionalists speak of the final non-existence of the unsaved, what we mean is that they will be killed in both body and soul in a way only the body is slain in the first death. In other words, they will be completely devoid of any kind of life, whatsoever.
The word" destroyed " does not mean non-existance. This is the point. It means the lose of well being. You have no support for conditionalism based on that word at all. You would do well if you consulted Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary Of Old and New Testament Words. You would see that there are different NT Greek words used for the very word in question. The specific NT Greek word we are dealing with is " apollumi " . The idea is not extinction but ruin, lose , not of being but of well being. In context with respect to the unregenerate in the afterlife it means their forever being separated from the love and mercy of God and having the eternal wrath of God in His judgement for sin upon them without any hope. The second death is what this is. It will be eternal. It is to be eternal physical and mental torment for those who will be in the lake of fire.
Your own " proof text " shows it does not mean non-existance or ceasing to exist. It means the lose of well being. Now where do the verses you cited show or teaches a person ceases conscience existance ? This is the point of issue.
This is false. When apollymi is used in the synoptic gospels to describe what one person does to another, it means to kill or slay. This is not to "lose" or to "ruin" or to "lose well-being;" it is to be slain. Rendered lifeless. A corpse. And contextually, that's exactly what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 10:28. Fear what only God can do to both body and soul, which man an do only to the body. What the body is in the first death, both body and soul will be in the second.
Furthermore, the idea that "destroy" or "the second death" can refer to being forever separated from the love and mercy of God and bearing His wrath is pretty ridiculous, considering that those things are true of sinners separated from God and spiritually dead in the here and now. The second death, in traditionalism, is not really a second death at all; it's merely an unbroken continuation of the state of separation from God into which we're born, albeit with some additional retributive elements like physical and spiritual torment. The second death, as the interpretation of the lake of fire imagery offered by both John and the One on the throne, makes far more sense as exactly that: after dying the first death, the unsaved are raised unto judgment and will die again, this time in both body and soul. Traditionalism cannot make sense of that.
"Irrelevant. When conditionalists speak of the final non-existence of the unsaved, what we mean is that they will be killed in both body and soul in a way only the body is slain in the first death. In other words, they will be completely devoid of any kind of life, whatsoever."
Technically, in the first death the person dies. But that death occurs when the spirit leaves the body, not when there is "no life of any kind" in the body. In fact, organ donation is possible because there is life of a variety of kinds still in the body at death.
So, (a) the soul cannot experience the "way" in which the body dies, and (b) death normally occurs prior to total cellular death. So, in multiple ways, your argument fails.
-TurretinFan
As demonstrated above, you're wrong. As for your question, no, the point of the issue is, where do any verses demonstrate that the conscience existence of the wicked in immortal bodies and souls continues forever? In my debate I proved that all such proof-texts offered by traditionalists are contextually better support for the annihilation of the wicked. Traditionalism simply has no exegetical ground on which to stand. The consisted and repeated testimony of Scripture is that the risen wicked will be executed.
"This is false. When apollymi is used in the synoptic gospels to describe what one person does to another, it means to kill or slay. This is not to "lose" or to "ruin" or to "lose well-being;" it is to be slain. Rendered lifeless. A corpse. And contextually, that's exactly what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 10:28. Fear what only God can do to both body and soul, which man can do only to the body. What the body is in the first death, both body and soul will be in the second."
a) That's a false dichotomy. Slaying is one example of loss of well-being.
b) That false dichotomy is aggravated by what is clearly an intentional filtering of the semantic range.
"Furthermore, the idea that "destroy" or "the second death" can refer to being forever separated from the love and mercy of God and bearing His wrath is pretty ridiculous, considering that those things are true of sinners separated from God and spiritually dead in the here and now."
Here and now there is common grace and the opportunity for repentance and faith.
"The second death, in traditionalism, is not really a second death at all; it's merely an unbroken continuation of the state of separation from God into which we're born, albeit with some additional retributive elements like physical and spiritual torment--unless, that is, you believe they will come to spiritual life and unity with God between the first and second deaths, which is, of course, nonsense. The second death, as the interpretation of the lake of fire imagery offered by both John and the One on the throne, makes far more sense as exactly that: after dying the first death, the unsaved are raised unto judgment and will die again, this time in both body and soul. Traditionalism cannot make sense of that."
You mean something like what the rich man suffered in hell in Jesus' example of the rich man and Lazarus.
-TurretinFan
Incorrect. Jesus explicitly says that in the first death only the body dies. What's more, as James says, it is the body without the spirit which is dead. The spirit goes on living in whatever sense the body does not. And no, a dead body does not function any longer. Organ transplants work because they're transplanted into a living body, giving life to those dead organs. We're not talking about the death of cells, we're talking about the death of bodies. As for the claim that the soul cannot experience death the way the body does, irrelevant. What it means for a body to be dead is clear: it is inanimate, like Adam's body before the breath of life was breathed into it. It is inanimate and lifeless, and this will likewise be true of the soul in the second death.
"As demonstrated above, you're wrong."
You are long on assertion, short on demonstration.
"As for your question, no, the point of the issue is, where do any verses demonstrate that the conscience existence of the wicked in immortal bodies and souls continues forever?"
This has been provided to you before. The fact that their punishment and torment will continue eternally is sufficient evidence fora reasonable person.
- TurretinFan
"That false dichotomy is aggravated by what is clearly an intentional filtering of the semantic range." It is a contextual filtering of the semantic range, unlike the illegitimate totality transfer committed by those who want to select any desired meaning out of the range and apply it here.
"You mean something like what the rich man suffered in hell in Jesus' example of the rich man and Lazarus." Which, if taken literally, was occuring to a disembodied soul in Hades apart from its slain and lifeless body, unlike the second death proposed by traditionalists which takes place in immortal bodies and souls. What's more, this can't be what is in mind in the implied "first death," since not all human beings will experience these kinds of retributive torments in Hades, and yet it is only the second death which those covered by the blood of Christ will escape, not the first.
And yet no such evidence has been presented.
"Incorrect. Jesus explicitly says that in the first death only the body dies."
That only demonstrates that Jesus is not speaking technically. Moreover, the fact that Jesus is speaking non-technically is what should alert you to the error of your ways. When he suggests that people should not fear the those who can kill the body, he refers to those who can inflict harm and pain on the body. When he talks about the soul and the body in hell, he is referring to the pain that can be inflicted there.
"What's more, as James says, it is the body without the spirit which is dead."
That proves my second point. Death is the separation of body and spirit.
"And no, a dead body does not function any longer. Organ transplants work because they're transplanted into a living body, giving life to those dead organs. We're not talking about the death of cells, we're talking about the death of bodies."
Unfortunately, this again demonstrates your failure to stick to your arguments. You claimed that a dead body is devoid of any life - but that's patently not true.
"As for the claim that the soul cannot experience death the way the body does, irrelevant."
It's relevant to your claim, "they will be killed in both body and soul in a way only the body is slain in the first death." You need to try to remember your own arguments.
"What it means for a body to be dead is clear: it is inanimate, like Adam's body before the breath of life was breathed into it. It is inanimate and lifeless, and this will likewise be true of the soul in the second death. "
It is inanimate in the sense of lacking a soul, but that sense of "lifeless" doesn't apply to souls.
- TurretinFan
"It is a contextual filtering of the semantic range, unlike the illegitimate totality transfer committed by those who want to select any desired meaning out of the range and apply it here."
a) that wouldn't be a totality transfer;
b) that's not what people are doing here; and
c) the context calls for an action, not result. Recall:
Luke 12:4
And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
The point is that there is a limit to the suffering men can impose, but that there is no limit to what God will do.
in response to: "You mean something like what the rich man suffered in hell in Jesus' example of the rich man and Lazarus."
you replied: "Which, if taken literally, was occuring to a disembodied soul in Hades apart from its slain and lifeless body, unlike the second death proposed by traditionalists which takes place in immortal bodies and souls. What's more, this can't be what is in mind in the implied "first death," since not all human beings will experience these kinds of retributive torments in Hades, and yet it is only the second death which those covered by the blood of Christ will escape, not the first. "
The idea that the second death is like the suffering of the damned before the general resurrection should not come as a surprise to you, particularly if you recognize that righteous experience paradise before the resurrection.
-TurretinFan
I agree that Luke 12:4 demonstrates that God is not limited in what He can do, unlike men. Nevertheless, we don't get to ignore the parallel in Matthew where we're told what God *will* do, namely that He will do to both body and soul what only men can do to the body, and that is "slay" or "kill" them, as per the use of apollymi throughout the synoptics when used to describe what one person does to another. Traditionalists are forced to select some other meaning out of apollymi's semantic range, which doesn't fit the context of the Matthean text, and which is not the consistent use of apollymi in the synoptics when describing what one person does to another.
As for the second death, you've missed my point. What you have posited is that what makes the second death the *second* death is that it entails torment similar to that which is presumed to take place in a disembodied state in Hades. Yet, the saved suffer the first death, too, and are promised freedom from the second death, not the first. What you've posited necessitates the disembodied torment of the saved in Hades, so that they, too, can be said to die the first death but not the second. No, both saved and unsaved suffer the first death, and only the saved escape the second. The first death, then, implied by the second, must primarily be something shared by both saved and unsaved: the death of their body, which is precisely that which traditionalism denies.
"he refers to those who can inflict harm and pain on the body" Incorrect. He refers to those who can *kill* the body, not cause it pain.
"That proves my second point. Death is the separation of body and spirit."
Presuming dualism, yes, but *that* proves *my* point, for if when they are separated in the first death the body dies, then that is the fate of both body and soul in the second, and traditionalism denies the death of both in the eternal state.
"Unfortunately, this again demonstrates your failure to stick to your arguments. You claimed that a dead body is devoid of any life - but that's patently not true." The *body* is devoid of any life when it is dead; that cells may continue to "live" in some scientific sense unknown to any author of Scripture is irrelevant. The fact is, the dead body is like the body of Adam before the breath of life was breathed into it: inanimate. Jesus says God will do this to both body and soul in Gehenna, and yet traditionalist affirm eternal, immortal, animated bodies and souls for the risen wicked.
"It's relevant to your claim, "they will be killed in both body and soul in a way only the body is slain in the first death." You need to try to remember your own arguments." And it's clear from what I've repeatedly stated that the "way" to which I referred was in the sense of being lifeless.
"It is inanimate in the sense of lacking a soul, but that sense of "lifeless" doesn't apply to souls." A completely arbitrary definition of "lifeless," and inconsistent since Jesus says God will extend lifelessness to both body and soul in Gehenna, and yet traditionalists insist that the immortal, animated bodies and souls will be forever united for the risen wicked. In other words, neither body nor soul will be lifeless in the eternal state according to traditionalists.
"That alleged inconsistency is just the result of a woodenly unreasonable hermeneutic, in which "kill in hell" cannot mean torture."
I think that's a good place for me to bow out of this discussion.
Sounds good to me.
On review, I see one point of evidence that you may want to bring up against me. I just surveyed the Greek in the NT for "gave up the ghost", and although most are indeed a single word derived from breathing out, John actually uses a full phrase that could mean "gave up the ghost" (but could also equally easily mean "released his breath"). In Acts, Luke consistently uses "expsucho" instead of the "expneuo" used in the synoptics. Although "expsucho" certainly does mean to release one's life or soul, single-word derivations seldom demonstrate actual beliefs; usually linguistic context completely determines which single word is appropriate (and in Acts, both deaths were sudden curses, thus different from the other contexts).
So I have to modify my argument -- you have an argument supported by a single phrase in the NT which happens to be ambiguous when used in the context of this particular debate. Granted that the support isn't as strong as you've described it, but the argument itself isn't dishonest; it simply fails to distinguish between the sides of this debate.
-Wm
"In this case, you bear the burden -- and you're not even shouldering it, instead constructing a philosophical definition based on two cases of eisegesis and one bad translation from three passages that don't bear on the matter at hand."
I realize you want to justify your departure from the traditional view, but your arguments aren't compelling.
As for Adam, the text says:
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Job 33:4
The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
As for James, he's using the definition of death in an analogy. His analogy assumes that death is the separation of body from spirit.
As for giving up the ghost, it's not just the Greek words, but also the Hebrew gava' as well.
Perhaps most relevant to our monologue is this usage:
Psalm 104:29
Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
... which ties back into the Adam story.
"I understand the reference to "wooden hermeneutic", but to throw in the word "unreasonable" is just completely unjustifiable. "
Obviously, I disagree.
-TurretinFan
Thank you for the response. And as a minor point, I admit that you have the right to disagree; I should have said that your use of the word "unreasonable" was _unjustified_, not _unjustifiable_. I await the justification. It's quite clear that interpreting a statement the way it appears to be written isn't unreasonable. It MAY be overly literal, but that's going to show with context -- which should not imply you should ignore what the words of the passage say and look at unrelated verses.
In one of my arguments I was explaining the meaning of the Hebrew roots related to gava', which bear NO meaning related to "gave up the ghost", contrary to your reiterated and unsupported claim. Please look at my post for the argument proper; I mention the meaning of the related roots. None of them refer to breathing (much less being associated with ruach or nephesh, where the physical meaning of breath doubles with a meaning of spirit or life); they have to do with the sound one makes due to extreme effort and/or stress. "Gave up the ghost" was a euphemism the KJV translators used which has no relationship to the Hebrew word, and only a tenuous relationship to two of the different Greek words. It provides no support whatsoever to your claim that death "means" a separation between body and soul (or spirit). You're referring to my argument regarding the Greek NT words as though I hadn't made the argument about the Hebrew words; please see both my posts (the Greek comment was only a brief followup after more research).
So your argument regarding "give up the ghost" is entirely bereft of a response to my counterpoint.
Next: If, for the sake of argument, James were actually assuming that separation from the spirit is the real meaning of death, then what does that analogically teach us about faith and works? Doesn't it follow that James was TRYING to teach that there exists a truly living faith united with works one moment, and then it separates? Since we know that bodies and souls start out actually united, wouldn't that be teaching about a actually saved person losing their salvation? Do you ACTUALLY believe that's what James is teaching?
So your argument about James' analogy only works if James is teaching that there's a moment where a living faith united with works becomes disunited because it becomes separated from the works.
Finally, your argument about Adam -- quite aside from my earlier points -- relies heavily, almost exclusively, on verses that describe the creation of life within man. But as an orthodox Christian you believe that the soul does NOT preexist the body; rather, that God creates the soul with the body. So what is being described there is NOT that Adam had his pre-existing soul inserted into the body that wasn't him but became his; rather, it's that something else flowed through his nostrils, and Adam BECAME (not received) a living soul (and note also that Adam didn't TAKE ON a body either). God's spirit forms our spirits; it does NOT unite with our bodies to form our spirit.
So your argument about Adam falls because it requires a heretical anthropology -- and quite clearly makes man's beginning the same as Jesus'.
Post a Comment