Saturday, November 26, 2011
Annihilationism / "Conditionalism" Debate
I recently debated the topic of Annihilationism in the specific form of "Conditionalism." The debate can found in two sections (link to first part)(link to second part). Thanks very much to Chris Date (the moderator) as well as to Ronnie (my opponent) for this debate.
142 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
TF good job in your debate. I listend to the first part of it and going to listen to part 2 of it. When he says there is no verse that says " eternal torment " he is evidently forgetting what is right in Revelation 20:10 which says the very thing he denies " And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever " . It was that very thing which made me uneasy to listen to his own arguments for the positon of which he was trying to defend.
ReplyDeleteIf Chafer and Nat are interested, I'll respond to their comments.
ReplyDeleteActually, I'll just respond for the reader's sake.
ReplyDeleteI respect TFan, but I think Ronnie fared far better in this debate. Though, as one nearly convinced of his position, I'm biased.
ReplyDeleteRonnie is, in fact, correct when he says there is no verse in the Bible which says humans will be tormented forever and ever, and that's a very specific statement which Revelation 20:10 does not refute, since the beast and false prophet are not individual human beings. Now, by saying that, Ronnie was not saying there's no verse from which that can be extrapolated. That's the content of the debate. But he was correct, that no verse in the Bible says humans will suffer eternal torment.
Now, was that a tactically wise move? I don't know.
No, Ronnie and other annihilationists have not overlooked the fact that there will be an "eternal judgment." However, I see no biblical evidence that there will be an "eternal judgING." That is to say, the Bible records one end-time judgment, after which the wicked are thrown into the fire. There appears to be no ongoing judging process for eternity. Neither does there appear to be any ongoing salvific process for eternity, nor any ongoing redemptive process for eternity ("eternal salvation" and "eternal redemption" also used in Hebrews).
ReplyDeleteNobody on either side of this debate is denying the eternal judgment, or the eternal punishment.
Hi there Theopologetics. My basic issue with Ronnie was on a few overstates or overly dogmatic claims that he should have avoided using thats all , several exegetical issues of passages and the meanings of some words that were important in determining a proper understanding of the quality and duration of the lake of fire. For the proper meaning of specific words used I consult Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary Of Old And New Testament words and also The New Unger's Bible Dictionary by Dr. Merrill F. Unger. For exegetical or expositional issues I consult several commentaries on Scripture such as The Mac Arthur New Testament Commentary Series 28 volumes, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty OT and NT 2 volumes edited by Dr. John F. Walvoord and Dr. Roy C. Zuck, Unger's Commentary On The Old Testament by Dr. Merrill F. Unger and other commentaries that I own and use. I test my own individual findings by those works of which I have to gain additional insight on Scripture. I do hold that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian. :) I am glad that you allowed that debate to be held on your program for that I thank you. :)
ReplyDelete"I follow the literal grammatical historical method in my interpretation of Scripture. From what see the method of interpretation is an issue that is evidently a part of the debate on this issue."
ReplyDeleteChafer, I respect your desire not to go back and forth in this thread, but I do want to say that I agree with what you said, with one slight change: what is at issue is the hermeneutic we use when interpreting a specific genre of biblical literature. You see, the literal grammatical historical method is great, but not with apocalyptic prophecy. The beast of Revelation is clearly symbolic, as is the case with imagery throughout the book. Compare Revelation 13 with the beasts in the vision recorded in Daniel, which Daniel explicitly tells us are kingdoms, not individuals. No, the beast thrown into the fire very obviously is not an individual, nor is the false prophet, and so Ronnie's statement stands, vindicated.
Nat, I appreciate your exhortation, but find it lacking any biblical merit. There's literally nothing you've said or cited in Scripture that challenges annihilationism, and it saddens me when people don't even make an attempt to understand another point of view, which is evident from your words. If you decide you at least want to understand what it is annihilationists are actually saying, even if you don't want to consider it, let me know. I'd be happy to explain.
ReplyDeleteChris
ReplyDeleteI believe I do understand.
But, go ahead.
As for your comment to Chafer, you reveal a lack of understanding the "individual" Beast and the influences he has on a mass of outwitted souls deceived following the prince of the power of the air.
You might say, the union of the one with the many. The Beast, the False Prophet, Satan, Death and Hades are all personalities, fallen personalities, but individual and will separately suffer for their error.
Those who do not receive the Truth of the Gospel are bound to suffer with them.
We'll take it step by step, but before we do, the above comment is a good example of your seeming lack of desire to understand what annihilationists are saying. In fact, I wonder if you even read what I said, and looked up the Scriptures I cited.
ReplyDeleteDaniel 7--"And four great beasts were coming up from the sea, different from one another. 4 The first was like a lion and had the wings of an eagle. I kept looking until its wings were plucked, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man; a human [e]mind also was given to it. 5 And behold, another beast, a second one, resembling a bear. And it was raised up on one side, and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth; and thus they said to it, ‘Arise, devour much meat!’ 6 After this I kept looking, and behold, another one, like a leopard, which had on its [f]back four wings of a bird; the beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it. 7 After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. 8 While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, [g]this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth uttering great boasts...The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it. 24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings."
So this beast with ten horns is a kingdom comprised of multiple individuals. Now, Rev 13--"Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority. 3 I saw one of his heads as if it had been [b]slain, and his fatal wound was healed." And Rev 17--"a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns...Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, 10 and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. 11 The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction. 12 The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour. 13 These have one [h]purpose, and they give their power and authority to the beast."
You see, in this symbolic imagery, clearly drawn from Daniel 7, the beast is a corporate entity symbolic of a kingdom, its horns symbolic of individuals. The beast is most definitely not an individual.
Do you see that?
I do not often see it claimed that death and hades are literally persons who can be tormented in the way that the devil and humans and the rest are said to be eternally tormented (according to the traditional view).
ReplyDeleteOther than that, I'm mostly just commenting to get email notifications about this thread.
Chris:
ReplyDelete"You see, in this symbolic imagery, clearly drawn from Daniel 7, the beast is a corporate entity symbolic of a kingdom, its horns symbolic of individuals. The beast is most definitely not an individual.
Do you see that?"
Yes I see that.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteanother thing now that I am getting around to it.
In my first comments to you, here:
You wrote: "... There appears to be no ongoing judging process for eternity. Neither does there appear to be any ongoing salvific process for eternity, nor any ongoing redemptive process for eternity ("eternal salvation" and "eternal redemption" also used in Hebrews)."
In those words you write Neither does there appear to be any ongoing salvific process for eternity, nor any ongoing redemptive process for eternity...".
Let me ask you to explain this verse then: "Rev 22:2 . ... The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."
I suppose you adhere to this Greek definition of the word "salvation": σωτηρία/sōtēria,
rescue or safety (physically or morally): - deliver, health, salvation, save, saving?
As you know, if you do, soteria comes from two Greek words to form it, soter and sozo.
σωτήρ/sōtēr, a deliverer, that is, God or Christ: - saviour.
and
σώζω/sōzō, to save, that is, deliver or protect (literally or figuratively): - heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole.
I suppose you also adhere that there will be no sickness in the new Heavens and Earth?
That being supposed, can you explain how is it that in the new Heavens and Earth the leaves of the tree of Life were for the healing of the nations?
And Chris,
ReplyDeletewhile I wait your further comments to explain your position for why you believe the Scriptures teach a doctrine of annihilation; or, your responses to my further questions below; and now that I am on a roll here, let me ask you to answer this question?
First, I suppose you adhere that it was some "fallen" angelic being that was permitted to put the snake up to tempt Woman in the Garden of Eden?
I suppose you adhere that Satan was that "fallen" angelic being?
I suppose you adhere to the fact that while from "earth's perspective during the days of Job, it was the Sabeans that fell upon Job's oxen and donkeys and servants? And, it was fire of God that fell upon and burned up Job's sheep and shepherds? And, it was Chaldeans that came upon Job's camels and servants? And, finally, a great wind came upon the four corners of the house Job's children were in that crushed them to death?
Now having asked those questions, let me ask you this. Was it God in similar fashion Who was having a conversation with Satan about Adam and Eve that permitted him to, through the snake, deceive our first Parents as he was allowed to do to all that we read about he was allowed to do to Job's children, servants and other beastly beings, the oxen, donkeys, camels and sheep through the Sabeans, the Chaldeans, the fire and the wind?
Joey,
ReplyDeletefor what it is worth to you, I did not say Death, a personality, a fallen angelic being, was a human being; nor did I say the same for Hades.
Both do use human beings when permitted to bring about horrible crimes against humanity, against God's Elect for His eternal purpose or against the reprobate.
Great! In light of that, and the fact that many Christian scholars and theologians--traditionalist and annihilationist alike--agree that the false prophet is likewise a symbolic representation of an institution, and not an individual, Ronnie's statement stands: No verse says individual human beings will suffer torment forever. Ronnie was right.
ReplyDeleteNow, the symbolic torment of the beast and false prophet *might* be imagery communicating the *actual* torment of the individual human beings that make up the institutions represented by those symbols, but that's another question. Ronnie's statement stands.
Yes. And Ronnie and I both believe Revelation 20:10 says the devil will be tormented forever and ever. But note that Ronnie's statement was not that the Bible never says no individual angel will be tormented forever and ever. He said the Bible never says no individual human being will be tormented forever and ever. And certainly the devil is not a human being.
ReplyDeleteNow, what would need to be discussed, then, is what Rev. 20:10 means when it portrays the eternal torment of the devil.
Apparently you don't understand either of our points of view.
ReplyDeleteWhat should we do now about that?
I thought Chafer connected the dots that both fallen angelic beings and fallen human beings end up in one and same "eternity"?
I believe TurretinFan asked Ronnie in the debate why he didn't address this verse:
Mat 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Can you answer all my questions?
Sure, but before I do, I'll point out that this doesn't address the "eternal redemption" Hebrews mentions. All Christians recognize that there is no ongoing redeeming process for eternity by which sinners are ongoingly redeemed from their sins. That would be utter heresy, since Christ said "it is finished" and paid the full debt of sinners on the cross, once for all. And the same is true with respect to "eternal salvation." The author of Hebrews is clearly referring to salvation from our sins, being saved from the punishment our sins deserve. This happened, once for all, on the cross; we are not on an ongoing basis for eternity being saved from our sins. To suggest otherwise would be heresy.
ReplyDeleteNow, how is it that in the new Heavens and new Earth, the leaves of the tree of life were for the healing of the nations? Quite simple: this is imagery. The vision contained in Revelation is not to be understood literally, anymore than the beast is literally a scarlet creature with 7 heads and ten horns, or a woman is actually clothed with the sun, or the earth actually swallowed its mouth to save her, or that the abstract entities death and Hades are capable of riding horses. This is imagery. Yes, it communicates something, but it is clearly not to be taken in a wooden literal fashion.
So, what is communicated by this particular imagery? Very simple, and very powerfully in favor of annihilationism: When Adam and Eve were taken away from the tree of life, they began to die. This imagery in Revelation communicates that the redeemed will be immortal, and will never die, just as Adam and Eve would not have died had they continued to have access to the tree of life. But the damned, excluded from this new Earth imagery, will not live forever.
Nat, I definitely understand both points of view. I came from yours and Chafer's, and now I'm nearly convinced of Ronnie's.
ReplyDeleteChafer and other traditionalists are right to argue that the fate of damned humans will be the same as the devil. Ronnie and I both agree. However, this is not a verse which says human beings will be tormented forever and ever. That's an extrapolation from a text which says the devil will. That's Ronnie's point: that the Bible never says any human being will be tormented forever and ever, even if we might draw that out from what it *does* say. But then the question remains, what does Revelation mean when it symbolically describes the eternal torment of the devil.
Yes, I think I can answer all your questions, Nat. Again, Ronnie and I don't deny that the fate of damned human beings will be the same as humans. But Ronnie's right that the Bible contains no verse that says damned human beings will be tormented forever and ever. The question is, what does Revelation mean when it symbolically portrays the torment of the devil forever and ever?
What I was saying when I wrote I see that is I read what you wrote. I don't agree with your conclusion or your interpretation of Daniel or the book of the Revelation. I see and understanding these things differently than you.
ReplyDeleteI don't really care what other scholars and theologians, traditionalist or annihilationist think. God has given me my own mind, will and emotions to apply what the Spirit has taught me and apparently He hasn't taught me what he has you or those other scholars and theologians. Last I checked, I am going to have to come before the Great White Throne on my own, for whatever good or evil I have done, and, thankfully I don't have to answer for either your good or evil or for those other scholars and theologians. Generally I line up with these thoughts found here: Acts 20:26-35, Acts 26:13-20
There are individual beings, angelic, fallen angels of whose company, Satan is the head. The Beast, the False Prophet, Death and Hades make up the leadership of this fallen group, of which Satan is known as the prince of the power of the air, the ruler of this world and present age of disobedient angelic and human souls.
There is an apparent hierarchy of sorts with the Elect Angels, too. Theirs is led by Gabriel and Michael, the Four living creatures, the twenty four Elders, Angels of wind, one from the north, south, east and west. There's the seven Angels given the bowls of God's wrath. There's the Eighth Angel, given authority to take fire from the altar and mix it with the Prayers of the Saints. There are the four who ride on one of the four horses, the White, the Red, the Black and the Pale. And on and on and on.
Each one of God's Elect apparently has one or more angels assigned to them, too. See Hebrews 1:14.
They all have their adherence on earth, fallen humans with various powers and authorities; and, the Elect, too, with various powers and authorities.
Of all the Elect, I, with countless others of this company of True Believers take my stand in the Name of the Lord against rulers and authorities in heavenly places as the Apostle taught at Ephesians 3:8-12 and I, too, hasten the day of the Lord's return as the Apostle taught at 2 Peter 3:12 .
Are there casualties of this spiritual warfare? I suppose so because we do read this, too, in the book of the Revelation:
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.
...
Rev_3:5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.
Chris,
ReplyDeletewhat you are labeling symbolic I am labeling actual and literal.
You are side stepping my first point.
Can you explain why Hebrews 6 begins the way it does and then, also, verse 3?
Heb 6:3 And this we will do if God permits.
Do I understand all the mysteries? No.
Chris,
ReplyDeletenice try!
Let's take it down this road? Is Satan sustained right now in his evil wickedness, breathing the breath of Life?
Was Lucifer, the perfect angelic being breathing the breath of Life?
Will he still be breathing the breath of Life in the fiery furnace?
Can someone elaborate on, at least, the prophet not being human? If it is not an *individual* human I do not think it matters or if it is a group of humans. Anyway, of all the variety of things I know people say about Revelation I have never heard the prophet not spoken of as a man.
ReplyDeleteNor did I say anything about them being humans...by person, I meant it in the broader sense, like how we would say God the Father is a "person" of the Godhead without saying he is human. By person, I meant what you would call a "personality."
ReplyDeleteThe idea is that the title "false prophet" is given to a the creature seen in the vision, the creature that has two horns and speaks like a dragon (Revelation 13:11) and spits out frog-shaped demons (16:13). Now, most would agree that this monster creature called the "false prophet" represents something. The false prophet is a creature in the vision, but what does that monsterous false prophet creature represent in real life? It's not a question of who or what the false prophet is, but what the "false prophet" represents. Does it represent some sort of human, or, does it represent something broader, like false religion in general. Either one could reasonably be seen as being represented by such a horned, frog spewing being in a work of apocalyptic literature such as the book of Revelation (where a slain lamb represents Jesus, inanimate stars represent angels, and all kinds of bizarre elements exist that represent something). That is why many Bible scholars who are not even conditionalists still believe that the false prophet is representative of a system, not a person.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not they are right, of course, is a much more complicated matter.
So the beast of Revelation is "actual[ly] and literal[ly]" a scarlet creature with 7 heads and 10 horns, full of blasphemous names? Mystery Babylon is "actual[ly] and literal[ly]" a whore drunk with the wine of her immorality and with a lengthy name written on her forehead? The earth "actual[ly] and literal[ly]" opened its "actual and literal" mouth up and "actual[ly] and literal[ly]" swallowed up the woman who is "actual[ly] and literal[ly]" clothed with the sun and standing on the moon? Unbelievable. I can see we're going to get nowhere.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I will happily answer your question. The audience to which the author of Hebrews specifically writes were still stuck on the basics, and should have moved on to other matters given how long they were believers.
I don't understand all the mysteries, either, but God has revealed in Scripture the meaning behind "eternal judgment."
Satan is not a physical creature which breathes.
ReplyDelete"There are individual beings, angelic, fallen angels of whose company, Satan is the head. The Beast, the False Prophet, Death and Hades make up the leadership of this fallen group, of which Satan is known as the prince of the power of the air, the ruler of this world and present age of disobedient angelic and human souls."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, I can't argue with someone who chooses to reject the explicit words recorded in both Daniel and Revelation, that the Beast is not an "actual and literal" individual, but is instead a symbol representing a kingdom.
Thanks again for the cordial debate, TurretinFan. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to interact with the comments here. Just one note of correction, to ChaferDTS; here is the exact wording of the claim that you took exception with:
ReplyDelete"Not one verse of Scripture explicitly attributes everlasting torment to a human being."
This claim is fairly uncontroversial, and has been almost unanimously acknowledged as being true in my own discussions with traditionalists. I'm not sure how pointing out that fact is an overstatement, dogmatic, or a denial of Scripture. I freely acknowledged in the debate that something can be true and biblical without it being explicitly stated.
Chris wrote: "Nobody on either side of this debate is denying the eternal judgment, or the eternal punishment.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, however, while Ronnie did not deny the words "eternal judgment" or "eternal punishment" he did (fairly clearly) deny the sense of those words, by asserting that the judgment and punishment were (by contrast) quite quick.
The attempted way by which he sought to affirm "eternal punishment" was one of those points where I hope the listener will go back and check. During the cross-examination, he essentially admitted that it was simply a "final" punishment. However, he admitted that the duration of the punishment itself was not eternal. The person will not be dying for all eternity in his system, instead the person will only have died (past tense) for all eternity.
As such, the judgment/punishment is no more eternal than anything we experience in this present life.
That is the Achilles' heel of his system, that it does not and cannot affirm an eternal punishment.
-TurretinFan
Right, it can get complicated. But it seems to me that even if "false prophet" represents this false religion doesn't it still seem to follow that the "false prophet-religion" is the people that comprise it?
ReplyDeleteTfan, you've misunderstood Ronnie and the position of conditionalists. No, Ronnie did not say the punishment was quite quick. Quite the contrary, he said the punishment is eternal, because--and this is the important point which traditionalists have got to understand if both sides are going to meaningfully discuss this--the punishment is not the suffering, but the extinguishing of life. And as St. Augustine noted, nobody considers the few moments one suffers during capital punishment the measure of the punishment. And as Jonathan Edwards and John Blanchard both noted, a punishment by death which lasts forever, such as annihilationists posit, is, in fact, properly eternal.
ReplyDeleteSo the real issue in this debate is not, in fact, the duration of the punishment, but its nature. Is it, as traditionalists insist, suffering? Or is it extinction? That's the question.
Actually, yes, the real issue is the duration. Ronnie's duration is not eternal, ours is.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you've misidentified the real issue perhaps explains your perception of the debate. I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear during the debate.
The extinguishing of life does not go on for ever in Ronnie's system. Instead, it rapidly becomes a past event. Thus, like anything in this life, it is not eternal.
The fact that the significance of annihilation would not be limited to its duration is an interesting point, but still fails to address the fact that the Biblical punishment is described in terms of its duration.
You've again misunderstood. It's not the *process* of the extinguishing of life that is the punishment, but the consequent lack of life itself. The lifelessness resulting from the destructive process. This lifelessness is, in the annihilationist view, eternal, just as much as the salvation from Jesus' one-time salvific act is eternal (Heb. 5:9), just as much as the redemption from Jesus' one-time redeeming act is eternal (Heb. 9:12).
ReplyDeleteSo no, the real issue quite simply is *not* the duration of the punishment, but its nature.
Even if that's the case, it is the symbol which is said to be tormented. Whether or not that is representative of the torment of the individuals you believe comprise that which the symbol represents, is another question.
ReplyDeleteActually, Chris, it is you who have misunderstood.
ReplyDeletePunishment is a process. That punishment can have various effects, which can be more or less permanent.
Ronnie's punishment is a very fast process.
Biblical punishment is an eternal process.
That is the key to this debate.
- TurretinFan
And since symbols themselves cannot be tormented, it means, of course, that the people are tormented.
ReplyDeleteYou've just demonstrated my point beautifully. The question at stake is, is the final punishment a process, or the results of a process? Traditionalists insist that it is the former, annihilationists the latter. Hence, the question is not one of duration but of nature.
ReplyDeleteI cannot believe your point was that you are misusing the term "punishment" to refer to something other than a process of punishing.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, that is one of the necessary prerequisites for the annihilationist position to try to get its foot in the door.
As Ronnie admitted during the debate, as I recall, his punishment could simply be called "Final" without loss of meaning.
Sure, if you assume that the symbol is part of the imagery but the torment is literal.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you propose that "torment" symbolizes?
ReplyDeleteWell I'm interested in seeing an argument that supports your assertion that punishment must refer to a process.
ReplyDeleteIt's a matter of knowing English, I guess. First definition from Merriam-Webster's On-line 11th edition: "the act of punishing."
ReplyDeleteSee also this general discussion of verbals ending in -ment: http://wordinfo.info/unit/1288/s:abolishment
Indeed, that, brother, is the question! Revelation 17-19, cf. Isaiah 34, suggests the torment symbolizes destruction.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very strange sort of typology that works in reverse from NT to OT.
ReplyDeleteIt's also generally strange. How is torment like destruction, such that torment would typify or symbolize destruction? After all, typologies and symbols are not just substitutions of one thing for another thing.
So... Your argument for your understanding of a Greek word written by a first century Jew is from an English dictionary?
ReplyDeleteMy argument was not merely an appeal to the OT. Rev. 17-19 depicts the torment of the harlot as symbolizing the destruction of the city she represents.
ReplyDeleteNo, my understanding of the English word "punishment" comes from my intimate knowledge of English. I provided you with a definition of that English word from an English dictionary, to help show you what the word means.
ReplyDeleteThere is not really any legitimate question that the English word "punishment" is a correct translation. On the other hand, if that is the question - a question of translation - then that question can be dealt with when someone raises an argument as to why the word shouldn't be translated as it has been.
Moreover, if we are looking at Matthew 25, for example, κόλασις (meaning punishment or torment) is a verbal derived from κολάζω (much like "punishment" is a verbal derived from "punish").
We do not know whether the author Matthew was a Jew or a Greek (or something else), though the assumption, of course, is that he was a Jew.
Do the verbal forms of "salvation" in Heb. 5:9 and "redemption" in 9:12 likewise refer to acts?
ReplyDeleteSuppose hypothetically, we find some difficulty in understanding those passages. How should difficulty in understanding those passages translate into difficulty in understanding the clear passages?
ReplyDeleteugh, Disqus. Posting at top.
ReplyDelete"Suppose hypothetically, we find some difficulty in understanding those passages. How should difficulty in understanding those passages translate into difficulty in understanding the clear passages?"
ReplyDeleteI don't think any such difficulty exists. Those passages make quite clear that when eternal describes the noun form of a verb, the process need not be what it is that is eternal.
Another point worth noting is that "live" is a verb which lacks an object; one doesn't "live" somebody, one simply "lives." But one "punishes," "saves" or "redeems" somebody.
ReplyDeletea) It's absurd to imagine that the point of those passages was to teach a universal rule of Greek grammar and syntax. They don't "clearly" teach such a rule, much less "make quite clear" such a rule.
ReplyDeleteb) I'll try to provide a more complete answer later, when I have more time, but briefly: "to save" and "to redeem" are result verbs, whereas "to punish" is a manner verb. That's one reason for their different usage.
That point is not really worth noting, unless one understands why "live" is intransitive.
ReplyDelete"It's absurd to imagine that the point of those passages was to teach a universal rule of Greek grammar and syntax. They don't "clearly" teach such a rule, much less "make quite clear" such a rule."
ReplyDeleteI didn't suggest that their point is to teach a universal rule, nor did I suggest that they establish one. What they do, however, is negate an alleged rule, that when "eternal" describes a noun form of a verb, that it must be the process that is eternal.
"I'll try to provide a more complete answer later, when I have more time, but briefly: "to save" and "to redeem" are result verbs, whereas "to punish" is a manner verb. That's one reason for their different usage."
I'll look forward to that more complete answer. However, you are baldly assuming that "punish" is not a "result" verb. The word primarily means "to lop or prune, as trees and wings," and clearly the result of the verb is in view: the consequent absence of the item being lopped off. It's used sometimes in deuterocanonical literature (Wisdom 3:2-4, 3 Maccabees 7:3-5) to refer to a punishment which brings about a result: death. The noun form of the word is used in the LXX translation of Ezekiel 18:30-32 to refer to the result of the verb: death. It's also used in 2 Maccabees 4:38 to refer to the result of the verb: death.
One must argue, not merely assert, that "punish" is inherently different from "save" or "redeem." In the meantime, the noun form of "save" and "redeem" in Heb 5:9 and 9:12, respectively, demonstrate that "eternal" can describe the noun form of a transitive verb without necessarily communicating the duration of the process itself.
I'd be interested to see your explanation. In the meantime, it's worth noting for the reason above, that "eternal" can describe the noun form of a transitive verb without necessarily communicating the duration of the process itself.
ReplyDeleteAgain, that's not really worth noting, unless one understands why that is so.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I'm interested in an argument to back up the assertion. "Live" is intransitive because the subject is both the one who acts and the one upon whom is acted. "Punish," "save" and "redeem" are transitive because the one who acts is different from the one upon whom is acted.
ReplyDeleteExceptions don't disprove rules. Even assuming that those two verbs were an exception to the rule, you haven't established that "punish" should also benefit from the exception. You haven't even understood why those verbs are the exception to the rule.
ReplyDeleteThis is, however, symptomatic of the underlying approach.
This same argument is used to deny the universality of sinfulness among men. Someone points out that "all have sinned" must exclude Christ. So, if it excludes Christs, there can also be other exceptions, so why not Mary?
The problem with that argument, like this one, is that the objector hasn't bothered to figure out why those other case(s) are exceptional.
That "punish" is manner verb, not a result verb, is one of those things that ought to be obvious. Nevertheless, I'm happy to demonstrate that premise to you as well, if need be.
I will complain, however, that it seems hard to believe that it isn't obvious that "punish" refers to the act, not a specific result arising from that act.
-TurretinFan
a) What assertion do you want me to back up with argument?
ReplyDeleteb) Of course, one can punish, save, and redeem oneself (in general). So, no - that's not the reason.
OK, if you're claiming that Heb. 5:9 and 9:12 are exceptions to a rule, can you establish the rule? Where else does "eternal" describe a noun form of a verb and the duration of that noun? I agree that one or two exceptions to a widely established rule does not negate the rule, but I haven't seen any evidence that there is such a rule to begin with. Heb. 6:2 seems to establish just the opposite, since the Bible describes only one final judgment, not an eternal process of judging. Certain manuscripts read "eternal sin" in Mark 3:29, and from the other manuscripts it's clear that this is a one-time sin which results in eternal consequences.
ReplyDeleteSo can you give me some other "eternal " examples which establish the rule you think I'm violating in Matthew 25:46?
a) That 1) it's not worth noting unless one understands why "live" is intransitive, and 2) what impact a proper understanding thereof has on its noteworthiness.
ReplyDeleteb) I wasn't aware one had the capacity to punish oneself for, or save or redeem oneself from, one's sins.
As to (a)(2), I didn't make any assertion about what the impact is.
ReplyDeleteAs to (a)(1), if you cannot understand why live is intransitive, how can you draw any conclusions from that fact? For example, unlike the other three, it starts with the letter "l" - so what? Unless there's something special about starting with the letter "l," then the fact has no significance. Something with no significance isn't worth noting.
As to (b), I didn't say that. Read what I wrote. I was making a grammatical point.
You are right, however, that one or more of the words themselves, outside of context, can describe an action one takes upon oneself. However, that doesn't make them intransitive, that makes the subject and object the same.
ReplyDeleteAs to (a)(1), I can with equal adamance insist that the mere fact that one verb is intransitive and another is transitive is enough to warrant noting the difference, given the use of "eternal" to describe other intransitive verbs. So again, I'd like to see an argument for insisting that there is nothing worth noting until one understands the reason why one verb is intransitive and another is transitive. And I would repeat what I said above: that "live" is intransitive because it lacks an object, whereas even if one can "punish," "save" and "redeem" oneself in some contexts, they don't lack objects, but the object and subject are the same.
ReplyDeleteAs to (b), see above.
I didn't make a comment on whether they are intransitive.
ReplyDeleteCorrect. But the fact that they are transitive, and "live" is intransitive, is a fact worth noting, and the "why" question is a grammatical/syntactical one: "live" is intransitive because it lacks an object, "punish," "save" and "redeem" are transitive because they have an object, even if the object is the same as the subject.
ReplyDeleteAdamant insistence that something is worthy of note does not really equate to a demonstration of such an assertion.
ReplyDeleteIn short, you have given us no reason to view this trivia as any more significant than the fact that one starts with "l" and rhymes with "give," both of which (it is obvious) are not really worth noting.
Is that your final answer? Simply attempting to rephrase the definition of "transitive" doesn't really move you very far. Is that really where you want to stop?
ReplyDeleteI'll leave it to the reader to determine if the fact is noteworthy that "eternal" connected with transitive verbs like "punish," "save" and "redeem" appears to follow a pattern in which "eternal" does not describe the duration of the process, contrary to your seeming insistence, whereas the intransitive "live" would not therefore fall into that pattern. At this point, we're simply making insistences back and forth.
ReplyDeleteSo, when pressed to provide an argument, you are just going to throw up your hands? Fie.
ReplyDeleteThe problem for you is that even if you have identified a distinction between the terms, you haven't established that this is a distinction that matters.
Without some supporting argument, you might as well let the reader decide over the imagined "pattern" of words that don't rhyme with "give" or that don't start with "l." etc. etc.
No, I've been waiting anxiously for your explanation as to why "live" is intransitive and the other verbs are transitive. In the meantime, I'm not sure what "rephrasing" you're talking about. "Transitive verb" is defined as "a verb accompanied by a direct object," whereas "Intransitive verb" is defined as "a verb that indicates a complete action without being accompanied by a direct object." The primary difference appears to be the lack in one of a direct object.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there also appears to be a difference in that a transitive verb is one from which a passive can be derived, whereas an intransitive verb does not form a passive. I'm no expert in grammar, but I'm guessing this means that one can be "punished," whereas one can not be "lived." But this just goes back to the first difference, that transitive verbs have a direct object--even if the direct object is the subject--whereas intransitive ones do not.
The distinction may matter given the hardly-imagined pattern of "eternal" describing noun forms of transitive verbs in which the process is not that whose duration is eternal, whereas "eternal" describing the intransitive noun form of the verb "live" would not fall into that pattern.
ReplyDeleteSorry, that should read "other 'eternal [noun form of verb]' examples which establish the rule." I'm eagerly awaiting such examples.
ReplyDeleteI trust you see why "starts with l" and "rhymes with give" are complete wastes of time.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you suppose that transitivity is not likewise a waste of time?
Since you asserted that this is a pattern worth noting, the burden is on you to show why this pattern is worth noting.
As for being able to formed in a passive mood, that still leaves in the realm of "it's transitive" (the passive mood expresses the action in terms of the object being upon - which cannot really happen if there is no actor being acted upon) and doesn't really get us to an understanding of why an adjective or adverb would modify the verb in a different way.
Same thing for "starts with l" and "rhymes with give". (invert it if you wish to make the parallel to your paragraph closer)
ReplyDeleteThe burden is on you to demonstrate significance. It's not enough to just throw a speculative pattern out there.
Going to respond at top.
ReplyDelete"I trust you see why "starts with l" and "rhymes with give" are complete wastes of time.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you suppose that transitivity is not likewise a waste of time?
Since you asserted that this is a pattern worth noting, the burden is on you to show why this pattern is worth noting."
You didn't originally ask me why the pattern is worth noting, you asked me why "live" is intransitive ("That point is not really worth noting, unless one understands why "live" is intransitive"). The pattern is worth noting because I guess I assumed that how the authors of Scripture use certain words and kinds of words together ought to inform our understanding of those words and kinds of words are used elsewhere. I guess it's possible I'm wrong, and that we ought to ignore how the word "eternal" and the kind of word that "punishment" is are used elsewhere when interpreting Matthew 25:46.
"As for being able to formed in a passive mood, that still leaves in the realm of "it's transitive" (the passive mood expresses the action in terms of the object being upon - which cannot really happen if there is no actor being acted upon) and doesn't really get us to an understanding of why an adjective or adverb would modify the verb in a different way."
Again, I'm interested--perhaps wrongly so, it seems you're arguing--in how biblical authors use "eternal" and different kinds of verbs elsewhere in Scripture.
Going to respond at top.
ReplyDelete"Same thing for "starts with l" and "rhymes with give". (invert it if you wish to make the parallel to your paragraph closer)
ReplyDeleteThe burden is on you to demonstrate significance. It's not enough to just throw a speculative pattern out there."
It's certainly not a speculative pattern, and again, I'm waiting anxiously for the rule you suggest is excepted by Heb. 5:9, 6:2 and 9:12. But as to the pattern's signficance, "eternal" in this pattern describes the duration of the result of one's actions upon a direct object, but that cannot be said of "eternal life" in which there is no direct object, and so, "eternal" cannot describe the duration of the result of one's actions upon a direct object, and so must describe something else, like the state in which the subject lives.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteI look forward to reading all that has happened since I was last visiting this blog last night West Coast time.
There are a couple of things that have been gnawing at me to ask you to address, if you understand and know?
One, in what language does the devil come and speak to you? What is your native language? And how is it he is able to tempt people in their native language?
How is it that the Holy Spirit could simultaneously speak to all these people in their native language and do so speaking the exact same Words, if you understand and know?
In what language does the Holy Spirit speak to you? Is it in the same language the devil does?
Act 2:6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language.
Act 2:7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
Act 2:8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?
Act 2:9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
Act 2:10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome,
Act 2:11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians--we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God."
Act 2:12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?"
Act 2:13 But others mocking said, "They are filled with new wine."
I'm unsure of the signficance of your question. If you can explain its relevance, I'll attempt to answer the question, but in the meantime, I'd like to focus on the debate at hand.
ReplyDeleteHere's another one: Hebrews 13:20's "διαθήκης αἰωνίου," where the noun form is of the transitive verb διατίθημι. Is this a covenant which is forever in the process of being made?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure you understand my objection. "Live" is a lot of things that the other three verbs are not. It starts with "L", it rhymes with "give", and (according to you) it has different transitivity.
ReplyDeleteBut how does transitivity have any more significance than the other two distinctions? If it does not have more significance than those, then it is not worth noting.
In other words, how does the ability, inability, or possibility of having a direct object have a grammatical effect on what the term "eternal" modifies and/or how it modifies it? If it doesn't - or if you don't know why it would - then we are basically in the same boat as if the distinction were the number of letters in the word, or the way the word rhymes, or what letter it starts with.
To try to help you look at this from your perspective, consider whether "eternal life" could simply be referring to some permanent effect arising from a life of temporary duration. Does the fact that "to live" is intransitive have anything to do with that? If not, then is this actually a meaningful pattern to be looking at in the first place? Or is this a pattern like "rhymes with give"?
-TurretinFan
Or how about Jude 1:6's "δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις," in which the noun comes from the transitive verb δέω? Are the angels eternally being bound? Or were they bound once for all?
ReplyDeleteIt's very possible I don't understand your objection. I am, very clearly, a fallen human.
ReplyDeleteThat said, again: if the pattern I'm alleging is one in which "eternal" describes the duration of the result of a subject's actions upon the direct object when connected with an transitive verb, then "eternal life" would not fall under this pattern since there is no result of a subject's actions upon the direct object with an intransitive verb. And so, "eternal life" could not refer to some permanent effect arising from a life of temporary duration, since that life was and is not the result of a subject's actions upon the direct object.
Or how about Rev. 14:6's "αἰώνιον εὐαγγελίσαι," where the noun form is of the transitive verb εὐαγγελίζω? Is the "eternal gospel" a good news which is eternally being announced? Are the redeemed in the new Heavens and new Earth being evangelized?
ReplyDeleteActually, I suppose it's possible that yes, the "good news" is eternally being announced. Perhaps this one isn't unambiguous enough to contribute to the pattern I'm positing.
ReplyDelete"That said, again: if the pattern I'm alleging is one in which "eternal" describes the duration of the result of a subject's actions upon the direct object when connected with an transitive verb, then "eternal life" would not fall under this pattern since there is no result of a subject's actions upon the direct object with an intransitive verb. And so, "eternal life" could not refer to some permanent effect arising from a life of temporary duration, since that life was and is not the result of a subject's actions upon the direct object. "
ReplyDeletea) From a theological standpoint, I thought conditionalists allege that life itself is the result of God's action upon the person. If so, I'm not sure I understand your argument theologically.
b) Grammatically, why should that be? Why should it matter whether the result is from a transitive or intransitive verb? Why would it always be referring to a result in one case, and never in the other case (since both can have results)?
For that matter, what is the direct object of the verb εὐαγγέλιον? There are plenty of indirect objects ... but direct objects?
ReplyDelete(a) Yes, conditionalists allege that life is the result of God's action, but "life" is not the verb in this case. "Give" or "maintain" would be. God "gives" or "maintains" life to others, He doesn't "live" life to others. But in Matthew 25:46, the verb "life" is the intransitive verb in view.
ReplyDelete(b) I dispute that "living" is an intransitive verb that has results.
As to (b), do you dispute that "living" is an intransitive verb, or that there are results from living, or both?
ReplyDeleteAnd to preempt one possible response, in constructs like "[transitive verb] eternal [noun-form of intransitive verb]," "eternal" is connected with the intransitive verb, not the transitive one. So, for example, Matthew 19:16's "obtain eternal life" does not mean "eternally obtaining life," nor does Matthew 19:29 mean "eternally inheriting life." Likewise, Matthew 25:46 does not mean "eternally going away into life."
ReplyDeleteSo it's the intransitive verb in these constructs which is described as eternal, and since "life" is intransitive, "eternal" cannot describe the result of the subject's actions upon the direct object, since by definition the verb has no direct object.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteand while I am at it, can you explain why the difference in using the word "fear" both positively and negatively by Jesus as is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew to make the distinction between one and the other?
What's the point in doing so if annihilation was on His mind when making such a distinction? Or, why use the Word γέεννα/geenna: valley of (the son of) Hinnom; gehenna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment: - hell in relationship to having or not having fear of God in eternal Life; and, why not therefore use one of these words instead, τέλος/telos or ἔσχατος/eschatos?
Mat 10:25 It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household.
Mat 10:26 "So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.
Mat 10:27 What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops.
Mat 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
...
Mat 10:31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.
"fear" φοβέω/phobeō: to frighten, that is, (passively) to be alarmed; by analogy to be in awe of, that is, revere: - be (+ sore) afraid, fear (exceedingly), reverence.
Neither. I dispute that the verb "live" necessarily implies any result of the verb.
ReplyDeleteNow you are onto something. The same, you see, is true of "punish." Beyond the act itself (as with living), no particular result is necessarily implied.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. For one, as I said the primary meaning of kolazo is to lop off or prune, which necessarily implies a result. What's more, in terms of the word's use as to punish, it necessarily implies the result of a certain measure of penalty being paid.
ReplyDeleteWhy use "fear?" Because we have reason to fear being killed and rendered lifeless forever, and being forever deprived of the blessing of eternal life.
ReplyDeleteWhy use "Gehenna?" Excellent question! Jeremiah 7:32 says, “days are coming…when [Topheth] will no longer be called Topheth, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth because there is no other place. 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.” So Gehenna became a place of utter death where scavenging beasts and birds will not be frightened away and prevented from fully consuming unconscious, rotting corpses.
This fits very well with annihilation, which says the wicked will be killed.
Oh, definitely. The direct object is the one to whom the pronouncement is being made. "glad tidings are brought to one, one has glad tidings proclaimed to him" (BlueLetterBible)
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, as St. Augustine put it with respect to the death penalty, " forever [being] removed from the community of the living;" that is, the result is the removal of the offender.
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeletenice try, again!
There are actual and literal beings, fallen in their particular nature as there are actual and literal human beings. The actual and literal human beings are fallen because God and Satan had a similar discussion about Man and Woman as they had about Job.
Satan, an actual and literal fallen being was allowed to attack actual and literal perfect beings. All this was planned and decreed.
The actual and literal beings we read about in Daniel and Revelation exist. How they manifested God's perfect decrees is what is symbolic to their particular base of knowledge at the time of the manifestation.
The actual and literal "history" from man's point of view looks and sounds different than the actual and literal "history" from those manifesting God's decree.
Today, when an elemental spirit comes and attacks me, the experience is actual and literal. Is the symbolism the same? No as we see the things we read about Daniel wrote after the manifestation to him is different than what John wrote; albeit, the same thing was being revealed.
Today when we talk of the universe's actual and literal being is quite different than when it was written about by Moses in Genesis one and two and during the days of Abraham whom Moses was writing looked up to try and count the stars of heaven to understand the true actual and literal meaning of what was coming down the pike towards both.
The other stellar manifestations, though actual and literal, are described differently.
What you are attempting to do is sidestep the actual and literal sense of the meaning of "eternal damnation", eternally experiencing it because of the actual and literal meaning of such punishment, I suppose?
The raw reality of what is actual and literal is only known by the process of maturing in these actual and literal events.
I submit that God permits some to come into a degree of knowledge of these things while alive sojourning through this life.
We will actually and literally finally know the very moment we breathe our last breath in these flesh bodies. Until then, I suppose these sorts of doctrines will have to be taken up and defeated all the while the Truth of the matter will have to be defended.
Such is it, this ministry.
Take it to heart that this ministry is not gained by one choosing it. One is appointed to this Ministry. It is a ministry decreed before the foundation of the world or ever the unformed substance of the minister came into being formed and brought forth.
There you go again Chris, sidestepping my question.
ReplyDeleteWhere in the above query do I associate Satan as a human being?
Is Satan a breathing being who breathes the breath of Life?
Nat, the frequency of your condescension toward me, as evident by the repeated use of, "nice try, again!," leads me to doubt that you and I are going to have a fruitful discussion. Thank you for your time, but I'm going to focus my efforts with TurretinFan, as he hasn't been as seemingly condescending. I hope his and my discussion will prove useful to you.
ReplyDeleteYou obviously are devoid of some spiritual knowledge, Chris.
ReplyDeleteThat's ok. God is all knowing and has nothing to learn.
Like one person said, if your God is learning something he is not the True Living God who learns nothing, knows everything and decrees what we learn and receive, hear and see, understand and know.
Chris,
ReplyDeletethat doesn't explain those verses from Revelation to the seven Churches where in one case their lampstand is removed and in another their name is removed?
Are you saying that those events are to be taken literally as an "experience" of annihilation or cessation of mind, will and emotion?
Yes, you seem to want to make definition of the English language an issue in your comments with TurretinFan.
ReplyDeleteMy point is God is capable of communicating all literal meaning and symbolic meaning just as well in English as Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic and Greek.
I am not sure from which native language you grew to understand English? Are you an American who went through schools in the United States?
Or did you learn English as a second language?
Chris,
ReplyDeleteoops. I should have noticed I was posting my comment to you in the wrong combox. Please see above my response to your question about relevance in how Satan and God speak to you?
I hope you realize that language is no barrier to God or the Devil or any of the personalities both for and against God in Scripture?
In fact, having been to a number of middle eastern and eastern countries, I can tell you those folks think quite differently when they read the very same Scriptures I read in English.
The limitation of actual and literal and symbolic meanings are quite different depending on from what base language you are coming into the unifying knowledge of the Faith and Grace.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteoh, I apologize for coming across condescending. Let it be noted I acknowledge the reproof. It won't happen again.
Sorry for the offense.
Thank you, I appreciate that. However, it is presently too difficult for me to manage so many comment threads, so as I said, I'm going to focus on my discussion with TFan.
ReplyDeleteSuch is life in here! TF always gets the best arguers! grrrr
ReplyDeleteI am happy to sit back and watch the master in his mastery!
It might be to early to say this to you Chris, but you just might want to concede now and come back to traditions? :)
"Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."
ReplyDeleteThere is also a result to certain kinds of lives, just as there is a result to certain kinds of punishment. But the act of living, as such, does not dictate a certain result, just as the act of punishing, as such, does not dictate a certain result.
ReplyDeleteIt derives from the noun, dwarf. That said, that etymology does not actually imply that the result of punishment is a dwarf. But it means to punish or chastise. It does not imply any specific result from the punishment.
ReplyDeleteTo say that it implies the result of "a certain measure of penalty being paid" (leaving aside the commercial metaphor and the laxity of precision) is exactly saying that "life" implies "a certain measure of days spent."
What act of punishing does not result in the payment of a measure of penalty deserved by the thing for which one is punished?
ReplyDeleteThat would be the indirect object. In the English translations, the "good tidings" are the direct object of the proclamation.
ReplyDeleteIncorrect. The "good tidings" is the content of the announcement; the direct object of the announcement is the one to whom the announcement is made.
ReplyDeleteIncorrect. When a measure of penalty has been paid, there is a resultant lack of penalty owed. No punishment--when the word is used properly--lacks the result of a measure of penalty no longer being owed.
ReplyDeleteWhile we continue to debate the relevance of "life" being the noun form of an intransitive verb, and "punishment" being the noun form of a transitive verb, we can look at this from another angle, as pointed out to me recently by a friend of mine, one which recognizes that regardless of transitivity, "life" and "punishment" are "nouns of action." He writes me,
ReplyDelete"When we see nouns of action being qualified as "eternal," it is almost always referring to "eternal life." The rest are Matthew 25:56, Mark 3:29, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Hebrews 5:9, 6:2, 9:12, and 9:15. Four of those are clearly not referring to an ongoing verb, and 3 of them (Matt., 2 Thes., and Hebrews 5:9 just because a few people [attempt traditionalist-friendly] explanations about it) are controversial and could go either way. With all other passages besides "eternal life," none are clearly referring to ongoing action (and some cannot be)."
So while I continue to contend that transitivity may bear some weight in this discussion, the use of elsewhere of "eternal" when describing "nouns of action" favors annihilationism.
Actually, I don't think traditionalists have a traditionalist-friendly explanation for Hebrews 5:9's "eternal salvation." Rather, it's Hebrews 6:2's "eternal judgment" for which traditionalist-friendly explanations are offered, such as that the damned are in an eternally ongoing fashion judged for sins committed in hell. Of course, the Bible records only a one-time, in-time final judgment, and no ongoing process of judgement, so I don't think that attempted explanation has any merit.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I'd like to make clear is that conditionalists are not arguing that "eternal punishment" MUST refer to the eternal-in-duration results of an in-time action--or at least that's not what I'm arguing as someone nearly convinced of their position. Rather, I'm arguing that "eternal punishment" cannot be demonstrated to favor traditionalism, and so at best, it is compatible with both positions (though the previous point I mentioned, made to me by my friend, suggests that it favors annihilationism). What nearly convinces me of conditionalism is the other factors within the text of Matthew 25:41-46 that suggest annihilationists properly understand the passage. Perhaps at some point we can discuss those.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the narrowing of the comboxes I will reproduce the question, Chris, that you asked:
ReplyDelete"What act of punishing does not result in the payment of a measure of penalty deserved by the thing for which one is punished?"
The punishing "act" of chastising Christ literally resulted in a payment (eternal redemption) that far exceeds both my own personal punishment that I should suffer for my acts of wickedness and sin against God alone and for all the Elect for whom Christ has already historically suffered even though that suffering was decreed before the creation of Adam!
Obviously, then, His suffering did not include those after Adam who will spend the rest of eternity in anguish and agony gnashing and gnawing their teeth in the fiery furnace with the devil and his angels.
The more I contempt your understanding of annihilation, frankly Chris, more I like it!
However, that doctrine is not Biblical therefore my concern is for those who might take it as a doctrine taught in the Bible.
That to me is a fearful thing especially in light of these Words :
Rev 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
Rev 22:15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
Rev 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."
Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
As you probably suspect and are convinced of, Chris, you probably now are convinced that I see nowhere in the Word of God, either written down or spoken, where the doctrine of annihilation exists!
"Obviously, then, His suffering did not include those after Adam who will spend the rest of eternity in anguish and agony gnashing and gnawing their teeth in the fiery furnace with the devil and his angels."
ReplyDeleteExactly. So the penalty deserved by the elect has been paid by Jesus' work on the cross, and so penalty is no longer owed by them, but penalty does remain owed by the non-elect, which is why they will be punished.
Again, no proper punishment lacks the result that a measure of penalty is no longer owed.
I suggest a book on English grammar to help you understand the difference between direct objects and indirect objects.
ReplyDeleteSure, I'll look into such a book. In the meantime, one definition I found of "indirect object" is, "An object indirectly affected by the action of a verb, as me in Sing me a song and turtles in He feeds turtles lettuce." I see your point, and concede with respect to Rev 14:6.
ReplyDeleteChris, :)...
ReplyDeleteNot exactly!
I can understand your position and why you are insisting on it being that way.
It is not that way.
Can you cite one verse of Scripture that teaches perspicaciously and unequivocally annihilation?
By the way, may I ask? Are you more Lutheran in your reformational views?
Chris,
ReplyDeleteso that I am clear, I would like to ask you this question:
You are saying annihilation means for the one who dies in their sins, now separated from their flesh, after a "quick" and painful, transitory gnashing of their teeth in the fiery furnace of hell, their body/soma, their mind, will and emotions/psuche and their spirit/pnuema, cease?
I think I can cite one which does, yes, and many, many more which together constitute a cumulative case. But I have an upcoming debate in which I'll be arguing for annihilationism, and I don't want to give all of that away right now.
ReplyDeleteCan you be specific as to which Luterhan reformational views you're asking me about? The distinctives of Lutheranism of which I'm aware are not positions I hold.
Cease to live, yes. In light of James 2:26’s “the body without the spirit is dead,” by hearkening to the first Gehenna where bodies were rendered lifeless and unconscious, Jesus tells us in Matthew 10:28 that both body and soul will be rendered lifeless and unconscious in the second Gehenna.
ReplyDeleteWell that answer renews what troubles me about this doctrine.
ReplyDeleteWhy the need then for there to be given a Law of Righteousness and based on the failure of it we all come under the curse and then the condemnation?
If annihilation is the endgame, one has no reason to accept or reject God's gift of Eternal Life, which by the way is knowing the Father, the only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He sent to die for the sins of His people.
Aren't we back at 1 Corinthians 15 anew? If in this life only why go through all the stuff one goes through in this world standing up for Christ and Him crucified, all the abuses, the troubles, the constant threats and continual wrestling with real principalities and powers of wickedness now as well as from so many foreign religions or advocacies with constituencies?
Your doctrine makes it possible for me to pass from this life without any true or eternal consequence for a life of darkness and error.
Have you ever thought to study out the meaning of the word "darkness" first found at Genesis 1:2?
No, just that you quoted Luther, that's all I was referring to.
ReplyDelete"Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting philosophical argument, but it's not a biblical one. What's more, it's fallacious. The wicked dead will rise, be consciously judged, and then slaughtered, rendered lifeless forever, never to experience the blessings of eternal life.
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. The symbol could be representing the idea of false religion itself, not the followers. Similarly, some suggest that it represents a particular false religious system, but in doing so, it is a symbol of the whole system, not the individual followers.
ReplyDeleteAs with any system/institution/kingdom, though people are part of it, the institution and the people who are involved with it are not the same thing. Let's say that, one day, every person who followed realized the truth of the gospel and turned to Jesus, and nobody ever followed Islam ever again. Islam, as a system, as a religion, as an institution, would be done away with, yet in doing away with that religious system, the followers weren't done away with - in fact, they gained eternal life.
Similarly, think of a corporation (or any sort of company). You can dissolve a company, but in doing so, you don't dissolve the owners or workers or anyone else involved! They are related, but they are separate entities.
Ultimately though, I would say we really have a lot less to go one with the false prophet than we do with the beast (given the fact that the beast is a mishmash of the 4 beasts from Daniel 7). I would say that really, what you make of the false prophet is largely dependent on what you make of the beast.
You see, you have to demonstrate biblically, and not merely baldly assert, that rising to conscious judgment and being killed and rendered lifeless forever, never to share in the blessings of eternal life, is somehow a punishment which is deficient and not sufficiently proportionate to sin. If you can demonstrate that biblically, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, claiming that somehow there's no point to the decision, or that the wicked have no motivation to choose Christ over death, is nothing but vain speculation.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, Nat, but try as I might, I can hardly understand a thing you are saying, and those things I do understand--such as your claim that I deny eternal punishment/judgment--I've clearly refuted.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the misunderstanding is my fault. Can you try rewording one statement above so I can try to grasp what it is you're saying?
Chris,
ReplyDeletebecause of the narrowing nature of this comment box I will publish your question:
"...Perhaps the misunderstanding is my fault. Can you try rewording one statement above so I can try to grasp what it is you're saying?"
Go ahead and cut and paste a statement and I will rephrase it.
I would read the original manuscripts as we are and see what we see and you say you understand about the traditional view of eternal judgment.
In fact I recall you saying you use to have the traditional view?
Oh yeah, by the way, let me ask?
ReplyDeleteHave I demonstrated to your satisfaction I understand the annihilationism point of view?
Or, do you feel I still lack understanding of it?
Nat, with due respect, for whatever reason we're unable to meaningfully communicate, so I bid you adieu. I'll be interacting with TFan, since for whatever reason he and I are able to understand one another.
ReplyDelete"That claim is still very wrong."
ReplyDeleteIt isn't, in fact. If you don't know what "explicitly" means, then I don't know what to tell you. Of course you and other traditionalists believe that certain passages teach that humans will undergo everlasting torment; that was never in dispute. The point is that if any passage said so explicitly, you wouldn't need an entire paragraph to make your case. Revelation 20:10 doesn't mention humans, and Revelation 20:15 doesn't mention torment. I'm genuinely uninterested that my pointing out that fact bugs you.
Your comments about universalism and me "crying" about how Scripture words things are bizarre, and frankly, embarrassing. The beast and false prophet are described in Revelation 13 and are clearly not individual human beings. What are you talking about?
As for your last paragraph, I absolutely did not claim that conditionalism isn't controversial; it obviously is. For you to assert otherwise demonstrates either sloppiness or dishonesty. If there's some third option, I'm happy to hear it. Finally, I could not possibly care less that the systematic theologies you mention reject conditionalism.
If you're quite done being combative and nasty, feel free to email me and we can set up a Skype call and cordially discuss your interpretation of Revelation 20, among other things.
Chris:
ReplyDelete"...and yet I've explicitly affirmed both."
Yes you affirm both with a condition that excludes an ever-present and continual ongoing punishment and suffering Christ describes a body and soul who is cast into a fiery furnace where their being will be gnashing and gnawing that body's and that soul's teeth will undergo. Some of these are indeed the wicked. Some, though, apparently from reading the book of the Revelation chapters two and three, are those apart of one of the Seven Churches who do not repent and do the works they did at first, or, go forth in Him and conquer. These, it says, will suffer their lampstand being removed and their name removed from the book of Life.
Man being made in the likeness of God and God being "Spirit", three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, you must conclude of Them "They", too, have "teeth".
We are with you on the "eternal life" side. It is the eternal judgment and eternal damnation side of your proposition where we part company with your views.
You want to define eternal punishment one way. We don't define it that way.
Granted, the harlot, in the book of Revelation reference refers to many outwitted deceived souls from every generation. There is an actual and literal "fallen angelic" being who heads up this particular deception in these generations. I propose that personality to be the False Prophet seeing harlotry as understood the way God defined it for literal Israel was going after "false" gods to such a degree we read these word about Her:
Isa 1:9 If the LORD of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we should have been like Sodom, and become like Gomorrah.
Isa 1:10 Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah!
Isa 1:11 "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.
Isa 1:12 "When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts?
Isa 1:13 Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations-- I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
Later on we read these Words:
Isa 33:14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless: "Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?"
...
Isa 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."
You want us to believe once a human's body, soul and spirit are cast into this dwelling place of everlasting burnings, a fiery furnace, they are quickly burned up and there is no more of their being, but that their mind, will and emotions cease.
Well, there we go. I indeed am waiting for more interaction between you and TurretinFan.