The following is a (rearranged) transcript of a discussion I had in an atheist Facebook group. Names have been changed to preserve their anonymity. I've addressed my fuller views on Sola Scriptura and (its compatibility with) continuationism in my various comments on the Comboxes of other people's Blogs HERE. Presumably, "Buzz" is an atheist. I'm not sure.
Buzz wrote: For those of you who subscribe to 'Atheism Fails', don't bother. If you prove them wrong, they'll delete your last post and kick you out of their group. The original question was, 'Does the bible say if the bible is the word of god?' I guess theism failed in this case.
Buzz: Does the bible explain the correct understanding of Sola Scriptura?
Annoyed Pinoy: By its very nature Sola Scriptura couldn't have been taught or practiced during times when verbal Revelation on par with Scripture was being given. Because the very moment an Old Testament Prophet or New Testament Apostle taught Sola Scriptura, it would mean that they could no longer give verbally inspired Revelation from then on out. To make a long explanation short, Sola Scriptura necessarily follows from the fact that new inspired Revelation has ceased being given, and because Scripture is the the only source of infallible and inerrant teaching. This basic explanation (is over-simplified a bit) but should suffice a professing Christian. Of course if I were talking to an atheist I would have to use other wider arguments.
Buzz: From my perspective, it just seems like an extra-biblical doctrine endorses the authority of a book that eschews extra-biblical doctrines. Catch 22 perhaps?
Annoyed Pinoy: Not at all since (and in addition to what I've already written) 1. the Scriptures teach we're only to accept as fully authoritative inspired Revelation (whether it be in the form of Scripture, Verbal proclamation, Visionary, Oneiric [i.e. dreams]). 2. Ever since Moses and the giving of the Law/Torah, all further revelations in any form (written, verbal, visionary etc.) were to be tested by the already established Scriptures at the time. So for example, before the book of Ruth could be included in the Canon, it had to be tested by the Penteteuch/Torah. Similarly, before any of the NT books could be included, they had to be tested by the Tanakh.
Annoyed Pinoy: Same with any prophet. If every a professing prohet (say Isaiah) allegedly gave a revelation, his revelation had to be tested by the then already established Canon. The Scriptures always held highest authority above all other further alleged revelations. Catholics will claim that some inspired revelation has been passed down through Tradition. The problem is that there is no instance of an alleged orally transmitted inspired Revelation that can be documented down through history. Moreover, oral tradition is notoriously untrustworthy. Think for example of Irenaeus' claimed oral tradition that Jesus was approximately 50 years old when He was crucified. No one believes that anymore (historian, scholar, theologian etc.). Finally, Jesus gave the example that the traditions of men must be tested by the Word of God. He faulted the Jews of His time for teaching doctrines of men as if they were the Commandments of God. Jesus taught tradition was not infallible. That's why Karaite Jews (who are sola scripturarians) think Jesus was either a Karaite or influenced by them. Annoyed Pinoy: By the way, Michael L. Brown (a Messianic Jew himself), considered to be the foremost living expert in apologetics dealing with Jewish Counter-Missionaries, cites the works of modern Karaite Jews like Nehemia Gordon in support of Sola Scriptura.
Buzz: The
problem with visions, dreams, revelations and interpretations of
scripture is subjectivity. If two or more people are inspired, who's
proclamations are considered to be more true or accurate? How does one
test for such things? I thought the NT books
were voted into the cannon, there's no way to be sure they were tested
to meet OT criteria. Paul wasn't an authority but taught doctrines and
traditions anyway, some of those not Jewish in character. Several of the
NT authors make claims mentioned in the OT which aren't actually found
in the OT and a few of those are found in the oral Mishnah. Jesus, Paul
and Pharisees in general also accepted non-biblical traditions, both
written and oral. The authority and proclamations of church leaders is
taken for granted in the NT. At which point does the bible specifically
state that church authority and instruction ends after Revelations?
Annoyed Pinoy: The scope of my answer would depend on who is asking (whether Atheist, supernaturalist [e.g. witch, New Ager, Wiccan, Muslim, Hindu], Christian supernaturalist, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox etc.).
//If two or more people are inspired, who's proclamations are considered to be more true or accurate?//
As a Evangelical/Protestant continuationist [and Calvinist], I would point out that Scripture has highest authority and is alone to be trusted because it alone is infallible. As I wrote to someone else in this thread, I believe inspired public revelation on par with Scripture which is universally binding has ceased because the Canon of Scripture is closed. However I do believe that private revelation below the authority of Scripture continue. The New Testament iteself teaches us to test prophecies [cf. 1 Thess. 5:19-22; Acts 17:11; Rev. 2:2; Gal. 1:8 are just some examples].
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil. - 1 Thess. 5:19-22
//How does one test for such things? //
Test it by how the the person's personal theology is with Scripture. Test it by how consistent the alleged private revelation is with or against Scripture. Test it by whether they come to pass or are empirically confirmed. Words of Knowledge and/or Prophecies are sometimes foretelling/predictive, sometimes forth-telling. So for example, if a predictive prophecy is fulfilled or not. Or if a word of knowledge about something can be confirmed as being true (e.g. say if I had a word of knowledge that your uncle Jeff sexually abused you in his car when you were 12 during your cousin Joe's birthday party). Test it by whether the revelation results in good fruit/results/consequences. Test it by whether it results or entails personal gain by the alleged prophet (which might suggest evil manipulation). Remember, I don't believe these private revelations are on par with Scripture. So, they naturally must be taken tentatively/provisionally.
//I thought the NT books were voted into the cannon, there's no way to be sure they were tested to meet OT criteria.//
That's not technically how they were received into the Canon. The canonization process was different for the OT and NT. Unfortunately William Webster's website is down. But I can access some of the material using Archive.org's WayBackMachine feature. I can't access the full articles I'd like to link to, but I can access the mp3 file of one of his lectures on the Canon using Archive.org.
//Paul wasn't an authority but taught doctrines and traditions anyway, some of those not Jewish in character.//
I don't know what you mean by this. The apostle Paul has been accepted as genuine apostle by all major historic branches of Christianity (whether Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Nestorian etc.). The earliest of the church fathers accepted his apostolicity. For example, Clement of Rome places Paul on par with his mentor Peter (who was an apostle to Jews). Clement called him "the blessed Paul." John's disciple Polycarp says Paul "accurately and reliably taught the message of truth." Polycarp quotes Paul's letters can referred to them as part of the Sacred Scriptures.
//Several of the NT authors make claims mentioned in the OT which aren't actually found in the OT and a few of those are found in the oral Mishnah. //
Not all OT allusions are quotations. Some are allusions, some paraphrases. Some are examples of the Jewish hermeneutical/interpretive method of Pardes/PaRDeS, as Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum points out. *P*ardes Literal Prophecy Plus Literal Fulfillment: Pshat The first category is known as “literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment,” reflecting the rabbinic pshat, which refers to the simple meaning of the text. The example of this first category is found in Matthew 2:5 6.
pa*R*des Literal Plus Typical: Remez The second category of quotations can be labeled “literal plus typical.” In rabbinic theology it was known are remez or “hint.” An example of this category is found in Matthew 2:15.
par*D*es Literal Plus Application: Drash The third category is “literal plus application,” correlating with the rabbinic drash. The example of this category is Matthew 2:17 18.
parde*S* Summation: Sod The fourth category is “summation” or “summary.” The meaning of sod is “secret” or “mystery” or “something unknown.” The example of the fourth category is found in Matthew 2:23.
//and a few of those are found in the oral Mishnah.//
The New Testament is free to quote or allude to extra-Scriptural (i.e. outside of Scripture) sources just as we could cite newpapers in sermons without implying they are on par with Scripture. Paul didn't endorse the prophethood of the Pagan poets/philosophers he quoted. Whether Aratus, Menander, Epimenides etc.
//Jesus, Paul and Pharisees in general also accepted non-biblical traditions, both written and oral.//
Again, alluding to extra-Scriptural sources is not necessarily an endorsement of them. Where do any of them say phrases like "It is Written" or "Scripture Says" or equivalent phrases for those citations? They conspicuously don't. As if by conscious intention. Whenever such phrases are used, they always apply to the standard Jerusalem Canon and not a wider Canon. Webster's article on the OT Canon is EXCELLENT. Unfortunately, I can't link to it in full right now. :(
//At which point does the bible specifically state that church authority and instruction ends?//
The New specifically states that the church is founded on Christ, the OT prophets and NT apostles.
"built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,"- Eph. 2:20
The term apostle is used in the NT in at least two senses. One way is n the sense of missionary. The second way was Apostle (with a capital "A" so to speak) whereby a person was personally chosen by the risen Christ (i.e. the original 12 apostles, with Judas replaced by Matthias, and Paul being picked by revelation on the road to Damascus).
Th authority of the church remains, but INFALLIBLE authority rested only on the original Apostles. But even then, in my opinion, they weren't completely exempt from hypothetical apostasy. That's why Paul said that his present message was to be tested by his past message and the consensus message of the rest of the Apostles (Gal. 1:8). At the present time, minsters of the Gospel have authority only in so far as they are in line with the teaching of Scripture.
Notice what the church father Cyril wrote in his Catechetical Lecture which would have been a summary of universal Christian teaching at that time:
For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 4, 17)
I'm simplifying a lot of this of course. Books have been written that discuss these topics.
Buzz: I
can appreciate the effort in your responses but when I read Madrids
closing statement against White, Madrid appears to have addressed many
of the claims you've made above. Consider reading the transcript of the
White vs Madrid debate, specifically the closing statement from Madrid.
I'm afraid his arguments are more convincing. Thank you for your time
and effort.
Annoyed Pinoy: I've read that debate multiple times in the late 1990s.
CB: Patrick Madrid swept the floor with James White btw. Sola Scriptura has been proven wrong over and over.
Annoyed Pinoy: As a Protestant, I completely disagree. The case for Sola Scriptura is strong historically, theologically, logically and patristically.
CB: I would be happy to go over it with you and study this issue together
Annoyed Pinoy: I have more important things to do. Presumably we're both already familiar with the arguments for and against Sola Scriptura. For myself, I sometimes prefer the term Summa Scriptura or Prima Scriptura for apologetical purposes (and because I'm a continuationists regarding the charismatic gifts, rather than a cessationist). Annoyed Pinoy: As a continuationists I believe private revelation is still being given by God, but not public revelation that's fully inspired on par with Scripture. Otherwise, such fully inspired revelation would be universally binding on the consciences of Christians. It would also imply that the Canon isn't closed (which I think is closed).
A person in an atheist Facebook Group I'm a member of posted the following comments in relation to a video segment of Christopher Hitchens where he answers a sobering question by the moderator. The segment of the video is at the following link at 30 minutes and 30 seconds: https://youtu.be/2j3VU1T8ALU?t=30m30s
Christopher Hitchens vs 4 Christians - Does the god of Christianity exist?
Jim (not his real name) wrote:
I'd already been past the point of no-return on my voyage to the free side, but I remember first seeing this and being struck by the obviousness of Christopher's point, and Doug Wilson's pathetic response.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the theist will bark, "Appeal to emotion!!!" But, think that your only real retort is, "I've no fucking idea why God allows/designed this, but he must have a good reason. We'll find out in Theology 101 in Heaven."
The following is my response:
Hitchens seems to caricature the Christian claim by saying we say it's (only) for the weak, poor, sickly, ill-connected and disenfranchised. No, it's for everyone, not just the weak etc. But I can let that go because he may have just misspoken and knows that we don't limit it to the weak. Also, the questioner's point is that Christianity has something to say and offer to the weak (et cetera). Whereas atheism and *atheistic* evolution doesn't (as opposed to *theistic* evolution, or some other form of theistic creationism)
Then Hitchens objects to God's omniscience. There's nothing immoral about God employing "round the clock surveillance" (to use Hitchens phraseology). Just because Hitchens doesn't like it doesn't mean it's morally wrong. Even Hitchens would have probably agreed that there is no absolute right to absolute privacy. He would have probably agreed that human governments sometimes have the right to do investigations when crimes are suspected. If that's true for fallible sinful human governments, how much more for an infallible and perfectly righteous Judge, namely God?
Hitchens complains that with the conception of the Christian God there are such things as "thought crimes". In this Age (i.e. before the return of Christ) in human governments not all sins are crimes. Meaning, some sins are not crimes which can legitimately be punished by governments. But if governments can judge at least some sins (i.e. sins that happen to also be crimes), why can't God judge all sins?
The complaint might be that these are merely thoughts and not real actions, and therefore shouldn't be punished. However, they nevertheless still reflect the character of the persons who commit those sinful thoughts. In Christianity not all thoughts of evil are evil. There's a distinction between knowledge of evil and evil knowledge. Knowing and thinking about evil, is not the same thing as sinfully relishing in evil. Also, in Christianity, temptations aren't sinful. They turn into sins when acted upon or relished and enjoyed in thought. For God to not judge all sins is for God to not be truly, perfectly and absolutely righteous and good. So, it's possible to think thoughts of evil, and even be tempted by them, without them becoming evil thoughts. When a human judge punishes a convicted criminal, that's an expression of his goodness. Its judges who are evil who don't punish crimes when they are in a position to do so. In the same way, it would be evil for God not to eventually judge all sins. In God's mercy He sometimes delays judgment to allow time for repentance. There are many reasons why God may not immediately intervene to prevent the commission of all sins and crimes. Take some following examples:
-We need some degree of freedom for genuine personhood.
-Some degree of freedom may require (at least temporarily) the possibility of (moral and/or natural) evil.
-The (temporary) existence of evil is also necessary for the formation and development of souls (cf. Soul Making/Developing/Building Theodicies in the philosophic and theological literature).
Hitchens then goes on to quote/paraphrase (George?) Orwell that all totalitarianism is essentially theocratic. That's just a case of "poisoning the well" by linking totalitarianism with God's rule. In fact, many totalitarian regimes have been atheistic. If his point is that the concept of God entails that God is a totalitarian, then a more accurate and objective analysis is to say that theocratic totalitarianism by God is essentially atheistic (rather than the reverse as Orwell allegedly said). Meaning, if God were really totalitarian, then He's actually an atheist (in/by his behavior). This is especially true if/when one applies Perfect Being Theology to the question of whether God could do/perform evil deeds. Given perfect being theology, there are some actions which God not only wouldn't but couldn't perform (contrary to divine voluntarism).
Most Christian apologists deny divine voluntarism and hold to some form of divine essentialism (e.g. Divine Command Essentialism). Voluntarism would say that God can and may literally do anything. Whereas some form of essentialism says that God would not and may not do anything contrary to His own good nature. There is a sense in which God chooses His nature, and that (simultaneously) His nature comes to expression in His will. There is no contradiction or conflict between the two.
Hitchens then goes to say that it's wrong for (or disagreeable to him) that God cannot be "voted out" of office (so to speak) . Well, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't true, isn't good, isn't right or isn't actually the case. Besides, if God really is a perfectly good and just/righteous, why would anyone want to "vote Him out"? Only evil people would want that (literally). It might be argued that some of God's behavior is evil. But that's what's in dispute. What's also in dispute is the standard by which we can judge something as good or bad (I've addressed this topic HERE and HERE). We can eventually argue about those details and whether the Christian conception of God is actually evil, but are atheists willing to agree and admit (at least theoretically) that if God really were perfectly just that we shouldn't want Him voted out and that it would be a beneficial and appropriate thing for such a God to reign and rule the omniverse?
Hitchens then goes on to say that the concept of the Christian God makes a parody of fatherhood. Here Hitchens (as he often did) demonstrated his ignorance of basic Christian teaching. God is not just a Father but a Judge. Human judges can have conflicting duties as parents and judges. In such instances the duties of being a judge should take priority over the duties of being a parent because it can involve public justice, the public good and provide a public example (among other things). The same is true for God.
Moreover, while there is a sense in which God is the ontological/metaphysical father of all beings (sentient or inanimate), there is another sense in which God is only a Father in a redemptive sense for those who are in relationship with Him through the New Covenant Gospel. So, not everyone are among the children of God in this redemptive sense. God has the right to judge those who are not in such a relationship with Him as if they aren't His children (which they aren't). In God's mercy and grace He has provided salvation through the sacrifice of His Son whom He sent into the world. The Son (Jesus) willing and joyfully laid down His life to provide salvation for lost humanity. While it is the Holy Spirit who willingly and joyfully applies the benefits of the Cross to people.
Hitchens goes on to say that instead of making sure his children prosper, God will sit in judgment and everlasting condemnation against them. He quipped sarcastically as if speaking for God, "You'll never hear the end of me. You'll never see the back of me." However, it's only appropriate for God to justly judge the world. Would one rather have God not justly judge the world? Or judge it unjustly as well as prevent final and ultimate justice to prevail? If the complaint is that God's judgment is eternal and therefore unfair/unjust, I have two points to say in regard to that.
1. Maybe annihilationism is true. If so, then the suffering will one day end.
2. I myself don't hold to annihilationism, nevertheless the nature of eternal conscious torment isn't clear in the Bible. It may not be physical at all, or not primarily physical. It might be mostly mental and emotional (e.g. the torment of having missed out on eternal life/bliss/prosperity, the torment of shame and condemnation etc.).
In response to the question about weakness he gives the instance of the daughter (Elisabeth Fritzl) who was locked up by her father and repeatedly raped for years. He complains that God "folded His arms" and didn't do anything in His indifference. First off, Hitchens would (later?) mention the same case in his debate with William Lane Craig. Right before mentioning the case of fraulein Fritzl, Hitchens said, "If I was a believer, I would not feel [that] God owed me an explanation. I'm not one of those atheists who thinks you can go around saying...[pause]....complaining. I mean, if you make the assumption that there is a deity, then all things are possible. You just have to be able to make that assumption."- Christopher Hitchens in his debate with William Lane Craig at 2:19:55 into the debate here: https://youtu.be/0tYm41hb48o?t=2h19m55s
Secondly, God will not indefinitely do nothing. God will one day judge the father, Josef Fritzl. So, God is not indifferently folding His arms. Some might object by saying, "Delayed justice is justice denied" [i.e. no justice at all]. Especially if that delay allows for greater and prolonged commission of evil and enduring of suffering. But there's no way for us finite creatures to be able to determine or calculate that it's not the case that the eventual positive benefits of delaying judgment outweighs the negatives of that postponement. Hitchens' mere intuition that it's not just or good of God to allow such evil is not a good argument, much less a knockdown argument. See William Lane Craig's videos on the Problem of Evil. Some of which I've collected here: https://misclane.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-problem-of-evil-by-william-lane.html
Thirdly, I already alluded to the theodicial concept that God allows significant freedom in this Age in order to allow for the possibility of building souls through the trials we go through in this world to prepare people for the next world/Age.
Fourthly, It may be asked, "What if in such horrible circumstances no one is saved? Wouldn't that mean that God allowed their suffering for no purpose at all?" This touches upon the issue of predestination and providence. As a Calvinist this objection is even more pressing on my position than on a more Arminian positions. I've addressed this issue many times in my various comments in Triablogue. This issue is too deep for me to address for the purposes of this blogpost. So, I'll only say something briefly (though a whole blogpost or series of blogposts could be dedicated to this single issue). Suffice it to say, for the purposes of this blogpost, that in God's goodness He is not obligated to supply maximal goodness to everyone equally. Compare the concept of privatio boni in relation to the existence of evil. It's not evil on God's part to withhold maximal goodness, and God is sovereign in the degree to which He chooses to mete out grace, mercy and goodness. The doctrine of omnibenevolence is not that God must be maximally good to all equally, but that whatever God does is good and may not be evil, irrational or illogical. This is why I disagree with the common definition of omnibenevolence that most atheists and atheologists use. It's not attenuated by Biblical teaching, and so is a strawman when applied specifically to Christianity.
If God were to be maximally good to all creatures then that would logically and necessarily impinge on His creativity. For example, if every creature could breath under water, fly in the air, climb trees with their tails, be as intelligent and immaterial as angels (etc.) there would be no fish, no birds, no monkeys, no angels etc. Since body designs by logical necessity are different than other designs. If every creature were a metamorph, that would affect the possibility of the creation of stable and uniquely beautiful ecosystems. As I said, it would impinge on God's creativity and the Principle of Plenitude.
Back to the issue of "Wouldn't that mean that God allowed their suffering for no purpose at all? [if none in such a situation were saved]". That assumes the only purpose God has is salvation. But that's contrary to the teaching of the Bible. There are various multi-level, multivalent and interconnecting purposes that God has for things that He allows (or even ordains) to happen which have no relation (or no direct relation) to salvation at all.
Fifthly, God in His justice has a right to allow the consequences of sin to take its course. That includes the continued and growing manifestation of evil. The continuation, spread and intensification of evil, can (in some sense and level) itself be a manifestation of temporal judgment before the Final Judgment.
Hitchens then says regarding the case of fraulein Fritzl that (in essence) "Christians say that's alright that she endured what she did because she'll eventually get a better life. So in the end it was worth going throug it all" (paraphrase). Here again Hitchens reveals his ignorance of Christian doctrine and or logical reasoning. To say that it was ultimately good that X happened, is not the same thing as endorsing it, approving of it, sanctioning it, or saying it wasn't actually evil, or denying it shouldn't have been done. That's a logical non-sequitur. There's a huge difference between ***all things BEING EQUAL*** and X being something finite creatures have the moral duty of never doing, and ***all things CONSIDERED*** it was best for X, in this specific instance Y, to have happened.
Finally, Notice that Hitchens never answered the man's question. The man's question was what could atheism offer (in terms of hope, comfort etc.) to the weak, poor, sickly, ill-connected and disenfranchised? It seems to me that atheism has nothing to offer but despair.
The person on Facebook (whom I called "Jim") who asked the question wrote,
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the theist will bark, "Appeal to emotion!!!" But, think that your only real retort is, "I've no fucking idea why God allows/designed this, but he must have a good reason. We'll find out in Theology 101 in Heaven."
I agree that most of what Hitchens said was an appeal to emotion. Hitchens didn't given any good logical or informed reason why atheism can offer the weak anything beneficial. In fact, given Darwinism, one could argue that it's good for the weak to die off. Nor were Hitchens objections based on an informed knowledge of what Christians believe or what apologists have said. Like many atheists he was just speaking to himself and his fellow atheists in their atheistic bubbles/conclaves/echo chambers.
Also, what's wrong with saying that we don't know all of the reasons why God allows/designed such evil and suffering to come to pass? The fact is that we do know at least some of the reasons based on what the Bible says and what can be further inferred (deductively, inductively, abductively, reductively etc.). It's an unreasonable demand to know all the reasons for why God allows all of the evils and sufferings He does allow. For something this complex, isn't it reasonable to conclude that our finite minds would not be able to grasp all the complex intertwining nexus of reasons? That it would require omniscience to know and understand all the reasons? Shouldn't the fact that we know *some* of the reasons why God allows evil and suffering relieve and release some of the pressure and tension that the various problem of evil arguments are meant to induce?
Normally, I'm not impressed by Douglas Wilson's apologetic against atheism (even though, like him, I'm a Van Tillian presuppositionalist). Nevertheless, in this segment his answers make a lot of sense. His point is that given Christianity there will be final and ultimate justice and there can be future hope for the saved. Along with that, given Christianity one is able to coherently and justifiably say that in Christianity there are such things as objective goods and objective evils. We can ontologically ground objective values. Whereas given atheism there is no final and ultimate justice or future hope of eternal life. Nor are there such things as objective goods, evils or values under atheism. Or if there are, they are not obvious. In fact, atheistic philosophers struggle to metaphysically ground objective morality. So much so that many atheists have given up on the possibility and say there are no objective morals.
In conclusion, I think in this segment Christopher Hitchens once again showed that he was a rhetorician whose forte was in influencing other people's views by primarily using appeals to emotion (pathos), instead of logic and reason (logos). Hitchens was a smart and quick witted individual, but he was not a deep thinker on the issues related to God's existence, goodness and theology in general. His answers were often very superficial precisely because he suffered from self-reinforced ignorance of what theists and apologists actually believe and argue.
The following further records my conversation with "Jim"
Jim wrote:
Thank
you for taking the time to create your blog post, but there is quite a
bit of errors in it. HItchens didn't make the claim about Christianity
being for the downtrodden, that was the moderator. Christopher was
responding to that claim to show it wasn't.
Also,
you are really missing his point about the constant surveillance, it
has zero to do with modern life in the West. It is more akin to North
Korea. Though many Christians proclaim they are slaves to Jesus, which
is what Christopher finds so revolting.
YOu also
miss the point about "thoughtcrime". Humans can't even control their
own thoughts. Try it, you won't be able to. Clearly Hitchens doens't
believe there is such a diety with that power. And .clearly the authors
of those prohibitions new it was impossible to meet them. It just put
one on guard to avoid going from bad thought (adultery) to actual
adultery.
At the end of the day, you don't grapple
with the main point other than to acknowledge it. You're only answer
to human and animal suffering is to say "God is mysterious." If that
does it for you, that does it for you.
And yes, if
one doesn't believe there is a God, like me. The fight for justice
comes in the only life we know we have. In the here and now. Also,
given a naturalistic view of life on earth, there is no mystery why evil
occassionally triumphs. It is the result of humans being merely
evolved primates. It is what you would expect to happen with no one at
the controls.
Christianity posits and all loving
and powerful God at the controls, but he doesn't see to give a shit. He
may in fact enjoy it. The poor apologists only answer is "God moves in
mysterious ways."
"HItchens didn't make the claim about Christianity being for the downtrodden, that was the moderator. Christopher was responding to that claim to show it wasn't. "
I didn't say that Hitchens believed it was for the downtrodden. I said that he said it was the Christian claim that it was (only?) for the downtrodden/weak. Notice too that I gave Hitchens a pass on that because he may have just imprecisely misspoke in haste (something we all do at times).
" It is more akin to North Korea. Though many Christians proclaim they are slaves to Jesus, which is what Christopher finds so revolting. "
I took Hitchens in the broadest and most charitable sense. Meaning, all forms of totalitarianism (including North Korea). Yes, we are all slaves and servants to something. Either directly to God, or indirectly (or directly) to Satan whenever we are slaves to (or on account of) our sins like pride, money, power, etc.
"Humans can't even control their own thoughts. "
I specifically distinguished between mere thoughts and the choice to relish in those thoughts. We have wills whereby we can choose to focus our thoughts on different objects. Also, the Bible teaches that we are all sinners, and that unregenerate humans (i.e. non-Christians) are especially slaves to sin. So, your admission that some people can't control their thoughts indirectly supports my earlier claim that we are all slaves to someone or some thing. In the Calvinist theological tradition that I belong to, we believe in four stages of human conditions. That 1. before the Fall humans were able to sin or not sin; 2. after the Fall humans were only able to sin; 3. after becoming Christians are able to to sin or not sin; and 4. after entering heaven and being glorified not able to sin.
"You're only answer to human and animal suffering is to say "God is mysterious." If that does it for you, that does it for you. "
It wasn't my intention to be exhaustive in my blogpost as to why God allows evil and suffering. I included a link to Craig's videos on the topic to supplement. Even then, Craig isn't a Calvinist like myself so I would have some differences with him, along with have more to say on the topic that's distinctively Calvinistic. I've addressed the topic in other blogposts and the comboxes of other people's blogs. It's not like the Calvinist answers are a secret. They are just either unwanted or unknown (often because unwanted and therefore uninvestigated).
" The fight for justice comes in the only life we know we have. In the here and now. "
As a Christian I too believe that we ought to fight for justice and against injustice in this Age as well. However, there are some cases of injustice that cannot be solved in this Age, and take the next Age for resolution.
"Also, given a naturalistic view of life on earth, there is no mystery why evil occassionally triumphs. It is the result of humans being merely evolved primates. It is what you would expect to happen with no one at the controls. "
Christianity (IMO) is consistent with macro-evolution. God could have used macro-evolution (though the scientific evidence makes me doubt it). Nevertheless if there is no God, then it would appear that there are no objective values and so no intrinsic rights and wrong. Things just ARE, and things just HAPPEN; without any transcendent rightness or wrongness about it. Given atheism, it would seem that choosing to murder and rape are really no different than choosing to eat pizza with pineapple. Moreover, given atheism it seems likely that Eliminative Materialism is true and that human consciousness, thoughts, beliefs, desires, feelings, choices, deliberations, intentionality, ratiocination, and acts of will aren't real but are all illusory.
"Christianity posits and all loving and powerful God at the controls, but he doesn't see to give a shit. He may in fact enjoy it. The poor apologists only answer is "God moves in mysterious ways."
BTW, I don't agree with the common understanding/definition of "omnibenevolence". I'll probably update my blogpost to make that (and other things) clearer. Saying it doesn't seem that God cares is not the same thing as saying God doesn't care or that one has proof that God doesn't care. Jumping from it "SEEMS" that God doesn't care to "therefore I shouldn't or don't want to believe in God" is a logical non-sequitur. It's literally a babyish/childish response. When one weighs the potential eternal (future) and temporal (contemporary) benefits of belief in God and the poor evidence that God definitely doesn't exist or definitely doesn't care, a more sensible position to take is, maybe God exists and therefore I'll tentatively believe in God and maybe I'll find the true God in one of the religions out there. But because of our inherent sinfulness, many people would rather risk it all for the sake of the limited sense of freedom one gets by rejecting God or belief in God. Pascal's Wager was never meant to be a good argument for the *existence* of God, but for *belief* in or (even tentative/provisional belief) in God.
As I said above, I'll likely further edit my blogpost. I already did about an hour after I first posted it. I felt I was a bit too harsh towards Hitchens, so I toned it down a bit. I acknowledged his intelligence, but then said that on the specific topic of God and theology he wasn't deeply read/informed.
Jim wrote:
// I said that he said it was the Christian claim that it was (only?) for the downtrodden/weak. //
Umm, yeah, he didn't say that. He was riffing off the moderator.
//Yes,
we are all slaves and servants to something. Either directly to God, or
indirectly (or directly) to Satan whenever we are slaves to (or on
account of) our sins like pride, money, power, etc.//
Yeah,
I don't buy the God you believe in or the existence of Satan. I have
weaknesses, that's for sure. What would you expect when one is an
evolved primate? But to equate different drives to being a slave is
pretty ridiculous.
//I specifically distinguished between mere thoughts and the choice to relish in those thoughts.//
So,
if I think, in my mind, that my neighbor has a nice ass, and do admire
it from time to time. One might say "relish" it, but never, ever act on
it or DREAM of acting on it. That's a no no??
//So,
your admission that some people can't control their thoughts indirectly
supports my earlier claim that we are all slaves to someone or some
thing.//
How the hell does that even follow? No one
can fully control their thoughts. If I say, "Pig"! Did you have any
control over visualizing a "pig" in your mind??? Oink oink!!
//In the Calvinist theological tradition that I belong to...//
The one where you are predestined? Where you've no real control over your fate before YHWH? That tradition?
//However, there are some cases of injustice that cannot be solved in this Age, and take the next Age for resolution.//
What
kind?? We may not able to solve them, like the Jews incinerated while
your God watched, but that doesn't me it was impossible. By the way,
don't you believe, as a Calvinist, all those Jews are in Hell?
//Christianity (IMO) is consistent with macro-evolution. //
Sure, if you throw out the Bible and consider JEsus a liar/mistaken, and also one that died for a metaphor. Hoo boy!
//Things just ARE, and things just HAPPEN; without any transcendent rightness or wrongness about it.//
Correct
as it pertains to natural disasters. Irma happened. It makes total
sense given the nature of our planet. On theism? Not so much.
//Given
atheism, it would seem that choosing to murder and rape are really no
different than choosing to eat pizza with pineapple.//
For
some people, we call them sociopaths and psychopaths, that is true.
Funny, are they made in God's image? For a person with an evolved
primate morality, it isn't. To behave in that manner our species
wouldn't be here today for us to have this conversation.
J//umping
from it "SEEMS" that God doesn't care to "therefore I shouldn't or
don't want to believe in God" is a logical non-sequitur.//
Huh?
Who the hell said that? I do find the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Joseph, one not worthy of worship. Actually a despicable character.
Thank goodness it's only a character from the minds of our forbears that
didn't know the earth orbited the Sun!!
//Pascal's
Wager was never meant to be a good argument for the *existence* of God,
but for *belief* in or (even tentative/provisional belief) in God.//
Pascal
treats God like a fool, or more like a Donald Trump like person in
bizarre need of affirmation from people that don't actually have their
heart or mind in it.
//Umm, yeah, he didn't say that. He was riffing off the moderator.//
Making the observation that Hitchens (whom I'll sometimes call CH) was riffing off the moderator doesn't alter the fact that Hitchens was alluding to the fact that many Christians make some claim about the special relationship between Christianity and the poor. This is a common claim that CH would have known, and I charitably interpreted him as misspeaking rather than strawmanning the Christian claim.
//Yeah, I don't buy the God you believe in or the existence of Satan.//
// But to equate different drives to being a slave is pretty ridiculous.//
Obviously you don't believe in God or Satan. I was explaining what we Christians mean by what you yourself alluded to so that you could better understand it and see how it makes internal sense in our worldview.
//So, if I think, in my mind, that my neighbor has a nice ass, and do admire it from time to time. One might say "relish" it, but never, ever act on it or DREAM of acting on it. That's a no no?? //
Christianity doesn't preclude or see as sin the appreciation of beauty. That's different from sins like lust; sins like ill-contentment with God's providence in not providing X and either not providing non-X (e.g. no wife at all) or providing Y (e.g. less attractive or older wife); or sins like planning and scheming on using psychology in subtle ways to seduce the woman (or man) to voluntarily commit the sin of fornication or adultery.
//How the hell does that even follow? No one can fully control their thoughts. If I say, "Pig"! Did you have any control over visualizing a "pig" in your mind??? Oink oink!! //
That's a strawman representation of what I said. I never claimed absolute control over one's thoughts. We all know the old point that if someone shouted aloud "Pink elephant!" most people would spontaneously and involuntarily think of a pink elephant. When it comes to human psychology and consciousness there are various aspects. For example, thoughts, beliefs, desires, acts of the will, feelings, deliberations, decisions, intentionality, ratiocinations. We can choose to direct our thoughts and foci ("focus" in the plural) on either good or evil. But often our natures (whether good or evil) have desires that overrule our wills so that we focus mostly on evil (or good). Calvinists like myself believe that non-Christians are Totally Depraved. We don't believe non-Christians are as bad as they can/could be (that's *UTTER depravity*). But total depravity says that all aspects of unregenerate human nature (including the mind, will, affections/desires, feelings etc.) is so affected by sin and evil that everything they do/think/believe/feel (etc.) is tainted by sin and evil desires so that there's a natural aversion and hostility toward the Christian God and Christianity. In my original comment I specifically talked about our "wills" and our ability to choose our "focus", but instead you strawman my position. I could say more about the Christian doctrines of Christian and non-Christian psychology, but the above should be sufficient for now.
//The one where you are predestined? Where you've no real control over your fate before YHWH? That tradition?//
You speak as if that's some kind of answer that should shut us up because we have no answers. Calvinists have been addressing such objections for over 400 years. Calvinism is a form of Augustinianism and Augustinian predestinarians have been addressing such objections for over 1,6000 years. True, in Calvinism God is ultimately in control of our destinities, but He ordains both Ends AND ***MEANS***. One of the means by which what He has foreordained will happen actually happens is our willing decisions to focus on or away from spiritually good (or evil) things. Given Calvinism our choices are real, they matter and make a difference [Calvinists usually reject libertarian free will for compatibilist free will]. So/therefore, one may not legitimately use predestination or election as an excuse to not seek God or for why they were lost.
For an introduction on how we can be morally responsible to the Calvinist conception of God see Paul Manata's introduction:
//What kind?? We may not able to solve them, like the Jews incinerated while your God watched, but that doesn't me it was impossible. By the way, don't you believe, as a Calvinist, all those Jews are in Hell?//
I don't know what you mean by "what kind?" I can't understand your second sentence either because of the grammatical mistake (I make such mistakes too, so no problem). I'll try and guess what your point(s) is(are). Yes, that's exactly right. Given atheism there is no way you can grant justice to the Jews who died at Hitler's hand. You say, "...like the Jews incinerated while your God watched..." Well, even some Jews (including rabbis) believe that God allowed the holocaust/Shoah as a punishment for Jewish sins. I think there's some truth to that, but not the whole truth. Since none of those Jews were equally guilty. Some were less guilty and more innocent than others. I already addressed your claim that God watched with indifference. I also pointed to my other blogposts that address it tangentially, and pointed to William Lane Craig's videos on the Problem of Evil and Suffering. Here's the link to my blogpost again. I've added an extra self-contained single video (43 minutes) in addition to the three successive lectures that amount to 3 1/2 hours: http://misclane.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-problem-of-evil-by-william-lane.html
None of your objections based on the Problem of Evil & Suffering even take into account the basic answers that Craig gives (even though Craig isn't even a Calvinist). So, you're not even at level 2 yet (much less level 3). So, I don't feel the need to exhaustively address your uninformed and mistaken objections.
//By the way, don't you believe, as a Calvinist, all those Jews are in Hell?//
Some of those Jews believed in the Gospel, so they would have gone to heaven. Contrary to most Calvinists, I'm open to the possibility of post-mortem salvation for some. God could have unilaterally and sovereignly saved some of those Jews. I don't dogmatically hold it, or positively believe some are saved this way. But I don't bar the possibility altogether either. I think that's more consistent with the doctrine of God's Sovereignty [not to mention the doctrine of God's mercy]. See the book, "Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World" in the Zondervan counterpoint series. I don't believe that anyone dying presently goes to Gehenna. During the intermediate state the unsaved go to sheol/hades where they await future Gehenna. Whenever anyone does (eventually) go to hell/Gehenna, they do so for their own sins. No one innocent or not guilty goes to hell. God will never unjustly send anyone to hell.
//Sure, if you throw out the Bible and consider JEsus a liar/mistaken, and also one that died for a metaphor. Hoo boy! //
That's just SOOOOO ignorant that it's pitiful and sad. I'm not gloating at all. I'm sincerely sorry and pity you that you're so uninformed. See Craig's 21 lectures on the topic of Creation and Evolution. I've linked to it here: http://misclane.blogspot.com/2017/08/william-lane-craig-on-creation-and.html
You act as if Christians have never encountered your basic objections before, or haven't addressed them in depth. Like Hitchens, you're suffering from self-reinforced ignorance. That's why you can be so confident in your objections as if they're earth shatteringly new or devastating. There is no explicit contradiction between macro-evolution and the Bible, Christianity, the New Testament, the Gospel's, or Jesus' statements.
// It makes total sense given the nature of our planet. On theism? Not so much. //
//For some people, we call them sociopaths and psychopaths, that is true.//
Given theism, teleology makes sense and so can account for disease. That is, something contrary to design and proper functioning. Given atheism, there are no diseases. Things just are. There is no design or teleology and therefore there's no such thing as disfunctional cells, systems organs (whether Cancer etc.). As Hume said you can't get an "Ought" (or "Ought Not') from an "Is".
// Funny, are they made in God's image?//
"Funny" how you're also ignorant of the corollary associated doctrine of the Fall of Man and it's effects on human nature, its noetic effects and the bent toward sinfulness and tendency toward sickness.
// For a person with an evolved primate morality, it isn't. To behave in that manner our species wouldn't be here today for us to have this conversation. //
It doesn't ground morality to say that pragmatically if we didn't evolve to have some social behavior we wouldn't be here. Also, some primate species are more war-like while others are more altruistic and irenic. Who's to say that humans (or individuals within humanity) aren't evolving or may not evolve to be more war-like? Given atheism, it seems there is no basis for any distinction between appropriate or inappropriate behavior (i.e. no metaphysical/ontological grounding for objective values and morality) or evolution.
// I do find the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph, one not worthy of worship.//
While there were Josephs who believed in YHVH, the grouping is usually "Abraham, Isaac and ***JACOB***" [Father, son and grandson].
//Actually a despicable character. //
Unless and until you ground objective morality, you can't objectively judge the Christian God as despicable. All you can say is your dislike the Christian God like some people dislike vegetables. It's a preference statement, not a real indictment on God's character that could be taken seriously.
//Thank goodness it's only a character from the minds of our forbears that didn't know the earth orbited the Sun!! //
Scientists don't believe in **absolute** HELIOcentrism, they believe in **relative** heliocentrism. In fact, many of the greatest scientists have pointed out that **relative** GEOcentrism is just as legitimate as relative heliocentrism. See my collection of quotations by great scientists on the subject here: http://quotesandreferences.blogspot.com/2016/08/quotes-in-favor-of-geocentrism.html
So, your statement about not knowing the earth orbits around the sun is LITERALLY FALSE. Since the General Theory of Relativity requires all motion to be relative, that therefore means relative geocentrism is a perfectly acceptable scientific position to hold.
Stephen Hawking wrote:
"So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true...one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest."- Physicist, Stephen Hawking
//Pascal treats God like a fool, or more like a Donald Trump like person in bizarre need of affirmation from people that don't actually have their heart or mind in it.//
That's patently ridiculous. Pascal affirmed the aseity of God. That God doesn't need creation (much less the accolades and devotion of fawning creatures). God isn't egotistically vain in that way. God rightfully demands/deserves/desires our devotion because of Who and What He is, as well as on account of the fact that He knows it's for our own good. God knows He is the sources of all goodness, and everlasting goodness at that. For God to not require us to love Him would be unloving, unkind and hateful on His part. Imagine billionaire parents who are neutral on whether their children should look to them for their well being instead of the child's own feeble resources out in the cold outer darkness and wilderness.
I've spent a lot of time already in conversation with you. I have other things I need to attend to. So, you can have the last words. Thanks for the conversation. I'll add your comments to my blogpost. Though, I may eventually decide to respond to them on the blogpost. Thanks again for the conversation.
Jim wrote:
[Annoyed Pinoy], this
is FB. All you've done with your blogpost and posts above is
regurgitate Christian apologetics. Each one I could discuss, and show
you why they are fallacious and created as rear guard actions. Craig
himself admits the arguments are all beside the point, and one need only
to rely on the inner witness.
Apologists are truly akin to press secretaries for God. Just keep spinning.
Have a nice day!
Jim once again strawman's Craig. Craig does not say that arguments are beside the point. That may be Jim's interpretation of Craig's position and what it boils down to, but that is not Craig's point. In fact, Craig specifically states that arguments and evidences in Apologetics are useful even if they aren't not absolutely necessary. See Craig's video:
[Annoyed Pinoy],
Craig's point boils down to "God is mysterious, no one knows the mind
of God." Do you disagree? Also, if all you are going to do is post
links, and not directly engage, bother not. Have a great rest of the
week yourself!
You
apparently didn't watch the videos because Craig specifically said it
was NOT an appeal to Mystery, but to our finitude and limited epistemic
status.Part
of the reason I post links is to demonstrate that your comments are
ignorant of what Apologists have said. Since, you don't anticipate our
responses or even factor in our responses in your objections. As if
you're completely ignorant of them.
Jim wrote:
[Annoyed Pinoy],
our finitude and evolved primate nature make "God" a mystery to us!
Craig posits that God must have a reason for allowing bone cancer in
children, he just doesn't know it. It is absolutely punting to "Who can
know the mind of God".^^^ all of which makes YHWH a mysterious to humans.
I don't deny that there are mysterious aspects to God or God's ways. As
a Van Tillian presuppositionalist I believe in the reality and use of
the concepts of mystery and paradox (contrary to Clarkian
presuppositionalists). What I denied is that Craig (who holds to
Classical apologetics) claimed that his responses were an appeal to
mystery. Rather he was pointing out the limits of our intellectual
ability and capacity. Craig pointed to Chaos Theory and the butterfly
effect. If you can't predict how the flapping of a butterfly's wings
will affect the weather on the other side of the planet 100 years from
now, why assume you can understand all the reasons God has for allowing
any particular instance of suffering or evil? You can't. For you to deny
this basic reality is to expect more from yourself as a finite creature
than is possible. Craig's statements as a Classical apologist works as
far as it goes and I can agree with much of it as a
Presuppositionalist.
// ^^^ all of which makes YHWH a mysterious to humans.//
Even
though God hasn't revealed *ALL* the reasons for why He allows some
evils & suffering that doesn't alter the fact that God has revealed
*SOME* of the reasons why He does. If you're so knowledgeable about what
Christians and Calvinists believe, then go ahead and list some of the
reasons that God HAS revealed why He allows some evils in the world. Why
should I do you own homework for you when you're claiming to have done
it?
// Also, if all you are going to do is post links, and not directly engage, bother not.//
When
you give vague accusations of contradictions, it's perfectly fine for
me to post links. For example, you didn't show any explicit
contradiction between macro-evolution and Jesus' statements. I don't
personally believe in macro-evolution, but I don't see any explicit
contradiction between the two. Since you're making the claim, the burden
of proof is on you to show the irreconcilable contradiction. Moreover,
you're going to have to show that contradiction in light of (i.e.
factoring in) what Christians have said (e.g. what Craig has said on the
topic in his 21 lecture series on Creation and Evolution). http://misclane.blogspot.com/2017/08/william-lane-craig-on-creation-and.html
Jim wrote:
[Annoyed Pinoy],
thanks for admitting that Craig is at bottom a presup. without that
first move you'd be more than justified in supposing there is no one at
the wheel, or there is, and that deity is a sick bastard.
Jesus states that the scriptures (the OT) are
true in all respects. The OT contains Genesis. All of the major bits
of which are in error. Unless you posit God blinked everything into
existence 6,000 years ago to make everything look old.
//...thanks for admitting that Craig is at bottom a presup.//
Nothing in what I said implies that Craig is a presuppositionalists or a crypto-presuppositionalists. Just because there's overlap between the two doesn't mean that the overlap only makes sense within presuppositionalism. That's ridiculous and a non-sequitur. Just because Democrats and Republicans agree on X doesn't mean that it only belongs to one party.
//without that first move you'd be more than justified in supposing there is no one at the wheel, or there is, and that deity is a sick bastard. //
Why would *I* be justified or want to say that there's no one at the wheel? That doesn't make sense.
//Jesus states that the scriptures (the OT) are true in all respects.//
I agree. The question is in what sense are they true? How were they meant to be interpreted? Craig and other conservative and liberal scholars go into all this.
//The OT contains Genesis. All of the major bits of which are in error.//
You're assuming specific types of interpretation that you haven't justified. Once again, you haven't factored in what scholars like Craig have said in regard to the interpretation of Genesis. You just think you know it. That you can "wing it" without actually reading or informing yourself concerning what Christians and Jews have variously said or interpreted these passages to mean over the course of 2000 years.
As Craig has pointed out, Christians have interpreted Genesis is a whole host of ways. See for example:
I'm open to various interpretations of Genesis. The one I currently and tentatively hold to is something similar (generally speaking) to Hugh Ross' interpretation.
//Unless you posit God blinked everything into existence 6,000 years ago to make everything look old.//
Given modern physics (esp. quantum physics), I wouldn't be surprised if Quantum Idealism is true. In which case, these scientific debates are ultimately irrelevant.
The first video is a lecture by Bruce Gordon that might be too in-depth for you. So, I recommend videos 2, 3 and 4 as introductions to Quantum idealism.
A Facebook friend of mine asked me some questions. Below are his questions and my response.
Hello[Annoyed Pinoy]! I read this from you and found it very interesting:
"...really
is best for Christians to hold to some form of scientific anti-realism
(e.g. Clarkian operationalism, or some other scientific anti-realism
that's compatible with Christianity)."
What
do you mean by Clarkian operationalism? From my understanding, they
reject that science is a source of knowledge. Is this what Clarkian
operationalism entails or would it be another aspect to Clarkian
philosophy of science? Also, how far do we take scientific anti-realism?
My response:
As you know, I have great respect for Steve Hays' apologetics. In his blogger profile
he wrote, "...I’m an Augustinian exemplarist. I’m a Cartesian dualist.
I’m an alethic realist, but scientific antirealist...." Steve isn't a
Clarkian. He is a presupper more along the lines of Van Til, but he
might not call himself a Van Tillian. Even though I think for a while he
was a teaching assistant for John Frame (one of Van Til's protégés). I
too am a presupper, but don't mind calling myself a Van Tillian because I
*mostly* agree with him (with minor disagreements). When I call myself a
scientific anti-realist, I'm not using the term exactly as it's
normally used. Simply, I use it to affirm what I believe about science
which is similar (not exactly) to what Clarkians generally believe.
Namely, that what the world calls "science" cannot tell us (either in
principle and/or in actuality) what reality is really like. Including
and especially physical reality. See Gordon H. Clark's brilliant book The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God
which devastatingly demolishes all scientific pretensions to knowledge.
The word "science" of course has been used for centuries to refer to
all types of "knowedge", generally speaking. Though, nowadays it mostly
refers to the physical and natural sciences. I suspect different
Clarkians have different specific views regarding science. See for example the works of Vincent Cheung
regarding the limits of science and induction. He's a modified
Clarkian. As You know, I have disagreements with Cheung too (cf. Aquascum's dismantling of Cheung's apologetic).
Clarkians
are Opperationalists (which I think is a version of Instrumentalism).
Namely, that science tells us useful things about the physical world.
But it does not give us true knowledge about the
physical world (and obviously also nothing about non-natural and/or
spiritual worlds/realms). Clarkians believe science can only tells us
how to better operate in the world to get things accomplished and
improve our lives. That makes sense since Clarkians are empirical
skeptics. I'm not an empirical skeptic.
I think
science *might* be able to tell us some univocally true things about the
physical world (I doubt it), but it CANNOT DEFINITELY do so. As a Van
Tillian, I think general revelation (and therefore also science) tells
us analogically true things about the physical world, but not
necessarily univocal truths as God knows them. This is especially true
if there's some truth to the growing Quantum Idealism movement (of which
there are Christian versions, or what I'll call CQI). I'm very open to
CQI, though I'm not dogmatic on its truth. CQI argues that physical
realism is false and that divine idealism is true. That the physical
world we experience is a simulation "in" God's mind (similar to Bishop
George Berkeley's idealism). There are variations of CQI. See my
collected links to videos on QI by Johanan Raatz and by whoever it is
who creates the videos on Inspiring Philosophy's youtube channel here: http://misclane.blogspot.com/2014/09/scientific-evidence-against-materialism.html
Yesterday [9/2/2017],
Dr. Bruce Gordon was the guest lecturer at Jonathan McLatchie's
Apologetics Academy webinar and he spoke on "On the Tension Between
Quantum Physics and Physicalism". To my surprise and delight, he argued
for his own version of CQI. He says he has some differences with Raatz,
but seemed to say that they were in much agreement too. The video of the
lecture should be uploaded to YouTube in a few days at their channel
here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKJ_EeoOeUtCyRT4g8OUlkQ/videos
When it is uploaded I'll link to it HERE (along with the video).
I said that it would be beneficial if Christians were to hold to some form of scientific anti-realism for 3 reasons.
1. Because a truly rational (and possibly also a truly scientific) approach demands that science
cannot tell us definitely truth things about the physical world or any
other part of reality(ies). This is demonstrable via Clarkian
apologetics and suggested by modern science itself. Including the recent
discoveries in quantum physics.
2. Since science
cannot tell us anything univocally true about the physical world, no
scientific evidence or argument could possibly disprove Christianity.
3.
Since science cannot disprove Christianity, the approach of scientific
anti-realism by Christians would forever protect believers' faith from
ever being damaged by the external evidence of science. The only
possible way to undermine or attack Christianity now would be to show
internal and/or logical contradictions WITHIN the Christian worldview.
Something both doubting Christians and non-Christians (including
atheists & anti-theists) can attempt to come up with.
Karl Popper, who is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century wrote:
First,
although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious
of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it.... [W]e
know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses.... [I]n
science there is no "knowledge" in the sense in which Plato and
Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in
science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have
attained the truth.... Einstein declared that his theory was false: he
said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's,
but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out
right, regard it as a true theory.... Our attempts to see and to find
the truth are not final, but open to improvement;... our knowledge, our
doctrine is conjectural;... it consist of guesses, of hypotheses, rather
than of final and certain truths.- Karl Popper
"It can even be shown that all [scientific] theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero."- Karl Popper
"The
game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day
that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that
they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game."- Karl
Popper
The following is a brief conversation I had on Facebook with an atheist. I did minor editing and removed extraneous material. He posted the following quote and question:
MC2: "Wykstra backs off his 1984 claims (1984: 74, 79, 80, 90–91) that evil provides no evidence for atheism. He now calls those claims “reckless” (1996, 148 n. 14). He now admits that the evidence from evil, bracketing evidence for God's existence, “tilts” in favor (rather significantly, 1996, 138) of atheism, but not enough to justify belief in atheism, even if one starts from agnosticism."
Christian philosopher friends: do you agree or disagree with Wykstra? Does the evidence from evil tilt in favor of atheism over theism?
Before evil can be evidence for atheism, it must be shown that objective good and evil is coherent within atheism. The best hope for that is something like Atheistic Moral Platonism. However, I doubt it's coherent. See for example, William Lane Craig's simple critique here: https://youtu.be/VGWAVRoLQ3c
Most modern apologetics & apolgists do acknowledge evil is evidence for atheism, *but* that the positive evidence for God tips the scale in favor of theism to a less or greater degree. Personally, I don't think evil is evidence against *Christianity* whatsoever, since part of the Christian worldview is to affirm the reality of sin and evil in the world. That God allows and directs them for His greater purposes. I say that as a Calvinist, but even historic Arminians, Catholics, Lutherans (etc.) would affirm God at least negatively permits evil for His greater purposes. The difference between Calvinists and most non-Calvinist versions of Christianity is whether God can in some sense positively ordain sin and evil.
Given that objective good and evil seem to be incompatible with atheism, AND given that there are various theistic options (like Christianity, Judaism, Islam et al.) that are (at least in principle) compatible with evil, evil would seem to not be very strong evidence (if at all) for atheism.
MC2: no, no, no. It's neither here nor there if moral realism is impossible on atheism when it comes to the problem of evil. The problem only arises for someone who affirms that both evil and God exists. An atheist need only demonstrate that there is an internal inconsistency. And anyway, why think that moral realism is impossible on atheism anyway? Moral arguments are notoriously weak.
AP: The truth of atheism is distinct from any supposed insufficiency of the evidence for theism. I was referring to the non-existence of God, not the justification of the absence/lack of belief in God. Admittedly, the Problem of Evil for theism is a question of internal consistency. Since, there are various theistic options that are compatible with evil, it doesn't pose much trouble for theism, and therefore providing support for the truth of the non-existence of God. That's different from the psychological and rational question of whether one can be justified in being free of God/gods belief.
MC2: Well it does provide support for the truth of the nonexistence of God so... Assuming by "God" we mean the Christian conception of God...
AP: Can you determine the percentages when it comes to how many conceptions of God are compatible with the existence of evil and how many aren't? There are potentially billions of rational civilizations in this universe, plus any other universe in a possible multiverse, plus whatever simulated worlds which have sentient personal agents. I certaintly can't make such a determination. I can only be aware of the theistic options on Earth that have survived history up to the present.
MC2: No, I can't. And..?
AP: Then it's possible that 99% of theistic options that have been conceived have been compatible with evil. In which case, wouldn't that suggest that evil doesn't pose much of a threat for theism?
MC2: Again so what? By "theism" I specifically mean 'belief in the sort of God Christians have in mind.' So what if my argument against theism doesn't say anything about other conceptions of God. I'm still struggling to follow what you're even saying here
AP: Admittedly, I made that statement in terms of inductive possibility, not deductive possibility. When it comes to the deductive issue with regard to an an Omni-God, I still don't see any necessary incoherence.
MC2: I'm not saying there is a logical incompatibility between God and evil existing simultaneously. I tend to prefer inductive or abductive arguments from evil myself.
AP: I corrected "an" to "any". If we were to define evil as anything contrary to a subset of God's will or preferences, those are consistent with other higher wills or preferences within God. Take a for example a voluntaristic conception of God (which I don't currently hold). If God were to will that eating chocolate ice cream were evil (CIC), while eating strawberry ice cream (SIC) is good, His omnipotent power isn't undermined if he allowed people to eat chocolate ice cream. Atheists can't automatically dismiss voluntaristic conceptions of God in favor of say essentialistic conceptions of God (I hold to Divine Command Essentialism).
AP: If I were an atheist I too would prefer inductive or (especially) abductive arguments since I think deductive arguments for atheism based on the PoE [problem of evil] utterly fail.
AP: Inductive arguments of course must be much more modest because they depend on our finite inductive survey. Maybe of all the worlds God has created 99% of them have no evil, and the majority of the evil is concentrated on Earth. In which case, if we were privy to the percentages of good and evil in the entire Omniverse, we wouldn't find the existence of evil nearly as problematic as we do here on Earth.
AP: Given the philosophical "Principle of plenitude" (i.e. God's infinite creativity), multiverses make a lot of sense. In which case, evil might be restricted to a tiny dark corner of the Omniverse. [[For all we know the Omniverse is peopled with billions of various species all of whom are evil free and have the light of the knowledge of God in abundance.]]
Since the inductive/circumstantial argument for the non-existence of God based on gratuitous evil depends on percentages, and since we cannot gauge percentages given God's infinite creativity and the possible innumerable worlds He's created, we therefore cannot say that there is such a thing as gratuitous evil QUANTITATIVELY. So, the best avenue for atheists would seem to be to argue for evil's gratuity QUALITATIVELY. That is, on the basis of the intensity of the limited evil we are aware of. And that's where I think William Lane Craig's distinction between the 1. logical and 2. emotional problem of evil is so crucial. The suffering of a little child can be very emotionally troubling, but that's technically not a *logical* problem. God may have multiple present and future purposes for allowing that type of evil that we just cannot fathom in our finitude, but which make perfect sense in God's infinitude.
I posted the following in a Facebook group that defends Annihilationism/Conditional Immortality. There's very minimal editing.
How would annihilationists respond to the following observations that proponents of ECT [Eternal Conscious Torment] like myself might make. I'll limit myself to Matthean passages when it comes to the Synoptics.
...and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.- Matt. 24:51 ESV
It seems to me that in this parable the servant is killed by being "cut in pieces" and THEN AFTERWARDS gathered with (other?) hypocrites. Then they all consciously weep and gnash their teeth (whatever the reason for the weeping and gnashing, and whatever its meaning). How could someone gnash/weep after he's been "killed"? This seems (at least to me) to better fit in with Eternal Conscious Torment because the killing is figurative, not literal. I'm assuming this parable is supposed to teach the same eschatological lesson as the different parable surrounding Matt. 13:42.
41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,
42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.- Matt. 13:41-42
I also assume that cutting in pieces in the first parable is equivalent to being thrown into the fiery furnace in the second parable. In both instances things are done to the wicked which would normally kill them, yet they continue to personally exist to consciously weep and gnash. If the killing in the first parable is metaphorical, then why not in the second parable with the fiery furnace?
There are other parables in which weeping and gnashing are referred to in Matthew [e.g. the surrounding verses of Matt. 8:12; 13:50; 22:13; 25:30]. In every instance there doesn't seem to be any indication that anything further happens to end their consciousness or physical and/or psychological torment. In the one surrounding 22:13, the servant is bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness (cf. 8:12; 25:30). What would be the point in binding him if the binding will be loosed by burning? It seems to make more sense that the binding is supposed to represent restriction. Just as being "cast out into outer darkness" suggests being barred from entering the kingdom, as when the gates of a city are closed at night and people are exposed to dangerous nocturnal animals. I'm not saying the passages teach the danger of animals (or of demons in hell). Only that the parables allude to the culturally understood safety of being inside the city walls during the night and how this is analogous to entrance or exclusion from the Kingdom.
The parables in chapter 8, 22 and 25 refer to darkness, while the parables in 13:42 and 13:50 refer to fire. Being in darkness and fire in the the natural (literal) world would result in contradictory experiences. Since where there's fire there's usually an absence of darkness. This suggests that both the darkness and fire are figurative. The darkness referring to things like lack of safety, peace and acceptance by God (cf. the Aaronic Blessing where God's face metaphorically shines upon someone in graciousness [Num. 6:24-26]). If so, then the fire may not be literal as well. In which case, annihilation or extinguishing might not occur either. Notice how Paul describes the judgement of hell as "AWAY from the PRESENCE of the Lord and from the GLORY of his might" (2 Thess. 1:9b). That seems to be what "eternal destruction" is in the first part of that verse (2 Thess. 1:9a). Which is in keeping with the fact I already referred to. That nothing is said to happen after their weeping and gnashing of teeth in Matthew. Contrary to annihilationist expectations, it doesn't say that they're later killed after some time. On the contrary, they're killed BEFORE being gathered with the hypocrites to weep and gnash.
Our Lord knowing that His audience was familiar with competing Jewish views of eschatological judgment (including ECT and a rejection of ECT, among many others) why didn't He consistently and solely use fiery imagery, and one which always ended in consumption by fire? Also, why would He even use the term "ETERNAL fire" since it could be (mis?)interpreted to mean both the fire *and* the CONSCIOUS torment is eternal?.
Also, I think ECT arguments for "death" and "life" being qualitative has more strength than conditionalists are willing to grant. Especially in the Johannine corpus which is especially linked to OT wisdom literature with its focus on morality. Folly isn't intellectual stupidity, but moral failure. Even in the historical books. Take for example, Deut. 30:19.
"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,..."- Deut. 30:19
Life and death in this passage isn't literal physical death, but blessing or cursing in relationship to God. It seems to me that the Second Death in Revelation needs to be seen in light of the qualitative sense of life and death in the rest of the Johannine corpus. Especially since sufferings of the damned are specifically portrayed as eternal (Rev. 14:11b; 20:10b). The ingenious way conditionalists get around these passages isn't completely persuasive. Especially since 1. it requires advanced hermeneutics to come to such (right or wrong) conclusions, and 2. would entail that the Holy Spirit inspired these passages to give a prima facie (surface) meaning that's the exact opposite of what it REALLY means. Johannine passages referring to "life" and "death" don't seem to me to be proleptic (or at least not *merely* so). The following Johannine passages suggest (to me) a qualitative sense of "life" and seem to teach that believers have it NOW.
John
3:36 He that believeth on the Son HATHeternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God ABIDETHon him.
5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, HATHeternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but HATHpassed out of death into life.
6:63 It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life.
8:12 Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.
1 John
3:14 We know that we HAVEpassed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not ABIDETHin death.
3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer HATH eternal life abiding in him.
5:12 He that hath the Son HATHthe life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life.
5:13 These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye HAVEeternal life, [even] unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God.
These are some of the reasons why I left the Conditionalist camp about 20 years ago.
The following are some excerpted responses to my post on Facebook along with my rebuttals. I've combined responses of various people and removed their complete names for the sake of their privacy. Because some of the responses are similar, my rebuttals are sometimes repeated. Their comments will be in purple.I may not have perfectly indicated when a comment is or isn't from Glenn Andrew Peoples.
//You're the first I've met who moved from annihilationism to traditionalism. Are you aware of others?//
20 years ago I held the heresies of Armstrongism. I'm sure many former Armstrongites who are now Evangelical hold to ECT (though, not all).
//I'm not sure the text demands weeping and gnashing of teeth AFTER dismemberment/burning. It simply says that there is weeping and gnashing of teeth in the place where the dismemberment/burning takes place.//
While that's logically possible, I don't think that's the natural reading of the text. The parable abruptly ends with gnashing. Leaving us hanging. Maybe because they continue to gnash.
//Not sure why you reference burning in this context? Binding hand and foot and exposing someone to the elements and wild animals will result in their death.//
Being excluded from the city of the New Jerusalem, it's declared in Rev. 22:11:
'Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy." '- Rev. 22:11
Suggesting (or at least in keeping with) the wicked/filthy continuing to exist forever and sinning.
//Traditionalists seem to live the NIV on this verse. "Away from" is poorly supplied by the translators. Pretty much every other mainstream translation gets the translation right. Destruction is from the presence of the Lord, not something that happens away from the presence of the Lord.//
My interpretation is still consistent with that translation. Besides, if destruction is what annihilationists believe, saying it's destruction from the presence of the Lord is superfluous. Almost redundant.
//Everywhere else in scripture that 'gnashing of teeth' is used, it's an action of anger, not pain. It hasn't nothing to do with pain throughout the rest of scripture.//
I have no problem including anger in that reaction from theirs. But there's also weeping. I suppose that weeping can result from anger, but it can also result from emotional and/or physical pain. For example regret, disappointment etc. Things also consistent with ECT.
//Sodom and Gomorrah underwent eternal fire, and were destroyed. Let scripture expound upon itself. That's what Jesus did in the Gospels.//
Antitypes and realities are usually greater than their types and shadows. Job's temporal blessings after his trial are only shadows or types of the eternal blessings he'll receive at the eschaton. The OT land promises to Abraham that he'd inherit the Promised Land is fulfilled in the NT by him inheriting the entire earth. It's as if a millionaire promised you a car and a golf club (putter), and he ends up giving you a car dealership and the deed to a golf club resort. The Conditionalist interpretation of the eschatological "eternal fire" that Sodom's and Gomorrah's "eternal fire" typified are equivalent, not greater in kind or degree. It's the exact same punishment.
"If the righteous is repaid on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner!"- Prov. 11:31
If the reward of the righteous in the next Age will be greater than his reward in this Age, why would the recompense of the wicked be the same in both Ages?
//The conditionalist might harmonize it by proposing that the passage doesn't give a chronology; it actually lists _four_ punishments, one of being cut in half; one of being gathered with the hypocrites, and two punishments of more or fewer lashings. The two lashing punishments are obviously mutually exclusive (and therefore not chronological), but the gathering and the cutting are obviously not. So the obvious solution is to take the list as non-chronological.//
That's a logically possible solution, but is it likely? Seems Ad Hoc to me. The natural reading seems (to me) to be chronological. A non-chronological reading seems to be theologically driven rather than exegetically driven. Notice how consistently the gnashing is the last thing mentioned throughout the variations of the various parables that include gnashing. The parable abruptly ends with gnashing. Leaving us hanging. Maybe because they continue to gnash eternally.
//As Stuart pointed out, additionally, the gnashing part of the passage doesn't say who's doing the gnashing. It should not be the people who were cut in half (even assuming the chronology); the obvious source is the other hypocrites.//
But the servant(s) are grouped together with them. The natural reading is that that's because they're all hypocrites and receive the same fate. In which case, the other hypocrites previously were also burned or cut in pieces and yet nevertheless gnash when they shouldn't be able to since they've been already killed.
// "Burning up" tares (I emphasize that the tares were said in the parable to be "burnt up") and gathering grain into storehouses is supposed to set the context for this dichotomy.//
Where in either of the parables in Matthew 13 are they said to be "burnt UP"? Which translation? the ESV, ASV and KJV say they will be gathered in order to burn them. The ASV uses the phrase "burn up" at Matthew 3:12 and Luke 3:17.
However, think about it. Wheat isn't normally kept in a barn indefinitely. It is eventually eaten UP. Does that mean the righteous don't actually gain *eternal* life because God will eat UP the righteous? Similarly, the burning UP of the weeds/tares doesn't necessarily imply they cease to exist. The main point of the parables are to inform us of the ultimate separation of the righteous who are accepted and the rejection and punishment of the evil as worthless.
//So what is burned here? All lawbreakers AND all causes of stumbling.//
And the emphasis of the passage(s) is that they are separated and taken OUT of the Kingdom.
//Personal and impersonal evil are gathered together, and the final result is that there is no evil, but only righteousness finally able to shine. This text is emphatically about the utter destruction of the wicked by a very hot fire.//
The "fires" (whether literal and/or figurative) of Gehenna are termed "unquenchable". Admittedly, that doesn't prove that they continue to burn eternally, since the Conditionalist interpretation is that the fire isn't quenched by some outside force. Rather they extinguish of themselves once the original fuel source is consumed. HOWEVER, "unquenchable" fire is also consistent with it actually burning indefinitely too.
//That location is where they weep and gnash; the duration and time of the weeping and gnashing is not stated.//
And so it's consistent with ECT. Especially since the text doesn't explicitly say they eventually cease to weep and gnash.
//You're simply assuming that torment always continues unless there's a reason for it to stop, whereas this is impossible if life only continues while God gives it. This cannot therefore be evidence against conditional immortality.//
Moving to the book of Revelation, being excluded from the city of the New Jerusalem, it's declared in Rev. 22:11:
'LET THE EVILDOER STILL DO EVIL, AND THE FILTHY STILL BE FILTHY, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy." '- Rev. 22:11
Suggesting (or at least in keeping with) the wicked/filthy continuing to exist forever and sinning.
//We've mentioned that being bound hand and foot is adequate reason to die; but in all the other cases as well (aside from the ones above),//
But the angels are said to be kept in eternal chains (Jude 1:6). Hell is prepared for the devil and his angels/demons. They don't have physical bodies that will eventually be consumed by physical fire. If dualism [i.e. bipartite or tripartite anthropology] is true, then humans have immaterial souls that could be indefinitely punished like demons. Why assume angelic and human punishment will be drastically dissimilar so that angels are punished eternally, but humans temporarily? Also, I think the case for human dichotomy or trichotomy is very strong.
Jude says (1:13) that false (human) shepherds cast "up their own SHAME like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever." Apparently their shame and experience of black darkness [which I interpreted as the opposite of the shining of God's countenance] will be conscious and forever.
Jude is also the book that refers to the "punishment of eternal fire" which Conditionalists point out isn't currently and perpetually burning. However, as I said to someone else....
Antitypes and realities are usually greater than their types and shadows. Job's temporal blessings after his trial are only shadows or types of the eternal blessings he'll receive at the eschaton. The OT land promises to Abraham that he'd inherit the Promised Land is fulfilled in the NT by him inheriting the entire earth. It's as if a millionaire promised you a car and a golf club (putter), and he ends up giving you a car dealership and the deed to a golf club resort. The Conditionalist interpretation of the eschatological "eternal fire" that Sodom's and Gomorrah's "eternal fire" typified are equivalent, not greater in kind or degree. It's the exact same punishment.
"If the righteous is repaid on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner!"- Prov. 11:31
If the reward of the righteous in the next Age will be greater than his reward in this Age, why would the recompense of the wicked be the same in both Ages?
//not that "the penalty for sin is being left outside."//
"OUTSIDE [the city] are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who LOVES [not loved past tense] and PRACTICES [not practiced] falsehood." - Rev. 22:15
Rev. 22:15 is consistent with eternal conscious existence of the wicked (as is Rev. 22:11 as I pointed out above). Notice that Rev. 22:15 is in contrast to the righteous in the previous verse.
"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. 22:14
The contrast this passage is giving is not that one group will live forever while the other group will cease to exist. Rather, that one group has access to God's blessings while the other group does not.
//Within that parable, the binding outside of the palace would kill the man due to exposure.//
That's eisegesis, not exegesis. You're adding that to the text. It might be true, but you can't derive that from the text. In which case, it might be a wrong inference.
//No, he doesn't. That word "away" is inserted by the ESV translators in complete defiance of how they translate in all other cases....//
My interpretation is still consistent with a translation of "destruction FROM the presence of the Lord" (removing "away"). Besides, if destruction is what annihilationists believe, saying it's destruction from the presence of the Lord is superfluous. Almost redundant.
// If eternal destruction meant an experience being away from Jesus, it would have to never finish. //
I don't see how that undermines my tentative position. Yeah, they'll never again have the chance of being restored to fellowship with God, Christ and the Spirit.
//If, on the other hand, it actually means being destroyed, that destruction happens with fire and mighty angels that come from His presence, and then it's permanent -- but they _pay_ it by the experience that happens during that Day of Wrath.//
And their torment before the angels and the Lamb is described as lasting forever in Rev. 14:10-11:
10 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and THEY HAVE NO REST, DAY OR NIGHT, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."
Remember that "presence" can refer to 1. location and proximity and/or 2. to relational nearness, intimacy and fellowship. Rev. 14:10-11 seems to use the word in the sense of #1, while 2 Thess. 1:9 uses the word either in both senses or only in sense #2.
//Because fire imagery wasn't appropriate for the feast parables showing that some would be excluded from the Kingdom.//
I don't know what you're referring to.
//..you think it means fire that burns the things in it forever (even if they wouldn't live forever normally, and even though the same parable says the wicked won't receive "eternal life").//
Do you believe that demons will be consumed and be burnt up like humans? Presumably you hold to a materialist or physicalist anthropology, and a spiritual angelogy. Will the fire of Gehenna for men be the same kind for demonic angels?
//Dead means dead, at least sometimes.//
True. But Jesus also said "Let the dead bury their dead". I take that to mean, let the spiritually dead bury their physical dead.
//The first one doesn't do what you claim at all -- it portrays the smoke as eternal, not the torment. In no other place in the Bible does the smoke go up for the same timespan as the thing the smoke is pointing to. (Sodom? Destroyed, and THEN its smoke went up. Same for the Great Whore Babylon.)//
But Rev. 14:11 states, "THEY HAVE NO REST DAY OR NIGHT" in connection to "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever". The "no rest" of the wicked in verse 11 is in contrast to the "rest" of those who die "in the Lord" verse 13 [just two verses away]. If the "Rest" of the righteous is eternal, then it only makes sense that the "NO Rest" of the wicked it eternal as well.
//The second one isn't about the people you claim it's about. It's about the three monsters, not "the damned."//
That's a logically possible and ingenious interpretation. But what if the false prophet and beast are personal human individuals rather than symbolic for something else? Especially since the two are grouped with the personal Devil and all three are said to "be tormented day and night forever and ever."
//You make ALL of the passages in John that mention life or death require advanced hermeneutics, while you claim we're making a mistake to require two passages within the vision of the Apocalypse require advanced hermeneutics.//
A qualitative sense of life and death is not "advanced" hermeneutics. Especially since that seems to be the meaning in at least some passages (as you yourself admit). However, the detailed eschatological interpretation of these passages in Revelation and Jude that Conditionalists (like our beloved Chris Date) employ is very complicated by contrast.
//Your argument here also ignores that in other places Jesus speaks of eternal life as a future gift of God, such as Luke 20:35 or Mark 10:30, or Paul in Rom 2... //
A qualitative interpretation is consistent with degrees or levels of quality.
//In fact I don't think it's talking about final judgement, but I'm not 100% sure about that.//
I think the natural reading is about final judgment. Compare it with the ending of the book of Revelation. Notice what's said about those who are outside the gates of the city of New Jerusalem. The imagery is similar.
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.
15 OUTSIDE are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.- Rev. 22:14-15
// It's not obvious that it's the person who has been cut up or reduced to ashes is the one weeping and gnashing.//
If (in this particular parable) the people weeping and gnashing weren't also judged by being cut up previously, who are they? The servant is gathered with them for some reason. Are they grouped together even though one person is cut up and the rest are weeping/gnashing? Isn't the cut up servant a case of synecdoche where a part represents the whole? That is, that that particular servant's experience represents and is an example of the experience of a larger group who are similarly like him in guilt.
// This would be quite obvious to the listeners who would have well known what happens to a person once they are burned to ashes and cut to pieces.//
So, which is it, they are cut to pieces or or burnt or both? To do both would be overkill (literally). Or are some cut to pieces and others burnt? The parallels of the different parables to me suggest that cutting to pieces and being burned figuratively refer to the same thing. Namely, punishment in hell (whatever it is literally, which may include, among other things, real fire).
The people who weep/gnash are sometimes said to have been previously 1. thrown into outer darkness, and/or 2. cut in pieces, and/or 3. bound hand and foot, and/or 4. cast into a furnace of fire. There's no suggestion that their weeping and gnashing ever ceases.
Of the six places in Matthew where weeping and gnashing are mentioned, only two refer to being cast into a furnace. The other four places end abruptly and leave us hanging. As if that were their permanent lot. Which would be consistent with ECT. Here are the ending verses in the ASV.
8:12 but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.
22:13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.
24:51 and shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.
25:30 And cast ye out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.
//Re Matthew 24, it seems to me this parable is directed at the disciples, not to the lost.//
I haven't been a Dispensationalist in about 20 years, but that sounds very Dispensational. Christ is talking in the context of the nation of Israel being His mission field and how some will positively and negatively respond to His gospel. All, Israelites were supposed to be servants of YHVH. The disobedient and unbelieving of them by extension represent all those who will finally and ultimately reject the gospel. Your interpretation is unlikely since in Matthew 24 he's not disciplined by (remedial) scourging, but cut in pieces (i.e. killed). The parable in Luke 12 isn't a more or less parallel of the type I was discussing. Though, I do think it too deals with final judgment. Also, it's not clear that the beating in Luke 12 is remedial. In fact, the fact that they aren't killed by cutting or burning is consistent with ECT. Interestingly, that fact is used by Universalists to argue for Universalism. Yet, if one rejects Universalism (as they should), then a more consistent reading would open up to ECT. Same with the parables talking about being placed in prison until they pay the last penny (Matt. 5:26, Luke 12:59). Will they eventually be released (as per Universalism/apokatastasis)? Isn't more often the case that people in prison can never earn enough money inside to pay for their debts? In which case, they remain inside indefinitely.
//You ask about jesus "why didn't He consistently and solely use fiery imagery, and one which always ended in consumption by fire". But I think he did.//
No He didn't. As I pointed out, in Matthew alone, out of the 6 times weeping & gnashing are mentioned, only twice is fire mentioned (as far as I can tell). In the other 4 times fire is not mentioned and they are either excluded from the Kingdom (3) or are cut in pieces (1); with nothing more said about them other than their weeping and gnashing which occurs AFTER being casting out or dismembered. That's completely consistent with ECT.
//I don't see how eternal fire could be (mis)interpreted to mean anything other than complete destruction.//
That's not the only description of the final state of the lost. As I've pointed out there are passages which don't end with them being burned up, AND there are passages in Revelation where they are described as enduring torment eternally. Not to mention the fact that Matt 25:46 is, at the very least, consistent with ECT and not just Annihilationism. In fact, I think the natural reading (even if it were the wrong/incorrect reading) is ECT.
//..you need to make an extremely strong argument to make me believe that death means living forever in anguish and there just isn't one. //
"The Hebrew word Rephaim has two distinct meanings: first, in poetic literature it refers to departed spirits whose dwelling place was Sheol. It is a figurative description of the dead, similar to our concept of a ghost. The second meaning of Rephaim is “a mighty people with tall stature who lived in Canaan.” "
https://www.gotquestions.org/Rephaim.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/rephaim
I think the case for an intermediate state is strong from both the OT and NT. The rephaim are the dead who are nevertheless conscious. Therefore, your claim that dead means dead without qualification is false. Death isn't synonymous with cessation of existence and consciousness. The rephaim are described in the OT as being conscious. Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (while likely not referring to real persons), is nevertheless likely teaching a literal intermediate state where the dead wicked are tormented similar to how angels are kept in eternal chains (Jude 1:6).
// Here we see the end of the devil, the beast, the lost death and hades, basically all of God's enemies are destroyed. //
That's the exact opposite of what Revelation teaches concerning the Devil, the Beast and the False Prophet. Notice what Rev. 20:10 actually says...
"and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, AND THEY WILL BE TORMENTED DAY AND NIGHT FOREVER AND EVER."
Depending on one's eschatology, Rev. 14 might refer to all eternally lost human beings.
And the smoke of their torment goes up FOREVER AND EVER, and they have NO REST, DAY OR NIGHT, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."- Rev. 14:11
//This fits absolutely perfectly with 1 Cor 15:25-26 where it says all Gods enemies will in the end be destroyed (the last being death itself). So harmonious I love it. //
The only description of God's enemies in that passage is that they are put under Christ's feet. That's hardly a description of cessation of life since victorious Kings who placed their foot/feet on their foes did so to those who were ALIVE (NOT dead). It was a form of humiliating them and declaring publicly that they were overcome and conquered. If they weren't conscious they wouldn't feel the shame, dishonor, humiliation and defeat.
// Firstly, even if I grant that these are depictions of ECT, then you still have to deal with the fact that these are highly symbolic visions of apocalyptic nature.//
It's not like there weren't some contemporary Jews who believed in ECT, or intertestamental literature that either explicitly (in some cases) or likely (in other cases) taught ECT (at least for some of the wicked, if not all). There were such Jews. Also, many passages in the Synoptics could be interpreted to teach ECT (though the certainty of their interpretation is obviously in dispute among Traditionalists, Conditionalists and Universalists).
//...a symbolic vision of the lost being destroyed like in the winepress of Gods wrath where there is so much blood it fills a valley, this is not a description of torment, it's a description of death.//
But those passages don't go on to explicitly teach that their consciousnesses will be terminated at some future point. WHEREAS the passages I point to DO EXPLICITLY speak of eternal conscious torment. That's the NATURAL reading of the texts (plural). While Conditionalists might be right in their interpretation, they must nevertheless explain away the natural explicit reading of eternal conscious torment with the (figurative?) evidence of smoke ascending up forever and ever. Conditionalists have to argue that while the texts ***SPEAK*** of ECT, they don't ***TEACH*** ECT. Which is a counter intuitive interpretation.
"..other things also thrown into the lake specifically CANNOT be tormented, like hades, or death. "
And therefore it is not referring to their literal death [since Death and Hades were never alive], contrary to common Conditionalist claim that death/dead just means death/dead. Though, "Death and Hades" might refer to the false pagan gods who figuratively "rule" the underworld.
// I admit torment is an odd image to use to signify the destruction of the beast, but given that torment is elsewhere used to portray destruction... //
While "destruction" is consistent with ECT, ECT is not consistent with the Annihilationist definition of destruction. That's why Conditionalist interpretations of these passages is an uphill battle for them, not a downward one as in the case for traditionalists. Condtionalists have to use a lot of complex explaining away.
//...and that death will also be destroyed and all God's enemies will be destroyed. //
If the death of Death and Hades in the Lake of Fire is not literal "death" as defined by Conditionalists, then why assume the the death of humans in the Lake of Fire is literal "death" as defined by Conditionalists?
//...it's not up to me to complain that God should have used a different symbol...//
What is symbolized by the explicit statements of "their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night," and "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever"? That doesn't sound like symbolic language, but literal. The surrounding stuff is clearly symbolic, but (1) eternal (2) conscious (3) torment can't seem to be symbolic of anything else. Much less the exact opposite of (1) temporality, (2) unconsciousness and (3) pain-freeness.
//...you want to make the Holy Spirit be saying that death means living forever in anguish, and eternal life being living forever with God in bliss. Think about it, it's quite a substantially bigger stretch to make death (which is in non-apocalyptic literature where symbolism is no where near as strong or prevalent) mean living forever in anguish.//
But if dualism and an intermediate state is real, then there are dead people who are still "alive" (i.e. consciously exist). There are many evidences for both. For example, Paul's statement that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5) and that heaven is where "the spirits of just men made perfect" reside (Heb. 12:23) prove dualism and an intermediate state. Also, the OT teaches that the dead (including the wicked dead) in sheol are conscious (as does the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man). Study the subject of rephaim in the OT. Notice that the Law forbade necromancy. Why not just say that it was impossible since the dead don't exist and are not conscious? BTW, the passages in Ecclesiastes and Psalms don't explicitly teach the dead are unconscious. Only that they are not among the living and therefore don't necessarily know what's going on in the world of the living. The rephaim are mentioned in Isa. 26:14; Job 26:5; Isa. 14:9-10; Ezek. 32:21. Compare with Phil. 2:10, Rev. 5:3, 13 which refer to people "under the earth" who are apparently conscious in sheol.
"All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, "No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Thus his father wept for him."- Gen. 37:35
Some scholars have translated and interpreted Gen. 37:35 as having Jacob say that he's so saddened by the death of Joseph who can not live long enough to enjoy life among the living, that he'll join Joseph in sheol. Also, Jacob wrongly thought that Joseph was eaten by an animal. And so, sheol couldn't mean the grave (at least in this context).
In Gen 35;18, word translated "life" in the ESV can also be translated "soul". In which case, it might suggest Rachel's soul [nephesh] was departing her body. The same is true for 1 Kings 17:21 where the prophet prayed, "...let this child's life [or SOUL/nepesh] come INTO him again" Compare Acts 20:10 where Eutychus falls from the window. Paul says "his life [or soul/psyche] is IN him". The Psalmist said after he died he expected to be "received into glory" (Ps. 73:24). Clearly some Jews believed in an intermediate state. Otherwise the disciples wouldn't have feared ghosts (Matt. 14:26; Mark 6:49).
//Some suggest I should question all of that simply because of a few obscure and symbolic verses in Revelation, which to me are better support for CI than ECT anyway.//
It's clear to me that the OT teaches an intermediate state. The NT should be interpreted in light of that and in light of the fact that intertestamental Jews and Jewish literature often taught an intermediate state (with some even teaching ECT). Many also taught a preliminary tormenting punishment in sheol in anticipation of future punishment in Gehenna (just like Lazarus and the Rich Man). Given that background, I think many NT passages more naturally suggest ECT. The NT wasn't written in a historical, cultural and theological vacuum. Like I said, Jesus knew there were different views regarding eschatological punishment. Yet he used terms like "ETERNAL fire", "UNQUENCHABLE fire" and "EVERLASTING punishment" which could have easily (and more naturally?) been interpreted to teach ECT. Also, if I'm not mistaken, some intertestamental literature which used the language of "burning UP" sometimes also taught ECT. So, "burning UP" many not necessary exclude ECT. Either because those writers were self-contradictory, OR they didn't take "burning UP" language to (necessarily) teach annihilationism.
//3. The Bible gives us a hope for the future when there will not be any more evil, there will not be any more death, where creation will be redeemed along with the saved.//
Revelation portrays the eschaton as having excluded the wicked from the City of God. They are OUTSIDE, not non-existent. Jesus says in Matt. 25:46 that the wicked "GO AWAY into eternal punishment". Jesus plenty of times says they are CAST OUT into outer darkness.
//I think conditionalism better fits penal substitutionary atonement theory, since the penalty Jesus paid is his death, not in his suffering eternal conscious torment.//
If the punishment of sin is eternal permenant death, then Jesus didn't pay for our sins because Jesus didn't remain permanently dead. On the other hand, if temporary torment is the punishment of sin, then the wicked should be granted access to the Kingdom of God after they've suffered long and hard enough (in terms of quantity, quality, intensity, temporality). Their sins have been atoned for by themselves. Now they should be able to either enter the Kingdom, or start again and either earn their way to heaven, or accept Christ's imputed righteousness.
//Sure, Jesus wasn't annihilated, but we are not saying annihilation is the penalty for sin either, we're saying it's death, and that is the penalty Jesus paid.//
I don't see how this isn't either sophistry or a misuse of semantics. Jesus died and wasn't annihilated yet was able to to enter the Kingdom. Since, the wicked die their first death, then why can't they enter the Kingdom too (assuming a physicalist or materialist anthropology)? Didn't they already pay for their sins by dying? Also, why not just refuse to resurrect the wicked? That way they've paid for their sins. You might say they need to know what they died for. But, that still involves Double Jeopardy. Meaning, sinners suffer the punishment of their sins twice by dying twice. Or maybe the punishment also includes the suffering that precedes extinction. That's consistent the parable in Luke 16 (and other OT and intertestamental writings) which seems to teach torment for the wicked in sheol during the intermediate state. Notice too that it if one holds to a form of Conditionalism that affirms a tormented intermediate state for the wicked, then it seems unfair that the wicked in sheol who died millennia ago will suffer in sheol much longer than those who die near the end of this Age. There are logical ways around this apparent unfairness (which I won't mention), but they seem very ad hoc. It's much simpler to say that all the wicked will suffer eternally.
Finally, why would Jesus tell us the parable of Lazarus and "Dives"? Didn't he know He'd be giving us the impression that:
1.
there is a conscious intermediate state (thus undermining Soul Sleep
and materialism/physicalism) for both the righteous and wicked. BTW, 1
& 2 Peter, Jude as well as Revelation also suggest an intermediate
state,
2. the punishment for sins includes SUFFERING TORMENT not just "death",
3. Lend some credence to *SOME* of the speculations of Jewish intertestamental literature regarding death and the eschaton,
4.
The "flame" in Hades (which apparently is the NT counterpart of OT
Sheol) that "Dives" is tormented with is not literal and physical fire,
and therefore the punishment of Gehenna might not be limited to physical
fire (which is suggested by the fact that the Devil is cast in the the
Lake of Fire even though he's not a physical being)
Also,
why are some angels eternally kept in everlasting chains (Jude 1:6),
while the Devil (who is arguably the most wicked of the demons) is
extinguished in the Lake of Fire? If the Devil isn't annihilated even
though he's cast into the Lake of Fire, why assume the humans who are
cast there will be annihilated? In fact, Jude 1:13 seems to be saying
that humans who were false shepherds will suffer a similar fate as the
angels in verse 6, and that it will be eternal and conscious (cf. 2 Pet.
2:9).
Should we remove Luke, 1st Peter, 2nd Peter,
Jude and Revelation from the Canon because they seem to teach an
intermediate state (and often one that's tormented for the wicked)?
Arguably the books of Hebrews (12:23), 2nd Corinthians (5), Philippians
(1) and Luke (23:43) teach an intermediate state for the saved.
//...and actually, a lot of the main denomination managed to reform, which surprised me (and made me very happy!).//
Same here. I read with joy "Transformed by Truth" by Joseph Tkach on the reforms of the WCG (now called Grace Communion International). I independently came to Evangelical convictions the same time as the WCG did, but I didn't realize it until much later. BTW, many of them still hold to conditionalism. I think that's fine because I don't think it's a heretical position to take. I'm still open to switching back to Conditionalism.
//Look again -- that verse is a present-day statement made to the present-day reader of the text; the future prophetic vision ended with Rev 22:6.//
A few hours ago after reading some commentaries I concluded that Rev. 22:11 may (likely?) not be prophetic of the Eternal State. So, I won't use that passage anymore for that purpose. So, I'll grant you that.
//My studies indicate that "from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" is _causitive_ -- the wicked are being destroyed because that's what the Lord's presence does to unholy things.//
Even if that's the case, the meaning of the term "destroy" in this context is still in dispute. It can mean something like "ruination". Compare Isaiah's statement, "woe to me for I am undone/ruined" (Isa. 6:5). Of course one word is Greek and the other is Hebrew. Nevertheless sinners in God's presence feel ruined. Isaiah wasn't annihilated, so maybe the wicked in 2 Thess. 1:9 aren't either.
I've collected my rebuttals in this thread in my blogpost here:http://misclane.blogspot.com/2017/08/cut-in-pieces-killed-yet-gnashing.html
Based on my rebuttals to others in this thread (which you might not have read), how would you respond to the following?
Assuming that Gehenna and the Lake of Fire are the same, why is the Devil cast into it? Being an immaterial being, physical fire can't hurt him. Therefore, the fire(s) of Gehenna cannot be limited to physical fire. The fire(s) of Gehenna not being physical is consistent with the "flame" in Hades that torments "Dives" in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man as also not being physical fire. Some might say that this was a parable and not literal. I personally agree that Lazarus and Dives may not be real persons. Nevertheless, I do think the parable suggests the reality of an intermediate state.
If there is no intermediate state, why would Jesus tell us the parable of Lazarus and "Dives"? Didn't he know He'd be giving us the impression that:
1. there is a conscious intermediate state (thus undermining Soul Sleep and materialism/physicalism) for both the righteous and wicked. BTW, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude as well as Revelation also suggest an intermediate state,
2. the punishment for sins includes SUFFERING TORMENT not just "death",
3. Lend some credence to *SOME* of the speculations of Jewish intertestamental literature regarding death and the eschaton,
4. The "flame" in Hades (which apparently is the NT counterpart of OT Sheol) that "Dives" is tormented with is not literal and physical fire, and therefore the punishment of Gehenna might not be limited to physical fire (which is suggested by the fact that the Devil is cast in the the Lake of Fire even though he's not a physical being)
Also, why are some angels eternally kept in everlasting chains (Jude 1:6), while the Devil (who is arguably the most wicked of the demons) is extinguished in the Lake of Fire? If the Devil isn't annihilated even though he's cast into the Lake of Fire, why assume the humans who are cast there will be annihilated? In fact, Jude 1:13 seems to be saying that humans who were false shepherds will suffer a similar fate as the angels in verse 6, and that it will be eternal and conscious (cf. 2 Pet. 2:9).
Should we remove Luke, 1st Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude and Revelation from the Canon because they seem to teach an intermediate state (and often one that's tormented for the wicked)? Arguably the books of Hebrews (12:23), 2nd Corinthians (5), Philippians (1) and Luke (23:43) teach an intermediate state for the saved.
Glenn Andrew Peoples wrote: //"Besides,
if destruction is what annihilationists believe, saying it's
destruction from the presence of the Lord is superfluous"
[Annoyed
Pinoy], just on this single point, actually this is common language in
the Scripture ("destroyed from / perished from" etc to indicate removal
or simple non-presence or existence).
So the language of being destroyed from God's presence offers no support for ECT. //
I'll
add your comments to my blogpost with your full name included since you
mention that You wrote the article you link to in your comments (which I
want to quote). Besides, you're a well known Conditionalist so you
wouldn't fear being "outed". Though, I'll remove your name if you wish. I
agree that Robert Morey's book has its flaws, nevertheless Morey
points out that the same word used in 2 Thess. 1:9 is used in 1 Tim. 6:9
He writes: QUOTE First, the Greek word olethros, according to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (p. 443), means "the loss of a life of blessedness after death, future misery." The word olethros is
translated "ruin" in 1 Tim. 6:9 to describe the lost and wretched
spiritual condition of someone who lusts after riches. Then in verse 10,
Paul amplifies their "ruination" by saying that they have "wandered
away from the faith and pierced themselves with many a pang." In this
passage, it is clear that olethros does not mean annihilation but "ruination" or "spiritual misery or wretchedness." In this light, it is not surprising to discover that olethron aionion in 2 Thess. 1:9 is translated as "eternal ruin" or "everlasting ruin" by Goodspeed, Wuest, New English Bible, Twentieth Century New Testament, etc. The wicked face "ruination," not annihilation. END QUOTE
A
form of the word is also used in 1 Thess. 5:3 regarding humans (it
seems) being destroyed in this Age. Yet if they were completely
destroyed, then they wouldn't/couldn't be resurrected since true
destruction is permanent. Additionally, if dualism and an intermediate
state is true, then they weren't *really* and truly destroyed because
they continued to consciously exist. And I believe the case for #1. an
immaterial aspect to human ontology (bipartite or tripartite) and #2. an
intermediate state is VERY strong. This poses a problem for
Conditionalists who believe in #1 and #2.
Turning the guns back
on a physicalist/materialist Conditionalist position, if such
Conditionalists say they really were destroyed, but they were
reconstituted via resurrection and so that doesn't violate the
Conditionalist definition of "destroy", it's still not a permanent
"destruction". Even assuming that that Conditionalist response works, the
person would seem to suffer the injustice of Double Jeopardy because he
dies twice. Moreover, one can philosophically argue that the
reconstituted person really isn't the same person but rather a duplicate
copy. That is, a different person who has the memories of the original
person. Claiming it's the same person violates the Law of Identity
whereby A is A. In which case you have a new human being created de novo
with false memories who will be punished with death for the sins of
another person who has already died (and therefore already paid for his
own sins). Think of the clones in Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie The 6th
Day. It would be petty and unjust for a human being to punish a clone
for the crimes of the original even if he shared the same memories. How
much more unjust would it be for God to do so?
//If this is the intention, the picture is rather like that of the fate of
Nadab and Abihu who died when they offered “strange fire” before the
Lord in Leviticus 10. There, “fire came out from before the LORD and
consumed them, and they died before the LORD” (v. 2). The Hebrew word
translated “before” literally refers to the “face” (פָּנֶה, paneh).
The same is true in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, where Paul, on this view,
describes a fire that literally comes from the “face” (πρόσωπον, prosopon), creating a striking similarity between the two passages.//
Similarly,
either Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by YHVH using physical fire
and/or His glorious presence. Yet, presumably you believe they will be
resurrected in the future. In which case, the same comments I just made
about those "destroyed" in 1 Thess. 5:3 applies.
// But what is the Lord going to do to them? Isaiah writes that
the haughty looks of men will be brought low and the lofty pride of men
will be humbled (v. 11) so that only God will be exalted. But after the
enemies of God have tried – in vain, let us remember – to escape “the
terror of the LORD” and “the splendour of his majesty,” what does he do
to them? What does their impending fate consist of? We are not told...//
But
maybe we have been told. In fact, you might have referred to it
already. You wrote, "Isaiah writes that
the haughty looks of men will be brought low and the lofty pride of men
will be humbled (v. 11) so that only God will be exalted." Verses 11 and
17 might refer to that final judgment. While it's true verse 17 (which describes
the humbling of haughty) precedes verse 19 (which describes hiding in
rocks/caves), the reverse is the case in verses 10 and 11. In verse 10
YHVH sarcastically says in derision and irony that they would do well to
hide in rocks (presumably) because of the looming danger of the next
verse which threatens that in that day "[t]he haughty looks of man shall
be brought low, and the lofty pride of men shall be humbled, and the
LORD alone will be exalted in that day." So, I think a better case can
be made that the punishment just IS the humbling of the wicked. That's
consistent with the Traditionalist interpretation of Daniel 12:2 which
says the wicked will rise to "shame and everlasting contempt". The
advantage of my interpretation of Isaiah 2 is that the nature of the
final judgment is actually described, whereas your interpretation leaves
us hanging and in doubt as to what it might be.
//The wicked may have wished to hide from God’s presence in safety,
avoiding judgement altogether, but now that it is upon them, in perhaps a
terrible irony, they will leave his presence after all, because the
Lord will destroy them.//
And thus giving comfort and solace to those who don't fear annihilation, but do fear eternal conscious torment.
//They will not escape God’s presence on their own terms – in safety,
avoiding judgement, kept hidden from the Lord. Rather they will face him
in judgement and then be destroyed, thus removed from his presence
forever.//
Yet Rev. 14:10b-11 states,
"[they]...will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the
holy angels and in the PRESENCE OF THE LAMB. 11 And the smoke of their
torment goes up forever and ever, and they have NO REST, DAY OR NIGHT,
these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the
mark of its name."
In this passage the wicked are
tormented in the PRESENCE of Christ FOREVER contrary to your claim that
they will one day cease to be in God's presence and will one day have
"rest". Which—to come full circle—is consistent with my interpretation
of Isaiah 2. The word "presence" in reference to God is used in
different senses. Satan can be in God's "presence" in one sense without
being consumed (cf. Job 1:12; 2:7).
The psalmist said:
7 Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your PRESENCE?
8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!- Psalm 139:7-8
If
"sheol" in verse 8 refers to the abode of the dead (righteous or
wicked) prior to the Cross and not merely the grave [which may be the
case in other contexts], AND IF the wicked dead are in God's presence in
sheol enduring a "flame" of punishment (Luke 16:24), then it would seem
that it's the presence of God that's tormenting them (cf. Heb. 12:29)
during the intermediate state, yet they are not consumed. If so, then
why must final judgment entail extinction? Especially given that some
angels are sentenced to everlasting chains (Jude 1:6), while the Devil
who is arguably the most evil creature to EVER live will be extinguished
in the Lake of Fire. That seems really unjust to me. And so, it seems
to me that when Matt. 25:41 says, Gehenna is "ETERNAL fire PREPARED for
the Devil and his angels", I take it that the it will be an eternally
conscious punishment for ALL demons (not just some). If so, then that
would seem to settle the controversy of the proper interpretation of
"ETERNAL punishment" in verse 46 in favor of the Traditionalist view
regarding humans. Since the same word is used for "eternal", and the
suggestion that human punishment will be similar to the demons'. Unless
one wants to argue that the punishment for humans is
substantially/categorically different than for demons even though they
end up in the same place. With Gehenna antecedently being prepared FIRST
for the Devil (either chronologically and/or logically/conceptually). I
say chronologically since demons might already be in Gehenna or its
precursor (cf. Jude 1:6). So, the nature of Gehenna is
primarily/originally "spiritual fire" (so to speak) rather than merely
physical fire.
The Devil not being material can't be
hurt by physical fire. Merely material humans cannot be hurt by the
"spiritual fire" the Devil will suffer (whatever that is). Yet, if the
fires of hell are (at the very least) spiritual (if not also physical)
then that's consistent with human dualism and human ECT.
//St Paul’s claim in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 – on the face of it – constitutes
a problem for the traditional view of eternal punishment, strongly
favouring annihilationism.//
Finally, even
assuming that Paul personally believed and taught annihilationism, that
doesn't necessarily mean the BIBLE teaches annihilationism. Paul might
have been mistaken in his understanding of Gehenna, yet the Holy Spirit
may have inspired his use of words when penning 2 Thessalonians to be
consistent with ECT. For example, assuming (ad arguendo) that
Unconditional Election is true, Peter's injunction to make one's
"calling and election sure" is consistent with Unconditional election
even if he may have personally believed in Conditional election.
Inspired Scripture trumps the personal errors of even inspired Apostles.
While everything they officially taught in their Apostolic office was
inerrant & infallible, not all their personal beliefs were such.
Glenn Andrew Peoples wrote:
//On review it looks like you have not acknowledged the point that "destruction from..." actually isn't superfluous, even if "destruction" means what annihilationists say it does.//
//Could you just take a moment and acknowledge that "destruction from" really would *not* be superfluous, even if "destruction" means what annihilationists say it does?//
I concede that if "destruction" and "presence" in that verse mean what Conditionalists mean, then I grant that it's not superfluous. That's why I gave reasons to question the condtionalist meaning of those terms ("destruction" and "presence") in that verse. I don't believe the case for or against the traditionalist position stands or falls on this verse.
"Presence" is used in the Bible in different ways. As I argued in my OP, one of the ways presence is used with respect to the LORD is in the sense of having safety, peace, blessing and prosperity on account of God's gracious acceptance and favor. Compare the Aaronic Blessing where God's FACE/PRESENCE metaphorically shines upon someone in graciousness.
24 The LORD bless you and keep you;
25 the LORD make his FACE to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
26 the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.- Num. 6:24-26
I also argued that "olethros" and a form of the word is used in two other NT passages and how it can't mean "destruction" in the Conditionalist sense, strictly speaking. Then I tried to show how your attempt to use Moo's citation of Isaiah 2 may have backfired on your own position.
That's a brief review of my previous response to your article.
Here's a new argument from 2 Kings 13:23.
But Jehovah was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet.- 2 Ki 13:23
If I'm not mistaken, this passage is saying that when the House of Israel would eventually be taken into captivity it would be a case of the "destruction" (in a manner of speaking) of Israel from YHVH's "presence". If this interpretation is correct, then here's a case where destruction from the presence of YHVH doesn't follow the Conditionalist understanding, but rather my understanding of the loss of God's favor.
Glenn Andrew Peoples wrote: //This seems rather beside the point. Yes, those who dwell forever in the presence of the Lord will, doubtless, have those things.//
But the Jewish understanding is that those who don't have God's favor are not in God's presence. So, it's not beside the point.
//Where that expression is used in the Old Testament, it means to have disappeared altogether.//
Even granting that, that's disappearance from the physical world. Not necessarily from existence altogether. That's why I pointed out in my comments to other people in this thread that the issue of the intermediate state is highly relevant. Because if the same people who have been destroyed from the presence of the LORD still consciously exist in an intermediate state, then they weren't "destroyed" in the Conditionalists sense of the word, strictly speaking. And I gave a brief defense of dualism and an intermediate state in those posts which were directed to other people.
//You appeal to the use of the word in 1 Thess 5:3 as a case where it cannot mean completely destroy, But this appears to be false. The word simply refers to people in a disaster upon whom sudden destruction comes. Nothing here implies that there is any sense in which they are still alive.//
The same point about an intermediate state applies here.
//Thayer is not a reliable source. He is engaging in creative fancy when he says "the loss of a life of blessedness after death, future misery." The word absolutely never means anything like this. I would suggest a more reputable Lexicon like Bauer's work. Thayer's is never cited in scholarly work and would certainly not be used in, for example, Seminary. His Lexicon is notorious for a strong theological bias.//
I didn't know that. Thanks for informing me.
//You think it cannot mean total destruction, because you personally think God cannot raise the dead if every part of them has died.//
I do think it poses a real philosophical problem for physicalist/materialist Conditionalism. That can't just be ignored by Conditionalists. If they've seriously addressed it, I'm not aware of it. Admittedly, I'm way behind in terms of the contemporary literature in defense of Conditionalism.
//Well now you are straying from the subject of Hell strictly speaking, but you will at least agree that it means the destruction of the physical person.//
But clearly anthropology is a related and essential topic to address when it comes to eschatology. Yes, I will "agree that it means the destruction of the physical person."
//Rather, traditionalists believe that the lost will be bodily raised from the dead and will be in a state of torment forever.//
I'm open to either the Traditionalist or Conditionalist positions. Though, I currently lean toward the former. I'm also open to the possibility of a Traditionalist view that the body might eventually be burnt up, but the conscious souls might persist eternally. Similar to how the immaterial spirits of demons will (ISTM) be punished for all eternity.
On account of the nature of Progressive Revelation the story of humans comes before that of angels. Even though angels were created and (likely) Fell first. When Conditionalists begin with the nature of human eschatological judgment it seems they are putting the cart before the horse. Since angels fell first and since Christ says Gehenna was first prepared (conceived of and designed?) for the Devil and his angels, then shouldn't we see human punishment in Gehenna in light of the mode of angelic punishment? Especially if the case for human dualism is strong? If some or all demons will suffer spiritual ECT, then shouldn't the spiritual nature of ECT among angels be considered the default position regarding human judgment, until further revelation informs us otherwise?
It seems to me that eschatological [LAST things] judgment should not be straight-jacketed by earlier Old Testament Revelation. Especially when later revelation -in the Progressive development of Revelation- is clearer on it than the former.
Rather the opposite should be the case. The New Testament should rule over and explain the Old Testament in terms of interpretation. For example, the latter Antitypes and Realities explain and are usually greater than the earlier Types and Shadows. That's why I never found it persuasive when Conditionalists pointed to Jude 1:7 and Sodom and Gomorrah's experience of "punishment of eternal fire" as revealing to us the nature of final eschatological fire. Another example would be the rewards in this life and those at the eschaton.
If the righteous is repaid on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner!- Prov. 11:31
God's OT promises are analogous to a Billionaire promising to give you a Ferrari and a golf club (putter), then in the end giving you a Ferrari Dealership and the deed to a 200 acre Golf Club resort. God promised Abraham the Promised Land, but ended up giving him the globe, even the entire universe. Rewards in this Age are emblematic of the greater rewards in the next Age. Yet, given Conditionalism, the punishment in the next Age is, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as in this Age. It seems to me that CI disrupts the symmetry.
If we allowed the OT revelation to rule over the NT, then we would tend to end up with the opposite of correct theological positions. For example, the OT teaches it's wrong to justify the wicked (Prov. 17:15; 24:24). Yet that would appear (at least on the surface) to contradict Rom. 4:5 where it is said that God "justifies the ungodly". Or take the OT teaching on merit and obedience to God's law which makes us acceptable before God. While that's true in one sense given the New Covenant, in another more fundamental sense we aren't justified by our own works. The NT clarifies in what sense our works are pleasing to God, while at the same time denying salvation is on the basis of works. If we allowed the older OT revelation to rule over the fuller & newer NT revelation, that would lead to things like Unitarianism, or the continued binding nature of the entire Mosaic Law and Covenant, etc. Modern Jews reject Jesus partly because they don't see two Advents of the Messiah in the Tanakh, and see other NT teachings contradicting the Hebrew Bible. Another example would be how a surface reading of the Torah could lead one to infer a physicalist/materialist anthropology with no afterlife. The Sadducees seemed to have come to that conclusion because they rejected the Progressive Revelation given in the rest of the OT, viz. the Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (writings). The NT should inform, and expand our interpretation of the OT, instead of the OT limiting our interpretation and application of the NT. It's almost as if Conditionalists read the Bible like Unitarians. Admittedly the preponderance of the evidence (especially in the OT) is in favor of Annihilationism, but that doesn't prove it's true. Since, I've shown how NT teaching counter-intuitively SEEMS (not in reality) to contradict OT teaching on various topics.
Glenn, I have a question for you. Do you believe at least some demons will suffer ECT?
Glenn Andrew Peoples wrote: //Can we explicitly agree, then, that this doesn't support ECT (which teaches that the lost will physically live forever) and that it favours CI? //
I'll agree that it doesn't necessarily support ECT. But I won't agree that it definitely favors CI.
//This will have erased two arguments so far: Destroyed from the presence of the Lord is not redundant, on CI,//
Sure, I agree that given a CI interpretation, it's not redundant. Meaning, it's internally consistent/coherent. But that doesn't settle the issue of whether the CI interpretation is correct.
//...and the meaning of olethros does support CI.//
I'm not sure of that. If that's your position, then you seem to be committed to the interpretation that the use of olethros in 1 Tim. 6:9 means destruction as you take it in 2 Thess. 1:6. The people described in 1 Tim. 6:9 might be interpreted to mean they were destroyed while still physically living. Unless, you take it proleptically.
Glenn Andrew Peoples wrote: //...you chose to appeal to 1 Thes 5:3, and we afterwards agreed that in context it refers to physical death.//
I'm not even certain of that. When I used to be a confirmed Pre-Millennialist I would definitely have agreed. I've lost that confidence now that lean more toward Amill or (esp.) Postmill.
//...while ECT teaches that the lost will never physically die, after resurrection.//
That's the most common version of ECT. But like I said, I think ECT is consistent with an alternative position where the physical body is eventually burnt up, but the conscious spirit and/or soul remains alive.
//For this reason, the fact that we have (apparently) agreed that physical death is involved means that you *should* see this as support for conditionalism.//
I don't see why it is that I logically "should". I'll have to re-read your argument to understand why.
I should have phrased my statement the following way, "you [would then] seem to [have to] be committed to the interpretation that the use of olethros in 1 Tim. 6:9 means destruction as you take it in 2 Thess. 1:6."
//I haven't even mentioned 1 Tim 6:9.//
okay
//I agree that this is ambiguous and could have either of those two meanings. It could be metaphorical, where the people weren't literally destroyed but nonetheless got into trouble.//
If you can say/acknowledge that 1 Tim. 6:9 may not refer to physical destruction, why do you insist and are confident that it means physical destruction in 2 Thess. 1:9?
//It could be proleptic, calling them destroyed because they will be, based on how they are living.
Or of course it could be literal. Plenty of people, through lifestyle or the relationships they got into, died because of their money.//
But then this only addresses their physical death by natural means and ordinary providence *before* the eschaton, not by Christ who would (per CI) destroy them entirely (body and soul) at the eschaton. In which case, 1 Tim. 6:9 would allow for a destruction of the body but the continuation of the soul. Your argument then would have to assume a priori a materialist and/or physicalist anthropology for the definition of "olethros" to be the same in BOTH passages. But as you know there are proponents of CI who are dualists.
//So I do not think this one example will do the work you need it to.//
But the burden of proof is not on me to demonstrate that "olethros" *never* means physical death, nor is the burden of proof on me to demonstrate that it *always* means something other than physical death. We both know words have semantic range. Rather, the burden of proof is on proponents of CI (whether dualistic or monistic) to demonstrate that it ALWAYS means physical death simpliciter assuming monistic CI (or at least always INCLUDES death given the option of dualistic CI). Which means those who hold to monistic CI would have the additional burden of proof to demonstrate physicalism and/or materialism. Which entails being able to undermine and refute the case for dualism (bipartite or tripartite).
The following is by someone other than Glenn Andrew Peoples: //but why do you think the translators chose the "wrong" one?//
I don't have the positive belief that they chose the wrong one, or that the definitely right one is "ruin".
//What
I'd ask is why you think the translators unanimously choose the word
"destruction" in this case, when you think it doesn't literally mean to
be destroyed, but rather to be ruined.//
Maybe many
of the translators themselves aren't sure and therefore opt for
"destruction" because it can include (or be a synonym for) the concept
of "ruin", whereas if they opted for "ruin" It would exclude the concept
of "destruction".
I'm not a Koine Greek or Biblical
Hebrew scholar. Nor am I very good at grammar. However, here's another
issue that maybe should be explored. Is it possible that the phrase
"away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" is a
case of Semitic parallelism? IF so, then would/could that be evidence
against the CI interpretation of "destruction"?
// In other words, you require we interpret the symbolic as literal, and the literal as symbolic. You have it the wrong way around! You don't interpret the clear verses of scripture in light of the more obscure difficult to understand verses. The majority of scripture is far clearer that the end of the lost is death, dying, destruction, perishing, being burned to ashes etc. //
I think the passages in the Gospel about hell are, if taken literally, self-contradictory. For example, it's a place of fire, but it's also dark. A place of where one is cut up in pieces (and presumably dead), only to afterward weep and gnash teeth posthumously. That to me shows that they are (at least partly) figurative. However, when the Bible says people are in torment forever, it's difficult to interpret that as figurative of something else. What is that something else? Especially since consciousness and the awareness of pain is not something that is normally figurative of something else. Chocolate can be figurative of something else, but the description of the conscious experience of tasting and enjoying chocolate FOREVER is something that would normally not be interpreted as figurative of something else that's also temporary. It explicitly says it's forever. This should have some weight especially since the concept of ECT was floating around in Jewish thought at the time.
You address Jude 1:6 with the next verse, but verse 13 suggests humans will endure condemnation consciously forever (cf. 2 Pet. 2:17). If they are temporary chains, why call them eternal chains. That's gives the wrong impression. The exactly OPPOSITE impression. Given the parallels between a Biblical conception of the Divine Council that Dr. Mike Heiser has pointed out and the parallels between it and pagan pantheons and demonology, many pagan myths have the demons punished everlastingly in a conscious manner. Jude and Peter seems to accommodate that. Even using the Greek word tartaroo. While not all Jews believed it, the concept of ECT existed in the Interestamental Jewish literature that Jesus' listeners would have been familiar with. Some of these writers used annhilationist sounding language even though some of them seemed to also believe in ECT. Which means annihilationist language doesn't, by itself, settle the issue. Since apparently some Jewish could believe in ECT and use extinguishing type language. Jesus knowing the disputes among Jews regarding eschatological judgment would have been wise to ONLY use annihilationist language were CI true. Yet He nevertheless didn't hesitate to modified words like "fire" and "punishment" with words like "eternal/everlasting" and "unquenchable" which (while not settling it for ECT as a slam dunk), is completely consistent with ECT. IMO, the natural reading of those passages, given background cultural/theological information, is that they teach ECT.
//Do you have any reason to say they're not sure, as opposed to 100% unanimous?//
Even if they were 100% unanimous, are you sure that they mean by "destruction" what CI folk mean by it? There's a semantic range for English words too, not just Greek or Hebrew.
// Destruction in English means "the act or process of damaging something so badly that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired" (M-W's Learner's Dictionary).//
How do we know that Paul wasn't using hyperbole or a figure of speech? Even in our modern times when we say sports team X "destroyed" team Y, we don't mean what CI means by "destroy". The Bible isn't a textbook on science or modal logic. It's statements aren't propositions completely striped clean and ready to be used in deductive syllogisms. Much of it is poetry and not straight prose. The informational and propositional content needs to be mined from things like figures of speech. That's because the Bible uses normal human patterns of speech. It's not written in an artificial and 100% efficient language like mathematics, or programming code, or the Vegan language in the movie Contact <g>. BTW, E.W. Bullinger lists over 217 types of figures of speech used in the bible. See his book Figures of Speech Used in the Bible:
Words like "destruction" can be easily be employed in non-literal senses. Whereas descriptions like those in Revelation of individuals being tormented forever and ever, with no rest or respite day or night are more difficult to explain away as being non-literal.
//Can you expand on that, please?//
You know more about grammar than I do. So, you'd have to determine whether there's any possible merit in what I suggested.
//Where's the hyperbole there? Do you see it? What is it hyperbolic _of_? Is God playing a game with them?//
I lean toward partial preterism. This isn't the place to expound partial preterism, but for those who do know about it, they'd know what I mean. Nevertheless, YHVH "Coming in Judgment" language used in the OT was often figurative. It's these very same type of images that are used in the NT. When these types of judgments were fulfilled in the OT against pagan nations they weren't literal. Nor am I certain whether those descriptions in 2 Thess. are of the 2nd Advent or the events surrounding destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Either way, they can be fulfilled figuratively.
"From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty."- Rev. 19:15
When it says that a sharp sword comes out of Jesus' mouth to strike down nations, is that literal? I hope you see what I'm getting at.
//So long as the torment is not "forever" it can result in destruction, leaving the victim completely crushed by the torment.//
And yet whatever you view torment to be, it says it's going to be forever. The natural reading of the passages is that torment is......wait for it.....torment. You're now the one wanting to take a less than literal meaning of the word torment for theological reasons, not exegetical ones because it cuts against the grain of the theology of CI.
//But let me ask more strongly: You think a beast with seven heads and ten horns being tormented forever and ever night and day while there is "no more night" and "no more pain" is best explained as being _literal_?//
When it comes to Rev. 14:10-11, the earlier context says in the previous verse (9), "If ***ANYONE*** worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,..." These individuals appear to be human individuals. When it comes to the punishment of the various beasts in Daniel and Revelation, sometimes it refers to individuals, other times it refers to some human and/or demonic system or institutions or government. In which case,the punishment is distributively applied to the individuals who are guilty. For example, a tax penalty for a group can be spoken of both in a collective and/or distributive and individualistic sense without having to always make it clear in which sense it's being used. Because it's understood.
//When a vision -- like seeing the beast cast into the lake of fire -- and an angel explaining the vision to you seem to disagree, don't you think the angel _explaining_ it should be given priority?//
I don't see how that undermines my explanation above.
2
thess. 1:9 refers to fire, 2 thess. 2:8 refers to the breath of Christ
destroying, and Rev. 19:15 says it's a sharp sword that comes out of
Christ's mouth to destroy His enemies. Which is it? Is it fire, or
breath or a sword? Or are you going to combine and harmonize them so
that it's Christ's breath in the shape of a sharp sword but instead of
being made out of metal, it's made out of fire? Clearly, figures are
being used to describe these types of judgement.
//That's the language used by Revelation, the book you're about to tell me I have to take literally.//
I never said, nor have I ever in my 30 years being a Christian believed, that we ought to take the book of Revelation literally in its entirety. Not even when i was a Pre-Millennialists. We should read the Bible according to its genres and its intended meaning. The book of Revelation is apocalyptic literature and we ought to interpret the figures figuratively, while at the same time derive literal meaning behind it. For example, in Rev. 5:6 when Jesus is said to look like a lamb who was slain with seven eyes and seven horns, that's not literal. The literal meaning behind the figures is that Jesus is like a lamb who was slain in atonement. His seven eyes represent omniscience and providence (2 Chron. 16:9), while His seven horns represent completely authority and power (cf. the many use of "horn" in Daniel). Seven of course being the number of perfection and fullness.
//(never mind that it's not the fate of humans, but rather of seven-headed beast and company)//
Rev. 14:9 says the fate is for "ANYONE worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,
". Meaning, anyone who willingly agrees with and participates in the evil works of the beast and image. The mark on the forehead represents knowledge and consent, while the mark on hand represents participation and "doing". Since, we do our work with our hands. When it comes to eternal conscious torment in Rev. 14; 19; 20 , how can that represent non-eternal, non-conscious absence of torment? Rev. 14 talks about "No Rest, day or night" forever.
// I take the word "torment" literally in Revelation 14, just not in Rev 20 where it happens to non-physical beings who can't actually literally be tormented,//
A case could be made by some people that the beast and false prophet are individual human beings. I don't positively hold that view. But it makes some sense since the devil is a personal individual, why would he be lumped together with a beast and a false prophet who aren't personal individuals. Especially when the term "false prophet" normally refers to individual human beings elsewhere in Scripture. Nevertheless, even assuming that the beast and false prophet are proximately representative of something non-individual, they may still ultimately represent human individuals. Just as the Devil in Rev. 19:20 and 20:10 might represent the demonic horde, so the beast might represent all evil governmental leaders and institutions, and the false prophet represent all false prophets and false religions. All of whom will endure ECT.
//That doesn't mean "every person the beast ruled will be thrown into a river of fire;" it means that the power of THEIR KING will be taken away.//
Those who willingly serve and follow their evil king. Given an Amillennialist and/or Postmillennialist interpretation, that King could represent all evil kings and kingdoms. Both in the book of Revelation and throughout the OT (e.g. Daniel) the term "king" sometimes represents the actual personal king, and/or his kingdom, and/or those in his kingdom who serve and follow him. That is, those whom he leads. See for example Nebuchadnezzar's dream of a statue. That the word "king" can represent his kingdom and/or his servants whom he leads and who follow him is something I've heard commentators of all stripes acknowledge. Whether Pre-Mill, Amill, or Postmill. Whether Futurist, Preterist, Idealist, or Historicist.
Like
I said in my last post I really can't spend time on discussing this
topic at present. So, i have just one question. IF Peter and Jude were
alluding to or quoting the Book of Enoch, and IF the book of Enoch
taught ECT for some conscious beings (e.g. demons, or fallen angels, or
nephilim etc.), would it imply that both Peter and Jude believed some
conscious agents will suffer ECT in Gehenna?
My Ongoing Post Discussion Thoughts:
Click on the post label "annihilationism" for more blogposts on the topic.
Does Conditional Immortality believe the cessation of consciousness is necessary condition of death? If so, and if they agree that Jesus the divine person didn't lose consciousness, then doesn't that entail that Jesus never died? Traditionalists who believe in an intermediate state have no problem saying that death doesn't involve a cessation of consciousness since the dead remain conscious during the intermediate state.
See the following blogpost by Steve Hays where he makes comments that could be used to support a qualitative sense of life and death.
