tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post4422436129325109940..comments2024-03-01T07:35:49.740-08:00Comments on Come Reason's Apologetics Notes: Why Eternal Punishment is not NonsensicalLenny Espositohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04064209669748618955noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-80311031835872641142018-05-18T09:23:34.947-07:002018-05-18T09:23:34.947-07:00Respectfully, I think you should re-read your post...Respectfully, I think you should re-read your posts (including your latest) and ask yourself, "Is this tone likely to make my words heard by others, especially adults, or more likely to put them off by lecturing them as if they were middle school students?" That issue is a heck of a lot more important than the CI vs. ECT debate. <br /><br />You say you became frustrated that I kept referring you to my past posts. That's because they were important! They contained vital information you were not addressing. Why keep repeating myself to someone who ignores arguments and just keeps lecturing and preaching? <br /><br />You say, for that reason, I wasn't apparently matching the extensive time you were putting into studying the scriptures. However, I had already said that I had put weeks into an extensive Hebrew and Greek examination of CI and ECT in the OT and NT, producing almost 20 pages of single space research for a Jehovah's Witness acquaintance. I'd described my theological journey. So I'm not a child in matters of hermeneutics. Virtually all the objections you raised to my meager three OT verses are ones I thought hard about years ago as part of my research. E.g., your response to Is. 14 is reasonable and must be considered; it's how I mentally counter-attacked and tested the more literal interpretation of verses 9-21 years ago, but I think it ultimately it falls short for multiple reasons. <br /><br />Obviously, the critiques you make against my interpretive methods on CI/ECT could be turned against yours; these are only lecturing words whose content has little meaning without diving into the actual verses. It just comes off as more presumptive lecturing and finger-wagging. And what you say about my "problem" regarding "pre-conceived ideas" from "external sources" like the Greeks . . . this constitutes a lot of old accusations from CI folks that that at this point seem condescending to bring up and, frankly, tiring to those who have spent time examining the topic. And doing word comparisons you've mentioned? I've already looked into it a while ago. <br /><br />If you are truly interested in respectfully exploring and dialoging about this my email is chriscorbett2@gmail.com. These space-limited blog response windows have no capacity for sharing serious research. But I'm busy and I suspect your mind is made up (I think you said it was). So I'll leave it to you. <br /><br /><br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13295879438065217318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-54211717860996123802018-05-06T05:48:22.249-07:002018-05-06T05:48:22.249-07:00I'm all for stopping.
I apologize for expre...I'm all for stopping. <br /><br />I apologize for expressing my frustration. When I asked you to supply verses expressing your viewpoint and you told me go back through the long thread and these were what I found, I was very disappointed. I felt that you spent so little time in coming up with prooftexts that the work I was expending was wasted. I let sarcasm spill over into my replies and I'm sorry I offended you. Still, I am not impressed that you still want to defend 2 of the 3 choices when the type of scripture goes against your intent. (The Job 26 passages suffers the same type of issue as the other two. Just read through the passage and see what else you must affirm if you want to take vs. 5 and 6 literally and not as poetry.)<br /><br />At this point I don't believe you are capable of seeing these issues any other way than what you currently hold. The many scriptures to the contrary do not matter to you and the lack of biblical testimony to support your position do not seem to dissuade you. You are more likely to double-down and say the scriptures are there than recognize there is a hole in your argument.<br /><br />Previously you made a comment about biblical totality and I am in total agreement with that. We should look at all relevant scriptures and see how they best fit together. We should note the genre and the context. We should also look at what backdrop the individual writers would have been writing from and what they would have expected their hearers to understand.<br /> <br />I think the issue you face is that you are trying to categorize the scriptures not as they are but how they fit into your pre-conceived ideas - and I believe the issue that really is throwing you off it the extra-biblical premise of an immortal soul. Since you are trying to force scripture into that construct you end up with incorrect categorizations. That's also why you must use non-standard definitions for the words death, destruction, perish, extinction. These are words that would have been extremely clear to the original hearers of scripture but because of the baggage you bring you are forced to redefine the terms. <br /><br />I suggest as an exercise that you challenge yourself to put those pre-conceived ideas to the side and take scripture as it is. Read John 3:16. Check the word perish and in an interlinear see what word its translated from. Then read the definition of both perish and its match in biblical Greek. Do the same with Rom 6:23. Check Mt 3:12.<br /> <br />Ponder what the hearers of the word thought when they heard the term Gehenna. Check the OT reference. When Jude and Peter say the unrighteous will suffer the same fate as that of those in Sodom what would the hearers have understood?<br /> <br />Yes, do your best to conform your ideas to the totality of scripture. Be extremely careful you are not going the other direction.<br />VPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642407401582978720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-17021764417564501132018-05-06T00:37:23.945-07:002018-05-06T00:37:23.945-07:00VP, thanks for your reply. As to Lazarus, I’m goin...VP, thanks for your reply. As to Lazarus, I’m going to give up trying get across my main points. I don’t think we’re communicating. My overarching point was that it’s a red herring argument with no real gravity for the CI position. The arguments you make for it could be turned against it. <br /><br />Regarding the three OT passages, you’re correct that I mistyped thr Job reference; it’s chapter 26, not 25. Sorry. As for the others, you’ve brought up resonable responses that others in your camp have made, but I think they fall short for solid exegetical reasons which I can supply. <br /><br />But before going further, we need to get something agreed to. And that’s tone. I’m all for productive and spirited discourse. I’m not for personal sarcasm and insults, which I believe you have drifted into. I’ve learned not to expend my time with folks who display arrogance and a lack of humility. Sometimes their tone is to cover weak arguments, sometimes it’s just personality. Either way, it’s unproductive. And this practice of limiting my engagements with those who display such behavior is partly to protect myself, so as not to be provoked into the same tendency, which can happen. And it’s especially not kosher on a third party’s blog site. So I will be fine, as I have time, to offer the fruits of my research, including answers to your points above. But unless you want to be cordial and respectful, I am fine letting you bask in the belief (with which I obviously disagree) that you have all the answers. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13295879438065217318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-75475179558688403842018-05-05T21:47:35.751-07:002018-05-05T21:47:35.751-07:001) See my response to your #5 below
2) Apparently ...1) See my response to your #5 below<br />2) Apparently I am not making my point clear. Let me try again. If there is a bunch of stuff going on in the intermediate state then there will be much to say. If there is nothing going on in the intermediate state then there will be very little to say.<br />4) So you think that Jesus told the disciples that people were sleeping in order to make the point that in the intermediate state the “dead” were dreaming? Seriously, is that what you really think was Jesus’ purpose?<br />5) I now know why I didn't remember your examples. They were extremely weak exegetically to make the point at hand and I decided not to comment as a favor. Since you've brought them up again I will now comment.<br /><br />Is 14:9 - 11<br />Isn't it odd that you didn't go back one verse so that we can discuss the "talking trees". So, if you want to suggest that this passage teaches the dead leaders of the world (who apparently still have thrones according to the passage) will wake up to meet the king of Babylon you must also assert talking junipers and cedars. I am waiting anxiously for your explanation.<br /><br /><br />Ex 32:21<br />I hope you take the time to read the entire chapter to get an understanding of what is happening. This is one of many visions presented to Ezekiel. To even consider it as proof of the dead talking shows how lacking you are for evidence. For example, notice in this chapter how often God says that everyone is killed by the sword. Are we really to believe that no one died of illness, during childbirth or any other method? Then why are we to believe that the "mighty leaders" in the realm of the dead will recite vs 21 about Egypt?<br /><br />The proper interpretation of this passage is that Egypt, regardless of how powerful they are, will die and go to the grave just like those in great nations before them. It is NOT that they will go to the grave to retain their power, sit on thrones and taunt other leaders as future leaders take their place in the grave.<br /><br /><br />Job 25:5 - 6<br />I don't even see how this passage applies. Well, at least it doesn't make your point. The meaning of this passage is that man is extremely weak in comparison to God. If anything, this bolsters my point that man is not immortal - only God is immortal. <br />I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you mis-typed the reference.<br /><br />Am I to assume this was the best evidence you have from the OT?<br /><br />VPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642407401582978720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-27493062484498357382018-05-05T18:19:18.066-07:002018-05-05T18:19:18.066-07:00You say: "1) Why wasn't this "no con...You say: "1) Why wasn't this "no consciousness" in death a bigger news item?<br />Remember that these guys were steeped in the OT. The OT gave no hint that all who die have consciousness after death. In fact, its explicit to the contrary." This is simply not true. The OT has several passages that support conscious life in the intermediate state before resurrection, which would have been known and likely believed by many of the parties involved.<br /><br />You say: "2) Why didn't Jesus counter the rabbinic view of consciousness in death?<br />There were multiple views on the afterlife. We have the Sadducees who didn't believe in any kind of afterlife. The Pharisees who probably fell into multiple groups - likely most believed in a resurrection but who were likely split on the intermediate state as Greek ideas started infiltrating into Judaism." You've made my point: the Bible's silence on Lazarus' experience supports neither of our points, which is why it is a red herring for you to have mentioned it to Lenny.<br /><br />You say: "4) Sleep might connote something other than unconsciousness or annihilation.<br /> . . . Do we dream? Of course. Science tells us as much." The people of the time didn't need "science" to tell them they dreamed! Everyone knew it! So using "sleep" as a metaphor for the dead might not be quite a much a metaphor as you presume, especially when death in some OT passaged is likened to a dreamlike state.<br /><br />You say: "5) The OT contains examples of dead people being conscious.<br />I did not go back through your posts to see who you are referencing. I assume the Saul \ Witch \ Samuel story is one" No, I didn't use that one, though it's a good secondary support. I'm disappointed you didn't go back to my post. It was a key one.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13295879438065217318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-58740598235051841802018-05-05T09:33:02.094-07:002018-05-05T09:33:02.094-07:00VP, what you consider yourself does not save you, ...VP, what you consider yourself does not save you, true, but it can indicate your view of how a person is saved. That's what I'm getting at. Knowing that you have eternal life as a present possession is normal for a Christian (1 Jn 5:10-13), and a good indicator of your view of what is required for salvation (e.g., faith alone or faith plus works). For example, a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness will answer my question very differently from me. On the second point, when Christ paid for our sins, he was fully God and fully man (i.e., "God in the flesh"). Do you agree? Some people believe he "took on our form" but don't believe he was fully human. Just some simple, basic, defining questions. I've talked with enough people to know its valuable to nail down such questions.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13295879438065217318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-18273665471339960072018-05-05T08:02:24.692-07:002018-05-05T08:02:24.692-07:00Since we have so many threads going here I hesitat...Since we have so many threads going here I hesitate to keep another progressing but I missed this response until now. I will simply say that with your interpretation you have a math and biblical language problem (at minimum). Count the deaths provided in the explanation you gave and then look to Heb 9:27 and also Rev 20:14-15. Do you see the discrepancy?<br />VPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642407401582978720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-44965919800885100342018-05-05T07:29:55.648-07:002018-05-05T07:29:55.648-07:00You say OT representations of those in Sheol show ...You say OT representations of those in Sheol show them as conscious, with mental capacities. Can you provide some examples?<br />VPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642407401582978720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-5675247866185682702018-05-05T06:25:04.246-07:002018-05-05T06:25:04.246-07:00Let's take your issues one by one
1) Why was...Let's take your issues one by one<br /> <br />1) Why wasn't this "no consciousness" in death a bigger news item?<br />Remember that these guys were steeped in the OT. The OT gave no hint that all who die have consciousness after death. In fact, its explicit to the contrary. So, this wasn't news. The people at Lazarus death were just following the scriptures.<br />The news was that Jesus could bring someone back to life. Look at the interaction between Jesus and Martha in John 11:21-27 and specifically Martha's words in vs 24. Martha could have said "I know my brother is already in paradise" but her knowledge is only that he is dead (vs 21) and that he will rise again (vs 24). It wasn't news because it didn't change anything they already believed.<br /> <br />2) Why didn't Jesus counter the rabbinic view of consciousness in death?<br />There were multiple views on the afterlife. We have the Sadducees who didn't believe in any kind of afterlife. The Pharisees who probably fell into multiple groups - likely most believed in a resurrection but who were likely split on the intermediate state as Greek ideas started infiltrating into Judaism. Regardless, the Torah is the common basis among all the groups and it says very little about life after death. The rest of the OT suggests a resurrection but not of a consciousness in the intermediate state. So, staying true to the scriptures, Jesus didn't need to address it. God had already laid out.<br /> <br />3) Some people saw heavenly things and were forbidden or couldn't find the words to say.<br />I have no idea why this fact helps or hurts either one of our arguments.<br /> <br />4) Sleep might connote something other than unconsciousness or annihilation.<br />I would save the term annihilation for what happens in the final judgment. I think we both believe the dead today will rise again. Therefore "annihilation" doesn't seem to fit.<br /> <br />I agree that in today's scientific parlance we believe that sleep is a different kind of consciousness and not unconsciousness. But Jesus wasn't trying to layout a scientific way of speaking. He was using the common experience we all share as He often did. Do we dream? Of course. Science tells us as much. But, and this is most important, that is not what we think of when we think of sleep. We think of unconsciousness. We rarely remember our dreams. We think of ourselves as unconscious when we sleep. We believe that if we consciously become aware of something we have woken up.<br />Now, I think the major point Jesus means to make is that the first death is a temporary state and we will wake from it. Therefore Paul puts much emphasis on the resurrection even to go so far as to say that our faith is in vain without the resurrection. What is important is that we will awake from the intermediate state.<br /> <br />5) The OT contains examples of dead people being conscious.<br />I did not go back through your posts to see who you are referencing. I assume the Saul \ Witch \ Samuel story is one and I'm more than happy to discuss that and why it may not offer the support you think. Regardless, I think anyone can see even if we could find an incontrovertible example of a dead person who has consciousness that would be an exception rather than the rule. The OT, which is what the characters in the John 11 story knew, did not talk about consciousness during death for all people. To them death was the cessation of life.<br /> <br />On your final point I'm not sure where you are heading. But let's address the theme of how to understand scripture. You say we need to understand the totality of scripture and I completely agree with that. We should look at all relevant scriptures and see how they best fit together. We should also look at what backdrop the individual writers would have been writing from and what they would have expected their hearers to understand.<br /> <br />VPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642407401582978720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-25233689170924986272018-05-04T22:36:47.847-07:002018-05-04T22:36:47.847-07:00Just thought of another possibility for Lazarus. I...Just thought of another possibility for Lazarus. It's entirely plausible he didn't remember much, possibly because God didn't want him to. Curiously, this could (though I could be overreaching) connect to the OT descriptions of spirits of the departed in Sheol, which are depicted as conscious but weakened, with impaired, though existing, mental capacities. The catch is that those descriptions are of the lost in Sheol, and I think we can presume Lazarus was not lost. Still, he may not have been impaired or God blocked his memory. (That would also accord with the "sleep" metaphor, since we all dream and think during sleep, but don't always remember our dreams.) Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13295879438065217318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-69515205405375208182018-05-04T17:59:21.064-07:002018-05-04T17:59:21.064-07:00I see lots of problems here. First, it doesn't...I see lots of problems here. First, it doesn't address my question about why this "nothing in death" doctrine would not have been as big of a news item, and gotten into the NT, as the "paradise in death" doctrine. Neither view concerning what Lazarus said seems to be published in the NT, even though both would have been fascinating, meaning that for whatever reason, God decided not to include it. In sum, your initial argument of silence can be used against your position. Second, the "nothing in death" would likely to be more apt to be published since it would have refuted the popular rabbinic views. But it isn't. Third, we have testimony in scripture of people seeing or experiencing heavenly things either being prohibited from speaking about them, or having words fail them. Fourth, "sleep" could just as much be used to define death as including conscious thought as to denote annihilation, if not more, since sleepers don't think nothing, they dream, something those in Bible times would obviously know. Sleep, as a metaphor, is more fitting of the body in death, which resembles a sleeping person, than it is a metaphor for non-existence, since the mind thinks during sleep. Fifth, the OT contains examples of dead people being conscious. I've mentioned some in other posts. The bottom line is that the resurrected Lazarus is speculative line of reasoning.<br /><br />Re: sleep, destruction, etc., I think this fails because it doesn't take into consideration all the scriptures on the topic, and thus misses the proper categorization. There are scriptures describing death as bodily destruction, scriptures describing death as the separation from the land of the living, and scriptures describing the dead as still existing and even thinking. The composite picture is that the living are cut off from any knowledge of the dead, and the dead cut off from any knowledge of the living, yet both consciously exist in their hermetically separated spheres. I would refer back to my categorization in another post. That's how I see it, anyway. Any other view seems to miss the totality of scripture ("totality" is an important word here).<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13295879438065217318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-55396622031395422582018-05-04T17:40:16.474-07:002018-05-04T17:40:16.474-07:00I'm sure exactly what you are trying to get at...I'm sure exactly what you are trying to get at that I didn't answer before.<br /><br />First, a couple criticisms of the wording of your question -<br /><br />One, what I consider of myself is of no consequence to my eternal destiny. It’s all up to God. Just because I “consider myself saved” does not determine my outcome.<br /><br />Two, Christ was not always in the flesh. He took on our form (Phil 2:7).<br /><br />So, more explanation - Do I deserve salvation? Of course not. But God has granted me grace and mercy and so I believe He has written my name in the book of life. (Maybe the book is a metaphor as opposed to a real physical book. I don't know.)<br /><br />Christ has paid for my sins by His death on the cross.<br /><br />Like Paul, I look forward to the resurrection when I will be raised from the dead and given a new imperishable body (1 Cor 15:50). Without the resurrection my faith is in vain (1 Cor 15:14).<br />VPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642407401582978720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-75567022126310631742018-05-04T17:10:31.217-07:002018-05-04T17:10:31.217-07:00These are great questions. So, imagine with me th...These are great questions. So, imagine with me that when one dies they cease all consciousness. I'm sure you don't believe this but try it as a thought experiment. So, Lazarus comes out of the grave and a few days later his friends are asking "What was it like?". What would he say? Well, it might be like this - <br /><br />"I don't have much to say. I remember being sick but the next thing I know I hear Jesus' voice saying 'Lazarus, come out'. I opened my eyes and wondered 'where the heck am I?' But I came out of the tomb and there you guys were all gathered." Lazarus' friends countered, "No, tell us about what happened while you were dead." Lazarus replied, "There's nothing to say. I don't know anything. It was just like waking up from being asleep."<br /><br />So, if you survived the thought experiment, what would be a good term to use to describe what Lazarus went through. Well, I think "sleep" is a pretty good one and, of course, that is the term Jesus used. But it wasn't clear to the disciples so when they didn't understand Jesus went farther and said Lazarus was dead.<br /><br />Now this concept of death being described as sleep was not new to the disciples. They knew the scriptures (many of them such as Ps 90:3-6, Ps 13:3, 1 Kings 2:10) compare death to sleep. But they seem not to have made the connection. So Jesus explains the situation with the term death. Did they now think of Job 7:21 where death is compared to returning to dust and ceasing no more? Did they see that Jesus might be hinting about what Isaiah says in 26:19 that corpses will rise? I assume they didn't. They would need to have it demostrated for them.<br /><br />So, to your question, why didn't they say more? Well, what more is there to say? Sleep. Death. I closed my eyes and then I heard Jesus' voice. You don't focus on the intermediate state because there is nothing to tell.<br /><br />If I ask my kids how did you sleep last night then "fine" is a perfectly good answer. There's nothing more to say. However, if my kids go somewhere I've never been before I need MUCH MORE than a simple "fine" - well, at least if they were conscious for the experience. But if they were asleep for the experience then I don't expect much of an answer.<br /><br />If God says through the wisest man in Ec 9:5 that dead know nothing, then Jesus description of death as sleep is perfect and no further explanation from Lazarus is possible.VPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642407401582978720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-62386416883380780972018-05-04T09:39:43.067-07:002018-05-04T09:39:43.067-07:00You could as easily ask, "Why didn't Laza...You could as easily ask, "Why didn't Lazarus or the disciples proclaim that the dead don't think about anything and don't, in fact, exist? Why no recorded discourses about this fact, which would have been surprising and corrective to many Jews? Why did Jesus say Lazarus was asleep when he clearly wasn't and this would have been a cruel metaphor?" It works both ways. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13295879438065217318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-54530122795167521152018-05-04T09:22:05.880-07:002018-05-04T09:22:05.880-07:00To simplify, my original question was: "Do yo...To simplify, my original question was: "Do you consider yourself saved, in a here-and-now sense, by grace through faith alone in Christ alone, based on his atoning sacrificial death and resurrection; regarding Christ to be God in the flesh? Just asking, because I don't want to neglect things more important than the matters we've been discussing." Thanks!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13295879438065217318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-5649018679232387102018-05-04T07:29:42.759-07:002018-05-04T07:29:42.759-07:00Boy that would take a book for an answer. And eve...Boy that would take a book for an answer. And even then I would have to humble myself enough to say I hold my conclusions very lightly.<br /><br />What I hold strongly is <br />- God will choose who He wants to be saved.<br />- All salvation is because of what Jesus did on the cross.<br /><br /><br /><br />VPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642407401582978720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-59958340070056138692018-05-01T12:53:12.211-07:002018-05-01T12:53:12.211-07:00Interesting and nice catch. Just proves to me to ...Interesting and nice catch. Just proves to me to let scripture be the guide and not one man's opinion.VPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642407401582978720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-48143574437095388032018-05-01T11:19:54.490-07:002018-05-01T11:19:54.490-07:00Ah, the same Herman Bavinck who wrote, in Reformed...Ah, the same Herman Bavinck who wrote, in Reformed Dogmatics: “Scripture clearly and irrefutably teaches human immortality. When conditionalism views the destruction, that is the punishment of sin as an annihilation of the human subsistence, it is confusing the ethical with the physical. …just as God does not annihilate human beings in the first death, so neither does he annihilate them in the second. For in Scripture the latter, too, is described as punishment, weeping and gnashing of teeth, anguish and distress, never-ending fire, the undying worm, and so on, expressions that all assume the existence of the lost.”<br /><br />Sorry, I couldn't resist! :-) Just sayin. I know there are comebacks to this. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13295879438065217318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-55826682782856942862018-05-01T07:41:57.895-07:002018-05-01T07:41:57.895-07:00I am a conditionalist but my posts here have been ...I am a conditionalist but my posts here have been against rewriting definitions - that’s how I started my input into this conversation. (It also drifted off into the idea of “immortal” soul a bit.)<br /><br />I am simply for taking the words at their face value and that’s why I post the actual definitions. And I bristle when I hear that death means something other than those definitions. (I am not beyond saying at some point Strong’s might have gotten something incorrect but then the burden of proof is extremely heavy to show why they are wrong). So if Strong’s says Muwth means death or kill I go with that. And if I hear someone say that it means separation I might call it out as I did here.<br /><br />Regarding conditionalism, it works very strongly with this method of interpretation. Perish (John 3:16) and death (Rom 6:23) and extinction (2 Peter 2:6) all can be taken at face value. There are a boatload of verses that work perfectly with this understanding and so give conditionalism extremely strong support. And the verses that at first glance support ECT are just a handful. And in every case close examination of the text suggests that conditionalism is at least possible or more likely. So, over time my belief that conditionalism is the correct doctrine has grown to about 97%. Honestly, outside of Revelation I don’t know of any verses that really challenge conditionalism. And in Revelation the 2 passages that at first seem to support ECT don’t require all that much analysis to understand why conditionalism is at least possible or probable.<br /><br />And although I might be a bit callous on the subject I don’t give much value to someone’s emotion in interpreting scripture. Just because they want something to be true does not make it so. Many ECTer’s want ECT to be true because it doesn’t challenge their belief structure. Still, I think they need to put their emotions to the side and go with what the Word says. Interpret the text instead of trying to make it conform to one’s pretext.<br /><br />If you want to post your best couple verses for ECT I’m more than willing to listen and give feedback. Or if you want to go with the overarching themes of the Bible to discuss I’m willing to go there. <br /><br />As far as what JW’s believe about conditionalism I am not well versed on that. I know they hold to some form of it but how close it is to scripture I cannot say since I haven’t spent time reviewing. They often give lip service (IMO) to certain biblical ideas but have different meanings \ definitions. (And that, funny as it seems, is exactly what I was critical of you for.) <br /><br />Anyway, for the most part, this has all been very cordial. ECT vs conditionalism, immortal soul vs a more holistic view of man, the definition of death. I don’t think these are issues to separate over but I do think they are serious nonetheless. Its good when brothers can discuss and not separate.<br />VPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642407401582978720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-62425771014613437052018-05-01T06:19:51.662-07:002018-05-01T06:19:51.662-07:00The author was a Herman Bavinck ( https://en.wikip...The author was a Herman Bavinck ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Bavinck ) but I don't know much about him.<br />VPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642407401582978720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-23775527943700834942018-05-01T00:35:15.200-07:002018-05-01T00:35:15.200-07:00VP, I apologize for using the word "chuckle&q...VP, I apologize for using the word "chuckle" in my previous post. It seems to have rubbed you the wrong way and provoked a lecture! That was not my intent.<br /><br />I do, though, think you've been going in circles given the topic of our discussion, the nature of death and the afterlife especially for the lost. Simply saying, "Death means death" or "Death means cessation of life" is unhelpful when the entire argument hinges on breaking down the definition of "death" and "life." That insistence is neither silly nor presumptive on my part, it's simply good and necessary inductive reasoning.<br /><br />I actually think the paragraph you pasted in gets more to the point, because it contains descriptions and illustrations of terminology. I don't agree with all of it (which author was it at the study tools site?), but it is much more helpful. I posted something similar above, with categorization of Hebrew terms on death and the afterlife for the lost that is the best way to rationally construct a composite picture of the doctrine with all scriptures reconciled according to sound hermeneutics. I could only fit 3 of the 23 scripture from the OT indicating conscious life for the lost after physical death. You may want to revisit that. <br /><br />As to your lecturing me about Bible study methods, a little background: I came to Christ from atheism decades ago, almost joined Jehovah's Witnesses on the way, and worked with counter-cult and apologetics ministries. I never believe something "just because" some authority says it. I study the Bible, and pay attention to systematic, inductive methods of exegesis and hermeneutics.<br /><br />My conclusions regarding death and the afterlife for the lost come from such study, but were intensified during a prolonged dialogue with a Jehovah's Witness elder who came to my door a few years ago. We had a cordial email interchange as I undertook an extensive study in Hebrew and Greek of the topic. My emotional preference would be for the CI position. My inductive study of scripture led me to confirm the ECT position, prompting my JW friend to admit he had no firm answers to my analysis (alas, it didn't draw him out of that cult). <br /><br />If I can post more of my analysis I will (it was many, many pages), but frankly this is getting tiresome, and I'm not sure it would do any good.<br /><br />Thanks, ChrisAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13295879438065217318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-41003816451711815832018-04-30T15:56:59.008-07:002018-04-30T15:56:59.008-07:00Lenny, as you write your article here's anothe...Lenny, as you write your article here's another few questions for you to ponder and I'd love to hear your answer. In John 11 we have the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Jesus makes a couple statements to the disciples. He says Lazarus is sleeping and that Lazarus is dead. Why does Jesus not tell them Lazarus' soul is doing just fine? Why does Jesus completely avoid a discussion of the "immortal" part of Lazarus in discussing the situation with the disciples?<br /><br />When Jesus has a chance to comfort Martha and Mary why does Jesus not tell them that Lazarus' soul is immortal and doing well? Why does Jesus point them instead to the resurrection, completely skipping the peace Lazarus is now enjoying?<br /><br />How angry was Lazarus with Jesus when Jesus brought him back from the dead? If Lazarus soul was enjoying great peace wouldn't he be at least a little miffed?<br /><br />What do you think Lazarus said when asked by friends and interested parties how wonderful his three days with his soul free from his body were? Surely he would have been asked. And this would be a key concern of anyone who knew that one day they would also die. Any conjecture on why the gospel writers didn't include any statements from Lazarus?<br /><br />If the soul is immortal and has conscious thought after death I think all the above questions would be extremely relevent to your coming article.<br /><br /> You probably have deduced if you've been following the thread that I don't believe Lazarus had anything to say since he had completely ceased to live.<br /><br />This is also why Jesus told the disciples that Lazarus was sleeping and dead.<br /><br />This is why Jesus only comforted Mary and Martha with the statement that Lazarus would rise again - not that he was already alive.<br /><br />I look forward to your article.VPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642407401582978720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-86692638575064368512018-04-30T14:26:24.037-07:002018-04-30T14:26:24.037-07:00Lenny's question reminded me that I had also a...Lenny's question reminded me that I had also asked you earlier about your view of salvation: who gets saved, why, and how, and who doesn't. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't discussing more minor issues and neglecting essentials. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13295879438065217318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-16271595685339395692018-04-30T11:11:29.741-07:002018-04-30T11:11:29.741-07:00I believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man. ...I believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man. I also believe in the Trinity if what you mean by that is<br />- There is one God<br />- There are 3 distinct persons in the Trinity<br />- Each person of the Trinity is fully God<br /><br />I only hesitate on answering the question about the Trinity as I've heard some odd definitions and I don't know what definition you are using.<br /><br />Historic Christian orthodoxy is completely different as many things come and go as orthodox. At one time in history paying indulgences was considered orthodox. I think that was wrong even if it was orthodox at one time.VPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642407401582978720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-55910998843347527942018-04-30T10:42:36.359-07:002018-04-30T10:42:36.359-07:00One question for you, VP. Do you hold to historic ...One question for you, VP. Do you hold to historic Christian orthodoxy? Do you believe in the Trinity and that Jesus was fully God and fully man?Lenny Espositohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04064209669748618955noreply@blogger.com