Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 7/30/2005 11:53:16 AM (GMT-5)

Jeff: You're claim that the language is radically non-literal is BASED upon your belief that the prophecy has been fulfilled. But how do you know THAT?

Tom: Because Edom no longer exists, and I've visited Edom many times. Lived for years just a day's drive away, and there's no continual smoke rising from where Edom once was.

Tom

HB: What about double fulfillment? Have you hopped into a time machine?

Tom: The question might be, what reason is there in the text to believe there's another fulfillment beyond the historical in which there will be another destruction of Edom in which literal-physical smoke really will rise forever and ever frmo the modern state of Jordan?

Tom

Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 7/30/2005 12:00:15 PM (GMT-5)

Albert:  In the case of Isaiah, I can see in relation to the author's intended meaning in terms of genre and many other features, that he is using hyperbolic language.

Jeff:  If Isaiah believed in Noah's flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the supernatural conquest of Caanan, it seems plausible that Isaiah believed his own prophecies might be pretty much literal, given that they were about what he believed to be the eschaton.  The idea of precedent is what tips the scales in favor of literal in these passages, although a certain amount of hyperbole like "flowing with honey" would be somewhat plausible.  Christ, himself, told the Saducees they erred because they knew not the scriptures OR the power of God.  By implication, if God's power is sufficient to bring about the literal judgement Isaiah is prophesying, and precedent in scripture had already demonstrated that God DOES act supernaturally AND violently in history, hyperbole may not play a role that affects the implicit theology.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/30/2005 10:58:52 PM (GMT-5)

Mat. 10.28: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

The ‘One’ is obviously God. And the fear is a ‘real and rational’ one that Jesus’ audience ought to experience. But what’s the fear based on? It’s based on the belief that God “can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Now, it doesn’t seem to me that ‘can’ here should mean ‘able’ in terms of ‘sheer power’ or ‘muscle’. For of course we’d all agree that God has the ‘muscle’ to destroy both soul and body in hell while some would argue God in fact will not do so given the program he’s pursuing now. The fear is only real and rationally justified if one believes that destruction of soul and body in hell are really possible futures, futures we can really ‘get to’ from where we are. But this means that destruction of both body and soul in hell, or annihilationism, is possible. One does not rationally fear what one knows somebody is ‘capable’ of doing but which they in fact ‘will not’ do because of other commitments or ‘cannot do’ given other commitments. So right off the bat believing in universalism seems ruled out here, for the conviction that all ‘will’ make it rules out the conviction that ‘some might not’ make it, and the ‘might not’ has got to have teeth to it, teeth enough to justify a real and rational fear, which Mephi's view can't really do. So people are here and now created by God as ‘conditionally’ immortal and their ‘destruction’ (the destruction of both soul and body) in hell is a real future possibility.

So much for universalism. The ECP view equally denies that God will ‘destroy’ both soul and body in hell. But whereas the universalist denies this by arguing God saves all, the ECP view denies it by arguing God keeps both soul and body alive forever. ECP either has to argue that “destruction of both body and soul in hell” here considers only the sheer ability of God to do this and not the very real belief that God will do this with the finally impenitent, OR they have to argue a meaning for ‘destruction’ that is compatible with the soul and body ‘surviving’ forever.

I might be an annihilationist. Pinnock argues this well in the Four Views on Hell book. But I wanna take this to other passages.

Ta ta,

Tom

But my Greek is shaky at best.

And while you're contemplating joining the camp, let me remind you of verses like:  "it would be better for him had he never been born" and "it would be better for him if a millstone was tied around his neck and he was thrown into the sea."  These produce no rational fears if eternal torment is true.  What Christ calls "aionioan" torment would be true of those who have defied God to incredibly insane degrees (which makes sense if Matthew 24 and it's analogues in the OT and NT are basically literal).  Even some of Christ's own generation were said to have been worthy of more judgement than Sodom & Gomorrah because of the SIGNS (=ACCOUNTABILITY).  For where much is given, MUCH IS REQUIRED.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/31/2005 11:10:45 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 7/31/2005 12:36:12 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (TGB) : 7/31/2005 12:44:14 PM (GMT-5)

Albert:  The verse "it would be better for him had he never been born" makes absolute and obvious sense if ECP is true.

Jeff:  In the context, Christ seems to be saying that his particular sin was HUGE, and hence deserving of a punishment that undoes any profit in having lived.  If eternal torment is true, Christ must be saying something else, but contextually it would be hard to imagine what.

Albert:  The verse "it would be better for him if a millstone was tied around his neck and he was thrown into the sea" makes perfect sense given the teaching elsewhere that there are varying degrees of suffering in the eternal torment. By dying before committing the sin, the person's punishment would be less.

Jeff:  You're right.  I guess I was seeing it in relation to the former case.  But if I'm right about the former case, then this one is explicable by the same principle more parsimoniously, I think.  In other words, eternal torment may be consistent with it, but not necessary to make sense of it.

Albert:  As for the comments on the second death, all you have to do is look at the Biblical meaning of death, rather than what you presuppose it to mean.

Jeff:  Doesn't the bible use the same word for "death" for both humans and animals?  If so, then "death" just means the absence of life, doesn't it?

Albert:  Therefore, the evidence is overwhelming that aionios in the NT means "eternal". I can't help but think that you are simply trying to get around the obvious.

Jeff:  I agree that "aionian" can suggest eternality.  But it seems etymologically it is simply the adjective form of "aion," which means an age.  And since there can be multiple ages, it would seem that aionian does not necessarily mean eternal (e.g., Romans 16:25).  The context should determine whether it means age-abiding or eternal.  In fact, even when it can mean eternal, it may mean "without visible end," like the case you mentioned in Philemon.  Language often comes from more primitive use and is then borrowed for more philosophical and technical uses as society evolves. 

Albert:  However, there are also clear literal contextual indicators that the prophecy had reference to events soon to follow in Isaiah's day. This is one of the fundamental problem with dispensationalist readings of OT prophecy. They claim to interpret things literally, but they are selectively literal.

Jeff:  First, I never denied that some prophecies referred to past events.  My argument is that we should not dumb down language to force-fit it to past events.  And that for the very reasons I mentioned.  Second, can you give me an example of the selective literalism you're talking about.  I don't know what you're talking about with respect to me, and I have many disagreements with ALL dispensationalists.  My views are derived by what seems to me to be the most plausible authorial intent.  To my mind, exegesis IS determining authorial intent.

Albert:  Examples from 4 Macabees:

"Divine vengeance is reserved for you, eternal fire and torments, which shall cling to you for all time" (4 Macc 12:12; cf. 9:9; 10:12, 15)."The danger of eternal torment is laid up for those who transgress the commandments of God" (4 Macc 13:15).

Jeff:  Good example.  But consider the one Meph posted:

And when all their sons shall be slain, when they shall see the perdition of their beloved, bind them for seventy generations underneath the earth, even to the day of judgment, and of consummation, until the judgment, the effect of which will last for ever, be completed. Then shall they be taken away into the lowest depths of the fire in torments; and in confinement shall they be shut up for ever. Immediately after this shall he, together with them, burn and perish; they shall be bound until the consummation of many generations.

The boldened texts cause me to wonder on what basis they divide these "judgements" into generations and so forth.   What precedent in holy writ did these intertestamental writers have for these speculations?  For Christ showed no respect for mere tradition.  "It is written" meant scripture for him.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/31/2005 5:17:59 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (TGB) : 7/31/2005 2:10:27 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/1/2005 5:32:43 PM (GMT-5)

HB: As for the rest of your points, you find them convincing if you wish.

Tom: Wishing’s got nothing to do with it. I simply know of no other way to meaningfully affirm some proposition and integrate it into my life’s choices. I don’t know how to meaningfully relate to what is self-contradictory. Do you?

HB: I don't think they are even vaguely convincing. There are much better arguments that Jesus couldn't have been both man and God, because that is contradictory [my bold].

Tom: If it were contradictory I couldn’t affirm it to be "true." For to affirm as true what is self-contradictory is to affirm what the proposition denies and deny what it affirms. That's why it's 'self'-contradictory. And that's not meaningful. I say to hell with believing meaninglessly.

HB: Hopefully, however, we all believe that Jesus is both man and God.

Tom: And hopefully we affirm something 'meaningful' in doing so.

************************

HB: Are you telling me that you can comprehend, I mean really comprehend, how [my bold] the three persons of the Trinity can be one God?

Tom: “How” this is so? Of course not. But not understanding this ‘how’ doesn’t reduce the belief that “God is Triune” to contradiction. When I assert “God is triune” I assert some meaningful proposition. As it comes to me in the language and context of the Bible, I find it meaningful to do so. But this doesn't require that we absolutely plummet and exhaust everything there is to comprehend about God.

*************************

HB: Are you telling me that you can really comprehend how one person can be both fully human and fully divine? The concepts aren't meaningless or self-contradictory, but neither are they totally comprehensible.

Tom: Wait a minute. At the beginning of this post I bolded a portion of your comment in which you said Jesus' being both divine and human IS contradictory. So is it or isn’t it? I don’t think it we can affirm that it's contradictory and also ‘meaningfully’ invest ourselves in it, for contradictions are meaningless.

HB: The problem is that your position effectively requires that you have to fully understand something before you can believe it.

Tom: On the contrary, I only require SOME understanding. Obviously we can’t ‘contain’ or 'exhaust' all the truth there is about the incarnation, but we can comprehend SOMETHING of it. And until we’ve comprehended SOMETHING of it we don’t have any business saying we “believe it.” What sort of belief would that be? But if the incarnation is self-contradictory as you claim farther up, we can comprehend absolutley nothing of it, for there is no meaning to self-contradictory claims.

HB: You treat things as if it our only choice is either "no understanding" on the one hand (i.e. meaningless/self-contradictory) or "total understanding" (i.e. clear comprehension with nothing left uncomprehended) on the other.

Tom: I think our choices are between “there’s no meaning in self-contradictory claims and so nothing meaningful to be demonstrated in saying we believe them,” on the one hand, and “there is meaning to truthful claims, SOME of which must be comprehended before one can meaningfully agree to the claim,” on the other. Even then, one is only affirming the truth one DOES understand, not all the reality that may be behind a claim’s being true.

**************************

Tom: Why OF COURSE comphrehension comes before ANY truth. God wants me to comprehend his meaning. Comprehending it would be required!

HB: Some, limited comprehension is required. That's all.

Tom: So does this now mean you’re a rationalist like me who elevates comprehension above divine truth by requirign SOME understanding? Obviously not!

HB: Not complete comprehension. Are you saying that a child who comes to Christ has to fully understand soteriology?

Tom: Obviously not. I never suggested that one understand everything there is to understand and appreciate about some truth before ANYTHING can be understood and appreciated about that truth. All I’m saying is SOME understanding of the truth is required before that truth can be meaningfully asserted and meaningfully related to one’s life. But there is no comprehension of meaning whatsoever where logical contradictions are concerned. What does it really mean to say I believe in square circles? Nothing at all so far as I can tell. And if faith in the incarnation and Trinity amounts to the logical equivalent of believing in square circles or married bachelors, then faith is meaningless and our affirmations empty.

How’d we get off on this? Oh yeah, “the destruction of the soul and body” = “the actual and eternal survival of the soul and body.” Now, I may be convinced that there's some metaphorical truth to be had in using 'destruction' this way. I'm not sure. Sahid pointed to a couple of verses where the verb is used. I'd like to check them out. But on the other hand, setting it in v. 28 beside "him who kills the body" (i.e., bring one's bodily existence on this earth to and end) suggests (to my warped way of thinking at least) that when Jesus follows with "him who destroys both body and soul" he means something like "bring an end to bodily and soulish existence in the afterlife."

Whatever.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 8/1/2005 8:50:08 PM (GMT-5)

Albert: It seems pretty obvious to me. Christ is saying that because of the terrible penalty Judas is going to face, it would be better for him never to have existed and hence, although he wouldn't have the opportunity for life, nonetheless would still be better off than having life and then facing what he is going to face . I really don't see what the problem is.

Jeff: It is not merely that the penalty is so bad. The context seems to suggest that it is what Judas DID that made his penalty that bad. But by your view, ANY unbeliever's penalty is that bad, which makes Christ's point fall flat. The conditionalist view allows for punishments that extreme AND punishments not that extreme.

Albert: Etymology doesn't determine meaning, usage does. And in NT usage (and in much pre-NT usage) aionios always means "eternal", or "without end". 69 occurrences is well and truly enough to establish meaning, and it I think it is crystal clear what the NT meaning is.

Jeff: Aren't you a premillenialist? Aren't there verses, especially in the OT, that speak of the aionian duration of conditions in the Messianic kingdom, even though that kingdom is not eternal? Isn't that what those Jews of Christ's day believed? That those conditions would be aionian? For the record, I'm not being sarcastic (I'm beginning to feel like you think I am). I'm truly interested in your erudite opinion. I haven't studied the OT near as much as you have. Again, for the record, I may be befuddled at times by things people say that seem counter-intuitive to me, but I'm not being sarcastic.

Albert: OK. Numerous dispensationalists will claim that Daniel 7:23-25 following verses, if interpreted literally, must apply to the antichrist. After all, doesn't he rise up against the Prince of princes? Isn't he broken without human hands? And so forth. But in context, this little horn arises from the four subdivisions of what is explicitly stated to be the Greek empire. So a literal interpretation requires that this be Antiochus Epiphenes. Now I don't deny that it has a double fulfillment in the antichrist; but I wouldn't be using an insistence on "literal fulfillment" to try and prove that, as dispensationalists often do.

Jeff: I haven't studied that in depth, so I can't comment. I would say, though, that I think there are cases of similar occurrence that need not be considered as double "fulfillement." (If you remember correctly from our previous correspondence, I don't believe in multiple fulfillments. I believe when ALL "occurrences" of a scripture have come to pass, that scripture is fulfilled, or FILLED FULL.) But take the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., for example. Luke says that Jerusalem would be trodden down until the "times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Now, I've heard dispensationalists say that refers to 70 A.D. But to me, it clearly does not. For I think the "times of the Gentiles" simply means those times of Gentile dominion that will be terminated at the parousia. And I also believe that a "man of sin" is yet to come and sit in the "temple of God," and work great lying signs and wonders. Thus, the only way I can reconcile 2nd Thess and Luke 21 is to assume that 70 A.D. was not a fulfillment of Luke 21. But the destruction in 70 A.D. may be very analogous to the future one without being prophetic, per se. Or that's my understanding of it, anyway.

Albert: "There is no reason to suppose the human authors of Exodus, Numbers, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Habakkuk had in mind Jesus’ triumphal entry, or his incarnation, or other events of Jesus’ life and death, or indeed anything else explicitly about Jesus. But the fact that it is God who is the principal author here makes it quite possible that what we are to learn from the text in question is something rather different from what the human author proposed to teach"

Jeff: I absolutely agree. God is ALSO an author and, thus, has the perogative to apply passages in ways that have nothing to do with the context of the original passage. But I don't think WE have that perogative. E.g., Paul says that the scripture "foresaw" that God would justify the uncircumsized Gentiles by faith. But I don't think it would have been appropriate for Jewish exegetes to hold to such a view except as mere speculation until scripture MANIFESTED it (or witnesses approved by signs and wonders manifested it).


Albert: As for the precedent in holy writ, maybe the problem is that because of your rationalistic approach to scripture, which is dominated by modernist Western assumptions about the meaning of texts you are unable to discern "midrashic" meaning that God placed in scripture but which Jesus and the Jews were well aware of.

Jeff: So where do I learn about the "midrashic" meaning and how to exegete it?

Albert: The Jews didn't get their doctrine of the afterlife out of thin air. They just understood the OT a lot better than modern scholars do.

Jeff: If either you OR I are even remotely in the theologically correct ball park, that's not saying much! :-)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/1/2005 9:33:54 PM (GMT-5)