Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Exegetes, HO! Eternal Conscious Punishment vs Annihilationism

Forum Quick Jump

124 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

klock
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30

Posted 8/1/2005 10:39 PM (GMT -6)

I am sorry, but I want to reply to the comments Humphrey made concerning one of my earlier posts concerning Rev. 14. I have yet to catch up on the all the other post so I am sorry if I repeat anything already posted.

Humphry,

I cannot agree more with you that we must look at the Greek New Testament as written by Hebrews and look for obvious Hebrewisms. I would also agree with you that there is an obvious parallel in the passage in question, but I would not agree as to where.

"and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presense of the holy angels , and in teh presense of the Lamb"

parallels with

"and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever"

The reason that translators do not connect the above with "and they have no rest day and night whoi worship the beast and his image..." is because the VERB TENSES.

Verse 10 and half of 11 speak of a future event (whether you believe it speaks of a general judgment a.k.a. the white throne or when Jesus returns to set up the kingdom is another debate).

The second half of verse 11 brings us back to the current present vision. In the original Greek it DOES NOT state that those who worshipped (past) the beast will have (future) no rest night and day, but instead it states those who are worshipping (present participle) and who recieve (also present participle) his mark oy his name have no rest day and night. To say that this statement also refers to a future state of judgment in eternal torment would be pulling it out of context. That is why many translators do not connect the statements as you posted earlier.

Instead of pulling out one fragment of the verse to prove eternal torment we should look at this section of Rev. 14 in light of other scriptures.

I believe that Rev. 19:11-21 speaks of the same event as Rev. 14:9b-11a. In Rev 19 we see the armies of heaven accompanying Christ as He destroys the armies of the beast. From verse 21 we can imagine the incredible amount of dead bodies. How will these bodies be disposed of? Isaiah 66:24 speaks of the same dead bodies that people will see each year of the millenial reign of Christ when they go to Jerusalem and pay homage to Christ. This verse also ties connects with how Christ in the Gospels spoke about Gehenna because Christ uses this very verse to describe the burning body heap of those who transgress against God.

One last thing to consider... 2Thess. 1:9, Rev. 14:9b-11a, and Rev. 19:11-21 speak of when Christ returns to set up His kingdom on the earth. According to Rev. 20:4 this occurs a thousand years before the white throne judgment. Now, this "destruction" which occurs when Christ returns to set His kingdom on earth, cannot be "everlasting" because it gives way to the white throne judgment and the second death in the lake of fire and brimestone in Rev. 21:1-8! Those destroyed by Christ upon His return will be resurrected and stand before Him at the white throne judgment so to say that this "destruction" is "everlasting" conflicts with what the bible teaches us in Rev. 21!

Klock

klock
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30

Posted 8/1/2005 10:51 PM (GMT -6)

ThatDarnCat said...

klock said...

So here Jude states that Sodom was destroy with "eternal fire", but we do not see to this day Sodom and Gomorrah still burning. Instead, it cannot be found (except Ron Wyatt claimed he found the site of a city chared down to ashes along with many sulfur and brimstone chunks, but that would maybe be another debate). The point is that this "eternal fire" utterly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jude is talking about the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, not the stone buildings.

Jude 1:⁷just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

The subject of verse 7 is "Sodom" and "Gomorrah" and "cities". The subject of verse 7 indulged in gross immorality. The subject of verse 7 will be eternally punished.

Now if the subject of verse 7 are the actual buildings, as you posit, then the buildings indulged in gross immorality. But if the subject of verse 7 are the inhabitants, then the inhabitants indulged in gross immorality and the inhabitants will be eternally punished. With an eternal fire.

Hello that darn cat.

My intention was never to say that the buildings were guilty of immoral acts. Jude 7 speaks of the past, not a future judgment for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and their surrounding cities. The fact stands that fire rained down on these people and they most likely were burned up in an instance and yet this is consider an example of "eternal" fire. As Humphrey points out, 2 Peter voices the same about Sodom and Gomorrah saying that the cities were burned to ashes and the people were "condemned with an overthrow..." Again the example is from the past, not a future judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. No doubt there were children uder the "age of reason" living in the cities and yet they were overthrown by "eternal fire" with the "responsible" adults. In the eyes of OT'ers would it be fair to say their eternal fate is already determined by the sins their parents committed?

Klock

JEE
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466

Posted 8/2/2005 1:05 PM (GMT -6)

TGB said...
Not really HB. I find 'living forever' meaningful. One is alive, conscious, thinking, etc. and remains so forever. That's meaningful. But CALLING a form of existence where I do exist, am conscious, think and feel, etc., the "destruction of my body and soul" is, for me, not a meaningful notion. It's beyond not knowing what's in store. It's more like square circles. I actually wouldn't know what I was affirming or denying by holding to such a belief. If asked what I believed about the fate of the impenitent, I've have to say, "I don't know."

Tom

I think this is where we have to give room for different understandings of the metaphoric figures of speech of the Bible, not unlike when it says "ye were dead in trespasses and sins," and "He that believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live," and "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you." All of these things are figurative phrases, though "figuratively speaking" certainly doesn't mean such metaphors don't in fact express something very REAL. I can see annihilationism as clearly plausible, but universalism (though it would be great if it were true) is just so plainly contrary to the express teaching of scripture as to appear as a pipe dream.

John

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

JohnE

http://www.revivaltheology.net

Post Edited (JEE) : 8/2/2005 1:20:32 PM (GMT-5)

ThatDarnCat
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82

Posted 8/2/2005 1:22 PM (GMT -6)

klock said...

ThatDarnCat said...

klock said...

Jude is talking about the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, not the stone buildings.

The subject of verse 7 is "Sodom" and "Gomorrah" and "cities". The subject of verse 7 indulged in gross immorality. The subject of verse 7 will be eternally punished.

Hello that darn cat.

My intention was never to say that the buildings were guilty of immoral acts. Jude 7 speaks of the past, not a future judgment for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and their surrounding cities.

Jude 7 doesn't mention the buildings of Sodom and Gomorrah at all. The fact that the author speaks of the inhabitants' "eternal punishment" shows that their punishment is not "destruction" but "punishment" and that it continues into "eternity", hence it is not "in the past" but continuing and continuously in the future.

Look at Jude 7.

Jude 1:⁷just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

"are exhibited" is present tense at the time the author wrote Jude, not the past.

"Undergoing" is a continuous verb, not in the past.

No buildings. No talk of the destruction that happened at the time of Lot.

What is being talked about is NOT about the past but is a continuous process (note the use of the word "undergoing") that extends into the future (note the use of the words "punishment" instead of "destruction" and "eternal").

The author is not saying, look at the past. He's saying, look at what is currently going on and will continue forever. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are NOW exhibited in UNDERGOING the punishment of ETERNAL fire. Nothing about the past.

How are they "exhibited"? Here's how I think it is:

The buildings of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and have not been rebuilt. I think this points to the continuousness of the punishment of the inhabitants.

If, writing hundreds of years after the event, it was pointed out that the inhabitants are no longer around, this exhibits nothing because even the righteous spared would be gone hundreds of years after the event. So the total absence of the buildings of the cities attest to the continuing punishment of the inhabitants as the absence of anyone, hundreds of years later, attests to nothing.

Why the total absence of the buildings doesn't point to the anniliation of the inhabitants is because NO ONE from that time is around anymore, negating any lesson, and because the author clearly points out that it's "punishment" and not "destruction" and that the punishment is "eternal" and "ongoing". He's real clear about that in Jude 7.

So, you don't see any physical Sodom and Gomorrah anymore, that continuing absence of the cities attests to the continuing and ongoing punishment of the inhabitants for their gross immorality.

That's my 2 cents worth and I've got better things to do with my time.

Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 8/2/2005 9:21:48 PM (GMT-5)

Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205

Posted 8/3/2005 7:15 PM (GMT -6)

I'll address Tom and Jeff first, then klock's comments.

Tom said...
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.

I think you've misunderstood my quote. I didn't say that Jesus being both man and God is contradictory; I said there were better arguments that this is contradictory than your argument about eternal destruction. I was referring to the arguments of others (e.g. John Hicks), not to what I believe.

But to address the general point, the fact that something appears to us to be contradictory, does not make it generally meaningless or incomprehensible. If the only thing asserted was a contradiction, that would be true. But sometimes much more than just an (apparent) contradiction is asserted. For instance, saying that Jesus is God and man might apparently involve asserting that he is both finite and infinite, which might appear to be contradictory. But even if we couldn't resolve this problem satisfactorily, the concept of Jesus being God and man is filled with so much other rich information, that it remains partially comprehensible. For instance, asserting that he is man involves asserting that he had two arms, two legs and a head. The fact that other aspects of this doctrine might seem contradictory, doesn't render all other aspects of the doctrine incomprehensible.

Tom said...
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.

But if part of what you don't understand appears to you to be contradictory, you will then claim the whole doctrine is "meaningless". In so doing, you do insist on complete comprehension. Tell me: why can't I comprehend partially a doctrine, while still thinking that other aspects of the doctrine appear to me to be contradictory?

Tom said...
“there’s no meaning in self-contradictory claims and so nothing meaningful to be demonstrated in saying we believe them,”

As noted, there's no meaning only in an exclusively self-contradictory claim that asserts nothing except the contradiction. But sometimes things can assert more than just an apparent contradiction.

As for eternal destruction: it seems patently obvious to me, that even if I accept the validity of your alleged contradiction (i.e. destruction must have an end point, eternal doesn't), then the doctrine still asserts much more than this mere contradiction. The word "destruction" means more than merely something having an end point, even if that is involved in the definition. And you haven't given any good argument even at the point of contradiction; only a "I can't see how it could be so".

jefscott said...
The conditionalist view allows for punishments that extreme AND punishments not that extreme.

So does the ECP position. The Bible clearly teaches varying levels of torment. So it's illegitimate to use these kinds of arguments against ECP.

jefscott said...
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?

As you know, the OT is written in Hebrew, and the word is `olam, not aionios. And even if it was the same word, there is a gap of several hundred years between the OT and the NT, and words can change their meaning in this time. Furthermore, the millennium typologically represents the eternal kingdom. Therefore the language is, in midrashic terms, appropriate anyway.

But to be quite clear: I am not claiming that `olam in OT usage necessarily means eternal. What I am claiming is that by the time of the NT, the adjective aionios had come to mean eternal or without end, and that is demonstrated clearly in the NT (and in extracanonical literature).

My challenge to annihilationists: show me anywhere in the NT where aionios clearly means something other than "eternal" (and don't beg the question by referring to eternal punishment or eternal destruction).

I am also making a secondary claim: that although `olam did not necessarily mean eternal as intended by the human author, it often has the midrashic significance of eternal.

jefscott said...
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.

Actually, preterists would probably just say that 2nd Thess was written before 70 AD, which is not unreasonable on independent grounds. But I'm not a preterist, so I'll leave that to them. The NT is full of double fulfillments of prophecy; there is no reason that 70 AD couldn't be one fulfillment and the eschaton another. It's not either/or.

jefscott said...
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).

This (a) runs contrary to the way the interpretations are presented (b) runs contrary to the Biblical doctrine of inspiration and (c) has no Biblical support:

(a) Interpretations which see a deeper meaning in the text are not presented as some insight which only an apostle can understand. They are presented as arguments intended to convince the reader which the reader is expected to discern for themselves. Why would Paul have commended the Bereans for checking what he told them against scripture, if they were incapable of finding the deeper meaning that only he as an apostle had revealed? In addition, if these deeper meanings are an objective feature of the text - and they must be or we make the NT authors to be liars - then why is there any in principle reason that an insightful believer couldn't understand them? Doesn't God promise that he will lead us into all truth? As for the idea that the Gentiles would be justified by faith, it would have been entirely appropriate for Jewish exegetes to hold to such a view - indeed, when Paul argued for that view, he argued from the OT in order to convince them of what they should have been able to see. And if I spent enough time looking through intertestamental Jewish exegesis, I would bet my bottom dollar that someone, somewhere, did uncover such a meaning. Most NT insights on the OT, including the requirement for a new law in the new covenant era, were anticipated in contemporaneous Jewish exegesis.

(b) The doctrine of inspiration entails that all scripture, not just passages here and there, have deeper meaning.

(c) What basis do you have for your reasoning? Cite me a scripture to prove your point! You are merely asserting an opinion.

jefscott said...
So where do I learn about the "midrashic" meaning and how to exegete it?

By reading the NT and learning from it how to interpret the OT.

By your own admission, you do not derive your hermeneutic from scripture. You simply come to scripture with an a priori fixed hermeneutic (the human author's meaning must be the true one, derived from modernist Western philosophy), and then force scripture to conform with it. But that is actually an abandonment of the principle of sola scriptura. Hermeneutics must be derived from scripture. The hermeneutical process must be iterative. We bring our initial ideas, but then we allow the way in which scripture interprets scripture to correct our preconceived ideas about interpretation. Then we interpret scripture again, and then we allow scripture to correct our hermeneutic again, and so forth, iteratively improving our hermeneutic and our interpretation.

I have one question for you: prove to me from the scriptures that the human author's meaning is the only correct sense of scripture. Don't just assert it.

Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/3/2005 9:17:07 PM (GMT-5)

Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205

Posted 8/3/2005 7:52 PM (GMT -6)

klock said...
would also agree with you that there is an obvious parallel in the passage in question, but I would not agree as to where.

"and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presense of the holy angels , and in teh presense of the Lamb"

parallels with

"and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever"

I didn't say that was the parallel. I said there were two parallels within verse 11, as well as parallels in verses 12-13, and here are the verse 11 parallels, as I stated them in my previous post:

HB said...
And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; [STATEMENT]
and they have no rest day and night, [PARALLEL]
those who worship the beast and his image [STATEMENT]
and whoever receives the mark of his name. [PARALLEL]

I said nothing about verse 10, which you have quoted.

klock said...
but instead it states those who are worshipping (present participle) and who recieve (also present participle) his mark oy his name have no rest day and night.

Firstly, the present participle does not necessarily mean action in the present tense. In fact, it derives its tense from the action of the main verb. Let me quote from J.W. Wenham, "The elements of NT Greek", page 152 (Cambridge University Press, 1991), under the heading "The meaning of tense in participles":

"Generally speaking, the Present Participle denotes action taking place at the same time as the action of the main verb, and the Aorist participle denotes action which took place before the action of the main verb".

Futhermore, anyone who had the most elementary grasp of NT Greek would know this. So whatever annihilationist source you are using, you should disregard anything they say about the Greek.

Secondly, in this case the main verb is present active indicative, so the participles do carry a present tense (but not because they are present participles). But to argue that this means that the statement is disconnected from the previous is ludicrous. Verse 11 starts out with kai, which connects the action to the action of the previous verse. Shifting to the present tense is an extremely common phenomena in NT Greek designed to emphasize the immediacy of the action. In addition, Hebrew verbs do not have tense, and native Hebrew speakers who write in Greek frequently use tense "incorrectly" (in terms of strict Greek grammar) - which is common in Revelation and other books written by native Hebrew speakers (e.g. the gospel of Matthew). I doubt whether any serious commentator who understands Greek would agree with what you are saying. Can you please cite me a credible commentary that says this?

klock said...
I believe that Rev. 19:11-21 speaks of the same event as Rev. 14:9b-11a.

I didn't refer to Rev 19; I referred to Rev 20 and to many other scriptures which are very clear and which you continue to ignore. And you can say "you believe" the two are the same, but since that's not what the Bible says, it hardly matters, does it? Rev 14:9-11 is a warning of the final destination of those who reject God, and its fulfillment corresponds with Rev 20:15.

klock said...
2Thess. 1:9, Rev. 14:9b-11a, and Rev. 19:11-21 speak of when Christ returns to set up His kingdom on the earth. According to Rev. 20:4 this occurs a thousand years before the white throne judgment. Now, this "destruction" which occurs when Christ returns to set His kingdom on earth, cannot be "everlasting" because it gives way to the white throne judgment and the second death in the lake of fire and brimestone in Rev. 21:1-8!

If they are cast in hell, then to be judged and cast into the lake of fire, why on earth can they not be said to meet with eternal destruction? You are just ignoring the continuity between the hell destruction and the lake of fire destruction. This argument would be like arguing that "eternal life" cannot mean "eternal life" because we posses it presently, before the resurrection of the righteous, so "eternal life" must not have reference to the life we have after the resurrection.

Can I ask you a question? In John 3:18, Jesus says that "he who does not believe has been judged already". Is this talking about a different judgement to the White Throne, since Jesus says the person has already been judged? Why would a person need to be re-judged if they have been judged already? Didn't the first judgement do a good enough job?

Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/3/2005 9:24:52 PM (GMT-5)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 8/3/2005 9:21 PM (GMT -6)

Albert: I have one question for you: prove to me from the scriptures that the human author's meaning is the only correct sense of scripture. Don't just assert it.

Jeff: No time, now, to respond to the rest of your post. But as for the above statement, I said the exact opposite of what you're claiming I said. I specifically said that God is ALSO an author and has the perogative to apply passages in ways completely unrelated to their meaning in their original contexts. But the original CONTEXTUAL meaning is ALSO true, in my opinion.

wjs

Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205

Posted 8/3/2005 9:29 PM (GMT -6)

jefscott said...
I specifically said that God is ALSO an author and has the perogative to apply passages in ways completely unrelated to their meaning in their original contexts. But the original CONTEXTUAL meaning is ALSO true, in my opinion.

I agree with you that what you have called the "contextual meaning", and I would call the human author's intended meaning, is also true. But you're evading the issue on the divine meaning. It's not an issue of God having a "perogative" to "apply" passages differently. It's an issue of God actually intending a specific meaning which is objectively present and discernable but which goes beyond what you call the "contextual meaning".

By the way, calling the human author's meaning the "contextual meaning" is highly misleading. The divine, midrashic meaning is just as contextual; but the contextual information that is used is different in each case.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 8/3/2005 9:40 PM (GMT -6)

Albert: It's an issue of God actually intending a specific meaning which is objectively present and discernable but which goes beyond what you call the "contextual meaning".

Jeff: Give me an example. The ones in the Psalms are relatively easy ones, because there are no really plausible alternatives. But "out of Egypt have I called my son" is not so easy to see. That's my point. And having "seen" the "other meaning," I still have no new insight as to how I can iteratively work it back and forth between testaments to get, yet, other meanings. Heck, it's hard enough finding time learning what is written plain enough for anyone.

Albert: By the way, calling the human author's meaning the "contextual meaning" is highly misleading. The divine, midrashic meaning is just as contextual; but the contextual information that is used is different in each case.

Jeff: If there is a book or something about these meanings, what book is it?

wjs

Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205

Posted 8/3/2005 10:27 PM (GMT -6)

jefscott said...
But "out of Egypt have I called my son" is not so easy to see.

Let's start with this one, before I give another example. It seems to me that a Jewish exegete could easily have seen the application of this to the Messiah. Why? Because God's son here is "Israel", and OT teaching makes clear that "Israel" is ultimately realized in the person of the Messiah. This is what I mean by using other contextual information found in the OT. Furthermore, a person living at the time of Jesus who learned that he had returned from Egypt as a child, could easily put 2 and 2 together - and that, in fact, is what the writer of the gospel of Matthew did, in my opinion. The writer of Matthew is not giving divinely revealed information that we cannot hope to fathom. His whole point in referring to these prophecies is to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah to a Jewish audience. He expects them to be able to discern the validity of what he is saying.

But here's a really good example from John 11:

So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council, and said, "What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation." But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all! You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed." He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God.

This example clearly differentiates how two different meanings, one intended by the human speaker and one intended by God, can be realized in the same words. In the gospel of John, the term "prophesy" and cognates always refers to an authoratitive, and usually canonical, word of prophecy (such as Moses, Elijah, Isaiah and so forth gave). Caiaphas is said to have prophecied that Jesus would die for all who would believe. But did Caiaphas understand that meaning? No. In his own mind, he was merely stating that the Romans would destroy the nation unless they got rid of Jesus. He had his own intended meaning firmly in view. But God also spoke, and had his own meaning.

Note that neither interpretation is more "literal" than the other. Neither is either interpretation more "contextual". Of course, Caiaphas' meaning is clear when we take him as the speaker in the immediate context, but I would suggest that the divinely intended meaning is also clear when we take this event in the broader context as it relates to Jesus' life and death. No reader of the gospel could be surprised by it, because Jesus is proclaimed repeatedly to be the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Knowing that, it is not hard to discern the divinely intended meaning in Caiaphas' speech.

The issue is who is presumed to be speaking (i.e. God or Caiaphas), and the corresponding contextual information one chooses in light of that.

The point is that the meaning that God intends, is not necessarily the meaning that the human author intends. Incidentally, this idea of "unconscious" prophecy in which the prophet did not understand the full implications of what he said, was well accepted in Rabbinic literature. It goes together with the midrashic interpretation.

jefscott said...
If there is a book or something about these meanings, what book is it?

As a good starting point, I'd recommend Vern Poythress, "God centred Biblical interpretation".

klock
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30

Posted 8/3/2005 10:39 PM (GMT -6)

Humphrey Bogart said...

I said nothing about verse 10, which you have quoted.

klock said...
but instead it states those who are worshipping (present participle) and who recieve (also present participle) his mark oy his name have no rest day and night.

klock said...
I believe that Rev. 19:11-21 speaks of the same event as Rev. 14:9b-11a.

Humphrey,

E. W. Bullinger Commentary on Revelation

"The consolation given affirms that it will be better to die than to yield : better to have blessing connected with death, even the martyr's death, than to live and come under God's curse and suffer the vengence of eternal fire. If we take the first part of this threat of the future and everlasting state, we may take the latter part as referring to their previous condition on the earth, as "day and night" can hardly be spoken of the eternal state. "and they have no rest who are worshipping," etc It is in the present participle, and cannot mean who have worshiped or did worship; "receiveth" is also in the present tense, implying that on the earth they will have no rest day and night while they are engaged in the worshipping of the beast; and as to eternity, "the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever."

In the "gospels" John the baptist, Christ, and Christ's disciples spoke of the kingdom which was at hand. This kingdom is the one spoken of by the prophets, it is the hope of every Hebrew, to be a part of the "kingdom of priests" when God's Messiah comes and sets up His kingdom. The coming of this kingdom is spoken of in Rev. 19:11-20:6; the duration of the kingdom is a thousand years. The "judgments" that Jesus spoke of in the gospels refer to this coming kingdom. His angels collect the darnel and they are burned up. Jesus and his armies destroy the armies of the beast, the nations are gather before Christ and He judges them according to how they treated "His brethern" (Matt. 25 and Joel 3). From these judgments, there is going to be an incredible amount of corpes to dispose of, this is where Gehenna enters in. Isa 66 tells us that this pile of burning corpes will be a warning for all to view when they travel to Jerusalem to give homage to the King. These events take place a full thousand years before the white throne judgment. I do not mix the kingdom judgments with the white throne judgment. If people are judged right away and go to eternal torments upon death, then why have the white throne judgment?

As far as John 3:18, from the previous verse we see that, at that time, Christ's first apperance on the earth, He was not sent to judge, but the judgment was already obvious in those who hated Him, the Light, but loved the darkness. This verse is not saying that they are judged and will suffer torment upon death, but that their unbelief in apparent through their action of hating the light and loving the darkness. Like I said earlier, if they are already judged here and have already died and entered eternal torment, why pull them back out of that eternal torment to judge them again at the white throne and then throw them into another form of eternal torment? Note that in the kingdom judgments there is nothing said of resurrecting the dead and judging them, but instead Christ is judging those living on the earth at the time of His return. The white throne judgment speaks of resurrecting the dead for judging. Do you believe that believers will be resurrected and judged before the white throne? Or will they be resurrected at Christ's return a full thousand years earlier?

How about this, in the verse in question (Rev. 14:11) the Greek translated "for ever in ever" in the original is in the plural form; eis aionas aionon. Would it not be a more consistent rendering if it were "for evers and evers"? In many translations, wether aion is in the plural or singular is not conveyd because of the general rendering "for ever and ever". So why as a writer, would they sometimes make it singular and other times make it plural if it doesn't matter? And if it does matter whether it is plural or not, why would it not be conveyed in the English translation?

Klock

klock
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30

Posted 8/3/2005 10:46 PM (GMT -6)

ThatDarnCat said...

klock said...

ThatDarnCat said...

klock said...

Jude is talking about the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, not the stone buildings.

The subject of verse 7 is "Sodom" and "Gomorrah" and "cities". The subject of verse 7 indulged in gross immorality. The subject of verse 7 will be eternally punished.

Hello that darn cat.

My intention was never to say that the buildings were guilty of immoral acts. Jude 7 speaks of the past, not a future judgment for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and their surrounding cities.

Look at Jude 7.

"are exhibited" is present tense at the time the author wrote Jude, not the past.

"Undergoing" is a continuous verb, not in the past.

No buildings. No talk of the destruction that happened at the time of Lot.

How are they "exhibited"? Here's how I think it is:

The buildings of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and have not been rebuilt. I think this points to the continuousness of the punishment of the inhabitants.

So, you don't see any physical Sodom and Gomorrah anymore, that continuing absence of the cities attests to the continuing and ongoing punishment of the inhabitants for their gross immorality.

That's my 2 cents worth and I've got better things to do with my time.

That Darn Cat,

If the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah have already been judged and are already in their eternal state, why are they going to be judged before the white throne?

Klock

Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205

Posted 8/3/2005 11:09 PM (GMT -6)

klock said...
E. W. Bullinger Commentary on Revelation

Ah! Bullinger. Good old ultradispensationalist Bullinger. No wonder. As I suspected. Bullinger is about as unreliable source as you can get.

klock said...
eis aionas aionon. Would it not be a more consistent rendering if it were "for evers and evers"

No. Aionas is plural accusative and aionon is plural genitive, eis is a preposition meaning "into" which takes the accusative; hence the literal translation is "into ages of ages". And "into ages of ages" in Greek means the same thing as "forever and ever" in English does - exactly!

As for the ultradispensationalist stuff, I'm not going to get into that. There are plenty of solid Biblical refutations of that view around.

klock said...
So why as a writer, would they sometimes make it singular and other times make it plural if it doesn't matter? And if it does matter whether it is plural or not, why would it not be conveyed in the English translation?

Unlike in English, the ending of Greek nouns varies not just according to number (plural or singular), but also according to case (nominative, accusative, genitive and dative). That's what you're failing to take into account. A plural nominative is different in meaning to a plural accusative, which is different to a plural genitive, and so forth.

klock said...
If people are judged right away and go to eternal torments upon death, then why have the white throne judgment?

Because "eternal torments" includes the whole kit and kabbodle, just like "eternal life" does. The white throne judgment is where they are formally declared guilty; it is a legal requirement, but it's only part of the process.

But please explain to me: how can "eternal life" mean eternal life on your view? We have eternal life now, so therefore, according to you, this can't possibly be referring to the life that we receive after the resurrection. So in the resurrection believers would not receive eternal life.

Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/3/2005 11:37:51 PM (GMT-5)

klock
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30

Posted 8/5/2005 8:05 AM (GMT -6)

Humprey said...

And "into ages of ages" in Greek means the same thing as "forever and ever" in English does - exactly!

Why must we go beyond the literal rendering and not keep it "into ages of ages?

As you said...

Aionas is plural accusative and aionon is plural genitive, eis is a preposition meaning "into" which takes the accusative; hence the literal translation is "into ages of ages".

The first is accusative, telling us when this will take place, the second is gentive, telling us that these ages are a part of the whole set of ages. And as you said in an earlier post, we must look at it as a Hebrew would, and phrases such as King of kings, or Lord of lords, or Holies or holies, tells us that the first has prominence over the rest of the group. Just like this phrase in question, the two final ages have prominence over the ones that came before and it is during these two ages to come that the smoke of their torment will be rising.

Humprey said...

But please explain to me: how can "eternal life" mean eternal life on your view? We have eternal life now, so therefore, according to you, this can't possibly be referring to the life that we receive after the resurrection. So in the resurrection believers would not receive eternal life.

What do you mean by we have eternal life now? We do not physically posess eternal life at this time, you and I are still immortal. As believers, we are sealed by the holy spirit of promise, which is the earnst of the enjoyment of our allotment, to the deliverance of that which has been procured (Eph. 1:14). As Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 15 this mortal has to put on immortal. During this life we have the expectation of imortality and incorruptability, but we do not already posess it, if we did, what is the need of faith which is an expectation of something yet to be obtained?

Klock

Post Edited (klock) : 8/5/2005 10:21:08 AM (GMT-5)

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 8/5/2005 8:21 AM (GMT -6)

Wow.
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand."
"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

The Bible speaks about eternal life as both now and later.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

klock
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30

Posted 8/5/2005 10:23 AM (GMT -6)

Sahid said...
Wow.
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Are you saying that you are immortal, and that you are not subject to death? And if that is the case, then why has the likes of Paul and Peter, DIED? Were they not immortal during this life? We have obtained eternal live through the seal of the holy spirit and the hope and expectation that God will deliver us from death, resurrecting us in Christ Jesus.

Post Edited (klock) : 8/5/2005 10:26:26 AM (GMT-5)

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 8/5/2005 10:31 AM (GMT -6)

I'm just quoting Jesus. Take it up with him. There are two kinds of death. With respect to the one that matters, I am immortal. At least that's what the Bible says.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205

Posted 8/6/2005 9:37 PM (GMT -6)

klock said...
Why must we go beyond the literal rendering and not keep it "into ages of ages?

Because it is an idiom. When someone says to you "just a minute", do you expect to have to wait for precisely a minute before they get back to you? No, because "just a minute" is an idiom in English. When someone says that someone else is "making a mountain out of a molehill", do you take that literally? No, because it is an idiom. That "into ages of ages" is an idiom which means forever and ever is absolutely clear from its usage, of which a few NT examples are:

1. according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever.

2. to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever.

3. To our God and Father be glory forever and ever.

4. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.

5. To him [the Lord] be the glory forever and ever.

But klock, answer me this question. If you wanted to say "forever and ever" in Greek, how would you do it? Tell me what "forever and ever" is in Greek, if not "into ages of ages".

klock said...
The first is accusative, telling us when this will take place,

The accusative has nothing to do with "when" something will take place, but generally indicates that the noun is the direct object of a verb - in this case, though, the accusative serves to indicate that the noun is bound to the preposition "eis".

klock said...
Are you saying that you are immortal, and that you are not subject to death? And if that is the case, then why has the likes of Paul and Peter, DIED? Were they not immortal during this life? We have obtained eternal live through the seal of the holy spirit and the hope and expectation that God will deliver us from death, resurrecting us in Christ Jesus.

Sahid said...
I'm just quoting Jesus. Take it up with him. There are two kinds of death. With respect to the one that matters, I am immortal. At least that's what the Bible says.

Spot on, Sahid. The Bible tells us many, many times that those who believe already have eternal life, now, presently. Sahid only quoted a few of the verses that say this; there are many more. So if you have a problem with this, klock, you have a problem with the Bible.

The problem you have, klock, is simple: you refuse to define terms according to their Biblical usage. You simply insist on your own meaning; and hence you say that "eternal torment" can't mean eternal torment, contrary to the repeated teaching of the Bible, and "eternal life" can't be something we possess now, again contrary to the repeated teaching of the Bible. This is a common problem with ultradispensationalists and dispensationalists. Claiming to be "literal", they are actually "woodenly literal" and impose their own meaning on words, instead of allowing the Bible to define them. The Bible often develops its own meanings for words. Let me give an example:

The word "death" has a clear literal meaning; it means physical death, the extinction of life from the body. But is that what it means in "You were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once lived" (Eph. 2:1-2a)? No, obviously not. The Bible is using the word in its own way, that does not correspond to the "literal" meaning. If we insisted on a "literal" interpretation of Ephesians 2:1, we would have to conclude that the people to whom he was writing were literally dead and buried and had been resurrected some time prior to his writing the letter to them.

The word which is most abused in this way by dispensationalists, who refuse to admit its Biblical meaning? No prizes for guessing correctly. It's "Israel".

Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/6/2005 9:46:24 PM (GMT-5)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 8/7/2005 9:50 AM (GMT -6)

Albert: As a good starting point, I'd recommend Vern Poythress, "God centred Biblical interpretation".

Jeff: Albert, you had said that the Jews had predicted prior to Christ that there would have to be a new law. Is the book you mentioned above, by Poythress, discuss this? If not, do you know where I could read about that fascinating subject? Thanks!

wjs

Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205

Posted 8/7/2005 8:33 PM (GMT -6)

jefscott said...
Albert, you had said that the Jews had predicted prior to Christ that there would have to be a new law. Is the book you mentioned above, by Poythress, discuss this? If not, do you know where I could read about that fascinating subject? Thanks!

I don't think Poythress discusses it. I think I read it in a book on the New Covenant in Hebrews. I've had a look at my references list and I think it might have been this one:

Lehne, S. 1990. The New Covenant in Hebrews, Sheffield Academic (JSOT) Press, Sheffield.

But it might also have been another one I read but didn't end up including in a reference list.

Sorry I can't be more helpful!

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 8/7/2005 8:44 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks, Albert. I'll check out the Lehne book.

wjs

klock
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30

Posted 8/7/2005 10:23 PM (GMT -6)

Humphrey said...

That "into ages of ages" is an idiom which means forever and ever is absolutely clear from its usage, of which a few NT examples are:

1. according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever.

2. to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever.

3. To our God and Father be glory forever and ever.

4. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.

5. To him [the Lord] be the glory forever and ever.

To say that God will recieve His glory throughout the ages of ages makes absolute sense according tothe Bible. We are currently in man's day, but when the Lord's day comes, God truly will be glorified during the final two "ages of ages". To declare God's glory during these two ages does not in any way take away from glory He had before time existed, nor does it take away from the glory He will have even when time comes to an end, when His purposes find completion.

Humphrey said...

But klock, answer me this question. If you wanted to say "forever and ever" in Greek, how would you do it? Tell me what "forever and ever" is in Greek, if not "into ages of ages".

pantote

Translated "evermore" (KJV) in John 6:34 and 1 Thess. 5:16.

Why have the second forever? Does not the first forever cover it? How can you go beyond forever? When does the first forever stop and the second ever begin? It does not add up.

Humprey said...

The word "death" has a clear literal meaning; it means physical death, the extinction of life from the body. But is that what it means in "You were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once lived" (Eph. 2:1-2a)? No, obviously not. The Bible is using the word in its own way, that does not correspond to the "literal" meaning. If we insisted on a "literal" interpretation of Ephesians 2:1, we would have to conclude that the people to whom he was writing were literally dead and buried and had been resurrected some time prior to his writing the letter to them.

I see where you are coming from, but the bible never says anything about "spiritual death". The confusion with Eph. 2:1 lies in the mistranslation "were dead..." when this is spoken in the present participle and should read "And you, BEING dead to your offenses and sins," (compare the same tense in Matt. 1:19, 7:11, 12:34, Mark 8:1, 14:3, Luke 2:5, 3:23, 13:16 etc.) With this statement Paul is not addressing the "spiritual" condition of believers before they were saved, he is speaking of their position in Christ now that they are save! Compare Romans 6:8-11. We are to reckon ourselves as dead with Chirst because HE died to sin. Paul is addressing believers, those who, IN CHRIST, are dead to their offenses and sins, the sins we once walked in. From verse 5 and 6 we see that we are not only dead to our transgressions, IN CHRIST, but we are also to consider ourselves as already resurrected, IN CHRIST, and seated with Him in the heavenlies.

Humphrey said...

So if you have a problem with this, klock, you have a problem with the Bible.

The problem you have, klock, is simple: you refuse to define terms according to their Biblical usage. You simply insist on your own meaning;

I simply do not agree with your interpretation. You will never find "spiritual death" in the Bible because it is not a product of translation but of interpretation. Paul speaks of he own struggle in this mortal body in Phil. 3:10-14. Paul writes of pressing forward to take hold of the very salvation that has taken a hold of him IN CHRIST. He states that he has not already attained the resurrection of the dead nor was he already perfected. So here Paul too attests that he is not immortal or incurruptible even though he has been taken hold of by the salvation that is IN CHRIST. But you are correct that I do believe that when the bible speaks of death, it is really speaking of death and I let the bilble stand on its own, not my interpretation dictated by theology.

Sahid said...

I'm just quoting Jesus. Take it up with him. There are two kinds of death. With respect to the one that matters, I am immortal. At least that's what the Bible says.

I am assuming that your statement above is directly from a belief in an "immortal soul". I believe that the belief in an immortal soul contradicts with what the bible clearly and directly states about not only the creation of man but how the bible explains death.

Klock

Post Edited (klock) : 8/7/2005 10:27:33 PM (GMT-5)

Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205

Posted 8/7/2005 11:44 PM (GMT -6)

klock said...
To say that God will recieve His glory throughout the ages of ages makes absolute sense according tothe Bible. We are currently in man's day, but when the Lord's day comes, God truly will be glorified during the final two "ages of ages".

Even if you wanted to be totally literal, "ages of ages" must mean at least four ages (ages PLURAL, minimum of 2, each consisting of ages PLURAL, minimum of 2, total minimum of 4 ages). But it's an idiom.

klock said...
pantote

Pantote just means "always", it doesn't mean "forever and ever". They're not the same thing.

klock said...
Why have the second forever? Does not the first forever cover it?

Because "forever and ever" in English, like "eis aionas aionon" in Greek, is an idiom meaning for all time from this point.

klock said...
I see where you are coming from, but the bible never says anything about "spiritual death". The confusion with Eph. 2:1 lies in the mistranslation "were dead..." when this is spoken in the present participle and should read "And you, BEING dead to your offenses and sins,"

As I have pointed out before, the present participle does not indicate action in the present. It derives the time of action from the main verb, which in this case is aorist active indicative, indicating a past event. So your translation is plain wrong, which is not surprising, since it's clear from your posts that you don't know Greek. If you won't believe me (or Wenham, whom I quoted above), check all the translations. The translators were not idiots. Here are five:

who were dead in trespasses and sins (KJV)

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins (NASB)

you were dead in your transgressions and sins (NIV)

You were dead through the trespasses and sins (NRSV)

who were dead in trespasses and sins (NKJV)

klock said...
With this statement Paul is not addressing the "spiritual" condition of believers before they were saved, he is speaking of their position in Christ now that they are save! Compare Romans 6:8-11. We are to reckon ourselves as dead with Chirst because HE died to sin

You are confusing two different things, but anyway, that's besides the point. I agree with you that we are dead to sin in Christ; but that is obviously using "death" in a non-literal manner in relation to us. You can't argue that saying we are dead in Christ is using death literally. So it proves the same point anyway.

klock said...
I simply do not agree with your interpretation.

As noted above, that's because you mistranslated the verse.

klock said...
You will never find "spiritual death" in the Bible because it is not a product of translation but of interpretation.

No, it's the inspired teaching of Paul under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

klock said...
I am assuming that your statement above is directly from a belief in an "immortal soul". I believe that the belief in an immortal soul contradicts with what the bible clearly and directly states about not only the creation of man but how the bible explains death.

Your denial of an immortal soul clearly and directly contradicts the teaching of the Bible in numerous respects. But as to the fact that we possess eternal life now, the Bible is crystal clear.

Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/8/2005 12:45:33 AM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/7/2005 11:49 PM (GMT -6)

Doesn’t look like there is much agreement on the interpretation of relevant passages. Oh well.

HB: As noted, there's no meaning only in an exclusively self-contradictory claim that asserts nothing except the contradiction. But sometimes things can assert more than just an apparent contradiction.

Tom: You’re making this so very complicated, and misconstruing my claims in the process.

HB: But if part of what you don't understand appears to you to be contradictory, you will then claim the whole doctrine is "meaningless". In so doing, you do insist on complete comprehension. Tell me: why can't I comprehend partially a doctrine, while still thinking that other aspects of the doctrine appear to me to be contradictory?

Tom: You can understand whatever is meaningful, my friend; whatever is meaningful. Have at it. If the meaningful claims you understand are part of a more complex doctrine, fine. If that more complex doctrine makes some additional claim that is contradictory, then I’d reject that specific claim. Again, for the one thousandth time, HB, there IS NO MEANING to a contradiction, and nothing meaningful about affirming them. Tossing some contradiction in with other meaningful claims and claiming the contradiction somehow has meaning because you tossed it in to an otherwise meaningful doctrine is just silliness (in my view).

Categorically, and for the record, I don’t require total comprehension. You’re desperately missing my meaning, which is simply this, we cannot embrace what appears to us to be a contradictory claim. It is absolutely impossible. If that claim presents itself as a part of some larger doctrine that’s otherwise meaningful and which I am inclined to embrace, then I’ll reject the contradiction as a necessary part of the doctrine and enjoy the doctrine. If the contradiction can be shown to be a necessary part of the doctrine, I’ll reject the doctrine, yes. A million times, yes. We do NOTHING whatsoever meaningful when we embrace or affirm what is contradictory.

Tom

Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205

Posted 8/8/2005 12:00 AM (GMT -6)

Tom said...
You can understand whatever is meaningful, my friend; whatever is meaningful. Have at it. If the meaningful claims you understand are part of a more complex doctrine, fine. If that more complex doctrine makes some additional claim that is contradictory, then I’d reject that specific claim.

But the claims are all tied in together logically, that's the problem. Put it this way. Claim X entails a corollary Y. Claim Z entails the corollary not-Y. Does that mean that holding "X and Z" is completely meaningless? No, because a corollary is only a corollary. But it might so happen that to reject the corollary, would require us rejecting the original claim as well. If so, we could reject the claim that "X and Z", but that may involve us in rejecting meaningful content.

Suppose that I say that I know of a shape that is both a triangle and a square. Now I can't imagine that, and it's certainly contradictory. But it isn't completely meaningless. There are many things that could be said about this shape without difficulty. For example:

"Humphrey's shape is not a circle". That's true, and seems to be meaningful.

"Humphrey's shape does not have five sides, nor six sides". That's true, and seems to be meaningful.

"Humphrey's shape has only straight sides". That's true, and seems to be meaningful.

To claim that anything which entails a contradiction is meaningless is a highly controversial claim, with I think most philosophers of language would take issue with. You seem to assume that some sort of mental comprehension of a particular thing X is required in order for statements about it to be meaningful (there's more than a hint of positivism in you I think). But it is widely recognised that that can't be true, because otherwise negative propositions (that say that something is not something else) wouldn't be meaningful. A statement like "X is not a cat" is meaningful, even though it leaves me with no comprehension of what X is. If something involves a self-contradictory claim, most philosophers would agree that it must be false. But because something is false, doesn't make it meaningless. A self-contradictory claim can, like my shape, nonetheless demarcate certain sets of states of affairs involving definite and meaningful claims about things, and can exclude other states of affairs.

Let me put it another way.

Claim 1 states that it is the case that A, B, C, D and E, and these are logically interconnected.
Claim 2 states that it is the case that W, X, Y, Z and not-E, and these are logically interconnected.

In this case, claiming both 1 and 2 is not meaningless, even though it involves the contradiction E and not E. Why? Because it also involves claiming that A, B, C, D, W X, Y and Z, which gives it meaningful content.

Tom said...
Categorically, and for the record, I don’t require total comprehension.

Well, for the record, I think your claim about non-contradiction does commit you to requiring total comprehension, even though you don't realize this. You won't believe that "X and Z" unless you can see and understand how every single aspect and corollary of X and Z are consistent. But that would require total comprehension. You'd have to have consistency checks across every single combination of aspects of the things in question.

There is an additional problem. That is, sometimes things can seem to us to be self-contradictory, when really there is some way of reconciling them but we're just not bright enough or insightful enough to have discovered it yet. Maybe our human reasoning is so limited that the thing in question will always appear to us to be self-contradictory. Your theology would exclude such truths. The history of philosophy is littered with examples where people thought something was self-contradictory, but it turned out not to be. Many of Zeno's paradoxes, which claimed to demonstrate that certain things involved contradictions (such as the idea of motion), required advanced mathematics to be developed before they were resolved. Kant developed highly influential "proofs" that the idea of a finite universe was self-contradictory. The problem was that people just hadn't grasped four-dimensional mathematics at the time. Does it not concern you when you reject a contradiction that there may be some "higher dimensional mathematics" which you're overlooking?

I think that we should accept that we may not be able to reconcile logically certain doctrines taught by scripture, but nonetheless we should believe them, because they are clearly asserted.

Tom said...
If the contradiction can be shown to be a necessary part of the doctrine, I’ll reject the doctrine, yes. A million times, yes. We do NOTHING whatsoever meaningful when we embrace or affirm what is contradictory.

I disagree. We do affirm something even if it involves a contradiction if it also asserts more than just the contradiction and the contradiction is logically connected to the rest of what is asserted. Rejecting the doctrine because of this is rationalistic and assumes that we can comprehend how everything is possible. That is very bad theology. When God said to Abraham first that "in Isaac would his seed be called", but then said to Abraham "go and kill your son", few people would have as good a reason to see a contradiction as he did. But fortunately, he did not reject these revelations although they seemed contradictory, but instead believed them, even though he did not understand how they could be logically reconciled.

Abraham's logical dilemma:

(a) God says Isaac will have children.
(b) People who are dead cannot have children.
(c) God said he wanted Isaac dead.

So maybe Abraham should have chucked it all in. In this case there was a solution: there was an additional factor which Abraham did not know - that God did not really want Isaac to be killed. But Abraham had no possible way of knowing that, nor would the test have worked if he did know it. Abraham had to proceed in the face of apparently self-contradictory revelation.

Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/8/2005 2:22:06 AM (GMT-5)

124 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:24 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual