1. For physicalist annihilationists, the death of Christ dissolved the hypostatic union. Jesus passed into oblivion at the moment death. Not that the Son ceased to exist, but Jesus is a composite being.
This requires the Resurrection not merely to be the restoration of a body, but a second Incarnation.
2. Some lines of ostensible evidence for the afterlife are near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences, and apparitions of the dead. How do physicalist annihilationists deal with those lines of evidence?
3. Some people commit suicide to elude justice. Take top Nazis like Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Göring, and Rommel. If, according to physicalist annihilationists, you cease to exist at the moment of death, didn't they succeed in cheating justice?
4. Physicalist annihilationists might counter that the damned will suffer temporary postmortem punishment. But that raises the question of where Scripture teachrd that the damned pass into oblivion when they die, are later resurrected on the day of judgment, after which they are punished, after which they are annihilated?
For dualist annihilationists, where does Scripture teach a two-stage postmortem punishment? Where does Scripture teach that after the lost die, they first suffer temporary punishment, after which they are then annihilated? Where do we find that sequence in Scripture?
5. In Mt 26:24, Jesus said Judas would be better off had he never been born. But how does that follow if postmortem punishment is temporary?
6. Some annihilationists say aionios has a qualitative rather than quantitative/temporal meaning. It refers to a kind of life, and not everlasting duration. Other annihilationists say aionios denotes a never-ending outcome rather than a never-ending process.
So what does aionios mean in reference to passages about eschatological salvation and judgment? If aionios doesn't mean the damned will suffer forever, does it still mean the saints will enjoy eternal happiness? Can you give "eternal" a consistent sense that makes promises of eternal life meaningful? Are there any Bible texts that promise of eternal life for Christians, given the annihilationist interpretations of aionios?
7. Many prooftexts for annihilationism employ destructive abstract words as well as destructive concrete images.
i) The stock example is destruction by fire. Characteristics of destruction by fire are visibility and physicality. Fire consumes a physical object. While it's burning, you can see it. Fire reduces the object to ashes. It generates temporary smoke.
ii) There is, though, an obvious limitation to the scope of this metaphor. What is destroyed? The body? A body is physical and visible. At death, a body undergoes destruction. That can be a natural process, or that can be expedited by cremation. In addition, fire is sometimes the agent of death. Take a city that's torched by the enemy. Or fire as a method of execution.
iii) A problem with using these passages to demonstrate annihilationism is that the scope of the metaphor doesn't address something that's invisible, immaterial, or incorporeal. You can't burn a soul. You can't see a soul burn. A soul can't undergo a process of physical destruction. That doesn't mean a soul is intrinsically indestructible, but the imagery of eschatological destruction involves physical destruction. Burning cities and burning bodies.
iv) The imagery doesn't address the status of the soul. An annihilationist might contend that the imagery is a figurative illustration for the destruction of the soul. But that's not an implication of the imagery. At best, that's consistent with the imagery. Yet that's equally consistent with restricting the imagery to bodies. The observable death and destruction of the body.
v) Of course, many annihilationists are physicalists. For them, that's all there is and ever was to the human constitution.
But on that view, the imagery is not essentially metaphorical. It really does describe physical destruction. Not necessarily death or destruction by fire, but fire as a graphic metaphor for physical destruction. Specifically, destruction of the body. Bodies are all there is.
So there's a tension between the hermeneutic of dualist and physicalist annihilationism. Physicalists take the imagery more literally.
vi) In addition, physicalist annihilationists must provide a separate argument for physicalism. If humans have an incorporeal soul, then prooftexts picturing physical destruction fall short of what is needed to establish the claim.
At least the annhilationists I have talked to, they believe in suffering after death until some date in the future and then nothing. Maybe, in this scenario, they think the pain would be so great it would be better if Judas wasn't born. The more natural reading, to me, goes with the traditional view, but that's the best I got.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase only makes sense if intensity AND duration is in view. Judas has no more capacity to experience suffering than anyone else, so intensity cannot be the only factor.
DeleteRegarding #5, Chris Date of Rethinking Hell asserts that the reference there is the infamy of a bad name in history as the one who betrayed the Son of Man. Seriously. I pointed out under his schema that would hardly make a difference if Judas, at some point, no longer exists. He insisted otherwise
ReplyDelete1. Jesus ceased to exist ... but I'm not a trinitarian I don't have that problem.
ReplyDelete2. By the fact that almost all of them can be explained chemically.
3. The wages sin pays is Death Romans 6:23
5. Because had he never been born he would never have become the kind of person that did what he did ... People in the Depths of dispair can say "I wish I was never born" without believing in hell.
6. it's the outcome ... so which is why "eternal punishment" is contrasted With "eternal life".
7. the soul is synonymous With "the person, when you kill the body, unless God preserves the person in some unembodied or spiritualized state, the person dies and ceases to exist.
The position of an annihilationist is compatible With physicalism or really any theory of consciousness.
"1. Jesus ceased to exist ... but I'm not a trinitarian I don't have that problem."
DeleteYou have a different problem: your damnable heresy.
"2. By the fact that almost all of them can be explained chemically."
Demonstrably false. I've posted many examples that can't be explained "chemically".
"3. The wages sin pays is Death Romans 6:23"
Which fails to engage the objection.
"5. Because had he never been born he would never have become the kind of person that did what he did ... People in the Depths of dispair can say "I wish I was never born" without believing in hell."
Christ's warning is not a description of Judas's mental state.
"6. it's the outcome ... so which is why 'eternal punishment' is contrasted With 'eternal life'."
Which misses the point. Whatever meaning annihilationists assign to aionios, it must bear the same meaning in statements about eschatological salvation and judgment. Given the symmetry, it can't be eternal in one case but not eternal in the other case. It must be consistently one or the other in both cases.
"7. the soul is synonymous With "the person, when you kill the body, unless God preserves the person in some unembodied or spiritualized state, the person dies and ceases to exist."
I'm using "soul" in the classic sense of the incorporeal mind or personality, distinct from the body, that outlives the body. So your response misses the target.
2. That isn't actually an example of life after Death perse, since the People didn't actually die, but anyway this is a question for neuro-scientists and congnitive philosophers.
Delete3. No it doesn't, Justice is defined by God, not man, God has said sin, all of sin results in Death, period, that is the punishment for sin.
Just because you think it's unjust if Hitler doesn't get tortured for eternity doesn't mean it is injust. God said that sin is punished by Death, period.
5. How do you know? Where is the evidence or argument for that?
6. Mark 3:29 says that if you sin against the holy spirit you are guilty of aioniow harmartatos ... eternal sin, all that means is that Your sin has no forgiveness, there's no going back.
Eternal punishment is the same, the punishment is Death, and there is no reversing of it. Matthew 25:46 uses everlasting Kolasin ... cutting off, you can only be cut off once, (from life), but it's effects are eternal.
Eternal life is the same, there is no reversal of life, no Death.
There is no contradiction at all.
7. Right, but I'm using it in the biblical sense.
"2. That isn't actually an example of life after Death perse, since the People didn't actually die"
DeleteVeridical NDEs and OBEs demonstrate that the mind is independent of the body.
And in the case of apparitions, not only did they actually died, but they remain dead.
"3. No it doesn't, Justice is defined by God, not man, God has said sin, all of sin results in Death, period, that is the punishment for sin."
i) It's simplistic to imagine that a single verse says all there is to be said about final punishment. Indeed, many annihilationists believe in postmortem punishment.
Death is hardly the only punishment which Scripture assigns for sin. There is, for instance, a reversal of fortunes motif.
"5. How do you know? Where is the evidence or argument for that?"
The real issue is the lack of evidence in that passage for your interpretation.
6. You unwittingly proved my point. An annhilationist can't assign a consistent sense of aionios.
7. Irrelevant. The question is whether the concept of an incorporeal soul is presence in Scripture, as well as empirical evidence.
2. Do you have any studies on this?
ReplyDelete3. The reversal of fortunes didn't erase sin. in the Garden God said that if they rebeled they would die, and Romans says that Death is the punishment for sin; but through the Death of Christ we gain life. the Opposite of Life isn't life With torture, it's Death.
5. If there is no evidence either way (my way or Your way), then we can't really be sure about it can we? So you can't really use it as evidence for Your position, and I can't use it for mine; I didn't bring up the verse, you did.
6. First of all, Language is ALWAYS flexible, eternal life and eternal "cutting off" and eternal sin are used in the New testament, so unless you're going to argue that the New Testament contradicts itself you're going to have to use the Word in a way that the actual writers used it.
7. I don't think the question is addressed in scripture, it uses "soul" to mean the equivalent of "a person", there are "spirit Creatures", and there does seem to be the idea of a spiritual ressurection in spirit bodies ... but the bible doesn't answer whether or not all human beings have some Cartesian soul.
Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 seems to imply otherwise.
As I look through your posts it seems we dissagree on almost everything, except for sexual ethics and the Complete irrationality of atheism.
"2. Do you have any studies on this?"
DeleteJason Engwer and I have posted extensive material on these topics. Much listed under "paranormal".
"The reversal of fortunes didn't erase sin"
Non sequitur. That doesn't obviate other Biblical categories.
"5. If there is no evidence either way (my way or Your way), then we can't really be sure about it can we?"
The verse isn't an autobiographical expression of how a depressed individual feels about his life, but an objective characterization by Christ.
"First of all, Language is ALWAYS flexible"
The question at issue is whether annihilationists arbitrary give aionios one sense in reference to eschatological punishment, and a contrary sense in reference to eschatological salvation.
One annihilationist who's consistent on this score is John Wenham, who bit the bullet by sacrificing the everlasting bliss of the saints, to parallel sacrificing the everlasting misery of the damned.
"so unless you're going to argue that the New Testament contradicts itself"
The actual problem is with annihilationists interpretations that generate contradictions.
7. You need to learn the difference between words and concepts. For instance, the Bible has a doctrine of the intermediate state. That implies the immortality of the soul. You're stuck on the meaning of nephesh, which is a category mistake.
I've discussed annihilationist prooftexts like Eccl 9:4-5 before. You're behind the curve.
2. I'll look at those studies, but anyway, I stick With the bible.
Delete5. You're making a claim but you don't argue for it ... this is getting to be a trend With you.
I was consistant, there is no contradiction. Eternal punishment means punishemnt without reversal, and eternal life means life without reversal ... it's quite simple.
7. Where did you discuss it? I haven't read you're entire blog.
"Irreversible" isn't a synonym for aionios. Moreover, according to physicalist annihilationists, Christians live, then pass into oblivion, then are restored to life at the resurrection of the just. So their condition is reversed. It isn't a seamless continuum from this life into the next life.
DeleteRight, and then they have eternal life, whereas the punishment for the wicked, which is Death, is also eternal.
DeleteWhere did you discuss Eccl 9:4-5?
You grossly oversimply what the Bible has to say about eschatological punishment. "Death" is not the only category.
DeleteEcclesiastes has a doctrine of final judgment (Eccl 3:17; 11:9). If, however, the righteous and unrighteous suffer a common oblivion, then there's no judicial discrimination between the fate of the righteous and the fate of the wicked.
Moreover, your prooftext (Eccl 9:4-5) draws no distinction between the two groups. So that's your dilemma. If it's oblivious for the wicked, then it's oblivion for the righteous.
If, on the other hand, you qualify the force of you prooftext by reference to other passages which remark on the afterlife, you can't confine that to the fate of the righteous.
Eccl 3:17, 11:9 can refer to the ressurection, i.e. they will be judged in the ressurection ... or it can be temporal, God will judge you in this life. Those verses don't necessitate a disembodied soul at all.
DeleteRight, exactly, both the wicked and the righteous die, and Death is cessation of life. But there can be a hope of ressurection.
But do you have an alternative exegesis of Eccl 9:4-5? I mean the verses say what they say ... they are extremely Clear, the dead are conscious of nothing.
If, by your own admission, Eccl 3:17 & 11:9 can refer to the resurrection, then you're using that to qualify the force of Eccl 9:4-5. Try to follow your own argument. Is that asking too much?
DeleteI didn't suggest those verses necessity a disembodied soul. Try not to be so illogical.
Rather, I pointed out that Ecclesiastes has more to say about the fate of the dead than Eccl 9:4-5. That needs to be supplemented by Eccl 3:17 & 11:9. Your atomistic prooftexting fails to interpret any particular verse in the context of the author's overall theology.
No, it won't suffice to say they refer to temporary judgment in this life. A basic theme of Ecclesiastes is how often the wicked elude justice in this life.
For point 1: Your argument here depends on the assumption that the moment of death is the moment of oblivion in the sense of the Person no longer hypostatically subsisting on the Substance. There's no reason this needs to be true, or at least none has been given. The person may remain united with the substance after death, so the person and substance are dead but not obliviated. This is very important because the Bible emphasizes the fact that Jesus’ body remained incorrupt, and therefore His personal substance unsullied, even in the grave.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a physicalist, so I'll generally avoid their challenges; but this question therefore misses the VERY important distinction between death and destruction. A thing can be dead without being destroyed in a strong sense.
And so Jesus' death was real, but need not result in destruction of Jesus' person so long as His human substance remained intact -- death, not destruction. (And yes, conditionalists believe that death is the punishment of the wicked; destruction is merely cosmic cleanup, and possibly "adding insult to injury.")
There are many reasons to believe that Death is the reversal of life biblically, one is scriptures like Eccl 9:4-5, God's description of Death as going back to the dust, i.e. back to before you were created. Also that the punishment is the opposite of life.
DeleteIf you are still alive after Death but in a different form, them Death is not the opposite of life.
How that Works With the hypostatic union for trinitarians I'm not sure.
wtanksley,
Deletei) You seem to be operating from the standpoint of hylomorphism. But my argument was directed at physicalist annihilationists.
ii) I'd add that even on Thomistic terms, it's hard to square hylomorphism with the intermediate state.
iii) Even if (ex hypothesi) the body of Christ underwent no necrosis, it suffered brain death. If physicalism is true, then personality is extinguished at the moment of brain death.
Returning to dust refers to biological death. The question at issue is whether "life" and "death" in Scripture are confined to biological life and death. Try not to be simple-minded.
DeleteFrom dust you came to dust you will Return ... the implication is that the state will be the same as before life.
DeleteYou miss the point. Are you unable to grasp the conceptual distinction between biological immortality and non-biological immortality (e.g. God, angels)?
Delete