Hell Debate Feedback

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

If I am informed correctly, this Saturday in the TheologyWeb Chat Paltalk room, there is going to be a formal debate, at 8pm Central Time.

The topic of the debate wil be the doctrine of eternal punishment, in particular, whether or not the Bible teaches annihilationism. Theonomy, a Paltalk regular, is going to debate KellyPowers, from AFC ministry.

I get the impression that the debate will be fairly well attended, so I though that maybe it would be good to have a thread where people could offer feedback on the debate, say how they think it went, who presented a better case (not what you or I think is true, but which debater made a netter case), and offer comments in general. I know I intend to listen to the debate and do this.

That's why I started this thread. I'm looking forward to the debate! :snake:

[Spinyn00bman]

so.........we just sit and listen/read?

No talking?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

so.........we just sit and listen/read?

No talking?
Yes. In Paltalk debates, the two parties to the debate use the microphone, and nobody else speaks. They will each have an assistant who will type/paste any relevant citations in text (e.g. Bible verses). After the debate, everyone else will be able to talk again.

It will be like attending a live debate. :snake:




==================
I am death, hear me rot
==================

[Xmansmommy]

I'm totally excited and can't wait for this debate. I think it will be great. Usually when TWeb hosts a debate they red dot the room so the text references can be posted without interruption. Many don't like this option but it really is like a live debate and all the unnecessary text really distracts from the debate, IMHO.

[President-Elect $cirisme]

Any one willing to record this and post it as an MP3?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I'm totally excited and can't wait for this debate. I think it will be great.The prospect of hearing a debate about the annihilation of the wicked is exciting to you. That's interesting.

Lie down on the couch and tell us why.... :snake:



===================
I am death, hear me rot
===================

[mossrose]

If I am informed correctly, this Saturday in the TheologyWeb Chat Paltalk room, there is going to be a formal debate, at 8pm Central Time.

The topic of the debate wil be the doctrine of eternal punishment, in particular, whether or not the Bible teaches annihilationism. Theonomy, a Paltalk regular, is going to debate KellyPowers, from AFC ministry.

I get the impression that the debate will be fairly well attended, so I though that maybe it would be good to have a thread where people could offer feedback on the debate, say how they think it went, who presented a better case (not what you or I think is true, but which debater made a netter case), and offer comments in general. I know I intend to listen to the debate and do this.

That's why I started this thread. I'm looking forward to the debate! :snake:
Who ARE you?

:brood:

[Xmansmommy]

I'm excited to hear the debate because I enjoy seeing a biblical case made for a view laid out and I enjoy seeing the arguments against it. Helps me consider things I might have missed and that I may have seen in a different light. I also am privvy to some of the speculation made in Paltalk about who is going to win. Wanna see if Theonomy is all that and a bag of chips in a debate. :wink:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Who ARE you?

:brood:I am death, hear me rot. :snake:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I also am privvy to some of the speculation made in Paltalk about who is going to win. Wanna see if Theonomy is all that and a bag of chips in a debate. :wink:He might be, he might not be, but like the rest of you, you're all worm food when a cup of death comes your way. Resistance is futile. You may be a king or you may be a street sweeper, but sooner or later, you'll dance with the reaper.

Regardless of who claims victory in the debate, I will claim them both before very long at all. :snake:



==================
I am death, hear me rot
==================

[Xmansmommy]

:hehe:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

:debate1::debate2::debate3::debate4::debate5::debate6:



The tension is mounting..... :snake:



==================
I am death, hear me rot
==================

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I have it on very good authority that the debate format has now been finalised as follows:

OPENING STATEMENTS (Theonomy, then KellyPowers, 15 mins each)

REBUTTAL (Theonomy, then KellyPowers, 15 mins each)

Cross examination (Theonomy asks KellyPowers questions, and then comments on responses) 15 minutes

Cross examination (KellyPowers asks Theonomy questions, and then comments on responses) 15 minutes

CLOSING STATEMENTS (Theonomy, then KellyPowers, 10 mins each)

hmmmmmmm..... :snake:


==================
I am death, hear me rot
==================

[Sheepdog]

:debate1::debate2::debate3::debate4::debate5::debate6:

dang. it's i'm having flashbacks of the 60's maaan. and i wasn't even born until '79. it's the hippie versus the yuppie. (:hehe:)


i know who you are :smug:

[dizzle]

I dunno - this theonomy guy seems like a shady character :grin:

[{Tim}]

He might be, he might not be, but like the rest of you, you're all worm food when a cup of death comes your way. Resistance is futile. You may be a king or you may be a street sweeper, but sooner or later, you'll dance with the reaper.

Regardless of who claims victory in the debate, I will claim them both before very long at all. :snake:



==================
I am death, hear me rot
==================
Do you have blue glowy eyes? You better have blue glowy eyes. It's mandatory!


8pm CST should be about midday sunday here. Niiiiice. :wink:

[dizzle]

is that fire or a tongue?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

is that fire or a tongue?hrmpf.

*flicks through pages of black book* Ah, Ms Warren, we have an appointment I see.....



==================
I am Death, hear me rot
==================

[Sparko]

Just clarification Dee Dee.

Is the debate going to be in the normal Theologyweb Chat! room? With that name?

Just wondering cuz some people are not sure what room to look for.

[Palinator]

Any one willing to record this and post it as an MP3?
Can that be done?

[Spiritus Naturae]

Yes. In Paltalk debates, the two parties to the debate use the microphone, and nobody else speaks. They will each have an assistant who will type/paste any relevant citations in text (e.g. Bible verses). After the debate, everyone else will be able to talk again.

It will be like attending a live debate. :snake:




==================
I am death, hear me rot
==================

:uneasy: ...you terrify me... :uneasy:

[Sparko]

I am going to record it to mp3. But I think others should record it also, in case something happens like my computer crashes or something.

If anyone has the paid version of Music Match, it will record directly to mp3.

www.goldwave.com (http://www.goldwave.com) has a good shareware sound editor/recorder, that you can use to record with, but you have to preinitialize a blank file that is as long as you want to record. so that means you will porbably need to initialize a file that is at least 2 hours long to be sure to get it all. Using the Lamemp3 plug in you can save to mp3 too.

For voice WAV recording, a good setting is 22000 Hz, mono. You can resave as a lower frequency to make the file smaller later. For mp3 recording, I am going to record at 64kbps, but probably downvert it to 32kpbs later.

To record the debate you will need to make sure your system mixer record properties are set to record from WAV or SYSTEM mixer. Here is a thread that says how to set this.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1078438#post1078438

[oldsage_nc]

Kelly seems to quote helenistic jewish sources

[Xmansmommy]

Appreciate Theo's explanation of 2 Peter 3:5-7. :thumb:

[Sparko]

Both sides are doing well. Theo speaks way too fast to follow sometimes though.

[Xmansmommy]

:yeahthat: He is trying to share alot of info in a short amount of time.

[themuzicman]

:yeahthat: He is trying to share alot of info in a short amount of time.
Kelly is getting slaughtered.

[Xmansmommy]

Kelly complained about not getting any responses from Theo about his scriptures, but he hasn't addressed any of Theo's either. :nsm:

[themuzicman]

Kelly complained about not getting any responses from Theo about his scriptures, but he hasn't addressed any of Theo's either. :nsm:
And theonomy addressed the heremeneutical problems with kelly's argument, and kelly went immediately to practical application without any theological support.

[Sheepdog]

uh oh. anathema. :eek:

i think i would handle it differently if i were Powers. of course, i'd be hovering behind Dan. 12:2 and the Sheep and Goats thing in Matt.

i dunno. IMO Theo is winning. he seems to have the high ground, and Powers is tip toeing around rather than rushing him head on.

[Xmansmommy]

Kelly did finally address 2 Peter 3:5-7 and said it only referred to physical death. I have to disagree with him there. He's making alot of arguments not based on scripture.

[Xmansmommy]

Awesome cross exam questions Theo!

[themuzicman]

Awesome cross exam questions Theo!
I hate how these debates touch on other things like millianalism.

[Xmansmommy]

Kelly is defenitely playing the emotion card when suggesting that annihilationism downplays the gospel.

[themuzicman]

I hate how these debates touch on other things like millianalism.
The "which is worse" question was a bad one by theonomy, because the answer is self-evident.

Michael

[Sheepdog]

actually, i thought this one was good so far in terms of staying out of other explosive can-of-worms issues.

hrm. on the gospel, i always understood that as something we do because are obediant. Kelly doesn't say that other people's eternal destiny depends on us, but IMO he's getting close.

besides, i don't want my lost friends to be annhilated :frown:

[themuzicman]

actually, i thought this one was good so far in terms of staying out of other explosive can-of-worms issues.

hrm. on the gospel, i always understood that as something we do because are obediant. Kelly doesn't say that other people's eternal destiny depends on us, but IMO he's getting close.

besides, i don't want my lost friends to be annhilated :frown:
Kelly's question time is gonna be painful.

[themuzicman]

Excellent question by Kelly. Theonomy didn't answer they question. He's dodging.

[Xmansmommy]

Great answer to Kelly's question about Matthew 14:21 Theo!

[Shane Sanders]

Is this debate being recorded?

[Xmansmommy]

I believe so Shane.

[Sheepdog]

my recording is jacked, but JS and a few others are recording it. so we should get at least one good recording.

[oldsage_nc]

I am recording I hope, also, Mat 25:46 the death will be eternal :lol:

[Xmansmommy]

Excellent question Kelly asked about Rev 22:15!

[bandecoot]

Hmm its early days yet, but theo seems to have the upper hand. theo is using the Bible a lot more. kelly resorts early to ad-homs.

Kelly seems to be asking for us to accept that that annihilation is an easy way out. whilst I dont share his faith or that of Theonomy it would seem that kelly is ghoulishly anticipating suffering.

"R. WEYMOUTH: My mind fails to conceive a grosser misinterpretation of language than when the five or six strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying “destroy,” or “destruction,” are explained to mean maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence. To translate black as white is nothing to this
" is about the most damning (pun intended) statement against kellys position.

Of course this irony of the fact that I am the only person in the debate room who is actually the subject of the debate is not lost to me. "what judgement?" is Kelly's only point. It seems that Kelly cannot make his point from the text. It seems that Kelly wishes to tell his God how to do things. I was of the opinion that it is in fact the other way around.

Reiteration is not a valid argument. dragging alternate faiths into this debate is not even worth mentioning except as an underhanded way of casting aspersions on Theonomy.

It seems that the veiw of theonomy does not meet the standards of Kelly powers. Thats the point, its is only Mr Powers opinion that is being challenged not the veiw of the text in question.

At this point it is question time, so far I have yet to change my mind on the subject. Theonomy has clearly developed his argument in a more coherant fashion. Theonomy's questions are pointed and his discussion of the perfection of the afterlife was far more backed up by the text. It seems that MrPowers is OFFENDED by the concept that the unsaved are destroyed. It does seem that it is only an opinion by Mr Powers and not a provable one at that.


Oh dear last seconds and more ad homs. Theonomy makes his point in a much more cogent form, Mr Powers is Not answering any of Theos question.

Q6 and its all over folks ... theo has in fact owned this puppy. Theos comment on the lack of eternal suffering of Jesus was telling.

mr powers comments show that he is uncomfortable with his view that HE personally thinks the way that the unsaved should be treated.

Nope ... theo has owned this. Mr powers second question is not even on topic. Even an atheist can tell that the opposite of life is death.

Ok im done, my notes are finished.

[{Tim}]

Is this debate being recorded?
I believe so.

[Shane Sanders]

As a Christian, I am extremely disappointed in Kelly's continual condescension. He just made a statement that he didn't think much of a "debate" had been put forth. This just seems to be inflammatory and to a conscious being, untrue. I think his questions have been addressed quite well.

I currently don't have an informed opinion on this issue, but if I had to choose based on this debate, Theonomy has a decisive win.

But then winning isn't the issue.

[bandecoot]

actually, i thought this one was good so far in terms of staying out of other explosive can-of-worms issues.

hrm. on the gospel, i always understood that as something we do because are obediant. Kelly doesn't say that other people's eternal destiny depends on us, but IMO he's getting close.

besides, i don't want my lost friends to be annhilated :frown:


Dont worry, its what we expect anyway. What worries me is that you want your lost friends to suffer forever. Perhaps you might rephrase that?

[{Tim}]

Dont worry, its what we expect anyway. What worries me is that you want your lost friends to suffer forever. Perhaps you might rephrase that?
:sigh:

[Sheepdog]

Dont worry, its what we expect anyway. What worries me is that you want your lost friends to suffer forever. Perhaps you might rephrase that?

well i was hoping it would be taken as implied that i didn't. my only point in stating that was that, even if Theonomy says is true, i'd still be distraught about those i care for but are unbelievers. does that make what i mean a bit more clear?

[Sparko]

I think our oppinions on who is 'doing best' probably depends on which side of the issue we are on. I think Kelly did very well, but I admittedly am on his side of this debate. He spoke plainly and clearly and explained his points. Theonomy just seemed to try to cram as much info in his time as possible and was very hard to follow. He was very technically oriented, trying to throw out as many scriptures as possible without taking the time to clearly explain their points.

[oldsage_nc]

Bringing up the Rich man and Lazarus at the last point and not giving Theonomy a chance to rebut :sigh:

[themuzicman]

I think our oppinions on who is 'doing best' probably depends on which side of the issue we are on. I think Kelly did very well, but I admittedly am on his side of this debate. He spoke plainly and clearly and explained his points. Theonomy just seemed to try to cram as much info in his time as possible and was very hard to follow. He was very technically oriented, trying to throw out as many scriptures as possible without taking the time to clearly explain their points.
I tend to agree with kelly (not definately), but I think he got spanked early in this debate. he came back a bit during the Q&A section (my ISP went away for some of it), but still lost. He seemed to want to appeal to practical theology and traditions of Judaism, rather than exegesis and biblical theology.

[{Tim}]

I think our oppinions on who is 'doing best' probably depends on which side of the issue we are on. I think Kelly did very well, but I admittedly am on his side of this debate. He spoke plainly and clearly and explained his points. Theonomy just seemed to try to cram as much info in his time as possible and was very hard to follow. He was very technically oriented, trying to throw out as many scriptures as possible without taking the time to clearly explain their points.
Well, I dunno :shrug: I tend towards Kelly's position, but I thought that theonomy did perhaps a little better...

[Sparko]

If theonomy is right, then so are the atheists like bandecoot. They think they will just cease to exist. Kelly is right, if this is the case, then atheists when presented with this gospel will just say "so what? thats what I believe will happen to me anyway." and what are we being saved FROM? Jesus seemed to really make a point to tell us about hell and how we do not want to be there.

[oldsage_nc]

I think our oppinions on who is 'doing best' probably depends on which side of the issue we are on. I think Kelly did very well, but I admittedly am on his side of this debate. He spoke plainly and clearly and explained his points. Theonomy just seemed to try to cram as much info in his time as possible and was very hard to follow. He was very technically oriented, trying to throw out as many scriptures as possible without taking the time to clearly explain their points.

you may be right, because I think that Kelly tends to appeal to emotion and Theo hits the scriptures harder....so I would go with theo on this debate:smile:

[semmie]

i think Theonomy smacked this.

put to rest a lot of the questions i've had about annihilationism.

[bandecoot]

I think our oppinions on who is 'doing best' probably depends on which side of the issue we are on. I think Kelly did very well, but I admittedly am on his side of this debate. He spoke plainly and clearly and explained his points. Theonomy just seemed to try to cram as much info in his time as possible and was very hard to follow. He was very technically oriented, trying to throw out as many scriptures as possible without taking the time to clearly explain their points.


As the only actual subject of the debate in the room I am uniquely qualified to comment. And believe me that irony is not lost on me. I may be biased but the argument by theo was a lot more cogent, That is possibly because I am also an academic as well.

[themuzicman]

Kelly brought up new material in the conclusion. That's a violation of the debate forrmat, I bet

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Kelly brought up new material in the conclusion. That's a violation of the debate forrmat, I betMOST of kelly's rebuttal to some of the specific verses I raised was introduced in closing. he also introduced Luke 16:19-31, for which I prepared a LENGTHY rebuttal. That's very bad form, and it annoyed me greatly.

[oldsage_nc]

Kelly brought up new material in the conclusion. That's a violation of the debate forrmat, I bet

Yeah that is what I was saying, you are not suppose to bring up new stuff at the end when there can be no rebuttal:sigh:

[eudyptes]

Kelly brought up new material in the conclusion. That's a violation of the debate forrmat, I bet

I would agree - from a formal debate perspective this is seen as a serious breech of the rules and (if competitive) will disqualify the debater(s).

[Xmansmommy]

MOST of kelly's rebuttal to some of the specific verses I raised was introduced in closing. he also introduced Luke 16:19-31, for which I prepared a LENGTHY rebuttal. That's very bad form, and it annoyed me greatly.

No doubt it did.

[semmie]

theo, if you addressed the Luke 16 text in the post-debate questions, i missed it. would you be willing to post your prepared comments on this sometime?

[bandecoot]

If theonomy is right, then so are the atheists like bandecoot. They think they will just cease to exist. Kelly is right, if this is the case, then atheists when presented with this gospel will just say "so what? thats what I believe will happen to me anyway." and what are we being saved FROM? Jesus seemed to really make a point to tell us about hell and how we do not want to be there.


Sparky so.... if there is not a huge stick of suffering then your faith has no positive aspects to attract converts?

[One Bad Pig]

A while back, I did some cursory study on this issue when I first heard about annihilationism, but didn't come to a firm conclusion either way. Theonomy presented a pretty good case for it, IMO.

[Sheepdog]

I think our oppinions on who is 'doing best' probably depends on which side of the issue we are on.

actually no. i hold to the same view as Kelly, AFAICS, but i believe THeo won

[RumTumTugger]

MOST of kelly's rebuttal to some of the specific verses I raised was introduced in closing. he also introduced Luke 16:19-31, for which I prepared a LENGTHY rebuttal. That's very bad form, and it annoyed me greatly.

:yes: you did have a rebuttel for it.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

:yes: you did have a rebuttel for it.Yes, you would know, as my verse poster.

[President-Elect $cirisme]

I am just dying to comment, but can't until someone posts the MP3.

So, get with the program already and post the stupid thing!!!

[jerrydk]

How do I get to wherever this Pal Talk debate was held? I have not been at tweb in many months, so I have no idea how to find "Pal Talk". Please enlighten me!

Jerry

[Xmansmommy]

Jerry you can download paltalk at www.paltalk.com. The debate is over but we are still discussing it.

[Calvinist4Him]

I tend to agree with kelly (not definately), but I think he got spanked early in this debate. he came back a bit during the Q&A section (my ISP went away for some of it), but still lost. He seemed to want to appeal to practical theology and traditions of Judaism, rather than exegesis and biblical theology.

:yeahthat:

[Calvinist4Him]

actually no. i hold to the same view as Kelly, AFAICS, but i believe THeo won

:yeahthat:

[Calvinist4Him]

I am just dying to comment, but can't until someone posts the MP3.

So, get with the program already and post the stupid thing!!!

I have an MP3, but I suspect the file is too large. It runs for 1:56:04 (includes both the debate and the Q&A session), it's encoded at 40 kbps 3200 hz stereo, and is 33.2 MB.

[Calvinist4Him]

I would like a copy of all the text posted. I saved a copy, and then saved again, but when I saved the second time and opened the file with Microsoft Word, all I can see are squares!?!? :huh: :sigh:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

theo, if you addressed the Luke 16 text in the post-debate questions, i missed it. would you be willing to post your prepared comments on this sometime?Semmie, I prepared a rebuttal statement, but Kelly used virtually none of the expected reasonable arguments against my position in his argument - or ever! (although he slipped in Luke 16 in the closing, after the debate was done).

For some reason, Tweb is incorrectly reading the number of characters in it (Tweb is adding 10,000 extra characters, and I already included the spaces!) So you can download my prepared rebuttal statement here (http://theonomy.orcon.net.nz/rebuttal.doc).

[Teallaura]

I would like a copy of all the text posted. I saved a copy, and then saved again, but when I saved the second time and opened the file with Microsoft Word, all I can see are squares!?!? :huh: :sigh:
Try Acrobat Reader - it's usually the wrong format when that happens to me...

...I have entirely too much computer knowledge from error then trial! :teeth:

[Calvinist4Him]

Try Acrobat Reader - it's usually the wrong format when that happens to me...

...I have entirely too much computer knowledge from error then trial! :teeth:

Nope, that didn't work, the file is in RTF format. There's gotta be a way to translate it back to text or a program that can read it properly. Grrrrrrrrr stupid Paltalk text saving feature! :rant:

[Pate]

I am just dying to comment, but can't until someone posts the MP3.

So, get with the program already and post the stupid thing!!!

Yeah. Can somebody please post a link to the mp3 file?

[Zipperhead]

Theo, while I agree with your position I did think of something that made me doubt it. You said that Christ tasted what the wicked will suffer. In what way did Christ taste the punishment of nonexistence? If Christ did not cease to exist when he was dead, then how did he experience the punishment of the wicked in any way, shape, or form?

[Sheepdog]

I have an MP3, but I suspect the file is too large. It runs for 1:56:04 (includes both the debate and the Q&A session), it's encoded at 40 kbps 3200 hz stereo, and is 33.2 MB.

i think that should be 32,000 hz, but otherwise it sounds about right.

you can probably trim it down further... for human voice 24 or even 16kb/s is fine. at 16, the quality starts to degrade. do you still have the wav file it was encoded from? (because i don't know if you'd retain sound quality from re-encoding from another mp3 as you would from a full-blown wav.)

or, what a lot of people do is break mp3's like this up into half hour or hour segments. which isn't necessary, but is friendly for people who are still on dial-up

[Calvinist4Him]

i think that should be 32,000 hz, but otherwise it sounds about right.

Right, 32,000 hz

you can probably trim it down further... for human voice 24 or even 16kb/s is fine. at 16, the quality starts to degrade. do you still have the wav file it was encoded from? (because i don't know if you'd retain sound quality from re-encoding from another mp3 as you would from a full-blown wav.)

I could trim it further, but I really don't want to. It would be no less than a 20 min task. I did save a WMA lossless file from the (1.3 gig) WAV, but nobody wants to download a 300+ MB file. :hehe: IMHO, 16 kbps audio is rarely worth listening to, unless it's in realaudio format. Based on my listening experiences, realaudio is the best format for low-fi audio. But MP3 is the ideal format for transferring to mp3 players, and at the current bit rate, it sounds as good as it did in Paltalk.

or, what a lot of people do is break mp3's like this up into half hour or hour segments. which isn't necessary, but is friendly for people who are still on dial-up

:lol: I'm way too busy with other things to do that. If somebody can come up with a way to receive a 32 MB file, they can do whatever they want with it.

[Calvinist4Him]

Theo, while I agree with your position I did think of something that made me doubt it. You said that Christ tasted what the wicked will suffer. In what way did Christ taste the punishment of nonexistence? If Christ did not cease to exist when he was dead, then how did he experience the punishment of the wicked in any way, shape, or form?

:thumb: Kelly should have asked those questions, rather than emphasize a weak if not invalid argument from fear which assumes that annihilation leaves "nothing to worry about" or fear, which I disagree with. Most if not all people have a fear of (physical) death, a fear of the unknown. Most if not all people would experience fear (at least anxiety) in the face of a firing squad (unless God gave them a peace which surpasses their understanding).

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Theo, while I agree with your position I did think of something that made me doubt it. You said that Christ tasted what the wicked will suffer. In what way did Christ taste the punishment of nonexistence? If Christ did not cease to exist when he was dead, then how did he experience the punishment of the wicked in any way, shape, or form?I tried to place emphasis at some point late in the discussion (I forget exactly when, I think it may have been after the debate) on the fact that my concern is with literal death as opposed to metaphysical nonexistent. As I said on the mic, "obviously Jesus didn't cease to exist, otherwise they couldn't have buried him."

Now, this didn't come up so much in the debate, since Kelly seemed somewhat oblivious to any connection between the cross and the wrath of God, so it wasn't developed much at all, but my point in the question and answer session was that Jesus tasted death for us all, and that could only be achieved by Him actually dying. But why actually die if the future punishment for sin doesn't involve real, literal death? That's what I was getting at, not non-existence in some Newtonian sense. It really was a peripheral point, but a relevant one nonetheless.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Excellent question by Kelly. Theonomy didn't answer they question. He's dodging.I wish I knew which question you were referring to here, lol!

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Theonomy just seemed to try to cram as much info in his time as possible and was very hard to follow. He was very technically oriented, trying to throw out as many scriptures as possible without taking the time to clearly explain their points.Yes, it certainly was an effort to be succinct and fit everything in to the allotted time.

I would, however, like to know what you're referring to when you talk about texts that I threw out there without explaining their point. My opening statement is here (http://theonomy.orcon.net.nz/opening.doc), and my planned rebuttal is here (http://theonomy.orcon.net.nz/rebuttal.doc). Bear in mind that the planned rebuttal was mostly unused, since Kelly didn't use the arguments I expected him to use. It's not that he used other arguments, he just used far fewer arguments than I would have anticipated in a debate. But by all means, have a look at those statements, and point out any Scriptures that you think I cited without explanation. I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

[Calvinist4Him]

Theonomy, do you have an MP3 (audio file) of the debate? If not, maybe we could work out something where I could get a copy to you (I'm thinking through Trillian because my gmail account will only allow for 10 MB attachments). If you do have a copy or when you do get a copy, could you put the file up on your website and post a link for people to download?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Theonomy, do you have an MP3 (audio file) of the debate? If not, maybe we could work out something where I could get a copy to you (I'm thinking through Trillian because my gmail account will only allow for 10 MB attachments). If you do have a copy or when you do get a copy, could you put the file up on your website and post a link for people to download?I don't have one, and the (empty) site I have is a freebie that only allows 10 MB in total. I'm waiting for someone ELSE to make one available for download, lol!

[themuzicman]

I wish I knew which question you were referring to here, lol!

It was either the 1st or 2nd question, since my internet connection went *poof* for the rest of Kelly's Q&A. :doh:

Michael

[themuzicman]

It was either the 1st or 2nd question, since my internet connection went *poof* for the rest of Kelly's Q&A. :doh:

Michael
Theonomy,

For my question about the intermediate state, you said that it doesn't make much difference, and strictly speaking, it doesn't, but to say that when the body dies (goes into the ground), the person ceases to exist, only to have God recreate all those bodies for a moment to judge them, and then they go back into non-existance seems odd. They receive their punishement (non-existance) for a time, come back into being, are given their judgment (which they've been suffering), and then go back into non-existance.

Of course, you're under no obligation to respond to that, since you're a soul-sleep guy (although you never defined "soul"), but I would have found that particular position odd.

Michael

[RumTumTugger]

Theonomy, do you have an MP3 (audio file) of the debate? If not, maybe we could work out something where I could get a copy to you (I'm thinking through Trillian because my gmail account will only allow for 10 MB attachments). If you do have a copy or when you do get a copy, could you put the file up on your website and post a link for people to download?

JohnSparks was also recording the debate.

[Sheepdog]

alrighty, i have one for ya Theo. i know you focuse mainly on the Biblical side of the issue, but i'd be interested to see your thoughts on the philosophical side. for instance, i snagged these quotes of J.P. Moreland from A Case for Faith by Lee Strobel (p. 183):

"Believe it or not, everlasting separation from God is morally superior to annihilation," he replied. "Why would God be morally justified in annihilating somebody? The only way that's a good thing would be the end result, which would be to keep people from experiencing the conscious separation from God forever. Well, then you are treating people as a means to an end.
...
"What hell does is recognize that people have intrinsic value. If God loves intrinsic value, then he has got to be a sustainer of persons, because that means he is a sustainer of intrinsic value. He refuses to snuff out a creature that was made in his own image. So in the final analysis, hell is the only morally legitimate option."

i was just wondering if you didn't mind, would you tell me what you think of Moreland's comments? if you could reply to this to him personally, what would you say?

[Sparko]

I have already done the MP3s (one for debate and one for Q&A) and uploaded them to my FTP site. I have given the link to Cirisme for him to download them and post them on TWEB. He will have them up this afternoon.

The debate is 2 hours and 14MB in size. The Q&A is 45 min and 5MB in size.

For reference, I recorded at 22KHz, 64Kbps Mono. Then downverted to 11Khz, 16Kbps, Mono. Sounds great. If you try to compress further, the quality is affected.

[President-Elect $cirisme]

Recordings courtesy John Sparks:

The Debate (http://theologyweb.com/media/Hell-Debate.mp3) (13.5 mb)
Q and A (http://theologyweb.com/media/Hell-QA.mp3) (5 mb)

[Amazing Rando]

besides, i don't want my lost friends to be annhilated :frown:

I think I'd rather them be annihilated than to actually spend an insufferable eternity apart from God... but God doesn't play by my whims, now does he? :innocent:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Theonomy,

For my question about the intermediate state, you said that it doesn't make much difference, and strictly speaking, it doesn't, but to say that when the body dies (goes into the ground), the person ceases to exist, only to have God recreate all those bodies for a moment to judge them, and then they go back into non-existance seems odd. They receive their punishement (non-existance) for a time, come back into being, are given their judgment (which they've been suffering), and then go back into non-existance.

Of course, you're under no obligation to respond to that, since you're a soul-sleep guy (although you never defined "soul"), but I would have found that particular position odd.

MichaelWell, the whole sum of your objection is that you find it odd. As such, you'll understand why I don't think my exegetical conclusions should cater to the objection.

The fact that they have been dead until the resurrection is not uniquely "their" punishment. You and I will be in that state as well. I think their resurrection would be justifiable (not that it needs to be justified at all) simply on the grounds that it will mean that all can stand before God and have the facts explained to them, and God's justice will be vindicated. If you still find that odd, then OK, it will be odd.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

alrighty, i have one for ya Theo. i know you focuse mainly on the Biblical side of the issue, but i'd be interested to see your thoughts on the philosophical side. for instance, i snagged these quotes of J.P. Moreland from A Case for Faith by Lee Strobel (p. 183):OK, my comments on Moreland:
"Believe it or not, everlasting separation from God is morally superior to annihilation," he replied. "Why would God be morally justified in annihilating somebody? The only way that's a good thing would be the end result, which would be to keep people from experiencing the conscious separation from God forever. Well, then you are treating people as a means to an end.Notice that Moreland cites no annihilationist source. Basically, he makes up his own version of annihilationism's rationale, and then attacks it. And he also messes even that verion up badly. If annihilation were carried out just to keep people from experiencing eternal separation from God, then it wouldn;t be the people who are the means to the end, it would be the act of annihilation that is the means to that end. Morey's comments are clearly off the cuff and not thought out here.

But in any case, no annihilationist that I know of has ever said that annihilation will take place so that the lost don't experience eternal separation from God. That's Morey's own invention.
"What hell does is recognize that people have intrinsic value. If God loves intrinsic value, then he has got to be a sustainer of persons, because that means he is a sustainer of intrinsic value. He refuses to snuff out a creature that was made in his own image. So in the final analysis, hell is the only morally legitimate option."So his argument now is that since annihilation would be a more serious loss, it must be false? What an interesting reversal of the typical argument that eternal torment is more serious. At least we agree on one thing, life is of greater value than pleasure, and so the loss of life is the greater loss.

This is a case of a man rushing in where angels fear to tread. God loves many things, but that gives us no place to say that "He has got to do abc..." God loves intimate fellowship too, does that mean He is "has got to" save everyone?

The only way to arrive at the conclusion that God in fact does "refuse" to snuff out creatures made in His image would be to construct an exegetical argument tot hat effect, otherwise, we're just projecting our own theological assumptions onto God. If there is a sound exegetical case that God will do so, then Moreland has got to be wrong.

[Sparko]

Well, the whole sum of your objection is that you find it odd. As such, you'll understand why I don't think my exegetical conclusions should cater to the objection.

The fact that they have been dead until the resurrection is not uniquely "their" punishment. You and I will be in that state as well. I think their resurrection would be justifiable (not that it needs to be justified at all) simply on the grounds that it will mean that all can stand before God and have the facts explained to them, and God's justice will be vindicated. If you still find that odd, then OK, it will be odd.

Why not just judge them right when they die, and then destroy them? Why wait an intermediate period at all?

[themuzicman]

Why not just judge them right when they die, and then destroy them? Why wait an intermediate period at all?
Or why bring them back from non-existance to tell them that they will cease to exist?

It's not like they're going to care about the reason...

[semmie]

muz,

is there a reason you keep referring to pysical death and non-existence as if they are the same thing?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Why not just judge them right when they die, and then destroy them? Why wait an intermediate period at all?The problem with objections of this form is that, if acceptable, they criticise everything and anything, whether it is true or false. E.g. "Why judge them right away? Why not judge everyone at the same time?" Or, "Why ten commandments? Why not eleven?" Or "why three persons in the Trinity, why not four?" Or "why return prior to the millennium when God could have arranged things so that Postmillennialism is true" Or "Why drive on the right hand side of the road, why not the left?"

Even if you never got an answer to such questions, the question remains: What does Scripture say will happen? As it turns out, there wasn't a debate on the question of the intermediate state, and many different views of the intermediate state are comaptible with annihilationism, including yours, I suspect.

And I'm interested to see you answer to semmie, Muz. Why do you conflate the concepts of death and nonexistence? Is it intentional?

[Sheepdog]

I think I'd rather them be annihilated than to actually spend an insufferable eternity apart from God... but God doesn't play by my whims, now does he? :innocent:

aye. the only point i wanted to make was that "if they are just annihilated, why witness to them?" is silly. if you really love your friends and family, you will share the Gospel with them, whether they spend eternity future in a conscious state of punishment, or in a state of nonexistance (ok, that doesn't make sense, but i really wanted to make them parallel for rhetorical points :wink:). do we not want them to know God and love Him and know His love like we do?

[Sheepdog]

thank you theonomy. that was a cogent (and IMO sufficient) response.

[Sparko]

The problem with objections of this form is that, if acceptable, they criticise everything and anything, whether it is true or false. E.g. "Why judge them right away? Why not judge everyone at the same time?" Or, "Why ten commandments? Why not eleven?" Or "why three persons in the Trinity, why not four?" Or "why return prior to the millennium when God could have arranged things so that Postmillennialism is true" Or "Why drive on the right hand side of the road, why not the left?"

Even if you never got an answer to such questions, the question remains: What does Scripture say will happen? As it turns out, there wasn't a debate on the question of the intermediate state, and many different views of the intermediate state are comaptible with annihilationism, including yours, I suspect.


So you don't have an answer? :hehe:

But then I guess us hell literalists have the same problem. What do we say happens to people who die? We say they go to hell, and then God seems to bring them back judge them and send them back. And when we die, we go to heaven, then get judged and go back to heaven.

so never mind. :eek:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

So you don't have an answer? :hehe:LOL, my answer was that the objection is flawed, and says nothing about truth.
But then I guess us hell literalists have the same problem. What do we say happens to people who die? We say they go to hell, and then God seems to bring them back judge them and send them back. And when we die, we go to heaven, then get judged and go back to heaven.Well actually your problem is worse, since torment in hell is evidence of judgement. So you have them going to suffer, as evidence of their judgement, before judgement has happened, whereas I don't have them experienceing the result of their judgement before it happens. After all, sleep in the intermediate state isn't evidence of judgement, it happens to all of us.

[Sparko]

LOL, my answer was that the objection is flawed, and says nothing about truth.
Well actually your problem is worse, since torment in hell is evidence of judgement. So you have them going to suffer, as evidence of their judgement, before judgement has happened, whereas I don't have them experienceing the result of their judgement before it happens. After all, sleep in the intermediate state isn't evidence of judgement, it happens to all of us.

So you believe the soul still exists after the body has disintegrated into dust, but is in some sort of suspended animation until the judgment?

What about this? When you die, you get teleported from that moment to the Judgement time. Divine time travel. Saves on all the soul sleep or intermediate punishment problems.

[eudyptes]

aye. the only point i wanted to make was that "if they are just annihilated, why witness to them?" is silly. if you really love your friends and family, you will share the Gospel with them, whether they spend eternity future in a conscious state of punishment, or in a state of nonexistance (ok, that doesn't make sense, but i really wanted to make them parallel for rhetorical points :wink:). do we not want them to know God and love Him and know His love like we do?


:thumb: Agreed...

Also, should our desire to witness be dependent on where they go, or what happens to them?
God tells us to go preach the Gospel...that in and of itself should answer the question "why witness?".

[semmie]

Semmie, I prepared a rebuttal statement, but Kelly used virtually none of the expected reasonable arguments against my position in his argument - or ever! (although he slipped in Luke 16 in the closing, after the debate was done).

For some reason, Tweb is incorrectly reading the number of characters in it (Tweb is adding 10,000 extra characters, and I already included the spaces!) So you can download my prepared rebuttal statement here (http://theonomy.orcon.net.nz/rebuttal.doc).
hey, theonomy :hi:

if i understand you on the Luke 16 passage, there are two immediate issues to consider.

first, this passage is using the term hades, rather than gehenna, which is not a place of eternal judgment but a place of intermediacy. if taken literally, this passage wouldn't be showing the eternal torment of the wicked who've been judged; it would be showing a place of limbo between death and judgment. that seems pretty illogical (being in eternal judgment before being judged).

but second (and for more interesting, in my opinion), is the fact that this passage is a parable. and not only is it a parable, but it is a story that the listeners were already familiar with, and not an original story told by christ. and not only were they familiar with it already, but jesus was using this parable (as the other parables luke records) to convey what you referred to as "eschatological reversal."

that's about the jist of it, eh?

i'm a little disappointed that KP isn't here to finish the discussion on this now, since he brought up this passage! nonetheless, let me ask a few questions.

1: regarding hades. if i understand what i've read in these discussions, you believe in the sleep-state concept; a place between physical death and judgment. is this hades? and is it the same for the wicked and the righteous alike?

2: regarding parables. just to be clear, are you saying that we should reject this passage as anything but a typical parable from Luke's gospel?

3: did i miss any vital point that you were trying to make about this passage?

and on another note...
4: regarding eternality. i haven't read through all of your rebuttal material yet, but i don't recall seeing (or hearing) a response from you on Daniel 12:2 (which your opponent seemed to enjoy mentioning). forgive me if i've overlooked something; but if you don't mind, could you please comment on this? how does annihilation fit the description of "everlasting contempt?"
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

thanks, theonomy!

be blessed,
~sarah

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

So you believe the soul still exists after the body has disintegrated into dust, but is in some sort of suspended animation until the judgment?No. "Sleep" is just a metaphor I use because it's the biblical writers' favourite metaphor for death. I don't make the sharp subtance dualism of body vs soul. I think that a person is just dead for the intemediate state, but that they will be "awakened" (to press the sleep metaphor) when they are resurrected.
What about this? When you die, you get teleported from that moment to the Judgement time. Divine time travel. Saves on all the soul sleep or intermediate punishment problems.That's intersting since it involves nonexistence for a periof of time. For example, if John dies today and is transported to the resurrection, 5000 years in the future, where will he be in 3 days? The answer is that he will not exist. If a person ceases to exist, and then comes back into existence in the future, that's what we ordinarily refer to as time travel (not that we "ordinarily" refer to it!). But that's not what I hold to, since it still involves a sharp substance dualism. I consider the person a wholistic unity, and when they die, they don't get zapped anywhere or cease to exist, they just stop functioning, and we put them into a coffin.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

if i understand you on the Luke 16 passage, there are two immediate issues to consider.

first, this passage is using the term hades, rather than gehenna, which is not a place of eternal judgment but a place of intermediacy.
(snip)
but second (and for more interesting, in my opinion), is the fact that this passage is a parable. and not only is it a parable, but it is a story that the listeners were already familiar with, and not an original story told by christ. and not only were they familiar with it already, but jesus was using this parable (as the other parables luke records) to convey what you referred to as "eschatological reversal."

that's about the jist of it, eh?Yes, that's it.
1: regarding hades. if i understand what i've read in these discussions, you believe in the sleep-state concept; a place between physical death and judgment. is this hades? and is it the same for the wicked and the righteous alike?Yes, just as Daniel 12:2 teaches - my opponent's favourite text. Those who rise in the resurrection are now "sleeping in the dust of the earth."
2: regarding parables. just to be clear, are you saying that we should reject this passage as anything but a typical parable from Luke's gospel?I'm not toally sure what you mean by this. I don't think we should reject the passage at all, we should accept what it teaches, but like all paables, it doesn't simply teach what it says. For example, in other parables when Jesus says that a man went away on a trip and left his servants in charge, the teaching is not that in history there was a man who went away on a trip and left his servants in charge, the teaching is the overall message of the parable. Likewise in Luke 16, the teaching is the overall message of the aprable, which, when contrasted witht he version of the story that Jesus was adapting, is clearly (in my view) eschatological reversal.
3: did i miss any vital point that you were trying to make about this passage?I don't think so.
and on another note...
4: regarding eternality. i haven't read through all of your rebuttal material yet, but i don't recall seeing (or hearing) a response from you on Daniel 12:2 (which your opponent seemed to enjoy mentioning). forgive me if i've overlooked something; but if you don't mind, could you please comment on this? how does annihilation fit the description of "everlasting contempt?"
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.Sure. Torment requires that the person being tormented exists for as long as the torment exists. So does shame, I suppose. But contempt does not, since it is the sentiment, not of the victim, but of those who hold him in contempt. For example, Hitler is dead, but he is still helkd in contempt. As such, everlasting contempt only requires that the who who has contempt lasts forever. This person is God and His people, who live forever. The Hebrew word used here for contempt only occurs in one other passage, namely Isaiah 66:24, which says thatthe lost will be an "abhorrence to all flesh," so again it's not something they feel, it's the attitude that God and His people have toward them.

[semmie]

Yes, that's it.
Yes, just as Daniel 12:2 teaches - my opponent's favourite text. Those who rise in the resurrection are now "sleeping in the dust of the earth."
I'm not toally sure what you mean by this. I don't think we should reject the passage at all, we should accept what it teaches, but like all paables, it doesn't simply teach what it says. For example, in other parables when Jesus says that a man went away on a trip and left his servants in charge, the teaching is not that in history there was a man who went away on a trip and left his servants in charge, the teaching is the overall message of the parable. Likewise in Luke 16, the teaching is the overall message of the aprable, which, when contrasted witht he version of the story that Jesus was adapting, is clearly (in my view) eschatological reversal.
I don't think so.
Sure. Torment requires that the person being tormented exists for as long as the torment exists. So does shame, I suppose. But contempt does not, since it is the sentiment, not of the victim, but of those who hold him in contempt. For example, Hitler is dead, but he is still helkd in contempt. As such, everlasting contempt only requires that the who who has contempt lasts forever. This person is God and His people, who live forever. The Hebrew word used here for contempt only occurs in one other passage, namely Isaiah 66:24, which says thatthe lost will be an "abhorrence to all flesh," so again it's not something they feel, it's the attitude that God and His people have toward them.
hey theonomy :hi:

i don't have any other questions at the moment, but i wanted to thank you for your response and again for the time and effort you put into the debate the other night. i'll be continuing to look at the debate materials and the scriptures that were used both by yourself and by kelly...so i hope you don't mind if i corner you sometime, in the event that i have more questions! i'm really excited about this topic now...and am interested in learning as much as i can!

so thanks again, and may you and all of yours be blessed overwhelmingly,
~sarah

[Sheepdog]

theo, sorry to pester you again, but...

i was wondering what room, if any, there was for degrees of punishment in your view. obviously we wouldn't be talking about some being destroyed less or more than others, but maybe sometime before that. (i was thinking the intermediate state, but i already lean more towards the soul sleep view of that). this is the passage i had in mind: (47) That servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or do what his master asked will receive a severe beating. (48) But the one who did not know his master's will and did things worthy of punishment will receive a light beating. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required, and from the one who has been entrusted with much, even more will be asked. Luke 12:47-48.

also, someone mentioned Hitler Sat. night, and i have to admit that someone who had committed as many atrocites deserves harsher treatment than someone who, say, was nominal, not every doing anything as henous but neither did they come to faith nor doing anything that honored God.

what say you?

[Teallaura]

hey theonomy :hi:

i don't have any other questions at the moment, but i wanted to thank you for your response and again for the time and effort you put into the debate the other night. i'll be continuing to look at the debate materials and the scriptures that were used both by yourself and by kelly...so i hope you don't mind if i corner you sometime, in the event that i have more questions! i'm really excited about this topic now...and am interested in learning as much as i can!

so thanks again, and may you and all of yours be blessed overwhelmingly,
~sarah

Yeah, what she said!

:flowers:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

hey theonomy :hi:

i don't have any other questions at the moment, but i wanted to thank you for your response and again for the time and effort you put into the debate the other night. i'll be continuing to look at the debate materials and the scriptures that were used both by yourself and by kelly...so i hope you don't mind if i corner you sometime, in the event that i have more questions! i'm really excited about this topic now...and am interested in learning as much as i can!

so thanks again, and may you and all of yours be blessed overwhelmingly,
~sarah
Thanks Sarah. :smile:

[diet_Sunkist]

Hey Theonomy I'm new to these boards however I listened to the mp3 file of the debate and I really enjoyed listening to you talk. I also enjoyed following your texts on this thread.

I was wondering if you have a website or anything that defends your position?

I downloaded your opening statement and planned rebuttal and I thank you. However I'd like a website too - lol i sound greedy/selfish :eww:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Hey Theonomy I'm new to these boards however I listened to the mp3 file of the debate and I really enjoyed listening to you talk. I also enjoyed following your texts on this thread.

I was wondering if you have a website or anything that defends your position?

I downloaded your opening statement and planned rebuttal and I thank you. However I'd like a website too - lol i sound greedy/selfish :eww:Hey, thanks!

I really don't keep my eye out for theological websites on the topic, but I do know of one, just because I'm their webmaster. It's very small, and I'm desperate to get more articles to put up there (I don't just want it to be a site for my own work!). Check it out here (www.afterlife.co.nz).

[diet_Sunkist]

Hey, thanks!

I really don't keep my eye out for theological websites on the topic, but I do know of one, just because I'm their webmaster. It's very small, and I'm desperate to get more articles to put up there (I don't just want it to be a site for my own work!). Check it out here (www.afterlife.co.nz).

awesome ty very much

I will definitely check this out

ty again :)

l8r and God-bless

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

:bump:

I love this thread!

[TuckEverlasting]

:bump:

I love this thread!
Me too! I read it every day. :read:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

:bump:

This act of shameless self-promotion was brought to you by me, because I care.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The only reason I'm bumping this thread again is that at least it's one place on Tweb where I get some kudos. :bawl:

[One Bad Pig]

The only reason I'm bumping this thread again is that at least it's one place on Tweb where I get some kudos. :bawl:
It might help if you dropped the Ivo avatar.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

It might help if you dropped the Ivo avatar.
done

[TuckEverlasting]

done
Nooooooooooooooo! Bring back the Ivotar! :bawl:

[One Bad Pig]

Nooooooooooooooo! Bring back the Ivotar! :bawl:
You'd think Tuck would like the new avatar.