<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>TheologyWeb Campus - Blogs</title>
		<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/blog.php</link>
		<description>Revolutionizing Theology Discussion!</description>
		<language>en</language>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 19:36:11 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>vBulletin</generator>
		<ttl>5</ttl>
		
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[5 Questions for Advocates of the Conventional View of "Hell"]]></title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?375-5-Questions-for-Advocates-of-the-Conventional-View-of-quot-Hell-quot</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 21:31:45 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[What follows below are five questions that I believe advocates of the conventional view of final punishment as *everlasting conscious torment* (ECT) must seriously address before any headway can be made in the "traditionalist"-annihilationist dialogue/debate: 
 
1. What is the ultimate penalty or end result of sin according to the Bible? 
2. Is it exegetically sound to interpret "death" anywhere within the biblical canon as something akin to *_everlasting life_ in misery*? 
3. If the fate of...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore"><font size="3"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">What follows below are five questions that I believe advocates of the conventional view of final punishment as <b>everlasting conscious torment</b> (ECT) must seriously address before any headway can be made in the &quot;traditionalist&quot;-annihilationist dialogue/debate:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px">1. What is the ultimate penalty or end result of sin according to the Bible?<br />
2. Is it exegetically sound to interpret &quot;death&quot; anywhere within the biblical canon as something akin to <b><u>everlasting life</u> in misery</b>?<br />
3. If the fate of the unrighteous is ECT (and not final destruction), why do the biblical authors speak of immortality, imperishability and everlasting life <i>exclusively</i> in relation to the fate of the righteous (i.e., those finally saved)?  In other words, if the wicked are <i>not</i> to be finally annihilated or destroyed but will instead endure conscious existence in torment forever, why is that the Scriptures never declare that the unrighteous will be made immortal or receive everlasting life (even if in a state of misery)?<br />
4. Are we to interpret the many passages of Scripture that teach the end of the unrighteous results in death, destruction and loss of life in light of a few ambiguous passages that may or may not teach ECT (e.g., Matthew 25:41,46; Revelation 14:9-11)?  Or should we seek to interpret the few ambiguous passages in light of the many that teach the wicked will finally die or be destroyed?<b>[1]</b><br />
5. Is the Bible to be taken as the <u>sole</u> authoritative source of truth or is tradition to be taken as in some way co-equal with Scripture?<b>[2]</b></div><br />
Upon studying the doctrine of final punishment on and off for 6 years, I have not yet seen <u>one</u> of these five questions seriously addressed by an advocate of the conventional view of &quot;hell&quot;.  The majority of &quot;traditionalists&quot; evidently assume that the ECT of the lost is sufficiently demonstrated merely by quoting or referencing a handful of texts from the NT with little or no explanation.<b>[3]</b><br />
<br />
Supposing the doctrine of ECT is indeed the position the biblical authors held, I can only wonder why this teaching does not appear to be clearly taught throughout their writings.  Evidently one has to approach the scriptural texts with the extra-biblical presupposition of <b>universal human immortality</b> already in hand and superimpose this doctrine over all the passages in the Bible that either teach or allude to the end of the unrighteous.  Since all humans are immortal and will live forever, it is reasoned, only two options are available to the interpreter regarding the fate of the unrighteous:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px">a. all persons without exception will eventually be reconciled to God (universalism);<b>[4]</b> or<br />
b. a portion of humankind will endure some form of ECT (the conventional view of final punishment).</div><br />
<b>In taking the extra-biblical teaching of universal immortality for granted, the notion that the unrighteous can or ever will be finally destroyed or annihilated is completely excluded from consideration as a viable interpretive option.</b>  Such is the reasoning one is apt to discover throughout much of church history and also much of what is known as evangelicalism today.</span></font><br />
<br />
<font size="4"><b><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><div style="margin-left:40px">Conclusion</div></span></b></font><br />
<font size="3"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">The utter lack of <u>biblical</u> evidence for the everlasting conscious torment of the lost is ultimately the reason  I have rejected the notion that unbelievers will be made immortal for the purpose of enduring unending suffering (i.e., everlasting life in misery).  Unless and until the five questions  posed above are adequately addressed by advocates of the conventional view of final punishment, I will remain an annihilationist.</span></font><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><font size="4"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">Notes</span></font></b><br />
<font size="3"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><br />
[1] Even those who subscribe to the conventional view of final punishment must admit that there are relatively few scriptural passages that even <i>appear</i> to explicitly teach the doctrine of ECT.<br />
<br />
[2] If the latter, then the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) must be dispensed with.<br />
<br />
[3] Not to mention the fact that the doctrine of ECT is completely absent from the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament) even in the form of hyperbole.  (In the NT John of Patmos arguably employs this literary device in 14:9-11 and 20:10 of the Apocalypse [Revelation].)<br />
<br />
[4] The doctrine of eventual universal salvation presupposes that the judgement of God following the second advent of Christ will not be final or irreversible in nature.  Under this scheme the lost will evidently be granted an infinite series of postmortem opportunities to repent and receive Christ as Lord and Savior.  God will not give up until all his lost sheep return to him (divine perseverance).  Universalist advocates view the purpose of &quot;hell&quot; as being fundamentally remedial or restorative in nature in order that all humankind may eventually be restored to God.</span></font></blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>The Remonstrant</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?375-5-Questions-for-Advocates-of-the-Conventional-View-of-quot-Hell-quot</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The Scholarly Nutshell, #1</title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?373-The-Scholarly-Nutshell-1</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 15:52:09 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[*The Scholarly Nutshell, #1 
"Death With Honor: The Mediterranean Style Death of Jesus in Mark" 
by John Pilch  
* 
 
Attachment 86035 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=86035) 
 
This is the introductory entry in a new series I've called "The Scholarly Nutshell", which will be my summaries and thoughts about scholarly articles I come across. 
 
This first entry will cover Dr. Pilch's (http://mysite.verizon.net/vzewdxtw/drjohnjpilchwebpage/index.html) "Death With...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore"><b><font color="#B22222"><div style="text-align: center;"><font size="6">The Scholarly Nutshell, #1</font><br />
<font size="4">&quot;Death With Honor: The Mediterranean Style Death of Jesus in Mark&quot;</font><br />
<font size="2">by John Pilch</font> </div></font></b><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=86035&amp;d=1367941507" id="attachment86035" rel="Lightbox_373" ><img src="http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=86035&amp;d=1367941507&amp;thumb=1" border="0" alt="Click image for larger version.&nbsp;

Name:	SilenceKelm041511crop_0.jpg&nbsp;
Views:	32&nbsp;
Size:	138.1 KB&nbsp;
ID:	86035" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" /></a></div><br />
This is the introductory entry in a new series I've called &quot;The Scholarly Nutshell&quot;, which will be my summaries and thoughts about scholarly articles I come across.<br />
<br />
This first entry will cover <a href="http://mysite.verizon.net/vzewdxtw/drjohnjpilchwebpage/index.html" target="_blank">Dr. Pilch's</a> &quot;Death With Honor: The Mediterranean Style Death of Jesus in Mark&quot; published in <a href="http://btb.sagepub.com/" target="_blank">The Biblical Theology Bulletin</a>.<br />
<br />
Pilch's article is concerned with interpreting the remarkable silence and endurance of Jesus towards his accusers and his crucifixion through the lens of the social sciences.  Why is it that Jesus, who all throughout his ministry showed great skill in rhetoric and insulting riposte, barely opened his mouth in the events immediately prior to his death?  And why does His remarkable silence induce the centurion at the foot of the cross to proclaim, &quot;Surely this man was the Son of God!&quot;<br />
<br />
Pilch takes us through the Gospel of Mark, pinpointing the versus pertaining to Jesus' meek acceptance to extreme pain and torture.  It begins with His acceptance of what is to come:<br />
<br />
    <div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Mark 14:36</b></div>     “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div>Then, to Jesus' scourging, where there is no record of any comment or cry of pain:<br />
<br />
    <div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<b><div style="text-align: center;">Mark 15:16-20</div></b><br />
    16 The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div>Then, to Jesus' actual crucifixion, wherein presumably Jesus made no remarks about his torture for a full six hours:<br />
<br />
    <div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<b><div style="text-align: center;">Mark 15:25-36</div></b><br />
    25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.<br />
    27 They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left.  29 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 come down from the cross and save yourself!” 31 In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! 32 Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.  33 At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div> Pilch believes that the famous &quot;last words&quot; of Jesus where only introduced into the account by the Christian community at a later time.  It is only at the very end that Jesus lets out a loud scream before breathing His last, whereat the centurion proclaims &quot;surely this man was the Son of God!&quot;.<br />
<br />
Accepting punishment or suffering without complaint is extolled throughout the Bible.  The only two socially acceptable exceptions to this rule of silence is either boasting about the suffering experienced or public prayers to God in the midst of it.  See the following examples:<br />
<br />
    <div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Isaiah 50: 6-7</b></div>    6 I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.  7 Because the Sovereign Lord helps me, I will not be disgraced.  Therefore have I set my face like flint, and I know I will not be put to shame.
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><br />
    <div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Isaiah 53: 3-12</b></div>    3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,<br />
       a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.<br />
    Like one from whom people hide their faces<br />
        he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.<br />
    4 Surely he took up our pain<br />
        and bore our suffering,<br />
    yet we considered him punished by God,<br />
        stricken by him, and afflicted.<br />
    5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,<br />
        he was crushed for our iniquities;<br />
    the punishment that brought us peace was on him,<br />
        and by his wounds we are healed.<br />
    6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,<br />
        each of us has turned to our own way;<br />
    and the Lord has laid on him<br />
        the iniquity of us all.<br />
    7 He was oppressed and afflicted,<br />
        yet he did not open his mouth;<br />
    he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,<br />
        and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,<br />
        so he did not open his mouth.<br />
    8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.<br />
        Yet who of his generation protested?<br />
    For he was cut off from the land of the living;<br />
        for the transgression of my people he was punished.<br />
    9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,<br />
        and with the rich in his death,<br />
    though he had done no violence,<br />
        nor was any deceit in his mouth.<br />
<br />
    10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,<br />
        and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,<br />
    he will see his offspring and prolong his days,<br />
        and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.<br />
    11 After he has suffered,<br />
        he will see the light of life and be satisfied;<br />
    by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,<br />
        and he will bear their iniquities.<br />
    12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,<br />
        and he will divide the spoils with the strong,<br />
    because he poured out his life unto death,<br />
        and was numbered with the transgressors.<br />
    For he bore the sin of many,<br />
        and made intercession for the transgressors.
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><br />
    <div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Lamentations 1:12</b></div>    Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by?  Look around and see.  Is any suffering like my suffering that was inflicted on me, that the Lord brought on me in the day of his fierce anger?
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div>    <div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div style="text-align: center;"><b>2nd Corinthians 11:24-30</b></div>    24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. 27 I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28 Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn? 30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div>Pilch draws upon the word of Peter Cook<sup><b><font color="#000080">1</font></b></sup> and David McClelland<sup><b><font color="#000080">2</font></b></sup> to help explain what's going on here.  Cook's &quot;Basic Personality Structure Model&quot; attempts to explain the personality of an adult by how he is raised.  In the Biblical world, fathers toughened their sons for the brutal and harsh world of antiquity by swaddling the infant in restrictive cloths (which Pilch says prepares the child &quot;for a lifetime of constraint and subjection to others&quot;), raising the child to obey orders immediately and without complaint, reinforced by frequent beatings (&quot;If he is willing, he obeys, but if not, they straighten him, just like a bent and twisted piece of wood, with threats and blows.&quot;  Plato, <i>Prt.</i> 325d). <br />
<br />
If Cook's model explains the machismo of the Mediterranean male through the constant training undergone in childhood, McClelland explains it by the constant reinforcement of cultural ideology.  McClelland's approach, called the &quot;Cultural Ideology Model&quot;, asserts that merely examining the childrearing tactics utilized by the parents of a child isn't enough to predict what personality the child will have in adulthood.  After all, while it isn't unheard of for an abused child to become an abusive father himself, it isn't guaranteed.  McClelland instead believes that &quot;child-rearing does not occupy center stage in the formation of adult personality by way of its influence on infant personality except to the extent that child-rearing reflects the general norms or social structures that exert an influence upon an individual throughout a lifetime from womb to tomb.&quot;  As applied to the culture of Jesus, the omnipresence of honor and shame fits in nicely with McClelland's model.  The constant pursuit of and the preservation of one's honor in an agonistic culture will ensure one's endurance (Romans 12:12, 1 Cor 13:7, 2 Timothy 2:10, Hebrews 10:32-39, et al), obedience (John 10:18, 3:49, 14:31, Phil 2:8) and suffering without complaint (Acts 8:32-35, Psalm 38:13-14, 39:9-11, Lam 3:28-30).<br />
<br />
Thus, even enduring the shameful death of crucifixion, Jesus retains his honor by dying manfully - that is, he obeyed His Father's order to go to the cross, endured the pain of it, and suffered without complaint.  His honorable death was noticed by the centurion, who proclaims that this man has some godlike aspect to him.  Far from being passive, Jesus was being courageous and set an example to his followers for how they should deal with the suffering.<br />
<br />
<br />
<font size="1">1.  &quot;Child Rearing versus Ideology and Social Structure as Factors in Personality Development&quot;<br />
2.   &quot;Childrearing, Culture, and Mental Health: Exploring an Ethological-Evolutionary Perspective in Child Psychiatry and Preventive Mental Health with Particular Reference to Two Contrasting Approaches to Early Childrearing&quot;</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Work Cited: </b><br />
<br />
John J. Pilch, &quot;Death with Honor: The Mediterranean Style Death of Jesus in Mark.&quot; <i>The Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology</i> 25.2 (1995): 65-70.<br />
<br />
<font color="#B22222"><b>NOTE:</b>  Please be sure to visit my free-standing blog, <a href="http://manwesulimo.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Upon Mount Taniquetil</a>.</font></blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Manwë Súlimo</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?373-The-Scholarly-Nutshell-1</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>A Blog Resurrection</title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?372-A-Blog-Resurrection</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 08:19:35 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[Attachment 86013 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=86013) 
I've come back to you now, at the turn of the tide. 
 
 
It's been over a year without any updates.  Why?  Well, that's simple - I'm a procrastinator.  A huge one.  If I don't keep on a schedule, I'll never get back to it.  I'm going to attempt to get back into the swing of things.  I know this blog will never get widely read; but I made it for my own benefit - as a way to simple write something, and...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore"><div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=86013&amp;d=1367913823" border="0" alt="Name:  GandolfWhite.jpg
Views: 224
Size:  29.5 KB" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" /><i><font size="1"><br />
I've come back to you now, at the turn of the tide.</font></i></div><br />
<br />
It's been over a year without any updates.  Why?  Well, that's simple - I'm a procrastinator.  A huge one.  If I don't keep on a schedule, I'll never get back to it.  I'm going to attempt to get back into the swing of things.  I know this blog will never get widely read; but I made it for my own benefit - as a way to simple write something, and organize my thoughts about subjects that interest me, so I ought to get back to it.<br />
<br />
To begin with, I've noticed that some images I've posted have died somehow, so I should replace them just to keep things looking pretty.<br />
<br />
Second, in regards to my series on honor and shame in the Gospel of Matthew, I do want to return to it; but not for awhile.  It was a little too slapdash and needs to be better organized.  Once I get a handle on things, I'll continue posting about it.<br />
<br />
Lastly, in regards to actual content, I think I'll start a series on reviewing/summarizing/discussing scholarly articles I've read both to spread some knowledge around the Internet and to force me to actually read the bloody things that have been gathering dust on my hard drive.  I'm a procrastinator, remember.<br />
<br />
God bless.<br />
<br />
<font color="#B22222"><b>NOTE:</b>  Please be sure to visit my free-standing blog, <a href="http://manwesulimo.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Upon Mount Taniquetil</a>.</font></blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Manwë Súlimo</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?372-A-Blog-Resurrection</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>On Theology</title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?369-On-Theology</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:36:33 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>I confess…I’m an intellectual. I like to discuss Christian theology. I appreciate that the Christianity we live today was shaped by first the writers of the New Testament and lots of faithful people after them. God used them to help explain what Jesus taught and what His example means. 
 
But I don’t encounter God in theological discussion. I don’t feel His presence then. I suppose that’s to be expected. Talking about God is like talking about your love. You may feel something when discussing...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">I confess…I’m an intellectual. I like to discuss Christian theology. I appreciate that the Christianity we live today was shaped by first the writers of the New Testament and lots of faithful people after them. God used them to help explain what Jesus taught and what His example means.<br />
<br />
But I don’t encounter God in theological discussion. I don’t feel His presence then. I suppose that’s to be expected. Talking about God is like talking about your love. You may feel something when discussing them but it’s not the same as being with them. <br />
<br />
So I guess theology is important so you know who God is and when you more likely to encounter Him. Also if encounter something, its easier to tell if it is of God or not. Theology is important to describe God and to prevent one from making God as they want Him to be instead of who He is. <br />
<br />
Thank God that He does meet smart people in the mind. I don’t have to leave my brain at the door to be a Christian. Yet if my relationship with God is only in the mind, at best I have an incomplete relationship with Him.</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Thoughtful Monk</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?369-On-Theology</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Arminianism & the Good News of Jesus Christ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?368-Arminianism-amp-the-Good-News-of-Jesus-Christ</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:45:54 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[In contrast with Calvinism, I believe it may be said that Arminianism is a more apt "nickname" for the good news of Jesus Christ.  Allow me to explain. 
 
Arminianism not only affirms the indiscriminate nature of the gospel call for all to repent of their sins and to turn to Christ for salvation but also God's love for the world, God's desire for all persons without exception to be saved and Christ as the expiation for the sins of the whole world (universal atonement). 
 
"For God loved the...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore"><font size="3"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">In contrast with Calvinism, I believe it may be said that Arminianism is a more apt &quot;nickname&quot; for the good news of Jesus Christ.  Allow me to explain.<br />
<br />
Arminianism not only affirms the indiscriminate nature of the gospel call for all to repent of their sins and to turn to Christ for salvation but also God's love for the world, God's desire for all persons without exception to be saved and Christ as the expiation for the sins of the whole world (universal atonement).<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px">&quot;For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.&quot;<br />
(John 3:16 HCSB)</div><br />
Conversely, strict Calvinism's doctrines of unconditional election to salvation (along with its corollary, unconditional reprobation), irresistible grace, regeneration preceding faith and denial of Christ's death for all constitute an <i>inversion</i> of the gospel. (This indeed was Arminius' basic sentiment concerning the Calvinian teaching of double predestination.)  The gospel is said to be indiscriminate in nature, but according to Calvinism God has already chosen beforehand those who will be elected to belief.  <br />
<br />
Arminianism understands the universal nature of the gospel, that it is genuinely for all.   The application of salvation is particular based on one's response to the good news.  Salvation is secure based on one's present relationship with Jesus Christ, not an &quot;eternal decree&quot; whereby God chose to unconditionally elect some to salvation and to damn all others by passing them over and leaving them in their sins to perish (divine preterition). Arminianism holds that believers are elect and that faith precedes regeneration.  Those who persevere in repentance and faith in the Son of God will be saved.  Through God's power believers &quot;are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time&quot; (1 Peter 1:5 ESV).<br />
<br />
Seeing as high Calvinism denies the conditional nature of salvation and the universal atonement of Christ, I find it ironic that this brand of theology is often mistaken by its advocates as being part and parcel of the good news. It is not.</span></font></blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>The Remonstrant</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?368-Arminianism-amp-the-Good-News-of-Jesus-Christ</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Final Punishment: A Recent Exchange</title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?367-Final-Punishment-A-Recent-Exchange</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:47:52 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>*Preface* 
 
What follows below is a recent exchange I had with a fellow T-Webber (Cerebrum123) regarding the doctrine of final punishment, the fate of the unrighteous.  My opponent argues for the doctrine of everlasting conscious torment (ECT) and I against it.  The position I vie for below is the eventual annihilation/final destruction of the unrighteous (following the second advent of Christ and the final judgement).  I believe this view to be far superior to the conventional teaching...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><div style="text-align: left;"><b><font size="4">Preface</font></b></div><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><br />
<font size="3"><div style="margin-left:40px">What follows below is a recent exchange I had with a fellow T-Webber (Cerebrum123) regarding the doctrine of final punishment, the fate of the unrighteous.  My opponent argues for the doctrine of <i>everlasting conscious torment</i> (ECT) and I against it.  The position I vie for below is the <i>eventual annihilation/final destruction</i> of the unrighteous (following the second advent of Christ and the final judgement).  I believe this view to be far superior to the conventional teaching according to the biblical materials.  While I have not modified or in any way altered the exchange between Cerebrum123 and I contained <i>within</i> the quotation boxes, I have extensively modified, revised and added content to my response to Cerebrum123 (my theological opponent in this exchange) outside the quotation boxes.<b>[1]</b><br />
<br />
If anyone happens to be interested in learning more or wishes to inquire further into the subject at hand (final punishment), feel free to send me a private message.<br />
<br />
I hope that this exchange will at least provoke Protestant-evangelical advocates of ECT to seriously reconsider their belief in this long held dogma that so many within evangelicalism currently subscribe to.  We as Protestants need to study this doctrine afresh and ultimately allow Scripture to have the final say in the matter; only a pseudo form of Protestantism would deny this.  The Bible ultimately trumps the creeds and tradition.  This is a serious call to those who identify themselves as Protestants.  We must be ever vigilant to put this belief of Scripture having sole or primary authority <i><u>in all matters</u> pertaining to faith and doctrine</i> into practice.</div></font></span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>Cerebrum123</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568471#post3568471" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">The &quot;lake of fire&quot; is an eternal punishment. Anyone who goes there will not leave.</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>The Remonstrant</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568498#post3568498" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">I would agree with you that the lake of fire as depicted in the Apocalypse is an &quot;eternal&quot; punishment (better, <i>age-lasting</i> punishment [Matthew 25:46]).  But if by &quot;eternal&quot; punishment you mean to say everlasting <i>conscious</i> punishment (ECT) [<i>sic</i>], I do not agree (as you are well aware).  While it is correct to say that no one who is cast into the fiery lake in Revelation will ever leave, if by this you mean to imply that even lost humans will be perpetually tormented, I do not agree with this sentiment either.</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>Cerebrum123</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568952#post3568952" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">You already know that I believe that those in the lake of fire will be tormented eternally, what exactly that &quot;torment&quot; is, I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps it is merely eternal shame and separation from God, whatever it is, it's not going to be pleasant.</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><div style="margin-left:40px"><b><font size="4">Death: The End Result of Sin</font></b></div></span><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><br />
<font size="3">Neither do I believe that the final punishment of the lost will be even a remotely pleasant experience.  Where we differ is regarding <i>the end result</i> of final punishment.  You conceive of the lost being immortalized (i.e., receiving everlasting life)<b>[2]</b> for the purpose of unending torment, whereas I conceive of the end result of sin as <i>death</i> (e.g., Romans 1:32; 5:12,21; 6:21,23).  Contrary to your view, death is everywhere indicated as the ultimate or final penalty for sin throughout the Bible, in both Testaments (the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek NT) from Genesis to Revelation.</font></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><div style="margin-left:40px"><b><font size="4">&quot;Hell&quot; &amp; (Unintentional?) Theological Doublespeak</font></b></div></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><font size="3">While the Apocalypse  is so often (illegitimately) brought forth as one of the primary biblical sources promoting the conventional view of <i>everlasting conscious torment</i> (ECT), John of Patmos actually depicts the end of the finally unrepentant in terms of <i>death</i> (Rev. 2:11; 20:6; 20:14,15; 21:8).  The conventional view of ECT that you are advocating redefines death as everlasting conscious misery (i.e., everlasting life in torment).  If this isn't theological doublespeak, I don't know what is.</font></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>The Remonstrant</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568498#post3568498" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">The extra-biblical assumption of <i>universal human immortality</i> needs to seriously be grappled with as this notion (oftentimes unwittingly) drives the minds of many conventional exegetes leading them invariably to ECT or universalism.</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>Cerebrum123</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568952#post3568952" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">How is it extra-Biblical? The Bible says what the lake of fire will be doing to those who go there, they will be tormented forever. So if a human goes there, then logically they will go through the same punishment. :shrug:</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><div style="margin-left:40px"><b><font size="4">Universal Human Immortality: An Extra-Biblical Doctrine</font></b></div></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><font size="3">First, your reasoning on this doctrine is backwards.  Seeing as a <i>positive case</i> for the immortality of the wicked is simply nowhere to be found in the Bible (i.e., literally non-existent), you <i>infer</i> from other texts within the canon you believe to teach ECT that the wicked will be made immortal for the purpose of enduring everlasting torment.  Yet this is something the Bible never says.  Those who argue in this manner need to recognize the backward theological methodology they are employing, while those who dissent from the doctrine of ECT need to see this tactic for what it is.  The burden of proof remains on those who seek to argue <i>for</i> the immortality of the unrighteous, not those who argue against it.  The point remains: You have failed to address the <i>positive case</i> for immortality found in the Bible, language never used of the wicked.<br />
<br />
Second, immortality is only ascribed in the biblical canon to God, who alone is innately immortal (<i>athanasia</i> [1 Timothy 6:16; cf. Romans 1:23; 1 Timothy 1:17]).  Third, only those who are in Christ will be raised immortal (<i>athanasia</i> [1 Corinthians 15:53,54])  and made imperishable (<i>aphthartos</i> [1 Corinthians 15:52]; <i>aphthrsia</i> [Romans 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:42,50,53,54]).</font></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><div style="margin-left:40px"><b><font size="4">Romans 2:7 &amp; the Pursuit of Immortality</font></b></div></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><font size="3"><b>According to Paul in Romans 2:7, only those who seek after immortality</b> (<i>aphthrsia</i>) <b>&quot;by patience in well-doing&quot;</b> (ESV) <b>or &quot;persistence in doing good&quot;</b> (HCSB) <b>will receive everlasting life</b> (<i>zoe aionios</i>)<b>.</b>  If immortality must be <i>sought after</i> (as Paul indicates), then it is absolutely ludicrous to suppose that <i>all</i> human beings without exception are either<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px">a. presently in possession of immortality, or<br />
b. <i>will be</i> at the Parousia (the second advent of Christ).</div><br />
This is not a point to be glossed over.  Why should the righteous strive for immortality if this is a quality or characteristic that is (or will be) common to the entire human race (as the conventional view of ECT posits)?  According to Paul, <i>only</i> the righteous will be raised immortal.  They alone will participate in the resurrection life of Jesus Christ whereby death will finally be abolished at the Lord's return and immortality brought to life (2 Timothy 1:10; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:26,54,55).<br />
<br />
As it stands, by your endorsement of universal human immortality you are subscribing to an extra-biblical doctrine.  Why do I say this, you ask?  <i>For the simple reason that this is something the Bible never teaches.</i>  <b>Scripture never portrays the unrighteous as being made immortal or inheriting everlasting life.</b>  And that's about the end of it.</font></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>Cerebrum123</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568471#post3568471" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">Those that do not accept Christ will meet the same fate [as the devil, the beast and the false prophet in Revelation 20:10].</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>The Remonstrant</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568498#post3568498" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">A case can possibly be made that the devil, the beast and the false prophet will receive ongoing torment.  Taken in its most literal sense, this is indeed what Rev. 20:10 teaches.  The unholy trinity will be tormented day and night <i>to the ages of the ages</i> (cf. Young's Literal Translation).  The beast and the false prophet may or may not be human beings.  In light of the book of Daniel, it may be that John of Patmos is referring to symbolic entities, not personal beings.  If symbolic entities, of course, they cannot literally be tormented &quot;to the ages of ages&quot; (YLT).</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>Cerebrum123</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568952#post3568952" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">I can assure that the devil IS a personal entity, and the others mentioned also do things that only personal entities can do(such as blaspheme and deceive). So they will be &quot;tormented forever and ever&quot;.</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><div style="margin-left:40px"><b><font size="4">Revelation 20:10: The Devil, the Beast &amp; the False Prophet</font></b></div></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><font size="3">This misses the point.  I have already conceded in the past that the devil is a personal being.  It is possible, however, that the beast and the false prophet <i>are not</i>.  As I indicated before, if the beast and the false prophet <i>are</i> symbolic entities and not personal beings, then their being tossed into the lake of fire clearly indicates their absolute destruction (Rev. 20:10).  At least consider the possibility.  Supposing the beast and the false prophet are <i>not</i> personal beings, that would certainly be a bit of a knock against ECT, don't you think?<br />
<br />
The doctrine of final punishment that I have been arguing for is simply that lost <i>human beings</i> will be annihilated.  Interestingly, the devil, the beast and the false prophet are never said to inherit the second death following the final judgement whereas we are clearly told that the fate wicked human beings and apostates will suffer is the second death (Rev. 2:11; 20:14,15; 21:8).  As I have said before, there is room for debate whether the devil will be literally tormented &quot;to the ages of the ages&quot; (20:10 YLT).  It may be that hyperbolic language is being employed.  Indeed, exaggerative language is used all throughout the Apocalypse; no one will deny this (except for perhaps a staunch literalist).  The fact that &quot;traditionalists&quot; insist on a strict literal reading of Rev. 20:10  all the while allegorizing and spiritualizing the language of death John of Patmos clearly employs in relation to the end of the wicked throughout Revelation is ironic, to say the least.  It's amazing how many advocates of ECT are seemingly oblivious to this glaring hermeneutical inconsistency.<br />
<br />
In any event, whatever the fate of the unholy trinity, after Rev. 20:10 we never read a word more pertaining to the devil, the beast or the false prophet.  It's as if they'd never been.  We have no indication that they will be present on the new heavens and new earth or even in some cursed pocket of the universe.  Besides this, John of Patmos later declares that there &quot;[n]o longer will . . . be anything accursed&quot; (Rev. 22:3 ESV).<b>[3]</b>  Evidently <i><u>all</u></i> evil will have been done away with after the final judgement, not merely contained in an &quot;eternal&quot; prison of sorts (as the ECT view posits).</font></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><div style="margin-left:40px"><b><font size="4">The End of Unrighteous Humanity in the Apocalypse</font></b></div></span><div style="margin-left:40px"><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><font size="3"><b>The Second Death &amp; Exclusion From the Tree of Life</b></font></span></div><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><font size="3"><br />
Whatever the case might be concerning the devil, the beast and the false prophet, wicked <i>human beings</i> are clearly portrayed as being finally destroyed (annihilated) in the book of Revelation (20:14,15; 21:8).  Those whose names are not discovered in the scroll of life are tossed into the lake of fire in order to die the second death (20:14,15).  What function does this fiery lake we read of in the Apocalypse serve?  What is its purpose?  <b>The purpose of the lake of fire is to <i>destroy</i> those who have opposed the reign of God, not to preserve the lives of the wicked in an unending wretched existence.  John of Patmos explicitly identifies the lake of fire as <i>the second death</i> (20:14; 21:8).</b>  So what is <i>the contrast</i> we encounter between the righteous whose names are found in the scroll of life and the unrighteous who are tossed into the lake of fire?  Interestingly, the contrast we discover is <u>not</u> between two different modes of existence or disparate qualities of life (everlasting life in bliss in the case of the righteous and everlasting life in torment in the case of the unrighteous), but between <i>life and death</i>, life and nonlife.  Only those whose names are found in the scroll of life are granted immortality.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the unrighteous are depicted in the Apocalypse as completely excluded from the tree of life (22:14,15,19).  In the Bible, the tree of life is closely tied to immortality (i.e., everlasting life).  Only those who have overcome through faithful perseverance may eat of the tree of life (2:7; cf. 22:14).  With no access to the tree of life, the unrighteous cannot and will not endure forever (cf. Genesis 3:22-24).   To assert otherwise (that the wicked can and will live forever despite barred access to the tree of life) is simply to beg the question.<b>[4]</b>  The Bible links the tree of life to immortality and vice versa.  Yet those who hold the conventional view of ECT would have us believe that unrighteous will exist unendingly divorced from the tree of life and the author of life itself, God and his Son Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
<b>God expelled our first parents from the garden in order to ensure that they would not endure forever in their fallen, unredeemed state (Genesis 3:22-24).  God does not will that fallen humankind should live forever.  Only those redeemed by Jesus Christ through perseverance in repentance and obedient faith will be given the gift of immortality.</b><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px">For the wages of sin is death [<i>thanatos</i>], but the free gift of God is eternal life [<i>zoe aionios</i>] in Christ Jesus our Lord.  (Romans 6:23)</div><br />
It is the (generally) unquestioned extra-biblical presupposition of universal human immortality conventional theists carry about that blinds them to a better biblical understanding of life, death and the age to come.</font></span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px"><b><font size="4"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">The Death of Death &amp; Suffering in the Apocalypse</span></font></b></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><font size="3">In any event, at this point you have not clearly dealt with Rev. 20:14 where death and Hades/the grave are cast into the fiery lake indicating the absolute end of death.  Similarly, in Rev. 21:4 John of Patmos records God as declaring that death, mourning, tears and suffering <i>will be no more</i>.  Conversely, the conventional teaching of ECT that you subscribe to asserts that the wicked will be <i>alive <u>in torment</u> forever</i>, clearly contradicting the divine declaration in Rev. 21:4.</font></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>The Remonstrant</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568498#post3568498" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">In any event, one should pause before taking Rev. 20:10 in an overly literalistic sense and leave open the possibility that hyperbole is being employed.  The Apocalypse contains symbolic imagery from beginning to end.  I personally find it amusing that the only passage which appears on its face to teach everlasting conscious torment (a) does not pertain to human beings, and (b) is located within an apocalyptic piece of literature ridden with metaphorical imagery.</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>Cerebrum123</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568952#post3568952" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">But Jesus even before Revelation was written said that people would go to the place prepared for the devil and his angels, and it is described as &quot;eternal fire&quot;. :shrug:</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><div style="margin-left:40px"><b><font size="4"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">Matthew 25:41 &amp; the Age-Lasting Fire: An Ongoing, Tormenting Fire or a Fire That Consumes?</span></font></b><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><br />
<br />
<font size="3"><b>Final Destruction in Matthew</b></font></span></div><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><font size="3"><br />
Here you allude to Jesus' declaration found in Matthew 25:41:<br />
 <br />
<div style="margin-left:40px">“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal [<i>aionios</i>] fire prepared for the devil and his angels.&quot;  (Matthew 25:41; cf. 18:8; Jude 7)</div><br />
First, it should be noted, literally <i>aionios</i> would best be rendered as <i>age-lasting</i>, not &quot;eternal&quot;:<b>[5]</b><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px">It is important to note that the Greek word <i>aionios</i>, translated &quot;eternal&quot; or &quot;everlasting,&quot; literally means &quot;lasting for an age.&quot;  Ancient Greek papyri contain numerous examples of Roman emperors being described as <i>aionios</i>.  What is meant is that they held their office for life.  Unfortunately, the English words &quot;eternal&quot; or &quot;everlasting&quot; do not accurately render the meaning of <i>aionios</i>, which literally means &quot;age-lasting.&quot;  In other words, while the Greek <i>aionios</i> expresses perpetuity <i>within limits</i>, the English &quot;eternal&quot; or &quot;everlasting&quot; denotes <i>unlimited</i> duration.<b>[6]</b></div><br />
Second, in Matthew 25:41 (cf. 18:8), notice how we are not specifically told whether this age-lasting fire spoken of by Jesus is (a) a consuming fire (annihilation), or (b) a preservative, tormenting fire (ECT).  In other words, the <i>nature</i> of this &quot;age-lasting fire&quot; is not clearly defined in this passage.  Instead of immediately jumping to Revelation in order to discover a passage from an entirely different genre of literature that you are certain supports your view of ECT, a more sound course (I believe) would be to further investigate how final punishment is conceived of in the rest of Matthew.<br />
<br />
Third, fire is commonly employed in Matthew as a metaphor (or an image or picture, if you will) in connection with the end of the wicked and their final destruction (e.g., 3:10-12; 7:19; 10:28; 13:30,40-42,49,50; 18:8,9; 25:41).  The very first reference and word of warning in the whole book of Matthew to fire and the final punishment of the lost is found in 3:10-12.  John the Baptizer declares that the righteous will be protected and preserved by Christ as wheat taken into a barn, but the unrepentant will be burned up (<i>katakaio</i>)<b>[7]</b> like chaff (Matt. 3:12; cf. Luke 3:17).  Later in the Matthean gospel on the sermon on the mount, Jesus says,<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px">&quot;Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.&quot; (Matt. 7:19; cf. 3:10; 15:13)</div><br />
In the parable of the wheat and the tares, in a strikingly similar statement to the one we found by John the Baptist in Matt. 3:12 (cf. Luke 3:17) Jesus declares that the unrighteous will be separated from the righteous (&quot;the wheat&quot;) and burned up (<i>katakaio</i>)<b>[7]</b> like pesky, unwanted weeds at the end of the age:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px">&quot;Just as the weeds are collected and burned up [<i>katakaio</i>]<b>[7]</b> with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.&quot;  (Matt. 13:40 NRSV; cf. 13:30)</div><br />
Now let's take a look at Matthew 10:28.  Jesus says to his disciples:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px">&quot;[D]o not fear those who kill [<i>apokteino</i>] the body [<i>soma</i>] but cannot kill the soul [<i>psuche</i>].  Rather fear him who can destroy [<b><i>apollumi</i></b>] both soul [<i>psuche</i>] and body [<i>soma</i>] in [Gehenna].&quot;  (Matt. 10:28)</div><br />
Notice the contrast is between <i>temporal, earthly</i> death and <i>everlasting</i> death.  It is a contrast between the present age and the age to come, man's ability to kill and God's final sovereignty in matters pertaining to life and death.  In Matt. 10:28, &quot;kill&quot; (<i>apokteino</i>) and &quot;destroy&quot; (<b><i>apollumi</i></b>) are employed by Jesus as <i>synonyms</i> in his word of exhortation to his twelve disciples.  In the construction of this sentence they are interchangeable verbs, not antonyms.<br />
<br />
In Matt. 10:28 we have no indication of Jesus saying anything remotely like, &quot;Do not fear man who can end your physical life/kill you, but fear God who can torment/torture you forever in 'hell'&quot;  as the teaching of ECT posits.  The destruction Jesus speaks of denotes the <i>end</i> of life, not everlasting life in torment.  The destruction God may inflict differs qualitatively from the kind humans are able to in that those whom God destroys have no chance of resurrection or return to life after they are annihilated subsequent to the final judgement.  The contrast is between the <i>first</i> death and the second, final death from which there is no return.  A few verses later in Jesus' same word of exhortation to the twelve, he says:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px">&quot;Whoever finds his life will lose [<b><i>apollumi</i></b>] it, and whoever loses [<b><i>apollumi</i></b>] his life for my sake will find it.&quot;  (Matt. 10:39)</div><br />
Here we have a clear contrast between life and death.  Those who are willing to <i>lose</i> their lives (i.e., have them <i>destroyed</i>) for the sake of following Jesus Christ will ultimately gain them (vv.38,39).  The contrast is between (a) <i>temporal</i> preservation of life leading to ultimate destruction/loss of life (i.e., <i>everlasting death</i>) and (b) loss of temporal life for the sake of Christ in order to gain everlasting life in the age to come (cf. Matt. 16:25,26).  The same word we see in Matt. 10:28 for &quot;destroy&quot; (<b><i>apollumi</i></b>) is also used <i>twice</i> in verse 39 of the same chapter.  Here, as we saw in 10:28, <i><b>apollumi</b></i> is used to denote <i>death</i>, the loss of life (cf. Matt. 16:25,26; Mark 8:35,36; Luke 9:24,25; John 12:25).  <b>You can persist reading everlasting conscious torment into verses such as Matt. 10:28 and 39 all you wish, but only at the expense of completely overlooking the context.</b><br />
<br />
<b>In short, the fire spoken of throughout Matthew is a destroying, consuming fire, not one that preserves and perpetually torments.</b>  It is a fire that consumes useless chaff and unwanted weeds.  Even if the fire spoken of is not a literal fire, but a metaphorical one (as I am inclined to believe it is), what is the image being conveyed?  Destruction.  The burning of chaff and weeds is not for the purpose of tormenting them, but ultimately destroying them.  The unrighteous will be gathered out of the Father's kingdom and burned up.<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px">&quot;Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.  He who has ears, let him hear.&quot;  (Matt. 13:43; cf. Daniel 12:3; Malachi 4:2a)</div><br />
The purpose is to <i>purge</i> the kingdom of all that is wicked and undesirable:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px">&quot;The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness and will throw them into the furnace of fire&quot; (Matt. 13:41,42a NASB).</div><br />
<b>Notice that even &quot;all stumbling blocks&quot; (i.e., all impediments to righteousness, temptations leading to sin) will be thrown into the fiery furnace.  It should be clear that &quot;stumbling blocks&quot; cannot endure torment, much less everlasting conscious torment.  Clearly the point in view is that everything wicked and all things leading to sin will be purged from the kingdom and destroyed:</b><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px">&quot;Just as the weeds are collected and burned up [<i>katakaio</i>]<b>[7]</b> with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.&quot;  (Matt. 13:40 NRSV)</div><br />
While Matthew 25:41 is an ambiguous verse, the internal evidence contained within the Matthean gospel points to final destruction, <i>not</i> ECT.  In Matt. 25:31-46, the emphasis is on the <i>inclusion</i> of the righteous into the kingdom of heaven/God (vv.34,46b) and the <i>exclusion</i> or banishment of the unfaithful from the kingdom (vv.41,46a); <i>the nature</i> of the age-lasting fire (v.41) and age-lasting punishment (v.46a) the unrighteous are to endure is not clearly defined in this passage.  Advocates of the conventional view of ECT are more or less building and attempting to sustain an entire doctrine out of a handful of ambiguous passages (Matt. 25: 41,46a included).  <b>Simply put, the conventional interpretation of ECT is on extremely shaky grounds in that it basically ignores the way Matthew depicts the final punishment of the wicked elsewhere <i>within</i> the gospel itself.</b></font></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>The Remonstrant</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568498#post3568498" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">Even if it <i>were</i> to be granted that the devil, the beast and the false prophet are <u>all</u> personal beings (which, again, itself is a question in dispute) and that they all are to suffer ongoing torment, in what way does this further the case for ECT as it pertains to <i>human beings</i>?  Notice that lost humans thrown into the lake of fire are <i>nowhere</i> said to endure torment &quot;to the ages of the ages&quot;.  Rather, it is said that they will be cast into the same lake of fire that death and Hades were thrown into (&quot;Hades&quot; simply being another designation for <i>the grave</i> [cf. the Common English Bible]) in Rev. 20:14.  &quot;Death and Hades/the grave&quot; are abstractions incapable of enduring torment or torture.  Their being tossed into the lake of fire indicates the cessation of their being, not unending existence (this is not a point to be glossed over).  Lost human beings are said to share in the same fate as death and Hades/the grave in verse 15 (cf. 21:8).  To make the matter absolutely clear, John of Patmos goes on to refer to this fiery lake responsible for consuming death and the grave as &quot;<i>the second death</i>&quot;.  There is absolutely no indication of survival.   At least in the case of lost human beings, this is a fire that consumes and destroys.  The abolition of evil is in view, not its preservation.  John of Patmos reiterates the same sentiment later on Rev. 21:8 where he again refers the lake of fire as the second death (at least as far as it pertains to humans).  Also notice in verse 4 of ch. 21 of the Apocalypse that death is declared to be <i>no more</i>.  In essence, this is a recapitulation of 20:14 where death and Hades/the grave are done away with (annihilated) in the lake of fire.  Wicked human beings are excluded from the book of life, destroyed in the lake of fire inheriting the second death.  Honestly, does this really sound like everlasting torment to you?</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>Cerebrum123</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568952#post3568952" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">You keep saying that there is no good case for ECT, I have not seen you bring a good case for annihilationism. In fact the whole argument bases itself on a modernized definition of death.</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><div style="margin-left:40px"><b><font size="4"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">Overconfidence in the Conventional View of &quot;Hell&quot;</span></font></b></div><br />
<font size="3"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">I suppose I can accuse your view of overreliance on extra-biblical sources such as Neo-Platonist philosophy and biblically foreign notions of &quot;immortal souls&quot; and the like.  But I don't believe that that would much further the dialogue.  (The roots of ECT and the &quot;immortality of the soul&quot; teaching extend back to ancient Egypt, actually.  There is absolutely <i>nothing</i> uniquely &quot;Christian&quot; about these two doctrines.)<br />
<br />
As far as a &quot;good case&quot; is concerned, I'll take what you said with a grain of salt.  I have dealt thoroughly with your responses in our exchanges, while you have responded on quite a superficial level with the same proof-texts time and again providing little in the way of exposition thus far.  You have yet to seriously grapple with the extra-biblical presuppositions undergirding the conventional view of ECT that you subscribe to.  As long as you cling to these presuppositions, you will never see any light in the annihilationist view.</span></font><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px"><b><font size="4"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">The Traditionalist Hamster Wheel</span></font></b></div><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><br />
<font size="3">As long as one is running on the traditionalist hamster wheel one cannot see the other critical factors at play (&quot;tradition&quot; being one) tainting his or her perception of the biblical texts.  First, one has to get off the wheel and take several steps back before things can become any clearer.  (I know; I once was on that traditionalist hamster wheel myself.)  The (undue) confidence &quot;traditionalists&quot; often have of their view is truly galling.<br />
<br />
In any event, more and more conservative Protestant-evangelical pastors and scholars are coming around to the same basic annihilationist perspective I personally adhere to.  I can assure you that they are not intellectually deficient individuals.<b>[8]</b> </font></span>  <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>The Remonstrant</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568498#post3568498" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">In short, <i>even if</i> we ignore the literary genre that the Apocalypse inhabits and refuse to allow for hyperbole in the case of the devil, the beast and the false prophet in Revelation 20:10 being perpetually tormented, there is not a good or solid case for applying the concept of ECT to lost human beings in the book of Revelation (especially chs. 20,21).  The issue of the unholy trio is another issue altogether which we may perhaps discuss at another time.<br />
<br />
(Also, perhaps at a future point we may discuss Revelation 14:9-11, which is often brought up as a passage promoting the doctrine of ECT.)</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>Cerebrum123</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568952#post3568952" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">Look, I have already made my position clear to you before. Your arguments are unconvincing.</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><font size="3">Refer to the &quot;hamster wheel&quot; comment above.</font></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>Cerebrum123</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3568952#post3568952" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">I would prefer to stay away from this subject, because every time I have engaged in it I have been accused of desiring other people to suffer forever, and I can't handle hearing that from Christians who should know better than that.</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div><div style="margin-left:40px"><b><font size="4"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">No False Allegations Here</span></font></b></div><br />
<font size="3"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">I'm sorry to learn these accusations have been made against you.  As you know, however, I have never engaged you on this level.  I much prefer sticking to the biblical materials, for this is precisely where the strength of the final destruction of the lost lies.  False charges and accusations or even emotional arguments are simply not necessary.</span></font><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px"><b><font size="4"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">A Call to Reexamine the Doctrine of Everlasting Conscious Torment</span></font></b></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype"><font size="3">My call is simply to reexamine the Bible tediously and thoroughly, stripped of traditionalist pretense and presuppositions.  Only then can the light of God's word shine forth in this matter (or any, really).</font></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><font size="4"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">Notes</span></font></b><br />
<br />
<font size="3"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[1] This is an extensively revised version of my original response to Cerebrum123 from <i>The seduction of the Christian mind</i> thread (started by mickiel, 11 February 2013), Unorthodox Theology forum, message #2561, posted on 18 April 2013:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px"><a href="http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?154525-The-seduction-of-the-Christian-Mind/page171" target="_blank">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...n-Mind/page171</a></div><br />
[2] Something the Bible never says.  Scripture only says the righteous will inherit everlasting life and be made immortal/imperishable in the age to come.  This is something to seriously ponder over.<br />
<br />
[3] Unless otherwise noted, all scriptural quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV).  All emphases added.<br />
<br />
[4] &quot;Begging the question&quot; (Wikipedia.org):<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question</a></div><br />
[5] In any event, it is probably best to generally avoid using the term &quot;eternal&quot; as it has the metaphysical connotation of &quot;existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change&quot; (Dictionary.com).  The concept of atemporality or timelessness has its roots in speculative Greek philosophy, not  the Bible.<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px"><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eternal?s=t" target="_blank">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eternal?s=t</a></div><br />
[6] Bacchiocchi, Samuele, <i>Immortality or Resurrection? A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny</i> (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 1997), ch. 6, &quot;Hell: Eternal Torment or Annihilation?&quot;, p. 208 (emphasis the author's).<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px"><a href="http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/immortality_resurrection/6.htm" target="_blank">http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/...rrection/6.htm</a> (Bacchiocchi, S., &quot;Hell: Eternal Torment or Annihilation?&quot;)</div><br />
[7] <i>Katakaio</i>: &quot;to burn up, consume by fire&quot; (BibleStudyTools.com).<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px"><a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/katakaio.html" target="_blank">http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexic.../katakaio.html</a></div><br />
[8] Also, I should note, there are some (non-universalist) evangelicals who are not fully committed to either the conventional view <i>or</i> annihilationism, but are more or less agnostic in their stance regarding the nature of &quot;hell&quot;.  More and more conservative evangelicals are breaking with the traditional view for a reason (apostasy not being one of them).  Anthony C. Thiselton and Stephen H. Travis are two such examples of this (somewhat) recent phenomenon within evangelicalism.  (N.T Wright also seems to be rather non-committal in his approach to the fate of the unrighteous.)  See Thiselton, Anthony C., <i>Life after Death: A New Approach to the Last Things</i> (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012); and Travis, Stephen H., <i>Christ and the Judgement of God: The Limits of Divine Retribution in New Testament Thought</i> (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008).<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left:40px"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Life-after-Death-Approach-Things/dp/0802866654/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1366374419&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=LIfe+After+Death+Thiselton" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/Life-after-Dea...eath+Thiselton</a> (Thiselton, A.C.) <br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Judgement-God-Retribution-Testament/dp/0801047889/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1366374743&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Travis+Divine+Retribution" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Judgeme...ne+Retribution</a> (Travis, S.H.)</div></span></font></blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>The Remonstrant</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?367-Final-Punishment-A-Recent-Exchange</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Credo</title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?366-Credo</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:02:31 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[Credo 
 
I was recently challenged by Stefcui in his usual subtle and diplomatic way: 
 
'...you don't have any knowledge to share, and you have no wisdom. You are just a snake who goes around searching for prey. An insidious, parasitic, obnoxious, pretentious, reptilian, scavenger snake. Did I forget anything? Oh, yeah... to use your quote... 'You're an idiot!' And you are here as part of an evolution conspiracy. You're an illuminati two-faced schizophrenic avenger with no sense of humor …' 
...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">Credo<br />
<br />
I was recently challenged by Stefcui in his usual subtle and diplomatic way:<br />
<br />
'...you don't have any knowledge to share, and you have no wisdom. You are just a snake who goes around searching for prey. An insidious, parasitic, obnoxious, pretentious, reptilian, scavenger snake. Did I forget anything? Oh, yeah... to use your quote... 'You're an idiot!' And you are here as part of an evolution conspiracy. You're an illuminati two-faced schizophrenic avenger with no sense of humor …'<br />
<br />
from <a href="http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155323-Hollow-Earth-caused-Continental-Drift/page19" target="_blank">here</a><br />
<br />
Now there are some parts of this tirade that I will accept. I am slightly reptilian, it's true. Sometimes I lose my sense of humour but you have to have one to lose it from time to time. Sometimes I do take myself too seriously. Sometimes in posts I behave in ways that I consider afterwards to be less than charitable. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish between attempted witty repartee and nastiness in text.<br />
<br />
However, since I am attacked for not stating my beliefs I thought I might use this opportunity to clearly state a few principles to which I try (with varying degrees of success) to adhere.<br />
<br />
Here they are in no particular order, and not as an exhaustive list:<br />
<br />
1. I don't believe very much of anything with a whole hearted devotion and commitment. I've been wrong and I've been right in the past about some beliefs but they both felt the same. Therefore, what I think is provisional and I really am open to new arguments and experiences.<br />
2. In light of the above, I enjoy talking to people who think differently to me. Not the dumb ones of course, there's nothing to be gained by that. But people of good character who are articulate and civil but who have reached different conclusions to me are worth their weight in gold. Other people might be right and I might be wrong.<br />
3. I am not an atheist. I toyed with it for a while but it didn't take. I suspect there is much more to the cosmos than we know. I suspect and hope that it is ultimately nourishing but further than that I am reluctant to go. The world is full of people who apparently are dead certain their particular weirdo beliefs are absolutely true. I confess they annoy me with their self centred arrogance.<br />
4. I think all religions at their best have something beautiful to say. They usually say it together in slightly different ways. I admire saintly people in all faiths. <br />
5. I think God and spirituality are best approached sideways. I think poetry, music and art communicate God to us much better than theology.<br />
6. I think life is fundamentally relational. We are all in this together, you, me, other creatures and the Earth. The more we improve and respect the bonds between us all the closer we get to God. You can't love God and hate your neighbour by the broadest definition of 'neighbour'.<br />
7. There isn't a sacred and a profane. Every action can be sacred. It depends on our intent. Sex is good. Happiness is fine. Life is meant to be enjoyed but not held onto. The Buddhists are right: much of our suffering comes from clinging. Let go. <br />
8. All of us can add to the beauty of the world in large and small ways by loving our children and partners, by small acts of kindness, by advocacy for the poor and the oppressed. There are so many ways to be of service. Isn't that great?<br />
9. Life isn't a schoolroom or a play. Life is a work of art with drama, comedy, tragedy. Even dying can be a happy ending.<br />
10. There are heaps of things I don't have strong opinions on: afterlife, reincarnation, eating pork, pool enclosures.</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>pancreasman</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?366-Credo</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Welcome and Unwelcome Implicit Attitudes</title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?362-Welcome-and-Unwelcome-Implicit-Attitudes</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:40:39 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[The focus of the Know Thyself course this week is "How We Are Strangers to Ourselves".  It deals with a view espoused by Tim Wilson, a professor at the University of Virginia.  Quoting from the overview for the week, "Wilson takes inspiration from much of Freud’s work, but unlike Freud is at pains to establish the existence of an unconscious in ways that meet the highest standards of experimental rigor. Synthesizing work by himself and his colleagues, as well as that of other scholars,...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">The focus of the Know Thyself course this week is &quot;How We Are Strangers to Ourselves&quot;.  It deals with a view espoused by Tim Wilson, a professor at the University of Virginia.  Quoting from the overview for the week, &quot;Wilson takes inspiration from much of Freud’s work, but unlike Freud is at pains to establish the existence of an unconscious in ways that meet the highest standards of experimental rigor. Synthesizing work by himself and his colleagues, as well as that of other scholars, Professor Wilson argues that there is substantial experimental evidence for an unconscious—what he calls the adaptive unconscious—albeit not quite the unconscious reservoir of sexual and violent urges postulated by Freud.&quot;.<br />
<br />
Also included is a link to a series of implicit attitude tests put on by Harvard.  For those interested, the link is here: <a href="https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/" target="_blank">https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/</a>.  FAQ's and disclaimers can be found there.  I encourage you to try it.  There are several tests, and here are some of the results.  I'll post more in the comments as I take them.  I might attempt to explain some, but we'll see.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Attractiveness</b>:<br />
The first test I took studied implicit biasing for or against post-op faces.  &quot;Your data suggest a strong automatic Attractiveness association for Postop Faces compared to Preop Faces.&quot;  That doesn't surprise me much.  It is kind of the point of operation, isn't it?  Attractiveness is pretty subjective, but the test just asks you to rate attractiveness so this isn't an issue.<br />
<br />
<b>Race</b><br />
This task focuses on implicit association of pictures with words that are either good or bad.  You'll be asked, for example, to sort all of the bad words and white faces into a single group with everything else in the other group.  You do this several times while the sorting criteria changes each time.  Results are on a scale from more positive to less positive association.  The idea is that I should be able to more quickly associate pictures of certain races with negative words if I already hold those connections to some degree.  Races were limited to white, hispanic, black and asian.<br />
<br />
Ok, on to the results.  I apparently hold a largely positive association with white people.  This doesn't surprise me (since I'm white), but their studies also show that even minorities in white-dominated cultures tend to have stronger positive association with whites.  What <i>does</i> surprise me is my reaction to the other races.  Asian and hispanic came in pretty equally, with asian slightly more positive.  Both were about dead center between more and less positive association.  <br />
<br />
Black came in at less positive, though not as strongly less as white was strongly more, if that makes sense.  This surprises me quite a bit, especially since I don't think I could tell you any reason I wouldn't like blacks.  If pressed, I would hazard two reasons for this.  The first is lack of exposure.  My upbringing is in areas that are predominantly white with a very strong hispanic presence.  I've had a few friends (including a martial arts instructor) that were black, but mostly I just don't know that many.  My current occupation is in construction and design which also has a strong white and hispanic presence, with very few blacks.<br />
<br />
My second reason is going to sound very prejudiced, but it's not intended to be.  The very real fact is, in this test at least, I felt like I could much more easily identify whites and blacks as compared to differentiating asians from hispanics in the pictures presented.  That might be a personal failing, but it would certainly account for the spread.  If it takes less time to sort a race from the other races, that will show up in the results.  The time it took to sort asian from hispanic would be about comparable, and would show why they end up nearly tied.  Maybe I'll have to take the test again to see.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'd be interested in your results, if anyone reads and wants to try.  I'm trying to go for complete openness here, so no condemnation should be forthcoming (from me at least).</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Carrikature</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?362-Welcome-and-Unwelcome-Implicit-Attitudes</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Flesh and Spirit</title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?353-Flesh-and-Spirit</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 23:27:22 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[Don't get freaky with me now. I know this is a huge theological area. I've written my share of essays on Galatians. These thoughts below are just an observation.  
 
How we love dualism. We like to pose qualities as opposites and measure where we fall on a line between. Sometimes it's useful. It's a way of thinking that has served us well: hot and cold, wet and dry, clean and dirty, the list goes on. The problem comes when we apply it where we shouldn't, where duality is NOT the primary...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">Don't get freaky with me now. I know this is a huge theological area. I've written my share of essays on Galatians. These thoughts below are just an observation. <br />
<br />
How we love dualism. We like to pose qualities as opposites and measure where we fall on a line between. Sometimes it's useful. It's a way of thinking that has served us well: hot and cold, wet and dry, clean and dirty, the list goes on. The problem comes when we apply it where we shouldn't, where duality is NOT the primary feature, where thinking in terms of either/or together with valuing one over the other hinders us from real understanding.<br />
<br />
Consider flesh and spirit. How often have we heard those terms used in contradistinction? Flesh is evil, spirit is good. Flesh must be denied for spirit to triumph. I blame gnostics and St Augustine.<br />
<br />
Of all religions Christianity ought to be LEAST likely to make this error. The very idea of the incarnation is that the Godhead dwelt in flesh. Flesh was not hated by the divine but embraced by it. After his resurrection, Jesus did not leave his flesh to become spirit, but took it with him thereby giving us the ultimate symbol of material reality's acceptance by God. Flesh needs to be inhabited by Spirit to be made holy, spirit needs to put on flesh to be made useful.</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>pancreasman</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?353-Flesh-and-Spirit</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Howard G. "Prof" Hendricks]]></title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?351-Howard-G-quot-Prof-quot-Hendricks</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 02:59:08 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[Attachment 83849 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=83849) 
Howard Hendricks: "Biblically speaking, to hear and not to do is not to hear at all." 
 
I am very thankful for "Prof" Hendricks and the wisdom I gleaned during the classes I had the privilege to take from him at Dallas Seminary. By God's grace, Prof established a tremendous legacy throughout 60 years of ministry. Howard G. Hendricks is an outstanding example of a life well-lived, completely dedicated and...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore"><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=83849&amp;d=1362711233" id="attachment83849" rel="Lightbox_351" ><img src="http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=83849&amp;d=1362711233&amp;thumb=1" border="0" alt="Click image for larger version.&nbsp;

Name:	hendricks.jpg&nbsp;
Views:	73&nbsp;
Size:	67.8 KB&nbsp;
ID:	83849" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" /></a></div><i>Howard Hendricks: &quot;Biblically speaking, to hear and not to do is not to hear at all.&quot;</i><br />
<br />
I am very thankful for &quot;Prof&quot; Hendricks and the wisdom I gleaned during the classes I had the privilege to take from him at Dallas Seminary. By God's grace, Prof established a tremendous legacy throughout 60 years of ministry. Howard G. Hendricks is an outstanding example of a life well-lived, completely dedicated and poured out in service to God, the Church, and his students and colleagues.<br />
<br />
Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Christian Education and Leadership, Howard &quot;Prof&quot; Hendricks, passed away Wednesday morning, February 20, 2013. From DTS Magazine's <a href="http://www.dts.edu/read/howard-hendricks-prof/" target="_blank">&quot;The Life of Howard G. 'Prof' Hendricks&quot;</a>:<br />
<br />
<i>Dr. Howard G. Hendricks, known simply as “Prof,” directly or indirectly touched millions of lives in the evangelical community and beyond. For more than sixty years Prof served on the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS), where he taught more than ten thousand students. He also ministered in person in more than eighty countries. Through speaking engagements, radio, tapes, films, the sixteen books he authored and coauthored, countless journal and popular-market articles, his service on numerous boards, and his work as a chaplain to the Dallas Cowboys (1976–1984), his reach was and is worldwide. His legacy, in partnership with Jeanne, his wife of more than sixty-six years, includes four children, six grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren.</i><br />
<br />
And:<br />
<br />
<i>Howard Hendricks was raised in a broken home. He recalled, “My parents separated when I came along. I split the family.” His father’s mother reared him, and he described himself as a “troublemaker” during his elementary school years, “probably just ‘acting out’ a lot of insecurities.” “Most likely to end up in prison” was the assessment of his fifth-grade teacher in Philadelphia. Once she even tied him to his seat with a rope and taped his mouth shut. Yet everything changed for that boy when he met his sixth-grade teacher. He introduced himself to Miss Noe, and she told him, “I’ve heard a lot about you. But I don’t believe a word of it.” Those words would change his life. She made him realize for the first time that someone cared. “People are always looking for someone to say, ‘Hey, I believe in you,’” he said. And in his more than sixty years as a professor, he believed in his students.</i><br />
<br />
Read the rest of the inspiring tribute <a href="http://www.dts.edu/read/howard-hendricks-prof/" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
I can personally attest to the fact that he did believe in his students. His passion, dedication, and desire for his students to truly apply themselves was evident at all times. Prof always made himself available to meet with students outside of class and I'm grateful I took advantage of that opportunity. I'm sure these informal meetings cost him a lot of time and energy but I know it was worth it to him because of his deep commitment to investing in people. I remember him telling us about how he used to take his sack lunch from home and go sit out with the construction crews who were working on building projects on campus. Prof always emphasized creativity and he displayed creativity whether in the classroom with students or reaching out to construction workers on the job site.<br />
<br />
Chuck Swindoll reflects, &quot;There is no doubt in my mind that since the late 1950s to the present day, no other teacher at DTS has been more influential to more of our graduates, or more magnetic to more potential students than Dr. Hendricks.&quot;<br />
<br />
See also:<br />
<br />
Prof's <a href="http://www.dts.edu/howard-hendricks-tribute/#your-tributes" target="_blank">Tribute page</a><br />
Christianity Today: <a href="http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2013/02/died-howard-hendricks-longtime-dallas-seminary-prof-and-mentor.html?utm_source=ctdirect-html&amp;utm_medium=Newsletter&amp;utm_term=9489665&amp;utm_content=155351337&amp;utm_campaign=2013" target="_blank">Died: Howard Hendricks, Longtime Dallas Seminary 'Prof' and Mentor</a><br />
<br />
[This post originally appeared <a href="http://www.jeffwrightjr.com/2013/02/howard-hendricks-biblically-speaking-to.html" target="_blank">here</a>.]</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Pursuing_Truth</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?351-Howard-G-quot-Prof-quot-Hendricks</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Character traits</title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?346-Character-traits</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:45:58 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[This is my list of character traits I think I have.  The purpose of this is for later reflection as part of the Know Thyself course on Coursera.org. 
 
1)  Unempathetic.  I am not an empathetic person except in rare cases.  I think this might be changing slightly. 
2)  Unsympathetic.  I can express sympathy without actually being sympathetic.  I know the right words but seldom have the emotional reaction. 
3) Helpful.  I don't hesitate to help others (time-commitment) as long as I sense they...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">This is my list of character traits I think I have.  The purpose of this is for later reflection as part of the Know Thyself course on Coursera.org.<br />
<br />
1)  Unempathetic.  I am not an empathetic person except in rare cases.  I think this might be changing slightly.<br />
2)  Unsympathetic.  I can express sympathy without actually being sympathetic.  I know the right words but seldom have the emotional reaction.<br />
3) Helpful.  I don't hesitate to help others (time-commitment) as long as I sense they are interested in the results.  If you stop trying, so do I.<br />
4) Miserly.  I don't like giving people money, or generally spending money.  I need it therefore I work for it.  You should do the same.<br />
5) Logical.  I try to assess probable outcomes of causes and probable causes of effects.<br />
6) Self-confident.  It's not so much that I can do anything, but that I will do my best and nothing more can be asked.<br />
7) Realistic.  Contrary to popular belief, being a realist is NOT being a pessimist.  Things can and do go wrong.  That doesn't mean I think they <i>will</i> go wrong.  Hope for the best and plan for the worst.<br />
8) Pro-active.  If I am concerned about something I do my best to nip it in the bud.<br />
9) Uninspiring.  I think I often point out good paths of action to people, but that I lack anything convincing.  My wife often says that I'm right, but it takes someone else saying the same thing to motivate her.<br />
10) Intolerant.  It annoys me to no end when people wish to speak on topics they know nothing about.  If you want to remain ignorant, be my guest, but don't try to tell me how the world is from your lack of knowledge.<br />
11) Sarcastic.  I'm deeply sarcastic.  Sometimes I think I use it as a method to conceal my disapproval.  Probably there is more than one application, and I use multiple forms.<br />
12) Impatient.  If something doesn't work the first few times, I'm going to give it up pretty quickly.  I'd rather spend time trying something else than get a possibly working concept to actually perform.<br />
13) Flighty.  I have a lot of varied interests.  I rarely stick with one enough to gain a deep knowledge of it.  That's something I'm working on.<br />
14) Inscrutable.  There is a limit to how deeply I can question my motives.  For the most part, I don't think I can at all.<br />
15) Hesitant.  I don't mind expostulating on things based on inferences, but I'm pretty adamant about highlighting what parts are conjecture.<br />
16) Distrusting.  I don't think people know what they're talking about when it comes to causes.  Many people claim they are doing one thing when they are doing quite another.<br />
17) Apathetic.  If what you're doing doesn't affect me, I mostly don't care what you're doing.<br />
18) Critical.  I can see short-comings in goals and implementations and tend to dismiss people who can't see the same.  This ties back to being unsympathetic.  If you set out with a bad plan, it should come as no surprise when you fail.<br />
19) Conflicted.  I simultaneously think I'm on the right track and that I have no idea where I am.  I'm trying to be as open as I can about what I believe, but I have a hard time committing to beliefs.  I see too many holes in everything.<br />
20) Stubborn.  If you say something that conflicts with my inferences, I'm going to question it.  If it conflicts with my understanding of certain facts, I'm going to question it more.  If you can't provide satisfying answers, I'm going to be unconvinced.  If you want to tell me that I'm wrong, show me how.  Otherwise, I'm probably not going to pay much attention.<br />
<br />
Ok, well that's the twenty required.  We'll see how they hold up to scrutiny.  I'm excited about this course.  I think self-knowledge is important, but I'm not really sure how to go about finding it.</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Carrikature</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?346-Character-traits</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>the mind of a god</title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?338-the-mind-of-a-god</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 03:06:08 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[---Quote (Originally by Griggsy)--- 
   Still, how could God listen and fathom all those prayers and hosannas in thousands of languages and dialects? To state why, He's Omni- attributed, so of course He can! No, we have no evidence that He even has a disembodied mind, much less one that can do all that! 
   Matt McCormick discusses why He cannot act and think were He omnipresent. 
  Give evidence instead of it must be and it may be! 
  That gives away why theists never can instantiate Him? They...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore"><div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>Griggsy</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3540010#post3540010" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">   Still, how could God listen and fathom all those prayers and hosannas in thousands of languages and dialects? To state why, He's Omni- attributed, so of course He can! No, we have no evidence that He even has a disembodied mind, much less one that can do all that!<br />
   Matt McCormick discusses why He cannot act and think were He omnipresent.<br />
  Give evidence instead of it must be and it may be!<br />
  That gives away why theists never can instantiate Him? They ultimately rely on the arguments from personal incredulity, which mocks our conservation of knowledge, and from ignorance, which underlie other theistic arguments.<br />
  No argument can tie all His referents as Creator, Designer and so forth together. And as we naturalists peel off referents, he ends up with none, and so cannot exist. We hardly then have that certitude called faith as Alister Earl McGrath finds faith to make.</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div>  Why  should we believe? Would people lose their moral compass were they godless? Would they be forlorn with no purpose and meaning?<br />
  &quot;Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate.&quot;<br />
  I am not His thing to which He has the right to which to give purpose! What twaddle and -blasphemy against humanity! <br />
  Value yourself! Practice eudemonia- human flourishing.<br />
  We are not vermin worthy of Hell!</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Griggsy</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?338-the-mind-of-a-god</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>1 Corinthians 13</title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?329-1-Corinthians-13</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:28:46 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>I was ready through some stuff I wrote and came across this. My hypothesis was Paul was using the word love as code for God. So based on the NIV, I rewrote 1 Corinthians 13 and replaced every occurance of love with God. I think I might be on to something. 
 
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have God, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">I was ready through some stuff I wrote and came across this. My hypothesis was Paul was using the word love as code for God. So based on the NIV, I rewrote 1 Corinthians 13 and replaced every occurance of love with God. I think I might be on to something.<br />
<br />
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have God, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have God, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have God, I gain nothing. <br />
*God is patient, God is kind. He does not envy, He does not boast, He is not proud. He does not dishonor others, He is not self-seeking, He is not easily angered, He keeps no record of wrongs. God does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. He always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. <br />
*God never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. <br />
And now these three remain: faith, hope and God. But the greatest of these is God.</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Thoughtful Monk</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?329-1-Corinthians-13</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Tearing down our idols</title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?284-Tearing-down-our-idols</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:32:22 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[Many Christian fundamentalists are vehemently, rabidly anti-catholic. Their main criticism is often idol worship. After all catholic churches have all those statues. Statues are idols, right? Guilty as charged. Of course this shows a complete misunderstanding of the role of image in catholic theology. But something more subtle is going on in the fundy's own backyard. Naturally fundies don't like to look at their own backyard. They'd have to mow it. They much prefer pointing out the flaws of...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore">Many Christian fundamentalists are vehemently, rabidly anti-catholic. Their main criticism is often idol worship. After all catholic churches have all those statues. Statues are idols, right? Guilty as charged. Of course this shows a complete misunderstanding of the role of image in catholic theology. But something more subtle is going on in the fundy's own backyard. Naturally fundies don't like to look at their own backyard. They'd have to mow it. They much prefer pointing out the flaws of others. It's almost a holy obsession.<br />
<br />
The commandment against idol worship is simple when it is limited to physical images. But of course this is the most restrictive application of the commandment. By far the most dangerous idols are those of the imagination, the mental concepts we have of God that stand between us and the 'real' experience of God. When we think we know God, that He in some way 'belongs' to us, that he is understandable or understood, we cling to our conceptions of God rather than God Himself.<br />
<br />
This isn't faith at all, but a poor substitute which is more about intellectual knowing than trusting. As I have written before, it is the difference between clinging to wreckage in the water and learning to swim. Christian theologians have sounded this warning through the ages. They talk about the via negativa, the approach to God which depends on reminding ourselves what God is not.<br />
<br />
Buddhists have an interesting teaching in this regard. It is encapsulated in the saying: <br />
'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him'. The idea being that any Buddha you meet is a concept that leads away from realisation of the self. We cling to concepts. Real mysticism is letting go.</blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>pancreasman</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?284-Tearing-down-our-idols</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The Circle of Spiritual Pride</title>
			<link>http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?272-The-Circle-of-Spiritual-Pride</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 01:30:02 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>---Quote (Originally by pancreasman)--- 
1. I must be right. 
 
2. People disagree with me. 
 
3. I am very spiritually evolved. 
 
4. Therefore to disagree with me is to persecute me.</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote class="blogcontent restore"><div class="bbcode_container">
	<div class="bbcode_quote">
		<div class="quote_container">
			<div class="bbcode_quote_container"></div>
			
				<div class="bbcode_postedby">
					<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> <em>Originally posted by <strong>pancreasman</strong></em>
					<a href="showthread.php?p=3508500#post3508500" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
				</div>
				<div class="message">1. I must be right.<br />
<br />
2. People disagree with me.<br />
<br />
3. I am very spiritually evolved.<br />
<br />
4. Therefore to disagree with me is to persecute me.<br />
<br />
5. Look, I'm just like Jesus! They persecuted him too.<br />
<br />
6. Therefore I must be right!<br />
<br />
The circle of spiritual pride.</div>
			
		</div>
	</div>
</div></blockquote>

]]></content:encoded>
			<dc:creator>Johnny Poochie</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/entry.php?272-The-Circle-of-Spiritual-Pride</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
