The Evangelical Universalist Forum

JRP vs TurretinFan Oct 2011 debate (official thread+YouTube)

I may have to wait until my post-debate commentary to talk more about that; but I have to say I’m seriously confused as to why you thought he made that good a case against it.

His whole rebuttal against the 2 Thess 1:9 OT allusion argument rested on the phraseology not being exactly equal, in disregard of the (indisputable) fact that the concepts were equivalent (and the language quite similar); the (indisputable) fact that Paul had just previously cited a different verse from Zechariah on exactly the same topic (the final advent of YHWH, applied to the return of Jesus); and the (indisputable) fact that the topic overlaps extremely well with Isaiah chapters 2 through 5. That’s a massive wad of weight for allusion to try to flick away with the observation that the precise wording isn’t the same.

Would TFan seriously attempt such a defense against claim of allusion if a non-trinitarian tried to use that defense to avoid having to acknowledge that Paul meant YHWH by the Greek term “kyrios”??–because, as I stressed, the two cases there are exactly proportionate to one another. In fact, I originally found the allusion by checking the argument for YHWH-reference there made in a trinitarian apologetic context (Richard Baukham’s God Crucified collection, if I recall correctly).

It’s true, as I acknowledged, that my direct contextual case for 2 Thess 1:9 wouldn’t hold up if Paul wasn’t referencing Isaiah 2 through 5. But I pointed out that I could make a general contextual case of the same sort based on the character of other OT prophecies; I just wouldn’t be able to use such a case in a debate focusing on local and referential contexts. And anyway, acknowledging this is not in the least the same as admitting the allusion case is untenable or even reasonably doubtful. An argument amounting to “Jason’s case would be more difficult if there isn’t an allusion here, therefore his case sucks the end NO DON’T LOOK AT THE DETAILS EXCEPT FOR ONE TRIVIAL DIFFERENCE I SAID THE END!!” is not, to me, very persuasive. :wink:

Again, TFan’s whole rebuttal against the Rom 9 citational context argument, rested on trying to argue that a superficially similar remark in Job was a superior probability for the reference–when there was barely any topical overlap at all (other than people being made from clay by God), and the phraseology wasn’t particularly similar. He admitted, when I pressed him on the topic, that he wasn’t familiar with the content of the other four options and couldn’t remember offhand what I had even said about them. So how was the Job reference supposed to be superior, if he had no recollection of the details to compare them as inferior!?

Literally the only (but unstated) reason the Job reference was supposed to be superior was that it was neutral (at worst) in referential context to the meaning of Rom 9, i.e. I couldn’t use it to argue that Paul was talking about a hopeful salvation of those who are currently set as opponents (whether Jews or Gentiles).

TFan didn’t argue that my OT citational comments on the Matt 18:8 texts were irrelevant, possibly because I affirmed them in a way that didn’t seem to immediately challenge his position (and didn’t hang much on them anyway); I didn’t base my main argument for Matt 25 on OT allusions–but he pretty much ignored my actual contextual argument there, too; and I didn’t actually make an argument for OT allusion regarding Jude v.6 (I only gave a hint how I would proceed in interpreting Jude v.6 in light of related OT material, but I didn’t treat that as being a direct reference by Jude). So I’m left wondering where he made any good counter-argument against my arguments about referential allusions for contextual interpretation purposes.

You’re welcome to supply details of where you thought he made good arguments against those allusions, of course. :slight_smile:

If “eonian” in regard to the hills can be not-a-literal-eternal-but-still-participating-in-the-meaning-of-eternal, then so can the punishment in Matt 25 compared to the eonian life. Which, not-incidentally (as I also mentioned a couple of times in different ways), cannot be a literal ‘eternal’ either in regard to its object, since its object (saved sinners) had a beginning, both absolutely and in reception of the life.

Aside from noticing that the life is not literally eternal either (if we’re talking about the life of the saved person–and if we’re talking about God’s life being merely never-ending, then even the non-universalist has a major difference in terminological application of “eonian” between the life and the punishment): the reason we know there’s not a uniform meaning of the term “eonian” in Habbakkuk (and in Romans) is because of the context. I VERY EXPLICITLY STATED more than once, that merely observing the terms could be used in different ways in immediate comparison, did not necessarily mean the terms were being used in different ways in immediate comparison elsewhere. That was not my argument; my argument was ABOUT THE NARRATIVE AND THEMATIC CONTEXTS OF THE PARABLE, which TFan barely even mentioned, and definitely did not even discuss (except to briefly assert, without explanation, that it didn’t matter if the goats were baby goats).

The line of my argument there was:

1.) the term “eonian” itself doesn’t always mean “eternal”, especially if narrative and thematic context indicates otherwise (which I presumed in favor of TFan’s competence he knew already, but which I would be giving examples of later in my rebuttal anyway);

2.) here is the narrative and thematic context of the judgment of the sheep and the goats (the vaaaaassssst majority of my main argument on Matt 25);

3.) the context indicates that we had better interpret the punishment of the baby goats the way mature sheep would, not the way baby goats would!–i.e., hopefully, not hopelessly;

4.) therefore context indicates that in regard to the punishment, we should not treat “eonian” as necessarily meaning never-ending;

5.) but since there is a reasonable concern about the hope of the eonian life being threatened if the hopelessness of the eonian punishment is denied, then…

6.) …here is some auxiliary information, presented in the rebuttal, showing:

6.1.) even non-universalists interpret identical terms in substantially different ways (for whatever reasons) when defending against apparent testimony in favor of universal salvation;

and

6.2.) there are at least two notable examples (one from the NT, one from the OT), where authors did in fact use that term (in Greek and its underlying Hebrew original) for superficially similar and somewhat related but substantially different meanings.

So non-universalists as such also interpret identical terms in close context quite differently for what they suppose are good reasons; there are scriptural examples of that particular term being used in close context quite differently; and my MAIN ARGUMENT for Matt 25 indicates we ought to interpret the terms in superficially similar but substantially quite different ways.

The first point of that paragraph was not challenged (and is quite indisputable anyway); the second point was acknowledged; yet not only was the third point not discussed at all, but TFan tried to recover by in effect denying that any contextual case had been made to demonstrate the two paralleled uses of eonian at Matt 25 (regarding the life and the punishment) ought to be interpreted with some substantial difference from one another.

His rebuttal to my attempt totally hinges on no contextual case being demonstrated for Matt 25. But the vast majority of my main argument for Matt 25 was exactly that. He can’t just stop as though I never made a contextual argument for Matt 25, when I spent six minutes doing just that.

What he needed to do was demonstrate that my contextual argument for Matt 25 (i.e. MY MAIN ARGUMENT for Matt 25) didn’t add up. Then his rebuttal attempt would have worked. But he barely even mentioned it.

I suspect he probably didn’t even remember enough of its details to try to go after it, and so had to make as much of a rebuttal case as he could by (in effect) pretending I hadn’t even tried to show that Matt 25 was a case like Rom 16 and Hab 3, where the context indicates we should treat the two eonians differently.

To be fair, he didn’t have any way to go back and listen to my argument again. But you know what? He could have taken notes during my presentation (I did when he was presenting); and he could have bothered to research me on the topic to get an expectation of what I was going to do (which, again, I definitely did on his site). I’ve given my Matt 25 argument before on this site. He might even have been given a link to it by Chris, since I sent links of that sort to Chris to help him sell me as being someone interesting to debate (although on the other hand I have no idea whether he passed those links along to prospective debators.)

So on one hand I have some sympathy for him having to scat up a defense on short notice when steamrolled by an unexpected detailed argument–but my sympathy only goes so far. :wink: And my sympathy abruptly ends at the point where his rebuttal totally relies on me not having made such an argument as I spent a good six minutes detailing, as though I never even tried doing such a thing. (As far as his rebuttal went, I might as well have spent those six minutes playing a kazoo in accompaniment to the climactic action theme of “Ace Combat Zero”, while muttering “baby goat” once or twice for no reason. :wink: )

Considering that I myself introduced that example as one where the term is used figuratively, this is not such a great point to make (seeing as I MYSELF DID SO FIRST!–don’t I get any credit for my argument for mentioning it first??? :laughing: )

We know it wasn’t literally forever by examination of narrative and thematic contexts, of course. You know what else we discover if we examine the narrative and thematic contexts of Matt 25’s sheep and goat judgment? :wink:

{kazoo kazoo flamenco guitar Jesus our sweetest savior and only victorious lord awesomeness baby goats baby goats kazoo}

:mrgreen:

Chris,
Those are important points that you make. He does it in Jeremiah, but then you says He does so “over and over”. Can you list these many occurrences?
r

In his defense, the debate isn’t over :slight_smile:

Oh, I expect (and even hope) that eventually he’ll do post-debate commentaries actually addressing things of this sort. :slight_smile:

So even literally, yes, the debate isn’t really over. :smiley:

Sure roof, here are some:

Lamentations 3:31
New International Version (NIV)
31** For no one is cast off
by the Lord forever. **

Psalm 103:9
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
9He will not always accuse us of wrong
or be angry with us forever.

Jeremiah 3:5
5He won’t hold a grudge forever.
He won’t always be angry.’

Psalms 30:5
5His anger lasts only a moment.
His favor lasts a lifetime.

Weeping may last for the night,
but there is a song of joy in the morning.

Micah 7:18.19
18 Who is a God like you,
who pardons sin and forgives the transgression
of the remnant of his inheritance?
You do not stay angry forever
but delight to show mercy.

19 You will again have compassion on us;
you will tread our sins underfoot
and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.

There are tons of verses that say that his lovingkindness is everlasting, he gets done what he wants and he is mighty to save. There are tons of verses that emphasize his grace and mercy, including the N.T. verse that says mercy triumphs over justice. There are many verses where God says that he is a God “who relents concerning calamity” such as in Jonah 4 and Joel, I think chapter 2. The theme is powerful that God is a God who forgives and does not maintain his anger forever, in his own words. YES he hates sin, and YES he demands repentance, but scripture gives no indication that God hates forever, wraths forever, is angry forever and says many times just the opposite. With this in mind I simply can’t accept that “aionios” would be translated “eternal” especially since it doesn’t have to be. It contradicts scores of bible verses and contradicts what God says explicitly about himself.

Peace,
Chris

Don’t the Arminians say that the door to hell shuts from the inside- that God still loves them, but they refuse His love? Could it mean that God is not angry forever but people are unrepentant forever?

Rev 1:18
"I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.

Jason, just finished listening to first episode. I agree that unfortunately having 5 passages meant you couldn’t go into aionios as much as we’d have liked, however, I think you did actually made a very good start at addressing it in your rebuttal (1:27:00-1:41:00), enough I think to put the common translation/reasoning into question.

I assume you invited TFan over here (remembering he could have the “Non Universalist” title next to his name if he wished)?

I can’t seem to find any commentary on the debate from his fans or himself? :confused:

Cool you addressed aionios again in the 2nd episode (19:29 - 21:50) :sunglasses:

I think Chris should’ve been more aggressive with the editing of the cross examination :wink: (btw, I realise you probably don’t want to be seen as tampering & also have a limited time to do the editing) Also we should’ve paid to get everyone into one studio, as I think body language, facial expressions, etc. might’ve helped the communication at some semi-awkward/confusing points (like the “salt” dialogue - argh painful :stuck_out_tongue: ).

In regards to TFan’s question (38:55), “Is there anywhere aionios doesn’t have something to do with duration?” How about 2 Tim 1:9? That gets translated in all manner of bizarre ways, many of which have aionios having nothing to do with duration…

Or John 17:3 “Now this is eternal (aionios) life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (thanks for pointing that out Carrots!)

Since “before” is part of the verse (the Timothy verse), Tfan would be justified in saying that it related to duration.
But it would be an example of limited vs unlimited duration, so he would have to deal with that aspect of the situation.

But that wouldn’t necessarily obviate Christian universalism, which (at bottom) isn’t primarily about what sinners do or don’t do, but about what God does. As long as God is continuing to act toward saving everyone from sin, universal salvation is still technically true, even if it happens that some sinners never repent.

Which is why practically every Arminian I’ve ever read or heard (including my teacher Lewis) go out of their way to try to explain that God eventually gives up on sinners (so in fact becomes angry forever, completely regardless of whether the sinners are unrepentant forever); or else is defeated in His attempts (by those sinners or by other sinners in regard to those sinners, e.g. Satan permanently wins some sinners into hell despite God).

The concept that the door to hell shuts from the inside, at any rate, is very far from a Biblical one. No Arminian who comes up with that (even my teacher Lewis) has any excuse afterward to complain that Christian universalists preach unbiblical doctrines! The uniform Biblical testimony (so far as I recall) involves God directly punishing sinners, or God saving sinners after their destruction by God leads to repentance. The Son descends into hades to preach (so it’s hardly locked from the inside, regardless of what that testimony is supposed to mean); the gates of hades will not stand strong against the church of Christ; and as RHM pointed out Christ has the keys to death and hades.

I can recall some brief testimony to the effect that sinners in the grave aren’t happy to be there (welcomed by maggots etc.), which is very far from being the same thing as locking the doors to the grave from the inside; and I can recall some testimony to the effect that sinners wailing and gnashing their teeth outside, but each of those situations involves them being thrown outside by YHWH/Christ, so it isn’t a case of them locking the doors from the inside.

That concept tends not to fit well with supernaturalistic theism, either, in terms of coherent metaphysics. If sinners (or anything else) start to exist independently of God (whether self-existently so or in ultimate dependence on something else), then a metaphysic other than supernaturalistic theism is being proposed to be true. Anything that stays in existence, God actively keeps in existence; which involves omniscience, and omnipresence, and omnipotence.

That isn’t a problem for annihilationists of course (Arm or Calv either one); but it would be wildly contradictory to say that the reason God can’t save sinners He annihilates is because they refuse to repent and insist on locking the doors to hell from the inside. That’s an ECT defense, not an anni defense.

(An anni could try claiming that people annihilate themselves by locking the door to hell from the inside, but that isn’t quite the same thing. It also leaves aside the question of God’s authoritative intentions–they could only do such a thing by God’s direct permission, so in fact it is still God Who is choosing to withdraw His action to keep them in existence. Or else the anni proponent is denying supernaturalistic theism by claiming that people can annihilate themselves regardless of the action of God to keep them in existence.)

Yes, although I don’t recall mentioning we could title him as non-uni if he wanted.

Me either yet (as of this morning), but after all it’s a huge debate and I’m pretty low on the radar. :slight_smile:

That reminds me, there is a similar statement a few scenes earlier in that Gospel (Thursday morning or early afternoon, harmonizationally speaking, the day after Christ left the Temple, during His meeting with the Greek God-fearers seeking Him from Bethsaida-Julius), where Christ says

"He who rejects Me and does not receive My declarations, does have something judging him: the word that I speak. That will be judging him in the last day, because I do not speak on My own authority. But the Father Who sends Me–He has given the command to Me what I may be saying and what I may speak.

"And I am aware what His command is: ‘Life eonian!’

"So what I speak, thus I do speak;
“just as the Father has told Me.”

(Christ’s whole declaration there can be found at John 12:44-50, although I started at v.48.)

There are several ways to translate all that, in minor variations; but mere duration doesn’t seem to be in view in any case.

On the other hand, to be fair, neither is duration simply foreign to the notion there.

By the way, Alex: I think I noticed that the pregame thread has been stickied, but this one hasn’t.

That made sense back before this thread, but could you reverse it now?–sticky this one and unsticky the other?

(I would do it but mod powers are limited for stickying things in various categories, and I don’t have admin capabilities.)

i can appreciate how the debate was phrased that the listed Scriptures taught eternal punishment, and that limits the scope of the debate to that subject. it must’ve been alot of work preparing for that, and so full credit to TFan and JRP for a really interesting discussion.

however, a better debate might have been what does the meta-narrative say? does it matter if we have the odd word that might mean “forever” in there if the meta-narrative dictates that we need to qualify that usage as hyperbole?
personally i feel the greatest evidence for universalism is how restorative the Old Testament is, inarguably so, as it discusses the judged rebel nations and how they are promised restoration. if the New Testament is a better covenant, than surely we can extend that restoration to encompass the whole of creation, as indeed Paul says?
i’d be curious how ECT and annihilationists would address that question…

Since that would require a lot more discussion than 5 verse sets, I thought it would be better to volunteer several verse sets where I could in fact discuss the meta-narrative by virtue of the details in the verse sets (such as the NT authors referencing OT topics).

As I noted in my comments for Jude 6, I could have appealed to the meta-narrative (and gave an example where I would start in Isaiah regarding rebel humans and rebel angels being imprisoned); but since I was trying to stay within direct contextual references as much as possible and Jude doesn’t cite that passage, I only gave an idea of how I would proceed and moved along.

Still, I thought I did pretty well addressing the shape of the overarching narrative; and I’m sure I mentioned the principle several times that if some scriptures indicate the story continues to Z, we shouldn’t constrain them in favor of testimony that only gets to T or W or whatever.

oh i’m not criticising your approach at all :slight_smile:

i think it was as you seem to say a limited scope, and that’s sort of what i mean…
and yes, where the story continues to Z, that’s a good way of putting it :slight_smile:

it’s really hard, i think, to bring that into the fray when so many want to focus on this verse or that verse…balancing them together somehow. it makes discussion difficult i think, but no individial part can contradict the overarching narrative as you say, and that to me is the proof of the pudding…
i can see that the Bible is so complicated, however, that you can to a degree treat it like a rorschach test in which it’s possible to see alot of what you want to see. that’s why i think it’d be interesting to see a debate on the meta-narrative…
maybe i will start a thread on that and see if our resident non-universalists have to say on the subject.

but yes please don’t think i was having a go at you! i think you handled it very well as did Tfan, and it is always interesting to hear different ideas as to what Scripture is saying. sometimes the tension between interpretations opens up new vistas in itself, and debating can bring that out.

I need to step in and clarify that I think Jason did an excellent job. I just don’t think that his opponent understood his argument. Most folks aren’t ready for an actual in depth biblical argument because they don’t think there is one, and this opponent was even less ready in that it seems that he was not really familiar with UR arguments. Jason, I think you went right over his head in many instances, and I don’t mean that as an insult to him as he is plenty smart enough. Anyhow, I didn’t want to come across as being only critical about the aionios issue, especially since I hadn’t listened to the whole debate.