Literal and Innerrant Are Not the Same Thing - Part II

Hello everyone. In a previous post titled "Literal and Inerrant Are Not the Same Thing," I pointed out how absurd the Bible becomes if we take every word absolutely literally (which is okay, because...inerrant and literal are not the same thing). There, I focused largely on the Old Testament, so here, I'll focus on the New Testament.

Neither Conditionalists Nor Traditionalists (Nor Universalists) Can Claim That They Rely on the "Plain Meaning" of Scripture

(Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission).

I am an annihilationist. I believe that the Bible teaches that the unsaved will be destroyed at the end of time, not subject to eternal torment as Christians have traditionally believed (though I do have some of the early church on my side).

One thing that comes up way too often is the claim that annihilationists have to twist clear passages of scripture, and have to rely on way to complex interpretations while traditionalists can take what the scripture says at face value, and therefore they are right.

I should note that annihilationists also make the claim that they are the ones who rely on the simple and apparent meanings of scripture (though they tend to emphasize it a lot less). Edward Fudge, in his otherwise very apt and helpful review of Robert Morey's Death and the Afterlife, does this. Ultimately, however...

If Death Means Separation Between Body and Spirit, Then That Wouldn't Hurt Annihilationism At All

A common claim by annihilationists is that since the punishment of the unsaved is sometimes referred to as death, it helps annihilationism (since we know what dead bodies are like). Many (though not all) annihilationists are physicalists, or are dualists who believe in soul sleep, so to them, there is no conscious existence of any sort after death (until the resurrection when the body is made to be alive again). Since "death" describes the fate of the lost, you could see how this would be seen as supporting annihilationism. If they were clearly right about what death is, then we could leave it at that.

However, that is not a given. Also, since most traditionalists are dualists, it is worthy to note that, even if the immaterial soul does keep living on after death, the fact that the lost suffer "death"  still fits annihilationism better than it does the traditional view. This follow is an excerpt from "The Bible Teaches Annihilationism," from a section titled "The True Relationship Between Separation And Death":

Calvinists And (Most) Arminians Agree On More Than We Think - Part II

I. INTRODUCTION
Previously, we looked at how both Arminians and Calvinists believe in a sovereign God, despite the argument made by Calvinists to the contrary. Now, I want to look at it from the other side. Many Arminians claim that Calvinism falls apart when you take into account the passages that speak of God's desire to save all men. The reasoning goes that free will explains it perfectly, Calvinism cannot explain how God can desire the salvation of all when so many are not saved. However, there need not be any real disconnect. Both sides can hold to their view on election and still give reasonable and ultimately quite similar explanations for how God can desire the salvation of all without all being saved.

My (Surprising) Review of Erasing Hell By Francis Chan & Preston Sprinkle

DISCLAIMER: If for some reason you don't want to know what conclusion they reach...you shouldn't be reading a review of the book!

Anyway, you can't be a 22 year-old evangelical Christian who has a Facebook without having heard the buzz about Francis Chan's new book, Erasing Hell (written with Preston Sprinkle). How many of my Facebook friends posted this youtube video in May and June? I don't know, but I know the answer is along the lines of several.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkxOelCjMFU

Now, I read the book (it ended up getting released last month instead of July 5th). As should surprise absolutely nobody, they conclude that Hell is...a place of eternal torment! Yes. But despite the fact that I disagree with their position, I actually think the book is a worthy read for other reasons.

Literal and Innerrant Are Not the Same Thing

DISCLAIMER: This blog post will refer to passages of the Bible that use ungodly sexual language that is innappropriate to ever talk about.

(I'm being sarcastic of course, making a point of how context matters and speaking of certain subjects, even in mixed company, is not always innappropriate or ungodly, since God Himself uses such language...)

Now, it has been said by some believers (much more so today than throughout time) that the Bible must be completely literal. After all, it is God's infalliable word to mankind, so it must mean exactly what it says. Also, since it is for all people, God mustn't use figurative language or metaphors that would not be readily understood by everyone. If we don't read it literally, how can we ever know what it really means? How can we really know if something is figurative vs. literal? And what would keep someone from just saying anything they don't like is just figurative (like most unbelievers do when they talk about Jesus as a great guy who didn't really die and rise from the grave)?

"If The Bible Wanted To Teach Annihilationism, It Would Have Said It Clearly!"

It is often claimed that the Bible never explicitly says anyone will cease to exist (since the ubiqitous references to the lost being destroyed use words that technically don't have to always mean absolute annihilation 100% of the time). Because it does not explicitly say that all men do not exist forever, it is argued then that it must teach eternal existence of all people.