10 Things That Aren't Taught in the Bible (But That Are So Common You'd Think They Were)

I'm feeling kind of snarky (and as observant as always), so here you go:

1. If you are a woman, and a man says anything that you don't like, anything at all, no matter what it is and whether or not he is right or wrong, saying he's being "inappropriate" will put an end to any unpleasant conversation.

2. Similar to #1, as a female you can always get out of ever having to deal with anything unpleasant by rebuking the man for addressing you directly, and insist that he has someone of your same gender talk to you. It is especially effective because you don't have to be at all consistent about it - it's a sin for that particular male to address you directly about whatever it is, even if it's okay for others to do the same thing.

Book Review - Hell: A Final Word by Edward Fudge

For what it sets out to do, Edward Fudge’s Hell: A Final Word, is very successful. It gives a good overview of the arguments for conditional immortality and against the traditional view of Hell as a place of eternal conscious punishment. It gets just in-depth enough to where you can understand what he means and to where you can follow his reasoning, without getting specific enough to demand a much more lengthy book. This book is relatively short, and it actually reads much more like a first-person novel than a doctrinal theology book, drawing the reader in.

Things Are About To Get Real - Would You Only Marry A Virgin?

As the title indicates, things are about to get real. If open talk about sex, sexual sin, and sexuality make you uncomfortable, then you should not read further. You also shouldn't read the Bible, since it talks about sex a lot more than I will (despite what your pastor may have told you)...

Anyway, I was directed to this website and poll yesterday:
http://thechristianmanifesto.com/archives/4820

"Would You Only Marry A Virgin?" was the poll question. I'm not totally sure what to make of the overall message of the blog post (since they have left us hanging, waiting for part 2). That said, would you only marry a virgin?

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.