The Forsaken Gift

I find it quite annoying when I’m browsing Amazon.com’s religious books, and in the rating systems, it’s nothing but a Christian versus Atheist battleground.

I was researching Creationism and Evolution arguments because I was still inspired from my previous post, and I found a long excerpt from a book, which I found quite interesting. It discussed Carbon-14 dating and how it works, as well as that group of Scientists’ findings. The scientists tested many samples of coil, diamonds, and zircons which were supposed to be millions of years old. The research suggested that this was a gross error, and that these samples could, at absolute maximum, be 100,000 years old. The reason is this: Carbon-14 dating shows that if something has any carbon-14 left in it, then it cannot be over 100,000 years old, as not enough of it’s half-lifes have passed.

This is very interesting and controversial scientific data. Yet, if you were to look at the comments and ‘reviews’ from customers, you would see that this is nothing but a shouting match. Look at the 5-star rating from customers, and notice how they discuss the contents of the books (which is what a review is supposed to be). Then notice how an extremely low percentage of people thought the review was helpful. Alarming, no? It’s obvious that religion is so controversial that atheists are doing anything they can to diminish the intelligent discussions of Christians. And yet, aren’t atheists the ones who call Christians backwoods, blind-faith people with no intellect?

Sometimes I visit Plime.com to see odd news from around the world. Every now and then, there will be a post about evolution or creationism. One thing I have noticed about the comments people leave regarding these posts is that they are generally very pro-evolution and anti-Christian and anti-religion. They are very quick to say such things like “This is obviously proof of evolution and you have to be a hypocritical, backwoods, ignorant religious nut to believe in Creationism because this proves everything.”

Did you notice the hypocrisy? Bentok and myself have discussed this many times, actually. Pro-evolutionists often claim that creationists are blind to believe something that has no proof, such as the existence of God. Yet at the same time, they believe when Scientists provide ‘evidence’ of fossils that are between 100 million and 100 billion years old. Pro-evolutionists and creationists are alike in that they both have a great deal of faith. We have faith in a Holy God, and they have faith in men and women who observe the earth in a very non-scientific method manner.

With due respect, it does often seem like scientists often get caught up in their own fantasies and create their own stories of the history before man on earth. Almost as if they hear these stories of dinosaurs when they are children and then let their imaginations get the better of them, and then become scientists to find evidence to support their pipe dreams.

 To avoid my own hypocrisy, I am certainly interested in any good argument for or against macro-evolution. I simply have yet to see a good, respectful case for it.

I just got a spam email from my boss. For the sake of brevity, I’ll just list a few of the people mentioned. It is as follows:

DID YOU KNOW THESE FACTS? I SURE DIDNT TILL NOW

Death is certain but the Bible speaks about untimely death! Make a personal reflection about this….. Very interesting, read until the end…..

It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7): ‘Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sow, that shall he also reap. Here are some men and women who mocked God : 

John Lennon (Singer):Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:’Christianity will end, it will disappear. I do not have to argue about that. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, today we are more famous than Him’ (1966). Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.

 This is a prime example of why you should check your facts before you create a spam email to send to people to scare them into believing in Christ. Over 5 months passed and Lennon apologized for his remarks and said he thanks Jesus for what he has done for him. And, Lennon was shot 4 times, not 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon

Cazuza (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet): During A show in Canecio ( Rio de Janeiro ), while smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said:’God, that’s for you.’ He died at the age of 32 of LUNG CANCER in a horrible manner.

Cazuza died from an AIDS related disease, not lung cancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cazuza 

The man who built the Titanic. After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be. With an ironic tone he said: ‘Not even God can sink it’ The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic

 I doubt that the use of a hyperbole to describe the Titanics toughness counts as mocking God so that He in turn would destroy a ship and kill many people on board (surely some of those people were Christians, no?).

Bon Scott (Singer)

The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang: ‘Don’t stop me; I’m going down all the way, down the highway to hell’. On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit.

 WRONG. “Although common folklore claims that ingestion of vomit or drugs were the cause of Scott’s death, the official cause was listed as “acute alcohol poisoning” and “death by misadventure.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon_Scott

Campinas (IN 2005)

In Campinas , Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend….. The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:

‘My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You.’

She responded: ‘Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, Cause Inside Here…..It’s Already Full ‘ Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died, the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact. The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken.

I call shenanigans. Just like regular spam emails with fake stories, there is no way to verify the validity of this story. And from my prior experience with fake stories on the internet and in emails, I have no reason to think this is anything but a falsity.  

PS: If it was a joke, you would have sent it to everyone.
So are you going to have courage to send this? I have done my part, Jesus said ‘If you are embarrassed about me, I will also be embarrassed about you before my father.’

It is almost funny how the email ends with a threat if I refuse to email this junk to everyone I know. I doubt that Jesus will be upset or think I’m embarrassed of him if I don’t send this incredibly inaccurate email spam to people I know.

It is also interesting that the main point of the email is “Don’t mock God or he will kill you… Eventually.”  This reaks of Turn-or-Burn theology, which is always insulting and abrasive.

I haven’t posted in ages for many reasons. Mostly I’ll blame it on the 11 hour work days I had at work earlier in the year. Nothing like working from 9 to 8 to kill the mood for just about anything enjoyable. I don’t really have a topic to post about, other than to say that I’m making a post to hopefully get back in the habit of posting.

I’ve thought about my blog a lot. I still love this blog, and I love blogging. So few people read my blog, and even fewer people comment. That doesn’t bother me in the least, however. I just enjoy doing it. I’ll probably start expanding the blog to include some of my personal life. Actually, it is more of a certainty than probability.

Currently, I’m addicted to Requiem for a Dream. Instrumental music at it’s best.

What is a man?

We learn in the very beginning of the Bible about our creation from God’s viewpoint. He fashioned the world and the animals and people according to his will.

“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (nephesh, psuche)” (Gen. 2:7)

Clearly, and front the very beginning of our time in this world, we witness God creating the first human being from two distinct pieces: dust of the ground, and the breath of life. These two items put together create a living creature, a living soul. God did not give man a soul, he made man into a soul. Every person you see walking the streets and in the grocery stores are living souls.

Conditional immortality states that we are all mortal souls, not that we are bodies with souls inside. We see exactly how God made mankind in Genesis, and there is no justification to read pagan philosophy into what makes a man. There is also no justification in reading later passages of the Bible that vaguely sound like they mention that the body and soul are completely separate.

How to defeat conditional immortality: One way to argue for the traditionalist view would be to read Genesis as a figurative work of fiction, and not as literal events. This would prevent someone from arguing that a person is made of dust (physical material, atoms, etc) and the breath of life from God. In addition to this, one would need to read passages from later books of the Bible (or perhaps some Greek mythology, or Plato) and claim that those sources support the traditional view of the soul. This is the only way to ignore the consistency within Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament which states that man is made of dust of the ground and God’s breath of life. Once a person has taken these steps, the gateway is open to argue that we have separate, disembodies souls that flee from our bodies when we perish. I mean… die a bodily death.

Introduction

I have been in soul sleep vs traditionalism debates, but I have never been satisfied with debates themselves for various reasons. One side would present strong Biblical evidence, and the other side would ignore that evidence and point to different texts. Others could not find common ground to debate against CI. So, I feel that it is necessary to present a guide on precisely how to defeat the doctrine of conditional immortality. Perhaps this will alleviate that disconnected feeling, and close the large gap between the two sides of this debate.

Foundations

No one ever seems to talk about the foundations of their arguments, which is necessary for high level intellectual debates. Two people who view the Bible completely differently cannot have productive arguments because one is arguing lemons and the other is arguing limes. For two parties to debate for and against CI, it is necessary for those parties to view the Bible in the exact same way, which brings us to Rule #1 for arguing against CI: To debate against CI, both parties must view the Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of the living God, and as a literal book. It is impossible for someone who reads the Bible as only “good advice” instead of truth to debate with someone who takes the Bible as it was meant to be read. This foundation must be maintained from Genesis to Revelation.

Progressive Reading of the Bible

Christianity today, for the most part, seems to focus on the New Testament for its preaching. This is not necessarily a bad thing, however. Christ’s earthly ministry was a very significant part of our history. However, one thing that we must be careful of doing is reading the NT first before the Old Testament for doctrinal purposes. The NT cannot overpower, or contradict, anything already present in the OT. The Bible is actually one giant storyline with nothing but continuity in its veins. The NT simply adds on to the already present storyline. A popular doctrine that changes from the OT to the NT is covenant signs. In the OT, circumcision was the sign of being in covenant with God. In the NT, however, the sign changed to baptism. A full understanding of baptism and how it was replaced can only be appreciated with the history within the OT.

Perfect Continuity Within the Bible

Contrary to the popular systematic theology we have today, a proper reading of the Bible does not include pointing to individual passages to create doctrine. This type of argument will never be acceptable because it often leads to erroneous doctrines which break up the continuity of the Bible. Believers-only baptism, the immortal and disembodied soul, and eternal conscious torment are three doctrines that come to mind, and these doctrines are often argued by pointing at out of context (and misunderstood) passages.

Think Hebrew

It is also incredibly important to understand that the foundations of our faith are largely Jewish. Thinking Hebrew means that we absolutely must strive to try and understand the Bible in the way it was written. Christianity is not a Western religion. It is not a European religion. It is a religion that came from a culture very different from ours. We are never allowed to sit down, read the Bible, and then interpret the texts how our Western minds allow us. We must read the Bible and then learn how to interpret it by those scholars who know the history and culture behind the words. Behind every word of the Old and New Testaments is a world completely different than ours. We must strive to understand that world just as much as the Bible itself.

Unless these foundations are agreed upon by both parties debating Conditional Immortality, or any Scriptural debate, then there will be no progress and growth between ourselves and our Christian brothers and sisters.

ESV, Psalm 6:1-3

1O LORD,^(B) rebuke me not in your anger,
nor^(C) discipline me in your wrath.
2Be gracious to me, O LORD, for I am languishing;
^(D) heal me, O LORD,^(E) for my bones are troubled.
3My^(F) soul also is greatly troubled.
But you, O LORD—^(G) how long?

The Message, Psalm 6:1-3

1-2 Please, God, no more yelling, no more trips to the woodshed.
Treat me nice for a change;
I’m so starved for affection.

2-3 Can’t you see I’m black-and-blue,
beat up badly in bones and soul?
God, how long will it take
for you to let up?

“No more trips to the woodshed?” “Beat up badly in bones and soul?” Peterson claims that he created The Message so that people could relate to it. The Message was supposed to be an easy-to-read version of the Bible. Yet, it’s obvious that so much meaning is lost. How beautiful is the ESV, especially when compared to Peterson’s heretical work.

Some of God’s creatures are crafted so well, that there is a moment of disbelief that such a creature is real. Witness one of the most interesting creatures under the sea: the pistol shrimp. Ignore the cheesy sound effects added by the producers.

Watching professional dancers perform their most daring and intense steps without errors is quite a sight to behold. Their movements are sharp, quick, flawless. They spin each other around with turbulent force that seems almost chaotic to an amateur like myself. Seeing professional dancers perform a jive or other high energy dance is nothing short of awe-inspiring. These rare people have become masters of their field, and when you see a master at work, you can see the relentless pursuit of perfection. Amateurs measure themselves and their skill based on what the best of the best can do, and they always train themselves to close the gap between themselves and the masters.

Jesus was the best of the best. No one else was worthy of being the sacrifice for God’s people. He was, and is, the master/professional that we look up to when we measure our level of faith and dedication. His followers must surely have felt that wave of intensity when watching Jesus’ ministry on earth. He was showing them perfect obedience and faith. Just like a world-class dancer showing his/her mastery of dancing, Jesus showed us perfect faith and told us, “This is how it’s done, folks.”

One day as I was driving, I passed by an Independent Baptist church and shuddered. The thought of such a church sent chills through me. Later that day, I was reading one of Bentok’s posts that referenced Ecclesiastes. I found that there was a lot of wisdom in Ecclesiastes, so I began reading it from the beginning. Upon reading chapter 4, it suddenly dawned on me as to why the sight of that Indy Church made my blood turn cold.

9Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. 10For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up! 11Again, if two lie together, they keep warm, but how can one keep warm alone? 12And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him—a threefold cord is not quickly broken (Eccl. 4:9-12).

The Bible puts an incredible emphasis on community worship and community well-being. Its focus is always on God’s people as a whole. When a church shuts themselves out of the community of believers, I’m sure that they say, “We don’t answer to any humans, only God.” It sounds noble at first, but upon second glance, we can see that becoming an independent church is one of the most harmful church decisions.

Arrogance. Isolating oneself from the Christian community and claiming to know everything Biblical is a very arrogant move. The mindset of an independent church is “We know everything and everyone else is wrong. We answer only to God. We do not need to justify ourselves to any humans.” Let’s pretend for a moment that it was even possible for any one person to have perfect knowledge of our faith. If an independent Baptist church was such an all-knowing church, then that church would be committing a grievous sin by withholding such knowledge from their brothers and sisters.

Isolation.  Let’s be more realistic. No church has that perfect knowledge. We would all love to think we do, but the fact is that we don’t. That’s why it is imperative to constantly go back to the Bible and check our beliefs. We also grow in our faith by communicating with other Christians. Isolation defeats the community aspect of our faith. An independent church that is wrong in its teaching is like the man in Ecclesiastes who has fallen, yet has no one to help him up because he has chosen to work alone. No single man can lift up a fallen church’s erroneous teachings more than an ant can carry a dead dog.

“No one has the right to take the life of another.”

These words sound noble when spoken by Rem Saverem, a woman in charge of humanity’s future and survival in a future where the earth has been so abused by its inhabitants that humans travel through space looking for a new home. These words become the life philosophy of Vash the Stampede, the main character in Trigun. Though he is constantly under fire and his life is always in danger by vicious villains, Vash never chooses to kill his opponent. Instead, he uses his superior marksmanship skills to disarm explosive and dangerous situations in often comical ways. Vash’s enemies, including his nemesis, know how much Vash values life. Often, Vash’s enemies cause him more internal and emotional pain than physical pain because of his values.

Vash goes overboard with his philosophy and humanism approach to life (and throws justice out the window) when Legato Bluesummers holds villagers hostage and gives Vash a very simple choice: Either kill Legato, or the innocent villagers die. The situation is such that there is no way to save the villagers and not kill Legato. This is precisely the situation Legato planned because he knew that crafting such a situation would cause Vash a grievous amount of internal torment due to his vow to never kill a soul. Vash is forced to kill Legato, and the villagers are saved and free of harm.

A normal person would grieve that they took a life, as they should! But a normal person would also see that it was necessary in that situation to take the life of Legato, for a few reasons.

1. Legato was evil, cruel, and determined to cause as much torment as possible to Vash and the villagers.
2. Legato had killed many people in the previous few episodes.
3. Killing Legato would bring peace.

“Killing Legato would bring peace” may sound like an argument that the ends justify the means, but to say such a thing would imply that killing Legato would be an evil thing to do, which is incorrect. Knowing Legato’s character, we can rest assured that killing Legato in such a delicate situation would bring justice by preventing harm to the innocent, while allowing Legato to murder the innocent would be a grand injustice.

Rem Saverem not only believes in everyone’s natural right to life, but she recognizes something very important about the human desire for immortality.

“If there is a God in deep space, he might laugh at our pitiful struggle for immortality.”

We see the human desire for immortality in the Christian community as well as in Trigun. Many Christians of authority, including authors of books, try to influence the Christian community by claiming erroneously that we have innately immortal souls, and they claim the Bible backs their belief, which is untrue. Yet, people such as Grudem and Sproul struggle pitifully against the Word of God in their desire for innate immortality.

Today, the Mountaineer published a tabloid entitled Choose to Refuse, which emphasizes resisting drug and alcohol abuse. Illegal drugs should be avoided completely, and prescription drugs should be used exactly as prescribed to avoid addiction. The part of CtR that got my attention was the anti-alcohol attitude present. On the front of the tabloid, there is a generic wine bottle with a blank label, and a subtitle which says “ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY” which is written in a bold font to create a parody of Absolut Vodka commercials. Already, I’m curious as to what they will say about alcohol. I bite the bate, and look inside.

Passing the anti-drug articles, I find the first section on alcohol. It’s a Q & A section with three questions. This is one of those questions:

• Why can’t teens drink if their parents can?  “Teen’s brains and bodies are still developing; alcohol use can cause learning problems or lead to adult alcoholism. People who begin drinking by age 15 are five times more likely to abuse or become dependent on alcohol than those who begin drinking after age 20.”

It’s always interesting to see someone state that alcohol can do one thing or another. The major concern with this statistic is whether or not the teens who were drinking were drinking moderately (one or two drinks per day, max) or heavily (getting tipsy and drunk). Obviously, getting drunk will stunt your growth, but what about responsible, Christian drinking with family? There is no mention of that group of people. Instead, we are left to our imaginations and ignorance and assumptions.

My favorite quote is in an article about Teens Against Boose Under 21 (TABU-21). This group goes around to schools warning of the dangers of alcohol.

“Your body is still developing at 21 and drinking can cause cirrhosis of the liver, which eventually blackens the liver and causes death.”

I love what the person said here. They put two facts together and made us assume that the two were related. First, they claim that our bodies are still developing at age 21. I have never heard this, but it could be possible. The underlying message here is that we should avoid activities that stunt our growth. For example, you don’t make a 7 year old do bench presses because it’s very harmful to their muscular development.
The second fact the person says is that drinking can cause harm to the liver. That’s true! However, by combining these two statements, they are suggesting that drinking under the age of 21 causes cirrhosis of the liver, but the truth is that age isn’t a factor, unless of course the person drinking is far underage. There is no mention of an 18 year old drinking moderately versus a 21 year old drinking moderately. There is only speculation.

There is one picture in the article, and in that picture, there is a bulletin board which has “It kills dreams, hopes, relationships” written on it. This statement is inflammatory because it is a blatant lie. Alcohol does not kill dreams and hopes and relationships. People blame alcohol (or violent movies/music/videogames, you name it) as a way to avoid personal responsibility for their actions. A man who gets drunk and beats his wife is to blame, not alcohol. Someone who gets drunk and drives and kills someone is to blame, not the alcohol. Alcohol, like everything in this world, is capable of being abused.

How is this related to God? Alcohol is God’s gift to his people, yet our culture has developed two polar opposite attitudes. One group of people loves to get drunk all the time and views drunkenness as fun recreation. The other group (seen very often in the Bible Belt) sees alcohol as inherently evil. Alcohol is either abused by overuse, or neglected by no use. It is so rare to see a shining Christian example of proper alcohol consumption!  It is especially shameful to see that it is mostly Christians who believe that alcohol is evil, when in fact it is a gift from God to his people so that we can be happy and rejoice in his name.

Quedat listed 25 of the world’s most interesting animals. These animals are interesting, and sometimes strange looking. I’ve seen some animals that might be considered stranger than those on Quedat, but all are amazing. I am constantly in awe as I learn more about the complexity and design of the animals God has created.

Here are some images of space from the Hubble Heritage Gallery. I think we can all appreciate God’s universe when we look at these remarkable images.

Penn and Teller tackled creationism in their TV show due to the growing popularity of Christians wanting creationism to be taught in school along side evolution. Penn and Teller’s main gripe with creationism being taught in school is that creationism is faith-based (meaning, it cannot be tested by science), yet our tax dollars fund our school system. At the same time, our government is set up so that there is a complete separation of church and state, and the state should not fund religion, especially in the education system. This is about the best argument I’ve heard for not allowing creationism to be taught in schools; Our government separates church and state. Their main argument makes sense because it doesn’t say creationism is wrong. Their initial stance is that teaching creationism in school essentially violates the separation of church and state as instituted by the constitution of our country. It seems that the only way to fix this would be to send our Christian children to Christian schools, or allow our government to meddle in religious affairs (ouch). A third option would be for us Christians to tell our children that the things they are taught in school on evolution are only hypothesis and theories, but not conclusive facts. This opens a huge can of worms that I will only spend a little time on.

What should be taught in school? Generally, the essential facts of life are taught in school. “Reading, writing, ‘rithmatic” was the catch phrase during our parents age. Those subjects were the basic fundamentals needed to make it through life. Today, the same things are taught, and often, you will find that the school system tries to teach character development as well. It’s common now to see schools promoting a special attribute of the month, such as honest, or trustworthiness. These are also things that a child must learn to make it through his/her life. The reason it’s perfectly okay to teach children these things is that reading, writing, math, and good behavior are all very object materials that everyone can agree on.

Two plus two is always four. Everyone can agree on that. Mathematics and physics are the most objective truths that people can agree on worldwide, and all throughout time. Mathematics and physics never change. They are a constant, and that makes them so dependable. You can’t build a bridge if you are unsure of your foundation: science and math.

The problem with teaching evolution in schools is that the subject is very inconclusive, and all of its experts still disagree on many very important facts. That fact alone should stand out like a red elephant. If the experts cannot agree, then how well are we able to teach our children? I realize that an evolutionist can reply to this comment and ask how we are able to believe in God when Christians can rarely agree on our beliefs. The difference is that our beliefs come from a divinely inspired book, while evolutionists gather ‘evidence’ and make up stories and randomly guess what has happened in the past. It is impossible to know the full extent of the past by seeing only a few relics of the past collected from a very rough environment.

I was browsing Plime and found a link to a video that claims that it wants us Christians to think logically and answer some “tough” questions about our faith. These questions are supposed to blow our mind and make us realize that God doesn’t exist. However, a firm understanding of the world from a Christian worldview allows us to answer these questions easily. I was able to answer each of these 10 questions within seconds. For the sake of simplicity, I will call the atheist in the video Bob. As you will see through the video, Bob raises a question and guesses what a Christian’s logical response would be. Yet, every time, he completely misses what a solid Christian response should be.

Question 1: Why won’t God heal amputees? Bob says that we claim God is answering our prayers and healing the sick, curing cancer, etc. Yet, God will not give amputees their limbs back. Are amputees not worthy of having their limbs brought back? This apparent lack of God stems from an idea that God answers all prayers all the time, and that our prayers are more important than his plan. It also hints that God doesn’t exist because God wouldn’t allow a person to suffer, ever. I remember these types of arguments in my freshman philosophy class.

Question 2: Why are there so many starving people in our world? Bob claims that God can’t exist because there are starving people in the world, and that this is a cruel thing to do. This stems for the idea that God is so loving that he wouldn’t never allow suffering if he: 1) exists, 2) is benevolent, 3) omnipotent. Bob even asks “Why would a loving God do this?” These arguments are so elementary, and ignorant of Scripture, it’s child’s play. However, I will respond from a Christian world view. The reason there is suffering in the world is because of the fall, which brought sin and despair into the world. Wow. That wasn’t hard at all. But of course, one would only see this if they believed in the Living Word of God.

Question 3: Why does God demand the deaths of so many innocent people throughout the Bible? Bob lists some Old Testament passages that require the punishment of Jews who break the Law. Bob, however, is ignorant that these passages do not apply to all people, only the Jews. He is ignorant of why these laws were given to his people: God demands far more from his people that the rest of the world. This is apparent throughout the Bible in two ways: 1) Christians suffer during life because of their faith, and 2) Those who are in covenant, yet non-elect, will suffer more than non-covenant people on the Last Day for not being faithful. Bob speaks from ignorance of the Jewish Law by claiming the laws he listed applied to all people. Bob also doesn’t understand the fall. He shows this by claiming that these Jewish lawbreakers are “innocent,” yet nowhere in the Bible are people described as innocent.

Question 4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? Bob claims: 1) God didn’t create the earth in 6 days. 2) There was never a worldwide flood. 3) God didn’t create Adam from dust. 4) Jonah didn’t live in a whale’s stomach for 3 days. It’s important to point out that Bob makes these claims and gives no support whatsoever!

CONTRADICTION ALERT!!

There is something extremely important to note about these atheist arguments from Bob. Earlier, we saw how Bob claimed that God should be omnipotent and able to heal amputees. Now, Bob claims that God is weak and unable to perform miracles! Clearly, Bob is defining God on a point-by-point basis. He is defining what God can and cannot do based on what Bob needs in order to support his argument. Now, I shall argue his four points.

1) Why didn’t God create the world in 6 days? The Bible tells us that the earth was created as a mature earth with the appearance of age, just like Adam was created as a mature man. Now, an atheist would respond to me by saying that I’m basing my response solely on the Bible and doing so is backwards. Yet, there is no reason, or support for saying that the earth wasn’t created in 6 days. We weren’t alive when the earth was created, so we have no support except inspired, divine writing. Well, that or atheist scientists’ opinions.

2) There WAS a worldwide flood. There are stories of a massive flood in many cultures around the world! Even non-Christian nations and cultures share this story. Why? Because it happened. The collective storytelling of this magnitude tells us this.

3) God didn’t create Adam from dust? If God didn’t create Adam from dust (physical material) then what did God create Adam from? His aura, chi, ki, ghost, phantom, ethereal matter? Bob does nothing here except claim that God is weak, yet gives no support at all.

4) God can’t keep someone alive in a whale’s stomach? Again, Bob claims a weak God that is unable to perform miracles. Someone on Plime responded to Bob’s assertion: “I have read a documented case of a sailor being trapped in a whale’s belly for several days and surviving…it was in the 1800s.” Sadly, this person doesn’t give an internet reference. Such a reference would have been an atomic bomb against Bob.

Question 5: Why is God such a proponent of slavery in the Bible? Slavery in the Bible was more like being a servant. Slavery at that time was nothing like the slavery of the Africans during America’s early years. Slaves in the Bible were treated extremely well, and were brought into covenant with God. Slaves were part of the family in Biblical times.

Question 6: Why do bad things happen to good people? I laughed when I read this one. I heard this wet paper argument when I was in elementary school. I personally like Moe’s response: “I am tired of this question. I am not given a shield of invulnerability because I am Christian. Just the knowledge that whatever bad thing DOES happen to me, He will be with me to carry me through it.”

Question 7: Why didn’t Jesus’ miracles leave behind evidence? Is Bob seriously asking this? What kind of evidence does he want? First, the miracles of Jesus were the healing of the diseased and crippled, and turning water to wine. Does Bob want a mummy of someone who was healed, or someone to have saved a glass of wine for Bob to examine in the year 2007? Second, the Bible itself is evidence. It is a written record of events to be treated as a historical document just like personal letters, court document, and census reports. It recorded real events, including the miracles of Jesus.

Question 8: Why has Jesus never appeared to us? I was never aware that Jesus was supposed to appear to us when we became Christians.

Question 9: Why does Jesus want us to eat his body and drink his blood? This comes from ignorance of Jesus’ words. Jesus was speaking metaphorically, not literally. Bob takes Jesus’ words literally, as if we were supposed to cut open Jesus’ arms to pour his blood into a bowl. Bob’s arguments just keep getting worse and worse!

Question 10: Why do Christians have the same divorce rate as non-Christians? I rarely like religious bumper stickers, but just such a thing answers this question: “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.”

What does this video show about atheists’ view of God? To atheists, if God existed, he would:

1. Never allow anyone to suffer, even if the person brought it upon themselves.
2. Be weak and unable to perform miracles.
3. Show himself to us all the time in a physical manner so that everyone would have evidence he exists.
4. Answer all of our prayers.
5. Do anything our hearts desire.
6. Care more about our happiness than his own glory.
7. Spoil us like rich children and raise us as immature people.
8. Be unable to work miracles by bending the laws of the universe he created.

There are so many assumptions of atheists as shown by Bob. He also argues on the side of ignorance on many issues that require biblical knowledge, such as the use of the Law and God’s people. He claims that any rational Christian would have problems with answering his questions, yet I had none. On the contrary, answering his questions was so easy, a caveman could do it.

Associated Press just published an article saying that dinosaurs coexisted with their ancestors:

My objection to this study and it’s findings, and part of the hypothesis of evolution in general, is that scientists are finding “evidence” for their story. It seems to be a sort of paranoia. A scientist finds some fossil or the like, and because the scientist sees everything through a pre-made evolutionist’s mindset, the scientist assumes facts to fit a story.

It reminds me of a courtroom trial. Prosecutors gather evidence for a murder trial, present it to the jury and court, and then the decision is made. But even still, mistakes are made. Innocent people go to jail sometimes, and sometimes the guilty go free. However, in a murder case, all the evidence is fresh, very testable, and right in front of your face. Yet, mistakes are made when trying to decipher what happened at the crime scene. How can scientists be so sure about their story when courts cannot find the truth in present day events?

This may be just wild speculation, but I fear that Chicken Little is working his twisted emotionally-charged, anti-intellectual agenda from within the church.

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And

“If the righteous is scarcely saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”

Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good (1 Peter 4:12-19).

Recently, I passed a church sign that said something to the effect of, “Faith is taking the first step without fear.” I’m not completely sure if that was the wording of the sign. However, I was offended that a church felt that a simple church sign was able to accurately define faith in a single sentence.

Another sign that I saw today on the way to work was, “Tough times don’t last. People do.” That seems more like a motivational speaker than a teacher of the Christian faith. Yes, this sign belonged to a baptist church, and I believe the first sign did as well. It makes me sick to see these Christian-neutral signs from believers whose messages should come from God and not motivational speakers.

These short and uninspired signs remind me of the “5-second prayer” that you can recite if you’re ever in a hurry and don’t have time to pray: “Oh God.”

If atheists don’t believe in God, then why would they be so enthusiastic as to write books on the subject? There are two reasons.

1. To profit from selling books to other atheists. I have seen some atheists books and one of the main arguments against religion is that religion has been a motivator in some historical events, such as the crusades and inquisition. These same atheists must certainly be against anyone owning a gun too, since guns (a tool that itself is not innately good or evil) can be used to cause harm. Christianity, however, is a great thing, but even it is often abused by evil people.

2. Atheism is its own religion. It’s like someone who doesn’t like tomatoes going around to everyone who does like tomatoes and telling them that they are wrong. Christians are commanded to spread the Good News, and atheists authors are imitating us as if they were following a higher call, but atheists are given no command by any higher power to do so. So why be so adamant about professing that tomato lovers are wrong? Profit, and to be worshiped by others who don’t like tomatoes.

Everyone has wondered why God would allow evil to exist. Some claim that since God exists, yet evil exists too, then God is either not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent. That type of human reasoning is fallacious and uninspired, however. God is certainly omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, and evil does exist at the same time. This is not a contradiction despite our limited ability to understand a holy being that allows suffering in the universe.

James says, “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:2-4).

The testing of our faith produces steadfastness, he claims. Said another way, we must experience trials so that we may grow in our faith. Experience is necessary so that our faith will become solid and mature and perfect.

James soon after says, “Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (James 1:12-15).

We are being tested in our earthly lives everyday through our experience. We have our knowledge of the holy and the unholy, but until we are tested, we know nothing. Let me elaborate. Students who receive only lectures will retain only a tiny, minute fraction of what they have been told, but a student who receives hands-on training will remember far more. If I were to tell you how to install a turbo kit into your car, you would know how to do it, but until you install it yourself, your understanding of the procedure is incredibly limited.

I am in no way saying that we should pray that we will be tested, because it is not holy to wish for evil things. Therefore, until our last breath or the Last Day, pray that God will keep temptation and sin far away from us, and that when we are tested, we praise God for maturing our faith in him!

Soli deo gloria!

One of the biggest heresies imaginable is to distort God’s Word. Eugene Peterson has done just that when he wrote The Message. It is a paraphrased Bible that he wrote because he felt that people weren’t able to understand current versions of the Bible. At first glance, this may seem like a noble en devour. Of course, that thought quickly fades the second you realize that God would not let his Word be hard to understand. There are many English translations and they are very readable. Peterson’s crusade to save people from needing to have the reading ability of a 6th grader in order to understand the Bible seems like nothing but an exercise in pride.

As justification for this need to create The Message, Biblegateway.com lists this: “Language changes. New words are formed. Old words take on new meaning. There is a need in every generation to keep the language of the gospel message current, fresh, and understandable—the way it was for its very first readers.”

That quote is most likely from Peterson himself, or someone who helped in the creation of The Message. Either way, it is ridiculous for someone to justify changing the Bible simply to keep the Bible “fresh” when the current versions are not paraphrased, and are extremely readable. How “fresh” should the Bible be? Should we change the words of Jesus and Paul so that they call each other “dog” and “homeboy” when speaking to each other? Should Jesus’ 12 disciples be called Jesus’ crew? Those are phrases that are contemporary and common. Where are the limits?

Had Peterson succeeded in making a Bible that was easier to understand, that would be at least a small glimmer of hope in his work, but it is not. In fact, his paraphrase is even harder to understand! Let’s look at some passages side by side, comparing The Message Bible to the ESV (English Standard Version).

ESV: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:1-2).

The Message: “First this: God created the Heavens and Earth—all you see, all you don’t see. Earth was a soup of nothingness, a bottomless emptiness, an inky blackness. God’s Spirit brooded like a bird above the watery abyss.” (Gen. 1:1-2)

Peterson’s claim that other versions of the Bible are difficult to understand is clearly false! Who cannot understand “In the beginning,” or “The earth was without and void”? Peterson has traded deep images of the void for words like “soup” and “emptiness” and “inky,” and in doing so, some important Hebrew images have been changed from their intended meaning.

Now, as for Peterson’s claim that The Message is written in contemporary language so that we can understand it better, that is complete bunk! I have never heard anyone say “First this.” That is not contemporary language at all. Here is another example of language that is supposed to be contemporary but isn’t:

ESV: “And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.” (Gen. 1:3-5). That’s not hard to understand at all.

The Message: “God spoke: “Light!”
And light appeared.” (Gen. 1:3-5).

Peterson completely changed God’s words, a most heretical act. God did not only say a single word. He gave a command, and right after, the command was fulfilled.

Peterson’s claim that The Message is easy to understand is shown to be false, yet again. When people are talking to each other, people always say “John said, ‘Hello.’” No one ever says, “John spoke: ‘Hello.’” In fact, even as I’m writing this paragraph, I am using different tenses of the word “say” when I say that John “said.” I did not use different tenses of “spoke” by saying that John “spoke.”

The Message “Bible” is heretical beyond this limited scope presented in this short blog. I am certain that by paraphrasing the Word, Peterson has smeared a beautiful image God has painted for us by removing the details. He has clouded what was a clear view. It is the very nature of paraphrasing anything. Paraphrasing removes details so that someone can get the gist of what is happening. This should never, ever be done to the Bible. The Bible is the primary way that we receive grace and learn from God. If this Holy book’s message, no pun intended, leaves out details so that we only get the gist of what’s going on, then we are losing so much of an incredibly wonderful and powerful book.

I was reading someone’s blog post on limited atonement versus universal atonement. A fellow named Justin responded to the blog. Justin believes in universal atonement (the idea that everyone will be blessed with eternal life) and gave one passage of scripture to support his argument. I was feeling particularly inspired, so I typed up this response:

Excellent post, Justin. By pointing out that one tiny passage of scripture, you have convinced me that all people have received the gift of salvation through Jesus. I’m extremely relieved that since there will be no punishment for my sins on earth and I will receive eternal life regardless of my earthly life, I am going to start living the most self-indulgent life you can possibly imagine. I do this because of God’s apparent lack of justice. All people are saved, so it doesn’t matter what I do. Jesus paid for all sins. Woo hoo!

Also, I’m going to have to do a little snip-snip to my Bible and cut out all those nasty passages that talk about God’s wrath falling on the unrighteous on the Last Day. That’s quite a bit of cutting I’ll be doing, and I’ll even be cutting out quite a bit of Jesus’ own teachings. But that doesn’t matter because you, a valiant crusader, came in with your one passage that obviously contradicts multitudes of teachings elsewhere in the Bible. You are so awesome, Justin, that I want to start my own church to worship you instead. Worshiping someone other than God is very wrong and incredibly sinful, but since ALL people have received salvation, what do I care, right?
It reminds me the movie Little Nicky. During one scene of the movie, one of the evil brothers was disguised as a preacher and told the congregation, “Let the sin begin.” Indeed, if there is no threat of punishment, and there is no retribution for our actions in this life, then there would be no reason to not live the most vulgar and self-indulgent lives that you can imagine.

I was browsing through one of the latest editions of The Mountaineer this week and found a religion section that listed many, if not all, of the churches in Haywood county. There were many baptist churches listed but only 2 P.C.A. churches. With so much popularity, the baptist denomination, or anabaptists as Ben calls them, would seem to be the right denomination - that is, if being right were a majority vote.

There was one church name that struck me with grief as I read it. The name of the church was Free Will Baptist Church. This upset me quite a bit. Before we know anything about a church as we drive by them, we always read the name of the church and its denomination to see what they believe. The name of this church indicates to people what they believe in strongly. There is no way around it. By putting the phrase “free will” into the name of their church, these arminians have deified their church and themselves by claiming that their destiny and ability to choose righteousness is in their own hands.

Another example of baptists deifying themselves comes from Rev. Klueg who said, “Every human you and I encounter is immortal.” Egotism of this level is sickening, and more importantly, without Scriptural support. This succeeds in nothing but deifying humans to the point that humans wouldn’t need God.

I read a joke in a forum and had to re-post it:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: “Stop. Don’t do it.”

“Why shouldn’t I?” he asked.

“Well, there’s so much to live for!”

“Like what?”

“Are you religious?”

He said, “Yes.”

I said, “Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?”

“Christian.”

“Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?”

“Protestant.”

“Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”

“Baptist.”

“Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”

“Baptist Church of God.”

“Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”

“Reformed Baptist Church of God.”

“Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?”

He said: “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915.”

I said: “Die, heretic scum, ” and pushed him off.

I’m proud to present to you an essay that critiques Wayne Grudem’s defense of traditionalism through the scope of systematic theology. This essay was co-written by myself and Ben.

The thesis of the paper is that if traditionalism is right and the doctrine of conditional immortality is wrong, then systematic theology and traditionalists have done an awful job at defending their doctrines.

God’s Rest and the Second Death

My latest defense of Conditional Immortality, a 20 page paper discussing Wayne Grudem’s arguments for traditionalism, was removed from a MySpace group before the moderators read it. They are not conditionalists. Here is my response to them after they refused to tell me why my thread was deleted:

You have not answered my question. Why did you delete my post? It was not offensive at all. I put it up for discussion in a group that’s SUPPOSED to be a place to debate potentially heretical doctrines, but instead, you as moderator apparently would rather stamp out any ideas that you disagree with as opposed to actually debating against the doctrines you disagree with. Also, you have deleted my thread on “How does CI glorify God?,” which it does, and the original thread that YOU started to debate annihilationism. If my memory serves me correct, which it does, Bentok and myself answered every. single. one. of the questions that were proposed to us WITH SCRIPTURE and we interpreted it properly. Where is our error? Nowhere.

In a recent thread (Gifts of the Spirit - are they used today?) you, Jess, admitted that you were interested in a topic that you have not studied much. You say, “This topic came up in another thread and I thought it might be a good one to go over as I don’t know either way and know that I can always learn from you all!” So why is it that you are willing to listen to both sides of an argument on one issue, but not another? Why do you stamp out any opposition when I can show a clear and definite case for my side of an argument? I KNOW you didn’t read the entire 20+ page paper in the short time it took to be deleted. If you had read it, you would have seen our point for writing the paper: if traditionalism is correct on the issues of the intermediate state and eternal punishment, then Grudem has not done so properly.

If the point of the Friends Don’t Let Friends Believe in Heresy group is to, well, not let friends believe in heresy, then that involves discussion, not suppression. Any moderator who acts like the moderator of the “God is not mad at you ever” group by banning Calvinists is doing nothing but creating a cult of people who follow the same beliefs. How can we grow as Christians to a mature faith by talking only with people who agree completely with us? How will we stop drinking milk and start eating solid food?

Am I still a conservative Christian who believes the Reformed Calvinist doctrines? Yes. Very much so. I, like some of the reformers, also hold that CI to be a biblical truth. Yet it amazes me that a fellow Christian and Calvinist would oppress someone who disagrees with you on two issues.

Sorry for raising your blood pressure if my perseverance on this issue has upset you in any way. I feel that there is an injustice in suppressing a fellow Christian in such a way, but I leave that between you and God. May you go with God’s blessing and he soften your hardened heart.

It is still common today to hear fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to say that baptism is only for those who have willingly and actively professed their faith. Since children cannot say “I believe in Christ” the children therefore should not be baptized. However, this is far from the Bible’s stance on baptism. The Scripture is clear that the doctrine of believers-only baptism is erroneous, and that the proper doctrine is covenant baptism. I will not be focusing on why circumcision is no longer required by Scripture and how baptism replaces circumcision. For simplicity, just know that circumcision is outdated, so to speak, and that baptism replaced it. I will focus on why believers baptism is in great error by depriving our children of the benefits of covenant with God.

As Roger du Barry states, “We do not simply enter into an individualistic relationship with God through Jesus Christ; rather, we enter into covenant with God by being included in the existing covenants that he has made with Abraham and his believing household.” He continues, “More than this, we enter into covenant with our households too! The key promise that we inherit is that God will be our God and the God of our children: ‘And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.’ (Gen. 17.7)”

How wonderful it is that our God is a God of us and our children! This does not change in the NT either. Peter said in his Pentecost sermon, “This promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off.” (Acts 2:39) In fact, just as households were circumcised in the OT, households in the NT were baptized under the same situations. When there was a believer in the household, the entire household was baptized. See the baptisms of Cornelius, Lydia, and the Philippian jailer. (Acts 10:24, 47-48, 16:15, 16:33)

“These families entered into the covenants of promise, the kingdom of God through faith expressed in baptism. When the head of the household comes to faith both he and his household is baptized. It follows that any infants in the family will be baptized as a matter of course.” ~ Roger du Barry

The idea that faith must always come before baptism, and which therefore excludes infants from baptism, is not correct. Entire households of males were circumcised in the OT, and entire households were baptized in the NT. There is no reason to exclude an infant from the family of God and from the covenant blessings God bestows upon his people. This fact is so obvious that it requires a person to be very lazy in order to not fully understand baptism in the true and biblical sense.

I charge advocates of believers-only baptism to present a well-reasoned argument that explains why infants should not be baptized when entire households were baptized in the NT when a single family member become a believer. Until that day, may God bless our covenant children and generations after us so that they too may rejoice and praise God for being a God of generations.

For the longest time, the way to understand Christianity was to read the Scripture and to digest its wisdom. This required hard work, diligence, a mature faith, an intelligent mind, strong reading abilities, and a willingness to learn about a culture from a different time and place. This type faith is to be admired, revered, and loved because it shows a true and pure faith that genuinely desires to know God.

However, in America today, our culture has promoted the complete opposite of diligence in all aspects of our lives. Our culture is enthralled with instant gratification as seen in movies, the internet, television, fast food, video games, and music, while other activities that require time and work are neglected, such as reading, playing sports, and spending time with family. I do not speak for the whole world, but only this lazy American culture. European school systems and colleges to not adhere to this type of thinking, as seen in their tests. As indicated by my French professor in college, Europeans are fascinated by our multiple choice exams because they feel that the best way to express true knowledge and understanding is through essay format, which uses the classical learning styles that require a strong knowledge of argument and coherent logic.

Thus, our culture has devised an approach to Scripture that caters to our self-indulgence and laziness - systematic theology.

Systematic theology does not require an in-depth reading of Scripture itself. The very nature of systematic theology is that of a quick-and-dirty view of passages that mention various issues, such as eschatology or baptism. Instead of reading the Bible as a historical narrative in the way that it was presented to us in its canonized form, this new systematic way of thinking slices the Bible into neat and tidy sections separated by topic. Although when trying to understand a particular issue, one must look through the Scripture to understand what was said about that issue, this new theological perspective does not look at the whole Bible as a continuous story that builds upon itself. By doing so, it ignores concepts.

Concepts of any caliber require thinking and a mature mind. They cannot be obtained by merely pointing to shallow arguments, which is precisely what popular systematic theology advocates. Breaking down the Bible into sections destroys its beautiful continuity of doctrine and integrated messages, none of which can be successfully removed from the others.

For example, knowledge of baptism requires a knowledge of circumcision in the Old Testament, covenant, federal headship, salvation by grace, and the remission of sins. The doctrine of Conditional Immortality and annihilation requires a knowledge of God’s absolute sovereignty, our mortal souls and our creation, original sin, eschatological language, the Resurrection, Jesus’ sacrifice for the elect, and free will co-existing with predestination (which also requires a knowledge of God’s sovereignty). Do I need to go on? Is it not clear that true biblical doctrines require more than the shallow reading of scripture which systematic theology gives us?

An example of systematic theology’s errors can be seen in the popular systematic theologist Wayne Grudem. In Wayne Grudem’s Bible Doctrine, Grudem contradicts his own theological arguments about glorification by looking at issues systematically instead of from a classical perspective. Classical theologians were very wise men who did not waste words. As Bentok mentioned in a conversation of ours, there is more wisdom and logic in a single sentence of the classical theologians’ arguments than whole books of systematic theology. I could not agree more.

The phrase “weeping and gnashing of teeth” is found seven times in the Bible. It appears six times in Matthew, and one time in Luke. It is common among traditionalists to point to this phrase in support of their view that the wicked will suffer eternally after judgment. A simple examination of these passages concludes otherwise.

In reality, this phrase gives no indication whatsoever that the wicked will suffer eternally. It illustrates that the wicked will see the rewards of the righteous, curse the Lord, and be casted out of God’s kingdom into fire. These passages in no way hint that the wicked who are thrown into the fire are able to dwell within it, and much less for eternity.

This phrase does, however, add color to the Old Testament’s already vivid imagery of the judgment of the wicked. While the Old Testament books of Job, Psalms, and Proverbs focus on the extinction of the wicked and the rewards of the righteous, the New Testament tells us that the wicked will not be immediately annihilated. Instead, the wicked will suffer consciously for an amount of time (just as Jesus suffered consciously before being crucified) before suffering the second and final death by fire. The conscious pain will take no longer than the time it takes for the fire to consume the wicked and turn their entire being to nothing.

Here are the seven times the phrase is found within Scripture:

When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt. 8:10-12)

He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and harvesters are angels. As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.” (Mt. 13:37-42)

“Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, and threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt. 13:47-50)

“But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless. Then the king told the attendants ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are invited, but few are chosen.” (Mt. 22:11-13)

“But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt. 24:48-51)

” ‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ “ (Mt. 25:28-30)

“There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.” (Lk. 13:28)

We can see in other passages that when someone gnashes their teeth, they do so in anger:

Surely now God has worn me out; he has made desolate all my company. And he has shriveled me up, which is a witness against me. And my leanness has risen up against me; it testifies to my face. He has torn me in his wrath and hated me; he has gnashed his teeth at me; my adversary sharpens his eyes against me. (Job 16:7-9)

The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him, but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming. (Psalm 37:12-13)

The wicked man sees it and is angry; he gnashes his teeth and melts away; the desire of the wicked will perish! (Psalm 112:10)

But at my stumbling they rejoiced and gathered; they gathered together against me; wretches whom I did not know tore at me without ceasing; like profane mockers at a feast, they gnash at me with their teeth. (Psalm 35:15-16)

All your enemies rail against you; they hiss, they gnash their teeth, they cry: “We have swallowed her! Ah, this is the day we longed for; now we have it; we see it!” (Lamentation 2:16)

What these passages teach: These passages clearly teach that on the Last Day, the righteous and wicked will be separated and receive different judgments. The wicked will see the rewards of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets, and afterwards will be casted out of the kingdom of God while they weep and gnash their teeth in anger at the Lord and the righteous. The wicked will be casted into the darkness like the wedding guest, cut to pieces like the wicked servant, and thrown into the fiery furnace and burned to ashes like useless weeds. These images indicate that there will be consciousness of the wicked, and conscious pain, for an amount of time that is most likely the amount of time it takes for them to be burned to death by fire. Therefore, we can read “weeping and gnashing of teeth” to mean that the wicked will be angry at God and the righteous after seeing the heavenly rewards, and then they will be punished with the wrath of God until they are completely destroyed.

What these passages do not teach: These passages do not indicate that the wicked will suffer eternal conscious torment. These statements say what they clearly say, and nothing more. If these passages indicated that the wicked would suffer never-ending conscious pain, it would be clear. However, there is no evidence from this phrase to support any definitive argument stating that the wicked will be consciously tormented without end.

As Edward Fudge says:

“In scriptural usage the expression “weeping and grinding of teeth” seems to indicate two separate activities. The first reflects the terror of the doomed as they begin to truly realize that God has thrown them out as worthless and as they anticipate the execution of His sentence. The second seems to express the bitter rage and acrimony they feel toward God, who sentenced them, and toward the redeemed, who will forever be blessed. The common assumption that “weeping and grinding of teeth” describes the everlasting agony of souls in conscious torment is the interpretation of a later age, and it lacks any clear biblical support.”

Pickle Publishing has an incredible paper on Conditional Immortality which seems fairly exhaustive. It is a great reference for the Biblical language used to describe the annihilation of the unsaved.

Pickle has also researched the Hebrew language concerning the soul.

These two papers are very informative, to say the least. I encourage all to read these papers and to be enlightened at the mortality or our existence.

Also, consider purchasing Edward Fudge’s The Fire That Consumes, which is, as the subtitle says, a Biblical and historical study of the doctrine of final punishment. Fudge is very influential, his argument is solid, and he doesn’t Grudemize* the Scripture with systematic theology.

Grudemize [groo - dem - ahyz]
-verb
1. to contort biblical texts
2. to draw non-biblical conclusions from the Bible
3. to ignore Bible history and context for interpretation purposes
4. to put tremendous strain on small Bible passages to reach conclusions that were not intended by the original authors
5. to insert pagan presuppositions into scriptural interpretations
6. to make assumptions and assert the assumptions as true, especially when regarding scriptural interpretations

Etymology: Grudemize is derived from the systematic theologist Wayne Grudem who often disregards scripture, ignores context, makes assumptions, and inserts presuppositions into the Bible for interpretation purposes.

One of the worst abuses of scripture is the abuse of systematic theology in order to understand the Bible. A very common practice among mainstream systematic theologists is to take a few hand selected passages and put tremendous strain on them in order to milk out a doctrine from nothing. Another harmful scriptural error that this creates is that it overlooks the rest of the Bible.

A prime example of those abuse comes from the traditional view of the soul. Abusers of systematic theology (Wayne Grudem comes to mind) ignore entire books of the Bible and focus on tiny passages in order to create faulty doctrines. When the rest of the Bible gives hard evidence against these faulty doctrines, what is a systematic theologian to do except ignore scripture that plainly and easily goes against their made-up doctrines.

One common argument that I hear from atheists or anti-Christians as to why our religion is wrong is that our religion (and other religions as well) have started wars, massacres, hate, and genocide throughout history. My only response is that these people then must also support gun control.

We’ve all heard the phrase, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” This is certainly true. A gun is a tool created by humankind and we have to be careful when using one. It is like a rock, or pencil, or knife, or words, or cars, or ideas, or politics, or water, or food. All of these things are not innately evil. However, the rock, the words, the ideas can all be used for evil purposes when evil people abuse them.

When over-zealous, evil, misguided, silver-tongued, greedy religious leaders