Hermeneutics Meets the Road: Logic, Reason and the Tier 1 Basics

[makesends]

(Note to the reader: Please also see Post #12 of this thread)

I'm posting this for two reasons. I'm hoping it will be instructional for others, and because I am working through some differences I'm having a problem defining, with a few other members, as to what is and what is not a proper hermeneutic.

For those who don't know these terms, I will quote outside sources for definitions relating to this discussion, then proceed with the situation in which I find myself.

HERMENEUTICS (American Heritage Dictionary via AI)

1. The theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text.
2. The science of interpretation and explanation; exegesis; esp., that branch of theology which defines the laws whereby the meaning of the Scriptures is to be ascertained.
   Similar: exegesis
3. The study or theory of the methodical interpretation of text, especially holy texts

HERMENEUTIC
adjective (American Heritage Dictionary via AI)

1. Interpretive; explanatory.​

2. Unfolding the signification; of or pertaining to interpretation; exegetical; explanatory.​

"hermeneutic theology, or the art of expounding the Scriptures; a hermeneutic phrase."​

Similar: exegetical explanatory​

3. That explains, interprets, illustrates or elucidates​

lexical noun (derived from adjective) (per AI)

1. A method, theory, or system of interpretation, especially of texts (literary, religious, legal, or philosophical).​

2. An interpretive framework or set of principles used to explain meaning and context.​

3. (More broadly) the practice or art of interpretation itself.​

EXEGESIS (per GotQuestions.org)

Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis.​

EISEGESIS (per Wiktionary)

1. An interpretation, especially of Scripture, that reflects the personal ideas or viewpoint of the interpreter; reading something into a text that isn't there. Compare exegesis.​

2. Personal interpretation of a text (especially of the Bible) using your own ideas.​

TEMPORAL (Dictionary.com)
adjective

1. of or relating to time.​

2. pertaining to or concerned with the present life or this world​

3. (Makesends, my addition here: related to time as opposed to the eternal​

There will also be other words that may be unfamiliar to some of us, as we proceed with this matter.

A few notes:
1. I have not defined Eternal here, because not all of us are agreed here, that the eternal is not temporal in nature; i.e. some think of it as time without end or beginning. But, I think, for the purposes of this argument, the participants so far are agreed that it is not quite of the same nature as the temporal in which we find ourselves subject to time as a principle in both our experience and, generally, as governing our thinking.
2. In these threads, we have spoken and agreed upon what we called, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 etc concepts. @John Bauer please correct me if I'm misrepresenting what we agree on here: Tier 1 is the actual statements of Scripture. Tier 2 is our use of those statements, our conclusions, if properly exegeted and by use of valid hermeneutics. Also in Tier 2, and, in fact, perhaps at the head of it, are the statement of creeds and confessions and Reformed Orthodoxy. Tier 3 is conclusions drawn from 1 and 2. It is necessarily admitted that Tier 2 can have some degree of
mis-statement and worse, of mistake or speculation; Tier 3, moreso.

INTRODUCTION:
Most of this discussion revolves around my disagreement with two or more members' use of several specific passages that are plainly written in Scripture, which writing we all agree is valid and inspired, although temporal in delivery or expression. That is, the temporal understanding of it is valid; but, in what context? Valid to the exclusion of other considerations? (@John Bauer or @Arial , if you have anything to add here—maybe a better way to state what I just said— please do so.)
The subject at hand is two-fold in its application: In the first, there was a thread on the opposition of Annihilationism (theory) over against Eternal Conscious Torment (theory) of Perdition. The second, if I remember right, was a spin-off of the question, "Where is Hell?" in which the question came up, of what is the experience of the dead in what appears in scripture as an intermediate state before resurrection.
But the purpose of this thread is not to debate or pursue those questions, but to explore the use of Scripture in arriving at conclusions, and how to weight those conclusions as to reliability, finality and so on.


So: To start off, I will next rejoin one of those threads with a quote from @John Bauer, written in response to one of my posts (Makesends).

 

[makesends]

I number these for reference to points of hermeneutic discussion/ instruction on exegesis—not to imply a sequence disconnect or paragraph division of any sort.

1)

Let me grant for the sake of argument that the dead do not experience any perceptible duration of the intermediate state, that the very next moment of which they are conscious after death is the resurrection, even though decades or even centuries may have elapsed. (This is easy for me to grant because it is close to what I actually believe.)

Here is the point: That does not disprove the intermediate state.

The question is not whether the dead perceive duration in that state, but whether there is a state between death and resurrection. You said it yourself: They don’t experience any perceptible duration of—what? The intermediate state, the interval (medius) that lies between (inter-) death and resurrection. But the fact that they don’t perceive anything in that interval doesn’t disprove the reality of the interval itself. The state remains intermediate because death and resurrection remain distinct events, regardless of whether the dead are conscious of that interval.

I grant you that it does not disprove the intermediate state. BUT, if (said for the sake of argument) they do not experience it, and God does not see it as such, (which, granted, has yet to be proven), is there any actual passage of time in the afterlife?

2)

I said that Sproul is conflating the intermediate state with the final state by attributing to the wicked now what belongs properly to final hell. Your response doesn’t engage that distinction. Instead, it shifts the conversation to a different issue altogether, namely, the relation between temporal language and the afterlife.

I do so to show the possibility that, including the intermediate state as a done fact, and no passage of time necessary for them, that upon death they may well indeed be issued 'immediately' into the resurrection, either at least in their experience, or even in the more solid fact of the eternal reality vs the perspective of this temporal vapor, to which we are 'currently' subjected.

3)

But that misses the point. Even if the afterlife is not experienced by its inhabitants in the same temporal mode we now experience—which is what I believe anyway—it simply doesn’t follow that the distinction between intermediate state and final state disappears. The latter is an ontological and eschatological distinction grounded in revelation, not merely a projection of our “temporal frame.”

Perhaps you are right. I grant you it makes sense. But not being convinced of even that intermediate state, though I have no other explanation for what I read that sounds that way, besides a use of concepts assumed by the audience and not immediately denied by the speakers, (i.e. I grant my interjection there is indeed speculation—but with reason that is supported by tier 1 statements.

4)

And you even recognize and maintain the very distinction you are trying to blur. On the one hand, you argue for an intermediate state in which no duration is consciously registered; it is not “ongoing” for them “but one-and-done with the resurrection.” On the other hand, you argue that in final hell the wicked experience the presence of God intensely with excruciating torment and anguish (like here). No conscious experience in the intermediate state vs. conscious experience in the final state. (Same for the redeemed, I should think. The very next moment of which they are conscious after death is being raised to meet Jesus.)

I think it proper at this point to review, identifying exactly what the scriptural statements ARE concerning the afterlife and the intermediate state. Please be my guest, since it is your firm contention that indeed there is an intermediate state. Please forgive my inconsistency of expression.

4)

To the reader: We have in this discussion: Tier 1 statements to be delineated for you. Tier 2 conclusions drawn from those statements. Tier 3 conjectures as to Tier 1 statements impinging/related/relevant to this question, (and hopefully those Tier 1 statements (though there are very many, for which this format is not well-suited, will be delineated also). It may then appear to you that the application of those (Tier 3) conjectures need to be proven relevant. —And there is where I think our problems here lie, though both John and Arial and, perhaps, others may consider the problems elsewhere.​

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
See? THIS (that you just said above) shows how you are not getting me. OBVIOUSLY Jesus will not return until he has gathered all his sheep. I get that. Nothing that I have been trying to get across contradicts that. BUT that is from OUR (human) perspective.

It is a pointless point as far as this discussion goes. It has been introduced into the conversation (and nearly all of your conversations) apropos of nothing. It is a whole other subject that belongs perhaps in Doctrines of God or Doctrinal Explorations. And yet you insist on inserting it here in all the exchanges instead of dealing with what is actually being said.

What has the conversation come to be about (and I don't know how or when, but it did)? It is about whether there is any scriptural evidence that there is an intermediate state between death and resurrection. What is Scripture? It is God revealing to us in temporal language for temporal people about temporal events. Your answer is you don't know but you believe that there is not because it is temporal language and therefore it may not actually involve time from God's pov or that of the dead. That is not using scripture to arrive at an interpretation of the scriptures. Which is what the conversation is asking. Does Scripture---.

All that is category confusion. And it is essentially saying that all scripture aside, no scripture can indicate the passage of time between death and resurrection because the unseen, God's pov is what is real and what is temporal is an illusion. (And no, you don't call it an illusion but what else would it be if it is as yu say irrelevant to the eternal? Now, by extension apply that to all Scripture. In order to be consistent with yourself, you would have to. And instead of recognizing that is what you are doing even though you have been told many times and in many ways, you keep crying, "You don't understand me!" Of course we don't. It makes nonsense out of the subject being discussed when you keep inserting what doesn't belong in the conversation as the solution to the conversation.

makesends said:
The FACT that he gathers his sheep, The FACT that he gathers his sheep throughout time, The FACT that they are raised from the dead, and all the other FACTS concerning redemption, and, indeed, concerning God's decree(s) for all time, are accomplished in TIME, but they are not necessarily experienced AS TIME (or so I suppose) from within eternity. They are wonderful fact that God accomplished during this vapor we call time.

So what?! That is not what is being debated. Just answer this question. Is there any place in Scripture that presents an intermediate state between death and resurrection? Keep in mind that whether the dead experience it as time the same way we do from here on earth or not is irrelevant.

So, here is what I'm (at least for the moment) seeing:

A) The Tier 1 scriptures to the effect that there is an Intermediate State (between death and resurrection) need to be delineated and,
B) Tier 2 seen as, (interpreted as), necessarily temporal in their application, and,
C) Tier 2 demonstrated as necessarily temporal in the experience of the dead. (Granted, this (C) would depend on me (Makesends) showing (from the negative) that they are not, necessarily, temporal in the experience of the dead. Or, rather, (from the positive) that they are quite possibly non-temporal in the experience of the dead.
D) Tier 2 God's POV demonstrated by Tier 1 statements as being ultimate, and the ONLY TRUTH in the end. This will also need to be demonstrated as relevant to the interpretation of other Tier 1 statements and Tier 2, etc, arguments. This falls on me (Makesends) to show.
E) Tier 3 or even 4 reasoning that God's POV not only prevails as THE TRUTH, but in that application to this question, even if it takes it death-to-resurrection: "Done-and-done".
F) In the delineation and arguments along these lines, some of the Tier numbers assigned may turn out to be other than what was originally supposed concerning certain aspects.

So, then, I need to see your arguments concisely stated, as to 1)why mine are either mistaken or irrelevant to the question of the intermediate state, and 2)why you think it is a temporally experienced state by the dead, and 3)as you have stated that for the believer upon dying it may well be that they do not consciously experience anything until the resurrection, how/why that is different for the reprobate dead.

If this is off-topic to the original thread, my apologies. Please continue the argument of the OP in that thread, with or in opposition to what I have said there in on-topic conversations. But I would appreciate your assessments and delineations of the Tier(whatever) arguments according to their relevance to proper hermeneutics and exegesis here, using this current subject (roughly, "the intermediate state") as an example, where the rubber meets the road.

There is something I am in the habit of doing that comes across to both you and John, that I don't find objectionable, but you do. If you wish to go directly there, (and I know you have tried to explain it in the past), instead of using all the steps I'm asking for above, ok, and I'll try to answer them, but I would prefer to use those steps (or some other means) to keep order and hopefully to demonstrate what proper exegesis is, and the hermeneutic that results in drawing reliable conclusions, or results in tentative conclusions, or leaves a question up-in-the-air.

 

[Greg]

I'm posting this for two reasons. I'm hoping it will be instructional for others, and because I am working through some differences I'm having a problem defining, with a few other members, as to what is and what is not a proper hermeneutic.

Does the bible provide a final authoritative answer to what is and what is not a proper hermeneutic? If so, what verse or verses?

 

[makesends]

Does the bible provide a final authoritative answer to what is and what is not a proper hermeneutic? If so, what verse or verses?

Nope. Nobody says "a proper hermeneutic" is the end of the story. However, good sense makes for a proper hermeneutic, no? Logical use of language and context and so on...?

 

[Greg]

Nope. Nobody says "a proper hermeneutic" is the end of the story. However, good sense makes for a proper hermeneutic, no? Logical use of language and context and so on...?

What exactly essential doctrine in the bible is, cannot be made relevant to you except by application of "proper hermeneutics". Its mere existence in the bible benefits Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses nothing, because they are smothered the true interpretation by their application of faulty hermeneutics. So "proper hermeneutics" must itself have a solidly reliable foundation.

So your essential doctrines can never be more trustworthy than the hermeneutical rules you've chosen to use to interpret the meaning of the associated biblical verses.

Aren't you asking for trouble if the foundation for your hermeneutics (i.e., the things that make essential doctrine relevant to you personally) is derived from an extra-biblical foundation?

Did God put proper doctrine in the bible, but left out of the bible that thing so critical to correct interpretation called "proper hermeneutics"?

As for "good sense" and "logical use of language", I agree, but your bible doesn't allow that much breathing room. For example, "good sense" and "logical use of language" makes the meaning of Hosea 11:1 clear. It's referring to the historical Exodus. But Matthew 2:15 says Jesus' leaving Egypt during his infancy was a "fulfillment" of Hosea 11:1. Surely you realize that Christian scholars constantly debate each other about whether and to what extent "apostolic exegesis" coheres with what modern Christians call "good sense" and "logical use of language"?

 

[Arial]

So, then, I need to see your arguments concisely stated, as to 1)why mine are either mistaken or irrelevant to the question of the intermediate state, and

That was fully covered in my post that you quoted. You collapse categories and introduce a category into the specific conversation that have no place in it.

2)why you think it is a temporally experienced state by the dead,

I never once said that I did think it is a temporally experience state by the dead if by that you mean that is how they experienced it. I have never been dead and came back to life. How would I know how the dead experience it. I simply said it wasn't part of the conversation. And if it had been properly introduced into the conversation as a peripheral question, then it could have been discussed in its own category, but it wasn't. Nor was it made clear that is what you were doing. You kept it as part of the same category as the original topic. "Does Scripture anywhere indicate that there is an intermediate state between death and resurrection?" You never answered that but jumped straight into that line of thinking as though that was where the answer was.

3)as you have stated that for the believer upon dying it may well be that they do not consciously experience anything

I have never said that. I have repeatedly said the opposite.

 

[makesends]

That was fully covered in my post that you quoted. You collapse categories and introduce a category into the specific conversation that have no place in it.

I never once said that I did think it is a temporally experience state by the dead if by that you mean that is how they experienced it. I have never been dead and came back to life. How would I know how the dead experience it. I simply said it wasn't part of the conversation. And if it had been properly introduced into the conversation as a peripheral question, then it could have been discussed in its own category, but it wasn't. Nor was it made clear that is what you were doing. You kept it as part of the same category as the original topic. "Does Scripture anywhere indicate that there is an intermediate state between death and resurrection?" You never answered that but jumped straight into that line of thinking as though that was where the answer was.

I have never said that. I have repeatedly said the opposite.

Ok. It is up to me to review and figure out where we are.

 

[John Bauer]

1. I grant you that it doesn’t disprove the intermediate state. But if—for the sake of argument—they do not experience [any perceptible duration] and God does not see it as such, … is there any actual passage of time in the afterlife?

I don’t know. But, as indicated in my response to you, I personally believe the passage of time is not experienced in the intermediate state.

“What about the final state?” For the redeemed? No idea, but I hope so.

2. I do so to show the possibility that, including the intermediate state as a done fact, and no passage of time necessary for them, that upon death they may well indeed be issued 'immediately' into the resurrection, either at least in their experience, or even in the more solid fact of the eternal reality vs the perspective of this temporal vapor, to which we are 'currently' subjected.

First, you have nowhere established an eternal reality devoid of temporal sequence beyond God’s point of view (which grounds but does not constitute reality). The fact that he is being (esse simpliciter) does not nullify the reality of any and all becoming (which is temporal by definition).

Second, the fact that the dead don’t consciously experience the passage of time in the intermediate state does not disprove its reality. At this point, you need to concede the debate. We both agree there is an intermediate state and that the dead do not consciously experience the passage of time therein.

3. Perhaps you are right. I grant you it makes sense. But not being convinced of even that intermediate state, though I have no other explanation for what I read that sounds that way, besides a use of concepts assumed by the audience and not immediately denied by the speakers, (i.e. I grant my interjection there is indeed speculation—but with reason that is supported by tier 1 statements.

Here is my translation of what you said:

You may be right that the distinction between the intermediate state and the final state is real. I admit that your view makes sense. But I am still not convinced that the intermediate state is actually real. I do not have a better explanation for the passages that seem to teach it, except that the biblical speakers may be using ideas their audience already assumed, without stopping to correct those assumptions. I admit that this part of my view is speculative, but I think it is still a reasonable speculation because it is supported, in some way, by Tier 1 statements.

First, the fact that you’re not convinced is irrelevant, because the point is not to convince you.

Second, what Tier 1 statements (i.e., scriptural texts) support your speculation about the intermediate state?

4. I think it proper, at this point, to identify and review exactly what the scriptural statements are concerning the afterlife and the intermediate state. Please be my guest, since it is your firm contention that indeed there is an intermediate state.

Are you asking for biblical texts indicating or affirming an intermediate state?

 

[makesends]

I don’t know. But, as indicated in my response to you, I personally believe the passage of time is not experienced in the intermediate state.

“What about the final state?” For the redeemed? No idea, but I hope so.



First, you have nowhere established an eternal reality devoid of temporal sequence beyond God’s point of view (which grounds but does not constitute reality). The fact that he is being (esse simpliciter) does not nullify the reality of any and all becoming (which is temporal by definition).

I disagree that the reality of 'becoming' is temporal by definition. That may be at the core of our disagreement. But you yourself just said you don't know if there is a passage of time for the Redeemed. Are you saying that you don't know if there is any 'becoming' for the Redeemed in the final state? Not that it necessarily figures into the debate, but I believe that, regardless of whether the final state is by passage of time or not, that it is where we will see God as the ONLY source of "NEW", and himself 'always' new. First Cause, and never done causing. Dynamic life for His People. I have a lot of reasons to believe that. I consider it Tier 2, though my statements and descriptions of it may be as bad as Tier 4.

Second, the fact that the dead don’t consciously experience the passage of time in the intermediate state does not disprove its reality. At this point, you need to concede the debate. We both agree there is an intermediate state and that the dead do not consciously experience the passage of time therein.

I disagree that we both agree there is an intermediate state, AS SUCH, anyway, at this point. I need to see just what the Tier 1 statements are. But the debate goes beyond just 'an intermediate state' into 'where do the dead go' upon death, in order to describe just what this 'intermediate state' even IS.

Here is my translation of what you said:

You may be right that the distinction between the intermediate state and the final state is real. I admit that your view makes sense. But I am still not convinced that the intermediate state is actually real. I do not have a better explanation for the passages that seem to teach it, except that the biblical speakers may be using ideas their audience already assumed, without stopping to correct those assumptions. I admit that this part of my view is speculative, but I think it is still a reasonable speculation because it is supported, in some way, by Tier 1 statements.

First, the fact that you’re not convinced is irrelevant, because the point is not to convince you.

It certainly seems to be the point of the continuing of the debate as it was in the other thread. Even just above you said that I need to concede. Did you mean, to concede unconvinced? Or to admit that you are right?

My intent here, however, is to lay out the sequence [of thought] of this debate, to show proper hermeneutics and exegesis in action.

Second, what Tier 1 statements (i.e., scriptural texts) support your speculation about the intermediate state?

From the first Alien movie, the android, "We're still collating [the data]."

Are you asking for biblical texts indicating or affirming an intermediate state?

I'm asking for all the references, or at least for most of them, or, if there are few enough, for the actual texts; I'm asking for, at a minimum, all the ones currently under consideration. I need to see a preponderance of evidence for your thesis or both yours and @Arial 's, if they are different. And I will (in spite of my laziness) do the same (though there are way too many for this format) for my view, and upon and during both actions we can discuss exegesis for those statements, which is the reason I moved this debate to this thread. (I call it my 'view', instead of my thesis, because my thesis was that I don't see good reason to consider anything in the afterlife 'temporal' in the sense we currently think of time. (But, I guess, the texts supporting either one —my view of the intermediate state and my view of the afterlife relating to a possible passage of time— are probably pretty much the same; our arguments have included both, and originally this debate was in at least those two threads.)

 

[Arial]

I'm asking for all the references, or at least for most of them, or, if there are few enough, for the actual texts; I'm asking for, at a minimum, all the ones currently under consideration. I need to see a preponderance of evidence for your thesis or both yours and @Arial 's, if they are different.

I will present a couple (though I already did in the other thread on the same subject). I assume you are asking for scripture that indicate an intermediate state between death and resurrection since that is the question you are responding to.

But in order to not rehash all that other thread, keep in mind what you are asking and do not counter with something that is not in the question, i.e. whether or not the dead experience that intermediate state as time in the same way we experience time.

Luke 23:43 "Today you will be with me in Paradise."
2 Cor 5:6-8
Phil 1:21-23
1 Thes 4:13-17
1 Cor 15:20-23
Rev 6:9-11

 

[makesends]

For the sake of the reader:
#1. Here is where I see the debate in the other threads:

A. @John Bauer and @Arial made statements to the effect that,

1) certain things happen in the afterlife in temporal sequence. (Or so I understood them to say.)​

2) certain things happen in the 'intermediate state' (between death and resurrection), or, more to the point, that Scripture describes them temporally, so, therefore, they are temporal.​

B. I (makesends) interjected with statements to the effect that what we see described as temporal may not be temporal (in the sense we currently consider as 'passage of time').

1) whether I should have or not, I have conceded to some degree of possibility of hyperbole, or, at least, to lack of definition, in some of my statements, such as "...directly from death to resurrection" (and that one may not be a direct quote).​

2) I do concede that both of them used definite biblical texts for their view and I did very few if any, but made mostly offhand references to some biblical facts—most of which definitely are not Tier 1 statements.​

C. I needed to relax and consider the matter in organized fashion, in spite of my strong gut reactions to something between (mostly) John Bauer and myself (and one other member (not Arial)) that has been lurking for a long time. I say 'strong' because it is, (to me), a nearly Tier1 fact, that we know almost nothing, compared to how God sees things—i.e. not just the amount of things he knows, but, HOW he knows them—the way in which he knows them, which is, in my adamant opinion, their very ontology. Hence, I moved the debate here, both to stifle the tone it had assumed on those other threads, and to (Edit here: I see I did not finish that sentence. I will try to remember what I had intended there.) (later): ...and to organize my thoughts, and besides, hopefully to demonstrate to the readers the need for and ways of a good hermeneutic.

#2. Here is where I see the debate in this thread:

A. John has conceded (actually, it began in the other threads) that there may not be a passage of time (as we currently consider time) in the 'intermediate state' and, indeed, he isn't sure whether there is even after the resurrection.
B. I have conceded that there is an 'intermediate state' temporally described, in temporally-identified terminology (though, to be honest, in my ongoing increasing brain-fog, I'm not sure if I made that concession for argument's sake, to demonstrate that what we take for temporal in the afterlife is not necessarily temporally factual for those in the afterlife. (I.e. that though—or even because—we don't know how to think non-temporally, some things are stated in temporal fashion in the text.)

#3. So here is what I see needs to happen here:

A. We need to see laid out in definite fashion, just what Scripture says, for both views.
B. We need to understand the arguments restated.
C. We need to see proper exegesis demonstrated in the texts concerning the arguments, which is my main thrust in moving to this thread.
D. We need to see good logic in the arguments; I have no problem conceding already that John's ability to debate far exceeds mine. In fact, I'm not sure it has not been an ongoing excuse for me to be lazy in my thinking.
E. Item D, here, does not mean that I don't have a point. Now, I state that here, as I hope it doesn't need to become a point of debate in this thread.

 

[Arial]

For the sake of the reader:
#1. Here is where I see the debate in the other threads:

A. @John Bauer and @Arial made statements to the effect that,

1) certain things happen in the afterlife in temporal sequence. (Or so I understood them to say.)​

2) certain things happen in the 'intermediate state' (between death and resurrection), or, more to the point, that Scripture describes them temporally, so, therefore, they are temporal.​

B. I (makesends) interjected with statements to the effect that what we see described as temporal may not be temporal (in the sense we currently consider as 'passage of time').

1) whether I should have or not, I have conceded to some degree of possibility of hyperbole, or, at least, to lack of definition, in some of my statements, such as "...directly from death to resurrection" (and that one may not be a direct quote).​

2) I do concede that both of them used definite biblical texts for their view and I did very few if any, but made mostly offhand references to some biblical facts—most of which definitely are not Tier 1 statements.​

C. I needed to relax and consider the matter in organized fashion, in spite of my strong gut reactions to something between (mostly) John Bauer and myself (and one other member (not Arial)) that has been lurking for a long time. I say 'strong' because it is, (to me), a nearly Tier1 fact, that we know almost nothing, compared to how God sees things—i.e. not just the amount of things he knows, but, HOW he knows them—the way in which he knows them, which is, in my adamant opinion, their very ontology. Hence, I moved the debate here, both to stifle the tone it had assumed on those other threads, and to

#2. Here is where I see the debate in this thread:

A. John has conceded (actually, it began in the other threads) that there may not be a passage of time (as we currently consider time) in the 'intermediate state' and, indeed, he isn't sure whether there is even after the resurrection.
B. I have conceded that there is an 'intermediate state' temporally described, in temporally-identified terminology (though, to be honest, in my ongoing increasing brain-fog, I'm not sure if I made that concession for argument's sake, to demonstrate that what we take for temporal in the afterlife is not necessarily temporally factual for those in the afterlife. (I.e. that though—or even because—we don't know how to think non-temporally, some things are stated in temporal fashion in the text.)

#3. So here is what I see needs to happen here:

A. We need to see laid out in definite fashion, just what Scripture says, for both views.
B. We need to understand the arguments restated.
C. We need to see proper exegesis demonstrated in the texts concerning the arguments, which is my main thrust in moving to this thread.
D. We need to see good logic in the arguments; I have no problem conceding already that John's ability to debate far exceeds mine. In fact, I'm not sure it has not been an ongoing excuse for me to be lazy in my thinking.
E. Item D, here, does not mean that I don't have a point. I state that here, as I hope it doesn't need to become a point of debate in this thread.

What I would like to know is why we should attempt to talk about things that you, John and I and perhaps everyone agrees on, (we know nothing about how God sees things and next to nothing about him compared to what there is to know) that we can't know because we can't see what God sees and because it is beyond our finite boundaries to reach? Isn't the purpose of the inspired Scripture and the history that is in it, to reveal what we are capable of knowing about him and all that we need to know for salvation and him.

Isn't it enough that we know that we don't know everything and that there are things about God that we can't know? I hope that did not sound dismissive for it was not meant to discourage you or take away from your post or your inquiries. It is just the puzzle I have been trying to understand from the first mention of debating the passage of time in the afterlife.

 

[John Bauer]

Here is where I see the debate in the other threads: …

• I am not aware of making any statements “to the effect that certain things happen in the afterlife in temporal sequence.” I suspect you may have misunderstood something. After all, I am the guy who said, “I personally believe the passage of time is not experienced in the intermediate state.”
  
  ​
• I am not aware of making any statements to the effect that “certain things happen in the intermediate state,” nor asserting that Scripture makes such statements. Again, I am the guy who said that “the dead do not experience any perceptible duration of the intermediate state,” that “the very next moment of which they are conscious after death is the resurrection, even though decades or even centuries may have elapsed.” That is something I can easily grant, I said, because it is “close to what I actually believe.”
  
  ​
• Let me also reiterate: The question is not whether the dead perceive duration in that state, but whether there is a state between death and resurrection.

It is, to me, a nearly Tier 1 fact that we know almost nothing compared to how God sees things—not just the amount of things he knows, but HOW he knows them …

That is a Tier 2 inference—which is “nearly” Tier 1, yes.

But there is no need to spend any time on this. Any person whose theology is Reformed already admits that human knowledge is ectypal, analogical, finite, and accommodated to creaturely capacity, whereas God’s knowledge is archetypal, original, infinite, and complete in himself (exhaustive and non-discursive).

John has conceded—[and this] actually began in the other threads—that there may not be a passage of time as we currently consider time in the intermediate state, and indeed he isn't sure whether there is even after the resurrection.

That is not a point I conceded, it was a point I have carried all along because it’s what I happen to believe (which is why it would appear earlier in other threads). I have held this view for many years.

I have been combatting your apparent denial that there is an intermediate state, which you defend on the basis that the dead likely have no conscious experience of an interval. Have I misunderstood something? Do you presently affirm or deny that there is an intermediate state?

Remember, the fact that they don’t perceive anything in that interval doesn’t disprove the reality of the interval itself. The state remains intermediate because death and resurrection remain distinct events, regardless of whether the dead are conscious of that interval.

 

[John Bauer]

I disagree that the reality of 'becoming' is temporal by definition.

Define "becoming" without using temporal categories or terms.

(You won't be able to, thus confirming what I said.)