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

[Arial]

I suppose by defining hermeneutics as a 'science', by default, that would rule out any possibility of it being an art? (just asking)

False equivalency. It can be both and it is.

 

[makesends]

I suppose by defining hermeneutics as a 'science', by default, that would rule out any possibility of it being an art? (just asking)

Ha! No. Nor, FWIW, as someone once asked me, is there anywhere in Scripture that gives us "the rules" of interpretation. I would be lax not to mention that it does give us some good examples, though. The Rules are simply good reasoning, somewhat encoded, but practicality works out that each passage bears things in common and things different from others in what is needed to be brought to bear in exegesis. Look at the mess some of us make of Scripture by assuming that, "The Scriptural Means of Interpretation, (since it is taught in Scripture), is listening to the Spirit teach us." How many believers drive themselves crazy because 'the Spirit convicts them' of sin but they read that those who love God will obey God? "I'm only trying to be obedient to the Spirit!" has produced monsters and clowns.

This subject brings to mind the time I tried to teach practical electrical methods and code to someone with a, shall we say, hyperactive mind, though well-intended. I would make a statement, like, "We staple the Romex up here where the insulation hides it, but also because the NEC says it has to be at least an 1-1/4" above the bottom surface of the joist; the less of it visible, the better and neater the job, but the closer it is to the bottom of the joist the easier it will be for the next electrician or plumber to find it so he will avoid hitting it if he drills through the joist." The guy, staring at me with rapt attention and hardly even at what I'm showing him, interrupts me halfway through my explanation with a breathless, "The less it is visible, the better the job --got it!" And I'm thinking, No, Jack. You don't got it.​

​

Many Bible College students will learn THE RULES OF HERMENEUTICS and forget practicality. They will remember, "ONE MEANING, MANY APPLICATIONS" and struggle to force passages to that structure. They will think, "EITHER LITERAL OR SYMBOLIC", and miss whole points being made in a passage, by deciding which part is which, or by assuming that since the first phrase or section can't be literal that the second can't be either. I knew a guy who was stupid enough to be a constant danger to himself and to others on a construction crew but graduated Cum Laude from a well-known and accredited Bible College with a 4-year degree. He could industriously memorize word for word what he was told, but he did not, "Got it". He was the kind of fellow that "could make good use of the Windows Help Files". He may have become a great pastor, with a patient and wonderful heart, who loved God, but his use of Scripture would have to have been from the heart, thank God, and "not from the mind". I hope he didn't write books on Theology.​

 

[Oarknot]

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)

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 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)

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)

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.​

I might point out that it appears the subject in question presumes "people" are in some form of either hell or what is commonly termed soul sleep after death. This alone needs to be unwrapped much further as there are other observations that can be brought to the fore for observations. Otherwise it's an argument from the law of excluded middle (LEM) and a logical fallacy to try to make it a yes or no, black or white hardline conclusion.

For example, no legitimate orthodox scholars have made a (legitimate) group orthodox conclusion that any named person is actually in hell now or in the future LoF. Some sects members are "allowed" to believe it, but it's not a lock in. Just as in the RCC there is a heterodox (not common but allowed) position that people are allowed to believe, which is every person could possibly qualify for at least purgatory, not straight to hell/LoF. Even orthodox officially condemned heretics can only be excoriated to the extent of turning them out of the assembly into the clutches of Satan in this present life and "potentially" the LoF, even with the caveat that they could change their ways and repent in this present life, but it's again not necessarily a lock in for hell/LoF. Rightfully so. This is generally agreed between the major branches of orthodoxy with the obviously generous room for debate for particulars which keeps the scholarly arguments for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin spinning. Soul sleep is a late comer in these pictures iirc.

Technically speaking all such claims are then purely speculative and not inclusive of other possible alternative conclusions. We could also technically claim that a similar observation arrives in reverse, that there is no specifically named person in heaven now, or in the future. The only technical occupant is Jesus. Even the thief on the cross with Jesus in paradise is not named. (yes, I know, a technicality.)

(I'm only a couple posts in so I'll get to post 12).

The technicality is then, presumption does not qualify as exegesis. In order to prove any person experiences anything post death, you have to have a name and multiple scripture witnesses for that name, for which there is none. And I consider that a blessing and good thing. People have proven they tend to bludgeon others with such conclusions to the demise of society.

Past the grave there's plenty of speculation to be had by all.

Any of us will have a very hard time trying to add locked in solid positions to what countless thousands of learned scholars have already spent a countless amount of time outlining in basics of faith, such as the Nicene creed. Even the Westminster confession is riddled with various flavors of presumption (imho.)

And even all of these scholars forgot to add the most basic item/tenant of faith to their various lists, which is to love our neighbors as ourselves. How come that didn't make the cut??? How can so many miss the so obvious?

There is no faith without love.

So debaters, you might consider first and foremost, how you measure the dead and dearly departed may very well be the measure that will be meted out to YOU.

 

[Oarknot]

If God is shown in Scripture by use of temporal language, sequences of his deeds described as temporal events, does that mean that he is subject to time?

But the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus --to me, anyway-- is simply a story, drawn on common thought or even based on a story the audience was familiar with. To me it is only a story, with a moral or two, and a few well-placed thoughts concerning the nature of arrogance and humility, and even including a veiled prophecy. It was not doctrinal instruction concerning the nature of the afterlife. I doubt very much several things in the story, such as a large gap between heaven and hell across which one can speak with Abraham.

While I agree that God does not ask more of our intellect and heart that what our understanding is capable of handling, there is plenty of reason to believe that our simplistic mindsets miss a LOT. In fact, I rather think we will laugh at ourselves for being as blind as we were, once we see HIM as he is.

I don't remember if it was on this site or CF, but there was a thread once on language in Heaven--what sort of thing it would be. While certainly I can't say what it will be like for us, to me there is reason to believe that for God to speak is to cause, and words do not represent things, but are the things themselves. I would be very much surprised if the difference between this temporal realm, and being with God face to face, was not at least that radically different.

It's interesting you bring this account up. You call it a story. Some consider it a parable as it is listed within a line of parables. But it is unique in that it contains a couple of named people, which then makes it potentially not a parable or simply a story. Abraham and Lazarus. Real named people. Were it simply a parable (falsely known as just a story) I might think Jesus would have not have had to insert a couple of imaginary story names posing as real characters who lived real lives and head real deaths and real after life experiences.

I might point out that parables in scripture are not just stories. They are ways of explaining very real but often empirically intangible facts. For example, my favorite parable contained in Mark 4 contains a very real, faith wise character, Satan. Even though we can't "see" Satan or empirically prove Satan exists, to deny Satan exists is technically a heresy.

The conclusion then is that parables are not just stories. They are real matters for people of faith.

Jesus, The Word made flesh, technically described Himself as...a Parable. And of course we know He Was/Is very real.

Scriptures available on request.

Just thought I'd toss this in to the ring.

 

[Oarknot]

I've always heard that people debate whether the Rich Man and Lazarus was a Parable or a real Account. If a real Account, sure, it's Linear...

Wouldn't Hades and Paradise have been the Old understanding of the Afterlife? I don't think Jesus was describing Heaven and Hell; but a way station. He was speaking their language; so to speak

We are provided a little clue in Hebrews about the state of the faithful, post death, that being "they" without "us" have not yet been perfected. This might indicate some things to some people.

Heb. 11:
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

So, yes, they are waiting...for us

Paul, all the days of his faith life, sought the promise, the resurrection of the Body in real time. The "manifestation" he spoke of in Romans 8. The loss of the temporal body state and the fullness of the eternal body state he spoke of in 1 Cor. 15.

I have spent 4 decades reconnoitering similarly with 1 basic question. What's stopping it? (It's a question that no one can answer because only God has that answer). When that question is answered, then the speculations will have no place left.

I heard it mentioned in this thread. We shall see Him as He Is for WE will be LIKE Him. I'm not seeing Him in the mirror yet.

But rumor has it He's inside the temple, already. It's a secret.

 

[Oarknot]

If time is a feature of creation (it is)

I will beep the little foul horn here. Time is not ticks on the 24 hour 60 second earth clock in scripture.

We are treated to many forms of how the term "time" is viewed in scripture. It's not solid.

We know that God experiences "time" in the "like" fashion described by Peter, which could be a day as a thousand years and vice versa, meaning He's not locked into any particular ticks on a clock, and can even make "time" stand still, which is quite a feat.

And we know that Satan experiences time. He has a short time for example, but that time has has extended from (some arguable point) past to present. That has been, so far, his "time."

And we know that mankind has ticks on a 24 hour earth clock, the sum of which is "our time." And referred collectively as times, plural as in the times of our collective generations. Whereas Satan has one generation, one time, singular, still currently in play.

Time, 3 different measures, but not limited to further enhancements. The first being, to God, not captured by it. Satan, definitely captured and limited, soon to be permanently evicted. And us...ticking away as we speak.

 

[makesends]

I will beep the little foul horn here. Time is not ticks on the 24 hour 60 second earth clock in scripture.

We are treated to many forms of how the term "time" is viewed in scripture. It's not solid.

We know that God experiences "time" in the "like" fashion described by Peter, which could be a day as a thousand years and vice versa, meaning He's not locked into any particular ticks on a clock, and can even make "time" stand still, which is quite a feat.

And we know that Satan experiences time. He has a short time for example, but that time has has extended from (some arguable point) past to present. That has been, so far, his "time."

And we know that mankind has ticks on a 24 hour earth clock, the sum of which is "our time." And referred collectively as times, plural as in the times of our collective generations. Whereas Satan has one generation, one time, singular, still currently in play.

Time, 3 different measures, but not limited to further enhancements. The first being, to God, not captured by it. Satan, definitely captured and limited, soon to be permanently evicted. And us...ticking away as we speak.

You rightly indicate that we are governed by time (of whatever sort), and that God is not. But would you say that God's deeds are governed by time?

If so, why? Because WE see them that way? Because that is how Scripture describes them?

Can we understand terminology that is NOT temporal?

 

[John Bauer]

I will beep the little foul horn here. Time is not ticks on the 24 hour 60 second earth clock in scripture.

Nobody, including me, has reduced “time” to ticks on a clock.

Time. Three different measures, …

And a feature of creation, as I said—whether created beings or created things.

 

[Oarknot]

You rightly indicate that we are governed by time (of whatever sort), and that God is not. But would you say that God's deeds are governed by time?

No. God's Words endure forever. He seems to weigh things our pretty seriously before speaking or acting. Isa. 40:8 (among others)

If so, why? Because WE see them that way? Because that is how Scripture describes them?

Can we understand terminology that is NOT temporal?

We will never comprehend God in full. Not possible.

 

[Oarknot]

Nobody, including me, has reduced “time” to ticks on a clock.



And a feature of creation, as I said—whether created beings or created things.

As far as we know, and limited to empirical creation, yes. We obviously don't have a full look at all the possible info, dimensions, etc.

Time is perceived in dramatically different ways, even in creation, by creatures.

So what exactly is "time?" It does tend to defy and evade complete capture in many ways, especially so in scripture.

Day and night are flexible terms.

 

[John Bauer]

Much I read in Scriptures indicates temporality as we know it may not apply to the afterlife. But that is beside the point.

No, it is not beside the point. It is the point. What you believe, however tentatively, is either biblical or it is not. And if it is not, then say so plainly. I myself hold some extra-biblical beliefs (i.e., not drawn from Scripture), and I am perfectly willing to admit that candidly when they arise in discussion.

But if what you believe is biblical, then you need to show the biblical evidence that led to it. You provided six scriptural quotations (Isa. 55:8-9; Ps. 103:12; Num. 23:19; Eph. 1:23; Ps. 113:4-6; Rom. 11:33). Are those the texts that bring our view of temporality into question, that led you to believe temporality as we know it may not apply to the afterlife?

All six of those quotes from Scripture concern divine incomparability or the unsearchableness of God’s deeds or judgments. They establish that God is not like us, that our guilt is removed farther than gone, and that the fullness of Christ is brought to bear in and through his body, the Church. All of that is well and good, but none of this addresses whether creaturely existence is temporally conditioned, either in this life or in the life to come.

What is particularly astonishing is that you allow this nebulous speculation—which you admit is suspect and perhaps even wrong—to govern your reading of texts that directly speak to the afterlife. That is simply incredible. An ill-defined Tier 3 conjecture that is acknowledged by its own advocate to be leaky and doubtful ought to remain subordinate to clearer biblical statements (e.g., Rev 22:3-4). What God clearly reveals should govern our thinking; our thinking must not govern what God clearly reveals. Tier 1 is not governed by Tier 3.

My inability to show any Tier 1 indicators does not invalidate my point. It only makes it suspect.

I agree that it does not invalidate your point, but it does create a useful contrast. What I believe is established by and subordinate to certain clear texts. What you believe is not established by any texts thus far produced, and yet it functions to qualify and govern your reading of what God has said. You have Tier 1 being subordinate to Tier 3. That is a gutsy move.

I can quote many passages that bring our view of temporality into question—even in this temporal realm …

I will make it easy for you: Provide just one. (If you think any of the aforementioned six biblical texts do this, please show how it does so.)

[I can think of biblical passages that point to] a lack in our current understanding of just what temporality means, if there even is such a thing in the afterlife.

That seems to reflect something I said in my post, that time in the afterlife “may be insignificant, unmeasured, or phenomenologically unlike our present experience”—which, in fact, is close to what I believe. But that is very different from saying that creaturely existence in the afterlife is not temporally conditioned.

So this is precisely the distinction I have been pressing: transformed temporality is one thing; no temporality is another. The former is at least intelligible and arguably consistent with Scripture. The latter is a much stronger claim, and one which seems to have no biblical warrant.

Which is why I find it curious that you won’t take this obvious off-ramp.

But you won't see these the way I do.

Of course not, because I don’t subordinate divine revelation to the filter of suspect, ill-defined human speculations.

And please don't argue that that view removes all meaning from "temporal", which sort of argument seems to be your penchant.

I have never argued that our epistemic limitations render certain terms meaningless. If you think I have—and often enough to call it my “penchant”—then you have badly misunderstood something I have argued or said. But since you don’t quote me to that effect, I have no idea how you reached this.

This is exactly why statements being critiqued should be quoted, preferably with a link (Rule 2.2).

What I have argued is that drawing conclusions about the creaturely from statements about the Creator commits a radical category error. And that is what I have seen you do, repeatedly: We don’t know what x is like from God’s point of view, therefore we cannot say that x applies to creatures. That is invalid because it blurs the Creator–creature distinction. There is what is proper to the Creator, and there is what belongs to creatures. Indeed, the inference fails doubly here, because we actually can say it applies to us, as God himself has said so.

Of course we can’t know the way God sees things. That is precisely the Creator–creature distinction: His knowledge is archetypal, necessary, original; ours is ectypal, contingent, analogical. So yes, “our concepts are short of facts,” but they are not necessarily “meaningless or useless.” But here is the thing: God knows as God knows, and he is the Author of what we find in Scripture. We can doubt ourselves and what we think, but we ought to trust God and what he said.

“We don't really know what we are talking about,” you said, and I agree. But God knows what he’s talking about.

That I am unable (or unwilling) to invalidate your argument does not render my statement logically invalid …

True. However, my view and its arguments are not relevant here. The controversy is about your view and its arguments. From time to time I may contrast your view with mine, but I will never evaluate it in light of mine.

That I am unable to adequately represent what I want to say, or even to inadequately hold a cogent concept in my head that I wish to represent, does not render that concept/statement invalid

Being unable to formulate an idea clearly or express it adequately is normal enough; I have experienced that myself. But if the idea remains nebulous—indeed, if it may not even be cogent in your own head—then there is no reason to treat it as warranted, much less to let it function as a controlling interpretive principle for Scripture.

I think it is legitimate to hold space for an unclear idea, but one should not rest there indefinitely. The proper movement is from basic intuition, to clarifying articulation, to critical evaluation, with every stage subordinate to the norming authority of Scripture.

The argument you present, if I may try to represent it here—that to “remove” the temporality from creaturehood removes the distinction between creature and Creator—to me is at best puerile and at worst superstitious, and neither one logical.

You did not represent it accurately, so the invective is directed at an argument I did not make.

My argument is not that removing temporality from creaturehood would somehow make the Creator and creature indistinguishable (“removes the distinction between”). My argument is that you are reasoning from what is proper to God as Creator to conclusions about creatures as such, and that this is a fundamental category error. A non-temporal mode of being is proper to God, but it is not, simply on that account, transferable to creaturely existence.

Not that this following makes any real difference, but let me restate with a slight difference: While I agree with the fact that [forever we are] creatures, I don't agree that temporality necessarily applies to the afterlife.

I mean to show a difference in the realm I commonly refer to as “temporal” versus the “heavenly” realm. And that I say we don't even know enough about existence to see how God sees temporality in THIS realm, does not mean that I have removed distinctions between it and God's economy ('spirit realm', heaven, or whatever other levels or realms there are outside of or enveloping this one). It only means that I don't categorize in the firm clear-cut, concrete, distinctions you do.

So, while you may say that now I have changed my parameters, (I have only restated to try to show my view more expanded: my view remains the same), I am trying to help you see that I don't hold the distinctions you do between, 1. Temporal vs Eternal as necessarily separate (at least, in the WAY you see the distinctions); and, 2. Temporal vs Eternal as necessarily coincident (at least, in the WAY you see them as coincident). I see the temporal as swallowed up into the eternal, and this little view we have now as mere humans as stilted and necessarily childish, ignorant.

You have not actually argued or shown that temporality may not apply to creaturely existence in the afterlife, so it remains unclear what exactly you are basing that claim on. You have argued only that human concepts are limited and that your own distinctions are looser than mine. That is fine as far as it goes—which isn’t very far. More to the point, the relevant categories are not self-generated human concepts, for they are revealed in and governed by Scripture, so they are given to us by God.

I may get the rest of your post later, but I want this much understood and answered. I don't categorize how you do, and I don't think concretely how you do. I don't mean to criticize as though you should do different, but I DO think believers should have some healthy self-skepticism about their concepts and conclusions.

There is nothing objectionable to that in the abstract. But in context, it functions as a substitute for argument. The dispute is not whether Christians should be self-critical. The dispute is whether an ill-defined and poorly supported speculation, which you admit is suspect and probably wrong, should be allowed to function as a controlling interpretive principle for Scripture.

 

[prism]

False equivalency. It can be both and it is.

It was only a question.

 

[prism]

Ha! No. Nor, FWIW, as someone once asked me, is there anywhere in Scripture that gives us "the rules" of interpretation. I would be lax not to mention that it does give us some good examples, though. The Rules are simply good reasoning, somewhat encoded, but practicality works out that each passage bears things in common and things different from others in what is needed to be brought to bear in exegesis. Look at the mess some of us make of Scripture by assuming that, "The Scriptural Means of Interpretation, (since it is taught in Scripture), is listening to the Spirit teach us." How many believers drive themselves crazy because 'the Spirit convicts them' of sin but they read that those who love God will obey God? "I'm only trying to be obedient to the Spirit!" has produced monsters and clowns.

This subject brings to mind the time I tried to teach practical electrical methods and code to someone with a, shall we say, hyperactive mind, though well-intended. I would make a statement, like, "We staple the Romex up here where the insulation hides it, but also because the NEC says it has to be at least an 1-1/4" above the bottom surface of the joist; the less of it visible, the better and neater the job, but the closer it is to the bottom of the joist the easier it will be for the next electrician or plumber to find it so he will avoid hitting it if he drills through the joist." The guy, staring at me with rapt attention and hardly even at what I'm showing him, interrupts me halfway through my explanation with a breathless, "The less it is visible, the better the job --got it!" And I'm thinking, No, Jack. You don't got it.​

​

Many Bible College students will learn THE RULES OF HERMENEUTICS and forget practicality. They will remember, "ONE MEANING, MANY APPLICATIONS" and struggle to force passages to that structure. They will think, "EITHER LITERAL OR SYMBOLIC", and miss whole points being made in a passage, by deciding which part is which, or by assuming that since the first phrase or section can't be literal that the second can't be either. I knew a guy who was stupid enough to be a constant danger to himself and to others on a construction crew but graduated Cum Laude from a well-known and accredited Bible College with a 4-year degree. He could industriously memorize word for word what he was told, but he did not, "Got it". He was the kind of fellow that "could make good use of the Windows Help Files". He may have become a great pastor, with a patient and wonderful heart, who loved God, but his use of Scripture would have to have been from the heart, thank God, and "not from the mind". I hope he didn't write books on Theology.​

So is it Rules/Laws or Art @Arial says it's both.

 

[Arial]

So is it Rules/Laws or Art @Arial says it's both.

I actually said a science and an art.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Much I read in Scriptures indicates temporality as we know it may not apply to the afterlife. But that is beside the point.

No, it is not beside the point. It is the point. What you believe, however tentatively, is either biblical or it is not. And if it is not, then say so plainly. I myself hold some extra-biblical beliefs (i.e., not drawn from Scripture), and I am perfectly willing to admit that candidly when they arise in discussion.

But if what you believe is biblical, then you need to show the biblical evidence that led to it. You provided six scriptural quotations (Isa. 55:8-9; Ps. 103:12; Num. 23:19; Eph. 1:23; Ps. 113:4-6; Rom. 11:33). Are those the texts that bring our view of temporality into question, that led you to believe temporality as we know it may not apply to the afterlife?

All six of those quotes from Scripture concern divine incomparability or the unsearchableness of God’s deeds or judgments. They establish that God is not like us, that our guilt is removed farther than gone, and that the fullness of Christ is brought to bear in and through his body, the Church. All of that is well and good, but none of this addresses whether creaturely existence is temporally conditioned, either in this life or in the life to come.

Ok, they show divine incomparability, and our inability to search out his deeds. Is his self-existence, his infinity, his transcendence not enough to show that we don't know what we are talking about? We do know some things--that is not in question. But by comparison we hardly resemble a puppy running about on the floor of a brain surgery theatre. That I draw that conclusion from Tier 1 statements makes it a strong Tier 2, to my thinking. From that I do draw a strong Tier 3 conclusion that our view of time (like our view of pretty much anything else) is stilted and lacking in understanding.

What is particularly astonishing is that you allow this nebulous speculation—which you admit is suspect and perhaps even wrong—to govern your reading of texts that directly speak to the afterlife. That is simply incredible. An ill-defined Tier 3 conjecture that is acknowledged by its own advocate to be leaky and doubtful ought to remain subordinate to clearer biblical statements (e.g., Rev 22:3-4). What God clearly reveals should govern our thinking; our thinking must not govern what God clearly reveals. Tier 1 is not governed by Tier 3.

Do you not read Scripture through a Reformed lens? Of course you do. Your reformed view is a strong Tier 3 conclusion. It is not the Tier 1 and 2 statements.

My STRONG Tier 3 conclusion that our view of time/eternity is NECESSARILY stilted and lacking in understanding is not speculation. THAT does govern my use of much I read --true-- but, believe it or not, we all have such concepts that govern our understanding and use of Tier 1 and 2 statements. None of us is unbiased. My SPECULATION is what I draw from that strong Tier 3 conclusion, and from related Tier 1 and 2 statements from the Bible and Creeds and Confessions, and from well-reasoned and well-written statements by theologians. My speculation, in this case, is what is nebulous, and does not disagree with Scripture's Tier 1 statements.

I can only write of 'a way to think of' things in trying to get across that we may be wrong by assuming the eternal operates by what we understand of temporal things--even if some of the scriptural statements sound that way, by use of temporal words.

I agree that it does not invalidate your point, but it does create a useful contrast. What I believe is established by and subordinate to certain clear texts. What you believe is not established by any texts thus far produced, and yet it functions to qualify and govern your reading of what God has said. You have Tier 1 being subordinate to Tier 3. That is a gutsy move.

I'm asking you to show me what certain clear texts disagree with what I do call speculation.

I will make it easy for you: Provide just one. (If you think any of the aforementioned six biblical texts do this, please show how it does so.)



That seems to reflect something I said in my post, that time in the afterlife “may be insignificant, unmeasured, or phenomenologically unlike our present experience”—which, in fact, is close to what I believe. But that is very different from saying that creaturely existence in the afterlife is not temporally conditioned.

Though I don't know whether in fact creaturely existence in the afterlife is not temporally conditioned, I am pretty doggone sure our concept of temporality is necessarily stilted and ignorant. When I add to that the fact that many things God says about himself and his deeds, using temporal language, are in fact anthropomorphic statements, I have to conclude what I do, (that we don't know the Tier 1 statements on the subject of the afterlife are indeed temporal or are temporal according to our understanding of temporality), and I find myself looking for alternatives, such as that the intensity of punishment of the reprobate may be a better way to look at eternal death/destruction, or that it may be accurate that for the dead, there is not (to them) any waiting for resurrection.

So this is precisely the distinction I have been pressing: transformed temporality is one thing; no temporality is another. The former is at least intelligible and arguably consistent with Scripture. The latter is a much stronger claim, and one which seems to have no biblical warrant.

Which is why I find it curious that you won’t take this obvious off-ramp.



Of course not, because I don’t subordinate divine revelation to the filter of suspect, ill-defined human speculations.



I have never argued that our epistemic limitations render certain terms meaningless.

I don't think I said that you have. You have argued that MY claim that we very surely have mental limitations (whether epistemic or whatever else) renders certain terms meaningless. Even here you argue that my claim blurs the Creator-creature distinction:

"It is invalid to think that temporality is ultimately not real for creatures since God is not temporal.” It is invalid because it blurs the Creator–creature distinction, which is a radical category error. It confuses what is proper to the Creator with what belongs to creatures. “God alone is not creaturely. All else is.”​

​

"If there is some other basis for your view, then state it plainly. At this point, however, the one is exegetically unproven (which can be remedied) and the other is metaphysically (and logically) invalid.​

​

"I should also add that it’s exegetically invalid to use God’s non-temporal mode of being as a basis for second-guessing what Scripture says about the creaturely mode of being. Whether here or the hereafter, creaturely remains creaturely. The afterlife does not erase the Creator–creature distinction. We are glorified, not deified."​

If you think I have—and often enough to call it my “penchant”—then you have badly misunderstood something I have argued or said. But since you don’t quote me to that effect, I have no idea how you reached this.

This is exactly why statements being critiqued should be quoted, preferably with a link (Rule 2.2).

What I have argued is that drawing conclusions about the creaturely from statements about the Creator commits a radical category error. And that is what I have seen you do, repeatedly: We don’t know what x is like from God’s point of view, therefore we cannot say that x applies to creatures. That is invalid because it blurs the Creator–creature distinction. There is what is proper to the Creator, and there is what belongs to creatures. Indeed, the inference fails doubly here, because we actually can say it applies to us, as God himself has said so.

Here you do it again. Drawing conclusions about the creature from statements about the Creator is not necessarily a category error. If his ways are not our ways, that says a lot about the creature--for example, that we don't understand very much. Those statements from which I draw conclusions are about the distinctions, which are generally not even about temporality as such. If from those statements I see that our view about ANYTHING is suspect, ignorant and presumptuous, then I apply that to temporality and how God sees the afterlife. We are foggy enough on THIS life, so why do we assume that what falls between death and resurrection is temporally related, along the lines of what WE think of as time? Do we know enough to say that Time is universal about creatures, dead or alive? No, we don't.

Of course we can’t know the way God sees things. That is precisely the Creator–creature distinction: His knowledge is archetypal, necessary, original; ours is ectypal, contingent, analogical. So yes, “our concepts are short of facts,” but they are not necessarily “meaningless or useless.” But here is the thing: God knows as God knows, and he is the Author of what we find in Scripture. We can doubt ourselves and what we think, but we ought to trust God and what he said.

“We don't really know what we are talking about,” you said, and I agree. But God knows what he’s talking about.

Yes indeed he does. We don't. So how can we insist that we are temporal creatures after death? There's certainly a lot I don't know. So maybe we are temporal creatures after death. But I think I would very disappointed indeed to find time proceeding there in the same manner as it does here.

 

[John Bauer]

I draw that conclusion from Tier 1 statements, [which] makes it a strong Tier 2, to my thinking. From that, I do draw a strong Tier 3 conclusion, that our view of time—like our view of pretty much anything else—is stilted and lacking in understanding.

First, that commits precisely the logical error I pointed out, which means your Tier 3 conclusion is not “strong” but actually invalid. The argument commits a category mistake—an illicit cross-category transfer—and the resulting inference is a non sequitur. It moves from Tier 1 statements about the Creator to a conclusion about the creaturely. But that conclusion does not follow, because Creator and creature do not belong to the same category. (I am formally invoking Rule 4.4.)

Second, if your position had been that “our view of time is stilted and lacking in understanding,” I would have simply agreed with you. Temporality in the afterlife may be insignificant, unmeasured, or phenomenologically unlike our present experience, as I have been saying all along (but you won’t hitch your wagon to it). Whatever the reality or experience of temporality will be like in the renewed creation, it will be a reality and it will be experienced.

The problem centers on your claim that creaturely existence in the afterlife may not be temporal at all, that temporality may not apply to the afterlife at all. That claim is not supported by either Tier 1 exegesis or Tier 2 inference in any valid way—and yet it is being used to govern Tier 1 statements about the afterlife? I couldn’t be comfortable with that, and I don’t understand how you can be.

As you recognized, the scriptures that you referenced “show divine incomparability, and our inability to search out his deeds,” speaking of God’s “self-existence, his infinity, his transcendence.” You can see these are statements about the Creator. While they do indicate creaturely epistemic limitations, they do not allow us to draw any ontological conclusions about created reality or creaturely existence, either here or in the hereafter.

Note: I asked several different AI models (ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, and DuckAI), trying to confirm that I wasn’t out to lunch on this, and they all converged on the same diagnosis: category mistake generally, and illicit transfer specifically, rendering the conclusion non sequitur.

Do you not read Scripture through a Reformed lens? Of course you do. Your Reformed view is a strong Tier 3 conclusion. It is not the Tier 1 and 2 statements.

Incorrect. Reformed covenant theology is Tier 1, 2, and 3, depending on the doctrine in question. Furthermore, Tier 1 is taken as authoritative and norming for Tier 2 and 3.

Tier 3 never governs Tier 1, but is rather subordinate to Tier 1.

My STRONG Tier 3 conclusion …

Your invalid Tier 3 conclusion (see above) goes further than saying “our view of time or eternity is necessarily stilted and lacking in understanding,” a position that any Christian should find acceptable. It goes further, asserting that temporality may not apply to the afterlife at all, an assertion not only bereft of any biblical warrant but also in conflict with certain statements that Scripture makes about temporality in the afterlife.

Believe it or not, we all have such concepts that govern our understanding and use of Tier 1 and 2 statements.

Speak for yourself. I think any serious student of Scripture would take Tier 1 statements as authoritative and norming for Tier 2 inferences and Tier 3 speculation; they would never place Tier 1 statements under the control of Tier 3 speculation.

None of us are unbiased.

Correct. And I am perfectly candid about my biases (e.g., Reformed covenant theology).

But being biased is not the same as using Tier 3 speculation to control what Tier 1 statements mean.

My speculation is what I draw from that strong Tier 3 conclusion, and from related Tier 1 and 2 statements from the Bible and creeds and confessions, and from well-reasoned and well-written statements by theologians.

Show me those statements from creeds, confessions, and theologians that led you to conclude that creaturely existence in the afterlife may not be temporal at all, that temporality may not apply to the afterlife at all.

You have already produced the statements from Scripture. None of the six passages supported the conclusion you drew, none of them bring our view of temporality into question, and none of them address whether creaturely existence in the hereafter is temporally conditioned (as demonstrated here). They establish that God is not like us, that our guilt is removed farther than gone, and that the fullness of Christ is brought to bear in and through his body, the Church. All true. As Voddie Baucham would say, “Amen, hallelujah, praise the Lord.” But what does any of that have to do with temporality in the afterlife?

Nothing.

 

[John Bauer]

My speculation, in this case, is what is nebulous, and does not disagree with Scripture's Tier 1 statements.

It does disagree with Tier 1 statements, which say things about a river “pouring out” from the throne of God and “flowing down” the middle of the city, about the tree of life “bearing fruit” that it yields “every month,” about angelic hosts who never rest “day or night,” about saints and angels praising and worshipping God. All of that is temporal language describing temporally successive actions in the afterlife, not an amorphous timeless blank.

[I am] trying to get across that we may be wrong by assuming the eternal operates by what we understand of temporal things—even if some of the scriptural statements sound that way, by use of temporal words.

It is not an assumption. It is what Scripture says. Again, we don’t know what the reality and experience of that temporality will be like; on that point we really are epistemically limited. But it will be a reality, and it will be experienced, for there are Tier 1 statements to that effect. So I am with you at least this far: I doubt it will be like the present temporal experience.

And just a friendly reminder: The temporal language used in Scripture is theopneustos—breathed-out by God—and he knows what he is talking about. I assume you would agree that we have no basis for second-guessing what God has said.

I'm asking you to show me what certain clear texts disagree with what I do call speculation.

I already did that (April 30):

I have not seen you prove that [temporality] does apply to the afterlife.

Scripture already does that. For example,

“Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life—water as clear as crystal—pouring out from the throne of God and of the Lamb, flowing down the middle of the city's main street. On each side of the river is the tree of life producing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month of the year. Its leaves are for the healing of the nations. And there will no longer be any curse, and the throne of God and the Lamb will be in the city. His servants will worship him, and they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads” (Rev 22:1-4; all emphases added).
​

I don't know whether in fact creaturely existence in the afterlife is not temporally conditioned, …

I get it. You don’t know. Totally fair. But your uncertainty should remain yours; it does not entitle you to insist that everyone else must second-guess what Scripture actually says along with you. To justify that, you would need to make an exegetical case. But instead of doing so, you continue to orbit a logically crippled Tier 3 speculation.

When I add to that the fact that many things God says about himself and his deeds, using temporal language, are in fact anthropomorphic statements, …

Of course they are. They have to be. It is creaturely language trying to describe the Creator.

But what about when God uses creaturely language to describe creaturely things?

See the difference?

I have to conclude what I do—that we don't know the Tier 1 statements on the subject of the afterlife are indeed temporal, or temporal according to our understanding of temporality.

The statements do convey temporal sequence, or one thing following another. We don’t know the comprehensive reality of that temporality or what the experience of it will be like, but it is temporal. Water pours and flows, trees produce fruit (which I assume we eat), saints and angels sing, and so on. These are temporal sequences.

Here you do it again. Drawing conclusions about the creature from statements about the Creator is not necessarily a category error.

True. But you can say that only by equivocating. From Tier 1 statements about God we may draw conclusions about our epistemic limitations. What we may not do is derive ontological conclusions about created reality or creaturely existence, whether here or hereafter, from what is proper to God as Creator.

If from those statements I see that our view about anything is suspect, ignorant, and presumptuous, then I apply that to temporality and how God sees the afterlife.

You cannot apply that to how God sees the afterlife, because you don’t know how God sees the afterlife.