But that is how you expressed yourself. As for the direct, plain Bible references to the ultimate fate of the wicked, you said “they are on both sides” to you—not “seem like they are,” but rather “they are.” If you meant the former but didn’t express that clearly, so be it.
And yet I never raised a sentimental or liberal argument for this doctrine, so that objection is an irrelevant distraction.
More than that, this thread is a criticism of eternal conscious torment, not a defense of annihilationism.
The same inference applies to the category of “divine revelation,” for God as author so transcends all creaturely categories that we can only speak of him apophatically; for example, we say that he is infinite but that means “not finite.”
It is not for us to seek out and understand (much less know) God’s point of view, but rather those truths which he has revealed in his Word, incarnated and inscripturated. Those belong to us, those are to which we appeal and submit, those are for us to seek out.
That is another irrelevant distraction, because nobody is seeking to “sound the depths” of anything. We are simply exploring and trying to understand what Scripture has to say, which is probably not the full depth of the matter.
What truth has God given to us in Scripture that is beyond our apprehension? Everything revealed in Scripture is for us to understand and know.
That doesn’t mean we can comprehend it as God does. Although we know truly, we cannot know exhaustively. Our knowledge is ectypal, analogical, creaturely; God’s is archetypal, infinite, and exhaustive. But that is God’s knowledge, not ours.
Deuteronomy 29:29 is the controlling text—and it cuts both ways, for it also excludes agnosticism about what God has revealed. We are called to understand and know, not exhaustively but nevertheless truly.
Even granting for the sake of argument that we don’t know as much as we think we do, the relevant question remains: Do we know enough?
Yes, we do. Exhaustive knowledge is not required for firm conclusions.
“We don’t know everything about X.”
That is true.
“Therefore, we can’t draw firm conclusions about X.”
That does not follow.
The issue is not whether our knowledge of things like sin and death is exhaustive. Of course it’s not. The issue is whether Scripture gives us enough determinate content about sin and death to draw firm conclusions—and it plainly does. Our knowledge is not exhaustive, but it is sufficient for the end God has appointed it to serve. Scripture gives us what is necessary and fitting for knowing God truly in the mode proper to creatures.
What follows from our finitude is not agnosticism or doctrinal indeterminacy, but creaturely humility in receiving and submitting to what Scripture says. We do not know sin and death exhaustively, but we do know them truly because God has defined them, located them in redemptive history, and interpreted them for us.
Here, then, is the hard question that confronts us: Has God spoken clearly enough about X to bind our confession?
You see, suspending judgment is not always a morally neutral position—especially with regard to matters about which God has spoken clearly in Scripture. At that point, hesitation becomes a refusal to receive and submit to what God has revealed. It is no longer modesty but a culpable reluctance to let divine revelation govern our faith.
I am not saying that one must speak with equal confidence on every doctrine. The issue is that, where God has made something known, continued suspension of judgment is not humility but resistance to the authority of revelation. The intellect is not free to remain indefinitely uncommitted where God has spoken determinately. When God has given his church truth to know, believe, and confess, indecision is not always innocent.
That is well said and clear. Let that sink in, and then consider your recurring agnostic retreat.
That is not what your words convey in this thread and elsewhere in the forums. Whatever your intention may be, your words convey fence-sitting, hesitation, reluctance, “both sides are right—and wrong,” and so forth.
If you have not suspended judgment, then what is your judgment? For example, what does eternal conscious torment get right?
Close to 50–50? Okay, what does annihilationism get right?
“I have already shown my biggest problems with annihilationism,” you said. Where? Did I miss it?
Did you specify those leaps? You must have, if I denied they were leaps. Where was this? Which post?
You don’t have to decide what?
Indeed, God rebukes men for speaking beyond what he has revealed. But that is not applicable here, for we are constraining ourselves to what he has revealed. This is Tier 1, not 2 or 3. And, again, exhaustive knowledge is not required for firm conclusions.
And, yes, God commends humble restraint before what is too high for us. But what truth has God given to us in Scripture that is beyond our apprehension?
We are not speaking beyond what God has revealed, we are drawing conclusions from what God has revealed. There is a significant gap between the two.
Reflecting upon Psalm 131 and Deuteronomy 29:29, it seems the posture of the faithful should be silence where God has not spoken and confession where he has. Quietness of heart is a virtue before mystery, but it doesn’t excuse reservation in the face of revelation.
Fair. And thanks for the kind words. But you are not being asked to do that kind of work. It is being done for you, and you’re being asked to consider and evaluate the biblical and doctrinal arguments. “A good case is made here. That part there is a bit weak. This other thing seems wrong.”
I was talking about this: “I'm not going to call it a vision or a dream—I don't know what it was—but one time I found myself being led through the vast regions of space and seeing a gash or wound in reality. That was sin. … What I saw was such a thing as to end reality by its very contradiction, but for the power of God keeping it at bay. In this [frame of] mind, I see God, as in the end, closing the wound, but perhaps leaving a scar. I can't say it is otherwise” (
source).
That is private intuition or Tier 3 stuff.
I’m sorry but who suggested that made it false? Certainly not me. In fact, I haven’t been exploring your view at all; I don’t even know what your view is. Again, this thread is about critically evaluating an eschatological implication of eternal conscious torment.
Line up my theology to what God is like or his point of view?
No, thank you. I do not have access to such things. I will stick to
sola scriptura, to which I do have access. God gave it to us for a reason. Deuteronomy 29:29 and all that.
The fruit of skepticism is curious inquiry, not a refusal to draw conclusions. Be skeptical, sure, but let that skepticism drive you to inquire, test, and probe, rather than refuse to draw conclusions where the evidence warrants them and retreat into doctrinal paralysis.
Well, my impressions are the product of reading what you write. If I have the wrong impression, perhaps you need to adjust the focus of what you’re saying. But that’s only if my impression is mistaken.
