The Gist Of It

Baby Update!

Good afternoon.
Due to the urging of at least one faithful reader, and my persistent desire to make this post as uncontroversial as possible, I have decided to post...

A Baby Update!!!!!!!!!!!!
While I don't think this is the cutest picture we have of Eden, I do think it is one of the funniest. And yes, she is cute. She is already six weeks old, and is starting to smile and look at you like she really sees you. I always forget, because they start out so helpless and they sleep twenty hours a day, that this little baby is going to become a little girl like Abby is, with a personality and likes and dislikes (and hair). In a lot of ways I can't wait for Eden to grow a little older, and see her personality come to life, but at the same time I want her to stay as little as possible for as long as possible. I miss cradling Abby in my arms, and I know when the time comes I will miss cradling Eden as well. The severe and immutable bittersweetness of life becomes shockingly clear when you have children. You love watching them grow and mature, but all the while you lament the loss of the feeling of an infant in your arms, their helpless bodies delicately niched into the fold of your hands. You can't wait to see their first step, the first time they ride a bike, meet the man they're going to marry...and yet a part of you feels as if it could wait forever. Those who feel this way don't want to turn back time; we merely wish to pause it. And yet it marches on inevitably. Now, this is not meant to be a "downer" post. I don't intend it to read this way. I am incredibly blessed to be a part of my children's life, and I will pour all that I know as good into their lives, and at the right time I will kick them away from the shore and watch with peace as they set sail on their own voyage. Man! Why do I always end up philosophizing whenever I talk about my kids?

On a different note:

My wife and I have watched a few documentaries that were very good lately, so I'd like to share them with you.

First (only for the reason that we watched this one first):

If you think you're a real man because you know how a carburetor works, or because you can bench two-fifty, or because you play softball, let me advise you: You're not.
The men aboard this ship were real men. This is the story of Ernest Shackleton and his doomed voyage to reach the Antarctic continent. Their ship got trapped in the ice folds leading to the continent, and they subsequently made a voyage of such strength and providence and will that it has become one of the most legendary stories around. I don't think I could create out of thin air a more epic and fantastically dangerous story. Please watch it.


America is a land of sub-cultures. There are the surfers, the disc-golfers, the left-handed, the veterans...and the spellers. This documentary caught me by surprise. I knew beforehand that it was nominated for the best documentary Academy Award, but seriously: who wants to watch a documentary about a spelling bee, much less the spelling bee itself? But I was enraptured by the children and the amazingly divergent paths that ended them at the National Spelling Bee in Washington. Some put all their hopes on the event, others saw it as merely a game, some saw it as a way out of what was to them a hopeless economic future. The thing that caught me the most was the parents of the children. Rather from being radical militant cheerleading moms who would pay others to hurt their children's competitors, they were extremely kind and supportive to their children. They wanted their child to win, of course, but when they fell short the parents came to them in love and support and couldn't stop saying how proud they were of their effort. Some of the parents had been raised in a different country, and their children were the first full generation to have lived in the US. And you know what? The parents praised the US. They saw it as people have seen it for hundreds of years: a land of opportunity, where commitment and hard work could give you a real chance at success, for you and your future generations. Lest we forget the beauty and real glory of our country, we should listen to those who have seen life lived another way in another land. The really, really cool thing was that they interviewed this kid named George. He was a semi-nerdy Indian boy, and when they asked him how he got here he said, "Trust in Jesus, work hard..." um, I forgot the third one. It wasn't my point anyway. I thought it was so cool that he was a Christian. I guess that was my point.
So, check these docs out. And tell them Simon sent you...

posted by Team Kerbel @ 12:55 PM 20 comments

I'm a Right Wing Fundamentalist (and other sordid confessions)

I'm tired. I'm tired of gross oversimplification of issues, people, and beliefs. I'm tired of being called a bible-thumping right-wing fundamentalist, not because the moniker doesn't necessarily fit, but because the words are loaded with negative baggage. I'm tired of being lumped into a fringe category whose only assumed goal is the political and religious takeover of the entire world, all in the name of a God who might or might not be real or active.
I won't say that I'm tired of "stereotypes," because I think that they're not the "villain" everyone makes them out to be. Rather, they are an attempt to create a normative definition of a group or class in order to facilitate a discussion or to move more quickly to a functional relationship. They are not exhaustive, but that was never intended. If I say "pickles are roundish" or "potatoes are brown" or "in Mexico they eat tortillas with every meal", these are for the most part true, but there are implied exclusions to these rules. Someone can read my blog and say "oh, he's a right-wing fundamentalist" and they are right...for the most part. I have a feeling that many Christians feel the same way I do, and so for them and for our detractors I will spell out what my life as a Christian really looks like, in an attempt to create a different, more truthful stereotype.

By the way, this is the closest I am going to come to a "political" post. I had decided when I started this blog that I would not speak about politics. What do I know that is different from those untold thousands already mouthing their own political opinions throughout the blogosphere? I promise, no more after this; besides, I don't really consider this post firstly political, but spiritual.


I'm not really a Republican, but I'm definitely not a Democrat. As long as the official democratic party line supports the wholesale slaughter of the innocent unborn, or in other words is pro-abortion, I will continue to vote Republican. It's as simple as that. They might not change anything, but I don't think they'll make it worse. And so I vote for them.


I don't necessarily support the war in Iraq, or any war. I am not sure whether our preemptive strike was really preventative. It might have been, it might have not. I don't think it was just for oil; I don't know about you, but I'm paying close to three bucks a gallon.

I do completely understand our going to war, because I understand human history. It shocks me when there are so-called educated people lamenting the administration's war lust and quick aggression once we as a nation were attacked. People do not grasp the fact that as long as there are nations, there will be wars, power moves, attacks and defenses. It is reasonable, I say, reasonable that a nation would defend itself when attacked and periodically aggress on a nation that is a presumed threat to its livelihood. It is in the nature of a nation to have borders, and if those borders are pushed against it is completely natural to push back. Look at the Gaza strip debacle, going on right now. The land that Israel is giving back to the Palestinians was actually won from Egypt when Egypt attacked them. When the Israelites subsequently routed Egypt, they took the land as a buffer zone. Was that wrong? Why? Rewind in history for as long as you like; whenever you hit the play button, I guarantee you, nations will be at war and some will be defending, others attacking. Am I being stupid by saying "well, there will always be wars" without offering any way to halt the aggression? Why don't you make a suggestion; I'm sure it will work. We could get rid of guns, get rid of borders, get rid of mean people, of dictators, of the gene in humans that is the genesis of aggression, etc...but guess what? It won't work.


I don't own a gun, but I have shot some before. I hadn't before I met my wife and her family. We go up to her uncle's property (80 acres in the mountains) and shoot bullets at targets. Does that make me a stupid trunk-monkey? I'm not a member of the NRA, but I don't think it's so wrong. Personally, I don't really care if I can't own guns, because I don't intend to shoot anybody. Of course, if I'd like to buy a gun for my family's protection (which is a somewhat debatable reason) than I'd like the freedom to do so.

I don't support President Bush without question. He is most likely a Christian, but that's neither here nor there. The real question is whether he acts according to what God has revealed in His word. His position is made difficult because he is trying to lead a nation that is sharply divided, and every decision he makes will most likely outrage one or another of his citizens. I think for the most part he has done a commendable job. It is hard for a Christian to live out his faith when he has made an oath to people that might not necessarily share that faith. And that's all I have to say about that.


I go to church on Sunday, and sometimes even during the week. We learn ways to love each other, and to deal gracefully with events in life and people who might otherwise grate. All by God's grace.


I don't really care if evolution or creation is taught in the schools, but keep myself informed in the debate. I personally hope Schwarzey closes all the public schools. You want to talk about a radical change? That would be the beginning. It would be hard at first, I know, having to keep one of the parents at home to watch and educate the kids, having to actually get to know them instead of getting home at 5:30 and eating tv dinners in front of reruns of Malcolm in the Middle, which might or might not be a great show, and going to bed hoping your kids aren't doing the things you were doing when you were that age and wondering who this stranger is snoring in bed next to you. I plan to home school my kids, with my wife doing the majority of the teaching, so the creation/evolution debate doesn't hit too close to home. But even if I later decided to send my kids to public school, I still wouldn't care too much if they were taught evolution. For one, it doesn't have much in its favor, and two, I know enough to teach my kids why their science teacher is wrong. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the people who really care about teaching creation in the schools are the ones who don't care quite enough to teach their own children the truth, who don't care quite enough to lose one income to homeschool, but who want someone else to carry the burden that is rightfully theirs. But that is a generalization. Please don't be offended by it.

I' m not pro-big business. We shop at Costco and Walmart because it's getting harder to make ends meet as our family continues to grow. I fully support the person who according to their conscience shops at ma and pop stores, but I do not support it when they deface the Gap or put lewd graffiti all over Borders (as people did with the Border's grand opening in Santa Cruz).


I am not white, I am not a high-school dropout, and I am not over 55. I am "educated", if you'd like to call it that, having graduated from the University of California Santa Cruz with a BA in Literature with an emphasis in Creative Writing. I attended a small unaccredited Bible school for nine months, not to put some fancy letters behind my name, but for the learning and the experience.

My wife stays at home with the children. That is our choice, informed by the Bible and by our conscience. Do we both make sacrifices to achieve this? You bet. I think that a significant percentage of our society's problems can be traced back to the "liberation" of the wives and mothers. But you think I'm blind for saying that, even though the evidence is in your face everyday and you are the one to turn the blind eye.

I take the Bible "literally," which is definitely a loaded and much used word. People are so confused with the Bible, especially those who don't read it and simply pass judgments on those who claim they do. Do I sow seeds of different kind in the same soil, or wear synthetic garments, in direct defiance of specific Old Testament commands? Yes I do. If you don't understand why, you need to think just a little bit harder about these issues. Does the command "eye for an eye" contradict Jesus' statement "do not resist an evil person"? No, it does not. If you don't understand, again, think a little harder. Or if you want me to do the thinking for you, let me know, and I'll explain it in my next posts.


I think homosexuality is a sin but not worse than heterosexual promiscuity. I think there should be homosexuals in the church, but by that I mean those who are Christians and know it is a sin and still struggle with it because it was a part of their former lifestyle. I do not think their behavior should be labeled normative or accepted by God, just as other sins should not be accepted.

I believe in loving those who are of a different mind than myself, because it is love and not argument that will convince a person of the truth of my words.
I think this country will not be changed by legislation, but by the loving actions of Jesus' people and by their prayers. I do not support Christians going into politics but am glad they're there. I do not think all the answers lie with the new nomination to the Supreme Court.


So, am I right-wing Republican neo-Fascist fundamentalist? I guess it depends on what you mean by that...
Even though I have been brutally honest with myself, in an attempt to clear up the confusion behind the moniker "fundamentalist," I will nonetheless be attacked and written off as a hatemonger and a fascist. I have written this post from my heart to yours, in honesty and truthfulness, with no evil to speak of those who disagree with me. Please, the next time you go to make a generalization of us fundamentalists, pause long enough to remember this post. That is all I ask.

posted by Team Kerbel @ 11:08 AM 39 comments

Annihilation - Part 3

I apologize very sincerely for my delay in getting back to this topic. Since the last post, I’ve had to wipe my computer clean, reformat my hard drive, take a trip to Santa Cruz to visit some friends, and even work some. So I just haven’t had time. But here I am now. For those of you holding your breath, please exhale now. Pheeeewwww!!!

We talked last time of the traditional view of hell, and the philosophical and scriptural basis for that view. In this post, I’d like to present an alternative view that is in direct contrast to many of the points that the traditionalists raise in their favor. Last time, we discussed the innate immortality of the human soul, the justice of God requiring eternal torment, and the specific Scriptures used to prove and defend these ideas. In contrast to these traditional lynchpins, the conditionalist (annhiliationist) states that the human soul is conditionally immortal, that the justice of God does not require eternal torment, and that the Scriptures used are not being understood in light of their Old Testament background, and therefore are not being understood correctly. It’s a lot to chew on, so we’ll chew slowly.

Conditional Immortality is the idea that humans are not immortal and eternal by nature, but have the capacity to become immortal by God’s intervention. I will attempt to prove this biblically and philosophically. To fully understand this, let’s go way back in time.

The Garden of Eden had many trees which Adam and Eve could freely eat, including the tree of life. Remember, they were only restricted from eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Because the tree of life was in the garden, and because they were allowed to eat of every tree but the one, the implication (though it is never stated) is that they ate from the tree of life. When God kicked them out of the garden, one of the reasons he did so was to prevent the humans from eating off of the tree of life, and thus live forever. He promised them that they would die if they ate from the forbidden tree, and being cut off from the tree of life was how God would ensure that they would surely die. In other words, their immortality was conditioned on their continued eating from the tree of life. Cut off from it, they would not remain forever.

Is this all speculation, and a poor basis for my argument? Sure. This is not my entire biblical argument, believe me; I just thought that it was very interesting. Once you clear the cobwebs off of a told and retold story like Adam and Eve, you realize that you were making a lot of assumptions that the story didn’t make for you. Like, Adam and Eve never ate from the tree of life. Or like, you only had to eat from the tree of life once to live forever. I challenge these notions based on what the story says and doesn’t say and on Revelation 22:2. There, in the new earth, “on each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month.” If this is a direct allusion to the tree of life in the Garden of Eden, we can make some interesting parallels. Why does the tree of life bear its fruit every month, if we only need to eat of it once to live forever? The constant bearing of fruit implies that we are constantly eating its fruit, which implies that we need to eat of it continually to receive its benefits.

So what is the point of all this? Simply to prove that even Adam and Eve did not have immortality and life in themselves, that even in the Garden of Eden they had to continually partake from the tree of life to remain immortal. That is why God put it there in the first place, to ensure that his special creations would endure forever. Does this sound like innate immortality or conditional immortality?

Here is the main case for Conditional Immortality:

1. The Unique God: 1 Timothy 6:15-16 “…the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power…”

God alone has immortality? Than why do traditionalists argue that man has immortality from the moment he is conceived? Does it seem like a direct contradiction to their position, or is it just me? Now, some might say, “it contradicts your position as well, because you claim some humans can have immortality to.” But wait just a second; hopefully it will be clearer in a few points.

2. The Pursuit of Immortality: Romans 2:7 “eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor and immortality…”

We have to seek for immortality? Why must we seek what is intrinsic to our very nature? The answer seem obvious: humans do not inherently possess immortality.

3. The gospel is the means to immortality: 2 Timothy 1:10 “…but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel…"

4. The Partakers of the Divine Nature: 2 Peter 1:4 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-55

Gosh, I wish I had more room for these studies! These are exciting points I wish to share, but as I read through them I cannot animate them enough to show you how cool these ideas really are!

2 Peter 1:4 “…by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.”

How many times do we read this stuff over without blinking! Peter says that we are becoming partakers of the divine nature. I think that the meaning is two-fold. We are becoming like God in our character (as 2 Peter 1:1-3 admonishes us) and even more we are sharing his immortality, taking a piece of that divine nature which endures forever. How do I know he’s speaking of this second point? Notice that he is contrasting being a partaker of the divine nature with having escaped the corruption that is in the world. Now, normally we think of corruption as gross sins, general nastiness. But in the Bible corruption speaks more specifically of frail and perishable humanity, or in other words, mortality. Look at 1 Corinthians 15:53: “for this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”

So, corruption/mortality is juxtaposed with incorruption/immortality. 2 Peter is therefore claiming we have escaped corruption (mortality) and become partakers of the divine nature (immortality)! By believing in the gospel, we have been infused with an immortality that was formerly not a part of us. We are a partaker of God’s immortality, which He alone possesses but has chosen to freely give to those who believe in His Son. Left to ourselves, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.” But when we put on immortality and incorruption, “then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’”

“The Bible teaches conditionalism: God created humans mortal with a capacity for life everlasting, but it is not their inherent possession. Immortality is a gift God offers us in the gospel, not an inalienable possession.” Clark Pinnock, Four Views On Hell, pg. 148

Of all the points the annihilationist can make, I think conditional immortality is the most easily proved biblically. The Bible speaks nowhere of humans inherent immortality but speaks again and again of our mortality, of which we have no escape unless the only immortal one chooses to share with us a piece of Himself. There is no verse in the Bible that speaks of the intrinsic eternal nature of a human, and therefore, we should drop that doctrine in favor of a more biblical anthropology.

This doctrine makes sense philosophically as well. Remember the movie slogan to the Matrix Revolutions? “Everything that has a beginning has an end.” I bet you didn’t know that they actually stole this line from John Calvin. That’s right, Calvin himself said “everything which has a beginning can also have an end, can perish” while speaking specifically of man’s immortal soul. If a human soul is created by God, and has a logical beginning, then it follows that it has at least the potential of having an end. A human soul, left to itself, will go the way of all creation and diminish. Infused by God’s immortality, we can endure forever.

Why go to such lengths to prove the conditional immortality of humans? Remember, the innate immortality of the human soul is the lynchpin of the traditionalist doctrine. If a soul by its nature endures forever, than it must do so in either heaven or hell, forever. If a soul does not endure forever on its own, but must receive something outside of itself to become immortal, then it can end without any illogical or metaphysical violence. God can extinguish the soul should he choose to. The question that remains is, does he choose to kill the soul of the unrepentant? Or does he infuse it with supernatural life that he may torment it forever? That is a question for next time, as we will look at the justice of God and answer the specific scriptures brought to the table by the traditionalists.

posted by Team Kerbel @ 10:18 AM 9 comments

Annihilation - Part Two

Welcome back all!
In the previous post, we laid the groundwork for our study on the nature of hell and the consideration of the annihilationist position. Please read the first post if you haven’t already. As I said previously, this post will be mainly a defense of the traditional position regarding hell. I think it is extremely important that we should thoroughly grasp the arguments and strengths of a position before we look at its weaknesses. So, here we go:
The Traditional View of Hell Defended:
The innate immortality of the human soul: A human being is intrinsically two parts; physical (the body, which is temporal) and spiritual (the soul, which is eternal) “But irrepressible and universal as it is, the doctrine of man’s immortality is an astonishing one, and difficult to entertain. For it means that every frail finite man is to be as long-enduring as the infinite and eternal God; that there will no more be an end to the existence of the man who died today than there will be of the Deity who made him. God is denominated ‘The Ancient of Days.’ But every immortal spirit that ever dwelt in a human body will also be an ‘ancient of days’…Yes, man must exist. He has no option. Necessity is laid upon him. He cannot extinguish himself. He cannot cease to be.” G.T. Shedd, The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, pg. 490
It stands to reason that if a soul exists forever, it must exist in one of two places: heaven or hell. Consider this first idea as the lynchpin, the philosophical under-girding of the traditionalist view of hell. Without this position, the doctrine of hell as eternal conscious punishment loses its strength.
The justice of God: Sins against an eternal being require an eternal punishment.“The problem here is the obvious lack of understanding of the infinite nature of sin as contrasted to the infinite righteousness of God. If the slightest sin is infinite in its significance, then it also demands infinite punishment as a divine judgment. Though it is common for all Christians to wish that there were some way out of the doctrine of eternal punishment because of its inexorable and unyielding revelation of divine judgment, one must rely in Christian faith on the doctrine that God is a God of infinite righteousness as well as infinite love. While on the one hand he bestows infinite grace on those who trust him, he must, on the other hand, inflict eternal punishment on those who spurn his grace.” John Walvoord, Four Views On Hell, page 27
This is another important philosophical supposition for the traditionalist doctrine, though not as important as the first point. The language is clear: God is constrained to punish evil eternally, He must do so, and to act otherwise would be to deny Himself, which the Scriptures say He cannot do.

Specific Scriptures: Matthew 25:30, 41(sheep and the goats)
Mark 9:45-48 (where the worm does not die…)
Luke 16:19ff (Lazarus and the Rich Man)
Revelation 14:11, 19:3, 20:10 (smoke ascends forever, tormented forever…)
Matthew 8:12 et al (weeping and gnashing of teeth)
These arguments presented collectively do mount an impressive defense of the traditional position of hell as eternal conscious torment. If a soul is by nature eternal, and must go on forever, and it is in the nature and character of God to eternally punish those who reject Him, to place the unrepentant sinners in eternal judgment, where the worm does not die, where you remain conscious like the rich man in that torment, as it continues forever and ever; than this is an airtight position indeed. But are there holes in these statements? Does the Bible teach that the soul is inherently eternal? Does the Bible teach that sin is infinite in significance, and must be punished infinitely? Can the Scriptures presented above be understood differently? And are there any Scriptures that speak of the wicked as having an end? I must call for patience again, as we move slowly but surely forward in this discussion. Please, if there are any other Scriptures that I forgot to include that speak of eternal conscious torment, give them to me in the comments section, and I will address them in a later post.
Next: The Conditional View Presented…
Conditional Immortality!
The justice of God!
A deeper look at the Scriptures!
Stay tuned…

posted by Team Kerbel @ 9:49 AM 11 comments

Annihilation - Part One

Well, I racked my brain and I couldn't think of anything else to say, so: back to controversy. We're going to study if annihilation is biblical. I'd like to thank Paul over at the Fish Bowl for constantly riding me about my lack of posting on this subject over at his blog, which ultimately led me to defend my belief here on my blog. It feels a lot better defending your castle than raiding someone else's, I guess. Let me say a few things before I start: 1. This will be a many part series, so please refrain from making a judgment of the validity of my arguments until the end. 2. I am not sure whether I am an annihilationist or not, and if I am, I hold the belief very tentatively. I do not fight for this belief as strongly as I do others, because I am not fully convinced myself. That said, if someone put a gun to my head and made me choose my belief, I would say claim myself as an annihilationist rather than a traditionalist. 3. Please don't call me a heretic. I don't like being called names. So, let the games begin. I welcome comments and criticism throughout, but please, as I said earlier, refrain from making a final judgment (no pun intended) until I post my final view on this topic. By the way, these posts are largely culled from my individual study which I did a few months back.
Hell has long been a subject that we Christians have shied away from. To many the doctrine of hell as eternal conscious punishment is a throwaway, a forgotten doctrinal blemish who from time to time rears its ugly head. In evangelism and in our own relationship with God if often trips up our intellect and, in many cases, our sincere belief in a loving and just God, embodied and exampled in Jesus Christ. And yet those who cling to the scripture as inerrant see the doctrine as a necessary evil, unexplainable in human terms though taught inescapably throughout the Bible. They are afraid to fall into the void and deception of liberalism by rejecting a doctrine synonymous with orthodoxy and historical Christian belief. Is there an alternative? Are we forced to choose between scriptural adherence or bleeding heart liberalism? The wide and the narrow path? Well, we will determine whether these are the only options available to us, and for the glory of God will look deep and long into the Scriptures, the sole rule and authority of our faith, to mine the truth. First, some quotes:
“Because the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment is so foreign to the thought patterns of our culture, and, on a deeper level, to our instinctive and God-given sense of love and desire for redemption for every human being created in God’s image, this doctrine is emotionally one of the most difficult doctrines for Christians to affirm today. It also tends to be one of the first doctrines given up by people who are moving away from a commitment to the Bible as absolutely truthful in all that it affirms. Among liberal theologians who do not accept the absolute truthfulness of the Bible, there is probably no one today who believes in the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment.” Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, footnote on pg. 1151
“Few people want to study the subject [of hell] any more. The liberals do not believe in such things, and the conservatives are satisfied that they already have the answers. That leaves few people who are concerned to learn more.” Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, pg. 20
This "sound of silence" has led to two things: 1. The traditional view remains the unchallenged de facto view among "bible-believing" Christians 2. Any deviation is considered cult-like and unorthodox
We are going to challenge that silence and let the evidence lead where it may. Of course, in any study of Scipture, and in this one in particular, there are some things we should try to avoid: 1. Loyalty to the traditions of men in the face of biblical evidence (on either side) 2. "Emotional Eschatology"--Argument based on the presumed (and possibly unbiblical) character of God:
“If the doctrine of eternal punishment was clearly and unmistakably taught in every leaf of the Bible, and on every leaf of all the Bibles of all the world, I could not believe a word of it. I should appeal from these misconceptions of even the seers and the great men to the infinite and eternal Good, who only is God, and who only on such terms could be worshiped.” R.H. Savage, quoted by John Walvoord, Four Views On Hell, pg. 13-14
3. Strange arguments calculated for shock value (Straw Man Arguments):
“This understanding [of annihilation] resolves a deeper problem and exposes a lie that goes back to Eden. For there, God said to Eve that if she sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, “[she] will surely die.” And Satan replied, “You will not surely die”…The teaching of eternal torment repeats and elaborates on Satan’s original lie, claiming, “The wages of sin is not death, but eternal torment”…There is no middle ground. We believe either God or His adversary. Either the wicked die, or they live on forever. Either God loves us, or He does not. Either He will destroy sin as He has promised, or He will perpetuate it in an ever-burning hell. The choice that faced Eve faces each of us today.” Ed Dickerson, Will Hell Last Forever? Signs of the Times, May 04, pg. 17
4. Dogmatism (1 Corinthians 13:9-12)
"For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known."
On the other hand, here are some things we should strive for: 1. Honest exegesis of Scripture In 2 Peter 3:16, we are told of those who "twist" the scriptures to suit their own means, leading to their destruction. The word in the Greek is streblou, which means "to torture, to put to the rack". Let us make every effort to avoid manipulating the scriptures to suit our own tastes. 2. Conclusions based on evidence: In Acts 17, we read of the Bereans, who compared what Paul was presenting to them with the scriptures, and it reads "therefore many of them believed." They made their conclusions based on evidence; so should we. 3. Loving acceptance of the teaching of scripture: "Let God be true, and every man a liar (Romans 3:4) 4. Loving acceptance of those with different opinions (Romans 14:1-5)
So I'd better wrap this post up for now. What, you say? But you didn't even begin to talk about annihilation! Patience, my young padawans. This is a subject not to be entered into lightly or rashly. Next time, we will defend the traditionalist view of hell. I believe anyone who questions a view should have a very thorough understanding of said view, and a knowledge of how to defend it. And we will do that shortly. Just to make sure that your whistles remain wet, we'll leave with the Annihilationist Beginning Statement: It is our belief that the Bible points to the final annihilation of the wicked after a period of proportional punishment rather than eternally suffering in a lake of fire... To be continued...

posted by Team Kerbel @ 3:56 PM 14 comments