<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: regarding Octavian's comments
Review: Having read Octavian's article regarding "Conditionists" which he obviously felt strongly enough to post his same article on two different books, even know he admits to not even having read either of the books. May I suggest he should have read these books unbiasedly to try and refute them from Scripture rather then brushing them off without even examining them because these books bring up every issue he covered. The ultimate debate between these viewpoints is not just defending a denominational creed but it is a search for truth from the Scriptures.
His arguments, or rather his dislike of the Conditionalist doctrine is not one to be dismissed as easy as he would have us believe. I believe more and more Christians are becoming aware of this as some are taking interest in Bible study.
The Scriptures affirm Conditionalism to the unprejudice with no "denominational" creed to uphold. Edward Fudge proves beyond a shadow of a doubt from the Scriptures that the "immortality of the soul" was dogma from the Greeks, especially during the "Apocyrapha" years. Fudge traces it back and shows this influenced the early Hebrews and the early Christians.
The immortality of the soul is a false doctrine, and in the future if one is researching, they should honesty face issues, and honestly represent both sides, or else misrepresentation follows, and no benefit results from that type of faulty research. Octavian does mention Leroy Froom, which I am not sure if modern readers are familiar with but his two volume book is still regarded as a classic in Conditionalist literature tracing the Conditionalist beliefs.
However, Fudge's book answers not only the beliefs of tradionalists but gives Scripture for every assertion made, and reasons from a sound exegetical, hermeneutical method.
As one in whom I am of the Condtionalist persuasion, I am always open to other viewpoints but the ultimate test is the Scriptures. I am always aware that I may be wrong and so I enjoy good dialogue amonst Bible students who are sincere.
My only suggestion I would have for Octavian is to examine both sides of an issue before writing an article on a book he openly admits to not having read.
Read Fudge, and read "Daring to Differ", that way an objective and intelligent comment can be made, not an ignorant one.
Rating:
Summary: regarding the Octavian's comments
Review: Having read your article regarding "conditionists" which you obviously felt strongly enough to post your same article on two different books, even know you admit to not even having read either of the books. May I suggest you should have read these books, to try and refute them, because they bring up every issue you covered. The ultimate debate between these viewpoints is not of one whose axe is is try "grind" as they say, but it is a search for truth. Your arguments, rather your dislike of the conditionalist doctrine is not one to be dismissed as easy as you would have us believe. Not only do countless Christians see this, but the Scriptures affirm this to the unprejudice with no "denominational" creed to uphold. Edward Fudge proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "immortality of the soul" was from the Greeks, especially during the "Apocyrapha" years. Fudge traces it back further than you and shows this influenced the early Hebrews and the early Christians. The immortality of the soul is a false doctrine, and in the future if you are researching, you should honesty face issues, and honestly represent what both sides believe, or else misrepresentation follows, and no benefit results from that type of faulty research. You do mention Leroy Froom, which i am not sure if you had read his classic book, is one tracing the conditionalist beliefs, however, Fudge's book answers not only the beliefs but gives Scripture for every assertion made, and reasons from a sound exegetical, hermeneutical method. As one in whom I am of the condtionalist persuasion, I am always open to other viewpoints but the ultimate test is the Scriptures. I am always aware that I may be wrong and so i enjoy good dialogue amonst brothers who are sincere. My only suggestion I would have for you is to examine both sides before writing an article downplaying somebodies research without you know nothing about. Read Fudge, and read the other book you mention "Daring to Differ", that way a fair comment can be made John
Rating: 
Summary: Nothing Revolutionary
Review: The meretricious devotion this author holds toward canonized scripture humors me, as does that of his far greater predecessors in the conditional immortality debate. His work is by no means revolutionary, and without having read it, I can already recommend better authors in his field. (Dr. Leroy Froom, for example, whose works are put at the forefront.) Invariably, the usual arguments catch the laity off guard, but genuine biblical scholars of orthodox theology are not led astray by the heresy of ultimate annihilation, anthropological monism, or conditionalism. Is conditionalism an ancient doctrine? Yes, and the origins are readily available. To briefly summarize what would otherwise be several volumes of refutation, conditional immortality was originally advocated by Arnobious of Sicca- c. 327 C.E., whose personal record as a Christian apologist is amongst the most pitiful, albeit entertaining, in clerical history. Also hailed as Arnobious the Elder, he was an enemy of both (Unlike Paul) Judaism and Christianity and a proponent of Asiatic mysticysm. According to the tale told by his subsequent disciples, Arnobious met a spiritual Jesus after awakening from a bad dream, who transformed the mystic into a self proclaimed sage, endowing him with the knowledge of God apart from scriptural reading. Rather than acknowledging mainstream Christianity, Arnobious opened his own school and taught his remarkable "dream" philosophies in Sicca, Africa, where he wrote a flawed, though sincere, theological treatise titled "Against the Pagans" c. 305 C.E. In this work, conditionalism, annihilation, and anthro-monism appear for the first time in "Christian" history. Comically, Arnobious confused the Pharisees with the Sadducees in several references to Jewish sects, and quoted the New Testament only ONCE in the treatise. As Catholic Friar Jurgen sardonically comments, the treatise does carry water- not in the realm of theological truth, but certainly in its revealed information about the cults of the time. And this, my friends, is the basis for your highly esteemed doctrine of a temporary hell. On the purported claim that immortal soulism was derived from Greco mythology and Platonism, such an idea is true only for those without knowledge of Judaic sects of Essene or Kabbalist, both of which held to the doctrine of an immaterial, immortal spirit. Contrary to what pro-conditionalist scholars would have you believe, Orthodox Judaism itself has always taught immortal soulism, and rabbinical interpretation of the Old Testament does not find man and beast to be equal. Let it never be said, therefore, that the Hebrew Bible does not teach immortal soulism, on the contrary, those to whom it belongs find it amusing that conditionalists unable to speak Hebrew consider themselves expert on a Hebraic eschatology. (It should come as no surprise, since conditionalists also rate themselves as the sole beneficiaries of Y-w-h's irrevocable blessings to the Jews. How strange they cannot grasp the Old Testament's clearly defined salvation of Israel, while nonetheless being able to comprehend nebulous doctrines revealed by "divine inference".) As for the human soul in Hebrew, the solitary "nephesh" is contextualized, but with blatant arrogance, conditionalists assume their fragmented knowledge is somehow supplemented by divine illumination- in combination, of course, with the authority of Arnobious the Dreamer. Upon this threefold foundation, the dogma gains momentum by its humane appeal to modern society. Yet as a fly in the face of both mainstream Christianity AND Judaism, conditionalists maintain a long tradition of denying reality, whilst usurping the texts of two major religions. (I suppose at least it speaks for the short lived worth of Arnobious's own text.) I will delve into answering any query posed at me by any reader on any subject surrounding the issue, including hell, image of God, anthropological monism, componential trichotomy, and eschatological fate of the wicked. There's little doubt I know more about his own theories than the author of the book. Ok, Hatch- sorry to burst your bubble. jaredlhall@hotmail.com
Rating:
Summary: Nothing Revolutionary
Review: The meretricious devotion this author holds toward canonized scripture humors me, as does that of his far greater predecessors in the conditional immortality debate. His work is by no means revolutionary, and without having read it, I can already recommend better authors in his field. (Dr. Leroy Froom, for example, whose works are put at the forefront.) Invariably, the usual arguments catch the laity off guard, but genuine biblical scholars of orthodox theology are not led astray by the heresy of ultimate annihilation, anthropological monism, or conditionalism. Is conditionalism an ancient doctrine? Yes, and the origins are readily available. To briefly summarize what would otherwise be several volumes of refutation, conditional immortality was originally advocated by Arnobious of Sicca- c. 327 C.E., whose personal record as a Christian apologist is amongst the most pitiful, albeit entertaining, in clerical history. Also hailed as Arnobious the Elder, he was an enemy of both (Unlike Paul) Judaism and Christianity and a proponent of Asiatic mysticysm. According to the tale told by his subsequent disciples, Arnobious met a spiritual Jesus after awakening from a bad dream, who transformed the mystic into a self proclaimed sage, endowing him with the knowledge of God apart from scriptural reading. Rather than acknowledging mainstream Christianity, Arnobious opened his own school and taught his remarkable "dream" philosophies in Sicca, Africa, where he wrote a flawed, though sincere, theological treatise titled "Against the Pagans" c. 305 C.E. In this work, conditionalism, annihilation, and anthro-monism appear for the first time in "Christian" history. Comically, Arnobious confused the Pharisees with the Sadducees in several references to Jewish sects, and quoted the New Testament only ONCE in the treatise. As Catholic Friar Jurgen sardonically comments, the treatise does carry water- not in the realm of theological truth, but certainly in its revealed information about the cults of the time. And this, my friends, is the basis for your highly esteemed doctrine of a temporary hell. On the purported claim that immortal soulism was derived from Greco mythology and Platonism, such an idea is true only for those without knowledge of Judaic sects of Essene or Kabbalist, both of which held to the doctrine of an immaterial, immortal spirit. Contrary to what pro-conditionalist scholars would have you believe, Orthodox Judaism itself has always taught immortal soulism, and rabbinical interpretation of the Old Testament does not find man and beast to be equal. Let it never be said, therefore, that the Hebrew Bible does not teach immortal soulism, on the contrary, those to whom it belongs find it amusing that conditionalists unable to speak Hebrew consider themselves expert on a Hebraic eschatology. (It should come as no surprise, since conditionalists also rate themselves as the sole beneficiaries of Y-w-h's irrevocable blessings to the Jews. How strange they cannot grasp the Old Testament's clearly defined salvation of Israel, while nonetheless being able to comprehend nebulous doctrines revealed by "divine inference".) As for the human soul in Hebrew, the solitary "nephesh" is contextualized, but with blatant arrogance, conditionalists assume their fragmented knowledge is somehow supplemented by divine illumination- in combination, of course, with the authority of Arnobious the Dreamer. Upon this threefold foundation, the dogma gains momentum by its humane appeal to modern society. Yet as a fly in the face of both mainstream Christianity AND Judaism, conditionalists maintain a long tradition of denying reality, whilst usurping the texts of two major religions. (I suppose at least it speaks for the short lived worth of Arnobious's own text.) I will delve into answering any query posed at me by any reader on any subject surrounding the issue, including hell, image of God, anthropological monism, componential trichotomy, and eschatological fate of the wicked. There's little doubt I know more about his own theories than the author of the book. Ok, Hatch- sorry to burst your bubble. jaredlhall@hotmail.com
<< 1 >>
|
