Why is UR harmful?

[jeremiah]

Hello Steve,

...There are four possible explanations for your behavior (can anyone imagine a fifth?):

1. You do not read explanations that people take pains to address to you (rudeness); or

2. You do not understand what everyone has told you plainly (intellectual deficiency); or

3. You simply won’t acknowledge facts when you see them (dishonesty). or

4. You do not revere the truth enough to participate seriously in a serious discussion of eternal matters and of the character of God (lack of fear of God)...

I think a fifth is that John simply does not believe UR can be found in the scriptures,

He then does what we all do (rightly or wrongly) when we disagree and are consumed in the controversy: screen what's presented to us, recognize what the person is saying but yet dismiss their conclusions being convinced their emphasis is wrongly drawn. And therefore decide their conclusion to be mixed up and incorrect. And then proceeds to try and present his take on why he thinks UR is all jumbled up.

I don't beleive anyone's time is really wasted. All that is necessary to begin avoiding what we think is wasting our time is to refrain from reading that thread (I know there's more to it, which is why I say "begin". What follows after, I think, is God's business)

I think it was a mistake to ban John, and think it should be reversed.

Grace and peace to you brother.

[steve]

John has not been banned. He has been given a chance to speak to the issues in an honest fashion. He has not chosen to do that. If he does not, then it certainly is a waste of my time (if not others') to read his repetitious and irrelevant posts on this subject. You may say that no one has to read them. This is true of those who are not addressed in them. However, he addresses many of his posts to me. Unlike him, I am not rude enough to ignore questions addressed to me.

[jeremiah]

Good morning Steve,

Well that's great, my mistake.

However, he addresses many of his posts to me. Unlike him, I am not rude enough to ignore questions addressed to me

Come on man, this is just stubbornly holding on to your position. There is a big difference between somebody addressing you with the intent of seeking your help on some issue. Which to ignore them might be considered rude. But to equivocate that with what's going on here is in my opinion childish.

In the past I addressed a post to you, to which you never responded. Should I think you were being rude? Of course not. Either you didn't see it or perhaps you just disagreed with my argumentation and conclusions. And that's ok.

Grace and peace to you.

[steve]

Hi Jeremiah,

To my knowledge, I have never ignored a question directed to me. I apologize if I missed one of yours. It may be that someone else gave the same answer I would have given, which sometimes happens. In such a case, I generally decline to simply duplicate what someone else has said.

I didn't create the forum, but the man who started it (John Kent) did so with the stated intent of providing an on-line extension of the radio program, where people could post questions to me and I would give them answers, as I do on the air. Since I knew nothing about the internet, he even had to teach me how to use it. Just as I have never ignored a caller's question on the air, I am determined not to ignore questions directed to me here—that is, unless someone else gets here first and gives an answer essentially the same as the one I would have given, which is often the case.

Most questions are not specifically addressed to me anymore, as they were in the beginning of the forum. However, both JR and Homer still often direct theirs to me by name, and often ask for further clarification on something I have posted. I do not ignore these, though anyone else may feel the liberty to do so.

Some people think I should cut-off Michael, the Buddhist, who calls my show frequently—often making the same points he has made for years. I receive regular complaints from listeners because I allow him to keep calling in, and they tell me to ban him. I have considered doing so many times. However, he is not a Christian, and seems to be raising points that correctly may represent the questions other Buddhist listeners have, so I have allowed him to keep calling. If I should decide that continuing to let him call is helping no one, and is compromising the quality of the radio program, I will have to ask him not to continue calling. I consider this to be my responsibility, as I consider both the radio ministry and this forum to be a stewardship of mine.

There are very few people whose activities at this forum have ever been curtailed by me, but there are some whose behavior has just been inexcusable. No one can deny that I have begged JR to participate in a genuine discussion over the past years, and he simply refuses to do so. I feel no obligation to keep it up.

As near as I can tell, Matthew Rose holds the same views as JR on hell, yet you will never find anyone objecting to his posts, because he is polite, understands and engages the issues in his posts. The same is true of many here. No one can imagine that JR will be banned simply for his disagreement. If he is banned, it will be for his dishonesty. He has made outrageous misrepresentations, and has been called on it frequently. He now has the opportunity to come forward with some support for his errors. Thus far, he has shown no interest in doing so. This is not behavior that will ever be welcome here.

[Paidion]

I wish to publically affirm that I admire Steve's longsuffering (two years of patience) toward JR. Had I been in his position, don't think I would have lasted that long.

[Jepne]

" No one can deny that I have begged JR to participate in a genuine discussion over the past years, and he simply refuses to do so."

I wish there was a 'like' button for Steve's post and Paidion's. Anyway, "Like"!

[jriccitelli]

"... UR is gravely overestimating man's nature and desire for sin" (Quote from my post by Steve, this thread, on Jan.4th, pg 7)
"How do you know this? Does the Bible say so, or just you? Can you give any reason for anyone to believe that you are not overestimating man’s nature and desire for sin? Can you demonstrate that there is any substance to your accusation?" (Steve's reaction, to my typo, which should be obvious to those involved in this thread. I then pointed out that it was a typo, but that fact was erased with my post)

It would be fair to point out that you went off my typo (above). The context reveals what I meant: "True, why would you think mans thinking gets any better post-mortem? UR is gravely overestimating mans nature and desire for sin. God is forever loving, but man is not infinite, it is still mans choice (My response to 7150, Jan 04, 2014 9:34)
The word should have been underestimating rather than overestimating. This is obvious from the context. This has been my contention all along in multiple threads, so it is nothing new. You have to allow this simple correction, right? (I now continue to Steve's request as follows:)

Please provide at least two examples, in each category, of this alleged “massive subversion” (by UR and EU) of
1. Multiple doctrines (scripture)
2. Multiple meanings (of scripture)
3. Verses (of scripture)

Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy. Subversion (Latin subvertere: overthrow) refers to a process by which the values and principles of a system in place, are contradicted or reversed. More specifically, subversion can be described as an attack on the public morale and, “the will to resist intervention are the products of combined political and social or class loyalties which are usually attached to national symbols. (Wikipedia)

I have already stated these subversions as they have come up, all along. All the points I have been making all along I have stated clearly. You are suggesting that since I don’t agree with you or URs take on the bible I must not understand URs position. I have read UR/EU arguments, books etc. and I have explained why there are holes all throughout their arguments. You and a few others here accuse me of not knowing or having read URs explanations, as if I have found all the arguments so compelling. For example: when JWs says there is one God, and I tell them they have two gods, the JWs tell me to read their publications in order to understand their position, and the problem with mine. But their problem is not that deep or difficult: their problem is right in front of them; they have no answer to the simple questions, always changing direction and needing extra biblical direction.
(In other words UR/EU simply will not 'believe' that death is not temporal, the last Judgment is last, fire rarely describes refining, etc, etc.)
The first subversive doctrine of UR/EU would be the Post-Mortem world(or another world):
This is a doctrine, but it is not a biblical doctrine. It’s closer to a doctrine of Mormonism. I am no stranger to UR and post-mortem teachings since I am very familiar with Mormon (LDS) teachings, and comparative religion studies. There are many postmortem doctrines and teachings in Mormonism, in fact I spent years debating Mormons on eschatology. The postmortem testing ground of opportunity is not unique to EU/UR or Mormonism, I also researched other religions after leaving Mormonism and found this postmortem world of opportunity a common thread among many non-biblical religions especially Hinduism, Buddhism, Spiritism. So it is a doctrine.
EU/UR does what Mormonism does, that is: they create other worlds out of the unknown in order to accomplish what is not known or explained in the bible. For example: God lives near the planet Kolob with multiple wives and Jesus has a planet of his own. In Mormonism there is a world, or realm of second chances, almost like a spiritual schoolroom in some other realm. It is here that people who didn’t embrace the Gospel, or attain to the many mandates of Mormonism can learn of or attempt to fulfill the prerequisites of postmortem progression. There are also all the other planets for future progression, telestial and celestial etc. that Mormonism has imagined to exist. I do not suppose I need to explain the process of eternal progression in Hinduism, but you see how close the doctrines correlate with UR/EU versus the absence of such a doctrine in Christianity, right?

The next two doctrinal problems are closely related to the above problem, since 'all' UR/EU progression happens in the post-mortem.
Belief and faith: The biblical condition of ‘belief’ cannot be the same post mortem (as in the context of EU/UR).
Biblical belief is a sincere agreement in something that is abstract and less than concrete, or: to step beyond the common observations, while stepping off what you can see is true. The literary context of biblical ‘belief’ usually asks one to trust what you already know and go one step further. The bible asks us to believe in the truth of Gods word, in other words trusting the bible is the step further. We are supposed to believe what is ‘already’ written in order to gain eternal life, because it is also written that the soul who sins will die, do you believe this?

Faith would be the ‘further’ advancement of your belief, such as ‘acting’ on your belief, and building upon your belief. We know Hebrews chapter 11 defines biblical faith:
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen… By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith”
This whole chapter of Hebrews defines faith as believing in the unseen (and points out that the Patriarchs trusted that God could ‘raise the dead’ and that their home was not on the ‘temporal’ earth, these are things ‘nobody’ had seen). Continuing in Hebrews, note the trust in the unseen:
“By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going” (Hebrews 11:8)
Abraham’s trust was in things ‘beyond what was seen’, and more precisely Abraham believed Gods ‘word’. Abraham demonstrated his faith by not trusting in the ‘world’ around him, rather: “by faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise”. They were ‘tested’ by things on ‘earth’ and refused them, proving their faith and demonstrating belief in the ‘unseen’: “All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own” (11:13-14). Furthermore they were ‘tempted’ by the things on earth and ‘refused’ them: “choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin” (11:25). This is why I am saying that ‘the context’ and scenario of Gods proving ground of belief and faith cannot be believed to be ‘the same’ post mortem, or applicable at all. Belief and Faith would have to take on a completely new definition and context from what is presented in the bible, that is unless there was another world exactly like this one following this one. Since God Himself setup ‘this earthly scenario’ for belief, this world would have to be the context for which the promises of belief apply. In other words: Since His revelation of believing unto salvation was offered to us ‘in this’ world, then scriptural saving ‘belief’ can only be applied to the context of this earthly life.

If Gods word clearly stated that belief and faith could indeed happen in another world, or in a different scenario like Mormonism and Hinduism plainly state, then we could believe it. Yet the logic and points made by the writer of Hebrews imply that a different scenario other than earth would not apply to those in chapter 11.
I believe this life is the vantage point from which we are tested and questioned by God, and the place from which God asks for a response to His revelation and offer of eternal life. With that in mind, I will quote from Steve’s book:

“… it may still be that none will finally be annihilated because all will eventually come to faith in Christ, meeting the conditions for immortality. Those who did not come to faith in Christ in this lifetime may do so eventually after this life has passed. A period of postmortem chastening would be required to bring some of the more rebellious ones around to a willingness to embrace Christ… Once sinners in hell have been brought to true faith in Christ and repentance, immortality in Christ will be theirs…” (Steve, ‘All you want to know…’ p. 262)

Note that Steve uses the term ‘faith’ here, and describes it as ‘true faith’. Note that he says this will meet “the conditions for immortality”. I have noted previously that other UR proponents think this also, so it may be that Steve is just stating the UR position. Yet my argument all along has been just this, and I have not seen this problem addressed. I think it is a big problem. Either EU/UR proponents don’t understand the point, or don’t think it important.

In other words UR is demanding another postmortem environment, world or a realm that satisfies, allows and provides for an environment like this world where God’s test of belief may be accomplished and finished. Jesus came to this earth, died on this earth. The post-mortem world does not suggest a place of choosing, testing faith, or having things by which we may be tested by. This world seems to be a testing ground made specifically just to test us, to see ‘who’ would ‘want’ to live Holy and deny themselves and the things of this world. We can’t imagine there would be bibles, preaching, witnessing or testimonies in a world postmortem. Just as we can’t really affirm there is sight, sound or ‘anything at all’ for the dead postmortem, because no other such world is described in scripture. The scriptural portrait of the postmortem realm for the dead is not rosy, nor is it anything close to what it is like waking up in our own bed on a Sunday or Monday morning and experiencing another regular day.

[jriccitelli]

“Where with UR, I have been absolutely amazed at the massive subversion of multiple doctrines, meaning and verses in order to try and justify UR” (Me)

Meanings of hundreds of passages subverted;
Christianity theologians have generally seen no great contradiction between Gods threats of punishment and death to unbelievers, and the love and kindness of Jesus (if they accept man has been given a freewill to choose). Most Evangelical Universalists likewise ‘proclaim’ there is no contradiction between the two, yet EU/UR adds that ‘all’ Gods righteous judgments of death in scripture will be reversed when all these individuals and nations repent in the postmortem. In other words: EU does not believe it is right for God to ‘actually’ put these humans to eternal death, even though it seems many do not ‘want’ to be holy and live with God forever. EU insists that ‘Gods will’ and ‘love’ for humans will not allow God to put any of them to eternal death, but God warns and puts people to death ‘multiple times’ in scripture. Scripture is warning us that God can and will fulfill His promise in giving rebellious people a final (spiritual) death. Just as the flesh is no more upon death, so the spirit will be gone after the second death. EU rejects and denies that scripture has been making this point all along (ET also redefines ‘death’ to mean our immortal separation from God). Yet throughout scripture God is willing and has demonstrated that He will put certain individuals to death. Putting people to death is what God actually does in scripture, over and over again, and without any indication that they ever live again. EU’s claim that God saves everyone of these people despite His ‘already’ judging some of them with ‘death’ changes the meaning, implication, intent and warning implied throughout the hundreds of passages involved. All these passages demonstrate Gods ‘willingness’ to destroy the sinners and rebellious lovers of pleasure whom He ‘already’ judged as unwilling, and unrepentant.

‘EU advocates say that all the ‘OT punishments were only corrective’ and they were only meant as the means of complete restoration of all those punished, put to death and or destroyed. This changes the meaning of all the verses involved, and there are literally hundreds of verses and chapters involved in this context. It is not consistent or hermeneutically correct to restrict all the judgment and punishment verses to temporal historical definitions and keep only the OT verses of salvation, prosperity and blessings granted the righteous and faithful as applicable to eternal things and promises of the future spoken of in the OT. If one teaches that most all the OT promises and warnings of punishment and blessings have no direct eternal consequences or a future fulfillment, then you have subverted a huge portion of the Bible, if not most all of it. When UR/EU changes the impact, reason and purpose behind all these passages it creates a huge subversion of the passages. If one ‘insists’ that the warnings of death in the Old Testament ‘only’ apply to life in this current world, and that all judgments are restorative and corrective, and or, that Gods character will somehow ‘change’ regarding the ‘promises’ of death and destruction post New Testament times, then in effect UR creates a new set of lenses for reading the Bible. I see rather that Jesus and the NT reconfirmed the teaching and statements from the old and applied them to eschatology and future Judgments.
‘For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the Lord 13 “The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt… And when your children say to you, ‘What does this rite mean to you?’ you shall say, ‘It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord who passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, but spared our homes’ (Exodus 12:12-26)
UR/EU would suggest that Gods Judgment here is temporal, corrective, or not pertinent to future consequences. Yet no hope is expressed in these Judgments for unbelievers, although I personally suggest a future repentance for ‘some’ may be available postmortem, still the passages make it clear God is willing to eventually destroy and kill the disobedient. God gave numerous warnings and signs to the Egyptians, and God offered time for repentance and the offer of pardon to all including Egyptians in the blood of the lamb. Nothing suggests that God was unfair in these events, the contexts even gives praise to God for ‘destroying’ His enemies (Exodus 15). This event is also a 'lesson' to live by, a reason to fear Him, to serve Him, to praise Him, and to worship Him, as we are directed to do in Deuteronomy 11. In many passages such as these we are told to tell them to our children, yet note the content of the chapter 12 Passover passage: God smote them (27), When the Lord goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down (23), And anyone, whether foreigner or native-born, who eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel (19), etc. There is nothing here but a vivid demonstration and mandate of repentance and belief in order to escape sure death. I can see why this foundational salvific passage is not a proof text for UR/EU.

The many verses redefined by UR/EU definitions of death and destruction are like the following that speak of death and destruction to unbelievers and rebels:
‘… the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine… The soul who sins will die. The person who sins will die… But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die.…’ (Ezekiel 18:4-21)
'If one man sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the LORD desired to put them to death’ (1 Samuel 2:25)
In defense of EU/UR the EU/UR advocate will stand on a verse that speaks of Gods unwillingness, and refusal to put to death, and we fully concur that it is not Gods desire to put to death, but like Matthew Henry states;

The state of sinners is a state of banishment from God. God pardons none to the dishonor of his law and justice, nor any who are impenitent; nor to the encouragement of crimes, or the hurt of others. (Matt Henry comm.) http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_samuel/14-14.htm

Note the above is in Henry's comments on 2 Samuel 14:14 (as I noted Matt brought up 2 Samuel 14 today), just as another commentator notes on the same verse below:

“Death is not a penalty exacted as a punishment, but, on the contrary, he is merciful, and when a man has sinned, instead of putting him to death, he is ready to forgive and welcome back one rejected because of his wickedness. The application is plain. The king cannot restore Amnon to life, and neither must he kill the guilty Absalom, but must recall his banished son. The argument is full of poetry, and touching to the feelings, but is not very sound. For God requires repentance and change of heart; and there was no sign of contrition on Absalom's part” (Pulpit Comm.)

It is no new revelation that God forgives, and God 'could' restore everyone, but the conditional and Traditional context is that all forgiveness is mandated by faith and repentance, so if you rebel or otherwise the original sentence of death stands. There is no reason to go back and think we can find a Universalist meaning weaved into the Bible. UR could have happened if every single person repented and had faith, but the biblical record paints the opposite scenario, deliberately and with intent. To see it otherwise is ignoring the command to believe the multiple warnings so vividly repeated over and over in so many foundational passages.

This has been stated over and over, but the meanings of Aionios, Kolasis, All, Death, Destruction, etc. would be word meanings that UR/EU needs to change from traditional understanding to suit UR. Right or wrong, Traditionalists and Conditionalists do not agree with the restorative and temporal definitions proposed by UR/EU, and thus multiple passages have their meanings subverted by UR/EU.

[jriccitelli]

Continuing on to verses subverted;
Verses speaking of death as a penalty, especially the second death:

(On Rev. 20:14) A brief diversion for anyone to answer that knows: what does the Universalist think that the expression "second death" means? (Roberto, Hell thread, Dec 27, pg10)
"It means the lake of fire. The question is whether the lake of fire means "eternal torment" or "destruction" or "temporal punishment/purification" It's possible the LOF is not a place but God himself" (7150, Hell thread, Dec 27, pg10. I have no intention to put 7150 on the spot, but only because his answers are straight forward, and without degression)

As a Conditionalist I would say the second death means ‘a second death’ (θάνατος ὁ δεύτερός). Technically Conditionalists depart from both camps (UR and ET) on these second death verses. ET and Christianity in general has said death means ‘separation’ from God, we have all heard this repeated a thousand times from pulpits yet Conditionalists believe this is adding to scripture. Tradition would say that the soul does not die; they say the soul will live:

“Death, in any form, is the penalty of law; it is attended with pain; it cuts off from hope, from friends, from enjoyment; it subjects him who dies to a much-dreaded condition, and in all these respects it was proper to call the final condition of the wicked "death" - though it would still be true that the soul would live” (from Barnes notes on the Bible, see: biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/20-14.htm ).

I would part with Barnes and the Traditional direction here, In fact I would say the initial subversion was implemented long ago when death became defined simply as separation, and therefore removing ‘death’ from the biblical vocabulary. The end of your own existence, your conscious life, and the contrast between death and life as we know it, are all left out in exchange for this immortal definition. Nevertheless I would agree with traditionalists that the second death is ‘irreversible’.

Verses speaking of the Day of Judgment:
“Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” (Matthew 10:15) “By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world” (1John 4:17) “these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day” (Jude 1:6)

‘The term "final judgment" will not be found in scripture. However, denial of such a judgment is not a necessary or common feature of restorationism. I don't know of any restorationist writer who suggests additional judgments after the one at the great white throne. Let us agree to refer to this as the "final judgment." From this point on, we can be either traditionalists, conditionalists or restorationists. Let's stop pretending that the "final judgment" is the sole property of one or another of the three views of hell, or that belief in such is somehow hostile to any of the views’ (Steve, Hell thread, Dec 23, pg.8)

It seems generally understood that when a judge makes a judgment this is the ‘final’ say in the matter, anything further would require ‘another’ trial first. The judgment is made after the ‘trial’ and once a judge rules it is ‘final’. UR tries to escape this by assuming the sentence/judgment is restorative/corrective punishment, but even so: if UR holds that the person must show repentance, faith, sincerity or whatever during their sentence to gain what they did not have during the previous judgment/sentencing then they must be judged ‘again’ because punishment and sentencing does not automatically cause or insure change, repentance, faith or sincerity. Nevertheless if such a change were to happen God must then set a second judgment day, and this second Judgment is no longer the notable specific day as noted in scripture but rather dependent on ‘when’ each individual person finally has a change of heart somewhere during, or after their punishment experience. Note that a ‘retrial’ is a completely different thing. This normally doesn’t happen in courts anywhere, double jeopardy law applies here in US, and further more you might end up with two sentences for the same crime. Note the following from ‘Just answer legal’ online:

Retrial of a defendant acquitted of a crime is generally disallowed. The other reasons for which there could be a retrial, based on the rules of jurisdiction, are as follows: 1. A jury that is unable to reach a conclusive verdict or a hung jury. 2. A legal mistake or defect in the original trial. 3. An appellate court reverses or disqualifies the previous judgment and requires the case be tried again.

God is able to reach conclusive verdicts, He doesn’t make mistakes, and no one can reverse His previous judgments. In earthly courts you may have an appeal, but:

“Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial’s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law” (http://www.americanbar.org under ‘How courts work’)

A judge’s decision as ‘final’ has not changed much from ancient history; a judge’s decision is relatively the same. I do not rely on Biblehub for all my information, but I am not going to rewrite what 10 of my theological references say, all to the same effect, that there is a one time final judgment for each person, when or where is not the point, but that ‘each’ receives a judgment is the point:

‘LAST JUDGEMENT: God's judgment of all people at the end of the age. This has been entrusted to Jesus Christ who, at his return, will reward the righteous and punish the unrighteous. Judgment will be on the basis of deeds, the response to God's revelation and faith in Jesus Christ. Believers need not fear the last judgment, but should live godly lives in anticipation of it… The result of last judgment… Two eternal destinies” (Under: Last Judgment, in the ‘Dictionary of Bible Themes’ http://biblehub.com/topical/dbt/9240.htm)
‘THE DAY OF JUDGMENT: for which the word "judgment" alone is sometimes used, is that great day, at the end of the world and of time, when Christ shall sit as judge over all the universe, and when every individual of the human race will be judged and recompensed according to his works, whether they be good or evil. The time of its coming and its duration are known only to God. It will break upon the world suddenly, and with a glorious but awful majesty’ (ATS bible dictionary, Matthew George Easton, under Judgment, http://biblehub.com/topical/j/judgment.htm)

This is not my complete argument but I also know the danger of writing long posts, it is difficult for writers to see their own typos, so I will let this rest here, for comment or correction. I do think this at least met Steve's three mandates. Prior to my previous post in January I did have a clipboard with responses started to three or five different forum posters, Michelle, TK, Backwoods, etc. and Steve but I suppose I generally tried to deal with what was current as the conversations can move around so fast. I have no qualms in answering any objection or question posted to me. Many questions I am still looking at, but the definitions I am referring to effect the premises on which all these seem to rest so I was trying to clarify, especially terms like death, temporal, resurrection, life, etc...

[steve]

I'm glad you got that off your chest.