"factual statements that are self-contradictory"

So much for the law of non-self-contradiction.

Jacob,

Here's why: I find in certain passages a use of "eternal" which is indisputeably referring to an action which occured for only so long but had eternal results (consider Hebrews 5:9, 6:2, and 9:12). Therefore, I lean towards the idea that "punishment" is a process (the process of dying the second time) with eternal consequences (i.e., never rising again, never having life again).

Using that logic, you might as well say that Jesus is not God, because I can point to other passages which use "God," of beings that clearly are not the one true God [Exodus 7:1, Psalm 82:6, John 10:34,], that must therefore mean that Jesus is not the one true God, even though he is called "God."

Again, semantics is far more complicated than this. Words can have a variety of meanings in a variety of contexts. For example, we know, from our background knowledge that a judge only gives a judgment once [hence, the resultant interpretation in Hebrews 6:2], and we also, from the context of Hebrews 9:12, that this eternal redemption was "obtained" in the past, and hence, it would be impossible for "eternal redemption" to be accomplished perpetually forever [the "once for all" sayings should also tell us that is not what is meant." However, again, in Matthew 25:46 you have a perfect parallel with "eternal life," and no such background knowledge that would even begin to suggest a resultant interpretation of the phrase "eternal punishment."

But hey, even if someone could demonstrate beyond dispute that punishment was meant to be taken as a process that lasts forever, that wouldn't hurt the view of annihilationism. Punishment is contrasted with life, and while there are many kinds of punishments (fines, infliction of pain, jail time, infliction of shame, etc), there is only one kind of non-life to something that has been living, and that is death.

Simple. Death is not the cessation of existence. Even Jesus said to the man on the cross "Today, you will be with me in paradise." Not, "Today, you will cease to exist." Hence, even in terms of physical death, it is not the cessation of existence.

Also, I hope all of you will accept my apology if I have came across as a know-it-all. That was not my intent. I feel very strongly about the accurate handling of scripture, and I am concerned that these issues have not been handled with the kind of care they deserve. We must be wise about how we handle the word of God, and allow for both the beautiful complexity and yet economy of the great gift that God has given us in human language.

David,

Actually, my point in using mass nouns and count nouns was to demonstrate the validity of the lexical/compositional semantics distinction. The point of using mass nouns and count nouns is to take the debate to something that is not in dispute between us, and demonstrate its validity there, and then bring it back to the issue that is in dispute.

As to your analysis of "punishment", you're right that it doesn't necessarily have to be punctilliar. But I don't think Date is assuming it's punctilliar since most coniditionalists believe in a durative punishment that has a definite end.

True, but, even on that view, "durative with a definite end," it still, it can't fit with the word "eternal!" The point is, that, whatever you take in terms of "punishment," it has to fit with the word eternal! That forces Date to the conclusion that we must be talking about the results of the action. And, as far as Date confusing lexical and compositional semantics, applying the term "Deverbal result noun" to punishment is the heart of the confusion. "Deverbal result noun" is a lexical semantic category, as is "mass noun" and "count noun." Thus, it cannot be applied to the way in which words interact in compositional semantics.

Finally, what is my point in pointing out that Date is begging the question? It is a simple matter of economy. You guys are the ones who are saying that we should "rethink hell." So, we *rethink* these other passages, that then gives us the background information that we can read into Matthew 25:46, breaking a perfect parallel??????? This is what you call a "strong" argument????????? As a Christian, I am called to believe what God has communicated to us in the Bible through normal human language. Given the amount of proliferation that is required to hold your position, as I said earlier, I would be seriously in danger of throwing human language to Occam's razor if I held your position.

It is the same thing with deverbal result nouns. Consider the example of the deverbal result noun "injury" in the following example which you gave:

His back was injured during the first quarter of last night's game. During the injury, he also hurt his left forearm.

during [-resultant] [+simultaneous with]
injury [+resultant] [+harm]

In this case, the [resultant] category cancels out the resultant nature of "injury," and all that is left is "simultaneous with the harm." This is clearly the meaning of "during the injury."

The reason Date thought that "punishment" is a deverbal result noun is because his conception of punishment is punctilliar. Therefore, to speak of and "eternal punctilliar" action is contradictory. Therefore, he reasons that the eternality must refer to the *results* of the punishment:

eternal [+never ending] [+Durative]
punishment for sin according to annihilationism [+punctilliar] [+resultative]

Hence, on this understanding of "punishment," it would be impossible for a punctilliar action to be durative. Hence, he grabs hold of the resultative nature of the punishment in his system, and then tries to say that it is *this* that is eternal, since the action of punishment is, itself, punctilliar. The problem with this argument is that it is entirely circular. Punishment can go on for a long time, or it can be punctilliar. Annihilationism seems to arbitrarily assume their position is correct, when there is a perfectly normal interpretation of "punishment" that makes a perfect parallel with eternal life, namely, the traditional interpretation.

This can be seen very clearly in his analogy that he uses to try to get around Matthew 25:46:

If a mechanic were to repair the engine of one’s car, guaranteeing that both the parts and labor will last for a year, one would naturally understand that while the parts themselves would function properly for a year, the laboring would not; the outcome of the labor would last for that period of time. TurretinFan’s test would render the guarantee nonsensical.

The issue here would be the interaction of the word "guarantee" and the word "labor." Because the guarantee is known to be longer than the labor, it would produce a conflict:

Automechanic labor [+lasting a few days]
Guarantee for a year [+lasting for a year]

If the guarantee were to be limited by the labor, it would make the phrase "year guarantee" meaningless. Hence, the only way to make sense of the sentence is to take the "resultant" interpretation. However, Date begs the question when he assumes that this is the case for "punishment" in Matthew 25:46. The difference, of course, is that, in the example Date gave, our background knowledge of reality tells us that automechanics only work for days at a time, and not years. However, unless Date can show that the notion of eternal punishment is *inconsistent* with our background knowledge of punishment from the Bible, then he cannot rule out the traditional interpretation of Matthew 25:46, and, indeed, the traditional interpretation would, at that point make the most sense out of the passage, since it provides a perfect parallel to eternal life. If no such cancelling in the semantics of the words can be found, his argument is without merit.

I suppose another option would be to treat "sand," "fruit," and, say, "injury" as ambiguous, and polysemous. However, the problem is, that context can affect the meaning of the vast majority of words in the vast majority of languages. Such an analysis would then throw the vast majority of human language into the realm of ambiguity, dangerously coming close to turning human language over to Occam's razor. Allowing for the lexical/compositional semantics distinction is far more economical, but it also means that Date would bear the burden of proof to show that punishment in the Bible is not eternal. If he cannot do this, his position is refuted by Matthew 25:46.

TurretinFan,

I have done much thought on this issue since the Date/Whipps debate came out. Here is my current position. I really do think that Date is engaging in circular reasoning by confusing lexical semantics with compositional semantics. The two are not the same thing.

For example, let's take mass nouns and count nouns. The word "fruit" is a mass noun. If I say:

Can I have some fruit?

The clear mass noun character of "fruit" is apparent. However, what if I say:

We will have many different fruits at the festival today.

The same thing can be done with words like "sand." It can likewise be pluralized, even though it is a mass noun, and when it is pluralized, it has the sense of "different kinds of" sand. The same thing with fruit. Although it is a mass noun, it can be pluralized, if we are speaking of different kinds of fruit.

The point is that these nouns [fruit and sand] are still mass nouns, even though they are placed in a context in which they can speak of different kinds, and thus, can be pluralized. However, they still remain mass nouns. The reason for this is the compositional nature of semantics. Individual words are actually composed of meanings that are much larger in conception than the word itself. For example:

Spinster: [+female] [+unmarried] [+Adult]

However, we can also have the following:

Male spinster

Yes, the phrase does exist. In this case, we have the following categories:

Male [-female]
Spinster: [+female] [+unmarried] [+Adult]

Now, the [+female] [-female] semantic markers cancel each other out, and we are left with an adult man who is unmarried. The same thing is true of mass nouns. The mass noun/count noun distinction deals with whether a noun is bounded. For example, if I take away some fruit from a pile of fruit, I still have fruit.. If I add fruit to a pile of fruit, I still have fruit. However, if I have a book, and I rip it in half, I no longer have a book; I have part of a book. If I add another book, I no longer have a book, I have books. Thus, mass nouns are considered "unbounded," and count nouns are "bounded."

However, let us say that we put a plural ending on a mass noun such as fruit. You would then have the following:

Fruit [-Bounded] [+food] [+seeded] [+taxonomies]
-s [+plural]

Obviously, in this case, it is difficult to conceive of an unbounded object being plural, but, at this point, there is one element of the semantic range of fruit, and that is that it encompasses many taxonomies. There are different "kinds" of fruit. Because this is the case, the plural ending on "fruit" will get interpreted as "kinds of fruit," given the natural clash between the plural and unbounded nouns.

As a side note, one of the reasons I have brought this up is because of the importance of this conception of compositional semantics in dealing with Greg Stafford and his followers. Stafford tries to argue that the θεος in John 1:1 must be either definite or indefinite, because θεος is a count noun. True enough that θεος is a count noun, but that does not describe how the other factors within the context act upon the bounded nature of a count noun. The only reason, in terms of lexical semantics, that a count noun must be definite or indefinite is due to the bounded nature of the count noun itself. Exactly how that bounded nature interacts with other things, such as the Colwell construction, or the context itself, is, to my knowledge, not something that these folks take into account. For example, the word "brick" is a count noun, as adding a brick to an already existing brick gives you "bricks," and cutting a brick in half gives you half a brick. And yet, the following conversation is clearly understandable:

That car is headed for the wall at 100MPH.
Uh oh, that wall is brick!

Now, very clearly, the second speaker is not meaning to imply that the wall is made up of one brick. No, he means us to understand that the material that was used to make the wall is the material that is used to make bricks. In this case, the significance of the material out of which the wall is made to the impending catastrophe will conflict with the bound nature of the term "brick."

TurretinFan,

You might be interested in this link:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2183241927001/

A Roman Catholic Journalist is being interviewed because he has suggested that the RCC should change its policy on celibate priests. He says that the celibate priesthood is not something that is set in stone, and that the church should open up the priesthood to married men.

Hope it goes well today, TF! As I said to you in private, the canonization of the Apocrypha is one of the major weaknesses of traditionalist Roman Catholicism. There is simply no reason historically, logically, or exegetically to include the apocrypha in the canon. About the only defense of the canonization of the apocrypha I have ever heard is "because Rome says so." It is completely arbitrary. Hope that comes out in today's debate!

The problem is not so much theological at this point as it is hermeneutical. The problem is that we see prophecies as a kind of "prediction/fulfillment." However, that is not the way Hebrew prophecy works. Dr. Willem VanGemeren, my professor at Trinity, writes of this when he says:

Fulfillment cannot be restricted to Micah’s time, to the postexilic era, or even to the coming of our Lord. It unfolds and clarifies the nature and time of fulfillment in the progress of redemption. I call this process of unfolding progressive fulfillment. The hermeneutics of progressive fulfillment looks at God’s promises as a vine that grows, extends its branches in various directions, bears fruit, and keeps developing. Applying this to redemptive history, I believe that we are still at the stage of branching and budding and that the stage of the mature, productive vine takes us to the second coming of our Lord.

The promises of God cannot be reduced to predictions. A prediction limits the word to a particular fulfillment, whereas a promise unfolds progressively over time. A promise is like a rolling snowball in its momentum and significance. Beecher aptly states this point: ‘Every fulfilled promise is a fulfilled prediction; but it is exceedingly important to look at it as a promise, and not as a mere prediction.”

Micah encouraged his contemporaries -and all who read his book-to look at the Messiah as the victorious King, the world as the realm of God’s rule, and God’s people as sharing in the victory and glory of their great King. This prophetic word still extends hope to God’s people today. The very fact that the kingdom of God has not yet been fully and visibly established on earth is a motivating factor in hoping and praying that the child born in Bethlehem, Jesus the Christ, may soon come and inaugurate the eternal kingdom on earth [VanGemeren, Willem. Interpreting the Prophetic Word. Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids Michigan. 1990. pgs. 82-83]

Calvinistic Baptists cannot see that the fulfillment of these prophecies yes is already present and relevant [yes, Christ has come, and has, through his death and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, written his law upon our hearts, and changed us], but one of the differences between the covenants and the better nature of those covenants is in the teleology of those covenants, that is, what they will produce. The one covenant, because it could not produce a change in heart, always resulted in exile. Because the new covenant can produce a change in heart, it will result, at the end of time, in all knowing Christ from the least to the greatest. If you deny that this fulfillment is possible, then you have hyperpreterism staring you right in the face with the prophecies of the new heavens and new earth in the same context as the new covenant.

So, no, we *do* recognize what you are saying, but reject it as reductionistic, and inconsistent with your own beliefs and practices. Please, as a brother in Christ, I would implore you to not make these kinds of ridiculous accusations against fellow believers. I don't agree with all of the Presbyterian arguments myself, even though I lean their direction. Still we are all brothers in Christ, and all deeply committed to monergistic salvation, and many of us have defended it publicly. I would implore you to stop the slander, and simply deal with the issue. If you want to say that Presbyterians are inconsistent, then make your argument, and we will see if we can knock it down. The kind of rhetoric in your posts is grossly unhelpful.

Finally, I don't think that it is a matter of not wanting to doctrine to be pure [again, another slanderous assumption]. It is not a matter of, as you say:

Infant baptism takes the power and simplicity and gracefulness from biblical doctrine. It affects Christians internally. It downgrades valuation of the word of God. It downgrades the valuation for simply proclaiming the word of God, word for word, to make the call *in the world* where it is supposed to be made. It corrupts the pure and whole biblical doctrine which is Covenant - Federal - Theology based on the Covenant of Redemption made in eternity, the Covenant of Works in the Garden, and the Covenant of Grace in history.

Again, more slander. The issue is the administration of the new covenant, and whether it is fulfilled all at once. Be very careful of words like "simplicity." Is it simple, or are you engaging in reductionism? Consider this prophecy of the new covenant:

Isaiah 65:17-25 For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. 18 "But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; For behold, I create Jerusalem for rejoicing And her people for gladness. 19 "I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people; And there will no longer be heard in her The voice of weeping and the sound of crying. 20 "No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed. 21 "They will build houses and inhabit them; They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit. 22 "They will not build and another inhabit, They will not plant and another eat; For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people, And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands. 23 "They will not labor in vain, Or bear children for calamity; For they are the offspring of those blessed by the LORD, And their descendants with them. 24 "It will also come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear. 25 "The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD.

If you say that it is a prophecy of the eternal state alone, then why does it mention youths still dying [v.20]? Why are they building houses and inhabiting them [v.21]? And yet, you have the new heavens and new earth mentioned in this context [v.17]. If the new covenant has been completely fulfilled, then could you please explain why you are not a hyperpreterist who believes that we are living in the new heavens and new earth? The new heavens and new earth are part of the new covenant. Or, take this passage from Isaiah 11:

Isaiah 11:4 But with righteousness He will judge the poor, And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.

Again, in the context of a root sprouting from the seed of Jesse [Isaiah 11:1], and, again, the wicked are not slain, and the poor are not yet judged fairly. Again, if you are going to take your position, I don't see how you could consistently avoid hyperpreterism. If the fullness of the new covenant is here, then we are living in the new heavens and the new earth, and the final judgment has happened. Yet, all of these prophecies of Christ and the new covenant contain a provision for the new heavens and new earth.

ctrace,

The authors of that link also cite Meredith Kline.

True, but I would still maintain that the preponderance of the sources they are relying upon come before these discoveries, and when they cite people like Kline, it is simply not on the issues I raised, such as the grammar of Genesis 12:1-3 and 17:1-2.

The other difficulty is that Kline's area of expertise was not land grants, but Hittite national treaties. While it is true that those are relevant to the study of the Hebrew scriptures, when it comes to the Abrahamic covenant, they are not relevant, because the Abrahamic covenant probably is related to the kudurru land grants rather than the Hittite national treaties.

Also, ctrace, you may not be directing your comments to any one individual, but your sweeping generalizations are simply slander. What traditional Presbyterian theologian "I believe their position comes down to a demand that God not be sovereign in grace. They demand regeneration not be monergistic?" That statement is utterly ridiculous. No Presbyterian I have ever met would say that, and many Presbyterians of the past, such as B.B. Warfield have been some of the major defenders of the notion of monergistic salvation, and of God as the one who is sovereign in grace and that regeneration is monergistic. Also, to call something "ad hoc bad doctrine," again, requires proof. If you are complaining about unbelievers being in the covenant, then I agree with Presbyterians that I don't think you can escape that charge either. Are you really suggesting that every person you have ever baptized has persevered unto salvation? That there is no apostasy in a Baptist Church? And if you say that they were never in the covenant, then why did you Baptize them? How is it covenant Baptism when you baptize those who are not in the covenant?

The problem, at this point, is with the simple indicatives used in the passages you want to point to. "All *will* know me from the least to the greatest." Not, "ctrace will *think* that they know me from the least to the greatest" or "Calvinistic Baptist churches will *think* that they know me from the least to the greatest." The text doesn't say that. It uses the indicative mood, saying that this is a fact. So, if it is a fact, then why are there still unbelievers who you have baptized in your churches? It simply makes no sense.