Around the Web September 2010

That being said, what do you think?  How will this change in the view of human persons be received by the Christian community?  Do you think Christians will simply attempt to debunk the science?  Or perhaps argue that science doesn’t provide relevant answers to these types of questions?  Alternatively, does the Christian faith require this ‘traditional’ view of a separate and immortal soul that is distinct from the material body?  Is it possible that the traditional view is wrong or that this view doesn’t accurately represent the description of human persons provided in the Bible? Discussion on the tree of life

Saying that Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from the tree of life, as far as I can tell, does not go against anything in the Confessions. It seems there are 2 options:

1) The tree of life would have given Adam or Eve instant immortality, the eternal life promised. Thus the probation was in effect until Adam chose either the tree of life or the tree of knowledge. That was the ending of the probationary period and the outcome depended on which he chose.

2) Adam and Eve had conditional immortality. They were able to die, but were sustained by continual partaking of the tree of life. Thus God’s promise “You shall surely die” is contrasted with “You may die.” The fulfillment of which is the flaming sword blocking the tree of life, resulting in inevitable, sure death. Another article in their series dealing the conditional immortality and Responses to objections in the comments

“The scriptures are very clear regarding soul sleep, as well as annihilation. It is next to impossible for most professing believers to admit it, but the Jehovah’s Witnesses got this one right. The Reformed Christians got it wrong.

Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? by Oscar Cullmann

I am not sure if I have linked these blog posts before, but even if I have M and M have updated their blog and so the old link won’t work

Professor Raymond Bradley’s contention that, the bible teaches that God will torture people endlessly for their beliefs.

In essence, then, {he}  is mistaken. It is based on an excessively literalistic reading of Apocalyptic literature. Bradley’s argument is not an argument for atheism. It can only succeed as an argument for atheism if one accepts both the infallibility of scripture and an excessively literalistic reading of the text, one that fails to take into account the genre of Jewish Apocalyptic writings. The correct response to this objection is not to become an atheist but to reject poor hermeneutics.

Andrew Patrick has started a new website. We look forward to seeing him add to it.

If you have found some other links of interest on the topic of conditional immortality please link them in the comments.

Speak Your Mind