A Meandering Discussion of Eternal Punishment, Hell, Conditionalism and Gnosticism

Try this again. We started a little while ago. I'll be watching Twitter fairly closely to see if anyone tells us we still got a problem. We reset everything. At least I think we reset everything other than the actual link to YouTube.

Right. Okay so we hopefully if that doesn't do it then something got fried and that's not a that's not a good thing so I'll keep an eye open on on Twitter here a little bit and maybe somebody can tell us if if things sound okay or if if we're still not the same link sounds good.

Okay so that's that's that's important real quickly and I start a timer so I can still we can still get that proximately the right time just real quickly. We will have Milo Hotzenbuehler on on Monday.

Join us for some enjoyable time at that. Yes this is a new record week for us depending on how long we go today eight and a half to nine hours of dividing line webcasts this week that's that's enough for any trucker on the road I think personally.

But yeah we've been we've been covering some in-depth stuff and I realize that's not for everybody and I I get it but we want to provide something that is unique that no one else is providing and so that's what we've been doing.

Obviously what I just started talking about when we got word that stuff wasn't wasn't working. I had been looking at a topic was going to be discussing a topic when everything was sort of taken over by the the Wilson flowers discussion which has allowed us to do what I enjoy doing.

I mean you got to do what you enjoy doing and and what you have some facility to do and church history and theology and apologetics we've been doing that for a long time now and so that's what we've done and it sort of pushed this other subject out of the way but I want to start off with this discussion today and I want to try to do so in a way that will again be edifying to people challenging thought-provoking useful in the long run.

But this is a very very very difficult subject to address and it is one that in my opinion the vast majority of Christians who hold a who have a position in this area and almost everybody does do so without ever having been challenged to think through the whys and wherefores.

And as I mentioned I forget I didn't look up the date but a number of weeks ago I think it was over a month ago might have been longer. I don't know all of us have sort of lost track of time since February.

It may have been in February I reviewed a short video from Bart Ehrman where he you know it's one of these really fancy put stuff up on the screen you know really communicative type things short to the point bullet points type thing where he was talking about heaven and hell and I put up his various points and responded to some of the things that he was that he was saying.

And at the end of that discussion of Bart Ehrman I then tacked on some thoughts from over the years really going all the way back. I forget what year it was when I did well I know I spoke on this subject at Sovereign Grace Bible Church at a conference years ago on the subject of annihilationism and conditionalism and that was after I had done a well it wasn't a formal debate so I I tried to be careful the utilization of that term but a online discussion with two a British couple husband and wife on the subject of conditionalism annihilationism unfortunately it is a very varied field.

You have a lot of different perspectives amongst people in that group and there's not a lot they actually agree on. So you have to almost every person you're talking to is gonna have their own spin on it as to exactly what that is supposed to mean.

But the idea that they were promoting was fundamentally a rejection on their part on the unbelievable broadcast was pretty much a rejection on their part of the idea of eternal punishment that punishment must be limited in time and hence would well again depends on who you talk to.

I don't remember their conclusion to be honest with them. I've never gone back and listen to the program. But some people have the idea that the only punishment is death. So you're resurrected. A lot of them would not believe that there's a conscious existence after death.

There is a resurrection reestablishment of consciousness judgment and immediate annihilation. So in that situation you know in our in our days we utilize and I and I think we should start changing this.

In the West we tend to use Hitler as the embodiment of evil but he was actually an amateur. If you want the embodiment of evil you look at Stalin you look at the killing fields you look at now if you really if you want big league multi multi multi million murders type evil.

Stalin's a good good one to go for. So Stalin dies in this scenario basically ceases to exist sleeps does not experience is not kept under punishment. Or some would say maybe he is again. There's all sorts of different perspectives here.

So for some some he ceases to exist basically others he's under he's kept under punishment as Peter puts it until the day of resurrection. At the resurrection judgment is you know he's not in Lamb's Book of Life so judgment is pronounced upon him and he is annihilated.

There is the only suffering the only fulfillment of the Greek term basanas moss would be the suffering of the penalty. There is no even though he inflicted continuous long-term suffering upon millions of people starved millions of people to death tortured millions of people.

He will never be tortured. He will never suffer for the things he did. What he suffers is simply annihilation cessation of consciousness. Gone others that so from that point you can you've got that perspective.

But then others would say no. There is a period of suffering that is commensurate with the fulfillment of the law in reference to the amount of evil that person committed in their life. So there is a period of suffering that would be commensurate with the evil that person did.

So obviously a person who dies young doesn't do as much evil over their lives would have a shorter period of suffering and then annihilated others longer period of suffering and then annihilated. So you've got that that it's the second group.

First group is there's no suffering at all. Just death is the penalty annihilation gone. That perspective assumes that death and annihilation are pretty much the same thing. Then you've got others who would say judgment is proclaimed but Christ is going to reconcile all things.

And so the universalist or the inclusivist or all those other groups that would have post-mortem opportunities of repentance and and everything else they have to be fit in somewhere into that paradigm as well so that there is an opportunity either an opportunity for final redemption or then the final rejection and then annihilation.

Because what is what unites pretty much all of it together is there. They're just simply cannot be a situation where a human being is and this is their terminology made immortal or even given eternal life even that's certainly not the New Testament use of eternal life given eternal life so as to be punished.

So what do you do there. How does that interface with the fulfillment of God's law. How do you how do you deal with this how does that function. So one of the issues that you know so so back in opposite so what I was doing in responding to Ermin is I was pointing out that in most of what Bart Ehrman said he was coming from a fully understandable position.

And that is that in essence there can't be a meaningful doctrine of heaven and hell given that you don't have a divine revelation from God. There is no consistency between Old Testament New Testament between Old Testament authors and other Old Testament authors.

There's no consistency between New Testament writers. There is inconsistency within Paul you know all the things that that Ermin has attempted to establish and that the vast majority as I sadly have to report to you over and over again the vast majority of theological seminaries and the like teach on a daily basis.

I guess well the only positive things come out of the pandemic is that that teaching has been interrupted a little bit in the in the leftist liberal seminaries but then again the truth has been too so anyway if you if you don't believe that scripture is consistent with itself you can't come up with a meaningful conclusion.

You can't you know you just have to recognize that's the way things gonna be. So that's what I was addressing is I was addressing the issue of where Bart Ehrman's gonna be coming from in this book and why it reaches the conclusions that it that it that it reaches.

And then at the end I added on a exhortation to believers to think through to have a theology that's something more than what you picked up from some firebrand preacher once or from watching movies because the reality is most in my opinion most Western Christians have a doctrine of heaven and hell that was never derived from any meaningful interpretation of scripture.

It was derived from movies and stories and sermon illustrations and in many ways is more connected to the viewpoints of ancient Greeks the medieval period in Roman Catholicism than it is that then it could ever be defended in a meaningful fashion from the page of the scripture because much of what we have to affirm in regards to judgment and to the nature of the eschaton and mankind's disposition therein has to be derived from our soteriology.

And there's a whole lot of bad soteriology out there right now. So it's not surprising if most of your people if most your people have a an emotionally based concept of the cross and atonement then you're gonna have an emotionally based concept of the final judgment and punishment too.

So over the years I have repeatedly said it's not that I've made it a big issue but I have repeatedly said that this is an extremely difficult area and that it requires serious contemplation rather than just simply embracing a tradition.

I've said that many times. So at the end of the program I put out some thoughts specifically in regards to the objection that you can't have eternal punishment based upon temporal sin. That is it I can't tell you how many people over the years that I have heard who abandoned a traditional understanding of heaven and hell and the concept of an eternal separation from God that involves the term is basanas mas torment.

They've abandoned that because they come to the conclusion it is fundamentally unjust it just simply cannot be squared. You can't have 60 years of evil resulting in 60 million years of punishment. So the normal response by the way to people on that on that subject is but it was God's honor and God's law that was broken.

And since there is since his dignity and the value of his law is infinite then the punishment has to fit the crime. Now I think there is validity in discussing that. I just don't think the vast majority of evangelicals have a theology that's significantly theocentric enough to substantiate accepting and believing that and living on the basis of that.

I just don't. I'm I wish I could say otherwise but the fact of the matter is so much of evangelicalism is so man-centered has such a low view of God's law that to turn around say yeah but the worth of his law that you don't even I'm sorry but if you've never even read it how can you say it's worth that much.

Just have to be honest at that point. And the same thing with you know God's holiness and and it sounds great. And evidently a lot of folks go yeah that's good enough for me but I'm just not sure that's really what people are actually actually saying.

So that's what a lot of people say is it's it's an it was an infinite cost. And of course you can't make the argument Christ had to pay an infinite price. But then you go well why was why was the price paid by Christ infinite.

Because his he was only he gave his life voluntarily he did not cease to exist. A lot of these conditionalist annihilationist folks end up being into the not a you know soul sleep and I you know non-existence type stuff.

But again there's all sorts of division even amongst the folks that promote this stuff as to exactly where they land on all that. But it was only one life that was given. It wasn't an infinite number of lives that were given and so what is said was but he was the God man.

And so as the God man the giving of his life has infinite value. And you can start seeing where atonement and this subject start meeting up when you're finally pushed to think through these things. But again over the years I've repeatedly said we we are not comfortable having our theology of punishment and our theology of atonement and our theology of evangelism for example forced into close connection to one another because you start going.

I'm not sure about that. And what about that. So the argument that I made back on unbelievable and have since then was primarily against this argument on the part of people who would say punishment cannot be eternal but still believe that punishment is appropriate and that punishment would involve something more than mere annihilation.

So if you if you adopt the idea that the punishment is annihilation then I really wasn't addressing that particular argument. I be honest with you I have a lot more respect for the people who recognize that there must be that that letting Stalin live as long as he lived torturing millions of people on purpose knowingly.

And then he dies of a heart attack. Next thing you know is he's staying in judgment. And next thing he knows he knows nothing. He's gone. He got it easy. His victims did not. But he gets it real easy.

I mean that's like you know that deal if you can consider that to be justice. Okay. And I wasn't arguing that particular point. I wasn't arguing against that position. I have much more respect for the person who says no.

They're obviously there there there has to be an appropriate punishment in light of the evil that was done. Instant non-existence for people who caused others to suffer is not punishment. So that's what I was responding to and my argument had to do with why do we assume that the person who dies ceases to sin.

In other words when we think about death we assume that sin ends when you take your last breath. But if you believe in the spiritual nature of man if you look at something like Luke chapter 16 you see that while the spiritual nature of man could be such that he all sudden realizes the foolishness of his physical life as the rich man did that is not going to change that individual outside of adding to their knowledge.

There will be knowledge gained in death. Once you're dead you're not gonna be confused as to which religion is right. You know you're not gonna be sitting around going. Well you know the Mormons say this and the Jehovah's Witnesses this and the Manichae's.

Well they said that and you got the Buddhists and you got the Muslims. And you know you're not gonna have any of that. There's gonna be perfect clarity as to what the truth is. But there seems to be an assumption on the part of many people that what happens is instant sanctification soon as you die even the lost even the unregenerate are sanctified where they stop sinning.

Well may I point out as long as you are not in submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ you're in rebellion. And so the person who dies is still in rebellion. They're not in right relationship to God.

So my whole point was to say if that's the case then that relationship remains ruptured. And what's more is now the restraint that has been exercised in withholding the evil of man is removed. And I suggested in light of that that the bassanus moss the suffering the torment is separation from envy anything that you can express your hatred toward God on except for yourself.

You're the only thing left. There's gonna be no parties in hell. Gary Larson has lots and lots of funny farsight cartoons. You know he's got the one where you know you've got terrorists and mass murderers and then the devil's putting people into the last room which is for people who drove slowly in the fast lane.

But there's always lots of people around and there's lots of company. That's not the way it's gonna be. Not that it not not that Gary was really attempting to be a theological guidepost there. But anyway that's not the way it's gonna be.

You you are alone. You're consumed with your hatred. And that's why I suggested I don't think God has to expend whatever. However you define energy for God having demons chasing people around through the pitch black with pitchforks.

I no need for any of that. So I presented this idea and I said at that time I said someone's gonna respond to this. And I was referring to Chris date and we have Chris date did a debate with Layton flowers a while back.

I think it was was it on unbelievable. I remember no I don't think it was. Well maybe I don't know. He has put stuff out over the number of years. I remember it was probably what two thousand six seven eight somewhere in there.

I don't remember now when it's around 2007 I actually looked it up when I was on his program I think doing a debate with a Unitarian it was a very pitched debate with Unitarian on passages like Colossians 1 and Philippians 2 and the key text on the deity of Christ.

And then I think right around that time is when I heard a webcast he was doing where he had run into fudges material now if you're not familiar with fudges the biggest name in the conditionalist annihilationist camp and I could tell by what I was listening to that this was this was direction he was going not most of the time once you hear somebody talking about something.

Yeah okay my yeah my phone or my watch. That's pretty cool. I mean I feel like Dick Tracy here I'll go I'll go now has access to my watch. That's yes. Well so I'll go just sent me a link to the unbelievable broadcast with that.

So there you go. So there's there's the confirmation that's pretty fast. Isn't that cool. That's that's that's pretty wild that you can do stuff like that anyway so I could tell that that were that Chris Tate was going that direction.

Well he did I think a couple years later he debated someone from our chat channel razor's kiss on this the nature of hell or punishment or something along those lines. The funny thing is here as I'm thinking about this I'm remembering where I was writing when I was listening to these things so for some reason the webcast where he started to talk about fudge and stuff like that and had I think Adam on at some point I was riding on the canal over near 7th Street and they hadn't put the underpass in yet so it was quiet as well back and then I was over on 32nd Street over toward the mountains there when I was listening to the debate with razor's kiss and stuff like that.

So it's just how things work in my mind remember where those things were. So the situation that developed was I said someone's gonna talk about this and I was right and so I downloaded the video response and I started listening to it and he was talking about how disappointed he was because he's such a big fan that I had never responded to stuff that he had said before and he made reference to a podcast and so I wrote down the number of the podcast tracked it down and basically what he was doing was reading an article that he had published so I listened to him reading the article.

I download the article in written form as well and so I had just listened to that and found it interesting. You know there were a lot of things to respond to in that that I that I felt were were highly questionable but it was interesting but it didn't.

What I didn't understand is what he was saying is we respond all your stuff before why we've refuted you before why are you why are you not dealing with this. And I'm like yeah but there wasn't really anything in this article that I found overly challenging and it certainly wasn't addressing what I had specifically stated and so I felt like I had listened to that before I then listened so I went back got that and had just gotten to the point where I was getting ready to do the rest of it when the Wilson stuff hit and the coronavirus stuff hit and so on so forth.

So I've listened to the rest of the video and so this is sort of a personal message to Chris date. But hopefully the previous discussion has been challenging you to think through just just a couple weird things is it started off with a bunch of material from our chat channel someone had come into our chat show.

I actually remember this I think I was in on this computer and had said something about it and then somebody who knows who had passed that stuff along to Chris date. Now if you if we still had a chat channel we do not that chat channel doesn't exist anymore if we if we did whoever did that would have been banned because that's called trolling and I'll have to admit that using stuff from sources like that where you're chatting with people did not in any way shape or form encourage me as to the the benefit of future interactions.

That's just that's class-a trolling right there really is so leaving that aside then what happened is he started working through the stuff that I said about Ehrman but here's the problem all the way through he assumed I was talking about him rather than responding to Bart Ehrman and so he he responding to James White when I wasn't arguing against his position.

I mean for example at one point I made reference to his saying Old Testament and Jesus because there are clearly references to heaven and hell outside of the Gospels and so he oh but let's let's start looking at all those and jumps off into those and all I was saying was Ehrman is choosing his words because of what kind of presentation is gonna make and I know his presentation is going to be an agnostics presentation and unbelievers presentation.

That's not going to be Chris dates presentation so to assume and read into what I'm saying about Bart Ehrman and go oh but he's wrong about this and he's wrong about that was like that's pathetic but what's he doing.

And then I mentioned John and so he dives into the Gospel of John and is is and none of this had anything to do with my responding to a quote-unquote evangelical conditionalist I'm responding to Bart Ehrman.

This guy's listened to a lot of my debates probably not all of them but a lot of them. I know my opponents I'm going to respond to them in the context therein so I wouldn't do that knowing that Chris professes a high view of Scripture.

So so I was sitting here going how desperate are you to engage me to pretend to be responding to me and then reading yourself into everything I'm saying about Bart Ehrman and the result was so much of what was said just didn't had nothing to do with what I had actually been saying then you know see followers I can go after the big guy I was.

It was really disappointing really was. Now there were some troubling things that were said in there. I I didn't queue it up but if you want to go look at 42 and a half minutes in I was really surprised when Chris was looking at the the Gospel of John and he looked at the text that refers to and they shall surely not die from John 8 as I recall and he was saying yeah that's just who may that's a you know that that's just a that doesn't mean forever etc etc and I I was running as I was listening to this and I couldn't help but but think of Jesus words of John 1028 and I will give to them eternal life.

Kai um a Apollo and I iced on Iona what what. Oh you're okay you're you're stirring you're stirring something okay I'm sitting there going what are you what in the world are you trying to signal me and you're off drinking stuff and I don't look at I give it your life and they will never perish now literally it's um a with a subjunctive iced on Iona how how else could it be expressed.

It was really concerning to me that there's such a an emphasis and in fact I would say the the primary concept I came away from the video listening video with was imbalance such an overemphasis in the one area because this has become the big area I mean if you can hear yourself and everything I'm saying about a secular agnostic guy this is you know not a lot of him but not a lot about balancer but it does seem that to say well that doesn't mean eternally has to fundamentally then bring into question the promise of eternal life as well because you have um a they shall never perish.

I mean that's the promise positively that defines what eternal life is in John 1028. So I was really surprised when I when I heard that is like there's obviously more here that that I'm not seeing because what I discovered I think is that eventually Chris got around to the argument that I presented at the end of the review of ermine about sinning and the fact that you are not sanctified when you die.

And if I understood what he was saying it was it was not the clearest explanation. But if I understand what he was saying he doesn't he believes that the punishment is simply death cessation of existence that there is no punishment.

So it's so it's not his argument that eternal punishment is unjust based upon um the injustice of the amount of times issue that I was talking about before which is one of the most common forms of argumentation.

And so it it sounded to me like what he was saying was no um there's judgment and then the only punishment is cessation of existence annihilation. Now in the process um well and and my my response to that would be that really I think is significantly more problematic than the person who recognizes that that creates an injustice in and of itself.

Um but I if I'm understanding the his position over against others and I may have I don't know if he's changed his position over the years um I don't know if there's been development I don't know I'm sorry following that particular saga has not been my highest priority.

I apologize but um I had understood that he did believe that there would be punishment but that it would be limited in duration followed by annihilation. If I understood his response to me that's not what he believes.

Um okay whatever. But what was interesting was the things that were ascribed to me basically what he's saying is that uh what I believe is that the unrighteous dead are given eternal life that they are resurrected and made immortal.

So you can see that there is a um issue here about one of the key issues is when God creates man in his image is man's spirit intended to cease existence together with his body. So there is a lot of um discussion here as to what the nature of man is.

Um and in my experience don't know if this is where he's coming from. But in my experience you have people who take the limited categories of old testament revelation force them on the broader categories of new testament revelation so that indications such as that where I am they may be with me also is better which you know which is better for me to remain with you or to be to to die and be present with the lord.

The idea of being present with the lord on in paul's perspective the activity of the martyred souls. There's obviously more in the new testament than there is in the old testament when it comes this issue.

And in fact most of what you have in the old testament scattered illusions that can only be um given much flesh once we look at new testament revelation on the subject. But even then there is significantly less biblical revelation on these subjects than the broad assumptions of most people assume there is or there's a whole lot more broad assumptions that people have that doesn't actually have a biblical foundation to let's put that way so um so what what about this idea that what we're actually saying.

So you need to understand what they're saying. What they're actually saying is if you believe if you do not believe in conditionalism if you not believe that man's continued existence is conditioned upon the continued sustaining of his existence by god's power and so it's conditional upon what god is doing in regards to maintaining or not maintaining the existence of said person.

Then their argument is that everybody gets eternal life everybody gets eternal life. It's just a matter of where you get to do it and what you're going to be doing while you're doing it. Okay i didn't refresh my water so all i've got's my apple cider vinegar which um yeah you get to go do whatever you want to do over there i i get you i see you see you folks you just don't see what i have to deal with you.

Just you don't see it. And and i and i understand that it's okay anyway. Um so how do you respond to that. How do you respond to the accusation. Um that what we really believe is that everybody gets eternal life.

Well you immediately see that that kind of accusation or statement is utilizing different meanings for what eternal life means. Because we have eternal life right now as believers in christ. And the unbelievers do not but they're still alive and so are we.

So there's obviously a different category. Isn't there. John chapter 5. You've passed out of death into life. Right. Eternal life is something we possess right now. So is what we possess right now ever going to be given to the unregenerate.

Well of course not. So to say that i believe that they will be given eternal life is to obviously change the meaning of the phraseology to communicate something that misrepresents what i would believe.

They're not given eternal life but they are placed under the judgment of god in the same condition. Well they're under the judgment of god right now. Right. The wrath of god is being revealed and then the the petrine passages that they are kept under punishment until the day of judgment and then at the day of judgment you have the concept of basanas mas torment.

So i'm not in any so there is no meaningful fashion whereby you can describe simply the continued existence in rebellion from separation from absent of the life of god of an image bearer as eternal life.

That is that is using it to mean one thing over here and then using the exact same phrase over here and playing on those two different contexts in a very invalid way. And i did not appreciate that for anybody to sit there and say james white is saying that the unregenerate are given eternal life is to stay away from the lighter.

I'm gonna i'm i'm gonna bring it in here someday. I'm gonna remember i'm gonna remember. I would just suggest to you that if i have to keep dealing with ken wilson you had better get a fire extinguisher right over.

You know where you got one close. Good all right. Is it charged up. Most of ours. Check your fire extinguisher folks most of them aren't even charged up anymore. I hate to tell you that you've just seen it there.

It's been sitting in your kitchen for 15 years. It's dead when you need it you ain't gonna have it. So check it check it out. Uh anyway uh that was misrepresentational. Um obviously the unregenerate dead do not have eternal life.

The question is what is the nature of the punishment. And then what is the endurance period of endurance is is the issue. And so i said and i think some people i you know i didn't get maybe you did but you didn't say anything about it to me.

I didn't i did not get any feedback from that program at all. Yeah yeah. No i didn't there was from our folks. It was just sort of like i don't like that topic and and i get that i get that most people don't.

You know when i i i get it i i fully understand it it. That's why i've said i don't want to be the apologist for hell. It is a bummer of a topic to have to deal with. But you do have to deal with it. And i said in that program i said this is one subject where i wish i could hold a different position.

I really do. Yeah um this is this is this is not a topic where i'm sitting here going. Yeah um i'm not gonna listen to any arguments against my position because i really like holding this position and it it makes my life easier.

No the reality is it would be easier because oh and then this is another thing. Um at one point i made the observation and it is an accurate observation that to hold to a concept of any type of traditional concept of eternal punishment is to be in the minority in new testament scholarship in the world today.

And that's true. Um now that doesn't mean that all those people hold the same views. It's just that to actually believe that the new testament is consistent enough to actually present a doctrine of last things that you would actually live in light of um is extremely the minority position.

Extremely the minority position. So what chris does is he takes offense at that. I say i believe in inerrancy. I wasn't talking about you. You're a minority too a real small minority even smaller than our minority.

But i wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the reality that if most of the listeners to this program walk into a christian bookstore and pick up a book a commentary on the new testament and look these texts up they're going to be shocked because the majority of commentaries are not written by people who actually believe the bible is consistent with itself.

Wasn't even talking about you. It was one of those things i'm like oh man uh do you do you see people criticizing you in every single thing they say come on. Wow that was that was really disappointing.

And you know what i'm disappointed because i like chris and he does a lot of good work in other areas. I confess that the more i hear the more it seems to me that this particular area is fundamentally impacting every other area in a fuller.

I mean surviving fuller is tough enough as it is. Uh i survived in the 80s i can't imagine what it's like to survive it now. Um but he wants to do a phd in old testament studies. But it sounds like he wants to do a phd in old testament studies in this area.

Well we'll see we'll see. I if i if he had asked me years and years ago my statement would have been well i can't stop you. But in my experience and nothing has changed over the past 10 -15 years. In my experience people who start down this road generally don't find a whole lot of stopping places along the way before they get into some real serious liberalism.

Um but there you go. But so so some of my disappointment was just like just because i would expect more. Um you know don't don't tell people that i believe that unregenerative and give joy and and and recognize that when i'm talking about the fact that most new testament scholarship is conditionalistic it's it's because they have a low view of scripture.

I wasn't even talking about you. You say i have a high fine great wonderful. That means we can have a different kind of argument but doesn't change the reality that you're an even smaller minority than we are.

And that's clearly what i was talking about. And i don't know how you can't see that. Um but it does demonstrate that this subject um i could be in the majority if i wanted to. I could have a bigger seat at the table if i held a different perspective.

Um and i do differentiate between this subject and for example anything trinitarian. Um obviously there have again you go back into church history and there have been all sorts of different perspectives on this subject.

And just because one became predominant in the medieval period doesn't mean anything to me because there was a lot of stuff that became predominant in the medieval period that i don't believe or accept myself.

So why then don't i just go the easy route. Well because i don't see a consistency. And in fact one of the things that struck me as i listened to the response was how many times chris had to say things like well we don't get into that here in our group we don't take a stand on this in our group.