Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Incarnation and reincarnation


In traditional Christology, the Incarnation survives the death of Christ. That's because traditional Christology has a dualistic anthropology. The Incarnation involves the union of the Eternal Son with a human body and soul. To take a classic formulation: "he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls" (WCF 4.2).

So even in death, the hypostatic union remains intact inasmuch as the Son remains united to a human soul. 

However, if annihilationism is true, then the death of Christ dissolves the hypostatic union. Annihilationism is logically grounded in physicalism. Consciousness or personality can't survive brain death, for the mind is generated by the brain. Conversely, immortality is indexed to the resurrection of the body. There is no intermediate state.

In that event, the Resurrection requires a reincarnation. The Incarnation happens twice: at conception, then again on the first Easter Sunday. 

Whether that's orthodox raises an interesting question. It's strikingly similar to Buddhism, with its no-soul (anatta) version of reincarnation. 

34 comments:

  1. What do you think of William Lane Craig's model of the incarnation? One closer to Appolinarianism but more qualified. It's found in his Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview and http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-birth-of-god

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i) It's odd that he's so concerned to avoid one traditional heresy (nestorianism) by embracing a variant on another traditional heresy (apollinarianism).

      ii) I believe Moreland has a basically Thomistic view of the soul. I think that's more monistic than dualistic.

      iii) Craig's position is a divine incarnation in the non-technical sense of a divine mind united to a human body. But the Incarnation has a more specialized meaning. Traditionally, it requires uniquely human mental properties as well as divine properties. It's not just a matter of assuming a human body, but assuming a human nature (in addition to the preexistent divine nature). But for Craig, the divine mind of Christ takes the place of uniquely human mental properties. In that case, Christ lacks humanity. Divinity isn't reducible to humanity. There's a categorical difference.

      iv) I think Craig is too concerned about harmonizing the apparent contradiction (as he sees it) of the Incarnation. He relieves the tension by eliminating an essential component of the Incarnation.

      v) His position can't do justice to the humanity which the NT ascribes to Jesus.

      Delete
    2. I my do a post on their position.

      Delete
    3. “i) It's odd that he's so concerned to avoid...”

      Imaginably, one heretically leaning pill is easier to swallow than another, assuming that’s how he views his position and a certain alternative. Calvinism leans toward Hyper-Calvinism more so than Arminianism, and Arminianism leans more toward Open Theism. Those facts in themselves don’t mean much – to me anyway. Maybe you think his view just is Appoliniarianism, and that his implying that it’s merely leaning toward it is either misleading or assuming too much (?).

      “ii) I believe Moreland has a basically Thomistic view of the soul...”

      I’m thinking of Craig’s particular view, per se. Plus, I’m was made familiar with this view of Craig’s independent of other philosophical views he may import here.

      “iii) Craig's position is a divine incarnation in the non-technical sense of a divine mind united to a human body... Traditionally, ...assuming a human nature... But for Craig, the divine mind of Christ takes the place of uniquely human mental properties. In that case, Christ lacks humanity. Divinity isn't reducible to humanity. There's a categorical difference.”

      It still seems that Craig’s view can stand here. I’m quite sympathetic to his desire to avoid Nestorianism or something close to it, even if that’s just an intuitive inclination on my part. If Craig stipulates that what is essential to being a human person is (perhaps among other things) at least the union of a body and a soul, a material body and a rational mind, then in the incarnation, you have a human person, the union of material body and rational mind (the second person of the Trinity). Why would this not qualify as “assuming a human nature”? The second person of the Trinity already possesses the properties sufficient for personhood. He is united to flesh in a way sufficient for human personhood.

      As far as the divine mind taking the place of the uniquely human mental properties – a couple things. It seems right that there should be some common constituent between the second person of the Trinity and Jesus. You say Jesus would then lack humanity. Only if you assume that Craig is wrong in his understanding of what is essential for being a human person, namely, the union of a mind and body. His stipulation is not restricted to include the union of a human mind and body. Also, Craig qualifies his view so that the Son’s divine properties are largely subliminal whereas his earthly consciousness is very limited. The tip of the iceberg. So he doesn't humanize the divine nature in the sense that I'm understanding your objection.

      “iv) I think Craig is too concerned about harmonizing ... He relieves the tension by eliminating an essential component of the Incarnation.”

      “Eliminates” seems to presuppose an external standard to Craig’s view. Perhaps this external standard is correct and perhaps he should meet this standard, but at least at this point, Craig’s view appears internally coherent. I don’t think he would view it as “eliminating” anything. The humanity is there. The union is there. It’s just not the union presupposed in your comment.

      “v) His position can't do justice to the humanity...”

      Again, iceberg analogy. Certain divine qualities are subliminal, occasionally creeping into Jesus’ earthly consciousness.

      I have a hard time with thinking myself into Nestorianism when I think of the union of the Son with a distinct human mind and body. It seems like two minds, two persons. I don’t see how this is reducible to one person. Or, if it could be, in what sense would the human mind still be distinct? In what ways can this be distinguished from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a Christian? Certainly not in some spatial sense. Maybe a causal one? But can’t there be some causal connections with the Holy Spirit and a Christian’s life? Different levels of causation maybe? Are the Holy Spirit and the Christian momentarily one person at those particular moments? Just some thoughts.

      Delete
    4. You're basically quoting/paraphrasing Craig/Moreland's argument in Philosophical Foundations. There's too much to discuss in the combox, which is why I said I plan do to a post on the subject (hopefully tomorrow).

      Delete
  2. Very nice point.

    Also, if death is annihilation, then Christ doesn't really suffer death. For he isn't annihilated: only his human nature is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reincarnation is when a soul survives one body and then goes on to live in another body - so it is essentially transmigration.

    If Christian dualism is true, this is what happens to everyone in the resurrection.

    So Christian dualism, rather than Christian physicalism, implies reincarnation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glenn:

      "Reincarnation is when a soul survives one body and then goes on to live in another body - so it is essentially transmigration."

      Not according to Buddhism. Pay attention to the distinction I drew.

      

"If Christian dualism is true, this is what happens to everyone in the resurrection. So Christian dualism, rather than Christian physicalism, implies reincarnation."

      You're failing to distinguish between "reincarnation" as a generic term for reuniting the soul with the body and re-Incarnation, where the Incarnation is a technical term for the hypostatic union. In that latter sense, re-Incarnation makes the Incarnation (of Christ) a repeatable event, given physicalism. If physicalism is true, then the death of Christ dissolves the hypostatic union, in which case the Resurrection necessitates a second Incarnation.

      Delete
    2. Steve, I am not failing to distinguish between anything. I was merely setting up the concept of reincarnation that you do in fact believe in.

      You have avoided actually denying or conceding what I said: That according to a substance dualist view (when combined with the doctrine of resurrection), everyone will be reincarnated. Do you accept that or not? You do believe in reincarnation, isn't that correct?

      If you don't, then why not?

      Now, as to the issue you would have preferred that I talk about (but I did not), you seem quite obviously to be excluding options here. What about this option: The whole person died.

      Of course, that would be a problem for the Trinity if one rejected the doctrine of divine timelessness. But I don't. So in the end the annihilationist can say that there was no confusion or separation of the natures.

      But obviously that's not what my comment was about: You believe in reincarnation, don't you?

      Delete
    3. i) You continue to trade on an equivocation of terms which I corrected.

      ii) The question at issue isn't whether the Son of God ceased to exist when Christ died, but whether the hypostatic union ceased, given physicalist annihilationism.

      Your comments are an exercise in misdirection to dodge that issue.

      Delete
    4. Steve, I haven't been equivocating. When i first commented, I told you what I meant when I attributed belief in reincarnation to you. When I asked you in my last comment whether or not you believe in reincarnation, I was still using the term the same way. So there is no equivocation. I did acknowledge the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ, but as I said, I was asking you about the reincarnation of all of us. Clearly you don't wish to answer this question, so I will stop asking.

      Take care, Steve. All the best.

      Delete
    5. Glenn,

      You imputed to me your own definition of reincarnation. That's equivocal since that's not my operating definition, as I explained to you. Indeed, I spelled that out in the original post. Clearly you don't wish to argue in good faith, unless you are really that dense.

      Likewise, the question at issue isn't "the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ," but what the Resurrection amounts to if physicalism is true. Are you unable to absorb rudimentary distinctions? Is that your problem?

      Delete
  4. Sorry - I meant to add this:
    "Annihilationism is logically grounded in physicalism."

    This is incorrect. Most annihilationists that I personally know are physicalists about human beings. However, some are not. Moreover, there is nothing about annihilationism (a view of final punishment) that "logically" requires physicalism to be true. Even traditionalists accept that God is able to stop sustaining the existence of the souls of the lost. They just believe that he will not stop sustaining them. Some dualists are annihilationists, and believe that God will stop sustaining the souls of the lost.

    Hope that helps!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your first sentence is a backdoor concession. Your second sentence disregards my adverb ("logically"). Your third sentence imputes to me something I didn't say. Does annihilationism "require" physicalism? No. But that's the most economical model.

      But thanks for helping to illustrate your lack of conceptual clarity.

      Delete
    2. "Your first sentence is a backdoor concession."

      Since I nowhere concede that annihilationism logically depends on physicalism, I don't see how. Perhaps you could explain.

      You did not only say that the most economical model of annihilationism includes physicalism (nor is that obviously true). You said that annihilationism itself is "logically grounded" in physicalism. if this says anything, it is that physicalism provides what is logically necessary for annihilationism.

      It does now appear that you're toning down the stance, however, which is good.

      Delete
    3. "Does annihilationism "require" physicalism? No. But that's the most economical model."

      The most economical model of annihilation is one which is logically sufficient, without necessitating any particular view on anthropology or an intermediate state. This happens to be the way I hold it.

      You might have meant a systematic model, but the above model of final punishment resists such integration. If a proponent of this happens not to be agnostic about those other things, simply grouping the views together (as the proponent's set of views, for example) would tell us nothing additional about overall economy, since monism by itself is simpler than dualism, and no conscious intermediate state is more parsimonious than otherwise, on its own merits.

      "Annihilationism is logically grounded in physicalism. Consciousness or personality can't survive brain death, for the mind is generated by the brain. Conversely, immortality is indexed to the resurrection of the body. There is no intermediate state."

      There is more than one kind of dualism, including species which deny immortal soulism, and which deny things like gnostic/platonic soulishness. A biblically informed dualism should not reduce the whole person to a disembodied part, nor explanation itself to mere description. Thus immortality need not be "indexed to" the survival of consciousness at death, though in other forms of dualism it might. Immortality is not merely persistence, but something to do with persistence forever, or the capacity thereof. In God's universe, any passage of some aspect of a person into an intermediate state would not actually prescribe anything about their future constitution or fate (after their resurrection at the end of history).

      So while physicalism might suggest or imply annihilation under the principle of parsimony, parsimony doesn't lead annihilationism to necessarily suggest physicalism. Annihilation is principally a view about what God will do at final punishment, as Glenn suggested. It is grounded in the will of God to act in a particular way, more than anything else. The most you could say along the lines you gave would be that annihilationism can be logically grounded in physicalism if one wishes to do so (because, no doubt, they affirm physicalism).

      Delete
    4. Physicalism supplies the most direct metaphysical underpinnings for annihilationism. Post-mortem oblivion is the default setting unless God intervenes revive to a subset of decedents (e.g. Christians) via the resurrection of the body. In the case of the lost, God simply allows nature to take its course.

      Delete
    5. Glenn,

      You're prevaricating. You yourself are both a physicalist and an annihilationist. Is that conjunction just accidental?

      Delete
    6. "Physicalism supplies the most direct metaphysical underpinnings for annihilationism. Post-mortem oblivion is the default setting unless God intervenes revive to a subset of decedents (e.g. Christians) via the resurrection of the body. In the case of the lost, God simply allows nature to take its course."

      This is reducing clarity. We believe in the bodily resurrection of the lost, whom God will actively destroy. God certainly does intervene for that other "subset"—twice. From your confidence I got the impression you knew at least this much.

      Delete
    7. Peter Grice said:

      "This is reducing clarity."

      I think it'd be clearer to say: this is less than clear. Or this muddies the waters. Or this beclouds. Or at least this reduces clarity.

      "We believe in the bodily resurrection of the lost, whom God will actively destroy. God certainly does intervene for that other 'subset'—twice."

      How does what you say undermine let alone overturn what Steve argued?

      "From your confidence I got the impression you knew at least this much."

      You basically just offered assertions sans argumentation. However, from your confidence I got the impression you knew what an argument was.

      Delete
    8. Peter Grice

      "This is reducing clarity. We believe in the bodily resurrection of the lost, whom God will actively destroy. God certainly does intervene for that other "subset"—twice. From your confidence I got the impression you knew at least this much."

      Since you don't understand the dynamics of your own position, permit me to explain it to you. Annihilationism isn't just a view of final punishment. There's a metaphysical framework that underwrites that view. A logical correlation between annihilationism and a matching anthropology ("physicalism"). That correspondence is explicit in Glenn's own exposition and defense of annihilationism (e.g. "Eat, Drink, and be Merry: 1 Corinthians 15 and Physicalism," "Dust ‘n Breath: The Bible and the mind-body question, part 1").

      But although physicalism is a tight fit with annihilationism, annihilationism tries to graft its anthropology into other elements of biblical eschatology, like the general resurrection. So it has to interject a deus ex machina to salvage that element of biblical eschatology. The consistent way of grounding annihilationism is inconsistent with these indigestible bits of biblical eschatology. That tension can only be relieved through ad hoc countermeasures.

      Delete
    9. rockingwithhawking:

      "I think it'd be clearer to say: this is less than clear. Or this muddies the waters. Or this beclouds. Or at least this reduces clarity."

      Why suppose you know precisely what I intended? I didn't mean any of the alternatives you supplied. I meant precisely that the comment is actively reducing clarity as new readers parse the conversation. I did not merely mean it's less than clear, or is more unclear than before, as all of your suggestions indicate. And seriously, who goes around saying "becloud" except the linguistically obtuse?

      Why are you "muddying" the dialogue with pointless snark?

      "How does what you say undermine let alone overturn what Steve argued?"

      Well admittedly it's hard to interact with communication like "God intervenes revive to a subset of decedents" (who goes around saying "decedents" in the present context anyway?), but that aside, no proponent of any version of evangelical conditionalism would ever say of final punishment that "God simply allows nature to take its course." That concept can only be located at what we call "ordinary death," so that Steve has done nowhere near enough to avoid the common misunderstanding of our view which says that God does not resurrect the wicked and after judging them unfit to continue on into the blessed age to come, actively destroys them. Predictably he was going to reply to me as though he did know that, whether or not he did, so I leave it as an exercise for readers to see whether they think it most naturally reads as I'm suggesting.

      "You basically just offered assertions sans argumentation. However, from your confidence I got the impression you knew what an argument was."

      Of course I'm aware that I didn't argue for my view. I certainly didn't intend to. It wouldn't make any sense to do so, given what I intended. I simply explained what evangelical conditionalists believe. Only the belligerent would reduce dialogue to argument, and thereby, statements of affirmation to "assertions sans argumentation." I am new to this blog, but if I discover that your level of interaction is fairly typical, you won't catch me wasting time here in future...

      Delete
    10. "Since you don't understand the dynamics of your own position, permit me to explain it to you. Annihilationism isn't just a view of final punishment."

      If you say so, Steve. You know, I am interested in civil discourse and the theory thereof, and I have to say it makes me cringe—in a good way, mind you—whenever I discover examples of the cardinal sin of informing others triumphantly that they believe something contrary to what they believe.

      Annhilationism isn't just one scheme. I greatly admire "Glenn's own exposition and defense of annihilationism," but it feels a little awkward that you're referring me to his work when he's right here with us, saying what I'm saying on a precise discussion point.

      Sorry, there's nothing at all ad hoc about the resurrection of the unsaved in any variant of annihilation among evangelical Christians. And perhaps I should know a thing or two about this, since there is only one anthology of such writings in print (well, imminently to be printed), and I've recently had the privilege of penning an introduction to that volume. It's fertile theological ground as we speak, and there's room enough for a range of robust schemes. But I'm not interested in quibbling over this with you anymore, as this hasn't issued in the kind of efficiency I need at present. All the best.

      Delete
    11. i) Regarding civil discourse, annihilationists typically blaspheme God's character. They say that if everlasting punishment is true, then God is worse that the worst human sadist or sociopath. My standard of civil discourse is to discourse civilly about God rather than blasphemers. Sorry you don't share the same priorities.

      ii) It's ad hoc for annihilationists to say the damned pass into oblivion when they die, but God temporarily resurrects them, to consign them to oblivion a second time.

      Delete
    12. Peter Grice said:

      "Why suppose you know precisely what I intended?"

      I don't suppose it. I just know what you wrote, which is what I'm replying to.

      "I didn't mean any of the alternatives you supplied. I meant precisely that the comment is actively reducing clarity as new readers parse the conversation. I did not merely mean it's less than clear, or is more unclear than before, as all of your suggestions indicate."

      This is strained.

      "And seriously, who goes around saying 'becloud' except the linguistically obtuse?"

      I don't know who else uses the term, but if you're "seriously" interested, you could try here for starters.

      "Why are you 'muddying' the dialogue with pointless snark?"

      Why are you reading "snark" into what I say when there was none? Apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

      "the common misunderstanding of our view which says that God does not resurrect the wicked and after judging them unfit to continue on into the blessed age to come, actively destroys them"

      I'll just note your use of "our view" for the time being.

      "so I leave it as an exercise for readers to see whether they think it most naturally reads as I'm suggesting."

      As one of these readers, I'd say no it doesn't most naturally read as what you're suggesting.

      "Of course I'm aware that I didn't argue for my view. I certainly didn't intend to. It wouldn't make any sense to do so, given what I intended. I simply explained what evangelical conditionalists believe."

      Actually, you originally said, "We believe in..." And as I noted above, you reply here with "our view."

      However, if by "We believe in" and "our view" you don't include yourself, well then, that's quite a novel take on what the phrases "We believe in" and "our view" generally means!

      No one can tell your intentions if you don't tell people what your intentions are. If you hide behind rhetoric, that's your prerogative, but don't pretend it's somehow on others to sift through your obfuscation.

      Besides, why wouldn't it make sense to argue for your view? That's how rational discourse occurs.

      "Only the belligerent would reduce dialogue to argument,"

      No, it's quite possible to have a civil argument. That's what occurs in many public debates, for instance, such as ones by William Lane Craig or Alvin Plantinga.

      "and thereby, statements of affirmation to 'assertions sans argumentation.' I am new to this blog, but if I discover that your level of interaction is fairly typical, you won't catch me wasting time here in future..."

      It sounds like you're an overly sensitive person.

      Delete
    13. On the one hand

      "Sorry, there's nothing at all ad hoc about the resurrection of the unsaved in any variant of annihilation among evangelical Christians."

      On the other hand

      "Steve has done nowhere near enough to avoid the common misunderstanding of our view which says that God does not resurrect the wicked and after judging them unfit to continue on into the blessed age to come, actively destroys them."

      To say that God lets the wicked pass into oblivion when they die, then temporarily resurrects them to actively annihilate them could scarcely be more ad hoc.

      If death itself already annihilates them, then resurrecting them to annihilate them all over again is redundant and pointless.

      Annihilationists resort to this makeshift explanation because their position forces them to combine inconsistent propositions.

      "Steve has done nowhere near enough to avoid the common misunderstanding of our view which says that God does not resurrect the wicked and after judging them unfit to continue on into the blessed age to come, actively destroys them. Predictably he was going to reply to me as though he did know that, whether or not he did, so I leave it as an exercise for readers to see whether they think it most naturally reads as I'm suggesting."

      As I stated in the original post, I'm discussing the most *logical* way of grounding annihilationism. Sure, they have to tack-on the resurrection of the damned, only to annihilate the damned a second time, but this just goes to show that annihilationism is illogical.

      Delete
    14. "Regarding civil discourse, annihilationists typically blaspheme God's character. They say that if everlasting punishment is true, then God is worse that the worst human sadist or sociopath. My standard of civil discourse is to discourse civilly about God rather than blasphemers. Sorry you don't share the same priorities."

      I have never said or written such a thing. Ever. By your standard then, I have not blasphemed. So with me you violate the first principles of civil discourse for undisclosed reasons. It doesn't matter for my purposes, however, because I'm not appealing to you and a private standard for "civil discourse" which inverts what that ordinarily means. You might need to come up with a label better suited to your peculiar meaning.

      "ii) It's ad hoc for annihilationists to say the damned pass into oblivion when they die, but God temporarily resurrects them, to consign them to oblivion a second time."

      Don't you think that is part of what people consider before they draw their conclusions? Are others just not as intelligent or deliberative as you? There are several satisfying reasons, chief among them the vindication of the righteousness of God, issuing in judicial procedure and its evaluations of the deeds of the wicked. It isn't ad hoc argument; it's the due process of post-hoc analysis in the heavenly court. That is just one of several reasons. And as has been pointed out, there are not only physicalists among the movement of evangelical conditionalism. You have to figure that would be the case, given the preponderance of dualism among evangelicals. In my experience, some critics are informed and at ease with the contours of this topic, while others focus their energy on trying to stuff it back into some presumptuous mold. Your analysis of "annihilationists" has been unhelpfully crude.

      Delete
    15. Peter Grice

"I have never said or written such a thing. Ever. By your standard then, I have not blasphemed."

      It means you lack the candor to tip your hand.

      "It doesn't matter for my purposes, however, because I'm not appealing to you and a private standard for 'civil discourse' which inverts what that ordinarily means. You might need to come up with a label better suited to your peculiar meaning."

      I prefer biblical discourse. And the Bible is notably uncivil in its descriptions of blasphemers and false teachers.

      "Don't you think that is part of what people consider before they draw their conclusions? Are others just not as intelligent or deliberative as you?"

      Annihilationists have an emotional, moralistic revulsion to eternal punishment that's all-controlling. Desperate men will swallow glaring inconsistencies.

      "There are several satisfying reasons, chief among them the vindication of the righteousness of God, issuing in judicial procedure and its evaluations of the deeds of the wicked. It isn't ad hoc argument; it's the due process of post-hoc analysis in the heavenly court."

      God not resurrecting the wicked, but leaving them in oblivion, would, itself, be punitive. So your reasons are ad hoc.

      Since you lack the self-critical awareness to be honest about yourself, permit me to spell it out for you:

      i) Annihilationists can't stand eternal punishment. Their blind opposition to eternal punishment dictates everything else.

      ii) However, the general resurrection is harder for them to explain away, and since they don't find that directly objectionable in the same way they recoil at everlasting punishment, they try to paper over that inconsistency in their system.

      "And as has been pointed out, there are not only physicalists among the movement of evangelical conditionalism. You have to figure that would be the case, given the preponderance of dualism among evangelicals."

      Which, once again, illustrates your incapacity for self-criticism. Given the preponderance of dualism among evangelicals, it's not surprising that some annihilationists carry that over. It's a relict of their former orthodoxy.

      "Your analysis of 'annihilationists' has been unhelpfully crude."

      My analysis dispels your P.R. fog machine.

      Delete
    16. Annihilation is an unjust punishment, for all the damned receive the exact same punishment. There are no degrees of nonexistence.

      But in that case they are not punished for what they did, specifically. It's merely a generic, one-size-fits-all penalty. The shoplifter and the serial killer suffer the very same fate.

      You can try to patch that up by making the damned suffer for shorter or longer periods of time after God temporarily resurrects them, before annihilating them a second time, but that's a stopgap solution.

      Delete
  5. Steve, I hope you appreciate the difference between these claims:

    1) Annihilationism itself is logically grounded in physicalism.
    And
    2) Glenn Peoples believes that annihilationism is true and that physicalism is true.

    Clearly the latter is a much weaker claim, even if annihilationism is parsimonious with physicalism. I think it is good that you are scaling down your claim.

    For what it's worth, physicalists like Peter Van Inwagen and Kevin Corcoran do believe that we survive death.

    Moreover, given a robust view of providence and creation, dualism too must admit that to go on existing after death is not the default state.

    But the point is that annihilationism isn't logically grounded in physicalism, even if there is a connection between them. And playing the liar card? Really? It's a shame that you react that way to disagreement, Steve. I'll leave you alone now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look, Glenn, you yourself deploy physicalism as an argument for annihilationism (e.g. "Eat, Drink, and be Merry: 1 Corinthians 15 and Physicalism," "Dust ‘n Breath: The Bible and the mind-body question, part 1"). So even though you explicitly link them, you're telling me that you don't champion that combination because you think it's more logical than the alternatives. Rather, you were just reaching into the hat and picking that raffle ticket at random. Is that it?

      "For what it's worth, physicalists like Peter Van Inwagen and Kevin Corcoran do believe that we survive death."

      You mean, like van Inwagen's simulacrum hypothesis? Talk about a stopgap argument for a physicalist intermediate state.

      "Moreover, given a robust view of providence and creation, dualism too must admit that to go on existing after death is not the default state."

      For which you furnish no argument.

      "And playing the liar card? Really?"

      Actually, I accused you of dissembling from an abundance of charity. The less charitable explanation is that you really are that obtuse.

      Delete
  6. Good stuff. I particularly enjoyed seeing the smoldering craters appear wherever the annihilationist arguments were deployed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't see how Glenn Peoples can avoid the Scylla of the dissolution of the hypostatic union at Jesus' death nor the Charybdis of a re-Incarnated Christ at the Resurrection given the version of physicalism he articulates here: http://www.rightreason.org/2012/physicalism-and-the-incarnation/

    ReplyDelete
  8. If anyone is interested here a link to my blog:

    Resources Arguing for the Traditionalist Understanding of Hell
    http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/04/resources-arguing-for-traditionalist.html


    I think this issue of annihilationism vs. traditionalism is something that Evangelicals have to discuss and debate even more vigorously.

    ReplyDelete