APPENDIX

This is an appendix-page for leftover-cuts from the main page about defining Conditional Immortality -- should CI be defined as "only FA" (as wanted by defenders of FA) or (using logic of The Condition of Conditional Immortality) "either FA or UR".

 

Terrance Tiessen (Part 2) — re: Conditional Immortality and Eternal Misery

I.O.U. — This section will be revised (so the references to Tiessen are removed) and moved into Conditional Immortality, Part 2.

The two articles by Terrance Tiessen are filled with valuable insights, but I disagree with one of his two suggestions for defining Conditional Immortality (CI):

    I agree with his logical explanation of why "both positions [proposed by "evangelical annihilationists" and "evangelical universalists"] are forms of conditional immortality" so he rejects an overly-restrictive definition that claims “CI = only FA”.  Instead he thinks CI should include UR.
   
But I disagree with his claim — developed as the main theme of his first post (about FA & EM) and affirmed in his second post (mainly about FA & UR) — that CI can include EM.   I think this is an overly-permissive definition (saying “CI = either FA or UR, or EM”) that we should reject, due to its inclusion of EM.
   
I think our definition of conditional immortality should include FA and UR (agreeing with him) but (disagreeing) should exclude EM.
 

Tiessen finally concludes, at the end of his second article, that "The differences between these 3 positions are clear, and all may be stated in evangelical terms, but to call one of them “conditionalism” is unhelpful,* since all 3 of them affirm conditional immortality, albeit with different understandings of what that entails."  I think the "understanding" by FA & UR is the same, and it's biblical/helpful.  But the "understanding" by EM is different, it's a misunderstanding that is unbiblical/unhelpful.  Therefore,...

* I think we should continue using CI, because to call two of them “conditionalism” is helpful when CI is logically defined as “either FA or UR” because this CI helps us see the biblical implausibility of EM in Step 1 of a two-step process.

 

I think Tiessen's toleration of a claim that “CI can include EM” is overly permissive.  But he accurately describes a rational argument that could be used by a defender of EM who is making this claim, in one of his main goals:

In 2015 he "had become thoroughly convinced of the truth of annihilationism" but earlier, in 2013, he said "I am pretty much agnostic right now about the nature of hell.  What I am trying to do [in this blog-post] is to clarify for myself what I would mean if I concluded that (a form of) traditionalism is correct, and what I would mean if I concluded that (a form of) annihilationism is correct."  Therefore, he imagines the perspective of a traditionalist who proposes Eternal Misery (EM) with Eternal Existence in Misery, so he can describe how this person would defend their view against a claim that Eternal Existence in Misery violates Immortality that is Conditional so it isn't available for unsaved sinners.  He does this well, by describing what seems to be the best possible response by EM:  "They deny that the endless existence which the wicked experience is what the Bible calls ‘immortality,’ which is the life of God and with God, ‘eternal life’ (cf. Jn 3:16)."

But even though this response-by-EM is rational, I think it should not be accepted.  Instead it should be challenged and rejected.  Why?

The central question is “how should immortality be defined?”  A consensus dictionary definition of immortality is the state of being immortal [= not mortal; not subject to death].  For defining Conditional Immortality (CI) based on Genesis-and-Revelation a useful basic meaning of immortality is everlasting conscious existence with a person existing forever.  The existence must be conscious — as when Descartes proposed “I think, therefore I am” — to distinguish theologically trivial non-conscious existence (e.g. of a rock, or a hydrogen atom) from the conscious existence-in-Afterlife that we're defining with CI.

EM could be compatible with CI if we let EM re-define the I in CI, so their own restrictive definition of Immortality is not violated by EM.  How?  A defender of “EM is CI” can claim that everlasting conscious existence in Misery (with EM) would not be immortality.  Basically they are claiming that only good-immortality (everlasting conscious existence in joy, with God) is immortality, so bad-immortality (everlasting conscious existence in misery, separated from God) is not immortality.  As described by Tiessen, EM restricts immortality so it's only "the life of God and with God."

Instead of accepting this restrictive re-definition (that changes the essential meaning of immortality), we should challenge it and reject it.  Why?  We can examine this issue theologically and linguistically:

 

Theology:  My long paper about FA-versus-EM carefully examines (1 2 3) the concept of “spiritual death” that, when it's applied to Genesis 3:22, is an effort to avoid the clear teaching that a sinner "must not be allowed to... live forever."  If a spiritual death (due to sin) could be reversed by just giving The Tree of Life, thus solving the problem of sin, God could have given The Tree of Life, instead of removing it, in Genesis 3:22-24.     { Tiessen, in his first post, explains how immortality "is an ambiguous term because it has at least 5 senses within Scripture and theology."  I suggest that we replace "is an ambiguous term" with “can be an ambiguous term,” and we don't let this happen.  We should not let ambiguity weaken our claim that the essential meaning of immortality (= everlasting conscious existence) should be used when we define Conditional Immortality. }

 

Linguistics:  There are similarities between two contexts — when we're thinking about the meanings of “truth” and “immortality” — where confusion can occur due to re-definitions, IF we let people change the main meaning of truth or immortality, so we allow ambiguity.  My page about Reality 101 explains why:

    To avoid confusion, I think the word "truth" should be reserved for a correspondence definition of truth.  We should not use the word truth in any other way, and when other people do use truth in another way, we should challenge them, gently and logically.  The non-correspondence definitions of truth — with defining by consensus (truth is a majority opinion), coherence (truth is a logically coherent system of beliefs), pragmatism (truth is a useful principle), or in other ways — are humanly constructed claims about what is true, so they should be called truth-claims (or theories, beliefs, principles,...) but not truth.
 

I strongly disagree with attempts to define truth in ways that are confusing, that cause uncertainty when we say "truth" and listeners are forced to wonder “what is the intended meaning?” because they previously have heard the word truth being used in so many different ways.  There would be less confusion if instead everyone said truth-claim when (with a claim-about-truth that is being defined by consensus, coherence, pragmatism, or in other ways) this is what they mean, and if everyone said truth only when they are claiming that “it's true because it corresponds to reality.”  When postmodern relativists define truth in these other ways, I think...

    they are intending to cause confusion, to weaken the tendency, in society, of thinking about truth as “correspondence with reality.”

In a similar way, defenders of Eternal Misery can define immortality in an unusually restrictive way, contradicting its usual meaning, by claiming that if everlasting conscious existence is miserable without God (instead of joyful with God), then it isn't immortality.  When they define immortality in this restrictive way, I think...

    they are intending to cause confusion, to weaken the tendency, in society, of thinking about immortality as "everlasting conscious existence" with "a person existing forever."
 

When immortality has its usual essential meaning of "everlasting conscious existence" — as it should — the logical meaning of Conditional Immortality is “either Final Annihilation or Universal Reconciliation, but not Eternal Misery.

 


 

This section is a semifinal version of the main-page section about Possible Afterlife-RealitiesThis section explicitly refers to the SECONDARY CONDITION of Peter Grice (and others at RethinkingHell), while the main-page section doesn't.

 

Possible Afterlife-Realities

Building on the section above – which logically describes The Condition of Conditional Immortality – this table shows 4 ultimate results in Afterlife (for sinners who were unsaved during Life) that are possible IF God will adopt a policy of Conditional Immortality or Unconditional Immortality, and IF God will adopt a policy in which unsaved-in-Life people will be annihilated, or preserved-and-reconciled, or preserved-and-tormented.

 
 and IF unsaved-in-Life sinners 
will never be saved,
 but instead will be annihilated,
 
 and IF unsaved-in-Life sinners
will be preserved and saved
so they can be reconciled,
and IF unsaved-in-Life sinners
 will be preserved but not saved, 
instead will be tormented,
 IF Conditional Immortality
then Final Annihilation, FA,
with Immortality that is
Conditional and non-Universal.

 then Universal Reconciliation, UR, 
with Immortality that is
Conditional and Universal.
 this combination is impossible, 
because EM cannot occur
with Conditional Immortality.

 IF Unconditional Immortality  
 IF (Universal-and-irrevocable) 
this combination is impossible,
because FA cannot occur
 with Unconditional Immortality.
 
then Universal Reconciliation, UR,
proposing UR-Immortality that is
Unconditional and Universal.
then Eternal Misery, EM,
with EM-Immortality that is
Unconditional and Universal.
 

This table shows important facts:

• The two gray table-cells show Afterlife-Theories that are unbiblical because they propose an Unconditional Immortality that is not taught in the Bible.  But there is an important difference between the two gray cells because Theories are not Realities.  Only the Afterlife-Reality "with EM-Immortality" would violate Conditional Immortality.  By contrast, even if a person is "proposing UR-Immortality that is Unconditional" in their Afterlife-Theory, an ultimate Afterlife-Reality with UR-Immortality would not violate The Condition of Conditional Immortality because with evangelical Christian UR only saved sinners would become immortal.

 

• FA could occur only with Conditional Immortality;

• EM could occur only with Unconditional Immortality.

 

• UR could occur with either Conditional Immortality or Unconditional Immortality, and each Afterlife-Reality would be compatible with The IFF-Then Condition of Conditional Immortality.   {of course, A Theory is not The Reality}

• One of these two results-with-UR, in the yellow table-cell, is the possibility of Conditional-and-Universal, showing that Universal Immortality does not require Unconditional Immortality.

This fact — the possibility of Conditional-and-Universal — is extremely important for logically analyzing the meaning of Conditional Immortality (CI).  Why?   Because some defenders of FA claim that:  THE PRIMARY MEANING of CI is “IFF (If and only If) saved, THEN immortal” {this is The Condition, and it's logically true, as explained above};  and A SECONDARY IMPLICATION of CI is “IF Conditional Immortality, THEN not Universal Immortality” {this has no biblical/logical connection to The Condition, and the yellow cell shows why it's false}.*  In making this false claim for A SECONDARY IMPLICATION, they are {unsuccessfully} trying to deny the possibility of Conditional-and-Universal, and thus the possibility of Conditional Immortality AND Universal Reconciliation, because they want Conditional Immortality to mean only FAeven though logically — as shown by the two conditional possibilities, Conditional AND non-Universal & Conditional AND Universal — it should meaneither FA or UR”.

* Another way to describe their SECONDARY IMPLICATION is to claim, re: Immortalities, that “if Unconditional, then Universal” [this is logically true] and also, by reversing the if-then, that “if Universal, then Unconditional”.  But the reversal of a true if-then statement can be either true or false.  The reversal is true only when the true if-then statement meets the tougher standard of being a true iff-then statement.  In this case “iff Unconditional, then Universal” is false, so its reversal also is false, as shown by the yellow cell.     {another perspective on the same logic: Unconditional is sufficient to cause Universal, but is not necessary, because a universally-met Condition also is sufficient to cause Universal.}

Prominent defenders of FA who want Conditional Immortality to mean “only FA” describe their claim for A SECONDARY IMPLICATION in both ways, by claiming that “IF Conditional Immortality, THEN not Universal Immortality”, and also that “if Universal, then Unconditional”.  But with either formulation their claim is logically unjustifiable, is false, as shown by the possible existence of the yellow cell (above) and yellow area (below).

 

 

The rest of this page supplements an earlier paragraph explaining why Peter Grice's SECONDARY IMPLICATION (that “Conditional implies not-Universal”) is not logically justifiable.  This section builds on the foundation of Possible Afterlife-Realities that includes this table and a paragraph analyzing the Secondary Implication, copied here:


Building on the section above – which logically describes The Condition of Conditional Immortality – this table shows 4 ultimate results in Afterlife (for sinners who were unsaved during Life) that are possible IF God will adopt a policy of Conditional Immortality or Unconditional Immortality, and IF God will adopt a policy in which unsaved-in-Life people will be either annihilated, or preserved-and-reconciled, or preserved-and-tormented.

 
 and IF unsaved-in-Life sinners 
 will never be saved or preserved, 
 but instead will be annihilated,
 
 and IF unsaved-in-Life sinners
will be preserved and saved
so they can be reconciled,
and IF unsaved-in-Life sinners
 will be preserved but not saved, 
instead they will be tormented,
 IF Conditional Immortality
then Final Annihilation, FA,
with Immortality that is
Conditional and non-Universal.

 then Universal Reconciliation, UR, 
with Immortality that is
Conditional and Universal.
 this combination is impossible, 
because EM cannot occur
with Conditional Immortality.

 IF Unconditional Immortality  
 IF (Universal-and-irrevocable) 
this combination is impossible,
because FA cannot occur
 with Unconditional Immortality.
 
then Universal Reconciliation, UR,
proposing UR-Immortality that is
Unconditional and Universal.
then Eternal Misery, EM,
with EM-Immortality that is
Unconditional and Universal.
 

This table shows important facts:

..... (the first four are omitted here)

• CI could occur in two ways, either Conditional AND non-Universal (with FA) or Conditional AND Universal (with UR) so CI should meaneither FA or UR”.

Therefore, a claim that CI is only FA (as with an implication that “IF Conditional Immortality, THEN not Universal Immortality”)* is logically unjustifiable, is false, as shown by the possible existence of the yellow cell (above) and yellow area (below).     {Although it's true that “if not-Conditional, then Universal”, the reversed form (“if Universal, then not-Conditional”) is false, so it cannot be the basis of a claim that UR (with Universal Immortality) is not Conditional Immortality.  In other words, although not-Conditional (i.e. Unconditional) is sufficient to guarantee Universal, it is not necessary, because Universal could occur either with either Conditional or Unconditional.  If defenders of CI is only FA object to the Universal Immortality that would occur with UR (if God lets everyone eventually meet The Condition for Salvation), would semi-Universalism be accepted as Conditionalism if only 20% are saved? or what about 51, 80, 98, or 99.99999%?  or does The Condition become a Non-Condition only if 100% satisfy The Condition?  i.e., where do advocates of “UR is not-CI” want to “draw the line”? }

{This is the end of content copied from Possible Afterlife-Realities.}


 

Here are two supplements (1, 2) for the ideas above:

 

1 — This is the conclusion of my original section (written in August/September 2016) about Possible Afterlife-Realities.  Then I changed the section by removing references to Peter Grice and his arguments for a Secondary Implication and eventually making other changes.  This version refers to the color-coded table above, with Afterlife-Possibilities of CI and FA & CI and UR & not-CI and UR & not-CI and EM.

 

This fact — the possibility of Conditional-and-Universal — is extremely important for logically analyzing the meaning of Conditional Immortality (CI).  Why?   Because some defenders of FA claim that:  THE PRIMARY MEANING of CI is “IFF (If and only If) saved, THEN immortal” {this is The Condition, and it's logically true, as explained above};  and A SECONDARY IMPLICATION of CI is “IF Conditional Immortality, THEN not Universal Immortality” {this has no biblical/logical connection to The Condition, and the yellow cell shows why it's false}.*  In making this false claim for A SECONDARY IMPLICATION, they are {unsuccessfully} trying to deny the possibility of Conditional-and-Universal, and thus the possibility of Conditional Immortality AND Universal Reconciliation, because they want Conditional Immortality to mean only FAeven though logically — as shown by the two conditional possibilities, Conditional AND non-Universal & Conditional AND Universal — it should meaneither FA or UR”.

* Another way to describe their SECONDARY IMPLICATION is to claim, re: Immortalities, that “if Unconditional, then Universal” [this is logically true] and also, by reversing the if-then, that “if Universal, then Unconditional”.  But the reversal of a true if-then statement can be either true or false.  The reversal is true only when the true if-then statement meets the tougher standard of being a true iff-then statement.  In this case “iff Unconditional, then Universal” is false, so its reversal also is false, as shown by the yellow cell.     {another perspective on the same logic: Unconditional is sufficient to cause Universal, but is not necessary, because a universally-met Condition also is sufficient to cause Universal.}

Prominent defenders of FA who want Conditional Immortality to mean “only FA” describe their claim for A SECONDARY IMPLICATION in both ways, by claiming that “IF Conditional Immortality, THEN not Universal Immortality”, and also that “if Universal, then Unconditional”.  But with either formulation their claim is logically unjustifiable, is false, as shown by the possible existence of the yellow cell (above) and yellow area (below).

 

2 — This was written later, in April 2017:

 

The table below contains the same ideas as the table above, but it's simplified so you can focus on what is most important for the SECONDARY IMPLICATION, so you can more easily understand why it's not logically justified:

 
 and IF Final Annihilation,
 and IF Universal Reconciliation
and IF Eternal Misery,
 IF Conditional Immortality
then (with FA),
Conditional Immortality,
 not-Universal Immortality 
then (with UR),
Conditional Immortality,
Universal Immortality
impossible
 IF Unconditional Immortality  
 IF (Universal-and-irrevocable) 
impossible
then (with UR),
Unconditional Immortality,
Universal Immortality
then (with EM),
 Unconditional Immortality, 
Universal Immortality

 

After making this table, I began writing if-then combinations, trying to find the essential one(s) that would show why the SECONDARY IMPLICATION is logically incorrect.  For example,...

    if Conditional, then not-Universal -- this is a logically-false claim (i.e., it's not always correct for all possibilities;  it's only sometimes correct, is incorrect for yellow);
    if not-Universal, then Conditional -- this is a logically-true claim (i.e., it's always correct for all possibilities, occurs only for blue);
    if Universal, then not-Conditional -- this is a logically-false claim (i.e., it's not always correct, is incorrect for yellow, correct for gray).

But then I thought “there are 4 combinations, so I'll put them in a table.”  But when making the table, I discovered that because each of the 4 combos can have its if-then order reversed, there are 8 combinations.  I think the ones in aqua are most important.

 
not-Universal
Universal
 Conditional
if Conditional, then not-Universal
( sometimes correct: blue, yellow )
if not-Universal, then Conditional
( always true: "if" occurs in blue )
if Conditional, then Universal
( sometimes: blue yellow )
if Universal, then Conditional
  ( sometimes: yellow gray gray )  
 Unconditional 
 if Unconditional, then not-Universal 
  ( always false, occurs in gray gray )  
if not-Universal, then Unconditional
( always false, occurs in blue )
if Unconditional, then Universal
( always true ) but "so what?"
if Universal, then Unconditional
( sometimes: yellow gray gray )

I.O.U. - Eventually, I may “do more” with analyzing this logic.  But I have a feeling that our disagreement (about defining Conditional Immortality) has very little to do with logic.  It's due to reasons that are not Logical.  Instead the reasons are Personal, wanting to retain a definition that is rhetorically useful.  And the defense is by appealing to what is Traditional instead of what is Logical.     Reasons for Choices — Logical, Traditional, Personal 

As I say near the beginning of my main sections about Defining Conditional Immortality,

    Hopefully you are now thinking “yes, we should be logical, so we should define Conditional Immortality as either Final Annihilation or Universal Reconciliation.”  If this is what you're thinking, you don't need to read the next two sections, about The Condition and Possible Afterlife-Realities.   [and you also don't need to read this page, about the defining of Conditional Immortality by the community of RethinkingHell]