Hell: Traditional or Conditional?

[DHK]

You, with your novel assumptions, are veering off the path of Christian orthodoxy.

And Conditional Hell (or Gehenna, as the variety may dictate) is indeed a novelty. Any glance through history demonstrates this.

If Mat.10:28 were not in the Bible, then those believing this doctrine would not have a leg to stand on. They would simply appeal to what they believe is God's justice. For example: "How can a loving God eternally torment someone (an unsaved soul)? I don't believe God can be that unloving. It isn't fair."
Thus conditional Hell is an attack on God's justice and God's love. The human mind cannot comprehend God, and it ends up attacking God instead of accepting by faith what God says:
"Shall not the God of all the earth do right?"

But instead they demand that we accept their warped interpretation of Mat.10:28 insisting that they are right and the rest of Christianity is wrong.

 

[Van]

By all means lets discuss "conditional hell" rather than the "Conditionalist view" of Gehenna. Then lets offer straw man arguments, why that is not fair, rather than address actual arguments in favor of the Conditionalist view of Gehenna.

Next, those that disagree with the eternal torment view lack faith in God's perfect justice. LOL

Next, they deny the Conditionalist view is gaining favor, and claim those opposing the eternal torment view are dogmatic, claiming the rest of Christianity are wrong. I said neither side should be dogmatic.

Next, it was claimed that if Mathew 10:28 was not in the bible, there would be no basis (a leg to stand on) for opposing eternal torment. LOL

 

[Van]

You have yet to explain the scriptures that I have given you in the above post, or at least the poignant parts of those scriptures that point nothing but to an eternal torment.

The scriptures listed in post #76, are Jude 1:13, 2 Peter 2:17, Jude 1:7, Revelation 20:10, Revelation 20:15. I have addressed all of them except Jude 1:7. I agree those tossed into the lake of fire do suffer the vengeance of the eternal fire, but deny the verse must be understood to say suffer vengeance eternally. This unnecessary reading reflects the same error as the unnecessary readings I addressed in Jude 1:13 and 2 Peter 2:17.

 

[Van]

I presented the Conditionalist view of Gehenna based on multiple scriptures, including:

a) Our all-powerful God can put an end to both the body and the soul in Gehenna, Matthew 10:28.
b) The fact that the lost will undergo eternal punishment in eternal darkness might mean eternal torment, but also might mean eternal separation from God, Matthew 25:46
c) The fact that the smoke from the torment of the lost will rise forever and ever might mean ongoing torment forever and ever, or simply that the consequence of being tormented in the Lake of Fire is forever, i.e. separation from God, Revelation 14:11.
d) The claim that since Satan and his co-horts will undergo eternal torment requires that humans put in the same place (lake of fire) will undergo the same punishment (eternal torment) is based on assumption. God does treat people differently, i.e. the punishment of some will be more tolerable than for others, Matthew 10:15.
e) Next, Revelation 20:10 is referenced, which is non-germane because it addresses the eternal torment of Satan and his co-horts. No one disagrees.
f) Next, Revelation 20:15 is referenced, which is non-germane because it addresses that all those whose name is not found in the Lamb's book of life are thrown into the lake of fire. No one disagrees.
g) I see I missed at least one NT verse used by some to support eternal torment, Jude 13. Here, rather than reading it as the gloom of the outer darkness is eternal, they read it as those sent to the outer darkness will experience the gloom forever. Of course, I read it the other way. Ditto for 2 Peter 2:17​

 

[The Biblicist]

I presented the Conditionalist view of Gehenna based on multiple scriptures, including:

a) Our all-powerful God can put an end to both the body and the soul in Gehenna, Matthew 10:28.​

1. Matthew 10:28 does not say "put an end" to the body or soul in Gehenna

2. The Greek term "apollumi" is never used in the New Testament to mean "put an end" or anihilation and it is not used so in Matthew 10:6, 40-44 to mean that. The translation "render inoperable" is more keeping with its usage.

b) The fact that the lost will undergo eternal punishment in eternal darkness might mean eternal torment, but also might mean eternal separation from God, Matthew 25:46

1. Please provide me any reference were the Greek term "kolasis" does not mean CONSCIOUS suffering?

2. The "kolasis" is as consciously eternal as the "life" is consciously eternal.

3. The metaphor "where the worm dieth not" denotes conscious suffering in the lake of fire

c) The fact that the smoke from the torment of the lost will rise forever and ever might mean ongoing torment forever and ever, or simply that the consequence of being tormented in the Lake of Fire is forever, i.e. separation from God, Revelation 14:11.

1. The prophet and beast continuing in the Lake of fire certainly denies any immediate cessation of being.

2. If a tire is burnt up completely in a fire there is no smoke continuing forever but it ceases when all remnants of the tire are consumed.

d) The claim that since Satan and his co-horts will undergo eternal torment requires that humans put in the same place (lake of fire) will undergo the same punishment (eternal torment) is based on assumption. God does treat people differently, i.e. the punishment of some will be more tolerable than for others, Matthew 10:15.

The severity is never distinguished in TIME terms that I know of. Likewise, in heaven our distinction in rewards is never distinguished in TIME terms.

e) Next, Revelation 20:10 is referenced, which is non-germane because it addresses the eternal torment of Satan and his co-horts. No one disagrees.

Are you then claiming that none of his co-horts are human in nature? If some are human in nature than they obviously are not destroyed in the sense of anihilation in the Lake of Fire.

f) Next, Revelation 20:15 is referenced, which is non-germane because it addresses that all those whose name is not found in the Lamb's book of life are thrown into the lake of fire. No one disagrees.

It proves the soul is not destroyed in hades which has all the similarities of the lake of fire in temporal form. When other texts dealing with the Lake of Fire in Revelation are taken into consideration it necessarily implies on going suffering/torment (Rev. 14:10-12; 20:10, 15).

What I see is that you isolate one text actually from its immediate and general context of the subject, when you deal with it. That method can disprove any doctrine in the Bible. However, if you interpret each text with both the immediate and overall context your position simply collapses.​

 

[The Biblicist]

Mt. 10:6 But go rather to the lost [Gr. apollumi] sheep of the house of Israel.


Mt. 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy [Gr. apollumi] both soul and body in hell.

Mt. 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose [Gr. apollumi]it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.


Here the Greek term apolummi is used three times in the very same chapter by the very same speaker. Let us apply the word "destroy" to each passage:

1. Christ was sent to DESTROYED sheep of Israel????
2. God DESTROYS the soul and body in gehenna???
3. You save your life by DESTROYING it?????

However, if you translate the term "render useless"

1. Christ was sent to the sheep of Israel who are RENDERED USELESS for what they were designed for - to glorify God.
2. God will RENDER USELESS the evil designs of the soul and body in Gehenna
3. You save your life by RENDERING IT USELESS for your own glory as it was designed to glorify God.

Lost people are RENDERED USELESS for the glory of God until they are saved.

Christians save their lives for the glory of God by RENDERING THEIR LIFE USELESS for self glorying.

Man attempts to kill the body in order to RENDER USELESS the soul expression through the body but God places the soul and body in a place where its expressions are RENDERED USELESS.

Lu 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish [Gr. apollumi].

Notice that just bursting obtains the condition of apollumi. There is no anihilation of the bottle but only a tear in it. However, the tear RENDERS IT USELESS for what it was designed to do.

 

[Van]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. No one said that by making assumptions, you could not conclude human eternal torment. See post #85 for a list of assumptions.
1) The correct translation of G622 can be understood to be "put an end to" or ruin. The context of Matthew 10:28, where God can kill both the soul and body points to "put an end to."
2) The word (G622) is used in several places to refer to putting an end to. For example, an eyeball plucked out ceases to see, feel or be aware, for it has been put to an end.
3) The word translated punishment in Matthew 25:46 refers to having the penalty applied to a person, whether confinement, i.e. eternal separation, or torment. Again, eternal punishment can be understood to refer to eternal separation.
4) Mark 9:48 refers to the eternal existence of the destructive power of the lake of fire (where the worm never dies), but does not necessarily indicate that those suffering from the eternal fire are never put to an end in it.
5) The fact that Satan, the Beast and the False Prophet undergo eternal torment does not necessitate assuming that people suffer in exactly the say way. Their punishment might be more tolerable.
6) Just because smoke ceases to immanate from a source, i.e. tire or soul or body, does not require that it also ceases to rise forever and ever reflecting the eternal consequence of punishment.
7) Yet another non-germane argument against a strawman, for no one claimed that the soul is destroyed in Hades. How many times must this broken record be addressed.

 

[The Biblicist]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

There is no failure to communicate here at all. You were given three uses of "apollumi" in Matthew 10 and another use in Luke and NONE of the actual texts will harmonize with your definition of "apollumi" NONE OF THEM.

7) Yet another non-germane argument

Either you are completely ignorant of the meaning of "non-germane" or you are intentionally perverting its usage. What is non-germane about the actual usage of apollumi in all four Scriptural texts placed before you???????? Are you saying Biblical uses of apollumi are not related to the very discussion of apollumi????? Something "non-germane" means it is wholly unrelated and to claim that actual uses of apollumi in Biblical texts are wholly unrelated to the study of apollumi in the Bible is simply irrational!

against a strawman, for no one claimed that the soul is destroyed in Hades.

Mattthew 10:28 is one example of apollumi with two other references in this chapter and Matthew 10:28 is not about hades. The metaphor "where the worm dieth not" is not used in connection with hades.

You never quote what you are responding to, so you can say anything you like and get away with it because the readers do not have anything to compare what you are saying with. Try some transparency and quote who you are criticizing instead of taking this cowardly approach.

 

[DHK]

By all means lets discuss "conditional hell" rather than the "Conditionalist view" of Gehenna. Then lets offer straw man arguments, why that is not fair, rather than address actual arguments in favor of the Conditionalist view of Gehenna.

Next, those that disagree with the eternal torment view lack faith in God's perfect justice. LOL

Next, they deny the Conditionalist view is gaining favor, and claim those opposing the eternal torment view are dogmatic, claiming the rest of Christianity are wrong. I said neither side should be dogmatic.

Next, it was claimed that if Mathew 10:28 was not in the bible, there would be no basis (a leg to stand on) for opposing eternal torment. LOL

Lest you be too naive about what Gehenna really is, let's make sure we are talking about the same thing:

GEHENNA
The third and last crucial term is the word Gehenna. This word is found twelve times in the New Testament and is correctly translated each time by the KJV as “hell.” It is a word which describes the ultimate fate of the wicked after the general resurrection and judgment. While Sheol and Hades describe the temporary abode of the dead until the resurrection, Gehenna is the place of future punishment in the eternal state.




The Lexicographical Evidence
The word Gehenna is the Greek equivalent for “the valley of Hinnom” (Josh. 15:8; 18:16; Neh. 11:30). It thus originally referred to the Valley of Hinnom, which was just outside the city of Jerusalem. According to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (p. 111), it was the place where idolatrous Jews gave human sacrifices to pagan deities (2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6).



Because of these horrible idolatrous practices, the Valley of Hinnom was hated and considered “unclean” by pious Jews. In Christ’s day, this hatred of the Valley of Hinnom caused the valley to become the town dump where all the garbage of Jerusalem could be thrown. Unclean corpses as well as normal garbage were thrown into it. Because garbage was constantly being thrown into the valley, the fires never stopped burning and the worms never stopped eating.

http://faithdefenders.com/articles/theology/sheol_hades_gehenna.html


This is a very good article giving a good amount of time to all three terms: sheol, hades, and gehenna, and how they all are used in the Bible. He backs his position up with other sources.

 

[DHK]

The scriptures listed in post #76, are Jude 1:13, 2 Peter 2:17, Jude 1:7, Revelation 20:10, Revelation 20:15. I have addressed all of them except Jude 1:7. I agree those tossed into the lake of fire do suffer the vengeance of the eternal fire, but deny the verse must be understood to say suffer vengeance eternally. This unnecessary reading reflects the same error as the unnecessary readings I addressed in Jude 1:13 and 2 Peter 2:17.

Here is what I specifically listed (among other things) :

Rev.20:10,15 is only a supporting scripture that supports the truth of eternal torment taught in many places throughout the rest of the Bible:
"where the fires are not quenched," and
"the worm dies not" (conscience)
"everlasting fire" is mentioned many times
"the smoke of their torment" ...forever.

..."going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)
--There must be a vengeance of eternal fire if one is going to suffer through it for all eternity.

This you did not address, specifically:
"where the fires are not quenched," and
"the worm dies not" (conscience)
"everlasting fire" is mentioned many times
"the smoke of their torment" ...forever.

The obvious meanings of these phrases cannot be understated. I should not have to quote the entire verses for you, but can if you demand it. Over and over again the Bible teaches eternal torment. One cannot deny this evident teaching.

 

[Yeshua1]

By all means lets discuss "conditional hell" rather than the "Conditionalist view" of Gehenna. Then lets offer straw man arguments, why that is not fair, rather than address actual arguments in favor of the Conditionalist view of Gehenna.

Next, those that disagree with the eternal torment view lack faith in God's perfect justice. LOL

Next, they deny the Conditionalist view is gaining favor, and claim those opposing the eternal torment view are dogmatic, claiming the rest of Christianity are wrong. I said neither side should be dogmatic.

Next, it was claimed that if Mathew 10:28 was not in the bible, there would be no basis (a leg to stand on) for opposing eternal torment. LOL

The Historical viewpoint on hell was and has always been that of eternal duration, as that is what the Lord Jesus and His Apostles preached and taught to us in the inspired word of God...

That some have gone against that is not surprising, as some have gone so far as to say all will get saved by Love of God...and others have denied jesus is God, that he had a physical bodily resurrection etc...

You are the one going against orthodoxy held past 2000 years, why not also go for universalism, as that as just about as much biblical support to fall back upon!

 

[Van]

More bogus charges from the eternal torment crowd. I have addressed all the arguments in favor of eternal torment and demonstrated that the Conditionalist view is just as viable. Is that fact that the Conditionalist view is not the traditional view in contention? Nope, so yet another non-germane argument.

 

[DHK]

More bogus charges from the eternal torment crowd. I have addressed all the arguments in favor of eternal torment and demonstrated that the Conditionalist view is just as viable. Is that fact that the Conditionalist view is not the traditional view in contention? Nope, so yet another non-germane argument.

It is not "non-germane"! The fact that it has been routinely rejected by orthodox Christianity throughout 2,000 years plus should mean something to you. Don't think that "there IS something new under the sun," for that also contradicts the Scriptures. This doctrine has been around for ages. It is popular with the SDA and many other cults. With you it has been tweaked just a little to make it a bit more palatable to our new age Christians. Every argument you have presented has been answered.
I find it interesting that every authoritative source I have given you, including very reliable ones such as ISBE (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia), Theopedia, Wikipedia, and others, you have disagreed with. In fact you just dismiss them. You only have your opinion to rely on. You haven't refuted anything. You have given an answer but not refuted anyone.

 

[Rippon]

More bogus charges from the eternal torment crowd.

LOL! "The eternal torment crowd." Wow! The Van-view groupies are not in evidence. Where are your "folks" that you appeal to so often?

Nope, so yet another non-germane argument.

It may not be German, but it is certainly germane. ;-)

You would have been extremely uncomfortable under the preaching of the Jonathan Edwards sermon: Sinners In The Hands Of God in the early 1740s. But that's what you need.

 

[Van]

Folks, the eternal torment crowd thinks that if a view is old, or a view is popular, why that means it is valid. When Jesus met tradition, He said men had made God's word to no effect. So bogus views can be old and can be popular. Have you noticed the number of Calvinists in the Eternal Torment crowd? Did they come to their view by study, or did they embrace the Westminster Confession?

1) They continue to claim that because the eternal fire of the lake of fire is eternal, then all those tossed in suffer torment forever. This assumption is unwarranted, bogus, and reflective of shoddy bible study.
2) Seemingly none of them will admit God can put an end to men's souls in Gehenna.

I have presented the Conditionalist view, supported it with scripture, and have shown the Eternal Torment view is based on assumption.

 

[Yeshua1]

Folks, the eternal torment crowd thinks that if a view is old, or a view is popular, why that means it is valid. When Jesus met tradition, He said men had made God's word to no effect. So bogus views can be old and can be popular. Have you noticed the number of Calvinists in the Eternal Torment crowd? Did they come to their view by study, or did they embrace the Westminster Confession?

1) They continue to claim that because the eternal fire of the lake of fire is eternal, then all those tossed in suffer torment forever. This assumption is unwarranted, bogus, and reflective of shoddy bible study.
2) Seemingly none of them will admit God can put an end to men's souls in Gehenna.

I have presented the Conditionalist view, supported it with scripture, and have shown the Eternal Torment view is based on assumption.

There is NO biblcal support for the notion that God will totally destroy the human sinner, body/soul/spirit, indeed, I hold that God has chosen to NOT allow Himself to be able to do that very act!

And why would jesus so warn against it, if you are judged and get burned up fully, and as if never existed>

how would that be fair to have hitler, mao, charles Russell, Joseph smith get same judgement and treatment from God as any other sinner?

If hell is only temporal. why not make heaven also then?

 

[DHK]

Folks, the eternal torment crowd thinks that if a view is old, or a view is popular, why that means it is valid. When Jesus met tradition, He said men had made God's word to no effect. So bogus views can be old and can be popular. Have you noticed the number of Calvinists in the Eternal Torment crowd? Did they come to their view by study, or did they embrace the Westminster Confession?

I came to my conclusions through my own study, and have never read through any of these confessions thoroughly. I have no need to, nor at any time ever had.
The Bible is an old book.
It is in many ways a traditional book.
It is a popular book--the best selling book of all time.
Therefore you are saying God has made his own revelation to mankind of none effect? How does he do that?

Did you seriously consider that your study may be terribly flawed. Please take that seriously. Why hold to a false belief unnecessarily?

1) They continue to claim that because the eternal fire of the lake of fire is eternal, then all those tossed in suffer torment forever. This assumption is unwarranted, bogus, and reflective of shoddy bible study.

That is one point out of dozens presented to you. Taken in the context of the totality of the Bible it is not shoddy at all. Context is everything, and you have no viable answer for the explanation of that passage in the context in which it is given. If you had you would have given it, not just a ("It doesn't have to have that interpretation.) But you don't have a viable interpretation of the actual scripture. You cannot expound the text.

2) Seemingly none of them will admit God can put an end to men's souls in Gehenna.

This is an age-old argument of the atheists--what can God do?
Can God create a rock bigger than he can lift?
Can God create a triangular circle?
And yet you hang on to this ridiculous assumption that "God can do anything."
God cannot do anything that is against his nature.
God cannot do anything contrary to his word.
God can do anything "that is possible" to do within the limits that He has defined for Himself.
God does not redefine language. (creating a triangular circle).
God puts limits on the things that He will do.

Nowhere in the Bible does it teach he will "kill" the soul. He is not a murderer. You are attributing to God a characteristic that He does not possess. That is wrong. At the Great White Throne Judgement all the unsaved will stand. They will stand there in their resurrected bodies. They will have immortal resurrected bodies.
What is the purpose of a resurrection if not to have a resurrected body, and no one can stand before a holy God unless they have a body that is able to face Him. Their bodies will have been changed. Resurrection always refers to the body. Their bodies will be raised. Understand that.

Now why would they have immortal resurrected bodies only to be annihilated. There is no sense in that. That body will live on forever in a place of torment, the greater torment being the consciousness of knowing that he is separated from Christ with whom he could be fellow-shipping with. He will live in eternal torment and be tormented with that knowledge forever.

It is a harsh thing on this earth to reject the love of the one who died for you.

I have presented the Conditionalist view, supported it with scripture, and have shown the Eternal Torment view is based on assumption.

Your view is supported by one verse--Matthew 10:28--and a misinterpretation of it.
As I said before--if that verse were not in the Bible your view would not stand. That is a sign that you are wrong. If your theology must rest just on one scripture then it is a good sign you have the wrong theology.

 

[Van]

Folks take a gander at the two prior posts.
1) Why would God say those judged will be (a) tormented, and (b) burned up completely, if both aspects were not true?
2) All sinners including Mr. Hitler, will receive perfect justice in the afterlife.
3) I say the destructive fire in the lake of fire is eternal, and Yeshua1 asks if it is temporal. The eternal torment crowd offers up misrepresentation to muddy the water and hide that eternal torment is based on multiple assumptions.
4) DHK again returns to misrepresentation, saying I am suggesting God made His revelation to no effect. Here is what I actually said:

When Jesus met tradition, He said men had made God's word to no effect.

Unless people are tethered to the truth, discussion is pointless.
5) Next, in an avalanche of bogus assertions, DHK suggests I believe my views are infallible! See a pattern of behavior of the eternal torment crowd.
6) Did I say God can do anything? Nope, I said God can do what He said, Matthew 10:28, He can do. So more misrepresentation. See the pattern now?
7) Next DHK says "nowhere in the bible does it teach He will kill the soul...." Folks check out Ezekiel 18:20. Translations vary but many including the ESV, ASV, YLT, and KJV read "the soul that sins shall die.

 

[DHK]

Folks take a gander at the two prior posts.
1) Why would God say those judged will be (a) tormented, and (b) burned up completely, if both aspects were not true?

Nowhere, and I mean nowhere does it say he will be burned up completely. Where are you getting this deception from?

2) All sinners including Mr. Hitler, will receive perfect justice in the afterlife.

Yes they will. Eternal torment in a place called the Lake of Fire.

3) I say the destructive fire in the lake of fire is eternal, and Yeshua1 asks if it is temporal. The eternal torment crowd offers up misrepresentation to muddy the water and hide that eternal torment is based on multiple assumptions.

Eternal torment is not an assumption. It is fact. Go back to Rev.20:10 and ask yourself who is the antichrist and false prophet? They are men like you and I. They are men Like Judas Iscariot who betrayed our Lord, but was filled with Satan to do so. They are men who will deceive the whole world into following them, but men, nevertheless. These human men will suffer in a place of torment forever and ever. If them, why not others.

4) DHK again returns to misrepresentation, saying I am suggesting God made His revelation to no effect. Here is what I actually said: Unless people are tethered to the truth, discussion is pointless.

That is not the statement I responded to, so the misrepresentation is all yours. If you were honest in your posting you would quote what I said. Here it is:

Seemingly none of them will admit God can put an end to men's souls in Gehenna.
--God can--God can do many things. And thus you imply that God can carry out your theology, your imaginary commands. "God you annihilate these people even though it is against your word." Thus saith Van.

5) Next, in an avalanche of bogus assertions, DHK suggests I believe my views are infallible! See a pattern of behavior of the eternal torment crowd.

You state your view as the only correct view, don't you? Will you admit to as much?

6) Did I say God can do anything? Nope, I said God can do what He said, Matthew 10:28, He can do. So more misrepresentation. See the pattern now?

Let's look again:
Seemingly none of them will admit God can put an end to men's souls in Gehenna.
--Is this not an admission that God can do anything--even putting an end to men's souls? Of course it is. You have been saying this all along. God can do anything he wants. It is a basic premise of your argument.
The second fallible premise of your argument is a misinterpretation of Mat.10:28 which many have already pointed out to you.

7) Next DHK says "nowhere in the bible does it teach He will kill the soul...." Folks check out Ezekiel 18:20. Translations vary but many including the ESV, ASV, YLT, and KJV read "the soul that sins shall die.

You misinterpretation here is obvious. You ignore context. Let's look:

[FONT=&quot]Ezekiel 18:18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.
19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.[/FONT]

The context is civil law and capital punishment.
Verses 18 and 19 speaks of the one who is cruel and oppressive. He will die according to the sin that he commits. His children shall not, but he will die. That is justice.
Now in verse 20 the word "soul" refers to the person, as in "you poor soul."
That person that sins shall die. He will die for the murder that he has committed. Don't take scripture out of context.
You have taken this out of context even as you have misinterpreted Matthew 10:28--a tale to be told.

 

[Iconoclast]

why's everyone seemed surprised at the twaddle masters view?
he makes up his own definitions and theology everyday.
I saw support for his view one time it was in a small magazine I think it was called watchtower.