Wednesday, July 24, 2002
Comments by Thomas Thrasher
On Al Maxey's Last Response
I want to congratulate Al for actually decreasing the length of his speech in his seventh offering (the first
time in this debate that one of his articles has been shorter than the previous one!). This time he used
only 12,922 words! Maybe I am winning him over (g)!
Al says, "Thomas has declared to me in more than one post that this debate is not a priority with him." I don't
recall telling Al that "this debate is not a priority"; however, I have said it is not a top priority. I have told Al
that commitments to my school job must be honored (cf. Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22). I am usually at
school from 7:00 A.M. until 4:30 P.M. (Monday though Friday), and occasionally at night or on Saturday.
Commitments to local church work (preaching, classes, radio, preparing study materials, etc.) fill many
nights and weekends. Preparation and conduct of occasional oral debates also require substantial time,
as I have informed Al from the beginning. Of course, family responsibilities also have priority over this
written debate (1 Timothy 5:8. etc.). Remember, I am a grandfather (smile). I am certainly not complaining
about any of this -- I receive enjoyment in serving the Lord in all of these activities. I am simply explaining
to the readers why this written debate is not a TOP priority in my schedule.
Al comments, "That is indeed somewhat strange in light of the fact that it was Thomas who challenged me to
this debate, not the other way around." Yes, I contacted Al about the possibility of our having an e-mail debate
on this subject; HOWEVER, my proposal was to limit articles to no more than 2000 words, a very manageable
length for e-mail articles. If you check the early articles as posted on Al's website, you will see that my first
three articles were all posted within a period of eleven days (including the amount of time that Al took). That
was when the posts were a reasonable length. However, Al's last three articles have averaged more than
13,000 words apiece! (By way of comparison, Al's last three articles have averaged as many words as the
apostle Paul used in the books of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, and
2 Thessalonians COMBINED!!!)
Al charges me with "the epitome of 'childishness'" because I delayed sending my previous article to him
until just before midnight -- the time he had given in his "ultimatum" to me. However, one of the common
characteristics that I have observed in children (and I have observed thousands of them during my three
decades in public education) is that they often insist on having things their own way. In this respect Al
has demonstrated childishness from the first contact I made with him. Like a stubborn child determined
to have his way, Al has refused to accept any of my suggestions relating to features of this debate such
as length of articles, number of articles, profuse quotations from uninspired men, etc. I admit experiencing
a degree of irritation with his lack of cooperation in these matters. I deny his charge that most of his e-mails
to me relating to this discussion go unanswered. However, a considerable number of his e-mail messages
are unrelated to this debate. For example, he has sent messages to me about some interview in which he
was involved, or reporting on his vacation, or something else to which I feel no inclination to respond. My
hours from 7:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. each weekday cannot be devoted to extensive e-mail correspondence or
even preparation of these debate articles.
My opponent states: "Let's move on to the Word of God .... in-depth and intense examination, proclamation
and defense of which, for me, is very much a priority." Surely this discussion is not the only component of
Al's alleged "proclamation and defense" of God's word. It certainly isn't the only one for me! Between
submission of articles to Al (whatever time period that may involve), I am continually proclaiming and
defending God's word. In fact, since Al has introduced the possibility of a debate between us relating to
creation and the age of the earth, I will agree to meet him in an ORAL debate on this important issue SOON,
if he is willing. That could provide him with another opportunity to "proclaim and defend" God's word even
while this written debate is on-going.
With regard to Al's quotation from brother H. Leo Boles relating to the thief on the cross and Paradise, I
stated, "I found that Boles actually takes the OPPOSITE view to what Al is seeking to prove! .... Why did
Al reproduce only a small part of Boles' statement, taken out of context, and leave the impression that
Boles agreed with his view when he actually agrees with mine?" Al responded, "Thomas is correct in his
analysis of Boles' convictions with regard to the state of the dead. He and Thomas do indeed share the
same misunderstanding, as many do. I don't suggest otherwise. What I do suggest, however, is that brother
Boles has made a most insightful observation in his commentary, and it was merely to that astute
observation that I made appeal, not to the entirety of his theology on the matter (with which I greatly
differ)." Al proceeds to re-quote the same portion of Boles' comments that he cited before: "Brother
H. Leo Boles, in his Commentary on Luke, correctly observed, 'Evidently Jesus did not mean that this
robber would go with him to heaven that day, as it seems clear from other statements that Jesus did
not go to heaven that day. His day of ascension came about forty days after that time' (p. 454)." However,
Al overlooks the comment HE made immediately following this quotation from brother Boles (caps below
are by TNT):
Al says the "thief" would NOT be with Jesus THAT DAY in PARADISE, but Jesus and Boles both said he
would be! I agree with Boles (and Al) that the "thief" did not go to HEAVEN that day, but I agree with our
Lord, Boles, and all of the translations quoted below that the "thief" DID go to PARADISE that day!
Al charges that Boles' teaching, as understood from my quotation of the context from which Al lifted his
quote, "reverted back to the pagan roots of his theology." I wonder ... do you suppose that any of the
multitude of uninspired men from whom Al has quoted throughout this debate had any theological roots
to which they reverted in agreeing with Al's position? (This assumes he has quoted them correctly, which
he has not always done!)
Al failed to answer my reply to his ridiculous contention on the word "today" in Luke 23:43. I cited five
Bible translations that dispute his claim that Jesus and the "thief" did not go to Paradise that day:
To further reinforce this point, I quickly looked for other translations that I have in my library. They read:
As I am preparing this article, it is possible that I have overlooked some other Bible translation in my
library (several thousand volumes housed in four different locations), but the agreement of these quoted
is a marvelous testimony to the error that Al holds on this matter. I wish to make it clear that I do not
necessarily recommend all of the translations I have quoted, except with regard to their accuracy in
rendering the verse under consideration. I included some that I do not generally endorse just to be as
thorough as possible on the point regarding the word "today" in Luke 23:43.
Due to our font limitations, I will not be able to display the Greek characters, but the Greek texts that I
checked support the translations on this matter:
Al objects to the idea that "the wicked are being tortured as they are held in ... Hades.'" He says that "the
dead ... are not rewarded or punished prior to that trumpet sound." However, I again cite what OUR LORD
said for our readers' benefit, "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by
the angels into Abraham's bosom: and the rich man also DIED, and was buried. And in HADES he lifted up
his eyes, being in TORMENTS, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and
said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water,
and cool my tongue; for I am in ANGUISH in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy
lifetime receivedst thy good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things: but now here he is comforted,
and thou art in ANGUISH ... For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into
this place of TORMENT" (Luke 16:22-25, 28, ASV). Following his physical death, the "rich man" was in
TORMENTS/ANGUISH in HADES! That's what the Bible says, although Al and many others are not willing
to accept it!!!
Al states: "I had previously written, 'Scripture also makes it abundantly clear that the GRAVE (Hades,
Sheol) is not a place of conscious activity for the dead.' Thomas remarked, 'Al quotes some more
uninspired men to this effect, but not one Bible verse to PROVE it.' Thomas is correct that in my last
post I did not quote any of the Scriptures which demonstrate this truth. The reason is because I had
quoted them extensively in previous posts. Here are just a couple from my fourth post dealing with
Hades.'" He then quotes Ecclesiastes 9:10 and 9:2-5.
It so happens that I answered his argument on these verses in my fifth article; however, Al did not see
fit to acknowledge or refute my response. Therefore, I will provide that information again at this point:
Al quotes a portion of Ecclesiastes 9:2-10, as if it supports his position that Sheol is an unconscious state.
However, what he fails to report to our readers is that these statements relate to what happens "under the
sun" (on earth). Look at the context:
Al takes Ecclesiastes 9:2-5, 10 totally out of this context. Let me illustrate with a NT example:
Al next turns "to several more passages of Scripture to which the Traditionalists appeal in a futile effort to
validate their false theology." I will make a few observations in that connection.
Al took a considerable amount of space in seeking to prove that "immortal soulism" is not taught in
Revelation 6:9-11. It is a fact (easily verified by checking my articles) that I made NO ARGUMENT on
this passage such as that to which Al refers. It has been my experience in debate that those who teach
error often introduce (and try to answer) arguments that I did not make, rather than answering the
arguments I did make! For example, in debating a "one container" brother a few years ago, he wanted
to know why I did not make the "old Jerusalem argument." He then proceeded to discuss this argument
that I had never made, rather than taking up what I did say!
As usual, Al's remarks included several quotations from uninspired men, which (he has admitted) do not
prove what is the truth. After lengthy comments on the passage, Al concludes, "'Immortal soulism' is a
false theology." Even if Al is right in his interpretation of Revelation 6:9-11, it would not prove his
conclusion. At most, if he is right, it would mean that THIS passage does not teach what he calls
"immortal soulism"!
Al quoted 1 Peter 3:18-20 (NIV), then he summarized and commented upon four "major interpretations
proposed over the years." He then stated: "Personally, I do not believe any of the above have a great
deal of merit." I agree with Al in this conclusion.
He then says, "My own personal interpretation, and the one which I think best fits the context, and which
best harmonizes with the remainder of the Scriptures, is this: It was the Spirit of Christ who preached the
message of salvation through His servant Noah, unto the people of Noah's day, during those years prior
to the flood." I also agree with Al's interpretation, which (of course) does not necessarily mean it is right (g)!
My friend quotes Clem Thurman, Dillard Thurman, and Albert Barnes, none of whom (to my knowledge)
wrote any New Testament books! I do not accept their pronouncements as Bible proof in this debate. He
then states: "I find nothing whatsoever in this passage which suggests the concept of 'immortal soulism'
or some Hadean holding area of disembodied spirit-beings." Once more, I do not recall making any
argument on this passage such as that to which Al refers.
Why won't my opponent answer what I HAVE said? For instance, I made numerous points back in my fifth
article to which he has not even alluded, much less answered. When Al regularly goes on for 13,000 or
so words in an article, the readers may forget the many points I have made to which he has not replied.
At the risk of being repetitious, that is one reason I prefer shorter articles. It is easier for us to detect such
failures to respond when the exchanges are shorter. May I remind the reader that I am not seeking to limit
what or how much Al writes? (He pretends this is what I have sought to do.) He can present any point or
passage he desires in this discussion. I have simply requested that he do so in more digestible quantities.
Al cites the case of the "Witch of Endor" in 1 Samuel 28 and "the apparent appearance of Samuel from
beyond the grave." Have I made this argument anytime during this debate? (I did make several arguments
in my fifth article that he has not touched!)
He continues his scholarly quotations in this section, citing one "unnamed" commentator, Dr. Lewis,
Origen, Dr. Kretzmann, and the Babylonian Talmud, all of which was very entertaining (?), but which
PROVED nothing about what God's word says.
Al asked, "Were Saul and his sons saved? Are they and Samuel now together ("you and your sons will be
WITH me") in Abraham's bosom, experiencing the joys of their salvation? It will be interesting to hear
Thomas' response!" My answer (although I'm not certain how "interesting" it is): (1) I think Saul and his
sons are lost. (2) They are all in Hades; however, they are separated by the "Great Gulf" (cf. Luke 16:26).
Saul and his sons are not in "Abraham's bosom" nor "experiencing the joys of their salvation," but Samuel is.
Al concludes, "Well, what can be said with certainty about this event in 1 Samuel 28? Actually, very little!
There is much we just don't know, and probably never will know this side of heaven. We can speculate a
great deal, and form numerous opinions, but we have very little in this passage with which to form doctrine
with regard to such matters as the nature of man or the nature of what occurs between death and the
resurrection." What has Al said about 1 Samuel 28?
In spite of all this, Al concludes, "One by one the building blocks of their false theology fall under the
scrutiny of sound biblical hermeneutics." Strange!
In his comments on 1 Peter 3:3-4, Al quotes Wuest, Lenski, the Tyndale Commentary, Wuest again, The
Expositor's Bible Commentary, Lenski again, and John Calvin -- all of whom are uninspired and subject to
error in their statements. Al has acknowledged that such quotations do not PROVE what the truth is, and
he also has admitted that I could quote plenty of people who take opposite views.
Referring to 1 Peter 3:3-4, Al remarks, "This passage says nothing at all about some 'immortal soul' (a
phrase NEVER found in the Bible, by the way ... not even one time)." Reader, do you remember when Al
made a similar statement several articles ago? I demonstrated that, using his reasoning, the same is
true for a number of things HE believes. He still believes them, even though those phrases are "NEVER
found in the Bible ... not even one time"! I will provide that list again, although I am sure the reader can
see that his statement would also undermine HIS position if it undermines mine.
My friend concludes his discussion by saying, "If one is looking for a proof-text for an 'immortal soul,'
one is going to have to look elsewhere. This is not it." Again on this point I ask: Did I make this argument
in this debate?
It seems that I recall making some arguments back in my fifth article. It would be nice if Al would address
the ones I DID make that he has not even touched!!! I encourage Al to deal with those arguments. In my
next article, I will review Al's responses to those arguments, and also look at his comments on Genesis
35:18, 1 Corinthians 2:11, and 2 Corinthians 12:1-4.
May the Lord bless us in the study of His word.
and the Times Found In The Bible: