“Refuting the (Astrophysicist) Critics” Series Links
This article is the fifth in a series of articles addressing the case for traditionalism offered by the young-earth-creationist and astrophysicist Jason Lisle. To access other published articles in this series, use the following links:
- Part 1: Testing Jason Lisle’s Traditionalist Case
- Part 2: When Astrophysicists Psychologize
- Part 3: When Astrophysicists Mischaracterize
- Part 4: When Astrophysicists Philosophize
- Part 6: When Astrophysicists Propagandize
It’s been nearly three years since my last article in this series, but I’m returning to it now after being distracted for a while by life’s challenges. Previously, I explored some of the ways astrophysicist and fellow young-earth creationist Jason Lisle inaccurately psychologizes conditionalists, mischaracterizes their position, and philosophizes poorly in defense of eternal torment; now I turn to that which matters more than anything thus far: Lisle’s mishandling of the biblical data. Even if everything else I’ve written is true, the Bible could still teach the doctrine of eternal torment, and Christians would be obligated to accept it. As it turns out, the Bible doesn’t teach the doctrine; it teaches conditionalism—even in the passages Lisle thinks contradict it.
For the reader’s convenience, the texts Lisle discusses are in their canonical order below. Where he treats multiple texts together, or where multiple texts are closely related, I’ve chosen a representative text for the section header and placed the others in parentheses. And because we at Rethinking Hell have dealt with these texts in numerous articles over the years, I’ll cover these only briefly and link to further reading for those interested in a more exhaustive treatment. Nevertheless, there’s a lot of ground to cover, so settle in and buckle up. Continue reading “Refuting the (Astrophysicist) Critics, Part 5: When Astrophysicists Theologize”