Re: Loquat...

There's a huge difference between playing 'devil's advocate' (pun intended) and having a completely closed mind. Contrary to all appearances, my stance is the former, & I was merely sparring with you as a kinda 'test' of the traditional view. I thought you understood that that was the premise of the debate? After all, you're the one who has elected to abandon the historic position, so I'm obliged to defend it as a matter of honour, not out of sheer bloody-mindedness. 

Perhaps you felt we were ganging up on you coz there's two of us & only one of you, but you shouldn't take this personally or feel discouraged. You were actually doing a great job, and so far beating me hands down. Of course, I haven't yet played all my aces, so there was plenty of play left in the 'game'. I've barely started to warm up, & you wanna bail out while you're ahead on points? I hope it's not coz of any perceived sleight from something I said - like the strange company you keep, for example.

Bearing in mind you're no 'expert' (neither am I btw), you are still a great credit to your side of the debate. You've kept your cool under fire, and kept me under constant pressure. But I agree - it is time-consuming, and if your only motive for engaging in this debate was simply to convince us rather than put our respective beliefs to the test in a quest for 'the truth', then taking a time out (at least) may be no bad thing. I can always pursue the debate with your experts when time permits, then report the results back here for all those who are interested.

If your experts manage to 'blow me out of the water' (as you put it), I'm not so intellectually dishonest or arrogant as to still insist on clinging to my discredited views. If I'm proved wrong, I'd be more than happy to admit it - especially on this subject. Who in their right mind would defend such a concept as ECT unless they believed it was revealed truth?

One of your comments is quite revealing though:

I know what I believe on the subject, and it was very freeing to learn the truth about it. 

Hmm............I wonder, 'freeing' how exactly? Coz you no longer feel obliged to defend a 'distasteful' aspect of Christian beilef? Coz you consider it an impediment to evangelism? But doesn't the doctrine of grace also cause offence to the unbeliever, or even the idea of a vicarious sacrifice (1 Cor. 1)? The absolute moralist might even object to divine punishment for a limited period only, so potentially your 'gain' from abandoning the historic position may not be as great as you might think.

It shirley can't be coz it holds any terrors for you personally? So that only leaves one more possibility. You don't like the idea that the bulk of humanity will suffer thus indefinitely. I get that. If that's what awaits them, then why aren't believers in ECT shouting the warnings from the rooftops, right? Good question. But that's another debate.