Monday, April 13, 2015

Further Problems with Clark's Metaphysical View of Persons

I've explained elsewhere why Clark's metaphysical theory of personhood leads to his two-person theory of the Incarnation (here). This two-person theory is flawed because it is manufactured by an illusory problem that it doesn't even solve. If it is a problem for Jesus to be one person, is it not a problem that Jesus is one subject? Or if you can explain why the latter fact isn't a problem, don't you in principle have an explanation for why the former theory needn't be problematic?

I've also explained elsewhere why Clark's theory of persons would imply the unbiblical view that God is metaphysically dependent on creation (here).

Others have pointed out problems with Clark's theory (for example, see here).

I'm going to note a few more problems. But firstly, it isn't clear whether Clark consistently held the same metaphysical view of persons throughout his life. For instance:
Aristotle admitted that individuals cannot be known. Hegel’s fault, or one of them, was to make the concept rather than the propositions the object of knowledge. But a concept is as unknowable as an individual. “Pen” is neither true nor false. Only a proposition can be true. “The pen belongs to Herr Krug” may be true; it may be false; but a concept in isolation is not an object of knowledge. Truth always comes in propositions.  
Two quotations from Leibniz enforced the application of this principle to persons. In fact the citations will do double work. They will show that knowledge of a person is propositions (and thus they bear on what several of my critics consider paradoxical, to wit, persons are propositions), and at the same time they will bring home the lesson from Plotinus that knowledge of oneself is no easy, off-hand, immediate experience, but of all things immensely difficult...  
Far from my making it impossible for God to know human beings, it is rather Professor Nash who does so. His view of the self is that of some Ich-an-sich. Leibniz suggests that the ego is a complex definition, including the life history of the person, and no doubt his state in a future world as well. This definition is not unknowable in essence, and God knows it because he determined what it should be. On the other hand, it is something that the person himself does not know, at least in this life. (Clark and His Critics, 2009, pgs 148-149)
On this view, persons are just propositions. Clark is here silent as to whether or not they are propositions they think, as he argued later in his life:
Accordingly the proposal is that a man is a congeries, a system, sometimes an agglomeration of miscellany, but at any rate a collection of thoughts. A man is what he thinks: and no two men are precisely the same combination. 
This is true of the Trinity also, for although each of the three Persons is omniscient, one thinks “I or my collection of thoughts is the Father,” and the second thinks, “I or my thoughts will assume or have assumed a human nature.” The Father does not think this second thought, nor does the Son think the first. This is the qualitative theory of individuation, as opposed to the space-time theory: No two leaves in the forest are exactly alike, and Leibniz’ Alexander the Great is defined by his history. Even if trees could be individuated by space and time, the persons of the Trinity, as said above, could not; nor could human souls or other spirits.  
Several romantically inclined students, and a few professors as well, have complained that “this makes your wife merely a set of propositions.” Well, so it does. This suits me, for I am a set of propositions too. And those who complain are as they think. (The Trinity, 2010, pg. 129)
The last paragraph does say that persons are propositions, but a problem is that it's a bit too fast. Thoughts don't have to be propositions. We can think about questions or commands, both of which Clark distinguished from propositions yet admitted are necessarily capable of being “understood,” “known,” and “intellectually grasped.” Clark argued that “every declarative sentence – in fact, even questions and commands – are examples of logic” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 24, June 1981, pg. 168). So then which is it? Are we (and the Trinity) merely sets of propositions, or are we also the commands and questions we think?

Let's forget about that for now. Let's say we are what we think - specifically, the propositions we think. But sometimes, we think falsely as well as truly. Clark admits as much himself, including the false propositions we think in our individual, personal definitions as well as the true ones: 
Therefore, since God is Truth, we shall define person, not as a composite of sensory impressions, as Hume did, but rejecting with him the meaningless term substance, we shall define person as a composite of truths. A bit more exactly, since all men make mistakes and believe some falsehoods, the definition must be a composite of propositions. As a man thinketh in his (figurative) heart, so is he. A man is what he thinks... Whether the propositions be true or false, a person is the propositions he thinks (The Incarnation, 1988, pgs. 54-55).
However, given Clark's statements that “No one more than I insists on the necessity of a single self-consistent worldview” (Today’s Evangelism: Counterfeit or Genuine? 1990, pg. 111), doesn't that mean that, metaphysically speaking, we are contradictions? If there is a single, self-consistent worldview, any false thought we have must be contradictory to any true thought we have. The result is that either God doesn't know us or God is a dialetheist, which is about as far removed from Clark's "consistency" theory of truth (Clark and His Critics, 2009, pgs. 142-145, 290-291, etc.) as one could get.

Of course, if one bites the bullet and argues God doesn't have to know us, then Clark's whole motivation for persons metaphysically being propositions in the first place is gone. God either doesn't need to know us or, as I think, we don't have to metaphysically just be propositions in order for God to know us, for what we metaphysically are was determined by God to correspond to some truth which God knows.

Now instead, let's say we are just a set of propositions and disregard what it is that we think. We are a complex definition that God has determined, per the above exposition of Leibniz. In that case, mustn't whatever set of propositions God knows us to be, whatever set of propositions we are, be changeless - which would make us eternal - on pain of making God's knowledge change? As propositions, we must be the objects of God's thoughts; if we change, God's thoughts and knowledge must change. Most Clarkians don't believe God's knowledge can change, but the resultant implication goes much farther than this or even a corollary to a B-series theory of time called eternal creation; in this case, we ourselves would cease to be temporal. We wouldn't change. This is opposed to Clark's own beliefs, and, at any rate, clearly unbiblical.

But suppose we allow that the set of propositions we are changes, and so God's knowledge changes. I've argued elsewhere (without endorsing the view) that God could be eternally omniscient and yet have determined that His knowledge will change in accordance with changes in time. In fact, per the above quote, it seems Clark unwittingly admits this to be the case in the incarnation (“I or my thoughts will assume or have assumed a human nature”). [Lest anyone think Clark's change of view on the incarnation may have affected this, he says on pg. 55 of The Incarnation (1988): “Neither the complex of truths we call the Father nor those we call the Spirit, has the proposition, “I was incarnated.” This proposition occurs only in the Son’s complex.”]

It would take someone extremely committed to Clark's metaphysic of personhood to goes so far as to admit God is temporal just to save it, for he would have to give up Clark's motivations for necessitarianism and divine eternality. Worse, however, I think this view leads to a kind of process theology or divine becoming. For if persons are propositions, the persons of the Trinity must be propositions. And if "the Father is a knower of [person] x as [a set of propositions] y" is true at one time and false at another (corresponding to the time[s] at which He decreed we change as persons), does this not imply metaphysical change on the part of the Father? 

One would have to state that this proposition ("the Father is a knower of [person] x as [a set of propositions] y") isn't essential to or found in the complex definition of the Father at any time (and likewise the Son and Spirit). But then, this implies "the Father is omniscient" isn't to be found in the definition of the Father either, for the truth of this latter proposition hinges on the truth[s] of the former. And then by parity of reasoning, all the other divine attributes appear equally unessential, and thus one couldn't even say that "the Father (or Son or Spirit) is God (or divine)" is essential to their personhood. Clearly this has been ad hoc reasoning for more than a while now, so the view that persons metaphysically just are propositions is problematic too.

16 comments:

Max said...

I can't comment about the "persons as propositions" but here is my input on God's omniscience: God works by logic, and propositions have logical implications. God has certain attributes, so He continually creates according to the implications of those attributes.

This means he has no free will to do otherwise, but it solves the problem of God "knowing an endless time period" because time keeps repeating over and over, according to Ecclesiastes 1:9-10, "What is that which has been? the very thing which shall be: and what is that which has been done? the very thing which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Who is he that shall speak and say, Behold, this is new? it has already been in the ages that have passed before us."

God gains no new knowledge; he sees all the implications of his attibutes, so he creates according to that. What do you think - can you accept that God has no free will? If you will spend an endless time period in the afterlife, how do you explain God's knowledge of this endless time?

Do not compromise on God's unchangeability. I believe it is one of the keys to understanding the whole Bible. (Malachi 3:6) "I am the Lord your God, and I change not."

Ryan said...

I've addressed how God could know an endless time here:

http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2011/12/terminus-to-gods-determination.html

I think God's knowledge is infinite or limitless, but whether there is a terminus to God's determination, I do not know. I don't think it matters. If God's knowledge of math implies His knowledge is infinite, then it seems prima facie plausible He could determine an infinite series. This "dynamic theory" seems more likely to be true to me, for as we never can attain infinite knowledge, I don't think we will reach a point at which God would cut off revealing Himself to us.

Necessitarianism is attractive to me only because it means God doesn't act arbitrarily. I don't think it has a bearing on a question of time or whether God is timeless/temporal.

God is the cause of all things, so whether or not His causation is free, He is either in time because the causal order and temporal order strictly correlate, or He is not necessarily in it because they don't. If they don't, then so long as what differentiates the two orders doesn't have a bearing on whether the causation is free (and I don't see how that would suffice as a differentiation), then God could be timeless yet free.

On the other hand, the incarnation makes plausible the thesis that the Son, at least, is or became temporal. In that case, regardless of whether God is free, a divine person is in time.

Nevertheless, I learn toward divine timelessness and believe a solution to the above paradox can be found. I am undecided on necessitarianism.

Max said...

The guy who convinced me of Necessitarianism is Hosea Ballou. Check out his works. (which are hard to find in print). He converted me into Universalism.

Critique my video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyV-4cqreQ4

Thanks

Ryan said...

I find numerous points of disagreement.

I'm unclear as to whether you think a Christian who sins becomes unsaved. It seems an implication of your statement at the one minute mark. But compare to 1 John 2:1, Philippians 3:12, Romans 7, etc.

At the 5 minute mark, you argue that because God works all things for good, He sees no sin. This doesn't follow. While God intends things for good, we don't. Our intentions matter - you say that if the brothers knew good would result, their actions wouldn't have been sinful. But that's irrelevant, because it just isn't possible for men, which is why Paul says in Romans 3:8 'why not say “Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just.' This isn't about a two-sided perspective; from either perspective, the brothers intended evil and God, the only one capable of effecting what he intends, intended good. So from both perspectives, God does good in His causing sin, while man actually sins. There's a reason it would be unjest for God to save us without having exercised punishment (Romans 3:25-26); speaking of which, you do reject that the Father punished Jesus for our sins? Or do you think the Father punished Jesus for no reason? Neither one is biblical.

At 6:30, I don't know what you mean by an "emotional hatred of sin." God's disposition towards sin never changes. He always hates it. But the same goes for the reprobate. He always loves the elect, yet He hates their sin; there is no tension because He will change us and knows such. There would be tension if God hated anyone and then loved them, for nothing in us could effect such a change; God Himself would have had to change His plan, not of salvation (which is not the ultimate end of all things), but His plan to be glorified, whether through punishment of sinners or salvation/rewarding of His sinless people. You later say this was an old objection which was bad, and now you think God hates and loves simultaneously. I don't think this addresses the dichotomy between Jacob and Esau; Paul didn't say He loved Jacob but hated (and loved) Esau, it is pretty cut and dry what he means, and in a context about salvation no less.

You mention 1 Timothy 2:4 and connect it to 1 John 2:2. Why didn't you connect that with John 11:51-52, which makes it clearer John is referring to all men without distinction (not exception)? I'm not sure how you addressed the distinction in 1 Timothy 4:10 of *especially.* If we are all saved eventually, then whether or not we're saved in this lifetime (a concept which isn't hinted at in the verse) is irrelevant.

Ryan said...

You are correct about certain instances of anthropomorthic language, but this isn't one.

I don't think you sufficiently addressed the passages in which unbelievers are explicitly said to be eternally punished (Revelation 20). Also, parables have literal meaning, so what was the literal meaning of the parable of the rich man? Bible commentaries say it was a reference to Hell, because not everyone (myself included) believes in the soul sleep doctrine. Or what about Judas, about whom Jesus said it would have been better for him if he'd never been born? How does this make sense if he'll be saved later?

And by parity of reasoning, you are suggesting that believer's do not inherit eternal life when you argue unbelievers haven't merited eternal (αἰώνιον) punishment/death. The question is about what the word means in the context of the afterlife, and whether you have justification for arguing one meaning for one people and another for another people within that same context. You don't really provide any.

Romans 6 is about believers, not unbelievers.

I'm not a full preterist, that position strikes me as absurd. On the other hand, the subject isn't interesting to me, as I know it is to some people fascinated by eschatology, so I doubt I will have anything to say on your apparent video about it.

Max said...

Thanks for your comments; I will make a full response eventually, but not soon, unfortunately. I will only say that I do not believe God loves and hates someone in the same sense at the same time; because you said:

"You later say this was an old objection which was bad, and now you think God hates and loves simultaneously."

I believe "God loves everyone" [in that sense of "love"] at all times.

Ryan said...

My mistake then, I may have misheard. Nevertheless, in that case, I think the old interpretation you seem to have held - that God hates some (reprobates) and loves others (elect) - is biblical.

Max said...

I will respond to you in bite-size chunks: Regarding your comment about "full preterism": I renamed my own blog, "investigation into Full Preterism" because I have changed my views on OT prophecy, (as I said at the start of my video), and rethinking my interpretations, due to the words of Jesus himself, "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished." (Lu 18:31). And again after he rose: "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." (Lu 24:25-27). And what eschatological prophecies are not about Jesus? Further, "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matt 5:17).

And "after this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (John 19:28-30). And it seems this is based on logic, because the death of Christ implies his resurrection, and his resurrection implies his ascension, and so on. Paul agrees in his speech in Acts 13:

"For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead: and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." (Acts 13:27-33).

So, if all Christians believe that Jesus died and rose again, in some way they must all be "full preterists" according to those texts, I think. I will say no more of eschatology, but you made other good points that I will address, maybe tomorrow.

Ryan said...

The texts you cite would require, if read consistently with your view, that Jesus have actually fulfilled all prophecies by the time of the resurrection. But then you can't include events which occurred some 40 years later in that context, as you do.

I think it makes more sense to read those verses as arguing that in Christ's death and resurrection, His work secured everything needed according to which the OT prophecies would be fulfilled in the time to come.

Max said...

"The texts you cite would require, if read consistently with your view, that Jesus have actually fulfilled all prophecies by the time of the resurrection."

Yes, that is what I think, is true.

"But then you can't include events which occurred some 40 years later in that context, as you do."

Unless multiple fulfillments of the same prophecies are possible! I know for sure that the apostles applied a single prophetic statement to two different events, but sadly I can't remember which prophecy it was... maybe from Isaiah, or Joel, or Malachi. I'd have to re-read the New Testament to find out.

"I'm unclear as to whether you think a Christian who sins becomes unsaved."

Yes, that is my view.

"But compare to 1 John 2:1, Philippians 3:12, Romans 7, etc."

In 1 John 2:1, I only see there is a possibility of Christians committing sin. In Php 3:12 Paul says he's not perfect, and Romans 7 agrees, which is about Paul's Christian life and the inner conflict between flesh and spirit (compare Galatians 5:17). Not perfect means liable to sin.

Ryan said...

"In 1 John 2:1, I only see there is a possibility of Christians committing sin."

Nevertheless, the point is that Christ will advocate for us if that happens. Speaking of which, can you explain these verses:

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Does not Jesus' sacrifice cover or account for every sin we will ever commit? How else would it be "for all time," given you think people can some time after coming to faith fall away from salvation. On that note, do you think a former Christian can die in sin, or will he always repent? Also:

Hebrews 10:18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Unless you think Jesus offers Himself more than once, which is contrary to the whole purpose of Hebrews, I don't see how atonement can be re-applied to a "backsliding Christian" (who I guess you would say is no longer saved).

Max said...

"Nevertheless, the point is that Christ will advocate for us if that happens."

Those Christians can become unsaved, but Christ still is their advocate.

"Speaking of which, can you explain these verses: Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Does not Jesus' sacrifice cover or account for every sin we will ever commit? How else would it be "for all time," given you think people can some time after coming to faith fall away from salvation."
"Also: Hebrews 10:18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. Unless you think Jesus offers Himself more than once, which is contrary to the whole purpose of Hebrews, I don't see how atonement can be re-applied to a "backsliding Christian" (who I guess you would say is no longer saved)."

My view of forgiveness of sins is, when a person does good, they are forgiven. According to (Ezekiel 18:21-22) "if the transgressor turn away from all his iniquities which he has done, and keep all my commandments, and do justice and mercy, he shall surely live, and shall by no means die. None of his trespasses which he has done shall be remembered." This is how atonement can be applied to Christians again; by looking at Christ, their sins are gone. Christ is the only way, for all time, to get rid of their sins; even if they should fall. Also I don't see the word "time" (χρονος) in there; I see the word τετελειωκεν which means "has perfected." Even then, I don't think it makes a difference in my view...

Atonement is to reconcile us to God, not God to us: (Rom 5:10) "for if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." God is not angry with us. If you see God's anger in the Bible, it's an "anthropomorphism." But before we were reconciled, we were angry with God.

"On that note, do you think a former Christian can die in sin, or will he always repent?"

They can die in sin, but they can be forgiven in the afterlife. I will elaborate later.

Ryan said...

"Those Christians can become unsaved, but Christ still is their advocate."

Are you saying that Christ Advocates for everyone without exception rather than His children alone? That's not what John says, either in 1 John 2 or the parallel passage, John 11.

"My view of forgiveness of sins is, when a person does good, they are forgiven. According to (Ezekiel 18:21-22)"

That has to do with physical, not spiritual, death. The atonement has to do with the latter.

"Also I don't see the word "time" (χρονος) in there; I see the word τετελειωκεν which means "has perfected." Even then, I don't think it makes a difference in my view..."

It makes a difference because you're stating they can become imperfect... implying they weren't perfect in the first place.

"Atonement is to reconcile us to God, not God to us"

It's both:

2 Corinthians 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

"God is not angry with us. If you see God's anger in the Bible, it's an "anthropomorphism." But before we were reconciled, we were angry with God."

God can't justly forgive sin without a punishment for it (Romans 3:25-26). Forgiveness of sin requires sacrifice (Hebrews 9:22). In saying a Christian can become unsaved, you're implying Christ's sacrifice was no better than that of the OT high priests (7:27). He only had to make one offering for our sins, one sacrifice. He only had to shed His blood once. Stating we need to be re-forgiven after every sin implies Christ needs to continually shed His blood, sacrifice Himself, offer Himself. This is completely contrary to Hebrews.

Max said...

You win for now. It is evident I need to do more study - not reading fallible men's writings, but the Scriptures.

I will only say regarding 2 Cor 5:19, that it agrees with what I say: God reconciles men to himself; not himself to men. To me it's strange to think of God being reconciled to us; that sort of implies He is changeable.

Max said...

Ok I'm back. I don't think 1 John 2:1 is saying that Jesus is like a lawyer in heaven asking God to forgive sins. First I disagree with the translation of "advocate" for the word παρακλητον, I prefer "comforter" instead, so I interpret the passage like: "If any of us sin, we have a comforter, Jesus Christ the righteous, [who draws us closer] to the Father." Yes, I think this would be parallel to the next verse about him being the propitiation for the world. So yes he is the "comforter" of the world. But I am not saying "the elect" and "the church" in the NT are synonyms for "all mankind" - obviously they are not. Still, universalism is unharmed.

Regarding John 11:49-52, I never thought that it might be a parallel to 1 John 2:2, but if your view is right, then it seems that Jesus would only have died for Jews in all nations of the world, not for Gentiles.

If Ezekiel 18:21-22 is about physical death, why does v. 21 say that the sinner who would die, would not die if he repents? Wouldn't he already be physically dead? V. 22 says the person's sins would no longer be remembered.

For me, the meaning of God forgetting someone's sins is that this takes place in the mind of the one who receives the atonement; not in the mind of God which is unchangeable. It is a paradigm shift about God, so that the person who formerly saw God as keeping track of their sins and ready to punish, would see God's true purpose of forgiveness and have the sensation that God forgot all of their old sins, and so that person receives the Atonement, as Paul said in Romans 5.

You said: "At the 5 minute mark, you argue that because God works all things for good, He sees no sin. This doesn't follow."

I mean: if all God does (causes) is good, then He does not see any evil in what He does (causes). I think He causes His creatures to think evil against Him and their fellow creatures, and from the creatures' view, they know it to be sin. To me this makes sense.

You said: "While God intends things for good, we don't. Our intentions matter - you say that if the brothers knew good would result, their actions wouldn't have been sinful. But that's irrelevant, because it just isn't possible for men, which is why Paul says in Romans 3:8 'why not say "Let us do evil that good may come"? Their condemnation is just.'"

I agree that it's not possible to foresee the consequences of our actions, and I agree that our intentions matter, but I don't get your quotation of Rom 3:8 - I think maybe Paul's point is that doing evil that good may come is not possible? Evil seems to bring more and more evil.

You said: "This isn't about a two-sided perspective; from either perspective, the brothers intended evil and God, the only one capable of effecting what he intends, intended good. So from both perspectives, God does good in His causing sin, while man actually sins."

I agree that the brothers intended evil, and God caused them to intend this evil, but I think it really is about a two-sided perspective; God's perspective and the perspective of the flesh. God always wins.

Max said...

You said: "At 6:30, I don't know what you mean by an "emotional hatred of sin."

By "emotional hatred" I just mean anger.

You said: "God's disposition towards sin never changes. He always hates it. But the same goes for the reprobate. He always loves the elect, yet He hates their sin; there is no tension because He will change us and knows such. There would be tension if God hated anyone and then loved them, for nothing in us could effect such a change; God Himself would have had to change His plan, not of salvation (which is not the ultimate end of all things), but His plan to be glorified, whether through punishment of sinners or salvation/rewarding of His sinless people."

I agree except I think God loves "the reprobate" too. Please define reprobate (and use Scriptures). You should acknowledge that the words "love" and "hate" can have multiple meanings in Scripture when applied to God. Otherwise you won't get my points in the video.

You said: "I'm not sure how you addressed the distinction in 1 Timothy 4:10 of *especially.* If we are all saved eventually, then whether or not we're saved in this lifetime (a concept which isn't hinted at in the verse) is irrelevant."

For me it makes sense, because in the afterlife, people don't have physical bodies, and in my view of soteriology/anthropology their salvation is less remarkable than the salvation of one who was a slave to sin and their flesh.

You said: "You are correct about certain instances of anthropomorthic language, but this isn't one."

Which one?

You said: "I don't think you sufficiently addressed the passages in which unbelievers are explicitly said to be eternally punished (Revelation 20)."

I find the argument weak because when the words "never" "everlasting" "eternal" are applied to an object, if either of the two variables ceases to exist, the other ceases also. For example, "The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out." (Lev 6:13). Now this is true as long as the altar and the fire both exist at once.

2 Samuel 12:10: "The sword shall never depart from [David's] house." That is, as long as "the sword" or "the house of David" both exist. Two variables are also found in Rev 20:10 - "the devil that deceived them" and "tormented day and night." If one of those ceases to be, the other does too; so to prove the traditional doctrine, the text would have to assert the endless existence of one or the other, but it does not.

You said: "what about Judas, about whom Jesus said it would have been better for him if he'd never been born? How does this make sense if he'll be saved later?"

Jesus's statement about Judas makes sense when compared with a passage like 2 Peter 2:21-22, and it makes sense with the realization that it's possible for someone to lose their faith, or make shipwreck of it, like in 1 Tim 1:19.

You said: "And by parity of reasoning, you are suggesting that believer's do not inherit eternal life when you argue unbelievers haven't merited eternal (aionion) punishment/death. The question is about what the word means in the context of the afterlife, and whether you have justification for arguing one meaning for one people and another for another people within that same context. You don't really provide any."

As light is greater than darkness, life is greater than death, so while the punishment and spiritual death would eventually cease, I would argue that eternal life must go on.

You said: "Romans 6 is about believers, not unbelievers."

Are you referring to my quote of Romans 6:7? It seems Paul is making a statement which applies to anyone. There are 4 things you said that I didn't address, because I just don't know.