Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

But Homer, there is not one person here who has ever said anything like, "I don't care what the scripture says about hell, I'm going with my hunches here." Where are you finding a parallel?

Here is where I find the parallel in what you said:

This is, indeed, allowing one's experiences and sentiments to shape theology in an unhealthy way.

It has seemed obvious to me that universalists are influenced by how they feel about the idea of hell. Many of them have completely denied there is any hell.

You also said:

Every smart person allows his theology to be shaped, somewhat, by his experience. That is one thing that keeps our theology connected to reality. For example, my having children of my own worked on my own understanding of God's character as a father. As a result, I have seen certain verses about God's dealings with His sinful children differently (more accuratey, I think) than I had previously. Those whose minds are always full of scripture cannot help but to re-examine relevant scriptures in light of new experiences.

You appear to acknowledge here that a person who has someone near and dear to them, who is an unbeliever, can be influenced in their understanding of scripture by this fact.

—If hell is not according to the traditional doctrine, then justice is not done to men like Hugh Hefner (apparently an example of a man living an enviable life, if no hell were to exist?);

Paul did not say "if hell is not according to traditional doctrine", but he said something similar:

1 Corinthians 15:32
If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantages it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

Paul apparently had the Epicurians in mind, with whom Hefner would have fit well.

—God alone is not sufficiently attractive to motivate anyone, without additional threats of eternal torment, to be drawn to Him;

The suggestion that a person is not saved if they are motivated to become a Christian by the fear of hell is pious sounding but appears to be in contradiction to what Jesus said:

John 3:14-15, NKJV
14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
15. "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

Jesus likens the incident where the people were dying from snakebite to the salvation people will find in Him! The snakebitten people were motivated by their self-interest.

Every person who has challenged the traditional doctrine of hell at this forum has done so on the basis of scripture—far more appeal to scripture, in fact, than anyone has credibly brought up in support of the traditional doctrine.

And I am reminded of the discussion of Matthew 25:46. As Campbell pointed out in his debate with Dolphus Skinner, the universalist demolishes eternal life as he demolishes hell. There is no escaping, if there are any rules of language, the antithetic parallelism of Jesus' statement; the statement is straightforward. Yet universalists seem to have no end of implausible arguments against something so plain. Just as in the parable of the unmerciful servant, where Joachim Jeremias stated that Jesus never intended to leave any possibility the man would ever get out, you suggest that someone might bail him out.

All the while, not a single verse of scripture unambiguously affirming that sinners will be tormented eternally can be presented.

And the scripture that speaks of men being saved in hell is.......?

[steve]

Hi Homer,

As I said, no statements of scripture teach the traditonal doctrine of eternal torment.

Your treatment of Matthew 25:46 (notwithstanding the opinion of Campbell) is not exegetical. Both conditionalism and universalism can make as good use of the term aionios as can the traditionalist. The conditionalist actually has a much more exegetical approach to this verse than does the traditionalist.

Anyone can prove for himself, by recourse to the usage in scripture, that aionios is often better translated as "enduring" than as "everlasting." There is no way that, by placing enduring punishment in juxtaposition with enduring life, one has done anything to display an equivalence of duration for the two, nor demolished the eternality of salvation.

To say otherwise is wishful thinking, not exegesis nor logic. One might speak of an age-old hostility between the Jews and the Arabs, and also an age-old family feud between Hatfields and McCoys, without implying that both conflicts have endured for the same period. It's common sense—something too many theologians throw aside in favor of supporting a tradition.

I do not need Dr. Jeremias to tell me what a passage does or does not say, when I can read it with my own eyes. Once you put aside the commentators, and read the actual words of the passage, you may see things more clearly. If Jesus wished to say the man entered a prison from which no release will ever be possible, then He could have said so (the incarnate Word had a pretty good command of language, which is why I trust His actual statements). To the chagrin of those taking your position, He deliberately chose a phrase that implies the opposite.

However, these points have been debated at length in other threads. I have not been impressed with the clearness or objectivity of your reasoning on the relevant texts, nor with your need to cite traditionalist authorities instead of dealing with the actual words of the passages under consideration. Doing biblical exegesis is your personal privilege, why delegate it to others?

In any case, I have no trouble admitting that my experience has helped me to look at certain passages through new eyes. Doesn't your experience ever have that effect on you? It seems that God expects us to learn something by experience. This has not led to a more careless exegesis on my part, but to a much more careful exegesis, stripped of certain former traditional biases. This does not mean that I have now reached full knowledge of any subject, but it means my study is much more clear-headed than before. If you would talk to someone who once was a Roman Catholic, but who is now an evangelical, I think you would find him making similar claims about his improved understanding of scripture, after becoming free from blinding traditions.

Where are the passages about repentance in hell, you ask? I know of none. I also know of none that rule out such a possibility. Do you?

I do know of passages that speak of God's desire that all would come to repentance—but none that say that God has arbitrarily placed a limitation on that possibility at the point of death—thus guaranteeing that God loses all further opportunity, thereafter, to get what he wants from His creation. If the Bible spoke of such a limitation, I would embrace it. Without such a counterintuitive statement existing in scripture, however, I find it difficult to believe that God would, without any coercion from outside Himself, create a system that unnecessarily sets Himself up for eternal disappointment.

You find arguments like this one unsatisfying, because it is (as you would say) "philosophical." I would be more inclined to call it "theological." Absent actual statements from the Bible explaining these things, in my judgment, being reasonable beats being absurd every time. Isn't the employment of such logic exactly the way most of us derive our doctrine of the trinity?

In order to affirm the traditional viewpoint, one must assert either (1) that man is naturally immortal, or else (2) that God will specifically make sinners immortal after the judgment for the sole vindictive purpose of guaranteeing that their suffering will never be relieved.

Of these options,

(1) is flatly contradicted by many scriptures (e.g., 1 Tim.6:16; Rom.2:7; John 3:16; etc.).

(2) creates, without scriptural warrant, an unnecessarily vindictive god—one exactly the opposite of the Father described by, and revealed in, Jesus (e.g., Matt.5:44-48; Luke 6:35-36; 15:17-32; etc.).

To which of these two unscriptural positions do you prescribe—and by what exegesis might you hope to defend it?

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

As I said, no statements of scripture teach the traditonal doctrine of eternal torment.

That is only opinion. But, as I have said repeatedly, I contend neither for the traditional view or the annihilationalist view. My contention is that universalism is false.

Your treatment of Matthew 25:46 (notwithstanding the opinion of Campbell) is not exegetical. Both conditionalism and universalism can make as good use of the term aionios as can the traditionalist. The conditionalist actually has a much more exegetical approach to this verse than does the traditionalist.

Are you sure you mean "much more exegetical" rather than, in your opinion, "correct" or accurate"? Anyone who disagrees with you can say your exegesis is poor. I do not know if you have read the Tom Talbott/Glenn Peoples debate. You indicated you were impressed with Talbott. If Talbott is a capable exegete of scripture he sure wasn't didn't show it with his implausable arguments against Peoples.

Anyone can prove for himself, by recourse to the usage in scripture, that aionios is often better translated as "enduring" than as "everlasting." There is no way that, by placing enduring punishment in juxtaposition with enduring life, one has done anything to display an equivalence of duration for the two, nor demolished the eternality of salvation.

So you are arguing that Jesus' statement is not an antithetical parallelism?

To say otherwise is wishful thinking, not exegesis nor logic. I may speak of an age-old hostility between Israel and the Arabs, and also an age-old family feud between Hatfields and McCoys, without implying that both conflicts have endured for the same period. It's common sense—something too many theologians throw aside in favor of supporting a tradition.

Your illustration of the Arab/Israel hostility and Hatfield/McCoy feuds is irrelevant. How could that be stated in the form of an antithetic parallel?

I do not need Dr. Jeremias to tell me what a passage does or does not say, when I can read it with my own eyes. Once you put aside the commentators, and read the actual words of the passage, you may see things more clearly.

You suffer from no lack of confidence in your ability. Greg Taylor (contributor to Christianity Today) commented in his review of "Two Views of Hell":
".....we ought to let scripture interpret itself. The caveat of this, however, is that scripture does not interpret itself. Humans interpret scripture. And we interpret it imperfectly. So we do our imperfect best to be faithful to scripture while drawing on what others have legitimately believed in the past."

If Jesus wished to say the man entered a prison from which no release will ever be possible, then He could have said so (the incarnate Word had a pretty good command of language, which is why I trust His actual statements). To the chagrin of those taking your position, He deliberately chose a phrase that implies the opposite.

So you think Jesus' description of the enormous debt, a debt beyond imagination, would have left the impression on His hearers that the debt could be paid? Can we somehow pay for the sin of unforgiveness? In regard to the teaching expressed by Jesus regarding forgiveness I once heard a popular preacher (OSAS) on the radio say "Jesus didn't really mean it - or at least I don't think He did".

In any case, I have no trouble admitting that my experience has helped me to look at certain passages through new eyes. Doesn't your experience ever have that effect on you?

That can be dangerous. People excuse all sorts of sins by looking at scripture through "new eyes". There is a liberal church in a nearby city that is very good at it. The gays are happy there; having a gay child can have the effect you described. But the truth doesn't change.

Where are the passages about repentance in hell. you ask? I know of none. I also know of none that rule out such a possibility. Do you?

So we can legitimately preach the idea? Surely we have no commission to do so. Can we go beyond "He that believeth not will be damned" and be considered faithful messengers? That should be taken seriously.

I do know of passages that speak of God's desire that all would come to repentance—but none that say that God has arbitrarily placed a limitation on that possibility at the point of death—thus guaranteeing that God loses all further opportunity, thereafter, to get what he wants from His creation. If the Bible spoke of such a limitation, I would embrace it. Without such a counterintuitive statement existing in scripture, however, I find it difficult to believe that God would, without any coercion from outside Himself, create a system that unnecessarily sets Himself up for eternal disappointment.

You appear to believe your idea of the seriousness of sin and God's justice precludes God from doing anything other than saving everybody, else He will never be happy or He is not good.

You find arguments like this one unsatisfying, because it is "philosophical" (I would be more inclined to call it "theological"). Absent actual statements from the Bible explaining these things, I think being reasonable beats being absurd 100% of the time. Isn't the employment of such logic exactly the way most of us derive our doctrine of the trinity?

Who and what do you consider "being absurd 100% of the time"? That is quite a charge, beneath you.

In order to affirm the traditional viewpoint, one must assert either 1) that man is naturally immortal, or else 2) that God will specifically make sinners immortal after the judgment for the sole vindictive purpose of guaranteeing that their suffering will never be relieved.

Of these options,

(1) is flatly contradicted by many scriptures (e.g., 1 Tim.6:16; Rom.2:7; John 3:16; etc.).

(2) creates, without scriptural warrant, an unnecessarily vindictive god—one exactly the opposite of the Father described by, and revealed in, Jesus (e.g., Matt.5:44-48; Luke 6:35-36; 15:17-32; etc.).

Many good and learned men would disagree with you on #1. And whether God would be "unnecessarily vindictive" is your opinion. I will trust Him to do what is right, and I am confident it will be right in any case.

[steve]

Hi Homer,

I wrote:

As I said, no statements of scripture teach the traditonal doctrine of eternal torment.

You wrote:

That is only opinion. But, as I have said repeatedly, I contend neither for the traditional view or the annihilationalist view. My contention is that universalism is false.

I guess it is easier to say, about a universal negative assertion like mine, "That is only opinion" than it is to produce one example of a scripture that would disprove the assertion.

You say you are not advocating any particular teaching of scripture on hell—an admission that you don't know what the scripture teaches on this matter. I make the same admission. But both of us are willing to affirm that there is something on the subject which the Bible doesn't teach—to you, it's universalism; to me, it's the traditional doctrine.

Since there are numerous passages (at your request, I once listed, I believe, about 50), which provide prima facie evidence for universalism (an even larger number can be adduced for annihilationism) and very few—possibly five—that provide prima facie evidence for the traditional doctrine, it seems that the job of disproving the tradition is considerably smaller than that of disproving universalism. It takes a short time to examine five verses, but much longer to discount the apparent teaching of 50. Have you put in the time to do that, before reaching your conclusion so confidently?

I do not know if you have read the Tom Talbott/Glenn Peoples debate. You indicated you were impressed with Talbott. If Talbott is a capable exegete of scripture he sure wasn't didn't show it with his implausable arguments against Peoples.

I have not read it, but it is on my list! I don't think I ever referred to Talbot as an exegete, and since you are responding to my statement about the superior exegesis of annihilationists, it would seem that your example makes my point for me.

So you are arguing that Jesus' statement is not an antithetical parallelism?...Your illustration of the Arab/Israel hostility and Hatfield/McCoy feuds is irrelevant. How could that be stated in the form of an antithetic parallel?

If my example was not satisfactory (I believe it made my point well enough), then I will give one that fits the criteria of "antithetical parallelism":

"Jim and I have a longstanding friendship, but Phil and I have suffered a longstanding alienation."

Since "longstanding" is a very fair translation of the Hebrew olam and the Greek aionios, this is almost an exact parallel to Jesus' statement in terms of the function of aionios in the sentence.

In the above sentence, we have a perfect "antithetical parallelism." Are you going to tell me that a linguist, working from this sentence alone, would be able to declare that my friendship with Jim and my alienation from Phil have existed for the same length of time? Of course not. Grammatically, the situation is exactly parallel in Matthew 25:46.

You wrote:

You suffer from no lack of confidence in your ability. Greg Taylor (contributor to Christianity Today) commented in his review of "Two Views of Hell":
".....we ought to let scripture interpret itself. The caveat of this, however, is that scripture does not interpret itself. Humans interpret scripture. And we interpret it imperfectly. So we do our imperfect best to be faithful to scripture while drawing on what others have legitimately believed in the past."

Where was Greg Taylor when Luther needed this advice? Advice like this could have saved Luther (and the Catholics!) a lot of trouble!

Or how about Alexander Campbell? Didn't he reject the centuries-long tradition of infant baptism? Did he place too much "confidence in [his] ability" to exegete scripture? Or did he just place his confidence in scripture, and exegete it logically, on the assumption that a common man can understand the words written for the benefit of common men?

You wrote:
So you think Jesus' description of the enormous debt, a debt beyond imagination, would have left the impression on His hearers that the debt could be paid? Can we somehow pay for the sin of unforgiveness?

No, we don't have to pay for our sin. According to the parable, we only have to forgive—but we really must do that. It is the only debt owed by a forgiven person. According to the parable, after the king forgave the man's initial debt, his only remaining debt was to forgive his fellow servant (cf., Rom.13:8).

It is bizarre exegesis to take words that say, "You must remain here until you have met such-and-such conditions," and then to argue that the statement is affirming an unconditionally endless tenure. The very words themselves deny this! The only way that you or Jeremias can construe it to mean such a thing is to argue that the original debt was reimposed on the man, and that there is no way the man could ever pay the debt. How do you know this? Jesus did not say or imply it.

We are only informed that the man was unable to pay the original debt when it came due.There is no hint given about the man's actual resources on hand—how near or far they may have fallen short. There is no discussion of his ability to beg or borrow from others in order to repay the king. The question of his ability to eventually repay is left entirely out of the parable, and cannot be assumed one way or the other for the purpose of making a preferred polemical point.

You speak of the man's original obligations as "enormous debt, a debt beyond imagination"—yet, if we are to take the story seriously, Jesus is talking about a degree of indebtedness into which a real man might conceivably fall. A man who can get into billions of dollars of debt is generally not a poor man. He deals with large sums. He has rich connections. He himself appealed to the king on the basis that, if the king could be patient, he could come up with all the money owed. How do you know this was not true? The king did not call him a liar.

All that Jesus said was the man would be imprisoned until he had met his obligation. Whether the man would actually, someday, be able to get out on these terms is left unmentioned and is outside the range of the parable's concerns. If the meaning was that this man could never, under any circumstances, satisfy the king's demands, and gain his freedom, then Jesus could have said "he delivered him to torturers forever," instead of "until he should pay."

It is not the point of the parable to teach that an unforgiving man will necessarily suffer for eternity. If that was the point that Jesus hoped to get across, He certainly told the wrong story in the wrong way, because His story fails to make, or even to imply, that message. What the parable does teach is that we must forgive. We have indeed been forgiven an "enormous debt," and, by comparison, any debt of others to us is relatively small. If we fail to forgive, there will be consequences that will remain until we do forgive.

As I have told you before, I see nothing in the parable that suggests we are looking at postmortem consequences at all. Where do you find this indication? It was not Jesus' object to counsel despair to His hearers (who happened to be the twelve—Peter, in particular), but to communicate that God requires that forgiven men should forgive others, and that those who do not forgive will smart for it until they do.

By the way, the traditional view of this passage, held by theologians for many centuries, sees it as a reference to Purgatory. How can you and Jeremias be so bold as to disagree with "what others have legitimately believed in the past"?

Clearly, in using this passage to prove purgatory, the Catholic Church interpreted the key phrase in Jesus' statement ("until he should pay") as I am—namely, that there is the possibility of the man's being released upon payment of the debt. You and Jeremias think the clear teaching is otherwise. Fine! Church history stands against you on this. But you don't care what tradition says, so why should I? Let's deal with the words of scripture themselves. Anyone can line up any number of "authorities" on either side of the aisle. What does that prove?

You wrote:

That [i.e., seeing the scriptures through "new eyes"] can be dangerous. People excuse all sorts of sins by looking at scripture through "new eyes". There is a liberal church in a nearby city that is very good at it. The gays are happy there; having a gay child can have the effect you described. But the truth doesn't change.

I don't have a gay child, but I have offspring who are sinners. If one of my children's temptations were toward gay sex, there is no reason to think that I would be tempted to redefine marriage or sexual sin in order to accommodate him or her. I have not been inclined thus to justify any of their other sins (nor my own). There is no parallel here, I am afraid. I am committed to scripture. The liberal churches are not.

I have always had unsaved friends whom I cared about—my children were not the first. My change of views about what the Bible teaches on this is not a direct consequence of my having children, but of biblical study. Like yourself, I have never found the traditional doctrine of hell pleasant, yet, in over thirty years of teaching, these sentiments never moved me one inch away from the traditional view of hell.

What having children did for me was to help me see through the eyes of a father, and to read the Bible in the proper light as a revelation of a Father to His children. It seems that Jesus was at pains to get us to do this very thing. It actually brought consistency to doctrines that I had formerly seen to be in tension with each other. I could see God the way Jesus taught us to see Him, rather than the way that the Pharisees and all religionists see Him. This did not change any of my opinions about sin, but it certainly made the Father-heart of God more understandable. Is that a bad thing? You decide. I rejoice in it.

I wrote:

Where are the passages about repentance in hell. you ask? I know of none. I also know of none that rule out such a possibility. Do you?

You replied:

So we can legitimately preach the idea? Surely we have no commission to do so. Can we go beyond "He that believeth not will be damned" and be considered faithful messengers? That should be taken seriously.

You have never heard me advocating the preaching of universalism (nor annihilationism)—though you certainly know that I would never approve preaching the traditional doctrine of hell, since it is a slander against the Father of Jesus Christ. I believe we are to preach the Gospel—by definition, that is the Good Tidings! Hell has never been a part of that message, in the New Testament. Hell is the opposite of Good Tidings.

Whom do you know who is not taking hell "seriously"? If someone simply parrots a traditional teaching, is that taking the subject seriously? I think the person who analyzes every biblical reference to a topic, even allowing the scriptures to correct traditions, is the only person taking the subject with sufficient seriousness.

I do know of passages that speak of God's desire that all would come to repentance—but none that say that God has arbitrarily placed a limitation on that possibility at the point of death—thus guaranteeing that God loses all further opportunity, thereafter, to get what he wants from His creation. If the Bible spoke of such a limitation, I would embrace it. Without such a counterintuitive statement existing in scripture, however, I find it difficult to believe that God would, without any coercion from outside Himself, create a system that unnecessarily sets Himself up for eternal disappointment.

You wrote:

You appear to believe your idea of the seriousness of sin and God's justice precludes God from doing anything other than saving everybody, else He will never be happy or He is not good.

God is always good—but not everything makes Him happy. We know from His own statements what would make Him happy. If He brings about such circumstances as would make Him happy, who can say that wouldn't be "good"? God can do whatever He wishes, but He cannot wish to do that which is contrary to His character. That should be obvious enough.

You wrote:

"being absurd 100% of the time"? That is quite a charge, beneath you.

You misread my statement. I changed it to make my original meaning clearer. I was not referring to anyone being "absurd 100% of the time." I said being reasonable beats being absurd (how often does being reasonable beat being absurd?)—100% of the time. Don't you agree with this statement? Since it was misunderstood, I edited it to, hopefully, make its meaning clearer.

You wrote:

Many good and learned men would disagree with you on #1 [that God alone is immortal].

I am sure there are many good and learned men who believe Mary is co-redemptrix with Christ (Mother Theresa apparently believed this). I don't decide what is true by consulting good and learned men alone. Almost any heresy can be confirmed by following such a policy. Let them exegete 1 Timothy 6:16 for us, and then we can decide, not how good, but how learned they are.

You wrote:

And whether God would be "unnecessarily vindictive" is your opinion. I will trust Him to do what is right, and I am confident it will be right in any case.

A very admirable attitude. I share it. However, I am not going to affirm any seemingly-wicked attribute or action to God without His informing me that this is indeed accurate. Since there is no doctrine in scripture that accuses Him of tormenting His enemies endlessly, I don't have to worry that this will be one of those things I will have to declare "right."

I have complained to you before about your bringing up the same refuted points in endless cycles, without dealing objectively with the arguments raised to challenge you. I don't want to be drawn into a skirmish over old arguments already beaten to death. I am not retired, so I don't have time to repeat the same things to the same person endlessly. I have a lot of work to do, so don't be offended if you keep up the argumentation and I don't show up.

Blessings!

[Homer]

Hi steve,

While there is much that could be responded to in your last post, I will limit my response to one thing for now; I know you are busy.

You wrote:

If my example was not satisfactory (I believe it made my point well enough), then I will give one that fits the criteria of "antithetical parallelism":

"Jim and I have a longstanding friendship, but Phil and I have suffered a longstanding alienation."

Since "longstanding" is a very fair translation of the Hebrew olam and the Greek aionios, this is almost an exact parallel to Jesus' statement in terms of the function of aionios in the sentence.

In the above sentence, we have a perfect "antithetical parallelism." Are you going to tell me that a linguist, working from this sentence alone, would be able to declare that my friendship with Jim and my alienation from Phil have existed for the same length of time? Of course not. Grammatically, the situation is exactly parallel in Matthew 25:46.

You have made my point!!! In your illustration both cases are of indefinite, or limited, duration.

Aionios appears some 66 times in the New Testament; Matthew 25:46 does not leave the linguist with one verse alone. Of those 66, 51 times it informs us of the duration of the glory and happiness of the saints. Twice it refers to God's existence. Six times it refers to the Kingdom of the Messiah and the Church, and seven times to the future state of the wicked. If we assign the meaning of indefinite or limited duration to the future punishment of the wicked, how consistent are we if we assign a meaning of unlimited duration to the future state of the saved? The saved can know no more than that they will be happy as long as the lost are punished. If the laws of interpretation and language have any application aionios must mean the same thing, especially when used twice in the same sentence.

[steve]

Homer,

If you think I made your point, you didn't pay attention to my argument.

To say that something is "longstanding" does not say whether it is unending or not. My friendship to Jim might indeed prove to extend into eternity, whereas my alienation from Phil might not. Such details are not addressed by the use of the word "aionios" alone, which has the same meaning in Greek as longstanding (I have devoted half a chapter in my book to an examination of "aionios" in the biblical Greek. I'll gladly send you a copy when it is in print).

Something that is "aionios" may or may not last forever. Two things, both of which are "aionios" are not necessarily of the same duration. One might be endless and the other not. The word "aionios" is too general to settle the question.

[john6809]

Steve wrote, "Since there are numerous passages (at your request, I once listed, I believe, about 50), which provide prima facie evidence for universalism (an even larger number can be adduced for annihilationism) and very few—possibly five—that provide prima facie evidence for the traditional doctrine, it seems that the job of disproving the tradition is considerably smaller than that of disproving universalism."

Could someone please point me in the direction of that thread? Thanks.
God bless.

[Homer]

Hi steve,

To say that something is "longstanding" does not say whether it is unending or not. My friendship to Jim might indeed prove to extend into eternity, whereas my alienation from Phil might not.

You say it "might" or "might not". But that is just the point - if it may be unending, or not, then it is not in the eternal category and must be temporal. A thing can not be both temporal and eternal, and what kind of teacher would Jesus be if He used a word, intending it to mean eternal in one place and temporal in another within the same sentence.

I am aware Jesus didn't actually use Greek, but Matthew did in attempting to convey the meaning of Jesus' words and I am confident Matthew was faithful to jesus meaning.

As for your list of fifty proofs of universalism (beginning in the Old Testament, as I recall), they were prima facie at best. After examining a considerable number of the passages they turned out to be so weak and/or implausable I gave up. They seemed to be something that might have come from the Tentmakers website.

[steve]

Hi Homer,

I think tentmaker has some similar lists. Mine comes from my own research for my book on this subject.

(John6809, I don't think I could easily find the thread containing that list, but others here are better at doing that than I am, and it will probably turn up.)

You say it "might" or "might not". But that is just the point - if it may be unending, or not, then it is not in the eternal category and must be temporal. A thing can not be both temporal and eternal, and what kind of teacher would Jesus be if He used a word, intending it to mean eternal in one place and temporal in another within the same sentence.

Your statements here are very strange. You apparently are still thinking of aionios as necessarily relating to the realm of the eternal. This mistake has been corrected here repeatedly. If something lasts 100 years, it is aionios. If it lasts a million years, it is aionios. If it lasts an infinite number of years, it is still aionios.

Matthew's readers knew this, so there would be no reason for them to make the mistake of saying "One of these aionios things, we know from other sources, is endless. Therefore, the other aionios thing mentioned must also be endless." It would be a non sequitur—a logical fallacy. As his readers would not be likely to make such an error, there is likewise no reason for us to do so. On the other hand, they did not have the disadvantage of having theologians do all of their thinking for them, as we sometimes allow them to do for us. They could just follow the logical meaning of a sentence and the familiar meaning of its choice of words.

In Habakkuk 3:6, in the NKJV, reads:

He stood and measured the earth;
He looked and startled the nations.
And the everlasting mountains were scattered,
The perpetual hills bowed.
His ways are everlasting.

Can you guess what Greek word the Septuagint uses for both occurrences of the word "everlasting"? I'll bet you guessed correctly. The LXX uses aionios in both places where the English "everlasting" occurs. One occurrence refers to the mountains (long-lasting, but temporal), while the other refers to an attribute of God (eternal, everlasting). Do you suppose the readers of the LXX—which would be many of the same people who read Matthew 25:46, in Greek—would be confused to find aionios used twice in the same sentence—once referring to something temporal, and once to something eternal? I think not.

Why would Matthew 25:46 be different. If your answer is "because of the "antithetical parallelism" of Matthew 25:46," I will have to ask you to do better than that. Since it has been demonstrated that two aionios things can occur in the same sentence without meaning either that both are eternal or that both are temporal, I would have to see reasons why this would not be equally true in the case of "antithetical parallelism." It certainly is not obvious why it should be different. I already gave you my statement about Jim and Phil, which follows the exact antithetical parallelism you are seeking, and where the English word "longstanding" (equivalent of aionios) appears in both clauses of the sentence and would not be assumed to both have the same meaning, You can't really maintain your position of those grounds.

I doubt if anyone can cite a grammatical rule, which Jesus and His hearers would have recognized (since no clear thinking person would be required to do so), that requires aionios, in only such cases as this, to always mean the same length of time. Again, the use of common sense can serve us well here.

All your arguments on this point have now been thoroughly invalidated. Please do not recycle them. It would not be honest. If you can't come up with any more-valid arguments than those already debunked, there really is no harm in admitting you were wrong.

[steve]

Hey Homer,

I am having trouble locating the debate between Peoples and Talbott. Can you tell me where to find it?