Sorry, I have to be more careful about being tongue in cheek, I was responding to Steve.
I am not so concerned with someone sticking to the traditonal view, I really 'do' think it could plausibly be 'either' way, biblically!
I am 'very' concerned with people embracing UR just because they see it as the 'only' alternative to ET.
I go to a little Baptist Church, they certainly do not agree with me on ET either.
But I dont discuss my view of ET there much, as I dont bring up dancing either.
I dont have to embrace Universalism to consider that 'aionios and kolasis' have debatable usage.
Barclay was convinced (UR)
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Barclay was convinced
Another philosophical objection to the ET view which could also apply to the CI view is that of God vs. Satan.
God's stated will is the salvation of all, "not willing that any should perish...". Conversely, Satan is a liar and a deceiver whose objective is to lead souls to destruction. These are opposite goals.
What is the logical conclusion of these two views? If one believes that the "narrow path" leads to heaven and only few find it, and the broad path leads to hell (or annihilation), then don't we have to conclude that Satan is far more effective in achieving his goal than God is? Is Christ's death only marginally effective so that only a few are saved?
Todd
God's stated will is the salvation of all, "not willing that any should perish...". Conversely, Satan is a liar and a deceiver whose objective is to lead souls to destruction. These are opposite goals.
What is the logical conclusion of these two views? If one believes that the "narrow path" leads to heaven and only few find it, and the broad path leads to hell (or annihilation), then don't we have to conclude that Satan is far more effective in achieving his goal than God is? Is Christ's death only marginally effective so that only a few are saved?
Todd
Re: Barclay was convinced
Since we are also discussing the CI view here, I'd like to bring up another objection I have to this view. As I understand it, the CI view works like this...
1) resurrection of all
2) judgment of all
3) measured punishment for the unjust
4) annihilation of the unjust
If I have this wrong, please correct me.
This makes no sense to me. Firstly, there appears to be no purpose for this punishment; what good does it do? Secondly, why resurrect the unjust only to destroy them again? Again I say, it makes no sense. If the unjust are not fit for heaven, then just let them stay dead; there is no useful purpose to raising them and punishing them.
Todd
1) resurrection of all
2) judgment of all
3) measured punishment for the unjust
4) annihilation of the unjust
If I have this wrong, please correct me.
This makes no sense to me. Firstly, there appears to be no purpose for this punishment; what good does it do? Secondly, why resurrect the unjust only to destroy them again? Again I say, it makes no sense. If the unjust are not fit for heaven, then just let them stay dead; there is no useful purpose to raising them and punishing them.
Todd
Re: Barclay was convinced
Steve wrote:
I am unsure of the point you are trying to make here. Surely you are not saying a three day imprisonment or Jonah's time in the fish were described by a literal usage of aionios. It seems to me that the figurative use of words in the scriptures is ignored in the case of aionios in debates regarding hell. Various figurative expressions are legion in the scriptures such as various kinds of metonomy, synechdoche, irony, hyperbole, catachresis, etc. We have no difficulty recognizing figurative usage of words in our English such as forever, which is used non-literally even in legal documents.As for the lexical definitions of aionios and kolasis, I admit that I do not like to question the standard lexicons, since I am not a Greek scholar, and have neither expertise nor authority to speak on such matters. However, I can recognize when an adjective does not mean "endless" in a sentence. There have been other threads on this forum where people have posted many examples of the use of aionios that were not speaking of eternal durations—e.g., a three day imprisonment, the length of time a bond servant must serve his master, the length of time Jonah was in the great fish, the length of time a wall stood in a certain place, the durability of the doors or gates of the city, etc., etc. It does not require a degree in Greek to recognize, in cases like these, a usage of an adjective which is (for some reason) neglected by many lexicons.
Re: Barclay was convinced
The job of the ET proponent is to show that the examples that Steve presented (and other usages of aionios which are clearly not referring to endless periods) are actually examples of a figurative usage of aionios, the assumption being that the literal meaning *is* eternal. Mere assertions are not binding on anybody, they are simply arguments from authority. I ask, is the figurative interpretation the only possibility? Or is the meaning of aionios other than "eternal"? I remain a student of all of you, but not always an obedient one 
. I don't totally understand aionios yet, so be patient with your student.
Roberto
. I don't totally understand aionios yet, so be patient with your student.Roberto
Last edited by Roberto on Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Barclay was convinced
Homer,
You wrote:
Let us allow, for the sake of argument, that these are, in fact, non-literal uses of the term. Why should we care whether they are literal or non-literal? They demonstrate usage, an usage is what we are dealing with in our passages under discussion. If they are non-literal in these examples, on what basis could we think that they must literal in the four verses upon which you base your beliefs? Of these four verses, three are found in non-literal passages (one in a parable that likens people to domestic animals, and two in a book that even likens Jesus to a domestic animal!).
It's fine with me if aionios literally means endless, but is often used otherwise (I do not know this to be true, but lets go with this idea). The fact that it is often used "otherwise" renders it impossible to insist that it is not being used "otherwise" in the examples used to argue for endless punishment.
Now I realize that you are not insisting upon the traditional view, and are willing to consider the conditionalist view instead. Yet, the only argument you can raise against universal reconciliation depends upon a use of the word aionios in four verses of scripture, which you admit is not used in that sense in a great many other instances.
Every argument against universal reconciliation depends entirely on aionios meaning "endless" in four verses of scripture (by the way, I am still waiting to see if anyone will add any more than the original four to the list). Any verses that speak of judgment, without mentioning "eternal" judgment, are of no value to the case, since even universal reconciliation accepts that there is a judgment.
Every verse on God's judgment can be reconciled with UR, unless there are some that say that punishment is "eternal." Yet, you are acknowledging that the use of aionios (whether literal or figurative—who cares, since both are found in scripture?) does not always carry the meaning of endlessness (a point you wisely do not wish to contest).
If there is no verse that unambiguously teaches the endlessness of eschatological punishment, then what remains of any case against universal reconciliation?
You wrote:
Now I am not sure what your point is. It seems to be that aionios is used non-literally in the various places where it plainly does not mean "endless." What purpose does tho observation serve? I am interested in understanding the biblical teaching. Are you saying that, though this word can be (and often is) used "figuratively", that these examples are not relevant to the biblical usage? Some of these examples are biblical.I am unsure of the point you are trying to make here. Surely you are not saying a three day imprisonment or Jonah's time in the fish were described by a literal usage of aionios. It seems to me that the figurative use of words in the scriptures is ignored in the case of aionios in debates regarding hell. Various figurative expressions are legion in the scriptures such as various kinds of metonomy, synechdoche, irony, hyperbole, catachresis, etc. We have no difficulty recognizing figurative usage of words in our English such as forever, which is used non-literally even in legal documents.
Let us allow, for the sake of argument, that these are, in fact, non-literal uses of the term. Why should we care whether they are literal or non-literal? They demonstrate usage, an usage is what we are dealing with in our passages under discussion. If they are non-literal in these examples, on what basis could we think that they must literal in the four verses upon which you base your beliefs? Of these four verses, three are found in non-literal passages (one in a parable that likens people to domestic animals, and two in a book that even likens Jesus to a domestic animal!).
It's fine with me if aionios literally means endless, but is often used otherwise (I do not know this to be true, but lets go with this idea). The fact that it is often used "otherwise" renders it impossible to insist that it is not being used "otherwise" in the examples used to argue for endless punishment.
Now I realize that you are not insisting upon the traditional view, and are willing to consider the conditionalist view instead. Yet, the only argument you can raise against universal reconciliation depends upon a use of the word aionios in four verses of scripture, which you admit is not used in that sense in a great many other instances.
Every argument against universal reconciliation depends entirely on aionios meaning "endless" in four verses of scripture (by the way, I am still waiting to see if anyone will add any more than the original four to the list). Any verses that speak of judgment, without mentioning "eternal" judgment, are of no value to the case, since even universal reconciliation accepts that there is a judgment.
Every verse on God's judgment can be reconciled with UR, unless there are some that say that punishment is "eternal." Yet, you are acknowledging that the use of aionios (whether literal or figurative—who cares, since both are found in scripture?) does not always carry the meaning of endlessness (a point you wisely do not wish to contest).
If there is no verse that unambiguously teaches the endlessness of eschatological punishment, then what remains of any case against universal reconciliation?
Re: Barclay was convinced
Hi Colin,
Welcome!
You wrote:
Galatians 6:7-8
New King James Version (NKJV)
7. Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
In Matthew 25:46 Jesus' statement is an antithetical eternal life/eternal punishment. In Paul the antithesis is reap corruption/reap eternal life. But also consider Paul's figure of sowing and reaping. As any farmer knows, you sow and then the harvest. There is no do-over after the harvest (judgement). But let us consider a third parallel:
Matthew 13:24-30
New King James Version (NKJV)
24. Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25. but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28. He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29. But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”
And in Jesus' parallel to Paul's agricultural metaphor, we find another antithesis: tares burned for fuel/wheat stored in the barn. The burned up tares will obviously have no chance to become wheat.
So we have this: eternal punishment = reaping corruption = destruction by fire. There is no place for "correction" in this matter.
Welcome!
You wrote:
I think it is obvious, especially to the universalist, that if the common translation of Matthew 25:46 is correct then universalism is dead; they show this be their strenuous, contrived arguments against it. But Matthew 25:46 does not stand alone. Consider the parallel that Paul wrote in Galatians 6:7-8:Getting back to Matthew 25:46, the Greek is:
KAI APELEUSONTAI OUTOI EIS KOLASIN AIÔNION, OI DE DIKAIOI EIS ZÔÊN AIÔNION
The same word (aionion) is used to describe the length of time involved in the “punishment” as is the length of time of our life in heaven, consistent with the verses listed above.
Based on this, there are only two logical possibilities:
1. The NKJV translation of “aionion” is correct, and while those whose name is written in the book of life receive eternal life, those who are cast into the “lake of fire” receive eternal “punishment”, or
2. “Aionion” should be translated to mean for an indefinite, but not eternal time period, in which case the time spent in the “lake of fire” is not eternal, but neither is God eternal, his dominion is not eternal, and our time in heaven is not eternal.
Also, if you choose the second option, you are saying that the works of the New Testament lexicons, with their innumerable hours of research and examination of countless Greek texts (in addition to the Bible) written in the same time period which also use the word “aionion” in context, are all blatantly in error.
Galatians 6:7-8
New King James Version (NKJV)
7. Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
In Matthew 25:46 Jesus' statement is an antithetical eternal life/eternal punishment. In Paul the antithesis is reap corruption/reap eternal life. But also consider Paul's figure of sowing and reaping. As any farmer knows, you sow and then the harvest. There is no do-over after the harvest (judgement). But let us consider a third parallel:
Matthew 13:24-30
New King James Version (NKJV)
24. Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25. but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28. He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29. But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”
And in Jesus' parallel to Paul's agricultural metaphor, we find another antithesis: tares burned for fuel/wheat stored in the barn. The burned up tares will obviously have no chance to become wheat.
So we have this: eternal punishment = reaping corruption = destruction by fire. There is no place for "correction" in this matter.
Re: Barclay was convinced
Steve wote:
I didn't know I was limited to four verses. By the way, which verses are they? I am not being sarcastic or facetious.If they are non-literal in these examples, on what basis could we think that they must literal in the four verses upon which you base your beliefs? Of these four verses, three are found in non-literal passages (one in a parable that likens people to domestic animals, and two in a book that even likens Jesus to a domestic animal!).
Re: Barclay was convinced
Homer,
I listed them several posts ago (near the bottom of page 7 of this thread), and have continued referring to them with the request that the list be supplemented, if possible. Have you read my answers to you?
Is there some reason that you do not respond to arguments, but simply proceed to make the same logical errors, as if you had not been corrected? The verses that you just provided for Colin do not speak of eternal torment at all. They may be said to support conditional immortality, since "corruption" means "decay" and decay is not an eternal process, and weeds being burned in a furnace is not anything like an image of eternal torment, but of ultimate destruction.
However, as I have pointed out (as recently as in the post just prior to yours), passages speaking of judgment (whether of "death," "corruption," "being consumed", "perishing", or any other synonym) cannot be used to evaluate the validity of universal reconciliation, since such destruction and judgment is acknowledged in every view. You are, apparently, assuming that something beyond physical destruction is meant by these passages, and you may be right (though it is not obvious). But even eschatological destruction cannot be said to disprove UR, unless you can show that it is endless.
I thought I had explained this clearly numerous times above. Please do not ignore my arguments. If you disagree with them, please show where they are flawed. It is extremely frustrating for you to continue posting arguments which have been adequately answered on several occasions, including in the post immediately preceding yours.
I listed them several posts ago (near the bottom of page 7 of this thread), and have continued referring to them with the request that the list be supplemented, if possible. Have you read my answers to you?
Is there some reason that you do not respond to arguments, but simply proceed to make the same logical errors, as if you had not been corrected? The verses that you just provided for Colin do not speak of eternal torment at all. They may be said to support conditional immortality, since "corruption" means "decay" and decay is not an eternal process, and weeds being burned in a furnace is not anything like an image of eternal torment, but of ultimate destruction.
However, as I have pointed out (as recently as in the post just prior to yours), passages speaking of judgment (whether of "death," "corruption," "being consumed", "perishing", or any other synonym) cannot be used to evaluate the validity of universal reconciliation, since such destruction and judgment is acknowledged in every view. You are, apparently, assuming that something beyond physical destruction is meant by these passages, and you may be right (though it is not obvious). But even eschatological destruction cannot be said to disprove UR, unless you can show that it is endless.
I thought I had explained this clearly numerous times above. Please do not ignore my arguments. If you disagree with them, please show where they are flawed. It is extremely frustrating for you to continue posting arguments which have been adequately answered on several occasions, including in the post immediately preceding yours.
Re: Barclay was convinced
I have just spent quite a bit of time looking up uses of certain words in the accepted original texts of the Bible. This is what (at least, as best as I can ascertain) what is in the scriptures:
Aionios - appears 71 times. There is no instance where, from the context, it is clearly (or even likely) to mean some fixed period of time, something less than eternal or everlasting. This, of course, is the word used in Matthew 25:46.
Steve, you had referenced aionios as being used as describing the length of time that Jonah was in the great fish, but I'm unable to find a scripture regarding Jonah that uses that word. Matthew 12:40 uses the word hemera for day, nyx for night, and treis for three. The book of Jonah itself is written in Hebrew, of course, not Greek and uses the word yowm, which can mean day or period. Can you help me find where aionios is used in this regard? Or the other examples you cited where the word aionios is purportedly used (time a bond servant must serve his master, durability of walls or gates to a city, etc.).
I'm looking as hard as I can for a text that clearly uses the word aionios to mean a fixed time period (or at least a clearly non-eternal time period). So far I am coming up empty. Every time I find this word used it is in a context that could easily mean a time period with a beginning but no end or an end with no beginning.
Absent some evidence I haven't seen yet, the idea that aionios is used in the Bible to have a different meaning appears to just be hearsay.
Aionios - appears 71 times. There is no instance where, from the context, it is clearly (or even likely) to mean some fixed period of time, something less than eternal or everlasting. This, of course, is the word used in Matthew 25:46.
Steve, you had referenced aionios as being used as describing the length of time that Jonah was in the great fish, but I'm unable to find a scripture regarding Jonah that uses that word. Matthew 12:40 uses the word hemera for day, nyx for night, and treis for three. The book of Jonah itself is written in Hebrew, of course, not Greek and uses the word yowm, which can mean day or period. Can you help me find where aionios is used in this regard? Or the other examples you cited where the word aionios is purportedly used (time a bond servant must serve his master, durability of walls or gates to a city, etc.).
I'm looking as hard as I can for a text that clearly uses the word aionios to mean a fixed time period (or at least a clearly non-eternal time period). So far I am coming up empty. Every time I find this word used it is in a context that could easily mean a time period with a beginning but no end or an end with no beginning.
Absent some evidence I haven't seen yet, the idea that aionios is used in the Bible to have a different meaning appears to just be hearsay.