Barclay was convinced (UR)

[steve7150]

Jesus himself said "“And they will go away into eternal (αιωνιον) punishment, but the righteous into eternal (αιωνιον) life.”

The parallel construction breaks down if αιωνιον in the first clause differs in meaning from αιωνιον in the attached contrasting phrase.



Matthew 25.46 is the best verse supporting ET. However the righteous already are immortal as Paul tells us elsewhere therefore the "eternal" description does not add anything not already known and is in fact is even redundant. Paul in several places pluralizes "aion" using the terminology ages upon ages or similar terms or he says Satan is the god of this "aion" or age. So "aion" does not mean eternal because it is not used that way in many verses and "aionios" is connected to "aion" and means something like "pertaining to the age" according to Rotherham's bible.

[steve]

The argument from the parallel usage of "eternal" in Matthew 25:46 has been answered numerous times at this site. It has been pointed out that there are many possible meanings of aionios suggested by Greek scholars, including:

"lasting" or "enduring" (this meaning works for both "life" and "punishment" even if they are not of the same duration)
"from God" (this meaning works for both "life" and "punishment" even if they are not of the same duration)
"lasting for ages" (this meaning works for both "life" and "punishment" even if they are not of the same duration)
"pertaining or suited to the age" (i.e., the Messianic Age) (this meaning works for both "life" and "punishment" even if they are not of the same duration)

In any of these possible meanings, the word can refer to something "endless," but those cases would have to be identified by other factors in the context.

However, in asking traditionalists to list supportive passages, I was not actually looking for comments about Matthew 25:46 (which I had already included in my list, and which has been commented on ad nauseam), but rather to supplement my list with additional relevant passages. Are there no more? If not, it is amazing that the traditionalists would speak of the "slim" support for a doctrine contrary to their own, when no more than four verses can be put forward in favor of their own terrible doctrine. I hope we will not become side-tracked and forget what it is we are looking for here.

[Homer]

Hi TK,

This reminds me of a quote by John Stuart Mill I read recently- it may have even been on this forum somewhere:

"To say that God’s goodness may be different in kind from man’s goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good?"

I think you are quoting an atheist/humanist.

[TK]

Hi Homer--

Yeah I know that the author of that statement was not, or likely was not, a believer. However, I dont think that has any bearing on the validity of the statement.

If we can say that it is "good" that God would torture forever and ever those who did not bend the knee during their lifetime, then "good" does not mean "good," at least as that term is understood by me.

TK

[Homer]

I had not taken my ideas on this to their logical conclusion, at that time. The reason was that I was then under the false impression that the traditional view had strong scriptural support. Since I knew God is not a monster, but believed that He did what would be monstrous for any other moral being to do, I had to live with a logical disconnect. I resorted to the old Calvinist-style dodge, "Who are we to question God—even when He exhibits attitudes that He would call sin in anyone else?"

Do you believe God has reserved certain actions for Himself that would be wrong for us to do? Could you have executed Annanias and Saphira for what they did? Could you have ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites, men women and children?

Please explain by your logic how God was just in inflicting sickness, suffering, and death, on billions of people because of a single sin by Adam and Eve.

The old finite sin/finite punishment argument is worthless. Logic fails us here because we are not capable of judging the seriousness of sin against a Holy God, and He is the chief one offended every time we mistreat anyone.

[Roberto]

One way that we differ from God is mentioned in Romans, where it says that God's vengeance is legit and ours is not.

Is Steve saying that all who believe in eternal punishment are guilty of serious blasphemy? Really?

[Homer]

steve7150,

Excellent article, link posted by psimmond, which answers some of your questions:

This is the best article I've read defending the traditional view:
http://www.newchristian.org.uk/helldefended.html

[steve]

Homer,

Of course God has the right to judge sinners (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira, the Canaanites, you, me, etc.). Who ever disputed this? After so much dialogue, you must know by now that what we are discussing here is not the prerogative of a judge to execute criminals, but rather of torture...absolutely unnecessary and unprofitable vindictive torture. If one wishes to accuse my Father of harboring such hatred toward His enemies, haven't I the right to demand that strong scriptural evidence to be provided or else to conclude that this person is willing to play fast and loose with God's reputation?

Can you tell me what, other than philosophy (certainly not scripture), informs the assertion that sins against an infinite God are infinite sins? Where is that written? Why should anyone accept the validity of such a statement? Neither scripture nor logic can be shown to support this, yet traditionalists never let go of this desperate piece of unscriptural argumentation.

Does it bother you that you are defending (against strong scriptural alternatives) a tradition that is even called repugnant by its defenders, for which you cannot produce even as much scripture as the Jehovah's Witness can bring against taking blood transfusions?

Unless you have some scripture for your points, then it can hardly be seen as honest biblical inquiry that has led to acceptance of this viewpoint.

Am I wrong? Please show me the verse list.

[psimmond]

Hi Steve,
When I included that verse from Matthew in my reply it wasn't to supply you with verses. My reply was to RICHinCHRIST.

I didn't realize you'd asked for a list of verses to support the traditional view. Matthew 25:46 was spoken by the Son of God, and Revelation 14:9-12 was spoken by an angel; for me this is more than sufficient (Deuteronomy 19:15).

We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. The tone of this discussion seems to have become extremely antagonistic. It seems those of us who believe in the traditional view are nasty folks destroying God's reputation. I'll be bowing out of this thread now.

Peace and love along with faith,
Peter

[Ian]

or else to conclude that this person is willing to play fast and loose with God's reputation?

That comes across to me as a tad OTT, Steve - uncharacteristically so.
However I do wonder about some "eternal hellers" - whether some of them are set instead upon the destruction of people who`ve never attempted godliness (and therefore who`ve never experienced actually how hard self-denial is).
I hope I`m not being judgemental. Indeed I`ve had moments when I`ve felt this way myself.