Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children

[john6809]

Steve,
Not sure if this is what you are looking for, or if it has been posted at Theos or not, but I found it on another forum site.


http://evangelicaluniversalist.com/foru ... f=55&t=434

Hope this helps,
John

[steve]

Thanks, John. That looks like the place, all right.

[steve]

Hi Homer,

I found an interesting quote in a lengthy, scholarly article on the meaning of the words aion and aionios. The author, John Wesley Hanson, writing in 1875, was quoting a string of lexicographers and their definitions of these words—all of which allowed the meaning "lasting" or "a period of time" or the like. I noticed that Alexander Campbell was one of the authorities cited. His statement about the meaning of aionios was: "ITS RADICAL IDEA IS INDEFINITE DURATION."

You might enjoy reading the entire article. It is found here: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1 ... onios.html

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

Here it is, actually referred to as "the Glen and Tom dialogue"; perhaps that is why your seach did not locate it:

http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/ ... f=55&t=434

I found Talbot's position on Matthew 10:28 to be very weak.

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

Hope you were able to find the Talbot/Peoples discussion and found it interesting.

You wrote:

I found an interesting quote in a lengthy, scholarly article on the meaning of the words aion and aionios. The author, John Wesley Hanson, writing in 1875, was quoting a string of lexicographers and their definitions of these words—all of which allowed the meaning "lasting" or "a period of time" or the like. I noticed that Alexander Campbell was one of the authorities cited. His statement about the meaning of aionios was: "ITS RADICAL IDEA IS INDEFINITE DURATION."

But that does not concede anything on Campbell's part. The "radical" refers to the linguistic root which may help to understand the meaning of the word but may be also lead one into a fallacy. Consider, for example, the roots of the word "butterfly": "butter" and "fly". Just considering the roots tells you nothing. The word butterfly can refer to an insect, an ornamental shrub, a kind of knife, a type of valve used to regulate flow in a pipeline, a part in a carburator, and perhaps other things.

What Hanson neglected to mention was the sentence preceding his quote of Campbell where Campbell gave the following information: "Age, aion, (derived fron aei, always, and on, being.) And this was brought up in Campbell"s debate with Skinner where Campbell pointed out the etymology of aion from words meaning "always being". I hope Hanson did a better job with his other quotations.

Hanson obtained the quote either from the appendix to the Campbell/Skinner debate or from the appendix of Campbell's translation of the New Testament "The Living Oracles". Skinner proved to be a dishonest man. There was an agreement between them that Skinner would take the lead in the debate and Campbell would have the last statement (I have the book which includes their correspondence prior to the debate as well as a copy of The Living Oracles). Campbell allowed Skinner to publish the debate as a book and, against Campbell's strenuous objections, attached an appendix to rebut Campbell.

[steve]

Hanson's article leaves no stone unturned. He covers ever occurrence of these words in the classical writers, and moves forward to the LXX usage, the New Testament usage, etc. Most of the scholars seeking to represent the earliest usage of aion say it originally meant "life" or "lifetime." It came to be used of anything that had continuous (as opposed to interrupted) existence over a limited period of time. The word aionios seems to have been coined by Plato, whose usage of it cannot be demonstrated to mean "endless."

[Ian]

Steve, Homer and co,

May I interrupt the flow of your interesting posts for a moment:
Inherent in the Arminian position is that a person must come to an unspecified "age of accountability" before they become truly answerable for their sins.
Imagine this scenario: a child dies at six. He is saved for the above reason and goes to be with God for all eternity. But his unbelieving parents, who brought him up (and put up with his "terrible twos" period, and let`s say this one had it very bad because of his ADD problem) do not. The child might say to God, "I`m to spend eternity with You (and after seeing Him will no doubt see that as wonderful) but you annihilated/condemned to hell for ever (insert your chosen doctrine here) those who brought me into the world and who, more importantly (because anyone can be a father) brought me up and looked after me well!

Steve, you must surely have thought about this scenario. And assuming any reality other than some kind of apokatastasis, it is going to happen. How do you view such a thing as this?

[steve]

Hi Ian,

The point you raise is one that affects the question of the saints' joy in eternity. If universal reconciliation is true, then everyone we loved and prayed for will be with us for eternity. If annihilation is true then we will experience disappointment, knowing they did not make it. If eternal torment is true, then we in heaven will be in agony, knowing that our parents, or children, or others we have loved and poured our lives and our prayers out for, are in torment forever, which we would never have wished even on our worst enemies.

There are two caveats to this often mentioned.

One is that we will then see things as God does, and what would seem intolerable to us in this present time will be recognized and rejoiced in as perfect justice. We will be delighted to see (or know) our grandparents tormented in flames, because we will realize how good this outcome really is. To which one might answer, if this is such a good outcome, then why is God grieved at the loss of one sinner? Why did He send Jesus to prevent anyone's experiencing this fate? Why, when we are more like God in eternity, will we be less loving and compassionate tan we are now? Does this make biblical sense?

The other is to say that God will erase these people from our memories so that, even though God has consigned them to a horrible fate (which He was not compelled to do, since it is in His power, if He wishes, to give them endless opportunities), we will be rendered unaware of it so that our misery is avoided. Ignorance is bliss. This doesn't seem to agree with the closing verses of Isaiah (if we were to apply them to hell, as traditionalists do). Furthermore, this scenario means that God can trust us with information today that He will not be able to trust us with in heaven. Why would He think we can bear it now, if we won't be able to bear it then? Are God's ways really so horrible that, even when we are perfected, He will have to hide the truth from us, lest we resent what He has done?

Serious problems.

[mattrose]

Ian's question is an important one, I think

It is, of course, most difficult for the everlasting misery position to deal with b/c, as Steve said, they either have to resort to erased memories (which has always seemed like a terrible argument to me) or a changed sense of justice (which would seem to make us less loving as opposed to more?). It is, of course, possible that we'll understand things in such a different way upon arrival in heaven that the everlasting misery of those that don't make it is OK with us... but I can't comprehend how this would be the case and it goes against everything I know of God through Jesus.

As for the eventual extinction position, this issue is also a real problem (though more of a minor one, it seems to me). Certainly I would be disappointed and sad to find out that some people whom I loved (and even strangers) have ceased to exist. On the other hand, cessation will certainly be preferable to torment (from my point of view... the extinct won't have a point of view). Even on this earth we are able to come to terms with the loss of people in our temporal existence. We are disappointed and saddened that they are no longer part of our lives in the way that they were, but we are able to continue on living and actually find joy. Indeed, in some sense, we recognize that our loved ones live on in our memories and through their influence on us and others. We take comfort in this.

Certainly the eventual restoration position is preferable in this regard, but I do not believe the eventual restoration position has the strongest evidence on its side. But I think it is necessary to make a distinction between two types of Christian universalism. There is 'dogmatic' Christian Universalism and there is 'hopeful' Christian Universalism. The obvious difference would be that the former group insists that all we be saved (this is the type of Christian Universalism that I think goes against too much of the evidence) while the latter group only considers it possible that all will be saved (by insisting that God would continue to restore people in hell who cease to be hellish through repentance and acknowledgement of Jesus). In other words, if Hell's door is locked from the inside, that doesn't guarantee its inhabitants will open it and exit toward heaven, but it does make it a possibility.

Personally, I find myself combining the eventual extinction and eventual restoration views more and more in my heart and mind. I believe that Judgment Day will result in the wicked being thrown into the 'Lake of Fire' (which I don't interpret literally, but take seriously as extreme discipline from God). The flame of discipline/judgment/wrath has multiple results. Certainly is causes misery, but it also has the potential to both purify and/or consume. It depends on the nature of the object in the flame. If a person, in hell's misery, humbles themselves, learns valuable lessons, and is purified to the point of repentance, then they very well may open hell's door and enter heaven. If a person, in hell's misery, continually rejects God's discipline, becomes even more prideful and stubborn, gnashing their teeth in bitternness toward God... well, they fall further and further away from who they were meant to be. They, in other words, become less and less themselves (less and less human). Anything human about them, at the very least, will cease to exist at some point. Any good in them will continue to exist, but only through the memories of others and any influence they might have had on others. Most likely, nothing of them will remain at all (though I'm willing to entertain that some shadowy existence may linger, if only to create a bridge position for the everlasting misery camp to slowly move toward sanity).

If this view (in the above paragraph) is true, then I think it resolves a good part of Ian's question. Heaven can be happy, short of dogmatic universalism, because there remains a hope that the wicked will be restored to God and, should that hope die out, the person will be lost to the realm of nothingness, not ongoing misery... and indeed, the person him/her self will not truly be lost... all that was good in them will be saved through memories and impact they've had on others. As far as I know, Jewish people from Old Testament times were fairly content to allow their 'eternal life' to consist of living through their descendants. If some only live through their limited fruit, it is enough to come to peace with their physical absence, in my mind.

[Homer]

Steve,

Hanson's article on aion/aionios was interesting and flawed.

Hanson wrote:

Undoubtedly the definition given by Schleusner is the accurate one, 'Duration determined by the subject to which it is applied.'

What a strange argument he puts forth. The adjective has no meaning of its own but the meaning is determined by the substantive! Aionios is like a zero in math. Place a 1 in front of it and you get ten. A 1 after it and you get one tenth. And by itself you get nothing. Having no meaning of its own, place aionios before happiness and you get unending millions and place it before punishment and you get an indeterminate period of time, as short as three days, apparently, because aionios was used of Jonah's time in the whale. Being consistent scripturally, what universalist can insist that the wicked will endure more than three days in hell? But then Hanson, as universalists in general, do not seem to recognize any figurative use of aionios.

And as I have said, the universalist destroys any confidence that the saved may have in in our hope for eternal life. Hanson wrote of the use of aionios in the New Testament:

Of these fifty-seven are used in relation to the happiness of the righteous; three in relation to God or his glory; four are of a miscellaneous nature; and seven relate to the subject of punishment. Now these fifty-seven denote indefinite duration, "everlasting life" being a life that may or may not -- certainly does not always -- endure forever.

He argues that the idea of everlasting life is false because we can fall away during this life and lose it. But then in Matthew 25:46 the aionios life is post eschaton. No problem for him; he denies Matthew 25:46 is eschatological! He says it can't be, because the judgement is based on works, and takes place in this world. Apparently he is ignorant of the fact that all descriptions of the final judgement are based on works. Whether our salvation is secure after the judgement who can say?

When it comes down to it, all his discussion about the meaning of these words in the classics, Plato, Aristotle, etc. have no bearing on the issue. As you know the meaning of words evolves as time goes by. Just look at our word "gay". All that matters is what the words meant when used by the writers of the New Testament. What did they mean to convey in giving us Jesus' message. Jesus had a lot to say about judgement that can not be of much, if any, comfort to the universalist. But they explain it away as Hanson does with the sheep and goats.

It is striking to see the amount of stuff the universalists publish regarding aion/aionios. Google the subject and that is almost all you can find. They correctly recognize that if the can not disprove the conventional understanding of the words their cause is devastated. And if they are correct they destroy not only the traditional view, but also annihilationalism, or conditional immortality if you prefer.

But still in their logomachy they accomplish nothing in establishing scripturally that universalism is true. It is a negative argument. I noticed Hanson resorted repeatedly to philosophical arguments to support his cause. As you 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?

So we are free to speculate. We might as well say Origen was correct when he said our resurrected bodies would be in the shape of spheres, among his other speculations. Nothing in the scriptures against it. What the universalist ought to able to show, from the scriptures, is that:

1. Wicked men will be made holy post mortem.

2. How this will it occur.

3. When it will occur.

4. On what basis will they be saved.

If their cause is scriptural, they ought to have a positive case for it, something other than negative attacks and philosophical speculation.