The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment (LONG) (evolve, Holy Spirit, worship, translation)

[Jremy]

Originally Posted by Flaminghedge

I say that the word never meant eternal until a couple of centuries after it was written when that meaning was added to it. Then the word gradually came to mean eternal as well.

When you say, "a couple centuries after it was written," do you mean the writing of the scriptural texts in which it occurs? If that's the case, and if you're saying that the writers of Scripture always had the noneternal meaning in mind, then I don't agree with you. As has been shown on this thread, the context in various scriptures shows that both "aiwnios" and "eis tous aiwnas twn aiwnwn" mean, respectively, "eternal" and "forever."

[Jremy]

Originally Posted by svenM

if for argument's sake, your understanding of that verse were right, why can't Judas' fate be annihilation? - annihilation is eternal punishment.

Because the Lord says that nonexistence, which is what annihilation brings about, would be better for him than the woe that he faced.

Judas maybe had no good life before he met Christ, he had propaply no wife, no children, he did not get old, he died a shamefull death, if he would condemned at judgement day to let's say 50 years of torture and afterwards be annihilated, I would definitly say, it were better for him to have never been born, to say only if Judas will be tormented forevermore without end, it could have been good for him to have never been born is absurd and illogical.

On the contrary, it's completely logical. Go back and read my original argument carefully.

The trouble with the rest of your argument, though fairly strong, is that Scripture does not speak of people being tormented for a time and then annihilated. That is your supposition.

[Flaminghedge]

Originally Posted by Jremy

When you say, "a couple centuries after it was written," do you mean the writing of the scriptural texts in which it occurs? If that's the case, and if you're saying that the writers of Scripture always had the noneternal meaning in mind, then I don't agree with you. As has been shown on this thread, the context in various scriptures shows that both "aiwnios" and "eis tous aiwnas twn aiwnwn" mean, respectively, "eternal" and "forever."

If you want I'll address each scripture you have supposedly shown to mean eternal by context.

[svenM]

Because the Lord says that nonexistence, which is what annihilation brings about, would be better for him than the woe that he faced.

once again, the Greek text is at least ambiguous, it might also Jesus be meant for Whom it would have been better Judas would not have been born. Not to have been born is not merely non-existence, it would also mean not to have made bad experiences so that it might be better not ever to have lived than to have lived and suffered very bad experiences and then having gone to non-existence again. Sorry my English begins to make me problems here to express my thoughts, but I hope you get what I mean.

The trouble with the rest of your argument, though fairly strong, is that Scripture does not speak of people being tormented for a time and then annihilated. That is your supposition.

this is true - nobody will be annihilated, neither does the bible explicitly say that human beings are tormented after death at all, we have long philosophed about the word aiónios; the result was basically zero, you agree that it need not to mean endless, you have not proven that it must mean endless when applied to God's judgment, yet you insist it does, however without proof.

Scripture says:

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (1Timothy 4:10)

this verse is as plain as simple, God is the savior of all men PERIOD

[Jremy]

Originally Posted by Flaminghedge

If you want I'll address each scripture you have supposedly shown to mean eternal by context.

That's fine with me.

[Flaminghedge]

Originally Posted by Jremy

That's fine with me.

Alright, I'm just going to use the verses from the OP.

Gal. 1:5
Phil. 4:20
1 Tim. 1:17
2 Tim. 4:18
Heb. 13:21
1 Peter 4:11
Rev. 19:3
Rev. 20:10
Rev. 1:6
Rev. 1:18
Rev. 4:9–10
Rev. 5:13
Rev. 7:12
Rev. 10:6
Rev. 11:15
Rev. 15:7
Rev. 22:5

I thought I was going to have to use more than one argument, but there really is only one for all of these:

Just because the word happens to work in a certain context, does not mean that is the right word. Also, a limited duration works for these verses because are addressing a specific part. When we refer to God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, this doesn't mean that God is only there God. Similarly, when we see that to God is the glory for the ages of the ages, this does not mean that God only gets glory that long. The same applies for every verse you used.

[Jremy]

Originally Posted by Flaminghedge

Alright, I'm just going to use the verses from the OP.

Gal. 1:5
Phil. 4:20
1 Tim. 1:17
2 Tim. 4:18
Heb. 13:21
1 Peter 4:11
Rev. 19:3
Rev. 20:10
Rev. 1:6
Rev. 1:18
Rev. 4:9–10
Rev. 5:13
Rev. 7:12
Rev. 10:6
Rev. 11:15
Rev. 15:7
Rev. 22:5

I thought I was going to have to use more than one argument, but there really is only one for all of these:

Thank you for your response, but, with all due respect, your "one argument" doesn't work, as I will show below.

Just because the word happens to work in a certain context, does not mean that is the right word.

I agree, but I never said that. You are attacking a straw man. What I've been arguing for is that, when in doubt, context determines the best way to translate a word or phrase. That is a different matter altogether. It's not, "Look, this meaning could work here, so I guess that's what it means," but rather, "Look, this meaning is the most sensible translation based on the context in the verse as well as elsewhere in the Bible."

Besides, I could apply this rule of yours with equal validity and force--no, even more so--to your own translation of these passages. Context determines the best translation. If we are to choose between two options--"forever" and "for ages"--what is there about the context that would swing us one way or the other? Are they both equally viable options, or is one better than the other and much more so? There is actually more reason to lean far, far toward accepting "forever" as the right translation, but more on that below.

Also, a limited duration works for these verses because are addressing a specific part.

Not necessarily. If the "specific part" is an attribute of God, such as his glory or life, then a limited duration most assuredly does not work.

When we refer to God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, this doesn't mean that God is only there God. Similarly, when we see that to God is the glory for the ages of the ages, this does not mean that God only gets glory that long. The same applies for every verse you used.

Let's look at them and see if this is so. I've grouped them according to categories. Here are all the verses that are blessings to God, dealing with glory, honor, dominion, etc.:

3Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5to whom be the glory forevermore. Amen. (Gal. 1)


20Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen. (Phil. 4)
17Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Tim. 1)


18The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen. (2 Tim. 4)
20Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, 21equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. (Heb. 13)

11Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4)

6and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. (Rev. 1)


13And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." (Rev. 5)


12saying, "Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever Amen." (Rev. 7)

Now I suppose you could say, "It's possible that what these expressions of praise were really saying was, that may God have glory for a finite time, or may he have dominion for a finite time, and so on." But that hardly fits the majestic tone of a praise to God. This is what the resulting praise (if it could even be called praise) would sound like if we were to translate Rev. 7:12 by your lights:

"Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God for a finite time. Amen."

Could you imagine singing this in church? Who, wishing to worship the majesty and wonder of who God is, would sing such a blasphemous thing? So, the only sensible translation for the phrase in these passages is "forever." The alternative is forced because it is unbefitting and foreign to a statement of lofty praise.

Here are the verses dealing with God's life:

17When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” (Rev. 1)


The context of the phrase in this verse has been dealt with already (in this thread, I believe). Paul wrote of the unending duration of Christ's life in Rom. 6:


8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.
10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.


Therefore, it cannot be that the phrase in Rev. 1:18 could be translated to have any temporal or finite meaning. It must mean "forever." Paul's words in Romans simply do not leave us any other option.



9And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, 10the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying, (Rev. 4)


6and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, WHO CREATED HEAVEN AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE EARTH AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE SEA AND THE THINGS IN IT, that there will be delay no longer, (Rev. 10)


7Then one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God, who lives forever and ever. (Rev. 15)

How can God’s life be only for a finite time? Life is an attribute of God. He is eternal, outside of time and Lord over time. There is no way--no possible, conceivable way--that God's life could be anything other than eternal unless we want to say that God himself is not eternal. Therefore, the phrase must mean "eternal."


Here are the verses dealing with reigning:

15Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever." (Rev. 11)
33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end." (Luke 1) This is speaking of Christ. Why, then, should we translate Rev. 11:15 to mean for a limited time?

5And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever. (Rev. 22)
This is after the descent of the new heaven and the new earth. Is this age supposed to end? If so, where in Revelation is this indicated?


That leaves us with two more verses:

3And a second time they said, "Hallelujah! HER SMOKE RISES UP FOREVER AND EVER." (Rev. 19)

10And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Rev. 20)

Since "forever" is the only sensible translation for all the other verses, those who believe in eternal punishment are not out on a limb to apply the same meaning to these verses as well, especially Rev. 20:10.

[Flaminghedge]

Originally Posted by Jremy

I agree, but I never said that. You are attacking a straw man. What I've been arguing for is that, when in doubt, context determines the best way to translate a word or phrase. That is a different matter altogether. It's not, "Look, this meaning could work here, so I guess that's what it means," but rather, "Look, this meaning is the most sensible translation based on the context in the verse as well as elsewhere in the Bible."

Besides, I could apply this rule of yours with equal validity and force--no, even more so--to your own translation of these passages. Context determines the best translation. If we are to choose between two options--"forever" and "for ages"--what is there about the context that would swing us one way or the other? Are they both equally viable options, or is one better than the other and much more so? There is actually more reason to lean far, far toward accepting "forever" as the right translation, but more on that below.

This is incorrect though. There are many verses where aion must mean eon and aionios must mean eonian. As I have said before, no one has ever used the same word to mean two opposite things in the same time frame. It doesn't make sense. The word would be useless. Therefore, aion cannot mean forever, and aionios cannot mean eternal. This goes for absolutely any context. Besides that, choosing the 'best word' as you say, is biased. I prefer the 'consistant word' which is not.

Originally Posted by Jremy

Now I suppose you could say, "It's possible that what these expressions of praise were really saying was, that may God have glory for a finite time, or may he have dominion for a finite time, and so on." But that hardly fits the majestic tone of a praise to God. This is what the resulting praise (if it could even be called praise) would sound like if we were to translate Rev. 7:12 by your lights:

"Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God for a finite time. Amen."

Could you imagine singing this in church? Who, wishing to worship the majesty and wonder of who God is, would sing such a blasphemous thing? So, the only sensible translation for the phrase in these passages is "forever." The alternative is forced because it is unbefitting and foreign to a statement of lofty praise.

I do think think you are confused about something. Time by its very nature, is finite. There must be a end to time. (I can go through the logic of this if you wish.) Therefore to say finite time, is redundant and misleading. I would say "for the ages of the ages."

Also, as I have said but you apparently didn't grasp, saying that God's glory is limited to the amount described is fallacious. God is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, but he is not only the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. God is the God of the ages, but he is not only the God of the ages. To God be the glory for the ages of the ages, but not to God be the glory only for the ages of the ages.

Originally Posted by Jremy

Here are the verses dealing with God's life:

17When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” (Rev. 1)

This actually deals with Christ's life, not God's.

Originally Posted by Jremy

How can God’s life be only for a finite time? Life is an attribute of God. He is eternal, outside of time and Lord over time. There is no way--no possible, conceivable way--that God's life could be anything other than eternal unless we want to say that God himself is not eternal. Therefore, the phrase must mean "eternal."

This is faulty logic. Just because God is eternal (redundant), doesn't mean that this passage is saying God is eternal. If it does not say that God is eternal, it does not mean that he is not.

Originally Posted by Jremy

Here are the verses dealing with reigning:

15Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever." (Rev. 11)
33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end." (Luke 1) This is speaking of Christ. Why, then, should we translate Rev. 11:15 to mean for a limited time?

His kingdom has no end, but Christ's reign over it does:
24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

Originally Posted by Jremy

5And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever. (Rev. 22)
This is after the descent of the new heaven and the new earth. Is this age supposed to end? If so, where in Revelation is this indicated?

That age does have an end, however, it is not indicated in revelation, but in other books of the bible. The passage above (1 cor 15) goes beyond what revelation says.

[Jremy]

Originally Posted by Flaminghedge

This is incorrect though. There are many verses where aion must mean eon and aionios must mean eonian.
As I have said before, no one has ever used the same word to mean two opposite things in the same time frame. It doesn't make sense.

If you really believe this, then you should have a major problem with universalists who say that in Matthew 25:46, the word has both a finite and an eternal meaning in the same verse--unless I've misunderstood them and the phrase "eternal life" should really be translated "age-long life."

The word would be useless. Therefore, aion cannot mean forever, and aionios cannot mean eternal.

I thought we were talking about the phrase "to the ages of the ages." All the verses you addressed use that phrase. If you want to address the various contexts of aiwnios, then feel free to do that.

At any rate, I don't agree with your reasoning here. I don't think it follows that the word cannot have opposite meanings in different contexts. But like I said, we'd have to examine those contexts separately. Your intent was to address the phrase "to the ages of the ages," a whole different matter. I suggest we stick with that for the time being--after all, they were your choice.

Besides that, choosing the 'best word' as you say, is biased. I prefer the 'consistant word' which is not.

I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent word." At any rate, the simple fact is that we have two choices of translation before us in the passages you referred to: They can mean either a finite period or eternity. They cannot mean both in the same instance, so we have only one choice. If the immediate context as well as the broad context demand that the phrase "EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN" means eternal, then it would be foolish, misleading, and downright evil to translate it otherwise.

Now I suppose you could say, "It's possible that what these expressions of praise were really saying was, that may God have glory for a finite time, or may he have dominion for a finite time, and so on." But that hardly fits the majestic tone of a praise to God. This is what the resulting praise (if it could even be called praise) would sound like if we were to translate Rev. 7:12 by your lights:

"Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God for a finite time. Amen."

Could you imagine singing this in church? Who, wishing to worship the majesty and wonder of who God is, would sing such a blasphemous thing? So, the only sensible translation for the phrase in these passages is "forever." The alternative is forced because it is unbefitting and foreign to a statement of lofty praise.

Yes, I was redundant in my efforts to emphasize the finite aspect of time. IF you wish, I'll reword it. It doesn't change my point or reduce its effectiveness one bit. If we go by your lights, then we would translate Rev. 7:12 thus: "Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God for a time. Amen."

That is just too forced a translation to accept. There is a reason why just about every translation uses the phrase "forever." While I'm not saying that translations are perfect and infallible, since they are the work of men, the fact that so many translate it this way should be taken seriously. To brush them all aside casually with the broad stroke, "Well, they were just translating according to their bias," is tenuous at best, not to mention very unwise and very unfair. I don't know if you do this, but I've read other universalists who do.

Also, as I have said but you apparently didn't grasp, saying that God's glory is limited to the amount described is fallacious. God is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, but he is not only the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. God is the God of the ages, but he is not only the God of the ages. To God be the glory for the ages of the ages, but not to God be the glory only for the ages of the ages.

If you say that it does not mean "only for the ages of the ages," then the phrase must mean more than "ages of the ages." How much more?

Aside from that, I don't think you are grappling with the point I brought up. It seems silly and not at all befitting to songs of praise to say that God should get glory only for a limited period. Why in the world would any worshiper of God, wishing to ascribe glory to the God he adores, say that God should get glory for a limited period? It is a forced translation. It is inconsistent with the context.

Here are the verses dealing with God's life:

17When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” (Rev. 1)

I agree, but that does not even begin to deal with the point I made. As Paul made clear in Rom. 6, Christ's life is unending:

8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

The Scripture makes it clear that Christ will never die again. Therefore, the phrase in Rev. 1:18 must mean eternal. There is simply no other option open to us, unless you want to contradict this passage.

This is faulty logic. Just because God is eternal (redundant), doesn't mean that this passage is saying God is eternal. If it does not say that God is eternal, it does not mean that he is not.

I agree with this for the most part, except that I never said the passage teaches that God is eternal. To reiterate, what I said was that since God is eternal, and we know this from other Scriptures, then his life must also be eternal. We don't translate using only the definitions of words we obtain from lexicons, whether good or bad lexicons. We also translate based on context, all the more so in difficult passages.

That age does have an end, however, it is not indicated in revelation, but in other books of the bible. The passage above (1 cor 15) goes beyond what revelation says.

This is very interesting. You are here using the very contextual principle I've been advocating all along. You are going outside the immediate context to try to determine the correct translation. So, then, you should have no problem whatsoever with my using Romans 6:8-10 to prove that the life of Christ in Rev. 1:18 is eternal and that, therefore, the phrase EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN in that verse must be translated eternal:

8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

In light of this clear Scripture, are you still willing to say that the Greek phrase in Rev. 1:18 does not mean eternal?

[svenM]

@ Jremy I'm working at an exhaustive examination at the moment, I'll post it, when I am done, concerning context I quote a German theology professor who lived about 100 years ago:

If we can prove from the Bible, in a way that the common man from among the people will understand that the great Augustine and all that use the same argument became victim of a fallacy, then is this biggest stumbling block and most popular argument against the belief that God is indeed the Savior of all men refuted for every straight thinking man.

We forbear from doing a scholarly examination and want to speak to the common people that only know and accept the Scripture. How do we want to prove that Augustine was wrong?

He said: "If the words talking about the doom of the wicked don’t mean endless duration, then the life and the bliss of the saved have also no endless duration."

If it‘s now possible to demonstrate that the Scripture obviously used the words for "eternal" and "eternity" in the same sentence once applied to something that by its nature can only thought to be infinite and the other time on something that by its nature can never be thought infinite, then Augustine’s conclusion can only be considered as unscriptural.

Let’s look upon two Bible words, the one is written in Romans 16:25-26, …according to the revelation of the mystery having been kept unvoiced during eternal (aiōnios) times, but now has been made plain, and by prophetic Scriptures, according to the commandment of the eternal (aiōnios) God…

There is no need for scholarliness to recognize that times in their nature can never be infinite or eternal, but they are obvious with the same word designated that is used to denote the eternal God. On the other hand no one needs to prove that God in his nature can only thought of being infinite.

If Augustine had used the same logic here as in Matthew 25:46, then he could have said, if the times called eternal here were not infinite - then God called eternal here is not infinite too - a blatant fallacy.

We have a similar example in Titus 1:2 (also 2Tim 1:9) …on hope of eternal (aiōnios) life which the God who does not lie promised before eternal (aiōnios) times… If there is a linguistic term that is fundamentally different from infinity, then it is "time" or "times". Nevertheless are they called "eternal" (aiōnios), a striking proof that this adjective itself is not suitable to denote infinity.

All adjectives that refer to God and His life get their true meaning from there, but not the way round. Wherever the word translated "eternal" (Greek: aiōnios, aeonian or age-long), refers to creature, men or mere human conditions or circumstances it never has the sense of infinity cause nothing creatural can be thought of being infinite, unless it partook in the divine nature of divine life and entity.

Our appreciated brother and friend in the adversarial camp concludes now from Augustine’s words: "Nobody has proved yet, that the Scriptures doesn’t teach the infinity of the damnation and torment of the wicked."

After our examination we just want to answer in similar words:

Nobody has sure proved yet, that the words of the Bible teach the infinity of the damnation and torment of the wicked.

Also this proof will never be adduced as long the Scripture alone and not human philosophy has to determine which sense the word translated with "eternal" has.

As long as this proof can’t be adduced without any gap, it is at least very bold to forbid the ordinary children of God believing their heavenly God and Father on his word, that He was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself (2Co 5:19) and that God will be all in all (1Co 15:28).