Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

SBC · Oct 15, 2017

William Tanksley Jr said:
Can we discuss the passage of scripture we were both talking about, Luke 20? Failing that, can we stick to Scripture?

Luke 20
[35] But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
[36] Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Natural born body's of mankind have a death sentence. Man's body comes from the earth, dies, and returns to the earth.

Lev 17
[11] For the life of the flesh is in the blood:

Gen 9:
[5] And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

Gen 3
[19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

What Scripture notifies you spirits/angels have a death sentence?
What Scripture notifies you spirits/angels life shall be required of God?
What Scripture notifies you spirits/angels, supposedly die and return from whence they came,? ie heaven

John 20:35 notifies us; men who become born of God, share an equaliness to angels, that they (mankind) who has a death sentence, accomplished their death sentence, shall never again die, like, angels do not die.

Yet, though my body is still physically alive, I have accomplished my one required death sentence, willingly have given my body, Crucified with Christ. I am prepared for the day Christ returns to redeem and claim my body, and my body so claimed, will be void of it's life, it's blood, that God required.
I shall be like the angels, without blood, to never die, and shall not again marry another human.

God Bless,
SBC

SBC · Oct 15, 2017

pat34lee said:
What is one of the first bible verses most children learn
in Sunday School?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Later, we learn

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Why would God give such a great gift as eternal life, only
to punish sinners forever? Angels, on the other hand, were
already immortal when they sinned. Otherwise, they could
not approach God and live.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Correct.

Gods wrath upon the earth, shall commence, and the children of disobedience shall experience that wrath before their physical death.

But as in the day of Noah, some will be saved. In the day of Noah, the flood was what the people against God experienced, until they died. Noah and his family, standing with God, were raised above the flood waters. So too shall men in standing with God be raised above the earth that is being purified /baptized with fire.

Rom 5
[9] Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Rom 1
18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Rom 13

[4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
[5] Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

Belief in God is accounted for righteousness.
The righteous are not subject to Gods wrath, upon the earth.
As in the day of Noah , the righteous shall be risen above the earth.
The fire shall destroy the physical life of unrighteous men.
And thus their body shall be dead and return to dust.
But also, there is the matter of their living soul, their conscience sake.
As with all dead body's of the unrighteous, their living souls, shall experience hell.
And after 1,000 years, their dead body shall be raised and go to hell, alive with their living soul re-imparted.
They shall SEE the Judge, the Lord Jesus Christ, and believe.
They shall bow on bended knee and worship Him.
The book of life shall be opened.
Their name shall not appear.
Their living soul shall depart their body, and their body once again dead, their 2nd death.
Life in their living soul shall depart from their soul, and return to God, who gave it.
And their body and soul destroyed in the fire.

They are VOID of life, void of consciousness. ( Which IS, Gods grace upon them )
Their eternal punishment is forever separation/alienation from God, from Life.

Eph 4
[18] Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

God Bless,
SBC

William Tanksley Jr · Oct 15, 2017

SBC said:
Luke 20
Natural born body's of mankind have a death sentence. Man's body comes from the earth, dies, and returns to the earth.

The Bible says man himself has a death sentence, not "man's body." Christianity has always affirmed the ultimate life or death of the WHOLE human person, not of a body isolated from a spirit/soul. It's true (or at least I believe) that the spirit of man temporarily exists without the body during the "intermediate state" -- but that's not natural, and this is why Christianity has always affirmed the resurrection of the body (see all of the ancient creeds and the older baptismal formulas -- as well as modern ones).

What Scripture notifies you spirits/angels have a death sentence?

I keep quoting several, and you keep not responding. For example, I mentioned Heb 2's prediction of the destruction of Satan, and Ezekiel 28's prediction that the guardian cherub would be killed, destroyed, and made nonexistent by means of fire.

What Scripture notifies you spirits/angels, supposedly die and return from whence they came,? ie heaven

Wait, what are you talking about "return whence they came"? Angels, before they lived, didn't exist. If God makes angels die and return whence they came, that would mean nonexistence.

John 20:35 notifies us; men who become born of God, share an equaliness to angels, that they (mankind) who has a death sentence, accomplished their death sentence, shall never again die, like, angels do not die.

You mean Luke 20, of course. But none of this is what Luke 20 says about men OR angels. And it contradicts what both Jesus and Paul said -- that although most of us do die, dying isn't necessary; some won't die, but all will be changed. Luke 20 is emphatically clear that it is the resurrection that changes us, not dying. We're like the angels (in that they don't marry) and we cannot die BECAUSE we're sons of the resurrection.

Yet, though my body is still physically alive, I have accomplished my one required death sentence, willingly have given my body, Crucified with Christ. I am prepared for the day Christ returns to redeem and claim my body, and my body so claimed, will be void of it's life, it's blood, that God required.

The Bible never affirms that. It's because Christ gave His blood (life) that we don't have to pay for our sins with our own life. It's because we are willing to lose our life that Christ will save our life. The life Christ gives to us is precisely the one that we are willing to lay down for Him.

The flesh that died and decayed in the tombs is the flesh that Christ will raise up immortal -- and that includes the blood that is the life of that flesh, because Christ gave His life so we wouldn't lose ours.

William Tanksley Jr · Oct 15, 2017

ClementofA said:
William, your confusing my response to Jason's argument with something quite different. Apples & oranges. If you want to take up the "eis ton aiona" phrase discussion again, something which neither Jason or I made reference to,

That's just not true. You know that /aion/ depends on context, and you said so. Yet you won't talk about its context, to the point you now claim it's "something quite different."

my last response to you is still awaiting a reply. Post #484 of August 10/17 of this same thread we are in

Thank you. But no, everything you said there I'd replied to several times (and, of course, vice versa; we were going in circles); I think our discussion is more than complete. Your entire case rests on a shaky interpretation of 1 Cor 15:25 to mean that Jesus will permanently abdicate; which is of course not what the passage actually said, and incompatible with many texts that clearly show the Messiah will reign forever and without end. And even if that's what the passage actually said, it wouldn't win your case; all it would do is create a contradiction in the Bible and make the Bible use Greek differently than every older Greek document, including the LXX.

Additionally i would argue for the position that the Greek phrase often mistranslated, & deceptively rendered, "for ever and ever" in the book of Revelation is of finite duration, as per posts #'s 130 and 131 here:

Yet that's what the phrase means according to every lexicon that includes common phrases as well as words. That was also the conclusion of Keizer's "Life Time Entirety" (see her chapter 6, "Conclusion") -- she showed very clearly and without contradiction that /aion/ refers to the entirety of time for a thing, and NOT merely a delimited age. (That is an incredible book, and I'm glad you pointed it out to me.)

ClementofA · Oct 15, 2017

William Tanksley Jr said:
That's just not true. You know that /aion/ depends on context, and you said so. Yet you won't talk about its context, to the point you now claim it's "something quite different."

Thank you. But no, everything you said there I'd replied to several times (and, of course, vice versa; we were going in circles); I think our discussion is more than complete. Your entire case rests on a shaky interpretation of 1 Cor 15:25 to mean that Jesus will permanently abdicate; which is of course not what the passage actually said, and incompatible with many texts that clearly show the Messiah will reign forever and without end. And even if that's what the passage actually said, it wouldn't win your case; all it would do is create a contradiction in the Bible and make the Bible use Greek differently than every older Greek document, including the LXX.

Then i suppose i'll agree to disagree & leave it at that.

William Tanksley Jr said:
Yet that's what the phrase means according to every lexicon that includes common phrases as well as words. That was also the conclusion of Keizer's "Life Time Entirety" (see her chapter 6, "Conclusion") -- she showed very clearly and without contradiction that /aion/ refers to the entirety of time for a thing, and NOT merely a delimited age. (That is an incredible book, and I'm glad you pointed it out to me.)

I can't speak for "every lexicon" for all time. Though early church father universalists who were Greek scholars & Greek was their native language evidently didn't understand the phrase as Endless Damnationists do. Likewise with some other scholars since then & until the present day. As for Keizer it is interesting that she's listed as a universalist on the Tentmaker site & her book has been well recieved by universal reconciliationists i'm familiar with.

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists
Statement of Faith -- Please Read

Bible Highlighter · Oct 16, 2017

ClementofA said:
Your link is not working Jason

I got the link a long time ago. It is a source link to show that the information is not my own, not a link for you to see what I believe. There is a difference.

You said:
& at least some of the examples above appear to be almost or completely word for word the same as i've seen on universalist sites.

I am not a Universalist. A person on the internet of any kind of belief can take information or a truth and twist it to their own wrong ends. So this does not prove anything except that you want to see a problem where none exists. Catholics believe in the Trinity, but that does not mean I am a Catholic just because they believe in the Trinity. Granted, I am not going to try and quote from websites in whom I disagree with strongly; But there are many websites I quote from where I do not agree with their other beliefs.

You said:
Most lexicons disagree with the notion that the Hebrew & Greek words OLAM & AION mean "forever" according to how you appear to understand it. They indicate that the word has various meanings according to context, not one single basic meaning unless used in hyperbole. The hyperbole theory has been recently refuted in the other thread started by Mark that has been getting activity on this forum recently:

What is the 2nd Death? (Annihilationsim vs. Eternal Torment)

That is easily proven by passages that speak of their "end", e.g. the "end of the AION" (Mt.24:3). Something that has an "end" cannot be endless or forever.

The "forever" theory also leads to contradictions in the Scriptures, such as Dan.12:2 with Lamentations 3:

Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will not cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.

Which opposes the theory of endless annihilationism, as do many other passages of the Scriptures.

Nope. Try reading Philemon 1:15. The word "forever" is clearly not used as in reference to forever or for all eternity. Also, the list is obvious, as well. Unless of course you believe the Old Law is still in effect for all eternity. This would be in contradiction to many New Testament Scriptures. Paul clearly condemned circumcision salvationism. God ended the laws on animal sacrifices at the ripping of the temple veil. God told Peter to eat unclean animals (Which is a violation of the Old Law).

You said:
1 Jn.2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

If God doesn't save all, is it because He can't or doesn't want to?
"...it doesn't say what most evangelizers of hopelessness want it to say in that regard either."
"It is false, he maintained, to translate that phrase as "everlasting punishment," introducing into the New Testament the concept found in the Islamic Quran that God is going to torture the wicked forever."
"...non-Christians are punished forever for not recieving grace, which doesn't seem very graceful to me."

Forum
Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism
https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Now it sounds like you are arguing for Conditional Immortality?
Not sure what you are saying here above in this last part.

Anyways, understanding God's Word is more than just using a Lexicon or going to a Bible school; You also have to understand God's Word with your heart (i.e. morals) (in deep in prayer), too. For that is the one thing that you will never be able to explain. God can torture someone in flames for all eternity for a finite amount of crimes and that would be fair, loving, just, and good? You may be able to quote the letter, but if you leave out the heart of God's love and goodness in the way He executes His judgment, you miss a very important part of who God is. His love, and grace (in all He does), and His fairness (i.e. His fair justice).

For think not that I believe that the wicked will go unpunished. I believe it is highly likely the wicked will be punished in the Lake of Fire for their sins, but it will be according to what they have done that was bad. After they been punished for their crimes over a set amount of time in proportion to their sins, they will then be destroyed or erased from existence. To punish them beyond what the crimes call for would be unjust.

ClementofA · Oct 16, 2017

Jason0047 said:
I got the link a long time ago. It is a source link to show that the information is not my own, not a link for you to see what I believe. There is a difference.

Yes, I understand.

Jason0047 said:
I am not a Universalist. A person on the internet of any kind of belief can take information or a truth and twist it to their own wrong ends. So this does not prove anything except that you want to see a problem where none exists. Catholics believe in the Trinity, but that does not mean I am a Catholic just because they believe in the Trinity. Granted, I am not going to try and quote from websites in whom I disagree with strongly; But there are many websites I quote from where I do not agree with their other beliefs.

I want to see a problem?

Jason0047 said:
Nope. Try reading Philemon 1:15. The word "forever" is clearly not used as in reference to forever or for all eternity. Also, the list is obvious, as well. Unless of course you believe the Old Law is still in effect for all eternity. This would be in contradiction to many New Testament Scriptures. Paul clearly condemned circumcision salvationism. God ended the laws on animal sacrifices at the ripping of the temple veil. God told Peter to eat unclean animals (Which is a violation of the Old Law).

Sorry, i don't see how this relates to what was posted.

Jason0047 said:
Now it sounds like you are arguing for Conditional Immortality?
Not sure what you are saying here above in this last part.

Anyways, understanding God's Word is more than just using a Lexicon or going to a Bible school; You also have to understand God's Word with your heart (i.e. morals) (in deep in prayer), too. For that is the one thing that you will never be able to explain. God can torture someone in flames for all eternity for a finite amount of crimes and that would be fair, loving, just, and good? You may be able to quote the letter, but if you leave out the heart of God's love and goodness in the way He executes His judgment, you miss a very important part of who God is. His love, and grace (in all He does), and His fairness (i.e. His fair justice).

For think not that I believe that the wicked will go unpunished. I believe it is highly likely the wicked will be punished in the Lake of Fire for their sins, but it will be according to what they have done that was bad. After they been punished for their crimes over a set amount of time in proportion to their sins, they will then be destroyed or erased from existence. To punish them beyond what the crimes call for would be unjust.

You said:

"God can torture someone in flames for all eternity for a finite amount of crimes and that would be fair, loving, just, and good?"

Is that what you believe or are you asking me?

You said:

"For think not that I believe that the wicked will go unpunished."

Neither do I as one who believes in universal salvation:

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists
Statement of Faith -- Please Read

he-man · Oct 16, 2017

Jason0047 said:
I am not much of a history buff. I am just a Bible guy. I used to believe in Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) and I even defended it at one time. I then learned of the Conditional Immortality, and I was on the fence for a good while between ECT and CI (Conditional Immortality). Then one day when I started looking at more verses for Conditional Immortality from reading a really good article, I was convinced that it was true. What helped me to be convinced even more beyond this was the fact that Conditional Immortality is moral, just, and good (Whereas ECT attempts to turn God into some kind of monster), as well. For I believe every teaching or Godly truth in the Bible should always be good, just, and moral
I believe in reading and using Modern Translations, but my final Word of authority is the KJV. So if the KJV says "forever" I believe that. But words from the 1600's don't always have the same meaning as they do today; And we have to sometimes think outside the box to see what God is really telling us, as well.
This is why I believe the word "forever" is used in context of within something that is temporary, like a Covenant, or here upon this Earth (which is temporal), or within the Lake of Fire (Which is also a temporary place or form of punishment). It is "forever" for as long as that thing exists. For example: A husband might say to his wife that he will be her man forever. This is context to as long as they live (of course). Forever is in context as long as they live. It is a metaphorical expression.
For are we to assume that Onesimus is still alive with his master today according to Philemon 1:15? Surely not. Onesimus return back to his master for "forever" was not for all eternity. The word "forever" in Philemon 1:15 is clearly in context to as long as Onesimus would live.
As for the English word "hell" in Matthew 10:28 taken from the Greek word "Gehenna" meaning the "Lake of Fire": While it is helpful to look to the Greek to get a clearer picture of what Matthew 10:28 is saying, I believe the "Lake of Fire" (Gehenna) can also be called "hell" (even though "hell" will be cast into the Lake of Fire). How so?
Well, "hell" is sort of like an island sitting atop of the Lake of Fire. The Earth's core is like a big fiery hot ball. The great gulf is an opening or crack in hell's surface letting some of the flame from below (in the Lake of Fire) to show (Whereby the Richman is tormented by the heat of it).

Deuteronomy 32:22
"For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains."
In other words, the lowest "hell" is the Lake of Fire.

Isaiah 34:14
"The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest."
And the wild beasts, the satyr, and the screech owl in this passage are demons. The wild beasts of the island are those demons on the island of "hell" below.

You missed a few: 2 Thessalonians 1:9 who shall pay a penalty of destruction everlasting [DARBY] not to mention you are missing the Greek for eternally and forever; Romans 2:7 Αιωνιον = Perpetual, everlasting, beginning no end, age long, forever; the Greek for Hell; 2 Peter 2:4; symbol of future destruction, judgement; Matthew 23:33; Luke 10:15; Luke 12:5

Bible Highlighter · Oct 16, 2017

ClementofA said:
Yes, I understand.

I want to see a problem?

Sorry, i don't see how this relates to what was posted.

You said:

"God can torture someone in flames for all eternity for a finite amount of crimes and that would be fair, loving, just, and good?"

Is that what you believe or are you asking me?

You said:

"For think not that I believe that the wicked will go unpunished."

Neither do I as one who believes in universal salvation:

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists
Statement of Faith -- Please Read

I forgot you believe in Universalism. This is confusing that you would enter such a topic and make it sound like you disagree with me. You have to realize that most believe in ECT (Eternal Concious Torment). So that is why I was arguing against what you said. I was assuming the issue you had with my post was that you are in favor of ECT. Most do not believe in Universalism and nor do they argue on topics involving ECT. You should be a little more upfront in that you believe in Universalism when you disagree with their view of Conditial Immortality. It would cause less confusion to the person you are replying to.

Bible Highlighter · Oct 16, 2017

he-man said:
You missed a few: 2 Thessalonians 1:9 who shall pay a penalty of destruction everlasting [DARBY] not to mention you are missing the Greek for eternally and forever; Romans 2:7 Αιωνιον = Perpetual, everlasting, beginning no end, age long, forever; the Greek for Hell; 2 Peter 2:4; symbol of future destruction, judgement; Matthew 23:33; Luke 10:15; Luke 12:5

I wasn't writing a book, my friend.
Can you say that every post you write includes every verse that defends CI (Conditional Immortality)?

William Tanksley Jr · Oct 16, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Nope. Try reading Philemon 1:15. The word "forever" is clearly not used as in reference to forever or for all eternity.

Why not? Onesimus was a rebellious unbeliever, and because he ran away he met Paul and was converted. Now he will live forever. Why shouldn't this cause Paul to hope that Philemon will be reconciled to him in forgiveness, thus making it sure that both will live forever in brotherhood?

I don't understand why anyone would think this passage means something else. When I read you saying that is does, I have to wonder what exactly you think it means. Remember that Paul isn't hoping Onesimus will be received back as a slave (for which it might be possible to receive him back for the rest of their lives); he's hoping Philemon will receive him as a brother.

Jason0047 said:
Unless of course you believe the Old Law is still in effect for all eternity. This would be in contradiction to many New Testament Scriptures. Paul clearly condemned circumcision salvationism. God ended the laws on animal sacrifices at the ripping of the temple veil. God told Peter to eat unclean animals (Which is a violation of the Old Law).

That, on the other hand, is a VERY good point. As I study the use of olam/aionios I can see that unlike the much stronger /l'olam/ and /eis ton aiona/, they can be weakened to refer only to a wholeness of time from a relative perspective. The Hebrew especially has the idea of time beyond a horizon, which should cause us to ask what the horizon is, and whether there's a natural limit.

Examples of this are the "slave of /olam/" language used for the bondservant who doesn't want to leave his master when his 7 years is done; and the "priest of /olam/" used to describe the priesthood of each son of Aaron. On a more extreme front, the "covenant of /olam/" which Moses established for the people which, as you observed, might not be an endless covenant (but then its applicability to Christ might suggest it's endless along with Him, even while He's freed us from its terms).

Because of these weaker uses, I think it's only fair to accept universalists doubts about phrases like "/aionios/ punishment" and "/aionios/ destruction", and force myself to make arguments compatible with leaving room for some doubt, even though I am entirely convinced that the context leaves no room for such doubt in those cases.

Jason0047 said:
Now it sounds like you are arguing for Conditional Immortality?

Yeah, a guy named "ClementOfA" is probably identifying himself as a universalist.

Amusingly, I don't see Clement himself as being a for-sure universalist. Origen was the first absolutely clear universalist; Clement made some quotes compatible with universal immortality (although others definitely NOT compatible with it), but he may have merely been timid in talking about eternal torment.

Jason0047 said:
For think not that I believe that the wicked will go unpunished. I believe it is highly likely the wicked will be punished in the Lake of Fire for their sins, but it will be according to what they have done that was bad. After they been punished for their crimes over a set amount of time in proportion to their sins, they will then be destroyed or erased from existence. To punish them beyond what the crimes call for would be unjust.

I essentially agree (I'm also a conditionalist), although I would phrase it differently. Check how 2Thess 1:5-10 phrases it: "they will pay the penalty of /aionion/ destruction", but this is in the context of a Day of Wrath between the time on which the Lord is revealed and the time when the Lord turns to comfort and be glorified among His saints. In that time, the persecutors will be "afflicted" justly for the "affliction" they caused to the believers.

What I would say is that the wages of sin against God is death, or in this passages' words, "eternal destruction." But when they pay the penalty for their sins (death), they also suffer for the pain they willingly and deliberately caused as persecutors of God's people. This can also be thought of as "punishment", but it's punishment for a different kind of thing. We can see a similar expression used in Romans 2, where both Jews and Gentiles who have knowingly sinned against their own knowledge of the truth (whether the Law, or conscience, or even for some their own hypocritical condemnation of others) receive wrath and tribulation, but all in the end "perish" (or are sentenced according to the terms of the Law, but that's the same fate according to Paul here).

pat34lee · Oct 16, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Unless of course you believe the Old Law is still in effect for all eternity. This would be in contradiction to many New Testament Scriptures. Paul clearly condemned circumcision salvationism. God ended the laws on animal sacrifices at the ripping of the temple veil. God told Peter to eat unclean animals (Which is a violation of the Old Law).

Why do the outlaws never read a whole passage?

Read some of the prophets in the Old Testament. The Word of
God stands forever. That includes what you call law, but is really
instructions on how to live.

Sacrifices are still in effect. The only reason they aren't happening
now is because there is no temple. It will be rebuilt and they will
begin again. Why? Because God commands it.

If you actually think Acts was about animals, you need to read it
again. It is about how the Jews viewed gentile believers. There
were strict traditions on not eating or drinking with non-Jews, as
they could be unclean and cause the Jew to become unclean.

Bible Highlighter · Oct 16, 2017

William Tanksley Jr said:
Why not? Onesimus was a rebellious unbeliever, and because he ran away he met Paul and was converted. Now he will live forever. Why shouldn't this cause Paul to hope that Philemon will be reconciled to him in forgiveness, thus making it sure that both will live forever in brotherhood?

I don't understand why anyone would think this passage means something else. When I read you saying that is does, I have to wonder what exactly you think it means. Remember that Paul isn't hoping Onesimus will be received back as a slave (for which it might be possible to receive him back for the rest of their lives); he's hoping Philemon will receive him as a brother.

Let's read it.

"It seems you lost Onesimus for a little while so that you could have him back forever." (Philemon 1:15) (NLT).

This is in context to them being alive. For Paul says he is sending Onesimus back to Philemon.

"I am sending him back to you, and with him comes my own heart." (Philemon 1:15) (NLT).

Paul mentions nothing about how he is sending Onesimus's dead body back to Philemon and yet he is still a brother forever. Paul talks about how he is sending Onesimus back to Philemon so that he could have him back forever as a brother in this life. It is not talking about the next life. The context does not allow for it.

You said:
That, on the other hand, is a VERY good point. As I study the use of olam/aionios I can see that unlike the much stronger /l'olam/ and /eis ton aiona/, they can be weakened to refer only to a wholeness of time from a relative perspective. The Hebrew especially has the idea of time beyond a horizon, which should cause us to ask what the horizon is, and whether there's a natural limit.

Examples of this are the "slave of /olam/" language used for the bondservant who doesn't want to leave his master when his 7 years is done; and the "priest of /olam/" used to describe the priesthood of each son of Aaron. On a more extreme front, the "covenant of /olam/" which Moses established for the people which, as you observed, might not be an endless covenant (but then its applicability to Christ might suggest it's endless along with Him, even while He's freed us from its terms).

Because of these weaker uses, I think it's only fair to accept universalists doubts about phrases like "/aionios/ punishment" and "/aionios/ destruction", and force myself to make arguments compatible with leaving room for some doubt, even though I am entirely convinced that the context leaves no room for such doubt in those cases.

NT Scripture says that the Law has changed (Hebrews 7:12) and yet OT Scripture says the Old Law will last forever. Therefore we have to conclude that the word "forever" and it's related words does not always mean forever in the sense of all of eternity but it means "forever" as long as that thing is destined to exist.

You said:
Yeah, a guy named "ClementOfA" is probably identifying himself as a universalist.

I am a "Bible guy," and not a "history guy," or an "other religions guy."

You said:
Amusingly, I don't see Clement himself as being a for-sure universalist. Origen was the first absolutely clear universalist; Clement made some quotes compatible with universal immortality (although others definitely NOT compatible with it), but he may have merely been timid in talking about eternal torment.

So how is your suggestion before that Clement is a Universalist with a wink relevant if you think it was not clear that he was a Universalist?

You said:
I essentially agree (I'm also a conditionalist), although I would phrase it differently. Check how 2Thess 1:5-10 phrases it: "they will pay the penalty of /aionion/ destruction", but this is in the context of a Day of Wrath between the time on which the Lord is revealed and the time when the Lord turns to comfort and be glorified among His saints. In that time, the persecutors will be "afflicted" justly for the "affliction" they caused to the believers.

What I would say is that the wages of sin against God is death, or in this passages' words, "eternal destruction." But when they pay the penalty for their sins (death), they also suffer for the pain they willingly and deliberately caused as persecutors of God's people. This can also be thought of as "punishment", but it's punishment for a different kind of thing. We can see a similar expression used in Romans 2, where both Jews and Gentiles who have knowingly sinned against their own knowledge of the truth (whether the Law, or conscience, or even for some their own hypocritical condemnation of others) receive wrath and tribulation, but all in the end "perish" (or are sentenced according to the terms of the Law, but that's the same fate according to Paul here).

I believe in "Dualistic Conditional Immortality." After the judgment, the Lake of Fire is eventual annihiation of the wicked. I believe hell (that exists currently) is real but it is not a torture chamber of flames. I also believe the wicked go through long periods of sleep in hell and they are awakened only as it serves God's plans and purposes. We see in the story of Lazarus and the Richman, an example of when a wicked person is awake in hell. There are two possibilities with this story in regards to Lazarus being tormented in the flames.

Possibility #1. The richman was tormented within the flames of hell but they are not like our flames here on Earth because if they were like real world flames, then he would be screaming too badly to be able to talk to anyone. So this suggests that these flames were not all that painful like a real fire would be.

Possibility #2. The richman was tormented by the HEAT of the flames either nearby him or in the great gulf between him and Abraham.

I believe the Lake of Fire will eventually destroy both body and soul the wicked AND the devil and his minions. But I believe it is highly likely that the wicked will be punished for a set amount of time (that is unknown) in proportion to their sins in the Lake of Fire before they are destroyed or erased from existence. This is based on two passages.

In Isaiah 66, we read on the "Final New Earth" (after the Judgment) that a certain amount of Sabbaths (weekly Sabbaths) and or new moons (months) will pass before the saints view the carcases of the wicked.

22 "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." (Isaiah 66:22-24).

Jesus says it is better if a millstone were hung about the neck of a person who makes a child to fall into sin.

"But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea." (Matthew 18:6) (NLT).

Which is finally then compared to being cast into everlasting hell fire (Matthew 18:8).

So the punishment of experience hell fire has to be worse than drowning at the depths of the sea by having a millestone tied to one's neck.

William Tanksley Jr · Oct 16, 2017

ClementofA said:
Then i suppose i'll agree to disagree & leave it at that.

Thanks. I believe neither of us have need to answer any of the others' questions on that thread; we've both done our best and our positions are clear. I wouldn't mind continuing the discussion, but I think given the history nothing new would be added.

I can't speak for "every lexicon" for all time.

That's not necessary. You did claim that lexicons supported your claims, and my point is that the lexicons which explain how those words are actually used in phrases do not support your claims.

Though early church father universalists who were Greek scholars & Greek was their native language evidently didn't understand the phrase as Endless Damnationists do. Likewise with some other scholars since then & until the present day.

That's fine and it's evidence, but without citing and explaining the arguments they made it's _compromised_ evidence. The problem is that they have an obvious need to explain away those specific words in order to understand a doctrine they believed for other reasons. I'm not merely accusing them of being ideologues; I'm pointing out that merely naming them isn't enough to establish that their arguments were good, because in addition to the reasons you've given to trust them, there are also adequate reasons to doubt them.

As for Keizer it is interesting that she's listed as a universalist on the Tentmaker site & her book has been well recieved by universal reconciliationists i'm familiar with.

I read the page where that was discussed. It's absolutely ridiculous; they should not have listed her without either her permission or a clear citation. Their citation of why they think she believes that /aion/ does not mean "everlasting" is actually her explaining why one specific author uses /aion/ not to mean timeless eternity (but she thinks that author DOES mean everlasting time without end).

ClementofA · Oct 16, 2017

William Tanksley Jr said:
Why not? Onesimus was a rebellious unbeliever, and because he ran away he met Paul and was converted. Now he will live forever. Why shouldn't this cause Paul to hope that Philemon will be reconciled to him in forgiveness, thus making it sure that both will live forever in brotherhood?

I don't understand why anyone would think this passage means something else. When I read you saying that is does, I have to wonder what exactly you think it means. Remember that Paul isn't hoping Onesimus will be received back as a slave (for which it might be possible to receive him back for the rest of their lives); he's hoping Philemon will receive him as a brother.

And yet that is how the esteemed TDNT lexicon sees it:

"In the multivolume THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (begun in German under the editorship of Gerhard Kittel) Hermann Sasse admits, “The concept of eternity [in aionios] is weakened” in Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2 (vol.1. p.209). He explains that these passages use “the eternity formulae” which he had previously explained as “the course of the world” perceived as “a series of smaller aiones” (p.203). Sasse also refers to the use of aionios in Philemon 15, which he feels “reminds us of the non-biblical usage” of this word, which he had earlier found to signify “lifelong” or “enduring” (p.208). The Greek Words "aion" and "aionios," do these words mean "eternal" or "everlasting"?

Lexicons often disagree with each other.

William Tanksley Jr · Oct 16, 2017

pat34lee said:
Why do the outlaws never read a whole passage?

That's unkind and unwarranted.

Read some of the prophets in the Old Testament. The Word of God stands forever. That includes what you call law, but is really instructions on how to live.

You're right that the book title /torah/ is better translated "instructions" than "law"; but you're wrong that it's "instructions on how to live." Rather, it's the story of God instructing man about their own weakness and His own holiness. This is one of the reasons why we only have fragments of the original code of laws now, scattered among many stories of how the people were busy disobeying the Law before, during, and after it was given to them.

It's also why teachers of the Law like Ezekiel knew that the failure to keep the law -- and the radical straying from basic goodness -- his people were going through was not merely a passing thing. It would only be remedied by God sending His spirit to us, giving us a renewed heart, and making our heart (not stone tablets) be the place of the Law. This is how Jesus fulfilled the whole Law and prophets.

Sacrifices are still in effect. The only reason they aren't happening now is because there is no temple. It will be rebuilt and they will begin again. Why? Because God commands it.

The exact opposite is true. Hebrews teaches that the temple was still standing while it was obsolete; in vanished away (i.e. all of its stones were torn apart) after it was no longer needed. Likewise, it teaches that the sacrifices that were offered before could not save at all; and the One sacrifice that was offered by Christ saves us to the uttermost.

If you actually think Acts was about animals, you need to read it again. It is about how the Jews viewed gentile believers. There were strict traditions on not eating or drinking with non-Jews, as they could be unclean and cause the Jew to become unclean.

Also true. And this time I don't wish to add any correction.

Bible Highlighter · Oct 16, 2017

pat34lee said:
Why do the outlaws never read a whole passage?

Read some of the prophets in the Old Testament. The Word of
God stands forever. That includes what you call law, but is really
instructions on how to live.

Sacrifices are still in effect. The only reason they aren't happening
now is because there is no temple. It will be rebuilt and they will
begin again. Why? Because God commands it.

If you actually think Acts was about animals, you need to read it
again. It is about how the Jews viewed gentile believers. There
were strict traditions on not eating or drinking with non-Jews, as
they could be unclean and cause the Jew to become unclean.

Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.
I believe that.
Paul condemned circumcisiion salvationism, Peter was clearly told by God to eat unclean animals (Which is confirmed by Paul's words), and Jesus said to turn the other cheek instead of rendering an eye for an eye. The Law has changed just as Hebrews 7:12 says. In fact, Paul warns his readers to not be justified by the Law (i.e. the Old Law), otherwise one is fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4).

William Tanksley Jr · Oct 16, 2017

ClementofA said:
And yet that is how the esteemed TDNT lexicon sees it:

The TDNT is not a lexicon, but rather a theological wordbook. It's a wonderful resource, but it's also the cause of the term "the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer", coined by Barr while reviewing one of its older editions. In Barr's original use (which is sometimes confused by Carson's different use of the same term), the meaning of a _word_ is assumed to be the meaning of the theological concept behind the word -- so people explain that "to the Hebrews, the word 'death' meant a separation between the body and the soul," when their evidence actually means that they think the big theological picture of death includes that separation.

So no, it's not a good example of a bad lexicon. It's just not a lexicon at all.

"In the multivolume THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (begun in German under the editorship of Gerhard Kittel) Hermann Sasse admits, “The concept of eternity [in aionios] is weakened” in Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2 (vol.1. p.209). He explains that these passages use “the eternity formulae” which he had previously explained as “the course of the world” perceived as “a series of smaller aiones” (p.203). Sasse also refers to the use of aionios in Philemon 15, which he feels “reminds us of the non-biblical usage” of this word, which he had earlier found to signify “lifelong” or “enduring” (p.208). The Greek Words "aion" and "aionios," do these words mean "eternal" or "everlasting"?

http://www.saviourofall.org/Writings/aion.html

It's a common bad assumption -- propagated from Latin -- that the Greek /aion/ refers to one unit of time, where aion follows aion. This is caused by the fact that the Latin /aevum/ does work this way, and our English "age" takes that Latin meaning very often. But in Greek, where a plurality of /aion/s is referenced, the most common meaning is "generations." (In the Bible it also often is the Hebrew plural of intensification, often accompanied by the construct form or the genitive -- the phrase "for the /aion/s of the /aion/s" is no more plural than "vanity of vanities, all is vanity.")

You can read more about that in the "Time Life Entirety" book.

Lexicons often disagree with each other.

True (although not for the reason you gave). So what? The solution is not "those guys don't agree, so listen to the universalists."

ClementofA · Oct 16, 2017

William Tanksley Jr said:
That's not necessary. You did claim that lexicons supported your claims, and my point is that the lexicons which explain how those words are actually used in phrases do not support your claims.

I believe lexicons do support what i said, which was entirely about the "hyperbole theory", something quite different from your idea of what you thought i was speaking about:

"Most lexicons disagree with the notion that the Hebrew & Greek words OLAM & AION mean "forever" according to how you appear to understand it. They indicate that the word has various meanings according to context, not one single basic meaning unless used in hyperbole. The hyperbole theory has been recently refuted in the other thread started by Mark that has been getting activity on this forum recently:

What is the 2nd Death? (Annihilationsim vs. Eternal Torment)

"That is easily proven by passages that speak of their "end", e.g. the "end of the AION" (Mt.24:3). Something that has an "end" cannot be endless or forever."

William Tanksley Jr · Oct 16, 2017

ClementofA said:
I believe lexicons do support what i said, which was entirely about the "hyperbole theory", something quite different from your idea of what you thought i was speaking about

My response is to your claim "Most lexicons disagree with the notion that the Hebrew & Greek words OLAM & AION mean "forever" according to how you appear to understand it." Now, you may have actually originally typed that thinking you were only replying to a person who believes "aionios means forever except when it's used hyperbolically." But your response was much broader than just that, and my response to it was right on the head; you actually DO believe that /aion/ and /aionios/ don't normally mean everlasting time. You've argued that very clearly to me.

Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

he-man

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Active Member

Messianic

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads