Air Conditioning Hell: How Liberalism Happens

mark kennedy said:

I looked into the annihilation thing and resolved every passage but this one:

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Rev. 20:10)​

Click to expand...

This verse is not speaking about the punishment of men. It deals specifically with the punishment of the devil and the beast and the false prophet. In Revelation 16:12-14, we see that these three are UNCLEAN EVIL SPIRITS of DEVILS, which tells us that they are NOT of the same class of beings as mankind, but rather that they are of the same class of being as the devil.

speaking of the after-death existence and resurrection in terms of "periods of time" may not be fair to the Christian tradition, either. It's become obvious to me, chatting and interacting with Orthodox Christians, that western Christians view of time is not really consistent with the biblical one, which is more vague and nonlinear.

redleghunter said:

Aionios is used twice in Matthew 25:46. Once to describe 'everlasting punishment' (αἰώνιος aiōnios κόλασις kolasis); and again to describe life eternal (ζωή zōē
αἰώνιος aiōnios). If you are operating from a different lexicon let me know.

Stongs G166 aionios:Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

Even the Latin Vulgate gets it right:

et ibunt hii in supplicium aeternum iusti autem in vitam aeternam

Strongs G166 aionios:

The KJV translates Strong's G166 in the following manner: eternal (42x), everlasting (25x), the world began (with G5550) (2x), since the world began (with G5550) (1x), for ever (1x).

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
   
   
2. without beginning
   
   
3. without end, never to cease, everlasting

A few points. First is if we go by your definition, our eternal life with God is 'an indeterminate period of time.' That sure changes a lot of Christian teachings and even apostolic teaching in the NT. Where we see 'eternal' life in 1 John 5:20 I'm guessing it is not an 'indeterminate period of time.' It really means eternal. I mean the Apostle John used the same word aionios.

Secondly, trying to wrest a root of a word is not how we exegete as the NT writers did not use the root but the actual word. I see this approach as begging the question, as we have ample evidence of aionios used throughout the NT which there is absolutely no debate the meaning is 'eternal' or 'everlasting.'

Finally, we can check the OT too. I quoted Daniel 12:2. The English used there for everlasting life and everlasting contempt is again the same word owlam. Again, the lexicon lines up with 'everlasting.'

The KJV translates Strong's H5769 in the following manner: ever (272x), everlasting (63x), old (22x), perpetual (22x), evermore (15x), never (13x), time (6x), ancient (5x), world (4x), always (3x), alway (2x), long (2x), more (2x), never (with H408) (2x), miscellaneous (6x).

long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world

1. ancient time, long time (of past)
   
   
2. (of future)
   1. for ever, always
      
      
   2. continuous existence, perpetual
      
      
   3. everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

Owlam H5769: Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

Click to expand...

You still have not answered how non-personal things such death and the grave can suffer conscious torment. Death and the grave CANNOT suffer conscious torment. They are altogether abolished.

The print form of Strong's Concordance I possess says that aionios is from aion (G165) which means "age." An age comes to an end.

What is the sign of your coming and the end of the age (aion G165).

An aion comes to an end. It expresses limited duration. Thus it only expresses the idea of endlessness when connected with what is endless, as God. Furthermore, it is used in the plural which proves that it expresses limited duration. For instance, Hebrews 1 says that God through the Son made the [successive] ages (aion, G165). If aion means "endless," then when used in the plural we would have to believe that there is more than one eternity which is absurd.

redleghunter said:

In support of your avatar:

“Who stands fast? Only the man whose final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, or his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all this when he is called to obedient and responsible action in faith and in exclusive allegiance to God – the responsible man, who tries to make his whole life an answer to the question and call of God.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Click to expand...

At the end of his life he actually took some steps back from the tone he took in his earlier writings. That work has to be kept in the context it was written under. His Letters and Papers from Prison come to different themes, ones that are tempered by his experiences of desolation and to more obviously Lutheran questions, such as finding God in the midst of an evil world. Bonhoeffer is not the natural theologian of the American evangelical cultural activist (as Mohler is), when he visited America he only found a home in the spirituality of black churches, because he believed it was only there that the Cross was properly understood. And my own pastor would tend to agree, Lutheranism has little to do with the "Theology of Glory" of other white evangelicals.

The Boxer said:

This verse is not speaking about the punishment of men. It deals specifically with the punishment of the devil and the beast and the false prophet. In Revelation 16:12-14, we see that these three are UNCLEAN EVIL SPIRITS of DEVILS, which tells us that they are NOT of the same class of beings as mankind, but rather that they are of the same class of being as the devil.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting it's a different end for them?

mark kennedy said:

Are you suggesting it's a different end for them?

Click to expand...

Yes.

The Boxer said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

I don't think that fits the larger context. If the annialation of body and soul in the lake of fire is the end for the children of perdition it should apply to all. I can't imagine perpetuating them in these fires serves any purpose. Their not sent there to suffer, they suffer because they are sent there

mark kennedy said:

I looked into the annihilation thing and resolved every passage but this one:

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Rev. 20:10)​

Click to expand...

Agree but think there is more in Scripture plus reasoning supporting the idea such people exist and will continue to exist in the next life - in torment.
Romans 9
Does God's Wrath at sin/rebellion ever Justly end?
How can creatures of wrath be utterly destroyed/annihilated without it also admitting their existence was a mistake to make them exist and then allow them to continue existing in the first place?
Wouldn't the world be a better a place without them?

The fact such "vessels" exists must serve a purpose both now and in eternity. These points become even more forcible/weighty if one agrees all humans are created with immortal souls (and also traditionally/orthodox at conception). To me it makes no sense to speak of vessels of wrath if they are either thought to be converted eventually (universalism) or annihilated. I can only understand a traditional/orthodox hope that ALL will be saved and even pray for that, but recognize that is very likely not going to happen.

It cannot be a fault of God that He made creatures who could rebel and gave them the ability to exists forever as persons (for us currently only with our souls and angels always as just spirits), individuals who can exist eternally. To have given us that ability and dignity with no intent of it being used (for the vessels of wrath) seems rather a pointless endeavor for us to attribute to God or I should say a traditional/orthodox view of God. As each of our views of God is pretty much foundational with and woven into many Christian beliefs. So speaking about them as if they are separate rather makes no sense and inserting opposing views of God will tend to destroy the case one might make for having a faith in the belief we are discussing - rather like the definition of a heresy=destructive to Christian faith (that being orthodox/traditional Christian faith and to some degree with severe heresy destructive to all forms Christian faith).