The following is another section I wrote on C.S. Lewis and the problem of evil, from my MPhil in 2003. There is material added in the Additional 2008 section.
http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html
To Lewis, Hell was the place where those who were committed to unrepented rebellion against God were separated from their creator in the next life. Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119). This is the case even though Jesus Christ did the work required to save all of humanity.
Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will. I see the logic of his point; however, it appears from Romans for example, that all reject God prior to God’s grace through the Holy Spirit. Romans 3:10-11, mentions that not one person is righteous, not one person really seeks God. This being accepted, then even believers in Christ have their will somehow moved without being violated, since many believers accept the idea that human beings have, to some degree, free will. If a human being does not choose God without God first moving his/her heart, then the question arises, why does God move some and not others? Yes, some do believe and repent, but they cannot do this autonomously, so the reason why some are saved, and some are not, remains somewhat a mystery to humanity, and cannot be Biblically, entirely contributed to the human use of free will. Lewis explained some major objections to Hell, and countered these objections. He dealt with the objection with God’s retributive justice. He made the following point.
The demand that God should forgive such a man while he remains what he is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good. But forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered if it is to be complete: and a man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness. Lewis (1940)(1996: 124).
So, based on this idea, God must punish sinners, otherwise he condones sin. I think this true as well, to not believe in God in a relationship sense and fail to ask for forgiveness is a rejection of God. To refuse a relationship with God, one’s own creator, is to arguably commit the greatest crime possible. To reject the being that made you in love, and to reject your very own purpose to serve that God in love, is certainly a punishable offense. If there is anything wrong and offensive in the Universe that would be it!
Lewis also noted that while God does issue punishment to sinners in Hell, he is at the same time letting them live the selfish, Godless lives they desired apart from him, so it appears his love still remains even to those Hell bound. In the Screwtape Letters, Lewis as Uncle Screwtape states: "The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and specifically, the one self is not another self. My good is my good and yours is yours." Lewis (1941)(1990: 92) . This selfishness which leads to the damage of others is allowed by the Lord to flourish in Hell within the spirits of unrepentant sinners.
Lewis mentions the objection of God giving eternal-everlasting punishment for transitory sin. He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state. So, I would take from this idea, that perhaps the actual punishment of the sinner never varies, but stays the same. Hell could be a timeless type of punishment. Also, I would like to counter this objection by stating that in everlasting punishment, the sinner is not primarily being punished for sins against God in the temporal life, but is being punished and separated from God for a sin position against God. Why does a sinner earn everlasting punishment? Because his/her rebellion against God is everlasting. There is thus no injustice because there is not really eternal-everlasting punishment for temporal sin, but everlasting punishment for everlasting rebellion against God.
Concerning the objection of the horrors of Hell, and the intense punishment, Lewis rejected annihilationism because he stated that ". . . the destruction of one thing means the emergence of something else. . . . If souls can be destroyed, must there not be a state of having been a human soul?" Lewis (1940)(1996: 127). This could be the case, but I think it tenable to believe that God could completely destroy what he had created. To say he could not would be troubling in light of the Christian belief in God’s omnipotence. It would not be contradiction for God to destruct what he had constructed, so I think Lewis has a logical point, but one that would not concern annihilationists, or critics of Hell very much, since the God Christians believe in should possess the power to destroy his own creations.
It is quite possible that the level of Hell one endures could very well be proportionate to their level of rebellion against God which takes place in their sin position. Jesus indicated there was greater sin for certain acts, as when he was handed over to the Romans by Judas and the Jews in John 19:11, so perhaps Hell is determined by what the individual makes of it largely.
Additional 2008:
Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119).
Within much of Reformed theology persons outside of Christ freely reject God, but are also not elected to salvation. J.S.Whale states sovereign election means that all persons are subjects of double predestination, either in Christ or condemned. Whale (1958: 63). Election is based on God’s plan and initiative to save the elect. Calvin (1543)(1996: 200).
Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will.
I reason that this is incorrect. God can use compatibilism to save persons. Persons can be determined to believe in God without force or coercion, and freely accept the gospel message as God chooses to regenerate persons and moulds and persuades individuals to believe. Philosopher Louis P. Pojman explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Within determinism or hard determinism, an outside force causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although an outside force causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Within hard determinism an outside force would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism an outside force would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause. Pojman (1996: 596). Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. This could be an outside force, as noted, that is not God. An atheist may be a compatibilist and/or an incompatibilist.
Alexander R. Pruss notes a key difference between incompatibilism and compatibilism in regard to committing an action. The incompatibilist thinks if someone freely refrains from an action, they must not have been causally determined or significantly influenced to do so. The compatibilist thinks if someone refrains from an action, they have the power to do this and were not constrained from doing the action by an outside force. Compatibilism allows for significantly free human beings to commit free actions, simultaneously influenced and determined by an outside force but never with the use of constraint, coercion or force. Incompatibilism denies that any outside influence can significantly will any action, or impose itself on a significantly free being for a truly free action to occur. Pruss (2003: 216).
He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state.
I personally doubt that hell is timeless, but the lake of fire, although likely described in figurative terms, has a physical nature where physically resurrected bodies are punished (Revelation 20). How time would work in such a place I do not know, but I reason that persons need time to process thoughts and to process punishment.
Finally, I desire that no one end up in hell, but it is a Biblical teaching!
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.
LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio,
Barbour and Company.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
PRUSS, ALEXANDER R. (2003) ‘A New Free-Will Defence’, Religious Studies, Volume 39, pp. 211-223. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.
http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/bloghush-floyd-
mayweather-jr-to-fight.html
http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html
To Lewis, Hell was the place where those who were committed to unrepented rebellion against God were separated from their creator in the next life. Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119). This is the case even though Jesus Christ did the work required to save all of humanity.
Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will. I see the logic of his point; however, it appears from Romans for example, that all reject God prior to God’s grace through the Holy Spirit. Romans 3:10-11, mentions that not one person is righteous, not one person really seeks God. This being accepted, then even believers in Christ have their will somehow moved without being violated, since many believers accept the idea that human beings have, to some degree, free will. If a human being does not choose God without God first moving his/her heart, then the question arises, why does God move some and not others? Yes, some do believe and repent, but they cannot do this autonomously, so the reason why some are saved, and some are not, remains somewhat a mystery to humanity, and cannot be Biblically, entirely contributed to the human use of free will. Lewis explained some major objections to Hell, and countered these objections. He dealt with the objection with God’s retributive justice. He made the following point.
The demand that God should forgive such a man while he remains what he is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good. But forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered if it is to be complete: and a man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness. Lewis (1940)(1996: 124).
So, based on this idea, God must punish sinners, otherwise he condones sin. I think this true as well, to not believe in God in a relationship sense and fail to ask for forgiveness is a rejection of God. To refuse a relationship with God, one’s own creator, is to arguably commit the greatest crime possible. To reject the being that made you in love, and to reject your very own purpose to serve that God in love, is certainly a punishable offense. If there is anything wrong and offensive in the Universe that would be it!
Lewis also noted that while God does issue punishment to sinners in Hell, he is at the same time letting them live the selfish, Godless lives they desired apart from him, so it appears his love still remains even to those Hell bound. In the Screwtape Letters, Lewis as Uncle Screwtape states: "The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and specifically, the one self is not another self. My good is my good and yours is yours." Lewis (1941)(1990: 92) . This selfishness which leads to the damage of others is allowed by the Lord to flourish in Hell within the spirits of unrepentant sinners.
Lewis mentions the objection of God giving eternal-everlasting punishment for transitory sin. He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state. So, I would take from this idea, that perhaps the actual punishment of the sinner never varies, but stays the same. Hell could be a timeless type of punishment. Also, I would like to counter this objection by stating that in everlasting punishment, the sinner is not primarily being punished for sins against God in the temporal life, but is being punished and separated from God for a sin position against God. Why does a sinner earn everlasting punishment? Because his/her rebellion against God is everlasting. There is thus no injustice because there is not really eternal-everlasting punishment for temporal sin, but everlasting punishment for everlasting rebellion against God.
Concerning the objection of the horrors of Hell, and the intense punishment, Lewis rejected annihilationism because he stated that ". . . the destruction of one thing means the emergence of something else. . . . If souls can be destroyed, must there not be a state of having been a human soul?" Lewis (1940)(1996: 127). This could be the case, but I think it tenable to believe that God could completely destroy what he had created. To say he could not would be troubling in light of the Christian belief in God’s omnipotence. It would not be contradiction for God to destruct what he had constructed, so I think Lewis has a logical point, but one that would not concern annihilationists, or critics of Hell very much, since the God Christians believe in should possess the power to destroy his own creations.
It is quite possible that the level of Hell one endures could very well be proportionate to their level of rebellion against God which takes place in their sin position. Jesus indicated there was greater sin for certain acts, as when he was handed over to the Romans by Judas and the Jews in John 19:11, so perhaps Hell is determined by what the individual makes of it largely.
Additional 2008:
Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119).
Within much of Reformed theology persons outside of Christ freely reject God, but are also not elected to salvation. J.S.Whale states sovereign election means that all persons are subjects of double predestination, either in Christ or condemned. Whale (1958: 63). Election is based on God’s plan and initiative to save the elect. Calvin (1543)(1996: 200).
Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will.
I reason that this is incorrect. God can use compatibilism to save persons. Persons can be determined to believe in God without force or coercion, and freely accept the gospel message as God chooses to regenerate persons and moulds and persuades individuals to believe. Philosopher Louis P. Pojman explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Within determinism or hard determinism, an outside force causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although an outside force causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Within hard determinism an outside force would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism an outside force would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause. Pojman (1996: 596). Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. This could be an outside force, as noted, that is not God. An atheist may be a compatibilist and/or an incompatibilist.
Alexander R. Pruss notes a key difference between incompatibilism and compatibilism in regard to committing an action. The incompatibilist thinks if someone freely refrains from an action, they must not have been causally determined or significantly influenced to do so. The compatibilist thinks if someone refrains from an action, they have the power to do this and were not constrained from doing the action by an outside force. Compatibilism allows for significantly free human beings to commit free actions, simultaneously influenced and determined by an outside force but never with the use of constraint, coercion or force. Incompatibilism denies that any outside influence can significantly will any action, or impose itself on a significantly free being for a truly free action to occur. Pruss (2003: 216).
He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state.
I personally doubt that hell is timeless, but the lake of fire, although likely described in figurative terms, has a physical nature where physically resurrected bodies are punished (Revelation 20). How time would work in such a place I do not know, but I reason that persons need time to process thoughts and to process punishment.
Finally, I desire that no one end up in hell, but it is a Biblical teaching!
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.
LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio,
Barbour and Company.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
PRUSS, ALEXANDER R. (2003) ‘A New Free-Will Defence’, Religious Studies, Volume 39, pp. 211-223. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.
http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/bloghush-floyd-
mayweather-jr-to-fight.html
I think you cover the issue well here. It's one of the hard (if not the hardest) truths of our faith to accept. You know it's especially hard when some Christians themselves can't even bring themselves to accept it.
ReplyDeleteAssuming you're always looking for good reading (as I am), John Frame has an excellent section in his book The Doctrine of God about the different perspectives on free will. I think I've recommended Frame to you before---not that I'm a diehard Frame fanatic, I just read the book last semester for a systematic theology class so I am recalling this stuff.
Thanks, Jake.
ReplyDeleteYes, Frame is a major theologian. There are so many books I need to buy once I have more money coming in.
Another useful book on free will and predestination is
BASINGER, DAVID AND RANDALL BASINGER (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
The book also features Feinberg, Pinnock, and Reichenbach. I met Pinnock in England and he was a very nice man, but he had serious eye problems. I have emailed with him a couple of times since 2001.
In regard to compatibilism vs. incompatibilism, with my theodicy research and with God's help, I had to look at each view objectively and in light of Scripture. I reason if others do this they should lean towards compatibilism, although I admit that there are some very good incompatibilist scholars such as Plantinga and Geisler. I have learned from reading incompatibilists as well.
Yeah, I agree. My understanding of the various positions on free will is extremely limited at this point, and I've only had a couple of weeks to really think about it during that class. I should take the time to learn more about it, as it is a frequent issue that comes up in conversations, both with believers and non-believers.
ReplyDeleteEven with formal academic work, blogging, and friendly debating, and that has been years of study, there are still so many areas that need serious study for me as well.
ReplyDeleteSadly this is one of the lies of satan that is often accepted by folks outside of Christ. That anyone dying, is at "peace" and faith never enters into the equation. I speak as someone who once thought the same, but its often the way folks do think.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing about the doctrine of hell, is that its a subject often neglected in the pulpit today; and I'm not neccessarily advocating the fire and brimstone type of preaching over all, yet, it seems to have swung the other way, in where it is left out altogether, for fear of offending, or it not being a nice thing to speak of in polite company. Yet, I do believe there is a place for it still, obviously the love of God, and how that love was manifested in the Gospel should be the driving force behind the gospel of Salvation, but I also think this avoiding the doctrine of hell, is part of what makes up "another gospel" in some ways today. And if folks can't be won by the showing them the love of God, then the threatenings of the terrors of hell, still has its place, IMO.
That anyone dying, is at "peace" and faith never enters into the equation. I speak as someone who once thought the same, but its often the way folks do think.
ReplyDeleteGood point, and if there is faith, faith in what? Faith in a sentimental, speculative hope that God will save them, perhaps on their own terms, or faith in a historically documented Biblical gospel.
I also think this avoiding the doctrine of hell, is part of what makes up "another gospel" in some ways today.
Yes, the extreme liberals and some other groups can be known for this, but they are setting up their flock with sentimental, speculative concepts hoping that God will save the dead. But, since God allowed death and suffering in the first place, sentimental, speculative theology by itself should not be expected to save anyone. Since God has not been the close personal interactive friend of persons, why should persons, outside of specific revelation, expect to be saved by God in the afterlife. I state this respectfully and not in an attacking manner, but these views are foolishness.
Cheers, Deejay.
My related article on sentimental theology
deep stuff dude. very good thoughts, especially challenging lewis. it's a huge topic... i really still haven't worked out yet, thanks for sharing processing of it all...
ReplyDeleteLon, thanks for reading and the encouraging words.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how the Biblical teaching on predestination is avoided or glossed over throughout most evangelical Christian churches, at least that seems to be the case in my experience with Alliance, Mennonite and Pentecostal denominations. I think it results in many problems concerning lack of assurance among Christians. For example, my maternal grandmother, a very godly woman, still often fretted over whether she was acceptable to God in moments when she felt separated from Him by sin. I also recall many concerns from other youths about the possibility of losing salvation.
ReplyDeleteExcellent points, Sir Charles. I have well documented positions on predestination that are compatible with the views of Reformed churches, including our Presbyterian denomination.
ReplyDeleteCheers.
Thank you for your article on Hell. I learned a lot.
ReplyDelete-Limbo Bimbo-
Thanks to you, Mr. Bimbo.
ReplyDeleteHello, Dan.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting.
Here is an article and lecture I did on hell:
Hell
Here are two articles on free will:
Edwards and free will
Arminianism and free will
Wow, nice fire graphic. Is that supposed to be hell? Pretty sick!!
ReplyDeleteTo start with, Leon Morris doesn’t have a clue as to what aionion means.
The term aions is used below in ways that when the rest is translated properly, forever or eternity would never make sense.
Before the aions: 1 Cor. 2:7 (before the eternities?)
God makes the aions Heb. 1:2 (God makes the forevers?)
Past aions: Col. 1:26 (Past eternities)
Present aion: Gal. 1:4 (Present forever)
End of present aion: Mat. 24:3 (End of present eternity)
The next aion: Lk. 18:30 (The next forever?)
Future aions: Eph. 2:7 (Future eternities?)
Contrasting aions: Eph. 3:21 (Contrasting forevers?)
Ends of the aions: 1 Cor.10:11 (Ends of the eternities?)
Instances where aionios cannot possibly mean eternal:
Rom 16:25
. . .according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world (aionios) began. (the word kosmos is not found in this verse, they knew eternities or forevers wouldn’t make sense). Eternity has no beginning.
II Thes. 2:16
. . . and has given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace. (Just how long are we going to need consolation and hope? for eternity? When will we experience the promises?)
II Tim. 1:9
. . . according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began (times eonian) (What if it had said before eternity?)
Jude 7
Even as Sodom and Gomorha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal (eonian) fire (justice of fire eonian).
But Look:
Ezekial 16:55
When your sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then you (Jerusalem) shall return to your former estate. (their former estate was not in hell, was it?)
“Justinian called a council in 540 wherein he labored to add the word “endless” to the Greek aionios life. He knew and conceded that aionios was not endless, and so insisted in the Church inserting the word endless before it to signify “endless life” and “endless punishment.” (Ray Smith)
The Greek aion is the same as the English Eon and the Greek aionios is the English eonian. These words never mean forever. Had God wanted His Word to have a term meaning forever, there would have been one in the language of the day.
Judgment will not last forever as the theologians insist, but are eonian. Once all sins have been repented of each new creature will be given life immortal and will be in The Kingdom of God which “will have no end”.
Sheol:
There is no debate. The meaning is unseen (not grave or hell). The word sheol was translated 31 times as grave and 31 times as hell.
Sheol translated hell:
Psalm 9:17
The wicked shall be turned into hell (sheol), and all the nations that forget God.
Oh, I see. Us dumb sheep will never see such deception of the KJ translators.
Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible-The lawless shall return to hades, All nations forgetful of God.
(Concordant)-The wicked shall return to the unseen, all nations forgetful of God.
Notice the attempts at holding onto such a false doctrine.
Gehenna:
Gehenna was in fact a burning trash dump which had fires that were never quenched. That’s one reason Christ used it as an example for judgment. The symbolic fires of God’s judgments will not be quenched either. They will burn out when they have accomplished the tasks for which they were created (notice, the location of Gehenna is no longer on fire). That’s because it burned up what it was designed to burn up.
Gehenna was also used as an example for the judgment of Christ’s elect. When he spoke to the disciples on the mount, they were the only ones present.
Matt. 5:30
And if your right hand offend you, cut it off, and cast it from you: for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell (Gehenna). (Body parts don’t sin. Sin comes from the heart.
Notice!!)
Rom. 6:13
Neither yield you your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin.
Now unless you’ve chopped off body parts yourself, I think you should realize that this is symbolic for cutting out sins of the heart.
What is symbolic Gehenna?
Matt. 5:21 and 25
But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the Council; but whosoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell (Gehenna) fire; agree with your adversary quickly… lest… you be cast into prison (a spiritual frame of mind).
It’s all concerning judgment, not some fabled hell.
Hades is in fact the same as sheol and means unseen.
These people you quote are as clueless as the rest of the church. The scriptures assert that death is likened to sleep and there is no experience or thought in death. You also don’t understand the little translation problem in 2 Corinthians 5:8.
Concordant: yet we are encouraged, and are delighting rather to be away from home out of the body and to be at home with the Lord. Wherefore we are ambitious also, whether at home or away from home, to be well pleasing to Him.
When people die, they are dead awaiting resurrection. Only Christ has risen to heaven.
The fire of God is not literal fire. The Lake of Fire is the same fire used to judge the elect during their physical life. Ultimately, all will be saved.
Hello, Dan.
ReplyDeleteWow, nice fire graphic. Is that supposed to be hell? Pretty sick!!
Dan, I reason that the flames are figurative. Tactful response Dan, I am sure it will get you far on this blog.
You may not be a troll, but I don't take a lot of crap on my blogs. You can ask my fellow bloggers, I WILL NOT go on and on in circles with someone with a closed mind. We need to be respectful on my blogs and then move on. I will not be intellectually beaten into submission, and will not allow it to happen to any guest, and will not attempt to intellectually beat someone into submission...understood?
“Justinian called a council in 540 wherein he labored to add the word “endless” to the Greek aionios life. He knew and conceded that aionios was not endless, and so insisted in the Church inserting the word endless before it to signify “endless life” and “endless punishment.” (Ray Smith)
You need to attempt to find a wide range of scholars, to at least test your views with an open mind.
Dan, even if the lake of fire of Revelation 20 is figurative, the concept of everlasting punishment (check the Greek) is still Biblical. Revelation 20: 10:
Strong states that αἰών can mean perpetuity, age, Messianic period, course, eternal, (for) ever. Strong (1986: 8).
It context of Revelation 20: 10, the punishment has a beginning and no end.
Greek
Word Detail
Word/Inflected Form Lemma Part of Speech Lexical Entry
αἰώνων (35) αἰών (739) Noun a period of existence; eternity; a segment of time, age
Parsing Genitive Plural Masculine
Related Words ἀεί χρόνος αἰώνιος ἡλικία ἕως ἄνθρωπος ἔκπαλαι τρισσεύω ἐνιαυτός ἡμέρα
Context in Revelation 20:10 εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν ... καὶ εἶδον θρόνον μέγαν
Strongs # 165 properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future)
Thayers at Crosswalk Thayer's
LSJ (from Perseus) Click For LSJ
Middle Liddell (from Perseus) Click For Middle Liddell
Clearly according to Revelation, Chapter 20, by implication, all are not saved. Dan come back when you have done some more research. I want to deal with open-minded folks.
These people you quote are as clueless as the rest of the church.
You have not demonstrated such...
This is from a previous article I wrote on everlasting and eternal.
I looked up the Greek that time as well.
Interestingly in New Testament Greek according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the same Greek word can be defined in English as either eternal or everlasting. The Greek word aíwvios (aionios) is explained as meaning perpetual, used of past time or past and future as well, eternal, for ever, and everlasting. Strong (1986: 8). Strong provides only one word for eternal or everlasting from the New Testament.
Walter Bauer notes that in Romans 16: 25, a form of the word is used to describe a mystery of long ages ago without beginning. Bauer (1979: 28). In Hebrews 9: 14, a form of the word is used to describe the eternal Spirit and is mentioned as existing without beginning or end. Bauer (1979: 28). In Mathew 19: 29, Jesus discusses those that shall inherit everlasting life, and the word is used in a form that describes life existing without end. Bauer (1979: 28). The first verse appears to be describing a mystery that always existed with God, and in the second verse it mentions the Spirit of God that has always existed, and did not begin and will not cease. In the third verse the life Jesus discusses did not always exist, but everlasting life shall be given to some by God. There is a clear philosophical difference between the first two meanings and the last one.
The first two examples, in my view, are describing aspects of the eternal God. Something which is eternal according to Simon Blackburn is not moving, and is beyond time, whereas the third example in light of Blackburn's definition is describing something that is everlasting and running within time. Blackburn (1996: 126). In the first two usages of the word the idea being put across is that the mystery existed within the mind of the eternal God, and that God’s Spirit was eternal. God is eternal, as in without beginning or end and is beyond time. Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling (1999: 47). The third verse is not describing eternal life, but everlasting life which has a beginning but no ending. The everlasting life of those in Christ is not eternal, but exists within time and continues to run within time and therefore this life should be properly defined as everlasting life as opposed to eternal life. This philosophical difference is why in my writings I only use the term eternal in the context of God and use the terms everlasting life, everlasting existence, or everlasting punishment when mentioning God’s created beings which exist in time. I am not trying to split hairs here, but rather wish to attempt to define my terms as properly as possible in order to avoid related theological and philosophical difficulties through the use of terminology in the future.
This is not to deny some of the theological concepts which scholars and students use with the concept of eternal life. One student mentioned to me, while I lived in England, that we as Christians will share in the eternal life of God in the culminated Kingdom of God. I agree that we shall exist with God and experience his existence, but technically speaking he has eternal life, and we shall have everlasting life. God alone has always existed and therefore has eternal life. J.F. Walvoord notes that eternal life in Scripture is contrasted with physical life, and I completely agree. Walvoord (1996: 369). Whether the term is translated as eternal or everlasting life, I agree that it is the life that is opposed to physical temporal life from a Scriptural perspective. I would also add that it is contrasted with everlasting punishment for unbelievers. Whether we call it eternal or everlasting life it can only be found through Christ according to the Biblical account.
Additional
Quite philosophically important for clarity, is the idea that the eternal triune God did not exist in any type of state of time prior to the creation of the time, the universe, and matter. I say this to avoid a vicious regress.
In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324).
In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items. A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent. Tolhurst (1996: 835).
If the triune God had an infinite amount of time to plan creation, as some Christians state, then we would have the major philosophical difficulty of an infinite amount of time for God to traverse in order to arrive at creation. This would be a vicious regress and a problem that does not solve itself. This vicious regress would be an excellent target for critical philosophers to rightly claim as a major problem with Christian theology and philosophy.
My solution, although not perfect since a finite being cannot understand eternity, it to state that prior to time, God was (and is) an infinite being that communicated within the trinity, but not in the sense of interaction that took time. God simply knew God and then created time, the universe and matter. God can now communicate within time with his creation. God did not need an infinite amount of time to plan his creation as with infinite knowledge God did what he desired via his nature. God was (and is) and created.
BAUER, W. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
WALVOORD, J. F. (1996) ‘Eternal Life’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
No, I'm not one of C.S. Lewis' creations.
ReplyDeleteThe way to decide the credability of a scholar is to see how the oldest Greek manuscripts word passages. The examples I showed you regarding aions and aionios should have been sufficient to prove that forever, everlasting or eternal are absolutely incorrect. There was no term for eternal back then. The only exception would be "without end". This is how the Kingdom of God is described. We are given immortality when we finally achieve salvation. Aionian life speaks only of the preliminary kingdom in which the chosen reign with Christ. Christ is the aionion God. He is not God the Father. I will not get into the trinity with you because it does not have anything to do with the evil doctrine of hell. The scriptures assert that all will eventually be saved. Hell is an evil mistranslation.
Dan, I am ending the discussion as you did not answer the scholars I quoted that demonstrate Biblically there is a concept of both everlasting and eternal from the Greek. The context in which the word is used is important for determining meaning.
ReplyDeleteThanks for being more pleasant, but I will not argue in circles with you.
Russ
Russ,
ReplyDeleteExcellent article.
I suspect that Arminianism, Purgatory and Annihilation (as well as a complete non-belief in Hell) all stem from the idea that "It's not fair for God to treat us that way!" In fact, it is only fair for each and every one of us to burn in Hell forever, for that is what each one of us deserves, since we have continually offended our Creator. And, in Hell, I suspect there will not be repentance, but rather amplified hatred of God which will never end. Therefore, Hell's purpose cannot be to reform. Also, since a sinner can never pay for sin any more than a penniless person can pay a steep fine, then their sin will never be completely paid for in Hell.
Good points, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Russ
People who deny hell and its reality are also denying and rejecting God.
ReplyDelete"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalm 14:1)
"Now, if according to the impiety of athiests, there is no God, why do they invoke Him in their adversities? If there be, why do they deny Him in their prosperity?"
---William Bates--
People that deny hell are denying Scripture and most notably Revelation, Chapter 20.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Deejay.
Russ:)
It's so funny (actually, tragic) how those who have never accepted Christ will accuse a holy, righteous, perfect God of being wicked and unfair. And yet, those people have, in their lifetime, lied, cheated, stolen, lusted, hated, cursed, used God's name as a swear word, coveted, been prideful, and a gigantic host of other sins. If you actually listed every sinful thought, word, and deed that any of those persons committed, within their lifetime, I suspect it would fill many Encyclopedias (which would be the same for any of us, because all of us are sinners). And yet, they act as if they can judge God. Man is the sinner, and man is the one who has rebelled against God, yet some unbelievers act as if God is the wicked one.
ReplyDeleteIf you asked those same people if the likes of Hitler, child molesters, rapists, mass murderers, etc. should be allowed into Heaven, they would certainly say 'no.' However, many unbelievers compare themselves with the likes of those types of people (Hitler, etc.), who are some of the worst that the human race has ever produced. However, God doesn't grade on a curve. God measures us against His own perfect holiness.
These people that cry "Hell is unfair" and "God is unfair" are the same ones who reject the free grace and forgiveness that God offers through His Son, Christ Jesus, Who gave His life so that we can have eternal life in Heaven. They are being offered a free gift, and yet, instead of accepting that gift, they accuse God and they deny the truths of God's Word. Instead of doing everything they can to escape Hell, they simply deny that it exists, like an ostrich burying its head in the sand.
My last comment was from a perspective of righteous anger. Let me come at it from a different angle.
ReplyDeleteGod's love is not dependent on anything we have done; it is dependent on His own nature, and has to do with Who He is. In contrast, God's justice is dependent not only on His holy nature (though that is indeed where it stems from), but is dependent on our actions (including our words and thoughts); and not only that, but indeed, upon our very nature. And, being a sinful, fallen race that has rebelled against God, our nature is a sinful one. Because of God's holiness and justice, our sin must be punished. There is no retribution or penance which we can ever perform which can 'fix' our having offended a holy God, because even our so-called "good" acts fall short, since it is always a sinful being performing them. Even our suffering in Hell can never bridge the broken relationship we have with God, because we are merely sinful creatures, and our affront is against a perfect, holy God, Who has created us.
Only God could satisfy God; every human has fallen short. Therefore, because of His unconditional love, He sent He own Son, the second Person of the Godhead, to die for creatures He created. In doing so, God has paid the ultimate sacrifice, and has given everything He has to offer: Himself. So, if we refuse that, there is nothing left for Him to give.
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteRomans 3
10 as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
13 “THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,”
“THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”;
14 “WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”;
15 “THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Romans 3 demonstrates that human beings will not seek God on their own. God must choose persons and God predestines some to salvation as in Ephesians 1 and Romans 8. This is done through grace through faith, alone. The rest of humanity will be judged for their deeds in Revelation 20: 12 and those whose names are not found in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire, as in Revelation 20: 15.
Eternal life may not exist in a universe contributed by the known laws of quantum physics. All we observe is a quasi-stable existent state which includes life man has deemed to be intelligent.
ReplyDelete'Eternal life may not exist in a universe contributed by the known laws of quantum physics. All we observe is a quasi-stable existent state which includes life man has deemed to be intelligent.'
ReplyDeleteThanks.
The eternal God is not material, and is beyond the material universe and those laws which he created.
Two main ways this God can be reasoned to exist:
1) Historical Biblical revelation
2) Philosophical deductions such as the need for a first cause.
As far as granting finite human creations everlasting life, 1 Corinthians 15 describes the resurrected body as a spiritual body.
My take is that this body will be altered from the present human one and persons in Christ will be forever maintained in existence. Even within a universe that may basically be very similar to the one in existence now.