I suspect I’m pushing the limits of the readers’ patience by continuing to discuss conditional immortality without getting back to the age of accountability question, and so I’ll try to answer the objections recently made in the comments very simply.
In response to an earlier question, I listed several reasons why I consider conditional immortality important enough to take up space here. The reasons I think it’s true are found, of course, in the posts themselves, as well as several earlier posts indexed as the “Surprised by Hell” series.
Even if you’re right, what other people will and won’t accept as fair should never motivate us to change our views.
Today’s modern ear cannot hold in tension the great love of God with the wrath of God—so we need to make a small tweak in our eschatology in order to get people to listen and to hear.
And if I was telling people why to change their views, that would make sense. The only reason a reader should change his views is if he’s persuaded that I’ve more correctly interpreted the scriptures than those who disagree.
I really can’t bear the thought that anyone thinks I take this position because I think it’ll improve the marketing of the gospel. (I’m nauseous at the thought.) I’m sure many people strongly disagree with me, and that’s fine. But please don’t impugn my motives. It’s not right.
Regarding (4) — i’m not sure i see why the OT would need to talk about it. Israel was an earthly nation with a civil law and political enemies. There’s also quite a lack of information in it regarding eternal life or salvation from sin compared to the NT. That doesn’t mean we should give up those ideas too.
I disagree with your assumption that there’s “quite a lack of information in it regarding eternal life or salvation from sin compared to the NT.” That’s traditional teaching and one indicator that tradition should be considered highly suspect. As I read the scriptures, the OT and NT teach the same thing, in much the same terms. The NT builds on the OT but the OT has a rich eschatology.
The Old Testament speaks quite plainly about heaven — Isa 65 – 66, Daniel 12 — in terms that are repeated in the New Testament. Isaiah introduces the idea of the new heavens and new earth, picked up in Rev 21. I figure that makes it true. Add to that the purging of the earth expressed in numerous prophecies and in Rom 8, you get N. T. Wright’s theory. But the purging is produced by the purifying fire of God — the consuming fire. This theme (traced in /2008/08/surprised-by-hell-the-consuming-fire/) demonstrates the long history in the OT and NT of God’s purifying fire, in which Isaiah says God’s enemies will die and become corpses. And numerous NT writers speak of God’s enemies dying or being destroyed — which have to be read in light of the prophecies (I’m summarizing, of course). And God’s purifying fire fits well with the idea of gehenna.
Therefore, my study of Wright’s Surprised by Hope caused me to question the traditional view of hell. I was aware of Edward Fudge’s book but had never considered it as likely to be true. And so I did my own digging — without the benefit of Fudge’s book. After seeing that his thesis made a lot of sense and fit the viewpoint of Wright better than the traditional view, I pulled The Fire the Consumes off the shelf and learned that the evidence is even stronger than I had realized.
Regarding (7) — i don’t see how a belief in an everlasting hell means a person cannot also maintain that the earth itself will be redeemed. There’d have to be assumptions you’re not stating underlying that claim in order to substantiate it.
Of course you can believe both, but it doesn’t really fit the text.
(Isa 66:15-16 ESV) 15 “For behold, the LORD will come in fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. 16 For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many. …
(Isa 66:22-24 ESV) 22 “For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your offspring and your name remain. 23 From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the LORD. 24 “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
God comes in fire, renders judgment, and slays his enemies, but the new heavens and new earth and the name of the saved “remain” (or endure) — speaking of things that already existed and continue to exist. God’s enemies, having been slayed, are corpses (the Hebrew for dead bodies). This is a central proof text for Wright’s view, and yet it’s also a central proof text for conditional immortality.
Yes, it’s possible that God clarifies in the NT that “corpse” means “alive and tortured forever,” but I just don’t find that teaching in the NT. Rather, I find —
(Luk 20:34-36 ESV) 34 And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Only those who are “worthy” will “attain to that age” [aionos] and they “cannot die anymore” because they are “sons of God.” The implication is that these are blessings unique the saved and the damned don’t receive these blessings, and so they are not immortal but can (and do) die. They aren’t equal to the angels.
Suppose God had wanted to tell us that hell is, in fact, everlasting. Hypothetically, what would the Bible say differently than it does?
Well, he might say that hell is everlasting. “Eternal” does not mean everlasting. Those things that are eternal often are everlasting (sometimes just their effects are), and so you can often (but not always) replace “eternal” with “everlasting” and get a sensible (but incorrect) translation. But that’s because of the correlation in meaning, not because “eternal” means “everlasting.” You could replace “Thomas Jefferson” with “John Adams” in many quotations about the American Revolution and get good sense, but you wouldn’t get the author’s sense.
Just so, there are several comments quoting from the early church fathers (ECFs) that may contradict my view. But —
1. When an ECF uses a biblical phrase, we have to assume he means whatever the biblical writer meant by that phrase, absent substantial evidence to the contrary. An ECF speaking of “eternal punishment” means whatever Jesus meant in Matt 25:46 absent evidence to the contrary.
2. For that matter, the translators of an ECF will sometimes translate aionios as “everlasting” rather than “eternal,” because of the translator’s traditional assumptions. You have to read the Greek to see whether the ECF is indeed saying that punishment (for example) is eternal or everlasting. They are not the same thing.
3. No one has attempted to contradict my assertion that Justin Martyr taught that only the saved are immortal, and he is a second century writer and a particularly brilliant one at that. In In the Shadow of the Temple, the author shows that Justin was very familiar with Jewish literature and argumentation, and so I’m not surprised to find him on the side of conditional immortality.
And it’s certainly true that many later writers came to adopt the Greek view of the innate immortality of the soul, and this was part of a larger trend in Christian thought toward Greek thought. I have no interest is arguing over whether this or that 4th century writers agrees with me. The fact that Justin Martyr taught conditional immortality, contrary to the prevailing secular philosophy of the day, demonstrates that the early church did not uniformly disagree with conditional immortality — and the greatest scholar of the second century agrees.
Regarding premillennialism, I’ll be posting a brief series showing how I read Rev 20, but I’m going to hold it pending completion of the main age of accountability posts. I do not agree with premillennial thought for reasons I’ll be posting.
If he was going to come back to scrub down this old place for us to live with him forever. (he would have told us)
And he did —
(Rom 8:20-22 ESV) 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,
Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
By granny, if you are reading this right, we better get "old shep" baptized too, looks like he is coming along. Animals were created weren't they?
I didn't know that earth could be made subject to vanity, except the small amount used to create Adam.
Nope, just like I told my JW- friend, I'll wave to you when I leave. but he at least said I might be in the 144 thousand.
In German, "ewig" (eternal) is synonymous with "immerwährend" (everlasting), but the second term is not used in Bible-Translations but once (im my Elberfelder Bible).
So in German we don't make the distiction you make here, and I doubt that all English speakers would agree with you.
But if I go from the other end, and look up "ewig" (eternal) in my German-Greek dictionary, I get two results:
aionios
aidios
In my dictionary (H.Menge) aionios is also translated as eternal and eternity, as well as age and what we have discussed already.
aidios means eternal and imperishable.
I repeat myself: The meaning of words is broader that you seem to admit. And it is the context and the concept that determine its translation. Your assertion that eternal does not mean everlasting is simply not true in all cases.
Alexander
P.S.: As for the rest: You may believe as you want to believe on this; but I was – frankly – quite disappointed about the quality of your reasoning and responses in this series.
Justin Martyr would be considered very Greek in his thinking. I think he uses Greek thought and rhetoric quite well to his advantage. But if his language sometimes appears to endorse ‘conditional immortality’, I think, it is because we fail to see the context of his arguments. For he is arguing against people who desire immortality apart from the one true God. Seriously, we need to see what Justin’s audience would have heard…the Greek concepts of reincarnation, virtue towards immortality, and such. I see nothing here though that would suggest that Justin didn’t teach an eternal punishment in hell.
Justin Martyr – Dialogue with Trypho – CHAP. VIII.–CHRISTIANS CONFESS THEIR FAITH IN GOD.
Justin Martyr – the First Apology of Justin for the Christians – CHAP. XVII.–CHRIST TAUGHT CIVIL OBEDIENCE.
Justin Martyr – the First Apology of Justin for the Christians – CHAP. XLIV.–NOT NULLIFIED BY PROPHECY.
Justin Martyr – the First Apology of Justin for the Christians – CHAP. XVIII.–PROOF OF IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION.
Justin Martyr – the First Apology of Justin for the Christians – CHAP. XIX.–THE RESURRECTION POSSIBLE.
Justin Martyr – the First Apology of Justin for the Christians – CHAP. XII.–CHRISTIANS LIVE AS UNDER GOD'S EYE.
Justin Martyr – the First Apology of Justin for the Christians – CHAP. XLV.–CHRIST'S SESSION IN HEAVEN FORETOLD.
Justin Martyr – the Second Apology of Justin for the Christians – CHAP. IX.–ETERNAL PUNISHMENT NOT A MERE THREAT.
Justin Martyr – Dialogue with Trypho – CHAP. CXVII.–MALACHI'S PROPHECY CONCERNING THE SACRIFICES OF THE CHRISTIANS. IT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS REFERRING TO
Alexander, I have found that most, if not all things discussed here, and most other blogs, don't amount to "a hill of beans, as my grandpa used to say. in regards to one's salvation. What difference does the way one translated "eternal" make in the overall scheme of things. People try so hard to show others they are " smarter" than they are,they get beyond what the bible actually says (absolutely not pointing to anyone specifically). I don't see where the bible said God will torture, beyond death, those who fail to be lifted up, into the clouds. God does promise rewards, now whether those rewards are good or not so good ,as I read it depends upon whether you are obedient or not.
If you are so unfortunate as to be one who is left upon this earth when it's destruction occurs, don't you think you would be eternally "punished" . Not necessarily tortured forever, but punished forever. Meaning dead, without ever seeing the rewards God promised to those who repented. If you punish your own child for disobedience, that child is punished forever, it is in the past and cannot be removed in the future.
Jay, my apologies if I insinuated that your position is just a marketing ploy, that was not my intent. My intent was to point out that, in part, these claims are at root pastoral and evangelistic—otherwise they are just academic and pointless. I wanted to suggest this tack on the conversation because the ‘I’ve got the more biblical view’, while an honorable goal (that I think we all share), gets us nowhere.
I do think that both Fudge and Keller give an account of hell (an approach to the topic) that is meant to overcome the common difficulties people have with this subject. I don’t think that this is a bad thing, I just think that, on this strictly pragmatic plane, Keller comes out as the more effective. (I explain this elsewhere)
Now I’m not a pragmatist; but aside from pragmatic concerns, I don’t see how we can truly find out whether Jesus meant eternal conscious punishment or not—therefore I side with the majority view across the bulk of Christian tradition, and against the view that offers no tangible benefit anyway.
How serious is even the slightest offense against an absolutely holy God, who is worthy of our complete and perpetual allegiance? Indeed, sin against an absolutely holy God is absolutely serious. For this reason, the unredeemed suffer absolute, unending alienation from God; this alienation is the essence of hell. It is the annihilationist's theory that is morally flawed, to them God is not truly holy, for He does not demand that sin receives everlasting punishment.
The reason these "sensitive Christians" have such an emotional problem with hell is because they do not estimate the great burden of sin. They abandon the doctrine of hell in favor of a kinder and gentler fate for the wicked. If they truly saw sin as God does, they would not have the slightest problem with eternal hell. Indeed, they would find themselves distraught if God did not punish sin for all eternity.
Many atheists by their own words say they hate God because throughout the Bible God kills men, women, and children. Telling these people “God won’t punish people forever in hell, but will finally kill them” will not appease these people, they hate God for killing people, they don’t want to spend eternity with God, in their eyes they would rather die than to be with God!
Jay,
(1) It seemed clear to me at the time you meant to say that having a more palletable position made evangelism easier, and since the one you espouse is more palletable, we should adopt it in order to make evangelism easier. If that's not what you mean, alright then. i misunderstood.
(2) i never said the OT said *nothing* about eternal life and salvation from sin. i said there quite a lack of such *compared to the NT.*
'Salvation' to Jews was by and large about deliverance from political enemies and making the state of Israel better. Even though there are prophetic passages that are about eternal concerns, Jews still focused on earthly, here-and-now salvation.
But it's still the case that pound for pound, the NT has more to say about these things than the OT. i dont' think that creates some bad or puzzling or undesirable discontinuity between the two testaments, thus motivating us to give up those ideas. Because of that, i don't see why lack of information in the OT about eternal damnation should create such a puzzling discontinuity either.
(3) Now you say that a person can consistently believe both in a redeemed earth and an eternal hell, but they're not both consistent with the text. Fine. But that's not what you originally presented. Stephen asked what does adopting the condition immortality view gain a person? You responded by giving a list of things gained by adopting this view. You said, "The Bible becomes more environmentally friendly when we accept that the world won’t be destroyed but is being redeemed." This is only something gained if a person's previous view was incompatible with this belief. So either it, you "7", is *not* something one gains by adopting a condition immortality view of hell, or "7" is incompatible with an everlasting view of hell. The latter is simply not true, as you've now admitted. So then "7" is not something particularly gained by adopting the conditional immortality view of hell you're espousing.
(4) Question: The word used to translate "eternal," *could* it mean everlasting? Is that a *possible* meaning of the term?
–guy
both conditional immortality and etc have good points i lean etc, if we bring philosphy into it, if etc is true why wasnt Jesus punished forever?
i meant i lean conditional