[UncertainlyFoolish]

@`Love

I'm not sure at all what you mean by "abstract". It seems clear that the word aion itself always technically means forever, so that should be the assumed meaning except where the context warrants a figurative "forever" -- if in English I write "God's grace is everlasting" than the context makes sense as being actually forever, whereas if I stated "My test took literally forever" [really bad grammar by the way -- especially with the use of "literally" as an intensifier in an obviously figurative sentence], then it's clear from context (as it is in the case of "everlasting drunkenness") that it's figurative. What factors of the context of the Matthew passage show it to be a figurative eternity?

Furthermore, the usage of the term in the scriptures is perfectly in line. "I will give thee the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession." Gen. 17:8 And in verse 12, the covenant of circumcision is called "an everlasting covenant." And yet the Jews were driven from the land of Canaan, and the covenant of circumcision was abolished, eighteen hundred years ago! So the priesthood of Aaron is called "an everlasting priesthood," and yet it was put aside by God's authority, and the priesthood of Christ set up in its place. Exod. 40:15.

And now the Jews are back in Israel, right?

This actually shows a serious tension between OT and NT, but otherwise doesn't demonstrate much. That God's covenant with Israel (at least the Davidic and Levitical) is forever is made very clear by other passages:

20 Thus saith the Lord; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;

21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.

Jeremiah 33:20-21. The whole force of that passage is that the convenant is forever, as in actually forever -- i.e. that it is impossible that God would break the covenant. (Which I am aware is a major claim of NT, but according to the OT the covenant of David and the Levite priests is unbreakable.)

Also see:

25 Thus saith the Lord; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;

26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

Jeremiah 33:25-26

[`Love.]

Originally Posted by UncertainlyFoolish

@`Love

I'm not sure at all what you mean by "abstract". It seems clear that the word aion itself always technically means forever, so that should be the assumed meaning except where the context warrants a figurative "forever" -- if in English I write "God's grace is everlasting" than the context makes sense as being actually forever, whereas if I stated "My test took literally forever" [really bad grammar by the way -- especially with the use of "literally" as an intensifier in an obviously figurative sentence], then it's clear from context (as it is in the case of "everlasting drunkenness") that it's figurative. What factors of the context of the Matthew passage show it to be a figurative eternity?



And now the Jews are back in Israel, right?

This actually shows a serious tension between OT and NT, but otherwise doesn't demonstrate much. That God's covenant with Israel (at least the Davidic and Levitical) is forever is made very clear by other passages:

Jeremiah 33:20-21. The whole force of that passage is that the convenant is forever, as in actually forever -- i.e. that it is impossible that God would break the covenant. (Which I am aware is a major claim of NT, but according to the OT the covenant of David and the Levite priests is unbreakable.)

Also see:

Jeremiah 33:25-26

From another article by Thomas Thayer where he shows what the authorities of the time had to say on the term:

Schleusner, whose exact learning makes his authority of great weight, defines the noun aion, thus: "Any space of time, whether longer or shorter, past, present, or future, to be determined by the persons or things spoken of, and the scope of the subject - the life or age of man; any space in which we measure human life, from birth to death."

Donnegan. "Aion, time; a space of time; life time and life; the ordinary period of man's life, the age of man; man's estate; a long period of time; eternity. Aionios, of long duration; eternal, lasting, permanent."

Schrevelius. "Aion, an age, a long period of time; indefinite duration; time, whether longer or shorter, past, present or future; life, the life of man. Aionios, of long duration, lasting, sometimes everlasting, sometimes lasting through life."

Authorities might be multiplied to any extent, but these are sufficient to show that the radical meaning of the Greek words translated "everlasting," "forever" is not endless, but simply indefinite time, longer or shorter, past or future; and that they take their force as to duration from the subjects or persons to which they are applied. If they mean strictly endless in any case, it is not because that idea is in the words aionios, aion, "everlasting," "forever;" but because the being or subject qualified demands it, or is, of itself, necessarily endless.

Hence Dr. Macknight, Presbyterian, says: "These words, being ambiguous, are always to be understood according to the nature and circumstances of the things to which they are applied." And though he claims the words in support of endless punishment, yet he frankly adds: "At the same time, I must be so candid as to acknowledge, that the use of these terms forever, eternal, and everlasting, in other passages of Scripture, shows that they who understand the words in a limited sense when applied to punishment, put no forced interpretation on them."

(I hate to use such large portions of someone else's work in my posts, but he really thoroughly researched this topic.)

[UncertainlyFoolish]

@ `Love

It seems the authorities are not unanimous here, and confusingly so. On the one hand the word etymologically derives from always + being, a perfect representation of eternity. On the other, it is said to refer to any period of time.

If we try the alternative meanings of the purported word they don't seem to fit well in the Matthew passage -- it can't mean a man's life, for this is to occur at the end of life.

The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Revelation 14:10-11 Can this really be understood as meaning anything other than everlasting and terrible torment that never ceases? (Incidentally this passage seems to mean people are tortured by God Himself and His Son and directly in His presence, without mercy, which is worse than even the standard idea of hell)

It would be much more comforting, and in line with many aspects of the spirit of the NT to show everlasting torment to be nothing but a foolish misunderstanding, but the evidence seems overwhelmingly against this -- as it's not supported by only one strand of evidence, but many.

In this passage we have "for ever and ever" -- εἰς αἰών αἰών -- i.e. aion twice -- I mean, hypothetically if the Bible did mean to indicate everlasting torment, how better could it do so than this?

[`Love.]

Originally Posted by UncertainlyFoolish

@ `Love

It seems the authorities are not unanimous here, and confusingly so. On the one hand the word etymologically derives from always + being, a perfect representation of eternity. On the other, it is said to refer to any period of time.

If we try the alternative meanings of the purported word they don't seem to fit well in the Matthew passage -- it can't mean a man's life, for this is to occur at the end of life.
Revelation 14:11 Can this really be understood as meaning anything other than everlasting and terrible torment that never ceases?

They seem confusing because it is a broad term. They may mean any of things listed. It does not mean everything listed all at once. It is a term that describes what is an undefined amount of time usually in proportion to the situation.

Punishment is not likely to be a very long period of time due to the nature of punishment. As a psychologist, punishment is commonly known as only functional if the being receiving punishment can learn from the situation. If the punishment is without end, it has no actual purpose and is illogical.

EDIT: You may be getting caught up on the root words, "being" and "always" and missing the use of the word. The post containing the definitions as used by the people of the time were quite unanimous about the word's ambiguity.

[UncertainlyFoolish]

If the punishment is without end, it has no actual purpose and is illogical.

I agree wholeheartedly (I assume by "illogical" you mean it doesn't make good sense, not that it's an actual impossibility in the same way putting a square object into a circle is -- if eternity is logical than activities conducted for all eternity is equally logical) , but that doesn't change the message given in the NT (and actually isn't a good argument for the passage not meaning everlasting torment in the NT)

In any case, I reiterate: How could Revelation 14:10-11 mean anything else than everlasting, horrible torment? Or is somehow "the wine of the wrath of God", "indignation", "shall be tormented" all mistranslated too? This is getting ridiculous...

I'm aware that words can change beyond their etymological origin. (There's a whole fallacy that consists of insisting otherwise: the genetic fallacy.) What seems clear is the formation of the word aion indicates eternity, and it was sometimes used that way. So it could mean everlasting in the Matthew passage, the only question is whether it does, and for that, we have to look at context, which seems to strongly support that it does, and is further corroborated with other passages that indicate the same, especially Revelation 14:10-11. To argue it's equally valid to dismiss the doctrine of everlasting torment as it is to accept that it is taught in the NT, seems disingenuous.

In any case if it's merely limited correction, why save us from it? (According to the NT correction is good, and it could be argued he who God does not correct He does not love:

For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

- Proverbs 3:12 and

My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction:

Proverbs 3:11).

And the bible is quite clear we are saved from the wrath of God:

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

1 Thessalonians 1:10

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness

Romans 1:8

Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Luke 3:7

[`Love.]

Originally Posted by UncertainlyFoolish

I agree wholeheartedly, but that doesn't change the message given in the NT (and actually isn't a good argument for the passage not meaning everlasting torment in the NT)

In any case, I reiterate: How could Revelation 14:10-11 mean anything else than everlasting, horrible torment? Or is somehow "the wine of the wrath of God", "indignation", "shall be tormented" all mistranslated too? This is getting ridiculous...

I'm aware that words can change beyond their etymological origin. (There's a whole fallacy that consists of insisting otherwise: the genetic fallacy.) What seems clear is the formation of the word aion indicates eternity, and it was sometimes used that way. So it could mean everlasting in the Matthew passage, the only question is whether it does, and for that, we have to look at context, which seems to strongly support that it does, and is further corroborated with other passages that indicate the same, especially Revelation 14:10-11. To argue it's equally valid to dismiss the doctrine of everlasting torment as it is to accept that it is taught in the NT, seems disingenuous.

The burden of proof is on adding the doctrine of hell into the Bible. Jesus (who spoke only of Gehenna) nor Judaism support it. Let us look at Revelation and see what is said.

7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

This passage refers to what happens to those who worship the beast, so these are people who are actively trying to work against God. They will burned by holy and purifying light when they are in the presence of God and his angels due to the living contradiction their beliefs will become when presented with the truth. For those who have not yet found His truth, they will not have peace. This is true without needing to include a physical place to send them to. Those who actively go against the fruit of the spirit will be restless and afraid because they do not believe in the good that exists, so they are in constant danger.

I'd like to point out also that they receive this fiery purification in the presence of God, not in some mythical Hell. They are not, as many Christians say, suffering because of separation from God. They suffer as I have said many times over, from the holy, purifying qualities of God. Also, the smoke will ascend forever and ever, not the torment will continue forever and ever. God will show them the truth and it will be blinding and fiery and awe-striking, afterwards they will have seen and known what is true creating the end of the punishment.

EDIT: The wrath mentioned will occur, but it is not eternal, it is exposure to God which will kill the person; and remember that death is change, not the end of existence. Hence the second death. Jesus is a messenger of truth that we may receive it in a kinder manner. This is why when we truly understand and accept him we "die" and are "born again". (Change, get it?)

[UncertainlyFoolish]

@`Love

Your position seems contradictory -- it is either speaking of torment or it is not. If it is speaking of torment, it is either forever or it is not. You seem to want to argue it's not forever, and it's not even torment!

What about:

Awake, awake! Rise up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the hand of the LORD the cup of his wrath, you who have drained to its dregs the goblet that makes men stagger.

Jeremiah 25:15

Here we have wrath of God again, and in this case it's clear that Jerusalem had experienced actual physical wrath [the invasion of the Gentile nations and the horrible slaughter that came].

And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

Revelation 14:19

Does this really sound like they are just exposed to God's presence? A winepress is used to crush grapes to get the juice from them. (Not exactly a loving metaphor -- in contrast refining fire is used to improve the object, remove impurities, etc. -- make it stronger, not destroy it; we have two different concepts: one of fiery destructive wrath and one of purifying fire)

Passages that talk about the holy presence of God are quite different:

Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

Isaiah 6:5 Nonetheless, Isaiah doesn't die, neither the word "punishment" nor "wrath" nor "torment", etc. is used.

The Bible does indicate that to see God is to (normally) die, stating He is too Holy, but it also speaks of His wrath and anger in a completely different way.

You're trying to argue the earth is flat, my friend, I'm afraid. (Which, as it relates to the Bible, is an interesting discussion in and of itself -- but I digress)

And also:

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Revelation 19:15

Sword, wrath, smite -- etc.: yeah, these are not descriptions of violence and torment in any way

If the place of "correction" is not torment and is not forever, does this mean at some point the Devil and His angels will be released too? -- it specifically states the place of torment is the same place reserved for the devil and his angels, doesn't it?

[`Love.]

Originally Posted by UncertainlyFoolish

@`Love

Your position seems contradictory -- it is either speaking of torment or it is not. If it is speaking of torment, it is either forever or it is not.

What about:

Jeremiah 25:15

Here we have wrath of God again, and in this case it's clear that Jerusalem had experienced actual physical wrath [the invasion of the Gentile nations and the horrible slaughter that came].

Revelation 14:19

Does this really sound like they are just exposed to God's presence? A winepress is used to crush grapes to get the juice from them. (Not exactly a loving metaphor -- in contrast refining fire is used to improve the object, remove impurities, etc. -- make it stronger, not destroy it; we have two different concepts: one of fiery destructive wrath and one of purifying fire)

Passages that talk about the holy presence of God are quite different:

Isaiah 6:5 Nonetheless, Isaiah doesn't die, neither the word "punishment" nor "wrath" nor "torment", etc. is used.

The Bible does indicate that to see God is to (normally) die, stating He is too Holy, but it also speaks of His wrath and anger in a completely different way.

You're trying to argue the earth is flat, my friend, I'm afraid.

And also:

Revelation 19:15

Sword, fury, smite -- etc.: yeah, these are not descriptions of violence and torment in any way

If the place of "correction" is not torment and is not forever, does this mean at some point the Devil and His angels will be released too? -- it specifically states the place of torment is the same place reserved for the devil and his angels, doesn't it?

I don't understand why you see my position as contradictory. Yes, it is torment, I agreed with that. Why does it then need to be without end, especially with nothing saying it will be?

God knows how his presence effects people and for him to bring them into it without proper preparation is a sufficient crushing for anyone. I have never debated that God does not punish or that God does not have wrath. I debated that he elicits unending punishments. He can still be as wrathful as he pleases.

As God is omnipotent and knows how his presence effects people, he may give them a touch leading to a vision, or all the way up to a full unveiling which could do untold things to a human being. Why are these separate and contradicting?

Satan and his angels are a new argument as they have different rules from us and we are not well enough informed to speak of them. In all honesty, what happens to them is none of our business.

The sword you speak of which exits the mouth refers to truth, what I have said this entire time is what is going to burn those who deny it. It is the weapon.

I am worried you are getting caught up in new-Christian concepts and barriers that do not exist. Where have I contradicted myself?

[UncertainlyFoolish]

Perhaps I misunderstand you. You seem to assent that it's wrath, but not that it's eternal, but then redefine wrath so it is no longer wrath but simply the effect of being in God's presence. Is my understanding of your position correct?

If I'm correct in my understanding, "sword" in that passage means an actual sword; just read the verses surrounding it:

18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Revelation 19:18-21

So, let's see:

These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. (Is God a lake of fire, burning with brimstone?)

And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth

That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great

It's Judgment time, and God's letting the creatures of the air (that feed on the dead), know they'll soon have plenty of food!

Why would I find it odd that God deals such with humanity? It's not like He hasn't directly ordered atrocities (The Flood, etc.). Heck what about this:

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

Deuteronomy 7:2.

With all due respect it seems that you decided you don't like certain passages dealing with God's violence, and on the basis of some (not worthless but far from conclusive and seriously challenged by other aspects) evidence have reasoned them away.

Just for kicks, let's compare the passages and others with a pagan story of a wrathful God, Ra (or Re -- I'm not sure):

I don't think I can post links -- search for "Story of Re" -- that's my source:

But, being in the form of a man, Re grew old. In time men no longer feared him or obeyed his laws. They laughed at him, saying: "Look at Re! His bones are like silver, his flesh like gold, his hair is the colour of lapis lazuli!"

Re was angry when he heard this, and he was more angry still at the evil deeds which men were doing in disobedience to his laws. So he called together the gods whom he had made - Shu and Tefnut and Geb and Nut - and he also summoned Nun. Soon the gods gathered about Re in his Secret Place, and the goddesses also. But mankind knew nothing of what was happening, and continued to jeer at Re and to break his commandments. Then Re spoke to Nun before the assembled gods: "Eldest of the gods, you who made me; and you gods whom I have made: look upon mankind who came into being at a glance of my Eye. See how men plot against me; hear what they say of me; tell me what I should do to them. For I will not destroy mankind until I have heard what you advise."

Then Nun said: "My son Re, the god greater than he who made him and mightier than those whom he has created, turn your mighty Eye upon them and send destruction upon them in the form of your daughter, the goddess Sekhmet."

Re answered: "Even now fear is falling upon them and they are fleeing into the desert and hiding themselves in the mountains in terror at the sound of my voice."

"Send against them the glance of your Eye in the form Sekhmet!" cried all the other gods and goddesses, bowing before Re until their foreheads touched the ground.
"...and her chief delight was in slaughter, and her pleasure was in blood."

So at the terrible glance from the Eye of Re his daughter came into being, the fiercest of all goddesses. Like a lion she rushed upon her prey, and her chief delight was in slaughter, and her pleasure was in blood. At the bidding of Re she came into Upper and Lower Egypt to slay those who had scorned and disobeyed him: she killed them among the mountains which lie on either side of the Nile, and down beside the river, and in the burning deserts. All whom she saw she slew, rejoicing in slaughter and the taste of blood.

How is that manifestly different from the Genesis Flood story (in terms of the motive for destruction, severity of wrath, etc. -- I understand it's not a flood story)? From the wrath passages given earlier, etc.? The God of the Bible is sometimes a very violent fellow -- I really don't see how you can argue that away.

If this wasn't the Bible we were talking about, but some pagan passage of violence (as above), do you really think you would find your argument convincing?

I repeat my earlier challenge: if the Bible, hypothetically did want to declare the doctrine of eternal torment (or never mind eternal for the moment, just terrible long-lasting torment - say 30 years), what better language would it use, what metaphors, what Greek words, than those in these passages?

The reason I brought up the torment of the devil and his angels is context indicates they suffer the same torment (The context of some of these passages could be used to indicate non-eternity, but it's by no means a necessary reading, nor does it seem likely -- i.e. the chains are everlasting because they will never be released from them, as they are already condemned; Satan is to be released for a limited time, but then re-chained afterwards, before being cast into the lake of fire -- anyway everlasting in this case could mean they will never break)

5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Jude 1:5

Note it says they serve as an example of those who suffer eternal punishment, which doesn't necessarily mean they did at that time. In any case, Sodom and Gomorrah seems to mean the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (I mean it's not like a literal town could have "[given] itself up to sexual immorality and perversion", right?) So the meaning could well be the people of the towns are suffering eternal punishment.

2 Peter 2:4-10:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them in chains of darkness[b] to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. 10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh[c] and despise authority.

While it indicates the city "burned to ashes" as an example, that's consistent with the idea that there's death first and then eternal punishment (possibly after a time of waiting): "hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment". That's completely consistent with Matthew 25:41 actually -- there's no where that says that the torment begins immediately upon death (though that's taught I admit). It could be the person is held in some form of dark waiting for millenia and then subject to eternal punishment. Death and Hell could be waiting areas for the second death (the "lake of fire").

And most convincingly, Matthew 25:41 (which I may have already posted):

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed ones, into the eternal fire that has been kept in readiness for the devil and his angels.”

Matthew 25:41 -- i.e. they are to depart into the same eternal fire kept in readiness for the devil and his angels.

(BTW, do you think this thread should be split, as it's deviated from it's original topic to one tangential to it, has for the last several posts been exclusively between you and me, and is now exclusively concerned with that tangential topic -- I think post #24 was the turning point)

[`Love.]

Originally Posted by UncertainlyFoolish

Perhaps I misunderstand you. You seem to assent that it's wrath, but not that it's eternal, but then redefine wrath so it is no longer wrath but simply the effect of being in God's presence. Is my understanding of your position correct?

If I'm correct in my understanding, "sword" in that passage means an actual sword; just read the verses surrounding it:



Revelation 19:18-21

So, let's see:

These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. (Is God a lake of fire, burning with brimstone?)

And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth

That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great

It's Judgment time, and God's letting the creatures of the air (that feed on the dead), know they'll soon have plenty of food!

Why would I find it odd that God deals such with humanity? It's not like He hasn't directly ordered atrocities (The Flood, etc.). Heck what about this:

Deuteronomy 7:2.

With all due respect it seems that you decided you don't like certain passages dealing with God's violence, and on the basis of some (not worthless but far from conclusive and seriously challenged by other aspects) evidence have reasoned them away.

Just for kicks, let's compare the passages and others with a pagan story of a wrathful God, Ra (or Re -- I'm not sure):

I don't think I can post links -- search for "Story of Re" -- that's my source:



How is that manifestly different from the Genesis Flood story (in terms of the motive for destruction, severity of wrath, etc. -- I understand it's not a flood story)? From the wrath passages given earlier, etc.? The God of the Bible is sometimes a very violent fellow -- I really don't see how you can argue that away.

If this wasn't the Bible we were talking about, but some pagan passage of violence (as above), do you really think you would find your argument convincing?

I repeat my earlier challenge: if the Bible, hypothetically did want to declare the doctrine of eternal torment (or never mind eternal for the moment, just terrible long-lasting torment - say 30 years), what better language would it use, what metaphors, what Greek words, than those in these passages?

The reason I brought up the torment of the devil and his angels is context indicates they suffer the same torment (The context of some of these passages could be used to indicate non-eternity, but it's by no means a necessary reading, nor does it seem likely -- i.e. the chains are everlasting because they will never be released from them, as they are already condemned; Satan is to be released for a limited time, but then re-chained afterwards, before being cast into the lake of fire -- anyway everlasting in this case could mean they will never break)

Jude 1:5

Note it says they serve as an example of those who suffer eternal punishment, which doesn't necessarily mean they did at that time. In any case, Sodom and Gomorrah seems to mean the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (I mean it's not like a literal town could have "[given] itself up to sexual immorality and perversion", right?) So the meaning could well be the people of the towns are suffering eternal punishment.

2 Peter 2:4-10:

While it indicates the city "burned to ashes" as an example, that's consistent with the idea that there's death first and then eternal punishment (possibly after a time of waiting): "hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment". That's completely consistent with Matthew 25:41 actually -- there's no where that says that the torment begins immediately upon death (though that's taught I admit). It could be the person is held in some form of dark waiting for millenia and then subject to eternal punishment. Death and Hell could be waiting areas for the second death (the "lake of fire").

And most convincingly, Matthew 25:41 (which I may have already posted): Matthew 25:41 -- i.e. they are to depart into the same eternal fire kept in readiness for the devil and his angels.

(BTW, do you think this thread should be split, as it's deviated from it's original topic to one tangential to it, has for the last several posts been exclusively between you and me, and is now exclusively concerned with that tangential topic -- I think post #24 was the turning point)

I said the majority of my point and the details will likely lead us nowhere as we disagree on some basic concepts. Both of us are showing interpretations of the Bible which I feel neither of us could ever honestly prove to be correct, we can only assume one from evidence, so it's almost pointless to continue much further.

I think you assume I'm a defender of the Bible and I'm really not. I feel man has been able to change it over time and the OT could have embellishments just like I pointed out in the NT. I think reality itself should be examined just as closely as the Bible or any religious texts to find out the truth about life. Reality is why I find it hard to believe in a blood-lusting God, when most of the evil of the world springs from man. However, the Bible does have many good truths to it, despite the current mainstream view being evil and insane-sounding. This is the reason I don't just throw it away as nonsense and attempt to understand it.

[UncertainlyFoolish]

I believe you're right: we've reached an impasse. It was an interesting discussion though, no doubt

Textual issues aside, I think we agree more than we disagree.

I think reality itself should be examined just as closely as the Bible or any religious texts to find out the truth about life. Reality is why I find it hard to believe in a blood-lusting God, when most of the evil of the world springs from man. However, the Bible does have many good truths to it, despite the current mainstream view being evil and insane-sounding. This is the reason I don't just throw it away as nonsense and attempt to understand it.

I agree, actually. Barring the "Acts of God" [that's the insurance industry's nomenclature, not mine] of natural disasters, etc., most of the evil in this world is caused by men.

Infallible truths have the same problem as unsinkable ships -- when they do sink, there's no preparation made. It seems that as a necessary consequence men's aggression against men is worst when religion is involved, for as C.S. Lewis (a Christian and a very well-known apologist -- "the apostle to the skeptics" ) said very well:

"I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.

And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme -- whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence -- the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication,"

The Rolling Stones said it well:

...
I rode a tank
Held a generals rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
...
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made
I shouted out,
Who killed the kennedys?
When after all
It was you and me
...
I tell you one time, you're to blame

Sympathy for the Devil, Rolling Stones

And I quite agree the Bible has a lot of beautiful things in it -- that's partly what's so perplexing: such beauty and such awfulness in the same book. (1 Corinthians 13 is absolutely great, for instance.) I think it's a little sad we can't just acknowledge the beautiful parts, while honestly rejecting the horrible parts for what the travesties they are -- but, alas...

I applaud your serious inquiry. One thing I cannot, absolutely cannot, believe is the apathy and lack of knowledge most Christians have about their own faith! Few have read their Bible even fully (and there's no excuse for that, for many have read books longer than it -- it's not that long, and is supposed to be the Living Word), and so they have not encountered any difficult passages [perhaps this is good, for it might make them rethink their faith ]. And in most cases when they do encounter such passages, they do the most insane explanations, etc. -- or even come to the conclusion that the worst of atrocities is actually not so bad, simply because they are ordered or sanctioned by God!

“Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”

C.S. Lewis

[csuguy]

Originally Posted by UncertainlyFoolish

Thanks for the thought-provoking view. I'm not quite sure I'm persuaded that the non-trinitarian view is truly supportable by the Bible, but I'll do some more research/thinking before responding to it

There are plenty of other non-trins on here besides me too - if you start a thread I'm sure you'll be able to get several responses.

On the idea that salvation is a gift with requirements, while supportable by some passages, it seems completely at odds with core books like Galatians, but especially Romans:

Now this seems to be mainly talking to Israel [see verses 1 - 4 preceding], but the argument is a very general one -- if grace then not works, if works then not grace -- pretty clear cut: works can have no part in grace.

All such passages as this are pointing out, quite correctly, is that we do not EARN our salvation.

I'll give a scriptural example of salvation that requires works, but works which do not earn the said salvation. It is infact the foreshadowing of salvation in the NT - the tenth plague from Exodus. God was going to kill all the firstborn in Egypt - except for those who sacrificed a lamb and smeared its blood upon their door frames. Those who followed through were saved.

What do you suppose would have happened to those who didn't believe? They wouldn't act and thus would be subject to the same plague as the Egyptians. What about those who believed but did nothing? They too would experience the plague. Only those who both believed and acted were saved. But they didn't earn their salvation by killing a lamb - but rather the power of the lamb came from God's grace alone. Without God's grace such sacrifices are without meaning. Thus salvation is by God's grace alone AND it requires works on our part.

To seal this point up, read James 2. "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?"

Ephesians 2:8-9

Again, what this is saying is that salvation is not earned by good deeds - it is not saying that works are not required.

To the contrary, I point you to the parable of the sheeps and the goats in Matthew 25. Tell me, what is the distinction between these two, between the sheep and the goats, between the saved and the damned?

[UncertainlyFoolish]

@csuguy

Again, what this is saying is that salvation is not earned by good deeds - it is not saying that works are not required.

While you're quite correct that that position is taught in some places in the NT (and of course basically the entirety of the OT), it is directly invalidated by some key passages.

For instance, such a position (salvation is not earned by works but works are nonetheless required for it to be obtained) is entirely against the entire argument of Romans. Salvation is entirely by God -- Just as He did with Israel, He does with the Church (John 15:16) --Deuteronomy 7:7-10. He chooses who (it is by "election" -- Romans 9:18, Romans 11:7); He gives the faith (consistent with election, it seems most natural to read Ephesians 2:8 as indicating even the faith of the believer is a gift -- c.f. Romans 12:3); He, by grace, through faith, justifies on the basis of Christ's finished work on the cross (hence "it is finished"), by promise. God does it all, and the justified do nothing, for they are incapable of doing anything to obtain their salvation in any way. Man is completely bankrupt, not just for the initial payment but in perpetual debt, constantly accruing (like our national debt )! -- it is only through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit that the believer can overcome his sinful nature and live a Godly life -- so even then it's not the believer who does the Godly deed, but the Spirit within him -- Philippians 2:13 -- in fact the believer isn't even capable of wanting to do Godly deeds, God even gives the desire!)

Romans 3:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; 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 ways:

17 And the way of peace have they not known:

18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Notice Paul's argument -- none can obey, none are righteous; incomplete righteousness, partial obedience, is not merely less than great, it's certain doom if it is relied upon in any way for salvation -- if works (and of course the greatest work would be obedience to God's Holy Law) are a requirement, we have all failed and in trying to obey as a requirement, we have put ourselves under God's wrath, as it is written:

Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.

Deuteronomy 27:26, which Galatians 3:10 references, albeit not accurately.

As an aside: Paul has a bad habit of doing that -- c.f. Hosea 2:23 with Romans 9:25 -- a complete reinterpretation that makes all instances of judicial activism, say calling a "penalty" a "tax" in direct contradiction to the legislative intent , pale in comparison (as it's abundantly clear by context that Hosea concerns Israel, who has been temporarily disowned, as it were, and is now reclaimed, yet Paul makes it to be of the Gentiles) , Romans 10:6 is just brilliant, as it takes incredible moxie to use a passage to prove the exact opposite of what it says - c.f. Deuteronomy 30:12, of which Paul undoubtedly alludes. Nor is he alone in this, Matthew is quite bad too -- c.f. Hosea 11:1 with Matthew 2:15

In this particular case of Deuteronomy 27:26 the LXX is quite a bit closer to what he says though, and with minor differences it says what he says it says even in the Hebrew (the key difference is the omission of "all" from the Hebrew, but it seems unlikely that the people were merely affirming to obey some of the Law, so that's not a material issue here -- the KJV has "all" but in in italics, so we know it was added by the translators, perhaps to conform to Galatians ).

Partial obedience is no dice -- it's perfection or nothing at all ("who does not continue to do everything" & Deuteronomy 18:13 -- blameless).

It's really quite a tour de force for Paul -- how can it possibly be bad to strive to obey God's Law? It seems an impossible position to hold, but Paul, in the lineage of great writers, turns his opponent's own argument against them by agreeing completely and then taking it far more seriously than they; he points out that it's not only not bad, it's absolutely critical to obey the Law -- but the entire Law must be upheld (cf. James 2:10, Galatians 5:3, Matthew 5:19) - perfectly, as God will not settle for our best effort -- " all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" -- Isaiah 64:6 -- rags probably means menstrual rags here, something considered deeply unclean, and so if we attempt to obey the Law in order to obtain salvation, we are doomed -- our only hope is if our righteousness is based solely on Christ's righteousness, which did fulfill perfectly the requirements. In this way, Paul manages what would otherwise seem impossible. I think it's a brilliant argument from that perspective! Those who would say Paul is only stating we are not under obedience to the Law, but not generic "works" of Godliness, miss the point entirely -- the Law is the pinnacle of obedience to God, all else paling in comparison, for it was given directly by God: to obey the direct commands of God are of ultimate importance, all else being secondary. (Though in some cases certain "greater works" are emphasized over ritual ones, though not universally: Matthew 23:23 cf. Mark 12:33, though 1 Samuel 15:22 has a different import -- i.e. that obedience, not love, is of prime importance)

The entire thrust of Paul is that salvation is earned solely by faith, and the only requirement is faith in the promise of God, given freely by His grace, completely apart from works -- in formal logic we'd say perfect works are necessary and sufficient for salvation, but imperfect works are completely insufficient for salvation (and in their insufficiency they bring wrath instead), while conversely that faith is both sufficient and necessary for obtaining salvation based on Christ's perfect works .

And specifically Paul points out how Abraham was justified on the basis of promise, even before his deeds (circumcision, sacrifice of Isaac, etc. -- though James uses much the same evidence to conclude the opposite!):

And Romans 4:

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Paul's thesis is radical. He's not arguing that salvation is not merely on the basis of works (which isn't that radical actually, the OT doesn't actually teach obedience earns anything, despite how Paul characterizes it as such, as in by doing it God is obligated, but that it brings blessings -- i.e. it's a requirement, not a basis -- Deuteronomy 11:26-28, Ezekiel 36:22, Deuteronomy 9:5; God often does things for Israel when it leasts deserves it -- Ezekiel 36:32), but that considering works as playing any role in salvation, even as requirement, puts one under the curse [just read Galatians, those "foolish Galatians"!] and invalidates the gift of salvation -- i.e. he argues it's one or the other: you either pursue works as a requirement of salvation (in which case you must meet every single one and fail not at all), or you rest solely in the gift by believing by faith.

Christ's work is often termed "finished work" because it fully and completely satisfied all requirements pertaining to salvation. (Now this is itself contradicted by such passages as Mark 13:12-13 (though it's less than conclusive, perhaps only applying to those who are saved during the tribulation), and perhaps certain passages of Revelations that speak of those who overcome, but I'm not sure about the latter).

Hence the rallying cry of the reformation: Sola Fide! Sola Scriptura! Sola Christo! Sola Gratia! - Faith alone, Scripture alone, Christ alone, Grace alone .

James probably would agree with you; perhaps he was even arguing against Paul? (I'm not sure about the timeline, as I've seen conflicting authorities on whether James or Paul wrote first -- I'm of the opinion Paul did, then James, as it seems Paul had to use Abraham as his example, but James could have picked any but chooses to pick the same example of Paul, and James reads like an argument against an opponent -- James 2:20. Paul even says his gospel is being slandered -- Romans 3:8, also see 2 Peter 3:15-16; they were contemporaries, and there was somewhat of conflict between them -- Galatians 2:12, heck much of Galatians seems derisive and dismissive of the "pillars" -- Galatians 2:9, Galatians 2:6) In any case, James argument and Paul's are incompatible.

God was going to kill all the firstborn in Egypt - except for those who sacrificed a lamb and smeared its blood upon their door frames.

That's true, but misleading. God did say He would kill all the "firstborn in the land of Egypt", but it's made immediately clear that only means all the firstborn of Egypt -- all the Egyptian firstborn - Exodus 11:5-7 (see below) The blood was a sign to the Egyptians, and to the destroyer -- in each case identifying those who were Israelites from those who were not.

Thus, concerning the argument of the need to put blood on the door, I don't disagree it seems to show works required, but note that Paul never points to that in any of his writing, and looking at the relevant passages, in context, seems to show it wasn't about works at all: the reason for the blood, as the Bible says specifically, is to know which households were of the Israelites, so the "destroyer" (which is odd anyway - is the destroyer separate from God - it seems to be both the same and not the same?) would not destroy them; the act was for identifying households as being of Israelite -- i.e. it wasn't properly a condition of salvation -- the condition of salvation was being an Israelite, as it says clearly.

Exodus 12:

12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
...
23 For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.
...
27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.
...

A "token" - אוֹת (H226 - a sign, signal, warning -- i.e. an indication)

Which is exactly what God said in Exodus 11 -- the judgments to come are against Egypt only:

4 And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:

5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.

7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

The whole point of this plague (and probably all the plagues) was to show how God differentiated between the wicked Egyptians and His chosen people, His inheritance, the sons of Jacob (Israel).

As for Matthew 25, you're completely right -- Jesus doesn't share Paul's no-works-salvation (as evidenced by a lot of passages, he's against those who trust in their works, in their self-righteousness) -- but I never said the Bible was consistent. (One could try to argue that those who have done the good works in Matthew 25 are self-evidently the same who were saved solely by grace -- and vice versa that those who are accursed are those unsaved and thus only capable of bad deeds, or at least incapable of good ones-- since only saved individuals, indwelt and led by the Spirit, would have the good fruit of good works to show - Matthew 7:17, Galatians 5:16-25; but I happen to think that does murder to the context of the passage -- and I have no bias requiring me to make everything agree, so I'll readily admit it doesn't seem to agree with Paul and avoid excessive brain pain and doublethink. )