Maybe this is God removing a "heart of stone" and providing a "new heart" with new capacities of VISION.

You too, Selah.

Help out?

Reposting...

-------------------------------------------------------

Let's say that the biblical data really is kinda "50/50", such that it could be said that faithful, reasonable Christians who love Jesus could fall on both sides of the issue. Let's just say it's that way.  For the sake of argument. Here's the "thought": What if our desire was the "tiebreaker"? In other words, what do we truly WANT to be the case? Do we want all personal beings to be saved...or do we NOT want all personal beings to be saved? Some genuine "soul-searching" would have to be done for the answer.  Once we have that answer, then we ask this question: "WHAT GROUNDS our desires (for or against UR) being what they are? What are the major assumptions and presuppositions about God, self, world, and void that ground our "gut-level" desire about all people being saved?" It would almost be like this.  God says...   "Hey, you guys get to judge the angels with me. What do you desire happens to the fallen?  Whatever you desire to happen will be what happens.  Let's start with Satan..." How would we answer and why.

------------------------------------

Just try it out.

Post Edited (One Love) : 11/12/2009 2:15:49 PM (GMT-6)

Starkman: No matter where I turn, it seems clear to these translators that the point of 2Th 1:9 is that there is eternal condemnation (i.e., everlasting, since “eternal” doesn't mean much here otherwise)…

Tom: Why wouldn’t “aionios” here be meaningful if understood (as it often means) as “age-abiding” (or “age-appropriate”), essentially a finite length of time? I don’t see why only “temporally unending” makes sense of “aionios” here.

Starkman: …either before the Lord (as in standing before God) or away from His presence. Whichever, the condemnation seems to be forever.

Tom: It’s “aionios,” yes. How are you going to understand “aionios” here?

Starkman: How is it that translators of all of the reputable translations of the Bible seem to have missed Talbot's thoughts about II Thess 1:9 in view of Acts 3:19?

Tom: All I can say is the Bible translation is interesting! Like Talbott says, he’s not claiming this is the ONLY way to understand the text. He’s just saying it’s a possible reading.

I don’t know what to say about the reputation of Bible translators. All I know is that they’re as much a victim of their beliefs as anybody else. I’ve sat in on too many translation committee meetings to believe that translators check their beliefs in at the door.

My point isn’t that it’s a translation issue per se even. It’s an interpretive issue.

Starkman: Jason's comments do not leave me with any confidence in regard to a connection between the Stepmom-Sleeping Guy to be “handed over to whole-ruination so that he may be saved in the day of the Lord.” (1Co. 5:5) and II Thess 1:9. The former is dealing with the church delivering someone over to live in their flesh without the protection of the covenant relationship of the church. The offender will, hopefully, find out that life isn't worth the sacrifice. It's silly to believe that what Paul was really saying was, "listen, this guy has to die. Kick him outside and let his flesh be killed. This will save him."

Tom: Oh, that’s not what Jason’s saying. He’s not saying the guy in 1Cor 5 is experiencing the SAME eschatological destruction (post-mortem or something like that) as that mentioned in 2Th 1. He’s just saying that “destruction” (this Greek word) can be remedial. It can have as its purpose (the “so that…” clause) the salvation of the person. If “destruction” can be used to describe remedial judgment (as 1Cor 5 shows), then we can’t assume that it HAS to exclude remedial/redemptive intentions in 2Th just because this ‘word’ is being used.

Starkman: Unlike I Cor 5, the issue of II Thess 1:9 is the removal of the entire person from his current standing (and not just from some local church affiliation) and being placed somewhere else forever.

Tom: I missed the words “removal,” “entire person,” and “current standing” in 2Th. Which version are you reading, the BGCD (Bible Girl’s Common Denominator) Version? Ha!

Starkman: Taken literally, II Thess 1:9 deals with a permanence inflicted by the Lord Himself. It implies a separation from God, forever, in one way or another (whether the smoke of their tomernt goes up "before" or "away from" the Lord being irrelevant). There's simply no room to squirm around this.

Tom: The only thing in 2Th that says anything about the ‘temporal’ nature of the destruction is “aionios,” right? Are you saying this word always means “everlasting” as in “unending temporal duration”?

Starkman: Bob’s redemptive aspect of gold being tried by fire not having annihilation in mind is to miss the figurative point of the passage; of course it doesn't have annihilation in mind. It doesn’t have anything in mind save differentiating between what is and is not of God...

Tom: Bob’s point is a bit different. We’re just talking about what’s implied by certain words, like “aionios” and “destruction.” Does the word “destruction” always imply that what experiences or undergoes “destruction” ceases to be in its entirety? Well, not in 1Pet. Sure, Peter’s not talking about annihilation. But if the word “destruction” is what secures the meaning annihilationists argue in passages like 2Th 1, presumably it’s because the word invariably brings this meaning with it wherever it goes. But it doesn’t have that meaning in 1Pet. Sure, the impurities in the gold do cease to be. They’re destroyed. But the “gold” is said to “be destroyed.” It’s interesting. The gold experiences “destruction.” But only some aspects of the gold cease to be.

Starkman: If I've read your post correctly, you would translate II Thess 1:9 as thus: “…they will be brought to value (or perhaps ‘pay’) the justice of age-abiding ruination coming from the presence of the Lord and the majesty of his power.”

Tom: Right.

Starkman: How is it, though, that most, if not all, translators of reputable translations of the Bible missed this?

Tom: Not “all” Bible translators miss it. But you’re right, most do. How is that? Because all Bible translators are influenced by their beliefs.

Starkman: Because they weren't looking at the cultural meaning of "eternal" and "forever" and "destruction," etc.?

Tom: That’s part of it, yeah. I mean, there’s no escaping the way “aionios” is often used to describe finite lengths of time.

Starkman: What about the context of II Thess 1:9? I don't see any wriggle room for it to read any other way than how the many versions I've quoted above say it reads. I don't do Greek, but man, it's a real stretch to translate it as you've done so in view of how every reputable translation translates it. That’s problematic for me.

Tom: Maybe we should start a thread on controversial translation issues. That would be fun!

Actually, all that’s needed is for “aionios” here to signify a finite length of time, and it’s easy as pie to show that it can mean this.

Tom

Starkman: No matter where I turn, it seems clear to these translators that the point of 2Th 1:9 is that there is eternal condemnation (i.e., everlasting, since “eternal” doesn't mean much here otherwise)…

Tom: Why wouldn’t “aionios” here be meaningful if understood (as it often means) as “age-abiding” (or “age-appropriate”), essentially a finite length of time? I don’t see why only “temporally unending” makes sense of “aionios” here.

Tom: Oh, that’s not what Jason’s saying. He’s not saying the guy in 1Cor 5 is experiencing the SAME eschatological destruction (post-mortem or something like that) as that mentioned in 2Th 1. He’s just saying that “destruction” (this Greek word) can be remedial. It can have as its purpose (the “so that…” clause) the salvation of the person. If “destruction” can be used to describe remedial judgment (as 1Cor 5 shows), then we can’t assume that it HAS to exclude remedial/redemptive intentions in 2Th just because this ‘word’ is being used. [emphasis Starkman's]

Actually, all that’s needed is for “aionios” here to signify a finite length of time, and it’s easy as pie to show that it can mean this.

Tom: Maybe we should start a thread on controversial translation issues. That would be fun!

Post Edited (selah) : 11/14/2009 5:49:50 PM (GMT-6)

Just take that stance, y'all.  What would be your "judgment" and on what basis was it made?

Post Edited (Tom) : 11/13/2009 4:17:34 AM (GMT-6)

Starkman: I mean just reading the verse for what it says based on how you've translated it, there isn't anything insinuating dross as part of the process.

Tom: Does he need to say it? On the other hand, I could comment that he doesn’t specify explicitly the annihilation of the person either. He just says “aionios ruination.” Can we not construct Paul’s view on the matter by taking what he says elsewhere that might help us understand his eschatology (Col. 1, Phil 2, 1Cor 15, Rm 5, and others)?

Starkman: But...it makes no difference if I look at your interpretation of II Thess 1 from a UR or non-UR posture. What your translation of IIThess 1 is saying, as I'm understanding it, what I've read back to you. Now if what I'm reading back to you is not what you mean to be saying, then what exactly is your translation saying? Maybe I need clarification on that before we go on.

Tom: Well, just in terms of ‘translating’, I think we have:

“…and they will pay [or come to value] the justice of age-abiding ruination [or destruction] from the presence of God….”

To me, how we translate that first verb (to pay, to value) is way more important than whether we say ‘destruction’ or ‘ruination’. If it’s something like “come to value” then you have in view an explicitly remedial judgment and the debate is over (in my favor!). But “pay” is fine. It’s ambiguous regarding the nature of the judgment (remedial or retributive).

There’s no way I’d translate ‘aionios’ as ‘eternal’ or ‘everlasting’ because THAT is doing more than translating. That’s interpreting. If ‘aionios’ can describe either temporary or everlasting periods of time, and if both are possible readings, then translate the ambiguity. Just say ‘age-abiding’ (which is the closest literal sort of translation you can get; well, if we make an adjective from epoch, like epochal, that might even work better) and let readers decide (within their churches or faith communities) how to settle the ambiguity. But it’s not a translator’s job to choose FOR you if the text is ambiguous.

And since “from the presence of God” could mean “away from the presence of God” (describing where the wicked experience this judgment) or “coming from the presence of God” (describing God as either the source or the agent of the judgment), let’s just translate the Greek literally: “from the presence of the Lord” so that the resulting English translations gives English readers the SAME options the Greek offers (from where we are today).

Starkman: So my question is still—assuming I'm understanding your interpretation of II Thess 1 correctly—did Paul mean what is implied in your translation of II Thess 1…

Tom: OK, so the translating is done (above). Now we’re on to interpreting what he MEANT. Yes, I think that’s what Paul meant. It’s certainly a possible interpretation in and of itself. But after considering the other passages I mentioned (Col. 1, Phil 2, etc.) it’s VERY plausible.

What do you do with Phil 2 by the way, Stark? “Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.” Does that “every” refer to the few who are left after the majority are annihilated? Every knee bows and every tongue confesses because those are the only knees and tongues left? Or do you think “every” here means every human being who’s ever lived will own up to Christ and confess him as Lord, the believers as an expression of faith and love and the wicked having it coerced out of them? How do you avoid universalism there?

Starkman: …and did John mean the same in Rev 20:10?

Tom: I think so, yeah.

Starkman: It's neither here nor there what the church fathers thought—inconsistencies and disagreements among them is prevalent enough that we can put them on the back burner for the moment.

Tom: When the moment is up, tell me how you think it’s possible that Greek Fathers managed to understand the Greek text in universalist fashion. It all seems so clear and simple for you! Ha.

Starkman: Unless there is better evidence that we can impress upon these verses what is (I would argue) not allowed by its context, then we still have problems with assuming that aion only means an age that will come to an end.

Tom: I’m not seeing what it is in the context that you see which clinches annihilation. Forget the word “ruination” and “aionios.” What’s outside those words in the context that limits those words to meaning “everlasting annihilation”?

Oh, and we didn’t say that “aion” only means an age that will come to an end. I said it means “age.” That’s it. Just a word: “age.” Could be eternal or temporal. So when THAT WORD is made into the adjective “aionios” it doesn’t suddenly mean ‘temporary’ or ‘everlasting’. It’s still just a word that means exactly what an adjective built off of the word “age” would mean, i.e., “of or pertaining to an age.” In English the word “age” doesn’t admit to being turned into an adjective. If it did it might be something like ‘age-ish’ or ‘agey’. That’s it. That’s the translating part.

Starkman: Further, that aion is all about ages or eons seems moot when we consider the timing of the use of aion in both II Thess 1:9 and Revelation 20:10; that is, the age that follows is unending. There is no hint of anything after it allowing for another age or a cessation of the judgment.

Tom: Really? There’s no river that flows from the throne out through the “gates” of the New Jerusalem for the healing of the nations AFTER the Great White throne judgment and the nations are cast into the Lake of Fire? Those gates are left open and the nations come to the city. Hmmm. Looks like stuff's still happnin to me. There are some VERY interesting possibilities in Revelation. Just trace John’s attitude about “the nations.”

Tom

Starkman: Well, first, I think that the sensibility of the punishment not fitting the crime (ECT) stands alone, if nothing else.

Tom: That certainly makes ECD next to impossible. But the more I think on it, Starky, I tend to conclude the same thing about annihilationism. True, the annihilated don’t continue to suffer. But that in itself doesn’t rescue the view from the criticism that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, as you say. How is permanent, irrevocable, eternal annihilation a “fitting” consequence for a few decades of unbelief?

I wanted also to ask. For the annihilating ‘olethros’ (the “ruination” or “destruction”) in 2Th 1.9, do you understand that as occurring instantly after the Great White Throne judgment OR do people fry for a spell (in accordance with how bad they were) before they expire? In other words, are all who are tossed into the Lake of Fire immediately consumed and annihilated OR will, say, Hitler suffer for a few hundred or thousand years while an average college student who other than rejecting Jesus didn’t do any obvious harm to others will pretty much expire upon hitting the flames.

How do you see it going down?

Starkman: Eye for Eye... is our first clue.

Tom: Right. I’m just wondering how being annihilated from existence is an “eye for an eye” equivalent sort of consequence for rejecting the gospel for a few decades.

Starkman: However, do any entities require eternal suffering?

Tom: Does any require annihilation?

Starkman: And I would hope (desire) that the finaly, for any creation, would not be ECT. But...I have to confess that as it stands, I guess I'm more conditioned to accept (and...maybe even desire) Satan suffer forever (programming, you know), but common sense and sensibility says that isn't sound.

Tom: It’s pretty clear in Rev. 20 that those human beings who are thrown into the Lake of Fire “share the devil’s fate.” Don’t you think that suggests that what happens to Satan happens to the wicked, or what happens to the wicked happens to Satan? Same fate AND (recall) the SAME “aionios” day and night language applied to BOTH. So I don’t see how you could countenance ECT for Satan but annihilation for the wicked. How would the same language (destruction, lake of fire, aionos, day and night) MEAN annihilation for the wicked but MEAN ECT for Satan?

Tom

There’s something else that needs to come into play in the discussion over annihilationism vs UR, and that it the annihilationist’s rationale for vary degrees and lengths of suffering leading up to the extinguishing of the soul. That’s why I asked Starkman about this.

Some annihilationists will say Satan’s (on the assumption that he’s eventually annihilated) will probably suffer millions of years of anguished suffering first and then expire. Hiter, Stalin, Saddam Hussein and that sort of sinner will get thousands of years each. Republicans will get hundreds of years before expiring, democrats decades, and your average college student who wants to party first and then find religion gets a few years. The unevangelized expire instantly. No real suffering for them.

Now, the rationale behind this approach is that it’s ‘just’. Justice is served. If they all expired instantly upon reaching the flames—Satan plus the unevanglized—that would somehow be a miscarriage of justice. Something would be wrong, many sense, with this scenario. Though Satan and the college student will both be annihilated, Satan deserves to suffer for millions of years first. Why is that?

Well, it wouldn’t be ‘just’ otherwise? Why is that? Well, God’s character and holiness demand it. Why is that?

In the end there really is no ‘just’ reason why those who are to be annihilated should suffer varying degrees and lengths of time before expiring. God doesn’t need that or require it. Christ suffered for all sins. God’s forgiven the college student already. It’s just the college student who didn’t choose to live in the truth of God’s acceptance of them. So there can be no outstanding bill to pay prior to annihilation (if annihilation is your end).

But varying degrees of suffering seem to be what’s in store. Some receive many stripes. Some few stripes. That only makes sense if there’s some remedial purpose to suffering. And it makes sense if the length of time one suffers in hell isn’t imposed upon you by God per se, but rather is determined by the character and state of solidification of the person. God set it up to be this way, yeah, so God’s imposing a particular system. But if one suffers in hell it’s not because there’s some outstanding bill of justice to be satisfied (in spite of the parable’s “and you’ll stay there until you pay the last penny”; that parable ought to be understood in terms of overarching convictions that are equally based on Scripture—more about that parable if you wanna chat about it later). To be sure, one’s suffering in hell is just. But it’s just because it’s deserved by abiding states and choices. One doesn’t suffer in hell because he robbed a bank when he was 18. One suffers in hell so long one doesn’t take ownership before God of what one’s actions turned one into. The moment one is able and willing to own up and confess and trust Christ, the suffering ends. I don’t see how suffering of ANY length at all could be anything but remedial.

But it seems that annihilation after varying lengths of suffering misconstrues justice and views hell’s suffering as an equivalent payment by the wicked satisfying some outstanding bill. But if that’s the case, if justice is satisfied, then why annihilate them? Does God just want his pound of flesh before annihilating people? Will that satisfy God on some level, to know that “Satan got his. Take that! Ahhh, feels good.”

I’m less and less impressed with this version of annihilationism. I suppose the only version that’s even plausible is immediate annihilation of all the wicked, Satan and his minions included.

Tom

A friend writes:

--------------------------------

As an example of this, consider John’s comments on “the kings of the Earth” (Gr. “basileus ge”). He starts off repeatedly trashing these men as wicked people who end up in the lake of fire, but then goes on to suggest that the very same men enter New Jerusalem, which suggests that the lake of fire somehow cleanses these previously-unclean men.

[b]Revelation 6:3-17:[/b] And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

[b]16:13-14[/b]: I saw three unclean spirits like frogs [come] out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, [which] go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty

[b]17:2[/b]: the kings of the earth have committed porneia, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication,

[b]18:3[/b]: For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

[b]18:9[/b]: And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning

[b]19:19[/b]: 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.

John describes “the Kings of the Earth” as hiding from (and recipients of) God’s wrath, as “spirits of devils”, and as working with “the beast.” These are hardly descriptions of endearment. John implies the evil nature of these “kings of the earth” from chapters 6 through 19. He implies their wickedness six times, five of which are within relatively close proximity. The point here is that John’s repeated use of the phrase should be enough for us to get the picture of what these men are like. John’s usage set the precedent and placed these men in a specific category/ reference class of wicked people. Now, here is the very next occurrence of the phrase in 21:24-26:

And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

John now describes these “kings of the earth” as entering New Jerusalem, after previously telling us about their fate in the “lake of fire.” How could these men go from the lake of fire to New Jerusalem? This would not make sense unless the lake of fire somehow enables these previously unclean men to enter. This is consistent with other Biblical uses of “fire” as a metaphor expressing purgatorial judgment.

Furthermore, New Jerusalem is said to have gates that “shall not be shut at all.” What would be the purpose of this statement? It implies that there is incoming “traffic” (incoming because nobody would want to leave the city). But where is the traffic coming from? As Talbott notes, “the only other reality left” is the “lake of fire and brimstone.” As Gregory MacDonald suggests, these passages seem to presuppose a Universalist understanding of hell fire.