Roofus, that sounds right and basic to me. The controversial question may be whether condemnation, judgment, etc. can be consistent with pursuiing the best for those persons. It seems to me that agape has that implication.
This seems to me to yield an interesting view that isn’t often understood. Don’t you think? G-d might be seen to be saying this: “My justice prevents us from being in fellowship with you, but I am striving to make that happen from my side”.
Most certainly! Though I fear some think of “justice” as something above God which requires God to accept an end result that His love doesn’t want. I think of it as the goodness of love in God’s own nature that is bent toward pursuing blessed righteousness in us (‘setting things right’). Thus, by definition, harmful unrighteousness alienates us from fellowship with God’s nature or purposes, and is in a position of being condemed. But none of this keeps God’s love and justice from remaining united and bent upon God’s redemptive goals.
In some fashion is it not true that, if someone is not in harmony with my will (with respect to fairness of treatment, for example), I cannot be such a person’s friend, because friendship (at the very least) requires a kind of equality, a single standard of concern and love.
Actually, if it means “pertaining to the age to come”, as some say, duration isn’t addressed.
Along these lines, in the LXX it was used to translate the Hebrew “Olam” and “Olam Haba” which referenced the age to come, particularly the age of the Messiah. It also carried with it the concept of that which is “beyond site”. And “site” and “seeing” were idiomatic ways of referencing that which is “beyond understanding”. Something that was beyond site, was beyong understanding. We use similar terminology today; “I just can’t see that” has nothing to do with physical site, but metal perception.
That which is “eternal” is beyond site, beyond our understanding; it is spiritual not physical, transcends time and space, effective in the physical as well as in the spiritual. For example, eternal judgment is not judgment that is endless, but it is judgment that is spiritual, time transcending, from God, having to do with the age/world/realm to come, etc. The fire that destroyed Sodom is described as eternal fire; it is not fire that was endles, but fire that was from God in judgment, fire that was related to the coming fire that will destroy all evil tht initiates the Messianic age.
Thanks, those points are helpful.
My answer was just aimed at his claim “Neither can be more limited than the other”, which isn’t true if “aionion” is an undefined duration. I didn’t go any further this time, as the meaning of “aionion” has come up a few times already. However, I agree there are a number of good reasons for thinking it’s undefined.
Hi Roofus,
Whether one cannot (in some fashion) be a “friend” to someone whose will is not in harmony with yours, sounds like it hangs on how one defines friend. Is there a Biblical text that defines it this way? I think of God as a ‘friend’ of sinners who loves precisely those who don’t demonstrate “any kind of equality” toward Him. Of course, we can choose to be a “friend” in our behavior toward someone who does not reciprocate. But, if friendship implies something like being able to enjoy a relationship of mutual regard, then harmony would seem essential. Is that the “fashion” you mean?
This topic has been drifting for awhile, but Joe has now posted a whole series of responses in the comments at his blog. Here’s a few quick replies from me…all I have time for right now. Joe’s comments are in italics.
Joe Towns said…
Will their worm die?
Worms consume rotting flesh… He who has ears to hear, let him hear. 
*Joe Towns said…
“For ever and ever”
Revelation 14:10-11. Don Carson says “the Greek expression rendered ‘for ever and ever’ is consistently the most emphatic way of saying “forever” in the NT”. John’s follow up statement, “there will be no rest day or night…” goes together with this first expression.*
That interpretation of 'for ever and ever" is, of course, purely interpretive. I’d like to see some backing for that. Though either way is not a problem for me.
The “no rest” is for those who “are worshipping the beast and receiving his mark.” I’m glad of that! It would be terrible if God would allow any of us to continue to serve evil without consequence.
Joe Towns said…
The smoke is their torment that goes on forever, not the ‘result’ of their punishment.
Seems to me the text says that it is the smoke “of” their torment … of course, as I said, the “forever” is debateable in my mind. But, even more relevantly, the smoke belongs to the torment of those who are worshipping the beast…when they are no longer worshipping the beast, they will no longer be of those whose smoke is going up. Forever God will be in emnity against those who worship evil, and for as long as they continue in it.
*Joe Towns said…
Same fate as the Devil
Revelation 20:10:15 ('they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever') (cf. 21:8). The Devil is cast into the lake of fire with them and this is his experience. He at least suffers conscious torment forever. All the arguments would have to apply to him also. We would in the end need to welcome Satan into eternal life? Why would be humans a special case in your argument? Verse 15: If *anyone's* name was not found written...
If Satan were to repent, would you have a problem welcoming him into the kingdom? (I assume that by “eternal life” you mean entering the kingdom. Do you not already believe him to be immortal? Would you call the kind of life he has now “eternal”?)
Humans are a “special case” because it is through us–the body of Christ–that salvation is spread throughout the cosmos. But into the fire we must all go at some point for “everyone will be salted with fire.”
*…On Banishing the Lake of Fire, The Gagging of God, p. 523, 528, 529 *
Excuse me… I happen to believe very strongly in the Lake of Fire … for our God is a consuming fire, and I am depending on Him to cleanse me of all unrighteousness!
*Joe Towns said…
If hell will be reversed *
Who claims hell will be reversed?? Does Robin Parry make that claim in “The Evangelical Universalist”? If he does, I disagree with him on that point!
Sonia
I also added one comment on his blog regarding his final comment there:
This demonstrates a very wrong view of salvation. It would never occur to me suggest to anyone that it is “okay” to continue in sin and put off repentance till another day!
Universalism–as I understand it–is the hope/faith that all will repent … it is not license to continue in sin. That is such a twisted view of the message. In fact, it seems to me Paul has already addressed that somewhere … “What then, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound???”
Sonia
Thanks for the link Sonia. I’d been wanting to follow that coversation and it seemed, for a while at least, but all I ever saw was Alex’s response.
How nice that you are joining him in the conversation. I appreciate your insight and look forward to reading it.
Well there hasn’t been any response from Joe yet until this morning when he posted a whole truckload of them all at once. I didn’t post my comments there (except the last one), but sent a link to them here. Maybe I should post there too.
I didn’t want to clog it up too much on Joe’s site.
Sonia
People interpret die in various ways, right? Annihilationists, of which maybe Joe is one, believe in death differently than even a person that believes in ECT. Would an annihilationist propose the same, that an ECT person is undermining God’s very clear statement that people will die, be extinguished?
It’s my impression that many of us, as evangelical universalists, are convinced that one will surely die without God. We take very seriously that sin causes death, but we also take seriously that God is life, able to give it as he pleases. All of us start out dead and need life in Christ.
Did God really say…? I assume that Joe is uncomfortable that we are questioning his already clear, unquestionable, doctrine of hell. I think it’s good to question whatever we think it is we’ve come to understand about God. Did God say that he reconciles all things, loves the whole world, he’ll draw all men to himself, love never fails? Whether we like to pretend we’ve asked the questions or not, we all have answers that we think make the most sense. The bible, it seems to me, is a book begging for us to ask the important questions. I’ve seen the approach a lot from some of my leaders to discourage questionioning in favor of just following the majority. That’s one way to keep truth at bay.
It’s good to give the reasons for why we believe what we do, but it is not ok to discourage real reasoning with a tactic like this that we should not question the understanding because we are undermining God,giving in to a lie. I think the lie is that God does not/will not reconcile all things. Each person can accuse the other of believing the lie. It accomplishes nothing. Maybe I shouldn’t feel so negatively about this approach of telling others that they are believing a lie, undermining God with a question? I’ll admit, while it does little to promote the discussion, it also gets under my skin. 
It’s probably that while I was younger my husband would ask many great questions in our youth biblestudy and was treated, instead, as a troublemaker. I tolerated it then, bought the lie, but now I refuse.
Torment, or the consequences, in this life inspire faith, don’t they? Why not the next? Hitting a roadblock, rock bottom and banging our head against the wall in frustration are the way I’ve seen many experience a turning. It’s often times what points us to our need for God and makes us appreciative of who He is and the life he brings, which in turn makes us full of worship and praise. Is it such a reach to see how torment could play a role in bringing us to God?
I’d never before noticed how much this is exactly how God works in the bible. God brings wrath to turn people, gives it to his people and then their enemies (which I find comforting because it means he cares about the enemy too). I’d always just assumed if someone was toast that God was done with them, but now I see that God is really out to restore and promises to even restore Sodom and Gomorrah. In Romans Paul describes God hardening some to draw the others and then unhardening to draw the same hardened ones. Whatever the case, God’s in the business of drawing people to himself and consequences play a big part. In Hosea I like how God strips Gomer, or Israel, of what they cling to by bringing devastation, but with great affirmation is also able to declare, “I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the Lord.” Hosea 2:20 We think God can’t use certain circumstances, that it’s over, but God’s got a goal to say to those called “Not my loved one” that “You are my people.” vs.23
I’m not sure if I was understanding Joe correctly when he brought up the eventual need to dicuss limited atonement, that he is a Calvinist? This comment made me think so.
If this is the case, is Joe really unconvinced that God isn’t able to use torment to bring people to God, as much as he’s convinced it’s not God’s purpose or desire to bring the all to repentance. He seems right that the need to discuss limited atonement is inevitable. Why discuss how God works to save all, through even torment, if you don’t believe it is even God’s desire to save all?
I’m looking forward to reading my dad’s (Bob Wilson’s) paper on hell. I know, in it, he asserts, like Joe, that we should understand Jesus’ references to Gehenna in light of the Pharisaic beliefs on the matter. Did they see Gehenna as a model of eternal, conscious punishment or was it remedial? What’s interesting to me is that so much of our perspective and how we see things is a direct result of whose perspective we feel inclined to believe. Just because Don Carson said it in his book or my dad said it isn’t reason enough to believe that it’s as they say. Sure does require a lot of independent study to see how they arrived at their take on things.
Reminds me of Hebrews 12:8 that says, “If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all.” While we are thankful to God for his discipline, do we go around praising God for it? Maybe yes and no. I do praise God that he is faithful and I can trust that he will punish, correct, in whatever way he sees fit, though it be terribly painful. At the same time, discipline is something I want to avoid, even if it does have a purpose. Weird how it is dreadful and, at the same time, reason for praise - that God treats us as legitmate children.
I’m not sure what Joe is really getting at here? Is it that he thinks punishment is not a reason to rejoice, therefore it cannot lead to good? It surely isn’t in his view, I’ll give him that. I don’t know if it’s just me or if some of this really is circular reasoning and doesn’t really prove anything? A worthy question seems like, “What is the purpose of punishment? Is punishment ever for correction?” He doesn’t seem to think punishment ever results in anything good, that no life can come from destruction (he cites this elsewhere), but isn’t that where we see differently? Talbott goes into that a bit so if he reads the book he’ll get his take on that. I have to admit, Talbott’s take on destruction was different than any I’d encountered before.
I would tend to agree with Carson that we do minimize the awfulness of God’s punishment, even that Christians will be judged. He, no doubt, thinks punishment not lasting endlessly is lightweight. But, would he like to light himself on fire for a few hours, days, mos., years, etc.?
It really doesn’t prove anything to speculate about reasons for certain beliefs and condemn people that don’t teach our belief system. The real question is, is there reason to believe that God reconciles all things?
All this statement really does is acknowledge the feelings of the person making the statement, that he thinks it’s a weakness not to believe like he does. That’s to be expected. What occurs to me is that each side is capable of making assumptions based on the ideas they hold to be true. Restating one’s view as fact, when the other isn’t convinced, isn’t persuasive. It’s very difficult to think outside the view we are already indoctrinated in. My personal feeling, quite different, is that it’s a weakness not to believe in a God that is committed to the restoration of all. What are we communicating to people about God? Are we not giving them the proper understanding so that they too will turn to God and be saved, because he is a God that loves them faithfully - even if he punishes? Will Joe or Carson find my reasoning very compelling? My guess, no.
It’s easy to get sidetracked with assumptions, things that don’t really prove anything, and aren’t at the heart of our differences. His comment about his understanding of what destruction can and cannot be seems like a good discussion starter.
Thanks Sonia & Amy for engaging with Joe’s comments.
We are meeting up for coffee on Friday, which is forecast to be 30 degrees Celsius, so hopefully the conversation doesn’t get too heated
Alex, I really hope your meeting goes well. It’s comforting that God is committed to us as we seek the truth and his approval is what matters most.
I was talking with my dad this morning about his hell paper, which I finally read at work today.( I have to leave my house to get anything done. 
We have these great conversations while he drives me to work. I feel so fortunate, actually, since it seems not a lot of people here have that support.) Anyway,he was reminding me, as I was telling him about Joe’s statement, that what the pharisees believed is less important than what the bible’s take on Gehenna is. He was explaining that the pharisees often got it wrong. He was alwayscorrecting them with, “You heard it said, but…” He also said that 1 Cor. Ch. 5:5, "…hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord, " is a good verse for showing how destruction leads to being saved, Talbott’s view.
Does Joe still seem committed to reading TEU?
I was struck in my dad’s paper with God’s promise to restore Gehenna, the valley of slaughter in Jeremiah, in much the same way as Sodom and Gomorrah. How is it possible to restore the unclean, if not to actually restore the very ones needing the restoring? Surely you can’t call it restoration to just wipe out all the unfaithful. We all are unfaithful. I think Joe, if he is a Calvinist, see’s God’s promise to restore the unfaithful, but limits it to a few.
I can’t imagine that he can’t really see how fear, punishment, discipline, are useful for bringing people to God. Was reading a verse today about how it is good to fear God so we won’t stray.
Also, in my dad’s paper he points out that as Jesus is talking about Gehenna he, in the same context, says we all need to be salted with fire, as if to point out that the fire is for the purpose of purification and is remedial. The church majority certainly has some concept that God is a refiner’s fire.
I’ll bet Joe is convinced God, being sovereign, can do anything he wants…restore all. It’s just not his belief that God has planned to do that. It was something I had to contemplate.
Man, I wish I had a dad that I could get into long discussions about hell on the way to work.
You think I’m kidding? 
Funny Roofus! Probably not that many daughters, if they had a choice, would want to get into long conversations about hell on their ride to work. That makes us weird! Not everyone is into discussing theology like most of us here. I’m glad there are other people, here, that take interest in these things. Keeps me from trying to discuss things with people that have no interest and will just think I’m a nut.
Thanks Amy
I agree.
I hope so! I’ll ask tomorrow.
That’s interesting, your dad’s paper is on my laptop, waiting to be read.
I agree.
I reckon that too.