yes, although he has 3 young children so hopefully it will be a helpful example for him too.
I’m believe the Greek word isn’t “eternal” but closer to “the age beyond sight”. Others have understood the word to mean “pertaining to God”, others see it as “lasting”. Whichever it is, I see it as an undefined period of time in the afterlife, where the details of both the punishment & life are found elsewhere. e.g. the life has no death, rot or decay, and it’s in communion with God. Also given that it pictures a judgement by works, as Protestants, we should be extra careful about interpreting it as defining who is or isn’t saved.
I agree with you up until the word “permanent”, not only because I don’t see the word as “eternal”, but because I see the overarching biblical narrative promising complete reconciliation eventually. The third reason is that as far as I can tell, up until Calvin, postmortem salvation (albeit only for a few) was commonly accepted (see Mark Driscoll says “no evidence for post-mortem repentance”), add to that C.S. Lewis and other recent theologians seeing the possibility.
It’s not a matter of being good enough but a question of how far does God’s grace reach and how particular He is in His definition of what belief in Christ is. However, I’m confident that it’s only through Christ, so I think that should limit inclusivism and so I definitely wouldn’t go any further than C.S. Lewis does.
I think there are a number of strong arguments, and I would recommend reading a recent, comprehensive highly academic work on the topic, such as Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts
Obviously I would disagree with this, I think that most (possibly all but as I don’t have all the passages in front of me, so I’m not confident) of the places the word appears, it could be translated as something else and the passage would still make sense. Anyway even if there was only one exception where it definitely couldn’t mean “eternal”, then that means you wouldn’t have to translate it that way in this passage.
I can say that God is the the “age beyond sight” God, and that’s perfectly logical.
Firstly at the end of Revelations we are told the gates are wide open 
Secondly, what is the function of a door? It’s a way from one area to another, sometimes it’s open, sometimes it closed. If it’s permanently sealed it ceases to be a door. I don’t see the NT claiming to seal up the door, so I assume that if it’s closed, it will open again. Thirdly saying that He could’ve used another word is circular, it assumes the word means “eternal”, if it doesn’t, then it’s a fine word choice. Related to this, there is a stronger Greek word “tartasis” (spelling?) that they could’ve used if they wanted it to be clearly permanent. Fourthly Jesus would probably have said the word Hebrew “olam” which doesn’t equal eternal but something closer to “beyond sight” or “hidden”.
I don’t see this as an argument against it. I see His kingdom as permanent too and that it has already begun being ushered in, and that Judgement day will be decisive. However, I don’t want things just reach an equilibrium, I want to see evil eradicated entirely through God’s complete victory and winning over of all hearts, minds & bodies.
I have no problem with the fact that the NT speaks of punishment, although I don’t see it saying it never ends. I see all the reconciliation passages (e.g. Col 1:20) and similarly the Adam/Christ passages (e.g. 1 Cor 15), as clearly implying/requiring an end to punishment. Also passages like Lam 3:22-24 & 1 Cor 13, show us that eternal punishment would be out of character.
There are other reasons that your life matters & is significant apart from whether or not you end up in ECT.
Very.
It’s interesting that although the weeds are burned in the fire, they aren’t annihilated, which means it’s not the end of their story. I have no doubt there will be a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth before people are ready to repent and be reconciled to Christ.
Hell is a compromise, God is blessing people there with life, the ability to reason and the freedom to think what they like. Whilst He works in people there and waits for them to repent, sin continues.
Hell is a messy place.
It doesn’t imply permanency.
I’m honestly not having a go at anyone, but we rarely cry about it 
. I don’t know what this means, whether it’s just too overwhelming or because we see so many horrific things on TV that we become desensitized. I guess it’s also really hard to comprehend just how awful hell will be, let alone ECT 
Maybe because it is too grueling and our conscience is trying to tell us that 
Again the fact that ECT requires us to go against our consciences is a real concern.
It doesn’t. God wants to save everyone (1 Tim 2:4, 2 Pet 3:9, etc.), is able to achieve what He wants (Job 42:2, Eph 1:11, etc.) and therefore does.
That’s an excellent question that I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer to, unless hell is only temporary.
Notice the Pharisees that said what they would do in this hypothetical situation. Jesus implies the Jews’ inheritance will be given to the Gentiles, and that they will be broken and crushed (although one translation says scattered when fits even better with what happened in 70AD). So to begin with, it would be wrong to see this as implying the Gentiles were going to be rejected and suffer the fate of the Jews, and secondly even with the Jews’ facing terrible suffering, we know from Romans, that this isn’t the end of their story.
That is certainly in the story, but given Jesus states in His conclusion that “I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit”, I would see that as the point of the story, or at least the take away point for the Pharisees.
Yes, He was telling the Pharisees that they hadn’t recognised the Son and therefore would be cut off (but in Romans we discover this was only so that the Gentiles could be grafted on, so that God’s mercy is shown to never come to an end, that it is new every morning, that great is His faithfulness).
It’s true God tried again and again to communicate with Israel and they rejected Him. However, that doesn’t make them 100% pure evil because by His grace they are make in His image, obviously not enough to make them righteous by their own doing.
It appears Hell will be required, however, it isn’t the final solution because thanks be to God, He has provided forgiveness and salvation to us, His enemies.
We certainly don’t live up Jesus’ standards and are totally dependent on His mercy & grace, but that should cause us to want to be healed, corrected, cleaned and sanctified, rather than see Hell as the solution to the problem.
If God can convert Saul, the worst of sinners who was murdering Jesus daily (by killing Christians), He can convert anyone if He wants to!
The fact He hasn’t should be a good indication that He is merciful and patient.
Yes, we each have to decide where we stand before God, however, because humanity is intimately linked, it does matter what happens to everyone else too.
When I been sinful and look at how wonderful and good Jesus is, I rejoice at how great He is to be able to cleanse even me.
Many can imply all, as shown in passages where “all” parallels “many”, and there’s something about it’s use in the OT but I can’t remember the details
Hell but not ECT.
He’s angry because He loves them and wants them to stop sinning.
Of course it’s not like we can “own everyone else’s eternity.” Hopefully we can trust there is a God that is concerned for that and has that all under wraps. But, not to be concerned with it, desire that all should be saved - just like God says he does, trust in God’s faithfulness to the faithless…is almost to say don’t worry about loving your neighbor as your self. Don’t worry about anybody else, just yourself and your own butt, your own bottom line. This way of thinking, if we took it to heart, would make us unconcerned for the lost, which is precisely what I think happens. So many Christians are content to believe they are making the choice and too bad for the others that don’t. We must just accept that they weren’t able to get it in time and probably never would. (Which, I don’t know why that is if our salvation is a result of God’s efforts/will. Calvinists obviously have an answer to this.) They still worship the God that damns most of creation or worse the God that specificly created people for damnation.
I can’t figure out how to love this kind of God, that even though he loves me he is ok giving up on others and damning them endlessly. If I love my neighbors as myself and would not want for them what I would not want for myself how can I accept they’ll be endlessly tormented with no purpose? I’m with Talbott that it’s impossible for God to love us if he doesn’t love the ones we love.
Bernie said…
Alex said…
How about 1 Tim. 2:5-7: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.” Also, reminds me of the many in Romans 5:19, “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Clearly all were made sinners, not many, right? So the same many will be made righteous.
I 100% agree with you, and thank God Talbott has made that point so clear to us!
Thanks Amy, that’s exactly what I was looking for 