Yuku free message boards

God's Sovereign Choice (Part 1)

The doctrine of God's sovereign choice, contrary to the opinion of many, does not reveal a God who is sadistic monster, or even
a fair judge. Instead it reveals a God who is far more than that. It reveals a God who is an active outreaching lover of all mankind,
a God who forgives His enemies for they know not what they do.

Before investigating the consequences of God's sovereignty it's important to make the Biblical case for God's sovereignty.

The doctrine of God's sovereign choice is well documented in scripture. Perhaps the clearest text in scripture on this subject is
found in Romans 9.

Romans 9-11 should be seen as a single passage concerning the fate of ancient Israel. The story might be summarized as follows.
Ancient Israel was originally and sovereignly selected (Romans 9), then (temporarily) rejected for lack of faith (Romans 10), but
ultimately they will be accepted in spite of their rebellion (Romans 11).

Here, it should be noted that the free will vs. predestination issue can be framed in a slightly different way. One might ask which
came first, the faith to believe or the salvation. Does our faith CAUSE us to be elected to salvation. Or is our faith the RESULT of
our election.

Romans 11:28 answers that question cleanly.

As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on
account of the patriarchs, (Romans 11:28 NIV)

Paul makes the same point previously in two texts:

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of
Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. (Romans 11:1-2 NIV)

And before that:

What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every
man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." (Romans
3:3-4 NIV)

Looking at these texts together, it is clear that there is a group of people, the Jews, who are enemies of the gospel but part of the
elect in spite of that. This is not to say that every one who is Jew in name only is a real spiritual Jew. But these texts unmistakably
say that there are Jews who are part of the true, sovereignly saved, Israel of God who are enemies of the Gospel.

For more on the hardened Jews of the true Israel of God, see the essay on that subject Israel and the Church

Of special importance to this essay, at this point, is the fact that God does the electing independent of a person's faith. God elects,
and then having elected, gives a person the faith to believe. Faith is a consequence of having been elected. The Jews are a perfect
case of once elected always elected.

There are people today (specifically the Jews) who are knowingly enemies of the Gospel, yet because of God's love for them,
they remain part of the elect, IN SPITE OF THEIR LACK of FAITH and opposition to the Gospel.

Here a digression is needed:

One might ask how someone can be a saved enemy of the Gospel; Isn't faith in Jesus a requirement of salvation? That is almost
right.

A proper understanding of God's sovereignty reveals that all who are saved ULTIMATELY do believe in Jesus. But it's important
to understand that faith is a CONSEQUENCE of (not a prerequisite for) election. All who are elect and alive today don't believe
in Jesus. Some who are elect today will become believers tomorrow or next Sunday. If you are a believer today there was
probably a time when you weren't a believer. But you were still elected from the foundation of the world. The open question was
when you would believe. Some of the elect believed from the age of 3 or 4. Others of the elect didn't believe until they were in
their 50s or older.

A key point in understanding universalism is that life doesn't end at the grave for any man. All men who are elected to be part of
the Church, WILL believe in Jesus. Given that all men don't believe in this life, it follows that some post death conversion is
necessary to bring all men to salvation. I will come back to that in detail later. But for now it's important to see that election comes
before saving faith. That is a key point in Paul's teaching on the Jews as presented in the above texts.

It is also helpful to review the circumstances of Paul's conversion at Acts 9. Paul's conversion was a sovereign act of God, a
decision forced on an "enemy of the Gospel" by a sovereign God. That was a type of the redemption of ALL Israel, which will
ultimately ALL be unhardened and redeemed.

Some try to reduce God's sovereignty to a process of electing groups into which people come and go of their own free will. A
good analogy for that position, might be setting up a club, which people are free to join or not join of their own free will. In other
words, God sovereignty created the groups (ancient Israel, the church, the 144,000 of the book of revelation etc.) but He never
dragged anyone into those groups.

But such a position raises an obvious question. What if nobody joined the group? The free will position opens the door to the
possibility that nobody would join the group. This makes man sovereign in the final decision as to whether there will even be a
group. Such a view reduces God to a judge and a beggar, who Himself has no assurance from the foundation of the world that
anyone will be redeemed. He may see into our future (individually and collectively), and observe what will happen, but He can't
really control anything. If nobody believes then His desires come to nothing.

And so one comes back to basic question; who really predestined the course of human history, man or God? If the answer is
God, then God had to control all of history, including men's decisions to believe or not.

It should be noted here that God's sovereignty in no way reduces men to robots. One Should take the Bible at face value when it
says there is great liberty for those in Christ Jesus.

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of
slavery. (Galatians 5:1 NIV)

But that liberty has limits. In the physical world I can't fly under my own power but that doesn't make me a robot. By analogy my
election to salvation doesn't make me a robot either. God controls the domain in which men operate. Part of that control is God's
choice over who believes and who doesn't. But within that domain there is liberty.

One objection often made against the predestination case is that it encourages a fatalistic attitude toward God. The argument goes
that if I'm saved, I'm saved, and if not, then not, so it makes no difference what I do. Such a view ignores the great blessings and
promises made to those who diligently seek the Lord. There is a great comfort in KNOWING that God unconditionally loves
you. One shouldn't resist God's work to reveal that to him. Election is a work of God but submission is a cooperative work
between God and man. See 2Peter 1:3-11 on how to cooperate.

Ephesians 2:10 is as much a part of the Bible as Eph 2:8-9.

In Romans 9 Paul uses two examples to illustrate God's sovereign choice. The first is the story of Jacob and Esau:

Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or
had done anything good or bad-- in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--
she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." (Romans
9:10-13 NIV)

Note that the decision, of who was elected to what role, was determined by God before either twin had done anything.
Anticipating the charge that God is unjust Paul continues in verse 14:

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have
mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or
effort, but on God's mercy.

It is not our desire or effort that saves us, or even gives us the faith to believe. All of that is a gift of God.

Now Paul offers a second example, Pharaoh:

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and
that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and
he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Once again Paul addresses the fairness issue.

19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man,
to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" 21 Does not the
potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
(NIV)

Here Paul uses the analogy of clay and the potter to describe our relationship with God in respect to election. There is great
comfort here for all who can see God as He really is, a God of infinite outreaching self-sacrificial love and mercy. We have to
walk by faith and not by sight.

There are a number of other verses related to the issue of God's sovereign choice. A brief review of some of the key verses is
contained in the next section.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Three views of salvation

Given that the doctrine of God's sovereign choice is so well documented in scripture one might wonder why it is so controversial.
My position is that there are 2 primary reasons.

1) When combined with the doctrine of eternal hell, the doctrine of God's sovereign choice makes God look like a sadistic
monster who created the VAST MAJORITY of mankind to be fried alive for all eternity without hope of changing that fate. (True
Christianity has never been a majority religion in this world).

2) When combined with the so called Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement, it contradicts scripture:

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2 NIV)

This, and a number of other Biblical texts, clearly point to a Jesus who died for all men without exception (All never means
minority. And Christianity has never been the majority religion of mankind). Interestingly John Calvin himself never taught limited
atonement.

The problem however is not the doctrine of God's sovereign choice. The problem is what it is combined with, specifically limited
atonement or eternal hell. As we shall see, there is no text anywhere in scripture that unambiguously teaches eternal hell. That
doctrine is entirely dependent on the arbitrary translation of words and reading what men want to see, into ambiguous metaphors
and apocalyptic passages.

I am sure that the immediate reaction of most at this point is to say that obviously Hell is eternal. Look at all the Bible texts which
say so. My response is that by all means one should look closely at those texts. But he must also look closely at ALL of the
relevant texts including the ones that explicitly say that God's intent is to save all men without exception.

Many say that they want to believe the universalist position, that all men will ultimately be saved. If that is your sincere wish then I
ask that you spend a little more time examining this issue. It can't be done in a single paragraph or 2, but with a little time I am
confident I can make your wish come true without violating any principle of sound biblical interpretation. In fact my position is that
the universalist position is more faithful to the principles of sound biblical interpretation that either the Arminian (free will) or
Calvinist approaches.

Again looking at the arguments of the three competing views:

The Arminian (free will) camp says that the atonement of Jesus was unlimited, that He died for all men without exception thereby
demonstrating His desire that all men be saved. Therefore if all men aren't saved, then some factor outside of God's desire must be
operative to decide who is saved and who isn't. The only fair way for God to let that decision be made is to allow the individual to
FREELY choose his destiny. In short, man is sovereign when it comes to his personal salvation. And as we have seen previously
that makes mankind collectively sovereign over it's own history.

The Calvinist (predestination) position says that since God is sovereign and not all men are saved, it would be unjust for Jesus to
die for the sins of those who will never be part of the elect. Therefore the atonement is limited.

The problem with both of these views is that the end of each case clearly contradicts scripture, which plainly teach that God is
sovereign and the atonement is unlimited.

The universalist position holds that the atonement was indeed unlimited as the free will advocates teach, and that God sovereignly
chooses who will be saved, as the Calvinists teach, therefore Hell can't be eternal. All men ultimately will be saved either from Hell
completely or out of it eventually.

But Given the eternal hell texts found in the Bible we have a Bible difficulty.

The English translation of the Bible plainly teaches that:

1) The atonement is unlimited and God desires to save ALL men.

2) God is sovereign, not man, in determining who will be saved and who won't.

3) Hell is eternal.

The problem is that one of those 3 propositions HAS to be wrong. The Calvinists and Arminians spend endless hours debating
between 1 and 2 confident that 3 must be true. In fact 3 is the weakest of the three propositions. Nowhere in the Greek or
Hebrew Bible is there any text that says Hell is eternal.

What I am saying is that the Bible is mistranslated on this point. Now if you are like me, when someone says mistranslation, alarm
bells go off. That is good and I am not asking anyone to take my word for anything.

But I would offer a simple demonstration to show that there is a translation difficulty here.

Get a concordance for the King James Version of the Bible and look up the word "Hell" in the Old Testament. It appears 31
times. Now get a concordance for a more modern translation such as the NIV and look up the word "Hell" in the Old Testament.
The word doesn't appear at all in the Old Testament! The problem is that the underlying Hebrew word "sheol" literally means
"grave" and is translated consistently that way in the more modern popular translations. In short the Hebrew word "sheol" is
ambiguous. It might mean hell and it might mean grave. It's a matter of opinion as to which it means.

The same is true for the Hebrew word "owlam" which is sometimes translated as eternity but can also mean a long time, but not
eternal. Here are 2 translations of Lev 16:34 first from the King James Version and secondly from the New International Version
with the word translated from owlam in [[ ]].

Here is the KJV:

And this shall be an [[everlasting]] statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins
once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses. (KJV)

Here is the NIV:

This is to be a [[lasting]] ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites." And
it was done, as the LORD commanded Moses. (NIV)

Why the change from everlasting to lasting? The book of Hebrews tells us that the sacrifice of Jesus made the ordinances of the
old temple obsolete. They were lasting ordinances, a type of the finished work of the Lord, but only a type. The ordinances were
not really everlasting. They did pass away. The ordinances were lasting but not everlasting. In this case the NIV is the more
theologically correct translation.

The general point is this; the underlying Greek and Hebrew words that get translated as Eternal and Hell are ambiguous. The
translators are forced to rely on their opinions and theological biases to come up with an English translation. When you read the
term "eternal hell" in your English Bible you are reading an opinion of translators, not a perfect rendering of the Hebrew language
into English. The same problem exists with the Greek language where there is ambiguity in the words translated as "eternal" and
"hell."

That this is true can be seen most clearly in a consistent literal translation of the Bible such as the Youngs Literal Translation the
YLT. The YLT is a public domain document. It was done by Robert Young who is probably most famous for the concordance
that goes by his name. The YLT is often available as part of computer bible packages. Don't take my word for it. Get a copy of
the YLT and see for yourself. I sincerely mean that. Don't rely on the opinions of men. Verify all things for yourself.

As a digression here, everybody with a computer should have a computer Bible package. They allow one to compare translations
and do word studies in the original languages almost instantaneously. There are many such packages available, some free or
almost free. If you don't have one and want to try out a free package check out the Online Bible Site (See the subject list at the
left for a link)

This much is clear from even a simple comparison of the KJV and the NIV. The words for eternal and hell are ambiguous. The
Greek and Hebrew texts from which the Bible is translated nowhere explicitly teach the doctrine of Eternal Hell.

So why should we question the translators opinions on eternal hell? The fact is that something has to give. One of the following
doctrines is wrong: unlimited atonement, God's sovereign choice, or eternal hell.

It is an objective fact that a Bible difficulty exists here. Something has to give. In a later sections we will explore why the doctrine
of "eternal hell" is the weakest doctrine of the three alternatives and examine a rational, biblically based, alternative to that
doctrine.

But next we need to consider the positive case for the salvation of all men. That case is presented in the next section.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hell and judgment

The post death judgment and punishment of the wicked is clearly taught in scripture. We are even given a clear picture of what
Hell is like in Luke 16:19-31. It is a place of torments and separation from God. But a careful reading of the Luke text shows that
the man there repented of his past actions, even discovered a desire for evangelism.

"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so
that they will not also come to this place of torment.' (Luke 16:27-28 NIV)

Can anyone really believe that if this man had it to do over again, he wouldn't have done things differently? Men in hell do repent.
They do change their minds. The gates of hell cannot lock out God.

In the teaching epistles of the Apostles there are many references to the condemnation and destruction of the unbeliever. Can a
man be both destroyed and saved? Paul thought so and even handed a man over to Satan for that very purpose:

hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. (1
Corinthians 5:5 NIV)

Men (their sinful nature) can be destroyed unto repentance and salvation. That is what happened to the man at 1Co 5. See the
rest of the story at 2Co 2:5-11.

That is what was happening to the rich man in Hell at Luke 16.

In fact that is the purpose of Hell, to bring men to repentance and restoration.

Hell exists but it isn't eternal. Jesus paid the full price for the sins of the whole world. He didn't spend eternity in Hell and neither
will anyone else.

Clearly if all men are saved, and some men go to hell, then all men in Hell have to repent and be saved out of Hell.

Some will object that we have no explicit text that says men will be saved out of Hell. Here one has consider the nature of death
and Hell. Death is the opposite of life.

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he
has crossed over from death to life. (John 5:24 NIV)

The unregenerated man is dead (separated from God). But death is not complete in this life. Here is Paul addressing the pagans on
Mars Hill:

From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set
for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for
him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of
your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' (Acts 17:26-28 NIV)

No man in this life is completely dead (completely separated from God).

Death is not the cessation of existence. Existence does not end at the grave for any man. That is clear from scripture. Existence
continues for all men beyond the physical grave. Biblical death is the separation from God. Unregenerated man is currently
separated from God, dead in his sins, but that separation is not total. The post death separation is total. It's is a second spiritual
death, a deeper, complete, separation from God.

But death (spiritual separation from God) is not eternal.

Here is Paul on the redemptive plan of Jesus:

25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1
Corinthians 15 NIV)

Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. (Revelation 20:14 NIV)

The word Hades in the above text is often translated as either grave or Hell. It is one of those ambiguous words that can mean
either grave or Hell.

Ultimately death, separation from God, is destroyed when all men are reunited with God and God becomes all in all. Death, the
grave and hell cannot be eternal because ultimately they are destroyed.

There is an order to the process of the redemption of all men:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he
comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he
has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The
last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Corinthians 15:22-26 NIV)

The Lord Himself was the firstfruits of those redeemed from the dead. He raised Himself from the dead:

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken
forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21 But the temple he had spoken of was
his body. (John 2:19-21 NIV)

The next phase of the redemption is the redemption of the Church. Ultimately death\hell\grave is destroyed and all men, without
exception, are redeemed from it's curse.

To summarize briefly, here is the big picture of human history. Through Adam's sin all men were handed over to disobedience. But
God's eternal purpose in that tragedy was to save all men without exception. Though His sovereign salvation God will reveal His
infinite love for all men. Salvation comes in an _order_ to different groups of people. Jesus Himself was the firstfruits of the
redemption of all men, the prototype. Next will come the resurrection of the Church. Finally all men will be redeemed when
spiritual death, complete separation from God is abolished.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22 NIV)

When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may
be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28 NIV)

Perhaps the greatest question that confronts mankind is the question of why a God of love allows bad things to happen to people.
There are many answers. One is to teach us perseverance, character and hope. Romans 5:1-5. Another answer is to show us the
consequences of doing things "our way" to show us that the wages of sin is death. But a key reason is to reveal God's ultimate
infinite loving nature.

For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Oh, the depth of the riches of
the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! "Who has known
the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" "Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" For
from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. (Romans 11:32-36 NIV)

At this point we have covered the case for God sovereign choice in the matter of salvation and the case for His salvation of all
men. What remains, is to remove the apparent Biblical contradiction with respect to eternal Hell.

That is the subject of the next section.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The meaning of words (Part 2)

Much of the defense of Eternal Hell relies on appeals to metaphorical language. The following text is perhaps the most powerful
and can be used to illustrate the general principle.

If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to
hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than
to have two feet and to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter
the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell, where their worm never dies, and the
fire is never quenched. (Mark 9:43-48 NRSV)

The argument is that since Hell is a place of fires that are never quenched and worms that never die, then Hell has to be eternal.
But a careful examination of the above text in the original Greek reveals a more ambiguous picture.

As was mentioned previously there is no Hebrew word that unambiguously describes hell as we understand it today. The Hebrew
word "sheol" literally means grave. That is why the word Hell appears 31 times in the King James Version of the Old Testament
and disappears completely from the Old testament in the more modern translations which adopted a consistent approach to
translating the Hebrew word "sheol" as grave.

The same problem exists in the New Testament where 3 different words are variously translated as Hell. They are:

1) "Hades" which literally means grave. Hades is a direct equivalent of the Hebrew "sheol." A word search on the Greek and
Hebrew words for Hades\sheol will show that godly men went there, even desired to go there. In other words they died.

2) "Tartaroo" which is only used once in the New Testament as follows:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for
judgment; (2 Peter 2:4 NIV)

Here Peter's description defines the place where these angels were sent.

3) "Gehenna" literally an open garbage dump on the outskirts of Jerusalem where there were permanent fires and worms (and no
doubt other scavengers) who consumed the endless supply of garbage that was dumped there.

But it's important to see that permanent doesn't imply eternal. Here is an example from the Old Testament to illustrate that point.

But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of
Jerusalem on the sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem,
and it shall not be quenched. (Jeremiah 17:27)

That fire did come. But it wasn't eternal. It isn't still burning. The meaning is that the fire would not be extinguished by human
hands. The fire department wasn't going to put out that fire.

Likewise the fire in the literal garbage dump of Gehenna wasn't going to be extinguished as long as fresh garbage was added to be
burned and\or eaten by the worms and other scavengers.

Permanence does not unambiguously mean eternal. Unquenchable fires have gone out. The lasting (but not everlasting) old
Covenant became obsolete and passed away. Here permanence implies permanent until it's purpose is complete. Fires burn and
worms eat until everything that is intended to be burned and eaten is consumed.

Hell will be open for business as long as men are to be punished in that way. But God's punishments are not eternal. They are
ultimately corrective and redemptive.

Clearly the judgements in view here have to be seen as being outside the control of men, unstoppable by human hands. But that by
itself doesn't mean they are eternal.

It is a very dangerous thing to build fundamental doctrine from interpretations of metaphors. The clear has to interpret the
ambiguous. Not the other way around.

Jesus was not teaching that Hell was a place populated by worms that would live forever. He was using a literal garbage dump as
a metaphor to describe Hell as a place LIKE the literal garbage dump, where the endless (but not eternal) supply of garbage
provided food for the worms and fuel for the fire.

There are a few other texts of interest raising other relevant points:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both
soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28 NIV)

Certainly God has the means to destroy, literally annihilate anything he wants. We have already seen how a man can be both
destroyed and saved, even destroyed to be saved. (1Co 5:5).

What God can do, even what He has a right to do, is not necessarily a proof of what He will do.

Finally we have to deal with the lake of fire. If there is any case in scripture which closely describes the modern image of Hell it is
the lake of fire.

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark
on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the
cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the
smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his
image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:9-11 NIV)

Here we see a common biblical term "for ever and ever." It's so common that we don't think much about it. But when one does
think about it, it's a rather odd term. Why does one have to amplify "forever" with anything else. How can anything be longer than
forever?

The Youngs Literal Translation is again useful here. The YLT renders this as follows:

"the smoke of their torment goes up to ages of ages."

One might read that as the smoke of their torment goes up from age unto age. Once again we are dealing with the words aion and
aionios.

Here it is useful to consider the question of ages. There have been ages past. Biblical history is often divided into ages. There was
the age of the Garden of Eden, the age from Adam to Noah, the age for Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, from
Moses to Jesus, and the age we are now in, the age of the Church. But this is not the last age. Here is Paul on the future of the
Church:

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the
coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
(Ephesians 2:7 NIV)

Here the word translated as ages is from the Greek word "aion." Certainly there is not more than one eternity, so it's translated as
ages here. There are ages past and ages future. We know of at least two ages to come. There is the millennial age after the first
resurrection of Revelation 20 and there is the age of the New Jerusalem at Revelation 21.

There are ages to come. Precisely how God executes judgment and deliverance in the world after death is not perfectly clear.
That men are judged and punished after death is clear. How men are ultimately saved out of Hell isn't.

But the lack of perfect revelation on HOW God will accomplish his purposes can't be used to negate the clear teaching that his
plan WILL be accomplished. God is under no obligation to tell us everything. Our obligation is to do our best to make sense out
of what He does tell us.

We know that Hell exists and that people go there. But nowhere in scripture is there any proof that Hell is eternal. The apparent
proof is nothing more than a translator's opinion of the meanings of ambiguous words. There is a perverse circular logic here. The
predominant view of the church is that Hell is eternal. The translators translate to that bias thereby perpetuating the predominant
view that Hell is eternal.

One has to understand that there is a forced choice here. If one starts by assuming the idea of eternal hell, then he will inevitably
have to deny something else plainly taught by the Apostles. He will either have to deny that God's desire is to save all men (as
scripture clearly teaches) or he has to deny that God sovereignly saves men (as scripture clearly teaches).

Both of those propositions are far stronger than the doctrine of eternal hell which depends on the arbitrarily translation of the
ambiguous Greek words "aion" and "aionios" and\or the assumption that permanence proves eternal in metaphorical passages.

Of the three propositions in view here, Eternal Hell is the weak proposition. It only appears strong because of the arbitrary
translation bias used to support it. The weakest link in the confusion is the proposition that should be rejected in favor of the
stronger doctrines. The strongest cases in scripture are that God's desire is to save all men, that being sovereign, God will save all
men without exception, either from hell completely or out of it eventually.

At this point we have covered a lot of territory. In the next section I will try to pull it all together in a brief conclusion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>