If hell is eternal, then so is evil

[makesends]

makesends said:
I hold to neither [eternal conscious torment] nor annihilationism, though I tend to think of both when I read the way Scripture is written. … I know what the direct or plain Bible references to this generally sound like to me—and they are on both sides, to me—and I know what reason says, taking from other references relative to the subject.

It would be a serious claim to say that God is talking out both sides of his mouth regarding the state of the wicked after judgment—in other words, that Scripture itself teaches contradictory positions. I am therefore inclined to think the problem here, for you, is not one of scriptural clarity but of interpretation. And interpretive issues are not resolved by retreating into agnostic indeterminacy, but by further exegesis.

God 'talking out of both sides of his mouth' is not the characterization I think I have made of what I read. That it is prudent to by exegesis prefer one notion to another, or even to be convinced of one to the denying of the other, is not what I argue against here. I have no problem at all with you believing in Annihilationism. I do have a problem with those believing in it for sentiment's sake or liberal unbiblical reasons. And the same goes for those believing in ECT.

We need not suspend judgment at the point where Scripture and doctrine require adjudication. What appears in your reply is not simple humility but a recurring epistemic posture: indecision cloaked in pious reserve, a kind of agnostic retreat that refuses to let revealed categories do their work. You also continue to exhibit impatience with creaturely existence and temporal language, as though such categories were too low or crude to bear theological truth. But such a posture is difficult to square with revelation itself. God has not despised such things. The eternal Son entered the temporal order in the incarnation according to his human nature, and God has been pleased to accommodate his revelation to creaturely, temporal forms of speech.

There you say it yourself. "God has been pleased to accommodate his revelation to creaturely, temporal forms of speech". There, within the term, "accommodate", is implied a higher reality than the merely temporal and anthropomorphic. I am sorry, but if you recall me claiming in the past, several times, actually, the amazement at the word of God to use terminology that we commonly use, to convey absolute truth, you should see that I don't deny it. I only deny our ability to sound the depths of it. A certain reservation concerning our ability to understand things that extend rather obviously beyond our knowledge is indeed prudent, then. We can use the word, "death", and, "sin", but we don't know as much as apparently we think we do, to make firm conclusions as to some of the facts we profess. As I have often said, I think when we get to Heaven we will all be shown for fools, for the concepts we held as absolute by way of understanding/comprehension.

Our amazement at the wisdom of God will wash over all our notions, when we see him as he is, and understand what he has done, but that is no reason not to continue [here on earth] to pursue the truth, by way of study, exegesis, prayer and obedience.

I have not suspended judgement. I am still learning and studying. Before these last couple of threads treating with the matter I had not given Annihilationism serious consideration. I have already shown my biggest problems with it, and if I had to choose one over the other, (as though ECT was the only alternative), it would be pretty close to 50-50 at this point. But no, I don't have to decide. I continue to learn, to study, to think and wonder.

Yes, I agree God has not despised such things. But he has rebuked some for speaking beyond what they know. The simple-hearted are not rebuked for quieting their heart, like a weened child with his mother, in the face of things that are too wonderful for them.

But, as I said, I don't have a problem with you believing, and even being convinced in your mind, what you believe. And I will easily (and somewhat ashamedly) admit that I don't engage in extensive exegesis about things that I don't have as much interest in as you do. No doubts there, and kudos to you. I don't have your drive.

On matters God has addressed, the task is not to curate possibilities and imaginings but to confess what has been made known. We need not suspend judgment between named positions and fill that gap with private intuition and appeals to mystery. Rather, we must return to the text, weigh the relevant passages in their canonical and theological context, and labor toward a determinate judgment by disciplined exegesis.

It's quite a bit more than private intuition. That I admit to some degree of dot-connecting that goes beyond strong exegesis to arrive at a synthesis of what I read and study does not render it false, but only one more POV, and suspect. I see the same degree of dot-connecting in Annihilation, and mainly two big logical leaps, that apparently you deny are logical leaps. I don't say you are wrong. You may well be right. But I'm not convinced.

makesends said:
My best recourse is to step a little to the side and admit to what we DO know, that God is altogether powerful and just, and intended that there be sin that would be completely vanquished, and death put to death.

I submit that we know a good deal more than that, not because we are especially clever but because God has revealed it. He has spoken beyond first principles, revealing more than his power and justice in the abstract.

Of course. I did not mean to say nor to imply that we don't know more than what I listed! We even have trustworthy insight, the longer and closer we know him. BUT, God is not like us. Line up your systematic theology! I do the same. But I'm skeptical of myself for the same reasons as I am skeptical of others, and, I think, for good reason.

I really don't think that I disagree with you to the extent you think I do, concerning the validity of scriptural expressions that sound temporal and even anthropomorphic. My problem comes with my trust in the dot-connecting.