Please pray for his wife, Cindy, and his two daughters.

Evely begins by stating:

I made the point in my last blog that “aion” or “aionian” in the Greek New Testament never means endless or eternal, but always refers to an age or an eon … a period of time with a beginning and an end. Thus the “eternal torment” found in the Scriptures should more properly be translated “eonian chastisement.” This chastisement (or punishment if you will) has an end. It is not “forever and ever” torment. ALL will one day be reconciled to God, through the work of Christ.

This view is clearly against the teaching of Jesus, who believed in a place of separation from the presence of God which was everlasting (Matthew 25:41, 46).  Clearly, in v. 46, Jesus intends for ”eternal punishment” to parallel “eternal life.”  So, if eternal punishment does not exist, NEITHER does eternal life.  You cannot have it both ways, which is the view that this form of universalism takes.  Now, Evely deals with this thinking later in this blog, where he will state that the Bible is only revealing things dealing with the age in which we live, so it speaks neither of eternal life or punishment.  So, for the sake of argument, we will momentarily acquiesce and go on. 

Evely continues,

It is even wrong to say that Christ will reign forever and ever. As we read in 1 Corinthians 15:25 Christ will reign UNTIL His work is accomplished. And once all enemies are defeated and all is subjected and reconciled to God, Christ subjects Himself to God the Father, and God becomes All in all (1 Corinthians 15:28). 

First of all, the subordination of the Son to the Father in 1 Cor. 15:28 does not in any way deny or diminish the eternal deity of Christ.  This equal, yet obedient relationship between the Father and Son has existed from eternity past.  And it clearly existed during the earthly ministry of Jesus (Mark 14:36; John 5:19, 26-27, 30; 17:4).  Now, one may say, “yes but that was before the crucifixion.”  However, it must be noted that Jesus came proclaiming that the “kingdom was at hand.”  It had already been inaugurated.  So, the question remains, what will change?  The answer is nothing.  Jesus will continue to serve the exact same role throughout eternity that He serves now.  In fact, 1 Cor. 15:25 draws on language from Psalm 110:1 where it shows that Jesus is the promised king of David’s line.  What was the promise to David?  That there would be an “eternal” throne. 

The phrase in 1 Cor. 15:25 is not intended to show us a time of an end to Christ’s dominion.  Rather it is to show purpose, that his reign actually accomplished what it was intended to accomplish, namely, all enemies being destroyed.  Evely and others will argue that 1 Cor. 15 comes after Revelation 20:7-10 (and they must if they have any hope of their view being even slightly tenable), but it makes much more sense to see these two accounts describing the same event.

One other biblical thought that certainly deserves mentioning here is Jesus’ use of his favorite title for himself, “the Son of Man.”  This title is used 84 times in the gospels, but only by Jesus and only to speak of Himself.  In the rest of the NT, the title, “Son of Man” is used only once, by Stephen in Acts 7:56 where he refers to Jesus Christ.  Where did this title come from?  It came from Daniel 7, where Daniel saw one like a “Son of Man” who “came to the Ancient of Days” and was given “dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which will NOT pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14).

A reader objected, fearing that if “aionian” never meant eternal, this would mean that God Himself is not eternal. And since we know, by God’s nature, that He is eternal … this would mean that “aionian,” at least when speaking of God, must mean eternal.

 I recognize that God is by His nature eternal. But I contend that the Scriptures refer to God as “the eonian God” or “the God of the ages.” This does not mean God will cease to exist once the eons have ended. He is immortal.

 But we must remember that God, through the Bible, has chosen to reveal to us certain things that pertain to this period of time in which we live … the eons. Therefore He is referred to as “the eonian God.” We might call Him “the eternal God” as most certainly He is … but the Scriptures speak of these eonian times, and God is referred to as the eonian God.

These statements make no sense logically, not to mention biblically.  How do “we know” that “by God’s nature, that He is eternal”?  Because of what God has revealed to us in His Word.  Therefore, if God has only revealed in Scripture  that which is pertaining to this eon.  We cannot know that He is eternal.  And if we can know that He is eternal, it must be because of what He has revealed.  Basically, what Evely is saying is that his presuppositions lead him to the conclusion that God is eternal, even though that is clearly not what the Scriptures testify to.  Which is the exact same argument he is arguing against regarding an eternal hell.  He is saying that the Scriptures clearly do not testify to an eternal hell, people just hold to it because of thier presuppositions.  That is an invalid argument, again, you can’t have it both ways.

Very simply, if we look at every instance where the word “aion” appears in the New Testament, in all of its various forms, and the word “olam” in the Hebrew Old Testament … and if we discern the word’s meaning from the context, instead of injecting our own theological bias into the translation … we will see that the best, most consistent and most accurate translation would be eon or age. This takes nothing away from “the eternal God,” and enables us to truly understand the truths He has chosen to reveal in His Word. (emphasis mine)

I have already argued against this in my previous post, but it must be noted again that the overwhelming context of the use of aion (over 50% of the time according to Evely’s word study) argues for eternality.  Not only does he inject his own theological bias into the translation, he chooses a translation (Concordant Version) based upon his theological biases. 

In short, holding this view takes everything away from the “eternal God” (see final quote above), because if the Bible only speaks to this eon, we have no confidence that there is an eternal God. Second, if punishment is not eternal but temporal, then life is not eternal but temporal. 

This is a classic case of people trying to take out or explain away ideas in the Bible that they just don’t like.  And it just can’t be done biblically, consistently, logically. 

Remember, Jesus will reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet…and then he’ll still reign as a member of the eternal God-head.

PS–A couple of housekeeping matters: 1) in my previous post, I made a comment about Evely citing responses that did not appear on the blog.  He explains that he is allowing no comments to be posted, although they are read; 2) due to the fact that the Herald-Leader is making people log-in to view the archived blogs, I am quoting a lot more than usual and some that is not as needed.  I have done this in order to make his view as well-understood as possible.

Well, Mr. Evely is at it again, offering the third cog inthe wheel of his universalist, there is no such place as an eternal hell heresy.  Before you read my comments, I would encourage you to read his article in full here.

Here are a few of my initial thoughts as I read this most recent post. 

Evely says:

“To give you a quick summary, the words aion and aionian occur 199 times in the New Testament. In the King James Version the word is translated “ages” 2 times, “course” one time, “world” 43 times, and “eternal” or some variation the remaining 153 times. So in 46 of of the 199 times where we find the word aion or aionian in the Bible (23% of the time) the King James Version recognizes that the word cannot be properly translated “eternal,” since it is clearly a limited duration being expressed.”

 “How could God, who is wanting to reveal things to us through the Bible, confuse us by using a single word that sometimes means “eternity” while other times carries a very different meaning?”

This is how NOT to do a word study.  Any basic Bible study course or elementary hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) book will tell you of a “semantic domain.”  Semantic domain is a range of meaning a word can have based upon its context.  We understand this because we know that even in English nouns can have multiple meanings (ie.-bat, light, bank, mole)

Now, Evely’s argument may make sense, that is unless you have ever studied another language…ANY other language.  The idea that one word in Greek should ALWAYS be translated into the same word in English is just nonsense.  That’s not how language works.  Words have a range of meaning, not a set meaning.  Context determines how a word is translated, not mechanical dictation.  For example, logos in Greek is most commonly equivalent to the English word word. But its meaning is much wider. Logos can mean gives reason, discourse, doctrine, instruction and several other words, any of which might be the best translation of logos in a given context. To insist it must be translated by the same English word every time it occurs results in inaccurate and bad translation.  Or, consider the Greek preposition en.  Virtually every scholar, (including the one Evely recommends in the ‘Corcodant Version’) agrees that en must sometimes be translated as in, and sometimes as with. For example Matthew 9: 10 “in (en) the house” and Luke 22: 49 as “with (en) the sword”.

 He builds his argument against aion being translated “eternal” or “eternity” on the fact that in some cases it clearly does not mean eternal.  But, the irony is that in those verses he cites, NO English version that I checked (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV) translates it as eternity.  So, there is no confusion as he states when he says,

“The fact of the matter is that the popular English translators have mis-translated the words “aion” and “aionian.” They got it wrong, and there is now a great deal of “orthodox pressure” to keep things the way they are.”

“Because Bible translators and the churches of our day insist upon arguing for an “eternal” meaning for “aion,” much of the truth in God’s Word is now very hard to see unless you are willing to do some study beyond your popular English Bible translation.”

Again, Bible translators have not insisted on using “eternal” where the context clearly does not mean “eternal”

He continues by citing the following verses: Matt. 13:39; 24:3; 1 Cor. 10:11; Hebrews 9:26 and concludes:

“Could there be an end to eternity? This phrase alone should be enough to show us that aion cannot mean “forever.”

“But as we have seen in this short review, “aion” and “aionian” do not mean “eternity.” 

No, all we have seen is that aion should not be translated eternity in those cases.  “Age” or is a better translation.  Just because the context of a word reveals one meaning doesn’t mean that a different variation doesn’t still fall within a words range of meaning and would be a better choice somewhere else.  This is not confusing or misleading, that is God revealing Himself through the language of the divinely inspired writers. 

For example, take 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal (aionion) weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal (aionia).”

Clearly, Paul is drawing a distinction between things which are “for a moment” and “temporal” and those things which are in clear distinction to that.  So, if aion is always temporal how can it be used to mean the opposite of temporal?

Or, 1 Timothy 1:17, “Now unto the King eternal (ton aionon), immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen” 

The King, who is “ton aionon” is clearly God.  Is he only King in this age?  Or is He King in every age…eternally King? 

“The bottom line … aion should be consistently translated “eon” or “age” if we truly want to understand what God has intended to reveal.”

No, the bottom line is just the opposite of that.  If we want to truly understand what God has intended to reveal, then we must best translate words according to the best translation in the range of meaning that a word can have according to its context.

No one paid much attention when Harry Harrison Aurandt and his wife, Anna gave birth to their son Paul Aurandt on a warm September day in 1918 in an Oklahmoan farmhouse.  That would change as Paul Aurandt would make himself a household name. Never heard of him you say, I bet you have.  Some of you like him very much, and why not?  After all, he has been named Salesman of the Year, Person of the Year, Father of the Year, and American of the Year.  He has  appeared on the Gallup poll list of America’s most admired men.  In 2005, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the United States’ most prestigious civilian award, by President George W. Bush.  Paul’s life has never one to lack in drama.  The story is that he met his future wife, Lynne one day in St. Louis.  He invited her to dinner, proposed to her after a few minutes of conversation and from then on called her “Angel,” often publically.  It took her a year to accept.  Lynne herself was quite famous, becoming the first producer ever inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, mainly because of the way she helped her husband.  So next time you’re listening to the radio and you hear, “Hello, Americans” and the announcer proceeds to tell you a mysterious, yet interesting story, know that its Aurandt.  He probably won’t tell you that, he’ll probably only tell you his first and middle names—Paul Harvey.  And now you know, the rest of the story.    

This was the introduction to the sermon I preached just a few weeks ago from Ruth 4.  I include it here to mourn the passing of Paul Harvey.  By the way, there was a large section of our congregation (25 years old and younger) that had never heard of Paul Harvey.  Life is short.  Fame is temporary.  Eternity is at hand.

How many are there in our day, since the Gospel is grown so common, that catch up a notion of good things and from that notion make a profession of the name of Christ, get into churches, and obtain the title of brother, a saint, a member of a Gospel congregation, that have clean escaped repentance

-John Bunyan (1628-1688)

Heaven is a prepared place, and they who go to heaven must be a prepared people.  Our hearts must be in tune for the employments of heaven, or else heaven itself would be a miserable abode.  Our minds must be in harmony with those of the inhabitants of heaven, or else the society of heaven would soon be intolerable to us…What could you possibly do in heaven if you got there with a heart loving sin?  To which of all the saints would you speak?  By whose side would you sit down?  Surely, the angels of God would make no sweet music to the heart of him who cannot bear saints upon earth and never praised the Lamb for redeeming love!  Surely, the company of patriarchs, and apostles, and prophets would be no joy to that man who will not read his Bible now and does not care to know what apostles and prophets wrote.  Oh, no! No! There can be no happiness in heaven, if we get there with an impenitent heart…

J.C. Ryle (1816-1900): Bishop of the Anglican Church.  From his work The Necessity of Repentance.

By the way, it needs to be noted that I was asked if I personally knew this man, and if not, why I was so concerned with critiquing his teaching.  No, I do not know this man, although I would welcome the opportunity to dialogue with him in blog format or take him to lunch to discuss these things.  My interest is that he leads a “church” in our area.  My job as a pastor is to both “teach sound doctrine” and “guard the flock from error.”  So, I have a responsiblity to the people of my congregation to refute heresy and equip them to understand and respond to false teaching they encounter in the community.  Thus, my interest in this subject, which is at the heart of the Gospel.   

First, I would like to evaluate his responses to the a few of the questions he listed. And, in discussion, I would like to list a few questions that need to be posed:  In response to question #1,

1. If all are saved, we can go our merry way and live however we want.

 Wrong. The Bible does not say there will be no consequences for sin and for disbelief. There are most certainly consequences, both in this life and in the age to come. But I will show you from the Scriptures that these consequences are temporal and not eternal, and they have a constructive purpose leading to salvation.

My question is, “how does this view differ from the traditional Roman Catholic view of purgatory?”  The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a “purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven,” which is experienced by those “who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified” (CCC 1030). It notes that “this final purification of the elect . . . is entirely different from the punishment of the damned” (CCC 1031).  

Evely’s view is essentially the same, he just eliminates the “punishment of the damned” by saying  all are the “elect”.  So, is purgatory a biblical concept?  There is not one Scripture in the entire Bible that teaches purgatory–not one!  So, I am curious to see how Evely will “show from the Scripture” something that is not there. 

 Questions #4-5 are these:

4. The salvation of all is just an opinion, not based on the Bible.

 Wrong. In the weeks to come I will show you, from the Scriptures, God’s plan to ultimately save all mankind. True, it is an “interpretation” of the Scriptures; but any church, preacher or Bible teacher is only able to share an interpretation of the Scriptures. Many such interpretations rely heavily upon traditions; things like “orthodoxy” or creeds or the church fathers. Give me a chance in the coming weeks, and I promise to share things with you from the Scriptures that will surprise you. I too once relied upon church traditions, until I saw how inconsistently the Bible was actually taught and interpreted.

5. How can the salvation of all be true if most churches, preachers, Christians believe in eternal torment?

 Consider this. The majority within “religious circles” has NEVER understood spiritual truth. The prophets of old were in the minority. Jesus was in the minority. The apostle Paul, even at the end of his life, had been abandoned by nearly everyone. Most had abandoned the truth, and this is still true today. At what point in history do we think those within “the church” got it right, if they had already abandoned the apostles’ teachings in their lifetime? More on this in a future blog, but just keep this in mind for now

 I will withhold much of my critique of this point to deal with his answers point by point.  However, it should be noted that Evely is correct in pointing to the Bible, not church traditions as our sole means of authority.  At the same time, it is inconsistent for Evely to defend his  view because it is the “minority view”, like Jesus and Paul.  In the fact, his view is the majority view of the world.  Most every religion in the world outside of biblical Christianity rejects the notion of eternal separation from a holy God.  In fact, the overwhelming majority of them reject the existence of a holy God at all.  Most secularist and humanists would reject these notions.  So, if Evely wants to claim the strength of an argument because of its lack of popularity, he is on the wrong side of that argument.

The final thing that must be said, and it simply a repeat of what I said in my original article on this subject Does the Good News of the Gospel Mean there is No Hell   IF GOD EXISTS, THEN HELL MUST EXIST.  The existence of a holy God necessitates the existence of hell.  There is a place where Satan will be eternally  bound.  So, the burden of evidence lies on those that would say, ”there is no chance that rebellious people end up with the same justly deserved punishment as a rebellious angel.” 

I look forward to that discussion. 

As we saw Sunday at Pioneer Baptist Church, repentance was the first word of the Gospel preached by Jesus (Mark 1:15), was a constant theme in his teaching (Matt. 21:28-32; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:27-32; 10:13-16; 11:29-32; 13:1-5; 15:7, 11, 17; 16:30; 17:3-4) and the message that is to be proclaimed to the nations (Luke 24:45-49).  It is safe to say that repentance was an essential element of the Gospel Jesus preached

The week after scheduling the worship series, I received in the mail unsolicited information about the “True Church Conference 2009″ in northern Alabama.  Tomorrow, I, along with our Associate Brandon and another man from our church will head down for three days at this conference.  My prayer has been built on the prayer of the father in Mark 9:24, “I repent, help my lack of repentance.”  I’m looking forward to hearing God’s Word over the next few days.  My hope is that God will use the time there to deepen my understanding of repentance even as I preach on the subject here at PBC.

So, pray for us.  Prepare for Sunday.  Our message is “True and False Repentance: The Message of John the Baptist” from Luke 3:7-18.   

By the way, almost forgot–here is a link to the conference:
http://www.anchoredintruth.org/tcc