Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Fudge, Stott, and Wenham argue biblical 'aionios' denotes qualitative finality, not quantitative endlessness, dissolving ECT's scriptural basis.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Aionios consistently translates 'olam' (Hebrew: age/eternity), which denotes temporal endlessness in OT covenant contexts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Matthew 25:46 explicitly parallels aionios punishment with aionios reward, suggesting identical temporal scope for both.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Patristic scholars immediately after NT interpreted aionios temporally; qualitative reading appears modern revisionist eisegesis.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Ancient Greek 'aionios' primarily describes quality/nature of something rather than its temporal duration in classical usage.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Jesus and Paul use 'aionios' for God's kingdom and glory, suggesting eternal *character* rather than merely endless time.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Interpreting aionios as duration-neutral dissolves theodicy problems with ECT while maintaining biblical authority.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.