A few days ago I came across a book written by a 19th century classicist on the Greek word aiónios and its proper translation in the eschatological passages of the New Testament: Is “Eternal” Punishment Endless? by James Morris Whiton. Whiton is a careful and judicious scholar. Given the wide semantic range of aiónios, he is unwilling to assert that New Testament clearly and indubitably teaches the doctrine of universal salvation; but for the same reason, he rejects the claim that the New Testament clearly and indubitably teaches eternal damnation:
The conclusion reached by this Essay is, in general, that of Nescience, viz: That the Bible, while teaching Future Punishment in terms sufficiently explicit and severe for the purposes of moral government, does not positively declare the duration of that punishment. An unbiased criticism by the best light that modern scholarship affords does not accept the sense which tradition has attached to some of the words of Scripture upon this subject. The Bible, however, reveals no restoration of “the lost.” It casts no ray of hope upon the future of him who has wasted the present life. But, on the other hand, it does not assert the absolute endlessness of his punishment. Endless it may be, so far as any divine word to the contrary has reached us. But, after the fullest searching of the Bible teachings, a cloud of impenetrable mystery hides the ultimate lot of the wicked,–a mystery so plainly full of woe that it is likely to prove quite as salutary for moral purposes as any precise and clear disclosure.
Neither party in the universalist–perditionist dispute will be fully satisfied by Whiton’s conclusion, and those who look to Scripture alone for the determination of Christian doctrine will find it particularly disturbing. Of course, Whiton is only one scholar. His linguistic judgments are not infallible, and other scholars can be marshaled to contest his view.
Even still, those of us who have strong opinions on the topic would prefer to have the Bible on our side beyond a reasonable doubt. But is that a reasonable expectation? Bring together three biblical scholars and you have four opinions.
C’est la vie.
P.S. I have updated my article “Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever,” incorporating material from Whiton.
Eclectic Orthodoxy 
Bottom line is the ‘interpretive lens’ one utilizes to derive meaning; the integrity of value is obtained from the canon of revelation in its entirety. “Everlasting Hell’ cannot be squared with Creatio ex Nihilo without doing irreparable damage to the moral character of God.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I have only a quibble with what you just said, even though I believe it is relevant in other kinds of more fundation discussions (but maybe a bit of that relevance could trickle down in this discussion, too).
If God is infinite, I think it follows that we can’t speak of “revelation in its entirety”, for what is revealed is the Infinite, which then can’t never by definition be fully revealed.
Hence, we can never be entirely certain about our lenses (for we never have a complete revelation on the basis of which we could try to develop one).
But this might just be another reiteration of the importance of Faith, Hope and Charity.
Or maybe that when we reason about God’s infinity “itself” we should not totally reject but at least deeply mistrust the lenses through which we look at it.
LikeLike
A claim to know exhaustively is not made – but a claim to know truly is. No amount of infinity is going to change the revelation of God in Christ. No amount of infinity is going to turn God into a moral monster.
LikeLike
I agree. My intention was not to falsify your conclusion, but to suggest an halt to the definiteness with which we claim to know what we are talking about and the meanings of the words we use when we talk about God. This does not mean we do not know anything about what we talk about or the meanings of the word we use. It implies we can have only an indeterminate or vague awareness of what they mean (which obviously does not mean we know nothing at all).
This presupposes a sort of suggestion that can be made to reconcile strong universtalists with hopeful universtalists. By retaining apophasis in our discourse, a strong universalist can avoid many of the objections that it seems to me the hopeful universtalists normally raise against strong universalists. For I think that an implicit rejection of apophasis is the risk or the temptation that many see in the strong universalist’s pattern of thinking.
This reconciliation, I think, can be done in the following way: on the one hand, by accepting that we cannot have a model of how God is that accounts for God in His totality (for God is not finite, and hence it would not make sense for us to claim to have such a model). And, on the other hand, to say that for any possible model that accounts for what has been revealed to us so far and that makes sense, God will not allowed someone to be damned. The idea is that in this way we are not taking any model in particular that has this consequence to be the correct one and so we are not committing ourselves to any definite and univocal model of who God is. Hence, the apophatic element is preserved (as the kataphatic one is).
Maybe this line of reasoning is something that someone else has already thought out and found objections to, but what do you think?
LikeLike
P.S.: sorry for the multiple typos and grammar mistakes
LikeLike
A short comment on my previous comment: notice that if we assume that what we know by revelation about God the Infinite is “partial”, whatever it is that that has been revealed to us, since there is infinitely more that can (and, for universalists, will) be revealed to us by Him, there will be an infinite number of finite ways to interpret what has been revealed to us (i.e. an infinite number of different (finite) models that account for the truth of what has been revealed to us so far). Hence, to say that we do not affirm of any particular model x that belongs to this infinity of different models that x is the correct one is no surreptitious way to sneak in kataphasic presumptions while talking of apophasis. It seems to me that a “strong” universalist takig, if he/she accepts to flesh out his/her position in such a way, can concede quite a lot (if not everything) to anyone giving voice to his/her (reasonable) apophatic instincts.
LikeLike
Gios while I appreciate the move to rapprochement, it is stillborn, DOA. The revelation of God’s intention and God’s moral character are complete in Christ. No amount of apophasis and claims to ‘mystery’ are going to change that revelation by one jot or tittle. One cannot make such apophatic moves without equivocating not only universal salvation but all the fundamental Christian claims. One raises apophatic strictures at the cost of the entire theological project. Now anything that we claim can be its opposite. This equivocation in the end vacates all meaning. IF the claims of Christianity are true – IF we believe that God is Good and Goodness itself, and that He is Truth and Beauty and Love itself; and IF we believe God created everything out of nothing, for and by and through Himself alone, freely and without need or compulsion; and IF we believe God is all powerful, all knowing; and IF we believe His will is to redeem all and that none would perish; and IF we believe He became a creature in order to save His creation; and IF we believe that God alone is creation’s fulfillment, that there is no other telos, no other terminus, no other orientation but God; THEN I say we dare not disbelieve that all will be saved. Anything short of a confident faith in the salvation of all is to take the ‘good’ out of the good news. It is to gut the entire Christian faith – it is no longer an absolute good, but a qualified good, indeed it is bad news for some! Anything short of confident faith is to nullify Christ’s Paschal Triumph over death. I will have none of it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I see. But consider that my proposal would support everything you just said, the only proviso is something you said at the hand of your answet: “Anything short of confident faith is to nullify Christ’s Paschal Triumph over death”. It is only in faith we can believe God will save us (and so we cannot believe that “everything” that can be revealed has been revealed to us and so that we need to look from another perspective what insofar we’ve looked at from a more limited one). It is true that “The revelation of God’s intention and God’s moral character are complete in Christ.” But by baptize we become part of His Body, and since we do not know everything about ourselves and about who has been baptized so far into Christ and about those that will be baptized but still aren’t, we have not been revealed Christ in the fullness of His Body, and so in His fullness. Hence I think the necessity for some apophatic restrictions is still present (and always will be). But to say that there are apophatic strictures does not mean that in faith we cannot say that God is the Good, the Infinite, that the Son incarnated Himself in Jesus Christ, and that He will save us all. I don’t think the project need to be taken to be DOA…
LikeLike
Of course it is faith – I am not claiming knowledge by way of a Petri dish.
You cannot have it both ways Gios – affirmation of full assurance of knowledge in the “IF’s” as I outlined them (the classic, foundational tenets of the Christian faith) while denying full assurance of knowledge in God as the All in all. To deny the latter is to deny the former.
I urge you to (re)read Hart’s master piece That All Shall be Saved .
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the suggestion. I will 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a very good summary of Universalism that you wrote down there. I’m going have to write that down and put it to memory. This topic is always in my head, and I’m always trying to prepare a response if someone were to ask me why Universalism is true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the upcoming Ancient Faith Radio documentary on Universalism due to be released on June 11, 2024, I am the lone representative of “confident” universalism. I lay out my argument along those lines. Hopefully it will make the documentary and it wasn’t chopped to pieces.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Will this documentary be available on YouTube? Or do you have to have some kind of subscription to watch it? I would love to see this.
LikeLike
It is free, no subscription required. It will be posted on Youtube (see a previous installment here) as well as on their website Ancient Faith Radio under the “documentaries” section.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I concur. 😎
LikeLike