This is still a reference to time - that there is a now and a future in eternity. I don't find that view grounded anywhere in Scripture. Time is something that exists inside of creation. Eternity is a constant moment outside of time. It is incoherent to think of eternity as being able to be apportioned - as if someone can suffer for a portion of eternity. How do you divide something that by nature has no beginning or end?
But heaven will be a new creation, so it will still be something more than unadorned eternity. Doesn't that leave open the possibility that there will be time in the afterlife?
For what purpose would time exist in an eternal state?
The same as in this one - to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.
Yes, well said. As perpetually and always and forever finite creatures, there must be "time" in heaven, or else what about the succession of syllables flung from our mouths and lungs in praise of the eternal Triune God? Does this take place all at once? No; as the heavenly hymns will take time, so will all else.
Agreed.
According to Scripture, the idea of annihilationism, that the unsaved are simply destroyed and cease to exist, is not supported by the plain teaching of the Bible. The Word of God repeatedly and clearly teaches that punishment for the wicked is conscious and eternal. Jesus Himself said in Matthew 25:46, “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.” The same Greek word for “everlasting” (aiōnios) is used for both the punishment of the wicked and the life of the righteous, which means they are of equal duration. Revelation 14:10–11 describes the fate of those who reject God, saying, “The smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night.” That is not symbolic language for destruction, it is a direct description of ongoing, conscious torment.
Don't forget one of my favorite passages on the topic - the end of Isaiah 66.
Rethinking Hell argues that this passage, whether taken as a parable or literally, describes the intermediate state and therefore does not conflict with their belief that annihilation will ultimately occur after the final judgment. However, I find this to have no contextual support and rather believe it is more accurate to interpret the passage as portraying both the intermediate state as well as the eternal reality of Hell following final judgment.
Right. It's not that we are outside of time. Time is amplified, just like space. I highly recommend a work of fiction called "Flatland." It's about a 2-dimensional being trying to understand a 3-dimensional world. We can't understand it, but we know it will be more robust than what we currently experience.
Did time exist before Creation?
What do you mean by "amplified"? Time and space are relative. The generally accepted theory of relativity states that there is no absolute space or time - they are intertwined and relative to one another.
I understand why some might believe that, but Scripture shows a different picture. Revelation 20:10 says the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are “tormented day and night forever and ever,” and Matthew 25:46 says the wicked go into “everlasting punishment.” The Bible consistently points to eternal, conscious judgment, not a final end or annihilation.
Sorry, I was speaking in the context of the eternal state. My point is that, even though God exists outside time, He also interacts within time. I expect our temporal relations to be more robust after Christ consummates His kingdom, not less.
I don't see any particular reason to believe that God's being outside of time, and therefore not experiencing events sequentially, would have to mean that he sees Christ as still on the cross--or that he sees you and me as yet unborn, or as yet unconverted, or as yet in the act of our most heinous sins, etc. To say that it must mean that is to continue to do what we so struggle to stop doing--namely, to apply the language of time to the eternal God. I don't believe that God experiences events sequentially, and yet I don't believe that means that the infinite, eternal God experiences finite, time-bound events as though those events themselves were infinite and eternal. What exactly it means for the eternal God to experience time-bound events, I don't know, and the language of "experience" I'm sure isn't even speaking properly here.
I don't disagree, but infinity =/= eternity. Only God is infinite and eternal so I think it is only correct to say we will enter eternity and have life everlasting. But what the latter means is beyond all comprehension. I think the closest we can get is what John gives us: "Dearly beloved, now are we the sons of God, but yet it is not made manifest what we shall be: and we know that when he shall be made manifest: we shall be like him: for we shall see him as he is." (I John 3.2). Perhaps this is why our confessions talk about "the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead" (WCF Ch.32) and leave the rest a mystery.
Also agreed (though I would also say theology has implications for physics), but the theology of annihilationism seems to be dependent on a continuation of our concept of time (or a passage of time in a similar way) in order to allow for varying levels of purgatorial punishment prior to annihilation.
I think it's fair to say that there is much mystery that belongs to what it means to have life everlasting. But I think we can have some conception of it, that is at least accurate so far as it goes, at least to the extent that the phrase means something when we utter it. As for "enter eternity," though ... in the way that you use it, I struggle to have any conception of it at all. In ordinary usage, the phrase seems to mean something very much like entering life everlasting--that is, we enter the new sort of life that is unending, without any direct comment on the succession of moments/experience of time (although even the word "unending" is temporal!). But you seem to use it to mean some kind of extra-temporal existence, since you earlier said,
Which assertion I also disagree with. I don't see any particular reason that our getting outside of time is necessary to be with God because he is outside of time. Though I can understand how that language of inside/outside could lead one to that conclusion, and perhaps that illustrates the weakness of the language. It might be better to speak more as we do of God's omnipresence and immensity--that is, to say that he is present in all of time, and fills all of time. He would therefore be "beyond time," in the same sense that we could speak of his being "beyond space," without thereby seeming so remote that we would have to get "beyond time" (or space) ourselves in order to be with him.
Ok
We are, of course, limited by language, and our different meanings. By saying that God is "outside" of time I mean that He is beyond its existence since He created it. He entered "inside" time when the Son took upon Him human nature when the fulness of time was come. But I don't believe time exists alongside God - it exists because of God Who created it when He created the universe. Only God is eternal so time must not be. That is why I believe time and space are intertwined. And that is why using words like inside/outside or over/under to try to express a relation to time are ultimately limited.
I can think of a lot of differences!
We can if time is part of our temporal existence. If time ceases to exist when we enter into everlasting life, we would be outside/above/beyond it as God is - "we shall be like him" but not Him and not the same as Him in every way since we have not always been.
While some might not like his irenic tone and wish he had a stronger position, he does a great service to Protestant irenicism. He is a true brother in Christ regardless of some of my disagreements with him in both theology and approach.
