First, I know this is NOT a Christian site, so I know people will disagree with me.
Second, I am leery of anyone who speaks of a theology that runs counter to orthodox Christianity. Doesn't mean they are wrong, it is just after the Way, I am not a bandwagon jumper any more.
Third, I have taken up this study of eternal, and punishment and judgment and heaven. So far, I haven't found CK and Mark's arguments all that great. Again, doesn't mean they are wrong, per se, just that I am not convinced.
Fourth, many people preach hellfire and brimstone. I am not. I tell people about God and what Jesus can do for them. I let them know about the unholy practices that God wants us all to shed. (more on this later.)
Chuck - In a previous post I wrote that you responded to def59 with "unwarrented, emotionally driven outbursts" as well as information.
If you found this hurtful, I am genuinely sorry. Mark Sanguinetti informs us that you have been condemned and tortured by people in your life and in your impressionable youth teaching hell fire.
While I couldn't see anything written in this thread that might warrent such an outburst from me, I understand how triggers work with people who have been abused, and I can understand the vehemence of your feelings toward your perpetrators.
There ARE times and places at GreaseSpot where it's appropriate to vent. This thread is as good a time and place as any to vent against the particular errors people operated to abuse you. Please just remember that most of us here are fellow-seekers who have not yet given this topic as much consideration as you have, and have patience with us.
Last night I worked the word aion and this is what I found.
I used the Young's Analytical Concordance, Tyndale's Word Study New Testament and Concordnace, The Quest Study NIV Bible, the NIV Topical Study Bible.
For some here, they will be happy to hear that the NIV does translate the word aion as age in many places.
I decided for fun to go in reverse order for my study.
So starting in Revelations,
I ask these questions. (Please understand I am asking these in a serious tone, as I want to ascertain your beliefs. If we disagree on a point, can we at least agree to be civil?)
Rev 22:5 says we are to reign with Christ for ever and ever — Will we?
Rev 20:10 says Satan, the Beast and Antichrist are to be tormented for ever and ever. Will they and if not, what is your scriptural support for this?
Please understand that a word can carry different meanings. We must look at the context.
And understand that time is irrelevant in heaven, God lives on a higher plane unbound by time or space.
Revelations speaks much about judgment. Who does it, why and to whom it is poured out upon.
Rev. 19:3 the smoke from the prostitute will rise for ever and ever. Doesn't she will, but the sin must be such that it will take a long time.
Rev. 15:7 says God lives for ever and ever. Does he have a limited amount of time?
Here's an interesting note in Rev. 14:11, it says anyone who worships the Beast will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy Angels and the Lamb (Jesus).
This is the wine of God's "fury" and will be given in full strength.
In earlier chapters, Angels give praise to the one who lives for ever and every and swear to him based on that.
They praise him for ever and ever, as will the believers.
Rev 1:18 says Jesus lives for ever and ever.
In Jude 17-23 we are called to persevere and show mercy. We are also told to snatch others from the fire. If there is no fire, what's he talking about? Or, if fire means to purify, why would we want to snatch them?
Jude 25 says Jesus was the conduit of praise to God before, now and for ever and ever.
2John:2 says truth will live forever and ever.
1 John 2:17 says the man who does the will of God will live for ever and ever.
2 Peter 2:17 says the blackest darkness is reserved for false teachers (CK, I can hear you now) but if we all get to heaven, why go on and on about the reward for these people.
Hebrews 7 talks of how Jesus has become our permament high priest, eternal if you will.
The list goes on.
There are time aion means age - as in this life until Jesus comes back. But there are others where it does mean eternal, both positive for God and Jesus and negative for the unbeliever.
_Chuck, If you have all the answers, why do you resort to name-calling? I have never once called you a name or made disparaging remarks about your upbringing. But you have constantly railed against me. And for what purpose? To show how much love you have for the lost or deceived?
So what do you want for that, a butter cookie?
quote:My vicious hate? Look in the mirror pal!
So now you say I'm full of hate eh? How do you figure?
quote:_Yes, Jesus said those things. But he also warns of the reward for rejection. You don't like the word hell? Fine let's say separation from God. And yes, I do love my enemies. I love you. If I didn't, I wouldn't keep coming back. I disagree with many posters on GSC, but that's DOES NOT MEAN that I don't love them. Who are you to judge me anyway. What do you know of Satan?
How can you separate yourself from an omnipresent God? David said that If he were to make his bed in the grave, God would be there too.
Who am I to Judge? Someone who judges with sound judgement. I have not given you any judgement that I cannot handle myself. Also THERE IS NO BEAM IN MY EYE. And guess what??? I see NOBODY with a mote in their eye, but I do see a lot of people with beams in their own eyes telling me to take the one out of mine. And answer me this if you will: Would you be able to handle God sentencing YOU to eternal torment? You should never impose judgements you yourself cannot handle. That is why we are advised not to judge and to cast the beam out of our eyes. While we are commanded "not to judge", we are also just as commanded to "judge with righteous judgements". So Def, just what righteous judgements did you impose today?
So how do you figure I'm a son of Satan?
I asked you this question:
quote: "What charge do you want to lay on me, you who are so righteous? So far you only have charged me with a Mickey Mouse one of "offering mere opinion".
Your answer:
quote:You swear, call me names and scream. Who are you, the second coming of LoyBoy?_
So? Don't give this "is this how Jesus talked?" crap. Jesus told the Pharisees that they were "open sepulchers, filled with dead men's bones". He also called them "a generation of vipers!" So Jesus also swore, cussed, and got angry at the religious filth of his day, and subsequently called them names too. So I see you as just a descendant of that trash.
quote:Wow, what kind of love is this? Paul warns us about people teaching false doctrines, to me that sounds like you. God wiped out Soddom and Gommorah for their sin, ::::snipped for irrelevancy::::
So you consider the doctrine of Universal Salvation a false doctrine. What is YOUR idea of love??? Torturing people forever??? Are you sadistic as well? And you probably don't even know what the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah is. Most people think it was sexual immorality, but that was a relatively minor offense.
quote:_Chuck, this will be my last communication with you. I'll post and respond to others, but since you can only call me names, I learned a long time ago not to play with someone like you._
Yep, just like the coward I say you are, you are going to run away. If you are so right, then this is what you should expect ME to be doing. So go ahead, give up. And to think I was in fact tempted to give up, but Mark actually convinced me to continue with this thread. Thanks for your encouragement Mark :)-->
Can't take the name calling??? Then why don't you call me names? Or better yet, why do you set yourself up for this?? Oh yes, you did call me Satan, didn't you? So you in fact lied when you said you called me no names.
Chuck - In a previous post I wrote that you responded to def59 with "unwarrented, emotionally driven outbursts" as well as information.
If you found this hurtful, I am genuinely sorry. Mark Sanguinetti informs us that you have been condemned and tortured by people in your life and in your impressionable youth teaching hell fire.
:::::snipped for brevity::::::::
Steve, no offense taken :)-->. Besides I guard my heart with the breastplate of righteousness, so I didn't take what you said personally since I believe you didn't mean it to be. You only said that what I was saying would only harden Def, but I also believe God has a tendancy to harden people's hearts too. And perhaps on God's part it's deliberate. In my case it was more an accident.
But believe me, I've dealt with people much worse than Def on the Usenet forums.
I am back from my business trip. I was in Fresno at the Northern California Youth Soccer Annual Meeting where I had a booth promoting my company which sells and distributes athletic uniforms and equipment. Here is a link to my company web site. Garth has worked on it some.
With regard to the present study of aion and aionios, here is an additional study. The web site link is at the end.
Have a Pattern of Sound Words
Concerning Aion and Aionios
by Dean Hough
The most commonly used Greek-English lexicons used today by Christians are those by Thayer (1886) and by Arndt and Gingrich (1957). The definitions given for the noun, aion, and the adjective, aionios, are widely accepted as authoritative and determinative for the teaching of everlasting punishment. This becomes for many believers a strong bulwark against taking scriptural passages such as John 12:32; Romans 5:18,19; 11:32-36; 1 Corinthians 15:22-28; 2 Corinthians 5:14; Ephesians 1:10,11; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 1:20; 1 Timothy 2:4; 4:9,10; and 1 John 2:2, at face value. What is claimed for Matthew 25:46 or 2 Thessalonians 1:9, for example, is seen as limiting the meaning of the former passages.
Concerning the noun, aion, however, both lexicons (and all other such works) allow for an interpretation that would harmonize with the teaching of eventual, universal salvation. Thayer's lexicon gives as its first definition of aion the sense of "age." This is the second definition (of four) given in the more recent lexicon edited by Arndt and Gingrich. Hence a passage such as Matthew 12:32 could be understood as referring to the present age and the age to come, which would not, in itself, keep us from taking Romans 3:21-24 and 5:12-19 in reference to universal justification.
But in both of these lexicons, the adjective, aionios, is presented as having three meanings, in none of which the limiting sense of "age" is carried over from the noun. The adjective, it is claimed, means: (1) without beginning; or (2) without end; or (3) without beginning or end.
This may strike others, as it does me, as a rather dubious development of an adjective's meaning in relation to its noun form. But apart from that, this threefold definition simply does not work in several New Testament passages (and many other passages in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint).
The usages of aionios in Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; and Philemon 15, seem especially puzzling in view of the claims of these two lexicons.
It certainly is difficult to understand how the keeping of a secret can have no beginning, and indeed if the secret is revealed, we must assume its being kept as a secret has come to an end. No wonder the KJV of Romans 16:25 reads "since the world began," even though the Greek speaks of "times" described as aionios. The RV is more faithful to the threefold definition, referring to a mystery kept "through times eternal" but now manifested, but that has the great disadvantage of making no sense whatever if these times are to be understood as either without beginning or without end, or, even more puzzling, without beginning and end.
In such cases, Bible commentators generally ignore the threefold definition given in the lexicons and make their own for these particular passages. In the NICNT volume on Romans, John Murray explains that "times eternal" refers "to the earlier ages of this world's history" (THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, vol.2, p.241). Such ages would obviously have both a beginning and end.
Notice how A. T. Robertson handles the adjective in his WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. In commenting on Matthew 25:46 he follows the threefold definition given above, writing: "The word aionios . . . means either without beginning or without end or both" (vol.1, p.202). But in commenting on Titus 1:2 he insists that the words "before times eternal" refer "Not to God's purpose before time began . . . but to definite promises (Rom.9:4) made in time." Here he explains Paul's words as signifying "Long ages ago" (vol.4, p.597). Some other commentators may try to explain that Paul is referring to something that God promised in "eternity past" but for most of us it does seem difficult to grasp any meaning in the idea of a promise being made and kept without any beginning of its being made.
In the multivolume THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (begun in German under the editorship of Gerhard Kittel) Hermann Sasse admits, "The concept of eternity [in aionios] is weakened" in Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2 (vol.1. p.209). He explains that these passages use "the eternity formulae" which he had previously explained as "the course of the world" perceived as "a series of smaller aiones" (p.203). Sasse also refers to the use of aionios in Philemon 15, which he feels "reminds us of the non-biblical usage" of this word, which he had earlier found to signify "lifelong" or "enduring" (p.208).
This is not to suggest any particular agreement with all these various attempts to define aion and aionios. In fact, the confusion created by these attempts to preserve some sense of everlastingness in these terms makes the attempts rather suspicious. Putting all the evidence of the usage of these terms in the New Testament together, it seems to me that the threefold definition of aionios as signifying without beginning, or without end, or without begining and end, must be dismissed as inadequate at the very least. Furthermore, to add further definitions that are not at all clear in themselves, as Sasse does, only adds to the confusion.
Of all widely used, modern attempts to define these terms, I have found the concluding definition given in THE VOCABULARY OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT (edited by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan) most helpful. Concerning ai?s we read, "In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view . . . (p.16). If the horizon of the extermination spoken of by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is simply not in view, then we can see that what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:22 can truly occur. The same all who are dying in Adam, which includes some who incur eonian extermination, can indeed eventually be vivified in Christ. The Bible, in fact, does not speak of judgment and condemnation, death and destruction, hades and Gehenna, or any of these serious consequences of sin, as unending. It may refer to them as not having the end in view, but none of these fearful works of God can keep Him from achieving His will (1Tim.2:4); reconciling all through the blood of Christ's cross (Col.1:20, and becoming All in all (1 Cor.15:28).
Here is another study. Again the link is at the end.
AION AND AIONIOS
Let us next consider the true meaning of the words "aion" and aionios.*1 These are the originals of the terms rendered by our translators "everlasting," "for ever and ever:" and on this translations, so misleading, a vast portion of the popular dogma of endless torment is built up. I say, without hesitation, misleading and incorrect; for aion means "an age," a limited period, whether long or short, though often of indefinite length; and the adjective aionios means "of the age," "age-long," "aeonian," and never "everlasting" (of its own proper force), it is true that it may be applied as an epithet to things that rae endless, but the idea of endlessness in all such cases comes not from the epithet, but only because it is inherent in the object to which the epithet is applied, as in the case of God. Much has been written on the import of the aeonian (eternal) life. Altogether to exclude, (with MAURICE) the notion of time seems impracticable, and opposed to the general usage of the New Testament (and of the Septuagint). But while this is so, we may fully recognise that the phrase "eternal life" (aeonian life) does at times pass into a region above time, a region wholly moral and spiritual. Thus, in S. John, the aeonian life (eternal life), of which he speaks, is a life not measured by duration, but a life in the unseen, life in God. Thus, e.g., God's commandment is life eternal. -- John 12:50. To know Him is life eternal, -- John. 17:3, and Christ is the eternal life. -- I John 1:2; 5:20. Admitting, then, the usual reference of aionios to time, we note in the word a tendency to rise above this idea, to denote quality, rather than quantity, to indicate the true, the spiritual, in opposition to the unreal, or the earthly. In this sense the eternal is now and here. Thus "eternal" punishment is one thing, and "everlasting" punishment a very different thing, and so it is that our Revisers have substituted for "everlasting" the word "eternal" in every passage in the New Testament, where aionios is the original word. Further, if we take the term strictly, eternal punishment is impossible, for the "eternal" in strictness has no beginning.
Again, a point of great importance is this, that it would have been impossible for the Jews, as it is impossible for us, to accept Christ, except by assigning a limited -- nay, a very limited duration -- to those Mosaic ordinances which were said in the Old Testament to be "for ever," to be "everlasting" (aeonian). Every line of the New Testament, nay, the very existence of Christianity is thus in fact a proof of the limited sense of aionios in Scripture. Our Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, our Holy Communion, every prayer uttered in a Christian Church, or in our homes, in the name of the Lord Jesus: our hopes of being "for ever with the Lord" -- these contain one and all in an affirmation most real, though tacit, of the temporary sense of aionios.
As a further illustration of the meaning of aion and aionios, let me point out that in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint)--in common use among the Jews in Our Lord's time, from which He and the Apostles usually quoted, and whose authority, therefore, should be decisive on this point -- these terms are repeatedly applied to things that have long ceased to exist. Thus the AARONIC priesthood is said to be "everlasting," Num. 25:13. The land of Canaan is given as an "everlasting" possession, and "for ever," Gen. 17:8, and 13:15. In Deut. 23:3, "for ever" is distinctly made an equivalent to "even to the tenth generation." In Lam. 5:19, "for ever and ever" is the equivalent of from "generation to generation." The inhabitants of Palestine are to be bondsmen "for ever," Lev. 25:46. In Num. 18:19, the heave offerings of the holy things are a covenant "for ever." CALEB obtains his inheritance "for ever," Josh. 14:9. And DAVID'S seed is to endure "for ever," his throne "for ever," his house "for ever;" nay, the passover is to endure "for ever;" and in Isaiah 32:14, the forts and towers shall be "dens for ever, until the spirit be poured upon us." So in Jude 7, Sodom and Gomorrah are said to be suffering the vengeance of eternal (aeonian) fire, i.e., their temporal overthrow by fire, for they have a definite promise of final restoration. -- Ez. 16:55.
And Christ's kingdom is to last "for ever," yet we are distinctly told that this very kingdom is to end. -- I Cor. 15:24. Indeed, quotation might be added to quotation, both from the Bible and from early*2 authors, to prove this limited meaning of aion and its derivatives; but enough has probably been said to prove that it is wholly impossible, and indeed absurd, to contend that any idea of endless duration is necessarily or commonly implied by either aion or aionios.
Further, if this translation of aionios as "eternal," in the sense of endless, be correct, aion must mean eternity, i.e., endless duration. But so to render it would reduce Scripture to an absurdity. In the first place, you would have over and over again to talk of the "eternities." We can comprehend what "eternity" is, but what are the "eternities?" You cannot have more than one eternity.
Let me state the dilemma clearly. Aion either means endless duration as its necessary, or at least its ordinary significance, or it does not. If it does, the following difficulties at once arise;
1 -- How, if it mean an endless period, can aion have a plural?
2 -- How came such phrases to be used as those repeatedly occurring in Scripture, where aion is added to aion, if aion is of itself infinite?
3 -- How come such phrases as for the "aion" or aions and BEYOND? -- ton aiona kai ep aiona kai eti: eis tous aionas kai eti. -- See (Sept.) Ex. 15:18; Dan. 12:3; Micah 4:5.
4 -- How is it that we repeatedly read of the end of the aion? -- Matt. 13:39,40,49; 24:3; 28:20; I Cor. 10:11; Heb. 9:26.
5 -- Finally, if aion be infinite, why is it applied over and over to what is strictly finite? e.g., Mark 4:19; Acts 3:21; Rom. 12:2; I Cor. 1:20, 2:20, 2:6, 3:18, 10:11, etc. But if an aion be not definite, what right have we to render the adjective aionios (which depends for its meaning on aion) by the terms "eternal" (when used as the equivalent of "endless") and "everlasting?"
Indeed our translators have really done further hurt to those who can only read their English Bible. They have, wholly obscured a very important doctrine, that of "the ages." This when fully understood throws a flood of light on the plan of redemption, and the method of the divine working.
In these repeated instances [of the different combinations of the terms aion and aionios in the Greek] there must be some definite purpose in the use of these peculiar terms; and we must deeply regret the unfairness and inconsistency which in the case of aion mars and renders unfair our versions. Thus it would be interesting to ask on what principle our Revisers have in one brief epistle employed FIVE different words (or phrases) to translate this one word, aion, e.g., Eph. i. 21; ii. 2,7; iii. 11, 21, e.g., "world," "course," "age," "eternal," "for ever." Such are the devious ways of our teachers, and our translators.
*1"The word by itself, whether adjective or substantive, never means endless." -- Canon FARRAR.
"The conception of eternity, in the Semitic languages, is that of a long duration and series of ages." -- Rev J. S. BLUNT -- Dictionary of Theology.
"'Tis notoriously known," says Bishop Rust, "that the Jews, whether writing in Hebrew or Greek, do by olam (the Hebrew word corresponding to aion), and aion mean any remarkable period and duration, whether it be of life, or dispensation, or polity." "The word aion is never used in Scripture, or anywhere else, in the sense of endlessness (vulgarly called eternity, it always meant, both in Scripture and out, a period of time; else how could it have a plural -- how could you talk of the aeons and aeons of aeons as the Scripture does? -- C. KINGSLEY.
So the secular games, celebrated every century were called "eternal" by the Greeks. -- See HUET, Orig. ii. pg. 162.
*2Thus JOSEPHUS calls "aeonian," the temple of Herod, which was actually destroyed when he wrote. PHILO never uses aionios of endless duration.
The more I study, the more I see that God has places of judgment, separation and condemnation for those who reject him. And the reason these places exist, is that since he is a just and holy God, sin can have no place in the future kingdom.
We can call it the grave (sheol), but we all will go there unless Christ comes back in our lifetime.
The Bible talks about Gehenna, the chaff and tares being tossed into the fire. Figures of speech to be sure, but the message is there.
And what of the verses referring to Soddom and Gomorrah? Their destruction is an example of eternal destruction.
Mark, for your position to be right, that means that translators for thousands of years have part of some vast conspiracy.
That the church must have fallen into some form of apostasy for 1900 years and then lo and behold, someone gets a message, and voila! Truth is rediscovered.
Sounds like: Mormonism, JW's TWI Worldwide Church of God Moon, Scientology and other groups.
I will continue my research.
P.S. Words are not always an either/or matter.
Figures of speech, context and other factors can give words many meanings. In my Vines, there are 10 meanings for the word fire. Ten. Some of a good nature others of condemnation and judgement.
Context.
And we can also go around on Jesus and the trinity again. That plays a big role in this too, I'll bet.
Def, I would rather look at the evidence. Wouldn't you? Besides with your conspiracy theory, you may be igoring much spiritual darkness during the middle ages. Or are you in favor of bringing back indulgences in order to get to heaven? Or should we start another crusade and kill a bunch of non-believers in the name of Christ? Are you now implying that the King James Version is a perfect version of God's Word? I think we better instead return to biblical work.
And one more thing. I offer no new light on this subject. I am just one taking the time to read and then explain what is already written in the various biblical texts.
quote: Mark, for your position to be right, that means the translators for thousands of years have [been] part of some vast conspiracy.
That the church must have fallen into some form of apostasy for 1900 years and then lo and behold, someone gets a message, and voila! Truth is rediscovered.
Something like that DID happen, but not quite the way you propose.
From about 300 BC to about AD 200, the Stoic cosmology was dominant in the Graeco-Roman world. Platonism was there, but it wasn't dominant. There were a number of catastrophes that befell the Roman empire in the 2nd/3rd centuries, and as a result, more and more people turned to neo-Platonism, until that cosmology came to dominate.
The cosmology of the Old Testament and the Stoic cosmology did not teach natural immortality of the soul. To them, dead was dead. You weren't hanging around anywhere before you were born, and you don't go anywhere after you die. You just cease to exist. That's why the resurrection was such a big deal to believers of the first and second centuries.
The Platonic and neo-Platonic view was that the soul is natually immortal in and of itself, with no beginning and no end.
The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection, but their views were influenced by Platonism.
When Constantine had the bishops formulate an official version of Christianity, most of them were neo-Platonists. And they interpreted the words of the Bible through neo-Platonic lenses, substituting neo-Platonic concepts for the original meanings of many terms.
The doctrine of the Trinity really does make sense, viewed in terms of 4th century neo-Platonism. Unfortuantely neither Paul, nor we ourselves, are 4th century neo-Platonists.
When the punitive power of the state was turned to the task of enforcing orthodoxy, the formal neo-Platonic interpretation became set in cement. Not even the Reformers were able to recognize and break free from their neo-Platonic viewpoint. People were not politically free to consider other, perhaps more accurate, interpretations of the Scripture until the 1700s.
The idea that people are not naturally immortal, while fairly recent in the long view, is not what we would consider a brand new idea. Without doing any intense reseach, I'd say its probably been around as long as Biblical Unitarianism. That would be what, 150-200 years?
So Def, do you really know some biblical scholars? In my thinking, I would have to associate a New Testament biblical scholar with someone that knows New Testament Koine Greek. Although I am sure there are good bible teachers that don't know Greek.
If you know someone ask them about Greek words Aion, Strong's #165 and Aionios, Strong's #166. The usages for 165 indicate that this word means "age". As I have previously noted a number of these usages clearly show this word to indicate a long period of time with both a beginning and an ending. It also talks about future ages and in the book of Revelation gives usages translated "ever (aion) and ever (aion)". This I would think means "age and age" because how can you have two eternities? Isn't one eternity sufficient? This would also indicate to me that there is more than one age. One writer that I have quoted from noted five distinct ages. "Ever and ever" from the book of Revelation or "age and age" can also indicate both the 1000 year millenial kingdom age and the final age of the New Heaven and earth.
With regard to the Greek word Aionios, Strong's number 166, the usages are not quite as clear. However, many people say that Aionios is simply the adjective form of the noun Aioon. In this case if Aion means age, then Aionios would mean agelasting or age-abiding. In looking at the usages I can see this to be a strong possibility. However, it would be nice to get the opinion of someone that knows biblical Koine Greek.
Thanks again for starting this thread and happy hunting.
Since I've gotten into this topic I have learned much. I decided to go back to some earlier posts and see if I really understood what some of you were saying.
First CK, I owe you an apology. I must have skimmed over the part of your first post that said b-u's did believe the wicked will be judged. That's not what I thought you said, so I am sorry.
It seems that how long that judgment will last is the sticking point. All the bibles and scholars I have read say for ever or everalsting which does not suggest an end. There may be one — any is possible with God — but I don't see it yet.
I am still waiting for my sources to come back with their findings.
Sunesis
I agree with you in priniciple that everyone will live eternally, just not in the same place. We know that the place the wicked go is called a place of tormnent, a fiery furnace, a place of blacket darkness.
Just who are the wicked? God and Jesus know and they will deal with them.
I believe that Christ died for the uttermost, and that he died once for all (mankind).
The verse about God wants all men to be saved is interpreted as Jesus by some scholars, if so, the father may have other things in mind.
And God does call us to be holy for a reason. There are warnings about taking license with grace and our salvation. There are warnings about taking the mark of the beast and worshiping him. There has to be a reason.
Satan will not win, he has already lost. If any go to hell, it is a mark on the believer who did nothing to snatch them from the fire.
As for doctrines of the early church, maybe you should check your sources, John was given the revelation about the end times in the first century.
Sunesis, you said, "I find it much easier to be loving to people, knowing, whether born again or not, that God loves them and they will be with him someday. Maybe not with the same spiritual bodies we have - maybe in a different way, but, Christ died for them too."
Why is that? If you are a follower of Jesus, you have God's love inside you and it should manifest itself to others anyway. It seems to be an excuse to not love someone knowing they are going to be in heaven anyway.
Yes, Christ died for everyone, but what does that do make you want to share the good news?
Mark S.
You made a big deal about Paul's conversion. What does that prove. God chose Paul for a mission and knew what he wanted him to do. God's Omniscience plays a role here.
Other killers have been recipients of God's grace through the centuries.
Cain — who was not struck down
Moses — who led Israel
David — who was allowed to be King.
All had a heart for God and God used them for His purposes.
There is no evidence for the second resurrection salvation. John talks of a Book of Life and Death and those in the former escape the second death, but those in the latter do not.
Surrender then may not be good enough.
CK
Purgatory is not a biblical doctrine. That's what's wrong with it.
I agree with every part of your emphasis. There was no need to yell.
Salvation is a gift. The giver offers it to all. But not all take it, because it is not shoved down their throats. God wants a relationship with His people, not robots. If that was the case, he could have created us that way.
Even the angels were given a choice.
CK youy said: "It is also written that God will do EVERYTHING according to the counsel of HIS WILL.
If anyone is going to "hell", then it was God's will all along, which is the official belief of Calvinism. Then God lied because he falsely testified that he wills all men to be saved, only to send a majority of them to hell instead.
I think the verse says "wants" there's a big difference between will and want.
Who says a majority will be condemned? God's promise to Abraham is that his descendants will be as the sand of the sea. Who can count that but God?
The Bible is clear that God elects, that He favors some and hates others. Who are you to disagree with Him?
CK youy said: "NOBODY has ever rejected Christ by his so-called own free will. Men are nothing but decandent sinners by nature, and without the grace of God he is just plain totally depraved!!!!!"
Oh, oh, sounds like Calvinism to me. But Arminians believe much of this too.
Ck You said: "We were born in sin!!!!!! We didn't choose to sin, contrary to popular belief.
No disagreement here.
Ck You said: Now this is God's ballgame and plan. If God wills Adolf Hitler to be saved, then HE WILL BE SAVED!!!!! PERIOD!!!!! Will Hitler have to give account for what he did? ABSOLUTELY!!!!
The key is if.
Ck you said: "So God wills all men to be saved, but it just isn't going to happen because men's free will rejects salvation you say. What?? Is God powerless, so weak in fact that man's free will is mightier??? Also who is The Soverign? Man or God????
You know I have a problem with some of this free-will nonsense as well. Taken to its extreme it cuts down on God's authority.
I believe God is Sovereign.
CK you said: "People that oppose universal salvation are just arguing their own interpretation of the bible anyway."
Well, Chuck, so are you.
CK you said; "Ok, "Chuck, what do you think you are doing?" At least my interpretation puts God in a positive light, all merciful, all loving, and all powerful, and has made it clear that his will is going to be done! The interpretation of others demeans God, and puts man up as a soverign.
I guess if I made myself sovereign like most men have done, I too would think God will only save a few."
I believe in all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God too. I place Him in control, not man, not Satan.
But I don't believe only a few will be saved. I believe many will be.
CK You said: And if Hitler is not going to be saved, then what assurance do you have that you will be?? Because you "accepted Jesus"? Jesus himself said that "not everyone who calls me Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he WHO DOES MY FATHER'S WILL"
And Hitler did the father's will?'
CK: And what IS the father's will? If God wills all men to be saved, then your calling is to preach the GOSPEL (which means GOOD NEWS) all of mankind. Most preachers preach admonishments of fate, and such a fate is beyond reality (burn forever in hell????), not to mention fairness.
Who said God was fair? That's man's perspective. God is just and justice and fairness are not synonomous.
"Hey, doesn't the world already oppress you???? Why be like the world? The bible says we should not be conformed to this world, be transformed by the renewing of our minds, that we may PROVE what is acceptable to God. Yet most Christians are conformed to this world, and they are too oblivious too see that fact."
Agreed, but how does that support your point?
"If I tell someone his sins have been forgiven, and that he is saved, and he scoffs at me, what makes you people think he's going to listen to you when you threaten unreal fates like burn forever in hell???"
First, why would he scoff at you unless he could not see that he was a sinner? If he rejects your gospel, what hope is there for him.
Your gospel has many adherents in non-Christian circles. Circles that hate Christ.
But I do agree some people are so damned depraved that this is the only way they can see God's goodness, is to contrast it by the worst thing IMAGINABLE (yes, burn forever in hell is definitely the worst thing IMAGINABLE, but it doesn't make it real however!). But I prefer not to be taught by people who are clearly depraved.
Who are you to judge?
There is a consequence for unbelief, do you want people you to suffer those consequences? If not, you better pray for their souls.
Def, you talk about Jesus knowing his sheep. For one thing, I don't think everyone will inherit The Kingdom of Heaven, which is what you are equating living in paradise with.
CK, we could go round and round on the paradise/heaven debate.
That is incorrect thinking. You can still live in paradise and not inherit The Kingdom.
Where do you get that from?
You also probably want to quote verses that talk about people being cast into outer darkness, where's there's weeping and gnashing of teeth. Be it known, that this is a warning TO THE CHURCH, NOT THE WORLD!!!!!!
Not true, the wicked will be thrown into the fire. That includes false teachers, but it also includes those who fought against God and the church.
The people in question were those who were appointed to carry out a mission of proclaiming the ministry of reconciliation and instead of performing the tasks that they should have, they deviated from it instead.
You people who are looking forward to rewards, take heed, you might come up empty handed. But be of good cheer nonetheless, for you will still get to live in paradise.
Nice picture, totally unsupportable, but nice nonetheless. Have you talked to Oprah lately?
I'm not going to continue this charade with you. You are bent on the idea that there is an endless hell and many are going to it. Tell me, are you glad there is a hell? NO? Then why aren't you blasphemeing the God who you believe created it? You want your enemies in hell? NO? Then when you're enemies are in hell, why aren't you criticizing God for sending them there?
You ask me who I am to disagree with God. When God says he wills all men to be saved, are you saying I disagree with that? And yes, will and want are synoymous, also with desire as well. And God gets what God wants, wills or desires. I disagree with YOUR God, yes. YOUR God doesn't love everybody. My step-brother, who is mentally retarded has more love than YOUR God. Is he wrong??? Are you saying that he only does so because he's handicapped??? WE should be so handicapped!!!!!!!
You question me about Hilter not doing God's will. How do you figure??? Did it ever occur to you that God used Hitler to stage the holocaust against the Jews because they have turned their backs of God one more time, like they have done often throughout history? True, Hitler will not inherit The Kingdom, I agree with you there. But Hitler will live in paradise. And so are you in spite of the fact that you are not doing God's will yourself. And furthermore, should you inherit The Kingdom, who/what do you expect your subjects to be????? Worms?????
What???? You want to charge me with not doing God's will? How do you figure??? But if I don't do God's will, I'm going to be just like you, not inheriting the kingdom. But I'm not too concerned about that anyway (read my signature ;)--> ). I'm not motivated by any rewards to do what I do. I don't preach universal salvation to get some kind of favor from my God.
You say universal salvation just gives people a cheap excuse to sin???? Sinners can find an excuse to sin under ANY belief system. So what's YOUR excuse for sin??? Seems like in spite of your rejection of universal salvation, you still sin like a truck driver. I say your belief system encourages sin more than mine does. Without hell, there's no fear of death, and without fear of death, criminals would have a hard time doing their evil deeds. Think about it! A robber for instance trusts in his victim's fear of death to comply with his commands. Just think of what would happen if I were to hold somebody up at gunpoint and demand their money, only for that person to be unafraid and may even tell me to go ahead and shoot. I would be befuddled.
Def, I do understand your rejection of universal salvation though. 30 years ago, if you would have told me my enemies were going to be saved in spite of themselves, I would have been deeply offended. I wanted to see my enemies get the worst things that could happen, including eternal torment! But what I didn't realize is that I'm going to be subject to the same judgements that I have judged my enemies. You must think you have some sort of secure shield protecting you, so you think it's safe to spew out that evil poison that you spit. If you don't repent of your eternal torment teachings and beliefs, theoretically you could find yourself facing the very same fate that you have warned your enemies of.
You say that purgatory is not a biblical doctrine? What do you think the lake of fire is? The same lake of fire that YOU are going to! Mark S. has shown you that the Greek words that translate fire and brimstone mean exactly the purifying presence of God. Why are you oblivious to that? What??? You're not going to the lake of fire??? Then you can forget about meeting God or Jesus for that matter. In fact, theoretically you will be in the absence of God (notice I said THEORETICALLY? God is omnipresent, so you are NEVER going to be in His absence). Without going to the lake of fire, you will be in fact cast into the outer darkness.
You say my gospel has many adherents in non-Christian circles, ones that actually hate Christ. Give me a case in point. Besides, I say that YOU hate Christ in spite of what you would like people to believe contrawise. I have shared Christ with you and you rejected it, so tell me more. You haven't shared Christ with anyone, you only told them what Jesus COULD do for them. THAT is NOT the Gospel!!!
Perhaps it's not time for you to know the deeply spirtual things of God, so you are blind to these tremendous truths. This is all I'm going to say on this matter to you Def, as you no doubt want to keep this charade going. And you were not being honest with me because you said you were not going to address me anymore since I "don't play nice".
Well, here is my first reply from Mark Fairchild, Ph.D., professor of Bible and Religion at Huntington College in Indiana,
"Words have various meanings in various contexts. This is true for all
languages (modern and ancient). E.g. the word "star" can be a reference
to a star on a well written paper, or "star" can be a reference to an astronomical body, or "star" can be a reference to a sports figure or a movie "star."Â In interpreting the Scriptures, one has to find the particular meaning for a given Biblical text.
"Aion" can be taken in many ways.
1) a lifetime
2) an age or generation
3) destiny
4) a long space of time
5) forever
6) a designated space of time
7) a supernatural being
To apply this to your question, I do not think that the Scriptures are teaching universalism (that people are punished for a designated period of time (#6 above). Rather, I think that the context indicates eternal punishment.
You are bent on the idea that there is an endless hell and many are going to it. Tell me, are you glad there is a hell? NO? Then why aren't you blasphemeing the God who you believe created it? You want your enemies in hell? NO? Then when you're enemies are in hell, why aren't you criticizing God for sending them there?
Who am I to criticize God and who are you for that matter? I've stated my position and because it contradicts with mine, I am the apostate. Why should I be mad at God if anyone goes to hell? If God is Sovereign, would that not be his choice?
You ask me who I am to disagree with God. When God says he wills all men to be saved, are you saying I disagree with that? And yes, will and want are synoymous, also with desire as well.
Will and want are not synonomous. Check a thesaurus once in a while.
And God gets what God wants, wills or desires. I disagree with YOUR God, yes. YOUR God doesn't love everybody.
I have word in mind here, but the Bible warns against cursing.
My step-brother, who is mentally retarded has more love than YOUR God. Is he wrong??? Are you saying that he only does so because he's handicapped??? WE should be so handicapped!!!!!!!
Do you ever get off your pedastal and really let God talk to you anymore? Or are you so convinced that you are right, that the critical, objective part of your brain has shut off?
You question me about Hilter not doing God's will. How do you figure??? Did it ever occur to you that God used Hitler to stage the holocaust against the Jews because they have turned their backs of God one more time, like they have done often throughout history? True, Hitler will not inherit The Kingdom, I agree with you there.
See, we can agree on something, that's a start. And I agree that God uses people to bring judgment on others. But he also has a never ending covenant with Israel, so look back at the fate of all who attack his people.
But Hitler will live in paradise.
I disagree.
And so are you in spite of the fact that you are not doing God's will yourself.
And you presume to judge me, because I don't march in lockstep with you?
And furthermore, should you inherit The Kingdom, who/what do you expect your subjects to be????? Worms?????
I will be one of the subjects. My allegiance is to my king.
What???? You want to charge me with not doing God's will?
Well, you seem comfortable charging with the same brush, how's it feel, chucky?
How do you figure??? But if I don't do God's will, I'm going to be just like you, not inheriting the kingdom. But I'm not too concerned about that anyway (read my signature ;)--> ).
I have read it, and if God wants to, he can. but there are so many verses that warn about the fire and if you see my previous post, most scholars judge aion in context and see many meanings. You take one meaning and try to apply it to all verses. I don't think that's honest.
I'm not motivated by any rewards to do what I do. I don't preach universal salvation to get some kind of favor from my God.
Def sure isn't happy unless he has the last word on everything. It it plain and manifest that Def is motivated by fear rather than love, and he tries to drag others into his private hell. This is why I get steamed. I'm thinking of hapless souls who could be wrongfully agonized by people like Def.
If I were to beat Def with a baseball bat, he is so sick and depraved with masochism that he would probably enjoy it. This is why he stirs up the pot of conflict. He is actually looking for a fight, and he loves it when you blast him, so he can say "see, you are angry and IM COOL!" Well believe me, preaching hate is NEVER cool. I believe Def does "turn the other cheek" (in the perverted sense of the term).
Def also says God is not into fairness. Fairness and justice work hand in hand. He might as well teach that when God says he's just, he only lied to you. But then Def's god is a liar anyway. Yes, Def's god IS unfair. So Def speaks truthfully of his god. And of course a man is only as good as the god he worships. Like father, like son! Therefore Def is also unfair. A son NEVER talks back to his father does he? But I will talk back to any god who is NOT MY GOD!!!!! Especially when that same god is nothing but sewage.
Remember, I'm not the one who initiated this thread. DEF IS!!!!! I personally have better things to do than to argue with narrow-minded people, like sharing the healing gospel with people who need it. Def on the other hand has no gospel, so he likes to scorn those who do.
Def is the puke I say he is because he only emulates his god, who is a real puke. Remember, only a sewage god would sentence anyone to eternal torture, and Def has vehemently defended such a god.
Notice that Def indeed has not cast any names at me. He must think he is great stuff for that, or at least wants you to think such, but the truth is there is no name he can call me that will hurt me, because I've spent a great deal of my life being called much more hurtful names than what Def could possibly call me. He laments that I call him names. Why?? Doesn't he stand well before his god?? If he stands well before his god, then what should he care what names I call him??? And he wants favors from his god???? Me? READ MY SIG!!!!!! Salvation is clearly a gift, not a reward. As for rewards, if I get any, fine. If I don't, that's fine too. I didn't get too many rewards in this life, so I'm used to it.
I conclusion, it's clear that Def fails to take heed to his own beliefs. He fails to take heed to the fact that he will face an angry god if he continues to preach one, and he will be too cowardly to talk back to such a god because he has confessed that he is nobody to talk back to his god. The bible is full of stories of prophets who fought God. I believe Jacob did, AND EVEN WON!!!!!
If God refuses to save all, then he has lost my respect, for he in fact lied when he said "I will all men to be saved".* If God cannot save all, then who is he to hold me accountable??? For he HAS NO POWER!!!!!!!
* According to VPW, et al., if one part of the bible is a lie, it's ALL A LIE!!!!! And to think I was criticized for calling the bible a bunch of B.S. last year????? I think the records speak for themselves.
Which would be worse for non-Christians to suffer temporary torment and then be forced to bend the knee and then spend eternity with a God you have lived your life denying and rebelling against or to be separated from Him for eternity knowing that's how you lived life here?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
27
86
73
57
Popular Days
Jan 25
22
Apr 27
18
Jan 26
17
Jan 24
12
Top Posters In This Topic
TheInvisibleDan 27 posts
def59 86 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 73 posts
CKnapp3 57 posts
Popular Days
Jan 25 2005
22 posts
Apr 27 2005
18 posts
Jan 26 2005
17 posts
Jan 24 2005
12 posts
def59
As for what I believe again.
First, I know this is NOT a Christian site, so I know people will disagree with me.
Second, I am leery of anyone who speaks of a theology that runs counter to orthodox Christianity. Doesn't mean they are wrong, it is just after the Way, I am not a bandwagon jumper any more.
Third, I have taken up this study of eternal, and punishment and judgment and heaven. So far, I haven't found CK and Mark's arguments all that great. Again, doesn't mean they are wrong, per se, just that I am not convinced.
Fourth, many people preach hellfire and brimstone. I am not. I tell people about God and what Jesus can do for them. I let them know about the unholy practices that God wants us all to shed. (more on this later.)
but I have to go now.
God Bless you all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Chuck - In a previous post I wrote that you responded to def59 with "unwarrented, emotionally driven outbursts" as well as information.
If you found this hurtful, I am genuinely sorry. Mark Sanguinetti informs us that you have been condemned and tortured by people in your life and in your impressionable youth teaching hell fire.
While I couldn't see anything written in this thread that might warrent such an outburst from me, I understand how triggers work with people who have been abused, and I can understand the vehemence of your feelings toward your perpetrators.
There ARE times and places at GreaseSpot where it's appropriate to vent. This thread is as good a time and place as any to vent against the particular errors people operated to abuse you. Please just remember that most of us here are fellow-seekers who have not yet given this topic as much consideration as you have, and have patience with us.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Hallelujah, Brother Steve.
That was a most gracious post. Thank you.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Hello
Last night I worked the word aion and this is what I found.
I used the Young's Analytical Concordance, Tyndale's Word Study New Testament and Concordnace, The Quest Study NIV Bible, the NIV Topical Study Bible.
For some here, they will be happy to hear that the NIV does translate the word aion as age in many places.
I decided for fun to go in reverse order for my study.
So starting in Revelations,
I ask these questions. (Please understand I am asking these in a serious tone, as I want to ascertain your beliefs. If we disagree on a point, can we at least agree to be civil?)
Rev 22:5 says we are to reign with Christ for ever and ever — Will we?
Rev 20:10 says Satan, the Beast and Antichrist are to be tormented for ever and ever. Will they and if not, what is your scriptural support for this?
Please understand that a word can carry different meanings. We must look at the context.
And understand that time is irrelevant in heaven, God lives on a higher plane unbound by time or space.
Revelations speaks much about judgment. Who does it, why and to whom it is poured out upon.
Rev. 19:3 the smoke from the prostitute will rise for ever and ever. Doesn't she will, but the sin must be such that it will take a long time.
Rev. 15:7 says God lives for ever and ever. Does he have a limited amount of time?
Here's an interesting note in Rev. 14:11, it says anyone who worships the Beast will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy Angels and the Lamb (Jesus).
This is the wine of God's "fury" and will be given in full strength.
In earlier chapters, Angels give praise to the one who lives for ever and every and swear to him based on that.
They praise him for ever and ever, as will the believers.
Rev 1:18 says Jesus lives for ever and ever.
In Jude 17-23 we are called to persevere and show mercy. We are also told to snatch others from the fire. If there is no fire, what's he talking about? Or, if fire means to purify, why would we want to snatch them?
Jude 25 says Jesus was the conduit of praise to God before, now and for ever and ever.
2John:2 says truth will live forever and ever.
1 John 2:17 says the man who does the will of God will live for ever and ever.
2 Peter 2:17 says the blackest darkness is reserved for false teachers (CK, I can hear you now) but if we all get to heaven, why go on and on about the reward for these people.
Hebrews 7 talks of how Jesus has become our permament high priest, eternal if you will.
The list goes on.
There are time aion means age - as in this life until Jesus comes back. But there are others where it does mean eternal, both positive for God and Jesus and negative for the unbeliever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
So what do you want for that, a butter cookie?
So now you say I'm full of hate eh? How do you figure?
How can you separate yourself from an omnipresent God? David said that If he were to make his bed in the grave, God would be there too.
Who am I to Judge? Someone who judges with sound judgement. I have not given you any judgement that I cannot handle myself. Also THERE IS NO BEAM IN MY EYE. And guess what??? I see NOBODY with a mote in their eye, but I do see a lot of people with beams in their own eyes telling me to take the one out of mine. And answer me this if you will: Would you be able to handle God sentencing YOU to eternal torment? You should never impose judgements you yourself cannot handle. That is why we are advised not to judge and to cast the beam out of our eyes. While we are commanded "not to judge", we are also just as commanded to "judge with righteous judgements". So Def, just what righteous judgements did you impose today?
So how do you figure I'm a son of Satan?
I asked you this question:
Your answer:
So? Don't give this "is this how Jesus talked?" crap. Jesus told the Pharisees that they were "open sepulchers, filled with dead men's bones". He also called them "a generation of vipers!" So Jesus also swore, cussed, and got angry at the religious filth of his day, and subsequently called them names too. So I see you as just a descendant of that trash.
So you consider the doctrine of Universal Salvation a false doctrine. What is YOUR idea of love??? Torturing people forever??? Are you sadistic as well? And you probably don't even know what the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah is. Most people think it was sexual immorality, but that was a relatively minor offense.
Yep, just like the coward I say you are, you are going to run away. If you are so right, then this is what you should expect ME to be doing. So go ahead, give up. And to think I was in fact tempted to give up, but Mark actually convinced me to continue with this thread. Thanks for your encouragement Mark
:)-->
Can't take the name calling??? Then why don't you call me names? Or better yet, why do you set yourself up for this?? Oh yes, you did call me Satan, didn't you? So you in fact lied when you said you called me no names.
Be seeing you around
:)-->
Edited by CKnapp3Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
Well, if you're not offended then what's the need for the apology? Else I would just assume publicly apologize to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
Steve, no offense taken
:)-->. Besides I guard my heart with the breastplate of righteousness, so I didn't take what you said personally since I believe you didn't mean it to be. You only said that what I was saying would only harden Def, but I also believe God has a tendancy to harden people's hearts too. And perhaps on God's part it's deliberate. In my case it was more an accident.
But believe me, I've dealt with people much worse than Def on the Usenet forums.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You've dealt with much worse than Def???
Sigh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Well, it's been a long day. So good night all.
I see ya on Monday.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I am back from my business trip. I was in Fresno at the Northern California Youth Soccer Annual Meeting where I had a booth promoting my company which sells and distributes athletic uniforms and equipment. Here is a link to my company web site. Garth has worked on it some.
http://dynamoathletic.com/
With regard to the present study of aion and aionios, here is an additional study. The web site link is at the end.
Have a Pattern of Sound Words
Concerning Aion and Aionios
by Dean Hough
The most commonly used Greek-English lexicons used today by Christians are those by Thayer (1886) and by Arndt and Gingrich (1957). The definitions given for the noun, aion, and the adjective, aionios, are widely accepted as authoritative and determinative for the teaching of everlasting punishment. This becomes for many believers a strong bulwark against taking scriptural passages such as John 12:32; Romans 5:18,19; 11:32-36; 1 Corinthians 15:22-28; 2 Corinthians 5:14; Ephesians 1:10,11; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 1:20; 1 Timothy 2:4; 4:9,10; and 1 John 2:2, at face value. What is claimed for Matthew 25:46 or 2 Thessalonians 1:9, for example, is seen as limiting the meaning of the former passages.
Concerning the noun, aion, however, both lexicons (and all other such works) allow for an interpretation that would harmonize with the teaching of eventual, universal salvation. Thayer's lexicon gives as its first definition of aion the sense of "age." This is the second definition (of four) given in the more recent lexicon edited by Arndt and Gingrich. Hence a passage such as Matthew 12:32 could be understood as referring to the present age and the age to come, which would not, in itself, keep us from taking Romans 3:21-24 and 5:12-19 in reference to universal justification.
But in both of these lexicons, the adjective, aionios, is presented as having three meanings, in none of which the limiting sense of "age" is carried over from the noun. The adjective, it is claimed, means: (1) without beginning; or (2) without end; or (3) without beginning or end.
This may strike others, as it does me, as a rather dubious development of an adjective's meaning in relation to its noun form. But apart from that, this threefold definition simply does not work in several New Testament passages (and many other passages in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint).
The usages of aionios in Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; and Philemon 15, seem especially puzzling in view of the claims of these two lexicons.
It certainly is difficult to understand how the keeping of a secret can have no beginning, and indeed if the secret is revealed, we must assume its being kept as a secret has come to an end. No wonder the KJV of Romans 16:25 reads "since the world began," even though the Greek speaks of "times" described as aionios. The RV is more faithful to the threefold definition, referring to a mystery kept "through times eternal" but now manifested, but that has the great disadvantage of making no sense whatever if these times are to be understood as either without beginning or without end, or, even more puzzling, without beginning and end.
In such cases, Bible commentators generally ignore the threefold definition given in the lexicons and make their own for these particular passages. In the NICNT volume on Romans, John Murray explains that "times eternal" refers "to the earlier ages of this world's history" (THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, vol.2, p.241). Such ages would obviously have both a beginning and end.
Notice how A. T. Robertson handles the adjective in his WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. In commenting on Matthew 25:46 he follows the threefold definition given above, writing: "The word aionios . . . means either without beginning or without end or both" (vol.1, p.202). But in commenting on Titus 1:2 he insists that the words "before times eternal" refer "Not to God's purpose before time began . . . but to definite promises (Rom.9:4) made in time." Here he explains Paul's words as signifying "Long ages ago" (vol.4, p.597). Some other commentators may try to explain that Paul is referring to something that God promised in "eternity past" but for most of us it does seem difficult to grasp any meaning in the idea of a promise being made and kept without any beginning of its being made.
In the multivolume THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (begun in German under the editorship of Gerhard Kittel) Hermann Sasse admits, "The concept of eternity [in aionios] is weakened" in Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2 (vol.1. p.209). He explains that these passages use "the eternity formulae" which he had previously explained as "the course of the world" perceived as "a series of smaller aiones" (p.203). Sasse also refers to the use of aionios in Philemon 15, which he feels "reminds us of the non-biblical usage" of this word, which he had earlier found to signify "lifelong" or "enduring" (p.208).
This is not to suggest any particular agreement with all these various attempts to define aion and aionios. In fact, the confusion created by these attempts to preserve some sense of everlastingness in these terms makes the attempts rather suspicious. Putting all the evidence of the usage of these terms in the New Testament together, it seems to me that the threefold definition of aionios as signifying without beginning, or without end, or without begining and end, must be dismissed as inadequate at the very least. Furthermore, to add further definitions that are not at all clear in themselves, as Sasse does, only adds to the confusion.
Of all widely used, modern attempts to define these terms, I have found the concluding definition given in THE VOCABULARY OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT (edited by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan) most helpful. Concerning ai?s we read, "In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view . . . (p.16). If the horizon of the extermination spoken of by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is simply not in view, then we can see that what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:22 can truly occur. The same all who are dying in Adam, which includes some who incur eonian extermination, can indeed eventually be vivified in Christ. The Bible, in fact, does not speak of judgment and condemnation, death and destruction, hades and Gehenna, or any of these serious consequences of sin, as unending. It may refer to them as not having the end in view, but none of these fearful works of God can keep Him from achieving His will (1Tim.2:4); reconciling all through the blood of Christ's cross (Col.1:20, and becoming All in all (1 Cor.15:28).
http://www.saviour-of-all.org/aion.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Here is another study. Again the link is at the end.
AION AND AIONIOS
Let us next consider the true meaning of the words "aion" and aionios.*1 These are the originals of the terms rendered by our translators "everlasting," "for ever and ever:" and on this translations, so misleading, a vast portion of the popular dogma of endless torment is built up. I say, without hesitation, misleading and incorrect; for aion means "an age," a limited period, whether long or short, though often of indefinite length; and the adjective aionios means "of the age," "age-long," "aeonian," and never "everlasting" (of its own proper force), it is true that it may be applied as an epithet to things that rae endless, but the idea of endlessness in all such cases comes not from the epithet, but only because it is inherent in the object to which the epithet is applied, as in the case of God. Much has been written on the import of the aeonian (eternal) life. Altogether to exclude, (with MAURICE) the notion of time seems impracticable, and opposed to the general usage of the New Testament (and of the Septuagint). But while this is so, we may fully recognise that the phrase "eternal life" (aeonian life) does at times pass into a region above time, a region wholly moral and spiritual. Thus, in S. John, the aeonian life (eternal life), of which he speaks, is a life not measured by duration, but a life in the unseen, life in God. Thus, e.g., God's commandment is life eternal. -- John 12:50. To know Him is life eternal, -- John. 17:3, and Christ is the eternal life. -- I John 1:2; 5:20. Admitting, then, the usual reference of aionios to time, we note in the word a tendency to rise above this idea, to denote quality, rather than quantity, to indicate the true, the spiritual, in opposition to the unreal, or the earthly. In this sense the eternal is now and here. Thus "eternal" punishment is one thing, and "everlasting" punishment a very different thing, and so it is that our Revisers have substituted for "everlasting" the word "eternal" in every passage in the New Testament, where aionios is the original word. Further, if we take the term strictly, eternal punishment is impossible, for the "eternal" in strictness has no beginning.
Again, a point of great importance is this, that it would have been impossible for the Jews, as it is impossible for us, to accept Christ, except by assigning a limited -- nay, a very limited duration -- to those Mosaic ordinances which were said in the Old Testament to be "for ever," to be "everlasting" (aeonian). Every line of the New Testament, nay, the very existence of Christianity is thus in fact a proof of the limited sense of aionios in Scripture. Our Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, our Holy Communion, every prayer uttered in a Christian Church, or in our homes, in the name of the Lord Jesus: our hopes of being "for ever with the Lord" -- these contain one and all in an affirmation most real, though tacit, of the temporary sense of aionios.
As a further illustration of the meaning of aion and aionios, let me point out that in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint)--in common use among the Jews in Our Lord's time, from which He and the Apostles usually quoted, and whose authority, therefore, should be decisive on this point -- these terms are repeatedly applied to things that have long ceased to exist. Thus the AARONIC priesthood is said to be "everlasting," Num. 25:13. The land of Canaan is given as an "everlasting" possession, and "for ever," Gen. 17:8, and 13:15. In Deut. 23:3, "for ever" is distinctly made an equivalent to "even to the tenth generation." In Lam. 5:19, "for ever and ever" is the equivalent of from "generation to generation." The inhabitants of Palestine are to be bondsmen "for ever," Lev. 25:46. In Num. 18:19, the heave offerings of the holy things are a covenant "for ever." CALEB obtains his inheritance "for ever," Josh. 14:9. And DAVID'S seed is to endure "for ever," his throne "for ever," his house "for ever;" nay, the passover is to endure "for ever;" and in Isaiah 32:14, the forts and towers shall be "dens for ever, until the spirit be poured upon us." So in Jude 7, Sodom and Gomorrah are said to be suffering the vengeance of eternal (aeonian) fire, i.e., their temporal overthrow by fire, for they have a definite promise of final restoration. -- Ez. 16:55.
And Christ's kingdom is to last "for ever," yet we are distinctly told that this very kingdom is to end. -- I Cor. 15:24. Indeed, quotation might be added to quotation, both from the Bible and from early*2 authors, to prove this limited meaning of aion and its derivatives; but enough has probably been said to prove that it is wholly impossible, and indeed absurd, to contend that any idea of endless duration is necessarily or commonly implied by either aion or aionios.
Further, if this translation of aionios as "eternal," in the sense of endless, be correct, aion must mean eternity, i.e., endless duration. But so to render it would reduce Scripture to an absurdity. In the first place, you would have over and over again to talk of the "eternities." We can comprehend what "eternity" is, but what are the "eternities?" You cannot have more than one eternity.
Let me state the dilemma clearly. Aion either means endless duration as its necessary, or at least its ordinary significance, or it does not. If it does, the following difficulties at once arise;
1 -- How, if it mean an endless period, can aion have a plural?
2 -- How came such phrases to be used as those repeatedly occurring in Scripture, where aion is added to aion, if aion is of itself infinite?
3 -- How come such phrases as for the "aion" or aions and BEYOND? -- ton aiona kai ep aiona kai eti: eis tous aionas kai eti. -- See (Sept.) Ex. 15:18; Dan. 12:3; Micah 4:5.
4 -- How is it that we repeatedly read of the end of the aion? -- Matt. 13:39,40,49; 24:3; 28:20; I Cor. 10:11; Heb. 9:26.
5 -- Finally, if aion be infinite, why is it applied over and over to what is strictly finite? e.g., Mark 4:19; Acts 3:21; Rom. 12:2; I Cor. 1:20, 2:20, 2:6, 3:18, 10:11, etc. But if an aion be not definite, what right have we to render the adjective aionios (which depends for its meaning on aion) by the terms "eternal" (when used as the equivalent of "endless") and "everlasting?"
Indeed our translators have really done further hurt to those who can only read their English Bible. They have, wholly obscured a very important doctrine, that of "the ages." This when fully understood throws a flood of light on the plan of redemption, and the method of the divine working.
In these repeated instances [of the different combinations of the terms aion and aionios in the Greek] there must be some definite purpose in the use of these peculiar terms; and we must deeply regret the unfairness and inconsistency which in the case of aion mars and renders unfair our versions. Thus it would be interesting to ask on what principle our Revisers have in one brief epistle employed FIVE different words (or phrases) to translate this one word, aion, e.g., Eph. i. 21; ii. 2,7; iii. 11, 21, e.g., "world," "course," "age," "eternal," "for ever." Such are the devious ways of our teachers, and our translators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*1"The word by itself, whether adjective or substantive, never means endless." -- Canon FARRAR.
"The conception of eternity, in the Semitic languages, is that of a long duration and series of ages." -- Rev J. S. BLUNT -- Dictionary of Theology.
"'Tis notoriously known," says Bishop Rust, "that the Jews, whether writing in Hebrew or Greek, do by olam (the Hebrew word corresponding to aion), and aion mean any remarkable period and duration, whether it be of life, or dispensation, or polity." "The word aion is never used in Scripture, or anywhere else, in the sense of endlessness (vulgarly called eternity, it always meant, both in Scripture and out, a period of time; else how could it have a plural -- how could you talk of the aeons and aeons of aeons as the Scripture does? -- C. KINGSLEY.
So the secular games, celebrated every century were called "eternal" by the Greeks. -- See HUET, Orig. ii. pg. 162.
*2Thus JOSEPHUS calls "aeonian," the temple of Herod, which was actually destroyed when he wrote. PHILO never uses aionios of endless duration.
http://www.heavendwellers.com/aion_and_aionios.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Nice long post mark.
Interesting thesis.
The more I study, the more I see that God has places of judgment, separation and condemnation for those who reject him. And the reason these places exist, is that since he is a just and holy God, sin can have no place in the future kingdom.
We can call it the grave (sheol), but we all will go there unless Christ comes back in our lifetime.
The Bible talks about Gehenna, the chaff and tares being tossed into the fire. Figures of speech to be sure, but the message is there.
And what of the verses referring to Soddom and Gomorrah? Their destruction is an example of eternal destruction.
Mark, for your position to be right, that means that translators for thousands of years have part of some vast conspiracy.
That the church must have fallen into some form of apostasy for 1900 years and then lo and behold, someone gets a message, and voila! Truth is rediscovered.
Sounds like: Mormonism, JW's TWI Worldwide Church of God Moon, Scientology and other groups.
I will continue my research.
P.S. Words are not always an either/or matter.
Figures of speech, context and other factors can give words many meanings. In my Vines, there are 10 meanings for the word fire. Ten. Some of a good nature others of condemnation and judgement.
Context.
And we can also go around on Jesus and the trinity again. That plays a big role in this too, I'll bet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Def, I would rather look at the evidence. Wouldn't you? Besides with your conspiracy theory, you may be igoring much spiritual darkness during the middle ages. Or are you in favor of bringing back indulgences in order to get to heaven? Or should we start another crusade and kill a bunch of non-believers in the name of Christ? Are you now implying that the King James Version is a perfect version of God's Word? I think we better instead return to biblical work.
And one more thing. I offer no new light on this subject. I am just one taking the time to read and then explain what is already written in the various biblical texts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
def59 - You wrote,
Something like that DID happen, but not quite the way you propose.
From about 300 BC to about AD 200, the Stoic cosmology was dominant in the Graeco-Roman world. Platonism was there, but it wasn't dominant. There were a number of catastrophes that befell the Roman empire in the 2nd/3rd centuries, and as a result, more and more people turned to neo-Platonism, until that cosmology came to dominate.
The cosmology of the Old Testament and the Stoic cosmology did not teach natural immortality of the soul. To them, dead was dead. You weren't hanging around anywhere before you were born, and you don't go anywhere after you die. You just cease to exist. That's why the resurrection was such a big deal to believers of the first and second centuries.
The Platonic and neo-Platonic view was that the soul is natually immortal in and of itself, with no beginning and no end.
The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection, but their views were influenced by Platonism.
When Constantine had the bishops formulate an official version of Christianity, most of them were neo-Platonists. And they interpreted the words of the Bible through neo-Platonic lenses, substituting neo-Platonic concepts for the original meanings of many terms.
The doctrine of the Trinity really does make sense, viewed in terms of 4th century neo-Platonism. Unfortuantely neither Paul, nor we ourselves, are 4th century neo-Platonists.
When the punitive power of the state was turned to the task of enforcing orthodoxy, the formal neo-Platonic interpretation became set in cement. Not even the Reformers were able to recognize and break free from their neo-Platonic viewpoint. People were not politically free to consider other, perhaps more accurate, interpretations of the Scripture until the 1700s.
The idea that people are not naturally immortal, while fairly recent in the long view, is not what we would consider a brand new idea. Without doing any intense reseach, I'd say its probably been around as long as Biblical Unitarianism. That would be what, 150-200 years?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I have asked some biblical scholars to give me a take on this issue, so I won't be back until I hear from them.
God Bless
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
So Def, do you really know some biblical scholars? In my thinking, I would have to associate a New Testament biblical scholar with someone that knows New Testament Koine Greek. Although I am sure there are good bible teachers that don't know Greek.
If you know someone ask them about Greek words Aion, Strong's #165 and Aionios, Strong's #166. The usages for 165 indicate that this word means "age". As I have previously noted a number of these usages clearly show this word to indicate a long period of time with both a beginning and an ending. It also talks about future ages and in the book of Revelation gives usages translated "ever (aion) and ever (aion)". This I would think means "age and age" because how can you have two eternities? Isn't one eternity sufficient? This would also indicate to me that there is more than one age. One writer that I have quoted from noted five distinct ages. "Ever and ever" from the book of Revelation or "age and age" can also indicate both the 1000 year millenial kingdom age and the final age of the New Heaven and earth.
With regard to the Greek word Aionios, Strong's number 166, the usages are not quite as clear. However, many people say that Aionios is simply the adjective form of the noun Aioon. In this case if Aion means age, then Aionios would mean agelasting or age-abiding. In looking at the usages I can see this to be a strong possibility. However, it would be nice to get the opinion of someone that knows biblical Koine Greek.
Thanks again for starting this thread and happy hunting.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Hello all
Since I've gotten into this topic I have learned much. I decided to go back to some earlier posts and see if I really understood what some of you were saying.
First CK, I owe you an apology. I must have skimmed over the part of your first post that said b-u's did believe the wicked will be judged. That's not what I thought you said, so I am sorry.
It seems that how long that judgment will last is the sticking point. All the bibles and scholars I have read say for ever or everalsting which does not suggest an end. There may be one — any is possible with God — but I don't see it yet.
I am still waiting for my sources to come back with their findings.
Sunesis
I agree with you in priniciple that everyone will live eternally, just not in the same place. We know that the place the wicked go is called a place of tormnent, a fiery furnace, a place of blacket darkness.
Just who are the wicked? God and Jesus know and they will deal with them.
I believe that Christ died for the uttermost, and that he died once for all (mankind).
The verse about God wants all men to be saved is interpreted as Jesus by some scholars, if so, the father may have other things in mind.
And God does call us to be holy for a reason. There are warnings about taking license with grace and our salvation. There are warnings about taking the mark of the beast and worshiping him. There has to be a reason.
Satan will not win, he has already lost. If any go to hell, it is a mark on the believer who did nothing to snatch them from the fire.
As for doctrines of the early church, maybe you should check your sources, John was given the revelation about the end times in the first century.
Sunesis, you said, "I find it much easier to be loving to people, knowing, whether born again or not, that God loves them and they will be with him someday. Maybe not with the same spiritual bodies we have - maybe in a different way, but, Christ died for them too."
Why is that? If you are a follower of Jesus, you have God's love inside you and it should manifest itself to others anyway. It seems to be an excuse to not love someone knowing they are going to be in heaven anyway.
Yes, Christ died for everyone, but what does that do make you want to share the good news?
Mark S.
You made a big deal about Paul's conversion. What does that prove. God chose Paul for a mission and knew what he wanted him to do. God's Omniscience plays a role here.
Other killers have been recipients of God's grace through the centuries.
Cain — who was not struck down
Moses — who led Israel
David — who was allowed to be King.
All had a heart for God and God used them for His purposes.
There is no evidence for the second resurrection salvation. John talks of a Book of Life and Death and those in the former escape the second death, but those in the latter do not.
Surrender then may not be good enough.
CK
Purgatory is not a biblical doctrine. That's what's wrong with it.
I agree with every part of your emphasis. There was no need to yell.
Salvation is a gift. The giver offers it to all. But not all take it, because it is not shoved down their throats. God wants a relationship with His people, not robots. If that was the case, he could have created us that way.
Even the angels were given a choice.
CK youy said: "It is also written that God will do EVERYTHING according to the counsel of HIS WILL.
If anyone is going to "hell", then it was God's will all along, which is the official belief of Calvinism. Then God lied because he falsely testified that he wills all men to be saved, only to send a majority of them to hell instead.
I think the verse says "wants" there's a big difference between will and want.
Who says a majority will be condemned? God's promise to Abraham is that his descendants will be as the sand of the sea. Who can count that but God?
The Bible is clear that God elects, that He favors some and hates others. Who are you to disagree with Him?
CK youy said: "NOBODY has ever rejected Christ by his so-called own free will. Men are nothing but decandent sinners by nature, and without the grace of God he is just plain totally depraved!!!!!"
Oh, oh, sounds like Calvinism to me. But Arminians believe much of this too.
Ck You said: "We were born in sin!!!!!! We didn't choose to sin, contrary to popular belief.
No disagreement here.
Ck You said: Now this is God's ballgame and plan. If God wills Adolf Hitler to be saved, then HE WILL BE SAVED!!!!! PERIOD!!!!! Will Hitler have to give account for what he did? ABSOLUTELY!!!!
The key is if.
Ck you said: "So God wills all men to be saved, but it just isn't going to happen because men's free will rejects salvation you say. What?? Is God powerless, so weak in fact that man's free will is mightier??? Also who is The Soverign? Man or God????
You know I have a problem with some of this free-will nonsense as well. Taken to its extreme it cuts down on God's authority.
I believe God is Sovereign.
CK you said: "People that oppose universal salvation are just arguing their own interpretation of the bible anyway."
Well, Chuck, so are you.
CK you said; "Ok, "Chuck, what do you think you are doing?" At least my interpretation puts God in a positive light, all merciful, all loving, and all powerful, and has made it clear that his will is going to be done! The interpretation of others demeans God, and puts man up as a soverign.
I guess if I made myself sovereign like most men have done, I too would think God will only save a few."
I believe in all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God too. I place Him in control, not man, not Satan.
But I don't believe only a few will be saved. I believe many will be.
CK You said: And if Hitler is not going to be saved, then what assurance do you have that you will be?? Because you "accepted Jesus"? Jesus himself said that "not everyone who calls me Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he WHO DOES MY FATHER'S WILL"
And Hitler did the father's will?'
CK: And what IS the father's will? If God wills all men to be saved, then your calling is to preach the GOSPEL (which means GOOD NEWS) all of mankind. Most preachers preach admonishments of fate, and such a fate is beyond reality (burn forever in hell????), not to mention fairness.
Who said God was fair? That's man's perspective. God is just and justice and fairness are not synonomous.
"Hey, doesn't the world already oppress you???? Why be like the world? The bible says we should not be conformed to this world, be transformed by the renewing of our minds, that we may PROVE what is acceptable to God. Yet most Christians are conformed to this world, and they are too oblivious too see that fact."
Agreed, but how does that support your point?
"If I tell someone his sins have been forgiven, and that he is saved, and he scoffs at me, what makes you people think he's going to listen to you when you threaten unreal fates like burn forever in hell???"
First, why would he scoff at you unless he could not see that he was a sinner? If he rejects your gospel, what hope is there for him.
Your gospel has many adherents in non-Christian circles. Circles that hate Christ.
But I do agree some people are so damned depraved that this is the only way they can see God's goodness, is to contrast it by the worst thing IMAGINABLE (yes, burn forever in hell is definitely the worst thing IMAGINABLE, but it doesn't make it real however!). But I prefer not to be taught by people who are clearly depraved.
Who are you to judge?
There is a consequence for unbelief, do you want people you to suffer those consequences? If not, you better pray for their souls.
Def, you talk about Jesus knowing his sheep. For one thing, I don't think everyone will inherit The Kingdom of Heaven, which is what you are equating living in paradise with.
CK, we could go round and round on the paradise/heaven debate.
That is incorrect thinking. You can still live in paradise and not inherit The Kingdom.
Where do you get that from?
You also probably want to quote verses that talk about people being cast into outer darkness, where's there's weeping and gnashing of teeth. Be it known, that this is a warning TO THE CHURCH, NOT THE WORLD!!!!!!
Not true, the wicked will be thrown into the fire. That includes false teachers, but it also includes those who fought against God and the church.
The people in question were those who were appointed to carry out a mission of proclaiming the ministry of reconciliation and instead of performing the tasks that they should have, they deviated from it instead.
You people who are looking forward to rewards, take heed, you might come up empty handed. But be of good cheer nonetheless, for you will still get to live in paradise.
Nice picture, totally unsupportable, but nice nonetheless. Have you talked to Oprah lately?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
Def,
I'm not going to continue this charade with you. You are bent on the idea that there is an endless hell and many are going to it. Tell me, are you glad there is a hell? NO? Then why aren't you blasphemeing the God who you believe created it? You want your enemies in hell? NO? Then when you're enemies are in hell, why aren't you criticizing God for sending them there?
You ask me who I am to disagree with God. When God says he wills all men to be saved, are you saying I disagree with that? And yes, will and want are synoymous, also with desire as well. And God gets what God wants, wills or desires. I disagree with YOUR God, yes. YOUR God doesn't love everybody. My step-brother, who is mentally retarded has more love than YOUR God. Is he wrong??? Are you saying that he only does so because he's handicapped??? WE should be so handicapped!!!!!!!
You question me about Hilter not doing God's will. How do you figure??? Did it ever occur to you that God used Hitler to stage the holocaust against the Jews because they have turned their backs of God one more time, like they have done often throughout history? True, Hitler will not inherit The Kingdom, I agree with you there. But Hitler will live in paradise. And so are you in spite of the fact that you are not doing God's will yourself. And furthermore, should you inherit The Kingdom, who/what do you expect your subjects to be????? Worms?????
What???? You want to charge me with not doing God's will? How do you figure??? But if I don't do God's will, I'm going to be just like you, not inheriting the kingdom. But I'm not too concerned about that anyway (read my signature
;)--> ). I'm not motivated by any rewards to do what I do. I don't preach universal salvation to get some kind of favor from my God.
You say universal salvation just gives people a cheap excuse to sin???? Sinners can find an excuse to sin under ANY belief system. So what's YOUR excuse for sin??? Seems like in spite of your rejection of universal salvation, you still sin like a truck driver. I say your belief system encourages sin more than mine does. Without hell, there's no fear of death, and without fear of death, criminals would have a hard time doing their evil deeds. Think about it! A robber for instance trusts in his victim's fear of death to comply with his commands. Just think of what would happen if I were to hold somebody up at gunpoint and demand their money, only for that person to be unafraid and may even tell me to go ahead and shoot. I would be befuddled.
Def, I do understand your rejection of universal salvation though. 30 years ago, if you would have told me my enemies were going to be saved in spite of themselves, I would have been deeply offended. I wanted to see my enemies get the worst things that could happen, including eternal torment! But what I didn't realize is that I'm going to be subject to the same judgements that I have judged my enemies. You must think you have some sort of secure shield protecting you, so you think it's safe to spew out that evil poison that you spit. If you don't repent of your eternal torment teachings and beliefs, theoretically you could find yourself facing the very same fate that you have warned your enemies of.
You say that purgatory is not a biblical doctrine? What do you think the lake of fire is? The same lake of fire that YOU are going to! Mark S. has shown you that the Greek words that translate fire and brimstone mean exactly the purifying presence of God. Why are you oblivious to that? What??? You're not going to the lake of fire??? Then you can forget about meeting God or Jesus for that matter. In fact, theoretically you will be in the absence of God (notice I said THEORETICALLY? God is omnipresent, so you are NEVER going to be in His absence). Without going to the lake of fire, you will be in fact cast into the outer darkness.
You say my gospel has many adherents in non-Christian circles, ones that actually hate Christ. Give me a case in point. Besides, I say that YOU hate Christ in spite of what you would like people to believe contrawise. I have shared Christ with you and you rejected it, so tell me more. You haven't shared Christ with anyone, you only told them what Jesus COULD do for them. THAT is NOT the Gospel!!!
Perhaps it's not time for you to know the deeply spirtual things of God, so you are blind to these tremendous truths. This is all I'm going to say on this matter to you Def, as you no doubt want to keep this charade going. And you were not being honest with me because you said you were not going to address me anymore since I "don't play nice".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Well, here is my first reply from Mark Fairchild, Ph.D., professor of Bible and Religion at Huntington College in Indiana,
"Words have various meanings in various contexts. This is true for all
languages (modern and ancient). E.g. the word "star" can be a reference
to a star on a well written paper, or "star" can be a reference to an astronomical body, or "star" can be a reference to a sports figure or a movie "star."Â In interpreting the Scriptures, one has to find the particular meaning for a given Biblical text.
"Aion" can be taken in many ways.
1) a lifetime
2) an age or generation
3) destiny
4) a long space of time
5) forever
6) a designated space of time
7) a supernatural being
To apply this to your question, I do not think that the Scriptures are teaching universalism (that people are punished for a designated period of time (#6 above). Rather, I think that the context indicates eternal punishment.
What do you think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
Def sure isn't happy unless he has the last word on everything. It it plain and manifest that Def is motivated by fear rather than love, and he tries to drag others into his private hell. This is why I get steamed. I'm thinking of hapless souls who could be wrongfully agonized by people like Def.
If I were to beat Def with a baseball bat, he is so sick and depraved with masochism that he would probably enjoy it. This is why he stirs up the pot of conflict. He is actually looking for a fight, and he loves it when you blast him, so he can say "see, you are angry and IM COOL!" Well believe me, preaching hate is NEVER cool. I believe Def does "turn the other cheek" (in the perverted sense of the term).
Def also says God is not into fairness. Fairness and justice work hand in hand. He might as well teach that when God says he's just, he only lied to you. But then Def's god is a liar anyway. Yes, Def's god IS unfair. So Def speaks truthfully of his god. And of course a man is only as good as the god he worships. Like father, like son! Therefore Def is also unfair. A son NEVER talks back to his father does he? But I will talk back to any god who is NOT MY GOD!!!!! Especially when that same god is nothing but sewage.
Remember, I'm not the one who initiated this thread. DEF IS!!!!! I personally have better things to do than to argue with narrow-minded people, like sharing the healing gospel with people who need it. Def on the other hand has no gospel, so he likes to scorn those who do.
Def is the puke I say he is because he only emulates his god, who is a real puke. Remember, only a sewage god would sentence anyone to eternal torture, and Def has vehemently defended such a god.
Notice that Def indeed has not cast any names at me. He must think he is great stuff for that, or at least wants you to think such, but the truth is there is no name he can call me that will hurt me, because I've spent a great deal of my life being called much more hurtful names than what Def could possibly call me. He laments that I call him names. Why?? Doesn't he stand well before his god?? If he stands well before his god, then what should he care what names I call him??? And he wants favors from his god???? Me? READ MY SIG!!!!!! Salvation is clearly a gift, not a reward. As for rewards, if I get any, fine. If I don't, that's fine too. I didn't get too many rewards in this life, so I'm used to it.
I conclusion, it's clear that Def fails to take heed to his own beliefs. He fails to take heed to the fact that he will face an angry god if he continues to preach one, and he will be too cowardly to talk back to such a god because he has confessed that he is nobody to talk back to his god. The bible is full of stories of prophets who fought God. I believe Jacob did, AND EVEN WON!!!!!
If God refuses to save all, then he has lost my respect, for he in fact lied when he said "I will all men to be saved".* If God cannot save all, then who is he to hold me accountable??? For he HAS NO POWER!!!!!!!
* According to VPW, et al., if one part of the bible is a lie, it's ALL A LIE!!!!! And to think I was criticized for calling the bible a bunch of B.S. last year????? I think the records speak for themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
It’s probably getting about time to put CKnapp back in his cyber-cage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
Spoken like a true cynic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Which would be worse for non-Christians to suffer temporary torment and then be forced to bend the knee and then spend eternity with a God you have lived your life denying and rebelling against or to be separated from Him for eternity knowing that's how you lived life here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.