THE FALSE TEACHINGS OF UNIVERSALISM - BEWARE!

ClementofA said:

The author of BDAG provides no argument, proof or explanation why he classified aionios in Matthew 25:46 under "a period of unending duration, without end". His first definition of aionios is "pert. to a long period of time". Why didn't he classify aionios in Matthew 25:46 under that definition? He doesn't say.

If early church universalists and Early Church Father universalist Greek scholars agreed with BDAG re Matthew 25:46 would they have been universalists? Evidently they do not agree with BDAG re aionios in Matthew 25:46. Unlike the author of BDAG, many of them were native born Koine Greek speakers in a Koine Greek speaking society. Some were also Koine Greek scholars. Yet BDAG's author thinks he knows better than them who were within a few hundreds years of Christ's death?

Furthermore, why does BDAG ignore their writings as well as all of the following examples of how aionios was used in ancient Koine Greek:

Two Questions

What were the theological biases of the author of BDAG? Did his biases influence him to leave out all of those uses of aionios? Or was he ignorant of them? Was he influenced to follow blindly the conclusions of his predecessors? Or to follow the opinions that would lead to selling more copies of his book? What - spirit - was controlling this man?

Why did the author of BDAG also reject the conclusions of many other modern scholars such as Moulton & Milligan who state: "In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view, whether the horizon be at an infinite distance...or whether it lies no farther than the span of a Cæsar’s life."


Matthew 25:46 paralllel argument with Rom 5 19:
Universalist Understanding?

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

What is BDAG? Your infallible pope?


AIONION:

Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon gives "lasting for an age" as its first definition:
Strong's #166 - αἰώνιος - Old & New Testament Greek Lexicon

Moulton & Milligan state "In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view, whether the horizon be at an infinite distance...or whether it lies no farther than the span of a Cæsar’s life."
Strong's #166 - αἰώνιος - Old & New Testament Greek Lexicon

"No matter how widely accepted a lexicon is, to uncritically accept whatever it says without question is only to perpetuate the errors of those who contributed to it if they have (whether unintentionally or because of theological bias) made any.

Now, since the New Testament was not written by Greeks but by Hebrew men using the Greek language, shouldn’t we expect the idioms and word-meanings found in the NT to be, in general, derived not from secular Greek literature, but rather from the Old Testament Scriptures? While I’m certainly not suggesting that 1st century secular Greek works should be disregarded as irrelevant, shouldn’t the LXX be considered more appropriate and useful in determining the meaning(s) that Christ and the authors of the NT (who, of course, were Jewish) would have ascribed to the words aion and aionios rather than, say, the works of a 4th century BC Classical Greek philosopher? I mean, assuming there was such a thing in existence in the 1st century as the Hebrew Bible translated into Koine Greek, shouldn’t it be one of the primary sources to which one should refer when trying to ascertain what a 1st century Jew most likely meant when he used the words aion and aionios in a work written in Koine Greek? Or am I missing something?

As far as the definitions of aionios provided by BDAG, I think the first definition given (“pertaining to a long period of time” that is past) could apply to the word as it appears in the LXX in a number of places (e.g., Job 22:15; Ps 24:7; Ps 24:9; Ps 77:5; Pro 22:28; Pro 23:10; Isa 58:12; Isa 61:4; Isa 63:11; Jer 6:16; Jer 18:15; Eze 26:20; Eze 36:2; Hab 3:6). But I wonder what definition of aionios BDAG would consider most appropriate when a time of limited future duration is in view? Because the LXX abounds with such examples (e.g., Gen 17:7; Gen 17:8; Gen 17:13; Gen 17:19; Gen 48:4; Ex 12:14; Ex 12:17; Ex 27:21; Ex 28:43; Ex 29:28; Ex 30:21; Ex 31:16; Ex 31:17; Lev 6:18; Lev 6:22; Lev 7:34; Lev 7:36; Lev 10:9; Lev 10:15; Lev 16:29; Lev 16:31; Lev 16:34; Lev 17:7; Lev 23:14; Lev 23:21; Lev 23:31; Lev 23:41; Lev 24:3; Lev 24:8; Lev 24:9; Lev 25:34; Num 10:8; Num 15:15; Num 18:8; Num 18:11; Num 18:19; Num 18:23; Num 19:10; Num 19:21; Num 25:13; 1Ch 16:17; Job 3:18; Job 10:22; Job 21:11; Job 41:4; Ps 76:4; Ps 78:66; Ps 105:10; Isa 24:5; Isa 55:13; Isa 60:15; Jer 5:22; Jer 18:16; Jer 20:17; Jer 23:40; Jer 25:9; Jer 25:12; Jer 51:39; Eze 35:5; Eze 35:9; Jon 2:6; Mic 2:9).

While some might see the remaining occurrences of aionios in the LXX as falling under the last two definitions provided by BDAG (e.g., Gen 9:12; Gen 9:16; Gen 21:33; Ex 3:15; 2Sa 23:5; Job 33:12; Job 34:17; Ps 112:6; Ps 139:24; Isa 26:4; Isa 33:14; Isa 35:10; Isa 40:28; Isa 45:17; Isa 51:11; Isa 54:4; Isa 54:8; Isa 55:3; Isa 56:5; Isa 60:19; Isa 60:20; Isa 61:7-8; Isa 63:12; Jer 31:3; Jer 32:40; Jer 50:5; Eze 16:60; Eze 37:26; Dan 4:3; Dan 4:34; Dan 7:14; Dan 7:27; Dan 9:24; Dan 12:2), I think even these examples can be understood as referring to temporary duration rather than endless duration in an absolute sense. At any rate, most would agree that, while long and indefinite duration is most likely in view in the former examples, endless duration in an absolute sense is not. So I’m not sure why we can’t understand aionios in Matt 25:46 (for example) to have the same or similar meaning as it has in the LXX translation of Num 25:13 or Jer 25:9.

I like the concluding definition for aionios found in The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (edited by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan): “In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view, whether the horizon be at an infinite distance, or whether it lies no farther than the span of a Caesar’s life.” That is, the word stands for a “hidden” and indefinite duration of time, whether past or future. This seems to be the meaning of olam in the Hebrew Bible, and since aion and aionion seem to have been employed by the inspired writers of the NT as the Greek equivalents of this single Hebrew word, this definition would be most consistent. And as it seems likely that Jesus would’ve spoken Hebrew or Aramaic (at least, when he was speaking to his disciples, like in Matt 25:46), the word he would have used would have either been olam or alam."

BDAG on aionios

Could most modern translations be in error?

Most Bible translations (=opinions of Scripture) be in error? (Micah, traditions, Gospels) - Christianity - - City-Data Forum

the finiteness of "eternal life" (aionon zoe) in John?

Therefore why - blindly - believe BDAG's reason-less conclusions. Yet many do. And then regurgitate them as if they are gospel.

Many scholars disagree with BDAG on many points, including those related to aionion. So why trust in one guy's (Danker of BDAG) opinion over all the rest?

In some cases BDAG is opposed by the vast majority of other scholars.

For the aionion entry, for example, why did BDAG leave out dozens of usages of the word where it refers to a finite duration, which i give here:

Dozens of examples of aionios as a finite duration in Koine Greek:

Two Questions
Does aionios always mean eternal in ancient Koine Greek? (paradise, Gospel, hell) - Christianity - - City-Data Forum
Who Goes To Hell?

If Jesus wished to express endless punishment, then He would have used expressions such as "endless", "no end" & "never be saved" as per:

How Scripture expresses endless duration (not aion/ios) (paradise, hell, punishment) - Christianity - - City-Data Forum

Jesus didn't use the best words & expressions to describe endlessness in regards to punishment, because He didn't believe in endless punishment.

ENDLESSNESS not applied to eschatological PUNISHMENT in Scripture:

could an 'eternal punishment' simply mean that once instituted it will not change?

12 points re forever and ever (literally to/into "the ages of the ages") being finite:

For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

The 2 lexicon definitions of aionion i gave are not the same as BDAG, so they are different, hence my remark re disagreement:

Some other lexicons & scholars disagree with BDAG. For example:

Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon gives "lasting for an age" as its first definition:
Strong's #166 - αἰώνιος - Old & New Testament Greek Lexicon

Moulton & Milligan state "In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view, whether the horizon be at an infinite distance...or whether it lies no farther than the span of a Cæsar’s life."
Strong's #166 - αἰώνιος - Old & New Testament Greek Lexicon




No lexicon lists every possible entry for aionion in ancient Koine Greek. Their are many, many uses of it in ancient Greek. Lexicons authors are not interested in listing them all. They list a few examples only. That the 2 lexicons i quoted above don't list 2 Thess.1:9 is irrelevant to the definitions they've given. LSJ lists several other NT verses.




Irrelevant. As i stated above.



Nonsense.



Repetitive nonsense already addressed above.



Thayer is outdated & largely useless:

"Several free online tools have linked Strong's Concordance entries to lexicon entries. Unfortunately, most of them use either Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon or Smith's Bible Dictionary for definitions, both of which were published prior to 1895. As I've cautioned about elsewhere, these resources are considered to be obsolete by scholars (and contain much inaccurate information).

"...in 1895, Adolf Deissmann published his Bibelstudien—an innocently titled work that was to revolutionize the study of the NT. In this work (later translated into English under the title Bible Studies) Deissmann showed that the Greek of the NT was not a language invented by the Holy Spirit (Hermann Cremer had called it "Holy Ghost Greek," largely because 10 percent of its vocabulary had no secular parallels). Rather, Deissmann demonstrated that the bulk of NT vocabulary was to be found in the papyri.

"The pragmatic effect of Deissmann's work was to render obsolete virtually all lexica and lexical commentaries written before the turn of the century. (Thayer's lexicon, published in 1886, was outdated shortly after it came off the press—yet, ironically, it is still relied on today by many NT students.)"2

Strong's is a concordance, not a lexicon



You need to learn that Thayer's lexicon is outdated & largely useless, "considered to be obsolete by scholars (and contain much inaccurate information)...yet, ironically, it is still relied on today by many NT students.)" such as yourself above.



LOL! You can say that with a straight face? How can anyone take your theological views seriously.

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

Here ya go:

the finiteness of "eternal life" (aionon zoe) in John?

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

Indeed. Are you planning to ever address this post:



I do, as i have shown you in dozens of posts.

And you have no scripture that teaches that the wicked NEVER receive eternal life after the second coming.



"Vincent's Word Studies
At the name of Jesus (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι)
Rev., better, in the name. The name means here the personal name; but as including all that is involved in the name. See on Matthew 28:19. Hence the salutation is not at the name of Jesus, as by bowing when the name is uttered, but, as Ellicott rightly says: "the spiritual sphere, the holy element as it were, in which every prayer is to be offered and every knee to bow." Compare Ephesians 5:20." Philippians 2 Commentary - Vincent's Word Studies

"In the NT κάμπτω is found only in combination with γόνυ (γόνατα), and in this connection it is used trans. with γόνυ (γόνατα) as obj. (R. 11:4; Eph. 3:14) and instrans. with γόνυ as subj. (R. 14:11; Phil.2:10)."

"κάμπτειν γόνυ (γόνατα) is the gesture of full inner submission in worship before the one whom we bow the knee. Thus in R. 14:11 bowing the knee is linked with confession within the context of a judgement scene, and in Phil. 2:10 it again accompanies confession with reference to the worship of the exalted Kyrios Jesus by the cosmos. At R. 11:4 κάμπτειν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ signifies surrender to Baal, and at Eph. 3:14...is a solemn description of the attitude of submission to God in prayer" (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Vol.3, p.594-595, Heinrich Schlier, ed. Kittel., Eerdmans, 1978).

"2:10-11 These final verses of the christologial hymn describe the universal homage and acclamation that will be accorded the one whose name ranks above all others...the adoration is in honour of the exalted Christ...the parallel words of v.11b describe explicitly the act of reverence as paid directly to the Son and 'to the glory of God the Father'. It is clear that Jesus is the one being worshipped."

"...'Every knee shall bow'. The universal scope of the adoration offered to Jesus as Lord is described by the words 'every knee shall bow' and 'every tongue confess'. (v.11)...The bending of the knee was an expression denoting great reverence and submission in the OT, especially marking the humble approach of the worshipper who felt his need so keenly that he could not stand upright before God. While the usual position in prayer was that of standing (e.g., Je. 18:20; 1 Ki. 18:15; 17:1, etc), in times of special need or extremity the worshipper fell on his knees (so Ez. 9:5, 15). Likewise in the Gospels people stand to pray (Lk.18:11, 13) and Jesus assumes His disciples will stand (cf. Mt.6:5); but when there is an acute sense of need or urgent entreaty, the supplicant falls down before God. So Jesus in Gethsemane bows down in lowly submission and distress (Mt.26:9; Mk.14:35; Lk.22:41). The bowing of the knee here at Phil. 2:10, as Martin puts it, is 'a mark of extreme abasement and submission (as in Eph. iii.14) and denotes that the universal homage marks the subjection of those who kneel to the lordship of Christ'.47"

"...Is. 45:22-25...The Lord...swears solemnly by his own life that 'every knee will bow before me; by me every tongue will swear'...the words of v.23, which are reiterated in Phil. 2:10-11, express the notion of the universal and final homage to Yahweh.

"...By invoking Is.45:23 as its proof-text the author of the hymn and the...community in which the hymn originated live 'in confident expectation that this salvation will soon be universally visible'.55"

(The New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC): The Epistle to the Phillipians, Peter T. Obrien, 1991, p.233ff)

"bend the knee in worship, LXX Is.45.23, etc.":

https://translate.academic.ru/κάμπτω/el/xx/
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, κάμπτω

"No hypocritical confession will satisfy God. “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost” (1Cor. 12:3). Further, Phil. 2:11 says that the confession is “to the glory of God the Father.” No confession compulsion and force would glorify God the Father.” The whole text implies a real change of heart to make this confession truly “in the Name of Jesus” and “to the glory of God the Father.” Note, further, that those who “bow” and “confess” are in heaven," “in earth,” and “underearth.” This includes the whole creation of God."
Is Hell Eternal? Or Will God's Plan Fail? Ch. 8 The Neglected Age

"Talbot argues Paul anticipated this exhaustive reconciliation because of the verb he chose: confess. According to Talbot, “he chose a verb that throughout the Septuagint implies not only confession, but the offer of praise and thanksgiving as well.”3 He goes on to suggest that, while a king or queen could force a subject to bow against their will, praise and thanksgiving can only come from the heart:

" “either those who bow before Jesus Christ and declare openly that he is Lord do so sincerely and by their own choice or they do not. If they do this sincerely and by their own choice, then there can be but one reason: They too have been reconciled to God.4” "

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are on the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for the eons of the eons.

Isa.45:21b and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth inrighteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Phil.2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (NASB)

"Keep in mind these 2 simple observations:

The text In Isaiah 45:22-23 that inspires 2:9-11 uses the future tense.

(2) The other NT text referring to the worship of everyone “in heaven, on earth, and under the earth” presents a vision of what happens, not of what might happen (Rev. 5:13)."

This includes everyone in the universe, including the dead and demons:

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are on the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

John speaks of "every creature" & to emphasize this again he repeats "and all that are in them":

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are on the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour,
and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

This worship (v.13) uses the same worshipful words as the redeemed of vs 9-10 use in v.12:

12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

All this being in the context of salvation - "the Lamb that was slain" (v.12 & 13).

“How ironic that those who believe God will not violate the ‘free ’will of man have no problem believing He will violate His own free will—that all men should be saved!” - David Nuckols

“He does not save men by arbitrary force. He saves by their wills, through moral influence. God has resources in his universe, the all conquering agencies of love, to make the unwilling soul willing! He has light enough to make the blind see, and love enough to melt the hardened heart.” -Quillen Hamilton Shinn

"It's tempting for me to believe that God is the grand master playing chess and we are the 5 year old rookie. Theoretically we are "free" to win the chess game, it is possible. No not really in the libertarian sense - it is unlikely to the point of virtual zero. in other words, God will always get His way, despite our best efforts not to be saved."

According to the Bible mercy will triumph over judgement.

Love will conquer all.

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

Presemably you think that out of context quote of Luke 13:3 is a "proof text" against universalism.




Nothing in Luke 13:1-5 contradicts universalism, or even makes reference to hell or the afterlife - AT ALL:

Luke 13:1 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had [a]mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

Speaking of the consequences of not repenting as merely perishing by having a tower fall on you is - so lame - if Jesus were a believer in endless punishment. Ooops!



I think it was a superior word to use relative to the ambiguous aion & aionios, if God was a believer in endless punishment. Moreover, as opposed to aion and aionios (which are often used of finite duration), God had a number of other words & expressions available that would also have better served to express endless punishment, if Love Omnipotent were a believer of such. But He never uses such of eschatological punishment. So the reasonable conclusion is that Love Omnipotent rejected using such words and expressions of a final destiny of endless punishment because He knew better & He rejected the notion that anyone will endure endless punishment. Those words & expresssions are:

1. no end (Lk.1:33)...this expression is used of God's kingdom having "no end". It is never used of anyone's torments or punishment. We never read of anyone receiving torments that will have "no end". This unambiguous phrase, "no end", would have been a superior choice to the ambiguous words aion & aionion, if Love Omnipotent had a belief in endless torments or annihilation. But He rejected its use in expressing such a fate.

2. endless (1 Tim.1:4)...Again if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments, why didn't He use this word to express it, instead of the ambiguous aion & aionion, which often refer to finite durations in ancient Greek usage?

3. never (Mt.7:23, etc)...this word appears to occur 16 times in the NT & it seems that it never means anything except "never". It is used of "love never fails" (1 Cor.13:8). It also occurs in Mt.7:23 where Jesus says "I never knew you; depart you from Me, those working lawlessness." Which is such an incredibly lame remark, if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments. If He believed that such an unspeakably horrific final destiny awaits the wicked, including those He was referring to in Mt.7:23, why didn't He make it clear by telling them that they would "never" be saved and/or He would "never" know them? Would that not have been clear & unambiguous, unlike the words He spoke, & unlike the ambiguous aion & aionios, which often refer to finite duration in ancient Koine Greek? OTOH consider re the use of the word "never":

"Philo saith, “The punishment of the wicked person is, ζην αποθανοντα αει, to live for ever dying, and to be for ever in pains, and griefs, and calamities that never cease..." Mark 9 Benson Commentary

Yet Scripture - never - uses such language. Moreover, it speaks of death being abolished, not being "for ever".

4. eternal (Rom.1:16; Jude 1:6)...this word, AIDIOS, is used of God's "eternal" power & "eternal" chains that bind until the day of judgement. It is never used of anyone's final destiny. We never read of anyone being tormented for eternal ages. We never read of anyone suffering eternal (AIDIOS) punishment. If Jude believed in endless punishment, he had the perfect opportunity at Jude 1:6 by simply adding that the angels would suffer the judgement of eternal (AIDIOS) punishment or torments. Instead of warning his readers of such a horrificly monstrous fate, as he should have been morally obligated to do if it were a real possibility, instead he conveys the relatively utterly lame & insignificant info that these angelic beings will be kept in chains until judgement day. OTOH, consider:

"Instead of saying with Philo and Josephus, thanaton athanaton, deathless or immortal death; eirgmon aidion, eternal imprisonment; aidion timorion, eternal torment; and thanaton ateleuteton, interminable death, he [Jesus] used aionion kolasin..." Chapter 3 - Origin of Endless Punishment

"Nyssa defined the vision of God promised there as "life without end, eternal incorruption, undying beatitude [ten ateleuteton zoen, ten aidion aphtharsian , ten athanaton makarioteta]." ("Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in ..." By Jaroslav Pelikan, p.165 @): Christianity and Classical Culture

5. unfading (1 Pet.1:4; 5:4)...Peter uses this word of an endless inheritance reserved in heaven & a crown of glory. It is never used of the endless pain, punishment or torments that anyone will receive. Can it be denied that this would have been a superior word (over aion & aionios) to use to express such a horrific destiny if Love Omnipotent actually had such in store for anyone? Wouldn't He want to express warnings about it in the clearest ways possible?

6. found no place for repentance (Heb.12:17)...is used in Heb.12:17 of the loss of a finite earthly blessing..."he found no place of repentance, although having earnestly sought it with tears". Never is it used regarding those in Gehenna, Hades, the lake of fire, or eschatological punishment. Never do we read of those cast into any "hell" that they will not (or never) find a place of repentance, even though they earnestly seek it with tears. God was quite capable of expressing such in His Holy Scriptures. But rather than give such a warning, as Love Omnipotent should have if such an unbelievably horrific future awaited anyone, instead we are told of the relatively lame loss of a finite earthly blessing. Such a waste of words if endless punishment were really true.

7. In Mt.18:6 is the lame warning of a punishment which is compared to mere drowning, which is nothing compared to being kept alive for the sole purpose of being tortured for all the "endless" ages of eternity that have "no end" & "never" cease. Jesus says it is "better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea". OTOH, if He had been a believer in endless punishment, He could have expressed that by saying it is better for them to have never lived, never been conceived, or that their parents had never known (had sex with) one another. Compare this anti-biblical Jewish view that the Lord Jesus Christ, Love Omnipotent, rejected:

"To every individual is apportioned two shares, one in hell and one in paradise. At death, however, the righteous man's portion in hell is exchanged, so that he has two in heaven, while the reverse is true in the case of sinners (Ḥag. 15a). Hence it would have been better for the latter not to have lived at all (Yeb. 63b)." GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

Really? Did you read all the links i posted & respond to them? No. Here they are:



Why are you ignoring the evidence i posted that they are wrong?

Are you saying the universalist majority in the early church was wrong?

In the early church universalism was the orthodox (biblical) view & may have been the orthodox (majority) view for centuries (see urls below) prior to the dark ages. It may also be today, or be on the way to becoming, the majority Christian view (see urls below):

Early Church Writings Fathers:
Church Fathers & Universalism since Early Church times
Indeed Very Many: Universalism in the Early Church
Early church writings re final destiny (paradise, Gospel, incarnation, Jehovah) - Christianity - - City-Data Forum
Articles on the history of Christian Universalism throughout the centuries
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchablerich/booksonwebsite/©CPC+The+Ancient+History+of+Universalism.pdf



It's irrelevant how most translations translate anything. What matters is the truth, not majority opinion. If you think majority view equals truth, you'ld have to give up your SDA beliefs and become a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox instead. You'ld have to give up the SDA "soul sleep" doctrine & other SDA views which are a minority opinion.

Why do most translations say "eternal" instead of "eonian" etc at Jn.3:36? Because they want to sell to church goers & make money? Because it's the theological bias of the translators who are parroting one another? Because it's all part of the system to scare people going back to the "Holy Crusades", Inquisitionist torture chambers and Dark Ages? Because the translators, like most Christians, have not seriously researched biblical universalism & are just following their denomination's statement of faith?
How many are well informed of, & have studied, universalist & annihilationist arguments? Do many simply blindly accept what their pastor, priest, or denomination say? In the enlightened internet age is the belief in endless torments on the decline as many become annihilationists, universalists or hopeful universalists instead.

In the early church universalism was the orthodox (biblical) view & may have been the orthodox (majority) view for centuries (see urls below) prior to the dark ages. It may also be today, or be on the way to becoming, the majority Christian view (see urls below):

Early Church Writings Fathers:
Church Fathers & Universalism since Early Church times
Indeed Very Many: Universalism in the Early Church
Early church writings re final destiny (paradise, Gospel, incarnation, Jehovah) - Christianity - - City-Data Forum
Articles on the history of Christian Universalism throughout the centuries
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchablerich/booksonwebsite/©CPC+The+Ancient+History+of+Universalism.pdf
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.shtml
Lawrence R. Farley




Some other lexicons & scholars disagree with BDAG. For example:

Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon gives "lasting for an age" as its first definition:
Strong's #166 - αἰώνιος - Old & New Testament Greek Lexicon

Moulton & Milligan state "In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view, whether the horizon be at an infinite distance...or whether it lies no farther than the span of a Cæsar’s life."
Strong's #166 - αἰώνιος - Old & New Testament Greek Lexicon

Dozens of examples of aionios as a finite duration in Koine Greek:

Two Questions

Why does BDAG ignore and leave out all those finite uses of aionios listed at the url above? Bias? Ignorance? Filthy lucre?



Those are erroneous remarks as i've shown above here in this post, in my previous post & others re the same passage, namely Jn.3:36. See also these entire threads:

Could most modern translations be in error?

the finiteness of "eternal life" (aionon zoe) in John?
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.shtml
Lawrence R. Farley

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

Done. Now it's your turn to respond to:



It's as obvious as the screen in front of you. And your reply went off on some irrelevant tangent to the points i made without commenting on them:



He continues:



The author's comments on 1 Cor.5:5 above are sort of weird. First he says it "is not clear what Paul intends" and then he says he does "feel confident" that Paul intends the meaning that "the flesh will cease existing". Consider the similar case of Job's trial where Satan destroyed (ruined) Job's flesh, yet Job's flesh did not cease existing for a moment let alone forever as in endless annihilationism. Rather his flesh was ruined. And that trial worked out well for Job in the end. One might even say Job's spirit was saved, for he overcame his apparent bitterness against his false "comforters" & prayed for them.

In Hebrews 11:28 the Greek word is olothreuó (Strongs # 3645) according to biblehub. Not olethros (Strongs # 3639) as occurs in 2 Thess.1:9; 1 Cor.5:5; 1 Thess.5:3 & 1 Tim.6:9. In Heb.11:28 evidently the meaning is death, physical death, not endless annihilation, since they will be resurrected. So it concerns the temporary ruin, unto death, of the physical body. The Greek word there does not support the annihilationists meaning of endless annihilation.

Further re 2 Thess.1:9, Jason Pratt said:

"Which definitely refers to hopeful punishment (and expected salvation in the same day of the Lord to come), not annihilation, when Paul uses it to talk about handing the Stepmom-Sleeping Guy over to Satan for the whole-destruction of the flesh in 1 Cor 5:5.

"Paul compares it to a birth-pang, which is dangerous but hardly hopeless annihilation (and is generally regarded as very hopeful) at 1 Thess 5:3 (talking about the same day to come).

"Paul uses the term to describe people killed by God in the past at 1 Cor 10:10, which can hardly be annihilation unless the resurrection of the evil as well as the good is denied.

"2 Thess 1:9 uses phrases similar to those found in Isaiah 2, talking about the same coming event, which is part of a block of prophecy where those wholly ruined aren't annihilated, but eventually repent of their sins and go to the "survivors" of God's wrath to be reconciled to God, which God accepts washing them clean with spirit and with fire. (Isaiah 4.) Again, far from a result of hopeless annihilation.

"2 Thess 1 is actually one of my scriptural testimonies 'for' universal salvation."

Annihilation places huge doubt on Universalism

Note re JP's remarks above: 1 Cor.10:10 has the Greek word olothreutés (Strongs # 3644) according to biblehub. Not olethros (Strongs # 3639) as occurs in 2 Thess.1:9; 1 Cor.5:5; 1 Thess.5:3 & 1 Tim.6:9.




My remarks above obviously would not agree with that conclusion & explain why.




A number of those passages evidently refer to merely the temporary ruin of the physical body until it is resurrected, not the endless annihilation of anyone.



Yet 2 Thess.1:9 makes no mention of the Lord using that fire on any wicked ones.




At least one comes immediately to mind off the top of my head:

Rev.14:9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, 10they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment will rise into the eons of the eons. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”



Look at the account of wicked King Nebuchadnezzar, in Daniel, for example. God was the instrument of destruction (ruin) to his soul for 7 years. Thereafter Love Omnipotent restored him from ruin to saneness of mind. Much like the prodigal son who was ruined (Luke 15) and later restored from ruination.



Evidently not. See above.

And why should it "totally consume" unbelievers when it doesn't do so to believers? Has Love Almighty's love expired so extremely quickly like a carton of milk? Has the blood of Christ shed for all become polluted and useless? Is the Saviour impotent to save? Did He create man so poorly that salvation is impossible? Or are all things possible with Love Omnipotent?




Not from the evidence presented thus far. Particularly that in Revelation where the lake of fire is spoken of.

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

You quoted BDAG as your papal-like authority you apparently blindly trust in re word meanings. I showed what else your leader BDAG says. Do you blindly accept BDAG's support for universalism, too. Or do you just pick & choose, cherry picking, & only accept it when it support your God's love expiring forever, impotent to save, dogma?



Here is what BDAG says re Col.1:20:

"...found only in Christian writers...reconcile everything in his own person, i.e. the universe is to form a unity, which has its goal in Christ Col 1:20..." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), 3rd edition, 2000, p.112).

Co.1:16 For by Him ***ALL*** was created that are in HEAVEN and that are on EARTH, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.
All was created through Him and for Him.
20 and by Him to reconcile ***ALL*** to Himself, by Him, whether on EARTH or in HEAVEN, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

This states the purpose of Love Omnipotent's - divine will - in sending His Son:

For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world would be saved through Him. (Jn.3:17)

The IVA ("that") is used in Jn.3:17 above. BDAG says “In many cases purpose and result cannot be clearly differentiated, and hence ἵνα is used for the result that follows
according to the purpose of the subj. or of God. As in Semitic and Gr-Rom. thought, purpose and result are identical in declarations of the *divine will*…”
https://translate.academic.ru/ἵνα/el/xx/

The IVA also occurs in Phil.2:9-11:

Phil.2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (NASB)

What is the "world" in Jn.1:29; 3:17, 4:42 according to BDAG? According to BDAG by "world" in such verses is meant "humanity in general". Jesus Himself would be the only exception:

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (Jn.1:29)
They said to the woman, "We now believe not only because of your words; we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man truly is the Savior of the world. (Jn.4:42)
For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world would be saved through Him. (Jn.3:17)

And BDAG again, re Rom.5:18, is quoted in this commentary:

"Paul declares, however, that the effects of Christ's obedience are far greater for mankind than the effect of Adam's fall. For the third (5:15) and fourth (5:17) times in this chapter
he makes explicit use of the 'qal wahomer' ("from minor to major") form of argument that is commonly used in rabbinic literature, expressed by "much more"...cf. earlier use at 5:9,10
...And as in the case of the typology previously used (5:14), here, too, the form of the argument is antithetical. The grace of God extended to humanity in the event of Christ's death has abounded "for the many" (5:15b), which corresponds to the "all" of 5:12,18. The free gift given by God in Christ more than matches the sin of Adam and its effects; it exceeds it..."

"Contrasts are also seen in the results of the work of each. Adam's trespass or disobedience has brought condemnation (κατάκριμα, 5:18); through his act many were made sinners (5:19). Christ's "act of righteousness" results in "justification of life" (δικαίωσιν ζωῆς) for all (5:18). The term δικαίωσιν can be translated as "justification" (NIV, NRSV; but RSV has "acquittal") - the opposite of "condemnation". The word ζωῆς ("of life") is a genitive of result, providing the outcome of justification, so that the phrase may be rendered "justification resulting in life". 108

108. BDAG 250 (δικαίωσιν): "acquittal that brings life". The construction is variously called a "genitive of apposition", an "epexegetical genitive" or "genitive of purpose". Cf. BDF 92 (S166). The meaning is the same in each case: justification which brings life."

"The universality of grace in Christ is shown to surpass the universality of sin. Christ's "act of righteousness" is the opposite of Adam's "tresspass" and equivalent to Christ's
"obedience", which was fulfilled in his being obedient unto death (Phil 2:8). The results of Christ's righteous action and obedience are "justification resulting in life for all persons"
...5:18...and "righteousness" for "many" (5:19). The term "many" in 5:19 is equivalent to "all persons", and that is so for four reasons: (1) the parallel in 5:18 speaks in its favor;
(2) even as within 5:19 itself, "many were made sinners" applies to all mankind, so "many will be made righteous" applies to all; (3) the same parallelism appears in 5:15, at which
"many" refers to "all"; and (4) the phrase "for many" is a Semitism which means "all", as in Deutero-Isaiah 52:14; 53:11-12; Mark...10:45; 14:24; Heb.12:15. The background for Paul's expression is set forth in Deutero-Isaiah, where it is said that "the righteous one"...the Lord's servant, shall make "many" to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their sins
...Isa.53:11..."

"It is significant, and even astounding, that justification is here said to be world-embracing. Nothing is said about faith as a prerequisite for justification to be effective, nor about faith's accepting it."

(Paul's Letter To The Romans: A Commentary, Arland J. Hultgren, Eerdmans, 2011, 804 pg, p.227, 229)

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

LOL. Pot Kettle.

Click to expand...