The Restitution Of All Things A.K.A. Universalism

[Der Alte]

There's no mention of "repent before death" there. What happens to babies, children & teens who die in unrepentance?

If you knew the Bible instead of just a handful of out-of-context proof texts you would not ask this question.

Romans 4:15
(15) because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
(13) To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law.​

Regarding the word "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":

I note where you have referred to Jesus' words in Matt 7:23 as "lame." Do you actually think Jesus said anything that was "lame?"

"Philo saith,...
"Philo...uses the exact phraseology of Matt. 25:46,. . .

Philo might be a good source for the meaning of Koine Greek words but not Christian faith and beliefs.

Matthew 7:21-23
(21) "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
(22) Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?'
(23) Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'​

What did the word οὐδέποτε/oudepote, "never" mean to Jesus? Did He not predict future events while He lived? Jesus was eternal in every sense of the word. He is outside of time just as God is. He was before Abraham. "Never" for Jesus is not limited to the past.
Jesus also stated a condition for entering the kingdom of God. Remember we are talking about the day of judgement, vs. 22. After they are dead and exiled out of Jesus' presence, how can they do the will of the father? When does scripture say they can or will do the will of the father vs.21? They're dead, no more chances, remember.
.....Some of your argument is a logical fallacy, what the Bible does not say, not what the Bible does say.

"Where does Matthew 7:22-23 say "Depart from me and i will never love you anymore
Does that mean no one can enter the Kingdom of God and it will be empty forever?
It doesn't say they will never get into heaven.
The verse places no time limits on when one can do the will of God."​

 

[gordonhooker]

Hasn't this particular subject been done to death in this part of the forum? There are no new arguments for or against....

 

[Der Alte]

Hasn't this particular subject been done to death in this part of the forum? There are no new arguments for or against....

I have been here at CF for almost 2 decades. I think I can safely say that virtually every heterodox belief around has been done to death here. But as long as heterodox believers come here posting and reposting the same arguments ad nauseum, then someone should be here to refute them lest someone who is wavering, on the fence considering joining or leaving such a group believes the false teaching because there is no one here to refute them.

 

[needhugs]

LittleLady, Our Father continues to amaze me after all these years! He is without doubt the Father of all fathers. Olam is a wonderful study and well worth focusing for a mite. I have visited again today a link I asked you to visit: I believe you can be a help to others! You were a great encouragement to me last night, and again let me say thank you and may He continue to bless and keep you.

what link? send again? i may have not gone to it! i can be disobedient lol
i'm too tired to take the animosity we get for the simple word 'eternal'... that word is a flibbertyjibbet lol... i think it's designed to confuse... but the strong's concordance shows how little sense it makes, EXCEPT for when applied to the nature of God.
My health is not good enuff to take all the negativity. People have a lot of information from your thread already, that if they want to push thru with the Father to find the truth, they can...
i did write a book on universalism (i don't like that word) but i put in some 'conversations with Yeshua' thru it, and i now believe i shouldn't have done that, because people might take it to be ... real?
so i have to rewrite the whole thing, and I just haven't gotten around to it.
are you talking about the agoraphobia link? i'm not really anxiety riddled anymore, tho i used to be really really bad... at night i would have panic attacks that would last for HOURS... it was nuts
actually, knowing that 'hell' as is taught by most, isn't for realzies, well that has REALLY helped me! it is written 'you shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free' and i never understood what truth would make me free, until all of this, because it really DOES change who one thinks God is, or what He is like... there is a scripture in Job, after God starts talking to him, something like 'really? you would put Me down to help yourself?'... of course i am paraphrasing coz i can't remember the wording... but i think that scripture can really apply to us. Job 40: 8 wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?
scary. but that's kinda what's going on, isn't it? i'm not trying to put anybody down, the word 'eternal' IS confusing, and the doctrine of eternal punishment is super hard to get out of. i'm not even sure WHY it is so scary to leave behind... but there is a war going on in us, and when i ask some miserable person, miserable like i was... 'has that truth made you free?' i get peeps angry at me. so yeah, i just don't have the strength. even tho we are to preach, i need to be enabled by God to do that.
tired... this has been a terrible time of trying for me... 'and the smoke of my torment' is probably raising up 'forever' did you watch that tentmaker video on what the word 'torment' means? i'm not saying that being tried isn't torment, as is commonly known to mean... i'm just saying what it means, THE MEANING, of that lake of fire scripture. i'm also not saying the 'hell' won't be hellish. I actually had a vision of my dad in hell after he died, even tho he was a professing Christian... the vision was down thru my living room floor, and my dad was in darkness, with yellow demonic eyes, staring up at me with INFINITE HATE... yet somehow they were still his eyes. i would worry about that vision, and thinking it was coz of me he was there... i used to pray for Yeshua to go and save him. then one day after i prayed for my dad again, i was watching a movie, called 'kodachrome' about a son and dad who did NOT get along, coz the dad was not a good guy at all... i knew that coz he was dying, there would be a reconciliation scene, but when it came, I REMEMBERED IT... and i had never seen the movie before, not even a trailer... but i knew what the dad was going to say, as if i had seen JUST THAT SCENE in the movie BEFORE... and the dad told about how he would hold his son as a baby, his son would fall asleep on his chest and he would make promises to love him, and that he would never be alone or afraid, and he said 'i felt INFINITE LOVE for you'... even the same wording! God does speak in mysterious ways! anyway, the dad says 'if i had a choice of how to spend eternity, i would pick those days' and i KNEW that God was telling me that my dad was fine now.

 

[ClementofA]

Hasn't this particular subject been done to death in this part of the forum?

The Controversial Christian Theology forum is the only forum among dozens at CF where this subject is officially allowed.

There are no new arguments for or against....

There are sometimes new arguments in support of old arguments, e.g.:

Two Questions

Is aionion necessarily coequal in duration with aionion (in Mt.25:46)?

And sometimes new arguments opposing old arguments:

Two Questions

 

[gordonhooker]

I have been here at CF for almost 2 decades. I think I can safely say that virtually every heterodox belief around has been done to death here. But as long as heterodox believers come here posting and reposting the same arguments ad nauseum, then someone should be here to refute them lest someone who is wavering, on the fence considering joining or leaving such a group believes the false teaching because there is no one here to refute them.

and vice-versa

 

[gordonhooker]

Or we could go back to the oldest one and make it a sticky post and refer to it when the new one appears next month, then all the tired old arguments can be kept in one place along with the ones that are only a rewording of the tired old arguments from both sides.

 

[gordonhooker]

I have been here at CF for almost 2 decades. I think I can safely say that virtually every heterodox belief around has been done to death here. But as long as heterodox believers come here posting and reposting the same arguments ad nauseum, then someone should be here to refute them lest someone who is wavering, on the fence considering joining or leaving such a group believes the false teaching because there is no one here to refute them.

Because you are not going to change the minds of the ones who do believe that scripture tells us the salvation is universal and scripture also tells us it is not, and it all depends on what lens you are reading the scripture through. No one's mind is going to be changed by it.

 

[needhugs]

Because you are not going to change the minds of the ones who do believe that scripture tells us the salvation is universal and scripture also tells us it is not, and it all depends on what lens you are reading the scripture through. No one's mind is going to be changed by it.

meh, i'm tired, but just thought i would say that scripture says BOTH, scripture says that there are some who won't be saved in this life... it's all a matter of what one believes happens after death... but God promised the big picture plan, that HE WILL DO ALL HIS PLEASURE... and the Bible, clearly states that the plan continues all the way until there is a new heavens and a new earth... it's a NICE plan, well it doesn't feel nice what with all the suffering, but THE END IS NICE

 

[ClementofA]

I posted:

Evidently pure assumption based on no evidence. You only proved one side of the equation equals eternal, aidios, not aionios. Scholars agree aionios is used of finite duration.

Furthermore, just because a word is applied to God doesn't make it "eternal".

According to you the Greek word aion (eon) means "eternal". In 2 Cor.4:4 we read of the "god of this eon". But this eon will end, so it can't be "eternal".

Satan is the "god of this eon" (2 Cor.4:4). The "god" Satan's existence will be "eternal" just like God's existence. But just because the Satan-god is eternal, that doesn't make
"eon" eternal when Scripture says he is the "god of this eon".

Likewise, neither does it make "eonian" eternal when it is applied to God in Rom.16:26.

Therefore your logic has holes in it & your argument fails.

Der Alter replied with:

Irrelevant smokescreen. Does not address my post in any way.

Is this supposed to make sense? How does this address my post?

Your argument provided no evidence in support of it. So i can only imagine what you think supports it, since you refuse to say. Therefore if you think it is supported by the premise that any word applied to God must mean eternal, you are wrong. As I said above.

Furthermore, with the example of 2 Cor.4:4, i showed how an - aionion god - can refer to a finite duration of the word aionion. Compare Rom.16:26, our verse under consideration, that speaks of the "aionion God". BTW in both cases the God referred to is "eternal".

I previously posted:

A number of Greek scholars understand Rom.16:25 to refer to a finite duration, even among those biased to endless punishment. Just look at a few dozen Greek lexicons, dictionaries & translations to see for yourself. Do you think you know more than them? Even verse 26 doesn't require aionios mean eternal. As my post documented, A. Deisman discovered a tablet from the time of the ECF Origen that said God is eonian and more than eonian (epiaionion). Moreover, if aionios in v.25 is finite, then contextually one should consider that its use in v.26 of the context is likewise finite.

God was the eonian God over past eons that have already ended. Rom.16:25 refers to eons past that have ended. So in the same sentence continuing into v.26, the reference to eonian God can be to those past eons. That's a contextual case for the viewpoint that eonian in v.26 is also finite.

Der Alter only replied to the first of those two paragraphs with:

More of the same meaningless argumentation, without any support.

John Gill Rom 16:26 according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith; that is, it is by the express order and command of that God who is from everlasting to everlasting, that the mystery of the Gospel is made manifest by the preaching of the apostles being witnessed to by the law and prophets in all its doctrines; faith on Christ,..., Act_13:46; here is a clear proof that Christ is God, and that he is the everlasting God.​

​

A literal more honest translation states:

25 Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, 26 yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience

Romans 16 Now I am commending to you Phoebe, our sister, being a servant also of the ecclesia in Cenchrea,

I posted:

"Adolph Deissman gives this account: "Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: 'I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty...' If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?"Chapter Nine

One anonymous tablet of unknown date in Africa does not prove anything about the meaning of eonian, any more than the graffiti on a public wall is evidence of anything. A library of such a writings might be compelling.

It proves that in ancient Koine Greek usage the word aionion was used of finite duration even in reference to God. Just as Rom.16:26 refers to the aionion God.

I posted:

"Origen even makes so-called "eternal life" ("eonian life" in literal translations) finite when he speaks of "after eternal life" & "beyond eternal life":

(19) "And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life." (Origen's Commentary on John 13:19).

Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 13-32, By Origen"

Der Alter answered:

I have already refuted this many times before. Only God is beyond eternal life because only God is greater than life. End of discussion.

Actually the quote doesn't limit only the Father to being "beyond aionion life". Notice the word "also" here: "And after eternal life, perhaps it will ALSO leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life."

Your out-of-context quote says NOTHING about after or beyond eternal life for faithful believers.

Actually the fountain leaps into aionion(eonian) life. And "after" this "eonian life" (showing eonian life is finite). The fountain/well of life is in the believers:

John 7:38-39
"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

John 4:14
but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to aionion LIFE."

Origen NEVER uses the term "after eternal life" or "beyond eternal life" any other time in any of his writings.

Actually Origen speaking of "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life", is supported also by: Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika

Likewise Origen believed the phrase "eons of the eons", which is equivalent to aionion in the Scriptures (compare Mt.25:41 to Rev.20:10), is finite:

"Origen, the greatest exegete of the early Church, was well aware of the polysemy of aión and its adjectival forms. In Hom. in Ex. 6.13 he writes: “Whenever Scripture says, ‘from aeon to aeon,’ the reference is to an interval of time, and it is clear that it will have an end. And if Scripture says, ‘in another aeon,’ what is indicated is clearly a longer time, and yet an end is still fixed. And when the ‘aeons of the aeons’ are mentioned, a certain limit is again posited, perhaps unknown to us, but surely established by God” (quoted in Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, p. 161)." Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope

If Origen believed there was a after or beyond eternal life for believers his writings would be full of it.

Most of his writings are lost to antiquity. Many were destroyed by anti-universalists in the past 1800+ years since he began writing.

However in Origen's Commentary to John he quotes Heraclon a contemporary.

(57) Let us also see what Heracleon says on these passages. He says that the [fountain and] the life and glory pertaining to it was insipid, temporary, and deficient, for it was physical. And he thinks he produces proof that it was physical from the fact that Jacob’s cattle drank from it.
(58) Now we would not object, if he took the knowledge that is in part to be insipid, temporary, and deficient, or that which is from the Scriptures in comparison with the words that cannot be spoken, that “it is not permitted to man to speak,” [or] all the present knowledge that is “through a mirror and a riddle”72 and is set aside when that which is perfect comes. But he would be culpable if he does this to slander the ancient words.
(59) He is not wrong, however, when he says that the water that the Savior gives is of his spirit and power.
(60) And he has explained the statement, “But he shall not thirst forever,” as follows with these very words: For the life he gives is eternal and never perishes, as, indeed, does the first life which comes from the well; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not to be taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it.
(61) He would be correct when he grants that the first life perishes if he meant that life which is according to the letter, when it seeks and discovers the life according to the Spirit by the removal of the veil. But, if he is accusing the ancient words of passing out of existence all together, it is clear that he does this because he does not perceive that those good words contain the shadow of future things.
(62) Now his interpretation of the “leaping water” is not unconvincing. He takes it to refer to those who partake of that which is richly supplied to them from above and who themselves cause what is supplied to them to gush out for the eternal life of others.
...
(67) And further, in reference to the clause, “He says to her,” Heracleon says that it is clear that he is saying something like this: If you wish to receive this water, go call your husband. Now he thinks that the one the Savior calls the Samaritan woman’s husband is her pleroma, and that by coming to the Savior with him she might be able to acquire power, unity, and union with her pleroma from him. For Heracleon says that he did not ask her to summon a physical husband, since indeed he would not have been ignorant of the fact that she did not have a lawful husband.
(68) But here he clearly distorts the text when he says that the Savior said to her, “Call your husband and come here,” meaning her consort from the pleroma. For if this were so, he would have to explain in what manner she must summon her husband that she might come to the Savior with him. P.82​

When Heraclon is wrong Origen says so but when he quotes Heraclon saying,

For the life he gives is eternal and never perishes, as, indeed, does the first life which comes from the well; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not to be taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it.​

Origen does not say Heraclon is wrong. Eternal life "never perishes,""remains,"'not taken away," and "does not perish." There is no way you can refute that.

Those statements also support Origen's view of an "after aionios life". The words of Heracleon do not speak of aionios life, but of life that is (1) aionios and (2) never perishes. If aionios meant eternal, to add "and never perishes" would be superfluous, redundant & pointless. Therefore he distinguishes between life that is merely aionios & life that "never perishes". IOW the implication is that life extends to after aionios, more than aionios, beyond aionios, & therefore that aionios life is finite. Just as Origen implies earlier.

 

[gordonhooker]

meh, i'm tired, but just thought i would say that scripture says BOTH, scripture says that there are some who won't be saved in this life... it's all a matter of what one believes happens after death... but God promised the big picture plan, that HE WILL DO ALL HIS PLEASURE... and the Bible, clearly states that the plan continues all the way until there is a new heavens and a new earth... it's a NICE plan, well it doesn't feel nice what with all the suffering, but THE END IS NICE

It most certainly does say both... as I said the lens you read through is what you will see.

 

[needhugs]

It most certainly does say both... as I said the lens you read through is what you will see.

well, of course, one would want to perceive BOTH as BOTH are scriptural TRUTH.... right?

 

[gordonhooker]

I really like this poem from the 1800's I believe it says it all but many would not agree because there always needs to be a them and us, humans cannot help themselves...

The Fullness of Time
By James Stephens (b. 1882)
On a rusty iron throne
Past the furthest star of space
I saw Satan sit alone,
Old and haggard was his face;
For his work was done and he
Rested in eternity.

And to him from out the sun
Came his father and his friend
Saying, now the work is done
Enmity is at an end:
And he guided Satan to
Paradises that he knew.

Gabriel without a frown,
Uriel without a spear,
Raphael came singing down
Welcoming their ancient peer,
And they seated him beside
One who had been crucified.

 

[needhugs]

I really like this poem from the 1800's I believe it says it all but many would not agree because there always needs to be a them and us, humans cannot help themselves...

The Fullness of Time
By James Stephens (b. 1882)
On a rusty iron throne
Past the furthest star of space
I saw Satan sit alone,
Old and haggard was his face;
For his work was done and he
Rested in eternity.

And to him from out the sun
Came his father and his friend
Saying, now the work is done
Enmity is at an end:
And he guided Satan to
Paradises that he knew.

Gabriel without a frown,
Uriel without a spear,
Raphael came singing down
Welcoming their ancient peer,
And they seated him beside
One who had been crucified.

i once heard a satan worshipper tell me about satan like that.. that he was only doing God's work, and that he was really a pretty crying boy angel...
creepy... they sicked demons on me after that.

 

[gordonhooker]

well, of course, one would want to perceive BOTH as BOTH are scriptural TRUTH.... right?

The issue is that some don't think that way... hence why there is so many Christian denominations in the world...

I tend to agree with those who hold to "Yes/No/And......."

 

[gordonhooker]

i once heard a satan worshipper tell me about satan like that.. that he was only doing God's work, and that he was really a pretty crying boy angel...
creepy... they sicked demons on me after that.

I don't believe that is what the author of that poem was trying to say - it is far deeper than that...

 

[needhugs]

I don't believe that is what the author of that poem was trying to say - it is far deeper than that...

no, i know you are trying to speak of the devil at the restitution of all things... and that would be far far different from evil satan worshipers

 

[ClementofA]

If you knew the Bible instead of just a handful of out-of-context proof texts you would not ask this question.

Romans 4:15
(15) because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
(13) To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law.​

Actually it is evident from the discussion on infanticide that there must be postmortem salvation. The following post already addressed your comment, with all subsequent comments you made also being answered in this thread:

If endless punishment were true & victims of infanticide all go to heaven​

I note where you have referred to Jesus' words in Matt 7:23 as "lame." Do you actually think Jesus said anything that was "lame?"

You just grossly misrepresented my position with a one word out-of-context quote.

Philo might be a good source for the meaning of Koine Greek words but not Christian faith and beliefs.

Yet here we see how he used of finite duration the exact same words of the phrase "aionion kolasin" as Jesus used at Matthew 25:46:

""Philo [20 BC - 50 AD, contemporary with Christ] used the exact phraseology we find in Matthew 25:46 - just as Christ used it - in the context of temporal affairs between people of different socio-economic classes:"

" "It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and everlasting punishment (kolasis aiónios) from such as are more powerful" (Fragmenta, Tom. ii., p. 667)."That Happy Expectation: Eternal or Eonian? Part Five (The Greek Adjective Aiónios)

"It is better absolutely never to make any promise at all than not to assist another willingly, for no blame attaches to the one, but great dislike on the part of those who are less powerful, and intense hatred and long enduring punishment from those who are more powerful, is the result of the other line of conduct." Philo: Appendix 2: Fragments

I posted:

Regarding the word "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

Where does Matthew 7:22-23 say "Depart from me and i will never love you anymore, but hate you with perfect hatred that has no end, as you deserve, as you roast alive in endless fires, being tormented for all eternity? I hate you so much that i wont even end your existence to mercifully put you out of your misery, but give you eternal life so i can cause you sorrow and pain without end."?

Actually His remarks seem pretty lame & light in comparison to what He could have said, if He wanted to. "Depart from Me". Big deal! Compared to endless torments it's next to nothing.

In that light, Mt.7:21-23 is more favorable to universalism than endless punishment.

Mt.7:21 does not deny that all will eventually do God's will and enter the kingdom.
Everyone starts out not doing God's will. Does that mean no one can enter the Kingdom of God and it will be empty forever?

The verse places no time limits on when one can do the will of God.

Matthew 7:23 refers to a "day", not final destiny when God will be "All in all" (1 Cor.15:22-28).

Matthew 7 says some will not get into heaven on judgement day. It doesn't say they will never get into heaven. In fact they eventually will, as the same author wrote a few chapters earlier:

Mt.1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt.2:6b ...my people Israel.

Der Alter posted

Matthew 7:21-23
(21) "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
(22) Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?'
(23) Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'​

What did the word οὐδέποτε/oudepote, "never" mean to Jesus? Did He not predict future events while He lived? Jesus was eternal in every sense of the word. He is outside of time just as God is. He was before Abraham. "Never" for Jesus is not limited to the past.

In the context there is nothing about "outside of time" etc. Instead the context of Jesus never knowing them is in reply to their remarks in their lifetime about prophesying, driving out demons & doing miracles.

What was Jesus trying to convey to His hearers by the word "never" in "I never knew you". This is in the past tense, not the future tense. So it tells us nothing about the future final destiny of those to whom He will speak those words. If they were to be eternally damned, why did He not express that by saying they will "never" be saved, or He will "never" know them. This would have been clearly indicating they would be eternally lost. Did Jesus not want those reading the inspired Scriptures to know of the danger of being endlessly lost? Surely if He believed in such a horrific possibility for human beings, He would have been morally obligated to express it clearly so that those who heard Him & read His words would know of this horror. But He does not. He doesn't warn of a danger of eternal loss. In fact, no where in the Scripture is this word "never" used of anyone saying they will "never" be saved, "never" know God, "never" be reconciled to God, "never" be free from their sins, "never" be born again, "never" be filled with His Spirit, "never" be justified by faith, etc. This would have clearly supported such being eternally lost. But, instead, in referring to future punishments, Scripture often uses the words aion & aionios, which are often used of finite durations. Certainly not a clear way to express being eternally lost, if that was what God had planned for anyone. Therefore the use of words in the Scriptures indicates Love Omnipotent doesn't intend to send anyone to endless punishment or torments lasting for the endless eons of eternity or torments that "never" end.

Jesus also stated a condition for entering the kingdom of God. Remember we are talking about the day of judgement, vs. 22. After they are dead and exiled out of Jesus' presence, how can they do the will of the father? When does scripture say they can or will do the will of the father vs.21? They're dead, no more chances, remember.

Why couldn't they do the will of God wherever they are? Ever hear of prayer? Repentance? Faith?

No more chances after death? No, i don't "remember" a Scripture like that, because it doesn't exist. You tried to prove it from one or two Scriptures & your attempts failed miserably. OTOH:

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

continued next post

 

[ClementofA]

.....Some of your argument is a logical fallacy, what the Bible does not say, not what the Bible does say.

It's a powerful argument against endless punishment:

I think it(aidios) 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

And i'll have perhaps a dozen more words or expressions to add to that list.

 

[needhugs]

It's a powerful argument against endless punishment:

I think it(aidios) 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

And i'll have perhaps a dozen more words or expressions to add to that list.

you must have a LOT of energy! lol i get tired just READING your posts lol but i don't want to stop reading
i started researching the Names... i have decided to go with Yehowah, and Yehoshua, tho i'm sure that Yeshua was considered an acceptable short form, and Yah seems to be acceptable for the Father as well.
why do you call Him 'Love Omnipotent'? is that your own nickname for Him?