Universal reconciliation

[drstevej]

Got compassion for the victims too?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No, I think they are just and I am pro capital punishment, and I'm actually not so much pro, life sentences. Probably because I have hope for dead in the hereafter. Life sentences are just delaying death and not prolonging life IMO.

So then such punishments are Just and have purpose but only because it ends in death. Am not sure how to logically go from that to saying it would be injust and have no purpose if it never ended

I agree...temporal purpose. Eternal torture is not just, and eternal punishing, accomplishes nothing fitting the definition of punishment.

I will play but again cannot take this leap. If a punishment has purpose and it is said to be just then how does it go to unjust simply because it never ends. The only "purpose" of either capital or life sentences is a separation from the "living", which is one of the same purposes eternal damnation serves in the next life. It is the separation itself which serves purpose, and only ends in this life because our current bodies are not immortal - which has nothing to do with the Justice or purpose of such sentences. Both in this life and the next (more Perfectly), such punishments also demonstrate what is Just to the "living" and would give them Joy at having the Grace given to escape the same fate as well as appreciate more the debt paid to make their Joy possible.

I disagree. Here, we have fallible men making unjust decisions. Sending innocent men to death and imprisonment.

We were not speaking of mistakes in judgment - we were talking about whether a sentence that is permanent has a purpose and could be Just - apparently we agree such a sentence could be both Just and serve a purpose in this life, even with fallible men. Which leads me to say one is then having men capable of doing something one claims God cannot do (else He is unjust and cruel)

God is not fallible and his judgments will be for the betterment of all, as well as to his glory.

Am unclear how it be to His Glory to demonstrate for all that who freely chose to NOT separate themselves from Him that such a choice did not ultimately matter because in the greater scheme the choices made in this temporal life did not matter. We could drink and be merry and ultimately in the end - all reach the same point. Somehow that does not seem to be for the betterment of all, Just or to His Glory.

Why 'to His glory'? One reason might be because He will not hold us to a higher standard than God Himself will not keep.

Matthew 6:15 but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

This is my point, we are incapable of His Standard without His Grace, a Grace He made possible for all - but does not force on any. We were meant to cooperate with that Grace in this life in order to be restored in a proper relationship with Him in the next - which means essentially asking for His forgiveness when we act against our nature, being truly sorry for doing so and trying are best 9with His Grace) not to do it anymore.

There is nothing in that arrangement to suggest that to stubbornly refuse and choose instead in this life to separate ourselves from the Supreme Good - that Hell represents a back up plan whereby the damned will eventually learn the error of their ways or as some look at it have whatever part of one made one rebel in this life burn away/be destroyed - however one wants to look at it. In such constructs of an afterlife there are no true eternal consequences for our choice to separate ourselves from God - only a potential temporary set back in the next life before we can "proceed on".

The choice to separate oneself from the Eternal must have eternal consequence. If God was not eternal, then that would not be so. He is Eternal, so the eternalness of such choice is the very reason the single sin of one man spans time to condemn us all, putting us all in the need of Savior.

 

[Dibby]

So then one must be claiming there is nothing just about capital punishments or life sentences - which has been my point. I think capital punishments and life sentences can be Just and as such absolutely have purpose.

The sentiment being expressed here is that only punishments that are 'corrective' are Just and have purpose. Am just pointing out that sentiment, while sweet and sincere, is wrong.

Of course there is a difference in a human justice system and one proposed as an after life justice system. In the human justice system while there can be a corrective effect on an individual prisoner (who may turn their life around as a result), that is not its main purpose. The main purpose is punishment for breaking the law. Serious crimes such as murders may result in a life sentence, or capital punishment because there is an attempt to make the punishment fit the crime. Another important purpose in punishing law breaking is to act as a deterrant to others .
Scenarios of what may happen when we die are speculation. We have no direct access to the heavenly court only biblical descriptions which may bare no resemblance to actuality, for, "We see as through a glass, darkly". There is also no deterrant effect as we cannot see any such punishments happening.

Whilst in prison a criminal may choose to reflect on the state of their soul and even repent.
In an infernal, never ending, torturous hell even if they repent then God won't listen. This is not the loving justice of the Father who is the author of every good and perfect gift IMO.

 

[richard373]

In such constructs of an afterlife there are no true eternal consequences for our choice to separate ourselves from God - only a potential temporary set back in the next life before we can "proceed on".

The choice to separate oneself from the Eternal must have eternal consequence. If God was not eternal, then that would not be so. He is Eternal, so the eternalness of such choice is the very reason the single sin of one man spans time to condemn us all, putting us all in the need of Savior.

I have been following your debate with Hillsage with interest and would agree with a fair deal of your reasoning (bit worrying if I didn't really) but your final point I have quoted from you is where I have a difficulty. I'm not sure that Scripture regards the actions of the wicked as being "a conscious choice to seperate themselves from God". Nor would they see or understand it in those terms. The emphasis of God's purposes in judgement according to Scripture, not least by the One who will be doing the judging (e.g. Mt7:2) is more often than not expressed in terms of our treatment of our fellow creatures than our enlightenment concerning the Creator and how He wishes us to relate to Him. Why? - because there can be no excuse for acting wickedly against our fellow man because the requirement (to respect and care for him) is affirmed through our conscience.
A philanthropic agnostic on the other hand may sincerely believe there is no God or at least not be certain of the matter yet in practice may often act as God would wish him in terms of his fellow man (cf. Rom2:14,15NJB). Why? - because he has been made in the image of God (though he doesn't know it) and something of that is retained, again through the influence of conscience (what JH Newman regarded as the divinely provided faculty of universal revelation). The purpose of punishment according to Scripture is indeed partially retributive - not merely restorative, but the retribution not so much concerns offences against God directly (who is rich in grace and delights to pardon) but against His people, indeed against all the weak and needy of the world with whom Christ personally identifies (Mt25). He will take His vengeance upon those who have cruelly neglected them and those who have "destroyed the earth" (Rev11:18). It shall be fair and proportional and potentially vastly more than a "temporary setback", they may in Jesus's words come to wish they had never have been born. But in view of the above I keep an open mind concerning God's long-term intentions knowing that He will never act against His nature, being love personified - the righteous anger and justice He possesses flowing from that nature rather than being in tension with it. There is also the point that has been made about the atonement. That, among many other precious things, gives an indication of what God thinks of sin and how He intends to deal with, at least in those for whom that sacrifice will not avail. It was agonising, it was brutal; and it was a sufficient sacrifice for the sin of the world, yet it was not eternal.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I have been following your debate with Hillsage with interest and would agree with a fair deal of your reasoning (bit worrying if I didn't really) but your final point I have quoted from you is where I have a difficulty. I'm not sure that Scripture regards the actions of the wicked as being "a conscious choice to seperate themselves from God". Nor would they see or understand it in those terms. The emphasis of God's purposes in judgement according to Scripture, not least by the One who will be doing the judging (e.g. Mt7:2) is more often than not expressed in terms of our treatment of our fellow creatures than our enlightenment concerning the Creator and how He wishes us to relate to Him. Why? - because there can be no excuse for acting wickedly against our fellow man because the requirement (to respect and care for him) is affirmed through our conscience.
A philanthropic agnostic on the other hand may sincerely believe there is no God or at least not be certain of the matter yet in practice may often act as God would wish him in terms of his fellow man (cf. Rom2:14,15 Greek). Why - because he has been made in the image of God (though he doesn't know it) and something of that is retained, again through the influence of conscience (what JH Newman regarded as the divinely provided faculty of universal revelation). The purpose of punishment according to Scripture is indeed partially retributive - not merely restorative, but the retribution not so much concerns offences against God directly (who is rich in grace and delights to pardon) but against His people, indeed against all the weak and needy of the world with whom Christ personally identifies (Mt25). He will take His vengeance upon those who have cruelly neglected them and those who have "destroyed the earth" (Rev11:18). It shall be fair and proportional and potentially vastly more than a "temporary setback", they may in Jesus's words come to wish they had never have been born. But in view of the above I keep an open mind concerning God's long-term intentions knowing that He will never act against His nature, being love personified - the righteous anger and justice He possesses flowing from that nature rather than being in tension with it.

I can agree with this and I think we are closer than you might expect in regards to choice I spoke of. And for sake of brevity I attempt to reader's digest my responses so the finer points may not always be expressed as clear as they should be or as detailed. The how we treat our "fellow creatures/earth"...etc. go hand in hand with a person doing what they know in their hearts is right/Good - that Good would be just a part of what we believe is meant by being made in His Image. So while people can harden their hearts, deep down somewhere we all know what is right and what is wrong. That is why sinning is often referred to as acting against our nature. It goes to the meaning of verses speaking of the Law written on our hearts. The "conscience" and "free" choice part I only add from habit as it is only Just to hold someone accountable for things they both freely and knowingly did.

You are correct in saying many folks would not recognize such choices as either sinning or offending God - but it is still true that it is a choice they conscientiously made to act against what they knew to be right (good). And since it was their free choice, they can be rightly judged by God for making such choices. That is how for instance native Americans living long ago, having never heard of Jesus can be fairly and rightly judged, along with everyone else - some to Glory and some damned. (I think because God knows our hearts - the same group can be forgiven (because of what Jesus did for all) if they are truly sorry for making a wrong choice. IOW God's Graces can be applied even though they did not have the same opportunities many of us have had.

So while people may not see wrong choices being a rejection of God (the Supreme Good), it because that choice is wrong (opposite of Good) that we can say they freely choose to separate themselves from the Supreme Good, Who is God.

 

[Der Alte]

If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Looks like judgment of fire in the hereafter is salvific, and not endless torture to me. I know the context, do you see the concept? . . .

It appears that you don't know the context of this verse. The fire in this verse is not salvific.

The epistle of 1 Corinthians is addressed to Christians, "laborers together with God", "God's husbandry,""God's building." 1 Cor 3:9

1Co 3:9-17
(9) For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
(10) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another [laborers together with God] buildeth thereon. But let every man[laborers together with God] take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
(11) For other foundation can no man [laborers together with God] lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
(12) Now if any man [laborers together with God] build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
(13) Every man's work [laborers together with God] shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's [laborers together with God] work of what sort it is.
(14) If any man's [laborers together with God] work abide which he hath built thereupon, he [laborers together with God] shall receive a reward.
(15) If any man's [laborers together with God] work shall be burned, he [laborers together with God] shall suffer loss: but he himself [laborers together with God] shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
(16) Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, [laborers together with God] and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? [laborers together with God]
(17) If any man [laborers together with God] defile the temple of God, him [laborers together with God] shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​

Every man that ever lived is not saved by their works being burned. Note those who defile the temple of God are destroyed. vs. 17.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

And "logic" may just be your main veil to seeing what I see. The wisdom of God is the foolishness of man and if our logic has a flawed beginning then it will take the Spirit to enlighten us. I know I had to lay my old 'logical' view down, when I too believed as you do now.

"The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."

Our wisdom is certainly limited compared to God, but He also gave us a mind to use. I went the opposite direction and am happier now.
While I think the doctrines are wrong, I would rather have someone in a place that truly brings them closer to God than to be somewhere else. For what it is worth however and it seems true in your case, many leave not really knowing or understanding what they left. The Church and families in it are not doing a very good job teaching children about their faith these days.

It does so when it goes from being a noun/punishment to a never ending hideous verb/punishing infinitely.

So you said repeatedly. Problem is the punishment of separation from the "living" is the same now as it will be in the next life. The duration of such punishment only has ending in this life because our bodies are currently mortal. If we were already immortal, then such a sentence would be identical to the one we are talking about.

Your view is purposeless and that's a logic that seems OK to your intellect and allows you to still cling to the eternal hell paradigm.

As I have said repeatedly, the purposes served for such punishment in this life are similar to that of the next. You had already agreed that both capital and life sentences serve purpose.

Houston we have a 'logical' problem. Who's guarding all these 'living' prisoners with all the other living PRISONERS? Unless they're in solitary confinement. A punishment which we generally speaking consider inhumane. Does that logically mean we are more merciful than God? You can probably justify that, I can't...logically.

Hardly a logic issue.

Living" here merely indicates the significance of what it means to be in Glory where humans are really "living" the way we were intended/made to live. I do not think anyone will be lonely in Hell. Not am I certain that it matters either way as I imagine the hatred the damned would be full of (absence of Love) that the presence of others would not be a good thing.

Looks like judgment of fire in the hereafter is salvific, and not endless torture to me. I know the context, do you see the concept?

Sure, but why require a Sacrifice at all if all that is needed is some amount (vary for everyone) of roasting to burn away the rejection/bad parts?

My logic fails here. Having a mortal body is absolutely part of the purpose. And that's why torture for eternity has no purpose. Sounds demented to me.

The demented part would be the mind which knows right from wrong - rejecting right and doing so through out this life with no regret/remorse. We are made to love, serve and know the Supreme Good. So our nature is to do that, it is what we were made to do, and so what we are suppose to do. To act against that is to reject the very purpose for which we were made - a direct slap in the face to the Creator.
As to mortal body, it is not logic that is failing you. Let me put it another way. The decision to permanently separate an individual from everyone else for something they did and the purpose of doing that in the name of Justice (and what is right/Good for the whole) is the same whether we are speaking of a world of mortals or an alternate world of immortals. Separation itself serves a purpose and done rightly is Just.

And how does one 'freely choose' 'undeserved favor/grace if they are not "called, chosen, predestined, foreordained, elected" by God to make a 'free will decision' in this age?

Without going deep into off topic areas,(calling, predestined...) the choice being spoken of and the ability for God to judge all men from all times, is the same for everyone. Everyone knows what is right and wrong because we were all made that way. God knowing our choices before we were made does not change our freedom to make those.

I have to chuckle here. Are you talking about sinners deserving eternal torture or the representative church of today?

No, am saying how we live this life would have no eternal consequence at all in a view which says everyone is ultimately saved. A pious\righteous life for example and one spent indulging in all manner of selfish pleasures would both gain the same eternal reward in such a view. The "punishment" in such a view is temporal. So party on Garth!

I agree, just like He consigned all to sin that he migh have mercy on all. So apparently there is no do-er but God working thing out according to the counsel of his will and not ours. You just limit Him/all to 'this age' and I ask what's the purpose of the AGES to come then?

I do not see the orthodox view as limiting God. I do see Scripture limiting our shot at being restored to a single judgement on the way we live life here and no discussion of an ongoing ability to restore those who in your view do not make the first cut, but will ultimately be rehabilitated after the final judgement (which for them is not final in such a view). As to a purpose of the life in Glory - we are not told except to say it will blow our minds. I like the speculation found in "The Travelers Guide to Heaven" which really expands the limits on our imaginations more than anyone else I have read - including a use of body parts most of our Protestant brothers would blush at.

No, he just "worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO" so...willingly. He gives you the faith to believe when he 'calls' you. For faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the RHEMA/word of God, not the logos/bible. You intimated 'repentance' on our part, but what does scripture say? "God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth" Sounds like GOD, not me/them.

Read in context the letter to Timothy is talking about how to live this life, not the next. And read the next verse regarding these same people said to be "captive" of the devil. Have never heard of anyone considering the final fate of the damned being captive's of satan - in fact they end up same place he does - the same punishment - not his captives. I certainly think Satan has captives right now, but that is also temporal I think.

Please understand, I am talking about one salvation is all this. That of the spirit. Soul/body salvation are separate in my theology. I am Calvinist and Amenianist. Kind of like the term Calmenian actually.

Going to my baby sister's son's high school grad. and will be gone all day. You all play nice now.

Am not sure how we can separate the two (body/soul) in terms of our eternal fate. In the end, scripture has both body and soul of the damned thrown into the same place. In most orthodox views the resurrected body of the damned is immortal (not a Glorified body which apparently means much more than just an immortal body), just like our souls are immortal.

 

[Hillsage]

Our wisdom is certainly limited compared to God, but He also gave us a mind to use. I went the opposite direction and am happier now.

And I am happy that you are happier. And I have enjoyed our talk. Not because you or I 'won', but because I believe you've maintained a brotherly attitude.

While I think the doctrines are wrong, I would rather have someone in a place that truly brings them closer to God than to be somewhere else. For what it is worth however and it seems true in your case, many leave not really knowing or understanding what they left. The Church and families in it are not doing a very good job teaching children about their faith these days.

Closer to God is worthy for sure. And my leaving the RC church was definitely motivated differently than the last church we'd been in for 23 years.

No, am saying how we live this life would have no eternal consequence at all in a view which says everyone is ultimately saved.

I does in my POV. How we live here does not determine going to 'heaven'. If it did, most of the church wouldn't make it IMO. It looks/acts too much like much of the world IMO. But works here will determine rewards there IMO.

A pious\righteous life for example and one spent indulging in all manner of selfish pleasures would both gain the same eternal reward in such a view. The "punishment" in such a view is temporal. So party on Garth!

So no OSAS in your opinion?

"The Travelers Guide to Heaven" which really expands the limits on our imaginations more than anyone else I have read - including a use of body parts most of our Protestant brothers would blush at.

Thou dost tempt me to read this embarrassing work.

Am not sure how we can separate the two (body/soul) in terms of our eternal fate. In the end, scripture has both body and soul of the damned thrown into the same place. In most orthodox views the resurrected body of the damned is immortal (not a Glorified body which apparently means much more than just an immortal body), just like our souls are immortal.

Which is why we will probably go round and round to little avail. Probably a good time to part...again. You see, my paradigm allows for so many issues dividing the church today. Things like OSAS vs. loosing your salvation, predestination vs. free will. It also explains things most don't even question. Things like You in Christ/Christ in you, in the faith/of the faith, imputed righteousness/imparted righteousness, one baptism/baptisms.

UR and rightly dividing the word have great import when applying those divided truths to a rightly divided spirit/soul/body man. And they are simply a big part of my theology.

It's been good DBL, but I'm ready to give us a rest. Ball is in your court.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

So no OSAS in your opinion?

No.

Thou dost tempt me to read this embarrassing work.

He is Catholic but a lay person and up front about trying to write this to appeal to all Christian faiths. We are not told much about what Heaven would be like, but given what was said the old traditional Protestant idea of being in robs and singing for eternity never sounded appealing to me. The author does take a lot of liberty on what Jesus meant by it would blow our minds.

later

 

[brixken7]

Sorry Hillsage you're not convincing me for UR and I think you're taking passages out of context. So once again let's try this:

Matthew 25:41(NKJV)-Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels

So how do you explain that verse? Depart from me where? Why did Jesus say this?

By the way I'm not asking for my benefit but want a UR believer to explain these warning passages to me.

...................

The context of Matthew 25:41 is "When the Son of man shall come in His glory..." (verse 31) -- NOT any final judgment. And more proof that Christ is not speaking of a final judgment (the Great White Throne judgment), is in the fact that He goes on to say in verse 31 "then."

"...then" (at Christ's appearance, not a 1000 years later) "shall He sit upon the throne of His glory" (verse 31). And before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another..." (verse 32).

The above scriptures give evidence that the Greek word "aionios" cannot be properly translated as "everlasting" or "eternal" since the subject here is only a temporary judgment. It plainly does not have "everlasting" consequences -- which is further indicated by the nature of the misdeeds: "For I was an hungry, and ye gave me no meats: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink. I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not." It is absolutely ludicrous to suppose that anyone will suffer ETERNAL punishment for sins such as this!

Furthermore, just as we cannot GAIN our salvation by our good works, neither can we ultimately LOSE our salvation by our evil works. Yes, God can and will take us to the 'woodshed' for our sins, but our salvation, and that of the world (John 1:29; I John 2:2), is secure in Christ.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

...................

The context of Matthew 25:41 is "When the Son of man shall come in His glory..." (verse 31) -- NOT any final judgment. And more proof that Christ is not speaking of a final judgment (the Great White Throne judgment), is in the fact that He goes on to say in verse 31 "then."

"...then" (at Christ's appearance, not a 1000 years later) "shall He sit upon the throne of His glory" (verse 31). And before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another..." (verse 32).

The above scriptures give evidence that the Greek word "aionios" cannot be properly translated as "everlasting" or "eternal" since the subject here is only a temporary judgment. It plainly does not have "everlasting" consequences -- which is further indicated by the nature of the misdeeds: "For I was an hungry, and ye gave me no meats: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink. I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not." It is absolutely ludicrous to suppose that anyone will suffer ETERNAL punishment for sins such as this!

Furthermore, just as we cannot GAIN our salvation by our good works, neither can we ultimately LOSE our salvation by our evil works. Yes, God can and will take us to the 'woodshed' for our sins, but our salvation, and that of the world (John 1:29; I John 2:2), is secure in Christ.

Then to be consistent with the "proper" translation - neither can the state of those in Glory be everlasting or eternal. Which is apparently is ok with some folks here. Why they call it controversial.

 

[Der Alte]

The context of Matthew 25:41 is "When the Son of man shall come in His glory..." (verse 31) -- NOT any final judgment. And more proof that Christ is not speaking of a final judgment (the Great White Throne judgment), is in the fact that He goes on to say in verse 31 "then."

"...then" (at Christ's appearance, not a 1000 years later) "shall He sit upon the throne of His glory" (verse 31). And before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another..." (verse 32).

The above scriptures give evidence that the Greek word "aionios" cannot be properly translated as "everlasting" or "eternal"since the subject here is only a temporary judgment. It plainly does not have "everlasting" consequences -- which is further indicated by the nature of the misdeeds: "For I was an hungry, and ye gave me no meats: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink. I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not." It is absolutely ludicrous to suppose that anyone will suffer ETERNAL punishment for sins such as this!

Furthermore, just as we cannot GAIN our salvation by our good works, neither can we ultimately LOSE our salvation by our evil works. Yes, God can and will take us to the 'woodshed' for our sins, but our salvation, and that of the world (John 1:29; I John 2:2), is secure in Christ.

That a word is used hyperbolically or figuratively does not change the inherent meaning. How a word is used in one verse does not determine the meaning. How many judgments does scripture record? Once again,

Aionio's" - A Lexical Survey

Nine language sources cited. Fourteen total references! 1. NAS Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries, 2. Thayer’s Lexicon, 3. Vine’s Expository of Biblical Words, 3 references, 4. Louw-Nida Greek English Lexicon of the NT based on Semantic Domains, 2 references, 5.Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 6. Abridged Greek lexicon, Liddell-Scott, 7. Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, 3 references, 8.Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Greek English Lexicon of the NT and other Early Christian Literature, 9. Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the NT.

Aion, Aionios and the lexicons:
166. aionios; from 165; agelong, eternal:— eternal(66), eternity(1), forever(1).

Thomas, Robert L., Th.D., General Editor, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries,


166 aionios-

1) without beginning and end, what has always been and always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting
---Thayers

2. aionios [166] "describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in <Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2>; or undefined because endless as in <Rom. 16:26>, and the other sixty-six places in the NT.

"The predominant meaning of aionios , that in which it is used everywhere in the NT, save the places noted above, may be seen in <2 Cor. 4:18>, where it is set in contrast with proskairos, lit., `for a season,' and in <Philem. 15>, where only in the NT it is used without a noun. Moreover it is used of persons and things which are in their nature endless, as, e. g., of God, <Rom. 16:26>; of His power, <1 Tim. 6:16>, and of His glory, <1 Pet. 5:10>; of the Holy Spirit, <Heb. 9:14>; of the redemption effected by Christ, <Heb. 9:12>, and of the consequent salvation of men, <5:9>, as well as of His future rule, <2 Pet. 1:11>, which is elsewhere declared to be without end, <Luke 1:33>; of the life received by those who believe in Christ, <John 3:16>, concerning whom He said, `theyshall never perish,' <10:28>, and of the resurrection body, <2 Cor. 5:1>, elsewhere said to be `immortal,' <1 Cor. 15:53>, in which that life will be finally realized, <Matt. 25:46; Titus 1:2>.

aionios is also used of the sin that `hath never forgiveness,' <Mark 3:29>, and ofthe judgment of God, from which there is no appeal, <Heb. 6:2>, and of the fire, which is one of its instruments, <Matt. 18:8; 25:41; Jude 7>, and which is elsewhere said to be `unquenchable,' <Mark 9:43>.
"The use of aionios here shows that the punishment referred to in <2 Thes. 1:9>, is not temporary, but final, and, accordingly, the phraseology shows that its purpose is not remedial but retributive."

From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp 232, 233. (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words) (Copyright (C) 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

67.96 aionios on, pertaining to an unlimited duration of time - ‘eternal.’
aji>vdio"ò h{ te aji>vdio" aujtou` duvnami" kai; qeiovth" ‘his eternal power and divine nature’ Ro 1.20.
aijwvnio"ò blhqh`nai eij" to; pu`r to; aijwvnion ‘be thrown into the eternal fire’ Mt 18.8; tou` aijwnivou qeou` ‘of the eternal God’ Ro 16.26.

The most frequent use of aionios in the NT is with zwhv ‘life,’ for example, i{na pa`" oJ pisteuvwn ejn aujtw/` e[ch/ zwh;n aijwvnion ‘so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life’ Jn 3.15. In combination with zwhv there is evidently not only a temporal element, but also a qualitative distinction. In such contexts, aionios evidently carries certain implications associated with aionios in relationship to divine and supernatural attributes. If one translates ‘eternal life’ as simply ‘never dying,’ there may be serious misunderstandings, since persons may assume that ‘never dying’ refers only to physical existence rather than to ‘spiritual death.’ Accordingly, some translators have rendered ‘eternal life’ as ‘unending real life,’ so as to introduce a qualitative distinction.

Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989.

aionios. An adjective meaning “eternal,” and found in the LXX in Pss. 24; 77:5; Gen. 21:33, aionios in the NT is used 1. of God (Rom. 16:26), 2. of divine possessions and gifts (2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 5:10; 1 Tim. 6:16; 2 Th. 2:16, and 3. ofthe eternal kingdom (2 Pet. 1:11), inheritance (Heb. 9:15), body (2 Cor. 5:1), and even judgment (Heb. 6:2, though cf. Mt. 18:8; 2 Th. 1:9, where the sense is perhaps “unceasing”).

Kittel, Gerhard, and Friedrich, Gerhard, Editors, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) 1985.

aionios ", ov and a, ov, lasting for an age (aion 3), Plat.: ever-lasting, eternal, Id.

Liddell, H. G., and Scott, Abridged Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 1992.

166 aionios { ahee-o’-nee-os} αιωνιος from 165; TDNT - 1:208,31; adj
AV - eternal 42, everlasting 25, the world began + 5550 2, since the world began + 5550 1,for ever 1; 71
GK - 173 { aionios }
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

CL The Gk. word aion, which is probably derived from aei, … It thus appeared appropriate to later philosophers to use the word both for the dim and distant past, the beginning of the world, and for the far future, eternity (e.g. Plato, Tim. 37d).

Plato (Timoeus, ed. Steph. 3, 37, or ed. Baiter, Orell. et Winck. 712) says, speaking of the universe: …The nature therefore of the animal (living being) was eternal (aionios, before aidios), and this indeed it was impossible to adapt to what was produced (to genneto, to what had a beginning); he thinks to make a moveable image ofeternity (aionos), and in adoring the heavens he makes of theeternity permanent in unity a certain eternal image moving in number, … And after unfolding this, he says (p. 38): "But these forms of time imitating eternity (aiona), and rolling round according to number, have had a beginning (gegonen).... For that patternexists for all eternity (panta aiona estin on), but on the other hand, that which is perpetual (dia telous) throughout all time has had a beginning, and is, and will be." … Aion is what is properly eternal, in contrast with a divine imitation of it in ages of time, the result of the creative action of God which imitated the uncreate as nearly as He could in created ages.. ]

In Plato the term is developed so as to represent a timeless, immeasurable and transcendent super-time, an idea of time in itself. Plutarch and the earlier Stoics appropriate this understanding, and from it theMysteries of Aion, the god of eternity, could be celebrated in Alexandria, and gnosticism could undertake its own speculations on time.
* * *

NIDNTT Colin Brown

Wherefore neither in place are things there formed by nature; nor does time cause them to grow old: neither is there any change of anything of those things which are arranged beyond the outermost orbit; butunchangeable, and subject to no influence, having the best and most independent life,they continue for all eternity (aiona). … According to the same word (logon) the completeness of the whole heaven, and thecompleteness which embraces all time and infinitude is aion, having received this name from existing for ever (apo tou aei einai), immortal (athanatos, undying), and divine." In 10 he goes on to shew that that beginning to be (genesthai) involves the not existing always, which I refer to as shewing what he means by aion. He is provingthe unchangeable eternity of the visible universe. That is no business of mine; but it shews what he means by eternity (aion). It cannot be aidion and genesthai at the same time, when, asin Plato, aidios is used as equivalent to aionios​

[continued in next post]

 

[Der Alte]

[Previous post continued]

Philo, the sentence is in De Mundo, 7, en aioni de oute pareleluthen ouden, oute mellei, alla monon iphesteken. Such a definition needs no explanation: in eternity nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but only subsists. This has the importance of being of the date and Hellenistic Greek of the New Testament, as the others give the regular, and at the same time philosophical force of the word, aion, aionios. Eternity, unchangeable, with no 'was' nor 'will be,' is its proper force, that it can be applied to the whole existence of a thing, so that nothing of its nature was before true or after is true, to telos to periechon. But its meaning is eternity, and eternal. … That is, things that are for a time are put in express contrast with aionia, which are not for a time, be it age or ages, but eternal. Nothing can be more decisive of its positive and specific meaning.

0166 aionios aionios without beginning or end, eternal, everlasting

LEH lxx lexicon

UBS GNT Dict. # 169 (Str#166)

aionios eternal (of quality rather than of time); unending, everlasting, for all time

αιωνιος (iva Pla., Tim. 38b; Jer 39:40; Ezk 37:26; 2 Th 2:16; Hb 9:12; as v.l. Ac 13:48; 2 Pt 1:11; Bl-D. §59, 2; Mlt.-H. 157), on eternal (since Hyperid. 6, 27; Pla.; inscr., pap., LXX; Ps.-Phoc. 112; Test. 12 Patr.; standing epithet for princely, esp. imperial power: Dit., Or. Index VIII; BGU 176; 303; 309; Sb 7517, 5 [211/2 ad] kuvrio" aij.; al. in pap.; Jos., Ant. 7, 352).

1. without beginning crovnoi" aij. long ages ago Ro 16:25; pro; crovnwn aij. before time began 2 Ti 1:9; Tit 1:2 (on crovno" aij. cf. Dit., Or. 248, 54; 383, 10).

2. without beginning or end; of God (Ps.-Pla., Tim. Locr. 96c qeo;n t. aijwvnion; Inscr. in the Brit. Mus. 894 aij. k. ajqavnato"; Gen 21:33; Is 26:4; 40:28; Bar 4:8 al.; Philo, Plant. 8; 74; Sib. Or., fgm. 3, 17 and 4; PGM 1, 309; 13, 280) Ro 16:26; of the Holy Spirit in Christ Hb 9:14. qrovno" aij. 1 Cl 65:2 (cf. 1 Macc 2:57).

3. without end (Diod. S. 1, 1, 5; 5, 73, 1; 15, 66, 1 dovxa aij. everlasting fame; in Diod. S. 1, 93, 1 the Egyptian dead are said to have passed to their aij. …keep someone forever Phlm 15 (cf. Job 40:28). …On the other hand of eternal life (Maximus Tyr. 6, 1d qeou` zwh; aij.; Diod. S. 8, 15, 3 life meta; to;n qavnaton lasts eij" a{panta aijw`na; Da 12:2; 4 Macc 15:3; PsSol 3, 12; Philo, …carav IPhld inscr.; doxavzesqai aijwnivw/ e[rgw/ be glorified by an everlasting deed IPol 8:1. DHill, Gk. Words and Hebr. Mngs. ’67, 186-201. M-M.

Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979.​

BIBLE STUDY MANUALS - AIONIOS -- AN IN DEPTH STUDY

aionios

• Strong's - Greek 165

• NRSV (the uses of the word in various contexts in the NRSV text):

again, age, course, end, eternal, forever, permanent, time, world, worlds

• CGED (A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, by Barclay M. Newman, New York: United Bible Societies, 1993, page 5):

age; world order; eternity (ap aion or pro aion, from the beginning; eis aion, and the strengthened form eis tous aion, ton aion, always, forever);

• The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology [NIDNTT], Volume 3 (edited by Colin Brown, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1978, page 827, 830):

In Plato the term [aion] is developed so as to represent a timeless, immeasurable and transcendent super-time, an idea of time in itself. Plutarch and other earlier Stoics appropriate this understanding, and from it the Mysteries of Aion, the god of eternity, could be celebrated in Alexandria, and gnosticism could undertake its own speculations on time.

The statements of the Johannine [John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John] writings, … reveal a strong inclination to conceive of a timeless, because post-temporal, eternity… As in the OT [Old Testament], these statements reveal the background conviction that God's life never ends, i.e. that everything belonging to him can also never come to an end…

aion - age, world

A. "for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity; the worlds, universe; period of time, age."

Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.

• aionion, aionios – - eternal

B. "aionios," the adjective corresponding, denoting eternal. It is used of that which in nature is endless, as, e.g., of God, (Rom. 16:26), His power, (1 Tim. 6:16), His glory, (1 Pet. 5:10), the Holy Spirit, (Heb. 9:14), redemption, (Heb. 9:12), salvation, (5:9), life in Christ, (John 3:16), the resurrection body, (2 Cor. 5:1), the future rule of Christ, (2 Pet. 1:11), which is declared to be without end, (Luke 1:33), of sin that never has forgiveness, (Mark 3:29), the judgment of God, (Heb. 6:2), and of fire, one of its instruments, (Matt. 18:8; 25:41; Jude 7)."

i. Rom. 16:26 - " . . .according to the commandment of the eternal God. . ."

ii. 1 Tim. 6:16 - ". . . To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen."

iii. 1 Pet. 5:10 - " . . . who called you to His eternal glory in Christ,"

iv. Mark 3:29 - " . . . never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."

v. etc.

SOURCE: Vine, W. E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981, Available: Logos Library System.

• "describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom. 16:26, and the other sixty–six places in the N.T.

A. Rom. 16:25 - " . . which has been kept secret for long ages past,"

B. Rom 16:26 - ". . . according to the commandment of the eternal God,"

C. 2 Tim. 1:9 - ". . . which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,"

D. Titus 1:2 - "the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised" long ages ago"

SOURCE: Vine, W. E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981, [Online] Available: Logos Library System)

• Eis tous aionios ton aionion – Forever and Ever, Lit. "into the age of the ages"

A. "unlimited duration of time, with particular focus upon the future - ‘always, forever, forever and ever, eternally."

B. Phil. 4:20 - ". . .to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever."

C. Rev. 19:3 - " . . .Her smoke rises up forever and ever."

D. Rev. 20:20 - "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."

SOURCE: Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989, Available: Logos Library System.​

 

[James Is Back]

Sorry Hillsage you're not convincing me for UR and I think you're taking passages out of context. So once again let's try this:

Matthew 25:41(NKJV)-Then He will also say to those on the left hand, &#8216;Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels

So how do you explain that verse? Depart from me where? Why did Jesus say this?

By the way I'm not asking for my benefit but want a UR believer to explain these warning passages to me.

I did and I told you that it didn't convince me. I'll give you credit though you did a good job of providing your end but still didn't convince me that UR is true.

Now do you want to respond to the verse in my last post?

Still waiting for the answer to my first quote.

 

[brixken7]

...

"That a word, any word, can be used in a hyperbolic or figurative sense does not change the inherent meaning. The meaning of any word is not determined by its use in one sentence. Once again if the punishment is not everlasting/eternal is the life everlasting/eternal? How many judgements before the throne does scripture record?" --Old Shepherd

The Concordant Literal New Testament gives us a good translation of Matthew 25:46:
"And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

In other words, God's saints will have the privilege of reigning with Christ during the millennial age. Clearly, the fact that the Bible doesn't teach eternal punishment, does not preclude what amounts to eternal life for the saved.

 

[Der Alte]

The Concordant Literal New Testament gives us a good translation of Matthew 25:46:
"And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

And you know that "the Concordant Literal New Testament gives a good translation," how? That someone, somehow, can find a version, somewhere that supports their assumptions/presuppositions does not make it correct.

In other words, God's saints will have the privilege of reigning with Christ during the millennial age. Clearly, the fact that the Bible doesn't teach eternal punishment, does not preclude what amounts to eternal life for the saved.

So you have found a version, somewhere that appears to support your assumptions/presuppositions, now you want to reinterpret Matt 25:46 to say something it does not say. Here is Matt 25:46 again.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
​

Please explain to me how "ζωὴν αἰώνιον"/zoen aionion becomes "have the privilege of reigning with Christ during the millennial age" and "eternal life." But κόλασιν αἰώνιον/kolasin aionion, does not mean eternal punishment? What happens to the saints when the millenium ends?

 

[brixken7]

And you know that "the Concordant Literal New Testament gives a good translation," how? That someone, somehow, can find a version, somewhere that supports their assumptions/presuppositions does not make it correct.



So you have found a version, somewhere that appears to support your assumptions/presuppositions, now you want to reinterpret Matt 25:46 to say something it does not say. Here is Matt 25:46 again.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
​

Please explain to me how "ζωὴν αἰώνιον"/zoen aionion becomes "have the privilege of reigning with Christ during the millennial age" and "eternal life." But κόλασιν αἰώνιον/kolasin aionion, does not mean eternal punishment? What happens to the saints when the millenium ends?

Please explain to me how" (God's saints) "have the privilege of reigning with Christ during the millennial age" and "eternal life."
"And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" (Revelation 20:4, 6) -- NOT "for ever and ever" (Revelation 22:5), but "for the ages of the ages" (same verse, Concordant Literal New Testament). In other words, they will live and reign during the millennial age and the age of the Great White Throne judgment.

"What happens to the saints when the millennium ends?"
God will use Christ and His saints to "judge the world" (I Corinthians 6:2).
And during this time EVERYONE who has ever lived will be alive since "death" (thanatos) "and hell" (hades) "were cast into the Lake of Fire" (Revelation 20:14). In other words, death is (temporarily) destroyed during this judgment age.

And with the resurrection from the Lake of Fire of the billions of previously unsaved people who were destroyed by "the second death" --- "death...will be no more" (Revelation 21:4). So not only God's saints, but EVERYONE will be alive on a New Earth!

 

[brixken7]

"Where does scripture speak of two judgments at the throne? Mat 25:46 does not say a thousand years." -- Der Alter
Matthew 25:31-46 is speaking of Christ's Second Coming -- not the Great White Throne Judgment. And other prophecies (such as Revelation 19:20-21) that concern Christ's Second Coming reveal that it will be quite a bloodbath when He comes since a great many will fight against him.

"You are confounding two different incidents. As I have shown above from nine (9) irrefutable sources aionios most definitely means eternal, unending, everlasting, etc. Your one cherry picked source does not, cannot, disprove the 9 sources I posted. Especially from Philo and Plato pre-Christian Greek philosophers." --Der Alter
"But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word" (Isaiah 66:2; not at the words of ancient Greek philosophers).

"Since death is the point in time end of life and has no physical properties it cannot be literally thrown anywhere..." --Der Alter
You want to take all of Revelation literally?
It can't be done.

"Actually there is no second death. Although the LOF is called the second death, not one scripture ways that someone is thrown into the LOF then they die." -- Der Alter
No scripture says that they don't die.
The "wages of sin is death" so they DO die in the "Lake" -- a second time -- thus the "Lake" is called "the second death."

"When the myriads of sinners who were thrown into the LOF are resurrected will they be so grateful to be finally resurrected that they will forget what happened to them? If death is destroyed in Rev 21:4 how is it that the fearful, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars still being thrown into the lake of fire after vs. 8?" -- Der Alter​

"Thrown into the Lake of Fire"?
Aside from the Beast and false prophet, God does not "throw" people into the Lake of Fire.
Once again you're taking things too literally.
The final form of the Lake of Fire is described in II Peter 3:10-12 and is much like a nuclear explosion.
It results in "swift destruction" (II Peter 2:1).

"If death is destroyed in Rev 21:4 how is it that the fearful, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars still being thrown into the lake of fire after vs. 8?" -- Der Alter​

I explained this to you previously.
All of the future events of the Bible (and God's plan of the ages) end in Revelation 21:5. Thus we read in verse 6, "It is done." And everything we read from that point on is basically an epilogue.

And by the way, "the fearful, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, "whoremongers, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars " are no longer such (unconverted) when 'cast' into the 'Lake.' They were those things, but have been converted.

​

 

[Hillsage]

Still waiting for the answer to my first quote.

I answered your first quote in post #215. You never refuted my answer, nor did you comment on it other than saying it was "out of context". I believe you're wrong on that point. I quoted the very same scripture you questioned, in 3 translations you don't agree with. Comment on those translations.

And now you want to move on to another verse 25:41. You mentioned 'context', and that is good. But what is the context of this verse 41? It is a judgment of WORKS and whether or not Jesus 'knew' them in those works of verses 35-36. Nothing in that judgment had to do with 'them knowing Jesus' as their savior, but only 'knowing Jesus as their Lord' in obedience. Then he compares them to the ones who did do 'righteous' deeds in verse 38. And where, you ask, did 'did Jesus depart to'?; I'd say the same place God departed to when He tells us/believers to "draw near unto me and I will draw near unto you". So where was God 'departed' to in that verse, is my answer to your question. Do you understand it? It has to do with imputed righteousness vs imparted righteousness, as well as the Bema judgment seat of Christ which is based upon works and not being born again.

2CO 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

 

[James Is Back]

I answered your first quote in post #215. You never refuted my answer, nor did you comment on it other than saying it was "out of context". I believe you're wrong on that point. I quoted the very same scripture you questioned, in 3 translations you don't agree with. Comment on those translations.

And now you want to move on to another verse 25:41. You mentioned 'context', and that is good. But what is the context of this verse 41? It is a judgment of WORKS and whether or not Jesus 'knew' them in those works of verses 35-36. Nothing in that judgment had to do with 'them knowing Jesus' as their savior, but only 'knowing Jesus as their Lord' in obedience. Then he compares them to the ones who did do 'righteous' deeds in verse 38. And where, you ask, did 'did Jesus depart to'?; I'd say the same place God departed to when He tells us/believers to "draw near unto me and I will draw near unto you". So where was God 'departed' to in that verse, is my answer to your question. Do you understand it? It has to do with imputed righteousness vs imparted righteousness, as well as the Bema judgment seat of Christ which is based upon works and not being born again.

2CO 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

The verse does not say anything of Jesus departing anywhere it says depart from me. The question was depart from me where? Or where does Jesus tell those where to depart to?