Universal Reconciliation

[John Hyperspace]

Now please explain to me why this overly long, meandering copy/paste is meaningless? Who is Prof. Tayler Lewis and why should we accept anything he says? What is the name and publication date of the publication this was C/P from? Who are the people quoted in this article and why should we accept anything they say? Just because you find an article online which supports your assumptions/presuppositions does not mean it is valid. Here you have done exactly what you accused me of in post #162, above.

Yes, you're right, I did do what you have been doing. We can cut-and-paste walls of text to one another, or, we can meaningfully dialogue. I leave that to you. The quotes are from "authorities" from all ages, from the use of "aion/ios" in classic Greek, in the LXX, from Lexicons, etc. The general consensus is that "aion" means "an age of indefinite time" and most seem to regard the duration of "aion/ios" as corresponding to the subject. If you want to know what the words say, read. If you don't; don't. You wanted a wall of text quotes and citations; I gave it to you.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, you're right, I did do what you have been doing. We can cut-and-paste walls of text to one another, or, we can meaningfully dialogue. I leave that to you. The quotes are from "authorities" from all ages, from the use of "aion/ios" in classic Greek, in the LXX, from Lexicons, etc. The general consensus is that "aion" means "an age of indefinite time" and most seem to regard the duration of "aion/ios" as corresponding to the subject. If you want to know what the words say, read. If you don't; don't. You wanted a wall of text quotes and citations; I gave it to you.

I did NOT quote walls of text. I quoted short passages from twelve or more correctly identified accredited language authorities. I speak more than one language and in all of them the proper way to determine the meaning of words is to refer to accredited lexicons in that language.
.....And once again I remind you just because something is posted on the internet does not make it credible. None of the so-called authorities or references in the wall of text you posted are correctly identified. Smith said this, Jones said that, Brown said something else etc. are not credible citations. I did not see one citation from an accredited lexicon. But I did happen to see the author of the piece, whoever he might be, did use the word "hyperbolically" referring to "aionios."
.....Please use your method to tell me the correct meaning of this.
בטח אל־יהוה בכל־לבך ואל־בינתך אל־תשׁען׃

 

[Der Alte]

No, you shouldn't blindly trust anything anyone is teaching you (that's what you're doing with the circular reasoning of citing translation to prove translation).

What you should be doing is using basic reasoning.

You've not address the obvious error in translating "aion/ios" as "eternal/eternally" which renders absurd passages such as "end of the eternal" "before the beginning of eternity" "eternally hidden, now revealed" : you could also see the verses in the OP which come into contradiction with your teaching.

How do you resolve the idealistic contradiction you're causing between the bible's "Saviour of all men" and your "most men will suffer forever unsaved"?

Between the bible's "to reconcile all things to Him" to your "virtually no thing will be reconciled to Him"?

Between the bible's "takes away the sin of the world" and your "takes away the sin of almost no one" Etc. . . .

Here from your unidentified quoted wall of text.

"...Olam here would seem to be taken as a hyperbolical term for indefinite or unmeasured duration...."​

Link:
AIÓN -- AIÓNIOS

 

[John Hyperspace]

.....Please use your method to tell me the correct meaning of this.
בטח אל־יהוה בכל־לבך ואל־בינתך אל־תשׁען׃

Give trust to Jehovah in all your heart, and don't stay in your own wisdom.

And "all" means "all" in that: not "some of your heart" or "most of your heart" all.

Now you do these:

ἠλπίκαμεν ἐπὶ Θεῷ ζῶντι ὅς ἐστιν Σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων

and

πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων

 

[John Hyperspace]

Here from your unidentified quoted wall of text.

"...Olam here would seem to be taken as a hyperbolical term for indefinite or unmeasured duration...."​

Link:
AIÓN -- AIÓNIOS

Yep. Thanks for posting. You do realize "indefinite" and "unmeasured" is not saying eternal? It is saying "time of unknown length i.e. an "aeon"? I ask this because, why else would you cite that unless you were greatly misunderstanding it as, supporting the translation of "eternal"?

 

[Der Alte]

Yep. Thanks for posting. You do realize "indefinite" and "unmeasured" is not saying eternal? It is saying "time of unknown length i.e. an "aeon"? I ask this because, why else would you cite that unless you were greatly misunderstanding it as, supporting the translation of "eternal"?

You are missing the point. Your own unidentified source interpreted the word "aionios" hyperbolically. Don't you recall criticizing me when I said that words are often used hyperbolically? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, it does not work only one way. And OBTW you have not established your 160+ year old quote as being authoritative. Are any of the people cited in that long article ever quoted by modern Bible scholars?

Words are often used hyperbolically in the Bible.

. . .
I guess you don't realize that you've just refuted yourself again? Hyperbole means "exaggerated to the point of not being literally true": are you saying "aionios" is being used as "hyperbole"? . . .

 

[John Hyperspace]

You are missing the point. Your own unidentified source interpreted the word "aionios" hyperbolically. Don't you recall criticizing me when I said that words are often used hyperbolically? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, it does not work only one way.

Yes, I do recall the critique. It's because the word "hyperbolic" means "greatly exaggerated" and that's why some of the cites are saying it's being used in hyperbolic fashion: greatly exaggerated, not literally "forever" but in the same sense one might say "This will take forever" they are not literally meaning "forever" as if the task will literally require eternity to complete; they are using it as hyperbole, meaning "a finite amount of time" but expressing it by way of hyperbolic use of "forever": which is why you saying "aionios" is employed "hyperbolically" is you once again undermining your own position without even realizing it.

None of this changes the fact that

1. Your entire proposition of "endless suffering" is based on a specific translation of a highly debatable word (do you propose "aion" to mean "eternity" or not?); and even if we allow that very unlikely translation still doesn't support your doctrine of "endless suffering" (except in a single verse in the Revelation in the English of some - not all - translations). The very best you can support is the doctrine of annihilation. "Endless suffering" has no support at all (save the single Revelation verse in some English translations)

2. You are ignoring/altering the universal reconciliation passages which BOTH "endless suffering" and "annihilation" doctrines clearly contradict.

3. You are potentially (likely) blaspheming God with the darkest form of blasphemy possible. Given this simple fact, anyone who cared about the reputation of God (not putting their own reputation before His) wouldn't be teaching either annihilation or endless suffering doctrine. Believe it? Perhaps; but teach it? No. Not if the end result has the potential of such dark blasphemy if incorrect.

 

[Der Alte]

Give trust to Jehovah in all your heart, and don't stay in your own wisdom.
And "all" means "all" in that: not "some of your heart" or "most of your heart" all.
Now you do these:
ἠλπίκαμεν ἐπὶ Θεῷ ζῶντι ὅς ἐστιν Σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων
and
πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων

Just a little info, I started learning to speak Greek the year that Elvis and I were stationed in Germany and formally studied both Biblical languages about a decade after that. What does the words pas, pan etc. mean in these passages?

Romans 1:8
(8) First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.
Acts 24:5
(5) "We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect
Romans 10:18
(18) But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."
Revelation 18:23
(23) The light of a lamp will never shine in you again. The voice of bridegroom and bride will never be heard in you again. Your merchants were the world's important people. By your magic spell all the nations were led astray.
Luke 12:30
(30) For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.
John 12:19
(19) The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.
John 17:14
(14) I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Acts 19:27
(27) So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.
Colossians 1:6
(6) Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:​

 

[John Hyperspace]

What does the words pas, pan etc. mean in these passages?

The Greek word "pas" means "all": I note you never translated the words I gave you, after I indulged your request. I note that you reply to nothing I say or ask, but only continually ask questions of me (which I answer as I am given): in the passages, the question is not "what is the meaning of 'all'" it is "what is the meaning of 'world'": the KJV translation of "world" doesn't mean "entire globe" it is talking about an idealized region, just as the phrase "eretz Israel" doesn't mean "the entire globe of Israel" but does mean "the region of Israel": but the Greek word "pas" means "all" and no one debates this. "Aionios" on the other hand? Virtually no one will disagree that "aion" means "an indefinite span of time" (unloess you do?); and "aionios" is merely the adjective form of "aion"; any modifying use of a noun automatically means the same thing as the noun, that is why the noun is being used as a modifier. If "aion" means "age" then "aionios" means "age-like"; the only way "aionios" can mean "eternal" is if "aoin" means "eternity" and it doesn't. Unless you think "until the end of the aion" should be translated "until the end of the eternity" which is nonsensical.

 

[Der Alte]

The Greek word "pas" means "all": I note you never translated the words I gave you, after I indulged your request. I note that you reply to nothing I say or ask, but only continually ask questions of me (which I answer as I am given):

A patently false statement. Before making accusations like this go back and answer the parts of my posts which you ignored such as this from post #172.

"And OBTW you have not established your 160+ year old quote as being authoritative. Are any of the people cited in that long article ever quoted by modern Bible scholars?"​

The question is not "what is the meaning of 'all'" it is "what is the meaning of 'world'": the KJV translation of "world" doesn't mean "entire globe" it is talking about an idealized region, just as the phrase "eretz Israel" doesn't mean "the entire globe of Israel" but does mean "the region of Israel": but the Greek word "pas" means "all" and no one debates this.

But pas, pan etc. does not mean all in the verses I quoted above, right? I must have missed where you provided evidence that "'world' doesn't mean 'entire globe' it is talking about an idealized region," Assumptions and suppositions are not evidence. OBTW "eretz" does not mean only "world" it also means land, country, territory etc.

ארץ 'erets
BDB Definition:
1) land, earth
1a) earth
1a1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
1a2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
1a3) earth (inhabitants)
1b) land
1b1) country, territory
1b2) district, region
1b3) tribal territory
1b4) piece of ground
1b5) land of Canaan, Israel
1b6) inhabitants of land
1b7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world
1b8) city (-state)
1c) ground, surface of the earth
1c1) ground
1c2) soil
1d) (in phrases)
1d1) people of the land
1d2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
1d3) level or plain country
1d4) land of the living
1d5) end(s) of the earth
1e) (almost wholly late in usage)
1e1) lands, countries
1e1a) often in contrast to Canaan
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from an unused root probably meaning to be firm
Same Word by TWOT Number: 167​

"Aionios" on the other hand? Virtually no one will disagree that "aion" means "an indefinite span of time" (unloess you do?); and "aionios" is merely the adjective form of "aion"; any modifying use of a noun automatically means the same thing as the noun, that is why the noun is being used as a modifier. If "aion" means "age" then "aionios" means "age-like"; the only way "aionios" can mean "eternal" is if "aoin" means "eternity" and it doesn't. Unless you think "until the end of the aion" should be translated "until the end of the eternity" which is nonsensical.

Please review my link: Post #122 above. One specious objection has been presented but no, zero, none scholarly evidence just assumptions/presuppositions. One word in a ten page quote does not refute anything.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No we take it to mean what it says. The wicked will not inherit the kingdom. The statement says nothing about the wicked being made righteous. Like, say, all men who were at one time wicked, and in their wicked state would not inherit the kingdom. But then they were made righteous, and now they will. You do understand what "conversion" means, right? In case you don't, it means to go from a state of being wicked, to being reconciled to God by the work of Christ. If it happened to you, why do you think it's so difficult for it to happen to others?



The work of Christ was needed to reconcile all things in heaven and earth to God:

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

The rest of your post is founded on misunderstanding and needs no reply that hasn't already been given. But what your post has once again done is completely ignore every verse in the OP and completely fail to show support for the "endless suffering" doctrine. How long can you go on in this discussion failing to show a shred of biblical support for the doctrine you teach others (which doctrine by the way again, if not true, is the highest form of blasphemy against God): how much empty talk will you engage in order to continue to potentially blaspheme God to the highest degree possible?

Again, just in case you don't understand; "blaspheme" literal means "to injure the reputation/name/fame" and if your doctrine is wrong, and God is not a mass-torturer, you would be guilty of injuring the reputation of God to a nearly unfathomable degree. At any point, do you ever consider God in your thoughts? Do you ever care about His name and reputation which you may be dragging through the proverbial mud? Most false doctrines wouldn't injure the reputation of God: but "endless suffering" doctrine, if false, would be one of very few false doctrines that would actually be causing great blasphemy against God just by teaching it.

If this expressed position were true, that nothing in Scripture denies UR, then am unclear why anyone would need to first ignore references to the Sermon on the mount as just me talking about nothing, then when repeatedly press suggest "not inherit" simply meant not at the moment but maybe later it will be inherited. If everyone will inherit by eventually being married to Jesus either during this or in the next life, what would be the point of repeating the juxtaposition so many times in Sermon?
And where does God present the idea of a second chance to get hitched to His Son after leaving Him literally at the alter waiting while running off to live this life married to a different person?

Can UR be explained so there are no vessels of wrath and yet there are vessels of wrath? And why was this Scripture totally ignored when I first posted it?

"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory" Romans 9:22-23​

If there was truly a concern about God's reputation, it should not be one mistaken from my view. I would think someone attempting to make God more like some human father should be very concerned, especially if the attempt requires severely underestimating His abhorrence of our current state to make us appear more lovable as all the Father's children while reducing His Nature so that Justice and Wrath are mere fleeting thought [overcome of necessity by is Mercy and Love]. The difference here is the orthodox view does not distort His Justice or Wrath to "help" Him be seen by some of us as Loving and Merciful. God does not have a human PR problem that needs to be solved by lowering Him to our standards so He supposedly looks better to us or simultaneously in imagining ourselves to be lovable to Him as we are in our corrupted nature. In CS Lewis words:

"I have been trying to make the reader believe that we actually are, at present, creatures whose character must be, in some respects, a horror to God, as it is, when we really see it, a horror to ourselves. This I believe to be a fact: and I notice that the holier a man is, the more fully he is aware of that fact. Perhaps you have imagined that this humility in the saints is a pious illusion at which God smiles. That is a most dangerous error. It is theoretically dangerous, because it makes you identify a virtue (i.e., a perfection) with an illusion (i.e., an imperfection), which must be nonsense. It is practically dangerous because it encourages a man to mistake his first insights into his own corruption for the first beginnings of a halo round his own silly head. No; depend upon it, when the saints say that they - even they - are vile, they are recording truth with scientific accuracy."​

http://www.fellowshipoffaith.org/images/files/upload/Problem_of_Pain.pdf

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No you haven't. The only thing you've done is ignore them, or, change the words from "all" to "some": all you have done is ignored or altered the scripture, in order to teach a potentially blasphemous doctrine which doesn't have a shred of biblical support.

Not sure where I need to change "all" to "some". The Son of God calls everyone, but not everyone is given the Grace to have the faith to respond to that call. The whole point of there being vessels of wrath, a classic predestination verse, is that He made those people anyway and for His Glory, even knowing they would leave His Son calling them from the alter to serve another groom as bride in this life.
And this has moved way beyond asking if we can suspend our beliefs and accept a handful of verses and then ONLY as each of those is understood in the singular way the OP would have it (declared without a doubt it can only be understood that way - as a false assumption itself). We now have rather fantastic claims this view jives with the Sermon on the Mount because "not inherit" as opposed to "inherit" does not mean God couldn't make those said to "not inherit" righteous later. Which throws what Jesus did out with the bath water if we are to imagine God would (certainly He could just blanket pardon everybody I suppose) just make people righteous even if they did refuse to marry His Son. So UR becomes, just what many here have alleged, a backdoor into a Kingdom said to be only available to us by hitching ourself as brides to the Man who inherited the Kingdom. Why bother marrying the cow when we can get the milk anyway for free comes to mind. And how could the Father not be offended by someone leaving His Son calling to them from the alter?

And how duplicitous would God have to be envisioned to claim marrying His Son in this life is the only way, except this backdoor over here where I just declare you righteous in the next life after you stood Him up at the alter your entire life?

 

[Oldmantook]

That's true.


What I would take exception to most of all in that summary is the part about the good news. That's an unofficial, non-scriptural rationale for universalism, but it assumes that everyone deserves salvation, or, if not that, that God is evil if he doesn't save everyone.

I believe that since all humans deserve hell (unless there is someone who's kept the Law perfectly throughout life), if God chooses to save ANY OF US, for any reason, he's merciful and good.

Your main objection to my view as I understood you was that there was not sufficient scriptural evidence to support Universalism to which I replied that there is sufficient evidence based upon how one interprets "all" and translates aion and it adjectival forms. We can wax back and forth philosophical arguments about who or who doesn't deserve hell but it it doesn't really prove anything. My reference to the Good News is indeed scriptural depending on how one interprets "all." According to my held view, the Good News is that God will eventually save all; some in this age; the remainder in some future age. Of course at this point you would disagree with me.
We could go on and on until the cows come home but that would take too much of my time (and yours I suppose) so it appears we will just have to agree to disagree. If you're at all inclined to look into the subject further, my suggestion would be to look at David Burnfield's Patristic Universalism: An Alternative to the Traditional View of Divine Judgment. It's not a difficult read and it's free if you have a subscription or trial membership to kindleunlimited on Amazon.

 

[Albion]

Your main objection to my view as I understood you was that there was not sufficient scriptural evidence to support Universalism to which I replied that there is sufficient evidence based upon how one interprets "all" and translates aion and it adjectival forms.

That's true.

That was the main point made on both sides, but here you're replying to an additional one--the idea that if God is good he has to save everyone.

According to my held view, the Good News is that God will eventually save all; some in this age; the remainder in some future age. Of course at this point you would disagree with me.
We could go on and on until the cows come home but that would take too much of my time (and yours I suppose) so it appears we will just have to agree to disagree.

Sure. It's actually refreshing to have someone around here say that we've shared our thinking and remain unpersuaded by the other person's arguments, so we can just agree to disagree.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

A small clean up was done because of some flaming. Remember to keep the debate to the topic and content of a member's post and not about them member themselves. ​

 

[Oldmantook]

That's true.

That was the main point made on both sides, but here you're replying to an additional one--the idea that if God is good he has to save everyone.


Sure. It's actually refreshing to have someone around here say that we've shared our thinking and remain unpersuaded by the other person's arguments, so we can just agree to disagree.

Indeed, we are all fallible creatures and I am open to learning - especially if I'm wrong so I remain open to correction. Thank you Albion as I enjoyed our short discussion.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Not sure where I need to change "all" to "some".

I suppose you could start here:

1 Timothy 4:10 the Saviour of all men

 

[John Hyperspace]

Can UR be explained so there are no vessels of wrath

Not that I know of. The scripture is pretty clear there are vessels of wrath.

 

[Albion]

I suppose you could start here:

1 Timothy 4:10 the Saviour of all men

Taking the verse at face value, it says that he's the savior of all men, especially of those who believe, which would mean that the prospect of salvation which had been closed off to all men before the coming of the Savior had been opened, but that only some would wind up being saved. Elsewise, the last part of the sentence would not make sense. So it may stand as a proof text in a discussion of predestination or something else, but not of universal salvation.

Incidentally, if all the verses that you present as meaning that eternal doesn't equal forever in the case of damnation are correctly interpreted, would it follow that there is no eternal salvation either?

 

[John Hyperspace]

Taking the verse at face value, it says that he's the savior of all men, especially of those who believe, which would mean that the prospect of salvation which had been closed off to all men before the coming of the Savior had been opened, but that only some would wind up being saved.

So you're changing "Saviour of all" to "only some". You're not only altering "Saviour of all men" to "some", you're wanting me to believe a person can be called "Saviour" and not save; which is not what the word means.

Elsewise, the last part of the sentence would not make sense.

Tit 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

What does that verse mean? Are only "they of the circumcision" the only "unruly and vain talkers and deceivers"? Or, are the just a part of that category? The Timothy verse is meaning what it says. Saviour of all men; and espcially of the ones that presently believe. Because they already know it; the rest of man, doesn't.

If I say "Saviour of all Philadelphia" how much Philadelphia was saved? It's a simple concept, being a "saviour" of something. It means "saves" not "does not save"

Incidentally, if all the verses that you present as meaning that eternal doesn't equal forever in the case of damnation are correctly interpreted, would it follow that there is no eternal salvation either?

"Eternal life" would mean "life of the age" which is the Word of God; that gives life in the ages. The concept of "immortality" or the common concept of "eternal life" is expressed in other ways in scripture; but not in the word "aionion"; that word is the adjective form of "aion" which means "age"; and any adjective form of a noun is meaning what the noun means; that is why the noun is being used as a modifying adjective: to express the meaning of the noun as a modifier.

Again, the point here being that

1. Your entire doctrine is founded on a word that is highly questionably translated; debated in meaning for thousands of years.
2. Even mistranslating "aionion" as "everlasting" yields no support for "eternal suffering" (except a single verse in the Revelation; and that by translating "torment" which is also questionable in the idealistic form it's being conveyed by "eternal suffering doctrine"): meaning, "torment" means "sorrow, grief" and we might say "sorrow is torment" but that is an overgeneralization; sorrow is not comparable to immersion in literal fire in regards to the quality of suffering.

Thus "eternal torture" is based on highly specious translation of a single word, and also yields no support whatsoever in scripture save a single passage in apocalyptic literature. In other words, there is no reason the doctrine should exist at all. Its entire existence is based on the worst possible kind of eisegesis, which itself is based upon a highly specious translation. Its entire existence is based on baseless traditional doctrine.