Universalism and 2 thessalonians

[spinningtutu]

being "saved" and being a "Christian" are actually two different things... ;-)

 

[mortsmune]

or absoluteist, and I'm not sure which is worse. To disagree with Protestants is not to be atheists. Of course we believe that Jesus is and was the propitiaon of our sins. What we are saying is that through the Grace of Christ our sins are washed away, we are forgiven. But to be saved you must live as Christ commanded; be the sheep - or the good samaratin, or the faithful steward (or whichever one of Jesus MANY commands that to follow him is to serve his people that you like best).

When the men brought the woman who was caught in adultory out to be stoned, and he stopped them he turned to her and said, "Go and sin no more", not "Go and believe in God".

When the woman with the alabaster jar washed his feet with ointment and her tears, he told her that her faith had saved her, "GO AND SIN NO MORE"

When the young man asked "What must I do to have life", he answered "Love God, Love tyour neighbor, keep the commandments"

Never once did he teach that all a man had to do to be have life, and to be his disciple was easy believeism. Always he taught the same : faith, hope and charity.

Your assumption about "easy believism" is incorrect. That is not what I am talking about. You say you believe in Christ as propitiation and that through Grace our sins are washed away. Then you say that one must "sin no more." and keep the commandments. These are contradictions. If our sins are covered, then what do you mean? No one keeps the commandments. No one "sins no more." No one loves their neighbor as themselves. That is the purpose of the redemption through Christ. If Jesus' blood was not enough, then what was it all about? If we still have to work our way to heaven, then what in Heaven's name does propitiation mean and what good is it?

Do you think that one has only to do one "good deed" to obtain eternal life? How many does it take? Two? Three? Or does every act and every thought and every motive have to be conformed to the "teachings of Jesus" for one to obtain eternal life? How many? How much? Must our entire life, every waking moment, every thought be only good and loving and kind before it is enough to allow us into heaven?

You still neglect the words of Jesus: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten/unique son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

You have apparently dismissed the entire writings of Paul and referred to "fundamentalists" as following a "Pauline religion." By what reasoning and authority do you dismiss the writings of Paul? Are you God that you can decide which of the scriptures are "good" and which are "bad"?

According to your belief, it would seem that no one can know they have eternal life until the day of judgment. Was the Apostle John lying when he said, "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God"? (1Jo 5:13)

Was John the Baptist lying when he said, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him"? (Joh 3:36)

Was Jesus Himself lying when He said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"? (Mar 16:16)

Or when He said,"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."? (Joh 5:24)

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Yes he was lying!!!
Why ask it like that?

LOL

I thought the whole point was
1. that only Jesus knows who recognises him.
2. we look for Jesus in and with others, interdependently with them and Jesus!

These points are supposed to be inclusive not exclusive. To seek out Jesus in and with others, regardless of how they live this, because things will "ring true" about them. We all have wrong and right perspectives and historically Christian's spend too much time pointing out their differences (even with other Christian's!) than asking God to show us where God is in the people around us and follow God with them!

We are called to make Disciples, not Christians. How many of us truly seek discipleship or seek to disciple others, rather than lead them, lecture them, bully them, outsmart them? (I ask this to myself as well)

Anything else is up for grabs?

 

[PastorJason]

Let me hop into my wrestling garb, complete with funky face mask, before I jump off the top rope ... here goes!

Your assumption about "easy believism" is incorrect. That is not what I am talking about. You say you believe in Christ as propitiation and that through Grace our sins are washed away. Then you say that one must "sin no more." and keep the commandments. These are contradictions. If our sins are covered, then what do you mean? No one keeps the commandments. No one "sins no more." No one loves their neighbor as themselves. That is the purpose of the redemption through Christ. If Jesus' blood was not enough, then what was it all about? If we still have to work our way to heaven, then what in Heaven's name does propitiation mean and what good is it?

Okay. You're an atonement guy. I can dig that, there are lots of atonement folk out there. But. But. Atonement is only one theory of soteriology (the arm of theology concerned with salvation), not the only one. There are others. Some folks would even say that the literalist reading of the NT, ending in atonement theory, is an overly modern reading of a Hellenist idea, and that it's time has come and gone.

Do you think that one has only to do one "good deed" to obtain eternal life? How many does it take? Two? Three? Or does every act and every thought and every motive have to be conformed to the "teachings of Jesus" for one to obtain eternal life? How many? How much? Must our entire life, every waking moment, every thought be only good and loving and kind before it is enough to allow us into heaven?

While I see soteriology as an interesting enterprise, I also think that sometimes folks spend too much time gazing into the sky, wondering how to get into heaven, and not enough wondering how to make creation a better place with the help of God, and the example of Jesus. That's just me. Wondering if you need stamps on a heavenly passport? Too much frippery. Just do as Jesus commanded - that's what I think. And I think we are meant to aspire to "every waking moment, every thought be only good and loving and kind". I think we'll fall short, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

You still neglect the words of Jesus: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten/unique son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Those are words of Jesus, according to the author of the Gospel of John. We agree there. But. But. They are not the only words of Jesus on the matter of salvation. Here's a what if: what if when he said "believe in him", Jesus meant "believe so deeply as to be transformed - even to following me, carrying the cross I carry, and being faithful even unto the possibility of the cross"? I think the belief Jesus was talking about is more than mere intellectual or emotional assent. I think belief in the Christ event exemplified by the man Jesus of Nazareth transforms lives, and that love of God leads to love of the neighbor in a totally new and countercultural way.

You have apparently dismissed the entire writings of Paul and referred to "fundamentalists" as following a "Pauline religion." By what reasoning and authority do you dismiss the writings of Paul? Are you God that you can decide which of the scriptures are "good" and which are "bad"?

Without trying to step on Rev. Smith's toes, I'm reasonably sure he doesn't think he's God. Of course, neither did the men who got together in councils to decide which books and letters were included in the canon of the NT, and which didn't make the cut. We've just been taking their word for it all these years, and I've not met a theologian yet who has at least one book of the NT that they want to just chuck. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al - every one of them had books in the canon they just didn't like, and questioned (openly or not) their inclusion in the original canon. I'm guessing the canon was a bit of give and take, given what we believe they had to work with at the time. By the by, everyone creates their own canon - books we like, books we don't like. I do, and I'm confident you do too.

According to your belief, it would seem that no one can know they have eternal life until the day of judgment. Was the Apostle John lying when he said, "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God"? (1Jo 5:13)

Was he lying? No, I don't think so. Was he expressing his own beliefs, opinions, and personal theology? Yes. As to knowing we have eternal life - I think we do - we've been promised the glory of resurrection, and live with that hope. Dividing people into saved or not is not our job as human beings. I leave the big decisions like that up to God, and I cannot even begin to believe that I know God's will in its entirety - nor can anyone else.

Was John the Baptist lying when he said, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him"? (Joh 3:36)

Again, these are the words of John the Baptizer as reported (at least second-hand) by the author of the Gospel of John. Was the Baptizer lying? No. But he was expressing his own theological outlook - his own expression of his own relationship and understanding of God.

Was Jesus Himself lying when He said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"? (Mar 16:16)

This one's a little different. The words of Jesus this time, and reported (at least second-hand) by the author of the Gospel of Mark. Was he lying? No. But to whom was he speaking? In what context? And yes, even then, he was expressing his own understanding of God and God's will. And please, don't start with the "but he was God" thread - yes, I think so too, but probably not in the same way you do. Getting off on that tangent would serve little purpose in this discussion. But go ahead, if you must. Because, given experience, you are likely to anyway.

Or when He said,"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."? (Joh 5:24)

Once again, the lying question? Again, no. But. But. Not only do we have the idea of personal theological viewpoint, but also this idea of what is meant by "believe" (reference a few paragraphs up, give or take), and our response to that belief. Trying out our belief on the inerrancy of scripture and who said what probably isn't going to get anywhere. There's an obvious difference in hermeneutics.

Thanks for giving me something to ponder. God bless.

 

[Rev. Smith]

Good mornin mortsume...

I had been thinking about my response this morning, and sat down now to enter it. Since Pastor Jason and Flandidlyanders have done such a masterful job, I can go on to other things.

But please, think about this. (actually think about it rather than race to your Bible to look up ways to refute it)

The opposite of true is false.
Truth is not discerned through dueling proof texts, but by reading and understanding.

You accuse me of thinking I'm God to pick and choose passages, but are you not doing the same? (the picking and choosing part, I think its rude to accuse people of blasphamy) Have you not simply ignored all of the passages on faith, hope and charity - only a few of which I've pointed out?

I accept the teachings of Paul, James and Peter - when they are in accord with the teachings of Jesus. Jesus is the living God, the rest were men who followed him.

In seminary one of the assignments I was once given, after I had argued for hours with Father Ivan, over the practice of prayers for the departed. was to write a paper proving that it was proper to so do. I turned it in and got an A. The following week he gave the class an assignment, which was to write the same paper I had already written, except for me. Me he assigned the duty to write a paper proving it was improper to offer prayers for the dead. Got on A on that one too. Fr. Ivan taught me that to truly know the answer to a theological proposition I had to understand both arguments, compleatly. Then using discernment determine which is true.

Do you understand any soteriology other than your own?

 

[apenman]

Believing is all about faith! Faith is expressed through love, and love is the fulfillment of the law, that being the law of Christ.

 

[mortsmune]

Good mornin mortsume...

I had been thinking about my response this morning, and sat down now to enter it. Since Pastor Jason and Flandidlyanders have done such a masterful job, I can go on to other things.

But please, think about this. (actually think about it rather than race to your Bible to look up ways to refute it)

The opposite of true is false.
Truth is not discerned through dueling proof texts, but by reading and understanding.

You accuse me of thinking I'm God to pick and choose passages, but are you not doing the same? (the picking and choosing part, I think its rude to accuse people of blasphamy) Have you not simply ignored all of the passages on faith, hope and charity - only a few of which I've pointed out?

I accept the teachings of Paul, James and Peter - when they are in accord with the teachings of Jesus. Jesus is the living God, the rest were men who followed him.

In seminary one of the assignments I was once given, after I had argued for hours with Father Ivan, over the practice of prayers for the departed. was to write a paper proving that it was proper to so do. I turned it in and got an A. The following week he gave the class an assignment, which was to write the same paper I had already written, except for me. Me he assigned the duty to write a paper proving it was improper to offer prayers for the dead. Got on A on that one too. Fr. Ivan taught me that to truly know the answer to a theological proposition I had to understand both arguments, compleatly. Then using discernment determine which is true.

Do you understand any soteriology other than your own?

First of all, I'm sorry if you thought me rude, but I don't think I have cornered the market on that in this forum. I did not accuse you of blasphemy. I asked a question. You do pick and choose. I try to take it all. I, being a nasty conservative, happen to believe that all the Bible is the word of God. I just didn't have the space and time to quote the entire Bible and give a thorough exegesis of it in this forum. However, you do seem to reject certain verses. That was my point in that comment.

 

[Rev. Smith]

... You do pick and choose. I try to take it all. I, being a nasty conservative, happen to believe that all the Bible is the word of God. I just didn't have the space and time to quote the entire Bible and give a thorough exegesis of it in this forum. However, you do seem to reject certain verses. That was my point in that comment.

We've gotten into the "Yes you did" "no you didn't" "YES YOU DID", "NO YOU DIDN't" mode.

You accuse me of picking and choosing, because I don't accept your argument that the passsages on faith are exclusive. I accuse you of picking and choosing because you don't accept my argument that the passages on service to our fellow man are required.

Once again, those of us who don't believe in faith alone do not hold that faith is not required, we understand Jesus to teach 'Faith AND', not 'faith only'.

I accept your apology - and I sugest you give some prayer to this, we are called to love one another, to discern, debate and find the truth - but to do so with kindness, gentleness and love (St. Paul tought that, remember?).

Why not shed the "nasty conservative" label you hung on yourself, and just be conservative? Your view is shared by millions but so is mine. The only essentials are those taught by Jesus, Love God, Love your neighbor keep the commandments. If we can not be decent to one another, we have neither faith or works, and are desolate.

The sheep and the goats says that those who will be welcome in the Kingdom are those who do works of love, but there is no doctrine test; if you want to believe that you were saved by faith alone and your works are meaningless, go ahead, but do the works anyway. If I want to believe that my faith in God, my love for my neighbor (as expressed in works) and keeping the commandments are how I please God, what does that effect in your faith?

If faith alone will save me, will God condem me for having faith, and then going and working to ease the suffering of other people?

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Yoyo Rev. I totally go with yer statement, but don't you see how it's this kind of "let's agree to dissagree" stuff that labels us Liberal? No matter how Christlike it is?

I hope you get a good response from this morts geezer.

 

[FineLinen]

Hey! Not sure if this belongs here! I hope I can get some kind of answer though.

I'm currently researching a lot about Universalism, and I was wondering if there were any universalists who would mind commenting on 2 Thessalonians 1.8-9? I must admit it has me stumped at the moment.
Hope this is ok.
Thanks,
Craig

Hi there Criag: Dr. Marvin Vincent (who to my knowledge did not grasp the Restitution of all things) but was/is one of the finest scholars of Koine, had this to say regarding olethros...

Dr. Marvin Vincent New Testament Word Studies

http://www.godrules.net/library/vincent/vincent.htm

Olethron Aionion -Eternal Destruction- -Dr. Marvin Vincent-

'Aion, transliterated aeon, is a period of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle (peri ouravou, i. 9,15) says: "The period which includes the whole time of one's life is called the aeon of each one." Hence it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one's life (aion) is said to leave him or to consume away (Iliad v. 685; Odyssey v. 160).

It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millenium; the mythological period before the beginnings of history.

The word has not "a stationary and mechanical value" (De Quincey). It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many aeons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one aeon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow's life, another of an oak's life. The length of the aeon depends on the subject to which it is attached.

It is sometimes translated world; world represents a period or a series of periods of time. See Matt 12:32; 13:40,49; Luke 1:70; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6; Eph 1:21. Similarly oi aiones, the worlds, the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world. 1 Cor 2:7; 10:11; Heb 1:2; 9:26; 11:3.

The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting.

To deduce that meaning from its relation to aei is absurd; for, apart from the fact that the meaning of a word is not definitely fixed by its derivation, aei does not signify endless duration. When the writer of the Pastoral Epistles quotes the saying that the Cretans are always (aei) liars (***. 1:12), he surely does not mean that the Cretans will go on lying to all eternity. See also Acts 7:51; 2 Cor. 4:11; 6:10; Heb 3:10; 1 Pet. 3:15. Aei means habitually or continually within the limit of the subject's life. In our colloquial dialect everlastingly is used in the same way. "The boy is everlastingly tormenting me to buy him a drum."

In the New Testament the history of the world is conceived as developed through a succession of aeons. A series of such aeons precedes the introduction of a new series inaugurated by the Christian dispensation, and the end of the world and the second coming of Christ are to mark the beginning of another series. Eph. 1:21; 2:7; 3:9,21; 1 Cor 10:11; compare Heb. 9:26. He includes the series of aeons in one great aeon, 'o aion ton aionon, the aeon of the aeons (Eph. 3:21); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews describe the throne of God as enduring unto the aeon of the aeons (Heb 1, verse eight)

The plural is also used, aeons of the aeons, signifying all the successive periods which make up the sum total of the ages collectively. Rom. 16:27; Gal. 1:5; Philip. 4:20, etc. This plural phrase is applied by Paul to God only.

The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting. They may acquire that sense by their connotation, as, on the other hand, aidios, which means everlasting, has its meaning limited to a given point of time in Jude 6. Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods.

Thus the phrase eis ton aiona, habitually rendered forever, is often used of duration which is limited in the very nature of the case. See, for a few out of many instances, LXX, Exod 21:6; 29:9; 32:13; Josh. 14:9 1 Sam 8:13; Lev. 25:46; Deut. 15:17; 1 Chron. 28:4;. See also Matt. 21:19; John 13:8 1 Cor. 8:13. The same is true of aionios. Out of 150 instances in LXX, four-fifths imply limited duration. For a few instances see Gen. 48:4; Num. 10:8; 15:15; Prov. 22:28; Jonah 2:6; Hab. 3:6; Isa. 61:17.

[size=3[b]Words which are habitually applied to things temporal or material cannot carry in themselves the sense of endlessness. Even when applied to God, we are not forced to render aionios everlasting. Of course the life of God is endless; but the question is whether, in describing God as aionios, it was intended to describe the duration of his being, or whether some different and larger idea was not contemplated. That God lives longer then men, and lives on everlastingly, and has lived everlastingly, are, no doubt, great and significant facts; yet they are not the dominant or the most impressive facts in God's relations to time. God's eternity does not stand merely or chiefly for a scale of length. It is not primarily a mathematical but a moral fact. The relations of God to time include and imply far more than the bare fact of endless continuance. They carry with them the fact that God transcends time; works on different principles and on a vaster scale than the wisdom of time provides; oversteps the conditions and the motives of time; marshals the successive aeons from a point outside of time, on lines which run out into his own measureless cycles, and for sublime moral ends which the creature of threescore and ten years cannot grasp and does not even suspect.[/b][/size]

Aiodios

There is a word for everlasting if that idea is demanded. That aiodios occurs rarely in the New Testament and in LXX does not prove that its place was taken by aionios. It rather goes to show that less importance was attached to the bare idea of everlastingness than later theological thought has given it. Paul uses the word once, in Rom. 1:20, where he speaks of "the everlasting power and divinity of God."

In Rom. 16:26 he speaks of the eternal God (tou aioniou theou); but that he does not mean the everlasting God is perfectly clear from the context. He has said that "the mystery" has been kept in silence in times eternal (chronois aioniois), by which he does not mean everlasting times, but the successive aeons which elapsed before Christ was proclaimed. God therefore is described as the God of the aeons, the God who pervaded and controlled those periods before the incarnation.

To the same effect is the title 'o basileus ton aionon, the King of the aeons, applied to God in 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 15:3; compare Tob. 13:6, 10. The phrase pro chronon aionion, before eternal times (2 Tim. 1:9; ***. 1:2), cannot mean before everlasting times. To say that God bestowed grace on men, or promised them eternal life before endless times, would be absurd. The meaning is of old, as Luke 1:70. The grace and the promise were given in time, but far back in the ages, before the times of reckoning the aeons.

Zoe aionios eternal life, which occurs 42 times in N. T., but not in LXX, is not endless life, but life pertaining to a certain age or aeon, or continuing during that aeon. I repeat, life may be endless. The life in union with Christ is endless, but the fact is not expressed by aionios.

Kolasis aionios, rendered everlasting punishment (Matt. 25:46), is the punishment peculiar to an aeon other then that in which Christ is speaking. In some cases zoe aionios does not refer specifically to the life beyond time, but rather to the aeon or dispensation of Messiah which succeeds the legal dispensation. See Matt. 19:16; John 5:39. John says that zoe aionios is the present possession of those who believe on the Son of God, John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47,54. The Father's commandment is zoe aionios, John 12:50; to know the only true God and Jesus Christ is zoe aionios. John 17:3.

Bishop Westcott very justly says, commenting upon the terms used by John to describe life under different aspects:

In considering these phrases it is necessary to premise that in spiritual things we must guard against all conclusions which rest upon the notions of succession and duration. 'Eternal life' is that which St. Paul speaks of as 'e outos Zoe the life which is life indeed, and 'e zoe tou theou, the life of God. It is not an endless duration of being in time, but being of which time is not a measure. We have indeed no powers to grasp the idea except through forms and images of sense. These must be used, but we must not transfer them as realities to another order.

Thus, while aionios carries the idea of time, though not of endlessness, there belongs to it also, more or less, a sense of quality. Its character is ethical rather than mathematical. The deepest significance of the life beyond time lies, not in endlessness, but in the moral quality of the aeon into which the life passes.

It is comparatively unimportant whether or not the rich fool, when his soul was required of him (Luke 12:20), entered upon a state that was endless. The principal, the tremendous fact, as Christ unmistakably puts it, was that, in the new aeon, the motives, the aims, the conditions, the successes and awards of time counted for nothing. In time, his barns and their contents were everything; the soul was nothing. In the new life the soul was first and everything, and the barns and storehouses nothing.

The bliss of the sanctified does not consist primarily in its endlessness, but in the nobler moral conditions of the new aeon, the years of the holy and eternal God. Duration is a secondary idea. When it enters it enters as an accompaniment and outgrowth of moral conditions.

In the present passage it is urged that olethron destruction points to an unchangeable, irremediable, and endless condition. If this be true, if olethros is extinction, then the passage teaches the annihilation of the wicked, in which case the adjective aionios is superfluous, since extinction is final, and excludes the idea of duration.

But olethros does not always mean destruction or extinction.

Take the kindred verb apollumi to destroy, put an end to, or in the middle voice, to be lost, to perish. Peter says "the world being deluged with water, perished (apoleto, 2 Pet. 3:6); but the world did not become extinct, it was renewed. In Heb. 1:11,12, quoted from Ps. 102, we read concerning the heavens and the earth as compared with the eternity of God, "they shall perish" (apolountai). But the perishing is only preparatory to change and renewal. "They shall be changed" (allagesontai). Compare Isa. 51:6,16; 65:22; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1. Similarly, "the Son of man came to save that which was lost" (apololos), Luke 19:10. Jesus charged his apostles to go to the lost (apololota) sheep of the house of Israel, Matt. 10:6, compare 15:24, "He that shall lose (apolese) his life for my sake shall find it," Matt. 16:25. Compare Luke 15:6,9,32.

In this passage, the word destruction is qualified.

It is "destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power," at his second coming, in the new aeon. In other words, it is the severance, at a given point of time, of those who obey not the gospel from the presence and the glory of Christ. Aionios may therefore describe this severance as continuing during the millenial aeon between Christ's coming and the final judgment; as being for the wicked prolonged throughout that aeon and characteristic of it, or it may describe the severance as characterising or enduring through a period or aeon succeeding the final judgment, the extent of which period is not defined. In neither case is aionios, to be interpreted as everlasting or endless.

 

[FineLinen]

To those of you who either don't believe in a literal eternal hell or those who are universalists: Seeing that each of us is absolutely and assuredly going to die, doesn't it bother you even a little bit that you could be wrong? Jesus is the only one who has any authoritative viewpoint on the matter. He said there was a place of eternal judgment. How can you be so certain you are right about this?

Mortsmune: The Lord Jesus Christ spoke once regarding everlasting punishment/ aionios kolasis. Can you tell us from the context of the passage what are the qualifications for "everlasting punishment" and everlasting life?

[move]Death and hell are consummated in the Lake of Theos[/move]