Universalism and Particular Redemption

[Jeff Saunders]

All I need is Jesus' words in Matthew 25:46, and the meaning of eternal (aionios), which use in Romans 16:26; 1 Peter 5:10; Hebrews 9:4 makes unequivocally clear that it means "never ending."

Not only that, I find it in total agreement with everything in Scripture, understood in context and in the light of all Scripture.

I understand. . .that in itself does not affect one's salvation anyway.

Yes it has nothing to do with our salvation that is done though Jesus and his work on the cross and I would never say that those who do not understand Gods plan for his creation are not saved only God knows those who have a heart for him ( as He said He looks at the heart man looks at the outside)I don’t ever want to be the guy who goes around and says you must agree with me or you are not saved. I hope I do not come off that way.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I keep getting told that I can’t show that Gods will is that he should not lose any and no matter how many times I quote the plain words of God about the Bible saying “ It’s Gods will that none perish “ I am told that is not his will? But I keep getting scripture from those who think God has two wills that never say the opposite you have to say “this scripture proves God has to wills and then go on th described how it’s his hidden will but it’s in there we know it. Don’t you see how confused you sound? If God does not want any to go to hell, which you believe to be eternal, why would he hide it so well and give us verses that say Jesus is the savior of the world? Unless your a Calvinist they say God does want all people to go to hell but fortunately for us, the elect, he reaches down and saves a few.Ask yourself what are you saying about God if that is love I think you need to have a different definition of Love my Bible says love is patient/kind/not envious/does not brag/not puffed up/not rude/ not self serving/ not easily angered/not glad about injustice/ keeps no record of wrong (kind of hard to do if you torture them for eternity) that is what love is , some translations use other words but the point is still the same. And when you see the love of God you will see he will not nor can torture people forever but he can and does discipline people unto correction. That is the God we serve.

No. I am say that "the two wills" are just a way to understand what in Scripture might otherwise be seen as mutually exclusive. I am not saying that is a specific doctrine taught by Scripture. I can show you both 'wills' presented in Scripture, and the "two wills" thinking is just a way to understand those two kinds of uses of the word, "will", in Scripture.

Regardless of what the Bible says about love, your derivations from it are not entirely descriptive of God's love. For example, does God's love have any contention with his justice and anger? And where the Bible says that God does something for his own sake, or that he is a jealous God, does that mean that he denies any part of 1 Corinthians 13?

By the way, this is a strawman, and only what you take Calvinism to say: "...they say God does want all people to go to hell but fortunately for us, the elect, he reaches down and saves a few"

 

[Jeff Saunders]

I guess I can’t get around the idea that God is Love and light that is his essence, all things must be filtered through this. If God does not get what he desires that makes him weak , my God has no weakness. He always gets what He desires otherwise he is weak. As far as him being a jealous God that is just human language to try to understand how much God loves us God cannot be jealous that would mean he has something to be jealous of, a flaw in his character this can not be. God has no flaws. What we see as anger is his actions against that which is hurting those he loves.God uses human language to make the infinite more understandable to the finite mind. Examples Jesus is not Gods son, God did not have sex and Jesus is the result. In the Jewish culture a first born son was considered equal to his father and to them that is a relationship they could understand. Also in Genesis when it says God was sorry he made man, God could not be sorry about anything that would indicate he made a mistake and God can’t make a mistake. We as humans make God in our own image, we make him to be just like the Greek gods , jealous, angry, some one who is sorry he did something, someone we can bargain with or can sway to change his mind ect. If God could change his mind then he made a mistake or things did not go the way he wanted so on to plan B. God doesn’t nor can He make a mistake. Nothing challenges Him, takes Him by surprise, He is not afraid of anything He is God. So many people see God is someone who made the world and satan came in and messed up his plan now he has to fix it. Do you not think that God did not know what was going to happen when he created satan. No he knew very well and it is all part of His plan. It’s not a fight and God gets a small percentage of his creation and satan gets the lion’s share. That again makes God weak, and God has no weakness. We need to see all things through his love and not to put human emotions on God.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

No. I am say that "the two wills" are just a way to understand what in Scripture might otherwise be seen as mutually exclusive. I am not saying that is a specific doctrine taught by Scripture. I can show you both 'wills' presented in Scripture, and the "two wills" thinking is just a way to understand those two kinds of uses of the word, "will", in Scripture.

Regardless of what the Bible says about love, your derivations from it are not entirely descriptive of God's love. For example, does God's love have any contention with his justice and anger? And where the Bible says that God does something for his own sake, or that he is a jealous God, does that mean that he denies any part of 1 Corinthians 13?

By the way, this is a strawman, and only what you take Calvinism to say: "...they say God does want all people to go to hell but fortunately for us, the elect, he reaches down and saves a few"

That is not a straw man it’s the true statement of what Calvinist teach they say all men deserve hell but fortunately he reaches down and saves a few, a easy thing to say if you are one of the few. It’s supposed to be good news. I was talking with a friend who is a Calvinist and he said that God sending most people to hell is the most loving act he could do. I am sorry I can’t get my mind around the God of Calvinist. To me it is not love to create someone knowing that you must torture them for ever because they didn’t love you when the only reason they didn’t love you was because you made them that way. I can’t understand how that kind of behavior is not more like what we would call a monster. Like I said earlier I am not saying that if you believe that you are not Christians, we all have errors in our thinking that’s just a bridge too far for me. Also I don’t trust a position that the founder of was ok with killing those who did not agree with him , how can good come from that. I am not bashing Calvinist I am just calling it as I see it.

 

[Der Alte]

Once again I took a screen shot from writing of David Bentley Hart , he has letters after his name and is a Greek scholar, if you will not even consider what he is saying but simply write it off well you have ended the conversation I do hope you will at least read it who knows you might even learn something.

Sorry I don't have OCR capability and can't copy the text so I can address it properly. I don't have the time or inclination to type it out myself. Here is a suggestion. Find what you think are his two strongest points, you type them out and post them for me and I will show you how he is wrong. Off the cuff I saw an unsupported assertion.

"The first there is a genuine ambiguity in the term [aionios] in Greek that is impossible to render directly into an English equivalent."​

Do you realize how absurd that is? That means in ancient history until now not nobody not no how can ever know what someone is saying when they say aionios. It has no set meaning it can mean any number of things. I guess none of your scholars ever heard of figurative language.
How about this? Was Simon a literal stone when Jesus called him "Petros" i.e. "stone?" Were James and John literally sons of thunder when Jesus called them that? Was Herod literally a fox when Jesus called him that? All figurative language! If a word can be shown to mean one specific thing as I have done then it is folly to try to make it literally mean something else.
Please go back and read my "aionios means eternal" post. I think I posted it more than once this thread.
"Auf ein mal," that is German for "once upon a time." German children's stories start with it. I learned to speak German when I was 12. 5 years later I was stationed in Germany over time 5.5 years so I learned more.
Auf ein mal, Once upon a time, close to the time of the Kennedy assassination, while serving in Germany I was having a a conversation, in German, with a person who did not speak English, she used a word I did not know, "beinah". I told her so. She explained it this way "Es ist noch nicht elf uhr, es it beinah elf uhr.""It is not yet eleven o'clock it is beinah/almost eleven o'clock." And at that moment it was almost eleven o'clock. I learned the meaning of the word and never forgot it.
Here are two vss. spoken by Jesus I'm omitting one word. Please tell me what that one word is?

John 3:15-16
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have xxxxxxx life.
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have xxxxxxx life.​

To me there is absolutely no doubt what the missing word is and means. Quote a 100 scholars. Nothing that any scholar can honestly say will disprove what I have said. Jesus said twice that "aionios zoe"/"eternal life" means "shall not perish."

Amended to add:
I posted my "Aionios means Eternal" post in another thread here; Universal Reconciliation: Yes or No?

 

[Mark Quayle]

That is not a straw man it’s the true statement of what Calvinist teach they say all men deserve hell but fortunately he reaches down and saves a few, a easy thing to say if you are one of the few. It’s supposed to be good news. I was talking with a friend who is a Calvinist and he said that God sending most people to hell is the most loving act he could do. I am sorry I can’t get my mind around the God of Calvinist. To me it is not love to create someone knowing that you must torture them for ever because they didn’t love you when the only reason they didn’t love you was because you made them that way. I can’t understand how that kind of behavior is not more like what we would call a monster. Like I said earlier I am not saying that if you believe that you are not Christians, we all have errors in our thinking that’s just a bridge too far for me. Also I don’t trust a position that the founder of was ok with killing those who did not agree with him , how can good come from that. I am not bashing Calvinist I am just calling it as I see it.

The implications of "they say all men deserve hell but fortunately he reaches down and saves a few" is a far cry from the implications of "...they say God does want all people to go to hell but fortunately for us, the elect, he reaches down and saves a few"

You say, "I was talking with a friend who is a Calvinist and he said that God sending most people to hell is the most loving act he could do." Not to deny that your friend is a Calvinist, but that is not Calvinist doctrine. It is the reasoning some people come up with, including some that are not Calvinist, in an attempt to explain what they think is going on with the lost.

The Bible uses the word 'torment', not 'torture', and there is a difference implied in the person doing the torment, and the kind of thing the torment is.

You have also heard wrong about Calvin himself. He was not "ok with killing those who didn't agree with him." He may have been of the opinion that those who blaspheme God deserve death, but I think we all deserve death. But in fact, in the famous case of Servetus, he plead for Servetus' life, quite to the contrary of the claim of those who have pitted themselves against Calvinism, for the sake of a caricature. Nevertheless, Calvinism isn't Calvin anyway. The following link gives some perspective behind the thinking of the day, and the mind of Calvin, but it isn't the one I haven't been able to find, that seems to have disappeared from the internet. The Servetus Affair | Christian History | Christianity Today

You are right that eternal conscious torment doesn't line up with your notion of love. All of our notions of love are not only self-acquired to a large degree, built on feelings and wish-think, but the rules or principles we read concerning what love is and what it is like, apply to us, and not to God who himself is Love. Consider this saying: "It is not because God chooses to be good, that he is good. 'Good' is what it is because God is good." It is not because it is a loving way to be, that God loves; Love is what it is, because God is Love. Love must be defined and understood by who and what God is, and in that is implied every other attribute of God, including justice and anger. Then what applies to us is for us, but God is not us. Very much not.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Sorry I don't have OCR capability and can't copy the text so I can address it properly. I don't have the time or inclination to type it out myself. Here is a suggestion. Find what you think are his two strongest points, you type them out and post them for me and I will show you how he is wrong. Off the cuff I saw an unsupported assertion.

"The first there is a genuine ambiguity in the term [aionios] in Greek that is impossible to render directly into an English equivalent."​

Do you realize how absurd that is? That means in ancient history until now not nobody not no how can ever know what someone is saying when they say aionios. It has no set meaning it can mean any number of things. I guess none of your scholars ever heard of figurative language.
How about this? Was Simon a literal stone when Jesus called him "Petros" i.e. "stone?" Were James and John literally sons of thunder when Jesus called them that? Was Herod literally a fox when Jesus called him that? All figurative language! If a word can be shown to mean one specific thing as I have done then it is folly to try to make it literally mean something else.
Please go back and read my "aionios means eternal" post. I think I posted it more than once this thread.
"Auf ein mal," that is German for "once upon a time." German children's stories start with it. I learned to speak German when I was 12. 5 years later I was stationed in Germany over time 5.5 years so I learned more.
Auf ein mal, Once upon a time, close to the time of the Kennedy assassination, while serving in Germany I was having a a conversation, in German, with a person who did not speak English, she used a word I did not know, "beinah". I told her so. She explained it this way "Es ist noch nicht elf uhr, es it beinah elf uhr.""It is not yet eleven o'clock it is beinah/almost eleven o'clock." And at that moment it was almost eleven o'clock. I learned the meaning of the word and never forgot it.
Here are two vss. spoken by Jesus I'm omitting one word. Please tell me what that one word is?

John 3:15-16
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have xxxxxxx life.
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have xxxxxxx life.​

To me there is absolutely no doubt what the missing word is and means. Quote a 100 scholars. Nothing that any scholar can honestly say will disprove what I have said. Jesus said twice that "aionios zoe"/"eternal life" means "shall not perish."

Amended to add:
I posted my "Aionios means Eternal" post in another thread here; Universal Reconciliation: Yes or No?

I do have one question for you that I don’t understand if aion is to always mean eternal then why is it translated 40 times in the KJV as world?

 

[Der Alte]

I do have one question for you that I don’t understand if aion is to always mean eternal then why is it translated 40 times in the KJV as world?

Are you even reading anything I post? Or do you just blow it off and ignore it?
I have not been talking about "aion" which is a noun and means "eternity." I have been talking only about the adjective "aionios" which means "eternal." But I have also done a similar study on "aion." I know I have said this a number of times. "Figurative!"
Back to "aionios" is it ever defined/described as anything other than eternal/everlasting as I have shown it was defined/described as "eternal/everlasting" in 26 vss? Or is it only defined/described as "eternal" etc? I know the answer and you ain't going to like it.
"aionios" is translated "world" only 3 times in the N.T.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Are you even reading anything I post? Or do you just blows it off and ignore it?
I have not been talking about "aion" which is a noun and means "eternity" I have been talking only about the adjective "aionios" which means "eternal." But I have also done a similar study on "aion." I know I have said this a number of times. "Figurative!"
Back to "aionios" is it ever defined/described as anything other than eternal/everlasting as I have shown it was defined/described as "eternal/everlasting" in 26 vss.

Yes I have been reading your posts but that still does not explain why it is translated world that is the question

 

[Der Alte]

Yes I have been reading your posts but that still does not explain why it is translated world that is the question

FWIW "aionios" is translated "world" only three times in the NT. Now you are being deliberately obtuse. Never knew the meaning until I watched "Shawshank Redemption."
Was Simon a literal stone when Jesus called him Petros/stone? Were James and John literally sons of thunder when Jesus called them that? Was Herod literally a fox when Jesus called him that? I don't see anybody insisting that Peter was literally a stone, James and John were literally sons of thunder or that Herod was literally a fox.
How do I explain when words are used figuratively. I just did. As for "aion" how many times is it translated "eternity" vs, how many times is it translated "world " or something else?

 

[Jeff Saunders]

FWIW "aionios" is translated "world" only three times in the NT. Now you are being deliberately obtuse. Never knew the meaning until I watched "Shawshank Redemption."
Was Simon a literal stone when Jesus called him Petros/stone? Were James and John literally sons of thunder when Jesus called them that? Was Herod literally a fox when Jesus called him that? I don't see anybody insisting that Peter was literally a stone, James and John were literally sons of thunder or that Herod was literally a fox.
How do I explain when words are used figuratively. I just did. As for "aion" how many times is it translated "eternity" vs, how many times is it translated "world " or something else?

Thank you for a direct answer that was nice. I don’t know the actual number of times it was used the reference that I read said 40 times I don’t know. The number is not important. I think we need to agree to disagree because this is the place I feel that I feel I have come to . I believe that all of scripture must be interpreted by Jesus and the way he showed us what love is and what love looks like that is why he said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. My faith is built on love (which is God) and it used to always bug me that God would put so many scripture verses about Jesus being the savior of the world, every knee shall bow, as in Adam all die so in Christ all will be made alive ect . Then I would read how hell is Gods eternal torture chamber and if that were so how is that love. And God created people he knew he would have to send to hell but he created them anyway. And almost all of his creation he would have to torture forever. These things just did not add up but all I had was the English translation to read so I was ever in turmoil over these things because they did not jive with his love. Then I find out that the word translated eternal could also be translated an age or eon, (I know you do not believe that but most Bible scholars that I have read say that it is a correct way to interpret it if you are looking for the literal meaning) so when I started reading scripture with the lenses of Christian Universal Redemption with hell being a place of purification and limited In duration I no longer had to do the mental gyrations of two wills of God or a secret will of God , or the first all means all but the second all is the elect, or yes every knee will bow God will force them to say that as he threw them into hell. All this I no longer need and I can now read scripture as it is plainly written, yes there are still things I don’t understand but that’s okay. God love and his scripture were in unison for the first time ever and I was in my 50s when I say this . And I will not go back to the old way of looking at things . You have built your faith on a eternal torture chamber as being bedrock and anything that threatens that you must at all cost figure a way around it so as to keep your bedrock firm and you will not budge from that either. You won’t even recognize that it’s a possibility that there may be other ways of looking at this . So the way I see it until you understand the love of God through Jesus you can’t understand what I am talking about. And I do know where you are coming from because that is the way I used to believe and teach except from the Arminian side. So we are at an impasse I will never go back to what for me was a dead faith (not non salvation) and you will not even consider anything that threatens eternal torture chamber, so I think it best that this be the end. From my point of view all you want to do is lecture not have a open discussion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

FWIW "aionios" is translated "world" only three times in the NT. Now you are being deliberately obtuse. Never knew the meaning until I watched "Shawshank Redemption."
Was Simon a literal stone when Jesus called him Petros/stone? Were James and John literally sons of thunder when Jesus called them that? Was Herod literally a fox when Jesus called him that? I don't see anybody insisting that Peter was literally a stone, James and John were literally sons of thunder or that Herod was literally a fox.
How do I explain when words are used figuratively. I just did. As for "aion" how many times is it translated "eternity" vs, how many times is it translated "world " or something else?

Brother @Der Alte, it might be good for you to remain open to the possibility that you might be slightly incorrect on at least 'something' where the Bible is concerned. Maybe the whole essence of the concept of Eternity isn't so clear from what we read in the Bible. If it was, don't you think we'd all pretty much read it as such rather than choking each other over something we can't really comprehend, let alone fully translate and understand, especially where lexical meanings are still subject to contextual usages within various texts?

 

[Der Alte]

Brother @Der Alte, it might be good for you to remain open to the possibility that you might be slightly incorrect on at least 'something' where the Bible is concerned. Maybe the whole essence of the concept of Eternity isn't so clear from what we read in the Bible. If it was, don't you think we'd all pretty much read it as such rather than choking each other over something we can't really comprehend, let alone fully translate and understand, especially where lexical meanings are still subject to contextual usages within various texts?

Before I respond may I suggest you take your own advice. I have been a Christian since LBJ was president while in flight school preparatory to going to Vietnam where as a helicopter pilot. I was shot down 5 times and injured once. I know I could be wrong I know I have been many times in the past. I am constantly studying, researching, purchasing resources, etc. I earned a master's degree in my denomination's flag ship seminary when Reagan was president.
You may or may not know that if someone says I am wrong I ask them to please provide credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical, lexical etc. evidence. I have been active at this forum more than three decades. I am still waiting for that evidence. I had one person who said, "I know someone who knows Greek and he said you are wrong."
Adding to what I said before. When the Bible writers wrote what they did they intend to communicate vague generalities or did they intend to communicate the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
FYI
“aionios” occurs 72x in the N.T.
“aionios” is translated "world" only 3 times in the N.T.
“aionios” is correctly translated "eternal" 42 times in the N.T.
“aionios” is correctly translated "everlasting" 25 times in the N.T.
Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times, Jesus never used “aionios” to refer something common, ordinary or mundane which was not/could not be “eternal.”
Let me repeat something I have said before, some "scholar,, "expert" etc. stating a different conclusion than I have. E.g. Scholar "x" said "Aionios never means 'eternal.'" does NOT prove anything. That is an unsupported opinion.
I guess you could say these 2 verses are my favorite of the 26 vss. I posted on "aionios."

John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life. ​

.....In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish,” NOT once but twice. Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.
If "aionios" does NOT literally mean "everlasting" then Jesus lied. Those who believe in Him will perish.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Before I respond may I suggest you take your own advice. I have been a Christian since LBJ was president while in flight school preparatory to going to Vietnam where as a helicopter pilot. I was shot down 5 times and injured once. I know I could be wrong I know I have been many times in the past. I am constantly studying, researching, purchasing resources, etc. I earned a master's degree in my denomination's flag ship seminary when Reagan was president.
You may or may not know that if someone says I am wrong I ask them to please provide credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical, lexical etc. evidence. I have been active at this forum more than three decades. I am still waiting for that evidence. I had one person who said, "I know someone who knows Greek and he said you are wrong."
Adding to what I said before. When the Bible writers wrote what they did they intend to communicate vague generalities or did they intend to communicate the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
FYI
“aionios” occurs 72x in the N.T.
“aionios” is translated "world" only 3 times in the N.T.
“aionios” is correctly translated "eternal" 42 times in the N.T.
“aionios” is correctly translated "everlasting" 25 times in the N.T.
Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times, Jesus never used “aionios” to refer something common, ordinary or mundane which was not/could not be “eternal.”
Let me repeat something I have said before, some "scholar,, "expert" etc. stating a different conclusion than I have. E.g. Scholar "x" said "Aionios never means 'eternal.'" does NOT prove anything. That is an unsupported opinion.
I guess you could say these 2 verses are my favorite of the 26 vss. I posted on "aionios."

John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life. ​

.....In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish,” NOT once but twice. Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.
If "aionios" does NOT literally mean "everlasting" then Jesus lied. Those who believe in Him will perish.

Brother, I appreciate that you've studied these things, even if you've done so at the seminary level, but the fact is, you're not the only one who has studied these things.

Regardless of all of this, I personally don't feel the overwhelming need to attack fellow Christians who are exploring the conceptual landscape we find in the Bible. Sure, you and I can disagree with them, but I think it'd be better to encourage them to engage Hermeneutics and Exegesis and get out of the vicious cycle of harboring on singular verses and ... singular word studies, especially this overwrought and tiresome one about the "actual nature" of Eternity.

I'm also thinking that none of us should rely too much on various emotional streams of thought that we each prefer on the axiological level, thinking that our emotions are absolutely a reflection of the work of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes, whether we're ECT or Universalists, those emotions are anything but ...

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Yes it has nothing to do with our salvation that is done though Jesus and his work on the cross and I would never say that those who do not understand Gods plan for his creation are not saved only God knows those who have a heart for him ( as He said He looks at the heart man looks at the outside)I don’t ever want to be the guy who goes around and says you must agree with me or you are not saved. I hope I do not come off that way.

Except as Jesus said no one will see the kingdom of God/heaven unless they are born again.

hope this helps !!!