Aionios Means Lasting?

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Aionios Means Lasting?

Post by Singalphile » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:32 am

1)
Paidion wrote:
In any case, I believe that ALL of God's judgments are remedial, and He will administer to each individual as much correction as is needed and no more. I also think that not all of this correction will be painful, but some will be loving corrrection [sic] which is meant to lead people to repentance.
Wouldn't this be your view regardless of what the Bible says? In other words, wouldn't you reject any Biblical statement to the contrary as simply uninspired and/or mistaken? That is how you deal with the OT passages that don't fit your views, unless I've misunderstood.

2) Regarding Rev 14:9-13
I've never seen why some think this passage is jumping ahead to the end. Rather, read Josephus' The War of the Jews, books IV and V for more than you want to know about torment and no rest day or night!

3) I've read large chunks of posts and papers on aionios. I don't recall being overly impressed by anything, but it seems obvious to me (not a scholar) that the word means more than "lasting" or even "lasting forever" (i.e., "eternal"). I wonder if the English word "eternal" has itself changed in meaning over the last half century.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: Aionios Means Lasting?

Post by backwoodsman » Sun Jul 28, 2013 4:53 pm

Homer wrote:Assertions are easily made. Could you back up your assertion by showing us where a few of his examples have been incorrectly translated?
I'd be happy to, but I can't see where I made any assertions. As for correctness of the translation on all those verses, have you even read the Keizer article?
So Farrar is one that you hold in high regard?
As far as I know he wasn't a Greek scholar, but he's one of several late 19th century writers you'll definitely want to read if you want to understand evangelical universalism well enough to make an effective case against it.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Aionios Means Lasting?

Post by steve » Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:39 pm

Homer wrote:
Jesus is making use of analogy. The tares are destroyed in the fire, and so are the bad fish. Tares never become wheat but are burned up as are fruitless branches.
This is a very good example of the limitations in an analogy. Real tares never do become wheat, yet "children of the evil one" really do become "children of the kingdom" (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 2:1-6; 1 Peter 4:2-3; etc.). You make my point very well: Not everything in a parable bears the exact analogy to the things signified in it.

Now, I am very curious about something, Homer, and I am asking this personal question, not rhetorically, but out of sincere interest in your answer. It is a pastoral sort of question:

What, exactly, causes you such agitation about the universal reconciliation view whenever it is brought up (and often when you yourself bring it into a discussion about unrelated things)? I don't mean why are you not convinced of it. I presume you are not convinced of it because you do not find its scriptural arguments persuasive. Fair enough. But what I can't figure out is why you have such an emotional reaction to it—as if you are not at all happy about the possibility of Jesus actually saving everyone, as He desires to do, and for which end He shed His own blood.

If you were a Calvinist, I would understand the visceral reaction you display, because you would then have a stake in the idea that God does not love everybody and that it would thus be very unbecoming of Him to save everyone. However, you are an Armenian (last I heard), meaning you believe that God loves and wants to save everyone. Yet the suggestion that He might actually get what he wants seems to drive you to distraction.

You sometimes have tipped your hand a bit in your past references to wicked people, who surely do not deserve to be saved (e.g., Hugh Hefner, whom you have brought up repeatedly). You give the very distinct impression that it would grieve you immensely were God to give such people additional postmortem opportunities to repent. Maybe you would even object to Hefner's being forgiven if he were to repent before death? I honestly can't tell.

Your arguments often make me wonder: How much do you think you deserved to be saved? Were your sins also black, or only off-white? It is a pertinent and sincere question, since its answer alone can shed light on why you would oppose the salvation of the most undeserving wretches. It sounds very much as if you do not count yourself among their number.

I think your scriptural and logical objections to universalism have been very thoroughly answered on many posts. That you would remain unconvinced is your prerogative, which no one would begrudge you. But why the acrimony toward the doctrine which seems like one of the most cheering and God-honoring doctrines that I have ever encountered?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Aionios Means Lasting?

Post by Paidion » Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:46 pm

Singalphile wrote:
In any case, I believe that ALL of God's judgments are remedial, and He will administer to each individual as much correction as is needed and no more. I also think that not all of this correction will be painful, but some will be loving corrrection which is meant to lead people to repentance.
Wouldn't this be your view regardless of what the Bible says? In other words, wouldn't you reject any Biblical statement to the contrary as simply uninspired and/or mistaken? That is how you deal with the OT passages that don't fit your views, unless I've misunderstood.
Do you accept every statement as infallible simply because it is in the Bible? If so, why do you accept that particular list of books? Is there no inspiration OUTSIDE of the Bible? Why do you not include Clement's letter to the Corinthians, written shortly after the death of Paul and Peter in the list of inspired writings? Clement is believed to have been Paul's fellow worker (Philippians 4:3). Was Athanasius inspired to select the particular list of New Testament books which we have today? If so then there IS inspiration outside the Bible. But then why was he not inspired to select the same list of Old Testament books for his canon? He included Baruch in his Old Testament Canon.

Incidentally, Athansisus applied the words of Revelation 22:18,19 to his canon of Scripture:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

My mentor, George MacDonald (also C.S. Lewis's mentor) wrote that God's character, which is LOVE, must be held above all things, even if the Bible should affirm the contrary. (I say this from memory; I cannot find the quote) However, I did find the following quote:
George MacDonald wrote:To say on the authority of the Bible that God does a thing no honourable man would do, is to lie against God; to say that it is therefore right, is to lie against the very spirit of God.
So would an honourable man kill evildoers? I have argued my belief, based on the loving character of God, that He does not kill people in spite of what the Old Testament affirms. I backed this up with the fact that Jesus, who is the exact image of the essence of God (Heb. 1:3) did not kill people, but rather instructed his disciples to love their enemies, and do good to them, for in so doing they would truly be the sons of the heavenly Father, since He is kind to evil and ungrateful people. (Luke 6:35)

Can I be so far off track because of my belief that God is pure LOVE? And that He doesn't kill people or torture them forever? But that all of the discomforts He gives people is for their remediation? Do you really think this belief entails the stand that I just arbitrarily believe what I wish "regardless of what the Bible says"? That I just pick and choose the parts of the Bible which I think are inspired and reject the rest?

If it weren't for the four gospels, I would know nothing about Jesus and His teachings. If it weren't for Luke's book of "The Acts of the Apostles", I would know very little about infant Christianity. If it weren't for the apostle Paul's letters, I would have little basis for a good part of my theology. I believe and respect these writings, not because they are part of "an infallible canon" but because they are true history concerning our Lord.

I believe the creation account in Genesis, and I believe in Adam and Eve as historical figures—our first parents.

I think you would be hard pressed to convict me of discrediting the Bible in general or any of the early Christian writings.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Aionios Means Lasting?

Post by steve » Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:05 pm

Paidion,

I appreciate George MacDonald also. However, it concerns me that you would affirm something on the grounds that a mere man, as your mentor, believed it. I would own no mentor above Jesus and the Apostles—all of whom, as I have elsewhere demonstrated to you from their own words, clearly accepted all the Old Testament as authoritative and profitable for teaching.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Aionios Means Lasting?

Post by Paidion » Sun Jul 28, 2013 10:34 pm

Steve you wrote: I would own no mentor above Jesus and the Apostles
Nor would I. Nor did C.S. Lewis.
—all of whom, as I have elsewhere demonstrated to you from their own words, clearly accepted all the Old Testament as authoritative and profitable for teaching.
I was not convinced that they accepted "all of the Old Testament" in its description of God's actions of killing and destroying as factually true. Rather these descriptions themselves were historically true in that killing events were interpreted as God's actions. For example, it was frequent affirmed that when some nation X went out and conquered another nation Y, that God had destroyed nation Y. Our moderns do the same thing. When a baby dies, a mother says, "God took my baby." Some of them say, "My child was too good for this world." Some people when brought down by a crippling disease, state that God is punishing them for some misdeed.

Elhanan Winchester in his The Universal Restoration (1831 edition) gave this account in his preface:
I was told also when I was in Virginia that a clergyman of the Episcopal Church, had a few years before given out that he had some wonderful thing to make known to his hearers, which he would preach upon some Sunday,. but did not mention when. This raised the public curiosity, and great numbers attended his place of worship in hopes of hearing what this wonderful thing might be ; but for a considerable time the matter was undiscovered. But at last he gave out, that on the next Sunday he would open this great secret. Vast numbers of people flocked to hear what it could be. When he came to declare what it was, behold! It was a wonderful piece of news indeed, such as had never been heard before in any pulpit in Virginia. It was nothing short of the doctrine of the Restoration [universal reconciliation]. I think, to the best of my remembrance, they told me, that he opened and enlarged upon it for two Sundays, and never preached any more, being immediately after seized with sickness, which terminated in his death. And this was generally esteemed as a judgment that fell upon him for daring to preach such a wicked, false, and dangerous opinion; and that God cut him off from the land of the living, to testify his displeasure against him; and to terrify others from daring to follow his example, or believe his sentiments.
So when the clergyman died, this was clear proof to many that God had killed him. And so it goes ... throughout human history ... the character of God defamed.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Aionios Means Lasting?

Post by Homer » Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:59 pm

Hi Steve,

Happy to answer your questions.
What, exactly, causes you such agitation about the universal reconciliation view whenever it is brought up (and often when you yourself bring it into a discussion about unrelated things)?
I think it is false teaching that will inevitably cause souls to be lost because it depreciates Jesus' warnings. There is no way the universalist can show from the scriptures that it will take more than a moment for the lost to repent when they are face to face with Christ. It is natural for them to think they will take their chances, after all they are unregenerate.

And a question for you. Why do you defend universalism so enthusiastically if you do not believe it? Makes me think you are a closet universalist. Nothing seems to get you so fired up except Calvinism and I think even Calvinism falls behind.
as if you are not at all happy about the possibility of Jesus actually saving everyone, as He desires to do, and for which end He shed His own blood.
I'm always filled with joy when sinners repent, even to the point of tears.
Yet the suggestion that He might actually get what he wants seems to drive you to distraction.
Nope. If universalism is true I will say "praise God".
You sometimes have tipped your hand a bit in your past references to wicked people, who surely do not deserve to be saved (e.g., Hugh Hefner, whom you have brought up repeatedly).
Wrong again. Perhaps you have forgotten that I have pointed out that Hefner is just a handy icon? Wicked is a biblical term, a contrast.

I do not believe I have ever said that there is anyone who does not deserve to be saved. I challenge you to show me where. That is a slur. Certainly I do not deserve to be saved. I believe Ted Bundy died a saved man if what I have heard is true, and I rejoiced when I heard it.
You give the very distinct impression that it would grieve you immensely were God to give such people additional postmortem opportunities to repent.
Wrong again.
Maybe you would even object to Hefner's being forgiven if he were to repent before death? I honestly can't tell.
And again; bordering on slander there.
Your arguments often make me wonder: How much do you think you deserved to be saved? Were your sins also black, or only off-white? It is a pertinent and sincere question, since its answer alone can shed light on why you would oppose the salvation of the most undeserving wretches. It sounds very much as if you do not count yourself among their number.


"God, be merciful to me, the sinner"! I deserve nothing. That's my view.
But why the acrimony toward the doctrine which seems like one of the most cheering and God-honoring doctrines that I have ever encountered?
Because it strikes me as the same old lie "you shall not surely die".

That's enough response to your very public character assassination disguised as a "pastoral" letter. You wrote:
This is a very good example of the limitations in an analogy. Real tares never do become wheat, yet "children of the evil one" really do become "children of the kingdom" (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 2:1-6; 1 Peter 4:2-3; etc.). You make my point very well: Not everything in a parable bears the exact analogy to the things signified in it.
I was a bit careless in my statement. I should have said "burned up tares never become wheat". Jesus story is a very simple one, easy to grasp. Please tell me how you think the kingdom of heaven is like the wheat gathered to the barn and the tares destroyed in the fire. Its Jesus' story, twice repeated, He must have thought it an important illustration. What do you learn from it?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Aionios Means Lasting?

Post by steve » Mon Jul 29, 2013 6:17 am

Homer,

I apologize if you felt your character to have been assassinated in my last post. My questions were sincere and expressed a genuine perplexity that I have felt from many of your posts.

As for tares, whatever you meant in your comment, my point remains true: Since real tares never become wheat, and since the people represented as "tares" really do sometimes become the people referred to as "wheat," it is clear that the images used in parables are of limited application beyond their general point.

The fact that the tares are thrown into the fire and burned corresponds to people being cast into the fire and burned. Tares burn-up in fire. Do resurrected bodies? I am not sure. The parable does not directly affirm this, though it may be the case.

All that is affirmed after the casting into the fire is that there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Tares don't wail or gnash their teeth—which is another example of the lack of exact parallel. All I can say is that I would not wish to be found defending any doctrine upon no better basis than this parable provides for your point.
Please tell me how you think the kingdom of heaven is like the wheat gathered to the barn and the tares destroyed in the fire.
I think the meaning is self-evident: At the resurrection, some will be immediately rewarded. The rest will be cast into the lake of fire.
And a question for you. Why do you defend universalism so enthusiastically if you do not believe it?
Why do I come to the defense of universalism? Two reasons:

1. Because I like the doctrine and would be happy if it is true. I hope it may turn out to be true, and I think it has a good chance of being so, since it honors Christ more than does any rival doctrine (it would not surprise me if God engineered reality in such a way as to be Christ-honoring), and there is much scriptural data that appears to support it (as is also true of annihilationism).

2. In general, I do not like to see poor arguments to go unanswered, regardless of the subject matter. If someone came on here making illogical arguments against annihilationism, I would also defend it (arguments against annihilationism are seldom found here).

I have no interest in concealing my sympathies toward universal reconciliation, and have never been shy about saying so. I also truthfully point out that I don't know the doctrine to be true.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Aionios Means Lasting?

Post by steve7150 » Mon Jul 29, 2013 6:38 pm

Yet the suggestion that He might actually get what he wants seems to drive you to distraction.



Nope. If universalism is true I will say "praise God".








Watching this might be better then seeing the Jets win the Super Bowl.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Aionios Means Lasting?

Post by Singalphile » Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:03 pm

Thanks, Paidion. Those are good questions. I can't answer most of them adequately (not now anyway), but in short, yes, I generally think that the books in the Bible ought to be in the Bible. Maybe I'm not sure about 2 or 3, but that's only because I've heard about uncertainties regarding authorship. With your stance, even with your response ... it just seems difficult to understand how you stand where you stand. That's the point I was trying to make, and I asked because I wanted to read your response.

... and also, in my previous post, I wondered if the meaning of the English word "eternal" had changed over the last "half century". I meant 500 years (half a millennium).
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”