Evangelical Universalism - True or False Doctrine?

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes he is talking to the reader and explaining to the reader what he is seeing as it is occurring in real time.

Nope.  I can read the text and I understand what a blessing looks like.  He is not looking at people washing their robes.  He is interrupting his description of the vision to say to the reader, based on the vision he has seen, blessed are those who wash their robes.   He doesn’t say “blessed are those who I can see are washing their robes.”   You are skewing the text and misrepresenting what is going on to promote heresy.

 

 

So go ahead and support your claim - not just state it.

If one is going to be saved no matter what, then Paul in Romans 9: 1-3 makes no sense when he speaks of his burden for the Jews and claims that he would be willing to be accursed for their sake if it would save them.  If Paul believed that salvation would eventually come to every person that ever lived, the entire book of Romans makes no sense.  The preaching of cross is doubly foolish and futile if salvation can be obtained by going to hell and being purified and made acceptable before God by virtue of suffering there.

Furthermore, the book of Hebrews makes this point:

 

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. (Heb 10:26-27)

 

The writer of Hebrews makes the point that if we live in sin if we choose continued separation from God there is nothing left for us but judgment.  He doesn’t qualify that comment with any hope for a second chance.

In fact, there is not ONE mention of hell in connection with any type of second chance at salvation after having spent any time in hell.  Hell is consistently seen as a place of  eternal destruction and hopelessness in the Bible.

What you need to provide is ONE verse that tells us how a person is saved in hell.   Show where hell is ever connected with a second chance at salvation.

 

 

 

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many

¹⁶ Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. ¹⁷ For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! ¹⁸ Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

According to your view the trespass is greater than the gift.  According to your belief, all died in Adam but only some are made alive in Christ. According to your view the power in Adam's sin to condemn is greater than Jesus' blood to save.  I find that directly contrary to this passage.

No, according to my view there is a difference between the universal availability of salvation and any claim that salvation is itself universal.  Again, the text of Romans 5:12-21 is historical in nature and if your bargain basement hermeneutical approach had any validity or honesty about the text, we would have argue from that text that all men are already saved, in history due to how you handle the alleged parallel structure of the passage.  Your argument actually defeats itself since it fails to take into account that Paul is speaking of the redemption of man as a historical fact.

 

But verse 17 defeats your argument:  “For if by the tresspass of the one man, death regined through that one man, much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteouness reign in life thorough the one man, Jesus Christ.”  This verses is limited in scope to those who receive the free gift offered to  them.  It doesn’t include anyone who goes to hell and is saved by virtue of not having to accept that free gift.   Just spend some time in hell and viola!  You are now saved.

You preach a crossless, Christless, bloodless and faithless Gospel.  You preach salvation by hell, not salvation by grace through faith.  No true Christian should ever accept your false Gospel. 

 

 

Again please provide scriptural backing for your claims.  You have the habit of drawing conclusions without corresponding scriptural evidence.

Nope, I am using the scripture YOU provide.  See, I don’t pit the Bible against itslf.  I let the Bible interpret itself and so I don’t need to refute the Scriptures you use with other Scriptures.  I simply provide a far better and more skilled handling of the text than you ever could.

 

 

Again, please explain why they are not the same referents.

It’s that ugly word, “context” which people like you seem to have a strong aversion to.  You have two different lines of thought taking place in those two chapters.  There has been a change in subject matter.  I Peter 4:6 is not referencing the antediluvians.  He is talking about believers who had already passsed on.   

 

 

Again you are forcing your view upon the passage and contradicting the context of this passage.  Let me demonstrate. You claim that: "Paul's point is the gifts" which might be a reasonable explanation since Paul does refer to spiritual gifts/offices in Eph 4:11.  However Eph 4:8-10 is connected to vs 7 preceeding it which states "But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift."

Therefore the gift does not refer to spiritual gifts but to God's gift of grace.  The NASB reads:

 

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. ⁸ Therefore it says,

“When He ascended on high,

He led captive a host of captives,

And He gave gifts to men.”

God gave the gift of his immeasurable grace to the captives just as he apportioned it.  Who are we to argue?

 

Nope, that is not what the passage says.  I am not arguing with the text.  I am arguing with your handling of it.

The grace being referenced is not saving grace.  It is referring to the grace of God we receive to serve.  Grace is also the stamina to minister to serve God and God has given to each of the measure of grace we need to do what He what He has called us to do.

 

The context is not about salvation but about service.  This is not about people in hell being saved and set free from hell.  It is an application of a verse out of the book of Psalms in the context of a discussion about ministry gifts which God has given to the body of Christ.

[OneLight]

OneLight - While referring to a lexicon for the meaning of a word in beginning a word study is a start; it is by no means the end. As my reply to ninhao indicated, a word can have a range of meanings which may be determined by its context. A lexicon is only a tool to help the reader determine how a particular word has been translated. It does not determine for us whether the translators were accurate in translating the original language - that job is left to you and me (if we wish to undertake such an endeavor). But even a casual glance of the meaning of G165 presents a peculiar problem in that we are presented with a word that has completely opposite meanings. How can aion possibly mean both an "eternity" and also a "period of time?" It is a contradiction of terms. Also, in citing Rev 20:10 one interesting question or aspect of the verse is that if eternity in the lake of fire is the final destiny of the Devil, the beast and the false prophet, does this by necessity imply that the unsaved incur the same limitless penalty? To argue in the affirmative is to make an argument from silence which is a weakened position to begin with. I submit that more study is required rather than citing a single verse to prove the meaning of a word. I don't have the time now but will attempt to elaborate more in a future post.

 

I explained the meaning at the end of my post by how it was used., but I see you do not accept the meaning of scripture, plainly stated, because yo don't want it to mean what it does, not that is means what you say.  It is say when anyone refuses to accept scripture for what scripture means, but tries to make scripture fit their doctrine.  We all do this from time to time, but those who are growing in Him are acceptable to correction.  There are so many places in scripture where it tells us it will be forever.  Because you refuse to accept what it does say, you try to reject the true meaning by saying the argument is from science, which weakens the argument?  That is not true and only weakens your argument.

 

I have studied scripture for well over 30 years.  I began with your understanding of life after death, but allowed the truth to form my understand from scripture and did not waste my time trying to make scripture fit my understanding.  I submit you check on how you approach your studies.

I think my approach to studying the scriptures is quite fine thank you. While it is commendable that you have been studying the Bible for over 30 years – your experience nor mine for that matter – are germane to this discussion. If it were, then I would also claim that I’ve studied the Bible since first becoming a believer over 30 years ago in addition to having graduated from seminary with honors. But all of that is irrelevant as rightly dividing the word is what matters – not our personal qualifications.

I entered the amount of studying I have had in scripture due to your statement " I submit that more study is required rather than citing a single verse to prove the meaning of a word." You brought up that you believe I needed more study. Either you are referring that I have not studied enough, or you are trying to belittle what I posted to strengthen your stance in the discussion.

I don’t know whether you read my reply or correctly understood it. Am I to assume that your idea of doing a word study is to simply accept at face value what a Bible dictionary states and believe what it says without doing any additional study on your own? Since you are a self-described Bible student of over 30 years I can only assume that is not the case. As I stated earlier, using a lexicon or a word study dictionary is only the beginning. It is incumbent upon you to investigate those instances where the word and its equivalent, if applicable occurs in both Testaments in order to determine its contextual usage so as to correctly determine the meaning of a word. You have certainly not done undertaken that task and essentially all you have done is tell me what your Greek word dictionary says which is unconvincing to say the least.

You are correct in your assumption. I do not take things at face value, as I am sure you don't either. I also am well versed in how to do research, which is why I have come to the conclusion that your interpretation of scripture does not line up with what scripture does say. In order to accept that everyone will be saved, one would have to remove other verses in scripture, or find a way to disprove what it says. I can guarantee that just because I do not agree with you, that does not equate to me not doing a proper study/research.

Also you say I make an argument from “science.” Again I give you the benefit of doubt and assume you meant “silence” which is what I actually wrote. I also assume you know what an argument from silence implies so please elaborate and tell me how an argument from silence does not apply in this situation.

You are also correct that I had thought you said science when, after rechecking your post, you did in fact way silence. My eyes are not as good as they use to be. For this, I do apologize.

The basic problem with your argument is that you take an a priori position assuming from the outset that “there are so many places in scripture where it tells us it will be forever.” If this is the case, why does your word study dictionary give an alternative translation as “Age, an indefinitely long period of time or lapse of time?” I submit that you have somehow overlooked that outstanding detail so allow me to supply the details for you. Consider if you will the New Testament use of aion. Does “eternity” make any sense in the following passages?

♦ What will be the sign…of the end of [eternity] (Mt. 24:3)?

♦ I am with you…to the end of the [eternity] (Mt. 28:20).

♦ The sons of this [eternity] are more shrewd (Lu. 16:8).

♦ The sons of this [eternity] marry (Lu. 20:34).

♦ Worthy to attain that [eternity] (Lu. 20:35).

♦ Since the [eternity] began (Jn. 9:32; Ac. 3:21).

♦ Conformed to this [eternity] (Ro. 12:2).

♦ Mystery kept secret since the [eternity] began but now

made manifest (Ro. 16:25-26).

♦ Where is the disputer of this [eternity] (1Co. 1:20)?

♦ Wisdom of this [eternity], nor of the rulers of this [eternity]…

ordained before the [eternities]…which none of the

rulers of this [eternity]… (1Co. 2:6-8).

♦ Wise in this [eternity] (1Co. 3:18).

♦ Upon whom the ends of the [eternities] have come

(1Co. 10:11).

♦ God of this [eternity] has blinded (2Co. 4:4).

♦ Deliver us from this present evil [eternity] (Ga. 1:4).

♦ Not only in this [eternity] but also in that which is to come

(Ep. 1:21).

♦ Walked according to the [eternity] of this world (Ep. 2:2).

♦ In the [eternities] to come (Ep. 2:7).

♦ From the beginnings of the [eternities] (Ep. 3:9).

♦ Hidden from [eternities]…but now…revealed (Col. 1:26).

♦ Loved this present [eternity] (2Ti. 4:10).

♦ Receive him [for eternity] (Phil. 1:15). Forever or until

Onesimus, Philemon’s former slave, dies?

♦ Powers of the [eternity] to come (He. 6:5).

♦ At the end of the [eternities] (He. 9:26).

♦ We understand the [eternities] have been prepared by a

saying of God (He. 11:3)."

To start off, by showing the different meanings "aionos" can be used does not change the meaning when speaking about eternity with or without Christ. Your argument is a straw mans argument.

[Elhanan]

OneLight - I apologize since you feel I have questioned your qualification for studying scripture. That was certainly not my intent as I was referring to your citing of a single scripture verse and a word dictionary to support your view. My reference to more study (not your experience or qualification) was related to the need to look up more occurrences of the word which I think you agree with since I believe that you also hold to the view that scripture interprets scripture. This is particularly the case regarding aion as this word is translated both as eternity and an age of time. This should immediately raise a red flag as one must question how a word can possibly have totally contradictory meanings. According to Strong's Greek 165, aion is defined as:

aión: a space of time, an age

Original Word: αἰών, ῶνος, ὁ

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

Transliteration: aión

Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-ohn')

Short Definition: an age, a cycle of time

Definition: an age, a cycle (of time), especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age, and of one of a series of ages stretching to infinity.

A straw man argument is one that has no basis in fact. This is certainly not the case for aion as demonstrated by the fact that it is translated as "age" and not "eternity" in numerous scriptural examples as cited above. I submit that we have had the words "eternity" or "eternal" so inculcated as part of our Christian vocabulary that the possibility that the noun aion and its adjectival forms such as aionios/aionion as possibly meaning anything else is difficult to comprehend much less accept. However as Dr. Marvin Vincent in his Word Studies of the New Testament states there are good reasons to think otherwise as he writes:

'Aion, transliterated aeon, is a period of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle (periouravou, 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 (Tit. 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 1:8). 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.

[Guest ninhao]

Elhanan, on 24 Sept 2013 - 7:04 PM, said:

… This is particularly the case regarding aion as this word is translated both as eternity and an age of time. This should immediately raise a red flag as one must question how a word can possibly have totally contradictory meanings. According to Strong's Greek 165, aion is defined as:

aión: a space of time, an age

Original Word: αἰών, ῶνος, ὁ

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

Transliteration: aión

Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-ohn')

Short Definition: an age, a cycle of time

Definition: an age, a cycle (of time), especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age, and of one of a series of ages stretching to infinity.

….

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

 

 

 

I notice here Elhanan you have provided, as evidence, the Strong’s Greek definition for aion but have neglected to provide the strong’s Greek definition of the adjective aionios. Why is that ?

 

Let me provide it for you.

G166

 

αἰώνιος

aiōnios

ahee-o'-nee-os

From G165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well): - eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).

 

The sense of both the root and the adjective are dependent upon the context.  When we see the fate of the wicked juxtaposed against the fate of the righteous it is clear the definition is eternal or never ending. 

[Elhanan]

 

Elhanan, on 24 Sept 2013 - 7:04 PM, said:

… This is particularly the case regarding aion as this word is translated both as eternity and an age of time. This should immediately raise a red flag as one must question how a word can possibly have totally contradictory meanings. According to Strong's Greek 165, aion is defined as:

aión: a space of time, an age

Original Word: αἰών, ῶνος, ὁ

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

Transliteration: aión

Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-ohn')

Short Definition: an age, a cycle of time

Definition: an age, a cycle (of time), especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age, and of one of a series of ages stretching to infinity.

….

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

 

 

I notice here Elhanan you have provided, as evidence, the Strong’s Greek definition for aion but have neglected to provide the strong’s Greek definition of the adjective aionios. Why is that ?

 

Let me provide it for you.

G166

 

αἰώνιος

aiōnios

ahee-o'-nee-os

From G165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well): - eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).

 

The sense of both the root and the adjective are dependent upon the context.  When we see the fate of the wicked juxtaposed against the fate of the righteous it is clear the definition is eternal or never ending.

 

If you insist on translating aionios as eternal by all means go ahead and do so. Trouble is sooner or later you run into difficulty maintaining “eternal” as a consistent translation. After all, isn’t consistency in translating what we are looking for? Please keep in mind that all a Strong’s Concordance does in this case is to document for us all the occurrences where aionios is used in the NT and how the translators rendered the word in the KJV Bible. It doesn’t mean that they were always correct in their translation. Like I said if you insist that it must always mean eternal then go ahead and ponder these verses:

Rom 16:25 “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the [aionios] world began,”

2 Tim 1:9 “ Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the [aionion] world began,

Tit 1:2 “ In hope of [aionion] eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the [aionion] world began;

It is apparent that the KJV translators had to substitute the word “world” instead of “eternal” otherwise the Romans verse would read “secret since eternal began.” How can this possibly be since by definition eternal has no beginning or ending? Same thing with the 2 Tim verse – “given us in Christ Jesus before the eternal began.” How strange?

Moreover, in the Titus verse we see the translators translating the exact same word in the same verse in two different ways. In the first instance aionion is translated as “eternal” but just a few words later they manage to translate it as “world.” It is easy to see why because eternal fits with the first part of the verse but it doesn’t fit with the last part lest it read “promised before the eternal began.” Again, eternal has no beginning.

On the other hand if one translates aionios/aionion as related to "age" since an adjective always modifies the noun to which it refers – in this case aion or age from which we get the English word eon – then there is no need to manipulate the meaning of the word to fit these verses as can be seen in Young’s Literal Version:

Rom 16:25 “And to Him who is able to establish you, according to my good news, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the secret, in the times of the ages having been kept silent,”

2 Tim 1:9 “who did save us, and did call with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, that was given to us in Christ Jesus, before the times of the ages,”

Tit 1:2 “ upon hope of life age-during, which God, who doth not lie, did promise before times of ages,”

[Floatingaxe]

AIONIOS

 

Strong's Number:   166    Original Word aionioß   Transliterated Word   Aionios   Phonetic Spelling   ahee-o'-nee-os       Definition

1. without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2. without beginning
3. without end, never to cease, everlasting

 

 

This is ETERNAL. That is who God is and that is who we are who belong to Him. The only ones who run into trouble with the concept and with the root word are those who want to deny it and will do anything they can to change the meanings of words to fit their personal deception.

[Guest ninhao]

 

Elhanan, on 25 Sept 2013 - 04:43 AM, said:

If you insist on translating aionios as eternal by all means go ahead and do so.

 

 

Please note my words from post #106

“The sense of both the root and the adjective are dependent upon the context.  When we see the fate of the wicked juxtaposed against the fate of the righteous it is clear the definition is eternal or never ending.”

I only insist on translating aionios as eternal when the context demands.

 

Trouble is sooner or later you run into difficulty maintaining “eternal” as a consistent translation. After all, isn’t consistency in translating what we are looking for? Please keep in mind that all a Strong’s Concordance does in this case is to document for us all the occurrences where aionios is used in the NT and how the translators rendered the word in the KJV Bible. It doesn’t mean that they were always correct in their translation.

 

 

We're looking for correct interpretation of scripture in context with the intention of the Author. Are you suggesting every word in scripture should always have the same meaning/sense ?

 

 

 

 Like I said if you insist that it must always mean eternal then go ahead and ponder these verses:

 

Rom 16:25 “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the [aionios] world began,”

 

 

 

Yes I agree aionios here gives the sense of a beginning remember though it also implies reaching to extremity. Let me post the subsequent sentence.

 

Rom 16:26  But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting( aionios ) God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

 

Do you accept aionios here means eternal ?

 

 

 

2 Tim 1:9 “ Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the [aionion] world began,

Tit 1:2 “ In hope of [aionion] eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the [aionion] world began;

 

 

 

Yes again I agree there is the sense of a beginning here with the same reminder of extremity.

 

 

It is apparent that the KJV translators had to substitute the word “world” instead of “eternal” otherwise the Romans verse would read “secret since eternal began.” How can this possibly be since by definition eternal has no beginning or ending? Same thing with the 2 Tim verse – “given us in Christ Jesus before the eternal began.” How strange?

 

 

It also could be translated “ from the beginning of time” .

 

 

Moreover, in the Titus verse we see the translators translating the exact same word in the same verse in two different ways. In the first instance aionion is translated as “eternal” but just a few words later they manage to translate it as “world.” It is easy to see why because eternal fits with the first part of the verse but it doesn’t fit with the last part lest it read “promised before the eternal began.” Again, eternal has no beginning.

 

 

Again we see the sense of extremity. There wasn't World before it began and so aionios covers the extremity. So in context the promise God made of eternal life was made at the extremity of the World.

 

On the other hand if one translates aionios/aionion as related to "age" since an adjective always modifies the noun to which it refers – in this case aion or age from which we get the English word eon – then there is no need to manipulate the meaning of the word to fit these verses as can be seen in Young’s Literal Version:

Rom 16:25 “And to Him who is able to establish you, according to my good news, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the secret, in the times of the ages having been kept silent,”

2 Tim 1:9 “who did save us, and did call with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, that was given to us in Christ Jesus, before the times of the ages,”

Tit 1:2 “ upon hope of life age-during, which God, who doth not lie, did promise before times of ages,”

 

 

 

Young’s also seems to have a translation bias.

 

Romans 16:25-26

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

²⁵ And to Him who is able to establish you, according to my good news, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the secret, in the times of the ages having been kept silent,

²⁶ and now having been made manifest, also, through prophetic writings, according to a command of the age-during God, having been made known to all the nations for obedience of faith --

 

 

Age- during God ?  Do you agree with this translation ?

 

 

Matthew 25:46

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

⁴⁶ And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'

 

Young’s seems to have an aversion to eternal life ? I’ve known KJV was hell biased but never noticed YLT was universalism bias before.

 

I’d like to remind you Elhanan that my premise isn’t in support of eternal punishment and I agree aioios may be translated as an age. However; non- believers are juxtaposed against the saved having eternal life which you must agree is never ending. The fate of non- believers is also never ending as destruction imlies.

[asper]

Hi elhanan,

 

Even though I could wish that universal salvation is true, there is nothing in the Scriptures that would indicate it.

 

That is not why I replied to you,

 

Just to set the record strait,

 

Ro 16:25  Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began <5550> <166>,

 

2Ti 1:9  Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began <5550> <166>,

 

 

5550. χρονος chronos khron’-os; of uncertain derivation; a space of time (in general, and thus properly distinguished from 2540, which designates a fixed or special occasion; and from 165, which denotes a particular period) or interval; by extension, an individual opportunity; by implication, delay: — 

 

166. αιωνιος aionios ahee-o’-nee-os; from 165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well): — 

 

 

 

Basically it says that it is a space of time which is perpetual. (In these two verses it would be eternal (perpetual) in going forward and not in reverse.)

 

But even when eternal is used without chronos like in believers given eternal life the eternal is speaking of what happened from a certain point forward.

 

So I think that context is important but aionios is definitely eternal whether speaking of going forward from a certain point, or going back from a certain point, or just always was, is, and will be. 

 

 

God bless,

Tony

 

 

 

[Elhanan]

 

 

Elhanan, on 24 Sept 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

Your claim that Jesus through the Spirit preached the need for repentance to those who disobeyed while the ark was still being built is a view that first originated with Augustine. This is not surprising since it was Augustine who also popularized the idea of eternal punishment which cosequently became an established doctrine within the church. This happened despite Augustine’s own self-admitted dislike of the Greek language, lack of fluency with it and his need to rely on Latin translations to aid his understanding. How ironic then that we get our present day understanding of aionios as eternal from someone who was not even well versed in his comprehension of the Greek language.

 

This reference to Augustine’s inadequacy is ironic considering your words to Onelight.

 

“I think my approach to studying the scriptures is quite fine thank you. While it is commendable that you have been studying the Bible for over 30 years – your experience nor mine for that matter – are germane to this discussion. If it were, then I would also claim that I’ve studied the Bible since first becoming a believer over 30 years ago in addition to having graduated from seminary with honors. But all of that is irrelevant as rightly dividing the word is what matters – not our personal qualifications.”

 

I don't find it ironic at all as Augustine doubted his own proficiency with the Greek language. Since Augustine in his writings admits to his lack of fluency with the Greek language, why should  I or anyone else for that matter have confidence that he has "rightly divided the word" especially in regards to aion/aionios.  

 

That the Holy Spirit ( Spirit of Jesus ) preached to the pre-deluvians through Noah  is rightly dividing the word as I have demonstrated in post #95.

 

In terms of your understanding of when Jesus’ preaching took place, you claim it occurred during the days of Noah as the ark was being built. However you neglected to cite the whole verse and context. “18For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.”

The word “when” does not reference Jesus’ preaching but it refers to when God was patient to those who were disobedient in Noah’s day. This is confirmed by the plain statement of the verse that he preached to those who were “imprisoned” and made proclamation AFTER he was put to death. Thus your view is contradicted by the text itself.

 

 

God was patient in Noah’s day to the value of 120 years as we know. Let’s look at the verses concerning the imprisoned.

 

1Pe 3:19-20  By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;  (20)  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

 

 

The Spirits ( unbelievers in Noah’s day )are in the company of all unbelievers.  They are currently “in prison” and this is how Paul describes them. Paul is saying Jesus preached to the pre-deluvians  who are now “in prison”. ( Ironically according to the harrowing of hell no post-deluvians are presented as being in prison )

Let’s look at why the death of Jesus is mentioned.

 

1Pe 3:18  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 

As from post #95 we see the context of the passage regards persecution of the righteous by non-believers.  Jesus suffered as just and was killed ( presented  as example for us to persevere  in the face of injustice  ) but was brought back to life ( quickened ) by the Holy Spirit. The passage then moves on to how this same Holy Spirit of Jesus preached during Noah’s time.  There is no mention of Jesus preaching “after”  He was put to death; and also note Jesus was quickened at the resurrection ( brought back from the dead ).  The intention of the passage  is to illustrate to the audience how they can stand against injustice with the aid of the Holy Spirit of Jesus  in the same way Jesus did and Noah.

 

I’ll ask again this question. Why did Jesus only preach to pre-deluvians ( according to the harrowing of hell )  when millions will have died since the flood ?

 

Your claim that Jesus preached to the disobedient during Noah's day rests upon the assumption that the predulivians are "now in prison."  However that is a forced assumption since the word now is absent from  the Greek text.  To me the flow is clear and in order of occurence - Jesus was put to death, made alive in the spirit, and went to preach to the spirits in prison.  I don't believe that Jesus only preached to the prediluveans as 1 Pet 4:6 declares that the gospel was preached to the "dead" which includes both preduluvians and postdiluvians up until Christ's death.

 

As  far as Matt 7:13-14 is concerned, I recall that several months ago you asked me for some references on how to parse the Greek language. I referred you to a few reference materials and this is a case where those materials would have benefitted you in understanding these particular verses. The key to this passage is the word “find” which comes from the Greek word euriskontes in v.14. This verb is written in the present tense. Therefore the word “find” as found in most Bible translations should actually be “finding.” Young’s Literal Translation accurately renders these verses as:

13 `Go ye in through the strait gate, because wide [is] the gate, and broad the way that is leading to the destruction, and many are those going in through it;

14 how strait [is] the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it!

Jesus is describing a present tense action – not an action that will occur in the future. Hence Jesus was saying to his listeners that few are FINDING the narrow way at that time (Present tense) and not that few would EVER FIND the narrow way (future tense).

As for Matt 25:46, I’ll tackle that in my next post to you.

 

 

Incorrect. Your parsing of Greek seems to contradict every source I’ve found aside from Universalist websites.  

We can debunk your assessment of Jesus intention in  using  heuriskō in Matthew 7”13-14 by looking at all other times this word is used in the NT. It is used 175 times and without exception they never imply a present imperfect action.

.

Mat 1:18  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found (heuriskō)with child of the Holy Ghost.

 

Mat 8:10  When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found (heuriskō ) so great faith, no, not in Israel.

 

 

 

I have returned to add an etymology note concerning heurisko which also contradicts your claim.

 

 

Root Word (Etymology)

 

A prolonged form of a primary heuro {hyoo'-ro}, which (together with another cognate form heureo {hyoo-reh'-o}) is used for it in all the tenses except the present and imperfect

 

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2147

 

You have made a serious mistake here.  You have confused the root word heurisko with its participle form heuriskontes - they are two different words.  The root means "/found" but its participle form does indeed mean "finding."  I don't know where you learned or got your parsing information from but if you doubt what I say I refer you to the same source that you provided.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=7&v=14&t=KJV#s=t_conc_936014

Click on the parse button for heurisko and you will find:

εὑρίσκω heuriskō

Tense: Present

Voice: Active

Mood: Participle

[Guest ninhao]

 

Your claim that Jesus preached to the disobedient during Noah's day rests upon the assumption that the predulivians are "now in prison."  However that is a forced assumption since the word now is absent from  the Greek text.  To me the flow is clear and in order of occurence - Jesus was put to death, made alive in the spirit, and went to preach to the spirits in prison.  I don't believe that Jesus only preached to the prediluveans as 1 Pet 4:6 declares that the gospel was preached to the "dead" which includes both preduluvians and postdiluvians up until Christ's death.

 

 

 

The pre-deluvian non-believers are of course "now in prison" because judgement is at the GWT after the Millennial Reign of Jesus. All dead non-believers are in prison. 

 

Again in 1 Peter4:6 the subjects are "now dead".  The gospel was preached to people who believed and they suffered in the flesh, died,  but have inherited eternal life. ( live according to God ) The passage again is about suffering in the flesh with the hope of resurrection and salvation as encouragement.  We see this theme begin in 1 Peter 3

 

1Pe 3:13-14  And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?  (14)  But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

 

And continues to the end of 1 Peter 4

 

1Pe 4:12-13  Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:  (13)  But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

 

None of the content is about Jesus preaching to dead people but is solely encouragement for believers who suffer in the flesh.

 

 

 

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2147

 

You have made a serious mistake here.  You have confused the root word heurisko with its participle form heuriskontes - they are two different words.  The root means "/found" but its participle form does indeed mean "finding."  I don't know where you learned or got your parsing information from but if you doubt what I say I refer you to the same source that you provided.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=7&v=14&t=KJV#s=t_conc_936014

Click on the parse button for heurisko and you will find:

εὑρίσκω heuriskō

Tense: Present

Voice: Active

Mood: Participle

 

Yes I did make a mistake sorry about that.  It doesn't change the intention of Jesus words if we translate "that find" as "are finding" ? It still places an emphasis upon finding the narrow gate to the reader and is valid for us. I don't understand what your point is here.  

 

Jesus is describing a present tense action – not an action that will occur in the future. Hence Jesus was saying to his listeners that few are FINDING the narrow way at that time (Present tense) and not that few would EVER FIND the narrow way (future tense).

 

 

Whether people are finding the narrow way in Jesus time or now the intention is the same.