UR Can't Have It Both Ways

[jabcat]

Gary asked this be posted and refuted;


By Eric Landstrom:  ( http://carm.org/eric-landstrom )

We can't have it both ways. It appears that aion & aionion ARE used with regard to eternal, everlasting, & forever. In order for Universalism to be true, then aion & aionian can NEVER be used with regards to these concepts, yet it appears that they clearly are. This is deeply troubling.

The universalist argues that age implies that it is a period of time that comes to and end. To really examine if the universalists interpretation of age carries weight, we ought to be consistent with their application and meaning of the word "age." Therefore if we apply their argument consistently, all of the following shall also come to an end:

Greek word "aion" used of God's glory

1. Philippians 4:20 "Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen."
2. 1 Timothy 1:17 "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen."

Greek word "aion" used of God's throne

Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

Greek word "aion" used of God's duration

1. 1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
2. 1 Peter 4:11 "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."
3. Revelation 1:6 "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

Greek word "aion" used of the saints

1 John 2:17 "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."

Greek word "aion" used of heaven

Matthew 25:46 "but the righteous into life eternal."

Greek word "aion" used of hell

1. Matthew 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."
2. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 "these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord."
3. Matthew 25:41 "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"
4. Jude 13 "for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever"

Greek word "aionios" used of heaven

Luke 18:30 "in the age to come, eternal life."

Greek word "aionios" used of hell

1. Revelation 14:11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night."
2. Revelation 20:10 "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."

Despite the efforts of men to override the clear teaching of the Bible, the Bible is clear about the eternal nature of the punishment of the wicked. "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Matt. 25:46). It is easy to see that Life is the same in duration as is the Punishment of the wicked. If one is temporary, so is the other. If the punishment of those held within the lake of fire is temporary, heaven is also temporary.

The New Testament use of the words eternal and everlasting makes it clear what they mean. It is "everlasting punishment" (Matt. 25:46). The fire is "everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41). There will be "eternal damnation" for some (Mark 3:29). For emphasis, consider how other verses use these words:

1. God is everlasting. "According to the commandment of the everlasting God" (ref. Romans 16:26). Does everlasting mean unending or temporary? Will God cease to exist?

2. The Holy Spirit is eternal. "Who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God" (ref. Hebrews 9:14). Is the Holy Spirit temporary? When the lake of fire gives up her dead, will He go out of existence?

3. Redemption is eternal. "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (Hebrews 9:12) Is Christ's work of eternal redemption completed or was it for just a brief time?

4. Salvation is eternal. "He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" ( ref. Hebrews 5:9). Will salvation also be temporary as well?

5. The kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. The faithful will be in "the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:11). Will the end to the suffrage of the wicked in the lake of fire also earmark the end of the kingdom of God?

The same words in both Greek and English are used to describe the future punishment of the wicked that are used to describe God, the Spirit, salvation, and the kingdom. "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41). Therefore, the fallacy with even arguing how long the duration of "aion" and "aionios" as to mean an age or duration of time less than forever and ever and to mean something other than time everlasting to support the doctrine of universal reconciliation is that then the same argument can be applied to heaven, God, and the everlasting life of the saints. In this the universalist is not consistent with their argument of what these words mean. Further, any objections to aion and aionius being rendered as "for ever" in English and not specifically covered here will be based on such scanty factual evidence or philosophical reasoning as to be made untenable to be the basis of one's belief in universalism. I am confident in the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment for the wicked as was S. Lewis Johnson, who wrote: "It is doubful that there is a doctrine in the Bible easier to [prove] than that of eternal punishment (cf. Matthew 25:46)."

[Paul Hazelwood]

We can't have it both ways. It appears that aion & aionion ARE used with regard to eternal, everlasting, & forever. In order for Universalism to be true, then aion & aionian can NEVER be used with regards to these concepts, yet it appears that they clearly are. This is deeply troubling.

The premise here is blatantly false, but it is also peoples insistance on both sides that a word must mean only one thing that causes this trouble in the first place. 

The fact is that the english language allows the use of eternal, everlasting and forever to be used to exaggerate a limited period of time as well as to imply the absolute meaning. 

We can say that God is eternal and mean that he has always existed in the absolute sense.  We can also apply this concept when making a statement of how long something seemed to us.

"Geeze, that stoplight took forever."  "It felt like eternity waiting on that elevator".  Now if the writer's logic is sound then when someone says that then in the next sentence says God is eternal, then these words could not possibly have taken on different meanings where one was implied onto a limited time and the other in the absolute sense of having always existed.

In the old testament olam does not only mean everlasting, nor does it only mean an age, it actually means a unperceptable duration, a time far off, beyond the horizon.  It is a word that converys a concept, rather than something that truly can be pinned down to one word.

Everlasting and Eternal are abstract terms of aionios based upon having to translate concepts into another language.   The definitions can apply to both absolute eternal and something that last the full duration of a period of time.  The definition of perpetual is often confused with having to be eternal when perpetual is also applied to plants that bloom the entire season of their life.


Indeed we can have it both ways since how a word is used is what implies the meaning.

[ded2daworld]

The same way the torch on John Kennedy's grave is said to be the "eternal flame" ...Everything is context.

[LS]

Since this is in the "Arguments Against Universal Salvation" section, I'll throw my two-cents in on this thread too.

That argument is precisely my own.  It's not that "forever" can't sometimes be used as an exaggeration to make a point.

But when it is used side-by-side, translated from the same word to describe the righteous and the wicked, how can you reasonably say that one truly is forever but the other is only for an age?

Mat 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

If "punishment" is temporary, then so is life.  The same is true with this passage of Daniel that was in my study this very morning:

Dan 12:2 "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt."

In my opinion, these are side-by-side using the same words to make a clear illustration. To try to separate them and say they mean two different durations makes no sense to me and it does appear that US is trying to have it both ways. 
:2c:

[Beloved Servant]

Perhaps it's not the word "everlasting" that needs to be first understood in the Daniel passage; the word "life" appears foremost.
Only the LORD is self-existent.

[CHB]

What about the laws of Moses that the Israelites were suppose to observe FOREVER and have been done away with?

CHB

[WhiteWings]

Since this is in the "Arguments Against Universal Salvation" section, I'll throw my two-cents in on this thread too.

That argument is precisely my own.  It's not that "forever" can't sometimes be used as an exaggeration to make a point.

But when it is used side-by-side, translated from the same word to describe the righteous and the wicked, how can you reasonably say that one truly is forever but the other is only for an age?

Mat 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

If "punishment" is temporary, then so is life.  The same is true with this passage of Daniel that was in my study this very morning:

Dan 12:2 "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt."

In my opinion, these are side-by-side using the same words to make a clear illustration. To try to separate them and say they mean two different durations makes no sense to me and it does appear that US is trying to have it both ways. 
:2c:

I think a few questions should be asked/considered:
a] How many "lives" are there?
b] Is Mat 25:46 the final step in Father's plan?

I think we should order the verses chronologically.
My  :2c:
The verse is about correction and life of limited duration.
During that period there is a group undergoing correction and a group enjoying life.
When that period ends both groups are merged into one and enter everlating life. (when Father is all in all)

[Paul Hazelwood]

Since this is in the "Arguments Against Universal Salvation" section, I'll throw my two-cents in on this thread too.

That argument is precisely my own.  It's not that "forever" can't sometimes be used as an exaggeration to make a point.

But when it is used side-by-side, translated from the same word to describe the righteous and the wicked, how can you reasonably say that one truly is forever but the other is only for an age?

Mat 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

If "punishment" is temporary, then so is life.  The same is true with this passage of Daniel that was in my study this very morning:

Dan 12:2 "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt."

In my opinion, these are side-by-side using the same words to make a clear illustration. To try to separate them and say they mean two different durations makes no sense to me and it does appear that US is trying to have it both ways. 
:2c:

Certain UR arguments are like that, but here we have a case of the writer in the OP delivering a false premise.  I simply showed why it can be both ways, but you have too see that having it both ways is not actually the common UR argument in the first place.


The common UR argument wants to define aionios as only an age and that is not true either.   However when the ET argument only hones in on that error, they have not proven UR false, only a singlular argument about it.   I have shown that using the word as it is known to be used doesn't pose a problem to God saving all mankind in the first place and how in the correct context it IS both ways and HOW it is both ways.

[LS]

I appreciate that explanation Paul - thank you   :thumbsup:

BelovedServant and WhiteWings, as I'm reading your replies it seems - if I understand you each correctly - that they are at odds with each other?  That's not meant to be picky - I know there are a lot of varying believes within US (as within Catholicism, or among ET-ers or ED-ers, etc)   I'm just making sure that I do understand each of your points correctly?

[Beloved Servant]

I will not speak on behalf of Brother  :HeartThrob: WhiteWings, whom I love.

My address focuses on the only thing that exists within and of itself, and that is the Life of God.
Anything "everlasting," regardless of perceived duration or lack thereof, exists within that Life.

[micah7:9]

I will not speak on behalf of Brother  :HeartThrob: WhiteWings, whom I love.

My address focuses on the only thing that exists within and of itself, and that is the Life of God.
Anything "everlasting," regardless of perceived duration or lack thereof, exists within that Life.

:thumbsup: :bigGrin:

[WhiteWings]

I appreciate that explanation Paul - thank you   :thumbsup:

BelovedServant and WhiteWings, as I'm reading your replies it seems - if I understand you each correctly - that they are at odds with each other?  That's not meant to be picky - I know there are a lot of varying believes within US (as within Catholicism, or among ET-ers or ED-ers, etc)   I'm just making sure that I do understand each of your points correctly?

LS, I'm no teacher. I'm a guesser  :laughing7:
I'm not so sure my view in not compatible with David's view.
Aionian life is also part of everlasting life.
I'll try to explain that with a few assumptions I know not all agree with. But it's just easier to explain that way...
Assume that at in Matthew the saints start a life period of 1 year.
The sinners start their period of correction and gradulay over that year of time their correction finishes.
They join that year of life with the other saints (corrected sinners are aloso saints)
Obviously their year is a a few months shorter.
When the year/age is up Father will be all in all and an endless period of time starts.
So the saints in Matthew enter a life span of endless+1 year.
The sinners endless + x months.
That's my view/feeling.....

But I fully admit I can't real show you solid scriptual proof. It's just a feeling I have in my head.
So I would ask everyone to think about the following:
Some verses speak about:
a] Everlasting life
b] Second death
c] Correction/punishment
d] Father all in all
Etc.
Obviously there is only one correct order.
The order is extremely important because it proves either UR or ED.
If Father is all in all and then the second death starts it obviously means all isn't really all.
So if we would take the 10 most relevant verses in what chronological order would we put them?

[Cardinal]

My address focuses on the only thing that exists within and of itself, and that is the Life of God.
Anything "everlasting," regardless of perceived duration or lack thereof, exists within that Life.

:cloud9: :thumbsup:

[LS]

LS, I'm no teacher. I'm a guesser  :laughing7:

Actually, you are VERY good at expressing your thoughts. I always come away with a better understanding of what you believe   :thumbsup:

But I fully admit I can't real show you solid scriptual proof. It's just a feeling I have in my head.

WhiteWings, it always impresses me when people are humble and honest enough to admit that. I think we ALL have those things that we believe like that, and it makes me trust you even more that you don't pretend like you have all the answers.

Thank you, and Beloved Servant as well, for taking time to reply again.   :icon_flower:

[PaoloNuevo]

But I fully admit I can't real show you solid scriptual proof. It's just a feeling I have in my head.
So I would ask everyone to think about the following:
Some verses speak about:
a] Everlasting life
b] Second death
c] Correction/punishment
d] Father all in all
Etc.
Obviously there is only one correct order.

I think Matthew 25: 46 is Jesus' over-simplification of some (probably) intricately ordered events and judgments in the coming age... We can rest assured that Chastening eonian will be the essence of what will happen to the wicked.

And we, too like Paul can hope in the Ressurection, revival, restoration of BOTH the just and the wicked (Acts 24: 15)

I am also still unsure of whether the fire and brimstone in Rev. 14 is the same as the lake of fire in Rev. 20 onward

[WhiteWings]

PN,

I think "apollumi" is a very important word in this context.
In the parables of the prodical son, lost sheep and lost coin the word apollumi is translated as lost.
I see several things in those parables.
The coin knew nothing. It didn't even make itself lost. It didn't desire to be found. In other words the coin did not seek God.
The sheep. They run away on their own. But they are just stupid.
The prodical son learned a few things.
All 3 apollumi things returned to their owner. Not all by thier own actions.

Surely there are also verses that are best translated as destroyed/apollumi
EDs believe the goats of Matthew are destroyed.
LS can probably explain better why. Right now I think it's linked to the wheat and chaff'. The chaff is burned in an unquenchable fire.
To that I can answer that chaff and wheat are (from) the same plant....

[Aleax]

b] Is Mat 25:46 the final step in Father's plan?

Matthew 25:31 "Now, whenever the Son of Mankind may be coming in His glory, and all the holy messengers with Him, then shall He be seated on the throne of His glory..."

In my opinion it is clearly explained here Matt 25:46 will take place at the end of the Present Evil Aeon/in the beginning of the Millennium. It is not God's Great White Throne judgement yet, but Christ's Glory Throne Judgement. The Millennium will end with the greatest apostasy ever seen, iow. many of those who received "eternal life" at the Glory Throne will actually be sentenced to the Lake of Fire.

[shawn]

PN,

I think "apollumi" is a very important word in this context.
In the parables of the prodical son, lost sheep and lost coin the word apollumi is translated as lost.
I see several things in those parables.
The coin knew nothing. It didn't even make itself lost. It didn't desire to be found. In other words the coin did not seek God.
The sheep. They run away on their own. But they are just stupid.
The prodical son learned a few things.
All 3 apollumi things returned to their owner. Not all by thier own actions.

Surely there are also verses that are best translated as destroyed/apollumi
EDs believe the goats of Matthew are destroyed.
LS can probably explain better why. Right now I think it's linked to the wheat and chaff'. The chaff is burned in an unquenchable fire.
To that I can answer that chaff and wheat are (from) the same plant....

But, we know the branches that do not remain with the vine wither and die.  Two branches, from same plant one remains, lives and bears fruit. The other withers, dies and produces nothing.  Its fate is to be burned and destroyed.

I think the question that remains for me is can God claim victory with most of humanity, children made in his image...perish, eternally cut off?

[pickr]

Can "aion" and/or aionion" in some instances mean "unending"? While I am highly skeptical, I confess that I do not know for sure. What is indisputable, however, is that in numerous verses, they simply cannot refer to endlessness.  The same is true for the Hebrew "olam."

Words like "eternal," "everlasting" and "endless" are-- like "pregnant" -- absolute terms. Something either lasts forever, or it one day ends... just as a woman is either pregnant, or she is not.

So, who is it that truly wants to "have it both ways"?

Peace and blessngs,

Andy

[WhiteWings]

PN,

I think "apollumi" is a very important word in this context.
In the parables of the prodical son, lost sheep and lost coin the word apollumi is translated as lost.
I see several things in those parables.
The coin knew nothing. It didn't even make itself lost. It didn't desire to be found. In other words the coin did not seek God.
The sheep. They run away on their own. But they are just stupid.
The prodical son learned a few things.
All 3 apollumi things returned to their owner. Not all by thier own actions.

Surely there are also verses that are best translated as destroyed/apollumi
EDs believe the goats of Matthew are destroyed.
LS can probably explain better why. Right now I think it's linked to the wheat and chaff'. The chaff is burned in an unquenchable fire.
To that I can answer that chaff and wheat are (from) the same plant....

But, we know the branches that do not remain with the vine wither and die.  Two branches, from same plant one remains, lives and bears fruit. The other withers, dies and produces nothing.  Its fate is to be burned and destroyed.

Pruning makes the plant grow better. What are branches? People? Or are the plants the people and the pruned branches the bad habbits of that plant/people. "...if you hand offends cut it off.... if the eye...."???

I think the question that remains for me is can God claim victory with most of humanity, children made in his image...perish, eternally cut off?

I'm getting more and more convinced we are not made in His image. At least not the way most define image. I think we are made opposite of His image.
That view surely fits better with all war and destruction on this planet.

[WhiteWings]

b] Is Mat 25:46 the final step in Father's plan?

Matthew 25:31 "Now, whenever the Son of Mankind may be coming in His glory, and all the holy messengers with Him, then shall He be seated on the throne of His glory..."

In my opinion it is clearly explained here Matt 25:46 will take place at the end of the Present Evil Aeon/in the beginning of the Millennium. It is not God's Great White Throne judgement yet, but Christ's Glory Throne Judgement. The Millennium will end with the greatest apostasy ever seen, iow. many of those who received "eternal life" at the Glory Throne will actually be sentenced to the Lake of Fire.

Depends on ones view of the millenium. Some say during that millenium normal life goes on and children are born. So in theory the children can be the ones that "fall".
Another question is who stand on the right? Elect and saints? Or only the elect?
It's possible to deceive the saints but impossible to decieve the elect.

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall
show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, IF IT WERE
POSSIBLE, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matt. 24:24).
Ah, but it is NOT POSSIBLE to deceive the very elect! Will someone tell me what's
going on here with this wild beast?
WHO ARE THE SAINTS?
If the very elect can't be deceived, is it possible for saints to be deceived? Yes,
there is a difference. One can be a saint long before he becomes the VERY elect.
Were the believers in Ephesus called, saints?
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, TO THE
SAINTS which are in Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus"
(Eph. 1:1).
So, Yes, the believers in Ephesus were called saints. But were they perfect? Were
they spiritually mature? Were they the VERY elect? No, they weren't.
"Unto the angel of the church of EPHESUS write... I have
somewhat ['somewhat' is not in the Greek texts] ...I have against you,
because you have LEFT YOUR FIRST LOVE" (Rev. 2:1 & 4).
Is Jesus accusing the whole church at Ephesus of leaving their first love, if in
reality, there were only a few? But there were NOT just a few—the WHOLE
CHURCH of Ephesus "left their first love." And furthermore, since the Seven
Churches are ONE CHURCH, THE WHOLE CHURCH left their first love! Believe
it or not, leaving one's first love, is part of the process of "going on to perfection"
(Heb. 6:1).

[WhiteWings]

Can "aion" and/or aionion" in some instances mean "unending"? While I am highly skeptical, I confess that I do not know for sure. What is indisputable, however, is that in numerous verses, they simply cannot refer to endlessness.  The same is true for the Hebrew "olam."

Words like "eternal," "everlasting" and "endless" are-- like "pregnant" -- absolute terms. Something either lasts forever, or it one day ends... just as a woman is either pregnant, or she is not.

So, who is it that truly wants to "have it both ways"?

Peace and blessngs,

Andy

Well said Andy.
It's 100% sure the word in many cases does not mean everlasting in many verses. Take for example the everlasting fire that destroys sodom. That fire simply doesn't burn anymore. But i have add some say the effect of the fire is everlasting. But even that is problematic because another verse states Sodom will be rebuild and have greater glory as before.
Everyone knows a city no matter how large burns forever. If the whole city is burned down the fire is out. That's common knowledge. In a way it may be called context.
In another verse a man's life is called an age. That's only a few decades. Context?
A slave belongs to his master for the aion (lifespan)
What's the context of Matthew 25:46?
Why are both ages of the same duration? What are the ages without end? Why ... etc?
Because of doctrine perhaps?
Father is also called God of the aions. Does that mean He only lives a few aions? Does it mean eons last forever? --> God lasts 7 aions means 7 forevers?
Because aion in Matthew 25:46 is used twice in the same verse it has to mean the same duration.

Let's concider this imaginary verse.

The slave is an aionios servant to his master, the saints go into aionios life and Sodom that wicked city shall be suffer aionios burning.

The slave served 30 years.
The man lived say 50 years.
The saints have life of unknown duration.

I think the "verse" I wrote is possible in Greek. But as we see it's impossible to make all ages of the same duration.
Obvious and context some may say. I agree. And that proves the verse doesn't define a timespan at all.
The same with Matthew 25:46.....
Sodom burned a few days. Maybe a whole week. Or lets say a whole month.

[pickr]

Well said Andy.
It's 100% sure the word in many cases does not mean everlasting in many verses. Take for example the everlasting fire that destroys sodom. That fire simply doesn't burn anymore. But i have add some say the effect of the fire is everlasting. But even that is problematic because another verse states Sodom will be rebuild and have greater glory as before.
Everyone knows a city no matter how large burns forever. If the whole city is burned down the fire is out. That's common knowledge. In a way it may be called context.
In another verse a man's life is called an age. That's only a few decades. Context?
A slave belongs to his master for the aion (lifespan)
What's the context of Matthew 25:46?
Why are both ages of the same duration? What are the ages without end? Why ... etc?
Because of doctrine perhaps?
Father is also called God of the aions. Does that mean He only lives a few aions? Does it mean eons last forever? --> God lasts 7 aions means 7 forevers?
Because aion in Matthew 25:46 is used twice in the same verse it has to mean the same duration.

Let's concider this imaginary verse.

The slave is an aionios servant to his master, the saints go into aionios life and Sodom that wicked city shall be suffer aionios burning.

The slave served 30 years.
The man lived say 50 years.
The saints have life of unknown duration.

I think the "verse" I wrote is possible in Greek. But as we see it's impossible to make all ages of the same duration.
Obvious and context some may say. I agree. And that proves the verse doesn't define a timespan at all.
The same with Matthew 25:46.....
Sodom burned a few days. Maybe a whole week. Or lets say a whole month.

I think the basic point is simply that translation tradition has never adequately explained its reasoning when it comes to the demonstrably silly ways it treats "aion/aionios" (let alone "hades," "ghenna" and "tartarus") while I would argue that the position of concordant literalists (Young's, Concordant Literal, etc.) in using "age/age-lasting" simply satisfies the common-sense test.

Ironically, one of the verse Eric L. uses above is Hebrews 1:8, where Eric seems to suggest that Jesus is going to rule "forever and ever," as opposed to "into the ages of the ages." Given what Paul writes in 1Cor 15, I think it is Eric who has the scriptural dilemma, not us.

Blessings to you,

Andy

[WhiteWings]

Ironically, one of the verse Eric L. uses above is Hebrews 1:8, where Eric seems to suggest that Jesus is going to rule "forever and ever," as opposed to "into the ages of the ages." Given what Paul writes in 1Cor 15, I think it is Eric who has the scriptural dilemma, not us.

Plus how long would a "1000 year/millenium kingdom" last? Sounds like a limited time to me.

[CHB]

Hi,

I think we are BEING MADE in his image.

CHB