U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-25-2010, 12:44 PM
 
1,897 posts, read 1,695,418 times
Reputation: 262

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CantWait2Leave View Post
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head, but I don't think it's just universalists that don't realize how horrific sin really is in the eyes of a good, Holy God. I think we all don't fully understand how horrific sin is to Him, but I agree that universalists underestimate sin which is why they think hell is unfair. When the Israelites sacrificed animals they were sensitized to the importance of their sin and guilt. Our culture's casual attitude toward sin ignores the cost of sin and need for repentance and restoration.
It's actually ETers who underestimate sin. They think that by saying a little prayer, keeping the law, or being baptized or whatever, they can be freed from their sins. The truth of the matter is that sin is SO bad against a holy God, that there is NOTHING we can do to save ourselves. That's why while we were YET sinners, Christ Jesus shed His blood on the cross. "What is impossible with man, is possible with God."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2010, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,241,725 times
Reputation: 1685
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantWait2Leave View Post
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head, but I don't think it's just universalists that don't realize how horrific sin really is in the eyes of a good, Holy God. I think we all don't fully understand how horrific sin is to Him, but I agree that universalists underestimate sin which is why they think hell is unfair. When the Israelites sacrificed animals they were sensitized to the importance of their sin and guilt. Our culture's casual attitude toward sin ignores the cost of sin and need for repentance and restoration.
The focus of the URer is not on sin it is on love, which naturally avoids sin. Different method, similar goal.

If a Holy God abhorred sin so much then he wouldn't have created humans as sinful creatures and totally inept at being sinless, Right? Or rather wouldn't he have created them that way so then removed the sin for them at some point? Didn't he remove sin from his creature so they COULD know him?

Without love you are not sensitive to sin you avoid it. In love you can deal with the sin and completely be restored. IMO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 08:24 AM
 
702 posts, read 801,251 times
Reputation: 87
Sven, I read through your post, which you pointed out to me earlier. If I may summarize, what you've done in that post is pile up a lot of verses that use "olam" or "aiwnios" to indicate a temporal meaning, and from there you've concluded that it doesn't have to mean eternal. That conclusion is very premature, though. You've not been thorough in your research. There are passages that clearly use the word "aiwnios" to have the meaning "everlasting." I refer to some of those below.

Regarding "olam," most of the OT references you provided use olam to to mean noneternal or noneverlasting. The only possible exception in the list you provided is in Gen. 21:33: "the everlasting (lit. of æon) God." It is interesting that you claim this cannot mean "everlasting" in this verse, but the only reason you give for this is the fact that the other uses of olam in your list of references have a temporal meaning. I think it's a bit hasty to write off this meaning of the word simply because other passages use it in a different way. Words do have a variety of meanings and varying shades of meaning. Could it be that olam has more than one meaning?

But let's say for the sake of argument that you are right and that olam in Gen. 21:33 does not mean "eternal." What, then, did the Holy Spirit intend to say? What was the author's intention? How should that verse be translated?

Also, have you provided all the OT uses of olam?

Regarding aion, you wrote,

Quote:
Romans 16:25.26, Green’s Literal Translation

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the proclaiming of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery having been kept unvoiced during eternal times (Gr. chronois aiõniois), but now has been made plain, and by prophetic Scriptures, according to the commandment of the everlasting God (Gr. aiõniou theou), made known for obedience of faith to all the nations.

It seems J.P. Green was an honest translator, but eternal times is a contradiction in terms as hot ice would be, but more of importance, these eternal times had an end. Again the finite times are likewise called eternal as God, while I do not question God’s eternity I question if that is expressed by the term aiõnios and if it even need to be expressed at all; and if not the apostle Paul wanted to tell us something different, when He called the infinite God aiõnios, just as he called the finite times also aiõnios.
This is a good point, but you need to look at other uses of the word "aion" in the NT that clearly show the writer intended the meaning of everlasting. For example, 2 Cor. 4:18 brings out clearly that aionios can have the meaning of everlasting, without end:

17For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. 18So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal (aiōnia). (NIV)

A couple more examples:

"but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal (aiōnion) life." (Mark 10:30)

This "eternal life" in the age to come: What meaning did the writer intend for the adjective that modifies "life"?

Consider also this passage from John 4 (Greek interspersed with English):

13Jesus answered and said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;

13απεκριθη ιησους και ειπεν αυτη πας ο πινων εκ του υδατος τουτου διψησει παλιν

14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life." (John 4, NASB)

14ος δ αν πιη εκ του υδατος ου εγω δωσω αυτω ου μη διψησει εις τον αιωνα αλλα το υδωρ ο δωσω αυτω γενησεται εν αυτω πηγη υδατος αλλομενου εις ζωην αιωνιον (aiwnion)

Jesus contrasts regular, physical water with living water. Those who drink regular water will just end up thirsting again. That water quenches the thirst only temporarily, not eternally. That is plain to see. He then goes on to say, however--introducing the contrast with the word "but" (de)--that those who drink his living water "will not (by no means, as indicated by the Greek phrase ου μη) thirst to the age (eis twn aiwna)."

Now, perhaps you could say that the Greek phrase εις τον αιωνα has only a temporal meaning. If that were true, one could then conclude that the following phrase ζωην αιωνιον (zwhn aiwnion) could not mean "eternal life." That, however, would present a serious problem, as it would leave us with the following silly, nonsensical translation:

"Jesus answered and said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall thirst again; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to life for a time." "

Since that cannot be, αιωνιον in this context must mean "eternal" or at least "everlasting." The idea here is that the water has an everlasting quality, as contrasted with the earthly water that provides only a temporary quenching of thirst.

We haven't even touched on the phrase, EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN, which, in Rev. 1:18 can have no other meaning than "forever and ever" since it refers to Christ's very life.

Your mistake was to compile verses that provide one meaning and then rule out any other meanings for that word. You used context in your examination of the verses you listed, but you need to do the same with other passages, ones that do not allow for a temporal meaning. I've provided you with a few examples of such passages. I haven't provided a comprehensive list because my purpose was only to show that "aiwnios" must mean "everlasting" in certain contexts. That was the part of the study that you left out of your post.

Last edited by Jremy; 06-28-2010 at 08:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 08:25 AM
 
702 posts, read 801,251 times
Reputation: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bright Hope for Tomorrow View Post
It's actually ETers who underestimate sin. They think that by saying a little prayer, keeping the law, or being baptized or whatever, they can be freed from their sins.
I don't believe any of those things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 08:35 AM
 
702 posts, read 801,251 times
Reputation: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
Jremy-wow someone else who agrees with me; but you take the heat, hahaha. The issue is knowledge, knowing-it always is. Where does one get it? Now in our day and age? In the gut I suppose, sittin' on the ol' john with cramps, listening to the Beatles, whatever. The resistance to theology is founded here. The subjective is private and does not lend itself to an ology except for ego; not social, not church. This finds a lot of followers as there is not much effort, what ever one comes up with and warms the bowels will do. Science doesn't work well this way, doctoring, accounting, military tactics, etc. But when it come to forever, its the best since white bread.
Yes, you're right. In our postmodern age, it is feelings, sentiments, and subjectivity that carry the day. Ultimately for many, truth is determined by how one feels. Man has become the measure of all things. Evangelicalism by and large is plagued with this mindset, this worldly paradigm that tends to push aside the objective, enscripturated revelation of God in favor of subjectivity. I've seen that in universalists as plain as day: If it doesn't pass the bar of their personal, finite concept of justice--which could be somewhat clouded by sin--then the doctrine of eternal punishment must be wrong. That is arrogance of the worst order, to set oneself up as judge over Scripture, as if we, with our sinful, fallen minds, could actually do such a thing. Revelation is meant to be received and believed in faith, not edited to suit our predetermined belief system. It's Scripture first, then our system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 08:46 AM
 
Location: East Coast
29,368 posts, read 19,445,000 times
Reputation: 2023
16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Why did God forget to tell Adam that He was going to fry in eternal torment ? .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Germany
1,591 posts, read 1,659,033 times
Reputation: 806
Quote:
Your mistake was to compile verses that provide one meaning and then rule out any other meanings for that word. You used context in your examination of the verses you listed, but you need to do the same with other passages, ones that do not allow for a temporal meaning. I've provided you with a few examples of such passages. I haven't provided a comprehensive list because my purpose was only to show that "aiwnios" must mean "everlasting" in certain contexts. That was the part of the study that you left out of your post.
I am in my exams right now and cannot answer your objections thouroughly, I can do so not prior to next week, but the topic of this thread are not languagical considerations but moral and reasonable ones, though I would appreciate a scholarly discussion in the already existing threads, I have already explained 2. Corinthians 4:18 in more than one instances, but see here:

Quote:
"…But this does not alter the meaning of the word: aiõnios is properly the opposite to proskairos."

Mr. Darby refers here to 2 Corinthians 4:18, however proskairos is not time (chronos) itself but seems rather to be a period, Plato did not contrast a period (proskairos) with eternity but time itself (chronos) with eternity (aiõn), so Mr. Darby is wrong here in my opinion.

The word proskairos also occurs in Matthew 13:21, Mark 4:17, and Hebrews 11:25

I’ll show these verses now in several translations, before I turn to 2 Corinthians 4:18 in detail:

Matthew 13:21

“But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time (Gr. proskairos). When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. (New International Version)

“Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.” (King James Version)

Mark 4:17

But they have no roots. So they last only a short time (Gr. proskairos). They quickly fall away from the faith when trouble or suffering comes because of the message. (NIRV)

“And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended”. (King James Version)

Hebrews 11:25

“Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season (Gr. proskairos);…” (King James Version)

“He chose to be ill-treated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time.” (New International Version)

In all these occurrences proskairos rather seems to mean a short time, a season or a while.

An online dictionary, it seems to be the Liddell Scott; gives the following meaning for proskairos; for a season, temporary (9)

“season” is defined in an English dictionary: A period of time not very long; a while; a time.

Before I turn to 2 Corinthians 4:18, remember Mr. Darby wrote, “But this does not alter the meaning of the word: aiõnios is properly the opposite to proskairos.”

But what is the opposite of a period of time not very long? Of course eternity would be the opposite of such a period, but also one or several long ages, or even a single century would be the full contrast to a short season, while the contrast of eternity is time and not a season.

The verse of interest is:

2 Corinthians 4:18

μσκοποντων μν τβλεπμενα λλτμβλεπμενα· τγρ βλεπμενα πρσκαιρα, τδμβ λεπμενα αἰώνια.

mê skopountõn êmõn ta blepomena alla ta mê blepomena ta gar blepomena proskaira, ta de mê blepomena aiõnia.

“For tho thingis that ben seyn, ben but durynge for a schort tyme; but tho thingis that ben not seyn, ben euerlastynge.” (Wycliffe)

“So we don't spend all our time looking at what we can see. Instead, we look at what we can't see. What can be seen lasts only a short time. But what can't be seen will last forever.” (NIRV)

As I said proskairos is not time itself, this would be chronos, but rather a (shorter) period as already shown, you can contrast strict opposites or things that are related to each other, you can contrast a lake with a desert and you can contrast a lake with an ocean; one might suppose here is contrasted time with timeless eternity in a Platonic sense, but you can also contrast something which lasts only a short present period with something that is yet future and will last for ages, as I already said.

If Paul would have contrasted time with eternity I think he would have written,

“For the things which are seen are ‘chronikos’ (temporary, in the sense of pertaining to time); but the things which are not seen are eternal (pertaining to eternity).”

But Paul did not usethe adjective of chronos - time, which I think he would have done, if he had intended to contrast time with eternity here, but he used proskairos, which is not related to time (chronos) itself, but rather means a season as shown. I think this verse proofs in no way that aiõnios should be understood as infinite, because it does simply not say so. It might be the perfect definition of Hebrew olam which means something like hidden time as far as I know:

Things that are seen last only for a (short present) period (Gr. proskairos), but (things yet future), not seen (yet and with an unavowed end), are lasting for [a] (long future) age[s] (Gr. aiõnios).

This might be a possible interpretation without any relation to a supposed infinity, endlessness or timeless eternity as Mr. Darby and others suppose.
we had this very same discussion here:

The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment (LONG)

I will not repeat myself.

All I can say for now, and I think it is enough to say at all, universalism does not stand or fall with the words olam, aion(ios), eternal tormentism does.

the fact that aion(ios) can mean a limited duration is virtually enough to defend universalism biblically, there is no single proof text that affirms endless damnation with certainty.

eternal tormentism cannot prove that aion(ios) refers to eternity when applied to future punishment, the universalist passages (e.g. Col. 1:20) are quite plain and cannot be explained away in my opinion, of course people try it perpetually but they are not very convincing in my view.

Last edited by svenM; 06-28-2010 at 12:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:08 AM.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top