Robert L. Short, who wrote “The Gospel According to Peanuts,” was addressing students and faculty of a bible college in California one evening. In his talk, he said: “To the degree you feel you need to save yourself is the degree that you don’t need Christ.”
I am curious Paidion if you believe that if a believer, one who is in Christ, can lose their position in Christ and lose their eonian life if they don’t do enough righteous things?
Another question. Why do you prefer concordant.org over other popular bible translations, like the NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, KJV, or NKJV?
Is that a trick question? You are asking me if I prefer a web site to bible translations?
The correct question is: “Why do you prefer the Concordant Literal New Testament over other popular bible translations . . . ?”
I like the CLNT over other translations because it is more accurate.
Is our argument over words or over our understanding of the gospel? I understand as well as anyone the desire to punch when the dukes are up. However, I am following this discussion intently as it relates to the fight for the gospel itself.
So we are discussing the security of God’s sovereign salvation choices in Christ versus the supposed ‘free will’ of man and the last question rests with Paidion. The Arminian camp typically teaches that salvation can be lost and if salvation can be lost then the Sovereign camp notes that then it must depend upon a human condition rather than the unconditional love of God.
?
Actually, the reason I phased the question that way, is this. It’s my understanding that the translation, is only available on the website. Is that correct or not?
A little bit of digging on Amazon, did find a printed New Testament translation. But none for the Old Testament.
And can you give an example, with a simple passage or two? And show how it’s more accurate, then the leading Bible translations of NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, KJV, and NKJV?
The article at growthingod.org.uk/concordant-new-testament.htm, had this to say this - in part (from the subheading - ** Is the CLNT an Accurate Translation?**)
Another interesting segment from the article - is this subheading - Is the CLNT free from Bias?
But here is one comfort for universalists.
But then they went on - to add this:
The article author ends this way:
Hi Jeff, I was originally arguing for God’s Sovereignty in salvation in this thread and that a free will choice is not possible for salvation. But, as with almost all threads, they go off on rabbit trails. I was not intending for this thread to end up being a punching or duking it out thread.
I think part of the problem has to do with correctly cutting or “rightly dividing” the scriptures. Some take what was said to the Jews for them to do in the four accounts/gospels and the letter to the Hebrews (that’s another hint it’s not to the nations) and other Circumcision writings, and try to apply them to the nations who are under unearned grace. I perceive that is Paidion’s problem per his last couple of posts to me.
Acts tells us that “those who are set for life eonian, believe.” It doesn’t say they might believe if they make the right choice. It says they believe.
Act_13:48 Now on hearing this, the nations rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord, and they believe, whoever were set for life eonian."
If one is set by God, they will believe. No ifs ands or buts about it.
And since it is God Who saves us, He eventually will save the rest of mankind. The Bible correctly says of Him “God is the Saviour of all mankind.” He is not One Who just offers salvation. A Saviour is One Who saves. Since He will save all mankind, He is all mankind’s Saviour.
Eusebius wrote:
No, it can be purchased on the web site by going to concordant.org and then going to the “order” drop down thingy.
If you go here: concordant.org/expositions/the-scriptures/ you can read quite a bit concerning the translation principles which went into the CLNT. If that is too much information, one can look up AIWN and see how horribly other translations translate that word. The CLNT is the only Bible I know of that didn’t translate it but brought it directly over into its Anglicized form as “eon.” This removes all bias from the translator and lets the reader decide the actual meaning of the word by its usage.
Here are the verses where they thought “eon” and “eonian” couldn’t work. This is from their web site. I put their words in blue:
**
John 13:8: “Under no circumstances shouldst Thou be washing my feet for the eon!” The correct meaning is totally obvious: “You will never wash my feet”. For the eon is nonsense!**
Actually that is the case that eon should be used. Christ will return and be with them after this eon ends. So they can’t wash His feet during this eon and in fact, they’ve been dead for almost 2,000 years, so how can they be washing His feet again before this eon is over?
Mark 11:14: (the barren fig tree) “By no means may anyone still be eating fruit of you for the eon”. Perhaps that fig tree will start bearing fruit again when the eon finishes! Obviously the correct translation is something like: “May no one ever eat fruit from you again!”
No, that fig tree has been barren since the day Christ cursed it and it will remain barren for the duration of this eon. This is typified of Israel being like that fig tree in that they too will be barren of fruit for the duration of this eon until Christ returns to inaugurate the next millennial eon.
Heb 11:3: All other translators agree that in this context αιονες should be translated worlds or universe. The HSBC says, “By faith we understand that the universe was created by God’s command”. Knoch puts, “By faith we are apprehending the eons to adjust to a declaration of God”. Creation is reduced from the creation of the universe, which totally fits the context (a walk through the book of Genesis), to creation of eons, which is totally irrelevant to the context.
But the eons were adjusted. Rather than Christ immediately returning to set up His 1000 year reign, Paul was given the secret that Israel was to be set aside and grace goes to the nations. This is all in Romans 9,10,11 as well. “World” already has a Greek word God chose which is “KOSMOS.” This shows that these naysayers really don’t understand what this is all about.
John 17:3: “This is αιωνιος life: that they may know You, the only true God, and the One You have sent — Jesus Christ.” The meaning, as I understand it, is a spiritual life that we receive when we put our faith in Jesus, and has an eternal and unending quality. Knoch translates this eonian life, by which he understands life throughout some future eon. This is a huge reduction of the real meaning.
Here is what the Concordant Commentary says concerning John 17:3:
“3 The knowledge of God is not given as the definition of eonian life, but eonian life is imparted that they may be knowing Him. Eonian life is life during the eons of Christ’s reign and glory. Two methods are used by Him to acquaint His saints with Himself. First, they are left to taste the sorrows of sin at a distance from Him. Then, in the eons of the eons, in glorious fellowship with His Son, each high tide of bliss will mark some new discovery of His love, some fresh token of His affection.”
It should be “eonian life.” Knoch was right and so was God in using aiwnios.
John 6: 51: “If anyone should be eating of this Bread, he shall be living for the eon.” Jesus was offering immediate spiritual life, not physical life at some unknown future time.
Actually Jesus was speaking of the millennial eon. If a Jew eats of that Bread (the Bread which represents Jesus and not a literally eating of his body and blood) they will live for the eon. They all died. So it must be meant for the eon to come.
Romans 16: 26 speaks of the “αιωνιος God”. Knoch translates this eonian God. The word eonian is utterly irrelevant to the context, almost meaningless and reduces God from being eternal and beyond time to merely a designer of time periods.
No, it is perfectly relevant. The statement, “eonian God,” is not telling us how long God exists but rather His relationship to the eons. Who ever said “eonian God” means “designer of time periods”? Not us. It means that He is over the eons, directing the goal for each eon and subjecting mankind to the goal of each eon. That makes Him the eonian God. Just as Obama is the American president, this makes him president pertaining to America, thus God is the eonian God or God pertaining to the eons. The verse just prior to the verse in question talks about “times eonian”: Rom 16:25 Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian." Just as there are times pertaining to the eons and there was a secret hushed during those times, thus also is God the eonian God.
“Eph_3:11 in accord with the purpose of the eons, which He makes in Christ Jesus, our Lord;”
See, these people really are ignorant concerning these matters.
Eusebius’ continues: Obviously they don’t understand the Concordant translating principles. For instance, in the Old Testament we have a Hebrew word which has a basic meaning and a family of words related to that meaning such as synonyms to use in various passages where that Hebrew word is used. This is likewise the case in the New Testament. But for AIWON and AIWNION no synonyms were needed.
Actually both aiwn and aiwnios can because it was brought over in its English Anglicized form in the Concordant Literal New Testament and it makes perfect sense in every passage where this is so. Aiwnios was not translated but rather transliterated in its Anglicized form. So no one can claim Knoch translated it due to a bias.
I understand you, Jeff. I was a Calvinist until I was in my twenties. I thought my main ministry was convincing people of pre-destination and unconditional security. Then God convicted me of my misunderstanding of Him, through my reading of second-century Christian literature. Though I ceased being a Calvinist, I never was an Arminian—just a non-Calvinist who accepted early Christian teaching.
It is true that one could never be lost if his salvation were pre-ordained by God and that the person had no part in it—not even his consent. But that is not reality. There will be no salvation from sins unless we coöperate with God. If we think we can receive the grace of God without this coöperation, we deceive out selves, and any attempt to do so will be in vain.
(2 Corinthians 6:1 RSV) Working together (συνεργουντες—synergountes—“synergy” not “monergy” as Calvinists believe) with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.
The following statement indicates that we must continue in Christ—stay on the narrow road that leads to life:
(Hebrews 3:14 RSV) For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.
http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/4879526+_897198c9ae2c5cde5fbdac52e2f1692b.jpg
That’s almost as shocking to me Paidion, as you saying you used to belong, to a motorcycle gang. A Calvinist 
The only thing more daunting, is someone saying we are just “puppets on a string”. But then again, nobody can then blame me, for becoming a Holy Fool and P-Zombie. 
We differ there.
Sure, to be saved from sin we must cooperate and turn from our own way to God’s way. Total agreement there. Though I would add that only the active grace of God enabled believers to make progress in sanctification for an individual.
Paidion, I wish you could see that salvation is not single dimensional and has component parts. Frankly it is the modern evangelical that makes salvation only about eternal destiny and neglects the salvation from sin component. You however make salvation only about salvation from sin and neglect the the components of predestination, election, justification, and eternal security.
Second-century Christian literature is very important for contemporary Christians to read. I recommend this book, which has the original Greek on one page and the English translation on the facing page:
amazon.com/Apostolic-Father … ic+fathers
That volume includes the entirety of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, who were the second generation of the Church (with the Apostles themselves being the first generation). Most if not all of the Apostolic Fathers were on a first-name basis with the Apostles. They spoke face-to-face with them and learned of Christ and theology at their feet–literally.
I would take it as obvious that no Christian today could possibly understand the Apostles better than did the Apostles’ chief pupils in their own lifetimes. (And if anyone says, “I can!” I would sadly regard him as a victim of prelest–spiritual delusion.)
The writings of the Apostolic Fathers are a great self-check. If we find ourselves straying far from them, we know that we are innovating and are not following the teaching of the Apostles.
If you don’t understand Paul, it would be better to really understand what he wrote about before venturing out into extra-biblical writings, especially since the early church began to go astray after Paul left the scene.
So that raises the question - how should the church have handled things, after Paul and the apostles passed away?
Let’s look at an article at timothypauljones.com/church-history-what-happened-to-the-church-after-the-apostles-died/. Then let me know, how the church should have handled these items.
How should the church have addressed the Ebionites, Gnostics and determining what traditions are true?
How should the church have answered the questions, from the preceding quote?
Finally, let me share a bit of background - regarding the author at timothypauljones.com/about/:
Like I said, If you don’t understand Paul, it would be better to really understand what he wrote about before venturing out into extra-biblical writings, especially since the early church began to go astray after Paul left the scene.
Understand Paul first, then you can learn about the Ebionites and Gnostics. Until then, one is just wasting their time.
But that doesn’t address your second statement:
My series of simple questions - from the article - is to answer the question of how to prevent the church from going astray. What should they have done historically - to have prevented it? Does this mean that the article questions would have been answered properly, if the church fathers have correctly understood Paul?
I do have shows to watch tonight - non-redeeming ones, mind you. So I might have to reshape the questions, if you don’t understand them. If one stands on a platform and says they are an expert, then they should expect to address any questions asked them. Otherwise, how is the audience to learn?
Yes, my belief is that we are being saved from sin as a life-long process. The “modern evangelical” believes that we can be saved from hell by praying the “sinner’s prayer.” Salvation from sin—salvation from hell… What else is there from which to be saved?
Surely one could not think any of us understands Paul as well as did his friends Clement (Philippians 4:3) and Hermas (Romans 16:14)? Would not the very notion be risible?
I had to look up risible. 
Now THAT is risible! 