That is basically the same far fetched explanation (leads to eternal life…) you attribute to the Universalist. You explain this one away while not allowing them to do the same on other scriptures. What is plain to you is not plain to me and vica versa. That is not to say the above is wrong, it is no more wrong than mine and so on. Unless you know the mind of the author, you can’t know. Likewise, I can’t either.
Just like you, I have no motives for disproving or proving it, I mean. I am agnostic. So to me, I don’t say this to somehow cling to some idea for my own sake. You don’t believe in God at all, but that makes it easier to interpret the text in a much more disfavorable light, as it is much easier to reject something morally objectionable than something reasonable.
God saving all (Universalism) is hardly dependant upon a) aion alternate translations, and b) the scriptures themselves. Neither are needed like, to me clear. But the latter in no way makes the belief impossible.
George MacDonald clearly did no tampering with aion, and still expressed his belief that God is unworthy of such mean low notion of God. His unspoken sermons make that very clear.
So I am ok with your take on aion, but it hardly makes a dent into Universalism.
Typed on my cellphone and on the treadmill, yeah me!
“Leads to” hmm possibly… but even that in itself can be viewed as employing creative licence simply to bolster a given presupposition assumed of the text, not dissimilar to those who will add… “all kinds of men” to the text of 1Tim 4:10 in order to justify a doctrinal position already brought to and superimposed upon the text, etc.
Jn 17:3 can be viewed in its straightforward qualitative sense not dissimilar to the qualitative “eternal destruction” of 2Thess 1:9 that is a complete oxymoron WHEN considered as per its strict literal rendering, i.e., how is something or someone destroyed with endless duration? Destruction means termination, period!
No… what we have is a qualitative phrase indicative and descriptive of the magnitude and scope of said event — in this case their utter ruin and removal from the very presence of God — which for any devout Jew of the day was their cutting off from their Land, City and in particular, Temple.
Again… earlier in John Jesus expresses this same qualitative sense of FULLNESS of life when he says…
Jn 10:10The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.
Maybe… but it is NOT unreasonable to acknowledge Jesus’ understanding AND use of such in HIS defining “eternal” such as it is; and it certainly can be applied equally and in-kind to both sides of Mt 25:46 WITHOUT needing to get inventive with all sorts of IMO, stretched scenarios. The very logic ECT advocates bring against the universalist position holds logical weight, BUT just like universalists make the wrong assumption that this verse speaks to postmortem destinies etc… as a pantelist, I don’t think so.
It seems in spite of your evangelical universalism your are familiar and comfortable with designating certain ones according to particular religious clichés, in this instance… “recalcitrant rebels” — who fits OR by what measure do you assess one as meeting this categorisation? That’s what I’m wondering.
Ah. Well in that case, it’s because I KNOW recalcitrant rebels. I’ve known quite a few, actually. You’ve not been acquainted with anyone except saints??
Now I can just imagine how you are going to take off on this, so let the good times roll!
If John 17:3 were defining aionios life as “that they may know God & Jesus Christ” (which sounds rather odd for a definition to be expressed that way), the definition looks even weirder when you try to apply it elsewhere. You end up with, for a few examples, these:
Mt.25:46 And they will go away into aionion punishment, but the righteous into (that they may know God and Jesus)."
Mark 10:17 As Jesus started on His way, a man ran up and knelt before Him. “Good Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit (that I may know God and Jesus)?”
Lk.10:25 One day an expert in the law stood up to test Him. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit (that i may know God and Jesus)?”
Mk.10:29 “Truly I tell you,” said Jesus, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for My sake and for the gospel
30 will fail to receive a hundredfold in the present age — houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, along with persecutions — and to
receive (that they may know God and Jesus) in the age to come.
Lk.18:18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit (that i may know God and Jesus)?”
Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ in service of the faith of God’s elect and of their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness,
2 in the hope of (that we may know God and Jesus), which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.
Titus 3:6 This is the Spirit He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by His grace, we would become heirs
with the hope of (that we may know God and Jesus).
Is John 17:3 the definition of aionios life that applies to all contexts of the Scriptures? Or merely a description of aionios life? And an incomplete one, that does not tell us the whole story, i.e. everything that Scripture reveals about it?
If John 17:3 qualifies as a definition, are these expressions of a similar form also definitions:
“… His commandment is aionios life” (Jn.12:50)
Jesus Christ “is the true God and aionios life” (1 Jn.5:20)
“This is My body” (Lk22:19, re bread in His hand/s)
“God is light” (1 Jn.1:5)
“it is eonian life that they may know Thee…” (Jn.17:3)
Jn.17:2 according as Thou givest Him authority over all flesh, that everything which Thou hast given to Him, He should be giving it to them, even life eonian." 3 Now it is eonian life that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Him Whom Thou dost commission, Jesus Christ. (CLV)
The word “that” in “that they may know Thee” (Jn.17:3) expresses purpose: “for the purpose that (in order that), looking to the aim (intended result) of the verbal idea.” http://biblehub.com/greek/2443.htm
If anything brings quality to the expression “life aionios” in all its contexts, it is not the word “aionios”, but the word “life”. Aionios regards duration, not quality. In 2 Cor.4:18-5:1 it is contrasted 3 times in 3 consecutive verses with other durations that are “momentary”, for a season (proskairos), and relatively brief.
Yes odd indeed… this is a fundamental misunderstanding something really basic. Jesus did NOT mean by the term eternal “that they may know God & Jesus Christ” and thereby all those extraneously stretched examples. Rather… knowing God in Christ brings FULLNESS of aka eternal life. A young couple describe their love for each other as eternal — they are NOT describing love’s longevity BUT rather the depth, richness and fullness thereof — this is how the qualitative works, and it works well for an understanding of Mt 25:46. IOW… there was a fullness of reckoning coming — for some this would be good news, for others, not so much.
The topic is the alleged existence of a definition of a two word (as opposed to a single word, “eternal”) phrase “aionios life” in John 17:3. If you don’t think that definition is expressed by the paraphrase of Jesus’ words "that they may know God & Jesus Christ”, feel free to point out what words in John 17:3 do express that definition.
BTW, i would add, in John 17:3 Jesus doesn’t say “this is [one, or the only true, definition or meaning of] aionios life”… Likewise He doesn’t say “this is [the reason for, or purpose of, being given/as per v.2] aionios life”… Neither does He say “this is [the prerequisite for obtaining] aionios life”…
If “fulness” was meant instead of what was written, why wouldn’t the text have expressed that with the word “fulness”? Is it your opinion the being tormented “into the eons of the eons” (Rev.20:10) should be translated as “fullness” of torments & the going into aionion kolasin (Mt.25:46) should be rendered “fullness of punishment”?
An expression of “eternal love” often speaks of the duration of the commitment to one another, that it will be enduring, till death do we part. By association this suggests the depths of their love, that it isn’t superficial, but real enough that it will last for a lifetime. But what does any of this English lingo have to do with the ancient dead language Koine Greek word, aionios, of 2000 years ago? Or the expression “aionios life”?
Sorry Origen I thought I would hazard another attempt to engage but I can see due to given perceptions we’ll probably just end up talking past each other which will probably be less than fruitful. I’m hopeful others who although maybe not agreeing with me might at least get the gist of what I’m saying. Blessings to you.
Leaving aside all the universalist authors & scholars who’ve written articles & books on the subject, and the universalist early church fathers, even many (or perhaps a majority of) pro endless punishment biased scholars & lexicons disagree with that statement.
Adjectives typically reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns. I suggest the evidence confirms typical use applies re aion & aionios in the NT context & its Author’s usage of the words therein: What do you make of /u/koine_lingua’s arguments? (Part 1)
If that is the case, then for aionios to be defined as eternal or permanent in the Scriptures, wouldn’t the noun aion also have to mean eternal or permanent? But when you apply that to the uses of aion in the NT it makes many passages into nonsense. For a few examples:
I am with you all the days, until the end of the permanent(aion/eon) Mt.28:20
The harvest is the end of the permanent(aion/eon) Mt.13:39
so will it be at the end of the permanent(aion/eon) Mt.13:40
OTOH the translation eon for aion (& eonian for aionios) removes the nonsense.
