Aaron37,
Yes, we must all reach our own conclusions on how aionios is used in various verses.
I think we can agree that aionios often means ‘eternal’ in the NT. You claim that this fact alone disproves Universal Salvation, but this is simply not the case.
Gabe.
Fair enough, Universalism is not defeated by the meaning of one word, but it is defeated by three verses. 2 Thess 1:9 and 2 Thess 2:10-12. I believe Mr. Talbott or Mr. McDonanld admitted these verses do the most damage against UR.
Aaron37,
Have you read what Talbott has said about 2 Thess 1:9? I do not recall him saying that this verse damages UR. On the the contrary, Talbott offered a very reasonable interpretation of this verse that is compatible with UR. I don’t know if either Talbott or MacDonald has addressed 1 Thess 2:10-12. I’ll do a search to find out.
Here’s my understanding: In speaking of our present, mortal bodies and our future, immortal bodies, Paul is using proskairos and aionios to contrast two measures of temporal duration in order to emphasize the superiority of our future immortal body over our present, mortal body. In Matthew 13:21, Christ employs proskairos to denote a relatively short measure of time. It is used in reference to those who hear the Gospel and endure in their faith for only “a short while” in contrast to those who, after hearing the word, keep it and go on to produce fruit. In this context, proskairos conveys a relatively short measure of time, the passing of which is observable by mortals. Aionios, on the other hand, while not denoting endless duration in an absolute sense, is often used in reference to relatively long durations of time. Here, it simply conveys the idea of a relatively long measure of time, the passing of which is unobservable by mortals.
So when Paul says that “the things that are seen” are proskairos (i.e., pertaining to a relatively short measure of time, the passing of which is observable) while “the things that are unseen” are aionios (i.e, pertaining to a relatively long measure of time, the passing of which is unobservable) he places our present, mortal bodies in the former category of things, and our future, immortal bodies in the latter category of things. Being imperishable, our resurrection bodies are not the kind of things that pertain to a relatively short, observable measure of time (like our mortal bodies). This need not mean that Paul understood aionios to denote the entire duration of time during which our immortal bodies will last after we have been clothed with them; it was simply the most appropriate time-word with which to contrast proskairos in order to emphasize the imperishable nature of the spiritual body over the perishable natural body. Though aionios does not denote endless duration here (or anywhere in the NT, I would argue), it does serve to forcibly emphasize the superiority of the resurrection body over our present bodies.
That this is Paul’s meaning seems evident from the next verse (5:1), where Paul speaks as if our resurrection bodies are presently waiting for us “in the heavens.” In speaking as if they are already in existence (though in actuality they do not yet exist), he calls them aionios (again, which pertains to a relatively long measure of time that is unobservable) to emphasize their imperishable nature over the perishable nature of our mortal body.
Gabe.
2 Thess 2:10-12. One of them was asked what verse they thought gives UR a problem and he answered 2 Thess 1:9. Anyway, I believe 2 Thess 2:10-12 is just as damaging. I’m not interested in what Talbott thinks, what do you believe these verses are saying?
2 Thess 2 :10-12 “and with all deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness”.
Gabe, these verses are crystal clear.
Hi Aaron,
You wrote:
Can you go into more detail as how exactly aionios emphasizes imperishability?
Let’s start with 2 Thess 1:9. I think we can both agree that this verse speaks to the eternal destruction of God’s enemies. The question is, what does this mean? I would understand the meaning thereof in the same way that Gregory of Nyssa and St. Jerome, among other Church Fathers, understood it: As a reference to the eternal destruction of the sin nature; a destruction which is intrinsic to the salvation process.
Gabe.
I disagree totally. The context of 2 Thess is about faith and perseverance.The great persecution the Thessalonians were facing caused many to think that the “Day of the Lord” that Paul had taught about was already taking place.
Verse 7 of chapter one, Paul, teaches Jesus giving relief when he comes from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire dealing out retribution to those who do not know God or obey the gospel. They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction separated from the Glory of the Lord.
How do you come to the conclusion that the penalty of eternal destruction is talking about the sin nature based on the context of this chapter. Where in 2 Thess chapter 1 does Paul mention the sin nature?
It should also be pointed out that the “salvation” which is constrasted with the “destruction” need not be understood as referring to anyone’s final, post-mortem salvation. I think it is too often assumed (on both sides of the debate, but especially by those who believe in ECT like Aaron37) that whenever Scripture makes reference to salvation, the salvation in view denotes going to heaven (or being made heaven-bound). But why assume this?
Aaron.
The context of this chapter deals with the persecution of the Thessalonians for their faith and God dealing out retribution to all who do not know Him. Eternal destruction, First, its is forever, Second, desruction means ruin and does not involve annihillation, but rather a new state of conscious being significantly worse than the first. When the Day of the Lord arrives it will be bringing retribution and ruin for all unbelievers.
Aaron37,
I’m with you so far.
Still with you.
The eternal destruction does not consist in being separated from the presence of God (indeed, Revelation 20:10 says that the fiery punishment is in the presence of the Lord, not away from the presence of the Lord), but rather the very presence of God as a consuming fire is the source of the destruction in view. Translating* apo* as “away from” in this context is both unwarranted and without sense.
I admit that my interpretation of this verse goes beyond what the context tells us.
Can you provide some evidence in support of your claim?
Gabe.
Sure, the eternal destruction and away from the presence of the Lord…Paul is describing the absence of God’s presence and glory ( Mt 8:12;22:13;25:13;25:30) The retribution the unbelievers suffer is not because they persecuted Christians, but rather they did not obey God’s commandment to believe( Acts 17:30,31; Rom 1:5;10:16; 15:18; 16:19).
ὄλεθρος (olethros 3639)
destruction
ruin, death; that which causes death, a ruin to other
Aaron37,
Did you read my last post?
I’m with you there.
I’m well aware of the semantic range of olethros. I was hoping you could provide some evidence by way of showing that *olethros *is used in 2 Thess 1:9 in such a way that the said destruction involves a change into a worse condition. Olethros, I think you would agree,is used in such a way that the destruction results in a better condition. So what makes you think this word alone supports your position?
Gabe.
What makes you think that eternal (forever or without end) ruin results in a better condition?
Sorry, Aaron37. I just read my last post to you, and realized that I forgot to cite 1 Corinthians 5:5. So, now, hopefully you can make sense out of my last post.
Gabe.
olethros
1Co 5:5 …unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh…
1Th 5:3 …safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them…
2Th 1:9 …punished with everlasting destruction from the presence…
1Ti 6:9 …drown men in destruction and perdition.
1 Cor 5:5 is dealing with the external ills and troubles by which the lust of the flesh are subdued and destroyed.
Again, Gabe, how is being eternal ( without end) ruined result in a better condition?
Aaron37,
In order to best answer your question, I need you to clarify your first sentence. You do agree that the destruction of the man’s flesh (1 Cor 5:5) results in a better condition (the salvation of his spirit), don’t you?
Gabe.
I mean’t to say external ills… not eternal. No, Delivering this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh was the last step in church discipline . There are two other men who Paul delivered unto Satan for this purpose (1 Tim. 1:20).
Delivering a person unto Satan does not mean we are damning them to hell nor does it mean they are going to die physically. In this instance, we see by Paul’s instructions in 2 Corinthians 2:6-7, that this man in 1 Cor 5:5 didn’t die but repented and was restored back into the fellowship of the church.
1 Cor 5:5 is dealing with the external ills and troubles by which the lust of the flesh are subdued and destroyed.
Again, Gabe, how is being eternal ( without end) ruined result in a better condition?
Aaron37,
Thanks for clearing that up.
I agree, but am confused by your use of the word ‘no’. What are you saying ‘no’ to?
Good observation.
I agree.
I agree. So would you also agree that said subjection/destruction results in a better condition for the man?
Because what is being ruined is that which ruins, i.e., sin.