The Evangelical Universalist Forum

THE MOST IMPORTANT UR ARGUMENT - IMHO

Theology Biblical Theology
#81

Gabe.

Your trying to compare God divinely chastising a saved man( a believer) in the church for being led by his flesh ( 1 Cor 5:5) to a eternally( forever, without end) ruined unbeliever( a un-saved man) who will be separated from the Lord in hell and the glory of His power because of his unbelief. (2 Thess 1:9) Not the same. God is not chastising the unbeliever for corrective purposes( you must be a believer for discipline, Hebrews 12:6-8), but dealing out retribution for not believing the gospel.

The sin nature or sin is not the subject of the context in 2 Thess chapter one. I don’t know how you come up with that. You have already admitted that your interpretration to be in error to the context of the subject in this chapter.

Every scripture must be left in its setting in context to the subject the chapter is talking about. It is never to be lifted out of its setting to be interpreted. Context is everything, Gabe. When you compromise context it leads to error.

#82

Sure. I think it emphasizes it insofar as proskairos (a relatively short measure of time, the passing of which is observable) is employed as its contrast, as the measure of time corresponding to our mortal bodies. Any duration beyond this relatively short duration (even if it doesn’t mean “eternal” in an absolute, non-temporal sense) serves to emphasize the imperishable nature of the resurrection body, since it would imply that the resurrection body has some inherent property that allows it to endure beyond a mortal lifetime. It doesn’t necessarily mean the duration of the resurrection body is confined to the duration signified by aionios; but it can’t be less than this duration. And since aionios (as well as olam, its Hebrew equivalent) can be used to denote the longest conceivable measure of time in this world (though never extending beyond this world, I would argue), I think it was appropriate to serve as the contrast to proskairos. I think the contrast Paul is making is similar to the following statement: “God’s mercy does not endure for a lifetime only, but from generation to generation” (or “to all generations”). Of course, God’s mercy endures beyond this temporal timeframe, but the expression “from generation to generation” (etc.) still serves to emphasize the long-lasting, enduring nature of his mercy. And if we were to replace “God’s mercy” with “the resurrection body,” “lifetime” would correspond to proskairos, while “from generation to generation” would correspond with aionios. So while, based on how the word is used throughout the LXX (and elsewhere in the NT), Paul likely would not have understood aionios as conveying the idea of endless duration beyond this world, I don’t think the word need have this meaning in order for Paul’s contrast in 2 Cor 4 to be effective.

#83

Aaron37,

Aaron37, you’re jumping ahead of the discussion. Let’s take this slow, okay? I’ve already given reasons for not accepting “away from” as a translation of ‘apo’ in this verse. I need you to address these reasons so that we can move on.

Three points here. First, God loves everyone (do you need a verse for that?). Thus, the reference to “illegitimate children” ought to be understood as a reference to our old man. Second, what do you do with those verses that speak of the destruction of the wicked as a prerequisite to their seeking and finding the Lord (e.g. Psalm 83:13-18)? Third, divine punishment can be remedial and retributive all at once.

I never admitted that my interpretation conflicts with the context. What I said, and pay attention now, is that my interpretation is not based on the context alone. As students of the Bible, this is not unusual. We cross-reference to see what further light can be shed upon any given text.

How am I compromising the context?

#84

Aaron,

There is a series of contrasting opposites in the passage (2 Cor 4:16- 5:1)in question:

Outward man - Inward man
Perishes - renewed
light- heavy
affliction - glory
seen - unseen
proskairos - aionios
earth -heaven
etc. etc.

Thus, we must understand aionios here to mean the opposite of temporary.

#85

Gabe.

Pay attention now, you compromise the context by adding details to support your theology. Nowhere in 2 Thess chapter one does Paul mention the sin nature or sin. I have broken down the chapter in context to what I believe Paul was teaching the Thessalonians. I have nothing more to say to avoid repeating myself.

#86

Likewise.

#87

Gabe,

I’m not sure that your conclusion follows. While I agree that Paul is contrasting proskairos with aionios, the opposite of proskairos isn’t “endless duration,” for proskairos doesn’t mean finite duration. Like aionios, its meaning appears to be relative to whatever is in view. For instance, when Christ uses the word (Matt 13:21), he isn’t contrasting a person who endures in his faith for a finite period of time with a person who endures for an infinite period of time; he’s contrasting a relatively short period of time with a relatively longer period of time (i.e., relative to a person’s lifetime). In 2 Cor 4, Paul is using proskairos to denote a relatively short duration of time, the passing of which is observable to mortals. Aionios, in contrast, is used in these verses to denote a relatively long duration of time, the passing of which is not observable to mortals. So I do think the words are being employed as “opposites” - just not in the sense that you are affirming. But perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. So what are some other examples where you think either aion or its derivatives conveys the idea of endless duration?

#88

Aaron,

The use of aionios in 2 Cor 4:18 corresponds to the idea of imperishability in verse 16. Our physical body perishes and suffers temporary (proskairos) afflictions.

#89

I don’t see the idea of imperishability in v. 16, unless it is taken for granted that the “inward man” is imperishable. But I don’t see why this should be assumed. I understand the “outward man” to be that aspect of our being which won’t be restored in the resurrection (i.e., our mortal, natural body) and the “inward man” to denote that aspect of our being which will be restored in the resurrection (i.e., our character and personality). I don’t think any aspect of our being is presently imperishable. You and I are presently mortal, right?

As far as the use of proskairos and aionios, I just don’t see any contrast being made between infinite duration and finite duration. While it is true that our mortal bodies are temporary and our immortal bodies are “eternal” (in the sense of existing without end), I don’t think the words proskairos and aionios directly teach this. That is, the inherent meanings of the words do not convey the more radical idea that is implied by Paul’s words. Rather, they teach it indirectly - and that’s all that Paul’s “argument” requires here.

Anyway, what are some other examples of aion and its derivatives that you think convey the idea of endless duration extending beyond this world?

#90

Aaron,

Well-reasoned. You are a bright individual, and a joy to dialogue with.

I do think that the inner man is imperishable, for I believe it is the very image of God. Mind if we take a detour to discuss this further?

#91

Gabe, I agree Aaron is fun to read and introduces some interesting perspectives. I’m taking time to read his other posts but feel inadequate (studied) to really westles with his ideas. I know 0 greek and that’s just a difficulty when others say “the words actually means”.

#92

Gabe.

Aaron may be a joy to dialoge with, but he is, IMO, dead wrong in his doctrine. Being bright and well-reasoned doesn’t mean he walks in truth.

#93

Would love to!

#94

Aug.

greekbiblestudy.com is an excellent site to look at the Greek meaning of words.

P.S. you don’t need to know Greek to understand the bible. Hint…That is why we have the Holy Spirit.

#95

Actually God accomplished the means to accomplish his goal THAT HE MIGHT HAVE MERCY ON THEM ALL. Also you continually fail to address the fact that Adam did not bind us to disobedience…GOD DID (Romans 11:32) For if Paul is right, then it is undeniable that God did the binding of all men over to sin (disobedience) because he had a purpose. In other words, God is not reacting to Adams choice. Rather, God had a purpose to have mercy on them and thus bound Adam and eve (all men) to disobedience.

Your view, which in my opinion, only weighs in scriptures which are consistent with it’s own conclusion. That has been my charge all along. It’s hardly different than a calvinist who only weighs in scriptures which are consistent with determinism/monergism. They too begin to CHANGE the plain meaning of the text which says “God wants ALL men to come to repentance” - The calvinist thus due to his determinism and eternal conscious torment - declares “all cannot mean ALL!”.

You say God’s goal is to offer salvation but I find scripture saying he sent his Son into the world to save it, not to offer it salvation. Perhaps there might be some semantic and we both might have each other’s meaning embedded into our own conclusions; I simply see that God is active in humbling the arrogant unto salvation - something arrogance cannot do on it’s own.

#96

Thanks for looking out for me, Aaron37, but I am able to come to my own decisions. If I ever have trouble thinking for myself in the future, I’ll be sure to let you think for me.

BTW, did I say that to be bright and well-reasoned is to be “walking in truth” (whatever that means to you)?

#97

Aaron,

Would you mind throwing a post together on the nature of the inner man? You could start another thread.

Otherwise, I’ll do it, but I’ll need some time to organize my thoughts.

#98

Aug.

you said: Also you continually fail to address the fact that Adam did not bind us to disobedience…GOD DID (Romans 11:32

Aaron37: Your not suggesting God is the author of sin, are you? Btw, God never offered salvation he provided it to every person who believes and receives it…you seem not to be able to grasp that.

#99

Gabe.

Someone can intellectually know the truth of scripture , but unless they are walking in it…it is not revelation knowledge.

After reading many of Aaron’s posts, IMO, they profit no one, but you have a joyful well-reasoned dialoge with him.

#100

Gabe.

The inner man is your born again spirit…the very nature and life of God.