The not-yet reconciliation, you mean, not the not-reconciliation.
I donāt know, but we both agree (from another thread) that Godās conversion rate to some souls He preached post-mortem to, who died (as you yourself said) in spiritual death, not having been born again, was pretty significant!
Is this supposed to be your defense for why people arenāt saved, whether in hell or out of it?ābecause God isnāt preaching the gospel to them, but only lesser servants of His? Christ Himself didnāt preach the gospel to Judas Iscariot and others who died in their sins?! That sounds Calvinistic: God doesnāt fail because He doesnāt try for everyone. Except mixed with Arminianism in the worst possible way: God doesnāt fail because He doesnāt try for anyone!
But of course universalists donāt think God will fail at evangelizing the lost and reconciling all sinners from sin, even if it takes eons of the eons for some sinners.
Wasnāt avoiding them; your own replies were predicated on my having answered them.
Youāre welcome to try rebutting it any time. Copy-pasting a couple of statements from Barnesā commentary which, in the first case, my argument doesnāt disagree with, and which in the second case my argument specifically addresses and goes beyond, is not a rebuttal of my argument, and tells me you didnāt understand it.
This also tells me you didnāt understand my argument, as I had phrased it so that it didnāt depend on RevJohn testifying to this happening after the judgment of the sheep and the goats.
But btw, I do have RevJohn to support my theory on that, too.
Well, if it is the correct translation that the life and punishment is āof the age to comeā (assuming this is a valid translation), then the duration of either is not in view in this verse. Your point makes sense if āpertaining to the age to comeā isnāt a valid translation. It may not be valid, but why isnāt it?
You really donāt know Godās conversion rates in hell right now? Maybe that is because you ignored this **yet there are billions of people who are emptied out of Hell/Hades and are not found recorded in the BOL in Rev 20:11-15 and are thrown into the LOF for eternity! God must be a lousy preacher! **
If you understood my comment to you about 1 Pet 3:18-19 you would not think twice about using it for future post mortem salvation. Here it is again.
**OT people could not get born again before the cross.They died with a sin or spiritual death nature. So when they died they went to Sheol/Hades. There were 2 compartments in Sheol/Hades one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous. (Luke 16:19-31 gives detail of this). In order for them to be able to go to Heaven they needed their natures changed. After Jesus death and resurrection he preached to the spirits in prison in order for them to receive the life of God or His nature and led captivity captive to Heaven. Eph 4:8. This involved the ādisobedientā in the times of Noah but only the ones who repented before they drowned in the flood.
Now after the cross we have access to the born again experience before we die. What happened in 1 Peter 3:18-19 will not happen again. OT people before the cross received salvation differently than we do after the cross. What was needed for them is no longer needed for us. **
The reality is if God is witnessing to people in Hell right now there should not be billions who are emptied out of it unto final judgment and thrown into the lake of fire! Do you really think if Almighty God could not convert them in Hell what makes Him succeed in the LOF? Do you not see the fallacy in this yet?
Eternal punishment (kolasin aiwnion). The word kolasin comes from kolazw, to mutilate or prune. Hence those who cling to the larger hope use this phrase to mean age-long pruning that ultimately leads to salvation of the goats, as disciplinary rather than penal. There is such a distinction as Aristotle pointed out between mwria (vengeance) and kolasiv. But the same adjective aiwniov is used with kolasin and zwhn. If by etymology we limit the scope of kolasin, we may likewise have only age-long zwhn. There is not the slightest indication in the words of Jesus here that the punishment is not coeval with the life. We can leave all this to the King himself who is the Judge. The difficulty to oneās mind about conditional chastisement is to think how a life of sin in hell can be changed into a life of love and obedience. The word aiwniov (from aiwn, age, aevum, aei) means either without beginning or without end or both. It comes as near to the idea of eternal as the Greek can put it in one word. It is a difficult idea to put into language. Sometimes we have āages of agesā (aiwnev twn aiwnwn). (Robertson)
They are right, you donāt always answer questions. Is that a strategy? You may be right about ECT, but simply quoting scholars doesnāt settle it for meā¦
No problem, but something tells me whatever I say ( whether quoting a so called scholar or my own comments) you are going to respond with āyeah butāā¦ God bless.
roofus, you have been āyeah buttingā this subject for a long time. It is not that difficult, IMO. Weigh the evidence and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and take a leap of faith and choose.
You state this with such authority, and yet have no basis for your statement except your reference to Barnes. I have explained from the etymology of the word, and its historical development what its true meaning is. You cannot prove from commentators how a word is used; you need to check the word out in context and not rely on translations either.
Indeed, 2 Peter 2:9 is perhaps the best āproof textā for post-mortem correction.
The Lord knows how to deliver the devout out of trial, but to reserve the unrighteous for a day of judgment, to be corrected.
Here is an interlinear for your consideration:
ĪæĪ¹Ī“ĪµĪ½āĪŗĻ ĻĪ¹ĪæĻā ĪµĻ ĻĪµĪ²ĪµĪ¹Ļ ĪµĪŗ ĻĪµĪ¹ĻĪ±ĻĪ¼ĪæĻ ĻĻ ĪµĻĪøĪ±Ī¹ā Ī±Ī“Ī¹ĪŗĪæĻ Ļ
knows the Lord- devoutāout of trialāā to deliver-unrighteous
Ī“Īµ -ĪµĪ¹Ļ āĪ·Ī¼ĪµĻĪ±Ī½ ĪŗĻĪ¹ĻĪµĻĻāā ĪŗĪæĪ»Ī±Ī¶ĪæĪ¼ĪµĪ½ĪæĻ Ļ ĻĪ·ĻĪµĪ¹Ī½
but into a dayā- of judgment to be corrected to keep (2 Peter 2:9)
As for Act 4:21, the rulers and elders of the Jews wanted to correct the apostles for their āfalseā belief that Jesus was the Messiah, and for spreading their teaching among the people.
The Online Bible Greek Lexicon gives these definitions of the Greek verb āĪŗĪæĪ»Ī±Ī¶Ļā:
to lop or prune, as trees and wings
to curb, check, restrain
to chastise, correct, punishment
to cause to be punished
Notice that ātormentā is not among the list of definitions. I have explained the illogic of āFear has punishmentā in my previous post. Did you read it?
Sometimes the line between correction and punishment is blurred ā mostly because the physical act may be identical, but the motive is clearly distinct. Sometimes a parent is said to ācorrectā his child, and sometimes the parent is said to āpunishā his child. In either case, the physical act of the parent may be the same. For example, he may confine the child to his room for two hours. But the parent who is correcting his child confines the child to his room with the expectation that the child will learn not to hit his sister any more, whereas the parent who is punishing his child confines the child to his room because he ādeserves itā for hitting his sister. What do you think is the loving motive? I think you know.
God who is pure LOVE sends a person to hell in order to correct him. Only a god who does not love sinners after their death but wishes to wreak vengeance upon them would make them suffer in hell forever for absolutely no purpose except to āgive them what they deserveā. Please donāt tell me that God is a God of vengeance and quote the scripture to prove it. The word translated as āvengeanceā should be translated as ājudgmentā. Yes, God will indeed judge sinners, and all of His judgments are remedial in nature. Again, He will āreserve the unrighteous for a day of judgment, to be corrected.ā (2 Peter 2:9)
Iāve been lurking the forums for a while and read quite a few of your threads Revival. Iāve seen much graciousness extended towards people who believe ECT. For example, Jason agrees that wanting aionian to mean eternal for both sheep and goats, is a legitimate complaint. He then supplies evidence as to why his interpretation is valid and why proponents of ECT can not consistently apply the principle, of rendering the same Greek word identically when used twice in the same context, without breaking down the legitimacy of ECT. You seem to be under the impression that URs will not budge from their position, no matter what you say. Well Iād say this is evidence to the contrary. The brothers and sisters here actually do you the courtesy of analysing your arguments. You on the other hand frequently ignore the responses given to you. To put it bluntly, you seem to ignore the most academic responses given to you and then keep repeating the question as though no one responded to you.
For example, you keep saying that aionian must have an identical meaning for both punishment and life. There have been 2 separate responses to this. One says that the word IS translated the same (age to come) as it refers to what occurs in the age to come, and is not a comment at all upon the eternal life God bestows on us. The 2nd is that the words mean the same thing, but need clarification in English to avoid misunderstanding. This is due to the modifying nouns, one being punishment, the other being the life of God. You may not agree with this and that is fine, but your question has been answered and they were good answers. It is not reasonable to act as though no one answered you.
And finally, if you want people to be convinced or at least, give serious thought to ECT, you ought to try giving some decent arguments. I thought you were being sarcastic with the sozo/aionian comparison. I was shocked to realise you were serious. You cannot make arguments that make it appear that you donāt know the difference between nouns and adjectives, and then expect said argument to be taken seriously. For the record, I donāt believe that you are incapable of maki g reasonable arguments. It would seem instead, like many before you, you have failed to take UR arguments seriously, assuming itās an easy āknock-downā and have therefore done little research to your opponents beliefs. And the best debater in the world will fail if he is inadequately prepared
Iād submit, humbly, that GOD has particular purposes for particular ages. Jesus changed the (received) meaning of the Sabbath, of āuncleanā, of divorce, of the afterlife, of ārighteousnessā, and on and on. GOD continually is at work, and he alters our paradigm. Godās purpose for his Elect - to serve and minister to the non-elect, whom God loves and is saving, was not a paradigm I sought. I stumbled upon it as GOD humbled my arrogance. I was the man who thanked GOD for not making me like other men.
My understanding of Christianity and the Christian GOD came from a very conservative Protestant background, with an underlying thesis not unlike the Pharisees - if I studied the word (of Scripture), that was sufficient. But I needed the WORD (of revelation). This expresses much of the conflict between our LORD Jesus and the very knowledgeable biblical scholars of His time. We must humble ourselves to God, especially(!) when it comes to the judgment of others. I agree with whoever made the point that, after all the arguments are made, we simply must humbly seek the guidance of the Spirit.
The word without the WORD is empty. The INSPIRATION of scripture didnāt happen only at the time of the writing (or at the time of the KJV translation). It happens as we prayerfully and humbly seek Godās voice in study and prayer and meditation. In this age, and in the ages to come. Forever. And ever.
and kolasin aionion is ācorrection befitting the Age to Comeā and pyros aioniou is āfire befitting the Age to Come.ā None of those, of course, means āeternalā in itself, not because such a thing cannot be eternal, but precisely because no length of time is in view at all. Of particular interest is Judeās reference to Sodom; the fire that burned it up is definitely not still burning!
Now, on the other hand, aionios can refer to things that are more or less permanent. Itās used numerous times in the Septuagint of the OT to describe things like āmountainsā and āhillsā that arenāt going anywhere for a while. Obviously, in these circumstances itās not a proper āeternityā in view, either, but in this case, it does pertain to length of time, whereas in the previous circumstance, it doesnāt. Once again, the word does not actually preclude complete permanence/eternality; it simply doesnāt require it.
Aionios can, in some literature, refer to the idea of being āproperlyā eternal. In classical Greek it held this meaning. Plato used it to describe a timeless reality, without future or past, but among Koine speakers, that understanding is exceedingly rare, and for first-century Semitic Koine speakers, that idea would have bordered on nonsense unless applied directly to God Himself (on the other hand, for a classically trained, Gentile Church Father some centuries later, such as Jerome or Augustine, that idea would have appeared quite sensible).
To boil it all down, there is a qualitative sense of aionios that we find in most of its usages in the New Testament. Clearly zoen aionion is not about the length of life, but about the kind or quality of itāthe kind of life that can only come from God, that characterizes the Age to Come, etc. On the other hand, kolasin or olethron aionion ought to be taken the same way: not about the length of time that the correction or destruction will last, but the sort of thing it is. Itās the kind of correction or destruction that can only come from God, that will mark out the Age to Come. It is the Correction of the Age.
Now, earlier you cited John 6:47, asking if it meant āeverlasting lifeā or ālife of Godā or what. Let me suggest N. T. Wrightās rendering, noting also that he is not only a passive non-Universalist but has actually written against UR:
āIām telling you the solemn truth,ā Jesus went on. āAnyone who believes in me has the life of Godās coming age."
Why did he render it like that? Because, obviously, the point isnāt how long the life lasts; itās the kind of life it is. There are other words to suggest that it lasts forever, such as āimmortalāāwords never applied to punishment in the New Testament (although, curiously, applied to punishment by Jews that believed in eternal torment outside of the New Testament). Scholarship is only beginning to shake centuries of tradition here. Thereās a reason why Clement of Alexandria, a Koine Greek-speaking Christian of the second century, did not hear āeternalā in aionios while Jerome, a classically-educated Christian of the fourth century, did.
We ought to be grateful that none of the words that always properly means ālasting foreverā is ever applied to eschatological punishment; if it were, we would have a clear-cut contradiction between the Old Testament Prophets who say in no uncertain terms that God does not punish forever and other (hypothetical) passages that say He does. As it is, we donāt have such a contradiction because none of the passages regarding eschatological punishment are required to be understood in terms of it actually persisting forever.
How do you interpret the aionios related words in Rom 16:25?
I know youāre not asking me, but I would like to answer anyway.
First, there are no āaionios related words in Rom 16:25ā. Rather the word āaioniosā itself appears in the verse, but in the dative case. The phrase in which it occurs does not need interpretation. It is quite straightforward. Here is my translation of the phrase:
ā¦ the disclosure of the secret, having been hidden for lasting times.
Just what that hidden secret is, does require interpretation, of course.
Contextually, of course, these uses fall within a single doxology. Thereās even a third use, albeit of aion instead of aionios. I donāt think any of that is unintentional; Paul was good with a pen (or, you know, with an amanuensis). Here is the passage:
Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.
Right, so, in this one paragraph, we have the mystery kept from the ages, revealed by the authority of the God of the Ages, who deserves glory even into the Age to Come. In this case, āGod of the Agesā makes significantly more sense than āeternal Godā; Paulās point wasnāt that God goes on and on and on, or has no beginning or end, or anything like that (he would heartily agree with those sentiments, but itās not what he was intending here). Paulās point was precisely that God alone has the authority to manifest and reveal the secret thatās been hidden for ages, because He is the God of the Ages.
God bless.