Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum

jacinth

Oct 30, 06 - 6:34 PM

Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

Anyone who has encountered and/or studied Christian Universalism has probably come across a subset of Christian Universalists who go to great lengths in denying that the Greek words AIWN and AIWNIOS ever, in Biblical usage, refer to eternity. They will uphold this position at the expense of defying virtually all current Biblical Greek scholarship.

These people will parrot a tired mantra, claiming that these Greek words do not mean what the Greek scholars would have us believe it means (anyone smell a conspiracy theory?).

These folks base their rejection of the consensus of Greek scholarship on this issue (the consensus being that AIWNIOS is typically used in the New Testament to convey the notion of eternality) by appealing to an incredibly weak "law of grammar," as they are fond of putting it: We are told that because a noun-based adjective must be semantically bound to the nounal root from which its derived, and because the noun AIWN always refers to a period of time, it follows that the adjective AIWNIOS must also refer to a period of time, and not eternity. There are, however, a few glaring errors with this argument:

1. This argument is a textbook example of the etymologic fallacy also know as the "root fallacy." Etymology is not enough to determine usage.

2. English and Greek grammars, while similar on many fronts, do not follow the same set of grammatical laws.

3. Even in English, many adjectives no longer retain the meaning of the noun from which they were originally derived. 'Gorgeous', 'hideous' and 'monstrous' come immediately to my mind.

4. This argument presents an astounding denial of the dynamic nature of all languages: Words morph over time to mean something that cannot be gathered from its more ancient meanings, whether they be adjectives or the nouns from which they were formed.

5. AIWN is in fact used in the plural to convey eternity (Luke 1:33, for example).

Many people have gotten a bad impression of Christian Universalist scholarship, considering it rather shoddy, because of the ridiculous dogmaticism of this subset of Universalists on this issue. It is thus my intention in this thread to show that the fact that AIWNIOS typically refers to eternality (even in verses such as Matthew 25:46 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9) is not at odds with the Biblical position that all sinners will finally be saved. I will seek to demonstrate that AIWNIOS, in the New Testament, typically conveys the notion of atemporality and functions as an epithet of divinity.

The late and great Greek scholar and Universalist, William Barclay, understood AIWNIOS to be the word of eternity in the sense of timelessness. Wrote Barclay, in his New Testament Words:

"The essence of the word aionios is that it is the word of the eternal order as contrasted with the order of this world; it is the word of deity as contrasted with humanity; essentially it is the word which can be properly applied to no one other than God. Aionios is the word which describes nothing less and nothing more than the life of God."

Doesn't this make good sense in light of the many verses which contrast things aeonian with the perishable things of this passing world?

Let's examine some passages in light of what Barclay notes above.

"For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, aeonian in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1

Here AIWNIOS is used of the indissoluble things of Heaven in contrast to the things of the mundane world of corruption.

"...because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are aeonian." - 2 Corinthians 4:18

In this verse, AIWNIOS describes that which human eyes have not seen, and ears have not heard, because they belong to the unseen realm of God.

"Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal." - John 6:27

AIWNIOS here refers to that Heavenly life which does not fade nor falter: It is the very life of Christ in contradistinction to the perishable life that humanity has in Adam.

This life that Christ gives - the very life of God - is not of this world, but is of the unseen realm of Spirit:

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." - John 3:6

Continues Barclay:

"In spiritual things we must guard against all conclusions which rest upon the notions of succession and duration. 'Eternal life' is that which St. Paul speaks of as 'e outos Zoe the life which is life indeed, and 'e zoe tou theou, the life of God. It is not an endless duration of being in time, but being of which time is not a measure."

Indeed, from its first known appearance in Greek literature (Plato - see Timaeus 37d), AIWNIOS was used of that which transcends the world of time. This sense is retained in the New Testament, as is manifest considering that this word is routinely used in the New Testament contexts in which its juxtaposition to things perishable is manifest.

So then, what do we make of those verses which speak of "eternal destruction" and "eternal punishment"? Is it not that sort of destruction/punishment which originates in the eternal God?

"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;" - 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9

Here we read that the wicked will be destroyed by Heavenly fire (note that the Greek word APO does not signify that the destruction consists in being away from God, but that the destruction comes from God). Aeonian destruction, evidently, is nonebut divine destruction, just as aeonian punishment is simply that sort of perfect parental punishment which originates in the Heavenly Father.

Yes, AIWNIOS means 'eternal' (in the sense of temporal-transcendence) and yes, this is perfectly compatible with Scriptural Universalism.

A pertinent link of interest:

http://www.growthingod.org.uk/aeonrelm.htm

Mike Burke

Oct 31st, 2006 - 10:58 AM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

I believe Prof. Thom Talbott (of Willamette University) agrees with you.

Have you ever read his book, "The Inescapable Love of God"?

jacinth

Oct 31st, 2006 - 9:09 PM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

Yes, I have read "The Inescapable Love of God." Great book. Unfortunately, I have not yet gotten a chance to read his latest book, "Universal Salvation?". Have you?

Speaking of books, have you read "The Evangelical Universalist" By Gregory McDonald? If so, what does he say about aionios?

Eystein

Nov 1st, 2006 - 9:19 AM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

I do not base my universalist understanding of the Bible on the meaning of aioon aioonios either, but I disagree that they necessarily convey the meaning of eternity. The scholars do not at all agree. There is no conspiracy, but many Orthodox Scholars might be biased, just as many universalists are in the opposite direction.
The basic meaning of aioonios according to the comprehensive Liddel and Scott's Greek-English lexicon is: lasting for an age (aioon 3), Plat.: ever-lasting, eternal.
The basic meaning is age/age-ical or rather eon/eonian with no reference to what eon/s are in question; whether timeless or mundane.
Off course, the NT is dynamic; it might often be used in a more philosophical sense. Talbott believes, as do I, that its usual meaning in the NT is “of the age to come”. He believes that the age to come is eternal; I believe it's the millennium. It can also refer to the eon (or being/life) of God and be consistent with you and Barclays understanding. Eonian life could mean the life of the ages, the life of the age/s to come or in a Platonic sense of timeless life; life that does not cease or alter. Since the word is so complex it cannot be used to prove endless damnation; this is my point.

Luke 1:33 seems to contradict 1 Cor 15:25 if the ages here referred to eternity, so I believe they simply refer to time.

God bless

jacinth

Nov 1st, 2006 - 11:00 AM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

"Luke 1:33 seems to contradict 1 Cor 15:25 if the ages here referred to eternity, so I believe they simply refer to time. "

Are you sure about that?

Eystein

Nov 1st, 2006 - 12:35 PM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

See the thread "This is why I can't be a universalist" on this forum:
http://pub5.bravenet.com/forum/426816999/show/579676

1 Cor 15:25 says that Christ will only have to reign until he has defeated all will of opposition. There is therefore no need for Him to reign over the house of Jacob forever. The statement that he will reign forever might seem good doxology, but really is absurd when there is no opposition. It implies that mankind will never be a family.

God Bless.

jacinth

Nov 1st, 2006 - 2:17 PM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

If Christ is the embodiment of Love, and if Love reigns forever, how does this imply that we will not be forever a family with God?

Mike Burke

Nov 1st, 2006 - 7:31 PM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

To jacinth,

I haven't read Tom Talbott's latest book ("Universal Salvation: The Current Debate"), but I've heard it's very good.

To Eystein,

Good to hear from you again.

From what I remember of Tom Talbott's first book, he did seem to agree with jacinth, but Gregory MacDonald would seem to agree more with you.

I don't believe this is a case of either or.

I think Prof. Keith DeRose (of Yale University) put it well when he wrote:

Where the Greek word that gets translated as "eternal" doesn't imply endless duration, it also doesn't mean anything that implies less than endless duration. It can mean "in the age to come," or "for long ages," or, perhaps, if another of Talbott's suggestions is right, it can mean something like "having its source in the eternal God"; at any rate, all of these are neutral with respect to the question of whether what's called "eternal" will last forever.

http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ekd47/univ.htm#10.

God Bless both of you.

Ed Smith

Nov 7th, 2006 - 12:43 PM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

Jacinth,

I feel you have made an excellent point here and have done it rather well. To make the most in the long run of our position in any argument, we must be very honest and fair. I have also noted this problem with many universalists. Such a thing is very common and is frequently seen in political factions. Those people from any faction (and there are many) who become completely predictable, always supporting their team, never admitting wrong, weakness, or even doubt, quickly lose my interest; they have nothing to say.

When such things are observed, the effect is well illustrated by a famous line from Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." An overly enthusiastic and weak defense makes one look like one has something to hide.

I have read some from all the scholarly universalist authors mentioned here and I will add one more name to our list: George MacDonald. These men have some variation in their opinions in this matter, but none insist that every word derived from aion always refers to the temporal.

You listed some nice examples to illustrate the use of "eternal" in a qualitative sense--being of the eternal God. You left out what I feel is the clearest example. That is John 17:3. Eternal life is defined and has nothing directly to do with endlessness. "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

Therefore, your comments about "eternal destruction" are good, but I will put forth another possibility. God had a certain good creature in mind when he made me. Being a creature possessing individual will during my time of growing up, I have participated in my own making. Unfortunately, I have, in some ways, made myself a different man than God intended. There is an irreducible core in me which is protected and destined to endure forever. However, there are things I have built on this foundation which must be destroyed and destroyed permanently. The man I have made myself must be eternally destroyed--and I mean that in both senses--destroyed by God and destroyed permanently. Only then can the irreducible core and the kind of mature man which God intended be revealed.

Apart from the permanent destruction of what I've made myself to bring forth what God makes of me, a phrase like "eternal punishment" could also be taken in the sense of an irrevocable judgment or sentence. However, I think the most likely true interpretation of "eternal" in scripture (in most cases) is qualitative in the way you described.

Best regards,

Ed

Eystein

Nov 8th, 2006 - 1:48 PM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

”If Christ is the embodiment of Love, and if Love reigns forever, how does this imply that we will not be forever a family with God?”

This is poetic, but I’m not sure if it’s entirely true. I’m not turning this into a discussion on the true exegesis of Luke 1:33 so this is my last comment and we can continue the discussion on the relevant thread if requested. The meaning of Luke 1:33 is not important to me, but much of my theology is based on the firm conviction that all rule, God’s rule included, will be unnecessary and that there is a huge difference between natural being and rule.
God is love; love is the nature of God. It is the nature of God to always love. Does this mean that love reigns over God? I don’t think it would make sense to say that. There are three conditions in which one cannot rule over another: if the other has power over the one reigning, if they are equal or if they are one.
After the ages God and mankind will be one and all reign will indeed be abolished. Love will not reign, love will be; a complete, whole, universal and unhindered nature of all things. The house of Jacob will not be ruled over by love embodied, they will be love embodied. All their being will portray love, not because of rules or kingship, but because it will be their nature to love.

The Greek word for reign basileuo (literary to be a king) occurs 20 times in the Bible. It is used of ordinary kingly rule, of the rule of God, Christ, the saints and figuratively of the rule of death, sin and grace.
It seems to always be used in the sense of some sort of submission, of putting down opposition and keeping others subordinate. It is never used of the relationship of God or Christ with the saints, because Christ is not supposed to rule over the saints, but with them until rule is no longer needed. One of the last things Jesus told his disciples before the crucifixions was that he no longer considered them servants, but friends. Friends do not rule over one another, friends love each other. Love does not reign; love is. At least that’s how I see it.

God bless

Mike Burke

Nov 8th, 2006 - 9:56 PM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

Thank you Ed, Eystein, and jacinth.

I think you all made some good points here.

I'd like to again quote Prof. DeRose:

Where the Greek word that gets translated as "eternal" doesn't imply endless duration, it also doesn't mean anything that implies less than endless duration. It can mean "in the age to come," or "for long ages," or, perhaps, if another of Talbott's suggestions is right, it can mean something like "having its source in the eternal God"; at any rate, all of these are neutral with respect to the question of whether what's called "eternal" will last forever.

http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ekd47/univ.htm#10.

God Bless.

Eystein

Nov 9th, 2006 - 8:27 AM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

In his book “The Inescapable Love of God” Talbot argues that the primary meaning of aionios is in fact ”age enduring” or “that which pertains to an age.” (ILG p. 86) and Talbot himself admits to having used this point exceedingly in his own exegeses of the “thought verses.”
Yet he also implies that some New Testament (primarily Pauline) uses of the word are “roughly Platonic in use” in the sense of having to do with the timeless unchanging realm, or the realm of God. (ILG p. 87) He then makes a point that all that is described as eternal (except God) might be eternal in the secondary sense of coming from the timeless God.
He then argues that in the Gospels aionios is probably used in the sense of “pertaining to the age to come” when “the presence of God is manifested in a special way.” (ILG p. 89)

Talbot also points out, which I feel you, jacinth, fails to consider, that the correct translation of aionios has always been disputed. You put to much weight on the authority of Biblical Greek Scholars on this. The Biblical Greek Scholars base their assumption that aionios must mean eternal on the grounds that it seems to be used in this way in the Bible, but also this can be disputed. The eonian life can mean the life of the eons; the eonian God can mean the God of the eons. There are no places in the scriptures where aion or aionios has to convey the notion of eternality or where it is more likely than anything else.
Many ordinary classical Greek scholars agree that the primary meaning of aionios is of temporal or unknown duration as I have shown an example of in the Liddel and Scott Greek Lexicon.
I feel you make a decent point that aionios can mean eternal and still pose no threat to universalism, but you are not fair on those universalists who differ. They are often as Scholarly or more that the Biblical Greek Scholars who parrot a tired mantra, claiming that these Greek words do not mean what the Biblical Greeks would have us believe (anyone smell a conspiracy theory?).

Eystein

Nov 9th, 2006 - 8:29 AM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

That last one was unnecesary, I know. I also made a mistake in copying. I meant off course to say (anyone smell a conspiracy?)

Peace

Mike Burke

Nov 9th, 2006 - 10:07 AM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

Eystein wrote [quote] There are no places in the scriptures where aion or aionios has to convey the notion of eternality or where it is more likely than anything else. [unquote]

I believe eternality is more likely in Heb. 9:14

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Also in Romans 1:20

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead...

And 2 Cor. 4:8

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

I think you've been too influenced by the Concordant Publishing Concern here, and I fail to see why you're looking for an argument.

Ed Smith

Nov 9th, 2006 - 11:27 AM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

Eystein,

You said, "I feel you make a decent point that aionios can mean eternal and still pose no threat to universalism, but you are not fair on those universalists who differ."

I didn't mean to be unfair. In case it really was not clear, my argument was against an extreme, unbudging dogmatism in the other direction. I certainly don't mean to be that way myself. Of course, aionios may not mean eternal in many places where it has been traditionally translated that way. Since it is the adjective form of aion, its principle meaning is "pertaining to an/the aion." However, usage is everything and, as I understand it, there is a history of usage to represent the eternal around New Testament times. I felt that Jacinth's main point is that it does not serve universalists well to deny the possibility of such usage at some places in the N.T. I think we all have to accept some lack of certainty on its usage in places.

Those who can't accept any lack of certainty have problems. Words in any language may mean different things in different contexts. Some "students" of scripture wish to deny this in order to gain some feeling of more security. There is some similar motivation with the KJV only crowd in which there is an insistence upon an inspired translation, so that every word is perfectly inerrant in our own language.

I'm not at all saying you have that kind of insecurity (my impression is you do not), but if you wish to see an example of what I am talking about, check out the thread I started last March on this forum entitled "Arguments against us." There were the usual dogmatic assertions about aion and aionios, but my favorite there was "there are no arguments against us!" That kind of attitude is unhealthy. Regardless of what we may believe, some people will actually give the majority of Greek scholars a little credit. If we still have an argument based on their assumptions, we may still win them. Otherwise, we forfeit.

Ed

Eystein

Nov 9th, 2006 - 11:37 AM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

Again, why do you think that I’m looking for an argument? It was jacinth who quite categorically dismissed all who believe aionios to have a temporal meaning by calling their scholarship shoddy and ridicules. Sorry if you feel criticized, jacinth, I have nothing against your intentions. Jacinth defended his position, I defended mine.
I was trying to kill the argument by showing that the meaning of the word is disputed and that there is no evidence that aionios means either eternal or the opposite. I showed that Talbot would agree with all of us; that it can mean of temporal duration, of the age to come, or in a more Platonic sense of timeless. I feel you are not being fair to the Concordant Publishing Concern here, nor me. When it comes to proving universalism and disproving eternal damnation in the Bible they are quite competent.

I don’t see why eternal is the most obvious rendering of aionios in Heb 9:14 of all places. The crucifixion was the milestone of the ages and through the spirit of the ages.
In Romans 1:20 aionios is not used, but aidios which can mean unknown (Scarlet), unseen or hidden (Bullinger), but probably something similar to eternal, I would agree.
2 Cor. 4:8 is perhaps the best example of where aionios could have a Platonic flavor. Paul compares what is aionios with what is proskairos. Yet, the passage makes sense even if aionios does not refer to eternity. Proskairos means for a season (Liddel and Scott) so a possible rendering would be:

“The things which are seen are for a season; but the things which are not seen are eonian.”

There are other examples, but I’m actually not looking for an argument so if you feel the discussion is going in a bad direction I’m more than willing to lay this at rest.

God Bless.

Eystein

Nov 9th, 2006 - 11:48 AM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

Ed, it was not your post I felt was unfair, but the first post of jacinth. And jacinth, I’m not degrading you or your position, but trying to defend the others. I feel you were a little too categorical. I feel you made a good point, Ed, that it is insecurity that makes us hold on to dogmatism. I would also agree that it is unwise and unnecessary to hold on to one meaning of aionios at all cost. And Mike, I’m more than positive to the possibility that aionios has some meaning of eternality many places in the scriptures. Context is important. You are right that 2 Cor 4:18 is an example of a context in which this is likely. An jacinth has other good examples.

Pax

Eystein

Nov 9th, 2006 - 12:00 PM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

Ed wrote: "Regardless of what we may believe, some people will actually give the majority of Greek scholars a little credit. If we still have an argument based on their assumptions, we may still win them. Otherwise, we forfeit." Ouch, I felt that, but thank you. You are right; we should not alienate ourselves from mainstream theology when we defend our belief in universal salvation. That is not very pedagogical. But the thing is that most Biblical Greek Scholars disagree with Talbott and Barclays understanding of aionios as well. Most believe aionios has the meaning of everlasting; without beginning or end, and then we could have a problem. You stated a way of understanding the hell passages in which universalism could be defended even if aionios means eternal in a quantitative sense and I believe Talbott did the same in ILG. (Talbott is a very conciliatory man.) This proves that the meaning of this one word can hardly make all of the difference.

Pax

Mike Burke

Nov 10th, 2006 - 5:29 PM

Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist

[Quote] You are right that 2 Cor 4:18 is an example of a context in which this is likely. [Unquote]

I think so.

As Christians, I think we all believe that some of these unseen "aionian" things (God, His Spirit, His Logos) are truly timeless.

You were right about Romans 1:20 (and I apologize fot quoting an English translation from memory--I should have looked it up in a reverse interlinear.)

[Quote] Talbot would agree with all of us; that it can mean of temporal duration, of the age to come, or in a more Platonic sense of timelessness. [Unquote]

YES, and I thank you for clarifying that.

Pax (God Bless.)

Author	Comment
jacinth Oct 30, 06 - 6:34 PM	Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist Anyone who has encountered and/or studied Christian Universalism has probably come across a subset of Christian Universalists who go to great lengths in denying that the Greek words AIWN and AIWNIOS ever, in Biblical usage, refer to eternity. They will uphold this position at the expense of defying virtually all current Biblical Greek scholarship. These people will parrot a tired mantra, claiming that these Greek words do not mean what the Greek scholars would have us believe it means (anyone smell a conspiracy theory?). These folks base their rejection of the consensus of Greek scholarship on this issue (the consensus being that AIWNIOS is typically used in the New Testament to convey the notion of eternality) by appealing to an incredibly weak "law of grammar," as they are fond of putting it: We are told that because a noun-based adjective must be semantically bound to the nounal root from which its derived, and because the noun AIWN always refers to a period of time, it follows that the adjective AIWNIOS must also refer to a period of time, and not eternity. There are, however, a few glaring errors with this argument: 1. This argument is a textbook example of the etymologic fallacy also know as the "root fallacy." Etymology is not enough to determine usage. 2. English and Greek grammars, while similar on many fronts, do not follow the same set of grammatical laws. 3. Even in English, many adjectives no longer retain the meaning of the noun from which they were originally derived. 'Gorgeous', 'hideous' and 'monstrous' come immediately to my mind. 4. This argument presents an astounding denial of the dynamic nature of all languages: Words morph over time to mean something that cannot be gathered from its more ancient meanings, whether they be adjectives or the nouns from which they were formed. 5. AIWN is in fact used in the plural to convey eternity (Luke 1:33, for example). Many people have gotten a bad impression of Christian Universalist scholarship, considering it rather shoddy, because of the ridiculous dogmaticism of this subset of Universalists on this issue. It is thus my intention in this thread to show that the fact that AIWNIOS typically refers to eternality (even in verses such as Matthew 25:46 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9) is not at odds with the Biblical position that all sinners will finally be saved. I will seek to demonstrate that AIWNIOS, in the New Testament, typically conveys the notion of atemporality and functions as an epithet of divinity. The late and great Greek scholar and Universalist, William Barclay, understood AIWNIOS to be the word of eternity in the sense of timelessness. Wrote Barclay, in his New Testament Words: "The essence of the word aionios is that it is the word of the eternal order as contrasted with the order of this world; it is the word of deity as contrasted with humanity; essentially it is the word which can be properly applied to no one other than God. Aionios is the word which describes nothing less and nothing more than the life of God." Doesn't this make good sense in light of the many verses which contrast things aeonian with the perishable things of this passing world? Let's examine some passages in light of what Barclay notes above. "For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, aeonian in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1 Here AIWNIOS is used of the indissoluble things of Heaven in contrast to the things of the mundane world of corruption. "...because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are aeonian." - 2 Corinthians 4:18 In this verse, AIWNIOS describes that which human eyes have not seen, and ears have not heard, because they belong to the unseen realm of God. "Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal." - John 6:27 AIWNIOS here refers to that Heavenly life which does not fade nor falter: It is the very life of Christ in contradistinction to the perishable life that humanity has in Adam. This life that Christ gives - the very life of God - is not of this world, but is of the unseen realm of Spirit: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." - John 3:6 Continues Barclay: "In spiritual things we must guard against all conclusions which rest upon the notions of succession and duration. 'Eternal life' is that which St. Paul speaks of as 'e outos Zoe the life which is life indeed, and 'e zoe tou theou, the life of God. It is not an endless duration of being in time, but being of which time is not a measure." Indeed, from its first known appearance in Greek literature (Plato - see Timaeus 37d), AIWNIOS was used of that which transcends the world of time. This sense is retained in the New Testament, as is manifest considering that this word is routinely used in the New Testament contexts in which its juxtaposition to things perishable is manifest. So then, what do we make of those verses which speak of "eternal destruction" and "eternal punishment"? Is it not that sort of destruction/punishment which originates in the eternal God? "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;" - 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9 Here we read that the wicked will be destroyed by Heavenly fire (note that the Greek word APO does not signify that the destruction consists in being away from God, but that the destruction comes from God). Aeonian destruction, evidently, is nonebut divine destruction, just as aeonian punishment is simply that sort of perfect parental punishment which originates in the Heavenly Father. Yes, AIWNIOS means 'eternal' (in the sense of temporal-transcendence) and yes, this is perfectly compatible with Scriptural Universalism. A pertinent link of interest: http://www.growthingod.org.uk/aeonrelm.htm Email: jacinth31@yahoo.com
Mike Burke Oct 31st, 2006 - 10:58 AM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist I believe Prof. Thom Talbott (of Willamette University) agrees with you. Have you ever read his book, "The Inescapable Love of God"? Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com
jacinth Oct 31st, 2006 - 9:09 PM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist Yes, I have read "The Inescapable Love of God." Great book. Unfortunately, I have not yet gotten a chance to read his latest book, "Universal Salvation?". Have you? Speaking of books, have you read "The Evangelical Universalist" By Gregory McDonald? If so, what does he say about aionios? Email: jacinth31@yahoo.com
Eystein Nov 1st, 2006 - 9:19 AM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist I do not base my universalist understanding of the Bible on the meaning of aioon aioonios either, but I disagree that they necessarily convey the meaning of eternity. The scholars do not at all agree. There is no conspiracy, but many Orthodox Scholars might be biased, just as many universalists are in the opposite direction. The basic meaning of aioonios according to the comprehensive Liddel and Scott's Greek-English lexicon is: lasting for an age (aioon 3), Plat.: ever-lasting, eternal. The basic meaning is age/age-ical or rather eon/eonian with no reference to what eon/s are in question; whether timeless or mundane. Off course, the NT is dynamic; it might often be used in a more philosophical sense. Talbott believes, as do I, that its usual meaning in the NT is “of the age to come”. He believes that the age to come is eternal; I believe it's the millennium. It can also refer to the eon (or being/life) of God and be consistent with you and Barclays understanding. Eonian life could mean the life of the ages, the life of the age/s to come or in a Platonic sense of timeless life; life that does not cease or alter. Since the word is so complex it cannot be used to prove endless damnation; this is my point. Luke 1:33 seems to contradict 1 Cor 15:25 if the ages here referred to eternity, so I believe they simply refer to time. God bless Email: sirakle@hotmail.com
jacinth Nov 1st, 2006 - 11:00 AM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist "Luke 1:33 seems to contradict 1 Cor 15:25 if the ages here referred to eternity, so I believe they simply refer to time. " Are you sure about that? Email: jacinth31@yahoo.com
Eystein Nov 1st, 2006 - 12:35 PM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist See the thread "This is why I can't be a universalist" on this forum: http://pub5.bravenet.com/forum/426816999/show/579676 1 Cor 15:25 says that Christ will only have to reign until he has defeated all will of opposition. There is therefore no need for Him to reign over the house of Jacob forever. The statement that he will reign forever might seem good doxology, but really is absurd when there is no opposition. It implies that mankind will never be a family. God Bless. Email: sirakle@hotmail.com
jacinth Nov 1st, 2006 - 2:17 PM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist If Christ is the embodiment of Love, and if Love reigns forever, how does this imply that we will not be forever a family with God? Email: jacinth31@yahoo.com
Mike Burke Nov 1st, 2006 - 7:31 PM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist To jacinth, I haven't read Tom Talbott's latest book ("Universal Salvation: The Current Debate"), but I've heard it's very good. To Eystein, Good to hear from you again. From what I remember of Tom Talbott's first book, he did seem to agree with jacinth, but Gregory MacDonald would seem to agree more with you. I don't believe this is a case of either or. I think Prof. Keith DeRose (of Yale University) put it well when he wrote: Where the Greek word that gets translated as "eternal" doesn't imply endless duration, it also doesn't mean anything that implies less than endless duration. It can mean "in the age to come," or "for long ages," or, perhaps, if another of Talbott's suggestions is right, it can mean something like "having its source in the eternal God"; at any rate, all of these are neutral with respect to the question of whether what's called "eternal" will last forever. http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ekd47/univ.htm#10. God Bless both of you. Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com
Ed Smith Nov 7th, 2006 - 12:43 PM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist Jacinth, I feel you have made an excellent point here and have done it rather well. To make the most in the long run of our position in any argument, we must be very honest and fair. I have also noted this problem with many universalists. Such a thing is very common and is frequently seen in political factions. Those people from any faction (and there are many) who become completely predictable, always supporting their team, never admitting wrong, weakness, or even doubt, quickly lose my interest; they have nothing to say. When such things are observed, the effect is well illustrated by a famous line from Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." An overly enthusiastic and weak defense makes one look like one has something to hide. I have read some from all the scholarly universalist authors mentioned here and I will add one more name to our list: George MacDonald. These men have some variation in their opinions in this matter, but none insist that every word derived from aion always refers to the temporal. You listed some nice examples to illustrate the use of "eternal" in a qualitative sense--being of the eternal God. You left out what I feel is the clearest example. That is John 17:3. Eternal life is defined and has nothing directly to do with endlessness. "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." Therefore, your comments about "eternal destruction" are good, but I will put forth another possibility. God had a certain good creature in mind when he made me. Being a creature possessing individual will during my time of growing up, I have participated in my own making. Unfortunately, I have, in some ways, made myself a different man than God intended. There is an irreducible core in me which is protected and destined to endure forever. However, there are things I have built on this foundation which must be destroyed and destroyed permanently. The man I have made myself must be eternally destroyed--and I mean that in both senses--destroyed by God and destroyed permanently. Only then can the irreducible core and the kind of mature man which God intended be revealed. Apart from the permanent destruction of what I've made myself to bring forth what God makes of me, a phrase like "eternal punishment" could also be taken in the sense of an irrevocable judgment or sentence. However, I think the most likely true interpretation of "eternal" in scripture (in most cases) is qualitative in the way you described. Best regards, Ed Email: packcover@hotmail.com
Eystein Nov 8th, 2006 - 1:48 PM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist ”If Christ is the embodiment of Love, and if Love reigns forever, how does this imply that we will not be forever a family with God?” This is poetic, but I’m not sure if it’s entirely true. I’m not turning this into a discussion on the true exegesis of Luke 1:33 so this is my last comment and we can continue the discussion on the relevant thread if requested. The meaning of Luke 1:33 is not important to me, but much of my theology is based on the firm conviction that all rule, God’s rule included, will be unnecessary and that there is a huge difference between natural being and rule. God is love; love is the nature of God. It is the nature of God to always love. Does this mean that love reigns over God? I don’t think it would make sense to say that. There are three conditions in which one cannot rule over another: if the other has power over the one reigning, if they are equal or if they are one. After the ages God and mankind will be one and all reign will indeed be abolished. Love will not reign, love will be; a complete, whole, universal and unhindered nature of all things. The house of Jacob will not be ruled over by love embodied, they will be love embodied. All their being will portray love, not because of rules or kingship, but because it will be their nature to love. The Greek word for reign basileuo (literary to be a king) occurs 20 times in the Bible. It is used of ordinary kingly rule, of the rule of God, Christ, the saints and figuratively of the rule of death, sin and grace. It seems to always be used in the sense of some sort of submission, of putting down opposition and keeping others subordinate. It is never used of the relationship of God or Christ with the saints, because Christ is not supposed to rule over the saints, but with them until rule is no longer needed. One of the last things Jesus told his disciples before the crucifixions was that he no longer considered them servants, but friends. Friends do not rule over one another, friends love each other. Love does not reign; love is. At least that’s how I see it. God bless Email: sirakle@hotmail.com
Mike Burke Nov 8th, 2006 - 9:56 PM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist Thank you Ed, Eystein, and jacinth. I think you all made some good points here. I'd like to again quote Prof. DeRose: Where the Greek word that gets translated as "eternal" doesn't imply endless duration, it also doesn't mean anything that implies less than endless duration. It can mean "in the age to come," or "for long ages," or, perhaps, if another of Talbott's suggestions is right, it can mean something like "having its source in the eternal God"; at any rate, all of these are neutral with respect to the question of whether what's called "eternal" will last forever. http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ekd47/univ.htm#10. God Bless. Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com
Eystein Nov 9th, 2006 - 8:27 AM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist In his book “The Inescapable Love of God” Talbot argues that the primary meaning of aionios is in fact ”age enduring” or “that which pertains to an age.” (ILG p. 86) and Talbot himself admits to having used this point exceedingly in his own exegeses of the “thought verses.” Yet he also implies that some New Testament (primarily Pauline) uses of the word are “roughly Platonic in use” in the sense of having to do with the timeless unchanging realm, or the realm of God. (ILG p. 87) He then makes a point that all that is described as eternal (except God) might be eternal in the secondary sense of coming from the timeless God. He then argues that in the Gospels aionios is probably used in the sense of “pertaining to the age to come” when “the presence of God is manifested in a special way.” (ILG p. 89) Talbot also points out, which I feel you, jacinth, fails to consider, that the correct translation of aionios has always been disputed. You put to much weight on the authority of Biblical Greek Scholars on this. The Biblical Greek Scholars base their assumption that aionios must mean eternal on the grounds that it seems to be used in this way in the Bible, but also this can be disputed. The eonian life can mean the life of the eons; the eonian God can mean the God of the eons. There are no places in the scriptures where aion or aionios has to convey the notion of eternality or where it is more likely than anything else. Many ordinary classical Greek scholars agree that the primary meaning of aionios is of temporal or unknown duration as I have shown an example of in the Liddel and Scott Greek Lexicon. I feel you make a decent point that aionios can mean eternal and still pose no threat to universalism, but you are not fair on those universalists who differ. They are often as Scholarly or more that the Biblical Greek Scholars who parrot a tired mantra, claiming that these Greek words do not mean what the Biblical Greeks would have us believe (anyone smell a conspiracy theory?). Email: sirakle@hotmail.com
Eystein Nov 9th, 2006 - 8:29 AM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist That last one was unnecesary, I know. I also made a mistake in copying. I meant off course to say (anyone smell a conspiracy?) Peace Email: sirakle@hotmail.com
Mike Burke Nov 9th, 2006 - 10:07 AM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist Eystein wrote [quote] There are no places in the scriptures where aion or aionios has to convey the notion of eternality or where it is more likely than anything else. [unquote] I believe eternality is more likely in Heb. 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Also in Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead... And 2 Cor. 4:8 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. I think you've been too influenced by the Concordant Publishing Concern here, and I fail to see why you're looking for an argument. Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com
Ed Smith Nov 9th, 2006 - 11:27 AM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist Eystein, You said, "I feel you make a decent point that aionios can mean eternal and still pose no threat to universalism, but you are not fair on those universalists who differ." I didn't mean to be unfair. In case it really was not clear, my argument was against an extreme, unbudging dogmatism in the other direction. I certainly don't mean to be that way myself. Of course, aionios may not mean eternal in many places where it has been traditionally translated that way. Since it is the adjective form of aion, its principle meaning is "pertaining to an/the aion." However, usage is everything and, as I understand it, there is a history of usage to represent the eternal around New Testament times. I felt that Jacinth's main point is that it does not serve universalists well to deny the possibility of such usage at some places in the N.T. I think we all have to accept some lack of certainty on its usage in places. Those who can't accept any lack of certainty have problems. Words in any language may mean different things in different contexts. Some "students" of scripture wish to deny this in order to gain some feeling of more security. There is some similar motivation with the KJV only crowd in which there is an insistence upon an inspired translation, so that every word is perfectly inerrant in our own language. I'm not at all saying you have that kind of insecurity (my impression is you do not), but if you wish to see an example of what I am talking about, check out the thread I started last March on this forum entitled "Arguments against us." There were the usual dogmatic assertions about aion and aionios, but my favorite there was "there are no arguments against us!" That kind of attitude is unhealthy. Regardless of what we may believe, some people will actually give the majority of Greek scholars a little credit. If we still have an argument based on their assumptions, we may still win them. Otherwise, we forfeit. Ed Email: packcover@hotmail.com
Eystein Nov 9th, 2006 - 11:37 AM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist Again, why do you think that I’m looking for an argument? It was jacinth who quite categorically dismissed all who believe aionios to have a temporal meaning by calling their scholarship shoddy and ridicules. Sorry if you feel criticized, jacinth, I have nothing against your intentions. Jacinth defended his position, I defended mine. I was trying to kill the argument by showing that the meaning of the word is disputed and that there is no evidence that aionios means either eternal or the opposite. I showed that Talbot would agree with all of us; that it can mean of temporal duration, of the age to come, or in a more Platonic sense of timeless. I feel you are not being fair to the Concordant Publishing Concern here, nor me. When it comes to proving universalism and disproving eternal damnation in the Bible they are quite competent. I don’t see why eternal is the most obvious rendering of aionios in Heb 9:14 of all places. The crucifixion was the milestone of the ages and through the spirit of the ages. In Romans 1:20 aionios is not used, but aidios which can mean unknown (Scarlet), unseen or hidden (Bullinger), but probably something similar to eternal, I would agree. 2 Cor. 4:8 is perhaps the best example of where aionios could have a Platonic flavor. Paul compares what is aionios with what is proskairos. Yet, the passage makes sense even if aionios does not refer to eternity. Proskairos means for a season (Liddel and Scott) so a possible rendering would be: “The things which are seen are for a season; but the things which are not seen are eonian.” There are other examples, but I’m actually not looking for an argument so if you feel the discussion is going in a bad direction I’m more than willing to lay this at rest. God Bless. Email: sirakle@hotmail.com
Eystein Nov 9th, 2006 - 11:48 AM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist Ed, it was not your post I felt was unfair, but the first post of jacinth. And jacinth, I’m not degrading you or your position, but trying to defend the others. I feel you were a little too categorical. I feel you made a good point, Ed, that it is insecurity that makes us hold on to dogmatism. I would also agree that it is unwise and unnecessary to hold on to one meaning of aionios at all cost. And Mike, I’m more than positive to the possibility that aionios has some meaning of eternality many places in the scriptures. Context is important. You are right that 2 Cor 4:18 is an example of a context in which this is likely. An jacinth has other good examples. Pax Email: sirakle@hotmail.com
Eystein Nov 9th, 2006 - 12:00 PM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist Ed wrote: "Regardless of what we may believe, some people will actually give the majority of Greek scholars a little credit. If we still have an argument based on their assumptions, we may still win them. Otherwise, we forfeit." Ouch, I felt that, but thank you. You are right; we should not alienate ourselves from mainstream theology when we defend our belief in universal salvation. That is not very pedagogical. But the thing is that most Biblical Greek Scholars disagree with Talbott and Barclays understanding of aionios as well. Most believe aionios has the meaning of everlasting; without beginning or end, and then we could have a problem. You stated a way of understanding the hell passages in which universalism could be defended even if aionios means eternal in a quantitative sense and I believe Talbott did the same in ILG. (Talbott is a very conciliatory man.) This proves that the meaning of this one word can hardly make all of the difference. Pax Email: sirakle@hotmail.com
Mike Burke Nov 10th, 2006 - 5:29 PM	Re: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist [Quote] You are right that 2 Cor 4:18 is an example of a context in which this is likely. [Unquote] I think so. As Christians, I think we all believe that some of these unseen "aionian" things (God, His Spirit, His Logos) are truly timeless. You were right about Romans 1:20 (and I apologize fot quoting an English translation from memory--I should have looked it up in a reverse interlinear.) [Quote] Talbot would agree with all of us; that it can mean of temporal duration, of the age to come, or in a more Platonic sense of timelessness. [Unquote] YES, and I thank you for clarifying that. Pax (God Bless.) Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com

	Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum Welcome to my forum. Feel free to post a message.
Return to Website