Having Your Future Sins Forgiven BEFORE You Sin

[The_GreyPilgrim]

My response to OSAS(this also goes along with the sola fide argument) is this:

We know that the bible says that “God desires all men to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth.” We also know that in Jesus’ sacrifice He “died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”

So imagine a very large circle. Everyone within this circle respresents the redeemed.

Second, we also know from the bible that when Jesus spoke of His sacrifice and the shedding of His blood for the forgiveness of sins, He did not say “all” but “many”:

Matt 20:[28] even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Matt 22:[14] For many are called, but few are chosen."
Matt 26:[28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (cf Mk 14;24).

So there are those redeemed by Christ’s action and those who are saved. The misunderstanding by many Protestants is that the meaning of these words are interchangable(redeemed=saved). The truth is that they’re not.

Imagine now a smaller circle that is inside the larger circle of the redeemed. This smaller circle would contain those who are redeemed & saved.

The question then becomes what is the difference between the two? What is the difference between the "redeemed’ and the “redeemed & saved”? Is it something God does or is it something we do?

The next question(more relevent to our topic here) is if one can move from from the “redeemed circle” into the “redeemed & saved” circle can one go in reverse? Can one go from the “redeemed & saved” circle to merely the “redeemed” circle, most likely by sin?

The orthodox answer is and will always be “yes.”

The OSAS answer is “no.”

They affirm free will in that one must make an “act of faith” to become “saved”, yet reject any notion that that same free will can affect a separation from God once the one person wilfully sins.

God lives in eternity, and yes he knows what our sins will be because His understanding of us is so full He knows our decisions before we make them. In this He understands us and is always open to us when we seek Him for forgiveness after we fall.

This does not mean that our future sins are already forgiven, that is pridefull presumption. We only have assurance that He will forgive our sins when we commit and then repent of them. We do not have automatic forgiveness merely because we believe that we are “the elect.” That is simply false.

 

[ckempston]

This is a silly question since I’m not a follower of traditional Calvinistic views. I don’t believe for one second that GOD only chooses certain people to be saved. I believe GOD wants to be with all HIS children and gives each of us the ability to choose Christ. But I most certainly believe that it’s only by GOD’s initial grace that I’m able to do this.

So, you’re saying God doesn’t know who will be saved?

 

[NDfan]

I didn’t say it wasn’t ridiculous, and I also didn’t say OSAS was a part of TULIP, I said it was developed from some of the concepts behind TULIP, so stop putting words in my mouth.

I’m not putting words into your mouth but you surely are changing yours. Here’s exactly what you said and I quote:

“Once Saved Always Saved” comes directly from the notion of eternal security, which is** related** to the “P” in TULIP"

These are your words not mine. My response is that OSAS has nothing to do with Calvinistic teachings as they were defined at Dort. There’s no doubt it appears OSAS is an outcropping of some who come from Calvinism but its not part of the TULIP teaching at all. When I stated this earlier you told me I was wrong and I most certainly am not.

LOL. Wow, that’s a good one. I know exactly what repentance means because I happen to know how to read Greek. Do you?

I didn’t realize this was a competition but yes I do read Greek. It’s the only way for me to really study the NT. What does reading and understanding Greek have to do with repentance?

Another hoot - “Calvinists believe…not committing sin”, which is why Calvin was such a sainted man. TULIP has produced one thing: a whole lot of sin, because it lends itself to so much misunderstanding and contradictory interpretation (which illustrates another problem altogether).

Well I’m not one who submits to the doctrines of Calvinism and in no way am I trying to defend it. Certainly I understand the problems it caused which were primarily due to no one understanding if they were elect or not. If someone thought they weren’t elect then they adopted an I don’t care attitude towards life. Makes sense right? If you know you are not elected by GOD to have eternal life then why live by HIS rules? I think on this we both agree. I’m merely clarifying what Calvinism is not and it most definitely is not OSAS.

There are some “calvinists” who would heartily disagree with you anyway, and several examples have been provided that demonstrate this. So who’s right?

Which examples would that be? I challenge you to show me someone who truly understands and follows Calvinistic teachings as defined at Dort and stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith that believe OSAS was part of this.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

So, you’re saying God doesn’t know who will be saved?

Well this is an interesting question because yes I do believe GOD knows who will be saved. So that would then beg the question does GOD only extend HIS grace to those individuals?? Or does HE extend HIS grace to all already knowing who will accept it and who will reject it?

 

[Filioque]

funny story. One of the claims of Johann Tetzel was that he had the authority to forgive sins not yet committed (even if the potential purveyor was contemplating the sin at the time he sought the indulgence). So a few Germans were talking with Mr. Tetzel one day & asked if they could pay him to forgive any sin they were planning on committing. Mr. Tetzel responded yes of course; and the men paid him for the indulgence.

Soon thereafter the men met Mr. Tetzel on an empty roadway, beat him up, and robbed him of his money. When Mr. Tetzel complained to the authorities the men said Mr. Tetzel himself had provided them with a certificate of forgiveness for the very sin he was now seeking justice for. The authorities saw the certificate, confirmed its authenticity, and accordingly let the men go.

Never heard this story about Fr. Tetzel, what is the source? I like to read obscure points in history.

 

[NDfan]

My response to OSAS(this also goes along with the sola fide argument) is this:

We know that the bible says that “God desires all men to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth.” We also know that in Jesus’ sacrifice He “died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”

So imagine a very large circle. Everyone within this circle respresents the redeemed.

Second, we also know from the bible that when Jesus spoke of His sacrifice and the shedding of His blood for the forgiveness of sins, He did not say “all” but “many”:

Matt 20:[28] even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Matt 22:[14] For many are called, but few are chosen."
Matt 26:[28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (cf Mk 14;24).

So there are those redeemed by Christ’s action and those who are saved. The misunderstanding by many Protestants is that the meaning of these words are interchangable(redeemed=saved). The truth is that they’re not.

Imagine now a smaller circle that is inside the larger circle of the redeemed. This smaller circle would contain those who are redeemed & saved.

The question then becomes what is the difference between the two? What is the difference between the "redeemed’ and the “redeemed & saved”? Is it something God does or is it something we do?

The next question(more relevent to our topic here) is if one can move from from the “redeemed circle” into the “redeemed & saved” circle can one go in reverse? Can one go from the “redeemed & saved” circle to merely the “redeemed” circle, most likely by sin?

The orthodox answer is and will always be “yes.”

The OSAS answer is “no.”

They affirm free will in that one must make an “act of faith” to become “saved”, yet reject any notion that that same free will can affect a separation from God once the one person wilfully sins.

God lives in eternity, and yes he knows what our sins will be because His understanding of us is so full He knows our decisions before we make them. In this He understands us and is always open to us when we seek Him for forgiveness after we fall.

This does not mean that our future sins are already forgiven, that is pridefull presumption. We only have assurance that He will forgive our sins when we commit and then repent of them. We do not have automatic forgiveness merely because we believe that we are “the elect.” That is simply false.

Pilgrim not sure I’m understanding you here. Redemption and being saved are not mutually exclusive. We are saved because we have redemption through Christ. We have to accept and trust that Christ is our savior which is an act of Faith. But why do we accept Christ as our savior? Is it because HE was a nice guy? No it’s because HIS sacrifice is the final payment for our sins. It’s the only way we can be reconciled to GOD. It’s how GOD chose to redeem us. We can’t be saved any other way because the blood of Christ is the only payment GOD will accept for our sins.

So going back to your circle example everyone within the redeemed circle is saved. Unless you are saying that redemption is available for everyone but not everyone will be saved because they won’t accept Christ.

 

[ckempston]

I’m not putting words into your mouth but you surely are changing yours. Here’s exactly what you said and I quote:

“Once Saved Always Saved” comes directly from the notion of eternal security, which is** related** to the “P” in TULIP"

Wrong again. You fail to grasp some subleties. OSAS logically follows from eternal security. I did not say that OSAS was equivalent to eternal security, nor did I say OSAS or eternal security is equivalent to Perseverence of the Saints. You are simply not comprehending some plain statements here.

These are your words not mine. My response is that OSAS has nothing to do with Calvinistic teachings as they were defined at Dort. There’s no doubt it appears OSAS is an outcropping of some who come from Calvinism but its not part of the TULIP teaching at all. When I stated this earlier you told me I was wrong and I most certainly am not.

Nope, still wrong.

I didn’t realize this was a competition but yes I do read Greek. It’s the only way for me to really study the NT. What does reading and understanding Greek have to do with repentance?

What does understanding Greek have to do with repentance? Are you kidding me??? Repentance comes from a Greek word; that’s what it has to do with it! Your ridiculous assertion that I did not understand repentance was totally unfounded.

Well I’m not one who submits to the doctrines of Calvinism and in no way am I trying to defend it. Certainly I understand the problems it caused which were primarily due to no one understanding if they were elect or not. If someone thought they weren’t elect then they adopted an I don’t care attitude towards life. Makes sense right? If you know you are not elected by GOD to have eternal life then why live by HIS rules? I think on this we both agree. I’m merely clarifying what Calvinism is not and it most definitely is not OSAS.

I have never equated the two, i.e. I have never stated that Calvinism = OSAS, and your quotes do not support your contention that I did. OSAS **logically follows **from the premises and concepts contained in TULIP.

Which examples would that be? I challenge you to show me someone who truly understands and follows Calvinistic teachings as defined at Dort and stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith that believe OSAS was part of this.

PEACE

Go back and read the thread. You yourself pointed out that some Baptists call themselves Calvinists, but they don’t necessarily hold to all of his principles. This would quickly regress into a “no true scotsman” argument, which would illustrate my point: Calvinism as a whole, and TULIP in particular, make no logical sense whatsoever, which is why you have diverse groups claiming to be Calvinistic, but all of them have divergent beliefs.

 

[Soutane]

This is a silly question since I’m not a follower of traditional Calvinistic views. I don’t believe for one second that GOD only chooses certain people to be saved. I believe GOD wants to be with all HIS children and gives each of us the ability to choose Christ. But I most certainly believe that it’s only by GOD’s initial grace that I’m able to do this.

:thumbsup:Are you sure you’re not a Catholic?

 

[NDfan]

Wrong again. You fail to grasp some subleties. OSAS logically follows from eternal security. I did not say that OSAS was equivalent to eternal security, nor did I say OSAS or eternal security is equivalent to Perseverence of the Saints. You are simply not comprehending some plain statements here.

Chip you are saying they are related and to the one who follows strict Calvinistic teachings as defined by the synod at Dort and stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith this is untrue. I’m not failing to grasp subtleties. I understand completely what you are saying. The problem is you keep tying OSAS to Calvin when the 2 are mutually exclusive. The people that follow OSAS have appeared to come from Calvinism but that doesn’t mean OSAS comes from Calvinism.

Nope, still wrong…

Please clue me in as to how I am still wrong.

What does understanding Greek have to do with repentance? Are you kidding me??? Repentance comes from a Greek word; that’s what it has to do with it! Your ridiculous assertion that I did not understand repentance was totally unfounded.

But you don’t have to know Greek to understand what repentance means. Repent is an English word used for the Greek word metanoeo which means to change one’s mind. Understanding Greek has no bearing on it whatsoever.

I have never equated the two, i.e. I have never stated that Calvinism = OSAS, and your quotes do not support your contention that I did. OSAS **logically follows **from the premises and concepts contained in TULIP.

Chip you’re applying you’re own logic when you say OSAS logically follows the “P” in TULIP. To you this may seem so but to the strict Calvinist it’s a ridiculous statement.

Go back and read the thread. You yourself pointed out that some Baptists call themselves Calvinists, but they don’t necessarily hold to all of his principles. This would quickly regress into a “no true scotsman” argument, which would illustrate my point: Calvinism as a whole, and TULIP in particular, make no logical sense whatsoever, which is why you have diverse groups claiming to be Calvinistic, but all of them have divergent beliefs.

I never claimed Baptists call themselves Calvinists. Please re-read the thread again as I stated that the OSAS belief seems to be consolidated to some Presbyterians, Baptists, and Non-denoms. This is where your argument falls apart completely.

The bottom line is OSAS is not part of TULIP. There are some Presbyterians that have adopted this line of thinking albeit in conflict with strict Calvinistic teachings. I’ve never met a Baptist who claims to be Calvinistic because they follow OSAS. But I have met Baptists that believe in OSAS. I’ve also met non-denoms that believe in OSAS and certainly don’t consider themselves to be Calvinists because of it.

You personally are making an assumption that OSAS logically follows TULIP when a true follower of Calvin would disagree. You’re associating problems with Calvin because of OSAS when the 2 aren’t even in the same park. That’s the only point I’m trying to make.

 

[NDfan]

:thumbsup:Are you sure you’re not a Catholic?

I may be a revert one day who knows. I think revert is the right word

PEACE

 

[deb1]

So, you’re saying God doesn’t know who will be saved?

Remember we are speaking about God here.

My own opinion is that God knows every single possible choice that we will ever make and the myriad consequences that result from those choices. For example, imagine that you are standing on a street corner. You could cross the street, go left, turn right or stand still. The decisions is yours, but your choice might have an effect on your day. Now matter what direction you choose, God knows the result, but that doesn’t mean that he caused you to make that decision.

Pretty mind boggling if you actually think hard on the subject.

 

[deb1]

I’ve often thought that OSAS would be so comforting ?

Personally, I did not find OSAS comforting. It was like a weight around my neck. I knew that I was still strongly tempted to sin and gave into sin occasionally.

Plus my pastor encouraged me to read the Bible and ask questions. Yet the more I read the Bible, the more doubts that I encountered about OSAS. What was worse, when I asked my pastor questions about how conterdictory Bible verses corresponded, he wouldn’t explain. He just did what some do on this forum, he pointed me different verses and ignored the verses that I had found.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Sounds to me like your friend is simply Calvinistic. If you’re not familiar with TULIP, do a search on it and read up. It seems to me that your friend’s claim is a necessary consequence of Irresistable Grace and Perseverence of the Saints.

I have heard this B4 from some Baptist that believe in once saved always saved some say if you are save you will not sin again and if you do sin(a big sin) you was not really save in the first place,one of Calvin false teaching

 

[ckempston]

Chip you are saying they are related and to the one who follows strict Calvinistic teachings as defined by the synod at Dort and stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith this is untrue. I’m not failing to grasp subtleties. I understand completely what you are saying. The problem is you keep tying OSAS to Calvin when the 2 are mutually exclusive. The people that follow OSAS have appeared to come from Calvinism but that doesn’t mean OSAS comes from Calvinism.

Ok, trying to figure out where we went wrong here. I agree for the most part with what you’re saying here, but I still contend that OSAS came about because people adopted Calvinism, and then saw the logical conclusion from belief in certain Calvinistic principles. I’m certainly not saying that all Calvinists believe OSAS (although I find them inconsistent for not doing so). I am simply saying that OSAS finds its roots in some Calvinistic philosophies. Not sure if that clears it up any.

Please clue me in as to how I am still wrong.

But you don’t have to know Greek to understand what repentance means. Repent is an English word used for the Greek word metanoeo which means to change one’s mind. Understanding Greek has no bearing on it whatsoever.

That statement seems a little inconsistent. I think you just illustrated my point. To understand what repentance means, we have to look back at the Greek, but I would contend that it has a deeper meaning that just changing one’s mind.

Chip you’re applying you’re own logic when you say OSAS logically follows the “P” in TULIP. To you this may seem so but to the strict Calvinist it’s a ridiculous statement.

I never claimed Baptists call themselves Calvinists. Please re-read the thread again as I stated that the OSAS belief seems to be consolidated to some Presbyterians, Baptists, and Non-denoms. This is where your argument falls apart completely.

My mistake, I was going off memory.

The bottom line is OSAS is not part of TULIP. There are some Presbyterians that have adopted this line of thinking albeit in conflict with strict Calvinistic teachings. I’ve never met a Baptist who claims to be Calvinistic because they follow OSAS. But I have met Baptists that believe in OSAS. I’ve also met non-denoms that believe in OSAS and certainly don’t consider themselves to be Calvinists because of it.

Again, I’m not saying OSAS and TULIP are equivalent or 100% consistent with one another.

You personally are making an assumption that OSAS logically follows TULIP when a true follower of Calvin would disagree. You’re associating problems with Calvin because of OSAS when the 2 aren’t even in the same park. That’s the only point I’m trying to make.

I agree that a strict “Calvinist” would disagree, but how many “strict” Calvinists are there? Seems to me that you’ve got various denominations, as you mentioned, that take a sprinkle of T a dash of U a pinch of L, etc. It’s like a salad bar.

 

[dianaiad]

No no no this is absolutely false. Calvinistic theology does not hold to OSAS. There are some Calvinists that have gravitated to OSAS but that would also include some baptists and non-denoms. Perseverance of the saints has nothing to do with OSAS.

How can Calvinism (especially ‘hyper’ Calvinism) NOT be confused with the OSAS idea?

…except in one way, a rather important one, the results seem to be the same. In OSAS, once one is ‘truly’ saved (and that is a kicker, that one…) then one is always saved. Period. No matter what.

In Calvinism, especially hyper-Calvinism, one doesn’t even have to be ‘saved’ first. If you were predestined to be saved, then you are saved–whether you ever figure out that you are or not.

The difference, if there is one to the believer, is one of choice. A OSAS believer may figure that it is his choice to come to Christ, or that we may all have the opportunity to do so, or that only those who HAVE come to Christ may be saved. The hyper-Calvinist (and to some extent all Calvinists) does not believe that we sinners have any say in the matter at all. Those who are predestined to be saved will be, and those who are not will not.

The kicker that I referred to is this: the ‘truly’ saved don’t, after all, commit the sins that God would have to ignore in order for the ‘saved one’ to be saved in spite of --and this is common to both OSAS and Calvinism. It’s not that God will ignore sins committed by the saved; it is that the saved simply will do their darnedest not to commit them in the first place. They may fail, but BECAUSE they are ‘saved,’ they will repent of them and work harder at making their lives more godly/Christlike.

Not because they want to be saved, but because they already are and it’s not in their nature to sin blithely on in the expectation that God will ignore it.

How does this work?

Well, if someone who is ‘saved’ goes out and screws up, then…he wasn’t ‘saved’ in the first place. If someone who has experienced a ‘born again’ experience and goes out and murders someone, or commits adultery, or does some other insanely wicked thing, then the conclusion isn’t that this sin will be forgiven no matter what. It is that the sinner wasn’t saved in the first place, or…he wouldn’t have committed the sin, especially once he knew it WAS a sin.

I think that’s where "perseverance of the saints’ comes in.

And no, I am not defending either OSAS or Calvinism, hyper or not. I disagree with both ideas intensely.

…but I do think that both ideas have been portrayed a little unfairly.

 

[deb1]

How can Calvinism (especially ‘hyper’ Calvinism) NOT be confused with the OSAS idea?

…except in one way, a rather important one, the results seem to be the same. In OSAS, once one is ‘truly’ saved (and that is a kicker, that one…) then one is always saved. Period. No matter what.

In Calvinism, especially hyper-Calvinism, one doesn’t even have to be ‘saved’ first. If you were predestined to be saved, then you are saved–whether you ever figure out that you are or not.

The difference, if there is one to the believer, is one of choice. A OSAS believer may figure that it is his choice to come to Christ, or that we may all have the opportunity to do so, or that only those who HAVE come to Christ may be saved. The hyper-Calvinist (and to some extent all Calvinists) does not believe that we sinners have any say in the matter at all. Those who are predestined to be saved will be, and those who are not will not.

The kicker that I referred to is this: the ‘truly’ saved don’t, after all, commit the sins that God would have to ignore in order for the ‘saved one’ to be saved in spite of --and this is common to both OSAS and Calvinism. It’s not that God will ignore sins committed by the saved; it is that the saved simply will do their darnedest not to commit them in the first place. They may fail, but BECAUSE they are ‘saved,’ they will repent of them and work harder at making their lives more godly/Christlike.

Not because they want to be saved, but because they already are and it’s not in their nature to sin blithely on in the expectation that God will ignore it.

How does this work?

Well, if someone who is ‘saved’ goes out and screws up, then…he wasn’t ‘saved’ in the first place. If someone who has experienced a ‘born again’ experience and goes out and murders someone, or commits adultery, or does some other insanely wicked thing, then the conclusion isn’t that this sin will be forgiven no matter what. It is that the sinner wasn’t saved in the first place, or…he wouldn’t have committed the sin, especially once he knew it WAS a sin.

I think that’s where "perseverance of the saints’ comes in.

And no, I am not defending either OSAS or Calvinism, hyper or not. I disagree with both ideas intensely.

…but I do think that both ideas have been portrayed a little unfairly.

that sounds like what many of us have said to some extent or another, so I don’t know how we are being unfair.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Pilgrim not sure I’m understanding you here. Redemption and being saved are not mutually exclusive.

I didn’t say that they were. Ultimately they are both acts of our loving God. What I did say is that their meanings in terms of what us Catholics call the “economy of salvation” they refer to different actions. Redemption comes from what Christ did on the cross for all men. Justification, “being saved” as Evangelical Protestants put it, has to do with our necessary response to Christ’s love and grace.

We are saved because we have redemption through Christ.

Which is what I said above…

We have to accept and trust that Christ is our savior which is an act of Faith.

“Accepting” is a work of the brain, of the intellect.

But why do we accept Christ as our savior? Is it because HE was a nice guy? No it’s because HIS sacrifice is the final payment for our sins. It’s the only way we can be reconciled to GOD. It’s how GOD chose to redeem us. We can’t be saved any other way because the blood of Christ is the only payment GOD will accept for our sins.

And I agree. I would only add that since the Body of Christ is the Church that it is the Church which cooperates with Christ in His work of saving souls for the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.

So going back to your circle example everyone within the redeemed circle is saved.

The above statement is the theological notion of Universalism, that Christ redeemed everyone so no matter who dies, no matter what your spiritual state, you go straight to heaven.

I sincerely hope that is not what you meant to say…

Unless you are saying that redemption is available for everyone but not everyone will be saved because they won’t accept Christ.

So are you saying that we don’t need to accept Christ?

 

[ckempston]

The above statement is the theological notion of Universalism, that Christ redeemed everyone so no matter who dies, no matter what your spiritual state, you go straight to heaven.

I sincerely hope that is not what you meant to say…

I know this was not directed at me, but as someone who thinks universal restoration is a real possibility, I’d like to point out that Universalism (in most of its forms) does not teach that everyone automatically goes to heaven. For the most part, “universalists” believe that there are certainly those who are saved, but it also holds that the punishments of God (i.e. fire in hell) are not merely punitive but corrective, and ultimately, even those who were not saved in this lifetime will be “restored.” Kind of like purgatory, except everyone gets purged instead of just those with attachments to their venial sins.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I know this was not directed at me, but as someone who thinks universal restoration is a real possibility, I’d like to point out that Universalism (in most of its forms) does not teach that everyone automatically goes to heaven. For the most part, “universalists” believe that there are certainly those who are saved, but it also holds that the punishments of God (i.e. fire in hell) are not merely punitive but corrective, and ultimately, even those who were not saved in this lifetime will be “restored.” Kind of like purgatory, except everyone gets purged instead of just those with attachments to their venial sins.

The problem with it is that it denies what Jesus Himself said about the eternal punishment(Matt 25) cf., 2 Thes 1:9; Jude 1:7; Rev 20:14-15.

Punishments that we suffer here on earth are meant to be remedial. But those who stick to their sins without ever repenting cannot love God more than the sin that they love most. Their attatchment to their sin makes God’s love for them an unbearable and unquenchable fire; just like when a toddler throwing a temper-tantrum can’t stand it when his/her parents try to hug or kiss them, they get even angrier.

If they die in a state of mortal sin they have made their choice; God’s mercy cannot negate His Justice.

You may argue that no sane person would or could possibly choose hell over heaven. That is exactly what the Bible and the Church says: sin is humanity’s spiritual insanity.

Simply put, Universalism is incompatible with Christianity.

 

[ckempston]

The problem with it is that it denies what Jesus Himself said about the eternal punishment(Matt 25) cf., 2 Thes 1:9; Jude 1:7; Rev 20:14-15

.

There is no word in the New Testament which means eternal. The word that is translated eternal is aionion, the root of which simply means “age.” There are a couple of simple observations, which make the “eternal” translation impossible: 1) you cannot pluralize eternity (i.e. eternities is nonsensical), yet the words (mis)translated eternal are often pluralized in the Old and New Testaments. 2) Eternity cannot end. Again, in both the Old and New Testaments “eternites” come to an end. 3) An adjective cannot be “more” than the noun on which it is based:

Noun - Year
Adjective - Yearly

If I told you a year was 365 days, approximately 52 weeks, or 8760 hours, you’d probably be in general agreement.

If I then turned around and said, yearly means occurring every 1200 days, 1 million weeks, or 24 hours, you would quite rightly look at me like I had two heads.

Yet, this is what has been done when translators translate aion as age and aionion as eternal.

Punishments that we suffer here on earth are meant to be remedial. But those who stick to their sins without ever repenting cannot love God more than the sin that they love most. Their attatchment to their sin makes God’s love for them an unbearable and unquenchable fire; just like when a toddler throwing a temper-tantrum can’t stand it when his/her parents try to hug or kiss them, they get even angrier.

If they die in a state of mortal sin they have made their choice; God’s mercy cannot negate His Justice.

Infinite punishment for finite offenses is not Justice by any measure.

You may argue that no sane person would or could possibly choose hell over heaven. That is exactly what the Bible and the Church says: sin is humanity’s spiritual insanity.

I’ll take you one step further and say that no sane person could possibly be happy with the knowledge that fellow human beings are suffering “eternal” torment. However, if the knowledge of punishment was that it was remedial, then heaven could indeed be a happy place.

Simply put, Universalism is incompatible with Christianity.

You have not proven, or even supported for that matter, this assertion with this response.