I
- Status
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
The universalist polemic for the above difficulty is to deny the Christ’s reign will be endless. There. That was easy.
They cite the following verse:
**1 Cor 15:25: **“For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.”
The problem is the universalist interpretation of THIS verse as well.
The word “until” is from the Greek “achri.” Consider this usage…
Acts 2:29 “… his sepulchre is with us unto (achri) this day.”
Surely St. Peter didn’t intend that the Davidic sepulchre was no longer with them after “this day,” right? Achri does not always imply something will change. In 1 Cor 15:25, Christ will reign achri (till, unto) that time which he has put all his enemies under his feet. This is certainly true. That doesn’t imply, as the universalist polemic suggests, that Christ will no longer reign after he has put his enemies under his feet.
Another example, from Acts 23:21, St. Paul states “I have lived in all good conscience before God until (achri) this day.” It would be absurd to conclude that St. Paul meant to cease living in all good conscience *after *this day, right? So too is it absurd to assert that St. Paul intended by his use of the word *achri *in 1 Cor 15:25, that Christ should ever cease to reign.
They cite the following verse:
**1 Cor 15:25: **“For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.”
The problem is the universalist interpretation of THIS verse as well.
The word “until” is from the Greek “achri.” Consider this usage…
Acts 2:29 “… his sepulchre is with us unto (achri) this day.”
Surely St. Peter didn’t intend that the Davidic sepulchre was no longer with them after “this day,” right? Achri does not always imply something will change. In 1 Cor 15:25, Christ will reign achri (till, unto) that time which he has put all his enemies under his feet. This is certainly true. That doesn’t imply, as the universalist polemic suggests, that Christ will no longer reign after he has put his enemies under his feet.
Another example, from Acts 23:21, St. Paul states “I have lived in all good conscience before God until (achri) this day.” It would be absurd to conclude that St. Paul meant to cease living in all good conscience *after *this day, right? So too is it absurd to assert that St. Paul intended by his use of the word *achri *in 1 Cor 15:25, that Christ should ever cease to reign.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I missed this earlier and wanted to comment on it. Plato’s greek was not koine Greek. It is very disimilar to koine Greek. Today’s Greek is very disimilar to Plato’s Greek too. Trying to insist upon Plato’s meaning of Greek words for a publication written today would be absurd, no? Words change in meaning over time. Plato’s Greek is a poor example for understanding koine Greek usage of the first century.
Thayer’s lexicon is pretty good for a universalist. However, I look at Strong’s and Vine’s and others to get a broad understanding of the scholastic opinion as a whole. I’m not a Greek scholar, but I think there’s a reason that the universalist claims about the NT are rejected by the majority of NT scholars. As protestant NT scholars go, Bruce Metzger is probably one of the most respected by both liberal and conservative protestants. Consequently, his NRSV translation is probably in accord with the best protestant scholarship available. The NRSV Rev 20:10 translates eis aion aion (double plural form) as “forever and ever”, in agreement with Thayer’s claim that it expresses “future endlessness” regarding the lake of fire and the torment of those cast within.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Yes, I can’t imagine otherwise - considering they are creatures, just like you and me.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Neither you nor I know what Thayer’s intentions were. So, I really hesitate to dream up how he approached this issue.
What I find very compelling is the fact that out of approximately 66 books, 1100+ chapters and 31,100+ verses, there’s only one where “eternal” and “punishment” are used in the same passage. I wouldn’t be comfortable disputing a doctrine that hinges on one verse of Scripture and supposed ambiguity of the meaning of the terms used.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Because as I already explained - God’s nature is endless as other verses of Scripture point out. Man’s nature is not and neither is anything else that is created.
The proof is Scripture and reasoning. God is the God of the living, not the dead. We live one life on earth, do we not? Scripture proclaims it and reasoning confirms it. God, on the other hand, has infinite life. Since we believe that He existed before anything else existed - that He has always existed - then by reasoning alone we can conclude that He is endless. He was living when he created Adam - Adam died. He was living when Noah was born. Noah died. He was living when Moses was born. Moses died. Get my drift?
It’s not complicated at all to figure out why God is endless and man is not. Scripture shows it and reasoning confirms it.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
is used to denote the “endless future.” In Thayer’s lexicon, he lists Rev 11:15 along with Rev 20:10 as having the same meaning of this double plural form of aion).
The reign of Christ …
KJV Rev 11:15 "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign **for ever and ever. **(cf. Rev 1:6, 4:9, 4:10, 5:13)
**Compared the above to the torment of the damned which also lasts for ever and ever… **
KJV Rev 20:10 “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be **tormented day and night for ever and ever.” **(cf. Rev 14:11).
Luke 1:33, “And he (Jesus) shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” The meaning is, he shall reign for ages. That long, indefinite duration is meant here, but limited, is evident from I Cor. 15:28, “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” His reign is forever, i.e. to the ages, but it is to cease.
from Bible Threatenings Explained by J. W. Hanson
Yes, they have the same meaning - ages of ages - not endless future.
Here’s the link to Thayer’s actual lexicon concerning aion:
blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1101916150-3733.html
Here is a snippet from there concerning this double plural you speak of:
“The endless future is divided up into various periods, the shorter of which is comprehended in the longer…this combination of the double plural seems to be peculiar to the New Testament.”
from Thomas Thayer’s Lexicon
**
His comments do not imply what you have implied they mean as the above quote shows. If you look at the whole word - its uses in the Bible and Thayer’s Lexicon you get the summation of what Thayer himself taught. It should be noted that Strong’s Concordance is what is used and Thayer’s Lexicon. So, this is not wholly the work of Thayer himself.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
This is what he actually said.
"The endless future is divided up into various periods, the shorter of which is comprehended in the longer…this combination of the double plural seems to be peculiar to the New Testament."
He’s speaking of periods of time which summed up together constitute “the endless future”. He’s not asserting that the plural form denotes eternity as you understand it.
Jonah 2:6:
I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars [was] about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God
The same phrase is used as the Revelation passage you cited. It’s not the double plural. It leaves out one “ever”. So, you would claim that adding an “ever” denotes further duration? Not necessarily true. As one theologian has pointed out - the adjective cannot take on a greater significance than the noun it describes. “Hourly” cannot mean weekly or monthly. It is a specific period of time.
And, by the way, Thomas B. Thayer D.D. is not the only theologian in the world who believes in universalism and documented his findings. There are many other preachers and teachers: Hosea Ballou, J.W. Hanson, Thomas Sawyer, Elhanan Winchester for starters. I have consulted many, many documents and books written by many men. Even if I disagreed with Thayer (which I don’t) he is not the only thinking person in this theological area.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
This reinforces my claims about aionios.
[aionios] "describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom 16:25; 2Ti 1:9; Tts 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom 16:26, and the other sixty-six places in the NT. "The predominant meaning of aionios, that in which it is used everywhere in the NT, save the places noted above, may be seen in 2Cr 4:18, where it is set in contrast with proskairos, lit., ‘for a season,’ and in Phm 1:15, where only in the NT it is used without a noun. Moreover it is used of persons and things which are in their nature endless, as, e.g., of God, Rom 16:26; of His power, 1Ti 6:16, and of His glory, 1Pe 5:10; of the Holy Spirit, Hbr 9:14; of the redemption effected by Christ, Hbr 9:12,
“Either undefined but not endless”. And it is “used of persons or things which are in their nature endless”. How else can this be interpreted. This is very clear. Vine’s is correct here. His logic is good.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
"Aionios is also used of the sin that ‘hath never forgiveness,’ Mar 3:29, and of the judgment of God, from which there is no appeal, Hbr 6:2, and of the fire, which is one of its instruments, Mat 18:8; 25:41; Jud 1:7, and which is elsewhere said to be ‘unquenchable,’ Mar 9:43. “The use of aionios here shows that the punishment referred to in 2Th 1:9, is not temporary, but final, and, accordingly, the phraseology shows that its purpose is not remedial but retributive.” * * From Notes on Thessalonians by Hogg and Vine, pp. 232,233.]
Now, Vine’s begins well and correctly “aionios is also used of the sind that hath never forgiveness” so, if it never had forgiveness, how can you say it claims endless, endless, endless?
He then goes off the deep end - leaves the logic and reasoning he so elequoently used before by asserting (why? I don’t know) that 2 Thess. 1:9 shows punishment is not temporary, but final. Go figure. It could mean simply that he is speaking of the causal source of the punishment - God’s decision is final. He says - suffer for a period of time and after that you are restored. That’s final, isn’t it?
But, he does not say that the punishment is eternal either - he says it is final. Final doesn’t equal eternal in my book. So, I wouldn’t use Vine’s as proof that he believed in endless torturous punishment in eternal hell. I just don’t get that from what is quoted here.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
But is this an exegetically defendable theory? This was my problem many years ago with universalism. They say they base things on correct exegesis of Scripture, but the more you look into it, the more clear it becomes that they rely heavily upon eisegesis.
What in Scripture leads one to believe that the fallen angels will be redeemed? Or is it merely a philosophical opinion? If it was God’s plan to redeem the fallen angels, is Jesus their redeemer? If so, how? What act of redemption did he accomplish for angels? The Incarnation, Passion, and death was clearly to redeem mankind.
Angelic redemption appears nowhere in Scripture. It is not even hinted at. This gives us a hint that this universalist theory isn’t really based upon exegesis, despite their claims to the contrary. It’s a philosophical speculation that is read back into Scripture. I know, I used to belong to a Universalist Unitarian Church and have plenty of experience with the philosophical variances within their fold. They are not rooted in exegesis. In fact, I’d say they believe in everything … which is exactly the same as believing in nothing. They concluded as a first premise that God is too good to punish any creature forever, which allows them to accept any doctrine as equally plausible. Then they read into Scripture a meaning compatible with this first premise. This is no different than many other movements claiming to be Christian.
When I looked into this religious viewpoint, I tried to remain objective. It was my conclusion that the inclusion of the devil and his fallen angels in the redemption is clearly *eisegesis *which gave me further evidence to suggest their theories regarding the redemption of the damned to also be eisegesis.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Again, you must look at context of the passage (is that so hard?). We’re really going in an odd direction with this discussion. I don’t see the relevance of continuing on this path. I’m not well-versed on “the reign of Christ” and it wasn’t my intent of the thread.
My intent of the thread was to discuss the doctrines of “hell” and “everlasting punishment” as they are believed by Christians. The reign of Christ is not part of it.
You have given wonderful arguments concerning aion and aionios and I understand your reasoning completely. I simply see the evidence in my favor rather than yours. You have looked at the same evidence at blueletterbible.com and come to a different conclusion about aion and aionios.
I suggest we move on and discuss the greater aspects and differences in the doctrines of hell and punishment after death (whether eternal or temporary). Or have we exhausted this matter?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I don’t find that compelling because there are ZERO passages where “trinity” is used. Yet, it is a foundational doctrine of Christianity. What one finds is the doctrine taught in Scripture, but if one relies solely upon a “word count” method of searching for this doctrine, they will be disappointed. Do you also deny that Jesus Christ is “eternally begotten of the Father”? If so, why? It too has zero passages telling us this? And yes, I know baptists that deny this doctrine as well. Such is the case when one is permitted to endlessly revise the deposit of faith handed that has been believed from the start.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
I also am no scholar - especially historical. I have to rely on others knowledge and experience.
It can also be said - as I have said many times that one verse and one seeming ambiguity does not a refutation make.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
No I don’t think I do. Are you denying an afterlife? If not, are you denying that the afterlife of those who have been saved will be everlasting?
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
With all due respect - Scripture is not all that they have relied on, friend. They use reasoning and philosophy as you have suggested. The Catholic Church does as well, doesn’t she? Reason should not be left at the door when dealing with Scripture or Christian knowledge in general. Although I claim Scripture as ultimate authority, I would never leave reason behind.
And also, with all due respect, the Unitarians are quite different than the Christian Universalists who merged with the Unitarians in the early 1960’s. The root of the Unitarians is in the Judeo-Christian faith. They have since blossomed to be more political than religious in nature. They preach more social and political concerns than truths of the Bible and Christianity. You would probably agree with that. That’s why I’m not a Unitarian.
We do not know all the plans God has for His creation. I don’t pretend to know all of them. What I do know is clear to me from Scripture, reason and philosophy that God will reconcile all things to Himself. Just because we don’t know or understand all is not a reason to discredit something.
Peace…
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Hi!
It seems that you are fighting w/ the Calvinist position of predstination. i.e…if God’s will cannot be thwarted then those saved will be saved…they have no choice in the matter. That (to me) just doesn’t jive w/ the Bible, which teaches that we DO have free choice.
I doubt I have helped much… but that is just the random babbling of a guy who actually thinks about these things
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Yes, but apply this consistently. There are ZERO versus which speak of the lake of fire ceasing to exist, and those cast into it being restored with God. Yet this is what is claimed by Universalists. It is the proverbial missing chapter of Revelation that Universalists don’t like to talk about. They write volumes on their eisegesis in order to divert attention away from the lack of Scripture describing “the ending” of the Bible that they propose.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
The principle of the trinity is in many places in Scripture.
Listen, if eternal punishment is real and is of God, it should be screamed throughout the pages of Scripture by all the prophets and apostles. Don’t you agree? I mean, the reality of hell and torment as a doctrine should be included in the majority of Scripture texts.
The doctrine of the trinity and any other doctrines you can cite cannot compare to the burning flesh of the majority of mankind that people claim. The doctrine of the trinity doesn’t torture you. Only the doctrine of hell and everlasting punishment consumes the flesh and torments the soul of unbelievers for eternity and eternity and eternity.
You cannot compare such things. You would concede (I hope) that the everlasting suffering of human beings is the most horrific and terrible concept that could ever happen to somebody, especially when you think of family members and (God forbid) infants. Isn’t that a horrible concept?
Yet, you don’t find it compelling that one verse out of 31,100+ verses ever mentions eternal and punishment in the same sentence when (according to your held belief) people (including maybe someone you know) will consigned to this place for all time in torment and pain according to God’s plan - which is supposedly revealed in one verse.
Oh, the humanity of it all! If such a place is true, it should’ve been stated from the first moment of history in dealing with Adam, Noah, Moses, Abraham, you and me. If it be true, you should be preaching to your neighbors and family 12 hours a day and proclaiming it from your rooftop. And you know what? So should God. But He didn’t.
Peace…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
I do not deny the afterlife at all. I believe that many places (including Rev. 22) tell us what the afterlife in heaven will be like. I don’t believe our finite minds can understand it all though. That’s why sometimes metaphors are used to describe things that we cannot know or understand unless they are compared to something else.
- Status