Why not Universal Reconciliation?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by steve » Sat Jan 09, 2016 3:56 pm

Perhaps its just me but you seem rather irate in your post. I have made no statement about the meaning of aionios in general, so why the outburst about there being no excuse for my ignorance?
Homer, do you not realize that you regularly use this antithesis argument in a way that only makes your point when using aionios to mean "endless"?

The antithesis argument is that the word must mean the same thing in its two uses in the antithesis. No one denies this. The only way it can be used to make your point against restorationism would be if you are insisting that aionios means "endless" in both appearances in Matthew 25:46. In other words, your argument, to be cogent, depends on the necessity of aionios meaning endless.

Since I assume that you know that this is only one of several possible meanings of aionios, it would seem disingenuous to make an argument that depends entirely upon this knowingly false assumption of the meaning. It has been pointed out numerous times that, if the word means "long-enduring" (as is most commonly suggested by modern Greek scholars), it would comfortably bear this meaning in both of its appearances in the verse. Thus, both the life and the punishment could be said to be "long-enduring" without any hint that they are equally long-enduring. I made this point in my book. You are welcome to try to refute it, if you think it possible.

Also, if the word aionios means "pertaining to the age" of the Messiah, as many evangelicals, including F.F. Bruce have argued, then it can equally apply to the life and to the punishment without a hint concerning the duration of either.

Unless one insists (ignorantly) that aionios must primarily or exclusively mean "unending," the argument which you have repeatedly made from Matthew 25:46 has no force whatsoever.

It also is not helpful to your point to keep emphasizing the fact that aionios was Matthew's translation of Jesus' words from the Aramaic. Unless we are doubting that Matthew used the proper word to translate Christ's words, the case concerning aionios remains unchanged.

In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word most commonly translated with aionios was olam. It is likely that Jesus used the word olam, and that Matthew, following common translational conventions, rendered it with aionios. But olam has a range of meaning similar to that of aionios (which is why the LXX translators made the translational choice to use aion and aionios to translate it). It means a very long time, which can include forever, but needn't.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Homer » Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:14 am

Hi Steve,

Not buying your argument.
The antithesis argument is that the word must mean the same thing in its two uses in the antithesis. No one denies this.
Agree so far.
The only way it can be used to make your point against restorationism would be if you are insisting that aionios means "endless" in both appearances in Matthew 25:46. In other words, your argument, to be cogent, depends on the necessity of aionios meaning endless.
It doesn't depend on the word exclusively meaning endless and never anything else. It depends on what ideas Jesus meant to convey, which was expressed by Matthew with his use of aionios.
It has been pointed out numerous times that, if the word means "long-enduring" (as is most commonly suggested by modern Greek scholars), it would comfortably bear this meaning in both of its appearances in the verse. Thus, both the life and the punishment could be said to be "long-enduring" without any hint that they are equally long-enduring.
Well, it could mean that if that was the idea Jesus meant to convey. Do you really think Jesus meant to leave any ambiguity in His words on the final judgment? Can you see that long-lasting is an ambiguous term?
If I wished to prove that Baptizo means immersion I could argue that because John the Baptist was baptizing "where there was much water" was proof that he required enough water to immerse. But if I am thirsty and someone hands me a gallon of water they have given me "much water". So the statement about "much water" is no proof at all because it is a relative term, as is "long-lasting". I like a particular brand of shoes because they are long lasting.
Also, if the word aionios means "pertaining to the age" of the Messiah, as many evangelicals, including F.F. Bruce have argued, then it can equally apply to the life and to the punishment without a hint concerning the duration of either.


So Jesus avoided any hint of the duration of our future state? Seems obvious to me He intended the opposite throughout His teachingsand the gospels used aionios to express His meaning.
Unless one insists (ignorantly) that aionios must primarily or exclusively mean "unending," the argument which you have repeatedly made from Matthew 25:46 has no force whatsoever.
I will insist that in the NT in the great majority of the cases it does mean that. It is used many times of the future life of the saints with our Lord. Do you know of any "modern Greek scholars" who think Paul wrote of the "long-lasting God"?

If Matthew did not mean to convey the same idea in both parts of Matthew 25:46 we have no antithesis. We know from the numerous statements Jesus made regarding eternal or everlasting life that He meant unending. You acknowledge as much in saying that this is proven by other words such as immortality. As much can be said regarding the fate of the lost when many words and figures refer to their destruction.

You, along with the universalists, are desperate for an argument to support your cause, although I'm sure you have given your best. I will leave you to have the last word for now.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by steve7150 » Sun Jan 10, 2016 12:29 pm

You, along with the universalists, are desperate for an argument to support your cause, although I'm sure you have given your best. I will leave you to have the last word for now.
User avatar
Homer Posts: 2081Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Top





Speaking only for myself , i'm not desperate in the least since there is much evidence salvation can occur after physical death and if true simply leads to a possibility of CU. Perhaps you could explain how you know so called Universalists are desperate because I missed this and i'm desperate to know how you discern this Homer?
Actually this verse really is the single best verse for ECT and if anyone believes "aionios" must mean eternal in this case i'm fine to agree to disagree as we shall all one day see what the weight of God's will that everyone s/b saved and come into knowledge of the truth means.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by steve » Sun Jan 10, 2016 12:38 pm

You, along with the universalists, are desperate for an argument to support your cause, although I'm sure you have given your best. I will leave you to have the last word for now.
It is interesting that you find my arguments to be in support of a "cause." Usually, a cause refers to some objective being sought. I can't imagine what objective you might attribute to me in this discussion, other than to clarify the meaning of a Greek word, since I am not an advocate of any view on hell, and do not care to persuade anyone of any such view.

If I have a "cause" it is to promote biblical literacy and clear thinking. Our discussions of Matthew 25:46 have demonstrated that you and others lack awareness of the meaning of the words attributed to Christ in that verse, and I have sought to redress that ignorance and promote clearer thinking.

If the meaning of aionios is as I have been saying, this does not weigh in favor of any particular view of hell, nor does it disprove the traditional view (which could be true regardless of the meaning of aionios in this particular verse). One thing my observations clearly demonstrate is that the verse cannot honestly be said to prove the traditional view.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Homer » Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:57 pm

Steve 7150,

You wrote:
Perhaps you could explain how you know so called Universalists are desperate because I missed this and i'm desperate to know how you discern this Homer?
Actually this verse really is the single best verse for ECT and if anyone believes "aionios" must mean eternal in this case i'm fine to agree to disagree as we shall all one day see what the weight of God's will that everyone s/b saved and come into knowledge of the truth means.
I intended to drop this for now but I will respond to your question. I believe it is desperate and harmful to argue that aionios, as used in the New Testament, is best translated as long-lasting, and that is the meaning when used by Jesus and the apostles where we find aionios in the scriptures. All things we know of that are described as long lasting come to an end. They are not eternal. The argument of the universalist strikes me as contrived.

When I asked for assurance of eternal life, in the scriptures, apart from aionios Steve replied:
You certainly are aware that there is a word "immortality" in scripture, and a phrase, "shall never die," which do not involve the word "aionios." If the word aionios never appeared in scripture, we would still have adequate scriptural testimony that salvation brings us into an unending life.
Surely Steve knows that the vast majority of Christians who think about "immortality" think of the soul being immortal which includes all those who go to hell. Otherwise there would be no traditional view of hell. Also the immortality of the soul is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church. So the word immortality provides little in the way of assurance of eternal life.

As for "shall never die" it certainly does involve the Greek word family aion/aionios. I assume Steve is quoting John 11:26. Here is Young's literal translation:

John 11:26 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

26. and every one who is living and believing in me shall not die -- to the age;


"Age" here is aiona so Steve's proof is actually dependent on our aion/aionios word family.

The meaning of aionios, translated "long-lasting" weakens the understanding and hope we have in an eternal future existence with our Lord and God and is thus harmful. And we certainly would not speak of a long-lasting God and Holy Spirit.

User avatar
jeremiah
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:58 pm
Location: Mount Carroll, IL
Contact:

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by jeremiah » Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:35 pm

Hello Jonathan,

I appreciate your caution, thank you, but it's not necessary—I've always been quite comfortable here :).
you wrote:... Was it a book, or a person, or an event that carried the day with you on this view?...
Probably all three. Like everyone else in Christ, I'm in process. About seven years ago I became convinced of Conditionalism and remained here fairly unmoved for about four years. During that time I read Edward Beecher's book on the history of retribution which gave a deeper appreciation, among other things as well, for the use and scope of the very word being argued over in this thread currently. I had in other studies learned about this controversy and so it was not some blinders coming off moment, this fact was easily assimilated into the Conditionalist framework as far as I was concerned. At the same time, I also saw how my Restorationist brothers assimilated the concept into their view, and in the least I began to see how their conclusions could emerge while I read the scriptures. Beecher himself was an Annihilationist as I later learned, an interesting fact IMO since it is tentmaker.org where I found his book.

About two and half years ago I was 'urged' by a brother on this forum to read NT Wright in a thread about salvation from sin/you guys are advocating works righteousness/no we're not/yes you are :). Thank you Doug. I've learned quite a lot from listening and reading NT Wright, and was thoroughly impressed from the start. The big picture of Christ in the cosmos he advocates coupled with something he and many others conclude from the gospel called restorative justice, gave me quite a nudge toward seeing the apokatastasis as much more far reaching than I had ever imagined. NT Wright is of course not a universalist, his view of hell is I think something like CS Lewis' view, though not identical. I think it's apparent on the whole he has been influenced greatly by Lewis, who was certainly influenced greatly by George MacDonald. So I'm not surprised at the unintentional impact his work had on me. (By the way Doug, you and I would still disagree on whether Paul's presentation and scope of justification in Romans precludes what I was arguing for in Romans 6 :) )

At this point I was still not persuaded of Restorationism being taught in the scriptures. My biggest hang up was the bible's presentation of the final judgement as death, and being a good conditionalist, I automatically and blindly, I think, assumed death to be the bible's particular emphasis of the final judgement.

Around the same time I started reading NT Wright, I also downloaded some works from George MacDonald. I would highly reccomend his Unspoken Sermons, but it was his book, The Hope of the Gospel that has had a greater impact on me. I found in MacDonald a most refreshingly holistic approach to the gospel. He is certainly not the only christian who showed me that God is not a set of logical tricks to be handled properly, but a loving father to know and be changed thereby, but it was in reading his works that I learned this most vividly.

Throughout this time I had also become a husband and father myself which certainly shaped my heart and mind regarding this topic and indeed all of life. Raising our daughters with my wife in a world that can be cruel beyond belief at times and then at others flash forth the very goodness God no doubt had in mind when he first formed us, is daunting at times to say the least, and if not for God enlarging it, almost too much for the heart at times to say the best. But I thank God he doesn't leave us overwhelmed in this groaning. Regardless of how we interpret the final judgement, we all maintain the blessed hope that God will finally restore all things by Jesus Christ. In the past couple years I've become convinced that the "all things" are all things.
you also wrote:... If you've already posted this somewhere else, I'll be happy to go read it. And if you'd rather not, I would understand that, too. I am asking only because I am intrigued, and mean you no criticism.
Until now, I haven't posted much on the forum in quite a while, and hadn't yet mentioned my change of position. And thanks again for your gracious approach, you'll fit in here quite well with that.
Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Paidion » Sun Jan 10, 2016 10:33 pm

Homer, I want to emphasize once again that the meaning of the Greek adjective "ἀιωνιος" (aiōnios) is totally unrelated to time. It means neither "eternal" nor "temporary" nor "for a particular period of time." It has been applied to God "aiōnios God." Clearly God is eternal. But the union of the facts that God is eternal and that God is aiōnios doesn't imply that "aiōnios" sometimes MEANS "eternal". For in the Septugint it has also been applied to the period of time that Jonah was in the belly of the fish. That fact doesn't imply that "aiōnios" sometimes MEANS "a three-day period." Josephus used the word to apply to the three-year period that Jonathan spent in prison. But that fact doesn't imply that "aiōnios" sometimes MEANS "a three-year period." In the Septuagint, the word is applied to the hills. Great hills last a long time, maybe thousands of years. But that fact doen't imply that "aiōnios" sometimes MEANS a period of thousands of years. The word doesn't MEAN any period of time, long or short, temporal or eternal. As I see it, it simply means "lasting". This word has no time significance other than that it applies to some indefinite period of time, long or short or even eternal.

It is interesting that most translators render the word as eternal in the following verse:
And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings. (Luke 16:9 NASB)
But what would Jesus have meant, if he had actually said "eternal dwellings"? Would He have been saying that if you make friends with money, the angels will receive you forever into a special eternal dwelling in heaven? Is that a special way of getting to heaven rather than the usual route which we find in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles? I think, rather, that Jesus was speaking of earthly matters here. If you make friends with money, then if you go broke in the future, some of these friends will receive you into their homes, possibly for a considerable period of time until you are back on your financial feet.

As for the following sentence,
And these [goats] will go away into aiōnios correction, but the righteous [sheep] into aiōnios life.” (Matt 25:46)
you have pointed out, Homer, that Jesus may have been speaking Aramaic, and so how do we know what word He used in that language? However, in recording His words, Matthew used the word "aiōnios." If Jesus had used an Aramaic word that meant "eternal," why wouldn't Matthew have used the adjective "αἰδιος" (aidios) instead? That word clearly means "eternal" and "eternal" only. "αἰδιος" is used for God's "eternal power and Deity" (Rom 1:20)

So my thought is that "aiōnios" fits that which Jesus intended, in order for it to apply to both the sheep and the goats. The sheep would have lasting life, and the goats would have lasting correction ("kolasis" means "correction"). It would be impossible to have "eternal correction" for in that case they would be in an eternal process, but would never actually be corrected.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by steve » Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:57 pm

Hi Homer,

You wrote:
All things we know of that are described as long lasting come to an end. They are not eternal.
Why would you say this? Is not God, and our final state "long-lasting"? Only if God did not last very long could you suggest this. Perhaps a synonym, like "enduring" would help you see it better. God is certainly "enduring,"—so is a brick wall, but not for the same length of time. Christians often speak in terms of having "enduring peace," or "enduring love." I generally understand this to be a reference to the fruit of the Spirit, which I believe to be everlasting. Maybe they don't mean this, but if they did, they would need no other word to express the thought.

To say that something is "enduring" is not to speculate about, or in any way address, its having an end. It may have an end, or it may not, but to know, you must find a different word than "enduring" to inform you of it.
Surely Steve knows that the vast majority of Christians who think about "immortality" think of the soul being immortal which includes all those who go to hell. Otherwise there would be no traditional view of hell. Also the immortality of the soul is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church. So the word immortality provides little in the way of assurance of eternal life.
I am not sure why you make this point. Have I ever concerned myself, in choosing doctrinal commitments, with the question of whatCatholics, or "the vast majority of Christians" think? Should we? Most think Mary was a perpetual virgin. I don't. do you? My case, which you seem to be attempting to answer, does not concern itself with what "the vast majority of Christians think" about immortality, but what we are told about the subject in scripture. The Bible clearly denied that unbelievers possess immortality (1 Tim.6:16; Rom.2:7). If we are told that God grants immortality to His people, we certainly have grounds to believe that this refers to unending life—since that is what immortality means.

On the other hand, if we had no assurance at all that our future state were to be unending, I don't know why that should have any impact on our Christian lives or preaching. Jesus would still be who He is, and equally worthy of our loyalty.

JonathanVaughan
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:21 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by JonathanVaughan » Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:47 pm

Jeremiah,

Thank you for your reply, it speaks right to my query. I think I will start with George MacDonald. I really appreciate this recommendation.

Speaking more to the original question of this thread - why not Universal Reconciliation? - and speaking to you, my reservations about UR don't have so much to do with the arguments and convictions of those who hold this view so much as a personal (but strong) bias I have concerning a bad experience I once had with a prominent proponent of UR. Of course this does not discount the view itself, and those who hold the traditional view can also behave poorly. You, however, did not make the mistake of equating UR with your faith; from what you posted your faith seems genuine and Christ-centered.

crgfstr1
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:55 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by crgfstr1 » Sun May 29, 2016 2:43 pm

Today I happened to read:
 Timothy 10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
I myself am still undecided on this topic. I haven't yet read Steve's books. I hope to but don't think it would change how I live my daily life. I still have lots to sort out on things that will change the way I lead my daily life to take care of first. Hopefully when I get more of those things sorted out I can seek more truth in this area.

If properly translated this seems to clearly point to the UR position. It got me thinking is there any place where either of the other two views are stated that clearly? Even something like the wages of sin is death seems pretty clear until you combine it with Jesus's statement "Let the dead bury the dead". Maybe even death doesn't mean what we typically think. Aren't all those who aren't yet saved currently dead?

I think there is plenty to fear both of the consequences of sin in ones earthly life as well as those of the lake of fire. The easiest way to learn God's lesson is to listen to him and believe what he says and do it. Those with faith get the help of the Holy Spirit to lessen the consequence of sin in our lives (by reducing the sin as much as our faith allows). We also get to bypass the lake of fire. I think this is true regardless of the 3 views. Right? This could be the specially those that believe part.

I see the UR position as strengthening the act of what Jesus suffered on the cross. I am starting to think that it doesn't weaken any of the other lessons of the bible if we keep in mind how bad sin is for us and how much pain it causes God and others. While the message those who seek to save their lives will lose it but those who give up their lives will be saved is probably a two part message. There is the obvious give up your earthly desires and let God live through you via the Holy Spirit. I think too though it means "don't do things seeking salvation". Do things because you love God and you love the people he created for the glory of God. If you do good things seeking salvation you missed the message. You can't save yourself. Only God can save people and already did from God's perspective (or already didn't save some if one other two views is correct).

Fear is the beginning of wisdom but it isn't wisdom. It is what makes us question and leads us toward the right answer. It is also clear we aren't to fear but trust in God. Maybe we first fear, seek, find, and are freed from fear then by trusting in God.

It is clear that we shouldn't be upset that at the end of the day we get paid the same thing having worked all day as those who only worked the last hour. This certainly means we should be pleased seeing some one in heaven who came to faith on his death bed (like the man on the cross) even if we lived our entire lives in faith and as Godly as we could. Doesn't it warm your heart when you do something out of love for another? Isn't life easier when walking in the Holy Spirit? Isn't that enough reward? The man on the cross received fewer or these types of rewards. Why too couldn't it apply to someone who only came to faith in the lake of fire? They died fearing death. The man on the cross didn't.

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”