THE FALSE TEACHINGS OF UNIVERSALISM - BEWARE!

[LoveGodsWord]

Really? Please explain.

The explanation has already been provided in the post you are only part quoting. What is it you did not understand? (please read post # 761 linked).

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Your explanation still makes no sense based on your reply. You stated that Rev 22:1-10 is John's vision of what is to come. Thus vs.14 & 15 happen after the vision has been completed. As a result of that completed vision, the saints are rewarded and the wicked are punished as described in vs. 14 & 15.

The completed picture is that the saints are now living happily ever after in the new Jerusalem while the sinners outside the city, in the the lake of fire, are eternally condemned to either punishment or annihilation. So far, so good. However:

As proof you quote Rev 22:14:BLESSED ARE THEY THAT DO HIS COMMANDMENTS, THAT THEY MAY HAVE RIGHT TO THE TREE OF LIFE, AND MAY ENTER IN THROUGH THE GATES INTO THE CITY.

The big problem is that that is not how the verse reads. It is an INACCURATE translation. Instead v.14 properly reads:
Blessed are those washing their robes, that their right will be to the tree of life, and they shall enter into the city by the gates. (BLB) As I wrote earlier pay attention to the participle and verb tenses.
You have stated that the vision is completed and consequently the saints have received their reward and already dwell in the new Jerusalem. How then can v.14 be descriptive of the saints? The prophecy has been fulfilled. The saints are already in the city while the sinners in the LOF are at the same time outside the city. The saints have already kept the commands and their faith in Jesus per Rev 14:12. They have washed their robes. Thus the saints cannot be the ones being referred to in v.14. The only group yet having to wash their robes/do the commandments are those in the LOF; thus v.14 refers to them and them alone. Do you care to explain why you use an inaccurate English translation to justify your belief?

Your claims here are nonsense dear friend as you agree with the context I have provided that shows your earlier claims are in error. No your new claims is in relation to the translations which if you remember I partly discussed in an earlier post when dicussing the verb tenses including the participle tense of plynontes of REVELATION 22:14 (see post # 533 linked).

In that post we looked at the two translations and I stated I did not mind each translation but was able to show that the translation you offered "wash their robes" does not match the verb tense to ongoing or continuing where as "do his commandments" fulfills this use of the scriptures within the Koine Greek application to an ongoing or continuing act of obedience. A more detailed response is provided in the post # 533 linked. I suggest you re-read it.

To further what was provided in the linked post above I would like to add this which may be helpful to the discussion..

Most modern versions, having followed the NA/UBS Greek text, replace "do his commandments" with "wash their robes". This NA/UBS reading is from the Greek manuscripts Aleph, Alexandrinus, 1006, 1841, 2050, 2053, 2062, and the Church fathers, Pseudo-Athanasius, Ambrose, Fulgentius, and Apringius. The KJV reading, following the Textus Receptus, is supported by the majority of Byzantine manuscripts, including 205, 209, 1611supp, 1854, 2030, 2329, 2377, and uncial 046. It is also cited by the Church fathers, Andrew, Tertullian, Cyprian, Caesarius and Beatus. For example, Cyprian from 250AD says, "Item illic : Ego sum a et o, primus et novissimus, initium et finis. Felices eos qui faciunt praecepta ejus, ut sit potestas eorum super lignum vitae" (Testimoniorum Libri Tres Adversus Judaeos, Liber II, Cap. XXII). The KJV reading, being supported by 046 from the 10th century, is predated by only two manuscripts which support the NA/UBS reading. The KJV reading therefore is backed by strong external evidence.

This textual variant most likely arose from a careless scribe as the two variants share most of the same letters. Compare the following (same letters are underlined):

• "οι ποιουντες τας εντολας αυτου" (Textus Receptus)

• "οἱ πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν" (NA/UBS)

Although "οἱ πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν" is in earlier extant copies, these early manuscripts are demonstrably full of careless transcription. Sinaiticus has "ιρις" for "θριξ" (Revelation 10:1), "πρωτα" for "προβατα" (Revelation 21:4), and "καινα" for "κενα" (Revelation 21:5), making for some awkward readings that are unanimously rejected. Knowing that early manuscripts had such errors, it is certainly reasonable to suppose that an early scribe mistook "οι ποιουντες τας εντολας αυτου" for "οἱ πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν."

The Textus Receptus reading makes more sense. The word "wash" in the NA/UBS reading is a present participle in the Greek, signifying an ongoing action. Hence the washing of robes is expressed to be an ongoing action, not a single occurrence. However, this notion of ongoing washing is at odds with what the Bible says elsewhere about being washed. Revelation 7:14 says that those who came out of great tribulation "washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." "Washed" is in the aorist tense which does not necessarily suggest ongoing action. This makes sense because, as is revealed by this verse, the washing of robes symbolizes the cleansing by the blood of Christ. Such an act is a completed event at the time of conversion. Revelation 1:5 says that Christ "washed us from our sins in his own blood". To "do his commandments", however, is an ongoing act even in other passages of scripture ("keep his commandments": 1 John 2:3, 3:22, 5:2-3, Revelation 12:17, 14:12). Revelation 22:14 switches "keep" to "do" because the immediate context contrasts the "doing" of immoral conduct with the "doing" of godly conduct (Revelation 22:11-15). With respect to the criticism that the Textus Receptus reading supports a work-based salvation, the reading does not support a work based salvation any more than other passages of John in the Gospel and the Epistle which call upon true Christians to keep Christ's commandments. Consider 1 John 3:23-24: "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." (Source kjv today)

So no dear friend your claims are not true. The context provided determines interpretation and this is what you have left out of yours.

Hope this helps.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That is false understanding of Universal Restoration. Universal Restoration is COMPLETELY dependent on "the blood of Jesus".

Your missing the point again. If that were true how do you reconcile the fact that the wicked are saved without the BLOOD of Christ?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

If God WANTED everyone to have salvation, did He succeed or fail?

DID GOD FAIL?

According to the scriptures God is not willing that anyone should perish but that all should hear his Voice (the Word) and come to repentance. Sadly many harden their hearts, and close their eyes and ears to hearing the Word of God and JESUS stand on the outside standing at the door and knocking on the heart waiting for those who close their door to open it. If they open it he will come inside and sup and they will sup with him and he with them. All things are possible with God for those who have opened the door and believe and follow the true Shepard. For all those who do not open the door JESUS will say depart from me you who work iniquity I never knew you. Do you know these scriptures dear friend? If you do what do you think they mean?

CONCLUSION...

JESUS did not fail as he has made provision through his life, death and resurrection for ALL MANKIND. Sadly many will choose not hold out the faith and reject the gift of God's dear son and count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing and choose their lot with the devil in the lake of fire. So for these reasons (all scripture btw let me know if you want the references). So your claims to God failing because everyone did not receive salvation is nonsense. God has made provision for everyones salvation. It says no where in the scriptures that everyone would choose to receive God's free gift. In fact the scriptures teach most would not.

DOES UNIVERSALISM FAIL?

It is Universalism however that teaches God has failed. How so? Universalism teaches that God fails in setting standards for right and wrong that no one can follow so God just gives up and gives everyone a free pass to heaven and does not follow through on his justice and judgements for sin (death) and makes a mockery of the death of God's dear son and counts the blood of the covenant an unholy thing. This is where Universalism teaches God has failed

CONCLUSION...

Universalism teaches God has failed and makes a mockery of the life, death and resurrecrtion of JESUS recieving God's justice and judgement for the sins of the world. Allowing mankind to continue in sin and get a free pass to heaven which is not biblical. So according to Universalism let's all live like the devil today we can always have a second chance when JESUS returns. Let follow the gambling lady of second chances. Yet there is no second chances when JESUS returns to destroy the wicked and put an end to all sin and death. Universalism is indeed the doctrine of devils and polluted waters of broken cisterns.

Hope this helps

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I am not pretending we can---universalism says so!! Just a walk through the lake of fire and our are cleansed of sin---therefore---Jesus was never needed, just the lake of fire according to you! JESUS IS WHAT SAVES! WE EITHER SUBMIT, REPANT AND OVERCOME THROUGH HIM, OR THE LAKE OF FIRE WILL DO IT'S JOB AND REMOVE THE SINNER DOWN TO ASHES. THEIR CHOICE.

Yep it is actually a doctrine of works based salvation for the wicked who remain wicked after the second coming. Universalism actually teaches two paths to salvation when JESUS and the bible only teaches one way and that is through the BLOOD of Christ and repentance from sin through accepting God's free gift of Grace through faith.

 

[FineLinen]

Arr but you are the ones claiming God has failed.

Surely you gest!

Your dogma #7 from your beliefs loses the vast vast majority of Fathers ta pavnte.

On the other hand, the Restitution of the ALL is 100% successful!

The entire children of Adam one "made sinners", transformed by the Last Adam's work of reconciliation into "made righteous."

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Surely you gest! Your dogma #7 from your beliefs loses the vast vast majority of Fathers ta pavnte.
On the other hand, the Restitution of the ALL is 100% successful! The entire children of Adam one "made sinners", transformed by the Last Adam's work of reconciliation into "made righteous."

There is no gesting in the Word of God dear Fine and God is not mocked. They are the living waters of life that clear away the fog of confusion caused by the polluted waters of broken cisterns that the gambling lady of second chances gives to those who drink her waters. There is no second chances to gamble away your life dear friend after the second coming when JESUS comes 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.

 

[FineLinen]

Lover: You take yourself far too seriously.

Dr. Marvin Vincent

olethron aionion in 2 Th. 1:9:

‘Aion, transliterated aeon, is a period of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle (peri ouravou, i. 9,15) says: “The period which includes the whole time of one’s life is called the aeon of each one.” Hence it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one’s life (aion) is said to leave him or to consume away (Iliad v. 685; Odyssey v. 160). It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millenium; the mythological period before the beginnings of history. The word has not “a stationary and mechanical value” (De Quincey). It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many aeons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities.

There is one aeon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow’s life, another of an oak’s life. The length of the aeon depends on the subject to which it is attached.

It is sometimes translated world; world represents a period or a series of periods of time. See Matt 12:32; 13:40,49; Luke 1:70; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6; Eph 1:21. Similarly oi aiones, the worlds, the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world. 1 Cor 2:7; 10:11; Heb 1:2; 9:26; 11:3. The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity.

It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come.

It does not mean something endless or everlasting. To deduce that meaning from its relation to aei is absurd; for, apart from the fact that the meaning of a word is not definitely fixed by its derivation, aei does not signify endless duration. When the writer of the Pastoral Epistles quotes the saying that the Cretans are always (aei) liars (Tit. 1:12), he surely does not mean that the Cretans will go on lying to all eternity. See also Acts 7:51; 2 Cor. 4:11; 6:10; Heb 3:10; 1 Pet. 3:15. Aei means habitually or continually within the limit of the subject’s life. In our colloquial dialect everlastingly is used in the same way. “The boy is everlastingly tormenting me to buy him a drum.”

In the New Testament the history of the world is conceived as developed through a succession of aeons. A series of such aeons precedes the introduction of a new series inaugurated by the Christian dispensation, and the end of the world and the second coming of Christ are to mark the beginning of another series. Eph. 1:21; 2:7; 3:9,21; 1 Cor 10:11; compare Heb. 9:26. He includes the series of aeons in one great aeon, ‘o aion ton aionon, the aeon of the aeons (Eph. 3:21); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews describe the throne of God as enduring unto the aeon of the aeons (Heb 1:8). The plural is also used, aeons of the aeons, signifying all the successive periods which make up the sum total of the ages collectively. Rom. 16:27; Gal. 1:5; Philip. 4:20, etc. This plural phrase is applied by Paul to God only.

The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting.

They may acquire that sense by their connotation, as, on the other hand, aidios, which means everlasting, has its meaning limited to a given point of time in Jude 6. Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods. Thus the phrase eis ton aiona, habitually rendered forever, is often used of duration which is limited in the very nature of the case. See, for a few out of many instances, LXX, Exod 21:6; 29:9; 32:13; Josh. 14:9 1 Sam 8:13; Lev. 25:46; Deut. 15:17; 1 Chron. 28:4;. See also Matt. 21:19; John 13:8 1 Cor. 8:13. The same is true of aionios. Out of 150 instances in LXX, four-fifths imply limited duration. For a few instances see Gen. 48:4; Num. 10:8; 15:15; Prov. 22:28; Jonah 2:6; Hab. 3:6; Isa. 61:17.

Words which are habitually applied to things temporal or material cannot carry in themselves the sense of endlessness. Even when applied to God, we are not forced to render aionios everlasting.

Of course the life of God is endless; but the question is whether, in describing God as aionios, it was intended to describe the duration of his being, or whether some different and larger idea was not contemplated. That God lives longer then men, and lives on everlastingly, and has lived everlastingly, are, no doubt, great and significant facts; yet they are not the dominant or the most impressive facts in God’s relations to time.

God’s eternity does not stand merely or chiefly for a scale of length. It is not primarily a mathematical but a moral fact. The relations of God to time include and imply far more than the bare fact of endless continuance. They carry with them the fact that God transcends time; works on different principles and on a vaster scale than the wisdom of time provides; oversteps the conditions and the motives of time; marshals the successive aeons from a point outside of time, on lines which run out into his own measureless cycles, and for sublime moral ends which the creature of threescore and ten years cannot grasp and does not even suspect.

There is a word for everlasting if that idea is demanded.

That aidios occurs rarely in the New Testament and in LXX does not prove that its place was taken by aionios. It rather goes to show that less importance was attached to the bare idea of everlastingness than later theological thought has given it. Paul uses the word once, in Rom. 1:20, where he speaks of “the everlasting power and divinity of God.” In Rom. 16:26 he speaks of the eternal God (tou aioniou theou); but that he does not mean the everlasting God is perfectly clear from the context. He has said that “the mystery” has been kept in silence in times eternal (chronois aioniois), by which he does not mean everlasting times, but the successive aeons which elapsed before Christ was proclaimed. God therefore is described as the God of the aeons, the God who pervaded and controlled those periods before the incarnation. To the same effect is the title ‘o basileus ton aionon, the King of the aeons, applied to God in 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 15:3; compare Tob. 13:6, 10.

The phrase pro chronon aionion, before eternal times (2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2), cannot mean before everlasting times. To say that God bestowed grace on men, or promised them eternal life before endless times, would be absurd. The meaning is of old, as Luke 1:70. The grace and the promise were given in time, but far back in the ages, before the times of reckoning the aeons.

Zoe aionios eternal life, which occurs 42 times in N. T., but not in LXX, is not endless life, but life pertaining to a certain age or aeon, or continuing during that aeon. I repeat, life may be endless. The life in union with Christ is endless, but the fact is not expressed by aionios. Kolasis aionios, rendered everlasting punishment (Matt. 25:46), is the punishment peculiar to an aeon other then that in which Christ is speaking. In some cases zoe aionios does not refer specifically to the life beyond time, but rather to the aeon or dispensation of Messiah which succeeds the legal dispensation. See Matt. 19:16; John 5:39. John says that zoe aionios is the present possession of those who believe on the Son of God, John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47,54. The Father’s commandment is zoe aionios, John 1250; to know the only true God and Jesus Christ is zoe aionios. John 17:3.

Bishop Westcott very justly says, commenting upon the terms used by John to describe life under different aspects: “In considering these phrases it is necessary to premise that 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. We have indeed no powers to grasp the idea except through forms and images of sense. These must be used, but we must not transfer them as realities to another order.”

Thus, while aionios carries the idea of time, though not of endlessness, there belongs to it also, more or less, a sense of quality. Its character is ethical rather than mathematical.

The deepest significance of the life beyond time lies, not in endlessness, but in the moral quality of the aeon into which the life passes. It is comparatively unimportant whether or not the rich fool, when his soul was required of him (Luke 12:20), entered upon a state that was endless. The principal, the tremendous fact, as Christ unmistakably puts it, was that, in the new aeon, the motives, the aims, the conditions, the successes and awards of time counted for nothing. In time, his barns and their contents were everything; the soul was nothing. In the new life the soul was first and everything, and the barns and storehouses nothing. The bliss of the sanctified does not consist primarily in its endlessness, but in the nobler moral conditions of the new aeon, the years of the holy and eternal God. Duration is a secondary idea. When it enters it enters as an accompaniment and outgrowth of moral conditions.

In the present passage it is urged that olethron destruction points to an unchangeable, irremediable, and endless condition.

If this be true, if olethros is extinction, then the passage teaches the annihilation of the wicked, in which case the adjective aionios is superfluous, since extinction is final, and excludes the idea of duration. But olethros does not always mean destruction or extinction. Take the kindred verb apollumi to destroy, put an end to, or in the middle voice, to be lost, to perish. Peter says “the world being deluged with water, perished (apoleto, 2 Pet. 3:6); but the world did not become extinct, it was renewed. In Heb. 1:11,12, quoted from Ps. 102, we read concerning the heavens and the earth as compared with the eternity of God, “they shall perish” (apolountai). But the perishing is only preparatory to change and renewal. “They shall be changed” (allagesontai). Compare Isa. 51:6,16; 65:22; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1. Similarly, “the Son of man came to save that which was lost” (apololos), Luke 19:10. Jesus charged his apostles to go to the lost (apololota) sheep of the house of Israel, Matt. 10:6, compare 15:24, “He that shall lose (apolese) his life for my sake shall find it,” Matt. 16:25. Compare Luke 15:6,9,32.

In this passage, the word destruction is qualified.

It is “destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power,” at his second coming, in the new aeon. In other words, it is the severance, at a given point of time, of those who obey not the gospel from the presence and the glory of Christ. Aionios may therefore describe this severance as continuing during the millenial aeon between Christ’s coming and the final judgment; as being for the wicked prolonged throughout that aeon and characteristic of it, or it may describe the severance as characterising or enduring through a period or aeon succeeding the final judgment, the extent of which period is not defined. In neither case is aionios, to be interpreted as everlasting or endless.

If we cross-reference olethros with 1Co. 5:5, with its derivative olothrūo in He. 11:28, we will see that utter annihilation does not fit. For example, take the extermination of the “first-born” of Egypt (He. 11:28): Were all these innocent babies utterly annihilated before God? Also, though Satan destroys the flesh of the saved, we know God restores it in the resurrection (1Co. 5:5). Even were God to utterly annihilate someone, has He not the power to restore (De. 32:39; 1Sa. 2:6; Mt. 3:9)?

Also, if we cross-reference olethros with 1Co. 5:5, with its derivative olothrūo in He. 11:28, we will see that utter annihilation does not fit. For example, take the extermination of the “first-born” of Egypt (He. 11:28): Were all these innocent babies utterly annihilated before God? Also, though Satan destroys the flesh of the saved, we know God restores it in the resurrection (1Co. 5:5).

Even were God to utterly annihilate someone, has He not the power to restore (De. 32:39; 1Sa. 2:6; Mt. 3:9)?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Lover: You take yourself far too seriously.

Dr. Marvin Vincent

olethron aionion in 2Th. 1:9:

‘Aion, transliterated aeon, is a period of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle (peri ouravou, i. 9,15) says: “The period which includes the whole time of one’s life is called the aeon of each one.” Hence it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one’s life (aion) is said to leave him or to consume away (Iliad v. 685; Odyssey v. 160). It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millenium; the mythological period before the beginnings of history. The word has not “a stationary and mechanical value” (De Quincey). It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many aeons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities.

There is one aeon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow’s life, another of an oak’s life. The length of the aeon depends on the subject to which it is attached.

It is sometimes translated world; world represents a period or a series of periods of time. See Matt 12:32; 13:40,49; Luke 1:70; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6; Eph 1:21. Similarly oi aiones, the worlds, the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world. 1 Cor 2:7; 10:11; Heb 1:2; 9:26; 11:3. The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity.

It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come.

It does not mean something endless or everlasting. To deduce that meaning from its relation to aei is absurd; for, apart from the fact that the meaning of a word is not definitely fixed by its derivation, aei does not signify endless duration. When the writer of the Pastoral Epistles quotes the saying that the Cretans are always (aei) liars (Tit. 1:12), he surely does not mean that the Cretans will go on lying to all eternity. See also Acts 7:51; 2 Cor. 4:11; 6:10; Heb 3:10; 1 Pet. 3:15. Aei means habitually or continually within the limit of the subject’s life. In our colloquial dialect everlastingly is used in the same way. “The boy is everlastingly tormenting me to buy him a drum.”

In the New Testament the history of the world is conceived as developed through a succession of aeons. A series of such aeons precedes the introduction of a new series inaugurated by the Christian dispensation, and the end of the world and the second coming of Christ are to mark the beginning of another series. Eph. 1:21; 2:7; 3:9,21; 1 Cor 10:11; compare Heb. 9:26. He includes the series of aeons in one great aeon, ‘o aion ton aionon, the aeon of the aeons (Eph. 3:21); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews describe the throne of God as enduring unto the aeon of the aeons (Heb 1:8). The plural is also used, aeons of the aeons, signifying all the successive periods which make up the sum total of the ages collectively. Rom. 16:27; Gal. 1:5; Philip. 4:20, etc. This plural phrase is applied by Paul to God only.

The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting.

They may acquire that sense by their connotation, as, on the other hand, aidios, which means everlasting, has its meaning limited to a given point of time in Jude 6. Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods. Thus the phrase eis ton aiona, habitually rendered forever, is often used of duration which is limited in the very nature of the case. See, for a few out of many instances, LXX, Exod 21:6; 29:9; 32:13; Josh. 14:9 1 Sam 8:13; Lev. 25:46; Deut. 15:17; 1 Chron. 28:4;. See also Matt. 21:19; John 13:8 1 Cor. 8:13. The same is true of aionios. Out of 150 instances in LXX, four-fifths imply limited duration. For a few instances see Gen. 48:4; Num. 10:8; 15:15; Prov. 22:28; Jonah 2:6; Hab. 3:6; Isa. 61:17.

Words which are habitually applied to things temporal or material cannot carry in themselves the sense of endlessness. Even when applied to God, we are not forced to render aionios everlasting.

Of course the life of God is endless; but the question is whether, in describing God as aionios, it was intended to describe the duration of his being, or whether some different and larger idea was not contemplated. That God lives longer then men, and lives on everlastingly, and has lived everlastingly, are, no doubt, great and significant facts; yet they are not the dominant or the most impressive facts in God’s relations to time.

God’s eternity does not stand merely or chiefly for a scale of length. It is not primarily a mathematical but a moral fact. The relations of God to time include and imply far more than the bare fact of endless continuance. They carry with them the fact that God transcends time; works on different principles and on a vaster scale than the wisdom of time provides; oversteps the conditions and the motives of time; marshals the successive aeons from a point outside of time, on lines which run out into his own measureless cycles, and for sublime moral ends which the creature of threescore and ten years cannot grasp and does not even suspect.

There is a word for everlasting if that idea is demanded.

That aidios occurs rarely in the New Testament and in LXX does not prove that its place was taken by aionios. It rather goes to show that less importance was attached to the bare idea of everlastingness than later theological thought has given it. Paul uses the word once, in Rom. 1:20, where he speaks of “the everlasting power and divinity of God.” In Rom. 16:26 he speaks of the eternal God (tou aioniou theou); but that he does not mean the everlasting God is perfectly clear from the context. He has said that “the mystery” has been kept in silence in times eternal (chronois aioniois), by which he does not mean everlasting times, but the successive aeons which elapsed before Christ was proclaimed. God therefore is described as the God of the aeons, the God who pervaded and controlled those periods before the incarnation. To the same effect is the title ‘o basileus ton aionon, the King of the aeons, applied to God in 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 15:3; compare Tob. 13:6, 10.

The phrase pro chronon aionion, before eternal times (2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2), cannot mean before everlasting times. To say that God bestowed grace on men, or promised them eternal life before endless times, would be absurd. The meaning is of old, as Luke 1:70. The grace and the promise were given in time, but far back in the ages, before the times of reckoning the aeons.

Zoe aionios eternal life, which occurs 42 times in N. T., but not in LXX, is not endless life, but life pertaining to a certain age or aeon, or continuing during that aeon. I repeat, life may be endless. The life in union with Christ is endless, but the fact is not expressed by aionios. Kolasis aionios, rendered everlasting punishment (Matt. 25:46), is the punishment peculiar to an aeon other then that in which Christ is speaking. In some cases zoe aionios does not refer specifically to the life beyond time, but rather to the aeon or dispensation of Messiah which succeeds the legal dispensation. See Matt. 19:16; John 5:39. John says that zoe aionios is the present possession of those who believe on the Son of God, John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47,54. The Father’s commandment is zoe aionios, John 1250; to know the only true God and Jesus Christ is zoe aionios. John 17:3.

Bishop Westcott very justly says, commenting upon the terms used by John to describe life under different aspects: “In considering these phrases it is necessary to premise that 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. We have indeed no powers to grasp the idea except through forms and images of sense. These must be used, but we must not transfer them as realities to another order.”

Thus, while aionios carries the idea of time, though not of endlessness, there belongs to it also, more or less, a sense of quality. Its character is ethical rather than mathematical.

The deepest significance of the life beyond time lies, not in endlessness, but in the moral quality of the aeon into which the life passes. It is comparatively unimportant whether or not the rich fool, when his soul was required of him (Luke 12:20), entered upon a state that was endless. The principal, the tremendous fact, as Christ unmistakably puts it, was that, in the new aeon, the motives, the aims, the conditions, the successes and awards of time counted for nothing. In time, his barns and their contents were everything; the soul was nothing. In the new life the soul was first and everything, and the barns and storehouses nothing. The bliss of the sanctified does not consist primarily in its endlessness, but in the nobler moral conditions of the new aeon, the years of the holy and eternal God. Duration is a secondary idea. When it enters it enters as an accompaniment and outgrowth of moral conditions.

In the present passage it is urged that olethron destruction points to an unchangeable, irremediable, and endless condition.

If this be true, if olethros is extinction, then the passage teaches the annihilation of the wicked, in which case the adjective aionios is superfluous, since extinction is final, and excludes the idea of duration. But olethros does not always mean destruction or extinction. Take the kindred verb apollumi to destroy, put an end to, or in the middle voice, to be lost, to perish. Peter says “the world being deluged with water, perished (apoleto, 2 Pet. 3:6); but the world did not become extinct, it was renewed. In Heb. 1:11,12, quoted from Ps. 102, we read concerning the heavens and the earth as compared with the eternity of God, “they shall perish” (apolountai). But the perishing is only preparatory to change and renewal. “They shall be changed” (allagesontai). Compare Isa. 51:6,16; 65:22; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1. Similarly, “the Son of man came to save that which was lost” (apololos), Luke 19:10. Jesus charged his apostles to go to the lost (apololota) sheep of the house of Israel, Matt. 10:6, compare 15:24, “He that shall lose (apolese) his life for my sake shall find it,” Matt. 16:25. Compare Luke 15:6,9,32.

In this passage, the word destruction is qualified.

It is “destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power,” at his second coming, in the new aeon. In other words, it is the severance, at a given point of time, of those who obey not the gospel from the presence and the glory of Christ. Aionios may therefore describe this severance as continuing during the millenial aeon between Christ’s coming and the final judgment; as being for the wicked prolonged throughout that aeon and characteristic of it, or it may describe the severance as characterising or enduring through a period or aeon succeeding the final judgment, the extent of which period is not defined. In neither case is aionios, to be interpreted as everlasting or endless.

If we cross-reference olethros with 1Co. 5:5, with its derivative olothrūo in He. 11:28, we will see that utter annihilation does not fit. For example, take the extermination of the “first-born” of Egypt (He. 11:28): Were all these innocent babies utterly annihilated before God? Also, though Satan destroys the flesh of the saved, we know God restores it in the resurrection (1Co. 5:5). Even were God to utterly annihilate someone, has He not the power to restore (De. 32:39; 1Sa. 2:6; Mt. 3:9)?

Also, if we cross-reference olethros with 1Co. 5:5, with its derivative olothrūo in He. 11:28, we will see that utter annihilation does not fit. For example, take the extermination of the “first-born” of Egypt (He. 11:28): Were all these innocent babies utterly annihilated before God? Also, though Satan destroys the flesh of the saved, we know God restores it in the resurrection (1Co. 5:5). Even were God to utterly annihilate someone, has He not the power to restore (De. 32:39; 1Sa. 2:6; Mt. 3:9)?

Hmmm I do not take myself too seriously dear Fine. I take the Word of God seriously as my salvation depends on it and I have learned to believe and loveGodsWord because he has changed my heart to love and follow him. May I ask dear friend what has your cut & paste from the words of website you spam here have to do with any thing I have shared with you? - Yep absolutely nothing sadly.

 

[agapelove]

Hello! This will be my first post on this forum as I am a new member. This was the first discussion that caught my eye so I will just jump in with my two cents in case anyone has the heart to listen.

I am here to take part in this friendly discussion but honestly I did not read the past 40 pages of this entire post. However, based off your very first post I can tell that you are gravely mistaken about the theology of universalism. While we do hope that all men will be ultimately reconciled to God, we are not dismissing the consequences of sin. God is just and ALL people will have to own up to their sins. The God that is wrathful and just CAN CO-EXIST with the God that loves unconditionally, whose patience endures forever.

Mercy TRIUMPHS over judgement, but it does not replace it.

I would like to share a quote by Hermann-Josef Lauter, he states

"Will it really be all men who allow themselves to be reconciled? No theology or prophecy can answer this question. But love hopes all things (1 Cor 13:7). It cannot do otherwise than to hope for the reconciliation of all men in Christ. Such unlimited hope is, from the Christian standpoint, not only permitted but commanded."

 

[Saint Steven]

My brother Steve: They can diss me till the cows come home, perhaps after they make it home. I do appreciate you arising to grrrr at those who do not appreciate the wonderful saint F.L. is (LOL).

The purpose of the cross is to do away with you, blessed riddance!

I got ur six, Cap'n.

 

[Saint Steven]

Hello! This will be my first post on this forum as I am a new member. This was the first discussion that caught my eye so I will just jump in with my two cents in case anyone has the heart to listen.

I am here to take part in this friendly discussion but honestly I did not read the past 40 pages of this entire post. However, based off your very first post I can tell that you are gravely mistaken about the theology of universalism. While we do hope that all men will be ultimately reconciled to God, we are not dismissing the consequences of sin. God is just and ALL people will have to own up to their sins. The God that is wrathful and just CAN CO-EXIST with the God that loves unconditionally, whose patience endures forever.

Mercy TRIUMPHS over judgement, but it does not replace it.

I would like to share a quote by Hermann-Josef Lauter, he states

"Will it really be all men who allow themselves to be reconciled? No theology or prophecy can answer this question. But love hopes all things (1 Cor 13:7). It cannot do otherwise than to hope for the reconciliation of all men in Christ. Such unlimited hope is, from the Christian standpoint, not only permitted but commanded."

Welcome. You're off to a great start. (winner)

 

[Lazarus Short]

Hello! This will be my first post on this forum as I am a new member. This was the first discussion that caught my eye so I will just jump in with my two cents in case anyone has the heart to listen.

I am here to take part in this friendly discussion but honestly I did not read the past 40 pages of this entire post. However, based off your very first post I can tell that you are gravely mistaken about the theology of universalism. While we do hope that all men will be ultimately reconciled to God, we are not dismissing the consequences of sin. God is just and ALL people will have to own up to their sins. The God that is wrathful and just CAN CO-EXIST with the God that loves unconditionally, whose patience endures forever.

Mercy TRIUMPHS over judgement, but it does not replace it.

I would like to share a quote by Hermann-Josef Lauter, he states

"Will it really be all men who allow themselves to be reconciled? No theology or prophecy can answer this question. But love hopes all things (1 Cor 13:7). It cannot do otherwise than to hope for the reconciliation of all men in Christ. Such unlimited hope is, from the Christian standpoint, not only permitted but commanded."

Welcome to the thread and to the forum! I hope the best for you here.

 

[ClementofA]

If that were true how do you reconcile the fact that the wicked are saved without the BLOOD of Christ?

That's a false doctrine. The wicked are - not - saved without the blood of Christ.

Notice the "blood" here in v.20:

Col.1:16 For by Him ***ALL*** was created that are in HEAVEN and that are on EARTH, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All was created through Him and for Him.
20 and by Him to reconcile ***ALL*** to Himself, by Him, whether on EARTH or in HEAVEN, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

 

[FineLinen]

Hmmm I do not take myself too seriously dear Fine. I take the Word of God seriously as my salvation depends on in

You poor dear Lover: Your salvation & every one of us is dependent upon the Living God & He alone. Words do NOT save you, He does.

You will not come to Me

 

[FineLinen]

Hello! This will be my first post on this forum as I am a new member. This was the first discussion that caught my eye so I will just jump in with my two cents in case anyone has the heart to listen.

I am here to take part in this friendly discussion but honestly I did not read the past 40 pages of this entire post. However, based off your very first post I can tell that you are gravely mistaken about the theology of universalism. While we do hope that all men will be ultimately reconciled to God, we are not dismissing the consequences of sin. God is just and ALL people will have to own up to their sins. The God that is wrathful and just CAN CO-EXIST with the God that loves unconditionally, whose patience endures forever.

Mercy TRIUMPHS over judgement, but it does not replace it.

I would like to share a quote by Hermann-Josef Lauter, he states

"Will it really be all men who allow themselves to be reconciled? No theology or prophecy can answer this question. But love hopes all things (1 Cor 13:7). It cannot do otherwise than to hope for the reconciliation of all men in Christ. Such unlimited hope is, from the Christian standpoint, not only permitted but commanded."

Thank you for your 2 cents. With inflation figured in it exceeds the amount listed.

Welcome to you and may His exceeding love & grace be yours in expansive dimensions as you walk within Him.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I see you have your own version of the bible---this is the KJV

Unfortunately no amount of bibliolatry will save the kjv on this occasion. The word is 'plynontes', which as another poster has remarked, translates as 'washing'. There's a process going on, just as God is 'making all things new'.
Strong's Greek: 4150. πλύνω (plunó) -- to wash

It's hard to see how something can be made new when it's turned to ashes forever and ever and ever, hmm?

No one is washing their robes in the city or out of it. We can not wash our own robes!! Only the blood of Jesus can wash us clean of our sins!

How does this passage fit with your theology?

And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (Rev 7:14)

And looky here! The word used for 'wash':
Strong's Greek: 4150. πλύνω (plunó) -- to wash

It's the same root as for Rev 22:14! Busted, King James! Maybe there's some wee Scottish problem with the idea of FLEXIT, exit from the fiery lake.

 

[mmksparbud]

Yep it is actually a doctrine of works based salvation for the wicked who remain wicked after the second coming. Universalism actually teaches two paths to salvation when JESUS and the bible only teaches one way and that is through the BLOOD of Christ and repentance from sin through accepting God's free gift of Grace through faith.

Hello! This will be my first post on this forum as I am a new member. This was the first discussion that caught my eye so I will just jump in with my two cents in case anyone has the heart to listen.

I am here to take part in this friendly discussion but honestly I did not read the past 40 pages of this entire post. However, based off your very first post I can tell that you are gravely mistaken about the theology of universalism. While we do hope that all men will be ultimately reconciled to God, we are not dismissing the consequences of sin. God is just and ALL people will have to own up to their sins. The God that is wrathful and just CAN CO-EXIST with the God that loves unconditionally, whose patience endures forever.

Mercy TRIUMPHS over judgement, but it does not replace it.

I would like to share a quote by Hermann-Josef Lauter, he states

"Will it really be all men who allow themselves to be reconciled? No theology or prophecy can answer this question. But love hopes all things (1 Cor 13:7). It cannot do otherwise than to hope for the reconciliation of all men in Christ. Such unlimited hope is, from the Christian standpoint, not only permitted but commanded."

Welcome! We have another one that shows universalism has no idea what they teach!! You can say that the wicked pay for their sins all you want. God stated many times what the wages of sin is---DEATH!! That may seem incredulous to those who have no idea of the righteousness of the Godhead nor the price that Jesus paid to have our sins forgiven. I have no desire---nor energy---to repeat what has been repeated over and over on this thread---and others. I suggest you read the past posts. Jesus was one with God--He was the Son of God, held in supreme reverence next only to the Father. He gave up a world of luxury, beauty and magnificence beyond what we can imagine to become human and be tortured and crucified in order to save us. He became human for all eternity, though still He is God. He gave up more than we can comprehend. He stated that there is only one way to be saved and that is through His blood. NO OTHER WAY! We must wash our robes with His blood on this earth, repent, have our hearts changed by Jesus and live according to His ways. That can not be done after death. When we awake from the 1st death---we awake either to eternal life, or to the wages of unrepentant sin---DEATH.
The Godhead is a flame of devouring fire! Only those who are covered in the blood of Jesus, can withstand it---it devours on contact what is not protected by His blood. It is that simple. God's kingdom is pure, holy and without sin---sin can not live in the presence of a holy God.
A drop of water on the sun can not survive---it is instantly evaporated. That drop is us in sin---like a drop of water on the surface of the Sun! Jesus wraps His blood around us---that drop of water---and we are protected from the brilliance that is God.
Even Moses, when He spend time with God, had to have His face veiled from the Israelites, for they could not stand the brilliance of his face just by being in His presence!
Like the thief on the cross, the bare minimum is to accept Him as God, sovereign of our hearts. He could not be baptized and live according to the ways of Jesus---Jesus was baptized for him. He accepted the blood of Jesus for His salvation.
You have done the very same thing all universalists on here have done----quote man's opinions instead of the scripture. You to then can be amongst those that need to show us a verse that states God gives eternal life to the wicked, a verse that states anyone comes out of the lake of fire to eternal life with Jesus. No ne has done that---they have come up with many verses they claim means that---but not a single one that state these 2 simple things. There are countless verses that say Death is the outcome for the wicked---all of which they ignore and come up with the totally, supremely idiotic statement that says---by destroying death, death is not destroyed!!! Death is still death!! Really? Yup---death is death and death is done away with when the last sinner is ashes. There will never be anyone that dies again.

Mal 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
Mal 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
Mal 4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

But you all say that by destroying death--death is not destroyed and that God has failed! God will never fail, He knew from before the foundation of the world that there would be those that would reject Jesus, would crucify Him. He has given salvation to everyone---all they have to do is accept God as their supreme Savior, Lord and Master of their lives in love for Him live according to His ways. Accept or reject---that is everyone's choice---you are either for Him or against Him, there is no third choice and there is no 2nd chance after death. You have been lied to!.

Luk_11:23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

You have the right to your believes---it is a shame, however, that you have to take others with you. Gold always does as He says.
And I am done! Too tired of repeating myself! Good night.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I think we are looking at different things?

Let me know if you want me to pull up research for this because I’m just sort of typing it. I think you’re looking at the individual soul as the whole, and the pruning being the removal of sin? That I think would be the pruning of the branch.

But the pruning of the tree is where you consider the whole to be the body of Adam (one creature, one breath, severely pruned at the time of Noah) or the body of Christ (one Spirit, we abide in Him) and getting cut off from the second isn’t a removal of sin but a removal of life.

The examples of things that are actually entirely lawful: an education, a job, living in a certain city. None of these things are in themselves bad, but they will only bear fruit if you live them out while abiding in Christ.

So the thought of being cut off from Christ is horrifying and again in context my replies were to it being treated so trivially like stoning isn’t so bad and missing the actual warning in the passage.

Idk if stoning was tantamount to being cut off, it was stoning? I could be wrong. Being cut off was more like the divorce decree nisi that God took out against Ephraim. But then Jesus came to seek and save the lost, to reconcile the divorcee with God the ex-husband, and that was achieved in principle at Calvary when God reconciled the whole world to Him.

So again, being cut off from God is a stage that the spiritually adulterous (idolatrous) need to go through before reconciliation occurs.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I am sorry dear friend I do not believe in the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. They are as bad as Universalism in my view. I guess also in your view wicked children also end up in the lake of fire tortured by God until then repent? More nonsense.

You do know that Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk? Or do you prefer the theology of the English reformists like 'Praisegod Barebones'?