Recently, a friend asked me to look at a blog post and let him know what I think about it. This post might not make much sense by itself, because it’s my response to that article. Please take note: I haven’t written this to demean the author, but to discuss the idea of universalism with my friend. It’s too long to post on Facebook, and someone else might benefit from reading it, so I share it with you here. I appreciate the author’s desire to know the truth, and his systematic approach to his beliefs. I wish more people – Christians and non-Christians alike – would do the same. My disagreement isn’t with him, but with the conclusions of his article. Note as well that I’m only addressing the first of a series of posts. If someone asks, I may address the rest… but when the foundation of an argument has been removed, the whole thing falls down. I believe that the points raised here are sufficient.
To see if the author’s position is flawed, let’s look at his assumptions. The primary assumption in the article is that, because God is sovereign, He always gets what He wants…and, because He wants everyone to be saved, everyone will be saved. Let’s take a closer look.
First, the Bible does say that God wants everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). Second, every Christian I know would say that God is certainly sovereign. That’s found throughout Scripture. So, why would I disagree with the author’s conclusion? Simple: he assumes that God’s sovereignty gives Him everything He wants. I’m not convinced.
It’s interesting that while the author claims that Calvinism is depraved, he duplicates their error. He claims that Calvinism’s problem is the combination of total depravity and unconditional election, but it’s really rooted in the same problem we’re talking about here: a misunderstanding of sovereignty. Calvinism teaches that God predestines some for Heaven and some for Hell and, because He is sovereign, we play no part in our own salvation. If we did, we could thwart God’s will… making us more powerful than God. That’s known in Calvinism as “irresistible grace.” The author teaches that God predestines everyone to be saved and, because of His sovereignty, everybody will be saved. That’s the textbook definition of irresistible grace… the author simply includes everyone, while Calvinists only include some. Both must ignore much of the New Testament to make their claims.
Let’s look at his use of THELO. He cites Thayer’s (the go-to Greek lexicon) to support his claim that THELO indicates God’s resolve and determination that all should be saved. Unfortunately, he’s only telling part of the story. There’s only ONE definition in Thayer’s: “to will, have in mind, intend.” That one definition has several shades of meaning:
- to be resolved or determined, to purpose
- to desire, to wish
- to love
- to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
- to take delight in, have pleasure
He cites Thayer, but doesn’t account for ALL of Thayer. I’m not saying that he’s being dishonest, but it does seem that he’s cherry-picking. Did Paul, when writing 1 Timothy 2, mean that God would be delighted (#4) if everyone were saved? Did he mean that God likes (#3) to save people? These definitions, without the context in which they were written, carry equal weight. In this case, the context of 1 Timothy 2 actually works against the author. Paul tells Timothy that believers should live their lives in specific ways. Why? Because God wants everyone to be saved. If everyone is going to be saved anyway, there’s no connection between the activities of Christians and the fate of unbelievers. That Paul wrote this passage presumes that it needed to be written.
Let’s look at the section where he addresses the word “all.” For the sake of discussion, let’s grant his point: that “all” literally means “every single person.” He points out the universality of the word with regard to being made alive, being reconciled to God, being justified, being offered mercy, and so on. He also (rightly) says that the subset is part of the larger group. If we’re granting his definition of “all,” and granting that the subset is part of the whole, why would we still disagree with his conclusion? Simple: none of those things are salvation.
1 Corinthians 15 doesn’t say that all will be saved. It says that all will be resurrected. The entire chapter, as one can see by actually reading it, is designed to convince the reader that Jesus was resurrected, and that everyone else will be resurrected as well. In fact, this passage also undermines the author’s claim. Verse 2 says that we are saved by the Gospel IF we hold firmly to it. Otherwise, we have believed in vain. If Paul believed that everyone would be saved, there would be no “if.” Verse 18 says that if there’s no resurrection, then “those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.” If Paul believed that everyone would be saved, he would not write that ANYBODY could be lost. Verse 23 refers to Jesus’ second coming, and of those who ‘belong to Him’. Since some will NOT belong to Him, some will apparently not be saved.
The author then cites Romans 5, Romans 11, 1 Timothy 4:10, and 1 John 2:2, noting the use of “all” in each. The assumption in every case is that the passages indicate that all will be saved… but is that what Scripture, as a whole, teaches? No, it’s not. One of the best-known verses in the New Testament says that ‘the wages of sin is death’ (Romans 6:23). A lesser-known verse says that one (Jesus) died for all, therefore all died (2 Corinthians 5:14). Jesus died to take our place… that is, He died the death we deserved. Does that mean that, because the penalty for sin has been paid, everybody goes to Heaven? Look at the whole passage:
If we are “out of our mind,” as some say, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. As God’s co-workers we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain. For he says,
“In the time of my favor I heard you,
and in the day of salvation I helped you.”
I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation.
The author cites Colossians 1, which says that God has reconciled to Himself “all things.” Paul wrote Colossians, and he wrote the above passage in 2 Corinthians. When you look at the two, it’s clear that while God reconciled “all things” to Himself, there’s something else that must occur: we must reconcile ourselves to Him as well. God’s grace was extended to everyone, but that grace can be received in vain. Note the meaning of “in vain”… that it does no good, and doesn’t fulfill its purpose. What are we talking about in this passage? How, through Jesus’ death, God reconciled us to Himself. This passage guts the author’s view as well as the Calvinist view, because it puts the final piece of the salvation puzzle in the hands of mankind. God has done the work of salvation by coming to Earth and dying for us, but WE MUST RESPOND or it’s all for nothing.
The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, expresses that mankind has both the freedom and the obligation to respond to God. From the call of the Old Testament prophets for the people to turn their hearts toward God to John the Baptist’s call to repent, our role in our own salvation is clear. Every mention of salvation in the New Testament becomes meaningless if the author, and the Calvinists, are right. Why write about turning our hearts toward God if salvation is only a matter of God forcing His will on us? If everyone will be saved, why encourage Christians to live lives worthy of respect that might lead to the salvation of another?
In Matthew 25, Jesus talks about the Ten Virgins, the Bags of Gold, and the Sheep and the Goats. In each section, He describes the day of His return in stark terms: some will get in, and some will be left out. There’s no indication at all that being excluded from God’s coming Kingdom is a temporary situation. The only way to find that in the text is to insert it yourself, because it’s not there. We could look at dozens of passages in which we are told to take responsibility for our salvation, and that not doing so is a grievous mistake. God, in His sovereignty, has not chosen to control us entirely. He gives us a measure of sovereignty, and expects us to use it to choose wisely.
Join me on Substack!
GOD IS GOOD
No. (just following the restriction of ‘one’ thought)
God did kinda obliterate Sodom and Gomorrah. Granted they weren’t nice people per se’, meteoric showers aren’t necessarily a nice response either, Dan. I’m not apt to argue whether the purpose of those actions were good or not, as that’s above my pay-grade spiritually, nor can I attest whether or not they’re experiencing paradise or Inferno, but as a human, I’m more apt to believe the latter – There’s always consequences for one’s actions, at least in my mind.
You could have mentioned the parable of the good shepherd, who seeks the one lost until he finds them. Or Isaiah 25, where God will take away the veil over all people, and wipe away the tears from all faces, it clearly is God’s desire, will to save all, and He says in Isaiah 46:10 He will do all of His pleasure. Nothing is too difficult for Him!
Greg:
In my response to that article, I could have mentioned a whole bunch of other passages. The question is not the number of passages, but the meaning of each. No, nothing is too difficult for God. The problem with the idea of universalism is that it simply contradicts a zillion passages. God will not save everyone. How do we know this? By reading ALL of Scripture, of course. Universalists (and others with false beliefs) tend to cherry-pick the verses they like, ignoring or glossing over the verses that would otherwise correct them.
The idea that God will save everyone provides some comfort, of course. We all want everything to turn out nicely, where we all win in the end, where everybody realizes the truth about God and reality, where everybody agrees that living as God intended really is the best way, and so on. The trouble with this idea is that it simply doesn’t match what God Himself has revealed to us in His Word. The offering of moral freedom necessarily includes the risk (or the knowledge, in God’s case) that our freedom may lead us where we should not go. When we turn a blind eye to part of the Scriptures and in favor of ideas we prefer, we substitute our ideas for God’s truth. That’s a bad place to be.
No, God will certainly not save everyone. I do wish that everyone would be saved, but the Bible is clear: some will be lost, and they will be lost forever. God wants everyone to be saved, but that doesn’t mean that everyone will be saved. God doesn’t want us to lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, be selfish, to take advantage of one another, and so on. We still do those things… not because God is NOT sovereign, but because He has decided to allow us the freedom to accept or reject His gracious offer of salvation. Those who don’t accept this offer won’t be taken into His presence for all eternity against their will.
In the midst of returning from a Christian conference as I write this, I’m struck by the level of argumentation over incalculable and infinitely large things religious that cannot be empirically proven; to the point that the manmade, largely philosophical constructs associated with the concept of an all-knowing God, which by definition cannot be scientifically proven, are actually pointless. Argue if you will but humankind is too small too comprehend the nature of God.
Blaine:
Thanks for writing. We agree that humankind is too small to comprehend the nature of God. At the same time, God has chosen to reveal to us some things about Himself. Imperfect and limited as we are, we may not fully understand any of it… but that doesn’t mean that God’s communication isn’t fruitful. To suggest that would be to diminish even the concept of God, wouldn’t it?
I’m curious: which part(s) of what I wrote do you disagree with? I’m more than willing to be corrected.
There are many verses that state God’s intenion to save all, and it may seem like too much trouble to look at them all it is our responsibility before God to go through the trouble of doing so. On the contrary, there is only one single verse in the entire Bible that “seems” to warn of “eternal punishment”, but this one single place, which contradicts a lot of verses to the contrary, is a mistranslation. The word “aion” refers to an age or indefinite time period. Aionios, the word used in Mat 25:46 is an adjective form of “aion”. It does not mean eternal.And the word translated as “punishment” was originally translated as “pruning”. God knows exactly how to get what He wants, He can work in the afterlife or whenever He wants. Time is no obstacle to God getting what He wants, and He clearly wants everyone to be safely and happily with Him.
Greg:
Thank you for writing! I hope you don’t mind if I take exception to some of your claims.
Now, let’s take a very serious, scholarly look at your claim about the Greek word AIONIOS. The last thing you should do is take my word for what it means. I’m no Greek scholar. Of course, the last thing I – or any reader who sees your comment – should do is take your word for it, too. Here’s a list of accepted Koine Greek lexicons and the definitions they supply for AIONIOS.
BDAG (the gold standard for New Testament Greek lexicography): 1) relating to a period of time extending far into the past, long ages ago… as found in Romans 16:25, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2. 2) relating to time without boundaries or interruption, eternal… as found in Romans 16:26 and Hebrews 9:14. 3) relating to a period of unending duration, permanent, lasting… as found in Luke 16:9, 2 Corinthians 5:1, and Hebrews 5:9.
Thayer’s: 1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be. 2) without beginning. 3) without end, never to cease, everlasting.
LSJ (the classical Greek authority): lasting for an age (AION II), perpetual, eternal (but distinguished from AIDIOS)… the LSJ notes it as “lasting for an age” with perpetual and eternal as extended meanings.
Strong’s: 1) perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well). 2) eternal, for ever, everlasting.
Friberg: 1) eternal, everlasting… its opposite is PROSKAIROS (temporary, transitory) 2) of God without beginning or end, eternal (Romans 16:26). 3) without beginning (Romans 16:25) without end, everlasting (2 Corinthians 5:1)
Louw-Nida: 1. pertaining to an unlimited duration of time—eternal. Examples: “be thrown into the eternal fire” (Matthew 18:8); “of the eternal God” (Romans 16:26). Louw-Nida notes the most frequent use in the NT is with ZOE (life).
Zodhiates: eternal, perpetual, belonging to the AION, to time in its duration, constant, abiding. When referring to eternal life, it means the life which is God’s, and hence it is not affected by the limitations of time. AIONIOS is especially predicated on the saving blessings of divine revelation, denoting those things which are not transitory.
Abbott-Smith: age-long.
Bill Mounce: Gloss: eternal, long ago. Definition: eternal, everlasting, or indeterminate as to duration.
AIONIOS isn’t a common word in classical sources, but some classical sources explain it as time (short or long) in unbroken duration, as in the lifetime of a man, or lasting for a long, indefinite period of time, and so on.
Here’s the reality: scholars have long argued about the appropriate use of AIONIOS. Obviously, claims about its usage must rely on each individual context. So what should we do when we wonder what Jesus meant in Matthew 25:46? First, we should actually LOOK AT the verse: Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. Obviously, the word AIONIOS appears twice here. If you want to claim that the goats will have temporary punishment (or pruning), then you must also claim that the reward that the sheep will receive is also temporary. That most clearly DOES NOT FIT THE CONTEXT… right?
Right. In other words, no… God will not save everyone. To believe this, one must either twist or ignore clear passages of Scripture. Let’s avoid that.
Aionios is the adjective form of aion, from which we get our english word, “eon.” An eon is not an eternity. Isaiah 46:10 says God will get everything He wants, also in Job 42:2 “I know that You can do all things and that no plan of Yours can be thwarted.” With God, nothing is impossible, and God says He will do all that He wants, and Psalm 66:4
All the earth shall worship thee, and shall sing unto thee; they shall sing to thy name. Selah. Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.Eph 1:9,10 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. Romans 11:32 . 32For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. James – Mercy triumphs over judgement.
Greg:
First, thanks for writing. It’s good to hear from you!
Next, let’s deal with the linguistic issue.
You – in contrast to these definitive resources – translated AION to the English eon, then pointed out that an English eon is not an eternity. The usage of the English eon is entirely irrelevant to the question of authorial intent in the Scriptures, written in Koine Greek 1900+ years ago. The question is not about the meaning of English words derived from ancient Greek roots, but what the Holy Spirit meant when He inspired the writers of Scripture.
Finally, we agree that God can do anything He wants to do. The question is whether God will save everyone, and the Bible makes it clear that He will not. Matthew 25 is only one example. 2 Corinthians 6:1 is another, where those who refuse to be reconciled to God will have received His grace in vain. There are a whole bunch of other such passages, like the entire book of Hebrews.
Universalism is false. Universalists have to pick and choose the definitions they prefer, and ignore the clear passages of Scripture that they don’t prefer, or they can’t continue being universalists. I have no doubt that you won’t take MY word for any of this, Greg… and that’s good. Take God’s word for it by studying what the Scriptures say. If you want to know what God has said, read what God had written. If you have questions, or if you can show that your approach to this subject somehow trumps all of the scholarship, I’ll be here.
Have a great day!
>> Hey thanks for engaging thoughtfully, here is a copy and paste from ai…
[EDITOR’S NOTE]
No thanks. I’m aware that you didn’t ‘cook up’ the idea of universalism. I use AI all day long, so I’m aware of its limitations and usefulness. I want to hear from YOU, not from the aggregation of information scraped from a zillion websites and blended into a script.
a bit more to chew on here, it really is a pretty deep subject, not something that can be waved off as silly squabling about a few words. It concerns arguably the most important subject on our planet, the ultimate destiny of the vast majority of humanity, so it’s worth the time and effort to get this ABSOLUTELY correct, in my humble opinion…
[EDITOR’S NOTE]
Two things:
1. I hope you don’t mistake my editing of your comment to be anything nefarious. I don’t publish links to contrary content. Readers are free to search, find, and consume any content they want, but I don’t need to promote it to them.
2. If universalism is true, then it inarguably is the destiny not of “the vast majority of humanity,” but of ALL of humanity. Which do you mean? Do you mean that everyone will be saved, or do you simply extend the atonement to more than is typical?
“This essay aims to prove the popular impression erroneous.”
This caused me to stop reading. The popular impression is irrelevant as to what ideas are compatible or incompatible with clear passages of Scripture. Had the author turned to the definitions of AION used by religious and irreligious scholars alike, I would have continued reading. Instead, he simply quoted people with whom he agrees. That’s not compelling evidence. Had he made the argument – using evidence – that the multitude of scholars are wrong to consult the Greek lexicons listed, he might have gotten somewhere. Instead, he presented a parallel narrative about the meaning of AION. It’s also a bit odd to see that the author promotes both universalism and dispensationalism, which aren’t really compatible.
Again: I want to hear from YOU, Greg. I want to hear YOUR arguments as YOU understand them. Multiple lexical sources – all seemingly beyond reproach by atheist and Jewish and Christian scholarship – help us define the word as it was used at the time of the writing of Scripture. To make ANY case that AION does not mean what the lexicons tell us, simply citing universalists won’t do.
I’d like to know, straight out, whether you believe that God will eventually save everyone… and how you then interpret the many Scriptures that entreat the hearers and readers to decide their ultimate fate. Until then, know that I appreciate your interactions with me.
Thanks for the reply. Would you agree that God wants everyone to experience salvation through Jesus? That is God’s will? The Father sent the Son to be the Savior not of many, or even most, but the Savior of the whole world? Jesus actually came to seek and to save that which was lost? Jesus said “It is finished”? Than you also believe Jesus cannot save all? God cannot help, His arm is too short to save? If God can continue to teach and reach people in the afterlife, then, as the Bible says “All things are possible”. Would you agreee with this as well?
I appreciate a good conversation, Greg!
It’s not my opinion that God wants everyone to experience salvation through Jesus. He said this Himself. However, you mischaracterize my position when you suggest that I ‘believe Jesus cannot save all.’ It’s not a matter of what God CAN do but what God WILL do. To claim that God will save everyone is to contradict a number of clear passages.
I could go on, Greg. I appreciate a philosophical objection as much (or more) than the next guy… but only where Scripture isn’t abundantly clear. Scripture is abundantly clear on these two things, for sure:
>> If God can continue to teach and reach people in the afterlife, then, as the Bible says “All things are possible”. Would you agreee with this as well?
Nope. The Bible does say that with God, all things are possible… but it doesn’t say that all things will happen. One thing the Bible does not say will happen is that God will continue to reach people in the afterlife. At best I can think of one passage that is usually considered to suggest it, but that too is speculation. We don’t make doctrine from the unclear things, my friend. We die once, and then we face judgment… right?
I’ve noticed that you aren’t really dealing directly with the Scriptures in question, but generally offering logical and emotional appeals. If you’re a Christian, one would presume that you get your ideas about God and His plans from the Bible. I’d love to see you address some of God’s Word, rather than simply offering a personal argument.
I reply to your question – “2. If universalism is true, then it inarguably is the destiny not of “the vast majority of humanity,” but of ALL of humanity. Which do you mean? Do you mean that everyone will be saved, or do you simply extend the atonement to more than is typical?” What I said was this subject, the debate about eternal damnation vs universalism is what I was referring to, the vast majority would be affected because the minority are going to heaven in both of our opinion, no argument about the minority who are assumed to be saved through Jesus. Of course, we could all argue all day about how anyone knows for sure they are included among the truly saved, and everyone would have their own ideas about how to know this or be sure about this, but I am not debating that point at this time. I would mention that the bible is vague concerning how anyone can know for sure they are saved because this is not vital to know if, in the end, everyone will ultimatly be saved, of course. If eternal hell were truly at stake for all, would we not have explicit instructions on how to be saved, clearly and unmistakenly available to every human ever born, or even those who were never actually born alive? It looks to me that the doctrine of hell has no answers for why most people through the history of the world live and die without ever hearing about Jesus, Adam and Eve and pretty much everyone in the Old Testament arould the world knew nothing about the plan of salvation, the American Indians, australian aborigines, etc, knew nothing of Jesus, and this is a clear mark against the eternal hell view, if God is fair and God is truly LOVE. How would they have a clue whether they were going to heaven or hell? What about the Jews? The vagueness is no problem for universalism, but it rips to shreds the doctrine of eternal torment, if God is perfectly fair and good and loving of all, with no partiality or favoritism. Correct me if I am wrong here?
Greg:
>>It looks to me that the doctrine of hell has no answers for why most people through the history of the world live and die without ever hearing about Jesus…
Ah… NOW we’re getting to the heart of the matter. The problem here isn’t ‘the doctrine of hell.’ It’s clear that the Bible teaches the eternal punishment of those who are not saved. What’s not so clear is whether you believe those who don’t hear the gospel have any hope of being saved. That’s a totally legitimate concern!
This has everything to do with our view of God. Is He just sitting there, doing nothing, waiting to see who hears the gospel? Will He be unfair to those who haven’t heard? How can we say He’s loving if the lost have no options?
We tend to take a ‘mechanical’ view of salvation. Believe the right doctrines, go to Heaven. Believe the wrong doctrines, go to Hell. Those who hear the gospel might go to Heaven, those who don’t hear the gospel go straight to Hell. They don’t pass Go, they don’t collect $200. They’re just out of luck. This doesn’t match what we see about God in the Bible. We don’t need to cling to nebulous theories about being saved after death, or the ridiculous idea that all religions lead to God. That’s just making stuff up to assuage our sense of injustice. We have enough in the Bible to be assured of everyone’s fate:
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. Deuteronomy 32:4
That’s all we really need to know. How was Abraham saved? He didn’t know the specifics about Jesus. None of those people in Hebrews 11 knew about Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection… but they are lauded for their faith. Why? Because they trusted God, regardless of the depth of their knowledge. With regard to saving people, God’s ways are not less just than our ways. Our ideas about who can and should be saved are not better than God’s ideas. When it comes to bringing people to Heaven or sending them to Hell, God will do no wrong.
There are two main groups who support a universalist view. One group believes their decisions would be more just than God’s. The other group has a limited understanding of GOD HIMSELF. If hearing the gospel from a Christian is the only way to be saved, then the salvation of the lost is entirely dependent on the obedience of the saved. We KNOW that God would be unjust in condemning someone to Hell for all eternity simply because Christians didn’t do their job. That can’t be what happens, because God is not unjust. He will do what is right. If we’re going to believe in God, we really ought to listen to what He says about Himself and trust that His justice is perfect, that His decisions are right, and that nobody will be able to say that God was, in their case, unjust.
What will God not do? What He’s already said He won’t do: He won’t save everyone. Those who reject Him get their way. Those who accept Him get their way. God is the only one who doesn’t get what He wants, which is for everyone to be saved. The Bible doesn’t leave us room for that view. Just as it would be unjust to condemn the ignorant, it would be unjust for God to save those who persist in rebellion.
There are only three possibilities… and only one can be true:
Based on what you see in the Bible, which do you think is true?
If the word “Aion” means age then the only verses you have to go on cannot be used to support eternal torment. The adjective form of “aion” is “aionios”. An adjective cannot mean the opposite of the noun it is derived from. “Dirty” cannot mean “clean”. It was derived from the noun “dirt”. The same with “Aion” and “Aionios.”
Also “It is appointed to man once to die and then judgement” does not state eternal punishment in any way shape or fashion, you would have to insert that teaching into the verse from outside, it is not in the verse at all. 1 Peter 4:6 supports afterlife evangelism, so our traditional indoctrination has to reject the plain meaning of this verse and twist it to deny what it is saying to support what we have been taught our entire lives about hell – “6 For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”
Greg:
I’m not going to continue a conversation with you about AION. There’s a very simple reason: I’m not a Greek scholar, and you appear to be less well-versed in it than I am. I refuse to trust my own understanding of a Greek word and go instead to the plethora of Greek lexicons. You’re free to believe they’re all in error, but you won’t gain any ground here. You seem unwilling to acknowledge the semantic range of a word used in the New Testament, then claim that your definition is better, then build a doctrine on top of it. That’s not how we should do things.
May I make a suggestion?
You’ve undoubtedly seen people online correcting each other while being wrong in the process. Like when someone wrote it’s Y’our’e, you idiot. With respect, I’d like to suggest that you spend a little time steelmanning the doctrine of eternal torment. If you can’t explain it accurately, you can’t defend against it effectively. Look carefully at the evidence for both sides of a dispute before claiming to have wisely chosen sides. Virtually no Greek scholars consider 1 Peter 4:6 to support evangelism after death. No matter how much you or I might LIKE the idea, it’s irresponsible to pretend that you’ve gotten it right while everybody else is wrong. No, truth isn’t built on consensus… but the consensus can be useful. Check it out in multiple versions. Do a word study in Greek. Consult a number of commentaries. Listen to a debate or two. After you’ve become familiar with the content of the debate, you’ll be in a position to explain why you take the view you take. The reasons you’ve expressed so far in this conversation simply don’t carry the weight that you’re hoping for.
Let me know if I can be helpful in your pursuit of the truth. Have a great day!
I don’t want to waste your time at all, so if You are done, that’s fine, I get that every single time from everyone, they end up saying, not let’s keep going, I feel like I am getting somewhere with you, butr, I’m out. I will leave you with this. I have spent thousands, I really mean thousands of hours on this over the last 5 years. I went from a true blue hell-fire street preacher to a very convinced Christian Universalist. I would only ask if you have done at least a couple dozen hours reading material that supports CU and refutes ETC? There are more CU supporting books and websites going up all the time, way more than at any time in history. Way more material than we could ever discuss here, that is for sure. For you to call this “Snake Oil”, when we have vast amounts of prooftexts and early church history on our side is not what I would call an educated or reasonable labeling of this position. Be blessed, God is surely with you as He is with us all, He is Good news of Great Joy for ALL people!
Greg:
I do sincerely appreciate our conversation. If we were sitting together over a meal, hashing out our thoughts – which sounds great – I would hope that we would leave being friends, even if we disagree. Please take my response in that vein.
A final note on the biblical side of things: if everyone will be saved, why do we need the Bible? Why did John feel the need to write his gospel, showing that Jesus is the Messiah… and that by believing in Him, we might be saved? Why, if everyone will be saved, did Paul say that we should literally BEG people, if necessary, to be reconciled to God? If everyone’s fate is sealed – that is, if everyone will eventually be saved – why does the New Testament differentiate between believers and non-believers, rather than between people who are making their lives easier or harder between now and the time God saves them?
As mentioned before, I want to encourage you, and not discourage you. Study the Scriptures… all of them. Analyze the data thoughtfully. Consider the existence of the New Testament, the implications behind universalism, and the consequences that would come from reassuring the lost that they are not actually lost at all, and that salvation will be theirs regardless of what they believe, how they act, and who they follow.
Tony, If I disagree with every Greek scholar, why is it that literal versions of the Bible translate “Aion” as “age” and “aionios” as “age during” or “eonian” or “continuos” something else that never denotes eternal? Here is the Concordant Literal – “46 And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian.” Are these literal translations all “snake oil”? Rotherhams Literal Bible calls it “age abiding”. Never once “eternal”. Which Christian Universalist books have you read, by the way?
Greg:
There’s a reason the Concordant Literal has gained almost no traction in 100 years. Knoch taught – contrary to all Scripture, patristic writings, and church history – that Jesus was a created being. He denied the Trinity, promoted universalism, and claimed that we have no free will. When you believe that Jesus is not God, you can’t translate pros as “with” in John 1, saying that Jesus was God and was with God… that kind of “contradiction” caused Knoch to translate a key passage differently than virtually everyone in history. He called the translation choice of scholars, in this case, “incomprehensible.” That’s not scholarship, that’s bias. It’s also an ancient heresy known as Arianism, to which groups like modern-day Jehovah’s Witnesses adhere.
I’m left to wonder why you persist in writing to me, Greg. I mean no offense here… but what’s the goal? Knoch denied free will. If you agree with him, then your arguments for universalism and my arguments against are caused by forces outside our control. If you disagree with Knoch, yet believe that all will be saved, why bother arguing at all? Your position seems, ironically, to mirror that of certain hard-core Calvinists… that God will save some (in their case) or all (in your case) and we play no role in our eternal destiny. If they’re right, no amount of witnessing to those not elect will matter. If you’re right, we have no spiritual need for preaching, or Scripture, or gathering with other believers. This is the same kind of illogic found in philosophical materialism: if we’re nothing but DNA interacting with stimuli in our environment, we have no free will… yet philosophical materialists will argue endlessly that we must, for some reason, agree with them.
You probably won’t hear this in the sense I intend it, but I’ll say it hopefully anyway: when someone espouses a fringe view, based on the rest of the world getting things wrong, we should see some red flags. This is the way of the cults. Joseph Smith believed that everybody else was wrong. Mary Baker Eddy believed everybody else was wrong. Herbert W. Armstrong believed everybody else was wrong. Charles Taze Russell believed everybody else was wrong. The vacuum created by this belief makes room for virtually any idea… and, in inevitably, those who don’t like the ideas that everybody else agrees on will find a home in the ‘new and improved’ but false Christianity.
To believe in universalism is to deny a whole bunch of passages in God’s Word, Greg. Yes, I call universalism “snake oil.” It purports to solve a problem, but can’t… and the placebo effect is useless when it comes to spiritual things. I wish you well.
Tony-
Did you ever adress the adjective form of “aion”? I may not be a greek scholar but I know what an adjective is. It describes something based on a noun. If something is like an “aion”, or an age, than how on earth could it be eternal? I don’t care how many people say the emporer has very fine clothes on. Majority rules? Augustine said that in he day, early 400’s AD, VERY MANY did not believe in eternal torments, and he did not call them heretics, but “tender hearted brethren”. You have a totally different tone than this very Christian attitude, even though he disagreed with this position.
Greg:
The reason I didn’t address the adjectival form of AION is that you claimed that AION does not mean eternal. I’ve listed for you a good number of lexicons that contradict your position, and you’ve yet to provide for me some reason to doubt them all. That some doubt them isn’t evidence, it’s just a fact. When you can show me evidence for WHY you and I should agree that AION doesn’t mean eternal, I’ll consider it. No, truth is not established by popularity. Yes, seeing what believers have believed for thousands of years is a good idea. When ONE guy writes to me and says nuh-uh but provides no objective evidence for me to analyze, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that I haven’t yet changed my mind. AION can, in fact, refer to either limited or unlimited time periods. If you can’t acknowledge that, there’s no common ground from which we can continue.
The Greek αἰών comes from the root ἀεί. The root means perpetually, incessantly, invariably. In the Septuagint, AION often indicates limited duration. See what I’m doing here? I’m agreeing with both you AND the top Greek scholars in the world. The question is whether you’re willing to agree with me AND the top Greek scholars in the world and acknowledge the semantic range of the word. Once the semantic range is established, we can then look at how it’s used in context.
Does that make sense? We can’t go to step 2 until step 1 is complete. Step 1 is agreeing on definitions. Let me know if and when you’re ready to move to step 2.
Have a great day!