Featured I'm sure my denomination is closer to the truth than..."

That is where you are deceived, dishonest or both. It "can" mean "age," but that is a minor meaning, and used by liberals to deny the eternal damnation of the lost. Honest theologians have given the word its literal meaning for centuries, "eternal." The same word is used to define "life" that gift which Jesus gives to the saved. Is eternal life only going to be for an age? Your position ends up to be inconsistent, if not hypocritical.
Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?

Eternal damnation to the wicked.
Eternal life to the righteous.
Eternal has only one meaning. It means forever in this context and can only have that meaning.

 

And that is where you are quite wrong. And you are either deceived or dishonest or both. The word means "age" or "age-long" wherever it's used -- period. An age is not an eternity. Nowhere in scripture or common usage is an age the same as an eternity. An age is a long, indefinite period of time. "Age" has only one meaning -- and that is not "eternal".

Tell me, did Lucifer and the angels have "eternal" life in the beginning, or "age-long" life? They had the latter, conditioned on whether they remained loyal to God or not.

The concept of an eternal hell was borrowed from paganism and delightfully latched onto by some Christians.

 

Your post infers that Jesus lied when he said he gives to his sheep eternal life. It really isn't eternal then, is it? It is only for an age; then all we in heaven just die out??

 

What in the world are you talking about?

My position on heaven, like my position on hell, is perfectly consistent with the freedom that is God's character and the freedom He bestows on us, and it is consistent with the true Greek meaning of the word that describes both places and situations -- age-long.

Do you think those in heaven will have the freedom to rebel, as Lucifer did? I do, because I think it is an impossibility for God to take away freedom of choice from His sentient beings. I don't think it is likely that they (we) would, considering the lessons that we will have learned, but I don't think it is impossible, either.

Now before you accuse me of succumbing to neo-orthodoxy and liberalism, I can assure you that I do not follow Barth, Tillich, et al. In fact, I don't really like any theologian operating after the nineteenth century/early twentieth century -- liberal, neo-orthodox, or fundamentalist. My favorite theologians are long dead.

 

Revelation 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

Revelation 22:5 και νυξ ουκ εσται εκει και χρειαν ουκ εχουσιν λυχνου και φωτος ηλιου οτι κυριος ο θεος φωτιζει αυτους και βασιλευσουσιν εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων

Thayer Definition:
1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2) the worlds, universe
3) period of time, age
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from the same as G104
Citing in TDNT: 1:197, 31

There are three definitions given by Thayer.
The primary is always takes precedence over the minor. The last defintion, the minor definition, is that of "an age." The word's primary definition is "eternity," and it does not come from paganism. That is the Greek language.

 

The word "aion", which English equivalent is "eon", is an age; An eon is not an eternity. Any honest linguist knows this. To say that it ever means eternal is completely false and dishonest. Show me any linguist who says that an eon is an eternity and I'll show you either an idiot or a liar.

 

I just did. Thayer, "Thayer's Complete Lexicon," was the foremost scholar of his day when it came to Greek words. His work concerning the Greek words and idioms is far more exhaustive than Strong's (which is comparable to a pocketbook concordance in the Greek section). The edition that I have (of Thayers) was printed in 1905 and is more described like a "tome." It is big.

 

Revelation 1:6 και εποιησεν ημας βασιλεις και ιερεις τω θεω και πατρι αυτου αυτω η δοξα και το κρατος εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων αμην

"Age" is only one meaning. "Eternal" or "forever" is a more accepted meaning. And do you have it in your heart to call these men "idiots"?

 

Where do you get the idea that "aionos" cannot be honestly interpreted to mean "everlasting/eternal"?

In Matthes 25:46 the same word describes both the duration of both life and punishment after judgement. Do you reject that after the resurrection and judgement the duration of life of the elect is "eternal" or just for an "age"? Do you reject that the duration of punishment of the wicked in gehenna is "eternal" or just for an age.

I know of Greek Lexicon's that give "age" as ONE MEANING but I don't know of any standard Lexicon that restricts it to "age." The same term is used for the duration of God and do you think that is a mere "age"??

 

And what I said goes.

Who do you think it was that changed the true meaning of the word from "age-long" to "eternal" in the NT? Dishonest scholars who had an agenda.

Every linguist knows that an eon is not an eternity.

If you want to get the correct rendering of the original Greek words, get Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, the most literal and faithful to the original Greek ever produced. Here the words "aion/aionios" are rendered in their correct original Greek meaning -- "age"/"age-long".

This same translation renders the Greek word for "baptize" in its original meaning: "immerse". So, wherever the word "baptize" is used in the NT in other translations, Rotherham's always renders it "immerse". Those who changed it to "baptize" had an agenda -- they were state-churchists who wanted to provide an excuse for baptism by modes other than immersion.

In the same way, those translators who rendered the word "aionios" as "eternal" also had an agenda: they sought to incorporate the pagan doctrine of an eternal hell into Christianity in an effort to control people and also because of a fiendish and vengeful delight in the concept.

When Jesus spoke of God's judgment upon the wicked, he did so with words that implied a limited, corrective punishment. Specifically, he referred to divine judgment as aionios kolasis, meaning age-long chastisement.

The Bible makes clear is that the purpose of "hell" or suffering is not to torture people, but to cause them to learn from their mistakes and grow closer to perfection. Divine judgment is reformative, not vindictive. The word used in the original Greek New Testament is kolasis, which means a beneficial chastening such as a gardener prunes a vine to remove dead vegetation and make it grow more fruitfully.

Proportionality also ensures that any judgments upon a soul by God must be temporary and limited, since the sin that caused those judgments to ensue was also limited. This is a basic, Biblical teaching about divine justice -- and it is also common sense. The word used in the original New Testament to express this limited judgment is aionios, which means lasting for a distinct age or period of time. It is the Greek word from which we derive the English word eon, and it was used in the time of Jesus to refer to a period lasting anywhere from the length of a man's life to a thousand years. There is no such thing as "eternal" hell, despite what many Christians have been led to believe based on mistranslations of the Bible.

Talk about propagating another gospel, those who hold to an unconditional eternal hell are corrupting the true teachings of Jesus!

Since my position has been proved beyond doubt, I think it unnecessary to comment further on this. Besides it is derailing the thread.

 

Again, I present the questions above.

 

They are gospel salvation issues. not eternal salvation issues. one believes Christ is both God and man because he is first of all, regenerate, and one is regenerate not by any human action but by the action of the Spirit, and the Spirit regenerates only those that are His, and those that are His are those whose names He wrote down in the Lamb's Book of Life, and those names were written from the foundation of the world, and when those names were known of God and put in His mind (the Book) the denomination, doctrines, creed, or lack of these were not in consideration. The only consideration was mercy, His Sovereign right to be merciful to whom He will.

He redeemed them based on His will, not their act. That salvation was eternal, solely and purely by grace.
Now, when these in this plane we call time, whom He redeemed unto Himself for purposes of being with Him in eternity, are brought under gospel instruction, or catechetical instruction, or doctrinal instruction (choose which one you want to call it), they will convert to whichever instruction gets to them first, and they become members of that denomination that they get to first, or first gets to them, or which they join for whatever reason, and when they do, IF their names are known of God, their ETERNAL destination is unchanged.
If these children of God, whom He chose unto Himself from eternity past, happen to be born in a country with a different creed, growing up under that creed, then they will go through this plane called time, subjects to and of that creed, but their ETERNITY is unchanged.
They belong to Christ, because Christ purchased them with His blood, not because they were worthy to be redeemed, but because it is the Father's will, and Christ carried out His Father's will for them.
That is grace, unadulterated, from Heaven, based purely on the mercy and character of God.
If our eternal salvation were based on our doctrines, we are of all men, confused and as damnable as the wicked in God's sight.

 

Having said all that I said in my previous post, I agree with you. There can be no learning, no agreement between opposing doctrines. At best what would happen is one walks away frustrated, at worst, one walks away having surrendered what he most assuredly believes in his heart of hearts to be true, and then his practical life, which is the one most affected by doctrine, begins to be affected.

For example, how can I take the word of a Roman Catholic about a Bible passage when he does not believe that the Bible, and only the Bible, is the sole authority in matters of Scripture and practice ? When he believes that other writings are of the same level of importance as Scripture ?

And how can I discuss the Trinity with a JW who does not believe in the doctrine ?

Or that the law is not above grace, to a SDA ?

 

At best you have defined the RCC position on Purgatory minus their position on hell.

 

That is not true; in fact, it is kind of funny.

What I wrote is scriptural, and it is true to the principle of freedom which is an essential part of God's character.

Since you like to reference our website so much, I'll quote this from my "Personal Beliefs" section:

"The word translated "eternal" in relation to hell in the New Testament does not mean eternal in the original languages, but rather means an "eon," or "age," -- a long, indefinite period of time. My view of the duration of hell does not embrace an unconditional universalism, an unconditional eternal hell, nor annihilationism. My view could be summarized as follows: In principle, separation from God can be final. A person could so misuse his freedom that he might lose his freedom to respond to God. He could turn his back on God for so long that he might no longer hear God calling him. Therefore, to deny the possibility of an eternal hell would be to limit man's freedom.

However, we have grounds for believing that God does not alter His saving activity toward those who have died. For instance, 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6 strongly suggests that the apostolic mind thought that change is possible in the life beyond. Thus, the ancient practice of prayers for the dead does not have to imply a belief in purgatory; it could be done on the basis of the belief that God, directly and through those who serve Him, continues to seek those who have closed themselves off from God. If this is true, then the door to hell is locked only from the inside. For these reasons, I believe that the door to repentance is never closed -- neither in this life, nor in the next."

In the same way, heaven can be eternal, with "eternal life" there for a person -- if the person stays faithful. Or do you suppose that God takes away the ability to rebel there? God could never do that because He cannot do something in opposition to His character. If He didn't do that with Lucifer and the angels who followed him, and if He didn't do this with Adam and Eve, how could He ever do it? He cannot because He cannot act contrary to Who He is.

You see, all of this is based on freedom -- an inherent part of God's character. God gave all His rational beings this freedom because He loved them; He made them free moral agents. Without this freedom, the creature would be a mere puppet and the creator a puppet master -- no love in that. Further, only free beings can be held accountable for their actions. Only loyalty by choice is of worth; loyalty by compulsion is worthless and meaningless and no loyalty at all.

To tie this in with the eternal security thread: The will can be saved, but it remains free; it can be changed, but it remains free. God does not compel or enslave. God keeps us -- as long as we continue to want to be kept.

 

And again, I answer:

An eon is an age, and an age is not an eternity.

 

You wonder why I ridicule your posts? It is because of posts like this which completely ignore clear Biblical evidence that shows you are wrong. That term is used for the duration of God and yet all on this forum realize it cannot possible mean an "age" when applied to God. It is used to describe the duration of life after the judgement of the saved as well as the duration of punishment of the lost AFTER the judgement.

Certainly "aeon" can be translated "age" in certain contexts but "aionion" in certain contexts cannot possibly be limited to just an "age" with time limits such as when it is applied to the duration of God or life and punishment after the judgement.

Your responses are irrational, unreasonable and simply arrogant for the simple reason you REFUSE to deal with the contrary Biblical evidence but ignore it and just repeat your mantra and that is all it is a mantra. Deal with the evidence!

 

>Having said all that I said in my previous post, I agree with you. There can be no learning, no agreement between opposing doctrines.

Then you agree that this forum only serves as amusement, a time killer? Or do you or anyone think they are earning brownie points with God by posting YOUR doctrine?

 

Is this simple separation from God?


Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

I don't know how you exegete those verses, but nowhere is there any possibility for any second chances after death--nowhere in Scripture.

If eternal is conditioned with an "if" then it is truly not eternal, is it? You really need a dictionary, an understanding of the word "eternal." There is no possibility that anything "eternal" can stop, or turn "temporary," which is what you are suggesting. You are not considering the definition of the Word. To apply your definition to God could mean that God could go out of existence! (if)

First, I don't believe any angels fell since Lucifer.
Second, I believe all those remaining angels were "confirmed" in a state of holiness.
Third, I don't believe there will be any possibility of the redeemed rebelling. In fact, that is made fairly clear in 1Cor.15:20-28.
Fourth, There is no such thing as absolute free will, even now.
For example, can a pilot turn off his engines believing he has the free will to defy God's law of gravity (when he is flying 30,000 feet in the air)?

You have a warped definition of "freedom." Not even God is totally free.
He is bound by His nature and by His Word.

There is only love when there are loving boundaries put there by a loving Father who wants to protect the children he loves. Therefore there is no absolute freedom. Thus there is eternal consequences to those who reject eternal life provided for them by an eternal sacrifice.

My loyalty is to the one I love; to the one who is my Father. I am born into my Father's family, and therefore am my Father's child. My Father gives restrictions and chastisement. He does not give me absolute freedom.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. God keeps us because we are his children, born into his family. We cannot be lost. We cannot be "unborn" and reborn again and again. Such a concept is ludicrous.

 

There is also no such thing as the "will" existing or acting independent of the rest of the spiritual human nature. The "will" is merely the faculty of expressing passionate or rational determination which originates primarily from either the mind or emotions of man or a combination with emphasis on one or the other. The term translated "will" in the Greek New Testament proves this:

1. "theoloma" - passionate will
2. "boulomai" - rational will