A Question: Eternal Life, Kingdom of God, Saved?

[Hope of Glory]

The etymology of the word "flush" says it could mean "to cause to fly" in the 15th century. That doesn't mean we make our toilets fly when we flick the handle.

Have you ever flushed a covey of quail?

I have, and I've never put one down a toilet. If I were to write that in a sentence, you would have to go back to the prior use of that word, in order to understand its meaning.

FA, if you have access to Oxford (the unabridged one, that costs about $700, which I cannot afford), that's the best one, but Klein's or Chambers' are also very good when studying etymology. Those are the ones that my English professors recommended for serious students of the English language. I can post that:

c.1366 (in variant form eterne), from O.Fr. eternal, from L.L. æternalis, from L. æternus contraction of æviternus "of great age," from ævum "age." Eternity first attested c.1374. In the Mercian hymns, L. æternum is glossed by O.E. ecnisse.

I've not found an example of "eternal" meaning "forever" prior to the 18th century in English. I've challenged others to find an example of such. JoJ came up with one from the 19th century. I've also challenged others to come up with a Greek example of "aionios" clearly meaning "forever", and there was one example from Josephus that could go either way. The word is used quite frequently in nonbiblical writings, and I've never seen an example that wasn't referring to "a long time" (age-lasting).

 

[J. Jump]

I haven't seen one yet either nor has anyone that I have asked produce one.

 

[TCGreek]

1. I'm very hesitant to argue at the etymological level.

2. Words are not static; It would serve us well to argue for the usage of that word at the time of the writing under consideration.

 

[Hope of Glory]

1. I'm very hesitant to argue at the etymological level.

2. Words are not static; It would serve us well to argue for the usage of that word at the time of the writing under consideration.

How can you separate the two?

In the example that I gave on "eternal", the etymology shows the dates the words were first used (in writing, of course) in such a manner. (Aside: This, by nature, excludes verbal usages prior to the 20th century.) At least in the higher end etymologies they give dates. The Oxford Unabridged does; the Oxfor Concise does not.

Words are static in a written form. At least, they are static to the period in which they were used. Determining that static form is the difficulty.

 

[TCGreek]

How can you separate the two?

In the example that I gave on "eternal", the etymology shows the dates the words were first used (in writing, of course) in such a manner. (Aside: This, by nature, excludes verbal usages prior to the 20th century.) At least in the higher end etymologies they give dates. The Oxford Unabridged does; the Oxfor Concise does not.

Words are static in a written form. At least, they are static to the period in which they were used. Determining that static form is the difficulty.

1. If you wish to build a theology on a word's theology, go ahead. I will do no such thing.

2. The meaning of a word is ultimately determined by its context, its immediate and surrounding context.

 

[Amy.G]

1. If you wish to build a theology on a word's theology, go ahead. I will do no such thing.

2. The meaning of a word is ultimately determined by its context, its immediate and surrounding context.

Even I knew that. And I don't know Greek!

 

[TCGreek]

1. If you wish to build a theology on a word's theology, go ahead. I will do no such thing.

2. The meaning of a word is ultimately determined by its context, its immediate and surrounding context.

Correction: "If you wish to build a theology on a word's ETYMOLOGY." Sorry.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I certainly did not make an assumption when I said that the Pharisees were righteous in their own eyes, and in the eyes of many of their fellow-Jews.

I know a family who is very righteous in the way they live. They walk in the commandments of the Lord.

However, they are also very self-righteous. They do things like wear dresses, so as not to wear men's clothing, but they will wear jeans under the dresses so they can still play football, etc.

They are also righteous in the eyes of others. This is very important to them. (I will also add that there's nothing wrong with this in and of itself.) But, appearing righteous to others is very important to them.

Yet, in all this, I have no doubt that they are righteous.

By the same token, the Pharisees walked in the commandments of the Lord. Of course, they added their own rules to that, which made being righteous a burden to everyone, instead of a joy. They also obeyed the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.

But, the Scriptures state that they were righteous, and it also states that we are to exceed their righteousness.

Do we need to take a list of do's and don't's, or do we need to live by faith? Can we live by faith apart from obeying the "love the Lord thy God" and "love they neighbor" bits?

 

[Hope of Glory]

1. If you wish to build a theology on a word's theology, go ahead. I will do no such thing.

2. The meaning of a word is ultimately determined by its context, its immediate and surrounding context.

If you build the "meaning" of a word that contradicts the meaning of the word, then you will have a false theology. If the so-called context contradicts the meaning of a word, then I would question the context.

If the word "blue" is used to describe the sky, then barring extreme circumstances, if the context seemed to imply that the sky is yellow with chartreuse polkadots, then I would question the context.

When the Greek word means "age-lasting", and the English word meant "a long time" at the time it was translated, and the context is a millennial kingdom, then the word does not mean "forever", unless it needs to meet some preconceived idea.

If we are born from above, and that's good forever and ever (and it is), and that is based on nothing but grace (and it is), and the passage is talking about aionian life, and it's talking about works, and it's talking about the insecurity of that position, why should we say, "Well, even though they are opposites, they are really the same?"

 

[Hope of Glory]

Correction: "If you wish to build a theology on a word's ETYMOLOGY." Sorry.

BTW, the etymology only supports the doctrine, as it was only recently that I decided to read the etymology dictionary.

But, if you wish to ignore the meaning of the word, the word from which it is translated, and the temporal context, then you should thank God that you have the free will to do so.

 

[Amy.G]

By the same token, the Pharisees walked in the commandments of the Lord. Of course, they added their own rules to that, which made being righteous a burden to everyone, instead of a joy. They also obeyed the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.

But, the Scriptures state that they were righteous, and it also states that we are to exceed their righteousness.

Jhn 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.
Jhn 8:43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? {It is} because you cannot hear My word.
Jhn 8:44 "You are of {your} father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own {nature,} for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Jhn 8:45 "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.

They don't sound righteous to me.

 

[TCGreek]

If you build the "meaning" of a word that contradicts the meaning of the word, then you will have a false theology. If the so-called context contradicts the meaning of a word, then I would question the context.

If the word "blue" is used to describe the sky, then barring extreme circumstances, if the context seemed to imply that the sky is yellow with chartreuse polkadots, then I would question the context.

When the Greek word means "age-lasting", and the English word meant "a long time" at the time it was translated, and the context is a millennial kingdom, then the word does not mean "forever", unless it needs to meet some preconceived idea.

If we are born from above, and that's good forever and ever (and it is), and that is based on nothing but grace (and it is), and the passage is talking about aionian life, and it's talking about works, and it's talking about the insecurity of that position, why should we say, "Well, even though they are opposites, they are really the same?"

1. Out of due respect for you, Hope of Glory, I take a simple approach to my theology and eschatology.

2. This doctrine of the kingdom that you are propagating, I would have none of it.

3. Call me naive and simple, but here's my basic theology:

a. God is sovereign over all.

b. Man is sinful.

c. God's exercises his sovereign grace and save sinners from whom His Son died and placed them into fellowship with himself.

d. Those whom He justified, He glorified.

e. At the return of Christ, those whom He justified will be glorified with him in His millennial kingdom.

f. There's no layover anywhere for those whom God has justified.

4. That's simply what I see in Scripture.

5. And I'm glad to remain in the company of those who share a similar belief.

6. Your doctrine of the Kingdom is too much for me. I don't believe in this layover stuff. Period.

 

[Amy.G]

1. Out of due respect for you, Hope of Glory, I take a simple approach to my theology and eschatology.

2. This doctrine of the kingdom that you are propagating, I would have none of it.

3. Call me naive and simple, but here's my basic theology:

a. God is sovereign over all.

b. Man is sinful.

c. God's exercises his sovereign grace and save sinners from whom His Son died and placed them into fellowship with himself.

d. Those whom He justified, He glorified.

e. At the return of Christ, those whom He justified will be glorified with him in His millennial kingdom.

f. There's no layover anywhere for those whom God has justified.

4. That's simply what I see in Scripture.

5. And I'm glad to remain in the company of those who share a similar belief.

6. Your doctrine of the Kingdom is too much for me. I don't believe in this layover stuff. Period.

Call me naive and simple too.

 

[Hope of Glory]

6. Your doctrine of the Kingdom is too much for me. I don't believe in this layover stuff. Period.

You're not the only one. Jesus was crucified over it.

 

[Allan]

You're not the only one. Jesus was crucified over it.

They didn't kill Him for preaching the Kingdom (your view of it), though if He would have been preaching your view He would have be stoned to death rather than crucified.

 

[TCGreek]

They didn't kill Him for preaching the Kingdom (your view of it), though if He would have been preaching your view He would have be stoned to death rather than crusified.

Ahhh!

And now we must ask, What is True Kingdom Preaching?

 

[npetreley]

Jhn 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.
Jhn 8:43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? {It is} because you cannot hear My word.
Jhn 8:44 "You are of {your} father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own {nature,} for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Jhn 8:45 "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.

They don't sound righteous to me.

ME people focus almost exclusively on parables, symbolism, and etymology. That's why they probably missed this. It's too straightfoward, so it's hard to add your own meaning to it.

Here's prime ME reasoning:

Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth and look Upon the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, And their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.

Worms are not declared to be unclean, therefore they must represent believers. The fact that they do not die represents eternal life. So this passage is talking about believers who are suffering in the fire for not doing enough good works.

How'd I do? Do I get in the exclusive ME club, now?

.

 

[J. Jump]

They didn't kill Him for preaching the Kingdom (your view of it), though if He would have been preaching your view He would have be stoned to death rather than crucified.

If I'm not mistaken they "tried" a couple of different ways to kill Him, but it was God's plan that He was crucified, so those attempts failed.

 

[Faith alone]

Words have a gloss... a range of meaning depending on how they are used. So context is important. But they cannot just assume any value dependent on context. I know, we do sometimes purposely use words in away that doesn't relate to their field of meaning, but in general we can say that there is a range of meaning and that the meaning of a word in its historical, geographical, syntactical, paragraph, etc. field does help us to determine what it means.

I just think that we need to be careful about saying that a word's meaning is determined completely by its context. It has a range of meaning. When looking up words in lexicons they usually provide examples of the various meanings in the gloss. But when not sure, the order of meanings listed are also given based on the percentage of usage. Better to guess at a #1 or #2 meaning than at a #3 or #4.

Just because a particular meaning is in the etymology does not mean that it is a likely choice in a particular context.

Have a good day all,

FA

 

[Allan]

If I'm not mistaken they "tried" a couple of different ways to kill Him, but it was God's plan that He was crucified, so those attempts failed.

THAT'S my point!

He was crusified because He did that which He was ordained to do that the work of Atonement be fulfilled in Him.

BUT, ... actually you know - your right. He wouldn't have been killed preaching your gospel would He?
The pharasees, Sadusee's, Scribes and Lawyers would have blest the Lord for Christ coming and establishing their righteousness as the true example and not Christ righteousness being our all in all. They would be honored and exalted IF Jesus came preaching 'your' gospel of works and man made righteousness. But alas, they killed Him because He did not. He was contrary to their works based religion which had become so perverted that truth was no more about faith in God, but faith in man.