• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Forever?

HisWitness

New Member
God is now calling out "a people for His name"‑‑an "elect" or chosen priesthood people who will represent and reflect His loving nature. Many are called and few are chosen—that is, until‑‑the small chosen priesthood people, by the Spirit, restore "David's tabernacle" so ALL mankind may inquire of the Lord. Thus we see that the church is the first-born, the beginning‑‑until‑‑in ALL (later born new creatures in Christ) our Lord will have supremacy (Amos 9:11‑12, Matt. 22:14, Acts 15:14‑18, Eph. 3:15, Col. 1 18).

All manner of sin will be forgiven in this AGE as well as in the AGE (not eternity) to come, except blasphemy against God's Spirit‑‑until‑‑such blasphemy finds pardon in the fullness of the times (or ages) when God unites all in Christ. For the Lord does not retain His anger forever because He delights in mercy (Matt. 12:32; 18:11,21‑22, Eph. 1:9‑11, Rev. 4:11; 5:13, Mic. 7:18‑20). (Much of the above list was provided by Charles Slagle)

Our justice systems, as faulty as they are, attempt to fit the punishment to the crime. There are many different forms and lengths of punishment to satisfy our moral sense of justice. But according to modern Christendom, all crimes (sins) committed here on earth will receive the same punishment AND it will be far more severe than the most cruel tyrants of the world have inflicted upon mankind. Modern Christian justice has NOT made God a just judge, it has made Him out to be the most barbaric of dictators this world has ever seen. Hitler would be a saint compared to the image of God as judge the church has portrayed of Him.

The Hebrew word Olam is the equivalent of the Greek Word "aion." If olam meant "forever," why do we find constructs which tell us there is a "beyond" this "forever," as in Exodus 15:18. When we look at the Latin in this case, we begin to see how this great error came into our vulgar translations. The Latin Vulgate reads "Dominus regnabit in aeturnum et ultra," "The Lord will reign unto (or into) eternity and beyond." How is such a thing possible?

If aion means eternity, why does this word appear in the plural form? Why does it appear in double constructs such as aion of the aion, aion of the aions, and aions of the aions? Is Greek such a confusing language that one can take several different variations of the same word and simple stick them all under "everlasting" or "forever and ever" or is Greek much more exact than our modern Bible translators make it appear to be? When one looks at all the different forms of this Greek word and how many of our modern translations have rendered this word, it becomes quite apparent to the neutral observer that some twisting of meanings has been going on. "Aionas ton aionon," for example is rendered "for ever AND ever" by many leading Bible translations. Ask a scholar what the meaning of "ton" is. You will NEVER hear one say it means "and." This should have correctly been translated "of the" and NOT "and." This is just one of many examples that many translators have been translating according to tradition, rather than what the Greek and Hebrew means. The first revision of the King James Bible, the Revised Version and the American Version, made many corrections in the text and placed many corrections in the margins. Due to subsequent pressure from the Fundamentalists, they have since removed all of the marginal notes which would aid one to seeing that the King James translation was NOT true to the original Greek. Go find a 1901 American Standard. You will see these corrections in the margins.

Just in case the reader thinks that these thoughts are simply the words of a dimwit who doesn't understand the original languages of the Bible, here are a few quotes from leading scholars on the same subject:

Dr. R.F. Weymouth, a translator who was adept in Greek, states in The New Testament in
Modern Speech (p. 657), “Eternal, Greek aeonian, i.e., of the ages: Etymologically this
adjective, like others similarly formed does not signify, “during” but “belonging to” the aeons or ages.”

Dr. Marvin Vincent, in his Word Studies of the New Testament (vol. IV, p. 59): “The
adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective IN THEMSELVES carries the sense of “endless” or “everlasting.” Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Out of the 150 instances in the LXX (Septuagint), four-fifths imply limited duration.” (Editor’s note: the rest of the time aionios takes on a greater meaning from the noun to which it is connected, usually God Himself or heaven.)

Dr. F.W. Farrar, author of The Life of Christ and The Life and Work of St. Paul, as well
as books about Greek grammar and syntax, writes in The Eternal Hope (p. 198), “That the adjective is applied to some things which are “endless” does not, of course, for one moment prove that the word itself meant ‘endless;’ and to introduce this rendering into many passages would be utterly impossible and absurd.” In his book, Mercy and Judgment, Dr. Farrar states (p. 378), “Since aion meant ‘age,’ aionios means, properly, ‘belonging to an age,’ or ‘age-long,’ and anyone who asserts that it must mean ‘endless’ defends a position which even Augustine practically abandoned twelve centuries ago. Even if aion always meant ‘eternity,’ which is not the case in classic or Hellenistic Greek–aionios could still mean only ‘belonging to eternity’ and not ‘lasting through it.’”

Lange’s Commentary American Edition (vol. V, p. 48), on Ecclesiastes chapter 1 verse 4,
in commenting upon the statement “The earth abideth forever” says, “The preacher, in contending with the universalist, or restorationist, would commit an error, and, it may be, suffer a failure in his argument, should he lay the whole stress of it on the etymological or historical significance of the words, aion, aionios, and attempt to prove that, of themselves, they necessarily carry the meaning of endless duration.” On page 45 of the same work, Dr. Taylor Lewis says: “The Greek ‘aiones’ and ‘aiones ton aionon,’ the Latin ‘secula,’ and ‘secula seculorum,’ the Old Saxon, or Old English of Wicliffe, ‘to worldis or worldis’ (Heb. XIII 21), or our more modern phrase, ‘for ever and ever,’ wherever the German ewig, was originally a noun denoting age or a vast period, just like the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew words corresponding to it.”

The Rev. Bennet, in his “Olam Hanneshamoth” (p. 44), says, “The primary nature of olam is ‘hidden,’ and both as to past and future denotes a duration that is unknown.” “Olam” is the Hebrew word corresponding to the Greek word “aion.” The Greek Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) renders the Hebrew word “olam” as “aion” or it’s adjective “aionios.”

The Parkhurst Lexicon: “Olam (aeon) seems to be used much more for an indefinite than
for an infinite time.”

Dr. MacKnight: “I must be so candid as to acknowledge that the use of these terms
‘forever,’ ‘eternal,’ ‘everlasting,’ shows that they who understand these words in a limited sense when applied to punishment put no forced interpretation upon them.”

Dr. Nigel Turner, in Christian Words, says (p. 457), “All the way through it is never
feasible to understand aionios as everlasting.”

The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 15, p. 485, says, “It is possible that ‘aeonian’ may denote
merely indefinite duration without the connotation of never ending.”

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4, p. 643, says, “The O.T. and the N.T. are
not acquainted with conception of eternity as timelessness.” Page 644: “The O.T. has not developed a special term for eternity.” Page 645: “The use of the word aion in the N.T. is determined very much by the O.T. and the LXX. Aion means long, distant, uninterrupted time. The intensifying plural occurs frequently in the N.T. ...but it adds no new meaning.”

Dr. Lammenois, a man adept with languages, states, “In Hebrew and Greek the words
rendered ‘everlasting’ have not this sense. They signify a long duration of time, a period; whence the phrase, during these eternities and beyond.”

We could add many more scholars to the above list who believe that “everlasting punishment” is NOT the true translation of “aionian kolasin.” The following Bible translations have broken tradition with the King James family of Bibles which include the AS, ASV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, Amplified, Living Translation, etc. The following English Bible translations have translated “aion” in such a manner that God’s punishment does NOT contradict a God whose love and mercy truly endures forever and is unconditional for all mankind.
 

Mexdeaf

New Member
Is it possible for Christian to be a universalist? Some will say no, others will say yes. My position is that it is possible for a Christian to be a universalist -- note, I said "possible". But, to be clear, I believe universalism to be a heresy and I would never say, "All universalists are Christians."

More: http://carm.org/can-christian-be-universalist
 

RLBosley

Active Member
Is it possible for Christian to be a universalist? Some will say no, others will say yes. My position is that it is possible for a Christian to be a universalist -- note, I said "possible". But, to be clear, I believe universalism to be a heresy and I would never say, "All universalists are Christians."

More: http://carm.org/can-christian-be-universalist

Only an uneducated Christian. Same with non-Trinitarians. Many people when they first are born-again know nothing of the Trinity, but embrace it as it is revealed in scripture and God opens the Word to them. Universalism is the same. You can come to faith as a universalist, but I cannot believe that if you are growing and being sanctified that you can stay one as scripture is plain that there is a radical difference between the righteous and the wicked and that their destinies are forever and separate.

Since HW has all but openly affirmed universalism (though never directly answered my question) I wonder what the mods have to say? Isn't affirming universalism ban worthy? Or at least worthy of being restricted to the non-Baptist section since universalism is certainly NOT a Baptist doctrine?
 

MB

Well-Known Member
Only an uneducated Christian. Same with non-Trinitarians. Many people when they first are born-again know nothing of the Trinity, but embrace it as it is revealed in scripture and God opens the Word to them. Universalism is the same. You can come to faith as a universalist, but I cannot believe that if you are growing and being sanctified that you can stay one as scripture is plain that there is a radical difference between the righteous and the wicked and that their destinies are forever and separate.

Since HW has all but openly affirmed universalism (though never directly answered my question) I wonder what the mods have to say? Isn't affirming universalism ban worthy? Or at least worthy of being restricted to the non-Baptist section since universalism is certainly NOT a Baptist doctrine?

Unless he admits to being a universalist you can call him that until the cows come home but it won't make any difference.
MB
 

Thomas Helwys

New Member
Matthew 25:46 Commentary - By Gary Amirault

Does Eternal Punishment have to be as long as Eternal life because the adjective “aionios” is used to describe both punishment and life?

(A short synopsis of this article: The following article proves that “everlasting punishment” in Matthew 25:46 is a MIStranslation in many of the current leading selling English Bible translations including the King James Version, New International Standard Version, New American Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, the Amplified Bible, The Net Bible, New Century Version, New Living Translation, International Standard Version, English Standard Version as well as many others. There are several translations, however, some of which are listed at the end of this article, which do NOT make this mistake. This correction is crucial in regards to having a proper understanding of the nature and character of God and His role as judge. Just because “aionios” is used to describe life and punishment, does not mean they have to be of the same length and quality any more than a “small” house has to be the same size as a “small” ring because the same adjective is used to describe both. Often adjectives take on some of the value of the word they describe. Therefore, “kolasin aionion” (mistranslated “everlasting punishment”) does not have to be the same length as “zoen aionion” (mistranslated “eternal life”). Aionion should not have been translated “everlasting” because aion and its adjective are clearly time words that have beginnings and endings. And “punishment” for the Greek “kolasin” is too strong a word. Kolasin means “to prune a tree to make it more fruitful.” There is nothing fruitful about eternal damnation in burning flames. If Jesus wanted to imply vindictive punishment, the author of Matthew could have chosen the Greek word “timoria,” but he didn’t – he used a much softer word. Furthermore, Matthew 25:46 does not speak of individual salvation based upon faith in Christ, it speaks of separation of nations based upon how they treated Jesus. And lastly, the context seems to indicate the judgments would be upon the religious leadership of Israel and those who considered themselves righteous, not street sinners, low-life Jews and/or adherents to other religious systems, that is, the Gentiles.)

This is essentially correct, and I am surprised to see it presented here.
 

Thomas Helwys

New Member
Only an uneducated Christian. Same with non-Trinitarians. Many people when they first are born-again know nothing of the Trinity, but embrace it as it is revealed in scripture and God opens the Word to them. Universalism is the same. You can come to faith as a universalist, but I cannot believe that if you are growing and being sanctified that you can stay one as scripture is plain that there is a radical difference between the righteous and the wicked and that their destinies are forever and separate.

Since HW has all but openly affirmed universalism (though never directly answered my question) I wonder what the mods have to say? Isn't affirming universalism ban worthy? Or at least worthy of being restricted to the non-Baptist section since universalism is certainly NOT a Baptist doctrine?

I don't think anyone should be banned for expressing an opinion. Banning for that reason is not a Baptist thing to do.

The Primitive Baptist Universalists would not agree with you about it not being a Baptist doctrine.

I've seen a Baptist on here defending infant baptism and Roman Catholics defending Mariolatry, and they are still here. It would be unjust for HW to be banned.
 

saturneptune

New Member
So if someone who claims to be a Christian denies the deity of Christ, and I say they're a heretic, then I am "devoid of all aspects of a relationship with Jesus Christ"?
No, before one calls another person a heretic, he or she should be devoid of all aspects of a relationship with Jesus Christ. Disagreeing about one issue does not make one a heretic.
 

saturneptune

New Member
Thanks for support. I think. ;)



Heresy according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary
1: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma

Heresy according to CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)
A heresy is a deviation from the truth.

Universalism qualifies as both. It is contrary to orthodox Christian theology and is a lie. Thus a universalist is a heretic by definition.



I think you misunderstood his point (or I did?), I think he is saying that calling someone a heretic means you are saying the individual (the "heretic") is "devoid of all aspects of a relationship with Jesus Christ."

I hope that's what he meant anyway.

You are correct. The name of heretic is used way too freely on this board.
 

HisWitness

New Member
A heretic quoting a heretic. Amirault is a heretic.

I notice you didn't even bother to try and combat what was presented,but just make slurs against people without having understanding--may God shine his Glorious light upon you my friend :godisgood::godisgood:
 

michael-acts17:11

Member
Site Supporter
Agreed! It's one thing to call a belief "heresy", it's another thing entirely to call a person a "heretic". The use of "heretic", against fellow members, should be banned. It is a discussion-stopping, character-attacking, self-righteous term that has no place in an intelligent discussion between fellow believers.
 

Mexdeaf

New Member
Or it could just be an apt description of their teaching - or would you rather call them "a person who causes division" - another Biblical name for heretic.
 

michael-acts17:11

Member
Site Supporter
Language evolves over time. The word "heretic" has come to mean much more than just "someone who causes division". Such a person can be called divisive or dissentious. Now, if a person is attempting to draw us away from Christ, then that person should rightly be labeled a heretic. However, in this era, the term "heretic" is primarily used to attack believers with differing views.
 

Mexdeaf

New Member
Language evolves over time. The word "heretic" has come to mean much more than just "someone who causes division". Such a person can be called divisive or dissentious. Now, if a person is attempting to draw us away from Christ, then that person should rightly be labeled a heretic. However, in this era, the term "heretic" is primarily used to attack believers with differing views.

Sorry you disagree.
 
Top