John 3

This is a true statement. Always has been and always will be. However just because He IS Lord, doesn't mean that you allow Him to work in your life as your Lord. There must be cooperation there, and all saved individuals do not cooperate in the sanctification process.

Some folks continue to walk in the flesh instead of in the Spirit and if that is the case while He IS their Lord He is not in control of their lives, they are.

 

When David was anointed king, was he or was he not king?

How does this apply in view of those who followed him, vs those who followed Saul, vs those who were simply existing?

 

Correction: John 17:3.:thumbs:

 

Because it's an idiom. I think the idiom's meaning is very clear in Dan. 12:2 in the Septuagint.

A. T. Robertson points out that in James 1:21 we have an "effective aorist active infinitive" meaning "ultimate salvation." I don't have time to discuss the rest. Have to work.

You'll not find me slinging mud, lying and mischaracterizing. You will find me standing up strongly for what I believe if I consider it a fundamental doctrine. We are dealing here with fundamental doctrine.

A gentle word of advice: don't expect preachers of my age (55) and experience to sit at your feet and listen uncritically until you get more experience under your belt. :smilewinkgrin: Frankly, I feel that you launched me when I asked more about your interpretation of John 3 by saying, "That's what Scripture says, and I just believe it." Sorry, friend, that just doesn't cut it with me when the Scripture does not directly say something. You need evidence to convince someone of such a controversial position, not just opinion.

Have to go. God bless.

 

I don't consider David to be parallel to Christ in this instance. Christ clearly said that His kingdom was not of this world (present tense) at the time of His earthly ministry.

 

Why do you not consider it parallel?

David was king, but his kingdom was future; Jesus has been anointed king, but his kingdom is future.

 

That's just another reference to life and it's not any more clear than any other statement in the NT that speaks to the same thing.

In order to show that aionios can mean either without beginning/without ending or simply without end there needs to be a clear use of aion as something other than an age of time with a beginning and an end.

And the Greek is a very specific language so doesn't it seem just a bit odd that a word could have such a broad range of meaning?

Glad to hear that!

Exactly.

I'm sure Timothy heard many of the same statements.

If Scripture spoke "directly," to everything then you wouldn't have so many demoninations. Scripture is not easy. Scripture must be compared with Scripture. Here a little and there a little. Line upon line and precept upon precept.

Again if Scripture was easy everyone would believe the same thing.

Thankfully we have Scripture on our side . :thumbs:

 

David's kingdom was completely physical, Christ's is not. And I don't agree that His kingdom was exclusively future, as I have said.

 

I don't mean any offense by this, but who gets to pick and choose which instances do parallel Christ and which ones don't?

I thought all of Scripture pointed to Christ is some form or fashion?

 

The physical was quite often used to teach about the Spiritual.

 

Take another look. It is speaking of life after resurrection, not simply life.

Forgive me, but you need to understand what an idiom is. It is an atypical usage of a word or words. When you put aionos with zoe it becomes an idiom, and the sum is different than the parts.

I suggest you need to study Greek. There are some words with a very wide range of meaning. In particular, get yourself the BADG lexicon and see the wide range of meanings of some words--pages and pages! Even better for range of meaning is Louw-Nida.

And now I really must work. I shouldn't have looked at the BB again!

 

Exactly. That's my point. That is the same life the NT speaks concerning. However the next phase of life is not eternity, but the 1,000-year kingdom of Christ. Life is not a guarantee in that age. Everlasting life doesn't beging until "after" the kingdom when the endless ages begin for us humans.

I do, but there is nothing atypical of the use of aionios. At least not concrete. Do you have any ancient writings that call aionios an idiom? And even if you do there are a number of scholars that disagree with that assessment and so we are once again going to boil this discussion down to a "my scholar is better than your scholar quibble."

Well that's what I'm in the process of doing. So on the one hand it is an extremely precise langauge and then on the other hand it is very broad. Hmmm . . . that's kind of like the expanse of our discussion where aion means a period of time, but aionios means forever and ever and ever and ever.

Sounds like to me we want to be specific when we want but leave enough room in the back for an escape if we need one?

By the way I'm sure the BADG is a valuable resource, but it's just a resource. It's not infallible. Some folks were living and dying by Strong's earlier in the discussion. Bottom line is we just need to find out what Scripture says not what man has to say about it. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't consult resource, but we can't hold them up as the ultimate authority either.

 

Let me ask you a question, and I think that you of all people can do this honestly: Step back from what you already believe. (I had to do that with "lost" and "saint" and some other things.)

Now, look at aionian life. Don't apply "forever" to it, don't apply "age" to it. Can you point to a passage of Scripture that clearly points to this being forever and ever? Can you find a nonbiblical example of aionios meaning forever and ever? Can you find an adjective whose semantic domain exceeds the semantic domain of the noun from which it's formed?

I understand perfectly what an idioim is, and "from the ages unto the ages" is an almost universally recognized idiom for "forever and ever", although it literally means "a really long time". (However, I've never seen it used to simply mean "a really long time".)

However, can you point to a nonbiblical source that uses the word to mean "forever and ever"? The reason that I say nonbiblical is because we have the preconceived idea that it means "forever and ever", although the word itself does not mean it, and the word "eternal" when the KJV was translated simply primarily meant "a long time", and that was the primary meaning until the 18th century. (The word "ever" has has its roots in meaning "ever in life", as well.)

Greek is very precise, in that the tenses are very precise. Many words also have only one meaning, but some have more than one, and often those with multiple meanings are only used in certain contexts. (An example of this is "spirit" has four meanings, while "soul" has one, in spite of the fact that many people try to use them interchangeably today, or even apply many more meanings to the words that are nonexistent.)

However, having more than one meaning in no way diminishes the preciseness of the language itself, in that the tenses and words combined, in most cases, leave little, if any room for ambiguity. But, many people try to assign modern meanings to words that the Greek will not support, and since English does not support the TVM of the Greek, a word-for-word translation loses most of that preciseness, unless there are grammatical markings in the translation.

Addictive, isn't it? Thankfully I don't sleep much, or I would be part of the walking dead, and that's a no-no in the Baptist world!

 

Now we are talking different languages. Our theology is completely different here. When a person is resurrected to eternal rewards as in Daniel 12, I see nothing but eternal life.

Sigh. No, aionios is not the idiom. You are not quite getting it. The idiom is two words, zoen aionion.

But actually, it is not a matter of "my scholar vs. your scholar." It is a matter of the vast majority of scholars vs. who? Anyone? The only one I know on your side is someone named S. S. Craig in 1916 who Hope of Glory quotes on his website. I've never heard of him. Maybe he is a scholar, maybe not.

However, the following koine lexicons give "eternal" and/or "everlasting" as one meaning for aionos: BADG, Thayer, Abbot-Smith, UBS dictionary, Souter, Louw-Nida, Analytical. The Liddell and Scott classical Greek lexicon also agrees. Not one single lexicon or dictionary I have disagrees!

Right. It is often dangerous to be dogmatic on languages, since they are growing and living creatures.

Exactly. I use three languages professionally almost every day: English, Japanese and NT Greek. Whenever I run across a difficult word in any language, my first thought is not the dictionary, but to research how it is used in other contexts.

 

And, are there any uses of aionios in nonbiblical usages that is clearly "forever"?

BTW, I didn't remember citing Craig on my web site, but I probably did. However, there is quite a list of those who do point out that "aionios" means age-lasting, including many literal translations.

I do have a friend, with whom I disagree on quite a few issues, including this one, who is a Greek professor, and I have heard him teach (paraphrase), "Aionios means 'age-lasting', but it's really 'forever' because not everyone understood the concept of 'forever'."

Greek has a word that means "eternal" in the strictest sense of the word. It has a phrase that means "forever and ever". Why would God use a word that means a limited period of time to describe either of these?

 

In Clement’s first letter to the Corinthians 18:1 it refers to God’s “eternal mercy.” How could God’s mercy not be eternal but only for the ages?

In “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” 22:1 it speaks of Jesus as “the eternal King Jesus.” The word “eternal” is aiwnas, the accusative plural of aiwn. So is Jesus the eternal King? Or is He the King of the ages? Either way the proponents of millennial exclusion have a problem. In the same verse the throne of Christ is referred to as eternal, aiownos. If the throne of Christ is not eternal, then He ceases being King at the end of the millennium. I don’t believe that and I don't think you do either.

In classical Greek, the meaning “eternal” occurs. So Liddel-Scott’s lexicon gives “eternal” as a meaning. In my First Three Books of Homer’s Iliad (1885), edited by Henry Johnson, Clarence Blake’s lexicon is included. It has concerning aiwn, “time, a period of time, a space of time; a lifetime, also time of life or age; endless time.” So the concept is there also in classical Greek in this related word. In two places in Plato it appears to mean “eternal,” though I can't give you details there.

Well, Young's Literal Translation has "age-during" a number of times. But that doesn't mean that he didn't believe the word also meant "eternal" sometimes. Besides, occasionally I look at Young's (because my Japanese linguist likes to refer to it) and just shake my head, because in his efforts to be strictly literal, sometimes he just got it flat wrong!

You are referring to another idiom. Why would it be strange for Greek to have both a single word and an idiom which both mean "eternal?" Personally, I believe that the phrase idiom you are referring to is a stronger term than just aionos. So when I translate it into Japanese I do so literally (eien kara eien e, "from eternity to eternity") because it produces a very strong image of eternity in Japanese. :type:

 

We are resurrrected to aionios rewards not forever and ever and ever rewards. Just like we are resurrected to aionios life.

Ah okay. Yeah I was not quite understanding you, but I see what you were saying now! Don't agree with it, but see where you are coming from.

Yeah just Google the word aionios. It's definitely a scholar vs scholar thing! By the way just to show you that despite knowing the truth it can still be misapplied, because if you do a Google search you will see that most of the people that understand aionios means age-lasting try to support one of two false teachings (universalism or annihilation). Sad but ture. So please understand that I do not support either of those positions.

 

1. John, I commend your use of the language, but once again, I see an aversion to the language on the part of your dissenters.

2. They continue to ride their hobby horses without any respect for true scholarship.

3. When the use of the language goes against their position, it suddenly becomes another fallible view and the slighting follows: there are scholars on both sides.

4. I have been reading both sides now, and I notice the obvious stutter to the language. The aversion is unmistakable.

 

I will have to see if I can find the Clement file on my computer. I know I have it on one of them, but not sure where. Until I look at it, I cannot comment on it with any reasonableness.

However, I can comment on the Polycarp one: 1 Corinthians 15:24: Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Jesus is always deity. He is not always king. He came as a prophet. Today he is our high priest. He has been anointed king. One day he will be king. Then, he will be giving up authority to his God and father.

I don't have Clarence Blake's lexicon. Do you have it handy enought to tell when it was written?

 

And once again we come down to the final argument. You have scholars that believe what you believe and there are scholars that believe what we believe and then there are scholars that while they don't agree with what we believe would back up our stance on the wording.

So I guess that's where we stand, huh? Scholars versus scholars?