Topic: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist (Read 3286 times)

hearsayheresy · « **on:** October 30, 2006, 06:07:04 PM »

Anyone who has encountered and/or studied Christian Universalism has probably come across a subset of Christian Universalists who go to great lengths in denying that the Greek words AIWN and AIWNIOS ever, in Biblical usage, refer to eternity. They will uphold this position at the expense of defying virtually all current Biblical Greek scholarship.

There is a member here who posts as Tony N. and with who many of you might be familiar as an advocate of this position. He, and others who believe as he does concerning this issue, has parroted the same tired mantra in this forum as he has in other forums for the past several years, claiming that these Greek words do not mean what the Greek scholars would have us believe it means (anyone smell a conspiracy theory?).

Tony N. and Co. base their rejection of the consensus of Greek scholarship on this issue (the consensus being that AIWNIOS is typically used in the New Testament to convey the notion of eternality) by appealing to an incredibly weak "law of grammar," as they are fond of putting it: We are told that because a noun-based adjective must be semantically bound to the nounal root from which its derived, and because the noun AIWN always refers to a period of time, it follows that the adjective AIWNIOS must also refer to a period of time, and not eternity. There are, however, a few glaring errors with this argument:

1. This argument is a textbook example of the etymologic fallacy also know as the "root fallacy." Etymology is not enough to determine usage.

2. English and Greek grammars, while similar on many fronts, do not follow the same set of grammatical laws.

3. Even in English, many adjectives no longer retain the meaning of the noun from which they were originally derived. 'Gorgeous', 'hideous' and 'monstrous' come immediately to my mind.

4. This argument presents an astounding denial of the dynamic nature of all languages: Words morph over time to mean something that cannot be gathered from its more ancient meanings, whether they be adjectives or the nouns from which they were formed.

5. AIWN is in fact used in the plural to convey eternity (Luke 1:33, for example).

Many people have gotten a bad impression of Christian Universalist scholarship, considering it rather shoddy, because of the ridiculous dogmaticism of this subset of Universalists on this issue. It is thus my intention in this thread to show that the fact that AIWNIOS typically refers to eternality (even in verses such as Matthew 25:46 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9) is not at odds with the Biblical position that all sinners will finally be saved. I will seek to demonstrate that AIWNIOS, in the New Testament, typically conveys the notion of atemporality and functions as an epithet of divinity.

The late and great Greek scholar and Universalist, William Barclay, understood AIWNIOS to be the word of eternity in the sense of timelessness. Wrote Barclay, in his New Testament Words:

Quote

The essence of the word aionios is that it is the word of the eternal order as contrasted with the order of this world; it is the word of deity as contrasted with humanity; essentially it is the word which can be properly applied to no one other than God. Aionios is the word which describes nothing less and nothing more than the life of God.

Doesn't this make good sense in light of the many verses which contrast things aeonian with the perishable things of this passing world?

Let's examine some passages in light of what Barclay notes above.

"For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, aeonian in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1

Here AIWNIOS is used of the indissoluble things of Heaven in contrast to the things of the mundane world of corruption.

"...because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are aeonian." - 2 Corinthians 4:18

In this verse, AIWNIOS describes that which human eyes have not seen, and ears have not heard, because they belong to the unseen realm of God.

"Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal." - John 6:27

AIWNIOS here refers to that Heavenly life which does not fade nor falter: It is the very life of Christ in contradistinction to the perishable life that humanity has in Adam.

This life that Christ gives - the very life of God - is not of this world, but is of the unseen realm of Spirit:

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." - John 3:6

Continues Barclay:

Quote

In spiritual things we must guard against all conclusions which rest upon the notions of succession and duration. 'Eternal life' is that which St. Paul speaks of as 'e outos Zoe the life which is life indeed, and 'e zoe tou theou, the life of God. It is not an endless duration of being in time, but being of which time is not a measure.

Indeed, from its first known appearance in Greek literature (Plato - see Timaeus 37d), AIWNIOS was used of that which transcends the world of time. This sense is retained in the New Testament, as is manifest considering that this word is routinely used in the New Testament contexts in which its juxtaposition to things perishable is manifest.

So then, what do we make of those verses which speak of "eternal destruction" and "eternal punishment"? Is it not that sort of destruction/punishment which originates in the eternal God?

"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;" - 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9

Here we read that the wicked will be destroyed by Heavenly fire (note that the Greek word APO does not signify that the destruction consists in being away from God, but that the destruction comes from God). Aeonian destruction, evidently, is nonebut divine destruction, just as aeonian punishment is simply that sort of perfect parental punishment which originates in the Heavenly Father.

Yes, AIWNIOS means 'eternal' (in the sense of temporal-transcendence) and yes, this is perfectly compatible with Scriptural Universalism.

A pertinent link of interest:

http://www.growthingod.org.uk/aeonrelm.htm

Zagzagel · « **Reply #1 on:** November 03, 2006, 07:22:12 PM »

You are a bad student. let me further say that you might even be gnostic. But don't let that dissuade you from your conviction my friend.

hearsayheresy · « **Reply #2 on:** November 03, 2006, 08:45:14 PM »

I'm a bad student in the sense that I'm a naughty student, or that my scholarship is poor? And in what way am I gnostic?

Tony N · « **Reply #3 on:** November 09, 2006, 03:18:54 PM »

Quote from: Zagzagel

You are a bad student. let me further say that you might even be gnostic. But don't let that dissuade you from your conviction my friend.

He's not a gnostic, he is really an atheist. I'm not kidding.

hh wrote:

Quote

Tony N. and Co. base their rejection of the consensus of Greek scholarship on this issue (the consensus being that AIWNIOS is typically used in the New Testament to convey the notion of eternality) by appealing to an incredibly weak "law of grammar," as they are fond of putting it: We are told that because a noun-based adjective must be semantically bound to the nounal root from which its derived, and because the noun AIWN always refers to a period of time, it follows that the adjective AIWNIOS must also refer to a period of time, and not eternity.

Gabe, first of all, you keep stating that which I do not believe.

Where have I ever stated that "AIWN always refers to a period of time"?
Where have I ever stated that "AIWNIOS must also refer to a period of time"?
I believe that is what is called setting up a straw man argument.

AIWN has the basid meaning of "duration." That duration in the Scriptures can be short or very very long. But it is never eternal, never unending.

AIWNION is just an adjective. It is not some invention meant to convey a meaning apart from the noun from which it is derived.

It just has the duty of telling us that which pertains to the AIWN (eon) or AIWNAS (eons).

For instance, in Romans 16:26 where the KJV has "the eternal God," this is really "the aiwniou Theou" or "the eonian God." This is not telling us how long God has been around, but is telling us God's relationship to the eons. He is the eonian God. He is the God pertaining to the eons. He is in charge of them, directing them, subjecting humanity to each one's specific goal.

Gabe, you can't understand these things because you are soulish.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** November 09, 2006, 03:26:27 PM »

Welp. Almost all the characters are here, now.

Tony N · « **Reply #5 on:** November 09, 2006, 03:43:01 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Welp. Almost all the characters are here, now.

Hi Johnny, long time no see. How's your ministry coming along?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** November 09, 2006, 04:49:56 PM »

Hopefully starting with a new vigor in January, with a book due out this December (somewhat not ministry related, but helpfully financially, I hope).

hearsayheresy · « **Reply #7 on:** November 14, 2006, 08:32:36 PM »

Tony wrote:

Quote

Where have I ever stated that "AIWN always refers to a period of time"?
Where have I ever stated that "AIWNIOS must also refer to a period of time"?

See below:

Quote

AIWN has the basid meaning of "duration." That duration in the Scriptures can be short or very very long. But it is never eternal, never unending.

And a duration that is not endless is, by definition, a period of time. Understand?

Quote

AIWNION is just an adjective. It is not some invention meant to convey a meaning apart from the noun from which it is derived.

It just has the duty of telling us that which pertains to the AIWN (eon) or AIWNAS (eons).

This was dealt with in my opening post. See here:
1. This argument is a textbook example of the etymologic fallacy also know as the "root fallacy." Etymology is not enough to determine usage.

2. English and Greek grammars, while similar on many fronts, do not follow the same set of grammatical laws.

3. Even in English, many adjectives no longer retain the meaning of the noun from which they were originally derived. 'Gorgeous', 'hideous' and 'monstrous' come immediately to my mind.

4. This argument presents an astounding denial of the dynamic nature of all languages: Words morph over time to mean something that cannot be gathered from its more ancient meanings, whether they be adjectives or the nouns from which they were formed.

5. AIWN is in fact used in the plural to convey eternity (Luke 1:33, for example).

Quote

For instance, in Romans 16:26 where the KJV has "the eternal God," this is really "the aiwniou Theou" or "the eonian God." This is not telling us how long God has been around, but is telling us God's relationship to the eons. He is the eonian God. He is the God pertaining to the eons. He is in charge of them, directing them, subjecting humanity to each one's specific goal.

I agree, although I must add that aionios serves to convey the notion of the unchangeable and incorruptible realm of God insofar as it is manifested in this transient world: The phrase 'the aeonian God' speaks to the immanence of the timeless God within the realm of time - the manifestation of things heavenly in our earthly existence.

Quote

Gabe, you can't understand these things because you are soulish.

I know you are but what am I? Really though, I understand these things just fine. I was onced convic nced of its truth and even argued for it regularly during the course of a few years until I was persuaded of its folly.

Tony N · « **Reply #8 on:** November 17, 2006, 02:03:52 PM »

Tony wrote:

Where have I ever stated that "AIWN always refers to a period of time"?
Where have I ever stated that "AIWNIOS must also refer to a period of time"?

HH's reply:
See below:

Tony wrote before Quote:
AIWN has the basid meaning of "duration." That duration in the Scriptures can be short or very very long. But it is never eternal, never unending.

And a duration that is not endless is, by definition, a period of time. Understand?

Tony's reply:
You put that in quotes as if I actually said it. I never wrote: "AIWN always refers to a period of time." That is a misrepresentation. AIWN has the basic meaning of duration. That is a correct quote of what I said. Whenever you put something in quotes you are telling the audience that you are giving a word for word quote of what the author wrote.

Tony wrote:
Quote:
AIWNION is just an adjective. It is not some invention meant to convey a meaning apart from the noun from which it is derived.

It just has the duty of telling us that which pertains to the AIWN (eon) or AIWNAS (eons).

HH's reply:
This was dealt with in my opening post. See here:
1. This argument is a textbook example of the etymologic fallacy also know as the "root fallacy." Etymology is not enough to determine usage.

Tony's reply:
No, it is not using the root fallacy!
I found this here: http://www.answering-islam.de/Main///Responses//Zaman/stagnant.htm "The Etymological Fallacye [sic] to be called the etymological fallacy or root fallacy. Roughly speaking one could say that the root fallacy is the assumption that the original meaning of the word (the root meaning) is its true or even its only meaning."

One must prove, which hearsayheresy has not, that the original meaning of AIWN before the New Testament was penned up to the time the NT was penned does not have the same meaning. It does have the same meaning therefore there is no root fallacy involved. The word "Theos" (God) was always used of either a god or the God pre NT, NT and post NT. To state that Theos means "God" is not using the root fallacy any more than stating that AIWN has the meaning of duration.

HH continues:
2. English and Greek grammars, while similar on many fronts, do not follow the same set of grammatical laws.

Tony's reply:
Obviously hearsayheresy never took up the study of Greek language. The only way to learn ancient Greek is by the use of grammatical laws! The only way we can understand the grammar laws of Greek is to relate them to the grammar laws of English!

HH continues:
3. Even in English, many adjectives no longer retain the meaning of the noun from which they were originally derived. 'Gorgeous', 'hideous' and 'monstrous' come immediately to my mind.

Tony's reply:
According to the dictionary, Monstrous, being the adjective, pertains to the noun "monstrousness." Gorgeous pertains to georgeousness. Hideousness pertains to hideousness or hideosity.

HH continues:
4. This argument presents an astounding denial of the dynamic nature of all languages: Words morph over time to mean something that cannot be gathered from its more ancient meanings, whether they be adjectives or the nouns from which they were formed.

Tony's reply:
hearsayheresy has not proven that the pre NT usage of AIWN has morphed into something far different than that used in the NT. It hasn't.

HH continues:
5. AIWN is in fact used in the plural to convey eternity (Luke 1:33, for example).

Tony's reply:
Wrong. "Eons" used in the plural just means one comes after another. "Days" does not mean eternities nor does "weeks", "months" nor "years" nor "decades" and so neither does "eons." One must end before another takes its place. Furthermore Luke 1:33 actually disproves that Christ will rule over the house of Judah for eternity since 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 is very specific that Christ hands over the kingdom to God and quits reigning.

Tony wrote:
Quote:
For instance, in Romans 16:26 where the KJV has "the eternal God," this is really "the aiwniou Theou" or "the eonian God." This is not telling us how long God has been around, but is telling us God's relationship to the eons. He is the eonian God. He is the God pertaining to the eons. He is in charge of them, directing them, subjecting humanity to each one's specific goal.

hearsayheresay replies:
I agree, although I must add that aionios serves to convey the notion of the unchangeable and incorruptible realm of God insofar as it is manifested in this transient world: The phrase 'the aeonian God' speaks to the immanence of the timeless God within the realm of time - the manifestation of things heavenly in our earthly existence.

Tony's reply:
The noun does not modify the adjective. The adjective modifies the noun. In the term "small giant," "giant" does not modify the adjective "small." When the giant is seen in the midst of other much larger giants, it is seen that the giant in question is indeed small. Thus also, the term "eonian God" God does not modify the adjective "eonian." Rather, since God is the God pertaining to the eons, He is the eonian God. When the eons end He will cease being the eonian God. He will then be "God All in all" (1 Cor.15:28).

Another example of an adjective with different nouns: A red dog and a red horse. Does the horse make red different than what the dog does because the horse lives much longer than the dog or is much larger than the dog? no. The noun does not modify the adjective. Or how about the brown turtle that lives two hundred years and the brown fly that lives two days. Should we make "brown" to mean something different when used with the turtle than with the fly since the turtle lives vastly longer than the fly? No.

Tony wrote:
Quote:
Gabe, you can't understand these things because you are soulish.

Gabe replied:
I know you are but what am I? Really though, I understand these things just fine. I was onced convic nced of its truth and even argued for it regularly during the course of a few years until I was persuaded of its folly.

Tony's reply:
Which proves you never really got it in the first place for if you did you wouldn't have given it up.

Tony N · « **Reply #9 on:** November 18, 2006, 04:11:33 AM »

I received this in an e-mail recently:

"Rock of AGES cleft for me, let me hide myself in thee..." nothing in this TRADITIONALY ACCEPTED song says that God is only a God of ages and not an endless God. A seemingly good argument for your cause!

Though it's not a scriptural argument, the tradition of having sung this song for so many years has the potential to get the idea across of what "the eternal God" versus the "eonian God" or the "God of ages" really means and how it was used in the bible.

God bless!

Zagzagel · « **Reply #10 on:** January 02, 2007, 05:01:06 PM »

Hmmm... Tony, I don't think this person was athiest at all. Probably more "gnostic" than the both of us... but yet, this person gives something to think about.????

I bet I'm right.. this person is 'gnostis' or "gnostic" in every sense of the word.

I particularily find nothing wrong with that. haha

Tony N · « **Reply #11 on:** January 09, 2007, 12:42:24 PM »

Hi Zag,
He said he is an atheist.

Besides all that has been stated already, it is impossible for there to be "eternal torment" for the sheer reason that God will have all mankind to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4-6; 4:10) and all mankind will be made righteous and justified (Romans 5:18,19) all mankind will be headed up in Christ (Eph.1:10), all mankind will be reconciled (Colossians 1:20) (believers are reconciled NOW Col.1:21) to name but a few.

There is not one verse in all the bible where aion or aionios can properly be translated "eternal."

Zagzagel · « **Reply #12 on:** January 09, 2007, 07:27:19 PM »

There is not one verse in all the bible where aion or aionios can properly be translated "eternal."

Sure there is. As someone who believes in this so-called 'universalism' at least I am able to make room for this allowance.. and it does not threaten my position to do so either.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #13 on:** January 09, 2007, 07:29:35 PM »

Welp. Almost all the characters are here, now.

IF Tony is right sntj, that this person is what Tony says, then since you joined here, you are now right.

hehe

Tony N · « **Reply #14 on:** February 22, 2007, 12:41:57 PM »

Quote from: Zagzagel on January 09, 2007, 07:27:19 PM

Tony wrote:
There is not one verse in all the bible where aion or aionios can properly be translated "eternal."

Zagzagel replied:
Sure there is. As someone who believes in this so-called 'universalism' at least I am able to make room for this allowance.. and it does not threaten my position to do so either.

Tony's reply:
Sure there is not. It is impossible for aionios to be translated "eternal." The noun it pertains to: "aion/eon" would have to mean eternal. It does not. No eon is eternal. The Bible states that they all end.

Apollos · « **Reply #15 on:** April 04, 2007, 08:13:13 PM »

To bad this one hasn't continued - HH has some very good points.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #16 on:** July 19, 2007, 06:06:46 PM »

I forgot about this thread.

I will have to continue this if Tony N is still around? And HH?

hearsayheresy · « **Reply #17 on:** October 18, 2007, 09:49:56 PM »

I re-discovered this thread tonight. I'm available for chi-chat on this lovely word aionios if anyone is still interested.

That Tony N. sure is a real hoot, isn't he?

Zagzagel · « **Reply #18 on:** October 25, 2007, 11:05:12 PM »

Do you have something to begin with? I've been a studious person when it comes to the aionios .so difficult word!!

What is your word on it??

hearsayheresy · « **Reply #19 on:** November 12, 2007, 05:18:39 PM »

Well, Zag, we can start by discussing my opening post/ Do you have anything to say about it besides, "You are a bad student"?

Author Topic: Maintaining the Integrity of the Christian Universalist (Read 3286 times)