Then there's Matthew 25:46
"And will go off these into punishment eternal (aionion) the but right ones into life eternal (aionion)"

What does aionion mean?  It's the universalist bible versus hundreds of years of Greek experts.  But we'll treat it like a black box. 

If aionion means "two weeks", why should I follow Jesus for such a short life?

But if aionion means "eternal", then I'll follow the one who can guarantee "eternal" life and, by parallel, condemns the goats to "eternal" punishment.

Whatever the meaning, the parallel context alone gives you an idea of the durational meaning of the word.

Corey: Here's where I really love Whitehead's ideas about Importance, and how any formal system necessarily excludes important notions.

Jeff: Corey (or anyone), can you give me an example of what Whitehead’s talking about there? Sounds interesting? Is that in “Modes of Thought?”

Meph: If we say that angelic reconciliation fundamentally deals with God creating angels such that they cannot get to a point of IRREVOCABLE "despairing"

Jeff: Meph, the way I read that, it doesn’t sound different in principle than something like an effectual call. Cause if we say that God creates angels such that they cannot get to a point of irrevocable despairing, then all the action to prevent “ultimate harm” seems to rest squarely on God—not the creature. This seems  especially so if God has provided a “mechanism,” as you have called it, that God can implement to assure something like repentance or enlightenment.

Personally, I have no problem with this. To me, it seems we can see the bifurcation of God with respect to LFW creatures as having to do with the current state of affairs while the temporal aspects (prior to Christ delivering the kingdom to the Father) of Christ’s reign are being worked out—where those who volitionally suffer with him reign with him during that temporal reign. After that, however, the propitiation seems sufficient to eliminate the occasion for bifurcation since all can then partake of the divine nature and be reconciled that way. And the associated enlightenment of that conversion/partaking can be cause for glorification by those who never had believed before.

In short, the propitiation might be sufficient not only to render the Father just in justifying those who believe in the present time, but also just in justifying those who didn’t believe and partake in Christ’s temporal reign (because they didn’t volitionally suffer with Christ) independent of volitional conversion. And the bifurcation of God with respect to LFW creatures which obtains now (the idea that God especially saves those who believe prior to the delivering up of the kingdom to the Father, as Timothy says) might be conditioned by the mode whereby God maximizes Christ’s glory in his temporal reign in this creation, which was part of God’s purpose in creating. Thereafter, the Father is all in all—including all of the redeemed creatures.

This way, glory and love are correlative. God creates to glorify Christ as an act of love to him. The Fall necessitates the propitiation and certain conditions that imply “rook for queen” activity on the part of a loving God. But the queen is Christ’s glory—because Christ is the primary, non-contingent object of His love. Rooks have to be sacrificed in the short run for optimal glorification of Christ in the temporal aspect of his reign.  But no creature is ever the queen that renders another creature a rook. It's always Christ and his glory that is the queen. Hence, the perfectness of God's love--it is never compromised by temporal conditions. No risk, even, in one sense. God is always maximizing that temporal glory--even in His decision to keep the project going on longer. Thereafter (when Christ delivers up the kingdom), love is unconstrained by the means necessary to attain that temporal end. Hence, no more rooks for queen!! All is harmony and joy.

Any coherence, here? 

Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/14/2006 9:31:53 PM (GMT-5)