 Welcome to AllFaith.com! Universalism: Did Jesus Save the World Entire?
A Question by Rodger: Mistranslation of the Greek word "aion" is a master stroke of diabolical genius. Perhaps no other word erroneously translated, could more effectively pervert man’s image of God and cause such widespread confusion in the church. Because the understanding of the eons and Gods purpose in them has been lost, the church is divided on such important teachings as man's destiny, grace, election, salvation, security of the believer, judgment and other issues. The following work by Joseph E. Kirk is offered in the hope that the serious seeker after scriptural truth will be aided in his quest. Reply from John of AllFaith: Hi Rodger, I don't see a question here, which is what this service is for. The King James Version is not a perfect translation of the original/oldest extant manuscripts. I realize this is anathema to many people but its true. Many examples besides the ones this website cites could be made. For instance Matt 24:3 does not really say the "end of the world" (Kosmos -- which itself would not be quite so clear as it might seem because kosmos carries the notion of structure and government not just the physical planet) but the end of the age (aion which references time not physical existence). It is however, unlike the NIV and other New Age paraphrases, based on the most dependable and historically accepted manuscripts: the Textus Receptus (Received Texts). In this case as in others (with the KJV) I see nothing "diabolical" going on. The KJV is a translation and NO translation can be perfect as anyone who has ever set their hand to translating knows. This is why serious students either learn the original languages or utilize dependable study aids as well as take the time to determine which source materials to accept as [most] authorized. AND hopefully to recognize their own human limitations. Even between people who speak the same languages; husbands wives or between friends there is sometimes a lack of understanding of what was meant by the other. You posted this under the heading of Baptists. Baptists, generally speaking, would have no difficulty accepting the translation of the words as presented on these web pages. Even Strong's is in agreement with the translations. The disagreement would come from how this information is interpreted and what it tells us. Doctrine should not be established on single verses but from the overall flow of the texts and the Spirit of God. Herein lies confusion and honest differences of opinion. As you didn't ask any questions I wont presume to answer any. As for Universalism, which the saviourofall.org website propagates, most Baptists (not all) reject this teaching and have sound scriptural justifications for doing so. Scriptural arguments can be made in favor of both (as well as other) views. My personal beliefs are essentially universalist. When John 3:17 says for instance that: "For God sent not his Son into the world [kosmos] to condemn [krino: to separate] the world [kosmos]; but that the world [kosmos] through [dia: by reason of, because of] him might be saved [sozo: preserved completely]." I tend to believe that is the biblical teaching: that Jesus saved the world entire. And yet I suspect you and I might not agree on the specifics of what this means were we to compare notes either. I volunteer under various AllExpert.com categories and this topic would be better continued here: http://www.allexperts.com/ep/1596-73322/Comparative-Religious-Studies/John-AllFaith.htm in my Comparative Religions section if you are interested in pursuing this topic with me. As a general statement here in this (Baptist) section however, Baptists will not accept the interpretations presented on saviourofall.org because they believe that: I John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. To Baptists this seems clear: Those who have Jesus as their "personal Lord and Savior" are saved, those who do not are damned (remember of course that Baptists also embrace the Doctrine of Eternal Security which is a step closer to universalism than that found in many other Christian sects). Maranatha, | 
No comments:
Post a Comment