I read a post on falling from grace at http://blackandreformedministries.com/2008/12/30/once-saved-always-saved-or-falling-from-grace/

 

In the comments, we discussed what the word eternal means and my response would be too long for a comment so I am posting here on my blog. As you may know, I am not dogmatic about most of my positions. Rather, I assign a probability of truth to certain positions. I used to have concerns about 'Calvinist predestination' and the 'preservation for the saints' until I dealt with what is meant by eternal. I found that once I had an understanding of God's eternal attributes the difficulties with predestination and eternal security seem to me to just be a misunderstanding of what the definition of eternal is.

 

There are two opposing opinions on the definition for the Greek word aionios. Some people contend that aionios mean time without end. As if it is a endless time. I will designate this as eternal[1] or eternity[1]. My understanding of aionios and how it is used in classical Greek is timeless eternity. That there is no such thing as past, present or future. I will designate this as eternal[2] or eternity[2].

 

I contend that eternal[2] has a higher probability of being the correct interpretation and superior to eternal[1] for the following reasons.

 

The Universe is composed of two parts, space and time. That is why it is often referred to as the space-time continuum. This Universe is God's creation. He is not bound by His creation and thus not bound by time. This fact reinforces eternal[2] not eternal[1]. In order for eternal[1] to be true He would have to exist within His creation. If He is within His creation how would He create it?

 

The Septuagint uses aionios as a mean to describe God as eternal. Is this to mean that He has an endless supply of time eternal[1] or that He is outside of time eternal[2]?

 

Change requires a procession of time. If there is not precession of time nothing can change. If at one time something is A and at another time that same something is B we know that it progressed in time from A to B and that is our definition change. If there is no time the something would always have to be A or B or both, there would be no procession, it would not change. If God is eternal[1] He would be changeable. If God is eternal[2] He would be never changing.

 

Where are our Spirits, Heaven and Hell? We know that they are also referred to as eternal.

 

If Heaven and Hell are eternal[1] (that is to say endless amount of time)they would have to exist within our Universe (because that is where time is). If it is in our Universe, where exactly are they? I will concede the point that there may be a parallel Universe or Multi-verse where there is a different instance of time separate and distinct from our own.

 

If Heaven and Hell are eternal[2] (that is to say outside of time) they would simply have to exist outside of our Universe and be where the Creator is.

 

What about our souls or spirits, the eternal part of us? Our spirits is eternal[1], is to say that time progresses and never ends and our spirits would continue on ever ending. In order for it to exist in time it needs to be in this Universe (because that is where time is) or a parallel Universe. Obviously, if our spiritual bodies are in a parallel Universe they would be connected somehow with our physical bodies which are in this Universe. I have no idea what the mechanics would be but there would need to be a connection between our spirits and our physical bodies.

 

If our spirits are eternal[2] they would simply need to be outside of time. Of course like in the above example our eternal[2]spirit bodies would be connected to our temporal physical bodies.

 

The only problematic part is, when where our spirits created. Some Jewish traditions say it is created at our birth others that there is a place in Heaven filled with souls (spirits) awaiting birth. The problem with these to positions is that if the spirit is created at birth it would support eternal[1] and if the is a place where the spirits await birth, it would support eternal[2]. This shows you the debate of what is meant by eternal has been going on for some time.

 

I think the debate stems from a misunderstanding of cosmology. They did not know that time is a part of the Universe. You see this in all the immature religions that think the earth is eternal. They did not know what we now know about time. Thanks to Einstein and others, we now know the Earth is not eternal[1] or [2] and that time is relative and a part of the Universe and a part of God's creation.

 

Eternal[2] solves the problem of the Calvinist predestination as well and the 'perseverance of the saints' or 'eternal security' if you prefer. It comes down to a misunderstanding of time and eternity.

 

We are trying to describe timeless things in terms related to time and that is where we falter. To say God foreknown us if we are eternal[2] is not big leap it also does not mean He forced us by compulsion to accept Him. It simply means He knew what our choice would be, because He existed in eternity[2] He would see the beginning, middle and end of all time.

 

The same would be true for eternal life. Eternal[1] life means that we, after death had a unending perpetual timeline of life. What would happen in that perpetual never-ending timeline I decided to change my mind? I could change my mind because I would be in 'time'. If I chose to do wrong or reject God, would I go to Hell? If I did than it would not be eternal[1] life. If this time line went into infinity, would I not be board of having done something an infinite number of times? In addition, if the time line went on for infinity I would eventually do every possible action including rejecting God.

 

Eternal[2] life means that out life is outside of time. When we chose God, we would gain this life. However, I would go so far to say that when you are born you are or are not a Christian. I know in the time line of your life you have not made the choice yet, but if your spirit is eternal[2] (outside of time) than it is or isn't. When you say that someone walks away from God I would content that they never had eternal[2] life. It would not come as a surprise to God. He knows because he sees the beginning, middle and end.

 

To say that you have eternal[2] life and that you cannot lose it is not a leap because anything eternal[2] does not change. To say that you have eternal[1] life, I could see that you could lose it because anything eternal[1] can change.

 

I am not saying this is easy to understand. We live in time and have a hard time and space visualizing what anything that is timeless or outside space would be like is difficult. The mere idea that we can think about it on any level does lends credibility to it.

 

How we define eternal has ramifications. Eternal[1] leaves us with difficulties in scripture while eternal[2] brings into focus the whole of scripture. Not only does eternal[2] solve some of our Bible difficulties it also supports our current understanding of cosmology. Eternal[1] does not fit in our current understanding of cosmology. It does fit in old cosmology, before Einstein. When the Bible was penned, they had no idea of modern cosmology. If the Bible speaks of eternal[2] than how great is it to have been written knowing the unknowable for humans at the time.