Sunday, June 01, 2008

Everlasting vs. Eternal Reprised


Vernon, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/chuck-norris-on-
chuck-norris.html

This a reprise of an article I did in November 2006, but I am including an additional section and cartoon at the end. Mr. David Esler read and commented on the original article, but most of you have probably not dug through my archives to find it, and frankly, I do not blame you. I reason some of my earlier articles could interest new readers.

Interestingly in New Testament Greek according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the same Greek word can be defined in English as either eternal or everlasting. The Greek word aíwvios (aionios) is explained as meaning perpetual, used of past time or past and future as well, eternal, for ever, and everlasting. Strong (1986: 8). Strong provides only one word for eternal or everlasting from the New Testament.

Walter Bauer notes that in Romans 16: 25, a form of the word is used to describe a mystery of long ages ago without beginning. Bauer (1979: 28). In Hebrews 9: 14, a form of the word is used to describe the eternal Spirit and is mentioned as existing without beginning or end. Bauer (1979: 28). In Mathew 19: 29, Jesus discusses those that shall inherit everlasting life, and the word is used in a form that describes life existing without end. Bauer (1979: 28). The first verse appears to be describing a mystery that always existed with God, and in the second verse it mentions the Spirit of God that has always existed, and did not begin and will not cease. In the third verse the life Jesus discusses did not always exist, but everlasting life shall be given to some by God. There is a clear philosophical difference between the first two meanings and the last one.

The first two examples, in my view, are describing aspects of the eternal God. Something which is eternal according to Simon Blackburn is not moving, and is beyond time, whereas the third example in light of Blackburn's definition is describing something that is everlasting and running within time. Blackburn (1996: 126). In the first two usages of the word the idea being put across is that the mystery existed within the mind of the eternal God, and that God’s Spirit was eternal. God is eternal, as in without beginning or end and is beyond time. Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling (1999: 47). The third verse is not describing eternal life, but everlasting life which has a beginning but no ending. The everlasting life of those in Christ is not eternal, but exists within time and continues to run within time and therefore this life should be properly defined as everlasting life as opposed to eternal life. This philosophical difference is why in my writings I only use the term eternal in the context of God and use the terms everlasting life, everlasting existence, or everlasting punishment when mentioning God’s created beings which exist in time. I am not trying to split hairs here, but rather wish to attempt to define my terms as properly as possible in order to avoid related theological and philosophical difficulties through the use of terminology in the future.

This is not to deny some of the theological concepts which scholars and students use with the concept of eternal life. One student mentioned to me, while I lived in England, that we as Christians will share in the eternal life of God in the culminated Kingdom of God. I agree that we shall exist with God and experience his existence, but technically speaking he has eternal life, and we shall have everlasting life. God alone has always existed and therefore has eternal life. J.F. Walvoord notes that eternal life in Scripture is contrasted with physical life, and I completely agree. Walvoord (1996: 369). Whether the term is translated as eternal or everlasting life, I agree that it is the life that is opposed to physical temporal life from a Scriptural perspective. I would also add that it is contrasted with everlasting punishment for unbelievers. Whether we call it eternal or everlasting life it can only be found through Christ according to the Biblical account.

Additional

Quite philosophically important for clarity, is the idea that the eternal triune God did not exist in any type of state of time prior to the creation of the time, the universe, and matter. I say this to avoid a vicious regress.

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324).

In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items. A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent. Tolhurst (1996: 835).

If the triune God had an infinite amount of time to plan creation, as some Christians state, then we would have the major philosophical difficulty of an infinite amount of time for God to traverse in order to arrive at creation. This would be a vicious regress and a problem that does not solve itself. This vicious regress would be an excellent target for critical philosophers to rightly claim as a major problem with Christian theology and philosophy.

My solution, although not perfect since a finite being cannot fully understand eternity, it to state that prior to time, God was (and is) an infinite being that communicated within the trinity, but not in the sense of interaction that took time. God simply knew God and then created time, the universe and matter. God can now communicate within time with his creation. God did not need an infinite amount of time to plan his creation as with infinite knowledge God did what he desired via his nature. God was (and is) and created.

BAUER, W. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

WALVOORD, J. F. (1996) ‘Eternal Life’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.





Mr. Jeff Jenkins of Thoughts and Theology sent me this menu. Please click on it to enlarge.

17 comments:

  1. Hilarious cartoon!

    Quite philosophically important for clarity, is the idea that the eternal triune God did not exist in any type of state of time prior to the creation of the time, the universe, and matter. I say this to avoid a vicious regress.

    This threw me at first. I saw, "God did not exist...prior to..." and I was mildly shocked. But then I figured that you must mean that, because time did not exist prior to God's creation of it, then God did not exist in time...because there was no time. I assume that is what you meant by "state of time."

    If the triune God had an infinite amount of time to plan creation, as some Christians state, then we would have the major philosophical difficulty of an infinite amount of time for God to traverse in order to arrive at creation. This would be a vicious regress and a problem that does not solve itself. This vicious regress would be an excellent target for critical philosophers to rightly claim as a major problem with Christian theology and philosophy.

    If God is omniscient, and knows the future, then He always knew that He was going to create the universe. However, since He is omniscient and knows the future, He did not need any 'period of time' to plan it, even if time had existed eternally. Because He is omniscient, He knew immediately (although I recognize that even the term 'immediately' is problematic, because it denotes a period of time) everything that He was going to do.

    My solution, although not perfect since a finite being cannot understand eternity, it to state that prior to time, God was (and is) an infinite being that communicated within the trinity, but not in the sense of interaction that took time. God simply knew God and then created time, the universe and matter. God can now communicate within time with his creation. God did not need an infinite amount of time to plan his creation as with infinite knowledge God did what he desired via his nature. God was (and is) and created.

    And this paragraph explains your previous two paragraphs quite well, and confirms what I had thought you meant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, Jeff, you understand my concept.

    God is eternal and has always existed, but has not existed eternally in time.

    Russ:)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hahaha... That "Chinese menu" is way funny!!! I like the part: "Waiter will change shirt at your request".


    Keep posting these great post Russ! Later,

    JME

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks very much, Jimmy.

    The 'Broccoli in Human Sauce' one is funny as well, although scary!:)

    I have heard these disturbing stories about hepatitis spreading from restaurant employees.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well written article! It brings some interesting facts within Theism. Mainly that God is eternal and time and matter are created. God is not limited by time but can function within in it or outside of it. Thank you RNM!
    -Everlasting Life-

    ReplyDelete
  6. All of these meals on the this menu are making me hungry! I wonder if there's MSG in any of these dishes??
    -Hungrily Curious-

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mainly that God is eternal and time and matter are created. God is not limited by time but can function within in it or outside of it.

    Thanks, and agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. From:

    MSG

    Monosodium glutamate (commonly known as MSG) is a sodium salt of glutamic acid, a non-essential amino acid. It is used as a food additive and is commonly marketed as a "flavour enhancer". Alternative names include:

    sodium glutamate, flavour enhancer 621
    2-aminoglutaric acid
    2-aminopentanedioic acid
    MSG
    E number: E621
    HS code: 29224220


    Health concerns

    My latest received scammer email:

    OXFAM INTERNATIONAL
    Oxfam House, John Smith Drive,
    Cowley, Oxford, OX4 2JY.,
    United Kingdom.
    Date: 3rd June, 2008.

    Dear Funds Beneficiary

    This is to notify you that you have been officially chosen
    by the Board of Trustees of the Oxfam GB (NGO UK) as one of
    the final recipients of a Cash Grant/Donation for Economic
    Growth and a Poverty Alleviation Scheme through your email.Oxfam GB (U.K.), a Multi-Million Pounds NGO group, was established with the objective of Human Growth, Povert
    Alleviation,Educational and Community Development around the world. In line with the 61st
    anniversary program, Oxfam in conjunction with the European
    Council is giving out Eight Million Five Hundred Thousand
    Pounds Sterling as specific Donations/Grants to 10 lucky
    International recipients worldwide in different categories for their Business and Social development. These funds are freely given to you for your Business,Economic and Educational Development, as well as the enhancement of the overall standard of living of the less previledged people in your region.

    Your email was selected from your country's chambers of commerce,due to an internet random selection and you have been confirmed as one of the lucky recipients of this year's donation programme.You are also entitled to the sum of Eight
    Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pounds Sterling(850,000.00 GBP) as charity donations/aid from the Oxfam GB (UK)

    International donation scheme.
    Further information on the processing and disbursement of
    your grant entitlements, alongside the provision of your qualification documentations, will be dislosed to you by the National Secretary of the foundation, Dr. Terry Williams.

    Please contact him with your Qualification Number [OXG
    /101/231/BDB] as soon as possible.

    Dr. Terry Williams
    Tel: +44 704 578 1442.
    E-mail: oxfamgb.intl@hotmail.co.uk
    Oxfam-GB, United kingdom.

    Signed:
    Sir. William Boykin
    Programme Manager.
    ©Oxfam-GB

    ReplyDelete
  9. The following two comments are from Jeff. They are new but from articles in archives entitled a philosophy of singleness parts 1 and 2. I republish them here as I explained to Jeff I would place them with my newest article to gain more readership.

    The first comment is from:

    1

    The second comment is from:

    2

    I will discuss these new comments here soon, and thanks Jeff.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There was a time when I thought that, if I never got married (and, even more, if I never had sex), I would die or go crazy.

    Well, after remaining a virgin for 39 years (longer than anyone I have ever known), which I owe to the fact that I read the Bible from an early age, several times through (besides the obvious fact that I am a born-again Christian), I finally gave in to my lust, a few times with a Cuban girl I was dating. In the heat of passion, common sense often gets left behind; plus, I was not in the habit of sleeping around, so I did not plan for such things; therefore, I did not use any "protection" (that P.C. misnomered term), and for a long time I was worried that I might get some STD. I still don't know for an absolute fact that I don't have a child, but a friend whose wife was friends with my former girlfriend said that they never saw her pregnant (though that doesn't rule out an abortion). I understand that she is married now, and has at least one child (which, from what I can gather, is not mine).

    In any case, because of my fornication (I don't consider it adultery, because she wasn't married, although she had been living with a guy for years, and he did refer to her as his "wife"), I lived in fear for a while.

    Being a virgin used to be part of my Christian testimony, because I was doing it for Christ. But I can no longer claim that.

    After living on my own for a total of 20 years, I am content with being single. Whereas marriage offers companionship and other things, singleness offers freedom and independence, which I have become very much used to. And I constantly keep myself busy. I am a home-body, so I don't normally go out to places like many people do. I am content to be on the computer, or read, or watch TV, or exercise at home, or (most importantly, of course), have devotional time. When I lived in Miami, no matter where I went, almost everyone was speaking Spanish, so maybe I just got used to staying at home partially because of that.

    In any case, I am thankful that I never got married, because, though there are definite benefits and blessings to it, there are also many added responsibilities and hardships.

    I have become pretty much "stuck in my ways," and at this point, I wouldn't even want a roommate. I grew up with 2 brothers and a sister, and I had roommates while living in a college dorm for 2 years, and I'm tired of having to deal with other people's messes, and other people breaking my things. Living alone, I don't have to worry about those things.

    In conclusion, being married vs. being single is a trade-off. There are positives and negatives for either one. If you choose one, you lose the benefits of the other, but you gain what the other thing cannot offer.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In your other article, where you talk about met and unmet needs, you bring up some good points. Even Paul had an unmet need, which he asked the Lord about 3 times, but the Lord did not meet that need for him.

    Personally, I am very picky, so if I were actively looking for a mate, I would have standards which seem to be almost impossible today. For example, I would never want to marry a woman who has been divorced (i.e., previously married), and I would never want to marry a woman who already had kids. Marriage already has difficulties enough (i.e., maintaining a good marriage, is, I understand, hard work), without adding to the problem. I would not want to marry a woman who was not a Christian, and I would not even want to marry a woman who "spoke in tongues" or believed in the so-called Charismatic gifts, because these things would create huge conflicts. If a woman smokes, that is a huge turnoff for me, so that would disqualify her. If the woman was very fat or was ugly, I would probably not seriously consider her as a mate, because I think there has to be at least some amount of physical attraction between married individuals.

    People have always told me, "God has somebody in mind for you," but I don't believe that is necessarily the case at all...and so far, it seems that I was right.

    Many years ago, I was visiting my cousins, and one said, "Well, here's my wife; where's yours?" Statements like that are completely unnecessary, IMO.

    In today's society (at least in the U.S.), an unmarried man is viewed as being incomplete. Women, when finding out that I have never been married and don't have any kids, seem to think there is something wrong with me. They are shocked. I think one time somebody even asked me if I was gay. Even church activities are geared toward married couples, teens, and sometimes college-aged singles; but hardly ever to middle-aged single persons. I think there may also be a tendency to see a person as "immature" if they are not married.

    And yet, Paul said he wished everyone could be single like him! He said that, as far as serving the Lord is concerned, there are advantages for the single person that the married individual does not have!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks, Jeff.

    Yes, the fear of STDs, HIV and an aborted child are all reasons that I have avoided fornication. Wearing protection is not natural.

    I am not there in regard to contentment and I find the prospects here in the quite secular Lower Mainland and surrounding area, pathetic, as I am looking for a Christian young woman who is fairly intellectual, attractive to me (no not a supermodel) and can have children, or is young enough that we can adopt if biology does not allow natural birth. I am adopted, by the way. I am sure in the United States I would have many more potential women to date than here in BC. To find Christian women locally that can actually relate strongly with a theologically minded Christian man like myself has been pathetically difficult in BC, even at Christian churches.

    If the father had died, for example, and the children were little I could see myself taking over as the father. I have absolutely no interest at this point in being the step-father of someone else's children over ten years old of age. To go from a man with no romantic/sexual experience to step-father would be totally wrong for me.

    Dr. William Kay, my MPhil advisor, told me that if I found a romantic relationship I needed to be able to fellowship with her at the same church. This was very wise advice.

    If the woman was very fat or was ugly, I would probably not seriously consider her as a mate, because I think there has to be at least some amount of physical attraction between married individuals.

    I agree, and in my case since I am not a pretty boy type, she would need be attracted to a masculine door man type.;) From my research at churches and on-line, I reason ageism is seemingly a huge issue with many younger Christian women. They do not find theologically orientated men who are a not in their 20s very attractive. It is not a surprise many Christian women date and marry nominal Christians or non-believers.

    People have always told me, "God has somebody in mind for you," but I don't believe that is necessarily the case at all...and so far, it seems that I was right

    I have heard the same. A problem is some assume I will capitulate and merely accept where society would slot me romantically. I will not be slotted in by societal standards. There has to be spiritual, intellectual, and physical mutual attraction in Christ, period.

    Many persons unknowingly place too much emphasis on human free will as opposed to God's sovereignty in regard to singleness. Some fail to realize that God can will singleness for a person, even as with my case I have tried hard to get out of it.

    In today's society (at least in the U.S.), an unmarried man is viewed as being incomplete. Women, when finding out that I have never been married and don't have any kids, seem to think there is something wrong with me. They are shocked. I think one time somebody even asked me if I was gay.

    Yes, many people do not understand that we just do not like what is being offered! I know there are some good ones for me out there, but I do not meet them in person.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh if you can't see something it must not be real, so lets just dismiss it!

    It's amazing how something outside of our senses, is often dismissed by that very basic notion. Yet what does Scripture say about faith not being by sight?

    A different scenario we can all relate to is pain. Someone can say they are in terrible pain, yet if they are amongst people it may very well not be observable just the degree that their body is being slain by pain. The people with them may well summmize, they are not suffering pain to a very great degree, based on what they see. Pain is a word to them, whereas to the person suffering it, it is an experience, if its outside most usual experiences of pain. If a person is less able to cope with lesser pain than the first person, and sits wailing and crying about the pain in their body. The people with them, will think their pain must be great. While the first person, who has more pain than the person wailing and crying, yet the first person has a quiet countenance will be dismissed, because their pain or the affects of it are not visible like the second persons are who sits wailing and crying. Again, what we have seen, we have judged erronously, because pain isn't something you can see or measure, so we can dismiss the first person who bears it quietly without complaint.

    Not being able to see something, is the big factor for dismissing lots of things. The existence of a soul or Spirit, being treated likewise seems a certainty, for some folks to dismiss it that way, because of its invisiblity.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Not being able to see something, is the big factor for dismissing lots of things. The existence of a soul or Spirit, being treated likewise seems a certainty, for some folks to dismiss it that way, because of its invisiblity.

    Thanks, Deejay. You provide good points. Did you mean to put this comment in the next article? If so please republish and you can have a duplicate, no problem.

    Russ:)

    ReplyDelete
  15. I was born and spent most of my life in Miami, where most of the girls were a different culture than me, spoke a different language than me, and had different backgrounds and different habits than I did.

    One of my brothers married a Cuban girl, and constantly had problems with his mother-in-law (who spoke no English), until she died. My sister married a guy whose parents are from Puerto Rico, and whose step-dad is from Cuba. She has had problems with in-laws for many years. My uncle married a woman from France, and had problems with his mother-in-law (who spoke no English) until she died. My cousin married a Native American (i.e., American Indian), but they are now divorced. Another cousin, who is half-French (the daughter of my Uncle and Aunt I mentioned) married a Cuban guy and had a child, but I think they are divorced now. My other brother married a girl from Nicaragua, but they got divorced after she basically used him to gain citizenship. Later, he dated a black woman from England whose heritage was from Trinidad, but they later broke up.

    So, after all that, I did not want to marry a girl from Cuba (even though I did date a few girls from Cuba), because of all the potential problems I saw.

    Now, after moving out of Miami to Central Florida for about 6 years now, I have gotten so set in my ways, and so used to freedom and independence, that I don't know that I would ever really want to get married.

    However, over the past several days, I have been running into several cute girls at work and at the grocery store. They give me looks, but because of my social ineptitude (I used to be extremely shy, and I am one who never knows what to say at the time---my writing is far better than my verbal communication---my personality...or rather, my self-confidence...has never been my strong point---and I have learned that a guy with a lot of self-confidence, leadership qualities, and quick wit or humor, even if he is physically unattractive, can attract women like bees to honey), for the most part, I was too afraid to even strike up a conversation. In reality, I shouldn't have been bothered at all, because they were all in their early 20's (realistically, too young for me). Their interests, maturity level, and spiritual state would likely be very different from my own.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I shouldn't have been bothered at all, because they were all in their early 20's (realistically, too young for me). Their interests, maturity level, and spiritual state would likely be very different from my own.

    Perhaps, but then there may be an exceptional one that is different. I think worldview is more important of an issue than age.

    Russ:)

    ReplyDelete