What's the mission of the Arminian preacher man?

[C Thomas]

I had been part of a small non-denominational church for about 10 years when I began seriously questioning the idea of endless punishment for non-believers. The teaching of this church was strongly Arminian in essence; great emphasis was placed on the idea that in Christ God had given us His righteousness, and that this gift was to be accepted "or else". Enormous emphasis was also placed on evangelizing people with the good news that God had dealt with all sin --past present and future-- all one must do is thankfully accept God's work in Christ. During those 10 years the church did not grow, but actually shrunk in attendance from about 50 members to about 40; this leads me to conclude that the evangelization was not successful in terms of the number of people who showed an interest in the message. However, the core members seemed to become increasingly zealous in spreading and upholding the message in spite of the apparent lack of success.

About 4 years ago I began researching the idea that it is God's intention that in due time --in God's time-- all mankind will be brought back to Himself, and will enjoy an eternity of happiness with Him. It wasn't long before I believed there was evidence for anyone who takes Scripture seriously to become convinced that this position is more than a safe bet.
What astounds me even more today than it did 4 years ago is the reaction of my fellow church members to my joy in discovering what I thought was hidden treasure . In their zeal for spreading the "good news", would one not think that they would jump at the opportunity to discover that God will yet bring everyone back to Himself? In light of the apparent fruitlessness of their efforts to convert the local townfolk, should it not have been a great relief to them that God has everything under control, and that not a single soul will experience the fate of eternal torment? They wanted nothing to do with what I had to tell them; in fact, they very soon became highly offended that I would be interested in a direction of thought that "made a joke" of what they had invested so much time and effort in.

So I have had to grapple with this question: If it was not good news, to their ears, that all mankind will be reconciled to God, what is their central motivation for the days, weeks and months they spend desperately trying to convert as many as they come across? What should be the solution to their problem, is the most hated idea imaginable.

Why? What's their mission?

[Obsidian]

If you're suggesting that God does not punish sin, then I don't consider that very good news. If you're suggesting something else, please clarify your position.

[C Thomas]

If you're suggesting that God does not punish sin, then I don't consider that very good news. If you're suggesting something else, please clarify your position.

I'm suggesting that God actually dealt with all sin in Christ's death and resurrection, and that in due time, according to God's designation beforehand, He will bring everyone back to Himself, each person in his own class. In other words, Christ was successful in accomplishing the justification of all mankind, and all mankind will yet experience the benefit of His death and resurrection (not just those who choose to avail themselves of it now).

[RBerman]

1) Is the title of this thread a reference to a King's X song?
2) Your fellow church members were understandably dismayed in your new outlook. It's not hidden treasure. It's false teaching.

[C Thomas]

1) Is the title of this thread a reference to a King's X song?
2) Your fellow church members were understandably dismayed in your new outlook. It's not hidden treasure. It's false teaching.

1) It is... didn't think anyone would pick up on that. King's X were/are not exactly mainstream.
2) I believe it is hidden in more ways than one, but to a large degree it is hidden by bad translations. People (like my friends) do not want to look at the evidence of this, much less embrace it; for some reason it is highly distasteful. Isn't it strange that people would spend so much time trying to bless the world with the "good news", most often receiving a less than warm response, but would want nothing to do with the possibility that it is just not God's intention that many people believe this side of the grave? I think that if their heart was for the welfare of others they would be glad to hear that God might yet actually become the saviour of all mankind. Instead, they reject it vehemently.

[Littlejoe9763]

1) It is... didn't think anyone would pick up on that. King's X were/are not exactly mainstream.
2) I believe it is hidden in more ways than one, but to a large degree it is hidden by bad translations. People (like my friends) do not want to look at the evidence of this, much less embrace it; for some reason it is highly distasteful. Isn't it strange that people would spend so much time trying to bless the world with the "good news", most often receiving a less than warm response, but would want nothing to do with the possibility that it is just not God's intention that many people believe this side of the grave? I think that if their heart was for the welfare of others they would be glad to hear that God might yet actually become the saviour of all mankind. Instead, they reject it vehemently.
That's because the "evidence" has been weighed and found wanting by most arminians. Of course, you haven't really given us anything here except some assertions about what scripture says with no references, and an inference that the translations we all have been reading are "mistranslated". When I see this, my skeptical meter pegs out! Because this is the same claim as EVERY single cult leader out there!

Most arminians believe in:

1) Eternal torment (as you have already alluded to)
2) Eternal death/annihilation. (this is a smaller but growing view)

I have become convinced that no. 2 is most likely the correct teaching of Christ. My reasoning starts at John 3:15, 16; Christ says that believing equals eternal life. Now if we look at this simple statement logically, then we would have to conclude that the only way to an eternal life would be to believe in Christ. But, by it's very definition, eternal torment would also entail eternal life... albeit, one we would not want to experience. But both statements can't be true.

John further clarifies this for us in 1 John 3:14, 15

14We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Finally, In Revelation 20, John leaves us with no choice but to believe that some will refuse to willingly bow their knee to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. This refusal leads to their ultimate destruction. (Annihilation)

13And the sea gave up the dead who were in it Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Arminians believe that, although Christs atonement accomplished the payment of all man's sin, it requires an agreement with the "covenant" of Christ to effect or activate this payment. In effect, it would be like you winning a prize of a free vacation. The prize givers tell you to show up in XYZ Hotel and you can stay 7 days and nights for free. If you do not show up at the hotel and claim your prize, you would not receive your free vacation. Was it paid for? YES! Do you have to do anything else to receive it? NO! All you have to do is accept it and show up! BUT...it is a time limited offer and will expire...Just like the free gift of eternal life...it expires upon your DEATH, unless you choose "wisely" :hehe:

LJ

[RBerman]

I believe it is hidden in more ways than one, but to a large degree it is hidden by bad translations. People (like my friends) do not want to look at the evidence of this, much less embrace it; for some reason it is highly distasteful. Isn't it strange that people would spend so much time trying to bless the world with the "good news", most often receiving a less than warm response, but would want nothing to do with the possibility that it is just not God's intention that many people believe this side of the grave? I think that if their heart was for the welfare of others they would be glad to hear that God might yet actually become the saviour of all mankind. Instead, they reject it vehemently.
I can't speak for the hearts of the people at your church. As for me, my vehement rejection of your doctrine is not due to my desire for anyone to go to Hell. It's because I believe that universalism is a Satanic attack on Christianity, rooted in a mistaken understanding of what Christ intended to do, and why he intended to do it.

[C Thomas]

I can't speak for the hearts of the people at your church. As for me, my vehement rejection of your doctrine is not due to my desire for anyone to go to Hell. It's because I believe that universalism is a Satanic attack on Christianity, rooted in a mistaken understanding of what Christ intended to do, and why he intended to do it.

In the case of the Arminian's reaction to it, I don't think it is that they want people to go to Hell, either. I think it might be all about "I believed and you didn't." It could also be true that the more people reject their message, the better they feel about their own participation in the things of God, knowing that so few will make the cut. Their feeling of self-accomplishment is enhanced by the increased rejection of their good news. For all eternity they will be able to say to one another, "Here we are, perfectly good and perfectly happy, and all those miserable souls in Hell could have been here too if only they had been wise enough to accept, to choose the right thing. That's what made the difference."

IMO, that's what it boils down to.

[RBerman]

In the case of the Arminian's reaction to it, I don't think it is that they want people to go to Hell, either. I think it might be all about "I believed and you didn't." It could also be true that the more people reject their message, the better they feel about their own participation in the things of God, knowing that so few will make the cut. Their feeling of self-accomplishment is enhanced by the increased rejection of their good news. For all eternity they will be able to say to one another, "Here we are, perfectly good and perfectly happy, and all those miserable souls in Hell could have been here too if only they had been wise enough to accept, to choose the right thing. That's what made the difference."

IMO, that's what it boils down to.
That's a pretty uncharitable reading of the motives of your fellow church members. I might spectulate that your assessment of the situation stems from a desire to justify yourself in your own eyes, an attempt to claim the moral high ground over those who hold to the orthodox doctrine of Hell. But of course I can't see your heart, so it's more appropriate to limit my comments to what you believe, not why I think you believe it.

[Obsidian]

I think it might be all about "I believed and you didn't." It could also be true that the more people reject their message, the better they feel about their own participation in the things of God, knowing that so few will make the cut. Their feeling of self-accomplishment is enhanced by the increased rejection of their good news.

I think what you're describing probably has helped lead to an emphasis in many churches on the difficulty in obtaining eternal life. People stress the "narrowness" of the gate of Christ, forgetting other parables about mustard seeds, yeast, etc.

But with regard to eternal torment, the main problem with your view is that the same word "eternal" describes both life and torment. So if the wicked are not eternally condemned, then we all may die eventually.

[C Thomas]

Arminians believe that, although Christs atonement accomplished the payment of all man's sin, it requires an agreement with the "covenant" of Christ to effect or activate this payment. In effect, it would be like you winning a prize of a free vacation. The prize givers tell you to show up in XYZ Hotel and you can stay 7 days and nights for free. If you do not show up at the hotel and claim your prize, you would not receive your free vacation. Was it paid for? YES! Do you have to do anything else to receive it? NO! All you have to do is accept it and show up! BUT...it is a time limited offer and will expire...Just like the free gift of eternal life...it expires upon your DEATH, unless you choose "wisely" :hehe:

LJ

I believe there's a foundational problem with this and similar examples Arminians often use. The apostle Paul said of himself, "... there is no good thing in me, that is in my flesh." I think all would agree that believing in Christ is a very good thing to do. Arminians assert that men should find it in themselves to "choose wisely" with statements such as "it's up to you" and "your part is to believe", but if Paul's statement is absolute, as I believe it is, choosing wisely is impossible in and out of ourselves.
Thus it seems to me that Arminians promote a teaching that provides its adherents with no inkling of the desperation of the plight of man to save himself.

[Obsidian]

As far as I'm aware, most Arminians agree with you and accept the doctrine of total depravity.

[C Thomas]

That's a pretty uncharitable reading of the motives of your fellow church members. I might spectulate that your assessment of the situation stems from a desire to justify yourself in your own eyes, an attempt to claim the moral high ground over those who hold to the orthodox doctrine of Hell. But of course I can't see your heart, so it's more appropriate to limit my comments to what you believe, not why I think you believe it.

Sure it's not a nice thing to say, but I'm trying to get to the root of their curious reaction. I would add that if I am right about their motives, to be consistent with my understanding that God operates all I would have to say that they cannot help their motives nor the way they reacted. I can't gaurantee that my motives are pure either, but I can say that it has been a very beneficial journey thus far.

[C Thomas]

I think what you're describing probably has helped lead to an emphasis in many churches on the difficulty in obtaining eternal life. People stress the "narrowness" of the gate of Christ, forgetting other parables about mustard seeds, yeast, etc.

But with regard to eternal torment, the main problem with your view is that the same word "eternal" describes both life and torment. So if the wicked are not eternally condemned, then we all may die eventually.

You probably know that "eternal" is the Greek word aionios. Aionios life is given to some with a view to the administration of God's purpose of the aions. The aions will have a consummation, and aionios life will end, but will be succeeded by neverending life (we won't die).
You may have heard of this view before; if not, it will probably seem strained, but it is obvious to me that the importance of aion and aionios have been lost to us in our common translations.

[C Thomas]

As far as I'm aware, most Arminians agree with you and accept the doctrine of total depravity.

To be blunt, they will no doubt agree wholeheartedly, but their doctrines are contradictory. I cannot see how they can say they agree, and then say, "God has paid the price, now your part is to accept His gift," without contradicting themselves outright.

Think about the weight of importance of that "choice", under Arminianism; it is the difference between God succeeding and failing (in His plan to save all men). Arminians make this victory or defeat a thing contingent upon an act of the flesh.

[Obsidian]

You're assuming that eternal life will never end, but according to your theory, it very well might!

[Bernie]

If you're suggesting that God does not punish sin, then I don't consider that very good news. If you're suggesting something else, please clarify your position.
This is one of the most common misconceptions eternal tormentists try to force on Chrsitian Universalists. Only a very progressive minority within the universalist ranks would argue that universal reconcilliation = God does not punish sin.

Most CUs are quite aware that God punishes sin.

[C Thomas]

You're assuming that eternal life will never end, but according to your theory, it very well might!

Not so; we are assured that "this mortal must put on immortality".

My point is that aionios in Scripture was never intended to mean eternal; it means something else.

[Obsidian]

Unless you can find some more definitive verses than that one, then I consider your position rather ridiculous. You seem to be suggesting that Jesus hardly ever mentioned eternal life, but waited instead for a brief reference from Paul in a letter to spell out what Christians were actually promised.

[C Thomas]

Unless you can find some more definitive verses than that one, then I consider your position rather ridiculous. You seem to be suggesting that Jesus hardly ever mentioned eternal life, but waited instead for a brief reference from Paul in a letter to spell out what Christians were actually promised.

Wouldn't you agree that what the Jews were eagerly anticipating was not some ethereal neverending life in heaven, but a golden age; a kingdom age, wherein they would have a political world reign on earth? That is the context of Jesus' aionios life: Life in the coming aion.

[Bernie]

Hello C. Thomas,

During those 10 years the church did not grow, but actually shrunk in attendance from about 50 members to about 40; this leads me to conclude that the evangelization was not successful in terms of the number of people who showed an interest in the message.
Though I agree fundamentally with what you appear to suggest, it doesn't necessarily follow that an increase in numbers = evangelizing failures. The evangelists' work is more like the casting of seed on the "field" of the human intellect. Some seed may lay dormant for years before bearing fruit, and some in whom the seed is more quickly fruitful may be drawn to other denominations/churches.

About 4 years ago I began researching the idea that it is God's intention that in due time --in God's time-- all mankind will be brought back to Himself, and will enjoy an eternity of happiness with Him. It wasn't long before I believed there was evidence for anyone who takes Scripture seriously to become convinced that this position is more than a safe bet.
I find Scripture structured in such a way that neither the ET nor the universalist positions are immediately apparent. God seems to me to have designed His word in such a way that its mysteries--many of which have been properly searched out by orthodox scholarship, btw--require serious study beyond the immediately apparent meaning of any given passage or set of passages before they find unity with the whole word of God and each other. That there are yet many inconsistencies in the orthodox teaching of Christianity...and these inconsistencies are shrugged off by most of the adherents of orthdoxy...points to a defect in the human intellect, which in turn points, imo, to a corresponding defect in intellect's 'power source' (spirit) which must be overcome in order to see the truth of God's plan to save all.

Lest I be misunderstood, i'm not at all suggesting that the universalist is "more spiritual" or more open to truth than the Calvinist or Arminian. I know many from the former ranks whose insights and understanding on some spiritual matters seem far above that of mine and most other universalists. It's a matter of different people in different stages of cleansing/spiritual understanding holding different portions of the same truth sort of thing.

In their zeal for spreading the "good news", would one not think that they would jump at the opportunity to discover that God will yet bring everyone back to Himself? In light of the apparent fruitlessness of their efforts to convert the local townfolk, should it not have been a great relief to them that God has everything under control, and that not a single soul will experience the fate of eternal torment? They wanted nothing to do with what I had to tell them; in fact, they very soon became highly offended that I would be interested in a direction of thought that "made a joke" of what they had invested so much time and effort in.
This is why I put so much of my own faith in God's sovereignty....one can correctly hold to a great amount of spiritual truth while being wholly blind to other areas. Reason and common sense, as noted above, make virtually no difference. The arminian position, in this light, has always been much inferiror to my Calvinist brethren's understanding of the necessity of God's sovereignty in the movement of the whole human toward Him.

Btw, I also became convinced many years ago that virtually all human evangelism is superficial. We do it to gain points with God, even though we feign a deep concern for the eternal destiny of others. If God wants someone evangelized by another human, He'll see to it Himself, and all the glory for any such movement of humans toward God is due Him, not us, I think.

God bless you in your walk.

[C Thomas]

Hello C. Thomas,


Though I agree fundamentally with what you appear to suggest, it doesn't necessarily follow that an increase in numbers = evangelizing failures. The evangelists' work is more like the casting of seed on the "field" of the human intellect. Some seed may lay dormant for years before bearing fruit, and some in whom the seed is more quickly fruitful may be drawn to other denominations/churches.


I find Scripture structured in such a way that neither the ET nor the universalist positions are immediately apparent. God seems to me to have designed His word in such a way that its mysteries--many of which have been properly searched out by orthodox scholarship, btw--require serious study beyond the immediately apparent meaning of any given passage or set of passages before they find unity with the whole word of God and each other. That there are yet many inconsistencies in the orthodox teaching of Christianity...and these inconsistencies are shrugged off by most of the adherents of orthdoxy...points to a defect in the human intellect, which in turn points, imo, to a corresponding defect in intellect's 'power source' (spirit) which must be overcome in order to see the truth of God's plan to save all.

Lest I be misunderstood, i'm not at all suggesting that the universalist is "more spiritual" or more open to truth than the Calvinist or Arminian. I know many from the former ranks whose insights and understanding on some spiritual matters seem far above that of mine and most other universalists. It's a matter of different people in different stages of cleansing/spiritual understanding holding different portions of the same truth sort of thing.


This is why I put so much of my own faith in God's sovereignty....one can correctly hold to a great amount of spiritual truth while being wholly blind to other areas. Reason and common sense, as noted above, make virtually no difference. The arminian position, in this light, has always been much inferiror to my Calvinist brethren's understanding of the necessity of God's sovereignty in the movement of the whole human toward Him.

Btw, I also became convinced many years ago that virtually all human evangelism is superficial. We do it to gain points with God, even though we feign a deep concern for the eternal destiny of others. If God wants someone evangelized by another human, He'll see to it Himself, and all the glory for any such movement of humans toward God is due Him, not us, I think.

God bless you in your walk.

Wow. Thanks Bernie. Your last paragraph is the heart of what I'm considering. Made me think of this statement of Paul, which points out that it is God Who opens up men's hearts and minds to truth, manifesting His word in its own eras:

Ti 1:3 "... yet [God] manifests His word in its own eras by heralding, with which I was entrusted, according to the injunction of God, our Saviour..."

Several times I've had a guilt trip laid on me with a warning from the pulpit that one day my neighbours and friends will stand along with me and the rest of the saints before Christ's judgment throne, and turn to me and ask, "Why didn't you tell us?"
As if God would rest their eternal fate in my feeble hands!

It is a very pleasant thing to begin to learn that we are God's achievement, entirely.

[Obsidian]

Wouldn't you agree that what the Jews were eagerly anticipating was not some ethereal neverending life in heaven, but a golden age; a kingdom age, wherein they would have a political world reign on earth? That is the context of Jesus' aionios life: Life in the coming aion.

The Jews were looking forward to a bodily resurrection, after which life would presumably go on forever. And that's clearly the type of life that Jesus was speaking about.

[C Thomas]

The Jews were looking forward to a bodily resurrection, after which life would presumably go on forever. And that's clearly the type of life that Jesus was speaking about.

Christ spoke of enjoyment of life in a coming eon. The millenial eon was all that was in view in the gospels, and it is in this coming eon that ethnic Israel will have political rule on earth (those chosen for it). We know from John that this coming eon will come to an end and be succeeded by another, which will also end, bringing to a close the eonian times, at which time God's purpose of the eons will have been accomplished. These are Scriptural terms.

I think it is an unwarranted inference to think that the jews expected their reign on earth to continue on and on; at any rate, we know that this will not happen, because all rule, even Christ's rule, will cease, once Christ has subjected all things to Himself.

IMO, aionios life = life in the coming kingdom eon (as the term was used by Christ).

Though aionios life will end, this does not mean that they will die, any more than as a teenager your life will end when your teen-life ends and you become an adult.

[Bernie]

Several times I've had a guilt trip laid on me with a warning from the pulpit that one day my neighbours and friends will stand along with me and the rest of the saints before Christ's judgment throne, and turn to me and ask, "Why didn't you tell us?"
As if God would rest their eternal fate in my feeble hands!
Been there, done this. Some worry about the eternal destiny of others is genuine...for instance, the thought that those we love will suffer endlessly. Knowledge of the salvation of all offers the wonderful relief that even those who go into the outstretched arms of hell itself not saved by Christ's imputed righteousness in time will nonetheless only suffer the same cleansing fire the body of Christ has undergone in this realm. We'll eventually all be pure, true and perfect together with no tears, no worries and best of all, no more theological bickering.

[C Thomas]

Been there, done this. Some worry about the eternal destiny of others is genuine...for instance, the thought that those we love will suffer endlessly. Knowledge of the salvation of all offers the wonderful relief that even those who go into the outstretched arms of hell itself not saved by Christ's imputed righteousness in time will nonetheless only suffer the same cleansing fire the body of Christ has undergone in this realm. We'll eventually all be pure, true and perfect together with no tears, no worries and best of all, no more theological bickering.

I believe some people have a genuine concern for the eternal destiny of others. My Methodist grandmother faithfully prayed for the whole family every day, for salvation. I believe she will be greatly relieved to discover that God is both wiser and more benevolent than she could have dreamed.

[RBerman]

Sure it's not a nice thing to say, but I'm trying to get to the root of their curious reaction. I would add that if I am right about their motives, to be consistent with my understanding that God operates all I would have to say that they cannot help their motives nor the way they reacted. I can't gaurantee that my motives are pure either, but I can say that it has been a very beneficial journey thus far.
I don't think you're going to "get to the root of their reaction" (which is not at all curious to me, as I implied earlier) by just wondering about it. You've got to talk to articulate representatives of their viewpoint and take their explanation at face value rather than attributing impure motives simply because you disagree doctrinally with them. They should grant you the same courtesy, of course.

[Littlejoe9763]

I believe there's a foundational problem with this and similar examples Arminians often use. The apostle Paul said of himself, "... there is no good thing in me, that is in my flesh." I think all would agree that believing in Christ is a very good thing to do. Arminians assert that men should find it in themselves to "choose wisely" with statements such as "it's up to you" and "your part is to believe", but if Paul's statement is absolute, as I believe it is, choosing wisely is impossible in and out of ourselves.
Thus it seems to me that Arminians promote a teaching that provides its adherents with no inkling of the desperation of the plight of man to save himself.
I think you have a foundational problem of scripture mining in order to prove a point. Using a partial scripture to build a theology on is quite foolhardy. Let me give you an example: Paul also said...."believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" So Paul agrees with me ...:hehe: Arminians acknowledge that God, through the Holy Spirit calls people to make a decision to live for Him, to accept His free gift. Arminians acknowledge and affirm that men left to themselves would not just accept God (total depravity). So quit floating up the fallacies and strawmen in order to avoid the issue.

Not to mention totally ignoring the scriptures I used to back up my points. How do you get around the plain truth of Revelation 20:13-15???

Where have you offered one full verse to back up your assertions? All you have posted so far is speculation and opinion....:ahem:

LJ

[bc1980]

IMO, aionios life = life in the coming kingdom eon (as the term was used by Christ).

Jesus had a different definition of eternal life.

When Jesus had spoken these words, m he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
John 17:1-3

Those who believe already have aionios life. Those that die in unbelief will never have it.

[C Thomas]

I think you have a foundational problem of scripture mining in order to prove a point. Using a partial scripture to build a theology on is quite foolhardy. Let me give you an example: Paul also said...."believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" So Paul agrees with me ...:hehe: Arminians acknowledge that God, through the Holy Spirit calls people to make a decision to live for Him, to accept His free gift. Arminians acknowledge and affirm that men left to themselves would not just accept God (total depravity). So quit floating up the fallacies and strawmen in order to avoid the issue.

The Arminian appeal to accept salvation is to men in their fleshly state. This is not a strawman. Arminians must actually claim that they believe that man finds it in himself to believe; they must claim that if there is help from God, it is only to make that which is difficult, less difficult, or that which is impossible, feasible.
If they claimed that salvation is wholly of God, they would have to also claim that since some are saved and not others in the world we now live in, God has chosen to save some and not others, in this life.
But that is not their claim, they see salvation as man co-operating with God. This denies the great truth that all is out of God (2 Cor.5:18); that out of Him and through Him and for Him is all (Rom.11:36). Arminians cannot, without being inconsistent, claim to believe these great truths.

Not to mention totally ignoring the scriptures I used to back up my points. How do you get around the plain truth of Revelation 20:13-15???

The events in Rev.20:13-15 happen at the end of the millenium right? There's still another entire eon after that. Who know how long that will last. God's plan for the eons is quite far from consummated at the time of Rev.20. We are told explicitly that death will be abolished (1Cor.15:26), and that all will be made alive (1Cor.15:22). When there is no more death, there can only be life. We are also told explicitly that God is reconciling all to Himself in Christ (Col.1:20) (it is ongoing), and that the body of Christ is chosen with a view to an administration of the reconciliation of all things to God; we are not saved just to be saved, but God is going to use us to reach others; this is our expectation (that is, it is future). Big things are still going to happen; this life is not all there is in God's plan for the reconciliation of all things to Himself. That's the bigger picture.

[C Thomas]

IMO, aionios life = life in the coming kingdom eon (as the term was used by Christ).

Jesus had a different definition of eternal life.

When Jesus had spoken these words, m he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
John 17:1-3

Those who believe already have aionios life. Those that die in unbelief will never have it.

Consider Matt.19:16-23, where Jesus is asked about the requirements for having aionios life, and by his statement to the disciples makes aionios life the same thing as entrance into the kingdom of the heavens; that is, He seems to see these terms as a reference to the same thing:

Mt 19:16 And lo! one coming to Him said, "Teacher, what good shall I be doing that I should be having life eonian?"
Mt 19:17 Yet He said to him, "Why are you asking Me concerning good? One is good. Yet if you are wanting to be entering into life, keep the precepts."
Mt 19:23 Now Jesus said to His disciples, "Verily, I am saying to you that the rich squeamishly will be entering into the kingdom of the heavens.

Of course, they had a foretaste of aionios life in this eon, but they will experience it in a much fuller sense in the coming eon, when they are literally enjoying aionios life in the kingdom:

Mk 10:30 ... who should not be getting back a hundredfold now, in this era, houses and brothers and sisters and mother and father and children and fields, with persecutions, and in the coming eon, life eonian.

Did you get that? They get aionios life in the coming eon. There is a certain sense in which they had it already, but it will not compare with the experience of living in the kingdom under the rule of their Christ, no longer expecting the promises made to them but actually possessing what was promised.

[bc1980]

Did you get that? They get aionios life in the coming eon. There is a certain sense in which they had it already, but it will not compare with the experience of living in the kingdom under the rule of their Christ, no longer expecting the promises made to them but actually possessing what was promised.

Without getting into eschatology, Christ is the answer to the promises.

2 Cor. 1:20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God.

This is not say, "because Jesus did what He did, God can now say 'yes' to the promises." It is saying, "all the promises are manifested in the person of Christ."

Eternal life is "knowing God and Jesus...". Yes, now we know in part, but in the future we will see Him face to face. So, in that case it will be better, but we cannot diminish what Christ has already accomplished for us and what we have in Him right now. We are living in the Kingdom of God now, if we are in Christ.

[C Thomas]

Did you get that? They get aionios life in the coming eon. There is a certain sense in which they had it already, but it will not compare with the experience of living in the kingdom under the rule of their Christ, no longer expecting the promises made to them but actually possessing what was promised.

Without getting into eschatology, Christ is the answer to the promises.

2 Cor. 1:20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God.

This is not say, "because Jesus did what He did, God can now say 'yes' to the promises." It is saying, "all the promises are manifested in the person of Christ."

Eternal life is "knowing God and Jesus...". Yes, now we know in part, but in the future we will see Him face to face. So, in that case it will be better, but we cannot diminish what Christ has already accomplished for us and what we have in Him right now. We are living in the Kingdom of God now, if we are in Christ.

Yes, and Paul reveals that we as the body of Christ are transported, presently, into the kingdom of the son of His love (Col.1:13). Yet there is the matter of expectation, which Paul so often emphasises. "For to expectation were we saved. Now, expectation being observed, is not expectation, for what anyone is observing, why is he expecting it also?" (Rom.8:24) and "Yet now are remaining faith, expectation and love..." (1Cor.13:13).
Paul, in speaking of "an expectation reserved for you in the heavens", did not diminish what Christ has accomplished, but surely there will be a vast difference between life in this "wicked eon", in which we are "groaning, awaiting the sonship, the deliverance of our body", and what we will experience at that time.

It is because of what Christ has accomplished that we have a foretaste of aionios life now, and in that sense may be said to be "getting hold of eonian life" (1Tim.6:12), but what lies ahead is the real deal.

[Obsidian]

I still don't get how you can seriously believe that Jesus went around promising life "for a very long time, but not forever," and then waited for Paul to make a brief mention about "immortal[ity]" to prove the eternality of the life.

Logically, God could just as easily plan to send everyone to hell in the end by your reasoning, as he could do what you're saying.

But regardless of how comforting this message may be for you, surely you must admit that eternal life will last a very long time, and that therefore hell will last a very long time. So your message doesn't do all that much to ease the unpleasantness, I don't think.

[C Thomas]

I still don't get how you can seriously believe that Jesus went around promising life "for a very long time, but not forever," and then waited for Paul to make a brief mention about "immortal[ity]" to prove the eternality of the life.

Logically, God could just as easily plan to send everyone to hell in the end by your reasoning, as he could do what you're saying.

But regardless of how comforting this message may be for you, surely you must admit that eternal life will last a very long time, and that therefore hell will last a very long time. So your message doesn't do all that much to ease the unpleasantness, I don't think.

What leads you to think that the Jews were expecting Messiah to give them life forever and ever on earth?

A prominent Jewish prophecy must have been Dan.7:18:

"Yet the saints of the supremacies shall receive the kingdom and they will safeguard the kingdom unto the eon, even unto the eon of the eons."

Doubtless they knew that an eon is a long period of time with a beginning and an end, because eons have plurality. I don't believe that for them it was about living forever and ever; it was about living in the long anticipated golden age of the Jewish nation, serving God as He blesses the world through them as divinely appointed adjudicators. You're focused on the length of time, as if that was what Messiah was all about, but it isn't. It was about the kingdom - political reign - a blessed time for their nation, I think.

That said, I don't think the disciples expected to live a long time and then die; I'm sure their expectation was to receive immortality. Isn't is clear though that eonian life must end when the eons end, but that this does not mean death? From their perspective, eonian life is kingdom life, political reign, and we are assured that their reign will draw to a close, as even Christ will hand over His reign to the Father. They are to experience eonian life in the coming eon (Mk.10:30). This will not be an end in itself, but part of an administration of God through which He will reconcile all things to Himself.

Also, Paul did not make brief mention of immortality, he explicitly stated that death will be abolished.

But regardless of how comforting this message may be for you, surely you must admit that eternal life will last a very long time, and that therefore hell will last a very long time. So your message doesn't do all that much to ease the unpleasantness, I don't think.

The oncoming ages will be very long, it seems. There's ample Scripture, and a number of good reasons to believe that death really is death, and that there will be no consciousness for the dead (who do not have aionios life), until the end of the millenial eon, at which time they will be resurrected for judging, and then experience the second death (a literal death), to receive immortality at the end of the final eon, at the consummation of the eonian times.