All Does Not Radically Mean All?

[AvisG]

Just to throw my two pence into the ante--which doesn't have a lot of value these days--I think there is room for some version of Annihilationism within the hermeneutical outcome of what we find in the New Testament.

As I say, my position is simply "Whatever Jesus' talk about Hell may mean, we will see in the end that it was worthy of the just and loving Creator we worship." It's my Doris Day Theology: "Whatever will be, will be."

Annihilationists' enthusiasm for their position is always kind of comical to me: "Hey, those who aren't saved may not receive eternal life in God's presence, but at least they're just going to be annihilated! YIPPEE!" As though, "That doesn't sound too bad. Maybe 75 years of depravity would be worth considering if the only consequence will be annihilation."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As I say, my position is simply "Whatever Jesus' talk about Hell may mean, we will see in the end that it was worthy of the just and loving Creator we worship." It's my Doris Day Theology: "Whatever will be, will be."

Annihilationists' enthusiasm for their position is always kind of comical to me: "Hey, those who aren't saved may not receive eternal life in God's presence, but at least they're just going to be annihilated! YIPPEE!" As though, "That doesn't sound too bad. Maybe 75 years of depravity would be worth considering if the only consequence will be annihilation."

AvigG, I think it would behoove someone of your caliber to not characterize my own approach to Annihilationism, especially when I'm not doing the same to those who hold to a more usual and traditional form of final eschatology regarding the damned. It's not funny, and it's never, ever something I gloat over.

Well, I take that back. Maybe I will gloat over the final end of Satan and his demonic compatriots, whatever essence it is that they may actually have which could be said to be vulnerable to suffering for a hell of a long time. But as Stryper has said in one of their recent songs, "God ..... evil, but God save the people...!"

 

[AvisG]

AvigG, I think it would behoove someone of your caliber to not characterize my own approach to Annihilationism, especially when I'm not doing the same to those who hold to a more usual and traditional form of final eschatology regarding the damned. It's not funny, and it's never, ever something I gloat over.

Oh, I'm not gloating. Since you merely said you thought there was "some room" for annihilationism, I didn't realize you had planted your flag in that position (if you actually have - I'm not clear on that). I thought you were just suggesting you considered it a viable possibility.

The black humor or irony that I see is:

• On one side of the equation, we have "eternal life with God."
• On the other side we have (1) Hell or, possibly, (2) annihilation.
• So it does strike as slightly humorous that anyone would be enthusiastic about annihilation when the reality is that with either (1) or (2) you're losing eternal life with God.

Sure, annihilationism makes God more palatable to me as a believer than the notion of unbelievers screaming in eternal torment. But I keep bumping up against the reality that Jesus talked an awful lot about Hell. If in the end He says "Oh, that was just all hyperbole to keep people on their toes. They're really going to be annihilated" - well, OK, but I don't see any basis for reaching that conclusion now, when all we have is the Jesus of the Gospels.

 

[StillGods]

QUOTE="AvisG, post: 74407271, member: 423360"]I'm apparently not making my point clearly enough, so let me try bullets:

• This isn't a matter of verses A-B-C suggesting one thing and verses X-Y-Z suggesting something else. There are doctrines for which there can be a legitimate "battle of the verses" such as this, but that's not what I'm talking about here. Not at all.
• What I'm talking about is the biblical Jesus - this and nothing more.
• Right out of the mouth of Jesus, we have multiple verses clearly talking about Hell. Verses that are clear and unequivocal and can't be interpreted in any other way.
• We know nothing about what Jesus believed or taught except what is set forth in the Gospels.
• To adopt universalism or annihilationism, we have two choices:
  • Jesus didn't know what He was talking about. This is obviously unacceptable for any form of Christianity.
  • The Gospels don't accurately report what Jesus believed and taught. If this is true, then we know nothing about Jesus.
  • We would also have to believe that Paul and other NT authors completely misunderstood Jesus.
• So it doesn't matter where else in the Bible that you think you find universalism or annihilationism - you lose the biblical Jesus.
• Universalism in particular would stand orthodox Christianity on its head. It's inconceivable to me that a doctrine this central and monumentally important wouldn't have been clearly and unequivocally expressed in the Bible. But not only isn't it clearly and unequivocally expressed, but Jesus' words are clearly and unequivocally to the contrary.
• I'm always suspicious of doctrines that conform to the way I might "like" God to be or that I think He "ought" to be. Universalism and annihilationism are two perfect examples.
• I just don't see how a theology that completely loses the biblical Jesus can reasonably be described as Christian, unless Christianity can be whatever we want it to be.

I really don't think any do. I know the verses on which universalists rely - but I don't care what verses they rely upon, they run smack into the insurmountable problem I describe in the bullet points above.[/QUOTE
------------------------- Amen. It has always been opposed to and contrary to all Scripture. Thks for the specifics !

Good.
======================================
QUOTE="StillGods, post: 74407514, member: 400971"]Mtt 25:41-46

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

I wish Universalism were true but it's just not.[/QUOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Remember what Jesus says about the false gospels including universalism(which condemns men's souls to destruction) ---let them who bring any other gospel (including universalism) be anathema...


Still WISH it to be true ? OR, rather, are you hopeful that some of the desired outcomes might be true (not the false gospel of universalism, but some of the things you hope for; which if they are good in God's Sight, might be accomplished without the heresy of universalism ) .....

I wish for the things that are good in Gods sight eg i wish that all my relatives would be saved (universalism would solve that) but they have a choice so not sure if they are saved or not only the Lord God knows. only God knows their hearts.
To clarify I dont believe in Universalism. it would be nice if all were saved but it's obvious in Scripture not all will be.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, I'm not gloating. Since you merely said you thought there was "some room" for annihilationism, I didn't realize you had planted your flag in that position (if you actually have - I'm not clear on that). I thought you were just suggesting you considered it a viable possibility.

My apologies again, and this time for my not being clear enough. I guess I'll have to learn to slow down from my busy pace and scrutinize to make sure I'm meaning what I think I'm saying. My intention in saying "there is some room" was my attempt at a more amiable assertion that I think a view or version of Annihilationsim, perhaps even my own, could pass muster for being a cogent interpretation of the various texts pertaining to what looks like 'Hell and Brimstone' speech, whether by Jesus or by various N.T. writers. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm always willing to give it the ol' college try in defending it.

The black humor or irony that I see is:

• On one side of the equation, we have "eternal life with God."
• On the other side we have (1) Hell or, possibly, (2) annihilation.
• So it does strike as slightly humorous that anyone would be enthusiastic about annihilation when the reality is that with either (1) or (2) you're losing eternal life with God.

• There may be what seems to be some black humor in this comparison, but I for one have no "Yippeee!" on my mind in thinking about any of this, particularly as we contemplate how the final outcomes will be real, and whatever they may fully be, will be really awful for real people.

Sure, annihilationism makes God more palatable to me as a believer than the notion of unbelievers screaming in eternal torment. But I keep bumping up against the reality that Jesus talked an awful lot about Hell. If in the end He says "Oh, that was just all hyperbole to keep people on their toes. They're really going to be annihilated" - well, OK, but I don't see any basis for reaching that conclusion now, when all we have is the Jesus of the Gospels.

Honestly, I don't hold my view of Annihilationism because it somehow seems more palatable. No, I lean in that direction because with hermeneutical considerations in tow, I think the interpretive measures express this kind of thing, or at least SOME of the places where we think Jesus is speaking of Hell, He's really talking about another, more historically imminent form of destruction that could take place in the life of those hearing Him. But as I've said before, whatever it all means, it's bad news either way and not one of the subjects I feel like I just have to invest 40 post exchanges on in order to hold my tea.

 

[StillGods]

Dear Still: Rotherham stands with the greats of Bible translation. He is right!

The passage under consideration refers to people, not angels who do not die.

LUKE 20:36 KJV "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being..."

The nekros dead were indeed judged with a net result of being brought to zao life, every last one of them!

Indeed, the Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed His victory in all dimensions including the angelic host.

1 Peter 4:6 That is why the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged as men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

There are many greats all dependent on which denomination or persuasion of theology one adheres to.. Not all of them are right.

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels ...' " (Matthew 25:41, NKJV)

 

[FineLinen]

There are many greats all dependent on which denomination or persuasion of theology one adheres to.. Not all of them are right.

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels ...' " (Matthew 25:41, NKJV)

Dear Still: Koine scholarship has nothing to do with any of our particular persuasion. It is rooted solely in the koine! The tools available for any of us to compare the various translations makes any bias impossible to maintain.

The context of St. Matt. 25 is speaking of pure virgins (not virgins & loose women), clean Old Covenant animals (not 1 clean & 1 unclean) and poor investors of the Master, and ends with our Lord's words regarding the standards for "everlasting punishment."

I was hungry and you gave me no meal,

I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,

I was homeless and you gave me no bed,

I was shivering and you gave me no clothes,

Sick and in prison, and you never visited.

 

[StillGods]

Dear Still: Koine scholarship has nothing to do with any of our particular persuasion. It is rooted solely in the koine! The tools available for any of us to compare the various translations makes any bias impossible to maintain.

The context of St. Matt. 25 is speaking of pure virgins (not virgins & loose women), clean Old Covenant animals (not 1 clean & 1 unclean) and poor investors of the Master, and ends with our Lord's words regarding the standards for "everlasting punishment."

I was hungry and you gave me no meal,

I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,

I was homeless and you gave me no bed,

I was shivering and you gave me no clothes,

Sick and in prison, and you never visited.

And yet incredibly bias remains....

The Greek form for "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46 is ”kolasin aionion." Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, singular voice, feminine gender and means "punishment, chastening, correction, to cut-off as in pruning a tree to bare more fruit.

Depart from me I never knew you.

being cut off from the Lord, being told to depart, the separation from Him doesnt sound like heaven but sounds a lot like hell to me to be honest.

That kind of separation from God would presumably involve sorrow and tears and yet Scripture says there is no sorrow or tears in heaven so...the people God says that to must be in 'the other place'.

sobering thought.

 

[FineLinen]

Kolasis aionion -Matthew 25:46-

Greek scholar William Barclay wrote concerning kolasis aionion (age-during corrective chastisement) in Matthew 25:46

“The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. There is no instance in Greek secular literature where kolasis does not mean remedial punishment. It is a simple fact that in Greek kolasis always means remedial punishment. God’s punishment is always for man’s cure.”

Fifteen literally translated (not interpretively translated) Bibles that reveal what God will do with the sinners in Matthew 25:46

Concordant Literal, Young’s literal, Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott, Rotherham’s Emphasized, Scarlett’s, J.W. Hanson’s New Covenant, Twentieth Century, Ferrar Fenton, The Western New Testament, Weymouth’s (unedited), Clementson’s, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible, Bullinger’s Companion Bible margins, Jonathan Mitchell’s translation (2010).

Concerning the duration of kolasis (literally - corrective punishment), Matt. 25:46 says (KJV),

“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.”

Scarlett’s New Testament written in 1792 has “aeonian punishment” in place to “everlasting punishment.”

“And these will go away into aeonian punishment: but the righteous into aeonian life.”

The New Covenant by Dr. J.W. Hanson written in 1884 renders Matt. 25:46:

“And these shall go away into aeonian chastisement, and the just into aeonian life.”

Young’s Literal Translation first published in 1898 and reprinted many times since uses the following words:

“And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.”

Professor Young also compiled Young’s Concordance, where one can check the translation of each Hebrew or Greek word as translated in the KJV.

The Twentieth Century New Testament first printed in the year 1900 has:

“And these last will go away ‘into aeonian punishment,’ but the righteous ‘into aeonian life.’”

The Holy Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton first published in 1903 gives the rendering:

"And these He will dismiss into a long correction, but the well-doers to an enduring life.

The New Testament in Modern Speech, by Dr. Weymouth, says:

“And these shall go away into punishment of the ages, but the righteous into life of the ages.”

Dr. Weymouth most frequently adopts such terms as “life of the ages,” “fire of the ages;” and in Rev. 14:6, “The good news of the ages.”

It is a matter to regret that the editors of the most recent edition of Dr. Weymouth’s version have reverted to the KJV renderings for the passages containing the Greek word aion, eon, or age.

The Western New Testament published in 1926 renders Matt. 25:46 as follows:

“And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.”

The translation, however, has a footnote on Matthew 21:19 on the word “forever” which is the same word for “eternal” which says: "Literally, for the age.”

Clementson’s The New Testament (1938) shows,

“And these shall go away into eonian correction, but the righteous into eonian life.”

Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott (1942 edition) translates the verse,

“And these shall go forth to the aionian cutting-off; but the righteous to aionian life.”

It should be noted that the “cutting-off” refers to pruning a fruit tree to make it bear more fruit.

The idea behind the word is not destructive but productive! Had Jesus wanted to emphasize a destructive end, He would have used the word “timoria.”

The Concordant Version (1930):

“And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian.”

The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed printed in 1958 says:

“And these shall go away into agelasting cutting-off and the just into agelasting life.”

Joseph B. Rotherham, in his Emphasized Bible (1959), translates this verse,

“and these shall go away into age-abiding correction, but the righteous into age-abiding life.”

The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible copyrighted in 1976

has “age-abiding correction” instead of “everlasting punishment.”

Jonathan Mitchell’s translation (2010) has

"And so, these folks will be going off into an eonian pruning (a lopping-off which lasts for an undetermined length of time; an age-lasting correction; a pruning which has its source and character in the Age), yet the fair and just folks who are in right relationship and are in accord with the Way pointed out [go off] into eonian life (life which has it source and character in the Age; life pertaining to the Age)”.

Even some King James Study Bibles will show the reader in the margins or appendixes that the King’s translators were incorrect in their rendering of "eternal punishment.”

The great Companion Bible by Dr. Bullinger is an example of that.

Greek scholar William Barclay wrote concerning kolasis aionion (age-during corrective chastisement) in Matthew 25:46

“The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. There is no instance in Greek secular literature where kolasis does not mean remedial punishment. It is a simple fact that in Greek kolasis always means remedial punishment. God’s punishment is always for man’s cure.”

“God is the Source, Guide & Goal of ta panta (the all)”

“From Him ta panta, through Him ta panta, in Him ta panta”

 

[DamianWarS]

Dear Damian: Perhaps you misunderstood the question?

Take 2=

Are any of the Scriptures presented on the O.P. a synecdoche?

Synecdoche vs. Metonymy: Definitions & Examples Video with Lesson Transcript | Study.com

why don't we just get to the point and address your universalism verses? You have admitted that "pas" does not mean the radical all in all cases so this means it is contextually defined and we can't just throw out blanket statements saying it must be a certain way. Balance is the key here

so we have a verse like
1 Cor 15:22 that says:
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

but then we have a verse that says
Matt. 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen

Both are true at the same time so it's not about sweeping one under the rug but rather a balanced view which you are not presenting. How do you balance verses like the former that you hold on to with the latter that you fail to address?

 

[StillGods]

so heaven has an area for everlasting punishment.... nope.

 

[Strong in Him]

1 Cor. 15:22

“For as in Adam some die, so also in Christ some shall be made alive. But each in his own order; Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished some rule and some authority and power.”

Rev. 5:13

“And some created things that are in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and some things in them, I heard saying, To Him who sits on the throne and the Lamb, be blessing and honour and glory and dominion and power forever.”

Col. 1:18-20

“He too is that head whose body is the Church, the Firstborn from the dead, he is to the Church the Source of its life, that in some things He might occupy the foremost place/ to be in some things alone supreme. For it pleased the Father that in him the divine nature in some of its fulness should dwell. And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by him to reconcile some things unto Himself; by him, I say, whether they be things on earth, or things in heaven. And you that were sometimes alienated…”



Please Remember…

All does not radically mean all.

Whole is not whole.

All = Some

I've only just got out of bed and am not yet awake, so maybe I'm missing something.
But you've written out a few verses and emphasised the word some - when in fact, in all those verses, Scripture says all.

How do you conclude that all = some? Makes no sense.

 

[FineLinen]

I've only just got out of bed and am not yet awake, so maybe I'm missing something.
But you've written out a few verses and emphasised the word some - when in fact, in all those verses, Scripture says all.

How do you conclude that all = some? Makes no sense.

Dear Strong: You do appear to be missing something. The verses that were laid out are not a synecdoche but what transpires when we attempt to place our limited faith with the glory of the Son of God. It is called unbelief and has a ghastly tone to it!

Acts 17:24

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth does not live in temples made by man."

 

[FineLinen]

Dear Damian: Perhaps you misunderstood the question?

Take 3=

Are any of the Scriptures presented on the O.P. a synecdoche?

 

[DamianWarS]

I've only just got out of bed and am not yet awake, so maybe I'm missing something.
But you've written out a few verses and emphasised the word some - when in fact, in all those verses, Scripture says all.

How do you conclude that all = some? Makes no sense.

It's a strawman. The op is trying to show that there is only room for the "radical all" as his way of building to universalism. He fails to address however the verses that use the same word but clearly is not the radical all. Don't get caught in attacking the strawman, the moment you argue that the word should be "all" not "some" the OP will expose his real agenda and try and trap you in the OP's universalism web.

 

[Strong in Him]

It's a strawman. The op is trying to show that there is only room for the "radical all" as his way of building to universalism. He fails to address however the verses that use the same word but clearly is not the radical all. Don't get caught in attacking the strawman, the moment you argue that the word should be "all" not "some" the OP will expose his real agenda and try and trap you the OP's universalism web.

Oh o.k, thanks.
I should have read more of the thread; I didn't realise it was promoting universalism.

 

[Strong in Him]

Dear Strong: You do appear to be missing something. The verses that were laid out are not a synecdoche but what transpires when we attempt to place our limited faith with the glory of the Son of God. It is called unbelief and has a ghastly tone to it!

Acts 17:24

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth does not live in temples made by man."

That doesn't explain why you have quoted Scripture references and written them out by replaced the word "all" with "some".
But I don't agree with universalism, so if that's your aim; I'll leave you to it.

 

[FineLinen]

That doesn't explain why you have quoted Scripture references and written them out by replaced the word "all" with "some".
But I don't agree with universalism, so if that's your aim; I'll leave you to it.

Dear Strong: On every post I make there is at the bottom what I believe. This link is not about the Restitution of all things spoken from the earliest ages by/thru the prophets of the Lord. Any discussion of that "mystery" I will pursue on the appropriate link.

I do trust the exceedingly great and wonderful love and grace of the Lord be yours today.

"For we are so preciously loved by God that we cannot even comprehend it. No created being can ever know how much and how sweetly and tenderly God loves them. It is only with the help of his grace that we are able to persevere in spiritual contemplation with endless wonder at his high, surpassing, immeasurable love which our Lord in his goodness has for us." – Julian of Norwich

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Right out of the mouth of Jesus, we have multiple verses clearly talking about Hell. Verses that are clear and unequivocal and can't be interpreted in any other way.

Um, no. Jesus never mentions hell. Hell is not in the Bible. It's like an introduced species of rabid vermin.

Jesus talks of Gehenna and Hades. So pick one, they can't both be 'Hell'. Next, don't just pluck those verses out. For example, our lord says in Mark 9:47-8:

And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

That's some scary stuff, the Gehenna reference, something about a worm and unquenchable fire. But does it really support eternal torment dogma? Why not read on - cause you never know, right? Mark 9:49-50:

For everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”

Okay, so now everyone gets some fire, and it's salty. And salt is good, don't give it up.

Well how about that, the scary unquenchable Gehenna fire is saline and works for our good. Whose good? It's the disciples he's teaching there.

So right away we can put to bed the boogeyman of Mark 9:47. Jesus doesn't walk around threatening people 'or else', without adding a rider to the effect that with God all things work together for the good.

Similar deal in Matt 10:29-31:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Translation: Don't fear man, fear God who can really do you in, but He won't cause He loves you.

So Gehenna is a place where folks (believers) get corrected. It might well be very painful, depending - and best avoided. How? By practising love, the beatitudes (and not shellfish).

Why does this have to be like pulling teeth? These are straightforward readings that are 100% consistent with the salvific identity of Christ and the power of heaven to restore, renew and regenerate all things. This will happen, get used to it bro.

So forget that hell rubbish, it's a concept entirely foreign to the Bible, it's just satan's kool-aid. Think Gehenna for starters, and think correction by purification of sin. Amen.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Thks for the specifics !

I love you Jeff, you're a classic!