Is belief in an eternal punishment in hell necessary?

[Der Alte]

I haven't read any of these but my extensive research shows that David Bentley Hart's translation gets gold, Young's Literal Translation silver and bronze goes to New American Bible: Revised Edition, which correctly omits the mistranslation "Hell" but still naughtily renders aion-related words as "eternal".

Never heard of Hart until this forum. I will trust the sources I was required to have earning my degree. BDB, BDAG etc, ca. 3 decades ago. And as I said Young was self-taught so his YLT reflects his biases/opinions not scholarship.
As I have repeatedly shown the translation "hell" is historically supported. The Jews before and during the time of Jesus believed in a place of eternal, fiery punishment which they called both Ge hinnom and sheol which were written as Gehenna and hades in the 225 BC LXX and the NT. This was about 2 millennia before Dante scribbled even one line. My posts have never been refuted.
I have shown conclusively that "aionios" means eternal, everlasting. Aionios which is an adjective, is not and cannot be translated as "age" which is a noun.

John 3:15-16​

(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionios] life.​

(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionios] life.​

In these 2 vss, Jesus defines/describes "aionios" life as "should not perish," not once but twice. Hart and Young can be wrong but Jesus is never wrong.
ETA: Just checked NABRE online John 3:15-16 both have "eternal life" with a footnote "this term stresses quality of life rather than duration." "Stresses quality" but does not omit "duration."

 

[Hmm]

ETA: Just checked NABRE online John 3:15-16 both have "eternal life" with a footnote "this term stresses quality of life rather than duration." "Stresses quality" but does not omit "duration."

Why is the idea of an unlimited duration of "hell" so important to you? This is a hypothetical question I know but I think still worth considering: Given the choice, would you prefer there to be or not to be an eternal hell, and why?

No citations please. Your own thoughts...

 

[didactics]

Why is the idea of an unlimited duration of "hell" so important to you? This is a hypothetical question I know but I think still worth considering: Given the choice, would you prefer there to be or not to be an eternal hell, and why?

No citations please. Your own thoughts...

Hi, I tried to reply to a comment of yours but your thread was shut down. Seeing that this topic is similar I'll post it here:

At a young age I believed in hell eternal. I was fearful. Growing up it was like a Christian culture with no substance, mostly. Though, the term Christian culture should not always have a negative connotation. Once I grew up I realized I didn’t know why I believed the things I do. That was my own doing because I barely if ever looked into it. God predetermines events but people are still responsible for their choices. It is difficult to wrap my head around this (biblical theodicy), but it only shows how little I know. CHAPTER III. OF GOD’S ETERNAL DECREE

 

[Fervent]

I haven't read any of these but my extensive research shows that David Bentley Hart's translation gets gold, Young's Literal Translation silver and bronze goes to New American Bible: Revised Edition, which correctly omits the mistranslation "Hell" but still naughtily renders aion-related words as "eternal".

Uh huh..."extensive research" which consists of throwing out the vast majority of scholastic opinion on the matter

 

[Der Alte]

Why is the idea of an unlimited duration of "hell" so important to you? This is a hypothetical question I know but I think still worth considering: Given the choice, would you prefer there to be or not to be an eternal hell, and why?
No citations please. Your own thoughts...

I don't do what ifs. Here it is down and dirty. Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it<period> end of conversation. I read a novel about 1/2 century ago. One of the characters in Mexico said of the U.S., "Their parents do not teach their children that the hot stove burns." Sin has consequences. One cannot live like the devil and expect to be rewarded for it.

 

[Saint Steven]

I simply trust Christ's wordings.

Wow. You speak Aramaic? (the language Jesus spoke primarily)
Translated into Greek/Latin and then English.

It's probably the words of the English translators that you trust so well.

 

[Der Alte]

Wow. You speak Aramaic? (the language Jesus spoke primarily)
Translated into Greek/Latin and then English.
It's probably the words of the English translators that you trust so well.

No, you're the one who has to rely on translators. I learned to read both Biblical languages almost 4 decades ago. Not only that I have the latest Greek and Hebrew lexicons. You can't say that, so you have no right to criticize others in that regard.

 

[Hmm]

I don't do what ifs.

I didn't ask you to. I asked you to "do" your own thoughts but no worries.

Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it<period> end of conversation.

It's more like "Jesus said it, we interpret it and then believe. But our interpretation is always provisional and we're always prepared to learn from conversing with others."

 

[didactics]

I didn't ask you to. I asked you to "do" your own thoughts but no worries.



It's more like "Jesus said it, we interpret it and then believe. But our interpretation is always provisional and we're always prepared to learn from conversing with others."

The thing is you believe that hell is something people choose for themselves as well. Only the difference is you think it’s a place of correction and there is a restorative quality to it (like a purgatory for all who end up there with everyone of them guaranteed an eventual release). What you underestimate is the total depravity of man and his sinfulness. That is why it is analogous to a toddler attracted to the glow of a burning stove. We may be attracted to self-serving sinful ways but it’s no less to our harm if we don’t know where it will take us. Most of us don’t expect you to believe that hell is ECT though it is an important thing to discuss. But if you have been a Christian for any length of time, we do expect you to consider that there comes a time when last chances are gone. Who knows how many chances we’ve been given for every day of our lives.

 

[Hmm]

The thing is you believe that hell is something people choose for themselves as well.

The thing is I don't. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind ever choosing hell. This is pretty much the whole argument of universalism: God will eventually bring us all into our right minds so that we choose Him.

What you underestimate is the total depravity of man and his sinfulness. That is why it is analogous to a toddler attracted to the glow of a burning stove. We may be attracted to self-serving sinful ways but it’s no less to our harm if we don’t know where it will take us.

How is a toddler attracted to the glow of a burning stove a sign of "total depravity"? Would the toddler be committing a sin if they touched the stove?

Most of us don’t expect you to believe that hell is ECT though it is an important thing to discuss.

What else is an eternal hell other than Eternal Conscious Torment?

But if you have been a Christian for any length of time, we do expect you to consider that there comes a time when last chances are gone.

Who is this "we"? Are you not responsible for your own interpretation of scripture? And why would I care about what this "we" expects of me anyway?

Who knows how many chances we’ve been given for every day of our lives.

This is making God's actions an impenetrable mystery, but God is a rational and understandable, though not totally so, being who we can enter into a personal relationship with.

 

[HSong]

English translators that you trust so well.

Agreed. I used to be a believer in ECT because I would only read the King James Version (or how I would call it, the King James Bible, back then). Looking back on it now, I have no idea why I was so devoted to some random version from 1611.

JOEL 2:28, 3:21 And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people ... Their bloodguilt which I have not pardoned, I will pardon

But since then, I've looked at the original Greek manuscript words like aion and olam from Hebrew, both of which referring generally refer to "pertaining to an age" and that's what made me become a Christian Universalist.

HABAKKUK 2:14 For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

As the Lord said, all shall come to knowledge of the Lord. So, not only will all people be saved by believing in Jesus Christ through faith alone. All people will understand Universal Salvation as true, since everyone will be able to see everyone else having knowledge of the Lord's glory.

 

[Der Alte]

I didn't ask you to. I asked you to "do" your own thoughts but no worries.
It's more like "Jesus said it, we interpret it and then believe. But our interpretation is always provisional and we're always prepared to learn from conversing with others."

Speak for yourself amigo! Unlike many folks I did not grow up in any church/denomination. Altho I attended Sunday school sporadically as a child I did not become a Christian until my mid 20s. I had no denominational baggage to unlearn. When I read e.g. "hell" that is what I believed. Unlike many when I study I don't seek out what supports some presuppositions/assumptions. For example, since I am retired X3, I decide to check every occurrence of aionios in the N.T. and I found that it means "eternal."
See e.g. John 3:15-16 Jesus said twice that "aionios zoe/ eternal life" means "shall not perish."

 

[Der Alte]

I didn't ask you to. I asked you to "do" your own thoughts but no worries.
It's more like "Jesus said it, we interpret it and then believe. But our interpretation is always provisional and we're always prepared to learn from conversing with others."

Same thing. I am not you amigo, my interpretation is based on guided evaluated study. I learned to read both Biblical languages almost 4 decades ago and before that Iearned to speak Greek overseeing Greek workers in Germany about 2 decades before that. Second day in Greek 101, early 80s, classmates were surprised that I could read Greek almost effortlessly.
I don't rely on Bible translations, I have the most recent edition of BDAG Greek lexicon. I have had UR-ites tell me that BDAG is biased. So, I have asked them to show me a Greek lexicon written/compiled by "unbiased" scholars with letters behind their names, and 30 years or so of experience. I wonder why they can't find one?
Several here claim that "aionios" does not mean "eternal" but "age during" or some such nonsense. First "aionios" is an adjective, age is a noun. Second in John 3:15-16 Jesus defines/describes "aionios life" as "shall not perish." twice. "Shall not perish" sounds like "eternal" to me.

 

[Halbhh]

Wow. You speak Aramaic? (the language Jesus spoke primarily)
Translated into Greek/Latin and then English.

It's probably the words of the English translators that you trust so well.

In my experience it's not good to trust just one translation on key things, nor even a couple, but instead you must rely on context first -- full reading through from the beginnings of a book through all the way to the end -- and then next on comparing many translations if there is still uncertainty about meaning (which does often happen in the deeper things), and then of coruse one can look at the Greek source texts and the Strong's translations of the Greek one word at a time. And last but not least are commentaries. All of these are available at BibleHub, which is why I usually recommend it.

 

[Saint Steven]

I didn't ask you to. I asked you to "do" your own thoughts but no worries.



It's more like "Jesus said it, we interpret it and then believe. But our interpretation is always provisional and we're always prepared to learn from conversing with others."

Even the Apostle Paul was guilty of misquotes. (supposedly) - LOL
(compare Ephesians 4:8 with Psalm 68:18)
Gifts... gave, or received; which is it?

 

[Saint Steven]

In my experience it's not good to trust just one translation on key things, nor even a couple, but instead you must rely on context first -- full reading through from the beginnings of a book through all the way to the end -- and then next on comparing many translations if there is still uncertainty about meaning (which does often happen in the deeper things), and then of coruse one can look at the Greek source texts and the Strong's translations of the Greek one word at a time. And last but not least are commentaries. All of these are available at BibleHub, which is why I usually recommend it.

Good advice, thanks.
However, I think most interpretation (through study) is a product of our perspective. We see what we want to see.
Basically, our study typically confirms our pre-existing beliefs.
Maybe your experience with it is different than mine? (hope so)

 

[didactics]

The thing is I don't. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind ever choosing hell. This is pretty much the whole argument of universalism: God will eventually bring us all into our right minds so that we choose Him.



How is a toddler attracted to the glow of a burning stove a sign of "total depravity"? Would the toddler be committing a sin if they touched the stove?



What else is an eternal hell other than Eternal Conscious Torment?



Who is this "we"? Are you not responsible for your own interpretation of scripture? And why would I care about what this "we" expects of me anyway?



This is making God's actions an impenetrable mystery, but God is a rational and understandable, though not totally so, being who we can enter into a personal relationship with.

Those who end up in hell are there because they are held responsible for their choices; they must have gotten there somehow. In the same way you believe in a place that is at the very least hell-like, something like a purgatory with everyone in it promised eventual release.



I think I got my analogies mixed up in regards to total depravity. I’ve heard it described as a moth to the flame. My point was that if we do what we want in our sin it will be to our own hurt—the consequences of sin is like touching the stove (though, it’s not a very good analogy because we don’t always see the negative consequences to our sinful choices). If I’m explaining it as a moth to the flame however, what I mean is that it will be the death of you—to live in sin.



I’m not sure why you are asking me what else is an eternal hell. What I’m saying is not everyone who is an ECT folk expects you to believe that hell is eternal to be saved. It is an important teaching to be sure, but we (most of us presumably) are not saying that you need to believe that to be saved. But, we (again, most of us I presume) are saying that universalism is a bridge too far. I don’t really know why you should care what this “we” thinks. My attempt was to get you to consider that this position of what most ECT folks are warning you against is reasonable. You are right to point out that our relation to God should be one that is based on reason. Christianity is a cognitive faith.

 

[Hmm]

My point was that if we do what we want in our sin it will be to our own hurt—the consequences of sin is like touching the stove (though, it’s not a very good analogy because we don’t always see the negative consequences to our sinful choices).

Agreed. But to stick an everlasting punishment on the end of that is quite an extrapolation.

I’m not sure why you are asking me what else is an eternal hell.

The concept of eternal hell is so embarrassing to the denominations that hold to it that it is constantly being watered down to make it more palatable and plausible. It's gone from eternal conscious torture to eternal conscious torment to eternal conscious separation. Presumably, there was no word starting with a 'T' that met the requirements. What I was saying was that any form of everlasting punishment, however mild the word is that's used to describe it, is sadistic (because purposeless) torture if it goes on forever. Think of the children's story The Princess and the Pea, or Chinese water torture.

What I’m saying is not everyone who is an ECT folk expects you to believe that hell is eternal to be saved. It is an important teaching to be sure, but we (most of us presumably) are not saying that you need to believe that to be saved.

Of course not. ECT is not in the Nicene Creed is it? It is not a required belief so it makes you wonder why some are so reluctant to let go of it.

we (again, most of us I presume) are saying that universalism is a bridge too far.

I'm not so sure most people really believe in ECT. I think most just pay lip service to it because they think they're supposed to. That's my personal experience anyway. IMO, if someone really believed in it, they either don't care too much about others or would go insane from trying to stop them from ending up there.

My attempt was to get you to consider that this position of what most ECT folks are warning you against is reasonable.

Torture is never reasonable. That's victim blaming.

You are right to point out that our relation to God should be one that is based on reason. Christianity is a cognitive faith.

Agreed.

 

[didactics]

Agreed. But to stick an everlasting punishment on the end of that is quite an extrapolation.



The concept of eternal hell is so embarrassing to the denominations that hold to it that it is constantly being watered down to make it more palatable and plausible. It's gone from eternal conscious torture to eternal conscious torment to eternal conscious separation. Presumably, there was no word starting with a 'T' that met the requirements. What I was saying was that any form of everlasting punishment, however mild the word is that's used to describe it, is sadistic (because purposeless) torture if it goes on forever. Think of the children's story The Princess and the Pea, or Chinese water torture.



Of course not. ECT is not in the Nicene Creed is it? It is not a required belief so it makes you wonder why some are so reluctant to let go of it.



I'm not so sure most people really believe in ECT. I think most just pay lip service to it because they think they're supposed to. That's my personal experience anyway. IMO, if someone really believed in it, they either don't care too much about others or would go insane from trying to stop them from ending up there.



Torture is never reasonable. That's victim blaming.



Agreed.

I wouldn’t say that eternal hell is a mindless experience, or at least I don’t think so. It would be a torture for sure, but that doesn’t mean that God derives pleasure in torturing his subjects. Ps 7:11 (KJV) “God is angry with the wicked every day” or (NASB) “a God who has indignation every day” or (NIV) “a God who displays his wrath every day”. The purpose of hell is to show the holiness of God and his hatred of sin. Psalm 5:4 (NASB): 4For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness;
No evil dwells with You.


I must conclude then that hell is eternal because it shows the eternal hatred of sin.


God’s common grace extends to all men and, while God does not love elect and non-elect in the same way, the Bible is clear that He does love all that He has created. I noticed a thread that emphasized hell is not separation from God. While it is true that God is omnipresent, the understanding is that God is separate from the unsaved relationally. God must be present in hell for he is there in his wrath.


But, all this talk about God’s wrath of sin, doesn’t this mean he hates sinners? I mean if someone’s fate is sealed and they end up in hell with no escape, it certainly sounds like God hates them. Would this cause some to go insane from trying to stop others from ending up there?


“Have you no wish for others to be saved? Then you're not saved yourself, be sure of that!”

― Charles Spurgeon


Now, I did point out Ps 5:4 but notice what follows: 5The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes;
You hate all who do iniquity.


…for he hates nothing that he has made, but fools of their own making, and those he hates. Wicked people hate God; justly therefore are they hated of him, and it will be their endless misery and ruin.

Matthew Henry's Commentary


It is important doctrine because it challenges me to consider if I have been truly saved myself. It doesn’t mean you go insane trying to evangelize, not as a madman anyway, but I am to consider other’s interest above my own, fellow believers (Ro 12:10) and have a heart for the lost. How this is resolved is in the way the gospel is presented. Evangelism should extend a call to accept and believe the gospel.


Universalism is not compatible with that message, as we need to help sinners see the wrath of God and what that means. And until they see that, they don’t see their true need for a substitute, and they don’t fully understand what Christ was doing on the cross.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

There are many things in the creation of God that we do not believe in simply because we do not know about them. We are never told. I am sure there are many instances of people who hear the gospel and believe, but their information is limited to that alone omitting many of the details of the Old and New Testaments. I believe that these people would be saved.

1 Corinthians 15:1-3 tells us what we must "keep in memory" to maintain our salvation:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1. Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also ye have received, and in which ye stand;
2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached to you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3. For I delivered to you first of all, that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures;
4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

There is no mention of having to keep in memory anything else.