Why are so many Christians against annihilation in hell when scripture supports it?

[ClementofA]

The difference between us is, where possible, I quote the latest scholarship, not 140 year old interpretations by a self educated "scholar." Quoting from such sources does not refute the recent scholarship .

BDAG (2000) isn't the "latest scholarship" on aionios. There is Ramelli/Konstan (2011), "Terms For Eternity...", for example, which devotes about half the book of well over 200 pages to aionios, not a measly half of one page as Danker's BDAG. Likewise Helena Keizer's book (1999).

BDAG stands for Bauer, Danker, Arndt & Gingrich. Bauer in 1928 had revised Presuschen's lexicon (1910). Lee remarks that Bauer claimed it was an entirely new book, but that it was actually a revision. Evidently people will say anything to get their book sold.

"It can be readily seen that Bauer simply retains Preuschen's meanings with minimal adjustment...Gingrich's statement that "(b)y far the most of the articles were significantly changed or entirely rewritten", if intended to refer to the semantic analysis, is simply not supportable" (A History of New Testament Lexicography, John A. T. Lee, 2014, p.144, 146).

"Increased size is routinely seized upon as a virtue...the public and reviewers judge dictionaries principally by the apparent size, not by an informed examination of their contents" (p.153-154). Which explains the blind faith in the Bauer series.

"...BAG was in essence a translation [of German into English] of Bauer, and retained the basic meanings and structure that Bauer - or rather Preuschen - had laid down; the 1979 revision did no more than build further on the same foundation" (p.150).

"From Bauer to BRAA to BAGD...the semantic content of the underlying work of Preuschen was preserved with little modification...Presuchen's work lives on" (p.151).

As i see it BDAG's aion & aionios entries are mainly just a bunch of selected references to ancient usages of the words plus its author/s biased opinions as to how the word should be defined. It seems likely the vast majority of its Christian readers (e.g. pastors) take such opinions on blind faith like BDAG is a substitute pontiff without ever having read, let alone studied, the cites themselves.

The citations themselves are a small selection that BDAG selected out from numerous ancient references to the words & as such have left out those that oppose the conclusions of BDAG, including several i've posted already in this thread from Deissman's tablet, Philo, Origen & Chrysostom. Therein is the bias of pro endless punishment biased lexicons & scholars such as BDAG exposed.

The BDAG second entry on aionios as "pert. to a period of time without beginning or end...Ro 16:26...Hb 9:14..." (p.33) is IMO probably wrong in light of there being a beginning to the "times aionion" since there was a 'time' "before times aionion" (2 Tim.1:9; Titus 1:2; cf 1 Cor.2:7, before the eons).

Also, arguably, there will be an end of all aions & aionion periods as per 1 Cor.10:11 & Heb.9:26 according to these two posts at:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-not-cast-off-for-ever.8041512/#post-72126038

Every other scholarly source & lexicon i consulted (of 10 in total) did not agree with & or opposed BDAG re aion being a personal entity Aeon in Eph.2:2; Col.1:26; Eph.3:9.
So who's wrong, the vast majority of scholars, lexicons & commentaries? Or BDAG?

Eminent lexicographer John A. L. Lee, in his book "A History of New Testament Lexicography" (2014), which has been well reviewed by his peers, points out many errors in BDAG & how lexicons have often blindly copied from one another, including their mistakes.

"Baldwin’s use of the lexicons as authoritative raises the question: Do the lexicons provide authoritative boundaries for the meaning and glosses of αὐθεντέω in the various contexts? Lee, Nida and Louw are agreed that the answer is ‘no’, not only for αὐθεντέω, but in general. Lee asserts, ‘The body of attestations accumulated in the lexicons has reached its greatest extent yet. But because of the ways it has been gathered there is an inherent unreliability’ (Lee, Lexicography, p. 124). Nida and Louw write: ‘We must not assume that the English glosses in a Greek–English lexicon can provide accurate information about the designative and associative meanings of a Greek term’ (Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics, p. 59)"
http://jgrchj.net/volume10/JGRChJ10-7_Westfall.pdf

"No one has drawn more attention to the methodological issues and, well, let's face, flaws, in our New Testament Greek lexicons than John A. L. Lee. In a good summary statement of the state of affairs of our lexicons, Lee says "The concise, seemingly authoritative statement of meaning can, and often does, conceal many sins - indecision, compromise, imperfect knowledge, guesswork, and, above all, dependence on predecessors."

Lee is quoted again: "...NT lexicons are contaminated by glosses from the standard translations, going back as far as the Vulgate."

https://books.google.ca/books?id=qS...ons, going back as far as the Vulgate&f=false

"The first three chapters chronicle the three leading characteristics of the NT lexicographical tradition: reliance on predecessors, employment of the gloss method, and dependence on versions. Lee demonstrates how lexicographers in their choice of glosses frequently drew on the rendering of a given word in current translations and shows the chain of development from the KJV to Tyndale, from Tyndale to Luther, and from Luther via Erasmus to the Vulgate. He also points to the limitations of the gloss method and advocates a definition approach instead... Hence even BDAG (2000) is but the last in a series of works with a long, checkered pedigree that should now give way to new efforts..."

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/47/47-3/47-3-pp481-547_JETS.pdf

The Curious Case of Gerhard Kittel, the Nazi lexicographer:
https://bulletin.equinoxpub.com/2012/05/the-curious-case-of-gerhard-kittel/

Myth: Biblical Reference Works Are Objective
https://cruxsolablog.com/2014/10/30/myth-biblical-reference-works-are-objective-gupta/

" Lee goes on to say that lexicographical work in Greek – especially the vocabulary of the LXX – is far from over not just in terms of demand, but in terms of accuracy. There is a huge amount of sources not yet incorporated into our understanding of Koine Greek. Undertaking exhaustive and integrative analysis of this body of language is therefore essential to interpreting Scripture rightly."
https://williamaross.com/2015/02/16/lexicography-for-the-church/

"Recent studies have...demonstrated the inadequacies of many of the standard Greek lexicons, including Bauer & Dankers:"

Christian Identity in Corinth: A Comparative Study of 2 Corinthians ...By V. Henry T. Nguyen

https://books.google.ca/books?id=uz...k lexicons, including Bauer & Dankers&f=false

 

[ClementofA]

The High Priestly Prayer, rejects universalism as promoted by some.


John 17: 1. These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2. As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 6. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. 9. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 10. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. 11. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. 12. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 20. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 24. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 25. O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. 26. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

What gives you that idea? Scripture supports universalism.

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/unique_proof_for_universalism.html

 

[narrowgateevangelist]

What gives you that idea? Scripture supports universalism.

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/unique_proof_for_universalism.html

Biblical universalism as I understand it. Is that salvation is available to everyone. Regardless of national, or cultural background.


Matthew 8: 11. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[cwo]

Nope. I accuse the god of the Calvinists or the Calvinist theology of God to present us with a picture of a Being who is extremely cruel. Since the One True Real God is not cruel at all and has never chosen people for heaven or hell before they were born, as that IS cruel, the theology is wrong. If a Calvinist would admit what his heart and mind are telling him, he/she would see it as well. But it is true that they would have to abandon the very comforting thought that they were predestined for Heaven before they were born no matter how they treat others.

What you are doing is mixing up matters. God choosing some for Heaven and some for hell with no hope or choice or chance has nothing to do with what Hell is. This you mix up. Even the TULIP does not address what hell is.

You may not like it, but that is the truth, http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2016/10/0...-by-god-even-the-outcome-of-a-roll-of-a-dice/ .

 

[cwo]

Well, I can give you names of people whose lives did not measure up to the name. So why do you think a name is everything? The bit about the first letter of the name came at the moment. If I gave it more time, I could give an even more plausible explanation right out of my imagination as you or someone you like did.

And your whimisical account of Lazarus being similiar to Elizar is absurd. The account is to warn men about hell by describing a real event. The rest of Jesus' teaching is such.

And names, frankly speaking, are only as good as the character of the owner. No more and no less. The name Jesus was not uncommon, you know. To listen to you, one would think there was only one man in all of history named Jesus since names are important.

You do not seem to understand the account. The men were not "alive and well" as they had died. This you miss. Pretty fundamental to the story but you nevertheless missed it.

I do not fully understand the matter of being in torment after death, which I do believe as it matches the warnings of Jesus, and the final judgement. I do not have to understand it though as I know that I am going to be present with the Lord when I die if I continue in the grace given to me to walk with Him. What I know is the punishment after death is aweful and to be avoided if one listens to anyone who knew God who talked about it. Good enough at this point. I do not need to know the details to know that falling from an airplane with no parachute, for example, is bad. I just need to know that I do not want it happening to me.

So the problem with your interpretation is you completely undo the purpose of the account. Jesus told the experience to warm people. Your explanation comforts them, same as my imagined one

Indeed he was warning men about hell, through a parable. The full interpretation of the parable is here http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2016/10/02/the-interpretation-of-the-rich-man-and-lazarus-parable/ .

 

[DeaconDean]

The theology of Calvinism is a destructive doctrine that has done a great deal of damage to the church both inside and outside. The being depicted as god is more cruel than the Devil.

Maybe from your perspective. But, the doctrine of "election", God's divine choice on whom will be His people, can be shown as truth, from the time of the Torah.

Just because you disagree with it, does not make it true.

Calvinism in the whole TULIP will need to be jettisoned before there is unity of love in the body of Christ.

Here, you are mistaken. Theology is not the only thing separating the Saints.

The being described under that theology is tyranny, both historically and today as well. That you quote a rule demanding respect for him by rule is exactly the mark of how the theology works in the hearts and minds of those who embrace it, I've noticed.

Ha! I may disagree with the views espoused by the person who sits "High" within the Vatican, but I still to some measure, owe a measure of respect. (Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. -Rom. 13:7) In fairness, there is no way I would bow my knee to him, on the other hand, there is no way I would completely disrespect the man neither. So while it is your right to hate the man, fact is, without him and another man (Martin Luther) you very well could be a Catholic today, heeding to their "theology".

Intolerance for other views is something I continually see in those who buy the calvinist teaching.

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]! That is so funny. You say that all the while hating anything that relates in any fashion to Calvin.

NO other view will be tolerated.

And just how is that any different than what preceded the previous 14 centuries?

Under Calvin other views were punished by cruel death or banishment.

And again, what changed from the previous 14 centuries? Has this not been the path that was repeated often?

This has not changed except the power to inflict such has. The fruit of the theology is enough to make the thinking man wonder.

Wrong again, just read some of the deeper things that Catholicism teaches. Punishments are still in effect.

People just love to point to Michael Servetus. But they only read what pleases them, and serves their purpose. They refuse to read truth.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Since the One True Real God is not cruel at all and has never chosen people for heaven or hell before they were born, as that IS cruel, the theology is wrong.

Obviously you haven't read what God did to Dathan, Abirim, and Korah.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Pneuma3]

The salvation of murderers and rapists who refused to repent is righteous and worthy of praise to God for saving them? Haha.

Lol your just as bad as the other poster, you obviously do NOT know what we believe or are just playing ignorant.

Every knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

All will have faith and all will believe.

 

[DeaconDean]

Lol your just as bad as the other poster, you obviously do NOT know what we believe or are just playing ignorant.

Every knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

All will have faith and all will believe.

Not really.

From the Gospels we see many who apparently confess, repent, believe, have works in support, but Jesus says to them: "Depart from me, I never knew you".

Just because scriptures say every knee will bow and confess, does not equate out in the result of "universal salvation".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Pneuma3]

1 Timothy 4:10
(10) For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
(9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
(10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
(19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
(20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
(21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5:5
(5) For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 15:50
(50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.​

This can't be right in these verses Paul says several times that certain people cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But in 1 Tim 4:10 Paul said that God is the Savior of all men. I guess Paul did not know what he was talking about in 1 Tim 4:10, 1 Cor 6:9-10, Gal 5:19-21, Eph 5:5 and 1 Cor 15:50 because obviously 1 Tim 4:10 means that God will save everyone no matter what.

Well I was going to leave you to OMT, but as you addressed me I will reply.

Why is it that Paul has to be the one who does not know what he is talking about? I would think it was you who does not know what Paul is taking about.

Anyway you cannot use those other scriptures to say Paul was mistaken to say we are commanded to teach Jesus Christ is the saviour of all men, yet that is exactly what you are doing. You do not explain 1 Timothy 4:10 all you do is say it cannot mean what it says because of other verses. You seem to have the understanding the the gospel must conform to your doctrine instead of your doctrine conforming to the gospel. Which again as Paul tells us is

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

We are not to promote any other gospel then that which we have received, yet many of you keep doing exactly that.

And we do not believe the unrighteous will enter into the kingdom in their unrighteous state, but that they shall be changed and enter into the gates of the city when they learn the commandments of God and partake of the water of life freely.

For God himself states that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

So you asked earlier of OMT why is your understanding wrong and His correct?
Answer: because you do not promote what we are commanded to teach, you oppose it.

 

[cwo]

Lol your just as bad as the other poster, you obviously do NOT know what we believe or are just playing ignorant.

Every knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

All will have faith and all will believe.

Indeed all will come to believe, because the unrighteous will one day literally stand before Christ to stand judgment, but not to be rewarded, but for punishment. The punishment is destruction of not only the body, but also the soul, through aeonial fire.

 

[DeaconDean]

For God himself states that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Pharaoh made a confession also, was he saved? (cf. Ex. 9:27-28)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Pneuma3]

Not really.

From the Gospels we see many who apparently confess, repent, believe, have works in support, but Jesus says to them: "Depart from me, I never knew you".

Just because scriptures say every knee will bow and confess, does not equate out in the result of "universal salvation".

God Bless

Till all are one.

and just because He say depart, does not mean he wont later restore.

 

[DeaconDean]

and just because He say depart, does not mean he wont later restore.

That is not in scripture.

You are adding to it.

If you can show me scripture where those who are told to depart, are restored, I'll believe you.

Until then, you just adding to God's word.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Pneuma3]

Indeed all will come to believe, because the unrighteous will one day literally stand before Christ to stand judgment, but not to be rewarded, but for punishment. The punishment is destruction of not only the body, but also the soul, through aeonial fire.

You obviously need to study more.

Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.


the word bow, in the Greek the word is kampto, and it means to bend the knee in honour and religious veneration and it is only used for religious veneration in scripture.


Now let's look at the other word, confess. The word confess here is the Greek word exomologeo meaning to acknowledge openly and joyfully, to celebrate in praise of ones honour.

Thus the scripture is saying

every knee shall bow in honour and religious veneration, and every tongue confess and acknowledge openly and joyfully, to celebrate in praise of ones honour, that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

 

[Pneuma3]

Pharaoh made a confession also, was he saved? (cf. Ex. 9:27-28)

God Bless

Till all are one.

did he bow in honour and religious veneration, and confess and acknowledge openly and joyfully, to celebrate in praise of ones honour, that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father?

 

[Pneuma3]

That is not in scripture.

You are adding to it.

If you can show me scripture where those who are told to depart, are restored, I'll believe you.

Until then, you just adding to God's word.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Have you never read how God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with olam/aionios fire and how they will be restored?

 

[cwo]

You obviously need to study more.

Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.


the word bow, in the Greek the word is kampto, and it means to bend the knee in honour and religious veneration and it is only used for religious veneration in scripture.


Now let's look at the other word, confess. The word confess here is the Greek word exomologeo meaning to acknowledge openly and joyfully, to celebrate in praise of ones honour.

Thus the scripture is saying

every knee shall bow in honour and religious veneration, and every tongue confess and acknowledge openly and joyfully, to celebrate in praise of ones honour, that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Every mouth will indeed confess that Yeshua Christ is Master, because that is what the unrighteous will one day come to realize after they've witnessed the power of his coming. But by then it'll be too late for them, for they will be destroyed by means of aeonial fire. This is what the scriptures teach. Read, http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2016/10/0...-resurrections-and-the-lake-of-fire-judgment/ .

 

[Pneuma3]

Every mouth will indeed confess that Yeshua Christ is Master, because that is what the unrighteous will one day come to realize after they've witnessed the power of his coming. But by then it'll be too late for them, for they will be destroyed by means of aeonial fire. This is what the scriptures teach. Read, http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2016/10/0...-resurrections-and-the-lake-of-fire-judgment/ .

 

[Easy Listener]

Anytime I discuss my beliefs regarding what is to happen to either the saved or the lost in ages to follow this one, it is imperative that I always end my post with "in my opinion".

Did anyone living prior to the execution and resurrection of Christ get that one right? Nope. And yet in hindsight it was all over the Old Testament. Anyone who "knows" what will happen to the lost or saved after this age is not just ignorant. They are arrogantly ignorant.

Personally, I used to believe the lost are tortured in Hell for all eternity. I now believe they are basically executed, not just bodily, but their soul as well. That said, I'm willing to entertain that universalism is correct, that all are saved. But that is based on the idea that we really don't know, fully, the fate of the lost, and it is quite possible that in an age to follow this one, "EVERY" knee really does bow. It's easy to find scripture to support this, but also scripture that seems to contradict it. This is true for all perspectives on this. So I say everything in the spirit of, "This is what I believe, but now I see as through a glass darkly. I'll know the full truth on the matter in the next age."

BTW, the reason I will entertain annihilationism and universalism, but not eternal torment is because, having read and studied the bible from cover to cover several times, the latter simply does not in the least relate to the personality of the God of the bible. Heck, in 2 Peter 2:6 he even says that (bold mine) "if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, reducing them to ashes as an example of what is coming on the ungodly;

So, based on that, what is going to happen to the ungodly. But I only use that as one example. Rethinkinghell.com has plenty of scriptural references for all three beliefs as well as some rebuttals for them all. Ultimately, let each man believe in his own heart and live accordingly.