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

[Pneuma3]

Unfortunately Jesus Christ taught an eternal hell.

Nowhere in all of scripture is Aidios, which is the Greek word for eternal, ever use in conjunction with hell.

So NO Jesus did not teach an eternal hell.

 

[Hillsage]

In this enlightened internet age i expect there will be more & more rejecting the traditional dark ages view of endless tortures & opting instead for universalism, annihilationism, notsureism, hopeful universalism, etc, as they become properly informed.

I think the internet is responsible for being the ‘information age’ , but true ‘enlightenment’ can only come from He who is light. And it was following the leading of His Spirit IMO that allowed me to switch from eternal torture to Ultimate Reconciliation. And my path never had access to the ‘computer age that was yet to come’. Question Clement, when did you become ‘fully convinced? How old were you, and in what year was your heart enlightened?

Perhaps, among Christians, most are already of the view of either universalism or hopeful universalism. The latter can be officially believed in the two largest denominations, RC & EO.

Interesting POV. All the RC and EO that I talk to are either ET’ers or pretty sceptical. And, even as you have pointed out before, it was the RC church leader Augustine who is most responsible for allowing the ‘eternal’ definition of aion/aionios to become accepted. Even though he, a truly ‘Latin scholar’ of the Church of Rome, wasn’t even best qualified to make this Greek grammar decision. I believe it was more of a decision which came more from his churches indoctrination. That’s the opinion I am of anyway. Would you agree or disagree?

 

[Pneuma3]

Yes it is a horrible doctrine but unfortunately it is a true doctrine and billions of people are going to suffer eternal damnation.

You are correct that it is a horrible doctrine, tis no wounder Paul called it a doctrine of devils in 1Tim4
For only a devil could think up a doctrine where Love could ever torment forever those he loved and came to save.

Do you believe God so foolish that He did not count the cost of the salvation of the world?


For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? 29Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, 30Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.


Did God sit down and count the cost for the salvation of the world?

After He laid the foundation, Jesus Christ, for that salvation is He unable to finish what He started?

According to those who believe in eternal torment and annihilation He is unable.

Eternal torment and annihilation are mocking God, saying He began to build, and was not able to finish.


Do you not believe God is able to finish that which He started?

 

[Saint Steven]

Absolutely they are the same two words. But the definition you just quoted for the word aionios is a big reason for this struggle which you have and which I once had. As Clement has tried to show with 'toooooo much supporting info' which probably doesn't even get read, let alone 'studied', there is a problem with the definition you quoted. If you will just go back to 'the end' of his big #863 post and read the Matthew BIBLE verses, you'll see many translations which do not agree with the root Greek word AION being translated "eternity". To take a 'root' word like AION and make its definition 'both' an age AND eternity is no definition at all. But that's also why we have 'scholarly' translations such as Clement posted which do not agree with the popular 'eternity' translations of today. Translations which we believe came to pass as a result of 'indoctrination' and not from correct 'interpretation'.

But no one here ever disproves those translations when presented. No one has said "here was the crook-ery of those translators and their interpretation into English". Translators who would not translate based upon the doctrine of orthodoxy, but upon the laws of grammar, which they saw being misused. I'm going to stop now because posting more simply does not work IMO. No one wants a drink from the firehose. And yes there is a plethora of information out there for both sides. But I will just end with one of my 'never refuted' posts concerning when UNIVERSALISM was the majority belief in the beginning.

"SIX THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS

German theologian - Philip Schaff writes :“In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria…Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthageor Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine
on this subject is unknown.”

( The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge – Vol XII, Baker Book
House, 1950, p. 96.)"

And we all know what the church of ROME did to anyone who ever disagreed with 'her theology' and her political power in the world. Killed those Christians and burned all their heretic works.

Thanks.
Are you claiming the same issue with these scriptures?

Matthew 18:8
If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Matthew 25:41
“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.

Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

 

[Saint Steven]

Steven aion and its adjective aionios simply mean of unknown duration.

We simply have no idea the length of TIME that is being dealt with here, and aion most certainly does deal with time.

It does not mean or did ever mean eternal or endless as the Greek word for endless is
Akatalutos-Endless: indissoluble, not subject to destruction.

Now if God wanted us to believe those scriptures were speaking of endlessness why did He not use the word that actually means endless?

Another thing to keep in mind is that the scriptures also tell us that the aions all come to an END. So if the aions come to an END they obviously CANNOT be endless.

Do you not find it weird that the Greek actually has words for eternal and endless and yet not once are these words EVER used in conjunction with the judgments of God?

Thanks, but the translators of the KJV and the NIV seem to disagree. (others as well?)

 

[Hillsage]

Thanks.
Are you claiming the same issue with these scriptures?

Matthew 18:8
If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Matthew 25:41
“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.

Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

"Study to show thyself approved" brother. I have already shared, what my position will be every time I see the word "eternal" in what I personally believe are predominantly modern and nominal translations, such as you just quoted out of. Look those verses up in any one of the multiple translations which do not have the word "eternity" in those verses. After you do, maybe you too will be met (as I was) with the position of proving that those translators are either deceived, inept or simply hired to 'translate AND interpret' purposfully (like the lying scribes of Jeremiah 8:8) to protect the Orthodoxy of...which Jewish 'denominational view'? The Masoretics, the Yahweists or the Deuteronomists? Even though they all 'esentially' represented Jewish denominations of old, with doctrinal disagreements. Today we'd probably say the Masorectic text won...proving again that 'History does repeat' here, with the church of Rome winning out over the original church of Jerusalem.

Steve IMO here is what I have found out concerning all this; The modern 'Christian publishing business' of promoting more and more bibles ($$$) does require a 'litmus' doctrinal statement of faith which must be agreed upon and signed PRIOR to being contracted as a 'qualified' bible writer for the publishers feeding the 'sheep' of today. In my study I even found that the Nearly Inspired Version (sorry ) even hired an openly homosexual 'theologian' which was on their 'doctrinally accepted' agreement, and who was contractually hired. But they weren't worried about his sexual perversion since he was going to be dealing from his expertise in OT issues not associated with homosexuality. Thank GOD ALMIGHTY they never would have thought of doing such a thing with a scholar who did not believe in ETERNAL CONSCIOUS TORTURE. That would have balled up the printing presses from rolling for sure.

As you know brother, I have lots of maxims and sayings. Concerning 'this issue' I also have one, and it goes like this; 'Most of the newer translations of today have many 'grave' errors in them."

So, your assignment is, should you choose to accept it; Go check your verses which you opened with in the translations below and get back to me.

Young's Literal Translation (From author of Young's Concordance)
Emphatic Diaglott translation
Rotherham's translation
Concordant Literal Translation

The New Testament: A Translation, by Eastern Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart, 2017, Yale Press)

This last one I admittedly haven't checked before, yet. But I'm going to 'assume' Clement did his 'due diligence'. I deem him better informed than myself with all this plethora of URL's he inundates the opposing side with.

 

[Solomon Smith]

Nowhere in all of scripture is Aidios, which is the Greek word for eternal, ever use in conjunction with hell.

So NO Jesus did not teach an eternal hell.

Matthew 25:31-46
Luke 16:19-31

 

[Solomon Smith]

You are correct that it is a horrible doctrine, tis no wounder Paul called it a doctrine of devils in 1Tim4
For only a devil could think up a doctrine where Love could ever torment forever those he loved and came to save.

Do you believe God so foolish that He did not count the cost of the salvation of the world?


For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? 29Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, 30Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.


Did God sit down and count the cost for the salvation of the world?

After He laid the foundation, Jesus Christ, for that salvation is He unable to finish what He started?

According to those who believe in eternal torment and annihilation He is unable.

Eternal torment and annihilation are mocking God, saying He began to build, and was not able to finish.


Do you not believe God is able to finish that which He started?

Salvation is only for those who believe, the elect.

 

[Solomon Smith]

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

According to that verse how do you justify Universalism.

 

[Pneuma3]

Thanks, but the translators of the KJV and the NIV seem to disagree. (others as well?)

and many others disagree.

Ask any Jew what the meaning is to olam which is the Hebrew word for aion and they will tell you it basically means of unknown duration.

Add that to the fact the scriptures tell us the aions come to an END. Obviously if something comes to an END is cannot be said to be endless.

And yet that is exactly what those who believe in ECT and annihilation are saying, that which scripture says ends is endless, thus making a laughing stock of words.

Add all that to aion cannot mean both eternal and an age for they have a contrary meaning.

 

[Pneuma3]

Matthew 25:31-46
Luke 16:19-31

I will repeat.

Nowhere in all of scripture is Aidios, which is the Greek word for eternal, ever use in conjunction with hell.

So NO Jesus did not teach an eternal hell.

Now can you show us all where Aidios (eternal) is used in those scriptures?

 

[Pneuma3]

Salvation is only for those who believe, the elect.

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

According to that verse how do you justify Universalism.

You simply have no understanding of the purpose of the elect, they are but a promise of the whole harvest.

 

[ClementofA]

As I said, since you have no Biblucal arguments

My Biblical arguments are all over the forum in 3000+ posts. I'm still waiting for anyone to refute - anything - they say. Where are yours so I can tell you where you've "missed it"?

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

75 UR verses + 100 proofs + 150 reasons etc:
Web Online Help

213 Questions Without Answers:
Questions Without Answers

 

[ClementofA]

I'm talking about the NT Greek text. The KJV translation did not change the original Greek. Why would you claim such a thing?

The links to my posts in my post already address that.

 

[ClementofA]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

That doesn't refute universalism & has been addressed many times before:

And what did Paul say?
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.

Where does Paul ever qualify his warnings about who cannot enter the kingdom of God by saying "not until they repent & cease being unrighteous?" I can't seem to find that
qualification anywhere in Paul's writings. Do you suppose that Paul forgot to put that in and that is why unis today have to interject that into every one of Paul's warnings?

It's right in front of your eyes, if you read the next verse after those you quoted:

1 Cor 6:9-11

"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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

"And SUCH WERE SOME OF YOU: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

As a commentator says:

"Wait a minute. If the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God, why does Paul say "and such were some of you?" If they were unrighteous, then how did they inherit the kingdom?"

"They had to be cleansed first, of course. As long as anyone is not cleansed, they have no part inside. But once cleansed, they they entered the kingdom."

So the passages you quoted are perfectly harmonious with universal salvation.

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

75 UR verses + 100 proofs + 150 reasons etc:
Web Online Help

213 Questions Without Answers:
Questions Without Answers

 

[ClementofA]

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

Do you have a point?

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

75 UR verses + 100 proofs + 150 reasons etc:
Web Online Help

213 Questions Without Answers:
Questions Without Answers

 

[ClementofA]

Both the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed state that Christ is coming again to judge the living and the dead.

So? None of the earliest creeds for hundreds of years after Christ spoke of endless punishment. Or denied universalism.

 

[ClementofA]

I think the internet is responsible for being the ‘information age’ , but true ‘enlightenment’ can only come from He who is light. And it was following the leading of His Spirit IMO that allowed me to switch from eternal torture to Ultimate Reconciliation. And my path never had access to the ‘computer age that was yet to come’. Question Clement, when did you become ‘fully convinced? How old were you, and in what year was your heart enlightened?

Interesting POV. All the RC and EO that I talk to are either ET’ers or pretty sceptical. And, even as you have pointed out before, it was the RC church leader Augustine who is most responsible for allowing the ‘eternal’ definition of aion/aionios to become accepted. Even though he, a truly ‘Latin scholar’ of the Church of Rome, wasn’t even best qualified to make this Greek grammar decision. I believe it was more of a decision which came more from his churches indoctrination. That’s the opinion I am of anyway. Would you agree or disagree?

I was a relatively new young believer of a few years, decades ago. Re Augustine & church history i haven't read enough to comment.

 

[ClementofA]

Salvation is only for those who believe, the elect.

All will believe.

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

75 UR verses + 100 proofs + 150 reasons etc:
Web Online Help

213 Questions Without Answers:
Questions Without Answers

 

[ClementofA]

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

According to that verse how do you justify Universalism.

Few chosen. For what? A final destiny of salvation from which the rest (the many others) are forever excluded? No, Paul says "many" (Rom.5:18-19) shall be saved, not "few". And by "the many" he means all fallen human beings:

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for ALL MANKIND for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for ALL MANKIND for life's justifying."

Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, THE MANY were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, THE MANY shall be constituted just."

Paul makes a parallel between "the many" who were condemned & sinners and those who will be justified & constituted just.

“In Romans 5, the justification is co-extensive with the condemnation. Since all share in one, all share in the other. If only a certain portion of the human race had partaken of the sin of Adam, only a certain portion would partake of the justification of Christ. But St. Paul affirms all to have been involved in one, and all to be included in the other.”

Therefore there is salvation after death. And corrective punishment.

Jesus shall see of the travail of His soul & be satisfied. Not satisfied a little bit, but the vast majority fried alive forever.

"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." (Isa.53:11).

For how "many" (not few) did He "bear their iniquities"? All.

Mattthew 1:21 “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”

Notice the words "He will" and "His people". Clearly not all are part of the body of Christ, not all are His people.

Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

The verse above and others like...

Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it."

...suggests a select few in contrast to the whole of mankind.

Again if I had more time, many other verses could be used to support this. As an observation, look at Israel in contrast to the rest of the world, it is so small, but out of all the nations in the world, God chose tiny Israel, and through Israel the awesome power of the one true God on display, other larger nations were brought to their knees so to speak, not because of the superiority of Israel, but because of the God of Israel and His sovereign providence.

None of those verses say or imply Jesus died - ONLY - for a select few.

Mt.1:21 refers to "His people" who will be saved from their sins. That's "Israel" (Mt.2:6), the nation referred to in the Old Testament, including all those who died in their sins, e.g. King Saul, Judas, the Pharisees, etc. This is truly "good news", not the bad news of Calvinism.

Furthermore, if those verses meant what you think, then they'd contradict each other. For one would speak of "many" lost (Mt.7:13) few saved (v.14) & the other speak of "many" saved & "few" lost (Mt.22:14). Here again we have "many" saved:

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for ALL MANKIND for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for ALL MANKIND for life's justifying."

Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, THE MANY were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, THE MANY shall be constituted just."

Paul makes a parallel between "the many" who were condemned & sinners and those who will be justified & constituted just.

“In Romans 5, the justification is co-extensive with the condemnation. Since all share in one, all share in the other. If only a certain portion of the human race had partaken of the sin of Adam, only a certain portion would partake of the justification of Christ. But St. Paul affirms all to have been involved in one, and all to be included in the other.”

Therefore there is salvation after death. And corrective punishment.

Jesus shall see of the travail of His soul & be satisfied. Not satisfied a little bit, but the vast majority fried alive forever.

"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." (Isa.53:11).

For how "many" (not few) did He "bear their iniquities"? All.

"Paul declares, however, that the effects of Christ's obedience are far greater for mankind than the effect of Adam's fall. For the third (5:15) and fourth (5:17) times in this chapter he makes explicit use of the 'qal wahomer' ("from minor to major") form of argument that is commonly used in rabbinic literature, expressed by "much more"...cf. earlier use at 5:9,10...And as in the case of the typology previously used (5:14), here, too, the form of the argument is antithetical. The grace of God extended to humanity in the event of Christ's death has abounded "for the many" (5:15b), which corresponds to the "all" of 5:12,18. The free gift given by God in Christ more than matches the sin of Adam and its effects; it exceeds it..."

"Contrasts are also seen in the results of the work of each. Adam's trespass or disobedience has brought condemnation (κατάκριμα, 5:18); through his act many were made sinners (5:19). Christ's "act of righteousness" results in "justification of life" (δικαίωσιν ζωῆς) for all (5:18). The term δικαίωσιν can be translated as "justification" (NIV, NRSV; but RSV has "acquittal") - the opposite of "condemnation". The word ζωῆς ("of life") is a genitive of result, providing the outcome of justification, so that the phrase may be rendered "justification resulting in life". 108

108. BDAG 250 (δικαίωσιν): "acquittal that brings life". The construction is variously called a "genitive of apposition", an "epexegetical genitive" or "genitive of purpose". Cf. BDF 92 (S166). The meaning is the same in each case: justification which brings life."

"The universality of grace in Christ is shown to surpass the universality of sin. Christ's "act of righteousness" is the opposite of Adam's "tresspass" and equivalent to Christ's
"obedience", which was fulfilled in his being obedient unto death (Phil 2:8). The results of Christ's righteous action and obedience are "justification resulting in life for all persons"...5:18...and "righteousness" for "many" (5:19). The term "many" in 5:19 is equivalent to "all persons", and that is so for four reasons: (1) the parallel in 5:18 speaks in its favor; (2) even as within 5:19 itself, "many were made sinners" applies to all mankind, so "many will be made righteous" applies to all; (3) the same parallelism appears in 5:15, at which "many" refers to "all"; and (4) the phrase "for many" is a Semitism which means "all", as in Deutero-Isaiah 52:14; 53:11-12; Mark...10:45; 14:24; Heb.12:15. The background for Paul's expression is set forth in Deutero-Isaiah, where it is said that "the righteous one"...the Lord's servant, shall make "many" to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their sins ...Isa.53:11..."

"It is significant, and even astounding, that justification is here said to be world-embracing. Nothing is said about faith as a prerequisite for justification to be effective, nor about faith's accepting it."

(Paul's Letter To The Romans: A Commentary, Arland J. Hultgren, Eerdmans, 2011, 804 pg, p.227, 229)