• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

WHY UNIVERSALISM IS NOT TRUE?

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Your response tells me you did not understand a word I said.
Hello Lazarus, yes I did understand you perfectly but thanks for asking. You posted...
Lazarus Short said: I have an increasing frustration with threads such as this. Posters argue back and forth, touting this verse as proof of this or another verse as proof of that. It is not the best approach. There are versions such as the KJV which make "Hell" seem to be a reality. There are versions such as the Young's Literal, and many others, which do not mention "Hell" at all. So, instead of arguing interpretation, doctrine and dogma, we should be discussing which Bible version is the best translation, with the most honest approach. Too many versions are translated according to pre-determined theology...but I ask you all: Should not an honest translation come first, and only then the theology? At the very least, we should state what version we are quoting from, as the Bible is not monolithic.
You wanted to have a discussion but seem to be wanting to limit the discussion to opinion apart from the scriptures. Yet it is the very scriptures that define what truth is. Our opinions do not really matter in my view so I responded back with...
If God's Word is the very standard of truth and error as shown in the scriptures and revealed by the Spirit of God in John 17:17; John 6:63 and Romans 3:4. Why would you want to separate the conversation of the truth of God's Word from the Word which defines what God's truth is? Sounds like a recipe to lead one away from the truth and God's Word in my opinion.
Your response then continued with...
I'm going to guess that you only consider one version to be the Word of God.
No, I use many version of the bible but a working version in the KJV while looking in to the Greek and Hebrew.

Hope this is helpful
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,393
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,356.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Words are funny that way, in another generation our innocent conversation will be full of innuendo that we did not intend.
I think we passed that mile stone long ago.

Saint Steven said:
Is that because conservatives are generally an unmerciful lot? - lol
It should be a conservative value. Look at all that is conserved.
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,393
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,356.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your still making the same mistake, over and over, again.

Jews and Gentiles are under the law of sin and death (Romans 3:9-10).

The Jews had the law and Gentiles did not have the law (Romans 2:14).

The Gentiles never had the ten commandments and that is a fact.

The Gentiles never knew the God of the Old Testament.

Gentiles were sinning, yes. But were not breaking the ten commandments, because they were not in covenant with God to obey that law. Where there is no law there is no violation of that law.

Romans 4:15
For the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

The text never says the 'ten commandments', the text always states 'the law'.

That is important because the Gentiles were not members of the old covenant.

The law and the prophets were unknown to the Gentiles, fact.

You cannot break a law you never were given. Does that mean the Gentiles were not sinners?

Well that is what Romans 3:9-19 is telling us. The Gentiles behavior was evil and identical to the Jews. Not having the law does not make one exempt from judgement.

All the law does is define what sin is, it grants the knowledge of sin. The law will not make you righteous.
That's good. I like the way you handle that. Here's more ammo for you.

There is only one place in the NT that refers to the Ten Commandments as a whole. Assuming they were "engraved in letters on stone". Scripture below.

The Apostle says the TCs were the old covenant ministry that brought death and condemnation. The transitory ministry that has no glory now. The letter kills. Other than that he was fine with them. - lol


2 Corinthians 3:611 NIV
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,393
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,356.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are versions such as the Young's Literal, and many others, which do not mention "Hell" at all.
Bibles that do NOT contain the word "Hell".

Wesley's New Testament (1755)
Scarlett's N.T. (1798)
The New Testament in Greek and English (Kneeland, 1823)
Young's Literal Translation (1891)
Twentieth Century New Testament (1900)
Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (reprinted, 1902)
Fenton's Holy Bible in Modern English (1903)
Weymouth's New Testament in Modern Speech (1903)
The New Testament, James Moffat, (1917)
Jewish Publication Society Bible Old Testament (1917)
Panin's Numeric English New Testament (1914)
The New Testament, Charles B. Williams, 1937
The People's New Covenant (Overbury, 1925)
Hanson's New Covenant (1884)
Western N.T. (1926)
NT of our Lord and Savior Anointed (Tomanek, 1958)
Concordant Literal NT (1983)
The N.T., A Translation (Clementson, 1938)
Emphatic Diaglott, Greek/English Interlinear (Wilson, 1942)
New American Bible (1970)
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible (1976)
Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, Old Testament (1985)
The New Testament, A New Translation (Greber, 1980)
Christian Bible (1991)
The Scriptures (1993)
World English Bible (in progress)
Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha [NT Only]
Original Bible Project (Dr. James Tabor, still in translation)
Zondervan Parallel N.T. in Greek and English (1975)**
Int. NASB-NIV Parallel N.T. in Greek and English (1993)**
A Critical Paraphrase of the N.T. by Vincent T. Roth (1960)
New Testament, Recovery Version, Living Stream Ministry, 1991
New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) Roman Catholic
Holy Bible In Its Original Order, Fred R. Coulter, 2007
Etymological N.T. (An Ultra Literal Translation, 2011, Michael Wine)
Aramaic Peshitta New Testament, 2006, Janet M. Magiera
MirrorWord N.T. (Francois du Toit) still in translation
Victorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, Electronic Ver. (Tentmaker Ministries)
The Source N.T. (Dr. Ann Nyland), 2004, 2007
Jonathan Mitchell N.T. (Jonathan Mitchell) 2009
The Scriptures, 2016
Tree of Life Version, Baker Bookhouse, 2016******
The New Testament (David Bentley Hart) Yale University Press, 2017
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lazarus Short
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
That's good. I like the way you handle that. Here's more ammo for you.

There is only one place in the NT that refers to the Ten Commandments as a whole. Assuming they were "engraved in letters on stone". Scripture below.

The Apostle says the TCs were the old covenant ministry that brought death and condemnation. The transitory ministry that has no glory now. The letter kills. Other than that he was fine with them. - lol


2 Corinthians 3:611 NIV
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!
Already addressed here through the scriptures I guess you missed it. Having a teaching that God's 10 commandments are abolished in the new covenant is not biblical and pretty much goes against the teachings of the whole new testament (scripture support here). Since we were discussing Romans 3:19 and its connection with all the world being "under the law" guilty before God of sin let's see how 2 Corinthians 3 links back into Romans?

The ministration of death is the penalty for sin that God's law (10 commandments) gives us the knowledge of (see Romans 3:19; Romans 7:7) that Paul says is holy just and good *Romans 7:12. The wages of sin is death according to Paul but the gift of God is eternal life through JESUS Christ *Romans 6:23. It is the ministration of condemnation that is done away with in God's grace that works through faith *Ephesians 2:8-9 that Jesus paid the price for in all those who believe and follow God's Word and have been born again (John 3:3-7) and made free to walk in God’s Spirit *Galatians 5:16. If we have been born again into Gods' new covenant promise *Hebrews 8:10-12 to walk in God’s Spirit however we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh (1 John 3:6-9; Galatians 5:16). In fact if we walk in God’s Spirit God’s law is established in us as we believe Gods' Word according to Romans 8:1-4 which says [1], THERE IS THEREFORE NOW NO CONDEMNATION TO THEM WHICH ARE IN CHRIST JESUS, WHO WALK NOT AFTER THE FLESH, BUT AFTER THE SPIRIT.[2], For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. [3], For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [4], THAT THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE LAW MIGHT BE FULFILLED IN US, WHO WALK NOT AFTER THE FLESH, BUT AFTER THE SPIRIT.

So an interpretation that 2 Corinthians 3:7 is saying that God’s law has been abolished is not biblical or supported in the new testament scriptures. It is the ministration of condemnation and sins penalty that has been abolished in God's new covenant promise as we accept the gift of God's dear son and believe Gods' Word *John 3:16-20.

Need more evidence?

An interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3:7 of God’s 10 Commandments being abolished has Paul contradicting himself in Romans 3:31. Here lets show how by comparing 2 Corinthians 3:7 where some interpret this scripture as God’s 10 commandments being abolished with Romans 3:31 where Paul state God’s law is not to be abolished but established through faith…

PARALLEL TRANSLATIONS OF καταργέω (G2673) USED IN ROMANS 3:31 and 2 CORINTHIANS 3:7 (abolished)

ROMANS 3:31 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English) Are we eliminating (G2673) the written law by faith? God forbid, but we are establishing (G2476) the written law.

ROMANS 3:31 (International Standard Version) Do we, then, abolish (G2673) the Law by this faith? Of course not! Instead, we uphold (G2476) the Law.

ROMANS 3:31 (KJV) Do we then make void (G2673) the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish (G2476) the law.

Note the Greek word used here for void/eliminating/abolish is G2673 in the Greek

ROMANS 3:31 (Greek) νόμον οὖν (G2673) καταργοῦμενην διὰ τῆς πίστεως μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ νόμον (G2476) ἱστῶμεν

Note the same Greek word is used for ROMANS 3:31 is also used in 2 CORINTHIANS 3:7

2 CORINTHIANS 3:7 (International Standard Version) Now if the ministry of death that was inscribed in letters of stone came with such glory that the people of Israel could not gaze on Moses' face because the glory was fading away (G2673) from it,

2 CORINTHIANS 3:7 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English) But if the ministry of death in The Scripture carved in stone was with glory, so that the children of Israel were not able to gaze at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face that which has been canceled (G2673)

2 CORINTHIANS 3:7 (KJV) But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away (G2673)

2 CORINTHIANS 3:7 (Greek) Εἰ δὲ ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου ἐν γράμμασιν ἐντετυπωμένη ἐν λίθοις ἐγενήθη ἐν δόξῃ, ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον Μωϋσέως διὰ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ τὴν καταργουμένην (G2673)

……………

Note the same word used in ROMANS 3:31 for abolish is used in 2 CORINTHIANS 3:7 as shown above and is also translated as abolished in some English translations.

Let’s look at the Greek word meaning that both scriptures use…

Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries w/TVM, Strong - G2673 καταργέω
Καταργουμένην; katargeō From G2596 and G691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively: - abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon STRONGS NT 2673: καταργέω
καταργέω, κατάργω; future καταργήσω; 1 aorist κατήργησα; perfect κατήργηκα; passive, present καταργοῦμαι; perfect κατήργημαι; 1 aorist κατηργήθην; 1 future καταργηθήσομαι; causative of the verb ἀργέω, equivalent to ἀργόν (i. e. ἀεργον (on the accent cf. Chandler § 444)) ποιῶ; frequent with Paul, who uses it 25 times (elsewhere in N. T. only twice (Luke, Heb.), in the Sept. 4 times (2 Esdr., see below)); 1. to render idle, unemployed, inactive, inoperative: τήν γῆν, to deprive of its strength, make barren (A. V. cumber), Luke 13:7; to cause a person or a thing to have no further efficiency; to deprive of force, influence, power (A. V. bring to nought, make of none effect): τί, Romans 3:3; 1 Corinthians 1:28; τινα, 1 Corinthians 2:6 (but in passive); diabolic powers, 1 Corinthians 15:24 (Justin Martyr, Apology 2, 6); Antichrist, 2 Thessalonians 2:8; τόν θάνατον, 2 Timothy 1:10 (Epistle of Barnabas 5, 6 [ET]); τόν διάβολον, Hebrews 2:14; passive 1 Corinthians 15:26; to make void, τήν ἐπαγγελίαν, Galatians 3:17; passive Romans 4:14. 2. to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish: τί, 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 13:11; τόν νόμον, Romans 3:31; Ephesians 2:15; τόν καιρόν τοῦ ἀνόμου, Epistle of Barnabas 15, 5 [ET]; passive πόλεμος καταργεῖται ἐπουρανίων καί ἐπιγείων, Ignatius ad Eph. 13, 2 [ET]; ἵνα καταργηθῇ τό σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, that the body of sin might be done away, i. e. not the material of the body, but the body so far forth as it is an instrument of sin; accordingly, that the body may cease to be an instrument of sin, Romans 6:6. Passive to cease, pass away, be done away: of things, Galatians 5:11; 1 Corinthians 13:8, 10; 2 Corinthians 3:7; 11, 13f; of persons, followed by ἀπό τίνος, to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from, anyone; to terminate all contact with one (a pregnant construction, cf. Winers Grammar, 621 (577); Buttmann, 322 (277)): ἀπό τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Galatians 5:4 (on the aorist cf. Winer's Grammar, § 40, 5 b.); ἀπό τοῦ νόμου, Romans 7: (2 (Relz omits τοῦ νόμου)),6. The word is rarely met with in secular authors, as Euripides, Phoen. 753 κατάργειν χερα, to make idle, i. e. to leave the hand unemployed; Polybius quoted in Suidas (s. v. κατηργηκεναι) τούς καιρούς, in the sense of to let slip, leave unused; in the Sept. four times for Chaldean בַּטֵּל, to make to cease, i. e. restrain, check, hinder, 2 Esdr. 4:21, 23 2Esdr. 5:5 2Esdr. 6:8.

................

CONCLUSION: So as can be shown above an interpretation of 2 CORINTHIANS 3:7 that God’s 10 commandments are abolished has PAUL contradicting himself in ROMANS 3:31. The correct context of 2 Corinthians 3:7 is the ministration of condemnation is abolished by the ministration of the Spirit as shown in 2 Corinthians 3:3-13. Your interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3:7 that God's 10 commandments are abolished, has Paul contradicting himself when he says In Romans 3:31 Do we then make (G2673) abolish the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we (G2476) establish the law
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lazarus Short

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2016
2,934
3,009
75
Independence, Missouri, USA
✟301,642.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Bibles that do NOT contain the word "Hell".

Wesley's New Testament (1755)
Scarlett's N.T. (1798)
The New Testament in Greek and English (Kneeland, 1823)
Young's Literal Translation (1891)
Twentieth Century New Testament (1900)
Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (reprinted, 1902)
Fenton's Holy Bible in Modern English (1903)
Weymouth's New Testament in Modern Speech (1903)
The New Testament, James Moffat, (1917)
Jewish Publication Society Bible Old Testament (1917)
Panin's Numeric English New Testament (1914)
The New Testament, Charles B. Williams, 1937
The People's New Covenant (Overbury, 1925)
Hanson's New Covenant (1884)
Western N.T. (1926)
NT of our Lord and Savior Anointed (Tomanek, 1958)
Concordant Literal NT (1983)
The N.T., A Translation (Clementson, 1938)
Emphatic Diaglott, Greek/English Interlinear (Wilson, 1942)
New American Bible (1970)
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible (1976)
Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, Old Testament (1985)
The New Testament, A New Translation (Greber, 1980)
Christian Bible (1991)
The Scriptures (1993)
World English Bible (in progress)
Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha [NT Only]
Original Bible Project (Dr. James Tabor, still in translation)
Zondervan Parallel N.T. in Greek and English (1975)**
Int. NASB-NIV Parallel N.T. in Greek and English (1993)**
A Critical Paraphrase of the N.T. by Vincent T. Roth (1960)
New Testament, Recovery Version, Living Stream Ministry, 1991
New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) Roman Catholic
Holy Bible In Its Original Order, Fred R. Coulter, 2007
Etymological N.T. (An Ultra Literal Translation, 2011, Michael Wine)
Aramaic Peshitta New Testament, 2006, Janet M. Magiera
MirrorWord N.T. (Francois du Toit) still in translation
Victorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, Electronic Ver. (Tentmaker Ministries)
The Source N.T. (Dr. Ann Nyland), 2004, 2007
Jonathan Mitchell N.T. (Jonathan Mitchell) 2009
Tree of Life Version, Baker Bookhouse, 2016******
The New Testament (David Bentley Hart) Yale University Press, 2017

I can add another, a version from South Africa and translated by the Institute for Scripture Research. It calls itself simply, The Scriptures. My copy was printed in China and is dated 2016. It has a definite Hebraic flavor, and compared to other versions I have read, it's as if a layer of scrim has been removed from the text. Find the ISR here: http://www.messianic.co.za
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,446
8,135
50
The Wild West
✟751,840.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Michael Collum said:
Annihilationism is a heresy too.

I disagree.
All three views are biblical and contradictory. Not fair to claim any of them are a heresy. IMHO

Here is an unbiased (remarkably) biblical view of all three.
Hell - Three Christian Views Lecture by Steve Gregg

I think its fair to claim anything as a heresy that the early church anathematized as such, because, to quote the fourth century anti-Arian St. Hilarion of Poitiers, who with Isidore of Seville constituted the main opposition to Arius in the Western Church, scripture is in the interpretation, not the reading.

But I would further argue that even if we set aside the Patristic criterion and accepted the standpoint of Steve Gregg on what is scripture, he is still mistaken because annhilationism and universalism are contrary to the plain meaning of the words, which more subtle errors like Nestorianism do not as blatantly contradict (it takes substantial reasoning through the Gospel texts and the entirety of scripture to understand the problem with Nestorius; it is not trivial and not immediately obvious, certainly it was not to me).
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,393
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,356.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I can add another, a version from South Africa and translated by the Institute for Scripture Research. It calls itself simply, The Scriptures. My copy was printed in China and is dated 2016. It has a definite Hebraic flavor, and compared to other versions I have read, it's as if a layer of scrim has been removed from the text. Find the ISR here: http://www.messianic.co.za
Thanks. I'll add that to my list.
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,393
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,356.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think its fair to claim anything as a heresy that the early church anathematized as such, because, to quote the fourth century anti-Arian St. Hilarion of Poitiers, who with Isidore of Seville constituted the main opposition to Arius in the Western Church, scripture is in the interpretation, not the reading.

But I would further argue that even if we set aside the Patristic criterion and accepted the standpoint of Steve Gregg on what is scripture, he is still mistaken because annhilationism and universalism are contrary to the plain meaning of the words, which more subtle errors like Nestorianism do not as blatantly contradict (it takes substantial reasoning through the Gospel texts and the entirety of scripture to understand the problem with Nestorius; it is not trivial and not immediately obvious, certainly it was not to me).
Why look to the fourth century to determine what is heresy? The three views of the final judgment are not heresy by today's standards, nor were they heresy prior to the rulings of the western/Latin Church in the fourth century. In fact...

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff writes :

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lazarus Short
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,393
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,356.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But I would further argue that even if we set aside the Patristic criterion and accepted the standpoint of Steve Gregg on what is scripture, he is still mistaken because annhilationism and universalism are contrary to the plain meaning of the words, which more subtle errors like Nestorianism do not as blatantly contradict
Steve Gregg didn't make this stuff up. These biblical and contradicting views have been around since the early church days. The western/Latin Church gave us our biased Bible which mostly supports their Damnationist view. We are fortunate to have the few UR supporting scriptures we have that got past those in charge of the doctrinal biasing somehow. Perhaps kept intact by translators that didn't buy the party line.

Furthermore, your view seems to be built on the idea that the scriptures support Damnationism in total. Not true. IMHO

Are you claiming that the atonement was not sufficient to pay in full?

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
 
Upvote 0

Lazarus Short

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2016
2,934
3,009
75
Independence, Missouri, USA
✟301,642.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The western/Latin Church gave us our biased Bible which mostly supports their Damnationist view.

Sometimes, if we dig a bit under the surface of the text, we can catch the bias. I looked at all the instances of "hell" in the OT, translated from "sheol." I found that "sheol" was translated as "grave" or "pit" about half of the time, and as "hell" about half of the time. Now let me stress that it was not consistent, but there was a definite trend for "sheol" to be rendered as "grave" or "pit" if the context placed the text in the real world. If the context did not, then "sheol" tended to be rendered as "hell." I see it as bias or even as dishonest translation.

I am able to provide a full analysis if anyone is interested.

Further, why should a perfectly good Hebrew word be replaced by a word derived from pagan Norse mythology? Check any decent book on Norse mythology and you will find their goddess/ogress Hel, who was thought to rule over her afterlife realm of Helheim (House of Hel), where you were thought to go to at death if you did not rate Valhalla.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Why look to the fourth century to determine what is heresy? The three views of the final judgment are not heresy by today's standards, nor were they heresy prior to the rulings of the western/Latin Church in the fourth century. In fact...

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff writes :

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

This is simply counted by saying why not look simply just to the bible asking God to be your guide and teacher, rather than trying to men and seek to know Gods truth through sources outside of the bible? Although I do agree that the Catholic Church's interpretation of the state of the dead and Hell is not biblical. I did not have to go outside of the bible to discover this fact. The same that I did not need to go outside of the bible to see that Universalism is a false teaching that is designed to lead all those who follow it away from God and the bible as already demonstrated in this thread and the OP here. As Paul says and many writers in the new testament scriptures false teachers were coming in among Gods people even in the days of Paul which we are warned against from Jesus and many of the new testament scriptures (e.g. Acts of the Apostles 20:29; Matthew 24:24; Matthew 7:12-15; 2 Peter 2:1-2 etc). What makes you think there was no false teachers 100 to 200 years latter? Yep for me only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it according to the scriptures *Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29. Something to pray about as I am sure none of us want to end up playing for the wrong team only to find out too late after the second coming that we never knew Him *Matthew 7:21-23. According to the scriptures that is when the weeping and the gnashing of teeth starts when those finally realize what they have lost *Matthew 8:12; Matthew 24:44-51; Luke 13:24-28 etc etc).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I would further argue that even if we set aside the Patristic criterion and accepted the standpoint of Steve Gregg on what is scripture, he is still mistaken because annhilationism and universalism are contrary to the plain meaning of the words
While I do not believe in Universalism and this thread and OP demonstrates why from the scriptures. The OP which is not exhaustive shows more than 100+ scriptures teaching that the wicked are burned up and destroyed after the second coming which links perfectly to the scriptures on what happens when we die, the resurrection, and the justice and judgement of God when Jesus returns as a conquering King at the second coming. You in return are making claims with your words that are not God's Word that disagree with you as demonstrated in the OP. Who should we then believe and follow according to the scriptures; you or God (Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29)? The point here is that our opinions (yours and mine and everyone else's) do not really matter much it is God's Word that is true and that is what we should all prayerfully seek to believe and follow them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
We are fortunate to have the few UR supporting scriptures we have that got past those in charge of the doctrinal biasing somehow. Perhaps kept intact by translators that didn't buy the party line.
Trouble is the scriptures do not teach everyone will be saved according to the false teachings of Universalism. The scriptures teach the that the wicked and those who reject the free gift of God's dear son will be lost (scripture support here).
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
While Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. It is only those who accept the gift of Gods' dear son and believe and follow Gods' Word to the end that receive everlasting life...

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God stays on him.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death to life.

James 1:12 Blessed is the man that endures temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to them that love him.

.......................

Gods' salvation therefore is conditional on believing and following what God's Word says to the very end according to the scriptures.

Hope this is helpful.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,636
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,349.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
There is only one place in the NT that refers to the Ten Commandments as a whole. Assuming they were "engraved in letters on stone".
Perhaps you missed these scriptures from the new covenant here linked. Everyone of Gods 10 commandments are repeated in the new testament as a requirement for Christian living. Perhaps you missed these scriptures as well here linked.

Hope this is helpful.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,446
8,135
50
The Wild West
✟751,840.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
You in return are making claims with your words that are not God's Word that disagree with you as demonstrated in the OP. Who should we then believe and follow according to the scriptures; you or God (Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29)? The point here is that our opinions (yours and mine and everyone else's) do not really matter much it is God's Word that is true and that is what we should all prayerfully seek to believe and follow them.

That is categorically untrue; I believe a plain reading of scripture is sufficient to disprove annhilationism, and if anyone is unsure of the matter they should look for themselves.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,446
8,135
50
The Wild West
✟751,840.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Steve Gregg didn't make this stuff up. These biblical and contradicting views have been around since the early church days. The western/Latin Church gave us our biased Bible which mostly supports their Damnationist view. We are fortunate to have the few UR supporting scriptures we have that got past those in charge of the doctrinal biasing somehow. Perhaps kept intact by translators that didn't buy the party line.

So, you’re very close to the ecclesiastical history, except for a few points - namely, the texts historically used by the Eastern and Western churches (Byzantine, Vulgate, Peshitta) do not diverge significantly on this issue, and the minority text (Sinaiticus, etc.) does not appear to prop up the position of either Universalism or Akatastasis, which is not quite the same thing, and I cannot say I could reject the latter as entirely unscriptural, but rather as unlikely.

Now the actual history is that it was not the Latin Church that made the doctrinal call on eschatology but the Greek, at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which when accepted in the Western church, immediately triggered a schism (the Three Chapters controversy). But there was a history of anti-Origenism in the Western church, as well as pro-Origenism; see the polemics between Jerome, translator of the vulgate, and Lucifer the bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, not to be confused with the devil.*

Furthermore, your view seems to be built on the idea that the scriptures support Damnationism in total. Not true. IMHO

Are you claiming that the atonement was not sufficient to pay in full?

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

No. But our Lord specifically and clearly states that not everyone will be saved.

*I have previously argued that Lucifer is not the proper name of Satan, being rather a Latin translation of passages that refer to King Nebuchadnezzar and liken him to the devil, but aside from Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari, who is venerated as a saint in Sardinia, there was also at least one second century martyr named Lucifer, and I feel like the reckless use of the Latin has the effect of smearing that martyr, and any other early Christians named Lucifer, for we know, the Latin Church did not itself regard the word as the proper name of the devil, or else they would surely have refused to baptize anyone with that name, let alone advance them to the episcopate, but this is a historic sidenote.

I would also cite 1 Enoch, which I otherwise hate to do, as I do not regard it as entirely reliable, in defense of this view, which I figured might interest you given your interest in alternatives to the accepted Western text; you can’t get much more alternate or non-Western than the Ethiopian Bible, after all.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,446
8,135
50
The Wild West
✟751,840.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Sometimes, if we dig a bit under the surface of the text, we can catch the bias. I looked at all the instances of "hell" in the OT, translated from "sheol." I found that "sheol" was translated as "grave" or "pit" about half of the time, and as "hell" about half of the time. Now let me stress that it was not consistent, but there was a definite trend for "sheol" to be rendered as "grave" or "pit" if the context placed the text in the real world. If the context did not, then "sheol" tended to be rendered as "hell." I see it as bias or even as dishonest translation.

I am able to provide a full analysis if anyone is interested.

Indeed, but that’s not the source of my opposition to the doctrine.

Further, why should a perfectly good Hebrew word be replaced by a word derived from pagan Norse mythology? Check any decent book on Norse mythology and you will find their goddess/ogress Hel, who was thought to rule over her afterlife realm of Helheim (House of Hel), where you were thought to go to at death if you did not rate Valhalla.

Admirable, but applicable only to those churches of Norse people like the English who translated using that word. It does not explain the prevalence of this view across all the Chalcedonian churches, but the Fifth Ecumenical Council declaring Origen anathema for Universalism and other errors, including transmigration, does, since that council is the one obvious common denominator that connects everyone from Tblisi to Atlanta on this issue.
 
Upvote 0