Hell

Discuss topics raised by callers on the radio program
Post Reply
john316yes
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:38 pm

Hell

Post by john316yes » Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:12 pm

Everybody know that Steve is unsure of how adjective eternal is used in various places in the new testament where it accompanies punishment, torment, and HELL. The two options of the word aiónios can be understood as follows: : agelong, or literally eternal, without end. The verse that pictures Steves uncertainty the best is this verse: "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."Mathew 25:46

The best answer is not age long or for a time, but as literally eternal. Why? Because when Jesus talks about eternal matters it always means eternal not for a short time. Here is a verse that has both eternal and immortal side by side:


"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever."
1 Timothy 1:17

Eternal is another word describing immortality.

He needs to start preaching the truth and take a side. Annihilation or eternal. I think he is afraid. If he goes to Annihilation he will get seriously backlash from some good preachers and maybe even a rebuke. He is playing the middle ground and confusing many people.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Hell

Post by mattrose » Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:23 pm

Actually, EVEN IF you were right about the translation of that word.... it WOULD NOT end the debate.

The contrast in the verse you mentioned is between aionios LIFE and ainios PUNISHMENT. Aionios is the same in both options, so it is the LIFE and the PUNISHMENT that are being contrasted. The opposite of LIFE is PUNISHMENT. The most literal interpretation of such a contrast would be that punishment is death. And, of course, this is exactly what the Bible seems to teach elsewhere... not least John 3:16 which you used for your screen name where the options are to either PERISH or have eternal LIFE.

User avatar
jeremiah
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:58 pm
Location: Mount Carroll, IL
Contact:

Re: Hell

Post by jeremiah » Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:41 pm

John316eyes,

There are many pages that could be read on this one word. Brother, please, let yourself be challenged to study just some of it for a couple of months at least. It's not as simple as you have presented it.
Eternal is another word describing immortality.
Why do you say that?

Grace and peace to you.
Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.

User avatar
Candlepower
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:26 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Hell

Post by Candlepower » Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:25 am

john316yes wrote:adjective eternal is used in various places in the new testament where it accompanies punishment, torment, and HELL.
You claim that the words punishment, torment, and Hell (accompanied by the adjective “eternal”) appear in various places in the NT. I did a quick concordance search of several versions. Eternal Hell appeared in none of them. Eternal Torment appeared in none of them. Eternal punishment appeared once, in the verse to which you refer, Mt 25:46.

I didn’t search every version, so those phrases might appear in versions I didn't search. But the one instance where you were correct certainly falls way short of your claim that they appear in “various places,” which gave me the impression I would find all three phrases at least more than twice in the NT.

To save us all time, would you please post a list of all of the various places in the NT where eternal punishment, eternal torment, and eternal Hell are found in the NT. And please identify the translations in which they appear.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Hell

Post by TheEditor » Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:44 am

He needs to start preaching the truth and take a side. Annihilation or eternal. I think he is afraid. If he goes to Annihilation he will get seriously backlash from some good preachers and maybe even a rebuke. He is playing the middle ground and confusing many people.


Well, I can't read Steve's mind. But let's say that you're right, that he is "limping upon two different opinions". So what? Having been raised in a high control group (Jehovah's Witnesses) myself, I can atest firsthand, that divesting yourself of a grid can take a long time. Changing one's point of view is a process and often times requires a slow approach, as old arguments resurface in your head over and over. How is it "confusing" anyone? I am certainly not looking to Steve Gregg to figure out the Bible for me. I merely like to be exposed to a variety of opinions. Who's salvation is at stake here? Is God so insecure that he needs us to have academic certainty about everything before we are aceptable to him? And, for that matter, which of these views is the correect one in your estimation?

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Hell

Post by steve7150 » Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:05 am

The two options of the word aiónios can be understood as follows: : agelong, or literally eternal, without end. The verse that pictures Steves uncertainty the best is this verse: "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."Mathew 25:46








When you say "aionios" can be understood as follows, by whose authority are you referencing? Rotherham's bible defines it as "pertaining to the age" and Youngs Literal Bible defines it as "age during."
The righteous by definition are already immortal so their "life" by default is eternal. Another definition for "aionios" is "duration" which is simply the amount of time necessary as defined by the context in which it is used.
As far as Steve's position goes he has stated several times that he believes the Annihilation view has the most biblical support but that the CU view has significant support and ET the least support. Since every view has some support i think being undecided is a prudent position to take, do you disagree and if so, why?

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Hell

Post by jriccitelli » Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:08 pm

It is not always necessary to endorse one view or another when teaching, but it is important and helpful to discern what view the teacher ultimately favors (to discern the direction they may be going). It is up to the student to decide, and the teacher to stand accountable before God. I have read books by teachers of all faiths, Confucius, the Dalai Lama, Plato, Ellen G White, Sproul, and such, the Christian should be informed and educated to the differing views (as well as what actually supports his own views). The Christian disciple should be able to defend their view in light of other views with ‘good well reasoned’ arguments. Steve says he only wants to dispel unreasonable and bad arguments, with good ones; I would support him in that endeavor.
He is playing the middle ground and confusing many people.
I would agree that it is hard to throw to a switch hitter, I would recommend being a switch pitcher, but it reminds me of this great Yankees Cyclones, video scenario, I guess we learn to just enjoy the sport with manners;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2oD8KzxS14

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Hell

Post by jriccitelli » Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:28 pm

At the end of the day, I believed the very few Aionios verses regarding punishment needed to be balanced with the preponderance of verse (OT and NT) that speak of destruction and fire for the unrighteous. Just because the word aionios is used in a common literary ‘contrast’ device, as with eternal life, I do not find the contrast necessitates the dogmatism suggested by unending (or I suggest; an unknowably long period, somewhat Platonic) life.

Aionios couldn’t speak only of death as everyone dies (i.e. Luke 9:24), so it must mean the destruction of both body and soul post-mortem. Also weighing in was the principle that man is not eternal, nor immortal, as ET would suggest. I see aionios as signifying the ‘surety’ and ‘confirmed’ everlasting condition of both groups; for the living aionios life, for the dead aionios death. The ‘condemnation’ itself seems to me to be the actual focus of the statements using aionios; especially because Jesus (God) said it (He is Judge); it sounds like a judgment, and it is the Judgment (Matt 25:31-46). And it seems to declare the certainty of it (Matt 19:25). And Jesus seems to emphasize that it is a ‘penalty’; which is death (Mark 16:16). And it seems to be contrasted (John 5:24) with eternal life (immortality) rather than suggesting the wicked will be immortal.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Hell

Post by steve » Sun Dec 08, 2013 2:49 pm

[Steve] needs to start preaching the truth and take a side. Annihilation or eternal. I think he is afraid. If he goes to Annihilation he will get seriously backlash from some good preachers and maybe even a rebuke. He is playing the middle ground and confusing many people.
As most here know, there is a third alternative besides annihilation and eternal torment. If I were to take a firm position at this stage of my knowledge, it would be against eternal torment. However, whether it would be for annihilationism or restorationism, I cannot say.

I am not sure why one would be better off to "take a side" on such an issue. I know many smart Christians that have not yet decided about certain controversial subjects, in which there seem to be credible arguments on more than one side. Many people, for example, call themselves "panmillennialists," explaining that this means "It will all pan out in the end." I assume that these people have heard convincing arguments for more than one millennial position, and find themselves unable, at their present state of knowledge, to decide among them. They also sound as if they are not overly concerned about rushing to judgment. Good idea!

That's exactly where I stand with respect to hell. I am not holding back for fear of repercussions. I probably receive more criticism for being indecisive than I would if I stood firmly for one or another position. If I were to take a stand for annihilation, it might make me more controversial, and invite more criticism, but I doubt it. This would more likely be the result if I were to take a stand for restorationism. I do not have enough evidence, at this point, to do either.

The fact is, as a teacher, I have previously taught dogmatically certain things that I later learned to be incorrect. I have, therefore, adopted an attitude of not wishing to take a stand on an issue upon which (it seems to me) I might be required to renege at some future time. If Harold Camping had said, "I really don't know if Jesus is coming on such-and-such a date," instead of taking a firm and foolish stand, he might have retained his credibility to this day. People who take premature stands for or against any view, before they have been able to sort out all the relevant biblical evidence, invite later embarrassment (or "folly and shame"—Prov.18:13), which would be unnecessary if they had been more cautious in their unstudied pronouncements.

I have often said that I may never, in this lifetime, be confident enough to take a firm stand on the hell alternatives, and that this doesn't bother me at all. Is there some reason that it should? Why should it bother anyone else?

User avatar
brody196
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:13 pm

Re: Hell

Post by brody196 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:42 pm

Well said Steve.

Why should anyone feel the need to be dogmatic on something that the bible is ambiguous about? Suppose that Steve did "take a side", then what? Would anything really change? I doubt it...

Post Reply

Return to “Radio Program Topics”