Hell and everlasting punishment

ahimsaman72 · Dec 1, 2004

Church Militant:

Hi!
It seems that you are fighting w/ the Calvinist position of predstination. i.e…if God’s will cannot be thwarted then those saved will be saved…they have no choice in the matter. That (to me) just doesn’t jive w/ the Bible, which teaches that we DO have free choice.

I doubt I have helped much… but that is just the random babbling of a guy who actually thinks about these things

hahaha—

Hello friend. Thanks for your post. Yes, I believe election and predestination, but not quite how Calvin presented it. The fatal flaw is that Calvin paints the picture that God leaves some untouched or left alone and outside of God’s grace.

There are many verses which support the creation (us) not being to overthrow the will of the creator (God). He will have all men to be saved. One of the clearest examples is the one I quote below which speaks of God’s will and includes all men.

I Timothy 2:3-5

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of **God our Saviour;
** 4. Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

God bless…

ahimsaman72 · Dec 1, 2004

itsjustdave1988:

Yes, but apply this consistently. There are ZERO versus which speak of the lake of fire ceasing to exist, and those cast into it being restored with God. Yet this is what is claimed by Universalists. It is the proverbial missing chapter of Revelation that Universalists don’t like to talk about. They write volumes on their eisegesis in order to divert attention away from the lack of Scripture describing “the ending” of the Bible that they propose.

I’ve already explained the “lake of fire” and its meaning. I’m talking of apples and your talking about oranges. We won’t get anywhere that way. I explained “lake of fire” is figurative - therefore this “phsyical thing” doesn’t cease to exist because it’s not a place to begin with.

ahimsaman72 · Dec 1, 2004

ahimsaman72:

I’ve already explained the “lake of fire” and its meaning. I’m talking of apples and your talking about oranges. We won’t get anywhere that way. I explained “lake of fire” is figurative - therefore this “phsyical thing” doesn’t cease to exist because it’s not a place to begin with.

And, even if it does exist - it will serve its purpose to purify and restore people to their Creator, God.

itsjustdave1988 · Dec 1, 2004

ahimsaman72,

He’s speaking of periods of time which summed up together constitute “the endless future”. He’s not asserting that the plural form denotes eternity as you understand it.

I disagree. Here’s the photo of of Thayer’s lexicon entry. It is distinct from Strong’s reference, so this entry has nothing to do with Strong.

Thayer’s Lexicon entry for for “aion”
blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Rev&chapter=22&verse=5&strongs=165&page=1&flag_full=1

I have outlined his lexical entry for aion below.

After a discussion of the word aion by Plato, et. al., he subdivides his lexicon entry into definitions, then usages, both by Greek authors and within the NT.

I. Definitions and usages in Greek authors (non-scriptural usage):

“age … a human lifetime … life itself.”
"an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity"
TO BE CONTINUED …

itsjustdave1988 · Dec 1, 2004

CONTINUED …

II. Definitions and usages in NT:

Under sub-heading 1.a. univ [which I presume means “universal” usage as opposed to sub-heading 1.b. which is “hyperbolic and popular usage”]: Thayer includes the following definitiions…

forever **( ****εις τον αιωνα ) **Examples of this specific usage included by Thayer are: Septuagintal Gen 6:3, Jn 6:51, 58; 9:16; Heb 5:6, 6:20, etc.

**forever (strengthened) ( εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος ) This definition (forever) he says is “strengthened” by the double usage of aion. NT examples of this specific usage included by Thayer are: Heb 1:8.

forever ( εις αιωνα ) Jude 13.

unto the day which is eternity ( εις ημεραν αιωνος ) 2 Pet 3:18

with negation: never or not for ever, not always ( ου … εις τον αιωνα ) Jn 4:14, 8:51, 10:28, 11:26, 13:8; 1 Cor 8:13; Jn 8:35

unto the ages, ie. as long as time shall be ( εις τους αιωνας ) : "the plural denotes the individual ages whose sum is eternity. " [emphasis added]. Lk 1:33; Rom 1:25, 9:5, 11:36; 2 Cor 11:31, Heb 13:8 or Jude 25 ( **εις παντας τους αιωνας **)

expresses endless future ( εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων ) The endless future is divided up into various periods, the shorter of which are comprehended in the longer. Yet, the expression itself still means “endless future” just as the single plural form means the individual ages **whose sum is eternity.**The double usage, as was shown above, merely ***strengthens ***the expression of the singular usage. Gal 1:5; 1 Tim 1:17; Rev 1:6, 1:18, 20:10, 22:5, or Rev 14:11 ( **εις αιωνας αιωνων **)

the whole age embracing the (shorter) ages ( του αιωνος των αιωνων ) . Eph 3:21

from the ages down, from eternity ( απο των αιωνων ) Col 1:26; Eph 3:9

before time was, before the foundation of the world ( προ των αιωνων ) 1 Cor 2:7

eternal purpose ( προθεσιν των αιωνων ): Eph 3:11
Under the sub-heading 1.b. “hyperbolic and popular usage” …

Under the subheading 2. “by meton. of the container of the contained …”

Under the subheading 3. “As the Jews distinguished …”

itsjustdave1988 · Dec 1, 2004

Wherever εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων is expressed in Scripture, it expresses the endless future, according to Thayer.

Note the various ways eternity is expressed according to Thayer’s lexical entry for aion. Note also the very little Scriptural examples he gives where aion is used to express “not forever, not always.” Futhermore, as you can see, the double plural usage is not listed under “the whole age embracing the (shorter) ages” but is listed among the expressions for “endless future.” No matter how that endless future is divided and summed up, it is still SUMS to ENDLESSNESS. There’s no denying that the double/plural usage, is a strengthened expression of the single/plural usage for the “endless future.” It is used of life eternal, the glory of God, the power of God, Christ’s reign, and of the lake of fire where the wicked are tormented … all of which are endless.

ahimsaman72 · Dec 1, 2004

itsjustdave1988:

ahimsaman72,

I disagree. Here’s the photo of of Thayer’s lexicon entry. It is distinct from Strong’s reference, so this entry has nothing to do with Strong.

Thayer’s Lexicon entry for for “aion”
blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Rev&chapter=22&verse=5&strongs=165&page=1&flag_full=1

I have outlined his lexical entry for aion below.

After a discussion of the word aion by Plato, et. al., he subdivides his lexicon entry into definitions, then usages, both by Greek authors and within the NT.

**I. Definitions and usages in Greek authors (non-scriptural usage):**1) “age … a human lifetime … life itself.”

"an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity"

TO BE CONTINUED …

The concordance is Strong’s and the Lexicon is Thayer’s, is it not? Notice the first defintion as non-scriptural authors used it - age…human lifetime…itself. Then, of course 2 is still - an unbroken “age”. The primary meanings are first.

ahimsaman72 · Dec 1, 2004

itsjustdave1988:

CONTINUED …

II. Definitions and usages in NT:

Under sub-heading 1.a. univ [which I presume means “universal” usage as opposed to sub-heading 1.b. which is “hyperbolic and popular usage”]: Thayer includes the following definitiions…
forever **( ****εις τον αιωνα ) **Examples of this specific usage included by Thayer are: Septuagintal Gen 6:3, Jn 6:51, 58; 9:16; Heb 5:6, 6:20, etc.

***forever (strengthened) ***( εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος ) This definition (forever) he says is “strengthened” by the double usage of aion. NT examples of this specific usage included by Thayer are: Heb 1:8.

And this usage when attributed to God -as both Thayer and Vines points out - is consistent with God or things of God which are in themselves eternal to begin with. So, God’s throne is said to last “for ever and ever” because it belongs to God who alone is eternal.

forever ( εις αιωνα ) Jude 13.

unto the day which is eternity ( εις ημεραν αιωνος ) 2 Pet 3:18

with negation: never or not for ever, not always ( ου … εις τον αιωνα ) Jn 4:14, 8:51, 10:28, 11:26, 13:8; 1 Cor 8:13; Jn 8:35

unto the ages, ie. as long as time shall be ( εις τους αιωνας ) : "the plural denotes the individual ages whose sum is eternity. " [emphasis added]. Lk 1:33; Rom 1:25, 9:5, 11:36; 2 Cor 11:31, Heb 13:8 or Jude 25 ( **εις παντας τους αιωνας **)

expresses endless future ( εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων ) The endless future is divided up into various periods, the shorter of which are comprehended in the longer. Yet, the expression itself still means “endless future” just as the single plural form means the individual ages whose sum is eternity.The double usage, as was shown above, merely ***strengthens ***the expression of the singular usage. Gal 1:5; 1 Tim 1:17; Rev 1:6, 1:18, 20:10, 22:5, or Rev 14:11 ( **εις αιωνας αιωνων **)

Same as what I said above. As it applies to God - who alone is eternal - it can apply as eternity. Aionios doesn’t force that upon the object. It merely describes the object. It’s an adjective. Thayer understands this and has said so. And I have said so repeatedly.
the whole age embracing the (shorter) ages ( του αιωνος των αιωνων ) . Eph 3:21

from the ages down, from eternity ( απο των αιωνων ) Col 1:26; Eph 3:9

before time was, before the foundation of the world ( προ των αιωνων ) 1 Cor 2:7

eternal purpose ( προθεσιν των αιωνων ): Eph 3:11

Under the sub-heading 1.b. “hyperbolic and popular usage” …

Under the subheading 2. “by meton. of the container of the contained …”

Under the subheading 3. “As the Jews distinguished …”

Please remember also - Thayer isn’t the only big kahuna scholar available to us. Different universalists may understand different passages differently also. His main views, however, are consistent with others in the same vein, such as J.W. Hanson. I have seen some differ slightly on items like this, nevertheless the essential truths are the same.

The majority of theologians (protestant and Catholic) will concur that hell is real and everlasting punishment is true. I don’t deny that at all. It still doesn’t make them right. If only a “few enter the narrow gate” out of the many - would you say that the few are wrong or the many?

ahimsaman72 · Dec 1, 2004

The following is indicative of many different sources who state the same thing about the reality of the universalist beliefs and their findings on hell and everlasting punishment:

“Finally we have the combined testimony, however tenuous, from Basil (that “the many men” or “most men”), from Jerome (“most persons”) and from Augustine (“very many”) that universal reconciliation was widely held during much of the late 2nd through the 4th centuries. This belief was likely held to strongly from the 1st and 2nd centuries also. Historian Charles Bigg notes that the belief in universal reconciliation was widely diffused throughout the monestaries of Egypt and Palestine during these same centuries (Bigg, Christian Platonists, p.293). The concept of “mercyism” with its varying degrees of salvation for different classes was strongly in the beliefs of the common people as evidenced by Augustine’s handling the subject with great care”.
askelm.com/news/n020820.htm

Also from the same place:

“Origen (c.185 C.E.) strongly believed in and promoted universal reconciliation, yet he was widely honored by later church leaders. Basil (the “Great,” bishop of Caesarea) and Gregory of Nazianzus (bishop of Constantinople), were close students of, promoted and published Origen’s works in the 4th century throughout the Roman Empire (Young, From Nicaea to Chacedon, pp. 94, 100). Socrates, the historian, writing about c.439 C.E. noted that “The fame of Origen was very great and widespread throughout the whole world at that time” (Socrates, “Ecclesiastical History” 4:26).”

This doctrine didn’t start with Thayer or me. There were many who believed it - although they did not teach it very early on in the Christian world. The reason is simple - to restrain the common people - to keep them in check. They didn’t want to be responsible for teaching them there is no hell and giving them the impression that they have a “license” to sin. The same is true today. It’s still taught for the same reason.

There seems to be a lot at stake in many people’s minds. If it’s true - great - but don’t preach it. It will only cite the good folk to turn into bad folk and risk losing their souls. This is a dim view of the extent of God’s power, mercy and grace. It really is very limiting.

There is no license to sin found in Scripture. The opposite is true. We are to be holy as God is holy. But, we should not publish a view that contradicts the character of God either.

ahimsaman72 · Dec 1, 2004

This is a partial list of over 200 such questions that everyone should ask themselves:

If God WOULD save all men, but CANNOT, is He infinite in power?
If God CAN save all men, but WILL NOT, is He infinite in goodness?
Does God DESIRE the salvation of all men? (1 Tim. 2:3-4)
As God is righteous, must not the desire for universal salvation be a RIGHTEOUS desire?
Is it true, that “the desire of the righteous shall be granted?” – (Prov. 10:24)
Did God design universal salvation when He created man?
Will God carry His original design into execution?
Can finite man frustrate the purposes of the Almighty?
Is every individual under obligation to be thankful for his existence?
Will this obligation eternally continue?
Can any one be thankful for that which, on the whole, is not a blessing?
If any one be rendered endlessly miserable, will he be still under obligation to thank God for existence?
Would endless misery benefit the Almighty, as the INFLICTOR?
Would endless misery benefit the saints, as SPECTATORS?
Would endless misery benefit the sinner, as the SUFFERER?
If endless punishment be the “wages of sin,” could the sinner ever receive payment in full? (Rom. 6:23)
As man is a finite being, can he commit an infinite sin?
If man cannot commit an infinite sin, can he deserve endless punishment?
If one sin be infinite, can a million be any more?
If ONE sin be NOT infinite, can a million of sins amount to an infinite sin?
If sin be infinite, can one sin be greater than the other?
If sin be infinite, can it be true that, “where sin abounded grace did MUCH MORE abound?” --(Rom. 5:20)
If sin be infinite, can it ever be finished or brought to an end?
If ONE sin deserves an eternity of punishment, how much punishment will TEN sins deserve?
Do you ardently DESIRE the salvation of all men?

The questions were written by A. C. Thomas and appeared in a book by E. H. Lake, entitled “The Key to Truth”.

ahimsaman72 · Dec 1, 2004

itsjustdave1988:

ahimsaman72,

I disagree. Here’s the photo of of Thayer’s lexicon entry. It is distinct from Strong’s reference, so this entry has nothing to do with Strong.

Thayer’s Lexicon entry for for “aion”
blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Rev&chapter=22&verse=5&strongs=165&page=1&flag_full=1

I have outlined his lexical entry for aion below.

After a discussion of the word aion by Plato, et. al., he subdivides his lexicon entry into definitions, then usages, both by Greek authors and within the NT.

**I. Definitions and usages in Greek authors (non-scriptural usage):**1) “age … a human lifetime … life itself.”

"an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity"

TO BE CONTINUED …

Here is an additional source (outside of Thayer) concerning aion and aionios and the concept of eternity:

“As a further illustration of the meaning of aion and aionios, let me point out that in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint)–in common use among the Jews in Our Lord’s time, from which He and the Apostles usually quoted, and whose authority, therefore, should be decisive on this point – these terms are repeatedly applied to things that have long ceased to exist. Thus the AARONIC priesthood is said to be “everlasting,” Num. 25:13. The land of Canaan is given as an “everlasting” possession, and “for ever,” Gen. 17:8, and 13:15. In Deut. 23:3, “for ever” is distinctly made an equivalent to “even to the tenth generation.” In Lam. 5:19, “for ever and ever” is the equivalent of from “generation to generation.” The inhabitants of Palestine are to be bondsmen “for ever,” Lev. 25:46. In Num. 18:19, the heave offerings of the holy things are a covenant “for ever.” CALEB obtains his inheritance “for ever,” Josh. 14:9. And DAVID’S seed is to endure “for ever,” his throne “for ever,” his house “for ever;” nay, the passover is to endure “for ever;” and in Isaiah 32:14, the forts and towers shall be “dens for ever, until the spirit be poured upon us.” So in Jude 7, Sodom and Gomorrah are said to be suffering the vengeance of eternal (aeonian) fire, i.e., their temporal overthrow by fire, for they have a definite promise of final restoration. – Ez. 16:55.”

From
CHRIST TRIUMPHANT
by Thomas Allin

itsjustdave1988 · Dec 1, 2004

Examples of the double/plural expression for endless future, εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων , found in the NT, which ACCORDING TO THAYER’S LEXICON, HAVE THE SAME MEANING:

God is endless and so is His glory …

NASB Galatians 1:5 to whom be the glory forevermore ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων ). Amen.

NASB Philippians 4:20 Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων ) . Amen.

**NASB 1 Timothy 1:17 **Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων ) . Amen.

**NASB 2 Timothy 4:18 **The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων ) . Amen.

**NASB Revelation 7:12 **saying, “Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever. ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων ) Amen.”

**NASB Revelation 10:6 **and swore by Him who lives forever and ever ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων ), who created heaven and the things in it, and the earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it, that there will be delay no longer

NASB Revelation 15:7 Then one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God, who lives forever and ever. ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων )

Christ having once died, will be alive endlessly …

**NASB Revelation 1:18 **and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων ) , and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

NASB Revelation 4:9 And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων )

And the glory of God will forever be through the glory, honor, and dominion of Jesus Christ, which is also endless …

**NASB 1 Peter 4:11 **Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων ) . Amen.

**NASB Revelation 1:6 **and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father–to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων ) . Amen.

**NASB Revelation 5:13 **And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever. ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων ) "

**NASB Revelation 11:15 **Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever. ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων )”

**NASB Revelation 22:5 **And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever. ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων )"

CONTINUED …

itsjustdave1988 · Dec 1, 2004

The punishment of the damned is endless …

**NASB Revelation 19:3 **And a second time they said, “Hallelujah! Her [the great Harlot] smoke rises up forever and ever. ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων )”

NASB Revelation 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων )"

**NASB Revelation 14:11 **“And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever ( εις αιωνας αιωνων ) ; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

Thayer lists all these Scripture passages together as having the same definition, using the same double-plural expression for “endless future.” It’s unconvincing to assert that Thayer meant in his lexicon entry that there ought to be one definition for God’s life, glory, power; Christ’s life, glory, dominion, reign; but a different definition for the “smoke of torment” that goes up forever and the torment of those in the lake of fire to last also forever and ever (i.e., the endless future expressed by τους αιωνας των αιωνων ). Such a claim can only be derived from eisegesis, not exegesis.

itsjustdave1988 · Dec 1, 2004

The concordance is Strong’s and the Lexicon is Thayer’s, is it not?

No. If you read Thayer’s Lexicon, he gives Scripture examples for each expression and definition he lists. Thayer works directly from the Greek. He does not attempt a concordance to an English translation, as Strong does. He defines the NT usages and gives examples in his lexicon of those usages.

The Scripture passages using the double-plural form have the SAME MEANING according to Thayer, which is obvious because he lists all the Scripture with the double-plural expression together as examples of the “endless future” expression. You are misreading Thayer’s lexicon if you conclude he meant a different meaning for God and a different meaning for the lake of fire. Thayer may contradict himself in other writings, but in his lexicon, he correctly defines the double-plural expression as “endless future.” Whether that endlessness is subdivided into smaller ages is irrelevent to the discussion, and is a universalists diversion from the salient point that the future is endless for God’s glory, dominion, power, Christ’s reign, dominion, glory, power, and the torment of the devil and his followers. Exegetically, the universalists do no have a leg to stand on. It’s the same grammatic expression, and even Thayer admits it to have the same meaning, as expressed in the list of passages he groups together in his lexicon.

itsjustdave1988 · Dec 1, 2004

And, by the way, Thomas B. Thayer D.D. is not the only theologian in the world who believes in universalism and documented his findings. There are many other preachers and teachers …

If it is a headcount of universalists versus non-universalist scholars you are looking for, you might be embarrassed by the results.

itsjustdave1988 · Dec 1, 2004

Let’s move on to your misunderstanding of Vine’s …

You said:

[aionios] "describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom 16:25; 2Ti 1:9; Tts 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom 16:26, and the other sixty-six places in the NT. "The predominant meaning of aionios, that in which it is used everywhere in the NT, save the places noted above, may be seen in 2Cr 4:18, where it is set in contrast with proskairos, lit., ‘for a season,’ and in Phm 1:15, where only in the NT it is used without a noun. Moreover it is used of persons and things which are in their nature endless, as, e.g., of God, Rom 16:26; of His power, 1Ti 6:16, and of His glory, 1Pe 5:10; of the Holy Spirit, Hbr 9:14; of the redemption effected by Christ, Hbr 9:12,

“Either undefined but not endless”. And it is “used of persons or things which are in their nature endless”. How else can this be interpreted. This is very clear. Vine’s is correct here. His logic is good.

Huh?

He says "[aionios] “describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom 16:25; 2Ti 1:9; Tts 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom 16:26, and the other sixty-six places in the NT.”

Let’s break down what he is saying. He says that the definition you cling to, that aionios means “not endless”, is confined to Rom 16:25, 2 Ti 1:9, Tits 1:2. He says that aionios is “undefined because endless” in Rom 16:26, and THE OTHER SIXTY SIX PLACES IN THE NT.

He is correct. But he most certainly disagrees with you.

ahimsaman72 · Dec 1, 2004

itsjustdave1988 said:
The punishment of the damned is endless …

**NASB Revelation 19:3 **And a second time they said, “Hallelujah! Her [the great Harlot] smoke rises up forever and ever. ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων )”

NASB Revelation 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. ( τους αιωνας των αιωνων )"

**NASB Revelation 14:11 **“And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever ( εις αιωνας αιωνων ) ; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

Thayer lists all these Scripture passages together as having the same definition, using the same double-plural expression for “endless future.” It’s unconvincing to assert that Thayer meant in his lexicon entry that there ought to be one definition for God’s life, glory, power; Christ’s life, glory, dominion, reign; but a different definition for the “smoke of torment” that goes up forever and the torment of those in the lake of fire to last also forever and ever (i.e., the endless future expressed by τους αιωνας των αιωνων ). Such a claim can only be derived from eisegesis, not exegesis.

If he believed this - as you say he did - then why was he a universalist? He would be posing an argument for temporal p unishment and refuting himself in the same breath. It simply is not true. Read his work, “The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment”. He explicitly states his views that are contrary to what you state his views are.

ahimsaman72 · Dec 1, 2004

itsjustdave1988:

No.

Yes - it is Strong’s Concordance and Thayer’s Greek Lexicon. Here’s proof:

blueletterbible.org/gifs/blb_menu/m_head4A.gif
%between%
%between%
%between%
%between%
%between%
%between%
%between%
%between%
%between%
%between%
%between%
%between%
%between%
%between%

Lexicon Results for eis (Strong’s 1519)Greek for 1519http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs145.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs151.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs042.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs040.gifPronunciation Guideeis {ice}
TDNT ReferenceRoot WordTDNT - 2:420,211a primary prepositionPart of SpeechprepOutline of Biblical Usage1) into, unto, to, towards, for, among
++++
“For” (as used in Acts 2:38 “for the forgiveness…”) could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying “Jesse James wanted for robbery”, “for” could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word “for” signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works.

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 1774AV - into 573, to 281, unto 207, for 140, in 138, on 58,
toward 29, against 26, misc 322; 1774
**Thayer’s Lexicon (Help)**http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1101939028-1365.html
MORE (860 KBytes)
Strong’s definition is given and Thayer’s Lexicon is shown farther down below.

ahimsaman72 · Dec 1, 2004

itsjustdave1988:

If it is a headcount of universalists versus non-universalist scholars you are looking for, you might be embarrassed by the results.

This is not a headcount, nor a “us versus them” deal. I was referring to universalist scholars only. This is not a game. If we continue down this road, I will have no choice but to ignore your posts.

ahimsaman72 · Dec 1, 2004

itsjustdave1988:

Let’s move on to your misunderstanding of Vine’s …

You said:
Huh?

He says "[aionios] “describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom 16:25; 2Ti 1:9; Tts 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom 16:26, and the other sixty-six places in the NT.”

Let’s break down what he is saying. He says that the definition you cling to, that aionios means “not endless”, is confined to Rom 16:25, 2 Ti 1:9, Tits 1:2. He says that aionios is “undefined because endless” in Rom 16:26, and THE OTHER SIXTY SIX PLACES IN THE NT.

He is correct. But he most certainly disagrees with you.

oh, yes, I see that. Well, I guess he conflicts with other great theologians (like ORIGEN) in their interpretations.

I’ve shown quotes upon quotes from different scholars and my own thoughts as well concerning aionios and aion. You simply won’t believe it. You divert from one when he doesn’t satisfy and go to another.

Hell and everlasting punishment

ahimsaman72

Guest

ahimsaman72

Guest

ahimsaman72

Guest

itsjustdave1988

Guest

itsjustdave1988

Guest

itsjustdave1988

Guest

ahimsaman72

Guest

ahimsaman72

Guest

ahimsaman72

Guest

ahimsaman72

Guest

ahimsaman72

Guest

itsjustdave1988

Guest

itsjustdave1988

Guest

itsjustdave1988

Guest

itsjustdave1988

Guest

itsjustdave1988

Guest

ahimsaman72

Guest

ahimsaman72

Guest

ahimsaman72

Guest

ahimsaman72

Guest