I just talked to the Orthodox priest where I live about hell. Here’s what he told me they believe.
They believe hell is real, but they cannot say whether anybody stays in that state or not. They have hope for everybody to be saved.
Thanks, that’s good information.
happy New Year to you!
Interesting statement. Sounds like the Archdiocese needs to hang here at the EU and get their doctrine right. 
If God desires all to be saved and God always accomplishes His desire then all will be saved. The question is - Does God desire all to be saved? and Does God always accomplish His desires and plans?
Cole, can you give a couple of examples that would keep you from saying “yes” to those last questions of yours? Maybe that would start a discussion.
Thanks
Jeremiah 34:24 is in the context of restoring Israel and Judah. Maybe God’s anger here doesn’t turn back until He accomplishes this specific purpose. Moreover, we have the debate on free will. If we have free will and God has chosen not to violate it then we simply don’t know if His desire for all people to be saved will be fulfilled. Even here though “all people” can mean Jews as well as Gentiles. Not necessarily every individual. It could be talking of all nationalities. The Greek allows for “all” to be translated as “all kinds of” as in “money is the root of all kinds of evil”. We simply don’t know.
Actually, Jesus said the LOVE of money is the root of evil. He may well have meant that statement all-inclusively. It might be seen as the love of all things that are similar to money and all things that money represents. But money of itself is not the root of all evil. That he said LOVE of money is the root of evil gives the statement quite a lot more breadth. Similarly, I don’t believe Jesus meant all sorts of people. He said ALL people. I kind of think that’s what He meant.
oops! I missed the first part. Nonetheless my point still stands. Here’s the ESV translating “all” as “all kinds of”
The Greek “all” can mean “all kinds of” so you cannot claim with certainty, Cindy, that it means every individual.
Here’s the Greek definitions from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
a) any, every one
b) any and every, of every kind.
I know you’re fond of this definition, Cole, as was Augustine. He wasn’t a Greek scholar by his own admission, nor are you or I. As for Thayers (or Strongs or Vines or etc.) these were written by people with theological biases just like all the rest of us. I’d have to have the word of more than Thayer’s to be certain you’re right about this, and some in-depth exposition. But of course, you’re welcome to hold to your view. It is a time-honored tradition. It’s stretched to breaking in certain parts of Romans, but it might work well enough in some locations.
Thayer’s Definition
-
individually a. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
-
collectively a. some of all types
That doesn’t prove a thing. That needs more exegesis and the witness of other translators and their opinions.
Hey, that’s my last post of 2013!!
Hi Michael… just a clarifier on this above. The english “kinds” is of translational convenience only in that “kinds” it is nowhere present in the Greek text. It is introduced in english because the Greek reads… “For a root of all the evils is money” – thus “kinds” is rendered because of “evils” plural.
Further to that… when it comes to “all” the introduction of “kinds” is often a convenient massaging of the text Calvinism uses to explain away texts difficult to its position, such as 1Tim 4:10 which typically erroneously gets read as… “all kinds of men” etc. Of course the most logical answer to that however is simply to acknowledge “YES… even the kind that believe” – thus making it fully inclusive as it ACTUALLY is.
The dominant Orthodox understanding of hell is represented in this article by Fr George Metallinos: Paradise and Hell According to Orthodox Tradition.
I think the Greek Lexicons do prove something. It’s sad that you and Cindy seem to be caught up into conspiracy theories that say Thayer’s Greek Lexicion isn’t an accurate Greek Lexicon. In actuality it’s very accurate with it’s definitions.
Don’t be sad, there is no conspiracy here. When people of good will disagree, then it’s time to see the proof. When different experts disagree, it’s time to try and figure out why.
There is no doubt that translators, looking at the exact same Greek words, will translate differently, sometimes subtly, sometimes not. It is then fair to ask where they are ‘coming from’ - are they importing a meaning to the text, in all good faith, based on their larger doctrinal beliefs? In other words, are they biased in a particular direction? I’m certainly not going to accuse any of them of outright dishonesty - but whatever ‘side’ of a particular doctrinal stance they have taken, if the bias causes a skewing of the sense, then it needs to be faced up to.
This is one reason why I feel a need to learn some Greek.
edit: I attach renderings of 1 tim 1.6 from the YLT and the CLT. There’s a lot of wiggle room in there for interpretation.
Dave,
I have yet to see from you or her any Lexicon that says it cannot mean “all kinds of”. I can’t quote the whole Lexicon but the scriptural references are there. For over a century, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon has been lauded as one of the best New Testament lexicons available. Thayer’s gives not only dictionary definitions for each word, but relates each word to its New Testament usage and categorizes it’s nuances of meaning. Again, there is no Calvinist-Augustine conspiracy going on here. The definitions I provided are accurate. It can mean either one. Hence, your interpretation isn’t certain. There are Greek scholars who have shown this many times. Realize there is more than one way to view certain passages of scripture. Especially when the words in a passage can have more than one meaning.
Thayers is one of my favorite reference works. That doesn’t make it perfect, especially in explaining what a given word might mean in a given context, used in a particular syntax, perhaps in a difficult sentence. Lexicons aren’t the be-all end-all. They can’t be. Grammar is more complex than that, and Greek grammar is very different from English grammar – so it’s difficult for non-Greek scholars to even guess where an exception might lie. When you look up a Strong’s or Thayer’s definition of a Greek word, you get it all by itself, not surrounded by the other words in the sentence that influence it, stripped of its declensions and tense and other qualifiers, and without explanation as to which of the definitions make the most sense in this particular usage and why. Don’t get me wrong. I love Thayers (though I am absolutely certain it contains human error). It’s very helpful; it just isn’t enough.
Cindy,
Nothing is enough because you have been proven wrong and don’t want to admit the fact that there is more than one way we can view the passage. I have other lexicons available. I can probably pull up some commentary from scholars who know Greek.