Hell and everlasting punishment

  • Thread starter Thread starter ahimsaman72
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As for the info you post as to the “many men” who were universalists. If you like, we can discuss the view of the early Fathers. Universalists have a poor background in early Church history, and the last guy who tried to convince me the early Church was mostly universalists failed miserably, and in the end, said the he didn’t base his beliefs on them anyway, but by Scripture alone. It seems universalists want to quote from early fathers, but when faced with one who actually studies more than just a few snippets, they retreat again to the comfort zone of Sola Scriptura.

As you probably know, Basil, Gregory of Nissa and Gregory of Nazianzus were all trained under the influence of Origen. Of course, in their view of the world, surrounded by Origenists, they think they believe as the “many” believe. The historical evidence, however, suggests othewise.

I believe Origen’s own words when he tells us that this was not a dogma, but an “exercise” or a “disputation.” I also have to wonder that if so many men held to this, then why was it condemned in AD 400 in Alexandria, by an ex-Origest bishop no less, then and again in AD 553 in Ecumenical Council at Constantinople? It doesn’t seem these “many men” were very well represented, or if they were, they changed their minds.

Furthermore, “many men” were Arian, but that doesn’t men many men were correct. If you read Augustine in context, it’s absurd to believe he was saying that many men = most men, as he asserts that these men were absolutely erroneous in their views, and judged to be erroneous by ecclesiastical council.

Look at what else St. Augustine states of the “very many” have believed in apokatastasis…

“… some, indeed very many … say they do not believe it [eternal torment] shall be so; not, indeed, that they directly oppose themselves to Holy Scripture.” (St. Augustine, “The Enchiridion,” ch. 112)

Yes, many have, indeed “very many” will continue to oppose themselves to Holy Scripture.

From St. Augustine’s “De gestis Pelagii”, I, (AD 417):
CHAP. 10.–PELAGIUS’ ANSWER EXAMINED. ON ORIGEN’S ERROR CONCERNING THE NON-ETERNITY OF THE PUNISHMENT OF THE DEVIL AND THE DAMNED.

But what Pelagius added, “Who believes differently is an Origenist,” was approved by the judges, because in very deed the Church most justly abominates the opinion of Origen, that even they whom the Lord says are to be punished with everlasting punishment, and the devil himself and his angels, after a time, however protracted, will be purged, and released from their penalties, and shall then cleave to the saints who reign with God in the association of blessedness."
Click to expand...
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
As for the info you post as to the “many men” who were universalists. If you like, we can discuss the view of the early Fathers. Universalists have a poor background in early Church history, and the last guy who tried to convince me the early Church was mostly universalists failed miserably, and in the end, said the he didn’t base his beliefs on them anyway, but by Scripture alone. It seems universalists want to quote from early fathers, but when faced with one who actually studies more than just a few snippets, they retreat again to the comfort zone of Sola Scriptura.

As you probably know, Basil, Gregory of Nissa and Gregory of Nazianzus were all trained under the influence of Origen. Of course, in their view of the world, surrounded by Origenists, they think they believe as the “many” believe. The historical evidence, however, suggests othewise.

I believe Origen’s own words when he tells us that this was not a dogma, but an “exercise” or a “disputation.” I also have to wonder that if so many men held to this, then why was it condemned in AD 400 in Alexandria, by an ex-Origest bishop no less, then and again in AD 553 in Ecumenical Council at Constantinople? It doesn’t seem these “many men” were very well represented, or if they were, they changed their minds.

Furthermore, “many men” were Arian, but that doesn’t men many men were correct. If you read Augustine in context, it’s absurd to believe he was saying that many men = most men, as he asserts that these men were absolutely erroneous in their views, and judged to be erroneous by ecclesiastical council.

Look at what else St. Augustine states of the “very many” have believed in apokatastasis…

“… some, indeed very many … say they do not believe it [eternal torment] shall be so; not, indeed, that they directly oppose themselves to Holy Scripture.” (St. Augustine, “The Enchiridion,” ch. 112)

Yes, many have, indeed “very many” will continue to oppose themselves to Holy Scripture.

From St. Augustine’s “De gestis Pelagii”, I, (AD 417):
Click to expand...
Then I suppose the men who quoted, “many” and “very many” were either lying or stupid. You just said there weren’t many - but then you quote Augustine as indeed stating “indeed very many”.
 
Yes - it is Strong’s Concordance and Thayer’s Greek Lexicon. Here’s proof:
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t see the proof. The Blue Letter Bible uses Strong’s. But Thayer’s Lexicon, cited by the Blue Letter Bible does not. Thayer references the Greek, not a concordance to an English translation. In Thayer’s Lexicon, he lists together the applicable double/plural passages as having the same meaning.
 
Then I suppose the men who quoted, “many” and “very many” were either lying or stupid. You just said there weren’t many - but then you quote Augustine as indeed stating “indeed very many”.
Click to expand...
Your not reading my posts very carefully. I did not assert there “weren’t many” did I? I said that the early church were not mostly universalists. Very many does not equate to the majority. I don’t believe Augustine was saying that the majority in the Church opposed Scripture. He did say that very many, those falling into the Origenists error of apokatastasis, did oppose Scripture. If the “very many” were the majority, how come they were condemend in AD 400 in Origen’s home town?
 
He would be posing an argument for temporal p unishment and refuting himself in the same breath. It simply is not true.
Click to expand...
I believe you think Thayer could not contradict himself. I believe he does. As I said, his lexicon is correct. It is in substantial agreement with other lexical works. When he puts forth a lexicon, he must limit himself to exegesis, or he will not be acceptable academically speaking. When he speaks of universalism, he is is writing as a theologian or more accuratly, a philosopher, and not limiting himself to exegesis, but can now speculate about philosophy and other such argumentation not derived by Scriptural exegesis.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
As for the info you post as to the “many men” who were universalists. If you like, we can discuss the view of the early Fathers. Universalists have a poor background in early Church history, and the last guy who tried to convince me the early Church was mostly universalists failed miserably, and in the end, said the he didn’t base his beliefs on them anyway, but by Scripture alone. It seems universalists want to quote from early fathers, but when faced with one who actually studies more than just a few snippets, they retreat again to the comfort zone of Sola Scriptura.

…

Look at what else St. Augustine states of the “very many” have believed in apokatastasis…

“… some, indeed very many … say they do not believe it [eternal torment] shall be so; not, indeed, that they directly oppose themselves to Holy Scripture.” (St. Augustine, “The Enchiridion,” ch. 112)

Yes, many have, indeed “very many” will continue to oppose themselves to Holy Scripture.

From St. Augustine’s “De gestis Pelagii”, I, (AD 417):
Click to expand...
Universalism
The
Prevailing Doctrine

Of The
Christian Church
During Its First
Five Hundred Years

by J.W. Hanson is probably what is cited the most about the beliefs of the early church and universalism.

It can be found here:

tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html

I couldn’t begin to discuss at length the doctrine as it existed in the “early church”. And, that would really begin to get outside the purpose of this thread. I’ve wandered from the theme of the thread myself - with linking issues such as universalism as a doctrine and universalists denominations.

I’ve discussed hell and everlasting punishment at length and keep repeating the same things. I suggest if we want to continue some discussion beyond this thread that another thread be started - whether by me or you.

Conclusion of the matter:

The English “hell” perpetrated by many Bible translations is false. Many Bible translations today do not include the word “hell” itself, but actually use the Greek words themselves to denote the places they were intended to denote. The NAB (which I have consistently brought out) does not include the word “hell” anywhere in its text. A fact that no one wants to address.

Punishment is temporal and corrective - for mankind, angels and the Devil. It is said to be eternal and everlasting by those who want to keep Christians faithful and keeping them on a tight leash. God is just and in the end will pay back His creation for all they deserve. He will punish, correct and reconcile all people to Himself.

As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Thank you for your time and effort and skill.

God bless…
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
I believe you think Thayer could not contradict himself. I believe he does. As I said, his lexicon is correct. It is in substantial agreement with other lexical works. When he puts forth a lexicon, he must limit himself to exegesis, or he will not be acceptable academically speaking. When he speaks of universalism, he is is writing as a theologian or more accuratly, a philosopher, and not limiting himself to exegesis, but can now speculate about philosophy and other such argumentation not derived by Scriptural exegesis.
Click to expand...
Hogwash. A man with a doctorate of divinity would not write a lexicon on Scripture and then assert vehemently something that opposes what he stated in his lexicon. Someone would find him out and really call him a idiot if it were so.
 
… with linking issues such as universalism as a doctrine and universalists denominations.
Click to expand...
The problem is, as with every speculative theolgy, there are differing forms. For example, some include the devil and angels, but some to not. There’s no way around disussing the various “denominations” when discussing universalist claims.

Augustine, in his *City of God, *refutes those who deny that the devil will be restored by asking them why the mercy of God is different for angels than it is for humanity. Scripture is sufficient to refute restoration of the devil and his angels, as there’s nothing regarding the theology of the Incarnation, Passion, Death of the Man-God Jesus Christ which accounts for a redemption of angels. Either way you look at it, it is a doctrine based more upon Plato than Scripture, which Origen is heavily criticized for by a wide base of scholars as adhering to Platoism.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Sorry, I don’t see the proof. The Blue Letter Bible uses Strong’s. But Thayer’s Lexicon, cited by the Blue Letter Bible does not. Thayer references the Greek, not a concordance to an English translation. In Thayer’s Lexicon, he lists together the applicable double/plural passages as having the same meaning.
Click to expand...
Strong’s provides the Greek word with definitions and usages in Scripture and kindly offers Thayer’s Lexicon on the Greek for further explanation. Again, we look at the same information and see totally different things. I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone and we see only illusions :whacky:

We can argue apples and oranges all day - but this is really beyond agreement. So, we will agree to disagree.
 
Hogwash. A man with a doctorate of divinity would not write a lexicon on Scripture and then assert vehemently something that opposes what he stated in his lexicon. Someone would find him out and really call him a idiot if it were so.
Click to expand...
Ah, so everything you’ve ever written is consistent? You’ve never contradicted yourself? I call your hogwash, and raise you one balderdash. 🙂

Thayer’s PhD makes him no smarter than the PhD’s who dreamed up the highly inconsistent Jesus Seminar.

You tell me what his lexicon states then? I’ve showed you exactly what he lists together as like passages of Scritpure, having the same meaning, having the same double-plural expression for endless future. Tell me why I should presume he meant something different than the actual words he used in his lexicon.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Hogwash. A man with a doctorate of divinity would not write a lexicon on Scripture and then assert vehemently something that opposes what he stated in his lexicon. Someone would find him out and really call him a idiot if it were so.

Ah, so everything you’ve ever written is consistent? You’ve never contradicted yourself? I call your hogwash, and raise you one balderdash. 🙂

Thayer’s PhD make him no smarter than the PhD’s who dreamed up the highly inconsistent Jesus Seminar.

You tell me what his lexicon states then? I’ve showed you exactly what he lists together as like passages of Scritpure, having the same meaning, having the same double-plural expression for endless future. Tell me why I should presume he meant something different than the actual words he used in his lexicon.
Click to expand...
And I have shown you Thayer does not assert what you say he asserts. Good day, friend. There’s really only so many times you can skin the same cat.

God bless…
 
Good day, and good luck in your studies. Here’s hoping Vine’s is more clear to you than Thayer’s lexicon. Perhaps A.T. Robertson might help clarify things:
There is not the slightest indication in the words of Jesus here that the punishment is not coeval with the life.

(A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, vol. 1, p. 202)
Click to expand...
Also, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is in agreement with Thayer, Vine, and Robertson. Kittel’s being the most revered of the bunch by academic scholars.

But if you only accept Origenist scholars, your studies will be difficult indeed.

“The doors of hell are locked from the inside”
– C.S. Lewis
 
Punishment is temporal and corrective - for mankind, angels and the Devil. It is said to be eternal and everlasting by those who want to keep Christians faithful and keeping them on a tight leash. God is just and in the end will pay back His creation for all they deserve. He will punish, correct and reconcile all people to Himself.
Click to expand...
if this is true, why did God give us a free will? in the end, we are forced to spend eternity with him. you can’t force someone to love you, it has to be free consent. otherwise, it can’t be love. you’re living in a phantasy.
 
The only Greek word for “eternal/forever/everlating” is AIDIOS, and is never used in reference in the New Testament except in two places; one refers to the “everlasting chains” that Satan will be bound with, and the other to God’s “everlasting” love.

The terms used for eternal punishment, Hell, and the Kingdom of God, is AIONION, and comes from AEON which means “age” (a long period of time).

Now, the argument is this:
Since God’s Kingdom is Eternal (Aionion) and does not end, it follows that eternal (Aionion) punishment cannot end.

If Jesus was a Buddhist (which He was), this means that both “Heaven” and “Hell” are not “eternal” in duration, but are states of the soul between incarnations. The Kingdom of God is the KOSMOS, which, in Buddhism, is not “eternal”, but rather lasts 1000 Kalpas; each Kalpa lasting many millions of years.

Jesus was asked by his disciples, “Why is this man born blind? Was it a sin of his, or of his parents?” Obviously, they believed the blind man may have “sinned” in a previous life.

The “Nazarenes” were a group of Essenes, and the Essenes were Buddhists, and Heavenly Father is not JEHOVAH (whom the Jews never referred to as “Father”), but rather Buddha, who was called “Heavenly Father” by Buddhists for hundreds of years before Jesus.
40.png
clmowry:
Given that the same adjetive is used to refer to the duration of ones time in heaven, then would you also argue that time in heaven is only temporary as well?

Chuck
Click to expand...
 
40.png
DarrickEvenson:
If Jesus was a Buddhist (which He was), this means that both “Heaven” and “Hell” are not “eternal” in duration, but are states of the soul between incarnations. The Kingdom of God is the KOSMOS, which, in Buddhism, is not “eternal”, but rather lasts 1000 Kalpas; each Kalpa lasting many millions of years.

Jesus was asked by his disciples, “Why is this man born blind? Was it a sin of his, or of his parents?” Obviously, they believed the blind man may have “sinned” in a previous life.

The “Nazarenes” were a group of Essenes, and the Essenes were Buddhists, and Heavenly Father is not JEHOVAH (whom the Jews never referred to as “Father”), but rather Buddha, who was called “Heavenly Father” by Buddhists for hundreds of years before Jesus.
Click to expand...
Jesus was a Buddhist? The Father is Buddha? Huhhh???

:whistle:
 
The only Greek word for “eternal/forever/everlating” is AIDIOS
Click to expand...
Errrrrr… no.

The Greek word* “ateleutetos”* means “never-ending.” According to St. Irenaeus, as a pupil of St. Polycarp who was a pupil of St. John the Apostle, St. Irenaeus wrote/spoke/read in koine Greek. He writes (ca. AD 189):
Now, good things are eternal (aionios) and without end (ateleutetos) with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal (aionios) and never-ending (ateleutetos).” [Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 27)
Click to expand...
[/quote]
 
Jesus was asked by his disciples, “Why is this man born blind? Was it a sin of his, or of his parents?” Obviously, they believed the blind man may have “sinned” in a previous life.
Click to expand...
My new age friend asserted the same thing.

One thing to point out, these men, in whatever they presupposed, were wrong. Jesus answered them, "Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”

But this polemic for reincarnation is ridiculous, as you are offering up the viewpoint of those who were obviously incorrect in their presuppositions. Scripture refutes reincarnation quite summarily in the following verse: “it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment” (Heb 9:27)

My new age friend, after realizing this and many other absurd things about the Jesus-Buddha-reincarnation theory, returned to the Catholic Church, by the grace of God through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 😉
 
DarrickEvenson,

By the way, the first time I heard your bizzare little theory, was … you guessed it … while attending the Universalist Unitarian Church.

It seems once Satan tempts you to doubt foundational doctrines of Christianity, pandoras box is open to any clownish raving.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top