Hell and everlasting punishment

[Dr.Colossus]

ahimsaman72:

I’m not trying to denounce any person or church body. I’m saying that if the doctrine doesn’t hold up to the evidence supporting it, why continue to believe it and accept it?

Except that you haven’t proven that the doctrine doesn’t hold up. You have given numerous examples which, in your opinion, allow for the possibility of a not-so-eternal fire. The problem is, it is simply a personal interpretation, which objectively does not prove anything. It suggests only a different understanding which has no more or less weight than a more traditional understanding.

 

[AndyF]

ahimsaman72:

There are many, many instances of…
.

Nowhere have you shown me in scripture that all were judged collectively and sent to hell collectively.

Thanks for your post.

Andy

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

There’s no ambiguity. When the word “aionios” is referring to the Godhead, the word must mean eternal. God is the only “eternal”.

i agree that there’s no ambiguity: hell is also eternal.

do you see how that is unhelpful and provides no support for your position? if you can simply stipulate that god is the only eternal, i can just as easily stipulate that god is not the only eternal. and where does that leave us?

In order to get a true grasp, you need to insert the true word into the verse where the word eternal, everlasting or for ever are used. Here’s an example:

2 Tim. 1:9

1. Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

So, if aionios (or its root word aion) always meant eternal, you would have the the verse read, “which was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of eternity”.

Galatians 1:4

1. Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

“deliver us from the present evil eternity” would not make sense either.

A) sure, aionios taken to mean “eternal” seems to make no sense in some contexts, but so what? for every sentence where understanding aionios as “eternal” doesn’t seem to make sense, there are others where it makes perfect sense.

more specifically, just because taking aionios to mean “eternal” doesn’t seem to work in the sentence “before the beginning of eternity” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make sense in the sentence “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction”.

in order to motivate your argument on this point, you’d need to demonstrate that the only plausible interpretation of “aionios destruction” is something as (apparently) self-contradictory as “before the beginning of eternity”. and it’s not.

B) there’s nothing inherently nonsensical about “before the beginning of eternity” if you take it as a literary convention that is used to emphasize a point, to wit, the endlessness of the time being described. like saying “bigger than big”. or, “i had tons of homework”. or, “color me happy”; all of these expressions have idiomatic uses which have totally different senses than their literal ones, and while they may be problematic when taken as literal expressions, they’re decidedly unproblematic when taken idiomatically.

so. even if you could show that “aionios destruction”(2 thess 1:9) has a literal sense similar to “before the beginning of eternity”, that in no way entails (1) that there wasn’t an idiomatic sense in use at the time, and (2) that wasn’t the sense actually intended by the author.

C) once again, and more to the point, even assuming that there are, in fact, two meanings for aionios, each of which make sense for a particular passage, how do you know which one was intended by the author?

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

Friend, out of all I posted, this is what you are replying about?

i actually provided you with a lengthy response conserning scriptural interpretation - i think this last post was only my third on the subject…

It is mindless to follow a belief or person or body or organization which says one thing when there is evidence to the contrary. That’s my point.

There is a ton of evidence in the divinity of Christ, the Sonship of Christ, etc. The doctrine of the divinity of Christ is correct. On the other hand, if you have a doctrine in which there is not evidence, yet you push it anyway and simply say, “well, so and so said it was true” (contrary to evidence), then I would say that line of logic is mindless following. The “blind leading the blind” scenario.

sure. but there’s also “lots” of scriptural evidence that christ isn’t divine, for instance; in the same way that you point to origen and gregory as proponents of the impermanence of hell, there are many others (e.g. arius) that believed not only that christ wasn’t god, but who also based that belief on scripture.

so. am i mindless for accepting the divinity of christ in the face of this so-called “evidence”?

I’m saying that if the doctrine doesn’t hold up to the evidence supporting it, why continue to believe it and accept it?

ahh. but this is a ***different ***point than the one you were initially making - here you’re talking about the quality of the evidence. fair enough. i do not question the eternality of hell despite the “evidence” to the contrary, because i find the evidence uncompelling.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ahimsaman72:

There is evidence that early Church fathers, such as Origen, believed in the restoration of all mankind.

If you read his writings, Origen is quite clear that this is a theological speculation of his. He believed in universal restoration, and His follows took it as gospel. But he’s quite clear that this did not get passed to him from apostolic tradition, but was instead proposed as an exercise.

If you look ealier, to St. Irenaeus, he states that hell is everlasting, and makes no such Origen-like statements as to place doubt upon the apostolic source of this teaching.

Consequently, I gotta go with St. Irenaeus on this one, as he seems to have clearly put forth the orthodox teaching apart from the theological exercise Origen called “apokatastasis.”

 

[ahimsaman72]

Dr. Colossus:

Except that you haven’t proven that the doctrine doesn’t hold up. You have given numerous examples which, in your opinion, allow for the possibility of a not-so-eternal fire. The problem is, it is simply a personal interpretation, which objectively does not prove anything. It suggests only a different understanding which has no more or less weight than a more traditional understanding.

It is not a matter of personal opinion that the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words and their usage in Scripture is “X” and means “X”. Lexicons show us what the original words were. I have repeatedly shown the fallacy of a “hell” that is an eternal punishing of the wicked.

I have proven again and again that words translated into the english word “hell” were misapplied and misconstrued to give a meaning that wasn’t there in the original manuscripts.

If this were only my opinion based on conjecture/reasoning you might be right. But the fact is, as I have repeatedly stated, that even Catholic Church theologians (considered heretical later on) taught universal restoration (specificically at Alexandria) and the current NAB Bible does not include the word “hell” anywhere in it.
Yet, I’ve gotten no responses to those two items from anybody.

I would like to hear someone’s explanation of the above paragraph.

 

[ahimsaman72]

AndyF:

Nowhere have you shown me in scripture that all were judged collectively and sent to hell collectively.

Thanks for your post.

Andy

For starters, Genesis 6:17

1. And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

I would call that collective judgement, wouldn’t you?

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

C) once again, and more to the point, even assuming that there are, in fact, two meanings for aionios, each of which make sense for a particular passage, how do you know which one was intended by the author?

As I have already stated - by the subject.

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

i actually provided you with a lengthy response conserning scriptural interpretation - i think this last post was only my third on the subject…

sure. but there’s also “lots” of scriptural evidence that christ isn’t divine, for instance; in the same way that you point to origen and gregory as proponents of the impermanence of hell, there are many others (e.g. arius) that believed not only that christ wasn’t god, but who also based that belief on scripture.

so. am i mindless for accepting the divinity of christ in the face of this so-called “evidence”?

ahh. but this is a ***different ***point than the one you were initially making - here you’re talking about the quality of the evidence. fair enough. i do not question the eternality of hell despite the “evidence” to the contrary, because i find the evidence uncompelling.

No, there’s not alot of evidence that points to non-divinity of Christ.

Quantity, quality and source of evidence should always be considered when looking at evidence.

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

If you read his writings, Origen is quite clear that this is a theological speculation of his. He believed in universal restoration, and His follows took it as gospel. But he’s quite clear that this did not get passed to him from apostolic tradition, but was instead proposed as an exercise.

If you look ealier, to St. Irenaeus, he states that hell is everlasting, and makes no such Origen-like statements as to place doubt upon the apostolic source of this teaching.

Consequently, I gotta go with St. Irenaeus on this one, as he seems to have clearly put forth the orthodox teaching apart from the theological exercise Origen called “apokatastasis.”

Speculation or not, he believed it based on Scriptural evidence that he saw.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ahimsaman72,

St. John the apostle was given a vision of the end. In his vision, he described a lake of fire where the devil and his demons, the false prophet, and those who followed him will be thrown, “and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (NASB Rev 20:10). (see also Rev 19:20, 20:14, 20:15, and 22:18).

I think the complete lack of “universal restoration” in St. John’s apocalypse is too compelling to side with Origen’s theological speculation.

 

[mercygate]

itsjustdave1988:

ahimsaman72,

I think the complete lack of “universal restoration” in St. John’s apocalypse is too compelling to side with Origen’s theological speculation.

Dave, was this one of the teaching on which Origen was contrary to the Church? This is not an area in which I am learned.

 

[Exporter]

Excuse me boys, but this thread has gotten far from the original post.
"The doctrine of Hell and everlasting punishment is controversial to be sure. There are basically three views of the fate of the wicked:

1. Everlasting punishment
2. Annihilation
3. Purification and restoration of all mankind"

See Catechism of the Catholic Church , 1033, 1861, 1037,1034 & 1036. The Doctrine of hell is not controversial at all. It is forever, there is no annihilation or retoration of all mankind. No, once in hell you stay in hell. What is the authority? The CCC, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is the imprinture.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to St. Irenaeus (ca AD 189), who wrote his “Against Heresies” in ancient Greek:

“… But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God, He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness. Separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy those forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself. But that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. 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)

[/quote]

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

i agree that there’s no ambiguity: hell is also eternal.

Is that the hell spoken of in the KJV Bible or the hell in the NAB?, because the NAB doesn’t list “hell”, neither do many other translations.

do you see how that is unhelpful and provides no support for your position? if you can simply stipulate that god is the only eternal, i can just as easily stipulate that god is not the only eternal. and where does that leave us?

Again, would you really posit that God, our Maker, is not eternal?

A) sure, aionios taken to mean “eternal” seems to make no sense in some contexts, but so what? for every sentence where understanding aionios as “eternal” doesn’t seem to make sense, there are others where it makes perfect sense.

It would make a big difference if the KJV, NIV and others would have simply translated the word as it should be according to what the Greek and Hebrew scholars said it should be.

more specifically, just because taking aionios to mean “eternal” doesn’t seem to work in the sentence “before the beginning of eternity” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make sense in the sentence “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction”.

in order to motivate your argument on this point, you’d need to demonstrate that the only plausible interpretation of “aionios destruction” is something as (apparently) self-contradictory as “before the beginning of eternity”. and it’s not.

B) there’s nothing inherently nonsensical about “before the beginning of eternity” if you take it as a literary convention that is used to emphasize a point, to wit, the endlessness of the time being described. like saying “bigger than big”. or, “i had tons of homework”. or, “color me happy”; all of these expressions have idiomatic uses which have totally different senses than their literal ones, and while they may be problematic when taken as literal expressions, they’re decidedly unproblematic when taken idiomatically.

so. even if you could show that “aionios destruction”(2 thess 1:9) has a literal sense similar to “before the beginning of eternity”, that in no way entails (1) that there wasn’t an idiomatic sense in use at the time, and (2) that wasn’t the sense actually intended by the author.

C) once again, and more to the point, even assuming that there are, in fact, two meanings for aionios, each of which make sense for a particular passage, how do you know which one was intended by the author?

Oops!, I used the wrong Greek word in referring to the Godhead. “aionios” isn’t used to refer to the Godhead. The Greek word “aidios” is the word used. And, that word, “aidios” is always meant to be endless.

I have some word studies documents that point these grammatical items out more clearly. There are some that you can get to online. I have to admit, I’m no English or Greek or Hebrew expert! There are many others, though that have been diligent to study and record their findings and can reason their arguments better than I.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Exporter,

ahimsaman72 is a Catholic trapped in a Southern Baptists body

I don’t think merely quoting from the Catechism is going to be authorititative enough to be compelling to him. He obviously already knows that the heresy of apokataststasis (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Apocatastasis) championed by Origen was condemned by the early Church, yet he still finds it compelling and would like to discuss it.

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

ahimsaman72,

St. John the apostle was given a vision of the end. In his vision, he described a lake of fire where the devil and his demons, the false prophet, and those who followed him will be thrown, “and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (NASB Rev 20:10). (see also Rev 19:20, 20:14, 20:15, and 22:18).

I think the complete lack of “universal restoration” in St. John’s apocalypse is too compelling to side with Origen’s theological speculation.

Hey there! Thanks for your post here.

I’m glad you brought this passage up.

The “lake of fire” is only recorded 5 times and only in Revelation. The Greek word used is “pur” (sound familiar). The same word, “pur” as used above is used to in passages that read, “Holy Ghost and fire”, “hell fire”, “unquenchable fire”, ministers a “flame of fire”, “fiery indignation”, “for our God is a consuming fire”, etc.

The same word “pur” is used for all these instances. They should not all be tranlated as such considering the subjects and context of the passage. In Mark 14:54, Peter warmed himself by a fire. It wasn’t “pur” fire. A different Greek word that always means physical fire is used in that instance.

The “lake of fire” is figurative.

Death and Hell are reported to be thrown into this “lake of fire”.

Rev. 20:14

1. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.

Are Death and Hell physical things like a stone that you can throw into a fire? No. This is all to signify that all evil and death will end. They will be “destroyed”.

And, as far as “for ever and ever”. Jonah 2:6 says,

1. I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God.

As can be seen by Jonah 1:17

1. Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Christ verified this fact in Matthew 12:40

1. For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

So, for ever and ever does not mean literally “endless” or “eternal”.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Universalists claim that the translations of Scripture (such as NASB) are wrong when they say the lake of fire will be “forever and ever.” They think their knowledge of Greek is far better than that of the Greek Church at Alexandria in AD 400 or far better than that of St. Irenaeus (who wrote in ancient Greek).

They instead say that the correct translation if that the punishment will be “ages upon ages” but not without end. Origen taught that even the devil and his demons will be restored to God. Nice thought. However, before Origen championed this doctrine, St. Irenaeus taught that the wicked will be damned without end (stating this unambiguously in Greek). This is a fine example where Scripture alone is ambiguious, but Scripture and Tradition is not.

When I studied this heresy, I found that Origen didn’t included it among his dogma. He specifically referred to it as an “exercise” in theology. In otherwords, it was his mere speculation. If it was received as apostolic truth in his view, I do not believe he would not have described this doctrine in the manner he did. Given the testimony of one of the earliest champions of this heresy, Origen, we can rule out that this was apostolic tradition.

We have certainty that St. Irenaeus did not teach it, and in fact, taught the opposite. Origen speculates differently than Irenaeus. Many are convinced by Origen. But, ultimately, his speculation was rejected by a former Origenist at a Synod of Alexandria in AD 400, then again by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 543. Just because one can speculate about what Scripture may have meant, and give a plausible interpretation, that doesn’t mean that this is in fact what the apostles taught. One has to look at both internal and external evidence to understand the correct sense of Scritpure. The teaching passed on from the apostles, in St. Ireaneus’ view, was clearly that hell was everlasting. Origen’s contrary opinion was rejected then, and it ought to be rejected now.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So, for ever and ever does not mean literally “endless” or “eternal”.

So goes the claim of the Universalists. However, St. Irenaeus, writing well before Origen, disagrees in the context of punishment of the damned, correct?

Just because a word does not always have to mean “endless,” does not necessarily mean that in a specific context, it does not in fact mean specifically “endless.”

Internal evidence is insufficient, in my view. You need to look to external evidence. How did the earliest fathers understand damnation of the wicked?

 

[michael8975]

Gunner:

I came across this sermon recently which is quite sobering. It is something to be printed off and meditated on. The full sermon is at olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml Once you have done this, please comment. This is important for every catholic to get a grip of. Share it with your friends and family.

The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved

by St. Leonard of Port Maurice

Saint Leonard of Port Maurice was a most holy Franciscan friar who lived at the monastery of Saint Bonaventure in Rome. He was one of the greatest missioners in the history of the Church. He used to preach to thousands in the open square of every city and town where the churches could not hold his listeners. So brilliant and holy was his eloquence that once when he gave a two weeks’ mission in Rome, the Pope and College of Cardinals came to hear him. The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and the veneration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus were his crusades. He was in no small way responsible for the definition of the Immaculate Conception made a little more than a hundred years after his death. He also gave us the Divine Praises, which are said at the end of Benediction. But Saint Leonard’s most famous work was his devotion to the Stations of the Cross. He died a most holy death in his seventy-fifth year, after twenty-four years of uninterrupted preaching.

One of Saint Leonard of Port Maurice’s most famous sermons was “The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved.” It was the one he relied on for the conversion of great sinners. This sermon, like his other writings, was submitted to canonical examination during the process of canonization. In it he reviews the various states of life of Christians and concludes with the little number of those who are saved, in relation to the totality of men.

The reader who meditates on this remarkable text will grasp the soundness of its argumentation, which has earned it the approbation of the Church. Here is the great missionary’s vibrant and moving sermon. For sermon go to olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml

Gunner,
Sobering wouldn’t begin to describe this sermon. I had to take breaks from reading it, as it was quite a bit to take in at once. What was most surprising was the amount of priests that were lost according to Saint Leonard. It truly gives you an idea of how serious our sin and situation is.