Hell and everlasting punishment

[itsjustdave1988]

I understand St. Irenaeus was “who he was”. He was a learned man. So was Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. That’s my point. All these men were learned men. Each had a different viewpoint. They belonged to the same Church too!

But are you aware the Origen, in presenting his theology of apokatastasis, described it as speculative? Out of his own mouth, he testifies that this teaching is merely an “exercise”!!! I will look for the quote. Students of Origen, such as Gregory of Nyssa, ought to have considered this when asserting his claims. Ultimately, they were rejected by the Church. After which, Heb 13:17 is applicable…

NASB Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”

I have no doubt that Origen, if he were alive when this doctrine was formally rejected, he would have submitted to the judgement of the Church.

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

Moses and the prophets are silent about many thing regarding Christianity, don’t you think? The revelation to these was not complete. With Christ and the apostles, it was materially complete. Obvisously, even in the first century, Jews were conflicted regarding the resurrection of bodies (Sadducees versus Pharisees). Given this fact, I’m not suprised that the material revelation given to Moses and the prophets lacks unambiguous evidence to an everlasting punishment of the damned.

I wholeheartedly agree that the full revelation was yet to come - until the coming of Jesus. The fact that those two groups conflicted about it tells me that one of them knew something about it, doesn’t it? Where did the Pharisees get the idea of a resurrection? The Sadduccees either didn’t know or refused to admit it.

Given the wickedness displayed from the onset - I am amazed that Cain was consigned to “hell” that all the wicked during the flood weren’t consigned to “hell”, David with his adultery, etc, etc.
It should be screamed from the housetops to the Israelite people (the people God chose for an inheritance) that such wickedness resulted in eternal punishing in a fiery hell.

The fact that there is silence about this never-ending penalty for a short lifetime on earth “speaks” volumes to the fact that the doctrine of everlasting fiery punishment in hell is false.

Peace…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I hold my arguments on the original manuscripts and the meanings of the words therein.

I understand. But as I’ve tried to point out, the word “aionios” can mean various things. Which one you THINK it means is speculative. Thus, Sola Scriptura fails yet again.

The external evidence shows us that the earliest unambiguous testimony regarding this issue, given by St. Irenaeus, a Greek speaking/writing/reading father, is in accord with what the Church ultimately judged to be the authentic meaning of Scripture.

We can re-open this case and pretend our understanding of the Greek is better than there’s, but that’s not convincing. A council of Greek fathers in in Alexandria in AD 400 probably was better equipped to evaluate this topic than we are, and were better equipped to interpret a 5th century Greek manuscript than we are, 1500 years later.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

that such wickedness resulted in eternal punishing in a fiery hell.

If I remember correctly, from my studies of Judaism many moons ago in my undergraduate classes, early Jews believed the punishment of the wicked was to be remembered for all eternity as wicked (or merely not fondly remembered at all), and the reward of the just was to be remembered for all eternity as righteous. Thus, I do believe they understood their punishment and reward as everlasting through time.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

This is how Origen prefaced his discussion of universal restoration:

These subjects, indeed, are treated by us with great solicitude and caution, in the manner rather of an investigation and discussion, than in that of fixed and certain decision. For we have pointed out in the preceding pages those questions which must be set forth in clear dogmatic propositions, as I think has been done to the best of my ability when speaking of the Trinity. But **on the present occasion our exercise is to be conducted, as we best may, in the style of a disputation rather than of strict definition. **

(Origen, *De principiis, *Bk I, Chap. VI, par. 1)

Origen himself, admits uncertainty in this doctrine. More of a “disputation” or “exercise” rather than a matter of defined dogma.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ahimsaman72,

I know you’ve signed off for now and I don’t want to blast you with too many questions, but you assert: “Purification and restoration of all mankind.” Origen included the universal restoration of all God’s creatures. Do you reject the notion that the wicked angels will be restored? If so, why exclude some of God’s creatures but not all from eternal punishment?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

given the wickedness displayed in the OT, it’s compelling and carries much weight that the fiery burning hell is not mentioned - only sheol and hades which are “the place of the dead” and “the grave”.

It is mentioned in our OT, written by a Palestinian Jew, probably in the beginning of the first century BC:

“The Lord Almighty will requite them; in the day of judgment he will punish them: He will send fire and worms into their flesh, and they shall burn and suffer forever.” (Judith 16:17; NAB).

Jews consider the Book of Judith to be hagiography, whereas the 4th century Christian Church canonized it as Sacred Scripture when they canonized the OT and NT.

According the Jewish eschatology, “… the punishment of those who have led others into heresy or dealt treacherously against the Law will never cease (Tosef., Sanh. xiii. 5).” {Jewish Encyclopedia, “Eschatology” jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=460&letter=E#1239}

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

This is how Origen prefaced his discussion of universal restoration:
Origen himself, admits uncertainty in this doctrine. More of a “disputation” or “exercise” rather than a matter of defined dogma.

Thanks for the info - do you have access to the whole document? Is it somewhere online?

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

I understand. But as I’ve tried to point out, the word “aionios” can mean various things. Which one you THINK it means is speculative. Thus, Sola Scriptura fails yet again.

The external evidence shows us that the earliest unambiguous testimony regarding this issue, given by St. Irenaeus, a Greek speaking/writing/reading father, is in accord with what the Church ultimately judged to be the authentic meaning of Scripture.

We can re-open this case and pretend our understanding of the Greek is better than there’s, but that’s not convincing. A council of Greek fathers in in Alexandria in AD 400 probably was better equipped to evaluate this topic than we are, and were better equipped to interpret a 5th century Greek manuscript than we are, 1500 years later.

Good points.

When I look at all the instances of “aionios” or its root “aion”, I do not see endless. If you go to the text with the view that the end result of the word is endless, you will find endless.

My quest started when I began to study “hell”. Then, naturally the duration of “hell”, then naturally the salvation of all.

It’s all encompassing. Even if we were unsure about some passages in relation to duration - there’s still linking issues that should confirm places that seem ambiguous to us.

I understand the logic that these learned men met and denounced the teaching and that their understanding of Greek was excellent. I would of course question their motives.

Thomas B. Thayer (who someone has already noted as being a universalist) wrote a piece entitled, “The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless punishment.” It can be found here:
www.tentmaker.org/books/OriginandHistory.html

He gives some persuasive arguments concerning the rollover of the heathen idea of a burning hell into Christianity. I would hesitate to repeat it here.

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

God is perfectly just in correcting His creation. It is unjust to accuse Him of exacting a penalty which is greater than the crime itself.

a grave offense against an infinite god is itself infinitely bad. thus, endlessly punishable.

Yes, you see, I saw “free will” and immediately wanted to throw that out the window.

Ephesians 1:9-10

1. That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
2. In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

There are many other verses as well, but this one sticks out to me. God predestined all men. He foreordained it and He will accomplish it. And what is His will?

his will is that we freely choose to do the right (or wrong) thing. and to reward us accordingly.

we’re “foreordained” in the sense that god knew where we would end up - heaven or hell - before he created this world, out of the infinite number of worlds he could have created. and he created it anyway.

He will do as He pleases. We cannot change that.

amen.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ahimsaman72:

Thanks for the info - do you have access to the whole document? Is it somewhere online?

See here…

Origen de Principiis

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

a grave offense against an infinite god is itself infinitely bad. thus, endlessly punishable.

his will is that we freely choose to do the right (or wrong) thing. and to reward us accordingly.

we’re “foreordained” in the sense that god knew where we would end up - heaven or hell - before he created this world, out of the infinite number of worlds he could have created. and he created it anyway.

amen.

But the “grave offense” was committed by a finite human. So, there are two sides to this. You have the finite human failings against an infinite perfect God. Who is more responsible for their actions - the man or God?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

When I look at all the instances of “aionios” or its root “aion”, I do not see endless. If you go to the text with the view that the end result of the word is endless, you will find endless.

Can you perhaps comment on Matt 25:46?

Matt 25:46 uses Aionios twice, once to describe eternal punishment, and once to describe life in heaven.

KJV Matt 25:46 “And these shall go away into everlasting (aionios) punishment: but the righteous into life eternal (aionios).”

Greek NT: Matt 25:46 “και απελευσονται ουτοι εις κολασιν αιωνιον (EVERLASTING) οι δε δικαιοι εις ζωην αιωνιον (ETERNAL)”

Isn’t the usage of “life eternal” where aionios is clearly intending everlasting life, that is, for ever and ever without end? Or do you contend that life is also not endless?

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

we’re “foreordained” in the sense that god knew where we would end up - heaven or hell - before he created this world, out of the infinite number of worlds he could have created. and he created it anyway.

amen.

So, then you would posit that the perfect and infinite God created humans - knowing they would fall (of their own free will) and that some would end up in this “everlasting hell” in which He would see that same creation burn throughout eternity because they committed a “mortal sin” which was unrepented of.

It maligns the benevolent character of God.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Even if we were unsure about some passages in relation to duration - there’s still linking issues that should confirm places that seem ambiguous to us.

In practice, it seems readers of Scripture have been drawing separate conclusions for two millenium now, no? The history of variant opinions on this seems to indicate that the internal evidence is still ambiguous, no matter how much we would like to pretend otherwise.

Origen, I’m sure, had all the best intentions. He was seemingly influenced by a Platonic philosophical worldview, however. We bring our worldviews to Scripture when we read it, and this cannot be helped. The post-reformation worldview was radically different (eg. Hobbsian, existentialism, etc) than that of the first century Christians, so it’s no wonder that there are such a plethora of doctrines that were previously held that are now “uncertain” within reformation-minded Scripture readers.

The best we can do is try to learn what the worldview of the 1st century writers most likely could have been. This demands that we look at internal AND external evidence by looking to contemporary sources, and sources before and immediately following the first century (eg. the Book of Judith, the writings of Irenaeus, Origen, etc.). Admittedly, a very subjective endeavor. However, what seems unambigous is that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” and not necessarily every interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Arius made this very clear in Athanasius’ day. The surest means of sifting through orthodox understandings of Scripture from heterodox or heretical views, was to look to the origen of such teachings. In Athanasius’ view, was the teaching that which was delivered to us by Scripture AND apostolical men? Athanasius asserts that Arius’ view would not have been heretical if apostolical men also taught such a doctrine.

Thus, we obey the leaders charged with the care of our souls (cf. Heb 13:17), just as the circumcisor party ought to have obeyed the decrees sent forth from the council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts. After which, the case is closed, excepting those who have a rather heterodox understanding of devotion to apostolic teaching.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

He gives some persuasive arguments concerning the rollover of the heathen idea of a burning hell into Christianity. I would hesitate to repeat it here.

I’ve read similar arguments with regard to the rollover of pagan views to a resurrected God, and other solidly Christian doctrines. However, similarity does not prove causality. If A is similar to B. The following may be true: 1) A caused B. 2) B caused A. or 3) A and B have no causal relationship and the similarities are merely coincidental.

I believe Thayer was a Universalist Unitarian who rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. So, for me, he is no more convincing than Arius was to Athanasius, although the arguments of Arius were considered persuasive as well by many in the early Church. Not all things clever are true, however. Are Arianism was rejected thanks to the orthodox rule of faith championed by Athanasius, which looked to councilar judgment of the worldwide church as definitive.

Nonetheless, even though he reject the doctrine of an everlasting hell, he admits that aionios can and does mean “without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be” in some instances or “without end, never to cease, everlasting” (Thayer’s Lexicon, “aionios”)

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

Can you perhaps comment on Matt 25:46?

Matt 25:46 uses Aionios twice, once to describe eternal punishment, and once to describe life in heaven.

KJV Matt 25:46 “And these shall go away into everlasting (aionios) punishment: but the righteous into life eternal (aionios).”

Greek NT: Matt 25:46 “και απελευσονται ουτοι εις κολασιν αιωνιον (EVERLASTING) οι δε δικαιοι εις ζωην αιωνιον (ETERNAL)”

Isn’t the usage of “life eternal” where aionios is clearly intending everlasting life, that is, for ever and ever without end? Or do you contend that life is also not endless?

This is a very good point and is a common objection.

This is the only time in Scripture that the words “eternal” and “punishment” are used in conjunction with one another.

As you noticed, the Greek word “aionios” is used in both places - before life and before punishment.

“eternal punishment” is “aionios kolasin”. Kolasin can mean correction or penalty.

Young’s Literal Translation (and others) translates the verse as:

“And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during”

Many have approached this seeming fault in thinking by stating that still - “aionios” can mean different durations even within the context of one verse and that “aionios zoe” (eternal life) has a greater aspect of quality than quantity. I shared this on another post as well.

It must be noted that the passage doesn’t mention “heaven”. It mentions a kind of life that can experienced with God.

---

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

In practice, it seems readers of Scripture have been drawing separate conclusions for two millenium now, no? The history of variant opinions on this seems to indicate that the internal evidence is still ambiguous, no matter how much we would like to pretend otherwise.

Origen, I’m sure, had all the best intentions. He was seemingly influenced by a Platonic philosophical worldview, however. We bring our worldviews to Scripture when we read it, and this cannot be helped. The post-reformation worldview was radically different (eg. Hobbsian, existentialism, etc) than that of the first century Christians, so it’s no wonder that there are such a plethora of doctrines that were previously held that are now “uncertain” within reformation-minded Scripture readers.

The best we can do is try to learn what the worldview of the 1st century writers most likely could have been. This demands that we look at internal AND external evidence by looking to contemporary sources, and sources before and immediately following the first century (eg. the Book of Judith, the writings of Irenaeus, Origen, etc.). Admittedly, a very subjective endeavor. However, what seems unambigous is that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” and not necessarily every interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Arius made this very clear in Athanasius’ day. The surest means of sifting through orthodox understandings of Scripture from heterodox or heretical views, was to look to the origen of such teachings. In Athanasius’ view, was the teaching that which was delivered to us by Scripture AND apostolical men? Athanasius asserts that Arius’ view would not have been heretical if apostolical men also taught such a doctrine.

Thus, we obey the leaders charged with the care of our souls (cf. Heb 13:17), just as the circumcisor party ought to have obeyed the decrees sent forth from the council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts. After which, the case is closed, excepting those who have a rather heterodox understanding of devotion to apostolic teaching.

Very well put.

Of course, I would say that all men are fallible, even the men that built up the church (the apostles). Rom. 3:23, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Which bolsters my viewpoint that only God truly has perfect knowledge. Therefore, we have imperfect knowledge and understanding. We will be corrected by God for the wrongs we have done and the false beliefs we have held. He will purify us and save us all.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You mix the notions of infallibility with impeccability. The former refers to absolute certainty in accepting apostolic teaching as being that which God would have us believe. The latter refers to the ability of these human beings to sin. Certainly, apostles did and could sin. I disagree that they ever formally taught doctrines contrary to God’s will, however, as they were called by God the “pillar and foundation of truth.” The Word of God has power, and it does what it intends. When God said “Let there be light” the power of his Word alone made it so. Such is the case with the power of His words: “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” (NASB 1 Tim 3:15). Those truths formally and universally taught by these men could not be contrary to truth or 1 Tim 3:15 is made nonsensical. Obedience in accord with Heb 13:17 could actually be a danger to the faith. I don’t suppose God would let that occur.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ahimsaman72:

… Therefore, we have imperfect knowledge and understanding. We will be corrected by God for the wrongs we have done and the false beliefs we have held. He will purify us and save us all.

True of every living creature, no matter what they believe. So, Univeralist Unitarians are right (I used to attend a UU church)? It doesn’t matter what we believe or do, because in the end, it’s all good? Shirley McClain’s doctrine of reincarnation included. We will all be purified, no matter if believe in Christ or not, right? Even the fallen angels will be one with God? One big happy family in the end? I don’t get that impression from Sacred Scripture. In fact, it’s the proverbial missing chapter from the Apocalypse. In protestant-speak, it’s a “tradition of men.”