Hell and everlasting punishment

[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?

I wanted to add a note on this:

There are other Greek sources outside of the NT Greek Scriptures which deal with “kolasis” (punishment) as used in the above verse.

Aristotle wrote, “But there is a difference between revenge and punishment; the latter (kolasis) is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer, the former in the interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction.” (Rhetoric 1369b,13)

Plato wrote, “For if you will consider punishment, Socrates, and what control it has over wrong-doers, the facts will inform you that men agree in regarding virtue as procured.” (Protagoras 324)

The implication here is that the function of punishment is to correct behavior and produce virtue from that correction.

It would not be corrective to place someone in an everlasting hell if there was no way to get out of it. That only serves a revengeful purpose.

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

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.

sure. he created beings that he knew would, in effect, say “screw you - i don’t want to be with you. i hate you”, and whose choice he would respect.

It maligns the benevolent character of God.

why?

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

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.”

Universalists inevitably disagree on whether or not the Devil and demons were restored - as Origen is said to have believed.

Either way, as I have shown, punishment is meant to be corrective - which means hope of a future. There is no future for those who are reportedly going to burn and live in torment in “hell”.

Yes, all will be purified and confess Jesus Christ as Lord as the Scriptures say. Romans 14:11,12

1. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
2. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

And as Romans 10:9, states:

1. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

There is no license to sin to be found in the Bible. There are countless mentions of obedience and the expectations God has. This simply means that because we are imperfect and will indeed sin at one point or another - we can be made right with God and will be made right with God.

It is His will.

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

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.

It would seem that if God is One, and the God we read of in Scripture seems to have a truly intense hatred of sin – to the point that his reaction is described as fire and torment all over both Testaments – then we need to deal with the fact that his Love and his Wrath are one. His Mercy and his Judgment are one.

When we speak of being “saved,” what do we think we are saved “from?” I suggest that we are saved from God himself, from God’s perfect justice.

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

It would seem that if God is One, and the God we read of in Scripture seems to have a truly intense hatred of sin – to the point that his reaction is described as fire and torment all over both Testaments – then we need to deal with the fact that his Love and his Wrath are one. His Mercy and his Judgment are one.

When we speak of being “saved,” what do we think we are saved “from?” I suggest that we are saved from God himself, from God’s perfect justice.

His mercy and judgement are one. This is precisely my point. He judges, corrects and has mercy on His creation.

We are not saved from God Himself (as many people believe). We are saved from sin, not God. Why? Because He has already provided victory over sin and death - through His precious Son, Jesus.

Go back to the Garden of Eden with me briefly. Eve sinned - Adam sinned. God pronounced judgement. What was His divine judgement? Death.

God specifically said, “For in the day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die.” We are saved from death and “hell” which are going to be thrown into the “lake of fire” at the end of time. Look here:

Rev. 20:13-15

1. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
2. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
3. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The Greek word for fire here is “pur”. Now, what words have come down to us from that word?

The first death was our mortal bodies in regards to sin.
The second death is our spiritual bodies in regards to sin.

We will be purged - then restored. There will be no more death and no use for “hell” (that is - “hades” In Biblical Greek. It is associated with Orcus, the infernal regions, a dark and dismal place in the very depths of the earth, the common receptacle of disembodied spirits. Usually Hades is just the abode of the wicked, Lu. 16:23, Rev. 20:13,14; a very uncomfortable place"
(source: Strong’s Concordance - can be found here:

blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/8/1101321004-4125.html

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

sure. he created beings that he knew would, in effect, say “screw you - i don’t want to be with you. i hate you”, and whose choice he would respect.

why?

Would you, in fact, have a baby that you knew (because of your foreknowledge) would reject you and suffer eternally in “hell fire” and watch that scene “eternally”?

It maligns His character because you wouldn’t do such a thing and to say that God would do such a thing is a malignment of His character.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Either way, as I have shown, punishment is meant to be corrective - which means hope of a future. There is no future for those who are reportedly going to burn and live in torment in “hell”.

Not always. Thayer recognized the usage you cite, but goes on to state that this usage is not the ONLY usage, right? He states “usage … does not always recognize the distinctions” that was cited in Plato, et al. Observe,

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1101319839-2204.html

And so those much closer to apostolic times than Plato testify to a different usage expressly different that that of Plato. For example, the Greek writing/speaking/reading father, St. Justin Martyr (b. AD 100, d. AD 165) states:

This, then, to speak shortly, is what we expect and have learned from Christ, and teach. And Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years. (1st Apology, 8)

And even earlier, from St. Clement of Rome (ca. AD 80):

the Lord thus making it manifest that He does not forsake those who hope in Him, but gives up those who depart from Him to punishment and torture. [First Epistle to Corinthians, 11]

The fate of those who have hope in Him is to not be foresaken. This is contrasted to the fate of those who depart from Him.

And another letter attributed to St. Clement but probably not written by him, but is thought to be an anonymous homily of the mid-second century…

For if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; otherwise, nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we disobey His commandments. (Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 6)

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

Would you, in fact, have a baby that you knew (because of your foreknowledge) would reject you and suffer eternally in “hell fire” and watch that scene “eternally”?

yes. especially if i knew that accepting such unfortunate consequences was the only way to achieve an infinite good, like the creation of millions of other free spiritual beings who would choose eternal bliss with me.

It maligns His character because you wouldn’t do such a thing and to say that God would do such a thing is a malignment of His character.

well, as i said, i would do such a thing.

also, trying to fathom the mind and motivations of an eternal, infinite, all-powerful god is the very definition of futile.

how is this reasoning of yours any different from that employed by job and his interlocutors as they attempted to figure out why god was leaning so heavily on the poor man?

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

Not always. Thayer recognized the usage you cite, but goes on to state that this usage is not the ONLY usage, right? He states “usage … does not always recognize the distinctions” that was cited in Plato, et al. Observe,

And so those much closer to apostolic times than Plato testify to a different usage expressly different that that of Plato. For example, the Greek writing/speaking/reading father, St. Justin Martyr (b. AD 100, d. AD 165) states:
And even earlier, from St. Clement of Rome (ca. AD 80):
The fate of those who have hope in Him is to not be foresaken. This is contrasted to the fate of those who depart from Him.

And another letter attributed to St. Clement but probably not written by him, but is thought to be an anonymous homily of the mid-second century…

Thanks for your post here. You have dug up some useful information. I want to point out a couple of things (of course )

Note the passage you cited at the end:

but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years. (1st Apology, 8) (emphasis mine)

---

He was referring to a limited amount of time, wasn’t he?

Notice the concordance cited a synonym for kolasin and I believe it is this synonym that he was referring to.

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

yes. especially if i knew that accepting such unfortunate consequences was the only way to achieve an infinite good, like the creation of millions of other free spiritual beings who would choose eternal bliss with me.

well, as i said, i would do such a thing.

also, trying to fathom the mind and motivations of an eternal, infinite, all-powerful god is the very definition of futile.

how is this reasoning of yours any different from that employed by job and his interlocutors as they attempted to figure out why god was leaning so heavily on the poor man?

What is the infinite good you speak of? I can think of no infinite good in roasting your creation eternally - especially if there’s no chance at redeeming yourself.

I’m sorry you feel that way.

Job went through many trials. He survived though, didn’t he? He lost everything physically around him (almost) yet his relationship with God was strengthened and in the end he was blessed more than before.

If Job would’ve been destroyed himself, then where is the purpose? God’s purpose was to draw Job near him, not annihilate him. He has the same purpose for us - to cleanse us from sin and draw us near Him.

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

If he [judas] had never been born, he would have never experienced the suffering and anguish of denying the Messiah. So, Christ was right in saying what He did (of course).

but how can the experience of suffering and anguish of betraying the messiah even remotely compare to the eternal bliss that judas will, in fact, experience if all sinners eventually find their way to heaven?

see what i mean? if you’re right about the restoration of all creation, then judas will one day be eternally happy in heaven. seeing god as he is, face to face, in heaven for all eternity is very, very good. it is difficult to imagine anything better.

but despite judas’ final reconciliation with god, jesus still says that it would have been better for judas not have been born. which means that judas’ experience of suffering and anguish of betrayal has to have been so bad, that it is actually worse than whatever good will be involved in judas’ achieving salvation.

to me, that strains credibility. a lot.

 

[john_doran]

what’s more, if everyone evenutally gets to heaven, why should we need to work out or faith in fear and trembling? i mean, no matter what you do, you’re going to heaven…

right?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Doesn’t God forsake some? 2 Chr 15:2 “… but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you.” What does forsake mean? From Webster: “to renounce or turn away from entirely.” It is synonymous to “abandon.”

St. Clement, a first century bishop of Rome in the above citation contrasts those who have hope in Jesus as not forsaken, to those who are punished and tormented. In otherwords, they ARE forsaken by God. It is in this sense that Clement in the 1st century usage of Greek that he intends the words “punishment” and “torture.” It is clearly used by Clement as a penalty, not as a merely a correction to those being penalized.

And from Irenaeus, and his usage of Greek word for “punishment”: “thus also the punishment of those who do not believe the Word of God, and despise His advent, and are turned away backwards, is increased; being not merely temporal, but rendered also eternal.”

These men were much closer to the fountain of truth than Plato. Yet, they were not the first or the only Greek writers to use “punishment” in this way. As admitted by Thayer, Philo (b. 25 BC) and Plutarch (b. 45, d. 120) also did not make the distinction that Plato made.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ahimsaman72:

Thanks for your post here. You have dug up some useful information. I want to point out a couple of things (of course )

Note the passage you cited at the end:

but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years. (1st Apology, 8) (emphasis mine)

He was referring to a limited amount of time, wasn’t he?

Notice the concordance cited a synonym for kolasin and I believe it is this synonym that he was referring to.

Correct. Plato, far removed from the first century usage of Greek language, used “punishment” contrarily than St. Justin, who was born in AD 100. Justin was a Greek expert, writing/reading/speaking in koine Greek. His usage was only decades after the writing of Scripture, whereas the usage of Plato (427-347 BC) was centuries before. Considered the 1611 KJV English to today’s English usage of words, and you should better understand my point.

Whose Greek was more closely aligned with the usage to that of the apostles? Justin or Plato? I can’t say that Plato’s usage was convincingly the same as that usage hundreds of years later. It is more likely that Justin’s usage more closely resembled the Biblical Greek usage, as he wrote only decades after the death of the last apostle.

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

What is the infinite good you speak of? I can think of no infinite good in roasting your creation eternally - especially if there’s no chance at redeeming yourself.

the infinite good of free sp[iitual beings enjoying the eternal bliss of god’s presence.

Job went through many trials. He survived though, didn’t he? He lost everything physically around him (almost) yet his relationship with God was strengthened and in the end he was blessed more than before.

If Job would’ve been destroyed himself, then where is the purpose? God’s purpose was to draw Job near him, not annihilate him. He has the same purpose for us - to cleanse us from sin and draw us near Him.you miss my point. you’re trying to determine why god does what he does. like job and his friends did. that made god mad. because it’s ultimately absurd to believe that one could have any hope of perceiving the mind and thoughts of god…

1] Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind:
2] "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3] Gird up your loins like a man,
I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
4] "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5] Who determined its measurements – surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6] On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7] when the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8] "Or who shut in the sea with doors,
when it burst forth from the womb;
9] when I made clouds its garment,
and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10] and prescribed bounds for it,
and set bars and doors,
11] and said, `Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Greek word for fire here is “pur”.

Yes. And many Greek fathers understood this. However, they certainly insisted upon doctrines disimilar to apokatastasis.

Catholics don’t deny a purgatorial punishment. That’s why we assert the doctrine of purgatory. However, the earliest testimony of what Scripture means by the aionios of the just is the same as the meaining of aionios of the wicked. You can’t have it both ways. If the just are to live without end in the presence of God, then the wicked will live without end in the “pur” spoken of in the Apocalypse. This testimony, of course, by people who spoke/read/wrote in biblical Greek, having much better understanding of this language than Plato or any modern Greek scholar.

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

but how can the experience of suffering and anguish of betraying the messiah even remotely compare to the eternal bliss that judas will, in fact, experience if all sinners eventually find their way to heaven?

see what i mean? if you’re right about the restoration of all creation, then judas will one day be eternally happy in heaven. seeing god as he is, face to face, in heaven for all eternity is very, very good. it is difficult to imagine anything better.

but despite judas’ final reconciliation with god, jesus still says that it would have been better for judas not have been born. which means that judas’ experience of suffering and anguish of betrayal has to have been so bad, that it is actually worse than whatever good will be involved in judas’ achieving salvation.

to me, that strains credibility. a lot.

Yes, I believe based on solid evidence that even Judas will be restored to fellowship with God.

I see your logic here, but we are speaking of one unique situation with Judas that is unlike any in recorded history.

This item in no way destroys the countless passages that speak of universal salvation and restoration.

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

what’s more, if everyone evenutally gets to heaven, why should we need to work out or faith in fear and trembling? i mean, no matter what you do, you’re going to heaven…

right?

Aye, friend, but it is the process which is important. We could have been created like the angels and not experienced the human life and suffering and happiness, but then we wouldn’t have firsthand knowledge of “good and evil”. I believe the angels are envious of us.

As I already have said, God will correct and punish and He will do it justly. We do not have a license to sin. If all one wants is fire insurance from hell to live a godly life, then I’m afraid one has no faith in Christ at all. (I’m not speaking of you specifically).

Obedience is a common theme throughout Scripture.

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

Doesn’t God forsake some? 2 Chr 15:2 “… but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you.” What does forsake mean? From Webster: “to renounce or turn away from entirely.” It is synonymous to “abandon.”

St. Clement, a first century bishop of Rome in the above citation contrasts those who have hope in Jesus as not forsaken, to those who are punished and tormented. In otherwords, they ARE forsaken by God. It is in this sense that Clement in the 1st century usage of Greek that he intends the words “punishment” and “torture.” It is clearly used by Clement as a penalty, not as a merely a correction to those being penalized.

And from Irenaeus, and his usage of Greek word for “punishment”: “thus also the punishment of those who do not believe the Word of God, and despise His advent, and are turned away backwards, is increased; being not merely temporal, but rendered also eternal.”

These men were much closer to the fountain of truth than Plato. Yet, they were not the first or the only Greek writers to use “punishment” in this way. As admitted by Thayer, Philo (b. 25 BC) and Plutarch (b. 45, d. 120) also did not make the distinction that Plato made.

No, he will not forsake us - not indefinitely. He may turn his back on us for a season, but not forever and ever and ever and ever.

Deuteronomy 31:6

1. Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the Lord thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.

Hebrews 13:5

1. Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

---

Romans 11:26

---

1. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
   27. For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

---

---

 

[Strider]

As fascinating as this thread is, this is another case of a Protestant coming up with a “New Idea,” and expounding on it. I mean no disrespect to ahimsaman, but since apokatasis was declared the first “anathema” at the Council of Constantinople in 543, the Church has already looked at, examined and discarded the notion.
Despire the fact that several reformers were enamored of the idea, it is, for all practical purposes, a dead issue.
See

newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

for the details.
Of course, if you want to continue kicking this deceased equine, by all means, enjoy yourselves.
As for me, I’ll be looking for a controversy that’s a little more contemporary, like mybe Arianism. The JW’s still teach that.