Hell and everlasting punishment

[itsjustdave1988]

No, he will not forsake us …

You are mixing those who do not forsake Him with those who do. Show me in Scripture where God ended his forsaking of someone. He foresakes. Has he ever ended his foresakenness according to Scripture? Again, we are speaking of the lost chapter of the Apocalypse, right?

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

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.

But admittedly, the Scriptures were written before St. Justin and the writings of Plato were earlier. So the writings of Plato were the foundation of the Greek world.

I see your point. It’s the point I’ve been trying to make about the use of the word “hell” itself. It’s an old English word that used to mean something that is not the same today. “Hell” is deriived from “heel”. It meant “covered” originally - such as a covered grave. But now, it has come to mean something totally foreign to the original manuscripts.

 

[ahimsaman72]

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.

Thanks for your post. My intent was to discuss the issue and “throw it around” the table. It is by discussing/debating that we are either more convicted in our beliefs or we go another way. I’ve had some great and kind replies from many others.

This is certainly not a new idea as you have already intimated. It has been around for a very long time.

I don’t know of any original reformers who were enamored with the idea. If you know of some, please let me know .

Frankly, I enjoy discussing/debating and learning. Obviously, many others do as well.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

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

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…

By your estimation, to be a free spiritual being is the epitomy of existence. There’s no infinite good in confining a finite man in eternal fire and I’ve seen nothing that destroys that notion.

I’m contemplating the nature and character of God. It is not wrong to question God honestly. It is wrong to question with the wrong attitude and spirit.

Yes, I understand that as Isaiah 55:8-9 says,

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

We are made in the image of God, though. We can have some grasp.
[/quote]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In summary, your view is that of a confidence you have that aionios means one thing for the damned distinct from that of the just. I see no convincing evidence of this understanding. You’ve quoted Greek from Plato, but Plato’s Greek was not koine Greek, and the apostles’ Greek was.

I’ve quoted from the earliest fathers of the Church, such as Irenaeus, who clearly disagree with your understanding of Scripture. Nobody pounced on Irenaeus for teaching some innovative doctrine regarding this matter of everlasting punishment for the damned. I note that the early Church was quite eager to pounce on innovations, as the Easter controversy shows. However, when Origen came along decades later and taught apokatastasis as a “disputation” or “exercise” as distinct from that which had been taught before him, apokatastasis found its seed. Yet, Origen’s works, having come from a holy and respected Christian scholar, respected by both Greek and Latin fathers was still pounced upon by those within his own Alexandrian Church in AD 400 and again by the universal Church in AD 553 in Constantinople.

The internal evidence does nothing to refute the orthodoxy of these councils. I’m sure you see things differently. However, I consider it prideful, and a violation of Heb 13:17 to insist upon re-opening a case already definitively decided by the Church. In fact, I do believe apokatastasis is also rejected by the Southern Baptists, no?

Nonetheless, your interpretation of Scripture is contrary to the vast majority of Christian scholars even today, not even considering the Church for the past 2000 years. Pride often re-surfaces heresies of old, as if such ideas were not properly evaluated for heterodoxy or orthodoxy by past Christians, as if the Spirit was not at work in them but skipped the past 2000 years, laying dormant until the reformation period. For example, I have even found protestants who discount the Epistle of James as the Word of God, still today. I find such never-ending protest unconvincing.

We will simply have to agree to disagree. Hopefully you will attempt to see things from my perspective. Having fled from my previous stint in the Universalist Unitarian Church, I’ve already attempted to see things from this persepective, and I found it wanting.

May the Holy Spirit guide you in your studies.

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

You are mixing those who do not forsake Him with those who do. Show me in Scripture where God ended his forsaking of someone. He foresakes. Has he ever ended his foresakenness according to Scripture? Again, we are speaking of the lost chapter of the Apocalypse, right?

Deuteronomy 4:31

1. (For the Lord thy God is a merciful God) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

God has not forsaken Israel as I have already stated before. All Israel will be saved (future event).

Deuteronomy 31:16-18

1. And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.
2. Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?
3. And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods.

Israel did go “a-whoring” after the gods of the strangers of the land and God said He would forsake them. But, they were not were they? They were enslaved for 400 years, endured the tribulations in the wilderness and made it out. And of course, now in 1952? they are a nation again after ?years.

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

By your estimation, to be a free spiritual being is the epitomy of existence. There’s no infinite good in confining a finite man in eternal fire and I’ve seen nothing that destroys that notion.

perhaps not, but the good of people-and-angels-in-heaven outweighs the bad of people-and-angels-in-hell. and the good of freely-chosen good acts outweighs the bad of freely-chosen bad-acts. and you can’t have one without the other.

It is not wrong to question God honestly. It is wrong to question with the wrong attitude and spirit.

i’m not saying it’s wrong. i’m saying it’s pointless.

We are made in the image of God, though. We can have some grasp.

but we do have some grasp: we can grasp that an all-good, all-loving god can respect the wishes of his creatures to be punished painfully for all eternity. because that’s what he has told us he will do.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Israel did go “a-whoring” after the gods of the strangers of the land and God said He would forsake them. But, they were not were they?

Your understanding of “Israel” differs from mine. As your Calvinist apologetic often states: " ‘All’ does not always mean each and every one." So “ALL” of Israel can mean something different from every individual member of Israel. Not every individual member of Israel was forsaken by God.

Israel is the olive tree that the believing Jews remained a part of in NT times, and the non-believing Jews were pruned from, and the believing Gentiles were grafted upon. It has nothing to do with the modern state of Israel.

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

Your understanding of “Israel” differs from mine. As your Calvinist apologetic often states: " ‘All’ does not always mean each and every one." So “ALL” of Israel can mean something different from every individual member of Israel. Not every individual member of Israel was forsaken by God.

Israel is the olive tree that the believing Jews remained a part of in NT times, and the non-believing Jews were pruned from, and the believing Gentiles were grafted upon. It has nothing to do with the modern state of Israel.

Yes, there’s different definitions of Israel, I agree.

But in the example I presented you with - God said he would forsake the nation of Israel (though ‘nation of’ is not stated) and it is obvious that he did not forsake the nation of Israel.

We Gentiles who are believers are not Jews by birth but are called “spiritual Israel”.

The epistle to the Romans speaks at length concerning this.

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

perhaps not, but the good of people-and-angels-in-heaven outweighs the bad of people-and-angels-in-hell. and the good of freely-chosen good acts outweighs the bad of freely-chosen bad-acts. and you can’t have one without the other.

Not in my estimation

i’m not saying it’s wrong. i’m saying it’s pointless.

but we do have some grasp: we can grasp that an all-good, all-loving god can respect the wishes of his creatures to be punished painfully for all eternity. because that’s what he has told us he will do.

It is not the wishes of his creatures to be punished painfully for all eternity. That’s like saying children want to grow up to be drug addicts. Who, as an 8 year old wants to become a drug addict?

When you realize that it is within God’s power to stop sin and death (which He has done through the sacrifice of Christ) and that it is His will that all be saved - I Timothy 2:4, many things fall into place.

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

Not in my estimation

not to put to fine a point on it, but only god’s estimation matters.

It is not the wishes of his creatures to be punished painfully for all eternity. That’s like saying children want to grow up to be drug addicts. Who, as an 8 year old wants to become a drug addict?

it’s their wish not to be with god, and hell’s the only alternative. choosing not to be with god but not to be in hell is like choosing to draw a square but not draw a plane figure with four equal sides and equal interior angles, or like wanting to be really drunk but not wanting a hangover - it’s just what you get when you get what you want, like it or not.

When you realize that it is within God’s power to stop sin and death (which He has done through the sacrifice of Christ) and that it is His will that all be saved - I Timothy 2:4, many things fall into place.

how has sin been stopped? i still sin. and i will presumably die.

 

[Strider]

Here are some of the reformers. There are more to be found at the URL in my last post.

“The doctrine of apokatastasis viewed as a belief in a universal salvation is found among the Anabaptists, the Moravian Brethren, the Christadelphians, among rationalistic Protestants, and finally among the professed Universalists. It has been held, also, by such philosophic Protestants as Schleiermacher, and by a few theologians, Farrar, for instance, in England, Eckstein and Pfister in Germany, Matter in France.”

From the Catholic Encycloedia at New Advent.org

ahimsaman, nobody enjoys discussing, debating and learning more than I do, but I find it more proifitable to concentrate on more contemporary topics and issues. This one was settled 1500 years ago.
Don’t misunderstand, a knowledge of history is critical for the correct understanding of contemporary issues. I just don’t see much point in reagruing a point that, from my perspective, has been settled for over a thousand years.

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

not to put to fine a point on it, but only god’s estimation matters.

it’s their wish not to be with god, and hell’s the only alternative. choosing not to be with god but not to be in hell is like choosing to draw a square but not draw a plane figure with four equal sides and equal interior angles, or like wanting to be really drunk but not wanting a hangover - it’s just what you get when you get what you want, like it or not.

how has sin been stopped? i still sin. and i will presumably die.

Yes, only God’s estimation matters. You had given your opinion/estimation:

perhaps not, but the good of people-and-angels-in-heaven outweighs the bad of people-and-angels-in-hell. and the good of freely-chosen good acts outweighs the bad of freely-chosen bad-acts. and you can’t have one without the other.

And I gave mine:

*It is not the wishes of his creatures to be punished painfully for all eternity. That’s like saying children want to grow up to be drug addicts. Who, as an 8 year old wants to become a drug addict?

When you realize that it is within God’s power to stop sin and death (which He has done through the sacrifice of Christ) and that it is His will that all be saved - I Timothy 2:4, many things fall into place.*

You have to define hell first to determine your reasoning. You reason that it is an infinite fiery place. I have shown repeated evidences that “hell” is mistranslated.

I can repeat if you like.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Strider:

Here are some of the reformers. There are more to be found at the URL in my last post.

“The doctrine of apokatastasis viewed as a belief in a universal salvation is found among the Anabaptists, the Moravian Brethren, the Christadelphians, among rationalistic Protestants, and finally among the professed Universalists. It has been held, also, by such philosophic Protestants as Schleiermacher, and by a few theologians, Farrar, for instance, in England, Eckstein and Pfister in Germany, Matter in France.”

From the Catholic Encycloedia at New Advent.org

ahimsaman, nobody enjoys discussing, debating and learning more than I do, but I find it more proifitable to concentrate on more contemporary topics and issues. This one was settled 1500 years ago.
Don’t misunderstand, a knowledge of history is critical for the correct understanding of contemporary issues. I just don’t see much point in reagruing a point that, from my perspective, has been settled for over a thousand years.

Thanks for the info. I was thinking of early reformers like Luther, Calvin, etc. etc. Yes, I know of one ex-Baptist preacher, Elhanan Winchester who was heavily involved in the movement. Also, Rev. John Murray.

But, you see, it hasn’t been settled. It has in your mind because accept what the Church teaches. I don’t accept that. And, obviously there are many people today who still believe it, so it’s not a dead issue.

If someone doesn’t want to discuss it - that’s fine - there’s alot of other good threads to post on. Nobody said you had to be here and discuss it with us - though I welcome you.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Here is a piece from the New Advent site that Strider shared with me:

The doctrine of the apokatastasis is not, indeed, peculiar to St. Gregory of Nyssa, but is taken from Origen, who seems at times reluctant to decide concerning the question of the eternity of punishment. Tixeront has well said that in his “De principiis” (I, vi, 3) Origen does not venture to assert that all the evil angels shall sooner or later return to God (P.G., XI, col. 168, 169); while in his “Comment. in Rom.”, VIII, 9 (P.G., XIV, col. 1185), he states that Lucifer, unlike the Jews, will not be converted, even at the end of time. Elsewhere, on the other hand, and as a rule, Origen teaches the apokatastasis, the final restoration of all intelligent creatures to friendship with God. Tixeront writes thus concerning the matter: "Not all shall enjoy the same happiness, for in the Father’s house there are many mansions, but all shall attain to it. If Scripture sometimes seems to speak of the punishment of the wicked as eternal, this is in order to terrify sinners, to lead them back into the right way, and it is always possible, with attention, to discover the true meaning of these texts. It must, however, always be accepted as a principle that God does not chasten except to amend, and that the sole end of His greatest anger is the amelioration of the guilty. As the doctor uses fire and steel in certain deep-seated diseases, so God does but use the fire of hell to heal the impenitent sinner. All souls, all impenitent beings that have gone astray, shall, therefore, be restored sooner or later to God’s friendship. The evolution will be long, incalculably long in some cases, but a time will come when God shall be all in all. Death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed, the body shall be made spiritual, the world of matter shall be transformed, and there shall be, in the universe, only peace and unity. (emphasis mine)

I wanted to post it here, because it is a good explanation of the doctrine. This really makes sense, I must say. It shows that God is responsible with His creation in that He will refine and purify His creation and restore it to Himself.

The whole article can be found here:
newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

 

[ahimsaman72]

To all: a happy Thanksgiving if I don’t speak to you again till after tomorrow

Peace…

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

Yes, only God’s estimation matters. You had given your opinion/estimation:

perhaps not, but the good of people-and-angels-in-heaven outweighs the bad of people-and-angels-in-hell. and the good of freely-chosen good acts outweighs the bad of freely-chosen bad-acts. and you can’t have one without the other.

And I gave mine:

*It is not the wishes of his creatures to be punished painfully for all eternity. That’s like saying children want to grow up to be drug addicts. Who, as an 8 year old wants to become a drug addict? *

When you realize that it is within God’s power to stop sin and death (which He has done through the sacrifice of Christ) and that it is His will that all be saved - I Timothy 2:4, many things fall into place.

You have to define hell first to determine your reasoning. You reason that it is an infinite fiery place. I have shown repeated evidences that “hell” is mistranslated.

I can repeat if you like.

and i and others have shown you that your interpretation isn’t the only possible one, nor the only plausible, or reasonable one; i have, moreover, in the face of your ancillary supporting arguments concerning what god does or does not will, provided other contrary though no less reasonable arguments for the contrary position.

in short, we are at exactly the same spot we were 2 days ago, when i observed that, given that there is more than one way to understand the passages on hell/gehenna/aionios/punishment you quote from scripture, and given that there are defensible theological (read: extra-scriptural) arguments for the compatibility of god’s omnipotent omnibenevolence and an eternally punitive hell, you need to explain how it is you propose to choose between these competing stories.

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

and i and others have shown you that your interpretation isn’t the only possible one, nor the only plausible, or reasonable one; i have, moreover, in the face of your ancillary supporting arguments concerning what god does or does not will, provided other contrary though no less reasonable arguments for the contrary position.

in short, we are at exactly the same spot we were 2 days ago, when i observed that, given that there is more than one way to understand the passages on hell/gehenna/aionios/punishment you quote from scripture, and given that there are defensible theological (read: extra-scriptural) arguments for the compatibility of god’s omnipotent omnibenevolence and an eternally punitive hell, you need to explain how it is you propose to choose between these competing stories.

I freely admit there are other interpretations or viewpoints. That’s a given. That’s why we continue to have the discussion, no?

I choose based on Scriptural evidence that supports the view and the original usage of the Greek and Hebrew, which consistently shows (for example) that translators have used the same word “hell” in the OT (for example) to apply to different things. The Hebrew word, Sheol is translated “hell” 32 times, “grave” 29 times and “pit” 3 times. Why would they do that? Sheol is the same. Sheol means the same thing every time it is used, but the translators - in order to continue to push the doctrine of everlasting punishment - continue to mistranslate the Scriptures.

No one has yet commented on the fact that most translations include “hell”, but that many (including the NAB) do not include the name “hell” even ONCE. None. Nada. No one has touched on that issue at all. The NAB, for example, uses the actual Greek words so as to differentiate between the terms. How do you explain that? You can’t.

So, yes, we’re the same place we were 2 days ago. I have consistenly given Scriptural proof, historical proof and evidence from church theologians (Catholic, no less) such as Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa that in fact there is no other valid conclusion than to conclude that God punishes and corrects (Greek-kolasin) His creation for a time period - for an age or ages - till they have been purified (through fire - Greek “pur”) and brought under obedience to His commands till all men come to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour.

You also need to explain how you choose to compete between the differing viewpoints/opinions which show good evidence that your opinion/viewpoint is false.

I’ve seen no compelling theological arguments for an infinite God - the God of the ages and ages who consigns his finite creation who lives but a short age on the earth to an endless and fiery hell where they will be tormented endlessly while the other part of His creation enjoys endless bliss with Him in a harp playing - cloud filled heaven.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

There seem to be two trends emerging in the case being built against an everlasting hell.

One is recourse to the Bible. Of course, Holy Scripture is a part of the Deposit of the Faith, and nothing in it can be contradicted. But Holy Scripture is not the totality of the Deposit of the Faith, so an article of faith that does not flow directly from Holy Scripture need not contradict the Faith.

The second trend is an appeal to theologians. Theologians are not charged with, nor capable of, definitively interpreting the Deposit of the Faith (including Holy Scripture). That is the province of the Magesterium of the Church. If you like, a theologian proposes, and the Magesterium disposes.

It is always a problem for a Catholic to discuss a point of Christian theology where it is implicitly demanded that he limit himself to interpretations of Holy Scripture made by theologians, or whoever, without reference to the rest of the Deposit of the Faith and the Church’s Magesterium. Usually, there is a call for us to set those things aside, and we won’t.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[ahimsaman72]

Gerry Hunter:

There seem to be two trends emerging in the case being built against an everlasting hell.

One is recourse to the Bible. Of course, Holy Scripture is a part of the Deposit of the Faith, and nothing in it can be contradicted. But Holy Scripture is not the totality of the Deposit of the Faith, so an article of faith that does not flow directly from Holy Scripture need not contradict the Faith.

The second trend is an appeal to theologians. Theologians are not charged with, nor capable of, definitively interpreting the Deposit of the Faith (including Holy Scripture). That is the province of the Magesterium of the Church. If you like, a theologian proposes, and the Magesterium disposes.

It is always a problem for a Catholic to discuss a point of Christian theology where it is implicitly demanded that he limit himself to interpretations of Holy Scripture made by theologians, or whoever, without reference to the rest of the Deposit of the Faith and the Church’s Magesterium. Usually, there is a call for us to set those things aside, and we won’t.

Blessings,

Gerry

Thanks for your post. I believe you have it summed up pretty well here. It really does come down to theologians and Scripture as opposed to Magisterium and “tradition” if you will. God bless.

Peace…