I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Hmmmmm… the word “trinity” is missing from my Bible too, but that doesn’t mean the concept hasn’t been taught, doctrinally, from the very start.
- Status
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
C’mon … these teachings were condemned by the Church. To slip in that these come from “church theologians” is as absurd as saying Unitarian beliefs come from “church theologians” such as Arius, or that justification by “faith alone” comes from Catholic theologians such as Martin Luther.
Simple. Just as the NT Church did. They followed the decrees of the hierarchy at the Council of Jerusalem, which definitively decided that matter in council. So too, Catholics continue in this manner, submitting to councilar condemnation of apokatastasis.
M
mercygate
Guest
Gotta tweak this. Theologians and Scripture are OPPOSED to the Magisterium and Tradition?
While theologians often oppose Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, Tradition and the Magisterium do not “oppose” Scripture.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Ironically, the inifinitude of God is described by St. Paul using the word “aionios” as are other things in Scripture that are of their nature endless, including the lake of fire. [cf. “everlasting God” (*aionios theos). (Rom 16:26).]
Dave Armstrong points out many other examples where aionios is used to describe endless things…
The Universalists claim is summarized as: I interpret God and life as everlasting (aionios), but the lake of fire as temporal (aionios). Yet the earliest Fathers taught the opposite, and those that championed this doctrine did not teach it as though this was passed on by the apostles, not even Origen. Thus, the novel doctrine, that which Origen himself admitted was a “disputation,” is less compelling, in my view.
J
john_doran
Guest
but how do you know that “sheol” means the same thing every time it is used? that’s the point - by simply asserting that there is only one possible meaning, you beg the question.
look, i use the same word when i say “the truck weighs 5 tons”, and “i have tons of homework to do”. but that obviously doesn’t mean that they have the same meaning - i don’t have thousands of pounds of homework to slog through.
in the same way, how do you know that the word “sheol” wasn’t used sometimes to mean “grave”, and others to mean “place of everlasting punishment”?
but absolutely nothing rides on the actual word “hell”. we’re not discussing a word - we’re discussing the meaning of the word. if the word “hell” had never found traction as a matter of etymylogical history, then what you’d be saying now would be something like “why do you think that sheol means ‘grave’ sometimes, and ‘everlasting punishment’ at others?”.
this just isn’t an issue at all.
sure. god guaranteed the infallibility of his church - the holy catholic church - in matters of faith and morals precisely so that we fallible humans would be able to have a measure of certainty about the most important things. like, for instance, what happens to those who die in a state of serious sin.
that’s fair.
and i haven’t found your arguments to be the least bit compelling, either.
T
Trelow
Guest
Better safe than sorry.
Just don’t go then you don’t have to worry about it.
Just don’t go then you don’t have to worry about it.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Sorry, didn’t mean to necessarily imply that. I was trying to summarize the way that protestants and Catholics view those things differently, not how Catholics within themselves view those things.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
So true, I live my life like there is one! I definitely accept that judgement is forthcoming and is in God’s righteous hands. I trust Him to make the right decisions. That’s really only the best we can do.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
john doran:
Each time sheol is used it is used to refer to a place each time - not a place in one instance, a person the next instance and an animal in another instance. It’s speaking of the same “place”.
And, in the instances of the NT uses of “hell”, they always are referring to places as well - gehenna, hades and tartaros - not a place one time, a person one time and an animal one time.
Both Old and New Testament usages are specific to places or areas. So, your “truck 5 tons” and “tons of homework” analogy do not apply here.
A lot rides on the word “hell” itself. Everyone has their own preconceived notions based on what they have heard it means or implies. Sooner or later these preconceived notions develop into doctrines and beliefs to the point that people believe them as fact.
Peace…
A horse can be black, white, painted, reddish, but it is still a horse. It’s not a dog, cat or mouse.
Each time sheol is used it is used to refer to a place each time - not a place in one instance, a person the next instance and an animal in another instance. It’s speaking of the same “place”.
And, in the instances of the NT uses of “hell”, they always are referring to places as well - gehenna, hades and tartaros - not a place one time, a person one time and an animal one time.
Both Old and New Testament usages are specific to places or areas. So, your “truck 5 tons” and “tons of homework” analogy do not apply here.
A lot rides on the word “hell” itself. Everyone has their own preconceived notions based on what they have heard it means or implies. Sooner or later these preconceived notions develop into doctrines and beliefs to the point that people believe them as fact.
Peace…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
). (Rom 16:26).]
Dave Armstrong points out many other examples where aionios is used to describe endless things…
The Universalists claim is summarized as: I interpret God and life as everlasting (aionios), but the lake of fire as temporal (aionios). Yet the earliest Fathers taught the opposite, and those that championed this doctrine did not teach it as though this was passed on by the apostles, not even Origen. Thus, the novel doctrine, that which Origen himself admitted was a “disputation,” is less compelling, in my view.
Aionios as I have already stated comes from aion, transliterated aeon or eon. It means a period of time - an indefinite time - an “age”. When naturally applied to God (aionios theos - God of the ages) it is rightful to say that He is eternal or endless. He said, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the God of the living”. Naturally, He trascends ages of time (as you would readily agree).
However, since God Himself has said that man “shalt surely die”, man is finite and contained in an “age”, not in “ages of ages” as God is considered to be. Man has died and will continue to die in this world. Therefore, you can only compare his life to an age.
While I have treated the word briefly here, others have gone into great detail about this and you may find articles and books at the below listed places:
tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html
tentmaker.org/books/time/Time_12.html
This site has the majority of Universalist documents in one place, which is the reason I refer to it quite often.
And, I might say - that now you are appealing to a Catholic apologist’s interpretation - a big no-no heretical thing we protestants are reported to do so much of.
M
mercygate
Guest
Whew! That’s a relief. Really. No sarcasm intended. But on this subject the denominational distinctions hardly apply; between Catholic and Protestant “orthodoxy” there is very little disagreement on the doctrine of Hell.
Shucks, Ahimsaman72, ain’t we got enough troubles without making an obstacle where none exists?
A
AndyF
Guest
Limited judgement. But no, they were temporally punished, earthly death. If an individual person were to commit the same sin, then he would have an additional destination he could be sent to, and that is true death, or hell after judgement.
I would be willing to bet that any one in hell would gladly swap his for the collective’s punishment, extinction.
That I think would be just. Options for individuals then would become:
Hell,extinction,purgatory,heaven
Options that exist now for collectives are: smiting/maiming, extinction. The earthly death part is a given anyway, as such it is not a real punishment, just pre-mature.
Let me ask you, if you were destined for hell, wouldn’t you prefer extinction?
Andy
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
hahahaha!Whew! That’s a relief. Really. No sarcasm intended. But on this subject the denominational distinctions hardly apply; between Catholic and Protestant “orthodoxy” there is very little disagreement on the doctrine of Hell.
Shucks, Ahimsaman72, ain’t we got enough troubles without making an obstacle where none exists?
oh, but that’s the fun of it, my friend (just kidding).
Yes, there are some real obstacles between our faiths. But, there’s only one who is the focus of our faiths - Jesus Christ, Son of God. We should glory in our similarities and seek to only love each other and glorify the object of our faiths.
Peace…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Thanks for your post. I’ve had someone else bring up the existence of a distinction between personal and corporate judgement. I really don’t understand that view. I’ve only heard it since coming here to these forums. I don’t believe it is true based on some things in Scripture that contradict that view.
What’s interesting is that you freely admit there was earthly judgement for those during the flood and that’s it. I’m posing the same thing. Where we diverge is that you claim individuals are judged more harshly.
Example:
- Cain - murdered brother - sentence: expelled from Eden
- Moses - killed an Egyptian - sentence: lead Israel out of Egypt, wrote the first five books of the Bible and first prophet
- David - adultery with Bathsheba and murder of husband - sentence: lost son, described as a man after God’s own heart
- Solomon - followed after foreign gods and had over 700 wives (wisest and richest king of Israel), kingdom ripped apart between his two sons.
There are no examples - corporately or individually of eternal punishment eternal exacted by God.
Frankly, there are verses that support extinction - annihilation, which Adventists adhere to. The most merciful is universal reconciliation, the next is extinction. There is more support for universalism than extinction from the evidence I have.
Truth is - only God Himself knows for sure.
Though some claim to have God’s decrees come through them, it really can be said that only God is omniscient and His creation can not be. Is the servant greater than the master?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Hey Mercy!
Yes, my Baptist heritage is filled with the doctrine of hell and endless punishment. I heard it from the time I was born till even today. Jonathan Edwards (1800’s) is a favorite of my pastor. My pastor actually printed out a list of quotes from him and distributed to the congregation. I wasn’t happy.
It is a doctrine thoroughly engrained in our belief systems. And, as you say, it is one issue that most Catholics and protestants can agree on. And here I go even messing that up!
The wrath of God of is all very well - but why should anyone want to love someone like that ?
Preaching the hatred of God for people, is dangerous - it could very well leave people repelled rather than otherwise.God is not an Omnipotent Satan, or a God Who rejoices in the damnation of His creatures - but some preaching can give that very impression. If God is thought to be “Our Hitler, that art in Heaven” - will He be loved ? I doubt it.
FWIW, ISTM that Hell is God’s Love experienced in the wrong way. But any idea about God that makes God no better or kinder than we, is something I want no part in. If God is merely an Infinite Stalin or Mao, He is not worth worshipping. God has to be better than we are, in all ways. ##
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
Hello and thanks for your post.
Correct me if I am wrong - but you seem to agree with me, no?
God is not the wrathful person that some preach gives eternal punishment and hell fire to His creation.
Do you agree with what I have said in my first post?
Thanks - ahimsaman72
M
mercygate
Guest
Although references God’s love outnumber references to his wrath by half, mention of the Lord’s or to God’s wrath/anger/fury occurs in Scripture, conservatively estimated, more than 250 times – not even counting the roughly 40 references to his hatred of wrongdoing and evildoers or the 50-plus references to his vengeance. When you add in the latter two, the ratio of love/anger citations is almost even, with “love” edging out “wrath” by a ratio of only 1:1.2. Thus, from Scripture, it is impossible to derive a portrait of God which does not include his wrath.
Would it not be more profitable for us to contemplate the value of the Cross in light of what we are saved “from” than to talk ourselves into a neo-Montanist, Mr. Rogers theology that Jesus is a nice guy who would never have any part in something like his Father’s wrath? Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (Rom 5:9)
Is the experience of God’s wrath simply a distorted experience of his love? Perhaps: “Our God is a consuming fire.” (Heb 12:29) But to negate the anger of God is to negate Scripture.
Would it not be more profitable for us to contemplate the value of the Cross in light of what we are saved “from” than to talk ourselves into a neo-Montanist, Mr. Rogers theology that Jesus is a nice guy who would never have any part in something like his Father’s wrath? Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (Rom 5:9)
Is the experience of God’s wrath simply a distorted experience of his love? Perhaps: “Our God is a consuming fire.” (Heb 12:29) But to negate the anger of God is to negate Scripture.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Hello there!
I have to tell you that in my personal experience of sharing my faith in Christ with atheists - this is one of the single most issues that keeps them out of Christendom. They will tell you that Christianity is “elitist” and that God is a sadist. They will do so based on the idea that God creates people and sends them to an everlasting tormenting hell because they either don’t behave the right way or don’t believe the right things.
I don’t advocate watering down the gospel of Christ. Christ came to save sinners - and sinners we all are. That’s the truth. But to propagate a burning hell is counter-productive. The idea that some have is that we need “hell” to scare people into behaving rightly. If all we are doing in life is behaving because we are afraid of “hell”, all we possess is “fire insurance”. “Well, just in case there really is a hell - I’ll live the best I can to make sure I don’t go there.”
Obedience to God’s commands needs to come from the heart, not out of fear. For example, I don’t want my children to obey me because they are afraid of being punished. I want them to obey me because it is the right thing to do and out of love and respect for me and who I am. Of course, this is based on their ages. The Christian life is the same. When we first come to Christ, we are immature in faith. We learn obedience to God’s commands out of fear. But then we pray - we read our Bibles - we get close to Him and our hearts change from compulsive obedience to willful obedience.
Psalms 51:17
- The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise
1 Corinthians 2
- And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
Peace…
M
mercygate
Guest
Indeed, we need to preach Christ in a way that can be received by our hearers. Ultimately, to leave God’s eternal fire out of the equation, though, is to falsify the message. What are we saved *from? *Whether somebody disagrees with the message is really not our worry. There will be many who do not have ears to hear.
Counter productive of what? Bringing bodies into the building? You have two things going here, and they need to be kept distinct: one is the theology of the love and wrath of God, and the other is how best to evangelize.
I’m stuck on the witness of Scripture (what my Protestant friends like to wave in my face as “the wole counsel of God,” and that our eternal God is “a consuming fire” – welcome news for some of us and a big turn-off for others.
You know, of course, scaring people is not what I’m aiming at. (But in Catholic theology, although the fear of Hell is far short of a perfect reason for fleeing sin, it’s good enough!)
Don’t make me go and do a “fear” count in Scripture :nerd:but I’ll bet it comes up pretty high on the reasons to “love” God. (I’ll bet a survey of the “fear” and “fear not” passages would yield some interesting results.)
But as the Gospels say again and again, many refuse to be reconciled. Gotta get that free will thing under control. We have freedom to deny him.
That’s because you’re using the concept of Purgatory as your concept of Hell.
M
mercygate
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
There is no equation of the wrath of God with “hatred for people.” A careful look at God’s anger in Scripture shows that it is not irrational, tyrannical, or capricious but righteous and just. It is a source of consolation for those who love him.
- Status