Universal reconciliation

[Der Alte]

Zero personal attacks were in my post, I addressed your arguments. I tend to not do well with repeat posts, if we've discussed it before and you didn't convince me, it won't convince me by copying and pasting the same stuff. Character and interpretation is a huge issue, if your interpretation lacks christian character, that should matter.

More personal attack. Maybe my posts are not intended for only you.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

More personal attack. Maybe my posts are not intended for only you.

I think this is as good a time as any to address this, when I speak of "character of interpretation" i am not speaking of "your character" as a person. a good example of what I mean is in the letter of James

James Chapter 3

Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? 12 My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. 14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15 Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.

17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18 Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.

I read doctrine this way. If what is taught is characterized as "wisdom from above" then there is something to be learned here. However, if the wisdom is being conveyed in the other manner, then I know that the fruit I would gain from ingesting this doctrine and applying it would not be in my best spiritual interest.

Again, I was addressing your argument, not you, therefore .. not a personal attack.

 

[OldShepherd]

...

 

[Hillsage]

I would be very interested in any credible, verifiable Greek language sources

NO, you wouldn't. And, you never have been. Ours were never acceptable, so I learned a long time ago, from you, to not be too concerned about your sources either. Particularly if they were from you. Brother Dan is learning what I believe I learned a long time ago. That's why I don't respond to you. When I first came to CF I was truly excited to see those who were so 'credentialed'...as you so often remind us all. I thought I could enter into 'Christian' fellowship and discussion with such 'credentialed talents', knowing I am not orthodox, but also truly not wanting to be deceived either. I was wrong in my hopes. But none were quite as offensive as you, as far as how I felt treated. I truly don't care WHAT anyone says to me concerning my Christian theological differences. I care mightily HOW they say it, and you failed the test. This response is an obvious exception in my posting silence to your general posts, as well as your posts to me personally Der Alter. Now you know why I never answered. We'll see in heaven whose right. But an adversarial relationship IMO is wrong...period.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Amen and


Maybe you've missed it, but I've dealt with this before. So let me share what I have learned. Aion is a noun, and aionios is an adjective. The adjective 'aionios' has less to do with the 'quantity' of time in an 'eon/age' but is majorly concerned with the 'quality' of something that takes place in the time of an 'eon/age'.

For example, the noun 'hour' is 60 minutes long. I can go to an 'hourly' adj. 'meeting' n. which has little to do with the quantity of time in that 'hour', but describes what quality takes place anywhere IN that hour's time frame. In this analogy it is the 'meeting'. And, it is a meeting that doesn't even have to last the 60 minutes of an 'hour'. So we always define the noun "aion" as 'an age'. And we always define it's adjective "aionios/age during", as being descriptive of what is taking place during an 'aion/age' time period. IOW "aionios life" and "aionios punishment" are both taking place during the same "aion" or age.

But ET'ers define "aion" as either an age or eternity, based upon their theology and then call it being defined by context. This is ridiculous for those two reasons to me. One being their 'definition', and the other is their 'application' IMO. To have one word even be capable of being defined as both an 'age' AND 'eternity' is no definiton at all IMO. But in compounding their translational error, ETer's 'contex' is then determined by their 'pretext'...which is Eternal 'judgment/death/hell...whatever'. I hope this helps you see where we line up not only with the heart of God which is that 'we ought always to forgive'....LIKE HIM, as well as it lining up with the rules of grammar.

I hope this helps you understand my POV.

Not missed and am familiar with the view. My point was Jesus uses the same word and structure to refer to both eternal life. So unless, (as others & you apparently do), one claims that Jesus is to be understanding saying both Heaven and Hell are of a limited duration then one is not being consistent with how such verses are rendered.

I do not see the next life described in the Bible for those with a positive outcome as a paradise that blows our minds away but then something else later. It is just an awesome eternal paradise. So to me the idea of seeing paradise come to an end just so one can say Hell comes to an end too does not fit other statements regarding a life in glory. We get more statements about Heaven than we do Hell - and none that suggest Heaven is a limited lease.

 

[Hillsage]

Not missed and am familiar with the view.

Then you might need to go back re familiarize yourself with your 409 post which said;

"Not sure how universalist get around the basic presentation of those fates in scripture."

My point was Jesus uses the same word and structure to refer to both eternal life. So unless, (as others & you apparently do), one claims that Jesus is to be understanding saying both Heaven and Hell are of a limited duration then one is not being consistent with how such verses are rendered.

You may be familiar, but your comment proves you don't understand what was said. We do not believe 'aionios' limits time it only qualifies what happens in a time period 'aion'. If you have live never ending then you go from age to age to age in life like God always has/will. If you have punishment age during then at the end of that age you can enter the next age with the quality of life. You are correct that we believe your eternal/aionios hell is of limited duration. It is then destroyed along with the last enemy of death in the lake of fire that God may be all in all.

I do not see the next life described in the Bible for those with a positive outcome as a paradise that blows our minds away but then something else later. It is just an awesome eternal paradise. So to me the idea of seeing paradise come to an end just so one can say Hell comes to an end too does not fit other statements regarding a life in glory.

Seeing is certainly a big part of understanding for sure. We see ages in scripture, and if your honest with yourself I'm sure you do to.

EPH 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

What is the purpose of these ages? What happens to your view of paradise when an age ends. According to your theology it must END right? If not, then you believe like I believe...but maybe you do so only in your heart and not in your head. I've given you 'the knowledge' but it will take the Holy Spirit to give 'the understanding' IMO.

We get more statements about Heaven than we do Hell - and none that suggest Heaven is a limited lease.

We agree, but do you understand why? Hopefully this post helps re-familiarize as well as understand what we, or at least I, believe.

 

[Der Alte]

NO, you wouldn't. And, you never have been. Ours were never acceptable, so I learned a long time ago, from you, to not be too concerned about your sources either. Particularly if they were from you.

Guess you missed the part where I said "credible, verifiable Greek language sources." A lot of folks seem to think that if they quote something posted on the 'net that is "evidence" regardless of the "credentials", or lack thereof, of the source.

When I first came to CF I was truly excited to see those who were so 'credentialed'...as you so often remind us all.

I remind folks of my studies in the Biblical languages when they state or imply that I don't know what I'm talking about, or state or imply that they are more qualified than I am to discuss Greek.

... I thought I could enter into 'Christian' fellowship and discussion with such 'credentialed talents', knowing I am not orthodox, but also truly not wanting to be deceived either. I was wrong in my hopes.

Most unfortunate.

But none were quite as offensive as you, as far as how I felt treated. I truly don't care WHAT anyone says to me concerning my Christian theological differences. I care mightily HOW they say it, and you failed the test. This response is an obvious exception in my posting silence to your general posts, as well as your posts to me personally Der Alter. Now you know why I never answered. We'll see in heaven whose right. But an adversarial relationship IMO is wrong...period.

In what way am I offensive? How have my posts to you been any more "offensive" than yours have been to me? I state what I believe then post scripture and other evidence which supports it. Or I will post the scripture/evidence first then state my beliefs from that.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Then you might need to go back re familiarize yourself with your 409 post which said;




You may be familiar, but your comment proves you don't understand what was said. We do not believe 'aionios' limits time it only qualifies what happens in a time period 'aion'. If you have live never ending then you go from age to age to age in life like God always has/will. If you have punishment age during then at the end of that age you can enter the next age with the quality of life. You are correct that we believe your eternal/aionios hell is of limited duration. It is then destroyed along with the last enemy of death in the lake of fire that God may be all in all.

Seeing is certainly a big part of understanding for sure. We see ages in scripture, and if your honest with yourself I'm sure you do to.

EPH 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

What is the purpose of these ages? What happens to your view of paradise when an age ends. According to your theology it must END right? If not, then you believe like I believe...but maybe you do so only in your heart and not in your head. I've given you 'the knowledge' but it will take the Holy Spirit to give 'the understanding' IMO.



We agree, but do you understand why? Hopefully this post helps re-familiarize as well as understand what we, or at least I, believe.

And you gloss over and add to what I plainly said, which is also what I feel one is doing to the recorded Words of Jesus.

My original post was speaking of God's spoken Words on the matter and as I stated He is recorded using the exact same phrasing for both Heaven and Hell. My point, which you completely ignore, was and is still that He gave no distinction between the two in regard to any length of time. I would think then that using other verses to modify what He said about it would be inserting more into what He said than what is recorded. That was my point.

One cannot apply to the quoted Words of our Lord God to your notion of using phrasing/language to one fate being of limited experience and the other not. If one believes His quote meant that, then you could perhaps say as some do (and you have not denied it) that Heaven is a limited experience. Using other verses (as you just did) quoting His followers to make your case is fine I guess - except I still think because of the way He is quoted comparing the two, one would have to say both fates are NOT eternal.

My point was Jesus is never quoted speaking of either fate differently in regards to time. Which to me then means looking at those other verses to suggest one fate is eternal and one fate is not, one is declaring Jesus mis-spoke when He compared/contrasted the two fates equally in that regard.

 

[Der Alte]

I think this is as good a time as any to address this, when I speak of "character of interpretation" i am not speaking of "your character" as a person. a good example of what I mean is in the letter of James.
...

Posted previously.

lacking the fruit of the holy spirit in your response"

"analyzing the character of your argument"

"Character and interpretation is a huge issue, if your interpretation lacks christian character"

A written response cannot have or lack "fruit of the Holy Spirit!" A written response cannot have or lack "character," Christian or otherwise.

I read doctrine this way. If what is taught is characterized as "wisdom from above" then there is something to be learned here. However, if the wisdom is being conveyed in the other manner, then I know that the fruit I would gain from ingesting this doctrine and applying it would not be in my best spiritual interest.

Again, I was addressing your argument, not you, therefore .. not a personal attack.

What I understand you to be saying is if what I say contradicts your assumptions/presuppositions it is not "wisdom from above" according to you?

 

[Hillsage]

And you gloss over and add to what I plainly said, which is also what I feel one is doing to the recorded Words of Jesus.

No Bubba the words you read in the bible are the words of men. We have no original autograph Greek translation and we have a hundred 'literally', interpretations of the NT based upon several Greek text translations alone. WHY?

So you/I don't really even know what Jesus really said/meant except through the filter of those scholars whose 'text without true context, came from their indoctrinated pretext'. You can call that "the words of Jesus" and I can in turn quote those very same words of Jesus from other scholarly translations like YLT, CLT, ROTHERHAMS and ALL your 'ETERNAL hell, punishments ect ect. disappear. AS IN, THEY ARE NOT IN 'THE BIBLE'. Where did they go?

My original post was speaking of God's spoken Words

As just explained...no it was not IMO.

My point, which you completely ignore, was and is still that He gave no distinction between the two in regard to any length of time.

I am not 'completely ignoring' ANYTHING except your false allegations IMO so far. You cannot see past your indoctrinated POV IMO. Your PRETEXT is ETERNAL HELL. And that's all you see, read, believe and you cannot 'hear' what I have said several times now, to counter it.

I would think then that using other verses to modify what He said about it would be inserting more into what He said than what is recorded. That was my point.

Please clarify what you're saying. I don't see it....but I am trying.

One cannot apply to the quoted Words of our Lord God to your notion of using phrasing/language to one fate being of limited experience and the other not.

AGAIN I say it's not about a limited experience or an unlimited experience it is about what transpires within an age. BTW you never dealt with my question concerning what 'the ages' are for. DO YOU BELIEVE there are ages in the bible or not? Why are those ages there? What happens to your "PARADISE" when those AGES end?

If one believes His quote meant that, then you could perhaps say as some do (and you have not denied it) that Heaven is a limited experience.

Go back and re-read. But, for the record let me plainly say; I do deny Heaven is a limited experience. When one age ends, heaven AND I, just move into the next age. The Adjective has little to do with the duration but it is totally dependent upon the noun during that age. Heaven never appeared nor will disappear but is adios like God. Below, the only verse truly using a word which meets our definition of ETERNAL in the GREEK.

ROM 1:20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal/adios power and deity,

0126 aidios: everduring (forward and backward, or forward only)

Does your 'eternal King' die at the end of the aion in the verse below?

1TI 1:17 Now unto the King eternal/aion, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Does your 'King eternal/aion' die at the end of whatever AGE/AION this verse is talking about? WHY NOT BUBBA?

Using other verses (as you just did) quoting His followers to make your case is fine I guess - except I still think because of the way He is quoted comparing the two, one would have to say both fates are NOT eternal. My point was Jesus is never quoted speaking of either fate differently in regards to time. Which to me then means looking at those other verses to suggest one fate is eternal and one fate is not, one is declaring Jesus mis-spoke when He compared/contrasted the two fates equally in that regard.

I hear what you are saying. And I truly do feel for your 'thinking' in that regard. I know it is horribly difficult to change a belief system which one has clung dearly to for many many years. I hope I haven't come across as too strong.


I know I'm not perfect and can still come across strong, especially in times of frustration from the misunderstandings of others. I've asked a lot of questions Bubba. Ones which you need to answer...not for me, but for you. My eyes are tired from increased computer time lately and I'm hopefully backing off for a few days....hopefully.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

LOL Hillsage,
if the Gospels cannot be relied upon as a reliable source of quotes of Jesus then I would think we are all left to our own understanding, which essentially is reflected and what happened after one says we do not need a teaching Authority to explain/clarify or defend the proper understanding of Scripture and how we can arrive at so many varied and opposing views of the same Scripture with all claiming that understanding is Inspired by the same Spirit.

Since we do not have the same understanding of sacred Scripture or probably even what infallible, Inspired, or revealed means it is rather pointless to point out anything [from scripture] except the inconsistency/incongruence of an individuals held beliefs. In that regard the collection of teachings protected by the teaching Authority of the Church seems above reproach to me.

Have only been Catholic for a little over a decade and probably as old or older than yourself. Once I began reading the history of the Church, it was not difficult at all leaving the various teachings I followed before. In fact it was actually somewhat of a relief in no longer feeling like I personally had to "discern" what the Spirit had revealed for not just the Body of Christ, the Church, but all mankind to believe.

 

[OldShepherd]

...

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No Bubba the words you read in the bible are the words of men. We have no original autograph Greek translation and we have a hundred 'literally', interpretations of the NT based upon several Greek text translations alone. WHY? " The Bible is the most authenticated book in the History of mankind in this regard and the multiple manuscripts support rather than detract from our ability to rely on it.

So you/I don't really even know what Jesus really said/meant except through the filter of those scholars whose 'text without true context, came from their indoctrinated pretext'. You can call that "the words of Jesus" and I can in turn quote those very same words of Jesus from other scholarly translations like YLT, CLT, ROTHERHAMS and ALL your 'ETERNAL hell, punishments ect ect. disappear. AS IN, THEY ARE NOT IN 'THE BIBLE'. Where did they go?

Now when it is convenient for your stance you want to talk about English translations???
My point was in regards of arriving at whether Hell is eternal or not, the classic case is made about usage of greek word, which was your initial point and first reply to my point - which was when Jesus spoke about He is recorded using the same usage for both fates - no switching from adjective to noun, no different words.

Of course He did not speak those words in Greek, but had the meaning of the original recorded words reflected a limited time for one fate and unlimited for the other, the translation into Greek would not just be odd, it would be wrong and that would have resulted in controversy - we have no such first century controversy recorded and when the argument does arise about the possibility of universal reconciliation, this was not the argument used. Which is odd, given the people making the case for/against it would have been a lot closer to the original language/usage and teachings than we are. In fact this concept of "ages" is relatively VERY modern.


As just explained...no it was not IMO.

I am not 'completely ignoring' ANYTHING except your false allegations IMO so far. You cannot see past your indoctrinated POV IMO. Your PRETEXT is ETERNAL HELL. And that's all you see, read, believe and you cannot 'hear' what I have said several times now, to counter it.

I heard you clearly. You are saying we cannot rely on scripture to be Inspired, Infallible because it represents the translated words of men, which we cannot trust men. But somehow miraculously thousands of years after it was originally written we rely on the testimony of men that we can take their word on the "inspired" message from these texts being that word usage of "ages" allows us to say Hell is not eternal but Heaven is.

Please clarify what you're saying. I don't see it....but I am trying.

I did. You deny we can rely on the sacred Scriptures faithfully recording what Jesus said so we are allowed to use a particular (and very modern) understanding of other scripture to claim Jesus did not really say what He is recorded saying. You are saying we can't rely on the words of the ancients because they were just men, and instead can rely on modern men somehow getting it right (Inspiration possible for them but not the ancients). I get it.

AGAIN I say it's not about a limited experience or an unlimited experience it is about what transpires within an age. BTW you never dealt with my question concerning what 'the ages' are for. DO YOU BELIEVE there are ages in the bible or not? Why are those ages there? What happens to your "PARADISE" when those AGES end?

Yes, Paradise is Heaven and it is eternal just like Jesus said it was. Since He compared that eternal quality to the eternal quality of Hell - that is my belief as well - and was before I became Catholic.

As to "age", His Kingdom on earth (which is His Church universal) is now - we are living in that age.

I hear what you are saying. And I truly do feel for your 'thinking' in that regard. I know it is horribly difficult to change a belief system which one has clung dearly to for many many years. I hope I haven't come across as too strong.


I know I'm not perfect and can still come across strong, especially in times of frustration from the misunderstandings of others. I've asked a lot of questions Bubba. Ones which you need to answer...not for me, but for you. My eyes are tired from increased computer time lately and I'm hopefully backing off for a few days....hopefully.

Am not going to debate greek word or usage as I am certainly no scholar.

But from those that are, it appears to me this view you present is a very narrow, relatively modern and not widely held among such scholars. I know there is no such ambiguity possible with statements like "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." and here we are not even speaking of the eternal nature of Heaven or Hell itself but the fate of all of us - two possible outcomes compared - with the same exact words/phrasing in Greek for both regarding the passage of time. To introduce less precise or more ambiguous examples from scriptures on that same topic and suggest that those represent what Jesus actually meant or said, begs a question. If these men got it all so wrong and intentionally manipulated translations for some purpose or even just made mistakes - why leave this quote of Jesus depicting as what according to you must be an obvious "human" error or why no controversy if it was intentionally changed?
Why no controversy over alleged error in such quotes, especially when the meaning would be essential to the debate on universalism in the following century?
I mean we would have been only one or two generations removed from people who either heard it spoken or heard it directly from people who did.

 

[Hillsage]

LOL Hillsage,
if the Gospels cannot be relied upon as a reliable source of quotes of Jesus

Idolized, NO...reliable...YES, with biblical caveats. Here's one from Jesus I think is on topic and pretty reliable source LOL.

JOH 5:39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me;
40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

And a corresponding verse which is also a 'scripturally reliable source;
JOH 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

then I would think we are all left to our own understanding,

Which is (sorry) exactly where I think so much error in the church has arisen from and which we are debating today. Men with degrees from men, thinking it came from God.

MAT 15:12 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?"...14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

Are we possibly so blind today that we think the Pharisaical spirit no longer exists?

which essentially is reflected and what happened after one says we do not need a teaching Authority to explain/clarify or defend the proper understanding of Scripture and

how we can arrive at so many varied and opposing views of the same Scripture with all claiming that understanding is Inspired by the same Spirit.

No doubt the religious spirit of the adversary is one of the most pervasive and widespread of all demonic enemies to the much splintered church IMO.

Since we do not have the same understanding of sacred Scripture or probably even what infallible, Inspired, or revealed means it is rather pointless to point out anything [from scripture] except the inconsistency/incongruence of an individuals held beliefs. In that regard the collection of teachings protected by the teaching Authority of the Church seems above reproach to me.

And I am unorthodox because I think it is not below the highest suspicion. The 'great apostasy' is going to be the 'greatest majority' IMO.

MAT 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

If 'all' the church is "the elect" today, then as far as I'm concerned it's "possible".

Have only been Catholic for a little over a decade

Whereas I 'came out of her' after being one for 20 years. And have said, ever since, I've never seen a church where the people are more sold out to 'the church' than they are Jesus. No offense intended Bubba, and I mean that. But I also sincerely believe what I said concerning that 'statement'. And I fellowship with many whom I consider true brethren. Heck some of them even speak in tongues which makes it even better IMO. And one of them said he received when ministered to by the same order of sisters who inspired the TV series of the FLYING NUN. And they inspired that series because they were known to 'levitate' supernaturally. And you know what? I like to believe him/that....

In fact it was actually somewhat of a relief in no longer feeling like I personally had to "discern" what the Spirit had revealed for not just the Body of Christ, the Church, but all mankind to believe.

All I can say Bubba is..WOW. Which is what I also said when my TIRED eyes saw another post from you after this. I may have to pass Bro.

 

[Hillsage]

I heard you clearly. You are saying we cannot rely on scripture to be Inspired, Infallible because it represents the translated words of men, which we cannot trust men. But somehow miraculously thousands of years after it was originally written we rely on the testimony of men that we can take their word on the "inspired" message from these texts being that word usage of "ages" allows us to say Hell is not eternal but Heaven is.
I did. You deny we can rely on the sacred Scriptures faithfully recording what Jesus said so we are allowed to use a particular (and very modern) understanding of other scripture to claim Jesus did not really say what He is recorded saying. You are saying we can't rely on the words of the ancients because they were just men, and instead can rely on modern men somehow getting it right (Inspiration possible for them but not the ancients). I get it.
Yes, Paradise is Heaven and it is eternal just like Jesus said it was. Since He compared that eternal quality to the eternal quality of Hell - that is my belief as well - and was before I became Catholic.

As to "age", His Kingdom on earth (which is His Church universal) is now - we are living in that age.

Am not going to debate greek word or usage as I am certainly no scholar.

But from those that are, it appears to me this view you present is a very narrow, relatively modern and not widely held among such scholars. I know there is no such ambiguity possible with statements like "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." and here we are not even speaking of the eternal nature of Heaven or Hell itself but the fate of all of us - two possible outcomes compared - with the same exact words/phrasing in Greek for both regarding the passage of time. To introduce less precise or more ambiguous examples from scriptures on that same topic and suggest that those represent what Jesus actually meant or said, begs a question. If these men got it all so wrong and intentionally manipulated translations for some purpose or even just made mistakes - why leave this quote of Jesus depicting as what according to you must be an obvious "human" error or why no controversy if it was intentionally changed?
Why no controversy over alleged error in such quotes, especially when the meaning would be essential to the debate on universalism in the following century?
I mean we would have been only one or two generations removed from people who either heard it spoken or heard it directly from people who did.

Yep, I'm going to pass on answering. Tired eyes take higher importance than wasting time typing. Have a good one.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

A written response cannot have or lack "fruit of the Holy Spirit!" A written response cannot have or lack "character," Christian or otherwise.

This is a key point we disagree on.

What I understand you to be saying is if what I say contradicts your assumptions/presuppositions it is not "wisdom from above" according to you?

No, if what you post contradicts what the bible defines as good character, I will disagree with it.

i.e. If the bible depicts God as the opposite of your depiction of God through doctrine, I will disagree with your teaching.

 

[Wgw]

In my opinion if we acccept the NT as inspired, which I do,,we must assign the same inspiration to the sayings of those who wrote and collected it. Of those, only Origen and to a reduced extent St. Gregory of Nyassa may have been universalists. However it is a sweet and seemly thing to hope for universal repentance without saying that it MUST be so,,because the one thing God cannot do is make us love him.

 

[Hillsage]

In my opinion if we acccept the NT as inspired, which I do,,we must assign the same inspiration to the sayings of those who wrote and collected it. Of those, only Origen and to a reduced extent St. Gregory of Nyassa may have been universalists. However it is a sweet and seemly thing to hope for universal repentance without saying that it MUST be so,,because the one thing God cannot do is make us love him.

And the opinion 'leaning' on scripture is?

Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
2 Timothy 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth,

 

[2KnowHim]

But somehow miraculously thousands of years after it was originally written we rely on the testimony of men that we can take their word on the "inspired" message from these texts being that word usage of "ages" allows us to say Hell is not eternal but Heaven is.

Not exactly, Hell and Heaven Both are Eternal, But ONLY in the sense of WHO it is, that the work that is being done in either of them is Eternal. They are Eternal in the Quality/Nature of The Work not so much as time or duration.

They are Eternal because God is Eternal.

Ecc 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

This word here for ever is Olam in the Hebrew and is the equivalent of aionios in the Greek.
If He destroys something it is for ever/eternal in Quality, it is the nature of the work.
If He makes Alive something it is for ever/eternal in Quality, it is the nature of the work.

Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world/olam in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
Ecc 3:12 I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life.
Ecc 3:13 And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.
Ecc 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever/olam: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. (It is for ever done)
Ecc 3:15 That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.
Ecc 3:16 And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there.
Ecc 3:17 I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

 

[2KnowHim]

Another example of this is ......God is Love
It's not talking about What He does, (even though that is included),
but of WHO He is.