Early church opposition to endless hell

[ClementofA]

The Orthodox do affirm that there will be eternal conscious punishment for the unrepentant. I did hear of a few Anglican ministers endorsing annihilation.
To tell you the truth, eternal conscious torment scares me a heck of a lot more than simply being wiped out of existence. There are some famous Orthodox saints, like St. John Chrysostem Justin Matyr who described the vivid details of hell.
Chrysostom on Hell and Eternity (II)

The Hell There Is! | Catholic Answers (Many saints mentioned and quoted in this article also happen to be Orthodox Christian saints)
The everlasting concious hell is unpopular in today's society. Some sects and peoole, like the SDA, Jehovah's Witnesses, Armstrongnites, and certain Evangelicals try to minimize the seriousness of hell by saying that the wicked will simply be annihilated. Others, take the downplaying of hell much further by either thinking and saying its going to be a big party bash, where they'll join all their friends and party forever more, or deny hell entirely, like Universalists do. Nevertheless, hell is really a place of everlasting torment for those who willingly reject the given grave of God. We, Orthodox, are NOT judgemental and God does not want anyone to perish. But if a person willfully rejects Gods grace, he will forever reaps the results.

Universalism does not "deny hell entirely". It affirms "hell". But "hell" is for the good of the offender & eventually leads to his salvation, justification, reconciliation with & love for God. Not endless, pointless, sicko sadism.

 

[ClementofA]

Army Matt made this point:

"no, it's your interpretation based on parts of a few Fathers, a few guys who are not Fathers, and modern scholars. if you were really rooted in reason, especially when debating us, the 5th Council would end this discussion. plus every council afterwards which affirmed the 5th. there is nothing really reasonable about what you have been posting."

To my knowledge, the 5th Council rejected a theory of Restorationism that it ascribed to Origen (although I have seen an argument that the anathema was not an official, accepted full part of the Council), but it did not reject Universalism per se.

Why on earth would "if (i) were really rooted in reason, especially when debating [EO folks], the 5th Council would end this discussion"? Why would a dark ages council mean - anything - to me. At all. Can you give - any - "reason" for that? My OP gave sources much earlier than that. Not to mention reason, logic, & the clear testimony of the Scriptures.

 

[buzuxi02]

Whether the "ETERNAL - TORMENTS" you speak of - are inflicted directly by God, or not, He is still 100% responsible for them, if they go on forever. You see?

No the saint is saying the natural part of the soul is striving towards God but the passions repel him back and thus the soul feels conflicted having a tug of war with itself wanting communion with the divine being pulled but at the same time returning to its love of attempting to satiate its passions.

 

[ArmyMatt]

There it is in your own words...."what is tormenting him is God's love".

Essentially that is no different than God is tormenting him.

Thanks for your admission.

I'll add these quotes here also for the record:

no. it's his refusal to repent and return to God. a fire doesn't burn you unless you stick your hand in it. and it is entirely possible to desire to leave it there.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why on earth would "if (i) were really rooted in reason, especially when debating [EO folks], the 5th Council would end this discussion"? Why would a dark ages council mean - anything - to me. At all. Can you give - any - "reason" for that? My OP gave sources much earlier than that. Not to mention reason, logic, & the clear testimony of the Scriptures.

because it's an Ecumenical Council. and it's not from the Dark Ages. the Byzantine Empire was flourishing at the time.

because we're EASTERN ORTHODOX and the Ecumenical Councils are binding. the only thing you're doing, and have continued to do, is give your interpretation and then just insist that you're right and that we should take you seriously.

and just because something is old, that doesn't make it untrue.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Actually i continued the discussion on another forum. And linked to it from the closed thread here. Yet even after ending the discussion in that manner the thread was closed anyway. Why?




Show me where i ever got it wrong.



Where have you ever provided a concise complete comprehensive definition to me. Never. Just basically continual responses of "dark ages councils, end of discussion" type stuff. And i don't expect you to start now providing such a definition, since it's evident you just want the debate re universalism to go away.

The bottom line is you make God into an eternal sicko sadist & you've never offered anything to refute that & never will:



That's merely semantics. You can cover a snake in chocolate syrup & call it a chocolate bar, but it's still a snake & always will be.

Your God:

1. Sends people to endless suffering.
2. He could have prevented this by annihilation or other means.
3. Therefore He is a sick sadist infinitely worse than Hitler, Satan & Stalin combined.

The sufferings of just one individual in that hell forever will infinitely surpass all the combined sufferings during human mortal history. The comparison is like one drop of water to trillions of universes full of nothing but water.



If God knew that without His forcing them to be saved, they would reject Him for all eternity & be tormented, then He would be a monster if He didn't force them to be saved. Similarly, many believe He will force aborted babies into heaven without their having chosen it of their own free will. Likewise, many believe He will force others in heaven to remain there forever without having a free choice to reject God as many angels of heaven once did. So, given that, forcing would not appear to be an issue with Love Omnipotent. At least not in the after life (i.e. after death, the hereafter).

God's love does not expire like a carton of milk, so Love Omnipotent will pursue the salvation of sinners for as long as it takes into eternity to save them. Eternity allows an infinite number of chances to receive salvation & be delivered from hell's torments. If every free will choice has a 50% chance of going either way, it would be mathematically impossible for one to reject God forever. Therefore universal salvation is truth.



It saves all. Though given only the choice between annihilation and a being getting endless torments, it would choose the more loving & merciful of the two. Therefore endless hell is a myth.

If God created human beings such that they are (1) "eternally existing (as He Himself is)", so that it would be impossible to annihilate them even if Love Omnipotent wanted to, and (2) if He knew in advance that some of them would spend eternity rejecting Him, then (3) He is a monster for having created them that way.

again, proof positive you don't listen. eternity isn't endless time, it's timelessness. when you are into eternity you don't change because you are outside of successive time.

 

[Not David]

because it's an Ecumenical Council. and it's not from the Dark Ages. the Byzantine Empire was flourishing at the time.

because we're EASTERN ORTHODOX and the Ecumenical Councils are binding. the only thing you're doing, and have continued to do, is give your interpretation and then just insist that you're right and that we should take you seriously.

and just because something is old, that doesn't make it untrue.

I don't know why quoting the Dark Ages is an argument at all

 

[Not David]

no. it's his refusal to repent and return to God. a fire doesn't burn you unless you stick your hand in it. and it is entirely possible to desire to leave it there.

The argument is silly, so I torment myself because of someone but it is the other person's fault?

 

[AMM]

Plus, the whole notion of “dark ages” is a pretty outdated concept in academia anyway.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't know why quoting the Dark Ages is an argument at all

it's not. plus, there were no Dark Ages in the Byzantine Empire.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The argument is silly, so I torment myself because of someone but it is the other person's fault?

you got me, I dunno how it works.

 

[ClementofA]

he can't conform to the environment which is punishing him, since what is tormenting him is God's love.

There it is in your own words...."what is tormenting him is God's love".

Essentially that is no different than God is tormenting him.

no. it's his refusal to repent and return to God. a fire doesn't burn you unless you stick your hand in it. and it is entirely possible to desire to leave it there.

Yet it is - your - God who has arranged things such that it is impossible for such wicked ones to "repent and return to God". So, actually, He is the one 100% responsible for their failure to do so. And - He - is the only one 100% responsible for the endless and infinite sufferings they will undergo. How is that not one sicko sadist?

1. He allows them to be created via conception knowing in advance they will be tormented forever. So He is 100% responsible for their endless sufferings. Strike one.

2. He arranges things so they only have a brief time to "repent and return to God". So again He alone is responsible for their endless sufferings. Strike two.

3. He refuses to annihilate them as a mercy killing from their endless sufferings. So, again, He is totally responsible for their endless sufferings. Strike three.

In baseball three strikes & a batter is out. Though in this case a single strike & that reflects extremely poorly on Heaven.

 

[ClementofA]

because it's an Ecumenical Council.

Why should that impress me? Is there any reason i should take that councils' opinions above other councils or creeds or Scripture? How did that council decide things, by majority vote? What if the minority voters were correct in many matters?

and it's not from the Dark Ages. the Byzantine Empire was flourishing at the time.

Flourishing how? Evidently not in doctrine if they rejected universalism which was not rejected in the early creeds of the church.

because we're EASTERN ORTHODOX and the Ecumenical Councils are binding.

Evidently "many" EO do not agree with (a) either your private interpretation of those dark ages councils or (b) they don't consider them binding. Because "many" EO today are universalists. Also it seems some 40% of EO do not believe in "hell", whatever that is supposed to mean. Yet - you - a single individual presume to speak for all?

the only thing you're doing, and have continued to do, is give your interpretation and then just insist that you're right and that we should take you seriously.

Of course i do insist that i'm right about certain things, such as (1) God's existence, (2) Christ being the only way of salvation, (3) universalism being a truth of the Scriptures, etc. Just as others here insist on their "interpretation" of the authority of dark ages councils, prayers to Mary, infallible statements of Popes, etc.

 

[ClementofA]

again, proof positive you don't listen. eternity isn't endless time, it's timelessness. when you are into eternity you don't change because you are outside of successive time.

Actually i previously addressed a poster here making that comment, but never received a reply. Search the forum & you'll find it.

What relevance has that to the points made? It's still an "eternity" of torments. How is that not sicko sadism?

Who is responsible for time ending? Those suffering for "eternity" who never get another chance to love God?

And where does Scripture ever speak of an end of time? Does that even make any sense?

If the aionion times (Titus 1:2; 2 Tim.1:9) end, then must the aionion punishment also end (Mt.25:46)?

Titus 1:2 in expectation of life eonian, which God, Who does not lie, promises before times eonian (CLV)

2 Tim.1:9 Who saves us and calls us with a holy calling, not in accord with our acts, but in accord with His own purpose and the grace which is given to us in Christ Jesus before times eonian (CLV)

 

[ArmyMatt]

There it is in your own words...."what is tormenting him is God's love".

Essentially that is no different than God is tormenting him.

and, if you paid actual attention to these threads, you would know what we mean by that. so no, it is actually different than God tormenting him.

Yet it is - your - God who has arranged things such that it is impossible for such wicked ones to "repent and return to God". So, actually, He is the one 100% responsible for their failure to do so. And - He - is the only one 100% responsible for the endless and infinite sufferings they will undergo. How is that not one sicko sadist?

1. He allows them to be created via conception knowing in advance they will be tormented forever. So He is 100% responsible for their endless sufferings. Strike one.

2. He arranges things so they only have a brief time to "repent and return to God". So again He alone is responsible for their endless sufferings. Strike two.

3. He refuses to annihilate them as a mercy killing from their endless sufferings. So, again, He is totally responsible for their endless sufferings. Strike three.

In baseball three strikes & a batter is out. Though in this case a single strike & that reflects extremely poorly on Heaven.

again, your conclusion, and more proof you just repeat yourself on here and don't actually want to dialogue with us.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why should that impress me? Is there any reason i should take that councils' opinions above other councils or creeds or Scripture? How did that council decide things, by majority vote? What if the minority voters were correct in many matters?

you really need to brush up on history. that council doesn't contradict other councils, plus the Scripture was codified at a council. this is an incredibly ignorant thing to ask.

Flourishing how? Evidently not in doctrine if they rejected universalism which was not rejected in the early creeds of the church.

it also wasnt during the Dark Ages. and you are assuming that just because the Creeds don't condemn universalism, that it's gotta be okay. that's a really dumb point. no Creed condemns reincarnation or Scientology either.

Evidently "many" EO do not agree with (a) either your private interpretation of those dark ages councils or (b) they don't consider them binding. Because "many" EO today are universalists. Also it seems some 40% of EO do not believe in "hell", whatever that is supposed to mean.

many EO are not universalists. plus, that's an irrelevant point to a Council's authority. at one point after Nicaea, most of Christianity was still Arian. that in no way means Arianism is true.

Of course i do insist that i'm right about certain things, such as (1) God's existence, (2) Christ being the only way of salvation, (3) universalism being a truth of the Scriptures, etc. Just as others here insist on their "interpretation" of the authority of dark ages councils, prayers to Mary, infallible statements of Popes, etc.

you keep saying Dark Ages councils, it was no such thing. and yeah, that's you. I don't care what you think if it doesn't fall in line with what Christianity has consistently taught for 2000 years. universalism was no such thing.

Actually i previously addressed a poster here making that comment, but never received a reply. Search the forum & you'll find it.

What relevance has that to the points made? It's still an "eternity" of torments. How is that not sicko sadism?

Who is responsible for time ending? Those suffering for "eternity" who never get another chance to love God?

And where does Scripture ever speak of an end of time? Does that even make any sense?

If the aionion times (Titus 1:2; 2 Tim.1:9) end, then must the aionion punishment also end (Mt.25:46)?

Titus 1:2 in expectation of life eonian, which God, Who does not lie, promises before times eonian (CLV)

2 Tim.1:9 Who saves us and calls us with a holy calling, not in accord with our acts, but in accord with His own purpose and the grace which is given to us in Christ Jesus before times eonian (CLV)

and I didn't say an end of time either. what I said was timelessness. which is outside of successive time. proof again you don't listen or read what we say.

 

[ClementofA]

I don't know why quoting the Dark Ages is an argument at all

It's not an argument. It is used to refer to a time period long after Christ, His apostles & the earliest creeds.

"Generally, the Dark Ages referred to the period of time ushered in by the fall of the Western Roman Empire. This took place when the last Western emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by Odoacer, a barbarian. AD 476 was the time of this event.

"...The Dark Ages was a period of religious struggle. Orthodox Christians and Catholics viewed the era from opposing perspectives. Orthodox Christians regarded this time as a period of Catholic corruption; they repudiated the ways of the Catholic Church with its papal doctrines and hierarchy. Orthodox Christians strove to recreate a pure Christianity, void of these “dark” Catholic ways. Catholics did not view this era as “dark.” Catholics viewed this period as a harmonious, productive religious era. The Dark Ages were also the years of vast Muslim conquests. Along with other nomads and horse and camel warriors, the Muslims rode through the fallen empire, wreaking havoc and seeding intellectual and social heresy in their wake. Muslim conquests prevailed until the time of the Crusades."

 

[ClementofA]

again, your conclusion, and more proof you just repeat yourself on here and don't actually want to dialogue with us.

The fact you don't address or try to correct or refute what i posted, re-posted below, indicates either (1) you can't and/or (2) you don't "actually want to dialogue with [me]".

Considering that has been your standard M.O. response since i started posting in this forum years ago, i'll consider both to be true.

Yet it is - your - God who has arranged things such that it is impossible for such wicked ones to "repent and return to God". So, actually, He is the one 100% responsible for their failure to do so. And - He - is the only one 100% responsible for the endless and infinite sufferings they will undergo. How is that not one sicko sadist?

1. He allows them to be created via conception knowing in advance they will be tormented forever. So He is 100% responsible for their endless sufferings. Strike one.

2. He arranges things so they only have a brief time to "repent and return to God". So again He alone is responsible for their endless sufferings. Strike two.

3. He refuses to annihilate them as a mercy killing from their endless sufferings. So, again, He is totally responsible for their endless sufferings. Strike three.

In baseball three strikes & a batter is out. Though in this case a single strike & that reflects extremely poorly on Heaven.

again, proof positive you don't listen. eternity isn't endless time, it's timelessness. when you are into eternity you don't change because you are outside of successive time.

Actually i previously addressed a poster here making that comment, but never received a reply. Search the forum & you'll find it.

What relevance has that to the points made? It's still an "eternity" of torments. How is that not sicko sadism?

Who is responsible for time ending? Those suffering for "eternity" who never get another chance to love God?

And where does Scripture ever speak of an end of time? Does that even make any sense?

If the aionion times (Titus 1:2; 2 Tim.1:9) end, then must the aionion punishment also end (Mt.25:46)?

Titus 1:2 in expectation of life eonian, which God, Who does not lie, promises before times eonian (CLV)

2 Tim.1:9 Who saves us and calls us with a holy calling, not in accord with our acts, but in accord with His own purpose and the grace which is given to us in Christ Jesus before times eonian (CLV)

 

[ArmyMatt]

The fact you don't address or try to correct or refute what i posted, re-posted below, indicates either (1) you can't and/or (2) you don't "actually want to dialogue with [me]".

Considering that has been your standard M.O. response since i started posting in this forum years ago, i'll consider both to be true.

Yet it is - your - God who has arranged things such that it is impossible for such wicked ones to "repent and return to God". So, actually, He is the one 100% responsible for their failure to do so. And - He - is the only one 100% responsible for the endless and infinite sufferings they will undergo. How is that not one sicko sadist?

1. He allows them to be created via conception knowing in advance they will be tormented forever. So He is 100% responsible for their endless sufferings. Strike one.

2. He arranges things so they only have a brief time to "repent and return to God". So again He alone is responsible for their endless sufferings. Strike two.

3. He refuses to annihilate them as a mercy killing from their endless sufferings. So, again, He is totally responsible for their endless sufferings. Strike three.

In baseball three strikes & a batter is out. Though in this case a single strike & that reflects extremely poorly on Heaven.



Actually i previously addressed a poster here making that comment, but never received a reply. Search the forum & you'll find it.

What relevance has that to the points made? It's still an "eternity" of torments. How is that not sicko sadism?

Who is responsible for time ending? Those suffering for "eternity" who never get another chance to love God?

And where does Scripture ever speak of an end of time? Does that even make any sense?

If the aionion times (Titus 1:2; 2 Tim.1:9) end, then must the aionion punishment also end (Mt.25:46)?

Titus 1:2 in expectation of life eonian, which God, Who does not lie, promises before times eonian (CLV)

2 Tim.1:9 Who saves us and calls us with a holy calling, not in accord with our acts, but in accord with His own purpose and the grace which is given to us in Christ Jesus before times eonian (CLV)

because your three points have been addressed on earlier threads. maybe not to you, but they are here. this has even already been addressed on this thread. if you actually paid attention, you would not even have asked this. the reason it's my MO is because I don't like arguing with a brick wall.

to your second point, the fact that you said eternity of torments, shows, again, how you don't really pay attention. if you did, torments wouldn't be plural.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It's not an argument. It is used to refer to a time period long after Christ, His apostles & the earliest creeds.

"Generally, the Dark Ages referred to the period of time ushered in by the fall of the Western Roman Empire. This took place when the last Western emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by Odoacer, a barbarian. AD 476 was the time of this event.

"...The Dark Ages was a period of religious struggle. Orthodox Christians and Catholics viewed the era from opposing perspectives. Orthodox Christians regarded this time as a period of Catholic corruption; they repudiated the ways of the Catholic Church with its papal doctrines and hierarchy. Orthodox Christians strove to recreate a pure Christianity, void of these “dark” Catholic ways. Catholics did not view this era as “dark.” Catholics viewed this period as a harmonious, productive religious era. The Dark Ages were also the years of vast Muslim conquests. Along with other nomads and horse and camel warriors, the Muslims rode through the fallen empire, wreaking havoc and seeding intellectual and social heresy in their wake. Muslim conquests prevailed until the time of the Crusades."

and the council happened in the East (not the West) and nearly 100 years before Islam. so it's not a Dark Ages anything.