Eternal Damnation, Conditional Immortality, or Universal Reconciliation: A CF poll

[public hermit]

I find CI to be a definite step up from ECT. At least CI, in contrast to ECT, doesn't portray God as choosing to perpetuate sin and evil forever! But it still keeps glory and honor from God. Divine love is not powerful enough to overcome sin and evil.

God can bring creation into being from nothing, God can raise the dead, but God cannot woo the human heart to freely love the true source and object of love. If that is the case, then either God created humans God knew would perish, or God didn't know and gambled, hoping not too many would perish. And yet, God desires that none perish. The God of CI is more compassionate than the God of ECT, but CI's God is either too weak for the task of creating a good creation or gambles with those created in the divine image. To me, either conclusion is abhorrent.

Under classic Christian UR, God desires none to perish and is able to save all, to bring all to repentance, even if some have to go through hell to get there. But God's love does not fail. God's love is not weak. If the cross and resurrection teach us anything, it shows the impotence of sin and evil compared to the God of life. Hence, God will be all in all.

 

[Der Alte]

I find CI to be a definite step up from ECT. At least CI, in contrast to ECT, doesn't portray God as choosing to perpetuate sin and evil forever! But it still keeps glory and honor from God. Divine love is not powerful enough to overcome sin and evil.

God can bring creation into being from nothing, God can raise the dead, but God cannot woo the human heart to freely love the true source and object of love. If that is the case, then either God created humans God knew would perish, or God didn't know and gambled, hoping not too many would perish. And yet, God desires that none perish. The God of CI is more compassionate than the God of ECT, but CI's God is either too weak for the task of creating a good creation or gambles with those created in the divine image. To me, either conclusion is abhorrent.
Under classic Christian UR, God desires none to perish and is able to save all, to bring all to repentance, even if some have to go through hell to get there. But God's love does not fail. God's love is not weak. If the cross and resurrection teach us anything, it shows the impotence of sin and evil compared to the God of life. Hence, God will be all in all.

God did not create mankind to be mindless automatons/robots that only do what they are programmed to do. Please show me one vs., 2 or more would be better, which states that "some have to go through hell to get there" i.e. heaven.

 

[public hermit]

God did not create mankind to be mindless automatons/robots that only do what they are programmed to do. Please show me one vs., 2 or more would be better, which states that "some have to go through hell to get there" i.e. heaven.

The scriptures speak of age-long punishment, where no one gets out until the last bit is paid. There are plenty of passages which speak of age-long, aionios punishment. That's what you think of as hell. I also believe in hell. We disagree over its function and its perdurance, but we agree the scriptures are communicating the truth, even in those metaphors.

I believe hell is the unquenchable fire of God, not some place. There cannot be more than one eternal being, and that one eternal being is God.

I believe all will repent because we are told every knee will bow and confess. We are also told that all things, whether in heaven, on earth, or under the earth are reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. God cannot be reconciled with sin and evil. So what of sin and evil?

We are told that Christ puts all his enemies under his feat, some enemies like death are destroyed, but he will become Lord of all, and, therefore, God will be all in all.

That is an interpretation of what we find in the scriptures. I didn't make it up. The basics have been there since the early days, perhaps going back to Paul.

Now, you do the same, please. You and I both know the scriptures, so please spare me the wall of text. And...I already know you disagree with my rendering of aionios. You don't have to rehash your position. I already know it. Instead, tell me the interpretation, as you understand it, that makes sense of ECT.

 

[Der Alte]

The scriptures speak of age-long punishment, where no one gets out until the last bit is paid. There are plenty of passages which speak of age-long, aionios punishment. That's what you think of as hell. I also believe in hell. We disagree over its function and its perdurance, but we agree the scriptures are communicating the truth, even in those metaphors.
I believe hell is the unquenchable fire of God, not some place. There cannot be more than one eternal being, and that one eternal being is God.
I believe all will repent because we are told every knee will bow and confess. We are also told that all things, whether in heaven, on earth, or under the earth are reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. God cannot be reconciled with sin and evil. So what of sin and evil?
We are told that Christ puts all his enemies under his feat, some enemies like death are destroyed, but he will become Lord of all, and, therefore, God will be all in all.
That is an interpretation of what we find in the scriptures. I didn't make it up. The basics have been there since the early days, perhaps going back to Paul.
Now, you do the same, please. You and I both know the scriptures, so please spare me the wall of text. And...I already know you disagree with my rendering of aionios some have to go through hell to get there. You don't have to rehash your position. I already know it. Instead, tell me the interpretation, as you understand it, that makes sense of ECT.

To start off the correct Biblical term is "Eternal punishment," not ECT, and Jesus said it. That's good enough for me. The phrase "eternal conscious torment" does not occur anywhere in the Bible. Unlike most folks I didn't acquire my understanding of the meaning of "aionios" from the teaching of some, scholar, pastor, leader etc. although I did hear the meaning "eternal" in school, I also reviewed every occurrence of aionios in the NT. I found 20 verses where the speaker/writer defined/described the word as eternal, forever, everlasting. That is how language works. If one does not know the meaning of a word, someone who knows the meaning of the word, defines/describes what it means. Those who think that "aionios" does not mean eternal/forever/everlasting most often choose a meaning which supports their assumptions/presuppositions.
Any definition of "aionios" which includes the word age(s) is false. "Aionios" is an adjective, "day" is a noun. Whenever anyone posts what I believe to be false I will "rehash" the facts. The list of vss. Read/don't read I don't care, others will.
Luk 1:33, John 6:58, John 10:28, John 3:15, John 3:16, John 5:24, John 3:36, John 4:14, John 6:27, John 8:51, Rom 5:21, Eph 3:21, Rom 1:20, Rom 16:26, 2 Cor 4:17-18, 2Cor 5:1, 1 Tim 6:16, Gal 6:8, Rom 2:7, 1 Tim 1:17, Rom 5:21, Eph 3:21, Heb 7:24, 1 Pet 1:23, 1 Pet 1:25, 1 Pet 5:10, Rev 14:11

 

[public hermit]

To start off the correct Biblical term is "Eternal punishment," not ECT, and Jesus said it. That's good enough for me. The phrase "eternal conscious torment" does not occur anywhere in the Bible. Unlike most folks I didn't acquire my understanding of the meaning of "aionios" from the teaching of some, scholar, pastor, leader etc. although I did hear the meaning "eternal" in school, I also reviewed every occurrence of aionios in the NT. I found 20 verses where the speaker/writer defined/described the word as eternal, forever, everlasting. That is how language works. If one does not know the meaning of a word, someone who knows the meaning of the word, defines/describes what it means. Those who think that "aionios" does not mean eternal/forever/everlasting most often choose a meaning which supports their assumptions/presuppositions.
Any definition of "aionios" which includes the word age(s) is false. "Aionios" is an adjective, "day" is a noun. Whenever anyone posts what I believe to be false I will "rehash" the facts. The list of vss. Read/don't read I don't care, others will.
Luk 1:33, John 6:58, John 10:28, John 3:15, John 3:16, John 5:24, John 3:36, John 4:14, John 6:27, John 8:51, Rom 5:21, Eph 3:21, Rom 1:20, Rom 16:26, 2 Cor 4:17-18, 2Cor 5:1, 1 Tim 6:16, Gal 6:8, Rom 2:7, 1 Tim 1:17, Rom 5:21, Eph 3:21, Heb 7:24, 1 Pet 1:23, 1 Pet 1:25, 1 Pet 5:10, Rev 14:11

As I've pointed out before, since we're rehashing, plenty of early Greek speaking Christians disagree with you. And since they're still alive, they probably continue to disagree.

If your looking for scholarly material, read Ramelli and Konstan's work. Here's a quote for readers who want to learn from recent scholarship about the word aionios:

“Apart from the Platonic philosophical vocabulary, which is specific to few authors, aiónios does not mean “eternal”; it acquires this meaning only when it refers to God, and only because the notion of eternity was included in the conception of God: for the rest, it has a wide range of meanings and its possible renderings are multiple, but it does not mean “eternal.” In particular when it is associated with life or punishment, in the Bible and in Christian authors who keep themselves close to the Biblical usage, it denotes their belonging to the world to come.” (p. 238)

Amazon.com

it's not a mystery that the adjective (aionios), for aion/age would be pertaining to an age or age-long.

 

[Der Alte]

As I've pointed out before, since we're rehashing, plenty of early Greek speaking Christians disagree with you. And since they're still alive, they probably continue to disagree.
If your looking for scholarly material, read Ramelli and Konstan's work. Here's a quote for readers who want to learn from recent scholarship about the word aionios:
“Apart from the Platonic philosophical vocabulary, which is specific to few authors, aiónios does not mean “eternal”; it acquires this meaning only when it refers to God, and only because the notion of eternity was included in the conception of God: for the rest, it has a wide range of meanings and its possible renderings are multiple, but it does not mean “eternal.” In particular when it is associated with life or punishment, in the Bible and in Christian authors who keep themselves close to the Biblical usage, it denotes their belonging to the world to come.” (p. 238)

Amazon.com

it's not a mystery that the adjective (aionios), for aion/age would be pertaining to an age or age-long.

There is NO mystery about "aionios." You did exactly what I thought you would, found somebody, somewhere that will tell you what you want to hear. The unsupported opinions of scholars is no more compelling that the scribbling on a public facility wall. What I want to see is grammatical/lexical/historical evidence not the unsupported opinions of so-called scholars. As I said, no matter what kind of twist you put on it an adjective cannot be translated as a noun, period end of sentence. Why is it "aionios" is the only Greek adjective in the entire NT which requires 2,3, or 4 words to translate into English? How about trying this, take the 10 vss. I posted to a Greek scholar, have someone who knows what they are talking about review and refute them. Once several years ago, in a previous century, when I was in the military in Germany, I was having a conversation with a friend in German the friend used a word I did not know, beinah pr. "bye-nah. I said I did not understand. The friend said "Es ist noch nicht elf uhr aber beinah elf uhr." "It is not yet eleven o'clock but beinah eleven o'clock.", which was the then current time. I then understood that "beinah" means "almost." That is what I did with the posted vss. I demonstrated the meaning by the supporting words in the very vss. not what some so-called scholar said. That is the way language works.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

i feel the same way when it comes to UR... i honestly think that those who say they're UR and also claim to be evangelical in their approach are contradicting themselves. how can Jesus be the only way when one doesnt have to do anything in order to be saved if they're going to be saved eventually, regardless of what they do?
and when you look at the differences between CI, ECT, and UR, ECT and UR both teach the same thing when it comes to immortality:
both doctrines teach that both the righteous and the wicked receive the same gift: immortality.

I am puzzled that CI Christians even give UR the time of day. I honestly cannot bring myself to argue with someone about this. It is just too ridiculous.

CI is completely different from that perspective. it is the only perspective that actually echoes exactly what Jesus, John, and Paul say about immortality in John 3:16, John 3:36. John 11:24, and Romans 6:23... and that's what convinced me about CI... it had nothing to do with the "unquenchable fire" or "eternal destruction" or "everlasting punishment", it had to do with if the Bible uses the phrase "immortal soul" or "immortality of the soul"... couldn't find it.

I was on the fence involving ECT and CI for about a year (believing both positions as a possibility). Then one early morning, I had seen an excellent CI apologetic article on Revelation 20:10 that used Isaiah 34:9-10. After reading the article, I was convinced CI was true. At that point, I was able to fully see how ECT was wrong not only biblically but morally. It was like a veil had been lifted from my eyes.

I actually was once a dualist like you, but that changed when i listened to Tim Warner's 24(6?) part seminar on the use of the word soul and spirit in the Old and New Testaments. he has something almost as long on his youtube channel in the Berean Bible Institute

Yeah, I am not sure I could buy into that seeing the story of Lazarus and the Rich man clearly reads like a real narrative. The story has a name of a person we know (Abraham), and a name of another (Lazarus). The story has a name of the place they are in. It calls this place hell (Hades). People generally know hell (Hades) is a place of torment. There is no indication in Scripture it just a myth and our Lord Jesus was not into telling fables. Jesus speaks 100% truth. All of His parables were based on real world examples or real stories that happened at some point in time. In fact, the story of Lazarus and the Rich man is not even a parable. There is no other hidden meaning to the story that Jesus told this to convey to his listeners besides the fact that there is a place of punishment if one does sinful things like not helping the poor in this life. Jesus said things like, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:33) (See “side note” below on my interpretation on the Greek word “Gehenna”). If hell means, grave, it does not sound all that threatening or unique because all people, even many believers die (Except those select saints who do not see death in the fact that they are taken in the “Caught Up Together“ event while they are still alive upon the Earth (1 Thessalonians 4:17). Granted, from our perspective, it sounds like it would be nice if there wasn’t a place of Hell (Hades), but God has a plan in everything that we cannot always see. Both “death” (i.e., the devil - Heb. 2:14) and “hell” (i.e., Hades, which is a place where the wicked reside and are tormented - Lk. 16:19-31) will be cast into the Lake of Fire (See: Revelation 20:14). Hades is not the second death. The Lake of Fire is the Second Death (Revelation 21:8).

Side Note:

I believe the Greek word “Gehenna” could possibly describing Hades (the place of hell) being burned up in the Lake of Fire after it had been cast into it (Revelation 20:14); Meaning, Hades or the place of torments has changed its location to be destroyed over an undetermined amount of time in the Lake of Fire. Hence, why “Gehenna” is still translated as “hell” in the English. Hell is still a place and not just a people because the Bible talks about the gates of Hades (hell).

 

[Der Alte]

I am puzzled that CI Christians even give UR the time of day. I honestly cannot bring myself to argue with someone about this. It is just too ridiculous.
I was on the fence involving ECT and CI for about a year (believing both positions as a possibility). Then one early morning, I had seen an excellent CI apologetic article on Revelation 20:10 that used Isaiah 34:9-10. After reading the article, I was convinced CI was true. At that point, I was able to fully see how ECT was wrong not only biblically but morally. It was like a veil had been lifted from my eyes.
Yeah, I am not sure I could buy into that seeing the story of Lazarus and the Rich man clearly reads like a real narrative. The story has a name of a person we know (Abraham), and a name of another (Lazarus). The story has a name of the place they are in. It calls this place hell (Hades). People generally know hell (Hades) is a place of torment. There is no indication in Scripture it just a myth and our Lord Jesus was not into telling fables. Jesus speaks 100% truth. All of His parables were based on real world examples or real stories that happened at some point in time. In fact, the story of Lazarus and the Rich man is not even a parable. There is no other hidden meaning to the story that Jesus told this to convey to his listeners besides the fact that there is a place of punishment if one does sinful things like not helping the poor in this life. Jesus said things like, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:33). If hell means, grave, it does not sound all that threatening or unique because all people, even many believers die (Except those select saints who do not see death in the fact that they are taken in the “Caught Up Together“ event while they are still alive upon the Earth (1 Thessalonians 4:17). Granted, from our perspective, it sounds like it would be nice if there wasn’t a place of Hell (Hades), but God has a plan in everything that we cannot always see. Both “death” (i.e., the devil - Heb. 2:14) and “hell” (i.e., Hades, which is a place where the wicked reside and are tormented - Lk. 16:19-31) will be cast into the Lake of Fire (See: Revelation 20:14). Hades is not the second death. The Lake of Fire is the Second Death (Revelation 21:8).

FYI the only 6 early church fathers who quoted/referred to Lazarus and the rich man considered it to be factual.

[1]• Irenaeus Against Heresies Book II Chapter XXXIV.-Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning.
Ireneaeus, [120-202 AD]
1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,-in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives [=Latin for rich] knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him-[Lazarus], on whom he did not [[formerly]] bestow even the crumbs [[which fell]] from his table.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
[2]•Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1
On the Resurrection.
This was the day. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.
[3]•Tertullian IX A Treatise On The Soul Chap. VII [A.D. 145-220.]
In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality . For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.
[4]•Tertullian Part First A Treatise On The Soul Chapter 57
9. Moreover, the fact that Hades is not in any case opened for (the escape of) any soul , has been firmly established by the Lord in the person of Abraham, in His representation of the poor man at rest and the rich man in torment.
[5]•The Epistles Of Cyprian [A.D. 200-258] Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics
Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.
[6]•Methodius . [A.D. 260-312] XIX he Discourse on the Resurrection. Part III. [A.D. 260-312]
But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence, also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are such according to their essence. ​

 

[Der Alte]

The scriptures speak of age-long punishment, where no one gets out until the last bit is paid. There are plenty of passages which speak of age-long, aionios punishment. That's what you think of as hell. I also believe in hell. We disagree over its function and its perdurance, but we agree the scriptures are communicating the truth, even in those metaphors.
I believe hell is the unquenchable fire of God, not some place. There cannot be more than one eternal being, and that one eternal being is God.
I believe all will repent because we are told every knee will bow and confess. We are also told that all things, whether in heaven, on earth, or under the earth are reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. God cannot be reconciled with sin and evil. So what of sin and evil?
We are told that Christ puts all his enemies under his feat, some enemies like death are destroyed, but he will become Lord of all, and, therefore, God will be all in all.
That is an interpretation of what we find in the scriptures. I didn't make it up. The basics have been there since the early days, perhaps going back to Paul.
Now, you do the same, please. You and I both know the scriptures, so please spare me the wall of text. And...I already know you disagree with my rendering of aionios. You don't have to rehash your position. I already know it. Instead, tell me the interpretation, as you understand it, that makes sense of ECT.

The Bible does NOT speak of age-long punishment, it speaks of "eternal punishment." Jesus said so! Matt 25:46. "Aionios" is and adjective, age is a noun. An adjective cannot be translated as a noun.
I have posted 20 vss, which clearly define/describe "aionios" as meaning eternal/forever/everlasting. That "aionios" or any other word is sometimes used figuratively does not change the inherent meaning.
1 Timothy 1:17, 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Hebrews 7:24, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Timothy 6:16, Galatians 6:8, John 6:58, John 10:20, 1 John 2:17, 1 Peter 5:10, Romans 2:7, Luke 1:33,Revelation 14:11, John 10:28, John 3:15, John 3:16, John 5:24, John 8:51, Ephesians 3:21, Romans 1:20, Romans 5:21, Romans 16:26, John 3:36 , John 4:14, John 6:27
Yes, the Bible says in 3 vss. that every knee will bow, Isa 45:23, Rom 14:11, Php 2:10. But there are 6 vss. which say that the enemies of Jesus will be made His footstool, Psa 110:1, Mat 22:44, Mar 12:36, Luk 20:43, Act 2:35, Heb 1:13. And they will have to be on their knees to do that. Not one of those vss. say those enemies will then become loving followers of Jesus.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

FYI the only 6 early church fathers who quoted/referred to Lazarus and the rich man considered it to be factual.

[1]• Irenaeus Against Heresies Book II Chapter XXXIV.-Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning.​

Ireneaeus, [120-202 AD]​

1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,-in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives [=Latin for rich] knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him-[Lazarus], on whom he did not [[formerly]] bestow even the crumbs [[which fell]] from his table.​

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library​

[2]•Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1​

On the Resurrection.​

This was the day. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.​

[3]•Tertullian IX A Treatise On The Soul Chap. VII [A.D. 145-220.]​

In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality . For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.​

[4]•Tertullian Part First A Treatise On The Soul Chapter 57​

9. Moreover, the fact that Hades is not in any case opened for (the escape of) any soul , has been firmly established by the Lord in the person of Abraham, in His representation of the poor man at rest and the rich man in torment.​

[5]•The Epistles Of Cyprian [A.D. 200-258] Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics ​

Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.​

[6]•Methodius . [A.D. 260-312] XIX he Discourse on the Resurrection. Part III. [A.D. 260-312] ​

But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence, also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are such according to their essence. ​

As I said. I believe in hades or hell and I believe the story of the rich man is true. The text itself identifies that it is a real story. The Bible is my authority and not man made history. I don’t care what some guys said in history unless it is God’s Holy Word. Many of the early church fathers were into Catholic practices (which I do not agree with).

The end of the wicked is found in Isaiah 66. They are corpses. So we have to conclude the words like everlasting, for ever, etcetera are archaic words that modern bibles copied from the King James Bible. We know there are other words in the Bible that use such words that clearly are not speaking eternally like Philemon 1:15.

 

[Der Alte]

As I said. I believe in hades or hell and I believe the story of the rich man is true. The text itself identifies that it is a real story. The Bible is my authority and not man made history. I don’t care what some guys said in history unless it is God’s Holy Word. Many of the early church fathers were into Catholic practices (which I do not agree with).
The end of the wicked is found in Isaiah 66. They are corpses. So we have to conclude the words like everlasting, for ever, etcetera are archaic words that modern bibles copied from the King James Bible. We know there are other words in the Bible that use such words that clearly are not speaking eternally like Philemon 1:15.

I don't rely only on the history it simply verifies what scripture says. There was no Catholic church with any practices to be into until the 10th century when Gregory the bishop of Rome appointed himself "Pope" in charge of the entire church.
No, we don't have to conclude anything from a few figurative uses of words. For example, Simon was not literally a stone when Jesus named him "Petros" which means stone. James and John were not literally sons of thunder when Jesus called them that. Herod was not literally a fox when Jesus called him a fox, And Peter was not literally the devil when Jesus called him "Satan." All figurative.
While Isaiah does say that is the end of the wicked but the Bible doesn't stop there. I have read the end of the book.

Revelation 22:11​

(11) He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.​

Ten more vss. the end no more death, no more salvation Where are the unjust and the filthy? Not destroyed, outside the new Jerusalem

Revelation 22:15​

(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.​

 

[The Liturgist]

I am unable to vote in this thread because my position incorporates an aspect from what you would call the “agnostic camp” based on Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, stating that we can legitimately hope all may be saved, but to say all must be saved is a monergistic violation of our free will, and denies that the one thing God cannot do is force us to love Him, since true love is voluntary, I feel I should be able to say this while also expressing my own view that as @Der Alte pointed out, Christ warned some would be damned, and at the same time I resent this view as to the truth of what Christ said as being called “Damnationist.”

Indeed on the contrary I regard this position as “Salvationist”, since death and damnation is where all of humanity was headed until God the Father intervened, sending God the Son to open the door of salvation, even for those already in the grave, and the Son sent God the Holy Ghost to the living after his Ascension on Pentecost, the next major Feast of the Church, to help guide as many as may choose to be saved into that door.

 

[Super Kal]

I am puzzled that CI Christians even give UR the time of day. I honestly cannot bring myself to argue with someone about this. It is just too ridiculous.

normally, Conditionalists don't, at least, from what I've seen. I know Chris Date would say otherwise, but i honestly think he says that from an administrative perspective sine he is seen as a leader in the "Rethinking Hell" community and one of the main content providers for the website, and if one is rethinking hell, then that would include UR as well... however, he has stated that there is more conclusive evidence for CI rather than UR, and on that I agree.

I was on the fence involving ECT and CI for about a year (believing both positions as a possibility). Then one early morning, I had seen an excellent CI apologetic article on Revelation 20:10 that used Isaiah 34:9-10. After reading the article, I was convinced CI was true. At that point, I was able to fully see how ECT was wrong not only biblically but morally. It was like a veil had been lifted from my eyes.

I'm on the same page concerning that particular verse. on a side note, i originally thought Revelation 14:9-11 could be used in the same way, however I don't anymore. I now think when the verse says "there shall be no rest", it is referring to a time period in which the fifth trumpet has blown, those creatures with tails as scorpions have been released and are tormenting those who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads, and have taken the Mark of the Beast, and how Rev9 says they are tortured for five months, and how they will seek death and not find it.... i believe that's what Rev14:11 is referring to

Yeah, I am not sure I could buy into that seeing the story of Lazarus and the Rich man clearly reads like a real narrative. The story has a name of a person we know (Abraham), and a name of another (Lazarus). The story has a name of the place they are in. It calls this place hell (Hades). People generally know hell (Hades) is a place of torment. There is no indication in Scripture it just a myth and our Lord Jesus was not into telling fables. Jesus speaks 100% truth. All of His parables were based on real world examples or real stories that happened at some point in time. In fact, the story of Lazarus and the Rich man is not even a parable. There is no other hidden meaning to the story that Jesus told this to convey to his listeners besides the fact that there is a place of punishment if one does sinful things like not helping the poor in this life. Jesus said things like, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:33) (See “side note” below on my interpretation on the Greek word “Gehenna”). If hell means, grave, it does not sound all that threatening or unique because all people, even many believers die (Except those select saints who do not see death in the fact that they are taken in the “Caught Up Together“ event while they are still alive upon the Earth (1 Thessalonians 4:17). Granted, from our perspective, it sounds like it would be nice if there wasn’t a place of Hell (Hades), but God has a plan in everything that we cannot always see. Both “death” (i.e., the devil - Heb. 2:14) and “hell” (i.e., Hades, which is a place where the wicked reside and are tormented - Lk. 16:19-31) will be cast into the Lake of Fire (See: Revelation 20:14). Hades is not the second death. The Lake of Fire is the Second Death (Revelation 21:8).

couple of things:

1.) Luke 16:19-31 begins with "there was a certain...". there is no narrative in the Gospel of Luke to suggest that there is any other place that when Jesus starts with the phrase "there was a certain...", it is referring to a literal historical story. Jesus never said these stories ever literally happened. Could hey have? sure, they could have... but that's not the point to why Jesus used parables. He used parables to illustrate a spiritual meaning about the Kingdom of Heaven, not about a real life situation that happened.

Jesus Himself says:
Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given . . . . And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive, for the heart of this people has grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them' Matthew 13:11, 14-15

this parable tells how the rich man and Lazarus challenges us to think about what we do know and how we respond to it. The rich man saw that poor man outside his gate every day and did nothing to help him. In Luke’s gospel this parable is in the midst of some challenging teaching about what God values and how the world works:
Luke 14 has the banquet story, where the servant is sent into the streets to invite those with disabilities; God values people that the world in general may not.
Luke 15 is about the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son; God is valuing the individual.

Even if we do not follow prosperity teaching of some, we often consider the poor are poor, because they have made unwise or sinful choices. The opposite is the case here. The rich man saw Lazarus at his gate every day and did nothing to help him. The story notes that Lazarus was covered in sores, so it would be very hard for the rich man to miss him as he went through his gate every day. The rich man is the fool. In the parable preceding, about the shrewd manager, Jesus challenges us with the following:
“The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.”

Every time Jesus uses that phrase, He is referring to a parable. It doesn't matter if He used a pronoun or not, it still begins with "there was a certain..." unless someone can prove that Jesus used his phrase elsewhere- besides this one instance- to talk about a literal historical place that literally happened in the Gospels, I don't see any support for the claim that this one instant is supposed literal while every other time that phrase is used it's meant to be a parable.

2.) even if Luke 16:19-31 is to be taken literally, it has no relevance to the doctrine of Conditional Immortality. Conditional Immortality has to do with the final punishment of the wicked on Judgment Day, not what happens to us immediately after we die.

furthermore, why are you saying Condtionalists "claim" Luke 16:19-31 is "a myth"? not only is that insulting, but it falsely accuses those who don't see it the way you do as if they don't care about the scriptures... you yourself are a Conditionalist, you have no right to make that kind of accusation...
I do not take that parable literally, but as God as my witness, I don't see that as a "myth".
every Conditionalist that I have ever talked to concerning this parable, none of them, absolutely none of them, ever say "it's a myth".

that's a veiled ad hominem not just against Conditionalists in general, but directly against me... and i don't appreciate it one bit.
you and I can disagree with one another on whether it's a parable or not, and I'm perfectly fine with you believing differently than me on that, because I don't believe either physicalism or dualism is a requirement for salvation...

but don't sit here and think for one instant you can insult me just because I don't see one set of scriptures the same way you do, or claim that I'm some kind of "progressive" heathen when it concerns the scriptures...
I take them just as seriously as you do.

Side Note:

I believe the Greek word “Gehenna” could possibly describing Hades (the place of hell) being burned up in the Lake of Fire after it had been cast into it (Revelation 20:14); Meaning, Hades or the place of torments has changed its location to be destroyed over an undetermined amount of time in the Lake of Fire. Hence, why “Gehenna” is still translated as “hell” in the English. Hell is still a place and not just a people because the Bible talks about the gates of Hades (hell).

i disagree

 

[Der Alte]

I am puzzled that CI Christians even give UR the time of day. I honestly cannot bring myself to argue with someone about this. It is just too ridiculous.
I was on the fence involving ECT and CI for about a year (believing both positions as a possibility). Then one early morning, I had seen an excellent CI apologetic article on Revelation 20:10 that used Isaiah 34:9-10. After reading the article, I was convinced CI was true. At that point, I was able to fully see how ECT was wrong not only biblically but morally. It was like a veil had been lifted from my eyes.
Yeah, I am not sure I could buy into that seeing the story of Lazarus and the Rich man clearly reads like a real narrative. The story has a name of a person we know (Abraham), and a name of another (Lazarus). The story has a name of the place they are in. It calls this place hell (Hades). People generally know hell (Hades) is a place of torment. There is no indication in Scripture it just a myth and our Lord Jesus was not into telling fables. Jesus speaks 100% truth. All of His parables were based on real world examples or real stories that happened at some point in time. In fact, the story of Lazarus and the Rich man is not even a parable. There is no other hidden meaning to the story that Jesus told this to convey to his listeners besides the fact that there is a place of punishment if one does sinful things like not helping the poor in this life. Jesus said things like, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:33) (See “side note” below on my interpretation on the Greek word “Gehenna”). If hell means, grave, it does not sound all that threatening or unique because all people, even many believers die (Except those select saints who do not see death in the fact that they are taken in the “Caught Up Together“ event while they are still alive upon the Earth (1 Thessalonians 4:17). Granted, from our perspective, it sounds like it would be nice if there wasn’t a place of Hell (Hades), but God has a plan in everything that we cannot always see. Both “death” (i.e., the devil - Heb. 2:14) and “hell” (i.e., Hades, which is a place where the wicked reside and are tormented - Lk. 16:19-31) will be cast into the Lake of Fire (See: Revelation 20:14). Hades is not the second death. The Lake of Fire is the Second Death (Revelation 21:8).
Side Note:
I believe the Greek word “Gehenna” could possibly describing Hades (the place of hell) being burned up in the Lake of Fire after it had been cast into it (Revelation 20:14); Meaning, Hades or the place of torments has changed its location to be destroyed over an undetermined amount of time in the Lake of Fire. Hence, why “Gehenna” is still translated as “hell” in the English. Hell is still a place and not just a people because the Bible talks about the gates of Hades (hell).

There are varying opinions about Gehenna, Hades, Ge Hinnom, Sheol, hell, etc. According to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, link below, among the Jews before and during the time of Jesus there was a significant belief in a place of eternal, fiery punishment which the Jews called both Sheol and Ge Hinnom which is written in the 225 BC LXX and the NT as Hades and Gehenna.

GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

jewishencyclopedia.com

 

[Bible Highlighter]

normally, Conditionalists don't, at least, from what I've seen. I know Chris Date would say otherwise, but i honestly think he says that from an administrative perspective sine he is seen as a leader in the "Rethinking Hell" community and one of the main content providers for the website, and if one is rethinking hell, then that would include UR as well... however, he has stated that there is more conclusive evidence for CI rather than UR, and on that I agree.

May the Lord bless him for his efforts in trying to reach UR proponents. Personally, I just cannot bring myself to argue or debate UR seeing I feel it is akin to Biblical liberalism, and because it is beyond ridiculous. It’s like trying to argue against somebody who thought there were space clowns in the Bible. I don’t mean to cause any offense to UR believers, it is just how I see it. The Bible makes it way more than obvious there is a saved crowd and a lost crowd. To deny this is to deny the Bible at almost every turn of the page.

I'm on the same page concerning that particular verse. on a side note, i originally thought Revelation 14:9-11 could be used in the same way, however I don't anymore. I now think when the verse says "there shall be no rest", it is referring to a time period in which the fifth trumpet has blown, those creatures with tails as scorpions have been released and are tormenting those who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads, and have taken the Mark of the Beast, and how Rev9 says they are tortured for five months, and how they will seek death and not find it.... i believe that's what Rev14:11 is referring to

I also have come to the same conclusion on Revelation 14:9-11 a long while back (see here), but I believe Revelation 14:9-11 happens after the third seal (See my lengthy “End Times Chronology” here).

Note: Although, I have done so briefly in the past, I generally do not like to debate Eschatology. While the Bible is true, our understanding of the End Times is not written in stone. I prefer to see my timeline as one possibility of the future.

 

[Light on the Hill]

I voted Eternal Damnation and agnostic. I would like for UR to be true and think CI is more merciful (at least more than an active ECT), but ED seems to be the most likely position, at least if you only read the Gospels without the epistles supplementing them. However, I consider myself an Inclusivist in regards to ED, I don't see why God couldn't make exceptions for some people based on if they walked a Christ-like life in spirit, even if they didn't know Him by name or didn't fully understand Him.

So > fully informed free-will > would indeed > necessarily choose God.

So then why didn't Satan? The guy was God's right hand man and he still rebelled against Him.

 

[Der Alte]

After railing against Universalism for years, I recently forced myself to read several of the best, most scholarly Universalism-oriented books. I am now much more open-minded. Universalism is by no means a warm-and-fluffy doctrine that dilutes the Gospel message past the vanishing point. It isn't "Hey, don't worry, we're all gonna be saved!" Serious Universalist scholars talk of potentially eons of hell-like conditions before some are saved. The basic notion is that if God is Love, even hell must reflect and be consistent with that love - as Universalism is, but Eternal Damnation is not. (In that regard, Conditional Immorality would make more sense than ED.)
On the basis of the Bible alone, I might still favor the ED position. On the basis of who I believe God to be, and who I have experienced Him to be, I would lean toward Universalism. Hence, I copped out and voted Agnostic! If forced to take a firm position, I'd vote for Universalism.
I was struck not long ago by an atheist's Amazon review of a very serious work of theology. The atheist basically said, "I read this and understood it, just as I've read and understood lots of other Christian theology and apologetics. And yet, I remain an atheist. I cannot make myself believe something I simply don't believe." I was struck by the honesty and realized this is basically where I've landed after 50+ years as a Christian. Yes, I know what I'm "supposed" to believe, but I am not going to pretend to believe things I am simply incapable of believing. The God of Eternal Damnation is pretty much unbelievable to me.

The major passage which, for me, proves beyond question that all mankind will not be saved are the words of Jesus.

Matthew 7:21-23​

(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.​

(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?​

(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

Jesus does NOT say that all mankind will be saved, in this passage Jesus states, "Not every one ... shall enter into the kingdom of heaven;"
Then Jesus will say "many," not a few, "say to me in that day, [judgement day] Lord, Lord, have we not . . . in thy name done many wonderful works?" To which Jesus will reply to those many "I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity." When Jesus says "I never knew you" He means "never" not someday by and by.

 

[Der Alte]

I voted Eternal Damnation and agnostic. I would like for UR to be true and think CI is more merciful (at least more than an active ECT), but ED seems to be the most likely position, at least if you only read the Gospels without the epistles supplementing them. However, I consider myself an Inclusivist in regards to ED, I don't see why God couldn't make exceptions for some people based on if they walked a Christ-like life in spirit, even if they didn't know Him by name or didn't fully understand Him.
So then why didn't Satan? The guy was God's right hand man and he still rebelled against Him.

Romans 4:15
(15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
(13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 2:14
(14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:​

 

[Light on the Hill]

Romans 4:15​

(15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.​

Romans 5:13​

(13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​

Romans 2:14​

(14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:​

Are you saying these verses support or deny inclusivism? When I read them, I think they support them. One passage that I read that leans me more towards inclusivism is in Matthew 25 when God gathers the nations to separate the sheep from the goats. In saying "nations", I see this as those who may not be part of the Body. God has mercy on the sheep because they fed and clothed the least of His and thus did so unto Him. I think a group of believers would not be addressed like this or confused to why they were being praised for this, since we are called to do those works as followers of Christ; it would make more sense for a group of unbelievers to react this way.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Are you saying these verses support or deny inclusivism? When I read them, I think they support them. One passage that I read that leans me more towards inclusivism is in Matthew 25 when God gathers the nations to separate the sheep from the goats. In saying "nations", I see this as those who may not be part of the Body. God has mercy on the sheep because they fed and clothed the least of His and thus did so unto Him. I think a group of believers would not be addressed like this or confused to why they were being praised for this, since we are called to do those works as followers of Christ; it would make more sense for a group of unbelievers to react this way.

A good many Christians today believe they are saved by a perpetual belief alone in Jesus and that future sin is forgiven them. Many of them also believe in Once Saved Always Saved. So they are for the idea that they can sin on some level and be saved (Note: Some are Hyper Grace and others are for the idea that they are saved if they commit unintentional sin, and or if they go prodigal. So they would see a failure to help the poor in Matthew 25:31-46 as a loss of rewards for them. So they don’t believe in helping the poor as a part of entering the Kingdom. They would see the plain reading of the Parable of the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25 as Works Salvation (Which they believe is heretical).