Universal Reconciliation is still unscriptural.

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private

Assuming that all of Paul's letters to individual churches were immediately sent to all the other churches

That is a diversion off the topic of the points being made:

Verse 11 says that "no one" can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid which is Jesus Christ. The words "no one" are not limited to the saints in Corinth, but refer to all mankind. This is the last reference identifying any group of people in the next several verses leading up to v.15. Thus, as i detailed in other posts, the most immediate prior context reference and the more immediate following context both support the view that v.15 refers to the unsaved being saved.

(15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Your summary might be correct if we ignore vs. 8.
In vs. 4 the voice from heaven says "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death."
Vs. 5-8 is a continuous narrative, vs. 5 the one on the throne speaks "Behold I make all things new" So "no more death" and "all things new."
But in vs. 8 there are several groups of people who will be thrown into the lake of fire, "which is the second death."


If verses 1-8 proceeded in the chronological order of time going forward, with verses 1-5 speaking of the final state of the saved, then this would not follow in vs.6-7:

"I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."

In verses 6-7 John is going back in time to the present. In v.8 he speaks of those in the lake of fire, who were already put there back in chapter 21.


Revelation 21:4-8
(4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
(5) And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
(8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
•– Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] II. The Five Books Against Marcion. Book IV.
Chap. XXVIII. After deterring His disciples from denial of Himself, He adds an admonition to fear blasphemy: “Whosoever shall speak against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him.” (Luk_12:10) Now, if both the remission and the retention of sin savour of a judicial God, the Holy Ghost, who is not to be blasphemed, will belong to Him, who will not forgive the blasphemy; just as He who, in the preceding passage, was not to be denied, belonged to, Him who would, after He had killed, also cast into hell.


What a surprise. A Damnationist has an interpretation of Scripture that agrees with the theory of Damnationism. Who would have ever thunk it?

How do we think a Universalist would interpret the same? Hmmm. Don't think too hard on that one.


-----------------


Does this prove Athenagoras (133–190) was a universalist?
Postby Questorius » Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:59 am

Hello everyone!

When I read The Restitution of All Things by Andrew Jukes, I came across this quote of Athenagoras: "And as this follows of necessity, there must by all means be a resurrection of the bodies which are dead or even entirely dissolved, and the same men must be formed anew. ... for if this takes place, the end befitting the nature of men follows also. And the end of an intelligent life and of a rational judgment, we shall make no mistake in saying, is to be occupied uninterruptedly with those objects to which the natural reason is chiefly and primarily adapted, and to delight unceasingly in the contemplation of Him who is, and of His decrees; notwithstanding that the majority of men, because they are affected too passionately and too violently by things below, pass through life without attaining this object. For the large number of those who fail of the end that belongs to them does not make void the common lot, since the examination relates to individuals, and the reward or punishment of lives ill or well spent is proportioned to what each has done." (On the Resurrection, ch. XXV.)

Here's the Greek original which I can't read: "Τούτου δ᾽ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐπομενου, δεῖ πάντως γενέσθαι τῶν νεκρωθέντων ἢ καὶ πάντη διαλυθέντων σωμάτων ἀνάστασιν, καὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἀνθρώπους συστῆναι πάλιν. ... ταύτης γάρ γενομένης καὶ τὸ τῇ φύσει τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρόσφορον ἐπακολουθεῖ τέλος. Τέλος δὲ ζωῆς ἔμφρονος καὶ λογικῆς κρίσεως οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι τις εἰπὼν τὸ τούτοις ἀπερισπάστως συνδιαιωνίζειν, οἷς μάλιστα καὶ πρώτως ὁ φυσικὸς συνήρμοσται λόγος, τῇ τε θεωρίᾳ τοῦ ὄντος καὶ τῶν ἐκείνῳ δεδογμένων ἀπαύστως ἐπαγάλλεσθαι· κἂν οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἐμπαθέστερον καὶ σφοδρότερον τοῖς τῇδε προσπεπονθότες ἄστοχοι τούτου διατελῶσιν. Οὐ γὰρ ἀκυροῖ τὴν κοινὴν ἀποκλήρωσιν τὸ πλῆθοσ τῶν ἀποπιπτόντων τοῦ προσήκοντος αὐτοῖς τέλους, ιδιαζούσης τῆς ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐξετάσεως, καὶ τῆς ἑκάστῳ συμμετρουμένης ὑπὲρ τῶν εὖ ἣ κακῶς βεβιωμένων τιμῆς ἣ δίκης."

The passage seems quite clear to me. Athenagoras says that after the resurrection takes place, the end befitting our nature will follow, which is the uninterrupted contemplation of God, though there are many who don't achieve it in this life. But their failure "does not make void the common lot". Now, what could he have meant by this except that the present sinfulness of a portion of humanity does not change the fact that all people share one blessed ultimate destiny? Perhaps someone who knows Greek can say whether a different translation is possible, but the English phrase "does not make void the common lot" appears to me as an unequivocal declaration that all people have the same fate which cannot be made void. However, it perpelexes me that no opponent of the idea of endless torment except Andrew Jukes seems to have noticed this. Not even Dr. Ramelli. What's more, the annihilationist Henry Constable described Athenagoras as a sort of inventor of the doctrine of endless torment (Nature Of Future Punishment - Chapter 18). Anyway, if I'm right, we've got an explicitly universalist statement from 178-179 (A Handbook of Patrology by J. Tixeront) prior to the writings of Clement of Alexandria who would then seem to simply have continued the universalist tradition of Pantaenus who received it from Athenagoras, if the fifth century historian Philip of Side is to be trusted.

I've read the two extant works of Athenagoras (Athenagoras of Athens - Wikisource, the free online library) and have found several passages indirectly pointing to his universalism:
"I pass over the fact, that so long as the nature we at present possess is preserved, the mortal nature is not able to bear a punishment commensurate with the more numerous or more serious faults." (On the Resurrection, ch. XIX.) Saying that the mortal nature can't bear the punishment for the more serious faults implies that it can bear the punishment for the less serious faults. As the mortal nature can't bear an endless punishment, it is clear that in Athenagoras's view the punishment for the less serious faults is not endless. Doesn't it then stand to reason that the punishment for the more serious sins isn't infinite either?
"false opinions are an aftergrowth from another sowing" (On the Resurrection, ch. XI.) This looks like a reference to the Parable of the Tares where the devil sows the bad seed. Jesus's explanation that "the tares are the children of the wicked one" is typically understood as talking about people, but not so with Origen and Gregory of Nyssa who interpret the children of the devil as evil words or errors as to the true Beauty (see Origen's Commentary on Matthew and Gregory's On the Soul). It's conspicuous that Athenagoras interpreted the parable similarly to these outspoken universalists.
"a god never rages" (A Plea for the Christians, ch. XXI.) That's his reaction to Homer's depiction of Mars. It contrasts with what Athenagoras's annihilationist contemporary Theophilus of Antioch wrote: "if I call Him Fire, I but mention His anger. You will say, then, to me, “Is God angry?” Yes; He is angry with those who act wickedly" (To Autolycus, Book I, ch. III.).
"we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly" (A Plea for the Christians, ch. XXXV) It's unimaginable that those who can't bear to see a man deservedly executed would be content with sinners being eternally tormented.

The only part of Athenagoras's writings that could be construed as teaching endless woe is this: "when we are removed from the present life we shall live another life, better than the present one, and heavenly, not earthly (since we shall abide near God, and with God, free from all change or suffering in the soul, not as flesh, even though we shall have flesh, but as heavenly spirit), or, falling with the rest, a worse one and in fire" (A Plea for the Christians, ch. XXXI.). But this does not preclude the possibility of eventual universal salvation.

Overall, the case for Athenagoras being a universalist is quite strong, don't you agree?

Does this prove Athenagoras (133–190) was a universalist?
 
Upvote 0

Rajni

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯
Supporter
Dec 26, 2007
8,552
3,930
Visit site
✟1,207,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
Is that why Unis on this forum seek out and incessantly quote folks like Robert Young, E.W. Bullinger, Ilaria Ramelli, tentmakers anyone who supports UR? And OBTW they also quote church fathers like Clement, Origen etc. who, they claim, also support UR.
Are those accredited scholars? If so, and they support UR, what's the problem, again, exactly?

Face it, God is far greater than Partialists would like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mkgal1
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What a surprise. A Damnationist has an interpretation of Scripture that agrees with the theory of Damnationism. Who would have ever thunk it?
How do we think a Universalist would interpret the same? Hmmm. Don't think too hard on that one.
Same ol' copy/paste from tents-я-us. What a surprise tents-я-us claims that one of the ECF was a universalist. Clem how would you know what any ECF said since you have never actually read any of their writings?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That is a diversion off the topic of the points being made:
Verse 11 says that "no one" can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid which is Jesus Christ. The words "no one" are not limited to the saints in Corinth, but refer to all mankind. This is the last reference identifying any group of people in the next several verses leading up to v.15. Thus, as i detailed in other posts, the most immediate prior context reference and the more immediate following context both support the view that v.15 refers to the unsaved being saved.
(15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Let's ask Jesus if all mankind's work will be burned but they will all be saved by fire as UR teaches. We will just ignore the fact that Paul did not say anyone, let alone all mankind, will be saved by fire. Paul said "saved as if by fire." What did Jesus say about lost sinners and their work.
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.
Wait a minute Jesus you must be wrong according to UR all mankind's work will be burned but they will be saved.
Matthew 25:41
(41) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Matthew 25:46
(46) And these [vs. 41] shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Are those accredited scholars? If so, and they support UR, what's the problem, again, exactly?
Face it, God is far greater than Partialists would like.
I seem to recall someone getting in my face and criticizing me I for quoting Early Church Fathers, top-notch bible commentators and accredited scholars, but there is nothing wrong with someone trying to prove UR quoting Early Church Fathers, top-notch bible commentators and accredited scholars.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If verses 1-8 proceeded in the chronological order of time going forward, with verses 1-5 speaking of the final state of the saved, then this would not follow in vs.6-7:
"I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."
In verses 6-7 John is going back in time to the present. In v.8 he speaks of those in the lake of fire, who were already put there back in chapter 21.

What total scripture wresting nonsense. John is not doing anything in the passage I quoted. The only reason people want to rearrange the order of theses verses is because, as written, it contradicts their false doctrines. Now read these verses exactly as they are written. Vss. 3-4 a voice from heaven is speaking, a continuous narrative.
Revelation 21:3-8
(3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
(4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Immediately after vss. 3-4, in vs. 5 the one on the throne begins to speak and what He says is one continuous narrative. Note the conjunction kai/and connecting the two statements.
(5) And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
(8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
After "former things are passed away." After all things made new there are groups of people being thrown into the LoF which is the second death. No part of this passage can be legitimately yanked out and placed earlier or later in the book of Rev.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rajni

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯
Supporter
Dec 26, 2007
8,552
3,930
Visit site
✟1,207,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
I seem to recall someone getting in my face and criticizing me I for quoting Early Church Fathers, top-notch bible commentators and accredited scholars, but there is nothing wrong with someone trying to prove UR quoting Early Church Fathers, top-notch bible commentators and accredited scholars.
That doesn't answer my question. Are those accredited scholars? If so, and they support UR, what's the problem, again, exactly?
 
Upvote 0

Rajni

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯
Supporter
Dec 26, 2007
8,552
3,930
Visit site
✟1,207,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
That doesn't answer my question. Are those accredited scholars? If so, and they support UR, what's the problem, again, exactly?
I should clarify that question; it's kind of vague.
In other words, if the accredited scholars support UR, what's holding anyone back from accepting UR? If it's Accredited Scholar Approved, it must be true! :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That doesn't answer my question. Are those accredited scholars? If so, and they support UR, what's the problem, again, exactly?
Here is my reply again.
I seem to recall someone getting in my face and criticizing me I for quoting Early Church Fathers, top-notch bible commentators and accredited scholars, but there is nothing wrong with someone trying to prove UR quoting Early Church Fathers, top-notch bible commentators and accredited scholars.
My problem is why is it acceptable to you for UR supporters to quote various sources such as Bible scholars, ECF etc. but I was criticized for doing the same thing?
Are the sources I mentioned before credible etc. One that I mentioned was E.W. Bullinger. Here is the contents of his book "The Gospel in the Stars." Is astrology acceptable among Christians?
=====
The Prophecy of the Promised Seed of the Woman
VIRGO (The Virgin. A woman bearing a branch in her right hand and an ear of corn in her left). The Promised Seed of the woman.
1. COMA (The Desired. The woman and child). The Desired of all nations.
2. CENTAURUS (The Centaur with two natures, holding a spear piercing a victim). The despised sin offering.
3. BOOTES (a man walking bearing a branch called ARCTURUS, meaning the same). He cometh.
Chapter II
The Redeemer's Atoning Work
LIBRA (The Scales). The price deficient balanced by the price which covers.
1. CRUX, The Cross endured.
2. LUPUS, or VICTIMA, The Victim slain.
3. CORONA, The Crown bestowed.
Chapter III
The Redeemer's Conflict
SCORPIO (The Scorpion) seeking to wound, but itself trodden under foot.
1. SERPENS (The Serpent struggling with the man).
2. O-PHI-U-CHUS (The man grasping the serpent). The struggle with the enemy.
3. HERCULES (The mighty man. A man kneeling on one knee, humbled in the conflict, but holding aloft the tokens of victory, with his foot on the head of the Dragon). The mighty Vanquisher seeming to sink in the conflict.
Chapter IV
The Redeemer's Triumph
SAGITTARIUS (The Archer). The two-natured Conqueror going forth "Conquering and to conquer."
1. LYRA (The Harp). Praise prepared for the Conqueror.
2. ARA (The Altar). Consuming fire prepared for His enemies.
3. DRACO (The Dragon). The Old Serpent— Devil, cast down from heaven.
________________________________________
The Second Book
The Redeemed
"The result of the Redeemer's sufferings"
Chapter I
Their Blessings Procured
CAPRICORNUS (The fish-goat). The goat of Atonement slain for the Redeemed.
1. SAGITTA (The Arrow). The arrow of God sent forth.
2. AQUILA (The Eagle). The smitten One falling.
3. DELPHINUS (The Dolphin). The dead One rising again.
Chapter II
Their Blessings Ensured
AQUARIUS (The Water-Bearer). The living waters of blessing poured forth for the Redeemed.
1. PISCIS AUSTRALIS (The Southern Fish). The blessings bestowed.
2. PEGASUS (The Winged Horse). The blessings quickly coming.
3. CYGNUS (The Swan). The Blesser surely returning.
Chapter III
Their Blessings in Abeyance
PISCES (The Fishes). The Redeemed blessed though bound.
1. THE BAND—, but binding their great enemy Cetus, the sea monster.
2. ANDROMEDA (The Chained Woman). The Redeemed in their bondage and affliction.
3. CEPHEUS (The King). Their Redeemer coming to rule.
Chapter IV
Their Blessings Consummated and Enjoyed
ARIES (The Ram or Lamb). The Lamb that was slain, prepared for the victory.
1. CASSIOPEIA (The Enthroned Woman). The captive delivered, and preparing for her husband, the Redeemer.
2. CETUS (The Sea Monster). The great enemy bound.
3. PERSEUS (The Breaker). Delivering His redeemed.
________________________________________
The Third Book
The Redeemer
(His Second Coming)
"The glory that should follow"
Chapter I
Messiah, The Coming Judge of All the Earth
TAURUS (The Bull). Messiah coming to rule.
1. ORION, Light breaking forth in the person of the Redeemer.
2. ERIDANUS (The River of the Judge). Wrath breaking forth for His enemies.
3. AURIGA (The Shepherd). Safety for the Redeemed in the day of that wrath.
Chapter II
Messiah's Reign as Prince of Peace
GEMINI (The Twins). The twofold nature of the King.
1. LEPUS (The Hare), or THE ENEMY trodden under foot.
2. CANIS MAJOR (The Dog), or SIRIUS, the coming glorious Prince of Princes.
3. CANIS MINOR (The Second Dog), or PROCYON, the exalted Redeemer.
Chapter III
Messiah's Redeemed Possessions
CANCER (The Crab). The possession held fast.
1. URSA MINOR (The Lesser Bear). The lesser sheepfold.
2. URSA MAJOR (The Great Bear). The fold and the flock.
3. ARGO (The Ship). The redeemed pilgrims safe at home.
Chapter IV
Messiah's Consummated Triumph
LEO (The Lion). The Lion of the Tribe of Judah aroused for the rending of the Enemy.
1. HYDRA (The Serpent). That old Serpent— Devil, destroyed.
2. CRATER (The Cup). The cup of Divine wrath poured out upon him.
3. CORVUS (The Crow, or Raven). Birds of prey devouring him.
Contents - Witness of the Stars
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I've read the two extant works of Athenagoras (Athenagoras of Athens - Wikisource, the free online library) and have found several passages indirectly pointing to his universalism:
"I pass over the fact, that so long as the nature we at present possess is preserved, the mortal nature is not able to bear a punishment commensurate with the more numerous or more serious faults." (On the Resurrection, ch. XIX.) Saying that the mortal nature can't bear the punishment for the more serious faults implies that it can bear the punishment for the less serious faults. As the mortal nature can't bear an endless punishment, it is clear that in Athenagoras's view the punishment for the less serious faults is not endless. Doesn't it then stand to reason that the punishment for the more serious sins isn't infinite either?
Conclusion based on assumption not what was quoted.
"false opinions are an aftergrowth from another sowing" (On the Resurrection, ch. XI.) This looks like a reference to the Parable of the Tares where the devil sows the bad seed. Jesus's explanation that "the tares are the children of the wicked one" is typically understood as talking about people, but not so with Origen and Gregory of Nyssa who interpret the children of the devil as evil words or errors as to the true Beauty (see Origen's Commentary on Matthew and Gregory's On the Soul).
Contradicts scripture. Matthew 13:24-30.
"a god never rages" (A Plea for the Christians, ch. XXI.) That's his reaction to Homer's depiction of Mars.
So what? Who cares what a pagan thinks about his god? What does that have to do with UR?
"we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly" (A Plea for the Christians, ch. XXXV) It's unimaginable that those who can't bear to see a man deservedly executed would be content with sinners being eternally tormented.
So what? How does many human beings not being able to watch a person being put to death affect what God will or will not do?
The only part of Athenagoras's writings that could be construed as teaching endless woe is this: "when we are removed from the present life we shall live another life, better than the present one, and heavenly, not earthly (since we shall abide near God, and with God, free from all change or suffering in the soul, not as flesh, even though we shall have flesh, but as heavenly spirit), or, falling with the rest, a worse one and in fire" (A Plea for the Christians, ch. XXXI.). But this does not preclude the possibility of eventual universal salvation.
Where does the universalist Athenagoras say or imply that those that "shall have flesh, ... falling with the rest, a worse one and in fire" will eventually have universal salvation?
Overall, the case for Athenagoras being a universalist is quite strong, don't you agree?
Is it? Please show me one verse of scripture in this scribbling?
 
Upvote 0

Rajni

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯
Supporter
Dec 26, 2007
8,552
3,930
Visit site
✟1,207,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
Here is my reply again.
I seem to recall someone getting in my face and criticizing me I for quoting Early Church Fathers, top-notch bible commentators and accredited scholars, but there is nothing wrong with someone trying to prove UR quoting Early Church Fathers, top-notch bible commentators and accredited scholars.
My problem is why is it acceptable to you for UR supporters to quote various sources such as Bible scholars, ECF etc. but I was criticized for doing the same thing?

Here's my question again, as clarified in post #70, which may have been missed due to coming right on the heels of my post prior to it:
I should clarify that question; it's kind of vague.
In other words, if the accredited scholars support UR, what's holding anyone back from accepting UR? If it's Accredited Scholar Approved, it must be true! :)
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Here's my question again, as clarified in post #70, which may have been missed due to coming right on the heels of my post prior to it:
Answered this in my [post #71] above.
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Let's ask Jesus if all mankind's work will be burned but they will all be saved by fire as UR teaches. We will just ignore the fact that Paul did not say anyone, let alone all mankind, will be saved by fire. Paul said "saved as if by fire." What did Jesus say about lost sinners and their work.
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.
Wait a minute Jesus you must be wrong according to UR all mankind's work will be burned but they will be saved.
Matthew 25:41
(41) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Matthew 25:46
(46) And these [vs. 41] shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.





"This popular assertion, however, is fallacious. The fact that such a claim should so long endure and conquer, is proof of the power of deception."

The vast majority of learned sources agree the word aionios, & the noun, aion, can refer to a duration which is of a limited time period that has an end. The real issue here, then, is whether or not the word means a limited time period in the context of Matthew 25:31-46 in regards to punishment. That is something that should be a matter of serious study rather than assumptions based on what my pastor or bible study group assumes to be the case.

Considering the Greek word kolasis ("punishment", Mt.25:46, KJV) can refer to a corrective punishment, that should tell the reader of Matthew 25:46 what the possible duration of aionios ("everlasting", KJV) is & that it may refer to a finite punishment. Why? Because since it is corrective, it is with the purpose of bringing the person corrected to salvation. Once saved the person no longer has need of such a punishment & it ends. So it isn't "everlasting". [Or if it "everlasting", it is only everlasting in its positive effect]. Therefore this passage could just as easily support universalism as anything else.

From a review of a book by Ilaria Ramelli, namely The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp):

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena | Nemes | Journal of Analytic Theology


"...in a passage in Origen in which he speaks of “life after aionios life” (160). As a native speaker of Greek he does not see a contradiction in such phrasing; that is because aionios life does not mean “unending, eternal life,” but rather “life of the next age.” Likewise the Bible uses the word kolasis to describe the punishment of the age to come. Aristotle distinguished kolasis from timoria, the latter referring to punishment inflicted “in the interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction.” On the other hand, kolasis refers to correction, it “is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer” (quoted at 32). Thus Plato can affirm that it is good to be punished (to undergo kolasis), because in this way a person is made better (ibid.). This distinction survived even past the time of the writing of the New Testament, since Clement of Alexandria affirms that God does not timoreitai, punish for retribution, but he does kolazei, correct sinners (127)."
http://journalofanalytictheology.com/jat/index.php/jat/article/viewFile/jat.2015-3.181913130418a/271

"Augustine raised the argument that since aionios in Mt. 25:46 referred to both life and punishment, it had to carry the same duration in both cases.5 However, he failed to consider that the duration of aionios is determined by the subject to which it refers. For example, when aionios referred to the duration of Jonah’s entrapment in the fish, it was limited to three days. To a slave, aionios referred to his life span. To the Aaronic priesthood, it referred to the generation preceding the Melchizedek priesthood. To Solomon’s temple, it referred to 400 years. To God it encompasses and transcends time altogether."

"Thus, the word cannot have a set value. It is a relative term and its duration depends upon that with which it is associated. It is similar to what “tall” is to height. The size of a tall building can be 300 feet, a tall man six feet, and a tall dog three feet. Black Beauty was a great horse, Abraham Lincoln a great man, and Yahweh the GREAT God. Though God is called “great,” the word “great” is neither eternal nor divine. The horse is still a horse. An adjective relates to the noun it modifies. In relation to God, “great” becomes GREAT only because of who and what God is. This silences the contention that aion must always mean forever because it modifies God. God is described as the God of Israel and the God of Abraham. This does not mean He is not the God of Gentiles, or the God of you and me. Though He is called the God of the “ages,” He nonetheless remains the God who transcends the ages."

"In addition, Augustine’s reasoning does not hold up in light of Ro. 16:25, 26 and Hab. 3:6. Here, in both cases, the same word is used twice—with God and with something temporal. “In accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now…according to the injunction of the eonian God” (Ro. 16:25, 26 CLT). An eonian secret revealed at some point cannot be eternal even though it is revealed by the eonian God. Eonian does not make God eternal, but God makes eonian eternal. “And the everlasting mountains were scattered.…His ways are everlasting” (Hab. 3:6). Mountains are not eternal, though they will last a very long time. God’s ways however, are eternal, because He is eternal."
Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Jude 7 speaks of the fire that destroyed Sodom as an example of "aionion fire" (the same words aionion fire used in Mt.25:41, compare v.46). Did Sodom burn forever?

Philo was contemporary with Christ & we have this translation of his words which use the same words Christ used at Mt.25:46:

"It is better absolutely never to make any promise at all than not to assist another willingly, for no blame attaches to the one, but great dislike on the part of those who are less powerful, and intense hatred and long enduring punishment [kolasis aiónios] from those who are more powerful, is the result of the other line of conduct." Philo: Appendix 2: Fragments

In the year 544 A.D. the emperor Justinian wrote a letter:

"It is conceded that the half-heathen emperor held to the idea of endless misery, for he proceeds not only to defend, but to define the doctrine.2 He does not merely say, "We believe in aionion kolasin," for that was just what Origen himself taught. Nor does he say "the word aionion has been misunderstood; it denotes endless duration," as he would have said, had there been such a disagreement. But, writing in Greek, with all the words of that abundant language from which to choose, he says: "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aeonian (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked." If he supposed aionios denoted endless duration, he would not have added the stronger word to it. The fact that he qualified it by ateleutetos, demonstrated that as late as the sixth century the former word did not signify endless duration.
Chapter 21 - Unsuccessful Attempts to Suppress Universalism

If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios? Why not instead use the word aperantos ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? The answer seems obvious.

Early Church Father universalists who were Greek scholars & many others of the time did not see Mt.25:46 contradicting their belief:

"The first Christians, it will be seen, said in their creeds, "I believe in the æonian life;" later, they modified the phrase "æonian life," to "the life of the coming æon," showing that the phrases are equivalent. But not a word of endless punishment. "The life of the age to come" was the first Christian creed, and later, Origen himself (an Early Church Father universalist) declares his belief in æonian punishment, and in æonian life beyond. How, then, could æonian punishment have been regarded as endless?"
Another Aionios Thread - These Things Go On Forever


"Adolph Deissman gives this account: "Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: 'I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty...' If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?" "

Chapter Nine

As regards the fate of the Jewish people, early in the gospel of Saint Matthew Jesus' word does correct them re the false teachings of endless torments and annihilation, as follows:

Mt.1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt.2:6b ...my people Israel.

"Isn't it ironic that the passage most often used to support everlasting punishment is in fact one strongly opposing it when accurately understood?" (Tom Talbott, author of "The Inescapable Love of God").

Thomas Talbott - Wikipedia
http://www.thomastalbott.com/index.php
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
* * * Meaningless copy/paste deleted * * *
If you cannot extend me the common courtesy of reading and responding with your own words to what I post I have no interest in reading or responding to the same copy/paste over and over and over.
 
Upvote 0

Rajni

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯
Supporter
Dec 26, 2007
8,552
3,930
Visit site
✟1,207,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
If you cannot extend me the common courtesy of reading and responding with your own words to what I post I have no interest in reading or responding to the same copy/paste over and over and over.
I'd be more receptive of this grammatical argument if you could quote some accredited scholars.
Seems like darned if we do and darned if we don't.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mkgal1
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Here is my reply again.
I seem to recall someone getting in my face and criticizing me I for quoting Early Church Fathers, top-notch bible commentators and accredited scholars, but there is nothing wrong with someone trying to prove UR quoting Early Church Fathers, top-notch bible commentators and accredited scholars.
My problem is why is it acceptable to you for UR supporters to quote various sources such as Bible scholars, ECF etc. but I was criticized for doing the same thing?

I believe it was you who has been critiquing sources others use here on these forums for many years. Now when the tables are turned & your sources are examined critically, you don't think that is fair?

Exactly what were these criticisms you refer to? Were they regarding you, your sources, blind faith in them even when they present no evidence or argument (like an infallible pontiff)?

Did your sources tend to ignore Origen & other Early Church Father universalists use of words such as aionios & kolasis? Yes.

Did they translate (or rather interpret) the scriptures in accord with the doctrines, thus producing an interpretation Bible instead of a faithfully translated Bible? Yes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Seems like darned if we do and darned if we don't.
There is a big difference between someone stating a position and quoting credible, verifiable, historical sources in support of that position and someone copy/pasting a full blown canned argument from a UR website. Types of evidence which might be considered credible, verifiable, historical are lexicons, grammars, Jewish encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica, historical evidence such as ECF and the Talmud.
 
Upvote 0