Early church opposition to endless hell

Status
Not open for further replies.

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
to your second point, the fact that you said eternity of torments, shows, again, how you don't really pay attention. if you did, torments wouldn't be plural.

So all those in "hell" being tormented will suffer - one - single - torment. Like a "bee hive collective" torment or something? Or will they all individually be suffering torment, adding up to many torments? Of both humans and fallen angels.

Will the same apply to those in heaven's timelessness. Instead of an individual experiencing many joys throughout "eternity" they will just experience one solitary boring joy?

Will they have no free will to reject God as the angels who fell & be forced to remain in that state of blessedness endlessly?

While those suffering "hell" will be forced to be tormented & can never escape this "hell". How is that not sicko sadism?

Why did your God allow them to be created knowing that suffering "hell" would be their unchanging destiny?

Why does He take them into timelessness knowing that suffering "hell" would be their unchanging destiny?

Why does He not annihilate them & save them from suffering "hell"as their unchanging destiny?

Why does He not send them to a planet where they can harm no others & enjoy the pleasures of sin for ever?

How is He not a sicko sadist?

If the state is timelessness where the torments occur, why does Scripture say there is "day and night" there (Rev.20:10)?

Rev.20:10 and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages.

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

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

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

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

2 Tim.1:9 Who saves us and calls us with a holy calling, not in accord with our acts, but in accord with His own purpose and the grace which is given to us in Christ Jesus before times eonian (CLV)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I don't see how those insults answer my questions. It's you who keep telling people to ask questions to learn what you EO's believe. As i asked:

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

the Scripture wouldn't exist without Councils, they decide by consensus. that's how the council was done in Acts. that's why it should impress.

Oh, you're dark ages councils weren't after AD 476? Is that what you're saying?

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

no, but the Dark Ages were a Western time, not an Eastern one. there was no Dark Ages in the East.

Strawman. I assumed no such thing. That's your erroneous assumption, because - you - don't listen to what you're reading. I had said:

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

not a strawman. you assume no flourishing because of a rejection of universalism at the time. that's not a good standard of flourishing. especially since it was rejected before those Creeds by many.

Like when, as you said, at "one point after Nicaea, most of Christianity was still Arian"?

There have always been universalists in Christianity for 2000 years. So Christianity has "consistently taught" universalism. Likewise the Scriptures have "consistently taught" universalism. And the earliest creeds were in harmony with universalism.

In the early church universalism was the orthodox (biblical) view & may have been the orthodox (majority) view for centuries (see urls below) prior to the dark ages. It may also be today, or be on the way to becoming so, in this more enlightened "internet age", the majority Christian view (see urls below):

Early Church Writings Fathers:
Church Fathers & Universalism since Early Church times
Indeed Very Many: Universalism in the Early Church
Early church writings re final destiny (paradise, Gospel, incarnation, Jehovah) - Christianity - - City-Data Forum
Articles on the history of Christian Universalism throughout the centuries
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchab.../©CPC+The+Ancient+History+of+Universalism.pdf
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.shtml
Lawrence R. Farley

most of these links only have around the time of Origen (who was condemned for universalism, so he is not a good reference) or stuff from the Reformation, or Fathers taken out of context (like St Gregory of Nyssa), or Clement of Alexandria who isn't recognized universally as a saint. plus forum pages are not the best place to go for this info.

Irrelevant. Regardless - your - God has arranged things such that those in "hell" cannot change their ways to join the blessed & will in timelessness forever remain tormented. Therefore everything i said still stands & remains unaddressed by you:

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

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

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

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

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

again, no. God doesn't do that. you can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true. there is another option aside from your baseball analogy.

So all those in "hell" being tormented will suffer - one - single - torment. Like a "bee hive collective" torment or something? Or will they all individually be suffering torment, adding up to many torments? Of both humans and fallen angels.

Will the same apply to those in heaven's timelessness. Instead of an individual experiencing many joys throughout "eternity" they will just experience one solitary boring joy?

Will they have no free will to reject God as the angels who fell & be forced to remain in that state of blessedness endlessly?

While those suffering "hell" will be forced to be tormented & can never escape this "hell". How is that not sicko sadism?

Why did your God allow them to be created knowing that suffering "hell" would be their unchanging destiny?

Why does He take them into timelessness knowing that suffering "hell" would be their unchanging destiny?

Why does He not annihilate them & save them from suffering "hell"as their unchanging destiny?

Why does He not send them to a planet where they can harm no others & enjoy the pleasures of sin for ever?

How is He not a sicko sadist?

If the state is timelessness where the torments occur, why does Scripture say there is "day and night" there (Rev.20:10)?

Rev.20:10 and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages.

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

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

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

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

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

people in hell are tormented to the degree they hold onto their sin. they are in hell because they refuse to let go of their sin. if they did, hell would be paradise as it is for the saints. all hell is, is God pouring out His love and mercy and forgiveness on the sinner, and the sinner refusing it and knowing what that refusal entails. they don't get the chance because they don't want the chance, even though God never stops giving them the chance. sending them to another planet wouldn't do anything because God is omnipresent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Not David
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Clement,
This is starting to get needlessly confusing. I am not sure if you followed what I said.

Army Matt made this point:
"no, it's your interpretation based on parts of a few Fathers, a few guys who are not Fathers, and modern scholars. if you were really rooted in reason, especially when debating us, the 5th Council would end this discussion. plus every council afterwards which affirmed the 5th. there is nothing really reasonable about what you have been posting."
I commented on Army Matt's comment:
To my knowledge, the 5th Council rejected a theory of Restorationism that it ascribed to Origen (although I have seen an argument that the anathema was not an official, accepted full part of the Council), but it did not reject Universalism per se.
So I was qualifying and clarifying Army Matt's comment.

You responded:
Why on earth would "if (i) were really rooted in reason, especially when debating [EO folks], the 5th Council would end this discussion"? Why would a dark ages council mean - anything - to me. At all. Can you give - any - "reason" for that? My OP gave sources much earlier than that. Not to mention reason, logic, & the clear testimony of the Scriptures.
In this thread, you are defending Universalism. ArmyMatt said that the 5th Council should end the discussion. I replied that the Fifth Council didn't reject Universalism per se. You responded with a rhetorical question, asking why the Fifth Council would end the discussion or have authority for you. In asking this question, you did not seem to notice my point that the Fifth Council didn't reject Universalism, because your follow up focused on a separate issue: why the Fifth Council should be authoritative.

Certainly, if the Fifth Council did not reject Universalism per se, then there is not much point in you trying to argue that the Fifth Council doesn't have authority. This is because that argument would be about a tangential, separate issue - whether the Councils have authority for you.

To answer this tangential question Army Matt gave a fine answer: "because we're EASTERN ORTHODOX and the Ecumenical Councils are binding."

Sure, if the Fifth Council rejected Univeralism, then it has some importance, because the Ecumenical Councils were gatherings of the Christians of the world, minus some break-offs like the Coptics. If a big percent of the world's theologians and Christians came together to reject Univeralism, then their decision would have importance because it would show the beliefs of the world's Christians, their community, their leaders, their theologians who have considered the topic, etc.

You responded to Army Matt by saying:
Evidently "many" EO do not agree with (a) either your private interpretation of those dark ages councils or (b) they don't consider them binding. Because "many" EO today are universalists. Also it seems some 40% of EO do not believe in "hell", whatever that is supposed to mean. Yet - you - a single individual presume to speak for all?
In case Army Matt was arguing that the 5th Council rejects Universalism per se, then Option A would be correct, since my point was that the 5th Council doesn't reject Universalism per se. You theorized that since some EOs are univeralists, (B) they might not consider the 5th Council binding. But Option B is incorrect, because the 7 Councils are foundational in Orthodoxy. One could get into the issue that we do not (or the debate of whether we) have to agree with every part of every Ecumenical Council, but before getting into that secondary issue or debate, first you need to show that the 5th Council rejects Univeralism per se.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Clement,
This is starting to get needlessly confusing. I am not sure if you followed what I said.

Army Matt made this point:
I commented on Army Matt's comment:

So I was qualifying and clarifying Army Matt's comment.

You responded:

In this thread, you are defending Universalism. ArmyMatt said that the 5th Council should end the discussion. I replied that the Fifth Council didn't reject Universalism per se. You responded with a rhetorical question, asking why the Fifth Council would end the discussion or have authority for you. In asking this question, you did not seem to notice my point that the Fifth Council didn't reject Universalism, because your follow up focused on a separate issue: why the Fifth Council should be authoritative.

Certainly, if the Fifth Council did not reject Universalism per se, then there is not much point in you trying to argue that the Fifth Council doesn't have authority. This is because that argument would be about a tangential, separate issue - whether the Councils have authority for you.

To answer this tangential question Army Matt gave a fine answer: "because we're EASTERN ORTHODOX and the Ecumenical Councils are binding."

Sure, if the Fifth Council rejected Univeralism, then it has some importance, because the Ecumenical Councils were gatherings of the Christians of the world, minus some break-offs like the Coptics. If a big percent of the world's theologians and Christians came together to reject Univeralism, then their decision would have importance because it would show the beliefs of the world's Christians, their community, their leaders, their theologians who have considered the topic, etc.

You responded to Army Matt by saying:

In case Army Matt was arguing that the 5th Council rejects Universalism per se, then Option A would be correct, since my point was that the 5th Council doesn't reject Universalism per se. You theorized that since some EOs are univeralists, (B) they might not consider the 5th Council binding. But Option B is incorrect, because the 7 Councils are foundational in Orthodoxy. One could get into the issue that we do not (or the debate of whether we) have to agree with every part of every Ecumenical Council, but before getting into that secondary issue or debate, first you need to show that the 5th Council rejects Univeralism per se.
So you are saying that it is an issue of authority?
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,128
7,245
Dallas
✟874,298.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How can salvation be torment? They are opposed.

And why would God give something (salvation) if it results in torment? Why not spare others from this torturous saving?

Who would eternally desire sin & its torments? It is mathematically impossible that anyone could reject Love Omnipotent forever. Given He continually seeks their blessed salvation & each free will choice has a 50% chance of going either way, how could anyone reject Him forever?

To those who desire darkness and reject the light God obliges them and grants them eternal darkness.
 
Upvote 0

Joy

Well-Known Member
May 21, 2004
44,847
3,358
B'ham
✟1,403,923.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
MOD HAT ON

After Staff Review
Thread is Now
Permanently Closed

RV: Statement of Purpose for St. Justin Martyr's Corner


Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of canonical Orthodox Churches are considered off topic. This includes schismatic or Old Believer teachings.You may debate Orthodox doctrines and talk about other doctrines but do not promote other doctrines.

MOD HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.