Is Hell Annihilationism or Eternal Torment

David1701 said:

This is all very unconvincing, as evidence for Universalism (to put it mildly); and it's certainly not proof that "aionios" means "of limited duration", in the places where you want it to mean that.

So what if very many Christians, in Augustine's time, didn't like the thought of eternal punishment for the lost? Since when has sentimentality been a measure of sound doctrine?

I have absolutely no desire to read the commentaries of the Gnostic heretic Origen, or his disciples!

Now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation. In contrast, for those in hell: the smoke of their torment rises perpetually. As the Lord said, in hell, their "worm" does not die and the fire is not quenched.

Click to expand...

"Since when has sentimentality been a measure of sound doctrine?" This is not sentimental its Scriptural, Gregory of Nyssa was called the father of fathers and the father of orthodoxy, yet he was very outspoken that Scripture was clear that Jesus was and is the savior of the world not a potentiel savior.
Will you please show me your proof that Origen was a Gnostic heretic, if you had read any of Origen's writings you would know he fought the Gnostics and tried to show them in Scripture the truth. You show your ignorance about Origen.
Is the fire you talk about the same eternal fire that burned Sodom and Gamora ? If it is why is the eternal fire not burning?
If this is not convincing that aionios means of a limited duration, then you show me, from the Greek of 2000 years ago that they used aionios as eternal in Greek literature of that day, Plato did use it for eternal but was not consistent, put your money where your mouth is.

Jeff Saunders said:

I know we went over this before but here we go again, the reason that we can say eternal life is because the age that is eternal is in Jesus and he is eternal so the life is eternal, aionios is like the word tall, if I said " a tall man stood in front of a tall skyscraper " the man is not as tall as a skyscraper, tall is used for both but we know that a skyscraper is taller than the man. With the logic that you use the man and the skyscraper have to be the same height because tall was used to describe each one.
Yes all must bend the knee to be saved, few do that in the mortal body, most after the mortal flesh is dead, they still live but the mortal body is dead.
This is what was taught by a majority of the Greek speaking early church Christians before Augustine. I know it goes against Roman religion but that does not make it false.

Click to expand...

Jeff, using your same logic then God is eternal and sinning is against God, therefore, the sin is eternal and requires an eternal punishment. Either way your definition of aionios does not hold water. And, yes, we’ve been through this more than once before.

Jeff Saunders said:

"Since when has sentimentality been a measure of sound doctrine?" This is not sentimental its Scriptural, Gregory of Nyssa was called the father of fathers and the father of orthodoxy, yet he was very outspoken that Scripture was clear that Jesus was and is the savior of the world not a potentiel savior.
Will you please show me your proof that Origen was a Gnostic heretic, if you had read any of Origen's writings you would know he fought the Gnostics and tried to show them in Scripture the truth. You show your ignorance about Origen.
Is the fire you talk about the same eternal fire that burned Sodom and Gamora ? If it is why is the eternal fire not burning?
If this is not convincing that aionios means of a limited duration, then you show me, from the Greek of 2000 years ago that they used aionios as eternal in Greek literature of that day, Plato did use it for eternal but was not consistent, put your money where your mouth is.

Click to expand...

And yet the 5th Ecumenical council declared both UR and Origen’s teachings on UR anathema.

“If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.”

Hentenza said:

Jeff, using your same logic then God is eternal and sinning is against God, therefore, the sin is eternal and requires an eternal punishment. Either way your definition of aionios does not hold water. And, yes, we’ve been through this more than once before.

Click to expand...

Show me one place in Scripture that says because God is eternal a sin against God deserves eternal punishment.
The problem I have , after reading the early church fathers, is that those who believe in eternal punishment, do not take sin seriously enough, they want to just put it in the closet and pretend the problem is solved. The early church fathers, not all but most of the Greek speakers, took sin very seriously , they believed that sin must be destroyed to never be able to come back again. This can only happen because Jesus destroyed the works of the devil and will utterly destroy sin, but not his creation.
They taught that the Godhead knew what they were doing and had a plan, Jesus crucified before the foundation of the cosmos, and that sin would be eradicated and will no more infect his cosmos, all will live as God intended and planned for, on a new earth and a new heaven, after Jesus has conquered all his enemies and the last enemy to be conquered is death, which many say does not get conquered just tucked away so only the Godhead can hear the screaming for all eternity, and the few, who got it right, live in eternal bliss. This is what many think.
I will leave you with this quote from Athanasius of Alexandria-On The Incarnation-section 6-
" There was something deeply unworthy of God's goodness in the idea that creatures He made should be brought to nothing through the devil's deception of man; and it was even more unfitting that God's work in humanity should simply vanish, whether through human negligence or the scheming of evil spirits. So then, when the rational creatures He had made in the likeness of the Word were perishing, when such noble works were on the road to ruin, what was God, being good, supposed to do? Was He simply to stand aside and let corruption and death have their way? If so, what was the point of creating them in the first place? It would surely have been better never to have existed at all than to be created, abandoned, and left to perish. Beyond that, such indifference towards the destruction of His own handiwork happening right before His eyes, would reflect not goodness in God but a kind of poverty, and far more so than if He had never made humanity at all. It was therefore impossible for God to leave man to be carried off by corruption, because to do so would be unworthy of who He is."
The early church fathers had a very high view of God over man, not man over God, as we do now.

Hentenza said:

And yet the 5th Ecumenical council declared both UR and Origen’s teachings on UR anathema.

“If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.”

Philip Schaff: NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

Click to expand...

I am not Roman Catholic so it has no merit to me. This is the same bunch that said Mary was always a virgin and Jesus didn't have brothers and sisters. Their opinions do meat up to the scrutiny of the Scriptures, so they mean nothing to me.

Jeff Saunders said:

I am not Roman Catholic so it has no merit to me. This is the same bunch that said Mary was always a virgin and Jesus didn't have brothers and sisters. Their opinions do meat up to the scrutiny of the Scriptures, so they mean nothing to me.

Click to expand...

The Early Church fathers are more than just Catholic. A heresy is still a heresy.

Hentenza said:

The Early Church fathers are more than just Catholic. A heresy is still a heresy.

Click to expand...

The Early Church fathers, (first 300 years) were not Catholic, they would be closer to Eastern Orthodox, the Catholic Church didn't really begin till they broke off from the Orthodox Church. I know that is not what they think but that is history if you do not have an ajenda.
Yes a heresy is a heresy, but who decides what is heresy? If you look at the history of the Church, there have been all kinds of people calling all different things heresy. I do not trust any Church that has killed what they call heretics, to be always truthful and know the difference of what is and what is not a heresy. If they really had the fruit of the Holy Spirit they would not kill those they see as enemies/ heretics, but by their fruit they will be known, and I see lot of bad fruit. That is not Catholic bashing any Church that does this is in the same boat.

Jeff Saunders said:

Show me one place in Scripture that says because God is eternal a sin against God deserves eternal punishment.

Click to expand...

I’ll do that right after you show me a verse in scripture that teaches that faith in this life is not necessary for salvation or that there is salvation after death.

Jeff Saunders said:

The problem I have , after reading the early church fathers, is that those who believe in eternal punishment, do not take sin seriously enough, they want to just put it in the closet and pretend the problem is solved.

Click to expand...

Citation please.

Jeff Saunders said:

The early church fathers, not all but most of the Greek speakers, took sin very seriously , they believed that sin must be destroyed to never be able to come back again. This can only happen because Jesus destroyed the works of the devil and will utterly destroy sin, but not his creation.
They taught that the Godhead knew what they were doing and had a plan, Jesus crucified before the foundation of the cosmos, and that sin would be eradicated and will no more infect his cosmos, all will live as God intended and planned for, on a new earth and a new heaven, after Jesus has conquered all his enemies and the last enemy to be conquered is death, which many say does not get conquered just tucked away so only the Godhead can hear the screaming for all eternity, and the few, who got it right, live in eternal bliss. This is what many think.

Click to expand...

You know, God could have just created a perfect human with no possibility of sin. Why jump through all the hurdles including the very painful death of Jesus to just save everyone regardless of faith or sin condition at the end? Why all of the “repent the kingdom of God is near” if it didn’t matter?

Jeff Saunders said:

I will leave you with this quote from Athanasius of Alexandria-On The Incarnation-section 6-
" There was something deeply unworthy of God's goodness in the idea that creatures He made should be brought to nothing through the devil's deception of man; and it was even more unfitting that God's work in humanity should simply vanish, whether through human negligence or the scheming of evil spirits. So then, when the rational creatures He had made in the likeness of the Word were perishing, when such noble works were on the road to ruin, what was God, being good, supposed to do? Was He simply to stand aside and let corruption and death have their way? If so, what was the point of creating them in the first place? It would surely have been better never to have existed at all than to be created, abandoned, and left to perish. Beyond that, such indifference towards the destruction of His own handiwork happening right before His eyes, would reflect not goodness in God but a kind of poverty, and far more so than if He had never made humanity at all. It was therefore impossible for God to leave man to be carried off by corruption, because to do so would be unworthy of who He is."
The early church fathers had a very high view of God over man, not man over God, as we do now.

Click to expand...

Yep but God did not leave man to just simply perish as He send His only son to die for our sins so that those that believe in the Son will not perish but have eternal (aionios) life (John 3:16). Athanasius did not account for John 3:16.

BTW- Athanasius firmly upheld the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity and you said in your previous post that this belief turned you off the validity of the decisions of the councils but then here you are quoting with authority the works of one of the first ECF to call Mary the Theotokos and promote the concept of Mary as an ever-virgin (aeiparthenos).

Jeff Saunders said:

The Early Church fathers, (first 300 years) were not Catholic, they would be closer to Eastern Orthodox, the Catholic Church didn't really begin till they broke off from the Orthodox Church. I know that is not what they think but that is history if you do not have an ajenda.
Yes a heresy is a heresy, but who decides what is heresy? If you look at the history of the Church, there have been all kinds of people calling all different things heresy. I do not trust any Church that has killed what they call heretics, to be always truthful and know the difference of what is and what is not a heresy. If they really had the fruit of the Holy Spirit they would not kill those they see as enemies/ heretics, but by their fruit they will be known, and I see lot of bad fruit. That is not Catholic bashing any Church that does this is in the same boat.

Click to expand...

We probably agree quite a bit here as I think that the original churches were Orthodox. However, the 5th Ecumenical Council that I cited above actually took place in the east and is also called the 2nd Council of Constantinople.

Hentenza said:

I’ll do that right after you show me a verse in scripture that teaches that faith in this life is not necessary for salvation or that there is salvation after death.

Citation please.

You know, God could have just created a perfect human with no possibility of sin. Why jump through all the hurdles including the very painful death of Jesus to just save everyone regardless of faith or sin condition at the end? Why all of the “repent the kingdom of God is near” if it didn’t matter?

Yep but God did not leave man to just simply perish as He send His only son to die for our sins so that those that believe in the Son will not perish but have eternal (aionios) life (John 3:16). Athanasius did not account for John 3:16.

BTW- Athanasius firmly upheld the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity and you said in your previous post that this belief turned you off the validity of the decisions of the councils but then here you are quoting with authority the works of one of the first ECF to call Mary the Theotokos and promote the concept of Mary as an ever-virgin (aeiparthenos).

Click to expand...

I have never said you do not need faith in this life for salvation, if you define faith as, believing in something you can not see.
those who are reconciled after the mortal body is dead do not need faith, Jesus and others will be in front of them, but they still need metanioa, they have to change their thinking and get on the same page as Jesus and what he did for them and all mankind.
1 Cor 15:28 " God will be all in all" and Acts 3:21 " until the times of the Restoration ( apokatastasis) of ALL THINGS" these verses give us a declaration of what God has set up for the end of the age, this can only happen if humanity can be reconciled after their mortal body is dead.
God did not create people with out the possibility of sinning because God wants only the highest form of Love and that is out of free will, that is why we have free will, this was the plan all along, remember Christ was crucified before the foundation of the earth, he knew that if given free will, we would stray, so the Trinity had a plan to rescue his creation and they would pay the cost for all humanity, not just a few.
If it was only to rescue a few, God could have just kept the Law, a few made it by the Law, as if the Law could save anyone, why did Jesus have to become human and take on flesh, live a sinless life, and be killed by the very people he came to save, if not to save his creation from destruction. ( this is what Athanasius was talking about)
Athanasius did take into account John 3:16, but he also filtered it through the verses that I gave above and many others, he understood that that God can't be robbed, either by humans or devils, and Jesus will get what he paid for, it will take more ages to get it done, but God is not bound by time.
As for Athanasius upholding the perpetual virginity of Mary, I have not read any of his writings that confirm this, but even if he did, I still believe its false, all men are fallabel, that is why for me I do not follow any tradition 100%, I study Scripture and try to use the definitions of the Greek that was common at the time, I keep what lines up and set aside those that don't. God is infinite and no man knows God 100% we all have places that we do not have God correct.
For me a agree with Athanasius " The God of all is good and supremely noble by nature, and therefore He is the over of the human race." when I get to stand before Jesus, He will correct those things I have wrong or partly true, but he is good and supremely noble by nature, and I can trust him to train me as a loving Father, and I have no worries.

Hentenza said:

We probably agree quite a bit here as I think that the original churches were Orthodox. However, the 5th Ecumenical Council that I cited above actually took place in the east and is also called the 2nd Council of Constantinople.

Click to expand...

Yes, but they have no authority to make decrees that are not Scriptural.
You can place yourself under their authority if you want to, but for me I will not, I will hold on to something if it's true, no matter who says it, and let go of what is false.

Jeff Saunders said:

I am not Roman Catholic so it has no merit to me. This is the same bunch that said Mary was always a virgin and Jesus didn't have brothers and sisters. Their opinions do meat up to the scrutiny of the Scriptures, so they mean nothing to me.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in the Bible that says that Mary had other children, and the Bible stated she was a virgin. The belief that she had sexual relations is certainly not supported by Holy Scripture. We have free will to choose Heaven or hell, hell is a reality:

Ez 3:18 If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. RSVCE

Jeff Saunders said:

"Since when has sentimentality been a measure of sound doctrine?" This is not sentimental its Scriptural, Gregory of Nyssa was called the father of fathers and the father of orthodoxy, yet he was very outspoken that Scripture was clear that Jesus was and is the savior of the world not a potentiel savior.

Click to expand...

Being the Saviour of the world means that Jesus is the Saviour of Jews and Gentiles, not only Jews, without reference to how many.

Will you please show me your proof that Origen was a Gnostic heretic, if you had read any of Origen's writings you would know he fought the Gnostics and tried to show them in Scripture the truth. You show your ignorance about Origen.

Click to expand...

Origen used the allegorical method of Scriptural interpretation (as the Gnostics did).

Is the fire you talk about the same eternal fire that burned Sodom and Gamora ? If it is why is the eternal fire not burning?

Click to expand...

The eternal fire IS still burning, for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, in hell.

If this is not convincing that aionios means of a limited duration, then you show me, from the Greek of 2000 years ago that they used aionios as eternal in Greek literature of that day, Plato did use it for eternal but was not consistent, put your money where your mouth is.

Click to expand...

Here's some literature from about 2,000 years ago, just for you. See if you recognise it.

John 6:47 (W.E.B.) Most certainly, I tell you, he who believes in me has eternal life.

John 10:28 I give eternal life to them. They will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

Acts 13:48 As the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God. As many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Rom. 5:21 that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom. 16:26 (A.V.) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Gal. 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

1 Tim. 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

1 John 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)

1 John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Perhaps you would like to hazard a guess as to which Greek word is translated by the word in bold, in each verse? As I posted previously, the vast majority of the time "aionios/aionion" means "of uncertain duration, because endless" (i.e. perpetual, everlasting, eternal, etc.). It can mean a period of time with an end, but this is extremely rare, in the Bible.