Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Strongs G1842 eξολοθρευω = Extirpate; Destroy

(Acts 3:23) And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’

The Greek word for "cut off" above is exolethreuó (Strongs # 1842). In Exodus 31:14 it occurs with the meaning of death.
Death is not endless annihilation.

There is no endless annihilation spoken of in Acts 3:23.

This includes everyone in the universe, including the dead and demons:

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

John speaks of "every creature" & to emphasize this again he repeats "and all that are in them":

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

This worship (v.13) uses the same worshipful words as the redeemed of vs 9-10 use in v.12:

12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

All this being in the context of salvation - "the Lamb that was slain" (v.12 & 13).

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Strongs G1842 eξολοθρευω = Extirpate; Destroy
Nahum 1:3 The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will NOT at all acquit the wicked...

New International Version
The LORD is slow to anger but great in power; the LORD will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is in the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet.

New American Standard Bible
The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, And clouds are the dust beneath His feet.

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The wicked is reserved to the day of destruction, they shall be brought forth for the day of wrath. 2 Peter 2:6; 2 Peter 2:9

2 Pet.2:6 & many others you posted before & i already answered them. I'm still awaiting your responses. As for 2 Pet.2:9:

Regarding the Greek word for "destruction":

"684 /apoleia ("perdition") does not imply "annihilation" (see the meaning of the root-verb, 622 /apollymi, "cut off") but instead "loss of well-being" rather than being
(Vine's Expository Dictionary)

Also the verse speaks of a "day" of judgement & destruction, not endless destruction.

Jesus' body was destroyed. Was it lost forever? No.

1 Cor.15:28 And when allthings shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
How does Origen define eternal? See below Origen quoting Paul [14 times]. Please note, unlike your copy/paste from tent-r-us, I have correctly cited the specific writing for each quote. One again I cannot find anywhere Origen said “life after aionios life.” Can you show me where this "quote" can be found?​

Firstly, I didn't see anything you quoted from an English rendering where Origen, who wrote in ancient languages such as Greek, not English, used the word "define".

Secondly, the meaning of a word in one context does not "define" it for all other contexts.

Thirdly, you haven't even proven Origen's meaning of the word aionios in any single context.

Fourthly, your English interpreters - opinion - of what Origen wrote in another & ancient language does not mean that is how Origen understood his own words. For example re Mt.25:46 from your list of English language opinions, no evidence is given that Origen would have translated aionios there into English as the opinion you posted.

Fifthly, i have given you the reference to Origen speaking of "life after aionios life" before. And already previously discussed this with you. It is cited here:

"But even the aiónes will come to an end, Origen tells us: “After aiónios life a leap will take place and all will pass from the aeons to the Father, who is beyond aiónios life. For Christ is Life, but the Father, who is ‘greater than Christ,’ is greater than life” (Comm. in Io 13.3; quoted in Ramelli, p. 160). The Father transcends all ages. In the apokatastasis the entirety of creation will participate in the aḯdios life that is the Creator. God will be all in all (1 Cor 15:24-28). The Origenian notion of eschatological stages sounds strange to our ears today. When was the last time you heard a sermon on the Son delivering his kingdom to the Father in cosmic theosis? Origen’s exegesis should at least challenge our default readings of aiónios and the Eschaton. By contrast, the fire that belongs to the world to come, the pur aiónion, most definitely will come to an end. It may last for a long time, but it is not eternal. Evil has no place in the universal restoration."

And similarly:

"Origen, the greatest exegete of the early Church, was well aware of the polysemy of aión and its adjectival forms. In Hom. in Ex. 6.13 he writes: “Whenever Scripture says, ‘from aeon to aeon,’ the reference is to an interval of time, and it is clear that it will have an end. And if Scripture says, ‘in another aeon,’ what is indicated is clearly a longer time, and yet an end is still fixed. And when the ‘aeons of the aeons’ are mentioned, a certain limit is again posited, perhaps unknown to us, but surely established by God” (quoted in Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, p. 161).

And as to a definition, or rather Origen's understanding, of aion & aionios:

"Origen, the author of the Hexapla, proves to be conscious of the various meanings of αἰών and αἰώνιος in Scripture, whose Hebrew correspondent he knew as polysemic. He was well aware that αἰών and αἰώνιος in Scripture almost never imply eternity: “In Scriptures, αἰών is sometimes found in the sense of something that knows no end; at times it designates something that has no end in the present world, but will have in the future one; sometimes it means a certain stretch of time; or again the duration of the life of a single person is called αἰών” (Comm. in Rom. 6,5).431 The polysemy of αἰών is clear. Origen goes on to consider that the relevant adjective αἰώνιος, if applied to life, means “eternal” because Christ himself is Life, but, as he declares in Comm. in Rom. 6,7, αἰώνιος death cannot be conceived as eternal." (Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, p.163, (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.))

Christ Himself speaks of aionios life being obtained in the eon to come (Mk.10:30; Lk.18:30), yet Scripture speaks of multiple eons to come (Eph.1:21; 2:7; Rev.11:15; etc). At their resurrection believers recieve olam life (Dan.12:2), yet the context speaks of them shining brightly beyond olam (Dan.12:3), thereby limiting the olam life of verse 2. So arguably there is not only an interpretation of "life after aionios life" found in Origen but, more significantly, in the Scriptures.

Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

he-man

he-man
Oct 28, 2010
8,891
301
usa
✟90,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
2 Pet.2:6 & many others you posted before & i already answered them. I'm still awaiting your responses. As for 2 Pet.2:9: Regarding the Greek word for "destruction": "684 /apoleia ("perdition") does not imply "annihilation" (see the meaning of the root-verb, 622 /apollymi, "cut off") but instead "loss of well-being" rather than being
(Vine's Expository Dictionary) Also the verse speaks of a "day" of judgement & destruction, not endless destruction.
Jesus' body was destroyed. Was it lost forever? No.1 Cor.15:28 And when allthings shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Strong begs to differ with your Universalistic concepts, as well as Abbot-Smith; Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich; C. Brown Vol. 1: p462; Cornelis Schrevel; Edward Robinson; Kittel; Louw-Nida; P McGeynolds, etc. απολλυμι, απολλυω, being destroyed, absolutely, demolished, spoken of eternal death, i. e. future punishment, exclusion from the Messiah's Kingdom, etc. Matthew 10:28; Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; Luke 9:56; Romans 14:15; Luke 9:25, subject himself to eternal death. Comp. Eccls. x. 3. xx. 22. to perish eternally, i. e. to be deprived of eternal life, etc. So, "αι απολλυμεωοι" those who perish, who are exposed to eternal death, 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:10; the "perfective" force of the verb, which "implies the completion of the process of destruction", is illistrated by (v. M, Pr., 114 f.; M, 2 Thessalonians 2:10}; ME: OFr. ruine, from Latin ruina, from reure 'to fall'.
They also, do not agree with your conditional theory: G684 απωλεια perdition; destruction, annihilation, casualty, wastage, deprivation, loss wastage.
Screenshot_2017-10-28-08-18-42.png
Screenshot_2017-10-28-08-19-57.png
Screenshot_2017-10-28-08-30-32.png
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2017-10-28-08-32-55.png
    Screenshot_2017-10-28-08-32-55.png
    336.9 KB · Views: 3
  • Screenshot_2017-10-28-08-34-19.png
    Screenshot_2017-10-28-08-34-19.png
    339.7 KB · Views: 3
  • Screenshot_2017-10-28-08-55-12.png
    Screenshot_2017-10-28-08-55-12.png
    461.5 KB · Views: 5
Upvote 0

Mark Corbett

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 1, 2017
893
744
59
Severn, NC
Visit site
✟172,170.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So far there's been a lot of detailed discussion about various issues related to the three major views of hell: eternal conscious torment, universalism, and conditional immortality. If you've joined this discussion late, or even if you've been deep in the weeds of it, it might be worthwhile to review the simple argument in the OP. There I give numerous straightforward Bible examples showing the Bible teaches Conditional Immortality, using this definition:

Conditional%2BImmortality%2B1.JPG
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,578
6,064
EST
✟993,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Firstly, I didn't see anything you quoted from an English rendering where Origen, who wrote in ancient languages such as Greek, not English, used the word "define".
Your argument is irrelevant! Look up the meaning of the word "define." One does not have to use the word "define" to define something. I have used the word "define" correctly
Define 1. state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of. "the contract will seek to define the client's obligations"synonyms: explain, expound, interpret, elucidate, describe, clarify;
Secondly, the meaning of a word in one context does not "define" it for all other contexts.
Wrong! Using a word symbolically, figuratively etc. does not "define" the word. See definition above. Even in English the word "forever" means "never ending,""everlasting" etc. but it is often used figuratively for things, events which are not "never ending,""everlasting" e.g. "I waited for the bus forever." Such usage does not change the meaning. Please reread my quote from Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Dr,. Dan Wallace on "apposition."
Thirdly, you haven't even proven Origen's meaning of the word aionios in any single context.
Once again you ignored what I posted. Please see the last 2-3 quotes from Origen.
Fourthly, your English interpreters - opinion - of what Origen wrote in another & ancient language does not mean that is how Origen understood his own words. For example re Mt.25:46 from your list of English language opinions, no evidence is given that Origen would have translated aionios there into English as the opinion you posted.
Try actually reading my post.

Fifthly, i have given you the reference to Origen speaking of "life after aionios life" before. And already previously discussed this with you. It is cited here:
"But even the aiónes will come to an end, Origen tells us: “After aiónios life a leap will take place and all will pass from the aeons to the Father, who is beyond aiónios life. For Christ is Life, but the Father, who is ‘greater than Christ,’ is greater than life” (Comm. in Io 13.3; quoted in Ramelli, p. 160). ...
The problem is I have searched Origen's commentary on John and Matthew and I cannot find the alleged quote. Ramelli's and Beauchamin's unsupported, irrelevant opinions omitted......
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,578
6,064
EST
✟993,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So far there's been a lot of detailed discussion about various issues related to the three major views of hell: eternal conscious torment, universalism, and conditional immortality. If you've joined this discussion late, or even if you've been deep in the weeds of it, it might be worthwhile to review the simple argument in the OP. There I give numerous straightforward Bible examples showing the Bible teaches Conditional Immortality, using this definition:
You are not the only one who quoted scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Corbett

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 1, 2017
893
744
59
Severn, NC
Visit site
✟172,170.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are not the only one who quoted scripture.

That's true. And I should take time to say that I respect my brothers and sisters in Christ who believe the Bible is true just as fully and seriously as I do, and yet their understanding on the nature of final punishment (or other secondary theological issues) is different from mine. May God bless us all as we continue to seek His truth and to help others in this effort. And may our unity in Christ not be harmed by our current weaknesses which lead to different views even when we are striving to follow the same Lord.
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

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

Wrong! Using a word symbolically, figuratively etc. does not "define" the word. See definition above. Even in English the word "forever" means "never ending,""everlasting" etc. but it is often used figuratively for things, events which are not "never ending,""everlasting" e.g. "I waited for the bus forever." Such usage does not change the meaning. Please reread my quote from Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Dr,. Dan Wallace on "apposition."

Your hyperbolic & aion/ios definition theory was refuted in the following thread. See post #'s 201, 190, 172 @

What is the 2nd Death? (Annihilationsim vs. Eternal Torment)

The problem is I have searched Origen's commentary on John and Matthew and I cannot find the alleged quote. Ramelli's and Beauchamin's unsupported, irrelevant opinions omitted......

My post didn't quote Beauchamin. Unlike you, when i quote someone, i use quotation marks.

What does Origen's commentary on Matthew have to do with anything? I made no reference to a quote of Origen there.

Here is Origen's commentary on John where in chapter 13 i found the quote you're looking for:

13:19 "And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life".

Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 13-32
By Origen

Commentary on the Gospel According to John

Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell
 
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

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
This verse does not say that the suffering was eternal or that the punishment was eternal. Only the fire was eternal

If that were true re Jude 1:7, then one could argue that Mt.25:41 & 18:8 do not say anyone's sufferings will be eternal. And they only say the fire is eternal.

How do you know that the fire mentioned in Jude was not eternal? Prove it from scripture.

This verse does not say the suffering or the punishment was eternal only the fire is described as eternal. We cannot know where the "eternal fire" originated and that it did not return there after destroying Sodom and surrounding towns.

There are a number of verses that speak of fire coming from the Lord. None say the fire was eternal or returned back to heaven:

17 Bible verses about Fire From Heaven
Biblical Information

"Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven," (Gen.19:24)

Was the brimstone also eternal? Did the brimstone also float back into heaven along with the fire you claim was eternal? If so, what is the brimstone doing there in heaven now & since the time it rained down on Sodom & other cities? Or can brimstone be found there in Israel today?

'All its land is brimstone and salt, a burning waste, unsown and unproductive, and no grass grows in it, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in His anger and in His wrath.' (Deut.29:23)

The fire & brimstone that destroyed Sodom came down out of heaven and burned them to ashes. There is no reason to believe the fire & brimstone returned back to heaven afterwards. Likewise with all the other Bible references to fire &/or brimstone from heaven.

"Moses stretched out his staff toward the sky, and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and fire ran down to the earth. And the LORD rained hail on the land of Egypt." (Exodus 9:23)

Did the hail also return to heaven along with the fire? Was the hail eternal as well as the fire?

No, the aionios fire that burnt Sodom went out long ago. Just as the aionios time of a slave being a slave of his master only lasted till the slave died, whether that was in a day or decades (Exo.21:6):

"A slave serves his master forever [olam/aionios]. But only until death ends his servitude (Ex. 21:6)."

"Jonah was in the fish forever [olam/aionios]. But only until he left three days later (Jon. 1:17; 2:6)."

Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell

Universalism – The Truth Shall Make You Free
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

he-man

he-man
Oct 28, 2010
8,891
301
usa
✟90,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
If that were true re Jude 1:7, then one could argue that Mt.25:41 & 18:8 do not say anyone's sufferings will be eternal. And they only say the fire is eternal.
There are a number of verses that speak of fire coming from the Lord. None say the fire was eternal or returned back to heaven:
17 Bible verses about Fire From Heaven
Biblical Information
"Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven," (Gen.19:24)
Was the brimstone also eternal? Did the brimstone also float back into heaven along with the fire you claim was eternal? If so, what is the brimstone doing there in heaven now & since the time it rained down on Sodom & other cities? Or can brimstone be found there in Israel today?
'All its land is brimstone and salt, a burning waste, unsown and unproductive, and no grass grows in it, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in His anger and in His wrath.' (Deut.29:13)
The fire & brimstone that destroyed Sodom came down out of heaven and burned them to ashes. There is no reason to believe the fire & brimstone returned back to heaven afterwards. Likewise with all the other Bible references to fire &/or brimstone from heaven.
"Moses stretched out his staff toward the sky, and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and fire ran down to the earth. And the LORD rained hail on the land of Egypt." (Exodus 9:23)
Did the hail also return to heaven along with the fire? Was the hail eternal as well as the fire?
Universalism – The Truth Shall Make You Free
Don't be facisous:
Screenshot_2017-10-28-08-32-55.png
Screenshot_2017-10-28-08-32-55.png
Screenshot_2017-10-28-08-32-55.png
Screenshot_2017-10-28-08-18-42.png
Screenshot_2017-10-28-08-19-57.png
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Strong begs to differ with your Universalistic concepts, as well as Abbot-Smith; Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich; C. Brown Vol. 1: p462; Cornelis Schrevel; Edward Robinson; Kittel; Louw-Nida; P McGeynolds, etc.

Universalism = apokatastasis

"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians
(immo quam plurimi)."

"Of course there were antiuniversalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them — as is the case with the list of “the 68” antiuniversalists repeatedly cited by McC on the basis of Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church — an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις αἰώνιος, θάνατος αἰώνιος, or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed all universalists, from Origen to Gregory Nyssen to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly,” or “long-lasting,” fire, educative punishment, and death. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment” (p. 822). Didache mentions the ways of life and death, but not eternal death or torment; Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment. Ephrem does not speak of eternal damnation, but has many hints of healing and restoration. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, another of “the 68,” if one takes into account also the Syriac and Latin evidence, given that the Greek is mostly lost, it becomes impossible to list him among the antiuniversalists. He explicitly ruled out unending retributive punishment, sine fine et sine correctione.

I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage), Eusebius, Nazianzen, perhaps even Basil and Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome before his change of mind, and Augustine in his anti-Manichaean years. Maximus too, another of “the 68,” speaks only of punishment aionios, not aidios and talks about restoration with circumspection after Justinian, also using a persona to express it. Torstein Tollefsen, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Maria Luisa Gatti, for instance, agree that he affirmed apokatastasis.

It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.

Certainly, “there was a diversity of views in the early church on the scope of final salvation.” Tertullian, for instance, did not embrace apokatastasis. But my monograph is not on patristic eschatology or soteriology in general, but specifically on the doctrine of apokatastasis. Thus, I treated the theologians who supported it, and not others."

The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: The Reviews Start Coming In


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

Scholars directory, with list of publications:

Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - ISNS Scholars Directory

Believers and Supporters of Christian Universalism:
>Believers and Supporters of Christian Universalism
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,578
6,064
EST
✟993,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If that were true re Jude 1:7, then one could argue that Mt.25:41 & 18:8 do not say anyone's sufferings will be eternal. And they only say the fire is eternal.
Where is the adjective in Jude 1:7 and where is the adjective in the other verses? Which word (singular) is modified by the adjective "eternal?" In Jude 1:7 "suffer" and "punishment" are not modified by the adjective "eternal"
There are a number of verses that speak of fire coming from the Lord. None say the fire was eternal or returned back to heaven:
Logical fallacy.Argument from silence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

"Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven," (Gen.19:24)
I don't see the adjective "eternal" in this vs.

'All its land is brimstone and salt, a burning waste, unsown and unproductive, and no grass grows in it, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in His anger and in His wrath.' (Deut.29:13)
Where is the adjective "eternal?"
"Moses stretched out his staff toward the sky, and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and fire ran down to the earth. And the LORD rained hail on the land of Egypt." (Exodus 9:23)
Where is the adjective "eternal?"

"A slave serves his master forever [olam/aionios]. But only until death ends his servitude (Ex. 21:6)."
Used hyperbolically. Remember the 18 vss. I quoted which define olam. Here are two from the 18.

Exodus 3:15
(15) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever,[עולם/olam] and this is my memorial unto all generations.
In this vs. “olam” is in apposition to “unto all generations.” “Age(s),”a finite period, does not equate to “unto all generations,”“for ever” does.
Isaiah 51:6
(6) Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, [ עולם] and my righteousness shall not be abolished.
In this vs. “olam” is equated with “shall not be abolished”, “age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “shall not be abolished,” “forever” does.
"Jonah was in the fish forever [olam/aionios]. But only until he left three days later (Jon. 1:17; 2:6)."
So the panic stricken cry of a man facing almost certain death defines the meaning of a word?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,578
6,064
EST
✟993,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Universalism = apokatastasis
"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians
(immo quam plurimi)."
"Of course there were antiuniversalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them — as is the case with the list of “the 68” antiuniversalists repeatedly cited by McC on the basis of Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church — an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις αἰώνιος, θάνατος αἰώνιος, or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed all universalists, from Origen to Gregory Nyssen to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly,” or “long-lasting,” fire, educative punishment, and death. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment” (p. 822). Didache mentions the ways of life and death, but not eternal death or torment; Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment. Ephrem does not speak of eternal damnation, but has many hints of healing and restoration. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, another of “the 68,” if one takes into account also the Syriac and Latin evidence, given that the Greek is mostly lost, it becomes impossible to list him among the antiuniversalists. He explicitly ruled out unending retributive punishment, sine fine et sine correctione.
I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage), Eusebius, Nazianzen, perhaps even Basil and Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome before his change of mind, and Augustine in his anti-Manichaean years. Maximus too, another of “the 68,” speaks only of punishment aionios, not aidios and talks about restoration with circumspection after Justinian, also using a persona to express it. Torstein Tollefsen, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Maria Luisa Gatti, for instance, agree that he affirmed apokatastasis.
It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.
Certainly, “there was a diversity of views in the early church on the scope of final salvation.” Tertullian, for instance, did not embrace apokatastasis. But my monograph is not on patristic eschatology or soteriology in general, but specifically on the doctrine of apokatastasis. Thus, I treated the theologians who supported it, and not others."
Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.
)
Remember this? "Your English interpreters - opinion - of what ECF wrote in another & ancient language does not mean that is how those ECF understood their own words." Unsupported opinions of "scholars" without corroboration has zero probative value.
 
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

he-man

he-man
Oct 28, 2010
8,891
301
usa
✟90,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Universalism = apokatastasis

"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians
(immo quam plurimi)."

"Of course there were antiuniversalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them — as is the case with the list of “the 68” antiuniversalists repeatedly cited by McC on the basis of Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church — an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις αἰώνιος, θάνατος αἰώνιος, or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed all universalists, from Origen to Gregory Nyssen to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly,” or “long-lasting,” fire, educative punishment, and death. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment” (p. 822). Didache mentions the ways of life and death, but not eternal death or torment; Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment. Ephrem does not speak of eternal damnation, but has many hints of healing and restoration. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, another of “the 68,” if one takes into account also the Syriac and Latin evidence, given that the Greek is mostly lost, it becomes impossible to list him among the antiuniversalists. He explicitly ruled out unending retributive punishment, sine fine et sine correctione.

I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage), Eusebius, Nazianzen, perhaps even Basil and Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome before his change of mind, and Augustine in his anti-Manichaean years. Maximus too, another of “the 68,” speaks only of punishment aionios, not aidios and talks about restoration with circumspection after Justinian, also using a persona to express it. Torstein Tollefsen, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Maria Luisa Gatti, for instance, agree that he affirmed apokatastasis.

It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.

Certainly, “there was a diversity of views in the early church on the scope of final salvation.” Tertullian, for instance, did not embrace apokatastasis. But my monograph is not on patristic eschatology or soteriology in general, but specifically on the doctrine of apokatastasis. Thus, I treated the theologians who supported it, and not others."

The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: The Reviews Start Coming In


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

Scholars directory, with list of publications:

Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - ISNS Scholars Directory

Believers and Supporters of Christian Universalism:
>Believers and Supporters of Christian Universalism
Strong's doesn't agree:
Screenshot_2017-10-28-19-32-02.png
IMG_20171028_190713.jpg
IMG_20171028_191130.jpg
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Remember this? "Your English interpreters - opinion - of what ECF wrote in another & ancient language does not mean that is how those ECF understood their own words." Unsupported opinions of "scholars" without corroboration has zero probative value.

1. And yet people keep posting...Strongs disagrees, etc.

2. Is that your opinion?

http://tentmaker.org/blog1/universalism/
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Where is the adjective in Jude 1:7 and where is the adjective in the other verses? Which word (singular) is modified by the adjective "eternal?" In Jude 1:7 "suffer" and "punishment" are not modified by the adjective "eternal"

You said re Jude 1:7:

"This verse does not say that the suffering was eternal or that the punishment was eternal. Only the fire was eternal"

I answered:

"If that were true re Jude 1:7, then one could argue that Mt.25:41 & 18:8 do not say anyone's sufferings will be eternal. And they only say the fire is eternal."

Mt.25:41 speaks of those who go "into" aionion fire. It is the fire that is described as aionion, not the amount of time anyone stays in the fire. Furthermore, one who goes "into" a fire may come back out of that fire, even if the fire is an everlasting fire.

Moreover, this aionion fire (Mt.25:41) is that prepared for the devil who will be cast into the lake of fire. Do you believe the lake of fire, the second death, is an everlasting fire? Do you believe it is this same fire that rained down on Sodom (Jude 1:7; Gen.19:24)?

The lake of fire is the second death. Death will be abolished (1 Cor.15:26). If you believe the lake of fire/2nd death is everlasting fire in Mt.25:41 & Jude 1:7, what happens to it when death is abolished (1 Cor.15:26)? Can anything that is abolished be everlasting?

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism
 
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

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Used hyperbolically. Remember the 18 vss. I quoted which define olam. Here are two from the 18.
Exodus 3:15
(15) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever,[עולם/olam] and this is my memorial unto all generations.
In this vs. “olam” is in apposition to “unto all generations.” “Age(s),”a finite period, does not equate to “unto all generations,”“for ever” does.
Isaiah 51:6
(6) Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, [ עולם] and my righteousness shall not be abolished.
In this vs. “olam” is equated with “shall not be abolished”, “age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “shall not be abolished,” “forever” does.

[1] Re your theory that "forever" is the one & only definition of OLAM, why have you been unable to produce a single lexicon, church father or commentator in the past 2000 years who agrees with you?

[2] If your theory is correct, then Scripture opposes endless punishment & agrees with me that is a false dogma:

Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…

7 Myths About Universalism
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0