Early church opposition to endless hell

ClementofA said:

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?

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

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.

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

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."

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

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

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

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.

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

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)

Click to expand...

"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."

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

rakovsky said:

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.

Click to expand...

ClementofA said:

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?

Click to expand...