Follow up from another thread.

[Jesse Dornfeld]

From my other thread seen here:

The historical argument against universal reconciliation?

I'm wondering when universal reconciliation in the form of hell being a "corrective" thing rather than eternal punishment was confirmed. AFAIK, most orthodox denominations of Christianity reject universal reconciliation. The predominant view at this time, I believe, is ECT. I was talking to...

www.christianforums.com

Here's what I said:

I'm wondering when universal reconciliation in the form of hell being a "corrective" thing rather than eternal punishment was confirmed.

AFAIK, most orthodox denominations of Christianity reject universal reconciliation. The predominant view at this time, I believe, is ECT.

I was talking to someone on Twitter about this and he seems to think,

Modern Bible lexicons all do this. To crack the case you have to rewind to lexicographers prior to Emperor Justinian and the rise to dominance of the endless view of hell. There you'll find the original range of meaning.

Is this true? Have all our lexicons been tainted?

This was said in the context of Matthew 25:46, which states, "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life," I stated, "If the punishment is not permanent then eternal life isn't either."

I understand that the predominant view of ECT has not always been the predominant view and that there have been multiple views that have been entertained in early church history including universalism and annihilationism. My question is when universalism was considered tabboo.

I'd appreciate hearing from folks like @ArmyMatt and other Orthodox folks as I understand they put a lot of weight on Origen and reject Augustine, but anyone who knows something about the topic is free to chime in.

 

[HTacianas]

From my other thread seen here:

The historical argument against universal reconciliation?

I'm wondering when universal reconciliation in the form of hell being a "corrective" thing rather than eternal punishment was confirmed. AFAIK, most orthodox denominations of Christianity reject universal reconciliation. The predominant view at this time, I believe, is ECT. I was talking to...

www.christianforums.com

Here's what I said:

I'm wondering when universal reconciliation in the form of hell being a "corrective" thing rather than eternal punishment was confirmed.

AFAIK, most orthodox denominations of Christianity reject universal reconciliation. The predominant view at this time, I believe, is ECT.

I was talking to someone on Twitter about this and he seems to think,



Is this true? Have all our lexicons been tainted?

This was said in the context of Matthew 25:46, which states, "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life," I stated, "If the punishment is not permanent then eternal life isn't either."

I understand that the predominant view of ECT has not always been the predominant view and that there have been multiple views that have been entertained in early church history including universalism and annihilationism. My question is when universalism was considered tabboo.

I'd appreciate hearing from folks like @ArmyMatt and other Orthodox folks as I understand they put a lot of weight on Origen and reject Augustine, but anyone who knows something about the topic is free to chime in.

Origen spoke of universalism at one time. There were many who wanted him excommunicated after death. He is known in some circles as "godless Origen". But the eternal nature of hell has always existed as one view, alongside other views held by some individuals. It's not that some other view was the norm and then condemned.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

It's not that some other view was the norm and then condemned.

Right. I'm not saying that there was a view (in the past) that was dominant that went away. I'm asking about when universalism lost steam in the Church. At this point in time (and it could very well change in the next 100 years) ECT is the dominant view across Christianity. I'm wondering why so many people today consider universalism heretical from a historical standpoint. Like who it was in church history (besides Augustine) who depopularized the view of universalism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

well, it depends on what you mean. if by universalism you mean that the grave isn’t the end, and everyone is being resurrected at the end, then we are universalists. however, what is up in the air is who is resurrected to glory, and who is resurrected to damnation and torment. in that sense we are not universalists. if you live a life of unrepentant sin, the life Christ gives is condemnation.

and I will add, Origen was condemned for his understanding of universalism during his lifetime, and many Fathers and local synods condemned that long before Constantinople II.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

well, it depends on what you mean. if by universalism you mean that the grave isn’t the end, and everyone is being resurrected at the end, then we are universalists. however, what is up in the air is who is resurrected to glory, and who is resurrected to damnation and torment. in that sense we are not universalists. if you live a life of unrepentant sin, the life Christ gives is condemnation.

Yes, it seems we believe the same about this. I believe some are damned and some are saved in the final resurrection in the same way you do (meaning unrepentant sin leads to damnation).

and I will add, Origen was condemned for his understanding of universalism during his lifetime, and many Fathers and local synods condemned that long before Constantinople II.

Informative, thanks!

One other question I would have is whether Orthodox folks believe damnation is permanent, not just a time of pruning/purifying or not. I certainly do not believe any such, but the person I was talking to seemed to think that it was "the most conservative reading of the Bible" that the justice of God is corrective rather than condemning. He said this was not true for Satan when I asked him about that and he could not give any certain terms about why humans are different in this regard.

I am agnostic on the nature of hell either by Conditionalism (Annihilationism) or ECT. What I do think is true is that after death, that's all she wrote and there is no "crossing over" after one's death.

 

[ArmyMatt]

One other question I would have is whether Orthodox folks believe damnation is permanent, not just a time of pruning/purifying or not. I certainly do not believe any such, but the person I was talking to seemed to think that it was "the most conservative reading of the Bible" that the justice of God is corrective rather than condemning. He said this was not true for Satan when I asked him about that and he could not give any certain terms about why humans are different in this regard.

I think you can see it as both. the purging fire is to purify us of sin. however, if we refuse to let go of our sins, the fire burns them and the rest of us.

I am agnostic on the nature of hell either by Conditionalism (Annihilationism) or ECT. What I do think is true is that after death, that's all she wrote and there is no "crossing over" after one's death.

we would reject annihilationism, but agree that after death we can do nothing of our own effort.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I think you can see it as both. the purging fire is to purify us of sin. however, if we refuse to let go of our sins, the fire burns them and the rest of us.


we would reject annihilationism, but agree that after death we can do nothing of our own effort.

One thing comes to mind about this. What do you think of the idea that people in hell go on sinning for eternity?

 

[ArmyMatt]

One thing comes to mind about this. What do you think of the idea that people in hell go on sinning for eternity?

if by sinning you mean specific acts (like drunkenness, murder, promiscuity, etc) then no, because resurrected bodies can’t do those things. however, since they eternally reject God, they miss the mark (definition of sin) for eternity.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

if by sinning you mean specific acts (like drunkenness, murder, promiscuity, etc) then no, because resurrected bodies can’t do those things. however, since they eternally reject God, they miss the mark (definition of sin) for eternity.

Yeah. IMO, sin is both a behavior, thought, emotion, etc. and an orientation of our soul/spirit.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yeah. IMO, sin is both a behavior, thought, emotion, etc. and an orientation of our soul/spirit.

sin means to miss the mark, and the mark is God. so anything that falls short of Him is sin.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

sin means to miss the mark, and the mark is God. so anything that falls short of Him is sin.

Yes, of course. That is what sin literally means. But it is not what evil/unrighteousness means. Evil/unrighteousness is in our spirit which we will not rid ourselves of completely until after the final judgment.

 

[Lukaris]

There are scriptures that give me great hope that perhaps if those of us who may be saved may be given grace to still minister to those who are otherwise eternally condemned. In particular I am thinking about what St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:1-4 which influences my speculation but I do not fully understand it either.

Like for now, even Abraham nor Lazarus cannot help the condemned selfish man ( Luke 16:19-31). St. Paul seems to speak of greater understandings like I indicated earlier but also seems to say some things are off limits for now ( 2 Corinthians 12:1-4). Surely, I am not advocating shutting down our minds; just the opposite but to avoid wrong conclusions ( like universalism). Maybe the saved can still minister to the unsaved in the afterlife; maybe the unsaved may still reject salvation. Matthew 19:26 comes to mind for me here but I should also remember 1 Corinthians 13:12-13.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

There are scriptures that give me great hope that perhaps if those of us who may be saved may be given grace to still minister to those who are otherwise eternally condemned. In particular I am thinking about what St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:1-4 which influences my speculation but I do not fully understand it either.

Like for now, even Abraham nor Lazarus cannot help the condemned selfish man ( Luke 16:19-31). St. Paul seems to speak of greater understandings like I indicated earlier but also seems to say some things are off limits for now ( 2 Corinthians 12:1-4). Surely, I am not advocating shutting down our minds; just the opposite but to avoid wrong conclusions ( like universalism). Maybe the saved can still minister to the unsaved in the afterlife; maybe the unsaved may still reject salvation. Matthew 19:26 comes to mind for me here but I should also remember 1 Corinthians 13:12-13.

Perhaps, but it is by no means clear-cut.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, of course. That is what sin literally means. But it is not what evil/unrighteousness means. Evil/unrighteousness is in our spirit which we will not rid ourselves of completely until after the final judgment.

well, we would say we can rid evil within prior to the Final Judgment.

 

[Lukaris]

Perhaps, but it is by no means clear-cut.

Absolutely, it is a speculative sense of hope on my part.