Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Amen!The literal is carnal; it comes from babes and God uses the literal just like He uses Baby lon which is a golden cup in the hands of the Lord.
What is spiritual? What are spiritual things? What are treasures in heaven? What are the true riches? Let me simplify this for you. If sinners can have it or do it without God its not spiritual! Someone says, Im spiritual because I fast. Witches fast! Another says, Im spiritual because I prosper and give vast sums of money to this ministry and that. Indeed! Mafia king-pins also prosper and give large amounts of money to all kinds of worthy causes that help and bless people, and the good they do is often more than the churches do with their money. You see, precious friend of mine, human nature is wont to equate spirituality with what we do, or with what we possess. No! A thousand times no!
Even the term spiritual indicates that it requires the power and ability of the SPIRIT, or that it is an expression of the SPIRIT. Therefore, when we walk in the Spirit and are led by the Spirit, what flows out of us is a dispensation of the life and glory and power and wisdom and nature and will of God Himself that is spiritual! Sinners cant do that! The carnal mind cant produce that! The fleshly nature cant generate that! Self-effort is eternally and completely unable to perform that! Answered prayer thats spiritual. Deliverance and transformation thats spiritual. Speaking the words of God thats spiritual. Loving your enemies thats spiritual. Blessing them that curse you thats spiritual. The peace that passeth understanding thats spiritual. Laying down your life for creation thats spiritual. Putting on the mind of Christ thats spiritual. Being led by the Spirit of God thats spiritual. Money cant buy these things. The natural man cant mimic these things. These are the true riches!
What is spiritual to you; what is spiritual to me is hearing not what tradition has says but what the spirit of truth is saying with in me.
Moses walked up on the mount and when he returned the shekinah glory of God shine on His face. When Moses went up that mountain of God; some of his friends followed so far; most of them sat at the bottom of the mountain.
Take Joseph a type of Christ; oh I have heard that so often in religious cycles and I believe it is true. But what about Benjamin?
Well, I was trying to stear away from having to get into the "length" of the issue... and hit on why they aren't going to enter Heaven (or live on the newly restored earth) with the Children of God.sorry, I know it's not important, but it really isn't clear, not with interpretation that the NIV scholars gave us. It actually says that death and HADES will be thrown into the lake of fire.
sure, it says that the fire doesn't die out, but it doesn't say that we aren't consumed by it.
The verse in revelations that refer to the devil and his angel's torment actually does not use the same word for eternal that they have been using, it can actually mean for an age or the age, as in before judgment in hades, and why does it say "day and night" unless it's on the earth some how?
I guess this is not so important at refuting as we should some theologies
Notice it was God who sent the deception:
2Th 2:11
(ALT) And for this reason God will send to them a supernatural working of deception, for them to believe the lie,
(ASV) And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie:
(CEV) So God will make sure that they are fooled into believing a lie.
(CLV) And therefore God will be sending them an operation of deception, for them to believe the falsehood,
(DRB)(2:10) Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
(EMTV) And because of this, God will send them strong delusion, in order for them to believe the lie,
(ESV) Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
(Geneva) And therefore God shall send them strong delusion, that they should beleave lies,
(GNB) And so God sends the power of error to work in them so that they believe what is false.
(GW) That's why God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe a lie.
(ISV) For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
(JPS)
(KJ2000) And for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
(KJVA) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
(KJVR) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
(LITV) And because of this, God will send to them a working of error, for them to believe the lie,
(LONT) For this cause, God will send them strong delusion, that they may believe a lie;
(MKJV) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie,
(Murdock) Therefore God will send upon them the operation of deception, that they may believe a lie;
(RYLT-NT) and because of this shall God send to them a working of delusion, for their believing the lie,
(The Scriptures '98+)And for this reason Elohim sends them a working of delusion, for them to believe the falsehood,1Footnote: 1Eze. 20:25, John 9:39, John 12:40, Acts 7:42, Rom. 1:24-28.
(Webster) And for this cause God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
(WNT) And for this reason God sends them a misleading influence that they may believe the lie;
I had asked the same question earlier.... I wonder the same thing.How do you know that you're not the one being decieved!
Sorry. I must have missed your examples of double meaning and over spiritualizing.no, but that's why I gave an example, examples are good
I believe that God gives double meanings all the time, first the literal (the milk) and then the spiritual (the meat ). The spiritual meaning does not nullify the literal. In fact, it's in the literal meanings where our foundations for truth come from, if we don't believe the literal, how can you carry on into the spiritual truths? Your truth is like being built on sand.
I like to tread carefully when it comes to spiritual truth, even if I see a spiritual meaning, I test it against the rest of scriptures and my literal foundation, for even the elect can be decieved. It is a spiritual battle, and the worse deceptions that are given are the ones with the most truth given with the lie.
It is just that I see things differently than you do. Maybe, or maybe we are just mincing words.I suppose. It's hard to explain if you don't see it for yourself.
my example was that some have over spiritualized the word in that they say that Jesus didn't literally come in the flesh, but only spiritually (as the second adam is spiritual).It is just that I see things differently than you do. Maybe, or maybe we are just mincing words.
You said you gave examples, what post number did you give examples in?
I had asked the same question earlier.... I wonder the same thing.
Especially since Universalism was NEVER the accepted doctrine in the earliest of church history. That should worry someone!
Not true. Church history shows that the concept of universalism was taught in most of the major theology schools in the very beginning of the early Church...Universalism was never accepted as a church doctrine, nor was it taught.
We love this debate; BUT; you must be a newbee; please go back and read what has been said already; we have to repeat our selves so often for this very reason. All these area you have mention have been covered.It all sounds well and good, but no where in the bible is universalism supported, not what so ever. In fact, quite the opposite. How many Psalms and Proverbs are there about the fate of the wicked and how they will perish? Or Isaiah and the great and terrible day of the Lord when the wicked would be swept away and erased? How their name will be blotted from the Book of Life and God will remember them no more? Or how God will disdain the wicked and shake them from his presence like one shakes their cloak? Or what about Paul in Ephesians when he writes about how some people were created as objects of God's wrath, and others as objects of God's mercy and salvation (afterall, God already knew before the creation of the foundations of the universe who would ultimately choose Him and not, therefore it isn't as much of a predestination thing I think except insofar as they have already chosen for themselves in the future which, since God is outside of time, He is already privy to)?
Come now, the Lake of Fire wouldn't be called the Second Death for nothing, now would it? And what about free will? Doesn't one have the ability to deny Christ and God unto death, and isn't that a sin, blasphemy against the testimony of the Holy Spirit which all humans recieve, which cannot be forgiven? It cannot be forgiven not because Christ's blood is insufficient, but because they have freely chosen and it is God's will to allow us to choose our fates. The Second Death, to be cast away from the Lord, the end of the Soul, that is "hell", the Lake of Fire. Otherwise, God's judgement means nothing! Otherwise, there is no eternal reason to live righteously! Otherwise there is no race to run as Paul said there is! No prize to obtain! Otherwise, there is no need for salvation or Christ Himself! Sorry, but I just don't buy that.
It is a very, very complex issue with many caveats, but you can rest assured of one thing--"hell", the second death, is real and there is no turning back from it. For a person has the right to deny and choose away from God--and by the very nature of doing so, since it is from God alone that all good things and blessings come, is "hell" made as a consequence. Their choice creates hell, for to be apart from God is to die since only in God do we exist and have our being, that is why we were dead before we came to Christ (if we had stayed on that path anyways). It is mercy and love beyond imagination that God even allows us this mortal time within which to choose Him!
(and obviously one does not even need to know the name of Christ to come to Him, but only that salvation comes through God (by whatever name they know Him) and not of themselves or of deeds, and then to trust in God alone for that salvation and want Him. We cannot know for sure till heaven, but the greek philosopher Plato was probably saved as he believed such, even if his knowledge was so poor otherwise, he's a model of this sort of knowing. In the end, it comes down to the person's heart, and God alone knows that. We usually cannot even guess who is saved and who is not, even among those who call themselves Christian sometimes. Words, and rituals we know in the end are meaningless, only God knows the heart and it's what's in the heart alone that matters)
Actually this debate and the origins of Christian Universalism have nothing to do with purgatory and the Catholic Church; the word purgatory comes from the same base word in the Greek as fire (GK)pur) which we get our English word pure, purge, purify and as I said purgatory. Another example in scripture is the Lake of Fire and Brimstone or (Gk) Lake of Devine Purifications. As I said to the other Newbee all these area have been covered.Hell is not a holding cell for those who have sinned and refused to repent. While it is a place of suffering for sin committed in this life, there is no scripture that suggests that it is a place to work off one’s penalty for sins committed.
The theory suggested in the title of this thread likely stems back to teaching on purgatory from the Roman Catholic Church . Jimmy Swaggart, in his book, Catholicism And Christianity, ( page 176-77 published by Jimmy Swaggart Ministries) writes concerning the doctrine of purgatory: "The Catholic church has defined the existence of purgatory in the Decree of Union drawn at the Council Of Florence in A.D. 1439, and again at the Council of Trent, which says:
"The Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit, has from sacred Scriptures and the ancient traditions of the fathers taught in sacred councils and very recently in the ecumenical synod that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrage of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the alter."
The Catholic Church also teaches that Christians can indulge in two types of sin—mortal sins (which will damn the soul) and venial sins (which not damn the soul but will consign them to purgatory). All therefore, who die in venial sins or with the temporal punishment of their sins still unpaid must atone for them in purgatory.
The Catholic church gets some of her beliefs from apocryphal writes (II Maccabees 12:43-46. Of course, as we have explained, these writings were considered by the Jewish rabbis as unworthy of being included in the Word of God."
If indeed the present thread is based on the Catholic teaching of Purgatory, then as Jimmy points out there is no Biblical bases to support it.
There are 54 verses between Deuteronomy 32:22 and Revelations 20:14 that speak of Hell and in none of them is there a word about the inhabitants of that awful place being able to do enough good deeds or of their relatives nor their minister or priest being able to pray them free of the torments with in the fiery walls that hem in the wicket. Even in speaking of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 neither Christ nor Moses gave the rich man any hope of escape since he had already gone to his reward. Through out the New Testament Christ warned again and again about the unquenchable flames, but no where is it record that the unrepentant ever found relieve from Hell, nor that there was a holding cell for them until they made themselves holy enough to enter Heaven.
Such a doctrine as purgatory would teach salvation by works which is specifically refuted in scripture where we read: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast". Eph 2: 8-9
Salvation is a gift of God through the blood of Jesus Christ. Christ bought salvation for all who believe in his death on the cross of Calvary. He rose from the dead to prove that what he had taught was the truth and that it was a free gift to the repentant man. Jesus said that there were two roads that mankind travel through life. "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13-14
Neither Christ Himself or the Gospel writers nor the Apostles held out any hope of escape from Hell, other than through repentance of sin in this life and maintain a relationship with the Heavenly Father that showed a repentant attitude thereafter.
John 3:16-18, Romans 3:23, Romans 3:10, Romans 6:23, John 1:12, I Corinthians 15:3-4, I John 1:9, Romans 10:9-10, John 5:24, John 20:31, Acts 4:12
Except you left out the verses about the SMOKE FROM THEIR TORMENTS RISES FOREVER parts, etc....Actually this debate and the origins of Christian Universalism have nothing to do with purgatory and the Catholic Church; the word purgatory comes from the same base word in the Greek as fire (GK)pur) which we get our English word pure, purge, purify and as I said purgatory. Another example in scripture is the Lake of Fire and Brimstone or (Gk) Lake of Devine Purifications. As I said to the other Newbee all these area have been covered.
Nadine!
Did you miss my post of #254? Seems like you're ignoring me...
Especially since you just recently posted this..
Here's part of post #254 again..
Nadine said...
Not true. Church history shows that the concept of universalism was taught in most of the major theology schools in the very beginning of the early Church...
From Wikipedia...
"In Christianity, Universalism refers to the belief that all humans will be saved through Jesus Christ and eventually come to a harmony in God's kingdom. A related doctrine, apokatastasis, is the belief that all mortal beings will be reconciled to God, including Satan and his fallen angels (not all CU agree to this). Universalism was a fairly commonly held view among theologians in early Christianity: In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Cesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality, and one (Carthage or Rome) taught the endless punishment of the lost.[1]. The two major theologians opposing it were Tertullian and Augustine.[citation needed] In later centuries, Universalism has become very much a minority position in the major branches of Christianity, though it has a long history of prominent adherents."
These are a sample of the Christian Church in the first three hundred years.
- John the Apostle (John 4:42)
- The Didascalia (the Catechetical school of Alexandria)
- Pantaenus, first head of catechetical school at Alexandria
- Clement of Alexandria, second head of catechetical school at Alexandria
- Origen, greatest scholar of the early church
- Athenasius, Archbishop of Alexandria
- Didymus
- Ambrose, Bishop
- Ephraim
- Chrysostum
- Gregory of Nyssa, Bishop
- Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop and President of the second Church council
- Titus, Bishop of Bostra
Here is a list of well known people since the beginning. Included are three of your Presidents who if they were not full UC were supportive of it... Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington. Other names, like the Bronte sisters, William Wallace (Braveheart), Robert and Elizabeth Browning, and a modern theologian and translator, William Barclay..
http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/Universalist.html
If you can refute this information, Nadine, then please do..
I didn't say the doctrine never came up, I said it was never accepted. LOTS of doctrines came up all thru history - the issue is, what the Orthodox churches rejected. It's the UNorthodox that are bringing in the heresies and false teachings that deviate from clear scripture.Universalism was never accepted as a church doctrine, nor was it taught
Who are Unitarians?? Why are universalists hooking up & partnering with Unitarians?? Again, consider the sources. Their track records are well established as to what else they promote & believe and its NOT in step with scripture.As an organized religious movement, however, universalism dates from the late 1700s in America, where its early leaders were Hosea Ballou, John Murray, and Elhanan Winchester. As a form of religious liberalism, it has had close contacts with Unitarianism throughout its history. The Universalist Church of America and the American Unitarian Association merged in 1961 to form a single denomination - the Unitarian Universalist Association - which currently has about 173,000 members......
Certain liberal Congregationalist clergy such as Jonathan Mayhew and Charles Chauncy helped to prepare the foundation for the spread of universalism
http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txc/universa.htm
Oh, I wish you wouldn't say that my beliefs are akin to universalism. For one, my beliefs have a TON or a overwelming amount of biblical support and standing.First off I'm not avoiding you or anyone here - I'm very busy right now on projects and can't be here 24/7, and no I didn't see your post.
Secondly, please note my wording carefully:
I didn't say the doctrine never came up, I said it was never accepted. LOTS of doctrines came up all thru history - the issue is, what the Orthodox churches rejected. It's the UNorthodox that are bringing in the heresies and false teachings that deviate from clear scripture.
Also, I'm little leary of fully accepting Wikipedia for absolute truth on every matter... Anyways,
I'll quote you the first few paragraphs of information I have from my book by Dr. Norman Geisler (apologist/scholar) on the subject of Universalism.
...it was first proposed by the unorthodox church father, "Origen (ca. 185- 254"). Origen and universalism in general were condemned as unorthodox at the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553).
The Theology of universalism should be distinguished from the Universalist Church, an extreme anticreedal movement....
One of the most influential twentieth-century theologians to embrace universlaim was Karl Barth (1886-1968). Philosopher John Hick is a contemporary proponent of the view.
A small number of otherwise evangelical theologians, such as Clark Pinnock and John Stott have embraced forms of universalism and/or its cousin, annihilationism. Most liberal theologians and cults hold to some form of universalism or its cousin...
So that's the background I have for it - and my point is this, according to that info, since it just seems or seemed to be embraced by unorthodox/LIBERALS or other religious cults, why are "born again" Christians embracing it?
If you pay attn. to everything else liberals & cults teach, is this something you want to take hold of as "truth of God"?? Not me!
Here's another excerpt on historical info on Universalism:
Who are Unitarians?? Why are universalists hooking up & partnering with Unitarians?? Again, consider the sources. Their track records are well established as to what else they promote & believe and its NOT in step with scripture.
One of the signs of the end times, IS FALSE DOCTRINE BEING RAMPANT and many falling away & being swept away by these doctrines - so yes, it IS infiltrating the evangelical church; it's prophecied that it will occur.
Am I going to fall for it? Absolutely NOT.
We've given clear scriptural teaching and backup that refutes universalism entirely.
I stand on THAT, not twisted interpretations taken out of their contexts.
I can only say that IMHO, annihilationism has alot more merit than universalism (considering that I see NONE for universalism). I do see there's more support for that than EVERYONE being saved eventually.Oh, I wish you wouldn't say that my beliefs are akin to universalism. For one, my beliefs have a TON or a overwelming amount of biblical support and standing.
Look at what refrusRevlis wrote in this forum, it's very helpful.
http://foru.ms/t6026130-there-is-no-hell.html&page=11
I didn't say the doctrine never came up, I said it was never accepted. LOTS of doctrines came up all thru history - the issue is, what the Orthodox churches rejected. It's the UNorthodox that are bringing in the heresies and false teachings that deviate from clear scripture.
Also, I'm little leary of fully accepting Wikipedia for absolute truth on every matter... Anyways,
I'll quote you the first few paragraphs of information I have from my book by Dr. Norman Geisler (apologist/scholar) on the subject of Universalism.
...it was first proposed by the unorthodox church father, "Origen (ca. 185- 254"). Origen and universalism in general were condemned as unorthodox at the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553).
The Theology of universalism should be distinguished from the Universalist Church, an extreme anticreedal movement....
One of the most influential twentieth-century theologians to embrace universlaim was Karl Barth (1886-1968). Philosopher John Hick is a contemporary proponent of the view.
A small number of otherwise evangelical theologians, such as Clark Pinnock and John Stott have embraced forms of universalism and/or its cousin, annihilationism. Most liberal theologians and cults hold to some form of universalism or its cousin...
So that's the background I have for it - and my point is this, according to that info, since it just seems or seemed to be embraced by unorthodox/LIBERALS or other religious cults, why are "born again" Christians embracing it?
If you pay attn. to everything else liberals & cults teach, is this something you want to take hold of as "truth of God"?? Not me!
Here's another excerpt on historical info on Universalism:
Who are Unitarians?? Why are universalists hooking up & partnering with Unitarians?? Again, consider the sources. Their track records are well established as to what else they promote & believe and its NOT in step with scripture.
One of the signs of the end times, IS FALSE DOCTRINE BEING RAMPANT and many falling away & being swept away by these doctrines - so yes, it IS infiltrating the evangelical church; it's prophecied that it will occur.
Am I going to fall for it? Absolutely NOT.
We've given clear scriptural teaching and backup that refutes universalism entirely.
I stand on THAT, not twisted interpretations taken out of their contexts.
Yes, the time Christ came as Messiah IS "the last days", and we're given signs to know the times by as they approach His 2nd coming.Thanks for getting back to me, Nadine.
You keep reiterating that the doctrine of everyone being saved was NEVER taught in the Church. And yet I've given you a list of early Church Fathers and schools of theology who taught this.
In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Cesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality, and one (Carthage or Rome) taught the endless punishment of the lost.
These are not taken from Wikipedia..
Irenaeus of Lyons, Gaul (120-202 A.D.)
Clement of Alexandria (150-213 A.D.)
Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.)
Origen was a student of Clement who became the head of the school in Alexandria after Clement was forced to flee. Origen is the most well-known of the early teachers of the restoration of all things. He wrote extensively and was the first to write a systematic theology of early Church belief. For this reason, the people today who oppose the teaching of restoration often call it “Origenism,” as if to imply that it was invented and believed almost exclusively by this one man and a few followers.
But such a view merely portrays either prejudice or ignorance, since Origen did not differ substantially from the teachings of Clement, his mentor, or Pantaenus before him. In Volume 6 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, page 3, in the introduction to the writings of Gregory Thaumaturgus, the editors tell us,
“Alexandria continues to be the head of Christian learning. . . We have already observed the continuity of the great Alexandrian school; how it arose, and how Pantaenus begat Clement, and Clement begat Origen. So Origen begat Gregory, and so the Lord has provided for the spiritual generation of the Church’s teachers, age after age, from the beginning. Truly, the Lord gave to Origen a holy seed, better than natural sons and daughters.”
Origen is more well known than Clement or Pantaenus, because he produced the first real systematic theology in the early Church, called First Principles. And so he later became the “lightning rod” of his opponents’ wrath. Hence, the doctrine of the restoration of all things has been mislabeled “Origenism,” as if to imply that he invented the teaching. Nothing could be further from the truth, as every good Church historian knows.
Novation of Rome (circa 250 A.D.)
Didymus the Blind (308-395 A.D.)
Gregory of Nazianzen, Bishop of Constantinople (325-390 A.D.)
Gregory, Bishop of Nyassa (335-395 A.D.)
Jerome, Bishop of Bethlehem (340-419 A.D.)
etc..
Then we have Augustine who brought in the concept of never ending torture..
Augustine’s Misunderstanding
Matthew 25:46 has been used since the time of Augustine, the bishop of Hippo, in the early fifth century to prove that aionian means an unending duration of time. Though Augustine spoke eloquently in Latin, he did not speak Greek. Thus, he was unfamiliar with the language of the New Testament, except insofar as it had been translated into Latin. Peter Brown tells us in his book, Augustine of Hippo, p. 36,
“Augustine’s failure to learn Greek was a momentous casualty of the late Roman educational system; he will become the only Latin philosopher in antiquity to be virtually ignorant of Greek.”
Worse yet, the more influential Augustine became, the less the Latin Christians felt the need to read the New Testament in Greek. Peter Brown says again on p. 272,
“Gradually the ‘learned fellowship’ would cease to feel the need for Greek books. For they had Augustine.”
Perhaps this is a good illustration of what Jesus said in Matthew 6:23,
23 . . . If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness.
The Christians in the Latin-speaking Church took Augustine’s word for it that aionios meant everlasting. This was their “light,” but unfortunately, their light was darkness. And even today, most of the popular translations have continued to mistranslate aionios. So average Christians today who read the easy-reading Bibles do not realize that what they think is light (in regard to future rewards and judgments) is actually darkness.
In Book XXI, chapter xxiii, of Augustine’s City of God, he sets forth his argument that the judgment upon the unbelievers would be unending torture in fire. His argument is based upon the Latin translation of Matthew 25:46, which we have already quoted earlier. Augustine interprets this passage in this way:
“For Christ said in the very same place, including both in one and the same sentence: ‘So these will go into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’ If both are eternal, then surely both must be understood as ‘long,’ but having an end, or else as ‘everlasting’ without an end. For they are matched with each other. In one clause eternal punishment, in the other eternal life. (To say) “eternal life shall be without end, (but) eternal punishment will have an end’ is utterly absurd. Hence, since eternal life of the saints will be without end, eternal punishment also will surely have no end, for those whose lot it is.”
The primary problem is that Augustine did not understand the Hebrew concept of “The Age.” He presumed that aionios life was the same as immortality, instead of seeing that it referred specifically to life (immortality) during the Messianic Age. To inherit life during this Age means to be an inheritor of the first resurrection promised to the overcomers alone. The rest of humanity, and even the rest of the Christians, will not receive their immortality until the end of the Messianic Age at the Great White Throne. We showed this in Chapter Four, quoting Jesus’ words in John 5:28, 29, as well as His parable in Luke 12:42-49. Augustine did not understand this concept.
Believing in the salvation of all mankind is not a last days teaching. It is a restoration of the early teaching.
It could be said that the last two thousand years are the last days. But I think you speak of the time of the end. Obviously there has been many false teachings brought into the Church, and most of those were brought in through the Church of Rome in the first five hundred years of Church history. Eternal torment being one of them.
universalism: a historical survey
Richard Bauckham
Themelios 4.2 (September 1978): 47-54.
(Reproduced here by permission of the author)
[p.48]
Richard Bauckham is Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of St. Andrews.
The history of the doctrine of universal salvation (or apokastastasis) is a remarkable one. Until the nineteenth century almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell. Here and there, outside the theological mainstream, were some who believed that the wicked would be finally annihilated (in its commonest form. this is the doctrine of 'conditional immortality').1 Even fewer were the advocates of universal salvation, though these few included same major theologians of the early church. Eternal punishment was firmly asserted in official creeds and confessions of the churches.2 It must have seemed as indispensable a part of universal Christian belief as the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation. Since 1800 this situation has entirely changed, and no traditional Christian doctrine has been so widely abandoned as that of eternal punishment.3 Its advocates among theologians today must be fewer than ever before...
Origen and the Early Church
The most famous and influential advocate of universalism in the early church was Origen, whose teaching on this point was partly anticipated by his predecessor Clement of Alexandria.5 Origen's universalism6 belongs to the logic of his whole theological system, which was decisively influenced by his Platonism and depended on his hermeneutical method of discerning the allegorical sense of Scripture behind the literal sense. According to Origen all intelligent beings (men, angels, devils) are created good and equal, but with absolute free will. Some, through the misuse of free will, turned from God and fell into varying degrees of sin. Those who fell furthest became the devils, those whose fall was less disastrous became the souls of men. These are to be restored to God through a process of discipline and chastisement, for which purpose this material world has been created and the pre-existing souls incarnated in human bodies. The process of purification is not complete at death but continues after this life. Nor is it an inevitably upward path: the soul remains free to choose good or evil, and so even after this life may fall again as well as rise. Within this scheme punishment is always; in God's intention, remedial: God is wholly good and His justice serves no other purpose than His good purpose of bringing all souls back to Himself. Thus the torments of hell cannot be endless, though they may last for aeons; the soul in hell remains always free to repent and be restored.
http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/article_universalism_bauckham.html
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?