Hell

ClementofA · Dec 27, 2017

ArmyMatt said:
actually, there are some errors in here. for one, God doesn't force anyone into His presence.

I would say He does according to what i responded to:

"Still, He will be there, and we will no longer be shielded from His presence as Moses was when he asked to see God. If there is nothing like Christ in us, that very Presence and His love will torment us, we will hate it, seek to escape it, but not truly be able, since where can we flee from God, such that He us not there?"

Are you of the opinion that quoted remark is in error?

BTW, in my response, i didn't state a personal view on the subject.

ArmyMatt said:
we are naturally in His presence since He is omnipresent. and two, love does allow for suffering, if the will of the one who is suffering is set against God.

I haven't denied any of that. (What relevance do they have to the topic?). Nor does anything stated thus far refute the charge that if God causes or allows an eternity of torments, then he is a monster.

According to the Scriptures, God is Love Omnipotent, not a mythical deception infinitely worse than Hitler, Bin Laden & Satan combined.

ArmyMatt said:
and pointing out DBH is an EO scholar doesn't add anything. Arius was at one point an EO scholar.

That wasn't part of my argument, but just a POI for EO folks. Others probably wouldn't know who he is or care if they did.

ArmyMatt · Dec 27, 2017

ClementofA said:
I would say He does according to what i responded to:

"Still, He will be there, and we will no longer be shielded from His presence as Moses was when he asked to see God. If there is nothing like Christ in us, that very Presence and His love will torment us, we will hate it, seek to escape it, but not truly be able, since where can we flee from God, such that He us not there?"

Are you of the opinion that quoted remark is in error?

that quote doesn't say anything about God forcing Himself at all. the quote is correct that we come into His presence. God in the quote simply Is That He Is, and it describes what happens when we engage He Who Is.

ClementofA said:
I haven't denied any of that. (What relevance do they have to the topic?). Nor does anything stated thus far refute the charge that if God causes or allows an eternity of torments, then he is a monster.

According to the Scriptures, God is Love Omnipotent, not a mythical deception infinitely worse than Hitler, Bin Laden & Satan combined.

you keep defining love incorrectly. your definition of love, at least on here, has been more akin to a Disney princess seeing Prince Charming for the first time than the actual love of God. it's why you once again resort to emotion in your argument, as if it can only be the way you see it or else God is worse than every great mass murderer since ever.

ClementofA said:
That wasn't part of my argument, but just a POI for EO folks. Others probably wouldn't know who he is or care if they did.

then why say that more than once? sorry, not buying that. if I was debating someone and I kept saying EO scholar and author Fr Thomas Hopko, most folks would probably think I am trying to add weight to my argument, especially if I did it on more than one occasion.

ClementofA · Dec 27, 2017

ArmyMatt said:
that quote doesn't say anything about God forcing Himself at all. the quote is correct that we come into His presence. God in the quote simply Is That He Is, and it describes what happens when we engage He Who Is.

Why would the wicked want to come into His presence? Who forces them to come "into His presence"? If He isn't forcing His presence on them, then what is the first sentence talking about:

"Still, He will be there, and we will no longer be shielded from His presence as Moses was when he asked to see God. If there is nothing like Christ in us, that very Presence and His love will torment us, we will hate it, seek to escape it, but not truly be able, since where can we flee from God, such that He us not there?"

Why aren't the wicked of this mortal life (in this world) being tormented by His presence (or omnipresence, as you put it) already? Or do you think they are?

Or are they rather enjoying the "pleasures of sin":

Heb.11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

ArmyMatt · Dec 27, 2017

ClementofA said:
Why would the wicked want to come into His presence? Who forces them to come "into His presence"? If He isn't forcing His presence on them, then what is the first sentence talking about:

"Still, He will be there, and we will no longer be shielded from His presence as Moses was when he asked to see God. If there is nothing like Christ in us, that very Presence and His love will torment us, we will hate it, seek to escape it, but not truly be able, since where can we flee from God, such that He us not there?"

Why aren't the wicked of this mortal life (in this world) being tormented by His presence (or omnipresence, as you put it) already? Or do you think they are?

Or are they rather enjoying the "pleasures of sin":

Heb.11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

you can't come into or flee from the presence of an omnipresent God. some sinners are tormented, and some are enjoying their sin, and maybe there are other reasons. you can avoid God or think you can in our fallen state. but you can't once Judgment Day comes.

ClementofA · Dec 27, 2017

ArmyMatt said:
you can't come into or flee from the presence of an omnipresent God.

In post 143 you are quoted as saying:

"the quote is correct that we come into His presence."

How do your statements harmonize or not contradict one another?

ArmyMatt said:
some sinners are tormented, and some are enjoying their sin, and maybe there are other reasons. you can avoid God or think you can in our fallen state. but you can't once Judgment Day comes.

Are you saying sinners will be forced to be in God's presence on judgement day? Who will force them? Will it torment them?

ArmyMatt · Dec 27, 2017

ClementofA said:
In post 143 you are quoted as saying:

"the quote is correct that we come into His presence."

How do your statements harmonize or not contradict one another?

c'mon now. I think you know what I mean here. I am not referring to a spacial approach as if there is some distance to bridge.

ClementofA said:
Are you saying sinners will be forced to be in God's presence on judgement day? Who will force them? Will it torment them?

God being omnipresent and in His glory is what we all must confront. no one forces anyone, it's what happens when you confront the omnipresent God. yes, if you have sins you refuse to give up, that very love exposes and condemns sin. that's what love does to all sin.

and we have been through this already.

ClementofA · Dec 27, 2017

Anastasia,

You commented:

~Anastasia~ said:
The spirit God gives to man, created in His image and likeness, is eternally existing (as He Himself is).

If God created human beings such that they are (1) "eternally existing (as He Himself is)", so that it would be impossible to annihilate them even if Love Omnipotent wanted to, and (2) if He knew in advance that some of them would spend eternity rejecting Him, then (3) He is a monster for having created them that way.

~Anastasia~ said:
If that is true, and if it is also true that (a) God has imbued that soul with free will, (b) God is everywhere present, (c) God is love, and (d) embracing evil puts one at enmity with God's love and can result in torment -

If these things are all true, then you have a necessary situation which CAN result in suffering, through no design or intent of God but as a natural consequence of man's choices.

If God knew that without His forcing them to be saved, they would reject Him for all eternity & be tormented, then He would be a monster if He didn't force them to be saved. Similarly, many believe He will force aborted babies into heaven without their having chosen it of their own free will. Likewise, many believe He will force all others in heaven to remain there forever without having a free choice to reject God as many angels of heaven once did. So forcing would not appear to be an issue with Love Omnipotent. At least not in the after life (i.e. after death, the hereafter).

God's love does not expire like a carton of milk, so Love Omnipotent will pursue the salvation of sinners for as long as it takes into eternity to save them. Eternity allows an infinite number of chances to receive salvation & be delivered from hell's torments. If every free will choice has a 50% chance of going either way, it would be mathematically impossible for one to reject God forever.

Since the Omniscient One sees the future, He knows that all will eventually be saved, which is why His Word declares it. This also agrees with logic & His nature.

Talbott—Does God allow irreparable harm?

~Anastasia~ · Dec 27, 2017

ClementofA said:
Anastasia,

You commented:

If God created human beings such that they are (1) "eternally existing (as He Himself is)", so that it would be impossible to annihilate them even if Love Omnipotent wanted to, and (2) if He knew in advance that some of them would spend eternity rejecting Him, then (3) He is a monster for having created them that way.

If God knew that without His forcing them to be saved, they would reject Him for all eternity & be tormented, then He would be a monster if He didn't force them to be saved. Similarly, many believe He will force aborted babies into heaven without their having chosen it of their own free will. Likewise, many believe He will force all others in heaven to remain there forever without having a free choice to reject God as many angels of heaven once did. So forcing would not appear to be an issue with Love Omnipotent. At least not in the after life (i.e. after death, the hereafter).

God's love does not expire like a carton of milk, so Love Omnipotent will pursue the salvation of sinners for as long as it takes into eternity to save them. Eternity allows an infinite number of chances to receive salvation & be delivered from hell's torments. If every free will choice has a 50% chance of going either way, it would be mathematically impossible for one to reject God forever.

Since the Omniscient One sees the future, He knows that all will eventually be saved, which is why His Word declares it. This also agrees with logic & His nature.

Talbott—Does God allow irreparable harm?

It may be that all will eventually accept God. I hope this is so. But He has not given us this assurance, and to reason it out and say that FOR Him is something we (Orthodox) do not do.

We don't use logic to try to determine what we think God must do. The chance of error is too great. Christ, and later the Holy Spirit, taught the Apostles, and through them we have received the faith - once for all delivered to the saints. What God has not told us, I'm sure He had reasons for, just as He did not reveal to the disciples the time of the second coming. We are unwise to try to fill in those gaps with our own reasoning and provide answers which God has not given.

I'm rather confused ... I though you were arguing for annihilationism? Now it's universalism?

No matter though.

What really strikes me is this view of God. God forcing this, God forcing that. God being judged by man because of our opinions of His actions. And then filling in doctrines we have not been given to satisfy the discrepancies.

I remember how Orthodoxy helped everything make sense to me, and the first way it did that was by giving a new image of Who God is.

God IS perfectly good, and loves mankind. The image of Him as Father is very apt. I have learned that everything He does, or allows to happen, is for our ultimate good. Not that we can be happy or avoid suffering - but eternal good. That we should be like Christ. God always invites, always helps, is merciful. All we need do is cooperate and desire to be like Christ, rather than having some competing agenda.

For these reasons and others, it is my hope that He will be successful in reconciling all to Him.

However, since He has not made this plain, we dare go no further than He has revealed.

But why should it be past the ability of an all-wise and all-powerful God to manage to draw all to Him and reconcile them all without forcing or coercion? We as men can often approximate such an outcome with our limited abilities. Why shouldn't God be infinitely more able to do so?

SkyWriting · Dec 28, 2017

ClementofA said:
IMO there is no "eternity as the duration" of "hell" in any of those passages, nor anywhere else in the Scriptures. For example Luke 16:

Nothing there denies the possibility of repentance & salvation to any who might end up in the lake of fire. In Rev.20:11-15 those in Hades get out of Hades, so Hades (Lk.16:19-31) is not a place of unending torments.

Even of the rich man in Hades (Lk.16:19-31) it is not stated how long his torments would last while there. Or denied that they could end while still there. Nor is it denied he could be saved while still in Hades. The rich man's Saviour is in Hades:

"If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in the nether-world (Sheol = Hades), behold, Thou art there." (Psalm 139:8)

The rich man is called "son" (literally, "child") :

Lk.16:25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things

"Here, too, was one who, even in Hades, was recognised as being, now more truly than he had been in his life, a “child” or “son of Abraham.” (Comp. Luke 19:9.) The word used is the same, in its tone of pity and tenderness, as that which the father used to the elder son in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:31), which our Lord addressed to the man sick of the palsy (Matthew 9:2), or to His own disciples (John 13:33)." Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

The rich man in Hades is receiving the Word of Truth from Abraham. If not to lead those there to repentance & salvation, why would anyone in Hades be receiving such truths.

When it is implied that the rich man is where he is due to his lack of compassion for his fellow man, in particular Lazarus, he responds positively by turning his attention from himself to his brethren still alive & requests that they be warned about Hades. Is the rich man turning from his selfishness & showing concern for others?

The story speaks of a great gulf fixed stopping the transfer of persons from one place to the other place. It does not say this gulf will remain in place forever. Only that at that moment in time it was so. Possibly the chasm barrier refers to the unrepentant state of those in Hades, & that once they repent the barrier stopping any individual from leaving is removed. Nor does the passage deny the possibility of salvation to the rich man in Hades while he remains there.

" “And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.” "

" "So even if we made the mistake of trying to extract from the details of this parable a position on the issue of whether there will be further chances, there still wouldn’t be much cause for taking this passage as supporting the doctrine of no further chances with any force at all. For as long as the [one] who believes in further chances sensibly allows for the possibility that, while punishment is occurring, those suffering from it can’t just end it any time they want, she can make perfectly good sense of the words this parable puts into the mouth of Father Abraham. After all, if a road has been covered with deep enough snow drifts, we’ll tell someone who must drive on that stretch of road to get to where we are, “You cannot cross over from there to us.” We’ll say this quite properly and truthfully, even if we know full well that the road will be cleared in a few days, or that, in a great enough emergency, a helicopter could be used to get across to us even today, if, say, we’re at a hospital. [But doesn’t that show that there is a sense, then, in which they can cross over to us? Yes, there’s a perfectly good sense in which they can, and a perfectly good sense in which they cannot. For enlightening and accessible explanations of the meaning of “can” and related words, I recommend Angelica Kratzer’s “What ‘Must’ and ‘Can’ Must and Can Mean” (Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1977): pp. 337-355) and example 6 (“Relative Modality”) of David Lewis’s “Scorekeeping in a Language Game” (Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1979): pp. 339-359.]"

The duration, nature, intensity & purpose of the torments the rich man was suffering are not revealed in this story. His torments there could have lasted less than 5 minutes.

Luke 16:19-31 rich man in "hell"

Have you been decieved by your Bible translation?

For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46

If endless punishment were true & victims of infanticide all go to heaven

And becasue none of your imagined alterations to the
story are addressed in the story, then they do not exist.

Light of the East · Jan 20, 2018

HereIStand said:
I read the book Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment by Robert Peterson. He makes a solid argument. Would recommend it. He includes this quote from Augustine's City of God,

what a fond fancy is it to suppose that eternal punishment means long continued punishment, while eternal life means life without end, since Christ in the very same passage spoke of both in similar terms in one and the same sentence, "These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal!" Matthew 25:46 If both destinies are "eternal," then we must either understand both as long-continued but at last terminating, or both as endless. For they are correlative — on the one hand, punishment eternal, on the other hand, life eternal. And to say in one and the same sense, life eternal shall be endless, punishment eternal shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity. Wherefore, as the eternal life of the saints shall be endless, so too the eternal punishment of those who are doomed to it shall have no end.

Since Augustine, by his own admission, despised Greek and therefore did not understand it, he mistranslated and misunderstood that passage in Matthew 25. The Greek word which is mistranslated "eternal" means nothing of the sort. Augustine may have been a saint, but that does not mean that his interpretation of Scripture or his ideas about God, anthropology, soteriology, etc. were always spot on.

Light of the East · Jan 20, 2018

Almost there said:
Yes. The fire is not quenched. What happens to the organic material thrown into it?

And can an unquenchable fire go out? Yep! You just can't put it out. It has to run out of fuel. When the fire department comes to a fire that is just too big to put out, they don't even try to quench it. They just hose down the stuff around it until it goes out on its own.

Did you read any of the scriptures in that big list I supplied?

Your mistake is to conflate the ontology of organic material with that of the soul. This world is but a shadow of the real, and there is much in Scripture that is presented in terms of metaphor and parable. To make the fire in the next life the same as the fire in this life, with the end result of its work to be the same, is trying to make apples into oranges. It not only doesn't work, but it violates what we do know of the fire in the next life - i.e., that this fire is God Himself.

Deu 9:3 Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee. (Obvious metaphor for God's actions)

Eze 36:5 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey. (Metaphor for God's dealing with the heathen)

Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire. (Metaphor for God's all-consuming love. Is God actually and really a fire as we understand it here on earth, or does this use a particular physical event (fire) which we understand here on earth to help us understand God's actions?)

Now the proper thing to do, having God described in this metaphor, is to take the properties we do understand, i.e., fire and what it does, and apply that to God. As one has stated here, when fire meets steel, the steel becomes fire without losing the properties of being steel. And when fire meets wood, it destroys the wood. But what if when fire meets gold, which is the way that we are described in Scripture (not as wood-our actions are described as wood, but not us).

Pro 17:3 The fining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold: but the LORD trieth the hearts.

We are gold that is being tried by the fire, not wood that is being destroyed. I would say that the idea that we are wood (basically worthless compared to gold) would be inline with Augustine's wretched anthropological views, i.e., that mankind is worthless and utterly corrupted by sin (from which Luther got his so pleasant "mountain of dung" description of mankind)

Mal 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

Sit as a refiner - or a destroyer? What is it about Western theology that sees God as this:

Instead of this:

My guess is that someone opened the doors to paganism somewhere along the line.

Light of the East · Jan 20, 2018

JeremiahsBulldog said:
6/6
When the Protestants appeared, they did the following:

(1) They accepted the RC permanent "Heaven".

(2) They accepted the RC permanent "Hell". This is why the KJV translates every afterlife term by "Hell".

(3) They rejected "Purgatory". They also rejected prayers for the dead, which they understood in the RC way.

(4) They rejected "Limbo". Then they interpreted Christ's saying about children (Mat 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16 ) to mean that unbaptized babies go directly to the permanent "Heaven".

The EOC rejects both the RC and the Protestant innovations.

Many thanks for your highly clarifying posts on this subject. I think modern Western Christianity doesn't realize just how far it has strayed off the reservation.

Light of the East · Jan 20, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
right, unfortunately, he is basing his reading on DBH and his own opinion concerning eschatology. our saints say otherwise.

No, he is not. And I am not either. We are looking at the Greek autographs. He made that rather clear in Post 110.

I find it strange, to say the least, that there are those who will either simply ignore what the Greek word means, or "reinvent the wheel" (so to speak) by saying that "aionios" means eternal.

With great respect for your priesthood, Father, I would ask you to go back and read all of Post 110 again. Several times, in fact. Then instruct me on how it is that the Greek word "aionios," which any Greek speaking Father of the Church would admit means "age-during" suddenly becomes "eternal."

To change that meaning is as bad, in my opinion, as the scurrilous interpretation of Matthew 3:38 in the Douay-Rheims Bible where the Latins translated "metanoia" to mean "do penance" when it means no such thing.

Light of the East · Jan 20, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
except that's not what we profess. that argument might work against a Calvinist, but not us. and if the truth of the eternity of hell offends people, that is not the Church's problem.

and your arguments here are based on emotion, not what Scripture or the Fathers say.

Again, Father, said with respect.....please instruct me on how "aionios" translates from "age-during" (root word "aion" meaning "age" and having to do with the same) to "eternal." I am not getting it.

HereIStand · Jan 20, 2018

Light of the East said:
Since Augustine, by his own admission, despised Greek and therefore did not understand it, he mistranslated and misunderstood that passage in Matthew 25. The Greek word which is mistranslated "eternal" means nothing of the sort. Augustine may have been a saint, but that does not mean that his interpretation of Scripture or his ideas about God, anthropology, soteriology, etc. were always spot on.

The word is always translated as eternal or everlasting. Hence, Augustine's point is solid. If heaven is eternal, hell must be also. There are no loopholes, despite the efforts of many to search for them in vain.

Light of the East · Jan 20, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
again, Biblical truth only points to temporality of hell if I first accept your presuppositions. I don't.

and endless infinite love can torment, if you don't want to confront it. the damned are beloved of God, and He pours that out on the damned, which causes their torment.

Agreed. They feel His love as torment. But does that mean that they are incapable of change? Does that mean that the pain they feel is somehow not restorative as well as a just punishment for the evils in which they engaged in this life?

Can God change the heart of the sinner, even after death?

God’s Hand & Our Free Will

At the heart of this blog post is the simple question - since all come to repentance at different times in their lives, why is it that entering into the next life suddenly makes this impossible? To repent after death is just a much, much later repentance than to repent here, with much more serious consequences.

Light of the East · Jan 20, 2018

HereIStand said:
The word is always translated as eternal or everlasting. Hence, Augustine's point is solid. If heaven is eternal, hell must be also. There are no loopholes, despite the efforts of many to search for them in vain.

Oh for Pete's sake!!!!!!

So in other words, I can take any word I want and make it mean anything I want.

If the word "perro" in Spanish means dog, I can turn around and say it means "cat?"

The Greek word "aionios" does not mean "eternal." Greek scholars teach that. Yet you are telling me that to keep up your interpretation of the next life, you are allowed to give it a meaning that it doesn't have.

Sorry, but to me that is not only not honest, it is delusional. Or as a right-wing radio jock is fond of saying "Words mean things." And in this case, "aionios" means "age-during"

Light of the East · Jan 20, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
actually, there are some errors in here. for one, God doesn't force anyone into His presence. we are naturally in His presence since He is omnipresent. and two, love does allow for suffering, if the will of the one who is suffering is set against God.

and pointing out DBH is an EO scholar doesn't add anything. Arius was at one point an EO scholar.

Fine. Where is the official condemnation (anethema) of DBH as a heretic by his bishop or the Church? He is not exactly some back-water amateur theologian. I hear crickets chirping.

Light of the East · Jan 20, 2018

ClementofA said:
Why would the wicked want to come into His presence? Who forces them to come "into His presence"? If He isn't forcing His presence on them, then what is the first sentence talking about:

You are utterly missing the point that Father is making.

The Psalmist correctly asked "where shall go to escape your presence?" The idea of there being any other place in the entirety of the created order where God is not is facetious. God is everywhere. The soul that is wicked and dies in its sin meets God, not by divine mandate, but be the simple fact of reality - God is everywhere.

Stop with the strawman.

Almost there · Jan 20, 2018

Light of the East said:
Your mistake is to conflate the ontology of organic material with that of the soul. This world is but a shadow of the real, and there is much in Scripture that is presented in terms of metaphor and parable. To make the fire in the next life the same as the fire in this life, with the end result of its work to be the same, is trying to make apples into oranges. It not only doesn't work, but it violates what we do know of the fire in the next life - i.e., that this fire is God Himself.

Deu 9:3 Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee. (Obvious metaphor for God's actions)

Eze 36:5 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey. (Metaphor for God's dealing with the heathen)

Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire. (Metaphor for God's all-consuming love. Is God actually and really a fire as we understand it here on earth, or does this use a particular physical event (fire) which we understand here on earth to help us understand God's actions?)

Now the proper thing to do, having God described in this metaphor, is to take the properties we do understand, i.e., fire and what it does, and apply that to God. As one has stated here, when fire meets steel, the steel becomes fire without losing the properties of being steel. And when fire meets wood, it destroys the wood. But what if when fire meets gold, which is the way that we are described in Scripture (not as wood-our actions are described as wood, but not us).

Pro 17:3 The fining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold: but the LORD trieth the hearts.

We are gold that is being tried by the fire, not wood that is being destroyed. I would say that the idea that we are wood (basically worthless compared to gold) would be inline with Augustine's wretched anthropological views, i.e., that mankind is worthless and utterly corrupted by sin (from which Luther got his so pleasant "mountain of dung" description of mankind)

Mal 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

Sit as a refiner - or a destroyer? What is it about Western theology that sees God as this:

Instead of this:

My guess is that someone opened the doors to paganism somewhere along the line.

Or what happened was I actually studied the subject. I believed in ECT simply because it is what I was told. Until I studied it. The transformation was swift, and suddenly scripture was in harmony.
Believe What the Jewish Apostles Taught -- Why Conditional Immortality Is True and Biblical

Hell

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

† Handmaid of God †

The Librarian

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Regular Member

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency