Losing the fear of an eternal hell

[Saint Steven]

The technical meaning for heresy is a sect or division, something that false doctrines invariably produce. However, the term has evolved into a vernacular meaning for a teaching that can produce damnation if followed. How does this apply to universalism? It really doesn't apply if one is a true believer and has been deluded by it. That is, unless he teaches it to those whose application results in them rejecting Christ because, well. why not? We will all be ultimately saved anyway. In that case it is a very dangerous heresy indeed. Following it can result in damnation for some.

Thanks for your detailed response, I appreciate it.

This Controversial Christian Theology area has been designated as a "safe haven", if you will, for Universalists. Evidently, the forum views Universalism as an alternative view worth protecting (rather than a heresy), albeit in a limited area. So, perhaps you will gain a better understanding of UR in time spent in this area.

Do you believe that we are saved, or lost, by doctrine? (for which there is no consensus)

 

[Saint Steven]

It came from an understanding that eternity is outside space and time and as such transcends it. It came from the same understanding that just as there is eternal life...there is also eternal torment. The same words are used to describe them.

That's great point and needs to be addressed completely. Ready?

Aionios mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in Matthew 25:46.

All these verses below use the same NT Greek word, "aionios", the Greek word mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in Matthew 25:46. See bold below. This shows that "aionios" cannot mean eternal or everlasting.

Matthew 13:22
The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful.

Romans 12:2
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Corinthians 2:8
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Ephesians 2:2
in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

Galatians 1:4-5 KJV
Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Galatians 1:4-5 KJV
Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Compare: Matthew 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; Luke 20:35; Ephesians 1:21

Luke 18:29-30
“Truly I tell you,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.”

Aionios, the Greek word mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in the Bible (eternal hell?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kfKQJfT0C8&t=770s

 

[shepherdsword]

Do you believe that we are saved, or lost, by doctrine? (for which there is no consensus)

This is an excellent question. It touches on one of the major faults of the church today. We still eat from the tree of knowledge rather than the tree of life. HOWEVER, could Adam have been saved by the doctrine..."you shall not eat from the tree of knowledge" if he obeyed it? Was he not damned when he ate from it? Did Eve not fall prey to false doctrine when Satan told her "You shall be as God"? Did she not fall and disobey when she believed the serpent? Should we not view doctrine as important even though it is faith in the shed blood/death/resurrection of Jesus that actually saves? If not how do we handle these verses?

1 Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Jn 9-11
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

 

[shepherdsword]

That's great point and needs to be addressed completely. Ready?

Aionios mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in Matthew 25:46.

Oh, I am ready.
If that's true then we don't have eternal life either. aioónion is used here and every other place eternal life is mentioned:

Jn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal(aioónion) life.

 

[Saint Steven]

This is an excellent question. It touches on one of the major faults of the church today. We still eat from the tree of knowledge rather than the tree of life. HOWEVER, could Adam have been saved by the doctrine..."you shall not eat from the tree of knowledge" if he obeyed it? Was he not damned when he ate from it? Did Eve not fall prey to false doctrine when Satan told her "You shall be as God"? Did she not fall and disobey when she believed the serpent? Should we not view doctrine as important even though it is faith in the shed blood/death/resurrection of Jesus that actually saves? If not how do we handle these verses?

1 Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Jn 9-11
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Thanks again for your complete and respectful response.

There is certainly call to weigh what we hear and determine the source, as the Spirit leads us. And doctrine considered dangerous by an individual, or church body, should be taken seriously. But what is the proper approach in that regard?

All too easy to resort to a sort of tribalism in regard to our own doctrine and the doctrine of others.

I was raised Protestant. And I used to view Catholicism as wrong. In fact, I thought that if I could educate a Catholic about what the Bible actually said, that they might abandon their false religion and be saved. What I discovered was that they had very good, and very biblical, reasons for what they believed. It was my own ignorance that was bringing division to the church, the Body of Christ.

For most, it is easy to identify a religious cult. They are in the church across the street from yours. And they feel the same way about you. The question is: what is accomplished with this mentality? War, or peace?

 

[Saint Steven]

Oh, I am ready.
If that's true then we don't have eternal life either. aioónion is used here and every other place eternal life is mentioned:

Jn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal(aioónion) life.

That's another valid concern.
Interesting thing about ages... one follows another. (without end)

As I understand it, the age of restoration has an end, and an end goal.
When the goal is reached, the next age can begin.

Universalism isn't about taking away your eternal life, it's about the process by which ALL are redeemed, restored and saved. (not necessarily in that order)

 

[shepherdsword]

Thanks again for your complete and respectful response.

There is certainly call to weigh what we hear and determine the source, as the Spirit leads us. And doctrine considered dangerous by an individual, or church body, should be taken seriously. But what is the proper approach in that regard?

All too easy to resort to a sort of tribalism in regard to our own doctrine and the doctrine of others.

I was raised Protestant. And I used to view Catholicism as wrong. In fact, I thought that if I could educate a Catholic about what the Bible actually said, that they might abandon their false religion and be saved. What I discovered was that they had very good, and very biblical, reasons for what they believed. It was my own ignorance that was bringing division to the church, the Body of Christ.

For most, it is easy to identify a religious cult. They are in the church across the street from yours. And they feel the same way about you. The question is: what is accomplished with this mentality? War, or peace?

In the final analysis, it is Jesus who ultimately decides who comes to the Father. When He said "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except by me" He wasn't making a statement about adhering to certain precepts. He was saying "I" ( and I alone) decide who is worthy to come to the Father. This can be substantiated by the Jericho road incident. It wasn't the Priest or Levite who had the correct doctrine that did the will of God and loved his neighbor. It was the "heretic" Samaritan that did so. This is something to ponder.

 

[Saint Steven]

... It wasn't the Priest or Levite who had the correct doctrine that did the will of God and loved his neighbor. It was the "heretic" Samaritan that did so. This is something to ponder.

Looks as though we are making some progress here, brother.
At the beginning of this discussion it seemed that I was a heretic, or at least one who ascribed to heretical doctrine. Something to ponder, indeed.

In the final analysis, it is Jesus who ultimately decides who comes to the Father. When He said "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except by me" He wasn't making a statement about adhering to certain precepts. He was saying "I" ( and I alone) decide who is worthy to come to the Father. ...

Agreed.
Oh wait, I'm a Universalist, how can I say that? Another good question that deserves a complete answer.

Anyone who has knees to bow and a tongue to speak, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead), will whole-heartedly, and without reservation, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. No one can say that “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” you will be saved. Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (the reason for the bodily resurrection) Scriptural support below.

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that
he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Further reading: (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 15:4)

 

[Hmm]

At the beginning of this discussion it seemed that I was a heretic, or at least one who ascribed to heretical doctrine. Something to ponder, indeed.

Indeed. The claim that universalism was declared a heresy by the Fifth Ecumenical is almost certainly false. Here's the opening paragraph of an interesting article on the subject:

When first presented with the universalist hope, many Orthodox and Roman Catholics immediately invoke the authority of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (A.D. 553), citing the famous fifteen anti-Origenist anathemas: “Apokatastasis has been dogmatically defined by the Church as heresy—see canon 1 . . . case closed.” Over the past three centuries, however, historians have seriously questioned whether these anathemas were officially promulgated by II Constantinople. The council was convened by the Emperor Justinian for the express purpose of condemning the Three Chapters. Justinian does not mention the Origenist debate in his letter announcing the council nor in his letter that was read to the bishops at the formal opening of the council; nor do the acts of the council, as preserved in the Latin translation (the original Greek text having been lost), cite the fifteen anathemas. Hence when church historian Norman P. Tanner edited his collection of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils in 1990, he did not include the anti-Origenist denunciations, offering the following explanation: “Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council.”

Full article: Did the Fifth Ecumenical Council Condemn Universal Salvation?

 

[Saint Steven]

Indeed. The claim that universalism was declared a heresy by the Fifth Ecumenical is almost certainly false.

Good point.
My understanding was that the Pope refused to attend until forced to do so. And reluctantly, forced again, to cooperate with the proceedings which were politically fueled by Emperor Justinian. Basically a kangaroo council. - LOL

And for those who might have the idea that Universalism is a product of liberal theology... nope, has its origin in the early church. (see below)

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge" by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96 German theologian- Philip Schaff, Editor: "In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

 

[Hmm]

Good point.
My understanding was that the Pope refused to attend until forced to do so. And reluctantly, forced again, to cooperate with the proceedings which were politically fueled by Emperor Justinian. Basically a kangaroo council. - LOL

And for those who might have the idea that Universalism is a product of liberal theology... nope, has its origin in the early church. (see below)

I agree, it was part of Justinian's attempt to control the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire through fear and control.

Origen wasn't condemned for his universalism but for a number of unorthodox beliefs he had, including some, I'm sure, very bizarre ones about the preexistence of souls. A number of other Early Church Fathers taught universal salvation such as Gregory of Nyssa and Issac the Syrian, and they're considered saints. Gregory of Nyssa is affectionately known as the "Father of Fathers" by the Orthodox church and played a major role in drawing up the Nicene Creed and so he's hardly a heretic.

 

[didactics]

I ask this in genuine ignorance: Was Satan created in God's image by God? Is he a god like God? Does He enjoy God's omnipotence?

Anyway, eternity is a long time and the least of my concerns is if Satan is redeemed, and I don't think it is really relevant to the rest of us. If he is redeemable, I hope he is.

Are angels made in the image of God? That’s an interesting question and one I have never given any thought to. Mainly, I don’t believe that angelic beings are redeemable. Humans are uniquely made in the image of God as sentient creatures. I don’t know entirely what it means to be made in God’s image, just that it involves having a conscience and being moral-decision-capable and intelligent beings. It is in Jesus Christ, God’s own son that he came in the likeness of man to redeem humanity, more specifically those he calls his own. I’m talking about all kinds of people whether they are Jew or Gentile (any nation), ethnicity, tribe, rich or poor, slave or free, man or woman you name it. Angelic beings on the other hand are spirit and don’t need to inhabit a body. A sacrifice is made known in a body and in the body of Christ he became a substitutionary sacrifice, a penal substitution for sinners, descendants of Adam.

The following quote is from CARM: Can fallen angels repent and be forgiven (To be clear, he [Matt Slick] is not advocating universalism among humans. He is simply saying that angels are not redeemable and gives the following Bible verses to explain why)

Angels have no way of being redeemed that we know of because the pattern of redemption involves the incarnation of God where he became one of us and died for us. This means we are able to be redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, God in flesh (John 1:1, 14; Colossians 2:9).

If angels were chosen to not fall, it was probably for a reason to serve God. We as humans have all fallen. However, we have been chosen for redemption by God’s grace(2 Thessalonians 2:13; Ephesians 1:4-5).

This following quote is from Answers in Genesis by Bodie Hodge. I personally like a lot of what they have to say because I’m a young earth creationist (YEC): Were Angels Created in the Image of God?

Put simply, in our fallen state, we may never fully grasp what encompasses being made “in the image of God.” God is infinite, and simply trying to comprehend God’s attributes can sometimes seem overwhelming.

But on the flip side, should it be a surprise that spiritual beings have attributes of their Creator who is spirit as well? We can be sure of what God’s Word teaches: humans are made in the image of God and are distinct from animals by having a spiritual aspect. I’m not aware of any major theological problems if one considers spiritual beings as being made in the image of God. Therefore, it may be wise to leave open the possibility that heavenly beings are made in the image of God.

 

[shepherdsword]

Looks as though we are making some progress here, brother.
At the beginning of this discussion it seemed that I was a heretic, or at least one who ascribed to heretical doctrine. Something to ponder, indeed.


Agreed.
Oh wait, I'm a Universalist, how can I say that? Another good question that deserves a complete answer.

Anyone who has knees to bow and a tongue to speak, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead), will whole-heartedly, and without reservation, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. No one can say that “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” you will be saved. Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (the reason for the bodily resurrection) Scriptural support below.

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that
he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Further reading: (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 15:4)

Oh I agree with the confession of faith and it's resulting salvation...it's just not for those who are lost and live their lives in unbelief.
The proponents of Universalism, like most errant doctrines, tend to fall into apophenia. They take verses outside their stated context and twist them into a pattern that props up their own misconceptions. They ignore the justice of God and make Him some insipid watered down wimp who doesn't have any wrath and whose word is mocked. They misunderstand a classic synecdoche when "every knee" is mentioned. It obviously can't apply to the souls who are lost. They ignore scriptures like these:

Mk 9:43-44 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Jn 5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

1 Ti 5:12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.

2 Pe 2:3-5 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Rv 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Here we can plainly see (if we are not blind to the truth) that there are two classes of people (and angels). Those who are the saved elect...and those who are not. In short, the doctrine of universalism is so obviously flawed that it is akin to the modern day "woke" movement.

 

[Saint Steven]

Oh I agree with the confession of faith and it's resulting salvation...it's just not for those who are lost and live their lives in unbelief.
The proponents of Universalism, like most errant doctrines, tend to fall into apophenia. They take verses outside their stated context and twist them into a pattern that props up their own misconceptions. They ignore the justice of God and make Him some insipid watered down wimp who doesn't have any wrath and whose word is mocked. They misunderstand a classic synecdoche when "every knee" is mentioned. It obviously can't apply to the souls who are lost.

What do you suppose the inclusion of the phrase "under the earth" means in this scripture?
My understanding is that it is a reference to the realm of the dead. (sheol) If so... ???

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

 

[shepherdsword]

Thanks for your detailed response, I appreciate it.

This Controversial Christian Theology area has been designated as a "safe haven", if you will, for Universalists.

This seems to contradict this:

This forum is NOT intended to be a "safe haven" for members who hold unorthodox Christian beliefs.

Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Outreach category forums. Gnosticism may not be discussed in any CF forums. Unorthodox Christian theological topics include (but are not limited to):

• Annihilationism
• Full Preterism
  
• Open Theism
  
• Universalism
• Date-setting for Second Advent*

 

[Saint Steven]

They take verses outside their stated context and twist them into a pattern that props up their own misconceptions.

That saw cuts both ways.

 

[Saint Steven]

This seems to contradict this:

This forum is NOT intended to be a "safe haven" for members who hold unorthodox Christian beliefs.

Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Outreach category forums. Gnosticism may not be discussed in any CF forums. Unorthodox Christian theological topics include (but are not limited to):

• Annihilationism
• Full Preterism
  
• Open Theism
  
• Universalism
• Date-setting for Second Advent*

If your interpretation is true, WHY ARE WE STILL HERE?

 

[shepherdsword]

If your interpretation is true, WHY ARE WE STILL HERE?

SO YOUR ERRANT HERESY CAN BE CORRECTED AND REBUKED FOR ALL TO SEE!

 

[Saint Steven]

They ignore the justice of God and make Him some insipid watered down wimp who doesn't have any wrath and whose word is mocked.

What's the alternative? The John Wayne model for God?
The cosmic tyrant with anger management issues? An angry volcano god?
A heavenly Father that more closely resembles a gangster godfather, making us an offer we can't refuse?
Which boils down to spiritual extortion. Believe, or burn.

The gospel of hell:
Receive the free gift of salvation today. Or if you would prefer, you will be incinerated.

 

[Saint Steven]

SO YOUR ERRANT HERESY CAN BE CORRECTED AND REBUKED FOR ALL TO SEE!

Did I ask you this earlier?

Do you believe we are saved by doctrine?
If so, who's doctrine? (no consensus)
What is accomplished with divisive tribalism within the church?