The duration of hell and its purpose

[ozso]

.

 

[ozso]

Amen and furthermore it’s contrasts eternal life with eternal punishment. Both being eternal yet a yin yang comparison.

What about what it says gives eternal life?

 

[wendykvw]

Many people ask, "Are there people suffering in hell right now?" Job 21:30-32 gives us a picture about hell and when its fires will burn.

Job says, "For the wicked are reserved for the day of doom; they shall be brought out on the day of wrath.” This text along with 2 Peter 3:7 shows that hell is not burning now, but at some date in the future the wicked are reserved and brought forth out of their graves for the day of wrath.

John 5:28-29 also conveys the same message, “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” Again this outlines that the hour is coming in the future, but is not yet, when final condemnation and destruction happens. Y

You can rest assured, that right now, at this moment, not one person is burning in hellfire.

I assume you believe that the deceased are sleeping and support the annihilation view?

 

[Davy]

Matthew 19:28-30 28Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth: In the age when all things are renewed, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And whoever has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and the last first.’ (NET)

The key phrase in this passage is “the age when all things are renewed” which is translated from the Greek word palingenesia. This word is only used twice in the NT and means the age when all things are returned to their pristine and pre-fall condition.

And like I said, the Revelation 20:14-15 and Psalms 37:10 Scriptures speak for themselves using common sense. No need to add a bunch of leaven traditions to it.

 

[wendykvw]

And like I said, the Revelation 20:14-15 and Psalms 37:10 Scriptures speak for themselves using common sense. No need to add a bunch of leaven traditions to it.

Sure anyone can pull out a verse to support their view.

There has never been a consensus in theology.
Scripture has very little to do with one’s commitment to the Lord or reverence for His word and everything to do with the theological presuppositions or model one holds to. If one accepts that God will punish people eternally in hell, passages are interpreted one way; if it is believed God will eventually annihilate the wicked, passages are interpreted another way; and if one holds that all will eventually be restored, there is yet a third possibility. As hard as one may try, interpretation with hermeneutics, etc, everyone views scripture through the lenses of their own preconceived ideas and beliefs. We can pretend that there is some kind of consensus in Christian theology, but the historical records prove that to be false.

 

[Der Alte]

This should act as a hyperlink to download the PDF.

https://brill.com/previewpdf/journals/rrj/11/2/article-p200_2.xml#:~:text=So far as history claims,about once upon a time.

As far as Jacob Neusner goes:

Jacob Neusner - Wikipedia

But I supposed you'll still blow him off as an anonymous nobody and fake scholar, as seems to be your habit.

No luck. From what I could see at the other link he seemed to be a knowledgeble scholar but I need to see some thing he wrote to make an informed decision.

 

[Davy]

Sure anyone can pull out a verse to support their view.

There has never been a consensus in theology.
Scripture has very little to do with one’s commitment to the Lord or reverence for His word and everything to do with the theological presuppositions or model one holds to. If one accepts that God will punish people eternally in hell, passages are interpreted one way; if it is believed God will eventually annihilate the wicked, passages are interpreted another way; and if one holds that all will eventually be restored, there is yet a third possibility. As hard as one may try, interpretation with hermeneutics, etc, everyone views scripture through the lenses of their own preconceived ideas and beliefs. We can pretend that there is some kind of consensus in Christian theology, but the historical records prove that to be false.

Sorry, but that kind of thinking is strongly in error, because it suggests that whatever idea 'we'... come up with, IF the Scriptures fit (as 'we' may think), then it's OK. No, afraid NOT!

We MUST heed what God's Word declares 'as written', and NOT try to change what the Scripture says and reveals. Then we must decide to either accept or reject it. And I can personally guarantee you, add a bunch of leaven to Scripture in His Word, or try and change the words around to make it fit a doctrine of men, and you can count on Him not showing you anything. He will let you dream up your own word so that you will fall in the ditch, and be taken.

 

[wendykvw]

Sorry, but that kind of thinking is strongly in error, because it suggests that whatever idea 'we'... come up with, IF the Scriptures fit (as 'we' may think), then it's OK. No, afraid NOT!

We MUST heed what God's Word declares 'as written', and NOT try to change what the Scripture says and reveals. Then we must decide to either accept or reject it. And I can personally guarantee you, add a bunch of leaven to Scripture in His Word, or try and change the words around to make it fit a doctrine of men, and you can count on Him not showing you anything. He will let you dream up your own word so that you will fall in the ditch, and be taken.

You miss the point. No human being is infallible when it comes to the interpretation of scripture. This is why Christianity is full of different denominations with differing interpretations. To assert that one is infallible is obtuse. The only essential doctrine we must get right is love for one another.

If I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing. I cor 13:2

 

[Davy]

You miss the point. No human being is infallible when it comes to the interpretation of scripture. This is why Christianity is full of different denominations with differing interpretations. To assert that one is infallible is obtuse. The only essential doctrine we must get right is love for one another.

If I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing. I cor 13:2

God's Word is... infallible though, and CAN be properly understood, for those who discipline theirselves in it with His help by The Holy Spirit.

Otherwise you think you can go it alone and get understanding on your own cognizance, which is fallacy.

So yeah, I did get your point, and I've heard it all before.

 

[wendykvw]

God's Word is... infallible though, and CAN be properly understood, for those who discipline theirselves in it with His help by The Holy Spirit.

Otherwise you think you can go it alone and get understanding on your own cognizance, which is fallacy.

I agree with your statement. Scripture is infallible, people are not.

 

[wendykvw]

So far the duration of hell survey:

10= Votes for ECT
7 =Votes for Temporary
4 =Votes for Other

 

[hedrick]

Der Alte said: ↑
Rubbish! Both encyclopedias supported eternal hell.

I posted a PDF from Jacob Neusner of Bard College. And I posted the link to it. But it doesn't come out as a hyperlink, so you have to cut and paste it into your browser:

file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/_journals_rrj_11_2_article-p200_2-preview%20(1).pdf


It means that to you, but you can't speak for others reading this thread.

Hmm was calling your posts a wall of text. I explained to you that was probably due to the archaic formatting you use instead of just using what CF provides by default. You keep saying I didn't read you posts like a robot, when it's obvious to everyone that I did. I seriously doubt you'd accept refutation from anyone.

Links beginning with file: are to files on your own computer. They don’t work for anyone else. You’ll need to put them on a web server and post a link to that.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What about what it says gives eternal life?

i don’t understand your question.

 

[ozso]

No luck. From what I could see at the other link he seemed to be a knowledgeble scholar but I need to see some thing he wrote to make an informed decision.

Maybe if you google: "does the talmud contain historical information" you'll find it and or similar info.

 

[ozso]

i don’t understand your question.

Folks harp on "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” But they seem to overlook what it says leads to eternal life. It's saying if you give someone a glass of water, you'll have eternal life. So based on that, how literal is it? Because if it's literal, then most people have eternal life. I'm sure at some point in your life you offered someone a beverage or a snack etc. Especially a child which would be the least of these. I've done all the things listed more times than I can count, mostly just out of happenstance.

 

[Jonaitis]

It ultimately depends on the greek meaning, and which team you are on. IF you are on team ECT, they will ultimately find ways to teach that hell is for infinity without end. And the majority of those who teach this, are the Western Church Fathers who believed and taught eternal unending hell. Another strong influencer of this view is Augustine, who did not speak Greek and was not a fan of learning Greek.

IF you are on team restoration, then you will look to the early Eastern church fathers whose native language Was Greek, and so they need not learn greek, it was already their native language.

Scholars will ultimately be arguing until their death, and when they find out for sure, they can not come back to tell us what they found out.

Here are a few English translations, that have translated eternal as a period of time or age:

Young's Literal Translation
And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'

Worrell New Testament
"And these shall go away into age-lasting punishment, but the righteous into age-lasting life."


The New Testament, a Translation, 1938

“And these will go away into eonian correction, but the righteous into eonian life.”

The New Testament, A New Translation, 1980

“Then they will begin to serve a new period of suffering, but God’s faithful will enter upon their heavenly life.”

Weymouth New Testament
"And these shall go away into the Punishment of the Ages, but the righteous into the Life of the Ages."

Concordant Literal New Testament, 1983

And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian.”

Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959

“And these shall go away into age-abiding correction, But the righteous into age-abiding life.”

But, if Jesus compares duration of that punishment (hell) with the duration of that reward (heaven), it would make sense that they were used in the same way.

 

[Daniel9v9]

@wendykvw

First of all, thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I understand that you mean well, but let me offer you critique where I believe you err. Now, there's a whole lot I can say, but I don't want this to snowball into a whole production, so I'll only mention a couple of things per answer.

@Daniel9v91. Can you show me a passage from the Bible that says that repentance is possible in the resurrection?

1 Peter 3:18-19

18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison. (NIV)

Here we have a clear picture of postmortem evangelism where Christ is said to be preaching to people in hades who are obviously dead. That Christ descended into hell to preach to the dead was the view “almost universally adopted by the early Christian church”. The view that Christ preached to the lost in hades is one that was held by Eusebius, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, Epiphanius, Taylor Lewis, Alfred Edersheim, and many more. Many of the greatest names in the first four or five centuries believed Christ went to hades to preach to the lost postmortem salvation.

Christ's descent into hell or the harrowing of hell is not the same as restoration theology. This can be simply illustrated by the fact that all major historical branches of Christendom, including the one I serve in, teach this, but at the same time reject the theory of restoration. There are many reasons for this.

Without going into the controversy of the passage, we can for example see how it's confessed in the ecumenical creeds, where we do confess that Christ was crucified, dead, and buried, and that He descended into hell, but then it continues to say that on the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. In other words, Christ's descent into hell is recorded as a historical fact, but it then goes on to talk about His judgment of the world. And in the Athanasian Creed, we confess: "And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire." That is, it emphasises the sharp distinction between those who are in Christ and those who are not. So the theory of restoration is contrary to the creeds, and I think anything that goes hard against the creeds should cause us to stop and reflect on God's Word.

Now, to get into the Scriptures: Let me preface this with a good exegetical rule, which is that clear passages must always govern unclear passages. For example, if all we had of God's Word was this: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.", our image of Jesus would be very different. But thanks be to God, He has given us the immediate context and the broader context to explain what this means. That is, passages about God's love for us and His command to love Him and love our neighbours, allow us to rightly understand what Jesus is saying.

With this in mind, let's turn to 1 Peter 3:18-19. First of all, it's good to remember that (1) hell here is not the second death, and as such this can not be used in a way that God promises to restore those who reject Christ in the new creation. And (2) the text doesn't say what He preached. We, for example, believe this to be a part of Christ's victory over hell and death, but this is not the same as the theory of restoration.

Now, let's look at this passage in context: Peter is talking about how God calls us to suffer for Christ's sake, and then he goes on to talk about Christ's judgment of the world, and that whoever believes and is baptised in Him, are saved. He contrasts those who are saved and those who are not, and that in the context of baptism, which is to say God's grace that we receive right now, not in the resurrection. In short, this text does not say "whoever rejects Christ will be saved". You can see Peter making frequent contrasts between those who are in Christ and those who are not, and he does not make any promise that those who reject Christ will be in Christ. There's nothing in the text itself that suggest damnation is not fixed — that would be eisegesis, a reading into the text.

So, this is the immediate context. Now, let's take a view on the broader context and compare it with Hebrews 3:17-19, where it reads: "And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief." This here, does not allow for the theory of restoration. It says that those who die rejecting God's grace are not able to enter His rest.

So, in summary, nowhere in the Bible does it say that whoever rejects Christ will have life in Christ. Scriptures explicitly say the opposite.

Very quickly on the early church: I will admit that Origen and some who followed in his steps toyed with the idea of restoration, but the overwhelming and vast majority of the early church knew of only salvation and damnation and that these are fixed. I can for example recommend reading The Apostolic Church Fathers by Holmes. Just to give you one quick example: Polycarp, who was very likely a disciple of the apostle John, and likely the recipient of Revelation in Smyrna as he served as the bishop there, he writes: "By grace you have been saved, not because of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ." This is to say that we can neither merit salvation by our works nor by our suffering for sin, in this life or in the next. Salvation is only by Christ. He also says: "[God] promises that He will raise us from the dead and that if we prove to be citizens worthy of Him, we will also reign with Him — if, that is, we continue to believe." This is to say, only those who believe in Christ now will have life in Christ. He does not indicate that people can repent and believe in Jesus in the resurrection. Again, for emphasis, none of the church fathers say anything to the effect that "whoever rejects Christ will have life in Christ", but rather, they explicitly say the opposite.

@Daniel9v9You are asking two questions, but I will answer both. First, I have spoken to many people throughout the past 15 years about restoration who are not very fond of Christianity, the main reason is Christians. When I share the restoration view with them they are immediately drawn to God and fall in love with God. Why? They tell me that punishment in hell for a limited time is fair and reasonable. The unpardonable sin is simply one that God cannot deal with adequately in the absence of appropriate punishment. No paradon will be available to those who could commit this sin, and as you know or may not know many do not believe it is possible for anyone today to commit the unpardonable sin. Biblical scholars are not all in agreement on what this sin even is.

What I wanted to bring out here was this: If we say that God promises to save unbelievers, we make promises for God that He does not make. This is taking God's name in vain. It's a sin.

@Daniel9v92. Do you believe Satan will be saved? I do not know, the bible does not contain everything, only God knows, but I am not against seeing all creation, and every created being restored to their pre-fallen condition. If God did wish to restore Satan, divine purging would take place.

I can recommend reading 2 Peter 2. There is no indication there that Satan will be saved, and here we find the judgment of Satan connected with the judgment of unbelievers.

@Daniel9v93. Why do you believe that salvation is eternal and damnation not when both are referred to in the same way? The fact that there is a direct contrast, along with everything else Scripture says indicate only two permanent states.

The passage you refer to is Matthew 25:44-46, this passage is sending those who confessed Jesus as Lord, to hell. This is a problem for your view ECT. Restoration teaches that even those who confess Jesus, yet do not practice His principles, and neglect helping the less fortunate are in danger of hell fire. The fire will remove their indifference and lack of love. The fire is reformative and medicinal.

This isn't really answering the simple exegetical question, for throughout the Scriptures, salvation and damnation are referred to as eternal or fixed. It would be arbitrary to understand one as fixed and the other as temporary. There's nothing in the text itself to indicate such a reading, so it's an idea that must be brought into the text.

@Daniel9v94. Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world. But if someone should reject that grace, as many do, what hope is there?

Start with Romans 8:38-39. The promises of God, even all of Israel will be saved. Romans 11:26

(1) Paul is not talking about those who reject Christ, but those who believe in Him. This is crystal clear from everything that comes before. Even in the same chapter, he says: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Meaning, there are some who are condemned, with no promise of being saved. And "those whom [God] predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." Meaning, there are some who are justified and some who are not. It does not say that those who reject Christ will have life in Him.

(2) Isreal, here, means the body of Christ; believers in every age; OT and NT. Paul explains what he means by Israel in Romans 9:6-8: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named. This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring."

Yet again, the Bible does not say that whoever rejects the person and works of Christ will have life in Him.

@Daniel9v95. Why is the restoration aspect absent from clear passages such as Mark 16:16 and our Lord’s story of Lazarus and the rich man?

Luke 16. First, there’s nothing in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus that negates the possibility of the rich man leaving his current state. Yes, he cannot cross over to where Lazarus is now, but that doesn’t mean he can never cross over. Restoration agrees that those who are punished in the next age will be separated from those who are not punished. But when the punishment is completed, they will all be together. While someone is in prison, they are not in the same location as those who are free but when their sentence is up, they are able to join their family and friends. The fact that Christ tells us the rich man cannot join Lazarus now does not mean the rich man can never join Lazarus.

Secondly, while the rich man cannot cross the chasm and join Lazarus, this does not mean Christ cannot make the journey as he holds the “keys of death and of Hades” (Rev 1:18).

This is an argument from silence at best. The simple reading is that Christ expresses two outcomes: Salvation or damnation. If there was another judgment after a period of suffering, or sporadic repentance and faith in the resurrection, one would expect our Lord to at least hint at it, but He does not. In all His parables, he warns unbelievers and comforts believers. I think this alone speaks volumes.

Conclusion
Neither Scriptures, the early church, nor our creeds say anything along the lines that "whoever rejects Christ will have life in Christ". What they do say, and overwhelmingly so, is that whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

[wendykvw]

But, if Jesus compares duration of that punishment (hell) with the duration of that reward (heaven), it would make sense that they were used in the same way.

Nothing in Matt 25:46 refutes restoration.

The same word can be used more than once in the same passage and have more than one meaning. A word can be used three times in the same sentence yet have three different meanings.

Example:
Back in my father’s day, it took three days to drive across the country during the day. The word “day” is used three times in this one sentence and yet it has three durations. The first occurrence refers to a non-definitive point of time in the past. The second occurrence refers to a 24-hour period of time and the third occurrence refers to the daylight portion of a day.

• A word used twice in the same passage of Scripture has two different durations.

He stood and surveyed the earth; He looked and startled the nations. Yes, the perpetual mountains were shattered, The ancient hills collapsed. His ways are everlasting. (Habakkuk 3:6 - NASB)

In this passage, the Septuagint translates ‘ancient’ and ‘everlasting’ using the same Greek word aionios (Strong’s 166) and yet it’s plain to see that the “hills” will not last forever but God’s ways are eternal so the durations are different. This passage is particularly important because the same Greek word aionios that is used twice in Matt 25:46 is used twice in Hab 3:6 and it doesn’t carry the same duration.



OR if we follow the rule you have suggested you would need to interpret 1 Cor 15:22 as follows: “Since we know the population of those in Adam includes everyone we, therefore, know the population of those in Christ includes everyone too because the same word must have the same meaning in the same passage.”

And lastly, scholars disagree on the Greek meaning of aionios. However, it is significant that the early church apologist St. Clement's native language was greek, and he taught restoration and the limited duration of hell. Augustine on the other hand promoted the view that you hold to. Augustine did not understand Greek and was a poor student in learning the Greek language.

There are many translations that indicate the original Greek meaning of the passage Matthew 25:46

Here are a few:

Weymouth New Testament
"And these shall go away into the Punishment of the Ages, but the righteous into the Life of the Ages."

Young's Literal Translation
And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'


The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible, 1976

“And these shall go away into age-abiding *correction, but the righteous into **age-abiding life.”

The twentieth Century New Testament, 1900

“And these last will go away ‘into onian punishment, but the righteous ‘into onian life.”

The People’s New Covenant, 1925

“And these will depart into age-continuing correction, but the righteous, into age-continuing life.”

Emphatic Diaglott, 1942 edition

“And these shall go forth to the aionian 1 cutting-off; but the RIGHTEOUS to aionian Life.”

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958

“And these shall go away into agelasting cutting-off and the just into agelasting life.”

The New Testament, a Translation, 1938

“And these will go away into eonian correction, but the righteous into eonian life.”

The New Testament, A New Translation, 1980

“Then they will begin to serve a new period of suffering; but God’s faithful will enter upon their heavenly life.”

Concordant Literal New Testament, 1983

And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian.”

Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959

“And these shall go away into age-abiding correction, But the righteous into age-abiding life.”

 

[wendykvw]

@wendykvw

First of all, thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I understand that you mean well, but let me offer you critique where I believe you err. Now, there's a whole lot I can say, but I don't want this to snowball into a whole production, so I'll only mention a couple of things per answer.


Conclusion
Neither Scriptures, the early church, nor our creeds say anything along the lines that "whoever rejects Christ will have life in Christ". What they do say, and overwhelmingly so, is that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

I have snipped a big portion here of your post to save space, shorten an already super long reply, and I do apologize. I have no problem if you are convinced of your position. And since you have brought up Church History, you may not have the full picture, but only the position that you are familiar with. It has been maybe 10 years ago I read this book and it had an interesting piece of information about the Lutheran position of post-mortem salvation. IF I still had the book I could share the contents, but I do recall that like many denominations they have a version of restoration to cover the topic of "what about those who never hear the gospel before they die. You might want to check that book out at your library. No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized - John Sanders

I have also come across a few Lutherans who have told me that Lutherans have a version of the restoration view. I have not asked them to expand, so I don't know where they are getting that from, but they are "universal restoration' friendly.

Just to inform those who do not know the restoration view, the belief and supports for the ultimate victory of Christ is not some 19th-century liberalism but is in fact, the views held by some of the earliest and greatest Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria (ca. 160-215 A.D.), Origen ( ca. 185-ca 251 A.D.), and Gregory of Nyssa (331/340-ca. 395 A.D.). These great men were not alone in their hope for universal salvation and an end to hell's punishments as others such as Gregory of Nazianzus (ca. 329-390 A.D.), Didymus the Blind (313-398 A.D.), Evagrius of Pontus (345-399 A.D.), Ambrose (339-397 A.D.), and Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 – ca 428-39 A.D.) shared in this belief in varying degrees.


It would again be a major surprise for most people to know that of the six theological schools known to exist in the first five centuries, one taught annihilationism, one taught eternal torment but the other four taught the restoration view. The church of Rome in the West position was that of eternal hell, and the Eastern Church's position was a limited duration in hell. This goes back to the Patristic church. Russian Orthodox Bishop today, Catholic Richard Rohr, Eastern Orthodox Brad Jersak, Evangelical Robin Parry and so many others are teachers today of Universal restoration. I will tell you that my husband and I have a universal restoration ministry and those who join our membership are mainly retired Pastors of all denominational lines. A new reformation is taking place. Martin Luther opened the way to question the status quo. Question the majority, they may not always be correct, much deception has saturated Christianity today via, seminaries, churches, books, etc. I do believe that if people knew more about Church history they would have a much different mindset.

What restoration teaches:

1. Sin will be punished (Deut 24:16; Isa 3:11; 13:11; Ezek 18:30; Rev 20:12-13)

The Bible is very clear that each of us will be accountable to God for our sins. Everyone will be punished fairly for what they’ve done here on earth. Patristic Universalism does not teach everyone avoids hell; it teaches everyone will eventually get to heaven. There will be punishment for those who deserve it; but this punishment has as its goal the reconciliation of the sinner.


2. Salvation comes only through faith in Christ (Acts 16:31; Rom 10:9; Eph 2:8; 1 Pet 1:5)

As soon as people hear the word restoration they immediately think you’re advocating pluralism. That may be true of other forms of universalism, but it’s not what the universalism of the early church taught. To be saved, everyone must receive Christ as their Lord and Savior; they cannot be saved apart from faith in Christ. The only difference from the traditional view is that death does not end a person’s chance to accept Christ.


3. God continues to evangelize to people even after they die (1 Chron 16:34; Isa 9:2; Matt 12:32; Rom 8:35-39; Eph 4:8-9; 1 Pet 3:18-20; 4:6)

The main problem with the traditional view – and one that has never been satisfactorily addressed – is how can one “accept Christ” if they have never heard of Christ, or were unable to understand the message (i.e. too young, mentally handicapped, etc.). The traditional view seems much less appalling when viewed from the balcony of Middle America where there is a church on nearly every corner and Bibles available in multiple translations. But this is not the experience of many people in the world. Many struggle from day-to-day just to get enough to eat. To suggest they will spend eternity in hell because they didn’t stop and “accept Christ” to me is ludicrous. Given the environment most people live in throughout the world, a belief in post-mortem evangelism is the only view that makes sense. After all, didn’t Paul tell us that Christ is the God of both the living and the dead (Rom 14:9)?


4. Everyone will be judged when they die (Psalm 62:12; Prov 24:12; Eccl 3:17; 12:18; Jer 17:10; Matt 12:36; 16:27; Rom 2:16; 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:10-15; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 20:12-13)

No honest believer would suggest they were perfect here on earth and if that’s true, how can we say any of us are ready for heaven? We will all come before God with much “wood, hay, and straw” (1 Cor 3:12) that will need to be “burned up” (v. 15) prior to entering through heaven’s gates. The problem I see with modern evangelism is the idea that once someone has said the “sinner’s prayer,” they believe they are immune from all punishment which can result in a lazy faith – the kind of faith that produces indifference to others and apathy about one’s own spiritual health. So contrary to the popular view that universalism minimizes or completely eliminates judgment for sin, it actually takes a stronger stance than the traditional view by taking the passages seriously that discuss the believer’s accountability to God. What this means to the believer in terms of the type of punishment nobody knows. All I can say for sure is that there will be a process of removing the dross from the silver for every person.


5. The purpose of hell is remedial not retributive (1 Chron 21:13; Prov 3:12; Isa 19:22; Heb 12:7-11; Rev 3:19)

Closely linked with the belief that all will be saved is the understanding that the purpose of hell is remedial. Rather than simply a place where non-believers are discarded and forgotten, hell actually serves the purpose of helping to bring about reconciliation with God. This means that even “believers” might spend some time in the purifying fires of hell to prepare them for heaven by removing any remaining “hay” or “straw” (1 Cor 3:10-15). Christ is our savior and we cannot be saved apart from Him, but that doesn’t mean that all who profess Him are ready for heaven. Think of believers you know who “aren’t there yet.” If non-believers can’t live anyway they want to and be saved, why should we think believers could? Sometimes Christians abuse the grace of God by believing they’re already in heaven and so become more focused on worldly things. Patristic Universalism reminds everyone that none of us are “there yet.”



6. The duration of hell is limited not eternal (Exodus 34:6-7; Psalm 30:5; 77:7-9; Psalm 86:5; Jer 23:20; 30:24; Lam 3:31-32; Matt 6:14-45; Luke 12:47-48)

If the purpose of hell is to restore the sinner then obviously its duration cannot be eternal. I know the classic argument has always been that a crime committed against an eternal God must be punished with an eternal sentence but this concept completely breaks down when we remember that the Bible describes degrees of punishment for sinners. How can there be degrees of eternality? Is the lesser offender slapped in the face for all eternity while the more offensive sinner is burned for all eternity?


7. Everyone will eventually be saved (John 1:29; Rom 11:25-26, 32; 1 Cor 15:22, 28; 1 Tim 4:10)

This is not to say there is no hell or that people are not held accountable for their sins, but only that after the proper punishments have been administered whether they be medicinal, pedagogical, or purificatory, then all will be ready for entrance into Heaven’s sinless domain.



What Restoration Does Not Teach

· It does not teach there is no hell

· It does not teach there is no judgment for sin

· It does not teach pluralism

· It does not teach that people go straight to heaven

· It does not reject the Bible as God’s Word

· It does not teach you can be saved apart from faith in Christ

 

[wendykvw]

Continued:
Archbishop Kallistos Ware

Archbishop of the Eastern Orthodox Church in the U.K


“In the light of this reading of Revelation, what is the purpose of hell? Kallistos Ware helpfully says:

When God punishes us, or appears to do so, the purpose of this punishment is never retributive and retaliatory, but exclusively reformative and therapeutic".] Hell is not God torturing people into obedience, but his allowing people to experience the consequences of their decisions, and in doing so, allowing people's self-deception to be stripped away. If this is true, then hell is educative for those who do not believe in Christ. Gehenna is nothing else than a place of purging and purification which helps to bring about God's master plan that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth' (1 Tim.2.4). Nevertheless, it is still a place to avoid!

Russian Orthodox Church Bishop Hilarion

“God's Mercy is immeasurable love of the Father"

In an astounding declaration of the power of God's mercy, Bishop Hilarion stated that God does not make mistakes or create unredeemable trash good only to be thrown away. Though God respects human choice and free will, even when the choice is to reject Him, His love and mercy can forgive literally without exception, "without any blame."


The Bishop said God's love flows equally over all creation, animals, man, and angels, as well as everything in between and outside. Speaking of angels, Bishop Hilarion said, the providential care of God and His love extends to angels, who were the first product of God's creative act, including those who had fallen away from God and had turned into demons (my italics). According to [St.] Isaac, the love of the Creator towards fallen angels does not diminish as a result of their fall, and it is no less the fullness of love which He has towards all angels. 'It would be most odious and utterly blasphemous' Isaac claims, 'to think that hate and resentment exists with God, even against demonic beings.'"


To claim that God's mercy "diminishes or vanishes because of a created being's fall" involves a human reduction of God's glorious nature and imposes upon God "weakness and change," the Bishop said. This would be a perverted creation of God in man's own sinful image and likeness, a true "blasphemy."

God, Bishop Hilarion said, contains no hatred or resentment, "no greater or lesser place in his love." That is the reason we can confidently state, he said, that "God loves equally the righteous and sinners, making no distinction between them. God knew man's future sinful life before the latter's creation, yet He created him. God knew all people before [their] becoming righteous or sinners, and in His love He did not change because of the fact that they underwent change."

Reverend Rebecca, a Priest with the Episcopal Church of America.

“I am a Universalist, but I do believe in hell. I merely believe that hell is a temporary state and not eternal. There are many good reasons to believe in some form of "spiritual imprisonment" for those who, upon death, have thus far chosen separation and rebellion from God, love, and truth. The doors are always open in this realm and I believe God continues to seek and persuade people, through persistent love, to accept God's love, truth, and goodness. There are likely trials and suffering (like earth but of a different type, ie of the soul, not physical) here as people "sort out" their destinies. Also, this temporary holding place, much like purgatory, likely functions as a context for divine (or what many would term “karmic”) retribution to right the injustices committed in one's lifetime. I believe that eventually all beings are wooed by God's intense and persistent love for them, however. Everyone is reunited to the Source of their Being. God doesn't give up until all are convinced. And since we have an eternity, there are no "time limits."