The duration of hell and its purpose

[Davy]

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

Nah, that reasoning still does not work, because it suggests that man cannot ever truly be sure of 'properly' understanding God's Word, and even suggests that God is incapable of giving a person 'proper' understanding in His Word. Your kind of thinking means it is ultimately useless to even try... and understand God's Word.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Then why in this is eternal life based on those who gave? That's the story as a whole. Those who gave a cup of water etc will go away into eternal life, and those who didn't will go away into eternal punishment.

What verse are you referring to? You seem to be mixing two different passages. Your quoting Matthew 10:42 and appear to mixing that with Matthew 25:46.

 

[ozso]

What verse are you referring to? You seem to be mixing two different passages. Your quoting Matthew 10:42 and appear to mixing that with Matthew 25:46.

I'm referring to the whole entire story of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46. You're the one who added in Matthew 10:42. I was only talking about what's contained in Matthew 25:31-46

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm referring to the whole entire story of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46. You're the one who added in Matthew 10:42. I was only talking about what's contained in Matthew 25:31-46

I apologize brother I misunderstood. Jesus didn’t say if you give someone a glass of water you will receive eternal life. He was emphasizing that the goats had no love or compassion for others, that’s why they were rejected.

 

[ozso]

I apologize brother I misunderstood. Jesus didn’t say if you give someone a glass of water you will receive eternal life. He was emphasizing that the goats had no love or compassion for others, that’s why they were rejected.

He said those who gave someone something to drink etc will enter into eternal life. If you're going to say it was all purely symbolic rather than literal, then I'm saying the whole thing from start to finish, verse 31 to 46, should be viewed as purely symbolic.

 

[BNR32FAN]

He said those who gave someone something to drink etc will enter into eternal life. If you're going to say it was all purely symbolic rather than literal, then I'm saying the whole thing from start to finish, verse 31 to 46, should be viewed as purely symbolic.

Ok I explained what the acts of compassion symbolized so what does the contrast between eternal life and eternal punishment symbolize?

 

[Der Alte]

What makes universalism unique, is that it's literally universal. There's hardly a branch of Christianity that doesn't contain universalists. RC, EO, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal et al. And within all those branches are some major theologians who are universalists.

I think your brush is way too broad. There may be some who nominally identify as RC, EO, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal et al. but at least three of these I know for a fact the mainline tents do not include Universalism.

 

[Der Alte]

He said those who gave someone something to drink etc will enter into eternal life. If you're going to say it was all purely symbolic rather than literal, then I'm saying the whole thing from start to finish, verse 31 to 46, should be viewed as purely symbolic.

False assumptions! The fact that Jesus said those who provided food, water, clothing and aid to the least of those His brothers does not invaldiate everything else Jesus said about salvation.
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 3:3
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Luke 13:3
No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
John 3:36 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ...

 

[hedrick]

In most of the OT, existence after death is sort of shadowy, much like he early Greek ideas. But in the centuries before Christ, there was a consideration of the issue across multiple cultures in the area. You’ll hear some say that Israel picked up the idea from the Persians, but I think a better approach is to say that they both, along with Greeks, started talking about what would happen to individuals. Everyone concluded that God’s justice required that God’s people end up as something better than shades, and that evil be punished.

The prophets envisioned that kind of justice for nations, but didn’t typically apply it to individuals, though you can find a few places. But once the question of the future of individuals started being discussed, I think the conclusion that they would be treated justly was pretty obvious.

That’s where we are in the NT. There’s no agreement in 1st Cent Judaism or the NT about the length of punishment or other things, but everyone who believes in an afterlife agrees that a just God will reward and punish.

There was always a minority view among Christians that in the end all would be saved. But in the last century or so we’re seeing a second broad reconsideration. That seems to be happening among Christians, not as a world-wide discussion, though perhaps I’m just not sufficiently attuned to other religions. It’s based on some of what Jesus says, but really the consideration is the same as in the first one: the Bible is clear that God will win in the end, and what we know about God from Christ demands that winning means a restoration of the world. Pure retributive justice doesn’t seem consistent with Jesus.

However there’s another issue that most aren’t considering, which is the role of punishment. Through most of human history it has been obvious that you punish bad guys. Both justice and deterrence require it. But today we’re seeing the beginning of questions about that. Punishment can restrain behavior. But in heaven we don’t want people who only abstain from bad because they’re afraid of punishment.

It’s not so clear that punishment typically changes motivations. I think a lot of what people do wrong, particularly sins of omission, is due to fear. Fear that others are attacking their wellbeing or status. Fear that going out of their way to help someone will seem odd, or present dangers. Punishment is very unlikely to make someone courageous.

This means that I have questions about the traditional universalist view that all the NT threats of punishment are true; it’s just that it will come to an end after the person has reformed. How likely is it that that would really work? I don’t doubt that anything God does to change us will have its unpleasant aspects. In one way or another I’m sure we’ll be held accountable for what we did. But I’m not so convinced that the ancient consensus that we deal with evil by punishment is right. There are signs in Jesus that God forgives people, doing good to those who oppose him, but those signs do not have much impact on what is said about post-mortem judgement.

 

[wendykvw]

Nah, that reasoning still does not work, because it suggests that man cannot ever truly be sure of 'properly' understanding God's Word, and even suggests that God is incapable of giving a person 'proper' understanding in His Word. Your kind of thinking means it is ultimately useless to even try... and understand God's Word.

Hello Davy,

Are you implying that out of all the denominations within Christianity, only one is without error? If so, which denomination might that be? There are over 34,200 denominations listed in the year 2000 according to the center of global Christianity data. Which denomination out of the 34,200 is without error. My kind of thinking as you claim as being useless is incorrect. Every person within these 34,200 are doing their best to try to know, love, and understand God's word, yet not all agree. The reality is all people are human and at different stages of their walk with God. Some may be infants, in spiritual years, a baby still on milk as Paul acknowledged (1 Corinthians 3:1-3.). Some may be on solid food, as Paul teaches. Let's not pretend that every Christian is at exactly the same stage, or that ALL of Christianity is in unity with biblical interpretation.

 

[wendykvw]

It is right here (other places as well)

New King James Version
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

perish greek
Strong's Greek: 622. ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi) -- to destroy, destroy utterly

apollumi: to destroy, destroy utterly
Original Word: ἀπόλλυμι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: apollumi
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ol'-loo-mee)
Definition: to destroy, destroy utterly
Usage: (a) I kill, destroy, (b) I lose, mid: I am perishing (the resultant death being viewed as certain).
HELPS Word-studies
622 apóllymi (from 575 /apó, "away from," which intensifies ollymi, "to destroy") – properly, fully destroy, cutting off entirely (note the force of the prefix, 575 /apó).

622 /apóllymi ("violently/completely perish") implies permanent (absolute) destruction, i.e. to cancel out (remove); "to die, with the implication of ruin and destruction" (L & N, 1, 23.106); cause to be lost (utterly perish) by experiencing a miserable end.

God is unwilling any perish, but all come to repentance. God will destroy wickedness, and evil while restoring the person.

Do you believe God can heal the blind?

 

[wendykvw]

Thank you for the link. Though I regret to say it's a weak and flawed theory that betrays a lack of understanding of church controversies and what the different church bodies teach, believe, and confess. To say something positive about it, I'm glad the author wrestles with Arminianism and Calvinism and sees that there is truth and error in both systems. Both systems are logical in their own right, but both ignore or mishandle Scriptures that don't conform to their respective systems.

Now to suggest that Universalism is on par with Arminianism and Calvinism is not a particularly sophisticated take, because while I disagree with both Arminianism and Calvinism, and find it very peculiar that they can coexist in many church bodies, as if it didn't matter, I do recognise that they both in their own way have a fidelity to the creeds, whereas Universalism plainly doesn't. Universalism doesn't have any real Scriptural or historical weight. In fact, Universalism is not Christianity — it's a different religion, it's not what Christ preached, which is why these forums rightly do not allow it in Christian threads.

Now, the reason I wanted to dial things back and focus on one single passage or verse is to illustrate how these ideas are grossly misread. I've debated Universalists before, and every verse they quote do not deal with Universalism. They resort to taking things out of context and reading things into Scripture that don't belong.

So, what is the sedes doctrinae, that is, the passage or verse that explicitly teaches restoration in the Bible? Because in the article, there isn't any Scripture to hang the system on. There's only a loose theory — a reaction against three other systems. Do you see the problem with this? As one who believes, teaches, and confesses the ecumenical creeds, I can easily find where each line in the creeds comes from in the Bible. This theory goes hard against the creeds.

So, if you please, can I trouble you find a passage or a verse that you believe encapsulate the doctrine? Then we can take a look at it together and carefully and prayerfully consider the context.

My husband and I are both authors and have written books on this topic we also have a ministry. Unfortunately, I would assume that the rules here would not allow me to share that information. Although it might be possible to share emails. Otherwise, if you are in this form often enough you will see that members discuss scriptures that support restoration.

1. You seem to be implying that the "majority" did not believe in the restoration view historically. Number one this is incorrect, the restoration view pre-dates the Lutheran view. I have included a historical chart link and more about the universal restoration view. The History of Universalism > Christian Universalist Association

2. If you are implying that the majority today do not teach restoration, this is correct. Luther himself went against the "majority" and the status quo. The picture we have been taught of God is completely flawed and is in need of a reformation. And this is what is happening all over the world, a conference each year is dedicated to discussion on the duration and nature of hell. The conferences were started by those who believe in the annihilation view of hell, the conference discusses all views; Eternal Hell, Annihilation, and Restoration. The website Rethinking Hell | Exploring Evangelical Conditionalism (Annihilationism) and the conference Rethinking Hell Conference – Evangelical Christian Conference on Hell

 

[ozso]

I think your brush is way too broad. There may be some who nominally identify as RC, EO, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal et al. but at least three of these I know for a fact the mainline tents do not include Universalism.

I'm talking about individual people who are RC, EO, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal etc, and also universalists.

 

[ozso]

False assumptions! The fact that Jesus said those who provided food, water, clothing and aid to the least of those His brothers does not invaldiate everything else Jesus said about salvation.
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 3:3
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Luke 13:3
No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
John 3:36 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ...

The question is, was Jesus speaking literally or figuratively throughout all of Matthew 25:31-46?

 

[ozso]

Nah, that reasoning still does not work, because it suggests that man cannot ever truly be sure of 'properly' understanding God's Word, and even suggests that God is incapable of giving a person 'proper' understanding in His Word. Your kind of thinking means it is ultimately useless to even try... and understand God's Word.

Which out of the umpteen differing denominational doctrines has the proper understanding of God's word?

 

[ozso]

Ok I explained what the acts of compassion symbolized so what does the contrast between eternal life and eternal punishment symbolize?

So all of Matthew 25:31-46 should be viewed as symbolic?

 

[Daniel9v9]

My husband and I are both authors and have written books on this topic we also have a ministry. Unfortunately, I would assume that the rules here would not allow me to share that information. Although it might be possible to share emails. Otherwise, if you are in this form often enough you will see that members discuss scriptures that support restoration.

1. You seem to be implying that the "majority" did not believe in the restoration view historically. Number one this is incorrect, the restoration view pre-dates the Lutheran view. I have included a historical chart link and more about the universal restoration view. The History of Universalism > Christian Universalist Association

2. If you are implying that the majority today do not teach restoration, this is correct. Luther himself went against the "majority" and the status quo. The picture we have been taught of God is completely flawed and is in need of a reformation. And this is what is happening all over the world, a conference each year is dedicated to discussion on the duration and nature of hell. The conferences were started by those who believe in the annihilation view of hell, the conference discusses all views; Eternal Hell, Annihilation, and Restoration. The website Rethinking Hell | Exploring Evangelical Conditionalism (Annihilationism) and the conference Rethinking Hell Conference – Evangelical Christian Conference on Hell

I want to be charitable, but I regret to say that this is plainly false. I’m not entirely without qualifications myself. I serve as a Bishop in the Lutheran Church and I have studied Church History and I’m working on a commentary to the Didache where I compare it with the Scriptures, the Concordia, and the broader church and reflect on practical applications in our time in light of things that we face. And one of these things is Universalism. As mentioned before, if we want to appeal to history regarding the theory of Universalism, one cannot get around the fact that the apostolic fathers and the creeds know nothing of it.

The Lutheran Church is not the church of Martin Luther. Rather, they were a body of conservative reformers who held to the Scriptures as the supreme authority. But this does not mean that we are blind to or ignore tradition. Basically, this notion that Luther came along and turned the church upside down betrays a lack of understanding for what was debated in the Reformation by all the different parties and what they appealed to.

All historical church bodies are selective regarding church fathers. The are many and complex reasons for this, but the short of it is that the fathers spoke loosely and offered a great variety of ideas. Now there are some things that they speak very consistently on, in particular, Baptism and the Eucharist. But to suggest that the view that you are offering was a widespread doctrine in the early church is simply incorrect. Origen and a few that followed in his steps theorised about it, but the vast majority knew nothing of it or explicitly denied it. Once again, this is very clear from the earliest church history period that overlap and come after the time we can think of as the New Testament period. So, (1) the teaching of Universalism doesn’t exist among the Apostolic Fathers and is in fact denied by them, (2) it doesn’t exist in the ecumenical creeds, but is in fact denied by them, (3) it is condemned as a heresy.

In light of the points above, Universalism simply does not have historical weight. Just to think about it very simply: If we had to only go by one early church father, would we go with what Origen says, or what Polycarp says? Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna, likely the student of John and the recipient of Revelation to his church. So just historically and geographically speaking, he was much closer to the apostles and their teaching than Origen, whose ideas sparked a lot of controversy.

And this brings me back to the Scriptures. Every core Christian doctrine must have a sedes doctrinae. Universalism doesn’t. It’s a framework entirely out of theory. So while I’m happy to appeal to history, what I think is more profitable is to got to the font of God’s Word and look at what text Univeralists believe prove their position and carefully consider the context. Because in my experience, here Universalists come up short. They are simply unable to find Scriptural support without resorting to eisegesis or arguing from silence. But if we take God’s Word as it is, it speaks to us in no ambiguity — there is salvation in Christ and damnation for those who are not in Him, and these are equally permanent.

One last try, can you provide any verse or passage that you believe best support your position, and are you willing to look at it in its own context?

 

[wendykvw]

I want to be charitable, but I regret to say that this is plainly false. I’m not entirely without qualifications myself. I serve as a Bishop in the Lutheran Church and I have studied Church History and I’m working on a commentary to the Didache where I compare it with the Scriptures, the Concordia, and the broader church and reflect on practical applications in our time in light of things that we face. And one of these things is Universalism. As mentioned before, if we want to appeal to history regarding the theory of Universalism, one cannot get around the fact that the apostolic fathers and the creeds know nothing of it.

Daniel9v9
You are young, only 36 years old, as you continue in the ministry you will learn more. My husband and I started out in the Ministry as Southern Baptist, 40 years ago. We are not kids just coming to Christianity for the first time, and accepting universalism on a whim. It has been our lifelong mission to love and serve Christ. Believe me, we are dedicated to the truth of scriptures, and growing in our faith and to serve others.

The Lutheran Church is not the church of Martin Luther. Rather, they were a body of conservative reformers who held to the Scriptures as the supreme authority. But this does not mean that we are blind to or ignore tradition. Basically, this notion that Luther came along and turned the church upside down betrays a lack of understanding for what was debated in the Reformation by all the different parties and what they appealed to.

The reformation was a huge event in history, and yes, Luther was the main factor. Martin Luther had this to say, he expresses his desire to see all people redeemed by their creator.

“God forbid that I should limit the time of acquiring faith to the present life. In the depth of the Divine mercy, there may be an opportunity to win it in the future.

Martin Luther’s letter to Hanseu Von Rechenberg, 1522

Lutheranism didn't exist until the 16th century. It holds little authority when compared to the Early Church in the 4th century. IF your goal is to convert someone like me to your position, you will be wasting your time. I believed just like you did 20 years ago, when I was in my thirties.

 

[wendykvw]

All historical church bodies are selective regarding church fathers. The are many and complex reasons for this, but the short of it is that the fathers spoke loosely and offered a great variety of ideas. Now there are some things that they speak very consistently on, in particular, Baptism and the Eucharist. But to suggest that the view that you are offering was a widespread doctrine in the early church is simply incorrect. Origen and a few that followed in his steps theorised about it, but the vast majority knew nothing of it or explicitly denied it. Once again, this is very clear from the earliest church history period that overlap and come after the time we can think of as the New Testament period. So, (1) the teaching of Universalism doesn’t exist among the Apostolic Fathers and is in fact denied by them, (2) it doesn’t exist in the ecumenical creeds, but is in fact denied by them, (3) it is condemned as a heresy.

In light of the points above, Universalism simply does not have historical weight. Just to think about it very simply: If we had to only go by one early church father, would we go with what Origen says, or what Polycarp says? Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna, likely the student of John and the recipient of Revelation to his church. So just historically and geographically speaking, he was much closer to the apostles and their teaching than Origen, whose ideas sparked a lot of controversy.

And this brings me back to the Scriptures. Every core Christian doctrine must have a sedes doctrinae. Universalism doesn’t. It’s a framework entirely out of theory. So while I’m happy to appeal to history, what I think is more profitable is to got to the font of God’s Word and look at what text Univeralists believe prove their position and carefully consider the context. Because in my experience, here Universalists come up short. They are simply unable to find Scriptural support without resorting to eisegesis or arguing from silence. But if we take God’s Word as it is, it speaks to us in no ambiguity — there is salvation in Christ and damnation for those who are not in Him, and these are equally permanent.

One last try, can you provide any verse or passage that you believe best support your position, and are you willing to look at it in its own context?

Daniel9v9
To answer your last request. I refuse to play a game of bible ping pong any longer, it will get nowhere. Scripture interpretation 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 saved, there is yet a third possibility. Years before I considered restoration, I would think about the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis meant you obtained the meaning from the text (a good thing) while eisegesis meant you read the meaning into the text (a bad thing). But for these words (exegesis and eisegesis) to have any real meaning, there would have to exist some official, single and authoritative interpretation of each passage of Scripture by which all interpretations could be measured against. But such a standard interpretive canon does not exist so in reality, we all commit eisegesis in the minds of anyone who doesn’t belong to our particular theological view. I was always accusing everyone who didn't agree with me of injecting their own meaning into the text of Scripture while I – of course – was simply obtaining the meaning from the text. Not only was this incorrect it was extremely arrogant.



Thankfully, due to the work of a few dedicated scholars, Origen’s credibility and skill as an exegete is being slowly restored. Origen's theology underwent a major change in the mid-twentieth century. Prior to this period, Origen was often tied to the dogmas of later Origenism but in the twenty years between 1930 and 1950 breakthroughs in the understanding of Origen's theology restored—in the minds of scholars at least—Origen's place as a "towering figure" of early Christianity with one scholar describing Origen as the second most widely read of the ecclesiastical writers after Augustine.


I never stated Univeral restoration was the majority view, maybe you confused me with someone else.

I am no longer going to reply to this conversation, the evidence for the historical, philosophical, and scripture support for universal restoration is overwhelming for anyone who is honestly interested in why and how those who believe and support this view came to their conclusion.

May God continue to bless your life and faith.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Daniel9v9
You are young, only 36 years old, as you continue in the ministry you will learn more. My husband and I started out in the Ministry as Southern Baptist, 40 years ago. We are not kids just coming to Christianity for the first time, and accepting universalism on a whim. It has been our lifelong mission to love and serve Christ. Believe me, we are dedicated to the truth of scriptures, and growing in our faith and to serve others.


The reformation was a huge event in history, and yes, Luther was the main factor. Martin Luther had this to say, he expresses his desire to see all people redeemed by their creator.

“God forbid that I should limit the time of acquiring faith to the present life. In the depth of the Divine mercy, there may be an opportunity to win it in the future.

Martin Luther’s letter to Hanseu Von Rechenberg, 1522

Lutheranism didn't exist until the 16th century. It holds little authority when compared to the Early Church in the 4th century. IF your goal is to convert someone like me to your position, you will be wasting your time. I believed just like you did 20 years ago, when I was in my thirties, and lived in a bubble, that everyone must believe like I did in order to know God.

Daniel9v9
To answer your last request. I refuse to play a game of bible ping pong any longer, it will get nowhere. Scripture interpretation 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 saved, there is yet a third possibility. Years before I considered restoration, I would think about the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis meant you obtained the meaning from the text (a good thing) while eisegesis meant you read the meaning into the text (a bad thing). But for these words (exegesis and eisegesis) to have any real meaning, there would have to exist some official, single and authoritative interpretation of each passage of Scripture by which all interpretations could be measured against. But such a standard interpretive canon does not exist so in reality, we all commit eisegesis in the minds of anyone who doesn’t belong to our particular theological view. I was always accusing everyone who didn't agree with me of injecting their own meaning into the text of Scripture while I – of course – was simply obtaining the meaning from the text. Not only was this incorrect it was extremely arrogant.



Thankfully, due to the work of a few dedicated scholars, Origen’s credibility and skill as an exegete is being slowly restored. Origen's theology underwent a major change in the mid-twentieth century. Prior to this period, Origen was often tied to the dogmas of later Origenism but in the twenty years between 1930 and 1950 breakthroughs in the understanding of Origen's theology restored—in the minds of scholars at least—Origen's place as a "towering figure" of early Christianity with one scholar describing Origen as the second most widely read of the ecclesiastical writers after Augustine.


I never stated Univeral restoration was the majority view, maybe you confused me with someone else.

I am no longer going to reply to this conversation, the evidence for the historical, philosophical, and scripture support for universal restoration is overwhelming for anyone who is honestly interested in why and how those who believe and support this view came to their conclusion.

May God continue to bless your life and faith.

I'm disappointed to hear this. I don't really have the need to defend myself and I will respect your wishes not to press you on this any further, but I will suggest that if you want to appeal to history, I hope you at least consider how the teaching is not found among the apostolic fathers nor in our creeds.