the fallacy of eternal torment and related issues

[gort]

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-59.htm#P7142_1854703

Ignatius against heresies

I would ask you to read the entire page.

<><

 

[Pilgrim 33]

....Dr. Ballou thinks that this father held that the wicked "will not be raised from the dead, but exist hereafter as incorporeal spirits." He was martyred A.D. 107.

Do you know of anything written by Ignatius that could qualify this statement?

not without some looking and, frankly, i'm tired of all that hunt-n-seek routine for the moment.

i did see a few interesting things in that quote when i first posted it and never got around to delving into it though, so, thank you for bringing it back to the table:

the wicked "will not be raised from the dead,

this, in itself, is nothing new as this seems a very prevalent theme of the time from what i've read with respect to annilhation.

but exist hereafter as incorporeal spirits."

this, however, poses potential problems.

IF the reference is to the beasts known as nephilim then the entire quote would fit with both scripture and the earlier hebrew writings.

IF, on the other hand, it refers to the unsaved then a number of issues open up:

• while the first phrase agrees with annilhation the the latter phrase contradicts it
• a living soul is not a spirit
• nor does a living soul possess a spirit unless it is saved
• spiritual beings do not possess a spirit, they ARE spirit
• biblical accounts of incorporeal spirits are referred to as devils and demons, presumably, referring to the incorporeal remains of the nephilim

i don't see how the lone quote can refer to unsaved dead humans as since God's breath of life has returned to Him, the body has returned to dust and the evidences of sentience, ie the memories, are lost and forgotten as per scripture. by itself the quote would appear more likely to refer to the incorporeal nephilim spirits.

but, then, it is just a lone quote and additional context is needed to more accurately discern its true meaning...assuming it is truly attributed.

itmt, aside from the 'if it were isolated' first phrase, i'm not sure to what extent the verse has on the history of the development of eternal torment other than the fact that incorporeal spirits are uncomfortable without a physical host (as in the case of the possessed hogs), still, that is in this temporal aion and really doesn't apply anyway, all of which remind me of...

Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

1 Timothy 6:20, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

Ecclesiastes 3:19, "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]well, you're certainly welcome to research, study and cut-n-paste yourself from early sources--especially seeing as how the later "versions" (ie kjv, niv, etc) are NOT the entire complete and perfect 100% word of God but, instead, ONLY CONTAIN the perfect word of God wrapped up in a lot of purposefully incorrect man made lies and distortions.[/SIZE]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. There are lies and distortions alright but they are not where you claim. Now you are making unsubstantiated claims about the Bible. But I do not rely on any version. I read both Biblical languages, and have for over 2 decades. Actually I have been speaking Greek for over 4 decades.

Had you actually been paying attention you would have noticed I quoted the text according to NA26.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

1 Timothy 6:20, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

Ecclesiastes 3:19, "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."[/SIZE]

This is KJV, right? The one you claimed was, "NOT the entire complete and perfect 100% word of God but, instead, ONLY CONTAIN the perfect word of God wrapped up in a lot of purposefully incorrect man made lies and distortions." Or have you canonized these three verses and can assure us they are, in fact, "the entire complete and perfect 100% word of God?

Perhaps you could provide us with your appoved Bible with all the lies and distortions excised?

 

[Pilgrim 33]

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-59.htm#P7142_1854703

Ignatius against heresies

I would ask you to read the entire page.

<><

daneel, there appears to be some miniscule static on the line; anyway, since i'll be out most of the day, i'll take a look at the link when i get back. have a good one!

 

[gort]

daneel, there appears to be some miniscule static on the line; anyway, since i'll be out most of the day, i'll take a look at the link when i get back. have a good one!

It's a long page to read, but lists a lot of heresies in his day. Prolly what you want is toward the end.

What I found interesting though does'nt pertain to this thread. It seems that even in his days, heretics were speaking of succesions of gods through infinity and creation of succesive universes through infinity.....forever and ever

Also some tibits about sects that believed G-d made all things out of pre-existent matter by forming it, unable to create it ex-nihlo.

<><

 

[Pilgrim 33]

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-59.htm#P7142_1854703

Ignatius against heresies

I would ask you to read the entire page.

<><

sheesh, they're as bad as messageboards with their vainful opinions and at least as gloomy as Augustine!
---------------------------
Hanson writes....

Irenæus (A.D. 120, died 202) was a friend of Ignatius, and says that in his youth he saw Polycarp, who was contemporary with John. He had known several who had personally listened to the apostles. His principle work, "Against Heresies," was written A.D., 182 to 188. No complete copy of it exists in the original Greek: only a Latin translation is extant, though a part of the first book is found in Greek in the copious quotations from it in the writings of Hippolytus and Epiphanius. Its authority is weakened by the wretched Latin in which most of it stands. One fact, however, is incontrovertible: he did not regard Universalism as among the heresies of his times, for he nowhere condemns it, though the doctrine is contained in the "Sibylline Oracles," then in general use, and though he mentions the doctrine without disapproval in his description of the theology of the Carpocratians.
Interesting Exposition of Irenæus

Irenæus has been quoted as teaching that the Apostles' creed was meant to inculcate endless punishment, because in a paraphrase of that document he says that the Judge, at the final assize, will cast the wicked into "eternal" fire. But the terms he uses are "ignem aeternum" (aionion pur.) As just stated, though he reprehends the Carpocratians for teaching the transmigration of souls, he declares without protest that they explain the text "until thou pay the uttermost farthing," as inculcating the idea that "all souls are saved." Irenæus says: "God drove Adam out of Paradise, and removed him far from the tree of life, in compassion for him, that he might not remain a transgressor always, and that the sin in which he was involved might not be immortal, nor be without end and incurable. He prevented further transgression by the interposition of death, and by causing sin to cease by the dissolution of the flesh * * * that man ceasing to live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God."

The Creed of Irenæus.

Irenæus states the creed of the church in his day, A.D. 160, as a belief in "one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensation of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father 'to gather all things in one," (Eph. 1:10) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to him,'(Phil. ii:10,11) and that he should execute just judgment towards all; that he may send 'spiritual wickedness,' (Eph. vi:12) and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly and unrighteous, and wicked and profane among men, into aionion fire; and may in the exercise of his grace, confer immortality upon the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept his commandments, and have persevered in his love, some from the beginning, and others from their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory."

The reader must not forget that the use of the phrase, aionion fire, does not give any color to the idea that Irenæus taught endless punishment, for Origen, Clement, Gregory Nyssen, and other Universalists conveyed their ideas of punishment by the use of the same terms, and held that salvation is beyond, and even by means of the aionion fire and punishment.

Probably a Universalist

Schaff admits that the opinions of Irenaeus are doubtful from his Schaff's) orthodox standpoint and says: 12 "In the fourth Pfaffian fragment ascribed to him (Stieren I, 889) he says that 'Christ will come at the end of time to destroy all evil----and to reconcile all things-- from Col. i:20--that there may be an end of all impurity.' This passage, like I. Cor. xv:28, and Col. i:20, looks toward universal restoration rather than annihilation," but good, orthodox Dr. Schaff admits that it, like the Pauline passages, allows an interpretation consistent with eternal punishment. (See the long note in Stieren.) Dr. Beecher writes that Irenæus "taught a final restitution of all things to unity and order by the annihilation of all the finally impenitent. * * * The inference from this is plain. He did not understand aionios in the sense of eternal; but in the sense claimed by Prof. Lewis, that is, 'pertaining to the world to come,'" not endless. Irenæus thought "that man should not last forever as a sinner and that the sin which was in him might not be immortal and infinite and incurable."

Bunsen's View.

Says Bunsen: "The eternal decree of redemption, is, to Irenæus, throughout, an act of God's love. The atonement, is, according to him, a satisfaction paid, not to God, but to the Devil, under whose power the human mind and body were lying. But the Devil himself only serves God's purpose, for nothing can resist to the last, the Almighty power of divine love, which works not by constraint (the Devil's way) but by persuasion.13 The different statements of Irenæus are hard to reconcile with each other, but a fair inference from his language seems to be that he hovered between the doctrines of annihilation and endless punishment, and yet learned not a little hopefully to that of restoration. He certainly says that death ends sin, which forecloses all idea of endless torments. It is probable that the fathers differed, as their successors have since differed, according to antecedent and surrounding influences, and their own idiosyncrasies.

Of Christian writers up to date, all assert future punishment, seven apply the word rendered everlasting (aionios) to it; three, certainly did not regard it as endless, two holding to annihilation and one to universal restoration. Remembering, however, the doctrine of Reserve, we can by no means be certain that the heathen words used denoting absolute endlessness were not used "pedagogically," to deter sinners from sin.

 

[gort]

sheesh, they're as bad as messageboards with their vainful opinions and at least as gloomy as Augustine!

I am under the assumption the chapter writings are the writings of Iraneus.

<><


hmmm.....may have read your question wrong. You may be referring to those he is speaking about?

 

[stevebradley]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. There are lies and distortions alright but they are not where you claim. Now you are making unsubstantiated claims about the Bible. But I do not rely on any version. I read both Biblical languages, and have for over 2 decades. Actually I have been speaking Greek for over 4 decades.

Had you actually been paying attention you would have noticed I quoted the text according to NA26.

blah blah blah blah

another excellent self promotion post

it seems to be what your best at!

in case you haven't realised, nobody cares

 

[Pilgrim 33]

blah blah blah blah

another excellent self promotion post

it seems to be what your best at!

in case you haven't realised, nobody cares

i 'spect daz how dem high taeguan hosses is.
rekkin dey jes' cain't he'p it.

 

[john14_20]

i 'spect daz how dem high taeguan hosses is.
rekkin dey jes' cain't he'p it.

I used the 'big grin' icon coz I couldn't find an 'uncontrollable hysterical laughing' icon.

 

[A New Dawn]

deleted

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]well, you're certainly welcome to research, study and cut-n-paste yourself from early sources--especially seeing as how the later "versions" (ie kjv, niv, etc) are NOT the entire complete and perfect 100% word of God but, instead, ONLY CONTAIN the perfect word of God wrapped up in a lot of purposefully incorrect man made lies and distortions.[/SIZE]

After my previous post I realized I have had this upside down, backward, discussion before with other unorthodox theology believers. I don't have to prove anything. You came into my house and attacked my faith with a bunch of quotes from doods that have been dead for 100+ years. No evidence, no documentation, no proof, no primary sources. Just quotes from people trying to prove Universalism.

This is a historical, Biblical, evangelical, Trinitarian Christian website. If you disagree with the Theology, eschatology, etc, then the burden of proof is totally on you, to disprove it. And so far you are batting zero.

Since you have chosen to ignore much of what is posted, and post pages on pages, of meaningless quotes, which prove nothing, rather than engage in a reasoned, rational, discussion. I will respond in kind.

I have a ninety-three page article refuting Universalism, I will post a few pages of it momentarily. And thereafter should you choose to continue ignoring my posts, I will return the compliment, ignore yours and post my pages and pages of proof that Universalism is unscriptural.

 

[Der Alte]

Problems Facing Universalist Theology

Despite the urgings of universalists, a systematic look through the Bible in its entirety reveals that there is not one verse that shows:
1) The sins of the wicked being forgiven in the after life.
2) The wicked repenting in the after life.
3) The wicked accepting Jesus Christ in the after life.
4) The wicked avoiding judgment in the after life.
5) The wicked having sin "conditioned" out of them in the after life.
6) The wicked getting out of the lake of fire.
7) The wicked getting their names written back into the book of life.
8) Nor can we find anywhere that God repents of His judgment on the wicked in the afterlife or that His judgment is anything short of final and fixed for all eternity.
* * *
Sadly, the universalist misses the point of Jesus telling the parable of the unrighteous judge in Luke 18:1-8. They lay their faith in something else, and not in Him alone. They make the claim that that they could not be happy in heaven with God knowing that others suffer for their sins before the eternal righteousness of God. They elevate themselves to be more merciful than the Lord by their spiritual pride. They forget that the saints in heaven whom are conformed in the image of Christ are also infused with His righteousness. They emphasize humanistic values and justice over God's own wisdom and holiness to contradict Isaiah 55:8, where it is written: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." They forget that all tears in heaven are wiped away as attested to by Isaiah 25:8; 60:20; 65:17; Rev. 7:17 and 21:4 not because all are saved, but because they themselves understand being set apart from sin.

Therefore, bearing that in mind, realize that I have not met a universalist who could justify universalism or truly present substantial reason for its belief based on facts (see Problems Facing Universalist Theology [Link in source] ). The context of Scripture and facts are against them. Thus, they haven't much to stand on which forces them to rely on extremely low quality techniques of debating. The techniques of the universalist apologist are herein presented:

1. Rubberstamp Argument: Regurgitation of philosophical preferences without the least hint of concern as to providing a scriptural proof. Otherwise, known as propaganda.

If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, the people will believe--Adolph Hitler.​

2. Inaccurate Quotation: A text is referred to but is either not quoted in the way the text appears in any standard translation or is wrongly attributed. [We have already seen examples of this, in this thread. DA] For example, universalists will often quote scholarly writing when it supports their agenda, but leave off sections that would blow their position and argument away. This is commonly done with lexicons, concordances, and commentaries. Therefore, be forwarned should you see a universalist quoting a scholar and check their source.

One universalist posited that Dr. Jay Green, Sr. supported universalism citing the preface of his Greek interlinear saying that aivnioV and aion was correctly translated as "to the ages" rather than a clear idiomatic expression for forever (see The Hebrew Concept of Time and "aionios" and "aion" [Link in source]). Upon receiving my email concerning the matter, Dr. Green responded by stating that he could not "understand how they [universalists] could possibly use what I wrote in my preface to give them any leverage. The Hebrew word which the LXX used to express for ever, everlasting, etc. was 5769. It can most often be translated as such. However, as the Hebrew Concordance illustrates, it is quite possible to translate it as perpetual, without end, etc. And in many cases the context will not allow it to mean everlasting, or eternal, or for ever (such as the Aaronic high priesthood, or other OT uses of the word relating to that economy. Because there is so much that militates against universalism in the Scriptures, it has not been my lot to tackle them head-on... The New Versions favor universalism in many places (Heb. 1:3; 2:9; 1 Peter. 4:1; 2 Pet 3:9, etc.), as the Egyptian MSS they follow were created in an Egypt that was dominated by Gnostics. It is a favorite ploy of Satan to dilute and thus to destroy the authority of the Scriptures. If you have John Gill's Body of Divinity, or his commentaries, he is a keen Hebraist who may help you. For instance he is excellent in explaining the use of "all" and other seemingly universal words in His Body of Divinity. It is often Satan's tactic to tie up believers in controversies with unbelievers who bring on endless arguments, and thus to disarm them for other more worthy contributions to the cause of God and truth. Was this not the thrust of Paul's advice to Timothy (6:20)? May our great Shepherd of the sheep abundantly bless you with every grace he has purchased for us, Jay, Sr."​

3. Twisted Translation: The biblical text is retranslated, not in accordance with sound scholarship, to fit a preconceived teaching of universalism.

4. Biblical Hook: A text of Scripture is quoted primarily as a device to grasp the attention of readers or listeners and then followed by a teaching which is so nonbiblical that it would appear far more dubious to most people had it not been preceded by a reference to Scripture.

5. Ignoring the Immediate Context: A text of Scripture is quoted but removed from the surrounding verses which form the immediate framework for its meaning.

5.a. Ignoring the Broader Context: Failure to consider and outright rejection of other verses relevant to the instant point(s).[DA]​

6. Collapsing Contexts: Two or more verses which have little or nothing to do with each other are put together as if one were a commentary of the other(s).

7. Overspecification: A more detailed or specific conclusion than is legitimate is drawn from a biblical text.

8. Word Play: A word or phrase from a biblical translation is examined and interpreted as if the revelation had been given in that language.

9. The Figurative Fallacy: Either (1) mistaking literal language for figurative language or (2)mistaking figurative language for literal language. [If the plain sense, makes good sense, it is nonsense, to look for any other sense. DA]

10. Speculative Readings of Predictive Prophesy: A predictive prophesy is too readily explained by the occurance of specific events, despite the fact that equally committed biblical scholars consider the interpretation highly dubious.

11. Saying But Not Citing: A writer says that the Bible says such and such but does not cite the specific text (which often indicates that there may be no such text at all). [Several examples of this, in this thread, 19th century “scholars” talking "about" the early church fathers but never citing their actual works. DA] Example: A common phrase "God helps those who help themselves" is not found in the Bible.

12. Selective Citing: To substantiate a given argument, only a limited number of text is quoted: the total teaching of Scripture on that subject would lead to a conclusion different from that of the writer.

13. Inadequate Evidence: A hasty generalization is drawn from too little evidence. Example: Universalists state one can be saved in the after life but cannot cite an example from Scripture.

14. Confused Definition: A biblical term is misunderstood in such a way that an essential biblical doctrine is distorted or rejected. Example: Universalists hold that to be under subjection of God is to be saved and to recieve eternal life with Him.

15. Ignoring Alternate Explanations: A specific interpretation given to a biblical text or set of text which could well be, and often have been, interpreted in quite a different fashion, but these alternatives are not considered.

16. The Obvious Fallacy: Words like, “OBVIOUSLY, UNDOUBTEDLY, CERTAINLY, ALL REASONABLE PEOPLE HOLD THAT,” and so forth are substituted for logical reasons.

17. Virtue by Association: Either (1) a universalist writer associates his or her teaching with those of figures accepted as authoritative by traditional Christians; (2) pro universalist commentaries are likened to the Bible; or (3) universalist literature imitates the form of the Bible writing such that it sounds like the Bible.

18. Esoteric Interpretation: Under the assumption that the Bible contains hidden, esoteric, meaning which is open only to those who are initiated into its secrets, the interpreter declares the significance of biblical passages without giving much, if any, explanation for his or her interpretation.

19. Rejecting Biblical Authority: Either the Bible as a whole or texts from the Bible are examined and rejected because they do not square with other authorities - such as reason or revelation = do not appear to agree with them. [We have seen this right there in this thread. DA]

20. World-view Confusion: Scriptural statements, stories, commands or symbols which have a particular meaning or set of meanings when taken within the intellectual and broadly cultural framework of the Bible itself are lifted out of that context, placed within the frame of reference of universalism and thus given a meaning that markedly differs from their intended meaning.

21. Change Historical Authority: This practice seeks to rewrite history to favor the argument of the universalist. This can be used as a companion apologetic to the rejection of biblical authority.

22. Babbling technique: Remember when you were a kid. If you closed your eyes, danger would go away. This technique is a variation on that theme. When backed into a corner, begin babbling about anything remotely related to the topic on hand and the opponent may forget that you were ever engaged in a debate in the first place.

NOTE:
This material has been adapted from the appendix of James Sire's Scripture Twisting Methods of the Cults, which summarizes his indepth treatment of each of these points and David and Aldina Gibson's essay, Catholic Debate Techniques.​

http://www.ovrlnd.com/Universalism/allthealls.html#anchor89764

 

[stevebradley]

I have a ninety-three page article refuting Universalism, I will post a few pages of it momentarily.

And I have several books of over 200 pages each all detailing the case for universalism.

So what does that prove?

My books won't convince you and your article won't convince me.

 

[stevebradley]

They emphasize humanistic values and justice over God's own wisdom and holiness to contradict Isaiah 55:8, where it is written: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD."

Maybe it is your thoughts and ways that Isaiah refers to?

Maybe His ways are not your ways either, unless of course, you contend that His ways are not my ways but they are yours?

 

[stevebradley]

1. Rubberstamp Argument:
2. Inaccurate Quotation:
3. Twisted Translation:
4. Biblical Hook:
5. Ignoring the Immediate Context:

5.a. Ignoring the Broader Context:
​

6. Collapsing Contexts:
7. Overspecification:
8. Word Play:
9. The Figurative Fallacy:
10. Speculative Readings of Predictive Prophesy:
11. Saying But Not Citing:
12. Selective Citing:
13. Inadequate Evidence:
14. Confused Definition:
15. Ignoring Alternate Explanations:
16. The Obvious Fallacy:
17. Virtue by Association:
18. Esoteric Interpretation:
19. Rejecting Biblical Authority:
20. World-view Confusion:
21. Change Historical Authority:
22. Babbling technique:

​

Merely 1 person's opinion, and nothing but a strawman anyway as any Christian can level the same accusation at anybody who believes something different to them.

That post was quite meaningless

 

[gort]

Pilgrim,

I was going to post about 30 verses from the gospel of Mark, regarding what Jesus had to say about the manichaen viewpoint of life vs death. In all my studies of the NT, I find there is no mention of another "age" after the judgement.

Although I don't know the greek language, I understand it is prolly the largest of all languages, and also the most expressive. As one who hated english classes in skool, I only took the minimum requirements, and later learned my mistake in 1st year German classes. I balk at the idea of learning Greek at my age, but may have to fit it in somehow. (See the ball. The ball is red.......oh, the horror....oh, the horror.... )

Regardless, for the time being I'll trust the scholarly works done by others in this respect, but most of all, I'll have a perfect faith in regards to the meaning of Christ Jesus on the Cross for the propitiation of my sins. It is an either/or situation, with no middle ground.

As far as your posts from Hanson and all, I'm sorry, but I see twisting of scripture to arrive at a preset conclusion. With the greek language so large, they could have easily replace "ainionan" in regards to eternal death with something else. Most easily. Yet it was'nt done.

The writings of the ECF closet to John express the same underestandings given to us by the word of God in the bible.

For myself, consider me a universalist in that God desires all to come to repentence. And God will have all men come to the truth. But when they get there, that does'nt mean they will accept it, and repent. We don't know.
An example of this would be Judas. Judas knew the truth....But that's another thread.

Another interesting thing will be when the Anti-christ will have all to receive the number of the beast. Surely almost all are aware of this, even the unbelievers. How many will take the number? I should hope none.

So, in conclusion, rather than post 30 verses, I'll just post these, to show the severity of meaning of eternal life vs eternal death, spoken by the Savior.


Mar 9:43 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:

Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mar 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Mar 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mar 9:49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.



The refiners fire is a tough fire to go through almost every day. But God is there.

The eternal fire is one where God is not there.

I prefer to not turn to the right nor the left of Gods Holy word.



<><

 

[LittleNipper]

Universalism is an excuse to live anyway one chooses and believe anything one desires and do whatever one wishes, because GOD will excuse everything anyway.

 

[gort]

Universalism is an excuse to live anyway one chooses and believe anything one desires and do whatever one wishes, because GOD will excuse everything anyway.

I don't think the universalist themselves would look at it in this regard.

But the person hearing that message may very well take the attitude of "play now, pay later".

<><