The True Church? I'm Disillusioned.

[ArmyMatt]

Whenever the teaching of the Church has been challenged, God has always raised up champions to defend the Church teaching against heresy. This has NOT happened with the teaching of universalism.
If it was the teaching of the Church, then where are those champions of the faith who would have withstood Justinian?

bingo. not only that, but the opposite occurred. over and over a reaffirmation that universalism is heresy.

 

[Euodius]

And for the umpteenth time, YOU haven't written a dissertation by which you prove that. This is the problem with all his critics. They either take to task his "mean-spiritedness" or they complain about something else, but they have not as of yet written any sort of succinct and to the point (and point by point) response to his book.

None.

A dissertation doesn't create or imply truth. The intelligent often fall for well-crafted lies, that the simple do not fall for - mistaking a coherent system with the flood-like reality of this world. Universalism may be known to be false through the careful observation of the line which is drawn in one's own heart. The reality of hell (and it's eternality) is known in it's foreshadowings and then given witness to by Fathers through the liturgy, iconography, spiritual writings, and all else that is the undying tradition of the Church.

And a clear sign of a heresy is the trumpeting of the exception over the rule - the lesser over the greater, the inversion of hierarchy, and that egalitarianism which removes true distinction. Many Saints have wrong beliefs about certain topics. Perfect intellectualizing of the faith is neither faith or piety in and of itself. It is not wise or proper to turn a Saint into the absolute guru of faith. Very few have had the blessing to be able to write a worthwhile systematic theology. We accept the Fathers as a whole and the single individual. There is a 'mind of the fathers' and it can be apprehended.

Both the hope of universal salvation and the reality that some choose not to be saved must be held together - producing the urgency for salvation and the remembering the very humanity of our neighbor.

 

[Lukaris]

In my hope for salvation I have a speculation that if I am saved that the Lord will empower us, somewhere in the afterlife to minister to those who may still be in need. St. Paul mentions that those who are saved will judge angels ( 1 Corinthians 6:3 ). I will never fully understand what this means in this life but might in the afterlife. It is my hope that there are greater possibilities ahead ( Matthew 19:26) but we have to be saved first.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="Euodius

Both the hope of universal salvation and the reality that some choose not to be saved must be held together - producing the urgency for salvation and the remembering the very humanity of our neighbor.

Both DBH and Thomas Talbot have written very thorough rebuttals of the "free-will theodicy" and show clearly that this is a fallacy. There is no such thing in this life as "free-will." To suggest so shows a complete lack of understanding of what it means for the will to be truly free.

Here is their response, from Thomas Talbot. I expect that IF you have a rebuttal, it will be more than two words (such as "it's garbage).

Free-will Theodicies of Hell | Thomas Talbott

 

[ArmyMatt]

QUOTE="Euodius

Both the hope of universal salvation and the reality that some choose not to be saved must be held together - producing the urgency for salvation and the remembering the very humanity of our neighbor.

Both DBH and Thomas Talbot have written very thorough rebuttals of the "free-will theodicy" and show clearly that this is a fallacy. There is no such thing in this life as "free-will." To suggest so shows a complete lack of understanding of what it means for the will to be truly free.

Here is their response, from Thomas Talbot. I expect that IF you have a rebuttal, it will be more than two words (such as "it's garbage).

Free-will Theodicies of Hell | Thomas Talbott

the link doesn't treat hell as the Orthodox understand it. not surprising.

and this blog doesn't trump the 5th-7th Councils.

you really need to take this tired argument elsewhere.

 

[Euodius]

QUOTE="Euodius

Both the hope of universal salvation and the reality that some choose not to be saved must be held together - producing the urgency for salvation and the remembering the very humanity of our neighbor.

Both DBH and Thomas Talbot have written very thorough rebuttals of the "free-will theodicy" and show clearly that this is a fallacy. There is no such thing in this life as "free-will." To suggest so shows a complete lack of understanding of what it means for the will to be truly free.

Here is their response, from Thomas Talbot. I expect that IF you have a rebuttal, it will be more than two words (such as "it's garbage).

Free-will Theodicies of Hell | Thomas Talbott

It's gnostic and is applicable only to a purely monadic god, but not applicable to the Trinity. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of free will as it applies to the many goods, thus setting up a false dichotomy of a postlapsarian good/evil choice. Everything written is essentially irrelevant sophistry.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and I will add, the link doesn't deal with the Orthodox understanding of eternity, which is not just never-ending successive time.

 

[Nathaniel Red]

I want to address the argument from free will, which is the philosophical argument that most Christians use to support eternal hell. Ezekial 36:26 says, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh (ASV). Also, Jesus says that, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." (NIV) It doesn't seem to me from Scripture that God has anything against effectively softening our hearts and effectively drawing us towards Himself.

Secondly, the preference for evil is irrational. It stems from not knowing ("They know not what they do") and therefore involves ignorance as well. In light of that, is there any value in a libertarian free will that allows us to make an uninformed or irrational decision to turn away from God? No, there is no value in that. That's why we intervene when people are on the brink of suicide or destroying themselves with addictions.

Rayanne.

If you look at it that way, God also has nothing against hardening our hearts and leading us away from him. Exodus 7:3–4 shows that God hardens hearts as well as softening them. Matthew 5:45 "...he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." What is really happening here is that if one is wicked of mind, the love of God will further themselves from him, and if they are good hearted then it will draw them closer, just as rain will erode a stone but wash clean our flesh, gods love will erode a stone heart and clean a flesh heart.

Also, with not knowing, everyone has the law of God written upon our hearts telling us what is good and evil, so in a sense we do know. And i can tell you that demons attach themselves to the ego, and God's spirit makes us new. Free-will is then in a sense a two-way street. We choose to either align our will with that of the devil and hell, or that of christ. So we have the full free-will to choose between either, yet at the same time have no free will in the matter because we are a slave to one or the other. There is perfect Free-will, as well as perfect authority of God. I think this can answer your other question about where authority lies in the church as well.

 

[Light of the East]

and I will add, the link doesn't deal with the Orthodox understanding of eternity, which is not just never-ending successive time.

Let's see.....this is the debate corner. I think this is the proper place for this.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Let's see.....this is the debate corner. I think this is the proper place for this.

what? that has nothing to do with what you quoted.

 

[Not David]

I just want to know what's the goal of all of this? Universalists never listen to explanations and keep repeating the same arguments over and over.

 

[Light of the East]

what? that has nothing to do with what you quoted.

Well......you told me to take the arguments somewhere else, right?

 

[Light of the East]

I just want to know what's the goal of all of this? Universalists never listen to explanations and keep repeating the same arguments over and over.

For me, the goal is to A.) get folks to think about what they are inferring about the character of God B.) to respond to false statements about Apokatastasis, such as everyone is saved and therefore immediately goes directly to heaven without suffering the consequences of their sins. C.) to show a really joyful Gospel that truely is good news for everyone and not just an elect few. D.) to highlight the immense and unfathromable mercy of God. E.) and perhaps, to bring some comfort to a soul that is troubled over family members who have died outside the Church or who never even heard of Christ.

Let me turn this around now (since I am pertty much homebound from this virus panic and have some time on my hands)

What is the goal of preaching an eternal, unending, fiery hell? From where do you think this idea was germinated and who profited from it in the long run?

 

[Euodius]

What is the goal of preaching an eternal, unending, fiery hell? From where do you think this idea was germinated and who profited from it in the long run?

Q1. What is the goal of preaching an eternal, unending, fiery hell?

A1. Truth and salvation.

Q2. From where do you think this idea was germinated?

A2. Both divine revelation (that continues from the first days to present) and from lived experience. Ultimately the denial of these doctrine is the denial of the human in and of itself.

Q3. And who profited from it in the long run?

A3. The Church Triumphant and the Church Militant.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well......you told me to take the arguments somewhere else, right?

not in what you quoted.

but yes, I did, because you aren't actually debating with us anymore. you're just hammering universalism over and over again.

all you really have are DBH talking points (the 5th Council might be a robber council) and emotionalism (your "I am every man" point).

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="Euodius

Q1. What is the goal of preaching an eternal, unending, fiery hell?

A1. Truth and salvation.

I think I see it a tad differently. "It will render men slothful, and discourage them from keeping the commandments of God. It will encourage them to depart from the narrow way, leading them by deception into ways that are wide and easy." (Quote from Emperor Justinian the Great)

In other words, manipulation of the populace to make them behave and also to scare them into heaven. Let's look around at our world right now? Certainly we should fear in the next life the consequences of our actions. An eternal hell has been preached for a long time. What are the results of it? The world is more immoral, mocking of God, and careless of eternity than it has ever been before. It seems that fear is not the greatest tool to bring men to repent. They simply do not believe it anymore. Is this really a good evangelisitic tool? Or is making people fall in love with the God who died on the Cross to free us from death and restore us more likely to make men hate sin and hate offending God?

Truth. What is the truth about God? God is love. Period. End of discussion. Everything we can speculate about God and the future life must revolve around this truth, as spokes connect to the hub of a wheel and make it what it is. No one seems to be willing to answer the questions that DBH has put in his book, and in regard to God and truth, the question simply remains: of what character is a divine Being who would create sentient beings capable of suffering, foreknowing that they would fall and condemn themselves to an eternity of suffering, yet without any mandate (God being totally free and creating in this freedom rather than of necessity) would will to create them anyway? How do you find any such action to be contingent with love?

I know.....you redefine love. So the word love, as we understand it and as having been given in the Bible by divine revelation, really does not mean what we read (Matthew 5, 1 Corinthians 13). It can, in fact, mean allowing someone to suffer unrelentingly despite the fact that you are all-powerful and all-wise and could, because of these attributes of your person, have utter ability to come up with a cure for the wretched condition of the beings you created. If that is your idea of love -- thank you, I will pass.

In essence, God actually commands us to do that which He Himself is not bound by - forgive enemies, treat with goodness all who hate you, etc. Do you not find this strange.

Q2. From where do you think this idea was germinated?

A2. Both divine revelation (that continues from the first days to present) and from lived experience. Ultimately the denial of these doctrine is the denial of the human in and of itself.

Well, this does get interesting. If by divine revelation you are referring to the Bible, then I can say the same thing.

God will have all to be saved (1Ti 2:4) Can His will be thwarted? A most legitimate question. The usual answer is “But man has free-will!” Really? So the will of man trumps the will of God? Do you realize what you just said? That means that if puny, weak, nothing man can trump God’s will and be victorious, then you have no guarantee that Satan won’t do the same thing and throw God off His throne, as He wishes to do. You better think about that some more. While you are thinking, consider this regarding God and man’s free will.


God desires all to come to the knowledge of the truth (1Ti 2:4) Will His desire come to pass, or is it just a weak wish? Same as above. Is God all-powerful or not?


Jesus came to save all. (John 12:47) Will He succeed or fail? Excellent question. I can’t begin to tell you how many people will say that the majority of all mankind will wind up eternally separated from God in torment, and in the same breath, declare this to be a wonderful victory for God. That’s like declaring war on an enemy, having him destroy three-quarters of your town and take the people hostage, and then going around saying you won the war. Nonsense! (My real feelings are stronger than this, but I want to keep this family friendly.) And to the point of this blog piece – does all mean all or not?


In Adam all are condemned, in Christ all live (Romans 5: 15-21) Again, does all mean all? One of the most wretched dances I’ve ever witnessed to deny this verse comes from Calvinists who try to say that “all” means “all of the elect.” Calvinism is a ……………never mind. Again, I want to keep it family friendly. Let’s just say that Calvinism insults the character of God.


In Adam all die, in Christ, all live. (1 Corinthians 15:22) One of the strongest verses I’ve seen to declare that God leaves none of His children behind to be devoured by the evil one, even the most wicked and worst of His kids is included. (Yes, Virginia, even Adolf Hitler!) Remember, Saul of Tarsus [i.e. St. Paul] was a murderer just like Hitler. The only difference is in quantity, not quality. God saved Saul, God is not so weak that He can’t eventually save Schicklgruber.


All are reconciled unto God (Col 1:20). Does all really mean all, or only all of a certain class?


God will have mercy on all (Romans 11:32) All?


Jesus died for all (2 Corinthians 5:14-15). There’s that word all again! Did He die in vain? How can you possibly see the Cross as a victory if all do not eventually make it Home?

I recently read a rather good article in which the author, who apparently has studied the issue of aionios and its meaning, stated that it can mean either "age-long" or "eternal." Okay. Fair dinkum. Suppose this is correct, and Matthew 25:46 is up for grabs. Then what?

CONTEXT

Specifically the context of answer number 1 - the character of God. Is the translation of aionios as "eternal," with all that such implies, consistent with the divine revelation that God is love? I think it is more inline with Latin translators who were influenced by the Roman culture in which they lived and moved. That culture was all about law and punishment, not chastizement and restoration. And they were human, not divine, meaning that they could have screwed up the translation. I see this in the Douay-Rheims Bible which fails miserably in the translation of the Greek word "metanoia" for instance.

Q3. And who profited from it in the long run?

A3. The Church Triumphant and the Church Militant.

Actually, I would more say the Roman Catholic Church after the schism and during the Papal Reformation which began in the eleventh century. Nothing like threatening the illiterate masses with the fires of eternal torment to keep them from rebelling, especially if they see you are as corrupt and crooked as a dog's hind leg. Finally it got so bad that in 1517, a German monk had enough and nailed his objections to the door of the Wittenburg Church. He lit a smoldering flame that exploded in the face of the corrupt Roman clergy. And all the threatening of hell couldn't keep people in line anymore because they had reached the boiling point.

Your answer is interesting and I would like you to parse it for me a bit. How exactly does the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant profit? Could you draw that out for me a bit?

Also, going back to question 2, how does God saving all mankind deny our humanity?

Thanks for your responses.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think I see it a tad differently. "It will render men slothful, and discourage them from keeping the commandments of God. It will encourage them to depart from the narrow way, leading them by deception into ways that are wide and easy." (Quote from Emperor Justinian the Great)

In other words, manipulation of the populace to make them behave and also to scare them into heaven.

that's not manipulation if it's true.

Let's look around at our world right now? Certainly we should fear in the next life the consequences of our actions. An eternal hell has been preached for a long time. What are the results of it? The world is more immoral, mocking of God, and careless of eternity than it has ever been before. It seems that fear is not the greatest tool to bring men to repent. They simply do not believe it anymore. Is this really a good evangelisitic tool? Or is making people fall in love with the God who died on the Cross to free us from death and restore us more likely to make men hate sin and hate offending God?

that doesn't matter if hell is true. whether or not hell is true is irrelevant to how good it is at evangelizing the outsider. be that as it may, St John Chrysostom says the preaching and fear of hell renders the soul as pure as silver.

Or is making people fall in love with the God who died on the Cross to free us from death and restore us more likely to make men hate sin and hate offending God?

this for sure is the best way, but that has nothing to do with hell's reality or not.

Truth. What is the truth about God? God is love. Period. End of discussion. Everything we can speculate about God and the future life must revolve around this truth, as spokes connect to the hub of a wheel and make it what it is.

no disputes here.

 

[ArmyMatt]

No one seems to be willing to answer the questions that DBH has put in his book, and in regard to God and truth, the question simply remains: of what character is a divine Being who would create sentient beings capable of suffering, foreknowing that they would fall and condemn themselves to an eternity of suffering, yet without any mandate (God being totally free and creating in this freedom rather than of necessity) would will to create them anyway? How do you find any such action to be contingent with love?

one Who is unending and eternal love. that's the character of the God Who would create hell.

I know.....you redefine love. So the word love, as we understand it and as having been given in the Bible by divine revelation, really does not mean what we read (Matthew 5, 1 Corinthians 13). It can, in fact, mean allowing someone to suffer unrelentingly despite the fact that you are all-powerful and all-wise and could, because of these attributes of your person, have utter ability to come up with a cure for the wretched condition of the beings you created. If that is your idea of love -- thank you, I will pass.

except the cure is on those suffering. if they accept God, He accepts them. those in hell are only those who eternally reject God as He showers them with His love.

In essence, God actually commands us to do that which He Himself is not bound by - forgive enemies, treat with goodness all who hate you, etc. Do you not find this strange.

no, because He forgives them, treats them with goodness, etc. they refuse His forgiveness and goodness, but it's still upon them.

God will have all to be saved (1Ti 2:4) Can His will be thwarted? A most legitimate question. The usual answer is “But man has free-will!” Really? So the will of man trumps the will of God? Do you realize what you just said? That means that if puny, weak, nothing man can trump God’s will and be victorious, then you have no guarantee that Satan won’t do the same thing and throw God off His throne, as He wishes to do. You better think about that some more. While you are thinking, consider this regarding God and man’s free will.

no, His will can't be thwarted. everyone will be resurrected in the end, as sin, death, and the devil are what He came to save us from (and He did, we are all saved from those things). that has never been the issue. the issue is what to do with those who eternally desire sin, death, and the devil. and that's where hell comes in.

God desires all to come to the knowledge of the truth (1Ti 2:4) Will His desire come to pass, or is it just a weak wish? Same as above. Is God all-powerful or not?

it will, those in hell will know the Truth. so yes, His desire will come to pass.

Jesus came to save all. (John 12:47) Will He succeed or fail? Excellent question. I can’t begin to tell you how many people will say that the majority of all mankind will wind up eternally separated from God in torment, and in the same breath, declare this to be a wonderful victory for God. That’s like declaring war on an enemy, having him destroy three-quarters of your town and take the people hostage, and then going around saying you won the war. Nonsense! (My real feelings are stronger than this, but I want to keep this family friendly.) And to the point of this blog piece – does all mean all or not?

He already succeeded. Hell is not an eternal separation from God, as God is omnipresent.

In Adam all are condemned, in Christ all live (Romans 5: 15-21) Again, does all mean all? One of the most wretched dances I’ve ever witnessed to deny this verse comes from Calvinists who try to say that “all” means “all of the elect.” Calvinism is a ……………never mind. Again, I want to keep it family friendly. Let’s just say that Calvinism insults the character of God.

nope, all will live as the damned are Resurrected in the end. not the issue.

All are reconciled unto God (Col 1:20). Does all really mean all, or only all of a certain class?

it means all, but it will torment those who don't want to be reconciled with God.

God will have mercy on all (Romans 11:32) All?

it means all. even those in hell experience God's mercy.

Jesus died for all (2 Corinthians 5:14-15). There’s that word all again! Did He die in vain? How can you possibly see the Cross as a victory if all do not eventually make it Home?

and again, yes He died for all, that's why the damned are also raised.

I recently read a rather good article in which the author, who apparently has studied the issue of aionios and its meaning, stated that it can mean either "age-long" or "eternal." Okay. Fair dinkum. Suppose this is correct, and Matthew 25:46 is up for grabs. Then what?

CONTEXT

Specifically the context of answer number 1 - the character of God. Is the translation of aionios as "eternal," with all that such implies, consistent with the divine revelation that God is love? I think it is more inline with Latin translators who were influenced by the Roman culture in which they lived and moved. That culture was all about law and punishment, not chastizement and restoration. And they were human, not divine, meaning that they could have screwed up the translation. I see this in the Douay-Rheims Bible which fails miserably in the translation of the Greek word "metanoia" for instance.

if aionios doesn't mean eternal, then are the righteous only for age-long life? when God is called eternal and aionios is used, is He only an age-long God? how do we know from the time which is which?

and, I gotta say, the fact that you asked these questions which are usually addressed every single time universalism gets brought up, shows how little you listen, how you aren't really here to debate or discuss things with us, and how you really should take this elsewhere.

 

[Not David]

For me, the goal is to A.) get folks to think about what they are inferring about the character of God B.) to respond to false statements about Apokatastasis, such as everyone is saved and therefore immediately goes directly to heaven without suffering the consequences of their sins. C.) to show a really joyful Gospel that truely is good news for everyone and not just an elect few. D.) to highlight the immense and unfathromable mercy of God. E.) and perhaps, to bring some comfort to a soul that is troubled over family members who have died outside the Church or who never even heard of Christ.

Let me turn this around now (since I am pertty much homebound from this virus panic and have some time on my hands)

What is the goal of preaching an eternal, unending, fiery hell? From where do you think this idea was germinated and who profited from it in the long run?

Most of that was already addressed by Father Matt and as he said, you never listen and keep repeating the same arguments of St. Augustine and Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="ArmyMatt One Who is unending and eternal love. that's the character of the God Who would create hell.

Well, actually, since you and I share the same belief in this - i.e. that God hasn't created a place called "hell," but rather it is simply His love experienced upside down (torment) - then I can say that love wouldn't do that.

except the cure is on those suffering. if they accept God, He accepts them. those in hell are only those who eternally reject God as He showers them with His love.

And this is really the heart of the matter, isn't it? Besides all the speculations on this issue regarding the character of God, the nature of hell (fire literal or not) or any other thing, the real issue comes down to free-will theodicy and whether or not a soul has the ability to repent in the next life. It comes down to whether a soul is locked into sin forever with no ability to change, or if that soul still has potential for change.

no, because He forgives them, treats them with goodness, etc. they refuse His forgiveness and goodness, but it's still upon them.

Same as above.

no, His will can't be thwarted. everyone will be resurrected in the end, as sin, death, and the devil are what He came to save us from (and He did, we are all saved from those things). that has never been the issue. the issue is what to do with those who eternally desire sin, death, and the devil. and that's where hell comes in.

When you are blind, you cannot see what you truly want or what you are. What you are saying is that once a person truly sees (in the presence of Christ) so that he realizes that all he has chased in this life is illusion, that the true desire he was looking for is standing right in front of him, that his sin has hurt himself and others, he will nonetheless not be allowed to repent. That his case is unsolvable by the Great Physician. I don't understand why. Is this the case that C.S. Lewis stated when he said "the doors of hell are locked from the inside"? That a soul could be so locked into itself that it would not be able to turn, even when all the blinders and obstructions are removed?

We are made for The Good. We are made for God, and our souls are truly desiring Him, even when they desire something that is an illusion of The Good. It is innate in all mankind. If that is the true state of the soul, that we were made for God, bear His image, and in the deepest part of our true selves, want Him alone (which is what we are created for), then how could a soul see that which it has desired all its life and turn from it?

it will, those in hell will know the Truth. so yes, His desire will come to pass.

I guess I should have posted the whole verse.

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

He already succeeded. Hell is not an eternal separation from God, as God is omnipresent.

Nope. If even one is lost, then the Cross has failed in its objective, which was that all men be saved and rescued from the tyranny of death. And if this is an objective sucess, then you have to say that it was never the object of the Cross that all be saved and the Calvinists are correct.

nope, all will live as the damned are Resurrected in the end. not the issue.

Being damned is not living. That is not life. That is death, and Christ conquered death once and for all time, unto the ages of ages. If death - as a state of separation from God - continues to exist for all time, then death has one. And I can hear your objection now "But they are not separated from God because God is everywhere." That's not the kind or manner of separation I am speaking of. We are made for union in love with God. We shall be ever drawn into His love, deeper and deeper, without ever exhausting it. Not experiencing this is separation from Him True life is Christ and true life is union with Him. Any state of existence in the next life, whether it be physically separation, mental separation, spiritual separation, anything which creates a distance from Him in which we are not experiencing Him fully - is death. Any experience of Him that is not joy, bliss, and peace is not life, it is death.



it means all, but it will torment those who don't want to be reconciled with God.

Again, you have to prove that a rational soul with a truly free will (that is, unencumbered by blindness, internal corruption of sin, or any other deceit) would choose against itself and pick torment over bliss. Only an insane person would make such a choice. I would have to be convinced that a soul seeing Christ in all His love and glory would rather choose suffering than to immediately repent in sorrow and submit to whatever punishment the Lord would give for its sins.

it means all. even those in hell experience God's mercy.

and again, yes He died for all, that's why the damned are also raised.

I am blabberflastered at such an answer. If Christ dies for all, then all must be saved. If He died for all, then if any are not saved, then you really cannot say that He died for them. And then, why raise them, if such is true, knowing that they will only suffer forever. Better it would be for them to have never been created. In fact, better it would have been for the whole cosmos to have never been created. What then was the purpose of Creation - to create beings who would only suffer forever? All actions are taken to a foreseen end. All actions are part of a plan which has a goal - a telos. Was the plan then that the majority of created beings shall suffer forever with no possibility of remediation from that state? Because if the all-knowing God foreknew this and yet went ahead with this plan, then the only thing you can surmise from this is that it was His plan all along that the telos of Creation would be billions suffering torment forever.

if aionios doesn't mean eternal, then are the righteous only for age-long life? when God is called eternal and aionios is used, is He only an age-long God? how do we know from the time which is which?

Age long within the ages of ages. If eternity is ages of ages, then perhaps the writer was speaking of the length of the next age to come, with the understanding that all the ages are going to be eventually folded up into God as Christ surrenders His Kingdom to the Father and God becomes "all in all." Which leads to yet another question: how can God be "all in all" if not all want to be in Him? He can only be "all in some" and nothing to the rest who reject Him.

and, I gotta say, the fact that you asked these questions which are usually addressed every single time universalism gets brought up, shows how little you listen, how you aren't really here to debate or discuss things with us, and how you really should take this elsewhere.

I do listen. I do think about what you say. I find the arguments for a loving heavenly Father who would create, permit, or condone such suffering forever to be without merit. I find they are not in line with the definition we have of love, given to us by our Father who created languages and word to mean specific things. I find the excuses for an eternal hell which are made in free-will theodicy arguments, reduce God to a powerless Being watching helplessly as His children destroy themselves eternally, which is a kind of blasphemy of His power and glory to me. I kind of feel the same frustration.

However, you are correct in one thing: I need to stop posting in this regard and go on with my life. My spiritual father has suggested that doing any form of apologia, even defending the good stuff which is truly Orthodoxy, is not good for me and that I should work on the Prayer of Quiet. While it is not a direct order, I need to obey him. Therefore, this is my last post on this thread or this subject. I think by now we both know where we stand and neither one of us is going to budge an inch.

I will continue to pray, read, and seek regarding this, but further Internet discussions have to cease. Thank you for your continued interactions with me.

A Blessed Lent to you and all here.