The wages of sin is DEATH, not eternal torment in Hell.

[C.O.Ioves]

Revelation 20:14(KJV)
14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

how is hell the "lake of fire", when hell is thrown into "the lake of fire"?

Death is the moment in time cessation of life, it has no physical presence it cannot be literally thrown anywhere. Are we going to say that "death" was figuratively thrown into the LOF but "hell" was literally thrown into the LOF and their power to kill ended?

Or we can say that the angel of death and the demon of hell were both literally thrown into the LOF?

Rev 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth​

.

 

[C.O.Ioves]

Charles Pridgeon, president and founder of the Pittsburgh Bible Institute, wrote: ―In these early centuries those holding the doctrine of endless punishment were in the minority and no one was counted unorthodox who believed in restitution and the ultimate and complete victory of Christ. In fact, the leaders in the early Church Councils and those who were chosen to establish orthodoxy were well
known believers in the beneficent side of future punishment. This is especially true of the second great Church Council which was held to perfect the Nicene Creed....There is no word in these early statements of creed in favor of endless punishment.

In Encheirid. ad Laurent, c. 29 Augustine wrote: ―"There are very many in our day, who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless tor-ments."

Hope beyond hell is an ancient theology firmly rooted in the Early Church.

Like I keep saying, if eternal hell is the price for sin...as orthodoxy teaches...then JESUS NEVER PAID THE PRICE! And I suppose my dear brother Timothy, that would have to include annihilation then too wouldn't it?

"Very many" is not a majority. What historical evidence does Pridgeon have to support his view? Your conclusion is absurd. When Jesus sits on the white thrown and says "These shall go away into eternal punishment" was he saying that He would not, could not pay the price?

 

[C.O.Ioves]

None of that says that the wicked continue to exist forever in torment in Hell. But you missed the key paragraph (purposely???).

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 2, Chapter 34, paragraph 3
3. For as the heaven which is above us, the firmament, the sun, the moon, the rest of the stars, and all their grandeur, although they had no previous existence, were called into being, and continue throughout a long course of time according to the will of God, so also any one who thinks thus respecting souls and spirits, and, in fact, respecting all created things, will not by any means go far astray, inasmuch as all things that have been made had a beginning when they were formed, but endure as long as God wills that they should have an existence and continuance. The prophetic Spirit bears testimony to these opinions, when He declares, "For He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created: He hath established them for ever, yea, forever and ever."(6) And again, He thus speaks respecting the salvation of man: "He asked life of Thee, and Thou gavest him length of days for ever and ever;"(7) indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved. For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature; but it is bestowed according to the grace of God. And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognised Him who bestowed [the gift upon him], deprives himself of [the privilege of] continuance for ever and ever.(1) And, for this reason, the Lord declared to those who showed themselves ungrateful towards Him: "If ye have not been faithful in that which is little, who will give you that which is great?"(2) indicating that those who, in this brief temporal life, have shown themselves ungrateful to Him who bestowed it, shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever.

Did you purposely omit everything I posted which contradicts you? You already quoted your "evidence" from Irenaeus, why should I repeat what you said? One chapter in one writing which is not supported by other books in the same writing, by the same writer. The best you can say is Irenaeus either contradicts himself or he is inconsistent.

 

[Hillsage]

"Very many" is not a majority. What historical evidence does Pridgeon have to support his view? Your conclusion is absurd.

Whether you know it or not AUGUSTINE is considered the FATHER of western thought/theology concerning the doctrine of eternal purposeless torture. For him to even make such a statement as "VERY MANY" was huge. And then to say those very same believers, were "not denying the Holy Scriptures" is even more telling IMO...as well as way more loving than most of 'condemning orthodoxy' toward those of us who believe like "very many" according to Augustine.

Prior to the Roman Catholic Church's condemnation of all of Universalist thought in the 6 th Century, Church authority had already reached back in time to pick out several of Origen's ideas they deemed unacceptable (One of which is Universalism). Some that found disfavor were his insistence that the Devil would be saved at the end of time, and his claim that the purification of souls could go on for many eons. After the 6 th Century, much of his work was destroyed; fortunately, some of it survived.

According to Edward Beecher, a Congregationalist theologian, there were six theology schools in Christendom during its early years - four were Universalist ( Alexandria , Cesarea, Antioch , and Edessa ). One advocated annihilation ( Ephesus ) and one advocated Eternal Hell (the Latin Church of North Africa). Most of the Universalists throughout Christendom followed the teachings of Origen. Later, Theodore of Mopsuestia had a different theological basis for Universal Salvation, and his view continued in the break-away Church of the East (Nestorian) where his Universalist ideas still exist in its liturgy today.


Maybe the epitome of "absurd" is to think that the uninformed majority today are right and the majority of the early church's NON CATHOLIC (to be) schools of theology were wrong.

When Jesus sits on the white thrown and says "These shall go away into eternal punishment" was he saying that He would not, could not pay the price?

Thank God my Jesus is bigger than your Jesus then. Because my Jesus DID pay the price...FOR ALL.

1JO 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

You have NO correctly interpreted scripture to say he "wouldn't/couldn't" pay the price for all.

Young's LITERAL translation:
MAT 25:46 And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'

 

[Tigger45]

I, for one, can surely get along without any thing from the "early church fathers". From what I have read of their works, I think they must have been a part of that "falling away" as spoken of by the apostle Paul in 2 Thess. 2:1-12.



you need to ask yourself where this sentiment that lies in your heart came from. If it comes from God, then you may be sure that he does not show you one thing and then he, himself, do the other. He is not a "do as I say, not as I do", God.

Saint Matthew believed it...
Matt 25:46, "And these will go into everlasting punishment, but the just into everlasting life."

 

[saspian]

"the dead know nothing at all" is another out-of-context proof text. Shall we read it in context?

Ecc 9:3-11
(3) This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
(4) For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
(5) For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
(6) Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
(7) Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
(8) Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment.
(9) Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.
(10) Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
(11) I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.​

Notice the author uses the phrase "under the sun" four times in these verses. This is not talking about man's eternal fate but what happens in this life, under the sun.

"the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." if your proof text means what you claim then not even Christians will have any reward after death.

I am not claiming a 'proof'.
Jesus was critical of the Pharisees for their intense searching of scripture.
Obsessions over texts lead to all manner of evolving cults and the ensuing 'rights' and 'wrongs' of hostile opposing factions......

 

[C.O.Ioves]

Whether you know it or not AUGUSTINE is considered the FATHER of western thought/theology concerning the doctrine of eternal purposeless torture. For him to even make such a statement as "VERY MANY" was huge. And then to say those very same believers, were "not denying the Holy Scriptures" is even more telling IMO...as well as way more loving than most of 'condemning orthodoxy' toward those of us who believe like "very many" according to Augustine.

Your arguments are not evidence.

Prior to the Roman Catholic Church's condemnation of all of Universalist thought in the 6 th Century, Church authority had already reached back in time to pick out several of Origen's ideas they deemed unacceptable (One of which is Universalism). Some that found disfavor were his insistence that the Devil would be saved at the end of time, and his claim that the purification of souls could go on for many eons. After the 6 th Century, much of his work was destroyed; fortunately, some of it survived.

Ah yes. The old "all the evidence was destroyed ploy." More assertions without evidence.

According to Edward Beecher, a Congregationalist theologian, there were six theology schools in Christendom during its early years - four were Universalist ( Alexandria , Cesarea, Antioch , and Edessa ). One advocated annihilation ( Ephesus ) and one advocated Eternal Hell (the Latin Church of North Africa). Most of the Universalists throughout Christendom followed the teachings of Origen. Later, Theodore of Mopsuestia had a different theological basis for Universal Salvation, and his view continued in the break-away Church of the East (Nestorian) where his Universalist ideas still exist in its liturgy today.

Throwing out names and supposed facts they allegedly said somewhere is not evidence.

Maybe the epitome of "absurd" is to think that the uninformed majority today are right and the majority of the early church's NON CATHOLIC (to be) schools of theology were wrong.

Jesus said that the gates of hell could not prevail against his church. If the majority of the early church was universalist how did they become an almost nonexistent minority 2000 years +/- later?

Thank God my Jesus is bigger than your Jesus then. Because my Jesus DID pay the price...FOR ALL.

1JO 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

You have NO correctly interpreted scripture to say he "wouldn't/couldn't" pay the price for all.

Out-of-context proof text. If Jesus paid the price for all please explain Matt 25:46, where exactly are those on the left going?

Young's LITERAL translation:
MAT 25:46 And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'

There is no such term as "age during" in English. It was made up to support false theology.

 

[Ronald]

Revelation 20:14(KJV)
14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Hades (sheol) is the correct translation in most modern versions.
*Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death NKJV
* and the death and the hades were cast to the lake of the fire -- this [is] the second death; YLT
* And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire. ASV
*Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire RSV
*Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. NIV

 

[C.O.Ioves]

I am not claiming a 'proof'.
Jesus was critical of the Pharisees for their intense searching of scripture.
Obsessions over texts lead to all manner of evolving cults and the ensuing 'rights' and 'wrongs' of hostile opposing factions......

You are absolutely right "Obsessions over texts lead to all manner of evolving cults and the ensuing 'rights' and 'wrongs' of hostile opposing factions.." You quote part of a verse trying to "prove" your argument and ignore the full context of the passage. That is sort of like the guy who opened his Bible and read "Judas went and hanged himself." He opened his Bible again and read "Go thou and do likewise." so he went and hanged himself. People can make the Bible say almost anything they want by picking a verse here and a verse there as you did.

 

[Tigger45]

I have often heard this claim made. Why do you believe that when the Bible uses the term death that it is always talking about a separation? The Bible never says "Death really means a separation". I am serious, I want you to tell me why you think death doesn't really mean death, but rather a separation.

If you are correct, then death means "eternal life in hell", and we have the unfortunate case of a word having the meaning of it's opposite.
(Do you think this is a case of flammable and inflammable meaning the same thing? )

Step me through your thinking, making death mean separation.

Genesis 2:17

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [a]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Genesis 3:23

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
Genesis 3:23 is a result of Gen 2:17 which is a separation from God by Him kicking Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden.


1 Timoth 5:6
6 But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives.
How can she be dead if she is still alive?

2 Thessalonians 1:9
9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might
This sums it up all in this one verse.

 

[Ronald]

The New Jerusalem is not heaven. And there is no day and night only in new Jerusalem. This does not mean that there is no day and night outside of new Jerusalem.

A new heaven and earth ... coming down out of heaven (meaning coming from above and not of this present earth. It's more like heaven on earth, since God's throne will be in this holy city with streets of gold, etc. Where God dwells is heaven. No need for sun and moon (Rev. 21:23)

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them. Rev. 21:1-3

So as you would agree, The Father and the Son will be in this Holy City.
Think carefully now, will there be a heaven elsewhere without them?

The Jews referred to the place of eternal punishment as both Sheol and Gehenna.[/

The Jews had a blurred vision and understanding of the afterlife. When Jesus came, He cleared things up a little. Actually the OT is incomplete without the NT, where Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets and finishes God's message to man.
Remember, the Jews are still blinded until the gentiles reach their fullness and the veil will finally be removed just prior to the Great Tribulation. So their interpretation is not spiritually discerned!
"For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.” “This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”Rom.11:26, 27

 

[Hillsage]

Your arguments are not evidence.

Now that's a perfect example of 'the kettle calling the pot black'.

Ah yes. The old "all the evidence was destroyed ploy." More assertions without evidence.

You obviously don't understand the power of the 'religious spirit'. When the 'politically' connected 'church' became the one with the biggest gun, they used it to kill Christians who disagreed. That's simply church history clear up to the Crusades.

Throwing out names and supposed facts they allegedly said somewhere is not evidence.

I suspect there is no evidence that could sway you.

But for your interest, here is Pridgeon's source.

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96

Jesus said that the gates of hell could not prevail against his church. If the majority of the early church was universalist how did they become an almost nonexistent minority 2000 years +/- later?

That's a very good question...how did the 666 "Chrisitian denominations" TODAY get into such miserable shape? It certainly isn't because the church today 'correctly' believes in hell now, is it? And I suppose I could point out that you need to Google a little bit to find out universalism DID prevail. Even though it went into religious catacombs to do so. I hope you understand my analogy.

Out-of-context proof text. If Jesus paid the price for all please explain Matt 25:46, where exactly are those on the left going?

The only thing "out-of-context" is your 'pretext'. But I'll humor you, what is your 'in context' explanation of 1John 2:2? There's not a word in that whole chapter not supportive of my view IMO.

Like the more critical translations state. They are going into the age/aion/eon of correction. That's why it is translated "punishment age-during."

There is no such term as "age during" in English. It was made up to support false theology.

Maybe you've answered your own dilemma then. Point 1; What language did you just write that in? Point 2; The scriptures weren't originally written in English. And being 'true to the Greek' is what makes for difficult English reading. That's why most Christians believe like you do. They rely on interpretations, written by indoctrinated translators who sign a 'statement of faith' before they're even hired to give you your newest 'hot off the $ press' interpretation. They take the same Greek word and interpret it eternity when it fits their doctrine, and then they interpret it world, when translating it consistently would point out how stupid it is.
While there can be different usages for a Greek word based on context, there is no one Greek word, that I am aware of, that can have two totally opposite meanings.

Here is a verse as found in our King James Bibles:

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal (aionios) life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world (aionios) began;

The words “eternal” and “world” are both the exact same Greek word—“aionios.” The definition from Strong’s is eternal? So the natural question is why didn't the King James translators translate it the same in both cases? Simply because it wouldn’t make any sense!

Young's LITERAL translation makes more sense; Titus 1:2 upon hope of life age-during, which God, who doth not lie, did promise before times of ages,

 

[Timothew]

Like I keep saying, if eternal hell is the price for sin...as orthodoxy teaches...then JESUS NEVER PAID THE PRICE! And I suppose my dear brother Timothy, that would have to include annihilation then too wouldn't it?

I agree that if eternal torture in hell is the price for sin, then Jesus never paid THAT price. That argument doesn't affect my position. The wages of sin is death, and Jesus truly died on the cross, giving us eternal life. The only two possibilities are death or eternal life. In Him is life, there is no life outside of Him.

 

[Timothew]

Did you purposely omit everything I posted which contradicts you? You already quoted your "evidence" from Irenaeus, why should I repeat what you said? One chapter in one writing which is not supported by other books in the same writing, by the same writer. The best you can say is Irenaeus either contradicts himself or he is inconsistent.

What you posted does not contradict me or Irenaeus.

I've talked with you before, my Old Shepherd at Der Alter, so I know that it is futile to try to convince you of anything.

The best thing for me to do is ignore you.

 

[Timothew]

Genesis 2:17

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [a]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Genesis 3:23

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
Genesis 3:23 is a result of Gen 2:17 which is a separation from God by Him kicking Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden.


1 Timoth 5:6
6 But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives.
How can she be dead if she is still alive?

2 Thessalonians 1:9
9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might
This sums it up all in this one verse.

I'm sorry, but this does not prove that the Bible means separation when it says death. Adam did not die the day he ate the fruit. He died much later, when he was 930 years old. See Genesis 5:5.

1 Tim 5:6 doesn't prove that death = separation either.

And 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says EXACTLY what I have been saying from the start of this thread (and before!) They will be punished with everlasting destruction. They will not be punished with everlasting NON-destruction. This verse doesn't say the destruction is being separated from God, it is saying the destruction comes from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his strength.

οἵτινες δίκην τίσουσιν ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ,
Who (the) penalty they pay destruction aionion, (eternal, pertaining to the age) from (the) presence (of) the Lord and from the glory (of) his strength.

 

[Tigger45]

I'm sorry, but this does not prove that the Bible means separation when it says death. Adam did not die the day he ate the fruit. He died much later, when he was 930 years old. See Genesis 5:5.

Um? Hello! That's my point. God said the "day" they ate of the fruite they would "die". But they didn't like you said Adam lived until he was 930 years old. What happened that "day" is Adam & Eve were separated from God by being kicked out of the garden.

1 Tim 5:6 doesn't prove that death = separation either.
The point is the bible used the term dead but {even while she lives}. Showing the bible is using the term dead not as a term of annihilation.

And 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says EXACTLY what I have been saying from the start of this thread (and before!) They will be punished with everlasting destruction. They will not be punished with everlasting NON-destruction. This verse doesn't say the destruction is being separated from God, it is saying the destruction comes from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his strength.

2 Thessalonians 1:9

New International Version (NIV)

9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might
You can't punish someone with annihilation and everlasting destruction. It's like a judge sentencing someone to death and once that's done you have to servce out your time of a life sentence without parole.


οἵτινες δίκην τίσουσιν ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ,
Who (the) penalty they pay destruction aionion, (eternal, pertaining to the age) from (the) presence (of) the Lord and from the glory (of) his strength.

drsteavej was right at post #4. This thread is done. I love to dialgue and learn but this thread has become unprogressive.

 

[Hillsage]

I agree that if eternal torture in hell is the price for sin, then Jesus never paid THAT price. That argument doesn't affect my position. The wages of sin is death, and Jesus truly died on the cross, giving us eternal life. The only two possibilities are death or eternal life. In Him is life, there is no life outside of Him.

I follow your logic, but if "death and hell" are destroyed by the second death in the lake of fire, then I believe we have the death of death and hell. And we have 'that', because they have served their purpose in the plan of God, and that only leaves the 'one possibility' of life, for our victorious God and His beloved creation.

1CO 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
And if death is destroyed then death cannot be 'eternal'. And when I say 'eternal' I mean eternal and not as an 'age' or 'pertaining to an age' as the Greek 'aion/aionios' should be consistently translated. The only Greek word that meets our English definition of eternal is the Greek word 'adios'.

I know you'll disagree, and I still like annihilation-ism better than a God who tells us to always forgive everyone, but He Himself isn't going to. Nothing like a double standard on that scale to encourage one in the faith. Puny us is supposed to 'out forgive' God. I think that those believing in eternal purposeless torture simply reveal the depths of their heart, and not the heart of God.

Be blessed.

 

[JohnRabbit]

Death is the moment in time cessation of life, it has no physical presence it cannot be literally thrown anywhere. Are we going to say that "death" was figuratively thrown into the LOF but "hell" was literally thrown into the LOF and their power to kill ended?

Or we can say that the angel of death and the demon of hell were both literally thrown into the LOF?

Rev 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth​

.

thanks for the metaphoric lesson, however, you're making my point.

death and hell are symbolically thrown into the LOF.

death and hell followed, of course, because hell refers to the grave.

Matthew 16:18(NKJV)
18And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the grave) shall not prevail against it. (see also rev 20:6)


i was just trying to understand why Ronald said hell is the LOF, when the bible says no such thing!

 

[JohnRabbit]

Hades (sheol) is the correct translation in most modern versions.
*Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death NKJV
* and the death and the hades were cast to the lake of the fire -- this [is] the second death; YLT
* And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire. ASV
*Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire RSV
*Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. NIV

thanks for the info Ronald!

 

[Timothew]

drsteavej was right at post #4. This thread is done. I love to dialgue and learn but this thread has become unprogressive.

What? Just because you were unable to prove your belief that when the Bible says "death" it really means "a separation"? You could quit, or you could see this as an opportunity for spiritual growth.

Edit: I just looked at post 4. Dr Steve didn't post anything but a verse that doesn't prove his point, and a claim that he won the debate. How is he right?