D
dies-l
Guest
OzSpen said:
Funny how that passage gets misused as a defense of the doctrine of eternal torment, rather than as a call to care for the poor and weak among us.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
OzSpen said:
Funny how that passage gets misused as a defense of the doctrine of eternal torment, rather than as a call to care for the poor and weak among us.
It's amazing how you can excise portions of this passage that you don't like.Funny how that passage gets misused as a defense of the doctrine of eternal torment, rather than as a call to care for the poor and weak among us.
dies-l said:Funny how that passage gets misused as a defense of the doctrine of eternal torment, rather than as a call to care for the poor and weak among us.
It's amazing how you can excise portions of this passage that you don't like.
Oz
Why does it not speak to both?
May God Richly Bless you!
Are you trying to tell me that "eternal fire" (Matt. 25:41) is not eternal torment? We are not on the same page and you don't seem to want to believe what the Scriptures state.Can you show me even one English translation that indicates that the eternal punishment Christ refers to is "eternal torment"? Can you show me where the passage even hints that Jesus is talking about believers as opposed to non-believers? You are reading something into it that isn't there. More importantly, you are taking a beautiful passage about caring for the poor, weak, and vulnerable, and twisting to try to fit your dark theology of the nature of Hell and ultimately a tyrannical view of God.
When you read Matt. 25:31-46 carefully, you will find that 25:34 refers to the sheep "who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom'. Verse 37 calls these "the righteous".40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt 13:40-42 ESV).
Those who go to eternal punishment are most certainly not righteous.And these will go away into eternal punishment but the righteous into eternal life (25:46).
Are you trying to tell me that "eternal fire" (Matt. 25:41) is not eternal torment? We are not on the same page and you don't seem to want to believe what the Scriptures state.
When you read Matt. 25:31-46 carefully, you will find that 25:34 refers to the sheep "who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom'. Verse 37 calls these "the righteous".
Then go to those on the left, the goats, who are going to the "cursed" place for the "devil and his angels" (25:41). And these by implication are the unrighteous because this is how they are compared:
Those who go to eternal punishment are most certainly not righteous.
You seem to want to duck and weave and ignore the passages that you don't agree with.
Oz
If our ideas of hell, came from the roman catholics, how is it I have quotes of it before the roman catholic church?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7648154-58/#post60526941
Read again, I said it became a doctrine for the church as a whole during the Roman period, yes, it existed before that. If you study the early church, the 4 out of the 6 largest universities promoted UR, the 4 closest to Jerusalem. Eternal hell was never in any early church creed. Hell as a place of Torment was promoted in a large university in North Africa, ran by Tertullian. The concept of eternal torture came from our latin fathers to the largest degree, not our greek fathers...
"The first comparatively complete systematic statement of Christian doctrine ever given to the world was by Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 180, and universal salvation was one of the tenets.
The first complete presentation of Christianity as a system was by Origen (A.D. 220) and universal salvation was explicitly contained in it.
Universal salvation was the prevailing doctrine in Christendom as long as Greek, the language of the New Testament, was the language of Christendom."
I only heard of one university teaching (non torment) are you sure you have your facts straight? One founded by liberals origen and clement. But non others.
You would only call them liberal today, they were the leading church fathers of early Christianity. I was a little off, the first early church that taught ET was in Rome, Africa came a little later..
' The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1908) by Schaff-Herzog says in volume 12, on page 96, "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."
This is common knowlegde among most fathers, even Jerome admitted it was a common teaching of the early church, even though he didn't agree with it.
What we can compare, where latin was use, ET was the larger concept, where greek was used, UR was the larger concept....that should tell us something.
Most studies show that these leaders of these schools were strong believers in UR, their writings prove it....
Also, there were numerous smaller schools that promoted UR...I
now you are saying different things, you are saying that some taught endless torment and others taught universalism. These are not the same. Universalism I can see would be popular, but not annihilationism. Which is the topic of this thread. None of the churches you mention teach annihilationism.
it is safe to say that your quote above has been quote mined to suit your particular purpose.
Isn't 'conditional immortality' the same thing as annihilationism?
At any rate, the OP doesn't mention it one way or the other.
Do you find universalism to be 'better' than annihilationism in some way?
universalism is more easily rebuffed than annihilitionism.
simply by all the verses on repentance to be saved (over a hundred of them in the new testament alone)
There have been many posts in this thread that have supported the exegesis of eternal punishment - in this thread.Is this a blind post? You seem to be disregarding 53 pages of posts wherein your eisegesis of this passage has been thoroughly refuted.
We are told elsewhere in Scripture what the "everlasting punishment" is, and that is death (e.g., Romans 6:23). And death that does not end in resurrection is indeed an everlasting punishment. You are reading into this passage that which is not there and then accusing me of ducking and weaving for not seeing what you have eisegeted into the passage.
I am not the only idiot who believes the Scriptures teach eternal damnation and torment. Here we have the words of a leading exegete of Scripture."Then he shall also speak to those at his left (saying): Depart from me, you accursed ones, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.... This passage describes the punishment of the wicked as consisting of: a. separation ("Depart from me"); b. association ("prepared for the devil and his angels"); c. fire ("into the everlasting fire"), to which may be added d. (see verse 30) darkness ("into the outer darkness").... The wicked will dwell forever with the devil and his angels, for whom the everlasting fire was prepared.... This fire is unquenchable. It devours forever and ever."
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.... Common to the concept 'everlasting' in both of these cases is the idea 'without end.' 'There is going to be an enduring separation. Punishment and life are everlasting. There will be no change' (F. W. Grosheide). Contrary to A.V. -- 'everlasting ... eternal" -- the adjective must be rendered by the same word in both of these balanced and co-ordinate clauses; hence, either 'eternal ... eternal' or 'everlasting ... everlasting.' ... Mark 9:48, 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched'; Rev. 14:11, 'the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever.' Note also the sixfold 'no molre at all' of Rev. 18:21-23."
"And as to aionios [Hendrikson gives this using the Greek letters, TNT], if we limit the duration of the punishment, then why not also that of the life? But this hardly anyone wishes to do. Also, though it is true that aionios [Greek letters in original] may indicate either 'without beginning' ... or 'without end' ... or both ..., this does not help us in the present context, which, as has been shown, must be interpreted in the light of parallel passages, and therefore means 'without end." (William Hendriksen. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1973. Pages 889-892).
I don't know that universalism necessarily precludes repentance, though unitarian universalism might.
oh yes it does, how can all be saved if the wicked are excluded?
1 Cor 6:9 King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
I found the context of the quote Armistead put up (in case you wanted to see the context):New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. XII: Trench - Zwingli - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
(I couldn't find one in an easier-to-read format, sorry.)
But while I was searching for that, I found something pretty cool. I found a theologian who has something to say that I haven't heard before!
Karl Barth (excerpt from Universalism a Historical Survey by Richard Bauckham pp. 52, 53)
"Barth refashioned the Reformed doctrine of predestination by making it fully Christological. It is Jesus Christ who is both rejected and elected. The rejection which sinful man deserves, God has taken upon Himself in Jesus Christ, and in Jesus Christ all men are elected to salvation. He is therefore in the true sense the only rejected one. Predestination thus becomes not an equivocal doctrine of God's Yes and No, but a fully evangelical doctrine of mood's unqualified Yes to man. The reality of man - of all men - is that in Jesus Christ the reconciliation of all men has taken place. The Gospel brings to men the knowledge of what is already true of them: that in Jesus Christ they are already elect, justified, reconciled.
It might be thought that this line of thought logically entails universalism, much as Schleiermacher's doctrine of universal election did, but Barth refuses to follow this logic. There remains an irresolvable tension between the election of all men in Jesus Christ and the phenomenon of unbelief. The unbeliever's true reality is that he is elect, but he denies that reality and attempts to change it, to be instead the rejected man. In this perverse attempt (it is no more than an attempt) he lives under the threat of final condemnation, which would be God's acquiescence in its refusal to be the reconciled man he really is.
Will this threat be carried out? Barth does not here appeal to man's freedom to continue in unbelief: he is committed to the sovereignty of God's grace. The reason why universal salvation cannot be dogmatically expected lies in God's Freedom: 'To the man who persistently tries to change the truth into untruth, God does not owe eternal patience and therefore deliverance.... We should be denying or disarming that evil attempt and our own participation in it if, in relation to ourselves or others or all men, we were to permit ourselves to postulate a withdrawal of that threat end in this sense expect or maintain an apokalastasis or universal reconciliation as the goal and end of all things.... Even though theological consistency might seem to lead our thoughts and utterances most clearly in this direction, we must not arrogate to ourselves that which can be given and received only as a free gift.' But universal salvation remains an open possibility for which we may hope."
Fascinating... Has anyone here read Barth at all?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?