Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not an English speaker trying to translate Greek . I am an English speaker accepting what the original Greek speaking fathers taught about Christianity and universal reconciliation.
You are free to continue in your puny corrupted Catholic version if you wish .
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
Well you have two things wrong in your post .
One , I'm not claiming the Greeks have it WRONG , I am claiming the Greek fathers that spoke Greek as their native language AND understood the intentions of the words relative to Christianity had it RIGHT . And their position, as shown by my quotes , was that those not reconciled in this life will be reconciled through corrective suffering after death . Any issues you have with that puts you at odds not with me, but with the early church fathers .
You fail to realize (or acknowledge) that the Greek speaking early Church fathers had different beliefs. Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165); Irenaeus (?- c. A.D. 202); and Tertullian (c. A.D. 155-240) all spoke Greek, and all believed in eternal punishment.
Justin Martyr:
''For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold.''
THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN, CHAPTER XXVIII
''And Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.''
THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN, CHAPTER CHAPTER VIII
''And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.''
THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN CHAPTER XXI
Justin Martyr equates everlasting punishment with unending duration.
Irenaeus:
thus also the punishment of those who do not believe the Word of God, and despise His advent, and are turned away backwards, is increased; being not merely temporal, but rendered also eternal. For to whomsoever the Lord shall say, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire," these shall be damned for ever; and to whomsoever He shall say, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you for eternity,"
Against Heresies, Book 4 chap. 28, sect. 2
The punishment is not merely temporal, but is eternal. The damned or damned for as long as the blessed are blessed.
Tertullian:
''as being about at the end of all to adjudge His worshippers to everlasting life, and the wicked to the doom of fire at once without ending and without break, raising up again all the dead from the beginning, reforming and renewing them with the object of awarding either recompense.''
Tertullian, Apology. Chap. XVIII
The punishment for the wicked is unending, as opposed to the everlasting life of His worshippers.
It was already pointed out to you in post #140 that Universalism was NOT the dominant belief of the second century church. I will repost the proof which you chose to dismiss.
Against Heresies Book One.
Chapter X.-Unity of the Faith of the Church Throughout the Whole World.
1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: . . . and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses," and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.
Irenaeus says that the church was unified in its belief in a number of different doctrines, one of which was that the unrighteous went into everlasting fire in contrast with the righteous who went into everlasting glory.
No, the Bible does not teach Universalism. Again, it teaches a contrast between those who have eternal life, and those who will not see life.
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
It's plain, straight forward language in both Greek and English.
And it has been pointed out to YOU as well that MANY in the early church , and according to one adherent of eternal torment , MOST of the early church , believed in universal reconciliation . Those admissions are from YOUR side of the argument , admitting to the widespread belief in UR . Not one thing you post changes this fact . I on the other hand admit that some accept eternal torment , including no doubt some Greeks . But your own side admits they were NOT the majority view of the early church as a whole . Deal with it . It's not propaganda from the UT side, it's an honest admission from the eternal torment side .
As to quoting Tertullian, well , he also believed in no forgiveness after salvation if I remember correctly . And Augustine believed and taught that babies were torment eternally in Hell . So your fathers are just a bunch of loving Christians who seem to move from one error to another, yet together these two are consider the fathers of the Latin church .
I have said it before and I will say it again. You do not accept all the Bible . You ignore and explain away scripture that can only mean universal reconciliation ( Col 1:15-20, 1 Tim 4:10, as well as others ) because the Catholic version is too ingrained in your psyche . And so you limit Gods power and majesty , as in your view all of his efforts will still result in most of humanity suffering eternally in a Hell God tried to save them from , but couldn't . The universalists who follow the Greek fathers who properly taught ALL of what the Bible says on salvation and reconciliation , on the other hand, accept ALL of the Bible without an endless litany of " but,but, but " when faced with scriptures they don't like , and believe in a God so majestic, so powerful, so loving, and so forgiving that even Satan himself will eventually be reconciled to God .
Your version is just so puny in comparison .
Last edited by wallflash; 04-09-2016 at 11:39 PM..
Clearly you misunderstand Christian Universalism. There is no robotics involved. We are all free to learn and choose what we will believe and do, but that learning and choosing will not end with our death. We simply have to learn and develop enough to be viable when born as a baby Spirit upon our physical death - just like any physical baby in a mother's womb. This physical existence is our spiritual womb and it will be cast off when we are born as Spirit - jut as the physical placenta is. That is why carnal thinking and acting is discouraged and spiritual development is encouraged.
Clearly you have not talked to many people. I know folks that know who God is and know who His Son is and still want nothing to do with them. They would rather be dead forever than live under their rule. What you are not taking unto account are those who's choice is to rebel. Sadly my own younger sister has told me that she doesn't want to live forever and wants to die.
So what do you have to those that knowingly choose death and are ready to rebel again and even kill other faithful people no matter what they learn? If people are not allowed to make such a choice then it's a robot time? Will they be forced?
You fail to realize (or acknowledge) that the Greek speaking early Church fathers had different beliefs. Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165); Irenaeus (?- c. A.D. 202); and Tertullian (c. A.D. 155-240) all spoke Greek, and all believed in eternal punishment.
Justin Martyr:
''For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold.''
THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN, CHAPTER XXVIII
''And Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.''
THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN, CHAPTER CHAPTER VIII
''And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.''
THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN CHAPTER XXI
Justin Martyr equates everlasting punishment with unending duration.
Irenaeus:
thus also the punishment of those who do not believe the Word of God, and despise His advent, and are turned away backwards, is increased; being not merely temporal, but rendered also eternal. For to whomsoever the Lord shall say, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire," these shall be damned for ever; and to whomsoever He shall say, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you for eternity,"
Against Heresies, Book 4 chap. 28, sect. 2
The punishment is not merely temporal, but is eternal. The damned or damned for as long as the blessed are blessed.
Tertullian:
''as being about at the end of all to adjudge His worshippers to everlasting life, and the wicked to the doom of fire at once without ending and without break, raising up again all the dead from the beginning, reforming and renewing them with the object of awarding either recompense.''
Tertullian, Apology. Chap. XVIII
The punishment for the wicked is unending, as opposed to the everlasting life of His worshippers.
It was already pointed out to you in post #140 that Universalism was NOT the dominant belief of the second century church. I will repost the proof which you chose to dismiss.
Against Heresies Book One.
Chapter X.-Unity of the Faith of the Church Throughout the Whole World.
1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: . . . and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses," and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.
Irenaeus says that the church was unified in its belief in a number of different doctrines, one of which was that the unrighteous went into everlasting fire in contrast with the righteous who went into everlasting glory.
No, the Bible does not teach Universalism. Again, it teaches a contrast between those who have eternal life, and those who will not see life.
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
It's plain, straight forward language in both Greek and English.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
And it has been pointed out to YOU as well that MANY in the early church , and according to one adherent of eternal torment , MOST of the early church , believed in universal reconciliation . Those admissions are from YOUR side of the argument , admitting to the widespread belief in UR . Not one thing you post changes this fact . I on the other hand admit that some accept eternal torment , including no doubt some Greeks . But your own side admits they were NOT the majority view of the early church as a whole . Deal with it . It's not propaganda from the UT side, it's an honest admission from the eternal torment side .
As to quoting Tertullian, well , he also believed in no forgiveness after salvation if I remember correctly . And Augustine believed and taught that babies were torment eternally in Hell . So your fathers are just a bunch of loving Christians who seem to move from one error to another, yet together these two are consider the fathers of the Latin church .
I have said it before and I will say it again. You do not accept all the Bible . You ignore and explain away scripture that can only mean universal reconciliation ( Col 1:15-20, 1 Tim 4:10, as well as others ) because the Catholic version is too ingrained in your psyche . And so you limit Gods power and majesty , as in your view all of his efforts will still result in most of humanity suffering eternally in a Hell God tried to save them from , but couldn't . The universalists who follow the Greek fathers who properly taught ALL of what the Bible says on salvation and reconciliation , on the other hand, accept ALL of the Bible without an endless litany of " but,but, but " when faced with scriptures they don't like , and believe in a God so majestic, so powerful, so loving, and so forgiving that even Satan himself will eventually be reconciled to God .
Your version is just so puny in comparison .
Your claim basically is that the church fathers, knowing and understanding the Greek language understood the Bible to be teaching Universalism. That claim has been shown to be false since it has been shown that there were Greek speaking church fathers who understood the Bible to be teaching eternal punishment. I quoted three such early church fathers.
You keep refusing to address the fact that you are taking quotes from the church fathers of the 4th-5th centuries and are trying to superimpose them on the earlier 2nd century church which as has been shown held to the apostolic teaching of eternal punishment.
There are no passages in the Bible which teach that all men will be saved. That includes Col. 1:15-20.
Colossians 1:20, pertaining to reconciliation reads;
Col. 1:20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
You have to understand what reconciliation means. When Adam sinned it not only had spiritual consequences, but also physical consequences. All of creation was cursed as a result. Paul speaks of this curse in Romans 8:20. Just as Adam's sin had both spiritual and physical consequences, so also, Jesus' redemptive work on the cross has both a spiritual and a physical effect. Colossians 1:20, in referring to ''all things'' has both the spiritual and physical aspects in view. All things, both in spiritual and physical sense are reconciled to the Father through the blood of Christ with reference to His redemptive work on the cross in which He paid the penalty for our sins. As a result of Jesus' work on the cross, the physical curse which resulted from sin will be lifted when Jesus returns and sets up His kingdom on the earth and there will be perfect (or actually, near perfect environment on the earth in the kingdom. I say near perfect because mortal men (as opposed to resurrected humanity) will still have an old sin nature.
But as for the spiritual aspect of reconciliation, there is both an objective and a subjective aspect to it
Objectively, reconciliation occurred at the cross when as a result of Jesus having paid the penalty for man's sins, the barrier of sin was removed, and the enmity between man and God was put to death. Reconciliation means that there is peace between man and God. Man has been reconciled to God though the work of Christ on the Cross.
But the fact that Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of all mankind does not mean that all men are saved, or that all men will be saved. There is still a subjective aspect of reconciliation in which the work of Christ is applied to an individual when he personally trusts in Christ Jesus for salvation. This is why Paul made an appeal to those who needed to, to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20).
In other words, the work of Jesus on the cross, made salvation possible for all mankind, but only those individuals who trust in Christ Jesus are actually saved. It is stated over and over in the New Testament scriptures that in order to be saved, you must believe on Jesus. And not everyone will.
As for 1 Timothy 4:10 where God is said to be the Savior of all men, especially of believers, yes, God is the Savior of all men because Jesus died for all men, having paid the penalty of sin for all men. However, the fact that the penalty of sin has been paid by Jesus doesn't automatically save anyone. The fact that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins simply means that sin is no longer the issue. Instead, the issue is whether or not a person will place his faith in Jesus in order to have eternal life. This is stated rather plainly in John 3:16 which says;
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
This of course means that the opposite is also true in that whoever does not believe in Him will perish and not have eternal life. In other words, anyone who departs this life without placing his faith in Jesus will spend the eternal future in separation from God in that place called the lake of fire, whatever the actual nature of that place is.
It is not those who accept the fact that the Bible teaches eternal punishment who seek to limit God, but rather those who believe in Universalism have a limited view of God since they over emphasize the love of God while deemphasizing His righteousness and justice.
Your claim basically is that the church fathers, knowing and understanding the Greek language understood the Bible to be teaching Universalism. That claim has been shown to be false since it has been shown that there were Greek speaking church fathers who understood the Bible to be teaching eternal punishment. I quoted three such early church fathers.
If it were eternal, then the word Aidios would have been used without beginning or end. However, it is not a reference to that which is Eternal (aidios), having no beginning or end. The words endless torment (adialeipton timorion) or eternal imprisonment (aidios eirgmos) and eternal punishment (aidios kalasin) do not appear anywhere in the Greek New Testament, at least not in conjunction. Therefore, whoever says that there is an eternal (aidios) time set for punishment (kalasin) beyond this life is sadly mistaken. It's a limited duration of aionion (an age) kalasin (punishment - chastisement or correction) which is in view; but the day and hour that it begins and ends is unpredictable. If it were eternal, then the word Aidios would have been used. But not even Jesus used the word for eternal in conjunction with punishment.
1 Timothy 2:4
... who desires all people to be saved and come to full knowledge of [the] truth.
It's an active, ongoing result of a previous action.
And in the ongoing result of that action; desires (wants, wills) all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. The action is indicative. Nowhere is it subjunctive, or that of being contingent or probable, nor imperative on the subjects response. Neither is it Optative, as in being unlikely or wishful thinking - that men might come to this salvation and knowledge.
You should investigate that which will be destroyed; it's not the man himself.
My claim about the Greek Fathers supporting universalism is what it is, simply showing that universalism was taught by the early church , specifically on the side that understood the Greek better as their native language . Some Greeks choosing to follow the Latin side for whatever reason does not alter that . Nor does it alter the fact that there were 6 schools of theology in the early church around the Christian world, and 4 of them taught universalism . Or the fact that even the two most ardent eternal torment apologists admitted the UR belief was the most common belief and understanding of the Bible .
You are simply someone raised in the error of eternal torment that can't let go of it for proper and original doctrine . It goes against what you were taught, probably seems " liberal" to you , and so you reject automatically and out of hand any and all evidence contrary to your belief . Good for you. But your mistaken belief doesn't alter the facts about universalism in the early church . Sorry .
As to your reinterpretation of Col and 1 Tim, it is as I said . Eternal torment folks can't leave scripture as scripture .
" God reconciled all men? Um, well no, you see , you have to look at it this way. He didn't REALLY mean ALL men , just some ".
But the Bible says ALL men will be reconciled .
"Yeah, well....no. I mean , yeah, it SEEMS to say that, if you just read the words as written , but ..."
Well what do you mean ....but?
" Well, um , well it just can't mean that, because we don't believe that . So you have to understand other things as well".
But the Bible says Christ is the Savior of ALL men, but especially of those who believe in him now .
" Well, he CAN be if they believe in him, but..."
There's that but again. You keep putting buts in the Bible where there are none . The BIble says he IS . Only the UR side takes all the Bible without but, but, but. it doesn't say can be, it says IS.
"Well, um , since we don't believe in UR, these verses just HAVE to mean something other than what they appear to mean at first reading".
So you admit the Bible DOES actually read that way ?
"Well yeah, but .."
Sorry, no more buts . Your side can't take the Bible literally as it reads, you must alter and explain away clear verses because your theology disagrees with them .
" Well yeah bu..., sorry , ...except.... if we don't then the Bible says things we don't accept . So these verses must be explained to fit our belief system."
And those that believe what it says without further explanation to alter it to their preconceived theology are wrong ?
" Well of course . We are right , so if you don't understand it our way , then you are wrong ".
Even if our way allows the Bible to say what it says without explanation?
"Yes "
Like I have said numerous times , you cannot let the Bible say what it says, and your version is puny compared to the grand and majestic version of the UR side . But the UR view does not limit God in his justice in any way . God is capable of allowing corrective punishment and suffering for as long as it is deemed necessary . Nothing about UR limits this . It just sees God as capable of overcoming anything Satan has done, ultimately restoring everything to Himself , including Satan . Your version just isnt quite capable of fixing all the problem, but must leave uncountable numbers suffering in an eternal Hell because of what Satan did to Gods original plan .
Last edited by wallflash; 04-10-2016 at 10:21 AM..
Your claim basically is that the church fathers, knowing and understanding the Greek language understood the Bible to be teaching Universalism. That claim has been shown to be false since it has been shown that there were Greek speaking church fathers who understood the Bible to be teaching eternal punishment. I quoted three such early church fathers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
If it were eternal, then the word Aidios would have been used without beginning or end. However, it is not a reference to that which is Eternal (aidios), having no beginning or end. The words endless torment (adialeipton timorion) or eternal imprisonment (aidios eirgmos) and eternal punishment (aidios kalasin) do not appear anywhere in the Greek New Testament, at least not in conjunction. Therefore, whoever says that there is an eternal (aidios) time set for punishment (kalasin) beyond this life is sadly mistaken. It's a limited duration of aionion (an age) kalasin (punishment - chastisement or correction) which is in view; but the day and hour that it begins and ends is unpredictable. If it were eternal, then the word Aidios would have been used. But not even Jesus used the word for eternal in conjunction with punishment.
I call that problematic?
And yet, I just quoted three Greek speaking early church fathers who understood the punishment of the wicked to be endless, without end, and therefore, eternal. The Bible makes a clear distinction between the eternally saved and the eternally lost.
Using your argument, eternal life doesn't mean eternal because Jesus didn't use the word aidios when He spoke of the righteous having eternal life as for example in Matthew 25:46. He used the word ζωὴν αἰώνιον - life eternal, unending. As in;
John 10:28 and I give eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον)to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
In other words, Jesus used the word aiónios for unending life. ''They will never perish.'' It is therefore an invalid argument to claim that aiónios cannot refer to unending punishment.
My claim about the Greek Fathers supporting universalism is what it is, simply showing that universalism was taught by the early church , specifically on the side that understood the Greek better as their native language . Some Greeks choosing to follow the Latin side for whatever reason does not alter that . Nor does it alter the fact that there were 6 schools of theology in the early church around the Christian world, and 4 of them taught universalism . Or the fact that even the two most ardent eternal torment apologists admitted the UR belief was the most common belief and understanding of the Bible .
You are simply someone raised in the error of eternal torment that can't let go of it for proper and original doctrine . It goes against what you were taught, probably seems " liberal" to you , and so you reject automatically and out of hand any and all evidence contrary to your belief . Good for you. But your mistaken belief doesn't alter the facts about universalism in the early church . Sorry .
As to your reinterpretation of Col and 1 Tim, it is as I said . Eternal torment folks can't leave scripture as scripture .
" God reconciled all men? Um, well no, you see , you have to look at it this way. He didn't REALLY mean ALL men , just some ".
But the Bible says ALL men will be reconciled .
"Yeah, well....no. I mean , yeah, it SEEMS to say that, if you just read the words as written , but ..."
Well what do you mean ....but?
" Well, um , well it just can't mean that, because we don't believe that . So you have to understand other things as well".
But the Bible says Christ is the Savior of ALL men, but especially of those who believe in him now .
" Well, he CAN be if they believe in him, but..."
There's that but again. You keep putting buts in the Bible where there are none . The BIble says he IS . Only the UR side takes all the Bible without but, but, but. it doesn't say can be, it says IS.
"Well, um , since we don't believe in UR, these verses just HAVE to mean something other than what they appear to mean at first reading".
So you admit the Bible DOES actually read that way ?
"Well yeah, but .."
Sorry, no more buts . Your side can't take the Bible literally as it reads, you must alter and explain away clear verses because your theology disagrees with them .
" Well yeah bu..., sorry , ...except.... if we don't then the Bible says things we don't accept . So these verses must be explained to fit our belief system."
And those that believe what it says without further explanation to alter it to their preconceived theology are wrong ?
" Well of course . We are right , so if you don't understand it our way , then you are wrong ".
Even if our way allows the Bible to say what it says without explanation?
"Yes "
Like I have said numerous times , you cannot let the Bible say what it says, and your version is puny compared to the grand and majestic version of the UR side .
This is what it always and finally comes down to with you people. You can't defend your argument and so you end up resorting to comments and accusations like the above.
You have been shown that the Bible teaches eternal punishment. And you have been shown that Greek speaking early church fathers (they understood Greek) believed in eternal punishment which renders your argument that the early church fathers who knew Greek understood the Bible to be teaching Universalism, invalid.
This is what it always and finally comes down to with you people. You can't defend your argument and so you end up resorting to comments and accusations like the above.
You have been shown that the Bible teaches eternal punishment. And you have been shown that Greek speaking early church fathers (they understood Greek) believed in eternal punishment which renders your argument that the early church fathers who knew Greek understood the Bible to be teaching Universalism, invalid.
We have been shown no such thing. Your opinion seems to be that if any Greek fathers believed in eternal torment , that none believed in UR . You have been shown otherwise . You have been shown numerous Greek fathers taught UR . You have been shown that most schools of theology in early Christianity taught UR . You have been shown that even eternal torment adherents admit the majority of Christians believed in UR . You have been shown that the Latins that created the belief in eternal torment through mistranslation fell into other errors as well like no forgiveness after salvation and unbaptized babies burning in Hell . You have been shown that your view cannot leave scriptures in the Bible as is but must explain them away to fit your preconceived theology. You have been shown that UR is not a new liberal heresy but an ancient teaching of the church .
In short, you have failed at every claim you make .You simply choose to stick your fingers in your ears, shout la la la can't hear you, and ignore everything presented to you . Jerwade showed your claims about the Greek to be in error . I have quoted numerous Greek fathers that plainly taught universalism . I have shown how you must alter scripture to maintain your belief .
Your view is too puny , but thankfully in error .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
