The Early Church Fathers Did Not Believe In Universal Salvation (protestants, bishop)
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.
The important thing to realize here, IMO, is not the stories, the myths and the many gods that existed prior to the bible being written, but what the bible complete, as a book has to reveal.
The bible has from the front cover to the back cover the complete picture of God's dealings with mankind.
It identifies four distinct points in the creation of the mankind, and addresses them as an individual cycle, meaning, each one of us must go through if we are inhabiting the flesh.
It shows our : 1. Our/the creation of the world and of mankind, 2. It shows the fall of mankind and the curse on the world, 3. it shows the judgment because of the fall and 4. the final end of the first, or death as fulfillment of the judgment.
Tell me of any other mythology, any other established gods, that give the individual individuality as gods, tries them and then goes about to save them from their own inability to save themselves?
The bible is complete, though written by many authors, yet the message deemed necessary to convey the existence of a God, the creator, sustain-er and Savior of its own creation, is hidden amongst its words.
It is given for those to believe by faith alone the words heard about God the revelator, of Gods creation, and salvation of His creation Jesus Christ.
If we are to understand the soul that was saved, was Jesus!
By saving Jesus, all mankind is saved as Jesus.
That is why all mankind is saved in Jesus, for only was His soul redemed by the Father as per verse: Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
The word soul is singular here, but within that soul is all of humanity.
I've asked a Christian Universalist friend of mine this question and he wasn't sure. I'm just curious how it would look. IF, and I'll give you an "IF", Paul wanted to describe an eternal hell, instead of "aionios", what Greek word should he have used?
I've asked a Christian Universalist friend of mine this question and he wasn't sure. I'm just curious how it would look. IF, and I'll give you an "IF", Paul wanted to describe an eternal hell, instead of "aionios", what Greek word should he have used?
The same words used by the pharisees when they referred to everlasting death or everlasting torture ... I will list a few of them bellow ...
After all before Paul was converted, he was a member of the Sanhedrin, and a pharisee ... If he believed in the doctrine of everlasting torment, he would have used the words that the pharisees used in order to refer to it ... Of course he never did, nor did Christ or any other personage of the new testament.
The purpose of starting this thread was to show that contrary to the claims of the universalists, eternal condemnation was not a teaching that originated hundreds of years after the beginning of the church, but rather was taught from the very beginning of the church. This has been done. What I will now show is that it is universalism that began later.
First however, I will make it clear that the apostolic church leaders (I won't call them fathers anymore, as it implies Catholicism, which although it contains many heresies of its own, is nevertheless correct about the Biblical teaching of 'hell'), taught the Biblical truth concerning the eternal disposition of the lost in the lake of fire. The apostolic church leaders are those who were contemporaries of the Apostles. They lived in the same time frame as the Apostles and were at least in some cases, disciples of the Apostles.
For instance, Polycarp (roughly 69-155 A.D) was a disciple of the Apostle John. The same John who wrote in John 3:18. ''He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.'' And also John 3:36. ''He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.'' This truth did not originate from the mind of John, but was communicated to him by the Holy Spirit. The absolute truth concerning the fact that the unbeliever goes into the eternal lake of fire, was communicated to John, and to the other Apostles, directly by God the Holy Spirit. Polycarp taught the same thing. Other church leaders that were contemporaries with the Apostles were Barnabas (1st. century); Clement of Rome (97?-140 A.D.); Papias (80-155 A.D.); Ignatius (35-116? A.D.). None of these church leaders deviated from the Biblical teaching of eternal condemnation.
Irenaeus (130-200 A.D.) was a disciple of Polycarp and also adhered to the teachings of the Apostles. Heresies were making inroads into Christianity and Irenaeus accused the heretics of corrupting the Scriptures. His major work was 'Against Heretics' (c.185).
One of the heresies that was flourishing in this time frame was Gnosticism. This was a philosophical system built on Greek philosophy. Universalism has some roots in this philosophy.
It was in the 3rd century, that Origen, who was a student of Clement of Alexandria, began to write clearly about universalism and began promoting it. Origen was heavily influenced in his beliefs by the Greek philosophy of Platonism. The final unity of all things with God is a concept that belongs to Platonism. Origen tried to bring this concept over into Christianity. But this is a completely unscriptural concept. In 543 A.D. universalism was condemned by a counsel at Constantinople. The heresy of universalism was discredited, and the correct Biblical teaching concerning the eternal torment of the lake of fire prevailed for centuries.
But Satanic attempts to distort the Word of God are ceaseless, and universalism has resurfaced and has gained many followers. This is in accordance with what is taught in 1 Timothy 4:1 ''But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.''
Universalists ignore the numerous Scriptural passages that declare the need to believe in Christ in order to be saved, and they base their erroneous beliefs on a misunderstanding of passages such as Acts 3:21; Rom. 5:18-19; Eph. 1:9-10; 1 Cor. 15:22, and others.
Universalism makes an appeal to the emotion and to the attribute of God's love, while ignoring the Justice of God, and superimposing human notions of justice on God.
The entire Bible speaks of the need to believe in Christ for salvation. And as Second Clement 8:4,5 says, ''So also let us, while we are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil things which we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have yet time for repentance. After we have gone out of the world, no further power of confession or repenting will belong to us.''
As it says in Hebrews 9:27 ''And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.''
Mike, it's very interesting that you should mention and agree with Iranaeus's position on heresy. Here's my favorite and arguably the most profound thing Iranaeus stated:
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Mike, you say Iranaeus adhered to the teachings of the apostles and YET, you deny Christ's Church. Iranaeus was obviously a proponent of Peter and Rome's supremecy on matters of faith as demonstrated by his writings above. You may claim that the Church went wrong later, but then you would have to deny Jesus and his statement that gates of hell would not prevent against His Church. Look's like you have a conundrum.
Mike, it's very interesting that you should mention and agree with Iranaeus's position on heresy. Here's my favorite and arguably the most profound thing Iranaeus stated:
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Mike, you say Iranaeus adhered to the teachings of the apostles and YET, you deny Christ's Church. Iranaeus was obviously a proponent of Peter and Rome's supremecy on matters of faith as demonstrated by his writings above. You may claim that the Church went wrong later, but then you would have to deny Jesus and his statement that gates of hell would not prevent against His Church. Look's like you have a conundrum.
To the contrary.
First, without having gone back to see my exact words, I said that Iranaeus did not teach universalism.
Second, the organization known as the Roman Catholic church is not Christ's church. It is not the true church. Neither is any other organization. Christ's church is not an organization, but rather is a living organism. The true church is composed of every person who, during the dispensation of the church, has placed his faith in Christ for salvation. 2 Corinthians 5:17 'Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away;behold new things have come.'
The true church is called the body of Christ and is composed of both Jew and Gentile, who as a part of the living organism that is the church, is seen by God as neither Jew or Gentile, but rather as church, a new creation. Galatians 3:28 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The organization known as the Roman Catholic church has some things correct, such as the triune nature of God and the existence of hell. But like other organizations and denominations, it teaches many things that are contrary to the word of God. And it tried to usurp all authority for itself. Further, the Roman Catholic church has as its traditions, many things that came out of the ancient Babylonian religion. The Roman Catholic church is full of false doctrines and teachings that can be easily researched by anyone who desires to do so, and need not be gone into here.
Again. The true church is not any organization, but is a new creation which is composed of all church-age believers. Anyone who has simply placed his faith in Christ for salvation, and not tried to add works to his faith as being neccessary for salvation (in other words, salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone), is a part of the true church.
First, without having gone back to see my exact words, I said that Iranaeus did not teach universalism.
Second, the organization known as the Roman Catholic church is not Christ's church. It is not the true church. Neither is any other organization. Christ's church is not an organization, but rather is a living organism. The true church is composed of every person who, during the dispensation of the church, has placed his faith in Christ for salvation. 2 Corinthians 5:17 'Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away;behold new things have come.'
The true church is called the body of Christ and is composed of both Jew and Gentile, who as a part of the living organism that is the church, is seen by God as neither Jew or Gentile, but rather as church, a new creation. Galatians 3:28 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The organization known as the Roman Catholic church has some things correct, such as the triune nature of God and the existence of hell. But like other organizations and denominations, it teaches many things that are contrary to the word of God. And it tried to usurp all authority for itself. Further, the Roman Catholic church has as its traditions, many things that came out of the ancient Babylonian religion. The Roman Catholic church is full of false doctrines and teachings that can be easily researched by anyone who desires to do so, and need not be gone into here.
Again. The true church is not any organization, but is a new creation which is composed of all church-age believers. Anyone who has simply placed his faith in Christ for salvation, and not tried to add works to his faith as being neccessary for salvation (in other words, salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone), is a part of the true church.
I never said that if you believe in Christ and are not a Catholic, you are going to hell. However, you argue that the universalists are leading people to hell by teaching folks a false sense of security. I have to assume universalists believe in Christ but you admit they may be leading peopole to hell which could mean THEY could be going to hell. So you have to admit just believing in Christ may not be enough.
Having said that, you say that Iranaeus adhered to the apostles teaching and believed. Since the Bible says that the CHURCH and not the Bible is the pillar and foundation of Truth and that the Church that Iranaeus believed was ONLY church with the Authority to make the call and that Jesus created ONE CHURCH. And that ONE church began with Peter in Rome as pronounced by Jesus, then how could you go anywhere else? You say you believe in Christ but don't even go to the Church He started. Seems a little wishy-woshy to me.
How can you say you agree with Iranaeus? Iranaeus didn't believe you just believe in Christ and after that you can do or believe in anything you want. He believed in a single Church of Christ followers who were lead by folks in Rome taught by Christ and His Apostles. He obviously wrote about the dangers of going against the doctrines of the Church in Rome. Iranaeus didn't believe in an all encompassing group of folks who proclaim that Jesus is Lord. I recommend not using Iranaeus as a source because you two could hardly disagree more. You can bet that Iranaeus thought the Church was an organization.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Notice the word that is bold. Still think Iranaeus isn't talking about an organization. You say that you believe that the Church is just a group of Church-Age believers. Have you noticed that Christians are not singing Kumbayah around the campfire. Why the existence of this thread if you thought we agree? Why did Jesus create an "organization"? So someone could be in charge and determine what is true and what is not. You're personal opinion on what is true and false or what universalists think is true is completely irrelevant to Truth which is absolute and timeless and can only ultimately be decided by Christ's Church under Christ's protection of falsehood. It's really that simple. Anything else is a man, a Bible, and an opinion. That and a dollar can get you a Coke.
Claims are made by those who espouse the heresy of universal salvation, that the doctrine of eternal condemnation was not taught in the early church, but that it was a belief that arose later, with the Catholic Church. This is not true.
The early church fathers are categorized as: the apostolic fathers; the ante-Nicene church fathers; and the post-Nicene church fathers.
The apostolic church fathers were those who were contemporaries of the Apostles and carried on the teaching of the Apostles. These church leaders taught eternal condemnation in the lake of fire, long before the establishment of the Catholic church. Following are some quotations from some of the writings of some of early church fathers, and afterwards, some links for further information will be provided. I have only used quotations from no later than than about 189 A.D.
It should be pointed out that what matters is what the Bible teaches about the eternal lake of fire. Not what the church at any time in history says about it. But as it turns out, the early church is in agreement with the Bible.
(Exact dates may be subject to debate, but are close.)
Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1-2, [110 A.D.]) ''Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire, and so will anyone who listens to him.
Clement of Rome (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D.150]) ''If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest, but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment.''
(Second Clement 8:4) ''So also let us, while we are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil things which we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have yet time for repentance.''
(Second Clement 8:5) ''After we have gone out of the world, no further power of confessing or repenting will belong to us.'' (In other words, Clement is saying that you must make the decision to believe in Christ while you are alive on this earth.)
Justin Martyr (First Apology 12 [150 A.D]) ''No more is it possible for the evil doer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of Fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments.''
Justin Martyr (First Apology of Justin, Chap. VIII [150 A.D.]) ''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. And if anyone say that this is incredible or impossible, this error of ours is one which concerns ourselves only, and no other person, so long as you cannot convict us of any harm.'' (Justin is clear in stating that the punishment is eternal and not for a temporary amount of time.)
Justin Martyr (First Apology of Justin, Chap. XXVIII [150 A.D.]) ''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.''
Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies, 4:28:2 [189 A.D]) ''The penalty increases for those who do not believe the word of God and despise his coming. It is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomever the Lor shall say,'Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,'' they will be damned forever.'' (Notice the reference to Matthew 25:41)
I have used only a few of the early church leaders as evidence of the early churches teaching of eternal condemnation. There are more, such as; Polycarp (155 A.D.); Athenagoras (177 A.D.); Theophilus of Antioch (181 A.D.); Mathetes (160 A.D.)
What Did the Early Christians Believe About Hell? (http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/what_Did_the_Early_Christians_Believe_About_Hell - broken link)
The claims of universalists that the Catholic church originated the teaching of eternal condemnation are shown to be false. From the beginning of the church, eternal condemnation was taught in accordance with the Word of God, as shown by the very quotations of the church fathers themselves.
Understand this. Universal reconciliation is NOT universal salvation. Christ died for all, but many will reject the offer of salvation. Reconciliation simply means that Christ died for every single sin that will ever be commited in the human race. He paid the penalty for every last sin that will ever be committed. That means that sin is not an issue in aqquiring salvation, and sin is not an issue in maintaining salvation. But where the barrier of sin once stood between God and man, there is now an open door to salvation through which whosoever may walk through faith in Christ. God requires a volitional decision to believe in Christ as the condition for salvation. And as mentioned by Clement of Rome, (refer to the above quotation), that decision must be made this side of death.
Hello Mike555,
I apologize that I haven't read the whole thread, but I would also like to comment on your initial statement about this subject. Didn't Clement of Alexandria, a ealry father that most universalists lean on for support from, espouse eternal desturction/punishment? I am not at my home study now, but once I am able, I will bring up a few areas of his work that contradict universalism. Until then....thanks for your considerations.
Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire"
Polycarp 5:3
In like manner also the younger men must be blameless in all things, caring for purity before everything and curbing themselves from every
evil. For it is a good thing to refrain from lusts in the world, for every lust warreth against the Spirit, and neither whoremongers nor effeminate persons nor defilers of themselves with men shall inherit the kingdom of God, neither they that do untoward things. Wherefore it is right to abstain from all these things, submittingyourselves to the presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ. The virgins must walk in a blameless and pure conscience.
Polycarp 6:2
If then we entreat the Lord that He would forgive us, we also ought to forgive: for we are before the eyes of our Lord and God, and we must all stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, and each man must give an account of himself.
And he confirms the Lord returned:
Polycarp 6:3
Let us therefore so serve Him with fear and all reverence, as He himself gave commandment and the Apostles who preached the Gospel to us and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of our Lord; being zealous as touching that which is good, abstaining from offenses and from the false brethren and from them that bear the name of the Lord in hypocrisy, who lead foolish men astray.
Polycarp 7:1
For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of Satan.
Polycarp 8:1
Let us therefore without ceasing hold fast by our hope and by the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ who took up our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes He endured all things, that we might live in Him.
sciotamicks,
It is very important, as you have provided, that Polycarp, was as close to John as we could ever get, who indeed supported eternal punishment.
Thank you for your thoughts on the matter.
I never said that if you believe in Christ and are not a Catholic, you are going to hell. However, you argue that the universalists are leading people to hell by teaching folks a false sense of security. I have to assume universalists believe in Christ but you admit they may be leading peopole to hell which could mean THEY could be going to hell. So you have to admit just believing in Christ may not be enough.
No. Some universalists may be saved. Many of them are not. It depends on whether they understood the issue of salvation before turning away from the truth. Once a person is saved they cannot lose their salvation. Many universalists don't believe that Jesus Christ is God. They therefore have a false object for their faith-a false Jesus, and therefore, those people are not saved. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. Anything that a person adds to faith in the belief that what has been added is necessary for salvation means that that person hasn't placed his trust on Christ alone for salvation and so is not saved.
Quote:
Having said that, you say that Iranaeus adhered to the apostles teaching and believed. Since the Bible says that the CHURCH and not the Bible is the pillar and foundation of Truth and that the Church that Iranaeus believed was ONLY church with the Authority to make the call and that Jesus created ONE CHURCH. And that ONE church began with Peter in Rome as pronounced by Jesus, then how could you go anywhere else? You say you believe in Christ but don't even go to the Church He started. Seems a little wishy-woshy to me.
I went back and saw that on post 75, I did say that Irenaeus adhered to the teachings of the Apostles. When I started this thread it for the purpose of showing that the early church leaders did not teach universalism. That was all that I was looking at. Irenaeus did not teach Universalism. I did not focus on whatever else he taught. According to the following website, there seems to be some doubt as to how Catholic Iranaeus was. I only glanced at it so...
The Catholic church was not started by Peter. And he was not the first pope.
Quote:
How can you say you agree with Iranaeus?
Iranaeus didn't believe you just believe in Christ and after that you can do or believe in anything you want. He believed in a single Church of Christ followers who were lead by folks in Rome taught by Christ and His Apostles. He obviously wrote about the dangers of going against the doctrines of the Church in Rome. Iranaeus didn't believe in an all encompassing group of folks who proclaim that Jesus is Lord. I recommend not using Iranaeus as a source because you two could hardly disagree more. You can bet that Iranaeus thought the Church was an organization. [/quote]
Again, I mentioned Iranaeus with regard to the fact that he did not teach universalism. Whatever else he taught is a different issue and which I did not focus on when I started this thread.
[/quote] 2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Notice the word that is bold. Still think Iranaeus isn't talking about an organization. You say that you believe that the Church is just a group of Church-Age believers. Have you noticed that Christians are not singing Kumbayah around the campfire. Why the existence of this thread if you thought we agree? Why did Jesus create an "organization"? So someone could be in charge and determine what is true and what is not. You're personal opinion on what is true and false or what universalists think is true is completely irrelevant to Truth which is absolute and timeless and can only ultimately be decided by Christ's Church under Christ's protection of falsehood. It's really that simple. Anything else is a man, a Bible, and an opinion. That and a dollar can get you a Coke.[/quote]
Again. The Catholic church is an organization. It is not the true church. I have already given Scripture that shows this to be true. The true church is composed of everyone in the church-age who has placed their faith in Christ for salvation.
Just so it is absolutely clear to you, the Roman Catholic church is an apostate organization and is not the true church anymore than any other organization or denomination. And if Iraneaus taught that the Roman Catholic church was the true church, then he was wrong.
There is no authority other than Christ over the church. Each local church, as opposed to the true church-the body of Christ, has as its authority, the pastor. There is no such thing Biblically speaking, as a pope.
Now, I have made the issue clear. I have explained my statements about Iraneaus, and I have made it clear what the Roman Catholic church is and is not.
This is as far as I am going to go on this. Final comment.
I apologize that I haven't read the whole thread, but I would also like to comment on your initial statement about this subject. Didn't Clement of Alexandria, a ealry father that most universalists lean on for support from, espouse eternal desturction/punishment? I am not at my home study now, but once I am able, I will bring up a few areas of his work that contradict universalism. Until then....thanks for your considerations.
Hi JerimiahJohnson;
Actually, there were two different Clements. Clement of Rome and Clement of Alexandria. It was Clement of Rome that taught the reality of eternal condemnation. Clement of Alexandria taught the false doctrine of Universalism.
Refer back to post number 18.
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.
