Why are we subjected to the tired old false claims that eternal punishment originated with Augustine? The earliest Christians believed it:
I think it's fair to say Augustine was the theologian most responsible for institutionalizing it within the Papacy system who controlled the bible for a millineum.
No Promise of Eternal Life!
Re: No Promise of Eternal Life!
Hi Steve7150,
IMO what Augustine or Origen said regarding the matter is irrelevant to discovering the truth. If the earliest Christians believed in eternal punishment we must ask where they got the idea. I don't think they were depending on translations - they knew what the words meant.
IMO what Augustine or Origen said regarding the matter is irrelevant to discovering the truth. If the earliest Christians believed in eternal punishment we must ask where they got the idea. I don't think they were depending on translations - they knew what the words meant.
Re: No Promise of Eternal Life!
Homer,
I have enjoyed reading your many posts - particularly this one:
I came to this site originally based on some comments Steve Gregg posted in his bio at http://www.thenarrowpath.com regarding the three primary views of hell (Trad, CI, UR) and his questioning of the so-called "traditional" view. This intrigued me. I had never heard of the CI or UR perspectives and decided that perhaps my beliefs about hell should be subjected to scriptural scrutiny.
I must say that - after having spent a couple months perusing this site and reading my Bible to study this topic - I have come to a similar conclusion as yours: namely, it may not be possible to determine whether the annihilationist or a traditional view is correct, but a universalist position is by far the most poorly supported by scripture. In this regard, I would probably depart a bit from Steve Gregg who feels that CI and UR positions are both stronger than the traditional position. I'm not sure I entirely agree. Rather, the UR position stikes me as based almost entirely on an appeal to God's character as they want it to be - rather than as scripture fully discloses it - and a particular bias is taken into the scriptures rather than extracted from them.
Like you, I am far from being a Calvinist (see my comments at http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 304#p44180), but find Calvinist arguments to be much more closely tethered to scriptural citations than Universalist arguments which tend to be mostly an emotive appeal linked with an almost "secret" understanding of passages that would otherwise seem to be very plain and straightforward.
Frankly, I am having great difficulty understanding how someone - unguided - could come to the universalist position based solely on a reading of the scriptures. It seems to me that one would have to be taught to arrive at universalist conclusions rather than naturally arriving at such conclusions by simply picking up the Bible and reading it. The same cannot be said of the traditional perspective.
I have enjoyed reading your many posts - particularly this one:
I could not agree more, nor say it more succinctly.am not a Jonathan Edwards "hell-fire" fan, and am not sure there is enough data to determine whether conditional imortality or a more traditional view is correct.
As I have said before, the universalist position is one of the poorest supported doctrines I have come across. It appears to me to be little more than philosophical ideas, with a few ambiguous scriptures, and a lot of wishful thinking. I am far from being a Calvinist, but their arguments are much stronger than the universalists IMO.
I came to this site originally based on some comments Steve Gregg posted in his bio at http://www.thenarrowpath.com regarding the three primary views of hell (Trad, CI, UR) and his questioning of the so-called "traditional" view. This intrigued me. I had never heard of the CI or UR perspectives and decided that perhaps my beliefs about hell should be subjected to scriptural scrutiny.
I must say that - after having spent a couple months perusing this site and reading my Bible to study this topic - I have come to a similar conclusion as yours: namely, it may not be possible to determine whether the annihilationist or a traditional view is correct, but a universalist position is by far the most poorly supported by scripture. In this regard, I would probably depart a bit from Steve Gregg who feels that CI and UR positions are both stronger than the traditional position. I'm not sure I entirely agree. Rather, the UR position stikes me as based almost entirely on an appeal to God's character as they want it to be - rather than as scripture fully discloses it - and a particular bias is taken into the scriptures rather than extracted from them.
Like you, I am far from being a Calvinist (see my comments at http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 304#p44180), but find Calvinist arguments to be much more closely tethered to scriptural citations than Universalist arguments which tend to be mostly an emotive appeal linked with an almost "secret" understanding of passages that would otherwise seem to be very plain and straightforward.
Frankly, I am having great difficulty understanding how someone - unguided - could come to the universalist position based solely on a reading of the scriptures. It seems to me that one would have to be taught to arrive at universalist conclusions rather than naturally arriving at such conclusions by simply picking up the Bible and reading it. The same cannot be said of the traditional perspective.
Re: No Promise of Eternal Life!
IMO what Augustine or Origen said regarding the matter is irrelevant to discovering the truth. If the earliest Christians believed in eternal punishment we must ask where they got the idea. I don't think they were depending on translations - they knew what the words meant.
Hi Homer & Nevada Dad,
I previoulsy listed some early Christians who did believe in UR plus i suggest going back earlier then these Christians you listed Homer. Go back to Paul , he never mentioned eternal hell, go back to Acts, it's never mentioned. It's almost unthinkable to not mention this if this is the fate of 95% of humanity.
In fact go back to the OT prophets where Jesus quoted most for his references to "hell" from, not a single jewish biblical scholar saw an eternal hell in those hebrew words, but when translated into greek the pagan gentiles imported this pagan concept into their meanings.
BTW Paul who was jewish and knew the gospels through Luke did reference the restoration of all things many times and in 1st Cor 15 which is the consummation of the ages IMO he clearly says evil is destroyed which would have to include hell but never said a single word about eternal hell.
Hi Homer & Nevada Dad,
I previoulsy listed some early Christians who did believe in UR plus i suggest going back earlier then these Christians you listed Homer. Go back to Paul , he never mentioned eternal hell, go back to Acts, it's never mentioned. It's almost unthinkable to not mention this if this is the fate of 95% of humanity.
In fact go back to the OT prophets where Jesus quoted most for his references to "hell" from, not a single jewish biblical scholar saw an eternal hell in those hebrew words, but when translated into greek the pagan gentiles imported this pagan concept into their meanings.
BTW Paul who was jewish and knew the gospels through Luke did reference the restoration of all things many times and in 1st Cor 15 which is the consummation of the ages IMO he clearly says evil is destroyed which would have to include hell but never said a single word about eternal hell.
Re: No Promise of Eternal Life!
NevadaDad,NevadaDad wrote:I came to this site originally based on some comments Steve Gregg posted in his bio at http://www.thenarrowpath.com regarding the three primary views of hell (Trad, CI, UR) and his questioning of the so-called "traditional" view. This intrigued me. I had never heard of the CI or UR perspectives and decided that perhaps my beliefs about hell should be subjected to scriptural scrutiny.
You may want to consider spending some time on the forum at http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com. There are folks at that site who present the standard UR view which you might find more convincing than the Ultra-universalist view that I hold. Go there and challenge some of those folks with your objections.
Todd
Re: No Promise of Eternal Life!
Hi Todd,
Would I understand a component of your view to be that a man gets exactly what he deserves in this life, not less not more?
I probably don`t need to remind you, but there are some devastating counter-examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DStwXsmZ3OE
Would I understand a component of your view to be that a man gets exactly what he deserves in this life, not less not more?
I probably don`t need to remind you, but there are some devastating counter-examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DStwXsmZ3OE
Re: No Promise of Eternal Life!
Ian,Ian wrote:Hi Todd,
Would I understand a component of your view to be that a man gets exactly what he deserves in this life, not less not more?
I probably don`t need to remind you, but there are some devastating counter-examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DStwXsmZ3OE
No. The Bible does teach that everyone reaps what he sows, but there are also many times that good people suffer hardship as a result of someone else's sin, or even an act of nature.
Todd