>One (1) mention of Hell being never-ending torment in Matthew.

>One (1) mention of Hell being never-ending torment in Matthew.
>Even in this context the word for punishment suggests remedial chastisement not retribution and the word taken for never-ending is open to question.
>Only other possible references to everlasting punishment in Hell are sandwiched in deeply metaphorical language in Revelation.
>Meanwhile, language suggesting that all shall eventually be reconciled (perhaps after punishment in Hell) can be found in all four Gospels, very strongly in I John and many of St. Paul's letters, and it is also suggested in Peter's and Hebrews, and in parts of Revelation too.
>Somehow all the other versus need to be interpreted such that babies are under constant threat of eternal punishment or at least eternal estrangement.

Also, all the Catholic evidence for Purgatory is far more straightforwardly taken as Hell simply not lasting forever. This doesn't mean there isn't Hell, it means the idea of everlasting punishment doesn't make sense morally and is not supported by the weight of Scripture.

>Why did God let it get taken so wrong?
Why did God allow the Reformation of East-West schism? Why does he order the deaths of Isaac and the Canaanites knowing they won't be carried out? Providence is only comprehensible in terms of the whole.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Even in this context the word for punishment suggests remedial chastisement not retribution and the word taken for never-ending is open to question.

    universalist anon, you've already been corrected on this point

    the word you're referring to denotes a penal penalty, and is used in LXX to identify a death sentence for breaking the law

    the actual word for chastisement is used by Pilate when he wants to release Jesus, a completely different word related to teaching

    >suggesting that all shall eventually be reconciled
    Literally in two different gospels that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit won't ever be forgiven.

    You'll literally never get around that one, it's the critical flaw that dooms your entire soteriology.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      see

      [...]

      >κόλασιν means chastisement
      That would be παιδεύω.

      Luke 23:16 - I will therefore chastise him, and release him.

      >t. Pilate

      κόλασιν relates to a penal punishment due to guilt, for example the death penalty. That is the sense in which it is used in LXX.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ok, so "never" here means never, but "all" in many more places actually means "some?" Even when John goes out of his way to say "and not just you (Christians) but the entire cosmos?" And when Paul says all were vessels of wrath so that all could be vessels of mercy what he really means is all in the first case but some in the second?

      You've focused on obviously the weakest part to the exclusions of the others. The universalist language is JUST as strong but appears far more often. So why does "all" in all those instances instead mean some?

      Why does "God is love," actually mean "God is implacable, unfathomable hate for most, including infants," as Calvin allows?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the word taken for never-ending

      it's literally the same used to speak of eternal life

      Are you suggesting that life in Christ is somehow not everlasting? I doubt it.
      Then don't suggest the same word used to talk about death somehow means something different, that's special pleading.

      You've addressed only half the problem. The other half is explaining why all the universalist language doesn't actually mean what is seemingly obviously means.

      IMO, they are clearly contradictory, and I don't think it makes sense to pick based on the sheer number of statements as

      https://i.imgur.com/mDKmHsZ.jpeg

      >One (1) mention of Hell being never-ending torment in Matthew.
      >Even in this context the word for punishment suggests remedial chastisement not retribution and the word taken for never-ending is open to question.
      >Only other possible references to everlasting punishment in Hell are sandwiched in deeply metaphorical language in Revelation.
      >Meanwhile, language suggesting that all shall eventually be reconciled (perhaps after punishment in Hell) can be found in all four Gospels, very strongly in I John and many of St. Paul's letters, and it is also suggested in Peter's and Hebrews, and in parts of Revelation too.
      >Somehow all the other versus need to be interpreted such that babies are under constant threat of eternal punishment or at least eternal estrangement.

      Also, all the Catholic evidence for Purgatory is far more straightforwardly taken as Hell simply not lasting forever. This doesn't mean there isn't Hell, it means the idea of everlasting punishment doesn't make sense morally and is not supported by the weight of Scripture.

      >Why did God let it get taken so wrong?
      Why did God allow the Reformation of East-West schism? Why does he order the deaths of Isaac and the Canaanites knowing they won't be carried out? Providence is only comprehensible in terms of the whole.

      suggest, although I will allow that universalist statements are more numerous.

      The same issue exists with "faith alone" versus "judgement by works." There are statements that clearly, ambiguously suggest both (although references to judgement on works are far more numerous.)

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the word taken for never-ending

      it's literally the same used to speak of eternal life

      Are you suggesting that life in Christ is somehow not everlasting? I doubt it.
      Then don't suggest the same word used to talk about death somehow means something different, that's special pleading.

      I Corinthians 15:22-28
      >For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

      The infernalist reading requires that the second all, which is the same word, πάντες, either mean something different or that the entire doctrine of how death and Original Sin enter the world be rewritten.

      Matthew 18:14
      >So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

      Is taken to mean, "but God damns all unbaptized infants and aborted babies to eternal torment."

      Luke 2:10
      >And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people

      And by all is meant, "for the elect, for everyone else it is confirmation that they were created for eternal torment."

      Luke 3:5-6
      >Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall become straight, and the rough places shall become level ways, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

      Translation: some, perhaps a very little flesh shall see salvation. A great deal of the world will never be recovered.

      Romans 5:18
      >Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

      "All" must become "some," or even "a tiny minority" here.

      Romans 11:32
      >For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

      Romans 14:11
      >“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”

      Means every soul will repent but apparently they will be tormented anyhow.

      2 Corinthians 5:14-15
      >For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Revelation 21:5
        >And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

        All things will be remade in God's final triumph... except some people are excluded under "all."

        1 John 2:2
        >He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

        This means the opposite of what it straightforwardly says.

        I Peter 4:6
        >For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.

        Holy Scripture has a grammatical mistake that heavily implied that the Gospel is preached to those already dead for repentance but really it means "those who heard the Gospel who were alive but have now died." St. Peter just didn't say that because he wanted to save ink.

        Hebrews 2:9
        >But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

        παντὸς always means all/every, but it definetly means "some" here.

        Etc. There are about 4 potential eternal torment lines. There are like 50 universalist lines that seem just as unambiguous.

        Notably, in the East, where people spoke the language of the OT fluently, infernalism never took hold the same way and several Church Fathers rejected it. It was in the West, using translations, that infernalism develops.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And the OT

          Psalm 30:5
          >For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning.

          Psalm 65:2
          >O you who hear prayer, to you shall all flesh come.

          Isaiah 19:21-22
          >And the Lord will make himself known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians will know the Lord in that day and worship with sacrifice and offering, and they will make vows to the Lord and perform them. And the Lord will strike Egypt, striking and healing, and they will return to the Lord, and he will listen to their pleas for mercy and heal them.

          Isaiah 25:6-8
          >On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the Lord has spoken.

          Isaiah 45:22-23
          >"Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’

          Micah 7:18-19
          >Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love. He will again have compassion on us; he will tread our iniquities underfoot. You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.

          Etc., etc.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Revelation

          And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

          And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

          And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

          And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

          And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

          He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

          The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

          Psalm 69

          27 Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness.

          28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.

          >He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

          This means the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient for the forgiveness of ALL sins, not that it is universally effacacious for all. For his sacrifice to be effacious, you need to repent freely. Jesus isn't going to force you to be with him forever, far from it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >was cast into the lake of fire.
            to be purified, a temporary measure, perhaps inspired of zoroastrianism or inspiring it
            >And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth
            as those things must first be purified
            >and not be written with the righteous
            so clearly there is differentiation, and reward for those that lived Christian lives, but not necessarily permanent irreconciliation

            Furthermore the fact that there can be any doubt whatsoever as to what exactly is necessary for one to not suffer eternal damnation is absurd.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a temporary measure

            dude having your name struck from the Book of Life doesn't sound temporary to me
            it sounds like the second death

            >as those things must first be purified
            And where in scripture do you find support for this idea?

            >the fact that there can be any doubt whatsoever as to what exactly is necessary for one to not suffer eternal damnation is absurd

            It's not a math problem or a simple formulae. The things God decides sometimes seem absurd to us, because our perception is limited. Like Sarah, who laughed at the seemingly absurd idea that she would be bear child in advanced age.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the second death

            Which of course means "torture forever and ever," not annihilation, and certainly not punishment that doesn't last forever, because that is very very clear here...

            Notably, "everlasting punishment" used in Matthew 25 was an idiom final/fatal punishment. But it Latin it became more explicitly "eternal torment." This is why the parts of the Church that could actually read the Scriptures natively did not fall into infernalism.

            And again, why would the end of Revelation even bother mentioning the healing of the nations or their continued existence, or people coming into the New Jerusalem from the outside, or their need to cleanse themselves if, by your account, the preceding section 100% denotes: "at this point all judged evil are sent forever to eternal torment, no exceptions."

            Quite a strange thing to write if the preceding passage was meant this way.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"everlasting punishment" used in Matthew 25 was an idiom final/fatal punishment

            the word translated as "everlasting" is αἰώνιον
            it's the same word that is translated as eternal, life eternal with Christ in the very same verse

            Do you believe in a many worlds rebirth schema like Origen too? At least then your soteriology would be consistent with your cosmology. It's the only possible way to square universalism with scripture.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The infernalist also has the problem of explaining how, like Purgatory, their doctrine has no evidence in the earliest eras of the Church or explaining why several major Fathers seem to reject it (St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus the Confessor, etc.). They must also explain how it fits in with Original Sin, a doctrine based on Augustine's poor Greek, which seems to make infant eternal torment and the eternal torment of most of humanity the work of the "God of love."

            Finally, they must explain why God teaches us to "love our enemies" and to forgive everyone. If we forgive someone, we want what is best for them. But eternal torment can never be what is best for anyone. Anything to the contrary is ridiculous.

            And pulling out "God's goodness has total equivocity to man's goodness and God's love and mercy mean eternal torment," is basically throwing theology out the window and standing on blind belief in doctrine, doctrine which is clearly historically contingent.

            Do you not know what an idiom is? When you hear "the microwave is taking forever to make my food," do you assume the person is saying "my food is taking an infinite amount of time to cook?" Or when someone says the bus is "taking forever," does this denote the bus will still not have arrived in quadrillions of years?

            And when an atheist talks about someone going to "eternal sleep," do you think they mean they think the person is snoozing forever?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you not know what an idiom is?

            dude eternal life is just an exaggeration, Jesus is just yanking your chain
            lmao

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If you use the word forever you must always use it univocaly to mean "an infinite duration."

            Ok, so please explain why all the universalist and annhilationist quotes above must be using their key words in ways radically differently.

            Because according to you, the frequent use of "all" really means "some." And some promises of "all" or "the whole entire world" being saved are also just "yanking your chain."

            And explain how "second death," implies "actually, you will live forever, it will just be torturous."

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you're the one saying eternal life with Christ isn't actually eternal, but just a very long time

            You wouldn't have to go through these mental gymnastics if you just admitted you think a many worlds rebirth model ala Origen Adamant is how this actually works.

            >some promises of "all" or "the whole entire world" being saved are also just "yanking your chain."

            I already explained that Jesus' sacrifice was enough to save all men, that he died for all men. But Jesus himself said that very few will find him the narrow door that leads to life.

            I think it's funny to see you getting worked up over how one verse is definitely hyperbolic, then turn around and say this other one means literally everyone is saved already and it is completely literal and not hyperbolic at all. It's special pleading, you're picking and choosing verses and rationalizing everything else.

            Moreover, you still ignore the cardinal sin. Until you address why blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world or the next I'm done repeating myself, as you talk in circles.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Matthew 5:25-26

        >Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

        Of course, infernalist will claim that here Christ has suddenly deviated from the Sermon on the Mounts' spiritual message in order to offer advice about temporal legal affairs, not to say anything about spiritual punishment.

        Catholics get it more right, as they often use this to point to Purgatory, but Purgatory is basically grounded by using all the same Scripture that universalists use to show punishment is not unending, but then breaking it off weirdly into some third category never mentioned anywhere and not recognized by the early Church.

        Of course, outside of just "eternal Hell" and "Hell followed by universal reconciliation" there is also the idea that the damned cease to exist: annhilationism.

        Universalists have a great many passages to point to that seem unambiguous:

        Revelation 21:5
        >And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

        All things will be remade in God's final triumph... except some people are excluded under "all."

        1 John 2:2
        >He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

        This means the opposite of what it straightforwardly says.

        I Peter 4:6
        >For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.

        Holy Scripture has a grammatical mistake that heavily implied that the Gospel is preached to those already dead for repentance but really it means "those who heard the Gospel who were alive but have now died." St. Peter just didn't say that because he wanted to save ink.

        Hebrews 2:9
        >But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

        παντὸς always means all/every, but it definetly means "some" here.

        Etc. There are about 4 potential eternal torment lines. There are like 50 universalist lines that seem just as unambiguous.

        Notably, in the East, where people spoke the language of the OT fluently, infernalism never took hold the same way and several Church Fathers rejected it. It was in the West, using translations, that infernalism develops.

        And the OT

        Psalm 30:5
        >For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning.

        Psalm 65:2
        >O you who hear prayer, to you shall all flesh come.

        Isaiah 19:21-22
        >And the Lord will make himself known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians will know the Lord in that day and worship with sacrifice and offering, and they will make vows to the Lord and perform them. And the Lord will strike Egypt, striking and healing, and they will return to the Lord, and he will listen to their pleas for mercy and heal them.

        Isaiah 25:6-8
        >On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the Lord has spoken.

        Isaiah 45:22-23
        >"Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’

        Micah 7:18-19
        >Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love. He will again have compassion on us; he will tread our iniquities underfoot. You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.

        Etc., etc.

        Annhilationists have a decent number of passages they can point too, and our infernalist friends have helpfully already shared many of them and pretended that they support infernalism, e.g. "second death," could mean "being dead again, forever," as opposed to strangely meaning "living eternal life, but a very unpleasant one."

        Infernalists have... Matthew 25, and the in Matthew 18 and Jude "eternal flame" is at least mentioned.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >in order to offer advice about temporal legal affairs

          that is exactly what he's doing
          there's a very good reason why Anabaptists refuse to litigate, they take this advice to stay far away from courts very literally

          what this means is that you need to settle your disputes with your neighbor outside of court, because the enemy of all righteousness is going to use that profane authority to persecute you

          Christians are supposed to exercise forbearance in legal matters.

          40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

          the Sermon on the Mount is filled with practical advice that his audience would be able to understand and put into practice

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the word taken for never-ending

    it's literally the same used to speak of eternal life

    Are you suggesting that life in Christ is somehow not everlasting? I doubt it.
    Then don't suggest the same word used to talk about death somehow means something different, that's special pleading.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, I'm suggesting that the Bible very often is hyperbolic and that people pick and choose between contradictory statements. Sure, it can be taken as "everlasting" but "all" can just as "all."

      For example, in Dt. God when God says to kill "all the Canaanites" in various regions, this is said in respect to some peoples to have been "accomplished," and yet we see those peoples alive later. Why? Because "utterly destroy" can also be a hyperbolic turn of phrase.

      Calvinists point to Roman's quotation of Psalm 14 for total depravity. But Psalm 14 says "there is none who are good," and yet refers to the righteous just below that. Which is it? Does none mean none and the reference to "the righteous is an empty set?" This is picking and choosing.

      Except eternal hell is pick and choosing for a view where God is evil, which is in itself, sinful.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People who misinterpret the Holy Bible to suit their tastes will go straight to Hell.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So that's basically everyone then.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that's not our place to judge

      Jesus is the Word of God, and he said that anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man may be forgiven. So it follows that interpreting the bible in the error of confusion is forgivable.

      But lie on the Holy Spirit, oh boy you done fricked up big time. Don't even think about it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, and it is the Word of God just like Jesus is.

          Which means failing to understand it and teaching error is forgivable. In fact it's very common.

          I can quote Pope John Paul II if you want.

          Expressing hope that all men find salvation is not the same as claiming that all men *will* find it.

          Regardless of your misreading of official Catholic documents concerning Apokatastasis, the church does NOT teach that all men are saved. Much the opposite. When Catholics say that salvation is universal, they don't mean that everyone is saved. They mean that salvation is possible for everyone and that Jesus died for everyone, as opposed to Calvinists who maintain that Jesus only died for the elect. This issue among baptists is divides them into the so-called "general" and "particular" camps. Well the general baptists are the ones who got it right.

          If everyone were saved, there would be no reason to confess or partake in the body of Christ. Repentance would be meaningless.

          Apokatastasis properly refers to the restoration of the fallen world to the state it was in before the disobedience of Adam. It's a cosmic concept, relating to the whole of reality not just man.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >no reason to confess or partake in the body of Christ. Repentance would be meaningless.
            1. Hell really ain't fun bud, you DON'T wanna be there, even if it ends at some point.
            2. The Gospel should be motivation enough for one to conform their life to Christ. Repenting and reforming your life solely for a reward is selfish.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Repenting and reforming your life solely for a reward
            cool strawman

            Von Balthasar at least explicitly said it is an open question. The current Pope has implied this.

            The fact that you think Christ would be meaningless without eternal suffering for those who fail to recognize truth in this life is honestly pretty sad. Generally it's Evangelicals who deflate Christianity into entirely the story of a binary rescue from eternal torment. Such theology sidelines metanoia, thesis, etc. and basically makes it all about man's race to save each other from God. It becomes even more dismal with stuff like infant damnation, which I honestly don't even think Augustine believed, he brought it up as a brick to smack the Donatists with because it would imply that most baptized infants "weren't really saved."

            >dude the sacraments sideline theosis
            lmao

            [...]
            You've addressed only half the problem. The other half is explaining why all the universalist language doesn't actually mean what is seemingly obviously means.

            IMO, they are clearly contradictory, and I don't think it makes sense to pick based on the sheer number of statements as [...] suggest, although I will allow that universalist statements are more numerous.

            The same issue exists with "faith alone" versus "judgement by works." There are statements that clearly, ambiguously suggest both (although references to judgement on works are far more numerous.)

            >"faith alone" versus "judgement by works."
            There is no disagreement between faith and works.

            Fidelity means upholding your end of an agreement, it means staying loyal, perfectly recreating an image or word without adulteration. Loyalty and service in this case can be compared to that between a man and his wife. A faithful husband and wife uphold their marital duties to one another. So we see that faith and works are really one.

            Not all works are faithful, although they may appear to be. That's why we can't judge others, and why Jesus will tell some people to depart from him on the last day. Because he never knew them, their works were not of him and were instead iniquity.

            19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

            20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

            21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

            If even some of those who call on him will not be accepted into heaven, how could everyone be?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Von Balthasar at least explicitly said it is an open question. The current Pope has implied this.

            The fact that you think Christ would be meaningless without eternal suffering for those who fail to recognize truth in this life is honestly pretty sad. Generally it's Evangelicals who deflate Christianity into entirely the story of a binary rescue from eternal torment. Such theology sidelines metanoia, thesis, etc. and basically makes it all about man's race to save each other from God. It becomes even more dismal with stuff like infant damnation, which I honestly don't even think Augustine believed, he brought it up as a brick to smack the Donatists with because it would imply that most baptized infants "weren't really saved."

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is why any serious theologian will tell you he'll isn't literal. And why the Popes keep saying it's a metaphor. Most depictions of hell come from Dante's Bible fan fic.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus talks more about hell than heaven.

      You don't have a single "serious" theologian to quote.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I can quote Pope John Paul II if you want.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I can quote Pope John Paul II if you want
          please do.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NTA, but I did see Pope Benedict XVI allude sympathetically to "theologians who see the eternal fire as the purifying embrace of Christ," in a passage that heavily denoted universalism.

            And others like cardinal von Balthasar will circumspectly nod to this sort of thing and suggest we can at least "hope" in it. The current Pope seems to be making nods in similar directions when he speaks of the possibility for salvation for those who lived outside the ambit of the Church.

            To be honest, the more advanced theology I read the more I seem to find little winks to this sort of thing, and a sort of implication that "eternal torment sealed after some arbitrary benchmark is passed regardless of repentance," is really because the laity will misunderstand and think nothing matters if this is the case. That is, eternal torment as a sort of "spiritual milk," for the spiritually weak.

            But to my mind, this milk has long spoiled. If one needs to be goaded towards to Good in terms of extrinsic punishments and rewards, instead of for its own sake, one is not making progress towards the true goal of all rational creatures.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The question is if Hell is everlasting, not if it exists at all. This is a very common strawman, to pretend that universalists deny Hell. They don't. They deny a very loosely supported depiction of Hell.

        A non-eternal Hell is way more supportable than Purgatory.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is eternal. Or at least it feels like it.
    But at some point it ends.
    Those who have experienced thought loops can attest that such a thing is possible, to be eternally trapped and yet somehow at some point to escape.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >deeply metaphorical language
    Tired of religious tards coping with this.
    You don't get to pick and choose what is metaphorical or not. Unless explicitly stated to be metaphorical, you cannot assume it is.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The weird thing is that the classical tradition allows that a free being will always choose the Good, because by definition it is better. A failure to choose the Good must always stem from a defect of will or ignorance. Now, this does not rule out a sort of willful, self-determining ignorance and incontinence for which we might be judged. However, it does suggest that no one who chooses evil ever has perfect culpability.

    Infants and toddlers obviously have extremely limited culpability, if any at all. The same for people with profound mental disabilities or brain injuries. So, the idea that they might share in infinite guilt seems a little ludicrous. They can't even understand language.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Repenting and reforming your life solely for a reward

    I say this is a strawman because I've criticised the protestant doctrine of "assurance" on similar grounds.

    Being certain that you are going to heaven is not only pointless, it's dangerous. It's not something to base your entire theology around, like what Luther did.

    This universalist inclination to extend "assurance" not only to the faithful but instead to literally everyone regardless of what they have done is even more dangerous.

    >yuo are le Calvinist maymay
    >muh babies
    ridiculous

    13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

    14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

    15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

    16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

    This means that Jesus is at liberty to save the unbaptized and those who have never heard of him, taking into consideration how they cleave to or deviate from the dictates of their own God given conscience.

    Don't tell Christ how he's going to judge the world. That's for him to know and you to find out.

    >A great deal of the world will never be recovered.

    13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

    14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    15 beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

    >destruction
    this is not a spicy timeout in the corner with Satan
    it's having your name struck from the Book of Life
    that is extremely serious

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Don't tell Christ how he's going to judge the world. That's for him to know and you to find out.

      Isn't your argument that the Christ 100% has to send people to Hell for all eternity if he sends them there at all.

      >Destruction
      Ok, what about destruction implies "actually, totally existing with your conciousness forever and ever, just while being tormented."

      Again, this doesn't even support infernalism but annhilationism. But the Bible, as has been pointed out, is full of such hyperbole, which often leads to total contradiction if taken literally. Again, does Psalm 14 really reach total depravity? And when it mentions "the righteous" just lines below, what are we to make of "none" who are good just above?

      >Psalm 69
      Says absolutely nothing about eternal Hell. It says no one who has not repented gets salvation. But the vast majority of universalists agree with Hell. The question is not "will people go to Hell, even most people," it is "does Hell last for ever, amounting to torment without end for quadrillions of googleplexs of years?"

      Revelation, the same thing, and you are being selective here. The end of Revelation still has the nations and the kings existing at the end of days when presumably all the saved are in the New Jerusalem. The city's gates are open and there is a tree for the "healing of the nations" AFTER the judged have gone to the Lake of Fire. And people are invited into the City IF they "clean their robes,' but the sorcerers, murders, etc. shall not come in. But not only is the temporal order of this all messed up if the fire is supposed to be eternal, but much of the language seems superfluous.

      Yet again, infernalist continually turn to the straw man though. "Look, they went into the Lake of Fire." Yes, of course, Hell isn't being denied and neither is judgement.

      But of course, Revelation is full of metaphor yet here we must imagine a real fire (or perhaps one filled with ingenious cruelties).

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Isn't your argument that the Christ 100% has to send people to Hell for all eternity if he sends them there at all.

        That's what he said is going to happen though. He knows our doom already.

        >Ok, what about destruction implies "actually, totally existing with your conciousness forever and ever, just while being tormented."

        The wailing and gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness doesn't sound like annihilation to me. IMO annihilation has better support than universalism, except for the part where the smoke of their *torment* will rise forever and ever.

        48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

        8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

        10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

        11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

        46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >IMO annihilation has better support than universalism, except for the part where the smoke of their *torment* will rise forever and ever.
          This idea of smoke rising forever and ever is actually an allusion to Isaiah 34 which uses the same language. It is metaphorical because the land of Edom is not eternally burning with sulfur. The general idea is that the people are being severely punished, but it can be interpreted as eternal conscious torment.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >babies

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >dude if I spam enough verses with the word *all* in them and completely ignore what Jesus says about the cardinal sin then it looks like I'm winning

    this is not how you engage in a discussion

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Annihilationism is a better interpretation of the texts and that is likely what the early church believed including Paul. The israelites always thought that Hell or Sheol was a place where the individual was annihilated (but many thought God would resurrect some).

    Early church writings and ideas indicate that immortality is granted to the individual by God and that Hell is the natural place where the unsaved are destroyed forever. Concepts like torment were included in order to add an element of justice, but this idea that the soul is inherently immortal is more of a Greek philosophical idea than it is a israeli or early church idea. This is especially true amongst early church israelites (including Paul) who almost certainly believed in annihilationism.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think that's quite possibly true. Scripture seems to point in decidedly different directions. Romans 9-11, with the climax at Romans 11, really seems to be St. Paul working his way to universal salvation for the israelites.

      I Peter 4, read in the most straightforward way, seems to allow for repentance after death, although it does not rule out some being annihilated in any explicit sense if they truly refuse to repent.

      I would agree about the early Church in general, although there seems to be great diversity with plenty of universalism, particularly out of Alexandria and in the East. Even by St. Augustine's day he is having to still argue against universalism and seems to imply that it is a major interpretation.

      By contrast, the eternal Hell camp seems to be a minority that only later gains ascendency. I love Augustine, but I think he's the chief culprit in this argument because he uses eternal Hell as a premise to solve a number of doctrinal issues and issues with schismatics, turning a pretty speculative teaching into a lynchpin for a lot of, sadly, politically relevant "policy," which in turn cemented it in the Church.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's either Universalism or Calvinism
    Literally nothing else makes sense. I think a real God would make himself much more clear.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's clearly not Calvinism unless you think God is ultimate, unfathomable evil.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >God is ultimate, unfathomable evil.
        yes.chad.jpg

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >dude it's either this one autistic extreme that doesn't care about free will or this other autistic extreme that also doesn't care about free will

      I am beginning to greatly appreciate the Jesuits for their steadfast defense of metaphysical freedom over centuries now.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        free will is not real

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          freedom is real

          anyone claiming otherwise is trying to slave you

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How does universalism not care about free will?

        It only cuts against "freedom" if you have a modern conception of freedom as pure potency, such that creatures can freely (without ignorance or incontinence) choose and prefer the worse to the better, which is arguably incoherent. Freedom in the classical tradition, as the self-determining, self-actualizing capacity to actualize the Good," implies that no perfectly free entity ever chooses evil. That's part of the ancient argument for universalism. No one fully culpable prefers the worse to the better, to say otherwise is to say the Good is "only good from some perspectives."

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >How does universalism not care about free will?

          because you don't have a choice
          EVERYONE goes to heaven, full stop
          do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars
          you don't get to choose to be with Christ, it's everyone's ultimate fate no matter what
          that's why it's universal

          That just doesn't check out for me.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I would reconsider that. Think what you're saying. You're saying that people would know the glory of God and know God's goodness for trillions of trillions of trillions of years and never ever come to him?

            Or do they never have a chance to know God's glory? If they don't ever get to know God's Goodness, how are they free? They don't even know what they are choosing.

            If they do know it, how can they resist perfect Goodness for trillions of years?

            The universalist position doesn't say "there is no self-determining choice to be with God, God forces salvation on people who don't want it." It is saying, quite reasonably I think, no one who truly fathoms infinite Goodness says: "nah, nope, not for me." Indeed, to even suppose such a thing is possible would be to say that God's Goodness is relative, not absolute. It simply doesn't apply to some.

            But the "eternal torment after a finite time to choose," line seems far more to take away freedom. Every knee bows and ALL acknowledge Christ, but then many are not free to come to him? How is that free? Why is freedom so important for the interval of a human life span now, but completely irrelevant for an infinite period in the future?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >people would know the glory of God and know God's goodness for trillions of trillions of trillions of years and never ever come to him

            Yeah. The amount of "time" that passes is really quite meaningless. Adam knew the goodness and power of God firsthand, he was in the direct presence of divinity and not sullied by death, walked side by side with God in the garden, and *still* he disobeyed him.

            If everyone was always fated to be with Jesus, then nobody ever really enjoyed freedom. Not even God, in that sense.

            You're still not addressing cardinal sin. Jesus used some very strong language when speaking of it, and for good reason. I don't like talking about this with people who don't know what it really means anyways, sometimes it's better to not know. This is one of those cases where knowing what it means is part of the explicit intent behind it. I have a personal rule that restricts me from spelling it out, the farthest I'll go is to tell you that it's sufficiently explained by the immedate context of the verses preceding it.

            >Why is freedom so important
            God clearly thinks it's important, which is why he gave it to us along with the animating power of his own breath.

            >how can they resist
            That question has been the bane of tyrants before.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How does external suffering enhance freedom in a way annihilation doesn't? Why should the second death be reread as eternal but torturous life?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How does external suffering enhance freedom in a way annihilation doesn't?

            I can justify suffering followed by annihilation from the text, and from my own understanding of the cosmological significance of justice.

            To say that evil is essential to things is to:

            A. Claim against all the fathers that evil is not privation.

            B. To claim that God created evil and evil essences, which in turn means God acts to actualize evil.

            True evil involves both the awareness of an act or attitude as evil and willful complicity and participation in it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >No one fully culpable prefers the worse to the better

          Happens all the time.

          Your line of argument entails the implication that under ideal conditions that nobody would deny themselves, that we would always indulge our nature.

          But self denial is an integral part of the Christian calling, they are supposed to overcome.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Your line of argument entails the implication that under ideal conditions that nobody would deny themselves, that we would always indulge our nature.

            >But self denial is an integral part of the Christian calling, they are supposed to overcome.

            No it doesn't . I am using the classical view of freedom that informed all the Church Fathers and Aquinas.

            If what is truly good is the denial of the self, as you say and as I would agree, how can it be that the person who knows this is truly good and is free to act on that knowledge decides to choose evil instead?

            Again, I am not saying incontinence or ignorance don't exist, or that they can't be willful. I am saying that it's incoherent to say "x is absolutely better than y," and also say "but a perfectly free individual who can choose whatever they prefer and who knows this still chooses y anyhow." Why? They certainly wouldn't be choosing it for any rational reason. But then arbitrary action isn't free, else muscle spasms would be the perfection of human freedom.

            Only in the modern era did freedom come to be defined purely in terms of potency and the ability to "choose anything."

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how can it be that the person who knows this is truly good and is free to act on that knowledge decides to choose evil instead

            Because reason isn't the overriding factor. If everyone behaved according to a strict and overriding logic as you describe, they wouldn't be men. They'd be automata.

            Adam knew better than to eat of the fruit. But he did anyways.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >people would know the glory of God and know God's goodness for trillions of trillions of trillions of years and never ever come to him

            Yeah. The amount of "time" that passes is really quite meaningless. Adam knew the goodness and power of God firsthand, he was in the direct presence of divinity and not sullied by death, walked side by side with God in the garden, and *still* he disobeyed him.

            If everyone was always fated to be with Jesus, then nobody ever really enjoyed freedom. Not even God, in that sense.

            You're still not addressing cardinal sin. Jesus used some very strong language when speaking of it, and for good reason. I don't like talking about this with people who don't know what it really means anyways, sometimes it's better to not know. This is one of those cases where knowing what it means is part of the explicit intent behind it. I have a personal rule that restricts me from spelling it out, the farthest I'll go is to tell you that it's sufficiently explained by the immedate context of the verses preceding it.

            >Why is freedom so important
            God clearly thinks it's important, which is why he gave it to us along with the animating power of his own breath.

            >how can they resist
            That question has been the bane of tyrants before.

            You are laboring under a modernist, ultimately incoherent definition of freedom as infinite potency, without reference to act.

            Schindler, of course is probably an infernalist, but that's doctrinal conditioning for you. It doesn't flow from his very good analysis of the Patristics and other philosophers.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nah
            I'm laboring under the idea that God is free.

            And that through his breath, that kind of freedom has been given to Adam, us. The difference between us and God is that we don't have the power to do literally anything, and do not have the wisdom to completely understand the consequences of what is in our power. But by the will of the Lord ofc.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If everyone behaved according to a strict and overriding logic as you describe, they wouldn't be men. They'd be automata.

            So the freedom you're talking about has "nothing to do with reasons?" How is spontaneous action, "for no reason at all," freedom? How is pure arbitrary movement of will "free?"

            I'd argue that were free when we know what we do and why we do it, and that means having reasons for why one acts.

            No doubt, man can have failures of will, incontinence, and man can also be ignorant and so act from falsehoods. However, any conception of freedom as being "acts motivated without any reasons," is incoherent.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >arbitrary
            that is how it appears to you, but God can appear arbitrary or capricious to some too

            nobody would argue that God isn't free to do as he wills

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It's either universalism or the view in which God is evil.
      Doesn't this make the right choice obvious?

      Calvin, for all his feverish intellect, was a moral imbecile. That, or an active, self-conscious servant of Satan.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you will burn in ze lava dimension forever and you will not be happy

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Protestant version is especially weird. The Bible seems pretty explicit that EVERY knee shall bow and all shall acknowledge Christ before they are judged. Now, for saved by faith alone types, this alone would suggest salvation, even if they are suddenly repenting after a savage life.

    So God allows the extreme degenerate reprobate to repent at the last... in this life.

    But when we get to the Judgement it is suddenly: "too late, acknowledging Christ and asking for forgiveness now is too late!"

    And how is this reached? A lot seems to hang on the Book of Life title, but nothing about "Book of Life" really implies "time delimited to just this first life, nothing after counts." And at any rate, all the stuff about judgement based on works in Revelation then gets thrown out the window in "faith alone' anyhow.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Evil is always accidental. Man was not created with an "evil nature." Rather, evil is a privation.

    Evil makes man a "slave to sin." Freedom from the slavery is a sort of perfection

    Evil it ultimately privation and finitude. It has no place in the infinite, "all in all."

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Evil is always accidental.

      That is the literal opposite of evil.

      Evil is always intentional. That's why it's evil, instead of merely incompetent.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        To say that evil is essential to things is to:

        A. Claim against all the fathers that evil is not privation.

        B. To claim that God created evil and evil essences, which in turn means God acts to actualize evil.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They will confess but God will put them in hell anyway because it was too late

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >"Sorry Anon, I get that you are truly repentant and have come to truly understand the Good, but you had to have that realization before you got hit by that bus. Having it no is useless. I would be extinguishing all human freedom and justice if there wasn't an arbitrary point at which repentance only merits maximal, endless suffering."
        >"No repeat after me, all = some and "the whole entire world" = a small part of the world, and "all in all" means "all in some."

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Christ's blood atonement sacrifice of dying proves it's not eternal conscious torment, but death as punishment for sin (and sin is breaking God's moral laws, missing some Papist "mass" is not a sin for example).

    Some people think eternal conscious torment is a good method of scaring sinners toward God, but I think it just makes God seem unjust and keeps more people from coming to him. The Bible plainly says God is merciful, he's definitely more merciful than any man. The difficult texts are one taken from a parable, which aren't meant to be taken literally (people aren't literal wheat and tares, nor is heaven a barn) -- also that parable would show the tares would be burnt up as they wouldn't burn forever, so another parable but one which shows punishment isn't forever-punishing, but forever-destruction. The soul is clearly not immortal, only God is immortal and we can put on immortality through the Lord Jesus Christ alone. The other text claims their worm won't die, if you want to read soul into that, you're free to do what you want, but it clearly doesn't say soul. It was also a doctrine promoted by Rome along with purgatory to sell indulgences or lie that all sins aren't mortal.

    The soul that sins shall die:
    >Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
    >Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
    Wages of sin is death not eternal life in pain, contrasted with the gift of God being eternal life.
    >Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
    Sin is breaking God's moral law:
    >1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Sin is breaking God's moral law
      you added the qualifier 'moral' there. John obviously talks about the 613 commandments forming judaic law israelites are supposed to keep (funnily enough, since John is the most antisemitic of the four).

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >meme posting instead of addressing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit never being forgiven

    That's intellectual dishonesty.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ah, sort of like not a single infernalist ITT addressing any of the very many universalist or annhilationist lines cited.

      I have noticed that no one has actually taken up the challenge of trying to explain why "all," "entire," "whole world," "every," etc. don't mean what they mean. Or why "second death" means "actually, eternal life, but unpleasant." Or why the first death is the unambiguous cut off point for judgement despite nothing of the sort being said anywhere and a good deal said to contravene it (e.g. I Peter 4).

      And of course, the example you pose to deals with a single sin. But which infernalist argue that eternal Hell is only for those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit? I know of none, they all seem to put forth eternal torment for a while range of sins or even a failure to receive the sacraments in one's lifetime.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That meme is dumb, but I have in fact come across a Reformation era argument that "God must damn sinners to Hell even after they acknowledge him at the judgement because to do otherwise would be unjust to Satan who has been promised them according to set terms, and God can never be unjust." Seems to be a particularly grotesque mutation of the worst forms of "ransom" theology, where God is reduced to a plucky hero who must outwit the superior power of Satan.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >not a single infernalist ITT addressing any of the very many universalist or annhilationist lines cited

        This thread is filled with addressals since yesterday, in fact the worst one for you is from an old thread that again you pretend to not be aware of

        see [...]

        >κόλασιν means chastisement
        That would be παιδεύω.

        Luke 23:16 - I will therefore chastise him, and release him.

        >t. Pilate

        κόλασιν relates to a penal punishment due to guilt, for example the death penalty. That is the sense in which it is used in LXX.

        .

        >Even in this context the word for punishment suggests remedial chastisement not retribution and the word taken for never-ending is open to question.
        Nope, and we know this because of the LXX.
        And what do you know, you just ignore it instead of accepting that the word doesn't actually mean chastisement but refers to the death penalty.

        Just like you ignore other things Jesus himself said concerning forgiveness. Namely, how blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. You ignore this because that single verse completely defeats universalism alone.

        In my experience, some secular Unitarians have a bad habit of being insufferable and irreverant. It seems like you're one of those.

        >deals with a single sin
        So it should be trivially easy for to explain why Jesus acktually meant he would forgive it when he said he wouldn't.

        That is, if it weren't completely incoherent.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It should be trivially easy to explain why all means some and "entire world" means "some" and "death" means "everlasting life but unpleasant."

          You steadfastly refuse to take these up because they require twisting yourself into pretzels, like Augustine who would have it that Paul uses the word all to reference 4 different sets of people in the space of a paragraph (while giving no indication of this whatsoever).

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hart's arguments are generally good but he has some serious flaws. He makes very much of the fact that we couldn't see our loved one's suffering in Hell and still be completely happy without us being somehow radically changed to the point that it is no longer "us" who are saved, but just some bare anonymous intellect.

    Fair enough, but this seems to hold from the absolute monster who is sent to Hell for some long duration and eventually redeemed. It seems that virtually nothing of the BTK killer, etc. would be left by the time purification was over. Their personality would be burnt away until what remained is stripped of at least most of what they were.

    That said, this is not so much a problem as a good thing in my view, since it makes sense of much of the annhilationist language. For the person who becomes fully steeped in sin, the moral monster, essentially all of their essence must be consumed by the fire and destroyed.

    We are very accustomed to thinking of this question in a strict binary, but Christ himself and Paul both suggest that there will be those who, despite being saved, will be saved as one from a fire, having lost everything.

    Yet to the extent we progress in illumination and theosis, we require less purification, and are more prepared to enter the Kingdom.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >we couldn't see our loved one's suffering in Hell and still be completely happy without us being somehow radically changed

      being radically changed is a sign of conversion and experience of the numinous

      35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

      36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

      37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

      38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

      39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

      40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

    32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the many worlds rebirth schema would be tempting to consider
    if God had not already created for us the best of all possible worlds

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *