If you cannot love an eternal torment god --- the first 500 years after Christ

[rodgertutt]

For the first 500 years after Christ, universalism was the prevailing doctrine believed and taught by the Christian church.
These online books also explain why and how this changed.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/how_hell_became_eternal_vincent.htm
http://www.thetencommandmentsministry.us/ministry/free_bible/whence_eternity
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/time/Time_13.html
http://www.gtft.org/Library/miscellaneous/ChurchFathers.htm  
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/OriginandHistory.html
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/DoctrineOfRetribution.htm
 
Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years

The author, J.W. Hanson wrote “The purpose of this book is to present the evidence of the prevalence in the early centuries of the Christian church, of the doctrine of the final holiness of all mankind. The author believes that the following pages show that Universal Restitution was the faith of the early Christians for at least the First Five Hundred Years of the Christian era. He has aimed to present irrefragable proofs that the doctrine of Universal Salvation was the prevalent sentiment of the primitive Christian church.

The salient statements and facts in all which will be found in these pages show that the most and ablest of the early fathers found the deliverance of all mankind from sin and sorrow specifically revealed in the Christian Scriptures.” And they were reading the Bible in its original language.

TRACING UNIVERSALIST THOUGHT THROUGH CHURCH HISTORY
Well known Christian church leaders who believed and taught Biblical universalism.
Including a separate list of famous people embracing Christian universalism.
http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/Universalists.html  

THE WRITINGS OF DOZENS OF TEACHERS OF CHRISTIAN BIBLICAL UNIVERSALISM

GOD’S TRUTH LIBRARY
http://www.gtft.org/Library/index1.html

IN THE GARDEN
http://www.gtft.org/InTheGarden/index.html

A TREASURE HOUSE OF CHRISTIAN BIBLICAL UNIVERSALISM ARTICLES
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/articles2.html

Up until now, after reading this post, many believers in eternal torment have said something like, “I truly sympathize with your sufferings, but it’s what the Bible says that matters, not whether or not it makes you suffer.” That’s why I want to say right at the outset that many of the links posted here show that a correctly (literally, not interpretively) translated Bible actually teaches universal salvation, not eternal torment, or even annihilation.

I’m 71 years old. The idea that God lets anyone suffer forever has caused me more suffering, including a twelve year nervous breakdown 1966-78, than all the other sufferings of my life combined.
 
This suffering was caused by the fear produced by not being able to love a god who would let anyone suffer forever and wondering what this god would do to me for not being able to love him. Even though I was and am trusting for my salvation in what Jesus accomplished by His death and resurrection, through the power in the blood of His cross, I was, and still am unable to love a god who would let anyone suffer forever. Here are testimonies similar to mine.
 
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/hells_fruit.html  

http://greater-emmanuel.org/Hope4You/consequences.html    
 
If you are like me and cannot love a god who would let anyone suffer forever, you can copy and paste (if necessary) the following urls into the address bar and find out that a literally (not interpretively) translated Bible actually teaches universal salvation, not even annihilation.

Copy and paste into Google
THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD SERIES
If necessary, copy and paste the following urls into the address bar.
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/circularity.htm  
 
At the top and bottom of that same THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD page, there is the following link to fourteen other writings in the same series that deal with the many aspects of this same subject.
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/index.htm

[rodgertutt]

CHURCH LEADERS WHO BELIEVED AND TAUGHT UNIVERSALISM DURING THE EARLIEST CENTURIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

1.   THE SIBYLLINE ORACLES – 150 A.D. – composed by universalist writers
2.   THE BASILIDIANS – 130 A.D.
3.   THE CARPOCRATIANS – 140 A.D.
4.   IRENAEUS -- 130A.D.
5.   CLEMENS ALEXANDRIUS – 150 A.D.
6.   THEOPHILUS – 169 A.D.
7.   ORIGEN – 185 A.D.
8.   GREGORY THAUMATURGUS – 220 A.D.
9.   EUSEBIUS OF CAECAREA – 265 A.D.
10.   ATHANASIUS – 296 A.D.
11.   MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA – 315 A.D.
12.   DIDYMUS OF ALEXANDRIA – 300 A.D.
13.   GREGORY NYSSEN – 332 A.D.
14.   HILLARY OF POICTIERS – 354 A.D.
15.   ISADORE OF ALEXANDRIA – 370 A.D.
16.   EVAGRIUS PONTICUS – 390 A.D.
17.   AMBROSE OF MILAN – 339 A.D.
18.   JEROME – 340 A.D.
19.   TITUS OF BOSTRA – 340 A.D.
20.   JOHN CASSIAN – 360 A.D.
21.   DIODORE OF TARSUS – 370 A.D.
22.   GREGORY OF NANZIANZUS – 370 A.D.
23.   THEODORUS OF MOPSUESTIA – 380 A.D.
24.   RUFINUS – 390 A.D.
25.   THEODORET OF CYPRUS – 393 A.D.
26.   THE MONKS OF NITRIA – 399 A.D.
27.   PALLADIA OF GALLATIA – 400 A.D.
28.   CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA – 412 A.D.
29.   MAXIMUS OF TURIN – 422 A.D.
30.   THE MONKS OF CESAREA IN PALESTINE  - 430-450 A.D.
31.   PETER CHRYSOLOGUS OF RAVENNA – 435 A.D.
32.   GENNADIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE – 458 A.D.
33.   BARSUDAILI HIEROTHEUS – 490 A.D.
34.   ALEXANDER OF ABYLA – 540 A.D.
35.   MAXIMUS – 645 A.D.
36.   CLEMENT OF IRELAND – 740 AD

Quotes by these Christian church leaders are recorded in Bob Evely’s book called
AT THE END OF THE AGES – THE ABOLITION OF HELL

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

didn't we already go though this a couple of months ago?

[John Dibble]

There's plenty of other reasons to not like the God of the Bible. Removing eternal torment only makes him slightly less bad.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

found the thread...my comment in red basically sums up your POV:

So Revelation doesn’t give us the Final State, but Paul’s teachings do?!  That’s funny, because I can dovetail all of Paul’s teachings about the world to come perfectly within the context of Revelation, so that I have multiple witnesses saying the same thing.

Also, you’ve basically created out of whole cloth a third resurrection in order to resurrect and save those, even Satan himself, in the lake of fire after the last two chapters (21 and 22) of Revelation, even though Rev 21:8 shows that those who were thrown into the lake of fire in Rev 20:15 are still there even after the new heaven and new earth are created.

So, what statement of Paul’s do you see Revelation not fulfilling?

[rodgertutt]

didn't we already go though this a couple of months ago?

Not specifically in relation to the fact that most of the Christians and Christian leaders closest to the time of Jesus believed in universalism up until Augustine influenced the church counsel to insist that the church make endless torment an official dogma.

But even Augustine himself wrote
“There are very many in our day, who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments.”

That is a whole new aspect of the subject that should IMO be considered.

[rodgertutt]

found the thread...my comment in red basically sums up your POV:

So Revelation doesn’t give us the Final State, but Paul’s teachings do?!  That’s funny, because I can dovetail all of Paul’s teachings about the world to come perfectly within the context of Revelation, so that I have multiple witnesses saying the same thing.

Also, you’ve basically created out of whole cloth a third resurrection in order to resurrect and save those, even Satan himself, in the lake of fire after the last two chapters (21 and 22) of Revelation, even though Rev 21:8 shows that those who were thrown into the lake of fire in Rev 20:15 are still there even after the new heaven and new earth are created.

So, what statement of Paul’s do you see Revelation not fulfilling?

It doesn't fulfill the fact that "kolasis aionion" means age-during corrective chastisement meaning that the lake of fire which is the second death has to be temporary.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter11.html

Greek scholar William Barclay wrote concerning kolasis aionion in Matthew 25:46
"The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. There is no instance in Greek secular literature where kolasis does not mean remedial punishment. It is a simple fact that in Greek kolasis always means remedial punishment. God's punishment is always for a cure."

Scriptural proof of the salvation of Satan and fallen angels.
http://www.godfire.net/eby/reconcilehvns.html

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I ust reread your previous thread.  Your argument is so flawed you couldn't even answer the question as to whether the bible can use a finite literal object to foreshadow/symbolize the infinite...therefore by refusing to acknowledge foreshadowing symbolism, your doctrine is based on the literalism of the shadow. 

An example of your logic would be: "a city literally burned up by God cannot possibly foreshadow eternally burning in hell because the fire that burned the city did not literally burn forever." 

So by making a pre-emptive strike by refusing to allow symbolism, you reject symbolic interpretation and thus limit interpretation to the literalism of the object used in the symbolism.  Which is why you would never answer the following question:

So, the whole basis of the argument boils down to this: 1) predetermine what you think the proper behavior of a loving God would be, and 2) base the interpretation of what is foreshadowed on the literalism of the shadow.

Of course I strenuously disagree with your assessment of the Christian Bilblical Universalist position. The important issue as I see it is: 1) Find out what the Bible actually says in its literal meaning, period.

ok, let’s take a biblical analogy from scripture:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though Paul believed Hagar and Sarah were real historical figures, Paul also “interprets” their “symbolism” as foreshadowing two covenants:  the old covenant and the new covenant.

Are we on the same page so far, and do we agree that the bible can be BOTH historically literal and prophetically figurative?

I perceive your argument as irrelevant.

sorry, didn't make myself clear....it was off topic, but I was merely choosing an off topic analogy in order to see if you accept the premise of biblical analogies being symbolic in interpretation and not literal

so....do you agree that this analogy has to have its symbolism interpreted - that it's a symbolic comparison and not a literal comparison?

Ironically, just this morning another poster and I were discussing how problematic it can be to take the literalism of the objects within analogies too seriously.  Thanks for stopping by and reinforcing that point.

[rodgertutt]

There's plenty of other reasons to not like the God of the Bible. Removing eternal torment only makes him slightly less bad.

"Slightly less bad?"

I think you have a strange sense of relativity. :-)

I believe that God will eventually fit every unique individual into His master plan in a positive way that necessitates their unique temporary involvement in evil and suffering that will enable God to manifest, and glorify, and magnify the many facets of His character in a way that uniquely involves that person, and everyone else involved in that person’s life too.
 
I believe that God has both the ability and the intention to save all fallen creatures from everything from which they need to be saved, and He will not fail to do so.

I beieve that sooner or later God will eradicate all evil and suffering out of existence after He has used them to achieve why He allowed them to exist in the first place,.

[rodgertutt]

JMFCST, if I could understand what you are talking about in your last post I might be able to reply.

To me the important issue is that "kolasis aionion" means age-during corrective chastisement and that of necessity requires a length of time that is limited in duration.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter11.html

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

JMFCST, if I could understand what you are talking about in your last post I might be able to reply.

of course you can't admit to understanding a simple and pointed question regarding whether the bible can use temporal things to symbolize the eternal, otherwise you would have to answer the question and thus admit to being wrong, which would cause your whole world to crash down around you and you'd be back to sucking your thumb for 12 more years:

The idea that God would let anyone suffer forever caused me to have a twelve year nervous breakdown 1966-78

[rodgertutt]

JMFCST, if I could understand what you are talking about in your last post I might be able to reply.

of course you can't admit to understanding a simple and pointed question regarding whether the bible can use temporal things to symbolize the eternal, otherwise you would have to answer the question and thus admit to being wrong, which would cause your whole world to crash down around you and you'd be back to sucking your thumb for 12 more years:

The idea that God would let anyone suffer forever caused me to have a twelve year nervous breakdown 1966-78

So I repeat, for me the important issue is that "kolasis aionion" means age-during corrective chastisement and that of necessity requires a length of time that is limited in duration.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter11.html

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

wow, you just can't bring yourself to answer the question: "Does the bible use temporal things to symbolize the eternal?"

scary sounding, isn't it?!  You're like a vampire in a movie being chased with a cross:

[rodgertutt]

wow, you just can't bring yourself to answer the question: "Does the bible use temporal things to symbolize the eternal?"

scary sounding, isn't it?!  You're like a vampire in a movie being chased with a cross:

I suppose it might be "scary" if I knew what the heck you are talking about.
Since I have no idea what you are talking about, it doesn't affect me at all.

Here is what I do know:

A great introductory series to ultimate reconciliation. J. Preston Eby does a thorough job covering many aspects of the topic. Fundamental reading for any person interested in studying universalism from a solid biblical perspective. Highly Recommended!
http://www.godfire.net/eby/saviour_of_the_world.html

The argument about “eternal hell” nearly always gets bogged down with the words, “My Greek scholars are more reliable than your Greek scholars,” and the result is nearly always a stalemate.
My Greek scholars are Louis Abbott and the many Greek scholars he quotes in chapters three and twelve. Copy and paste into Google
AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF WORDS or click on
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/index.html

Also see THE SCHOLAR’S CORNER at
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

If you think it glorifies God more to let some of His creatures suffer forever, or annihilate them, then you keep believing that.

But if you think it glorifies God more to eventually meet everyone on the level of their greatest and deepest need which is a change in their stubborn will, then know that there is plenty of evidence in the Bible that that is exactly what God is like.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

wow, you just can't bring yourself to answer the question: "Does the bible use temporal things to symbolize the eternal?"

scary sounding, isn't it?! 

I suppose it might be "scary" if I knew what the heck you are talking about.

You know, having a delusional disorder is not a crime, but it is something that can get you locked up.

[rodgertutt]

wow, you just can't bring yourself to answer the question: "Does the bible use temporal things to symbolize the eternal?"

scary sounding, isn't it?! 

I suppose it might be "scary" if I knew what the heck you are talking about.

You know, having a delusional disorder is not a crime, but it is something that can get you locked up.

If my belief in the contents of the links in my last post means I'm "delusional," then I sincerely hope that I never recover.

UNIVERSAL SALVATION UNIVERSITY
http://richardwaynegarganta.com/universalsalvation.htm

[John Dibble]

There's plenty of other reasons to not like the God of the Bible. Removing eternal torment only makes him slightly less bad.

"Slightly less bad?"

I think you have a strange sense of relativity. :-)

I believe that God will eventually fit every unique individual into His master plan in a positive way that necessitates their unique temporary involvement in evil and suffering that will enable God to manifest, and glorify, and magnify the many facets of His character in a way that uniquely involves that person, and everyone else involved in that person’s life too.
 
I believe that God has both the ability and the intention to save all fallen creatures from everything from which they need to be saved, and He will not fail to do so.

I beieve that sooner or later God will eradicate all evil and suffering out of existence after He has used them to achieve why He allowed them to exist in the first place,.

Dude, God is supposedly all powerful and all knowing, but you're claiming he basically needs to use evil to achieve his ends. An all powerful and all knowing being would have the power and the knowledge to MAKE a way that doesn't involve that. Heck, if he was really on the ball he would have stopped the whole falling thing to begin with, but clearly he dropped the ball. Clearly he wants to use evil.

Besides, if you read the Bible it's full of unnecessary atrocities and evils ordered and approved of by the God character depicted within. Eternal torment seems more his style.

[rodgertutt]

There's plenty of other reasons to not like the God of the Bible. Removing eternal torment only makes him slightly less bad.

"Slightly less bad?"

I think you have a strange sense of relativity. :-)

I believe that God will eventually fit every unique individual into His master plan in a positive way that necessitates their unique temporary involvement in evil and suffering that will enable God to manifest, and glorify, and magnify the many facets of His character in a way that uniquely involves that person, and everyone else involved in that person’s life too.
 
I believe that God has both the ability and the intention to save all fallen creatures from everything from which they need to be saved, and He will not fail to do so.

I beieve that sooner or later God will eradicate all evil and suffering out of existence after He has used them to achieve why He allowed them to exist in the first place,.

Dude, God is supposedly all powerful and all knowing, but you're claiming he basically needs to use evil to achieve his ends. An all powerful and all knowing being would have the power and the knowledge to MAKE a way that doesn't involve that. Heck, if he was really on the ball he would have stopped the whole falling thing to begin with, but clearly he dropped the ball. Clearly he wants to use evil.

Besides, if you read the Bible it's full of unnecessary atrocities and evils ordered and approved of by the God character depicted within. Eternal torment seems more his style.

Nope, eternal torment is not God's style.

Eventually transforming all evil and suffering into something better that it happened, now that's God's style!
THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
http://thegloryrd.com:80/apadams/evil.html   

[Edward Palamar]

THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
http://thegloryrd.com:80/apadams/evil.html   

A problem with your link is that is argues against God being the cause of all things.

In our season of Lent it is gratefully retrospective to acknowledge Christ's Salvific work as being comprehensive to all souls.  The perfect sacrifice would not be perfect if it had failed in its objective.

[rodgertutt]

THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
http://thegloryrd.com:80/apadams/evil.html  

A problem with your link is that is argues against God being the cause of all things.

In our season of Lent it is gratefully retrospective to acknowledge Christ's Salvific work as being comprehensive to all souls.  The perfect sacrifice would not be perfect if it had failed in its objective.

Actually, quite the opposite is true. The contents of the link argues that God is the cause of all things. Read the last three paragraphs.
A.P. Adams is a Christian Biblical universalist and belives that eventually all souls will be saved.

[Edward Palamar]

Actually, quite the opposite is true. The contents of the link argues that God is the cause of all things. Read the last three paragraphs.
A.P. Adams is a Christian Biblical universalist and belives that eventually all souls will be saved.

The second paragraph states : "yet He is in no wise responsible for the consequences of evil. In fact, it is blasphemy to entertain any such idea."

Jesus Christ offers no such resistance, i.e. "all on account of me", admitting to primary causation.

The other wrench in the cog is the attack on orthodoxy.  For all the effort, if any, of ecumenism, the great schism still harbors tenets that weren't universally grasped.  Orthodoxy has held a rightful view of the Comforter.  Orthodoxy's adversaries have always needed orthodoxy for that.

[rodgertutt]

Actually, quite the opposite is true. The contents of the link argues that God is the cause of all things. Read the last three paragraphs.
A.P. Adams is a Christian Biblical universalist and belives that eventually all souls will be saved.

The second paragraph states : "yet He is in no wise responsible for the consequences of evil. In fact, it is blasphemy to entertain any such idea."

Jesus Christ offers no such resistance, i.e. "all on account of me", admitting to primary causation.

The other wrench in the cog is the attack on orthodoxy.  For all the effort, if any, of ecumenism, the great schism still harbors tenets that weren't universally grasped.  Orthodoxy has held a rightful view of the Comforter.  Orthodoxy's adversaries have always needed orthodoxy for that.

Why can't you see that in the second paragraph he is stating a point of view with which he disagrees?

[Edward Palamar]

Why can't you see that in the second paragraph he is stating a point of view with which he disagrees?

My bad.  I see that now.