I have a crisis of faith on two topics right now. The first is that not everyone in the world has had the oppurunity to hear the gospel and the story of jesus. Would it be fair to condemn someone who was never even given a chance to learn about god. My second is about hell, I do believe that people should be punished for their sins but someone being burned for all of eternity is too much. Humans commit a finite amount of sin and I dont think its fair for someone to suffer forever.
Regarding those who have never heard, I don't know very many Christians who think that's enough to be condemned. Paul talks about this at least twice. In Romans 4, Paul talks about how Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness. Abraham didn't have the law. Abraham didn't have the Resurrection. But he trusted God, as far as he was able. Good works didn't justify him, God recognized his trust as being what he could do. Paul also talks to Greek pagans at Athens about this when explaining Christianity. He says (paraphrased), "In the past God has overlooked their ignorance, but now calls on all people to repent." In other words, it's far better to know the truth, but God has made provisions for those who have never heard. If we're concerned about the fate of those who have never heard, how much more must God be concerned about his children?
About hell... Have you ever read The Great Divorce? CS Lewis has this idea of hell not as a torture chamber of fire and brimstone, but a dull, dreary city. People are trapped there not by divine punishment, but by their own sins. They have the option to leave, but they won't. They all have different reasons. Some want to stay because they worry their art won't be appreciated in heaven, or because they can't forgive someone, or because they think the whole thing is a trick. For those who refuse to leave, that city is hell. For those who have left, it was purgatory. But a few do leave. They give up whatever was keep them there, and they travel on to heaven.
I think something like might be true. Not that exact thing, Lewis himself never presents it as anything more than an artist's speculation, at best. But something like that. The only way I can rationalize hell is something like a quarantine rather than a punishment. You can leave, but you have to be treated for the disease first. Every last molecule of sin will have to be purged, because it can't be allowed to infect the good creation.
It's probably worth noting that English translations of the Bible are horribly misleading here. There is no word in the Bible that means what we think of as hell, in terms of "a place where God sends sinners to burn in eternal fire and be stabbed with pitchforks by demons". There are four different words in the Bible that all get rendered in English as hell: Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus. They are NOT equivalent. The closest is Tartarus, but that's a Greek concept. It's only used once in the entire Bible (2 Peter 2:4) and in a pretty clearly poetic way. There are warnings of judgment, to be sure, but that's not the same as eternal torment.
To those who say that the chance to repent ends with death: Can the infinite love and mercy of God be defeated by death? We know that it can't. That's what the Resurrection means. Even though we're all sinners, in the power of his Resurrection, all will be made alive.
"For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor heavenly rulers, nor things that are present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:38-39
"And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where “ ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’ Everyone will be salted with fire."- Jesus (Mark 9:44-9:49)
"His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire"- Matthew 3:12
"And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name"- Revelation 14:11
"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."- Jesus (Matthew 25:41)
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."- Jesus (Matthew: 25:46)
"They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might"- 2nd Thessalonians 1:9
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me"- Jesus (John 14:6)
"And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where “ ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’ Everyone will be salted with fire."- Jesus (Mark 9:44-9:49)
"His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire"- Matthew 3:12
"And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name"- Revelation 14:11
Jesus was one of those people:
"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."- Jesus (Matthew 25:41)
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."- Jesus (Matthew: 25:46)
"They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might"- 2nd Thessalonians 1:9
""They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might"- 2nd Thessalonians 1:9" doesnt this quote support the idea of anhilationsim which is that souls stop existing in hell instead of burning eternally tortured. The other 2 quotes dont refrence being tortured. The eternal punishment could mean being dead. And the eternal fire is just used to destroy the souls. There is nothing saying the eternal fire would keep all sinners alive for eternity.
"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."- Jesus (Matthew 25:41)
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."- Jesus (Matthew: 25:46)
"They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might"- 2nd Thessalonians 1:9
Going to chime in here, there's a few problems with some of the passages you're quoting for the point you're trying to make, even if the broad strokes seem alright. This bit specifically is off because it lacks some important context that even if the dead cannot pray for themselves, the living can, and we have multiple records of the dead being saved from hell through the prayers of the living, especially the prayers of the Athonite monks.
To use a scriptural example, even Paul espouses praying for the dead (again, not directly, you need to use your thinking cap for this) as we can see from looking at 2nd Timothy 1:16-18; 'May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains' 'but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me earnestly and found me'- 'may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day!—and you well'. Onesiphorus was widely regarded to have been martyred during the reign of Nero, so would have died prior to the writing of 2nd Timothy, which lines up perfectly with Paul using the past tense in these verses.
In a sense, while C.S. Lewis wasn't 100% correct, he was closer to the truth here because the Bible on its own does not have all the answers and doesn't explain the importance of Church rights like the Panakhida.
This is exactly why Sola Scriptura and Bibical literalism are considered heretical, because the best place to hide a lie is by hiding it between two truths and omitting one half of the story. Reading the scripture is good and breeds good thoughts, but make sure you cross reference it with the writings of the Church fathers otherwise a lot of important context will end up getting missed, and if context gets missed then you end up creating an Idol of Christ in your head, and offering worship to that instead of to the Lord. This is the sort of thing Christ warns about when he says 'Depart from me, I knew you not' in Matthew 7.
And so it will be. If after death, in purgatory (or whatever) Jesus offers a pagan or an atheist redemption through his death and resurrection, that means accepting him as the redeemer of the world. It doesn't mean going on as a pagan or atheist in the age to come. It also doesn't mean that those who have never heard are automatically condemned. Though some parts of the Harrowing of Hell aren't directly supported by scripture, in 1 Peter 4:6 he talks about Christ preaching the Gospel to the dead so that they could know the truth. This is said in exactly the context of divine judgment. Why should that not go on happening? Why should Christ not continue to give the good news to the dead?
"And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where “ ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’ Everyone will be salted with fire."- Jesus (Mark 9:44-9:49)
"His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire"- Matthew 3:12
Do you believe Jesus is literally telling his disciples to cut off their feet? Do you believe that John the Baptist is saying that people are actually wheat? And if not, if you think that's standard prophetic imagery (which it is), why are they switching in MID SENTENCE from poetic imagery to a literal description of the afterlife? The answer, of course, is that they're not. This IS a warning of God's judgment on the wicked. It is NOT a literal description of the afterlife.
The word in Mark 9 translated as hell is "Gehenna". Gehenna has nothing to do with an afterlife. Gehenna is a physical place on earth. You can go there today. There's some debate as to why this was used as a reference, but probably it was a place where pagans went to make burned offerings to their gods.
"And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name"- Revelation 14:11
Please do not use Revelation as an argument for anything ever. It's the weirdest, most difficult to understand book in the Bible, continually on the edge of canonicity. Although the book itself is worthy of canonization when properly understood, I honestly think the layman would've been better off if it hadn't gotten in. To the extent that Revelation is "about" anything, it's about the Jewish war 67-74 that climaxed in 70AD with the fall of the second temple in Jerusalem. It has absolutely nothing to do with the afterlife or "the end of the world".
"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."- Jesus (Matthew 25:41)
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."- Jesus (Matthew: 25:46)
This is the closest the New Testament comes to affirming the concept of an eternal fire and brimstone hell. I think it's pretty well established based on other passages that fire is a prophetic metaphor for judgment. What about "eternal"? Well, this is where it gets weird. Because the Greek word here CAN mean eternal... maybe. Except when it doesn't. Full disclosure: I don't know Koine Greek and I'm going off the work of other, much smarter people.
If you look at Strong's Greek dictionary, aiōnōn is is translated as "eternal". Is that right? Well, the translators of the Septuagint use it differently. Aiōnōn is (more or less) interchangable with olam, which could certainly be used for finite (though usually long) periods of time.
Many of the early church fathers also treated aiōnōn as a finite period of time, not as eternity. At the very least, they recognized it was ambiguous. Even some pagans used the term aiōnōn that way.
So while the judgment of God should be taken extremely seriously, there are good reasons to think it's not a punishment lasting a literal eternity.
"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."- Jesus (Matthew 25:41)| Being cursed into an eternal fire seems to be a pretty explicit example of suffering.
The Bible verses I sent all reference damnation and punishment as eternal. That's why it's essential to accept Christ and to proselytize for him while you're still alive, because once you've been cast from the Father there is no saving yourself. If some Monk's claimed they prayed someone out of Hell then they are saying something contrary to scripture.
Yes, reading the Bible is great and while early Church Fathers can share insight into the early Church's view of things if what they're saying is contrary to scripture then it should be disregarded. Two opposite views can't be true at the same time, if the Bible holds that the salvation and punishment is eternal than, as a Christian, I will take it at it's word and disregard the words of Church Fathers who say it's wrong.
Onesiphorus was widely regarded to have been martyred during the reign of Nero, so would have died prior to the writing of 2nd Timothy, which lines up perfectly with Paul using the past tense in these verses.
The Reign of Nero ended in 68 AD, Paul himself was likely dead by then (most put Paul's death as circa 65AD) so it can be inferred if he wrote second Timothy it predates the end of the reign of Nero.
Do you believe Jesus is literally telling his disciples to cut off their feet? Do you believe that John the Baptist is saying that people are actually wheat? And if not, if you think that's standard prophetic imagery (which it is), why are they switching in MID SENTENCE from poetic imagery to a literal description of the afterlife? The answer, of course, is that they're not. This IS a warning of God's judgment on the wicked. It is NOT a literal description of the afterlife.
Those were just three passages I pulled, there are several others that reference fire, if multiple passages of multiple books use imagery of fire and smoke when describing Hell it seems likely that fire and smoke are there.
If God's punishment isn't eternal (despite what is says in the scripture) then things like proselytizing and putting your faith in Christ in this life would be irrelevant, since the punishment is finite and you would still be able to get to Heaven regardless of your life's choices.
"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."- Jesus (Matthew 25:41)| Being cursed into an eternal fire seems to be a pretty explicit example of suffering."
There is nothing say that someone will be eternally concious and living. Eternal life can only be given by god people in hell simply just stop existing.
"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."- Jesus (Matthew 25:41)| Being cursed into an eternal fire seems to be a pretty explicit example of suffering."
There is nothing say that someone will be eternally concious and living. Eternal life can only be given by god people in hell simply just stop existing.
"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."- Revelation 20:10. I have yet to see evidence for why eternal torment is only reserved for some and not others.
Those were just three passages I pulled, there are several others that reference fire, if multiple passages of multiple books use imagery of fire and smoke when describing Hell it seems likely that fire and smoke are there.
Or, alternatively, it's a commonly used metaphor. The common American metaphor "more than you can shake a stick at" doesn't mean Americans are going around shaking sticks at everyone they meet.
Yes, if that part of the Bible is Revelation. Revelation never means what anyone thinks it means. It's completely drenched in imagery and code and symbolism to the point of being nearly incomprehensible. But just to reiterate: It's about the Jewish war in 67-74AD. It contains no useful information about the afterlife or the so-called end of the world.
Do not do that. The KJV is an extremely limited translation. It's not divinely inspired. It's not even particularly good. Now I don't want to be too hard on the translators here, they were doing the best they could given what they had to work with. But modern translations like the NET are leaps and bounds better, and they STILL get a lot of this stuff wrong. (The translation of "eternal" is ambiguous. The mistranslation of "hell" is not. If any modern translators had any balls they'd replace all instances of "hell" with the underlying proper nouns.)
Now this needs some qualification. The first two are misleading: Both Basil and Augustine believed hell was eternal. They're simply reporting that there wasn't a consensus on this. Some of fathers believed hell was eternal, some didn't. And of course, the words of the church fathers are not scripture. But it's worth noting that, from the beginning, there was disagreement on this.
This is also difficult because I'm not exactly a universalist... I don't necessarily believe that divine judgment is inherently limited to some specific period of time as defined by particular sins. Rather, I just believe that the chance for redemption doesn't end with death. I'm not sure there's a name for this position.
If God's punishment isn't eternal (despite what is says in the scripture) then things like proselytizing and putting your faith in Christ in this life would be irrelevant, since the punishment is finite and you would still be able to get to Heaven regardless of your life's choices.
Why? Do you think the point of being a Christian is to get out of hell? Nobody should think of Christianity in terms of reward and punishment. Every one of us is being rescued from sin. Salvation is freely offered to all sinners. We did nothing to earn or deserve it. It's a gift given out of God's overwhelming love for his creation. Why should that offer be taken away after death? Is that where God's love and mercy end?
Revelation never means what anyone thinks it means. It's completely drenched in imagery and code and symbolism to the point of being nearly incomprehensible. But just to reiterate: It's about the Jewish war in 67-74AD. It contains no useful information about the afterlife or the so-called end of the world.
What a beautiful, self-refuting statement you've concocted here. "Revelation never means what anyone thinks it means," and then you offer your own interpretation of what you think it means. You make up your own rules for which books and verses should be taken seriously and which ones shouldn't, all because you have some sort of hate-boner for the Book of Revelation. It's fascinating to watch.
The Bible verses I sent all reference damnation and punishment as eternal. That's why it's essential to accept Christ and to proselytize for him while you're still alive, because once you've been cast from the Father there is no saving yourself. If some Monk's claimed they prayed someone out of Hell then they are saying something contrary to scripture.
if the Bible holds that the salvation and punishment is eternal than, as a Christian, I will take it at it's word and disregard the words of Church Fathers who say it's wrong.
Unfortunately, this position is a manifestation of the sin of Pride. None of us are more wise or intelligent than the Church fathers or the Saints who have joined the Lord in Heaven. To assume that any of us know any more than they do about the nature of the faith is a step too far in the wrong direction.
Humility and Obedience are the single most important virtues of all, and to be humble and obedient requires that you kill your ego and submit yourself to the body of Christ, this being his Church that has been carefully guarded and maintained since his death and resurrection. Failure to do this one thing will result in the Lord looking at us at the final judgment and, with all the sorrow in the world, telling us to go away, for we've been worshipping something that he is not instead of following his teachings.
Christ will make allowances for everyone, that much is a given, but anyone who worships an idol constructed within their head needs to repent and turn away from such things. I'm not saying this as a legalistic attempt at trying to win an argument, I'm saying this because I don't want you to damn yourself over something that's completely avoidable.
Do not let yourself become like the Pharisee and obsess over the written law, especially if the written law being obsessed over isn't even the original text. We all need to strive to be like the Publican, and the first step is to attain Humility.
I think it's due to the blatant apostacy of most "modern" churches. Proudly flying the sodomy flag etc. in complete rejection of the holy book. Places that should have their money tables flipped over and their figures whipped with cords, if you catch my drift. They have been turned into dens of thieves and merchants rather than being Temples of the living God.
This same guy's administration, now less than twenty years later, has filed an amicus curie brief in support of the LGBT side in a case which would have forced people with Religious Objections to provide their services towards a Gay Wedding. From, "I don't support Gay Marriage," to "I support Gay Marriage and think Christians should be compelled to partake in the ceremony," in under two decades.
It's almost like these Semite-owned shekel-seekers have always been two-faced double-tongued puppets. To quote Yuri in 1984, "All it takes is 20 years to indoctrinate a new generation into communist leninism (judeo-communist decadence)". Big time Hmmmmm, kindov like the last 20+ years of accelerated rot.
If you actually want some spiritual meat instead of endless arguments and debates, go watch some of the animated new testament stories. They are corny as hell, but in that old fashioned way that made you confident they actually came from true believers. Their musical numbers on occasion are way better than they have any right to be, and certain rare moments are even capable of softening your callused heart. Particularly when they cover the healing of infirmities.
For example, one episode deals with the healing of a blind kid, but that isn't necessarily the interesting part. The genius of it comes from the artistic interpretation of how a blind person might "see" the faces of their loved ones...
If that doesn't make you emotional, you have no soul.
This is a collection of Church Father's supporting Universalist teachings, what I meant was do you have examples of people using the word for Eternal to just mean 'a long time' instead of forever.
I'm quite skeptical of that idea, given most historians put it's writing at 90 AD, several decades after the First Jewish Revolt. While I understand the idea that one of the beasts may have been Nero it seems to be speaking of a future apocalypse, especially since it contains events like the final judgement (Revelation 20:11-15) an event which I don't believe has any parallel from the First Jewish War John could have been writing about.
No, I do not believe that Prosperity Gospel Nonsense about how you can enrich yourself or have a better life as a Christian, far from it. However with that said I do believe, as it says in the Bible, that the unbeliever's are facing an eternal hellfire, so I think we should be concerned about those who have not accepted Christ as their savior. As it stands only about 51% of the World's Population belongs to a Religion that just recognize Christ as Messiah (never mind the ones who accept him as their Saviors), only 31% actually claim to be Christian, and undoubtedly the ones who hold to the basic tenants of the Faith are much lower. Given what we know to be facing the Billions of Unsaved people we should be working our tails off to reach them.
Unfortunately, this position is a manifestation of the sin of Pride. You are not more intelligent than the Church fathers or the Saints who have joined the Lord in Heaven, and neither am I. To assume that any of us know any more than they do about the nature of the faith is a step too far in the wrong direction.
Humility and Obedience are the single most important virtues of all, and to be humble and obedient requires that you kill your ego and submit yourself to the body of Christ, this being his Church that has been carefully guarded and maintained since his death and resurrection. Failure to do this one thing will result in the Lord looking at us at the final judgment and, with all the sorrow in the world, telling us to go away, for we've been worshipping something that he is not instead of following his teachings.
I respect the Church Fathers in that I recognize that they could help us understand what the early Church was thinking. With that said however if they are saying something that is directly contrary to scripture then I would have to say that they are incorrect about that. For example, if a 3rd Century Bishop said, "Jesus wasn't crucified, he was actually killed by a hail of arrows," then I would look at the scriptures, recognize that his position is inaccurate, and say, "On this particular matter he is incorrect, since the scriptures say he was crucified". Certainly no matter how devout of a Catholic or Orthodox Christian you are you must recognize the supremacy of the Bible over all other sources.
I'm not American at all, Orthodoxy just has the largest amount of saints in it by a country mile, especially when you count all of the martyrs which came from Eastern Europe during the periods when everyone started getting really uppity over the results of WW1.
Outside of that, there's also tandem facts like:
Orthodoxy not having a single, fallible leader who can ruin an entire institution as each Patriarchate (which originally included Rome btw. Please repent and come back to communion with the other Patriarchates, please) only governs one specific area, which allows councils to arise with regards to heresies like Arianism. If Arianism had spread into the Catholic church at the time when support for Papal Supremacy was at its highest, I can guarantee the amount of damage it would have done to western theology would have been irreparable.
The focus on the condition of the heart as the utmost important maxim vs the legalistic approach of following rules for the sake of following rules. While it's true that Orthodoxy has a lot of rules, and rules are a great way of fostering the virtues of humility and obedience, if you don't focus on the heart then you end up becoming like the Pharisee. The Greek church has an excellent word for this attitude, they call it 'οἰκονομία'. It's got a number of different meanings, but one of the most important ones is that you be lax with your brother for not following the rules-as he's only human and bound to make mistakes-and strict with yourself as there's always something you can get better at.
At its core Orthodoxy protects itself from human fallibility through decentralization and makes sure that the tradition of the church remains as unchanged as it can be, only accepting alterations to the liturgical cycle where absolutely necessary, and the overarching theology fosters a mindset where you judge yourself instead of others and seek to grow Love, whereas the Western mindset always seems to end up being more externally judgmental instead of focus on the ascetic struggle of self-improvement with the eventual goal being what the church fathers call 'Theosis', or in simple terms, to regain the godhead that was originally given to Adam and Eve prior to their fall, and which was returned to them after they were lifted out of Hell. I like to think of it in terms of a spectrum going from Masculine (Orthodox) to Feminine (Protestant) with Catholicism being stuck somewhere in the middle.
As an adendum, the Catholics may have the Vatican, but don't forget that the Orthodoxy has Mt. Athos, which is arguably the holiest place on the planet:
'οἰκονομία' is literally just "Economia" or "Economy" as in "Home Economics". Don't fall into using big words without simplifying them and pretending as if that makes it fancy. It really just means "the rule of the household", used to attain the Spirit of the Law. It stands beside "ακριβεια" or "akribia" or "Accuracy" which means living strictly to the letter of the Law. It's a method of approach taught to priests, and is often why as a layman, you are not supposed to confess to abbots. They will apply akribia more than they would economia, because that is the way of the monastic.
Your explanation of Theosis is poor. We are not "regaining the godhead", it is the process of becoming like God, or becoming Godlike. We cannot and never be fully divine as God is (which is why Dyophysitism is the espoused understanding adopted by the Church, not Monophysitism nor Miaphysitism), but we can set ourselves righteously to aim upwards to God, and downwards into sin. This term is also used, understood, and accepted by Catholics, Anglicans, and Methodists (and to a lesser degree Lutherans).
Accepting alterations to the liturgical cycle where absolutely necessary? Hah! Every priest has a way of serving the liturgy, and it can vary greatly in style. Substance is the same, but it's a fun bit of miscommunication that's often said by the Church. "Unchanged for two thousand years!"
I promise you, the Eastern mindset falls very easily into the externally judgmental attitudes found in the West. It's a church made of sinners, as any church is. It takes its own form, but don't forget that the Eastern Orthodox church fell numerous times into error and schism (see: the majority of the Ecumenical Councils, the Old Believers, HOCNA, Old Calendarists, Imiaslavie, True Orthodox, ROCOR, and Lord knows how many other schismatics). Does it immediately invalidate the church itself? No. It is therefore inappropriate to fault Catholicism or Protestantism for this problem uniquely. You could argue they're wrong for any other number of reasons, but that they are "prone to schism" is a bad argument. This became more of an off-hand tangent unrelated to any of your points, but it's something that I felt needs to be made clear.
As for Mt. Athos and Fr. Ephraim and even Fr. Seraphim, be careful that you don't make an idol of them. Especially Mt. Athos. Too often is it defaulted that Mt. Athos is just so innately holy and grand that absolutely everything that comes from Mt. Athos must be accepted carte blanche. If you have any experience with Byzantine Chant, you should know better. The saints are still human, and can be found to contradict and oppose each other in some ways. Remember that. As for Fr. Ephraim and Fr. Seraphim, I've heard and read some controversial things about them specifically (moreso Seraphim); could just be slander, but the charges are significant enough to require addressing. Fr. Ephraim, for the abuse of a vulnerable young man who eventually committed suicide. Fr. Seraphim, for the tacit acceptance of sexual abuse by one of his students on other male students.
I'd like to end this contrarian post by pointing out that especially now, the Orthodox Church has a lot of controversies ongoing. In the OCA, there have been accusations of widespread sexual abuse and corruption by higher level clergy; in the Antiochian Archdiocese of America, the former Archbishop was caught having an affair with a married woman and funneling money from the church and into his own properties; in Zimbabwe, theres been a metropolitan and a bishop who forced the issue of Deaconesses through with an ordination (which is not a traditional Deaconess, but a whole new order), to the cheers and calls for the "next step" of womens priesthood from the St. Phoebes Center; in Russia and Ukraine, with three or four different Metropolises in Ukraine itself; in the Greek Archdiocese of America, Archbishop Elpidophoros baptized the infant of a gay couple and has made numerous "progressive" comments; in ROCOR, the numerous accusations of sexual abuse and the constant purity spiral of the church itself; and online, where Fr. Peter Heers consistently refuses to provide evidence that he falls under anyones jurisdiction. Plenty of dirt to pretend like its clean.
All said, its still the True Church despite all of these problems. Everyone should be aware of the problems of every church, especially the True Church.
I do not. There is no Biblical "source on hell" because there is no word in the Bible that means hell*. None of the words in the Bible that are translated into English as "hell" actually MEAN "hell".* Gehenna is not hell. Gehenna is a valley outside Jerusalem where pagans burned sacrifices to dark gods. Sheol is not hell. Sheol is a ghostly underworld that Old Testament Jews believed was the destination of the righteous and unrighteous alike. Hades is not hell. Hades is Sheol, except in Greek. *Tartarus is fairly close to a fire and brimstone hell, but it occurs in the Bible ONCE, and it's a Greek concept, not a Jewish one.
Now if you're including PAGAN sources, that's another story. Because the Greek Tartarus is where the idea of a fire and brimstone hell largely comes from. It predates the New Testament, but you won't find it in the Old.
The imagery of fire is certainly used in connection with God's judgment though. One possible reason is related to the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah... but I think the more likely explanation is found in 1 Corinthians 3.
"For no one can lay any foundation other than what is being laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, each builder’s work will be plainly seen, for the Day will make it clear, because it will be revealed by fire. And the fire will test what kind of work each has done. If what someone has built survives, he will receive a reward. If someone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as through fire."
This is how Paul explains judgment. The works that are not of God, anything associated with sin, will be burned away by fire. But the individual will be saved through fire, however painful that might be. The fire purifies, but it also reveals. Think of the Holy Spirit descending on the apostles with tongues of fire, and what happens? They can speak new languages, and the Gospel is revealed to their audience. Or think of Moses and the burning bush. Fire is associated not only with judgment, but with revelation.
This is a collection of Church Father's supporting Universalist teachings, what I meant was do you have examples of people using the word for Eternal to just mean 'a long time' instead of forever.
It's pretty much a 1:1 overlap in that era. The universalists, by definition, were those who thought hell/judgment had a finite duration. But here's a quote from David Bentley Hart's book on universalism, That All Shall Be Saved.
"... Neither did the derivative adjective aiōnios—as ἀΐδιος (aïdios) or ἀτελεύτητος (atelevtētos) did—have the intrinsic meaning of “eternal.” It could be used defectively to indicate eternity, in much the way that English words like “enduring” or “abiding” can do today. But it generally had a much vaguer connotation. And the term’s plasticity was certainly fully appreciated by the Christian universalists of the Greek and Syrian East in later centuries: Clement, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Makrina, Diodore of Tarsus, and so on. As I noted in my introduction, Basil the Great reported that the great majority of his fellow Eastern Christians assumed that the aiōnios kolasis, the “chastening of the Age” (or, as it is usually translated in English, “eternal punishment”) mentioned in Matthew 25:46, would consist in only a temporary probation of the soul; and he offered no specifically lexicographic objection to such a reading. John Chrysostom (c. 349–407) once even used the word aiōnios to describe the reign of Satan over this world precisely in order to emphasize its transience, meaning thereby that Satan’s kingdom will last only till the end of the present “age.” And, if one is willing to consult the witness of pagan writers—and, after all, the Platonists believed in the torments of “hell” long before the Christians fastened upon the idea—it is worth noting that, as late as the sixth century, the Neoplatonist philosopher Olympiodorus the Younger (c. 495–570) thought it obvious that the suffering of wicked souls in Tartarus is certainly not endless, atelevtos, but merely very long in duration, aiōnios. There were, moreover, regions of the Christian world where such thinking persisted well beyond antiquity. East Syrian tradition remained especially hospitable to the notion of a temporary hell and of God’s eventual universal victory over evil. In the thirteenth century, for instance, the East Syrian bishop Solomon of Basra (fl. 1220s and after), in his marvelous Book of the Bee, remarked in a quite matter-of-fact manner that in the New Testament le-alam or aiōnios does not mean “eternal,” and that of course hell is not an interminable condition. And the fourteenth-century East Syrian Patriarch Timotheus II (presided 1318–c. 1332) clearly saw it as uncontroversial to assert that hell’s aiōnios pains will eventually come to an end for everyone, and that the souls cleansed by its fires will enter paradise for eternity."
I'm quite skeptical of that idea, given most historians put it's writing at 90 AD, several decades after the First Jewish Revolt. While I understand the idea that one of the beasts may have been Nero it seems to be speaking of a future apocalypse, especially since it contains events like the final judgement (Revelation 20:11-15) an event which I don't believe has any parallel from the First Jewish War John could have been writing about.
I'm in the minority who thinks it was written pre-70, but I'm not going to argue for it because I honestly don't think that would change a single word of the meaning. Whether advance prophecy or commentary, it's about the same thing.
I really have no idea what to make of the judgment scenes. It's a commentary on the Jewish war, and then... what, we're skipping ahead a few thousand years or whatever to the end of the world? But also Nero is still there? And then after judgment day an exhaustive description of the New Jerusalem laden with holy numbers? Why? What the hell is going on here? I can only assume it's symbolic/apocalyptic, because EVERYTHING in Revelation is written like that, but what it means I don't know.
No, I do not believe that Prosperity Gospel Nonsense about how you can enrich yourself or have a better life as a Christian, far from it. However with that said I do believe, as it says in the Bible, that the unbeliever's are facing an eternal hellfire, so I think we should be concerned about those who have not accepted Christ as their savior. As it stands only about 51% of the World's Population belongs to a Religion that just recognize Christ as Messiah (never mind the ones who accept him as their Saviors), only 31% actually claim to be Christian, and undoubtedly the ones who hold to the basic tenants of the Faith are much lower. Given what we know to be facing the Billions of Unsaved people we should be working our tails off to reach them.
I also think we should be concerned about them, but not so that we can save them from the eternal wrath of God. We should be telling them that an amazing thing has happened. The almighty God who created the universe dwelled among us in the flesh so that we could be reconciled to him, and so the entire cosmos could be set free of its slavery to sin and death. Out of his infinite love and mercy he came in person to take responsibility for all the evil of the world, and by sacrificing his life he paid a ransom to the powers of darkness that we could never afford. But death could not hold him, and in the power of his Resurrection, all will be made alive.
That's not to say there shouldn't be warnings of judgment. Jesus was full of those. There's a lot of evil in the world, and God will reconcile all accounts. If our primary motive for evangelism is to save people from eternal torment in the afterlife, we should be asking ourselves some hard questions.
What a beautiful, self-refuting statement you've concocted here. "Revelation never means what anyone thinks it means," and then you offer your own interpretation of what you think it means. You make up your own rules for which books and verses should be taken seriously and which ones shouldn't, all because you have some sort of hate-boner for the Book of Revelation. It's fascinating to watch.
Shitty pop culture interpretations of Revelation have done unfathomable damage. I grew up around the apocalyptic death cults that Revelation inspired. I've seen parents terrify their children with stories about how they could be "left behind" in the Rapture. I've seen Christians destroy the environment and justify it by saying that God is just going to burn the world up anyway. I've watched it warp geopolitics because Americans think we need to start WW3 defending Israel so they can cast Summon Jesus. You're Goddamn right I have a hate boner for Revelation. I grudgingly accept it as canon, but remember, Revelation BARELY made it in, largely because nobody could agree on what it meant. It was rarely cited by the early fathers. From a human perspective, I sincerely believe the church would've been better off if it had been lost.
Despite my biases about the book, I am right. It's broadly about the Jewish war, but the details are mostly impenetrable. Yes, Nero was the Beast and we know that from Jewish numerology. Yes, we can map certain events to the symbolism, like the 7 year tribulation corresponding to the Jewish war in 67-74. No, we cannot do any serious theology of an afterlife, an end of the world, or a so-called Rapture based on the contents of Revelation, and anyone who tries doesn't understand the nature of apocalyptic literature.
The Bible is well written, and stays consistent on the metaphors it employs. God's wrath, judgement and revelation are constantly related to fire. Must we also at some point agree that means God is a firebug?
At the end of the day, Jesus either defeated death or he did not. If death is a magical inflection point after which your soul may not be saved then death is stronger than Jesus' sacrifice and God's love and forgiveness.
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” - Matthew 25:46
"And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire".- Revelation 20:15
"And throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."- Matthew 13:50
"They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,"- 2nd Thessalonians 1:9
The Bible clearly talks about sending people away to be punished in some separate place, regardless of the word you use for that place, rather or not you want to call it 'Hell' or something else.
Thank you for submitting the text from the book. However if it's truly a 1:1 overlap, a 50-50 jump ball, than what verses lead you to believe theres a 'time limit' or 'escape route' to Hell. I would also point you back to Revelation (which you begrudgingly accept as authoritative) which states: "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever". -Revelation 20:10. Given that the term used was 'For ever and ever' 'to the ages of ages' (αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων) instead of just αἰώνων we can infer that they are indeed suffering eternally.
Don't let the time span deter you. 2,000 years might seem like a lot but it's pretty on par for the bible. Keep in mind references to the promised coming Messiah first appeared during the time of Moses (roughly 1400 BC) and was first recorded in the 600s-1000s BC in Deuteronomy 18:15-19. So given that people were talking and writing about the coming messiah in books on other matters, skipping ahead more than a thousand years to talk about him, all the way back then, our 2,000 year time gap really isn't that much (not even twice as long). God moves on his own times. The end of days may kick off next month, it may kick off another 10,000 years from now. Given the time span between first mention of the Messiah and his arrival we can be sure that God keeps his word, nor matter how long it takes for his word to come to fruition, and that he is coming again.
Indeed we see some of the prophecy coming into place already. Imagine a skeptic in the year 1900 AD bragging about how the Book of Revelation/Book of Daniel must be a bunch of nonsense because it references the Jewish State of Israel and control of Jerusalem and no such place existed nor had they existed for Thousands of years with Muslims ruling the region, more or less continually, for over a thousand years. Then less than fifty years later we see a creation of an independent Jewish State in Israel. It took nearly 1800 years since the First Jewish Revolt but the pieces of the prophecy were falling into place, it likely won't be long until we see the rest come into place as well (like rebuilding the second temple).
A lot of Christian Clergy these days are shying away from the uncomfortable truth: Hell is for real, and a lot of people are going there. As Christians we are called to do everything we can to save people from it, proclaiming the Gospel to all who will hear it. (Mark 16:15)
If there are two doors, one of which opens up to a room filled with spiked and fire, and you knew it, you would be doing a huge disservice not warning people about it.
At the end of the day, Jesus either defeated death or he did not. If death is a magical inflection point after which your soul may not be saved then death is stronger than Jesus' sacrifice and God's love and forgiveness.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"- Jesus (John 3:16)
"Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved".- Romans 10:9
"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.- Jesus (John 6:37)
Jesus defeated death in the sense that he allowed us a way to get to salvation, however we are required to actually accept his gift before we can receive it. The above passages show you must take active steps to receive the gift Jesus offers.
I grudgingly accept it as canon, but remember, Revelation BARELY made it in, largely because nobody could agree on what it meant. It was rarely cited by the early fathers. From a human perspective, I sincerely believe the church would've been better off if it had been lost.
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” - Matthew 25:46
"And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire".- Revelation 20:15
"And throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."- Matthew 13:50
"They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,"- 2nd Thessalonians 1:9
The Bible clearly talks about sending people away to be punished in some separate place, regardless of the word you use for that place, rather or not you want to call it 'Hell' or something else.
I do think that there will be a separation of some sort for those who reject God. I don't see how it could be otherwise. If someone refuses to be purified of their sin, they can't be allowed to corrupt the redeemed creation. If you want to call that hell, then okay I guess, but I think it's loaded term because it carries too much else with it. The eternity of it is questionable, and the fire is very clearly metaphorical.
Let's look at Matthew 13.
44 “The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure, hidden in a field, that a person found and hid. Then because of joy he went and sold all that he had and bought that field.
45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant searching for fine pearls. 46 When he found a pearl of great value, he went out and sold everything he had and bought it.
47 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was cast into the sea that caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, they pulled it ashore, sat down, and put the good fish into containers and threw the bad away. 49 It will be this way at the end of the age. Angels will come and separate the evil from the righteous 50 and throwthem into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
51 “Have you understood all these things?” They replied, “Yes.” 52 Then he said to them, “Therefore every expert in the law who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his treasure what is new and old.”
Okay, so... the treasure in the field is metaphorical imagery (simile, whatever). The merchant searching for pearls is imagery. The fishermen with their nets are imagery. The experts in the law being like house owners is imagery. But the fire, well, that DEFINITELY has to be literal. Why? Why is every passage surrounding the fire metaphorical, but the fire itself is literal? Why is this the one thing people can't recognize as imagery? The answer is that we're so wedded to the pop culture conception of hell that we're reading an interpretation back into the text that the speakers and authors never intended. First century Jews would've had no problem recognizing this as imagery.
Thank you for submitting the text from the book. However if it's truly a 1:1 overlap, a 50-50 jump ball, than what verses lead you to believe theres a 'time limit' or 'escape route' to Hell. I would also point you back to Revelation (which you begrudgingly accept as authoritative) which states: "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever". -Revelation 20:10. Given that the term used was 'For ever and ever' 'to the ages of ages' (αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων) instead of just αἰώνων we can infer that they are indeed suffering eternally
1 Corinthians 3 is a pretty major one, since it talks about sinners being saved through fire. Romans 8 is also important. While it doesn't address divine judgment specifically, it says in no uncertain terms that not even death can separate us from the love of God. How can that not be a word of hope even for those suffering God's judgment? Or should we say that after death God only loves the redeemed?
I do accept Revelation as authoritative on the topic it actually addresses, which is the Jewish war. It does not address the afterlife, even though it sometimes borrows that imagery. Same problem as Matthew 13. One of the very few things we can be sure about in Revelation is that the beast is Nero. So we know the beast is metaphor/code/symbol... but we still want to interpert the part about him being thrown into a lake of fire forever as literal. Why?
Don't let the time span deter you. 2,000 years might seem like a lot but it's pretty on par for the bible. Keep in mind references to the promised coming Messiah first appeared during the time of Moses (roughly 1400 BC) and was first recorded in the 600s-1000s BC in Deuteronomy 18:15-19. So given that people were talking and writing about the coming messiah in books on other matters, skipping ahead more than a thousand years to talk about him, all the way back then, our 2,000 year time gap really isn't that much (not even twice as long). God moves on his own times. The end of days may kick off next month, it may kick off another 10,000 years from now. Given the time span between first mention of the Messiah and his arrival we can be sure that God keeps his word, nor matter how long it takes for his word to come to fruition, and that he is coming again.
Indeed we see some of the prophecy coming into place already. Imagine a skeptic in the year 1900 AD bragging about how the Book of Revelation/Book of Daniel must be a bunch of nonsense because it references the Jewish State of Israel and control of Jerusalem and no such place existed nor had they existed for Thousands of years with Muslims ruling the region, more or less continually, for over a thousand years. Then less than fifty years later we see a creation of an independent Jewish State in Israel. It took nearly 1800 years since the First Jewish Revolt but the pieces of the prophecy were falling into place, it likely won't be long until we see the rest come into place as well (like rebuilding the second temple).
I have no problem with the Bible having prophecies of far future events. The Old Testament has them, there's no reason the New Testament couldn't as well. The Second Coming (as distinct from the Rapture) is most definitely prophesied in the New Testament, and it hasn't happened yet.
My problem is that Revelation, isn't about those things. It's about the fall of the second temple. And with chapter 20 specifically, there's this weird jump. In 19:19 Nero goes to war, but then 3 verses later we're looking at judgment day? Why are we going from prophetic imagery of earthly events, to a literal description of judgment day, then back to prophetic imagery of the New Jerusalem? Why would it be so disjointed like that? The only way to interpret it as a literal description of an event is to read it in a vacuum. I don't know what Revelation 20 means, but if I had to guess, we're looking at apocalyptic imagery of the something during the Jewish war (because again, that's what Revelation is broadly about). And really, this shouldn't be surprising. To the Jews watching the temple fall, it WAS the end of the world. It was entirely reasonable for them to talk about it in those terms. But it's not what WE think of as "the end of the world".
I am giving God the benefit of a very, VERY large doubt that Revelation was preserved for some purpose. That doesn't change the fact that it's spawned an ocean of bad theology and prophecy and done MASSIVE damage to the church. If that's blasphemy, well, I guess I'll be having that one out with God eventually.
