are there any universalists here?????

[Magenta]

Acts documents the mission of the church and the spread of the Gospel, but the word Hell doesn’t come into play. Peter mentions the “grave” in Acts chapter 2, which is the word “Hades” (sometimes improperly translated as Hell), but otherwise, we don’t have a record in Acts of Hell being used as a prompt to believe the Gospel.

The book of Acts contains the record of the apostolic preaching, and the history of the first planting of the Church among the Jews and Gentiles, embracing a period of thirty years from the ascension of Christ. In all this history, in all this preaching of the disciples and apostles of Jesus, there is no mention of Gehenna, either.

In thirty years of missionary effort, these men of God, addressing people of all characters and nations, never, under any circumstances, threaten them with the torments of Gehenna, or allude to it in the most distant manner! In the face of such a fact as this, can any man believe that Gehenna signifies endless punishment, and that this is a part of divine revelation, a part of the Gospel message to the world?

I am appalled that my contemporaries believe it to be so.

 

[trofimus]

Yes it is a common heresy now after being popularized and promoted by the RCC.

RCC had almost no influence on the Eastern Orthodox Church or protestant churches, RCC is also promoting the papacy and many other things and it does not mean all churches in the world follow that...

Do you have some sources that churches in the earlier centuries believed in just nonexistence?

 

[trofimus]

Hell is meant to mean the grave, or death, and the second death is eternal ever after.

Depends on the word used, but Gehenna is about fire.

 

[Magenta]

RCC had almost no influence on the Eastern Orthodox Church or protestant churches, RCC is also promoting the papacy and many other things and it does not mean all churches in the world follow that...

Do you have some sources that churches in the earlier centuries believed in the destruction?

Protestantism grew out of RCC largely, being formed mostly through what we call the reformation in 16th century, how anyone can say almost no influence when to this very day some cannot tell the difference between certain denominations such as Anglican and Catholicism... it is because hardly any difference is there, truthfully, though surely they reject the primacy and authority of the pope. The great schism between EO and Catholicism happened in 1054. I am sure they had lots in common before that, and were majorly influenced by the RCC. Here is what wiki says on RCC/EO:

Since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has generally taken the approach that the schism is primarily ecclesiological in nature, that the doctrinal teachings of the Eastern Orthodox churches are generally sound (with the exception of their understanding of papal primacy, the filioque clause, and the purification after death) and that "the vision of the full communion to be sought is that of unity in legitimate diversity" as before the division, since "the first councils are an eloquent witness to this enduring unity in diversity". In this view, the primary difficulty is disagreement on the role of the Pope.

 

[trofimus]

Protestantism grew out of RCC largely, being formed mostly through what we call the reformation in 16th century, how anyone can say almost no influence when to this very day some cannot tell the difference between certain denominations such as Anglican and Catholicism... it is because hardly any difference is there, truthfully, though surely they reject the primacy and authority of the pope. The great schism between EO and Catholicism happened in 1054. I am sure they had lots in common before that, and were majorly influenced by the RCC. Here is what wiki says on RCC/EO:

Since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has generally taken the approach that the schism is primarily ecclesiological in nature, that the doctrinal teachings of the Eastern Orthodox churches are generally sound (with the exception of their understanding of papal primacy, the filioque clause, and the purification after death) and that "the vision of the full communion to be sought is that of unity in legitimate diversity" as before the division, since "the first councils are an eloquent witness to this enduring unity in diversity". In this view, the primary difficulty is disagreement on the role of the Pope.

Anglicans are not protestants, they had different history. The king of England wanted adultery, RCC did not allow it so he based his own church and made himself the head of it.

Protestant churches came out of the RCC and therefore they tried to get rid of anything that seemed like the RCC influence and live just by the Bible. So I do not think they would take the eternal torment just because "RCC is promoting it", if you undestand me.

RCC can say whatever it wants about the orthodoxy, but still, it does not mean that the orthodox church does what RCC wants them to do

 

[Katy-follower]

Universalism is a lie.

If everyone were truly going to Heaven regardless, then what would be the point of the Great commission? Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."


The bible shows two sets of people...

Narrow & Broad way
Matthew 7:13-14: “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it"


Sheep and Goats
Matthew 25:31-46: "............All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...........Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels..."


Wheat and Tares
Matthew 13:24-30: "...........Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”

 

[Magenta]

Anglicans are not protestants, they had different history. The king of England wanted adultery, RCC did not allow it so he based his own church and made himself the head of it.

Protestant churches came out of the RCC and therefore they tried to get rid of anything that seemed like the RCC influence and live just by the Bible. So I do not think they would take the eternal torment just because "RCC is promoting it", if you undestand me.

RCC can say whatever it wants about the orthodoxy, but still, it does not mean that the orthodox church does what RCC wants them to do

Anglicans are one of the first protestants! I suppose not everyone defines protestant the same way; perhaps you need to give your definition of it? The 95 theses that Luther put on the door had much to do with abuses he saw from the papacy, including such things as indulgences, and in fact his complaint is also called Disputation on the Power of Indulgences, which are directly tied to the heresy of eternal torment. Just because the protestant movement rejected the authority of the pope does not mean they purged themselves of every RCC influence. Plainly they did not. Luther upheld RCC teachings in other areas, such as their Mariology.

Who said anything about the EO doing what the RCC wants? You are denying any and all influence when plainly it was there.

 

[trofimus]

Anglicans are one of the first protestants! I suppose not everyone defines protestant the same way; perhaps you need to give your definition of it? The 95 theses that Luther put on the door had much to do with abuses he saw from the papacy, including such things as indulgences, and in fact his complaint is also called Disputation on the Power of Indulgences, which are directly tied to the heresy of eternal torment. Just because the protestant movement rejected the authority of the pope does not mean they purged themselves of every RCC influence. Plainly they did not. Luther upheld RCC teachings in other areas, such as their Mariology.

Who said anything about the EO doing what the RCC wants? You are denying any and all influence when plainly it was there.

Everything influences everything, in this sense EO and protestants also influences RCC etc. But I do not see how the doctrine of the RCC should influence EO or independent protestants to accept something like this if it is not in the Bible... and when did it happen? Do you have any early sources? I would look at them, because I want the hell not to be eternal.

By protestantism I mean the people's movement throughout Europe from lets say 1350, when they begun to realize that what the RCC teaches and demands is not Christianity.

Anglicanism, on the other hand, begun because one ruler (English king) wanted to sin which was against the wish of another ruler (pope). The English ruler is the head of the English church even today. Which is the opposite of the protestantism (there is only one head of the Church - Christ).

It had a different motivation and therefore I do not include it into the biblical protestantism of the continental Europe... even though there were many mutual influences between these two, of course.

 

[Magenta]

Everything influences everything, in this sense EO and protestants also influences RCC etc. But I do not see how the doctrine of the RCC should influence EO or independent protestants to accept something like this if it is not in the Bible... and when did it happen? Do you have any early sources? I would look at them, because I want the hell not to be eternal.

By protestantism I mean the people's movement throughout Europe from lets say 1350, when they begun to realize that what the RCC teaches and demands is not Christianity.

Anglicanism, on the other hand, begun because one ruler (English king) wanted to sin which was against the wish of another ruler (pope). The English ruler is the head of the English church even today. Which is the opposite of the protestantism (there is only one head of the Church - Christ).

It had a different motivation and therefore I do not include it into the biblical protestantism of the continental Europe... even though there were many mutual influences between these two, of course.

You want the punishment for refusing the sovereignty of God not to be eternal? Sorry, that is not what I am promoting. I plainly state what Scripture teaches and it baffles me that people cannot grasp it. The wages of sin is death. Hell is the grave, improperly translated from four words in the original languages, which I have already explained at length, a placeholder for the dead until the day of judgement following the bodily resurrection of all. Only God is immortal. The soul of man has no life apart from God. Jesus holds the keys to life and death. Those whose names are not written in the Lamb's book of life pass into the second death. The dead know nothing. The second death is eternal punishment. Eternal life is found only in Christ, through faith n His sacrifice on the cross, where He poured out His righteous blood due to His great love for us, taking the penalty for sin upon Himself.

If you want something other than that, I don't know what to suggest because Christianity teaches that life is in God and death is the penalty for rejecting God's plan for humanity through Jesus Christ. Researching the origins of eternal conscious torment can be done on the web. Getting info from centuries old writings is not easy. Maybe just read the Bible It plainly states that the wages of sin is death, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I believe what it says It pains me that so many do not, and that those same people then try to turn around and pretend I have a problem with what Scripture teaches about God being loving and just ,when they turn Him into a sadistic monster, and reject the multitude of verses given that solidly support my view. They dismiss them without giving them much thought, and I have even had people try to tell me that the Greek word for perish does not mean what I think it does, except, when I look it up, it means exactly what I think it does! So people try to change my mind with lies, and it is laughable. Also, death and hell are eventually destroyed also, being thrown into the lake of fire.

 

[trofimus]

You want the punishment for refusing the sovereignty of God not to be eternal? Sorry, that is not what I am promoting. I plainly state what Scripture teaches and it baffles me that people cannot grasp it. The wages of sin is death. Hell is the grave, improperly translated from four words in the original languages, which I have already explained at length, a placeholder for the dead until the day of judgement following the bodily resurrection of all. Only God is immortal. The soul of man has no life apart from God. Jesus holds the keys to life and death. Those whose names are not written in the Lamb's book of life pass into the second death. The dead know nothing. The second death is eternal punishment. Eternal life is found only in Christ, through faith n His sacrifice on the cross, where He poured out His righteous blood due to His great love for us, taking the penalty for sin upon Himself.

If you want something other than that, I don't know what to suggest because Christianity teaches that life is in God and death is the penalty for rejecting God's plan for humanity through Jesus Christ. Researching the origins of eternal conscious torment can be done on the web. Getting info from centuries old writings is not easy. Maybe just read the Bible It plainly states that the wages of sin is death, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I believe what it says It pains me that so many do not, and that those same people then try to turn around and pretend I have a problem with what Scripture teaches about God being loving and just ,when they turn Him into a sadistic monster, and reject the multitude of verses given that solidly support my view. They dismiss them without giving them much thought, and I have even had people try to tell me that the Greek word for perish does not mean what I think it does, except, when I look it up, it means exactly what I think it does! So people try to change my mind with lies, and it is laughable. Also, death and hell are eventually destroyed also, being thrown into the lake of fire.

I am giving it much thought and I wish it to be truth. Yes, there are many verses like "the wage of sin is death". But there are also other verses like Rev 20:10:

"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."

I do not see any RCC in this verse

 

[Muzungu256]

relax guys...... i didnt want this to become a thread of fighting, i was just asking for opinions and now we have people doubting each other's salvation and attacks....... close the thread.

 

[FreeNChrist]

It is true that the belief in the inherent immortality of the soul is an unbiblical, pagan idea. But hell as everlasting conscious suffering is in no way dependent on that false notion. The souls of the wicked will continue to exist forever because God wills it, period. That there is no inherent immortality of the soul does nothing to disprove the ongoing, never ending, conscious suffering of the wicked. That whole argument is irrelevant and worse, misleading.

 

[posthuman]

relax guys...... i didnt want this to become a thread of fighting, i was just asking for opinions and now we have people doubting each other's salvation and attacks....... close the thread.

hehe welcome to the Bible discussion forum
yours is the typical reaction to how threads often progress

people are passionate about these things. we have to be quick to overlook offense and fault, and remember we're talking about concepts, not about each other

 

[Depleted]

And this is how young people learn. I fear you sell the intelligence of our young posters far too short. They do not learn from us just "telling" them things they are to believe.

Yeah, 17 years of schooling and all those classes on the side (Bible studies, community classes, college course just-because) and I still can't string together the alphabet, time tables, or a story because "telling" just doesn't work.

 

[Depleted]

Fear has to do with punishment. Perfect love casts out fear.

Another word for fear in the Bible -- respect. Unwavering respect. So, yup, Perfect love casts out fear, because love is the guide for the fear. When we love perfectly, (which we do not), then fear is cast out.

 

[valiant]

Anglicans are not protestants, they had different history. The king of England wanted adultery, RCC did not allow it so he based his own church and made himself the head of it.

This is a naive view of the Anglican church, Henry VIII it is true separated from the pope, because he wanted a son. But the church was still basically catholic. And under Mary Tudor it returned to the Roman Catholic fold.

The Anglican church as it now is was founded by Elizabeth I hand in hand with the reformers.

 

[Willie-T]

Yeah, 17 years of schooling and all those classes on the side (Bible studies, community classes, college course just-because) and I still can't string together the alphabet, time tables, or a story because "telling" just doesn't work.

Sadly, you're more correct than you know.

 

[trofimus]

This is a naive view of the Anglican church, Henry VIII it is true separated from the pope, because he wanted a son. But the church was still basically catholic. And under Mary Tudor it returned to the Roman Catholic fold.

The Anglican church as it now is was founded by Elizabeth I hand in hand with the reformers.

So, tell me... who is the head of the Anglican church?

 

[Depleted]

Exactly, nobody will survive outside of Christ; you seem to have the particulars but are conflicted about them, none the less, and go along with the crowd in their conclusion on the matter despite what Scripture teaches. The consequence of sin (non-belief) is eternal ever after, in the second death.

You don't like me. Not my problem, but you don't. What I'm saying next isn't my problem either, but I worry about you and am praying for you.

You are managing to alienate every single person on this site, some of whom were good friends to you, they love you, and you loved them, before casting them aside. Maybe it's time for you to revisit the concept of "going along with the crowd." I see where that can go wrong too, but the way you're bucking the crowd is isolating yourself from everyone.

I've got no idea why you chose to hate me, and I have no problem with your choice. But why do you chose to hate everyone? What has Spokenmessage said to you that was so terrible you rile against him? Not his words -- him? This is a repeated pattern. I can go down a very long list of people you've done the same to, and you'd be surprised how often those people considered you a good friend. You might even be surprised how many have backed away from you, because you keep kicking anyone who gets near you. You might not even notice they have backed away.

Going along with the crowd isn't always a good idea, but it's also not always evil either.

Isolation isn't evil either, but it sure has to be lonely. Why make yourself lonely intentionally?

Something to consider, after you yell at me for writing this.

 

[Depleted]

Well paint me green and call me a cucumber, but I thought Scripture was clear in dispelling any guidance in our life other than the Holy Spirit? Why would He want us to look at three options to His Truths? Hmmm, So, slap me silly, but maybe we need not venture a guess on what our Father wants. Maybe, just maybe ( and when I say that, I mean absolutely, without pause or divergence!) we should just follow the Spirit of God so our spirit doesn't look like swiss cheese, and our flesh doesn't appear to be God's Spirit. Diligence in Christ is important - Dare I say? I do dare, because He dares to say. So, fluff my pillow but don't flatten my Spirit! I vote no on the Universalist lie. But I'm just a radical Christian what can I say?! ...

Just so you know, I will probably spend the rest of the day trying to figure out what a painted-green-cucumber-egg looks like. (The problems of associating people with their avatars. lol)