Annihilation vs. "Universalism", Both Heresies, One "Condemnable"?

[WhiteWings]

I've read information about "church history," but I don't consider the early believers or even the apostles "church fathers" because it's my understanding that the word "church" comes from the Latin version of the Roman Empire

Circe, a Greek deity who turned men into pigs, is the origin from which springs our English word KIRCHE, producing the word "Church". In the very first English translation of the NT, a Catholic priest named John Wycliffe used the word "congregation" for the Greek word ecclesia (ek-la-SEE-a), not "Church".

I don't care about anything associated with the word "church" anymore including "church fathers," "church doctrine," or "the creeds of the church."

Sorry to say but I think you are missing out with that attitude. "know your enemy"

My only creed is the word of God; my only doctrine is the word of God; and my only Father is the living God, Yahweh Elohim.

A great objective that that can only be truly met with certain backbround.

As far as I'm concerned "church history" is about the history of the church of the Roman Empire. I understand that's not what most folks are referring to, but I think the whole concept of "church" comes straight from Rome.

There were centuries before Rome got involved. When people refer to church fathers on this forum quite often they are not the roman church fathers.

[eaglesway]

The word "church" is so loaded it is difficult to discuss dispassionately or objectively.

When some people say church, they are thinking of the universal ecclessia of God or a local expression of it.

When some people say church, they are thinking of a concept that is religious in nature, not spiritual- like the Roman model or somethng else man-centered.

It is what we are thinking that is important when we communicate with one another, and it is worth the time to consider what the person I am sharing with is "thinking" when they speak a certain word, rather than to allow words to become hot buttons that prevent communication and encourage judging one another.

[irenic-inkwell]

I'm reading this thread with much interest.  I have always enjoyed history... in high school I received my best grades... there might have been at least three history classes...  Ancient, American, and one that stressed more of the political aspects of history...  It's a good thing that there are brothers/sisters (followers of Jesus) that bring the historical aspects of the religious attempts of man to the forum... so thank you much.   Hopefully we can learn from history what to do/not to do regarding our journey through this wilderness.

[Tom]

I've read information about "church history," but I don't consider the early believers or even the apostles "church fathers" because it's my understanding that the concept of "church" comes from the Roman Empire

Circe, a Greek deity who turned men into pigs, is the origin from which springs our English word KIRCHE, producing the word "Church". In the very first English translation of the NT, a Catholic priest named John Wycliffe used the word "congregation" for the Greek word ecclesia (ek-la-SEE-a), not "Church".

I don't care about anything associated with the word "church" anymore including "church fathers," "church doctrine," or "the creeds of the church."

Sorry to say but I think you are missing out with that attitude. "know your enemy"

My only creed is the word of God; my only doctrine is the word of God; and my only Father is the living God, Yahweh Elohim.

A great objective that that can only be truly met with certain backbround.

As far as I'm concerned "church history" is about the history of the church of the Roman Empire. I understand that's not what most folks are referring to, but I think the whole concept of "church" comes straight from Rome.

There were centuries before Rome got involved. When people refer to church fathers on this forum quite often they are not the roman church fathers.

I realize it was a while before Rome institutionalized "the church" system, but they've distorted the history of "the ecclesia" and continue to distort the concept of it by even changing it's name.

The Roman church has many "fathers" even today, but the word of God says to call no man father.

"And 'father' you should not be calling one of you on the earth, for One is your Father, the heavenly." (Matthew 23:9)

Although "ekklesia" may refer to the whole "body of Christ" or individual groups of the "out-called," it has no connotation of a religious system.

The "kyriakon," or "church," however, is a theological hierarchical system in which the people are distinguished from the clergy who function as priests, and, in the Roman Catholic Church, are even called "father" and supposedly have the power to forgive sins.

"there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5)

It seems I had a senior moment last night when I was thinking the Latin Vulgate had used "kyriakon" rather than "ecclesia." So I edited my post, but I still think it's due to the Roman church that we have the mistranslation of "ecclesia" as "church." It's a different word with a different concept. It shouldn't have been changed just as "Gehenna" shouldn't have been changed to "hell." The church has corrupted the word of God to propagate its own agenda. This is just another example.

I've read about "Circe" and the other etymology of the word "church," but it's not in the Greek manuscripts.

My point is that early believers who may have had some authority don't need to be called "church fathers" because the word of God is always referring to "the ecclesia" not " the church." So I don't consider early teachers and leaders of "the ecclesia" "church fathers" even though I know that's a popular expression, but I understand why early teachers of the Roman Catholic Church are considered "church fathers." I don't follow their teachings though.

I don't believe "the church" and "the body of Christ" are the same thing. I think "the church" is the world religious organization claiming to be "the body of Christ" while distorting the words of Christ and the evangel. I realize some folks say there is a "true church" and a "false church," but I prefer to use the word "ecclesia" found in the word of God. We are the "ecclesia," literally "out-called" from all nations to be "the body of Christ."

I think the greatest teacher to walk the face of the earth was Christ, but he was only commissioned to Israel. The risen Christ commissioned Paul to the nations. He is who I consider to be the second most important teacher because it is through his revelation from Christ that we of "the nations are to be joint enjoyers of an allotment, and a joint body, and joint partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus, through the evangel" (Ephesians 3:6). That means Paul's evangel of the Uncircumcision not Peter's evangel of the Circumcision. The Roman Catholic Church mixed the two distinct evangels into a distorted evangel claiming Peter was the first pope, but there's nothing in the word of God about Peter being the bishop of Rome even though it may be part of "church history" as far as Catholics are concerned.

Paul warned the Galatians about a distorted evangel.

"I am marveling that thus, swiftly, you are transferred from that which calls you in the grace of Christ, to a different evangel, which is not another, except it be that some who are disturbing you want also to distort the evangel of Christ. But if ever we also, or a messenger out of heaven, should be bringing an evangel to you beside that which we bring to you, let him be anathema! As we have declared before and at present I am saying again, if anyone is bringing you an evangel beside that which you accepted, let him be anathema!" (Galatians 1:6-9)

Unfortunately the Protestant Church maintained the distorted evangel after purging some of the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. I was born into the Roman Catholic Church; left it when I was young; and tried the Protestant Church; but finally came to the conclusion that I should just get out of "the church" and get into the word of God. That's why I say I'm free from the bondage of churchianity and now "worshiping in spirit and truth."

"God is spirit, and those who are worshiping Him must be worshiping in spirit and truth." (John 4:24)

I understand, when folks here or elsewhere say "the church," they may mean "the ecclesia." I personally just prefer to use the word "ecclesia" because that seems to be the most accurate translation of the Greek "ekklesia" in the word of God that has been mistranslated as "church," and I believe there is a distinction between the two.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Tom]

The word "church" is so loaded it is difficult to discuss dispassionately or objectively.

When some people say church, they are thinking of the universal ecclessia of God or a local expression of it.

When some people say church, they are thinking of a concept that is religious in nature, not spiritual- like the Roman model or somethng else man-centered.

It is what we are thinking that is important when we communicate with one another, and it is worth the time to consider what the person I am sharing with is "thinking" when they speak a certain word, rather than to allow words to become hot buttons that prevent communication and encourage judging one another.

I agree.

[Graph1159]

Considering that the early church fathers read the New Testament in their native language, the fact that any of them (even if it was a minority) could teach the salvation of all while acknowledging the authority of the Scriptures, would seem to indicate that the Scriptures often used to support eternal torment did not (by themselves) require such an interpretation.

[WhiteWings]

Graph please read this book full of quotes from the early church fathers.
It's easy to read.

http://home.online.nl/spamfree/ShepherdsVoice/index.html?page=the_prevailing_doctrine.htm

[Graph1159]

Hi WhiteWings,
Thank you for the link. I haven't read the whole article yet, but one thing I saw that I found very significant was that the Greek church fathers who believed in UR used the word aionios to describe future judgment whereas the Jews and Pagans (who believed in eternal torment) used different words which clearly meant endlessness.

[WhiteWings]

I'm not your or anyone's master, or want to be; but I would strongly advise everyone that has doubts because scholars say different things about words to read this book. Don't be put off because of its size because it's not really a book. It's a huge collection of quotes with some text of the author to drive a point home.
Just 5-10 minutes a day will be enough.

I haven't read the whole article yet

Article? Maybe you mean the summary I wrote? Yes, that's good as a quick read. But each and every quote is just copy and paste from the book which contains much more. (Click at the top of the page)

Sometimes church fathers wrote something that really sounds like eternal punishment. But then a few paragraphs later they speak about the eternal punishment ending. For that sorta stuff you really need to read the book.

[Graph1159]

I'm not your or anyone's master, or want to be; but I would strongly advise everyone that has doubts because scholars say different things about words to read this book. Don't be put off because of its size because it's not really a book. It's a huge collection of quotes with some text of the author to drive a point home.
Just 5-10 minutes a day will be enough.

I haven't read the whole article yet

Article? Maybe you mean the summary I wrote? Yes, that's good as a quick read. But each and every quote is just copy and paste from the book which contains much more. (Click at the top of the page)

Sometimes church fathers wrote something that really sounds like eternal punishment. But then a few paragraphs later they speak about the eternal punishment ending. For that sorta stuff you really need to read the book.

I definitely look forward to reading the whole book. I have been curious about the early church's views on human destiny for a long time.

[Mediate]

I always have a little inner laugh to myself whenever I get called heretical, which inevitably happens somewhere or other.

I think the idea that because I believe all people are united to God in the end, and that I am heretical and that Jesus teachings mean nothing therefore, is just another way for people to say that they don't believe in what they claim to believe - that Jesus' salvation isn't based on works or on anything we can do. Because if it is simply based on 'believing in Jesus' then an act of ours enables us to avoid their fiery hell, thus, salvation isn't from Jesus, it's from their own doing. Which, ironically, makes Jesus' teachings a bit of a mock-up. 'Believe and you're saved from hell', is another way of saying 'it's really easy, just join the club'.

In short, I reply, 'how can a man of light, whose light is purposed to light the whole world, and whose light shines all around him, contain a darkness? If darkness exists within him, then there is no light within him, for if there was light, then there cannot be dark.' That 'acts of wickedness (allowing torture, eternal pain, active hatred) are things of the dark'.

Inevitably, I get some explanation of how God's real love has two dual dimensions and one is love and the other is fiery punishment and that God gives love to those who love him and punishment to those who don't. I remind them of Jesus' nature and how he actively loved those against him, and they respond with a hell verse. We go on to discuss gehenna and then I generally get thrown out or banned.

1 John 5:7

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

1 John 3:19-21

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."


Inevitably these become twisted, since most of the people who believe in hell have a dualistic mind-set and don't understand that a dark idea of justice is not the same as the justice of a man of light.

'Forgive them father, for they do not know what they are doing'.

The great part is, I'll see them on the other side and trample both the ashes of their burnt acts of wickedness and the ashes of my own.

[shawn]

I just wonder...
Why do we even care what the early church fathers or anyone else thinks about our beliefs about God?
Are we comforted if other humans agree with us? Does it "cement" our beliefs?
This is just an example but, is anyone convinced by reading their Bible that Mary should be venerated and prayed to and worshipped? Since some people do this, is the person doing it based on scripture or what other people have said?
There is one major fact, IMO. God does not change, There was no mention of eternal torture or torment in God's word for 4,000 years. The Jesus came, the Saviour of the world and the "Good news" to all men and nations is that 95% of them will be tortured forever?  :doh:

I'm interested in what Paul, Peter, Timothy and the likes thought about eternal punishment.  I think those in the early church would have beliefs that most closely resemble those of the disciples and apostles.  For me, it's relevant and indeed important. 

[Lazarus Short]

Inevitably these become twisted, since most of the people who believe in hell have a dualistic mind-set and don't understand that a dark idea of justice is not the same as the justice of a man of light.

My thinking is that God's justice was to send His own Son to die for us - a Man of Light indeed.  If God the Father and God the Son agreed on this outcome together, then God really is Love.  :HeartThrob: