Early Church "Fathers" - A Witness or a Rebuttal?

[jabcat]

Is anyone enough of a scholar (or interested enough to do the research) to be able to either affirm or deny/rebut this information?  I found it on an Eastern Orthodox website [Orthodox.com]   If this is correct information, is there other [known] information that might show this to be the early stages of orthodox error - and if not, what do you make of this?


"As we assemble the teachings of these first church leaders, several patterns emerge related to the nature of Hell. The Early Church Fathers, with very few exceptions, agree with the teaching of the Bible in the way they describe Hell:

1.   Hell is a place of judgment for those who have rejected God and denied Jesus as their Savior
2.   Hell is a place of separation from God
3.   Hell is a place of torment in which the rebellious are in anguish and pain
4.   Hell is a place where the rebellious are tormented forever and are CONSCIOUS of this torment for all eternity (In fact, the eternal duration of their torment is often compared o the eternal duration of the reward of the saved)

At the same time, the earliest Church Fathers are ambiguous on those areas where the Bible s ALSO ambiguous.

1.   The exact nature of the torment of the rebellious is unknown
2.   The manner in which the rebellious are kept alive in spite of 'deathly' anguish is also un-described.


What They Wrote
From the earliest days of Christianity, the first believers wrote about the nature of Hell. Here is a very brief assessment of their understanding related to the final resting place of the damned:

From "The Epistle of Barnabas" (70-130AD)
The author of the Epistle of Barnabas is unknown, but many consider him to simply be who he said he was, Barnabas, the associate of Paul who is mentioned in the Book of Acts. The letter was written to new converts to Christianity:

The way of darkness is crooked, and it is full of cursing. It is the way of eternal death with punishment. ("Epistle of Barnabas")



From "Second Clement" (150AD)
This epistle was written by an Early Church Father as a recorded sermon (ascribed to Clement of Rome). Clement was bishop of Rome from 88 to 98AD, and his teaching reflects the early traditions of the Church:

If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment ("Second Clement" 5:5)


 
From Justin Martyr (151AD)
An early believer and apologist for the Christian faith, Justin Martyr was born in Palestine and was martyred in Rome under Marcus Aurelius. He wrote several important defenses of Christianity, addressed to leaders of the Roman Empire:

No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments ("First Apology" 12).

We have been taught that only they may aim at immortality who have lived a holy and virtuous life near to God. We believe that they who live wickedly and do not repent will be punished in everlasting fire ("First Apology" 21).

[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons ("First Apology" 52).


 
From "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" (155AD)
This work was written by an Early Church Father (unknown author) and is dated very early in the history of Christianity. It describes the death of Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, and also describes early teachings of the church:

Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire ("Martyrdom of Polycarp" 2:3)


 
From Tatian (160AD)
Tatian was an early Assyrian believer who moved to Rome as a pagan and eventually became a Christian. Interestingly, he read the Jewish Scriptures and from these became convinced that other pagan ideas about the world were simply false. He was a student of Justin Martyr and wrote about the unreasonableness of paganism and the truth of Christianity:

We who are now easily susceptible to death, will afterwards receive immortality with either enjoyment or with pain.



From Athenagoras of Athens (175AD)
Athenagoras was a philosopher and citizen of Athens who became a Christian (possibly from Platonism) and wrote two important apologetic works; "Apology" or "Embassy for the Christians", and a "Treatise on the Resurrection":

We are persuaded that when we are removed from the present life we will live another life, better than the present one...or, if they fall with the rest, they will endure a worse life, one in fire. For God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, who are mere by-products. For animals perish and are annihilated. On these grounds, it is not likely that we would wish to do evil. ("Apology")



From Theophilus of Antioch (181AD)
Theophilus was the Patriarch of Antioch from 169 to 183AD. He was born a pagan and converted to Christianity after reading the scriptures. He was very zealous about protecting the orthodoxy of the earliest believers and he wrote a defense of the faith to a man named Autolycus:

Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. . . . [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . . For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire ("To Autolycus" 1:14)


 
From Irenaeus (189AD)
Irenaeus was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (now Lyon, France) at the end of the second century. He was a discplie of Polycarp and a notable early apologist for the faith. He wrote several volumes defending the faith against Gnosticism and other early heresies of the Church:

[God will] send the spiritual forces of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, and the impious, unjust, lawless, and blasphemous among men into everlasting fire ("Against Heresies" 1:10:1)

The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, 'Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,' they will be damned forever ("Against Heresies" 4:28:2)


 
From Clement of Alexandria (195AD)
Titus Flavius Clemens was the first significant and recorded Christian from the church of Alexandria, Egypt. His parents were Greek and he was raised with a solid, formal Greek education. While he had a tendency to blend Greek and Christian philosophies, his view on the issue of Hell was derived from the scriptures:

All souls are immortal, even those of the wicked. Yet, it would be better for them if they were not deathless. For they are punished with the endless vengeance of quenchless fire. Since they do not die, it is impossible for them to have an end put to their misery. (from a post-Nicene manuscript fragment)



From Tertullian (197AD)
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus was a Romanized African citizen who was born in Carthage (now Tunisia). He became a Christian and was a powerful and influential apologist for the faith, writing prolifically in defense of the doctrines of orthodoxy:

After the present age is ended he will judge his worshipers for a reward of eternal life and the godless for a fire equally perpetual and unending ("Apology" 18:3)

Then will the entire race of men be restored to receive its just deserts according to what it has merited in this period of good and evil, and thereafter to have these paid out in an immeasurable and unending eternity. Then there will be neither death again nor resurrection again, but we shall be always the same as we are now, without changing. The worshipers of God shall always be with God, clothed in the proper substance of eternity. But the godless and those who have not turned wholly to God will be punished in fire equally unending, and they shall have from the very nature of this fire, divine as it were, a supply of incorruptibility ("Apology" 44:12–13).

[WhiteWings]

Is anyone enough of a scholar (or interested enough to do the research) to be able to either affirm or deny/rebut this information?

No problem at all. Stay tuned :winkgrin:

[WhiteWings]

Barnabas's "Way of Death."
The Epistle of Barnabas was written by an Alexandrian Gnostic, probably about A.D. 70 to 120,
not, as has been claimed, by Paul's companion, and yet some of the best authorities think the author of
the Epistle was the friend of Paul. Though often quoted by the ancients, the first four and a half
chapters of the Epistle were only known in a Latin version until the entire Greek was discovered and
published in 1863. It is the only Christian composition written while the New Testament was being
written, except the "Wisdom of Solomon." It is of small intrinsic value, and sheds but little light on
eschatology. The first perfect manuscript was found with the Sinaitic manuscript of Tischendorf, a
translation of which is given by Samuel Sharpe. (Williams & Norgate, London, 1880.) It was the first
document after the New Testament to apply aionios to punishment; but there is nothing in the
connection to show that it was used in any other than its Scriptural sense, indefinite duration. It is
quoted by Origen on Cont. Cels., and by Clement of Alexandria. It is chiefly remarkable for standing
alone among writings contemporary with the New Testament. The phrase, eis ton aiona, "to the age,"
mistranslated in the New Testament "forever" (though correctly rendered in the margin of the
Revision), is employed by Barnabas and applied to the rewards of goodness and the evil consequences
of ill doing. He says, "The way of the Black one is an age-lasting way of death and punishment," but
the description accompanying shows that the Way and its results are confined to this life, for he
precedes it by disclaiming all questions of eschatology. He says: "If I should write to you about things
that are future you would not understand." And when he speaks of God he says: "He is Lord from
ages and to ages, but he (Satan) is prince of the present time of wickedness." Long duration but not
strict eternity seems to have been in his mind when he referred to the consequences of wickedness.
This is confirmed by the following language: "He that chooseth those (evil) things will be destroyed
together with his works. For the sake of this there will be a resurrection, for the sake of this a
repayment. The day is at hand in which all things will perish together with the evil one. The Lord is at
hand and his reward." Barnabas probably held the Scriptural view of punishment, long-lasting but
limited, though he employs timoria (torment) instead of kolasis (correction) for punishment.

[WhiteWings]

Views of Clement of Rome.
The first of the apostolic fathers was Clement of Rome, who was bishop A.D. 85. Eusebius and
Origin thought he was Paul's fellow laborer. His famous (first) epistle of fifty-nine chapters is about
the length of Mark's Gospel. He appeals to the destruction of the cities of the plains to illustrate the
divine punishment, but gives no hint of the idea of endless woe, though he devotes three chapters to
the resurrection. He has been thought to have held to a partial resurrection, for he asks: "Do we then
deem it any great and wonderful thing for the maker of all things to raise up again those who have
proudly served him in the assurance of a good faith?" But this does not prove he held to the
annihilation of the wicked, for Theophilus and Origen use similar language. He says: "Let us reflect
how free from wrath he is towards all his creatures." God "does good to all, but most abundantly to us
who have fled for refuge to his compassions," etc. God is "the all-merciful and beneficent Father."
Neander affirms that he had the Pauline spirit," with love as the motive, and A. St. J. Chambre, D.D.,2
thinks "he probably believed in the salvation of all men," and Allin3 refers to Rufinus and says, "from
which we may, I think, infer, that Clement, with other fathers, was a believer in the larger hope." It
cannot be said that he has left anything positive in relation to the subject, though it is probable that
Chambre and Allin have correctly characterized him. He wrote a Greek epistle to the Corinthians
which was lost for centuries, but was often quoted by subsequent writers, and whose contents were
therefore only known in fragments. It was probably written before John's Gospel. It was at length
found complete, bound with the Alexandrian codex. It was read in church before and at the time of
Eusebius, and even as late as the Fifth Century.

==> Why did they stop reading it at around the same time ET stormed the churches?

[WhiteWings]

Justin Martyr's Views.
Justin Martyr, A.D. 89-166, is the first scholar produced by the Church, and the first conspicuous
father the authenticity of whose writings is not disputed. His surviving works are his two Apologies,
and his Dialogue with Trypho. It is difficult to ascertain his exact views. Cave says: "Justin Martyr
maintains that the souls of good men are not received into heaven until the resurrection that the souls
of the wicked are thrust into a worse condition, where they expect the judgment of the great day."
Justin himself says that "the punishment is age-long chastisement (aionion kolasin) and not for a
thousand years as Plato says, "(in Phoedra). "It is unlimited; men are chastised for an unlimited
period, and the kingdom is aionion and the chastening fire (kolasis puros) aionion, too. "God delays
the destruction of the world, which will cause wicked angels and demons and men to cease to exist, in
order to their repentance. Some which appeared worthy of God never die, others are punished as long
as God wills them to exist and be punished. Souls both die and are punished." He calls the fire of
punishment unquenchable (asbeston). He sometimes seems to have taught a pseudo-Universalism,
that is, the salvation of all who should be permitted to be immortal; at other times endless punishment.
Again he favors universal salvation. He not only condemned those who forbade the reading of the
Sibylline Oracles, but commended the book. His language is, "We not only read them without fear,
but offer them for inspection, knowing that they will appear well-pleasing to all." As the Oracles
distinctly advocate universal salvation, it is not easy to believe that Justin discarded their teachings.
And yet he says: "If the death of wicked men had ended in insensibility," it would have been a "godsend"
to them. Instead, he says, death is followed by aionion punishment. If he used the word as
Origen did, the two statements are reconcilable with each other. Justin taught a "general and
everlasting resurrection and judgment. Body and soul are to be raised and the wicked with the devil
and his angels, and demons, sent to Gehenna. 6 Christ has declared that Satan and his host, together
with those men who follow him, shall be sent into fire, and punished for an endless period.7" But it
may be that he speaks rhetorically, and not literally. It is the general opinion, however, that he
regarded punishment as limited, to be followed by annihilation. He himself says: "The soul, therefore,
partakes of life, because God wills it should live; and, accordingly, it will not partake of life whenever
God shall will that it should not live." And yet he says that bodies are consumed in the fire, and at the
same time remain immortal.
Justin was a heathen philosopher before his conversion, and his Christianity is of a mongrel type.
He wore a pagan philosopher's robe, or pallium, after his conversion, calls himself a Platonist, and
always seems half a heathen. His effort appears to be to fuse Christianity and Paganism, and it is not
easy to harmonize his statements. His Pagan idiosyncrasies colored his Christianity. But, as Farrar
says, the theology of the first one or two centuries had not been crystallized, the "language was fluid
and untechnical, and great stress should not be laid on the expressions of the earliest fathers. He
nowhere calls punishment endless, but aionion; and yet it can not be proved that he was at all aware
of the true philosophic meaning of aionios as a word expressive of quality, and exclusive of--or rather
the absolute antithesis to--time. He says that demons and wicked men will be punished for a
boundless age (aperanto aiona), but in some passages he seems to be at least uncertain whether God
may not will that evil souls should cease to exist." 8 When Justin says that transgressors are to remain
deathless (athanata) while devoured by the worm and fire, may he not mean that they cannot die
while thus exposed? So, too, when he used the word aionios, and says the sinner must undergo
punishment during that period, why not read literally "for ages, and not as Plato said, for a thousand
years only?"
When, therefore, these terms are found unexplained, as in Justin Martyr, they should be read in the
bright light cast upon them by the interpretations of Clement and Origen, who employ them as
forcibly as does Justin, but who explain them--"eternal fire" and "everlasting punishment"--as in
perfect harmony with the great fact of universal restoration. Doctor Farrar regards Justin Martyr as
holding "views more or less analogous to Universalism. 9"
We cannot do better here than to quote H. Ballou, 2d D.D.:
"The question turns on the construction of a single passage. Justin had argued that souls are not, in
their own nature, immortal, since they were created, or begotten; and whatever thus begins to exist,
may come to an end. 'But, still, I do not say that souls wholly die; for that would truly be good fortune
to the bad. What then? The souls of the pious dwell in a certain better place; but those of the unjust
and wicked, in a worse place, expecting the time of judgment. Thus, those who are judged of God to
be worthy, die no more; but the others are punished as long as God shall will that they should exist
and be punished. For, whatever is, or ever shall be, subsequent to God, has a corruptible nature, and is
such as may be abolished and cease to exist. God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and,
therefore, he is God; but everything else, subsequent to him, is begotten and corruptible. For this
reason, souls both die and are punished."

==> Needless to say that the half heathen part is teh ET stuff because that's exactly what is found is all heathen doctrines.

[WhiteWings]

"The Martyrdom of Polycarp" purports to be a letter from the church of Smyrna reciting the
particulars of his death. But though it is the earliest of the Martyria, it is supposed to have a much
later date than it alleges, and much has been interpolated by its transcribers. Eusebius omits much of
it. It speaks of the fire that is "aionion punishment," and it is probable that the writer gave these terms
the same sense that is given them by the Scriptures, Origen, Gregory and other Universalist writings
and authors.
Tatian states the doctrine of endless punishment very strongly. He was a philosophical Platonist
more than a Christian. He was a heathen convert and repeats the heathen doctrines in language
unknown to the New Testament though common enough in heathen works. He calls punishment
"death through punishment in immortality," 4 terms used by Josephus and the Pagans, but never found
in the New Testament. His "Diatessaron," a collection of the Gospels, is of real value in determining
the existence of the Gospels in the Second Century.

[jabcat]

Is anyone enough of a scholar (or interested enough to do the research) to be able to either affirm or deny/rebut this information?

No problem at all. Stay tuned :winkgrin:

I thought about putting in the post something like "calling White Wings" or "attention White Wings".  :)

I'll study your responses more carefully a little later.  Quick check-in right now.  Thanks.   :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

Athenagoras and Theophilus.Athenagoras wrote an "Apology," about A.D. 178, and a "Treatise on the Resurrection." He was a
scholar and a philosopher, and made great efforts to convert the heathen to Christianity. He declared
that there shall be a judgment, the award of which shall be distributed according to conduct; but he
nowhere refers to the duration of punishment. He was, however, the head of the Catechetical school in
Alexandria, before Pantænus, and must have shared the Universalist views of Pantænus, Clement and
Origen, his successors.
Theophilus (A.D. 180). This author has left a "Treatise" in behalf of Christianity, addressed to
Autolycus, a learned heathen. He uses current language on the subject of punishment, but says: "Just
as a vessel, which, after it has been made, has some flaw, is remade or remodeled, that it may become
new and right, so it comes to man by death. For, in some way or other he is broken up, that he may
come forth in the resurrection whole, I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal."
The preceding writers were "orthodox," but there were at the same time Gnostic Christians, none
of whose writings remain except in quotations contained in orthodox authors, with the exception of a
few fragments. They seem to have amalgamated Christianity with Orientalism. But they have been so
misrepresented by their opponents that it is very difficult to arrive at their real opinions on all
subjects. Happily they speak distinctly on human destiny

[WhiteWings]

Is anyone enough of a scholar (or interested enough to do the research) to be able to either affirm or deny/rebut this information?

No problem at all. Stay tuned :winkgrin:

I thought about putting in the post something like "calling White Wings" or "attention White Wings".  :)

I'll study your responses more carefully a little later.  Quick check-in right now.  Thanks.   :thumbsup:

Basicly it's again the standard stuff.
a] Anion --> eternal
b] Punisment --> lava pit
c] Many quotes are quotes of fragments
d] Heaten influence

[WhiteWings]

Irenæus has been quoted as teaching that the Apostles' creed was meant to inculcate endless
punishment, because in a paraphrase of that document he says that the Judge, at the final assize, will
cast the wicked into "eternal" fire. But the terms he uses are "ignem aeternum" (aionion pur.) As just
stated, though he reprehends the Carpocratians for teaching the transmigration of souls, he declares
without protest that they explain the text "until thou pay the uttermost farthing," as inculcating the
idea that "all souls are saved." Irenæus says: "God drove Adam out of Paradise, and removed him far
from the tree of life, in compassion for him, that he might not remain a transgressor always, and that
the sin in which he was involved might not be immortal, nor be without end and incurable. He
prevented further transgression by the interposition of death, and by causing sin to cease by the
dissolution of the flesh that man ceasing to live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God."



The Creed or Irenæus.Irenæus states the creed of the church in his day, A.D. 160, as a belief in "one God, the Father
Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit who
proclaimed through the prophets the dispensation of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin,
and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the
beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father 'to gather
all things in one," (Eph. 1:10) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to
Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father,
'every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that
every tongue should confess to him,'(Phil. ii:10,11) and that he should execute just judgment towards
all; that he may send 'spiritual wickedness,' (Eph. vi:12) and the angels who transgressed and became
apostates, together with the ungodly and unrighteous, and wicked and profane among men, into
aionion fire; and may in the exercise of his grace, confer immortality upon the righteous, and holy,
and those who have kept his commandments, and have persevered in his love, some from the
beginning, and others from their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory."
The reader must not forget that the use of the phrase, aionion fire, does not give any color to the
idea that Irenæus taught endless punishment, for Origen, Clement, Gregory Nyssen, and other
Universalists conveyed their ideas of punishment by the use of the same terms, and held that salvation
is beyond, and even by means of the aionion fire and punishment.


Probably a Universalist.
Schaff admits that the opinions of Irenaeus are doubtful from his (Schaff's) orthodox standpoint
and says: 12 "In the fourth Pfaffian fragment ascribed to him (Stieren I, 889) he says that 'Christ will
come at the end of time to destroy all evil----and to reconcile all things-- from Col. i:20--that there
may be an end of all impurity.' This passage, like I. Cor. xv:28, and Col. i:20, looks toward universal
restoration rather than annihilation," but good, orthodox Dr. Schaff admits that it, like the Pauline
passages, allows an interpretation consistent with eternal punishment. (See the long note in Stieren.)
Dr. Beecher writes that Irenæus "taught a final restitution of all things to unity and order by the
annihilation of all the finally impenitent. The inference from this is plain. He did not understand
aionios in the sense of eternal; but in the sense claimed by Prof. Lewis, that is, 'pertaining to the world
to come,'" not endless. Irenæus thought "that man should not last forever as a sinner and that the sin
which was in him might not be immortal and infinite and incurable."


Bunsen's View.
Says Bunsen: "The eternal decree of redemption, is, to Irenæus, throughout, an act of God's love.
The atonement, is, according to him, a satisfaction paid, not to God, but to the Devil, under whose
power the human mind and body were lying. But the Devil himself only serves God's purpose, for
nothing can resist to the last, the Almighty power of divine love, which works not by constraint (the
Devil's way) but by persuasion.13 The different statements of Irenæus are hard to reconcile with each
other, but a fair inference from his language seems to be that he hovered between the doctrines of
annihilation and endless punishment, and yet leaned not a little hopefully to that of restoration. He
certainly says that death ends sin, which forecloses all idea of endless torments. It is probable that the
fathers differed, as their successors have since differed, according to antecedent and surrounding
influences, and their own idiosyncrasies.
Of Christian writers up to date, all assert future punishment, seven apply the word rendered
everlasting (aionios) to it; three, certainly did not regard it as endless, two holding to annihilation and
one to universal restoration. Remembering, however, the doctrine of Reserve, we can by no means be
certain that the heathen words used denoting absolute endlessness were not used "pedagogically," to
deter sinners from sin.
Quadratus.--Quadratus, A.D. 131, addressed an Apology to the Emperor Adrian, a fragment of
which survives, but there is no word in it relating to the final condition of mankind.
The Clementine Homilies, once thought to have been written by Clement of Rome, but properly
entitled by Baur "Pseudo Clementine," the work of some Gnostic Christian--teach the final triumph of
good. One passage speaks of the destruction of the wicked by the punishment of fire, "punished with
aionion fire," but this is more than canceled by other passages in which it is clearly taught that the
Devil is but a temporal evil, a servant of good, and agent of God, who, with all his evil works, are
finally to be transformed into good. On the one hand, the Devil is not properly an evil, but a Godserving
being; on the other, there is a final transformation of the Devil, of the evil into good. The
sentiments of the Homilies seem, however, somewhat contradictory.
It is an important consideration not always realized, when studying the opinions that prevailed in
the primitive church, that the earliest copies of the Gospels were not in existence until A.D. 60; that
the first Epistle written by Paul--1st Thessalonians--was not written till A.D. 52; that the New
Testament canon was not completed until A.D. 170; that for a long time the only Christian Bible was
the Old Testament; 14 that the account of the judgment in Matt. xxv is never referred to in the writings
of the apostolic fathers, who probably never saw or heard of it till towards the end of the Second
Century; and, therefore, when considering the opinions of the fathers for at least a century and a half,
we must in all cases interpret them by the Old Testament, which scholars of all churches concede does
not reveal the doctrine of endless woe. Probably not a single Christian writer heretofore quoted ever
saw a copy of the Gospels.

[WhiteWings]

Clement insists that punishment in Hades is remedial and restorative, and that punished souls are
cleansed by fire. The fire is spiritual, purifying13 the soul. "God's punishments are saving and
disciplinary (in Hades) leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance than the death of the
sinner, (Ezek. xviii, 23, 32; xxxiii: II, etc.,) and especially since souls, although darkened by passions,
when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly because of their being no longer
obstructed by the paltry flesh." 14
He again defines the important word kolasis our Lord uses in Matt. xxv: 46, and shows how it
differs from the wholly different word timoria used by Josephus and the Greek writers who believed
in irremediable suffering. He says: "He (God) chastises the disobedient, for chastisement (kolasis) is
for the good and advantage of him who is punished, for it is the amendment of one who resists; I will
not grant that he wishes to take vengeance. Vengeance (timoria) is a requital of evil sent for the
interest of the avenger. He (God) would not desire to avenge himself on us who teaches us to pray for
those who despitefully use us (Matt. v: 44). 15 Therefore the good God punishes for these three causes:
First, that he who is punished (paidenomenos) may become better than his former self; then that those
who are capable of being saved by examples may be drawn back, being admonished; and thirdly, that
he who is injured may not readily be despised, and be apt to receive injury. And there are two
methods of correction, the instructive and the punitive, 16 which we have called the disciplinary."


==> Another ET argument shot down in, ermmm, flames.

[micah7:9]

Impressive  :grin:

[WhiteWings]

Tertullian's Belief.
Even Tertullian, born about A.D. 160, though his personal belief was fearfully partialistic, could
not assert that his pagan-born doctrine was generally accepted by Christians, and when he formed a
creed for general acceptance he entirely omitted his lurid theology. It will be seen that Tertullian's
creed like that of Irenæus is one of the earlier forms of the so-called Apostles' Creed: 8 "We believe in
only one God, omnipotent, maker of the world, and his son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary,
crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised from the dead the third day, received into the heavens, now
sitting at the right hand of the Father, and who shall come to judge the living and the dead, through
the resurrection of the flesh." Tertullian did not put his private belief into his creed, and at that time he
had not discovered that worst of dogmas relating to man, total depravity. If fact, he states the
opposite. He says: "There is a portion of God in the soul. In the worst there is something good, and in
the best something bad." Neander says that Tertullian "held original goodness to be indelible."

==> So he had ET views but they weren't accepted by the masses.

His abilities were great, but, as Schaff says, he was the opposite of the equally genial, less vigorous, but more learned and comprehensive Origen.

[WhiteWings]

Tertullian was the first of the Africo-Latin writers who commanded the public ear, and there is
strong ground for supposing that since Tertullian quotes the sacred writings perpetually and
copiously, the earliest of those many Latin versions noticed by Augustine and on which Jerome
grounded his vulgate, were African. "Africa, not Rome, gave birth to Latin Christianity." A learned
writer states: "His own authority is small, he was not a sound divine, became heterodox, and fell away
into one of the heresies of his times." 6 The fountain of Paganism in the heart of Tertullian discharged
its noxious waters into the larger reservoir in the mighty brain of Augustine, and thence in the Sixth
Century it submerged Christendom with a deluge that lasted for a thousand years,--now happily
subsiding, to give place to those primal Christian truths that were in the hearts of Clement and Origen.
Tertullian and Origen were as unlike as the churches they represent,--the Latin and the Greek.
Narrow, Pagan, cruel, un-Christian, the dark path of the Tertullian-Augustine type of Christianity
through the centuries is strewn with the wrecks of ignorance and sorrow. He retained his heathen
notions and gave them a Christian label. He makes the Underworld, like the heathen, divided by an
impassable gulf into two parts. The abode of the righteous is sinus Abrahae, that of the wicked ignis
or inferi. Tertullian was probably the first of the fathers to assert that the torments of the lost will be
of equal duration with the happiness of the saved. "God will recompense his worshipers with life
eternal; and cast the profane into a fire equally perpetual and unintermitted." 7
In Tertullian's Apology are fifty arguments for the Christian religion, but not once does he state
that endless punishment was one of the doctrines of the church. He seems to have been half-inclined
to the truth, for he speaks of the sinner as being able, after death, to pay "the uttermost farthing."
Tertullian illustrates the effect of the doctrine he advocated in his almost infernal exultations over
the future torments of the enemies of the church. "How I shall admire, how I shall laugh, how exult,"
he cries with fiendish glee, "to see the torments of the wicked." "I shall then have a better chance of
hearing the tragedians call louder in their own distress; of seeing the actors more lively in the
dissolving flame; of beholding the charioteer glowing in his fiery chariot; of seeing their wrestlers
tossing on fiery waves instead of in their gymnasium,"

[sheila]

Hi WW

   Paul wrote there were already many anti-christs.   When Jesus said, 'Destroy this temple and I will raise it on the third day" He was not just speaking about His physical

  body,but His spiritual body[all who put faith]  HE OFTEN WARNED hIS DISCIPLES [WHEN THEY ARGUED WHO WOULD BE GREATEST,TO BEWARE LEST THEY DEVOUR

  ONE ANOTHER.  tHE FIRST MARKED DIVISION i NOTE iS BETWEEN pETER AND pAUL...AND THE PROBLEMS THAT AROSE AND WERE WRESTLED WITH WHEN THE

GENTILES RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT, FLESHLY CIRCUMSCION OR NOT,KEEP LAW OR NOT..ETC


   THE CRUX OF THE MATTER AS FAR AS I CCAN SEE...IS THAT FATHER HAD CERTAIN THINGS HELD BACK TO BE REVEALED ONLY AT CHRIST'S RETURN

  THE 'MYSTERY OF GOD,OF LAWLESSNESS..THE REVEALING IN IT'S FULL GLORY.  aND MANY ANXIOUS TRIED TO PEER INTO THINGS HARD UNDERSTOOD

BEFORE THE HOLY SPIRIT DECLARED IT.  MANY SUPPOSITIONS  AS TO HOW THE WORD WAS TO BE FULFILLED..WHAT EXACTLY WAS MEANT
;

  SMALL EXAMPLE..OF TWISTED UNDERSTANDING;  jESUS SAID'WHO DO YOU SAY I AM,PETER ANSWERED 'THOU ART CHRIST,SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

JESUS SAID BLESSED ARE YOU PETER,FOR FLESH AND BLOOD DID NOT REVEAL THIS TO YOU,BUT THE FATHER IN HEAVEN. THEN JESUS SAID' I SAY THAT THOU ART

PETER,AND ON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH. NOW WE HAVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUILD ON PETER WITH PAPAL SUCCESSION

  PETER IS THE CHURCH!  NO....BUT THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST AS THE SON OF GOD GIVEN TO PETER IS THE ROCK UPON WHICH CHRIST BUILD'S HIS

CHURCH[BODY] []

[micah7:9]

I believe it was John who spoke of the many anti christs 1Jn 2:18  Little youths, it is the last hour; and even as ye heard that the antichrist doth come, even now antichrists have become many--whence we know that it is the last hour;

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: You know, I think part of the problem with a lot of these topics seeming to say one thing, and then reverse themselves in another book, is because they do.

I have come to the conclusion that some of the writers were still of the, "everything is JUST literal mindset" having been under the law/letter all their lives, whereas PAUL was the first one given the understanding that they were not looking for a natural kingdom to be set up, but rather that the SECRET that was HIDDEN from ages and from generations, was/is that the Kingdom of God is WITHIN.

This is a radical change of thought for them, probably even more so than for most Christians today, since they are not as well versed in the OT Messianic understanding of things as most Jews are.

And since the whereabouts of the Kingdom has to be revealed by the Spirit through revelation given by that same Spirit, and just like anything else to have to press in to receive it, I think what we're reading is that some had the revelation and some did not yet, at least at the time of their writing some of the things.

And so, just as they struggled with the transition from literal only to literal and Spiritual and it was recorded, so too do the readers of today perceive on whatever level of revelation has been given to them. My  :2c:

[eaglesway]

In my opinion, the term "early church fathers" can be confusing. First century? Third century? At what point were these writers diverging from the doctrine of the apostles rather than merging into them? I think the writings of Didymus and Origen and Jerome and Tertullian are widely divergent from each other, but depending who you talk to they could all be considered church fathers. I think the writings of Barnabas and Clement more closely resemble the scriptures, if they are not actually derivatives of scripture.
In my opinion Paul and Peter and John had the same gospel - surely John understood the kingdom within, as an extension of what Jesus taught. I am also sure that they each had their own unique perspective, but Paul checked in with Peter to get an assurance of the unity of the faith between them in Jerusalem. Peter also writes, in the scriptures, of Pauls writings as containing things "hard to be understood" which others were wresting to their own destruction. I do not think Peter meant they were hard for him to understand-- I think he understood Paul's writings fully. The twelve oundation stones of the new jerusalem are the twelve apostles. As it is "coming down" out of the heavens(being revealed), it's foundations are in the heavens, even as Jesus described Himself as "coming down form heaven". As we ascend into the heavens(in our understanding and spiritual reality/maturity), the new Jerusalem "comes down"(is revealed). So, in my opinion, there is no reason to look beyond a good translation of the scriptures- especially understanding that the word "hell" is an amalgamation of the myths of the Greeks Romans and Vikings. Neither the word hell, nor anything like it existed in meaning or lexicon when the "early church fathers" were writng(see http://hell-is-a-myth.webs.com/ ). At that time there was only gehenna, sheol and the one occurence of tartarus in Jude.

[WhiteWings]

I have come to the conclusion that some of the writers were still of the, "everything is JUST literal mindset" having been under the law/letter all their lives,

Who are 'some of the writers'? Today's writers or the church fathers?
"Everything is literal" is just part of the problem. Truth is the first victim of war as we say here.

Just reread James' article. Tertulian is quoted because he makes some anti UR statements. What's next Christian scholars quoting hell verses from the quran? Tertulian is just quoted because he was the greatest oponent of Oirigen who mysteriously is missing in the list of quotes.
It may come as no suprise that the aion = forever translations are the spearhead of an article full of selective quotes. Not just selective by quoting ET church fathers (which are very few) but selective quotes by taking the first few lines that read "enternal (aion) punishment" but very conveniently ignoring the next line that states that after that 'for ever' the sinners are saved.
The whole article is just a very sad attempt debunking a UR book that uses the same church fathers as proof for UR

[sheila]

 THANKS FOR THE CORRECTION   AND TYING UP THE LOOSE ENDS ON MY POST GUYS.

   sOME THINGS i THINK THEY COULD JUST NOT BEAR YET...i BELEIVE jESUS AND fATHER KNEW THIS FROM THE START. eVEN pAUL SAID,HE KNEW A MAN

  THAT WAS CAUGHT UP TO THE THIRD HEAVEN...AND WITTNESSED THINGS THAT IT WAS UNLAWFUL TO UTTER. AND THEN WE HEAR AN EXPOUNDING ON THOSE

WHO SHOULD HAVE MATURED TO MEAT, AND STILL REQUIRED MILK.  aM THINKING OF jESUS STATEMENT ' DO YOU STILL NOT SEE OR UNDERSTAND'

  .

    THANKS

[jabcat]

I have come to the conclusion that some of the writers were still of the, "everything is JUST literal mindset" having been under the law/letter all their lives,

Who are 'some of the writers'? Today's writers or the church fathers?
"Everything is literal" is just part of the problem. Truth is the first victim of war as we say here.

Just reread James' article. Tertulian is quoted because he makes some anti UR statements. What's next Christian scholars quoting hell verses from the quran? Tertulian is just quoted because he was the greatest oponent of Oirigen who mysteriously is missing in the list of quotes.
It may come as no suprise that the aion = forever translations are the spearhead of an article full of selective quotes. Not just selective by quoting ET church fathers (which are very few) but selective quotes by taking the first few lines that read "enternal (aion) punishment" but very conveniently ignoring the next line that states that after that 'for ever' the sinners are saved.
The whole article is just a very sad attempt debunking a UR book that uses the same church fathers as proof for UR

:goodpost:     Shine a Light and the darkness scatters.    :dsunny:

[Cardinal]

I have come to the conclusion that some of the writers were still of the, "everything is JUST literal mindset" having been under the law/letter all their lives,

Who are 'some of the writers'? Today's writers or the church fathers?
"Everything is literal" is just part of the problem. Truth is the first victim of war as we say here.

Just reread James' article. Tertulian is quoted because he makes some anti UR statements. What's next Christian scholars quoting hell verses from the quran? Tertulian is just quoted because he was the greatest oponent of Oirigen who mysteriously is missing in the list of quotes.
It may come as no suprise that the aion = forever translations are the spearhead of an article full of selective quotes. Not just selective by quoting ET church fathers (which are very few) but selective quotes by taking the first few lines that read "enternal (aion) punishment" but very conveniently ignoring the next line that states that after that 'for ever' the sinners are saved.
The whole article is just a very sad attempt debunking a UR book that uses the same church fathers as proof for UR

:cloud9: I think I must have inadvertantly got off topic..... :dontknow:

[thinktank]

:cloud9: You know, I think part of the problem with a lot of these topics seeming to say one thing, and then reverse themselves in another book, is because they do.

I have come to the conclusion that some of the writers were still of the, "everything is JUST literal mindset" having been under the law/letter all their lives, whereas PAUL was the first one given the understanding that they were not looking for a natural kingdom to be set up, but rather that the SECRET that was HIDDEN from ages and from generations, was/is that the Kingdom of God is WITHIN.

This is a radical change of thought for them, probably even more so than for most Christians today, since they are not as well versed in the OT Messianic understanding of things as most Jews are.

And since the whereabouts of the Kingdom has to be revealed by the Spirit through revelation given by that same Spirit, and just like anything else to have to press in to receive it, I think what we're reading is that some had the revelation and some did not yet, at least at the time of their writing some of the things.

And so, just as they struggled with the transition from literal only to literal and Spiritual and it was recorded, so too do the readers of today perceive on whatever level of revelation has been given to them. My  :2c:

What about Peter?

Blessed art thou Simon, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my father in heaven.

On this rock I shall build my church.


Further in time

Gold and silver I have none but in the name of Jesus be healed.

I think Peter understood the kingdom to be within and not a church to be built without. Since Peter had no gold or silver, and  a lot of his work was healing the sick, even with his shadow.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: What about Peter? He too struggled with the law, refusing to be "caught" eating with Gentiles in front of Jews.

My points, though apparently not expressed very well, is that they all struggled with throwing off the yoke of the law,  and; Paul was the one who got the message of where the Kingdom is, initially.

What was revealed to Peter in that scene, was WHO the King was, not WHERE His Kingdom was. The disciples only knew (initially) the flesh and blood Jesus, but Paul met the risen Lord and was taught of Him.

There was a growing transition after Pentecost. My  :2c:

[thinktank]

I come in peace.

I never said Peter was perfect and Paul also said that he did not attain perfection, but we all must strive.

I also did not say you expressed your points badly ( at least not on this occasion  :winkgrin:)


You also forgot that many of Jesus disciples did meet the risen Lord, even non 12, e.g Mary and some ate with Him.

Quote
What was revealed to Peter in that scene, was WHO the King was, not WHERE His Kingdom was

I did think of that, but then I showed why Peter did see the kingdom as within, because of his practice of healing the sick and not mainly hoarding gold.

Final score

ThinkTank 1 Cardinal 0